Historic Landscape Management Characterisation

Transcription

Pilot Project
Swaledale
Yorkshire Dales National Park
HLMC Pilot Project – Swaledale. Final report
1
The Historic Landscape Management Characterisation Pilot Project: Swaledale was
carried out between April 2006 and April 2007 by the Yorkshire Dales National Park
Authority. The project was funded by English Heritage through the Historic Environment
Enabling Programme – Project Number 4668 MAIN.
Copyright © Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority
OS maps are reproduced under licence to Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority
100023740 2007
Contact:
Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority,
Yoredale,
Bainbridge
North Yorkshire
DL8 3EL
[email protected]
Cover illustration: Reeth and Swaledale from the post-Roman bank and ditch on the flank
of Harker Hill © YDNPA
Internal title page illustrations: (top) Fremington Edge to the east of Reeth © YDNPA
(bottom) An Upland Survey map of part of Fremington Edge showing historic environment
information for a Countryside Stewardship agreement, 2004 © YDNPA
2
List of Contents
Executive Summary
Preface
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
List of Illustrations
Tables
6
8
9
10
11
14
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 15
1.1
Background and context ..................................................................................... 15
1.2
Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................... 15
1.3
Project Area ........................................................................................................ 16
1.4
Methodology ....................................................................................................... 19
1.5
Non-technical summary of results....................................................................... 21
2 Historic Landscape managemEnt Characterisation ................................................... 22
2.1
Method Statement .............................................................................................. 22
2.1.1
The Tools..................................................................................................... 22
2.2
The HLMC GIS database.................................................................................... 23
2.2.1
HLMC polygon definition.............................................................................. 23
2.2.2
Designing the HLMC data base: fields, data type and description............... 25
2.3
Modern Land Management Types: Broad Types................................................ 65
2.3.1
Grouse Moor................................................................................................ 66
2.3.2
Moorland Fringe........................................................................................... 67
2.3.3
Pastoral Farming ......................................................................................... 68
2.3.4
Settlement ................................................................................................... 69
2.3.5
Woodland .................................................................................................... 70
2.3.6
Smallholding ................................................................................................ 70
2.3.7
Recreation ................................................................................................... 71
2.3.8
Ornamental .................................................................................................. 72
2.3.9
Water ........................................................................................................... 72
2.4
Modern Land Management Types: HLMC Sub Types ........................................ 73
2.4.1
The development of Sub Types ................................................................... 73
2.4.2
Grouse Moor................................................................................................ 75
2.4.3
Moorland Fringe........................................................................................... 77
2.4.4
Pastoral Farming ......................................................................................... 78
2.4.5
Settlement ................................................................................................... 79
2.4.6
Woodland .................................................................................................... 80
2.4.7
Smallholding ................................................................................................ 81
2.4.8
Recreation ................................................................................................... 82
2.4.9
Ornamental .................................................................................................. 82
2.4.10 Water ........................................................................................................... 83
2.5
The accommodation of previous historic land use and management within the
HLMC GIS database ..................................................................................................... 84
2.5.1
An Alternative method - GIS overlays.......................................................... 84
2.6
Assessment of the Condition and Stability of the Historic Environment .............. 86
2.6.1
Sources: Uses and limitations ..................................................................... 86
3 Resolving the Condition and Stability information deficit: Characterisation and the
development of Management Profiles............................................................................... 98
3.1
Developing Management Profiles for HLMC Types ............................................ 98
3
3.1.1
Management issues for the built environment: standard texts and the
creation of Management Profiles ............................................................................... 99
3.1.2
Management issues for Archaeology: standard texts and the creation of
Management Profiles ............................................................................................... 104
4 HLMC Types and their expression in the Pilot Project Area..................................... 108
4.1
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 108
4.2
Grouse Moor HLMC Types ............................................................................... 108
4.2.1
Management Profile................................................................................... 113
4.2.2
Grouse Moor Sub Types............................................................................ 115
4.3
Moorland Fringe HLMC Types.......................................................................... 116
4.3.1
4.3.2
Moorland Fringe Sub Types ...................................................................... 119
4.4
Pastoral Farming HLMC Types......................................................................... 120
4.4.1
4.4.2
Pastoral Farming Sub Types ..................................................................... 125
4.5
Settlement HLMC Types................................................................................... 127
4.5.1
4.5.2
Settlement Sub Types ............................................................................... 133
4.6
Woodland HLMC Types.................................................................................... 135
4.6.1
4.6.2
Woodland Sub Types ................................................................................ 138
4.7
Smallholding HLMC Types ............................................................................... 139
4.7.1
4.7.2
Smallholding Sub Types ............................................................................ 139
4.8
Ornamental HLMC Type ................................................................................... 139
4.8.1
4.8.2
Ornamental Sub Type................................................................................ 140
4.9
Recreation HLMC Types................................................................................... 140
4.9.1
4.9.2
Recreation Sub Type ................................................................................. 141
4.10 Water HLMC Type ............................................................................................ 141
4.10.1 Management Profile................................................................................... 141
4.10.2 Water Sub Type......................................................................................... 142
5 Management Profiles for historic environment types ............................................... 143
5.1
Concept ............................................................................................................ 143
5.2
Development of the database ........................................................................... 144
5.3
Condition, stability and management issues..................................................... 145
5.4
Using other GIS databases for similar Management Profiles: Case study: The
Barns and Walls Use and Condition database ............................................................ 145
6 Database and Map Access. Maintenance and Methodological improvements and
developments.................................................................................................................. 150
6.1
The Interactive Map .......................................................................................... 150
6.1.1
Rationale ................................................................................................... 150
6.1.2
Interactive Map texts.................................................................................. 150
6.1.3
Technical background: The Access database ........................................... 151
6.1.4
Reporting and exporting the HLMC data. .................................................. 153
6.1.5
The maps................................................................................................... 154
6.2
Methodological improvements and development of the database .................... 155
6.2.1
Developing HLMC Broad and Sub Types .................................................. 155
6.2.2
Secondary land use ................................................................................... 155
4
6.3
Maintenance of the dataset............................................................................... 155
6.3.1
Estimate of short-term and long-term maintenance needs: ....................... 155
6.3.2
Updating strategy....................................................................................... 156
6.3.3
Updating HLMC: database fields for Environmental Stewardship ............. 156
6.3.4
Updating HLMC: changes in land ownership............................................. 156
6.4
Speeding up the process of HLMC polygonisation ........................................... 158
6.4.1
Broad Type Characterisation ..................................................................... 158
6.4.2
Using pre-existing GIS datasets containing data on land ownership ......... 158
6.5
Developing Management Profiles for HLC Types ............................................. 159
7 Applications of the HLMC database......................................................................... 161
7.1
Informing policy and the public ......................................................................... 162
7.1.1
Anticipated users of the database and the Interactive Map ....................... 163
7.1.2
Application of the pilot project HLMC Types to other areas ....................... 165
7.1.3
Informing the Environmental Stewardship application process.................. 165
7.1.4
Heritage Protection Review ....................................................................... 167
7.1.5
Informed Conservation booklet .................................................................. 167
7.1.6
Harnessing the HER to inform the public about conservation.................... 168
7.2
Vulnerability assessments ................................................................................ 169
7.2.1
Case Study 1: the Grouse Moors............................................................... 170
7.2.2
Case Study 2: New woodland and tree planting ....................................... 171
7.2.3
Case study 3: Planning applications for barns in the YDNP ...................... 174
7.2.4
Case study 4: Rabbit infestation control .................................................... 176
7.2.5
Case study 5: Lead mining meets the Mesolithic...................................... 179
7.2.6
Case study 6: Field barns and walls and the historic cycles of building and
demolition................................................................................................................. 181
8 Conclusion and summary......................................................................................... 183
Bibliography
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
185
Project Design
Sources
187
201
5
Executive Summary
This report contains the results of a year long pilot project to develop a methodology for
Historic Landscape Management Characterisation (HLMC). The area chosen to pioneer
this approach is part of upper Swaledale, North Yorkshire. All of project area lies within the
county of North Yorkshire, 90% of it within the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
The work represents a new departure for the characterisation methodology developed by
English Heritage as it concentrates on characterising modern land use and management
in relation to its impact on the historic environment, rather than the historic landscape per
se. It is primarily a desk-based assessment, albeit one informed by some field visits to the
project area.
The report is in eight parts. The Introduction sets the context for the pilot project, outlines
its remit, and indicates the direction the methodology took; it is supported by the project
design in Appendix 1.
The second section explains the Methodology developed for HLMC: how and why it was
defined in the way it was. It identifies a range of land uses and management attributes
within the modern world which have implications for the current state and conservation of
the historic environment. Nine main land uses are identified as HLMC Broad Types
(Grouse Moor, Moorland Fringe, Pastoral Farming, Settlement, Woodland, Smallholding,
Recreation, Ornamental, Water) within the project area. Sub Types are defined through
current management status attributes (such as agri-environment schemes and options
offered, statutory designations like Open Access, common land, SSSIs, conservation area
status, local authority planning policies). These attributes are used to group them into
Historic Landscape Management Types of common and recognisable character and they
are expressed through a database linked to explanatory text. Available sources of
information on the condition and stability of the historic environment are assessed, and
found to be largely inadequate for the purposes of constructing comprehensive, detailed
and consistent site records for use in assessing the impact of modern types of land use
and management on the historic environment.
Instead, the creation and development of the idea of Management Profiles took place: this
is covered in the third section. Management profiling is the method used to incorporate
generic management issues commonly associated with different management and land
use categories within the database. Management Profiles are informed by all types of
historic environment record data, and provide a context for understanding the potential
problems facing all elements of the historic environment whether landscape, the built
environment or archaeological structures and deposits within it, but they are not in
themselves site specific. This means they indicate problems likely to be faced within
certain management regimes, not actual problems found on any one specific site or
another. The HLMC GIS database was expanded to incorporate management issues and
develop Management Profiles through a system of check boxes for specific issues.
Consequently to the profiling of the impact of land use and management regimes at a
landscape level is added an enhanced focus on issues affecting the built environment and
those affecting archaeological remains.
6
The fourth section demonstrates the expressions of HLMC within the project area,
including the particular Management Profiles for each Broad Type and Sub Type and their
impact on the built environment and archaeological remains.
Section 5 tackles management profiling from the point of view of the building, structure or
site within the landscape, showing how historic environment forms can be characterised in
terms of their condition and stability, management requirements, optimum needs and
current pressures they face in the modern world. This part of the project was used in the
construction of the Interactive Map, whose structure is covered in Section 6, along with
estimates on the maintenance requirements of the HLMC database in the future and
suggestions for methodological improvements and developments.
Section 7 looks at the potential of HLMC, where it might be most profitably applied and
whom it may be of some interest to. It suggests further potential applications, especially in
the arena of public awareness and the wider understanding of management issues, and
includes a number of case studies from the project area, where HLMC is already being
used as an assessment tool.
The Conclusion contains a summary, and reflections on the potential of the methodology.
7
Preface
This pilot characterisation project has a number of repercussions for the National Park
Archaeology Service, and in particular for the work that I do as a HECA officer to influence
the management of the rural historic environment in Swaledale and Arkengarthdale. The
project represents a drawing together and integration of information about past and current
land management, and relates that to information about the historic environment and the
state in which it survives. Working in conservation within a National Park Authority, by
necessity entails joined-up-thinking, ensuring the best possible deal for the historic
environment within a range of differing conservation interests. The HLMC project
represents the first (and for the moment, unique) instance in which there is ready made
integrated data to draw upon in carrying out that work.
The HLMC has made explicit and accessible information that was formerly rather
intangible, incomplete and that lay within the realms of different professionals’ experience.
The themes covered in undertaking the characterisation and writing the report have
brought into sharp focus both issues confronting the historic environment, and equally
some of the opportunities for its ongoing conservation. It is the only occasion in the Dales
where so much attention has been focussed on understanding the management of the
historic resource.
The Interactive map with structured texts is likely to be a key product of the HLMC. They
will provide an invaluable interface for use in day to day working, while the full database
can be interrogated for more strategic uses. The HLMC will have special relevance to all
those who manage, or influence land management in the project area, and may well be of
interest to the wider public. Because the Interactive map and texts are a portable and
easily comprehensible vehicle for the HLMC, they will be an ideal tool for promoting
understanding of the issues and opportunities facing the historic environment both in the
project area and more generally within the National Park.
Understanding the typical management regime of a particular area, with all its variations of
agri-environment schemes or conservation status can help understanding of the day-today existence of the historic environment in the modern world and the pressures it is
under. It also will enable those who care about its future to find ways of capitalising on
existing schemes and designations to help maximise its future survival chances. At the
moment this information is scattered and disparate, existing in different maps and
databases, covered by different legislation and directives, and of concern to different
departments and authorities. This project attempts to draw it all together.
Miles Johnson
Countryside Archaeological Advisor
Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority
8
Acknowledgements
This project developed out of ideas proposed by Dave Hooley, Inspector of the
Characterisation Team, English Heritage. His input has been absolutely crucial, and
critical to the outcome,
On paper it was an eight month project which ran over by two months; in practice it felt at
times like a year long project which was delivered ahead of schedule. I am indebted to
colleagues in the Conservation and Policy Section of the Yorkshire Dales National Park
Authority (YDNPA) for their unfailing support and encouragement. It has been a great
pleasure to work with Robert White, Miles Johnson and Don McLellan, and without their
help and assistance it would have been a daunting task. Miles Johnson shouldered the
responsibility for adapting the technical apparatus behind the Interactive Map, a
considerable feat. I would also like to thank all the staff of the YDNPA for their help and
courtesy, and in particular Alison Barnes, Phil Brown, Daniel Child, Geoff Garrett, Phil
Hibbs, Helen Keep, Jane le Coq, Adrian Shepherd, Gary Smith, Mark Stevenson, Peter
Stockton, Gill Storey, Tim Thom, Moya Turrell and Louise Williams.
I have also benefited immensely from conversations with Harold Brown, Graham
Fairclough, James Kendall, Jeremy Lake, Pippa Meyrick, Margaret Nieke and Steve
Toase. Tim Laurie has been unstinting in sharing his understanding and knowledge of the
archaeology of the area, and I would like to register my special gratitude to him for this. It
has been a particular delight to work with Becky Goulding, a placement student from the
Department of Archaeology, University of Bradford.
Yvonne Luke
HLMC Project Officer
April 2007
9
Abbreviations
ADAS
AGLV
BAR 2003
BWCS
CAP
CAPs
Agricultural Development Advisory Service
Area of Great Landscape Value
Buildings at Risk Survey 2003
Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme
Common Agricultural Policy
Conservation Area Partnership Scheme (Barns and Walls Conservation
Area)
CPRE
Campaign for the Protection of Rural England
CRoW
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
CSS
Countryside Stewardship Scheme
Defra
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
EH
English Heritage
ELS
Entry Level Stewardship
ERDP
England Rural Development Programme
(PD)ESA
(Pennine Dales) Environmentally Sensitive Area
EU
European Union
FEP
Farm Environment Plan
GIS
Geographic Information System
HBSMR
Historic Buildings, Sites and Monument Record
HECA
Historic Environment Countryside Adviser
HER
Historic Environment Record
HLC
Historic Landscape Characterisation
HLS
Higher Level Stewardship
HLMC
HPR
Heritage Protection Reform
JCA
Joint Character Area(s)
LUT
Look up table, within Microsoft Access
MARS
Monuments at Risk Survey
MAFF
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (now succeeded by Defra)
MPP
Monument Protection Programme
N/a or n/a
Not applicable (used in the HLMC database, where a field option is irrelevant
to the particular polygon)
NFS
National Farm Survey 1941-3
NMR
National Monuments Record
OS
Ordnance Survey
RDS
Rural Development Service
SAC
Special Area of Conservation
SPA
Special Protection Area
SSSI
Site of Special Scientific Interest
US&A UCS Upper Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls Use and Condition
Survey
WES
Wildlife Enhancement Scheme
YDNP(A)
Yorkshire Dales National Park (Authority)
YDMT
Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust
10
List of Illustrations
Figure 1 Relief map of part of northern England showing the boundaries of the Yorkshire
Dales National Park (yellow) and the HLMC pilot project area (pink) © OS Crown copyright
.......................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2 View across the River Swale from lower Harkerside, showing a multiperiod
landscape now dominated by post-medieval enclosures .................................................. 18
Figure 3 OS MasterMap extraction of the pilot project area, with its boundaries defined by
a separate MapInfo .tab file............................................................................................... 22
Figure 4 Vegetation or surface cover as characterised for HLMC.................................... 32
Figure 5 Conservation Areas in Swaledale: red- Barns and Walls; blue - Gunnerside (left)
and Reeth (right) ............................................................................................................... 37
Figure 6 Reeth Key Service Centre from the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan 2006 showing
Conservation area (pale green), open public spaces (deep green), retail centre (orange)
and employment land (violet) ............................................................................................ 39
Figure 7 Designated SSSI land (green) in the project area............................................. 41
Figure 8 Flowering buttercups draw attention to SSSI hay meadows on the far side of
Arkle Beck, Arkengarthdale NY 985 040. Behind the meadows is the SSSI of West
Arkengarthdale Moor......................................................................................................... 42
Figure 9 Registered Common land in the project area..................................................... 44
Figure 10 Notice advising the public of a temporary closure of open access land on
Harkerside Moor. Landowners are allowed to do this for 28 days a year for any reason,
and for longer periods for reasons of nature conservation, land management or public
safety; it does not affect Public Rights of Way .................................................................. 47
Figure 11 The ESA boundary (red) in Swaledale and Arkengarthdale, and its relationship
to the project area (pink) ................................................................................................... 49
Figure 12 Some results of a Farm Conservation Plan, Swaledale; since this photograph
was taken restoration of the former heather thatched barn has started ............................ 51
Figure 13 Improved grassland dominated by rye-grass and regularly cut for silage at
Riddings, near Reeth (SE 030 995) The lynchets are still visible but gradually losing
definition............................................................................................................................ 53
Figure 14 A typical Upland Survey map, detailing known historic environment information
for a Countryside Stewardship agreement; it is part of a suite of maps produced by the
YDNPA covering ecology, and the condition of field walls etc. ......................................... 56
Figure 15 New planting (middle centre) on Crackpot Side above Summer Lodge (SD 965
960) funded by the Woodland Grant Scheme ................................................................... 62
Figure 16 HLMC Broad Types in the project area ............................................................ 65
Figure 17 Grouse butts on Reeth Low Moor (NZ 020 005), showing the variety of
vegetation types which can be found on moorland. Reeth Low Moor is part of the ancient
common grazing grounds of Reeth township, and the vegetative mosaic owes its richness
and variety to this ancestral land use, not to the far more recent land use for grouse moor
management. .................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 18 Allotment land along the moorland edge, Fremington Edge (NZ 040 000). It is
common to find evidence of former quarries along the moorland edge, though rarely to this
extent. These are mainly chert quarries, last operative in the 1950s. ............................... 67
Figure 19 Typical hay and silage meadows with grazing pastures around Healaugh in
Swaledale. ........................................................................................................................ 68
Figure 20 Lodge Green, Gunnerside; many of the properties here are now used as
second or holiday homes. There is pressure to reduce the visual impact of overhead lines
11
by putting them underground, although this has potentially damaging implications for
archaeological deposits..................................................................................................... 69
Figure 21 Horse Pasture Wood (centre) is a mature conifer plantation surrounding a
mature broadleaved woodland which is only partly natural in origin (SE 007 978); to the left
is the SSSI juniper forest at Slacks, and there is scattered new planting on the moorland
higher up Browna Gill, the stream which lies between them ............................................. 70
Figure 22 This detail from an RAF vertical photograph taken in 1946 shows part of the
flood plain of the River Swale next to the wartime allotments which are now a permanent
caravan site well screened with trees. The field below them is now a playing field. (SE 039
987) © English Heritage (NMR) 106G/UK/1421 15 April 1946.......................................... 71
Figure 23 Draycott Hall and gardens in Fremington (SE 990 047). Fremington is in the
corner of four maps, 1:2500 County series. 2nd edition, Yorkshire (North Riding) XXXVII.15
and 16 (1912); LII.3 (1912); LIII.1 (1929). ........................................................................ 72
Figure 24 HLMC Sub Types in the project area ............................................................... 73
Figure 25 Harkerside Moor (foreground) is a SSSI, open Access Land and in a
Countryside Stewardship Scheme agreement, but is not Common land (GM5) ............... 76
Figure 26 Low Row Pasture, Swaledale (SD 970 985) is the large enclosure in the top half
of the photograph. It is characterised as HLMC Broad Type Moorland Fringe, Sub Type 5
© NMR SD 9797/1/442 7 July 1971 .................................................................................. 77
Figure 27 Most of Swaledale within the ESA is under agreement, though some farm
holdings remain independent of the scheme..................................................................... 79
Figure 28 Reeth is the largest settlement in the project area, and despite its small size has
three HLMC Settlement Sub Types (S1, S2, S3) to cover the presence of Conservation
Area status and the mix of public and/or private buildings and spaces (YDP268_23) ...... 80
Figure 29 New planting in established woodland at Eskeleth (W2) (centre); woodland was
denser in this area a hundred or more years ago.............................................................. 81
Figure 30 The house in the shadow of the trees is Park Hall; this, with its adjacent field, is
categorised as a Smallholding (SM1)................................................................................ 82
Figure 31 Example from the YDNPA collection of oblique aerial photographs. These are
lead mining hushes on Low Moor above Booze in Arkengarthdale (NZ 018 032) ANY
268/34 25.9.1986 .............................................................................................................. 87
Figure 32 Detail of Gunnerside Bottoms (SD 955 980) from a scanned RAF vertical aerial
photograph © English Heritage (NMR) 106G/UK/1421 15 April 1946 ............................... 89
Figure 33 Distribution of buildings recorded in the HBSMR in the project area. The
isolated blue spots on the moorlands indicate buildings associated with the lead mining
industry; the red area is the extent of the Upper Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Barns and
Walls Conservation Area................................................................................................... 91
Figure 34 Listed buildings in the HBSMR shown against the HLMC Broad Types........... 92
Figure 35 The extent of the Upper Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls
Conservation Area. Red – B&WCA; yellow – National Park boundary.............................. 93
Figure 36 A crowded landscape - field barns in upper Swaledale.................................... 94
Figure 37 There are 681 barns in the Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme Use and
Condition Survey within the HLMC project area, shown here against the Barns and Walls
Conservation Area ............................................................................................................ 95
Figure 38 Distribution of roofless barns (black dots) in 1992 from the Barns and Walls
Conservation Scheme Use and Condition Survey shown against HLMC Broad Types .... 96
Figure 39 New buildings (2006) on a former garden plot at Reeth................................. 101
Figure 40 Converted barn at Healaugh, Swaledale........................................................ 102
12
Figure 41 A mixture of maintained and derelict stone walls overlying earthworks of
unknown date and collapsed farm buildings, Castle, Arkengarthdale (NZ 030 008); the
farmhouse is no longer part of a working farm ................................................................ 103
Figure 42 Recent surfacing and widening of moorland track on High Harker Hill (SE 018
972). The use of material from lead industry spoil heaps, especially dressing waste, for
track creation and ‘improvement’ not only reduces the visual, ecological and historical
integrity of the mining remains but increases the risk of pollution by disturbing and
distributing spoil with a high heavy metal content. .......................................................... 104
Figure 43 Extensive rabbit burrowing at Slacks (SE 015 983) ....................................... 105
Figure 44 Shaw Gill, Eskeleth (NZ 000 040) - bracken (bright green vegetation) stretches
from the gill bottom to the moorland top in places........................................................... 105
Figure 45 Improved grassland at Riddings, near Reeth. Both sides of the wall are
registered as Improved grassland (Tier 1A) in the ESA agreement, but pasture
improvement has been more aggressive on the left hand field and the lynchets are less
well defined ..................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 46 The Swale is known for its flash floods; this is one of the most unstable parts of
the river just south of Reeth (SE 034 985) ...................................................................... 107
Figure 47 Grinton Lodge, designed as a shooting lodge, is now a Youth Hostel (SE 048
975)................................................................................................................................. 109
Figure 48 Red grouse on the edge of Low Moor, Arkengarthdale; black grouse are also
present in this area. The wall forms the boundary between open moorland and the
moorland edge, characterised as HLMC Broad types Grouse Moor and Moorland Fringe
........................................................................................................................................ 111
Figure 49 Open Access land in the project area ............................................................ 112
Figure 50 Heather burning, How Hill, Grinton Moor (SE 039 965). The effect of repeated
heather burning on archaeological features is an under researched topic. ..................... 113
Figure 51 A lead mining leat on Low Moor, Arkengarthdale (NZ 018 041) recut and
enlarged in 2006 to direct water to a hushing dam a kilometre away, ostensibly to provide
a water supply for fire fighting purposes; the dam has since partially breached. Recutting
also damaged a mesolithic settlement area near the spring head .................................. 114
Figure 52 Moorland Fringe HLMC type at Hurst, in an area rich in lead mining remains;
tree planting is frequently practised by grouse estates on their moorland edge land (NZ
045 023) .......................................................................................................................... 117
Figure 53 The Pennine Dales Environmentally Sensitive Area (MAFF 1997 (1) inside
cover) .............................................................................................................................. 121
Figure 54 The field walls and barns of Gunnerside Bottoms were repaired through both
the Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme and ESA Farm Conservation Plans ........... 122
Figure 55 Harkerside Place is a typical working farm in Swaledale, with modern animal
sheds overshadowing redundant and still used traditional farm buildings; the stone roofed
building received a repair grant from Defra ..................................................................... 125
Figure 56 Reeth has a mixture of public and private, commercial, residential, religious and
farming buildings, some within a Conservation Area, some outside ............................... 128
Figure 57 A summer day in Gunnerside – maintenance, alteration and - more unusually new build. ........................................................................................................................ 130
Figure 58 Stone slate roofs at Langthwaite; in order to protect barns from being robbed of
slates the YDNPA encourages the use of new slates. One of its mineral planning policies
supports proposals for the quarrying of building stone or roofing slates for use within the
National Park or immediately adjacent areas .................................................................. 131
13
Figure 59 The hamlet of Booze, Arkengarthdale contains two working farms with modern
animal sheds, several scattered houses and the ruins of former dwellings - a reminder of
its once vigorous past centred on farming and lead mining ............................................ 131
Figure 60 Scar House Wood, Arkengarthdale, is a mature beech plantation; trees are
managed near the Public Right of Way, but otherwise the wood is left much to its own
devices ............................................................................................................................ 135
Figure 61 New planting near Hurst................................................................................. 137
Figure 62 These two barns at Birks End (SE 986 967) both had roofs in 1992; the BWCS
UCS database has been updated for this project where new information is available .... 146
Figure 63 Database relationships in the process of being established within the HLMC
database ......................................................................................................................... 152
Figure 64 Example of a landing page for the Interactive Map ......................................... 153
Figure 65 Part of the Interactive Map for HLMC project area. It is made up of the HLMC
polygons against the backgound of the OS 1:25000 map of Swaledale and
Arkengarthdale, as it was thought this is more familiar to potential users of HLMC than
Mastermap. A cursor hovering over a polygon will bring up the number and a click will take
the viewer through to the landing page. .......................................................................... 154
Figure 66 The distribution of land holdings in Swaledale, seen through the Farm Record
Number. field in the HLMC database .............................................................................. 157
Figure 67 Pre-existing mapping of ownership boundaries in YDNPA ............................ 158
Figure 68 The cycle of ‘understanding, valuing, caring and enjoying’ © English Heritage
........................................................................................................................................ 163
Figure 69 Internet access to HERs is spreading, but the use of them to inform the public
about management issues is largely absent ................................................................... 169
Figure 70 Recent tyre tracks of a JCB at Harker lead mines (SE 017 972), July 2006
showing total removal of spoil heaps and loss of vegetation cover ................................. 170
Figure 71 Illustration of the MapInfo Workspace file showing where the most vulnerable
areas lie in HLMC Broad Type Grouse Moor. The green hachures mark the 100m activity
zone around tracks and the red hachures mark the 100m activity zone around the grouse
butts ................................................................................................................................ 171
Figure 72 Tottergill Plantation (NY 990 025) on the far hillside, is full of lead mining
remains. .......................................................................................................................... 173
Figure 73 Map of project area showing HLMC Broad types Grouse Moor (purple),
Moorland Fringe (khaki), woodland with new planting (red) and unchanged woodland
(green), shown against principal becks and rivers (pale blue) ........................................ 174
Figure 74 Using HLMC to help predict areas of high rabbit control and ‘rabbit damage
zones’ ............................................................................................................................. 178
Figure 75 Part of the Mesolithic/early Neolithic settlement area at the top of Slei Gill NZ
018 041 ........................................................................................................................... 180
Figure 76 Booze at the time of the Tithe maps (1841) showing its origin scattered around
common land................................................................................................................... 203
Figure 77 Coleman A. and Shaw J.E. 1980 Land Utilisation Survey: Field Mapping Manual
King’s College, London ................................................................................................... 208
Figure 78 Lidar coverage in part of the north of England against the pilot project area; the
blank areas have none.................................................................................................... 210
Tables
Table 1 HLMC Modern Land Management database
Table 2 Summary of HLMC Sub Types
14
25
74
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background and context
This report presents the results of a pilot project to establish and trial a methodology for
Historic Landscape Management Characterisation (HLMC). The project area focused
around Reeth in Swaledale, North Yorkshire and covered a 10km square block, most of
which is in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. The remainder is in a two tier local authority
system: Richmondshire District Council (the local planning authority) and North Yorkshire
County Council.
The remit was to develop a new landscape management characterisation methodology
building on the methods established for Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) but
focusing on current land use and management rather than historic landscape character.
The idea was to apply characterisation methodology to modern management regimes and,
having developed this in a GIS database, to find ways of examining the relationship
between modern land management and the historic environment, in particular elucidating
the condition and stability of historic environment components at a landscape scale view to
allow the implications of condition trends to be understood.
Modern land use and management practices have a major impact on the physical remains
of the historic environment. Statutory designations and various agri-environment schemes
inform and prescribe many of these practices. Few of these schemes and designations
have the historic environment as their central focus, and for many it is not a factor but
most, if not all, have an impact on the historic environment. It is therefore important to
understand their effects on the historic environment in order to encourage the most
beneficial management practices and mitigate others as far as is possible within current
systems.
1.2
Aims and Objectives
The principal aim of the HLMC pilot project was to develop a methodology through which
modern land management and use could be characterised and construct this within an
interactive and interrogable GIS database, incorporating data on the physical remains of
the historic environment, their condition and stability. In order to achieve this, the project
was:
• to define, test and review a resource-management methodology for characterising
present and potential land management in relationship to the historic environment
at landscape scale
• to produce a GIS-based characterisation combining data on land management,
historic environment form and stability in the present landscape of the project area
• to create a framework of understanding to promote well-informed decision-making
about the sustainable management of change and conservation planning affecting
the historic environment of the project area
15
•
•
•
to demonstrate how Historic Environment Records (HERs) and Historic Landscape
Characterisation (HLC) projects could be enhanced and contextualised by the
addition of management information
to improve the awareness, understanding and appreciation of the historic dimension
in the project area’s landscape among both professional and non-professional users
to provide a demonstration project for extending the methodology to integrated
conservation management beyond the project area.
The Project’s key objectives were:
• to produce a GIS-database structure capable of accommodating data on land
management and historic environment form and stability for the project area while
maintaining interoperability with other relevant datasets, notably Historic Landscape
Characterisation, Historic Environment Records and Joint Character Area (JCA)
descriptions
• to produce a GIS-based characterisation of the project area’s landscape in terms of
its land management and detailing the impact of that management on historic
environment form and stability, by means of:
o identifying and gaining access to the range of data sources relevant to
establishing current land management practices and their support systems;
material expressions of the historic environment, and evidence for stability
trends affecting those expressions
o using GIS polygons to define areas sharing a similar land management
regime
o defining polygons on the basis of combined shared values of dominant land
management practices and support systems, with secondary attributes
recorded in a consistent structured manner
o identifying trends and recurrent groupings among the attributes to define land
management types which will, together, encompass all of the polygons and
reflect the major differing units of land management in the present landscape
o presenting the historic environment data as a layer available for overlay with
the polygonised land management data and linked to texts summarising its
form and stability under the present management regime
• to record the sources, data-sets and applications of professional judgement
supporting each stage of the historic landscape management characterisation
• to analyse and interpret the historic landscape management characterisation to
generate preliminary syntheses
• to assess the present uses and potential for the historic landscape management
characterisation to inform the sustainable management of change, conservation
planning, spatial planning and outreach programmes
• to produce a project archive and a project report
1.3
Project Area
The project area is a 10km square area focused on the village of Reeth at the junction of
Swaledale and Arkengarthdale in the Yorkshire Dales National Park, North Yorkshire. It
encompasses the OS quarter sheets NY90SE; NZ00SW; SD99NE; and SE09NW: broadly
from Gunnerside to Reeth and Grinton in Swaledale and as far north as Whaw in
16
Arkengarthdale. Approximately 10% of the area lies outside the National Park, in the
District of Richmondshire. All of it lies within the County of North Yorkshire.
The area was chosen for the complexity and variety of its historic environment as well as
for its range of management regimes and their influencing mechanisms. It contains a very
full palimpsest with major prehistoric and Romano-British, early and later medieval
settlement and field system phases. Although grouse shooting is now dominant on the
moorland, pastoral farming is the overall predominant modern land use and functions
within a pattern of enclosures which developed largely through the seventeenth to
nineteenth centuries. There are also extensive remains of industrial exploitation, mostly
lead mining, limestone and chert quarrying. The small settlements consist largely of stone
built vernacular buildings, many of which date from the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. Stone built field barns and dry stone walls make a major contribution to the
character of valley landscapes.
Figure 1 Relief map of part of northern England showing the boundaries of the Yorkshire Dales
National Park (yellow) and the HLMC pilot project area (pink) © OS Crown copyright
The historic environment is comparatively well-documented and parts of the area’s history
are well researched. Visible elements of its archaeology had been recorded through the
Yorkshire Dales (Mapping) Project, a pilot for the National Mapping Programme (Horne
and MacLeod 2004); archaeological field survey has been carried out, particularly as part
of the Swaledale Ancient Land Boundaries Project (Fleming 1998); a Workers Education
Association Local History class led to a documentary history (Fieldhouse and Jennings
1978) while a more detailed study of the lead industry has been provided by Gill (2004).
The management context in the project area is also reasonably well documented. The
dale-side pastures rise from valley floor hay meadows (many perpetuated through the
17
Pennine Dales Environmentally Sensitive Area (PDESA)), to extensive grouse moors over
the higher ground. Common land is very extensive and not only over open high ground: it
still reaches down the dale-sides to encompass areas of former wood pasture and into
some of the settlements. Along the fringes of higher ground are a number of small
farmsteads and small discrete intakes, well-sited originally to take advantage both of the
agricultural and mining economies.
Figure 2 View across the River Swale from lower Harkerside, showing a multiperiod landscape now
dominated by post-medieval enclosures
The area is covered by a variety of designations and agri-environment schemes. Nearly all
(90%) of the project area lies within the Yorkshire Dales National Park, the highest form of
landscape designation. Most of the enclosed fields lie within the Pennine Dales ESA, and
beyond the ESA large areas of enclosed and unenclosed land are under Countryside
Stewardship. Extensive areas of moorland are designated as Sites of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSIs), some with English Nature (now Natural England) management
agreements encouraging heather regeneration and limited deciduous woodland planting.
The project area also includes part of the Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Conservation
Area although the Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme introduced here by the YDNPA
is currently inactive. Much of the higher ground is designated as open Access land under
the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000. Looking at immediate and future
prospects, it was clear that with extensive areas under ESA and Countryside Stewardship
agreements, there would inevitably be a major impact from the implementation of their
replacement Environmental Stewardship, quite apart from ongoing change resulting from
the tourist industry and the property market and any forthcoming impact resulting from
common land reform.
The area’s main settlements were omitted from the Swaledale and Arkengarthdale
Conservation Area designated by the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (YDNPA) in
1989 although the cores of two (Reeth and Gunnerside) have since been given
Conservation Area status. Coverage by statutory historic environment designation is
variable. Listing for this area was comprehensively reviewed in the 1980s but field barns
were specifically excluded from consideration. A few of the area’s industrial remains were
assessed as part of the Monument Protection Programme (MPP) review of scheduling of
archaeological monuments but other MPP activity was largely restricted to small discrete
18
sites: the extensive multiperiod field systems and associated settlements remains, many of
which are of national importance, were not assessed, in part due to concerns about how
best to tackle these extensive palimpsests. One of the original objectives of this HLMC
project was to provide an informed basis for taking this forward although a parallel
Heritage Protection Reform (HPR) pilot review of the area, which should have had a major
input into the project, was planned but did not take place. The HLMC project in part stems
from proposals to assess methodologies which would answer these concerns.
1.4
Methodology
In common with HLC, the HLMC project worked from the premise that the historic
environment is a dimension of the whole environment and relates to the impact of human
activity of all periods up to the present. Accordingly the project aimed to be comprehensive
in time and space throughout the defined project area. The characterisation was
undertaken largely as a desk-based exercise.
The project was intended to combine:
data on current land management practices in the project area, qualified by
information on influencing factors such as agri-environment schemes, management
agreements, designation, etc.
data on the historic environment of the project area
an assessment of the stability of historic environment condition in the project area
The project adapted the attribute-based approach used for HLC (Aldred & Fairclough
2003; English Heritage (EH) Characterisation Team 2002) and applied it to land
management. A series of ‘modern land management attributes’ comprising defined
management practices, ownership type, vegetation and land cover, various planning
policies, designation statuses, agri-environment schemes and their statuses and periods of
active agreement, particular management options adopted within these schemes etc.,
were generated. Combinations of these attributes produced classifications of Modern Land
Management Broad Types and Sub Types, subsequently referred to as HLMC Broad
Types and HLMC Sub Types respectively. Areas of shared management type were
expressed as polygons on a GIS database using MapInfo, with OS MasterMap as the map
base and the details recorded in a Microsoft Access database. Nine HLMC Broad Types
were ultimately defined within the project area, based on dominant modern land use; the
many Sub Types were defined through primary attributes, namely combinations of agrienvironment schemes, statutory designations, planning policies, and other factors deemed
to be relevant. Secondary attributes of management interest were also recorded in the
database.
The next stage involved accessing up-to-date information on the condition and stability of
the thousands of historic environment forms within the project area and assessing trends
in relation to the physical condition of all the different types of form. The project design
(Appendix 1) had recognised that there was unlikely to be sufficient available information
on the condition and stability of the historic environment, and that professional judgement
would provide the necessary information on those aspects, to be amalgamated within the
19
GIS database and be queried against the HLMC Broad Types and Sub Types to establish
trends.
In the event, the lack of condition information was such as to render even that approach
unfeasible for assessment of the condition and stability of historic environment forms
through individual buildings, structures and sites. Instead the concept of ‘management
profiling’ was experimentally developed to hold condition and stability information at a
generic level, tailored to the different land use and management regimes current in the
landscape. These are elaborated for HLMC Broad Types and Sub Types within the HLMC
database. They are cast as generic management issues not site specific ones i.e. they are
issues regularly associated with a particular land use and management type, rather than
individual specific sites, structures or buildings. Management Profiles give an indication of
management issues which historic environment forms lying within a particular HLMC
management regime may have recently faced, may be facing, or may face in the near
future, rather than definitely are facing. Consequently the development of Management
Profiles for HLMC Types provides a vehicle for identifying suites of management issues,
which constantly recur in association with particular kinds of modern land use and
management.
Management Profiles help provide a context for the assessment of the condition and
stability of individual sites and structures which make up the historic environment, whether
or not they have a presence within the Historic Environment Record (HER). They amplify
our understanding of the pressures faced by the historic environment, even where the
record lacks condition data. Management profiling is implicit in much of the work
undertaken by heritage management bodies, and the types of issues dealt with here
should be instantly recognisable to heritage management professionals: the approach
taken makes that profiling explicit, transparent and more accountable when used in
decision-making. The Management Profiles for land use type are contained within the
HLMC database through the Modern Land Management table, which identifies major
themes associated with HLMC Broad and Sub Types, and secondly with ‘subsidiary’ tables
for Archaeology and for the Built Environment which are linked to the Broad and Sub
Types. They are built up through the attribute system (check boxes have been used for
particular issues) and summaries have been developed for inclusion as structured texts
within the Interactive Map.
While the HLMC database thus contains information on land use and management and
how this potentially affects the historic environment in its entirety, it does not contain
specific references to all the different historic environment forms firmly placed in their
particular landscape. The condition and stability of specific sites, structures and buildings
were also tackled using management profiling to help fulfil the requirement to provide an
interactive map for the project area, which was envisaged as containing information on a
broad range of contemporary landscape issues concerning the historic environment and
accessed through the prism of the HLMC polygons. Lacking specific data for much of the
historic environment on condition and stability a strategy was formulated to adapt the
extracted YDNPA HER GIS database to develop Management Profiles of individual
historic environment forms found within the project area. These cover the basic
management issues implicit in the physical character of the particular site, structure or
building, and the texts provide the basis for the standard texts used to characterise
common management issues facing particular types of historic environment forms within
the modern landscape for each polygon in the Interactive Map.
20
This approach continued through the adaptation of another GIS database available for
use. This was the Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme Use and Condition Survey
database, created from information originally collected in the field in the early 1990s.The
breadth and quality of information concerning the condition of barns in the survey is good,
and it was thought to be a useful experimental exercise within the remit of the HLMC pilot
project to try and harness an already extant detailed source of condition and stability
information on one aspect of the historic environment. The information available was
adapted in a methodical way and used to produce detailed Management Profiles for the
individual field barns which make up such a large part of the landscape character of
modern Swaledale.
1.5
Non-technical summary of results
The pilot project’s outcomes are contained within a GIS database linked to the Microsoft
Access database. Though linked these are separate and have a semi-independent
existence; they can be manipulated and queried in their own right. They all link to MapInfo
GIS tab. files and can be viewed in geographic space as polygons.
The principal record is the HLMC database linked to GIS polygons. It contains three
tables:
Modern Land Management
Management Profiles for Built Environment
Management Profiles for Archaeology
Modern Land Management is the principal table at the centre of the HLMC process. Each
row in the database relates to a polygon (occasionally multiple polygons with the same
HLMC ID number) and contains all the information acquired to define the HLMC Broad
Types and Sub Types. The two further tables are derived from this, and contain the
assessments of generic management issues concerning the Built Environment and
Archaeology associated with Broad and Sub Types. These were developed as subsidiary
tables to make them more manageable within the database.
This database is accompanied by modified HBSMR and Barns and Walls GIS databases
developed for incorporation in the Interactive Map. Once again, these can be examined
separately in Microsoft Access or viewed and queried in MapInfo as point data.
The Interactive Map is a stand alone facility, incorporating much of the information and
judgements held in the above databases. Some additional GIS databases were
incorporated and/or created at this stage to include information not contained elsewhere
e.g. the presence of public footpaths or modern farm buildings in a polygon.
21
2
HISTORIC LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT CHARACTERISATION
Figure 3 OS MasterMap extraction of the pilot project area, with its boundaries defined by a separate
MapInfo .tab file
2.1
Method Statement
2.1.1
The Tools
2.1.1.1
MapInfo
MapInfo Professional v.7.8 was used as the GIS database software. This is the software
system used by the YDNPA, and supports the exeGesIS HBSMR database of the
YDNPA’s Historic Environment Record, the Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme Use
and Condition Survey database and all other internal YDNPA GIS files accessed and used
in the project. MapInfo Professional is Microsoft Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows NT
4.0, Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Home and Office compatible.
2.1.1.2
Microsoft Access
The HLMC database was developed in Microsoft Access Office 2003. Two other
databases have been incorporated into and adapted for the project – the HBSMR for the
project area and the Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme Use and Condition Survey
database. These are also Microsoft Access.
2.1.1.3
Ordnance Survey MasterMap
The base digital map used is the Ordnance Survey MasterMap. When the HLMC project
commenced in April 2006 the YDNPA was using OS Land-Line 2004. The Authority
transferred to MasterMap in September 2006 midway through the project. The differences
between the two are visually relatively minor: the ones potentially affecting the HLMC
22
project most were changes in boundary alignments which become visible at high
resolution but are not significant for the project’s outcomes, which are designed to be
viewed at 1:10,000.
The area covered by the pilot project was extracted from MasterMap. Because of the
polygon system used by MasterMap, this involved capturing a wider area than the 10km
by 10km defined as the Project Area. To avoid arbitrary truncation of polygons along the
Project Area’s 10km square boundary, a wider area was captured and left untrimmed, as
the map base forms a cogent reminder that the landscape extends beyond the study area.
2.2
The HLMC GIS database
This section includes the information required to understand the HLMC GIS database, and
in effect forms part of its metadata. There are separate sections on the methodology of
polygon definition, and the accompanying Microsoft Access database.
2.2.1
HLMC polygon definition
The project design specified a minimum polygon area of one hectare. Where a contiguous
area sharing the same land use character is smaller than one hectare, there were two
options.
If similar land use/management polygons were in the vicinity and under the
same ownership, they were combined (see 2.2.1.2) to help reduce the number
of database entries, which otherwise would have become much higher. MapInfo
offers this combining facility, as well as its opposite (disaggregation) which can
be used to facilitate future changes in ownership and land management. This is
in line with English Heritage GIS Guidelines which state that multi-part polygons
are acceptable, providing they have one set of attributes associated with them.
If it was an isolated and locally unique land use which did not contribute
decisively to HLM character it was merged into an adjacent larger land use
polygon.
2.2.1.1
Boundary definition
The edge of a HLMC polygon should not automatically be interpreted as the hard edge of
an enclosed piece of land. This is emphasised here as it differs from basic procedures in
HLC, which mainly use the current mapped framework of land boundaries to define the
polygons. Most HLMC polygons do define the physical boundaries of current land holding
parcels i.e. land which is surrounded by a wall, hedge, fence etc. and under the same
ownership. However, much of the project area is made up of substantial areas of
unenclosed land. These are frequently complex areas which include a variety of
topographic and land use types with potentially different historic, current and future
management trajectories. To accommodate this, the HLMC polygonisation subdivided
these areas to reflect:
23
areas of open woodland on moorland e.g. the juniper wood on Slacks, Harkerside
(HLMC polygon 57); new planting in open moorland e.g. Browna Gill, Harkerside
(491)
different zones within large enclosed areas which reflect the different status of the
land – e.g. Low Row Pasture is a massive area of enclosed upland rough pasture,
with droveways, long fingers of land which extend down to the village and link the
settlement with the pasture but only the upper area is registered as a SSSI (158)
areas including known visible remains of prehistoric field systems and other land
extensive archaeological features e.g. Maiden Castle, Harkerside (565); prehistoric
field systems on Reeth Low Moor (540 and 554)
areas where lead mining activities have been very intensive, to the extent that
profound changes in the vegetation cover of moorland and rough pasture have
occurred (e.g. Old Gang area, Melbecks Moor 531); the definition of these areas
was initially through the presence of bare ground and metallophytes (lead tolerant
vegetation) visible on aerial photographs. This also defines the areas containing the
densest lead industry remains.
