Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex

Transcription

1 Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment for Swan Hill Homes By Sian Anthony Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code SSE 03/50 July 2003

2 Summary Site name: Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex Grid reference: TQ Site activity: Desk-based assessment Date and duration of project: July 2003 Project manager: Steve Ford Site supervisor: Sian Anthony Site code: SSE 03/50 Area of site: 5.5 ha Summary of results: Cropmarks have been identified on the site possibly dating from the Prehistoric to Medieval periods. Extensive multi-period archaeological deposits have been excavated to the immediate north of the site. Monuments identified: Cropmarks of possible prehistoric to medieval date. 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 Steve Preston i

3 Introduction Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment by Sian Anthony Report 03/50 This desk-based study is an assessment of the archaeological potential of a plot of land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex (TQ ) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Tony Charles, of Charles Planning Associates, Parkway, Solent Business Park, Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire, PO15 7AH on behalf of Swan Hill Homes Limited 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 development of the area. Site description, location and geology The site currently consists of a roughly rectangular plot of land of c. 5.5ha that lies undeveloped to the east of North Shoebury Road (A13) and south of a modern supermarket development. The development area is centred on NGR TQ A site visit was undertaken on 8th July 2003; this showed the site to consist of mostly flat grassland particularly on the eastern side. However, a small rise in ground level characterizes the western boundary, this part is covered in tall scrub. A deep modern drainage ditch is aligned parallel to the northern boundary, this turns to the south and continues underground before reappearing at the south-eastern boundary and flowing south out of the site. This probably represents the remains of the River Shoe, a small river that originated from a spring from the north at St. Mary s Church and flowed south to the sea. It was described as flowing through a shallow valley that may be the rise still visible on site although the ground may have been flattened to the west. There is extensive evidence for public use of the site with many access points onto the site and use of the land for recreational purposes, car boot sales and overflow carparking arrangements. The geology on site consists of a layer of brickearth that is thicker to the east above first terrace gravels (Barling terrace). Where the shallow valley runs through the site there may be outcrops of gravel at higher levels and an accumulation of silt (BGS 1986). It is at a height of approximately 8m above Ordnance Datum. 1

4 Planning background and development proposals There is a detailed planning history related to this site which is not documented here. This report is undertaken to inform future planning applications. Archaeology and Planning (PPG ) provides guidance relating to archaeology within the planning process. It points out that where a desk-based assessment has shown that there is a strong possibility of significant archaeological deposits in a development area it is reasonable to provide more detailed information from a field evaluation so that an appropriate strategy to mitigate the effects of development on archaeology can be devised: Paragraph 21 states: Where early discussions with local planning authorities or the developer s own research indicate that important archaeological remains may exist, it is reasonable for the planning authority to request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out... Should the presence of archaeological deposits be confirmed further guidance is provided. Archaeology and Planning stresses preservation in situ of archaeological deposits as a first consideration as in paragraphs 8 and 18. Paragraph 8 states:...where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation... Paragraph 18 states: The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining planning applications whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled... However, for archaeological deposits that are not of such significance it is appropriate for them to be preserved by record (i.e., fully excavated and recorded by a competent archaeological contractor) prior to their destruction or damage. Paragraph 25 states: Where planning authorities decide that the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains is not justified in the circumstances of the development and that development resulting in the destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed, it would be entirely reasonable for the planning authority to satisfy itself... that the developer has made appropriate and satisfactory provision for the excavation and recording of remains. The Essex Replacement County Structure Plan (ECC 1998) Heritage Conservation reiterates these points. Section 7.10 states: Where archaeological remains are not to be preserved in situ, some sites can be accommodated within new development by the new of appropriate and sympathetic foundation design, after 2

