WARLANDS, SHALFLEET, ISLE OF WIGHT

REVISED FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT & DRAINAGE STRATEGY

Prepared By
D McCallum & Associates
87-89 High Street
Bembridge
Isle of Wight
PO35 5SF
T: 01983 875743
M: 07801 140687
E: david.mccallum@dm-assoc.com
W: www.dm-assoc.com

Flood Risk

Observations of the Environment Agency flood mapping indicates the site to be beyond the
extents of Zone 2 & Zone 3 flood risk. As such, it would appear that the site is located within
Zone 1 and is considered to be at little or no risk of flooding. Furthermore, similar mapping
for risk of flooding by surface water suggests that the site is at low to very low risk of
flooding. As a result only a simple Flood Risk Assessment or Statement is considered to be
sufficient to demonstrate that the risk to flooding of the site is very low, given the availability
and currency of statutory information. Refer to Maps 1 and 2 below for images of the
mapping described above.

APPLICATION SITE

Map 1: Risk of Flooding from Rivers and Sea

APPLICATION SITE

Map 2: Risk of Flooding from Surface Water

Site Description and Levels

The site is located with Zone 1, approximately, at National Grid reference SZ408892 at
20.0mAOD.

Finished construction levels of the proposed housing, access roads,

footways/footpaths and other associated features is expected to be close to existing ground

levels and will vary across the site relative to the natural slope of the site toward the A3054
of between 25.5mAOD and 20.0mAOD.

Observation of the geological drift map of the site would suggest that the site is underlain by
the Hamstead Member which is a soil predominantly clay-like in nature.

As such, the sub-soils of the site are not conducive to the effective disposal of surface water
runoff through means of infiltration. It is expected that in rainfall events of high intensity and
or duration that some localised flooding or perched water of the ground surface and or
adjacent features may occur due to the poor infiltration rate of the ground.

In-situ percolation tests have not been conducted but it is feasible that the infiltration rate of
the soil may be less than 1.0 x 10-6m/s, which is typical of a poorly draining clay material.

Foul Water Disposal

Southern Water has been approached in relation to the status and nature of their existing
foul water sewerage infrastructure in vicinity of the application site. Southern Waters sewer
asset records are included for reference In Appendix 1 of this report.

A public foul water sewer network exists in the adjacent estate Fleet Way. Southern Water
has undertaken a sewer capacity check of this foul sewer network and it is confirmed that
sufficient capacity exists to permit connection of the application site to the existing foul sewer
network.

The associated documentation in respect to the foul sewer capacity check undertaken and
confirmed by Southern Water is included In Appendix 1 of this report

Therefore, the proposed foul water drainage strategy for this site is to convey all foul water
drainage to a point of outfall close to the eastern boundary of the application site and
adjacent to the existing Fleet Way estate. The outfall from the application site will then form
a connection with the existing Southern Water (foul) manhole: ref 9102 (SZ40899102).

A foul water pumping station and associated rising mains may be required within the
application site to facilitate connection to the Southern Water (foul) manhole.

Refer to drawings 14012/DMA/00500 and 14012/DMA/00510, which illustrate the proposed

foul water drainage strategy.

Surface Water Disposal

Due to the nature of the expected sub-soils, site levels and site constraints; soakaways,
French-drains and other similar surface water infiltration structures or features may not be
suitable for discharging a significant volume of surface water from the proposed hardstanding areas and roofs of the future site. In-situ percolation tests conducted during future
ground investigations will confirm the extent of volume of surface water that may be possible
to discharge to ground.

Alternative forms of source-control surface water features may be utilised to assist with the
overall management of surface water discharge; for example balancing/retention/detention

ponds, infiltration basins, swales and or similar. The relative qualities and limitations of
these types of drainage feature will be carefully considered in the final detailed drainage
design for the site.

Southern Water has been approached in relation to the status and nature of their existing
surface water sewerage infrastructure in vicinity of the application site. Southern Waters
sewer asset records are included for reference in Appendix 1 of this report.

A public surface water sewer network exists in the adjacent estate Fleet Way. Southern
Water has undertaken a sewer capacity check of this sewer network and it is confirmed that
insufficient capacity exists to permit connection of the application site to the existing surface
water sewer network within Fleet Way.

The associated documentation in respect to the surface sewer capacity check undertaken
and confirmed by Southern Water is included in Appendix 1 of this report

To facilitate disposal of surface water drainage from the site, Southern Water propose that:
the existing main sewer in the A3054, that discharges the adjacent Fleet Way estate, should
be upgraded to accommodate surface water discharge from the application site.

Therefore, the proposed surface water drainage strategy for this site is to convey all surface
water drainage from the site via any surface water amenity features to a point of outfall on
the northern boundary along the proposed access road to the future site. The future site
sewer will form a connection to a new sewer built along the A3054 eastward of the site which
will outfall to the existing Southern Water (surface) manhole: ref 1252 (SZ41891252).

In terms of sustainability, the future drainage proposals for the site may include for the
introduction of attenuation devices and or structures forming part of the system. Further
surface water attenuation or source control features may be contained within the curtilage of
the individual properties forming the proposed site layout.

Overall surface water

management may be a collective system of mains drainage and SuDS features, subject to
detailed design and associated agreements and approvals.

All surface water drainage aspects will be subject to flood modelling and routeing, if
necessary, to demonstrate efficient and effective surface water management in accordance
with all statutory, regulatory and best practice guidance. All surface water drainage for the
application site will be designed to ensure negligible, if not zero, impact on the immediate

and surrounding environment as is reasonably practicable to achieve. The future surface

water drainage system may also assist with the effective disposal of existing flood events
following periods of significant rainfall.
Refer to drawings 14012/DMA/00500 and 14012/DMA/00510, which illustrate the proposed
surface water drainage strategy.

APPENDIX 1

WARLANDS, SHALFLEET, ISLE OF WIGHT

HIGHWAY ACCESS &TRANSPORT STATEMENT

Prepared By
D McCallum & Associates
87-89 High Street
Bembridge
Isle of Wight
PO35 5SF
T: 01983 875743
M: 07801 140687
E: david.mccallum@dm-assoc.com
W: www.dm-assoc.com

1.0

ANALYSIS

1.1

The proposed site will form a simple major/minor priority junction with the existing
highway, the A3054. The form of junction is expected to be a ghost-island type with a
dedicated right-turn lane and associated highway features. The junction arrangement
indicated in support of the outline planning application accords with the current
requirements and addendums of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), which is
the appropriate and recognised statutory guidance for the junction design of this nature.

1.2

The Local Highway Authority has been consulted in relation to the nature and design
requirements for the proposed access junction.

1.3

In summary the principle design criterion applied to the current access junction geometry is
as follows:

1.4

(Highway) Design speed = 70kph (40mph)

Running/through lane width = 3.25m (A3054)

Right turn lane width = 3.00m (A3054)

O/A carriageway width at entrance to proposed site = 9.50m (A3054)

Junction radii = 10.00m

Site access road width = 6.00m

Visibility splays (L/R) = 2.40m (X) by 120.00m (Y)

The above geometry may be amended subject to further detailed assessment and design
following the findings of traffic data and modelling that may be required as suggested by
early discussion by the LHA and following comments received from submission of the outline
planning approval stage. It is feasible that subject to favourable results and agreement by
and with the LHA then the extents of the currently indicated junction arrangement may be
modified to reduce the impacts on the immediate and local environment.

1.5

A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has not been conducted at this time but this is expected to be
required following comments received from the outline planning application submission.
The RSA1 would be conducted in conjunction with and relative to results received from
traffic data and modelling.
2

1.6

Given the rural nature of the proposals street lighting of the major highway in the vicinity of
the new junction is not expected to be required.

1.7

Provision for access and egress for pedestrians is considered by the construction of footways
and footpaths within the boundaries of the proposed site and that will connect to existing
pedestrian thoroughfares to the adjacent residential estate to the east (subject to the
agreement of the lands owners). Should this not be forthcoming, future occupants shall also
access the village via the public right of way that occupies land along the eastern boundary
of the site providing pedestrian linkage between the A3054 and Warlands Lane, which in
turn leads to the village. Further pedestrian provision to the west of the site is considered as
an informal footpath set-back from the A3054 toward the front of the proposed site.

1.8

Provision for cyclists and other forms of non-motor vehicle forms of transport, such as
bridleways may be incorporated with future pedestrian routes that have been considered as
part of the outline planning proposals but should be subject to a demonstrable need for
such and suitable connections to existing, localised and or other thoroughfares of a similar
nature.

