AJA andrew josephs associates

consultancy | project management | expert witness

North Quay Newhaven

Heritage Statement

March 2017

HER reference number 561/16

E:mail [email protected] ● Telephone 07990 571908 16 South Terrace, Sowerby, Thirsk, YO7 1RH

Andrew Josephs Ltd. Registered Office, Antrobus House, 18 College St, Petersfield, GU31 4AD. Registration no. 4547366

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

CONTENTS 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Scope of this report 1.2 Scope of Research 1.3 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance 1.4 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria 2 Desk-Based Assessment 10 2.1 Designated Features 2.2 Archaeological Background 2.3 Cartographic and Historical Research 3. Impacts and Mitigation 17 3.1 Direct Impacts 3.2 Mitigation of Direct Impacts 3.3 Indirect Impacts 4 Summary 20 4.1 Scope of Work and Results 4.2 Direct Impacts and Mitigation 4.3 Indirect Effects 4.4 Conclusion

Figures (after page 22)

Photographs (after page 29)

2 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

1. Introduction

1.1 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT

1.1.1 Description of the proposed development This report, commissioned by PDE Consulting on behalf of FM Conway Ltd, presents the findings of a cultural heritage assessment for a proposed asphalt plant, concrete batching plant, gully waste plant and ancillary development with access at Plots 6 & 7, North Quay Road, Newhaven, East Sussex, BN9 0AB (Figure 1 ). The centre of the Proposed Development Area (PDA) is at approximately TQ 4472 0172. The PDA (excluding the existing access road) totals 2.94ha. The proposed scheme is set out in detail in the Environmental Statement. From a heritage perspective, there will be no penetration below 1 metre (and therefore predicted to lie entirely within madeground) and no piling. The tallest structure will be an asphalt plant at approximately 20m above ground level. The PDA is comprised of level ground of predominantly concrete cover, resulting from the clearance of a former industrial site. The proposed layout is shown on Figure 2 and elevations at Figures 3A and 3B . 1.1.2 Scope of cultural heritage Cultural heritage is represented by a wide range of features that result from past human use of the landscape. These include historic structures, many still in use, above ground and buried archaeological monuments and remains of all periods, artefacts of anthropological origin and evidence that can help reconstruct past human environments. In its broadest form cultural heritage is represented by the landscape and townscape itself.

The report considers both direct and indirect effects upon cultural heritage. Indirect effects can occur as a result of significant changes to the setting of a landscape or asset, whether permanent or temporary. This is particularly relevant to designated cultural heritage assets, such as Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens.

1.2 SCOPE OF RESEARCH In order to assess the effects of the potential scheme, existing cultural heritage information within and up to 1km from centre of the PDA was examined. A variety of sources were consulted including the East Sussex Historic Environment Record, the National Monuments Record, previous archaeological assessments, maps and readily available local history materials.

3 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

The work was undertaken by Andrew Josephs and Ian Meadows of AJA. All work has been undertaken in accordance with Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment (Institute for Archaeologists 2008, revised 2012).

1.3 RELEVANT LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE The importance of cultural heritage is clearly recognised at both national and local levels. Certain features that are deemed to be of particular importance are given legal protection through the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (Scheduled Monuments) and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas . 1.3.1 National Policy and Guidance In accordance with The Town and Country (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 the significance of an effect should be identified as part of this cultural heritage assessment. This is achieved using a combination of the following published guidance and professional judgement. • National Planning Policy Framework 2012. Department for Communities and Local Government. • Planning Practice Guidance: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk • Historic England 1 2008. Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment. London. • Historic England 2015. The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic England guidance . • Historic England 2011. Seeing The History In The View: A Method For Assessing Heritage Significance Within Views. • Historic England 2009. Planning Mitigation and Archaeological Conservation – Resource Assessment. • Historic England 2015. Piling and Archaeology: Guidelines and Best Practice

1.3.2 National Planning Policy Framework National planning policy on how cultural heritage should be assessed is given in National Planning Policy Framework, published in March 2012. This covers all aspects of heritage and the historic environment, including listed buildings, conservation areas, registered parks and gardens, battlefields and archaeology. The relevant policy is reproduced below. Chapter 12 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

1 Historic England includes its former name English Heritage 4 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

128 2. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. 129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal. 131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

• the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. 132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. 133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent,

2 Paragraph numbers are those shown in NPPF 5 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: • the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and • no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and • conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and • the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. 134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. 135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. 136. Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred. 139. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets. 141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.

