Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5

A27 Road Improvement: Land East of Lewes

1 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 Document Control Information

Document Information

Document Identification HA 002

Document Name Desk-Based Preliminary Assessment

Project Name A27 Road Improvement: Land East of Lewes

Client South Downs National Park Authority Document Author Neil Adam Document Version 2

Document Status Second Draft Version

Date Released 11th October 2016

Document Edit History

Version Date Additions/Modifications Prepared/Revised by 1 28 September 2016 First Draft Neil Adam 2 11th October 2016 Second Draft Neil Adam

Document Peer Review History

Date Name Job Title Comments 7th October 2016 Anne Bone South Downs National Park Minor amendments Authority

2 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 2 PROJECT BACKGROUND 3 AIMS 4 METHODOLOGY 5 SOURCES 6 SITE DESCRIPTION 7 GEOLOGY 8 LEGISLATION AND POLICY BACKGROUND 9 CULTURAL HERITAGE BASELINE 10 SUMMARY OF CULTURAL HERITAGE POTENTIAL 11 IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT 12 MITIGATION 13 SETTING ISSUES 14 CONCLUSIONS 15 BIBLIOGRAPHY & REFERENCES

Figures & Appendices Figures 1a&b: Designated Heritage Assets within Study Area Figures 2a&b: Undesignated Heritage Assets within Study Area Figure 3: Archaeological Events within Study Area Figure 4: Environment Agency Lidar Plots within Study Area Figures 5a&b: Estate Maps located within the Study Area (1647 and 1794) Figures 6a-c: Parish Tithe Maps within Study Area (1843) Figure 7: 1st Edition Ordnance Survey Maps (1874) Figure 8: Alciston and Selmeston Conservation Areas Appendix 1: Heritage Assets located within Study Area Appendix 2: Historic Buildings located within Study Area Appendix 3: Archaeological Events located with Study Area Appendix 4: Archaeological Notification Areas within Study Area Appendix 5: List of Aerial Photographs Consulted Executive Summary Hampshire Services was commissioned by the South Downs National Park Authority to carry out a Desk-Based Preliminary Assessment (DBPA) of cultural heritage issues relating to the proposed new section of the A27 trunk road located between 5.5 and 9.5 km to the south east of Lewes, West Sussex. The entire proposed route crosses the South Downs National Park (SDNP). This assessment has studied the cultural heritage resource within a 500 metre wide study area that contains the likely route of the new road. This assessment has concluded that: The construction of the new road will have a material impact upon the SDNP. The potential impacts upon the settings of the SDNP, other Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas will require more detailed investigation, leading to mitigation measures. The precise level of impacts on Built Heritage along the route will need to be determined once the final route of the proposed development has been agreed, however, the new road may possibly impact upon the setting of and views from 57 Alciston Street, Alciston (1353261) New Barn Farmhouse (1043362) Tilton House (1043058)and a cottage at Tilton Farm (1353395) and Middle Farmhouse (1217627 and the remains of the Wayside Cross (1352993). The settings of

3 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 and views from all three of these houses may be impacted by the creation of a new road. Charleston House (1043946) is located on the south western edge of the Study Area, is now an important cultural heritage destination within the SDNP and so any potential impact of the development upon this structure is not just on the setting of and views from a Listed Building, but also upon the setting of this arts and heritage visitor destination. The route crosses a number of hedgerows that can be defined as ‘important’ under the hedgerows Regulations of 1997 as in Part II: Criteria: archaeology and history: Section 1. The construction of the new road and its associated interchanges will create gaps in hedgerows surviving from the 1840s and will therefore have a material impact upon them This report has concluded that the proposed development is likely to have a significant and extensive impact upon any as yet unrecorded archaeological features and/or deposits located within the proposed route of the new road. The rich potential of the Study Area indicates that this archaeology would be likely to date from anytime between the prehistoric and later medieval periods. The development will also be likely to impact upon previously recorded heritage assets such as the probable routes of the Newhaven to Selmeston and Arlington to Ouse Valley Roman Roads. It may also impact upon the peripheries of the Romano-British settlement sites adjacent to Firle Park / Wick Street and at Hare Field. The study of Environment Agency lidar data established the possible presence of as yet unrecorded and undated earthworks within woodland at Molehill Shaw and land immediately to the north of that wood. It is likely that road construction will cross these earthworks It is recommended that a programme of archaeological fieldwork be carried out in order to contextualise the prehistoric, Roman, early and late medieval archaeological remains that are known to exist in the Study Area and which are likely to be disturbed by road construction. Fieldwork should establish whether further Mesolithic activity sites (in addition to those previously identified around Selmeston) exist along the route of the new road. It should also aim to date the origins of the field systems that cross the Study Area and uncover further evidence in order to plot the routes of the Arlington to Ouse Valley and Newhaven to Selmeston Roman roads and also to see if these roads follow earlier prehistoric routes. Fieldwork should aim to establish the presence of any further Romano-British settlement along the proposed new road and also aim to establish whether early medieval settlement is present to the south west of Selmeston and to the north of Alciston, in addition to the Anglo-Saxon settlement and cemeteries already recorded to the north east of the Study Area. A programme of archaeological fieldwork consisting of field walking, geoarchaeological survey, geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation should be carried out to fully assess the potential of as yet unrecorded archaeology along the route. This programme should then be followed by an assessment statement that should set out the terms of further investigation and excavation, leading to the academic publication and public dissemination of all results. Any archaeological work carried out within the SDNP should include public engagement as part of any mitigation strategy with any records deposited in a publically accessible archive.

4 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 1 Introduction 1.1 Hampshire Services was commissioned by the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) to carry out a high level Desk-Based Preliminary Assessment (DBPA) of cultural heritage issues relating to a proposed new section of the A27 trunk road located between 5.5 and 9.5 km to the south east of Lewes, West Sussex (Figures 1-8). The entirety of the proposed route crosses the South Downs National Park (SDNP). 2 Project Background 2.1 Highways England have funding and government approval to develop a road scheme with multiple objectives including to improve traffic flow, and allow capacity for economic growth on the A27 east of Lewes, as part of a bigger scheme of trunk road improvements. The scheme is now at DMRB Stage 1 and will be going to public consultation around November 2016. 2.2 South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) wishes to undertake an evidence-based assessment of the potential impact of the road improvements on the A27 east of Lewes that should also consider the potential for mitigation. This document is intended to fulfil that wish. As no formal plans of the route had been made available to SDNPA at the time of commissioning this report, a Provisional Route Corridor, based on a line provided to Hampshire Services by the SDNPA in an email dated 22nd August 2016, was used as the basis for this assessment. 2.3 SDNPA later supplied Hampshire Services with a set of preliminary route maps for the new road on 16th September 2016 following data capture, analysis and text preparation based on the original Provisional Route Corridor. This Preliminary Road Route (PRR) differs somewhat from the Provisional Route Corridor and has led to alterations in the main text, with the removal of some previously highlighted assets that are crossed by the Preliminary Route Corridor and with emphasis added to other assets located close to the PRR. Both the Provisional Route Corridor and the PRR are shown on all figures supplied with this report, however all heritage assets will be discussed here in relation to the PRR and not the Provisional Route Corridor. 3 Aims 3.1 This DBPA will consider all cultural heritage issues within the section of the proposed road improvements that are located within the National Park boundary. The impact of other sections of the A27 improvements on the cultural heritage resource of East Sussex, as well as any visual and tranquillity impacts, will not be considered here. 3.2 This DBPA will include both designated and undesignated heritage assets, where this distinction applies, for the following categories of heritage assets: • Archaeological sites, find spots and events • Listed buildings • Registered parks and gardens (national and county lists, listed below) • Conservation Areas 3.3 The DBPA will consider the potential for environmental archaeology and geo-archaeology and will also consider what is known along with the predictable discoveries together with the historic landscape character. 3.4 The DBPA will also consider what research aims should form the basis for any future archaeological survey work along the proposed road corridor. 4 Methodology 4.1 A buffer 500 metres in width was established around the centre line of the Provisional Route Corridor (as shown in all Figures) in order to place the proposed development within its archaeological, historical and historic landscape context. This buffer is hereafter referred to the ‘Study Area’ which forms the data framework for this assessment. The PRR that was supplied to Hampshire Services by SDNPA in mid-September is also shown on all Figures, although it was decided by SDNPA not to alter the size and shape of the Study Area in order to reflect the orientation of the PRR at this late stage.