The latter two categories provide for some flexibility in the GIS database to incorporate
land extensive archaeological remains directly within the GIS database structure rather
than introduce it merely as a MapInfo overlay layer (although this can be done in addition).
This was done in an experimental way, for future YDNPA management purposes.
Overlays cannot be manipulated or queried within the HLMC database. The fine grained
nature of much of the polygonisation in the enclosed land in the valleys meant it was rarely
necessary to create extra polygons here to account for visible archaeological remains, but
it has proved useful in delineating a framework for extensive archaeological remains on
the moorlands. These ‘secondary polygons’ are subsumed into their appropriate HLMC
Broad Type and HLMC Sub Types but can be manipulated separately if desired. Their
presence circumvents the problem of having to define management profiles and address
management problems associated with a particular type of archaeological feature through
the much larger land holding units within which they sit. The management issues facing
the lead mining remains on moorland in particular set these areas apart.
2.2.1.2
‘Primary’ polygons
The majority of the polygons have been defined solely according to:
Current ownership boundaries
Current land use type
Current management type
2.2.1.3
Single and combined polygons
While most HLMC polygons are single discrete units, there is a small group which has
been created in a different manner: polygons which were initially separate were later
combined under the same HLMC ID number. MapInfo provides the facility to combine
dispersed polygons under the same identification number while retaining their geographic
24
integrity. This facility was useful to accommodate the following situations (with HLMC ID
nos. given in bold):
dispersed rural settlements such as the hamlet of Booze, Arkengarthdale (HLMC
polygon 24)
the outskirts of larger rural settlements (which have different historic environment
management issues to the core of settlements) can be fragmented and dispersed
e.g. Grinton (18) and Gunnerside (13)
discrete polygons which belong to the same land holding, are managed under the
same land use regime, belong to the same schemes and designations and are in
the same general locality have been combined together to form one geographically
dispersed but cohesive HLMC unit.
fragments of woodland which are significant in the landscape and need a presence
in HLMC but are frequently less than one hectare individually – these can easily be
combined in MapInfo as one polygon despite their fragmented nature. The only
example is scattered woodland along the banks of the River Swale (172), whose
ownership is characterised as ‘various’.
2.2.2
Designing the HLMC data base: fields, data type and description
This section covers the methodology underlying the database, and describes the fields
which have been created, the justification for their inclusion, and the sources which were
needed and consulted in order to achieve the desired end of an accurate and flexible
database. It includes much important information on the variety of designations, schemes
and planning policy frameworks and other factors which have been incorporated into the
database, and which informed the creation of HLMC Broad and Sub Types, with
judgements on their relevance to the current state of the historic environment.
Sources have been referenced immediately after the information gained from them, to aid
clarity and transparency. Appendix 2 contains more generic information on sources. Many
of the sources consulted for this stage were internal YDNPA documents and datasets, and
although not relevant to other parts of the country have been included here for future
YDNPA use and as an indication of the type of information required for similar projects.
However, efforts have been made to relate the database to the world beyond Swaledale
and the Yorkshire Dales National Park, where this is feasible, and the HLMC Broad and
Sub Types themselves are dealt with at length in their own sections 2.3 and 2.4 below.
Once the information was collected, decisions were then made about which attributes
should form defining primary attributes for HLMC Broad and Sub Types, and which remain
secondary, and this process is documented here
Table 1 HLMC Modern Land Management database
Field Name
MapInfo ID
HLMC Identifier
Data Type
Auto number
Number
HLMC Broad Type
Text: Value List Broad Land Management Type
25
Description
Automatically generated unique number
Polygon Identifying Number
Field Name
Data Type
HLMC Broad Type Code
Text: Value List Broad Land Management Type Code:
GM, MF, PF, S, W, SM, R, O, WA
Text
Sub Type (see Table 2 )
Text
Sub Type Code (see Table 2)
HLMC Sub Type
HLMC Sub Type Code
General information
Place-name
Ownership Type
Topography
Vegetation/Land cover
Farm Record Number
Description
Category :
Grouse Moor - (GM)
Moorland Fringe - (MF)
Pastoral Farming - (PF)
Settlement - (S)
Woodland - (W)
Smallholding - (SM)
Recreation Land - (R)
Ornamental - (0)
Water - (WA)
Text
Associated place-name
Text: Value List Ownership/tenancy type:
Grouse Estate
Private Individual
Farm Business
Farm Business (E)
Small Businesses
Local Government
Charity/Trust
Various
Text: Value List Landscape situation:
Upland
Upper valley side
Lower valley side
Valley bottom
Gillside
Text: Value List Predominant vegetation or land cover
Improved grassland
Pasture/meadow
Rough grassland
Heather
Broadleaf woodland
Coniferous woodland
Mixed woodland
Wood pasture
Shrub
Lead tolerant species
Artificial/natural mix
Artificial
Water
Text
YDNP/Natural England Farm Record
number (only apllicable if in an agrienvironment agreement)
26
Field Name
Enclosure status
Data Type
Description
Text: Value List Enclosed inbye
Enclosed allotment
Unenclosed
N/a
Check Box
Is the polygon in the Yorkshire Dales
National Park?
National Park
Attributes for Settlement
and the Built Environment
Conservation Area
Text: Value List The Conservation Area value:
None
Barns and Walls (B & W)
Reeth
Gunnerside
Key Service Centre
Check Box
Service Village
Check Box
Small Village
Check Box
Countryside and Agricultural Check Box
Holdings
Area of Great
Value (AGLV)
Landscape Check Box
Attributes affecting mostly
Grouse Moor and the
Moorland Fringe
SSSI
Check Box
Common Land
Check Box
Open Access Land (CRoW)
Check Box
Is the polygon classed as a Key Service
Centre in the Yorkshire Dales Local
Plan (YDNPA 2006)?
Is the polygon classed as a Service
Village in the Yorkshire Dales Local
Plan (YDNPA 2006)?
Is the polygon classed as a Small
Village in the Yorkshire Dales Local
Plan (YDNPA 2006)?
Is the polygon is affected by planning
policies for Agricultural Holdings and
Traditional Buildings in the Countryside
in the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan
(YDNPA 2006)?
Is the polygon classed as an Area of
Great Landscape Value ?
Is the polygon within a SSSI?
Is the polygon within common land?
Is the polygon in Open Access Land
(CRoW)?
Is the polygon land subject to a WES
agreement?
Wildlife
Enhancement Check Box
Scheme
Attributes affecting Pastoral
Farming, Moorland Fringe
and Grouse Moor
Closed
agri-environment Text: Value List Which closed agri-environment scheme
Scheme
(if any) the holding is in, and which ESA
Tier (if applicable):
ESA Improved Grassland (Tier IA)
ESA Higher
ESA Higher Allotment
27
Field Name
Description
CSS
None
N/a
Environmental
Stewardship Text: Value List Entry Level
Scheme
Higher Level
Organic Entry Level
Date of agreement
Text
Date of commencement or latest
renewal of an agreement
ESA Farm Conservation Plan Check Box
Farm Conservation Plan developed ?
ESA Walls
Check Box
Wall Renovation supplement used?
ESA Traditional Buildings
Check Box
Traditional Building (barn) renovated or
repaired?
ESA Historic Structures
Check Box
Historic
Structure
renovated
or
repaired?
CSS Heather management Check Box
Heather management included in
/enhancement
agreement?
CSS Grazing management
Check Box
Grazing management included in
agreement?
CSS Bracken management
Check Box
Bracken management included in
agreement?
CSS Rabbit control
Check Box
Rabbit
management
included
in
agreement?
CSS Moorland scrapes
Check Box
Building of moorland scrapes included in
agreement?
CSS Grouse butt restoration/ Check Box
Does the agreement approve grouse
repair
butt repair/creation?
CSS Track repair/creation
Check Box
Does the agreement approve track
repair/creation?
ESA Tree planting
Check Box
Tree planting funded as part of
agreement?
Type of Woodland
Text: Value List Type of Woodland:
Historic Woodland
Historic Woodland with new planting
Historic Plantation
Historic Plantation with new planting
Modern Woodland
New Planting
Woodland Grant/Management Text: Value List Principal woodland grant scheme or
body
management body
Woodland Grant Scheme
English Woodland Grant Scheme
English Nature
The Woodland Trust
Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust
None
Summary
Memo
Management Profile
Data Type
28
2.2.2.1
MapInfo ID
This is an automatically generated unique number created in MapInfo.
2.2.2.2
HLMC ID
This is the Identifying number given to HLMC polygons.
Source: this sequential number is created manually in MapInfo and transferred to the
Microsoft Access database.
2.2.2.3
HLMC Types
HLMC Broad Type
HLMC Broad Type Code
HLMC Sub Type
HLMC Sub Type Code
These four fields cover the basic classifications of HLMC Broad and Sub Types and list
their codes. The Types are discussed in detail in sections 2.3 and 2.4 below
2.2.2.4
Place-name
Associated or nearest place-name.
Sources:
Current and earlier editions of Ordnance Survey (OS) maps.
2.2.2.5
Ownership Type
A field was devoted to Ownership Type categories. This was recorded independently of
any modern land use and management characterisation procedure for several reasons.
As well as being a defining attribute for the Broad Type categories, it became apparent
that this field could hold information of some use in its own right. ‘Ownership’ here is very
loosely defined to include long term tenancy. Future applications of HLMC may consider
defining the type of ownership more closely and in different ways (e.g. it has already been
suggested that instead of ‘Private Individual(s) the term ‘Residential’ be used (D. Hooley,
pers. com)). In whatever way this is developed in future, it should be noted that it is difficult
to access tenurial information consistently and comprehensively, and there may be issues
concerning data protection involved. The Land Registry was not used for ownership
information because the relatively slow turnover of land within the project area means that
much property is unlikely to have been registered, as well as the cost of using a
commercial service.
The Ownership Type categories established and used for this pilot project are quite
restricted, due to the small size of the project area and the limited kinds of ownership
operative here. These are defining attributes for Broad and Sub Types. They are largely
self explanatory, except for Grouse Estate and Farm Business (E).
29
Grouse Estate - Used to describe any moorland in the project area which appears
to be primarily owned for the purpose of grouse shooting. The legal ownership
position is frequently very complicated for inheritance and tax reasons.
Private Individual(s)
Farm Business
Farm Business (E) (E for Estate). - Many farms are owned, or part owned, by large
estates – in this area the grouse estates in particular - and occasionally their
influence can be felt, especially along and around the moorland fringe which is a
popular area for new woodland planting. This particular ownership category is
probably more extensive than indicated, but reflects the limits of easily accessible
information given that occupier details are better recorded on grant applications etc.
than tenurial information.
Small Business(es)
Local Government
Charity/Trust
Various – this is used where there are multiple owners potentially from mixed
ownership categories e.g. the polygon capturing the River Swale
Sources:
Information from colleagues at YDNPA regarding ownership and function. This was
particularly useful to ascertain the extent of the grouse estates at the beginning of the
project.
Observation on site visits to the Project Area. For example, the centre of Reeth is
predominantly commercial and dominated by small businesses. This helped define a
Settlement Sub Type.
Information about various charities and trusts (e.g. The National Trust, Yorkshire Wildlife
Trust) was analysed to identify any land holdings in the area. Web sources can be
particularly useful. For example it was through the Woodlands Trust website that Midge
Hole woodland in Haverdale was identified and its status as Ownership type Charity/Trust
established (www.woodland-trust.org.uk). Part of this wood is still pasture and has not yet
been planted.
YDNPA GIS database information containing boundary and ownership/tenancy details.
These MapInfo .tab files are created and used by the Farm Conservation Team as a
resource for their work. (YDNPA access only X:\MapData\Conservation & Policy\Farm
Conservation maps\Richmondshire 2006)
2.2.2.6
Topography
This is a very rough indication of the topography and the place of an HLMC polygon in the
landscape. It played little part in the definition of HLMC Types. Some groups of enclosed
fields defined as a single polygon are very long and thin and stretch down the contours.
The terms used are listed below.
Upland – the highest land masses, mostly moorland plateau in this area
Upper valley side – upper reaches of the valley side
Lower valley side – lower reaches of the valley side
Valley bottom – flat land by a river
Gillside – along the banks of tributary streams
30
Sources:
OS MasterMap; OS Explorer Map OL30 Yorkshire Dales Northern and Central Area
2.2.2.7
Vegetation/Land cover
This field covers the current principal vegetation or surface composition of the land within
the polygon. The categories were created specifically for the HLMC project, and come
from a variety of collated sources. OS MasterMap itself contains a wealth of status
information in its Legend and Descriptive Term fields. The vegetative status of enclosed
farmland, however, could not be derived from OS MasterMap, as this is almost exclusively
defined as ‘Natural Surface’ in these fields. The values for ‘Improved grassland’,
‘Pasture/meadow’ and ‘Rough grassland’ were taken from a different dataset, internal
MapInfo .tab files which included information on the ESA tier status of the land. The tier
status is indicative of the management intensity of any piece of land so from this it could
be deduced which category to put the HLMC polygon in. These are primary attributes for
Broad and Sub Types.
Improved Grassland ‘Arable and Improved Grassland’ is a standard ESA
grouping. There was no arable in this part of Swaledale in 2006 and the category
followed the local PDESA practice in using the term ‘Improved Grassland’. This
informed the HLMC Sub Types as Improved Grassland (Tier 1A). For other areas of
the country ‘arable’ will be necessary as a separate attribute.
Pasture/Meadow Meadow and Pasture, separate categories in the PDESA,
became one in the HLMC database. It would have been advantageous to have
differentiated between the two, as meadow and pasture, although both grassland,
do have different management regimes which can impact on the historic
environment. However, there were disadvantages to doing this. It would have
increased, possibly doubled, the number of polygons needed to capture the
enclosed farmland within the project area. Although most farmers do not change the
status of their meadow and pasture each year, the specific annual use can vary
according to weather and the amount of stock being carried. Slaughter of stock in
the Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in 2001 meant that some fields in the Dales
which were normally grazed all year - i.e. pasture - had grass crops taken off them
and thus could be described as meadows. Land use can also vary within a field –
steep parts may only be grazed and not mown for hay or silage. Consequently it
was decided that the benefits of differentiating meadow and pasture were
outweighed by the disadvantage of considerably increasing the number of HLMC
polygons. Information on what is currently recorded as meadow and pasture in the
PDESA is contained in the MapInfo .tab file below (see sources) and can be used
as an overlay. Future HLMC projects may adopt a different approach. In areas of
the country with larger enclosed fields than those of Swaledale and Arkengarthdale
keeping meadow and pasture separate may be a manageable option which is worth
pursuing.
Rough grassland This is not a description used by the PDESA. It was created for
HLMC as a separate value and applied to all Allotment Tiers in ESA agreements.
OS MasterMap also has a category ‘Rough Grassland’ which identified some
additional land.
31
Heather This is the default category for all grouse moors although in practice the
land cover mix is varied and includes bracken, boggy areas with rushes and rough
grassland.
Broadleaf woodland The broadleaf, coniferous, mixed woodland and scrub
categories were derived from a range of OS data and field observation
Coniferous woodland see Broadleaf woodland
Mixed woodland see Broadleaf woodland
Wood pasture This is open woodland with mature freestanding trees in a matrix of
grassland and woodland flora, traditionally used for grazing. It used to be more
extensive in Swaledale than it is today.
Scrub Scrub is vegetation dominated by shrubs, bushes and small trees up to 5m
high see Broadleaf woodland
Lead tolerant species Defining the extent of lead tolerant vegetation was
particularly useful as a vehicle for expressing in polygon form the extensive areas of
grouse moor and to a lesser extent parts of the moorland fringe covered by the
remains of the lead mining industry in the project area. Wherever lead mining has
operated on a large scale it has affected the soils and vegetation of an area,
sometimes creating conditions which only metallophytes (metal tolerant plants) can
tolerate. These areas support complex patchworks of calcareous, neutral and acidic
grassland in addition to metallophytes; other species common on moorland such as
heather and bracken are not dominant. Contrasting vegetation patterns mean that
areas of lead mining in moorland can be easily plotted from colour vertical aerial
photographs.
Figure 4 Vegetation or surface cover as characterised for HLMC
32
Artificial/natural mix This term was used to describe the principal surfaces of
settlement areas.
Artificial OS MasterMap ‘Manmade’ category.
Water River Swale and Arkle Beck. OS MasterMap
Sources:
General sources: OS MasterMap; OS Explorer Map OL30 Yorkshire Dales Northern and
Central Area.
Information on the status of enclosed farmland: X:\Conservation &
Policy\Archaeology\HLMC\Map Info datafiles\Current Land Management\ESA 19942003\1994-2003 esa tiers YDNPA. The fields Tier Description and Tier Group were
particularly useful.
Information on the areas of lead tolerant species: ADAS Colour vertical aerial photographs
1995 for ESA monitoring; Yorkshire Dales Mapping Project.
2.2.2.8
Farm Record Number
Each farm or estate which applies for agri-environment scheme funding is allocated a
permanent Farm Record Number by Defra/Natural England which appears on most official
documents relating to the holding. The Farm Record Number attached to land holding
polygons was incorporated as a separate field in the HLMC Table. This was in order that
the database could be used to call up all the holdings belonging to a particular farm or
estate prior to a farm visit or to look at HLMC characteristics. Then an entire holding could
be transferred into the Environmental Stewardship Scheme field on the database as and
when this occurred, without having to relate paper archives to the GIS.
There were other advantages to doing this. The GIS database can be used to produce a
thematic map showing the size, distribution and nature (fragmented or cohesive) of land
holdings in the project area at the beginning of the twenty-first century. This can be used
as a benchmark for future comparison of the size and distribution of land holdings. It can
also be compared with land holding patterns from the past, and should help inform
understanding of deep rooted land tenure patterns in Swaledale. Land holding patterns
derived from the 1941-3 National Farm Survey were digitised as part of the project and are
now available as a separate MapInfo .tab file layer for YDNPA. As a result information on
holdings and their management patterns can be easily queried e.g. the number of holdings
with land in ESA Tier IA can be quickly quantified.
Postscript: Data Protection Issues
As the project progressed it became apparent there were issues concerning data
protection which would have to be considered. Some of the internal information available,
especially that concerning agri-environment schemes, originally derived from Defra and in
the future will come from Natural England. The status of this information is explained by
these bodies in their covering literature on ESA agreements, CS scheme etc. and these
are quoted below. The early agri-environment schemes launched by MAFF in the late
1980s and early 1990s were undertaken with an agreement of confidentiality, but attitudes
changed during the latter decade, culminating in the Freedom of Information Act (2000). It
became accepted that publicly funded grant-aided schemes should be administered and
33
applied in a more transparent and accountable way and this change is reflected in the
statements below, where Defra made clear to potential applicants that participation in an
agri-environment scheme involved acceptance of information concerning the agreement
being made available to the public.
Defra advised potential Environmentally Sensitive Area agreement holders:
‘There is much public interest in the development of Defra’s Agri-environment schemes of
which ESAs are one. The Department intends, therefore, to make available on request,
summary details of the participants and areas of the scheme. This would cover: name of
agreement holder; address; grid references of fields under agreement; and total hectares
under agreement. The Department will also record details of the ESA management
agreement on the local land charges register. On request, comprehensive details of the
individual agreements will be made available… In entering the scheme, therefore, you
undertake to agree to this information being released.’
Defra 2002b, p.7
Defra advised potential Countryside Stewardship agreement holders:
‘To fulfil our obligations under the Data Protection Act, the following two paragraphs give
details of Defra’s handling of any personal data that you provide in connection with your
application and agreement.
In order to ensure effective operation of the ERDP schemes, Defra will disclose or
exchange information about your application and agreement to or with other organisations
or consultants which the Department considers appropriate for administration, evaluation
and monitoring purposes. Moreover, Defra or its appointed agents may contact you in
connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the services that Defra
provides to you.
Because the ERDP involves expenditure of public money, there is a genuine public
interest in how money is spent. Defra may therefore make information on your application
and agreement available for this purpose or for the purpose of publicising the ERDP and
its individual schemes. Furthermore, information (including personal data) may also be
released on request under the Environmental Information Regulations, the Code of
Practice on Access to Government Information and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
Defra 2004, p.5
Defra advised potential Environmental Stewardship agreement holders:
‘To meet our obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 we need to explain how we
will handle the information you give us.
Because the Environmental Stewardship involves expenditure of public money, there is
public interest in how the money is spent. Therefore Defra, may in certain circumstances,
make information about your application and agreement publicly available for this purpose.
We may also need to disclose details about your application and agreement to other
organisations or individuals for administration, evaluation or monitoring purposes.
Details disclosed may include your name, the name of your farm or business, grid
references, the total area under agreement, the payment you receive, the location of fields
and details of the environmental features and management options they contain. Such
34
information may be released upon request under the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004 or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.’
Defra 2005a pp. 7-8
Sources:
Internal YDNPA Farm Conservation files. The information ultimately derives from
RDA/Defra.
YDNPA intranet, MapInfo.tab file X:\MapData\Conservation & Policy\Farm Conservation
maps\2006 Richmondshire.
2.2.2.9
Enclosure status
Is the land physically enclosed or unenclosed? This helped inform the creation of Broad
Types, especially with regard to grouse moor, which is classed as unenclosed land. There
are several pan-moorland walls in the project area, defining nineteenth century land
ownership boundaries, some of which are now redundant for land management purposes;
these have not been regarded as bestowing ‘enclosure’ status on land.
Sources: OS MasterMap; OS Explorer Map OL30 Yorkshire Dales Northern and Central
Area
2.2.2.10
National Park
Is the polygon in the Yorkshire Dales National Park? The Yorkshire Dales National Park
Authority is the planning authority for the National Park, which covers about 90% of the
project area. Richmondshire District Council is the local planning authority for the
remainder of the project area -- part of the civil parish of Marrick and, further north, a small
part of the civil parish of New Forest. Local planning policies and their implementation
have a significant impact on the environment and in particular on the physical expression
of the historic environment. All of the project area is within the county of North Yorkshire
and the County Council is the highway authority. National Park status is a primary defining
attribute for HLMC Settlement types due to the particular influence of planning policies on
the built environment, but a secondary one for other types.
The Yorkshire Dales National Park was established in 1954. The duties of the National
Park Authority are to ‘Conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural
heritage of the National Park’ and ‘Promote opportunities for the understanding and
enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the public’; if there is a conflict
between the two, it should be noted that the conservation purpose is given priority
(YDNPA 2006, p.10). This is known as the ‘Sandford Principle’. The YDNPA is not
responsible for the provision of social or economic services (e.g. housing) but nonetheless
seeks to foster the economic and social wellbeing of the communities who live within the
National Park.
The YDNPA aims to ‘provide a framework for planning decisions in the National Park that
supports and does not prejudice the national park purposes of conserving and enhancing
the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage and promoting understanding and
enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park’ (YDNPA 2006, p.13). There is little
doubt that without the establishment of the National Park over fifty years ago, the area
would look different. All of the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan (YDNPA 2006) needs to be
35
digested in order to understand the permeating influence of the National Park Authority on
the landscape we see and take for granted today, but it is worth highlighting the
importance placed by the authority on its role as guardian of what it terms the ‘historic
landscape’, as laid down in Policy B1. It has a clear idea of what constitutes the defining
characteristics of the area and their roots in the historic environment: ‘The traditional
enclosed farmland of the National Park is characterised by the intricate pattern of drystone walls and the many hundreds of isolated stone field barns. This landscape is one of
the most outstanding and distinctive in Western Europe and gives the area a clear identity.
The removal of economic incentives to maintain these features has, however, led to many
barns and walls falling into disrepair. To help slow down the decay of this historic
agricultural landscape the National Park Authority has designated Barns and Walls
Conservation Areas (Policy B11). Where barns and walls are special elements of the
landscape but lie outside Conservation Areas, the National Park Authority will try to
safeguard them and seek to minimise any visual impact that modern buildings may have
on this distinctive farmed landscape’ (YDNPA 2006, p.83). This is but one example of
direct relevance to the historic environment of the clarity and transparency of purpose
expressed in the current local plan for the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
Sources:
OS Explorer Map OL30 Yorkshire Dales Northern and Central Area; internal YDNPA
MapInfo .tab file of YDNP boundary.
Yorkshire Dales Local Plan 2006, available in print and in pdf.. Page numbers are for the
pdf. version. www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/yorkshire_dales_local_plan_2006_-_final.pdf
Information on Joint Character Areas from www.countryside.gov.uk – Joint Character
Areas
2.2.2.11
Conservation Area
Is the polygon in a Conservation Area?
There are three Conservation Areas within the project area. These are:
Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls Conservation Area, designated in
1989.
Reeth Conservation Area, designated in 2001
Gunnerside Conservation Area, designated in 2002
Conservation Area status was identified as a defining attribute for HLMC Settlement Sub
Types for a variety of reasons listed below. For other HLMC Types it is a secondary
attribute.
Reeth and Gunnerside were designated as Conservation Areas in November 2001 and
January 2002 respectively. Both designated areas are surrounded by a non-designated
periphery. The YDNPA strategy on Conservation Areas is covered by Policy B8 and B9 of
the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan 2006 in the section devoted to the Built Heritage (2006,
pp.90 – 92), the essence of which is that ‘The designation of Conservation Areas gives
greater control over the demolition of most buildings and the felling of trees. It also
requires wider local publicity for planning applications and ensures that the development
proposals therein are subject to close scrutiny. Designation puts an onus on prospective
developers ‘to produce a high standard of design reflecting the particular character of a
36
Conservation Area’ (ibid. p.90). Both Reeth and Gunnerside went through a lengthy
designation process and Conservation Area Character Statements were produced, which
included detailed assessments and descriptions of the character of the settlements, with
information on location and setting, archaeological and historical background, economic
development, settlement structure and fabric, the architectural and historical contribution of
the existing buildings, existing land use in and around the settlements including the role of
the open spaces, and opportunities for preservation and enhancement. These were
accompanied by maps showing the proposed Conservation Area boundaries.
Figure 5 Conservation Areas in Swaledale: red- Barns and Walls; blue - Gunnerside (left) and Reeth
(right)
Both Reeth and Gunnerside are rich in listed buildings, particularly the former, but it was
decided not to use density of listed buildings as a defining attribute of the HLMC database.
These buildings contribute to the character of the settlement Conservation Areas, and are
protected by special legislation and planning policies, but they are by their nature
individual buildings which lie under a special form of protection, not land extensive
designations which affect the management of an area as a whole. While there is a
statement to the effect that development which would adversely affect the setting of a
listed building will not be permitted and the greater the density of such buildings, the higher
the influence of this policy on the surroundings, the aim of HLMC characterisation was to
look at land extensive designations rather than focus on individual structures, however
important. The policies for listed buildings are itemised in Policy B13 of the Yorkshire
Dales Local Plan (2006, p.96). The Barns and Walls Conservation Areas are interesting
from this point of view as none of the barns are listed (the result of a deliberate decision)
although listed buildings do exist within these areas.
The Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls Conservation Area, the largest in
England, is a very unusual Conservation Area in that it covers an extensive rural
landscape and specifically excludes many of the settlements within its outer boundary.
Most of the HLMC polygons covering the Barns and Walls Conservation Area are not in
the Settlement HLMC Broad Type but come under Pastoral Farming. Within the project
area the boundaries of the Pennine Dales ESA are nearly coterminous with the Swaledale
and Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls Conservation Area (the exceptions are mostly along
Fremington Edge and are in the Moorland Fringe category).
37
The Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls Conservation Area covers some
HLMC Settlement polygons e.g. Arkle Town (5). All HLMC Pastoral Farming polygons are
in the Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls Conservation Area, except those
outside the National Park and the ESA at Hurst and Kexwith in the far north-east of the
project area. A few HLMC Moorland Fringe polygons are also within the Swaledale and
Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls Conservation Area.
Sources:
Conservation Area Character Statements:
Reeth Conservation Area / Complete Character Appraisals and Designations Reeth,
Swaledale – Conservation Area Character Appraisal Designated 27 November 2001
Gunnerside Conservation Area / Complete Character Appraisals and Designations
Gunnerside, Swaledale – Conservation Area Character Appraisal Designated 27
November 2001
2.2.2.12
Key Service Centre
The list of defining attributes affecting settlement will not apply to any other part of the
country but was designed to inform the Settlement Sub Types developed for the HLMC
database in the project area. Many planning authorities will have their own hierarchies of
settlements for planning purposes, with different development policies for each level, and
any future HLMC project is likely to need a similar system of attributes to help inform the
definition of Settlement Sub Types. The YDNPA Yorkshire Dales Local Plan 2006
establishes planning policy for the next five years in the Yorkshire Dales, and the terms
‘key service centre’, ‘service village’ and ‘small village’ below is terminology taken directly
from the Local Plan. ‘Countryside and agricultural holdings’ is a term invented for the
purposes of HLMC.
There are numerous listed buildings scattered throughout these settlements, and indeed in
the wider landscape, but these have not been used as a defining attribute of the HLMC
Sub Types, which have instead concentrated on land extensive criteria to develop the
methodology as explained above in the section on conservation areas.
Reeth is one of four key service centres identified in the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan
adopted in April 2006. Housing development in the key service centres is allowed by:
Policy H1 - New housing development will be allowed provided 50% of the proposal
is to meet local need. For example, a 0.3 ha site adjacent to the old mortuary of the
Union Workhouse was allocated for new housing at the Inspector’s request following
the Local Plan Inquiry. The policy could also lead to further infill elsewhere in the
settlement. (YDNPA 2006, p.28)
Policy H3 - The conversion of traditional buildings (e.g. barns, chapels, institutes etc)
to residential use within designated settlements will be permitted provided they
accord with policies on conversion of traditional buildings and listed buildings as
appropriate. The conversion of traditional buildings Policy B15 allows conversion
within strict guidelines (YDNPA 2006, pp.31-2; 99-100)
38
Figure 6 Reeth Key Service Centre from the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan 2006 showing Conservation
area (pale green), open public spaces (deep green), retail centre (orange) and employment land
(violet)
The above policies are specific to key service centres. Commercial properties are also
affected by certain policies in the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan e.g. Policy B10 which state
that traditional shop fronts should be retained, wherever possible and specify that internally
illuminated signs, fixed projecting canopies and fascias will not be permitted. However, as
with listed buildings, these policies apply to particular buildings throughout the entire
YDNP rather than particular areas, and thus are not distinguishing attributes within the
YDNP. They perhaps set the National Park apart from other local planning authorities (and
in this sense contribute to the rationale behind using the National Park as a defining
attribute in the creation of some HLMC Types) but do not necessarily help in the definition
of Sub Types. ‘Key service centre’ is a defining attribute for HLMC Settlement Sub Types.
Sources:
2.2.2.13
Service Village
Grinton and Gunnerside are two of the thirty three service villages identified in the
Yorkshire Dales Local Plan. Service village status is a defining attribute of the HLMC
Settlement Sub Types. The principal housing planning policies which apply in service
villages are:
39
Policy H2 - New housing will be permitted in service villages to meet a local need
with a density of not less than 35 dwellings per hectare and a floor space not
exceeding 90 square metres and tied to local occupancy in perpetuity (YDNPA 2006,
pp.29-30)
Policy H3 - The conversion of traditional buildings to residential use within designated
settlements will be permitted provided they accord with policies on conversion of
traditional buildings and listed buildings as appropriate and are also subject to legal
agreements tied to local occupancy in perpetuity (see above) (YDNPA 2006, pp.31-2)
2.2.2.14
Small Village
Small village status is a defining attribute of the HLMC Settlement Sub Type. Healaugh,
Langthwaite and Low Row (excluding Feetham) are three of the twenty nine small villages
identified in the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan. Here the following policy applies:
Policy H3 -The conversion of traditional buildings to residential use within designated
settlements will be permitted provided they accord with policies on conversion of
traditional buildings and listed buildings as appropriate and are also subject to legal
agreements tied to local occupancy in perpetuity. (YDNPA 2006, pp.31-2)
2.2.2.15
Countryside and Agricultural Holdings
Outside settlements new build housing is only permitted where it can be demonstrated that
it is essential to house a full time worker in a rural based enterprise (normally only
agriculture or forestry), there are no opportunities for use or conversion of an existing
building within the control of the applicant and the dwelling is within an existing group of
residential buildings - Policy H4 (YDNPA 2006, pp. 33-4).
The conversion of traditional buildings may be allowed in the countryside for business use
only.
Policy F3 - The conversion of traditional buildings which lie within working farmsteads
to provide residential lets and holiday accommodation (YDNPA 2006, pp.33-4)
Policy E4 - The conversion of traditional buildings in the countryside to employment
use (YDNPA 2006, p.45)
2.2.2.16
Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV)
This designation covers part of the area outside the YDNP, within Richmondshire. It lies
within Richmond Local District Council Planning Authority, and is subject to planning
policies outlined in the Richmondshire Local Plan 1999-2006. It is part of an Area of Great
Landscape Value (AGLV), and Policies 2-5 and 7 of the local plan are particularly
applicable. The emphasis is on using existing building stock, limiting new development to
essential rural needs (agriculture and forestry), and allowing only developments and
alterations which fit in with distinctive landscape character in their siting and design. AGLV
status is a defining attribute of the HLMC Sub Type Settlement.
Sources:
Richmondshire Local Plan 1999-2006, now in the process of being updated. This is
available for viewing on line ( www.planningportal.gov.uk/wps/portal ).
40
2.2.2.17
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
Whether or not an area of land is designated a SSSI is one of the defining primary
attributes of two HLMC Types (Grouse Moor, Moorland Fringe) for reasons which are
explained below. It is a statutory designation, and will probably play an increasingly
important role in agri-environment schemes in the future, particularly in the way limited
funds are allocated. SSSI status is used as a secondary attribute for Pastoral Farming and
Woodland HLMC Types. This is because the presence of a SSSI in these categories does
not necessarily change or influence the management regime in such a way that it cannot
be sufficiently covered within the other defined sub types. For example, within the Pastoral
Farming category are several hay meadows in Arkengarthdale and Swaledale which are
designated SSSIs. However, although their management regime is significant for the
biodiversity of the fields, it differs little from other non-SSSI meadows in regard to its
impact on the historic environment.
Figure 7 Designated SSSI land (green) in the project area
A Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is land notified as a SSSI under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act (1981), as amended. They are chosen for the outstanding quality and
variety of their wildlife and geology. About half of these sites have formal international
recognition from the European Union. These are the Special Areas of Conservation (SAC),
Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Ramsar Sites. The SACs and SPAs within the project
area are coterminous with the moorland SSSIs but there are no Ramsar (wetland) sites.
There are over 4,000 SSSIs in England, covering around 7% of the country’s landmass.
Phase 1 Habitat Classification was developed during the 1980’s to map habitats within
SSSIs and nature reserves, and enabled the delineation of ‘Units’ or discrete areas within
41
SSSIs according to their botanic constituents. In turn these inform Natural England’s
management preferences for different SSSIs, or different parts of them in the event of
large ones covering extensive areas. All the larger SSSIs are divided into ‘Units’
differentiated through varied types of habitat. The habitats are recognised as a product of
a combination of natural conditions (soil, geology, climate, drainage) and cultural history
(past and current management). There are standardised categories for this e.g. Neutral
grassland – upland; Dwarf shrub heath – upland; Bogs.
If Natural England (formerly English Nature) refuses consent to an operation which may
damage special features of a SSSI that operation may not legally take place. It is an
offence for anyone to knowingly or recklessly destroy or damage the special features of
any land they know to be a SSSI. Owners of land designated as SSSIs receive no direct
payment for it, and proactive management is mainly achieved through influence, backed
up by lists of proscribed actions, which are specific to each site. Some SSSIs are also
national or local nature reserves owned and/or managed by wildlife conservation bodies
but there are none within the project area. All the SSSIs are either farmed (hay meadows
are the most important element here), exist as woodland or lie in moorland mainly
managed for grouse shooting.
Figure 8 Flowering buttercups draw attention to SSSI hay meadows on the far side of Arkle Beck,
Arkengarthdale NY 985 040. Behind the meadows is the SSSI of West Arkengarthdale Moor
Inevitably the emphasis for SSSIs is placed on natural environment issues, played out
through prescriptive lists of ‘operations likely to damage the special interest’. Each SSSI
has its own list. Examples of these operations are:
cultivation or any form of ground disturbance
tree planting
coppicing
clearing scrub
42
restrictions on the use of pesticides, artificial and natural fertilisers
Other activities are encouraged, such as:
the blocking of moorland grips
water level control
the reduction of grazing pressure on moorland
limiting grazing to certain times of year
The condition of the historic environment is outside the remit of SSSI management
although English Nature and now Natural England, like all statutory bodies, does have a
duty to have regard to National Park purposes under s62 of the Environment Act, 1996.
There is rarely any reference to the historic environment within the SSSI designation
descriptions or any recognition that they exist in their current special designation state
because of centuries, if not millennia, of human activity. The limited appreciation of the
permeating influence of past land management practices on the eco-environment by some
ecologists and managers of biodiversity is a problem which needs addressing.
Most of the practices listed above are likely to be beneficial to the stability of the historic
environment, a few less so. Management issues and priorities within SSSI which have
beneficial implications for the historic environment include:
the proscription on cultivation and other ground disturbance is a protection against
attempts to bring moorland back into cultivation through intrusive ‘agricultural’
improvements which can damage the historic environment and may also be a
protection against certain methods of heather ‘regeneration’;
repeated vehicle rutting is included in the moorland proscriptions, which should also
give protection to earthworks and sub-surface archaeological remains;
some units are perceived as ‘wet’ areas, and the preferred management regime is
aimed at maintaining or increasing ‘wetness’ through programmes including
blocking of moorland grips. This should halt the drying out of or help re-wet areas of
peat which may contain organic remains and palaeo-environmental evidence. Any
management practices which promote the preservation of peat - which can also act
as a protective layer for archaeological deposits and structures - can be regarded
as having a beneficial impact on the historic environment.
In many cases however the aim of SSSI management appears to be to reduce the impact
of human intervention, frequently by encouraging an approach which can lead to rewilding, particularly a more wooded environment – essentially the managed creation of a
new ecological balance.
SSSI designation plays a part in the definition of sub-types for Grouse Moor, Woodland
and Moorland Fringe. The management of SSSIs within enclosed pasture land was not
thought to differ from Higher Tier land in terms of its impact on the historic environment,
and consequently it is not a defining attribute for Pastoral Farming. However, all land with
SSSI designation is recorded through a SSSI checkbox in the HLMC database, and this
information can be queried separately. This means all pastoral farmland in this category
can be identified.
43
Sources:
The dataset for England can be viewed online via the Magic website (www.magic.gov.uk),
and is freely available for download either piecemeal by grid block or in its entirety. At the
beginning of the project this was from the English Nature website (www.englishnature.org.uk/pubs/gis/gis_register.asp). This information is now hosted by Natural
England, though still had (Jan 2007) its old web address. It gives individual SSSI
boundaries, and according to the metadata is updated on a monthly basis. The scales at
which the original data is drawn up can vary – the basic map scale used is 1:10,000, but
small sites may be tackled at 1:2,500, and larger ones 1:15,000. For the purpose of the
HLMC pilot project data quality and control was excellent, and the difference in original
scales irrelevant to the reliability of the information. The English Nature website contained
publicly available and intellectually accessible information on every SSSI and their
management prescriptions (www.english-nature.org.uk/special/sssi). Technical terms are
explained, and the process of monitoring sites is transparent. The ‘condition’ trend of sites
is also made public.
2.2.2.18
Common Land
Whether or not land is affected by common land rights was used as a primary defining
attribute within the HLMC methodology, and plays a part in the creation of sub-types for
Grouse Moor, Pastoral Farming, and Moorland Fringe.
Figure 9 Registered Common land in the project area
One and a half million acres of land are registered as common land in England and Wales,
a small proportion of what once existed. They include a wide variety of types of land, but
nationally important categories are village greens, moorland and lowland heath. The
44
National Trust is a major owner of common land, with 200 registered commons held in
their name. The concept of ‘common land’ and the existence of ‘rights’ which are separate
from ownership of the land have a long and complex history. Though distinctive patterns of
use can be discerned in different areas of the country, rights are historically embedded
and consequently unique to each and every bit of common land. They are attached
traditionally to property, not people, and in upland areas in particular have and can still
make the difference between an economically viable and unviable farm.
Much common land vanished during the enclosures of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. Pressure to halt the loss of open spaces led to the Commons Acts of 1876 and
1899 (Clayden 1985). The 1965 Commons Registration Act created a list of land accepted
as Commons. The Commons Act (2006) established Commons Councils, which will come
into force in late 2007. These will enable commoners and landowners to manage the
commons more sustainably and will have powers to regulate grazing and other agricultural
activities.
Rights of the owners of the soil frequently include:
mineral rights
sporting rights
balance of grazing
planting and felling of trees
Rights of commoners often include:
turf and peat cutting (‘turbary’)
grazing (rights are often locally referred to as ‘gaits’ or ‘stints’)
brushwood sources for fuel (‘estover’)
gravel, stone, marl, but generally not minerals and coal.
Common land is used as a primary defining attribute of the HLMC Sub Types in the pilot
project area as common rights are an important socio-economic historic phenomenon in
their own right – rights of stinted pasture, peat cutting etc. have created the environment
we have inherited today - and they can involve activities which have an impact on the
historic environment.
Sources:
Areas registered as common land used to be viewable on MAGIC under the Registered
Common Land (England) dataset, as could their metadata. However, this position changed
during the lifetime of the project, possibly because the maps were not very accurate. The
dataset can be requested from [email protected]
YDNPA holds printed copies of the Countryside Agency Conclusive Map of Registered
Common Land & Open Country at its offices in Grassington, which were consulted.
The Commons Act (2006) is available for pdf. download at
www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2006/ukpga_20060026_en.pdf and is reviewed by Defra on
their website www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/issues/common/commonact/index.htm
45
2.2.2.19 Open Access Land (CRoW)
Much of the land in the HLMC Project Area is now open access land, subject to a right of
access initiated by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW Act). Access is
now a right on common land together with what is termed ‘access land’. In practice this is
primarily unenclosed upland, such as the moorland, which is a major land type within the
project area. However, some enclosed land is also covered by the Act, provided it is
unimproved or semi-improved. The change in the law has meant that 865,000 hectares of
the country is now covered by open access – this is 6.5% of the land mass. The long term
impact of open access on the historic environment in the Yorkshire Dales is unclear as the
law only came into force in this area on 28 May 2005, changing the proportion of
accessible land from 4% to 63%. To a large extent it will depend upon how much people’s
habits change. Reports from YDNPA Rangers, who are actively monitoring the situation in
the National Park, suggest little change yet either in the activities undertaken or in the
areas the public are accessing at the moment although earlier predictions suggested that
there would be an increase in watershed walks and visits to places of interest such as
tarns and archaeological sites (YDNPA et al 2003, p.v). To some extent this is because of
the rights created by the Act: walking, climbing, and running are allowed, but not cycling,
camping, horse riding, motor sports or the driving of any vehicle other than a mobility
scooter or buggy. Metal detecting is specifically prohibited without the permission of the
landowner, as is the lighting of fires and other activities which may endanger the historic
environment. On some moorland areas dogs are restricted to prevent disturbance to
ground nesting birds.
All moorland in the project area is open access, and it has been incorporated as a primary
attribute, albeit one where there is no variation within the Broad Type as all polygons
within Grouse Moor Broad Type are Open Access. Within the Moorland Fringe the
situation is different. Most but not all of the land captured within the Moorland Fringe is
open access land. The difference in status is documented in the check box for this field i.e.
the information is there for management purposes, but not integrated in the Sub Types for
Moorland Fringe. This may be something which future projects will deal with differently and
would prefer to integrate into the characterisation process. However, at this stage it was
felt it would multiply the number of possible sub-types for marginal land to an unnecessary
extent.
Sources:
YDNPA holds printed copies of the Countryside Agency Conclusive Map of Registered
Common Land & Open Country at its offices in Grassington.
Information was also available from several Government web sites including:
www.openaccess.gov.uk
www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/20000037
www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/cl/index.htm
46
Figure 10 Notice advising the public of a temporary closure of open access land on Harkerside
Moor. Landowners are allowed to do this for 28 days a year for any reason, and for longer periods for
reasons of nature conservation, land management or public safety; it does not affect Public Rights of
Way
2.2.2.20
Wildlife Enhancement Scheme
Wildlife Enhancement Schemes were introduced by English Nature in the late 1990’s, as a
way of financing proactive, positive management of areas designated for nature
conservation with statutory protection – in practise within SSSIs. In the HLMC project area
they have revolved around the reduction of grazing on moorland. Agreements were shortterm, lasting 5-8 years in the project area, and were not regarded as a substitute for other
agri-environment schemes, but as an add-on with specific aims and ground projects in
mind. Payments could be annual plus payments for fixed capital works which were
specified in the agreement. The scheme has now closed, and the last agreements were
arranged in 2004. However many of the agreements are still current and will be until the
end of this decade.
This agri-environment scheme very much had common land rights as its central focus in
the Project Area. Most of the agreements concerned moorland management and involved
measures to encourage local graziers to alter their grazing practice. Grazing levels have
been a concern at many times in the history of the local moorland - there are numerous
records of local complaints against farmers who put more than their just quota on the land
in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The European Economic Community Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the 1970s onwards encouraged high levels of stocking by
paying farmers per head of animal. Generally WES has involved the reduction of winter
grazing, and sometimes summer grazing too. Specific agreements can include other
management projects, such as bracken control measures.
47
Being informed by and tailored to the presence of SSSIs, WES agreements were designed
solely with the natural environment in mind, but had implications - usually but not always
beneficial - for the historic environment. For example, farmers could be asked to make
sure they moved around their winter feeding places to avoid damaging a piece of land too
much through poaching. This will have taken pressure off any sub-surface archaeology
which happened to be in that area; on the other hand foddering in ‘hard surface’ areas which could include former settlement sites - was not specifically discouraged. Another
consequence, though one which was felt not on moorland but in the adjoining farmland, is
that other over-wintering arrangements were often made to compensate for loss of or
restriction to, moorland grazing. This led to the building of new animal houses, generally
as multi-purpose agricultural buildings close to farmsteads, a move which could be
damaging to the historic environment, both physically, as farmsteads tend to be small but
important epicentres of historic activity and on the setting of groups of historic farm
buildings or the wider historic landscape.
Initially the presence of WES agreements with graziers was integrated into the Grouse
Moor Sub Types. However, this particular distinction was subsequently discarded. Adding
another primary defining attribute to this Broad Type category made the number of
variations possible – and consequently the number of sub-types and HLMC polygons –
unfeasibly large. It was also felt that the WES agreements were of comparatively little
importance with regard to their direct impact on the historic environment, and that their
chief effect was elsewhere such as the building of new animal sheds on the farms.
