CHAPTER 11 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE€¦ · Figure 11.1 Heritage Assets within 1 km of...

1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-i ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015

CHAPTER 11

11.0 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE .............................................. 1

11.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1

11.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 2

11.3 Baseline ........................................................................................................... 22

11.4 Assessment of Effects ..................................................................................... 46

11.5 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................... 84

11.6 Harm ............................................................................................................... 89

11.7 Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 90

11.8 Residual Effects and Conclusions .................................................................... 91

Figures (Volume 2 – Bound Separately) Figure 11.1 Heritage Assets within 1 km of Proposed Development

Figure 11.2a Designated Heritage Assets within 2 km of Proposed Development

Figure 11.2b Designated Heritage Assets within 2 km of Proposed Development: settings

assessment undertaken

Figure 11.3 Extract from Plan of Thorpe Old Enclosure (NRO BR 276/1/684)

Figure 11.4 Extract from Plan of the Rivers Wensum and Yare, 1825 (NRO MC 103/47)

Figure 11.5 Extract from Ordnance Survey map, 1886 Norfolk Sheet LXIIISE

Figure 11.6 Extract from Altered Apportionment Plan, 1892 (NRO DN/TA 596)




Figure 11.10a Heritage Viewpoints

Figure 11.10b Viewpoint A: Carrow Abbey

Figure 11.10c Viewpoint B: Railway Cottages

Figure 11.10d Viewpoint C: Norwich Castle

Figure 11.10e Viewpoint D: Black Tower & Viewpoint E: The Dell, Trowse Newton

Figure 11.10f Viewpoint F: Heathside Road/Cotman Road

Figure 11.10g Viewpoint G: Yarmouth Road

Appendices (Volume 3 – Bound Separately)

Appendix 11.1 Gazetteer of heritage assets recorded within 1 km of the Utilities site by

Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Record (HER)

Appendix 11.2 Gazetteer of designated heritage assets recorded within 2 km of the Utilities

site

Appendix 11.3 Guide for Contextualised Aesthetic Appreciation of Monuments

1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-ii ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015

Appendix 11.4 Photographic plates illustrating aerial photographs and site walkover

Appendix 11.5 Written Scheme of Investigation

Appendix 11.6 2011 CgMS Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment of the Utilities Site.

Appendix 11.7 2012 Ramboll Underground Obstructions Report

1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-1 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015

11.0 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

11.1 Introduction

11.1.1 This chapter provides an assessment of the effects upon archaeological and

cultural heritage assets from the Proposed Development. Both direct effects on

archaeological remains and indirect effects on the setting of heritage assets have

been considered.

11.1.2 The assessment takes into account a previous Desk Based Assessment produced

by CgMs in 20111, included as Appendix 11.6. The assessment also considers the

findings of the Environmental Statement, prepared by Lanpro, for the Deal Ground

development, the extent of which covers the proposed Access Road Development

Area2.

Proposed Development

11.1.3 The Proposed Development is described in full in Chapter 4.0 (including a

description of the construction process). In summary, the Proposed Development

would comprise a variety of structures, including a Community Energy Centre,

residential development (including student accommodation), educational facilities,

commercial facilities, access and car parking, and ancillary infrastructure including

boat moorings. A new access road to the Utilities site would run across the Deal

Ground to the south of the Wensum and would include two new bridges over the

Yare and Wensum. The assessment considers the effects of all aspects of the

Proposed Development.

11.1.4 The Utilities site is located on the north bank of the Rivers Yare and Wensum to the

south-east of Norwich city centre. The confluence of the two rivers is located on the

southern boundary of the Utilities site. The Utilities site is located at approximately

1.5-2.7m AOD and is generally flat. The superficial geology of the Utilities site

comprises Flandrian alluvial deposits of clay, silt, sand and gravel. The bedrock

comprises chalk3 (http://maps.bgs.ac.uk).

1 Appendix 11.6 - CgMS Consulting (2011). Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, Norwich Powerhouse.

Unpublished report. 2 Lanpro Services (2010). Proposed Redevelopment of Site to provide Mixed Residential/Commercial

Development at Deal Ground and Former May Gurney site, Trowse, Norwich. 3 BGS Geoindex, accessed at http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html, on 29/04/2015.

http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/

http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html


11.2 Methodology

Legislation and Guidance

Legislation

11.2.1 Statutory protection for archaeology is outlined in the Ancient Monuments and

Archaeological Areas Act (1979) as amended by the National Heritage Act (1983).

A schedule of nationally significant archaeological sites subject to legal protection

is maintained by Historic England (HE), which is a statutory consultee in the

planning process.

11.2.2 Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas receive protection under the Planning

(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Planning Policy: National Planning Policy Framework

11.2.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government's

planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied, with a

central theme of ”presumption in favour of sustainable development”’4. Planning

policy regarding the historic environment is outlined in Chapter 12 of the NPPF,

with an emphasis on the need to determine the significance of any heritage assets,

including any contribution to this made by their setting, that may potentially be

affected by a proposed development5. This requires, as a minimum that the

relevant historic environment record should be consulted and effects on heritage

assets assessed using appropriate expertise. Where a site at which development is

proposed includes, or has the potential to include heritage assets with

archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to

submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field

evaluation

11.2.4 Where designated assets are concerned, great weight should be given to the

asset’s conservation and any loss of significance should require “clear and

convincing justification”6.

11.2.5 Effects upon non-designated heritage assets are also a pertinent planning

consideration. Where a heritage asset is to be lost, either in part or in whole, as a

result of the development, the local planning authority should require developers to:

4 DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework, 3




“…record and advance the understanding of the significance of any heritage assets

[…] in a manner appropriate to their importance and the impact, and to make this

evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible”.7.

Planning Policy: Local Planning Policy

11.2.6 The Utilities site straddles the boundary of the Norwich City Council and Broads

Authority local planning authority areas. The route of the proposed Access Road

would, where this runs south of the River Yare, pass through the South Norfolk

District Council area. Each of the local planning authorities have a number of

polices relating to the historic environment that are relevant to this assessment.

11.2.7 The Norwich development management policies local plan was adopted in

December 2014. Policy DM98 is aimed at safeguarding Norwich’s heritage.

11.2.8 Policy R109 of the Norwich local plan: Site allocations and site specific policies plan

(adopted December 2014) sets out policies specific to the allocation of the Utilities

site for mixed use development, including that any development should conserve

and enhance the heritage significance of the Utilities site and the surrounding area.

11.2.9 The Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (adopted 2011,

amended 2014) sets out spatial planning objectives which include the protection,

management and enhancement of the natural and historic environment10.

11.2.10 Policy 111 of the Core Strategy seeks to address climate change and protect

environmental assets. A number of other policies within the Core Strategy, whilst

not specific to heritage, call for the protection and enhancement of the historic

environment.

11.2.11 The current planning policies of The Broads Authority are set out within the Core

Strategy Development Plan12. Policies CS5 and CS6 of the Core Strategy deal with

cultural heritage and are applicable to this assessment.

7 DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). 2012 National Planning Policy

Framework, 141 8 Norwich City Council (2014). Norwich development management policies local plan

9 Norwich City Council (2014). Norwich local plan: Site allocations and site specific policies plan, 185

10 Greater Norwich Growth Board (2011 amended 2014). Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich & South

Norfolk, Objective 9, 26 11

Greater Norwich Growth Board (2011 amended 2014). Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich & South Norfolk, 30


11.2.12 The Broads Authority adopted its Development Management Policies document in

2011 and the Utilities site Specific Polices Local Plan in 2014 respectively, in order

to give more detail to the Core Strategy. Policy DP5 of the Development

Management Policies 2011-202113, deals with cultural heritage and is relevant to

this assessment.

11.2.13 The Broads Authority Site Specific Policies Local Plan (2014) contains a policy

specific to the ‘Utilities site’. Policy NOR1, unlike the equivalent policy for Norwich

City, does not specifically mention the enhancement or protection of the historic

environment and archaeological significance. It does however indicate, under

constraints, that the Utilities site is likely to be of archaeological interest given

Roman and WW2 finds in the vicinity14.

11.2.14 Many of the policies within the South Norfolk Local Plan were superseded by the

Joint Core Strategy for Broadlands, Norwich and South Norfolk. Policy ENV915,

dealing with archaeological remains has been saved and is relevant to this

assessment.

National Guidance

11.2.15 The National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) was released in March 2014 by

DCLG and replaced Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic

Environment Practice Guide. The NPPG contains guidance on the implementation

of the NPPF policies on conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

11.2.16 In terms of the heritage assets considered here the most important sections of the

Guidance relate to non-designated heritage assets. Issues relating to the setting of

designated heritage assets and to harm are addressed under separate headings.

14

Broads Authority (2014). Site Specific Policies Local Plan, 65. 15

South Norfolk Council (2003). South Norfolk Local Plan, 35.


Non-designated assets

11.2.17 In terms of non-designated assets, NPPG states that:

“The National Planning Policy Framework identifies two categories of non-

designated site of archaeological interest:

(1) Those that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled

monuments and are therefore considered subject to the same policies as those for

designated heritage assets...

(2) Other non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest. By comparison

this is a much larger category of lesser heritage significance, although still subject

to the conservation objective. On occasion the understanding of a site may change

following assessment and evaluation prior to a planning decision and move it from

this category to the first

Where an asset is thought to have archaeological interest, the potential knowledge

which may be unlocked by investigation may be harmed even by minor

disturbance, because the context in which archaeological evidence is found is

crucial to furthering understanding.

Decision-taking regarding such assets requires a proportionate response by local

planning authorities. Where an initial assessment indicates that the site on which

development is proposed includes or has potential to include heritage assets with

archaeological interest, applicants should be required to submit an appropriate

desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. However, it is

estimated following an initial assessment of archaeological interest only a small

proportion – around 3 per cent – of all planning applications justify a requirement for

detailed assessment”.16

Setting

11.2.18 With regard to setting, Paragraph 13 of the NPPG states that:

“A thorough assessment of the impact on setting needs to take into account, and be

proportionate to, the significance of the heritage asset under consideration and the

16

DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2014). Planning Practice Guide, Para 40


degree to which proposed changes enhance or detract from that significance and

the ability to appreciate it”. 17

11.2.19 The NPPF defines setting as:

“The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed

and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting

may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may

affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral”18.

11.2.20 In March 2015, Historic England published an updated guidance document on

setting as part of their Good Practice Advice Notes intended to explain how to

apply the policies contained in the NPPF. This document states:

“Setting is not a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation, though land within a

setting may itself be designated. Its importance lies in what it contributes to the

significance of the heritage asset. This depends on a wide range of physical

elements within, as well as perceptual and associational attributes pertaining to, the

heritage asset’s surroundings”19.

11.2.21 The Historic England Guidance sets out the ways in which setting may contribute to

the value of a heritage asset. It advocates a five stage approach which comprises:

the identification of the heritage assets;

an assessment of the contribution of setting to the asset’s value;

an assessment of potential effects upon the setting (and thus the value) by a

proposed development/change;

an exploration of potential enhancement and/or mitigation measures; and

to make, document and monitor the outcomes of the decision made.20

11.2.22 The guidance provides a checklist of potential attributes of setting which may

contribute to, or make appreciable the value of the asset in question. HE

acknowledge that the checklist is non-exhaustive and that not all attributes will

apply in all cases.

11.2.23 The current assessment has regard to the HE checklist, and the guidance in

general, but, in the interests of being proportionate to the effects that would occur, 17

DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2014). Planning Practice Guide, Para 13 18

DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework, 56 19

Historic England (2015). Good Practice Advise Note 3: Setting, 4. 20

Historic England (2015). Good Practice Advise Note 3: Setting, 7.


only discusses attributes of setting where these are found to contribute to the value

of the asset. Similarly, in many cases effects upon setting are ‘less than substantial’

and are not significant environmental effects. As such, it is not always necessary or

appropriate to propose mitigation or enhancement measures. If relevant, mitigation

and enhancement measures are identified as part of this assessment.

11.2.24 The final bullet point set out in the HE guidance does not apply to this assessment

as the monitoring of decision outcomes can only be undertaken once the planning

decision in question has been made.

Harm

11.2.25 Developments can cause harm to heritage assets both through direct physical

effects upon particular assets and/or through indirect effects on the setting of

cultural heritage assets.

11.2.26 The NPPF, where designated heritage assets are concerned, requires a judgement

to be made as to the level of harm that could be caused to heritage assets by

development. It requires us to indicate whether that harm would be ‘substantial’ or

‘less than substantial’, and the level of harm predicted establishes the planning test

to be applied.

11.2.27 Harm is defined by HE as:

“Change for the worse, here primarily referring to the effect of inappropriate

interventions on the heritage values of a place.”21

11.2.28 The NPPG notes that:

“What matters in assessing if a proposal causes substantial harm is the impact on

the significance of the heritage asset”.22

11.2.29 The NPPG notes that the ‘substantial’ harm is a ‘high test’ and that as such it is

unlikely to result in many cases23.

11.2.30 Direct effects cause a reduction or loss of cultural value or heritage significance

because the physical alteration of the site, monument, building or feature reduces

its evidential value and its ability to inform this and future generations about our

21

Historic England (2008). Conservation Principles, 71. 22

DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2014). Planning Practice Guide, Para 17. 23

DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2014). Planning Practice Guide, Para 17


past. If the physical effect materially alters the appearance of the heritage asset it

may affect its aesthetic value.

11.2.31 Conversely, adverse indirect effects on setting commonly reduce the aesthetic

value of the cultural heritage asset. However, in some special cases the effects on

setting can reduce the evidential value of a building or monument, principally by

interrupting, or in severe cases completely obstructing, some designed-in view to or

from the asset or by adversely affecting the ability of the observer to appreciate the

heritage value of the asset. Such an effect upon setting would reduce the

information content, and thus the overall cultural value of the asset.

Local Guidance

11.2.32 Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Services requires that this

assessment is carried out in accordance with the appropriate sections of Standards

for Field Archaeology in the East of England24. For the purposes of this assessment

this is in the main limited to the section on desk-based research. The document

outlines the requirements for such research including listing sources to be

consulted. It notes that a site visit, an examination of the Historic Environment

Record (HER) and a map regression using available historic mapping are

compulsory elements to desk-based assessment. The guidance notes a number of

other sources to be consulted where appropriate. The guidance also sets out the

required elements of any reporting, including the identification and mapping of all

known heritage assets (and where possible areas of archaeological potential),

areas of previous ground disturbance or contamination and other constraints as

relevant.

11.2.33 The current assessment accords with the desk-based research section of the

guidance.

11.2.34 Archaeological fieldwork is currently being undertaken. A Written Scheme of

Investigation has been agreed with Norfolk County Council Historic Environment

Services and was designed with appropriate reference to Research and

Archaeology Revisited: a revised framework for the East of England25. The agreed

Written Scheme of Investigation is presented in Appendix 11.5.

24

Gurney, D. (2003). Standards for Field Archaeology in the East of England. 25

Medlycott, M (2011). Research and Archaeology Revisited: a revised framework for the East of England

Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 24.


Assessment Methodology

11.2.35 The primary source of information relating to the presence and significance of

known undesignated historic/archaeological remains in the area has been the

Norfolk HER. An extract was received from the HER in January 2015. Up to date

information on Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and

Gardens was obtained from Historic England in January 2015, together with GIS

data recording their locations and extent,. Information on boundaries of

Conservation Areas was obtained from the three local authorities with responsibility

for their designation (Norwich City Council, Broadland District Council and South

Norfolk District Council).

11.2.36 All heritage assets, whether designated or not, within a distance of up to 1 km from

the boundary of the Proposed Development have been identified within the EIA and

these are recorded in Appendix 11.1. The locations of all assets are illustrated on

Figure 11.1. Initially all designated assets including Scheduled Monuments, Listed

Buildings, Conservation Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens, at distances up

to 2 km from the boundary of the Proposed Development have been identified and

recorded in Appendix 11.2 (with locations illustrated on Figure 11.2a). Those

designated assets that might be subject to indirect effects upon their setting have

been identified via scoping and consultation, and these have been carried through

to full assessment.

11.2.37 Formal scoping responses from Historic England and Norfolk County Council

Historic Environment Services were included in the Scoping Opinion received from

Norwich City Council and the Broads Authority on the 31st March 2015. This is

discussed in full in Chapter 2.0. A summary of the responses provided by historic

environment consultees is given below in Table 11.1, this also includes advice in

addition to that provided as part of the Scoping Opinion

Table 11.1: Summary of Issues Raised During Consultation

Consultee Issue Raised Response

Historic England (Consultation Response dated 11 March 2015)

Identified the need for impacts upon the settings of the Scheduled Carrow Abbey, the Grade II Listed Railway Cottages and the Trowse Conservation Area to be assessed.

These are assessed in the EIA and visualisations have been produced for each.

The assessment should be carried out in accordance with established policy and guidance, including the

The assessment has been carried out in accordance with National Planning Policy and Guidance. Since the production



National Planning Policy Framework and its guidance and Historic England guidance on setting entitled The Setting of Heritage Assets

of Historic England’s consultation response, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets has replaced The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011) and it is used to guide this assessment.

Whilst standardised EIA matrices are useful tools, we consider the analysis of setting (and the impact upon it) as a matter of qualitative and expert judgement which cannot be achieved solely by use of systematic matrices or scoring systems. Historic England therefore recommends that these should be seen primarily as material supporting a clearly expressed and non-technical narrative argument within the cultural heritage chapter. The EIA should use the ideas of benefit, harm and loss (as described in NPPF) to set out ‘what matters and why’ in terms of the heritage assets’ significance and setting, together with the effects of the development upon them.

The assessment methodology is set it in Section 11.2 (the paragraphs subsequent to this Table), including the use of qualitative assessment and professional judgement

Historic England via Norwich City Council (pre-application consultation)

Historic England have raised concern about potential views from the Bracondale/City Centre Conservation Area from Ber Street/Bracondale. NCC subsequently requested that the impact from an additional viewpoint from Carrow Hill (specifically half way up and from around Black Tower on the City Wall) be considered.

Potential effects upon the setting of Bracondale and City Centre Conservation Areas are considered in this assessment, in particular views from near Black Tower are considered.

Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Services (24 March 2015)

Attached brief for Archaeology Desk-based Assessment

This brief has been discussed with Historic Environment Services and this assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the supplied brief.

Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Services email to AOC (5 May)

Following ongoing conversations about the need for archaeological evaluation to inform the EIA, Historic Environment Services indicated that the evaluation of this site will have two components: a geoarchaeological study, to

A programme of archaeological works has been agreed with Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Services (see Appendix 11.5). This archaeological evaluation is currently being undertaken. Details of the results of these works would be evaluated once



assess the potential for early prehistoric remains (Palaeolithic to Neolithic), and a shallower set of trial trenches, to look for other deposits (principally Bronze Age and Roman). A Generic Evaluation Brief was supplied.

the investigation has been completed and any further relevant mitigation incorporated.

Historic England; Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Services; Norwich City Council; Broads Authority (email from AOC 14 May 2015)

A list of heritage assets to be considered in the detailed setting assessment was provided to consultees for comment.

All heritage assets identified within the email were included in the assessment of effects on setting, with the exception of Cow Tower, which following a ZTV modelling exercise, was found to have no theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development.

Norwich City Council indicated they were generally happy with the approach, though then noted that Viewpoint D required more detailed consideration.

A visualisation from Viewpoint D (Black Tower) is included as part of the assessment. This superimposes the outline of the Proposed Development onto baseline photography.

The Broads Authority Historic Environment Manager indicated that the assessment should give an indication of the reasons for scoping in or out of designated heritage assets from the detailed setting assessment. The Broads Authority Historic Environment Manager also questioned why the Railway Station (Site 1244) and the City Hall (Site 1386) had not been included.

Appendix 11.2 identifies all designated heritage assets within 2 km of the proposed development. An indication of whether each of these assets has been included in the detailed setting assessment is given and a brief reason for an assets inclusion or exclusion is given. Certain assets are considered within the assessment of Conservation Areas in which they are located, rather than individually. Where this is the case, this is noted in Appendix 11.2. These assets are listed under the relevant Conservation Areas in Table 11.10 and where they are of particular prominence or sensitivity within the Conservation Area, they are mentioned within the text. AOC provided a response to comments by the Broads Authority Historic Environment Manager, noting that the Railway



Station would be discussed in the context of St Matthew’s Conservation Area. It was also noted that the City Hall had been scoped out as views of the development would be limited and because its relevant setting pertained to Norwich City Centre and the marketplace in particular.

Historic England responded by noting that a wider interpretation of the setting of heritage assets might be helpful in some instances. It was noted that ‘the significance of landmark buildings can be contributed to and better revealed by looking back towards them in their context. In the case of City Hall, as well as other landmark buildings such as the cathedral, castle and the numerous churches, it should be considered if a viewer were able to see them in combination with the proposed development, rather than just see the development from them or their immediate curtilage’.

Consideration has been given to long distance views of heritage assets and the contribution such views make to their value. Where such views have been identified and could be affected by the Proposed Development this has been addressed in Section 11.4 below. With regard to heritage assets within the City Centre Conservation Area, consideration has been given to the important long views and strategic viewpoints identified in Appendix 8 of the Norwich Local Plan: Development Management Policies Plan.

Assessment of Significance / Assessment Criteria

11.2.38 This sub-section sets out the methodology for assessing effects upon heritage

assets for both direct and indirect effects. It takes account of NPPF, its practice

guide and Historic England’s Good Practice Advice Note 3: the setting of heritage

assets, and Standards for Field Archaeology in the East of England as set out

above.

The Assessor

11.2.39 AOC Archaeology Group, which has undertaken the cultural heritage assessment,

conforms to the standards of professional conduct outlined in the Chartered

Institute for Archaeologists' Code of Conduct, the CIfA Code of Approved Practice

for the Regulation of Contractual Arrangements in Field Archaeology, the CIfA

Standards and Guidance for Desk Based Assessments and Field Evaluations.


11.2.40 AOC Archaeology Group is a Registered Archaeological Organisation of the

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. This status ensures that there is regular

monitoring and approval by external peers of our internal systems, standards and

skills development.

