News
31 March 2014
Attention: Immediate
Battle lines drawn over hillfort housing
Photos:
Fencers-courtesy Richard Stonehouse
Aerial-courtesy HOOOH
Fencers spar on the ramparts of Old Oswestry, a 3,000 year old
Iron Age hillfort described by English Heritage as ‘one of the
greatest archaeological monuments of the nation’.
Campaigners are currently fighting housing plans that would
breach a town development boundary to erode the south-eastern
setting of the scheduled earthwork.
Council leaves ancient hillfort open to encroaching development in
order to meet 5 year housing supply
Shropshire Council has been accused of heavy-handed tactics and a dismissive attitude towards heritage and
public opinion in its handling of controversial proposals to build houses next to one of Britain’s most
important Iron Age hillforts.
Originally scheduled in 1934, the 3000 year old Welsh Marches hillfort of Old Oswestry is a statutorily protected
ancient monument. It was incorporated into the line of the later Anglo-Saxon defence, Wat’s Dyke, also scheduled.
But campaigners warn that Shropshire’s unitary authority is on the way to committing the worst example of cultural
and environmental vandalism by riding roughshod over national heritage to meet housing targets.
Shropshire Council recently dropped two sites by the hillfort (with 59 houses) from its SAMDev* plan, which will
allocate land for development across Shropshire to 2026. But it is holding on to a third estate of 117 homes at Oldport
Farm (OSW004 off Whittington Road) in order to meet five-year housing supply.
Leaving council chambers after announcing the decision, Shropshire’s planning portfolio holder shocked campaigners
by commenting that he did not ‘care if OSW004 goes through or not’, adding that he was only interested in the
numbers and that the plan is ‘a good compromise’. Members of campaign group, HOOOH (Hands Off Old Oswestry
Hillfort), say the remark illustrates Shropshire Council's contempt for and disinterest in the protection and preservation
of the scheduled ancient monument.
Under the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework), local planning authorities must demonstrate they have a rolling
five-year supply of deliverable land for housing. Shropshire Council currently has 4.95 years supply.
Kate Clarke of HOOOH said: “The Council is fully aware that there is a deliverable and uncontentious site just down the
road which could help meet targets but is effectively being land-banked by the developer.”
SAMDev includes an allocation of 900 houses on Oswestry's Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE), but only 63 are
included in current five-year figures.
Miss Clarke said: “Shropshire planners should be negotiating a bigger five year contribution from Oswestry’s SUE which
has had development approval for years. Instead, the Council is choosing to make up the shortfall by sacrificing
historic greenfield sites where landowners and developers will see much bigger and quicker returns.”
Shropshire Council Leader, Keith Barrow, has also come under fire for recent press comments. Neil Phillips of HOOOH
said: “He claims that no councillor spoke out against OSW004 at its recent meeting to ratify SAMDev, as if conclusive
evidence that a glut of houses sweeping towards Old Oswestry can’t be such a bad thing. Their collective silence shows
a shameful disregard for the electorate and for County and national heritage.”
The Conservative-led Council’s reluctance to defend Old Oswestry is echoed by North Shropshire MP and Environment
Minister, Owen Paterson. In a recent letter to campaigners he wrote: ‘I know just how important this issue is. I hope
you will understand that neither Minister nor Government officials can intervene or comment on individual planning
applications because of Ministers’ quasi-judicial role in the system.’
But, citing the Ministerial Code, campaigners say that ministers are not prevented from representing constituents’
views on planning applications or similar issues given certain points of conduct are observed.
Mr Phillips said: “Mr Paterson may well be Environment Secretary, but he still has duties to his North Shropshire
constituents. He lists helping to save Whitchurch community hospital as one of his proudest political achievements.
Now he has an opportunity to add to this legacy by championing Old Oswestry which is an environmental as well as a
heritage issue.”
Opposition
The hillfort decision goes against overwhelming local, national and international opposition from the public, heritage
groups, experts and academics, including over 10,000 petition and Facebook supporters.
It also ignores objections from English Heritage and Oswestry Town Council. Both recently strengthened their
opposition in light of new expert evidence showing development would have major heritage impacts. This is contrary
to a report commissioned by the site promoter assessing impacts as minor. The same report has been criticised by
heritage authorities, including RESCUE (British Archaeological Trust), as being non-compliant in parts with NPPF
standards, yet has been accepted by Shropshire Council in support of development.
The only contentious site remaining in SAMDev, OSW004 appears in the final plan currently out for six week public
consultation on ‘soundness’.
Kate Clarke said: “The hillfort site has no community mandate and is being justified using flawed evidence
underestimating the heritage impact. The community benefits do not outweigh the potential harm to heritage, and its
historical significance makes this an issue of national interest. OSWOO4 does not even meet Shropshire’s own criteria
for five year supply which excludes sites with ‘major unresolved problems. These are just the tip of the iceberg in
demonstrating the unsoundness of keeping it in SAMDev.”
Neil Phillips adds: “The Localism Act is supposed to empower us to protect the places we value. But our views are
being ignored in order to meet inflated housing targets and take measly cash windfalls for development.”
Shropshire Council would pocket £40 per square metre in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for the 117 hillfort
homes if built.