Compared to Countryside Stewardship agreements it was decided their effect was limited.
In addition, it was thought that the presence of SSSI designation on moorland should
contain the inference of associated WES agreements, and for these reasons WES
agreements form a secondary attribute. Overgrazing in the uplands was regarded by
English Nature and Defra as a major problem in the sustainable management of SSSIs
although from a historic environment perspective undergrazing is now becoming an
increasingly significant problem.
Sources:
Areas under WES management agreements were viewed on MAGIC under the English
Nature Management Agreement section, as was their metadata.
Explanations of the aims of WES agreements were found on the English Nature website.
MapInfo .tab files were downloaded from the English Nature website, but these appeared
to show just current agreements, not historic ones which were no longer running.
The YDNPA has maintained details of WES records in MapInfo, specifying agreement
timescales and with whom they are made. These include agreements no longer current.
2.2.2.21
Closed Agri-environment Schemes
This field lists other agri-environment schemes which are now historic i.e. entry to them
was closed in 2005 as Environmental Stewardship was being phased in. Some of the older
agreements will be current until 2014. Both ESA and CSS agreements are present in the
project area and these became primary defining attributes for HLMC types within Pastoral
Farming, Moorland Fringe and (CSS only) Grouse Moor. There is a separate field for
Environmental Stewardship.
48
2.2.2.21.1 The Pennine Dales Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme (ESA)
Swaledale lies approximately in the centre of the Pennine Dales ESA which was
established in the first national tranche in 1987. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas were
introduced ‘to pay farmers for maintaining or adopting agricultural methods which promote
the conservation and enhancement of the countryside in areas of high wildlife, landscape
or historic value.’ (Defra 2002, back cover). The Pennine Dales ESA was extended by the
addition of new dales in 1992, and by minor extensions in 1995.
Entry into an ESA scheme was voluntary. Farmers were not obliged to join even if their
land was in an ESA. Agreements were for ten years, with a review and opt-out clause after
five. Annual payments were area based according to the amount of land in agreement and
its farming regime. The payment scale was constructed with the natural environment in
mind through a framework of ‘Tiers’ and favoured the more environmentally rich habitats,
herb-rich meadows attracting the highest payments. The density of historic environment
features such as length of field walls or number of traditional farm buildings did not affect
payments. The number of tiers was extended in 1992 to include improved grassland and
encourage dairy farmers to enter into agreements.
Figure 11 The ESA boundary (red) in Swaledale and Arkengarthdale, and its relationship to the
project area (pink)
ESAs and the historic environment
There were several different ways in which entry of a farm into an ESA agreement could
be of benefit to the condition and stability of the historic environment. Farming activities
were governed by Scheme Prescriptions, which varied depending in which ‘tier’ the land
was placed. All tiers were subject to the following:
The farmer agreed to maintain all the fabric of the farm which was in sound
condition at the moment of entry into the scheme, in the same good condition. This
included all barns ‘which are now weatherproof using traditional building methods
and materials’ (MAFF Pennine Dales ESA: Guidelines for Farmers 1997, p.9).
There was a similar undertaking ‘that stockproof walls and hedges are maintained
and not damaged or removed’.
All land was to be protected from poaching, over-grazing and under-grazing, all of
which prescriptions favour the stability of archaeological features.
There was a requirement not to damage or destroy ‘any feature of historic interest’.
49
Sites and Monuments Record (now Historic Environment Record (HER)) information on
the historic environment was supplied to the Agricultural Development Advisory Service by
the YDNPA at the commencement of the scheme. This mainly derived from desk based
sources and was not supplemented by field work to ascertain the current condition of
recorded features. This information was added to agreement maps.
For the purpose of assessing implications for the condition and stability of the historic
environment the distinction between Tier 1A and the other ‘higher’ tiers is the most
important.
All land, apart from that in category 1A (Arable and Improved Grassland), was protected
from:
ploughing, levelling and reseeding. There were restrictions on the methods used
for harrowing;
disturbance or removal of material from mineral spoil heaps (see below);
installation of new drainage systems or substantial modification of existing drainage
systems.
The distinction between ‘Improved grassland Tier 1A’ and the rest of the tiers is potentially
of great import to the survival of subsurface archaeology and to earthworks and lynchets
which are particularly vulnerable to ploughing, rotovating or heavy harrowing.
50
After 1992 through ESA agreements farmers also had access to capital grant schemes to
repair field walls and traditional farm buildings through the Wall Renovation Supplement
and the Farm Conservation Plan. 80% of the cost of repair was made available and a
substantial amount of money has been spent on the maintenance of the field walls, barns
and some historic structures associated with farming in Swaledale and Arkengarthdale
Figure 12 Some results of a Farm Conservation Plan, Swaledale; since this photograph was taken
restoration of the former heather thatched barn has started
ESAs and the GIS database
Information on the extent of ESA’s, the take-up of ESA Scheme agreements by farmers,
the existence of Tier 1A land on a holding and the use of capital grant schemes to
maintain the traditional fabric of farms were all used to create, define and inform Sub
Types within the Pastoral Farming characterisation category.
51
Whether or not a farmer entered the scheme
Whether land was Tier 1A or in a higher tier, as this helps characterise the potential
condition and stability of sub-surface archaeology
Whether or not a farm had received capital grants through the Wall Renovation
Scheme and a Farm Conservation Plan. The database incorporates information
regarding the take-up of these schemes to help characterise the condition and
stability of the built environment
Information on holdings and land parcels within them was incorporated on:
the repair of field walls
the repair and restoration of traditional farm buildings
the repair and restoration of features of historic interest.
As the applications are land specific – i.e. they tie in with some parcels of land within a
single holding and not others, repair and restoration work was tied to the appropriate GIS
polygon as far as possible.
ESA Improved Grassland (Tier 1A)
The ploughing out of archaeological remains in regions specialising in arable cultivation,
particularly during and since the Second World War, is well documented in current
literature (e.g. Darvill and Fulton 1998) and will not be repeated here. What is less well
known is that in areas traditionally devoted to pastoral farming, the plough also made
inroads in the last few decades of the twentieth century. Intensively improved grassland is
now a feature of many upland areas, including the Pennine dales. Within the project area it
would be difficult to find inbye land which has not been improved by some means since
1945.
Land improvement is achieved through various means including ploughing or disc
harowing with reseeding, direct drilling and the use of weed killers and fertilisers used
separately or together. The plough is not the deep plough associated with arable
cultivation, but more a rotovation of the soil. Some farmers, particularly those with dairy
herds, have invested a lot of time, effort and money in improving their land and although
most tiers of land are protected from the plough within ESAs the intensively improved Tier
1A land is exempt from this. As it is botanically impoverished farmers receive very little
payment for it, but are allowed to continue to plough, reseed and fertilise it. Methods of
improvement include destoning - the removal of surface stone before and after ploughing a process which is obviously to the detriment of archaeological sites. This type of land
improvement has been common since the 1970’s, and appears to have intensified recently
– farms today have access to powerful machinery and it is not uncommon in the Dales to
witness the removal of large boulders which have probably been in situ since the last ice
age. Stock culling resulting from the Foot and Mouth outbreak of 2001 emptied farms, and
gave farmers time to devote to land improvement which they otherwise would not have
had.
Grassland ‘improvement’ and archaeology
The lack of depth in the ploughing restricts the amount of damage that can be done.
Nonetheless, the constant repetition of even shallow ploughing has had an impact on all
earthworks and embankments in its path. Although it is not restricted to this area, the Tier
1A improved grassland clusters around the historic medieval open field systems
52
surrounding Reeth, Grinton and Harkerside, where most of the best agricultural land in the
valley lies. Observation suggests they appear less well defined than sixty years ago.
Tim Laurie and Andrew Fleming (Fleming 1998) have shown that much of the medieval
field systems, characterised by long lynchets, has been developed over a prehistoric
framework. Basically this is an area rich in sub-surface archaeology where physical
remains of earlier phases of activity have remained clearly visible until relatively recently
due to non-intensive farming methods. As the Environmental Stewardship scheme is
paying less attention to the conservation of earthworks in the uplands through the
available Land Management Options (Defra 2005b) than did the PDESA and CS schemes
their future is more uncertain. One positive note with regard to management issues is that
rabbits appear to be less numerous on improved grassland; consequently there are fewer
disturbances of stratified deposits from their burrowing activities.
Figure 13 Improved grassland dominated by rye-grass and regularly cut for silage at Riddings, near
Reeth (SE 030 995) The lynchets are still visible but gradually losing definition
ESA Higher
This category includes:
Tier 1B – Meadows, Pastures
Tier 2A Herb-rich meadows
Tier 2B Herb-rich pastures and allotments
Ploughing, levelling and reseeding were forbidden and there were restrictions on the
methods used for harrowing. There was a prohibition on disturbing or removing material
from mineral spoil heaps. There was a prohibition on installing new drainage systems or
substantially modifying existing drainage systems.
ESA Higher Allotment
Although at the beginning of the project these were incorporated into the general ESA
Higher tiers, once they became a primary defining attribute of the Moorland Fringe Broad
Type, allotments registered within ESA agreements had to be separated out and an extra
option was created within this field. The prohibitions are as listed for ESA Higher, above.
53
Sources: (ESA overall)
The background to the establishment of ESAs is covered in MAFF documents such as the
Pennine Dales Environmentally Sensitive Area: Landscape Assessment (MAFF, nd.
(c.1995)). A variety of MAFF and Defra guidelines and explanatory notes were issued at
intervals and are invaluable for understanding the way in which the agreements were
structured and applied. These include Pennine Dales ESA: Guidelines for Farmers (MAFF
1997a); Environmentally Sensitive Areas: Explanatory Notes (MAFF 1997b); Pennine
Dales ESA Guidelines for Farmers (Defra 2002a) and Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Explanatory Notes (Defra 2002b). Maps produced of the ESA scheme uptake throughout
the Pennine Dales ESA were also used for checking the dates of agreements (MAFF 1998
Pennine Dales Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme Uptake 1992-1998 Maps 16 and
17 Swaledale and Arkengarthdale and MAFF 2000 Pennine Dales Environmentally
Sensitive Area Scheme Uptake 1992-2000 Maps 16 and 17 Swaledale and
Arkengarthdale).
Internal sources at the YDNPA include the farm conservation records held at Colvend,
Grassington, where the documents relating to each farm holding within an agrienvironment scheme are kept. These include the basic ESA Agreement maps showing the
extent of the holding and the Tier information, information relating to the Wall Renovation
Scheme and Farm Conservation Plans which covered the repair and renovation of
Traditional Buildings and Historic Structures.
Internal YDNPA MapInfo .tab files were of use for a variety of reasons e.g. for accessing
the ESA boundary in the project area in digital form and similarly for checking the
information on the extent of Tier 1A land. These are in the ESA folder of the MapInfo
Archive.
2.2.2.21.2 Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS)
Countryside Stewardship was introduced as a pilot scheme in England by the then
Countryside Commission in 1991 and was subsequently transferred to MAFF
administration. It was designed to operate outside ESAs as a complementary scheme
(although there were exceptions to this where a farmer’s land straddled both sides of the
boundary). The broad objectives of this now closed agri-environment scheme were wide
ranging and covered many aspects of the landscape. They were defined in the 2003
handbook as to:
sustain the beauty and diversity of the landscape;
improve and extend wildlife habitats;
conserve archaeological sites and historic features;
improve opportunities for countryside enjoyment;
restore neglected land or features;
create new habitats and landscapes where appropriate’. (Defra 2003, p.3)
Countryside Stewardship provided an incentive for land managers to look after and protect
a range of distinctive traditional farming landscapes such as water meadows, old orchards,
old meadows and pastures, lowland heath and other landscape types which are also part
of the historic environment.
54
It was a competitive scheme with limited funds and targets assessed in relation to their
‘benefit to the countryside’ and there were national, regional and local priorities. Historical
features were one of four assessed scheme objectives (the others were landscape, public
access and wildlife). It was open to anyone with management control over suitable land for
ten years. In practice in the project area this meant grouse estates, tenant farmers and
landowning farmers (Defra 2003, pp.7-8). Land within ESAs was not normally eligible for
Countryside Stewardship although the distinction was sometimes blurred for cross
boundary holdings.
Applicants had to ensure all Scheduled Ancient Monuments were recorded in the survey
and consent to enter the scheme was required from English Heritage. They were reminded
of their duty to comply with the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979
and the Ancient Monuments (Class Consents) Order 1994 as well as numerous other
pieces of environmental legislation. In addition upon entering into a Stewardship
agreement they were required to ‘protect all other areas and features of conservation
value on your holding including: hedgerows and traditional walls; rivers and streams and
their banks; hedgerow trees and woodlands; historic and archaeological features;
geological features and wetlands ...’ (Defra 2003, pp.9-12). Agreement holders were
similarly bound not to ‘disturb the land by ploughing or other cultivation’, to minimise rolling
or chain harrowing for the sake of wildlife, not to modify or install new drainage systems
and to minimise poaching. Once an agreement was in place the project officer’s written
consent was needed to carry out any activity on the agreement land not specified in the
agreement. The examples given in the handbook include altering a building, constructing a
new road or yard, camping or caravanning, motor sports etc. None of these proscriptions
were designed with the historic environment particularly in mind, but they all enhance its
protection. Metal detecting is not permitted on sites of archaeological interest within land
managed under a Stewardship agreement (Defra 2003, p.16).
Among the landscape types and features targeted by the scheme were two of particular
import for the conservation of the historic environment. These were the Field Boundaries
option and the Historic Features option. Field boundaries included stone walls, hedgerows,
banks and ditches. They ‘reinforce local character through variations in field patterns and
management styles. They mark ancient boundaries and indicate past land uses and field
systems, and may be the oldest visible feature in the countryside … Some of these
traditional boundaries no longer have a functional role in farming and many have been
removed or neglected. They can be restored by management that follows traditional
practices, reflects local customs, uses local materials and is sensitive to wildlife and
landscape’ (Defra 2003, pp.31-2). Particular objectives and guidelines for the restoration of
field boundaries of any form, all of which have an impact on the historic environment, were
laid out in some detail in the CSS information pack. For example stone wall restoration
instructions include the following:
base courses or foundations should be left in place to mark the original line and
historic value;
as much of the original fabric should be maintained as possible;
traditional materials should be used;
restored walls must be finished with an appropriate coping, typical to the area;
wall furniture such as stiles, sheep creeps and folds should be retained and
restored.
55
In addition it was noted that ‘Some walls may be of archaeological or historical value, so
you should take advice from your county council (or National Park) archaeological officer
before including such work in a restoration plan’ (Defra 2003, p.34).
Historic features were another management area targeted by the scheme. National
objectives were to:
restore registered parklands;
conserve areas which demonstrate the history and development of the countryside;
preserve major earthworks such as hillforts;
restore historic irrigated water meadows;
conserve historic deer parks and wood pasture;
restore traditional farm buildings.
Each of these priority objectives was accompanied by guidelines and advice (Defra 2003,
pp.37-39). There was an emphasis on not only preserving features but making them
available to the general public through access, information and interpretation.
Figure 14 A typical Upland Survey map, detailing known historic environment information for a
Countryside Stewardship agreement; it is part of a suite of maps produced by the YDNPA covering
ecology, and the condition of field walls etc.
The uplands were designated a special landscape type and targeted by the CSS. They
were seen as important in terms of their historic land use. ‘Past management has created
a tapestry of varied habitats and landscapes including open heather moorland, flower-rich
meadows, walls and hedges, ghyll-woodlands and prehistoric field systems’ (Defra 2003,
p.49). The key to their future was seen to be low intensity farming and a reduction of
grazing across the board. The scheme’s objectives revolved mainly around measures to
restore and manage heather moorland, but also earmarked funds to:
56
conserve archaeological or historic features, such as strip lynchets and burial
mounds;
restore stone walls and hedgerows.
In upland areas such as the project area, an Upland Survey became obligatory in 1999, to
help identify features of existing environmental importance. This was frequently a desk
based collation of information rather than field exercise. Whether or not an applicant chose
the conservation of a historic feature as a management option, agreement holders were
obliged to ‘protect and maintain archaeological sites and other landscape features’ (Defra
2003, p.16).
Sources:
www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/css for the most up-to-date information on the
Countryside Stewardship Scheme.
Published sources included MAFF (1999) Countryside Stewardship Upland Survey Guide
for Applicants and Defra (2003) The Countryside Stewardship Scheme 2004 Information
and how to apply.
Internal sources at the YDNPA include the farm conservation records held at Colvend,
Grassington, where the documents relating to each farm holding and grouse estate within
an agri-environment scheme are kept. As land holdings belonging to a single owner or
tenant can exist on both sides of the National Park boundary, the information held covers a
buffer zone outside the Park. In effect this meant that all the information required for the
project area, bar a couple of fields, was accessible from internal sources. The files contain
information on particular management agreements e.g. heather management which were
arranged under the CSS.
2.2.2.22
Environmental Stewardship Scheme (ES)
Environmental Stewardship was introduced to replace ESA and CSS. It is applicable only
to England, and initial agreement lengths are for 5 years. Common land is eligible, but all
commoners must agree to the application. It aims to secure widespread environmental
benefits beyond the special areas designated as ESAs, and to encourage landowners
everywhere to manage the land in more environmentally sensitive ways. No farms in the
project area are currently (January 2007) entered into this scheme although there are
several applications in the pipeline; consequently although the field is present in the HLMC
database it is currently unused.
There are three levels of entry, all present in the value field for ES:
Entry Level Stewardship (ELS)
Organic Entry Level Stewardship (OELS)
Higher Level Stewardship (HLS)
Entry Level Stewardship (ELS)
Entry level is a ‘whole farm scheme’ open to all farmers and land managers, and its aim is
to encourage large numbers to enter the scheme. Its priorities are:
to improve water quality and reduce soil erosion;
improve conditions for farmland wildlife;
57
maintain and enhance landscape character;
protect the historic environment, including archaeological features and artefacts.
These are achieved through a series of options and attached management requirements
for which points were accrued – a basic minimum of points has to be achieved before the
application is accepted. Specific options for historic and landscape features (Defra 2005a,
p.34, pp.45-9) are the following (points acquired per hectare in brackets):
take archaeological features currently on cultivated ground out of cultivation (460);
reduce cultivation depth on land where there are archaeological features (60);
management of scrub on archaeological sites (120);
archaeological features on grassland (16).
There were also points for:
stone wall protection and maintenance (15 per 100m)
Options for historic and landscape features (Defra 2005a p.45) concentrated on getting
archaeological features out of arable cultivation. Preservation of archaeological features
under grassland accrues far fewer points on the assumption that the management regimes
in place for other environmental benefits on grassland should automatically benefit
archaeological remains e.g. proscriptions on the cultivation of permanent inbye grassland,
pasture and meadows. Traditional buildings and designated landscapes such as parkland
are recognised as giving local character and interest to the countryside, and beneficial
management is recommended, as these ‘help to retain and enhance the distinctive and
varied character of the countryside.’ Farmers are expected to check that all historic
features on their farm are marked on their Environmental Information Map, supplied by
RDS, including listed and unlisted traditional buildings, and add any that were not. In
addition there are other requirements which they are obliged to agree with under Good
Farming Practice, and these included a suite of conditions covering the protection of
historic features (Defra 2005a, pp.93-5). As well as proscriptions on ground disturbance,
sub-soiling and de-stoning, excessive deep ploughing, and the need to keep free-range
pigs off archaeological sites, there is an injunction not to remove building stone, walling
stone or traditional roofing material off the land (established quarries excepted) and not to
damage, demolish or remove stone from substantially complete ruined traditional farm
buildings or field boundaries. Stiles, gates, bridges and signs and their associated rights of
way are also to be maintained in good order.
Organic Entry Level Stewardship (OELS)
The requirements for this scheme are exactly the same for the historic environment as the
Entry Level Stewardship.
Higher Level Stewardship (HLS)
HLS aims to deliver significant environmental benefits in high priority situations and areas.
The five primary aims of HLS are:
wildlife conservation;
maintenance and enhancement of landscape quality and character;
natural resource protection;
protection of the historic environment;
58
promotion of public access and understanding of the countryside.
These agreements are designed to run for ten years, occasionally twenty. It is envisaged
that it will be rare for all of a landholding to be eligible for HLS, and far more common for
holdings to practice a mixture of ELS/OELS and HLS, combined into one agreement.
Applicants have to contribute to one or more of these primary objectives and the objectives
are turned into regional targets with specific goals. The English countryside has been
defined through 150 Joint Character Areas, and each area has priority targets for the
management of a variety of features. HLS funds are limited, particularly at the present
time, and how the scheme will work out on the ground is unclear at the moment (Defra
2005b, passim).
The project area lies within the Yorkshire Dales Joint Character Area (JCA 21). The JCAs
form the regional frameworks through which different areas of the country can establish
different priorities for Environmental Stewardship agreements in their region, in response
to local environmental and landscape issues arising out of current farming practises and
the inherited environment. These JCA targeting statements are developed by local RDS
offices throughout England and can change annually, although in practise they appear to
be stable. While biodiversity occupies much of the agenda, the historic environment can
also have a presence here. In the Yorkshire Dales maintenance of the traditional drystone
walls which form such a crucial part of the character of the area have been accepted as a
target priority, as have the conservation of archaeological features and structures in
farming and moorland landscapes and the conservation and restoration of traditional
farmsteads, associated farm buildings and features, field barns, industrial buildings and
features, as well as current and relict field systems and features.
All HLS applications must be supported by a Farm Environment Plan (FEP). This involves
identification and mapping of all features of environmental interest on a holding in such a
way that their condition is recorded. These include historic buildings, stone walls and
archaeological features, as well as biodiversity targets. Detailed management plans are
expected for complex historic landscapes like historic parkland and traditional buildings or
historic structure restoration. Plans may also be required for scrub and bracken
management, heath/moor burning, resource protection works or large scale boundary
network restoration, for which special funding is available through a Capital Works Plan.
Exceptionally, Special Projects are recognised as including work and expenses beyond
the usual, including the restoration of traditional buildings, and the restoration and
consolidation of archaeological features. There is a particular focus on farm buildings in
the countryside, and the maintenance of the character of a building is insisted upon if
funds are applied for its restoration, at least until the end of the term of the agreement.
Three alternatives were offered for many features, maintenance, restoration and creation
with priorities always in descending order i.e. maintenance first. The use of other
environmental options to protect historic features by default is an explicit aim of HLS:
‘Many HLS options are designed to help protect the historic environment through the
sustainable management of habitats and other environmental features’ (Defra 2005b,
p.42). General conditions applying to all HLS agreement land include the prohibition of
levelling, infilling, dumping of materials, the use of vehicles or machinery which may cause
rutting or compaction of the soil, use of the land for organised games or sports,
caravanning etc in areas likely to damage features of archaeological or historic interest,
metal detecting without the permission of Natural England (and not without a licence from
59
English Heritage on Scheduled Monuments (Defra 2005b, pp.53-4). Targeted priorities to
reduce soil erosion should also help preserve archaeology.
Land management options included the maintenance of ancient hedgerows, trees, wood
pasture and parkland all of which are aspects of the historic environment, albeit of a living
nature. Woodland management includes traditional practices such as grazing under trees
and coppicing, as well as tree planting and maintenance of boundaries and is targeted in
particular at small farm woodlands.
The specific historic environment options are weighted to the restoration of traditional
water environments. The priorities are:
arable reversion by natural regeneration;
crop establishment by direct drilling (non-rotational);
maintaining high water levels to protect archaeology;
the maintenance of designed/engineered water bodies;
maintenance of traditional water meadows;
restoration of traditional water meadows (Defra 2005b, pp.68-70).
These have limited application in upland areas, and the Moorland and Upland Rough
Grazing land management option is focussed on the restoration of moorland, maintenance
of rough grazing etc. Interestingly there is also a shepherding option which provides for the
management of livestock through shepherding to minimise damage to archaeological
sites, peat exposures, and soils made vulnerable by overgrazing. Moorland rewetting, may
include the blocking of moorland grips with concomitant benefits for organic archaeological
deposits.
Sources:
For JCA targeting priorities for the Yorkshire Dales see www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/pdfs/jcats/021
Defra (2005a) Environmental Stewardship Entry Level Stewardship Handbook
Defra (2005b) Environmental Stewardship Higher Level Stewardship Handbook
2.2.2.23
Date of Agreement
This is the start date of any agreement. Most agreements last ten years, and although
there is an opt-out clause for both parties after five for ESA and CSS it is rarely taken.
Sources:
Printed map MAFF 1998 Pennine Dales Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme Uptake
1992-1998 Maps 16 and 17 Swaledale and Arkengarthdale
Information on the date and length of agreements also came from internal YDNPA
sources, either the Farm records or MapInfo .tab files concerning the agreements.
All the below are check boxes in the HLMC database and refer to specific options agreed
upon within the relevant agri-environment scheme. It is envisaged that a similar series of
check boxes will be developed for Environmental Stewardship agreements as they come
to fruition.
60
ESA Farm Conservation Plan
ESA Walls
ESA Historic Structures
ESA Tree planting
CSS Heather management/enhancement
CSS Grazing management
CSS Bracken management
CSS Rabbit control
CSS Moorland Scrapes
These are referred to in CSS agreements, but not funded by them
CSS Grouse butt restoration/repair
CSS Track repair/creation
2.2.2.24
Type of Woodland
These are general categories to place the current woodland management within an
historic land management perspective.
Historic woodland: this includes all ‘Ancient woodland’ as defined by English
Nature i.e. woodland which is thought to have existed prior to1600, and also for the
purposes of the HLMC project woodlands known to have existed prior to the
twentieth century, excluding plantations.
Historic woodland with New planting: as above, but with new planting schemes
Historic plantation: this refers to woodlands (primarily conifer or beech) which are
known to have been planted prior to the twentieth century.
Historic plantation with New planting: as above, but with new planting schemes
Modern woodland: woodland planted during the course of the twentieth century
prior to the establishment of the ESA.
New planting: woodland which has been established since the 1980s under the new
agri-environment and woodland schemes
Sources:
Ancient woodland is the term used by English Nature (now Natural England) to describe
woodland thought to have existed at least since 1600 A.D. It is a non-statutory
designation, used to establish the historic status of woodland by environmental and
planning bodies. Digitised maps of the whole of England are available for download at
www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/gis/tech-aw.htm. It has to be remembered that the
minimum wood size adopted by English Nature for this designation is 2 hectares, and for
areas like the Yorkshire Dales where woods are frequently very small and fragmentary,
this means a certain lack of refinement in the data.
The YDNPA has copies of these for the National Park, and has developed its own MapInfo
.tab files for historic woodland and plantation which covered the project area.
Tithe maps are a good source of information on the presence of plantations, as many
appear to differentiate between woodland and plantation in the descriptions in the Tithe
Apportionment. This is certainly the case for the Swaledale area.
Places names are a further source of information, as ‘Plantation’ is frequently appended to
woodland names.
61
Modern woodland can be picked up through changes in land surface cover as recorded in
successive OS maps.
Information on new planting schemes came from a variety of sources. The Tree and
Woodland section of the YDNPA has a digital archive and MapInfo .tab files which were
referred to. Field visits to the project area were invaluable for identifying areas of new
planting, most (though not all) of which had an administrative history as they were funded
through various schemes (see below, section on woodland grant schemes)
2.2.2.25
Woodland Grant / Management body
This documents the principal woodland grant schemes and/or sponsoring and
management bodies which fund or have funded woodland planting. Most of the schemes
are dedicated to the same range of objectives – tree planting, rabbit control, repair of
woodland boundaries etc, and differences in actual funding body rarely have an obvious
differential effect on management, which is primarily environmental not commercial in the
project area. The Woodland Grant Scheme is now closed and its place is taken by the
English Woodland Grant Scheme.
Woodland Grant Scheme
Although this scheme has now ended, it was the channel through which much of the new
planting which is visible in the landscape today was funded. It was required that planting
schemes took into account the Scheme’s Guidance for the continued preservation of
historic features and archaeological remains.
Figure 15 New planting (middle centre) on Crackpot Side above Summer Lodge (SD 965 960) funded
by the Woodland Grant Scheme
English Woodland Grant Scheme
This is the new grant scheme administered by the Forestry Commission as a successor to
the Woodland Grant Scheme. There are six categories of woodland management grant
now available for the creation and stewardship of woodlands. There are several themes in
modern woodland management which are of particular interest from the management
point of view apart from the obvious one that planting woodland needs to be sensitively
managed in the vicinity of surviving elements of the historic environment. The grant
62
scheme focuses on promoting environmental benefits. Regeneration of woodland is
carried out through restocking at specified densities for different historic types of woodland
(on Ancient Woodland Sites the replanting of conifer woodlands is at over twice the density
of broadleaved woodlands at 2250 trees per hectare as opposed to 1100). Increasing
public access is now a high priority for woodlands receiving public grants and much higher
payments are available for this, especially new woodlands. The allocation of funding for
new woodlands is focused around regional targets. Cross compliance with a range of
legislation relating to the environment is expected and woodland must be kept in
accordance with Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition
As with other agri-environment schemes it is expected that historic features and
archaeological remains on land due to be planted be protected from damage, although the
leaflet specifically describing how best to deal with them issued free by the Forestry
Commission (Forests and archaeology guidelines (1995)) is not part of the otherwise
comprehensive EWGS grant pack. One of the grants available is the Woodland
Assessment Grant Guide, which targets funding for assessments of other dimensions to
woodland management. This includes Historic and Cultural Assessment, alongside
Ecological, Landscape design and Stakeholder interests. It is recognised that woodlands
and forests contain significant parts of the historic environment, not only the history of
woodland management but earlier land use. They list veteran trees, historic boundaries,
trackways, wood banks, evidence of charcoal production, as well as former settlement
sites, burial features and past industries. If funding for an Historic and Cultural Assessment
is accepted, the applicant is expected to undertake a desk-based assessment of existing
information, including data held in the relevant SMR/HER, and even local archives,
museums and record offices. The assessment must consider the effect of felling, coppicing
and restocking on historical and cultural features as well as the potential risk of
disturbance and damage arising from retaining trees on such features (Forestry
Commission 2005 EWGS3 Woodland Assessment Grant Guide pp.4-5).
English Nature sponsored the management and/or new planting of several areas of
moorland within SSSIs. One of these was a special area of juniper scrub, where fencing
and bracken control took place. Other sites were new planting in moorland gills.
The Woodland Trust is a national charity dedicated to the protection of native woodlands
throughout the UK. It now manages over 1000 woods nationwide and is a major player in
woodland protection, creation and management. Its main focus is the protection and
conservation of ancient woodland, but it states in its management principles that it will
identify and conserve the most important features of every site it owns, whether historical,
cultural or ecological. Their management of woodlands is highly public and transparent,
with information on woodland management principles and individual woodland plans being
available online to anyone, not just members of the Woodland Trust. However, the focus
appears to be more on the ecological and landscape value of woodland rather than the
historic dimension, and there is no elaboration of its management of the historic
environment within woodlands or on non-woodland sites which are being planted up, nor
discussion of the resources needed for their conservation or protection. For example, the
single woodland in their care in the project area contains structures of agricultural and
industrial origin, including a barn and lead levels, but they do not specify how these are
being conserved in their bespoke management plan. However, elsewhere in the YDNP
they have recently funded archaeological surveys prior to designing planting schemes in
order to plan for mitigation.
63
The Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust is a local trust established in 1996 and funded by
the YDNPA and other bodies (e.g. Millennium Commission, Heritage Lottery Fund). One of
its most highly profiled activities is to sponsor woodland and tree planting, and it has been
involved with over 25 projects throughout the Yorkshire Dales, mostly involving new
planting within or on the fringes of old woodland. While their involvement is local to the
Yorkshire Dales, many other parts of the country will have local charities and trusts
involved in similar work.
Woodland Management Agreement
Indicates the existence of a Woodland Management Agreement with the Yorkshire Dales
National Park Authority. There are about 25 active agreements in the Yorkshire Dales
National Park, and they run for 15 years. The aim is to protect and maintain broadleaved
woodlands in the National Park, primarily through providing funds for fencing, some infill
new planting and tree guards against rabbits and deer. These are monitored by the Trees
and Woodlands section of the YDNPA and Dales Volunteers.
Sources:
For information on the English Woodland Grant Scheme see their website at
www.forestry.gov.uk/ewgs. There is also a printed grant pack containing information on
currently available schemes. The Forestry Commission leaflet Forests and archaeology
guidelines (1995) is available free of charge from Forestry Commission Publications, PO
Box 25, Wetherby, West Yorkshire, LS23 7EW. Tel 0870 121 4180.
For information on The Woodland Trust see their website at www.woodland-trust.org.uk.
They have an online directory of woods in their care, which includes their site at Midge
Hole, Crackpot, near Reeth which is in the project area. The specific management regime
for each wood can be accessed.
For information on the activities of the Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust see their website
www.ydmt.org/ and follow links to Projects and Donate to the Dales.
2.2.2.26
Summary
This is a memo field containing the Management Profile of the particular polygon. It
features in the Management Profile of the Interactive Map.
64
2.3
Modern Land Management Types: Broad Types
Within the pilot project area nine Modern Land Management Types were identified. These
were:
Grouse Moor
Moorland Fringe
Pastoral Farming
Settlement
Woodland
Smallholding
Recreation
Ornamental
Water
Figure 16 HLMC Broad Types in the project area
65
2.3.1
Grouse Moor
Definition: Unenclosed moorland managed primarily for grouse shooting. Moorland is
defined as areas of unenclosed land where the predominant vegetation is a mixture of
heather, bracken, bilberry and rough grassland. The moorland may be grazed by sheep
and, in some areas, cattle.
Figure 17 Grouse butts on Reeth Low Moor (NZ 020 005), showing the variety of vegetation types
which can be found on moorland. Reeth Low Moor is part of the ancient common grazing grounds of
Reeth township, and the vegetative mosaic owes its richness and variety to this ancestral land use,
not to the far more recent land use for grouse moor management.
Grouse Moor forms the largest HLMC category by land mass in the project area. All the
unenclosed moorland is owned by grouse estates and intensively managed as shooting
moorland. They often form part of larger landholding companies or estates managed from
offices elsewhere in the country. In this it is typical of much of the heather moorland in this
part of the Pennines, although the Ministry of Defence and privatised water companies are
also big landowners beyond the project area.
Primary attributes HLMC Grouse Moor Broad Type
Ownership Type: Grouse Estate
Enclosure status: unenclosed land
Topography: upland or upper valley sides
Predominant vegetation/surface type: heather (mixed with bracken, rough grasses,
rushes etc) or lead tolerant species
CRoW: Open access
66
2.3.2
Moorland Fringe
Definition: large enclosures around the moorland edge which have not been improved
and/or are registered as allotment land
Figure 18 Allotment land along the moorland edge, Fremington Edge (NZ 040 000). It is common to
find evidence of former quarries along the moorland edge, though rarely to this extent. These are
mainly chert quarries, last operative in the 1950s.
While defining the major categories of modern land use, it became apparent that it was
worth investigating the creation of a separate HLMC Broad Type for enclosed fields found
in and around the edge of moorland. The land here tends to have had a different land use
and management history to that of the long enclosed inbye land in the valleys. The historic
picture is complex and the moorland edge is not a fixed line but has fluctuated throughout
history. The most recent changes have their origins in the Parliamentary enclosures of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when large tracts of previously open moorland, heath
and commons were enclosed. At different times in their history fresh efforts at reclamation
have been succeeded by new periods of reversion. While some of the newly enclosed land
was successfully improved and remains productive farm land today, much of it has
hovered on the edge of economic viability. It is highly visible in the landscape as
unimproved rough pasture with patches of bracken and heather, frequently dotted with
boulders and rocks, and often on steep upper slopes. It is these enclosures which today
locate the modern moorland fringe. Land in this category is likely to have a very different
future to the more intensively farmed and improved inbye land in the valleys below. It
should also be noted that some of the enclosed land along the moorland edge is owned by
grouse estates who actively promote the spread of heather within it for grouse
management purposes.
Primary attributes for the HLMC Moorland Fringe Broad Type
Ownership Type: Farm Business, Farm Business (E) or Grouse Estate
Enclosure status: Enclosed allotment
Topography: Upper valley sides or Upland
Predominant vegetation/surface type: Rough grassland or Heather
67
2.3.3
Pastoral Farming
Definition: land used as part of a farm business to raise grazing animals
Most of the enclosed fields are used as part of farm businesses to raise sheep and beef
cattle, or for dairy herds. This forms the largest HLMC Broad Type in terms of number of
polygons.
Figure 19 Typical hay and silage meadows with grazing pastures around Healaugh in Swaledale.
The light green of some fields shows where the crop has already been cut, and as can be seen in this
illustration it is not only valley bottom fields which are used in this way – the far hillside shows
where improved grassland in a moorland intake on Harkerside has been cut for silage.
Primary attributes for the HLMC Pastoral Farming Broad Type
Ownership Type: Farm Business, Farm Business (E)
Enclosure status: Enclosed inbye
Topography: Upper valley side or Lower valley side or Valley Bottom or Gillside
Predominant vegetation/surface type: Improved grassland or Pasture/meadow or
rough grassland
68
2.3.4
Settlement
Definition: land used for settlement
Figure 20 Lodge Green, Gunnerside; many of the properties here are now used as second or holiday
homes. There is pressure to reduce the visual impact of overhead lines by putting them
underground, although this has potentially damaging implications for archaeological deposits
Settlement is not a large category in terms of land coverage in this area, but there are
several different types. As is common in rural areas, most groups of residential buildings
are small and frequently intermixed with farm buildings. There is:
one key service centre (Reeth);
several small villages (Gunnerside, Grinton, Low Row and Feetham, Langthwaite,
Healaugh);
many more nucleated farming hamlets;
scattered settlement, often with buildings constructed on and around the edges of
former common land.
Primary attributes for the HLMC Settlement Broad Type
Ownership Type: Small Business(es), Private Individual(s), Farm Business, Farm
Business (E),
Predominant vegetation/land cover type: artificial, artificial/natural mix
There is a wide variety of Ownership Types, reflecting the diverse historic roots and
modern uses of settlement. As explained elsewhere, Ownership Types are partly based
on information, partly on observation and judgement. The predominant vegetation/land
cover attribute, originally just ‘artificial’ was extended to include ‘artificial/natural mix’ to
cater for the building patterns typical of settlements constructed on former common land.
69
2.3.5
Woodland
Definition: areas where trees and shrubs are the main vegetation
Figure 21 Horse Pasture Wood (centre) is a mature conifer plantation surrounding a mature
broadleaved woodland which is only partly natural in origin (SE 007 978); to the left is the SSSI
juniper forest at Slacks, and there is scattered new planting on the moorland higher up Browna Gill,
the stream which lies between them
Woodland does not cover a large percentage of the land in Swaledale, but what exists is
quite varied in woodland type and history.
Primary attributes for HLMC Woodland Broad Type
Ownership Type: Grouse Estates, Farm Business, Farm Business (E), Charity/Trust
Predominant vegetation/surface type: Broadleaf woodland, Coniferous woodland,
Mixed woodland, Wood pasture, Scrub
2.3.6
Smallholding
Definition: house with a handful of attached fields
This was a late addition to the HLMC Broad Types. It was added because it became
apparent that there were a couple of landholdings in the project area which did not fit in the
Pastoral Farming Broad Type, as they did not function as farms. The attached land will
often be rented out as farmland, or used as a paddock for horses or other animals.
Primary attributes for HLMC Smallholding Broad Type
Ownership Type: Private Individual
Predominant vegetation/surface type: Pasture/meadow
70
2.3.7
Recreation
Definition: land in use as recreation ground
Figure 22 This detail from an RAF vertical photograph taken in 1946 shows part of the flood plain of
the River Swale next to the wartime allotments which are now a permanent caravan site well
screened with trees. The field below them is now a playing field. (SE 039 987) © English Heritage
(NMR) 106G/UK/1421 15 April 1946.
There are only two areas defined as Recreation in the project area. These were playing
fields and a permanent caravan park. Into this category would also fit land uses such as
local sports club grounds (rugby, tennis, hockey etc), stadiums, golf courses, racecourses
etc. Temporary caravan and camping grounds are often located in places which are fields
for grazing and meadow most of the year, and have been subsumed into the Pastoral
Farming category. However, this does raise the question of the place of secondary land
use as a potential issue within HLMC, and as to how to accommodate this within the GIS
database. Farmers are being encouraged to diversify into activities which link into the
tourist industry, and land which is used primarily for farming may, at certain times of year,
regularly support other types of activities.
Primary attributes Recreation Broad Type
Ownership Type: Small business; local authority
Predominant vegetation/surface type: artificial/natural mix
71
2.3.8
Ornamental
Definition: land in use as garden and park land
There are only two areas defined as Ornamental in the project area. These are the
gardens attached to Scar House near Langthwaite in Arkengarthdale and the walled
garden at Draycott Hall, Fremington. There are obviously far more gardens than these in
the project area, but the 1 hectare cut-off point means that they are not eligible for the
Broad Type. There are no extensive park land designed landscapes in the project area.
Figure 23 Draycott Hall and gardens in Fremington (SE 990 047). Fremington is in the corner of four
maps, 1:2500 County series. 2nd edition, Yorkshire (North Riding) XXXVII.15 and 16 (1912); LII.3
(1912); LIII.1 (1929).
Primary attributes for the HLMC Ornamental Broad Type
Enclosure status: n/a
Predominant vegetation/surface type: artificial/natural mix
Ownership Type: Private individual
2.3.9
Water
Definition: riverine drainage systems, lakes and reservoirs
There are two main rivers in the project area, the River Swale and Arkle Beck, both of
which have their own polygons. Tributary becks were not polygonised. There are no lakes
or reservoirs in the project area.
Primary attribute for HLMC Water Broad Type
Predominant vegetation/surface type: water
72
2.4
Modern Land Management Types: HLMC Sub Types
2.4.1
The development of Sub Types
All the schemes and designations referred to in the section below have already been
described at length in the Method Statement: Designing the database (Sections 2.1 and
2.2). Certain issues are recapped and/or expanded here where they were of relevance to
the development of the Sub Types. Sub Types are discussed here in a more general
manner, keeping the locally distinctive Swaledale landscape in the background in so far as
is possible, as the particularities of the Sub Types within the project area are discussed in
the section on HLMC Types and their expression in the pilot project area.
Figure 24 HLMC Sub Types in the project area
In designing the Sub Types the basic method used was to decide which agri-environment
schemes, environmental designations, planning policy guidelines etc. within a Broad Type
category had major implications for the historic environment and then ‘ring the changes’
with them. For example, within the Grouse Moor Broad Type four major schemes and
designations were identified as significant – Countryside Stewardship, SSSIs, common
land and open access land; to capture all permutations of these on the ground seven Sub
Types had to be created. At the other end of the scale several Broad Types have two or
fewer categories. Ornamental and Water Broad Types have only one Sub Type each and
there is patently much potential expansion latent in these if applied to other environments.
73
Table 2. Summary of HLMC Sub Types
HLMC
Broad HLMC Sub
Type
Type Code
Grouse Moor
GM1
GM2
GM3
GM4
GM5
GM6
GM7
Moorland
Fringe
MF1
MF2
MF3
MF4
MF5
Pastoral
Farming
MF6
PF1
PF2
PF3
PF4
PF5
PF6
Settlement
PF7
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
Woodland
W1
Summary of HLMC Sub Type
Grouse Moor + CRoW
Grouse Moor + CRoW + CSS agreement
Grouse Moor + CRoW + SSSI
Grouse Moor + CRoW + SSSI + Common Land
Grouse Moor + CRoW + SSSI + CSS agreement
Grouse Moor + CRoW + Common Land + CSS
agreement
Grouse Moor + CRoW + SSSI + Common Land +
CSS agreement
Moorland Fringe in no agreement
Moorland Fringe Allotment in ESA agreement
Moorland Fringe Allotment in ESA agreement +
SSSI
Common Land
SSSI + Common Land
Moorland Fringe + CSS agreement
Pastoral Farming in no agreement
Pastoral Farming + ESA agreement + Improved
Grassland (Tier 1A)
Pastoral Farming + ESA agreement + Higher Tier
Pastoral Farming + ESA agreement + Improved
Grassland (Tier 1A) + Farm Conservation Plan
+ Farm Conservation Plan
+ Common Land
Pastoral Farming + CSS agreement
National Park + Public buildings and spaces +
Key Service Centre or Service Village +
Conservation Area
National Park + Residential and other use + Key
Service Centre or Service Village + inside
Conservation Area
National Park + Key Service Centre or Service
Village + outside Conservation Area
National Park + Small Village + outside
Conservation Area
National Park + Countryside + Conservation Area
National Park + Countryside + outside
Conservation Area
Outside the National Park (Richmondshire) +
AGLV
Established woodland
74
W2
W3
Smallholding
Ornamental
Recreation
Water
2.4.2
SM1
SM2
O1
R1
R2
WA1
Established woodland + management agreement
Newly planted woodland + management
agreement
Smallholding not in agri-environment scheme
Smallholding + ESA agreement
Private Country House Garden (Unlisted)
Playing Fields
Caravan Park (Permanent)
Riverine drainage system
Grouse Moor
Primary attributes for HLMC Grouse Moor Sub Types
Grouse Moor Sub Types were developed according to:
the existence of Common Land rights;
whether or not the land is registered as open Access Land under the Countryside and
Rights of Way Act (2000);
the agri-environment scheme in operation (if any);
whether or not the land has SSSI status.
Grouse Moor Sub Types established are:
GM1 Grouse Moor + CRoW
GM2 Grouse Moor in a Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS) + CRoW
GM3 Grouse Moor, designated SSSI + CRoW
GM4 Grouse Moor, designated SSSI and Common Land + CRoW
GM5 Grouse Moor, designated SSSI and in CSS + CRoW
GM6 Grouse Moor, designated Common Land and in CSS + CRoW
GM7 Grouse Moor, designated SSSI and Common Land and in CSS + CRoW
The management regimes on the Grouse Moors are more complex than the relative
openness and apparent simplicity of the habitat suggests. Moorland is actually subject to a
wide array of activities and outside pressures. Some of these are historic: much of the
moorland around Swaledale is common land and appears to have been for all its recorded
history. This is a pattern of land use which is found throughout the country and is likely to
be a frequent defining attribute. The common land rights involved are varied, and range
from peat and turf cutting and collecting firewood to grazing animals. Grazing remains a
major activity within the project area, with many local farmers having ‘gaits’ or ‘stints’ on
the moor. Control of grazing on the moors has become a major management issue in
recent years, as the CAP encouraged farmers to carry large numbers of stock and
extensively graze them on the uplands, with consequences for the vegetation and grouse
population. Any agri-environment scheme applied for has had to take common land
grazing rights into account and this will become more significant under the Environmental
Stewardship rules, where every common land grazier will have to sign up to an agreement
for it to become operable.
