EXPLORATORY WELLSITE BROAD GATE FARM, …planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/MVM.DMS/Planning...

EXPLORATORY WELLSITE BROAD GATE FARM, WESTERDALE

NORTH YORKSHIRE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HERITAGE ASSESSMENT

prepared for

EGDON RESOURCES (UK) LTD

Report 45/2

August 2015

Peter Cardwell 1 on behalf of Egdon Resources (UK) Ltd


EXPLORATORY WELLSITE BROAD GATE FARM, WESTERDALE, NORTH YORKSHIRE


1.0 Introduction 3

2.0 Location, topography and geology 3

3.0 Planning background 4

4.0 Methodology and information sources 6

5.0 Baseline information on heritage assets 7

6.0 Assessment of development effects 20

7.0 Mitigation 25

8.0 Conclusion 26

References 29

Appendix 1 Heritage assets within vicinity of proposed development 31

Figures

Exploratory Wellsite, Broad Gate Farm, Westerdale: Archaeological and Heritage Assessment



EXPLORATORY WELLSITE BROAD GATE FARM, WESTERDALE, NORTH YORKSHIRE


Summary

A desk-based assessment and geophysical survey of the area of a proposed exploratory wellsite near Broad Gate Farm to the south of Westerdale established that the development is located within an area that contains a number of heritage assets of both archaeological and architectural interest. These include Bronze Age boundaries on Castleton Rigg and an Iron Age hillfort on Round Hill to the east of the site, as well as medieval bloomeries within the surrounding valley. The landscape in the area is largely post-medieval in date, with farmsteads established from the 17th century although most of the surviving buildings as well as the existing field walls date to the 19th century.

The record of a bloomery (iron smelting site) of probable medieval date within the boundaries of the proposed wellsite could not be substantiated. Evidence suggests that this site is located in the field to the east and will not be affected by the development.

Heritage assets of archaeological interest within the wellsite include a former field boundary and a tentative semi-circular feature recorded by the geophysical survey. A section of field wall will be removed. Assets on the new access tracks include a former field boundary and lengths of existing field walls (including gate posts) near Broad Gate Farm. Further sections of field wall and part of a hedgerow will also be removed along that length to the north of the farm, while former ridge and furrow and possible ditch-type features have been recorded along this length by the geophysical survey.

The closest designated heritage asset of national importance is the scheduled Iron Age hillfort on Round Hill located some 200m to the east of the proposed wellsite. While the effect upon its setting would be of moderate to major significance, this would be either temporary or short-term and reversible, and would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the monument. Two scheduled Bronze Age dykes are located on Castleton Rigg but no substantial harm to their settings or significance is predicted.

Three listed buildings are located within a kilometre of the wellsite. There would be no effects upon the setting of Hollins farmhouse. Effects of minor significance upon the settings of Anthony House and the bee house at Dale Head are predicted which would be temporary or short-term and reversible. The settings of the buildings would therefore be preserved and there would be less than substantial harm to their significance.

Mitigation of the direct effects upon heritage assets would include a photographic survey of all lengths of field walls in advance of construction. Archaeological investigation would include a programme of ‘strip, map and record’ along the access track to the north of Broad Gate Farm and a ‘watching brief’ within the area of the wellsite and other lengths of access track. Any walls removed would be restored as part of the reinstatement. The proposed mitigation would be agreed with the planning authority in a detailed written scheme of investigation. Subject to the implementation of the mitigation strategy no substantial harm to heritage assets is predicted as a result of the wellsite development.



1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Peter Cardwell was commissioned by Barton Willmore on behalf of Egdon Resources (UK) Ltd to undertake an archaeological and heritage assessment study of a proposed exploratory gas wellsite on land at Broad Gate Farm to the south of Westerdale in North Yorkshire. The aim of the assessment is to identify any significant heritage assets within the study area, identify any predicted effects and propose appropriate mitigation measures. The report has been prepared to support a planning application for the proposed development to be submitted to the North York Moors National Park Authority, and represents an updated version of that prepared to support an earlier planning application (NYM/2012/0329/FUL) which was consented in July 2012 but not implemented.

1.2 The report describes the location of the proposed exploratory wellsite and its environs, and the methodology and information sources utilised while undertaking the study, including reference to relevant planning policy and guidance. It describes any heritage assets within the study area (including a summary of the results of a geophysical survey of the proposed development area) and assesses the potential for any previously unknown or unrecorded archaeological sites to survive within the area. The potential effects of the proposed development (including those on the setting and significance of Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings in the vicinity) and appropriate mitigation strategies are discussed. Consultation was maintained with the North York Moors National Park Authority during the preparation of the assessment study, and a draft of the earlier report was submitted to the Authority’s Senior Conservation Archaeologist for comment prior to finalisation and agreement of the proposed outline mitigation strategy.

1.3 The assessment was originally undertaken between February and April 2012, and was reviewed and updated in August 2015 in accordance with professional standards and guidance (CIFA 2014a). This involved another search of the North York Moors National Park Authority Historic Environment Record and further research of the Historic England Archive, but no additional site walkover survey or inspections were undertaken.

2.0 LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY

2.1 The proposed exploratory wellsite is located on land at Broad Gate Farm some 1.3km to the south-south-east of Westerdale, some 3.5km to the south-south-west of Castleton and some 12.5km to the south-east of Great Ayton (Figure 1). The proposed wellsite (NZ 6730 0465) is located to the south of Broad Gate Farm, while new lengths of proposed access track to the site are located to the east and north of the farm buildings (Figure 2). The proposed development is located within the civil parish of Westerdale. All aspects of the proposed development are located within the North York Moors National Park, which forms the relevant planning authority.

2.2 The proposed wellsite is located within the eastern part of an improved pasture field on the lower north-east facing slopes of a valley containing Tower Beck to the south of Westerdale. The land within the development area slopes down from approximately 225m in the west to 205m in the east, and is defined by a steeper



slope and undulations within the western part of the area (Plates 1 and 2). The field is defined by stone walls, with an area of woodland to the north which contains a stream that flows into Tower Beck along the base of the valley to the east. Unenclosed moorland is located on the higher ground to the west of the field, which continues to rise towards a ridge at an elevation in excess of 350m that extends southwards to Westerdale Moor.

2.3 The area of the proposed wellsite development extends to some 2ha and primarily consists of a level platform for the drilling rig (which will extend to a height of some 35m) and associated infrastructure such as site cabins, generators, tanks and power plants with an area of car parking to the east. Mounded spoil (up to 4m in height) would be located to the west. A length of the existing stone wall in the south-east corner of the field would be removed to allow vehicular access. The site preparation, drilling operations and reinstatement (should no hydrocarbons be encountered) would all last approximately six to seven weeks each, with the development therefore being undertaken over a total of some five months. However, it is likely that the different phases would not run consequentially, depending on when the site is constructed and rig availability. The operational phases include flow-testing should hydrocarbons be indicated during the drilling operation. If commercial quantities of gas were confirmed during the testing phase, then any proposals for commercial development would be the subject of a further planning application. In the intervening period the borehole would be capped and an arrangement of valves (‘Christmas tree’) installed and the compound otherwise cleared of cabins and other structures. The platform, earth bunds, fencing and gate would be retained until the site was either fully restored or planning permission granted for longer-term production.

2.4 Access to the wellsite is from the west and north mostly along existing roads and tracks, although two new lengths of access track are proposed as part of the development. One length extends for approximately 200m on an east to west alignment to the north of Broad Gate Farm (Plate 3), while a separate length of approximately 250m is aligned around the north, east and south sides of Broad Gate Farm itself (Plate 4). Both lengths are located on slight slopes and transect enclosed fields of improved pasture defined by either stone walls or hedgerows, short lengths of which would need to be removed where crossed by the access tracks. Including the new lengths of access tracks the total area of the proposed development extends to some 2.7ha.

2.5 The solid geology within the area consists of Cleveland Ironstone formations of mudstone, sandstone and ironstone. No superficial geology is recorded. The soils within the development area consist of slowly permeable clayey soils with some fine silty or loamy soils of the Stow association (Jarvis et al 1984).

3.0 PLANNING BACKGROUND

3.1 The planning context with respect to cultural heritage in relation to the development proposals includes the North York Moors National Park Authority Local Development Framework (LDF), statutory legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework. There are no relevant “saved” policies in the North Yorkshire County Council Minerals Local Plan (1997) and the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan for North Yorkshire County Council, the City of York Council



and the North York Moors National Park Authority has not progressed beyond the Issues and Options Consultation (2014).

North York Moors National Park Local Development Framework (2008)

3.2 Relevant policies of the Core Strategy and Development Policies include Core Policy G which includes the statement that the landscape, historic assets and cultural heritage of the North York Moors will be conserved and enhanced.

3.3 Development Policy 5 on Listed Buildings includes the statement that:

“any development which would have an unacceptable impact on the setting of a Listed Building would not be permitted.”

3.4 Development Policy 7 on Archaeological Assets states that:

“Proposals for development that would have an unacceptable impact on the integrity or setting of a Scheduled Monument, or other sites or remains of national archaeological importance will not be permitted.

In the case of sites or remains of regional or local importance, development proposals will only be permitted where the archaeological interest is capable of being preserved in situ. Where this is not justifiable or feasible, permission will only be granted where provision is made for appropriate preservation by record. In all cases, an appropriate assessment and evaluation will be required to be submitted as part of the planning application in areas of known or potential archaeological interest.”

