aarrcchhaaeeoollooggiiccaall · site description, location and geology the proposed development...

T H A M E S V A L L E Y

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

AAAARRRRCCCCHHHHAAAAEEEEOOOOLLLLOOOOGGGGIIIICCCCAAAALLLL

Ditton Laboratories, Kiln Barn Road, Ditton, Kent

An archaeological desk-based assessment

by Sean Wallis

Site Code DLD10/104

(TQ 7160 5695)

Ditton Laboratories, Kiln Barn Road, Ditton, Kent

An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

for Millwood Designer Homes Ltd

by Sean Wallis

Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd

Site Code DLD 10/104

October 2010

i

TVAS (South),77a Hollingdean Terrace, Brighton BN1 7HB Tel. (01273) 554 198; Fax (01273) 564 043; email [email protected]; website : www.tvas.co.uk

Summary

Site name: Ditton Laboratories, Kiln Barn Road, Ditton, Kent Grid reference: TQ 7160 5695 Site activity: Desk-based assessment Project manager: Sean Wallis Site supervisor: Sean Wallis Site code: DLD 10/104 Area of site: c. 1.95 ha Summary of results: The site lies in an area of low archaeological potential, as evidenced by the paucity of archaeological entries in the Kent HER. Much of the site has been considerably impacted upon by buildings associated with the Ditton Laboratory, and by the landscaping of the areas between these buildings. It is possible that sub-surface archaeological remains may have survived in the far eastern part of the site, which has not been significantly developed. If any archaeological mitigation is required, it may be appropriate for an archaeological watching brief to be carried out during groundworks in this area. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 26.10.10 Steve Preston 26.10.10

1

Ditton Laboratories, Kiln Barn Road, Ditton, Kent An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

by Sean Wallis

Report 10/104

Introduction

This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of an irregular parcel of land located to

the east of Kiln Barn Road, Ditton, Kent (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Pete Bland, of Millwood

Designer Homes Ltd, Bordyke End, East Street, Tonbridge, Kent, TH9 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 permission is to be sought from Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council for the redevelopment

of the site for housing. The desk-based assessment will provide information on the heritage assets present on the

site and on its archaeological potential, in order to inform the planning process.

Site description, location and geology

The proposed development area is centred TQ 7160 5695, and is situated on the east side of Kiln Barn Road, just

over 1km south of the historic core of Ditton, Kent (Fig. 1). Ditton sits west of Maidstone within a broad bend of

the river Medway where its course north is blocked by the south-facing scarp of the North Downs until it breaks

through at Halling. According to the British Geological Survey, the underlying geology consists of the sandy

limestone and calcareous sand of the Hythe Beds (BGS 1993).

The western part of the site is currently occupied by various buildings associated with the Ditton

Laboratory, with the earliest dating from the 1930s. Much of the ground between the buildings has been

landscaped to some degree, with many areas covered in Tarmac; the main building has a basement. The main

laboratory building, along with most of its smaller ancillary structures, are currently derelict, but the house in the

north-west corner of the site has recently been converted into a hostel for fruit pickers. The large buildings, in

the central part of the proposed site, are still operational, and are associated with the packaging of fruit produce.

The far eastern part of the proposed site consists of fruit tree orchards and a small area of scrub. Although the

area slopes down gently towards the north, from c.39m to c.36m AOD, most of the site has been landscaped and

is relatively flat.

2

Planning background and development proposals

Planning permission is to be sought from Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council for the redevelopment of the

site for housing. It is proposed to demolish most of the existing structures on site, and construct 35 new houses,

as shown on Fig. 11.

The Department for Communities and Local Government’s Planning Policy Statement, Planning for the

Historic Environment (PPS5 2010) sets out policies relating to archaeology, and other 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. Policy HE6.1 states that

‘Local planning authorities should require an applicant to provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their setting to that significance. The level of detail should be proportionate to the importance of the heritage asset and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the heritage asset. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets themselves should have been assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary given the application’s impact. Where an application site includes, or is considered to have the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where desk-based research is insufficient to properly assess the interest, a field evaluation.’ [on which, see below].

PPS5 makes the significance of any ‘heritage asset’ a material consideration in the planning process,

regardless of whether that asset is ‘designated’ or not, and places on local planning authorities the responsibility

to weigh the benefits of a proposed development against any loss of significance in a heritage asset. Designated

assets include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered

Battlefields, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens.