Technical Note
Project

Land west of Warlands Lane, Shalfleet, Isle of Wight

Date

November 2014

Note

Design Specification for Ecological Enhancements

Ref

UE-0144

Author

SP/NP

Page

1 of 11

Status

Final

1. Introduction
This technical note provides further information regarding the ecological protection, mitigation and
enhancement recommendations set out in the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey for a site at Warlands Lane
in Shalfleet on the Isle of Wight (Grid Reference 440805, 089131). Original recommendations from the Phase
1 report are set out below, with additional information in orange boxes.

2. Protection Measures
The following species / groups will require precautionary measures to be adopted prior to or during
construction. If it is not possible to implement these, for example due to the timing of works, further surveys
may be required.

Nesting birds; and

Amphibians and reptiles.

A number of sections of hedgerow will be removed in order to facilitate access to the new
development. As a result there is considered to be a risk of impact to amphibians, reptiles and
birds, if present at the time of vegetation clearance. The precautionary methods detailed in the
following sections on nesting birds, amphibians and reptiles should be implemented to manage
these risks.
Nesting birds
Suitable nesting bird habitat occurs around the surveyed fields in hedges and trees (and possibly in arable
habitats). It is recommended that negative impacts on breeding birds are avoided by undertaking the works
outside of the bird breeding season.

Works in these areas should therefore be carried out between

September and early February. Removal of other habitat should also be undertaken sensitively (to avoid
potential impacts to other species) outside of the bird breeding season.

November 2014
UE-0144 TN Eco Design Warlands, Shalfleet_5_141110

Technical Note: Design Specification for Ecological Enhancements

Page 2

Any construction works undertaken within the bird breeding season where suitable bird breeding habitat
exists will require a check for breeding birds by a suitably qualified ecologist. This should take place no
more than two days prior to commencing construction. This is to ensure that no disturbance to active bird
nests occurs. If a nest is found the nest must be cordoned off and works adjacent to this nest must be
delayed until such time that the chicks have fledged from the nest. This should be supervised by a suitably
qualified ecologist.
Amphibians and reptiles
The hedgerow sections to be removed provide potential hibernacula, foraging opportunities and dispersal
routes for widespread amphibian and reptile species. However, the terrestrial habitat within the arable part
of the site is of negligible value for these groups. It is therefore recommended that a precautionary
approach to clearance is adopted to avoid harm to any individual amphibians or reptiles which may be
present.
Prior to clearance of the hedgerow sections a search should be carried out by an experienced ecologist in
order to ensure that no amphibians or reptiles are present. As a further precaution the ecologist should
remain on site and supervise the clearance of the hedgerow sections. If any amphibians or reptiles are found
prior to or during clearance, they will be captured and moved to an area of adjacent suitable habitat.

3. Generic Mitigation
Generic mitigation is proposed to address potential impacts to ecological receptors of interest which are not
covered by the above recommendations. Mitigation measures can be based on:

Avoidance through re-location, re-design or changes in the construction programme (e.g.

carrying out works outside of bird breeding season);

Reduction by lessening the severity of an impact which cannot be avoided (e.g. erecting an
exclusion fence for reptiles around the works area); and

Compensation through habitat creation or enhancement.

The following generic mitigation should be carried out as part of the proposed scheme alongside the
protection measures described above:
1.

It is important, where construction works are located within hard standing areas, that
impacts to any adjacent features (e.g. grassy verges, woodland ground layer and hedges
which may be of ecological value) due to activities such as storage of materials or vehicle
movements are also avoided.

2.

Removal of hedgerow and trees/shrubs and should be kept to a minimum, possibly by finetuning the scheme design. The connectivity of hedgerows and between areas of woodland
and scrub should be maintained wherever possible to prevent fragmentation (this will
benefit nesting birds and bats for example).

3.

Avoiding the use of external lighting, or keeping its use to the minimum required for its
intended purpose, during both construction and operation. Where external lighting is to be
November 2014
UE-0144 TN Eco Design Warlands, Shalfleet_5_141110

Technical Note: Design Specification for Ecological Enhancements

Page 3

provided, it should be low-level, directional lighting with minimal spill and glare, and
consideration should be given to reduced hours of operation and/or a movement
responsive system of control (this will benefit bats for example).
4.

British Standard and/or National Joint Utilities Group Guidelines (NJUG)1 should be
followed at all times during construction when working in close proximity to trees or shrubs
which are to be retained.

According to NJUG Guidelines the root protection zone or

precautionary area (P.A.) is 4x the circumference of the trunk (circumference is measured

around the trunk at a height of 1.5m above ground level). The distance is measured from
the centre of the trunk to the nearest part of any excavation or other work.
5.

All excavations left overnight should be provided with a ramp to enable easy escape of
badgers, hedgehogs and other fauna.

4. Enhancement Measures
Due to the presence of the Pondclose Copse woodland close to the site and the presence of connecting
hedgerows, it is recommended that bat boxes are placed on some of the houses within the proposed
development. The two storey buildings proposed to the east and south east of the development are
considered most suitable for this purpose. Bat boxes can either be mounted on exterior walls or be installed
integrally to form part of the wall. A number of species use boxes including pipistrelles, brown long-eared
bats or serotine bats, hence boxes should be selected which are suitable for these species. Boxes such as
Schwegler 1FF or integral Schwegler 1FR bat tubes would be suitable for this site.
It is recommended that 10no. integral bat tubes are installed within the two-storey houses that are
located to the south of the development. These can be incorporated into the design of the building
so that only the access holes are visible from the exterior of the building. Indicative locations are
illustrated on the proposed layout plan given at Annex 1 of this document.
The Schwegler 1FR Bat Tube is designed to meet the characteristic requirements of the types of
bats that inhabit buildings such as pipistrelles or serotines. It is designed to be installed on the
external walls of buildings, either flush or beneath a rendered surface and maintains excellent
climatic conditions inside providing bats with a safe and stable environment in which to roost.
Bat boxes should ideally be located south-facing (between south-east and south-west) and above
5m from ground level.

If possible they should be installed facing vegetation features such as

mature hedgerows or trees, but with a clear line of flight for bats entering or leaving the roost.

1 The

British Standard, BS 5837:2005: Trees in relation to Construction Recommendations; and National Joint Utilities Group: Guidelines

for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Services in Proximity to Trees (April 1995)
November 2014
UE-0144 TN Eco Design Warlands, Shalfleet_5_141110

Technical Note: Design Specification for Ecological Enhancements

Page 4

Alternatively 10no. Schwegler 1FF bat boxes could be mounted onto the exterior walls of the twostorey houses in the south of the site. Bat boxes should be located south-facing (between southeast and south-west), close to vegetation and above 5m from ground level.
New houses could be enhanced for birds that utilise buildings for nesting purposes by installing bird nesting
boxes, e.g. installation of swift Apus apus and house martin Delichon urbica boxes under eaves.
Consideration could also be given to providing nest boxes for house sparrows Passer domesticus (red data
species) which are present locally.
It is recommended that 3no. Schwegler 17 or 17B swift nest boxes are externally mounted on the
north-facing aspects of the two storey buildings located to the north of the development. The
boxes should be installed at least 6m 7m above ground level, ensuring that there is unobstructed
access for birds entering and leaving. If possible, boxes should be sites under the shelter of eaves
or overhanging roofs.

Indicative locations are illustrated on the proposed layout plan given at

Annex 1 of this document.

It is recommended that 8no. Schwegler 1SP house sparrow terraces are externally mounted on the
west facing aspects of the bungalows located to the south and west of the development. Sparrow
terraces should be located at least 2m above ground level, out of direct sunlight and close to shrubs
or other vegetation. Sparrows are social birds preferring to nest in groups; each of these terraces
provides three nesting chambers.

November 2014
UE-0144 TN Eco Design Warlands, Shalfleet_5_141110

Technical Note: Design Specification for Ecological Enhancements

Page 5

A swale or soakaway is proposed to the north-east corner of the new development. Ideally newly created
wetland habitats should be profiled to incorporate a variety of depths and planted with appropriate native
vegetation. It is also recommended that hibernacula be created close to the new pond as this will provide
an additional resource for amphibians, invertebrates, and other fauna which may colonise it. Grassland
surrounding the pond could be less frequently managed thereby providing suitable habitat for reptiles and
amphibians.
The figure below2 illustrates a suitable topographical profile for the swale, planted swale with trees
to speed water take up and provide soil stability. Further detail on possible design specifications
for the swale is given at Annex 2.