Assessing Cultural Value (Significance) & Importance

11.2.41 The definition of cultural significance is readily accepted by heritage professionals

both in the UK and internationally and was first fully outlined in the Burra Charter,

Article One of which identifies that ‘cultural significance’ or ‘cultural heritage value’

means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or

future generations26. This definition has since been adopted by heritage

organisations around the world, including Historic England (HE). The NPPF defines

cultural significance as:

“The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage

interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic.

Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also

from its setting.”27

11.2.42 The term ‘cultural value’ will be used throughout this assessment as opposed to

‘cultural significance’, in order to avoid confusion with the concept of a ‘likely

significant environmental effect’ which is terminology readily used throughout the

ES.

11.2.43 All heritage assets have some value, however some assets are judged to be more

important than others. The level of that importance is, from a cultural resource

management perspective, determined by establishing the asset’s capacity to inform

present or future generations about the past. In the case of many heritage assets

their importance has already been established through the designation (i.e.

scheduling, listing and register) processes applied by HE.

11.2.44 The criteria used to establish importance in this assessment are presented in Table

11.2 below and are drawn from the Department of Media, Culture and Sports

publication, Principles for Selection of Listed Buildings,28 and the Scheduled

26

ICOMOS (1999). Burra Charter Article 1.2. 27

DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). NPPF, 56. 28

DMCS (2010). Principles for Selection of Listed Buildings.


Monuments Policy Statements published by the same body,29 which outline the

criteria for designating heritage assets.

Table 11.2: Criteria for Establishing Importance

Importance Criteria

International and National

o World Heritage Sites; o Scheduled Monuments (Actual and Potential); o Grade I and II* Listed Buildings; o Grade I and II* Registered Parks and Gardens; o Registered Battlefields; o Fine, little-altered examples of some particular period, style or type.

Regional o Grade II Listed Buildings; o Grade II Registered Parks and Gardens; o Conservation Areas; o Major examples of some period, style or type, which may have been

altered; o Asset types which would normally be considered of national importance

that have been partially damaged (such that their ability to inform has been reduced).

Local o Locally Listed Heritage Assets; o Lesser examples of any period, style or type, as originally constructed or

altered, and simple, traditional sites, which group well with other significant remains, or are part of a planned group such as an estate or an industrial complex;

o Asset types which would normally be considered of regional importance that have been partially damaged or asset types which would normally be considered of national importance that have been largely damaged (such that their ability to inform has be reduced).

Negligible o Relatively numerous types of remains; o findspots or artefacts that have no definite archaeological remains known

in their context; o Asset types which would normally be considered of local importance that

have been largely damaged (such that their ability to inform has been reduced);

Methodology for assessing direct physical effects

11.2.45 A direct effect by a development can potentially result in an irreversible loss of

information content. The potential magnitude of change upon heritage assets

caused by the Proposed Development has been rated using the classifications and

criteria outlined in Table 11.3 below.

Table 11.3 Criteria for establishing magnitude of physical change

Physical Effect Criteria

High o Major loss of information content resulting from total or large-scale removal of deposits from a site.

o Major alteration of a monument’s baseline condition. o Any physical alteration to a Scheduled Monument. o Any physical alteration to a Grade I or II* Listed Building. o Massive alterations to a Grade II Listed Building.

Medium o Moderate loss of information content resulting from material

29

DMCS (2013). Scheduled Monuments Policy Statements.


Physical Effect Criteria

alteration of the baseline conditions by removal of part of a site. o Moderate alteration of a monument’s baseline condition.

Low o Minor detectable changes leading to the loss of information content. o Minor alterations to the baseline condition of a monument.

Marginal o Very slight or barely measurable loss of information content. o Loss of a small percentage of the area of a site’s peripheral

deposits. o Very slight alterations to a monument.

None o No physical change anticipated.

11.2.46 The predicted level of direct effect upon each asset was determined by considering

its importance in conjunction with the magnitude of change predicted on it. The

method of deriving the level of effect classifications is shown in Table 11.4 below:

Table 11.4: Method of rating level of direct effects on heritage assets by the

Proposed Development

Magnitude of Change

Importance of Asset

Negligible Local Regional National International

High Minor-Moderate

Moderate Moderate-Major

Major Extreme

Medium Minor Minor-Moderate


Major

Low Negligible Minor Minor-Moderate


Marginal Negligible Negligible Minor Minor-Moderate

Moderate

None None None None None None

The level of effects recorded in grey highlighted cells are considered to be ‘likely significant environmental effects’

Methodology for assessing indirect effects upon Setting

11.2.47 This sub-section outlines the detailed methodology used in assessing potential

effects upon the setting of heritage assets. A discussion of setting, including a

definition of it, is provided earlier in this section. The methodology presented here

sets out criteria for assessing sensitivity to changes to setting (Relative Sensitivity),

magnitude of change and level of effect.

Assessing Sensitivity of Assets to Changes to their Setting

11.2.48 Whilst determining the relative cultural value of a heritage asset is essential for

establishing its importance, it is widely recognised30 that the importance of an asset

is not the same as its sensitivity to changes to its setting. Thus in determining

30

Lambrick (2008). Setting Standards: A Review prepared on behalf of the IFA.


effects upon the setting of assets by a proposed development, both importance and

sensitivity to changes to setting need to be considered.

11.2.49 Setting is a key issue in the case of some, but by no means all assets. A nationally

important asset does not necessarily have high sensitivity to changes to its setting

(relative sensitivity). An asset’s sensitivity refers to its capacity to retain its ability to

inform this and future generations in the face of changes to its setting. The ability of

the setting to contribute to an understanding, appreciation and experience of the

asset and its value also has a bearing on the sensitivity of that asset to changes to

its setting. Assets with high sensitivity will be vulnerable to changes that affect their

settings, and even slight changes may reduce their information content or the

ability of setting to contribute to the understanding, appreciation and experience of

the asset. Less sensitive assets will be able to accommodate greater changes to

their settings without significant reduction in their ability to inform, and in spite of

such changes the relationship between the asset and its setting will still be legible.

11.2.50 The criteria for establishing an asset’s relative sensitivity are outlined in Table 11.5

below.

Table 11.5: Criteria for Establishing Relative Sensitivity

Sensitivity Definition

High An asset whose setting contributes significantly to an observer’s understanding, appreciation and experience of it should be thought of as having High Sensitivity to changes to its setting. This is particularly relevant for assets whose settings, or elements thereof, contribute directly to their significance (e.g. form part of their Evidential and Aesthetic Value

31). For

example an asset which retains an overtly intended or authentic relationship with its setting and the surrounding landscape. These may in particular be assets such as ritual monuments that have constructed sightlines to and/or from them, or structures intended to be visually dominant within a wide landscape area e.g. castles, tower houses, prominent forts etc. An asset, the current understanding, appreciation and experience of which, relies heavily on its modern aesthetic setting. In particular an asset whose setting is an important factor in the retention of its cultural value.

Medium An asset whose setting contributes moderately to an observer’s understanding, appreciation and experience of it should be thought of as having Medium Sensitivity to changes to its setting. This could be an asset for which setting makes a contribution to value, but whereby its value is derived mainly from its physical evidential values. This could for example include assets which had an overtly intended authentic relationship with their setting and the surrounding landscape but where that relationship (and therefore the ability of the assets’ surroundings to contribute to an understanding, appreciation and experience of them) has been moderately compromised either by previous modern intrusion in their setting or the landscape, or where the asset itself is in such a state of disrepair that the relationship cannot be fully determined.

31

Historic England (2008). Conservation Principles, 28-29.


Sensitivity Definition

An asset, the current understanding, appreciation and experience of which, relies partially on its modern aesthetic setting regardless of whether or not this was intended by the original constructors or authentic users of the asset. An asset whose setting is a contributing factor to the retention of its cultural value.

Low An asset whose setting makes some contribution to an observer’s understanding, appreciation and experience of it should generally be thought of as having Low Sensitivity to changes to its setting. This may be an asset whose value is mainly derived from its physical evidential values and whereby changes to its setting will not materially diminish our understanding, appreciation and experience of it or its value. This could for example include assets which had an overtly intended authentic relationship with their setting and the surrounding landscape, but where that relationship (and therefore the ability of the assets’ surroundings to contribute to an understanding, appreciation and experience of them) has been significantly compromised either by previous modern intrusion to its setting or landscape, or where the asset itself is in such a state of disrepair that the relationship cannot be determined.

Marginal An asset whose setting makes minimal contribution to an observer’s understanding, appreciation and experience of it and its value should generally be thought of as having Marginal Sensitivity to changes to its setting. This may include assets for which the authentic relationship with their surrounding has been lost, possibly having been compromised by previous modern intrusion, but who still retain cultural value in their physical evidential value and possibly wider historical and communal values.

11.2.51 The determination of an asset’s sensitivity is first and foremost reliant upon the

determination of its setting. The criteria set out in Table 11.5 above are intended as

a guide. Assessments of individual assets are informed by knowledge of the asset

itself, of the asset type if applicable, and by site visits to establish the current

setting of the assets. This allows for the use of professional judgement and each

asset is assessed on an individual basis. Individual assets may fall into a number of

the sensitivity categories presented above, e.g. a country house may have a high

sensitivity to alterations within its own landscaped park or garden, but its sensitivity

to changes in the wider setting may be less.

11.2.52 In establishing the relative sensitivity of an asset to changes to its setting, an

aesthetic appreciation of that asset and its setting must be arrived at. Appendix

11.3 outlines the range of factors which should be considered when establishing an

aesthetic appreciation and therefore determining sensitivity. These have been used

as a guide in assessing each asset from known records and in the field. In defining

these criteria, emphasis has been placed on establishing the current setting of

each asset and how the Proposed Development would affect it.


Assessing Magnitude of Change

11.2.53 Determining the magnitude of change caused by the Proposed Development

requires an identification of the change to the setting of any given asset, and in

particular changes to those elements of the setting that inform its cultural value.

Table 11.6 below outlines the main factors affecting magnitude of change:

Table 11.6: Factors Affecting Magnitude of Change

Site Details Importance of detail for assessing magnitude of change

1) Proximity to centre of development

Increasing distance of an asset from Proposed Development will, in most cases, diminish the effects on its setting.

2) Visibility of development (based on ZTV model and visualisations where appropriate)

The proportion of the development that is likely to be intervisible with the asset will directly affect the magnitude of change on its setting.

3) Complexity of landscape

The more visually complex a landscape is, the less prominent the new development may appear within it. This is because where a landscape is visually complex the eye can be distracted by other features and will not focus exclusively on the new development. Visual complexity describes the extent to which a landscape varies visually and the extent to which there are various land types, land uses, and built features producing variety in the landscape.

4) Visual obstructions

This refers to the existence of features (e.g. tree belts, forestry, landscaping or built features) that could partially or wholly obscure the development from view.

11.2.54 It is acknowledged that Table 11.6 above primarily deals with visual factors

affecting setting. Whilst the importance of visual elements of settings, e.g. views,

intervisibility, prominence etc, are clear, it is also acknowledged that there are

other, non-visual factors which could potentially result in setting effects. Such

factors could be other sensory factors, e.g. noise or smell, or could be associative.

In coming to a conclusion about magnitude of change upon setting, this

assessment makes reference to traffic, noise, air quality, and landscape and visual

assessments undertaken for this ES as appropriate.

11.2.55 Once the above has been considered, the prediction of magnitude of change in

setting is based upon the criteria set out below in Table 11.7. In applying these

criteria, particular consideration is given to the relationship of the Proposed

Development to those elements of setting which have been qualitatively defined as

most important in contributing to the value of the heritage asset and the ability to

understand, appreciate and experience it.


Table 11.7 Criteria for Classifying Magnitude of Change in Setting

Magnitude Criteria

High o Direct and substantial change in view affecting a significant sightline to or from a ritual monument or prominent fort;

o Direct severance of the relationship between an asset and its setting; o Major alteration to the penumbral or close settings of a Scheduled

Monument; o Major imposition within a Cultural Landscape; o A change that alters the setting of an asset such that it threatens the

protection of the asset and the understanding of its cultural value.

Medium o Oblique change in view affecting an axis adjacent to a significant sightline to or from a ritual monument but where the significant sightline of the monument is not obscured;

o Changes which affect the glacis of a prominent fort (based on the proportion of the glacis that would be obscured);

o Partial severance of the relationship between an asset and its setting; o Notable alteration to the setting of an asset but not directly affecting

those elements of the setting which contribute most to the understanding of the cultural value of the asset;

o Notable, but not major, imposition within a Cultural Landscape; o A change that alters the setting of an asset such that the understanding

of the asset and its cultural value is marginally diminished.

Low o Peripheral change in view affecting a significant sightline to or from a ritual monument;

o Minor imposition within a Cultural Landscape; o A change that alters the setting of an asset, but where those changes do

not materially affect an observer’s ability to understand, appreciate and experience the asset or its value.

Marginal All other changes to setting

None No setting changes

Assessing Level of Effect on Setting

11.2.56 The level of effect resulting from changes in the setting of cultural heritage assets is

judged to be the interaction of the asset’s sensitivity (Table 11.5) and the

magnitude of the change (Table 11.7) and also takes into consideration the

importance of the asset (Table 11.2). In order to provide a level of consistency the

assessment of sensitivity, the prediction of magnitude of change and the

assessment of level of effect have been guided by pre-defined criteria. A qualitative

descriptive narrative is also provided for each asset to summarise and explain each

of the professional value judgments that have been made in reaching a judgement

on sensitivity of the asset and the magnitude of change.


11.2.57 The interactions that guide the determination of level of effect on settings of the

assets in question is shown in Table 11.8

Table 11.8: Level of Effect on the Setting of Cultural Heritage Assets

Magnitude of Change

Relative Sensitivity

Marginal Low Medium High

High Minor Minor-Moderate Moderate Major

Medium Negligible Minor Minor-Moderate Moderate

Low None/Negligible Negligible Minor Minor-Moderate

Marginal None None Negligible Minor

The levels of effect recorded in grey highlighted cells are ‘likely significant environmental effects’

Harm

11.2.58 The NPPF, where designated heritage assets are concerned, requires us to make

an assessment as to the level of harm which could be caused to designated

heritage assets by development. It requires a judgement to be made as to whether

that harm is ‘substantial’ or ‘less than substantial’, and the level of harm predicted

establishes the planning test to be applied. Extant guidance on harm relevant to

this assessment is set out above.

11.2.59 There would be no direct effects upon designated heritage assets as a result of the

Proposed Development. As such, any discussion of harm in this assessment will

relate to indirect effects on the setting of designated heritage assets.

11.2.60 The NPPG notes that the ‘substantial’ harm is a ‘high test’ and that as such it is

unlikely to result in many cases. As noted previously, what matters in establishing

whether harm is ‘substantial’ or not, relates to whether a change would seriously

adversely affect those attributes or elements of a designated asset that contribute

to or give it its value.

11.2.61 In terms of effects upon the setting of designated heritage assets, only those

effects identified as ‘likely significant environmental effects’ in this assessment

have the potential to be of ‘substantial’ harm. Where no likely significant

environmental effect is found, the harm is considered to be ‘less than substantial’.

This is because, as set out earlier in this methodology, effects only reach the

significance threshold if their relative sensitivity to changes in setting is at the

higher end of scale, or if the magnitude of change is at the higher end of the scale.

11.2.62 For many designated assets, setting may not contribute to their value or the

contribution to value may be limited. For these assets, even High magnitude


changes to setting are unlikely to have adverse effects on the value of the

designated asset. As set out in Table 11.7, lower ratings of magnitude of change

tend to relate to notable or perceptible changes to setting but where these changes

would not necessarily obscure or damage elements of setting or relationships

which directly contribute to the value of assets. As such, effects that are not likely

significant environmental effects would be considered to result in ‘less than

substantial’ harm.

11.2.63 Where likely significant environmental effects are found, a detailed assessment of

the level of harm will be made. Whilst non-significant environmental effects would

be considered to cause ‘less than substantial’ harm, the reverse is not always true.

That is, the assessment of an effect as being ‘significant’ does not necessarily

mean that the harm to the asset is ‘substantial’. The assessment of level of harm in

this chapter, where required, will be a qualitative one, and will largely depend upon

whether the effects predicted would result in a major impediment to the ability to

understand or appreciate the heritage asset in question by reducing or removing its

information content and therefore reducing its cultural value.

Archaeological Evaluation

11.2.64 An archaeological evaluation, involving intrusive trial trenches and

geoarchaeological coring is currently underway within the development footprint on

the Utilities site. The scope and approach to this investigation has been agreed

with Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service (Appendix 11.5). The

results of this investigation will be evaluated and provided to the planning

authorities once completed. This chapter provides an assessment of likely

significant effects on buried archaeology based on desk-based evaluation, site

walkover and previous investigations on and close to the Utilities site, such as

those at Deal Ground.

Limitations

11.2.65 This assessment is based upon data obtained from publicly accessible archives as

described in Section 11.3 below and a walkover survey. Data was received from

Norfolk County Council HER and downloaded from the HE website in January

2015. The assessment does not contain records added after this date.

11.2.66 The site walkover was conducted in April 2015 – access was not possible to the

working sub-station area in the west centre of the Utilities site, though this area was


visible through fencing and is an area not subject to development as part of the

proposals. Several designated heritage assets could not be closely approached

during the settings assessment due to difficulties with access, e.g. the Listed

Buildings at Whitlingham Hall (Sites 1687, 1689 & 1690).

11.3 Baseline

Baseline Data Collection

11.3.1 The following data sources were consulted during preparation of this assessment:

Norfolk Record Office;

Norfolk Heritage Centre;

Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Record;

Norfolk Aerial Photographic Library;

The Historic England Archive (formerly the National Monuments Record)

(Historic England, Fire Fly Avenue, Swindon);

Historic England Designated Data set (downloadable from

https://services.historicengland.org.uk/NMRDataDownload/default.aspx)

The National Heritage List For England; and

National Map Library (National Library of Scotland, Causewayside, Edinburgh).

11.3.2 This assessment is based upon data obtained from publicly accessible archives as

described above, and from visits to designated heritage assets undertaken during

January and April 2015. All site visits to designated heritage assets were

undertaken in clear weather and a photographic record was maintained.

Context

11.3.3 Data regarding heritage assets was obtained from the Norfolk HER in January

2015. This identified 326 heritage assets within 1 km of the Utilities site (Figure

11.1 and Appendix 11.1). The data extract included area records, highlighting

portions of land where archaeological remains have been identified, point records,

locating more discrete features such as find spots and linear records highlighting

features such as Roman roads or railway lines. Taken together these entries record

sites and artefacts dating from the Palaeolithic to the Cold War.

11.3.4 The HER data includes eight records relating to archaeological sites, finds or

discoveries within the Utilities site itself. Most significantly, a Roman bridge or wharf

https://services.historicengland.org.uk/NMRDataDownload/default.aspx


(Site 33) is recorded within the Utilities site. Additionally, seven further heritage

assets relate to post-medieval and modern occupation of the Utilities site. This

includes the route of the Norfolk Railway (Site 97), which is also crossed by the

Access Road Development Area.

11.3.5 Also in the vicinity of the Access Road Development Area, the HER records the

location of a former river channel and a possible track (identified in boreholes taken

just south of the River Wensum), a timber yard (Site 310), depicted on 20th century

maps, and the 19th century Trowse Pumping Station (Site 124). Additionally the

Access Road Development Area would cross the north end of the Trowse Millgate

Conservation Area (Site 1700) and join the existing highway network at the

northern boundary of Trowse with Newton Conservation Area (Site 1710), a

settlement of Saxon origin.

11.3.6 Data for designated heritage assets was downloaded from HE in January 2015,

and designated heritage assets within 2 km of the Utilities site (excluding the

Access Road Development Area), have been identified (Figure 11.2a and Appendix

11.2). No designated assets are located within the boundary of the Proposed

Development.

11.3.7 Twenty Scheduled Monuments are located within 2 km of the Utilities site, the

closest being the remains of Carrow Abbey (Site 1016), c. 300 m to the south-west.

11.3.8 Forty-nine Grade I Listed Buildings stand within 2 km of the Utilities site, the

majority of which, relate to the historic medieval and early post-medieval city of

Norwich (including Norwich Castle and Norwich Cathedral). St Andrew’s Church,

Trowse (Site 1029), located c.800 m south of the Utilities site, is also Grade I

Listed.

11.3.9 There are 107 Grade II* Listed Buildings within 2 km of the Utilities site, the

majority of which stand within Norwich city centre, although others are located

north-east of the Utilities site within the core of Thorpe St Andrew. Further Grade II*

Listed Buildings stand to the south-west within the Conservation Area of

Bracondale (Site 1701).

11.3.10 There are 520 Grade II Listed Buildings within 2 km of the Utilities site; the majority

are, again, located within the core of Norwich, although a cluster of Grade II Listed

Buildings stand west of the Utilities site at Cozens Road, Hardy Road and Railway

Cottages (Sites 1073, 1074, 1370, 1374, 1531 & 1662).


11.3.11 The scoping opinion from Norwich City Council also indicated the presence of a

Locally Listed Building, the Gothic Works (Site 1711), to the immediate west of the

Utilities site.

11.3.12 The Utilities site itself does not fall within a Conservation Area. In total, ten

Conservation Areas are located within 2 km of the Utilities site, namely:

the City Centre (Site 1702);

St Matthew’s (Site 1703);

Thorpe Hamlet (Site 1705);

Thorpe Ridge (Site 1707);

Newmarket Road (Site 1706);

Bracondale (Site 1701);

Trowse Millgate (Site 1700);

Old Lakenham (Site 1704);

Trowse with Newton (Site 1710); and

Thorpe St Andrew (Site 1708/1709).

11.3.13 Three Registered Parks and Gardens lie within 2 km of the Utilities site: the Grade

II Listed Crown Point (Site 1697) to the south, the Grade II* Listed Rosary

Cemetery (Site 1698) and the Grade II Listed Chapelfield Gardens (Site 1699) to

the west.

