DOCSLIB.ORG

Report Template

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report Template HeritageCollective Archaeological Desk Based Assessment Lillybank Farm, London Road, Battle, East Sussex On behalf of Millwood Designer Homes Limited November 2014 Project Ref: 14/1661 Project Number: 14/1661 Authored by: Nick Garland Reviewed by: Karl Hulka Date: November 2014 Document version M:\HC\Projects\Projects 1601- 1700\14.1661 - Lillybank Farm, Battle\Reports\14.1661 Lillybank Farm, Battle - DBA v.1 (2014.11.28).docx HeritageCollective CONTENTS PAGE NO. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION 6 2.0 PLANNING FRAMEWORK 7 3.0 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 9 4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 10 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 22 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 SOURCES CONSULTED 26 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: Site location maps APPENDIX 2: East Sussex HER maps and list APPENDIX 3: Historic Maps and Images Appendix 3.1: 1575 Saxton’s Map of Sussex Appendix 3.2: 1610 Speed’s Map of Sussex Appendix 3.3: 1778 Yeakall and Gardner’s Map of Sussex Appendix 3.4: 1806 Ordnance Surveyors drawing Appendix 3.5: 1859 Tithe Map of Battle Appendix 3.6: 1873 Ordnance Survey map Appendix 3.7: 1898 Ordnance Survey map Appendix 3.8: 1909 Ordnance Survey map Appendix 3.9: 1930 Ordnance Survey map Appendix 3.10: 1946 Aerial photograph (RAF) Appendix 3.11: 1959 Aerial photograph (MAL) Appendix 3.12: 1970 Aerial photograph (MAL) Appendix 3.13: 1994 Aerial photograph (MAL) Appendix 3.14: 2013 Google Earth Image Archaeological Desk Lillybank Farm, London On behalf of Millwood November 2014 © 3 Based Assessment Road, Battle, East Sussex Designer Homes Ltd HeritageCollective EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The site known as Lillybank Farm, London Road, Battle, East Sussex is proposed for redevelopment. The application site has been shown to have a low to moderate potential for earlier prehistoric activity, dating specifically to the Later Mesolithic period and suggesting sporadic occupation in this area. There is also a low to moderate potential for later prehistoric and Roman activity, relating in particular to evidence for iron ore mining / working and a routeway running through this area. There is also a moderate potential for medieval activity, related to the position of the application site on the periphery of the probable battlefield of the Battle of Hastings in 1066. There is also a moderate to high potential for medieval and post-medieval agricultural activities across the study area. This assessment suggests a low potential for all other periods. Existing impacts on any surviving archaeological deposits and features will derive predominantly from the arable use of the land from at least the early 19th century onwards, which is likely to have horizontally truncated below ground strata. This includes the cutting of field boundaries and drainage ditches that border and cross the application site. The subsequent change of use of the land within the application site from arable to pasture will have limited any further truncation of below ground strata in recent years. The densely wooded nature of the area prior to the medieval period is likely to have restricted extensive occupation of the area and subsequent clearance may have adversely affected below ground strata. On the basis of the available evidence it is advised that, due to a potential for medieval and post-medieval remains, an archaeological evaluation of the application site be carried out. In the first instance consultation with the East Sussex County Archaeologist should be undertaken in order to determine the scope of an archaeological evaluation, however, it is normal practice on a potential battlefield site that this should initially comprise a metal detecting survey of the application site to examine if there is any artefactual remains relating to the Battle of Hastings. This should be carried out under archaeological supervision and to an agreed methodology. In addition, a geophysical survey, and depending on the results, a targeted trial trenching exercise should be undertaken to assess the level of potential archaeological Archaeological Desk Lillybank Farm, London On behalf of Millwood November 2014 © 4 Based Assessment Road, Battle, East Sussex Designer Homes Ltd HeritageCollective remains and/or any possible disturbance to the underlying strata. If no significant remains are encountered during the evaluation, any further work should be limited to a watching brief carried out on intrusive groundworks associated with the proposed development. Archaeological Desk Lillybank Farm, London On behalf of Millwood November 2014 © 5 Based Assessment Road, Battle, East Sussex Designer Homes Ltd HeritageCollective 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This archaeological desk-based assessment has been prepared by Nick Garland MA (AIfA), archaeological consultant at Heritage Collective on behalf of Millwood Designer Homes Limited. Documentary research was carried out by the author. 