You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Landscape’ category.
If you’ve been there, you’ll know it’s hardly an exaggeration to say that building 150 new houses at the entrance to the Slad Valley near Stroud in Gloucestershire would be one of the most vandalistic actions that could be committed in the whole of rural England. Not just because it is an incomparable Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but also because it was immortalised by Laurie Lee in Cider with Rosie.
Yet that’s what may happen. Despite the application having just been rejected the developers have promptly reacted to the fact that their initial archaeological survey was considered insufficient by putting in lots more trenches.
Only “a bit of pottery” had been found reckons their spokesman – speaking pure Tarmacese perhaps, for how many times have you heard a developer say “Wow, this place is an archaeological treasure house, we’ll clear off and build elsewhere”? In any case, doesn’t the value or otherwise of a Roman site (that we all know will only be preserved by record at best) rather miss the point? What about the Slad Valley and what about Cider with Rosie? Are they up for sacrifice under the new planning system? It seems so.
People and organisations who oppose wind farms are sometimes portrayed as being anti-planet and unable to appreciate how vital it is to move towards green energy. However, there are surely cases where the damage is simply too great and should be opposed? There have been some recent instances which show English Heritage and The National Trust are working on that basis.
Remember Lyveden New Bield, where an Inspector ruled that damage to a scheduled monument’s setting caused by four 126 metre high turbines would be “less than substantial”?
EH, NT and East Northants Council have successfully appealed the decision. “The effect of the proposed turbines on one of the most important, beautiful and unspoilt Elizabethan landscapes in England would be appalling. This is why we pressed this case” said Simon Thurley. “We very much hope that this will be the end of the matter.” Indeed – and for several reasons, including the fact that the Inspector had said the damage to the asset was reduced by the temporary nature of the planning permission (25 years) and its reversibility. “Don’t worry it’s only for 25 years” is neither convincing nor consoling. There are numerous important landscapes and settings of all periods that don’t deserve wrecking on the basis it would only be for 25 years.
But apart from that does the reversal of this decision bring any further advantages? In particular, does it put a mark in the sand whereby other heritage assets of this calibre will be safe? Sadly no. It seems that precedents don’t play a part in many decisions despite English Heritage’s attempt to provide a rational basis for assessing the balance between energy needs and heritage conservation and their development of a database of previous decisions. Thus Mr Smith, deputy chief executive RenewableUK, which represents the wind farm industry, said: ‘It would be wrong to suggest that any kind of precedent has been set on this occasion, as each wind farm application is considered on a case-by-case basis”.
He seems to be saying the significance of heritage assets is open to a fresh battle every time. If true it’s a shame. It’s hard to see how it can be right for decisions to be independent of guidance through precedents or reference to any sort of “heritage significance scale”. Inspectors aren’t Gods with impeccable, consistent judgement on every “one-off” occasion, nor should the fate of high value heritage assets be dependant upon how well a particular barrister performs rather than how valuable the asset is. Put baldly, Mr Smith seems to be reassuring his wind farm entrepreneur colleagues that it’s always worth a try lads, as sometimes you’ll get lucky!” We can only hope Inspectors will still take a sneaky peak at EH’s guidance and database of previous decisions so that consistency prevails.
[If any of the above is wrong we'd be pleased to hear from anyone qualified to explain things].
by Sandy Gerrard
In March last year 18 questions relating to the archaeological situation on Mynydd y Betws were asked. During May the answers provided by Cadw were published here. I also asked my local Assembly Member (Mr Rhodri Glyn Thomas) to ask the Dyfed Archaeological Trust (DAT) the same questions and he kindly did this on my behalf. Having had no response in October I asked Carmarthenshire County Council for a copy of the DAT response and this was passed to both Mr Thomas and myself shortly afterwards. A commentary on the DAT response was then produced and sent to Carmarthenshire County Council. This series of articles present DAT’s responses in black and my own comments upon them in green.
