| ISSN 1357-4442 | Editor: Simon Denison |
|---|
| CBA UPDATE |
A report on the protection of field boundaries, published in November by the House of Commons Environment Sub-Committee, was warmly welcomed by the CBA as it incorporated many of the conclusions for which the CBA had lobbied in both its oral and written submissions (see Update, June).
Hedges alone enjoy some legal protection under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, but the committee drew attention to the importance of all field boundaries, from hedges, dry stone walls, ditches and dykes to regional forms such as slate fences and Devon hedge-banks. All forms deserve equal protection under the law, the committee said, on the basis of their `archaeological, historical, ecological and landscape value' as well as their agricultural and territorial purpose.
Outright removal of hedgerows appears to have slowed, but is still continuing, the report noted. The principal threat to hedgerows now seems to be neglect and dereliction. Describing the legal protection afforded by the Hedgerow Regulations as `woefully inadequate', the committee called for new primary legislation to cover all forms of field boundary. It also called for further investigation into the continuing efficacy of the 18th and 19th century Inclosure Acts, many of which laid a duty on landowners to preserve field boundaries created by parliamentary enclosure `in perpetuity'. An Inclosure Act was recently invoked successfully to protect a threatened hedgerow in Flamborough, East Yorkshire.
In addition to new legislation, the committee recommended an increase in funding for field boundary protection under environmental initiatives such as the Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Countryside Stewardship schemes, along with new conditions relating to hedgerow maintenance for farmers wishing to qualify for subsidies paid under the Common Agricultural Policy. The current level of grants for hedge maintenance and restoration available under environmental schemes `means that farmers can only ever scratch at the surface of the problem,' said Andrew Bennett MP, chairman of the committee.
Frances Griffith, Hon Secretary of the CBA, said: `We applaud the Select Committee's decision to consider all sorts of traditional field boundaries, and not just hedgerows. The great earth banks of Devon and Cornwall, or the stone walls of northern England and Wales, are just as important for landscape and history as are simple hedges, yet at present only boundaries that count as `hedgerows' have any protection at all.
`The Select Committee has appreciated the importance of these features and their wonderful local variety. We urge the Government to translate that concern into action.'
A campaign to ensure the continuing strong presence of history and archaeology in British schools has been conducted over recent months in an attempt to influence the new National Curriculum, which will be published, for English schools, in draft form next month by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. The new Curriculum will take effect in 2000.
Early indications are that history teaching will be strengthened in the new proposals. In 1998, the content of history teaching (along with that of many other subjects) was made discretionary in primary schools, as the Government encouraged teachers to concentrate on the `core' subjects of English, maths, science and information technology. History content will become mandatory again in the new Curriculum, possibly with a greater number of optional subjects than had existed before 1998.
The historical skills (or `key elements') that have to be taught across all subjects in history presently lay emphasis on the use of primary materials such as sites, artefacts and monuments, and this is thought likely to continue. The CBA has called for the use of the word `archaeology' in the Curriculum and for the inclusion of prehistory. At present, British history in schools begins with the Romans.
In December, all primary schools received a package of history teaching materials (`schemes of work') which suggested ways in which historical subjects might be taught. Most subject recommendations included some archaeological suggestions, as the CBA had urged. For example, in teaching the Anglo-Saxon period, teachers are advised to consider the Sutton Hoo graves and their contents, and to explore what life was like at the time - an inquiry that would naturally focus on archaeological evidence.
An unwelcome proposal to redevelop Oxford Castle into a hotel and shopping complex with wine bars and themed restaurants, which was reported in the last issue of BA (`The unending story of Oxford in peril', December) may be revised or dropped, following Oxfordshire County Council's agreement to draw up a conservation plan for the building.
According to John Steane, author of the BA article and a member of the Castle Action Group, the council has agreed to part-fund the conservation plan - jointly with the Action Group - in which each of the historical elements of the Castle will be specified with an account of their historical and social significance. These components include the Saxon tower, the Norman motte, the medieval well chamber, two 18th century prison wings and a 19th century prison block. Some development will be needed in order to fund the conservation of the buildings - all listed Grades I and II - but it will now have to take account of the conservation plan. `I have a feeling that the County Council are having second thoughts about their original idea and a less ambitious plan is now likely,' Mr Steane said.
UPDATE is compiled by Simon Denison
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1999