Highways Agency

• 1. introduction
• 2. scheme proposals
• 3. engineering assessment
• 4. environmental assessment
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 4. environmental assessment (continued)
• 5. traffic and economic assessment

4. environmental assessment (continued)

4. Environmental Assessment (continued)

4.7 Cultural Heritage

4.7.1 Introduction

This document is an assessment of the likely impacts on the Cultural Heritage resource posed by the proposed construction of the Alternative Proposal from Ellington to Fen Drayton in Cambridgeshire. It includes the results of a desk based assessment and aerial photographic survey of the road corridor. The assessment is a Stage 2 Assessment in accordance with the DMRB Volume II Section 3 part 2 for Cultural Heritage.

The off-line section of the Alternative Proposal passes through land primarily consisting of open arable to the south of Brampton and Godmanchester starting at Ellington. It rejoins the current A14 at Fen Drayton. The second part of the scheme involves replacing the deck of the Huntingdon viaduct bridge at NGR TL232 716. The replacement of the Huntingdon viaduct will involve removing the existing deck from the piers, which will be left in place and replacing the deck with another structure which will be almost identical in scale and appearance.

This document assesses the impacts of the Alternative Proposal in two sections as proposed in the Environmental Scoping Report, March 2004. Section 1 is located between Ellington to Godmanchester (A1198). Section 2A is from Godmanchester (A1198) to Fen Drayton where it rejoins the existing A14. It also assesses the impact of the replacement of the Huntingdon viaduct.

Known and potential Cultural Heritage resources that may be affected by the Alternative Proposal might, in principal, include both archaeology and built heritage. These resources could therefore include archaeological sites, Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Conservation Areas, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest.

The objective of this desk-based assessment and aerial photographic survey has been to identify the known and potential Cultural Heritage resources that may be affected by this option.

The aims of the assessment are to:

• Identify the known Cultural Heritage constraints relating to the proposed development along the entire length of the route and at the location of the existing viaduct;
• Determine the potential for disturbing previously unknown remains in areas of archaeological sensitivity;
• To determine the value/importance of the heritage resource;
• Assess the impact of the Alternative Proposal on existing and potential Cultural Heritage resources and to make recommendations for any further investigation which may be required (e.g. geophysics, field walking, trial trenching etc.) in order to better characterise the nature, extent and importance of the resources and enable a suitable mitigation strategy to be devised

4.7.2 Method of Assessment

This document has been produced in accordance with Stage 2 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2, Cultural Heritage (1993).

Information was obtained for a study area of 500 metres either side of the Alternative Proposal centreline. The following information, sources and opinions have been consulted:

• Cambridgeshire County Council Sites and Monuments Record (SMR)
• Huntingdon Archive/Public Record Offices for published/unpublished literature and cartographic sources
• Planning Office/Conservation Office of Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council, Huntingdonshire District Council for details of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas
• National Monuments Record
• Andy Thomas (Planning Archaeologist) and Sarah Poppy (SMR Officer) at Cambridgeshire County Council
• Katharine Fletcher (Regional Planner), Jenny Carlisle (Historic Areas Advisor) and Philip Walker (Ancient Monuments Inspector) all of English Heritage

No detailed assessment of the area immediately surrounding the viaduct has been undertaken in relation to this assessment as the option currently under consideration will not involve any new land take and will be similar in design and scale to the viaduct deck already in place.

In November 2003 an aerial photographic survey was undertaken, a copy of the report is included in the EAR along with a gazetteer of known archaeological and built heritage resources in the study area. All sites have been given a specific number for the purposes of this report (ATK No). The locations of these resources can be seen in the EAR.

4.7.3 Archaeological and Historical Background

INTRODUCTION

This section provides an overview of the archaeological background of the study area, in order to establish the nature of the Cultural Heritage resource that may be affected by the proposed road scheme. This background will help to establish the value of the Cultural Heritage resource in its regional context within the corridor itself and determine the likelihood of finding as yet unknown buried archaeology along the route.

