Archaeological S E R V I C E S S O U T H

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 off Foundry Close, Hurst Green, East Sussex

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Gordana Baljkas

Site Code FCH16/14

(TQ 7343 2735) Land off Foundry Close, Hurst Green, East Sussex

Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

for Millwood Designer Homes Limited

by Gordana Baljkas

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code FCH 16/14

February 2016 Summary

Site name: Land off Foundry Close, Hurst Green, East Sussex

Grid reference: TQ 7343 2735

Site activity: Archaeological desk-based assessment

Project manager: Steve Ford

Site supervisor: Gordana Baljkas

Site code: FCH16/14

Area of site: 2.3ha

Summary of results: There are no known heritage assets within the area of the proposed development site, but there are numerous listed buildings in close proximity, three of which are immediately adjacent. The development would need to be sympathetic to, or enhance, the settings of these listed buildings. The East Sussex Historic Environment Record revealed very limited evidence for the presence of prehistoric and medieval activity within 1km of the proposal site, but it is possible that the absence of evidence is more of a reflection of a lack of archaeological investigation than a genuine indicator of a lack of past exploitation of this landscape. 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 All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp.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 22.02.16 Steve Preston 22.02.16

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 off Foundry Close, Hurst Green, East Sussex Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

by Gordana Baljkas

Report 16/14

Introduction

This report is an assessment of the archaeological potential of land off Foundry Close, Hurst Green, East Sussex

TN19 7QW (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.

Planning consent is to be sought from Rother District Council for residential development on land off

Foundry Close, Hurst Green, East Sussex. This assessment will accompany the application in order to inform the planning process with regard to potential archaeological and heritage implications. This is in accordance with the Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF

2012) and the Council’s heritage policies.

Site description, location and geology

The proposal site comprises an irregularly-shaped plot of land off Foundry Close, Hurst Green measuring approximately 2.3ha and centred on NGR TQ 7343 2735 (Fig. 1). The site is bounded by mature trees and hedges separating it from undeveloped fields to the north, east and south, a property called Byways to the south- west and properties flanking the eastern side of London Road (A21) to the west. The proposal site is accessed by

Foundry Close, a small cul-de-sac. The proposal site comprises five undeveloped fields, with areas thick with brambles and vegetation in the middle and the south-east sections and a number of mounds of modern debris in the northern section. There is a small strip of arable land in the middle section of the site bounded by trees to the north and south. There is also a ditch towards the southern end of the proposal site (Pls 1-6). The proposal site occupies an elevation of approximately 65m above Ordnance Datum in the south-east to approximately 70 m above Ordnance Datum in the north-west. According to the British Geological Survey the underlying geology consists of Tunbridge Wells Sand Formation - sandstone and siltstone, interbedded (BSG 2016).

1 Planning background and development proposals

Planning consent is being sought from Rother District Council for a residential development (Fig. 1). There are no detailed proposal plans available at the moment.

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.’

2 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.’

3 Rother District Council Core Strategy (Local Plan) adopted in 2014 includes, policy EN 2:.

‘Stewardship of the Historic Built Environment ‘Development affecting the historic built environment, including that both statutorily protected and the non-statutorily protected, will be required to: ‘(i) Reinforce the special character of the district’s historic settlements, including villages, towns and suburbs, through siting, scale, form and design; ‘(ii) Take opportunities to improve areas of poor visual character or with poor townscape qualities; ‘(iii) Preserve, and ensure clear legibility of, locally distinctive vernacular building forms and their settings, features, fabric and materials, including forms specific to historic building typologies; ‘(iv) Make reference to the character analysis in Conservation Area Appraisals, where relevant; ‘(v) Reflect current best practice guidance produced by English Heritage and HELM ‘(vi) Ensure appropriate archaeological research and investigation of both above and below- ground archaeology, and retention where required.’

The East Sussex Historic Landscape Characterisation classes the site as informal fieldscapes (HES42326)

(ESCC 2010). The site is not within a Conservation Area.

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 within 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 (Cleere and Crossley 1995).

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, fig. 9.1), but some are

4 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 woodland 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 with the major work of clearing and settling in the High Weald undertaken between the late 12th and early 14th centuries. Hurst Green itself lay on the route of 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 27th January 2016 for a radius of 1km around the proposal site. This revealed a total of 77 entries within the search radius including Listed Buildings and archaeological events. The HER entries were collated to take into account duplicates or sites which have more than one entry and to exclude desk-based research. The resulting 57 entries are summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1.

