You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Damage and desecration’ category.
An urgent message has been circulated by the police Rural Affairs Team.
Between 15th August and 6th September 2024, more damage was caused to the giant cairn which sits between Longstone Cross (Long Tom) and Craddock Circle near Minions on Bodmin Moor in Cornwall.
This site has suffered over the years with people moving quite large quantities of stones around to build ‘fairy stacks’, seats, low walls and barriers.
Sadly the end result is a protected Scheduled Monument which has been extensively altered and its place in the wider historic landscape potentially compromised as its construction and precise location is inextricably linked to other scheduled monuments nearby.
The Devon and Cornwall Police Rural Affairs Team are seeking to highlight the fact that Scheduled Monuments are protected in law and it is a criminal offence to damage them in any way.
Moving stones inside a scheduled monument is an act of damage and therefore constitutes the full offence.
Police are appealing for any witnesses to this latest incident to make contact via the Devon and Cornwall Police website link: https://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/tua/tell-us-about/cor/tell-us-about-existing-case-report/ quoting reference 50240228750.
The Stonehenge tunnel has been cancelled forever, and the view of the stones from the A303 has been preserved. And yet the Heritage Journal didn’t splash a “Hooray!” online. The truth is, that the Heritage Journal’s decade-long resistance of the ‘Stonehenge tunnel’ has left us rather numb.
All those who opposed the Stonehenge tunnel agreed from the beginning that a lack of money would likely stop the tunnel. That was our puzzling dilemma. If there was never likely to be enough money and it could never prove value for money, if it didn’t protect or enhance the World Heritage Site, or solve the traffic issues of local residents or motorists crossing Wiltshire – why was the Stonehenge tunnel even a thing?
The government’s own heritage employees were behind the initial push for the 2013 -2024 edition of the tunnel.
For Historic England, the Stonehenge tunnel was a power play. If Unesco withdrew World Heritage Site status because of the tunnel, Historic England would be top dog in command of a prehistoric theme park.
The idea appealed to Tory politicians – the Stonehenge tunnel they couldn’t pay for was a mirage that would gain votes.
For the National Trust, the tunnel presented the opportunity to remove tarmac and traffic from their property at the taxpayer’s expense. This in turn presented a golden opportunity to usurp the English Heritage Visitor Centre with a National Trust ‘Stonehenge Landscape’ visitor centre near Countess (which would attract the vast majority of Stonehenge visitors because they travel from the direction of London).
Then of course, there is the traffic-plagued local resident and the delayed A303 motorist, both of whom were unwittingly played by the above politicians and heritage professionals.
The ‘tunnel that never was’ has left many bewildered and upset – some mistakenly blame the Labour Party, the Stonehenge Alliance, Unesco, or English Heritage. Those responsible have meanwhile got away with the Stonehenge tunnel scam 2013-2024.
Together with the National Trust, the government’s own heritage body – Historic England – were central in orchestrating a scandal that may yet rank alongside the Post Office Horizon saga. A fantasy, conducted by empire-building heritage professionals, was ultimately at the root of the heightened see-sawing hopes and fears both conservationists and local residents were subjected to for a decade. Those involved will never be identified or held to account.
We see no reason to celebrate this, we are though relieved that the devastating Stonehenge tunnel has gone for good.
News that HS2 have given their tunnel boring machine an adoptive name, in an unashamed bid to humanize the destructive process, we think readers may welcome the opportunity to name each of the westbound and eastbound tunnels National Highways are seeking to bore at Stonehenge.
Where HS2 have named their tunnel boring machine after named after a Nobel Prize-winning chemist, we suggest the Stonehenge tunnel boring machine be named ‘Cameron’s Clanger’, after the Prime Minister who gave the current A303 Scheme the go-ahead. As for the eastbound and westbound tunnels that Cameron’s Clanger will create at Stonehenge – over to you dear readers.
Please keep suggestions clean.
In what is becoming far too frequent an event, another ancient monument has been damaged in Cornwall due to the carelessness of a driver.
The Trevellan or Trevellion wheelheaded cross is one three ancient crosses located in Luxulyan parish, in the village of Lockengate. The cross has previous damage, possibly due to its earlier movements. First recorded in 1870 at Trevellion Farm in use as a hedging stone, it was moved to the Mission Chapel in 1902. When the chapel was sold in 1972, the cross was placed in its current location at the roadside at Lockengate.