A planting scheme could include plants suitable for damp margins, although a landscape architect
would need to specify these, as suitability is dependent on how often the swale is wet.
Damp zone - inundation-tolerant, plant up to 250mm above anticipated normal water level as plugs

Source: Sustainable Drainage: Cambridge Design and Adoption Guide:

https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/docs/SUDS-5-Ponds%20and%20Wetlands.pdf
November 2014
UE-0144 TN Eco Design Warlands, Shalfleet_5_141110

Technical Note: Design Specification for Ecological Enhancements

Page 6

in groups of 5-10no. plants to create stands:

Persicaria amphibia (amphibious bistort), Caltha palustris (marsh marigold), Phalaris arundinacea
(reed canary grass), Veronica beccabunga (brooklime), Angelica sylvestris (wild angelica), Lythrum
salicaria (purple loosestrife), Lotus uliginosus (greater birds-foot trefoil), Lycopus europaeus
(gypsywort), Myosotis scorpiodes (water forget-me-not), Apium nodiflorum (fools-water-cress),
Lychnis flos-cuculi (ragged robin), Rumex hydrolapathum (water dock), Mentha aquatica (water
mint), Cardamine pratensis (cuckoo flower), Ranunculus flammula (lesser spearwort), Juncus
articulatus (jointed rush), Carex pseudocyperus (hop sedge), Stachys palustris (marsh woundwort),
Scrophularia auriculata (water figwort).
Hibernacula should be constructed from unevenly shaped, inert fill materials such as hardcore, brick
rubble, rocks, logs, etc, loosely filled with topsoil, and capped with topsoil and turf. They should be
located on a gentle slope to prevent flooding. They can either be piled on top of the ground (as
depicted in the figure3 below) or dug into the ground, but in both cases should have exposed
margins to allow access. They should be surrounded by rough, infrequently managed vegetation.

It is recommended that a strip of longer grassland is maintained along the boundary hedgerows, and sown
with native wildflowers, and amenity areas within the development could also include similar habitats. This
would provide a valuable resource for insects such as butterflies and bees, and would enhance the value of
the existing eastern corridor for wildlife.
There are a wide variety of wildflower and grass mixes available on the market. It is recommended
that species are sourced from stock grown wild in the UK. Mixes containing the following species
would be suitable: Corn poppy Papaver rhoeas, meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris, musk mallow
Malva Moschata, oxeye daisy Leucanthemum Vulgare, salad burnet Sanguisorba Minor, lesser
knapweed Centaurea Nigra, wild carrot Daucus Carota and yarrow Achillea millefolium.
Suitable locations for this type of planting would include the areas adjacent to the boundary
hedgerows surrounding the new development, and areas of planting along the footpath to the east
of the site. It is recommended that grass areas are at least 1m 2m wide. To encourage perennial

English Nature (2001): Great crested newt mitigation guidelines.

November 2014
UE-0144 TN Eco Design Warlands, Shalfleet_5_141110

Technical Note: Design Specification for Ecological Enhancements

Page 7

flowers and grasses to make good root development, it is important to mow the meadow in the
first year after sowing.

Cut to a height of 5cm (2in) four times during the year.

It is also

recommended that initial mowings are left in situ for a few days to allow seed to drop to the
ground. Following this, it is then important to collect arisings from mowing to reduce soil fertility
an increase of which will encourage ruderal species such as nettle and thistles to colonise the areas.
Once the grassland is established, the mowing regime should be limited to once a year, no earlier
than the end of August and no later than the end of March. Wildlife grasslands should not be cut
between the beginning of April and the end of August, except to maintain sight-lines or for other
road-safety purposes. Cuttings should be removed wherever possible.
To minimise the risk of disturbance to foraging, commuting and roosting bats on and around the site postdevelopment, it is recommended that the following lighting precautions are considered during detailed
design for the development:
-

Lighting should be appropriately located and directed to avoid illuminating retained mature
trees and hedgerows to the site boundaries;

Security lighting should be kept to the minimum necessary for its intended purpose, be set
on short timers, and be sensitive to large moving objects only;

Other lighting around the site should be kept to the minimal feasible lux level, installed on
lighting columns at the lowest practical height level, and designed to minimise spill.
Eliminate bare bulbs and upward-pointing lights, and increase the spacing between lanterns.
The spread of light should be kept near to or below the horizontal. Flat cut-off lanterns or
accessories should be used to shield or direct light to where it is required.

For pedestrian lighting, use low-level lighting (e.g. light bollards) that is as directional as
possible. It should be below 3 lux at ground level, and ideally below 1 lux.

Use narrow-spectrum bulbs to lower the range of species affected by lighting. Use light
sources that emit minimal UV light and avoid the white and blue wavelengths of the light
spectrum so as not to attract high numbers of invertebrates. Lights should peak higher than
550nm or use glass lantern covers to filter UV light. White LED lights do not emit UV, but
they have still been shown to disturb slow-flying bat species.

Source: (Gunnell et al., 2012; Gunnell et al., 20134)

Native and/or wildlife attracting tree and shrub planting, particularly seed, nut, fruit or nectar bearing
species, should be included in the landscape design. This would enhance the area for birds, invertebrates
and other wildlife in the long-term. Trees which produce fruit, seeds or are nectar bearing are a particularly
valuable resource for urban wildlife.

Gunnel K, Grant G, Williams C (2012): Landscape and urban design for bats and biodiversity. Bat Conservation Trust.

Gunnel K, Murphy B, Williams C (2013): Designing for biodiversity: A technical guide for new and existing buildings. RIBA Publishing
and Bat Conservation Trust.
November 2014
UE-0144 TN Eco Design Warlands, Shalfleet_5_141110

Technical Note: Design Specification for Ecological Enhancements

Page 8

Tree species should also be sourced to ensure that they are native species from UK stock. Species
suitable both for use in hedgerows and as stand-alone trees within the development include the
following: Alder Alnus glutinosa, blackthorn Prunus spinosa, birch Betula pendula, English elm
Ulmus spp., field maple Acer campestre, hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, hazel Coryllus avelana,
holly Ilex aquifolium, honeysuckle Lonicera pilicornis, hornbeam Carpinus betulus, rowan Sorbus
aucuparia and wild cherry Prunus avium.

November 2014
UE-0144 TN Eco Design Warlands, Shalfleet_5_141110

Technical Note: Design Specification for Ecological Enhancements

Page 9

Annex 1: Proposed development layout plan

Please see following page.

November 2014
UE-0144 TN Eco Design Warlands, Shalfleet_5_141110

Technical Note: Design Specification for Ecological Enhancements

Page 10

Proposed location
of nest and roost
boxes:
Swift
boxes
Bat boxes
Sparrow
terraces

November 2014
UE-0144 TN Eco Design Warlands, Shalfleet_5_141110

Technical Note: Design Specification for Ecological Enhancements

Page 11

Annex 2: Ecological design for Sustainable Urban Drainage System

Source: Sustainable Drainage: Cambridge Design and Adoption Guide:

(https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/sites/www.cambridge.gov.uk/files/docs/SUDS-Design-and-AdoptionGuide.pdf )

November 2014
UE-0144 TN Eco Design Warlands, Shalfleet_5_141110

REPORT ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL
EVALUATION FIELD WALKING OF LAND
AT WARLANDS, SHALFLEET, ISLE OF
WIGHT (IWHER 9125)

Past WightCommissioned by the Warlands Group, 19th September 2014

Dr. Ruth Waller

Past Wight Heritage
Consultancy.
186 Newport Road,
Cowes, Isle of Wight,
PO317PU 41
www.pastwight.co.uk
Report Ref:PW/2014/12

CONTENTS:
1.0 NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY......................................................................................... 2
2.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................. 2
3.0 INTRIDUCTION.... 3
4.0 PLANNING BACKGROUND.......................................................................... 4
5.0 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY..................................................................................... 6
6.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND............................................................................ 6
7.0 AIMS...................................................................................... 8
8.0 METHODOLOGY..... 9
9.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS. 12
10.0 FINDS REPORTS
10.1 The Pottery and Clay tobacco pipe by Jacqui Pearce. 14
10.2 Building Material Evaluation by Ian M Betts.. 14
10.3 The Mollusc shell by Alan Pipe. 15
10.4 Finds not sent for specialist analysis.. 16
11.0 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................ 17
12.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 17
13.0 REFERENCES. 18
14.0 APPENDICES
14.1 Appendix 1: IWC Brief for Archaeological Work.. 19
14.2 Appendix 2: Spreadsheet of Mollusc Remains..... 25

FIGURES:
Figure 1: Site location Plan.................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2: Dates for Archaeological periods used in report............................................... 6
Figure 3: Location of Heritage Assets from HER search 7
Figure 4: Moss on surface of field (27th August 2014)....................................................... 9
Figure 5: Location of proposed development within site............................................ 10
Figure 6: Clay lumps on surface of plough-soil...................................... 11
Figure 7 Ploughed area within the field.............................................................. 11
Figure 8 Table of finds .............................................................................. 12
Figure 9: Distribution plot of finds within field... 13

Past Wight

Archaeological Evaluation Report (IWHER 9125)

th

19 September 2014

1.0 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

1.1 This report has been compiled by Past Wight Heritage Consultancy and describes the
results of an archaeological field-walking programme commissioned by the Warlands Group
to comply with pre-planning advice given by the Isle of Wight Councils Planning
Department.
1.2 The programme of archaeological field-walking was carried out between 5th and 7th
September 2014. The 33 finds collected and recorded during the field-walking were all dated
to the Post-Medieval period. There was no evidence of Prehistoric, Roman or Medieval
activity on the site.
1.3 Because of the lack of archaeological evidence within the plough-soil, it is recommended
that there should be no further pre-planning consent archaeological work. However, it is
recommended that a condition is attached to planning consent requiring the developer to
fund an archaeological watching brief during development.

