6.1 - The evidence studied indicates that the development of Woodhorn Colliery was surprisingly simple.
No evidence has been located for any mining on the site before 1894 (though the possibility of unrecorded
mining cannot be excluded). Colliery sinking began in 1894, and much of the final surface layout was
already in existence by 1923; some non-surviving early buildings are recorded on the 1898 OS map, but their
footprints lie largely within those of later structures. The main addition after 1923 was the baths block,
completed by 1930. However, it should be noted that the interval between meaningful OS mappings at this
period, from 1923 to 1965, is long (the 1938 edition was an emergency issue without field resurvey, and
therefore merely duplicates the 1923 mapping information), so that buildings and structures may have
'come and gone' between map editions. It should also be noted that OS mapping is confined to buildings,
railway lines, and physically-prominent structures, and does not form evidence for absence for less
physically-prominent (but potentially functionally important) features and structures, or for socially-
important archaeological deposits such as rubbish accumulations.
6.2 - The assessment has confirmed that the surviving buildings and structures (with the probable exception of
the Transformer House (Building 1.14)) form the best surviving example of a late 19th to 20th century colliery
from the Northeast England regional tradition; they are of considerable national importance, as well as being
an important iconic monument to the Northumberland coal industry, of such formative importance to the region
and its inhabitants. This importance extends to the surviving complex as a group, as well as the individually-
important structures within the group.
6.3 - Although the assessment has produced very little evidence for former buildings and structures outside
the 'footprint' of the final colliery layout (apart from railway lines), unmapped structures and archaeological
deposits may have existed. The buildings will undoubtedly been connected by services and other infrastructure,
not mapped on the surviving sources.
6.4 - The potential survival of archaeological deposits, of all sorts, on the site is primarily constrained
by the clearance and reclamation programme undertaken in the 1970s and 1980s. Documentary evidence indicates
that within the individual areas covered by the successive reclamation contracts, the foundations of all
buildings and structures should have been systematically destroyed, and this is likely to have disrupted
most if not all archaeological deposits within these areas. Field inspection has yielded no evidence to
contradict this picture. However the thoroughness with which the clearance procedures were carried out
cannot be assessed, and the possibility of 'islands' of stratigraphic survival within the reclaimed areas
cannot be excluded.
6.5 - In the light of the assessment, the non-built-on areas of the site can be divided into three zones of
survival (relating to the Areas defined in Section 5.2 above, and on Figure 7) in terms of their potential
archaeological significance:
Zone 1. Areas within the core of the colliery layout, between and adjacent to the surviving buildings
and structures, and where no reclamation is known to have taken place. These areas are likely to retain sub-
surface deposits of major importance for the understanding of the Scheduled Monument, and are therefore of
national importance. We recommend that sub-surface disturbance within these areas should be avoided wherever
possible. If and when disturbance is considered to be inevitable, we recommend that localised interventions
such as service trenches should be dug to archaeological excavation standards, and that any more widespread
disturbance should be preceded by archaeological evaluation and the development of a mitigation strategy.
Areas 2.1, 2.2.
Zone 2. Areas outside the core of the colliery layout, but where no reclamation is known to have taken
place. These areas are likely to retain any archaeological deposits that were laid down, but such deposits are
likely to be of lesser importance, and may only occupy restricted areas within the zone. Within this zone, we
recommend that localised interventions such as service trenches be excavated under archaeological observation,
and that any more widespread disturbance should be preceded by careful archaeological evaluation, and the
development of a mitigation strategy for any areas where the survival of significant deposits is confirmed.
Area 2.3, 2.4, 2.5
Zone 3. Areas subject to documented reclamation schemes. Given the terms of the reclamation schemes,
significant archaeological deposits are unlikely to survive within these areas. However, given the possibility
that field survival may locally be better than the desk evidence would indicate, and the status of these areas
as parts of the immediate vicinity of the Scheduled Monument (and locally extending into the Scheduled area),
we recommend that any localised disturbances should be subject to an archaeological Watching Brief, and any
major disturbance should be preceded by a rapid field evaluation, in order to provide field confirmation that
significant deposits do not survive. Area 2.6.
|