Prehistoric

Evidence for prehistoric occupation within the search radius is limited to the findspot of unstratified prehistoric struck flints [Fig. 1: 32], a late prehistoric earthwork and enclosure and a trackway which might have prehistoric origins. A large circular earthwork enclosure on Burgh Hill [Fig. 1: 1] has seen limited investigation which revealed that the banks incorporate iron slag, so it may be an Iron Age or Roman iron-working site. The line of the modern road through the village follows the so-called Hurst Green - Etchingham - Heathfield ridgeway [2].

As with many supposedly prehistoric paths known as ridgeways, there is very little evidence for this actually being much older than medieval, but a prehistoric origin is possible, and perhaps a Roman one more likely. The ridgeway falls within an Archaeological Notification Area (ANA 1272) (DES9676).

5 Roman

There is no specific evidence for Roman activity recorded in the HER within the search radius, but either the ridgeway or the enclosure noted above could have been in use in the Roman period.

Saxon

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

Medieval

Medieval occupation is evidenced by a large farmstead or settlement at Cooper’s Corner [3] to the north of the village, and documentary references to Hurst Green hamlet or settlement first recorded in 1342 [4]. Hurst Green medieval and post-medieval village falls within ANA 1272. A single sherd of 13th-century pottery from an evaluation [34] is the only medieval find from the area.

Post-medieval

A total of 50 HER entries evidence post-medieval activity within the study area, with 35 entries referring to the

Listed Buildings (see under separate heading below). In addition to the Listed Buildings, the HER contains further eight entries that refer to non-Listed historical buildings: a 16th-century house at 2 Station Road [6],

19th-century icehouse at Iridge Place [7], 17th-century farm at Cooper’s Corner [23], 18th-century cottages, ponds and 19th-century barns at Stonehouse Farm, Hurst Green Road [22], the site of a 19th-century tannery at

London Road [16], 19th-century stables associated with the Woolpack Inn [16] and a 16th- to 17th-century house known as the Cottage in the core of the village [4].

The remaining post-medieval HER entries refer to industrial features: a brick kiln [5], brickworks [8] and a quarry [1]. All of these are located well away from the proposal site but they do indicate that the general area has a tradition of quarrying and brickmaking, not all of which has necessarily been mapped, which could potentially mean truncation to the site.

Modern, negative, undated

Four entries recorded in the HER refer to modern archaeological events: a building survey of The Cottage, Hurst

Green carried out in 1974 [4], a geophysical survey of Hurst Green School playing field which revealed no anomalies of interest [34], and archaeological evaluation also at the school which yielded a few pieces of prehistoric flintwork, and a single sherd of possible 13th-century pottery, but no archaeological features, and an

6 archaeological watching brief carried out at Merriments Lane in 2013 [23] which revealed no archaeological features or finds.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

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

Cartographic and documentary sources

Hurst Green civil parish was created in 1953 out of lands taken from the older parishes of Salehurst,

Etchingham, and to a lesser extent, Ticehurst (Anon. 2009, 5). The name derives from Old English word hyrst denoting “a wooded hill” (Mills 2011).

Neither Hurst Green nor Etchingham is mentioned in Domesday Book of 1086. However, Salehurst is mentioned as Salhert in the hundred of Henhert (Henhurst) (Williams and Martin 2002, 46). It was held by

Countess Goda in 1066 and it was assessed for half a hide and comprised 15 households. There was arable land for 4 ploughs but the villagers had 6 plough teams. There was also a church and 16 acres of meadow. In 1086 it was held by Reinbert the Sheriff of Robert Count of Eu. In the time of King Edward it was worth 20 shillings and in 1086 it was valued at 30 shillings. It was laid waste (vastatum) during the Conquest (VCH 1905, 403).

The earliest surviving document referring to Herst Grene is dated 1574. However, there are references to the great manors of Bernhurst in 1230, and Iridge in 1248, and early records of some of the surrounding farms.

