Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

T H A M E S V A L L E Y ARCHAEOLOGICAL S E R V I C E S S O U T H

Land adjoining Tilsmore Lodge, Mount Pleasant, Heathfield, East Sussex

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Nora Bermingham

Site Code TLH16/15

(TQ 5720 2155)

Land adjoining Tilsmore Lodge, Mount Pleasant, Heathfield, East Sussex

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

for Millwood Designer Homes Limited

by Nora Bermingham

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code TLH 16/15

February 2016 Summary

Site name: Land adjoining Tilsmore Lodge, Mount Pleasant, Heathfield, East Sussex

Grid reference: TQ 5720 2155

Site activity: Archaeological desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Nora Bermingham

Site code: TLH16/15

Summary of results: There are no known heritage assets within the area of the proposed development site, nor have there been any below-ground archaeological investigations within the area of the site or within the immediate area. It is anticipated that it may be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits if necessary. Such a scheme could be implemented by an appropriately worded condition attached to any consent gained.

This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.

Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 15.02.16 Steve Preston 15.02.16

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 77a Hollingdean Terrace, Brighton, BN1 7HB

Tel. (01273) 554198; Fax (01273) 564043; email [email protected]; website: www.tvas.co.uk

Land adjoining Tilsmore Lodge, Mount Pleasant, Heathfield, East Sussex Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Nora Bermingham

Report 16/15

Introduction

This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of land adjoining Tilsmore Lodge, Mount Pleasant,

Heathfield, East Sussex, NGR TQ 5720 2155 (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Colin Viret, of

Millwood Designer Homes Limited, Bordyke End East Street, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 1HA and comprises the first stage of a process to determine the presence/absence, extent, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains which may be affected by redevelopment of the area.

Site description, location and geology

The site is located on land adjoining Tilsmore Lodge, Mount Pleasant, Heathfield, East Sussex, and is centred on NGR TQ 5720 2155 (Fig. 2). The site represents an irregular area of approximately 1.4ha. Today this area is on the edge of a large wood (Tilsmore Wood) and is mainly grassland but with a tree belt along the western edge and numerous trees marking internal boundaries. The proposal site was visited on 27th January 2016 (Pls

1-6). No archaeological finds or features were identified over the course of this visit. The proposal site occupies a spur between two small stream valley and slopes from an elevation of approximately 146m above Ordnance

Datum in the west to 130m AOD in the east. According to the British Geological Survey (BGS 1979) the underlying geology consists of Ashdown Beds - Sandstone, Siltstone and Mudstone.

Planning background and development proposals

Planning consent is being sought from Wealden District Council for a residential development (Fig. 1). No details are to hand at time of writing.

The Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF

2012) sets out the framework within which local planning authorities should consider the importance of conserving, or enhancing, aspects of the historic environment, within the planning process. It requires an applicant for planning consent to provide, as part of any application, sufficient information to enable the local planning authority to assess the significance of any heritage assets that may be affected by the proposal. The

Historic Environment is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) 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.’ Paragraphs 128 and 129 state that

‘128. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. ‘129. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.’ A ‘heritage asset’ is defined (NPPF 2012, 52) 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).’ ‘Designated heritage asset’ includes (NPPF 2012, 51) 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.’

‘Archaeological interest’ is glossed (NPPF 2012, 50) as follows:

‘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.’ Specific guidance on assessing significance and the impact of the proposal is contained in paragraphs 131 to

135:

‘131. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: • the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. ‘132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments,

protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. ‘133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: • the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and • no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and • conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and • the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. ‘134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. ‘135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Paragraph 139 recognises that new archaeological discoveries may reveal hitherto unsuspected and hence non- designated heritage assets

‘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.’ Paragraph 141 requires local planning authorities to ensure that any loss of heritage assets advances understanding, but stresses that advancing understanding is not by itself sufficient reason to permit the loss of significance:

‘141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.’

