Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
7th September 2012, 09:39 AM
AS expected. ( and this time it is more important, as the council can then"succumb to realities and economic pressures"
Although Sheffield City Council turned down the planning application for houses on Wincobank Hill, the applicant has now appealed to the Planning Inspectorate to overturn that decision.
We have until the 24 September 2012 to submit more evidence justifying why the Council's decision should be upheld.
The original petition you signed (if you did) cannot be resubmitted to the Planning Inspectorate, we have to have a new one. So would you please sign this new petition to the Planning Inspectorate, link below? Many thanks for your help.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-planning-inspectorate-refuse-planning-permission-to-build-houses-on-the-historic-roman-ridge-2
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
7th September 2012, 09:59 AM
they did an evaluation all be it potentially a poor one but they found no archaeology. Whats the point of doing an evaluation (agreed in writing etc) if you are still going to say after a negative outcome that there is archaeological potential there. Your only possible line is to slag off the evaluation.
Reason: your past is my past
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
7th September 2012, 01:04 PM
It's not really about archaeology though, this one, is it?
Just local politics innit...
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
7th September 2012, 01:09 PM
Unitof1 Wrote:they did an evaluation all be it potentially a poor one but they found no archaeology. Whats the point of doing an evaluation (agreed in writing etc) if you are still going to say after a negative outcome that there is archaeological potential there. Your only possible line is to slag off the evaluation.
That is the big question!
An evaluation works best if your evaluating something you think is there.....like geophysics. Its not a tool for finding archaeology in a large area of unknown.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
7th September 2012, 01:13 PM
Hosty, can you post a link to the development details? Especially the size of the development and its exact location.
I ask as I can't remember whether the proposed development will destroy upstanding earthworks of the Roman Ridge and/or any bits of Wincobank Hillfort.
Wasn't it filling in between two areas of existing housing?
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
9th September 2012, 06:51 PM
This will easily be won on appeal !.........apparently there is no archaeological reason for it not to passed ......
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
24th September 2012, 07:10 PM
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/th...an-ridge-2
Keep at it!
Will be writing a piece on this...
Anyone who feels they could put a good spin on it... email me!
info@bajr.org
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
24th September 2012, 07:11 PM
@ Jack...
http://www.wincobankhill.btck.co.uk/TheRomanRidge
For all you need. it is a 'fill in' but teh residents have agreed to pushing forward to turning waste ground into open space used by all... with interpretation.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
26th September 2012, 12:42 PM
Cheers. Did it.........passed it on
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
27th September 2012, 10:58 AM
Quote:An evaluation works best if your evaluating something you think is there.....like geophysics. Its not a tool for finding archaeology in a large area of unknown.
you dont have a kratzer do you.
As far as I know they thought that there was a big 8888 off roman/ironage defensive earthwork, as I have pointed out elsewhere it could possibly be on the northern boundary. As I remember the evaluation reports found bugger all going down to bugger all depth. If there was any archaeology it was a some obscure modern event which had scraped a lot of the site to natural and replaced it with modern spoil.
Quote:Its not a tool for finding archaeology in a large area of unknown
what a load of rubbish, I am sorry but it is the only tool for finding archaeology any other techinque only finds "potential" archaeology.
Reason: your past is my past
