NEUADD-GOCH BANK WIND FARM
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
CULTURAL HERITAGE
CHAPTER 6.0
CULTURAL HERITAGE
CHAPTER 6.0
CONTENTS
6.
CULTURAL HERITAGE .................................................................................................. 6.1
6.1
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 6.1
6.2
Study Area .............................................................................................................. 6.1
6.3
Legislation, Planning Policy and Guidance ............................................................ 6.1
6.4
Assessment Methodology ...................................................................................... 6.2
6.5
Baseline and Results .............................................................................................. 6.6
6.6
Assessment of Impacts without Mitigation ........................................................... 6.12
6.7
Design, Mitigation, Enhancement and Monitoring ............................................... 6.15
6.8
Assessment of Impacts with Mitigation (Residual Effects)................................... 6.19
6.9
Cumulative Impact Assessment ........................................................................... 6.19
6.10 Summary .............................................................................................................. 6.20
6.11 References ........................................................................................................... 6.21
TABLES
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
Table 6.7
Table 6.8
Table 6.9
Table 6.10
Table 6.11
Table 6.12
Table 6.13
Table 6.14
Table 6.15
Table 6.16
Table 6.17
Table 6.18
Table 6.19
Value of Cultural Heritage Receptors Subject to Physical Impact ............... 6.3
Criteria for Determining Magnitude of Impact .............................................. 6.4
Matrix for Determination of Significance of Impact ...................................... 6.4
Assessing Importance of Receptor’s Setting ............................................... 6.4
Criteria for Establishing Theoretical Magnitude of Setting Impact ............... 6.5
Matrix for Determining Theoretical Setting Impact on a Receptor ............... 6.5
Matrix for Determining the Overall Theoretical Significance of Indirect
(Setting) Impacts .......................................................................................... 6.5
Assessed Importance of Cultural Heritage Receptors within the proposed
development Site ....................................................................................... 6.10
Assessed Importance of Setting to Cultural Heritage Receptors .............. 6.11
Areas of Archaeological Potential .............................................................. 6.11
Assessment of Direct and Indirect (Physical) Magnitude of Impact .......... 6.12
Assessment of Theoretical Setting Impact on a Receptor ......................... 6.12
Significance of Direct and Indirect Physical Impacts ................................. 6.13
Significance of Setting (Indirect) Impacts .................................................. 6.14
Assessment of Magnitude of Setting Impact ............................................. 6.15
Investigation / Mitigation of Known Cultural Heritage Receptors ............... 6.18
Investigation of Areas of Archaeological Potential..................................... 6.18
Required Mitigation Measures During Construction .................................. 6.19
Impact Summary Table .............................................................................. 6.19
FIGURES
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.4
Cultural Heritage Features 1km
Cultural Heritage Features Wider Study Area
1km Cultural Heritage Map – Zone of Visual Influence Overlay
10km Cultural Heritage Map – Zone of Visual Influence Overlay
APPENDICES
Appendix 6.1
Appendix 6.2
Appendix 6.3
Appendix 6.4
Appendix 6.5
Neuadd-goch Bank Gazetteer of Cultural Heritage Receptors
Neuadd-goch Bank Site Visit Assessment
Neuadd-goch Bank Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs
Neuadd-goch Bank ASIDOHLv2 Assessment
th
Email correspondence with CPAT dated 6 December 2011
6.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
6.1
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.1.4
Introduction
ii)
This chapter is an assessment of the potential impacts on the cultural heritage resource associated with the
construction and operation of the proposed development. The development site layout is shown on
Figure 3.2 and can be seen in relation to cultural heritage features in Figure 6.1.
The cultural heritage resource is defined as the sum of archaeological and historical receptors (in a given
area) that hold the potential to inform about persons, actions, periods, or events in the past. These
receptors can be an individual archaeological site, building, monument, landscape or group of such
features, which together form a unit for assessment. Definitions of specialist terms used in this chapter are
given in the glossary to this ES (See Appendix 1.1).
This assessment has involved examination of a variety of archaeological, historical and topographical
sources to quantify, characterise and assess the known and potential cultural heritage resource of the area,
enabling a full assessment of potential impacts.
The assessment comprises an appraisal of the direct (physical) and indirect (physical and setting) impacts
on the cultural heritage resource of the area where the proposed development is to be located. An
Assessment of the Significance of the Impact of Development on the Historic Landscape (ASIDOHL v2) has
been produced (Appendix 6.4) covering five Historic Landscape Character Areas (HLCA) either within or in
close proximity to the proposed development site.
6.2
6.2.5
Whilst the study area for the assessment originally covered the marginally smaller development boundary
(excluding the land at Banc Cefnperfedd), the extension of the development boundary to include this land
has been considered and the results of the assessment still apply.
Site Description and Topographic Setting
6.2.6
The location of the proposed development is shown on Figure 1.1. The study area of the proposed
development falls within the boundary of the historic counties of Montgomeryshire and Radnorshire, which
form part of the Powys County Council area.
6.2.7
The proposed development is situated on upland grazing pasture at an elevation of between 350m and
490m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) and has an area of approximately 351ha. The land is roughly divided
between a combination of improved pasture land in the western half and more rough pasture / areas of
boggy ground in the eastern half.
6.2.8
The proposed development site is situated on an undulating plateau formed of a number of hill crests,
banks and steep river valleys. The proposed development boundaries are marked by post and wire or post
and rail fences. The River Ithon flows through the central part of the proposed development site and is
orientated north east to south west.
Study Area
6.2.1
The impact upon the cultural heritage resource by the proposed development is considered in terms of
direct (physical) and indirect (physical and visual) impact.
6.2.2
Direct impacts occur during the construction process, as an immediate consequence of works. They can
arise, for example, through the removal of material during works, the destruction of sensitive deposits
caused by the presence of heavy plant, or the alteration of stable ground conditions that may lead to
degradation of buried archaeological remains.
6.2.3
Indirect impacts, on the other hand, can occur over an extended geographic area and period of time. They
can also result from changes in the original setting or severance from linked features and amenities.
6.2.4
To assess the impact of the proposed development on the cultural heritage resource three study areas, in
which cultural heritage receptors were to be plotted, were developed in consultation with the Clwyd Powys
Archaeological Trust (CPAT) Development Control Archaeologist (Mark Walters), who provides
archaeological advice to Powys County Council (PCC). These discussions were undertaken by email
between the 21st February 2011 and the 1st March 2011. The strategy was ratified by Will Davies, the
Cadw Regional Inspector of Ancient Monuments and Archaeology (North East Wales) in relation to the
assessment of Scheduled Monuments and other designated features under their control, in an email of the
16th of September 2011. Based on these discussions the study areas developed comprised:
i)
iii)
identified through documentary, cartographic and aerial photograph study or during the site walkover
of the proposed development site (Figures 6.1 and 6.3);
5km Study Area: this identifies a range of designated cultural heritage receptors (Listed Buildings,
HLCAs and Conservation Areas) within 5km of the site of proposed development, in which indirect
(setting) impacts are assessed (Figures 6.2 and 6.4); and
10km Study Area: this identifies a number of nationally significant cultural heritage receptors (World
Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens and Registered Historic
Landscapes Areas (RHLA)) within 10km of the site of proposed development, in which indirect
(setting) impacts are assessed (Figures 6.2 and 6.4).
1km Study Area: an area comprising both the proposed development site and an area extending
1km around this, in which the known and potential cultural heritage resource is established and
assessed for direct and indirect (physical) impacts. Cultural heritage features have been identified by
consultation with the following sources: Clwyd-Powys (CPAT) Historic Environment Record (HER);
TAN 8 SSA Historic Landscape Character Areas (HLCA), Registered Historic Landscapes (RHL),
Listed Buildings; Scheduled Monuments; Conservation Areas; and previously unrecorded features
6.3
6.3.1
There is no Technical Advice Note (TAN) in Wales covering the historic environment but there is a range of
legislation, policy and guidance on the subject, much of which is summarised in Chapter 5 of this ES.
Regard has also been had to Welsh Office Circular 60/96 (Planning and the Historic Environment :
Archaeology).
6.3.2
It should be noted that, for this proposed development, CPAT confirmed that an ASIDOHL v2 would be
required to cover the five Historic Landscape Character Areas either within or in close proximity to the
proposed development site, and to define setting impacts to Scheduled Monuments associated with the
nd
landscape, as well as setting impacts to the Registered Landscape itself. (Mark Walters, 22 February
2011 pers. comm.)
6.3.3
ASIDOHL v2 is a tool for assessing the impact of certain forms of development on the historic landscape.
This assessment has been produced separately and is included as Appendix 6.4. To ensure full coverage
of issues relating to setting impact the ASIDOHL v2 report has been extended to cover other designated
assets present within the Registered Landscape, comprising: World Heritage Sites; Listed Buildings;
Registered Parks and Gardens; and Conservation Areas.
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Legislation, Planning Policy and Guidance
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.1
Cultural Heritage
6.4.6
6.4
In summary, the aims of this ES chapter are to:
Assessment Methodology
i)
Consultation
6.4.1
Consultation was undertaken with a number of bodies.
representatives of Cadw, CCW, CPAT and PCC.
This included, during scoping works,
ii)
6.4.2
An original scoping document was submitted to PCC for consultation (see Chapter 2). As part of this
process CPAT archaeological advisors responded with comments in January 2010. In February 2011
consultation was undertaken again with Mark Walters (CPAT Development Control Archaeologist) about the
scope of works required for the proposed development. In response CPAT advised the following
requirements:
iii)
Methodology
6.4.7
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
6.4.3
6.4.4
Study area: World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments and Registered Historic Landscapes (i.e.
the Caersws Basin Historic Landscape [170]) should be assessed to 10km. This extended study
area would also serve to allow a discussion of cumulative impacts with other windfarms in terms of
intervisibility and density. Wireframes may be required for certain elements of these receptors. For
more detailed study the 1km and 5km study area suggested (see Section6.2.4) are acceptable for the
purposes of this study;
Direct and indirect impacts on the historic landscape character areas of Gorddwr [134], Esgair-uchaf
[135], Bryngydfa [136], Llethr [137] and Ddol [138] will be assessed via the ASIDOHL v2 process.
Based on this request an ASIDOHL v2 report has been produced (Appendix 6.4) and should be read
in conjunction with this ES;
A detailed site walkover for the purpose of identifying new cultural heritage sites, in addition to
walkover survey of known sites within the proposed development site or investigation of the key
infrastructure features. A summary and a photo location plan of select photos are included in
Appendix 6.2; and
An assessment of areas of palaeo-environmental evidence, including blanket peats and other bog
areas. These are to be mapped and reported. Follow up transect coring of the peat/bog areas may
be necessary if a significant direct impact is identified.
Preparation of this chapter has involved the identification of known and potential cultural heritage receptors
through a baseline assessment, which was conducted in accordance with the Institute for Archaeologists’
Standard and Guidance for Desk-Based Assessment (1994) (revised 2001). The assessment also follows
guidance set out in the Design Manual for Bridges and Roads (DMRB) (Vol 1, Section3, Part 2 annexure 5)
and recommendations contained in Planarch 2 (Oxford Archaeology, 2005).
•
6.4.8
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
In addition, Cadw’s Will Davies (the Regional Inspector of Ancient Monuments and Archaeology - North
th
East Wales) was consulted during the production of this ES. Cadw confirmed in an email dated the 16
September 2011 that the methodology for proposed works was acceptable, with the correct collation of data
on Scheduled Monuments and Historic Environment Record (HER) information.
v)
vi)
vii)
viii)
Cadw advised that they considered viewpoints of and from the Scheduled Monuments to be an important
factor, stating “whilst these are not all likely to be contemporary, their inter-visibility is something to bear in
mind, in addition to that of Scheduled and non-Scheduled barrows, all of which have formed key features
within the landscape since they were constructed”. In addition, the Crugyn Bank Dyke [31] was identified
individually as a significant monument in the group of Scheduled monuments in the wider area and Cadw
requested that its orientation on the ridge be considered, along with potential impacts upon the views it
commands and also on views approaching towards this feature.
ix)
x)
The aim of this assessment is to provide an understanding of the historical development within the
proposed development footprint and surrounding study areas. This enables the likely impact of the
proposed development upon the cultural heritage resource to be assessed and appropriate mitigation
responses implemented, where necessary.
6.4.9
A review of relevant published and unpublished historical and documentary evidence, including
historic mapping and aerial photographs held at CPAT (Welshpool) and the Powys Archives
(Llandrindod Wells) between 24 February and 10 March 2011;
An assessment of Ordnance Survey, Royal Air Force and other aerial photographs held by the
Central Register of Aerial Photographs for Wales (Cardiff), on 11 March 2011;
Consultation calls and emails with CADW and CPAT;
Mapping datasets held by Cadw for all Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, Registered Historic
Landscapes, World Heritage Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens and Historic Battlefields data,
received on the 22 April 2010;
Mapping datasets showing Ancient and Semi Natural Woodland held by the Countryside Council for
Wales, received on 12 August 2010;
A review of historic mapping contained in an Envirocheck Map report;
A review of the BGS Geoindex online digital geological mapping records;
A review of relevant statutory requirements, national, regional and local planning policies and
professional good practice guidance; and
A site walkover on 25 April 2011 to examine the survival, condition, extent of all known sites and the
potential impact of the proposed development on those sites, within or in close proximity to the
proposed development. It also allowed identification of previously unidentified features of cultural
heritage significance or areas of archaeological potential. A further visit to the proposed development
site and wider area was undertaken on the 7th of September 2011 as part of the ASIDOHLv2
assessment (Appendix 6.4) and has also helped in an understanding of the cultural heritage
resource;
Consultation with AXIS PED (authors of the landscape and visual impact chapter of the ES) to obtain
additional information on those receptors subject to a theoretical setting impact of Moderate Adverse
or greater.
A full list of sources is provided in Section 6.11 Bibliography.
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Sources
The CPAT HER is the primary source of information on cultural heritage receptors in this area. The records
held in this database were supported by information collated from a range of other sources, including:
Aims
6.4.5
Identify all known and potential cultural heritage resource within the proposed development site and a
1km study area surrounding this, against which to assess the significance of direct and indirect
physical impacts;
Identify all designated cultural heritage receptors within 5km of the proposed development site and
key designated receptors within 10km study area (World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments and
Registered Historic Landscapes), against which to assess significance of indirect setting impacts; and
Define a programme of suitable mitigation measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for any adverse
impacts arising from the proposed development, if these are required.