1.3.3 Local Planning Policy

Lewes District Local Plan of 2003 includes some saved policies of relevance to the proposed development including: • Listed Buildings (H2) • Buildings of Local, Historical or Visual Interest (H3) • Development within or affecting Conservation Areas (H5) • Areas of Established Character (H12)

6 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

1.4 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA In accordance with the EIA Regulations the significance of an impact or effect should be identified. This is achieved using a combination of published guidance and professional judgement.

Four criteria have been considered in evaluating the significance of the residual effects of the proposed development, taking into account any proposed mitigation measures.

1.4.1 Type of Impact Impacts may be beneficial, adverse, neutral (i.e. no discernible effect) or none. They may be permanent or temporary, of long, medium or short duration, direct or indirect. They may also be cumulative or combined with other effects occurring in the vicinity.

Direct impacts have a physical effect upon an archaeological site, structure or cultural heritage asset. This may lead to the partial or total destruction of that asset.

Indirect impacts of development upon scheduled monuments, listed buildings, parks and gardens and other designated assets of the cultural heritage landscape are more difficult to assess. Consideration should include the context (or setting) of a cultural heritage asset (or place) and how we should assess its significance. Contextual relationships may be visual, but can also be, for example, functional or intellectual.

1.4.2 Likelihood of the impact occurring An assessment is made as to the likelihood of the identified impact occurring. Probability is considered as certain, likely, unlikely or not known.

1.4.3 Sensitivity Three categories of sensitivity are identified: high, medium and low. These are expanded upon in Table 1, below.

Table 1 Definitions of sensitivity

Sensitivity Definition

High Sites and settings of national importance . Scheduled Monuments. Registered Battlefields. Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings and Registered Historic Parks and Gardens. Sites may also be discovered as a result of new research that are also of national importance and are candidates for scheduling.

Medium Sites and settings of regional importance . Archaeological sites and assets that are not considered sufficiently important or well-preserved to be protected as Scheduled Monuments. Grade II Listed Buildings and Grade II Registered Historic Parks and Gardens. Conservation Areas.

Low Archaeological sites and structures, and other components of the historic environment that contribute to the local landscape. Locally designated assets.

7 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

1.4.4 Magnitude The magnitude of change to a cultural heritage asset or landscape is considered in terms of its vulnerability, its current condition and the nature of the impact upon it. With respect to sub- surface archaeology, there may be a degree of uncertainty of the magnitude of change, and where this is the case it is noted. Magnitude is assessed as high, medium, small or none and the criteria used in this assessment are set out in Table 2 , below.

Table 2 Criteria for Assessing Magnitude of Change

Magnitude of Change Description of Change

High Complete destruction of a well-preserved archaeological site, historic structure or element of the cultural heritage landscape

Change to the setting of a cultural heritage asset such that our ability to understand the resource and its historical context is permanently changed

Major contribution to archaeological and heritage research, repair or improvement to setting of a designated asset

Medium Complete destruction of an archaeological site or other cultural heritage asset already in degraded condition, or destruction of a significant percentage (> 20%) of an asset in a well preserved condition

Change to the setting of a cultural heritage asset such that our ability to understand the resource and its historical context is partly or temporarily changed

Moderate contribution to archaeological and heritage research, repair or improvement to setting of a designated asset

Small Complete destruction of an archaeological site or other cultural heritage asset already in highly degraded condition, or destruction of a small percentage (<20%) of an asset in a well-preserved condition

Change to the setting of a cultural heritage asset such that our ability to understand the resource and its historical context is slightly or temporarily changed

Minor contribution to archaeological and heritage research, repair or improvement to setting of a designated asset

Negligible/None No physical effect upon an archaeological site or other asset of the cultural heritage landscape

No discernible effect upon the setting of a cultural heritage asset, or our ability to understand the resource and its historical context

8 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

1.4.5 Assessing significance The four criteria are considered together to reach a conclusion upon the significance of residual effects taking into account any mitigation measures. In accordance with the EIA Regulations these are quantified as significant, not significant or neutral (i.e. no change to the existing situation). They may be beneficial or adverse. In some cases it may not be possible to quantify the significance of an effect, for example due to a gap in information, and this is noted.

Table 3 presents a matrix of the inter-relationship of sensitivity with magnitude.