2.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Grateful thanks are due to Keith Plant for ploughing the land so that the field-walking
programme could go ahead.
Dr. Rebecca Loader, Isle of Wight Councils Senior Archaeological Officer provided the data
for the initial Historic Environment Record (HER) search and Owen Cambridge provided
advice and monitored the field-walking on behalf of the local planning authority.
Thanks are also due to Louise Fowler, Assistant Post-Excavation Manager at Museum of
London Archaeology and to Jacqui Pearce, Ian M. Betts and Alan Pipe of MOLA for the
identification and analysis of the finds.
Thanks are also due to Siofra Boyd of Nicholas Taylor and Associates.

Past Wight

3.0 INTRODUCTION
3.1 This archaeological field-walking programme has been undertaken by Dr Ruth Waller of
Past Wight Heritage Consultancy on behalf of the Warlands Partnership.
3.2 The field walking programme was focussed on land to the rear of 18 to 34 Fleet Way
and adjacent to Hayfield Cottage Warlands Lane with access off Main Road at Shalfleet,
Isle of Wight. The land comprises OS Parcels 5819 8116 and 8200 land and is referred to
as the site throughout this report.
3.3 The site lies approximately 9km directly west of the County Town of Newport, Isle of
Wight, with the centre of the site at National Grid Reference SZ4088/8923. The location of
the site is shown on Figure 1 below:

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

3.4 The site covers an area of 1.40 hectares and is currently part of an arable field to the
west of the village of Shalfleet. The site is bounded to the north by the A3054 road which
runs through the village, to the east by modern properties fronting Fleet Lane and by
Warlands Lane. The southern and the western boundaries are bounded by hedged fields
and Pondclose Copse, an Ancient Woodland.
3.5 In accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012) and the policies of
the Isle of Wight Councils Island Plan, this Archaeological Evaluation Report presents the
results of a programme of field-walking in order to gather information about the presence of
buried archaeological remains on the site.
3.6 This field-walking programme was carried out in accordance with a Written Scheme of

Past Wight

Investigation (WSI) submitted to and approved by the Isle of Wight Councils Archaeology
Officer on 26th August 2014.
3.7 As a result, this report will enable the Isle of Wight Council to assess the archaeological
potential of the site and to consider the need for design, civil engineering or archaeological
mitigation solutions to the impact of development proposals on the archaeological potential
identified.

4.0 PLANNING BACKGROUND

4.1 The Government issued the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG 2012) in March
2012. The NPPF takes an integrated approach to the historic environment and on page 52 it
defines 'heritage assets' as being:
A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as
having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning
decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes
designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning
authority. (DCLG, 2012, Annexe 2: Glossary).
4.2 The Island Plan Core Strategy and Development Management Policies were adopted by
the Isle of Wight Council on March 2012 as the local development plan. The Core Strategy
sets out the Isle of Wight Councils vision for development up until 2027. Policy DM11
(Historic and Built Environment) expands on the Councils general approach to the historic
and built environments set out in Policy SP5 (Environment) and explains the approach that
the Council will take in respect of the built and historic environment on the Island, giving
specific guidance for planning applications. Policy DM 11 includes the following issues:
7.186 In new development, it is important to retain historic reference
points which create a sense of local identity and distinctiveness. This
includes historic features such as ancient roads, green lanes and
byways and settlement patterns. It is important to remember that it is
not only the historic buildings and features that are important but also
the spaces between and within these assets. Proposals need to take
account of these characteristics to ensure that they respect the
context within which they sit, be it a historic monument, building or
streetscape. The insensitive development of a heritage asset, or land
surrounding it, can have negative consequences, such as loss of
local identity and even, in extreme circumstances, the loss of the
asset altogether. The Council will not support proposals which result
in such a negative impact upon the built and historic environment.
7.187 To ensure this, the Council will require that all development
proposals demonstrate that a full assessment of the impact of a
proposal upon the significance of a heritage asset has been made.
The Council will consider proposals taking into account the role the
heritage asset plays in its local context and the wider Island context
ensuring that all economic, social and environmental factors are
considered.
4.4 An Application for Outline Planning Permission with all matters reserved was made to
the Isle of Wight Council under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCP/04554/F,
P/00666/13) in April 2014.

Past Wight

4.5 Planning Application TCP/04554/F, P/00666/13 includes outline planning permission

for 24 dwellings, access roads, footways/footpaths and other associated features including
a balancing pond.
4.6 The Isle of Wight Council, as the local planning authority, have requested the Warlands
Group to provide further information on the likelihood of the presence of buried
archaeological remains on the proposed development site, by commissioning a programme
of Archaeological Field Evaluation. This Field Evaluation Report is the 2nd Stage of the
Programme of Archaeological Field Evaluation for the Warlands site. A Desk Based
Assessment Report was submitted to the Isle of Wight Council on 25th August 2014 (Past
Wight, 2014a) as the first stage.
4.7 This Programme of Field-walking has been undertaken with the requirements of the preplanning advice given by the Isle of Wight Councils Brief for an Archaeological Evaluation:
Warlands, Shalfleet (P/00507/14), dated 21st August 2014. This document is attached as
Appendix 1 on page 19 and is referred to as the Brief in this report.
4.8 The Isle of Wight Councils Brief advice states:
It is likely that significant archaeological deposits remain within the site;
therefore the results of a field evaluation will be required before the LPA can
determine any forthcoming application. (pg 3)
Significant archaeological remains dating from the Roman period have been
identified, circa 200m to the West of the proposal site. The nature of these remains
appears to indicate that there is a previously undiscovered Roman domestic or
administrative centre close by. There is also some evidence of activity in this period
collected from the proposal site by local metal detectorists and recorded on the PAS
database. (pg 3)
The site also displays characteristics which make it probable that multi period
activity is likely to have occurred within the boundaries. (pg 3)
4.9 This Field Evaluation Report has been compiled in accordance with current best
archaeological practice and local and national standards and guidelines, including:
English Heritage Management of Archaeological Projects (EH 1991).
English Heritage Archaeological Assessment and Evaluation Reports (Guidelines)
(EH 1992).
English Heritage Archaeological Guidance Paper 3: Standards and Practices in
Archaeological Fieldwork (EH 1998).
English Heritage Environmental Archaeology: A guide to the theory and practice of
methods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation (EH 2002).
Institute for Archaeologists Standards and Guidance and Guidelines for Finds Work
(IfA 2008a).
Institute for Archaeologists Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Field
Evaluations (IfA 2008b).
United Kingdom Institute for Conservation Conservation Guidelines No.2 (UKIC
1983).
United Kingdom Institute for Conservation Guidance for Archaeological
Conservation Practice (UKIC 1990).