The importance of the village lies in its location on the London-Hastings road. Boarzell's accounts of the l570s show purchases from itinerant travellers of spices - ginger, aniseed, sugar, garlic, mace, cloves, pepper, mustard and cinnamon; exotic fruits (dates, olives, figs, pomegranates, Jordan almonds, prunes, raisins), rice, and oranges; and at least fifteen types of fish (VCH 1905). The first regular London-Hastings passenger coach ran in 1745 taking three days to cover the route in either direction - reduced to one day by the end of the century. Traffic through the village increased with the development of the sea-side resort of Hastings, to be joined by St Leonards from 1830 onwards. Hurst Green's own parish church, Holy Trinity, was built in 1884 while the Courthouse was opened in 1892.

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

7 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 the 1575 Saxton’s map of Sussex (not illustrated); however, while it depicts the settlements of Echingam and Saleherst, it does not show the village of Hurst Green. This trend continues in the 17th century as neither Speed’s map of Sussex from 1610 (not illustrated) nor Morden’s map from 1695 (not illustrated) show Hurst Green, while marking both Etchingham and Salehurst. Budgen’s map of

Sussex from 1723 (Fig. 2) is the first available map to show Hurst Green as a small linear settlement on both sides of a road, presumably an equivalent to modern London Road. A larger settlement of Salehurst is depicted to the south. To the east of Hurst Green is the manor of Iridge and to the west of Haremare. The proposal site however, cannot be identified in any detail. Bowen’s county map of 1756 (not illustrated) again fails to show

Hurst Green, while Kitchin’s 1763 map of Sussex (Fig. 3) simply marks Hurst Green and Iridge but without any detail. Later county maps, such as those of Cole from 1808, Cooper from 1808 and Dugdale from 1840 simply show Hurst Green within the county, while Moule’s map of 1837 does not even depict it (not illustrated).

The Etchingham and Salehurst Tithe maps of 1841 (Fig. 4) are the first maps where the proposal site can be fully identified. The site comprises parts of fields 588, 640, 641, 642 and the entire small field 643. Field 588 was located in the Etchingham parish and was owned and occupied by William Haddon while fields 640-643 were located in the Salehurst parish and owned by Widow Haddon and rented to Ebenezer Brook. The present- day layout of the proposal site is relatively easy to recognise. To the east and south it is bounded with agricultural fields, a small lane or track to the north, and a number of houses and associated plots flanking a road marked To Hastings that corresponds to the modern London Road (A21) to the west. The fields that make up the proposal site are themselves undeveloped and used as arable land (640), pasture (641), orchard/arable field (642) and meadow (643). Field 588 is named Pent Wood, a part of Etchingham meadow.

The First Edition Ordnance Survey map 1873 (Fig. 5) shows the proposal site as parts of four fields 184,

185, 203 and 217 and the entire small field 202. Fields 185 and 202 appear to be still orchard wooded while the remaining three are undeveloped and most likely agricultural. The very irregular line of what appears to be a borough boundary crosses the site. The boundaries of the proposal site remain the same as on the Tithe map, but now a number of houses to the west flanking London Road are named: Petwood House to the north-west,

Hatton House to the west, Old Bull Inn [39], George Hotel to the south-west presumably a predecessor of the

Royal George Public House [43]. Further (now Listed) Building is depicted to the west of the London road,

Woolpack Inn [32], as well as other historic houses: tannery, now Prosperity Cottage [29] and The Cottage [35].

8 Hurst House is also marked to the west of the proposal site. London and Station Roads are not named but their layout is clearly recognisable. Foundry (Iron and Brass) is marked on the far side of the main road.

The Second Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1898 (Fig. 6) shows little change to the proposal site. Now it comprises six fields 334, 335, 336, 353, 354 and 356. Fields 336 and 353 corresponding to fields 185 and 202 of the First Edition Ordnance Survey map remaining under tree cover (the difference in mapping style makes it difficult to gauge if this is now somewhat thinner than previously) and the remaining fields undeveloped and agricultural. The boundary that crosses the site now appears to be the civil parish rather than borough, and there is a well to the rear of Hatton House. Petwood House has been renamed as Pentwood House and Hatton House is still present. The Old Bull Inn is not marked on the map but Police Station is now depicted to the south-west of the proposal site. The Foundry (Iron & Brass) is still present. The west side of London Road is now dominated by Holy Trinity Church and accompanying Grave Yard which was built in 1884. The Cottage [35] and George Hotel are both still depicted.

The Third Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1909 (Fig. 7) shows very little change to the proposal site and the environs apart from further urbanization around London Road. The proposal site’s boundaries remain unchanged and while the fields comprising it have been renumbered (334, 353, 354 and 356) the layout has not changed: a narrow tree-covered strip occupies the middle of the site now with a greenhouse, although the well is no longer shown, with undeveloped field to the north and south. The Foundry is still present to the west of

London Road and all the named buildings from the previous map are still present.

