A guest post by Dr George Nash, from the Hands Off Old Oswestry Hillfort campaign.
Most readers of this blog will be fully aware of the shenanigans of Shropshireland’s planning department, in particular the way they are handling the so-called SAMDev fiasco. As a result of their far from honest bid to develop housing around the eastern side of Old Oswestry Hillfort, Shropshireland’s reputation goes from bad to damn right bloody awful.
The campaign group Hands Off Old Oswestry Hillfort (HOOOH) has been entrenched in a battle to save the setting of one of England’s most iconic archaeological structures – Old Oswestry Hillfort.
The hillfort has been designated a Scheduled Monument (SM) along with the nearby early medieval linear defence system Wat’s Dyke. In addition to these two internationally important sites, the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) has identified over 100 findspots within the hinterlands including several Roman coin hoards. The landscape to the south and east (as well as within the central area of the hillfort) was an important World War I training area that belonged to the nearby Park Hall military camp.
One would think that such a cluster of sites and their mutual/shared landscape would be afforded some form of protection. However, according to Shropshireland’s planning supremos this is not the case. Indeed, without the huge condemnation from an outraged public and heritage community, Shropshireland would have sanctioned a masterplan development that would have extended eastwards from within 85m of the ramparts to the new A5 (the Bypass).
One can almost forgive the landowner wanting to cash-in on the current ambiguous planning guidance – National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPF). What cannot be forgiven, though, is the murky relationship between Shropshireland, Historic England and the planning consultancy acting on behalf of the landowner. The fact that national guidance does consider setting as an essential factor in determining potential development (see for yourself – PDF link) seems to have been completely ignored by Shropshireland and to some extent by Historic England.
By the way Historic England (formally English Heritage) consulted on NPPF, prior to publication in March 2012 and therefore the situation should be clear-cut. Errr, well, not exactly.
When one delves back into the distant past, to those heady days of 2006 and 2007 when all this development malarkey around the hillfort kicked off, the planning process in terms of archaeology and cultural heritage appeared to recognise the importance of the surrounding landscape. So a geophysical survey and subsequent evaluation programme were duly commissioned.
Now at this point, one would think this initial process to understand the archaeological landscape would be straightforward. Alas, no, not in dear old Shropshireland. Of the 24 trenches commissioned, only 14 were actually excavated, all east of the old A5 – I wonder why? Of the 14, only several were actually excavated over known anomalies that were identified from the geophysical survey. One area of high archaeological activity, coincidentally within OSW004, was completely ignored. The results from the archaeological evaluation must have been music to Shropshireland’s planning supremos, the landowner and his rather expensive planning team.
But does it end there? Actually no, readers. Not exactly.
Enter stage left HOOOH, the campaign group which, playing by the rules from the start, has battled with Shropshireland’s planners for the past two years. Working with this group, we have tried to get a fair hearing concerning the many contentious issues which have clinched serial coverage in the local and national press.
One would have thought that this bad publicity would have provoked a reaction from the planners. Well, not surprisingly, there has been little, apart from a lot of misinformation mainly from a number of press statements from Shropshireland’s leader, Councillor Barrow, who appears to know very little about cultural heritage, apart from, say, the yogurt in his fridge.
In my experience, I have never encountered such an arrogant local authority that seems to think it is above the planning guidance laws of England (well, they are Shropshireland, so I suppose they can do as they please). Their shenanigans include an unbalanced approach to information uploaded on the SAMDev website that only supports the development; murky emails, exposed through Freedom of Information (FOI) between themselves, Historic England and the landowner’s planners; and the apparent selective release of the site promoter’s evidence including commissioned reports.
When one stands back and witnesses how and what information between these characters has been circulated, plus the various inadequate processes involved, one begins to realise that bigger things are afoot.
Certainly from an archaeological and cultural heritage point of view, the work so far has been shoddy at best and I suspect there is a clear intentionality to see any archaeology produce negative results (don’t take my word for it, look at the evaluation trench distribution undertaken in 2007).
As for the setting issues, this is even clearer-cut. Old Oswestry Hillfort is a Scheduled Monument, regarded as one of England’s finest Iron Age hillforts; probably second only to Maiden Castle. There is clear guidance on setting in NPPF (and recently published Historic Environment Good Practice Advice 2015) and any development within the hinterlands of the hillfort would impact on setting; severely, in fact, according to a recent LVIA study. But funnily enough, Shropshireland planners can’t seem to see this one. Thankfully and now coming to its senses, Historic England does.
Me thinks there is a wee rat scurrying around the corridors of power in Shropshireland’s planning department. We are all aware of the size of Shropshire – it’s a big place. We are also fully aware (and accept) the need for a five year housing supply. In the words of Central Government let’s build ourselves out of recession. Hey, so far I am with you, all the way.
But why build around this side of Oswestry, within close proximity of the hillfort? Surely there are many brownfield sites out there – look at the land-banking for starters? I mean, 10,000 people are against it; eminent academic and professional archaeologists are against it; Oswestry Town Council is overwhelmingly against it; in fact, everyone except Shropshireland can see it.
