White Cliffs Business Park, Dover, Kent

White Cliffs Business Park, Dover, Kent Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Report Project Code: WCBP-DA-15 Planning Ref: Pre-application NGR: 631378 144379 Report No: 2016/4 Archive No: 3671 July 2016 Document Record This report has been issued and amended as follows: Version Prepared by Position Date Approved by 01 Alexandra Vokes and Jake Weekes Archaeological Assistant and Project Officer 06/07/2016 Jake Weekes Conditions of Release This document has been prepared for the titled project, or named part thereof, and should not be relied on or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authority of Canterbury Archaeological Trust Ltd being obtained. Canterbury Archaeological Trust Ltd accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned. This document has been produced for the purpose of assessment and evaluation only. To the extent that this report is based on information supplied by other parties, Canterbury Archaeological Trust Ltd accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client, whether contractual or otherwise, stemming from any conclusions based on data supplied by parties other than Canterbury Archaeological Trust Ltd and used by Canterbury Archaeological Trust Ltd in preparing this report. This report must not be altered, truncated, précised or added to except by way of addendum and/or errata authorized and executed by Canterbury Archaeological Trust Ltd. All rights including translation, reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of Canterbury Archaeological Trust Limited Canterbury Archaeological Trust Limited 92a Broad Street Canterbury Kent CT1 2LU Tel +44 (0)1227 462062 Fax +44 (0)1227 784724 email: admin@canterburytrustco.uk www.canterburytrustco.uk

SUMMARY This report presents a provisional desk-based assessment constituting rapid archaeological appraisal of land at White Cliffs Business Park, Dover, Kent (NGR 631378 144379, centred; Fig 1). The report was commissioned by CityCourt Developments Limited in January 2016 in view of proposed development of the site. In light of the evidence from previous investigations in the surrounding area, there is a likelihood that extant archaeological remains will be encountered within the PDA. Archaeological evaluation is recommended prior to the commencement of building activity in order to mitigate potential damage to the archaeological resource and ensure adequate recovery and recording.

CONTENTS 1. Introduction... 3 2. Policy and research frameworks... 3 National policy... 3 Research frameworks... 5 3. Location, geology and topography... 5 4. Designations... 5 5. Archaeological and historical evidence... 5 Prehistoric (c 500,000BP AD 43)... 6 Romano-British (c AD 43 450)... 7 Anglo-Saxon (c 450 1066)... 8 Medieval (c 1066 1540)... 8 Post-medieval (c 1540 1900)... 8 Modern (c 1900 2000)... 9 Undated... 9 6. Interim impact assessment... 9 Existing impacts... 9 Archaeological assessment... 9 Potential impacts... 10 Mitigation recommended... 10 7. Conclusion... 11 Sources... 12

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report presents a provisional desk-based assessment constituting rapid archaeological appraisal of land at White Cliffs Business Park, Dover, Kent (NGR 631378 144379, centred; Fig 1). The report was commissioned by CityCourt Developments Limited in January 2016 in view of proposed development of the site. 1.2 This assessment is a consultation document prepared for the client which may be submitted as part of a planning proposal. It constitutes a pilot study assessing the potential for further research, either desk-based or in the field. Additional desk-based research and/or fieldwork may be requested by planning authorities or specified as conditions on any planning consent, although any request for further desk-based work should clearly demonstrate the benefits of such an approach as opposed to field evaluation, for example. 1.3 The objective of the current research, verbally agreed with the client and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), has been to view readily available existing evidence in order to assess the extent and nature of any heritage assets with archaeological interest within the Proposed Development Area (PDA), and thereby gauge the likelihood of heritage assets of archaeological interest being affected by development within the PDA. Research has been undertaken to an appropriate level of detail in response to funding limitations which affect the affordable scope and provisional nature of the study, as well as the particular circumstances of the proposed development. 2. POLICY AND RESEARCH FRAMEWORKS 2.1 This report has been prepared in accordance with national and local policy regarding heritage assets and with reference to research frameworks. National policy 2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG March 2012) sets out a series of core planning principles designed to underpin plan-making and decision-taking within the planning system. In terms of development proposals affecting known heritage assets, the following principle states that planning should: Conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations. 2.3 By definition the historic environment includes all surviving physical remains of past human activity. Heritage assets include extant structures and features, sites, places and landscapes. The European Landscape Convention definition of a historic landscape describes: an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors (Council of Europe 2000: which came into force in the UK in March 2007; see research frameworks, below). Furthermore the historic landscape encompasses visible, buried or submerged remains, which includes the buried archaeological resource. 2.4 Policy 126 states that: Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most 3

at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. In developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account: The desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; The wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; The desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and Opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of the place. 2.5 When determining planning applications, the following policies are especially pertinent: 128. 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 the 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. 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. 4

