At a planning meeting to consider the application at Greenwich Town Hall on 23 March 2010 more than 30 speakers, who opposed the plans, took up an hour and 40 minutes of the 5 hour meeting to make their arguments known saying that they feared important archaeological evidence and historic artefacts would be damaged and disturbed important environmental habitats disturbed, historic trees including some sweet chestnut trees which were up to 300 years old. damaged and an important habitat of bats interfered with.

Objectors included:

RESCUE: the British Archaeological Trust: It can’t be considered legal, reasonable or appropriate for such a significant heritage landscape to be put under serious threat of irreparable and widespread damage for a transient sporting event.

Residents are now hoping that following the recent change of Government the decision to stage these events in Greenwich Park can be revisited as part of the review of costs of Olympics 2012, and the benefits of moving the event to the more suitable existing facilities at Windsor Great Park can be revisited and more fully explored.

Whilst we welcome the Government’s interest in the Historic Environment and its attempts to address it more holistically, RESCUE remains unconvinced by the arguments in favour of the homogenous unified protection regime as outlined within PPS5. We do not believe that the wide range of “heritage assets” covered by this policy can be adequately protected by generic “one size fits all” policies. The ‘heritage importance’ of these different types of site will vary in each case – in some it has yet to emerge or be fully understood, yet this unified approach effectively denies the essential differences in their nature and therefore surely compromises proper assessment of the specific protection measures they might require.

RESCUE is also disappointed that PPS5 has been released without adequate prior consultation with relevant stakeholders. As with the earlier version, its drafting has taken place under an inexplicable and deliberate veil of secrecy which we cannot support. This lack of consultation is clearly visible in the finished document and the accompanying Practice Guide, which both continue to suffer from a lack of detail and vague terminology in important areas. This will likely cause problems in the future, as the practical implementation of the policies and guidance is attempted.

Now this process has been completed and the document has been released, RESCUE believes that there are more pressing issues that the Government and various heritage bodies should address urgently within the UK heritage sector. These include:

• the lack of statutory provision for heritage conservation advice services and HER’s, with the resultant constant threat to these services through local authority cost-cutting
• the ongoing and chronic lack of archaeological archive storage and museum space
• the fragmentation of the relationships between professional, amateur, contractual and academic sides of the heritage sector, and the ongoing skills drain
• the lack of satisfactory protection for the vast majority of undesignated archaeological sites and the threat to their survival as a result
• ensuring proper protection for our underwater maritime heritage

RESCUE believes that there are fundamental problems regarding the structure and administration of the heritage sector that the recent single-minded concentration on one aspect of planning policy guidance has done precisely nothing to address. These deficiencies must now be addressed urgently if the heritage resource itself, and also the profession which cares for it, are not to suffer irreparable damage.

Further Information

• PPS 5 – Planning for the Historic Environment
• The Government’s Vision for Heritage, published at the same time as the PPS
• The IfA’s response
• PlanningRescource.co.uk article on the new PPS

www.salisbury.gov.uk/planning/development-control/planning-applications/2009/1527/application-documentation.htm

In summary, the scheme proposals are for closure of the A344/A303 junction at Stonehenge Bottom and greening of the A344 up to the Henge; removal of parking and other facilities from the present location to Airman’s Corner, at the junction of the A344 with the A360 on the western edge of the WHS; retention of a small, partly underground facility for security etc. on the present site; and use of the A344 as a visitor-transit route between the Henge and new visitor-facilities at Airman’s Corner.

The Stonehenge Alliance, of which RESCUE is a member organisation, objected to the planning application (see Alliance letter on the website link, above, at ‘Consultee Response’: 1 December 2009). Although we welcomed proposals to close the A344 to general traffic and removal of the visitor-facilities from the vicinity of the Henge, we objected to the extensive new car and coach parks to be set in the open countryside of the World Heritage Site, and the departure from planning policies for the WHS; and we raised a considerable number of questions about matters on which insufficient information had been provided and on which we felt further consultation was needed before a planning decision could be made.

We also raised matters concerning the Appropriate Assessment of possible impacts of the development on nearby European Special Areas of Conservation. An Appropriate Assessment is required under European law and must be undertaken by the determining authority in advance of determination of the application.

The Alliance, being of the opinion that the application would be best considered at a Public Inquiry, wrote to the Government Office for the South West (GOSW), asking for a call-in to be recommended to the Secretary of State.