The next available Ordnance Survey map dates from 1974 (Fig. 8) and the proposal site now comprises four undeveloped fields. There now appear to be two small structures present in the south-western corner of the proposal site. The boundaries have remained the same: agricultural fields to the east and south, a track to the north and back of properties flanking London Road to the west. The map depicts the Old Bull Inn [39] again as well as the Woolpack Inn [32] and the Royal George [43]. The Foundry is gone and the environs in general seem to have moderately grown. There are no changes depicted to the proposal site or the immediate surrounding by the next available Ordnance Survey maps of 1979 (Fig. 9). By the 1981 Ordnance Survey map

(Fig. 10) the only changes to the proposal site is the appearance of a small structure located roughly in the middle section towards its eastern boundary, and disappearance of the smaller structure in the south-west corner of the proposal site. By 1994 Ordnance Survey map (Fig.11) there has been further urbanisation along London

Road, most notably the construction of Meadow View Cottages immediately to the north-west of the proposal

9 site and an unnamed lane corresponding to Foundry Close. The site remained mostly undeveloped with a small structure shown in its middle section and a further structure in the south-western corner of the proposal site.

Listed buildings

There are 35 Listed Buildings within the search area. The majority of the buildings are located along London

Road. The most notable of this cluster, though somewhat removed, is Iridge Place [Fig. 1: 9]. It is a Grade II*

Listed Building dating from the 18th century situated on the site of an older house. Its stables are also listed

(Grade II) In addition to the unlisted icehouse [7].

The remaining Listed Buildings on London Road [12–21] are all Grade II Listed: they include numbers, 5

(Hawthorne Cottage); 11 (The Woolpack Inn); 12 (Yew Tree House); 15–25 (odd); 28 and 30; 42 (the Pigeon

House); 43 and 45; 54 (The Royal George Public House); 56 (Sandstones, the former stables of the Royal

George); 76; 87, 89 & 91; 93; 115 and 117; 119–23 (odd); Barnhurst; Little Barnhurst; The Old Bull Inn;

Lancefield House; Hurst Green Stores and Post Office; and The Old Court House. In addition to the houses,

London Road is home to a Grade II Listed drinking fountain in front of Lancefield House [17]. Grove Hill

Farmhouse is located well south of the village, still on London Road [24]. The settings of all of these listed buildings contribute significantly individually and collectively to the historic character of the village. Most of these buildings will have lines of sight to and from the proposal area, with the buildings at locations 18, 19 and

20 all in close proximity. The Old Bull Inn, Hurst Green Stores and Post Office and 28 & 30 London Road [19] all directly adjoin the proposal site. The development proposals would need to respect and if possible enhance the settings of these heritage assets, which may be achieved through sympathetic design in keeping with the historic character of the area.

A second, smaller cluster of Grade II Listed Buildings is located on Station Road [30–33]: numbers 2; 4;

29 (Firs Cottage); 37 (Two Hoots), 39 & 41 (Kim Cottage); 45 (Hope Cottage);46 (Burghwood Cottage, Iden

Cottage); 53 (Cordwainers); 55 (April Cottage); 57 & 59. These are all well separated from the proposal site.

The majority of London and Station Road Listed Buildings fall within Archaeological Notification Area

(ANA 1272) which identifies the historic nature of the settlement.

Little Iridge Farmhouse [10] and Mistletoe Farm [11] located to the north of Little Iridge Farm date from the 18th and early 19th centuries respectively and are located on Salehurst Road. Two oasthouses, Bellhurst

Oast and Cooper's Farm Oast [28] are located on Hawkhurst Road and converted into a house. Cooper's Corner

Farmhouse [28], dates from the early 19th century. Finally, King’s Hill House on Merriments Lane dated from

10 the early 18th century or earlier [41]. These buildings area in positions where the proposal would have minimal, if any, effect on the contribution that their settings make to their heritage significance.

Historic Hedgerows

The internal and external boundaries of the site appear to have been more or less unchanged since detailed mapping began. Parts of these boundaries formed by hedgerows would need to be considered to see if they might qualify as ‘important’ as defined by Schedule 1 of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. However, there is no positive evidence that these boundaries pre-date parliamentary enclosure (no pre--enclosure map exists) and they do no obviously fulfil any of the other historic criteria to be so defined.