Statutory Legislation

3.5 Scheduled Monuments are designated by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the advice of Historic England as selective examples of nationally important archaeological remains. Under the terms of Part I Section 2 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 it is an offence to damage, disturb or alter a Scheduled Monument either above or below ground without first obtaining permission (Scheduled Monument Consent) from the Secretary of State. This Act does not allow for the protection of the setting of Scheduled Monuments.

3.6 Section 66 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 states that the planning authority must have special regard for the desirability of preserving (inter alia) the setting of any Listed Building that may be affected by the grant of planning permission. Section 72 states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

3.7 The National Planning Policy Framework and supporting Planning Practice Guidance sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are to be achieved, with the purpose of planning being to help achieve



sustainable development. At the heart of the policy framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14). The conservation of heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance is one of the twelve core planning principles that should under-pin both plan-making and decision-making (17).

3.8 Policies relating to conserving and enhancing the historic environment state that when determining applications local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage asset affected, including any contribution made by their setting. This should be proportionate to the assets’ importance, and where a development site may include heritage assets with archaeological interest local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, undertake field evaluation (128).

3.9 When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Substantial harm to a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of heritage assets of the highest significance, including scheduled monuments and grade I and II* listed buildings, should be wholly exceptional (132).

3.10 Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits (133). Where a development will lead to less than substantial harm of the significance of a designated asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal (134).

3.11 The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account when determining the application, a balanced judgement being required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset (135).

3.12 Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the environment gathered as part of the development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and the archive generated) publicly accessible (141).

4.0 METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION SOURCES

4.1 The principal aims of the archaeological and heritage assessment are:

• to identify known heritage assets within the study area

• to identify any areas with the potential to contain previously unrecorded heritage assets of archaeological interest



• to assess the effects of the proposed development and ancillary works upon heritage assets of archaeological interest

• to assess the effects of the proposed development upon the settings of designated heritage assets (Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings)

• to propose appropriate mitigation measures that could be built into the development proposals in order to avoid, reduce or remedy any potential adverse effects identified

4.2 The report is based upon a review of existing available information and desk studies, supplemented by a site walkover survey and geophysical survey.

4.3 The following organisations or individuals were consulted for the assessment:

• North York Moors National Park Authority (NYMNPA)

• Historic England (formerly English Heritage)

• North Yorkshire County Record Office (NYCRO)

• local studies library (Northallerton)

• the landowner

4.4 The following data sources were utilised for the assessment:

• NYMNPA Historic Environment Record (HER)

• National Monuments Record (now part of the Historic England Archive)

• published and unpublished historical and archaeological studies

• cartographic sources (tithe, estate and historic Ordnance Survey maps)

• vertical and oblique aerial photographs

4.5 The Historic Environment Record data for the study area was originally obtained in February 2012 and a further search of updated records made in August 2015.

4.6 A site walkover survey of the proposed development area was undertaken in February 2012. This was undertaken to determine the extent and survival of any buildings, structures and field walls; to note the location, extent, nature and condition of any additional recorded and unrecorded archaeological sites, including any earthworks; and to identify any artefacts which might indicate the presence of archaeological activity or subsurface features. The immediate vicinity of the proposed development area was also inspected, including an assessment of views to and from adjacent Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings.

5.0 BASELINE INFORMATION ON HERITAGE ASSETS

5.1 This section on baseline information addresses those heritage assets within the immediate vicinity of the development proposals (as listed in Table 1) identified on the basis of the desk-based assessment and site walkover survey, primarily



addressing heritage assets of archaeological interest, together with the results of the geophysical survey.

5.2 Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings within the wider vicinity (1.5km) of the proposed wellsite are subsequently described and indicated on Figure 2.

5.3 Heritage assets within the immediate vicinity (500m) of the wellsite development proposals are listed in Table 1 below and indicated on Figure 3. All sites indicated on Figure 3 are listed in Appendix 1. Both Table 1 and Appendix 1 refer to sites recorded on the North York Moors National Park Authority Historic Environment Record (HER) unless otherwise stated and sites recorded in the Historic England Archive (Pastscape) as indicated. A central grid reference, suggested classification and date are provided for each site, which are listed in numerical order. The sites are graded as being of high (national), medium (regional) and low (local) importance based upon their designation, professional judgement and the criteria set out in Annex 1 of the guidance on identifying, protecting, conserving and investigating nationally important archaeological sites (DCMS 2010). Listed Buildings are graded by their designation.

Table 1: Heritage assets within 500m of proposed wellsite

HER HEA Grid reference Classification Period Grade

Heritage assets of archaeological interest

570 28209 NZ 67600 04400 Flint artefacts Prehistoric –

571 NZ 67600 04500 Flint artefact Prehistoric –

578 – NZ 67320 04660 Slag Medieval –

2830 – NZ 67580 04780 Multivallate hillfort Iron Age High

3976 1569157 NZ 67750 04600 Slag heap (jet) Medieval Medium

7014 – NZ 66662 05433 Bloomery Unknown Medium

7255 1569232 NZ 67020 04401 Jet mining 19th century Low

7256 – NZ 67769 04599 Jet mining 19th century Low

7708 – NZ 67176 05235 Trackway trod Post-medieval to modern

Medium

8647 – NZ 66626 04631 Sandstone quarry Modern Low

9819 – NZ 67489 04606 Clapper bridge Post-medieval Medium

10707 534291 NZ 67120 04978 Farmstead (Broad Gate Farm)

Post-medieval Low

10708 – NZ 67138 04992 Pigsty 19th century to modern

Low

10709 – NZ 67118 04954 Barn 18th century to post-medieval

Low




11093 – NZ 66810 05153 Sheep creep Post-medieval Low

11094 – NZ 67042 05099 Trough Post-medieval Low








11110 – NZ 67308 04442 Stone trough Post-medieval Low


11145 – NZ 67690 04320 Stone trough 19th century Low

11146 – NZ 67680 04290 Stone trough 19th century Low

11342 – NZ 67840 04440 Standing stone Medieval Medium Low

12614 – NZ 66752 05565 Field boundary 19th century Low

12625 – NZ 66763 05607 Natural terraces Unknown Low

12626 – NZ 67128 05207 Trackway Post-medieval Low

12627 – NZ 67198 05658 Clapper bridge Post-medieval Medium


12629 – NZ 66966 04759 Sheep fold 19th century Low

12630 – NZ 66990 04756 Dam 18th century Low

12631 – NZ 67388 04978 Clapper bridge 19th century to modern

Low


12633 – NZ 67703 04750 Bridge Post-medieval Low

12634 – NZ 67504 04759 Field boundary Post-medieval Low

18168 58782 NZ 6666 0565 Searchlight site Modern Low

18860 – NZ 67701 04221 Hamlet (Trowsdale End)

Post-medieval Low

19434 1569157 NZ 67679 04673 Extractive pits 19th century Low

19435 1569121 NZ 67483 04912 Field boundary Post-medieval Low




19436 – NZ 66781 05443 Field system Prehistoric Roman

– 534292 NZ 6787 0494 Farm house (Cockle House)

19th century Low

– 534297 NZ 6780 0445 Farm house (Dale Head)

19th century Low

A NZ 67365 04785 Bloomery slag Medieval Medium

B NZ 67217 04527 Sheep creep 19th century Low

Listed Buildings

17669 328066 NZ 67772 04442 Bee house 19th century II*

5.4 Although the majority of the heritage assets are graded of low sensitivity, there is one Scheduled Monument and one Listed Building within 500m of the proposed wellsite, and a further two Scheduled Monuments and six Listed Buildings within 1.5km (excluding listed boundary stones). Although individual sites may be graded as of low sensitivity, it is accepted that groups of such sites may have a greater significance within a local context.

5.5 Sites within the assessment study area are summarised below in chronological order, concentrating upon those within the immediate vicinity of the proposed development as referenced by their relevant HER number (emboldened).

Prehistoric

5.6 No settlement sites of earlier prehistoric date are recorded within the vicinity of the proposed development. Occupation during this period is however attested by the recovery of a number of flint artefacts (HER 570 and 571) on land at Dale Head some 300m to the south-east of the proposed wellsite although their exact provenance is not recorded. These artefacts include examples of leaf-shaped arrowheads, barbed and tanged arrowheads, knives and scrapers of both Neolithic and Bronze Age date.

5.7 Monuments of Bronze Age date are recorded within the wider vicinity of the development proposals, and specifically on the higher moorland ridge of Castleton Rigg to the east. These include the earthwork remains of two cross ridge dykes located some 950m and 850m to the south-east and east of the proposed wellsite respectively. Both these sites are Scheduled Monuments (SM 30198 and SM 30199) and are further described below in the section on designated heritage assets (paragraphs 5.42–5.45). Two probable cairns between these cross ridge dykes may also be of similar date. Direct evidence of recorded contemporaneous settlement is some distance from the proposed development area, being located either some 2.7km to the north at Crown End or some 3.3km to the north-east on Danby Rigg, each site including the earthwork remains of hut circles, field systems, cairnfields, enclosures and cross ridge dykes. Both appear to originate in the Bronze Age, although settlement at the site



on Crown End appears to have continued into at least the late Iron Age. Round barrows (burial mounds) of Bronze Age date are also recorded in excess of 2.5km or more from the development site at the southern end of Castleton Rigg at Western Howes and on Danby Rigg at Pind Howe and Wolf Pit.