They have stated in SAMDev and the press that they do not accept that ‘proposed development would result in substantial harm to the significance of the hillfort.’ However, the rat within Shropshireland’s corridor of power informs me that Old Oswestry Hillfort could be an important test-case for developers to target other heritage assets. If we – the Common Sense Brigade – lose this battle, Shropshireland and other discredited authorities will see this particular potential victory as a green light for indiscriminate development bids affecting heritage assets up and down the country; in other words, NPPF would become a developer’s charter.
This sinister policy is government-led and I dare say the nods and winks are, as you read this rant, slowly trickling down into the sewer that is Shropshireland’s planning department.
Rats!
As previously used in this Blog, ‘you couldn’t make it up’.
The Heritage Journal 
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
31/08/2015 at 08:50
Tish Farrell
It’s a shame that common sense and a concern for heritage does not wash with the current Shropshire Council regime. Interestingly my sister once worked for SC in a heritage capacity, and her impression was that it was not all that long ago that SC were touting Old Oswestry as a the proverbial jewel in Shropshire’s crown. So what EXACTLY happened to change the agenda?
31/08/2015 at 09:16
heritageaction
That’s the important question, isn’t it – what EXACTLY happened to change the agenda?
And there are other questions that go with it: how come no-one knows the answer? Has it been deliberately concealed? If so, why? Is George’s rat theory the closest anyone has come to the true explanation?
31/08/2015 at 13:15
Diana Baur
A brilliant summary From Dr Nash, as usual. And, Yes, what HAS changed? The rat analogy is Very apt indeed
31/08/2015 at 13:33
chirkmabel
We also see evidence of the SamDev inspector being guided to judge the development of OS004 by urban criteria. Talking about ‘massing, height and roofscape design’ being designed to minimize landscape impact in the SamDev misses the point that it is a rural landscape not a townscape so would have maximum impact whatever the design, and also misses the point that a purely visual landscape setting isn’t identical to what planning definitions mean by archaeological or heritage setting. Unless Shropshireland have magical powers and X ray vision to see beneath the ground surface they are playing dirty.
31/08/2015 at 14:47
Tish Farrell
I would also fly the notion that someone has realised that adding a ‘heritage view’ to a development ups the price tag. People will pay a premium so they themselves have an ‘unspoiled’ view, while denying that same unspoiled view to everyone else by buying into the development. Commodifying heritage. Or is this too cynical a take? Actually that’s not possibel in this case, is it – to be too cynical.
31/08/2015 at 16:40
heritageaction
I think Oswestry Town Council, not Shropshireland or Ratville would get to name streets in any development so maybe they could announce, in advance, that they will be using appropriate names such as Heritage Destruction Drive and Greed Grove. That would considerably reduce the saleability of the houses and hence the determination of the developers.
31/08/2015 at 18:50
MikeCoppock
Nobody would suggest corruption and back-handers, of course. That wouldn’t be the case. I’m sure it’s simply to do with a desire for nice houses in a nice location…
31/08/2015 at 23:58
June McCarthy
What really annoys me is that while Shropshire Concil seemed prepared to spoil the setting of the monument, they also seek to exploit it and milk the full potential for tourism. The caretakers of our planning system and Those who control what happens to the monument don’t seem to truly care about it. Why have we, the electorate, given them power? Shropshire Council need to realise that if they damage Old Oswestry’s setting, they risk strangling Oswestry’s and Shropshire’s golden goose for tourism!
02/09/2015 at 09:12
Andy Heaton
What has happened to change the agenda ?
It is quite simple, the heritage asset and its setting have a pseudo-monetary value that Shropshire Council wishes to realise.
In a nutshell, there are two options; the first {short-term} is to build houses even within the setting of the Hillfort. This will provide an immediate financial return, which may be easily calculated – the ‘obvious’ answer and the ‘easy’ answer.
The second option, considers a longer-term approach and would involve improved use and promotion of the heritage asset.
Unfortunately, this would require a degree of imagination & enterprise that seems beyond the scope of Shropshire Council – because they consider the long-term ‘value’ of the Hillfort as a visitor attraction, to be intangible and therefore, non-quantifiable. This makes it far easier to develop the land within the setting of the heritage asset and to ‘forget’ about its use as a heritage asset.
With the short-term approach, the Shropshire Council gets a speedy windfall . . . . . . . but to the permanent detriment of the Hillfort. If the second option is taken, the future of the Hillfort is secured and SC has a long-term return (through tourists/visitors) into the foreseeable future.
It should also be recognised, that it wouldn’t cost much, to market and promote the Hillfort as a tourist attraction . . . . . . . how much have they spent so far . . . somewhere in the region of about 50p :).
We are told that there is a ‘shortage’ of homes, this is almost certainly correct, but why can’t brownfield sites be developed ? {It need be mentioned, that there is a greater shortage of pristine hill forts}.