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.2
Cultural Heritage
6.4.10
6.4.11
Table 6.1: Value of Cultural Heritage Receptors Subject to Physical Impact
All cultural heritage receptors identified through examination of the above sources have been described and
presented numerically in the Gazetteer of Cultural Heritage Receptors (Appendix 6.1) and are shown on
Figures 6.1 to 6.4. Where identified receptors are discussed in the text the assigned ES reference number
is given in square brackets, e.g. [123].
It should be noted that the associated ASIDOHL v2 uses the reference system utilised in the ES for
simplicity.
Receptor
Value
Definition
Very High
World Heritage Sites (including nominated sites), other assets of acknowledged international importance,
or sites that can contribute significantly to acknowledged international research objectives.
High
Scheduled Monuments (or undesignated assets of schedulable quality and importance) and Grade I and
Grade II* Listed Buildings. Well preserved historic landscapes, whether inscribed or not, with exceptional
coherence, time depth or other critical factor(s).
Medium
Designated or undesignated archaeological sites; well-preserved structures or buildings of historical
significance, historic landscapes or assets of a reasonably defined extent and significance, or reasonable
evidence of settlement, ritual, industrial activity etc. Examples include burial sites, deserted medieval
villages, Roman roads and dense scatters of finds representative of complex activity.
Low
Evidence of human activity more limited in historic value than the examples above, or compromised by
poor preservation and/or survival of context associations, but which still have the potential to contribute to
local research objectives. Examples include sites such as undesignated structures / buildings of limited
historic merit, out-of-situ archaeological findspots, historic field systems and boundaries and ephemeral
archaeological evidence etc.
Assessment of the Cultural Heritage Resource
6.4.12
This assessment comprises a record of all known cultural heritage receptors within the 1km study area and
select designated cultural heritage receptors within a 10km search area.
6.4.13
The range and density of such features also allows for an assessment of the below-ground archaeological
potential within the proposed development site.
6.4.14
In regard to the potential for encountering buried archaeological remains within the proposed development
site, the level of potential has been assessed according to the following scale:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
6.4.15
None
Low
Medium
High
No potential;
Archaeological remains unlikely to be encountered;
Possibility that features may occur / be encountered; and
Remains almost certain to survive.
6.4.19
Any known cultural heritage receptors within the 1km study area (along with any potential cultural heritage
receptors within the proposed development site) were assessed for direct and indirect physical impact in
line with the ES methodology (below).
•
Assessment of the Value of Cultural Heritage Receptors
6.4.16
All cultural heritage receptors within the 1km study area subject to potential direct or indirect physical impact
were assessed for historic value.
6.4.17
There is currently no standard adopted statutory or government guidance for assessing the importance of a
cultural heritage feature (such as an archaeological asset, a building, structure, settlement / area or park
and garden etc) and this is instead judged upon factors such as statutory and non-statutory designations,
architectural, archaeological or historical significance, and the contribution to local research agendas.
Considering these criteria, each receptor has been assigned a level of importance according to the five
point scale in Table 6.1.
6.4.18
Historic assets with little or no surviving archaeological interest. Examples include destroyed antiquities,
Negligible modern buildings of almost no architectural / historic merit, or relatively common landscape features such
as quarries, drains and ponds etc.
For sites identified during the course of this study, where no assessment on level of value has yet been
undertaken or designation assigned, an estimate has been made of the likely importance of that receptor,
based on professional knowledge and judgement, where this is possible. Where there is a total absence of
diagnostic material from which to assess the importance of a site (e.g. a cropmark noted on an aerial
photograph) it may be appropriate to assess the value of the potential receptor as ‘unknown’.
Adjustments to the above classification were occasionally made, where appropriate. For example, for some
types of finds or site there is no consistent value and the importance may vary. Examples of this are
Grade II Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Registered Battlefields, which can vary in value from
Low to High on a site by site basis. Levels of importance for any such areas are generally assigned on an
individual basis, based on professional judgement.
•
6.4.20
The criteria for assessing the Magnitude of Impact, which is subjective and based on professional
judgement, are set out in Table 6.2 (below), which follows examples given in DMRB Volume 1, Section 3,
Part 2 Annexes 5 and 7.
6.4.21
Where buried archaeological deposits exist, or are predicted to exist, it can be difficult to accurately define
the total extent, survival and form of the potential below-ground resource during early assessment works.
This means the scale of potential impacts is difficult to accurately predict. In such circumstances a
professional judgement is applied to provide a guideline to the suspected level of impact.
6.4.22
There are cases where the presence of below-ground archaeological deposits is poorly understood. This
can occur when, for example, unknown features are identified on aerial photographs, or changes in
topography are detected during a site walkover survey. In such instances the nature of the impact cannot
be predicted with any level of confidence. In these cases the level of impact is assessed as ‘Unknown’.
6.4.23
The overall significance of effect upon a cultural heritage receptor is determined by correlating the value of
each feature against the perceived magnitude of impact. Table 6.3 highlights the criteria for assessing the
overall significance of impact.
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Assessment of Magnitude of Impact
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.3
Cultural Heritage
Table 6.2 - Criteria for Determining Magnitude of Impact
Level of
Magnitude
Major
Moderate
Minor
Negligible
No Change
Assessment of Indirect (Setting) Impacts
Definition
•
Change to most or all key archaeological materials or historic building elements, such that the
resource is totally altered.
•
Comprehensive changes to the setting of archaeological assets or historic buildings.
•
Change to most or all key historic landscape elements, parcels or components; extreme visual
impacts; gross change of noise or change to sound quality; fundamental changes to use or access;
resulting in total change to historic landscape character unit.
•
Change to many key archaeological materials/historic building elements, such that the resource is
clearly/significantly modified.
•
Considerable changes to setting that affect the character of the archaeological asset.
•
Changes to many key historic landscape elements, parcels or components, visual change to many
key aspects of the historic landscape, noticeable differences in noise or sound quality, considerable
changes to use or access; resulting in moderate changes to historic landscape character.
•
Change to key archaeological materials/historic building elements, such that the asset is slightly
altered.
•
Slight changes to the setting of the archaeological asset.
•
Change to the setting of an historic building, such that it is noticeably changed.
•
Changes to few key historic landscape elements, parcels or components, slight visual changes to
few key aspects of the historic landscape, limited changes to noise levels or sound quality, slight
changes to use or access; resulting in limited changes to historic landscape character.
•
Very minor changes to archaeological materials or setting.
•
Slight changes to historic building elements or setting that hardly affect it.
•
Very minor changes to key historic landscape elements, parcels or components, virtually
unchanged visual impacts, very slight changes in noise levels or sound quality; very slight changes
to use or access; resulting in a very small change to historic landscape character.
•
No change to archaeological assets.
•
No change to the fabric or setting of historic buildings.
•
No change to elements, parcels or components of the historic landscape; no visual or audible
changes; no changes arising from amenity or community factors.
6.4.25
As part of this assessment it was necessary to assess the proposed development’s indirect (setting) impact
on select designated assets within a 10km study area. The principle used was to establish a receptor’s
theoretical susceptibility to setting impact. This was done by examining the perceived importance of setting
(Table 6.4), to either its builders and / or subsequent users (including present users), for those receptors
that fall within the zone of theoretical visibility (Figures 6.3 and 6.4). This ‘setting importance’ is then crossreferenced against the theoretical magnitude of setting impact (Table 6.6).
6.4.26
The purpose of this is to reduce the number of cultural heritage receptors down to those likely to be subject
to some form of setting impact. This method takes into account a receptor’s distance from the proposed
development, as this is a major factor in the overall level of setting impact on a receptor’s character, which
reduces with greater distance.
6.4.27
In some cases the setting of a monument (or group of monuments) within a landscape, or the character of
an area that a receptor lies in, is the sole or significant factor in the monument’s original placement or
subsequent usage (e.g. ritual monuments, strategic and defensive monuments and monuments designed to
convey power or high status).
6.4.28
With receptors such as houses, farms, commercial premises or industrial buildings, however, ‘setting’ was
usually less important, with location being decided more on factors such as proximity to natural resources,
economic reasons or ease of access. The historic value of these features may be determined more by
other factors, such as the fabric of the structure, or historic associations, for example. As a result of this,
the character setting of the receptor would not be influenced in the same way by development changes as a
site designed with key views and specific vistas in mind.
Table 6.4: Assessing Importance of Receptor’s Setting
Scale
Table 6.3: Matrix for Determination of Significance of Impact
Major
Moderate
Minor
Where setting was the primary reason for original placement, subsequent usage or historic value of
the cultural heritage feature or asset.
High
Where setting played a large factor in original placement, subsequent usage or historic value of the
cultural heritage feature or asset.
Medium
Where it is considered that setting was one of several considerations in original placement,
subsequent usage or historic value of the cultural heritage feature or asset.
Low
Where it is concluded that setting was less important in original placement, subsequent usage or
historic value of the cultural heritage feature or asset than in other material considerations (e.g. fertility
of land, proximity to transport).
Negligible
Where it is considered that there may have been little or no consideration of setting in the original
placement, subsequent usage or historic value of the cultural heritage feature or asset.
Negligible
Very High
Severe
Major
Moderate
Moderate / Minor
High
Major
Major / Moderate
Moderate
Minor
Medium
Moderate
Moderate
Minor
Minor / Neutral
Low
Moderate / Minor
Minor
Minor / Neutral
Neutral
Negligible
Minor
Minor / Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
It is considered that impacts classified as moderate or above are likely to be significant impacts in EIA
terms.
•
6.4.29
Establishing the Theoretical Magnitude of Setting Impact on a Receptor
The theoretical magnitude of setting impact was established for the various receptors using zone of visual
influence mapping (Figures 6.3 and 6.4) to calculate both the number of turbines visible from a receptor and
that receptors distance from proposed development.
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Definition
Very High
Magnitude of Impact
Value of
Receptor
6.4.24
Assessing Importance of a Receptor’s Setting
•
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.4
Cultural Heritage
Table 6.5: Criteria for Establishing Theoretical Magnitude of Setting Impact
Magnitude of
Impact
High
Very High
7+
Medium
4–6
Low
1–3
Magnitude of
Impact
Distance of Receptor from
Proposed Development
High
0 – 1km
Medium
6.4.33
The above information was used to calculate the Theoretical Setting Impact on the Receptor (Table 6.6).
Table 6.6: Matrix for Determining Theoretical Setting Impact on a Receptor
•
6.4.31
Low
Negligible
Slight
Moderate
Minor
Minor / Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Negligible
Minor
Minor / Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Distance of Receptor from Proposed Development
High
Medium
The extent of theoretical visibility of the turbines was determined by reference to the Blade Tip Zone of
Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) produced as part of the landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) of the
proposed development (refer to Chapter 13). The ZTV was computer-generated using a bare earth digital
terrain model (DTM) which takes no account of other elements in the landscape such as vegetation,
buildings or built up areas. As such it represents a worst case scenario of potential visibility. A limitation of
this technique is that actual zones of visibility are not determined by topography alone. Other elements in
the landscape, such as buildings, hedgerows and woodlands, act as screens. Screening of views by these
elements can often be very significant.
Low
High
Large
Moderate
Moderate / Slight
Medium
Moderate
Moderate / Slight
Slight
Low
Moderate / Slight
Slight
Negligible
•
In order to establish the Overall Significance of (Setting) Impact it is necessary to first establish the Actual
Magnitude of Impact, as set out in Table 6.2. This was established for those receptors with a moderate or
greater theoretical susceptibility to setting impact (Table 6.7), taking into account information provided by
the landscape specialist (to establish whether the receptor would actually be subject to visual impact in the
field when the presence of surrounding screening, topography, buildings etc. is taken into account).
6.4.35
Cross-referenced with the value of the receptor (Table 6.1) this allowed the overall Significance of (Setting)
Impact to be established (Table 6.3).
Establishing the Overall Susceptibility of a Receptor to Setting Impact
The overall theoretical significance of impact on the cultural heritage receptor may now be assessed. This
is determined by cross-referencing the importance of a receptor’s setting (Table 6.4) against the theoretical
setting impact on the receptor (Table 6.6). This is done by using the matrix set out in Table 6.7.
The method described, of course, only provides a general understanding of a receptor’s theoretical
susceptibility to indirect (setting) impacts and the significance of such impacts. It is based on a broad brush
tool of distance from proposed development, theoretical intervisibility and the number of turbines potentially
visible. A significant effect was assessed to be any moderate or greater change.
Establishing the Overall Significance of (Setting) Impact
6.4.34
•
6.4.32
Medium
Impacts
5km – 10km
Number of Turbines
Visible
High
1km – 5km
Low
6.4.30
Importance of Receptor Setting
Theoretical Setting
Impact
Number of Turbines Visible
6.4.36
Mitigation of Significant Impacts
Where an adverse impact has been identified, in relation to either direct (physical) or indirect (setting or
physical) impacts, the overall Significance of Impact provides the guidance as to the level of mitigation
measures that may be appropriate for the proposed receptor. The measures required to address each level
of Significance of Impact are:
Table 6.7 Matrix for Determining the Overall Theoretical Significance of Indirect (Setting)
i)
Theoretical Setting
Impact
Importance of Receptor Setting
ii)
Very High
High
Medium
Low
Negligible
Large
Severe
Major
Major /
Moderate
Moderate
Minor
Moderate
Major
Major / Moderate
Moderate
Minor
Minor / Neutral
Moderate / Slight
Major / Moderate
Moderate
Minor
Minor / Neutral
Neutral
iii)
iv)
v)
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Severe - Key factors in the overall project decision-making process, the viability of the proposal will
need to be considered in its proposed form;
Major - Factors forming important considerations in the decision-making process relating to cultural
heritage;
Moderate - A range of mitigation measures need to be applied;
Minor - A range of basic mitigation measures need to be considered; and
Neutral - No perceptible effect or change and does not require mitigation.
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.5
Cultural Heritage
6.5
Baseline and Results
6.5.11
Existing Situation at 2011
•
Receptors within the Proposed Development Site
6.5.1
Cultural heritage features located within the proposed development site are shown on Figure 6.1.