1.2 The subject of this assessment is the site known as Lillybank Farm, London Road, Battle, East Sussex, hereafter the ‘application site’. The site lies to the north of the historic town of Battle, and is centred at National Grid Reference (NGR) TQ (5)74416, (1)17001 (Appendix 1). The application site is located within the High Weald Area of Natural Beauty (AONB) and to the north of the Battle Abbey scheduled monument (1013226), the Battle of Hastings registered battlefield (1000013) and Battle Abbey registered park and garden (1000309). 1.3 Millwood Designer Homes Limited has commissioned Heritage Collective to establish the archaeological potential of the site, and to provide guidance on ways to accommodate any relevant constraints identified. This assessment is in accordance with the national planning policy framework (NPPF) and the procedures set out in ‘Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment’1. 1.4 This desk-based assessment comprises an examination of evidence on the East Sussex Historic Environment Record (HER) together with a range of archives and libraries including East Sussex Records Office (The Keep), National Archives and The British Library. The report incorporates the results of a comprehensive map regression exercise in order to review the impacts of existing development on potential underlying archaeological deposits. A site walkover was conducted by the author on the 13th November 2014. 1.5 The assessment thus enables all relevant parties to assess the archaeological potential of the site and to consider the need for design, civil engineering and archaeological solutions to the potentials identified. 1 IfA. Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment. (2014) Archaeological Desk Lillybank Farm, London On behalf of Millwood November 2014 © 6 Based Assessment Road, Battle, East Sussex Designer Homes Ltd HeritageCollective 2.0 PLANNING FRAMEWORK National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2.1 Legislation regarding archaeology, including scheduled monuments, is contained in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, amended by the National Heritage Act 1983 and 2002. 2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012 provides guidance for planning authorities, property owners, developers and others on the preservation and investigation of archaeological remains. The framework sets out the obligations placed on the local planning authority (Chapter 12) through the development and implementation of a local plan. The framework also sets out the need for the determining authority to ensure that they have sufficient information when making decisions on applications affecting the historic environment. 2.3 In summary, government guidance on archaeology contained within the NPPF provides a structure for making decisions: where designated heritage assets (world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, listed buildings, protected wreck sites, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields and conservation areas) are affected by development where the settings of heritage assets are affected by development where nationally important un-scheduled monuments are affected by development 2.4 In addition the National Planning Policy Framework: • requires the applicant to provide proportionate information on heritage assets affected by the proposals and an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the significance of the heritage asset • places a duty on the decision making body to determine applications on the basis of sufficient evidence, gathered if necessary from field evaluation Archaeological Desk Lillybank Farm, London On behalf of Millwood November 2014 © 7 Based Assessment Road, Battle, East Sussex Designer Homes Ltd HeritageCollective Local Policies Rother District Local Plan 2006 2.5 The Local Plan was formally adopted by Rother District Council on the 10th July 2006. The council is in the process of preparing the new Local Plan, and while it is being prepared, a number of policies from the existing Local Plan have been saved by the Secretary of State. However, none of the saved policies are directly related to the treatment of archaeological remains and so the principle guidance continues to be those detailed above. Archaeological Desk Lillybank Farm, London On behalf of Millwood November 2014 © 8 Based Assessment Road, Battle, East Sussex Designer Homes Ltd HeritageCollective 3.0 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY Geology 3.1 The British Geological Survey identifies the underlying solid geology as Ashdown Formation, comprising sandstone, siltstone and mudstone; a sedimentary bedrock formed during the Cretaceous
Load more

Recommended publications
  • World War One: the Deaths of Those Associated with Battle and District
