12th February 2014, 03:13 PM
Did OAU, under the direction of David Jennings, have the competence to advise on historic mining landscapes ?
Alwyn B Nixon BSc(Hons) MRTPI, an Inspector appointed by the National Assembly for Wales recommended refusal of a planning application submitted by Merthyr Village (Ref: APP/U6925/X/03/514357 Land at Rhydycar, south-west of Merthyr Tydfil, bounded by the A470 to the east and Heolgerrig to the north dated18/09/06).
http://www.assemblywales.org/01dc4488abb...b146e0.pdf
A key issue considered at the planning inquiry was the harm to the Merthyr Tydfil Landscape of f Outstanding Historic Interest. It is worth considering his conclusions on the evidence prepared and presented by OAU:
15.44 Although some archaeological mitigation is now proposed, through conditions and the provisions of the section 106 agreement, this is a belated attempt to preserve archaeological features within the framework of a largely pre-determined development proposal. It falls far short of a properly analysed appraisal of the historic landscape and the significance of its surviving components, used to inform consideration of an appropriate development approach. The archaeological mitigation proposed would be unlikely to amount in practice to much more than the retention of the most significant archaeological features of the site as isolated remnants, lacking context or coherence, together with some of the lines of former linear features echoed by the alignment of modern thoroughfares. In my judgement this would be no more than a token, and wholly inadequate, response to the archaeological and historical significance of the site. I do not regard other considerations put forward as benefits of the development, such as recording of features prior to loss or burial, greater public accessibility to and interpretation of those features retained, the proposed contribution to an interpretive heritage facility, or the possibility of further deterioration of the archaeological features on the site if the development proposals are not permitted, as sufficient to alter my conclusion that the proposed development would be seriously detrimental to the archaeological character and integrity of the site.
15.46 The ASIDOHL undertaken on behalf of the applicant is roundly criticised by CCW [10.4- 10.9]. The counter-criticism on behalf of the applicant that the evidence of CCWâs witness on this matter reflected an extreme view on the principle of change to the historic landscape [7.63] is to some extent justified. However, this does not disturb my assessment that the ASIDOHL is based upon an insufficiently thorough analysis of the historic features of the landscape and their historical significance. In my judgement, based upon the overall balance of all of the evidence as to the significance of the site as part of the Merthyr Tydfil Landscape of Outstanding Historical Interest and the impacts which the phase 1 and 2 developments
would have upon it, the ASIDOHL significantly underestimates the severity of the effects of the development on HLCAs 14 and 70. These effects include the consequences for comprehensive and nationally important groups of structures and systems forming key parts of the extractive landscape and the physical and visual effects of the development upon the character of the historic landscape.
Alwyn B Nixon BSc(Hons) MRTPI, an Inspector appointed by the National Assembly for Wales recommended refusal of a planning application submitted by Merthyr Village (Ref: APP/U6925/X/03/514357 Land at Rhydycar, south-west of Merthyr Tydfil, bounded by the A470 to the east and Heolgerrig to the north dated18/09/06).
http://www.assemblywales.org/01dc4488abb...b146e0.pdf
A key issue considered at the planning inquiry was the harm to the Merthyr Tydfil Landscape of f Outstanding Historic Interest. It is worth considering his conclusions on the evidence prepared and presented by OAU:
15.44 Although some archaeological mitigation is now proposed, through conditions and the provisions of the section 106 agreement, this is a belated attempt to preserve archaeological features within the framework of a largely pre-determined development proposal. It falls far short of a properly analysed appraisal of the historic landscape and the significance of its surviving components, used to inform consideration of an appropriate development approach. The archaeological mitigation proposed would be unlikely to amount in practice to much more than the retention of the most significant archaeological features of the site as isolated remnants, lacking context or coherence, together with some of the lines of former linear features echoed by the alignment of modern thoroughfares. In my judgement this would be no more than a token, and wholly inadequate, response to the archaeological and historical significance of the site. I do not regard other considerations put forward as benefits of the development, such as recording of features prior to loss or burial, greater public accessibility to and interpretation of those features retained, the proposed contribution to an interpretive heritage facility, or the possibility of further deterioration of the archaeological features on the site if the development proposals are not permitted, as sufficient to alter my conclusion that the proposed development would be seriously detrimental to the archaeological character and integrity of the site.
15.46 The ASIDOHL undertaken on behalf of the applicant is roundly criticised by CCW [10.4- 10.9]. The counter-criticism on behalf of the applicant that the evidence of CCWâs witness on this matter reflected an extreme view on the principle of change to the historic landscape [7.63] is to some extent justified. However, this does not disturb my assessment that the ASIDOHL is based upon an insufficiently thorough analysis of the historic features of the landscape and their historical significance. In my judgement, based upon the overall balance of all of the evidence as to the significance of the site as part of the Merthyr Tydfil Landscape of Outstanding Historical Interest and the impacts which the phase 1 and 2 developments
would have upon it, the ASIDOHL significantly underestimates the severity of the effects of the development on HLCAs 14 and 70. These effects include the consequences for comprehensive and nationally important groups of structures and systems forming key parts of the extractive landscape and the physical and visual effects of the development upon the character of the historic landscape.