5.8 The only settlement of probable Iron Age date within the vicinity of the proposed development is the small multivallate hillfort (HER 2829) located on Round Hill some 200m to the north-east of the proposed wellsite on the eastern side of Tower Beck. This site is a Scheduled Monument (SM 30133) and is further described below in the section on designated heritage assets (paragraphs 5.40– 5.41). No associated features such as field systems or enclosures are recorded within the vicinity of the hillfort either on or around Round Hill.

5.9 Records of a probable bloomery (HER 578; Site A) to the west of Round Hill on the opposite side of Tower Beck and another (HER 3976) to the south are probably medieval in date (see paragraphs 5.17–5.19 below), although the possibility of an Iron Age date cannot be discounted (small bloomeries of Iron Age date having been identified at sites such as that at Crown End to the north of Westerdale).

5.10 Possible traces of a pre-medieval ditched field system (HER 19436) of either prehistoric or Roman date have been identified by the geophysical survey undertaken within the area of the northern length of proposed new access track. The anomalies identified could however represent geological fissures (paragraph 5.37).

Roman

5.11 No sites dating specifically to the Roman period are recorded within the vicinity of the proposed development, although unromanised settlement may have continued on sites categorised as of Iron Age date and would not therefore be readily recognised. The nearest Roman military site is the fort at Lease Rigg near Egton some 14km to the east.

Medieval

5.12 No evidence of Anglo-Saxon settlement is recorded within the vicinity of the proposed development, and although probably identical with Camisedale recorded in the Domesday Survey of 1086 Westerdale itself is not first mentioned until the latter half of the 12th century when Bernard de Balliol granted two oxgangs of land and pasture for 120 animals throughout his forest of Westerdale to Rievaulx Abbey sometime between 1154 and 1181 (Page 1923, 413–414; Smith 1928, 134).

5.13 Although the manor was part of the lordship of Stokesley, it was granted by an under-tenant, Guy de Bovincourt, to the Knights Templars with the permission of Hugh de Balliol, the grant being confirmed by King John in 1203. With the suppression of the Templars the manor was granted to the Hospitallers by the king by 1312. The manor then subsequently descended as a member of the Commandery of the Holy Trinity in Beverley until the suppression of the order by 1545 (ibid, 415).



5.14 Medieval settlement is presumed to have been centred on or close to the site of the existing village, and although the present church dates to 1838 it has been suggested that the interior of the tower contains Norman masonry (Pevsner 1985, 384) while the interior of the porch contains three medieval grave covers and cross slabs. In 1307 the buildings of the Templars included a hall, chamber, kitchen, stable, oxen shed, grange and chapel, possibly located to the north of Westerdale Hall although this location is now considered doubtful on the basis of recent research (G. Lee, pers. comm.). There is however no indication for the site being to the south of Westerdale within the area of the development proposals. An associated mill was located further up the River Esk, as well as yards and chambers possibly located near Waites (Page 1923, 414).

5.15 The dispersed hamlet of Barwick (HER 18795) located on the eastern side of the dale is recorded from the 16th century, but may have earlier origins.

5.16 There is no documentary evidence for either iron mining or smelting in the area of Westerdale during the medieval period (with the possible exception of the Hole Pits), but this is recorded as being carried on by Rievaulx Abbey in the adjacent parish of Danby (Atkinson 1888, 288; Page 1923, 414). There are however eight slag or ‘cinder’ hills recorded in Westerdale.

5.17 One such site of a possible bloomery (iron smelting site) of medieval date is recorded on or within the vicinity of the proposed wellsite. Records of this site (HER 578) are based upon a cartographic reference to a ‘Cinderhill Field’ on an 18th century estate map and the recovery of a large area of slag after ploughing. The location of the slag has previously been recorded on the southern edge of the proposed wellsite at the grid reference provided by Rutter (1968, 80), although the grid refrence provided by Hayes (1971, 247; 1978, 19), which may refer to the same site, is recorded on the northern boundary of the proposed development. Hayes also states that the site was evident as a large area of iron slag, is on Tower Beck and near Swarthy Hill, and is considered to be medieval in date. The current HER for the site accordingly covers an area encompassing both these locations.

5.18 This bloomery site would however appear to be focussed to the north-east of the proposed wellsite rather than within its boundaries. The earliest cartographic sources researched with a specific reference to ‘Cinderhills’ is an estate map of 1819 (Figure 4) where the field is located to the north-east of the proposed wellsite. The name ‘Cinder Hill’ is also used for the same field (48) on the subsequent 1838 tithe map of Westerdale (Figure 5). In addition, the landowner recalls that slag was ploughed up in this field in the 1950s at a location to the south of the stream to the west of Tower Beck at a location (Site A) approximately centred at NZ 67365 04785, together with a possible associated stone dam within the adjacent stream itself (H. Flintoft, pers. comm). No visible remains for either an area of slag or the possible dam are evident within the existing pasture field or the adjacent stream. This location would however accord with the reference adjacent to Tower Beck near Swarthy Hill recorded by Hayes (1978, 19). In addition, no evidence for either a concentration of slag or a bloomery was recorded by the geophysical survey within the area of the proposed wellsite (see paragraph 5.35 below) and no visible evidence for slag noted in either molehills or rabbit burrows within the development boundaries during the site inspection survey.



5.19 A further area of slag (HER 3976) of probable medieval date is recorded some 350m to the east of the proposed wellsite to the south-east of Round Hill, while a probable bloomery site (HER 7014) of unknown date, but possibly medieval, is located in the field to the west of the northernmost length of proposed new access track and to the east of Bagdale House.

5.20 In addition to recorded areas of slag, the two fields to the north-east of Broad Gate Farm are recorded as ‘Kiln Closes’ of the 1819 estate map (Figure 4). Whether this is a further reference to iron smelting, or alternatively to a corn drying kiln, is uncertain. No visible remains suggestive of either such site survive, or were identified by the geophysical survey, within the area of the proposed new lengths of access track across these fields.

5.21 No areas of settlement of medieval date are recorded within the vicinity of the proposed development, although the alignment of some of the fields to the north of Broad Gate Farm on the east side of Broad Gate Road, and specifically their historic field boundaries (Figure 5) could suggest a pre-enclosure origin as strip fields, possibly even of medieval date, which is further discussed below (paragraph 5.25). Broad Gate Road itself (HER 12626) could accordingly also have a late medieval or early post-medieval date.

Post-medieval and modern

5.22 After the suppression of the order of the Holy Trinity in Beverley the manor of Westerdale descended through various families subsequent to 1545, and principally the Yoward family until 1659, when conveyed by Ralph Yoward to his kinsman Sir James Pennyman. The manor was conveyed to William Moorcroft in 1736 and then sold to Charles Turner of Kirkleatham in 1772. From the 19th century the manor was owned by the Duncombe family, and was held by Charles Duncombe in 1819 (Page 1923, 415).

5.23 Settlement sites of post-medieval date within the vicinity of the proposed development consist of farmsteads recorded since at least the 17th century. The earliest recorded structure is a longhouse of probable 17th century date (HER 10707) at Broad Gate Farm, located to the north-west of the main complex of existing farm buildings. The other existing buildings date to the period between 1838 and 1857 when the farmstead was extensively remodelled (Figures 5 and 6).

5.24 Anthony House (HER 17666; HEA 328065) at the southern end of the dale dates to the mid 18th century. This is a Listed Building and is further described in paragraph 5.48 below. The other farmsteads within the vicinity are located along the eastern slopes of the dale, close to the boundary between the intake land and the moorland to the east. These include Dale Head (HEA 534297), the farmhouse dating to about 1870, although the associated bee house (HEA 17669) is earlier and dates to 1832. The latter is a Listed Building and further described in paragraph 5.50 below. The farmsteads at Anthony House and Dale Head form part of the dispersed post-medieval hamlet of Trowsdale End (HER 18860). Further north is Hollins Farm (HER 10706), the farmhouse of which is a Listed Building (HEA 328049) dating to the period between 1770 and 1810 (and further described in paragraph 5.46 below) with a contemporary barn and later stable of 1823. The other two farmsteads of Brown Hill House (HER 10710) and



Cockle House (HEA 534292) are both 19th century in date, and were extant at the time of the 1838 tithe award. The latter three farmsteads form part of the dispersed hamlet of Barwick (HER 18795).

5.25 The existing field pattern within the area of the proposed development dates largely to the early 19th century within the northern part of the area along the new lengths of access track, and to the mid to late 19th century to the south of Broad Gate Farm within the vicinity of the wellsite. The existing regular field pattern to the north of Broad Gate Farm probably reflects that established at the time of its enclosure by 1812 (though possibly including some earlier piecemeal enclosure), and is that recorded on the earliest cartographic sources available dated 1818 and 1819 (Figure 4). This field pattern remains essentially extant, although some boundaries have subsequently been removed (such as that between the two ‘Kiln Closes’ to the north-east of Broad Gate Farm which is a single field by 1857). The more irregular field pattern to the south of Broad Gate Farm remained extant at the time of the 1838 tithe award survey (Figure 5), but by 1857 had been largely replaced by a more regular field pattern when mapped by the Ordnance Survey (Figure 6), including the re-alignment of the track southwards from the farm. The irregular southern boundary of the field in which the proposed wellsite would be located was subsequently realigned to its existing position some time before 1892. All of the area of the proposed development – both the wellsite and the new lengths of access track – are accordingly located in an area that is categorised as ‘enclosed land’ within the Historic Landscape Characterisation (Figure 7)

5.26 At the time of the 1838 tithe award (Figure 5) the fields are a mixture of pasture and arable. Arable fields included the fields to the north-east of Broad Gate Farm (‘Little Kiln Close’ (35) and ‘Great Kiln Close’ (36)) as well as the field in which the proposed wellsite would be located (‘Bog Close’ (49)). These fields were therefore being ploughed in the early part of the 19th century in addition to occasional more recent ploughing in the 20th century.