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. 2.6 The existence of the latter within a proposed development area can be partially investigated and to an extent predicted via desk-based assessment, but field evaluation and/or archaeological monitoring of groundworks are likely to be a planning requirement and should be expected. Research frameworks 2.7 The national and local policy outlined above should be considered in light of the nonstatutory heritage frameworks that inform them. While the regional South East Research Framework for the historic environment (SERF) 1 is still in preparation, initial outputs are available on-line and have been considered in preparing this report, in order to take current research agendas into account. 3. LOCATION, GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 3.1 An irregular parcel of land, the PDA currently comprises open farm land under plough within an area of approximately 0.64ha, the fullest extents being 155m by 133m. The PDA is situated within the White Cliffs Business Park and it is bounded by Honeywood Parkway access road and its associated roundabouts to the south, east and west. An area of open land is located directly adjacent to the PDA to the north-west, while a line of trees marks the boundary of the PDA to the north (Fig 1). The PDA lies on a steep gradient, falling from an elevation of 123m OD at the southern limit of the site to 120m towards the north with the ground continuing to slope away steadily in that direction. 3.2 The underlying geology of the PDA is mapped as Clay-with-flints Formation Clay, Silt, Sand and Gravel, these superficial deposits overlying solid Margate Chalk Member Chalk (1:50,000 on-line digital map, accessed 20/01/2016). 4. DESIGNATIONS 4.1 The PDA does not affect or impact upon any World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Registered Battlefields, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings or Registered Parks and Gardens. Historic Landscape Characterisation has been checked on-line. 5. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL EVIDENCE 5.1 A search of the Historic Environment Records (HER: see Figs 1 and 2) as well as a list of reports of archaeological investigations not yet included in the HER was commissioned from Kent County Council Heritage Conservation Group, along with recently published reports on major sites on the south side of Ashford. The HER and reports search covers a radius of 500m around the PDA (centred on NGR 631378 144379). These records have been assessed in terms of their particular relevance to the PDA and only significant evidence is cited in this report. Further (on-line) historic environment records (National Monuments Records) were also consulted in comparison. 5.2 It has been considered beyond the means of this project to pursue detailed questions requiring an in-depth study of primary documentary and cartographic sources. General historical context for archaeological findings is provided where applicable/significant in 1 http://www.kent.gov.uk/leisure_and_culture/heritage/south_east_research_framework.aspx 5

terms of results, and a survey of published and unpublished maps (including geology and contour survey) has been undertaken. A full list of maps consulted is provided in the list of sources at the end of the report. Only maps showing significant topographical developments are reproduced here. 5.3 No pertinent geophysical surveys were available. Only photographs, images or results showing significant features or topographical developments are reproduced, the findings incorporated with map regression, documentary evidence and archaeological sections of the report as appropriate and fully referenced. 5.4 A site survey (English Heritage Level 1) has not been requested by the client. 5.5 All results of analyses are presented below in synthesis and in order of chronology. Prehistoric (c 500,000BP AD 43) 5.6 During a watching brief in 2010 two bi-facially worked hand-axes and five waste flakes likely to be of Palaeolithic date were recovered approximately 301m west of the PDA (TR 34 SW 908). Further, two Acheulian hand-axes and five heavily patinated flints were found during an evaluation approximately 150m south-west of the PDA in 2010 (TR 34 SW 1021). A worked flint dated to the Lower Palaeolithic was found 230m north-west of the PDA in 2004 (TR 34 SW 1095). 5.7 A broken Mesolithic adze/axe and probable Neolithic and Bronze Age struck flints were recovered during an evaluation and topsoil clearing at Honeywood Parkway, approximately 285m north-west of the PDA in 2000 (TR 34 SW 613). In addition to this, half of an Early-Middle Neolithic leaf-shaped arrowhead was found approximately 258m north-east of the PDA in 2013. The find spot also yielded a number of scrapers and struck flints (TR 34 SW 990). 5.8 Further Neolithic-Bronze Age struck flints were found lightly scattered in the plough soil during evaluation trenching approximately 206m west of the PDA in 2001 (TR 34 SW 625). This was followed in 2003 by the discovery of 182 struck flints dating to the same period during a watching brief in the same area (TR 34 SW 909). Although this collection consisted mainly of flakes, some retouching was evident and two scrapers and one piercer were identified. A prehistoric pit found on the site contained carbon-rich deposits in which 44 burnt-flints were found. It is believed that these results provide evidence for nearby cooking activity during the Neolithic or Bronze Age; a further two burnt potboilers were found approximately 220m north-west of the PDA during a watching brief in 2004 (TR 34 SW 910). Also recovered as part of this investigation were 41 struck flints primarily of Neolithic-Bronze Age date. The majority of these were waste flakes but 9 retouched/utilised pieces and 5 cores/struck lumps were identified in the collection. 5.9 The large volume of struck flint from this period found in the area is further evidenced from the 46 prehistoric struck flints revealed during an evaluation in 2004. In this instance, again the majority of the pieces were waste flakes, however, five cores/core fragments/bashed lumps were identified in addition to one rough scraper and six flakes with retouch (TR 34 SW 920). Most of these were recovered from the subsoil. Further, a scatter of Neolithic/Bronze Age struck flints and occasional calcined flints were collected as part of a watching brief approximately 230m north-west of the PDA in 2004 (TR 34 SW 1095), and struck flint of broadly later Neolithic to Bronze Age date was identified during a programme of archaeological excavation to the south of Honeywood Parkway in 2014 roughly 145m west of the PDA (TR 34 SW 1099). 6

