Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation Scheme (WaDFAS), land north-east and south-west of the Ketch, Great Gutter Lane, West Willerby, East Riding of Yorkshire
5 - Pre-determination assessment/evaluation not undertaken; heritage assets identified during development
The absence of pre-determination assessment/evaluation on all or part of the development site (e.g. because of difficulties with access, refusal to evaluate) led to the unexpected discovery of archaeology during development that caused problems, such as delays to the development programme and/or the need for additional resources.
7 - Pre-commencement archaeological conditions were attached to a planning permission
Pre-commencement archaeological conditions were attached to a planning permission and were necessary in order to enable the development to be permitted.
Undesignated heritage assets with archaeological and historic interest
Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation Scheme: Construction of flood dam attenuation with linking drainage pipework and/or open watercourses connecting to existing and newly excavated flood water storage lagoons.
There was limited information for the area of the flood alleviation scheme; this included cropmarks of probable prehistoric and Roman date, evidence of medieval activity and a range of finds.
An Archaeological Appraisal (WYG 2012) using HER information identified various archaeological remains within, but mainly around the scheme area, including the scheduled monument of Haltemprice medieval priory (NHLE no. 1019825) immediately to the north of the Carr Lane reservoir. The appraisal recommended a programme of archaeological evaluation, commencing with geophysical survey, followed by appropriate mitigation.
A formal desk-based assessment was not undertaken as part of the planning application.
The planning application was submitted in November 2012 and approved March 2013.
The archaeological adviser to the LPA had highlighted the potential impact of the scheme on the adjacent scheduled monument and the general archaeological potential of the scheme area, both in terms of known sites and also the potential for previously undiscovered archaeological remains to be present, recommending evaluation prior to the determination of the application.
A pre-commencement planning condition was attached to the planning permission to secure a programme of archaeological investigation, analysis, publication, and archiving, commencing with evaluation.
A geophysical survey on two of the four main areas to be affected by the scheme (WYAS 2013) suggested limited remains, comprising occasional ditches, field boundaries shown on the Ordnance Survey First Edition maps, ridge and furrow, field drains, and a single square anomaly at Carr Lane.
The monitoring of limited geotechnical works (Atkinson 2014; Jobling 2014) did not identify any further archaeological remains.
A mitigation strategy for four areas for lagoons (totalling 20 ha) and several hundred metres of interconnected drainage was proposed. The WSI for the strategy (Barton Howe Associates 2014a) synthesised information from the HER, previous archaeological investigations in the area, aerial photographic information and the results of the geophysical survey. Given the limited results, the WSI concluded that none of the investigation areas had high potential for archaeological remains.
The mitigation strategy envisaged a two-stage process in the field: during the first, referred to as ‘evaluation’ the archaeological areas would be stripped and mapped, with a representative selection of features sample excavated. Proposals for investigation would then be submitted for a second stage, comprising detailed excavation.
Fieldwork (March-Nov 2015): The stripping of the topsoil in areas to be investigated was undertaken as part of the general development groundworks, albeit that the plant was supervised by archaeologists. Sufficient staff were deployed to supervise stripping across several active locations, together with a small investigation team to characterise selected findings, in line with the low density of archaeological remains expected. However, concentrations of prehistoric, Roman, early medieval and later medieval archaeological remains were soon identified across many of those areas that were stripped to the surface of the natural geology. These not only exceeded the capacity of the investigation team, but were also in locations that were on the critical path for drainage infrastructure. The situation was not aided by soft ground and machine rutting, which meant that the stripping/spoil management methodology also had to be revised.
It soon became apparent that it would not be possible in either practical terms, or within the constraints of the project timetable, to strip, map and sample-excavate each archaeological area, submit an ‘evaluation’ report, and agree proposals for subsequent detailed excavation. Instead, it was agreed that detailed excavation would commence immediately, following the sampling strategies that had been set out in the WSI and Scope of Archaeological Works, and developed in the OA North Project Design (2015). As a result, large numbers of archaeologists were rapidly deployed to undertake the detailed excavation.
From an archaeological perspective, the outcome was acceptable: the client honoured their commitment to fund the fieldwork, archive processing, and post-excavation assessment and also, it is anticipated, the forthcoming stage of analysis, archiving, and publication. However, the lack of an appropriate scheme of evaluation in advance of the start of the development groundworks meant that the situation must have been very stressful for the developer and client, as the project required more staff, prices escalated and the programme edged nearer to the deadline.
Moreover, there was an imperative to excavate remains as they were revealed, and it was not possible to view a site as a whole and consider a more strategic, research-led approach that might have been possible had there been more time, and which may well have been more cost-effective for the client.
In summary, a full desk-based assessment at an early stage in the scheme development, followed by more extensive on-site evaluation in advance of the commencement of construction, would have allowed a more strategic approach to the archaeological mitigation programme, to the benefit of both the developer and the archaeological outcome.
The scheme was given an award for construction excellence: http://constructingexcellence.org.uk/the-willerby-and-derringham-flood-alleviation-scheme/
- White Young Green (WYG) 2012, Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation Scheme (WaDFAS): Archaeology and Heritage Options Appraisal Report. Unpublished report.
- West Yorkshire Archaeology Service (WYAS) 2013, Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation Scheme, East Yorkshire: Geophysical Survey. Unpublished report.
- Atkinson 2014, Archaeological Observation, Investigation and Recording during an Earthwork Compaction Test on the Site of the Proposed Filling Station Lagoon, Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation Scheme. Unpublished report.
- Barton Howe Associates (BHA) 2014a, Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation Scheme, East Riding of Yorkshire; Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation. Unpublished report.
- Barton Howe Associates (BHA) 2014b, Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation Scheme, East Riding of Yorkshire; Specification for Archaeological Works. Unpublished report.
- Jobling 2014, Archaeological Observation, Investigation and Recording of Test Pits at the Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation Scheme. Unpublished report.
- Oxford Archaeology North 2015, Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation Scheme, East Riding of Yorkshire; Project Design for Archaeological Strip, Map and Record. Unpublished report.