5.27 The majority of the existing field boundaries are defined by stone walls, with only occasional hedgerows recorded such as that defining part of the south side of the field in which the northern length of new access track is proposed (Plate 3) and the parallel field boundary in the field to the east. As these hedgerows appear to pre-date 1845 both would qualify as ‘important’ with respect to archaeology and history under the terms of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, as amended 2002.

5.28 The majority of the stone walls measure between 1.1m and 1.3m in height and between 0.4m and 0.5m wide. They are mostly constructed of roughly coursed rectangular and subrectangular sandstone blocks, some up to 0.4m in length, with occasional larger or subrounded stones (such as that defining the east side of the field in which the northern length of new assess track is proposed; Plate 3). These more regular walls predominantly appear to reflect the construction of the later boundaries of 19th century date. Possible earlier field walls such as that defining the east side of Broad Gate Road where joined by the proposed new length of access track are constructed on a slight bank and measure up to 0.6m wide, and include a higher proportion of larger subrounded and subangular stone up to 0.6m in length on a more irregular alignment.



5.29 Sheep creeps are recorded in many of the walls throughout the vicinity of the development proposals. Three are recorded in the boundaries of the proposed wellsite, with one in the eastern wall (HER 11107) and two in the southern wall (HER 11108 and Site B). These measure between 0.5m and 0.6m high by 0.4m and 0.6m wide, with larger stone lintels up to 0.8m in length. All are currently blocked with stone slabs and some have partially collapsed.

5.30 In addition to the sheep creeps, other agricultural features recorded in the area of the proposed development include troughs, one of which (HER 11094) is recorded on the 1857 Ordnance Survey map on the west side of Broad Gate Road where joined by the proposed new length of access track although no trough is now visible at this location.

5.31 In addition to the farmsteads and associated field systems within the area of the development proposals, there is also surviving evidence for previous extractive industries within the surrounding dale, mostly of 19th century date. These include areas of jet workings (HER 7255) which are in particular located along the lower edge of the moorland along the western side of the dale. These workings were in use in the latter part of the 19th century but the jet found was thin, not of first-rate quality and too little in quantity to justify the continuance of the enterprise which lasted only a short time (Atkinson 1888, 296; Page 1923, 414). An area of jet workings is recorded on the moorland immediately to the west of the field in which the proposed wellsite would be located, which is not recorded by the Ordnance Survey in 1857 but is labelled as ‘Old Jet Workings’ by 1892. This remains visible as an area of hollows and associated spoil tips, and similar workings extend intermittently both to the north and south along the western side of the dale. A further extensive area of former jet workings is located to the south-east of Round Hill (HER 7256 and 19434).

5.32 Sandstone quarries of late 19th and early 20th century date are recorded on the moorland surrounding the proposed development area, including adjacent to the road of the west of the proposed wellsite (HER 8647) as well as on the east side of the dale to the south-east of Hollins Farm (HER 8614). Both are relatively small in scale, although the latter is below the more extensive Winshole Quarry on Castleton Rigg.

5.33 Modern heritage assets include a Second World War searchlight site (HER 18168) to the north of the northernmost new length of proposed access track at the south end of the village of Westerdale.

Geophysical survey

5.34 A magnetometer survey of the area of the proposed development extending to some 4ha was undertaken by GSB Prospection Ltd in March 2012. One of the principal aims of the survey was to establish whether any evidence for the possible bloomery (HER 578) recorded within the area of the proposed wellsite survived, or whether evidence for similar such sites survived at other locations within the development area. The results of the survey form part of a separate detailed report (GSB 2012) although these are summarised below (together with some additional comments in relation to recorded heritage assets) and are depicted on Figure 8.



5.35 The survey of the area of the proposed wellsite (Area 1) identified the line of a former field boundary (anomalies A and B) which correspond with that recorded on historic mapping earlier than 1857. A weak semi-circular anomaly (C) in the centre of the survey area is of uncertain but possibly archaeological origin, located adjacent to an amorphous band of anomalies (D) of probably natural origin. Smaller scale ferrous anomalies (‘iron spikes’) are present throughout the area, with stronger examples (E) possibly being associated with the nearby bloomery site although this assumption is speculative. Parallel anomalies within the eastern half of the area may be associated with former ridge and furrow cultivation, while closer spaced linear responses on the higher ground to the west are attributed to ploughing.

5.36 The survey of the proposed new lengths of access track around Broad Gate Farm (Areas 2, 3 and 4) identified a number of pit-like and short linear responses, and although an archaeological origin cannot be discounted these lack any obvious context. Possible ditch-like responses in Areas 3 and 4 may be ridge and furrow or natural effects, although that at the northern end of Area 4 corresponds with the location of a former field boundary recorded on historic mapping of 1819 (Figure 4).

5.37 The survey of the northern length of proposed new access track (Area 5) contained strong anomalies aligned on two different orientations. Those aligned east to west are considered to be ridge and furrow, while those orientated north to south appear more ditch-like and may form part of a field system (HER 19436) although the strength of the responses suggest that geological fissures could be an alternative interpretation. Parallel surviving lines (HER 12625) are recorded in the field to the north from aerial photographs but these have been interpreted as probable alignments for an earlier trackway.

Designated heritage assets

5.38 All designated heritage assets within the wider vicinity (1.5km) of the proposed development are listed in Table 2 below, which provides the relevant asset number, grade (where applicable to Listed Buildings), central grid reference, classification and distance to the proposed wellsite.

Table 2: Designated heritage assets within 1.5km of proposed wellsite

Site Grade Grid reference Classification Distance to wellsite

Scheduled Monuments

30133 – NZ 67597 04792 Small multivallate hillfort on Round Hill

0.2km

30198 – NZ 68207 03985 High Stone Dyke, southern of two cross dykes on Castleton Rigg

1.0km

30199 – NZ 68411 04715 Northern of two cross dykes on Castleton Rigg, 600m north-west of Stormy Hall

0.8km



Site Grade Grid reference Classification Distance to wellsite

Listed Buildings

328049 II NZ 67832 05555 Hollins farmhouse 0.9km

328056 II NZ 66539 05831 Kirk Vue and The Cottage 1.3km

328057 II NZ 66563 05788 Hill Garth 1.2km

328058 II NZ 66551 05782 Front garden wall to Hill Garth 1.2km

328059 II NZ 66611 05639 Bulmers Monument 1.1km

328065 II NZ 67609 03978 Anthony House 0.7km

328066 II* NZ 67772 04442 Bee house to west of Dale Head farmhouse and wall to left

0.4km

327935 II NZ 68250 05418 Boundary stones on border with Westerdale county parish

0.9km


0.9km


1.1km

5.39 Three Scheduled Monuments and ten Listed Buildings (or groups of listed structures) are recorded within the wider vicinity of the proposed development. On the basis of distance, topography, screening and the nature of the heritage assets no significant effects upon the setting of those Listed Buildings within the village of Westerdale or upon the boundary stones along the parish boundary between Danby and Westerdale would be predicted, and these assets are not therefore further described below nor is an assessment of the effects upon their setting subsequently made. On the basis of their significance, proximity, topographical location and nature, potential effects upon the setting of the three Scheduled Monuments and the remaining three Listed Buildings could be possible, and these heritage assets and their settings (and the contribution that their setting makes to their significance) are therefore described in further detail below. The description of the setting of each of the assets is based upon both professional experience and recent guidance (English Heritage 2015).

SM 30133: Round Hill multivallate hillfort

5.40 This monument includes the buried and earthwork remains of a small hillfort of Iron Age date occupying a promontory above Tower Beck within the infields on the east side of the valley (Plates 2 and 5). The enclosed area of the hillfort is roughly oval and measures 140m by 70m. The area is defined by a sharp top break of slope on all but the south-east side of the circuit, where there are two ditches running parallel with each other along the hillside, some 6m apart and up to 1.8m deep on the uphill side, and a low third bank beyond, further downhill. Around the remainder of the monument a discontinuous bench between 2m and 10m wide is visible below the top break of slope, which in parts at least contains



a ditch, in places partially infilled, with a bank on its outside edge. No visible internal features are recorded. Parts of the interior of the monument are divided into pasture fields by stone walls, while mostly deciduous woodland is located on the slopes to the north, east and west. There is no public access to the hillfort although access land is located in relatively close proximity to the east.

5.41 The immediate setting of the monument is defined by the adjacent slopes of both Round Hill and Swarthy Hill with which the monument is directly associated as a hillfort, extending westwards down to Tower Beck and eastwards towards the slope up towards Castleton Rigg. The wider setting includes the full extent of the valley of Tower Beck to the south of Westerdale, extending to the ridgelines of Castleton Rigg, Westerdale Head and Westerdale Moor to the east, south and west respectively, these being the areas which the hillfort would have visually commanded. This landscape will however have altered since the time of the monument’s construction, and particularly within its immediate vicinity as well as the enclosed infields within the valley together with other historic settlements, farmsteads and associated infrastructure within this area. Although altered the setting is considered integral to the function of the hillfort and to contribute to the significance of the monument, and to be of medium to high sensitivity.