Wealden District Council’s local plan policies rely on national guidance (specifically Planning Policy Statement

5, which has been superseded by NPPF) and as far as possible do not duplicate this (WDC 2013, 6). In addition to the policies outlined above, Wealden District Council local polices with respect to developments that occur in relation heritage assets are set out in the Wealden District, Core Strategy Local Plan 2013. Spatial policy SP02:

‘We will ensure that the intrinsic quality of the historic environment is protected and that Wealden’s environmental, heritage and cultural assets are used appropriately to encourage suitable tourism development and support inward investment.’

The East Sussex Historic Landscape Characterisation classes the site as formal enclosure (planned/private).

Methodology

The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of sources recommended by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the East Sussex Historic

Environment Record, geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

The proposal site is located towards the south-west limit of the High Weald. Evidence for prehistoric occupation of this area is typically meagre. The region is considered to have been largely covered in woodland throughout prehistory, although there is growing evidence for localized tree clearance from as early as the Mesolithic

((Holgate 2003, 30–1). Much of the known prehistoric settlement pattern concentrates around the rim of the

Weald, with small-scale agriculture suggested in pollen evidence from the Neolithic (Tebbutt 1974). Bronze

Age barrows occur throughout the High Weald suggesting that by this period settlement (or at least clearance) had intensified somewhat (Gardiner 1990).

From the Iron Age onwards, the High Weald was exploited for its iron ore. Roman occupation within the

High Weald is mainly represented by roads and ironworking sites, often situated close to roads. Few settlement sites have been found in the Weald (Rudling 1999; 2003a, esp fig. 9.1), but some are known on its periphery

(Gardiner 1990). During the Anglo-Saxon period, the Weald was largely covered by the great expanse of woodland of Andredeswald. The wodland appears to have limited settlement in the High Weald during this period which also apparently saw the extent of the ironworking industry reduce (although this might be misleading as Saxon use of iron-working sites can be difficult to recognize and/or date). The medieval period saw settlement expand into the High Weald with the major work of clearing and settling in the High Weald undertaken between the late 12th and early 14th centuries. Heathfield itself lay on the route of what is considred to be an ancient routeway, namely the Ridgeway, which connected the South Downs and the Weald. The later medieval and post-medieval period saw increased ironworking on the High Weald with some major urban centres developing within a wider rural backdrop. The extent and character of the archaeological record in this part of East Sussex is likely influenced by the rural nature of much of the area and a corresponding lack of development, with its opportunities for systematic investigation.

East Sussex Historic Environment Record

A search was made on the East Sussex Historic Environment Record on 28th December 2015 for a radius of

1km around the proposal site. This revealed 14 entries within the search radius of which just one is for an archaeological intervention. The entries are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure

Prehistoric

Potential evidence for prehistoric occupation within the search radius is limited to a single find, namely a

Palaeolithic, Acheulian stone implement [Fig. 1: 3]. The HER also lists the Hurst Green–Etchingham–

Heathfield Ridgeway as potentially prehistoric; its route in this area (and indeed for some distance around) is unclear but it may lie beneath the modern main road (A265) which borders the site (not on shown on Fig. 1).

Roman

Tilsmore Wood [6] is named as the location of a possible bloomery of Roman origins (Cleere and Crossley

1995). The HER contains no details but the Wealden Iron Research Group Iron Site Database has only one site in the vicinity, at TQ 5763 2174 (not quite the NGR given in the HER), in Tilsmore Wood: this is represented by a slag heap and trenching across this produced two sherds of East Sussex ware pottery (Hodgkinson 1999,

70). The only other evidence for a potential Roman presence in the search radius is represented by a single isolated Roman coin find [2].

Saxon

There is no evidence for Saxon occupation recorded in the HER within the search radius.

Medieval

There is no evidence for medieval occupation recorded in the HER within the search radius.

Post-medieval

Cartographic representations of and/or documentary references to, a farmstead, [9], a windmill, [4], and a cottage, [10], provide evidence of post-medieval occupation within the search radius, though none of these need be especially early. The cottage may have origins earlier than the 19th century. Placename evidence, in this case

Cinderfield [1], and historic mapping suggest the presence of post-medieval bloomery within the search radius.