Past Wight

5.0 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

5.1 A site visit and visual inspection were carried out on 23rd August 2014. The proposed
development site is part of a 140 hectare arable field from which the winter wheat has
recently been harvested. The development site area centres on National Grid Reference SZ
4088/8923.
5.2 The 1:50,000 scale 1976 Geological Survey Map of Great Britain (sheets 330, 331, 335)
shows the field within which the proposed development site is to be sited lies on the clay and
gravels of the Hamstead Beds which were formed in the Oligocene epoch of the Palaeogene
geological period, some 33.75 to 32.5 million years ago.
5.3 The arable field falls gently to a height of approximately 20m Above Ordnance Datum
(AOD) at the south-west, north-west and north-east from a height of approximately 28
metres AOD in the south east corner.
5.4 The visual inspection of the site revealed that the arable field lies to the west of the
village of Shalfleet and to the south of Main Road. The site lies immediately west of the back
gardens of house fronting Fleet Way. To the north, east and part of the western boundary
the field are formed by mature hedgerows. The southern and remainder of the western
boundary are bounded by Pondclose Copse, an Ancient Woodland.
6.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
6.1 A detailed Desk Top Assessment was carried out for a radius of 250 metres from the
proposed site in advance of the field-walking programme. The archaeological background of
the site is given in full in the Desk Top Assessment Report (Past Wight, 2014) and is only
given in brief below.
6.2 Known Heritage Assets are described in this report using the following archaeological
periods and the dates for these are given in Figure 2 below:
Period name
Dates
Mesolithic period
8000 BC and 4000 BC
Neolithic period
4000 BC to c. 2300 BC
Bronze Age period
c. 2300 BC to c.700 BC
Iron Age period
c. 700 BC to 43 AD
Roman period
AD 43 to c. AD 400
Anglo-Saxon period
AD 400 to AD 1066
Medieval period
AD 1066 to AD 1485
Tudor period
AD 1485 to AD 1603
16th Century
AD 1501 to AD 1599
th
17 Century
AD 1601 to AD 1699
18th Century
AD 1701 to AD 1799
19th Century
AD 1801 to AD 1899
20th Century
AD 1901 to AD 1999
Figure 2: Dates for Archaeological periods
6.3 A search was made on 18th August 2014 of the known Heritage Assets recorded on the
Isle of Wight Historic Environment (HER) database. Details of the Heritage Assets are given
in the Desk Top Assessment Report and their locations are shown in Figure 3 overleaf:

Past Wight

Figure 3: Location of Heritage Assets on the IWHER within a 500m radius of the site.

6.4 There was no known evidence for Palaeolithic activity within the 500m radius of the site.
It was considered that the archaeological potential for this period at the study site was low.
6.5 Mesolithic and Neolithic finds within the HER search area were found either within the
topsoil of arable fields or were residual within pipeline trenches. They suggested medium
potential for the presence of similar remains on the proposed development site.
6.6 The proposed development site lies within an area of Bronze Age activity with burial
mounds to the south-west, burnt flint assemblages to the north-east and stratified probable
settlement in the modern village core to the east. There was high potential for Bronze Age
buried remains within the site
6.7 There were no finds or sites of Iron Age date recorded in the 500m radius of the site,
consequently the site was considered to have a low potential for Iron Age remains.
6.8 The proposed development site lies 280 metres to the west of a known Roman metalworking, probably smelting, site and 500 metres to the west of a possible 2nd or 3rd Century
building and residual finds found during an Archaeological Watching Brief. This evidence
suggests a concentration of Roman settlement or industrial activity focussing on the banks of
the Caul Bourne Stream. The domestic and possibly structural Roman remains from the field
450 metres to the north of the site also suggest nearby activity. The presence of a possible
Roman figurine from the north of the proposed site suggested that buried archaeological
remains of a Roman shrine or burial may survive on this site. Alternatively, it could have
been a casual loss of a personal object which would not give any indications of the presence
of buried archaeological remains on the site.

Past Wight

6.9 The excavated evidence clearly shows a Saxon settlement with a burial ground dating
between c. 660 and 1070 AD to have been located around the current village core and the
Caul Bourne Stream.
6.10 The Medieval village at Shalfleet is recorded in the Domesday Book of 1086 AD. St.
Michael the Archangel Parish Church lies in the heart of the modern village at approximately
430 metres to the east of the site (HER 433). Buried remains of Medieval occupation have
been excavated from within the core of the village. Medieval coins have been recorded by
metal detectorists in the ploughed arable fields to the south-west and west of the proposed
development site. The Portable Antiquities Scheme has also recorded a silver penny of
Edward III dating to 1363-1369AD on the field containing the proposed development site and
four other Medieval finds including a purse bar in the fields to the south and south-west
(IWFLO, pers. comm.).
6.11 The archaeological information from the HER search shows that the proposed
development site lies between the Medieval manor and village of Shalfleet to the east and
the probably Medieval hamlet of Ningwood to the south-east. It is likely that the fields south
of the road through the Medieval settlement were used for arable farming.
6.12 Data recorded in the Isle of Wight Historic landscape Characterisation shows the
proposed development site lying within an area of field patterns of Medium Semi-Regular
Fields which were amalgamated from earlier fields sometime before the Late 18th Century
(HLC land parcel 1296).
6.13 The Map regression results in the Desk Based Assessment show that there has been
no development on the site between 1769 and 1967 and the field was used for arable crops
in the 1839 Shafleet Tithe Apportionment.
6.14 The Desk Based Assessment Report concluded that the archaeological potential of the
proposed development site was:

Palaeolithic period - Low.

Mesolithic and Neolithic periods - Medium
Bronze Age period High,
Iron Age period - Low
Roman period - High
Saxon period Medium.

7.0 AIMS
7.1 The aims of the archaeological evaluation were:

7.1.1 To establish the presence/absence of archaeological remains within the site by

surface collection.

7.1.2 To determine the extent, condition, nature, character, quality and date of any
archaeological remains encountered from artefacts collected from the surface of the
plough-zone.

7.1.3 To inform further stages of archaeological field-evaluation if required.

Past Wight

8.0 METHODOLGY
8.1 A Written Scheme of Investigation report was produced by Past Wight Heritage
Consultancy for the Warlands Group and submitted to the Isle of Wight Council on 25th
August 2014 (Past Wight report no: PW/2014/10).
8.2 This field evaluation has been assigned the Primary Record Number IWHER 9125 and
the Event Number EIW 856.
8.3 Because of the underlying geology, it was deemed that geophysical survey techniques
would not be successful on this site and a programme of Field-walking was agreed.
8.4 The initial methodology for the field-walking programme was to walk the entire fields
within the proposed development area with transects at 1m intervals. However, when the
initial site visit to lay out the grid was undertaken on 27th August 2014, it was noted that the
surface of the field was not visible between the harvested wheat stalks because of the
presence of a layer of moss on the surface caused by the recent wet weather, as shown in
Figure 4 below. An amendment to the methodology was agreed by the Isle of Wight
Councils Archaeology Officer.

Figure 4: Presence of moss on the surface of the field 27th August 2014
8.5 The proposed area of development measures 100m by 100m and is located in the northeastern corner of the field as shown in Figure 5 overleaf.
8.6 The tenant farmer agreed to plough a 150m by 150m area in the north-eastern corner of
the field so that the surface of the plough soil could be searched. The amended methodology
for the programme of field-walking stated that the entire surface of the ploughed area would
be walked with transect intervals at 0.20cm. With the field-walkers gaze measured at 0.30m
to both sides of the transect walked, the methodology was designed to ensure that each part
of the fields surface was viewed at least 3 times on 3 consecutive transects to ensure
maximum recovery of all surface finds.

Past Wight

Figure 5: Location of proposed development within the site.

8.7 The site grid was laid out on 27th August 2014 and was tied into the National Grid using
Digital Global Positioning System.
8.8 The field-walking was carried out by Dr. Ruth Waller between 5th and 7th September
2014. All finds were bagged and their position was calculated using both the site grid and a
Garmin eTrex10 hand held Global Positioning System.
8.9 The field-walking conditions were sunny or overcast on the 3 days and are recorded on
the Past Wight field-walking sheets which are included in the site archive. Because the soil
was a thick clay, the recent ploughing produced some large clay lumps within which finds
may have been present but were not visible to the eye. An example of the clay lumps is
shown in Figure 6 overleaf. Attempts were made to kick these lumps apart, but many did not
break up. It is possible that finds were contained within these lumps, but otherwise,
confidence that the recovered finds give a representative picture of below ground remains is
high.
8.10 The sub-surface soil over the whole of the field was a yellowish brown silty clay
(Munsell 10YR 5/4).
8.11 There were large natural flint nodules and many plough-struck flints within the ploughsoil.
8.12 The ploughed area of the field is shown in Figure 6 overleaf:

Past Wight

10

Figure 6: large clay lumps left by recent ploughing.

Figure 7: The ploughed area within the larger field, looking north-west

Past Wight

11

9.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS

9.1 Thirty three archaeological finds were recovered and recorded during the field-walking
programme. Each was given a small-find number and the details of each find are given in
Figure 8 below:
Small
find
No:
1
2

Material

Form

Date

Grid ref.