SM 30198: High Stone Dike on Castleton Rigg

5.42 This monument includes the buried and earthwork remains of a prehistoric boundary in the form of a cross dyke that runs across the spine of Castleton Rigg (with a further parallel dyke to the north; SM 30199). The dyke is formed by a 4m wide bank up to 1m high with a parallel ditch up to 0.3m deep along its south side. The boundary runs on an east to west alignment for some 90m with the western end defined by the steep scarp down into the valley while the eastern end appears to have been truncated by quarrying and the modern road that runs along the ridge. The monument is largely covered with heather and located on access land along Castleton Rigg.

5.43 The immediate setting of the monument is defined by the ridge of Castleton Rigg upon which it is located and with which it is associated as a boundary feature, extending to east and west as far as the scarp slopes. Its wider landscape setting to the west is the valley extending south from Westerdale and to the east the valley of Danby Dale, separated from each other by the ridge on which the monument is located. Although slightly altered (and specifically where truncated to the east by the road and modern quarrying) the setting is considered integral to the function of the dyke and to contribute to the significance of the monument, and to be of high sensitivity.

SM 30199: Northern of two cross ridge dykes on Castleton Rigg

5.44 This monument includes the buried and earthwork remains of a prehistoric boundary in the form of a cross dyke that runs across the spine of Castleton Rigg near its saddle (with a further parallel dyke to the south; SM 30198). The western part of the dyke is formed by a bank up to 6m wide and 1.3m high with a parallel ditch up to 4m wide and 1m deep along its south side (Plate 6). The boundary runs on a roughly east to west alignment, with a slight curve southwards at its western end, for some 170m. Its western end is defined by the steep scarp down into the valley while the eastern end appears to have been truncated by quarrying



and the modern road along the ridge. The central section of the monument is crossed by the road that runs down into Westerdale which is located in a 20m wide gap in the bank and ditch, and which was probably an original feature. The monument is largely covered with heather and located on access land along Castleton Rigg.

5.45 The immediate setting of the monument is defined by the ridge of Castleton Rigg upon which it is located and with which it is associated as a boundary feature, extending to east and west as far as the scarp slopes in each direction. Its wider landscape setting to the west is the valley extending south from Westerdale and to the east the valley of Danby Dale, separated from each other by the ridge on which the monument is located. Although slightly altered (and specifically where truncated to the east by the road and modern quarrying) the setting is considered to be integral to the function of the dyke and contribute to the significance of the monument, and to be of high sensitivity.

328049: Hollins farmhouse

5.46 A farmhouse of 18th century date which was refurbished and extended in the 19th century. It is of sandstone construction and three builds. Originally a two-storey two-bay central section with a one-bay one-storey section to the right, with a later early 19th century taller extension also of two storeys and two bays to the left. The building has mostly sash, but also some Gothick, windows. It has gable copings on curved kneelers and corniced stacks at the ends of the centre block. There is a two-storey right rear wing and single storey left rear wing with varied windows. There is no public access to the farmstead.

5.47 The immediate setting of the building is defined by the adjacent farmstead, and principally the buildings to the south-west, as well as trees to the east and south. The wider setting of the farmhouse is considered to be the enclosed infield land with which it is directly associated, extending down towards Tower Beck to the west and towards the moodland on Castleton Rigg to the east. The landscape setting of the farmhouse is the Westerdale valley to the north and west, together with the valley extending southwards towards Westerdale Head. The immediate setting (and to a lesser degree the wider landscape setting) have been altered but are considered to make some contribution to the significance of the building and to be of medium to high sensitivity, although its principal significance relates to its architectural interest.

328065: Anthony House

5.48 A mid-18th century longhouse of two builds but almost contemporary (Plate 7). It has a single storey and loft, and is constructed of coursed squared tooled stone with a pantile roof and stone copings, kneelers and stack. The northern entrance front has a hearth-passage door with a small loft window above and another byre door to the left flanked by vent slits and above. The house has a single window to the extreme right. There are pitching doors in the gable returns. The southern front of the house has a single light and then a two-light mullioned window. The byre to the right has a boarded door with slits to either side and three above. The house interior includes a plain 18th century stone fireplace. All the interior joinery has gone and the house is currently unoccupied. There is no public access to the building, although it is visible from access land to the south.



5.49 The immediate setting of the building is defined by the adjacent enclosed infield land with which it is directly associated. The wider setting is the surrounding area of the valley of Tower Beck, including the moorland ridges, extending from Westerdale Head to the south and northwards towards Westerdale. The landscape setting of the longhouse is that of the Westerdale valley to the north. The immediate and wider settings have been only slightly altered (insofar as the field pattern has been modified) and these are considered to contribute to the significance of the building and to be of medium to high sensitivity, although its principal significance relates to its architectural interest.

328066: Bee house at Dale Head

5.50 A bee house to the west of Dale Head farmhouse and the wall to the left (Plate 8). A purpose built bee shelter constructed in 1832 of sandstone with a slate roof. It consists of a plinth with an arcade of six shouldered segmental arches above. The alcoves were used as shelters for straw bee skeps in winter. It has a stone ridge and end copings with moulded kneelers. The short length of wall to the left holds a bronze plaque dating the structure and its restoration by the National Park Committee in 1983. The bee house is visible from a bridleway that passes to the immediate south through the farmstead.

5.51 The immediate setting of the bee house is defined by the orchard associated with the farmstead and in which it is located together with the adjacent enclosed infield land. The wider setting is the surrounding area of the valley of Tower Beck, including the moorland ridges, extending from Westerdale Head to the south and northwards towards Westerdale. The landscape setting of the bee house is that of the Westerdale valley to the north. The immediate and wider settings have been slightly altered (insofar as the bee house pre-dates the existing farmstead and the field pattern has been modified) and these are considered to make some contribution to the significance of the building and to be of medium sensitivity, although its specific significance is its architectural interest.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT EFFECTS

Direct (physical) effects

6.1 Potential direct physical effects upon both recorded and previously unrecorded heritage assets of archaeological interest could arise from various aspects of the proposed development, but within the area of the wellsite principally from topsoil and subsoil stripping, as well as ground reduction or levelling and deeper excavation for the drilling chamber, drainage or other services. Topsoil and subsoil stripping, ground reduction and levelling, and excavation for drainage would also be undertaken along the new access tracks. Sections of stone field wall (and some lengths of hedges) will be removed both in the south-east corner of the proposed wellsite and along the new lengths of access track.

Wellsite

6.2 There is no substantive evidence for the site of a recorded medieval bloomery (HER 578) within the area of the proposed wellsite, which cartographic sources,



geophysical survey and site inspection suggest is instead located in the field immediately to the north-east adjoining Tower Beck. No direct effects upon this site are therefore predicted.

6.3 Recorded sites or features within the boundaries of the proposed wellsite include the subsurface remains for a former field boundary recorded by the geophysical survey (anomaly A) and cartographic sources of early 19th century date. Sheep creeps are recorded in the existing mid or late 19th century stone field walls on both the eastern (HER 11107) and southern (Site B) boundaries of the field. Subsurface evidence of both former ridge and furrow and more modern ploughing has been identified by the geophysical survey. A semi-circular feature identified by the geophysical survey as a weak trend (anomaly C) could be of archaeological origin, but this interpretation is considered highly tentative.

6.4 No effects that would cause substantial harm to heritage assets of archaeological interest are predicted as a result of the construction of the proposed wellsite (with the possible exception of anomaly C), although the mid 19th century wall in the south-east corner of the site would be removed (and possibly the associated sheep creep) and subsurface remains of former field boundaries and possible evidence of ridge and furrow cultivation damaged or destroyed. These would be slight or moderate adverse and permanent effects upon heritage assets of low sensitivity. Subject to appropriate mitigation this would therefore be considered to be a minor impact which would not lead to substantial harm to their significance.

Access tracks

6.5 Recorded heritage assets along that length of the proposed access track around Broad Gate Farm include lengths of existing stone field walls, which at the southern end are of mid 19th century date, but possibly of earlier post-medieval date at the northern end along Broad Gate Road. The subsurface remains of a former field boundary have also been recorded at the northern end of this length of access track by geophysical survey. The predicted effects of the construction of this length of access track would be the removal of sections of existing stone walls to the south, north-east (including associated gateposts) and north of Broad Gate Farm, as well as damage to subsurface remains of a former field boundary at the north end. These would be slight or moderate adverse and permanent effects upon heritage assets of low, or low to medium, sensitivity. This would therefore be considered to be a minor, or minor to moderate, impact which subject to appropriate mitigation would not lead to substantial harm to their significance.

6.6 Recorded heritage assets along that length of the proposed east to west aligned access track to the north of Broad Gate Farm include lengths of existing stone field walls and hedgerows of probable early 19th century date. Anomalies identified by the geophysical survey are considered to be ridge and furrow, although those orientated north to south appear more ditch-like and may form part of a possible field system (HER 19436) although the strength of the responses suggest that geological fissures could be an alternative interpretation. The predicted effects of the construction of this length of access track would be the removal of short sections of existing stone walls on the east and west sides of the field, as well as a short length of hedgerow that would qualify as ‘important’ under the terms of the Hedgerow Regulations in the field immediately to the east.



Lengths of subsurface remains of ridge and furrow cultivation along the access track, and possible shorter lengths of ditches across the track are also predicted to be affected. These would be slight or moderate adverse and permanent effects upon heritage assets of low or medium, sensitivity (the significance of the possible ditches being uncertain). Subject to appropriate mitigation this would therefore be considered to be a minor or moderate impact which would not lead to substantial harm to their significance.