Policy HE9.1:

There should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets and the more significant the designated heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of its conservation should be. Once lost, heritage assets cannot be replaced and their loss has a cultural, environmental, economic and social impact. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Loss affecting any designated heritage asset 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, including scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings and grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.’

Policy HE9.6

‘HE9.6 There are many heritage assets with archaeological interest that are not currently designated as scheduled monuments, but which are demonstrably of equivalent significance. These include heritage assets: ‘• that have yet to be formally assessed for designation ‘• that have been assessed as being designatable, but which the Secretary of State has decided not to designate; or

3

‘• that are incapable of being designated by virtue of being outside the scope of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. ‘The absence of designation for such heritage assets does not indicate lower significance and they should be considered subject to the policies in HE9.1 to HE9.4 and HE10.’

Proposals for development which would have an adverse impact on assets not so designated must be

weighed against the significance of the asset.

Policy HE10 states:

‘When considering applications for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset. When considering applications that do not do this, local planning authorities should weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval.’

The accompanying Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (DCLG et al. 2010) clarifies what is meant

by field evaluation: paragraph 62 states:

‘Where a desk-based assessment does not provide sufficient evidence for confident prediction of the impact of the proposal, it may be necessary to establish the extent, nature and importance of the asset’s significance through on-site evaluation. This may be achieved through a number of techniques, some of which may potentially be harmful to the asset and will need careful consideration. These include ground-penetrating radar, trial-trenching, test-pitting, field-walking, x-ray and other forms of remote-sensing, geo-archaeological borehole investigation, opening-up and building analysis and recording…Evaluation is normally a rapid operation. It is designed to inform the decision-making process.’

Early consultation between the applicant and the local planning authority is stressed as important in the process

in paragraphs 63–6.

Paragraph 130:

‘Where development will lead to loss of a material part of the significance of a heritage asset, policy HE12.3 requires local planning authorities to ensure that developers take advantage of the opportunity to advance our understanding of the past before the asset or the relevant part is irretrievably lost. As this is the only opportunity to do this it is important that:

‘1. Any investigation, including recording and sampling, is carried out to professional standards and to an appropriate level of detail proportionate to the asset’s likely significance, by an organisation or individual with appropriate expertise.

‘2. The resultant records, artefacts and samples are analysed and where necessary conserved.

‘3. The understanding gained is made publicly available.

‘4. An archive is created, and deposited for future research.’

Paragraph 4.2.7 of the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Local Plan (TMBLP 1996), adopted in 1996, states :

‘4.2.7 Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other monuments of national importance form a key part of the nation’s heritage which are irreplaceable. The Borough Council will therefore refuse applications for development where it considers that the proposals affect such a site or its setting. Not all important sites are scheduled and it is recognised that the nature of archaeological evidence is such that there may be important sites waiting to be discovered.’

Policy P4/2 states that :

4

‘Development which would adversely affect a Scheduled Ancient Monument or other nationally important archaeological site or its setting will not be permitted. This policy applies to the Scheduled Ancient Monuments shown on the Proposals Map, to any which are scheduled during the Plan period, and to any other monuments which are determined to be of national importance.’

Policy P4/3 is concerned with non-scheduled archaeological sites, of regional or local importance, and states :

‘Where development is proposed on a site of archaeological significance, there will be a preference for mitigation of adverse impact by modifying the proposal to secure physical preservation. Where the balance of other factors is in the favour of granting permission for destructive development, arrangements must be made by the developer to ensure that time and resources are available to allow appropriate and satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording to take place by an approved archaeological body in advance of, or during development. The Borough may impose conditions on a planning permission or seek a Section 106 agreement to secure appropriate investigation, the details of which must be submitted to and approved by the Borough Council.’

Methodology

The assessment of the site was carried out by the examination of pre-existing information from a number of

sources recommended by the Institute for Archaeologists paper ‘Standards in British Archaeology’ covering

desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Kent Historic Environment Record,

geological maps and any relevant publications or reports.

Archaeological background

General background

North Kent has been the focus of human activity from the earliest times, and one of Britain’s most important

Palaeolithic sites was identified on the banks of the river Thames at Swanscombe (Hubbard 1982) while, closer

to the study area, Ightham to the west has a particularly rich concentration of Palaeolithic finds, at least some of

which are probably in situ (Wymer 1999, 16). The site itself is located just to the south of the North Downs, and

two clusters of Neolithic monuments occur in the area, on either side of the river Medway. One group, to the

west of Ditton, includes the Coldrum and Addington long barrows, whilst the other, to the north-west, includes

the megalithic remains of Kit’s Coty. Finds of Grooved Ware pottery have been found to the west of the site, at

East Malling (Clarke 1982). A number of Bronze Age cist burials were recorded in the late 19th century, at

Aylesford to the north-east of the present site (Champion 1982).