A farmhouse and barn, [8], recorded on historic maps reflect late 19th- and early 20th-century occupation as does the site of a brickfield, [7], also marked on a map from the opening of the last century. An Oasthouse, [9], associated with a post-medieval farmstead, may have origins earlier than the 19th century. Lastly, the railway platform of the 19th century former station, [5], reflects post-medieval transport links in and out of Heathfield.

Modern and/or unknown

There are no modern entries recorded in the HER within the search radius. A single archaeological intervention

[11] is recorded within the search radius. Details as to its results were not cited in the HER.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments within the vicinity of the proposal site.

Cartographic and documentary sources

Heathfield is not mentioned in Domesday Book of AD1086. It is recorded first in the 12th century as Hadfield and means ‘heathy open land’ (Mills 2011, 232) indicating that already by this date the heavily forested Weald was subject to clearance. The early references are all to the settlment now referred to as Old Heathfield, which developed along an ancient routeway, a ridge known as the Ridgeway which connected Heathfield with nearby settlements such as Cross-in-Hand and Waldron (originally Walderne), located just off the ridge and to the west.

By the late 13th century, Heathfield was a growing settlement that provided a range of crafts and services. The

Black Death brought a halt to its growth and in general the Weald was a somewhat inhospitable place in the later medieval period. Modern Heathfield is almost entirely a 19th-century development (Harris 2003), situated within a bowl-like valley known as Waldron Ghyll. Heathfield was known for its ironworking history but otherwise has little history of note; as late as the early 19th century it was still a very minor settlement: the 1801 census records 1226 inhabitants (Harris 2003).

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at the East Sussex

Record Office and online in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the site’s later history and whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see

Appendix 2). The earliest map available of the area is Saxton’s map of Sussex 1575 (Fig. 2) though it does not specify information for the proposed development site itself. Saxton shows the settlement as Hathfelde. Later

maps such as Speed 1610, Morden 1695, Norden 1695 (not illustrated) show Heathfield, with it labelled

Heathfeylde by Norden 1695, but again provide no detail on the site. Budgen 1723 (Fig. 3) shows two places called Heathfield; the location with the church pertains to the older, original settlement while the other

Heathfield, on the road leading to Cross-in-Hand incorporates the location of the proposal site itself. Later county maps such as Bowen 1756 and Kitchin 1750 (not illustrated) also provide no detail on the site. Yeakell and Gardner’s 1778-1783 map (not illustrated) shows Heathfield in part, and its rural and agrarian situation is evident, but there is still no detail shown for the proposal site. Later county maps, such as those of Cole 1808,

Cooper 1808, Moule 1837 and Dugdale 1840 (not illustrated) simply show Heathfield within the county. The

Waldron Tithe map 1842 (Fig. 4) shows the location incorporating the site as woodland, recorded as Plot 771,

Tilsmore Wood within Waldron Wood and extending for 304 acres, 2 rods, 35 perches. The owner was Sarah

Elizabeth Smith and the occupier was Thomas Harding.

The First Edition Ordnance Survey map 1875 (Fig. 5) shows the proposal site as three roughly rectangular fields to the rear of Tilsmore Farm. Woodland borders the western limit of these fields and the proposal site lies in part within this woodland. Heathland is indicated north-east of the fields incorporating the proposal site. The situation is unchanged in maps published in 1899 and 1910 (not illustrated), although there is a new field boundary indicated close to the farmhouse where a small field has been created immediately to the east. By

1931 (Fig. 6) there has been some internal reorganization of the field boundaries incorporating the proposal site, with the northernmost field subdivided into two narrow fields. Woodland still borders the proposal site to the west. The area to the south-east has been subdivided into long narrow plots occupied by houses in some cases.

Ordnance Survey maps published in 1961 and 1975 (not illustrated) show no significant change to the site although the surrounding area is increasingly developed. Similarly, there is little significant change apparent in the 1981 edition (Fig. 7) of the Ordnance Survey map.