6.5.2
The following Scheduled Monuments are located within the proposed development site: Banc Gorddwr
(north-west side) prehistoric round barrow [27]; Banc Gorddwr (south side) prehistoric round Barrow [28];
and prehistoric round barrow south of Ciderhouse Wood [29].
6.5.3
There are 45 cultural heritage features identified on the CPAT HER within the proposed development site.
Five cultural heritage receptors relating to prehistoric, particularly Bronze Age, activity have been identified:
Windy Hall barrow [13]; Upper Terne Farm mound [14]; Gorddwr Bank Cairn [16]; and Y Foel mound [18].
One cultural heritage feature relating to medieval land use has been identified, comprising Y Foel platform
[45]. The majority of the features identified within the proposed development site, however, relate to land
use, with 29 features dating to the post-medieval period [59, 64-65, 69-78, 86-94, 98, 100-101, 111, 122th
123 and 128] and 8 features dating to the 20 century [115-121 and 124].
6.5.4
6.5.5
No confirmed additional receptors were identified during the map regression exercise. However, two
previously unrecorded cropmarks were identified during the examination of aerial photographs. Both are
circular features and may be of archaeological, possibly prehistoric, provenance [130 and 131]. In addition,
during the site visit two areas that would have potentially been suitable locations for prehistoric (burial)
activity were identified and are marked on Figure 6.1 as a hachured area.
Sites within the 1km Study Area
6.5.6
There are a total of 91 records listed on the gazetteer of cultural heritage receptors that lie within the 1km
study area but outside of the proposed development site. These features are shown on Figure 6.1.
6.5.7
Of these receptors six are Scheduled Monuments, four of which represent prehistoric funerary sites. In total
the remains comprise: a group of three round barrows north-west of Fiddler’s Green Farm [23], Bryn
Cwmyrhiwdre Round Barrow [24], Crugyn Round Barrows [25], Glog Round Barrows [26], the earlymedieval remains of the Cryn Bank Dyke [31] and a dyke of unknown date near Two Tumps [132].
6.5.8
There is one Grade II Listed building within the 1km study area [133], while all four of the HLCAs in close
proximity to the proposed development site partially fall within the 1km study area. These HLCAs, as with
the Gorddwr HLCA, are assessed within the ASIDOHLv2 report associated with this ES Chapter (Appendix
6.4).
6.5.9
There are no World Heritage Sites, Conservation Areas, Registered Parks or Gardens, Areas of
Archaeological Priority or Historic Battlefields recorded within the 1km study area.
•
6.5.10
Receptors within the 5km Study Area
Receptors within the 10km Study Area
•
6.5.12
The 10km study area contains a number of potential cultural heritage receptors (Figure 6.2). These include:
i
ii
71 individual or groups of Scheduled Monuments [171– 240]; and
One Grade II Listed Registered Park and Garden: Plas Dinam [241].
Historic Landscape Characterisation Areas
6.5.13
The HLCA of Gorddwr [134] forms the eastern part of the development. Gorddwr [134] is described as a
‘discrete area of unenclosed and enclosed upland common land to the south of the Kerry Ridgeway, with
dispersed prehistoric burial mounds and some evidence of medieval or later peat cutting and possible
seasonal settlement’. Of particular note is the evidence of historic peat cutting recording at Y Foel and on
Banc Gorddwr and some ponds and boggy areas, which have the potential to illuminate environmental and
historic land use of the area (see palaeo-environmental section below).
6.5.14
Immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the proposed development site are the Esgair-uchaf [135]
and Llethr [137] HLCAs, while the Ddol [138] and Bryngydfa [136] HLCAs are adjacent to these and still
within the 1km study area.
6.5.15
Esgair-uchaf [135], located to the south of the proposed development, predominately comprises moorland
plateau and west-facing hillslopes. Llethr [137], on the other hand, which is located immediately to the
south-east of the proposed development site, is characterised by fieldscapes and dispersed medieval and
post-medieval farms.
6.5.16
Of the other two HLCAs mentioned above, Ddol [138] is described as irregular fieldscapes and dispersed
ththfarms of probable later medieval to post-medieval origin on hill slopes and streams with 19 and 20
century abandonment of farms. Bryngydfa [136] is described as extensive moorland areas enclosed in the
th
19 century with evidence of prehistoric, early medieval and medieval land use and settlement.
6.5.17
Within the 5km study area the area to the west of the proposed development has been characterised and
contains the HLCAs of Cwmbyr [165], Waun Lluestowain [166], Ty’n-y-ddol [167], Garn Fach [168] and
Banc Du [169].
The Gorddwr Historic Landscape Area makes up roughly the eastern half of the proposed development site.
The assessment of this feature, and the other four HLCAs in close proximity to the proposed development,
are assessed within the ASIDOHLv2 assessment (Appendix 6.4) associated with this ES chapter.
•
The assessment confirmed that there are no World Heritage Sites, Conservation Areas or Registered
Battlefields within the 5km study area.
Historic Landscapes Register
6.5.18
In partnership with Cadw and the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS UK), CCW has
compiled a Register of Landscapes of Historic Interest in Wales. The Register describes 58 landscapes in
Wales that are of outstanding or special historic interest. The Archaeological Advisor to PCC advised that a
10km search of RHL’s should be completed (Mark Walters 22 February 2011 pers. Comm.).
6.5.19
No Registered Historic Landscapes fall within the limit of the proposed development. The Caersws Basin
Historic Landscape [170] is located just over 5km to the north west of the proposed development site
(Figure 6.2).
The 5km Study Area contains a large number of potential cultural heritage receptors (Figure 6.2). These
include 26 Grade II Listed Buildings [139 - 163].
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.6
Cultural Heritage
Palaeo-Environmental Evidence
6.5.20
The BGS Geoindex online digital geological mapping records no superficial geology, fault lines or dykes
within the proposed development boundary. The underlying geology is formed in the western limit by
Wenlock Rocks (undifferentiated) comprising mudstone, siltstone and sandstone. The underlying geology
of the eastern part of the proposed development site is formed of Ludlow Rocks, also comprising
mudstones, siltstones and sandstone.
6.5.21
There is the potential for preserved peat deposits within the proposed development site, suggested by a
number of areas of past peat digging. Such deposits have the potential to contain palaeo-environmental
evidence, which informs on the past environment of the area and provides contextual information to inform
the archaeological record of the wider area. There is also the potential that fragile artefactual evidence that
would normally not survive, such as organic remains (e.g. wooden or leather materials), may survive due to
the absence of oxygen or high water content of the ground, which limits such deterioration.
6.5.22
During the site walkover (Appendix 6.2) the southern and eastern areas of the proposed development site
were noted as being potential areas where preserved peat deposits may survive, in particular the southern
limit of the proposed development and the south-eastern area. This is reflected in the Gorddwr HLCA
Description, which covers the southern-part of the proposed development site (Appendix 6.4). The western
-part of the proposed development site is improved pasture land and is thus unlikely to retain waterlogged
or peat deposits.
6.5.23
The CPAT Development Control Archaeologist had requested that an assessment on areas of palaeoenvironmental potential be produced (see Section6.4.2). To understand such potential in greater detail an
independent ecological report was commissioned that plotted the peat across the area of the proposed
development site which is contained in Figure 9.3.
6.5.24
6.5.25
Based on this peat report and mapping, CPAT’s response was that it was apparent ‘peat cover was very
thin, typically 0-0.13m. The palaeo-environmental potential of such thin peat cover is likely to be negligible,
due to later bioturbation and weathering and if intrusive elements of the proposed development were
targeted at the thinnest peat cover areas it is unlikely CPAT would require additional survey. If proposed
development coincides with the deepest peat (c. +0.35m), then these areas would need a cored transect
with reporting from a specialist palaeo-archaeologist, and such reporting would need to include dating’
th
(pers. comm. Mark Walters 10 August 2011).
6.5.27
It was with the final retreat of glaciers from Wales around c. 14,000 BC to c. 10,000 BC that an increase in
human activity can be recorded. Following the intense cold that prevailed for large parts of the Palaeolithic
the climate began to warm, bringing mild, moist weather to Wales and changing the landscape from glacier
to tundra and finally to steppe conditions. By c. 7500 BC, groups of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were
migrating to the area in larger numbers. It is their occasional flint scatters that best demonstrate their
presence in upland Wales but these groups mainly lived in small, coastal settlements, where they exploited
fish and shell-fish as part of their diets. This preference is reflected in the 1km study area where there are
no remains dating to the Mesolithic period.
6.5.28
Environmental study of valley-bottom peat deposits to the north-east of the proposed development site
suggests that in the Neolithic period the local environment was broadleaved woodland and scrub. Evidence
for early prehistoric occupation is scarce, although it is believed that the landscape was utilised seasonally
(CPAT, The Making of the Caersws Basin).
6.5.29
A continuing increase in human activity is noted with the subsequent arrival of Neolithic tradition into the
British Isles around 4000 BC. This involved a mix of home-grown animal husbandry with emerging
practices of plant husbandry that had slowly spread from the Middle East. The development of more settled
communities, who remained in an area year after year to tend crops, led to significant changes in the
landscape. Where once Mesolithic communities had undertaken small-scale burning of forests to create
clearances to attract animals, now huge areas of ancient forests were burned or felled to make way for the
new communities’ farming needs.
6.5.30
It is with the Neolithic that we see the first recorded evidence of activity within the area. The recovery of
Neolithic flint artefacts in discrete scatters has been interpreted as a sign of Neolithic settlement [02] around
what is now Cider House, with additional find scatters [01 and 03-05] and individual find spots [06] an
indication of Neolithic activity.
6.5.31
Compared with the settlement activities of early settlers, it is the funerary practices of this period that remain
more visible within the archaeological record, with the construction of large burial monuments. These
comprise large stones roofed with a large capping stone to form a chamber. This structure, which
contained the collective dead of a community, was then covered with a long, trapezoidal shaped mound of
earth, commonly known as a ‘cairn’ or ‘barrow’ (Rees, 1972; Browne and Hughes, 2003).
6.5.32
There is evidence that from around 2,500 BC there was a slow but gradual movement into previously
unexploited woodlands and on to higher ground in Wales. It appears this may have been a result of the
farming practices begun during the Neolithic. Where tree cover was removed it exposed the soil to
leeching, creating a heavy acid podsoil, or it enabled the growth of heathland which impeded drainage and
resulted in widespread peat growth (Savory, 1984; Browne and Hughes, 2003, p. 24-25). Despite changes
in settlement and land use, a continuity does exist from the late Neolithic into the Bronze Age through the
traditions of funerary monument construction. These monuments are additionally significant due to the
paucity of contemporary settlement activity recovered.
6.5.33
In addition to a rich and extensive archaeological resource these monuments form an important component
in the cultural heritage landscape of the area. This is demonstrated by the number of rounds barrows and
cairns of suspected Bronze Age date recorded as part of this assessment. Three Scheduled barrows are
recorded within the proposed development site [27-29] (Figure 6.1), in addition to a further 43 within the
wider 10km study area [8, 10-18, 23-29, 172, 174-176, 178-182, 191-194, 196, 199, 201-204, 206-207 and
210-214] (Figure 6.2).
6.5.34
Given the large number of receptors in this area, including within the unimproved eastern-half of the
proposed development site, the absence of any recorded features in the western improved half of the
A further peat probe survey of the known turbine and access track locations was carried out in November
2011 and the survey confirmed that the peat depths is below 0.3m on the Common land and no peat is
present on the western-part of the proposed development area. Results of the survey are included in
Appendix 9.4.
Archaeological and Historic Background
•
6.5.26
The Prehistoric Period (c. 500,000 BC – AD 43)
The geography of Wales has always played a significant part in the varying character, location, scale and
form of human activity. Over the last million years much of Wales has, at times, been covered by glaciers,
limiting the areas accessible for settlement. It was from the short periods of warmth and glacial retreat
during this timeframe that the first limited evidence of human activity in Wales is found, with remains left by
Palaeolithic hunters in a number of cave sites around the Gower, including Paviland, Long Hole, Nettle Tor
and Cathole (Savory, 1984). However, evidence dating to these early periods is extremely rare and there is
virtually no evidence for Palaeolithic people from most of inland or upland Wales (Browne and Hughes,
2003, p21).
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.7
Cultural Heritage
proposed development site suggests that any such above-ground remains that did exist may have been
destroyed. For this reason two hachured areas have been marked on the Cultural Heritage Receptors
Mapping (Figure 6.1). These are based on topographic mapping and the site visit (Appendix 6.2), which
suggests an area of higher potential for locations where construction of such features may have been
favoured. It should be noted that it does not confirm that such features will or have ever existed in these
areas, or that they do not exist in other parts of the proposed development site.
6.5.35
Around 1200 BC climatic changes and soil exhaustion resulted in a shift in settlement patterns within
Powys, with the abandonment of the areas of higher activity that had begun to be exploited in the Bronze
Age. The Middle Bronze Age also saw the decline of the familiar funerary traditions.
6.5.36
The Iron Age period is characterised by enclosed settlement and defensive hillforts. An example of such a
hill fort can be seen 800m to the north of the proposed development [19]; however, little other evidence for
Iron Age activity within the study area can be found. This is representative of the Welsh uplands generally,
where there is general paucity of evidence for Iron Age activity.
•
The Romano-British Period (AD 43 – c. AD 400)
6.5.37
Not long after the Romans invaded Britain in 43 AD they began to conduct campaigns against the several
tribes in Wales, through the Severn, Usk and Wye valleys and tributaries. The conquest of the region took
considerable effort and resources by the Romans. The final conquest of the region occurred in the 70s and
involved the construction of a large associated infrastructure of roads, temporary camps and defensive
forts, including the fort at Caersws to the west of the proposed development.
6.5.38
The proposed development is located within an area that was not extensively developed by the Roman
invaders. As a result there is a general paucity of overt traces of Roman civilisation which is clearly
reflected in the 1km study area: the only archaeological evidence within the study area is a silver Denarius
of Tiberius [30] (Figure 6.1), although there was a Roman fort and vicus at Caersws within the wider 10km
study area [217 and 219-221] (Figure 6.2).