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

The county is made up of some of the lowest land in England, the majority of which is just 60m above sea level. The north east of Cambridgeshire contains part of the East Anglian Fen system. Fingers of this fen stretch as far south as Teversham and Fulbourn to the east of the study area (CCC, 1991, 4-1)

Superficial drift deposits have accumulated during the glacial and post glacial period. During the glacial phase certain areas where rock was less resistant was subject to erosion and deposits which were created and once mixed with melt water, resulted in the formation of large areas of boulder clay. This boulder clay is present over the large majority of the county. During the Devensian phase, ice advanced over the county again and when it thawed, the ice melt created swollen rivers which in turn deposited gravel in river valleys. This deposited gravel scoured the boulder clay from these river valley areas (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 1).

The south of Cambridgeshire which incorporates the study area is a relatively an upland area. There are two very differing types of bedrock geology in the county and there is a north east / south west division in these types of geology. To the west, the oldest stratum is Oxford Clay. This was laid down in the Jurassic age and covers the area around Huntingdon and Ellington to the west (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 1). To the south east lie areas of chalk. These are further divided into upper, middle and lower chalk (Ravendale & Muir, 1984, 46).

Both areas of clay and chalk are affected by river drainage basins and these are probably the most striking land form. In the study area the dominant river basin is the Great Ouse. The Great Ouse has a very broad valley with wide-ranging alluvium and gravel terraces around Huntingdon and extends between the A1 and Godmanchester.

In the A14 corridor, the topography is gently sloping arable farm land and is quite hilly either side of the river basin of the Great Ouse. Parts of the study area have previously been excavated for gravel, brick, clay and coprolite.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Palaeolithic and Mesolithic 500,000 - 4,000BC

The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods cover some quarter of a million years of human history. The Palaeolithic covers the period from the first appearance of tool-using humans to the retreat of the glacial ice in the northern hemisphere at c.8500BC. The study area in general is an upland area and as such is not boggy in nature. The fen edge, which is a focus of activity during the prehistoric periods, is outside of the study area to the north east.

Palaeolithic people lived as hunter-gatherers without agriculture and without formal pottery production. After the retreat of the glaciers, in the Mesolithic period, movement of people can be traced through shell middens left near the coasts or distinct flint scatters found inland, marking hunting camps. Traces of temporary shelters are occasionally found by excavation. Some impact on the landscape in the Mesolithic has been suggested from the pollen record by possible burning of woodland to create grazing areas. Remains of these transient peoples have been dated well into the 2nd millennium BC suggesting they coexisted with the Neolithic farmers.

Over 115 sites associated with the Palaeolithic period have been recovered in Cambridgeshire but none can be related to sites or features (Reynolds, 1999, 6). Finds are usually associated with the river terrace of the Ouse and the nearby Cam to the east.

During the Mesolithic period, Cambridgeshire underwent great environmental changes, including the rising of the water table. A large number of sites that were on the Fen Basin in the early Mesolithic period will have been deeply buried by the rising water and growth of the Fen (Taylor, 1977, 10). The potential within general study area is believed to be quite low since it is believed that foci of activity were located at the fen edge and fen islands more to the north east of the county.

Neolithic 4,000 - 2,300BC

The introduction of farming and its associated technological changes occurred c4000 BC and quickly spread up the more favoured river valleys and coastal strips. This led to major alterations in the landscape as woodlands were cleared. Some farming may have been restricted to temporary slash-and-burn settlements but the existence of major burial monuments in some areas suggests permanent settlements were established. Few house sites survive but major ritual monuments such as chambered cairns, henges and stone circles generally show the extent of settlement in many parts for the country.

Evidence of Neolithic settlement is patchy within the region itself. Settlement was still based on mobility, or at most on very short-term sedantism (Hunter & Ralston, 1999). Settlement itself is difficult to locate as evidence of settlement usually comes in the form of flint tool scatters which can cover several hectares and therefore make it very difficult to pinpoint the precise settlement site. Settlement in any case is likely to have been semi-permanent consisting of temporary shelters for use seasonally or for short periods.