Listed buildings

The HER search revealed no listed buildings within the search area.

Historic Hedgerows

There are no hedgerows forming part of the site boundary or within the site that might qualify as ‘important’ as defined by Schedule 1 of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997.

Aerial Photographs

A search was made on the Historic England Archive’s database of aerial photographs on 27th January 2016.

This revealed 34 vertical prints from 13 sorties flown between April 1946 and August 2003. No specialist oblique photographs have been taken of the site. The site lies in an area that has been wooded and on a geological outcrop not normally suited for the production of cropmarks visible from the air. These photographs have not been consulted.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

There are no registered parks and gardens or registered battlefields within the search radius.

Discussion

There are no known heritage assets within the area of the proposal site or in a position to be affected by its development. It remains therefore to establish if there may be potential for previously unknown heritage assets, that is, below-ground archaeological remains. In considering the archaeological potential of the study area, various factors must be taken into account, including previously recorded archaeological sites, previous land-use and disturbance and future land-use including the proposed development.

There have been no below-ground archaeological investigations at this location and very few nearby. The apparent archaeological potential of the site, as reflected in previously recorded remains, is typically low for most periods. Given, however, that the site is located in a largely undeveloped area, the absence of archaeological sites is more likely to be due to a lack of archaeological investigation rather than a definitive absence of any past occupation. Where archaeological investigations have taken place recently on the Weald, they have tended to show that the absence of evidence can be misleading. Topographically, this particular site may not appear promising for early occupation, but it may lie next to a ridgeway and is close to two water sources, both factors potentially important for the location of early iron working. Cartographic evidence shows that the proposal site has not been built on but has been cultivated and forested in part from at least the 19th century. It is possible that archaeological remains of prehistoric and/or later occupation, if present, would survive below ground within the proposed development area.

It is anticipated that it may be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations in order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground

archaeological deposits if necessary. A scheme for this evaluation (if requested) will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological advisers to the Council and carried out by a competent archaeological contractor. Such a scheme could be implemented by an appropriately worded condition attached to any consent gained.

References

BGS, 1979, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000, Sheet 319, Solid and Drift Edition, Keyworth Cleere, H and Crossley, D, 1995, The Iron Industry of the Weald, 2nd edn, Leicester Gardiner, M, 1990, ‘The Archaeology of the Weald – A survey and a review’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 128, 33– 54 Harris, R B, 2003, Heathfield Historic Character Assessment Report (Sussex Extensive Urban Survey) Hodgkinson, J S, 1999, ‘Romano-British iron production in the Sussex and Kent Weald: a review of current data’, Hist Metall 33.2, 68–72 Holgate, R, 2003, ‘Late glacial and post-glacial hunter-gatherers in Sussex’, in D Rudling (ed), The Archaeology of Sussex to AD 2000, King’s Lynn, 29–38 Mills, A D, 2011, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London Rudling, D, 1999, ‘Roman Sussex’, in K Leslie and B Short (eds), An Historical Atlas of Sussex, Phillimore Rudling, D, 2003a, ‘Roman rural settlement in Sussex: continuity and change’, in D Rudling (ed), The Archaeology of Sussex to AD 2000, King’s Lynn, 111–26 Rudling, D (ed), 2003b, The Archaeology of Sussex to AD2000, Brighton Tebbutt, C F, 1974, ‘The Prehistoric Occupation of the Ashdown Forest area of the Weald’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 112, 34–43 WDC, 2013, Wealden District (Incorporating Part of the South Downs National Park) Core Strategy Local Plan, Adopted 2013 Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London

APPENDIX 1: Historic Environment Records within a 1km search radius of the development site