Aerial Photographs

A search was made on the National Monuments Record’s database of aerial photographs on 27th January 2016

(Ref. AP/98353). This revealed 39 vertical prints from 15 sorties flown between April 1947 and May 2003. No specialist oblique photographs have been taken of the site. The aerial photographs have not been examined due to the densely built immediate environs of the proposal site and the generally unpromising nature of the underlying geology for the production of cropmarks.

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. There are, however, numerous heritage assets (listed buildings) in positions where their settings might be affected by its development. Notably, three

Listed Buildings back directly onto the proposal site. The settings of all of the listed buildings are essentially bound up with the village and the main road, in a rural but busy community. Development on the site that conformed to or enhanced this character should not detract from the contribution that setting makes to the heritage significance of any of the listed buildings, individually or collectively.

It remains therefore to establish if there may be potential for previously unknown heritage assets, that is, below-ground archaeological remains, within the site. In considering the archaeological potential of the study

11 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.

The East Sussex Historic Environment Record search of the study area revealed very limited evidence for the presence of prehistoric and medieval activity within 1km of the proposal site, but a high concentration of post-medieval Listed Buildings and several industrial features dating from the 16th to 20th century. This suggests limited archaeological potential for the area, however the two entries for (possible) prehistoric remains are significant, a possibly ancient ridgeway which will have served as a transport route, and a possible iron working site. Coupled with the site’s location at what appears to be the head of a dry valley, indicating a former water source, and close to plentiful timber supply, the potential for an iron-working past cannot be ruled out.

While the apparent archaeological potential of the site is typically low for most periods, the lack of below- ground archaeological investigations at this location must also be noted. As the site is located on largely undeveloped land, the absence of archaeological features is likely to reflect the lack of archaeological investigation rather than a definitive lack of any past occupation. In addition, cartographic evidence shows that the proposal site was not built on but has been cultivated and orchard in part from at least the 19th century. It is possible that archaeological remains of prehistoric and/or later occupation that might be present would have survive below ground within the proposed development area, subject only to damage from ploughing and tree root action. The size of the site, at over 2ha, is also sufficient to raise the potential for archaeological remains to be present simply by chance.

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, 2015, British Geological Survey, 1:50,000. http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html (accessed: 15 February 2016) Cleere, H and Crossley, D, 1995, The Iron Industry of the Weald, 2nd edn, Leicester ESCC, 2010, East Sussex Landscape Character Assessment, East Sussex County Council Gardiner, M, 1990, ‘The Archaeology of the Weald – A survey and a review’, Sussex Archaeol Collect 128, 33– 54 HGPC, 2009, Hurst Green Action Plan, Hurst Green Parish Council Mills, A. D, 2011, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford

12 NPPF, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Dept Communities and Local Government, London RDC, 2014, Rother Local Plan Core Strategy, Rother District Council, adopted 29th September 2014, Bexhill- on-Sea 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 VCH, 1905, The Victoria History of the County of Sussex, London which volume? Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London http://sussex.villagenet.co.uk/hurstgreen.php