General Comments (my commentary in green)
At the outset we should explain that this Trust has had strong reservations about the interpretation of the stone alignment as given by Dr and Mrs Gerrard largely through the medium of the press.
Interesting use of the words “has had”. The Trust surely either has or had strong reservations but surely not both at the same time.
At the site meeting the Dyfed Archaeological Trust (DAT) officer first raised the possibility of the stone alignment being schedulable and offered to contact Cadw directly for an assessment to be conducted. We informed him that we would also contact Cadw. The DAT officer also said that he would get straight back to us. I only contacted the “press” after it became clear that both the DAT and Cadw were not going to engage with our concerns.
This has concerned us as the nature of this archaeological find makes it very difficult to provide immediate or clear-cut interpretations on date and function and it is regrettable that this was done in the context of a sensitive windfarm development that has clearly invoked much local opposition.
I totally agree that it is regrettable, but as the stone alignment was only identified at this very late stage in the process clearly some sensitivity was going to be needed. If the Trust had instead chosen to involve us, as they initially promised, we would have been happy to work with them. Instead they choose to first alienate and then exclude us from the process and by doing so created the regrettable situation.
The Cotswold Archaeological Trust were commissioned by the developer to provide a report on the newly discovered stone alignment, based on a recommendation made by this Trust to the planning authority. The contents of the report are self-explanatory. However, it concludes that whilst a prehistoric origin cannot wholly be dismissed, it is: ‘More plausible that the current alignment is representative of a later boundary, perhaps demarcating grazing rights on the moorland, or marks a pathway, perhaps from Bryn Mawr to the twentieth century adit workings’. [p12].
This form of “later boundary” is unknown in Wales so if this interpretation is accepted it would make the feature unique and therefore arguably more important than a prehistoric stone alignment of which there are several examples.
The “twentieth century adit workings” are neither C20 in date or adits. This site is described as late C18 or early C19 by the Royal Commission and was described by them some 9 years before the date assigned by the Cotswold Archaeological Trust (CAT). Adits are never cut into the very top of hills and it is perhaps better to consider them as outcrop coal workings. This is important because it means the report is suggesting that an impossible explanation is more plausible than one that “cannot be wholly dismissed”.
This Trust agrees with this conclusion, though our preferred interpretation is that the stones have been taken from nearby prehistoric cairns and used as a way marker across an open and inhospitable moorland environment, where changes to weather can occur very quickly.
This explanation can and has been challenged on many grounds:
-
There is no logical need for a third route to the summit of Banc Bryn
-
None of the other paths or tracks on the moor are waymarked
-
The small size of the stones means that they are soon covered by snow
-
There is no man made path or track on the upslope side
-
There is no need to build a path to a small scale outcrop working whose focus would have been continually shifting
-
The outcrop workings are much earlier in date than suggested by the report and may therefore not even be contemporary with the farmstead
-
The route chosen is more uneven than the one currently being utilised a short distance upslope
-
There is no tradition of waymarking across moorland using large numbers of closely spaced small stones
Why is the Dyfed Archaeological Trust so eager to accept an interpretation that is completely contradicted by its own records?
However, Dr and Mrs Gerrard may not agree with these alternative interpretations and it will be for them to produce a detailed report on their find which can perhaps be published in an academic journal making their views open to professional archaeological scrutiny and judgement.
A report has been produced and copies sent to DAT and Cadw. An online version is also available at: http://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/mynydd-y-betws-stone-row-very-poor-scholarship-and-a-system-which-is-clearly-unfit-for-purpose/
This report and others are now hopefully being used as part of a consultation exercise being conducted by Cadw. However, no response to the contents of the report has been received from DAT or Cadw. Indeed the officers to whom the report was initially sent did not even bother to acknowledge receipt.
____________________________________
For previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.
