Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex · Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex (TQ9300 8570) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Tony Charles, of Charles

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

i

Summary

Site name: Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex Grid reference: TQ 9300 8570 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 17.07.03 Steve Preston 17.07.03

1

Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

by Sian Anthony

Report 03/50

Introduction

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 (TQ9300 8570) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Tony

Charles, of Charles Planning Associates, 1644–5 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 9300 8570. 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.

2

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 16 1990) 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...’


‘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.


‘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

3

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 1994.

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

4

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. 400–200 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. 1300 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 200–300 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

5

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 AD268–270 [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].

6

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.

7

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

8

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 1474.

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 1933.

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

9

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 1:50 000 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, 24–39 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, 87–95 Kemble, J, 2001 Prehistoric and Roman Essex, Tempus Publications Limited, Stroud Mills, A, D, 1998, Dictionary of English Place-names, 2nd 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, AD400–700’, 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

10

APPENDIX 1: Sites and Monuments Records within a 500m search radius of the development site No SMR Ref Grid Ref (TQ) Type Period Comment 1 11162 9285 8575 Find Prehistoric Few flint finds from road works during 1978. 2 17983 935 855 Find Prehistoric Possible Bronze Age inhumation 3 11027 93 86 Find Prehistoric Flint blade found with Late Iron Age pottery and

cremation 4 11155 932 856 Find Bronze Age Flat axe or palstave found during 1930’s and now lost. 5 11165 9272 8538 Find Iron Age Gold stater, Bellovaci; 100BC to 42 AD 6 11195 927 853 Find Iron Age Gold stater, Bellovaci; 100BC to 42 AD 7 17984 935 855 Settlement Iron Age Rescue excavations found ditches and slight evidence for

Early Iron Age settlement 8 11039 93 86 Find Late Iron Age Bronze necklace bead, cheese shaped and oblate, possibly

Late Iron Age or Roman 9 11175 925 853 Find Roman Antoninianus of Victorinus, metal coin 268 to 270 AD

34877 92919 86144 Structure Medieval c. 13th century St Mary the Virgin church of ragstone and rubble, Listed building (B) 3/28

11172 9290 8615 Structure Medieval Church fixtures include 12/13th century font, sculpture, wall paintings.

10

11173 9290 8615 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

11 23008 931 862 Find Medieval Copper alloy figure of saint found to the north of North Shoebury church, possibly from a reliquary

12 11062 928 858 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.

13 34879 92950 86106 Structure Post medieval Late 16th century timber framed barn at North Shoebury Hall Farm, Grade II listed

14 34878 92885 85693 Structure Post medieval New Farm Farmhouse, c. 18th century timber framed house, Grade II listed

15 34884 92833 85853 Structure Post medieval Early 19th century brick Moat House, Grade II listed 16 11080 931 858 Cropmarks Unknown A rectangular enclosure, trackway, two possible ring

ditches of unknown period. Other cropmarks identified by this study (Fig. 13)

17 11101 925 858 Cropmark Unknown Irregular shaped enclosure 18 11209-11220 930 862 Occupation and

field systems Multi-period Large scale excavations (Wymer and Brown 1995)

19 - 9300 8554 Ring ditch? Bronze Age? On aerial photograph identified by this study (Fig 13)

11

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, 1:2500 1996 Ordnance Survey extract (Fig. 11)

12

APPENDIX 3: Aerial photographs consulted NMR aerial photograph search for a 500m radius Sortie Frame Date flown RAF/106G/UK/1445 3059 1st May 1946 RAF/106G/UK/1496 4421-2 10th May 1946 RAF/58/1920 139-40 15th May 1955 RAF/106G/UK/1563 3056 7th June 1946 RAF/82/708 340-1 4th February 1953 RAF/58/1342 72-3 18th January 1954 RAF/82/1006 55-6 31st August 1954 RAF/82/1271 3 15th August 1955 RAF/58/5377 136 9th August 1962 RAF/58/5377 107-8 9th August 1962 RAF/543/4304 771-3 14th May 1968 HSL/UK/70/1085 4928-9 16th October 1970 RAF/CPE/UK/2217 5008-11 13th August 1947 RAF/CPE/UK/2217 5114-7 13th August 1947 RAF/CPE/UK/5146-8 5146-8 13th August 1947 RAF/CPE/UK/2229 5260-3 16th August 1947 RAF/58/519 5198-9 2nd July 1950 RAF/58/519 5208-9 2nd July 1950 RAF/58/650 5111 24th April 1951 RAF/58/650 5023-4 24th April 1951 MAL/75062 8-9 7th November 1975 University of Cambridge Sortie Frame Date flown RC8-JH 019 and 020

Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road,Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003

Figure 1. Location of site within Southend-on-Seaand Essex.

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey TQ 88/98 at 1:12500Ordnance Survey Licence AL52324A0001

SITE

85000

86000

87000

TQ92000 93000 SSE03/50

Colchester

Chelmsford

Basildon Southend

Harlow

SITE

1

4

3

2

5

6

8

7

9

10

12

11

13

14

15

1617

KEY:

Prehistoric

Iron Age

Roman

Medieval

Post medieval

Unknown

Brentwood

Developed ashousing

Developed ashousing

19

18


Figure 2. Saxton’s map of Essex, 1576.

SSE 03/50

Approximatelocation ofsite


Figure 3. Chapman and Andre’s Atlas of Essex, 1777.

SSE 03/50

SITE


Figure 4. Mudge’s map of Essex, 1805.

SSE 03/50

SITE


Figure 5. Tithe map of North Shoebury, 1849.

SSE 03/50

SITE

N


Figure 6. Preliminary Ordnance Survey, 1870.

SSE 03/50

SITE


Figure 7. First Edition Ordnance Survey, 1874.

SITE

SSE 03/50


Figure 8. Ordnance Survey, 1897.

SSE 03/50

SITE



SSE 03/50

SITE



SSE 03/50

SITE


Figure 11. Ordnance Survey extract, 1996.

SSE 03/50

SITE

TQ92900 93000 93100

85600

85700

85800

85900

86000

Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, 2003

SSE03/50

St Mary's Church

SITE

1981trenchescropmarks

Figure 12. Plan of cropmarks located on site by Wymer and Brown, 1995.

N

1981 trench

0 500m

TQ92900 93000 93100 93200 93300

85700

85800

85900

86000

86100

cremationburial


Figure 13. Aerial Photograph, 15th November 1955(RAF/58/1920, 140).

SSE 03/50

SITE

Semi- circularcropmarks

Possible ring ditch

Documents

Land adjacent to North Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex · Shoebury Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex (TQ9300 8570) (Fig. 1). The project was commissioned by Mr Tony Charles, of Charles