Effects upon setting

6.7 The potential effects of the proposed development upon the setting of those selected designated heritage assets within the vicinity are described below, the assessment being based upon both professional experience and recent guidance (English Heritage 2015). For each designated asset the assessment is based upon development proposals that are considered to be either temporary (if the drilling operations and site reinstatement are undertaken over a period of five months) or short-term (if reinstatement or an application for production is not made until the end of a three year planning consent).

SM 30133: Round Hill multivallate hillfort

6.8 This monument is located some 200m to the east of the proposed wellsite, which would be visible both from the hillfort itself (although there is no public access to the monument) as well as from access land both to the east and south-east (Plate 5) where the hillfort (including the earthwork remains of the principal surviving ramparts on the south-east side) would be visible juxtaposed in views of the wellsite within the valley beyond. This view has altered since the time of the construction of the monument and also includes the post-medieval enclosed field system and associated walls, tracks, areas of former jet workings and electricity poles.

6.9 The proposed wellsite would be located within the setting of the hillfort within the valley of the Tower Beck. Although Round Hill is a prominent feature within its immediate locality (Plate 2), the hillfort itself is not visually dominant. This is in part due to the relatively insubstantial nature of the earthworks other than on the south-east side, the incorporation of most of the interior of the hillfort within later enclosed fields and the existing woodland on most of the slopes of Round Hill. However, the monument was located in order that it could command views of the adjacent valley, including the area of the proposed wellsite. Furthermore the stone surface to much of the proposed wellsite, and the drilling rig and associated infrastructure, would be visible within close proximity in views below from the monument, as well as in views towards the monument to variable degrees, and would contrast with the existing agricultural use of the adjacent fields. No specific sight-lines with associated monuments would be interrupted, and the understanding and heritage significance of the hillfort (and specifically in terms of the importance of the surviving earthwork and buried remains) would not be affected by the proposed wellsite. However, its appreciation within its landscape setting to the west would be partially compromised. This would be a moderate impact upon a resource of medium to high sensitivity and therefore an effect of moderate to major significance. However, as the effect would be either temporary or short-term, and would be reversible, it is considered that overall this would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset.



SM 30198: High Stone Dike on Castleton Rigg

6.10 This monument is located on access land some 1050m to the south-east of the proposed wellsite, which would only be visible from the very western extremity of the dyke, although parts of the drilling rig itself might be visible in adjacent areas to the east. The proposed wellsite would not be located within the immediate setting of the dyke (essentially Castleton Rigg where it is located and with which it is directly associated), but would be located within its wider landscape setting within the valley below and would contrast with the surrounding landscape. The dyke is only a prominent feature within its immediate vicinity. As the proposed wellsite would be located at some distance from the dyke and would not be visible from the majority of the monument it is not considered that the understanding and heritage significance of the dyke (and specifically in terms of the importance of the surviving earthwork and buried remains) would in any way be diminished by the proposed wellsite. However, its appreciation within its landscape setting would be slightly compromised. This would be a slight impact upon a resource of high sensitivity and therefore an effect of minor to moderate significance. As the effect would be either temporary or short-term, and would be reversible, it is considered that this would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset.

SM 30199: Northern of two cross ridge dykes on Castleton Rigg

6.11 This monument is located on access land some 900m to the east of the proposed wellsite, which would only be visible from the western third (some 45m) of the dyke when looking along it (Plate 6) although parts of the drilling rig itself might be visible in adjacent areas to the east. The proposed wellsite would not be located within the immediate setting of the dyke (essentially Castleton Rigg where it is located and with which it is directly associated), but would be located within its wider landscape setting within the valley below and would contrast with the surrounding landscape. The dyke is only a prominent feature within its immediate vicinity. The proposed wellsite would be located at some distance from the dyke, and although not visible from much of the monument, it would be seen juxtaposed beyond the earthworks in views to the west. However, it is not considered that the understanding and heritage significance of the hillfort (and specifically in terms of the importance of the surviving earthwork and buried remains) would in any way be diminished by the proposed wellsite, although its appreciation within its landscape setting would be compromised. This would be a slight to moderate impact upon a resource of high sensitivity and therefore an effect of moderate significance. As the effect would be either temporary or short-term, and would be reversible, it is considered that this would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset.

328049: Hollins farmhouse

6.12 This building is located some 950m to the north-east of the proposed wellsite. The front of the farmhouse faces west-north-west and views towards the wellsite to the south-west would both be limited and probably partially or totally screened by existing farm buildings. The development would not be located within the immediate setting of the farmhouse, but would be located within its wider landscape setting within the valley below. There is no public access to the building. Given that views from the building towards the development would be



limited or obscured, it is not considered that the understanding and heritage significance of the farmhouse (and specifically in terms of its architectural interest and importance) would in any way be diminished by the proposed wellsite. Given the distance to the proposed development, as well as its temporary or short-term nature, it is not considered that there would be any affect upon the appreciation of the building within its setting, which would be preserved, nor upon the significance of the heritage asset.

328065: Anthony House

6.13 This building is located some 650m to the south-south-east of the proposed wellsite. The front of the longhouse faces south towards Westerdale Head, although there would be views of parts of the proposed development to the north-north-west from the rear of the building, as well as in views from the south-east in which the wellsite would be seen juxtaposed beyond the building (Plate 7). However, given the topography (and screening effect of existing walls) it is probable that views of the wellsite would be limited to those of the drilling rig when this was in operation, as well as the bunds and flare pit to the west, while the ground surface would not be visible. The development would be located within the wider setting of the longhouse (to which there is only public access to the adjacent land to the south rather than the building itself). Given that views from the rear of the building and from the south towards the development would be along the valley and only partial, it is not considered that the understanding and heritage significance of the longhouse (and specifically in terms of its architectural interest and importance) would in any way be diminished by the proposed wellsite. However, its appreciation within its wider setting would be slightly compromised. This would be a slight impact upon a resource of medium to high sensitivity and therefore an effect of minor significance. As the effect would be either temporary or short-term, and would be reversible, it is considered that the setting of the building would essentially be preserved, and that this would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset.

328066: Bee house at Dale Head

6.14 This building is located some 450m to the south-east of the proposed wellsite. The bee house faces south-east towards the slope up to Castleton Rigg, although there would be views of the proposed wellsite development to the north-west from the bee house, as well as in views from the public bridleway to the south-east in which the wellsite would be seen juxtaposed beyond the structure in the valley below (Plate 8). The development would not be located within the immediate farmstead setting of the bee house, but would be located within its wider landscape setting. Given the essentially functional nature of the building it is not considered that the understanding or heritage significance of the bee house (and specifically in terms of its architectural interest and importance) would in any way be diminished by the proposed wellsite. However, its appreciation within its wider landscape setting would be slightly compromised. This would be a slight impact upon a resource of medium to high sensitivity and therefore an effect of minor significance. As the effect would be either temporary or short-term, and would be reversible, it is considered that the setting of the building would essentially be preserved, and that this would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset.



7.0 MITIGATION

7.1 On the basis of the predicted impact assessment the following outline mitigation with respect to heritage assets is proposed, which would be undertaken in stages in advance of development, during the construction phase, and during reinstatement. A detailed written scheme of investigation setting out the scale and scope for the proposed mitigation would be prepared and agreed in writing with the North York Moors National Park Authority in advance of any of the work being undertaken.

Photographic survey

7.2 This survey would include both a general photographic record of areas of the development, with a specific record of all sections of the existing field walls (and hedgerows) which are to be removed during construction. The photographic record would include both faces of any such lengths of wall and include measured scales in the photographs. Specific features such as sheep creeps or gateposts would be individually measured and photographed. A register of the location, direction and date of all photographs would be maintained. The survey would be undertaken in accordance with any relevant guidance (English Heritage 2007, 14).

Archaeological investigation

7.3 The proposed programme of archaeological investigation is designed to mitigate the predicted effects of the development upon heritage assets of archaeological interest. This would be undertaken with specific objectives such as recording identified heritage assets of archaeological interest, dating the boundaries and trackways associated with the field systems within the area around Broad Gate Farm (including environmental sampling of any associated ditch fills or buried soils) and identifying any areas or features associated with recorded medieval bloomeries within the vicinity. The mitigation would be based upon a targeted programme of ‘strip map and record’ and a more general ’watching brief’.

7.4 A programme of archaeological ‘strip, map and record’ would be undertaken in the initial phases of the main site construction works within those where concentrations of possible archaeological features have been identified, and specifically along the northern length of proposed access track where possible ditches forming part of a field system (HER 19436) were recorded by the geophysical survey. Within this area the topsoil (and subsoil as necessary) would be stripped by a backactor excavator with a wide-bladed toothless ditching bucket to archaeological requirements. Any features of potential archaeological interest identified would be demarcated, planned, investigated and sample recorded in advance of further site works.

7.5 A scheme of archaeological observation, investigation and recording (or ‘watching brief’) would be undertaken during all of the other principal components of the proposed development, and specifically during topsoil stripping (and where necessary subsoil stripping and ground reduction) by a backactor excavator with a wide-bladed toothless ditching bucket within the area of the proposed wellsite and along the new lengths of access track around Broad Gate Farm. Any features of potential archaeological interest identified would be demarcated,



planned, investigated and recorded in advance of site works, with adequate time and resources being made available within the construction programme to undertake the agreed level of fieldwork. Should archaeological features of greater significance than indicated by the desk-based assessment and geophysical survey be identified, then more detailed excavation would be undertaken as necessary in agreement with the planning authority.