There is an uneven distribution of Neolithic settlement sites within the county. Within the study area there are no known settlement sites of this period, but flint scatters indicate that settlement did exist here. These sites are concentrated along the western side of the Great Ouse River. Examples of where known mortuary enclosures and cursus exist include nearby areas of Huntingdon, Buckden, Brampton and Godmanchester, representing the ritual aspect of life in this period (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 8). Just outside of the study area at Brampton a series of ceremonial monuments including ring ditches and barrow containing Neolithic burials and further possibly associated ditches have been identified (Malim & Mitchell, 1993, 11). There is generally a notable lack of ceremonial monuments in the county.

Again, during this period activity was focused on the fen edge, fen islands and the south of the county (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 7).

Bronze Age 2,300 - 700BC

In the Bronze Age, metal first began to be widely used in Britain, possibly as a result of the increase in contact with Europe. However, various types of stone, particularly flint, remained very important long after metal became available. The Bronze Age saw the introduction of cremation of the dead and burials in round barrows. Bronze Age society appears to have been divided into chiefdoms based around a largely agricultural economy.

The distribution of Bronze Age activity in the county is patchy due to environmental changes leading to the waterlogging of many sites and gradual assimilation into the fenland. The county is well represented by bronze metal work, and increasing numbers of settlement and burial sites are being identified though aerial photography and concentrated research projects, such as the Fenland Survey. Settlement sites, indicated by flint scatters seem to be concentrated in the south east of the county particularly on the chalk hills with comparatively few sites to the west on the clay soils. Barrow and ring ditch sites again are concentrated on the chalk soils to the south east and on higher ground (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 9). There is sparse evidence for Bronze Age activity in the region around Huntingdon, including the study area.

Activity during this period is once more focused on the fen edge, with the clay lands such as those within the study area believed to be far less settled.

Iron Age 700 - 43BC

The Iron Age is usually taken as spanning the period from the late eighth century BC until the first century AD. The period is characterized, above all, by its plentiful and diverse settlement evidence, ranging from individual farmsteads occupied by a single household, to hillforts holding larger communities. An increasingly complex society developed with the introduction and development of coinage, industry, warfare and incipient urbanism. Iron Age landscapes also included field systems, trackways and linear boundaries, although unless they are directly associated with settlements, these are often difficult to distinguish from their Bronze Age and Roman counterparts.

There is a distinction between the Late Bronze Age, the Early Iron Age and the Mid - Late Iron Age settlement patterns. In the early period, settlement was concentrated on individual unenclosed farmsteads with field systems. These farmsteads slowly became incorporated into loose villages. In Cambridgeshire they are concentrated in the river valleys and fen islands to the north east outside of the study area. By the Mid to Late Iron Age small enclosed farmsteads began to spring up in areas which were previously unsettled such as at Brampton and Buckden. Also the hillforts characteristic of the Iron Age become evident by c. 300BC and include Arbury Camp which is located in Cambridge, approximately 11km east of the study area and a large defended enclosure with associated massive ditch has been identified in Huntingdon which dates to this period (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 12).

In north Cambridgeshire, the popular method of burial was inhumation, rather than cremation (examples of which are more commonly found south of Cambridge). There is an example of an inhumation at Alconbury within the study as well as further cremations and inhumations outside of the study area near to Cambridge to the east.

In general, the study area becomes more utilised during this period, with both single farmsteads and more complex villages along with patterns of field systems and trackways are evident.

The Roman Period AD 43 - 410

The Roman influence grew from the early part of the first century AD and a garrison first established in the area at Godmanchester in the middle of the 1st century, where the army was stationed.

The garrison at Godmanchester was thought to have had two successive forts with defences, such as ditches with timber and turf ramparts, and internal timber buildings such as a granary. The Iron Age settlement and defence site was taken over by the Roman army as a station and a small wooden fort was built on top.

Surrounding these forts, native settlements sprang up and towards the second century AD and as the military forts were demolished or abandoned, the civilian settlement increased. At Cambridge, which was the major centre but lies outside of the study area, the settlement included houses and occasionally more substantial buildings such as inns along with important transport connections (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 14). Outside of the town suburban villas were established along with burial grounds such as those located on the outskirts of Godmanchester.