We learned that Natural England had apparently withdrawn its advice for additional work to be undertaken to inform the Appropriate Assessment shortly before the Officer’s Report to the Strategic Planning Committee was made available to the public a week before its meeting on 20 January. The Alliance still had concerns about the Appropriate Assessment that had then been undertaken and asked its solicitor to write to the Council (see application web link, ‘Representation Letters’: Letter from Earth Rights, 25 January 2009). It also had concerns about the Officer’s Report to Committee (see cms.wiltshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=145&MId=618&Ver=4) and wrote again to the GOSW, detailing those concerns at some length (see below), and again asked for a call-in to be recommended. We learned shortly before the planning meeting that the Secretary of State was considering whether or not to call in the application.

Stonehenge Alliance – Letter to GOSW

Download

On 20 January, the Strategic Planning Committee’s principal concerns about the application appeared to relate to traffic congestion and rat-running through local villages to avoid traffic jams on the A303; the need to take the funding on offer for the development now, before it might suddenly be withdrawn; and, not surprisingly, a strong feeling that it was about time that a decision was made to put a new Stonehenge visitor centre somewhere and that you would never find everyone agreeing on where that should be. The adverse impacts of the proposed scheme on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site and the impact of the facilities on the landscape were hardly mentioned and no S.106 condition was sought to minimise those impacts by amendments to the building, and screening of it and the 500-space car park by vegetation, such as had been advised by ICOMOS-UK, Natural England, CABE, and Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Society, (see planning application web link: ‘Consultee Response’: ‘preview unavailable, 1 December 2009’ (ICOMOS-UK and NE); ‘CABE, 22 December 2009’; and ‘26 November 2009’ (WANHS)), amongst others.

Committee Members appeared to approve the application as suggested in the Officer’s Report with two amendments to the proposed S.106 Conditions. The Alliance was afterwards informed verbally by a Council Officer that a decision on the application had been deferred and delegated to Officers pending consideration of legal issues raised by the legal representative of the Stonehenge Alliance and taking any associated procedural action arising; a decision was also subject to delegation of completion of the S.106 Agreement. We were not able to obtain the actual wording of the Committee’s decision and still await it (27 January). English Heritage has issued a press release indicating that planning approval for the development is in place and approval of the plans has been reported in the local press (see www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/salisbury/salisburynews/4866248.Stonehenge_visitor_centre_approved/). There remains confusion about what the Strategic Planning Committee actually resolved.

Meanwhile, we have not yet heard from the Government Office concerning a decision by the Secretary of State. It would not be too late for anyone who may be concerned to write to the GOSW, asking for the application to be called-in for a Public Inquiry by the Secretary of State. The person to write to is Ms Tracey Williams at Tracey.WILLIAMS@gosw.gsi.gov.uk.

Destination Colchester and Colchester Archaeology Trust are together trying to raise funds to buy the Sergeants’ Mess building and garden of Abbey Fields from developers Taylor Wimpey to save a unique site from redevelopment and help preserve Colchester’s town’s unique heritage.

Deadline now February 2010

The Appeal has had the deadline to raise enough money to buy the land containing the 8 starting gates of Britain’s only known Roman chariot racing circus extended, from the end of January 2010 by one month. The gates lie within the front garden of the former garrison sergeants’ mess at the northern end of Abbey Field. This distinguished Victorian Grade 2 listed building is otherwise destined to become private housing, closing off public access to an important section of this unique archaeological site.

The appeal organisers believe that Roman Colchester including the Roman circus, the Roman walls, the Temple of Claudius, the Roman theatre and other sites should become a national visitor attraction, giving the town a strong identity, bringing business into the centre and helping to revitalise Britain’s oldest recorded town.

The aim is to preserve the site as a celebration of the town’s unique Roman heritage. The Sergeants’ Mess building will provide a new and highly appropriate home for the Colchester Archaeological Trust as well as somewhere for people who live, work and visit Colchester to enjoy and learn about our historic past.

Working with local councils and county councils, the majority of the circus site will be transformed into an archaeological park. Where possible, earth mounds will be built to show its great size and provide a view not seen in Britain for at least 1600 years.

Initially, £200,000 is needed to help buy the land.  Since the appeal was launched at the beginning of December it has raised just over £100,000, half-way to the total. It has taken just six weeks to do so, which shows how generous many people have been.