Ceramic Building Material,

Oyster Shell

Post Medieval
none

SZ 40925 89268
SZ 40926 89170

3
4
5
6
7
8

Ceramic Building Material,

Ceramic Building Material,
Ceramic Building Material,
Ceramic Building Material,
Ceramic Building Material,
Creamware Pottery

Roofing tile
common/flat oyster
upper (right) valve
Brick?
Unknown
Roofing tile
Peg Roofing tile
Roofing tile
Plate

SZ 40926 89166
SZ 40920 89136
SZ 40926 89175
SZ 40926 89178
SZ 40932 89228
SZ 40931 89247

9
10
11
12

Ceramic Building Material,

Ceramic Building Material,
Ceramic Building Material,
Oyster Shell

Post Medieval
Post Medieval
Post Medieval
Post Medieval
Post Medieval
th
th
18 to 19
centuries
Post Medieval
Post Medieval
Post Medieval
None

13
14

Ceramic Building Material,

Tobacco Pipe stem

SZ 40898 89241
SZ40895 89141

15
16
17

Ceramic Building Material,

Ceramic Building Material,
Oyster Shell

18

Tobacco Pipe stem

Brick?
Brick?
common/flat oyster
lower (left) valve
Stem

Post Medieval
17th to 18th
centuries
Post Medieval
Post Medieval
None

SZ 40871 89131

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

Ceramic Building Material,

Ceramic Building Material,
Plough struck flint
Grey Slate
Verwood ware Pottery
Verwood ware Pottery
Ceramic Building Material,
Not included (flint)
Ceramic Building Material,
Probably ironstone
Ceramic Building Material,
Ceramic Building Material,
Ceramic Building Material,
Ceramic Building Material,
Ceramic Building Material,

Roofing tile
Field drain
Not worked
Roofing tile
Dish
Dish
Roofing tile
Not worked
Field drain
Natural sandstone
Field drain
Field drain
Roofing tile
Brick?
Peg Roofing tile

later 18th or
19th century
Post Medieval
Post Medieval
None
Post Medieval
c 16001900
c 16001900
Post Medieval
None
Post Medieval
None
Post Medieval
Post Medieval
Post Medieval
Post Medieval
Post Medieval

Brick?
Roofing tile
Roofing tile
common/flat oyster
lower (left) valve
Field drain
Stem

SZ 40916 89134
SZ 40922 89178
SZ 40933 89263
SZ 40903 89236

SZ 40886 89234
SZ 40877 89165
SZ 40877 89145

SZ 40870 89186
SZ40870 89187
SZ 40862 89241
SZ 40864 89147
SZ 40864 89140
SZ 40864 89140
SZ 40856 89143
SZ 40855 89224
SZ 40856 89261
SZ 40846 89216
SZ 40845 89182
SZ 40839 89148
SZ 40806 89171
SZ 40792 89189
SZ 40819 89268

Figure 8: Details of finds recovered during Warlands Fieldwalking

9.2 Although there were a number of flint nodules and lots of plough-struck flints within the
topsoil, on closer examination none of them showed any evidence of having been worked by
human hand. As scatters of flints have been found in surrounding fields in Shalfleet, was
expected that there may have been a few worked flints present in the topsoil of this field. It is
possible that the intensive modern ploughing regime on this field may have destroyed any
prehistoric flints present.

Past Wight

12

9.3 The positions of the finds within the area field-walked have been marked onto the 1974
1:2500 OS map as shown in Figure 9 below. The grid references of each find are included in
the table of finds in Figure 8. As the finds were all post-medieval in date, no further
interpretative distribution plots have been carried out.

Figure 9: Field-walking plot of find positions.

Past Wight

13

10.0 FINDS REPORTS

10.1 The Pottery and Clay tobacco pipe by Jacqui Pearce
10.1.1 The pottery from IW EIW 856 was spot-dated and recorded in accordance with
current MOLA practice, using standard codes for fabric, form and decoration, with
quantification by sherd count, estimated number of vessels (ENV) and weight in grams. The
data were entered onto an Excel spreadsheet. A total of 3 sherds from a minimum of 3
vessels, weight 39 g, were recorded, all collected during field-walking. All pottery is postmedieval in date. Two clay pipe stem fragments were also recorded. No pipe bowls,
decorated or marked pipes were recovered.
10.1.2 The latest identifiable pottery fabric is creamware (CREA, <8>), represented by a
single small sherd probably from a plate. The body colour and glaze are typical of the paler
cream colour developed by Wedgwood and others by the 1760s. It remained in production
into the second quarter of the 19th century and was widely popular across the country for
dining and tea wares in particular. The sherd in question is too small to yield any further
information on form, dating or source.
10.1.3 A sherd from the base of a dish in Verwood ware (VERW, <23>) is glazed inside only,
but is otherwise not distinctive enough to allow closer dating than the broad range of c 1600
1900 assigned here. The Verwood pottery in Dorset supplied serviceable domestic
coarsewares over much of southern England during this period, with small numbers of
sherds even found in London excavations. Their occurrence on the Isle of Wight is not
surprising. A second sherd, probably also from a vessel made at Verwood, has red surfaces
and a pale grey core, and carries white slip decoration in a series of concentric bands
around the inside. It is most likely part of a bowl, but is abraded and too small for the
complete form to be reconstructed.
10.1.4 The two clay pipe stems recorded are difficult to date in the absence of any
accompanying bowls. However, based on the size of the stem and bore, one is more likely to
date to the 17th to 18th century (<14>) and the other to the later 18th or 19th century (<18>).
10.2 Building Material Evaluation by Ian M. Betts (MOLA)
10.2.1 A total of 23 fragments of building material were recovered from IW EIW 856 (Small
find numbers <1> to <33>) weighing c 457gms. These comprise mainly small fragments of
roofing tile, drainage tile and what appears to be brick. A roofing slate is also present.
10.2.2 Listed below is a summary of the building material by small finds number:
Small
Find no.
1
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
13

Past Wight

Fabric

Type

1
7
6
1
4
1
7
1
2
3

Roofing
Brick?
?
Roofing
Peg roofing?
Roofing
Brick?
Roofing
Roofing
Field drain

14

15
16
19
20
22
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

5
7
1
2
Slate
1
3
sandstone
2
2
1
5
4

Brick?
Brick?
Roofing
Field Drain
Roofing?
Roofing?
Field Drain?
?
Field Drain
Field Drain
Roofing?
Brick?
Peg tile

10.2.3 Seven ceramic fabric types can be identified, these are described below:
Fabric No.
1

Colour
Orange, red

Orange, red

Orange

Orange

Red

Orange

Orange

Fabric description
Fine sandy fabric with frequent very
small quartz (up to 0.1mm).
Occasional red iron oxide (up to 4mm)
and cream clay inclusions (up to
2mm).
Very fine silty fabric with cream bands
and a scatter of red and black iron
oxide (up to 1.5mm)
Scatter of clay inclusions (up to 3mm).
Occasional black iron oxide (up to
1mm).
Scatter of fairly large quartz (up to
0.6mm) and cream and red inclusions
(up to 2mm).
Sandy fabric with frequent quartz (up
to 0.3mm). Scatter of white flint and
black iron oxide (up to 1mm).
Coarse fairly sandy fabric with
common quartz (up to 1mm).
Occasional cream clay inclusions (up
to 3mm).
Fairly common quartz (up to 0.3mm).
Scatter red iron oxide (up to 3mm).

Form type
Roofing

Roofing, Field
Drain
Field Drain

Peg roofing

Brick?

Brick?