The first roads were for military purposes, but by the end of the 1st Century AD roads were used for commerce. The major road in the study area is based upon is the road connecting the Roman towns of Cambridge and Godmanchester, later known as the Via Devana, now the approximate route of the existing A14. Also in the area is a section of Ermine Street, now the A1198 leading to Godmanchester from the south (Fox, 1923, 161). More minor roads also exist within the study area such as the road linking Sandy with Godmanchester.

At the town of Godmanchester (Durovigutum) a larger scale more significant town was created than at Cambridge. It had the basic features of a Roman town including houses and granaries, bath houses, town halls and stone wall defences.

The majority of the population did not live in towns or villas, but in rural villages and farms. Clusters of sites along river gravel terraces such as around Cambridge to the east can be found. The Roman road network also provided a pattern for settlement. Clusters of villages can be found along roads such as Ermine Street and particularly in the west section of the Via Devana near to Godmanchester. They were mostly rectilinear plots of timber housing aligned on the main road frontage (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 20).

Cambridgeshire is therefore an area intensively settled and utilised in the Roman period. Within the study area there are many finds and sites relating to this period ranging from individual findspots, to evidence of former field systems and potential settlement sites.

The Early Medieval Period AD 410-1066

There is little evidence of settlement or activity during this period within the study area. During the period, two rival groups attempted to dominate the area of Cambridge and Huntingdon, East Anglia and the Midlands (known then as Mercia). They both tried to gain control of the East Cam frontier. The pressure to retain land can be seen from the dykes built in this period to the east and south east of Cambridge. There are five in all and these are made up of banked and ditched linear earthworks and representing the East Anglian defences built to maintain control of the eastern section of Cambridgeshire (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 27). The area around Huntingdon and Godmanchester was probably dominated by Mercia but did not come under direct control until the later 8th century. The East Anglian place names usually ending in -ham are notably lacking in the west of Cambridgeshire.

Early medieval settlement sites often developed in the locations of Romano-British settlement and early medieval sites are often found when investigating known Roman sites. Small farming settlements were the most common of occupation sites. The town of Godmanchester was re-occupied after the Roman period and Cambridge in the east is believed to have remain settled; its population continuing to use a cemetery site at Girton, approximately 7km east of the study area (Wright, 1982, 248) (Spoerry, 200, 35).

In 881 it is documented that the Danes came to the Cambridgeshire region and settled. Evidence of this invasion comes in the form of fortification of estates as well as at Huntingdon. The Danes influenced the type of settlement encouraging the concentration of farmhouses together to farm an area of collective land. This was the foundation of the many villages in the region, with small roads connecting each settlement (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 30). An earlier form of the medieval field system developed in this period can be seen extensively over the study area in ridge and furrow earthworks. This autonomous region was retained for only 37 years after which it became part of the kingdom of Mercia.

The disparity between areas of Cambridgeshire which were controlled by Mercia in the west and those areas to the east is evident in the form of placenames. Those ending in -ham, meaning settlement originated in the late C7th century. The ending -ton is an 8th century and later ending also meaning settlement. Places in the east of Cambridgeshire have high numbers of placenames ending in -ham whereas only 3% of placenames end in -ham in the west, there are far more placenames ending in -ton, including the study area. It seems therefore that there was far more longstanding settlement earlier in the east than in the west - around the study area, reflecting the continuing battle for dominance between the Angles and the Mercians in the west into the 8th century.

Landownership described in the Domesday Book indicates that land in East Huntingdonshire belonging to the Abbey of Ramsey, such as Ellington in the study area (Page & Proby, 1926, 44) (Salzmann, 1938, 118). Other parishes were held as Royal estates, such as Brampton. Large Royal estates were centred on Huntingdon and Godmanchester probably based on the centre of the Roman town. More rarely parishes were held by independent landowners however these are found to the east and north east of the County, outside of the study area (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 31) (RCHM, 1968, 170)

The Medieval Period AD 1066-1547

The medieval period was relatively peaceful in the region. However, as in other regions of the country the castle building programme led by William the Conqueror was seen at Huntingdon. The Castle probably consisted of an earthen motte with a wooden keep. The organisation of the county changed with a sheriff provided at Cambridge and the old manorial Saxon landlords were replaced with Norman lords. The parishes that are known today were mostly in place by 1086 at the time of writing the Domesday Book and were known as 'vills'. The population of the county at this time is estimated to be around 40,000 and according to the Hundred roles of Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire taken in 1279 the population had double or even tripled in some areas since 1086 (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 34).