This wheelhead cross is rough-hewn and has similar cross designs on both faces. It was mounted on a modern base and stood nearly 2m high.
But the cross has now been dislocated from its base due to a vehicle reversing into it, judging from tyre tracks in the following photo, supplied by Cornwall Crosses expert Andrew Langdon, to whom we are indebted:
Luckily, the cross shaft does not appear to have been fractured, so it should be able to be re-set without too many problems.
Questions remain though: was this just carelessness, or a deliberate act? And why do so many of our ancient monuments get damaged by vehicles every year? It’s not just our wayside crosses (Cornwall is blessed with several hundred such monuments) but also our ancient bridges and other scheduled buildings. It is a fact that many Cornish roads and lanes are narrow, and modern vehicles are larger than at any other time. But the A391, on which this monument stands, is not a minor lane but a fairly busy road, leading from the A30 to St Austell. The cross is not close to the roadside, but set back, on a junction:
There is therefore no obvious reason why a vehicle would need to use the grass verge in a reversing manoeuvre. So was it hit head-on, by a driver who possibly lost control trying to turn left too late or too fast? Unlikely but possible…
Negotiations are underway to have the cross re-erected and we can only plead with all drivers: Please take care and treat our ancient monuments with the respect they deserve. Most all of them pre-date the motor vehicle age and should be allowed to delight and educate future generations to come.
Today Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site (SSWHS) learnt that its judicial review of the Government’s decision to approve a highly damaging, £2.5bn road scheme through Stonehenge World Heritage Site, for a second time, had been unsuccessful. Mr Justice Holgate in handing down his judgement today dismissed the application. SSWHS have said that they intend to appeal the decision.
The judgement comes after a 3 day hearing in the High Court in December. UNESCO, five planning inspectors and over 236,000 people were all opposed to National Highways’ highly damaging plans. Save Stonehenge WHS’s legal action had been the only thing stopping the giant earthmovers from entering this 5,000-year-old landscape.
John Adams, chair of the Stonehenge Alliance and one of the 3 directors of SSWHS, said:
“In the face of Government indifference to the harm this road will cause the World Heritage Site, we had no choice but to bring this legal action. While this judgement is a huge blow and exposes the site to National Highway’s state sponsored vandalism, we will continue the fight. In the dying days of this Conservative Government, which has inflicted so much damage on the country, we cannot let it destroy our heritage as well.”
Tom Holland, historian and president of the Stonehenge Alliance, said:
“This is a devastating loss, not just for everyone who has campaigned against the Government’s pig-headed plans for the Stonehenge landscape, but for Britain, for the world, and for subsequent generations.”
SSWHS successfully raised over £80,000 to bring this action. SSWHS will now have to raise a further £15,000 in order to apply for permission to appeal at the Court of Appeal. If a hearing is granted, a further £40,000 could be required.
The CrowdJustice page has a new interim target of £100,000. This is to raise the additional funds needed to make an application for permission to appeal (at the Court of Appeal). If a hearing is granted, the CrowdJustice target is likely to need to rise to around £140,000.
Whilst we await the result of the judge’s deliberations following the latest appeal against the tunnel on the A303 at Stonehenge, we can turn our attentions to what can be considered a yowling moggy by omission.
We should all be familiar with this delightful/horrendous (depending upon your viewpoint) image of the tunnel entrance as ‘planned’:
But that’s not half the story! Back in June last year, we provided a comparison with the A30 roadworks at Chiverton Cross in Cornwall, a project that is still ongoing with regular closures of the road and lengthy diversions.
As if the potential temporary roadworks aren’t enough, a recent letter to the Salisbury Journal by a construction engineer, headed “fine detail missing from designs” points out some quite serious omissions in the Highways England image:
The tunnel will need electricity sub-stations, one at either end, water holding tanks for the fire suppression systems, holding tanks for the tunnel drainage water, an admin building for the tunnel staff and control room etc.
It will also need an apron at either end for the breakdown recovery vehicles and emergency vehicles, and safe areas for evacuees in the event of a major incident.
None of these structures/areas appear on the artist impression and they will be needed, some can perhaps be underground but not without significantly increasing the footprint of the site.