Table 3 Inter-relationship of sensitivity with magnitude

Magnitude High Medium Small Negligible/ None Sensitivity High Significant Significant Not significant Neutral Medium Significant Not significant Not significant Neutral Low Not significant Not significant Not significant Neutral

9 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

2. Desk-Based Assessment

The East Sussex Historic Environment Record (GLSMR) was consulted for a record of sites and monuments up to 1km from the boundary of the PDA. The assistance of Daniel Phelps, Historic Environment Record Assistant, East Sussex CC is gratefully acknowledged. The National Monuments Record was also consulted to verify the location of designated assets up to 1km from the PDA.

2.1 DESIGNATED FEATURES No designated assets of cultural heritage importance lie within the boundary of the PDA. 2.1.1 Scheduled Monuments 3 No scheduled monuments lie within 1km of the PDA. The nearest is Newhaven Fort (ref 1002242), which at its nearest point is approximately 1.5km south of the PDA boundary. A fort to defend the port of Newhaven was a recommendation of the 1859 Royal Commission on the Defence of the United Kingdom, during the administration of Lord Palmerston. The site selected was on cliffs overlooking the harbour called Castle Hill, which was already occupied by a battery which originated in the mid-16th century. Instead of levelling the site, as was customary, the fort was designed to conform to the existing contours. A 40 foot wide moat protected the northern and western sides of the fort, which were lined with concrete, the first time this material had been used to any extent in a British fortification. The eastern side overlooking the harbour was protected by a short wet moat and by the embankment of the harbour. Work commenced in 1864, with a workforce of 250 men and three steam engines. Shingle for the concrete was taken from the beach and clay for the six million bricks required was found nearby. Work was completed in the summer of 1871 and the guns were emplaced in 1873. The fort remained in service until 1962. Restoration began in 1982 following a failed commercial redevelopment venture. It is preserved and maintained by Lewes District Council and is an important educational and visitor attraction. A grant was given by English Heritage to repair the lunette battery in 2009. There is no view from the Fort to the PDA due to distance and intervening development. The view from the highest point of the scheduled fort towards the PDA is shown on Photograph 1 and from the public approach to the entrance on Photograph 2 . The context is shown on Figure 4.

3 Sources: Historic England, newhavenfort.org.uk 10 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

Other scheduled monuments within a broader landscape setting include the ploughed remains of a circular multiple ring-ditch situated on sloping ground just to the north of the summit of Mount Pleasant, Denton, 1.6km north east of the PDA. There is no view towards the PDA due to topography. 2.1.2 Listed Buildings and Townscape Two groups of listed structures lie within 1km of the PDA, as described in Table 4 and shown on Figure 5. Five are situated in the town centre, the nearest being the Bridge Hotel, approximately 225m south west of the PDA. No line of sight exists with the PDA from the front elevation that faces onto Bridge Street, nor from the National Westminster Bank which is opposite (Photograph 3). From the rear elevation, fronting the A259 North Way, views to the PDA are likely to be blocked by a modern retail development (Photograph 4). The view from three buildings on Chapel Street is blocked by modern development (Photograph 5). The second group of two listed buildings lies at Railway Quay, 280m-350m south-east of the PDA. These comprise two workshops of late 19 th century date, since extensively remodelled (Photograph 6). The view from the nearest publically accessible point towards the PDA is interrupted by trees and the A259 that is partially on an embankment ( Photograph 7). There is no historical or contextual relationship between listed buildings and the PDA. They are therefore not assessed in detail.

Table 4 Listed Buildings within 1km of PDA

Description Listed Building Ref Distance from PDA

Bridge Hotel . C18, partly refenestrated C19 and C20, SE wall built out in 374191 225m C19. Stucco over rubble and brick, tile roof, coped verges left return (west front), rendered stacks gable ends.

National Westminster Bank. Bank building. Circa 1900. Wrenaissance 1197493 230m style. Ashlar ground floor, banded in 2 colours, upper stories wide banded brick in 2 shades of red, moulded brick surrounds to third floor windows and panels, stone dressings, deep overhanging wooden eaves with dentil cornice, steeply pitched mansard slate roof, large brick stacks with stone copings.

No.19 High St . Dwelling, now offices. C18, tile-hung C19. Double- 1280272 280m fronted. Tile-hungover brick, rendered plinth, unknapped flint on left return between brick flues, tile roof. Two storeys plus attic, 3 bays.