CRoW (2000) introduced public right of access to all Registered common land, open
country and dedicated land. This includes all unenclosed uplands, excluding ‘excepted
land’. This is potentially a major change in land use and management, though its
75
implications for the historic environment are not as yet quantifiable. It is a defining attribute
for HLMC Grouse Moor Sub Types, although it is not a distinguishing attribute in the pilot
project area because all grouse moors in the area are open Access Land.
Figure 25 Harkerside Moor (foreground) is a SSSI, open Access Land and in a Countryside
Stewardship Scheme agreement, but is not Common land (GM5)
The principal agri-environment scheme open to owners of moorland was the Countryside
Stewardship Scheme. This scheme is now closed to new applications, but it will be
operative until 2012. Through this scheme grouse estates were able to apply for funds to
undertake numerous kinds of management activities. These all revolve around activities to
promote grouse shooting, particularly the restoration and positive management of heather.
Grants were also available for bracken management, wall repair and rabbit control
(potentially with positive benefits to the historic environment, although the latter option was
rarely taken up); agreements could also involve the creation of grouse butts, moorland
scrapes, track repairs and extensions, tree planting (potentially with negative impact on the
historic environment). However, apart from the specific management activities agreed
upon through the CSS scheme, the successful applicant was obliged to conserve all
historic features in their current condition. How far this is followed in practice varies on the
ground. For all these reasons the presence of a CS agreement on grouse moor has been
developed as a defining attribute of the HLMC Grouse Moor Sub Types.
Moorland SSSIs are frequently land extensive and cover many hectares. Although the
management of the historic environment is not within the remit of SSSIs, many of the
proscription and prescriptions entailed by this particular land management designation
have implications for its conservation or otherwise, as explained in the section above on
Database methodology (2.2.2.17). The presence or absence of SSSI designation is
already a pivotal issue in the prioritisation of applications and allocation of funds for the
76
new Environmental Stewardship agreements. For these reasons the designation of land as
a SSSI became another defining attribute for the Grouse Moor Broad Type.
2.4.3
Moorland Fringe
Primary attributes for HLMC Moorland Fringe Sub Types
Moorland Fringe Sub Types were developed according to:
whether or not the land has SSSI status;
the existence of Common Land rights.
Moorland Fringe Sub Types established are:
MF1 Moorland Fringe in no scheme
MF2 Moorland Fringe Allotment in ESA agreement
MF3 Moorland Fringe Allotment in ESA designated a SSSI
MF4 Moorland Fringe Allotment in ESA, designated Common Land
MF5 Moorland Fringe Allotment in ESA, designated Common Land and SSSI
MF6 Moorland Fringe in CSS
Figure 26 Low Row Pasture, Swaledale (SD 970 985) is the large enclosure in the top half of the
photograph. It is characterised as HLMC Broad Type Moorland Fringe, Sub Type 5 © NMR SD
9797/1/442 7 July 1971
As with the Grouse Moor Sub Types it was decided to give weight to the presence of other
schemes and designations on this land. Consequently a suite of Sub Types was
77
developed around the Moorland Fringe Allotment in ESA, to cover the presence of SSSI
status, common land status and both. One designation which has not been catered for
within the characterisation procedure is CRoW. Some of the allotment land is open Access
Land and some is not, and this is documented in the Check box for this field i.e. the
information is there for management purposes, but not integrated in the Sub Types for
Moorland Fringe. This may be something which future projects would prefer to integrate,
but it was felt it would multiply the number of possible Sub Types for marginal land to an
unnecessary extent.
Further Sub Types were developed in reference to allotment land outside the ESA
boundaries. Some of this land was in the CSS, and some was in no agri-environment
scheme. By chance none of it was common land or SSSI, but had it been further Sub
Types would be developed.
2.4.4
Pastoral Farming
Primary attributes for HLMC Pastoral Farming Sub Types
Pastoral Farming Sub Types were developed according to:
whether or not the land was farmed as Improved Grassland (Tier 1A) or a higher tier;
whether or not the farm had drawn up a Farm Conservation Plan.
Pastoral Farming Sub Types established are:
PF1 Pastoral Farming in no agreement
PF2 Pastoral Farming, ESA agreement, Improved Grassland (Tier 1A)
PF3 Pastoral Farming, ESA agreement, Higher Tier
PF4 Pastoral Farming, ESA agreement, Improved Grassland (Tier 1A) with a
Farm Conservation Plan
PF5 Pastoral Farming, ESA agreement, Higher Tier with a Farm Conservation
Plan
PF6 Pastoral Farming, ESA agreement, Higher Tier, Common Land
PF7 Pastoral Farming in CSS agreement
The defining attributes for the Pastoral Farming category revolve around which agrienvironment scheme the holding belonged to (if any), how the land was being farmed and
how the farm infrastructure (barns and walls in particular) was being maintained.
Potentially those farms which have no agreement are freer to carry out land improvements
than those in ESA or CSS agreements, providing they comply with extant environmental
legislation. In practice it seems that farms which have not entered any agri-environment
scheme are mainly run along traditional lines by independent minded farmers who prefer
to work free of additional government led constraints or who are unable, perhaps for age
or educational reasons, to access the schemes. However they are run it is important they
are kept in a separate category because there is usually less information available in the
public sphere about these particular farm holdings.
It was decided that the presence of Improved Grassland (Tier 1A) on a farm should
become a defining attribute of that parcel of land. As discussed above (see Section
2.2.2.21.1) it is more intensively managed than other types of pastoral land, and this has
implications for the state of preservation of archaeology. Another factor which separates it
78
from other types of grassland is that rabbits, whose burrows are one of the major cause of
destruction of archaeological deposits in the Pennine dales, do not flourish here as much
as elsewhere. The reasons can only be guessed at, but there are probably a combination
of factors – more intensive rabbit control, destruction of burrow entrances through the
cultivation process, dislike by the rabbits of grass monoculture as a habitat, and dislike of
faster growing grass etc.
Figure 27 Most of Swaledale within the ESA is under agreement, though some farm holdings remain
independent of the scheme
All the grassland tiers apart from Tier 1A have been put together to form a different
defining attribute for the Pastoral Farming HLMC Type, as they are protected by the terms
of the ESA agreements from various interventions which could disturb archaeology.
It was also decided that the participation of a farm in a Farm Conservation Plan should
become a defining attribute, as this had implications for the structural condition of the
historic environment on the holding. A Farm Conservation Plan was optional and could
target conservation work other than for the historic fabric of a farm, but renovation of field
barns and to a lesser extent other traditional farm buildings was a popular option. This
category also covers holdings which received a grant through the Wall Renovation
Scheme to reinstate or repair walls in a poor condition.
Farms in the Countryside Stewardship Scheme have their own suite of proscriptions and
incentives to protect historic features.
2.4.5
Settlement
Primary attributes for HLMC Settlement Sub Types
Settlement Sub Types were developed according to:
79
whether or not it is in the National Park;
whether or not the land is predominantly commercial and/or public buildings or spaces,
or whether it is predominantly residential in character;
whether or not it is in a Conservation Area;
how the settlement is designated in the YDNP Local Plan 2006 or the Richmondshire
District Council Local Plan.
Figure 28 Reeth is the largest settlement in the project area, and despite its small size has three
HLMC Settlement Sub Types (S1, S2, S3) to cover the presence of Conservation Area status and the
mix of public and/or private buildings and spaces (YDP268_23)
Settlement Sub Types established are:
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
2.4.6
NP + Public buildings and spaces, Key Service Centre or Service Village in
Conservation Area
NP + Mixed residential and other use, Key Service Centre or Service Village
in Conservation Area
NP + Mixed residential and other use, Key Service Centre or Service Village
outside Conservation Area
NP + Small Village outside Conservation Area
NP + Countryside inside Conservation Area
NP + undesignated village outside Conservation Area
Outside the NP (Richmondshire + AGLV (Area of Great Landscape Value)
Woodland
Primary attributes for HLMC Woodland Sub Types
Woodland Sub Types were developed according to:
whether or not it is an established woodland or newly planted;
whether or not there is a management agreement.
80
Woodland Sub Types established are:
W1
W2
W3
Established woodland
Established woodland + management agreement
Newly planted woodland + management agreement
Figure 29 New planting in established woodland at Eskeleth (W2) (centre); woodland was denser in
this area a hundred or more years ago
2.4.7
Smallholding
Primary attributes for HLMC Smallholding Sub Types
Smallholding Sub Types were developed according to:
whether or not the land was under an agri-environment scheme.
Smallholding Sub Types established are:
SM1 Smallholding not in an agri-environment scheme
SM2 Smallholding with land in ESA agreement
Entry into an agri-environment scheme is not dependent on the size of a land holding and
the way the new Environmental Stewardship scheme has been structured positively
encourages non-farm business land holders to apply to join. Consequently it is likely the
Smallholding HLMC Broad and Sub Types may expand considerably in future.
81
Figure 30 The house in the shadow of the trees is Park Hall; this, with its adjacent field, is
categorised as a Smallholding (SM1)
2.4.8
Recreation
Primary attributes for HLMC Recreation Sub Types
Recreation Sub Types were developed according to:
the type of activity;
the type of ownership (Small business, Local Authority etc).
Recreation Sub Types established are:
R1 Playing Fields
R2 Caravan Park (Permanent)
There are only two polygons within this HLMC Broad Type, in two different Sub Types.
Obviously this limits the chance to develop this HLMC class although it is easy to forecast
a broader range of Sub Types (e.g. local sports club grounds (rugby, tennis, hockey etc),
stadiums, golf courses, racecourses, caravan and camping ground (temporary) etc. As this
HLMC Type is developed elsewhere it may be necessary to introduce more classes of
ownership e.g. private club or society.
2.4.9
Ornamental
Primary attributes for HLMC Ornamental Sub Types
Ornamental Sub Types were developed according to:
ownership status (Private Individual or Charity/Trust or Local Authority etc);
82
whether or not the garden is in the Register of Parks and Gardens.
Ornamental Sub Types established are:
O1
Private Country House Garden (Unlisted)
Given the 1 hectare cut-off point only large gardens or parks register at the scale at which
HLMC operates. As it worked out there are only two polygons within this HLMC Broad
Type, and they have both been put in the same Sub Type (Private Country House Garden
(Unlisted). A wider range of ornamental types is needed before this category can be fully
developed, although it is not hard to envisage what they might be: municipal gardens and
parks, botanical gardens, arboretums, allotments, institution gardens (e.g. gardens
surrounding ex-country houses which have become schools, study centres etc), gardens
owned and run by trusts and charities etc. Decisions will have to be made over how to
incorporate Registration into the Sub Types e.g. should there be a separate category (O2)
for Private Country House Garden (Registered Garden) and for every subsequent Sub
Type or should Registration be seen as a background variable separate from the HLMC
Type?
2.4.10
Water
Primary attributes for HLMC Water Sub Types
Water Sub Types were developed according to:
ownership status: (various, Charity/Trust etc);
type of water: drainage system, water supply, natural lake etc.
Water Sub Types established are:
WA1
Riverine Drainage Area
There are only two polygons within this HLMC Broad Type, and they both belong to the
same Sub Type. A wider range of water types is needed before this category can be fully
developed, and it is envisaged it would cover reservoirs, natural lakes etc.
83
2.5
The accommodation of previous historic land use and management
within the HLMC GIS database
Originally the project design (Appendix 1) envisaged the incorporation of previous land
management types, specifically referring to the 1941-3 National Farm Survey and 1940’s
RAF vertical air photo coverage. Other historic archives which were listed as sources for
the HLMC project included the Tithe Apportionment maps, enclosure maps, estate maps,
the 1910-15 Valuation Office Survey, the Land Utilisation Survey (1930s), the Second
Land Utilisation Survey (1960s).
All of these sources were accessed and assessed for usefulness with reference to the
projects aims. These assessments are stored in Sources (Appendix 2), and while some of
them were not ultimately used for the project for a variety of reasons they are included to
help future researchers. To properly look at and utilise unpublished archive material takes
time, and in the time scale available it was only possible to skim the surface of most
historical records for the project area. There was, however, an important exception to this
which is discussed below (2.5.1).
Previous historic land use does not necessarily lie easily and neatly within the modern land
use and management boundaries as defined by the HLMC polygons. For example,
attempts were made to incorporate information on land use from the time of the Tithe
Apportionment, particularly whether or not a field was being used for arable agriculture at
the time, as this was thought to be important information with implications for the inherited
state of archaeological remains. This involved the insertion of several dozen extra
polygons to cater for one specific source of information illuminating a single point in time.
The implications for absorbing limitless examples of historic land use information are
obvious: the HLMC GIS database would become fragmented, insuperably complex and
ultimately overloaded. The polygons defining these arable fields were kept, as they had
already been completed, but the idea of incorporating previous historic land use and
management within the HLMC database was abandoned. Another approach would be to
have successive ‘previous character’ fields for the polygons, and this was started in the
early months of the project but abandoned due to lack of time and insufficiency of data,
with an unequal spread of information available. There is also the concern that it may be
duplicating aspects of the current HLC programme. Modern land use and management
became its only focus, and other ways of attaching the past to it were explored.
2.5.1
An Alternative method - GIS overlays
Even a brief analysis of the Tithe Apportionment maps reveals a wealth of information
which is of great interest and relevance in terms of understanding historic land
management better. A series of MapInfo overlays were developed to capture some of the
differences between the project area as it was portrayed in the 1839-43 surveys and
today. Layers were developed for boundary loss, field barn loss (not barns in farmsteads
as these were difficult to distinguish from farmhouses), and the extent of woodland and
arable. As independent MapInfo layers they can be overlaid over the project area with
ease and the differences compared both by eye and specifically calculated e.g. the
number of barns lost between the 1840s and today can be quantified, as can the amount
of boundary loss in the enclosed fields.
84
The system of overlays was extended, and two further reference points established for
comparison. These were the available Ordnance Survey 1:2500 maps and associated
revisions published at various dates in the early twentieth century (mainly 2nd edition,
c1912), and the RAF vertical air photographs taken in 1946 (those available were
restricted to Swaledale, no cover was located for most of Arkengarthdale). In this manner it
was possible to establish field boundary and barn loss between the Tithe maps and the
early twentieth century, and then between the early twentieth century and 1946 (Swaledale
only). The surprising results are set out in the Applications section.
The boundaries of the farms as laid out by the 1941-3 National Farm Survey have also
been digitised as an independent MapInfo .tab file. Although in arable regions the crop
was often specified within the fields, this was not the case for the pastures and meadows
of Swaledale. However, comparisons between ownership patterns sixty years ago and
today are of interest and show substantial amalgamation of farms. They also indicate how
the dispersed nature of holdings which was commonplace in the 1940s is still influencing
patterns of land ownership today.
85
2.6
Assessment of the Condition and Stability of the Historic
Environment
2.6.1
Sources: Uses and limitations
A principal requirement of the project design was the production of an interactive and
interrogable database combining data relating to land management character ‘along with
data on the physical remains of the historic environment, their condition and stability’
(Project Design 2.1). This section covers the identification of a variety of potentially useful
sources concerning the condition and stability of the historic environment, and examines
how their usefulness was assessed for the purposes of the HLMC pilot project.
In general, available data on current condition and stability was limited. Sourcing condition
information from the past was difficult as was establishing a methodology through which
such information as was available could be directly compared to the current condition of
the historic environment.
This led to the development of a radically different approach to the problem of how to
assess the physical condition and stability of the historic environment in relation to the
different types of modern land use and management which forms the main focus of the
project. This approach revolves around using characterisation methodology to develop
Management Profiles for Modern Land Use and Management (Broad and Sub Types) as
developed in the HLMC database.
A wide range of both visual and documentary sources was consulted in the course of this
pilot project. Some, such as the RAF 1946 vertical aerial photographs, have nearnationwide coverage and any subsequent HLMC project could make use of exactly the
same type of material. Others, like the Historic Environment Record which in the Yorkshire
Dales National Park uses the exeGesIS HBSMR (Historic Buildings and Sites and
Monuments Record) software linked to a MapInfo GIS, will have an equivalent elsewhere
even if different software packages are used. The project has also made use of datasets
which are specific to the National Park. While these will not be of immediate applicability
outside of the YDNP, the methods used to adapt these databases to fit in with a
standardised approach to categorising condition and stability trends may be relevant.
The most useful datasets were:
Aerial photographs
HER HBSMR GIS database
Buildings at Risk (BAR) reports for Listed Buildings which in the YDNP are partly
incorporated into the HER
Monuments at Risk Survey (MARS) reports
Individual site reports created at different times for different purposes such as
research or a product of mitigation schemes
Use and Condition Survey database for the Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Barns
and Walls Conservation Area – a bespoke Access database created to assist in
targeting grant aid to barns in the conservation area.
86
2.6.1.1
Aerial photographs
The YDNPA has a large aerial photograph collection which includes both oblique and
vertical photographs. All available sets of vertical photographs, including the late 1940s
RAF series were examined at the NMR, Swindon and scanned copies of selected images
acquired for the project (Appendix 2).
Oblique Photographs
The advantages of oblique photographs include
• Comparability - Some sites and landscapes have been photographed several times
over the years and comparative material is therefore available
• Scale - Prints may cover a relatively small area (compared to verticals) and show
the landscape in considerable detail
The disadvantages of using them to assess condition and stability are
• They are often taken from different angles
• They can be taken in different lighting conditions
• Coverage is far from comprehensive
Figure 31 Example from the YDNPA collection of oblique aerial photographs. These are lead mining
hushes on Low Moor above Booze in Arkengarthdale (NZ 018 032) ANY 268/34 25.9.1986
Vertical photographs
Access to vertical aerial photographs which go back to 1946 has been important in
enabling an overview of the stability of the main infrastructure of the historic environment.
There are inevitable problems and limitations:
87
Coverage: Arkengarthdale and its surrounding moorland does not appear to have
any RAF coverage in 1946, one of the most significant lacunae for this project
Quality: both technical (height from which the aerial photographs were taken) and
physical (cloud cover, time of year, angle of sun etc)
Accessibility: collections of original aerial photographic prints may be held in more
than one location or media which may make direct comparison difficult or require the
use of copies with consequent loss of quality and definition
Interpretative problems: more recent vertical aerial photographic coverage is in colour
rather than black and white, and there are interpretative problems associated with
comparing the two.
Time factor: to get the best out of verticals, the stereoscope has to be used. This is a
time consuming process if large areas and hundreds of sites are to be examined, and
the results from different chronological suites of photographs compared.
Aerial photographic interpretation and plotting is a specialist skill which requires training
and experience to develop. However, several important general assessments concerning
the historic environment can be made from rapid examination of the photographs. In the
list below a general observation is made, and then examples from the project area
referred to.
Significant changes in the road and track network are easy to assess
the network is almost unchanged, except on the moorland where track
upgrading and extension has occurred
Settlement patterns can be observed
they have hardly altered at all, although the outskirts of Reeth have expanded
Field boundary change can be monitored
loss has occurred, but in a relatively minor way compared to other parts of the
country; the condition of field walls in 1946 appears to be relatively stable and
good in all parts of the project area, although this judgement is made at the
limits of observable detail on the RAF verticals. Three or four decades later
walls appeared to be in less good condition
Major changes to the condition of individual field barns and other buildings can be
monitored – it can be established whether or not a building or structure has vanished,
collapsed or become roofless
there is an overall trend of incremental loss and deterioration in field barns in
particular during the second half of the twentieth century, which has slowed
down since the 1980’s;
structures associated with the lead industry appear to have suffered their
greatest losses through robbing out of masonry prior to 1946. This process can
be traced through maps and photographs. However, incremental loss and
collapse continues.
The collapse and loss of particular features can be noted if the quality of the
aerial photographs is good enough – e.g. individual limekilns, loss of lead spoil
heaps etc.
The development of woodland, either through new planting or changes in the density
of arboreal cover can be easily monitored.
An interesting example is the area around and including Rowleth Wood near
Gunnerside, where a trend from wood pasture to woodland can be discerned,
between 1946 and today.
88
New planting schemes are particularly easy to spot on colour aerial
photographs
The condition and stability of earthworks in pasture or meadow can be followed to
some extent.
Aerial photographs indicate general good-fair condition, with an accelerating
loss of definition in certain areas in the last couple of decades of the C20th,
presumed to be due to the cultivation methods used to “improve” grassland.
Figure 32 Detail of Gunnerside Bottoms (SD 955 980) from a scanned RAF vertical aerial photograph
© English Heritage (NMR) 106G/UK/1421 15 April 1946
However, there are limitations to the use of vertical aerial photographs to identify condition:
Buildings: While aerial photographs can show the condition and presence or indeed
absence of a roof, they have severe limitations when it comes to assessing the
condition and stability of any other aspect of a building such as structural cracks or
internal detail. The Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme Project Officers
experimented with the use of aerial photographs as a means of assessing the
condition of barns for the Use and Condition Survey. This was not successful and the
laborious task of surveying all the traditional farm buildings in the Barns and Walls
Conservation Area was undertaken instead.
Archaeological sites: The use of vertical aerial photographs to plot the existence of
archaeological features has a long pedigree. However, using them to assess the
condition and stability of archaeological remains and plot them over time is a more
complex and difficult task. Photographs used for comparative purposes are rarely
taken under directly comparable light conditions at similar times of year and day and
information regarding ground conditions at the time of photography is rarely available.
89
Landscape Features: The detail visible on small scale vertical aerial photographs is
rarely sufficient to identify minor gaps or slumping of walls while the height of a
hedge, for example, is not necessarily an indication of condition – well maintained
hedges may be heavily cut back during the laying process but this may be almost
indistinguishable from severe mechanical trimming as a prelude to grubbing.
Coppicing may be indistinguishable from felling.
2.6.1.2
Historic Environment Record - HBSMR data
The YDNPA’s HER exeGesIS HBSMR database was the largest GIS database available
for consultation. It is the ‘workhorse’ of the YDNPA Archaeology section, where
information on all aspects of the historic environment is (or will be) stored. Despite its
comprehensive remit there are major problems and issues surrounding the use of the HER
for assessing condition and stability trends, the main one being the almost complete lack
of data relating such information.
There is very little condition and stability assessment data within the HBSMR monitoring
and Buildings at Risk (BAR) modules. HBSMR holds different modules according to
whether an entry is for a monument (a conventional archaeological site) or a building, a
limitation accentuated by the lack of condition information collected or recorded by early
contributors to the HER or to the data sources which underpin it. As more and more farms
enter Environmental Stewardship as a result of survey for Farm Environment Plans (FEPs)
more condition and stability information will be acquired. Assessing what is present on a
holding and its current condition forms an integral part of the FEP process, and data is
constantly being added on farms within the pilot project area, principally by YDNPA staff.
In the meantime there are only a couple of dozen entries on condition and stability trends,
out of a database of several thousand records. The YDNPA HER is unlikely to be unique
in this.
A further problem is that many aspects of the historic environment are grossly underrepresented in the HER for the project area. This is in part an outcome of the history of the
development of the YDNPA HER which like many HERs followed a trajectory based on
initial incorporation of the Ordnance Survey Archaeology Division records into a countybased Sites and Monuments Record supplemented by local authority field work.
Archaeological records for the Yorkshire Dales received a major boost with the completion
of the RCHME Yorkshire Dales Project in 1991 which incorporated an analysis of the 1st
edition OS 6” maps, an analysis of aerial photographs (a pilot for the National Mapping
Programme) and an assessment of the English Place Name Society county volumes. The
SMR, now known as the HER, was formally adopted by the YDNPA in September 1995. It
has continued to be added to as a result of YDNPA activity and private fieldwork. Listed
Building information was added in 1999 but as yet there has been no systematic
incorporation of non-listed buildings despite their importance in the Yorkshire Dales
landscape, while much of the aerial survey based information has not been verified on the
ground.
A particular gap within the YDNPA HER for the project area is a lack of data on historic
field boundaries. Technically historic maps form part of the HER so walls and other
boundaries recorded on them are included within the HER but there are no detailed
descriptions for walls within the project area, although a small but important study of walls
in Gunnerside Gill (just outside the project area) by Tom Lord was examined. Wall surveys
90
have been commissioned by the YDNPA and the National Trust for land holdings
elsewhere within the Yorkshire Dales while some previous overviews such as the
Countryside Commission’s Monitoring Landscape Change project have used aerial
photographs in an attempt to ascertain details about wall condition.
Figure 33 Distribution of buildings recorded in the HBSMR in the project area. The isolated blue
spots on the moorlands indicate buildings associated with the lead mining industry; the red area is
the extent of the Upper Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls Conservation Area
2.6.1.3
Buildings at Risk Surveys
The Buildings at Risk (BAR) survey data was invaluable for helping to establish condition
and stability trends of Listed Buildings. There are two BAR surveys which cover the project
area (1991 and 2003) and are archived at the YDNPA. Like all surveys there are problems
with using the data for a purpose for which it was not originally collected. The ‘at risk’
assessment was based on external viewing only, and little additional detail was recorded.
Only primary list entries were surveyed, not any curtilage structures. The 1991 survey
used an external contractor for survey and a separate typist for later data entry onto a
database – the accuracy of this data-entry appears not to have been checked and initial
analysis shows that some records are incorrect. Photographs taken at the time of the 1991
survey provide a contemporary record. The 2003 survey used the Dales Volunteers. Data
was subject to sample verification and entered by a historic environment specialist. A
particular feature of the 2003 survey was a request to note the presence of UPVC
windows. However the very fact that the buildings surveyed are Listed and subject to some
external control over works which alter their character (even though this is not always
understood or adhered to by owners and application and enforcement by the planning
91
authority has varied over time) does mean that Listed Buildings are not necessarily
representative of the vernacular and historic building resource.
Figure 34 Listed buildings in the HBSMR shown against the HLMC Broad Types
2.6.1.4
Monuments at Risk Survey
YDNPA initiated a Monument at Risk survey (MARS) in 2005, again using Dales
Volunteers and members of local societies to visit and assess the condition of all publicly
accessible scheduled monuments in the National Park. The methodology was based on
the English Heritage regional sample survey. A number of individual site reports were
consulted in the course of the project. Many of them provide insight into the general state
of the historic environment, as well as details about particular monuments.
2.6.1.5
Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme and the Use and Condition Survey
Field barns make a very significant contribution to the special qualities and distinctive
character of the Yorkshire Dales. The Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls
Conservation Scheme (BWCS) was designated by the Yorkshire Dales National Park
Authority in 1989 and operative until 2001. It was the first large rural conservation area in
England, shortly followed by a similar scheme in Littondale in 1992. The new scheme
resulted in part from the recognition that payments and incentives within the ESA scheme
were inadequate as a means of preventing the continued deterioration of field barns and,
to a lesser extent, enclosure walls. Designation was followed by the creation of a
Conservation Area Partnership agreement with English Heritage, which enabled the
YDNPA to provide up to 80% grants to farmers and landowners for the consolidation and
repair of field barns and walls. The Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Conservation Area
boundary differed in places from that of the Pennine Dales ESA, and excluded some
settlements although much of the outer boundary coincided within the project area.
92
Figure 35 The extent of the Upper Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls Conservation
Area. Red – B&WCA; yellow – National Park boundary
A Use and Condition Survey was carried out on all traditional stone built farm buildings in
the Conservation Area. YDNPA Barns and Walls officers used the results of this survey
and worked closely with Defra ESA officers to target grants on buildings that were of
particular historic or landscape importance but which were less likely to be funded under
the ESA due to their limited modern agricultural value.
The Conservation Area Partnership approach was followed in Littondale. The Upper
Wensleydale Barns Conservation Project functioned within a different framework. This
used European Objective 5b partnership funding only with the National Park Authority
using the combined value of the two CAP schemes as match funding. A Use and
Condition Survey was carried out but the scheme did not include Conservation Area
designation.
The BWCS scheme was important as a mechanism for stabilising and to some extent
reversing deterioration trends in the physical fabric of one of the most distinctive,
characteristic elements of the historic built environment in the Pennines. The innovative
assessment and grant system informed subsequent grant aid schemes, such as the
incorporation of Traditional Building renovation payments within the Pennine Dales ESA
which were largely targeted at barns and have subsequently become the major form of
grant aid to the built heritage within the Yorkshire Dales. Between 1989 and the end of the
2001 the YDNPA BWCS provided £1.53 million in grants to more than 400 applicants. This
enabled conservation works to the value of £1.91m to be carried out on almost 400
traditional agricultural buildings and approximately 20 km of drystone walls. The data
collected as part of the Use and Condition Surveys on the condition of traditional farm
buildings in the early 1990’s in Swaledale and Arkengarthdale forms one of the most
useful archives in existence within the project area on the historic environment.
The origins of the distinctively dense fabric of field walls and barns in Swaledale and
Arkengarthdale are well understood in principle, if not in detail. The two valleys are
surrounded by uplands rich in mineral resources, which have been mined for centuries –
93
probably millennia. Farming and lead mining existed side by side in Swaledale and
supported a specialised dual economy which enabled families to earn or supplement an
income without needing to farm large tracts of land. It was feasible for families to make a
living from a smallholding because of other options for earning an income – in mining and
all the ancillary activity which went with the industry. The survival of common rights for
grazing on the moorland was another crucial part of this complex but balanced socioeconomic system, as it enabled farmers to keep grazing animals off the hay meadows in
the late spring. The development of specialised buildings - field barns - to provide winter
housing for the precious crop and the beasts which ate it, relied on an abundance of local
building materials and cheap labour to build and maintain them. The system of partible
inheritance, whereby land holdings were divided between all siblings rather than inherited
by the firstborn son, also played its role in keeping land holdings small and fragmented.
These factors combined to produce the distinctive density of barns in the fields and
farmsteads of Swaledale and Arkengarthdale, to cater for the quantities of animals which
the farming community endeavoured to keep through each winter.
Figure 36 A crowded landscape - field barns in upper Swaledale
The Use and Condition Survey was the first comprehensive study of the traditional farm
buildings of the area. Although very limited with regard to the detailed recording of the
historic fabric of the buildings – it was primarily designed to provide condition information
about buildings to assist in planning and targeting of resources – it did attempt to record
the original function of each building assessed. These functions include cow byres, cow
byres with haybarns, hogg houses, pigsties, stables and cartsheds, dairies as well as
multipurpose agricultural buildings and various permutations of the above. It also revealed
the existence of a large number of former domestic dwellings which had been abandoned
and subsequently reused for agricultural purposes.
94
2.6.1.5.1 Using and Adapting the Barns and Walls Use and Condition Survey Database
The field work for the Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme Use and Condition Survey
was carried out in the early 1990’s. Information on the original and current function,
ownership, structural condition, site and position in the landscape of barns etc was
collected. It documents the known condition of this historic resource in 1990-2 as well as
likely conservation costs, and represents one of the few databases concerned with the
condition and stability of the historic environment available in the project area. The
information collected in the survey for Swaledale and Arkengarthdale was subsequently
stored digitally and has since been converted to an Access™ database. Had it not been, it
would have been impossible to access and make use of this information within the time
constraints of the project. As a comprehensive survey of reliable data gathered on site for
conservation purposes it is invaluable and is an excellent source for informing condition
and stability trends within historic land management characterisation.
Figure 37 There are 681 barns in the Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme Use and Condition
Survey within the HLMC project area, shown here against the Barns and Walls Conservation Area
However, there are limitations to its use. The survey data was collected in the early 1990’s
and represents a survey of the state of barns immediately prior to the CAP scheme
commencing. It contains information on which barns had already been in receipt of a
MAFF grant, the grant scheme in existence prior to the Barns and Walls CAP Scheme (63
out of 681 barns in the project area). Unfortunately, however, the survey has not been
systematically updated to include information on which barns ultimately benefited from a
grant and were actually repaired. However it has been possible, during the course of the
HLMC project to access the latter information (ESA grant aid only) through the farm
conservation records held by the YDNPA and a field for ESA grant aided buildings has
been added to the database. Similar information for buildings grant aided through the CAP
95
Scheme is more difficult to integrate. This information exists but not in a form which can be
quickly cross referenced back to the Use and Condition Survey or to the Historic
Environment Record. The Use and Condition Survey data is currently being checked and
cleaned for block transfer to the HER and will provide a useful benchmark for the condition
of this unique and characteristic element of the historic environment in upper Swaledale in
the late C20th.
Consequently, although it is the only historic environment database available which
contains detailed, comprehensive and consistent records about the condition and stability
of hundreds of buildings in the early 1990s, at the moment it lacks comparative data.
Developing the HLMC Barn Condition and Stability database from the original BWCS Use
and Condition database had to involve extrapolation from the information available in a
consistent and transparent manner. Details of decisions made are set out in the section on
the development of Management Profiles for Monument Types (Section 5.4).
Figure 38 Distribution of roofless barns (black dots) in 1992 from the Barns and Walls Conservation
Scheme Use and Condition Survey shown against HLMC Broad Types
Other problems associated with using the database are mentioned here as they are likely
to be common to any project which makes use of information which has not been
specifically collected for its own purpose. Problems can be compounded if, as in this
instance the original data collectors are no longer available to consult, and current staff
have limited knowledge of the details of the survey. These include:
Lack of metadata about the exact meaning of the fields in the database (and the
boxes on the original forms). This can lead to misinterpretation.
Inconsistency of data within an entry – occasionally it would include data which was
incompatible
Obvious gaps in the data collected – i.e. blanks on the forms
96
2.6.1.6
Quantification of the Historic Building Resource
In preparation for assessing the condition and stability of the historic environment, it was
thought useful to try and quantify the number of historic buildings in the HLMC project
area. This can be done by querying the Landcover field in the OS Mastermap database for
buildings (BLD). 2744 individual polygons in OS MasterMap feature as parts of buildings.
However, using OS MasterMap this way exaggerates the number of whole buildings, as
extensions and outbuildings are frequently defined through their own individual polygons.
For the purposes of the project it was estimated that about half this number – 1,350 – is a
closer representation of the actual number of buildings. Of these 681 are recorded as
traditional farm buildings in the 1992 Barns and Walls Use and Condition Survey database
and 158 are currently registered as listed buildings. There is little overlap between these
two categories (field barns were deliberately excluded from consideration in the listed
building resurvey which took place in the 1980s), so over 800 buildings within the project
area have some form of record in the YDNPA HER. This suggests the project has been
able to access information on well over half of the built structures within the study area. In
this the project area may be unusual – had the Buildings at Risk Survey and the HBSMR
database been the only information sources the proportion would have been much less.
97
3
RESOLVING THE CONDITION AND STABILITY INFORMATION
DEFICIT: CHARACTERISATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF
MANAGEMENT PROFILES
3.1
Developing Management Profiles for HLMC Types
The idea of developing Management Profiles for the HLMC Broad Types and Sub Types
emerged after the initial HLMC table had been created. It was mainly a response to the
lack of reliable, consistent and verifiable information available on the condition and stability
of the historic environment, both for this moment in time and any time in the past. ‘Stability’
implies the existence of condition data over a period of time, so that a trend can be
observed and verified. Even if information relating to condition were available today, it may
not be available for the recent past, which makes estimating trends a difficult exercise to
conduct in a reasonably well informed and rigorous manner. While recent land
management in Swaledale has enabled many physical elements of the historic
environment to survive in a relatively stable manner, it is not possible to access
information on a specific site basis about condition data.
In contrast the development of Management Profiles is not dependant on collecting and
analysing information relating the condition and stability of thousand of specific structures
and sites. Instead the focus is on generic management issues i.e. issues regularly
associated with a particular land use and management type. These are constructed from
general observations and specific site knowledge gleaned from HER sources as well as
personal knowledge and information from colleagues. This is pooled to make generalised
statements about standard management issues frequently found in association with
certain management regimes. The GIS database developed for HLMC can be used to
provide an indication of problems that buildings, structures and sites are likely to be facing
(as opposed to issues which we know they are facing) because of where they are in the
landscape and how the land is currently being used and managed. In essence this method
uses the characterisation framework provided by the HLMC table as the structure through
which management issues can be associated in a generic manner with the particular
management and land use regimes dominant in that particular part of the landscape.
This provides a vehicle for identifying suites of management issues which constantly recur
as a package in association with HLMC Types, and it is these suites which help inform the
Management Profiles. Trends can be identified concerning different elements of the
historic environment in different parts of the landscape e.g. the condition of walls is
generally better in the inbye land, characterised as HLMC Broad Type Pastoral Farming,
than in allotment land, characterised as part of the HLMC Broad Type Moorland Fringe.
These in turn help provide a context for the condition and stability of the myriad of
individual sites and structures which make up the historic environment, whether or not we
have data on them, or indeed whether or not we even know of their existence. These
generic management profiles and specific management issues can be compared within
the GIS to the information we have on specific agreements which is incorporated within the
Modern LMC table. For example, although generically the field and enclosure walls within
the HLMC Broad Type Moorland Fringe are not generally in good condition, a few of the
Countryside Stewardship Scheme agreements covering the Moorland Fringe specify the
repair and maintenance of walls, and these have been noted in the Modern LMC table.
98
The system can also be used to record major conflicting trends in the condition of specific
elements within the historic environment. A good example of this is the condition of barns
within the project area. The majority of barns lie within the Pastoral Farming HLMC Broad
Type and the Barns and Walls Conservation Area. They have been eligible for a number of
different grants (Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme, ESA scheme, MAFF grants),
which will have improved the condition and stability of a large number of buildings,
possibly as many as a third of the total stock. In contrast the state of the rest of the barns
will probably not have improved and indeed most probably have deteriorated, so both
failure/maintenance cycles and failure/lack of maintenance paths are appropriate for this
HLMC Broad Type.
Using the attribute system a series of common management issues was identified for the
database as relevant to the pilot project area and the particular HLMC Types which have
been developed for it. The ones which have been identified for this project may or may not
be comprehensive - they can be added to or modified as thought fit - but it is the
methodology which is being trialled here. Any omissions from the suites of management
issues profiled here are not a fault of the method itself, merely an indicator of the limits of
resources applied to their production. As with any attribute system, the list is limitless and
it is potentially an extremely flexible way of dealing with complex issues. The attributes
were indicated by check boxes in their named fields in the database.
Each HLMC Broad Type is profiled for general land management vis-à-vis the historic
environment, followed by profiling for the built environment and archaeology. Each Sub
Type has its own specific profile as well. Particular issues concerning the built environment
and archaeology were developed in different tables within the HLMC database. While it is
recognised that built environment and archaeology is a sometimes arbitrary division which
is difficult to apply in a logical fashion to certain aspects of the historic environment and
sits uncomfortably with the concept of a ‘holistic’ historic environment which encompasses
all forms of historic structures and patterns it was adopted for the following reasons. There
was the practical one associated with database creation and management (two smaller
tables with fewer fields are easier to look at than one large one with many fields).
Management issues revolve around the physical manifestation of a structure and the
problems faced by archaeological remains are usually very different to those faced by
buildings and structures still in use. It is simple to separate them out. It also means each
polygon has a separate summary for Archaeology and the Built Environment, thus
reducing any perceived conflicts of ranking and prioritisation. The summary texts were
originally designed to be used for the Interactive map.
Decisions about which management issues are associated with which HLMC Broad and
Sub Types are explained in the section of the report devoted to the expression of HLMC
Types within the project area (Section 4). It is the methodology and the structure of the
database which is laid out here, not the specific reasons behind the management issue
and its inclusion in a particular HLMC Type. The individual management issues feature as
check boxes in the tables and can be linked to the MapInfo. polygons and shown as a
map. They fed into the development of Management Profiles.
3.1.1
Management issues for the built environment: standard texts and the creation of
Management Profiles
99
Fields:
• Buildings in use for original purpose
• Buildings facing redundancy
• Buildings converted to new use
• Development – infill and new build
• Barns – failure/maintenance cycle
• Barns – failure/lack of maintenance path
• Barns – conversion to residential use
• Barns –conversion to business use
• Walls – loss of original features
• Walls – failure/maintenance cycle
• Walls – failure/lack of maintenance path
Below are the texts associated with the check boxes for the management issues for the
built environment. Standard texts have been developed, originally for use with the
Interactive Map (see Section 6). They have been developed generically for buildings as a
whole and specifically for two types of built structures (barns and walls) which are
characteristic of the modern landscape of the pilot project area. A further aspect of the built
environment, in the form of modern moorland tracks, has been given a presence in the
database in an effort to extend its coverage and give an indication of the ways in which it
can be developed and manipulated. The criteria for including specific types of buildings or
structures here is that they form a dominant theme in the contemporary landscape, either
visually or in terms of their current use. While barns, field walls and moorland tracks have
been identified as being of importance in this particular area, it is envisaged that different
parts of the country may support varying historic environment forms profiled against both
similar and different HLMC types.
In brackets after the title are the HLMC Broad and Sub Type codes with which the
management issues are associated by default.
Buildings in use for original purpose (S)
Many buildings and structures are still being used for the same purposes for which they
were built, be they house, farm, garage, chapel etc. In these cases it is likely they will have
been maintained and the physical fabric will be in good or fair condition. It is also likely the
original structure will have been modified both internally and externally over the years to
accommodate changes in need and fashion. The latter can encompass anything from
restoration to complete rebuild, new windows to extensions. Change operates within the
limits imposed by application of local planning policies, here those of the YDNPA or
Richmondshire District Council; Listed Buildings are covered by additional constraints
through the planning system. Within the project area building regulations control is the
responsibility of Richmondshire District Council. Much change however takes place in
ignorance of any requirements for consent or does not require consent.
Buildings facing redundancy (S)
Some buildings and structures are no longer being used for their original purpose, and are
facing redundancy. For many buildings another use is found (see Buildings converted to
new use) but potentially every HLMC Broad Type can harbour redundant buildings.
Certain categories of buildings and structures are more likely to have recently faced
redundancy and encountered the management issues this involves than others. These
100
include many traditional farm buildings, particularly field barns, which are no longer
needed as a result of changes in farming methods. There are four main management
options for redundant buildings and structures: another use is found for them; they may be
maintained for their own sake - effectively conserved as monuments; they may be allowed
to fall into ruin (abandonment); or they may be demolished. In the past the removal of
masonry and roofing slates from redundant or abandoned buildings for reuse was common
- they were in effect gradually demolished.
Buildings converted to new use (S)
Certain categories of building are more likely to have recently faced redundancy and
change of use than others. Mills, workhouses, schools, institutes, chapels, coach houses
and stables, barns and other agricultural buildings, buildings associated with defunct
industries like lead mining, and even domestic dwellings either have, are or will face
redundancy. For many buildings no longer needed for their original purpose, other uses
are found. Every Settlement Sub Type potentially has its own example of buildings which
became redundant in the past as well as buildings which are currently no longer needed
for their original purpose. Reuse frequently requires adaptation of the building and this
may require building regulation approval and/or planning consent. Change of use is
governed by local planning policies. Current policies within the National Park require that
buildings judged to be of historic interest and importance must be recorded prior to
alterations as change of use usually entails loss of original features.
Development - infill and new build (S1, S2, S3)
New building development is allowed in certain circumstances according to YDNPA
planning policy. Planning policy dictates that it is of a kind, scale, siting, density and design
which is sympathetic to or enhances the landscape character, special qualities and local
distinctiveness of the surrounding area and that appropriate materials are used.
Figure 39 New buildings (2006) on a former garden plot at Reeth
The following categories dealing with barns and walls demonstrate how individual
management issues concerning particularly dominant elements of the physical fabric in the
local historic environment can be developed and incorporated within HLMC Management
Profiles. The emphasis here placed on barns and walls is due to their accepted role in
101
defining the character of the modern landscape in the project area, a role recognized by
the Countryside Agency in their definition of the Yorkshire Dales key landscape
characteristics, which include ‘Very strong patterns of drystone walls, with very large
rectilinear enclosures on most fell tops, much smaller enclosures in the dales, and often
older, irregular patterns around settlements’ and ‘Numerous small stone field barns in all
the dales, but most notable in Swaledale, Wensleydale and upper Wharfedale’.
(www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/Landscape/CC/north_west/yorkshire_dales.asp accessed
May 2006). The YDNPA similarly recognizes the role that the stone field walls and barns
play in creating the unique identity of the National Park. It has designated Barns and Walls
Conservation Areas and also seeks to safeguard these features outside Conservation
Areas insofar as it lies within their power (YDNPA 2006, p.83)
Barns: failure/maintenance cycle (PF)
Some barns have always been kept in repair by farmers, either because they are still in
use or through custom and there is anecdotal evidence that those in or near a working
farmstead are likely to be maintained more regularly than outlying barns in fields.
Traditional farm buildings within the Barns and Walls Conservation Area are more likely to
have been repaired and restored than elsewhere, as they were not only eligible for MAFF
or ESA Traditional Building grants, but also for the Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme.
Traditional farm buildings within the Conservation Area are protected from demolition
without planning consent. It is estimated that about a third of the barn stock in the project
area has received grant-aid since the early 1990’s.
Barns: failure/lack of maintenance path (PF, MF)
For barns not in receipt of a grant in recent years (and this is roughly estimated at
approximately two-thirds of the whole stock) a profile of gradual decay should be
envisaged.
Figure 40 Converted barn at Healaugh, Swaledale
102
Barns: conversion to residential use (S1, S2, S3, S4, S7)
Barns in these areas may be converted to residential use (if they have not already been)
subject to local planning policies and building regulations
Barns: conversion to business use (S5, S6, PF)
Barns in these areas may be allowed to be converted to business use, subject to planning
permission.
Walls: loss of original features (PF, MF, GM, SM)
In the constant cycle of collapse and repair, rebuild can lead to the loss of original features
like sheep creeps, stiles and gateposts. It can also lead to standardisation of walling style
to the detriment of variations in construction indicative of local practice or date.
Figure 41 A mixture of maintained and derelict stone walls overlying earthworks of unknown date
and collapsed farm buildings, Castle, Arkengarthdale (NZ 030 008); the farmhouse is no longer part
of a working farm
Walls: failure/maintenance cycle (PF)
Boundary walls are likely to be maintained in reasonable condition, often through the use
of the Barns and Walls grant scheme or the ESA Wall renovation supplement.
Walls: failure/lack of maintenance path (MF, GM)
Boundary walls in this area are often in poor condition. They are frequently in a
failure/neglect management path and generally only external boundary walls are regularly
maintained.
Moorland Tracks: resurfacing (GM)
Moorland tracks are periodically resurfaced or extended in this area.
103
Figure 42 Recent surfacing and widening of moorland track on High Harker Hill (SE 018 972). The
use of material from lead industry spoil heaps, especially dressing waste, for track creation and
‘improvement’ not only reduces the visual, ecological and historical integrity of the mining remains
but increases the risk of pollution by disturbing and distributing spoil with a high heavy metal
content.
3.1.2
Management issues for Archaeology: standard texts and the creation of
Management Profiles
Fields:
• Rabbits
• Bracken
• Moles
• Tree Planting
• Tree/scrub growth
• Ploughing/Reseeding
• Harrowing
• Stock poaching and erosion
• Field Drainage
• Grouse Moor estate infrastructure (grouse butts, scrapes, tracks etc)
• Moorland grips
• Fire hazard
• Motor/quad biking and vehicle damage
• Natural erosion
• Service trenches
• Development
Below are the texts associated with the check boxes for the management issues for
archaeology. These are used as standard texts for the Interactive map. In brackets after
the title are the HLMC Broad and Sub Type codes with which they are associated by
default.
