Mr Jeaps
Inspector
A259 Bexhill to Hastings Inquiry
Ocean House
87 London Road
St Leonards
23/5/96
Dear Mr Jeapes,
As a result of what was said at the Inquiry by Dr Gardiner, the
Highways Agency representative concerning the archaeological work,
concerning the credibility and interpretation of work conducted
over the past 20 years by Msrs Smyth and Jennings, as well as
their professional standing, I forwarded copies of the transcript
of the Inquiry to the University of North London, to allow them
the ability to put the record straight.
I have been asked to forward the enclosed letter, which I wish
to submit as additional evidence, as you had indicated that you
would be prepared to accept additional evidence up until the Inquiry
closes.
I shall be happy to answer questions on 6th June, when
I shall be present to discuss the Wessex report and my summing
up of the evidence presented. It is clear to me from this letter
that Dr Gardiner has little or no understanding of interpretation
of the stratiagraphic record of the Combe Haven and it is clearly
unsafe to rely upon others quoted by Dr Gardiner without any adequate
written proof to support his claims.
Here Smyth and Jennings take professional issue with Dr Gardiner
and it is my contention that Dr Gardiner is proven to be wrong
in suggesting that Simon Jennings is not employed at the University
of North London as a Senior Lecturer. Great issue regarding his
professional position was made on the day and in consequence doubt
was thrown upon the veracity of the extensive research work done
by these two important researchers. The attack upon Smyth and
Jennings research credibility had no actual justification whatsoever
other than with the object of applying an "ad hominem"
attack against the qualified authors of documents supporting my
case. It only takes a phone call to check where Mr Jennings works
and I propose that if Dr Gardiner or the Highways Agency cannot
even manage to get this simple fact right what chance have we
ever of getting to the truth of whether the Normans landed at
Upper Wilting farm. We have been asked to believe the hearsay
opinion of third parties, against written evidence by the qualified
authors of the reports themselves.
I would wish to draw your particular attention to Section 2 relating to comments made by Dr Gardiner about the work done by Smyth and Jennings. I would ask the question "If Smyth and Jennings work were not considered the highest authority in this part of the world on the subject of the Combe Haven valley why would Wessex Archaeology quote them as the only reference source directly connected to the Combe Haven Valley in the work just completed? "(Wessex Report page 20).
During the Inquiry Dr Gardiner proposed that there was no evidence
to support the claim that Iron Age settlements were located in
this area. This is not supported by Smyth and Jennings, and despite
considerable research myself I can find no written evidence to
dispute Smyth and Jennings conclusions. If such written evidence
exists disputing Smyth and Jennings work, and I have to say that
what Dr Gardiner claims suggests Smyth and Jennings conclusions
are completely wrong about almost everything they have ever done
in the Combe Haven, I hope that we shall see it on 6th
June. If not you may draw your own conclusion as to which experts
to believe in relation to the development of man in the Combe
Haven valley, an issue which has a fundamental impact upon the
question of whether or not a centre of civilisation developed
there.
Clearly I accept that I am not an expert on these matters but
I do believe that it is not the in the Highways Agency interest
to dispute any of the findings or observations of Smyth and Jennings.
To do so casts doubt upon their motive and the veracity of any
other evidence that they may present, since Smyth and Jennings
have the highest pedigree and I can find no other professionals
prepared to consider doubting the conclusions of their work.
The fact that this work supports my case must be noted and can
be the only reason why it is disputed by Dr Gardiner. If the Highways
Agency is prepared to dispute the conclusions of Smyth and Jennings
work in regards to Dr Gardiner's evidence in regards to my claims,
but does not dispute Smyth and Jennings use as source reference
documents in both the huge Environmental Statement report and
now the more recent Wessex Report, the Highways Agency position
is undoubtedly compromised. It is clear to all those following
the evidence that the Highways Agency simply cannot have it both
ways. Either Smyth and Jennings work is valid in its conclusions
and can be relied upon or it is not. Two sets of experts have
been presenting evidence based upon expert witnesses with two
different answers. One says there was no Iron Age development
in the valley and all the other says there was. In fact Smyth
and Jennings go further and say that their evidence concludes
that this Iron Age development spread down the valley from the
Bronze Age and continued through to the Roman Period and later
(paras 2.3). Only one can be right. Either it is Smyth and Jennings,
who have spent twenty years working in the Combe Haven area doing
technical painstaking research, or it is Dr Gardiner, who has
spent half a day in April last year walking around Upper Wilting
farm and who has conducted no personal archaeological or stratiagraphic
research in the Combe Haven valley at all.
I propose that the evidence of the Environmental Statement (Vol2
report6 - Landscape), the HAARG report on Upper Wilting Farm,
the Wessex report of Trial Trenching (dated June 1995 page 20)
and now the new Wessex report (page 20) confirm in a wholly independent
way the established reliance upon Smyth and Jennings work and
conclusions by all the experts employed by the Highways Agency
to prepare their case for this road. It is simply neither logical
nor consistent to claim before they have seen my evidence, for
the Norman Invasion site, that Smyth and Jennings evidence can
be relied upon to present their case. Then when they have had
a chance to absorb the implications Smyth and Jennings work has
on my case, through my evidence in person, seek to change their
position by proposing these same expert's opinions, who have been
acknowledged in writing by all the previous experts, are no longer
valid.
I must argue with some force that this change of position by the
Highways Agency has betrayed their true position. It is my unreserved
view that neither Dr Gardiner nor the Highways Agency case can
retain any credibility in asserting that Smyth and Jennings conclusions
cannot be relied upon in these circumstances. To continue to present
such a case undermines the very fabric of all the environmental
and cutural heritage experts upon whom you have been asked to
rely by the Highways Agency. A completely untenable and obviously
flawed position.
Yours sincerely
Nick Austin
CHAIRMAN
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE INDEX