    WORLD WAR ONE: THE DEATHS OF THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH BATTLE AND DISTRICT This article cannot be more than a simple series of statements, and sometimes speculations, about each member of the forces listed. The Society would very much appreciate having more information, including photographs, particularly from their families. CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 The western front 3 1914 3 1915 8 1916 15 1917 38 1918 59 Post-Armistice 82 Gallipoli and Greece 83 Mesopotamia and the Middle East 85 India 88 Africa 88 At sea 89 In the air 94 Home or unknown theatre 95 Unknown as to identity and place 100 Sources and methodology 101 Appendix: numbers by month and theatre 102 Index 104 INTRODUCTION This article gives as much relevant information as can be found on each man (and one woman) who died in service in the First World War. To go into detail on the various campaigns that led to the deaths would extend an article into a history of the war, and this is avoided here. Here we attempt to identify and to locate the 407 people who died, who are known to have been associated in some way with Battle and its nearby parishes: Ashburnham, Bodiam, Brede, Brightling, Catsfield, Dallington, Ewhurst, Mountfield, Netherfield, Ninfield, Penhurst, Robertsbridge and Salehurst, Sedlescombe, Westfield and Whatlington. Those who died are listed by date of death within each theatre of war. Due note should be taken of the dates of death particularly in the last ten days of March 1918, where several are notional. Home dates may be based on registration data, which means that the year in 1 question may be earlier than that given.
    [Show full text]
  • Primary School Consultation Mountfield and Whatlington East Sussex County Council
    Primary school consultation Mountfield and Whatlington East Sussex County Council Dear Sirs I am ashamed as one of the local Members for the Darwell ward of Rother District Council, that you are contemplating closing down the Mountfield and Whatlington Church of England Primary school. I represent six Parishes and am well aware of the importance of the local schools, churches, doctors village halls and shops in keeping these communities alive. I have often argued, often against popular opinion, of the importance of bringing new housing and new blood into the villages to help preserve them and keep them alive. It amazes me that when each of the villages in this area is going to have to accept more houses, much of it affordable, by Government edict you can contemplate cutting down on one of the mainstays of village life especially without any obvious ability of the larger local schools to accept greater numbers. More houses mean more people, which means more children, which means more school capacity will be needed. All planning should be dictated by the future; we are one of the worst educated countries in Europe and here you are deciding that cramming more pupils from different areas into ever larger classes is the way forward rather than educating those children locally in their own environment where parental influence not only on them but also on the local teachers might be a better option and help the children learn better manners, be better disciplined and have a better chance of future employment through being taught in smaller classes.
    [Show full text]
  • Robertsbridge Community College: September 2020 School Services
    Robertsbridge Community College: September 2020 School Services Please consider alternative ways of getting to and from school, such as walking or cycling, where this is a safe option. If you travel in by car your school might ask you to drop off away from the main entrance to avoid any extra congestion. If you travel in by public bus or school bus, minibus or taxi, these are some important things you need to know: You should wash your hands before and after boarding No standing will be allowed. Please sit with others in your bubble or year group where possible. If you can, please keep your distance between students not in your bubble, as well as other passengers Windows and sunroofs will be kept open where possible to help with ventilation Face coverings are required by law for all pupils aged 11 and over on public transport, in line with government policy. Children aged 11 and over should wear a covering on all school transport if they can, as well as younger children who are able. If a child has a reason which makes them exempt, please let your school know this. We need everyone’s help to make this workable - so please discuss the importance of wearing a face covering together. Fares will continue to be charged on bus services available to students only, except students issued with a free bus pass. Please pay the exact bus fare so as to reduce cash handling. Stagecoach does not provide cash change. Stagecoach now also offers contactless payments by prepaid card, debit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay.