104
Rabbits (PF1, PF3, PF5, MF, GM)
Rabbits are a major problem as their activity destroys stratigraphic deposits within
archaeological sites and literally undermines the survival of archaeological structures. The
rabbit population has expanded due to a general lack of rabbit control measures and,
conversely, the control of their natural predators - foxes, stoats, weasels - by grouse moor
estates. Rabbits are more likely to be controlled in the immediate vicinity of working
farmsteads and do not appear to flourish on Improved grassland (Tier IA).
Figure 43 Extensive rabbit burrowing at Slacks (SE 015 983)
Bracken (MF, GM excluding lead tolerant species areas)
Bracken can be a localised though persistent issue for sub-surface archaeology - the
extensive rhizomes have a damaging impact on stratigraphy and can destroy delicate
archaeological deposits.
Figure 44 Shaw Gill, Eskeleth (NZ 000 040) - bracken (bright green vegetation) stretches from the gill
bottom to the moorland top in places
105
Moles (PF)
Moles are more commonly found in good quality pasture land, congregating where their
food source is the richest. It is not uncommon to find their molehills in the vicinity of sub
surface archaeology.
Tree Planting (W)
Tree planting has to be carefully sited to avoid disturbing the historic environment.
Consultation procedures are in place with the YDNPA which seek to ensure that the
impact on the historic environment of all new publicly grant aided tree planting is
assessed. These may lead to mitigation.
Tree/scrub growth (W)
Unchecked tree and scrub growth may cause root damage to historic environment
features, and provide shelter for undesirable animals such as rabbits.
Ploughing/Reseeding (PF2, PF4)
Where ploughing and reseeding occur on a regular basis to improve the productivity of
grassland and provide better crops of silage, gradual erasure of the surface visibility of
earthworks and damage to surface archaeology are the main problems.
Figure 45 Improved grassland at Riddings, near Reeth. Both sides of the wall are registered as
Improved grassland (Tier 1A) in the ESA agreement, but pasture improvement has been more
aggressive on the left hand field and the lynchets are less well defined
Harrowing (PF)
The regular use of the harrow may damage surface archaeology.
Stock poaching and erosion (PF)
Stock poaching and erosion can happen wherever animals congregate, particularly at
watering and foddering sites
Moorland grips (some GM)
106
Drainage of moorland through gripping in the 1970’s and 1980’s has damaged surface
structures and continues to threaten organic archaeological deposits through peat
desiccation.
Fire hazard (GM excluding lead tolerant species areas)
Pan-moorland fires are a potential threat on the peat covered uplands. This threat
becomes more severe during periods of drought, and in areas where undergrazing of the
moorland is practiced.
Service trenches (S)
Wherever service trenches are dug (water, gas, electricity, sewage pipes etc.) sub-surface
archaeology may be affected.
Development (S)
Building development of any size, from an extension to a complete new housing estate,
will affect sub-surface deposits. Changes of land surface, foundation trenches etc. will
truncate any existing archaeology. The planning policies adopted by YDNPA require that
where there is evidence or a high probability that important remains will be damaged or
destroyed by proposed works, assessment and evaluation is carried out. This may lead to
further mitigation.
Vehicle damage and erosion (PF)
The increase in size and weight of farm machinery in the last half century has led to
incremental surface damage, which is particularly severe around working farmsteads and
field gateways.
Water erosion (WA1)
River and stream banks are particularly vulnerable to episodic flooding and heavy erosion,
affecting in situ structures.
Figure 46 The Swale is known for its flash floods; this is one of the most unstable parts of the river
just south of Reeth (SE 034 985)
107
4
HLMC TYPES AND THEIR EXPRESSION IN THE PILOT
PROJECT AREA
4.1
Introduction
This section includes a description of the Broad Types found in the project area and a
discussion of the different attributes which have defined their Sub Type categorisation. An
attempt is made to place them firmly within their geographic and historic landscape,
although this is of necessity kept short and to the point rather than attempting a history of
Swaledale and its land use.
This is followed by texts of the summaries attached to each HLMC Type and Sub Type.
These summaries also form the Management Profile of the particular polygon in the
Interactive map. This is supplemented here by subsidiary Management Profiles for the
built environment and for archaeology tailored to suit that particular HLMC Sub Type and
polygon. Some of the issues facing the historic environment in the landscape not
surprisingly spill over between the HLMC Broad Types, and inevitably this has resulted in
a degree of duplication and repetition. For example bracken is as much a problem on the
moorland edge as it is on the moors proper, and mention of this has to be made both for
Grouse Moor and Moorland Fringe. This is where explaining database methodology
becomes tedious but is necessary for completeness sake. To avoid undue repetition
reference to the standard Broad Type has been described first, followed by the list of Sub
Types with sequential additions of distinctive management trajectories associated with the
Sub Type defining attributes. The sequence for each section will be as follows:
General discussion of the Broad Type as found within the project area
Management Profile:
I Modern land use: characterisation of the principal current land use of the Broad
Type and its recent management history.
II Built Environment: characterisation of the impact of the modern management and
land use on the built environment.
III Archaeology: characterisation of the impact of the modern management and land
use on the archaeology.
Sub Types and their tailored Management Profiles.
4.2
Grouse Moor HLMC Types
Grouse Moor is the largest Broad Type in the project area in terms of land mass, and the
areas covered by individual polygons are also the largest. All the unenclosed moorland in
the project area is owned by grouse estates and managed for shooting. Some of these
estates have a history which is nearly 200 years old: Grinton Youth Hostel started life as a
purpose built shooting lodge for a nascent grouse estate in 1817; Scar House near
Langthwaite in Arkengarthdale is another example dating from the mid-nineteenth century.
There are other lodges in the area, part of a numerically small but architecturally
surprisingly dominant group of non-vernacular buildings which were built in the area during
the 19th century, along with non-conformist chapels and schools. Although many estates
108
are long established and still owned by hereditary owners, while others are run on a more
commercial basis or are dependent upon the interest of rich sporting enthusiasts who
otherwise have little connection with the land and its history. At least two estates within the
project area changed hands in the 1990’s and there is no reason to suspect that further
change will not occur.
Figure 47 Grinton Lodge, designed as a shooting lodge, is now a Youth Hostel (SE 048 975)
There are half-a-dozen separate grouse estates in the project area but whatever the
ownership, the estates themselves are managed by non-resident land agents on broadly
similar lines. Their management revolves around the care and provision of game birds –
principally grouse – for the annual shooting season. This involves intensively managing
the heather cover mainly through rotational burning (cutting is not practised in this part of
Swaledale). Grouse moor management has been intensive for at least a century and a
half, probably longer. The practise of burning heather to promote the growth of young
shoots for grouse is believed to have been developed by shepherds, for the benefit of their
flocks who also feed off the young calluna species.
These upland grouse moors are still used to graze sheep, either because they are
common land and farmers own or rent rights of grazing, or on the other estates through
private tenancy agreements, frequently with farmers who tenant other farmland owned by
the same estates.
A decline in the percentage cover of upland heather nationally since the Second World
War has been partly attributed to an increase of grazing pressure on the moors from an
increase in the number of sheep (a direct result of the CAP subsidy regime). This has
contributed to a new type of management which has concentrated on reducing grazing
numbers either through grant aided schemes to pay farmers incentives to remove animals
(e.g. WES agreements) or through exclusion zones – erecting fences around certain areas
and keeping sheep out or at least carefully regulating their numbers. It is estimated that
grouse eat only 2-3% of the available food supply each year but here the aims of the
grouse estates have coincided with those of English Nature (now Natural England) who
have been keen to see a national increase in the amount of heather cover for ecological
reasons, as well as a general enhancement of other moorland vegetation. This is often
109
phrased in terms of heather ‘regeneration’ but from the historic perspective any ‘loss’ of
heather over the last sixty years, is being measured from a high point of upland heather
cover, the result of a hundred or more years of strict ‘gamekeeper enforced’ grouse moor
management by the 1940s. Prior to the nineteenth century, the extent of heather cover is
thought likely to have fluctuated over the centuries depending on other environmental
factors such as the nature and degree of tree or bracken cover, and the ongoing impact of
lead mining on the moorland vegetation. Moreover ‘overgrazing’ of the uplands was of
concern in the nineteenth century and earlier, particularly in areas of common land and/or
where many families managed their annual household economy through smallholdings
which relied on rights to moorland grazing allied to a cash income from the lead industry
and its ancillary trades. Consequently there are questions about the legitimacy of the use
of the word ‘regeneration’ and all its implied moral validation for heather regeneration (‘this
is what it ought to be like today, because it used to be like this’). To architectural historians
this is familiar territory – to what particular period is a house to be ‘restored’, how is it to be
decided which part of a complex building has precedence over another which may be later
or earlier, rarer or more typical, in better or worse condition?
Current ecologically inspired environmental schemes and designations have considerable
power to effect modifications to moorland management. The North Pennine Moors are
recognised at European level for their special and distinctive habitats, and large areas,
including much of upland Swaledale, are designated as a European Special Area of
Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA). The SPA is particularly aimed at
the protection of rare birds. The Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are
coterminous with the European designations. Designation happened relatively recently:
Lovely Seat-Stainton Moor, which covers most of the moorland in the project area to the
south of the Swale, was designated in 1995; Arkengarthdale, Gunnerside and Reeth
Moors were designated in 1998. Both are very extensive – over 10,000 ha for the former
and over 7,500 ha for the latter. Such large upland SSSIs are sub-divided into smaller
areas called ‘units’, which are defined through their predominant habitat; this informs their
ideal management regime. As explained in the methodology, although these prescriptions
are not created with the historic environment in mind, most of them are benign as far as
conservation of the historic environment is concerned. However, problems can occur when
SSSI designation is used to plug into agri-environment schemes, particularly Countryside
Stewardship (and now Environmental Stewardship), and active management plans are
drawn up. The one with potentially the gravest consequences for archaeology is tree
planting. If sufficient time and resources are allocated to ensure adequate assessment of
the designated area to be planted and appropriate mitigation, this should not be a problem.
However it is not unknown for tree planting to go ahead without any consultation with
historic environment advisors, a lack of communication between different parts of the
conservation spectrum that needs to be addressed.
The Moorland Scheme was launched in 1995 by Defra. Its aim was to protect and improve
the upland moorland environment by encouraging farmers to undertake a range of
measures, primarily grazing fewer sheep and introducing maximum winter and summer
stocking density limits for heather moorland. Its uptake was limited, however, and in the
end the management issues it was dealing with were merged into the Countryside
Stewardship Scheme and WES agreements (the latter on SSSI land only).
The North Pennines Black Grouse Recovery Project was launched in 1997. Its aim was to
try and create conditions which favoured the revival of this rare species Tetrao tetrix. Its
110
principal methods were the promotion of a reduction of grazing (especially winter grazing)
and an increase in woodland cover through planting broadleaves, particularly in gills and
on the moorland fringe, stock proofing existing woodland and control of predators.
Another scheme, the Northern Uplands Regeneration Project has promoted the
regeneration of heather and worked closely with the Moorland Association (an association
representing grouse moor estate owners). Both schemes advised on how to maximise
benefits from the established ESA agreements for allotment land within its boundary and
CSS payments system elsewhere.
Figure 48 Red grouse on the edge of Low Moor, Arkengarthdale; black grouse are also present in
this area. The wall forms the boundary between open moorland and the moorland edge,
characterised as HLMC Broad types Grouse Moor and Moorland Fringe
Moorland was only eligible for the CSS and Wildlife Enhancement Schemes (WES)
agreements, not ESA. The latter generally only covered reduction of grazing on specific
tracts of land, and attempts to reduce poaching of the ground around feeding blocks.
Agreements are drawn up with individual grouse estates but recognise the existence of
common land grazing rights. Individual farmers were allowed to opt out in CS agreements
but this is not the case with the Environmental Stewardship agreements. Generally the
principle aims of these moorland CS agreements were to reduce grazing partially in
summer, and more substantially in winter; introduce bracken control measures; create new
wet scrapes (artificial shallow ponds); promote more heather burning. All these activities
were funded. Grouse estates also had to obtain permission for changes to the grouse
moor infrastructure which would not be covered by the need to obtain planning permission;
in effect this meant that proposed new butt creation and the repair and extension of
moorland tracks feature on agreement maps, but do not receive funding and were not
subject to consultation as to their historic environment impact.
111
Figure 49 Open Access land in the project area
All moorland in the project area is now open Access land under the CRoW Act. As
explained in the methodology section, the real impact of this on the historic environment is
not yet understood and unlikely to be so for a while although there have been attempts at
prediction (YDNPA 2003). In theory as open Access land only allows walking, running and
climbing rights there should be few management implications for archaeology or the built
environment, but the situation needs monitoring although this is hampered by the paucity
of base line data. A potential concern is the likelihood of demolition of redundant structures
to reduce potential Health and Safety liabilities which may impact on built environment
assets as well as the risk of visitors building new walker’s cairns from historic structures.
The upland moors contain a considerable breadth and variety of archaeological remains,
from Mesolithic encampments with their diagnostic flints, through extensive prehistoric field
systems with traces of settlement and other activities to large swathes of landscape
containing workings, structures and buildings associated with the mineral extraction. While
the condition and stability of much of the historic environment is relatively good there are
areas of concern, in particular the way in which the remains of the lead industry continue
to be depleted by reuse of its material remains. The loss of masonry from moorland lead
production sites continues to be an issue. A more prevalent activity is the use of material
from lead mining spoil heaps, particularly dressing waste, to resurface moorland tracks
and provide aggregate for their extensions. There are wider environmental implications
around the disturbance of stabilised spoil heaps and the redistribution of toxic material
through the landscape. However, for the historic environment the most immediate cause of
concern is that some of the areas where this is happening are under Countryside
Stewardship agreements, in which agreement holders are bound to protect and maintain
archaeological sites and other landscape features. This appears not to be happening and
112
raises questions about the ability of cross-compliance requirements to protect the historic
environment.
Figure 50 Heather burning, How Hill, Grinton Moor (SE 039 965). The effect of repeated heather
burning on archaeological features is an under researched topic.
As demonstrated in Section 2, several different attributes have been used to define grouse
moor within its Broad Type. These are presence or absence of SSSI status, Countryside
Stewardship agreements and common land. All permutations of the above are present in
the project area and their management profiles are described below.
4.2.1
Management Profile
I Modern land use:
Grouse moor is upland managed primarily for grouse shooting purposes. This particular
use of moorland implies a suite of management activities. Old heather stands are
necessary to provide cover for nesting birds while young heather shoots are the main food
for grouse. A mosaic of heather of different ages is encouraged by the regular burning of
heather on a rotational cycle, which helps perpetuate the distinctive vegetation pattern and
restrict the establishment of trees. A central part of modern grouse estate management is
the creation and maintenance of the shooting infrastructure – grouse butts, shooting huts
and the tracks to access and serve them are the most prominent feature of these. Tree
planting, particularly on the fringes of moorland to create Black Grouse habitat, is
increasing.
II Built Environment:
The physical fabric of the historic built environment is often in poor condition, as grouse
moor estates have little use for most inherited built structures on their land. Unless they
form significant boundaries, such as the division between different Commons or grouse
estates, moorland walls are often neglected: today they frequently serve no useful purpose
to the estates and are often in poor condition. There are few buildings on moorland, but
most that exist - particularly those associated with mineral extraction - have been subject
to neglect, decay, demolition, robbing out and reuse of materials for much of the C20th.
113
Occasionally buildings originally created for the lead industry have been adapted and
reused as shooting huts for the grouse estates.
Figure 51 A lead mining leat on Low Moor, Arkengarthdale (NZ 018 041) recut and enlarged in 2006
to direct water to a hushing dam a kilometre away, ostensibly to provide a water supply for fire
fighting purposes; the dam has since partially breached. Recutting also damaged a mesolithic
settlement area near the spring head
III Archaeology:
Because moorland has not been subject to agricultural improvement in the way that
enclosed farmland has, the condition and stability of archaeological remains is generally
good. However there are several endemic grouse moor management issues which have a
continuing impact on the historic environment, some of which are extremely complex. An
example is heather burning. The effects of repetitive burning over centuries on sub-surface
features are not known, but gradual erosion of peat has been highlighted as an area of
potential concern. As it is the peat which protects much sub-surface archaeology this is a
sensitive issue and more research is needed to understand the potential effects of fire. On
the other hand controlling heather growth through regular burning means that ferocious
fires, such as happened at Fylingdales near Whitby in 2003, which had severe
consequences for the condition and stability of all surface and sub surface archaeology,
are less likely to happen. Cutting and baling, an alternative method creating a mosaic of
different age heather stands, is likely to have a greater impact on the stability of
archaeological remains because of the physical impact of vehicle mounted flails. Other
problems have been caused for the historic environment where moorland tracks have
been upgraded and extended, often through the use of aggregate from nearby lead mining
spoil heaps. Whereas in the past this work was restricted and piecemeal, the use of
mechanical diggers means the archaeological impact can be massive. Spoil heaps contain
evidence for the industrial processes which took place as well as having the potential to
contain dating evidence and evidence for mineralogical processes deep underground.
Their destruction damages future understanding of the history of this industry in the area
as well as resulting in a loss of the visible infrastructure of the industry which has
increasing value as a tourism asset. Grouse butt building and maintenance has also led to
the destruction of neighbouring archaeological structures, as sites are robbed out for
stone. This is known to have happened on Scheduled Ancient Monuments. Tree planting
114
may disturb archaeological structures. Rabbits can be a severe problem due to a general
lack of rabbit-control measures and the control of their natural predators - foxes, stoats,
weasels - by the grouse estates while raptor populations also tend to be low on intensively
managed grouse moors. Bracken can also be damaging to sub-surface archaeology - the
extensive rhizomes have a damaging impact on stratigraphy and can destroy delicate
archaeological deposits. Old lead mining leats have been recut and dams reused to
provide water for birds.
4.2.2
Grouse Moor Sub Types
GM1 Grouse Moor + CRoW
(GM Broad Type +) CRoW Open Access is now the usual status for grouse moor
under the CRoW Act. The long term impact of Open Access on the historic
environment in these areas is unknown as the right of access here only came into
force on 28 May 2005 and its implications for the historic environment are still
unfolding. However, reports from YDNPA Rangers, who are actively monitoring the
situation, suggest little change either in people’s activities or in the areas they are
accessing at the moment. It is worth noting that only access for walking, running
and climbing are allowed i.e. without the landowners agreement there is no
permission for cycling or any other form of wheeled transport nor horse riding,
camping or any other activities which may leave physical traces.
GM2 Grouse Moor in a Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS) + CRoW
(GM Broad Type + CRoW) CSS Normally the main focus of a CSS agreement on
grouse moor is to increase heather cover through the reduction of grazing pressure
and bracken management programmes. There are general prohibitions on those
entering the CSS which tend to preserve and conserve surface and sub surface
archaeological remains. They are bound not to ‘disturb the land by ploughing or
other cultivation’, to minimise rolling or chain harrowing for the sake of wildlife, not
to modify or install new drainage systems and to minimise poaching. Metal
detecting is not permitted on sites of archaeological interest within land managed
under a Stewardship Agreement without prior written consent (originally from
MAFF, then Defra, now Natural England). Restoring historic features in the upland
landscape was one of the target priorities but few options were taken out for this
within the project area. Wall repair is another option, and some agreements
featured the repair and maintenance of walls for up to 20 years, but this was not
always seen as a priority on moorland. The need to control bracken encroachment
has meant that some areas have been managed by chemical or mechanical means
and, provided surface archaeology is not damaged during the process, this activity
will be beneficial to condition and stability of the historic environment. Mechanical
removal with machines can destroy surface archaeology, but lower impact horse
drawn rollers have been used in the Project Area with good results. Tree planting is
more problematic, but consultative frameworks are in place within the Conservation
and Policy Team of the YDNPA to minimise potentially damaging effects. Those
who take up a CSS agreement are obliged by the terms of the agreement to
conserve historic features in their current condition. They are also obliged to obtain
written advice from the project officer on the siting, design and materials of any
buildings or roads which do not require planning permission or prior notification
determination by the local planning authority. though this does not imply a specialist
historic environment input to the eventual decision. As advice should now be
115
obtained from Natural England it should now result in more holistic advice which
fully considers historic environment issues.
GM3 Grouse Moor, designated SSSI + CRoW
(GM Broad Type + CRoW +) SSSI The presence of a SSSI on this moorland
restricts the type of activities which can legally take place, and while the
conservation of the historic environment is not within its remit there are many
prescriptions and proscriptions which favour its condition and stability. There is a
proscription on cultivation of any kind - a significant caveat given recent ploughing
of moorland elsewhere in the YDNP - and repeated vehicle rutting; grants to block
moorland grips are available. The reduction of grazing pressure on moorland
through associated WES agreements probably has a marginal or neutral impact on
the historic environment. Issues of greater concern are the planting of trees in areas
of moorland fringe without adequate consultation and consideration of historic
environment issues.
GM4 Grouse Moor, designated SSSI and Common Land + CRoW
(GM Broad Type + CRoW + SSSI +) Common Land Much of the moorland around
Swaledale is common land and has been since time immemorial. Originally there
would have been several common land rights in operation, but the main rights
exercised today on enclosed common pastures and unenclosed moorland are
grazing rights. These may be partly managed by commoner’s committees. Rights
are tied to property and many local farmers have ‘gaits’ or ‘stints’ on the moor,
through which they are allowed to graze a certain number of animals (now mainly
sheep) for specified lengths of time. Any agri-environment scheme applied for has
had to take this into account and this will become more significant under the
Environmental Stewardship rules, where every common land grazier will have to
sign up to an agreement. The reduction of grazing on the moorland has been the
focus of several allied agri-environment schemes, such as WES and CSS.
GM5 Grouse Moor, designated SSSI and in CSS + CRoW
(GM Broad Type + CRoW + SSSI + CSS)
GM6 Grouse Moor, designated Common Land and in CSS + CRoW
(GM Broad Type + CRoW + Common Land + CSS)
GM7 Grouse Moor, designated SSSI and Common Land and in CSS + CRoW
(GM Broad Type + CRoW + SSSI + Common Land + CSS)
4.3
Moorland Fringe HLMC Types
Between the unenclosed moorland and enclosed meadows and pastures of the farmland
lie large allotments dedicated to the provision of rough grazing for stock. The enclosed
land here has had a different land use and management history to both these other land
use types. The historic origins of these enclosures are complex for the moorland edge is
not a fixed line but has fluctuated throughout history. The most recent changes had their
origins in the Parliamentary enclosures of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when
large tracts of previously open moorland, heath and commons were enclosed. Areas
enclosed prior to this time often remained as common land (for example Low Row Pasture
116
in the project area), but for most newly created parcels of land, enclosure meant the
extinguishing of common land rights. Enclosure was usually accompanied by efforts at
land reclamation through clearance, drainage, liming, manuring etc, but the steepness and
ruggedness of the topography often put a limit to what could be realistically achieved
through these means. The picture in Swaledale and Arkengarthdale is complicated by the
presence of extensive mining and quarrying along the moorland edge – not only for lead,
but chert, sandstone flags and other types of stone. All these industries were active at the
time of the Parliamentary enclosures and for some time afterwards – up until the 1950s for
the chert workings on Fremington Edge to the east of Reeth. Their characteristic
archaeology and built structures are highly visible in the landscape and contribute
considerably to the distinctive character of the area.
Figure 52 Moorland Fringe HLMC type at Hurst, in an area rich in lead mining remains; tree planting
is frequently practised by grouse estates on their moorland edge land (NZ 045 023)
Efforts at land reclamation have often been succeeded by periods of reversion. While
some of the newly enclosed land was successfully improved and remains productive farm
land today, much of it has hovered on the edge of economic viability. Land in this category
is likely to have a very different future to the more intensively farmed and improved inbye
land in the valleys below continuing the fluctuations in the management intensity of this
zone in the past. Much of it in the project area has been bought up by the grouse estates
in recent years, and efforts are being made to increase its heather cover, reduce bracken
and plant trees i.e. exactly the same procedures that are happening on grouse moors.
They are often funded in the same way, i.e. through Countryside Stewardship agreements.
The implications and potential issues for the historic environment are exactly the same as
for the grouse moors.
Moorland Fringe land falls inside and outside the ESA; if the latter then the landowner
could apply for Countryside Stewardship Scheme instead, an option which was taken up in
117
the Hurst area. Here agreements did include the repair of enclosure walls not only within
the ten year agreement period but for maintenance for a further ten years after the rest of
the agreement expired. Within ESA agreements it was reasonably common to take out the
wall renovation option, but not obligatory. Occasionally historic structures (e.g. bields)
were repaired under the ESA scheme, but this was rare. Generally the main benefit was
the proscription on land improvements of any kind entailed in ESA allotment status.
As demonstrated in the Method Statement section, several different attributes have been
used to define Moorland Fringe within its Broad Type. These were the presence or
absence of SSSI status, ESA or CSS agreement and common land.
4.3.1
Management Profile
I Modern land use:
The role of enclosed fields on the Moorland Fringe in the past has been to provide rough
grazing and pasture for sheep and cattle within the pastoral farming economy. Today
many grouse estates own land around the moorland edge and there are active attempts to
increase or introduce heather to some parts and in effect extend the grouse moor
management regime into the upper sides of valleys. These fields are generally not subject
to concerted land improvement today, and the farming is generally non-intensive and noninvasive. They are frequently on steeper slopes and can include exceptionally rough and
rocky ground as well as extensive stands of bracken. The now historic CAP led to levels of
stocking and grazing which became a matter of concern in relation to the biodiversity, but
the overall effect of high levels of stocking on the historic environment has generally been
benign, often beneficial by increasing the visibility of slight surface remains and enabling
their recognition.
Some, but not all, of the land in the Moorland Fringe Broad Type is now open Access land
(CRoW). The long term impact of open access on the historic environment in these areas
is unknown as the right of access here only came into force on 28 May 2005 and its
implications for the historic environment are still unfolding. However, the YDNPA are
monitoring the situation through its Rangers and Volunteers and initial results suggest little
change either in people’s activities or in the areas they are accessing at the moment. It is
worth noting that only access for walking, running and climbing are allowed i.e. without the
landowners agreement there is no permission for cycling or any other form of wheeled
transport nor horse riding, camping or any other activities which may leave physical traces.
Enclosure walls along the moorland fringe are often in poor condition. They are now in a
failure/neglect management trajectory and generally only external boundary walls are
regularly maintained. There are not many buildings in this part of the landscape. The few
field barns that exist tend to have been maintained less than ones in the valleys during the
twentieth century. However, they appear to be less vulnerable to demolition and robbing
out than redundant buildings on moorland, probably because the land is private, access is
limited and whatever remains of a building provides useful shelter for animals.
III Archaeology:
Generally the moorland fringe can be regarded as within a static and benign land use
regime with regard to the condition and stability of archaeological remains. Grazing related
issues may impinge slightly on the state of some archaeology such as poaching of the
118
ground around feeding sites. Heavy grazing helps maintain the visibility of earthworks
which can be useful for historic environment management purposes. Where cattle have
been reintroduced, there are concerns about the vulnerability of surface archaeology –
modern cattle breeds being heavier than traditional breeds. Rabbit burrowing can be a
severe problem due to a general lack of management measures and the control of their
natural predators - foxes, stoats, weasels by gamekeepers. Raptor populations also tend
to be very low on intensively managed shooting estates. Bracken can be damaging to subsurface archaeology - the extensive rhizomes have a damaging impact on structures and
can destroy delicate archaeological deposits - but bracken is generally controlled on the
more intensively managed estates to limit its encroachment onto areas of heather moor.
4.3.2
Moorland Fringe Sub Types
MF1 Moorland Fringe in no scheme
(MF Broad Type) + There is generally a lack of information available about land
held outside the agri-environment schemes. Although it means that the landowner
can pursue land improvement options through drainage schemes and ploughing,
this does not appear to have happened in the project area. Metal detecting on land
outside schemes is an unknown quantity. There is no evidence to suggest the walls
and other historic farming structures are in any better or worse condition than
elsewhere, although as the schemes mature differences may become more
apparent.
MF2 Moorland Fringe Allotment in ESA agreement
(MF Broad Type +) There are general prohibitions on those entering an ESA
agreement with allotment land which tend to preserve and conserve surface and
sub surface archaeology. Agreement holders are bound not to plough or cultivate
the land, nor introduce drainage schemes without permission. Metal detecting is not
specifically excluded from land managed under an ESA agreement. Funds were
available for the restoration of historic features but few options were taken out for
this within the project area. Wall repair is another funded option, but one not always
seen as a priority along the edge of the moor and it is common for a farmer to
rebuild gaps in the enclosed inbye and only maintain external boundaries in the
moorland fringe.
MF3 Moorland Fringe Allotment in ESA agreement designated a SSSI
(MF Broad Type + ESA +) SSSI The presence of a SSSI on moorland allotments
restricts the type of activities which can legally take place, and while the
conservation of the historic environment is not within its remit there are many
prescriptions and proscriptions which favour its condition and stability. For example
there is a proscription on cultivation of any kind and repeated vehicle rutting. Tree
planting on the moorland edge is a concern.
MF4 Moorland Fringe Allotment in ESA agreement designated Common
Land
(MF Broad Type + ESA +) Common Land Common land is not restricted to the
moorland in Swaledale, but occasionally spills down the valley sides into large
enclosed pastures and remnant wood pasture. Originally there would have been
several common land rights in operation, but the main rights exercised today on
enclosed common pastures and unenclosed moorland are grazing rights. These
119
may be partly managed by commoner’s committees. Rights are tied to property and
many local farmers have ‘gaits’ or ‘stints’ through which they are allowed to graze a
certain number of animals (now mainly sheep) for specified lengths of time. Any
agri-environment scheme applied for has had to take this into account and this will
become more significant under the Environmental Stewardship rules, where every
common land grazier will have to sign up to an agreement.
MF5 Moorland Fringe Allotment in ESA agreement, designated Common
Land and SSSI
(MF Broad Type + ESA + SSSI + Common Land)
MF6 Moorland Fringe in CSS
(MF Broad Type +) There are general prohibitions on those entering the CSS which
tend to preserve and conserve surface and sub surface archaeology. They are
bound not to ‘disturb the land by ploughing or other cultivation’, to minimise rolling
or chain harrowing for the sake of wildlife, not to modify or install new drainage
systems and to minimise poaching. Metal detecting is not permitted on sites of
archaeological interest within land managed under a Stewardship Agreement
without prior written consent (originally from MAFF, then Defra now Natural
England). Restoring historic features in the upland landscape was one of the target
priorities but few options were taken out for this within the project area. Wall repair
is another option, but one not always seen as a priority along the moorland edge.
The need to control bracken encroachment has meant that some areas have been
managed by chemical or mechanical means and, provided surface archaeology is
not damaged during the process, this activity will be beneficial to condition and
stability of the historic environment. Mechanical removal with machines can destroy
surface archaeology, but lower impact horse drawn rollers have been used in the
project area with good results. Tree planting is more problematic, but consultative
frameworks are in place within the Conservation and Policy Team of the YDNPA to
minimise potentially damaging effects. Those who take up a CSS agreement are
obliged by the terms of the agreement to protect and maintain archaeological sites
and other landscape features.
4.4
Pastoral Farming HLMC Types
Farming today in Swaledale and Arkengarthdale is based on the rearing of hill sheep and
to a lesser extent dairying and the provision of suckler and store cattle; very occasionally
pigs are reared on a small scale. There appears to be fewer rare or native breeds of cattle
than elsewhere in the Yorkshire Dales, although this may change. The farming system
hinges on the careful management and use of enclosed and improved grassland, some
being used as meadows to produce winter fodder, the rest as pasture of varying quality. In
the post-war years and especially in the 1970s and 1980s, the methods of managing this
grassland to produce maximum economic benefit changed and intensified. Drainage,
ploughing and reseeding, and the use of artificial fertilisers decimated the number of
traditional hay meadows in the area. Farms amalgamated, and as a result the need and
ability to maintain the field wall boundaries and traditional barns declined. The need for the
latter declined as farmers switched from hay to silage production, particularly big bale
silage, and large animal sheds or general purpose buildings were built on larger
farmsteads. The number of working farms and farmsteads has declined from 240 in
1942/3 to less than 60 today, and is still falling. All these changes contributed to the many
120
highly visible modifications in the landscape which prompted the establishment of
Environmentally Sensitive Areas, not just in the Pennines but nationwide, in 1987 and to
the designation of the Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Conservation Area in 1989.
Figure 53 The Pennine Dales Environmentally Sensitive Area (MAFF 1997 (1) inside cover)
The Pennine Dales ESA was designated in 1987 by MAFF under provisions made in the
Agriculture Act 1986 (Section 18). Its aim was to conserve and enhance the landscape,
wildlife and historic interest of the area and to this end there was a baseline appraisal of
the particular character of a dale which took the form of a Landscape Assessment and
Environmental Guidelines commissioned by MAFF (1995).The enclosed farmland of
Swaledale and Arkengarthdale forms part of the original Pennine Dales ESA. The
boundaries of this ESA were revised twice, quite extensively in 1992 (new dales were
added) and in 1995, but in the project area these revisions took the form of minor additions
rather than subtractions.
The take up of voluntary ESA agreements by farmers proved to be a gradual process and
new farmers were still entering the scheme in 2002 although a small percentage of
farmers never joined the scheme. The scheme formally closed to new entrants in 2005, to
be replaced by Environmental Stewardship. The first farms in the project area are
beginning to transfer to ES, but the effect of the new agri-environment scheme on the
historic environment remains to be assessed.
All land entering potential agreements within the ESAs was assigned a particular Tier,
which depended on its current habitat and management regime. As explained in the
Method Statement, there was a vast difference between the management practices
allowed on Improved grassland (Tier 1A) and the other Tiers. The addition of Tier 1A
121
improved grassland was new addition to the scheme in 1992, designed to improve take up
by dairy farmers and to further landscape scale protection of boundaries and traditional
farm buildings rather than just the hay meadows which had been the initial focus of the
scheme. In effect it was accepted that intensively improved grassland could be included by
a farmer in the scheme, but payment for it was nominal; in return the farmer was allowed
to continue to plough and reseed it, and it is this which puts it in a different category with
regards to the long term survival of any below surface archaeological remains in that Tier.
In the other Tiers the interests of biodiversity and the historic environment were met by
proscriptions on activities like drainage and ploughing.
Conservation Plans were introduced in 1992, and worked through a series of grant-aided
capital works for a variety of environmental items: those relevant to the historic
environment in Swaledale were the repair and renovation of field walls and hedges (there
are a few hedges in the area), and the renovation of traditional agricultural buildings and
historic features. Tree planting and the restoration of hay meadows were other options
available. Many kilometres of walling and dozens of barns in the project area were
repaired under this scheme, adding to the number similarly restored under the YDNPAs
Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme.
Figure 54 The field walls and barns of Gunnerside Bottoms were repaired through both the Barns
and Walls Conservation Scheme and ESA Farm Conservation Plans
It was stipulated in all ESA agreements that historic features were not to be damaged or
destroyed. Some monitoring of the scheme was carried out - Environmental Monitoring in
the Pennine Dales ESA 1987-1995. This covered the whole PDESA, not just Swaledale
and Arkengarthdale, and noted ‘the monitoring of historical features recorded that none
had been damaged or destroyed through agricultural practices. The condition of a small
number of features had deteriorated, both on agreement land and non-agreement land,
through natural causes. However, twice as many had undergone beneficial change, almost
all on agreement land. The changes in land cover that could have an impact on ground
features of historical interest were also analysed. The impact of these was minimal and
almost all were on non-agreement land’ (ADAS 1996, p.6). This monitoring however was
based on a small sample survey and, unlike the biodiversity monitoring which included the
122
establishment of base line quadrats, no base line historic environment field survey was
carried out.
Enclosed farmland outside the ESA was eligible to join the CSS, as was land inside the
ESA if a farmer’s holding straddled the boundary, and the CSS was the scheme a farmer
preferred. There is an example of this cross-boundary flexibility of agri-environment
schemes in the project area. The conservation of historic features was an element of both
CS and ESA schemes although the terminology used in agreements differs. CS included a
requirement “to protect and maintain archaeological sites and other landscape features”
(Defra 2003, 16); ESA guidelines refer to maintaining weatherproof buildings, maintaining
historic features while “stockproof walls and hedges are maintained and not damaged or
removed” (MAFF 1997, 5).
Despite the apparent homogeneity of the enclosed farm land in the valleys, farm
management varies within the dales. Some farms have or used to specialise in dairying,
and invested heavily in “improving” grassland; this could include pastures high on the
moorland edge, sometimes even enclosed land actually lying within moorland. Other
farmers stuck to more traditional methods of farming, keeping their meadows in the valley
bottoms, and with their other land grading up to rough pasture and rush allotments on the
moorland edge. Some farmers took out options to restore as many as five barns on their
land within a Farm Conservation Plan, others none. The latter category however may
include those who had repaired barns through the YDNPA’s Barns and Walls
Conservation Scheme. Difficulties in accessing and integrating up-to-date information from
the BWCS into the HLMC project’s database at the time the HLMC Sub Types were being
defined means that no account could be taken of farms which had repaired and renovated
traditional stone structures through BWCS (the files were being used off-site for a project
assessing the socio-economic benefits of barn conservation work). When this information
is available, it would make sense to broaden the Farm Conservation Plan attribute to a
more general renovation and conservation category, and redefine the allocated Sub Types
for the different Pastoral Farming polygons.
As demonstrated in the Method Statement section, several different attributes have been
used to define Pastoral Farming within its Broad Type. These are the presence or absence
of an agri-environment scheme (ESA or CSS), the presence of improved grassland or
Higher Tier management, and whether or not the farm took out a Conservation Plan which
embraced elements of the historic environment (barns, walls, historic structures).
4.4.1
Management Profile
I Modern land use:
The principal land cover is grassland of various types: improved grassland, meadow,
pasture and rough grazing or pasture. Not all farms will contain the first of these, though
most will have a balanced group of the others, or rent the equivalent. Each of these
provides food animal stock (mainly sheep, beef cattle and dairy herds) at different times of
the year. Unlike arable farming, the invasive nature of pastoral farming is muted. Much
land clearance will have already taken place in the past and today valley fields are largely
clear of rocks and boulders; there is evidence of field drainage systems at least since the
1840 Tithe maps, and maintenance of extant drainage channels is to be expected.
Modern fertilisers and reseeding regimes have changed the botanic constituents of the
grasses on many farms, although this has more implications for biodiversity than
archaeology or the built environment. However, traditionally managed botanically rich hay
123
meadows can be seen as much an integral a part of the historic environment as the barns
which stored the hay. Hay is still cut and baled on some farms. Many farms cut grass for
silage now normally packed in large silage bags or wrap rather than stored in silos. Silage
bags can be stored outside and are difficult to handle without machinery which also makes
it difficult to store them in field barns. Since the 1960s with the steady increase in weight
and size of farm machinery, there has been a noticeable increase in surface erosion and
compaction, particularly around working farmsteads and field gateways
With the establishment of the Pennine Dales ESA in 1987 and the take up by many farms
of ESA agreements over the years, the methods of farming have become more
transparent and regularised. Farmers are increasingly being paid to farm their land in an
environmentally sensitive way through these voluntary agreements. Outside of the ESA,
Countryside Stewardship Schemes with similar aims have been an option for farmers.
Entry to both these schemes is now closed and replaced by Environmental Stewardship,
but they will remain operative for several years yet.
Today farms frequently require different working premises to those they have inherited,
particularly if they are dairy or beef farms, and large modern sheds are a feature of
modern farmsteads. Consequently many traditional farm buildings on farmsteads have or
are likely to become redundant, and unless other uses can be found their condition and
stability are likely to decline. As farm holdings amalgamate, inevitably some buildings
which were farms in the past become residential only; adjacent barns may be redundant or
have been converted to residential use in the past. On working farmsteads the conversion
of traditional buildings to alternative uses is allowed by YDNPA planning policies under
certain conditions. External field wall boundaries tend to be kept in better condition than
internal ones.
Grant schemes have been available for over two decades to help farmers maintain the
traditional fabric of their farms. Many barns have been repaired through MAFF grants, ESA
Traditional Building grants and the YDNPA’s Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme.
124
Figure 55 Harkerside Place is a typical working farm in Swaledale, with modern animal sheds
overshadowing redundant and still used traditional farm buildings; the stone roofed building
received a repair grant from Defra
III Archaeology:
Any form of land clearance or invasive cultivation, whenever it happened, is of potential
relevance to the historic environment as these activities affect the condition and stability of
surface archaeology as well as creating new landforms. Ploughing in the distant past will
have reshaped the surface of the ground and altered the degree and nature of visibility of
any earlier archaeology. This process continues today, and the improvement of agricultural
land since the Second World War through shallow ploughing and reseeding will have left
its mark. However, on farms which entered into ESA agreements only Improved Grassland
(Tier 1A) is still open to modification through ploughing.
4.4.2
Pastoral Farming Sub Types
PF1 Pastoral Farming in no agreement
(PF Broad Type +) Potentially those farms which have no agreement are freer to
carry out land improvements than those in ESA or CSS agreements, providing they
comply with cross compliance legislation. In practice it seems that farms which have
not entered the agri-environment schemes are mainly run along traditional lines by
independent minded farmers who prefer to work free of additional government-led
constraints or who are unable, perhaps for age or educational reasons, to access
the schemes.
PF2 Pastoral Farming, ESA agreement, Improved Grassland (Tier 1A)
(PF Broad Type +) ESA Improved Grassland (Tier 1A) Swaledale and
Arkengarthdale form part of the Pennine Dales ESA. Each land parcel is assigned
to a particular land Tier, which governs the type of agricultural activity which is
allowed. Arable and Improved Grassland (Tier 1A) is the category where the most
intensive methods are allowed, namely ploughing, levelling and reseeding.
PF3 Pastoral Farming, ESA agreement, Higher Tier
(PF Broad Type +) ESA Higher Tier Swaledale and Arkengarthdale form part of
the Pennine Dale ESA. Each land parcel is assigned to a particular land Tier, which
governs the type of agricultural activity which is allowed. Land in Tiers 1B, 2A and
2B (meadows, pastures, and herb-rich or standard allotments) cannot be improved
through ploughing, levelling and reseeding under the terms of the agreement.
PF4 Pastoral Farming, ESA agreement, Improved Grassland (Tier 1A) with a
Farm Conservation Plan
(PF Broad Type +) ESA Improved Grassland (Tier 1A) + Conservation Plan
Swaledale and Arkengarthdale form part of the Pennine Dales ESA. Each land
parcel is assigned to a particular land Tier, which governs the type of agricultural
activity which is allowed. Arable and improved grassland (Tier 1A) is the category
where the most intensive methods are allowed, namely ploughing, levelling and
reseeding.
The Conservation Plan enables capital works, like the renovation of field barns and
other traditional farm buildings to be grant aided. Wall Renovation supplements
enable the repair of walls.
125
PF5 Pastoral Farming, ESA agreement, Higher Tier with a Farm
Conservation Plan
(PF Broad Type +) ESA Higher Tier + Conservation Plan
Swaledale and Arkengarthdale form part of the Pennine Dales ESA. Each land
parcel is assigned to a particular land Tier, which governs the type of agricultural
activity which is allowed. Land in Tiers 1B, 2A and 2B (meadows, pastures,
allotments either herb-rich or standard) cannot be improved through ploughing,
levelling and reseeding under the terms of the agreement.
The Conservation Plan enables capital works, like the renovation of field barns and
other traditional farm buildings to be grant aided. Wall Renovation supplements
enable the repair of walls.
PF6 Pastoral Farming, ESA agreement, Higher Tier, Common Land
(PF Broad Type + ESA Higher Tier +) Common Land is not restricted to the
moorland in Swaledale, but occasionally spills down the valley sides into large
enclosed pastures. Originally there would have been several common land rights in
operation, but the main one operative today on enclosed common pastures are the
grazing rights, which may be organised by Commoner’s committees. Rights are tied
to property and many local farmers own or rent ‘gaits’ or ‘stints’ on the moor,
through which they are allowed to graze a certain number of animals (today usually
sheep) for specified lengths of time. Any agri-environment scheme applied for has
had to take this into account and this will become more significant under the
Environmental Stewardship rules, where all common land graziers will have to sign
up for an application to make it valid.
PF7 Pastoral Farming in CSS agreement
(PF Broad Type +) CSS There are usually general prohibitions on those entering
the CSS which tend to preserve and conserve surface and sub surface
archaeology. They are bound not to ‘disturb the land by ploughing or other
cultivation’, to minimise rolling or chain harrowing for the sake of wildlife, not to
modify or install new drainage systems and to minimise poaching. Metal detecting
may not be permitted on sites of archaeological interest within land managed under
a Stewardship Agreement without prior written consent (originally from MAFF, then
Defra, now Natural England). Restoring historic features in the upland landscape
was one of the target priorities but few options were taken out for this within the
project area. Wall repair is another option. The need to control bracken
encroachment has meant that some areas have been managed by chemical or
mechanical means and, provided surface archaeology is not damaged during the
process, this activity will be beneficial to condition and stability of the historic
environment. Tree planting is more problematic, but consultative frameworks are in
place within the Conservation and Policy Team of the YDNPA to minimise
potentially damaging effects. Those who take up a CSS agreement are obliged by
the terms of the agreement to protect and maintain archaeological sites and
landscape features.
126
4.5
Settlement HLMC Types
As demonstrated in the method statement, several different attributes have been used to
define Settlements within its Broad Type. A fundamental one is the functional character of
the settlement – whether or not it includes a commercial area or is primarily residential
and/or agricultural, and whether it has a nucleated or dispersed pattern. All but one of the
settlements in the project area are within the National Park, and this is a key defining
attribute. Being within a National Park is the highest form of landscape designation and
has long term implications for settlement development under YDNPA Planning Policy, from
a strategic level to a building level. Another key attribute is Conservation Area status
(inside or outside a Conservation Area). The final one is current status within the Local
Plan for the YDNP, as different planning policies apply in different categories of settlement.
Combinations of all these variables have contributed to the definition of Settlement Sub
Types. The importance of these variables for understanding the broad management
implications is set out below, but first there is a general overview of settlement in the
project area, followed by a brief description of the main types, independent of
Conservation Area and Local Plan status.