•
6.5.39
The Early Medieval Period (c. AD 400 – 1066)
While there is limited evidence of settlement activity in this area of Wales during the Roman period, the
situation for early post-Roman Wales is even worse, with an almost total absence of archaeological and
documentary evidence dating to this period (c. 400 AD onwards). The proposed development, being close
to the boundary between the Welsh and English kingdoms, was a place of great unrest during this period
due to competing kingdoms. The result of this tension was the construction of Offa’s and Wat’s Dykes in
th
the 8 century, to try and establish a boundary between the Welsh and Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Evidence
of early medieval organisation of the landscape is demonstrated by the Scheduled stretch of medieval dyke
known as Crugyn Bank [31] (Figure 6.1). Additionally, within the 10km study area evidence of early
medieval activity is also seen in the Aber Bechan Dyke [222] and the Upper Short Dyke [224] (Figure 6.2).
6.5.41
The Norman invasion resulted in an increased pressure on land and an expansion of settlement and
farming by the Welsh on the upland areas. Although settlement patterns in the medieval period saw a
movement towards the upland areas, it is thought that seasonal movement between the lowland areas in
the autumn and winter and semi-permanent upland areas in the spring and summer was adopted (Britnell,
2006, 9-13).
6.5.42
There is only one known cultural heritage feature relating to medieval activity within the site of proposed
development, this comprises the Y Foel Platform [45], which is recorded as a house platform representative
of medieval seasonal settlement. Within the surrounding 1km study area there are a total of seventeen
other features dating to the medieval. Of these, the majority relate to land organisation, represented by
enclosures, ditches and leats [32, 36, 38-39, 41-42, 44 and 46], three identified areas of medieval
agriculture in preserved ridge and furrow [40 and 47-48] and three features of domestic character [34 and
37] (Figure 6.1).
•
6.5.43
The post-medieval period saw a formalisation of settlement activity in uplands areas. In particular from the
th
th
late 17 century through to the 19 century the catalyst for this change was that increasing numbers of the
rural poor attempted to generate a living for themselves by moving onto the commons and wastes. As with
the formation of houses in these upland areas during the medieval period they first built temporary shelters
enclosed by small plots of land and once these proved successful they were replaced by more permanent
structures, some of which survive to the present day (Browne and Hughes, 2003, p. 37).
6.5.44
There are 37 identified cultural heritage records within the proposed development site relating to postmedieval activity (Figure 6.1). Rather than relating to settlement activity these predominately relate to land
organisation and agriculture, for example in the form of trackways [64, 78, 90, 118, 122 and 123], banks
[72, 75-76, 86-87, 91 and 124] and leats [73, 88 and 92]. Post-medieval utilisation of the landscape is also
demonstrated in the creation of quarries within the proposed development site [59, 70, 119, 120 and 121]
and the extraction of peat for fuel [71 and 77].
6.5.45
Within the wider study area (Figure 6.2) the cultural heritage resource from this period contains a great
number of post-medieval structures and the Scheduled remains of the medieval / post-medieval deserted
settlement at Fron Top [238]. Also within the wider study area is the Registered Park and Garden of Plas
Dinan [241] to the north west.
Historic Map Regression
6.5.46
A large number of maps were examined as part of this study. However, the earliest available cartographic
evidence examined which shows the area of the proposed development in any detail was the Ceri,
Llanbardarn Fynydd and Budeildy Tithe Maps of 1840 (Appendix 6.3; Figure 6.3.1).
•
•
6.5.40
The Post-Medieval Period Onwards (c. AD 1550 – Present Day)
Tithe Map of the Parish of Ceri, Llanbardarn Fynydd, Bugeildy 1840 (Appendix 6.3; Figure 6.3.1)
The Medieval Period (1066 – c. AD 1550)
The medieval period witnessed political and socio-economic instability as Wales sought to protect her
borders in the face of Norman and later medieval kings of England. This led to the creation of numerous
castles and defended settlements across Wales. No medieval defensive receptors are located within the
proposed development site; however, twelve defensive receptors are recorded within the wider 10km study
area [35, 225-227 and 229-233] (Figure 6.2). Between 1400 – c. 1416 one of the last rebellions occurred in
which Owain Glyndwr fought a battle c. 15km to the south east of the proposed development site, close to
the town of Knighton.
6.5.47
For the purposes of the map regression exercise the Ceri, Llanbardarn Fynydd and Bugeildy Tithe Maps
were separately consulted. However, the Llanbardarn Fynydd Tithe Map was badly damaged to the point
of being unreadable. As a result, the part of the proposed development site covered by this survey is the
Ceri Tithe Map. In addition to the bad preservation of the original maps, much of the proposed
development site was not covered by the map as it was not recorded, being common land / upland areas.
6.5.48
As a result, the northern part of the proposed development site, which is covered by the 1840 tithe survey,
shows that the proposed development site comprises a number of large enclosed areas. The
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.8
Cultural Heritage
Previous Archaeological Investigations
apportionment for the Ceri Tithe indicates that this part of the proposed development site is pasture. A
number of streams and footpaths are noted but there are no structures shown.
6.5.56
The eastern-part of the proposed development site (the Gorddwr HLCA [134]) has been researched as part
of the North Radnorshire Commons Survey (Hankinson R and Thomas D, 1999). This survey included a
desk-based survey (CPAT HER 59088), aerial mapping (CPAT HER 59090) and a field walkover survey
(CPAT HER 59089). Thus the southern area of the Neuadd Goch proposed development site has been
subjected to an extensive survey, which is likely to account for the dominance of identified cultural heritage
features in the southern-part of the proposed development site (although the northern and southern parts of
the proposed development site have been subject to slightly different historic land use).
6.5.57
In addition to the Radnorshire Commons Survey the CPAT HER indicates that four further archaeological
investigations have occurred within the proposed development site: the excavation of Glog Hill Barrow
(CPAT HER 38365); the Deserted Rural Settlements investigation (CPAT HER 70171), a watching brief at
Dolfor (CPAT HER 39859) and the Treval, Tir Gofal assessment (CPAT HER 51683).
First Edition OS Map of 1884, 1:10,560 (Figure 6.3.2)
•
th
6.5.49
With the release of the Ordnance Survey (OS) maps of the United Kingdom from the mid 19 century
onwards, the level of information contained in maps dramatically improved. Surveying techniques were
highly precise and allowed for a very detailed understanding of the landform, structures and historic
resource of an area.
6.5.50
Only the northern part of the proposed development site is covered by this survey. The survey indicates
that the area was at that time rough pasture. A number of streams and footpaths are noted, but again no
structures are shown.
•
Second Edition OS Map of 1903, 1:10,560 (Figure 6.3.3)
Aerial Photographic Research
6.5.51
6.5.52
nd
The 2 Edition 6” OS Map of 1903 shows the entire site of the proposed development. The area, as a
whole, remains rough pasture, with Old Neuadd Bank and Cefn-perfedd Bank in the northern part of the
proposed development site. The footpaths and streams remain unchanged in this part of the proposed
development site.
The southern-part of the proposed development site is shown to contain three quarries around the
perimeter of the proposed development. In addition, there are a number of footpaths. No structures are
noted in the southern-part of the proposed development site, although Upper Teme and Windy Hall Farms
are noted just to the south of the proposed development boundary.
•
6.5.53
As part of the research into production of this Cultural Heritage ES a range of aerial photographs were
th
examined on 11 March 2011 at the Central Register of Aerial Photographs of Wales, Welsh Assembly,
Cardiff. There were a total of 61 individual frames of aerial photographs covering the proposed
development site and surrounding area, dating from 1948 to 2009. There were a combination of both
oblique and vertical frames, which had already been scoped down prior to examination by removing all
frames over 1:10,000 and / or with heavy cloud cover.
6.5.59
Of those examined the majority did not add any additional information to the current level of knowledge on
the archaeological resource of the proposed development site or surrounding area. A number did,
however, provide limited further information, including the historic use of the area. These are documented
below, along with the photograph’s RCAHMW reference. Any previously unidentified features recorded
during this research were added to the 1km study area map of cultural heritage receptors (Figure 6.1),
where appropriate.
OS Map of 1953, 1:10,560 (Figure 6.3.4)
The OS Map of 1953 demonstrates that large areas of the northern-part of the proposed development site
had been improved, i.e. drained for agricultural purposes. This includes the area in the far north of the
proposed development site, the area around Cefnperfedd Bank, Old Neuadd Bank and the area to the east
of Neuadd Goch Bank. A small structure had been constructed in the northern-part of the proposed
development site, the size of which suggests that it is likely to have been some sort of animal pen. Two
areas of woodland had also been planted in the northern-part of the proposed development site by this
time. The southern area remains unchanged; rough pasture with a number of old quarries marked and
footpaths.
•
i)
ii)
iii)
OS Map of 1983, 1:10,560 (Figure 6.3.5)
•
OS Map of 2009, 1:10,000 (Figure 6.3.6)
The current OS Map of 2009 shows the landscape as it remains to date. Little has altered since the
previous 1983 OS survey, although a quarry previously not annotated can be seen in the northern part of
the proposed development site, near ‘Old Neuadd Goch’. Two areas of plantation are also noted for the
first time in the northern-part of the proposed development site. The land use, mixed improved and rough
pasture, layout and land access remains unchanged.
6.5.60
As part of the baseline assessment a walkover of the proposed development site was undertaken on the
25th April 2011. The objective of this work was to:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Sortie 541 RAF 40. Frame 4291. Date 22-05-1948 – northern-part of proposed development site,
possible circular cropmark noted [130];
Sortie JA Story 0784. Frame 0384 - 193. Date 24-04-1984 – eastern-part of the proposed
development site. Small circular feature noted – possibly of archaeological provenance [131]; and
Sortie OS 75 081. Frame 105. Date 06-05-1975 – shows the drainage / improvements in the northeastern-part of the proposed development site; indication of previous impact within this area
(Appendix 6.3; Figure 6.3.7). Items (i) and (ii) are not provided due to poor quality.
Site Walkover
There is little visible change to the landscape from the earlier 1953 Ordnance Survey.
6.5.54
6.5.55
6.5.58
Gain a greater understanding of existing land use and topography;
Establish the form, survival and extent of any known cultural heritage receptors within or in close
proximity to the proposed development site limits;
Identify any previously unidentified cultural heritage receptors or areas of archaeological potential
within the proposed development site limits; and
To note any areas of previous ground disturbance that may have impacted on existing below ground
archaeological deposits.
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.9
Cultural Heritage
6.5.61
Generally, such information enables a better understanding of the known and potential cultural heritage
resource within the proposed development site.
6.5.62
A full breakdown of the results of this walkover are included in Appendix 6.2, along with a number of
supporting photographs to illustrate the findings of the walkover.
6.5.63
6.5.64
Table 6.8:
In summary it was noted that there is a potential for peat deposits and palaeo-environmental evidence to
survive in a number of areas of the proposed development site, mainly within the eastern half of the
proposed development site but also in areas of boggy ground across the whole of the proposed
development site. A more detailed review of palaeo-environmental potential is provided in Section 6.5.20 –
6.5.24 above.
The site visit also identified two general areas of potential within the proposed development site, on peaks
or false horizons, where there may a higher potential for the presence of prehistoric burial evidence to have
existed. Two hachured areas have been marked on the Cultural Heritage Receptor mapping (Figure 6.1) in
the identified locations. It should be noted, however, that there is also concluded to be a background
potential for prehistoric activity in other parts of the proposed development site.
6.5.65
A number of known cultural heritage receptors were visited during the course of the walkover, and the
information collated on these features has been used to inform the overall assessment.
6.5.66
Finally, a number of areas of past impact were recorded. These included areas of quarrying but also areas
where modern tracks and roads have been constructed. The level of impact is likely to vary within these
areas; however, where archaeological deposits are present they may have been subject to adverse impact.
6.5.67
development site. This is a total of 52 cultural heritage records. A further 189 other features, out of the
total of 241 cultural heritage records listed on the Gazetteer of Cultural Heritage Receptors (Appendix 6.1),
lie within 10km of the proposed development site (Figure 6.2).
In total five quarries have been identified from the HER [59, 70, 119, 120 and 121] and three further on
historic mapping – one at the south-west corner of the proposed development, one near the central southwestern boundary as shown on the 1953 OS Map (Appendix 6.3; Figure 6.3.4) and one towards the centre
of the northern area of the proposed development site as shown on the 2009 OS Map (Appendix 6.3;
Figure 6.3.6). A further area of human impact has been identified by aerial photography study; the northeastern-part of the proposed development site ‘Cefnperfedd’, where the land has been drained for improved
pasture (Appendix 6.3; Figure 6.3.7).
6.5.68
6.5.69
It should be noted that the HLCA of Gorddwr [134], falls entirely within the limits of the proposed
development site, while there are a further 4 HLCAs (Esgair-uchaf [135], Bryngydfa [136], Llethr [137] and
Ddol [138]) either adjacent to or close to the proposed development site. These are assessed in detail for
both direct and indirect impacts within an ASIDOHLv2 assessment (Appendix 6.4) undertaken alongside
this study. They will not be taken forward for duplicate assessment within this report.
•
6.5.70
Key Receptors in 10km Study Area
The above section identifies 47 individual records (representing 45 receptors due to duplications) within the
proposed development site. It also mentions the 5 HLCAs either within or in proximity to the proposed
Cultural Heritage Receptor
27 (and 10), 28 (and 13)
and 29
Scheduled remains of Banc Gorddwr prehistoric round
barrow (north-west side), Banc Gorddwr prehistoric
round barrow (south side), prehistoric round barrow
south of Ciderhouse Wood
Prehistoric
High
14, 16 and 18
Undesignated remains of Upper Terne Farm mound,
Gorddwr Bank Cairn and Y Foel mound
Bronze Age
High
59, 64, 65, 69, 70, 71,
72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77,
78, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90,
91, 92, 93, 94, 98, 99,
100, 111, 122, 123 and
128
Undesignated post-medieval features comprising
trackways, holloways, quarries, peat cutting, leats,
platforms, banks and a sheepfold.
Post-medieval
Low
115, 116, 117, 118, 119,
120, 121 and 124
Undesignated 20th-century features comprising 5
quarries, a pond, trackway and a bank.
Modern
Negligible
130 and 131
Two possible circular cropmarks identified during aerial
Unknown
photography inspection.
6.5.72
In line with the methodology outlined above the first step was to establish the importance of setting to the
historic value of these additional 189 records (Table 6.4). Out of these 189 records it was concluded that
114 had a negligible importance of setting in relation to any historic value that the feature may have. This
meant that, in their case, there was likely to have been little consideration of setting in the original
placement, usage or value of the receptor.