    [Show full text]
  • Roads in the Battle District: an Introduction and an Essay On
    ROADS IN THE BATTLE DISTRICT: AN INTRODUCTION AND AN ESSAY ON TURNPIKES In historic times travel outside one’s own parish was difficult, and yet people did so, moving from place to place in search of work or after marriage. They did so on foot, on horseback or in vehicles drawn by horses, or by water. In some areas, such as almost all of the Battle district, water transport was unavailable. This remained the position until the coming of the railways, which were developed from about 1800, at first very cautiously and in very few districts and then, after proof that steam traction worked well, at an increasing pace. A railway reached the Battle area at the beginning of 1852. Steam and the horse ruled the road shortly before the First World War, when petrol vehicles began to appear; from then on the story was one of increasing road use. In so far as a road differed from a mere track, the first roads were built by the Roman occupiers after 55 AD. In the first place roads were needed for military purposes, to ensure that Roman dominance was unchallenged (as it sometimes was); commercial traffic naturally used them too. A road connected Beauport with Brede bridge and ran further north and east from there, and there may have been a road from Beauport to Pevensey by way of Boreham Street. A Roman road ran from Ore to Westfield and on to Sedlescombe, going north past Cripps Corner. There must have been more. BEFORE THE TURNPIKE It appears that little was done to improve roads for many centuries after the Romans left.
    [Show full text]
  • Heading 1 Text Type
    Rother District Council Report to: Planning Date: 17 December 2020 Title: Appeals Report of: Tim Hickling, Head of Strategy and Planning Ward(s): All Purpose of Report: To update the Planning Committee Officer Recommendation(s): It be RESOLVED: That the report be noted. APPEALS LODGED RR/2020/651/P BATTLE: 74A Hastings Road, Sierra Lodge, Battle (Delegation) Change of Use from a detached garage to a holiday let with one allocated parking space and bin store area. Ms Esther Sefaah RR/2020/396/T BEXHILL: 44 Collington Rise, Oakwood, Bexhill (Delegation) Horse Chestnut - Remove approximately 6ft all round to remove dead branches. Mr Peter Bennett RR/2020/1306/P BEXHILL: 24 Furnells Way, Bexhill (Delegation) Proposed rear conservatory. Mr and Mrs K. Pitt RR/2020/1334/P BEXHILL: 7 Bolebrooke Road, Bexhill (Delegation) Create driveway from existing front garden. Holmes Homes Ltd RR/2020/1022/P GUESTLING: 22 Allards, Guestling (Delegation) Erection of single storey front extension. Mr. Kent Taylor RR/2020/781/P GUESTLING: West View, Rock Lane, Three Oaks, Guestling (Delegation) Outline: Erection of new single family dwelling. Mr B. Al-Khalifa RR/2019/1901/P PEASMARSH: 1 Main Street, Brickfield, Peasmarsh (Delegation) Proposed extension to form self-contained dwelling. Mr Peter Bedborough RR/2020/1406/P PEASMARSH: Lyndhurst, Main Street, Peasmarsh pl201217 – Appeals (Delegation) Variation of Conditions 6 and 7 imposed on RR/2017/1843/P to allow the annexe to be used by friends and family members not living in the main residence, as allowed by planning appeal APP/U1430/A/09/2100179. Mr Terence Denman RR/2020/170/O TICEHURST: Cairds Camping & Caravan Site, (Delegation) Battenhurst Road, Ticehurst Lawful Development Certificate for existing use of land for the stationing of a residential caravan.