There are several intertwined settlement patterns in Swaledale and Arkengarthdale. The
handful of small nucleated settlements (Feetham, Fremington, Grinton, Gunnerside,
Healaugh, Langthwaite, Low Row, Reeth) of varying size are complemented by a wider
distribution of farming hamlets (Arkle Town, Crackpot, Low Whita, Whaw), dispersed
settlement frequently arranged around the edge of old Common land (Booze, Blades) and
scattered farmsteads embedded in the farming landscape. Many of these scattered
settlements have their roots in the earlier dual economy of the area, where for several
centuries until its collapse in the 1880s, families worked in the lead industry as well as
farming. Hurst, which lies outside the National Park in Richmondshire, is thought to be
solely associated with the lead mining economy in origin (Hartley and Pontefract 1934,
pp.174-5).
The small nucleated settlements all have different histories, and this has affected their
layouts, constituent parts and how they have developed over the centuries. Although
Grinton was the most important civil and ecclesiastical settlement in medieval times, it is
Reeth which has become the centre of the dale in the post-medieval period. This is
expressed in the YDNPA Local Plan where Reeth is designated one of only four Key
Service Centres in the National Park. The implications this has are articulated in the
methodology section (2.2.2.12). Reeth has a distinctive layout set around a large sloping
village green, the origins of which are still not understood. The presence of this large
space has, however, made it able to adapt with little overt change to the needs of the
tourist industry, in particular the requirement for ample parking. In recent centuries Reeth
developed as a centre for trade and businesses, and its architecture reflects this in the
size of some of the dominant buildings on the western fringe of the green in particular, as
well as in their lack of front gardens. Its transition to tourist centre has enabled it to keep a
small range of shops and services (e.g. post office) going, along with its long-established
inns and more recently founded cafes, tea shops, gift shops, and accommodation facilities
and a recently re-established weekly market. It still functions as a centre for other services
for the local population (e.g. doctor, garage, police station, school, chapel) although these
are not necessarily placed at the physical heart of the settlement. Although there are
private residences around the central green, the character of this central area is really
defined by the presence of buildings providing commercial and non-commercial services
127
for the public – there are two non-conformist chapels situated in this space. This is the only
place in the project area where this is the case, and consequently the centre of Reeth is
placed in a Sub Type of its own (S1). Its public buildings continue to face redundancy – the
bank closed around the turn of the millennium - and there is a history of conversion to
residential use (e.g. the old workhouse).
Figure 56 Reeth has a mixture of public and private, commercial, residential, religious and farming
buildings, some within a Conservation Area, some outside
Beyond the central service zone is an area characterised more by the presence of
residential buildings, and this area has been sub-divided by the HLMC methodology into
the parts within Conservation Areas and the part outside. The old centre (i.e. nineteenth
century and earlier) of Reeth falls largely within the Reeth Conservation Area, although a
few of its older buildings are not included (S2). Beyond the Conservation Area is an
undesignated zone where the suburbs of Reeth lie (S3). These comprise late nineteenth
and twentieth century additions, including small housing estates dating from the second
half of the twentieth century, two of which were initially social housing, as well as outer
lying farmhouses of much older origins. Part of this area has been designated for business
use in the current YDNPA Local Plan, and it may well be ultimately where the most
modern development will take place. The outer zone of Reeth stretches to where the
school lies in the west to the old saw mill premises on the far side of Arkle Beck in the
east. This outer zone lies within the Swaledale Barns and Walls Conservation Area, and
the restrictions and opportunities of the designation apply. It has consequently been
designated as HLMC Sub Type S2.
Feetham, Fremington, Grinton, Gunnerside, Healaugh, Langthwaite, Low Row are all
minor nucleated settlements. Nucleated is taken in a broad sense here to indicate a
concentration of buildings rather than a tight cluster, as several of these settlements
include elements which are linear in form. They all have different characters, with a
different mix of buildings inherited from their past, and these are highlighted in the
following descriptions.
Feetham merges into Low Row along the B6270, but they have to be considered
separately due to their different status in the YDNPA Local Plan (2006) which has
128
informed their different HLMC Sub Type. Neither is within a Conservation Area, but
whereas Low Row is a designated Small Village, Feetham remains undesignated for the
time being. This places it within an HLMC Sub Type of its own within the project area S6.
Although it appears to be a marginal Sub Type, if the HLMC methodology were developed
for the rest of the National Park, it would become one of the commoner characterisation
categories. The earliest houses date back to the seventeenth century and occasionally
thatch lines can be glimpsed in the gable ends of many types of buildings, domestic,
agricultural as well as the public house. Later the roofs were raised and the buildings there
today are mainly roofed with local stone slates. Both settlements are strung out along
fragments of common land which are still used by local farmers with ‘gaits’ or ‘stints’ to
graze their animals. However, the presence of common land within a settlement has not
been made a defining attribute of the Settlement Sub Types in this pilot project - its
presence is merely noted within the database. As Low Row is a designated Small Village
outside a Conservation Area, consequently its HLMC Sub Type is S4.
Grinton is designated a Service Village in the YDNPA Local Plan (2006). The settlement
has the oldest surviving building in the dale, the Grade I twelfth century and later church
dedicated to St Andrew. Several other buildings in the settlement are Grade II listed, but
this has not influenced the creation of HLMC Settlement Sub Types, as settlements have
been considered as a whole through their function (commercial/public or
residential/agricultural) and status (Conservation Area or not) rather than as an
amalgamation of individual buildings. The inner core of Grinton is not in a Conservation
Area, but its outer reaches lie within the Barns and Walls Conservation Area, hence the
presence of two different Sub Types (S2) and (S3).
Gunnerside is designated a Service Village in the YDNPA Local Plan (2006). It is an
amalgamation of two former separate hamlets with different characters, Gunnerside and
Lodge Green. It has some components of a commercial and public centre, with a pub,
village school, literary institute (now a village hall), methodist chapel, tea rooms and
working smithy with museum distributed around its centre but these were not deemed
dominant nor extensive enough to warrant inclusion in the Commercial and Public Sub
Type like the centre of Reeth. Modern Gunnerside has mixed origins, its buildings being
created to cater for the needs of both the farming and lead mining economies. There are
several buildings here whose architecture is typical of the late seventeenth and early
nineteenth centuries and may have agricultural origins, but many of the smaller properties
date to the nineteenth century and were probably built to accommodate lead mining
families. A few of the more substantial buildings have been listed. Many properties are
now holiday homes and all buildings are facing incremental modifications resulting from
changes in need and fashion. The inner core of Gunnerside is in a Conservation Area, but
its outer reaches are not, hence the presence of two different Sub Types (S2) and (S3).
Much of Gunnerside is now holiday accommodation and second homes – on one street
alone of the seventeen dwellings only five still house permanent residents. It is likely that
the second home market has led to more renovation being undertaken more frequently
than in comparative residential stock, although this is a subject on which there is little
research. Certainly buildings appear to exchange hands on a much shorter cycle, and this
probably increases the amount of incremental change. The YDNPA have issued a
guidance leaflet to encourage the repair and maintenance of traditional doors and
windows, in an effort to stem the tide of white plastic, but has not sought an Article 4 notice
to bring window replacement into the planning system.
129
Figure 57 A summer day in Gunnerside – maintenance, alteration and - more unusually - new build.
Clockwise from bottom left: wooden sixteen-light sash windows being given a coat of paint; UPVC
windows replacing softwood sash windows; a new domestic dwelling under construction at the edge
of the village; trailer containing waste from building refurbishment
Healaugh is a small nucleated settlement made up of domestic and agricultural buildings,
some of which have already been converted to residential use, and no commercial
buildings. Healaugh is a designated Small Village outside a Conservation Area,
consequently its HLMC Sub Type is S4.
Langthwaite owes its present character to the need to provide accommodation for families
working in the lead mining industry. Although part of it has grown up along the main road,
where the church, chapel, Sunday school and literary institute and old smithy can be
found, the dense huddle of small domestic buildings on the east side of Arkle Beck was
built to accommodate lead miners and their families in the early nineteenth century. Today
these small domestic buildings are popular as second homes or holiday cottages, although
permanent residential use is currently on the increase and only about half of the buildings
are now used as holiday homes from a peak of around 70% in the late 1990s. The public
buildings continue to face redundancy and there is a history of conversion to residential
use. Langthwaite is a designated Small Village outside a Conservation Area, consequently
its HLMC Sub Type is S4.
130
Figure 58 Stone slate roofs at Langthwaite; in order to protect barns from being robbed of slates the
YDNPA encourages the use of new slates. One of its mineral planning policies supports proposals
for the quarrying of building stone or roofing slates for use within the National Park or immediately
adjacent areas
One HLMC Sub Type covers all the farming hamlets within the Barns and Walls
Conservation Area (S5). These are (in alphabetical order) Arkle Town, Blades, Booze,
Crackpot, Fremington, Harkerside Place, Kearton, Low Houses, Low Whita, north of
Reeth, Spring End and Whaw. They all have distinctive histories which have helped define
their building profile in the modern world. For instance, Fremington is a small farming
hamlet with some unusually large residences dating from the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries such as High Fremington Hall, and Sorrel Sykes otherwise known as
Fremington House. The largest, Draycott Hall, has a particularly large garden and this has
led to its characterisation within a different HLMC Broad Type (Ornamental).
Figure 59 The hamlet of Booze, Arkengarthdale contains two working farms with modern animal
sheds, several scattered houses and the ruins of former dwellings - a reminder of its once vigorous
past centred on farming and lead mining
131
Whaw, on the other hand is a typical small farming hamlet with a mix of domestic buildings
and agricultural ones. It is also typical of many tiny settlements in this part of the Yorkshire
Dales in having one small historic public building – in this case a reading room, but a
Friends Meeting House or chapel would be equally representative. Booze is different
again, being a scattered settlement on former common land built partly for agricultural
purposes and partly to house lead mining families; like many settlements in Swaledale and
Arkengarthdale it suffered severe decline after the collapse of the lead mining industry in
the 1880’s and several of its buildings fell into disuse and terminal decline. All buildings still
in use are facing incremental modifications resulting from changes in need and fashion,
though these should take place within the limits prescribed by YDNPA planning policy.
Richmondshire District Council is the planning authority in the north-east part of the project
area. There is little settlement here apart from Hurst, once a thriving lead mining
community and now a scattered linear hamlet which consists of a single farm and
converted farm buildings and cottages, many for the holiday industry. In the 1930s its
predominantly thatched dwellings were in an exceptionally run down and derelict state –
noticeable even in that decade of deprivation (Pontefract and Hartley 1934, p.174), and it
has only relatively recently caught up with other areas in its standard of building
maintenance. Planning policies which apply here are outlined in the Richmondshire Local
Plan 1999-2006, now in the process of being updated. This is available for viewing on line
(www.planningportal.gov.uk/wps/portal ). Hurst lies within an Area of Great Landscape
Value (AGLV), and Policies 2-5 and 7 are particularly applicable. The emphasis is on using
existing building stock, limiting new development to essential rural needs (agriculture and
forestry), and allowing only developments and alterations which fit in with distinctive
landscape character in their siting and design. It features as HLMC Sub Type S7.
4.5.1
Management Profile
I Modern land use:
Settlement is and always has been the principal epicentre of human activity. This is as true
in the present as it was in the past. Modern centres of settlement tend to cluster in and
around older ones, so the chronological range of the historic environment within
settlements is likely to be extensive. Generally the larger and denser the settlement, the
wider the range of services it provides and functions it fulfils, the wider the range of
buildings and structures it contains and the more complex and varied the options for
conservation, adaptation and change it faces in the present day. The smaller and more
scattered the settlement, the fewer the range of services, the fewer the range of buildings
and structures present, and the fewer the management options available.
The buildings and structures which form part of a settlement will have been originally built
to serve a particular function. Often they are still being used for the same purposes. In
these cases it is likely the buildings and structures will have been maintained and the
physical fabric will be in good or fair condition. It is also likely the original structure will
have been modified internally and externally over the years to accommodate changes in
need and fashion. The latter can encompass anything from restoration to complete rebuild,
replacement windows and other joinery to extensions. Since the establishment of the
YDNPA, some change operates within the limits imposed by local planning policies and
building regulations although many processes which can dramatically alter the character of
132
historic structures are permitted development; Listed Buildings are also covered by
separate legislation and restrictions
Some of these buildings and structures are no longer being used for their original purpose,
or are likely to change use in the future. Certain categories of building are more likely to
have recently faced redundancy than others, and these include a wide range of built forms.
Domestic buildings have tended to remain in use in modern times (although there are
exceptions) but commercial, industrial and institutional buildings are particularly vulnerable
to conversion. Chapels, mills, workhouses, schools and institutes, coach houses and
stables, barns and other agricultural buildings, buildings associated with defunct industries
like lead mining, and even some domestic dwellings either have, are or will face
redundancy. Every Settlement Sub Type has its own example of buildings which became
redundant in the past as well as buildings which are currently no longer needed for their
original purpose. There are three main management options for these buildings and
structures: either demolition, or another use is found for them, or they remain unused. If reuse, adaptation of the building is usually necessary. Depending on the scale and nature of
alterations this may require planning consent and within the YDNPA alterations may be
governed by local planning policies which are informed by national planning policies and
guidelines. Local planning policy B15 (Conversion of Traditional Buildings) requires that
buildings judged to be of historic interest and importance be recorded prior to alterations or
change of use which would entail loss of original character and features. Unused or
underused buildings may be maintained for their own sake or left to decay. In the past the
reuse of masonry and roofing slates from redundant buildings was common and they were
in effect gradually demolished.
III Archaeology:
In some cases modern settlement will exist on top of archaeological deposits relating to
earlier settlements, the extent and exact whereabouts of which is often unknown. More
tends to be known and understood about the archaeology of our towns and cities than that
of rural settlements. However, new building and service trenches, wherever they happen,
can disturb sub surface archaeology. The planning policies adopted by YDNPA require
that where there is evidence or a high probability that important remains will be damaged
or destroyed by proposed development requiring planning consent assessment and
evaluation is carried out. This may lead to further mitigation.
4.5.2
S1
Settlement Sub Types
NP + Public buildings and spaces + Key Service Centre or Service Village +
Conservation Area
This settlement lies within the YDNP and is subject to local planning policies as set
out in the current YDNPA Yorkshire Dales Local Plan.
+ Commercial and Public buildings and spaces
This is the central core of the settlement, usually hosting the widest range of
building types - a small town may contain shops, garages, banks, post office, cafes,
pubs and hotels, museum, church and/or chapels, schools, agricultural buildings,
workplaces, offices, mills etc as well as domestic buildings. Some of these buildings
are still in use for their initial purpose, retaining much of their original features and
structures e.g. non conformist chapels from the nineteenth century; others are still
being used for their original purpose, but will be much altered e.g. pubs and inns.
Many buildings will have already made the transition from one use to another e.g.
133
workhouse or mill to residential flats, with concomitant alterations to internal and
external features.
+ Key Service Centre and Service Village
The pressure for more residential accommodation in the YDNPA is acute and is
provided for by the conversion of traditional buildings (a dwindling resource) and
new build through infill (potential infill plots are another dwindling resource). The
development of greenfield sites on the outskirts of Key Service Centres and Service
Villages is being considered.
+ Conservation Area status
Buildings and structures inside Conservation Areas are protected from demolition
without planning consent. Local planning authorities are obliged to pay special
attention to the character and appearance of their Conservation Areas when
considering applications for planning permission. Conservation Area status has
prevented the demolition of barns and the selling on of their building materials. It
has also become a conduit for funded schemes, such as the Barns and Walls
Conservation Scheme, which have provided grants for repair and restoration.
S2
NP + Residential and other use + Key Service Centre or Service Village +
Conservation Area
This area is predominantly for residential use, though other building types and
functions are also present.
S3
NP + Residential and other use + Key Service Centre or Service Village +
outside Conservation Area
As S2 but Conservation Area status does not apply.
S4
NP + Small Village + outside Conservation Area
YDNPA planning policy now allows conversion of barns and and other traditional
buildings in designated Small Villages for local occupancy (previously this was
restricted to agricultural workers needs).
S5
NP + Countryside inside Conservation Area
Farming hamlets usually contain domestic dwellings, agricultural buildings and
occasionally a former or current public building (e.g. inn). Current YDNPA planning
policies permit traditional buildings (usually of agricultural origin) within working
farmsteads to be converted to new economic uses (holiday home rentals, bunk
barns) as well as essential farm workers accommodation). While buildings within
settlements are unlikely to face decay and demolition, buildings in the countryside,
particularly redundant agricultural buildings, face a more uncertain future.
S6
NP + Countryside outside Conservation Area
As above but Conservation Area status does not apply.
S7
Outside the National Park (Richmondshire) + AGLV
This settlement is subject to planning policies outlined in the Richmondshire Local
Plan. It is within an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). Since 1984
Richmondshire District Council has had a policy of allowing residential conversions
of traditional barns and barn groups in the countryside which form “valuable
134
features of the landscape” providing they conserve the essential character of the
buildings concerned and their setting - Policy 12.
4.6
Woodland HLMC Types
Woodland forms a small proportion of the total land cover in the Project Area. In this it is
typical of most of the YDNP and much of the surrounding Pennines. That Swaledale and
Arkengarthdale used to be more heavily wooded in the distant past is obvious from the
many place-names associated with woodland, with particular tree species (e.g. ‘hollins’),
woodland clearings (e.g. ‘thwaite’) and types of woodland management (e.g. ‘stubbings’)
(Fleming, 1998, pp.82-100). However, as long ago as the sixteenth century Leland noted
that the Swaledale landscape was remarkable for its lack of trees (Smith 1909, p.32), an
observation reinforced 150 years later by a similar remark by Camden (1695, cols.758,
761). The woodland that exists today has varied historic origins which continue to play a
part in its modern character, how it is managed today and its future. Although there are no
large commercial plantations within the Project Area and woodland is overwhelmingly noncommercial in origin, there are nineteenth and early twentieth plantations (both beech and
conifer) which were almost certainly originally planted with their timber value in mind.
Many of these now appear to be managed, if at all, for their environmental benefits.
The average size of woodland in the YDNP is estimated at 2 hectares. Woodlands in the
project area are typically small in size as well, particularly in the enclosed farmland where
woodland is primarily found on steeper ground or along the banks of waterways. There is
an increased interest in tapping the economic value of small farm woodlands, and the
advent of small mobile saw mills which are adaptable and suitable for use where there is
limited harvesting potential may revolutionise the use of small farm woodland.
Figure 60 Scar House Wood, Arkengarthdale, is a mature beech plantation; trees are managed near
the Public Right of Way, but otherwise the wood is left much to its own devices
Much woodland is restricted to the steep inclines along the banks of rivers and becks.
Because of its relative inaccessibility, it is frequently left ‘unmanaged’ and is as close to
‘natural’ woodland as it is possible to get in this country. Woods like these are frequently
135
classified as ‘historic’ - areas which have been woodland since AD 1600 are classified as
Ancient Woodland or more generally as ancient semi-natural woodland. This does not
necessarily imply that there has never been any restocking. There is a database of Ancient
Woodland available from the MAGIC website although this tends to overlook smaller areas
of woodland. The biodiversity found in this type of woodland has led to the use of SSSI
designation to secure it some form of environmental protection in recognition of its rarity.
Gill woods are a distinctive part of the landscape, and some of these woodlands can be
comparatively large e.g. Barney Beck wood and Shaw Gill at Eskeleth. Another interesting
category is woodland growing on common land, such as at Great Rowleth and Little
Rowleth, with their distant origins as wood pasture.
New planting schemes are proliferating throughout the YDNP and elsewhere as a result of
a variety of national, regional and local level priorities. The Forestry Commission is in
charge of setting regional targets for new planting, as it has done for the Yorkshire and
The Humber Conservancy region. Targets to increase tree cover are in fact not a new
phenomenon in the National Park. The 1994 Dales Woodland Strategy set a target to
double the amount of broadleaved woodland in the YDNP by 2020. This works out at
c.2000 hectares and while on paper this appears to be a small amount of land compared
to the 1762 square kilometres of the National Park, in practise there is considerable
pressure on one particular part of the landscape - the valley sides - to carry the brunt of
the new planting. Although new planting does occurs in parts along the moorland fringe,
there are vast swathes of upland which appear to be counted out of the tree planting
equation for a variety of reasons. However, though extension of broadleaf woodland cover
from c.2% to c.3.5% of the land surface of the Park forms part of the Dales Woodland
Strategy there have been and will continue to be problems in achieving this target. It is the
small woodlands which are characteristic of the Dales landscape, and there are restricted
prospects for expansion.
The Forestry Commission provide guidelines and advice on the planting of new
broadleaved woodlands, and administers both the Woodland Grant Scheme and its
replacement the English Woodland Grant Scheme. The main impulses behind new
planting in the project area are identified below, but it should be remembered that there
may be multiple reasons for planting up a particular site and they are often interlinked.
New planting to increase sporting value:
Grouse estates are keen to introduce new woodlands along the moorland
edge to increase ‘sporting value’; woodland is a preferred habitat of pheasant
and black grouse.
New planting to increase biodiversity
English Nature has explicitly promoted the planting of new trees along the
Moorland edge (and frequently in gills) to benefit black grouse and other bird
species.
Grouse estates new plantings are also promoted as new native broadleaved
woodland, and are in line with the specified aim to create habitats for BAP
(Biodiversity Action Plan) priority species
Farm businesses are being encouraged to plant up farm land as woodland
‘to improve the landscape, provide new habitats and increase biodiversity’
(YDNPA 2002)
136
Figure 61 New planting near Hurst
New planting to restock, regenerate and extend old woodlands
Old plantations which have passed maturity and decayed are attracting new
planting schemes.
The presence of established woodland frequently attracts new planting
around its outskirts. This is the result of the prioritisation by the Forestry
Commission to reverse the fragmentation of ancient woodland, a policy
funded through the old WGS and the new EWGS.
New planting to combat environmental problems such as erosion, flooding and
climate change:
Planting to combat erosion is not a new phenomenon along the Swale and
the Arkle Beck. Both rivers are famous for their flash floods and powers of
destruction, and this also applies to the many tributary becks which feed
them. Parts of both waterways have been embanked and planted up during
the past 200 years. New riverine planting to protect the erosion of adjacent
land continues. Farms with land adjacent to the river are particularly
responsive to these problems as it is their land which gets flooded,
contaminated with lead-poisoned silt or washed away.
The potential and desirability for planting large areas of the Yorkshire Dales
for use as a carbon sink has not yet been established.
4.6.1
Management Profile
I Modern land use:
The management of woodland varies considerably, and is very much dependant on
whether it is newly planted or established woodland, and whether or not it is intended for
commercial use. The increased use of mobile saw mills, some of which have been grant
aided by the YDNPA Sustainable Development Fund which are suited to small and difficult
sites may lead to more interventional management in many Dales woodland in the future.
II Built environment:
137
Managed woodland of any type needs properly maintained boundaries to keep grazing
animals out. Newly planted woods are frequently fenced, but historic woodland may be
enclosed and indeed sub-partitioned by very old forms of boundary – walls, hedges, wood
banks. In the constant cycle of collapse and repair of walls, rebuilding can accelerate the
loss of original features within walls and the standardisation of building styles.
III Archaeology: Woodland has a paradoxical impact on archaeology. On the one hand the
planting up of previously open areas with trees can lead to the destruction of
archaeological remains through excavation of a planting hole or trench and the spread of
the root system as a tree matures; on the other hand areas of long established woodland
can harbour well preserved archaeological remains, as these areas have been protected
from the effects of long-term ploughing.
4.6.2
Woodland Sub Types
W1 Established woodland
These are woodlands which are without known management agreements and
appear to be left very much to their own devices. There is rarely any new planting,
and boundaries are often in a state of neglect. Mature trees may be left to fall
causing potential damage to historic environment forms through tree throw and
demolition.
W2
Established woodland in management agreement
The management of established woodland for environmental reasons has
distinctive implications for the historic environment. It is generally low key and will
tend to conserve patterns of traditional woodland management. This should help
preserve any surviving archaeological features and in particular those elements
within the woodland which contain indicators of their historic management e.g.
charcoal platforms, pollards, coppices, wood banks etc. Established woodland may
attract areas of new planting, however, and in this case there are other implications
for the historic environment. If trees are inadvertently planted over an area with
archaeological remains the impact, both at the moment of planting and later as their
root systems grow, could be severe. For these reasons it is essential for the
conservation of the historic environment that the impact of proposed new tree
planting sites on the historic environment is adequately assessed to eliminate the
possibility of environmental conflict. Occasionally one of the methods used to
regenerate woodland is to repair or rebuild its boundaries to exclude stock from
grazing the wood. In the Yorkshire Dales this often has implications for the
management of boundary walls. It is important that before repair or rebuild is
undertaken that these be assessed and recorded prior to work. Some wood
boundaries are centuries old and the walls which form them may contain, through
their stonework or integral features, historic evidence of their age. An alternative
approach is parallel rabbit proof fencing which can lead to the abandonment of
adjacent walls and accelerate their decline.
W3
Newly planted woodland in management agreement
New planting has obvious implications for the historic environment. The
recommended densities of planting generally prescribed by various grant schemes
are surprisingly high, and if trees are inadvertently planted over an area with
archaeological remains the impact, both at the moment of planting and later as their
138
root systems grow, could be severe. The erection of fences around new planting
sites can also cause damage to archaeology. For these reasons it is essential for
the conservation of the historic environment that the impact of proposed new
woodland sites on the historic environment is adequately assessed to eliminate the
possibility of environmental conflict. There are minor management benefits to the
historic environment also, which should not go unrecorded. Rabbit control e.g. drop
boxes is frequently a feature of new woodland management and as woodland
grows it shades out bracken, which is itself a threat to surface structures and
deposits.
4.7
Smallholding HLMC Types
There are a few landholdings defined as smallholdings in the project area. These are
houses with a small amount of attached land which is not used as a garden, but remains
as a field or fields. Ownership type is a crucial attribute here, for the land is reckoned to be
in private ownership rather than in a farm business i.e. it is unviable as a farm unit. The
vegetation cover is pasture/meadow.
4.7.1
Management Profile
I Modern land use:
Smallholdings are land and house units where the land continues to be used for
agricultural purposes rather than domestic (i.e. a garden). These ones are used for
grazing.
Field walls tend to be well maintained, as most of them are external boundary walls. The
condition of other agricultural buildings is difficult to predict and will vary.
III Archaeology:
General use of the land for grazing means the impact on archaeological remains will be
minimal although poaching, especially around foddering sites, may be a problem,
Poaching can also be caused by horses overwintering outside.
4.7.2
Smallholding Sub Types
SM1 Smallholding not in an agri-environment scheme
Little extra information is available on the management of smallholdings outside
agri-environment schemes.
SM2 Smallholding with land in ESA agreement
Smallholdings were eligible for ESA grants and capital works such as wall
renovation were undertaken through this scheme.
4.8
Ornamental HLMC Type
Although there are many gardens in the project area only two are large enough to exceed
the one hectare cut-off point. These are the private gardens attached to Draycott Hall,
Fremington and Scar House, Arkengarthdale. Neither of them are Registered Parks and
139
Gardens of Historic Interest and both belong to small private country houses; consequently
they are both in the same HLMC Sub Type (O1).
4.8.1
Management Profile
I Modern land use:
Gardens, like buildings, are altered and reworked according to need and fashion, and the
private garden is often in the forefront of new trends. By their very nature gardens are
always changing and cannot stay the same. Even if the original layout of a garden is
maintained, plants mature, grow and die, prompting a constant cycle of maintenance,
replacement, alteration and neglect.
The built structures of gardens (paths, garden buildings, walls, greenhouses) may remain
long after their original creation, but like all built structures will fail without maintenance.
III Archaeology:
Many gardens have long histories, the remains of some of which will be preserved in
earlier physical structures, soil deposits and other material remains. Redevelopment of
the garden will destroy some archaeology - and create some – today’s garden features are
tomorrow’s archaeology.
4.8.2
Ornamental Sub Type
O1 Private Country House Garden (Unlisted)
(O Broad Type +) Management options for this Sub Type are wide and various, and
intimately bound up with decisions taken by their current owners. They include
maintaining the status quo, restoration, redesign, development of the grounds for
housing or for other purposes. Only the latter is affected by outside factors through
local planning policies.
4.9
Recreation HLMC Types
Only two areas with the principal function of Recreation land have been identified in the
project area. By chance they are adjacent to each other, just to the south of Reeth –
Playing fields and a permanent Caravan Park, run as a small business. As they belong to
different patterns of ownership and land use, they are each in their own Sub Type (R1,
R2). It has been suggested that these may be developed as separate HLMC Types for
Sport and Tourism in future projects (Graham Fairclough pers. com).
4.9.1
Management Profile
I Modern land use:
Land devoted to recreation may serve local needs, visitor needs or both. In rural areas it
tends to cluster around settlements, but its impact will vary considerably according to its
particular type. Many recreation facilities involve the re-landscaping of grounds and
infrastructure development such as provision of better access for vehicles.
140
Impact on and contribution to the Built Environment will vary according to its particular
type.
III Archaeology:
Impact on the archaeology will vary according to its particular type.
4.9.2
Recreation Sub Type
R1 Playing Fields
(R Broad Type +) In the original creation of playing fields, ground levels may have
been altered, drainage systems laid, associated buildings put up and car park
provision made. All these measures can affect the status of sub-surface
archaeology through truncation or burial. Subsequent maintenance procedures tend
to be low key (e.g. grass cutting).
R2 Caravan Park (Permanent)
(R Broad Type +) Permanent caravan parks may involve ground levelling, the
creation of service trenches, and the erection of ancillary buildings. All these
measures can affect the status of sub-surface archaeology through truncation or
burial.
4.10
Water HLMC Type
Both the River Swale and Arkle Beck have been given an HLMC presence as WA1
Riverine area. There is a long recorded history of devastating and occasionally lethal flash
floods in the Swaledale area which appear to have increased impact downstream in the
form of deeper and more extensive flooding. This area has recently been the focus of a
project, the River Swale Regeneration Project, devoted to documenting and assessing
water run-off patterns in the area to develop ways of mitigating the problem (Bennett
2002). The effects of river bank erosion on historic structures and buildings are well
documented in the area, and lead mining remains are frequently affected in the tributary
gills. The Regeneration Project funded the regeneration of over 17.5 hectares of woodland
in the area, as well as more complex riverbank maintenance as at Grinton Bridge where
gabion mattresses (boulder filled mesh crates) were used with willow stakes to stabilise
the bank (www.riverswale.org.uk ). Although erosion patterns happen on the adjacent
land, this particular HLMC Sub Type can be used as the vehicle for understanding land
management issues associated with natural drainage systems.
Having only one Sub Type in the project area, and being an unusual type of ‘land’
management, it was decided to leave the management profiling for the Broad Type open
and concentrate on profiling the Sub Type.
4.10.1
Management Profile
I Modern land use:
None yet developed for Broad Type
141
III Archaeology:
4.10.2
Water Sub Type
WA1 Riverine area
This is an unstable environment, with constant erosion of river bed and adjacent
banks. It contains and is traversed by a rich array of built structures, developed over
the centuries to help people, their vehicles and animals cross water safely and
without getting wet. Stepping stones and bridges are in constant need of
maintenance, and if a public highway the latter are the responsibility of the local
highways department. River side structures, many of which will have been built
there specifically for water-originated needs are vulnerable to localised erosion.
142
5
MANAGEMENT PROFILES FOR HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
TYPES
5.1
Concept
It was decided early on in the project that the main vehicle around which the assessment
of the condition and stability of the historic environment was to take place would be the
digital component of the YDNPA HER for the project area. The problems associated with
using it as it stands for condition and stability assessments have been discussed above
(Section 3). Nonetheless it is:
the principal repository of historic environment information within the project area;
it exists in related Microsoft Access and MapInfo files i.e. in GIS database form which
is compatible with the software used for this project;
it encompasses a wide, though not comprehensive, record of the historic
environment, ranging from bole hills to telephone kiosks – well over 200 historic
environment types are recorded in the project area although this figure includes types
which are components of larger monuments.
The basic idea was to develop standardised entries for each of the 200 plus historic
environment types covered in the project area. For each historic environment type the
technical term would be explained, where appropriate using information from the
Thesaurus of Monument Types as recorded in HBSMR v3.26 and placed in a wider
historical context. This would introduce text on the current management issues associated
with each historic environment type, written in a way that a non-specialist could easily
understand and relate to. These standardised entries could then be used in the Interactive
Map through structured texts. It is also suggested they be attached as prefaces to all
relevant HER records (see Section 7).
There were two methods available to provide a starting point for this task. One was the
simple MapInfo .tab file covering the project area, which yielded a baseline of 2611
primary spot data entries with minimal information attached. The option here was to export
the table into Microsoft Access and develop it for conservation and management
purposes. The other figure, of 4366 entries – an increase of over a third – was arrived at
by querying the HBSMR Microsoft Access table for the project area. The increase in the
number of sites this pulled out is due to the inclusion of secondary entries. This was then
exported into an independent Microsoft Access table. The latter option was followed i.e. to
work from the database covering the 4366 entries.
The new table, called the Swaledale HBSMR Condition Assessment, is not interactive with
the YDNPA HER. Consequently any HER entries made after the query and export which
created it in November 2006 do not figure in this table. As the HER is under continual
development with new data being added on a daily basis the number of record entries is
not static. Methods of updating this part of the HLMC project as the HER is developed also
need to be considered in the Maintenance and Update section.
143
5.2
Development of the database
The exported fields for the data included:
the Monument Description, where all the known details (if any) are recorded.
Monument UID, which relates it to the parent HER database and the spot data in
MapInfo
Monument type e.g. cairn, chapel, coach house
Information on period and dates
The exported data did not include:
The Class and Form of the historic environment type
Information on the condition and stability of the monument
The Class and Form were established through the Thesaurus of Monument Types
(RCHME / EH 1996).
The condition and stability of the monument type were generalised, there being so few
professional recorded assessments of the condition of separate elements of the historic
environment to guide this. Even where these do exist, there is a lack of comprehensive
comparative data from ten, twenty or more years ago, which makes judging stability trends
in a realistic and informed manner all but impossible. As the Use and Condition Survey of
the Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme shows, it is easy to underestimate the
resilience of a historic resource if it has not been much studied beforehand, and if there is
little background knowledge and understanding in existence. The condition and stability of
historic environment types have been assessed as this was an intended element of the
pilot project, but it should not be forgotten that they are nothing more than estimations and
are rarely based on detailed quantified or quantifiable information.
Some historic environment types (or Monument Types as they are called in HBSMR) were
excluded from this database for a variety of reasons.
Agricultural building
Barn or Barn? (sic)
Cattle shelter
Farm building
Field barn
Hay loft
Laithe
The condition and stability of all agricultural buildings save Farmhouses are better catered
for by the Use and Condition Survey of the Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme.
Therefore the above categories were not included in the assessment:
Some categories in the HER HBSMR data were judged to be irrelevant to a condition and
stability assessment. These included:
Find spots (hoards and ‘lost’ artefacts, not flint scatters)
144
Footpaths (modern public Rights of Way are covered by a separate MapInfo .tab file
which accompanies the HLMC GIS database)
Some categories were judged to be not specific enough to warrant a condition and stability
assessment. These included:
Macula i.e. remains and traces of sites identified only from aerial photographs as
part of the Yorkshire Dales Mapping Project – macula was a morphological
classification term which was used for a wide range of features of varying origin
Fields for original use generally follow the Monument Type, though occasionally it can be
expressed in a different way
The field current use was introduced, to allow information on change of use to be
registered. This is particularly important for understanding the condition of historic
buildings and the indicating the ways in which they may have been altered. Options are:
no change default position for all buildings and structures believed to be currently
used for their original purpose
none default position for all archaeology
5.3
Condition, stability and management issues
Within the extracted HER data, groups of Monument Types which share the same kinds of
vulnerability issues and management problems were identified and similar texts prepared
with standardised responses. Some examples of groupings are given below.
Chapels – of whatever faith
Water channels – lead mining leats, mill races, water channels etc
Earthworks – banks, lynchets, dykes etc
The texts were prepared with several aims in mind:
Explanation of the Monument Type term – some are relatively technical in meaning
and would not be readily understood by non-historic environment specialists
Brief history of the Monument Type (with specific reference to Swaledale due to the
location of the HLMC pilot project)
Incorporation of vulnerability issues and management problems through the
development of Management Profiles for Monument Types.
5.4
Using other GIS databases for similar Management Profiles: Case
study: The Barns and Walls Use and Condition database
Developing the HLMC Barn Condition and Stability database from the original BWCS Use
and Condition Survey 1992 database had to involve extrapolation from the information
available in the original survey in a consistent and transparent manner. Details of
decisions made are set out below.
The BWCS UCS data included a field to record the original use of the building, but not its
Class and Form as required by this project. Consequently these were deduced from the
145
recorded original use through the Thesaurus of Monument Terms, a relatively
straightforward process.
The BWCS UCS data also included a field to record the current use of the building, if it
had one.
no change Listed current uses included cow byre (22), dairy (2), haybarn (24),
hogghouse (9), sheeprun (24), stable (6) and miscellaneous uses (74). These
buildings are all characterised as still being in agricultural use, so although the
specific use may have changed these are all characterised as ‘no change’, to fit in
with the other databases.
none Some buildings were recorded as having no use in the original survey and
these are transcribed under current use field as ‘none’ (18).
The rest of the entries for this field were interpolated for the HLMC pilot project.
These are as follows:
unusable All buildings which were by implication or description roofless, a ruin or
in very bad condition from information held elsewhere in the database (BWCS UCS
condition field) are described in the current use field as ‘unusable’ (152).
unspecified The rest, for which there is no information in the original survey, are
classified as ‘unspecified’ (344).
Although the BWCS UCS database included a massive amount of information on the
condition of the barns surveyed, there were no broad definitions on condition which were
of use for this project. Consequently this database information had to be considerably
reworked to provide the required condition framework. The decisions made are based on
the condition guidelines developed for the 2006-7 YDNPA Barn Condition Survey, a parkwide sample survey of about 700 traditional farm buildings. They are explained and listed
below.
Figure 62 These two barns at Birks End (SE 986 967) both had roofs in 1992; the BWCS UCS
database has been updated for this project where new information is available
146
good
fair
poor
roof classified as in ‘good’ condition (67 buildings)
roof classified as in ‘fair’ condition (91)
roof classified as in ‘fair’ condition, but there are other miscellaneous
problems – slipped slates and/or ridge tiles, crumbling eaves and
verges, sagging purlins (312)
very bad
many of the above plus a failed truss, hole in the roof larger than 0.5m
or part collapsed roof (50)
The following categories were also added:
roofless
roof ‘missing’ or ‘stripped’ but not low level remains (50)
ruin
roof ‘missing’ or ‘stripped’ and low level remains (85)
destroyed recently (? early 1990’s) destroyed barns (5)
unknown
not enough information in the BWCS database to make an informed
judgement (19)
The BWCS UCS database included a field which appeared to be of potential use in
estimating the stability trend of the particular building it was referring to. This was the
‘Failure Time’ field, in which estimates were given about the date by which the building
was predicted to have collapsed totally or in part. These were <1 year (41); 1-5 years
(151); 5-10 years (149); 10 years (163).
Some of the estimates given here for predicted survival time were grossly pessimistic.
Ongoing research into the condition of the fabric of barns and their collapse rate by the
NPA indicates that we may have to revise our assumptions about the significance of
cracks or other apparently major structural faults in these non-domestic buildings (Don
McLellan, pers. com). Most barns have survived for much longer than previously believed,
even without repair, although the apparent increasing severity of storms may impact on
this. A previous study however showed a marked decline in the condition of field barns
between 1985 and 1997, a loss of 16% in the number of intact field barns as well as an
increase in the number of barns with holed or collapsed roofs (Gaskell and Tanner 1998,
300). The YDNPA is currently awaiting the full results of an assessment of the condition of
barns throughout the National Park, undertaken by its staff and volunteers. Preliminary
condition information on 47 barns within the project area has been incorporated into the
reworked database within the column for condition in 2006.
However, although experience has shown that the original survival rates predicted in the
Use and Condition Survey are flawed, if they are treated as relative rather than absolute
values, it was judged that these estimates might play a role in providing guidance for
default positions for estimating stability trends.
stable
If a barn was marked up as receiving an ESA grant (38 barns) or a MAFF grant (63
barns) its stability trend was judged to be ‘stable’. Information about MAFF grants
was available through the original database; information about ESA grants was
taken from research done for this project in the Farm Conservation Section records
of the YDNPA.
If its end life was predicted as 10 Years i.e. the most long lived category, but its
condition was assessed as ‘good’ or ‘fair’ in 1992, it was also put in the ‘stable’
category.
If the barn was recorded as being in ‘good’ or ‘fair’ condition in 2006-7, it was put in
the ‘stable’ category.
147
deteriorating – slow
If its end life was predicted as 10 Years i.e. the most long lived category, but its
condition was assessed as ‘poor’ in 1992, it was put in the ‘deteriorating – slow’
category.
If its end life was predicted as 5-10 Years, and its condition was assessed as ‘fair’ in
1992, it was put in the ‘deteriorating – slow’ category.
deteriorating – average
If its end life was predicted as 5-10 years, whether is condition was assessed as fair
or poor in 1992, the trend was classified as ‘deteriorating – average’.
If its end life was predicted as 1-5 years, and its condition was assessed as poor in
1992, the trend was classified as ‘deteriorating – average’.
deteriorating – rapid
If its end life was predicted as 1-5 years, and its condition was assessed as very
bad, roofless or a ruin in 1992, the trend was classified as ‘deteriorating – rapid’.
If its end life was predicted as <1 Year, whether its condition was assessed as fair
or poor in 1992, the trend was classified as ‘deteriorating – rapid’.
There was no estimate given for 177 entries in the BWCS UCS survey. Unsurprisingly
these largely coincide with the barns which were registered as ‘roofless’, ‘stripped’, and
‘low level remains ’or had other indications elsewhere in the database of being already in a
state of collapse. (NB. Fourteen barns which did have roofs had no failure time entry –
these were put in the deteriorating average or deteriorating slow group depending on
whether their roofs had been assessed as good or fair) The default category for the
stability trend for all buildings in ‘roofless’ group is ‘deteriorating – rapid’, on the
assumptions that:
The building is redundant and money will not be spent on it
The building will continue to collapse
The building may be vulnerable to intermittent stone robbing, once collapsed
(although ruined farm buildings within areas covered by an ESA agreement should
have been treated as historic features and not subject to removal of stone without
the consent of a Project Officer following consultation with YDNPA)
Management Profiles
Management profiles were developed for every building in this database within the Project
area. In complete contrast to the Swaledale HBSMR Condition Assessment where sites
and structures were tackled from a generic viewpoint revolving around the Monument
Type, here there was the opportunity to develop individual management profiles for each
structure, based on the information available. The only problem was the absence of data
on repairs funded by the B&WCS, about which nothing could be done within the lifetime of
this project.
In the development of management profiles, the main issues taken into account are
• The condition of the structure in 1992 and in 2006 (the latter only if known)
• Whether or not the structure is known to have attracted a repair grant (MAFF or
ESA)
• Whether or not a building is part of a working farmstead in 2006
148
To establish the last factor a new GIS database was established with all the known
working farms and their principal farmstead listed. This was created partly through farm
records already accessed in the course of research, and partly through examining recent
aerial colour photographs. Barns in the vicinity of these farmsteads were then selected via
the MapInfo .tab file and highlighted through the addition of an extra field in the database.
The reason for doing all this extra work is that Traditional buildings in working farmsteads
can potentially be converted to alternative business use or farm worker accommodation
under YDNPA planning policy (2006).
The database can be viewed in Microsoft Access or in MapInfo. As with the Swaledale
HBSMR Condition survey, this database is created entirely independently of the HLMC
GIS database, but once finished can be viewed as a layer against the polygons. By
querying it against the polygons, it was integrated into the standard texts for the Interactive
Map, but that methodology is explained in the appropriate section.
149
6
DATABASE AND MAP ACCESS. MAINTENANCE AND
METHODOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS AND DEVELOPMENTS
6.1
The Interactive Map
6.1.1
Rationale
A key output of the HLMC pilot project was the production of an easily comprehensible,
usable and distributable interface for the HLMC database. The HLMC database was
designed to incorporate specific textual elements that relate to code values present within
other of the database fields. The inclusion of this textual element enables the production of
multi-layered and navigable, text based reports that provide a consistently structured
comprehensive explanation of the historic interest, management issues and opportunities
present in any given HLMC polygon. In order to make these reports more intuitive and
portable, they are linked to an interactive digital map. The map provides the first in a series
of pages from which the HLMC standard texts can be interrogated. The interactive map
depicts the limits of the HLMC polygons against the widely used OS 1:25,000 background
and joins to a landing page for each HLMC record through hyperlinks embedded within the
area of each polygon. The landing pages function as a summary or contents page, through
which the rest of the standard texts can be navigated.
In a slightly different process, two associated databases (the Barns and Walls Use and
Condition Survey database, and the HER) have been queried against the HLMC polygons
to help produce summaries of the historic environment form and condition in terms of both
built heritage and archaeological remains.
6.1.2
Interactive Map texts
The information which informs the texts of the Interactive Map comes from many sources,
in addition to the HLMC database. It incorporates data from YDNPA GIS datasets,
including the Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls Use and Condition Survey,
as reworked and updated form for this project, which provides assessments of condition
and stability in 1992 and some limited comparative data for 2006. Use was made of the
digitised Ist edition OS 1:10560 maps c.1856. Information on field boundary and barn loss
since the Tithe Maps was incorporated where available, to give a sense of how the
landscape had changed over the last 150 years. Information on the ESA land tier status
was used, particularly with reference to the herb-rich hay meadows. A new GIS database
was specially created to show where the central farmsteads of current working farms were
located. It includes data from the HER, covering scheduled monuments and listed
buildings, and the Yorkshire Dales Mapping Project. Published material which proved
particularly useful included Fieldhouse and Jennings (1978) and Fleming (1998), but other
sources were used as well. Each polygon was then given an individually tailored
introductory text incorporating the place-name with historical information and an
introduction to the main themes which were then elaborated in the database field devoted
to the historic environment and landscape.
Historic environment forms were given standard texts to explain their form, function and
address current management issues. An original list based on historic environment forms
150
in the HBSMR was expanded by the addition of texts on field walls, modern farmsteads
and their buildings, the history behind different types of landscape e.g. moorland, hay
meadows, woodland etc. Each HLMC polygon was populated with its HBSMR and barn
data through querying in MapInfo. and texts collated for each, drawing all the separate
themes together. They are inevitably standardised, with occasional extra information
attached where available and considered appropriate. These were inserted into the
‘Historic Environment and Landscape’ field specially created for the Interactive Map.
6.1.3
Technical background: The Access database
Developing the Access database structure necessary to create this kind of interactive
reporting, involved the creation of a number of look-up tables joined to the three main
HLMC tables. The linked look-up tables are typically simple in structure, and generally
contain a limited number of values, although there are in excess of twenty individual lookup tables. A typical structure for one of the simplest linked standard text/look-up tables
comprises;
BUILD_USE_LUT
BUILD_USE_UID BUILD_USE_VALUE BUILD_USE_TEXT
1
No
2
Yes
Buildings in use for original purpose. Many of the buildings and
structures which form part of settlement will have been built for a
particular purpose. Often they are still being used for the same
purposes. In these cases it is likely the buildings and structures will
have been well maintained and the physical fabric will be in good or
fair condition. It is also likely the original structure will have been
modified internally and externally over the years to accommodate
changes in need and fashion. The latter can encompass anything
from restoration to complete rebuild, new windows to extensions.
