The publicity that my case has received means that I am no longer a lone amateur archaeologist and historian, but am receiving offers of help from many different areas. It must be remembered that I am unpaid, I am not effected by the route in question personally and have no ulterior motive other than to find the truth about this site.
Whilst I am not a qualified expert in archaeology or Norman history I have an extensive knowledge of this very specialist subject, far beyond that which might be considered normal average interest. I therefore address this Inquiry as an unqualified expert, in the same way that the winner of the mastermind competition though he may not hold academic qualifications, is none the less more knowledgeable about his specialist subject than many other challengers.
I have not seen or heard anything at this Inquiry to alter one word of my Statement of Case. This states that Upper Wilting Farm is a site of national importance, the integrity of which must be preserved. No volume of words, or days in cross examination, in an attempt to disguise or mitigate the lack of any substance in the Highways Agency rebuttal, can make up for what is not there.
The Highways Agency case is not, in my view, an adequate rebuttal of the evidence contained in my manuscript, a document of over 160 pages filed in the public library. In the Highways Agency rebuttal they state that they rely upon the Proof of Evidence of Dr Gardiner, with regards to the historical and archaeological issues, together with the spoken evidence of Dr Gardiner to back it up. No other evidence has been presented other than what Dr Gardiner has presented, and the Wessex archaeological investigation, undertaken upon the Inspector's instructions after he had read my evidence.
Dr Gardiner has argued that an alternative explanation might exist to almost every conceivable piece of evidence that I have presented. He has done this regardless of the logic or substance of his rebuttals, upon the simple premise, that any alternative might be possible. Many of these conclusions defy the laws of logic and probability - as I shall show.
However if we examine Dr Gardiner's written evidence we see little substance there, now that cross examination is complete. It is my view that all of Dr Gardiner's evidence over the past few weeks has been orientated towards seeking to prove that alternative interpretations of my evidence might exist. However probability is the issue and not certainty. If I can show that there is a probability, no matter how small, that this site might be the Norman Invasion site, I say that no amount of probability that I might be wrong is an acceptable risk, where a perfectly adequate alternative route exists avpoiding damage to the site.
I have also I believe provided sufficient evidence to confirm with the Inspector that route S3A is also the cheapest and best route to adopt in the circumstances where not one, but two sites of national interest would be compromised by the published route. Even setting aside the heritage issues of Upper Wilting farm I believe that I have shown time and time again in evidence at this Inquiry that route S3A has advantages over the published route. I have shown that these advantages are considerable in terms of effect on the Combe Haven SSSI. The route that I have proposed is supported by English Nature and Hastings Wildlife Trusts, both of whom see the benefits of adopting route S3A.
I have shown that route S3A is better in Agricultural terms where the land take for agriculture is considerably less than the Published route.
I have shown through examination of the Planning representative, that the objections raised upon the basis of existing plans, too numerous to mention, has no relevance if it is accepted that Wilting has national heritage importance, since those plans, no matter how far developed will be adapted by the same councillors who approved them in the first place.
I have shown that East Sussex County Council have relied upon evidence provided by the County Archaeologist, who himself has relied upon Mr Gardiner's critique, without a serious investigation of this case. Now that the veracity of my claims have been tested it is clear that East Sussex will have to review their position. Like other councillors they have not been fully informed.
On the subject of traffic it was shown that traffic at the east of the bypass and at the west of the bypass produced the same effect as the published scheme. I would propose that given this consideration my scheme has the same effect as the published scheme but must be more efficient since it is cheaper. Surely traffic considerations in these circumstances can only apply to local needs and the Amenity Groups have indicated that Glyn Gap is where the local need is required and would support my alternative route S3A.
A lot of emphasis was made about the problems associated with taking the road through the Bexhill County Park. What we are talking about is a tip, on which the only thing that can be planted is grass, grass which we have heard will die when any period of dry weather comes along. The grand name, Bexhill Country Park, hardly fits the reality described. A structure which will have virtually no recreational value, which its name might otherwise suggest.
Yes we should keep the "green finger of land", as it has been eloquently described, but maybe brown would be a more appropriate colour in the Summer and maybe its use as a trunk road is not such a bad alternative use. Rather this than lose useful agricultural land on the published route to the north.
I believe I have shown to adequate satisfaction that route S3A is a better route from the Landscape point of view, presenting less visual intrusion into the SSSI, because of the removal of the main intrusion of the Combe Haven viaduct, as well as those properties in North and West of the Combe Haven valley, which will benefit from the mitigating planting planned for the western section.
The key issue in relation to Route S3A is the elimination of the need to cross one of the most important SSSIs in southern England, unique because of its wetland floodplain and ecological balance. Route S3A ensures the integrity of the Combe Haven SSSI. No other route does this.
Route S3A eliminates the possibility of damage from spillage or flooding - both a very real danger with the published route and the other routes which cross the valley on a viaduct. Only route S3A eliminates this risk for all time.