5.10 An assemblage of 326 worked flints was retrieved from the topsoil and across the site as part of an evaluation carried out in 2010 approximately 150m south-west of the PDA (TR 34 SW 1020). The majority of the material was ascribed a later prehistoric date. 5.11 Characterised by the presence of sherds with rusticated finishes, a small collection of flint-tempered pottery dating from the early- to mid-iron Age was identified in the topsoil during evaluation trenching for the A256 improvements only 140m north-east of the PDA (TR 34 SW 675). The collection can be broadly equated with Highstead Period 3B on the basis of consistent regional evidence. 5.12 Also of Iron Age date, a ditch containing flint, charcoal and pottery in the upper fill was located approximately 221m north-east of the PDA during an evaluation in advance of the Whitfield-Eastry bypass in 1995 (TR 34 SW 676). It was likely to have been an enclosure ditch or a field boundary marker. 5.13 Located directly adjacent to the PDA to the east, evaluation which took place as part of the Phase 1 development of the White Cliffs Business Park in 2006 (TR 34 SW 481) revealed four features likely to be of prehistoric date, flint debitage, burnt flint and several sherds of Iron Age pottery. The features were interpreted as having been ditches with one representing either a ditch terminus or possibly a pit. 5.14 Further, albeit truncated, prehistoric features were identified during an investigation in advance of the completion of a roundabout and length of road immediately to the east of the PDA in 2007 (TR 34 SW 939). In this instance a number of ditches were identified and flints were collected from several tree bowls. One of the ditches was slightly larger than the others and was therefore interpreted as representing a more substantial boundary ditch. 5.15 A further possible prehistoric ditch was located during trial trenching at Dover Christ Church Academy approximately 230m south-west of the PDA in 2014. Although the feature was dated by a few prehistoric flint flakes it is equally possible that the ditch, interpreted as being part of an enclosure or boundary, was related to Roman activity within the local vicinity. 5.16 Two sherds of pottery dated to 1500 BC AD 50 were recovered during the excavation which took place in 2014 approximately 145m west of the PDA (TR 34 SW 1099). Romano-British (c AD 43 450) 5.17 The Roman road to Richborough (Margary 1955, 32) lies approximately 230m to the east of the PDA and was recorded (TR 34 SW 94) prior to the construction of the Lydden-Dover bypass. The inspection yielded a large quantity of Romano-British pottery sherds, including Samian ware, and a number of horse shoes. It is notable that the road appears not to respect the grain of the landscape in terms of field systems (see all Figs), suggesting that the latter could even represent a pre-roman topography. 5.18 Archaeological evaluation directly adjacent to the PDA revealed Samian pottery (TR 34 SW 481). 5.19 Further evidence for domestic activity dating to this period has been recorded 115m to the south-west of the PDA. During an evaluation in 2010 a slickstone, used to smooth out linen as part of the laundering process, was recovered (TR 34 SW 1019). Two cremation burials were also excavated here in addition to a ditch and two pits containing significant quantities of pottery. Post holes, potentially relating to settlement, were also identified. 5.20 Six sherds of Roman period pottery have been found in the gardens of Archer's Court secondary school (NMR 468128), some 340m south-west of the PDA. 7