5 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 5 Sources • The East Sussex Historic Environment Record (ESHER) is the definitive database for archaeological, historic building, Conservation Area and Historic Landscape Character data in the area. This was consulted for the preparation of the DBPA. • Aerial Photographs were consulted at the National Aerial Photographic Library at the National Monuments Record (NMR) in Swindon. • Relevant historic maps were consulted at East Sussex County Record Office at The Keep, Falmer, East Sussex • LiDAR data of the Study Area, provided by the Environment Agency, was also consulted along with Sussex County Gardens Trust (SCGT) list of locally important designed landscapes (via their website). 5.1 No walkover survey or ground-truthing of the route was undertaken at this time at the behest of SDNPA. 6 Site Description 6.1 The Study Area encloses a mostly agricultural landscape covered by post-medieval field systems with scattered villages, isolated farms and areas of both modern and ancient woodland. Generally the area slopes from south east to north west with the chalk hills of the South Downs located immediately to the south west. The south eastern end of the Study Area is located at c. 50 metres OD, dropping gradually to c. 15 metres at the north western end. The Study Area is located on the watershed between two rivers. The Cuckmere is c. 1.5km to the south east, with the Glynde Reach, a tributary of the River Ouse, located c. 650 metres to the north west. 7 Geology 7.1 The majority of the Study Area located upon a deposit of Gault Formation Mudstone dating from the Cretaceous Period (112 – 100 Million years BP) which predates the chalk formations of the South Downs which are located to the south west. This mudstone is overlain at each end of the PRR and close to its centre point by bands of superficial ‘Head’ deposits; a mix of clay, silt, sand and gravel. These deposits were formed between 3 million and 50,000 years BP in the Quaternary Period. These deposits were formed from the material accumulated by down slope movements from the South Downs including landslide, debris flow, solifluction, soil creep and hill wash (BGS website). A small band of alluvium, dating between 50,000 and 5,000 years BP crosses the Study Area between Pookhill Barn and Middle Farm. 8 Legislation and Policy Background Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (amended by the National Heritage Act 1983 and 2002) 8.1 Archaeological sites that have been designated as being of national importance are contained within a schedule maintained for that purpose and are referred to as Scheduled Monuments. They are protected by the 1979 Act. Works impacting these monuments will require scheduled monument consent independently of any planning permission. The settings of these monuments are also protected and are a material consideration within the planning process. Whilst the national planning policy framework seeks for development to not only respect and conserve but also enhance and be informed by these heritage assets it also recognises that in some circumstances an adverse impact might be accepted but only in ‘wholly exceptional circumstance’. NPPF accords the same level of protection to national important archaeological sites which have not been designated as scheduled monuments within the planning system, although these sites are not protected by the 1979 Act. National Planning Policy Framework 8.2 The proposed development will be the subject of a Development Consent Order (DCO), a process that will lead to a Planning Inspectorate hearing that will in turn advise the Secretary of State on the various Route Options. The Secretary of State will then decide on which Route Option is to be adopted, based on all available evidence.

6 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 8.3 Despite the DCO process, the policy framework within which local planning authorities should consider planning applications is still the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) issued in 2012. The importance of conserving, and enhancing the historic environment is clearly a material consideration. NPPF paragraph 52 defines the historic environment as: • All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora. • ‘Submitted planning applications should include sufficient information to enable the local planning authority to assess the significance of any heritage assets that may be affected by a proposal, the impact of the proposal and the most appropriate provision whether within the plan or through actions secured by condition. 8.4 NPPF paragraph 128 states that; • 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. 8.5 NPPF paragraph 129 states; • 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. 8.6 NPPF paragraph 51 defines a designated heritage asset as any; World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated under the relevant legislation. 8.7 NPPF paragraph 52 defines a heritage asset as; 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 (including local listing). 8.8 NPPF paragraph 50 defines ‘Archaeological interest’; There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them. 8.9 NPPF sets out guidance on assessing the significance and the impact of the proposal. Paragraph 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

7 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5

• the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and Distinctiveness. 8.10 Paragraph 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. 8.11 Paragraph 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, 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. 8.12 Paragraph 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. 8.13 Paragraph 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. 8.14 Paragraph 139 recognizes that new archaeological discoveries may reveal hitherto unsuspected and hence non designated heritage assets. 8.15 Paragraph 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. 8.16 Within paragraph 141 NPPF requires local planning authorities to ensure that where there is any loss of heritage assets the opportunity/requirement is to advance understanding of the historic environment, but it is also stressed that advancing understanding is not by itself sufficient reason to permit the loss of an heritage asset: • 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.

8 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted. South Downs National Park Authority Planning Policy 8.17 The South Downs National Park is covered by the saved policies of 11 inherited Local Plans and 1 adopted Core Strategy (Lewes District). Since the designation of the National Park, the SDNPA has been working jointly to adopt Joint Core Strategies with some of the authorities. 8.18 The SDNPA is preparing its Local Plan, which will replace all existing planning policies across the National Park. Until this is adopted The Core Strategy of Lewes District Council will continue as the central planning policy document for this area It sets out the long term spatial vision for the district and will guide development and change up to 2030. 8.19 The Core Strategy was adopted by Lewes District Council on 11 May 2016 and by the South Downs National Park Authority on 23 June 2016. It now forms part of the development plan for the district). Core Policy 11 that deals with cultural heritage and historic environment issues is reproduced below. 8.20 Core Policy 11 – Built and Historic Environment and High Quality Design The local planning authority will seek to secure high quality design in all new development in order to assist in creating sustainable places and communities. This will be achieved by ensuring that the design of development (among other things): i. Respects and, where appropriate, positively contributes to the character and distinctiveness of the district’s unique built and natural heritage; ii. Within the South Downs National Park is in accordance with theNational Park purposes and outside the SDNP has regard to thesetting of the National Park and its purposes; The local planning authority will safeguard historic assets, including scheduled ancient monuments, listed buildings (both statutory and locally listed), registered parks and gardens, the Lewes Battlefield (1264), and archaeological remains. Proposals which conserve or enhance the historic environment, including the sensitive use of historic assets through regeneration, will be encouraged and supported. The local planning authority will seek opportunities to enhance the character and appearance of designated Conservation Areas, in accordance with the Conservation Area character appraisals. South Downs National Park Partnership Management Plan 8.21 This Partnership Management Plan (PMP) is the first overarching five-year strategy for the management of the South Downs National Park. 8.22 There are six important sectors that have been prioritised to strengthen partnership working, improve sustainability and expand delivery that enhances the special qualities. These are: Farming, Forestry, Water, Transport, Visitors & Tourism, and Education & Learning. Each has its own section with context information and policies. Policies 9 and 10 cover cultural heritage issues of relevance to this assessment. • Policy 9: The significance7 of the historic environment is protected from harm, new discoveries are sought and opportunities to reveal its significance are exploited. • Policy 10: Improve the management of heritage assets, particularly focusing on those that are ‘at risk’, including from crimes against heritage.