There were a great many moated houses built at this time, approximately 325 in Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire often concentrated on roadsides. The moats were not for defence but possibly an emulation of castle architecture (Kirby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 37). There is evidence of two of these moated houses within the study area at Hemingford Abbots and Fenstanton, both along the line of the road as was common. This indicates a high potential for further remains of this type along the roadside.

Field systems, made up of large communally run fields in which each villager farmed a number of ridge and furrow strips, were in use during the medieval period. This was common over the whole of the county and in the study area there is extensive evidence of remaining 'ridge and furrow' earthworks associated with this method of farming. The arable fields occupied the majority of the township and were cultivated on a two to three year rotation leaving on field fallow.

Roads changed little other than general improvement. The A14 as it is now known, continued to be a commercial road for travellers between Godmanchester and Cambridge and the small roads between the villages created in the early medieval period continued to be used.

Village churches were a common feature and within the study area and there is one parish churches dating from the 13th and 14th centuries at Ellington.

Contraction of villages and even desertion in villages occurred from 1300 - 1450. There was decrease in population and the areas of cultivation were reduced. This will largely have been as a result of the spread of plague which reduced the available agricultural workforce. According to the 'Nonae Rolls' written in 1342 and documenting the previous 50 years, 5000 acres were lying 'untilled' Darby, 1977, 16).

The Post-Medieval Period AD 1547 - 1901

Further continuity in the patterns of land-use and settlement is evident during this period. Evidence of houses and buildings from this period survive particularly in villages such as Fenstanton and Ellington. Enclosure of the fields (generally taking place in the 16th - 18th centuries in England) had little effect on the parishes within the study area until the parliamentary Enclosure Act in mid c19th century. The dates of Enclosure of many of the parishes within the study area are included in the Bibliography.

Both Huntingdon and Cambridge lay on national roads to London and trade between the centres flourished at this time. "Many inhabitants of Huntingdonshire lived within a days walk of more than one market town" (Kirkby & Oosthuizen, 2000, 46). The rivers also provided ways of transporting of goods and people. Alongside these roads and rivers inns and hostelries were constructed to house the travellers.

The landscape has changed very little from this period to the present. The villages have expanded but many have kept their historic cores, such as Brampton, Ellington (ATK 254), Fenstanton (ATK 255) and Fen Drayton and this is reflected with the designation of Conservation Area in these villages. Equally the administrative boundaries remained largely unchanged from the 11th century until about the 19th century, when the boundaries were tidied, however this had little impact on the study area.

In 1848 the great northern railway began to improve the rail network putting in a line from Huntingdon and Cambridge to York, with a freight line already existing to London.

The Modern Period 1901 - present

The predominance of agricultural use of the landscape continues to the present; however there has been a general increase in the development around the villages along the A14 and within Huntingdon and Godmanchester.

During World War II a defensive line was set up running from Bristol to the River Welland in Cambridgeshire. Remnants of this defensive line can be seen from the pillboxes for example at Brampton.

The road network was improved in the later 20th century with the addition of the M11 and the improvements along the line of the A14.

4.7.4 Historic Environment within the Study Area (500m eitherside of the Alternative Proposal)

SCHEDULED ANCIENT MONUMENTS

There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the study area (excluding the Huntingdon viaduct area).

PARKS AND GARDENS OF SPECIAL HISTORIC INTEREST

There are no Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in the study area.

CONSERVATION AREAS

There are two Conservation Areas within the study area. These are centred around the village of Ellington (AK 254) and the village of Fenstanton (ATK 255). Both of these Conservation Areas surround the historic core of the village. They both lie slightly set back from the existing A14. Fenstanton itself is closer to the existing A14 than at Ellington, though it is screened from view with a line of trees.