    [Show full text]
  • Stagecoach Bus Timetable Extract
    East Sussex bus times page 1 of 3 Hastings ● St. Leonards ● Battle ● Hawkhurst 304 305 Hawkhurst ● Wadhurst ● Frant ● Tunbridge Wells 254 MONDAYS TO SATURDAYS except Bank Holidays easyAACCESSCCESS buses route number 254 254 305 254 254 384 304 304 305 304 305 304 305 304 304 304 305 304 305 NS Sch Sats Sch Sch NSch NSch Sch Hastings Rail Station Stop F 0655 0755 0830 0938 1038 1138 1238 1338 1438 1448 1538 1643 1753 1848 Hastings Havelock Road Stop G 0657 0757 0832 0940 1040 1140 1240 1340 1440 1450 1540 1645 1755 1850 St. Leonards Station Approach 0703 HL 0803 0838 0946 1046 1146 1246 1346 1446 1456 1546 1651 1801 1855 Silverhill Battle Road 0709 0806 0809 0844 0952 1052 1152 1252 1352 1452 1502 1552 1657 1807 1900 Beauport Stonebeach Rise 0715 0811 0815 0850 0958 1058 1158 1258 1358 1458 1508 1558 1703 1813 1905 Telham Telham Lane 0718 0815 0818 0853 1001 1101 1201 1301 1401 1501 1511 1601 1706 1816 1908 Battle Station Approach 0721 0818 0821 0856 1004 1104 1201 1304 1404 1504 1514 1604 1709 1819 1911 Battle Abbey 0725 0822 0825 0900 1011 1108 1211 1308 1411 1508 1518 1608 1713 1823 1913 Claverham College 0835 TTTTTTT Whatlington The Royal Oak T 0847 0907 T 1115 T 1315 T 1515 1525 1615 T 1830 T John's Cross Mountfield School 0733 0753NC 0851 0911 1019 1119 1219 1319 1419 1519 1529 1619 1721 1834 1919 Robertsbridge The George 0737 0757 T 0855 0915 1023 1123 1223 1323 1423 1523 1533 1623 1725 1838 1923 Robertsbridge Community College TT 0837 TTTTTTTT1538 TTTT Robertsbridge Rutley Close 0739 0759 0857 0917 1025 1125 1225 1325 1425 1525
    [Show full text]
  • Appeal Decision
    Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 October 2018 by Graham Chamberlain BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U1430/W/18/3201084 Netherhay Barn, Whatlington Road, Battle, East Sussex TN33 0NA The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs A McFaite against the decision of Rother District Council. The application Ref RR/2018/285/P, dated 15 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 12 March 2018. The development proposed is described as ‘proposed dwelling to replace redundant barn’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a dwelling to replace a redundant barn at Netherhay Barn, Whatlington Road, Battle, East Sussex TN33 0NA, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: RR/2018/285/P, dated 15 January 2018, subject to the conditions in the schedule at the end of this decisison. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are: Whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, with particular reference to policies concerned with housing in rural areas and the accessibility of services and facilities; and The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Reasons Whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location 3. Policy OSS3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 (CS) addresses the location of development and states that planning applications should be considered in the context of the spatial strategy for the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Saturdays 12 and 19 August 2017 Robertsbridge to Battle (7.3 Or 8.2* Miles)
    The Hastings Line Stage 8: Saturdays 12 and 19 August 2017 Robertsbridge to Battle (7.3 or 8.2* miles). * including optional diversion Meet: Robertsbridge station (GR TQ734235, no toilet) on arrival of the down train due at 11.33am (dep Charing Cross 10.15, Waterloo East 10.18, London Bridge 10.23, Orpington 10.40, Sevenoaks 10.49, Tonbridge 10.58). Maps: OS 1:25 000 Explorer Sheet 124; OS 1:50 000 Landranger 199; E. Sussex street atlas. Outline route: Robertsbridge station - Mountfield Church (lunch stop; 2.5 miles) - Whatlington (4.7 miles; bus service†) - Battle town (optional) - Battle station (7.3 or 8.2 miles). Late start/early finish option: Leave or join at Whatlington after 4.7 miles; thence 2.6 or 3.5 miles to Battle station Ascents: 170m Descents: 150m. Terrain: Undulating, some moderate slopes. Mainly field paths, maybe wet patches near rivers, some nettles. Several stiles Detailed route description: From Robertsbridge station ((A) on map), turn right (W) along Station Road for 100m. Turn left (S) for 200m, bear left under the railway, and continue S for 100m. Where the road turns left, take the metalled track to the right under the railway again. After 100m, fork left onto a footpath following the railway. Follow this path for 700m, and pass ponds on the left and a side path to the railway on the right. Continue south into a wood and after a further 300m bear W beside a stream on the left. 180m further on, fork left over the stream, via a footbridge with squeeze stiles, on a footpath bearing back towards the railway.