Also at Aylesford is the important, rich late Iron Age cemetery, excavated in 1890 (Evans 1890) and further

burials of this period are also known from closer to the present site at Allington. During the Late Iron Age, the

site lay between Oldbury hillfort (Ward-Perkins 1944), to the west, and the oppidum at Quarry Wood, to the

south-east (Cunliffe 1982; Kelly 1971).

5

A fairly extensive Roman settlement has been identified to the east of the site at Maidstone, by the plotting

of building remains, burials and other scattered finds. This settlement would have been on the Roman road

which led northwards towards the major town of Durobrivae (Rochester) (Blagg 1982), and there are a number

of Roman villas in the general area.

Kent was one of the first areas of the country to be settled by the Saxons, during the 5th century. The

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that two brothers, Hengist and Horsa, were initially employed by the British

king Vortigern as mercenaries. They subsequently turned against their employer, and effectively started the

Anglo-Saxon invasion of England. The Chronicle records that a battle was fought at Aylesford in 455, between

Vortigern and the brothers, in which Horsa was killed. Unfortunately the attribution of this event to Aylesford is

not certain, as the manuscripts differ, but it seems probably correct (Swanton 2000, 12–13).

Kent Historic Environment Record

A search was made on the Kent Historic Environment Record (HER) on 1st October 2010 for a radius of 750m

around the proposal site. This only revealed 1 entry within the search radius, so a further 4 entries just outside

the search area have been taken into account. As a result, the search radius was effectively about 1km. These are

summarized as Appendix 1 and their locations are plotted on Figure 1. There are no Scheduled Ancient

Monuments within the study area.

Palaeolithic Various Palaeolithic worked flints were found to the north-east of the proposed site, near Aylesford [1].

Although these are stored at Maidstone Museum, there are no precise details of when and where they were

discovered, they may not even be from this location.

Mesolithic A number of Mesolithic flints, including a tranchet axe, have been found at Holt Hill, Ditton, to the north of the

site [2], along with a hammerstone.

Neolithic/Bronze Age There are no entries within the HER for finds or features dating to either the Neolithic or Bronze Age periods.

Iron Age Iron Age pottery has been found at Holt Hill, Ditton [2]. A small Iron Age pottery vessel was found in 1955

during ploughing at Broke Wood, to the south-east of the present site [3]. The HER calls this ‘probably Belgic’,

which is Late Iron Age, but dates it to the early Iron Age. Given its location close to the Aylesford cemetery, and

the unlikelihood of mis-attributing earlier pottery to the ‘Belgic’ tradition (which is wheel thrown, finely made

and very distinctive), a late Iron Age date is perhaps more likely.

Roman There are no entries within the HER for finds or features dating to the Roman period.

6

Saxon There are no entries within the HER for finds or features dating to the Saxon period.

Medieval The one entry in the HER for the medieval period relates to an earthwork recorded to the south-east of the site, at

Well Wood, Aylesford [4]. The size of the bank and ditch suggest that the earthwork was probably not defensive

in nature. Evidence for possible occupation has been found in the form of roof tile and stone fragments, and a

well has been identified in the south-west corner, close to a possible causewayed entrance. The feature has been

badly damaged by farming, quarrying and building.

Post-medieval One entry within the HER relates to the railway line which runs approximately east – west, to the south of the

site [5]. This was originally part of the Sevenoaks, Maidstone and Tunbridge Branch Railway, which was

opened between 1862 and 1874.

Modern There are no entries within the HER for finds or features dating to the modern period.

Cartographic and documentary sources

Unfortunately, one of the sources of historical information on English parish history, the Victoria County

History (VCH), does not yet cover the area around Ditton. However, much of the information which would have

most likely have been included in the VCH was contained in a late 18th century book entitled The History and

Topographical Survey of the County of Kent (Hasted 1798).

The name Ditton comes from the Old English words dic and tun, meaning ‘farmstead by a ditch or dike’,

and the village is first recorded in the 10th century as Dictun (Mills 1993). At the time of Domesday Book

(1086) Dictune was held by Hamo the sheriff, of the bishop of Bayeux, and was assessed at 1 sulung, a land

measurement peculiar to Kent, and was worth £8. There was land for 9 ploughs, along with 8 acres of meadow,

35 acres of pasture, and woodland for 6 pigs. The population consisted of 25 villagers (heads of households) and

6 slaves. There was also a church, and a mill rendering 10 shillings (Williams and Martin 2002). There is another

entry in Domesday Book for an estate called Sifletone, which is listed as being within the parish of Ditton, and is

thought subsequently to have become the Manor of Brampton (Hasted 1798).