11.3.14 No Registered Historic Battlefield’s fall within 2 km of the Utilities site.

Prehistoric (500,000 BC – AD 43)

11.3.15 HER data indicates the presence of 34 heritage assets of Prehistoric, or Prehistoric

to later date, within 1 km of the Utilities site. None of these lie within the Utilities site

itself. The Desk-Based Assessment undertaken by CgMs32 notes that Palaeolithic

remains in the vicinity of the Utilities site include finds of flint artefacts and

mammoth remains of Palaeolithic date (Sites 23 & 24) which were uncovered

during works at the Carrow Works. These finds were recovered from river terrace

deposits of sand and gravel c.200-400 m to the south-west of the Utilities site.

Additionally, a flint cleaver of Neolithic or Palaeolithic date has been recovered to

the south-east of the Proposed Development (Site 325). There are additional

32

Appendix 11.6 - CgMS Consulting (2011). Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, Norwich Powerhouse. Unpublished report.


findspots within 1 km of potential Palaeolithic artefacts (Sites 57, 100, 135, 151 &

154).

11.3.16 The HER also identifies a location on the banks of the River Wensum, near the

Access Road Development Area, where borehole survey has identified early river

terrace gravels that may represent the position of the River Wensum prior to

canalisation (Site 310). Additionally, CgMs note that:

“archaeological investigations at Norwich City football ground, c. 500 m west of the

study site, (Site 161) revealed a late Upper Palaeolithic flint scatter situated on a

sand bar or gravel island within the floodplain of the Wensum. Such sand bars or

islands were well suited to prehistoric occupation in that they allowed exploitation of

diverse habitats”.33

11.3.17 It was speculated that similar sand bars might exist within the Utilities site, which

would have potential to contain early prehistoric remains. Early prehistoric hunter

gather sites, such as the football ground site at Carrow Road, are often found on

raised dry ground within flood plains.

11.3.18 Both the data recorded in the CgMs assessment34 and HER data received for this

assessment indicates that Mesolithic activity in the immediate vicinity of the Utilities

site was limited to finds of worked flint (Sites 21, 22, 100, 151, 161 & 176). This

material is widely spread but does not indicate a clear focus of Mesolithic activity in

the area.

11.3.19 CgMs noted that analysis of peat deposits from a riverside development site,

located c.500 m west of the Utilities site (Site 135), indicated that the area was

heavily wooded in the late Mesolithic period. They noted that:

“by the Neolithic this had given way to a more open environment, possibly as a

result of increased agricultural development in the area and during the Bronze Age

the environment became progressively more open.”35

11.3.20 Artefacts of both Neolithic and Bronze Age date have been recovered from within 1

km of the Utilities site, but none have been identified within the Utilities site itself.

From the Neolithic there are isolated finds of flint artefacts (Sites 25, 27, 28, 70, 80,

33

Appendix 11.6 - CgMS Consulting (2011). Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, Norwich Powerhouse, 12. Unpublished report. 34

Appendix 11.6 - CgMS Consulting (2011). Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, Norwich Powerhouse. Unpublished report. 35

Appendix 11.6 - CgMS Consulting (2011). Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, Norwich Powerhouse, 12. Unpublished report.


145, 149 & 176) and larger collections of material generally from rural areas where

fieldwalking has been undertaken (Sites 102, 151 & 159). Neolithic and Bronze Age

material including prehistoric pits and post-holes, have also been recovered from

the Norwich City football ground excavations (Site 161), whilst Neolithic to Bronze

Age flint artefacts were recovered from archaeological works at St Peter

Southgate’s Church (Site 46), to the west of the Utilities site. A watching brief on a

riverside development (Site 135) identified Early Neolithic worked flints and Bronze

Age pottery sherds.

11.3.21 Archaeological works at Harvey Lane (Site 150), to the north-east of the Utilities

site, identified Bronze Age ditches and pits and an alignment of post-holes which

possibly represent a building. To the west of the Utilities site a Bronze Age or Early

Saxon barrow is recorded (Site 170). Also to the west of the Utilities site at Gas Hill,

a pre-Roman settlement and/or burial is recorded (Site 31). Nearby, in 1826, a pot

containing cremated human remains, likely a Bronze Age cremation (Site 13), was

recovered. To the south-east of the Utilities site, cropmarks of linear features and

possible pits may relate to field boundaries and possible trackways (Site 229). They

are located in an area from which a substantial number of Neolithic and late

prehistoric flint tools have been recovered, and thus may be of prehistoric origin.

11.3.22 A Bronze Age spear head (Site 30) was recovered during the dredging of the Yare,

c.400 m south of the Utilities site. Deposition of high value artefacts within water

and wetlands is a recognised phenomenon of late prehistoric culture. Further finds

of Bronze Age metalwork are recorded by the HER (Sites 29, 81), and include a

Late Bronze Age socketed axehead (Site 172) recovered from Thorpe, to the north-

west.

11.3.23 There is no evidence for Iron Age activity within the Utilities site. However, an Iron

Age coin was recovered from the Norwich City football ground excavations (Site

161) and flint of potentially Iron Age date has been recovered to the south-east of

the Utilities site. At Harvey Lane (Site 82), to the north of the Utilities site, an iron

spearhead recovered during construction works probably dated to the Iron Age.

11.3.24 As the confluence of the Yare and the Wensum lies on the Utilities site’s southern

boundary, there is potential for early prehistoric artefact scatters to be located on

spurs of sand or gravel, or for later prehistoric metalwork to be recovered from

palaeochannel fills that may exist within the Utilities site. Additionally, alluvial


deposits have a potential to contain palaeoenvironmental evidence relating to

environmental conditions and land use in the prehistoric period.

11.3.25 The prehistoric Scheduled Monument of ‘Woodhenge’, Arminghall (Site 1008), and

the Scheduled Arminghall (Site 1005), which was identified on aerial photographs,

and is also possibly of prehistoric date, are located within 2 km of the Utilities site,

south of Trowse with Newton Conservation Area.

Roman (AD43 – AD410)

11.3.26 The HER records an area of Roman remains in the south of the Utilities site (Site

33). Roman artefacts including pottery, roof tile, animal bone and part of a human

skull were discovered on the north bank of the Yare, within the Utilities site, in

1961. Located at the considerable depth of approximately 4.9 m below the top of

the river bank, finds included a timber platform. This was interpreted as a possible

wharf or bridge approach; the discovery of roof tile suggests that a Roman building

may have been located in close proximity to the artefacts. There is therefore

potential for Roman remains to survive, although their extent may be limited given

the previous extent of disturbance on-site

11.3.27 The HER records a further 17 sites of Roman date within 1 km of the Utilities site,

as well as numerous further records with some evidence for Roman occupation.

These are typically find spots (Sites 32, 34-41, 83-84, 86, 100-101, 106, 142, 144,

151, 153-154, 159, 171, 188), and include numerous coins, notably the metal

detecting discovery of a Roman sestertius on the bank of the River Yare just

beyond the eastern end of the Utilities site. These finds have frequently come

about as a result of fieldwalking or metal detecting.

11.3.28 The CgMs report noted:

“a marked concentration of records of Roman remains from the slightly higher

ground to the north and north-east of the study site...No actual features are

recorded as being found in connection with these remains although the clustering

of records in the area suggest some form of settlement activity in the vicinity”.36

11.3.29 A possible Roman settlement (Site 304) is recorded to the north of Thorpe Road,

where finds include pottery and coins, cremations, burials and other archaeological

features of Roman date. The possible settlement is located around the point where

36



the projected line of a Roman road leading south from Brampton Roman town

would have met the River Yare. Possible Roman roads in the vicinity include the

‘Yermouthe Way’ (Site 88). Also to the north-east, cropmarks of an undated

possible curvilinear enclosure and linear features may relate to Roman features.

11.3.30 To the north of the Proposed Development, at Harvey Lane (Site 82), work in the

19th century recovered stones, burnt earth, pottery sherds, amphora fragments,

copper alloy shield fragments, iron spearheads, Roman coins and a number of

human burials of Roman or Early Saxon date. Near to this site, excavation in 1999

at The Oaks (Site 150) identified a pit and ditch that appeared to date to the Roman

period. A series of shallow gullies, pits and an oven of early Roman date may have

represented small agricultural enclosures.

11.3.31 Also north of the Utilities site, construction work in 1950 disturbed at least two

cremated burials (Site 42) with pottery, coins, a bead, mirror, pin and brooch. The

finds indicated that the burial dated to around AD 70, though a Bronze Age scraper

was also found.

11.3.32 Roman pottery recovered from the archaeological excavation at Norwich City

football ground (Site 161) is not linked to any firmly associated features.

11.3.33 Due to the presence of the possible wharf or bridge approach within the Utilities

site, and the possible presence of Roman settlement to the north, there is a

relatively high potential for localised Roman remains to exist within the Utilities site.

Saxon and Medieval (AD410 – AD 1485)

11.3.34 There are no recorded heritage assets of Saxon or medieval date within the

boundary of the Proposed Development. Given the location of the Utilities site on a

flood plain, away from the historic core of settlement in Norwich and Thorpe, it is

likely that the area was in agricultural use, possibly for grazing, during this period,

leading to a relatively low potential for Saxon or medieval remains to be

encountered. Given the Utilities site’s position on the river bank there is also a

potential for structures such as fish weirs, traps and staithes to survive. The Utilities

site was likely included in the medieval Manor associated with Thorpe Hall, which

was:


”primarily a farm run by the bishop [of Norwich]’s bailiff to provide income and

produce for the bishop and his household”.37

11.3.35 Saxon settlement is recorded within 1 km of the Utilities site at Norwich38 (Site

1702) to the north-west, at Thorpe St Andrew39 (Site 1709) to the north-east, and at

Trowse with Newton (Saxon Treus) (Site 1710) to the south40. Three heritage

assets recorded on the Norfolk HER are of specifically Saxon date, whilst several

others contain Saxon evidence. Saxon evidence includes findspots of Saxon

metalwork and pottery (Sites 51, 106, 121, 135, 144, 152 & 188). An iron

spearhead recovered near the church at Trowse with Newton (Site 77), with a

deposit of vivianite indicating that bones had been buried nearby, may have

derived from a Late Saxon burial. To the north of the Utilities site, at Harvey Lane

(Site 82) work in the 19th century recovered Saxon finds and human burials of

Roman or Saxon date. To the west, at King Street, Norwich (Site 6) a section dug

across the line of the street identified a succession of cobbled surfaces over a layer

of gravel that contained 13th century pottery. Late Saxon and early medieval pottery

was found in the upper levels. At 183-189 King Street (Site 9) trial excavation

identified evidence of Late Saxon and Medieval date.

11.3.36 There are numerous records of Saxon and Medieval ecclesiastical sites within 1 km

of the Utilities site, including the sites of St Clement at Conesford's Church (Site

19), St Olave’s Chapel on King Street, Norwich (Site 44), and St Etheldreda's

Church on the same street (Site 43), as well as St Edward's Church, Argyll Street

(Site 45), St Nicholas' Church, Bracondale (Site 47) and St James' Church, Carrow

(Site 311).

11.3.37 Medieval remains within 1 km of the Utilities site are plentiful, in particular within

Norwich to the west. Some 300 m to the south-west of the Utilities site, within the

Conservation Area of Bracondale, is the Scheduled Carrow Abbey (Site 11). The

ruined medieval element of this Benedictine nunnery, Carrow Priory (Site 18),

which was founded in the 12th century, is Scheduled (Site 1016), whilst Carrow

Abbey, an early 16th-century prioress' house (Site 1343), is a Grade I Listed

Building. This has long been identified as the site of a medieval hospital (Site 313)

and a possible medieval gatehouse is also recorded (Site 314).

37

Nuthall, T. (2014). Thorpe St Andrew – a Revised History, 16. 38

Norwich City Council (2007). Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal. 39

Broadland District Council (2007). Thorpe St Andrew Character Statement. 40

South Norfolk Council (2011). Trowse with Newton Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan.


11.3.38 In Thorpe St Andrew, to the east of the Utilities site, the Grade II* Listed ruined

remains of the 15th/16th century old Church of St Andrew survive (Site 64/1191).

Thorpe Old Hall (Site 65/1306), also Grade II* Listed was the town house of Sir

Edward Paston who died in 1630. The Old Hall stands on one corner of a 14th

century courtyard house – a chapel (dated to 1380) remained until the 1930s. The

complex is said to have belonged to the bishop of Norwich in the 12th century.

11.3.39 In Trowse with Newton, St Andrew’s Church (Site 79/1029) retains 13th century

elements.

11.3.40 The Listed remains of Trowse Newton Hall (Site 85/1030) are located c. 400 m

south-east of the Utilities site within Crown Point Registered Park and Garden.

11.3.41 The HER records numerous medieval findspots within 1 km of the Utilities site

(Sites 3, 4, 7, 16, 55-56, 99, 104, 106, 140, 143-144, 148, 151, 153, 154, 159, 166,

188, 315 & 324). Archaeological fieldwork has encountered medieval remains at

numerous locations, in particular within Norwich, including 174 King Street (Site

224), where a watching brief revealed a large pit containing a variety of medieval

craft waste products, and 258 King Street (Site 223) where late medieval quarrying

activity was encountered. At the Norwich City football ground excavations (Site

161), medieval (and post-medieval) ditches were recorded. At Read’s Flour Mill

(Site 177) archaeological evaluation in 2003 revealed a complex series of deposits

ranging from at least the Norman period onwards, with the construction of a

masonry building, possibly a merchant's house. Evaluation in the same area (Site

134) in 1997 identified activity from the Late Saxon, Norman and later periods.

11.3.42 To the south of the Utilities site, parallel linear bank and ditch features, visible as

slight earthworks on land to the north of Whitlingham Lane, Trowse with Newton

(Site 235), may represent former ridge and furrow, or drainage features, on land

sloping towards the River Yare. Earthwork ditches and/or drains of uncertain date

and significance are also visible on aerial photographs to the south of the River

Yare at Trowse Newton (Site 279).

11.3.43 Scheduled medieval ecclesiastical sites within 2 km of the Utilities site include

Remains of St Leonard's Priory (Site 15/1001), which was founded around 1094, in

order to provide temporary accommodation for the monks whilst Norwich Cathedral

was being built; Bishop's Palace Gate (Site 1014); Bishop Salmon's porch (Site

1015) and Dominican Friary (Site 1017). Norwich Cathedral (Site 1125) itself is a


Grade I Listed Building of Norman origin41. Within Norwich further medieval

Scheduled monuments include Norwich Castle (Site 1018) and the extensive City

Walls and Towers (Site 17/1009), the latter originating in the mid 13th century42.

Post-Medieval and Modern (1485 – Present)

11.3.44 The majority of the HER records within 1 km of the Utilities site relate to post-

medieval and modern settlement. These records are commonly related to domestic

occupation, with industrial and commercial buildings indicating the development of

Norwich and the wider area, in particular from the late 19th century onwards.

11.3.45 Notable 19th century standing buildings located in close proximity to the Utilities site

include the Gothic Works (Site 190/1711), which is Locally Listed. This is a large

engineering factory, which dates from after 1883. Constructed of brick with a

curtain wall formed with towers, battlements and false machicolations, it was a fine

example of multicoloured patterned brickwork until the 1980s when it was coated

with wallshield paint.

11.3.46 Nearby is a group of Listed Buildings at Railway Cottages (Sites 108-113),

including 1-5 and 6-11 Railway Cottages (Sites 112/1531 & 113/1074); 10 Hardy

Road/Ebenezer (Site 111/1073); 63-79 Cozens Road (Site 108/1370); 2 and 4

Hardy Road (Site 109/1662), and 6 and 8 Hardy Road (Site 110/1374). These were

former railways workers' cottages built in 1847 by Grissell & Peto,

builders/architects to the Norfolk Railway Company. Together, the Railway

Cottages form a unique group of planned workers dwellings in Norwich City,

arranged around a roughly triangular common drying yard paved with flint and

cobbles.

11.3.47 In close proximity to the Access Road Development Area is an early 20th century

Grade II Listed bottle kiln (possibly an incinerator) (Site 129/1460).

11.3.48 Also notable is the Registered Park and Garden of Crown Point (Site 1697),

located across the river to the south of the Utilities site within Trowse with Newton

parish. The estate around Trowse Newton was purchased by the Money family

towards the end of the 17th century. John Money, in 1784, built himself a new

house on the site which he called Crown Point, surrounding the house with a small

park. By the time he died in 1817, a map shows that his house was surrounded by

41

Norwich City Council (2007). Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal, 6. 42

Norwich City Council (2007). Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal, 6.


a c.31 ha park with a large lawn to the south and a new walled kitchen garden

linked by woodland walks to the house. Colonel Archibald Money planted Long

Wood along the ridge north of Crown Point and extended the park as far as Trowse

Newton Hall to the north and Whitlingham White House to the east. In 1872 the

estate was purchased by the local businessman J J Colman. The estate stayed

within the Colman family although in 1955 they sold the house and its grounds

which became the Whitlingham Hospital (Site 89/1687 & 1689-1690). During the

1980s the Norwich southern bypass was built, cutting off a section of park,

including the walled garden, south drive and lodge from the main body of the

park.43

11.3.49 There are numerous structures relating to World War II within 1 km of the Utilities

site. The eastward expansion of Norwich’s industrial quarter along the banks of the

Wensum and the absorption of the Domesday village of Thorpe Saint Andrew to

the north into a suburb of the city has much altered the area. Through the 20th

century the Utilities site changes from an undeveloped rural area to the location of

widespread industrial activity. This development is also indicated by cartographic

evidence.

11.3.50 A map of the area around Mousehold Heath, dated to c.1600 (not illustrated) shows

the Utilities site to be undeveloped, and labelled’ Thorpe Meadows’44. A map and

survey of the owners along the riverbank, dated c.176745 (not illustrated) lacks

detail but indicates that plots in the vicinity of the Utilities site mainly belong to

Thomas Vere Esquire. An associated record of owners of land accords with this

map46, indicating that the west and east ends of the Utilities site were in the mid-to-

late 18th century owned by Thomas Vere, with plots on the riverside in the centre

occupied from west to east by the Parish of St John Madder Market; Glebe Land;

Thomas Vere; Mr Hardy; Thomas Vere; Mrs Mary [illegible] and Samuel Deeds,

gentleman.

11.3.51 The Old Enclosure map of Thorpe, dated to 180047 (Figure 11.3) provides greater

detail. The Utilities site comprises enclosed fields, many of which are long linear

plots running down to the riverside to the south. The owners of the plots include

‘Chute’, ‘Glebe’, ‘Dryns’, ‘Hardy’, and ‘Kerrison?’ (the latter being somewhat

43

National Heritage List for England website; NHLE (2015). List Entry: Crown Point, accessed at http://list.historicengland.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1001480 on 01/05/2015. 44

Norwich Records Office; NRO MS 4460 (c.1600). Mousehold Heath Showing Sheepwalks. 45

Norwich Records Office; NRO 16e/110 (1767). Plans and Surveys of River Wensum (Yare) and Owners. 46

Norwich Records Office; NRO 16e/109 (1820). Riparian Owners 1820. 47

Norwich Records Office; NRO BR/276/1/684 (1800). Thorpe. Plan of Thorpe Old Enclosure.

http://list.historicengland.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1001480


illegible). The boundaries running to the river may have also acted as drainage

features. The name ‘Chute’ may refer to Thomas Vere Chute, owner of the manor

of Thorpe St Andrew from 1790, who between 1802 and 1803 sold the estate to Sir

Roger Kerrison48. Thomas Vere, a mayor and MP for Norwich had held the manor

from 1751 – before this it had been held by various families (including that of the

Duke of Norfolk) following its seizure from the bishop of Norwich by Henry VIII in

153549.

11.3.52 In 1825 the Utilities site is also shown, on a plan of the Rivers Wensum and Yare50

(Figure 11.4), as occupied by undeveloped plots of ground, the majority being

linear and running down to the river. The linear inlet still present in the middle of the

Utilities site appears clearly on this plan. The owners of the land on the Utilities site

are identified as John Harvey and George Harvey, with an element to the north-

west shown as belonging to ‘Revd. James Brown as Minister of St Andrew’s,

Norwich’. To the south of the river land is owned by ‘Martineau’.

11.3.53 CgMs state that the 1838 Ordnance Survey one inch to the mile map (not

illustrated) shows no details of the fields within the Utilities site51 though the small

inlet is also visible on this map. The Norfolk Railway, elements of which form the

northern and western boundary of the Utilities site, was opened in 1844 (Site 97).

The line of the railway would be crossed by the utilities connection to the Britvic

site. In 186352 an altered apportionment (not illustrated) indicates change in

ownership of several of the plots on the Utilities site (see Figure 11.6 for a later

indication of the plots). Plots 429 and 435-537 appear to be given over to the Revd.

Herring, as a rector’s glebe.

11.3.54 The 1886 Ordnance Survey (O.S.) map53 (Figure 11.5) shows the Utilities site

divided into open fields, generally larger in size than those on earlier maps and

largely undeveloped. The railway (Site 97) is indicated to the north and west. A

group of three buildings labelled ‘Boat houses’ is shown at the north end of the

inlet, whilst rectangular buildings are shown on the river bank at its south end. In

the south-west corner of the Utilities site a Timber Yard is present on 1886 1:2,500

48



Norwich Records Office; NRO MC 103/47 (1825). Plan of the Rivers Wensum and Yare from Norwich to Reedham. 51

Appendix 11.6 - CgMS Consulting (2011). Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, Norwich Powerhouse, 15. Unpublished report. 52

Norwich Records Office: NRO PD 228/55 (1863).Altered Apportionment of the Rent Charge in Lieu of Tithes on Certain Lans in the Parish of Thorpe Next Norwich. 53

Ordnance Survey; O.S. (1886). Norfolk Sheet LXIII.SE, 1:10,560.


mapping (not illustrated)54. On the southern side of the river, in the vicinity of the

Access Road Development Area through the Deal Ground, a Boat House and a

Timber Yard (Site 310) are indicated. Further south a number of buildings are

shown at Trowse (not illustrated on Figure 11.5), including a sewage works.

11.3.55 Trowse Pumping Station (Site 124) was constructed between 1865 and 1871 by

Bazalgette to pump sewage from the North and South Interceptor Sewers to

Whitlingham Sewage farm and also pumped into the adjacent river using three

beam engines. The system was abandoned when New Mills Station opened in

1899. The Pumping Station was modernised in 1910 when Whitlingham sewage

works replaced the sewage farm, and again in 1961.