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

No HER Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment 1 MES20070 7220 2682 Earthwork ? Prehistoric Burgh Hill, large enclosure with evidence for ironworking. MES21059 7224 2679 Cartographic Post-medieval Sites of two 19th century quarries. One built over. 2 MES4360 6578 2407 Earthwork Uncertain Ridgeway, possibly Prehistoric or Roman trackway. DES9676 3 MES19402 7336 2800 Building Medieval Cooper’s Corner, Large medieval farmstead. 4 MES19403 7335 2724 Documentary Medieval Hurst Green settlement, first recorded in 1342 AD. The MES24866 7331 2724 House Post-medieval Cottage, a 16th to 17th c. historic building. Historic building EES16328 Building Survey Modern recording was carried out in 1974. 5 MES3819 724 266 Cartographic Post-medieval Brick Kiln Field. Probably a temporary kiln used when Haremere Hall was enlarged in 1616 and again in 1682. It was also in use in 1839; the layout including pits, ponds, sheds and kiln were shown on the Tithe Map and 1873 Ordnance Survey. 6 MES3973 73 27 House Post-medieval 2 Station Road 16th century 7 MES3974 7389 2687 Cartographic Post-medieval Iridge Place Icehouse. Recorded on 1st, 2nd and 3rd Ordnance Survey but not apparent on Tithe. 8 MES3977 736 278 Brickworks Post-medieval Hurst Green Brickworks In 1937 this brickworks complex consisted of 2 long thin buildings and a kiln, possibly a lime kiln connected to the works. Recorded on Tithe Award. 9 MES20098 73777 26953 Listed Building Post-medieval Iridge Place, large 18th-century house on the site of an older DES4508 73694 26968 building. Grade II*. Late 18th--century stables for Iridge Place LB1365292 (Grade II) MES20287 DES2406 LB1034440 10 MES20285 74331 26612 Listed Building Post-medieval 18th-century weather-boarded Mistletoe Barn at Little Iridge DES3034 Farm LB1234175 11 MES20286 74292 26512 Listed Building Post-medieval Little Iridge Farmhouse, early 19th century DES4174 LB1276238 12 LB1365326 73333 27306 Listed Building Post-medieval 43 & 45 London Road, early 19th century DES4517 13 MES20288 73493 26901 Listed Building Post-medieval 76 London Road, 17th century DES4186 LB1276290 14 MES20289 73472 26857 Listed Building Post-medieval 115–117 London Road Early 19th century. 119–23 London DES4518 73476 26847 Road, 18th century LB1365327 MES20290 DES2403 LB1304436 15 MES20291 73403 27020 Listed Building Post-medieval 93 London Road, North wing 18th century, The south east DES2402 73402 27056 wing early 19th century. 87–91 London Road, early 19th LB1034435 century MES20292 DES2395 LB1034377 16 MES21846 73300 27413 Listed Building Post-medieval 15-25 London Road west side (odd numbers only) 18th DES2400 7327 2739 Cartographic century. Prosperity Cottage, 19th century. The Woolpack Inn, LB1034433 73304 27454 11 London Road, early 19th century; Stable block recorded on MES21847 7329 2747 1st edition Ordnance Survey. Hawthorne Cottage, 5 London MES24255 73272 27526 Road, early 19th century. Tannery recorded on Tithe Award & DES4515 1st Edition Ordnance Survey. Appears disused by 2nd edition LB1365306 OS. May be on site of older tannery? MES24256 LB1034406 DES2397 17 LB1034434 73382 27109 Listed Building Post-medieval Lancefield House London Road, early 19th century. Little DES2401 73374 27176 Barnhurst, 73 London Road, early 19th century, Drinking LB1365290 73375 27196 fountain erected in May 1901 by W O Carterson. Old DES4506 73402 27179 Courthouse and police station. Dated 1892, Arts and Crafts LB1365291 style. Clock tower built by public subscription in memory of DES4507 George Burrow Gregory of Boargell. LB1034438 DES2405 18 MES20293 73413 27093 Listed Building Post-medieval 56 London Road, early 19th century, former Stables of the DES3028 73408 27119 Royal George; The Royal George Public House, 54 London LB1234118 73405 27135 Road, early 19th century. 42 London Road, early 19th century LB1234116 DES3027