Route S3A preserves the integrity not only of the Wilting heritage site but also preserves the integrity of the Nature reserve, with the inclusion of mitigating measures to satisfy the requirements of the two major nature conservation agencies - English Nature and the Wildlife Trusts - something that the published route cannot and does not pretend do.
Route S3A eliminates the need for a costly and unnecessary interchange at Mayfield and replaces it with an overbridge with slip road to St Leonards. A proposal that is agreeable to the Crowhurst Action Committee and the other amenity groups who represent those who live in the immediate vicinity.
The link road to Glyn Gap, which is incorporated as the same link as proposed by route S6A, is not an essential feature of my proposal, but is based upon the recognition that a link road is needed in this area to Glyn Gap. I believe that this link should be implemented for the same reason as the promoters of the S6A link and that is why it has been included. It is my view that the merits of this link have been discussed in detail by others at this Inquiry and therefore it is not necessary for me to address the issues here, but simply register my agreement in principal to the link at Glyn Gap.
However one of the most important reasons for the implementation of route S3A is that it is cheaper than the cost of the published scheme, and it fulfils the requirements of the government directives to "make every penny count" (Section 4. Paragraph 6 - Public Inquiry Policy Statement document) and where an alternative route should be chosen wherever possible, where a published route would compromise a SSSI.(Section 4 Paragraph 8.4 Public Inquiry Policy Statement).
Even if the Wilting site were unable to be confirmed at this time as being the Norman landing site, a possibility that may well arise, the directives should and must be implemented to protect the integrity of this wonderful valley - the Combe Haven Valley - or as we call it locally - the Bulverhythe.
I understand that if an alternative route is to be adopted this decision is not one that it is right or proper for me to decide. All I have sought to do is show that a proper alternative does exist and it should be the duty of the authorities to investigate that route and chose the best options available. I cannot comment upon the objectors who will and have inevitably raised their legitimate objections, since these matters must be resolved by the Public Inquiry process. My sole concern is to show that a cheaper alternative to the existing route exists.
I do not know why the southerly route was not adopted in the first place, but believe that like many planning decisions, the logic of a route can be influenced by political thinking. I cannot accept at face value the statement that the southerly route around the Combe Haven valley was "not considered appropriate". The evidence given by Mr Webbe on day 55 (page 42 of the unchecked record).
If a route south of the Combe Haven was not considered I must say that this constitutes either fairly major negligence on someone's behalf, or a definite decision to take a short cut across open countryside, in direct contravention of the government directive.
Dr Webbe stated that a route as far south as mine had not been considered. However I cannot accept that the "contorted alignment" which Mr Webbe referred to is outside of the parameters allowed. Therefore the failure to explore the feasibility of the southerly route, a route which has been shown to be viable by someone who has no ability to build or design roads at all, identifies a major failing in the road building system which must be corrected.
Even if there was no decision to build the Queensway through Filsham Farm in 1976, when it was purchased as part of the GLC funding of the Queensway, the possibility of a southerly route certainly existed at that time. It leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth, when I am told that a southerly route was not considered, because of the alignment, when we know that the Chichester bypass and many others turn through 90 degrees without any problems.
I shall now deal in detail with the historical position:
I accept the need to investigate the claims in my manuscript thoroughly and make the following comments as a result of my experience trying to find Norman evidence as well as the comments of those who are involved in the Time Team investigations.
These issues are important and need to be taken into account.
Two local archaeologist, Dr Gardiner and Dr Woodcock, have failed to agree on something they have both looked at in the field, and now the Wessex report fails to produce a conclusive or cohesive answer on many of the issues covered. This is not an uncommon occurrence in archaeology and must therefore be taken into account.
By way of example I will address firstly the Wessex excavation undertaken on the eastern side of what I have called the port area. This excavation, like all the others, was undertaken with the intention of removing any doubt about the veracity of my claim that the area next to Redgeland Wood was the site of a port, a port which I claim became known by the time that the Normans landed, as the port of Hastings. It is now possible to examine the effect of the Wessex excavation upon my case, since Dr Gardiner put great store in his assertion that the jetties, as I had called them where natural. The inference being that if these so called jetties on the east and west side of the Norman landing site were natural then this would undermine the claim that a port was located in the Combe Haven valley.
Whilst this matter may look black and white to representatives of the Highways Agency when I present the case it will become clear that this does not end the matter. Sometimes, as in a case like this where evidence may be contentious, it may take many years to evaluate all the evidence before a consensus - and a consensus only - is obtained from a number of archaeologists as to what the evidence means. As I stated in cross examination the archaeologists in Egypt who are working on the site where the Israelites are supposed to have stayed in Canan have been working on that site for 25 years with written evidence from the Bible to back it up and only now is a consensus forming - but not everyone agrees yet. A similar position may well arise at this site because of its historical importance.