The parish is quite long and narrow, and the settlement developed along the length of the old road from

London to Dover, the present A20, which runs through the northern part of the parish. The village rapidly

developed in the 20th century, following the establishment of the Aylesford Paper Mill, on the banks of the river

Medway, in 1922. The southern part of the parish in which the present site lies is now predominately farmland,

but was, until relatively recently, largely covered by coppiced woods. Ditton was historically bound to contribute

7

to the repair of the fifth pier of Rochester bridge (Hasted 1798), and more recently has been associated with the

World Custard Pie Throwing competition.

The site itself contains a number of buildings which were associated with the Ditton Laboratory, which was

opened in 1930 as a subsidiary laboratory of the Low Temperature Research Station, Cambridge. Work at the

Laboratory was largely concerned with the storage and transport of fruit and vegetables, and became a world-

wide centre for research from the 1930’s onwards. The laboratory closed recently.

A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at the Centre for Kentish

Studies 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 1575 map of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Middlesex and

London (Fig. 3), which clearly shows Ditton, although no detail is depicted in the area of the proposed site. The

same is true of Speed’s map of Kent (Fig. 4), which was produced in 1611.

The first available map to show the site in any detail is the Military map of Kent, which dates from 1789,

and was produced by the Ordnance Survey. The version of the map shown in Figure 5 has been taken from

Pearce and Greenham’s article on the history of the research station (Pearce and Greenham 1957), and

incorporates a few later boundary changes. This shows the proposed site covered in woodland, with a clearing

immediately to the south, which is called Newgate on the later tithe map. A track, known as the Maidstone

Footway, is depicted running across this clearing, continuing across the other side of Kiln Barn Road to the west,

and through the woods to the east. The track joins with another path, just to the south-east of the site, which runs

northwards, through what is now the eastern part of the proposed site. By the time of the Ditton Tithe map (not

illustrated), of 1842–3, this north-south path had disappeared, and a new clearing, known as Deadman Hop

Ground had been opened up immediately east of the present site. The Maidstone Footway appears to have been

diverted by this time, so that it now ran along the boundary between Newgate and the woodland to the north,

called Palmers Rough. This diversion led to the creation of a distinctive ‘dog-leg’ in the footpath, which still

exists, despite the fact that much of the path has subsequently been widened and surfaced.

The First Edition Ordnance Survey of 1865 (Fig. 6) shows major changes in the area, with the most

significant being the disappearance of much of the woodland, including all of that which had previously covered

the proposed site. A new building, known as Palmer’s Rough, and associated features appear on the east side of

Kiln Barn Road, to the north of the site, although these appear to have been short-lived as they are not shown on

the Second Edition Ordnance Survey of 1897 (Fig. 7). Along with the 1908 Ordnance Survey (not illustrated),

the map evidence indicates that no significant changes took place on the proposed site between 1865 and 1908.

8

The next Ordnance Survey was produced in 1932 (Fig. 8), shortly after the Ditton Laboratory opened. This

shows the site divided into the laboratory at the west and an open area to the east, along with the main laboratory

building, and four smaller ancillary structures, all at the western end of the proposal area. The main building

seems to have been terraced into the slope at its eastern end. The eastern portion of the western plot of land on

the site is depicted with tree cover, presumably orchard providing raw material for the lab. The eastern plot is

entirely open at this time. The only changes to the site evident on the 1937 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 9) are three

small, new buildings to the south of the main laboratory, whilst new two buildings also appear immediately

north of the site, alongside Kiln Barn Road. The next available Ordnance Survey, from 1961 (not illustrated),

shows a few minor changes in the ancillary structures, including the construction of another new building to the

south-east of the main laboratory.

The 1974 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 10) was not mapped with the same level of detail as the earlier editions,

and cannot be entirely relied upon when discussing the smaller structures around the main laboratory building.

An example of this is the two larger buildings shown on the 1937 map immediately south of the main laboratory,

which are erroneously depicted as a single structure on the 1974 survey. What is clear from the map however, is

that the boundary of the laboratory site was extended eastwards between 1961 and 1974, and two new large

buildings constructed at the centre of the proposal area. Another new building also appears to have been built

during this period, to the south east of the main laboratory, and to the north of the structure which is first shown

on the 1961 map.