    [Show full text]
  • WHATLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL HELD on THURSDAY 21St MAY 2015 in the VILLAGE HALL at 7.30Pm
    MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF WHATLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL HELD ON THURSDAY 21st MAY 2015 IN THE VILLAGE HALL AT 7.30pm All councillors signed their ‘Declaration of Acceptance of Office’ PRESENT:- Councillors, Apthorp, Fisher, and White District Councillor Kirby-Green 1) ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN Councillor Fisher was proposed and nominated by Councillor White seconded by Councillor Apthorp. The Chairman then signed his ‘Declaration of Acceptance of Office’ and took the Chair. OPEN SESSION / ITEMS FOR INFORMATION ONLY There were six Local Government Electors attending. A Parishioner said she was concerned at the proposal from Rother for the naming of the A.21 or New Road as it is also known. The Post Office have said they have nothing to do with naming of roads. Councillor White said it was unclear if the council have to audit the road in the parish or Rother and we need to know under what Statutory Basis they were doing this. The clerk said she had spoken to Andrew Gale who said Rother were carrying out this process for the whole area as there are many roads in parishes un-named, all the parish council have to do is consult residents on the name they have chosen and forward their choice to them. The work will take him many years to complete so there is no hurry. The clerk will contact Mr Gale and obtain the statutory basis Rother are using for their request. The Chairman of the village hall committee asked if the council could possible increase their payment towards the costs for work on the hall.
    [Show full text]
  • Ww2 Civilian Deaths in and from the Battle District
    WW2 CIVILIAN DEATHS IN AND FROM THE BATTLE DISTRICT Records show that 17 civilians in or from the Battle district died as a result of enemy action in the Second World War. The total for the whole country was about 40,000. This otherwise peaceful area had no industries worth bombing but nevertheless suffered along with the rest of the country – though to a much lesser extent than most of the cities and large towns. This was partly due to its being beneath the bombers’ flight path when they rid themselves of undropped bombs on the way home. If in the First World War those who stayed behind in the Battle district were in negligible danger of an early death this would not be true of the later war: nowhere in the UK was safe from enemy attack, regardless of age – and our own dead ranged from 14 months to 77 years. Details are hard to find because the newspapers of the day were properly restrained from reporting anything that would give help to the enemy or harm local morale. However, the overall position is known from a report of August 1945 which, being unofficial, may not be wholly accurate.1 For the area with which this account is concerned the bombing was, in brief: Notes: HE = high explosive; unexpl = unexploded; MG = machine gun. Blank = 0. V1 High explosive Incendiary Oil MG Civilians Dropped Unexpl etc attacks Killed Injured Ashburnham 7 67 3 740 3 2 3 Battle 27 69 32 55 5 1 2 32 Brede 26 Brightling 4 Bodiam 1 Catsfield 5 16 2 720 4 5 Crowhurst 4 20 14 602 4 18 Dallington 10 31 4 176 4 Ewhurst 9 Mountfield 19 24 1066 1 14 Penhurst 1 Ninfield * Salehurst/Robertsbridge 10 22 1 2 5 Sedlescombe 7 18 2 886 2 Westfield 12 20 4 33 6 Whatlington 3 21 16 900 6 Total 105 308 78 5178 13 3 8 95 Ninfield does not appear in the list in this source.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle and Brede Heritage Consultation Project Final Report