See also this website and Facebook Group
The Council for British Archaeology (CBA) have recently released a free new booklet for download, providing information on ‘Prehistoric Monuments on the A1 Corridor. The PDF document covers the area between Ferrybridge and Catterick, taking in the Thornborough Henges, The Devils Arrows, and various other barrows, cursii and henges in between.
The document covers several topics, such as the Landscape Setting of the area, Types of Neolithic and Bronze Age moneuments to be seen, the Major Monuments in the area, Threats to Prehistoric Landscapes and Management of Archaeological Landscapes.
As with all new projects, there is inevitably room for improvment, and the supplied PDF is a mixture of single and double page spreads, and horizontally laid ‘portrait pages, all of which is not entirely conducive to an easy on-screen read, and we would have preferred to see a single page format used throughout for ease of printing.
But overall, this looks to be a good initiative from the CBA, providing a decent basic background to the area, on which a reasonable sightseeing trip could be based. We look forward to further documents in the series covering other major routes and groupings of monuments. Some obvious ideas which immediately come to mind:
- A20 – The Medway Monuments, Wrotham to Maidstone
- M25 – The Ancient Heathrow Landscape, West Drayton to Staines
- A303 – The Stonehenge WHS
- A35 – The Dorset barrow cemetary group, Dorchester to Bridport
- A4 - The Avebury WHS
- A44 – The Oxfordshire Stones, Woodstock to Long Compton
Which area(s) would you like to see covered in this series? Let us know in the comments and maybe the CBA will pick up on the ideas?
by Sandy Gerrard
It is more than a year since what Cadw call “that row of stones” on Mynydd y Betws was brought to the attention of those responsible for Welsh heritage. In the intervening time two segments of the row have been “preserved by record” a brand new environmentally friendly road has been built and turbines have started popping up out of the heather.
Putting aside for the moment the controversy regarding the stone alignment and the archaeology that has (not) been preserved by record, this photograph illustrates rather well the threat facing archaeology in the “windy” uplands:
View from the south of the Banc Bryn prehistoric ceremonial landscape with the scheduled areas highlighted in red and the stone alignment in green.
Despite complete agreement amongst archaeologists that this was a really important archaeological landscape the need for renewable energy was seen by planners as much more important than the setting of seven unproductive scheduled ancient monuments. Actually it goes further than setting – the so called “empty” spaces between the constituent parts of this ritual landscape are in some respects as significant as the features themselves and their loss means that this site will never be quite the same. The proximity of the road and turbines to the scheduled areas highlights just what might happen to your favourite bit of moorland archaeology.
If you want to see for yourself the scale of the wind farm development on Mynydd y Betws click here for a recent aerial photograph. Enter SN 67711053 into the Grid Reference Box and explore the mountain for yourself.
by Sandy Gerrard
During the course of this year a number of articles have appeared here and elsewhere on the goings on at Mynydd y Betws. Behind the scenes I am continuing to explore with the various authorities what has gone wrong and am still seeking explanations. Meanwhile on the mountain itself the work continues and the turbines are popping up next to the huge platforms that have been cut into the hillsides. The Bancbryn area where the stone alignment was identified earlier this year also contains three scheduled ancient monuments. These are highlighted green in the photograph below.
The position of the stone alignment is shown by the red line and the blue denotes the new road and turbine platform. The fourth green area on the hilltop in the background is a scheduled castle known as Penlle’r Castell. The new road cuts its way past the scheduled areas and at one point is only a couple of metres away. The scheduled archaeology has not yet been damaged but its setting has certainly been altered and its landscape context disrupted both visually and physically. The prehistoric landscape on Bancbryn will never be the same and this despite its recognition as nationally important. Sadly this was seen as being of lesser significance than the need to meet renewable energy targets. It seems unsatisfactory that it is acceptable to mutilate what Cadw previously called a “complex interconnected ritual landscape” for a temporary energy gain.