10.2.4 Although it is not possible to give precise dates to much of the ceramic building
material, all is probably of post-medieval date. The fragments of round field drain are
probably 19th century. According to Robinson (1986, 79) clay drainage pipes were first used
in Britain at the beginning of the 19th century. The Shalfleet examples have an approximate
external diameter of 6575mm. They are in two different fabrics suggesting they are from
different tile manufacturers.
10.2.5 The flat roofing tiles are probably peg tiles although only one has its nail/peg hole still
surviving (sample <33>). This would have originally been round in shape. Three roofing tile
fabric types can be distinguished.
10.2.6 There are five extremely small pieces of probable post-medieval brick, along with

Past Wight

15

another piece of fired ceramic of uncertain type (Small find <4>). The bricks are in two fabric
varieties.
10.2.7 A small fragment of what appears to be grey roofing slate is probably a 19th century
import from either North Wales or the West Country. This measures 10mm in thickness. The
sandstone fragment, which need not be building material, cannot be reliably dated.
10.3 THE MOLLUSC SHELL by Alan Pipe
10.3.1. This report identifies and interprets the mollusc shells recovered from Shafleet, Isle
of Wight (IW EIW 856). The shells were recorded onto an Excel record sheet in terms of
species-identification, preservation and shell count. Identifications and interpretation followed
Hayward, Nelson-Smith & Shields 1996. A copy of the Excel record sheet is included as
Appendix 2 on page 25 of this report.
10.3.2. Faunal composition:
10.3.2.1 Marine/estuarine molluscs
Finds numbers <2>, <12> and <7> each included a single eroded fragment of common/flat
oyster Ostrea edulis valve (shell) only. This economically important species occurs on
coarse substrates from extreme lower tide level down to 50 metres; ranging from Norway to
the Mediterranean and Black Sea, and is widely-exploited from wild and cultured stocks.
10.3.2.2Terrestrial molluscs
No shells of terrestrial mollusc species were recovered.
10.3.2.3 Freshwater molluscs
No shells of freshwater mollusc species were recovered.
10.3.3 Finds number <2>
This included an eroded fragment of common/flat oyster upper (right) valve. There was no
encrusting marine growth.
10.3.4 Finds number <12>
This included an eroded fragment of common/flat oyster lower (left) valve. There was no
encrusting marine growth.
10.3.5 Finds number <17>
This included an eroded fragment of common/flat oyster lower (left) valve. There was no
encrusting marine growth.
10.3.5 Interpretation:
This tiny group of common/flat oyster valves (shells) is of very limited local significance only,
in that it does suggest local consumption and subsequent disposal of this economically
important and widespread species. Fragmentation and erosion of the valve surfaces has
removed any potential for measurement, or for identification and interpretation of encrusting
marine growth. No further work is required.
10.4 Finds not sent for specialist analysis:
10.4.1 Two pieces of flint which were collected in the field as being possibly worked were
found on washing to be plough struck only (Small Finds 21 and 26).

Past Wight

16

10.4.2 Advice on disposal or retention of these two finds and Small Find No 28 (natural
stone) will be taken from the Isle of Wight County Museums Service prior to deposition of the
finds archive.

11.0 DISCUSSION
11.1 Nature of archaeological remains
11.1.1. This field-walking programme has successfully achieved the aims of the predetermination evaluation set out in section 7.1 on page 8 of this report.
11.1.2 The results of the field-walking have established the absence of archaeological
remains from all periods prior to 18th Century within the plough-soil of the area of proposed
development.
11.1.3 The results of the field-walking have been able to determine that a light scatter of 18th
and 19th Century building material lies over the field-walked area. There is a concentration of
building material along the eastern edge of the field and the fragments of field drain (Small
Finds No.s 13, 20, 27, 29 and 30) suggest that a 19th Century ceramic drainage system has
been disturbed by modern ploughing.
11.1.4 The condition of all the finds recovered is commensurate with that of the postmedieval ceramic building material in having been damaged by modern ploughing.
11.1.5 There was no evidence of Prehistoric, Roman or Medieval activity on the site.
However, it is has been shown that the agricultural clay deposits in other counties may mask
prehistoric activity.

12.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

12.1 Because of the lack of archaeological evidence within the plough-soil, it is
recommended that there should be no further pre-planning consent archaeological work.
12.2 However, because of the ability of clay agricultural soils to mask prehistoric activity, it is
recommended that a condition is attached to planning consent requiring the developer to
fund an archaeological watching brief during development.

Past Wight

17

13.0 REFERENCES
English Heritage 1991. Management of Archaeological Projects.
English Heritage 1992. Archaeological Assessment and Evaluation Reports (Guidelines).
English Heritage 1998. Archaeological Guidance Paper 3: Standards and Practices in
Archaeological Fieldwork.
English Heritage 2002. Environmental Archaeology: A guide to the theory and practice of
methods from sampling and recovery to post-excavation
Hayward, P; Nelson-Smith, A; & Shields, C, 1996 Seashore of Britain and Europe.
London. HarperCollins
IFA 2008a. Institute for Archaeologists Standards and Guidance and Guidelines for Finds
Work.
IfA 2008b. Institute for Archaeologists Standard and Guidance for an Archaeological
Evaluation.
Past Wight, 2014. Desk Based Assessment of land at Warlands, Shalfleet. Past Wight
Report number PW/2014/10, 25th August 2014.
Past Wight, PW/2014/11. Written Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological Field-walking
at land at Warlands, Shalfleet, 25th August 2014.
Robinson, M, 1986. The extent of farm underdrainage in England and Wales, prior to 1939,
The Agricultural History Review, 34, 7985
UKIC 1983. United Kingdom Institute for Conservation. Conservation Guidelines No 2.
UKIC 1990. United Kingdom Institute for Conservation. Guidance for Archaeological
Conservation Practice.

Past Wight

18

14.0 APPENDICES
14.1 Appendix 1: Isle of Wight Councils Brief for Archaeological Work
(Note: the spaces between the lines in this report have been condensed in the interests of
reducing paper use, so the page numbers in the Contents may be incorrect)

Isle of Wight County Archaeology and Historic Environment Service

Brief for an Archaeological Evaluation: Warlands, Shalfleet (P/00507/14).

Contents
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0

SUMMARY
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
PLANNING BACKGROUND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
REQUIREMENT FOR WORK
METHODS
MONITORING ARRANGEMENTS
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
ARCHIVE DEPOSITION
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Past Wight

Page 3
Page 3
Page 3
Page 4
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 6
Page 6
Page 7

19

1.1
1.2

1.3

Brief for an Archaeological Evaluation of land at Warlands, Shalfleet

SUMMARY
This document is the brief for a programme of archaeological works comprising a Field
Evaluation of a site for proposed development.
This brief should be used by archaeological contractors as the basis for the preparation of a
detailed archaeological project specification. In response to this brief contractors will be
expected to provide details of the proposed scheme of work, to include the anticipated
working methods, timescales and staffing levels.
The detailed specifications will be submitted for approval to the Archaeology Officer of the
Isle of Wight Council.

1.0
2.1
2.2

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The site comprises an arable field, under crop at the time of writing
The proposed development area has not been previously developed. It is likely that
significant archaeological deposits remain within the site; therefore the results of a
field evaluation will be required before the LPA can determine any forthcoming
application.

3.0
3.1
3.2

PLANNING BACKGROUND
The proposed development will consist of a residential housing
Pre-application advice has been given and the site has been walked by the Archaeological
Officer.

4.0
4.1

ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
The site is situated on the crest of the hill adjacent to the historic core of the village of
Shalfleet.
Significant archaeological remains dating from the Roman period have been identified, circa
200m to the West of the proposal site. The nature of these remains appears to indicate that
there is a previously undiscovered Roman domestic or administrative centre close by. There
is also some evidence of activity in this period collected from the proposal site by local metal
detectorists and recorded on the PAS database.
The site also displays characteristics which make it probable that multi period activity is
likely to have occurred within the boundaries.

4.2

4.3

5.0
5.1

5.2

5.3

REQUIREMENT FOR WORK

Prior to a Planning Application being determined, a detailed desk top assessment and a
field evaluation must be carried out. The desk top assessment phase must be completed
prior to the evaluation but may be incorporated into the field evaluation report. Any
adjustments to the brief for the evaluation should only be made after discussion with the
Isle of Wight County Archaeology Officer. If any major archaeological discovery is made
during the evaluation, it is expected that this will be accommodated within the scheme and
preservation in situ be given priority.
The purpose of the archaeological evaluation should be to gather sufficient information to
establish the presence/absence, extent, condition, character, quality and date of any
archaeological deposits.
Consideration should be given to the use of non-intrusive survey techniques; the nature of

Past Wight

20

the geological make-up of the site ( clays and gravel terraces) may preclude the use of
geophysical survey. Consideration should be given to other non invasive techniques such as
field walking, given the site will be ploughed in the near future. Percentage Trial trenching is
likely to offer a broader range of results but may result in unnecessary ground disturbance.
Therefore a combination of techniques may result in a targeted approach and reduce the
trench meterage needed to arrive at a successful conclusion.