A fundraising event organised for 14th January in the Mayor’s Parlour of Colchester Town Hall to inform, educate, entertain and encourage donations to save Colchester’s Roman Circus, hosted by actor Tony Gardner star of BBC TV’s award winning comedy Lead Balloon raised £10,000 on the night, not including Gift Aid, with of other donations promised to be sent by post or online.

Speakers included Philip Crummy. Director of the Colchester Archaeological Trust who discovered the Roman circus who explained why the Circus mattered and what the Trust had got planned for it, should the appeal succeed, while Sven Wombwell, Garden designer, f ITV’s This Morning revealed his ideas for the design for the garden where the 8 Roman Circus starting gates are located and Philip Wise, Heritage Manager at Colchester Museums spoke about their vision for the Roman Circus.

The appeal has struck a chord both with local residents and supporters from elsewhere with over 1,200 people from all over the country donating hard earned money.

For more details of the appeal and to check on progress see www.romancircus.org/ which has donation facilities , or send donations to Colchester Archaeological Trust, 12 Lexden Rd, Colchester, CO3 3NF, with your address on the back, or contact Bill Hayton appeals coordinator on 07973 635692.

Useful Links

• Appeal website where you can donate online
• Colchester Archaeological Trust
• Facebook Group for the Campaign

Greenwich Park is an area of intense archaeological interest, within the World Heritage Site.

A Roman temple complex was discovered in 1902 on a mound in the Park by the then Superintendant, A D Webster and the noted Blackheath antiquary, Herbert Jones. Further excavations led by Harvey Sheldon in 1978 – following the felling of Elms on the mound – and in 1999, by Time-Team, for their Millennium series, suggest that the building was part of a temple complex.

The park also contains a Saxon barrow cemtery.

The Royal park is of 15th-century origin, laid out in the 1660s, with continued development until the 20th century and contains some unrivalled garden features, such as the parterre garden designed by Andre Le Notre.

We have tried to collate below as many links as possible to relevant responses. However, please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like a link to your response to be added.

These links open in a new window unless otherwise stated.

• Council for British Archaeology
• Institute for Archaeologists
• Heritage Link
• The National Trust
• English Heritage
• Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings
• Historic Houses Association
• Historic Towns Forum
• IHBC / RTPI joint response
• Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies
• The Archaeology Forum (pdf via Scribd)
• National Historic Ships
• Civic Society Initiative
• Banbury Civic Society (pdf via Scribd)
• Archaeological Archives Forum: response to PPS15 (pdf via Scribd) | response to Practice Guide (pdf via Scribd)
• FAME (pdf via Scribd)

There was little prior expectation this time around of the Bill appearing however, with very few within the heritage profession still clinging to the suggestion that this ill-fated piece of legislation might ever see the light of day.

With the November 2009 publication of a new policy statement on Scheduled Monuments by DCMS (which would be unnecessary if the Bill were to proceed), we realistically have to now conclude that the Government has abandoned this project entirely. Rescue looks forward to an official statement clarifying the position.

Links

• DCMS publish new statement on Scheduled Monuments
• Planning Rescource’s reaction to the Queen’s Speech
• BBC news story on the Queen’s Speech

We welcome the comment by the spokesman for the The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) quoted in the Daily Telegraph

“The redraft is extremely welcome news, though we will need to examine the final policy closely to make sure that it addresses our serious concerns”

RESCUE will be scrutinising the revised draft carefully to ensure that the concerns that we highlighted in our response to the consultation have been acknowledged and addressed.

Further Information

• Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Planning minister John Healey has promised to ‘redraft’ Planning Policy Statement 15 (PPS 15) after heritage and conservation bodies branded the planned document a serious risk to the nation’s historic buildings.
  Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/6569199/Planning-proposals-for-heritage-buildings-to-be-re-written-after-outcry.html and http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/pps-u-turn-minister-promises-heritage-planning-policy-redraft/5210902.article?referrer=RSS
• An article in The Telegraph on 31/10/09, covered the RTPI’s “scathing attack on PPS15″.
  Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/6475826/Listed-buildings-and-scenic-spots-face-destruction-after-planning-rule-changes.html

The Department for Communities and Local Governement says “PPS15 reflects a more modern, integrated approach which defines the historic environment in terms of heritage assets to be conserved in accordance with a set of principles and in proportion to their significance.”

You can read Rescue’s response below.
PPS 15 Consultation Rescue Response

www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/improvingdevelopmentconsultation

You can read Rescue’s response below.
Communities & Local Government Improving Permitted Development Consultation Comments by RESCUE: the Briti…