9 Cultural Heritage Baseline Designated Sites (Figure 1a&b) 9.1 No Scheduled Monuments or Designated Battlefield sites have been recorded within the preliminary road route or the Study Area. 9.2 A total of 21 Listed Buildings (all Grade II) were identified within the Study Area (1043334, 1043335, 1043359, 1043360, 1043362-5, 1043058, 1043095, 1191088, 1191093, 1191111, 1217627, 1243679, 1352993, 1353257, 1353258, 1353261, 1353395 and 1391888). None of these buildings is located within the footprint of the PRR and it is

9 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 considered unlikely that any will be materially impacted by the proposed development. The possible impact of the development upon the settings of and views from these buildings will be summarised in Section 13. 9.3 One Registered Park and Garden (RPG) is located within the Study Area (Figure 1a). This is Firle Place, a Grade II RPG (1000235). This is a landscape park dating from the late 18th and 19th century, with significant surviving earlier features and with a late 19th century formal terrace. The RPG does not encroach into footprint of the PRR. The impact of the development upon its setting and the views from it will be summarised in Section 13. Previous Archaeological work (Figure 3) 9.4 A total of five archaeological projects have been conducted within the Study area. An archaeological evaluation (MES14988) was carried out on land adjacent to The Rose Cottage Inn, Alciston, c. 250 metres to the south west of the PRR, in 2011. These excavations revealed footings of a post-medieval building, possibly dating to the 17th, located towards the rear of the street frontage. A magnetometer survey (MES17638) was carried out in June 2016 on land east of The Street, Selmeston, c.310 metres to the north east of the PRR. The central part of the survey area was identified as being of potential archaeological interest 9.5 Archaeological monitoring has also been conducted at three sites within the Study Area. Monitoring at Garden Cottage, Alciston (MES14576) c. 350 metres to the south west of the PRR was carried out in 2008. A few finds were recovered comprising a single sherd of mid-late Saxon pottery, an undated lead weight, a post medieval livery button and a medieval copper alloy ring brooch. Monitoring was conducted in 2012 at 2 Stamford Buildings, Wick Street, Firle (MES15055), 130 metres to the north west of the PRR while further work at Rose Cottage Alciston (MES14132) recorded no archaeological finds, features or deposits. Conservation Areas (Figure 8) 9.6 Two Conservation Areas (Selmeston Conservation Area and the Alciston Conservation Area), both located within the SDNP, are partially located within the south eastern end of the Study Area. Neither of these Conservation Areas are crossed by the PRR and will therefore not be materially impacted by any development. The impact of any development upon the settings and views from the Conservation Areas will be summarised in Section 13. Undesignated Heritage Assets by Period (Figure 2a&b) Palaeolithic Period (c.500,000 BP – 8,000 BC) 9.7 The Palaeolithic encompasses a vast period of time in which the Study Area has been subject to dramatic climate changes as well as development in the morphology of the landscape. Studies of the Palaeolithic in southern England have focused in the past on the raised beach deposits in West Sussex where internationally important evidence of activity have been preserved in the sand deposits of earlier coastlines. Recent work along the Bexhill to Hastings Link road between 2014 and 2015 c. 25 km to the east of the Study Area has recorded significant numbers of Palaeolithic artefacts from within peat and alluvial deposits left behind as sea levels rose and the valleys flooded. An Acheulian handaxe of ficron type with a long tapering point and large, partially worked, butt was recovered from the Selmeston area in early 2009 and reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme (SUSS- AF6EC6). As a grid reference was not given for this find it is unclear as to whether it was recorded within the Study Area, but it does show that stray finds from the period to exist in the immediate area. Mesolithic Period (8,00BC – 4,000 BC) 9.8 The Mesolithic period sees the gradual re settlement of Britain following the end of the last Ice age c. 10,000 BC. This was characterised by a hunter-gatherer society with no permanent settlements, although rare examples of temporary encampments have been recorded. The main evidence for Mesolithic activity consists of scatters of flints where tool production has been in progress over a relatively short period of time. These sites tend to be found along the edges of the rivers, mostly on the first terrace above the floodplain, although upland sites have also been recorded. Recent work along the Bexhill to Hastings

10 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 Link road between 2014 and 2015 c. 25 km to the east of the Study Area has recorded significant numbers of Mesolithic artefacts from within peat and alluvial deposits. The village of Selmeston, on the north eastern edge of the Study Area has developed on a spring line where water emerges at the base of the South Downs chalk scarp located to the south west and out onto the Gault clay band on which the village is partially located. These springs are likely to have attracted temporary settlement by hunter-gatherer groups and there is considered to be good potential for as yet unrecorded Mesolithic sites across the Study Area where such springs proliferate (Johnson, pers comm). The Study Area is also crossed by bands of alluvium which may contain or seal further Mesolithic sites similar to those recorded at Bexhill. 9.9 Three sites containing Mesolithic material have been recorded within the Study Area. Five flint arrowheads, known as the ‘Selmeston Arrowheads’ (MES4814) were found in the area in the early 1930s c.140 metres to the south west of the PRR. Although these were unstratified finds they appear to have been recorded in association with Mesolithic finds recorded within an extraction pit (Clark, 1933, Green, 1980). A side scraper was recovered at Pookhill Barn, c. 200 metres to the north east of the PRR, among finds from other periods (MES16135), while fragments of possible Mesolithic flint were recorded during fieldwalking at Swingate Field (MES15522) c. 80 metres to the north east of the route. Neolithic Period (4,000BC – 2,200 BC) 9.10 The Neolithic period sees the introduction of agriculture to Britain, although this appears to have been a gradual process. The first permanent settlements established while the archaeological record suggests a continuation of hunter gathering in some places alongside the new farms. Palaeoenvironmental evidence, such as that recovered from the nearby causewayed enclosures at Coombe Hill, located c. 6km to the south east of the Study Area (Drewett 1994) and at Offham Hill (Drewett, 1977) c. 9km to the north west, suggests that forest clearance began on a significant scale at this time as land was cleared for agricultural use as well as for permanent settlement and field monuments. 9.11 There is little recorded at this time for evidence of Neolithic activity within the Study Area itself, with a thumbnail scraper included among the material recorded at Pookhill Barn (MES16135) and fragments of flintwork recorded at Swingate Field (MES15522) (see paragraph 9.13 for locations). Bronze Age (2,200 BC – 700 BC) 9.12 This period sees the expansion of agriculture across southern Britain and the establishment of many more permanent settlements with accompanying roadways and field systems. The archaeology section at East Sussex County Council has also expressed the opinion that some of the current field systems located within the Study Area may have elements that date back this period (Johnson pers comm). Evidence recorded within the Study Area suggests that there are traces of a Bronze Age landscape here, with the remains of a trackway recorded below sections of the Selmeston to Dicker Roman road (MES4816). The projected route of this road crosses the PRR immediately to the south west of Selmeston village. Traces of possible Bronze Age pottery were recorded at the later Iron Age and Roman settlement site adjacent to Firle Park and Wick Street (MES7165) at the far north western end of the Study Area, indicating that this settlement may have its origins in this period. Stray finds of pottery have also been recorded at Common Lane (MES22033) 240 metres to the north east of the PRR, while concentrations of burnt flint have been recorded during fieldwalking at Mill Hill (MES22036/7) located between 15 and 100 metres to the south west of the PRR respectively. Iron Age (700BC – AD 43) 9.13 The Iron Age saw an expansion of agricultural field systems and the enlargement of settlements across East Sussex, along with the appearance of defended central places such as the Hillforts at The Cadburn and Belle Tout which are located 3.7km to the north west and 10.5km to the south east of the Study Area respectively.