5 archaeological evaluation has been carried out to establish the location and character of archaeological deposits. Further guidance is provided by the Southend on Sea Borough Local Plan, March Policy C1 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites states: Where important archaeological sites and monuments, whether scheduled or not, and their settings are affected by a proposed development, there will be a presumption in favour of their preservation in situ. In situations where there are grounds for believing that the proposed development would affect important archaeological sites and monuments, developers will be required to arrange for an archaeological evaluation to be carried out before the planning application is determined, thus enabling an informed and reasonable planning decision to be made. In circumstances where preservation is not possible nor merited, development will not be permitted until satisfactory provision has been made for a programme of archaeological investigation and recording prior to the commencement of the development. 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 of Field Archaeologists paper Standards in British Archaeology covering desk-based studies. These sources include historic and modern maps, the Southend-on-Sea Sites and Monuments Record, geological maps, aerial photographs and any relevant publications or reports. Archaeological background General background The gravel terraces of the Thames Estuary are regarded as rich in deposits of many periods (Williams and Brown 1999, 16) with known large concentrations of prehistoric finds and occupation. There is occasional evidence of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic activity although sea levels would have been significantly lower than present day levels by as much as 20 30m (Kemble 2001). This would influence the location of any riparian occupation sites as these would now be submerged. However it is for the Bronze Age where the Shoebury area becomes notable, with in particular, a considerable focus of activity represented by the deposition of Bronze artefacts (Couchman 1980). Round barrows (and their levelled counterparts - ring ditches) are also known in the area at Prittlewell and Great Wakering (now destroyed) and burials and ring ditches are also known from Thorpe Hall brickfield to the south-west of the site (Yearsley 2001). There have been extensive archaeological investigations in the Shoebury area at the northern limit of the 500m SMR search radius for the site (Fig. 1, 18). The earliest features represented a Middle Bronze Age enclosure and pits and a field system developed during the Late Bronze Age which was further extended throughout the Iron Age. A number of dispersed Bronze Age cremation burials were also found, one of which 3

6 was located just beyond the eastern boundary of the site in 1981 (Wymer and Brown 1995) (Fig. 12). Similar settlements were found at Great Wakering and Fox Hall Farm to the west (Crowe 1984; Ecclestone 1995). An Iron Age hillfort which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument also lies to the south beyond the study area with evidence of extensive occupation between c BC. Roman evidence is not extensive but is present. It is thought that Essobiriam may have been a small trading centre on the coast between Richborough in Kent and Colchester and which could be located somewhere in the Southend area. The evidence includes that of oyster and saltern processes (Orford 2002). In Saxon times the areas was both much involved in the initial migration and also during Viking raids in later times. The Battle of Benfleet to the west of Southend was fought in AD 894 and the remains of burnt Viking ships were reputedly discovered in 1853 during construction of the railway station (Pewsey 1993). A Saxon cemetery has also found in the area (Tyler 1996). Medieval occupation in the area was in the form of dispersed settlements, one of which developed in North Shoebury. St Mary s Church, first constructed in the 13th century, was built over a reed bed indicating a wet area near the stream. Settlement seems to have been focused south-east of the church until c when the focus moved nearer West Hall (Wymer and Brown 1995). The hall remained a focus of activity and in 1763 a medieval barn was rebuilt by the owner, which is now a Listed Building. There seemed to be little change during the last years until an expansion in brickearth quarries to supply the needs of urban development in Victorian times. The site was not obviously affected by this quarrying though it is assumed that the pond to the south was a gravel or brickearth pit or ballast hole for the railway. The area was used as a transit camp for soldiers during both World Wars and substantial sea defences were built along the Southend coastline including concrete anti-tank and road blocks, many of which are now listed (cf. Anthony 2003). Southend-on-Sea Sites and Monuments Record A search was conducted on 23rd June 2003 on the Southend-on-Sea Sites and Monuments Records for a radius of 500m around the site. A total of 19 records were discovered; these are listed in Appendix 1 and their positions shown on Figure 1. Prehistoric 4