11.3.56 A full description of the historic map evidence for the Access Road Development

Area can be found in the Deal Ground Environmental Impact Assessment55. In

short, it indicates the development of the railway to the west from the mid 1800s,

the development of industry along the river corridor to the north-west of the Access

Road Development Area from the time of the 1886 Ordnance Survey map

onwards, and the development of the timber yards (Site 310) into the 20th century.

11.3.57 An altered tithe apportionment map of 189256 (Figure 11.6) indicates a very similar

field layout to the OS map of 1886. Buildings (likely the boat houses) are again

shown at the north end of the inlet (three structures, including one apparently on an

islet) and at the south end two long rectangular structures are shown. The

apportionment labels fields and plots within the Utilities site from 427 to 434, 436

and 438 to 442. Plots 427 to 432 in the south-west of the Utilities site belong to

Jeremiah and James Colman, with Plots 427 and 430 forming timber yards in the

south-west corner of the Utilities site. At the south end of the inlet, boathouses and

plantations are present in Plot 432. The rest of the south-west of the Utilities site

contains arable and pasture fields. Plots 433 to 437, in and around the north-west

of the Utilities site, belong to the Great Eastern Railway Company, and comprise

meadow pasture. The east of the Utilities site (Plots 438-442) again is the property

of the Colmans, and comprises pasture.

54

Ordnance Survey; O.S. (1886). Norfolk, Sheet 63.016, 1:2,500. 55

Lanpro Services (2011. Proposed Redevelopment of Site to provide Mixed Residential/ Commercial Development at Deal Ground and Former May Gurney site, Trowse, Norwich. 56

Norwich Records Office; NRO DN/TA 596 (1892).Parish of Thorpe Next Norwich. Altered Apportionment with Plan.


11.3.58 The Ordnance Survey mapping of 190857 (Figure 11.7) indicates that the two long

boat house buildings at the southern end of the inlet had by this time been

removed, and had been replaced by a single small boat house structure. Two

buildings are now shown at the north end of the inlet. The western end of the

Utilities site is not marked as a timber yard although a boat house appears on a

field boundary/drain running down to the riverside. Timber yards (Site 310) with

associated buildings and rail tracks are shown on the south bank of the river, within

the Access Road Development Area. The Utilities site itself is essentially

undeveloped, including the area near Cremorne Lane, and remains unchanged on

the 1920 Ordnance Survey map58 (not illustrated).

11.3.59 CgMs notes that development within the Utilities site began in the mid 1920s with

the construction of the Thorpe Power Station59 (Site 290). A report by Ramboll60

indicates that this coal power station was constructed in 1922, and extended c.

1938. The Ramboll report notes that the original building had concrete pad

foundations (with its extension having piled foundations). Ancillary structures

included railway sidings.60 The riverside location of the power plant provided a

supply of water, and a means of transporting for coal, etc. There was a ready

railway connection and the power station stood on gravel resting on chalk61. The

1929 edition O.S. map (Figure 11.8) shows the original power station building with

associated railway sidings and two additional inlets from the river to its west. To the

south the timber yards (Site 310) and the sewage works (Site 124) are shown in

the vicinity of the Access Road Development Area. The area of the Utilities site

near Cremorne Lane (north of the railway) appears as allotment gardens.

11.3.60 The CgMs study62 summarises the early development of the Thorpe Power Station:

“The power station was officially opened in October 1926. Originally the station held

two 5000kw steam turbines powered by coal fired boilers...The station was built

from 550 tons of steel framework supporting concrete floored and walls faced in

china clay quartz. The large chimney was constructed during major extension work

to allow exhaust for the increased number of boilers. A culvert diverted water from

57

Ordnance Survey; O.S. (1908). Norfolk Sheet LXIII.SE, 1:10,560. 58


Appendix 11.6 - CgMS Consulting (2011). Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, Norwich Powerhouse, 15-16. Unpublished report. 60

Appendix 11.7 - Ramboll (2012). Norwich Powerhouse, Historic Information: Underground Obstructions, 13. Unpublished report. 61

Appendix 11.6 - CgMS Consulting (2011). Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, Norwich Powerhouse, 15-16. Unpublished report. 62



the River Wensum for cooling purposes. A spur line was constructed from the

L.N.E.R. line to supply coal and extract ash from the site. The station also had a

large telpher grabber suspended rail system to collect and distribute the coal fuel.

This provided a continuous rail loop across the length of the site from the ship

berths at each end to the coal stores and through the plant. …..Increasing demand

for electricity resulted in several stages of expansion of the power plant as is shown

by editions of the ordnance survey from 1929 onwards. These various phases of

construction would have caused considerable disturbance to any potential

archaeological deposits. Records relating to extensions constructed in 1937/38

refer to the boring of 350 reinforced concrete piles for the building extension and

new chimney, and the laying of 1,200 tons of concrete being poured to form a solid

mass for a turbo alternator foundation”.

11.3.61 Subsequent 20th century mapping records the gradual expansion of the power

station, the ‘Norwich Generating Station’, within the western part of the Utilities site.

The O.S. mapping of 193863 (not illustrated) illustrates the expansion eastwards of

the main power plant building, with ancillary structures including travelling cranes to

the west and east, a channel to the west of the power station (a circulating water

inlet64), and a series of small buildings, in particular to the north-east of the main

building. Apart from railway tracks leading towards the power station, much of the

Utilities site remained undeveloped, with allotment gardens to the west and empty

fields in the east of the Utilities site. The various boat houses are no longer

apparent on 1938 mapping, though the buildings and railway tracks of the Timber

Yard (Site 310) are present to the south of the river.

11.3.62 There are three HER records relating to possible Second World War activity in the

east of the Utilities site. These include a possible military structure with a blast wall,

identified from aerial photographs to the north of the river Yare (Site 236) and

possible practice trenches similarly identified further east (Site 237). However, the

latter trenches are also considered in the HER record to be potentially for some

fishing/transport use, and inspection of aerial photographs for this assessment

identified only drainage/boundary ditches in this area. Similarly, structures identified

from post-war aerial photographs near the location of the putative shelter appeared

to relate to a substation and the stockpiling of coal or ash rather than an air raid

shelter. Another potential air raid shelter (Site 252), described in the HER record as

63

Ordnance Survey; O.S. (1938). Norfolk Sheet LXIII.SE, 1:10,560; Norfolk Sheet 63/16, 1:2,500. 64

Appendix 11.7 - Appendix 11.7 - Ramboll (2012). Norwich Powerhouse, Historic Information: Underground Obstructions, 29. Unpublished report.


an earth-covered semi-sunken air raid shelter visible on aerial photographs, is

noted in the western corner of the Utilities site near the railway tracks and Gothic

Works. It is postulated that this feature may have provided shelter for staff of the

nearby industrial works. This feature is clearly visible in aerial photographs but its

true nature is unclear. Study of the Norwich Bomb Map65 (not illustrated) indicates

three locations in the west of the Utilities site, near this putative air raid shelter,

which were hit by bombs. These appear to be dated 18/3/43.

11.3.63 Mapping of 194766 (not illustrated) is very similar to that of 1938, showing no

significant alteration to the power station. However, the O.S. mapping of 195167

(Figure 11.9) appears to indicate that the footprint of the power station had altered,

no longer extending as far to the west as on previous maps. This mapping also

clearly shows such features as the travelling cranes to the west and east of the

power station, the channel to the south-west and a group of buildings and

structures to the north and east of the main building, including a pylon. The extent

of allotment gardens is apparent in the west of the Utilities site, as is the

undeveloped nature of the east of the Utilities site. Mapping of 195768 (not

illustrated) shows a similar layout of features within the Utilities site as in 1951.

11.3.64 The area of industrial development within the Utilities site was limited to the vicinity

of the main Thorpe Power Station and its ancillary structures until at least the late

1950s though later mapping, all reproduced in the Ramboll report69, indicates the

industrial development of the Utilities site70. Mapping of 195871 appears to show

that a round gas holder was being constructed by this date. This is the Cremorne

Lane Gasworks (Site 292) where, according to the HER, land was bought for the

expansion of the gas production industry in Norwich by 1919 though building work

did not begin until around 1961. The gas works appears on mapping of the

1960s727374 onwards (not illustrated), covering much of the area north and east of

the original Thorpe Power Station (though not the east end of the Utilities site). A

bridge was constructed over the railway towards Cremorne Lane, and the part of

65

Norwich Records Office; Norwich Records Office (2014). Norwich Bomb Map. 66



Ordnance Survey; O.S. (1957). Norfolk Sheets TG20NW & TG20NE, 1:10,560. 69

Appendix 11.7 - Ramboll (2012). Norwich Powerhouse, Historic Information: Underground Obstructions, Appendix D. Unpublished report 70

Appendix 11.7 - Ramboll (2012). Norwich Powerhouse, Historic Information: Underground Obstructions, Appendix D. Unpublished report. 71

Ordnance Survey; O.S. (1958). Sheet TG2407, 1:2,500. 72

Ordnance Survey; O.S. (1967). Sheet TG2408SE, 1:1,250. 73

Ordnance Survey; O.S. (1979). Sheet TG20NW, 1:10,000. 74

Ordnance Survey; O.S. (1971). Sheet TG20NE, 1:10,560.


the Utilities site north of the railway (formerly allotments) was overbuilt. Although

much of the gas works has now been demolished, the gas holder remains in-situ at

the time of writing.

11.3.65 Mapping of the 1970s75 also shows the development of the Trowse Power Station

(Site 291), which was built in 1964 to the west of the Thorpe steam power plant.

This was constructed from steel frame and brickwork and comprised two plant

buildings and an office. The two plant buildings housed gas turbines – hot exhaust

gas was expelled through chimneys. Four fuel tanks were located in a concrete

walled area in the north-west of the Utilities site.

11.3.66 The Trowse Power Station was taken out of service in 1995 and subsequently

demolished around 200076. Mapping of 198977 (not illustrated) indicates that the

Thorpe Power Station (Site 290) had been removed by that date, whilst in the

present day structures associated with the gas works and power generation are still

present in the north and centre of the Utilities site.

11.3.67 Ground Penetrating Radar survey has been undertaken over the footprints of the

Thorpe Power Station and the Trowse Power Station, as well as part of the

circulating water intake78. This noted that:

“The ground slabs of the former 1920’s power station and extension are likely to

have been removed but the foundations could still be present on site and form

obstructions. These are likely to consist of piled foundations as well as localised

concrete foundations”. 79

11.3.68 Further, it noted that:

“The 1960’s power station ground slab is still clearly seen on site and therefore

forms an obstruction. Varying thickness of 600-800mm thick reinforced concrete

slabs have been suggested by the GPR survey. It is not clear at this stage whether

75




Appendix 11.7 - Ramboll (2012). Norwich Powerhouse, Historic Information: Underground Obstructions, 32-33 & Appendix C. Unpublished report. 79

Appendix 11.7 - Ramboll (2012). Norwich Powerhouse, Historic Information: Underground Obstructions, 32. Unpublished report.


there are additional foundations below this slab but it could be a risk that piled

foundations are also present in some areas”.80

11.3.69 Additionally, geo-environmental Site Investigation (S.I.), involving boreholes and

test pits, was undertaken in 201281. This states that:

“[published] borehole logs show made ground materials to be present to between

1.0 and 1.7 m bgl [below ground level]”.82

11.3.70 Below this, the report notes the recorded presence of alluvium to approximately 4.5

m below ground level, with river terrace deposits below this to a depth of 9.7 m

below ground level. All of this overlies chalk. However, the works undertaken for

the 2012 report indicated that in the ‘Power Station Area’, made ground was

present to between 1.0 and 2.1 m below ground level in the Trowse Power Station

area, with a localised basement area having made ground to a depth of 5 m below

ground level, whilst made ground extended to a depth of 1.4 m and 2.8 m in the

vicinity of Thorpe Power Station (at least, as concrete prevented completion of

some investigations). In the ‘Network Rail Area’, in the north-west of the Utilities

site, made ground was encountered to a depth of between 0.8 and 2.1 m below

ground level, whilst in the ‘Gas Works Area’ in the north and east of the Utilities

site, made ground extended to between 1.3 m and over 3 m below ground level –

the full depth of such deposits was not identified in boreholes near the south centre

of the Utilities site, in the vicinity of the Roman bridge or wharf (Site 33).83

11.3.71 The utilities connections to the Britvic Site would lead towards the unlisted eastern

side of the Carrow Works industrial complex (Site 126), elements of which were

constructed from 1856 onwards by the Colman family.

11.3.72 The Utilities site has low potential to contain Post-Medieval features – the boat

houses formerly present within the Utilities site are likely to have been cleared prior

to or during construction works associated with the 20th century industrial

structures. There is a high potential for remains relating to these 20th century

industrial structures (Sites 290-292), as well as moderate potential for the survival

of remains relating to the Second World War (Sites 236, 237 and in particular 252).

80


Delta-Simons environmental consultants (2012). Preliminary Geo-Environmental Assessment, Norwich Powerhouse. Unpublished report. 82

Delta-Simons environmental consultants (2012). Preliminary Geo-Environmental Assessment, Norwich Powerhouse, 3. Unpublished report. 83

Delta-Simons environmental consultants (2012). Preliminary Geo-Environmental Assessment, Norwich Powerhouse, 10-12. Unpublished report.


However, the 20th century industrial structures are likely to have caused

considerable disturbance to earlier deposits, and the 20th century heritage assets

themselves are of little Cultural Heritage Importance.

Aerial Photographic Evidence

11.3.73 Aerial Photographic evidence ranging from 1946 to the present day was assessed

through visits to the Historic England archive at Swindon and the Norfolk Air Photo

Library. In general, the aerial photographs of the Norwich site viewed at Swindon

demonstrate the development that has occurred within and in the vicinity of the

Utilities site. The power stations and gasworks, and associated infrastructure, coal

storage area, pylon, chimneys, etc. are all apparent. Within the Utilities site, a

possible embankment along the River Yare, is visible84. This appears to delimit the

High Water Mark, as apparent on O.S. mapping of 1951 (Figure 11.9) and may

represent an attempt to alleviate flooding.

11.3.74 The images from the Norfolk Air Photo Library include both vertical and oblique

images, and again mainly show the development of industry across the Utilities

site. A vertical image from 194685 shows various structures apparent on the

mapping of 1951 (Figure 11.9) and connected to Thorpe Power Station, including

the main building and the travelling cranes to the west and east. Rail tracks are

also apparent leading into the power station area, including a rail track running

towards the buildings north-east of the main building, from the north (a line marked

as a channel on mapping). A small building in the south-west corner of the Utilities

site may be connected to the putative air raid shelter in this area (Site 252), or to

the nearby railway. A rectangular enclosure to the east of the main building (on the

west bank of the main inlet from the river) is surrounded by tall walls – this may be

the putative blast wall associated with an air raid shelter (Site 236), but appears to

be a boundary feature for an electricity sub-station associated with the power

station.

11.3.75 Oblique images from 194786 show a large building, likely part of the timber yards, to

the south of the river at the north end of the Access Road Development Area.

Thorpe Power Station is also visible, within the Utilities site, on images of the same

84

RAF (1945). RAF Sortie RAF/106G/UK/1007, Library No.133, Frame 6399, dated 15/11/1945. 85

Norfolk Air Photo Library (1946). Norfolk Air Photo Library Reference TG20/TG2407/A, Sortie 106G/UK/1606, Frame 2063, dated 27/06/1946. 86

Norfolk Air Photo Library (1947). Norfolk Air Photo Library Reference TG2406/AFP to /AFU, Sortie CPE/UK/2328, Frames 396-399, dated 27/09/1947.


date87. These clearly show the two chimneys of the power station, and the

allotments in the areas surrounding it. An area of piled material to the west of the

power station and its travelling crane is apparently a stockpile, likely of coal. To the

east of the power station a pylon is visible, as well as a substation area, which

appears as a square enclosure to the north-east of the power station on mapping of

1951 (Figure 11.9). Also in 1947, the linear circulating water inlet is visible to the

west of the power station and south of the likely coal pile88. The east of the Utilities

site is undeveloped open ground, and the line of the high water mark along the

river is apparent on the riverside. Again, in 1947, oblique images89 show a small

structure to the north of the coal pile, and a possible coal (or ash) pile near the

substation (Appendix 11.4; Plate 1), as well as small mounds (possible

disturbance) around the pylon.

11.3.76 Oblique images from 198590 show the structures of the gas works and the Trowse

Power Station in detail. Features associated with the gasworks include the gas

holder and rectangular buildings, several of which extend onto the east side of the

inlet in the centre of the Utilities site. However, no structures are present in the east

of the Utilities site, including in an area where previous buildings (visible on

mapping of the 1970s) have been cleared. The former location of Thorpe Power

Station also appears as cleared open ground, and the Trowse Power Station is

visible, with ancillary structures including a group of four cylindrical fuel holders to

the north-west, and a circular structure within a square-walled area to the east. An

image of 1995 indicates that the boundary of the substation area has extended

slightly southwards towards the pylons91, the area around the pylons appearing

wooded. Structures are also apparent along the railway line on the north-western

edge of the Utilities site. Another 1995 image92 shows three rectangular marks in

the east of the Utilities site, likely parchmarks representing the footings of gas

works buildings present on 1970s mapping and since demolished. An undated

image shows the Trowse Power Station in the 1980s or 1990s (Appendix 11.4;

87

Norfolk Air Photo Library (1947). Norfolk Air Photo Library Reference TG2407/ACZ to /ADH, Sortie CPE/UK/2328, Frames 389-392, dated 27/09/1947. 88

Norfolk Air Photo Library (1947). Norfolk Air Photo Library Reference TG2408/P, Sortie CPE/UK/2328, Frame 325, dated 27/09/1947. 89

Norfolk Air Photo Library (1947). Norfolk Air Photo Library Reference TG2508/AU - /AZ & /ABA – ABD. Sortie CPE/UK/2328, Frames 326 - 330, dated 27/09/1947. 90

Norfolk Air Photo Library (1985). Norfolk Air Photo Library Reference TG2407/A/AYQ5 - /A/AYQ9 & TG2407/G/AYQ11 & TG2407/J/AYQ13 - /K/AYQ14. Flight No. 163, dated 08/07/1985. 91

Norfolk Air Photo Library (1995). Norfolk Air Photo Library Reference TG2407/ABQ/HHR7. Flight No. 356, dated 02/08/1995. 92

Norfolk Air Photo Library (1995). Norfolk Air Photo Library Reference TG2407/ACM/HHR9. Flight No. 356, dated 02/08/1995.


Plate 2) clearly showing open areas following the demolition of Thorpe Power

Station and buildings in the east of the Utilities site.

Site Walkover

11.3.77 A walkover of the Proposed Development, including the Access Road Development

Area, was undertaken on 21st and 22nd April 2015. It was possible to visit the

location of the former Trowse Power Station and the gas works, as well as the

undeveloped east of the Utilities site, but the existing electricity substation could not

be entered. The substation compound includes much of the former location of

Thorpe Power Station; it could be seen through perimeter fencing that no

upstanding remains of the power station were present. In the west of the Utilities

site, much of the area was found to be covered by concrete surfaces (Appendix

11.4; Plate 3) related to the Trowse Power Station. It is clear that the demolition of

both the Trowse and Thorpe Power Stations has left concrete surfaces, manholes

and sunken structures. In the south-west of the Utilities site a concrete-lined water

inlet, related to the Thorpe Power Station was visible (Appendix 11.4; Plate 4).

Nearby is an infilled area, which could not be closely approached, where a pump

house was formerly present (Appendix 11.4; Plate 5). As noted above, the

substation area could not be closely approached, but it was seen to be covered by

a mixture of hardstanding, concrete surfaces and plant growth, as well as modern

buildings (Appendix 11.4; Plate 6). In the north-west corner of the Utilities site an

area utilised by Network Rail is still in use, with a large area given over to car

parking.

11.3.78 A small area north of the railway line, at Cremorne Lane, is at present under tarmac

and is utilised for storage of materials. To the south of the railway the gasholder is

still present in an area also occupied by modern working buildings and tarmac

surfaces (Appendix 11.4; Plate 7). To the east of the inlet that crosses the centre of

the Utilities site is a large area of concrete surfaces, which relate to demolished

elements of the gas works (Appendix 11.4; Plate 8). Nearby, the approximate

location of the Roman wharf or bridge on the riverside is marked by a gas pipeline

outlet, one of several small late 20th century structures and buildings in the east of

the Utilities site (Appendix 11.4; Plate 9). There are numerous areas of tarmac and

concrete hardstanding (commonly covered by a thin layer of soil and plant growth),

as well as piles of rubble (Appendix 11.4; Plate 10). The east of the Utilities site

was, in places, crossed by fences and was generally covered in dense tree and

plant growth, limiting survey, though a possible trackway, marked in places by


broken tarmac and of relatively recent date, was discernible leading towards the

north-east of the Utilities site (Appendix 11.4; Plate 11). No evidence was apparent

within the Utilities site of features related to the Second World War.

11.3.79 The Access Road Development Area crosses the Deal Ground and May Gurney

sites. Survey of the proposed route identified concrete surfaces and upstanding

structures likely related to the former timber yards (Site 310). The north end of the

Deal Ground was found to contain a brick structure likely associated with the timber

yards (Appendix 11.4; Plate 12) whilst a Listed bottle kiln (Site 129/1460) was seen

to the east (Appendix 11.4; Plate 13). The river bank near the location of the

proposed bridge over the River Wensum was largely covered by hardstanding

(Appendix 11.4; Plate 14). There is a large area of overgrown ground, with no

archaeological features visible, to the south. The May Gurney Site is largely under

modern surfaces and buildings.

Archaeological Evaluation

11.3.80 Previously archaeological evaluation has been undertaken at Deal Ground, in order

to inform the (now consented) planning application at that site. The evaluation

comprised a geophysical survey and window sampling exercise.

