THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
Registered Office University College London, Institute of Archaeology, 31–34 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PY
President’s address: Department of Scottish History & Archaeology, National Museums Scotland, Chambers St, Edinburgh EH1 1JF
The Society is registered in England and Wales as a company limited by guarantee (no. 2532446) and is a registered charity (no. 1000567)
______
Strategic Planning
Shropshire Council
Shirehall
Abbey Foregate
Shrewsbury
SY2 6ND
Wednesday, 28 August 2013
Dear Sir or Madam
Re SAMDEV plan: Old Oswestry area
I am writing on behalf of the Prehistoric Society to register an objection to the inclusion of the revised scheme of ‘Oswestry Area’ as one of the Council’s 18 revised preferred ‘place plan’ options for strategic development. We consider that the proposals will harm the setting of Old Oswestry hillfort and this is the basis for our objection.
The importance of the setting of designated assets is enshrined within the National Planning Policy Framework (Department of Communities and Local Government 2012), paragraphs 128, 129 and 132. Additionally, the English Heritage document The Setting of Heritage Assets (EH 2011, under revision) clearly underscores the importance of a heritage asset’s setting, along with guidance on how to understand setting and evaluate proposals that might harm assets. Setting is defined as the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced, and the guidance further notes that ‘the careful management of change within the surroundings of heritage assets therefore makes an important contribution to the quality of the places in which we live’.
While the changes from the initial proposal are to be welcomed, particularly the reduction in scope of area OSW002 from 80 to 36 dwellings, the removal of the agricultural buildings in area OSW003, and the reduction in scope of OSWOO4, the scale of the proposal is considered by us to be inappropriate within the setting of the ancient monument.
Old Oswestry hillfort, Ancient Monument No. 27556, is an extremely impressive Iron Age multivallate enclosure, with clear evidence pointing to the use of the landscape in the Bronze Age and Neolithic periods, indicating clear continuity of land use over several thousand years. Additionally, its incorporation into Saxon defensive lines shows it was used and valued in the historic period, and of course its use in the First World War is well known. It is remarkably well preserved, and one of the best examples of an Iron Age hillfort surviving in Britain. Its striking position on a high glacial feature raises the enclosure the landscape, creating a magnificent site with easily readable defensive earthworks and superb views.
Remarkably few intact hillforts survive that can be read so well in the landscape. Many were not so well positioned initially, have been partially removed through development, have suffered from natural erosion or have been obscured as a result of forestry. Old Oswestry has suffered none of these depredations and its preservation intact should be a priority, to enable the public to appreciate the nature of prehistoric occupation and the societies that designed and built these sites.
The revised proposals, while a little reduced in scope, still permit significant encroachment on the southern and eastern sides of the monument:
· OSW002 would bring housing development extremely close to the south eastern edge of the site, will infill a currently empty area and block the currently unimpeded views of the site from the road here and from the east.
· OSW003 has increased from 25 to 35 dwellings and again will bring development very close to the hillfort and block the currently unimpeded views from the road here and from the east.
· OSW004, whilst on the far side of the road is much larger in scope, at 117 dwellings proposed, and whilst the reduction of the northern extent is welcomed, it straddles OSW002 and OSW003 in the views to and from the site, creating a large block of new development, again, harming the views and the setting of the monument.
These three areas of development would harm the setting of the monument by hemming it in with inappropriate buildings and impeding the existing views of the site, which remains visible in its entirety, uninterrupted and testament to the duration of inhabitation and culture in the area. Furthermore, the proposed development sites would harm the views from the monument; particularly to the east. Finally, development as proposed may create precedent for further schemes which would erode the setting of the monument still further.
I ask that you consider the significance and value of the monument, both as a nationally important site, but a very great asset which contributes significantly to the quality of the local environment, and remove the inclusion of these options from your strategic development zones.
Yours faithfully
Dr Alison Sheridan
President