All tunnels need smoke and extract fans and lighting so they are sources of pollution…
It will be interesting to see if/when an updated impression is released, showing the true picture. Unless of course, all of this infrastructure is to be omitted from the project – but that’s unthinkable, isn’t it??
You may have seen that Historic England recently published their annual ‘Heritage at Risk‘ register. As its name implies, this is meant to list the heritage assets of England that are deemed to be at some level of risk in the foreseeable future – presumably so that such assets may be included in plans to avert or mitigate such risks going forward.
There is an interesting searchable map provided, which shows the spread of such assets that are listed. Looking at the area around Stonehenge, given the current plans for a tunnel, you would expect to see many monuments listed in the area, and indeed, this is the case:
However, a closer inspection of many of these sites, shows no mention of the intended roadbuilding or associated groundworks. In fact, the most common listed ‘risk’ in the area is ‘arable ploughing’! Some of the possible options for an explanation of this omission are:
- ‘Arable ploughing‘ is a new buzzword for ‘road construction’.
- There has been a total lack of foresight when compiling the register
- IT’S ANOTHER YOWLING MOGGY!!
So, which is it??…
the Save Stonehenge WHS campaign is scheduled to have its day in court in just 12 days, with a second hearing to challenge the government’s decision to ‘plough through’ the world heritage site. The plans will doubtless result in Stonehenge losing its World Heritage status with ICOMOS. The court hearing will begin on Tuesday, 12th December at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. It’s scheduled to run for three days and will be a rolled-up hearing, where the permission to be heard and the full case are held at the same time. The last day will be Thursday, 14th.
If you can, please support the challenge by making a donation, here.
Earlier this year, in March, we highlighted a stunning photo by Stonehenge Dronescapes of the Northern Lights over the stones. At the time, we suggested that if the tunnel plans go ahead:
It will probably be the last one that travellers on the A303 will ever see.
We were wrong! The picture below was taken by Stonehenge Dronescapes at the weekend.
However, it is still an obvious truth that if the plans for the tunnel go ahead, views such as the one above will be lost to travellers on the A303 forever!
Please support the Stonehenge Alliance‘s legal fight to stop the plans for the tunnel by donating here. There are only 17 days left to reach their latest funding target…
An opinion piece from someone whose family heritage in the area extends back hundreds of generations:
Carn Brea, between Camborne and Redruth in Cornwall, is an enormous hilltop site of historic significance.
With evidence of human habitation extending back over 5,000 years, this tor enclosure comprising extensive ramparts and a ditch and traces of 14 Neolithic longhouses, many pottery and flint artefacts including no less than 700 arrowheads have been discovered on this ancient hill.
Gold Gallo-Belgic coins in circulation over 2,000 years ago have been found on Carn Brea.
Home to an early Mediaeval Chapel thought to be dedicated to Saint Michael and later fashioned into a small castle and hunting lodge as well as a 90-foot-high Celtic Cross erected as a monument to Francis Bassett, 1st Baron de Dunstanville and Bassett, the hill is a local landmark and generations have spent leisure time exploring it and its mysterious wells and granite rock formations.
Views of the local area from its upper parts, around 630 feet above sea level, are spectacular with a vista extending down to the Celtic Sea and Atlantic Ocean.
Carn Brea has been an inspiration to many writers and poets through the centuries. It is a place of myth and legend.
Cornwall is facing unparalleled destruction of its natural and human history which is overtaking the excesses of the tin and copper mining industrial boom of the 19th century.
Astonishing levels of house building, road widening and construction have seen the loss of archaeological sites of great antiquity and left farmers in tears at the loss of land through compulsory purchase that their families worked for generations, coastal development and so-called luxury modern mansions and holiday resorts accompanied by a vast increase in population has resulted in much being swept aside in the name of progress.
Environmental groups are increasingly expressing concern over the loss of fauna and natural habitats. Our seas suffer from alarming levels of human pollution rendering many unsafe to bathe in.
How sad it is to see a place of such huge historical and natural importance as Carn Brea, a place which has served as a refuge from the destruction, become nothing more than a dumping ground for fast food packaging, fly-tipping and even supermarket trolleys which have been pushed along lengthy trackways and abandoned on this extraordinary hill.
My ancestors must surely be spinning in their graves!