11 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 9.14 A collection of pottery sherds was recovered during fieldwalking at the far north west end of the Study Area during the straightening of the A27 to the south of Newhouse Farm in 1971 (MES7165). These were examined in 2004 and found to comprise 54 sherds of flint tempered Middle Iron Age (400 -100BC) ware, including three bases, four rims and two decorated body sherds. No finds were recovered to the north of the road, suggesting that these finds represent an Iron Age settlement, the remainder of which lies in the field to the south of the road. Later fieldwalking to the south of the new road identified a very large concentration of burnt flint and Iron Age pottery suggesting a large portion of the site had survived its construction. An Iron Age Atrebates unit and some brooches were recovered by a later metal detector survey of the field. Roman Period (AD 43 - AD 410) 9.15 Following the invasion of AD43, southern England appears to have become rapidly assimilated into Roman culture. Villa sites have been identified in the immediate area at Barcombe (8.7km to the north west of the Study Area) and Beddingham (2.2km to the south west) while what appears to be a small Roman town has recently been recorded at Offham by a series of archaeological excavations. The area is also thought to be criss-crossed with a network of roads at this time, although the precise location of many of these routes have yet to be clearly established (Johnson, pers comm). 9.16 Evidence for Roman settlement was recorded in the field between Firle Park and Wick Street in the late 1960s and early 1970s (MES7165) at the far north west end of the Study Area. A few sherds of Romano-British pottery were recovered during road widening c.1968 while the finds from 1971comprised 20 East Sussex Ware 1 Thundersbarrow rim, 1 grey ware body sherd and 1 imitation Samian sherd. Fieldwalking to the north of the road identified further Roman pottery, including New Forest Ware, suggesting a large portion of the site survived the construction of the A27 Newhouse Farm by-pass in the early 1970s (which included no archaeological surveys). Early Roman coins and brooches were later recovered by a metal detector survey. The field also contains a visible linear earthwork which may be the Roman road that continues along Heighton Street (DES10070). A smaller quantity of Roman pottery was recovered from the field south of the A27. 9.17 Traces of a second Roman settlement have been identified from artefacts recovered at Hare Field, c. 345 metres to the north east of the PRR. This site has been highlighted by East Sussex County Council Archaeology Service as an Archaeological Notification Area (DES9291, Figure 2a). Cropmarks that are indicative of pre-medieval settlement were also identified at this site on a number of aerial photographs examined during the visit to the National Aerial Photographic Library at the NMR, Swindon (paragraph 9.46). 9.18 One possible route of the former Roman road, RR 142 (Margary) that runs from Aderita Roman fort (Pevensey Castle) to the Ouse Valley, crosses the Study Area from south east to north west, following the route of the current A27. As the actual line followed by this road is still far from certain the Archaeology section of East Sussex County Council have created a broad band of archaeological potential, within which remains of the actual road might survive (DES10070). Sections excavated across the road between 2003-5 at a site due south of Arlington, c. 2.5 km to the north east of the Study Area, found the road to be on a different alignment to that suggested by Margary. These excavations recorded a substantial 10 metre wide road along with evidence of roadside settlement. A continuation of this road alignment would suggest it is probably continuing further west in the direction of Barcombe. The road was also recorded on the west bank of the Cuckmere River during construction of the Arlington Reservoir, 1.9km to the north east of the Study Area. Here a low 'agger' (road camber) was exposed in a field boundary to the west of the reservoir. The road was also identified in two Gas Board test pits on grass area opposite 92 High Street, Westham c. 12 km to the east of the Study Area at a depth of c. 1 metre which exposed a surface of large flint cobbles. The route of the road is followed by a tree lined track, at Honey Farm, Polegate, c. 6.3km to the south east of the Study Area and beyond by modern field boundaries. 9.19 All of these excavations have led to the conclusion that the layout of Roman roads across East Sussex is far more complex than the impression given by the work of Margary in the

12 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 mid-20th century and that a great deal of fieldwork is required in order to clarify this network (Johnson pers com). It appears from the small amount of fieldwork carried out so far that the actual Roman road network across the region was made up of a great number of minor routes, mostly following local topography, unlike the rule-straight systems that have been suggested in the past (ibid.). 9.20 The projected line of the Newhaven to Selmeston to Dicker Roman road (MES4816) (Figure 2b) crosses the south eastern third of the Study Area on a north east – south west alignment between Tilton Wood and Selmeston. It crosses the possible line of the Arlington to Ouse Valley road DES10070 on the southern edge of Selmeston village. This road (RR141 Margary) appears to connect with a double lynchet track system that is visible on the South Downs to the south west of the Study Area. No sections have been recorded across this road to date and it is far from certain that it follows the route that Margary suggested. 9.21 A scatter of East Sussex Ware pottery (MES22038) was recorded at Mill Hill c. 95 metres to the south west of the PRR during fieldwalking in 2013. This pottery was heavily abraded and was thought by the finder to be the result of field manuring, rather than an indication of a possible settlement. Early Medieval Period (AD 410 – AD 1066) 9.22 The immediate post-Roman period in southern England is poorly understood in general. The histories of Gildas and Bede, both written centuries later and of questionable authority, describe various stories of invasion and conquest from the later 5th century onwards, however, it appears clear from the archaeological record that following the withdrawal of Roman authority from Britain in AD 410 the coast of East Sussex began to be settled by groups from north west Europe, including the Saxones, Jutes from Denmark and Angles from Angleynn, (now the region of Shleswig Holstein in Germany). Those settling in Sussex were known as the South Saxons or the suthsaexe, from which the county derives its name (Welch, 1983). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, commissioned in the 9th century, states that Aelle, the first King of the South Saxons, probably landed in East Sussex in AD 477.A battle in AD 485 occurred near the bank of a river known as the Mercredesburna (possibly the Cuckmere or the Ouse close to the Study Area). Sussex functioned as an independent kingdom up to the 9th century. However, following the Battle of Ellandun in 825 the South Saxons submitted to King Egbert of Wessex, although it is probable that Sussex was not fully annexed by Wessex until 827. Ethelbald of Wessex was crowned King of Sussex and the other south-eastern kingdoms in 858 (Edwards, 2004). 9.23 From the archaeological record it appears Selmeston has Anglo-Saxon origins. Excavations to the rear of Manor Farm Cottages, c. 400 metres to the north east of the Study Area, uncovered one of the largest Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in the south of England, containing at least 200 graves and believed to date from the fifth century and up to the seventh century AD (Welch, 1971 and 1983). A further Saxon cemetery has been identified at Beddingham c. 3km to the west of the Study Area. The village of Alciston at the south east end of the Study Area is also believed to have Anglo-Saxon origins (MES25650). 9.24 Early medieval finds from within the Study Area amount to three individual find spots, suggesting that early medieval activity extended to the south west of Selmeston. A Biconical bowl (MES4812) with short everted rim and decorated with three plain raised collars and made of smooth black ware was found in between Selmeston and Lower Tilton Farm, c.145 metres to the south west of the PRR. This was found close to a sharp-shoulder bowl (MES 4813) with an upright rim and a rounded base, made of a brown/black ware and once burnished. A Late Saxon pottery sherd (MES19233) was also found during the watching brief (EES14576) at Garden Cottage, Alciston, in 2008, c. 350 metres to the south west of the PRR. Later medieval Period (1066 – 1550) 9.25 Following The Battle of Hastings in 1066 Sussex was divided into five new baronies, called rapes, by King William I, each with at least one town and a castle within it. This enabled the King to control manorial revenues and thus the greater part of the county's wealth. William