6.5.73
It was considered that setting was likely to contribute, in some way, to the historic value of the remaining 75
cultural heritage receptors in this area (Figures 6.3 and 6.4), whether based on original placement,
subsequent usage or general character of the receptor. These features comprised:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
viii)
ix)
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Unknown
Together with six cultural heritage receptors within the proposed development site that will be brought
forward from the previous section to be assessed for setting impact [14, 16, 18 and 27-29] due to the
potential importance of setting to their historic value, these 189 records were assessed to understand
whether they were subject to potential setting impact.
Cultural Heritage Receptors within the Proposed Development Site
There are 45 confirmed cultural heritage receptors within the proposed development site boundaries that
may be subject to direct or indirect physical impact (there are a number of duplicate entries, meaning there
in fact a total of 47 individual records on the Cultural Heritage Gazetteer (Appendix 6.1) within the proposed
development site). The value of these cultural heritage receptors is assessed in Table 6.8.
Period
Assessed
Importance
ES No
6.5.71
Identified Cultural Heritage Resource
•
Assessed Importance of Cultural Heritage Receptors within the Proposed Development
Site
31 prehistoric round barrows or round cairns [8, 11-12, 15, 17, 23 – 26, 172, 174 – 176, 180 – 182,
191 – 192, 194, 196, 201 – 204, 206 – 207 and 210 – 214] of Bronze Age or prehistoric date;
Six Iron Age hillforts [19, 171, 177, 183, 188 and 197];
Two prehistoric stone circles [173 and 198];
One prehistoric standing stone [209];
One undesignated prehistoric hill figure [20];
Five prehistoric enclosures [184 – 185, 200, 205 and 208]
Five records related to the Scheduled Caersws Roman Fort and Vicus [215, 217 and 219 - 221];
The Scheduled early medieval remains of Crugyn Bank Dyke [31];
10 defensive and ecclesiastical medieval receptors, comprising 8 Scheduled motte and / or bailey
castles [225 – 227 and 229 – 233], the Scheduled Newtown Old Church [228] and an undesignated
motte earthwork [35];
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.10
Cultural Heritage
x)
xi)
xii)
Six Grade II Listed post-medieval or modern buildings [142, 144, 146, 152, 155 and 163];
One Registered Park and Garden at Plas Dinam [241];
Five additional Historic Landscape Character Areas within 5km of the proposed development site
[165 – 169]; and
One Registered Historic Landscape Area, comprising the Caersws Basin HLCA [170], which is itself,
formed of a number of Historic Landscape Character Areas.
6.5.77
The fact that the western half of the proposed development site has been subject to slightly different land
use in the post-medieval period may affect the potential for previously unrecorded archaeological remains
to survive in this area; however, it should be noted that the eastern half of the proposed development site
has been subject to a much greater level of previous archaeological survey, as part of the North
Radnorshire Commons Survey (Hankinson R and Thomas D 1999). This archaeological investigation
included assessment of the aerial photographic resource and field walkover survey.
The perceived importance of setting to these various receptors are detailed in Table 6.9 (below), in line with
criteria set out in Table 6.4.
6.5.78
As such the archaeological resource in the western half of the proposed development site is less well
recorded than in the eastern half, with the potential for previously unrecorded archaeological deposits.
Table 6.9: Assessed Importance of Setting to Cultural Heritage Receptors
6.5.79
However, during this assessment, it was concluded that there are two areas in the western half of the
proposed development site with potential for the recovery of prehistoric activity. This is based on the
existing documented use in the wider area of hill peaks and false horizons for burial activity.
6.5.80
Two hachured areas have been, by inspection of topographic mapping and the site visit, marked on the
Cultural Heritage Receptors Mapping (Figure 6.1), as locations that may have proven more favourable for
the construction of such features. It should be noted, however, that the definition of these locations as
areas of potential does not negate such potential in other parts of the proposed development site.
6.5.81
There is also believed to be a general medium potential for the recovery of prehistoric activity across the
eastern half of the proposed development site.
6.5.82
In line with a review of Figure 9.3 and consultation with the CPAT Development Control Archaeologist (Mark
Walters), it was concluded that, in the eastern half of the proposed development site, there may be a high
potential for the recovery of palaeo-environmental evidence in locations where peat exceeds c. 0.35m in
depth.
6.5.83
Across the proposed development site as a whole there is considered to be a low potential for the recovery
of previously unrecorded complex archaeological remains of significance which date to periods outside of
the prehistoric period.
6.5.84
The varying levels of archaeological potential within the proposed development site are documented in
Table 6.10 (below):
xiii)
6.5.74
ES No
Cultural Heritage Receptor
Importance
of Setting
14, 16, 18 and 27, 28 and 29
The Scheduled remains of 3 Bronze Age round barrows [27 – 29]
and 3 further potentially prehistoric mounds within the proposed
development site
High
8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26,
172, 174, 175, 176, 180, 181,
182, 191, 192, 194, 196, 201,
202, 203, 204, 206, 207, 210,
211, 212, 213 and 214
31 prehistoric round barrows or round cairns outside of the
proposed development site
High
19, 171, 177, 183, 188 and 197
6 Iron Age hillforts
Medium
20
1 undesignated prehistoric hill figure
High
184, 185, 200, 205 and 208
5 prehistoric enclosures
Low
215, 217, 219, 220 and 221
A group of receptors associated with the Scheduled remains of
Caersws Roman Fort and Vicus
Medium
31
The Scheduled early medieval remains of the Crugn Bank Dyke
High
35, 225, 226. 227, 228, 229, 230,
10 defensive and ecclesiastical medieval receptors
231, 232 and 233
Medium
142, 144, 146, 152, 155 and 163 6 Grade II Listed post-medieval or modern buildings
Low
241
Plas Dinam Registered Park and Garden
Medium
165, 166, 167, 168 and 169
5 Historic Landscape Characterisation Areas (not including those
discussed in Section6.5.68) that fall totally or partially within 5km
of proposed development
High
170
The Caersws Basin Registered Historic Landscape Area
High
Archaeological Potential within Footprint of Proposed Development
6.5.75
6.5.76
When considering the archaeological potential of the proposed development site it is first important to note
that two distinct areas exist within the proposed development site. Generally speaking the western-half of
the proposed development site is located on improved pasture, having been drained in the post-medieval
period. It has substantially less identified cultural heritage features than the eastern half of the proposed
development site.
Table 6.10: Areas of Archaeological Potential
Areas of Archaeological Potential
Potential Date
Potential
Areas of medium potential for the recovery of Bronze Age activity, probably
represented by ritual / burial remains. There is general potential for such activity
across the proposed development site, based on known remains within this area and
the wider landscape, although two areas in the western half of the proposed
development site have been identified that would benefit from early investigation
works.
Prehistoric
Medium
A general background potential for the recovery of complex remains of significance
dating to all other periods outside of the prehistoric period.
Roman Modern
Low
Potential for the survival of palaeo-environmental evidence in areas where intrusive
works impact upon areas of peat in excess of c. 35m in depth
Prehistoric
High
The eastern-part of the proposed development site is unimproved moorland, with a much higher number of
identified features dating from the prehistoric to the post-medieval periods. It is represented by its
designation as the Gorddwr HLCA [134] (Appendix 6.4).
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.11
Cultural Heritage
6.6
Assessment of Impacts without Mitigation
Known Cultural Heritage Features
•
Setting Impacts
•
Magnitude of Direct and Indirect Physical Impact
6.6.1
The assessment identified a total of 45 recorded cultural heritage receptors within, or in very close proximity
to the proposed development site (not including the 5 HLCAs, which are assessed in the ASIDOHLv2
report; Appendix 6.4).
6.6.2
Where the proposed development site lies within the area of such receptors it is likely to directly impact on
any surviving remains, either through partial or total physical disturbance. Where proposed works do not
cross a receptor but lie in close proximity to it, there is a potential that, given below-ground remains
associated with the receptor may extend into the footprint of the proposed development site, they will be
subject to direct physical impact or, alternatively, that the receptor may be subject to indirect changes to
stable ground composition (such as de-watering or aeration).
6.6.5
Following the assessment of the importance of setting to the various receptors in the 10km study area
(Table 6.9), those features where the proposed development was visible, based on creating an overlay of
the Zone of Theoretical Visibility on the Cultural Heritage Features Map (Figures 6.3 and 6.4), were
checked for setting impact. This initially involved establishing the theoretical setting impact on each
receptor (or groups of receptors) with intervisibility with the proposed development. This is set-out in Table
6.12 (below) and follows guidance contained in Tables 6.5 and 6.6.
6.6.6
Where there are a number of different turbines potentially visible from a receptor, e.g. such as in an HLCA,
then the worst case scenario is listed.
Table 6.12: Assessment of Theoretical Setting Impact on a Receptor
ES No
6.6.3
Table 6.11 describes and identifies the likely level of direct and indirect impacts to those receptors within, or
in very close proximity to areas of proposed development where there may be some form of impact. Those
receptors located further away from the areas of development are not included in the table as it is
considered unlikely there will be an impact on these receptors.. The table is based on criteria set out in
Table 6.2. The Assessed Importance of the receptors are as per Table 6.8.
12
Table 6.11: Assessment of Direct and Indirect (Physical) Magnitude of Impact
14
ES No
76
100
120
131
•
6.6.4
Name
Post-medieval
earthwork of the
Banc Gorddwr bank
(Assessed
Importance - Low)
Post-medieval ‘Old
Neuadd Bank’
sheepfold
(Assessed
Importance – Low)
Modern earthwork
of Banc Gorddwr
Quarry II (Assessed
Importance –
Negligible)
Possible prehistoric
feature recorded by
aerial photographic
inspection
(Assessed
Importance –
Unknown)
Description of Potential Impact
It is concluded that the proposed access track for Turbine 6 may run
through the line of this feature of low significance. It is concluded there
would be a minor direct impact, as the resource would be changed but not
so significantly as to alter the overall feature.
This receptor falls in close proximity to the location of an access track
constructed from the A483 towards Turbine 2. However, there would be no
direct impact on the site of the Old Neuadd Bank sheepfold associated with
the construction of the access road.
Magnitude
of Impact
8
15
16
Minor
17
18
No
Change
While recorded on the Historic Environment Record this simply reflects
mapping of landuse over time. The quarry in itself was a negative intrusion
into the ground surface and already lies alongside the existing roadway.
Minor
There is thought to be little direct impact on this feature that would, at worst,
only alter the overall value of the feature by a slight amount.
The access track running between Turbine 4 and Turbine 6 is conjectured
to run through the general location of a feature identified on aerial
photography as a cropmark of uncertain date. Should this feature be
archaeological in nature, there is a potential of direct impact on
archaeological deposits. However, the location, survival and significance of Unknown
such a feature remains to be confirmed. Will require on-site investigation to
assess whether this area has archaeological potential. It is concluded it
would be acceptable to push over to post-determination based on what is
appropriate given the known resource.
Potential Below-Ground Archaeological Deposits
Although areas of archaeological potential have been identified (Table 6.10) the actual presence of
archaeological deposits in these areas are unknown. It is not possible to assess impacts on unknown
features.
Black Gate Enclosure Bronze Age
round barrow
Glog Hill Bronze Age round barrow
IX
Upper Teme Farm Bronze Age
round barrow
Crugynnau Mound II Bronze Age
round barrow
Gorddwr Bank Cairn Bronze Age
round barrow
Bryn Cwmyrhiwdre Mound II
Bronze Age round barrow
Y Foel mound Bronze Age round
barrow
Distance of Receptor From
Proposed Development
Overall
Theoretical
Setting Impact on
Receptor
7 + (High)
c. 800m (High)
Large
7 + (High)
c. 800m (High)
Large
7 + (High)
In Area of proposed
development (High)
Large
c. 60m (High)
Moderate
7 + (High)
In Area of proposed
development (High)
Large
7 + (High)
c. 560m (High)
Large
7 + (High)
In Area of proposed
development (High)
Large
7 + (High)
c. 300m (High)
Large
4 - 6 (Medium)
20
Prehistoric Glog hill figure
23
Three Bronze Age round barrows
to NW of Fiddler's Green Farm
4 - 6 (Medium)
c. 200m (High)
Moderate
24
Bryn Cwmyrhiwdre round barrow
7 + (High)
c. 540m (High)
Large
25
Crugyn round barrows
7 + (High)
c. 1.4km (Medium)
Moderate
26
Glog round barrows
7 + (High)
c. 500m (High)
Large
27
Banc Gorddwr round barrow
7 + (High)
28
Windy Hill round barrow
7 + (High)
29
Round barrow S of Ciderhouse
Wood
7 + (High)
31
Crugyn Bank Dyke
7 + (High)
35
Ford Motte medieval earthwork
152
Church of St. Padarn
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Cultural Heritage Receptor
Number of
Turbines Visible
In Area of proposed
Large
development (High)
In Area of proposed
Large
development (High)
Immediately Outside Area of
Large
proposed development (High)
c. 1.3km (Medium)
Moderate
1 - 3 (Low)
c. 440m (High)
Moderate / Slight
1 - 3 (Low)
c. 4.9km (Medium)
Slight
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.12
Cultural Heritage
ES No
Cultural Heritage Receptor
Number of
Turbines Visible
Distance of Receptor From
Proposed Development
Overall
Theoretical
Setting Impact on
Receptor
ES No
Cultural Heritage Receptor
Number of
Turbines Visible
Distance of Receptor From
Proposed Development
Overall
Theoretical
Setting Impact on
Receptor
165
Cwmbyr HLCA
7 + (High)
c. 3.6km (Medium)
Moderate
210
Domen-ddu round barrows
166
Waun Llestowain HLCA
7 + (High)
c. 2.6km (Medium)
Moderate
211
167
Ty’n-y-ddol HLCA
7 + (High)
c. 2.5km (Medium)
Moderate
230
168
Garn Fach HLCA
7 + (High)
c. 2.7km (Medium)
Moderate
169
Banc Du HLCA
7 + (High)
c. 4.6km (Medium)
Moderate
c. 5.0km (Low)
Slight (there is very
little intervisibility
with the site within
10km)
c. 1.2km (Medium)
Moderate
1 – 3 (Low)
c. 6.3km (Low)
Negligible
The assessment of Direct and Indirect Physical Impacts has been determined in line with the methodology
(Table 6.3) and is detailed in Table 6.13 (below). All impacts would be during the construction phase. An
explanation of how direct and indirect impacts occur are listed in paragraphs 6.2.1 to 6.2.3. The receptors
listed do not include features within the site boundary that are not either within the footprint of proposed
works or in close proximity to them (including the 3 Scheduled Monuments [27 – 29]), as there would be no
direct or indirect physical impact on them.