5.21 A badly worn Roman copper alloy nummus coin of the House of Constantine (early to mid-fourth century) was discovered by a metal detectorist approximately 305m south-east of the PDA in 2005 (MKE64889). 5.22 To the east of the PDA, a now defunct field boundary, perpendicular to the Roman road (Figs 3 and 4) appears not to have aligned with the potentially ancient landscape suggested above: and may have had a connection with the road itself. It may therefore reflect part of a superimposed Romano-British landscape locally, preserved in the field system, but is perhaps more likely to have been later imposed given the longevity of the road s use. Anglo-Saxon (c 450 1066) 5.23 An early medieval copper alloy pendant or perhaps a hanging bowl escutcheon was discovered approximately 280m east of the PDA by a metal detectorist in 1998 (MKE62766). Medieval (c 1066 1540) 5.24 The PDA lies in Whitfield parish, its proper name being Bewsfield (in Domesday, Bevesfel). 2 5.25 During an evaluation in 2004 three ditches probably belonging to the medieval period were found below the subsoil approximately 330m west of the PDA (TR 34 SW 919). Although this dating is most likely, however, it was highlighted that a Roman date should not be ruled out. Post-medieval (c 1540 1900) 5.26 A post-medieval ditch was recorded in 2006 immediately east of the PDA. Victorian pottery was also identified. 5.27 Nine gullies, possibly relating to deep ploughing of the fields or with draining the heavy clay soil on the site, were identified during evaluation trenching approximately 270m north-west of the PDA in 2000 (TR 34 SW 612); these features are likely to have been of nineteenth-century date. 5.28 Hasted describes Whitfield Parish at the end of the eighteenth century as: very small and narrow, it is a very unfrequented place, situated on very high ground, in a poor country of open uninclosed land, the soil of which is in general chalk and very light, though there are some few strypes of deep ground more fertile than the rest. 5.29 The (originally) Roman road from Dover to Richborough, passing in the vicinity of the PDA, remained in use into the post-medieval period, and is marked on maps by Symondson (1596), Andrews, Dury and Herbert (1768), Mudge (1801) and the first edition of the Ordnance Survey (OS; 1876; Fig 3). 5.30 Apart from the ancient grain of the landscape, local topography only becomes clearer from Mudge onwards, with the nearby pocket of woodland, Archers Court Wood, clearly shown (not reproduced here). The corner of a field system which ties in with this ancient landscape, shown on the OS, incorporates the hedge which forms the north-easternmost corner of the PDA, the land adjacent wooded in c 1960 (Fig 4). 2 Hasted 1800. 8

5.31 The field is today bisected by the A2 and its interchange system, slightly to the north (Fig 5). Modern (c 1900 2000) 5.32 Archers Court Hill First World War trench system (TR 34 SW 518), constructed in 1916 either as part of a training exercise for troops, or, as described in a more contemporary account, as an anti-invasion defence feature (TR 34 SW 858), was located within the north-east corner of Archers Court School grounds, approximately 340m south-west of the PDA. HER outputs also indicated a cropmark revealing the presence of a further possible trench system within the vicinity of the PDA, approximately 386m to the north-east. Undated 5.33 During a programme of archaeological excavation in advance of planned development of the area approximately 145m west of the PDA in 2014, a range of features were recorded. These included hollows, pits and linear and curvilinear gullies and a linear north-south aligned feature (TR 34 SW 1099). The limited cultural material recovered during this work, however, suggests that it is not possible to rule out a geological origin for these features. 5.34 Two pits and two ditches were excavated during evaluation some 310m west of the PDA in 2002. No datable material was recovered (TR 34 SW 967). 5.35 An evaluation in 2003 approximately 355m west of the PDA revealed two pits or post-holes in one trench. Although a monitoring visit observed burnt flints in several trenches (TR 34 SW 988). 5.36 Running in an east-west direction, two U-shaped ditches were discovered along the route of the Lydden-Dover bypass after the topsoil had been removed. The small quantity of pottery sherds recovered could not be dated, however (TR 34 SW 93). 6. INTERIM IMPACT ASSESSMENT Existing impacts 6.1 The combined evidence of an apparently ancient landscape (superseded by the line of a Roman Road) and map regression strongly suggests that the PDA will have been agricultural land for a very considerable period, although phases of woodland use should not be ruled out. Existing impacts may therefore be limited to plough erosion or tree root and removal activity. It is worth noting that many of the prehistoric finds in the vicinity were derived from the plough soil, suggesting archaeological features originally containing such material may have been at least partially truncated. Archaeological assessment 6.2 Although no archaeological intervention has previously taken place within the boundary of the PDA itself, investigations carried out in the immediate vicinity show that this area is rich in archaeological remains from several periods, implying that similar remains are likely to be encountered within the PDA. 6.3 Palaeolithic material is present but in a Clay-with-Flints context, and therefore ambiguous in terms of provenance. More such material, if found to be present, would still be considered to be of moderate regional significance. 9