13 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 gave these rapes to five of his subordinates with Robert, Count of Mortain receiving the Rape of Pevensey (Armstrong, 1995). The three parishes within this Rape that cover the Study Area are Selmeston, Alciston and West Firle. In the Domesday Survey of 1086, Selmeston was recorded as being in the Hundred of Wandelmestrei and had two entries. There were 7.5 households including 5 villagers, 3 smallholders, 5 slaves and 1 priest, as well as 7 ploughlands, 4 lord’s plough teams and 4 men’s plough teams. There was also a church, the only one to be recorded in the Rape of Pevensey (The Keep website, undated). Shortly after the conquest William granted the manor of Alciston to Battle Abbey. The settlement is listed in Domesday as ‘Aelfsige's tun' which ‘holds 50 hides and 4 pigs woodland’. During the reign of Edward the Confessor (1042–66) the parish of Firle was part of the Abbey of Wilton's estate. Firle is also mentioned in the Domesday survey (referred to as Ferla). The manor passed through several owners until coming to William Gage in the 1470s and successive Viscount Gages have owned the manor since then. 9.26 A total of nine heritage assets have been recorded within the Study Area that date from this period (MES1421, 2661, 2663, 2665, 21826, 21827, 22530, 25650 and 22972). 9.27 A total of four deserted and shrunken medieval settlements have been recorded across the Study Area. A deserted medieval settlement (DMS) has been identified at Tilton Farm c.450 metres to the south west of the PRR (MES2665). The Domesday survey lists two estates here, each with two villeins. Both Battle Abbey and Bayham Abbey held land on these estates in the medieval period and the hamlet had its own common fields. Six tenants are recorded in these common fields. However, the common ground appears not to have been farmed by 1433, perhaps due to the decline in the population following the great plague of the previous century. 9.28 The farmstead at Tilton (MES21826), 330 metres to the south west of the PRR, is recorded in Domesday as ‘Telentone’ with a William of Keynes recorded as holding the land on behalf of Robert, Count of Mortain. Charleston Farm (MES21827) c. 650 metres to the south west of the PRR is a partially surviving medieval farmstead with some structural elements dating from this era. It was recorded by the Domesday Survey as ‘Carol-lac farm’. 9.29 A medieval hamlet named ‘Condone’ by the Domesday Survey (MES22530) is also believed to be located within the Study Area. The exact location of this hamlet is not known, but is likely to be within Compton Wood, which is located c. 410 metres to the south west of the PRR. A study of LiDAR data provided by the Environment Agency covering Compton Wood (Figure 4), appears to show the remains of a road system and possible cottage plots in the far south west corner of the wood, on the very edge of the Study Area. 9.30 Archaeological evidence also points to the settlement of Alciston at the south eastern end of the PRR being a shrunken medieval village (MES2661) (Sussex Arch. Soc., 1962, 1968 and 1973). Recovered evidence and data recorded by a surviving parish survey of 1433 suggests that the village was not nucleated around the parish church and the manor house, but was strung out in a series of small farms along Alciston Street. 9.31 The remains of a wayside cross (MES1421) survive within the garden of the tollgate at Stamford Cross, c. 80 metres to the north west of the PRR. The pedestal and a 350mm high fragment of the supporting shaft of a cross (now lost) was moved from its original location at some point in the 1960s at which point it was placed upon its current stone base. This is also a Grade II Listed Structure (1352993). 9.32 A scatter of Ringmere Ware pottery sherds has been recorded in the northern corner of a field at Heighton Street (MES22972) c.340 metres to the west of the PRR. Post-medieval Period (1550 – 1900) 9.33 The post-medieval period sees extensive political and social changes in England, beginning with the reformation of the mid-16th century, followed by the Civil War of the 17th Century and ending with the extensive enclosure of common land, the de population of the countryside and the onset of the industrial revolution at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century. At the beginning of the 19th century the deteriorating conditions of work

14 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 for agricultural labourers eventually triggered riots in Sussex, with the unrest continuing until 1832. These became known as the Swing Riots (ibid). 9.34 Map Regression (Figures 5a&b) 9.35 The earliest map located within the Study Area is of Alciston Manor prepared in 1647 (Figure 5a SAS/G45/24). This map covers the south eastern third of the Study Area and shows the area to be covered by medium sized privately enclosed fields. The field system immediately to the south east of Alciston appears almost identical to that currently in existence, while that to the north west is very different, with a number of sub-rectangular plots shown. One of these fields is called ‘Mill Field’ and contains the probable post-medieval windmill mound recorded on the ESHER (MES2663). The field immediately to the north west of Mill Field is called ‘Pound Field’, an area now partially occupied by Tilton Wood. The EA Lidar plot of the wood however, shows no evidence of earthworks associated with any animal pound. 9.36 A sketch plan of the fields around Pookhill Barn and Swingate Cottages that was drawn up in 1758 (SAS/G16/72, not illustrated) shows a field system very similar to that existing today, although the land-use within the plots is not made clear it is assumed to be the same mixture of pasture and open strip fields as was shown on later maps prepared in the early 19th century (see below). 9.37 ‘Plans of Certain Lands in Selmeston’, published in 1811 (AMS3427/34330, not illustrated) shows a mixture of land use to the north east of the Study Area with both pasture and open strip fields still in use at this time. Further strip fields are shown to the south of Common lane, immediately to the north east of Roseland Shaw. These two fields are crossed by the PRR. Although EA lidar plots show no surviving earthworks from these strips, the system may survive as sub surface negative lynchets. 9.38 Alciston Manor’s estate map of 1794 (Figure 5b, ACC6077/12/43) shows that by the late 18th century, most of the central part of the Study Area was occupied by privately enclosed fields with a roughly equal division between pasture and arable. Compton Wood is still shown at the north western end of the estate, although Tilton Wood is still not in evidence. The settlements of both Charleston and Tilton are depicted in their modern reduced size, with no signs of the small villages they once were in the medieval period. While the field systems follows the same orientation as the current landscape, it can be seen that the fields in 1794 are noticeably smaller than those depicted in later decades, as field boundaries are removed and the scale of farming is expanded in the 19th century. 9.39 The Parish Tithe Maps for Alciston, Selmeston and West Firle are shown in geo-rectified form in Figure 6a-c. These maps show that the field systems covering the Study Area in the mid-19th century were very similar to those that exist today with some very minor variations at the far north west end to the north of Stamford Buildings. While Compton Wood is shown at this time, Tilton Wood is yet to be planted and is depicted as pasture fields. 9.40 The First Edition Ordnance Survey OS maps within the Study Area were published in 1874 (Figure 7). These show the same field layout as that depicted in the Tithe Maps of the 1840s, although the OS series is the first to show Tilton Wood which appears to have been planted at some point between the early 1840s and the mid- 1870s. The Second Edition maps of 1899 (not illustrated) show no significant changes to those of 1874. 9.41 Three sites of post-medieval below-ground archaeology have been identified within the Study Area. A low mound (MES2663) has been recorded at Mill Hill c.145 metres to the south west of the PRR. The mound is c. 10 metres in diameter and ploughing across it has exposed flint nodules and post-medieval tile on its northern side. The mound is widely believed to be the base for a windmill as the site is listed as ‘Mill Hill’ on Alciston Estate map of 1647 (Figure 5a) and the parish Tithe Map of 1843 (Figure 6c), together with the evidence of the pottery finds. 9.42 A brick and tile kiln at Bopeep Lane, Alciston (MES29076), 370 metres to the south west of the PRR, was built in 1418 and recorded as still in use in 1627, but had gone out of production by 1666. The plot in which it was located was marked as ‘tile house field’ on a