1-3 Chapel St. Dwellings over shops. Circa 1800, extended soon after, 1206241 250m some shop fronts added early C20. Painted brick, very shallow pitch concrete tile roofs with slight change in pitch over No 3, hipped to right, coped verge left with rendered stack.

5 Chapel St. Light industrial building, now offices and store. Probably 1197487 250m C18, refenestrated late C19. Render grooved as ashlar, shallow pitched slate roof with steeper pitch to end bay left. Irregular facade: 2 and 3 11 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

storeys, 1:2 bays

The Marine Workshops. Engineering workshops for London, Brighton 1280283 280m and South Coast Railway cross channel packet ships, latterly for port maintenance. Circa 1882, upper story partly rebuilt mid 1940's, reroofed 1961. Brick, parallel hipped roof with corrugated iron sheeting and plastic sheeting skylights, remains of original roof of pine planking with glazed skylights said to survive in the little store range.

Carpenter's shop, paint store with timber seasoning shed. 1197494 350m Carpenter's shop, subdivided to include paint store, with timber seasoning shed, now workshop and store. Circa 1885, for London Brighton and South Coast Railway. Yellow brick with red brick dressings, Turnerised roof with skylights; timber-framed seasoning shed with corrugated iron roof.

2.1.3 Conservation Area The nearest Conservation Area is 700m south-west of the PDA, centred around Church Hill and shown on Figure 5. Views towards the PDA are blocked by development of post-war date (Photograph 8). It is not considered further. 2.1.4 Other Designated Cultural Heritage Sites There are no World Heritage Sites, Registered Battlefields or Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 1km of the centre of the PDA.

2.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND A study area of 1km was examined based upon information in the East Sussex HER.

2.2.1 Prehistoric No Iron Age or Bronze Age settlement is known within the study area. Nine entries generally refer to flints with little further information. Flints were found in the Ouse Estuary Nature reserve (16148) and also under the Fire Station (24575) but no date is assigned. A further entry records some pits under the Fire Station associated with worked flints but it is possible the pits were Roman in date and the flints simply residual (26701). An area of old land surface, a beach, with flint tools (22154) and a lithic working site at Southway (23961) that produced 156 flint fragments certainly attests to an extensive prehistoric presence. A Neolithic axe (1781) and Palaeolithic axes (1780 & 1804) are also evidence of the longevity of activity in this area. A geoarchaeological feature some way to the south of the PDA, an involution (24576), containing Palaeolithic flints also shows the potential for remains of this period.

2.2.2 Roman Six entries record Roman activity within the study area. Two comprise coin hoards discovered in the 1920s (1792 & 1795) and a further pair relate to buildings that are tentatively identified as villas (1793 & 1796). A further entry relates to the finding of some slots of possible Roman date associated with a single sherd of pottery under the fire station (26700). Additionally the course of the Newhaven to Selmeston road is believed to have run through part of the study

12 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

area. With the exception of the road, all the entries are located to the west of the Ouse and perhaps suggest there was a local focus in that area.

2.2.3 Medieval Newhaven is a medieval market town but few elements survive. The church of St Michael (1805) has a Norman origin. Meeching Court House, a C17 manor house (1808) was built on the site of an earlier C13 structure but the C17 building was demolished in 1953 and the site has since been redeveloped. There is also a medieval saltern (7253) suggested by a series of mounds found during fieldwork in the estuary. Denton was a shrunken medieval village with possible Saxon origins (1810).

2.2.4 Recent and post medieval There are 91 monument records with 1km of the PDA, the majority reflecting Newhaven’s importance as a transport hub, be it by sea or rail.

These include the site of a former harbour (1784), the twentieth century Titan Marine boatyard (8379), harbour cranes and derricks (8382 & 8385) and mooring piles, also called dolphins (8383) and a swing bridge (1784). Additionally there is the Newhaven Harbour Hotel (previously the London and Paris Hotel) (8394). The Old Shipyard included part of a former landing stage (24264) and a nineteenth century warehouse (24263) at one stage used to house candles. There is also evidence for the improvement of the navigation by the construction of a river cut near Denton Island in the nineteenth century (8377).