7 + (High)
c. 6.8km (Low)
Moderate / Slight
Table 6.13: Significance of Direct and Indirect Physical Impacts
4 - 6 (Medium)
c. 7.7km (Low)
Slight
7 + (High)
c. 7.6km (Low)
Moderate / Slight
c. 8.5km (Low)
Slight
7 + (High) –
only in a very
small area of
the site within
10km
Caersws Basin Registered Historic
Landscape
172
Two Tumps round barrows
174
Domen Ddu round barrow
180
Pegwn Mawr round barrows
181
Pegwn Bach round barrow
182
Crugyn Llwyd round barrow
185
Great Cloddiau Camp prehistoric
enclosure
4 - 6 (Medium)
188
Bryn Bank prehistoric hillfort
4 - 6 (Medium)
c. 8.8km (Low)
Slight
191
Block Wood round barrow
4 - 6 (Medium)
c. 4.8km (Low)
Slight
192
Barrow west of Cae-Betin Wood
4 - 6 (Medium)
c. 2.8km (Medium)
Moderate / Slight
194
Polyn y Groes Ddu Round Cairn II
4 - 6 (Medium)
c. 4.9km (Medium)
Moderate / Slight
197
Castell Tinboeth prehistoric hillfort
7 + (High)
c. 7.1km (Low)
Moderate / Slight
200
Castell y Blaidd prehistoric
enclosure
4 - 6 (Medium)
c. 2.9km (Medium)
Moderate / Slight
201
Coventry round barrow
1 – 3 (Low)
c. 3.9km (Medium)
Slight
202
Cae-glas round barrows
7 + (High)
c. 5.1km (Low)
Moderate / Slight
203
Warren Hill round barrow
7 + (High)
c. 5.5km (Low)
Moderate / Slight
204
Gors Lydan round barrows
7 + (High)
c. 5.8km (Low)
Moderate / Slight
206
Rhos Crug round barrows
4 - 6 (Medium)
c. 9.7km (Low)
Slight
207
Beacon Hill round barrows
7 + (High)
c. 8.8km (Low)
Moderate / Slight
208
Tyn'n-y-Cwm Camp
c. 3.3km (Medium)
Moderate / Slight
7 + (High)
6.6.7
ES No
Moel Dod round barrow
4 - 6 (Medium)
c. 7.0km (Low)
Slight
Tomen Madoc Castle Mound
4 - 6 (Medium)
c. 7.7km (Low)
Slight
Name
Assessed
Importance
Magnitude of
Impact
Significance of
Impact
76
Post-medieval earthwork of the Banc Gorddwr bank
Low
Minor Adverse
Minor Adverse
120
Modern earthwork of Banc Gorddwr Quarry II
Negligible
Minor Adverse
Neutral
131
Possible prehistoric feature recorded during aerial
photography inspection
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
•
Direct and Indirect Physical Impacts on Potential Archaeological Remains
6.6.8
There is a variable potential for below-ground archaeological deposits to survive within the proposed
development site, as highlighted in Table 6.10. However, the uncertain nature, extent, provenance and
likelihood of any such features means that the overall Magnitude of Direct and Indirect Physical Impact
upon any such deposits remains unknown.
6.6.9
There is, therefore, an Uncertain Significance of Impact by the proposed development on areas of belowground archaeological potential. For this reason, pre-construction site investigation works are required
within the footprint of the proposed development in such areas, where necessary, in order to establish
whether such archaeological evidence actually exists.
6.6.10
Assessment of Setting Impacts
The overall Significance of Setting Impact (Table 6.14) is established by identifying the theoretical setting
impacts of all receptors contained in Table 6.12, against their importance of setting (defined in Table 6.7), in
order to identify which features would be subject to a Moderate Adverse setting impact, or greater.
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Moderate / Slight
Direct and Indirect Physical Impacts
•
4 - 6 (Medium)
c. 9.0km (Low)
Assessment of Impacts within the Study Area
•
170
7 + (High)
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.13
Cultural Heritage
Table 6.14: Significance of Setting (Indirect) Impacts
ES No
8
12
14
Cultural Heritage Receptor
Black Gate Enclosure Bronze Age round barrow
Glog Hill Bronze Age round barrow IX
Upper Teme Farm Bronze Age round barrow
Importance
of Setting
Overall Theoretical
Setting Impact on
Receptor
Significance
of Setting
Impact
High
Large
Major
High
High
Large
Large
High
Moderate
Moderate
16
Gorddwr Bank Cairn Bronze Age round barrow
High
Large
Major
17
Bryn Cwmyrhiwdre Mound II Bronze Age round
barrow
High
Y Foel mound Bronze Age round barrow
High
Large
High
Large
Major
23
Three Bronze Age round barrows to NW of Fiddler's
Green Farm
High
Moderate
Moderate
Bryn Cwmyrhiwdre round barrow
High
25
Crugyn round barrows
High
Moderate
High
Large
Major
27
Banc Gorddwr round barrow
High
Large
Major
29
Round barrow S of Ciderhouse Wood
High
High
Large
Large
High
Moderate
Moderate
35
Ford Motte medieval earthwork
Medium
Moderate / Slight
Moderate
165
Cwmbyr HLCA
Low
High
Slight
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
174
Domen Ddu round barrow
High
Negligible
Minor
180
Pegwn Mawr round barrows
High
Moderate / Slight
Moderate
181
Pegwn Bach round barrow
High
Slight
Minor
182
Crugyn Llwyd round barrow
High
Moderate / Slight
Moderate
185
Great Cloddiau Camp prehistoric enclosure
Low
Slight
Neutral
188
Bryn Bank prehistoric hillfort
Medium
Slight
Minor
191
Block Wood round barrow
High
Slight
Minor
192
Barrow west of Cae-Betin Wood
High
Moderate / Slight
Moderate
194
Polyn y Groes Ddu Round Cairn II
High
Moderate / Slight
Moderate
197
Castell Tinboeth prehistoric hillfort
Medium
Moderate / Slight
Minor
200
Castell y Blaidd prehistoric enclosure
Low
Moderate / Slight
Neutral
201
Coventry round barrow
High
Slight
Minor
202
Cae-glas round barrows
High
Moderate / Slight
Moderate
203
Warren Hill round barrow
High
Moderate / Slight
Moderate
204
Gors Lydan round barrows
High
Moderate / Slight
Moderate
206
Rhos Crug round barrows
High
Slight
Minor
207
Beacon Hill round barrows
High
Moderate / Slight
Moderate
208
Tyn'n-y-Cwm Camp
Low
Moderate / Slight
Minor
210
Domen-ddu round barrows
High
Moderate / Slight
Moderate
211
Moel Dod round barrow
High
Slight
Minor
230
Tomen Madoc Castle Mound
Medium
Slight
Neutral
Major
Crugyn Bank Dyke
Church of St. Padarn
High
Major
31
152
Two Tumps round barrows
Moderate
Glog round barrows
Windy Hill round barrow
172
Major
26
28
Neutral
Moderate
166
Waun Llestowain HLCA
High
Moderate
Moderate
167
Ty’n-y-ddol HLCA
High
Moderate
Moderate
168
Garn Fach HLCA
High
Moderate
Moderate
169
Banc Du HLCA
High
Moderate
Moderate
170
Caersws Basin Registered Historic Landscape
High
Slight
Minor
6.6.11
To provide additional information on those receptors subject to a theoretical setting impact of Moderate
Adverse or greater, information on actual visibility was obtained from AXIS PED. This information was used
to inform the overall assessment of Magnitude of Setting Impact (Table 6.15). The assessment was
undertaken in line with the methodology set out in Tables 6.1 to 6.3.
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Significance
of Setting
Impact
Major
Prehistoric Glog hill figure
Large
Overall Theoretical
Setting Impact on
Receptor
Major
20
24
Importance
of Setting
Major
Crugynnau Mound II Bronze Age round barrow
18
Cultural Heritage Receptor
Major
15
Large
ES No
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.14
Cultural Heritage
6.7
6.7.1
Design, Mitigation, Enhancement and Monitoring
This section explains any proposed development actions designed to avoid, reduce or compensate for
impacts on the cultural heritage resource that result from the construction or operation of the proposed
development.
Mitigation Strategy
6.7.2
The cultural heritage resource is non-renewable. However, mitigation through recording and investigation
can produce an important research dividend that can be used for the better understanding of the county’s
history, and thus contribute to local, regional and national research agendas.
6.7.3
It should be noted that all investigation and mitigation works proposed in this section include the
requirement for progression of all associated works, including but not limited to, post-excavation
assessment, reporting, archiving, conservation and storage of materials and publication, where necessary.
Advance Works
•
6.7.4
In advance of proposed development the following will be undertaken, at the earliest possible opportunity, in
order to provide additional information on which to base the decision-making process on the need for further
investigation and / or mitigation works.
Table 6.15: Assessment of Magnitude of Setting Impact
ES No
Cultural Heritage Receptor
Value
8
Black Gate Enclosure Bronze
Age round barrow
Medium
12
Glog Hill Bronze Age round
barrow IX
Medium
14
Upper Teme Farm Bronze
Age round barrow
Medium
15
Crugynnau Mound II Bronze
Age round barrow
Medium
16
Gorddwr Bank Cairn Bronze
Age round barrow
Medium
17
Bryn Cwmyrhiwdre Mound II
Bronze Age round barrow
Medium
Description of Potential Impact
There would be a line of sight southwards toward proposed development, with the proposed turbines being visible above the
intervening tree belts of the Blackgate Plantation and Banc Cefnperfedd. However, this vegetation would shield significant views
of proposed development with the barrow having more localised and close proximity views than other barrows. This means that,
while there would be some change of the monuments setting associated with the works, this may be considered to be slight.
The barrows themselves are upstanding monuments and, while they would be visible from the more western parts of the
proposed development this would be with proposed development to the back of the viewer, creating no visual setting impact
from this perspective. However, the turbines would be prominent in views to the south from the location of the receptors. While
the main focus is felt to be views directed towards the receptors, the change of the surrounding character from the viewer’s
perspective when taken from the receptors themselves would result in a considerable change in setting that would affect the
character of the archaeological asset.
The barrow itself is degraded and not fully upstanding as a monument anymore, meaning it does not draw views to it by the lay
viewer. However, the surrounding character of the landscape in which it is located is rough grazing upland that is devoid of
modern intrusion. There would be clear views towards the turbines, although the bases would be screened by the intervening
landform. Overall, due to the historic degradation of its own presence within the landscape the proposed works are concluded to
have a slight impact on the character of the receptor.
This feature is located close to the site of proposed development but is degraded in the landscape. It would not be picked up
clearly by the viewer when looking towards the receptor. Even when views from the receptor are taken into account, and while
there would be clear and dominant views of the proposed turbines to the west and south, the immediate locality of this feature
has been degraded by the excavation of a pond / quarry feature and the placement of a road and parking area. The character of
the receptor would inevitably change but it is concluded this would only have a slight impact on the historic character setting of
this receptor.
This unscheduled monument lies within the proposed development site limits but is degraded in nature and no longer prominent
in the landscape. Turbines would dominate the view from the location of this receptor to the west, north-west and east but from
a character perspective it would not in itself have a significant impact on what remains valuable about this feature, which is its
archaeological interest and not its setting within the landscape. Overall it is concluded that works would involve slight changes
to the remaining character of this feature.
This monument lies to the west of the proposed development. There would be clear views eastwards to the turbines. The
contemporary setting of the landscape in this area has been altered and there are views to surroundings farmsteads to the
north, east and south-east of this monument. It is also in close proximity to a Scheduled mound [24], and thus providing more of
a group context. However, in assessing the impact of the proposed development on the character of the area the varying
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Magnitude of Setting Impact
Significance of Impact
Minor Adverse
Minor Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Minor Adverse
Minor Adverse
Minor Adverse
Minor Adverse
Minor Adverse
Minor Adverse
Minor Adverse
Minor Adverse
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.15
Cultural Heritage
ES No
Cultural Heritage Receptor
Value
18
Y Foel mound Bronze Age
round barrow
Medium
20
Prehistoric Glog hill figure
Medium
23
Three Bronze Age round
barrows to NW of Fiddler's
Green Farm
Scheduled (High)
24
Bryn Cwmyrhiwdre round
barrow
Scheduled (High)
25
Crugyn round barrows
Scheduled (High)
26
Glog round barrows
Scheduled (High)
27
Banc Gorddwr round barrow
Scheduled (High)
28
Windy Hill round barrow
Scheduled (High)
Description of Potential Impact
importance of past and current setting have been taken into account and, overall, it is concluded there would be a slight change
in the prevailing character of this receptor due to the intervisibility with the turbines.
The barrow is somewhat degraded and not as visible in the landscape as it would once have been. There would be dominant
views of turbines to the north and east from the location of the receptor but the barrow itself would not form a strong element of
the landscape when viewed from the surrounding area. Overall, setting is not a major surviving element of the value of this
feature and any change to the character of this monument is concluded to be slight in nature.
From this location the turbine blade tips of the more westerly turbines would just be visible above the steeply rising hillside to the
east/south-east of this receptor. However, the surrounding area has a large road and other obvious intrusions into the vista
available from this feature, thus impacting on its current setting. Furthermore, given its form, the feature’s construction was
more likely to have invited views in from the contemporary viewer and the direction of facing would not involve intervening views
of the turbines or associated works. For this reason it is concluded that there would only be very minor changes to the current
setting of the receptor.