14 No HER Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment LB1276285 DES4185 19 LB1034437 73364 27251 Listed Building Post-medieval The Old Bull Inn, London Road, 18th century; 28 & 30 DES2404 73364 27275 London Road, 18th century; Hurst Green Stores and Post LB1365328 73366 27239 Office, 42 London Road, early 19th century DES4519 LB1234105 DES3026 20 MES24257 73305 27446 Listed Building Post-medieval Yew Tree House, 12 London Road, 18th century DES4516 LB1365325 21 LB1034376 73224 27055 Listed Building Post-medieval Barnhurst London Road, 18th century and later additions DES2394 22 MES20482 7409 2805 Building Post-medieval Stonehouse Farm Cottages recorded on Surveyors Draft and MES20483 7415 2805 Cartographic subsequent map 1799-1810. Extant. Stonehouse Farm Barns, MES20484 7419 2800 recorded only on Tithe Award & 1st edition Ordnance Survey. Demolished. Three ponds recorded on Tithe Map and subsequent maps. Only middle pond extant. 23 MES20357 7356 2797 Building Post-medieval Cooper’s Corner, 17th-century farm recorded on Tithe Map. EES15551 7357 2794 Watching brief Negative Watching brief in 2013 fpund nothing of interest. 24 MES20294 73639 26416 Listed Building Post-medieval .Grove Hill Farmhouse, 18th century DES2407 LB1034441 25 MES20485 7416 2776 Cartographic Post-medieval Pond. Recorded on Tithe Map, extant but enlarged. 26 MES20486 7443 2804 Cartographic Post-medieval Pond. Recorded on Tithe Map and subsequent maps. Extant. 27 MES20487 7465 2801 Cartographic Post-medieval Stonehouse Farm Pond on Tithe Map. Extant. 28 MES23062 73338 27957 Listed Building Post-medieval Bellhurst Cooper's Farm Oasthouses, 19th century; Cooper's DES4520 73298 27952 Corner Farmhouse early 19th century LB1365346 MES23063 DES4514 LB1365305 29 LB1034442 74110 28213 Listed Building Post-medieval King’s Hill House Merriments Lane, 18th century? DES2108 30 LB1234177 72912 27203 Listed Building Post-medieval 46 Station Road (Burghwood Cottage, Iden Cottage), 18th DES3036 century 31 LB1234178 72874 27169 Listed Building Post-medieval Station Road: 37 (Two Hoots), 39 & 41 (Kim Cottage) 53 DES3037 72982 27201 (Cordwainers), 45 (Hope Cottage), 55 (April Cottage), 57 & LB1234193 72950 27185 59, all early 19th century DES3052 LB1399117 DES4177 32 LB1276239 73269 27195 Listed Building Post-medieval 4 Station Road, early 19th century DES4175 37 LB1276240 73069 27215 Listed Building Post-medieval Firs Cottage, 29 Station Road, early 19th century DES4176 33 EES14603 7347 2675 Survey Negative Geophysical survey of Hurst Green School playing field was EES14763 7347 2676 Evaluation Prehistoric carried out in July 2009. Nothing of interest. Archaeological Medieval evaluation found only unstratified prehistoric flints and one sherd of medieval pottery

Listed buildings grade II unless stated.

15 APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Saxton’s map of Sussex (not illustrated) 1610 Speed’s map of Sussex (not illustrated) 1695 Morden’s map of Sussex (not illustrated) 1723 Budgen’s map of Sussex (Fig. 2) 1756 Bowen’s map of Sussex (not illustrated) 1763 Kitchin’s map of Sussex (Fig. 3) 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) 1841 Etchingham and Salehurst Tithe map (Fig. 4) 1873 First Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 5) 1898 Second Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 6) 1909 Third Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 7) 1974 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 8) 1979 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 9) 1981 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 10) 1994 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 11) 2004 Ordnance Survey Explorer 136 at 1:12,500 (Fig. 1)

16 APPENDIX 3: Aerial Photographs consulted

No. Sortie Frame no. Date Grid Reference (TQ) Comment 1 RAF/CPE/UK/1966 1134–5 10 APR 1947 739 273 2 RAF/CPE/UK/2051 4174–76, 4192–4 07 MAY 1947 736 263 3 RAF/58/2857 179–80 14 MAY 1959 731 263 4 RAF/58/2942 75–7 16 JUN 1959 742 269 5 RAF/58/2943 48–50, 375–6 16 JUN 1959 742 270 6 RAF/543/626 126–7 08 JUL 1959 729 279 7 MAL/62550 104588–9 15 OCT 1962 728 278 8 OS/67074 442–4 28 APR 1967 741 276 9 OS/73181 384–5 16 MAY 1973 730 274 10 MAL/75009 202 27 FEB 1975 740 264 11 MAL/75059 109–10 26 SEP 1975 733 277 12 OS/89441 28 23 SEP 1989 740 263 13 OS/94158 8–10 01 JUN 1994 728 274 14 OS/99973 5624–5 28 MAR 1999 738 269 15 OS/03598 115–17 07 MAY 2003 741 274

NB : Grid reference given is for start of run; multiple frames may offer wide coverage.

17 SITE 29000

Battle Uckfield Hastings

Lewes Bexhill

BRIGHTON Eastbourne

3 22 26 27 28000 28 23

8 25

20 16 SITE 12 30 32 4 19 33 31 17 18 21 27000 6 15 9 13 7 1 14

34 10 5 11

FCH 16/14 TQ73000 74000

Land off Foundry Close, Hurst Green, East Sussex, 2016 Archaeological Desk-based Assessment

Figure 1. Location of site and HER entries within Hurst Green and East Sussex Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 136 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880 Approximate location of site