The current SAMDev consultation runs until April 28. Unresolved sites will go to public inquiry over the summer for
determination by the planning inspectorate.
~ ENDS ~
*SAMDev: Site Allocations and Management of Development
*HOOOH’s petition against proposed housing by Old Oswestry is at: http://tinyurl.com/hillfortpetition
More information including previous press releases at: http://oldoswestryhillfort.co.uk/
Twitter @OldOswestryFort
Facebook: OldOswestryHillFort
Press enquiries to Kate Clarke on 01691 652918, or John Waine on 07972 113619.
Editor notes:
 OSW004 fails to comply with NPPF section 12 (particularly paragraph 126) which sets out policy for the historic
environment. It also contravenes Shropshire’s own core strategy which, in section 4.36, states that the Council will
respect the distinctive characters of its market towns, being sensitive to landscape setting, historic features and
the towns’ functions (past and present) under Policy CS6.
 In an 18-page Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment report, historic landscape expert Dr Ben Edwards of
Manchester Metropolitan University concludes that the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed
development would be ‘major’. The findings also cast serious doubt over the Heritage Impact Assessment (August
2013) of the site promoter which assesses them as ‘minimal’. The report concurs with a Heritage Statement
(December 2013) produced for HOOOH by archaeological expert, Dr George Nash, in finding that the promoter’s
HIA ‘did not follow appropriate guidance or established methodology, either in its execution, or in arriving at a
conclusion of minimal landscape and visual impact.’
 At a recent meeting, Councillor Malcolm Price, Shropshire Council’s Portfolio Holder for Planning, was challenged
by campaigners over English Heritage’s concerns regarding the intensity of development at OSW004. Councillor
Price responded by saying if English Heritage had come out against all three proposals in the beginning ‘we
wouldn’t be in this position’. Correspondence obtained through a FOI request reveals otherwise. In a letter dated
9 July 2012, English Heritage wrote to Shropshire Council saying: ‘English Heritage does not support the preferred
housing sites (OSW002/OSW003/OSW004) because of the harm these sites are likely to have on the significance
of Old Oswestry hillfort, by virtue of their location within the immediate setting of the designated area.’
 Councillor Price also told campaigners that it might have helped if they had suggested some alternative sites.
HOOOH said: “The public have been objecting to the hillfort proposals since they appeared in SAMDev back in
March 2012 and asking that alternative sites be found. The Council has had two years to respond to our demands
– they have the sites and planning data, not us.”
 Defending its decision, Leader of Shropshire Council, Keith Barrow, said that if the Council had removed all three
hillfort sites from SAMDev “we would have a planning application in the post tomorrow. You can still object to
OSW004 at public inquiry.” Under the NPPF, developers can make planning applications where the unitary
authority does not have a Local Plan or five year supply of housing land. The current ‘presumption in favour of
sustainable development’ means that inspectors will overturn refused applications at appeal unless the LPA can
prove environmental damage, with the LPA picking up legal costs if they lose.
 But campaigners say this shows alarming disregard for Shropshire’s heritage. “The Council should not be
submitting OSW004 to the uncertain fate of public inquiry in a climate weighted towards housing development,”
they comment. “It should have asserted the powers it has to protect County heritage by leaving it out of SAMDev
from the start, indicating it is not up for grabs for development.”
 In a letter (26 February 2014) confirming its objections to all three hillfort sites, Oswestry Town Council asked
Shropshire Council to consider measures to extend protection of the hillfort’s setting. It wrote: “The Council would
ask Shropshire Council for a commitment following SAMDev to look to develop planning guidance for the hillfort
and its surrounds for the future, bringing together interested agencies to formulate a strategy and policies
looking to the historical and archaeological protection and promotion of the site.”
 Oswestry Town Council has also asked for an independent review of the promoter’s current heritage assessment
for the hillfort sites including OSW004. English Heritage has previously expressed its concerns at the absence in
SAMDev ‘of a policy direction on the historic environment and heritage assets.’
 Campaigners argue that the fight over OSW004 is pivotal to the future legacy of Old Oswestry, described by
prehistory specialist Dr Rachel Pope as “the hillfort we turn to for an understanding of this period of the past.”
 If approved, development on OSW004 would breach a longstanding planning boundary to the north of Oswestry
that has stemmed further urban incursion into the hillfort’s setting. The contribution of setting to heritage
significance has recently been clarified in a new advice note from English Heritage which provides for greater
value to be assigned to heritage setting. HOOOH says: “There is sufficient heritage protection in national and
Shropshire’s own planning policy, including a steer away from development north of the town and in the vicinity
of Old Oswestry, to have kept the hillfort sites out of SAMDev right from the start.”
 According to documents received through FOI requests, the landowner has submitted a succession of different
concepts for development at Oldport Farm to the south-east, east and even north of the hillfort. These have
included an urban extension masterplan that would have filled in most of the fields east of the hillfort between
the B5069 and A5 by-pass with light industrial and commercial office accommodation. “Knowing the landowner’s
past ambitions for Oldport Farm, Shropshire Council and English Heritage should remain alert to the planning
precedent that OSW004 might set,” say HOOOH.