7 Flint implements were discovered during the road works on North Shoebury Road in 1978 including a single worked core and scraper [Fig. 1: 1]. An inhumation, of possible Early Bronze Age period was recovered in the 1970s [2]. A flat axe or palstave was found during the 1930s and is now lost [4]. Extensive excavation to the north of the site revealed a complex of occupation, field systems and burial sites [18]. The present study has identified a possible cropmark on an aerial photograph of the site (Fig. 13) which may reflect the presence of a ring ditch (levelled round barrow) [19]. Iron Age Two separate records of gold Bellovacian staters recovered from the area, dated from between 100BC and AD 42 [5, 6] it is possible these refer to a single coin. Rescue excavations to the south-east of the site in the 1970s discovered some evidence of Iron Age occupation in the form of ditches [7] with further evidence to the north [3, 18]. A stray find (not closely located) of a bronze necklace bead is also possibly Iron Age or Roman [8]. Roman Only one item is regarded as Roman, a stray coin antoninianus of Victorinus dated to between AD [9]. Medieval The Church of St. Mary the Virgin has several entries relating to its fixtures and fittings and restoration [10]. The original church is c. 13th century with a south porch dating to the 18th century although it was substantially restored in the 19th century. It is a Listed Building and several of its fixtures and fittings are also mentioned including a 12th century font, wall paintings and coffin sculpture. A small copper alloy figure of a saint was found to the north of the church and it is possible it was from a reliquary [11]. The site of the Moat House to the south-west of the site is also medieval, dating from at least 1528 although likely to be earlier. No medieval structure remains but the moat itself although dry on one side is in good condition [12]. Other medieval deposits were found to the north of the site [18]. Post-Medieval All three entries relate to structures; the only remains of North Shoebury Hall Farm is Grade II listed and consists of a late 16th-century timber-framed barn. The rest of this complex was demolished although a photographic record does exist [13]. The New Farm Farmhouse is c. 18th century timber-framed house which is also Grade II listed [14]. The third entry relating to the Moat House is the existing building which was built in the early 19th century of brick and is also Grade II listed [15]. 5

8 Unknown Two entries are of unknown date, [16] there are cropmarks on the site itself consisting of a rectangular enclosure, a trackway, and two possible ring ditches identified by Wymer and Brown (1995)(Fig. 12). Other cropmarks identified by this study lie in the same general area (Fig. 13). The second set of cropmarks lie beyond the western margins of the site and consist of an irregular shaped enclosure [17]; both are likely from their shape and the known level of prehistoric activity in the area to be of prehistoric date. Scheduled Ancient Monuments There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments on or in the near vicinity of the site. Listed buildings The entries show four listed buildings; the Church of St. Mary s [10], the barn at North Shoebury Hall [13], New Farm Farmhouse [14] and the Moat House [15]. These are described above. Registered Parks and Gardens; Registered Battlefields There were no entries on either register for this site. Cartographic Sources A range of Ordnance Survey and other historical maps of the area were consulted at Southend-on-Sea Record Office in order to ascertain what activity had been taking place throughout the site s later history and whether this may have affected any possible archaeological deposits within the proposal area (see Appendix 2). The earliest map available of the area is Saxton s map of Essex from 1576 (Fig. 2) this has no detail of the area showing only that the settlements of North Shoebury and South Shoebury existed in the Hundred of Rochford. An early map of the area showed the site of the Shoebury Hall Estate in detail from 1703 (not illustrated) where the site is shown as a field named Old Mead that was pasture. Chapman and Andre s Atlas of Essex from 1777 (Fig. 3) also shows the area in detail; the Hall is illustrated as also is Kests Farm (now known as the Moat House). Little has changed on Lt. Colonel Mudge s map of Essex, 1805 (Fig. 4), Kests Farm is now called the Moat Farm and there is slightly increased occupation along the North Shoebury Road and Poynter s Lane. 6