Since the establishment of the YDNPA, change operates within the
limits imposed by local planning policy; changes to Listed Buildings
are guided within their own consent procedures.
The BUILD_USE_LUT table refers to a simple yes/no checkbox in the main database.
Incorporating the standard texts into a report entails including those subsidiary tables
containing the texts into a query and then detailing the query as a source for the report.
Clearly, a number of the HLMC database fields contain a wider range of values and have a
corresponding larger number of standard texts. Some of the most frequently occurring
standard texts were given an extra field containing a title for the standard text, or the first
line of the longer standard text memo field. These fields were created to be used as
hyperlinks in situations where it was necessary to connect the initial landing page to a
subsidiary page containing the standard text.
The number of database relationships increased significantly in undertaking the standard
texts exercise. Consequently the resulting structure proves slightly unwieldy to use in
Access (see figure of the relationships table during process below), although as the
structured texts simply mirror the values elsewhere in the database, they are not
necessary to any user with a more detailed understanding of the HLMC database. It is
envisaged that the exported standard texts and interactive map will be by far the most
convenient way of navigating and using the database on a day-to-day basis. The standard
151
texts do not require any particular knowledge of the database, GIS or software, other than
a web browser.
Figure 63 Database relationships in the process of being established within the HLMC database
Relating data from the Barns and Walls Use and Condition Survey and the HER to the
HLMC database was a slightly more complicated process. These records initially had no
common identifier through which they could be joined and the join needed to be created
through a spatial query relating points, lines and polygons for the incoming data against
the HLMC polygons. The spatial query was undertaken in MapInfo using a simple SQL
command e.g.
The resulting query was saved and imported into MS Access and gave a table that listed
each barn reference number against the HLMC polygon identifier. This kind of linking table
was used to join modified versions of both the Barns and Walls Use and Condition Survey
and HER databases to the HLMC database.
Barns_HLMC_poly
MAPINFO_ID
1
2
3
REF_NO
38/1
38/2
38/3
HLMC_UID
458
458
458
152
Barns_HLMC_poly
MAPINFO_ID
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
6.1.4
REF_NO
38/4
38/5
38/6
38/7
38/8
38/9
38/10
38/11
38/12
38/13
HLMC_UID
458
458
458
458
458
458
513
182
182
146
Reporting and exporting the HLMC data.
In order to create the html landing pages and associated standard texts a complex
reporting structure was required within MS Access. As the structured texts were held in
related tables, then a query was written to include all tables containing data necessary for
inclusion in the landing pages. This query was then used as the source for the HLMC
landing page report. The additional information required from the Barns and Walls Use and
Condition Survey and HER databases were reported separately from the main HLMC
report, subsequently included as sub reports windowed in to the HLMC landing page
report, and related to that report through the linking table mentioned above.
Figure 64 Example of a landing page for the Interactive Map
153
The completed landing page report was exported as html files from Access. Access
conveniently exports each page of the report as a separate html file. The names of these
files were then edited using MS Word so that each file name was the same as the HLMC
ID. The mechanical aspects of this task were largely negated through using a Macro to
record and automate the process of copying the record name into the file name through
the Save As function. Macros used in editing the standard text files have been copied into
the digital project archive.
The hyperlinks between the landing page and pages containing more detailed standard
texts were created in a slightly different way. The Macro involved using the find function to
search for the code, or phrase to be used as a hyperlink and then using the insert function
to replace the code or phrase with a link to a single html file containing the standard text.
The formatting applied to each of the standard text html pages was similarly applied in MS
Word, using Macros.
6.1.5
The maps
The interactive maps that form the starting point for navigation of the standard texts were
created in MapInfo using a plug-in tool called HTML Image Map (version 3). The image
mapping tool reproduces the map and data visible in the MapInfo map window as a jpeg
image within an html page. GIS data objects (in the case of this project, the HLMC
polygons) included in the html translation become part of the inert jpeg image. However,
Image Map uses the geographic data from the polygons to create hyperlink boundaries
within the jpeg that replicate the shape of the GIS polygons.
Figure 65 Part of the Interactive Map for HLMC project area. It is made up of the HLMC polygons
against the backgound of the OS 1:25000 map of Swaledale and Arkengarthdale, as it was thought
this is more familiar to potential users of HLMC than Mastermap. A cursor hovering over a polygon
will bring up the number and a click will take the viewer through to the landing page.
154
The Image Map program also creates landing pages containing data linked to geographic
objects within the image map. These landing pages were named with the HLMC polygon
identifier and replaced with the identically named html landing pages originally exported
from MS Access.
6.2
Methodological improvements and development of the database
6.2.1
Developing HLMC Broad and Sub Types
The project area covered a limited number of principal modern land uses, and even within
types of landscape found extensively in the project area like the upland moors the HLMC
Broad Types actually include only one modern land use and management Broad Type –
Grouse Moor. Several of the other Broad Types - Water, Recreation and Ornamental were hardly developed as Sub Types because of the lack of variety of land use in the area,
and all these await further application of the HLMC methodology into other landscapes.
6.2.2
Secondary land use
The development of the database structure to incorporate information on secondary land
use would be an improvement over the current structure, in which this has not been
explored. Examples in the project area which come to mind cover a wide variety of HLMC
types, and it would add another dimension to understanding how modern societies use the
landscape and the impact this has on the historic environment. For example, there are
fields within the farmland which are also used as seasonal camping sites and caravan
parks. This could also be used as a facility to record all the different leisure activities which
are current in Access land, including annual events like the Scott motor bike trials around
the grouse moors of Arkengarthdale and Swaledale. It could be used to incorporate the
presence of large numbers of second and/or home owners, which may have an impact on
the speed of alterations and modifications to the built environment. There are obvious
examples outside the immediate area, such as the ‘double’ use of moorland, often used for
water catchments and grouse moor, or for military training and grouse moor.
6.3
Maintenance of the dataset
6.3.1
Estimate of short-term and long-term maintenance needs:
In the short term the transition of farms from one agri-environment scheme to another
needs to be kept up-to-date – this is likely to be half a dozen landholdings a year over the
next eight years (i.e. until ESA and CSS are phased out). Over a longer term land holding
boundaries may need to be revised in the MapInfo polygons. This in itself should not take
long, but it will entail alterations to the database which will need more time. The text
element of the Interactive map will be more laborious to update, as the MapInfo software
used does not link directly to the database, but arrives via a Report captured as an HTML
page. The same problem is present for the updating of HBSMR records.
155
6.3.2
Updating strategy
The transition of landholdings from scheme to scheme is one of the most important tasks
needed to keep the database up-to-date, and will be handled by the Countryside
Archaeological Adviser of the YDNPA. A highlighting system for alterations needs to be
devised, so that it is obvious what has been changed between periods of major revision.
The periodic revision of land holding boundaries will need to be reviewed every five years
or more frequently if periods of rapid change are perceived.
The Interactive map may need to be revised on an annual basis, and will need HTML
pages replacing. The newest version should be available for download from the YDNPA
website.
6.3.3
Updating HLMC: database fields for Environmental Stewardship
Although a couple of farms in the project area applied to the Environmental Stewardship
Scheme during the course of the project, this involves a lengthy process which may take
up to a year and it may not be until towards the end of 2007 that the agreements are
signed. It is suggested that consecutive numbers are used within the HLMC Broad Types:
for example Pastoral Farming Sub Type for each ES level could be PF8 for Entry Level,
PF9 for Organic Entry Level and PF10 for Higher Level. It is suggested that at the start of
each calendar year a copy be made sub-types from the previous year, and the new
column be updated. In this way a record can be built up over time of changes in status and
therefore HLMC Sub Types.
Having a bespoke field dedicated to these new agri-environment schemes in the HLMC
Table allied to the additional facility of the Farm Record Number will mean that all holdings
can easily be tracked and their records updated within the project area. As their ESA or
CS schemes come to an end – a prolonged process which will not finish until 2014 – the
farm holding and its type of Environmental Stewardship (Entry Level, Higher Level or
Organic) can be entered in this column. The information regarding any previous
agreement or agreements will become historic, but as the database incorporates this
material it will be available for reference.
6.3.4
Updating HLMC: changes in land ownership
While it is technically easy to capture changes of status and Sub Type in the database,
alterations to land holding boundaries are more difficult to absorb. A GIS polygon system
is predicated on area boundaries being fixed: to add to or reduce the number of polygons,
although technically not a difficult task in MapInfo 7.8, involves careful updating of all the
relevant fields in the database and its tables. As there are a considerable number of these,
this is a task which would need appropriate time and resources.
Many land management changes are firmly linked to recognisable blocks of land under
one type of ownership which, if they change, will change wholesale. Within grouse estates,
for example, particular defined moorland areas normally change ownership en masse, and
it is unlikely that the HLMC polygons which depict their boundaries will become defunct or
inaccurate for a considerable time.
156
Figure 66 The distribution of land holdings in Swaledale, seen through the Farm Record Number.
field in the HLMC database
Within farmland the situation is very different. Although Swaledale and Arkengarthdale
have very traditional land holding patterns, and there is evidence of the same groups of
fields being farmed en bloc for generations, the future of farming is so uncertain that it is
difficult to predict whether or not the parcels of land which exist now will remain intact or
split. The trend appears to be towards bigger and bigger holdings. The number of farm
holdings has shrunk four fold since the 1940s, and there is every indication that this trend
will continue. Whereas there were about 240 farms in Upper Swaledale and
Arkengarthdale in the four parishes of Reeth, Grinton, Arkengarthdale and Melbecks in
1941, there are only sixty odd now with fifty or less in the project area. This process of
amalgamation does make farmhouse and associated groups of farm buildings redundant
and appears to have been an influence on the decline in the condition of field walls by the
last few decades of the twentieth century. There is a buoyant property market for houses
with land attached, not least to support equestrian activities or hobby farming. Farm land
also has a privileged position with regard to inheritance tax. As farming becomes more of a
hobby or interest for one sector, rather than a livelihood (Linda Smith, pers. com) small
parcels of land may be sold off to form part of new smallholdings, and groups of fields
which have been tenanted and farmed as one split up.
The GIS database can cope better with land holdings being amalgamated rather than split.
Polygons within the enclosed farmland were designed so that whole farms were broken up
into groups of fields rather than treated as a single entity. Sometimes a farm is made up of
very scattered holdings, and this was the only option available for its definition anyway, but
where a holding was within large blocks, the method of breaking it up into smaller units
was followed. Although this entailed the creation of more polygons, it does means that
there is more flexibility within the structure.
157
With the closure of the ESA and CS agreements to new applicants, farms began to apply
for entry into the Environmental Stewardship Scheme in 2006. Due to its fine grained
approach to enclosed farm land holdings, the HLMC GIS database should offer sufficient
flexibility to absorb a certain degree of change, both in land holding boundaries and the
particular take up of the new agri-environment schemes without needing reorganisation or
redesign.
6.4
Speeding up the process of HLMC polygonisation
6.4.1
Broad Type Characterisation
Limiting the characterisation to Broad Types would speed up the process of Historic Land
Management Characterisation considerably. The methodology could be applied to large
areas of landscape relatively swiftly in a broad brush approach, and areas where greatly
subtlety was wanted or needed, e.g. Settlements, could be developed in greater detail
through Sub Types.
6.4.2
Using pre-existing GIS datasets containing data on land ownership
Figure 67 Pre-existing mapping of ownership boundaries in YDNPA
If this project were extended to cover new areas of the country, it would be worth
identifying GIS database resources concerning land ownership boundaries that may
already be in existence. Relatively late on in the project it was realised that just such a
database existed on the YDNP intranet. The metadata for it is not readily available, but
enquiries suggest it was an internal YDNPA file created to help estimate the number of
potential applicants for the new ES agri-environment schemes. It covers all landowning
boundaries in Richmondshire, gives the Farm Record number, any current agrienvironment schemes taken up etc. Some of the information on it is useful in its own right
in relation to the pilot project (and has been used it to collaborate other information) but the
point is that the polygons themselves could have been harnessed and adapted for the
158
HLMC project as they duplicate many of the polygon boundaries developed for the HLMC
GIS database.
This dataset could not be used just as it is. Several major additions would have to be
made to the suite of polygons to adapt it to HLMC use. For example there is no information
relating to Settlement, Woodland boundaries, the whereabouts of Tier 1A land etc. but
nonetheless it would save duplication of work if this was taken as the starting point, and
the HLMC GIS database developed out of it. It is recommended that if this methodology is
applied to different areas of the country in future, it is worth finding out if similar GIS
datasets exist and if they could be easily used and adapted. There may be issues about
intellectual ownership and copyright, as well as the unknown quality of the accuracy of
data capture which would need to be examined and resolved.
6.5
Developing Management Profiles for HLC Types
Developing management profiles for HLC Types, as an example of ‘interoperability’ of
characterisation datasets was not possible within the time frame of the project as the final
version of HLC for the National Park was not available. Only an unfinished and partial GIS
database was available for consultation, without an accompanying methodology. Even had
the HLC been finished, it is unlikely that the idea of Management Profiles could have been
specifically developed and applied to HLC Types within the time constraints of the project.
Preliminary reflections suggest there may be several problems with the attempt to develop
accurate modern Management Profiles within the HLC polygons as these are not directly
related to current land ownership. In the area which had already been provisionally
completed for HLC in Swaledale and Arkengarthdale, an effort was made to mimic the
area of the HLC polygons where possible i.e. where they could ‘fit in’ with current land
holdings. This added to the number of polygons required to describe a modern land
holding, but it moves the two types of characterisation closer. However, the boundaries of
HLC polygons do not necessarily match modern land use management boundaries.
Several different landowners/tenants may own land within a single HLC polygon.
Ownership differences mean that land could be managed under different agrienvironment schemes or no scheme at all within the same HLC polygon boundary.
Even if land were owned by the same landowner, it may not be managed in the same
way e.g. on farmland adjacent fields may be improved grassland (Tier 1A) and
pasture. These involve different management trajectories, with different implications
for the historic environment.
The land may be subject to different statutory designations and schemes’
However, it is likely that considerable numbers of polygons will have a high degree of
boundary similarity, as HLC is based on modern land use patterns. The fact that there is
considerable overlap between the two is not fortuitous – current land ownership and
management is in part a result of historic land use and management practice – and this
connecting bond can be exploited. While there will be some problematic HLMC categories,
like the Pastoral Farming Sub Types which may prove difficult to fit into and around the
HLC Sub Types, it should be a more straightforward process to develop Management
Profiles for other HLC Types like Settlement, Recreation Land, Ornamental etc. where
fewer schemes and designations are in place. This would provide HLC with a richer
159
management resource than it currently has. It would also be an important development for
the use and application of HLC in informing local and national debates about
environmental protection in general and the management of the historic environment in
particular.
Given that HLC is rapidly becoming a nationwide resource it would seem worthwhile to
develop the idea further with a trial project to develop HLMC methodology within the HLC
polygon system, perhaps selecting several different areas covering a wide variety of land
types and management uses in order to expand the HLMC Broad and Sub Types beyond
those developed by this pilot project. It would also be a chance to explore compatibility
issues further.
160
7
APPLICATIONS OF THE HLMC DATABASE
Conservation strategies for the historic environment have developed in recent decades
from an emphasis on designation to underpin the protection of a limited number of discrete
sites, monuments and buildings identified for various reasons as being ‘special’ or
nationally important, towards the recognition of a more holistic and inclusive understanding
of the historic environment which embraces the ordinary and commonplace as well as the
‘special’, extraordinary and atypical. In acknowledging the ubiquitous role of historic
processes in shaping our present environment, this broader approach also recognises the
key relevance of the historic environment in maintaining a sense of place and
distinctiveness as we manage the inevitable changes which shape our future landscapes
and environment. The force of this case was presented very effectively by the historic
environment review, Power of Place: the future of the historic environment (English
Heritage 2000), commissioned by DCMS. The Government’s response, The Historic
Environment: A Force for Our Future (DTLR 2001), marked its acceptance and identified
the many policy implications that flow from it. Accompanying this shift of emphasis, historic
environment curators at all levels are showing a greater recognition of change, now as in
the past, as an integral part of historic process: an expression of the cultural dynamism
which has created the varied and historically rich environment of the modern world in
which we all live (Clark et al. 2003, pp.2-3).
This re-focussed approach also requires the development of information systems,
methodologies and strategies appropriate to informing the management of change from a
historic environment perspective. Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) provides one
such response, adapting less specific landscape-characterisation methodologies being
developed in the early 1990s to convey the historic dimension which permeates our
present landscapes. It is an area-based approach giving full coverage and offering an
archaeologist’s perspective of time-depth in the landscape. Its prime objective is to inform
decision-making and provide an appreciation of ‘an area’s sensitivity, vulnerability and
capacity for change in the context of specific proposals’ (Clark et al. loc.cit). Examples of
where and how HLC has helped inform and so influence the processes of change to
produce outcomes more in tune with the local character of an area are explored in Using
Historic Landscape Characterisation (Clark et al. 2003). During little more than a decade of
its existence, HLC has worked well when used in conjunction with agri-environment
schemes, to provide clear statements of the typical historic character of particular areas
and ensure the expression of that character is assessed and addressed alongside that of
the natural environment.
While HLC contains generalised statements about the character and time-depth of current
land use within its database, it is not its purpose to include specific, detailed and timelimited data of short to medium term duration on the current patterns of incentive schemes,
designations, planning policies or other trends whose impacts can be highly influential on
the management of the present landscape. Since the mid-1980s with the advent of
environmentally-focused incentives for rural land managers in the form of successive agrienvironment schemes (in particular the Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) agreements,
the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and, more recently and more widely, the
Environmental Stewardship Scheme) there are now the means to influence agricultural
and other rural land practices in ways which would have been impossible a generation ago
(Dormer 2000). Since the 1960’s, settlement-based designations have also appeared in
the form of Conservation Areas, a character-based and area–focussed conservation
161
designation. Coupled with enhanced application of Listed Building designation, their
existence has influenced the development of the built environment within the villages,
towns and cities where we live through planning policy decisions. Since the later 1980s,
Conservation Area status has also been extended to various rural areas, adding to the
framework of options and constraints within which rural communities and land managers
operate.
Historic Landscape Management Characterisation (HLMC) is designed to complement
HLC by conveying the impacts of present land management on the historic environment,
thereby providing another information stream necessary to inform the management of
change affecting that historic environment. It brings characterisation methodology to bear
on current land management patterns at a landscape scale, accommodating them in
conjunction with their impact of the historic environment (defined in a holistic sense) and
their underpinning framework of incentive schemes, designations and other statutory
obligations which are now intimately associated with land and property ownership,
management and use.
Understanding current management and its influences that pertain to any part of the
landscape is essential to understanding the present form and condition of the landscape’s
various dimensions and components. Correspondingly, that understanding is vital for
building effective strategies for the positive management of change affecting the historic
environment as a whole. It will ensure that such strategies can identify and address those
management situations where present condition gives rise to concern, whether due to an
area’s capacity to absorb further change without prompting inevitable change in historic
character and distinctiveness, or to threats to those specific, perhaps atypical, elements
that may be subject to designation. By working from the underlying framework of
management influences, the understanding gained from HLMC will also enable a better
and more effective coordination of the many options available to address those concerns
whether, for example, through changes in agri-environment scheme options or priorities, or
through revised areas of designation or the management conditions attached to them. It
will also allow a far better integration of historic and natural environment conservation
interests, with the potential for reducing overlapping requirements between the two where
they share a common objective.
7.1
Informing policy and the public
The findings of this report substantiate the belief that the principals of good environmental
management have repercussions across the board for all forms of conservation, and that
the best way forward is for as much integration in practice and application as possible.
HLMC should help inform these already established procedures of integrated and should
facilitate the process of looking at the environment in an holistic fashion.
Engaging the public in debates and decision making about the future of their historic
environment is now central to management strategies at local and national levels. Raising
the public awareness about their historic landscape’s character, its relevance to their daily
lives and how it reflects land use and management choices from the past and the present
is an important, perhaps the most important outcome from this project. It is planned to give
the public access to this report via the YDNPA’s OutofOblivion website
(www.outofoblivion.org.uk) and provide the Interactive Map for download; a feedback
162
mechanism may be inserted at this interface to encourage response. Other outcomes are
also envisaged and suggested as outlined below.
7.1.1
Anticipated users of the database and the Interactive Map
The staff of the YDNPA, as with all the National Parks, is experienced in managing
landscapes from a variety of perspectives – nature conservation, access and recreation,
and planning policies are considered alongside the needs of the historic environment on a
daily basis (English Heritage 2006). The Conservation and Policy team form a particularly
closely integrated work unit, and their expertise in everything from current agrienvironment schemes to woodland creation in the Yorkshire Dales has informed the
database and this report throughout. During the course of working through the project,
debate was stimulated on a number of subjects, some of which are referred to in the case
studies later in this section (see 7.2). It is hoped that upon completion the pilot project will
feed back into the workings of the YDNPA and bring fresh perspectives to bear on the
management issues facing not just the historic environment but the whole living and
working landscape of the National Park. It will be used by the Countryside Archaeological
Adviser, especially in that part of his work involved with steering a farm through
Environmental Stewardship application through the production of a Farm Environment
Plan (FEP). This work will be facilitated by the inclusion of Farm Record numbers in the
database, but this information will not be passed on in copies for use outside the YDNPA.
Members of the Farm Conservation Team involved in complementary FEP work in the
project area will be able to consult both the database and the Interactive Map. The
Planning section of the YDNPA has already expressed an interest in the method of
quantifying the redundant barn resource. Outside the National Park the North Yorkshire
County Council Countryside and Heritage section is the lead organisation for historic
environment management in the area, and it is anticipated that the project methodology
and outcomes will also be of interest to them.
Figure 68 The cycle of ‘understanding, valuing, caring and enjoying’ © English Heritage
163
The project’s aims are also relevant to each sector of the cycle of ‘understanding, valuing,
caring and enjoying’ that underpins English Heritage’s Corporate Strategy (English
Heritage 2005). Developed with the advice of English Heritage’s Characterisation Team,
the project provides a methodology fostering a more comprehensive understanding of the
historic environment among those who inhabit and use it, manage it or advise on its
management. The project also gives a platform for articulating the relevance of the historic
environment to the character and distinctiveness of the locale, especially when used in
conjunction with HLC. While most communities already value local distinctiveness, the
project makes explicit the historic dimension of that distinctiveness and the direct link
between its condition and the management actions to which it is subjected. It reveals how
choices of management action may maintain or harm that which they value and it gives the
vital clues to enable adoption of a ‘caring’ approach among communities, their
management and property advisors, and those charged with the development of a more
sustainable historic environment, including English Heritage’s Regional and Heritage
Protection Teams and those they advise. The project’s aim in the completion of the cycle
is to promote a better-managed historic environment playing its full role as an asset
enjoyed for its values in creating distinctiveness and enhanced quality of life. In this, the
project pioneers a methodology fully in accord with principles expressed in A Force for Our
Future (DTLR 2001). The principles espoused in those key documents are also evident in
the project’s explicit coordination of historic environment conservation with broader
economic frameworks and opportunities and with other areas of environmental
conservation, a coordination viewed increasingly as fundamental to unlocking the
economic and social benefits of the historic environment, transforming its image from a
bureaucratic burden to an asset for communities. The economic linkages brought out by
the project’s methodology offers information relevant not only for conservation managers
but also to the objectives of English Heritage’s Social Inclusion and Diversity Team in
understanding the social range of those using and benefiting from the historic
environment. The project’s methodology has important lessons too for English Heritage’s
Outreach Team, especially in the provision of the Interactive Map and structured texts in a
form capable of ready access for public users.
The former English Nature and parts of Defra have now joined forces in Natural England.
The new structure includes the Rural Development advisers (former RDS) whose remit
covers all aspects of the environment, cultural as well as natural. It is expected that the
HLMC GIS database and attached report will be informative to them in their facilitation of
integrated methods of conservation. Presentation of the project findings to members of
Natural England is in the process of being arranged for 2007.
HECA officers, particularly those involved in similar rural areas where pastoral farming and
grouse estates are principal land management types may be interested in examining how
the HLMC Broad and Sub Types have been developed and the characterisation of the
different impacts designations and schemes can have on land used for similar purposes.
Some of the local community have already been introduced to the project. The Friends of
Reeth Museum expressed a great deal of interest in the venture, following on from a public
talk given to them in January 2007 on the HLMC pilot project. Reeth Museum has asked if
it can host a copy of the Interactive Map, and it may be possible to set up some sort of
feedback mechanism, either within the Map facility itself or in a comments book.
164
The information contained within the Interactive Map and the approaches adopted within
HLMC may well interest bodies like the CPRE (Campaign for the Protection of Rural
England) who are actively engaged in debates concerning rural areas over a wide variety
of subjects. For example they have recently (May 2006) been consulted by governmental
bodies over Environmental Stewardship and the need for an Upland reward structure to
support farmers of hill farms. It is planned to present the HLMC pilot project to the local
branches of the CPRE during 2007.
7.1.2
Application of the pilot project HLMC Types to other areas
It should be possible to apply the particular HLMC Types developed within the pilot project
to areas of similar land use and management within the country. It is probable that the
Broad Types and Sub Types developed within the project area will be applicable in other
upland rural areas where pastoral farming and grouse moor management in particular are
the main land use categories. Consequently it should be possible to transfer the HLMC
Types with relative ease to the rest of the YDNP and other parts of the Pennines and north
of England (e.g. North York Moors)
This would be a particularly useful exercise where industrial remains are common on the
moors, given their vulnerability to current management practice. Unfortunately because all
of the moorland in the pilot project area is grouse moor, other uses of this particular land
type are not represented, and further work would be needed to extend this category to
include military use, water catchment areas etc.
It is also probable that the Broad Types developed for Pastoral Farming, which include the
main (now closed) agri-environment schemes (ESA and CSS agreements) but can easily
be expanded to include for the current agri-environment scheme Environmental
Stewardship could be transferred to other areas where ESAs have been established or
where there has been a high uptake of the CSS such as West Penwith, Exmoor, Dartmoor
and the Lake District.
7.1.3
Informing the Environmental Stewardship application process
The Environmental Stewardship scheme has at its heart this highly integrated approach to
land management. A more strategic application arises from the need of the Environmental
Stewardship Scheme (ESS) to demonstrate how to inform and justify the definition of its
management options and funding targets. This will be a useful test-bed for the project’s
method and one that will be beneficial for the ESS because that scheme is, from the
outset, relevant across environmental disciplinary boundaries and encompasses a broad
range of management options. Its objectives at Entry and Higher Levels bear on the built
and archaeological heritage, on landscape character and quality, and on the natural
environment. That, and the expression of these aspects together on a Farm Environment
Record (FER) to inform production of a Farm Environment Plan (FEP) for each holding,
place a premium on coordinated map-based approaches within and across the
environmental boundaries at all levels, from regional prioritisation and target-setting to
decisions at individual farm level. Regions have some power to set their own targets. This
is done via the Joint Character Areas, and annual Targeting Statements which fix the
system through which points are accrued; a certain threshold has to be reached before a
landholding can attain Higher Level Stewardship and its higher payments. The Target
Point system tends to be dominated by the biodiversity agenda and care will have to be
165
taken at a regional and national level that the historic environment gets a fair allocation of
resources. This project, as a demonstration project, will have particular relevance to
contextualising the strategic-level consideration of historic environment management
objectives under the scheme but its presentation scale of 1:10000 will allow it to inform
and contextualise decisions at individual FEP level too if required.
Informing the ES grant application process
The snapshot that the HLMC provides of Swaledale and Arkengarthdale reflects very
much the end of the period in which the CSS and ESA schemes have operated. Both
schemes have been in progress for several years and have had a measurable effect upon
the landscape and economy of the project area. In terms of the historic environment, the
key successes brought by ESA and CSS tended to relate to the more tangible and iconic
aspects of the historic landscape of the Dales, to the barns and walls. The ESA, however,
has also played an important role in preventing pastoral intensification (and potentially
cultivation as part of the process of improvement) in many areas of inbye land. For the last
three years, there has been a severe reduction in funding within the schemes, and this has
had a particular effect on capital works, such as drystone walling and building conservation
projects for traditional farm buildings, which have now ended completely.
ESA and CSS are currently being replaced by Environmental Stewardship which is a
single scheme operating on two tiers, Entry Level and Higher Level Stewardship. It is
expected that most farms and shooting estates within the project area will move into one
or other of the ES tiers within the next eight years. During the course of the HLMC project
the first three joint ELS/HLS applications for farms within the project area were started.
Entry Level Stewardship
The extent to which the National Park Authority plays a role in ES varies according to a
number of factors. ELS has been designed essentially as a laissez-faire scheme, in which
the land manager produces the application, and in which the environmental aims (and
corresponding payments) are generally targeted at maintenance, rather than improvement
of features. Consequently the National Park Authority has little involvement with ELS.
Where the NPA Farm Conservation Service undertakes applications for HLS entry, these
are usually accompanied by an ELS application, which will reflect some of the
understanding and detail that has gone into the HLS application. At this point, there is a
role that the HLMC can play in guiding the management options applied for. There are no
further consultations to the National Park Authority, although the HLMC, and especially the
management profiles, may prove very important in helping to define the historic
environment aspects of the Yorkshire Dales JCA targeting statement.
Higher Level Stewardship
The National Park Authority plays an active role in the HLS application process. The
National Park Farm Conservation Service operates both as an agent, helping land
managers through the application process, and as a consultee to Natural England. The
process of application for HLS involves the compilation of an audit of all environmental
features on the holding called a Farm Environment Plan, or FEP. For every holding that is
audited, an exacting consultation with the HER is required. The National Park Authority
currently takes on approximately 80% of the FEPs that are initiated within the National
Park, with the remainder being undertaken by a number of other agents. Dependent on the
quantity of FEP work, the National Park Archaeology Service will carry out walkover
surveys to condition assess historic features, and to identify previously unrecorded historic
166
features. The FEP is an excellent opportunity to use the precise information on the
condition of historic features with the excellent contextual information from the HLMC
database. That contextual information will provide strong arguments to opt for particular
land management options or special projects in the final application. The structured texts
and interactive map can also be supplied to FEP agents outside of the National Park
Authority, and to the relevant Rural Development Advisers. With FEPs that are not seen by
the National Park Authority, there is potential for the structured texts to be used as a
quality control mechanism by the RDA, ensuring that opportunities for the positive
management of historic features are properly addressed in the application. The
management profiles may have a part to play in helping to fulfil this role beyond the limits
of the project area.
7.1.4
Heritage Protection Review
The circumstances from which the project originated included recognition that conventional
forms of site designation and protection were not adequate to cope with the management
needs of complex palimpsests surviving extensively in managed agricultural landscapes.
The project is coming to fruition just at the time the White Paper on the Heritage Protection
Review (HPR) is about to be published. Its recommendations will be closely read to see
how it resolves the issues presented by these large areas. Besides providing the
information necessary to meet that broad need, the project’s GIS database can also
indicate the range of measures appropriate for Heritage Partnership Agreements for such
areas by indicating the coverage, strength of support and gaps in sympathetic
management practices already in place. It would be consistent with the need for
transparency in the designation process; with the need to provide an effective strategy for
successfully accommodating complex palimpsest landscapes within the post-HPR
designation regime; with the need for coordinated coverage of the subjects of the previous
designation regimes, and with the need to ensure the resulting Register entries and their
management impacts are integrated wherever possible with other environment
considerations and the wider networks of rural land management.
7.1.5
Informed Conservation booklet
The project’s results should assist in the preparation of a booklet on Swaledale, planned
as a model for other rural areas in the English Heritage Informed Conservation series. In
common with those titles already produced for urban and built environment subjects, the
aims of this booklet would be to raise awareness of the particular qualities of the historic
environment in the area concerned, of their all-embracing character permeating the whole
environment, and their role in creating the diversity of landscape perceptions so relevant to
our quality of life. Building on the link between the historic environment and quality of life,
the booklet could focus on the chief conservation pressures affecting the area’s historic
environment and could identify opportunities and examples of good practice in overcoming
them and harnessing the historic environment for the cultural, social and economic benefit
of all who use it, whether as owners, occupiers, traders, visitors or other users. The
historic landscape management characterisation would play a clear role in informing the
booklet and in ensuring it relates to current issues. The booklet would be aimed at a broad
audience from the area’s local communities, land-owners, occupiers, managers and
elected members; its visitors and second-home owners, to conservation professionals
active in the area. The booklet would seek a practical application of the principles
expressed in People and Places (English Heritage 2004) in which greater understanding
167
among communities stimulating greater value, care for, and enjoyment of the historic
environment as an integral part of their quality of life.
7.1.6
Harnessing the HER to inform the public about conservation
It was decided early on in the project that the main vehicle around which the assessment
of the condition and stability of the historic environment was to take place must be the
HER (HBSMR) entries for the project area. Despite a multitude of problems associated
with using it and developing a GIS database about conservation and management issues
from it, it is nonetheless:
The principal repository of historic environment information within the project area
It exists in related Microsoft Access and MapInfo files i.e. in GIS database form which
can be adapted for use for the Project
It encompasses a wide range of historic environment features from bolehills to
telephone kiosks – well over 200 Monument Types are recorded in the project area.
The basic idea was to develop standardised entries for each of the 200 plus Monument
Types. For each one the technical term would be explained and placed in a wider historical
context. This would introduce text on the current management issues associated with each
Monument Type, written in a way that a non-specialist could easily understand and relate
to. These standardised entries could then be used in the planned interactive project area
map with structured texts, but they could also be attached as prefaces to all the relevant
HER records.
The project design (5.14) specifies its role as a demonstration project to ‘assess the
present uses and potential for the characterisation to inform the sustainable management
of change, conservation planning, spatial planning and outreach programmes, forging
active links with such programmes where appropriate.’ As the standardised texts on the
conservation and management issues facing the different Monument Types recorded in
the HER in the project area were being developed, a role for similar standardised
information to be placed alongside traditional HER records was identified.
HER records are generally site based, individually tailored and sometimes idiosyncratic
entries concerned with particular buildings, structures and sites. They relate past and
current levels of knowledge, understanding and interpretation about that site, but rarely
mention concerns about associated management issues. However, the HLMC pilot project
has demonstrated that vulnerability issues and management problems can be successfully
characterised, both with reference to modern land use and management, and with
reference to Monument Types. For example, while it is not possible to predict which
buildings are going to end up with UPVC windows, it is feasible to predict the class of
buildings to which this is most likely to happen (buildings currently used for residential
purposes) as well as pass remark on those where it is not happening at the moment
(hotels and pubs – probably because traditional wooden windows add to the character of
the establishment and thus have a commercial value).
The whole of the country is covered by curated HERs, and many of these are now
accessible online through the ADS web-based service. As standardised conservation
issues and management texts could be developed for the 200 plus Monument Types in the
168
project area and planted in an interactive map they could also be developed for
incorporation into other HER records, particularly those accessible on-line?
Figure 69 Internet access to HERs is spreading, but the use of them to inform the public about
management issues is largely absent
The way HER data has been developed over the last 40 years appears to assume that
most researchers, whatever their background, are after historic information alone and have
no need for or interest in management issues: the whys of how a structure has survived
and the wherefores of what its future might be in the modern world are rarely mentioned.
Using the model developed for the pilot project would provide an opportunity to harness
the HER as an outreach tool for conservation as well as education and information
purposes. Thousands of records are now accessed daily via the web, and it has
considerable potential for educating and sharing management concerns with the wider
interested public. It is hoped these standardised texts for 200 odd Monument Types may
provide a starting point.
7.2
Vulnerability assessments
In the course of working on this project, it became clear that the HLMC GIS database had
direct relevance to management problems facing different aspects of the historic
environment. Several case studies are examined below to show how HLMC and the
technique of management profiling can help inform the sustainable management of
change affecting the historic environment.
169
7.2.1
Case Study 1: the Grouse Moors
Given the sheer quantity of archaeology and built structures found on moorland where
grouse shooting is now the dominant economic activity, and characterised as HLMC Broad
Type Grouse Moor, it is not surprising to find that some of the grouse shooting estates’
management activities have on occasion undermined the condition and stability of the
historic environment. This is particularly the case with the archaeology and built structures
of the lead mining industry found almost exclusively on moorland in this part of the
Pennines. They have been subject to robbing out and reuse ever since they were
abandoned. Ella Pontefract and Marie Hartley (1934, p.119) recorded that masonry from
four archways above the ore hearths at Old Gang Lead smelting mill was removed in
October 1933 and reused in the new Methodist chapel at Muker, just outside the project
area in upper Swaledale. This was not an isolated instance of reusing valuable building
stone: the Octagon and New Mills in Arkengarthdale were both bought by local builders
shortly after the Second World War specifically as sources of dressed stone (White 1997,
p.89) and subsequently demolished. There is also a history of using the waste heaps as
aggregate and winter grit for roads, as noted by the surveyor of the Second Land
Utilisation Survey, of tips at Merryfield east of Gunnerside after the particularly harsh
winter of ’1962-3’ (NY945 013).
Figure 70 Recent tyre tracks of a JCB at Harker lead mines (SE 017 972), July 2006 showing total
removal of spoil heaps and loss of vegetation cover
Lead mining remains are also particularly vulnerable because of the access provided by
the large network of tracks on the moors. Many of the tracks served the mines and smelt
mills - and consequently go right through the densest concentrations of lead mining
archaeology today - and are features of the industry in their own right. They have been
subsequently used by the grouse estates to access the moorland for shooting and grouse
farming purposes. The name of one of the most famous mining areas in the project area Old or Auld Gang - actually refers to the road which leads to the mines and hints at the
antiquity of the industry (Pontefract and Hartley 1934, p.118). The tracks themselves have
now become the catalyst for a current historic environment management issue on the
moors. This is the robbing out of waste heaps, particularly processing waste, to resurface
170
them. This is occurring on several estates within the project area. Many spoil heaps are
frequently closely associated with slight structural remains, especially of processing
techniques and may contain other archaeological information including dating evidence. It
also disturbs the extremely slow process of revegetation by metallophyte plants - the only
practical way of stabilising these heaps and minimising the amount of lead and other
heavy metal minerals released into the environment through water run off.
Figure 71 Illustration of the MapInfo Workspace file showing where the most vulnerable areas lie in
HLMC Broad Type Grouse Moor. The green hachures mark the 100m activity zone around tracks and
the red hachures mark the 100m activity zone around the grouse butts
Much of the modern activity, other than heather burning, associated with grouse estate
management on the moorland occurs in the vicinity of these tracks and along the lines of
grouse butts. Many (although not all) of the moorland tracks and grouse butts are
embedded in OS Mastermap, and through creating a buffer zone (it has been set at 100
metres, but the distance can be altered) around these digitised features in MapInfo it is
possible to plot where the areas of more intense and potentially destructive modern
moorland management intervention lie. If these are overlain in turn over the polygons
defining the extensive lead mining areas from the HLMC table it is possible to predict
vulnerable zones. This facility of the data base is now being used by YDNPA to predict
vulnerability and monitor problematic areas, and is a method which can be used to
examine management issues facing the natural environment as well.
7.2.2
Case Study 2: New woodland and tree planting
Since 1995 The Dales Woodland Strategy has formed part of the Yorkshire Dales National
Park Management Plan. The initial aspiration, which has become a formal target, has been
to double the amount of broadleaf woodland in the Dales by about 1.5% of the landmass
from a base area of c.2%. Superficially this does not appear to be a huge increase, but
given that much of the YDNP is actually made up of high peat moorland, where tree
171
planting is not generally considered to be an option, this means that it is the valleys and
valley sides which are under pressure to be planted up. Woodland planting has been grant
aided through a multiplicity of schemes administered by a variety of agencies – English
Woodland Grants schemes, agri-environment woodland grants, funding from the Yorkshire
Dales Millennium Trust etc, as well as being carried out by private landowners without
grant aid. To a large extent the YDNPA act as brokers rather than commissioning planting
directly.
The potential conflict with the historic environment is obvious. Consultation procedures are
in place regarding grant aided schemes and the Archaeology Section of the YDNPA is
always advised of proposed grant aided plantings and consulted on grant applications.
Resource limitations mean that responses are frequently desk based and depend on the
availability of existing knowledge. However, given the huge gaps in our knowledge of the
historic environment resource and the limitations of the HER record currently available to
archaeological managers, it is not always an easy task to advise correctly. It would be
useful to be able to predict where future tree planting is most likely to occur in order to
focus survey and other fieldwork resources. Although this could be seen as a somewhat
futile task, in fact there are frequently discernable patterns in how and where trees are
planted. These are:
Existing woodland, which frequently attracts new planting within its perimeters
Along the Moorland Line
Along tributary becks and rivers to help prevent erosion (there are also existing
woodlands here
Existing Woodland
Where ancient woodland or old plantations have become over mature, new planting
frequently takes place to help re-establish a more even age and species mix, or to alter its
character if it is a coniferous plantation. Within the project area, this has taken place at
various sites, including Shaw Beck and Tottergill, both in Arkengarthdale. Tottergill is a
good example of an early conifer plantation covering abandoned lead mining remains
which has seen recent planting; Shaw Beck Gill is a SSSI. Both are also along the
Moorland Line.
Moorland Line and Moorland Fringe
Many of the grouse estates own enclosed land in the HLMC Moorland Fringe Broad Type,
as well as their extensive moorland estates. While leasing the enclosed land to tenant
farmers, there is an increasing tendency to plant up areas along the moorland edge, as
this is believed to offer a more attractive habitat to Black Grouse, which is the focus of a
major conservation strategy in the north Pennine moorlands and thus attracts grant aid.
There are many examples of this type of new planting scheme within the project area,
which are incorporated into the GIS database e.g. polygon HLMC ID 89, New Planting at
Summer Lodge Pasture. It is likely that the moorland fringe will continue to be seen as an
attractive venue for new planting. Although ostensibly targeted at black grouse, planting
also provides suitable habitat for game birds.
172
Figure 72 Tottergill Plantation (NY 990 025) on the far hillside, is full of lead mining remains.
Principal rivers and becks
Trees have been planted along the banks of the River Swale as an anti-erosion measure
for several generations, as relatively mature stands can be found along its banks
throughout the project area, many of which are present on the 1856 1st edition OS maps of
the area. New planting is now a feature of its riverbanks in certain areas, e.g. polygon
HLMC ID 111 along the banks of the Swale between Reeth and Grinton and these
schemes are likely to multiply in the future as a preventative measure against immediate
erosion and long term flooding. It is not only the River Swale which has seen planting
along its banks. Browna Gill on Harkerside and Fore Gill near Bouldershaw in
Arkengarthdale are examples of smaller becks and streams which have attracted new
planting. There is increased pressure for planting to reduce bank erosion which is
increasing as a result of more erratic and heavier patterns of rainfall.
Predicting Vulnerability
Many of the recent new planting schemes fall into two or more of these three categories,
and this suggests that there are indeed some predictable elements in the future planting
plans which come before the YDNPA. An example of one of these is polygon HLMC ID
192, New Planting at Bouldershaw / Fore Gill in Arkengarthdale, which lies on either side
of the substantial tributaries of the Arkle Beck, is flush with the Moorland Line and includes
older woodland on its lower courses. Fore Gill is an area of intensive lead mining
archaeology, where a level emerges and substantial waste heaps remain. These patterns
have become apparent while working on the HLMC GIS database, and it is proving
possible to use it in conjunction with overlays of buffer zones set up around the Moorland
Line (an independent GIS dataset), watercourses (extracted from OS MasterMap or drawn
separately) and woodland (extracted from OS MasterMap) in order to help predict the
areas where future planting is most likely to happen at the moment.
173
Figure 73 Map of project area showing HLMC Broad types Grouse Moor (purple), Moorland Fringe
(khaki), woodland with new planting (red) and unchanged woodland (green), shown against principal
becks and rivers (pale blue)
As gillsides are regarded as a particularly favourable area for new planting for a variety of
reasons, and it is likely that many more lengths of becks and streams will be planted up in
the future. With regard to the impact on the historic environment, it may be worth
undertaking some form of National Park-wide assessment work on the type of archaeology
and historic structures found along tributary streams and the regularity of their occurrence.
While the physical remains of the lead mining industry or industrial mills may be highly
visible, there is much about the early harnessing of water power on a small scale that is
little understood and under recorded. Associated visible archaeology may be slight, and
merge with the natural landscape to the untrained eye, but by its very nature such
evidence is only found in association with watercourses found on inclines. It may be a
resource which is very much under pressure over the next few decades, but in the push to
plant new woodland it is surely important that while focussing on one particular element of
environmental planning - tree and woodland planting - another dimension - the historic
environment - is not inadvertently affected. Such information could be used to create better
understanding among ecologists and natural environment managers of the complexities of
the environment they are dealing with.
7.2.3
Case study 3: Planning applications for barns in the YDNP
Adaptation of the Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls Conservation Area Use
and Condition Survey database for use as a management tool within the remit of the
HLMC project suggested that information stored in various fields could be used to help
predict the numbers of traditional farm buildings which would be eligible for conversion and
adaptation to other uses under the planning policies adopted in the Yorkshire Dales Local
174
Plan (April 2006). While this is not directly related to the HLMC database, it is included
here as it derived from work carried out during the course of the project to estimate the
condition and stability of the historic environment forms within the project area, and relates
to the development of the idea of management profiling, in this case linked to a particular
historic resource, the stone built traditional barns which are locally numerous in Swaledale.
They represent both a potential problem and a difficult to realise asset for the local farming
families and estates who own them, especially as many are no longer of practical use in
modern pastoral farming, and their future will depend on many factors. Potential ideas and
opportunities for the sympathetic reuse and conversion of these traditional farm buildings
feature strongly in internal YDNPA discussions.
New MapInfo.tab files have been created through simple querying of the original database,
which covers the whole of the Conservation Area, which give a rough estimate of:
barns in Farmsteads and adjacent to Farmhouses which are potentially open to
conversion under Policy H4 Housing in the Countryside and Policy F3 Residential
Lets and Self-Catering Holiday Accommodation on Agricultural Holdings;
barns adjacent to the roadside which are potentially the group most likely to be
converted to business use under Policy E4 Conversion of Traditional Buildings to
Employment Uses
Adaptation of the Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls Conservation Area Use
and Condition Survey database for use as a management tool within the remit of the
HLMC project suggested that information stored in various fields could be used to help
predict the numbers of traditional farm buildings which would be eligible for conversion and
adaptation to other uses under the planning policies adopted in the Yorkshire Dales Local
Plan (April 2006). Using the new database created for the Interactive Map to show where
working farmsteads lie within the project area, it was possible to highlight barns which exist
within these curtilages and consequently provide a rough estimate of barns in working
Farmsteads and adjacent to Farmhouses which are potentially open to conversion under
Policy H4 Housing in the Countryside and Policy F3 Residential Lets and Self-Catering
Holiday Accommodation on Agricultural Holdings (YDNPA 2006). This information has
been incorporated as a check box in the Barns and Walls database. As this exercise was
conducted as a desk-based assessment, it may not be totally accurate, and includes no
information on those Traditional buildings which have already been converted to other
uses.
