A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

“The crop marks appear to be largely formed through the presence of buried ditches,which form a series of regular and irregular enclosures, track ways and settlementnuclei…. In the western portion of the study area these enclosures form a northsouthswathe that is bisected by the present course of the A1(T). These types ofenclosures are relatively common in North Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire andexcavation suggests that elements of these may date to the latter part of the firstmillennium BC and/or the Romano-British period. Moreover, within the study area anarchaeological trial trench was excavated across one of the enclosures...whichexposed two boundary ditches associated with Romano-British pottery dating to themiddle and latter part of the Roman period. These features were located at a depth ofc. 0.3 m below the present ground surface“ (Stage 2 Report).Early Medieval activity within the area is characterised by a single stray find, a VikingAge pin found at Elkesley wood. There is no settlement evidence dating from thisperiod within the study area.The Grade I Listed Building within the village, St. Giles Church, presents the earliestdefinitive evidence for the settlement of Elkesley. There are 6 Grade II listedbuildings and 9 buildings which are considered to be of local historical andarchitectural interest by the local authority.Soakaway Trench MonitoringArchaeological monitoring of three soak away trenches was carried out in December2008. This involved the excavation of three 1 m x 0.2 m trenches, to a depth of 2 m.These were located in the fields to the northeast of the A1(T).No archaeological artefacts or deposits were identified during these works. A finemediumreddish brown sand underlay a mid brown sandy silt topsoil at a maximumdepth of 0.2 m was identified.A walkover of the area was also undertaken at this time. The fields were inspectedfor surface evidence of the known and potential archaeological remains. No remainswere identified at this time.4.5 Potential ImpactsThe potential impacts of the scheme upon the cultural heritage of the area are asfollows.• Removal of archaeological deposits during construction.• Compaction of archaeological deposits during and following construction.• Impact on setting of historic monuments and listed buildings duringconstruction.The first two impacts detailed above are likely to affect the potential buriedarchaeological features as well as those known features directly to the south of theA1(T).30
Assessment of Environmental EffectsTable 4.5: Assessment of Archaeological Cultural Heritage EffectsSiteNo.Description Importance Impacts fromconstruction andoperation1 Romano-Britishsettlement site.MediumRemoval ofarchaeologicaldepositsMagnitude ofImpactModerateSignificanceof EffectModerate** Potential buriedarchaeologyassociated withRomano-Britishsettlement.MediumCompaction ofarchaeologicaldepositsRemoval ofarchaeologicaldeposits.ModerateModerate14 Grade II ListedBuilding, Brown’sCottage.MediumAdverse impact onthe setting of thebuilding duringconstruction.Negligible/MinorNeutral/SlightHistoricLandscape.LowMay slightly alterboundaries.MinorNeutral/Slight** Due to this asset being is a potential site rather than a known site there is noreference to it in the gazetteer. The gazetteer brings a list of all known sites listed inthe HER.4.6 MitigationPreservation in situ would be the optimum mitigation strategy however the likelihoodof construction traffic and processes impacting buried archaeological remains is hightherefore it is recommended that a programme of trial trenching be undertaken withinthe larger areas of the footprint of the scheme; namely the area around Jockey Landand those to the north and south of the proposed bridge.For the more linear areas such as that directly to the south of the A1(T) and therealignment of Coalpit Lane it is recommended that topsoil stripping underarchaeological conditions (i.e. toothless bucket under constant archaeologicalsupervision) be undertaken with adequate provision for the investigation andrecording of any features or finds encountered. It is highly likely that archaeologicalfeatures will be encountered alongside the verge of the A1(T).These strategies would allow for a fuller understanding of the nature and extent ofany archaeological remains encountered.31
Page 1: A1(T) Elkesley JunctionImprovements
Page 4 and 5: Document ControlProject Title:Docum
Page 6: km 2Kilometres squaredLAQMLocal Air
Page 9 and 10: L 10 hourly dB(A)L AeqL A1(T)0,18hL
Page 11 and 12: Wildlife CorridorsZone of Visual In
Page 13 and 14: 5.4 Assessment of Environmental Imp
Page 15 and 16: Introduction and Background1.1 Intr
Page 17 and 18: 1.5 Scope of AssessmentThe followin
Page 19 and 20: 2 Development of the Preferred Opti
Page 21 and 22: In 2007 a simpler scheme was develo
Page 23 and 24: It is anticipated that these amendm
Page 25 and 26: 3 Air Quality3.1 Findings at Stage
Page 27 and 28: Policy 6/12Permission will not be g
Page 29: Table 4.3: Significance of Effects
Page 33 and 34: 5 Disruption Due to Construction5.1
Page 35 and 36: 5.6 Residual EffectsDisruption duri
Page 37 and 38: 7 Landscape Effects7.1 Assessment M
Page 39 and 40: Table 7.1: Landscape Character Sens
Page 41 and 42: Inclusion of an area within the vis
Page 43 and 44: MagnitudeHighMediumLowNo ChangeDefi
Page 45 and 46: • rolling landforms with numerous
Page 47 and 48: associated with Jockey Lane forms a
Page 49 and 50: • Properties along the High Stree
Page 51 and 52: 7.5 Implication of New Lighting Pro
Page 53 and 54: Area F: Enclosed Arable Farmland (G
Page 55 and 56: Table 7.7: Summary of Impacts on Vi
Page 57 and 58: Discussion of Impacts:Visual effect
Page 59 and 60: • To optimise protection for resi
Page 61 and 62: Detailed Mitigation ProposalsThe fo
Page 63 and 64: 8 Land Use8.1 Findings at Stage 2 A
Page 65 and 66: The frequency response of the human
Page 67 and 68: oad traffic. It does not provide pr
Page 69 and 70: The results of the Scoping Assessme
Page 71 and 72: operations. If the total noise leve
Page 73 and 74: Table 9.4 - Significance criteria o
Page 75 and 76: noise levels are below 58 dB LA1(T)
Page 77 and 78: climate for a typical day on the ex
Page 79 and 80: identified receptors within the stu
Page 81 and 82:
presented are also based upon a 100
Page 83 and 84:
Operational PhaseTable 9.9 and Tabl
Page 85 and 86:
Table 9.11 - Predicted noise levels
Page 87 and 88:
Table 9.14 - Predicted number of dw
Page 89 and 90:
Air-borne vibration is more common
Page 91 and 92:
10 Pedestrians, Cyclists, Equestria
Page 93 and 94:
12 Road Drainage and the Water Envi
Page 95 and 96:
LowAttribute with a low quality and
Page 97 and 98:
Table 12.3 Criteria for Estimating
Page 99 and 100:
Table 12.5: Water Framework Directi
Page 101 and 102:
The greatest potential remains the
Page 103 and 104:
13 Geology and Soils13.1 Findings a
Page 105 and 106:
Annex 4Figure 4.1 - Constraints Map
Page 107 and 108:
Annex 9Figure 3.1 - 3.9: Noise Cont
Page 109:
Annex 12Figure 12.1 - Groundwater V
show all

A1(T) Elkesley Junction Improvements - Highways Agency

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?