11.3.81 Geophysical survey was undertaken through electrical resistivity tomography.

Several constraints, including overgrowth, a high water table and extensive

deposits of building rubble, meant that the survey was unable to acquire any useful

data about deep sedimentary deposits. The survey was eventually discontinued.93

11.3.82 The window sampling exercise included deposits recovered from five boreholes.

The boreholes were taken within 60m of the River Wensum and spaced over 10m

apart on a grid. The boreholes indicated modern deposits, including sand, gravel

and chalk make-up, to a depth of between 1.5m and 2m. Beneath the modern

deposits were 2m of peat, organic muds and silts. Peat and organic muds have

developed in part with a water meadow and some may have accumulated as part

of a reed swamp. Below the organic deposits was c.1m of grey sands and flint

gravel, suggesting a position at the bottom of a river channel. The assessment

indicated that the sharp switch between organics and gravels may have resulted

from a sudden change in the course of the river, such as would have resulted from

canalisation. Fractured flints were encountered in two boreholes but there was

93

ArcheoPhysica Ltd 2011 Deal Ground, Norwich, Norfolk Geophysical Survey Report DGN111, 1


‘nothing to suggest that these were deliberately struck’94. Following the results of

the geophysical survey and the window sampling exercise, Norfolk County Council

Historic Environment Services advised that no further work was required.

11.3.83 Within the Proposed Development boundaries, Ground Penetrating Radar survey

and S.I. works have identified that much of the Utilities site has been disturbed to a

great depth, with areas of made ground and contamination. This limits the potential

survival of archaeological remains, though localised survival can be expected, in

particular in the east of the Utilities site, which appears to have remained relatively

undisturbed.

11.3.84 As stated in Section 11.2 above, an archaeological evaluation is currently being

undertaken at the Utilities site. Details of the results of these works will be

evaluated once the investigation has been completed.

Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Importance

11.3.85 The Cultural Heritage Importance of the heritage assets recorded within the

boundary of the Proposed Development, including the Access Road Development

Area and the service trench connection to the Britvic site, has been classified

according to the method shown in Table 11.2 and the results are shown in Table

11.9 below.

Table 11.9: Importance of Heritage Assets

Site No.

Site Name Status Description Cultural Heritage Importance

33 Roman occupation and possible wharf, north bank of River Yare

Not designated Bridge; Wharf; Settlement

Regional

97 Norfolk Railway (Yarmouth, Norwich and Brandon)

Not designated Railway Negligible

124 Trowse Pumping Station, Bracondale/Trowse Millgate

Not designated Sewage Pumping Station

Local

126 Carrow Works Not designated Factory; Mill Negligible

236 Possible World War Two military structure

Not designated Possible Military Site

Negligible

237 Rectilinear ditches, possible practice or slit trenches

Not designated Possible Military Site

Negligible

252 World War Two air raid shelter

Not designated Air Raid Shelter

Negligible

94

nps archaeology 2011 Archaeological Analysis of Window Samples at Deal Ground and May Gurney, Trowse, Norwich.


Site No.

Site Name Status Description Cultural Heritage Importance

290 Site of Thorpe Power Station

Not designated Power Station Negligible

291 Site of Trowse Power Station

Not designated Power Station Negligible

292 Cremorne Lane Gas Works

Not designated Gas Works Negligible

310 Site of former river channel, possible track, and timber yard

Not designated Palaeochannel; Track (Possible); Timber Yard

Local

1700 Trowse Millgate Conservation Area

Saxon and later settlement

Regional

1710 Trowse with Newton Conservation Area

Post-medieval settlement

Regional

11.3.86 The Access Route development area crosses the north side of Trowse Millgate

Conservation Area (Site 1700), and commences on the northern boundary of

Trowse with Newton Conservation Area. These Conservation Areas are judged to

be of Regional Cultural Heritage Importance. The Roman occupation evidence

including a possible wharf or bridge on the north bank of the River Yare (Site 33)

would represent an important asset for the understanding of the development of

Norfolk in the Roman period. Whilst any surviving remains are likely to have been

disturbed by previous groundworks (not least the activity that led to their first

recording in 1961), this heritage asset is judged to be of potentially Regional

Importance.

11.3.87 The sites of Thorpe Power Station (Site 290), Trowse Power Station (Site 291) and

Cremorne Lane Gas Works (Site 292) represent the growth of industry during the

20th century on the edge of Norwich. However, all three sites have been extensively

disturbed, through demolition, and each is judged to be of no more than Negligible

Importance.

11.3.88 Similarly the Trowse Pumping Station has the ability to inform regarding the

development of public utilities in the 19th and 20th century. As it remains in relatively

good condition, it is of potential Local Importance. The site of a timber yard (and

potential remains of a post-medieval track and an early palaeochannel) on the

south side of the river (Site 310) is judged to be of at most Local Importance,

largely due to its potential for the survival of palaeoenvironmental evidence.

11.3.89 The elements of the Norfolk Railway (Site 97) in proximity to the Proposed

Development represent a site of common form and of at most Negligible Cultural


Heritage Importance. Similarly, the unlisted element of the Carrow Works (Site

126), to which the utilities connection to the Britvic site would lead, is judged to be

of Negligible Importance.

11.3.90 Potential features of World War Two date (Sites 236, 237 and 252), identified within

the Utilities site are of uncertain nature (potentially relating to the Thorpe Power

Station). If these features are of World War Two date, they are unlikely to have

been undisturbed by subsequent construction and demolition works, and each is

predicted to be of at most Negligible Importance.

11.3.91 Additionally, the locations of various boat houses and a timber yard are recorded

on historic maps within the Utilities site from the late 19th to the early 20th century.

These structures, of relatively late date, are likely to have been fairly insubstantial

in nature. They are not now present, and it is considered unlikely that remains of

these features would have survived the construction of the industrial buildings of

the 20th century. As such, they are judged to be of No Cultural Heritage

Importance, though the survival of sub-surface remains cannot be entirely

discounted.

11.4 Assessment of Effects

Construction Stage

11.4.1 Effects on heritage assets deriving from the Construction Stage of the Proposed

Development are predominantly related to direct effects on heritage assets. The

potential for indirect effects on the settings of heritage assets is discussed within

the Operational Stage below

Direct Effects: Known Remains

11.4.2 Potential effects on known or unknown buried archaeological remains which may

survive relate to the possibility of disturbing, removing or destroying in situ remains

and artefacts during groundbreaking works (including excavation, construction and

other works associated with the Proposed Development).

11.4.3 Thirteen cultural heritage assets are located within the boundary of the Proposed

Development. An assessment of potential direct effects on heritage assets is

summarised below. Table 11.10 outlines the predicted level of effect that the

Proposed Development could have upon the remains of Negligible or greater


Cultural Heritage Importance located within the boundary of the Proposed

Development.

Table 11.9: Summary of Effects upon Remains within Proposed Development

Area

Site No.

Site Name Cultural Heritage Importance

Magnitude of Direct Change from Proposed Development

Level of Effect

33 Roman occupation and possible wharf, north bank of River Yare

Regional Low Minor-Moderate

97 Norfolk Railway (Yarmouth, Norwich and Brandon)

Negligible Marginal Negligible

124 Trowse Pumping Station, Bracondale/Trowse Millgate

Local None None

126 Carrow Works Negligible Marginal Negligible

236 Possible World War Two military structure


237 Rectilinear ditches, possible practice or slit trenches


252 World War Two air raid shelter

Negligible Low Negligible

290 Site of Thorpe Power Station


291 Site of Trowse Power Station


292 Cremorne Lane Gas Works


310 Site of former river channel, possible track, and timber yard

Local Low Minor

1700 Trowse Millgate Regional None None

1710 Trowse with Newton Regional Marginal Minor

11.4.4 The proposed construction access road, which runs north from Bracondale/The

Street, within Trowse Millgate (Site 1700), would follow an existing road that

services the Lafarge aggregates site. The road passes the Trowse Pumping

Station (Site 124). As this temporary access road would utilise the route of an

existing road, it is predicted that there would be no direct effects on the Trowse

Millgate Conservation Area (Site 1700) and the Trowse Pumping Station (Site 124).

11.4.5 It is likely that should remains of the possible World War Two military structure (Site

236) and the possible World War Two practice or slit trenches (Site 237) be present

on the Utilities site, such remains would be insubstantial. The location of Site 236


has been disturbed by building associated with the Cremorne Lane Gas Works in

the 1960s or 1970s, whilst the area of potential trenches is now heavily overgrown.

Potential effects on these heritage assets from construction would cause at most

very slight loss of information content, changes of Marginal magnitude. These

changes would result in effects of Negligible levels, which are not significant.

11.4.6 There is potential for the line of the Norfolk Railway (Site 97) to be crossed by

works associated with the Proposed Development, though it is understood that the

utilities connection to the Britvic site would cross beneath the railway within an

existing underbridge. In cultural heritage terms, this would lead to at worst a loss of

peripheral deposits associated with the construction of the railway, a change of

Marginal magnitude, leading to a Negligible level of effect, which is not significant.

The utilities connection to the Britvic site would lead to and cross into the 19th

century Carrow Works (Site 126). This would lead to at worst very slight loss of

information content, a change of Marginal magnitude resulting in a Negligible level

of effect, which is not significant.

11.4.7 Given the large-scale demolition of structures of both the Thorpe Power Station

(Site 290) and the Trowse Power Station (Site 291), it is likely that the Proposed

Development would cause at worst a minor loss of information content, as

groundworks associated with construction would remove the sub-surface structures

associated with the power stations. In both instances, this would lead to changes of

at most Low magnitude and Negligible levels of effect, which are not significant.

11.4.8 Similarly, the construction of activity in the west of the Utilities site has the potential

to disturb sub-surface remains of the possible air raid shelter (Site 252) recorded in

this area. However, this feature would have been heavily disturbed (at least) by the

construction of the Trowse Power Station, and therefore at most a Low magnitude

of change on remains of the air raid shelter is possible, leading to a Negligible

level of effect, which is not significant. It is also predicted that potential disturbance

of remains of the late 20th century Cremorne Lane Gas Works (Site 292) due to

construction would cause at worst minor loss of information content, a Low

magnitude of change leading to a Negligible level of effect, which is not significant.

11.4.9 The construction works on the south bank of the River Wensum which would

include the use of this area as a temporary construction compound, would

potentially disturb remains of the timber yard (Site 310) in this area, including the

possible yard/track surfaces and palaeoenvironmental remains. This has the


potential to cause minor detectable effects, with localised loss of potential

information relating to both the prehistoric river channel, and post-medieval

industry. This has the potential to cause a change of Low magnitude with a Minor

level of effect, which is not significant. The junction of the Access Road

Development Area with The Street in Trowse with Newton (Site 1710) has the

potential to cause extremely slight disturbance of sub-surface remains associated

with this thoroughfare. This would lead to at worst a loss of a small proportion of

peripheral deposits associated with this historic route, an effect of at most Marginal

magnitude on the Conservation Area, and resulting in a Minor level of effect, which

is not significant.

11.4.10 The recorded location of Roman occupation including a possible wharf or bridge on

the north bank of the River Yare (Site 33) was encountered during works on a

pipeline, which undoubtedly caused disturbance to the deposits and features.

Additionally this area has been disturbed by activity associated with the gas works,

services and potentially by World War Two structures. There would be very little

ground works in the vicinity of the wharf, the known elements of which are on the

line of a gas pipeline. However, the extent of the feature is not clearly known and

so there is potential that the Proposed Development could impact upon the

remains. Given the previous disturbance to the Utilities site and the limited

groundworks proposed in the vicinity of the wharf or bridge remains, it is judged

that this would, at most, give rise to a change of potentially Low magnitude, leading

to a Minor-Moderate level of effect, which is not significant. The potential for

encountering associated, yet currently unknown, remains of Roman date is

discussed in the paragraphs below.

Direct Effects: As Yet Unknown Remains

11.4.11 The recorded existence of Roman and later remains, including the Roman

settlement and wharf or bridge remains (Site 33), together with the

palaeoenvironmental remains identified on the south bank of the River Wensum

(Site 310), indicates that, in addition to the assets identified in this report, there is

potential for as yet unknown buried archaeological and palaeoenvironmental

remains to survive within the boundary of the Proposed Development. This

includes potential sub-surface remains associated with boat houses and a timber

yard recorded on late 19th and early 20th century mapping.


11.4.12 Much of the Utilities site has been subject to considerable industrial activity in the

20th century, in particular the west and centre of the Utilities site north of the river,

and thus has been affected by major ground disturbance. This limits the potential

for survival of less substantial surface structures such as the boat houses.

11.4.13 However, the remains dated to the Roman period (Site 33) were located at a

considerable depth below the present ground surface, and thus remains of this

period, as well as palaeoenvironmental evidence, might in places be present at

sufficient depth to have survived the 20th century development and subsequent

demolition of industrial structures.

11.4.14 The encountering of prehistoric remains in the vicinity, including Palaeoloithic and

Mesolithic flint artefacts, and mammoth remains, at the nearby Carrow Works

(Sites 21 & 23) further indicates the potential for sub-surface prehistoric deposits in

the vicinity of the Proposed Development.

11.4.15 Thus deep groundworks across the Utilities site associated with the Proposed

Development, including in particular construction of deep foundations, piling and

deep services have the potential to encounter such remains.

11.4.16 Additionally, there is potential for works within the Rivers Wensum and Yare,

associated with the proposed moorings, to disturb deposits along the river course.

In particular, the cutting back of piles along the north bank and regrading of the

bank to provide river level access to craft, and dredging along the north bank and in

the centre of the watercourse to permit boat access has the potential to remove

palaeoenvironmental evidence. Additionally, the proposed bridge over the Wensum

would include a column in the river, which also has potential to remove

palaeoenvironmental evidence.

Operational Stage

Introduction

11.4.17 Effects on heritage assets resulting from the presence of the Proposed

Development once each phase of construction has finished are likely to be limited

to indirect effects on the settings of heritage assets. No direct effects are predicted

in the Operational Stage. Therefore this assessment is limited to indirect effects on

the settings of heritage assets.


11.4.18 It is noted that the Noise and Air Quality Assessments set out in Chapters 7.0 and

8.0 respectively have not identified any significant effects. Thus, this assessment

focuses on visual changes to the settings of heritage assets.

11.4.19 An assessment of the visual effects of the Proposed Development is set out in full

in Chapter 5.0 (the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment). Visualisations

from a series of viewpoint locations are illustrated on Figures 11.10b-g, with

viewpoint locations illustrated on Figure 11.10a. In order to inform the assessment,

an initial Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) modelling exercise was undertaken to

identify the maximum extents of likely visibility. Given the nature of the study area,

which includes large-scale urban development and extensive mature vegetation

cover, this ZTV modelling was of little value is determining actual ‘on the ground’

visibility, and as such is not reproduced as part of the assessment. Nevertheless,

the ZTV modelling was of initial assistance in identifying those assets that could be

excluded from the assessment. Close liaison with the project landscape architect

was carried out in order to identify the likely change in view that would be

experienced by each asset included in the assessment.

11.4.20 Unless stated, the specific effects on the settings of heritage assets identified in

this assessment are judged to lead to adverse effects on their cultural heritage

value.

11.4.21 The majority of designated heritage assets identified within 2 km of the Proposed

Development are located in urban areas and it is this character that makes up their

setting and contributes to their significance.

11.4.22 A large number of assets in the wider 2 km study area would have no clear visibility

with the Proposed Development due to topography, built structures and vegetation.

Whilst glimpses of the development, and of the stack in particular, cannot be

discounted for all of these assets, effects for most assets are considered likely to

be non-material in that they would not result in a change to the setting of the asset

such that there would be a reduction in the cultural value of the asset. Additionally,

whilst views of the development may be available from some assets, the new

structures would be in keeping with the urban character of the areas in which the

assets are set and often would be seen at a distance and beyond other urban built

features.

11.4.23 Accordingly a screening exercise has been undertaken, using GIS analysis, desk-

based survey of the assets, site visits/area visits and use of Google Maps, which


has resulted in the scoping out of many designated heritage assets from detailed

consideration in this effect assessment. Those assets where an effect upon setting

has been deemed possible are considered are included in the assessment.

11.4.24 All designated assets, including a statement of whether scoped into or out of the

assessment, are listed in the gazetteer in Appendix 11.2. Figure 11.2a records all

designated heritage assets (Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation

Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens) located within 2 km of the Proposed

Development, whilst Figure 11.2b indicates those heritage assets for which settings

assessment has been carried forward.

11.4.25 Twenty Scheduled Monuments are located within 2 km of the Utilities site.

Scheduled Monuments for which a detailed settings assessment has been

undertaken include:

the ruined remains of Carrow Priory (Site 1016), associated with the Listed

Carrow Abbey (Site 1343) and located c. 300 m to the south-west of the

Proposed Development;

‘Woodhenge’, Arminghall (Site 1008), earthwork remains of a prehistoric ritual

monument located in countryside to the south of the Proposed Development;

Norwich City Wall and Towers (Site 1009), an extensive defensive monument

surrounding the medieval centre of Norwich;

Norwich Castle (Site 1018), also Grade I Listed (Site 1612); and

the Blockhouse known as Cow Tower (Site 1020).

11.4.26 Conservation Areas taken forward to detailed assessment include:

Trowse Millgate (Site 1700);

Trowse with Newton (Site 1710);

Bracondale (Site 1701);

Old Lakenham (Site 1704);

Norwich City Centre (Site 1702);

St Matthew’s (Site 1703);

Thorpe Ridge (Site 1707); and

Thorpe St Andrew (Site 1708/1709.

11.4.27 Potential settings effects on these Conservation Areas are considered, with

potential effects on the settings of various prominent or particularly sensitive


buildings within them (and which contribute to the overall significance of the

Conservation Areas), considered in detail. For example, within Thorpe St Andrew

Conservation Area, the Listed Thorpe Hall (Site 1306), Thorpe Tower (Site 1693),

the Church of St Andrew (Site 1536) and the Ruin of the Church of St Andrew (Site

1191) are considered in detail.

11.4.28 To elucidate the potential effects on Conservation Areas, mention is also made

(without detailed assessment) of further designated assets within the boundaries of

this Conservation Area, in particular those in closest proximity to the Proposed

Development. A similar process of detailed assessment of heritage assets of

particular sensitivity to settings effects is made for other Conservation Areas.

Within the City Centre Conservation Area, potential effects on the setting of

Norwich Cathedral (Site 1125) with its prominent spire, are considered, as are

potential effects on the settings of several Listed Buildings within and in close

proximity to the Scheduled area of Norwich Castle (Sites 1186, 1318, 1432 &

1685).

11.4.29 Effects on the setting of the Grade II Registered Park and Garden of Crown Point

(Site 1697), to the south of the Proposed Development, are considered, as are

potential effects on the settings of the Listed ruins of Trowse Newton Hall (Site

1030) and the Listed elements of Whitlingham Hall (Sites 1687, 1688 & 1690)

within this Registered Park and Garden. Potential effects on the setting of the

Grade II* Listed Rosary Cemetery (Site 1698), to the west of the Proposed

Development and within Thorpe Ridge Conservation Area, are also considered.

11.4.30 Effects on the settings of several buildings located in very close proximity to the

Proposed Development are considered – including the Locally Listed Gothic Works

(Site 1711), to the west (mentioned in the scoping opinion from Norwich City

Council); the group of 19th century Listed Buildings at Railway Cottages (Sites

1073, 1074, 1370, 1374, 1531 & 1662) to the north-west, and the bottle kiln at NGR

TG24750748 (Site 1460) near the Access Road Development Area.

11.4.31 Forty-six designated heritage assets, and the Locally Designated Gothic Works

(Site 1711) have been identified as having a potential for a significant effect on their

settings, due to their relative sensitivity to changes to their settings, because of

their proximity to the Proposed Development or through their identification at

scoping. These assets are listed in Table 11.10 overleaf. The Table is followed by


a detailed qualitative assessment of the effects upon the setting of each asset

within the main text of the chapter.


Table 11.10: Summary of Effects upon the Settings of Heritage Assets Considered within this Assessment

Site No. Site Name Designation Distance to Stack

Other Factors Affecting Visibility


Magnitude of Change in Setting

Level of Effect

1008 'Woodhenge', Arminghall

Scheduled Monument 2.0 km Trowse Electricity Sub-Station located between monument and Proposed Development

Medium Marginal Negligible

1009 City walls and towers

Scheduled Monument 0.9 km Largely located within built-up urban area of Norwich, limiting intervisibility with Proposed Development

Medium Low Minor

1016 & 1343

Carrow Priory (ruined portions) & Carrow Abbey

Scheduled Monument & Grade I Listed Building

0.6 km Located within industrial site in urban area, which forms major element of contemporary setting


1018/1612 Norwich Castle Scheduled Monument/ Grade I Listed Building

1.5 km Located within centre of urban area of Norwich; castle has commanding views over city

High Low Minor-Moderate

1029 Church of St Andrew

Grade I Listed Building 1.1 km Intervisibility with Proposed Development partially limited by intervening vegetation

Medium Low Minor

1030 Ruins of Trowse Newton Hall

Grade II Listed Building 0.6 km Intervisibility with Proposed Development partially limited by intervening vegetation

Low Low Negligible

1073, 1074, 1370, 1374, 1531 & 1662

Ebeneezer, 6-11 Railway Cottages, 63-79, Cozens Road, 6 and 8, Hardy Road, 1-5 Railway Cottages & 2 and 4, Hardy Road

Grade II Listed Buildings 0.3 km The proposed development would be visible beyond the rail depot and infrastructure, such as lighting columns, gantries and fencing associated with the railway. The Railway Cottages themselves

Low Low Negligible






Level of Effect

would partially block intervisibility from the other buildings on the block

1125 The Cathedral of The Holy and Undivided Trinity

Grade I Listed Building 1.6 km Located within precinct within urban area of Norwich. Intervisibility with Proposed Development largely limited at ground level by intervening built-up area

High Low Minor-Moderate

1186 Anglia House Grade II Listed Building 1.6 km Intervening built-up area of Norwich largely limits intervisibility with Proposed Development

Low Marginal None

1191 Ruin of Church of St Andrew

Grade II* Listed Building 1.3 km Intervening built-up area of Norwich largely limits intervisibility with Proposed Development


1200 Trowse House Grade II Listed Building 1.1 km Largely screened from Proposed Development due to low-lying location, with intervening mature trees and buildings

Low Low Negligible

1306 Thorpe Hall Grade II* Listed Building 0.85 km Partially screened from Proposed Development by intervening mature trees and structures

Medium Medium Minor-Moderate

1312 Sunnydale Grade II Listed Building 1.2 km Largely screened from Proposed Development by intervening mature trees

Low Marginal None

1313 Old Hall Farmhouse

Grade II Listed Building 1.35 km Intervening buildings and trees limit intervisibility with Proposed

Low Low Negligible






Level of Effect

Development

1318 Bridge over Castle Moat and 2 Entrance Lodges, including Cast Iron Gates and Railings

Grade II Listed Building 1.65 km Intervening built-up area of Norwich, surrounding the castle, partially limits intervisibility with Proposed Development

Low Low Negligible

1432 Shire Hall Chambers

Grade II Listed Building 1.6 km Intervening built-up urban area of Norwich partially limits intervisibility with Proposed Development

Low Low Negligible

1437 Mousehold House

Grade II Listed Building 1.0 km Intervisibility with Proposed Development largely limited by modern intervening urban development.