9 The tithe map of North Shoebury, 1849 (Fig. 5) is the first to show details of the field boundaries. The site consists of three irregular fields, a small strip at the north end called The Chaseway remained as pasture, the rest known as 10 acres and Pucks Field were both arable The latter two fields may be separated by the remnants of the River Shoe, flowing north-south. A preliminary Ordnance Survey map, 1870 (Fig. 6) shows the same arrangement of fields and no change on the site although the existence of earth pits and brick fields to the east shows the start of quarrying for brickearth in the area. The First Edition Ordnance Survey, 1874 (Fig.7) also shows these fields with tree-lined boundaries. The Second Ordnance Survey, 1897 (Fig. 8) shows the existence of the River Shoe as a small stream or ditch running through the site. There is little change in 1923 (Fig. 9), 1962 (Fig. 10) or 1966 (not illustrated) although the pond to the south of site is now illustrated. The greatest change is present in the 1996 Ordnance Survey extract (Fig. 11) the site is now surrounded to the east and west by a large housing estate and to the north by a supermarket. North Shoebury road has also been straightened. On the site itself, the internal division of the two fields and the stream has gone to be replaced by a diverted drain culvert that runs west-east along the northern boundary, turns at the north-east corner and goes underground until it reappears at the southern boundary. Documentary Sources The name Shoebury is derived from the Old English for fortress for providing shelter Sceobyrig from the early 10th century. It had changed by the Little Domesday entry (1086) to Soberia (Mills 1998) or Essoberia (Williams and Martin 2002). A second definition is given as fort at the shoe shaped land named after the Iron Age camp on the tip of Shoeburyness (Orford 2000) This may also reflect a place in the marshes created by the monks of Prittlewell Priory to hide in during the Saxon raids that may have been a traditional hiding place in times of trouble (Orford 2000). Shoebury is noted in Little Domesday as being held by two owners, Swein of Essex holding the majority with one manor and five hides, with three acres of meadow and woodland enough for 20 pigs. Walter held a further manor and four hides of Swein with woodland for 12 pigs and pasture for 100 sheep. The second minor landowner was the Bishop of Bayeux with one hide and 30 acres with pasture for 40 sheep (Williams and Martin 2002, 986; 1003). These entries shows occupation in Shoebury although it may have been dispersed settlement in the area. Medieval rolls from 1271 indicate around 80 acres of arable land at Little Sobiri with only ½ an acre 7

10 of pasture but by 1280 William de Wodeham owned 132 acres of arable and 1½ acres of pasture all under the Barony of Rayleigh. The first mention of the West Hall, presumably North Shoebury Hall is from Modern history reflects the extraction of the brickearth fields from the 19th century with most intensive activity in the 1930s. North Shoebury itself remained outside the boundaries of Southend-on-Sea until being brought within the Borough in Aerial Photographs A total of 41 aerial photographs were examined at the National Monuments Record collection in Swindon for the site. Two photographs were available from the Cambridge Library of Aerial Photography (Appendix 3). Further cropmark evidence was suggested by Wymer and Brown (1995). These cropmarks that lie on the easternmost field possibly represent two ring ditches, a rectilinear enclosure and trackways (Fig. 12). There are several ephemeral cropmarks and parchmarks located on the site but these are probable natural features. Aerial photograph 140 taken on 15th November 1955 (Fig. 13) shows semi-circular features in the eastern field of the site but these do not form a regular pattern easily interpretable as of archaeological origin. As the land use at this time was pasture it is possible that they represent some form of animal grazing marks but an archaeological origin cannot be dismissed out of hand. The same photograph also reveals a potential ring ditch to the south of the site near to the pond (Fig. 1, 19). Photograph 772 taken on the 14th May 1968 shows faint linear marks that correspond to Wymer and Brown s interpretation of cropmarks (Fig. 12, 1995). The source for the cropmarks on the site plotted by Wymer and Brown was not identified. 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. The search for archaeological activity in the vicinity of the site has demonstrated a number of sites and finds dating from the Bronze Age to the medieval periods. A number of cropmarks visible from the air are present on the site itself but none of these have been investigated. Some of the cropmarks may not be archaeological in origin but this possibility cannot be dismissed without field investigation. Limited field investigations did take place immediately to the north and east in 1981 and a small amount of activity (a cremation burial) was found to the east within 50m of the boundary of the site. More extensive fieldwork further 8

