Details

The monument includes a moated site and three associated fishponds lying on
the north bank of the River Arun south of Horsham. The moated site and
fishponds comprise a rectangular group of features aligned north west - south
east, with the fishponds lying on the south east side of the complex.

The River Arun forms the south arm of the moat, and the moat island is
artificially moated on the other three sides. Both the west and north arms of
the moat have been landscaped and canalised, but both the scarp and
counterscarp banks of the west arm of the moat and the south scarp of the
north arm can be seen standing to about 1.5m high. The east end of the north
arm is largely intact. The distance between the outer edges of the banks on
the west arm is 19m, and the moat itself is 10m wide. The east arm of the
moat is now part of one of the ponds, and there is a shallow depression 0.5m
deep where the east end of the central island platform terminates 5m before
the most westerly pond.

The island platform in the centre of the moat measures about 85m north west -
south east by 60m north east - south west, the ground surface is uneven, but
there are no obvious archaeological features visible. The Inspector of
Ancient Monuments in 1966 noted that foundations lie 0.25m below the surface.

Landscaping at the east end of the site has created five ponds which are now
merged into each other. Four of these lie parallel to each other aligned
approximately north - south longitudinally and the fifth runs horizontally
lengthways across the north side of the two most westerly ponds. The
horizontally aligned pond is the remnant of the north arm of the moat at this
east end, and one of the longitudinal ponds is the vestigial remains of the
east arm of the moat. The fish ponds lie on either side of this east arm of
the moat; two to the east and one to the west. The northern pond is about 47m
long by 14m wide; the pond which formed the east arm of the moat is
amalgamated into the westernmost pond and this expanse of water now measures
approximately 37m north-south by 40m east-west. The two remaining ponds to
the east measure about 8m east-west by 34m north-south and 11m by 16m.

The moated site is that of a C13 moated house. The manor of Chesworth was
held in 1281 by William, Lord Braose. Edward I is thought to have stayed at
Chesworth in 1299 and Edward II in 1324. It was also held by the Mowbray and
the Howard (later Fitzalan-Howard) families, including the Dukes of Norfolk
and Earls of Arundel. The manor house which lay on the moated island was in
existence by 1324, and possibly by 1299; a drawbridge was mentioned in 1427.
It was abandoned in favour of the adjacent Chesworth House in the late C15.

The three artificial arms of the moat, the fishponds and a small part of the
north west corner of the island have been modified in the C20 during the
construction of ornamental gardens.

All above ground structures and hard landscaping such as ornamental steps,
bridges, pergolas and sheds are excluded from the scheduling, although the
ground beneath is included.

MAP EXTRACT
The site of the monument is shown on the attached map extract.

Source: Historic England

Reasons for Scheduling

Around 6,000 moated sites are known in England. They consist of wide ditches,
often or seasonally water-filled, partly or completely enclosing one or more
islands of dry ground on which stood domestic or religious buildings. In some
cases the islands were used for horticulture. The majority of moated sites
served as prestigious aristocratic and seigneurial residences with the
provision of a moat intended as a status symbol rather than a practical
military defence. The peak period during which moated sites were built was
between about 1250 and 1350 and by far the greatest concentration lies in
central and eastern parts of England. However, moated sites were built
throughout the medieval period, are widely scattered throughout England and
exhibit a high level of diversity in their forms and sizes. They form a
significant class of medieval monument and are important for the understanding
of the distribution of wealth and status in the countryside. Many examples
provide conditions favourable to the survival of organic remains.

Despite the moat being landscaped on the north, west and east sides, the
moated site at Chesworth House survives well, especially the interior area
where the most fragile archaeological deposits are expected, and it is a good
example of its type. The central platform will contain archaeological
features relating to the construction and occupation of the site, and the
moat will contain archaeological information and environmental evidence in
the form of organic remains such as leather, wood, seeds and pollen, which
will relate both to the moated site and the landscape within which it was
constructed. There are earthwork features to the north west of the site, not
included in this scheduling, which have not yet been archaeologically
evaluated, but may relate to water management on the site.

The association of the moated site with the fishponds indicates that this was
an important, or high status, site as do documentary sources such as the
Calendar Patent 1324-7, the Calendar Inquisitiones post mortem vi and the
Arundel Castle Manuscript A 1851.

A fishpond is an artificially created pool constructed for the purpose of
cultivating, breeding and storing fish to provide a constant supply of food.
Groups of ponds can be found in a line or cluster, and may be of different
sizes for different species or ages of fish. Fishponds were maintained by a
water management system which included inlet and outlet channels, sluices and
leats. The tradition of constructing and using fishponds in England began
during the medieval period and peaked in the C12. They were largely built by
the wealthy sectors of society, with monastic institutions and royal
residences having particularly large and complex examples. The difficulties
of obtaining fresh meat in the winter and the value placed on fish as a food
source and for status may have been factors which favoured the development of
fishponds and which made them so valuable. The practise of constructing
fishponds declined after the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the C16,
although in some areas it continued into the C17. Most fishponds fell out of
use during the post-medieval period, although some were re-used as ornamental
features in C19 and early C20 landscape parks or gardens, or as watercress
beds.

Documentary sources provide a wealth of information about the way fishponds
were stocked and managed. The main species of fish kept were eel, tench,
pickerel, bream, perch and roach. Large quantities of fish could be supplied
at a time. Once a year, probably in the spring, ponds were drained and
cleared. Fishponds were widely scattered throughout England and extended into
Scotland and Wales. The majority are found in central, eastern and southern
parts. Although C17 manuals suggest that areas of waste ground were suitable
for fishponds, in practice it appears that most fishponds were located close
to villages, manors and monasteries or within parks so that a watch could be
kept on them to prevent poaching. Although approximately 2000 examples are
recorded nationally, this is thought to be only a small proportion of those
in existence in the medieval period. Despite being relatively common,
fishponds are important for their associations with other classes of medieval
monument and in providing evidence of site economy.

The three fishponds at Chesworth, despite landscaping and modification, are
recognisable examples of their type. Their close grouping and association
with the moated site provide evidence for the economy of the site and the
management of fish stocks. Environmental evidence will be present which
relate to the moated site, the fishponds and the landscape in which they were
constructed.

Source: Historic England