6.4 The later prehistoric period is strongly represented within the 500m search radius of the PDA suggesting that archaeology of this date is likely also to be found within the PDA itself. If such a resource were to be located within the PDA the results could contribute to a regional understanding of the period, and considered of moderate significance. 6.5 The presence of the Roman road some 230m to the east of the PDA and the recovery of associated artefacts suggests that it is likely that at least some archaeology of Roman date will be encountered within the PDA. This conclusion is supported by the evidence, cited above, for Romano-British domestic activity throughout the surrounding area and, in light of this, evidence from this period within the PDA might take the form of, for example, cremation burials, pottery sherds and pits and ditches. Any such activity identified within the PDA might be of at least regional significance. 6.6 Although the search area contained limited evidence for Anglo-Saxon activity, the potential for the recovery of such remains within the PDA should not be ruled out entirely; existing evidence suggests that the same conclusion should be drawn for the medieval period. 6.7 A study of maps of the area shows that the land within and around the PDA has remained largely open fields throughout at least the post-medieval period, although Hasted s description of this and the neighbouring parishes suggests open heathland. The notable exception to this is the pocket of woodland immediately to the north of the PDA. Although not continually wooded, it must be highlighted here that the corner of this woodland remains extant as a part of the ancient landscape and today acts as the northern boundary of the PDA. This being the case, awareness must be raised of the possibility of the boundary of the PDA impinging on an old hedgerow. 6.8 There is a possibility that post-medieval and modern archaeology could be found intact within the PDA, potentially relating to old farming methods/draining of the land and, conceivably, training practices/methods of defence during the Great War, the latter being of perhaps regional significance. Potential impacts 6.9 There is a significant possibility that extant archaeological features, artefacts or ecofacts, particularly relating to the prehistoric and Roman periods, may be disturbed or destroyed by groundworks within the PDA. The destruction of preserved archaeology without proper record risks a major negative impact on the historic environment. Mitigation recommended 6.10 In order to mitigate this potential impact, it is recommended that an archaeological evaluation should be undertaken in advance of construction work, in liaison with the Local Authority Archaeologist, so as to establish the presence or absence of buried archaeological remains. If such remains are discovered and are assessed to be at risk from the proposed development, further mitigation appropriate to the established significance of those remains may be required, in the form of an archaeological excavation or preservation in situ. If excavated, archaeological remains will be preserved by record and the information generated made public, again via means appropriated to their significance. Modifications to the design of building or services in order to preserve buried archaeology in situ, can also be suggested if deemed necessary. 6.11 All archaeological work should be carried out in accordance with written schemes of investigations and in consultation with the local authority archaeologist. Archaeological assessment and mitigation may be expected as part of the process of a planning 10

application to redevelop the PDA with the details comprising reports through to final publication as appropriate, subject to submission and approval to satisfy the discharge of conditions attached to planning consents. 7. CONCLUSION 7.1 In light of the evidence from previous investigations in the surrounding area, there is a likelihood that extant archaeological remains will be encountered within the PDA. Archaeological evaluation is recommended prior to the commencement of building activity in order to mitigate potential damage to the archaeological resource and ensure adequate recovery and recording. 11

BIBLIOGRAPHY (INCLUDING WEB RESOURCES): SOURCES British Geological Survey on-line: http://maps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyviewer/ English Heritage National Heritage List on-line: http://list.englishheritage.org.uk/advancedsearch.aspx Hasted, E. 1800. The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent: Second Ed. Volume 9: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/ Kent County Council Historic Environment Record: http://www.kent.gov.uk/exploringkentspast/advancedsearch.aspx Margary, I.D. 1955. Roman Roads in Britain. Volume 1: South of the Fosse Way Bristol Channel. London. National Monument Records: http://www.pastscape.org.uk/ MAPS AND VIEWS CONSULTED: John Speed 1611 (digital CAT) Andrews, Dury and Herbert 1768 (2 hard copies CAT) Mudge 1801 (Hard copy CAT) OS 1st Edition (on-line) OS 2nd Edition (on-line) OS 3rd Edition (on-line) 12

Fig 1. Historical Environment Record map showing events & location of PDA PDA

Fig 2. Historical Environment Record map showing monuments & location of PDA PDA

Fig 3. First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1876 PDA

Fig 4. Aerial photograph of 1960 PDA

Fig 5. Aerial photograph of 2013 PDA