    1 Battle and Brede Heritage Consultation Project Final Report April 2013 Contents: 1. Executive Summary Page 2 2. Introduction Page 5 3. Engagement principles Page 6 4. Context Page 8 5. Main findings Page 9 6. Next steps Page 21 Appendix 1 1: Sample workshop programme Page 22 Appendix 2: Workshop notes Page 23 1 The survey results will be sent as a separate document to the High Weald AONB Unit given the large file size. Engagement to gain insight Involving people in a better future www.hopkinsvanmil.co.uk www.r4c.org.uk 2 1.Executive Summary 1. Introduction Hopkins Van Mil (HVM) in association with Resources for Change (R4C) has been commissioned by the High Weald AONB Unit to develop an initial consultation strategy to inform the work on The Battle and Brede Landscape Partnership Scheme. This is a large-scale, partnership project which seeks to further learning, conservation and participation in the area’s local heritage. In close collaboration with the High Weald AONB Unit, HVM designed and conducted 12 stakeholder representative telephone interviews, 4 telephone interviews with representatives of Parish Councils, issued a hard copy and online stakeholder consultation survey (88 responses); developed a stakeholder map; designed and facilitated a stakeholder workshop attended by 16 people and a smaller workshop attended by representatives of 4 Parish Councils; arranged for three drop in consultation sessions with young people (17 interviews), parents with young children (15 interviews), and a group of over 65s (5 representatives). The full list of those consulted is included in a stakeholder engagement map.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Classified Streets
    EAST SUSSEX HIGHWAYS LIST OF CLASSIFIED ROADS LAST UPDATED OCTOBER 2018 ROTHER DISTRICT USRN STREET LOCALITY TOWN NUMBER 32500091 ADAMS LANE NORTHIAM C97 32500035 ASHDENE HURST GREEN A21 32501720 BALLARDS HILL CROWHURST C307 32502244 BARDOWN ROAD STONEGATE C214 32501357 BARNETS HILL PEASMARSH A268 32501037 BARNHORN ROAD BEXHILL A259 32501028 BATTENHURST ROAD COTTENDEN TICEHURST C212 32500393 BATTERY HILL FAIRLIGHT C92 32500300 BATTLE HILL BATTLE A2100 32500529 BATTLE ROAD DALLINGTON B2096 32501355 BECKLEY ROAD NORTHIAM B2165 32500318 BEECHDOWN WOOD BATTLE A271 32502139 BERNERS HILL FLIMWELL B2087 32501043 BISHOPS LANE ROBERTSBRIDGE C933 32502109 BLUEKILN ROAD WOODS CORNER DALLINGTON C277 32500055 BODIAM ROAD SALEHURST ROBERTSBRIDGE C19 32500081 BODIAM ROAD BODIAM C19 32500087 BODIAM ROAD EWHURST GREEN C19 32500172 BODIAM ROAD SILVERHILL HURST GREEN C19 32500234 BODIAM ROAD STAPLECROSS C19 32500522 BRAYS HILL ASHBURNHAM C412 32500224 BREDE HILL BREDE A28 32500260 BREDE LANE SEDLESCOMBE C21 32501358 BREDE ROAD WESTFIELD A28 32500077 BRIGHTLING ROAD ROBERTSBRIDGE C18 32500202 BRIGHTLING ROAD OXLEYS GREEN BRIGHTLING C18 32500532 BRIGHTLING ROAD WOODS CORNER DALLINGTON C18 32500194 BRIGHTLING VILLAGE BRIGHTLING C18 32501803 BROOM HILL FLIMWELL B2087 32500521 BROWNBREAD STREET ASHBURNHAM C412 32500679 BUCKHURST PLACE BEXHILL B2098 32500647 BUCKHURST ROAD BEXHILL A269 32500478 BUTCHERS LANE THREE OAKS GUESTLING C22 32500200 CACKLE STREET BRIGHTLING C280 32500223 CACKLE STREET BREDE A28 32500289 CALDBEC HILL BATTLE C293 32500338 CAMBER ROAD EAST
    [Show full text]