You are currently browsing the monthly archive for November 2021.

The Tulip Tower has finally been cancelled by the Government. Historic England will be delighted as it has consistently opposed the proposal on the grounds it would interrupt some sightlines to the Tower of London.

And yet, it is passionately lobbying to totally destroy a million sightlines to Stonehenge, another UNESCO World Heritage Site!

A clear statement justifying this fundamental inconsistency is surely owed to the public.

Seriously? Please explain.

By Nigel Swift

In my opinion there’s a horrible disconnect between the genuine love and respect for the past exhibited by so many decent members of the public and the endless high-profile grabbery of 27,000 metal detectorists. Recent discussion of ARCHI UK, a phone based facility allowing detectorists to pinpoint 190,000 archaerological sites of interest (for a purpose we all know perfectly well), reminded me of my 2015 visit to Kempsey, Worcestershire, where I wrote about and photographed this:

https://heritageaction.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/kempsey-saxon-1.jpg
“It was erected by the locals following the discovery of 42 ancient graves during the construction of the flood defences and it contains the inscription: “Marking the reburial of our Saxon and Mediaeval ancestors 800-1300 BC …

“Not all of Kempsey’s past is cherished though. Some of it is being exploited. Like every village by now probably, Kempsey has been visited by metal detectorists under the unique Bonkers British legal umbrella which says they needn’t tell anyone about 99.98% of the historical finds they come across. One wonders just how much cultural knowledge of its past that has cost Kempsey bearing in mind that ARCHI UK, the database aimed at metal detectorists, lists 271 archaeological and historical sites within 10 km of the centre of the village!”

So, archaeologists of Britain, how about less claiming that Wayne is doing a fine job and a bit more mention of Kempsey?

.

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________

.

Written Statement: Road Review – Llanbedr Access Road

Lee Waters MS, Deputy Minister for Climate Change

The climate emergency makes it imperative that we avoid investment that increases carbon emissions, especially in the next 15 years when most cars on the road will still be petrol and diesel vehicles. 

The Llanbedr Access Road scheme has been taken forward by Gwynedd Council with funding from Welsh Government. As the scheme is at an advanced stage of preparation the panel chair was asked to ‘fast-track’ its review of the Llanbedr scheme.

I have received and reviewed the chair’s report.

The review focussed on two questions:

  1. Has sufficient consideration been given to non-transport solutions and solutions other than those increasing private car capacity on the road network?
  2. Has sufficient consideration been given to whether the road proposal will lead to increased CO2 emissions on the road network, or cause significant impediment to achievement of our decarbonisation targets?

This review of the Llanbedr scheme also took into account Wales’ Well-being Goals; the new Wales Transport Strategy Llwybr Newydd; Future Wales; Planning Policy Wales; the forthcoming Net Zero Wales low carbon delivery plan; and the current review of the WelTAG transport appraisal process.

The Panel Chair visited Llanbedr to see the location of the road scheme, and met Gwynedd Council, Aerospace Wales, and Welsh Government officials with responsibility for regional development, industrial transformation and transport infrastructure in North Wales. A written representation was received from Cymdeithas Eryri / the Snowdonia Society.

The chair’s report concludes that the proposed scheme does not align well with new Welsh Government transport and climate policy, and advises that it is not taken forward. The report can be accessed at:  https://gov.wales/roads-review-panel-llanbedr-access-road-and-bypass

However, I am committed to providing funding for the development and implementation of an alternative package of measures to address the negative impact of traffic in Llanbedr and in other villages on the A496, whilst also encouraging modal shift and reducing CO2 emissions. The package can also consider access requirements to the airfield to support associated developments. I have asked my officials to work with Gwynedd Council to commission Transport for Wales to develop an alternative package for consideration, in line with the chair’s recommendations.  Any Welsh Government funding for this package will be via the Local Transport Fund and subject to the usual application process.

The huge vote to ban trail hunting is only “advisory“!

Everyone, but everyone, knows the Trust has been desperately trying for years to find a way to let its hunting friends carry on so in a few weeks look out for a plan to “increase scrutiny” on hunts.

We think we can help them with that:

A plan that involves anything less would suggest resistance by the hunting lobby. But what business of theirs would it be?

Trust members have voted overwhelmingly for trail hunting to be banned from Trust land. The majority was so large there’s no room for procedural tricks to reverse it, like in 2017.

But not so fast: “The vote is “advisory“! “The Board of Trustees will now reflect on the outcomes and we will be back in touch with members through our usual communication channels in the weeks that follow this meeting.”

A body that has fought tooth, nail and fib to keep this “sport” for two decades may well try to do so again. How? Well, as we said last week, look out for the announcement of “new” and “stricter” rules for trail hunting which will enable it to continue.

In the meantime, thanks to all who voted to end it. (We couldn’t help reflecting that given the chance they would also now vote to remove the Trust’s support for the Stonehenge tunnel. Perhaps that’s why they haven’t been given the chance!)

What happened in 2017:

“While the motion [to ban it] was endorsed by 28,629 member votes, with 27,525 against, it was ultimately defeated after the counting of 3,460 proxy votes, which were authorised to be used at the discretion of other members and the trust’s board of trustees.”

Archives

November 2021
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

Follow Us

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on Facebook

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 10,386 other followers

Twitter Feed

%d bloggers like this: