Heritage and Archaeology

The proposed development directly impacts the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area. There are several heritage and archelogy sites in the development area including Iron Age/Roman and Early Medieval remains. 

What will be affected – and how?

Grand Union Canal Conservation Area

The Developers say: ‘There would be significant construction and completed development effects on the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area. These effects would be adverse. In the case of the construction effects, they are temporary and would lessen over time. In the case of the completed development, there would be a significant effect – moderate adverse – arising from the change in character of the land.’

‘The site is located next to the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area and the change in the site would be readily discernible through a change in the character from open fields to an employment centre with activity.’

The Canal and River Trust have expressed concerns about the strength of the canal embankment, and these have become more pressing since the August revisions to the flooding mitigation proposals.

Archaeology

There are Iron Age/Roman remains within the site. A detailed foundation design has not been produced but the remains will be removed during the construction phase. The Developer acknowledges that this could ‘…result in the complete loss of their heritage significance’ and that ‘This would constitute a permanent high magnitude adverse impact upon a receptor of medium sensitivity.’

In her letter of 22 November 2022 the Council’s Archaeological Adviser said for the Iron Age/Roman site - ‘No development shall take place within the area of archaeological interest until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority.’

It is not clear that this has been complied with.

The Roman Villa, excavated in the late 1960s, was a large and significant building, with a bath house, temple, and signs of other structures. Less than 1km from the development site, it is not mentioned at all in the Developer’s assessment. Why has this been missed?

Early Medieval remains lie in the proposed Country Park. The area in which they lie will be buried under a landscaped bund. The Developers acknowledge that ‘this might result in disturbance or compression during construction . . . The importation of material might also bring with it intrusive artefacts that would potentially affect the quality of data that might be recovered. . . ‘

Burying the remains deeper would make future excavation more difficult and may mean losing their archaeological significance. The Developer states that this ‘would constitute an adverse impact of minor to medium magnitude upon a receptor of Medium sensitivity.’ 

To lessen the impact on the Mediaeval site, the Developer says ‘The bund has been designed in order that the remains will be covered by no more than 1m of material. This will ensure that in future it may be readily excavated’. We can’t see that this solves the issues of compression or contamination though.

Heritage Sites

The National Planning Policy Framework states: ‘local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. . . local planning authorities should take account of:

a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

 c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.’

The Developers recognise two sites of importance in the vicinity of the development:

1. the Old Wolverton Mill with the adjacent Barn and Coach House, and 
2. the Motte and Bailey castle, deserted village and monastic grange at Old Wolverton (a Scheduled Ancient Monument). 

They have not considered Cosgrove Aqueduct at all, although it is on Historic England’s Scheduled Monument list.

In their assessment, the Developer dismisses Old Wolverton Mill and the adjacent Barn and Coach House due to the ‘lack of intervisibility’ between the site and the designated heritage buildings. This is complete nonsense. There is a direct eyeline from the Mill to the warehouses, only 1km away.

For the Motte and Bailey castle etc the Developers say '[the] Scheduled Ancient Monument is of a high value/importance given its scheduling. The site is distant from the Scheduled Ancient Monument with significant distance between it and the site as well as interposing mature vegetation. As a result, the site makes a low contribution to the significance of the heritage asset. The sensitivity to change of the asset is therefore medium.'

Again, this is disingenuous, because standing on the Motte and Bailey site, the existing small warehouse is clearly visible, meaning these much larger ones will be, even more so at night when they are lit.

The very fact that the Aqueduct, which will have clear sight of the development, has been ignored is telling. Once again, the Developers are picking and choosing how they present their case.

In early September, we asked WNC’s Planning Officer overseeing this application why these three heritage sites had been excluded or ignored from the Developer’s environmental impact assessment, and why these omissions have not been picked up by the Council Conservation Officer. There has been no reply.