Visits to these features revealed that the more southerly of the barrows was large in area but had been reduced somewhat from
its suspected original height. The two other barrows, to the north of the road track, were more obvious in the landscape, with
this survival being better highlighted due to the crop planted around the barrows being different from the grass covering the
mounds. Taking views from around these receptors is was noticeable that the zone of character was quite tightly clipped to the
features, creating a zone of influence that did not appear to extend for a significant distance. It appeared that the intention was
to create a more intimate viewing arena, with obvious and short range views to the features more important than long distance
views to these monuments. It is also suggested that views out from the monuments locations were not as important. From this
perspective, during the site walkover it was clear that the most dominant views were towards the two barrows to the north of the
road and this was witnessed when the viewer approached the features from the south, due to their positioning on the false
horizon of a localised area of high ground. This would place the turbines behind the viewer and not impact the appreciation or
understanding of these monuments’ settings. In relation to views with the site of proposed development in the background this
would occur when the features were approached from the north, with a number of the turbine blade tips being visible. However,
actual dominance of the barrow’s raised nature in the landscape is not significant from this direction and the overall change in
setting is therefore minimal. For this reason it is concluded that setting impacts would be very minor in nature.
This monument lies to the west of the proposed development. There would be clear views eastwards to the turbines. The
contemporary setting of the landscape in this area has been altered and there are views to surroundings farmsteads to the
north, east and south-east of this monument, thus altering the setting context of the receptor. Overall, it is concluded there
would be a slight change in the prevailing character of this receptor due to the intervisibility with the turbines.
There is intervening tree cover to the south of the receptors but the turbines would still be clearly visible above these in places.
The character of the area is also influenced by the dense tree belts to the north of these features. Overall, while a little distance
from the site of proposed development, there would still be some changes to the setting of these features.
The turbines would be prominent in views to the south. A clear view would be available from the monuments down into the
proposed development site as well as directly at the turbines. However, it is suggested that views towards these features would
be the dominating factor in placement of these barrows. One of these features can be seen from the north-western area of the
proposed development site (Appendix 6.2). This would place the viewer looking out from the receptor, with their back facing the
proposed development, and thus creating no change in appreciation or understanding. When viewed from closer up there would
be intervisibility with the works, but there is also a range of more modern intrusive elements into the wider landscape that is
visible from Glog Hill. Overall, while there would be some mitigating factors, it is concluded that the proposed development
would introduce a noticeable change to the monuments’ setting.
This monument does survive as an upstanding earthwork within its landscape, although much lowered from its suspected
original height (Appendix 6.2). It also shows up slightly against the surrounding land due to a change in vegetation within this
area. At present the landscape in which it survives is open and largely devoid of views towards any modern intrusions. There
would be clear views to both the west and south of proposed turbines, which would dominate views in these directions. There
would also be views towards the monument from certain directions although, given the low profile of the receptor, such views
would not be visible from much more than c. 50m and would negate some of the worse effects to the lay person’s view. Overall,
though, proposed development would certainly result in change to the monument’s setting that could be a considerable change
to its character.
As with the Banc Gorddwr round barrow [27] this feature does survive within its landscape, although again in a somewhat
degraded manner to its suspected original construction (Appendix 6.2). While the landscape itself has evolved over time, and
reflects post-medieval farming, plantation and peat cutting in the wider area, the landscape itself in which the monument
survives is largely devoid of views towards any modern intrusions, with only a small tarmac trackway visible in the nearby
vicinity. There would be clear views both north and north-west towards the turbines, which would dominate views in these
directions. As with [27] views to the monument itself would only be noticeable from close proximity to the barrow and would not
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Magnitude of Setting Impact
Significance of Impact
Minor Adverse
Minor Adverse
Negligible
Minor Adverse
Negligible
Minor Adverse
Minor Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Minor Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.16
Cultural Heritage
ES No
Cultural Heritage Receptor
Value
29
Round barrow S of
Ciderhouse Wood
Scheduled (High)
31
Crugyn Bank Dyke
Scheduled (High)
35
Ford Motte medieval
earthwork
Medium
165
Cwmbyr HLCA
HLCA (High)
166
Waun Llestowain HLCA
HLCA (High)
167
Ty’n-y-ddol HLCA
HLCA (High)
168
Garn Fach HLCA
HLCA (High)
169
Banc Du HLCA
HLCA (High)
172
Two Tumps round barrows
Scheduled (High)
180
Pegwn Mawr round barrows
Scheduled (High)
182
Crugyn Llwyd round barrow
Scheduled (High)
Description of Potential Impact
be impacted on so much from most directions. Overall, though, proposed development may result in considerable change to the
character setting of this feature.
The turbines would be dominant in views to the south and west. However, as with other barrows in this area its original
construction was more likely to have invited views in from the contemporary viewer, as opposed to outwards from the
monument. Were this the case, then when viewed from the south the views of the monument would not be relevant as the
works would be behind the viewer, although there would be obvious views of turbines behind the mound when viewed from the
north. Overall, though, it would certainly result in a change to the monument’s setting within this landscape that could be a
considerable change to its character.
While there is intervening tree cover to the south of the receptor the turbines would still be visible above these in places. The
feature is cut by a number of more modern landscape features, such as two banks of trees and the line of a road and track but it
is still an obvious part of the landscape. The construction of the turbines would change the setting of the area by introducing
more modern elements into a landscape which currently has limited traces of such activity. If this feature was related to political
land division then it is suspected it would have been designed to draw the viewer’s attention in order to create a sense of a
powerful landownership in the area. Were this the case then views to the feature would not be significantly constrained as, by
the time the feature is visible, the proposed development site would be to the viewer’s back, while viewing the feature from the
north-east the backdrop of the turbines would be minimised with distance. Overall it is concluded there would be slight changes
in the setting of the Crugyn Bank Dyke associated with works.
The topography and rolling nature of land to the west of this feature would block most views to the proposed development site
and only the tips of the most easterly turbine blades would be visible above the hillside to the west. This would have very limited
impact on the setting of this feature.
While upper sections of the turbines may be visible from certain points in the HLCA due to the distance from the proposed
development site the landform is likely to screen any projected intervisibility between the HLCA and the turbines. There would
be more dominant visual links between this receptor and the extensive array of turbines to the south-west of the HLCA. Overall
it is concluded that there would be, at most, very minor changes to the character setting of the Cwmbry HLCA.
While the turbines would be visible to the east from the far side of the valley/lower plateau in this HLCA the main factor in
assessing changes to the character setting of the area is that the HLCA already contains large numbers of turbines in two
groupings. The character of the area has changed due to these modern intrusions and the placement of proposed development
would have no further effect in adversely impacting this HLCA.
The southern half of this HLCA would be screened by adjacent forestry. There would be clear views of turbines eastwards from
the northern half of the proposed development site but the existing character of the area has already been influenced by the
placement of existing turbines close by to the north-west of this area. Overall it is concluded that the addition of the turbines at
The proposed development would result in very minor changes to the character of this area.
There is blanket intervening forestry plantation shielding any views out from this area and only the most limited views towards
the turbines would be possible where felling had recently occurred (felling is likely to be on rotation). There are also existing
turbines close by to the north-west which have altered the contemporary setting of this HLCA. It is concluded that the setting
would not therefore be impacted.
A limited portion of the Banc Du HLCA falls within 5km of the proposed development and proposed turbines would be visible to
the north-east of the HLCA; however, the intervening landform would act as a buffer to some of the impacts on setting. In
addition, there are already more dominant views towards the windfarms within the Waun Lluestowain HLCA, which have already
amended the contemporary character of the Banc Du HLCA. Overall, where impacts on setting are possible these are assessed
to be, at most, very minor changes to the character setting of the HLCA.
The barrows are noticeably upstanding monuments in the landscape and there would be clear views of the turbines to the southwest. The barrows have views along Glog Hill, along with extensive vistas across the wider region, especially across the Severn
alley to the east (although the turbines themselves would not be visible from the Severn valley). The character of the land
visible from the barrows itself is of a managed agricultural area, with banks of trees and field divisions, though with little modern
development, while the land on which the barrows stand is rough pasture. There are modern interventions into this landscape
and these include existing wind farms, which are visible to the west and at long-range to the north-west. Overall, the setting of
these barrows is linked to a much wider landscape and are concluded to have been placed to attract views towards them more
than simply away from them; however, it is considered that the proposed development would involve considerable change in
setting that would affect the character of these archaeological assets.
The proposed turbines would be visible to the east but the monument itself is surrounded by an extensive array of existing
turbines in close proximity to the monument and there would be no further change to the character setting of this receptor.
The turbines would be visible to the north-east of the receptor but there are already a range of existing turbines in close
proximity to the north of this monument. Taking into account the distance from the proposed development site the turbines
would blend into the wider landscape context, while views towards the monument would not be impacted on (with the proposed
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Magnitude of Setting Impact
Significance of Impact
Moderate Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Minor Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Negligible
Neutral
Negligible
Minor Adverse
No Change
No Change
Negligible
Minor Adverse
No Change
No Change
Negligible
Minor Adverse
Moderate Adverse
Moderate Adverse
No Change
No Change
Negligible
Minor Adverse
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.17
Cultural Heritage
ES No
Cultural Heritage Receptor
Value
Description of Potential Impact
Magnitude of Setting Impact
Significance of Impact
works being to the back of the viewer from any location where the monument could be detected).
192
Barrow west of Cae-Betin
Wood
Scheduled (High)
194
Polyn y Groes Ddu round
Cairn II
Scheduled (High)
202
Cae-glas round barrows
Scheduled (High)
203
Warren Hill round barrow
Scheduled (High)
204
Gors Lydan round barrows
Scheduled (High)
207
Beacon Hill round barrows
Scheduled (High)
210
Domen-ddu round barrows
Scheduled (High)
There would be glimpsed views of the turbine blades to the south-west but the majority of works would be shielded by
intervening landform and tree cover. From a setting perspective the views towards this monument (as opposed to away from it)
would have been the dominant feature of its character setting and this would not be impacted on, with any glimpses of turbines
behind the monument (gained from views westwards across the Severn valley towards the monument) not being significant.
While the turbines would be visible looking out from the location of this receptor the dominant factor is the location of a number
of existing turbines in close proximity to the monument, which have already altered the character setting of this receptor. There
is therefore felt to be no further change to the setting of this feature.
The turbines would be visible to the north-west of this receptor but, given the distance and surrounding landscape, there would
be no impact on views towards the receptor, while views away from the receptor would be placed within the context of the
panoramic views available. The contemporary landscape character has also been altered with the construction of a wind farm,
which is visible to west.
The turbines would be visible to the north-west of this receptor but, given the distance and surrounding landscape, there would
be no impact on views towards the receptor, while views away from the receptor would be placed within the context of the
panoramic views available. The contemporary landscape character has also been altered with the construction of a wind farm,
which is visible to west.
The turbines would be visible to the north-west of this receptor but, given the distance and surrounding landscape, there would
be no impact on views towards the receptor, while views away from the receptor would be placed within the context of the
panoramic views available. The contemporary landscape character has also been altered with the construction of a wind farm,
which is visible to west.
The turbines would be slightly visible to the north-west of the Beacon Hill round barrows, with the barrows lying at some distance
from the proposed development site. For this reason the barrows would be placed in the context of the much more dominant
panoramic views available surrounding this receptor. The contemporary character setting has also been altered by the
presence of an existing wind farm visible to the west of the barrows. Overall it is concluded that there would be very minor
changes to the barrows’ historic setting.
Given the distance of this receptor from proposed development and the amount of intervening forestry there is likely to be, at
most, only glimpsed views of the turbine blades. In addition, what limited views of proposed development are available would
also blend into the surrounding landscape and would not appreciably impact on the character setting of these barrows.
Table 6.16: Investigation / Mitigation of Unknown Cultural Heritage Receptors
ES No
131
6.7.5
Name
Significance of
Impact
Possible prehistoric feature
recorded during aerial
Unknown
photography inspection
The following table lists areas of archaeological potential that need to be assessed in advance of
proposed development in order to establish whether archaeological remains exist within the proposed
development site.
No Change
No Change
Negligible
Minor Adverse
Negligible
Minor Adverse
Negligible
Minor Adverse
Negligible
Minor Adverse
Negligible
Minor Adverse
Areas of Archaeological Potential
Proposed Works
Areas of medium potential for the recovery of
Bronze Age activity, most likely associated with
ritual / burial remains, within two areas in the
western half of the proposed development site.
Programme of archaeological geophysical assessment to
examine areas assessed as having a higher potential for such
activity within and in close proximity to the proposed development.
The results of such work would establish the need for further
archaeological investigation / mitigation works
6.7.6
It is inevitable that the proposed development will affect the setting of a number of receptors. Table 6.15
identifies those features that will be subject to a Moderate Adverse setting impact.
6.7.7
Enhancements works (e.g. improved signage / historic information on receptors / maintenance of
receptors), or photographic survey prior to proposed development can also be provided.
• Construction Phase
6.7.8
The progression of the advance works detailed above will provide an initial understanding of whether further
archaeological / heritage investigation and / or mitigation works are required in specific areas in advance of
the proposed developments construction phase.
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Minor Adverse
Table 6.17: Investigation of Areas of Archaeological Potential
Proposed Works
At present it is not known whether the feature, identified on
aerial photographs, is of archaeological interest and, if so,
what the form, function, extent and significance of the feature
is. If prehistoric it also suggests the potential for a spread of
activity and, without understanding what the feature is, it is
not possible to understand the precise location or extent of
any remains in this area. While the access track is likely to
be some distance from the possible feature that shows up on
the aerial photograph it can not be concluded how far such
activity spreads. For this reason it is recommended that
geophysical survey be undertaken, in advance of
construction, within the area in and around proposed
development that lies in the vicinity of this feature, to guide
the need for further investigation and / or mitigation works.
Negligible
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.18
Cultural Heritage
6.7.9
Where cultural heritage features within the proposed development site are known, design mitigation has
resulted in the turbines and associated infrastructure being located away from these features as far as
practicable. This has resulted in no significant direct physical impacts on cultural features.
6.7.10
In addition, key features (principally SAMS) will have a clear demarcation on site so that workers know the
location of cultural heritage features in order to avoid inadvertent physical damage.
6.7.11
6.8.2
Implementation of the mitigation measures detailed above will generally ensure that impacts are reduced by
at least one level. For example, where there was an unmitigated Moderate Adverse Impact, this would
become a Minor Adverse Impact when mitigation is implemented, and where there was a Minor Adverse
Impact this would be reduced to a Neutral Impact.
6.8.3
There are a number of areas of archaeological potential where the current Significance of Impact is
currently unknown, which means that the residual impact cannot be assessed. For this reason the following
receptors (listed in Table 6.19) include reference to potential, even though the residual impact after
mitigation remains to be assessed.