LISTED BUILDINGS

There are 49 Listed Buildings within the study area. There is one Grade I Listed Building, the Parish Church of All Saints in the village of Ellington (ATK 197). This church is located in the centre of the village, somewhat set back from the existing A14 and surrounded by other buildings.

There are two Grade II* Listed Buildings. They are Manor House owned by Capability Brown in the village of Fenstanton (ATK 212) and Grove House just outside of the village of Fenstanton (ATK 223). These buildings are in close proximity to the existing A14, though there is a screening of trees between the buildings and the road.

There are a further forty six Grade II Listed Building within the study area. The majority of these are located within the historic core of the villages of Ellington (ATK 195 - 207), Fenstanton (ATK 223 - 238).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES KNOWN AND AS YET UNKNOWN, AS LISTED IN THE SITES AND MONUMENTS RECORD

The principle sites are described below; for each period the known sites are described and an indication is given for the likely potential for further remains to lie within the route corridor.

Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Sites

Flint implements have been found within the study area and include areas in Hemingford Grey (ATK 62 & 59), Buckden (ATK 26) and Fenstanton (ATK 70 & 74). At the site in Buckden Palaeolithic animal remains were found in the gravel pits including mammoth bones. There have been very few excavated Mesolithic sites in the County, mostly due to the difficulty in identifying sites and they very ephemeral nature of settlement. There is a possibility that sites may be located within the route corridor, however there is generally low potential for these sites. Other finds relating to this period include flints, awls and blades found in Buckden at the gravel pits (ATK 24)

Neolithic Sites

Stray finds are most often found in areas near the fen edge and along water courses. Finds within the study area include axes and scrapers found at Fenstanton (ATK 68 & 72) and Brampton (ATK 22). As they study area is located further from the fen edge, no major expected settlement sites are expected.

Bronze Age Sites

A few findspots have been located within the study area such as a small socketed spearhead in Buckden (ATK 15) and a black flint arrowhead in Huntingdon (ATK 21). Also a small occupation site in Godmanchester is likely to date to the Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age period (ATK 48). Finds at this site included worked flint, pottery, animal bone and charcoal (ATK 48).

As with the potential for Neolithic sites, Bronze Age sites are more concentrated towards the fen edge outside of the study area. Therefore although they are not expected, the possibility of identifying sites within the study area cannot be discounted.

Iron Age Sites

A site where a cremation burial has been uncovered has been located within the study area. This is at Alconbury (ATK 1) together with finds at the site which date from the Iron Age to the Roman Period. Further pottery finds have been identified at Fenstanton (ATK 73), Alconbury (ATK 6) and Godmanchester (ATK 19)

Settlement sites such at Hemingford Grey and Buckden date from the Iron Age and into the Roman period (ATK 58 & 27). Spread of sites could extend into the route corridor.

The land within the study area became more utilised in this period and so sites within the road corridor can be expected.

Roman Sites

Finds from the Roman period have been recovered along the entire length of the proposed bypass (ATK 18, 27, 31, 32, 41 - 47, 64, 71, 77, 85). Foci of activity such as occupation sites are located at Buckden (ATK 27) and Fenstanton (ATK 68), as well as agricultural practices at Hemingford Grey (ATK 58) and an iron working site at Conington (ATK 89). The principle sites from this period are further east at Cambridge, where a Roman military camp and associated occupation was based; however these are outside of the study area.

Due to intensive settlement of the area surrounding Cambridge and Godmanchester, dispersed settlement evidence associated with farming and small industry can be expected within the road corridor.

Early Medieval Sites

There is little evidence for early medieval activity within the study area. The only evidence is an occupation site which dates from the Iron Age but continues in use into the Early Medieval period. This is at Buckden (ATK 27). The early med period is a real unknown entity because of the lack of evidence and therefore any discovered sites would be of particular value.

Medieval Sites

A moated site is located within the study area at Fenstanton where a possible rampart and double moated enclosure is present (ATK 76) and a further possible example at Hemingford Abbots at Moats Way Farm (ATK 55).

The only standing building that dates to this period is All Saints church in Ellington (ATK 197) which dates to the 14th and 15th centuries.