A press release from Hands Off Old Oswestry Hillfort (HOOOH):
A 10-year battle to protect the landscape of one of Britain’s most important Iron Age hillforts from widely opposed development comes to a head this week.
Cameron Homes’ application to build a luxury housing estate in the landscape setting of Old Oswestry Hillfort will be decided by Shropshire Council’s north planning committee at a meeting this Friday (July 28th) at Shirehall in Shrewsbury.
Although Shropshire planners are recommending approval, campaigners say that there are strong grounds to refuse the hugely unpopular application.
Local campaign group, HOOOH, said: “All eyes will be on the north planning committee this Friday. Their decision will seal the fate of one of Shropshire’s and Britain’s greatest archaeological landmarks. We trust they will balance all the evidence in their decision, including the irreversible damage that will be inflicted on a unique heritage site and the substantial local and national opposition to development.”
Local objectors include Oswestry Town Council, North Shropshire MP Helen Morgan, Oswestry & Border Archaeology & History Group, Cambrian Heritage Railways Ltd, and Oswestry and District Civic Society. Objections have also come from The Prehistoric Society, Council for British Archaeology, RESCUE (The British Archaeological Trust), Historic Buildings and Places. Additionally, members of the public have submitted 128 letters against and 12,000 objectors have signed a petition during the longstanding campaign to protect the setting of the site acclaimed as the ‘Stonehenge of the Iron Age’.
HOOOH continues: “Refusal is warranted if the proposals do not meet the special conditions enshrined in SAMDev policy S14 as agreed in the Statement of Common Ground with Historic England. These are meant to ensure the harm to heritage is minimised and the public benefits weighing against this harm are delivered. They also underpinned the Inspector’s decision to allocate the site for development.
“But a number of conditions are simply not being met. These are the northern limit for development, the provision of walking and cycling access along and across the Cambrian Railway, and improvements to the junction of Whittington Road and Gobowen Road.
“Given the overwhelming opposition to the plans, Shropshire Council must respect and adhere to policy and underpinning agreements for controversial development, or we seriously undermine public trust in the local planning process.”
Nuanced
While the planners’ report to the committee places great weight on the fact that Historic England has not objected, the position of the heritage consultee is much more nuanced, say campaigners.
“Historic England signed a Statement of Common Ground with conditions for development that are easily tested and form part of the legal framework of SAMDev which Shropshire Council must adhere to.
“Historic England has also stressed that views will see ‘extensive’ and ‘substantial change’ and that planners must be sure that proposals meet the requirements of the NPPF. We believe there is a strong case that they do not.”
Campaigners have also raised concerns that the Council’s landscape consultant and conservation manager, key consultees on heritage, have remained on the fence over the proposals. This is despite both acknowledging that development would lead to ‘substantial change’ within the landscape and ‘the majority of landscape and visual effects are adverse.’
The Council for British Archaeology warns that although not ‘substantial’ in planning terms – which would be destruction of the asset itself – these impacts still constitute harm as defined by the NPPF. The Prehistoric Society calls it ‘a very significant level of harm’ relative to the monument’s significance, which would normally lead to refusal of the planning application.
Written representation
In its written representation ahead of the meeting, HOOOH states that, contrary to NPPF paragraph 199, the planners’ assessment does not give appropriate weight to Old Oswestry’s significance as a designated heritage asset, especially when ‘the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be’.
HOOOH goes on to say that, contrary to NPPF paragraph 200, planners have not provided ‘clear and convincing justification’ for what would be significant harm to the setting of a designated heritage asset of national significance. Campaigners insist that planners have not adequately demonstrated that the loss or harm is necessary when the 83 houses can be built elsewhere, given that more than sufficient housing land has been identified for Oswestry’s future growth, including east of the A5 bypass.
They add that planning consent could set a precedent for further damaging development across the hillfort’s eastern setting.
The HOOOH campaign will be attending the meeting with support from the heritage sector in the form of an expert witness.
Proceedings start at 2pm and can be viewed remotely via the live streaming link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqCY87aT_cI
Link to planning documents: https://pa.shropshire.gov.uk/online-applications/centralDistribution.do?caseType=Application&keyVal=ROP3QZTDLRX00
The Heritage Journal 
You must be logged in to post a comment.