15 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 map of 1794 (Figure 5b). Originally part of the Battle Abbey estate, by 1599 it was also producing bricks (Wooldridge, 1965). 9.43 The foundations of a post-medieval building (MES25648) were identified during an archaeological evaluation at Rose Cottage in Alciston 250 metres to the south west of the PRR. 9.44 The remaining 22 post-medieval heritage assets within the Study Area are standing buildings of local interest that date between the late 17th and the late 19th centuries (MES2627, 2658, 16136, 16698, 19211-8, 19224, 19225, 19596, 32259, 32260, 32299, 32300, 32351, 32352 and 32400). It is considered highly unlikely that any of these buildings would be physically impacted by the construction of the new road. As none of these structures are nationally designated any impacts upon their settings or the views from them would not be covered by national planning policies, but would be covered by the Lewes District Council Joint Core Strategy Policy 11 (section ix). The impact of the proposal upon the settings of buildings of local historic interest will not be considered by this Stage 1 DBPA, as a Site Walkover survey has not been conducted which would have assessed such impacts. However, these issues will need to be addressed at the next stage of the environmental impact process. Modern Period (1900 – Present) 9.45 The Ordnance Survey map coverage of the Study Area, which was revised in 1909 and 1928, shows no significant changes from the First Edition that was published in 1874. 9.46 Sussex was effectively on the frontline in the early years of the Second World between 1940 and 1943. A Home Guard Auxiliary Unit, designed to function as a guerrilla force following invasion, was stationed close to Firle Village between 1940 and 1942, while a more conventional Home Guard unit was formed at Selmeston in 1940. 9.47 Two assets from the 20th century have been recorded within the Study Area. A War memorial (MES25776), dedicated to those from Selmeston and Alciston who died in the two World Wars, is located at the junction of The Street and Lewes road in Selmeston c. 130metres to the north east of the PRR. The crash site of a Mark 1 Supermarine Spitfire (MES20036), out of RAF Redhill in Surrey, is recorded at Stamford Buildings c. 145 metres to the north west of the PRR. The pilot’s body was recovered and is buried at Kingston- Upon-Thames in Surrey. 9.48 Charleston House, located c.650 metres to the south west of the PRR, was the home of the artists Vanessa Bell and Duncan Grant from 1916.Over the following 50 years Charleston became the country meeting place for the group of artists, writers and intellectuals known as Bloomsbury. Clive Bell and Maynard Keynes lived at Charleston for considerable periods, while Virginia and Leonard Woolf, E. M. Forster, Lytton Strachey and Roger Fry were also frequent visitors. Inspired by Italian fresco painting and the Post-Impressionists, the artists decorated the walls, doors and furniture at Charleston. The walled garden was redesigned in a style reminiscent of southern Europe, with mosaics, box hedges, gravel pathways and ponds (official Charleston website). Charleston House is now an important cultural heritage destination within the SDNP and so any potential impact of the development upon this structure is not just on the setting of and views from a Listed Building, but also upon the setting of this arts and heritage visitor destination. Environment Agency LiDAR Data (Figure 4) 9.49 The site was covered fully by Lidar at a resolution of 1m which was downloaded from the Environment Agency website (EA 2016) and added to a Geographical Information System programme, (GIS). Terrain analysis was carried out in GIS using the ‘hillshade’ function. Virtual shade plots files with a vertical light source angle of 15º from the earth’s surface were created at every 45º from 0º to 315º with vertical settings varying from z=1 to z=3. The results were compared with modern ordnance survey data to ensure that extant features were not represented wrongly as of potential archaeological significance. 9.50 A number of potential archaeological features were identified within the Study Area:

16 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5

• The possible remains of a ridge and furrow system were noted within a triangular field 170 metres to the south of the south east end of the PRR and c. 50 metres to the south east of Alciston. • Four large depressions, which may be the remains of medieval or post-medieval quarrying were noted 130 metres to the south west of the PRR and c. 160 metres to the south east of Tilton Wood. • Further evidence of past quarrying is crossed by the PRR c.250 metres to the west of Selmeston and 120 metres to the north of Mill Hill. • A series of linear features within Tilton Wood are considered to be fire breaks and drainage ditches associated with this modern plantation. • Linear earthworks aligned north east to south west within and to the north of, the woods at Molehill Shaw. These earthworks may be aligned with what appear to be further linear embankments enclosing a rectangular area to the north of the A27 and immediately to the south east of Pookhill Barn. These earthworks are likely to be crossed by the new road • Earthworks located within Compton Wood appear to show the remains of a settlement on the far south western edge of the wood (immediately to the south west of the Study Area), with the possible remains of associated field systems to the north east of the settlement c.235 metres to the south west of the PRR. These earthworks are likely to be the remains of the possible DMA noted by the ESHER (MES22580), although with the focus of the settlement c.200 metres to the south west of where the ESHER suggests. • Earthworks likely to be associated with the site of a post-medieval house at Pookhill Barn (MES16136) can be seen c. 160 metres to the north east of the PRR. • Further undulations were noted at Pookhill Barn c. 200 metres to the north east of the PRR, close to where a scatter of Neolithic and Bronze flint implements were recorded (MES16135). Aerial Photographs 9.51 Aerial photographs taken within the Study Area were examined at the National Monuments Record (NMR), Swindon on 2nd September 2016. The majority of the 99 prints consulted showed no archaeological features previously recorded by the ESHER. 9.52 Cropmarks were noted on two photographs (RAF/58/5972/121), taken in October 1963) and one (US/7GR/LOC/347/3009) in May 1944 at Hare Field, the location of a suspected Romano-British settlement site (DES9291). These cropmarks appeared to show small hut- like enclosures, together with largely sub-rectangular enclosures and linear features suggestive of possible lanes. Historic Landscape Data 9.53 The first quarter of the PRR between New Barn Farm and Tilton Wood crosses a mixture of post-medieval fields amalgamated from medieval strip fields in the 19th century, either by a piecemeal process or in one event, mixed with areas of fields amalgamated during the 20th century. The middle two thirds between Tilton Wood and Middle Farm cross post-medieval planned enclosure, while the north western end of the proposed scheme covers amalgamated fields made up from post-medieval assarts of former woodland. 10 Summary of Cultural Heritage Potential 10.1 The Study Area is located on Gault Mudstone at the foot of chalk downland; an area populated by springs which have encouraged human gathering and later settlement from the early to later prehistoric, Roman and medieval periods along the entirety of the PRR. Particularly sensitive areas are; • A broad band on either side of the possible Greensand Way, the possible route of the Arlington to Ouse Valley Roman road (MES4752 & DES10070)