11 to the north revealed a widespread complex of archaeology representing not only occupation and burial but with organised landscape features such as field systems and trackways. Previous land-use for the site indicates there has been relatively little disturbance from agricultural activity documented, with only a little recent drainage work possibly affected any archaeological deposits present. This report concludes that there is significant potential for archaeological remains on the site and these would be disturbed, damaged or destroyed by any development on site. In order to draw up a scheme to mitigate the impact of development on any below-ground archaeological deposits it will be necessary to provide further information about the potential of the site from field observations (i.e., evaluation). A scheme for this evaluation will need to be drawn up and approved by the archaeological officer for the Borough and implemented by a competent archaeological contractor. The scheme would need specifically to target the cropmarks located by aerial photography as well as a reasonable sample of the remaining areas that would be affected by groundworks as guided by Hey and Lacey (2001). The information provided by the fieldwork can be used to draw up a mitigation strategy to minimize the effects of development on any archaeological deposits present. References Anthony, S, 2003, Lifstan Way Playing Fields, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, An archaeological desk-based assessment, Thames Valley Archaeological Services report 03/05, Reading BGS, 1986, Geology of the country around Southend-on-Sea and Foulness. Memoir for 1: sheets 258 and 259, NERC, London Couchman, C, R, 1980, The Bronze Age in Essex, in D G Buckley (ed) Archaeology in Essex to AD 1500, CBA Res rep 34, 40 6 Crowe, K, 1984, Great Wakering 1984: Report on excavations by Southend Museum Service, Southend on Sea ECC, 1998, Essex Replacement County Structure Plan, draft deposit plan, Essex County Council Ecclestone, J, 1995, Early Iron Age settlement at Southend: excavation at Fox Hall Farm, 1993, Essex Archaeol Hist 26, Hey, G and Lacey, M, 2001, Evaluation of archaeological decision-making processes and sampling strategies, Kent County Council/Oxford Archaeological Unit, Oxford Jones, W, T, 1980, Early Saxon cemeteries in Essex, in D, G Buckley (ed.) The Archaeology of Essex to AD 1500, CBA Res Rep 34, Kemble, J, 2001 Prehistoric and Roman Essex, Tempus Publications Limited, Stroud Mills, A, D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-names, 2 nd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford Orford, M, 2000, The Shoebury Story, Ian Henry Publications, Romford Pewsey, S, 1993, The Book of Southend-on-Sea, Baron Birch PPG16, 1990, Dept of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance 16, Archaeology and Planning, HMSO Rumble, A, 1983, (ed.) Domesday Book, Chichester SSB, 1994, Southend-on-Sea Borough Local Plan, March 1994 Tyler, S, 1996, Early Saxon Essex, AD , in O Bedwin, (ed) The Archaeology of Essex, Essex County Council Williams, A and Martin, G H, 2002, Domesday Book, A complete Translation, London Williams J and Brown, N, 1999, An archaeological research framework for the Greater Thames Estuary, Essex County Council, Chelmsford Wymer, J, and Brown, N, 1995, Excavations at North Shoebury: Settlement and Economy in south-east Essex 1500 BC-AD1500, E Anglian Archaeol 75 Yearsley, I, 2001, A History of Southend, Phillimore, Chichester 9

12 APPENDIX 1: Sites and Monuments Records within a 500m search radius of the development site No SMR Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment Find Prehistoric Few flint finds from road works during Find Prehistoric Possible Bronze Age inhumation Find Prehistoric Flint blade found with Late Iron Age pottery and cremation Find Bronze Age Flat axe or palstave found during 1930 s and now lost Find Iron Age Gold stater, Bellovaci; 100BC to 42 AD Find Iron Age Gold stater, Bellovaci; 100BC to 42 AD Settlement Iron Age Rescue excavations found ditches and slight evidence for Early Iron Age settlement Find Late Iron Age Bronze necklace bead, cheese shaped and oblate, possibly Late Iron Age or Roman Find Roman Antoninianus of Victorinus, metal coin 268 to 270 AD Structure Medieval c. 13th century St Mary the Virgin church of ragstone and rubble, Listed building (B) 3/ Structure Medieval Church fixtures include 12/13th century font, sculpture, wall paintings Structure Post medieval South porch is c. 18th century, restored overall in the 19th century, various post medieval fixtures and fittings belong to the church Find Medieval Copper alloy figure of saint found to the north of North Shoebury church, possibly from a reliquary Structure Medieval Moat House, house and now demolished gatehouse, documentary evidence suggests 1528 as possible date although likely to be earlier remains, moat is dry on one side but still in good condition Structure Post medieval Late 16th century timber framed barn at North Shoebury Hall Farm, Grade II listed Structure Post medieval New Farm Farmhouse, c. 18th century timber framed house, Grade II listed Structure Post medieval Early 19th century brick Moat House, Grade II listed Cropmarks Unknown A rectangular enclosure, trackway, two possible ring ditches of unknown period. Other cropmarks identified by this study (Fig. 13) Cropmark Unknown Irregular shaped enclosure Occupation and Multi-period Large scale excavations (Wymer and Brown 1995) field systems Ring ditch? Bronze Age? On aerial photograph identified by this study (Fig 13) 10