A deserted medieval village, Houghton near Brampton (ATK 3), has been noted within the study area.

The medieval field system as represented by ridge and furrow earthwork remains are the most numerous remains within the study area. Thirty features described on the Sites and Monuments Record refer to ridge and furrow earthworks in the study area (ATK 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 36, 39, 40, 41, 56, 57, 80, 87, 88, 90).

The large majority of settlements which exist today are likely to have existed in the medieval period. Therefore, the archaeological potential for medieval sites will be high within the existing villages with less activity outside of village centres.

Post-medieval Sites

Few sites are noted in the Sites and Monuments Record of known post-medieval date. The first is a possible site of gallows from documentary evidence located at Brampton (ATK 23). Another is the remains of a dovecote just south of the village of Fenstanton (ATK 84).

Analysis of historic maps does not reveal any particular activity other than what is evident today. The maps show the rural character of the landscape, which is still dominant and so archaeological potential outside of known sites is low.

The large majority of Listed Buildings identified in the Study Area, concentrated in the villages of Ellington and Fenstanton date from this period.

Modern Sites

The modern sites listed are pillboxes (ATK 8, 93) constructed during World War II. Again, using historic maps, the archaeological potential of finding as yet unknown sites that date to the modern period is low.

Undated Entries on the SMR

There are many undated entries on the SMR. These are predominantly cropmark features that will require further evaluation.

CARTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

1st and 2nd edition OS maps and tithe, estate and other maps dating from 1774 and 1912 were analysed. These maps were analysed to gain an understanding of the continuity of land use from the earliest to the latest date, to identify whether parts of the proposed development area had been previously developed, and to confirm the presence of archaeological remains additional to those listed on the SMR. A list of maps studied is contained within the Bibliography. The OS maps studied included:-

• Huntingdonshire 1st Edition 1882 - 1887 Sheets XVII SE, XXI SE, XXII NE, XXII NW, XXII SE, XXIII SW, XXII NE;
• Huntingdonshire 2nd Edition 1899 - 1901 Sheets XVI - XVIII
• Cambridgeshire 1st Edition 1876 - 1887 Sheets XXI - XLI
• Cambridgeshire 2nd Edition 1896 - 1901 Sheets XXI - XLI

There were been no additional sites identified from plans or maps which were not already noted on the Sites and Monuments Record.

Maps show very little change from this period to present day. Further more detailed map analysis will be carried out in relation to a final scheme.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

An aerial photographic survey was commissioned in October 2003, to inform assessment of the route corridor. The report is contained within Appendix 12-D in Volume 2 and a summary of sites and their impacts is contained within Section 5.

In summary the assessment examined a corridor of at least 200 metres either side of the proposed route options. The survey picked up the following features within the study area roughly from West to east:-

• The clay from Ellington to the River Ouse retains some medieval field patterns. It should be noted that the clay soil did not produce as many features as the eastern section of the study area, but this does not point to the absence of features
• Between the River Ouse and Hemingford Grey are medieval fields and one small ditched enclosure next to Ermine Street
• Gravel deposits south of Hemingford Grey and around Fenstanton are rich in archaeological features, such as ditched enclosures, and pit defined field systems plus other unidentified fragments, and so more must be expected where they continue into currently blank fields
• Ridge and furrow cultivation is scattered over the clay between Fenstanton and Cambridge

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK

Extensive previous archaeological fieldwork has been undertaken within the study area. Previous fieldwork has been concentrated in the area to the east around Cambridge outside of the study area, due to the high level of activity in the area, in particular of the Roman period. The sites to which fieldwork relates already appear on the SMR and are included in the baseline information above.

The following fieldwork assessments have been of particular note in identifying sites within the study area:-

• An Archaeological Evaluation of Prehistoric and Roman activity at the New School Site, London Road, Godmanchester by Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeological Field Unit 1996, Report 123
• Roman Cremations and Field System at Weybridge Farm, Alconbury by Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeological Field Unit Report 115
• An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment and Evaluation at Land off West End and Belle Isle, Brampton by Herefordshire Archaeological Trust, Report 1052

4.7.5 Impacts on the Historic Environment

TYPES OF IMPACT

An archaeological resource can be affected by development in a number of ways: by the removal of material during works, the destruction to sensitive deposits caused by the presence of heavy plant, and the alteration of stable ground conditions which may lead to degradation of the quality and survival of buried archaeological remains.