Low Low Negligible

1460 Bottle Kiln at NGR TG24750748

Grade II Listed Building 0.5 km Intervisibility with Proposed Development slightly limited by surrounding vegetation

Low Low Negligible

1485 Church of St John De Sepulchre

Grade I Listed Building 1.3 km Intervisibility with Proposed Development limited by surrounding buildings of the later urban development of Norwich, in particular at ground level

Medium Low Minor

1511 Chapel at Rosary Cemetery

Grade II Listed Building 0.7 km Largely screened from Proposed Development by intervening mature trees and buildings


1536 Church of St Andrew

Grade II Listed Building 1.3 km Intervening built-up urban area largely limits intervisibility with Proposed Development







Level of Effect

1538 Crown Point Tavern

Grade II Listed Building 1.3 km Largely screened from Proposed Development by intervening mature trees

Low Marginal None

1598 Mill House Grade II Listed Building 1.1 km Largely screened from Proposed Development due to low-lying location, with intervening mature trees and buildings

Low Marginal None

1663 Church of St John and All Saints

Grade II* Listed Building 2.3 km Intervening mature trees and built-up area would limit views from church at ground level and general intervisibility with Proposed Development

Medium Low Minor

1685 Shire House Grade II Listed Building 1.6 km Intervening built-up urban area of Norwich largely limits intervisibility with Proposed Development

Low Marginal None

1687 Whitlingham Hospital Blocks 04, 05, 06

Grade II* Listed Building 1.2 km Partially screened from Proposed Development by intervening bank and mature trees

Medium Low Minor

1688 Trowse Old Hall Grade II Listed Building 1.2 km Largely screened from Proposed Development by built-up area and intervening mature trees

Low Marginal None

1689 Boundary Wall and Gateway at Whitlingham Hospital

Grade II Listed Building 1.3 km Largely screened from Proposed Development by intervening bank and mature trees

Low Low Negligible

1690 Whitlingham Hospital Service Buildings, Block 03

Grade II Listed Building 1.3 km Largely screened from Proposed Development by intervening buildings and mature trees

Low Low Negligible






Level of Effect

1693 Thorpe Tower Grade II Listed Building 1.1 km Intervisibility with Proposed Development largely limited at ground level by intervening mature trees

Medium Low Minor

1697 Crown Point Grade II Registered Park and Garden

0.5 km Large elements of the Park and Garden would be partially screened from the Proposed Development by mature trees on and in proximity to the northern edge of the parkland

Medium Low Minor

1698 The Rosary Cemetery

Grade II* Registered Park and Garden

0.5 km The Park and Garden lies within an urban area and would be largely screened from the Proposed Development by buildings. Elements of the cemetery would be screened by mature trees within and in proximity to the parkland

Low Low Negligible

1700 Trowse Millgate Conservation Area 0.9 km Elements of the Conservation Area (in particular to the south) are low-lying and would be partially screened from the Proposed Development by mature trees and buildings

Low Low Negligible

1701 Bracondale Conservation Area Includes several Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments including:

0.65 km Large elements of the Conservation Area (in particular to the west) are largely screened from the

Medium Low Minor






Level of Effect

66a, Bracondale (Site 1137); Forecourt Wall, Gates and Railings to Numbers 66 and 66a (Site 1138); Forecourt Wall, Gate and Railings to Number 68 (Site 1139); 70, Bracondale (Site 1140); Bracondale Cottage (Site 1141); 62 and 64, Bracondale (Site1165); 60, Bracondale (Site 1623); 66, Bracondale (Site 1640); 68, Bracondale (Site 1641) and 72, 72a and 72b, Bracondale (Site 1642) – Grade II Listed Buildings

Proposed Development by intervening buildings, walls and mature trees

1702 City Centre Conservation Area Includes numerous Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments including: Watergate, The Close (Site 1012) – Scheduled Monument; All Saints Church (Site 1215); Church of St Peter Mancroft (Site 1387); Church of St John Baptist (Site 1499), and Church of St Peter Parmentergate (Site 1669) – Grade I Listed Buildings

0.85 km Large elements of the Conservation Area are screened from the Proposed Development by topography, intervening buildings of the later urban development of Norwich, walls and mature trees; the castle has commanding views across the city

Medium Low Minor

1703 St Matthew’s Conservation Area Includes Norwich Railway Station (Site 1244) – Grade II Listed Building

0.8 km Much of Conservation Area (in particular residential element to north) is largely screened from Proposed







Level of Effect

Development by intervening townscape and urban development

1704 Old Lakenham Conservation Area Includes several Listed Buildings including: 161, Mansfield Lane (Site 1431) – Grade II Listed Building

1.8 km Much of settlement, with exception of Church of St John and All Saints (Site 1663) is low-lying; intervening mature trees and built-up area would largely limit intervisibility with Proposed Development


1707 Thorpe Ridge Conservation Area Includes several Listed Buildings including: 2 and 4, Cotman Road (Site 1097) – Grade II Listed Building

0.25 km Much of settlement is largely screened from Proposed Development by mature trees and built-up area; there are clearer views from some locations, such as at the junction of Cotman Road and Heathside Road

Medium Medium Minor-Moderate

1708/1709 Thorpe St Andrew

Conservation Area Includes numerous Listed Buildings including: North Boundary Wall of Number 6 (Site 1078); Town House Hotel (Site 1187); Broadland District Council Offices Thorpe Lodge (Site 1189); Ivy Cottage (Site 1190); Buck Inn (Site 1192); Boundary Wall to Road Extending from Number 2 to Number 10 (Site 1195); Gazebo South East of

0.6 km Much of settlement is largely screened from Proposed Development by intervening vegetation, including mature trees, and built-up urban area

Medium Low Minor






Level of Effect

Thorpe Lodge on Yarmouth Road (Site 1303); The Guild House (Site 1304); 10, Yarmouth Road (Site 1307); Manor Cottage (Site 1308); 18-20, Yarmouth Road (Site 1309); Kings Head Inn including Outbuildings to East (Site 1310); Serpentine Wall on the West Side of Eden Close (Site 1532); Old Thorpe House (Site 1537); The Manor House (Site 1606) – Grade II Listed Buildings; Walpole House (Site 1196) and Garden House 40m South of Walpole House (Site 1607) – Grade II* Listed Buildings.

1710 Trowse with Newton

Conservation Area 0.85 km Much of Conservation Area (in particular centre and east) is largely screened from Proposed Development by intervening mature trees and buildings

Medium Low Minor

1711 Gothic Works Locally Listed Building 0.3 km Railway structures and buildings partially limit intervisibility with Proposed Development

Low Low Negligible


Railway Cottages and Gothic Works

11.4.32 The group of Listed Buildings at Railway Cottages, north-west of the junction of

Cozens Road and Hardy Road (Sites 1073, 1074, 1370, 1374, 1531 & 1662)

comprise a group of workers’ accommodation arranged around a triangular yard.

These buildings are fairly simple domestic structures, which owe their placement

primarily to the close presence of the railway to the east and north. As such, they

are judged to be of Low relative sensitivity to alterations to their settings.

11.4.33 The Proposed Development would be visible beyond the railway line, to the rear of

the TOC depot building (Figure 11.10c: Viewpoint B), in particular 1-5 and 6-11

Railway Cottages (Sites 1531 & 1074). These cottages would partially block views

of the Proposed Development from the other buildings on the block, though for

each of these buildings it is predicted that there would be alterations to their

settings. However, these would occur beyond the railway line and infrastructure,

and a depot building that forms a major element of the authentic and contemporary

setting of the buildings, and would not materially affect an observer’s ability to

appreciate and understand the buildings. Additionally, the setting of the cottages

was for much of the 20th century, influenced by industrial features, including notably

the now-demolished power stations formerly located on the Utilities site, and the

addition of the proposed Community Energy Centre would not be inconsistent with

these historical uses of the Utilities site. As such, changes of at worst Low

magnitude on the settings of these buildings are predicted. Such a change would

lead to Negligible levels of effect, which are not significant.

11.4.34 Nearby, the Locally Listed Gothic Works (Site 1711) is an industrial structure of at

most Low sensitivity to alterations to its setting. Railway structures and buildings

would partially limit intervisibility with the Proposed Development, and the presence

of the Community Energy Centre would be consistent with both the industrial

nature of the Gothic Works itself, and with the former land uses at the Utilities site,

which until the late 20th century included two power stations. The alteration to the

setting of the Gothic Works would not materially affect an observer’s ability to

understand the monument, and would result in, at most, a change of Low

magnitude on the setting of the building. This would be a Negligible level of effect,

which is not significant.


Bottle Kiln

11.4.35 To the south of the Proposed Development, close to the Access Route

development area, the Grade II Listed Bottle Kiln at NGR TG24750748 (Site 1460)

is an industrial structure, located in an area of waste ground and overgrown

vegetation. It is of at most Low relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting. The

present vegetation limits the visibility of both the Access Road and the Utilities site

from this feature, and neither the Access Road (which largely uses an existing

route), nor the placement of structures within the Utilities site would have an

appreciable adverse effect on the setting of the kiln, which has been affected by the

demolition of related industrial structures in close proximity. The Proposed

Development would not materially affect an observer’s ability to appreciate the kiln

and its value, a change on the setting of at most Low magnitude and a Negligible

level of effect, which is not significant.

Trowse with Newton

11.4.36 The Access Road of the Proposed Development would abut the northern edge of

Trowse with Newton Conservation Area (Site 1710), at The Street. The

Conservation Area centres on the village, but also includes areas of flood plain in

the north and west. The Conservation Area is located adjacent to industrial and

communications infrastructure, including the railway, the A47 and the A146. The

village owes much of its character to its conversion to a ‘model village’ for Colman’s

workers in the late 19th century95. Whilst containing many aesthetically pleasing

buildings, much of its character relates to the need to house workers in close

proximity to works, and it does not owe its placement to its wider setting. It is

judged to be of at most Medium relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting.

11.4.37 Much of the Conservation Area (in particular, a large part of the village in the centre

and east of the designation) is well screened by intervening mature tree cover and,

in many places, by buildings. Views of the Proposed Development would thus

either not be available, or would be very restricted from much of the Conservation

Area (Figure 11.10e: Viewpoint E). There would be limited views of the Proposed

Development, including the stack and the new Access Road junction, from an area

in the north-west near the Church of St Andrew (Site 1029), though any such views

would be filtered through the tree cover to the north.

95

South Norfolk Council (2012). Trowse with Newton Character Appraisal and Management Plan, 4-7.


11.4.38 The Proposed Development would constitute an alteration to the wider setting of

the Conservation Area with effects largely limited to its relatively open western end.

Such alterations to setting would not materially alter the appreciation and

understanding of the Conservation Area or diminish the contribution which setting

makes to the value of the asset. As such, a change of Low magnitude, with a

Minor level of effect, is predicted. This is not considered to be significant.

11.4.39 Within the Conservation Area, the primary setting of the Grade I Listed Church of

St Andrew comprises the churchyard in which it is located and the wider village,

with the thoroughfares that cross north of the church. It is located on a busy road,

in close proximity to industrial works and communications features. The church is a

major feature within the Conservation Area and relatively prominent when viewed

from The Street to the north, but the tree-rich nature of the churchyard limits its

visibility from further afield. It is judged to be of Medium relative sensitivity to

alterations to its setting.

11.4.40 Whilst the Proposed Development, and in particular the proposed stack, would

likely be visible from the vicinity of the church, through the trees within the

graveyard and nearby, it would not be a significant alteration to the setting of the

church, which includes a number of modern features within relatively close

proximity, such as County Hall to the west, which form part of its current setting.

Additionally, through much of the 20th century the Utilities site was host to two

power stations (both including substantial structures), and views of the proposed

Community Energy Centre would be consistent with this industrial influence that

has historically formed part of the church’s wider setting. The presence of the

Access Road would not cause a significant alteration to the church’s setting,

running as it does through an area of modern development. The Proposed

Development would not appreciably alter understanding of the church and its

setting. Thus at most a change of Low magnitude, with a Minor level of effect,

which is not significant, is predicted.

11.4.41 Towards the south end of the village, Old Hall Farmhouse (Site 1313) is Grade II

Listed. As a primarily domestic and agricultural building, it is judged to be of Low

relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting, beyond its surrounding fields.

Intervening buildings and trees would limit intervisibility with the Proposed

Development, though the proposed stack may be visible in the distance as a minor

background feature. This would be an insignificant alteration to the setting of the


building that would not materially alter appreciation of it, a change of Low

magnitude leading to a Negligible level of effect, which is not significant.

11.4.42 In the east of the Conservation Area, Listed Buildings include the Grade II Listed

Sunnydale (Site 1312), Trowse Old Hall (Site 1688) and Crown Point Tavern (Site

1538). These post-medieval buildings are domestic and commercial structures, and

their primary setting is the village in which they are located. They are judged to be

of Low relative sensitivity to changes to their setting beyond the Conservation Area.

An area of dense woodland and rising topography to the north would almost wholly

limit intervisibility with the Proposed Development. This extremely limited

intervisibility would cause changes of at most Marginal magnitude on the settings of

these buildings, resulting in No effect.

Trowse Millgate

11.4.43 Trowse Millgate Conservation Area (Site 1700) includes an area, towards the north,

which is:

“formed from the 19th century post industrial landscape of the railway station and

the sewage treatment works, which are in effect self contained small scale

‘industrial’ enclaves divided by the railway line.”96

11.4.44 Given the post-industrial nature of much of the Conservation Area, it is judged to be

of Low relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting beyond its boundaries. Whilst

the structures of the Proposed Development (proposed stack, and taller buildings,

notably the Community Energy Centre) would be visible from this northern part of

the Conservation Area, it would not appreciably alter understanding of this post-

industrial area. The presence of the Community Energy Centre would be consistent

with historical land uses at the Utilities site, which for much of the 20th century was

the location of substantial power station structures, including towers, that would

have formed part of the wider setting of the Conservation Area. Other elements of

the Conservation Area, in particular the residential properties to the south, are low-

lying and would be partially screened from the Proposed Development by

intervening mature trees, buildings and the road bridge that carries Bracondale

over the railway. Again, the limited change in view would constitute an insignificant

alteration to the wider setting of the Conservation Area. As such, a change to the

setting of the Conservation Area of Low magnitude is predicted, leading to a

Negligible level of effect, which is not significant. 96

Norwich City Council (2008). Trowse Millgate Conservation Area Appraisal, 11.


11.4.45 Two Listed Buildings are located in the low-lying southern part of the Conservation

Area – Trowse House (Site 1200) and the nearby Mill House (Site 1598). The low-

lying location of these buildings means that they are largely cut off from the north

by Bracondale Road, whilst a busy railway line is located in close proximity to the

west. These, primarily domestic, buildings are judged to be of Low relative

sensitivity to alterations to their settings beyond the road to the north. They are

largely screened from the Proposed Development by their low-lying locations, with

intervening mature trees and buildings.

11.4.46 The Proposed Development would cause at most an insignificant alteration to the

wider setting of Trowse House, from which the proposed stack and other taller

structures, notably the Community Energy Centre, might be visible from upper

storeys. This would be a change of Low magnitude, with a Negligible level of

effect, which is not significant.

11.4.47 Mill House (Site 1598), which stands behind Trowse House with regards to the

Proposed Development, would be largely, if not entirely, screened from the

Proposed Development, and at most an effect of Marginal magnitude on its setting

is predicted, this would result in No effect.

Assets in the Yare Valley

11.4.48 Further to the south, the Scheduled 'Woodhenge', Arminghall (Site 1008) is

perceptible as a low earthwork. As a ritual monument, it would originally have been

of High relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting, but the relatively insubstantial

earthworks remains are now located in close proximity to Trowse Electricity Sub-

Station, with its associated pylons (all pylons north of the sub-station are scheduled

to be removed during 2017) and its current setting does not greatly contribute to

the value of the asset. The presence of sub-station has compromised the setting of

the monument, and as such it is judged to be of at most Medium relative sensitivity

to alteration to its setting. The sub-station structures are located between the

monument and the Utilities site, as is the bridge embankment for the A146 bridge.

The sub-station structure and bridge embankment would inhibit intervisibility with

the Proposed Development. Whilst elements of the Proposed Development might

be peripherally visible beyond these features, any such visibility would be through a

complex and cluttered view. This would cause a change of Marginal magnitude on

the setting of the monument, with a Negligible level of effect, which is not

significant.


11.4.49 Nearby, the Conservation Area of Old Lakenham (Site 1704) is a hamlet on the

banks of the River Yare. Its north end comprises meadows along the river banks,

whilst the village core contains Listed Buildings including 161, Mansfield Lane (Site

1431), which is located near these meadows. The Conservation Area is located on

the edge of the built-up area of Norwich, and belts of trees in and around the north

and east of the Conservation Area provide some sheltering of it. This vegetation, in

particular screens the village core, from the wider landscape. This riverside village

is judged to be of at most Medium relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting

beyond its boundaries.

11.4.50 As much of the settlement, with the exception of the Church of St John and All

Saints (Site 1663), is low-lying, it would be largely sheltered from the Proposed

Development by intervening tress, and the structures of the Proposed

Development. The proposed stack, which would stand 1.8 km north-east of the

northern boundary of Old Lakenham Conservation Area, would only be peripherally

visible from the north of the Conservation Area and the area of the church, and

would be viewed through vegetation and trees. As such a change of Marginal

magnitude on the setting of the Conservation Area is predicted. This would result in

a Negligible level of effect, which is not significant.

11.4.51 The Grade II* Listed Church of St John and All Saints (Site 1663) is located on a

hill in the south-west of the Conservation Area. It is:

“an important historic focal point and local landmark... obscured in views from

Sandy Lane [to the east] by the dense vegetation that surrounds it. The church has

now in effect been re-orientated to serve the new suburban communities to the

west where it has become a more recognised landmark for the local area”.97

11.4.52 Thus the original setting of the church, which would formerly have been more

dominant over the historic village core, has been altered by the growth of trees and

other vegetation around it, and by new development. It is judged to be of at most

Medium relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting.

11.4.53 Intervening mature trees and the built-up area of Lakenham would limit views from

the church at ground level. Given the relatively high location of the church, the

proposed stack would likely be visible during winter; however, this would be

through trees and past intervening buildings, at a distance of 2.3 km, and would not

appreciably alter appreciation and understanding of the church and its setting nor 97

Norwich City Council (2008). Old Lakenham Conservation Area Appraisal, 12.


would it diminish its cultural value. The change would be of, at most, Low

magnitude, resulting in a Minor level of effect, which is not significant.

Assets south-east of the River Yare

11.4.54 Across the river, to the south-east of the Utilities site, are the Listed Ruins of

Trowse Newton Hall (Site 1030). Given the ruined nature of this structure, and its

location within overgrown parkland on the edge of an artificial lake, the ability of an

observer to understand the building and its setting has been largely compromised.

It is judged to be of at most Low relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting.

11.4.55 The Proposed Development would be partially screened from the ruins by

intervening vegetation, and the artificial lake would be visible between the

monument and the Utilities site (refer to Figure 5.3f: LVIA Viewpoint 8). Although

structures forming part of the Proposed Development, and in particular the

proposed stack, would be intervisible with the ruins, they would not materially affect

appreciation of the ruins or their heritage value. Two power stations were located

on the Utilities site for much of the 20th century, and the presence of the proposed

Community Energy Centre would be consistent with this former industrial use that

has historically formed part of the setting of the hall. Therefore there would be at

worst a change of Low magnitude on the setting of this Listed Building, with a

Negligible level of effect, which is not significant.

11.4.56 Trowse Newton Hall is located on the northern edge of the Crown Point Registered

Park and Garden (Site 1697). This expansive parkland, much of which is bounded

by roads and thin tree lines, is centred on Whitlingham Hall (Site 1687). The

parkland has suffered from the intrusion of modern roads, in particular the A47,

which bisects the grounds of the hall and has adversely affected the original focus

on the hall. The Registered Park and Garden is judged to be of at most Medium

sensitivity to alterations to its setting beyond its boundaries. The taller elements of

the Proposed Development, in particular the proposed stack, would be visible from

within the park, though in many places screened by mature trees on and in

proximity to the northern edge of the parkland. This would not materially alter an

observer’s understanding and appreciation of the park or its value, and would lead

to at most a change of Low magnitude on the setting of the park, with a Minor level

of effect, which is not significant.

11.4.57 The Grade II* Listed Whitlingham Hospital Blocks 04, 05, 06 (Site 1687) is a 19th

century country house (Whitlingham Hall) at the centre of the Registered Park and


Garden. A considerable, prominent, building, it was seen to have a considerable

facade facing north-west, whilst the entrance gateway faces north. Although

primarily a domestic building, its scale indicates that it was placed to appear

commanding in the landscape and take in views of its surrounding parkland. Its

setting has been altered by the intrusion of the A47. It is judged to be of Medium

relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting.