Three railway stations are recorded: Newhaven Town station (1799), Newhaven Harbour station (1798) and Newhaven Station, on the twentieth century narrow gauge railway that ran between Tidemills and the twentieth century weighbridge on North Quay (8387). Several other entries relate to activities associated or related to railway provision such as rows of railway cottages, for example at Beach Road (8360) and Transit Road (8391), or accommodation for railway horses such as the Transit Road stables (8390) or the complex of buildings including the listed workshops on Railway Quay (29360).

A large group of entries record a range of industry activities including ten that deal with twentieth century industrial estates (8359, 8361 – 8369) such as those at Avis Way (8359) and Denton Island (8362). Other industrial entries included the nineteenth to twentieth century New Road ironworks (8380), the Parker pen factory (24095) and the Railway Road nineteenth century gasworks (8388). Five brickworks or brickfields are also recorded to the west of the River Ouse opposite the PDA at Valley Road (8392 & 29444) and to the north of the PDA at Avis Road (8358) and New Road(8413) and to the east off The Drove (8373).

Because Newhaven was on the ‘front line’ in many ways during the two world wars it is unsurprising that there are twenty three entries relating to sites from this period. Five entries relate to pillboxes (7554-7557, and 8568) and a further twelve relate to air raid shelters ranging from school or factory shelters to domestic shelters 7560-7562, 7564-7567, 7580, 7582, 7583, 7586, 7587). Additionally there were transit camps from each war for D-Day at Denton (23108) and for the Western Front at the Parker Pen factory (24094). A Second World War embarkation headquarters in Meeching Road (23102) and a command post (7651) are

13 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

recorded and two planes, a Hurricane and a Spitfire (7767 & 7772), crashed on the town at New Road and The Drove.

The remaining entries include a nineteenth century chapel in South Way (8389) and a second one on Chapel Street (8371) that was subsequently used as a naval shore establishment. Social centres such as the Newhaven Bridge Street Social Club (8370) and Denton Bowls club (8372) are also listed along with the twentieth century drill hall (24282) and fire station (24577). Elements of earlier activity is reflected by the records for the site of the Outfarm at Denton (32145), the nineteenth century rectory (33624) and a house, Sussex Lodge, in the High Street of similar date (33625). A single eighteenth building is recorded, The Flying Fish Inn (33626).

2.2.5 Geoarchaeology Two entries are particularly pertinent to the PDA. The first was a geoarchaeological watching brief on a programme of window samples and boreholes across North Quay (EES17424) which identified no archaeological artefacts or ecofacts. The second was deposit modelling carried out by Oxford Archaeology that included the PDA and which demonstrated the considerable depth of Late Glacial and Holocene deposits in the area (up to 26m). It also showed the main Ouse channel originally flowed along the eastern side of the valley.

In 2016 Oxford Archaeology 4 was commissioned to develop a geoarchaeological deposits model for the Newhaven Flood Alleviation Scheme (EES17717).

The model demonstrates a considerable depth of Late Glacial deposits and Holocene alluvium (up to 26m in depth) preserved within the Ouse Valley. Pleistocene sandy gravel deposits were identified at the base of the sequence between 26m to 18m in depth, and were mostly identified on the east bank, due to the greater depth of sampling within this area.

Basal lower organic and alluvial deposits were recorded overlying the gravels but their formation and date have yet to be fully established. The Holocene sequence were sand dominated estuarine deposits with marine shells and tidal laminations.

On the western banks the estuarine sands are not recorded at similar depths indicating that the main Ouse channel was located on the eastern bank. In contrast the western bank, is dominated by silty clay and organic alluviums indicating lower-energy deposition away from the main estuarine channel.

A sequence of alluvial and organic deposits were recorded on the western bank. The upper surface of these mid-Holocene peat sequences have previously produced evidence of prehistoric activity in other valley sequence. Upper alluvial deposits of inter-digitating silts and silty clays mark a major phase of marine incursion and channel migration recorded across

4 Champness, C. 2016 Newhaven Flood Alleviation Scheme: Geoarchaeological Deposit Model . Oxford Archaeology. Oxford 6525. 14 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

the sequence. Similar incursions by the sea at this time are often referred to as the ‘Romano- British Transgression’.

Thick made-ground deposits between 0.30m to 4m were identified overlying the alluvium sequence, requires further investigation and characterisation. The west bank and area around the historical core were identified as requiring further investigation to establish the archaeological potential in these areas.

The absence of significant organic deposits on the east bank, including the PDA, may limit the archaeological and palaeoenvironmental potential in this area. The absence is a result of the migration of the Ouse channel scouring away earlier deposits.