Equally, the built heritage can be affected by development through possible demolition or loss of part of a structure or its grounds; increased visual intrusion, noise or vibration; changes in the original landscape; severance from linked features such as gardens, outbuildings etc or through the loss of amenity value.

The Alternative Proposal comprises the construction of an offline section of carriageway which will be 2 lanes wide. The proposal departs from the existing A14 just east of Ellington and runs to the south of Godmanchester and Huntingdon. It rejoins the existing A14 at Fen Drayton.

The proposals also involve the replacement of the deck at the Huntingdon viaduct. These works will not involve any new land take and the replacement structure will be of a similar design and scale. Some accommodation works will be required which will lie adjacent to the existing A14 alignment, for the purposes of this assessment the assumption is that any plant movements during the removal and construction of the deck would stay within the highway/network lane which has already been subject to ground disturbance, so that no areas of new land take are disturbed.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS

No statutorily designated sites are directly affected along the whole length of the scheme.

Section 1A (Ellington to the A1 Brampton Interchange)

Section 1 B (Brampton Interchange to Offord Hill Farm/Corpus Christi Farm)

Section 1C (Offord Hill Farm/Corpus Christi Farm to the A1198 at Godmanchester)

The route does not impact upon any known sites.

Section 2A - Godmanchester (A1198) to Conington/Fen Drayton

4.7.6 Summary of Potential Impacts and Recommendations for Further Assessment

SUMMARY OF KNOWN AND POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGY WITHIN THE ROUTE CORRIDORS

A small amount of desk based assessment will be required at DMRB Stage 3 level. In particular, this will involve more detailed historical map analysis.

The impacts of each of the proposed route options are set out in paragraphs 8.97 & 8.98. However, in order to gain a full picture and understanding of the nature, extent and importance of sites within the proposed road corridor further archaeological field evaluation will be required. Known sites and areas of potential identified above have been summarised together with an assessment of likely importance and the need for further evaluation in the table below.

Based on our current understanding, at least 2 sites have been identified which are potentially of national importance. They are highlighted in bold in the Table below. The sites are all potentially multi-period settlement sites and include features such as enclosures, ditches, surface finds and linear features. These site have been highlighted due to their likely complex nature, importance and/or the large area they cover. The level of importance has been described in the table below using a grading system has been adopted using the following terms: - locally important, regionally important and nationally important. Based on current knowledge, the sites in bold described as of potentially national importance are expected to require the most significant/costly mitigation measures, which could include preservation in situ.

An evaluation strategy should be produced once a preferred route has been announced and this should include, but not be limited to, fieldwalking, geophysical survey and trial trenching of known sites (including but not limited to those sites detailed in paragraphs 8.97 & 8.98) and potential sites, along the chosen route. Priority should be given to the evaluation of key sites as identified in bold below, as the design of the final scheme may need to take into account areas where archaeology will need to be preserved in situ. The evaluations will ascertain the nature, extent and condition of the known archaeological resource and provide a better understanding of the likelihood of disturbing previously unknown remains.

4.7.7 Comparison with CHUMMS Strategy

The Alternative Proposal involves proportionately less land take being 2 lanes wide instead of 3 lanes wide and therefore in comparison with the CHUMMMS, it will potentially affect fewer archaeological sites.

Whereas the CHUMMS Strategy would involve a small amount of new land take at the location of the Huntingdon viaduct for a new junction, the Alternative Proposal would require no extra land take at this location. Therefore there may be an impact on both the built historic resource and the buried archaeological resource with the CHUMMS Strategy.

Furthermore, due to the new junction design as part of the CHUMMS Strategy, there may be an impact on the heritage resource of the area. The new junction, depending of the visibility of the design compared to that of the existing viaduct, may change the character of the historic landscape at nearby Brampton and Huntingdon.