11.4.58 Whilst it would be partially screened from the Proposed Development by an

intervening bank at ground level, and mature trees in the middle distance, the

proposed stack would be visible in views to the north, set within a view that

includes tree cover both close to the Hall (along the driveway) and in the

intervening parkland. Visibility of the stack would be limited by this tree cover, and

the other elements of the Proposed Development would be wholly screened (refer

to Figure 5.3l: LVIA Viewpoint 14). As such there is potential for a perceptible

alteration to the setting of the building, but this alteration would be beyond the

parkland that forms the major element of its setting and thus beyond those

elements which directly contribute to its cultural value. The change would not

materially diminish the cultural value of the asset nor would they diminish the ability

of an observer to understand and appreciate the asset. This would be at worst a

change of Low magnitude, and a Minor level of effect, which is not significant.

11.4.59 The associated Boundary Wall and Gateway at Whitlingham Hospital (Site 1689)

are primarily functional features, with their settings focussed on the hall and its

ancillary buildings. As such it is judged to be of Low relative visual sensitivity to

alterations to its setting, beyond the immediate grounds of the hall. A bank limits

intervisibility of this structure with the Proposed Development, and at most an

alteration to the setting of this structure, which would not materially alter its

appreciation by an observer, would occur. This would be an change in the setting

of this Listed Building of at most Low magnitude and a Negligible level of effect,


11.4.60 Adjacent to Whitlingham Hall is the Listed Whitlingham Hospital Service Buildings,

Block 03. In relation to the Proposed Development this building is generally located

behind Whitlingham Hall. The Listed Whitlingham Hospital Service Buildings, Block

03 comprises a former carriage house and outbuildings associated with the hall.

Comprising ancillary structures to the hall, it is judged to be of Low relative

sensitivity to alterations to its setting (beyond the close grounds of the hall). It

would be partially sheltered from the Proposed Development by both the hall and,


at ground level, a bank, though the stack of the Community Energy Centre would

be visible, beyond the hall to the north. At worst the change to the setting of this

Listed Building from the Proposed Development would not affect appreciation and

understanding of it and its cultural value. This would be a change of Low magnitude

and a Negligible level of effect, which is not significant.

Thorpe St Andrew

11.4.61 To the north-east of the Proposed Development is the Conservation Area of Thorpe

St Andrew (Site 1708/1709). This includes numerous Listed Buildings, such as the

grand post-medieval houses at Broadland District Council Offices Thorpe Lodge

(Site 1189); The Guild House (Site 1304); Old Thorpe House (Site 1537); The

Manor House (Site 1606); and Walpole House (Site 1196) located in the west and

centre of the Conservation Area. There are further Listed structures including a

gazebo (Site 1303); boundary walls (Sites 1078, 1195 & 1532) and other domestic

and commercial buildings (Sites 1187, 1190, 1192, 1307-1310 & 1607) in the west

of the Conservation Area, relatively close to the Proposed Development, which

have some theoretical potential for intervisibility with its structures.

11.4.62 For most of these Listed Buildings within the Conservation Area there is not likely

to be a significant indirect effect, due to either their being largely screened from the

Proposed Development or because, like the boundary walls, they are not

appreciably sensitive to settings effects.

11.4.63 However, of note are the Grade II* Listed Thorpe Hall (Site 1306), which is

described as ”the most important historic building in the village”’98, a remodelling of

a late medieval manor house, which is located in the west of the Conservation

Area. Also of potential sensitivity to settings effects are Thorpe Tower (Site 1693),

the Grade II* Listed Ruin of Church of St Andrew (Site 1191) and the Church of St

Andrew (Site 1536).

11.4.64 The setting of the Conservation Area has been affected by the late post-medieval

development of the railway and the excavation of the New Cut of the River Yare99.

The New Cut forms a major element of the Conservation Area, in particular towards

the southern boundary. This designed riverfront forms an important element of the

internal setting of the Conservation Area. The settlement is now surrounded to

98

Broadland District Council (2007). Thorpe St Andrew Conservation Area Character Statement, 3-4. 99

Broadland District Council (2007). Thorpe St Andrew Conservation Area Character Statement, 5-6.


west, north and east by development, and is judged to be of at most Medium

sensitivity to alterations to its setting beyond its boundaries.

11.4.65 The east of the Conservation Area is largely screened from the Proposed

Development by intervening buildings and vegetation cover (refer to Figure 5.3a:

LVIA viewpoint 2), whilst even in the west of the Conservation Area intervening

vegetation, including mature trees, and buildings, would provide some screening

(Figure 11.10h: Viewpoint G). Whilst the Proposed Development would result in

localised change in view, thus resulting in limited change in the setting of the

Conservation Area, it would not materially alter appreciation or understanding of

the settlement and its setting. The presence of the Proposed Development would

not affect an observer’s ability to appreciate the post-medieval development of the

area. Features such as the New Cut would be unaffected and their contribution to

the value of the Conservation Area would still be readily appreciable. For much of

the 20th century, the Utilities site was the location of two power stations, and the

presence of the proposed Community Energy Centre would be consistent with this

former industrial influence that has historically formed part of the wider setting of

the Conservation Area. Thus a change of Low magnitude, with a Minor level of

effect, which is not significant, is predicted.

11.4.66 On the wooded slopes in the north of the Conservation Area the Grade II Listed

Thorpe Tower (Site 1693) is a Victorian folly tower, which in the absence of

intervening trees and later buildings would have been highly visible in views from

the south. However, the tower is screened, in particular from the south, by mature

trees on the rising slope. Additionally, a semi-demolished modern building is

present to its north, and further modern structures are present nearby. It is

therefore judged to be of Medium sensitivity to alterations to its wider setting.

Intervisibility with the Proposed Development is largely limited at ground level by

intervening mature trees, and during a site visit the openings of the tower were

found to be closed. The Proposed Development would not be visible from the

ground level adjacent to the tower, although it would be visible in views from the

upper windows. The Proposed Development would cause at worst an insignificant

alteration to the wider setting of the tower, which would not affect its value nor

appreciation and understanding of it. A change of at worst Low magnitude, with a

Minor level of effect, which is not significant, is predicted.

11.4.67 In the west of Thorpe St Andrew, Thorpe Hall (Site 1306) is a fine remodelling of a

medieval manor house, which in the past no doubt dominated much of the area.


However, it is now located within a developed urban area, and is surrounded

(though not entirely obscured by) modern housing. As such, it is judged to be of at

most Medium sensitivity to alterations to its setting.

11.4.68 The grounds of the house could not be entered during the settings assessment

visit. However, it was clear that it would be partially screened from the Proposed

Development by intervening mature trees and structures, though taller buildings

and structures forming part of the Proposed Development, notably the Community

Energy Centre (stack in particular), would likely be visible from upper storey

windows facing west. The Proposed Development, though visible beyond existing

urban development, would form a notable alteration to the setting of the house.

However, the alteration would be located beyond the settlement and Conservation

Area in which it stands and which forms the most important elements of its setting.

It is judged that this would be a change of Medium magnitude, leading to a Minor-

Moderate level of effect, which is not significant.

11.4.69 In the centre of the Conservation Area, the Grade II* Listed Ruin of Church of St

Andrew (Site 1191) and the Church of St Andrew (Site 1536) are ecclesiastical

structures that date to the medieval period and the 19th century respectively. Whilst

these buildings have both likely, in the past, been visually dominant over a

relatively wide area, the ruins of the Church of St Andrew are now contained within

the grounds of the subsequent church, which has itself lost its spire (though its

tower remains)100. They are both therefore judged to be of no more than Medium

relative sensitivity to alterations to their settings.

11.4.70 The intervening built-up area of Thorpe St Andrew and the dense vegetation cover

within the village would almost wholly screen views of the Proposed Development.

This would form at most a barely perceptible alteration to the wider setting of these

buildings, and would not affect understanding of them or their cultural value. Thus

changes on their settings of, at worst, Marginal magnitude, with Negligible levels

of effect, which are not significant, are likely.

Thorpe Ridge

11.4.71 To the north of the Proposed Development the Conservation Area of Thorpe Ridge

(Site 1707) includes several Listed Buildings. The settings of some of these would

not be appreciably affected by the Proposed Development due to intervening

100

Broadland District Council (2007). Thorpe St Andrew Conservation Area Character Statement, 10.


buildings, e.g. 2 and 4, Cotman Road (Site 1097), a Grade II Listed Building in the

west of the Conservation Area.

11.4.72 The area is largely suburban in nature, with 19th and 20th century development

leading upslope to the north, where there are areas of woodland: “There are no

significant landmarks in the area except for the Waterworks tower, which is a

distinctive landmark featuring in many long distance views”.101 This is not a Listed

Building, but is prominent in distant views.

11.4.73 As a largely suburban area, surrounded by urban development, the Conservation

Area is judged to be of at most Medium Relative sensitivity to alterations to its

setting beyond its boundaries.

11.4.74 Although much of the settlement is largely screened from the Proposed

Development by mature trees (in particular in the north of the Conservation Area)

and by intervening buildings, there are locations where clear views southwards

towards the Utilities site are available, at the junction of Cotman Road and

Heathside Road (Figure 11.10g: Viewpoint F), where much of the Proposed

Development would be visible. In other locations it is likely that the stack of the

Community Energy Centre would be prominent. As such, there would be pockets of

localised prominent views of the Proposed Development and in particular the stack,

throughout the Conservation Area, it is judged that there would potentially be a

notable alteration to the setting of the Conservation Area. However, the change

would be located beyond the limits of the suburban residential settlement that

forms a major element of its setting. This has the potential to be a change on the

setting of the Conservation Area of Medium magnitude and a Minor-Moderate


11.4.75 In the west of the Conservation Area, the Registered Park and Garden of Rosary

Cemetery (Site 1698) is wooded and surrounded by urban development. It is not a

highly visible monument, beyond its immediate vicinity, and is judged to be of Low


11.4.76 The cemetery is located within an urban area and would be largely screened from

the Proposed Development by buildings and by mature trees along the cemetery

boundary and in adjacent plots. Whilst the proposed stack would be visible,

particularly in winter, its presence would form an insignificant alteration to the

setting of the cemetery, set beyond the surrounding urban residential area. This 101

Norwich City Council (2007). Thorpe Ridge Conservation Area Appraisal, 10.


would be a change of at most Low magnitude, and a Negligible level of effect,


11.4.77 The Listed chapel at the Rosary Cemetery (Site 1511) is an ornate building, but is

not prominent beyond its immediate vicinity; its important setting comprises the

cemetery with which it is connected. It is judged to be of at most Medium relative

sensitivity to alterations to its setting. As it is largely screened from the Proposed

Development by intervening mature trees and buildings, a change of at most

Marginal magnitude on its setting is predicted, with a Negligible level of effect,


11.4.78 Located on relatively high ground in the north of Thorpe Ridge, the Listed post-

medieval Mousehold House (Site 1437), although a fine building in itself, is now

contained within a 20th century housing scheme, and is judged to be of Low relative

sensitivity to alterations to its setting. Intervisibility with the Proposed Development

is largely limited by intervening urban development, and at most an insignificant

alteration to its wider setting is possible, which would not alter understanding or

appreciation of the house or its cultural value. This would be a change of at most

Low magnitude, with a Negligible level of effect, which is not significant.

St Matthew’s

11.4.79 To the north-west of the Utilities site, the Conservation Area of St Matthew’s (Site

1703) includes the Grade II Listed Norwich Railway Station (Site 1244), which has

been described as the “largest and most prominent building in the conservation

area”102. This building and associated infrastructure covers much of the south of the

Conservation Area. Residential and mixed development in the centre and north of

the Conservation Area, largely of late 19th and 20th century date, would have views

of the Proposed Development screened by rising ground and the intervening

townscape. This mixed industrial and residential area does not primarily owe its

growth to its visual setting, and is judged to be of at most Medium sensitivity to

alterations to its setting beyond its boundaries.

11.4.80 Whilst the proposed stack would be theoretically visible from the south of the

Conservation Area, this area largely comprises the railway station, with tracks

leading east towards further railway infrastructure. As such, buildings would almost

wholly screen views. Whilst the Proposed Development would result in localised

and minimal change in view within the southern part of the Conservation Area, this 102

Norwich City Council (2007). St Matthew’s Conservation Area Appraisal, 16.


would not materially affect understanding of the Conservation Area. The

communications function of the southern part of the Conservation Area would be

retained, whilst the utilisation of part of the Utilities site for power generation would

see the return of an industrial function to an area that once relied on the railway to

provide fuel. While potentially visible in obstructed views from these generally

functional areas of the Conservation Area, the Proposed Development would

appear behind urban structures in a complex townscape, resulting in at most a

change to the setting of the Conservation Area of Marginal magnitude, with a

Negligible level of effect, which is not significant.

Bracondale

11.4.81 To the west of the Proposed Development is the Bracondale Conservation Area

(Site 1701), which includes numerous Listed Buildings, as well as the Scheduled

and Grade I Listed Carrow Priory (ruined portions) & Carrow Abbey (Sites 1016 &

1343). Other Listed Buildings in relatively close proximity to the Proposed

Development include fine, commonly late post-medieval, residences such as 66a,

Bracondale (Site 1137); 70, Bracondale (Site 1140); Bracondale Cottage (Site

1141); 62 and 64, Bracondale (Site1165); 60, Bracondale (Site 1623); 66,

Bracondale (Site 1640); 68, Bracondale (Site 1641) and 72, 72a and 72b,

Bracondale (Site 1642), and various boundary walls and railings (Sites 1138 &

1139). These relate to an area of historic villas in the east of the Conservation

Area103, the setting of which is now largely urban. There are also areas of existing

and former industrial activity, including the works within which the Scheduled

remains of Carrow Priory are located. This varied Conservation Area is surrounded

on most sides by urban development including industry, and is judged to be of at

most Medium sensitivity to alterations to its setting beyond its boundaries.

11.4.82 Much of the Conservation Area is screened from the Proposed Development by

intervening buildings, boundary walls and stands of mature trees, including

Bracondale Grove. The taller elements of the Proposed Development, notably the

Community Energy Centre (particularly the stack), would be visible from some

locations to the rear of an area of existing industrial and commercial development.

Given the presence of extensive industrial development, within and in close

proximity to the Conservation Area, the Proposed Development would not

appreciably alter the nature of the wider setting of the Conservation Area, and

would not affect the ability of an observer to understand and appreciate it, including

103

Norwich City Council (2011). Bracondale Conservation Area Appraisal, 13-14.


the area of historic villas in relatively close proximity to the Utilities site. Thus, a

change on the setting of the Conservation Area of at worst Low magnitude, with a

Minor level of effect, which is not significant, is predicted.

11.4.83 The Scheduled and Grade I Listed Carrow Priory (ruined portions) & Carrow Abbey

(Sites 1016 & 1343) are located within an industrial site, and although these

religious institutions would originally have been relatively prominent, they are now

largely hidden by the surrounding industrial development. As such, both are of at

most Medium relative sensitivity to alterations to their settings. Whilst the stack of

the Proposed Development may be visible from upper windows at the Abbey,

ground level views would be wholly screened by adjacent industrial development

(Figure 11.10b: Viewpoint A). The chimney of the Carrow Works is already

prominent in views, and industrial structures at close range would continue to form

the context for the foreground of views. As such, the Proposed Development would

not cause a material alteration to the wider settings of the Priory and Abbey, and

would not alter appreciation and understanding of them or their cultural value. This

would lead to changes of at most Marginal magnitude, with a Negligible level of

effect, which is not significant.

City Centre

11.4.84 To the west of the Proposed Development, the City Centre Conservation Area (Site

1702) covers a large part of the historic core of Norwich, including numerous

heritage assets. Several of these individual heritage assets, such as Norwich

Castle (Site 1018/1612) and The Cathedral of The Holy and Undivided Trinity –

Norwich Cathedral (Site 1125), are particularly sensitive to alterations to their

settings. These assets are considered individually, below.

11.4.85 The Conservation Area contains a network of Saxon and medieval streets with

surviving medieval and post-medieval defensive features, houses and churches. As

a functioning, multi-period urban area, the Conservation Area does not

fundamentally owe its cultural heritage value to its visual setting, and though it

contains heritage assets such as the castle and cathedral of relatively high

sensitivity to changes to setting, the Conservation Area as a whole is judged to be

of at most Medium sensitivity to alterations to its setting beyond its boundaries.

11.4.86 The Conservation Area has been divided into 13 character areas, and according to

the Conservation Area Appraisal:


“the significance of each area is an indication of its sensitivity to change, its

contribution to the character of the City Centre Conservation Area and its degree of

uniqueness”104.

11.4.87 Sensitive areas include those that contain a high proportion of historical buildings

and features from historical periods. The areas of ‘Very High’ significance are those

covering ‘The Close’ around the cathedral, and Elm Hill and Maddermarket,

covering an area of Saxon, medieval and later development along a former east-

west Roman road alignment105 located north and north-west of the castle. Both are

rich or ‘very high’106, in the proportion of historic buildings and historic features,

though these areas are generally largely sheltered from the Proposed Development

by intervening townscape, and topography.

11.4.88 Where visible, the proposed stack would appear in a generally complex vista. For

example, although the stack may be visible in distant views from eastern elements

of The Close, as this has relatively open views towards the east, views in this

direction include a busy road and later buildings. Furthermore rising topography

would prevent visibility of the Proposed Development from the eastern edge of the

Close including the Scheduled Watergate, The Close (Site 1012).

11.4.89 The Civic Area of the Conservation Area includes landmarks such as the castle,

the city hall with its prominent clock tower (Site 1386) and the considerable Listed

Church of St Peter Mancroft (Site 1387), and is considered to be of ‘High’

Significance. These three buildings are singled out as ‘three of the city’s main

landmark buildings’107. Again, intervening townscape provides considerable

screening for the Proposed Development, though high structures, most notably the

proposed stack, would be visible from several parts of the civic centre of Norwich,

including from the vicinity of the city hall and most clearly from the raised area of

the castle (see below). The tower of St Peter Mancroft (Site 1387), while

substantial, is primarily a significant feature of the centre of the city, and it is likely

that only the stack of the Community Energy Centre would be visible, as an

element of its wider setting, from its vicinity.

11.4.90 In relatively close proximity to the Proposed Development are two character areas

– Ber Street and King Street. These are two early thoroughfares leading south-east

104

Norwich City Council (2007).Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal, 32. 105

Norwich City Council (2007).Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal, 75-76. 106


Norwich City Council (2007).Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal, 124.


from the city centre that are of Roman and Saxon origin108. To the east, the King

Street area is considered in the Conservation Area Appraisal to be of ‘High’

significance, with a ‘very high’ concentration of historic buildings and a ‘significant’

presence of historical features109. It contains several Listed churches, within the

cityscape, notably the Grade I Listed Church of St Peter Parmentergate (Site

1669), which has a relatively prominent tower. Much of this area would be largely

screened from the Proposed Development by intervening urban structures,

including the Norwich City football ground.

11.4.91 The Ber Street area, west of King Street, is considered in the Conservation Area

Appraisal to be of ‘Low’ significance – it has a ‘low’ concentration of historic

buildings though a ‘significant’ presence of historical features110. Amongst the

Listed Buildings within this area is the Grade I Listed medieval Church of St John

De Sepulchre (Site 1485) (see below). Again the built-up urban area is likely to limit

visibility of the Proposed Development, though the proposed stack may be visible

to the east, generally to the rear modern residential, commercial and industrial

structures. At the north end of Ber Street, towards the civic centre of the city are

several Listed historic buildings including the Grade I Listed All Saints Church (Site

1215) and Church of St John Baptist (Site 1499). However, this area is located in a

dense urban townscape almost entirely screened from the Proposed Development

by intervening buildings.

11.4.92 Thus, large elements of the Conservation Area are screened from the Proposed

Development by topography, intervening buildings, walls and mature trees (with the

notable exception of the castle, which has commanding views in spite of lying

within the urban centre and being surrounded by later development).

11.4.93 As part of the assessment, it was considered whether the tall designated structures

within the City Centre, including the City Hall, and churches such as the Cathedral

and St Peter Mancroft, would be visible in combination with the Proposed

Development from elevated viewpoints, including from St James Hill to the east

(Figure 5.3h: LVA Viewpoint 10: St James' Hill) and from other long-distance and

strategic viewpoints as identified in Appendix 8 of the Norwich Local Plan:

Development Management Plan Policies111. In general, and with the notable

exception of the Cathedral (discussed below), the Proposed Development and in

108




Norwich City Council (2014). Norwich Local Plan: Development Management Policies Plan, 271


particular the proposed stack, would either not be visible in the same field of view

as these landmark heritage assets due to the degree of separation between them,

or would be wholly screened from view by vegetation, topography and/or

intervening structures. In the limited instances where the Proposed Development

and heritage assets would be visible in the same field of view, the Proposed

Development would form a background feature very evidently distinct from any

heritage asset, and located clearly beyond the historic core of Norwich and beyond

other prominent intervening urban development. Similar views of the former power

stations at the Utilities site would have been available for much of the 20th century.

11.4.94 This assessment has not identified any long distance or strategic views towards

these city centre heritage assets (contributing to the value of the assets), which

would be significantly affected by the Proposed Development. Any visibility of the

assets and the Proposed Development in the same field of view would, for the

reasons outlined above, not lead to an appreciable alteration of the ability of the

observer to understand, appreciate and experience the heritage asset and its

value.

11.4.95 The Proposed Development would, when visible (most commonly in the form of

occasional views of the proposed stack to the rear of the existing diverse

townscape), not form a significant alteration to the setting of the Conservation Area.

It is arguable that the proposed Community Energy Centre, in particular, represents

a continuation in the use of this part of the city for energy production, as for much

of the 20th century the Utilities site was the location of power stations with

significant structures including towers. Change would not appreciably alter the

ability of the observer to understand and appreciate the cultural heritage

Importance of the Conservation Area and its various elements. Thus, a change on

the setting of the Conservation Area (Site 1702) of Low magnitude, with a Minor

level of effect, which is not significant, is predicted.

11.4.96 Within the City Centre Conservation Area, Norwich Cathedral (Site 1125) is a

Grade I Listed Building with an impressive spire that is clearly visible from many

viewpoints within the city, including the castle mound. It is judged to be of High

relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting, though primarily this is related to

potential effects on its immediate setting, within the Close, and to larger scale

effects within the Norwich townscape.