The level of detail shown on the 1989 Ordnance Survey (not illustrated) is similar to that of the 1974

edition, and therefore it is difficult to discuss any possible changes to the smaller structures on the site. However,

it is clear that the site boundary was extended once again between 1974 and 1989, and another large building

constructed to the east of the main laboratory. The modern Ordnance Survey is far more detailed, and includes

many of the smaller structures which were omitted from the 1974 and 1989 editions. The only significant change

evident since 1989 is a further extension of the site boundary eastwards, and the construction of several small

buildings in this area.

Listed buildings

There are no Listed Buildings within the study area.

Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields

There are no registered parks and gardens or registered battlefields within close proximity of the site.

9

Historic Hedgerows

There are no hedgerows, historic or otherwise, on the site.

Aerial Photographs

Much of the site was significantly developed, and much of the rest has been orchard, since before large scale

aerial photography became common, immediately prior to the Second World War, and as a result, no collections

of aerial photographs were consulted.

Discussion

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.

In general terms, the proposal site lies within an area of low archaeological potential, with a paucity of

finds and features recorded in the surrounding area. This may be a result of the lack of systematic archaeological

investigation in the vicinity, due to the fact that the area is still largely farmland. It is interesting to note however,

that relatively large-scale quarrying has taken place to the north of site since 1937, and that no archaeological

artefacts were reported to the Kent HER as a result of this work.

The site itself appears to have been covered by woodland until the mid 19th century and, after a period of

being arable land, has been significantly developed from the 1930s onwards. The construction of the Ditton

Laboratory, and its associated buildings, has no doubt had a significant impact upon any potential archaeological

deposits which may have been present on the site. This is particularly true in the case of the main laboratory

building which is partially basemented. Furthermore, much of the area between the buildings has been

landscaped to some degree, although in many cases this may just have involved the laying down of Tarmacadam

roadways and yard areas. It is possible that archaeological remains may have survived in the areas between the

buildings, particularly in the area to the north-east of the main laboratory building, which was never covered in

Tarmac, and is currently overgrown. It would appear that the only part of the site which has not been badly

affected by the development of the research laboratory is the far eastern section.

Due to the low but potential for archaeological deposits surviving on the site, it is suggested that should any

archaeological intervention be merited, an appropriate response would be for a Watching Brief to be undertaken

during the invasive groundworks associated with the new houses to be built in the eastern part of the site, and

10

possibly in those areas around the various laboratory buildings which do not appear to have been badly affected

by previous landscaping. If this approach is deemed reasonable, it could be secured by an appropriately worded

condition attached to any consent gained. The fieldwork would need to be carried out by a competent

archaeological contractor and would need to conform to a scheme approved by the archaeological adviser to the

Borough Council.

References

BGS, 1993, British Geological Survey, Sheet 288, Solid and Drift Edition, 1:50000, Keyworth Blagg, T F C, 1982, ‘Roman Kent’, in P Leach (ed), Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500, CBA Res Rep 48,

Dorchester, 51–60 Champion, T, 1982, ‘The Bronze Age in Kent’, in P Leach (ed), Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500, CBA research

report 48, Dorchester, 31–9 Clarke, A F, 1982, ‘The Neolithic of Kent : a review’, in P Leach (ed), Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500, CBA

research report 48, Dorchester Cunliffe, B, 1982, ‘Social and economic development in Kent in the pre-Roman Iron Age’, in P Leach (ed),

Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500, CBA research report 48, Dorchester, 40–50 Evans, A J, 1890, ‘On a Late-Celtic urn-field at Aylesford, Kent’, Archaeologia, 52, 315–88 Hasted, 1798, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent : Volume 4 Hubbard, R N L B, 1982, ‘The environmental evidence from Swanscombe and its implications for Palaeolithic

archaeology’, in P Leach (ed), Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500, CBA research report 48, Dorchester Kelly, D B, 1971, ‘Quarry Wood Camp, Loose: A Belgic oppidum’, Archaeol Cantiana 86, 55–84 Mills, A D, 1993, Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford Pearce, S C and Greenham, D W P, 1957, A Short History of Research Station Land in the Parishes of Ditton

and Aylesford, Annual Report of the East Malling Research Station for 1956, East Malling PPS5, 2010, Planning for the Historic Environment, The Stationery Office, Norwich Swanton, M, 2000, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, (rev edn), London TMBLP, 1996, ‘Tonbridge and Malling Borough Local Plan 1996–2011’, Tonbridge Ward-Perkins, J B, 1944, ‘Excavations on the Iron Age hill-fort of Oldbury, near Ightham, Kent’, Archaeologia,

90, 127–76 Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London Wymer, J J, 1999, The Lower Palaeolithic occupation of Britain, Salisbury

11

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

No HER Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment 1 MKE2051 7224 5751 Find spot Palaeolithic Various Palaeolithic flints of Chellean and Acheulian type were

found at Aylesford, although there are no details of the time and place of the discoveries.