2.3 CARTOGRAPHIC AND HISTORICAL RESEARCH The PDA lies adjacent to the River Ouse. Since the medieval period the river continue to migrate across the valley in response to the growth and decay of a shingle spit at its mouth. The growth of the shingle spit hindered the outflow of the river, which consequently flooded the Levels upstream and restricted access to the port. Therefore a channel through the shingle spit was cut in the mid-16th century below Castle Hill, creating access to a sheltered harbour. This was the origin of modern Newhaven. However, shingle continued to accumulate and the mouth of the Ouse began to migrate eastwards again. Under the Ouse Navigation Act (1790), a western breakwater was constructed to arrest longshore drift and so cut off the supply of shingle to the spit. A new outlet (The Cut) was built on the river's present course. The village was of little maritime importance until the opening of the railway line to Lewes in 1847. The London Brighton and South Coast Railway (LB&SCR) constructed their own wharf and facilities on the east side of the river, and opened the Newhaven harbour railway station. The railway also funded the dredging of the channel and other improvements to the harbour between 1850 and 1878, to enable it to be used by cross channel ferries and in 1863 the LB&SCR and the Chemin de Fer de l'Ouest introduced the Newhaven-Dieppe passenger service. The Ordnance Survey (OS), 1 st edition of 1879 ( Figure 6) shows the PDA as being open ground with what are presumably two jetties upstream on the eastern bank of the Ouse but no formal quay. By 1910 (Figure 7) the PDA and the land around has been developed as a timber yard (according to Kelly’s 1910 directory this was The Baltic Saw Mills Company Ltd) with a series of saw mills present and a well-defined quay edge served by multiple railway lines and a travelling crane for unloading/loading of vessels. Additionally Stricklands Granary is shown just to the south of the PDA. This large building was erected in 1901 and burnt down in 1940. By the 1938 OS mapping (Figure 8) activity has contracted southwards to a single saw mill leaving the bulk of the PDA as scrubby marsh behind the quayside rail lines. This mill is still operating on the 1960’s mapping (Figure 9) but about half of the PDA has been reoccupied as

15 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

a coaling yard with various small structures and storage bays. However the remaining ground to the north is still shown as rough marshy scrub. The most recent OS mapping was updated between 1977-91 ( Figure 10 ). The PDA is currently clear of all structures.

16 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

3. Impacts

3.1 DIRECT IMPACTS Archival research shows that the PDA has been developed upon by industry since the late 19 th century with potentially several phases of development and redevelopment. Some of the structures may have had deep foundations that will have damaged archaeological layers. It is not known what site clearance works took place prior to the most recent configuration of the PDA, but this too is likely to have had an impact on features that may be of interest from an industrial archaeological perspective. Despite such intensive development, it can be surprising that archaeology can be preserved both in between later foundations and below. It cannot therefore be stated with confidence, based upon the results of this assessment, whether archaeology is present within the PDA, in what condition it might be, and whether it would be of significance. However, the proposals for this PDA involve only raft foundations up to 1m below current ground level. Given the history of the site it is anticipated that these will lie within madeground. Should piling be subsequently proposed some geoarchaeological boreholes may be required. From the evidence of the 2016 Oxford Archaeology geoarchaeological deposits model for the Newhaven Flood Alleviation Scheme the absence of significant organic deposits on the east bank, including the PDA, may however limit the archaeological and palaeoenvironmental potential in this area.

3.2 INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect impacts are those that do not physically affect a cultural heritage feature or landscape, but that alter the context or setting. No designated heritage asset within the 1km study area has any clear visual or contextual link with the PDA. No indirect effects are predicted. There would be no effect upon the setting of Newhaven Fort, which is both a scheduled monument and visitor attraction, nor upon a circular multiple ring-ditch situated on Mount Pleasant, Denton, 1.6 km north east of the PDA.

17 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

4. Summary

4.1 SCOPE OF WORK AND RESULTS This report, commissioned by PDE Consulting on behalf of FM Conway Ltd, presents the findings of a cultural heritage assessment for a proposed asphalt plant, concrete batching plant, gully waste plant and ancillary development with access at Plots 6 & 7, North Quay Road, Newhaven, East Sussex, BN9 0AB. The PDA (excluding the existing access road) totals 2.94 ha. It considers both direct and indirect effects upon cultural heritage. Direct effects are those that physically affect a cultural heritage asset. Indirect effects can occur as a result of significant changes to the setting of a cultural heritage landscape or asset, whether permanent or temporary. This is particularly relevant to designated features of national importance, such as Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens. There are no known archaeological sites within the PDA. In the broader townscape and landscape, there are numerous archaeological records, predominantly of 19 th and 20 th century date, that reflects the town’s importance as a transport hub and vital role in both world wars as an embarkation port.

