BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: Refuse planning permission for houses on Wincobank Hill
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
May be right... lets see though..
and you... cynical... more likely that Unit is mad
thanks, that's reassuring Smile

Now returning to the subject.

Sheffield Wincobank Hill battle victory

Perhaps premature. but a victory to start with.
Have you looked at the plans? The proposed site is basically infill between two blocks of existing housing, one of which is (of course) less than 200m from the hill fort. Can't see the argument meself.

Quote:Campaigners think the site is on the line of the Roman Ridge, a 10-mile linear earthwork thought to be have been built as a defensive structure between Sheffield and Kimberworth, Rotherham.

Evaluation says it may (just possibly) have been but there probably isn't any trace remaining in the proposed site.

Quote:It is hoped the site could be used as a community resource, like in heritage trails attracting visitors in the future.

It's not clear how this small housing development in amongst other housing on a site demonstrated to contain little or no archaeology and to sit within the (already compromised) setting of a significant hill fort etc would prevent that aspiration.

Answers on a postcard to HM Planning Inspectorate! :face-stir:
Quote:The councillors rejected it on archaeological grounds but we are not resting
on our laurels because the developer will appeal the decision and we?ll have to
fight it again.?

wolfie you have got the jump on us as we have not seen the archaeological "grounds" which apparently were submitted in support of the aplication......

maybe its because the fiddler pays the piper
try again Unit. I managed to use the online system at Sheffield City Council to find the application details.

What I can't find is the comments of South Yorks Archaeology Service which appear to be missing, but would I'm sure be illluminating. English Heritage did not pass comment and just sent one of their usual 'determine in accordance with local advice etc' letters. Oh, and also a rejection of scheduling for the non-site of the Roman Ridge containing this passage:

Quote:Survival/Condition: If the Roman Ridge did indeed pass through the parcel of land
under assessment (rather than following the alternative route further up hill) at best it
will survive as a buried feature, more likely as a levelled feature only identifiable from an
infilled ditch. This level of survival is poor compared to other sections that are identified
to merit designation.

Pretty sure the consultants are rubbing their hands in anticipation of round 2.
Ahhh... found it, perhaps this rather long link may help?

To summarise, although the eval found naff all, the SYAS still think that there may be some remnant of the elusive Roman Ridge within the site but were happy to see this addressed via a standard mitigation condition. So... no archaeological objection as such.

Clearly the councillors know something they don't!! :face-approve:
This could get both technical and broad ranging.

There are questions and arguments that both sides will use.

Precedent. by infilling between two existing blocks of houses. / However, this is a dangerous precedent as it has no end. and local plan envelopes often get stretched. Each new house lessens the importance of a site. therefore every new house becomes more likely.

Setting. Ah... this one keeps people in jobs. as first you must access from where it is seen and the impact it has.

Archaeology will be one aspect of planning I expect. --- and just because there is no great archaeology in an evaluation (note evaluation) does not mean the site is archaeologically unimportant.

It also has a cultural value for people as a green space. ( well rough green space)

weighing all considerations - I would have to --- like SYAS say that we had no objection on arcaeological grounds ( given that it would be indefensible) but that the potential for archaeology remained. HOWEVER - I may have - with local knowledge (of the curatorial archaeologist) been able to highlight less physical and more setting based criteria. As I don't know the site intimately then I can't say. But then again council no like that sort of whiffle. without proper data to back up when it goes to the planning appeal.
found that to get at the reports that you have to register and login- sheffield now have somebody called M. Mouse on their list.

two reports of the evaluation one looks like a draft -why it there.

my initial reaction is why isnt there a nice Big Conclusion saying there is nothing there that will be affected by the development. I blame curators who dont want the archaeologists to say this out loud in the reports.

In this particular report they have lumped the discussion and the conclusion together a DisCon or how about Disco.

but then there are things that niggle.

They seem to be after looking for a large possible linear preshistoric feature -why it not shedualled and if not where presicly is it and by which authority. Theres a thin blue line representing the "ridge" on the map where did that come from? All the trench sections show that they are on a slope.

Cant help feeling that there should be a deskdased for this site. They seem to suggest that one is on its way but by a different outfit -bit odd, and then theres this

Quote:2.9 A number of isolated Roman findspots in the study area, such as coins, provide further indications of concentrated ctivity in the study area at this date.

concentrated activity? surely a few refs needed there.

but then what I really dont like is the widths of the trenches or rather the fact that what seems to be the methodology which I presume is taken from the brief, is all lardydar about toothless buckets but nothing about widths. So must presume that 1.4 was agreed.

if I can pick a few holes the trench plan fig2 notes a FE pipe in trench 6 but no mention in section or context description and Then theres no finds list.

if you want to find in their Disco
Quote:A substantial made-ground layer was present within the central section and along the north-western side of the site. The made-ground was homogenous and devoid of any finds (except for modern plastic bags), and appears to have been deliberately selected to re-landscape the area.

it would appear that they made this ground after scraping the site down to natural which is the type of thing that should leave very sharp contacts and maybe they would like to have made note of in their context description and then theres a coal seam. Having dug on chalk most of me life I have always wanted one of those. This particular one seems to have formed on top of medium angular sandstone rubble and sand which I hope is a good thing.

but then what I dont like about this evaluation is that the site is very long and narrow which gives it a lot of boundary edge and all these trenches have managed to keep away from the edge particularly the northern edge which is possibly where you might expect to find a boundary type feature....
That seems the case indeed vulpes, as it is infill and the eval showed nothing the appeal will be a walkover for the developer.
Pages: 1 2 3