The work done by Wessex has added considerably to what was previously no knowledge at all of this site. Having examined the results of the first day's work at the site of the jetties I was happy to accept the team leader's proposal that these jetties were natural formation where the bank had slipped into the marsh. I was happy to accept this because the excavation showed that where I believed a cutting had been made to accommodate boats this was in fact reinforced to perform the function of a path. Clearly I had made a mistake in my assumptions as to the use of these structures. Close examination of the lines of the tracks shown in my drawing of what I called the Roman tracks, next to the port area, confirms their alignment with what is now known to be a path system beside the inlet. What I had assumed to be jetties are almost certainly extensions of the track system along the edge of the inlet.
These may be natural structures that have been adapted by man to perform a function which it is clear to me was associated with the industrialisation of the valley. In consequence the fact that the subsoil is natural has no bearing upon my case, because their adaptation of these naturally occurring structures supports their use in a port environment.
When you made a site visit Mr Jeapes you made a pertinent comment that surely it would be far more likely that if this were a port area the boats would be anchored along the shore together, rather than in the bays that I had suggested. This observation is now supported by the evidence that the archaeological excavation has provided. The reinforcement of the path along the edge of the inlet allowed those concerned with dealing with the boats in this port area to ensure a proper footing. What I thought were jetties are still in fact jetties, of a sort, but our understanding of how they were used has changed to provide a plausible and now logical use of these structures, something that was not apparent from my original thesis.
I am not dismayed by this observation, but thrilled to have found a explanation for these structures which is logical and completely supports the port and continuous use through the ages hypothesis, without undermining my case.
I find it hard to follow Dr Gardiner's assertion that there was no port in the Combe Haven. The name haven is a common name for a place to keep boats, even Cookmere Haven is a place where boats can shelter even if a port is not present. It was known that there was a haven at Hastings and this is recorded on the earliest maps. Dr Gardiner applies selective logic to dispute that the port of Hastings is located at Bulverhythe, yet admits in his own book with the extract submitted as evidence, "The South East to AD1000" to the existence of the port. In it he writes "Beyond Hastings, still further along the coast was Bulverhythe. The place name means "the harbour of the citizens" and it is usually suggested that it was a subsidiary port for the people of Hastings". Here Dr Gardiner writes in his own book that there is a subsidiary port of Hastings at Bulverhythe. I cannot accept the evidence he gave at the Inquiry as logical when he confirms that there is no evidence to support the port being on the coast, and in this case a place name expert identifies the name to mean an inland port.
I am sure the Highways Agency must understand the predicament. They have made what I believe is a huge song and dance over each individual item in my hypothesis but they have missed the whole point of writing it. That point is that written history has put the Norman Invasion site in the wrong place. My claim that it is located at Wilting is ultimately confirmed by the historical evidence.
It is quite likely that unless the archaeological evidence is in any way absolute that different archaeologists will reach different conclusions. One may say "this trench does not contain any evidence of Norman occupation" whilst another may say "this trench does not disprove Mr Austin's hypothesis" - both equally valid observations and worded to suite different needs of those commissioning the work. The reason for doing the archaeological research by Wessex was to test the veracity of my claims. Having now examined the report in detail there is only one conclusion that can be drawn. This is that the Highways Agency have failed to make their case stick because so many elements of Dr Gardiner's evidence have been based upon false assumptions. It is my contention that we cannot afford to rely upon experts who make false assumptions time and time again.
It is my view that the Highways Agency smoke screen of cross examination over a number of days, seeking to pick holes in this word or that, does not stand up to close scrutiny when in the cold light of day my manuscript is read again, something I have needed to do frequently throughout this ordeal, in order to check that I have not made a mistake on any of my basic facts. Nothing of significance has changed, nothing altered to accommodate cross examination, something you might expect if my case was wobbly. This is not a wobbly case sir, my case is still as solid as a rock.
In attempting to sum up the immense amount of time that this case has taken, I have had to look for the substance in the Highways Agency case. It seems to me that they appear to be placing huge emphasis upon two forts being located at the landing site as essential to my case. This is an important consideration, because as we have shown "dismantled forts" may be considered necessary to provide conclusive evidence of authenticity, in my view, if the representation in the Bayeux Tapestry and the Carmen is correct. However there are many historians who will not require definitive evidence of two forts in order to accept my hypothesis as valid. My manuscript contains the claim that the shore fort is located next to the inlet, adjacent to the Lower Norman Camp, a claim not yet investigated. It should be pointed out that it is possible that this shore fort, along with the Iron Age elements, upon which they built their first camp in the field next to the inlet, may qualify this statement, with no reference at all to the Upper Fort. However the discovery of parallel ditches in the bank of Dr Gardiner's lynchet is a devastating blow to the Highways Agency case that there is nothing on the top of this hill. It is equally devastating to find that the bank is based upon natural ground shape. It appears to me to be stretching credibility too far to claim that the farmer had moved all the soil around over a period of several years in order to flatten his field. Even Dr Gardiner appeared to take this on board seeking to deny Wessex's expert opinion.
Back to Correspondence Index