7.6 The scheme of archaeological observation, investigation and recording would be undertaken in accordance with relevant professional standards and guidance (English Heritage 2006; CIFA 2014b). The agreed programme of work would include post-excavation assessment of the site records and any artefacts recovered or samples taken, and the preparation of a report (including publication as necessary) together with the deposition of the site archive at a recognised repository in accordance with the written scheme of investigation agreed with the planning authority.

Reinstatement

7.7 As part of the proposed programme of reinstatement upon the completion of the development, the area of the wellsite and assess tracks would be restored to their original topography, and all lengths of the stone field walls that had been removed would be rebuilt to replicate the original appearance of these sections using the stone which had been retained from their removal.

8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 The proposed wellsite development and associated new lengths of access track are located within an area that contains a number of heritage assets of both archaeological and architectural interest. These include Bronze Age boundaries on Castleton Rigg and an Iron Age hillfort on Round Hill, both to the east of the site, as well as records of medieval bloomeries at a number of locations within the valley. The landscape within the surrounding area is however essentially post-medieval in date, with farmsteads being established from the 17th century although most of the surviving buildings as well as the enclosure boundaries of the existing fields within the valley date to the 19th century. While all of the fields within the development area are currently pasture, these have been improved (and some were previously under arable cultivation), and have all been ploughed in the past.

8.2 The record of a bloomery (iron smelting site) of probable medieval date within the boundaries of the proposed wellsite could not be substantiated, and the available evidence suggests that this site is located in the field to the east and will not be affected by the development proposals. No survey or other evaluation of the latter location has however been undertaken, and its full extent, or those of any associated features, therefore remains unknown.

8.3 Heritage assets of archaeological interest within the wellsite that will be affected by its construction include a former field boundary and a possible semi-circular feature recorded by the geophysical survey, although the latter is highly tentative. A section of field wall (possibly including a sheep creep) will be removed to allow access into the site. Subject to appropriate mitigation none of these direct effects



are considered to be significant, and the construction of the wellsite would not lead to substantial harm to the heritage assets.

8.4 Heritage assets of archaeological interest within the new length of access track around Broad Gate Farm include evidence for a former field boundary, as well as lengths of existing field walls (including gate posts) that will be removed during construction. The boundary adjacent to Broad Gate Lane probably pre-dates the 19th century. Further sections of field wall and part of a hedgerow will also be removed along the length of new track to the north of the farm, while evidence of former ridge and furrow and possible ditch-type features forming part of a field system have been recorded along this length by the geophysical survey, although the latter may be geological in origin. Subject to appropriate mitigation none of these direct effects are considered to be significant, and the construction of the new lengths of access track would not lead to substantial harm to the significance of the heritage assets.

8.5 The closest designated heritage asset of national importance to the proposed development is the scheduled small multivallate Iron Age hillfort on Round Hill. The proposed wellsite would be located some 200m to the west of the monument and within its wider setting, which contributes to the significance of the hillfort. This would be considered to be an effect of moderate to major significance, but because this effect would be either temporary or short-term and reversible it would not lead to substantial harm to the significance of the monument.

8.6 Two scheduled Bronze Age cross ridge dykes are located further to the east and south-east of the proposed wellsite on Castleton Rigg. Views of the development from the monuments, which are located in a distinct and separate setting on the ridge, would be limited and any effects upon their setting would be minor or moderate in significance and lead to less than substantial harm.

8.7 Listed buildings within a kilometre of the proposed wellsite include the farmhouse at Hollins Farm to the north-east, the bee house at Dale Head to the south-east and Anthony House to the south, all grade II except for the bee house which is grade II*. No effects upon the setting of Hollins farmhouse are predicted, while effects of minor significance upon the settings of Anthony House and the bee house at Dale Head are predicted. The effects would be either temporary or short-term and reversible, and the setting essentially preserved, and not therefore considered to lead to substantial harm to the significance of the heritage assets.

8.8 Mitigation of the direct effects upon heritage assets of archaeological interest would include a photographic survey of all lengths of existing field wall (and recording of specific features such as sheep creeps) in advance of construction. Archaeological investigation in advance of or during construction would include a programme of ‘strip, map and record’ on that length of access track to the north of Broad Gate Farm, together with a scheme of observation, investigation and recording (‘watching brief’) within the area of the proposed wellsite and other lengths of access track. Any lengths of walls removed would be restored as part of the reinstatement. The details of the scale and scope of the proposed mitigation, including subsequent report preparation and archive deposition, would be set out in a written scheme of investigation to be agreed with the North York Moors National Park Authority.



8.9 Subject to the implementation of the proposed mitigation strategy no substantial harm to heritage assets is predicted as a result of the proposed exploratory wellsite development at Broad Gate Farm.

Date: August 2015 Report: 45/2 Text: Peter Cardwell BA FSA MCIFA Edited by: Mike Bishop BA PhD FSA (Scot) Illustrations: Archaeological Services Durham University



REFERENCES

Published sources

Atkinson J C (1888) History of Cleveland Ancient and Modern Volume I

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2010) Scheduled Monuments

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2014a) Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (2014b) Standard and Guidance for an Archaeological Watching Brief

English Heritage (1991) Management of Archaeological Projects

English Heritage (2006) Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment: The MoRPHE Project Managers’ Guide

English Heritage (2007) Understanding the Archaeology of Landscapes: A Guide to Good Recording Practice

English Heritage (2015) Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets

GSB Prospection (2012) Westerdale 2 Exploratory Wellsite: Geophysical Survey Report 2012/18

Hayes R H (1971) Westerdale N R in Yorkshire Archaeological Register 1968, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, Volume 42, Part 167

Hayes R H (1978) Early Iron-Working Sites in North East Yorkshire, in Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society, Volume 12 Number 1

Jarvis R A et al (1984): Soils and Their Use in Northern England Soils Survey of England and Wales Bulletin No. 10

Page W (ed) (1923) A History of the County of York North Riding: Volume II Victoria County History

Pevsner N (1985) The Buildings of England – Yorkshire: The North Riding

Rutter J G (1968) Westerdale, NR, Broadgate Farm, in the Archaeological Index for North-East Yorkshire, Transactions of the Scarborough and District Archaeological Society, Volume 2 Number 11

Smith A H (1928) The Place-Names of the North Riding of Yorkshire English Place-Name Society Volume V



Maps and plans

1818 Westerdale 1818 Map of Broad Gate Farm (NYCRO ZEW M 80, MIC 1600/64)

1819 A plan of an estate in the parish of Westerdale in the North Riding of the County of York The property of Charles Duncombe Esq by Tukes and Ayer (NYCRO ZEW M 30, MIC 1599/151–158)

1838 Plan of the Township of Westerdale (NYCRO T, MIC 1802/466–474)

1857 Ordnance Survey 1st edition 6″ to 1 mile, Yorkshire sheet 44

1892 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25″ to 1 mile, Yorkshire sheets 44/1 and 44/5

1913 Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25″ to 1 mile, Yorkshire sheet 44/5

Aerial photographs (verticals)

23.09.43 RAF/AC577 Frame 5107

27.03.46 RAF/106G/UK/1312 Frames 3217 and 4164–4165

27.08.46 RAF/106G/UK/1700 Frames 1336 and 3315

14.05.71 Ordnance Survey 71200 Frame 31

08.09.72 Ordnance Survey 72379 Frames 406, 502 and 543

Aerial photographs (obliques)

06.07.84 ANY 149/02–149/04

25.02.01 NZ 6704/2 BXV 19828/22



APPENDIX 1

HERITAGE ASSETS WITHIN VICINITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT This appendix lists heritage assets within 1.5km of the proposed development recorded on the North York Moors National Park Authority Historic Environment Record (HER) and Historic England Archive (HEA) as indicated. A central grid reference, suggested classification and date are provided for each site, which are listed in numerical order.