A scheduled cairn now overwhelmed by a 110m high turbine
Whatever your views on building windfarms in sensitive locations, you’ll find this short video by Sandy Gerrard well worth viewing. There’s an unmistakeable and powerful symbolism to it. Welcome to the future!
.
Just eight months after the stone row at Mynydd y Betws was first recognised, the first large component of a windmill crossed the row yesterday morning. During the coming eight weeks all the parts of fifteen 110m high wind turbines will make the same journey across the row, between the cairns and over the early coal mining remains.
11.03am, 12 September 2012: The first blade arrives on the Mountain and crosses the Stone Row. (Can you spot the Stone Row?)
Today, Thursday, it is expected that the first of the massive towers will lumber along the new purpose-built track to the large platforms cut into the side of the mountain. There they will be lifted onto the ground to await assembly in the coming months. The setting of the numerous scheduled and unscheduled sites on the mountain will be altered for years to come and of course some will bear the scars of the past few months for ever.
____________________________________
For previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.
See also this website and Facebook Group
by Sandy Gerrard
Regular readers of the unfolding drama on Mynydd y Betws will not be surprised to learn that the Dyfed Archaeological Trust response to the Cotswold Archaeology Report on the stone alignment is that they “are content with its contents and the interpretation, which better suits the archaeological information.”
The report that “better suits the archaeological information” states that the row was “probably a waymarker between Bryn Mawr and the twentieth-century adit workings.” These workings are described by the Royal Commission as bell pits in a report published in 1917 which states they are likely to be late 18th or early 19th century in date. Cotswold Archaeology and Dyfed Archaeological Trust appear to have ignored this crucial archaeological evidence and I would suggest that this might make their conclusions somewhat unreliable.
After “detailed archaeological investigations” Cotswold Archaeology has concluded that the coal mining pits were dug in 1926 i.e. some nine years after they were first described by the Royal Commission! Cotwold Archaeology also described them inaccurately as adit workings yet Dyfed Archaeological Trust are “content” with this explanation.Why when the quickest of glances at their own records would have indicated that the information used to justify the report’s conclusion is wholly inaccurate?
Furthermore why is the Dyfed Archaeological Trust so eager to accept an interpretation that is completely contradicted by its own records? They claim the conclusion “suits the archaeological information”. It does not. It only suits the subjective view they have selected and is convincingly disproved by the information they have chosen to omit. We are being asked to believe that the Royal Commission recorded the coal workings some nine years before they were created. It would be helpful if someone from the Dyfed Archaeological Trust could explain how this is possible. The only suggestion that I can think of is that the Royal Commission in the early 20th century had access to a time machine.
Can anyone think of a reason why Dyfed Archaeological Trust believe that it is possible to describe and record archaeological remains years before they have been created?
____________________________________
For previous and subsequent articles put Mynydd Y Betws in our Search Box.
See also this website and Facebook Group
Wyre Forest – the lungs of the West Midlands and arguably therefore its greatest social asset.
Following the government’s U-turn last year comes news that the plan to sell off state owned forests has now been finally and totally buried. An independent panel set up to decide “the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England” has come to some polite but damning conclusions:
> The £20m cost to the state of maintaining the forests and woodlands is “very modest and delivers benefits far in excess of this”.
> The benefits of England’s publicly owned forests was “greatly undervalued” by the planned sell-off
> The government’s own landmark assessment of the social benefits of woodlands was between £1 and £2 billion
> There is a striking and heartfelt connection between people and woodlands.
Of course, everyone, including those that tried to push it through, was well aware of all that, but it’s good it has been said. It means perhaps that there won’t be a renewed attempt anytime soon. Bravo to the Bishop of Liverpool, the National Trust, the Wildlife Trusts, the RSPB, the Woodland Trust and others who stood up for the community. As for Caroline Spelman who blithely told Parliament “I am sorry, we got this one wrong” the Panel seems to be saying to her: “Yes, and you did so knowingly!”