17 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5

• The north west end of the scheme , close to the Romano-British settlement adjacent to Firle Park and Wick Street (MES7165) • Where the projected line of the Newhaven to Selmeston to Dicker Roman Road (MES4816) crosses the route to the south west of Selmeston • Land near to Swingate Cottages, close to the Romano-British settlement at Hare Field (DES9291) • Undated linear earthworks noted on EA lidar plots within woods at Molehill Shaw and land immediately to the north which may be aligned with further earthworks to the south east of Pookhill Barn. • Land between the PRR and the Deserted Medieval Settlements at Tilton Farm and Charleston Farm (MES21826-7) • Traces of possible early medieval activity to the north west of Mill Hill on the south west edge of the PRR (MES4812-3) • The village of Alciston at the south east end of the scheme which may contain evidence of Anglo-Saxon and later medieval settlement (MES2661) • The Post-medieval mound at Mill Hill (MES9422) • The Projected Route crosses some field boundaries that appear to be later medieval in origin, while the majority of field boundaries appear to be post-medieval in origin. 11 Impact of development Limitations of Data 11.1 At the time of writing no official route for the improved A27 has been established. The PRR provided by SDNP for this DBPA is based on two drawings prepared by Atkins on behalf of Highways England and supplied to Hampshire services by SDNPA (HE552988-ATK-HGN- A27EL-DR-D-0031& 0041). This PRR has been used in this report as the basis for the synthesis of data originally gathered from within the Study Area. It has also been used for a series of estimations as to how any development would be likely to impact upon as yet unrecorded archaeological features and/or deposits, built heritage, Registered Parks and Gardens and Conservation Areas. These estimations may vary considerably from the initial route proposals when they are finally presented for scrutiny. Construction Methodology 11.2 The two drawings supplied to Hampshire Services (HE552988-ATK-HGN-A27EL-DR-D- 0031& 0041) show that the development will involve the creation of new interchanges and new link roads along with the main carriageway. This will require substantial ground penetration with the creation of cuttings, embankments and bridges, together with the construction of drains and service trenches. Drawing 031 shows the new road to be set upon an embankment between Alciston Junction at the far south east end of the route and Bo Peep Lane. It is then set within a cutting from c. 400 metres to a point c. 23 metres to the south west of Selmeston before being carried on an embankment, up to the point where it joins the existing A27 carriageway. The rest of the route follows the line of the existing road, with alternating sections of cutting and embankment, allowing for the undulating topography of the area. 11.3 It is assumed that ground disturbance along the carriageway will be at around 1-2 metres, with disturbance within junctions up to c.5 metres below current ground level and cuttings for the main carriageways c. 5 metres in depth and with drains and services also up to 5 metres in depth. All of these depths would be enough to impact upon any as yet unrecorded archaeological features and/or deposits that may exist along the route. Impact on the SDNP 11.4 The construction of the proposed A27 Improvement would have a material impact upon the SDNP and would be likely to have an impact upon its setting.

18 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 Impact on Scheduled Monuments 11.5 The construction of the proposed A27 Improvement would not impact upon any Scheduled Monuments or Registered Battlefields. Impact on Built Heritage 11.6 The precise level of impacts on Built Heritage along the PRR will need to be determined once the final route of the proposed development has been agreed. This section simply highlights potential for impact at this conceptual stage. 11.7 The new road may possibly impact upon the setting of and views from; • 57 Alciston Street, Alciston (1353261), c.80 metres to the south west of the PRR and New Barn Farmhouse (1043362), located c.80 metres to the north east. • Tilton House (1043058) and a cottage at Tilton Farm (1353395), located on high ground overlooking the PRR between 600 and 650 metres to the south west. Charleston House (1043946), a Grade II Listed Building, is located just outside the Study Area, but in a similar location to the other two buildings. The settings of and views from all three of these houses may be impacted by the creation of a new road. • Middle Farmhouse (1217627), located c.20 metes to the north east of the PRR and the remains of the Wayside Cross (1352993) c. 70 metres to the north west of the route’s end. Impact upon Registered Parks and Gardens 11.8 The development will be likely to impact upon the setting of Firle Place, a Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG) (1000235), the north eastern borders of which are located c.130 metres to the north west of the PRR. Firle Place is also included among the list of locally important designed landscapes held by Sussex County Gardens Trust (no.1331). 11.9 If the final route for the new road extended as far north west as Stamford Buildings, then there is a possibility that the construction of a new interchange could have a material impact upon the RPG. However, this is considered unlikely at this initial stage. Impact on Conservation Areas 11.10 It is considered possible that the development may impact upon the setting of both the Alciston and Selmeston Conservation Areas although no detailed analysis can be offered at this high level stage. Impact on Archaeology 11.11 The far south eastern end of the scheme at Alciston Corner is located within the potential footprint of the shrunken medieval settlement at Alciston (MES2661). Excavations for the new interchange which is likely to be located here will be likely to expose features and/or deposits associated with this settlement. 11.12 The PRR crosses the projected line if the possible Newhaven to Selmeston to Dicker Roman Road (MES4816) c. 845 metres to the north west of the route’s south eastern end. Ground working here may expose remains of the road agger (although no earthworks have been noted at this point by the EA Lidar data), but is likely to expose the sub-surface remains of the accompanying roadside ditches (fossae). There is also the chance of exposing the sub-surface remains of any roadside settlement. 11.13 The new road is likely to cross undated linear earthworks located by EA lidar data within woodland at Molehill Shaw. Development here may expose as yet unrecorded archaeological features of as yet undetermined date. 11.14 The PRR is likely to impact upon any surviving remains of the Arlington to Ouse Valley Roman road (DES10070) in the area around Middle Farm where it may re-join the current A27 carriageway. 11.15 There may be the possibility of construction impacting upon as yet unrecorded archaeological features and/or deposits on the periphery of the known Romano-British settlement site adjacent to Firle Park and Wick Street (MES7165).

19 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 Impact on Historic Landscape 11.16 The PRR crosses a number of hedgerows that can be defined as ‘important’ under the hedgerows Regulations of 1997 as in Part II: Criteria: archaeology and history: Section 1: ‘The hedgerow marks the boundary, or part of the boundary, of at least one historic parish or township; and for this purpose “historic” means existing before 1850.’ In effect these are all the field boundaries shown on the Alciston, Selmeston and West Firle Tithe Maps, published in 1843 (Figure 6a-c). The construction of the new road and its associated interchanges will create gaps in hedgerows surviving from the 1840s and will therefore have a material impact upon them. 12 Mitigation Research Aims 12.1 The impact of the proposed development on sub-surface archaeology along the PRR would be potentially significant and extensive across a landscape with high archaeological potential. It is therefore recommended that any archaeological remains likely to be encountered along the route should be identified, characterised and recorded at an early stage. This could be managed by a programme of archaeological field investigation to be carried out in advance of construction. If carried out to the standards and guidance of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA), then this programme will mitigate the considerable impact of the proposed development upon the cultural heritage resource. 12.2 This archaeological fieldwork should be driven by the following research aims: • To contextualise the prehistoric, Roman, early and late medieval archaeological remains that are known to exist in the Study Area and which are likely to be disturbed by road construction • To establish whether further Mesolithic activity sites (in addition to those previously identified around Selmeston) exist along the route of the new road • The recovery of finds evidence from where the new road crosses post-medieval and older field boundaries in order to provide hard dating evidence to be used in establishing the date and origins of the field systems that cross this part of East Sussex. • To recover hard evidence for the actual routes of the Arlington to Ouse Valley and Newhaven to Selmeston Roman roads and to see if these roads follow earlier prehistoric routes. • To establish the presence of any further Romano-British settlement along the route that these roads follow. • To establish whether further early medieval settlement is present to the south west of Selmeston and to the north of Alciston, in addition to the Anglo-Saxon settlement and cemeteries already recorded to the north east. Sub-surface Archaeology 12.3 Each phase of fieldwork should be proceeded by a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) that sets out the proposed methodology by which fieldwork should be carried out and followed by a detailed report on the results. Each of these WSIs and reports should be prepared in accordance with the standards and guidance of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA). The suggest stages of fieldwork are: • A programme of archaeological fieldwalking should be carried out within all arable fields along the finalised route. This programme will enable the identification of concentrations of archaeological material at current ground level, particularly scatters of Mesolithic and Neolithic flints as well as pottery scatters which may indicate the presence of previously unrecorded later prehistoric, Roman and early medieval settlement activity. Fieldwalking will require fields to be in a ploughed (but not harrowed) condition. This would normally limit activity to autumn and spring. • An archaeologist or archaeologists should be present during the excavation of geo-tech trial holes and window samples along the approved route, in order to identify areas of