13 APPENDIX 2: Historic and modern maps consulted 1576 Saxton s map of Essex (Fig. 2) 1703 Shoebury Hall Estate Map 1777 Chapman and Andre s Atlas of Essex (Fig. 3) 1805 Lt. Colonel Mudge s map of Essex (Fig. 4) 1849 Tithe map of North Shoebury (Fig. 5) 1870 Preliminary Ordnance Survey (Fig. 6) 1874 First Edition Ordnance Survey, Sheet LXXIX 9 (79/9): North and South Shoebury (Fig. 7) 1897 Second Edition Ordnance Survey, Essex Sheet LXXIX 9 (Fig. 8) 1923 Ordnance Survey, Sheet NXCI.4 91/4: Shoebury, 25 inch (Fig. 9) 1962 Ordnance Survey, Sheet TQ 9285/9385: Shoebury, 1:2500 (Fig. 10) 1966 Ordnance Survey, Sheet TQ 9285/ 9385: Shoebury, 1: Ordnance Survey extract (Fig. 11) 11

14 APPENDIX 3: Aerial photographs consulted NMR aerial photograph search for a 500m radius Sortie Frame Date flown RAF/106G/UK/ st May 1946 RAF/106G/UK/ th May 1946 RAF/58/ th May 1955 RAF/106G/UK/ th June 1946 RAF/82/ th February 1953 RAF/58/ th January 1954 RAF/82/ st August 1954 RAF/82/ th August 1955 RAF/58/ th August 1962 RAF/58/ th August 1962 RAF/543/ th May 1968 HSL/UK/70/ th October 1970 RAF/CPE/UK/ th August 1947 RAF/CPE/UK/ th August 1947 RAF/CPE/UK/ th August 1947 RAF/CPE/UK/ th August 1947 RAF/58/ nd July 1950 RAF/58/ nd July 1950 RAF/58/ th April 1951 RAF/58/ th April 1951 MAL/ th November 1975 University of Cambridge Sortie Frame Date flown RC8-JH 019 and

15 KEY: Prehistoric Medieval Colchester Iron Age Roman Post medieval Unknown Harlow Chelmsford Brentwood SITE Basildon Southend Developed as housing Developed as housing SITE TQ SSE03/50 Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003 Figure 1. Location of site within Southend-on-Sea and Essex. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey TQ 88/98 at 1:12500 Ordnance Survey Licence AL52324A0001

16 Approximate location of site SSE 03/50 Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003 Figure 2. Saxton s map of Essex, 1576.

17 SITE SSE 03/50 Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003 Figure 3. Chapman and Andre s Atlas of Essex, 1777.

18 SITE SSE 03/50 Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003 Figure 4. Mudge s map of Essex, 1805.

19 N SITE SSE 03/50 Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003 Figure 5. Tithe map of North Shoebury, 1849.

20 SITE SSE 03/50 Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003 Figure 6. Preliminary Ordnance Survey, 1870.

21 SITE SSE 03/50 Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003 Figure 7. First Edition Ordnance Survey, 1874.

22 SITE SSE 03/50 Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003 Figure 8. Ordnance Survey, 1897.

23 SITE SSE 03/50 Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003 Figure 9. Ordnance Survey, 1923.

24 SITE SSE 03/50 Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003 Figure 10. Ordnance Survey, 1962.

25 SITE TQ Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003 SSE 03/50 Figure 11. Ordnance Survey extract, 1996.

26 Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003 N St Mary's Church trench cremation burial cropmarks 1981 trenches SITE TQ m Figure 12. Plan of cropmarks located on site by Wymer and Brown, SSE03/50

27 Possible ring ditch SITE Semi- circular cropmarks SSE 03/50 Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003 Figure 13. Aerial Photograph, 15th November 1955 (RAF/58/1920, 140).