Early records are relatively sparse and predominantly relate to chance finds of prehistoric and Roman date.

From the evidence of a geoarchaeological deposits model for the Newhaven Flood Alleviation Scheme undertaken in 2016, the absence of significant organic deposits on the east bank, including the PDA, may limit the archaeological and palaeoenvironmental potential in this area.

Archival research shows that the PDA has been developed upon by industry since the late 19 th century with potentially several phases of development and redevelopment. Some of the structures may have had deep foundations that will have damaged archaeological layers. It is not known what site clearance works took place prior to the most recent configuration of the PDA, but this too is likely to have had an impact on features that may be of interest from an industrial archaeological perspective.

4.2 DIRECT IMPACTS UPON ARCHAEOLOGY and MITIGATION 4.2.1 Direct Impacts Despite industrial development archaeology can be preserved both in between later foundations and below. It cannot therefore be stated with confidence, based upon the results

18 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay Heritage Statement March 2017

of this assessment, whether archaeology is present within the PDA, in what condition it might be, and whether it would be of significance. However, the proposals for this PDA involve only raft foundations up to 1m below current ground level. Given the history of the site it is anticipated that these will lie within madeground. 4.2.2 Mitigation Should piling be subsequently proposed some geoarchaeological boreholes may be required. This could add to our knowledge of the prehistoric and later environment of the River Ouse.

4.3 INDIRECT EFFECTS

The potential indirect effects of the proposed development have been assessed based upon visits to surrounding assets of cultural heritage importance. Indirect impacts are those that do not physically affect a cultural heritage feature or landscape, but that alter the context or setting. No designated heritage asset within the 1km study area has any clear visual or contextual link with the PDA. No indirect effects are predicted.

There would be no effect upon Newhaven Fort, which is both a scheduled monument and visitor attraction, and lies 1.5km down river, nor upon other scheduled monuments in the broader landscape.

4.4 CONCLUSION

Having regard to the baseline conditions and the scope of the proposed development, and taking into account the mitigation proposed, there would be no adverse residual effects upon known cultural heritage assets.

The proposed development therefore fully accords with both local and national cultural heritage policy.

19 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

Figures

20 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

Figure 1 Location Plan © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Licence number 100043831 21 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

Figure 2 Proposed Layout

22 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

Figure 3A Proposed Elevation Asphalt Plant 23 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

Figure 3B Proposed Elevation Concrete Batching Plant 24 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

Figure 4 Context of Newhaven Fort and the PDA 25 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

Conservation Area

Figure 5 Location of Listed Buildings, Conservation Area and the PDA 26 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

Figure 6 Ordnance Survey, 1 st edition 1879 Figure 7 Ordnance Survey, 1910

27 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

Figure 8 Ordnance Survey, 1938 Figure 9 Ordnance Survey, 1964-79 © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Licence number 100043831 28 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

Figure 10 Ordnance Survey, 1979-1991 © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Licence number 100043831

29 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

Photographs

30 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

Photograph 1 From within Newhaven Fort looking in direction of PDA

Photograph 2 From public entrance to Newhaven Fort looking in direction of PDA

31 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

Photograph 3 The Bridge Inn and NatWest Bank (listed buildings) looking in direction of PDA

Photograph 4 View from rear elevation of The Bridge Inn looking in direction of PDA 32 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

Photograph 5 View from Chapel Street (3 listed buildings) looking in direction of PDA

Photograph 6 Marine Workshops (right) and Carpenter’s Shop (left), listed buildings in Newhaven Port

33 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

Photograph 7 View towards PDA from boundary of Newhaven Port

Photograph 8 View towards PDA from Church Hill Conservation Area

34 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

Newhaven North Quay: Heritage Statement. March 2017

This page is blank to allow double-sided printing

35 andrew josephs associates Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Consultancy

consultancy | project management | expert witness

Specialists in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ~ T elephone 07990 571908 - Visit our website at www.andyjosephs.co.uk