Further mitigation measures will be undertaken as detailed in Table 6.18 below:
Table 6.18: Required Mitigation Measures During Construction
ES No
6.7.12
6.7.13
N/A
Unknown
76
Post-medieval earthwork of the Banc
Gorddwr bank
Minor Adverse
Archaeological watching brief where works
cut through bank to record depth and
construction
No other forms of development are proposed within the proposed development site. There would be no
direct cumulative impacts on remains within the proposed development site associated with the construction
of the wind farm schemes outlined in Chapter 2.
6.9.2
In relation to cumulative impacts on the setting of a feature, whether permanent or temporary, or whether
the feature is designated or not, Entec’s 2008 ‘Review of Guidance on the Assessment of Cumulative
Impacts of Onshore Windfarms’ states:
There is no legal definition or explicit guidance on what constitutes a setting, or a method for
assessing potential effects on settings. There is however, a collection of guidance documents that
at least refer to the principles underlying settings and which make some reference to cumulative
effects. For the most part this guidance has been prepared by the heritage bodies in England,
Scotland and Wales and has been intended to apply to the respective countries, though the key
principles are common to all.
It is concluded that the above strategy is appropriate, and enables investigation / mitigation of receptors of
known remains and areas of archaeological potential, as well as ensuring a method is in place to avoid
impact to archaeological remains without mitigation. This allows suitable proposed development risk
management, while ensuring that any currently unknown areas of archaeological potential are identified and
impacts on them are suitably mitigated.
In Wales, there is guidance on the assessment of effects of development on areas of historic
landscape importance, and this includes a published methodology known as ASIDOHL
assessments [with such a report having been completed to support this Environmental Statement;
Appendix 6.4]. The ASIDOHL methodology includes an assessment of effects on the setting of
cultural heritage features within their historic landscape context. However, there is no reference to a
consideration of cumulative impacts, and the issue of cumulative impacts of broader development
plans and programmes is specifically excluded.
Operational Phase
There are not deemed to be any additional impacts during the operational phase to those documented
above. Should additional intrusive groundwork’s be progressed during the operational phase of the
proposed development, the results of archaeological works undertaken during the advance and
construction phase works will be used to assess the existence or survival of archaeological remains in
these new areas, and the subsequent need or otherwise for additional investigation / mitigation works.
Decommissioning Phase
There are not deemed to be additional impacts during the decommissioning phase to those documented
above. Should additional intrusive ground works be necessary during this phase, such as the construction
of crane pads in new areas to facilitate the breakout of wind turbines, the results of archaeological works
undertaken during the advance and construction phase works will be used to assess the existence or
survival of archaeological remains in these new areas, and the subsequent need or otherwise for additional
investigation / mitigation works.
Assessment of Impacts with Mitigation (Residual Effects)
Residual effects are the effects of the proposed development after taking into account mitigation and
enhancement measures.
6.9.3
The review of cumulative impacts is therefore a purely subjective matter and a specific cultural heritage
cumulative impact assessment was not undertaken in the light of the lack of any guidance or methodology
for such works from a cultural heritage perspective.
Table 6.19: Impact Summary Table
Nature of
Impact
Receptor
Impact
D/I
Post-medieval
earthwork of the
Banc Gorddwr bank
[76]
Possible prehistoric
feature recorded
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Cumulative Impact Assessment
6.9.1
Where remains of significance are identified during the advance works or the construction phase then
mitigation works might include preservation in situ of nationally-significant remains, preservation by record
(excavation) of other remains, or a continued programme of archaeological monitoring (a watching brief)
during construction works.
6.8
6.8.1
6.9
Proposed Mitigation
Archaeological watching brief during
intrusive groundwork’s for turbines and
associated works
•
6.7.15
Significance
of Impact
A general potential for prehistoric activity
across the site of proposed
development, based on known remains in
this area and in the wider landscape
•
6.7.14
Name
Potential for proposed works
to cut through the line of this
post-medieval bank, partially
or totally removing areas of
significance.
Potential ground disturbance
partially or totally truncating
P/T
D
P
D
P
Significance
of Impact
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation and
Enhancement
Measures
Significance
of Impact
After
Mitigation
(Residual
Effect)
Archaeological
watching brief where
Minor Adverse works cut through bank Neutral
to record depth and
construction
Geophysical survey to
Unknown
Minor
guide the need for
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.19
Cultural Heritage
Receptor
during aerial
photograph
inspection [131]
[Archaeological
Potential]
Areas of medium
potential for the
recovery of Bronze
Age ritual / burial
activity in two areas
of western half of
proposed
development site
[Archaeological
Potential]
A general potential
for prehistoric activity
across the proposed
development site
Nine receptors
comprising eight
individual or groups
of prehistoric round
barrows [12, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29 and
172] and the early
medieval remains of
the Cryn Bank Dyke
[31]
Nine receptors
comprising eight
individual or groups
of prehistoric round
barrows [12, 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29 and
172] and the early
medieval remains of
the Cryn Bank Dyke
[31]
D = Direct
6.9.4
Impact
Nature of
Impact
Significance
of Impact
Before
features of archaeological
importance associated with
this feature.
Mitigation and
Enhancement
Measures
further investigation
and / or mitigation
works
Significance
of Impact
After
6.9.5
6.10 Summary
6.10.1
Potential ground
disturbance, partially or
totally truncating features of
archaeological importance.
Potential ground
disturbance, partially or
totally truncating features of
archaeological importance.
Setting impacts that
potentially detract from the
historic value and/or
appreciation of these
receptors.
Removal of potential setting
impacts associated with the
decommissioning of the
proposed development.
I = Indirect P = Permanent
D
D
I
I
P
P
P
P
Unknown
Unknown
Moderate
Adverse
Geophysical survey to
guide the need for
further investigation
and / or mitigation
works
Archaeological
watching brief during
intrusive groundwork’s
for turbines and
associated works
The full email correspondence supporting the discussions on cumulative impact is contained in Appendix
6.5. The reader is therefore directed to read the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Chapter
(Chapter 13) and the ASIDOHL v2 Report (Appendix 6.4] in conjunction with this chapter.
Cultural Heritage Resource
Minor
6.10.2
The site of proposed development has two distinct historic development patterns, with the western half of
the proposed development site being located on improved pasture and the eastern-part of the proposed
development site being within unimproved moorland.
6.10.3
The eastern half of the proposed development site has a greater known archaeological resource which
dates from the prehistoric to post-medieval periods. It may be that the western half of the site has been
subject to different land use in the post-medieval period that may affect the potential for previously
unrecorded archaeological remains to survive in this area. However, it may also be the case that the
eastern half of the site has been subject to a much greater level of previous archaeological survey, as part
of the North Radnorshire Commons Survey (Hankinson R and Thomas D 1999), which has identified a
greater number of archaeological features, and thus geographically skewing the resource database.
6.10.4
There are a number of known features within the limits of the proposed development, including a general
potential for prehistoric remains across the site. Two areas of [medium] potential in the western half of the
site have potential for the recovery of prehistoric ritual / burial evidence based on the documented use in
the wider area of hill peaks and false horizons for burial activity.
Minor
Compensation events
(e.g. improved signage
/ historic information on
Minor
receptors) or
Adverse
photographic survey
prior to proposed
development may be a
suitable option.
Removal of
infrastructure and
landscape restoration Minor
Minor adverse
during
Beneficial
decommissioning of
proposed development
R - Reversable
Impact and Recommendations
6.10.5
There are a range of potential impacts on the cultural heritage resource, comprising Minor Adverse direct
physical impacts on the known post-medieval earthwork of the Banc Gorddwr bank [76] and a temporary
Moderate Adverse setting impact on eight individual or groups of prehistoric round barrows [12, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29 and 172] and the early Medieval remains of the Cryn Bank Dyke [31].
6.10.6
In addition, there are possible impacts upon areas of archaeological potential within the site boundary, the
level of which remain to be confirmed.
6.10.7
A range of actions have been put in place to avoid or mitigate these impacts to the cultural heritage
resource. These include geophysical surveys in advance of construction work, with further mitigation to
follow if required, and a programme of monitoring under archaeological supervision and control.
6.10.8
Enhancement works (e.g. improved signage / historic information on sites, maintenance of receptors and
their immediate setting ) or photographic survey prior to proposed development to be put in place as part of
the CEMP.
6.10.9
It should be noted that all investigation and mitigation works contained in this section include the
requirement for progression of all associated works, including but not limited to, post-excavation
assessment, reporting, archiving, conservation and storage of materials and publication, where necessary.
The Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust Development Control Archaeologist (Mark Walters) was contacted
to discuss this point and, in an email of 6th December 2011, confirmed:
In Wales there is no agreed methodology or guidance relating to the assessment of cumulative
windfarm impacts specifically on the cultural heritage. Cumulative impacts on the historic landscape
are normally addressed within the LVIA section of the ES by standard landscape assessment
procedures including wireframes and photomontages and these are taken into account by the
archaeological curators when reviewing the cumulative impact…In Wales [CPAT] find the
combination of standard archaeological assessment combined with ASIDOHL and LVIA are perfectly
adequate to address any perceived issues of cumulative impact that may arise.
This chapter is an assessment of the potential impacts on the cultural heritage resource associated with the
proposed development.
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.20
Cultural Heritage
6.11 References
Electronic References
Bibliography
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Atmos Consultancy (2009) Bryngydfa Windfarm Environmental Statement
Browne, D. and Hughes, S. (ed.) (2003) The Archaeology of the Welsh Uplands. Cambria
Printers Limited. Aberystwyth.
Cadw (2007) Guide to Good Practice on Using the Register of Landscapes of Historic Interest
in Wales in the Planning Process.
CPAT Report 821: TAN8 SSAs in Powys: Historic Landscape Characterization
Dunn C J (1974) Radnorshire Barrows, East of the River Ithon
Daniel J E Evans E E and Lewis T (1927) Excavations on the Kerry Hills
English Heritage (2005) Wind Energy and the Historic Environment.
Entec (2008) Review of Guidance on the Assessment of Cumulative Impacts of Onshore
Windfarms
Gibson A M (1998) Prehistoric Funerary and Ritual Sites: Upper Severn Valley. CPAT 277
Hankinson R and Thomas D (1999) The North Radnorshire Commons Survey. CPAT Report
316.
Hankinson R (2002) The short dykes of mid and north-east Wales. CPAT Report 495
Hankinson R (2003) Iyrchyn, Dolfor Near Newtown, Powys CPAT 564
Hankinson R (2004) The short dykes of mid and north-east Wales. CPAT Report 612
Institute for Archaeologists (1994) Standards and Guidance for Desk-Based Assessment (rev.
2001 and 2008).
Montgomeryshire in Archaeologia Cambrensis 82, 147-159.
Owen, H.W. and Morgan, R. (2007) Dictionary of the Placenames of Wales. Gomer Press.
Ceredigion.
Oxford Archaeology (2005) Planarch 2: Review of Cultural Heritage Coverage in
Environmental Impact Assessments
Silvester B (1999) The North Radnorshire Commons Survey in Archaeology in Wales, vol 39.
Silvester R J and Hankinson R (2002) The short dykes of mid and north-east Wales. CPAT
Report 458
Silvester R J and Hankinson R (2002) Early Medieval Ecclesiastical and Burial Sites in mid and
north-east Wales: an Interim Report CPAT 468
Silvester R J and Hankinson R (2003) Early Medieval Ecclesiastical and Burial Sites in mid and
north-east Wales: the second report CPAT 534
Welsh Office Circular 60/96 (1996) Planning and Archaeology. 5th Dec. 1996.
Welsh Office Circular 61/96 (1996) Planning and the Historic Environment: Historic Buildings
and Conservation Areas. 5th Dec. 1996.
Welsh Office Circular 1/98 (1998) Planning and the Historic Environment: Directions by
Secretary of State for Wales. 2nd Feb. 1998.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
BAJR (undated) Guidance on National Legislation [online] Available from:
<http://www.bajr.org/DeveloperWeb/Legislation.asp> [Accessed 18 May 2011]
Countryside Council for Wales (undated) Caersws Basin [online] Available from:
<http://www.ccw.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting-our-landscape/historiclandscapes/caersws-basin.aspx> [Accessed 15 May 2011]
CPAT (undated) Caersws Basin: Historic Landscape Characterisation [online] Available from:
<http://www.cpat.org.uk/projects/longer/histland/caersws/swsint.htm> [Accessed 16 May 2011]
Cadw(a)
(undated)
Historic
Landscapes
in
Wales
[online]
Available
from:
<http://www.ggat.org.uk/cadw/historic_landscape/main/english/historical.htm> [Accessed 13
May 2011]
Office of Public Sector Information (1979) The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas
Act
1979
[online]
Available
from:
<http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=444101> [Accessed 10 May
2011].
Office of Public Sector Information (1990) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas)
Act
1990
[online]
Available
from:
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/ukpga_19900009_en_1> [Accessed 9 May 2011].
Planarch 2 (undated) Guiding Principles for Cultural Heritage in EIA [online] Available from:
<http://www.planarch.org/downloads/library/planarch_eia_guiding_principles.pdf> [Accessed 9
May 2011]
Welsh Assembly Government (July 2005) Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Notice 8:
Planning for Renewable Energy [online]
<http://wales.gov.uk/desh/publications/planning/technicaladvicenotes/tan8/tan8main1e.pdf;jses
sionid=f1CfNMyTpsrTLTZlK03QbvhyqJpzN8fJcKy3831QQlGpBp61SzXh!475011280?lang=en
> [Accessed 10 May 2011].
Cartographic Sources Examined
•
•
•
•
•
•
1840 - Ceri Tithe Map (Mont) p/x/9/m/111
1840 - Llanbardarn Fynydd (Rad) Tithe Map p/x/9/m/178
1840 - Bugeildy Tithe p/x/9/m/165
1904 - Ceri (Mont) 6 inch: 43 NE 2nd Ed. 1903 (provisional)
Llanbardarn Fynydd 6 inch (Rad) OS9.NW 2nd Edition 1904
Envirocheck Report (Sept 2009) Historical Mapping
Envirocheck Report (Sept 2009) Geology 1:50,000 Maps 232 and 249
1901;
and
Neuadd-goch Bank Wind Farm
Environmental Statement: Volume 2
Chapter 6.0
Page 6.21
Cultural Heritage