11.4.97 At ground level, in the vicinity of the Cathedral intervisibility with the Proposed

Development would be almost entirely prohibited by the intervening built-up area,

and topography, with the exception of glimpses of the proposed stack. However,

the stack, located at a distance of c.1.6 km would potentially appear peripherally in

the same view as the Cathedral spire, for example from the Norwich Castle mound.

However, the stack and the spire are dissimilar in nature, and the presence of the

stack in the same view as the spire, separated by a considerable distance, would

not lead to the material alteration of the ability of an observer to appreciate and

understand the cathedral or its cultural value. Appendix 8 of the Norwich Local

Plan: Development Management Policies Plan112 identifies strategic viewpoints

looking towards the City centre from the vicinities of Gas Hill, St James Hill and

Kett’s Cave. In general these views look west or southwest towards the city centre

and the cathedral. The Proposed Development and the stack in particular, are

located to the south-southeast of these locations and as such would not be visible

in the same field of view (Kett’s Cave), or would be wholly screened by landform

and vegetation cover, such as from Gas Hill and from St James Hill (Figure 5.3h:

LVA Viewpoint 10). As such, an effect of at most Low magnitude on the setting of

the cathedral is predicted, with a Minor-Moderate level of effect, which is not

significant.

11.4.98 The Scheduled medieval city walls and towers (Site 1009) is an extensive complex

of features, comprising the remains of walls and towers in varying states of

preservation, commonly located on the boundary of the City Centre Conservation

Area. As the elements of this Scheduled Monument are largely set within an urban

area, commonly with buildings of much later date in close proximity, the setting of

this heritage asset has been much altered, and it is judged to be of at most Medium


11.4.99 Although the later urban development would prohibit or limit intervisibility of the

monument with the Proposed Development, there are locations from which the

walls and towers would be intervisible with the higher structures of the Proposed

Development, in particular the stack of the Community Energy Centre, though

beyond intervening urban development. This would be true, in particular, from the

vicinity of the Black Tower at Carrow Hill (Figure 11.10e: Viewpoint D).

11.4.100 However, visibility from the Black Tower and its surroundings, on relatively high

ground overlooking the Utilities site from the south-west, is also limited for much of

112

Norwich City Council 2014 Norwich Local Plan: Development Management Policies Plan, 271


the year by mature tree cover located in close proximity. Additionally views towards

the tower and nearby walls from the roadside to the south commonly look upwards

and the Proposed Development would be screened from this direction by the walls.

Whilst the presence of the Proposed Development, and in particular the stack,

would lead to an limited change in view from the walls and towers, it would not

appreciably alter the ability of an observer to appreciate and understand this

heritage asset or its cultural value. This would be a change of Low magnitude, and

a Minor effect, which is not significant.

11.4.101 The Grade I Listed medieval Church of St John De Sepulchre (Site 1485) is located

near the south end of Ber Street, to the west of the Proposed Development. It has

a relatively prominent tower, which is visible for a considerable distance along Ber

Street and Bracondale, further south. In spite of its built-up urban setting, it is

judged to be of Medium relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting. However,

intervisibility with the Proposed Development is limited by surrounding buildings,

and whilst the church and the stack of the Community Energy Centre might be

visible in the same views, this would not materially alter the appreciation and

understanding of the monument. Thus a change of no more than Low magnitude,

on the setting of this Listed Building is predicted, leading to a Minor level of effect,

at most, which is not significant.

11.4.102 Norwich Castle (Site 1018/1612) is both Scheduled and Grade I Listed. It

comprises a highly prominent Norman keep on an extensive high artificial motte.

The extensiveness of the Norman fortifications results in a number of later Listed

Buildings being located within the bounds of the Scheduled area. Whilst the castle

is a highly prominent landmark within the city, its original setting has clearly been

hugely altered by later urban development, and the castle contains elements

relating to its utilisation in the 19th century as a prison. However, its visual

prominence leads to its having High relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting,

though this is primarily related to its immediate townscape.

11.4.103 The Proposed Development would be located over 1 km to the east of the castle,

and the structures would be visible to the rear of extensive urban development,

both residential and industrial, with the proposed stack being located some 1.5 km

from the Scheduled area. The presence of the Proposed Development, being

located on an area of former industrial development that for much of the 20th

century was the location of substantial power station structures, would be

consistent with historic influence upon the setting of the castle. The Proposed


Development would result in an insignificant alteration to the wider setting of the

castle, and would not materially alter appreciation or understanding of it. This would

consititute a change of Low magnitude and Minor-Moderate level of effect, which

is not significant.

11.4.104 Listed Buildings within the bounds of the Scheduled area (but not themselves

Scheduled) include Anglia House (Site 1186) and Shire House (Site 1685), which

although impressive and large structures, are prominent only in the immediate

townscape, and are judged to be of Low relative sensitivity to alterations to their

setting. The intervening built-up urban townscape of Norwich almost entirely limits

intervisibility with the Proposed Development, with the possible exception of the

upper storeys of these buildings. At most changes of Marginal magnitude on their

settings are predicted, leading to effects of No significance.

11.4.105 Also in this area is the Grade II Listed Shire Hall Chambers (Site 1432), which

again is judged to be of Low relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting beyond

the immediate townscape. The built-up area of Norwich would partially screen

views from the vicinity of this building of the Proposed Development, but the stack

of the Community Energy Centre, and perhaps glimpses of other taller structures,

would be visible to the south-east. This would not materially alter appreciation or

understanding of this Listed Building, and a change of at most Low magnitude, with

a Negligible level of effect, which is not significant, is predicted.

11.4.106 To the south of the castle, and within the Scheduled area, the Listed Bridge over

Castle Moat and 2 Entrance Lodges, including Cast Iron Gates and Railings (Site

1318) comprises 19th century structures, connected to the castle, which forms the

main element in their setting. These ancillary structures are judged to be of Low

relative sensitivity to alterations to their setting, beyond the area of the castle. The

built-up area of Norwich would partially limit intervisibility with the Proposed

Development, and at most an insignificant alteration to the setting of this Listed

Building is predicted, a change of Low magnitude and a Negligible level of effect,


Decommissioning Phase

11.4.107 At present, there is not an estimate for the decommissioning date for the Proposed

Development. It is envisaged that the decommissioning and removal of the

structures associated with the Proposed Development would not result in any

substantive direct effects, additional to those identified during the construction


phase, assuming that ground-breaking works would be limited to areas affected

during the construction phase.

11.4.108 No significant levels of indirect effect upon the settings of designated heritage

assets would result from the decommissioning of the Proposed Development.

Where indirect effects have been identified, these would generally be reversed

following the decommissioning and removal of the Proposed Development.

11.5 Cumulative Effects

Introduction

11.5.1 The following developments have been identified as having the potential to result in

cumulative effects.

Table 11.11 Cumulative Schemes

Application number(s) Description Status

St. Anne’s Wharf (04/00605/F)

The demolition of existing buildings to slab level and the development of the following mixes; 437 residential units ,2128 sq m of A1,A2 , A3 and D2 uses(max.2000 sq m A1),the provision of 305 car parking spaces.

Approved and awaiting implementation

Deal Ground (12/00875/O) Outline planning application for a mixed development consisting of a maximum of 670 dwellings; a local centre comprising commercial uses (A1/A2/A3): a restaurant/dining quarter and public house (A3/A4); demolition of buildings on the May Gurney site (excluding the former public house); an access bridge over the River Yare

Approved and awaiting implementation

11.5.2 Cumulative effects, in so far as they relate to cultural heritage, are limited to indirect

effects upon the settings of heritage assets. The potential for direct effects are not

considered as these would be unaffected by other developments, with the

exception of the area on the south bank of the River Wensum (Site 310) where

works on both the Proposed Development and the Deal Ground site may lead to a

cumulative effect.

11.5.3 Whilst cumulative effects on the settings of heritage assets may in some instances

exceed effects resulting from the Proposed Development alone, in other cases they

may reduce it. For example, if an intervening development could potentially mask

the Proposed Development under consideration, the effect of adding the Proposed


Development to the cumulative baseline would be less than if the proposed

Development were to stand alone.

11.5.4 For this assessment, designated heritage assets up to 2 km from the Proposed

Development have been identified and the significance of the effect which may

result from the Proposed Development has been assessed. Cumulative effects

have only been considered for those assets where the level of effect from the

Proposed Development alone has been judged to be Minor or greater. This is

because it is judged to be unlikely that cumulative effects upon the settings of those

monuments subject to Negligible levels of effect from the Proposed Development

are likely to arise. The following 15 assets have been considered in relation to

cumulative effects:

City walls and towers Scheduled Monument (Site 1009);

Norwich Castle Scheduled Monument/Grade I Listed Building (Site 1018/1612);

Church of St Andrew (Trowse with Newton) Grade I Listed Building (Site 1029);

The Cathedral of The Holy and Undivided Trinity Grade I Listed Building (Site

1125);

Thorpe Hall Grade II* Listed Building (Site 1306);

Church of St John De Sepulchre Grade I Listed Building (Site 1485);

Church of St John and All Saints Grade II* Listed Building (Site 1663);

Whitlingham Hospital Blocks 04, 05, 06 Grade II* Listed Building (Site 1687);

Thorpe Tower Grade II Listed Building (Site 1693);

Crown Point Grade II Registered Park and Garden (Site 1697);

Bracondale Conservation Area (Site 1701);

Norwich City Centre Conservation Area (Site 1702);

Thorpe Ridge Conservation Area (Site 1707);

Thorpe St Andrew Conservation Area (Site 1708/1709); and

Trowse with Newton Conservation Area (Site 1710).

11.5.5 Further details regarding the specific cumulative effects experienced by the

receptors listed above are set out below. To summarise the conclusions of this

cumulative assessment, the combined presence of the Proposed Development,

and either or both the St. Anne’s Wharf development and the Deal Ground

development would not result in significant cumulative effects on heritage assets.


St Anne’s Wharf

11.5.6 The consented mixed-use development at St Anne’s Wharf is unlikely to have an

appreciable cumulative effect on the settings of many of the heritage assets listed

above, as it would infill an area of the city between King Street and the River

Wensum, and would not appreciably alter the settings of monuments and buildings

located beyond the City Centre Conservation Area and the banks of the River

Wensum. Within the City Centre Conservation Area (Site 1702), St Anne’s Wharf

would be visible from the vicinity of King Street, and would potentially be visible

from Listed Buildings within the Conservation Area including the Church of St Peter

Parmentergate (Site 1669) with its relatively prominent tower and the Grade I

Listed former merchant’s hall at the Old Barge, 115-123, King Street (Site 1059).

Additionally it would be visible from high points in the Conservation Area, including

Norwich Castle (Site 1018/1612). However, the St Anne’s Wharf development

would be visible as an infilling of a former industrial area, and would potentially limit

views, at ground level, of the Proposed Development from nearby elements of the

City Centre.

11.5.7 At most, the cumulative effect of the St Anne’s Wharf development in conjunction

with the Proposed Development would form a Marginal adverse change to the

setting of the City Centre Conservation Area (Site 1702), which would in some

areas be beneficial. This would lead to a Negligible level of effect, which is not

significant.

11.5.8 The cumulative change upon the setting of Norwich Castle (Site 1018/1612) is

again judged to be of Marginal magnitude at most, as the St Anne’s Wharf

development would represent an infilling of a formerly developed site within the city

in front of the Proposed Development when viewed from the castle. This would be

a Minor level of effect, which is not significant.

Deal Ground

11.5.9 As noted above, cumulative effects with regards to cultural heritage are largely

limited to indirect settings effects. However, the Access Road Development Area

for the Proposed Development would in part be shared with the Deal Ground

development. Effects deriving from the proposed Access Road have been

considered under the heading Direct Effects in Section 11.4 above, where it was

noted that works on the south bank of the River Wensum (Including the Access

Road) would potentially disturb remains of the timber yard (Site 310) in this area,


which is associated with possible yard/track surfaces and palaeoenvironmental

remains. However, it is worth noting that should the Deal Ground development

commence in advance of Generation Park Norwich development then the access

road would be constructed under the extant permission for the Deal Ground

development. On this basis any direct effects on buried archaeology would not

relate to the Generation Park Norwich project.

11.5.10 A non-cumulative change of Low magnitude and a Minor level of direct effect,

which is not significant, was identified in relation to the timber yard (Site 310). The

more extensive disturbance that would be caused to this heritage asset by both the

Proposed Development (including works on Vehicular Bridge over the River

Wensum) and the Deal Ground development would potentially lead to a moderate

loss of information content, a cumulative direct change of Medium magnitude, with

a potentially Minor-Moderate level of effect, which is not significant.

11.5.11 Cumulative indirect effects with regards to the mixed development at Deal Ground

would only be appreciable in areas where this development was clearly visible. The

intervening built-up area is likely to screen the Deal Ground development from

much of the city of Norwich, though it would potentially be visible from Norwich

Castle (Site 1018/1612) within the Norwich City Centre Conservation Area (Site

1702), and from the eastern end of Bracondale Conservation Area (Site 1701). The

Deal Ground development would likely be particularly visible from the west of the

Conservation Area of Trowse with Newton (Site 1710), including the Listed Church

of St Andrew (Site 1029), and from elements of the Registered Park and Garden of

Crown Point (Site 1697).

11.5.12 The Deal Ground development may also be visible from the vicinity of both Thorpe

Ridge Conservation Area (Site 1707) and Thorpe St Andrew Conservation Area

(Site 1708/1709), though in both instances the Proposed Development would be

introduced into the view from these areas in front of the Deal Ground development

and as such would largely screen this other cumulative scheme from view. No

more than Marginal magnitude cumulative changes on these Conservation Areas

would occur. In both instances, this would lead to a Negligible level of effect which

is not significant.

11.5.13 Similarly, at worst a cumulative change of Marginal magnitude with a Negligible

level of effect, which is not significant, is predicted on the setting of Thorpe Hall

(Site 1306) in the west of Thorpe St Andrew.


11.5.14 From much of the Registered Park and Garden at Crown Point (Site 1697), both

the Proposed Development and the Deal Ground development would be screened

from view by intervening tree belts. However, from some locations, in particular in

the north of the park near the River Yare, it is possible that both developments

would sometimes be visible as a larger north-south block of development, following

the removal of trees and vegetation along the north bank of the river and within the

Deal Ground. Whilst this would represent an alteration to the wider setting of the

park, it would not appreciably affect understanding of it as a cultural heritage asset.

Thus there would be at most a change of Low magnitude and an effect of Minor


11.5.15 The Whitlingham Hospital Blocks 04, 05, 06 Grade II* Listed Building (Site 1687)

would be largely screened from the Deal Ground/May Gurney development by

intervening topography and trees, and at most a cumulative change of Low

magnitude, with a Minor level of effect, which is not significant, on the setting of

this building is predicted.

11.5.16 Only the eastern end of Bracondale Conservation Area (Site 1701) is likely to have

appreciable visibility of the Deal Ground development – in many areas intervening

buildings, including industrial structures. The Proposed Development and the Deal

Ground development would largely represent the combined redevelopment of an

industrial area adjacent the riverside and railway, beyond the Carrow Works, and

the cumulative effect on the setting of the Conservation Area would not appreciably

alter understanding and appreciation of it or its cultural value. As such, a

cumulative change of Low magnitude is predicted, with a Minor level of effect,


11.5.17 From much of Norwich City Centre Conservation Area (Site 1702) the Deal Ground

development would be largely screened from view by its low-lying location and the

presence of intervening buildings. Where visible, e.g. from Norwich Castle, the

structures of the Deal Ground development and the Proposed Development would

form a south/north cluster of buildings on the banks of the river, located largely on

formerly industrially developed ground and to the rear of existing development.

Together the cumulative effect would represent an insignificant alteration to the

wider setting of the City Centre, at the edge of the city’s developed area, and would

not appreciably alter the ability of an observer to understand and appreciate the

cultural heritage value of the Conservation Area, This would form at most a


cumulative change of Low magnitude, and a Minor level of effect, which is not

significant.

11.5.18 With regard to the setting of Norwich Castle itself (Site 1018/1612), the cumulative

effect of the Deal Ground development and the Proposed Development would

likewise represent an insignificant alteration to the wider setting of the castle, a

cumulative change of Low magnitude, and a Minor-Moderate level of effect, which

is not significant.

11.5.19 Much of the east of the Trowse with Newton Conservation Area (Site 1710) would

be largely screened from both the Deal Ground development and the Proposed

Development by intervening building and trees within and on the edges of the

Conservation Area. However, the south end of the Deal Ground development

would be visible from the west end of the Conservation Area, and in particular the

Listed Church of St Andrew (Site 1029). The element of the Deal Ground

development in closest proximity to the Conservation Area and the church would

largely replace an area of existing commercial premises, and the Deal Ground

development may also serve to limit intervisibility of elements of the Proposed

Development to the north.

11.5.20 Much of both the Deal Ground development and the Proposed Development would

utilise areas formerly used for industrial purposes, and the infill of waste ground in

both areas is arguably a beneficial effect, as currently the extensive wasteland on

the edge of the Conservation Area detracts from its character. However, the Deal

Ground/May Gurney development and the Proposed Development together would

form a string of development running north from the edge of the Conservation Area,

and this would alter the setting of both the Conservation Area and the church,

though it would not materially affect the ability of an observer to comprehend these

assets in comparison with the current baseline. As such changes to the settings of

both the church (Site 1029) and the Conservation Area (Site 1710) of Low

magnitude are predicted. These would constitute a Minor level of effect, which is

not significant.

11.6 Harm

11.6.1 No likely significant environmental effects have been found on the setting of

designated heritage assets from either the Proposed Development individually, or

as a result of interactions with cumulative developments. Given this, and in

accordance with the assessment methodology set out in Section 11.2 above, all


the effects of the Proposed development upon heritage assets are considered to be

‘less than substantial’ and as such the relevant policy test, as set out in the

NPPF113, should apply.

11.7 Mitigation

11.7.1 The NPPF114 and associated guidance, as well as local planning policies (all

outlined in Section 11.2) require a mitigation response that is designed to eliminate,

reduce or compensate for the effects of the Proposed Development on the

archaeological sites within the Proposed Development site

11.7.2 There is potential for a Minor-Moderate level of effect, which is not considered a

likely significant environmental effect, upon the potential remains of Roman

occupation on the north bank of the River Yare (Site 33), resulting from proposed

construction activity. Following correspondence with the Norfolk County Council

Historic Environment Service, an evaluation is currently being undertaken. The

results of these works may inform the requirement for any pre-construction

mitigation associated with former Roman occupation of the area.

11.7.3 Works associated with the Proposed Development on the south bank of the River

Wensum, including the new bridge, access road and the utilities connection to the

Britvic site may potentially disturb remains and paleoenvironmental evidence.

Archaeological works may be required in this area to elucidate the nature of any

sub-surface remains.

11.7.4 Works at the junction of the Access Road Development Area with The Street, at the

edge of Trowse with Newton Conservation Area (Site 1710) have limited potential

to disturb 18th and 20th century industrial remains and potential remains relating to

World War II. There may be a requirement to monitor works in the vicinity of these

heritage assets.

11.7.5 Deep groundworks, and works within the courses of the Rivers Yare and Wensum

(including dredging works and the erection of the columns for the proposed

bridges), as well as the regrading of some areas of sheet piling along the north

banks of the River, have potential to encounter and disturb palaeoenvironmental

evidence and archaeological remains. Where such works are to be undertaken, an

113

DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework. 134 114

DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework.


archaeological watching brief may be required. In respect of the potential dredging

of the river, this would take the form of inspection of uplifted deposits.

11.7.6 The exact scope of any mitigation would be based upon the results of the

archaeological evaluation and would be agreed with Norfolk County Council

Historic Environment Services on behalf of the planning authorities.

11.7.7 There is no direct mitigation than can be offered to reduce the predicted setting

effects. However, no indirect or cumulative effects on the settings of heritage

assets that are considered likely significant environmental effects have been

identified.

11.7.8 It is the intention for the proposed Education Centre to include exhibits relating to

the history of the Utilities site, particularly in relation to its industrial history

associated with energy generation.

11.8 Residual Effects and Conclusions

11.8.1 The Proposed Development has the potential to cause a direct effect with a Minor-

Moderate level of effect, which is not considered significant, on potential remains

of a Roman occupation including a possible bridge or wharf (Site 33). Further direct

effects ranging in level from Minor to Negligible, which are not significant, have

been identified on cultural heritage assets, commonly 19th and 20th century

industrial and potential 20th century military remains.

11.8.2 Archaeological evaluation works are currently underway to confirm the desk based

assessment work presented in this ES. The results of this investigation will help

inform the requirement for any further programme of archaeological mitigation

works considered necessary prior to the commencement of construction works.

Any such mitigation measures would prevent, reduce or offset adverse effects on

heritage assets. The scope of further work is anticipated to include (but not

necessarily be limited to) archaeological monitoring. The requirement for

archaeological works during or preceding each phase of the Proposed

Development would be determined by the Norfolk County Council Historic

Environment Service.

11.8.3 Following the construction period, no residual direct effects on known heritage

assets are predicted. However, should periodic dredging of the river be required in

relation to the operation of the moorings, there may be a residual effect on

unknown archaeological and palaeoenvironmental remains within the river channel.


However, any routine maintenance dredging works are unlikely to result in

disturbance to any new sections of river bed in addition to those sections dredged

as part of the construction phase.

11.8.4 With regard to the operational phase this assessment has not identified any likely

significant indirect or cumulative effects on the settings of designated heritage

assets. Furthermore, any harm to such assets is judged to be ‘less than substantial’

in relation to the policy test required as part of the National Planning Policy

Framework. In the absence of additional mitigation measures these would be as

predicted in Section 11.4 and 11.5. All effects upon the settings of designated

assets resulting from the Operational Stage of the Proposed Development would

be reversed following decommissioning.

CHAPTER 11 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE€¦ · Figure 11.1 Heritage Assets within 1 km of...

Documents

Transcript of CHAPTER 11 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE€¦ · Figure 11.1 Heritage Assets within 1 km of...