HER HEA Grid reference Classification Period

Scheduled Monuments

2829 53295

1151276 NZ 6760 0478 Multivallate hillfort Iron Age

Sites

570 28209 NZ 67600 04400 Flint artefacts Prehistoric

571 – NZ 67600 04500 Flint artefact Prehistoric

578 – NZ 67316 04664 Slag Medieval

2830 – NZ 67643 04754 Rampart Iron Age

3976 1569157 NZ 67750 04600 Slag heap (jet mining) Medieval

5691 – NZ 67917 05064 Saw pit 19th century

7014 – NZ 66662 05433 Bloomery Unknown

7255 1569232 NZ 67020 04401 Jet mining 19th century

7256 – NZ 67816 04618 Jet mining 19th century

7708 – NZ 67176 05235 Trackway trod Post-medieval to modern

8614 – NZ 67946 05342 Sandstone quarry Modern

8647 – NZ 66626 04631 Sandstone quarry Modern

9819 – NZ 67489 04606 Clapper bridge Post-medieval

10706 – NZ 67835 05550 Farmstead 18th century

10707 543291 NZ 67120 04978 Farmstead Post-medieval


10709 – NZ 67118 04954 Barn 18th century to post-medieval

10710 534289 NZ 67892 05103 Farmstead 18th century


11084 – NZ 67816 05642 Sheep creep Post-medieval

11083 – NZ67604 05600 Sheep creep Post-medieval




11088 – NZ 67837 05647 Two troughs 19th century to modern






11094 – NZ 67042 05099 Trough Post-medieval







11101 – NZ 67830 05180 Trough 19th century to modern









11110 – NZ 67308 04442 Stone trough Post-medieval


11145 – NZ 67690 04320 Stone trough 19th century

11146 – NZ 67680 04290 Stone trough 19th century

11342 – NZ 67840 04440 Standing stone Medieval

12614 – NZ 66752 05565 Field boundary 19th century

12620 – NZ 67693 05624 Ridge and furrow Medieval

12621 – NZ 67897 05598 Field boundary Medieval




12622 – NZ 67900 05517 Building earthworks Unknown

12623 – NZ 67860 05542 Saw pit 19th century to modern

12624 534295 NZ 67793 05547 Building 18th century

12625 – NZ 66763 05607 Terraces (natural) Unknown

12626 – NZ 67128 05207 Trackway Post-medieval

12627 – NZ 67198 05658 Clapper bridge Post-medieval


12629 – NZ 66966 04759 Sheep fold 19th century

12630 – NZ 66990 04756 Dam 18th century

12631 – NZ 67388 04978 Clapper bridge 19th century to modern


12633 – NZ 67710 04700 Bridge Post-medieval

12634 – NZ 67504 04759 Field boundary Post-medieval

18168 58782 NZ 66660 05650 Searchlight site Modern

18697 – NZ 67923 05383 Farmstead Post-medieval

18795 – NZ 67852 05992 Hamlet Medieval and post-medieval

18860 – NZ 67701 04221 Hamlet Post-medieval

19434 1569157 NZ 67679 04673 Extractive pits 19th century

19435 1569121 NZ 67483 04912 Field boundary Post-medieval

19436 – NZ 66781 05443 Field system Prehistoric Roman

– 534292 NZ 679 049 Farm house 19th century

– 534297 NZ 678 044 Farm house 19th century

Listed Buildings (all Grade II except 328066, Grade II*)

10706 328049 NZ 678 055 Farm house 18th to 19th century

3531 328059 NZ 66611 05639 Bulmers Monument 18th century

17669 328066 NZ 67772 04442 Bee house 19th century

Key

Reproduction in whole or in part isprohibited without the prior permission

of Ordnance Survey© Crown copyright 2009.

All rights reserved.Licence number AL100046932

Exploratory wellsite

Broad Gate Farm

Westerdale

scale 1:25 000 @ A4

0 1km

proposed development

67

04

68 6966

03

05

06

07

Figure 1

Site location

date28/08/2015

version2

328059

30199

30199

30198

327962

328058

328063328056

328049

328065

327962

327962

327962

327962

327961

327961

327961

327961

327961

327961

327935

327935

327935

327935

327935

327935

327962

327961

327961

327961

327935

327935

327935

327935

327935

327935

328066

30133

328057

328061 328054328055

438584

6766 68

04

05

Key

Figure 2

Designated heritage assets within1.5km of proposed wellsite


Broad Gate Farm

Westerdale

Listed Building

proposed development area

Scheduled Monument

Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibitedwithout the prior permission of Ordnance Survey© Crown copyright 2009. All rights reserved.Licence number AL100046932

scale 1:10 000 @ A3

0 500m

327961

30198

Data obtained from the Historic EnglandArchive (HEA)

date28/08/2015

version2

Spring Dike

305.5m

Sinks

Issues

261.6m

299.3m

279.9m

294.9m

Track

Path

(um

)

Pat

h (u

m)

(disused)Quarry

(dis)

Issues

Sinks

247.2m

224.9m

235.2m

206.5m

(covered)Reservoir

Track

GP

Path (um)

Path (um)

Tip

Cattle Grid

Issues

207.2m

Bulmer's Monument

BROAD G

ATE ROAD

Arkangel

Issues

SinksIssues

Tower Beck

Sinks

IssuesSinks

Issues

Path

(um

)

Path (um)

Path (um)

Dale Head

Issues

Issues

Issues

Issues

Sinks

FB

Track

FarmBroad Gate

Issues

Issues

Collects

Pond

Spreads

Track

Path (um)

Track

Track

(disused)

(disused)

(disused)

Tip

Sally Sike

Round Hill

Tips

Swarthy Hill

Tip

Cockle House

Bracken Byre

Cockle Barn

Issues

Ford

Spring Dike

Issues

Beck

Sinks

Tower

Issues

FBTrack

Trac

k

BRO

AD G

ATE RO

AD

Cock Bannock

Issues

Issues

Spring

Sinks

Sinks

Track

Path (um)

Trac

k

Track

Sheep Dip

HouseBrown Hill

Hollins Farm

Issues

Path

(um

)

Issues

Path (um)

Track

Spreads

Drain

Path

(um

)

Path (um)

Path (um)

Westerdale M

oor

Path (um)

Issues

Path

(um

)

Path (um)

534295

534289

534291

328059

328049

534292

58782

570

571

2830

3531

3976

5691

7014

8614

86479819

10706

1070710709

1071010711

11083 11084 110871108811089 11090

11091

11092

11093

11094 11095

11096

11097

110981109911100

11101

11102

11103

11104

1110511106

11107

11108

11109

11110

11111

11145

11342

1262312624

12627

1262912630

12631

12633

17669

18168

18697

12620 12621

12622

1879

5

18795

12632

7708

12628

1943

5

19436

7255

7255

12614

12625

12626

578

18860

328066534297

725619434

2829

12634

30133

10708

A

B

Key

Figure 3

Heritage assets within vicinity ofproposed development


Broad Gate Farm

Westerdale



HER site11104

scale 1:5000 @ A3

0 250m

045

670 675 680

050

055

Listed Building

Scheduled Monument

327962

30198

Data obtained from North York Moors National ParkAuthority Historic Environment Rercord (HER) and theHistoric England Archive (HEA)

HEA site

date28/08/2015

version2

Key

Proposed development overlain onan estate plan of Westerdale of 1819(NYCRO ZEW M 30)


Broad Gate Farm

Westerdale


scale 1:4000 @ A3

0 200m

Figure 4

Reproduced with the permission of the NorthYorkshire County Record Office (NYCRO)

date28/08/2015

version2

Key

Proposed development overlain onthe 1838 tithe map of Westerdaleparish


Broad Gate Farm

Westerdale


scale 1:4000 @ A3

0 200m

Figure 5


date28/08/2015

version2

Key

Proposed development overlain on the1st edition Ordnance Survey map of1857 (Yorkshire sheet 44)


Broad Gate Farm

Westerdale


scale 1:4000 @ A3

0 200m

Figure 6


date28/08/2015

version2

Key

Figure 7

Historic Landscape Characterisation


Broad Gate Farm

Westerdale



unenclosed land

scale 1:10 000 @ A3

0 500m

04

66 67 68

05

06

extractive

woodland

Data obtained from North Yorkshire County Council

enclosed land

settlement

date28/08/2015

version2

Sinks

Issues

261.6m

299.3m

279.9m

294.9m

Track

Path

(um

)

Pat

h (u

m)

(disused)Quarry

(dis)

Issues

Sinks

247.2m

224.9m

235.2m

206.5m

(covered)Reservoir

Track

GP

Path (um)

Path (um)

Tip

Cattle Grid

SinksIssues

Tower Beck

Path (um)

Dale Head

Issues

Issues

Issues

Issues

Sinks

FBTrack

FarmBroad Gate

Collects

Pond

Spreads

Track

(disused)

(disused)

Tip

Round Hill

Tips

Swarthy Hill

Ford

Spring Dike

Issues

Beck

Sinks

Tower

Issues

FBTrack

Trac

k

BRO

AD G

ATE RO

AD

Cock Bannock

Issues

Issues

Sinks

Track

Trac

k

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Area 1

A

B

C D

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

Area 5

Key

Figure 8

Geophysical survey interpretation


Broad Gate Farm

Westerdale



670 675

045

048

050

055

scale 1:4000 @ A3

0 200m

uncertain origin (discrete anomaly)

uncertain origin (trend)

?natural positive/negative

?ridge and furrow

ploughing

ferrous

geophysical survey area

Data obtained from GSB Prospection Ltd

date28/08/2015

version2

Plate 1: Exploratory wellsite at Broad Gate Farm - proposed wellsite from the east(25 February 2012)

Plate 2: Exploratory wellsite at Broad Gate Farm - proposed wellsite from the westwith Round Hill in middle distance to left and Castleton Rigg beyond

(25 February 2012)

Plate 4: Exploratory wellsite at Broad Gate Farm - proposed new length of accesstrack to the north of Broad Gate Farm from the north-west (25 February 2012)

Plate 3: Exploratory wellsite at Broad Gate Farm- proposed northern length of newaccess track from the east (25 February 2012)

Plate 6: Exploratory wellsite at Broad Gate Farm - northern cross ridge dyke onCastleton Rigg (SM 30199) from the east with proposed wellsite beyond

(25 February 2012)

Plate 5: Exploratory wellsite at Broad Gate Farm - mulivallate hillfort on Round Hill(SM 30133) from the south-east with proposed wellsite in middle distance to left

(25 February 2012)

Plate 8: Exploratory wellsite at Broad Gate Farm - bee house at Dale Head fromthe south-east with proposed wellsite in middle distance to the left

(25 February 2012)

Plate 7: Exploratory wellsite at Broad Gate Farm - Anthony House from the southwith proposed wellsite in middle distance to right (25 February 2012)

Date post:	13-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoangkien
View:	231 times
Download:	2 times

EXPLORATORY WELLSITE BROAD GATE FARM, …planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/MVM.DMS/Planning...

Documents