6.0
6.1

6.2

6.3

6.3.1
6.3.2
6.3.3
6.3.4
6.3.5
6.3.6
6.3.7
6.3.8
6.3.9
6.4

6.5

7.0
7.1
7.1.1
7.1.2

7.1.3

STAGE OF WORKS AND TECHNIQUES

The archaeological evaluation must be preceded by a full, detailed desk top assessment. This
will indicate the presence of any archaeological constraint hitherto unidentified. As this
detailed desk top assessment will be followed by a field investigation of the sites identified
and an evaluation of the threat of their survival in situ, the project specification must be
sufficiently flexible.
The desk top assessment should include an assessment of the site within both the local and
regional context. It should highlight any particular relevant research priorities which may be
addressed by this project.
In order to ensure that all possible archaeological constraints are evaluated, all secondary
sources must be consulted as part of the desk top assessment. Sources to be included should
include:
Isle of Wight County Sites and Monuments Record;
All Ordnance Survey maps;
Tithe Enclosure Award and Parish maps (where appropriate);
Historical documents, particularly those held in County Archives Office;
Archaeological books and journals;
Unpublished reports and archives (where appropriate) particularly those of the Isle of Wight
Archaeology Service;
Aerial photographs;
Any other sources deemed appropriate;
A visit to verify site conditions.
The specification will be expected to contain a reasoned discussion of field techniques
selected for the evaluation stage. The rejection of a particular technique must be explained.
Consideration should be given to field walking, site survey, geophysical survey ( if possible)
and the observation of geotechnical test pits (if appropriate) as well as the undertaking of
archaeological trenching as possible field evaluation techniques. When preparing the
specification, account must be taken of the local geology, topography and land use as it
affects the feasibility of the various techniques.
The evaluation should also take into account environmental evidence and provide an
assessment of the viability of such information, should further archaeological work be
carried out.

METHODS
In consideration of methodology, the following details should be given in the contractors
specification:
A protected timetable must be agreed for the various stages of work;
There must be a qualified archaeologist with responsibility for the project in attendance
whilst the development is undertaken. The staff structure and numbers must be detailed.
This should include lists of specialists and their roles in project;
It is expected that all on-site work will be carried out in a way that complies with the
relevant Health & Safety Legislation and that due consideration will be given to site security;

Past Wight

21

7.1.4

The techniques applied in field survey, if undertaken, must be described in full. These should
include the conventions applied in earthwork survey presentation, the spacing of transects
and presentation of statistical data from field walking, and the plotting of aerial
photographs.
7.1.5 Details of conservation provision of all finds should be described in full. All conservation
issues that result from this work are the responsibility of the developer and contractor.
7.2
Excavation is a potentially destructive technique and the specification should include a
detailed reasoning behind the application of this technique. The following factors should be
borne in mind:
7.2.1 The use of an appropriate machine with a wide toothless ditching blade;
7.2.2 The supervision of all machine work by an archaeologist;
7.2.3 The machine should be used to remove topsoil down to the first archaeological horizon;
7.2.4 The most recent archaeological deposits are not necessarily the least important and this
should be considered when determining the level to which the machining will be carried out;
7.2.5 When archaeological features are revealed by machine, these will be cleaned by hand;
7.2.6 An environmental sampling strategy should be in place before works begin and should be
sufficiently flexible to accommodate unexpected deposits;
7.2.7 Any human remains encountered must be left in situ and only removed if absolutely
necessary. The contractor must comply with all statutory consents and licenses under the
Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act, 1981 or other Burial Acts regarding the
exhumation and internment of human remains. It will also be necessary to comply with all
reasonable requests of interested parties as to the method of removal, reinterment or
disposal of the remains or associated items. Attempt must be made at all times not to cause
offence to any interested parties;
7.2.8 It is expected that an approved recording system will be used for all on-site and post- field
work procedures.
7.2.9 Developers/Contractors should include details of conservations arrangements with an
appropriate specialist body/organization.
7.9.10 The contractor should follow the requirement of the Treasure Act 1996 (revised) and
consideration should be given to the use of local metal detecting operatives. The names of
any metal detectorists working on site should be included with the specification and agreed
with the Portable Antiqities Scheme Finds Liaison Officer. Any persons working on site for
the contractor/developer, either paid or voluntary, should sign a disclaimer agreeing they
will not be elegable for financial reward. Rewards will not be payable when the find is made
by an archaeologist or any one engaged on an archaeological excavation or investigation. In
cases of uncertainty archaeologists are recommended to require any individuals for whom
they are responsible, or to whom they have given, or for whom they have sought,
permission to search, to sign a statement waiving their right to a reward (The Treasure Act
1996 (Revised) Code of Practice Section 81). NO METAL DETECTING IS PERMITTED ON
SCHEDULED ANCIENT MONUMENTS.

7.0

MONITORING ARRANGEMENTS
7.1
The County Archaeological Officer will provide a monitoring programme to ensure
that fieldwork meets the specification. To facilitate this, he should be contacted at least 14
days prior to the commencement of the fieldwork.
7.2
All on site recording forms, registers and a working Harris matrix should be available
for viewing during monitoring.

8.0

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Past Wight

22

8.1

A full report should be produced and deposited with the Isle of Wight County Archaeologist,
the developer and the County Sites and Monuments Record. The report should include:
8.1.1 Location plan of the trenches;
8.1.2 Section and plan drawing with ground level, Ordnance Datum, vertical and
horizontal scales as appropriate;
8.1.3 A Harris Matrix
8.1.4 Specialist descriptions or artefacts and ecofacts;
8.1.5 An indication of potential archaeological deposits not disturbed by present
development.
8.1.6 All conservation issues which result from this work are the responsibility of the
developer and contractor; contractors must include details of conservation
arrangements with an appropriate specialist body/organisation. An appropriate
conservation assessment must be produced by a qualified archaeological
conservator.
8.1.7 The locations of all metal detecting finds prior to 1700AD should be plotted on a
location map and a list of finds numbers and 10 figure grid references should be
provided. A conservation assessment should be provided for all recovered finds.
8.1.8 A site archive must be produced and deposited with the artefacts.

9.0
9.1

ARCHIVE DEPOSITION
Arrangements must be made with the landowner(s) and/or the developers and the receiving
Museum for the deposition of the object and paper archive. Preliminary discussions must
take place prior to fieldwork commencing and details of the receiving museum and
deposition arrangements must be included in the specification.
If the receiving museum is the County Museum Service, Newport then the archive should be
produced in the form outlined in that Museums document Conditions for the Acceptance
of Project Archives Document (see address below). The Museum should be contacted at the
earliest possible opportunity so that the full cost implications of the archive deposition can
be taken into account.

9.2

10.0 PUBLICATION AND DISSEMINATION

10.1 The deposition of a copy of the report with the Isle of Wight Sites and Monuments Record
and the County Archaeological Service will be deemed to put all the information into the public
domain, unless a special request is made for confidentiality. If material is to be held in confidence a
timescale must be agreed with the County Archaeological Officer, but it is expected that this shall
not exceed six months.
10.2 A short report should be presented to the Editor of the Proceedings of the Isle of Wight
Natural History and Archaeological Society for the relevant year; costs for that publication should be
included in the specification and consideration be given to a full account being published in due
course.

11.0
11.1

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

This document attempts to define the best practice expected of an archaeological watching brief but
cannot fully anticipate the conditions that will be encountered as work progresses. However,
changes to the approved programme of archaeological work are only to be made with the prior
approval of the County Archaeological Service.

Past Wight

23

11.2

Further contacts addresses:

Archaeology Officer
Owen Cambridge
Isle of Wight County Archaeology Service
61 Clatterford Road
Carisbrooke
Newport
Isle of Wight
PO30 1 NZ
Tel: 01983 823810
E-mail: ruth.waller@iow.gov.uk
Senior Archaeology Officer
Dr R Loader
Isle of Wight County Archaeology Service
61 Clatterford Road
Carisbrooke
Newport,
Isle of Wight
PO 30 1NZ
Tel: 01983 823810
E-mail: rebecca.loader@iow.gov.uk

County Museums Officer:

Corina Westwood
Curator of Human History,
Guildhall Museum,
Newport
Isle of Wight,
PO30 1TY
Tel: 01983 823366

Editor of Proceedings
Richard Grogan
Kervil Cottage
Hollow Lane
Chillerton
Newport
Isle of Wight
PO30 3ET

Brief set by Owen Cambridge, Isle of Wight Council 21/08/14

Past Wight

24

14.2 Appendix 2: Excel Spreadsheet of Mollusc Remains

SPECIES
oyster,
common/flat
oyster,
common/flat
oyster,
common/flat
TOTAL

Past Wight

COMMON
NAME

FINDS
NUMBER

VALVES

COMMENT

Ostrea edulis

right (upper) eroded fragment

Ostrea edulis

12

left (lower)

eroded fragment

Ostrea edulis

17

1
3

left (lower)

eroded fragment

PRESERVATION

25