2 MKE2057 7171 5791 Find spot Mesolithic Iron Age

Mesolithic flintwork, including a tranchet axe, was found at Holt Hill, Ditton, along with Iron Age pottery.

3 MKE2028 7232 5640 Find spot Iron Age A small, Iron Age, pot was found during ploughing at Broke Wood, Aylesford in 1955.

4 MKE2027 7217 5646 Earthwork Medieval A rectangular earthwork, thought to be medieval, has been recorded in Well Wood, Aylesford. A well was noted in its south-west corner.

5 MKE44172 7584 5545 Railway Modern The Sevenoaks, Maidstone and Tunbridge Branch Railway was opened between Swanly and Sevenoaks in 1862, and extended to Maidstone in 1874.

12

APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted

1575 Saxton’s map of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Middlesex and London (Fig. 3)

1611 Speed’s map of Kent (Fig. 4)

1789 Ordnance Survey – Military map of Kent (Fig. 5)

1805 Ordnance Survey – Preliminary map (not illustrated)

1842-3 Ditton Tithe map (not illustrated)

1865 First Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 6)

1897 Second Edition Ordnance Survey (Fig. 7)

1908 Ordnance Survey (not illustrated)

1932 Ordnance Survey (Fig. 8)





2008 Ordnance Survey – Explorer 148 1:25000

2010 Ordnance Survey Digital Mapping, 1:2500

56000

57000

58000

TQ71000 72000

SITE

Ditton Laboratories, Kiln Barn Road, Ditton, Kent, 2010Archaeological desk-based assessment

Figure 1. Location of site within Ditton and Kent.

DLD 10/104

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey Explorer 148 at 1:12500Ordnance Survey Licence 100025880

SITE

Tonbridge

Sevenoaks

Royal TunbridgeWells

Maidstone

Rochester

Canterbury

Ashford Dover

1

2

3

4

5


Figure 2. Current detailed location of site.

TQ71400 71500 71600 71700

DLD 10/104

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital mapping under licence.Crown copyright reserved. Scale: 1:2500

56900

57000

57100

SITE

Figure 3. Saxton’s map of Kent, Sussex, Surrey,Middlesex and London, 1575.

DLD 10/104

Approximatelocation of site


Figure 4. Speed’s map of Kent, 1611.

DLD 10/104




Figure 5. Military map of Kent, 1789.

DLD 10/104



Figure 6. First Edition Ordnance Survey, 1865.

DLD 10/104

SITE


Figure 7. Second Edition Ordnance Survey, 1897.

DLD 10/104

SITE


Figure 8. Ordnance Survey, 1932.

DLD 10/104

SITE



DLD 10/104

SITE


Figure 11. Plan showing proposed devlopment.

DLD 10/104

Plate 1. Main laboratory building, looking west, showing basement boiler room.

Plate 2. Area of open ground to the north-east of the site, showing Tarmac and overgrown vegetation.

Plates 1 and 2.


DLD 10/104

Plate 3. Late 20th-century building looking south, showing landscaped slope.

Plate 4. Open ground at east end of site, looking east.

Plates 3 and 4.


DLD 10/104

TIME CHART

Calendar Years

Modern AD 1901

Victorian AD 1837

Post Medieval AD 1500

Medieval AD 1066

Saxon AD 410

Roman AD 43BC/AD

Iron Age 750 BC

Bronze Age: Late 1300 BC

Bronze Age: Middle 1700 BC

Bronze Age: Early 2100 BC

Neolithic: Late 3300 BC

Neolithic: Early 4300 BC

Mesolithic: Late 6000 BC

Mesolithic: Early 10000 BC

Palaeolithic: Upper 30000 BC

Palaeolithic: Middle 70000 BC

Palaeolithic: Lower 2,000,000 BC

aarrcchhaaeeoollooggiiccaall · site description, location and geology the proposed development...

Documents