No. HER Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment 1 MES4300 571 211 Cartographic Post-medieval Place name of Cinderfield and historical mapping suggests the presence of a bloomery 2 MES4302 512 212 Find spot Roman Coin of Maximian found at New Pond Hill 3 MES4303 58 21 Find spot Palaeolithic Pear-shaped Acheulian implement 4 MES4322 52 SE Documentary Post-medieval Windmill operated by the Dallaway family 5 MES4323 581 212 Structure Post-medieval 19th-century platform at former station 6 MES21613 5768 2169 Structure Roman? Possible bloomery site at Tilsmore Wood 7 MES25791 581 210 Cartographic Modern Brickfield marked on map 1901 8 MES26033 5748 2071 Cartographic Post-medieval Pook Reed farmhouse and barns recorded on 1st Edition Ordnance Survey; farmhouse site is now a pond 9 MES26177 5622 2093 Cartographic Post-medieval Olives Farm farmstead with Oasthouse shown on 19th- MES26178 56230 20932 century mapping but may be earlier 10 MES26179 5628 2137 Cartographic Post-medieval Cottage formerly known as Woodbine, 19th century or earlier 11 EES9215 56200 22000 Excavation Not cited Wealden Iron Research Group conducted an excavation (test pit?) but no details cited in HER - MES4360 6578 2407 Cartographic Uncertain Trackway, ‘Heathfield ridgeway’, possibly prehistoric

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Saxton’s map of Sussex (Fig. 2) 1610 Speed’s map of Sussex (not illustrated) 1695 Morden’s map of Sussex (not illustrated) 1695 Norden’s map of Sussex (not illustrated) 1723 Budgen’s map of Sussex (Fig. 3) 1750 Kitchin’s map of Sussex (not illustrated) 1756 Bowen’s map of Sussex (not illustrated) 1763 Kitchin’s map of Sussex (not illustrated) 1778 Yeakell and Gardener’s map of Sussex (not illustrated) 1808 Cole’s map of Sussex (not illustrated) 1808 Cooper’s map of Sussex (not illustrated) 1837 Moule’s map of Sussex (not illustrated) 1840 Dugdale’s map of Sussex (not illustrated) 1842 Tithe map (Fig. 4) 1875 First Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 5) 1899 Second Edition Ordnance Survey (not illustrated) 1910 Third Edition Ordnance Survey (not illustrated) 1931 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 6) 1961 Ordnance Survey (not illustrated) 1975 Ordnance Survey (not illustrated) 1981 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 7) 2007 Ordnance Survey Explorer 135 at 1:12,500 (Fig. 1) 2016 Current layout (Fig. 8)

APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted

No. Sortie Frame no. Date Grid Reference (TQ) Comment 1 RAF/3G/TUD/UK/150 5095–7 16 APR 1946 577 217 2 RAF/CPE/UK/1966 1023–4 10 APR 1947 573 213 3 RAF/CPE/UK/2014 4194–5 16 APR 1947 576 204 4 RAF/58/2857 251–2 14 MAY 1959 569 210 5 RAF/58/2943 394–5 16 JUN 1959 574 215 6 RAF/543/626 105–6 08 JUL 1959 568 224 7 MAL/66077 83–5 03 DEC 1966 573 210 8 MAL/66079 103–4, 121–2 04 DEC 1966 575 212 9 OS/73230 430–2 05 JUN 1973 565 213 10 OS/93605A 91–3 19 OCT 1993 565 219 11 OS/99973 5474–5 28 MAR 1999 576 217 12 OS/03039 173–4 06 MAY 2003 576 213 13 OS/03915 9158–9, 9181–2 14 AUG 2003 569 217 NB : Grid reference given is for start of run; multiple frames may offer wide coverage.

12 SITE

23000

Battle Uckfield Hastings

Lewes Bexhill

BRIGHTON Eastbourne

22000 11

SITE

10 5 4 2

21000 3 7 9

TLH16/15 TQ57000 58000

Land adjoining Tilsmore Lodge, Mount Pleasant, Heathfield, East Sussex, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment Figure 1. Location of site within Heathfield and East Sussex, showing locations of HER entries. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 135 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Approximate location of site

TLH 16/15 N Land adjoining Tilsmore Lodge, Mount Pleasant, Heathfield, East Sussex 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 2. Saxton's map of of Sussex 1575 Approximate location of site