20 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 good geoarchaeological potential, such as areas of colluvium or hillwash that may seal archaeological features or deposits. • A Programme of geophysical survey should be conducted along the length of the finalised route. This survey should aim to identify potential archaeological features and to guide future field investigations. • A programme of archaeological trial trenching should be conducted along the length of the finalised route. These trial trenches should aim to sample at least 4% of the total land take area of the scheme and should be no more than 30 metres in length in order to provide sufficient frequency of cover across the route. Trial trenching should be targeted on any potential sites identified by the fieldwalking phase and any features identified by the geophysical survey, but should also investigate any ‘blank’ areas where the geophysics or fieldwalking has returned negative results. • Following the completion of these initial stages an archaeological mitigation statement should be produced that summarises the results of all work, identifies areas of particular archaeological potential and sets out a programme of detailed archaeological excavation of these areas prior to the commencement of construction. The statement should set out a programme of public engagement and should also include details on the production of a final report on the results of the entire archaeological programme for academic publication within an approved county or national journal. It should also make provision for the deposition of all archaeological archives and finds with the appropriate local museum service. The statement will set out how all archaeological archives that have been generated by the fieldwork will be placed within a publically accessible location. 13 Setting Issues 13.1 The proposed development is likely to impact upon the settings of and views of: • 57 Alciston Street, Alciston (1353261), c.80 metres to the south west of the PRR and New Barn Farmhouse (1043362), located c.80 metres to the north east. • Tilton House (1043058) and a cottage at Tilton Farm (1353395), located on high ground overlooking the PRR between 600 and 650 metres to the south west. Charleston House (1043946), a Grade II Listed Building, is located just outside the Study Area, but in a similar location to the other two buildings. The settings of and views from all three of these houses may be impacted by the creation of a new road. • Middle Farmhouse (1217627), located c.20 metes to the north east of the PRR and the remains of the Wayside Cross (1352993) c. 70 metres to the north west of the route’s end. 13.2 It has been beyond the parameters of this assessment to study these impacts in detail, mainly due to the absence of a Site Walkover Survey. Therefore a full impact assessment should be prepared at Stage 2 which identifies the precise impact of the development upon individual buildings, the setting of the SDNP, RPGs and Conservation Areas. This document should use Historic England guidelines (Understanding Place, The Setting of Heritage Assets etc.) to arrive at clearly defined conclusions. Following the completion of this assessment, detailed mitigation measures can be set out within the conclusions. 14 Conclusions 14.1 This DBPA has studied the cultural heritage resource within a 500 metre wide Study Area along the Projected Route Corridor (PRR) of the proposed A27 improvements to the east of Lewes. 14.2 The DBPA has concluded the construction of the new road would have a material impact upon the SDNP and is very likely to have an impact upon its setting. 14.3 The potential impacts upon the settings of the SDNP, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas will require more detailed investigation, leading to mitigation measures. 14.4 The DBPA has concluded that the proposed development is likely to have a significant and extensive impact upon any as yet unrecorded archaeological features and/ore deposits

21 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 located within the PRR. The rich potential of the Study Area indicates that this archaeology would be likely to date from anytime between the prehistoric and later medieval periods. The development will also be likely to impact upon previously recorded heritage assets such as the probable routes of the Newhaven to Selmeston and Arlington to Ouse Valley Roman Roads (DES10070 and 4816). It may also impact upon the peripheries of the Romano- British settlement sites adjacent to Firle Park and Wick Street (MES7165) and at Hare Field DES9291. 14.5 The precise level of impacts on Built Heritage along the route will need to be determined once the final route of the proposed development has been agreed, however, the new road may possibly impact upon the setting of and views from 57 Alciston Street, Alciston (1353261) New Barn Farmhouse (1043362) Tilton House (1043058)and a cottage at Tilton Farm (1353395) and Middle Farmhouse (1217627) and the remains of the Wayside Cross (1352993). The settings of and views from all three of these houses may be impacted by the creation of a new road. Charleston House (1043946) is located on the south western edge of the Study Area, is now an important cultural heritage destination within the SDNP and so any potential impact of the development upon this structure is not just on the setting of and views from a Listed Building, but also upon the setting of this arts and heritage visitor destination. 14.6 The route crosses a number of hedgerows that can be defined as ‘important’ under the hedgerows Regulations of 1997 as in Part II: Criteria: archaeology and history: Section 1. The construction of the new road and its associated interchanges will create gaps in hedgerows surviving from the 1840s and will therefore have a material impact upon them 14.7 The study of EA lidar data along the route also established the possible presence of as yet unrecorded earthworks within woodland at Molehill Shaw and land immediately to the north. It is likely that road construction will cross these earthworks. 14.8 A programme of archaeological fieldworks consisting of field walking, geoarchaeological survey, geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation should be carried out to fully assess the potential of previously recorded and as yet unrecorded archaeology along the route. This programme should then be followed by an assessment statement that should set out the terms of further investigation and excavation, leading to the academic publication and public dissemination of all results. 14.9 Any archaeological work carried out should include public engagement as part of any mitigation strategy with any records deposited in a publically accessible archive. 15 Bibliography & References Armstrong, J.R., 1995, A History of Sussex Bannister, N., 2008, Historic Landscape Characterisation of Sussex. Bell, M., 1977, Excavations at Bishopstone, Sussex, SAC 115, 1–291 Brent, J., 1962, Sussex Archaeological Society. 1846. Sussex Archaeological Collections. vol 100 (1962) pp 60-72 Brent, J., 1968, Sussex Archaeological Society. 1846. Sussex Archaeological Collections. vol 106 (1968) pp 89- Burleigh, G.R., 1973, Sussex Archaeological Society. 1846. Sussex Archaeological Collections. vol 111 (1973) p79 Clark, J.G.D., 1933, A late Mesolithic settlement site a Selmeston, Sussex The Antiquaries Journal 14 134-158 Drewett, P.,1977, Neolithic Enclosure on Offham Hill, Proc. Prehist. Soc. Vol. 43 Drewett, P.,Setton Williams, V., 1994, Excavations at Combe Hill, SAC Vol. 132 Edwards, H., 2004, Ecgberht [Egbert] (d. 839), king of the West Saxons in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Green, H. S, 1980, The Flint Arrowheads of the British Isles Part ii. BAR British series 75 (ii). BAR: Oxford

22 Agenda Item 11 Report PP18/19 Appendix 5 Greatorex, C., Butler, C., and Hamilton, S., 2001, Evidence of Sussex prehistoric ritual traditions the archaeological investigation of a Bronze Age funerary monument situated on Baily’s Hill near Crowlink, Eastbourne Sussex Archaeological Collections 139, 27 – 73 Harrison, J.F.C., 1984, The Common People: A History from the Norman Conquest to the Present Napper, H.F, 1894, Towncreep: Is It Mercredsburn? in Sussex Archaeological Collections Volume 39. Lewes, Sussex: Sussex Archaeological Society. pp. 168–174 Rudling, David R., Recent Archaeological Research at Selmeston, East Sussex, Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. 123, pp. 1-26 Welch, M.G., 1971, Late Romans and Saxons in Sussex, Britannia 2, pp. 232-7 Welch, M.G., 1983, Early Anglo-Saxon Sussex, BAR 112 Wooldridge, J. A., 1965, Alciston Manor In The Later Middle Ages: A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol for the Degree of Master of Arts http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html http://www.charleston.org.uk/ http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/f/firle_au_hideout/index.shtml https://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/leisureandtourism/localandfamilyhistory/localhistory/ww2

23