The estimation of barns which may be potentially converted to business use under Policy
E4 (YDNPA 2006) is carried out through using the position of a barn as indicated in the
original survey. Four categories are indicated for Access – roadside, 4x4, tractor or quad
(bike); some rows contain no entry in this field. The estimate rests on the assumption that
Traditional buildings by a road are the ones most likely to be attractive for this type of
conversion. This turns out to be a surprisingly ubiquitous resource and barns in this
category are numerous. While it is unlikely in the extreme that more than a fraction of
these buildings ever attract interest as business propositions, it is nonetheless an
interesting exercise in quantifying an Historic building resource and its potential. As the
data has already been collected it is easy and quick to manipulate to this new purpose.
175
The original database for the project area includes 681 entries for traditional farm
buildings. Of these
• Approximately 60 are located within working farmsteads
• 207 are situated along a roadside and have the greatest potential for reuse for
business purposes
• Some are in both categories
• Many are in neither. These are the isolated or semi-isolated field barns
As barns within settlements were not covered by the original Swaledale and
Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls Conservation Area Use and Condition Survey, the
number of Traditional buildings in this category now potentially available for conversion to
domestic use in Key Service Centres, Service Villages and Small Villages in the project
area is not known. Had data in the original survey been collected for all barns within the
area, it would have covered settlements and so it would now, using the HLMC Settlement
Sub Types, be possible to quantify the number and distribution of this particular Traditional
building resource which may face a change of use. Some barn conversion has already
occurred in the past, and it is not thought that huge numbers of barns are actually present
in this category. Reeth and Langthwaite, for instance, contain few agricultural buildings of
this type. It will be interesting comparing the different development of Low Row and
Feetham in future years, as the former has been designated as a Small Village in the
Yorkshire Dales National Park Local Plan and the latter not. This means that Traditional
buildings in Feetham will not be eligible for conversion, in contrast to those in Low Row. It
will be possible to assess how the character of these adjacent settlements has been
affected, and how this has been perceived by local people.
This is the first time in the YDNP that the Traditional building resource has been looked at
as a whole from the point of view of its place within the infrastructure of the modern
landscape. The position of these buildings in the landscape is absolutely critical in
determining their future, however, given that so many of them are surplus to requirements
on the modern farm. Being able to quantify the number on working farms, within
settlements and close to the transport network may be useful forward planning tools. To
complete the picture it would be useful to add data regarding the conversion of barns to
other uses both before and since 1992, in order to quantify the trend to conversion, as is
evidenced by the recent creation of a bunk barn at Low Whita.
7.2.4
Case study 4: Rabbit infestation control
This section illustrates how the HLMC GIS database is being used to help address one
particular management issue facing the historic environment in this area, and how it could
continue to be of use. The example chosen here is of rabbits, which are commonplace
throughout the Yorkshire Dales and infest certain areas to a greater degree. They are now
regarded as the principal animal threat to archaeological monuments and landscapes in
the Dales, as they are so widespread, and their burrows can and do lead to the permanent
destruction of stratigraphic levels and entire structures (YDNPA 2004).
Their populations fall and rise with cycles of myxomatosis, which has become the main
method of control since its introduction shortly after the Second World War. However, they
have not always been such a problem and one of the interesting outcomes of this project
is a better understanding of the conditions which have led to the situation today. The
reasons are deep rooted and systemic, reflecting changes in farm size and management,
176
eating habits, grouse moor management and other factors, but their geographic spread is
not uniform, and through ploughing back information on their geographic occurrence into
the HLMC database it was possible to perceive trends which are associated with particular
modern land management regimes. Over and beyond these current land management
issues there are deep rooted social and economic reasons which have fostered a decline
in rabbit control, which is a feature of the second half of the twentieth century.
The historic contrast to the period immediately prior to this is startling. The Farm Survey
form filled in by the Inspectors for the National Farm Survey 1941-3 included a section
dealing with the condition of the farm, covering such topics as transport infrastructure,
state of the farm buildings and walls (‘fences’) etc. Part of this was devoted to natural
pests and infestations, including rabbits and moles, here lumped together. It is very
revealing that only two farms in the upper Swaledale parishes appear to have suffered
from rabbit infestation, and only one within the project area. This was at Winterings, north
of Gunnerside, where the Inspector noted ‘This is a typical hill sheep farm…There is part
infestation with rabbits due to the rocky nature of the hillside, but these are kept in fairly
reasonable control.’ (1941 National Farm Survey MAF 32/1095/367 Parish No 367
Melbecks No.7 Winterings Farm W.J. Birbeck The National Archives, Kew). While the
National Farm Survey makes no attempt to assess the condition of unenclosed land, and
so does not cover the problem of rabbits on the moorlands above the enclosed farm land
of Swaledale, it is remarkable that only two holdings out of the c.240 farms surveyed here
were deemed to have a problem with rabbits.
The situation sixty years later is very different. Despite the post-war introduction of
myxomatosis (which effects rabbit populations in cycles) they can be found almost
everywhere. However, their densities do vary and as the project evolved it became
apparent that the presence of a particular type of land management accounted for this
discrepancy, albeit forming only one strand of what are complex and multiple reasons
behind their population explosion.
As holdings have been amalgamated and grown in size the number of workers employed
on farms has actually shrunk, and farmers have less time to devote to pest control. Many
appear to have come to rely on epidemics of myxomatosis to affect a periodic cull on
numbers. Another possible reason is that, whereas in the past farmers were almost totally
dependant on the grass and hay crops to feed their animals and had an incentive to
control rabbits who were competing for the same food resource as sheep and cattle, today
the availability of animal feed for purchase has reduced this compelling need for self
sufficiency in fodder. In economic terms rabbits have become a nuisance rather than a real
pest to farmers. Other incentives for shooting rabbits declined at the same time: social
habits have changed and the tradition of eating rabbit meat has all but vanished, possibly
accentuated by a dislike of myxomatosis infected meat. Consequently there is only a very
small market for them, and whereas a farming family (or poacher) could expect to get good
cash-in-hand for fresh rabbit in the middle of the twentieth century this is no longer the
case (James Kendall, pers. com).
While rabbit damage on the heather moorland is less visible because of the taller
vegetation it is no less prevalent. Rabbits are not regarded as a direct threat to the grouse.
Culling is even less likely to happen here than on the valley farmland and although rabbit
control can be written into Countryside Stewardship Schemes it rarely is.
177
The management of grouse moors has traditionally involved the culling of grouse
predators, such as stoat, weasel and fox for generations. Raptors are not as common as
they once used to be. These predators also help keep the rabbit population down, and
their absence means there are few natural predators to suppress it. Rabbits are
particularly attracted to areas of lead-mining remains which are predominantly found in the
uplands of the project area: the archaeology produces heather–free areas and supports
the fescue dominated sward they feed on as well as a dry matrix for their burrows in the
form of spoil heaps and other associated lead mining remains. Their ability to cope with
the quantities of toxic lead found in this environment is remarkable. It does not appear to
have an effect on their reproductive cycle.
Field observation in the project area suggests that they seem to dislike living in areas of
improved grassland, possibly because the frequent shallow ploughing and rotovation
destroys the entrances to their burrows. The grass crops in these fields create a much
higher sward than they prefer, and they may also require a more varied diet than grass
monoculture provides. Whatever the reasons, because improved grassland has been
catered for in the creation of Pastoral Farming Sub Types (PF2 and PF4) it is possible to
forecast the existence of higher or lower populations of rabbits within farmland in the
project area through the HLMC GIS database.
Figure 74 Using HLMC to help predict areas of high rabbit control and ‘rabbit damage zones’ .
Working farms (red dot) with a 100m and 300m buffer zone, indicating where rabbit control may be
most active, with improved grassland (pale blue), settlements (yellow) and woodland (green), taken
from values within the Vegetation/surface field of the Modern Land Management Characterisation
table in the HLMC database
Other areas at particular risk appear to be those which are distant from the main working
farmstead. It can be argued that the decrease in the number of working farms has
therefore had another indirect effect on rabbit numbers and their distribution. A particularly
178
poignant example of this is located on Riddings Farm near Reeth within the project area.
A farmhouse on the far western boundary of the current holding is in a derelict state and
appears to have been abandoned relatively recently, perhaps as late as the 1970’s. In the
field to the rear is a fine example of an oval building platform typical of the RomanoBritish/Iron Age period, clearly defined with a scooped rear and prominent apron on the
downslope side. Although the surface morphology is well articulated, this building platform
and parts of the surrounding area are extensively riddled with rabbit burrows which are
clearly disturbing the stratigraphy and will ultimately lead to the collapse and decay of the
externally visible form. The fact that the latter is still visible suggests that the damage is
relatively recent, and it is highly likely to have happened since that farm was vacated and a
consequent decline in the culling of rabbits in that area.
HLMC itself does cater for nearness to or distance from working farmsteads, but the
creation of a GIS database on the location of modern working farmsteads in the project
area for use with the Interactive Map provides a means to create a MapInfo overlay
incorporating a buffer zone, predicting lower rabbit populations within a specified vicinity of
working farms. This can add a degree of refinement to predictions produced through the
HLMC GIS database on where rabbit populations may be at their worst, which could be
used in conjunction with data on the whereabouts of archaeological structures within the
historic landscape to highlight the most vulnerable areas and structures.
The particular usefulness of the HLMC database here is its facility to separate out
particular management issues in isolation from others, but to then relate them to particular
geographic areas and their associated land management regimes. As with the previous
case studies, it shows how HLMC can be used in conjunction with other GIS datasets to
help predict where the most vulnerable zones for certain elements in the historic
environment may lie.
7.2.5
Case study 5: Lead mining meets the Mesolithic
One of the few field trips undertaken in the project area looked at Mesolithic/early Neolithic
flint scatter sites in the company of local archaeologist Tim Laurie. The question here was
to discover why these flints, usually found on buried land surfaces, were exposed on the
modern day moorland. Initially the presumption was that a modern land use issue lay
behind their discovery which could have implications for the development of the
Management Profiles for the HLMC polygons in the Broad Type Grouse Moor.
The situation turned out to be much more complex than this. Although there were some
serious modern management issues present here, they were separate from the reason
why so many flints had been found at this particular spot, and why a buried Mesolithic land
surface had become so vulnerable. At the centre of the site was a major spring, the head
of a substantial flow which fed into Slei Gill. Its attractions for a temporary or regular
encampment were obvious - from this site there are superb views south down lower
179
Figure 75 Part of the Mesolithic/early Neolithic settlement area at the top of Slei Gill NZ 018 041
Arkengarthdale and from the number of flints reputedly found there over several years
(Tim Laurie pers. com; Laurie 2003, pp.234-5) it seems likely that the site was reoccupied
many times, possibly over many centuries. Notably flintwork from the early Neolithic has
been found here as well as from the Mesolithic, which makes it an extremely important
‘transition’ site. Unfortunately no definitive fieldwork has taken place here, and our
knowledge of the extent of the resource, either geographically or chronologically, is
sketchy. Ultimately the Mesolithic/Neolithic settlement area would have become covered
by peat, albeit a relatively shallow deposit similar to that found on the surrounding heather
moorland.
Closer examination of the site revealed the reason for the appearance of the numerous
flints: the land had been subsequently affected by lead mining. Although the principal lead
mining areas on this moorland lie to the west and south-west of this site, there are a few
shaft mounds close by. Water was needed to help clean and process the ore rich material
prior to smelting, and it seems probable that it was the presence of the spring and stream
which had attracted the miners. Small fragments of galena (unsmelted lead ore) can still
be found in this area, lying on the turf.
This subsequent lead mining activity, whether caused by washing and dressing or
smelting, is likely to have poisoned the surface vegetation leading to bare patches of peat
becoming exposed. These subsequently have heavily eroded, although small islands of
peat remain within the lead mining affected area.
Using the Vegetation/Surface Field from the HLMC GIS database, it is possible to show
which parts of the project area are dominated by Lead tolerant species. In effect this
doubles up as a demonstration of where the principal lead mining areas lie. By combining
this information with the known site of springs it may be possible to predict the emergence
of other buried land surfaces which may have flintwork evidence for prehistoric activity.
180
7.2.6
Case study 6: Field barns and walls and the historic cycles of building and
demolition
As mentioned in the Method Statement it was decided to develop a system of MapInfo
overlays which would capture some of the differences between the project area as it was
portrayed in the 1839-43 Tithe map surveys, and today. Separate layers were developed
for boundary loss, field barn loss (not barns in farmsteads as these were difficult to
distinguish from farmhouses and other buildings), and the extent of woodland and arable.
As independent MapInfo layers they can be overlaid over the project area with ease and
the differences compared both by eye and specifically calculated e.g. the number of field
barns lost between the 1840s and today can be quantified, as can the amount of boundary
loss from the enclosed fields.
The system of overlays was extended to include the Second edition Ordnance Survey
(25”) and its associated revisions (which took place in the project area mainly during the
1890s and the early 1900s) and the RAF vertical air photographs taken in 1946 (restricted
to Swaledale, Arkengarthdale coverage was not available). In this manner field boundary
and barn loss between the Tithe maps and the 2nd edition, and between the 2nd edition and
1946 (Swaledale only) were digitised, and from comparisons between the three datasets
the rate of loss can be at least partially established.
Boundary and barn loss since the Tithe Apportionment maps
Four Tithe maps were consulted for the project area – Reeth (1939), Arkengarthdale
(1841), Grinton (1841) and Melbecks (1843). Once all the data had been plotted the
following statistics were established:
In total 63.6km of field boundaries have been lost in the last c.160 years.
An extra 11.4km of field boundaries are in a ruinous condition but still extant.
0.56km of field boundaries have been moved i.e. straightened or replaced on a
slightly different line to the Tithe maps.
144 field barns have been lost completely since the Tithe maps.
58 barns were present on the Tithe maps but are now roofless.
Through establishing two further comparative dates of c.1900 and 1946, the rate of loss
could be established, and the following statistics established:
Between the Tithe maps and c.1900:
31.6km of field boundaries were lost
123 field barns were lost
3 field barns were present on the 2nd ed. OS maps but had become roofless
A number of field barns were built, but these have not been quantified.
Between c.1900 and 1946:
29.96km of field boundaries were lost
Between 1946 and the present day:
1.48km of field boundaries have been lost
Between c.1900 and the present day:
181
18 field barns have been lost, of which approximately half belong to each period.
There are several anomalies in the photographs which need to be checked on the
ground.
The rate of loss of field walls during the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries is considerable. Attempts were made to quantify this as a percentage of the
whole resource, but logistical problems were encountered doing this which have not yet
been resolved. It should also be remembered that all the barn figures refer only to field
barns and only to those present at the time of the Tithe maps – it does not include barns
built and lost subsequently of which there are a number, nor barns in farmsteads. None
the less it appears that since the Second World War the rate of loss for field boundaries
and field barns has been relatively slow. Reasons for these trends need to be explored
and established by further research, This is not the place for it here, although it is
interesting to note that recent research on field boundary loss in England since 1945 has
suggested that conservative farming practices may be responsible for the lower than
average boundary loss from predominantly arable areas on Yorkshire (Westmacott and
Worthington 2006). The study area was the zone of arable farming around Myton-onSwale, North Yorkshire, 30 odd miles downstream from the project area in the Vale of
Mowbray (ibid. pp.63-74, p.92). However, these statistics may help inform decisions about
the future conservation of field barns and walls.
This research was carried out semi-independently of the Project by Becky Goulding, a 3rd
year student from the Department of Archaeology, Bradford University on work placement
at the Archaeology Section of the YDNPA. Without her efforts it would not have been
achieved within the time constraints of the project.
182
8
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY
The HLMC pilot project focused on an area in the northern Yorkshire Pennines where the
historic environment palimpsest has a particularly visible chronological layering of unusual
depth and diversity, displaying an extraordinary range of industrial, agricultural and
settlement activity going back many millennia. Within this upland landscape the project
identified a range of current land uses and management regimes within the modern world
which have varying implications for the current condition and stability of the historic
environment. While the dominant land uses are undoubtedly for grouse shooting and the
rearing of sheep and increasingly cattle, others were also identified. Nine main land uses
are distinguished as HLMC Broad Types (Grouse Moor, Moorland Fringe, Pastoral
Farming, Settlement, Woodland, Smallholding, Recreation, Ornamental, Water) within the
project area. Each of these major land uses is further explored in terms of the impact of
management options and other factors on the current state and future conservation of the
historic environment. A wide variety were looked at, including closed and current agrienvironment schemes and the options offered, statutory designations such as open
Access land, common land, SSSIs, conservation area status, local authority planning
policies, vegetation cover, ownership type. Some of these influences were deemed to be
of sufficient importance that they were used as primary attributes in the definition of HLMC
Types and others, although retained in the database, were categorised as influences of
secondary importance. The primary attributes are used to group the polygons into Historic
Landscape Management types of common and recognisable character and they are
expressed through a database with explanatory text. There are thirty-six HLMC Sub
Types.
Out of the process of characterising modern land management regimes in the project area
and examining their potential for influencing the current condition and stability of the
historic environment, the concept of ‘management profiling’ was born. In essence it is a
method of characterising condition and stability trends within a landscape framework.
Management profiling is developed to hold condition and stability information at a generic
level, tailored to the different land use and management regimes current in the landscape
as expressed by HLMC. They are cast as management issues regularly associated with
and often integral to a particular land use and management type, rather than to individual
sites, structures or buildings i.e. they are not site specific. Consequently the development
of HLMC Types provides a vehicle for identifying suites of management issues which
constantly recur in association with particular kinds of modern land use and management.
Although the building of these profiles depends upon drawing together information and
making judgements related to as many historic environment forms as possible, it is not
reliant upon the pre-existence of comprehensive and up-to-date information on the
condition and stability of the thousands of specific structures and sites in the project area.
The GIS database developed for HLMC can be used to provide an indication of problems
that historic environment forms are currently facing because of their location in the
landscape and how the land is currently being used and managed. In essence this method
uses the characterisation framework provided by the HLMC table as the structure through
which management issues can be associated in a generic manner with the particular
management and land use regimes dominant in that particular part of the landscape.
Although the experience from a single initial pilot area inevitably limits the range of land
use types covered, this experimental methodology appears to be flexible and capable of
183
extension to other areas. The considerable number of statutory designations, agrienvironment schemes, planning policy designations etc. in the study area gave a robust
test of the potential of modern land use and management characterisation method and its
ability to characterise the management issues facing all aspects of the historic
environment. It creates a framework for understanding and interpreting conservation
issues endemic in the present day landscape, and has done so using existing data without
the need for extensive field work or new data collection. It is flexible in its focus, allowing
users to ask questions about the modern management context of particular elements
within the historic environment but also allows them to take in whole areas at a glance and
digest the management implications of a multitude of influences. It means there are no
‘blanks’ in our understanding of the sometimes heavy impact of the modern world on the
historic environment, as the system is not predicated on our knowing of the existence of a
particular historic element - a building, structure or site - but can predict the probable effect
of particular land uses and management regimes on a type of resource, whether or not we
know it is there. This is because common land use and management regimes produce
repeating and generally predictable suites of management issues affecting the historic
environment. By combining HLMC with other types of information, the case studies taken
from within the pilot project area have shown a certain degree of sophistication in being
able to forecast what problems there may be and where particularly pressurised areas
may lie.
The HLMC methodology has shown itself to be flexible enough to accommodate any type
of modern land use and management found within the project area and develops the
expression of management profiles capturing trends in the condition and stability of the
historic environment. While the HLMC characterisation methodology as a pilot project has
been developed specifically for a rural area with a wide range of statutory designations,
where a number of different agri-environment schemes and other incentive grant schemes
are targeted at various elements of the historic environment, it has shown itself to be an
adaptable and wide ranging characterisation method.
With some expansion and modification of the HLMC Types and Sub Types to
accommodate aspects absent from this project area, the principles should be readily
transferable to the range of other land use and management expressions – coastal areas
or parkland as well as urban, industrial, and arable farming areas. In short it appears to be
flexible enough to characterise any type of current land use and management in the
modern world and relate it to of its impact on the historic environment .
184
Bibliography
Aldred O & Fairclough G. 2003 Historic Landscape Characterisation. Taking Stock of the
Method English Heritage & Somerset County Council London
Bennett A. 2002 River Swale Regeneration Project – River Corridor Ecological
Management Plan Ecoscope St. Ives (Cambs.)
Camden 1971 (facsimile of 1695 edition) Camden’s Brittannia 1695 David and Charles
Newton Abbot
Clark J., Darlington J. and Fairclough G. (eds) 2003 Using Historic Landscape
Characterisation English Heritage and Lancashire County Council
Clayden P. 1985 Our Common Land: the law and history of commons and village greens
The Open Spaces Society Henley-on-Thames
Coleman A. and Shaw J.E. 1980 Land Utilisation Survey: Field Mapping Manual King’s
College, London
Darvill T. and Fulton A. 1998 The Monuments at Risk Survey of England 1995 Main
Report Bournemouth University and English Heritage Bournemouth and London
Defra 2002a Pennine Dales ESA Guidelines for Farmers
Defra 2002b Pennine Dales ESA Explanatory Notes
Defra 2003 The Countryside Stewardship Scheme 2004 Information and how to apply
Defra 2005a Environmental Stewardship Entry Level Stewardship Handbook
Defra 2005b Environmental Stewardship Higher Level Stewardship Handbook
DTLR 2001 The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future
Done A.B. 1999 The Impact of grouse shooting on the development of the cultural
landscape of the Yorkshire Dales (unpublished MA thesis) University of Leeds, College of
Ripon and York
English Heritage (Characterisation Team) 2002 Historic Landscape Characterisation
Template Project Design
English Heritage 2000 Power of Place: the future of the historic environment
English Heritage 2006 A Landscape Legacy: National Parks and the historic environment
(in partnership with The Countryside Agency and the English National Park Authorities)
Dormer I. 2000 ‘Archaeology and Agriculture – Management by Incentives’ in M.A.
Atherden (ed) Agriculture and the Rural Landscape Place Research Centre, College of
Ripon and York St. John pp..3-18.
Fairclough G. 2003 ‘Introduction’ in J. Clark, J. Darlington and G. Fairclough (eds) 2003
Using Historic Landscape Characterisation
Fieldhouse R. and Jennings B. 1978 A History of Richmond and Swaledale Phillimore,
Chichester
Forestry Commission 1995 Forests and Archaeology Guidelines
Forestry Commission 2005 English Woodland Grant Scheme Grants for the Stewardship
and Creation of Woodland
Gaskell P. and Tanner M. 1998 ‘ Landscape Conservation Policy and Traditional Farm
Buildings: a case study of field barns in the Yorkshire Dales National Park’ Landscape
Research 23 No. 3 pp. 289-307
Gerrard S. 2002 ‘Archaeological Sites – Threat of bracken’ Conservation Bulletin 42 pp.
58-9
Gill, M. C. 2004 Swaledale: Its Mines and Smelt Mills
Hartley M. and Pontefract E. 1934 Swaledale Smith Settle Otley
Horne P. and MacLeod D. 2004 ‘The RCHME’s Yorkshire Dales Mapping Project’ in R.F.
White and P.R. Wilson (eds.) Archaeology and Historic Landscapes of the Yorkshire Dales
Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Leeds Occasional Paper No.2 pp.15-24
185
Laurie T. C. 2003 ‘Researching the Prehistory of Wensleydale, Swaledale and Teesdale’
in T.G. Manby et al (eds) The Archaeology of Yorkshire An assessment at the beginning
of the 21st century Yorkshire Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No.3 pp. 223-253
Lawson T. 2006 Valuing natural and cultural heritage: Badgers and ancient monuments
English Heritage Seminar on Burrowing Animals and the Historic Environment, Society of
Antiquaries, London 14 November 2006
Manby T.G., Moorhouse S. and Ottaway P. (eds) 2003 The Archaeology of Yorkshire An
assessment at the beginning of the 21st century Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Leeds
Occasional Paper No.3
MAFF 1997a Pennine Dales ESA Guidelines for Farmers
MAFF 1997b Explanatory Notes
MAFF 1998 Pennine Dales Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme Uptake 1992-1998
Maps 16 and 17 Swaledale and Arkengarthdale
MAFF 1999 Countryside Stewardship Upland Survey Guidelines for Applicants
MAFF 2000 Pennine Dales Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme Uptake 1992-2000
Maps 16 and 17 Swaledale and Arkengarthdale
Stamp, L. Dudley 1962 The Land of Britain. Its use and misuse. 3rd ed, Longmans, London
Smith L.T. (ed) The Itinerary of John Leland Vol 4, Bell, London
White R. F. 1988 Field Barns: a wasting asset Diploma in Town and Regional Planning
Leeds Polytechnic 1988 (unpublished)
Willies L. and Cranstone D. (ed) 1992 Boles and Smeltmills Historical Metallurgy Society
Westmacott R. and Worthington T. 2006 Agricultural Landscapes: 33 years of change
Rural Development Service, English Nature and The Countryside Agency Wetherby
YDNPA 2003 Yorkshire Dales local Plan (2nd deposit) May 2003 Bainbridge
YDNPA 2004 Monuments at Risk: Yorkshire Dales National Park Notes for Field
Recording (unpublished)
YDNPA 2006 Yorkshire Dales Local Plan Bainbridge ( available in pdf. format on line at
www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/yorkshire_dales_local_plan_2006_-_final.pdf)
YDNPA, The Countryside Agency, English Nature, The Moorland Association and The
Ramblers 2003 The Management of Grinton Estate (unpublished )
186
Appendices
Appendix 1 Project Design
Pilot proposal: Swaledale, Yorkshire Dales National Park
Project Design
1.0 Introduction
1. 1
This is a design for an eight month project to pilot a new landscape management characterisation
methodology that will build on Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC). It will focus on the relationship
between land use and the historic environment. Key factors in that relationship throughout the project
area will be expressed in a GIS database with linked texts. The project will also relate the condition and
survival of historic environment components to a landscape scale view to allow the implications of
condition trends to be understood.
1.2
The project aims to create a comprehensive overview of management impact in order to promote a
more coordinated and contextualised approach to the historic environment than is presently available.
The project and its management focus will inevitably draw in a range of environmental interests beyond
the historic. Coupled with GIS-based data manipulation, this will enable greater integration of the breadth
of environmental considerations in conservation planning than is currently feasible at landscape scale.
1.3
To provide an effective illustration of its methodology, operation and advantages, it is proposed to
undertake this pilot project in a 10km square area around Reeth, Swaledale, in the Yorkshire Dales
National Park, an area of considerable historic and natural environmental complexity which is subject to
a wide range of designations and management schemes. The results will also be designed for future
application to the HPR initiative on the landscape; to Environmental Stewardship targeting, and to a rural
exemplar for the Informed Conservation series.
1.4
The project has been designed by the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority and the English
Heritage Characterisation Team and therefore meets the latter’s needs as expressed within the English
Heritage Strategic Plan 2005-2010 and continues English Heritage’s response to the modernising
agendas set out in Power of Place and A Force for Our Future.
2.0 Project Aims, Objectives and Applications
2.1
The Historic Landscape Management Characterisation Project (HLMP) will develop a methodology
to produce an interactive and interrogatable database combining data relating to land management
character along with data on the physical remains of the historic environment, their condition and their
stability. In focussing on land management character rather than historic landscape character, the
methodology will complement HLC where it is available but the database developed by this project will
retain its own integrity and capability for separate compilation and consultation as appropriate.
2.2
It is proposed to trial the project in the Reeth area of Swaledale within the Yorkshire Dales National
Park. This will provide a robust test-bed in an area which generated many of the original challenges
stimulating this project. The Reeth area offers complexity and diversity both in its historic landscape
structure and in its patterns of land management (more closely defined in Section 4). In discussions to
date, strong interest has been expressed in applying the project’s database for that pilot area to inform:
the HPR, Environmental Stewardship, and English Heritage’s Informed Conservation series.
187
2.3
The Project’s aims are:
• To define, test and review a resource-management methodology for characterising present and
potential land management in relationship to the historic environment at landscape scale.
• To produce a GIS-based characterisation combining data on land management, historic environment
form and stability in the present landscape of the project area.
• To contribute to government agendas in favour of integrated spatial planning in general and
integrated approaches to environmental protection and management in particular by creating a database
which will relate historic environment management to the broader management framework within which it
operates.
• To create a framework of understanding which will structure and promote well-informed decisionmaking about the sustainable management of change and conservation planning affecting the historic
environment of the project area.
• To demonstrate how Historic Environment Records (HERs) and Historic Landscape
Characterisations (HLCs) can be enhanced and contextualised by adding a more detailed management
dimension.
• To improve the awareness, understanding and appreciation of the historic dimension in the project
area’s landscape among that landscape’s professional and non-professional users.
• To provide a demonstration project for extending this methodology to integrated conservation
management beyond the project area.
2.4
The Project’s key objectives are:
• To produce a GIS-database structure capable of accommodating data on land management and
historic environment form and stability for the project area while maintaining a high level of
interoperability with other relevant datasets, notably Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC), Historic
Environment Records (HER) and Joint Character Areas (JCAs).
• To produce a GIS-based characterisation of the project area’s landscape in terms of its land
management and detailing the impact of that management on historic environment form and stability, by
means of:
o identifying and gaining access to the range of data sources relevant to establishing for the
project area: current land management practices and their support systems; material expressions of
the historic environment, and evidence for stability trends affecting those expressions.
o using GIS polygons to define areas sharing similar land management regime.
o defining polygons on the basis of combined shared values of dominant land management
practices and support systems, with secondary attributes recorded in a consistent structured
manner.
o identifying trends and recurrent groupings among the attributes to define land management
types which will, together, encompass all of the polygons and reflect the major differing units of land
management in the present landscape.
o presenting the historic environment data as a layer available for overlay with the polygonised
land-management data and linked to texts summarising its form and stability under the present
management regime.
• To record the sources, data-sets and applications of professional judgement supporting each stage
of the historic landscape management characterisation, to meet the needs of transparency and assist
future updates against the initial benchmark characterisation.
• To analyse and interpret the historic landscape management characterisation to generate
preliminary syntheses.
• To assess the present uses and potential for the historic landscape management characterisation to
inform the sustainable management of change, conservation planning, spatial planning and outreach
programmes, forging active links with such programmes where appropriate.
188
• To produce a project archive and a Project Report reviewing the methodological development and
practical application of the historic landscape management characterisation in the project area,
assessing the benefits of extending the methodology to other areas, and including a revised Method
Statement reflecting experience from the project.
2.5
Applications
2.5.1 The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority has the twin statutory purposes to: i) conserve and
enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park and ii) promote
opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the
public. It is the local planning authority and is a statutory and non–statutory consultee on a very wide
range of proposals and initiatives involving the Yorkshire Dales landscape, including proposals from
such bodies as English Nature and the Environment Agency. It is actively involved in the development
and management of agri-environment schemes in the Yorkshire Dales, and works closely with the Rural
Development Service (RDS) of DEFRA. The Authority acts as an agent as well as a consultee for the
delivery of Environmental Stewardship and produces Farm Environment Plans as well as data for Farm
Environment Records. It is also actively involved in giving generic advice on the landscape of the
Yorkshire Dales and in interpreting and presenting the dales landscape to the public The outputs of the
Historic Landscape Management Characterisation Project will be widely used in all the Authority’s
consultation work In addition, four major strategic applications have been identified: Integration and
inclusion; Heritage Protection Review; Environmental Stewardship and Informed Conservation.
2.5.2
Integration and Inclusion
The project’s contribution to integrated approaches to environmental protection and management,
relating historic environment management to the broader management framework within which it
operates, lies at the heart of Power of Place and A Force for Our Future. These principles also receive
clear expression in the DCMS Consultation Paper on heritage protection reform (DCMS 2003) and the
Decision Report responding to that consultation (DCMS 2004a & b). The need to coordinate the historic
environment conservation message and activities with broader economic frameworks and opportunities
and with other areas of environmental conservation has become viewed increasingly as fundamental to
unlocking the economic and social benefits of the historic environment and transforming its image from a
bureaucratic burden to an asset for communities whose environment includes it, whether they own,
manage or otherwise use it (English Heritage 2000, 2004; DCMS/DTLR 2001). The integrated
approaches and re-orientation of working methods that the new agendas entail will inevitably take time to
develop and mature, well beyond the scope of any such project as this. This project will provide an
exemplar for such new frameworks, using practical opportunities to demonstrate the advantages and
effectiveness of drawing together the project’s currently disparate data strands, presenting that
information in a spatially comprehensive context, and enabling its coordinated manipulation.
2.5.3
Heritage Protection Review
The circumstances out of which the project originated included recognition that conventional forms of
site designation and protection were not adequate to cope with the management needs of complex
palimpsests in living landscapes. The project will therefore, as one of its applications, seek to inform the
Heritage Protection Review (HPR) when it begins to resolve the issues presented by these large areas.
Besides providing the information necessary to meet that broad need, the project’s GIS database can
also indicate the range of measures appropriate for Heritage Partnership Agreements for such areas by
indicating the coverage, strength of support and gaps in sympathetic management practices already in
place. Discussions of this project proposal with the EH HPR Team have produced a very favourable
response; it would be consistent with the need for transparency in the designation process; with the need
to provide an effective strategy for successfully accommodating complex palimpsest landscapes within
the post-HPR designation regime; with the need for coordinated coverage of the subjects of the previous
designation regimes, and with the need to ensure the resulting Register entries and their management
impacts are integrated wherever possible with other environment considerations and the wider networks
of rural land management. The HPR Team have agreed to work with this project to develop an initiative
for effective designation approaches to these complex landscapes. That initiative will commence with a
review by HPR Team of the adequacy of the range of existing heritage designations in one of the Reeth
project area’s parishes, to run concurrently with this project.
189
2.5.4
Environmental Stewardship Scheme
Another strategic application arises from the need of the Environmental Stewardship Scheme (ESS)
to demonstrate how to inform and justify the definition of its management options and funding targets.
This will be a useful test-bed for the project’s method and one that will be beneficial for ESS because
that scheme is, from the outset, relevant across environmental disciplinary boundaries and
encompasses a broad range of management options. Its objectives at Entry and Higher Levels bear on
the built and archaeological heritage, on landscape character and quality, and on the natural
environment. That, and the expression of these aspects together on a Farm Environment Record (FER)
to inform production of a Farm Environment Plan (FEP) for each holding, place a premium on
coordinated map-based approaches within and across the environmental boundaries at all levels, from
regional prioritisation and target-setting to decisions at individual farm level. This project, as a
demonstration project (see Method Statement below), will have particular relevance to contextualising
the strategic-level consideration of historic environment management objectives under the scheme but
its presentation scale of 1:10000 will allow it to inform and contextualise decisions at individual FEP level
too if required.
2.5.5
Informed Conservation
The project’s results will enable the preparation of an exemplary publication on Swaledale as a
model for other rural areas in the EH Informed Conservation series of booklets. In common with those
titles already produced for urban and built environment subjects, the aims of this booklet will be to raise
awareness of the particular qualities of the historic environment in the area concerned, of their allembracing character permeating the whole environment, and their role in creating the diversity of
landscape perceptions so relevant to our quality of life. Building on the link between the historic
environment and quality of life, the booklet will focus on the chief conservation pressures affecting the
area’s historic environment and will identify opportunities and examples of good practice in overcoming
them and harnessing the historic environment for the cultural, social and economic benefit of all who use
it, whether as owners, occupiers, traders, visitors or other users. The management characterisation will
play a clear role in informing the booklet and in ensuring it relates to current issues. The booklet will be
aimed at a broad audience from the area’s local communities, land-owners, occupiers, managers and
elected members; its visitors and second-home owners, to conservation professionals active in the area.
The booklet seeks a practical application of the principles expressed in People and Places (English
Heritage 2004) in which greater understanding among communities will generate greater value, care for,
and enjoyment of the historic environment as an integral part of their quality of life, not as an esoteric
specialism confined to special places.
3.0 Project Background and Context
3.1
The project’s origins lie in discussions as part of the MPP, prior to the Heritage Protection Review
(HPR), about the role of statutory designation in managing extensive areas of archaeological
palimpsests within active enclosed farmland. The protection-led constraints of scheduling over large
areas of working landscapes seemed inappropriate, unjustifiable and unenforceable, and would risk
alienating rather than empowering those same land-managers on whose continued care the good
survival of the palimpsests depends. But the absence of any strategic guidance on value and best
practice would be equally unacceptable. The focus of debate therefore moved to seeing designation as
primarily a method of delivering pro-active and consensual management tools designed to secure the
long term conservation of nationally important monuments. As many extensive historic palimpsests are
in areas predisposed to other environmental schemes and designations which give various benefits to
the historic environment by chance or intent, this offers a way to allow statutory management-led
designation to be integrated with broader environmental management.
3.2
A prerequisite for that approach is a comprehensive overview of a palimpsest’s management
regimes: the range of designations, agri-environment and other incentive schemes that support them,
and their respective impacts on the historic environment palimpsest. Such a management database will
inevitably also provide a basis for building long-term conservation strategies encompassing the whole
palimpsest and its environs, contextualising and articulating the application of the range of available
190
management options and their means of reinforcement: not only through designation but by other forms
of regulation or through incentivised voluntary participation in conservation schemes whether targeted on
the historic environment or other conservation objectives.
3.3
Since the start of the new millennium the context for those considerations has altered radically. The
aims and emphases of historic environment policy have undergone major re-orientation (Power of Place
(English Heritage 2000), A Force for Our Future (AFfoF) (DCMS/DTLR 2001) the HPR (DCMS 2003;
DCMS 2004a; DCMS 2004b) and the modernisation of English Heritage as expressed in People and
Places (English Heritage 2004) and the EH Research Strategy 2005-2010). Accompanying this reorientation has been a broader definition of the historic environment itself: that ‘it embraces the
landscape as a whole, both urban and rural’ (AFfoF, p4); that our understanding of landscape and what
is significant within it is a matter of perception (European Landscape Convention (ELC)), and that those
perceptions vary with the diversity of viewpoints in our society (AFfoF, p8 para 5; ELC).
3.4
Over the same period, agricultural subsidy regimes have been considerably reshaped by CAP
reform, with increasing emphasis in the UK on payments for environmental and landscape benefits
rather than production targets, a shift recently exemplified by the cross-compliance measures and the
Environmental Stewardship Scheme implemented during 2005. In parallel with these changes,
developments in characterisation thinking and techniques, and in technological capability (especially in
GIS mapping), have greatly enhanced our ability to assimilate, manipulate and present area-based data
at a landscape scale.
3.5
In combination, these developments place a premium on coordinating our various management
options and decisions for the historic environment, for greater transparency and accountability in
decision-making, and for articulating our decisions with other environmental considerations and the wider
management framework within which land owners, occupiers and other users of the historic environment
need to operate. This is expressed very clearly in the directions for change indicated in DCMS papers on
heritage protection (DCMS 2003; DCMS 2004a), but these principles have much wider scope and
relevance for the conservation of the broader historic environment and of historic landscapes. Indeed it
would undermine those principles to apply them only to selected features within the historic environment
and not to put management regimes into the widest context possible. What is needed is as
comprehensive a view of the historic environment of a given area and its management as is practicable.
3.6
The Government’s encouragement of agreements integrating the management of natural and
historic features in the rural environment (DCMS 2003, 17-18; DCMS 2004a, 20-22) favours databases
combining record and management in a manner compatible with spatial planning to enable effective
delivery and monitoring by historic environment curators. Effective, coordinated prioritisation and
targeting within the new structure of agri-environment payments and requirements generates similar
spatial planning needs. These pressures and needs to streamline delivery and clarity to those directly
affected by designations, schemes and other initiatives requires those databases to have
comprehensive, not selective, coverage of the historic environment of the area concerned. This again
points to an integrated approach to the planning and delivery of conservation strategy in which the
application of statutory and non-statutory measures is coordinated, contextualised and justified.
3.7
Technological advances, particularly the development of GIS, have increased our ability to assemble
and manipulate all relevant data on land management and the historic environment. This enhanced datahandling ability also enables growing demands to be met with transparency.
3.8
These policy trends create a strong need to draw together data on land management character with
historic environment resource, historic landscape, and stability data in a GIS database appropriate to
inform spatial planning. Some existing databases already contain elements of what is required; MAGIC
for example displays a range of current designation, scheme and initiative data but its ability to translate
that into management practices is extremely limited; its focus on statuses leaves it highly selective rather
than holistic in coverage, giving no indication of management beyond its coverage of statuses. It makes
no claim to give a basic record for any specific dimension of the environment and has little facility for
direct manipulation in conjunction with any other database containing, for example, historic environment
data. Similarly other databases may give excellent coverage but within strictly limited parameters of
management and/or resource: good examples are Countryside Survey 2000 and the CEH Land Cover
Map. No available database or combination provides the facility proposed by this pilot project.
191
4.0 Definition of Project Area
4.1
The Project Area is a 10km square area focused on Reeth at the junction of Swaledale and
Arkengarthdale in the Yorkshire Dales National Park, North Yorkshire. The location within a National
Park benefits from the National Park Authority’s involvement in land management and conservation and
accords well with the Joint Statement on the Historic Environment in the National Parks of England and
Wales, especially Article 7ii “English Heritage and National Park Authorities will seek to collaborate in the
development and testing of schemes which promote improved methods of land management that further
the protection of the historic environment”.
4.2
The area has also been chosen for the complexity and variety of its historic environment and for the
range of management regimes and their influencing mechanisms. It (and its size) was also chosen in
discussion with the English Heritage HPR team to establish a good candidate area for using this
project’s methodology to inform the application of the unified Register in extensive complex palimpsests
surviving in modern agricultural landscapes.
4.3
The Project Area encompasses the 10km square area comprising OS quarter sheets NY90SE;
NZ00SW; SD99NE; SE09NW: broadly Reeth to Gunnerside in Swaledale, and to Whaw in
Arkengarthdale, together with the inter-fluvial high ground between and beyond.
4.4
The area contains a very full archaeological palimpsest with major prehistoric and Romano-British,
early and later medieval settlement and field system phases represented both as relict and perpetuated
survivals. These remains lie within the present pattern of functioning enclosure and settlement plans
th
th
developed largely through the 17 -19 centuries. Interrelated with that development and very extensive
over the higher ground are features from industrial exploitation, mostly lead mining, limestone and chert
quarrying, often in areas now managed primarily as grouse moors.
4.5
The built environment is dominated by a classic expression of the northern dales’ ‘barns and walls’
landscape. Settlements show a high proportion of 17th and 18th century building survival, some structures
displaying agricultural origins but with mining having a considerable impact on density, layout and
building form. Tourism, ownership patterns and high property prices are placing further pressures on the
area and on settlement form. The importance of woodland elements has also been demonstrated as
integral to understanding many aspects of the area’s historical development. Indeed the project area can
show very effectively how the historic environment permeates the whole environment.
4.6
The area also commends itself because it is well-documented. Many aspects of the area have been
well-recorded through the Yorkshire Dales (Mapping) Project, a pilot for the National Mapping
Programme and it has been subject to a pilot historic landscape characterisation carried out by the
National Park Authority as a contribution to the North Yorkshire HLC. Other recent research includes
work on the development of Swaledale’s landscape organisation (Fleming 1994; 1998); on the dale’s
prehistoric exploitation (Laurie 2004a, b, c); on prehistoric rock art (Laurie and Beckensall 1998); on
woodland management (Fleming 1997 and Gledhill 2004), and on the impact of the mining industries
(Bagenal 1999; Gill 2004a, b; Roe 2003 and Tyson 1989, 1995, Tyson et al 1995).
4.7
The management context in the Project Area is equally well-documented. The dale-side pasture
rises from valley floor hay meadows (mostly perpetuated through ESA), with very extensive grouse
moors over the higher ground. Common land remains very extensive and not only over open high
ground: it still reaches down the dale-sides to encompass large areas of former wood pasture. Along the
fringes of higher ground are a number of small farmsteads and small discrete intakes, well-sited
originally to take advantage both of the agricultural and mining economies.
4.8
The area is well covered by management schemes and designations. Nearly all (90%) of the project
area lies within the Yorkshire Dales National Park, the highest form of landscape designation. Most of
the valley floor lies within the Pennine Dales ESA rising to extensive SSSIs over the higher dale-sides,
plateaux and fells, much with English Nature management agreements encouraging heather
regeneration and some deciduous woodland planting. Beyond the ESA, large areas of the dale sides,
together with Reeth Low Moor and much of the project area beyond the National Park around Hurst are
192
under Countryside Stewardship. The project area also includes part of the Swaledale and
Arkengarthdale Barns and Walls Conservation Area, whose condition and use survey will be a valuable
source, although the related ‘Barns and Walls Conservation Scheme’ is currently inactive. In looking at
immediate and future prospects, it is clear that with extensive areas in ESA and under Countryside
Stewardship, and with large areas of common land, there will inevitably be major impact from the
implementation of Environmental Stewardship (not all ESA agreement land may be eligible for Higher
Level Environmental Stewardship) and of the CRoW Act, quite apart from ongoing change resulting from
the tourist industry and the property market.
4.9
The area’s main settlements were omitted from the Swaledale and Arkengarthdale Conservation
Area designated by the National Park Authority in 1989 although the cores of several have since been
given Conservation Area status, their coverage and appraisal remain as matters for review. Coverage by
statutory designation is variable: Listing for this area was comprehensively reviewed in the 1980’s, but
the MPP review of the scheduling was largely withheld pending agreement on how appropriately to
tackle the extensive palimpsests the area presented; this project now takes this forward. Notable
exceptions to that include the scheduling of some of the more extensive industrial features.
4.10
Taken overall, this Project Area provides an excellent test-bed for the management characterisation,
considering its range and complexity of historic environment elements, its management and the factors
influencing that management. Further advantages stem from the fact that by focussing the project in the
Reeth area, an area which enjoys an unusually well-informed and interested visitor population and which
has a high profile with the heritage sector, English Heritage and the National Park Authority will very
visibly indicate that the historic environment is not an object for esoteric study but has major relevance to
a range of issues affecting our quality of life. On a more specific level, it also shows the determination of
both organisations to move forward the wider conservation agenda in an area which faces considerable
current and imminent challenges to maintaining the integrity and coherence of various aspects of its
historic environment.
5.0 Method Statement
5.1
In common with HLC, this project works from the premise that the historic environment is a
dimension permeating the whole environment and relates to the impact of human activity of all periods
up to the present. Accordingly the project’s view aims to be comprehensive in time and space throughout
the defined project area. Its coverage will encompass the present landscape and draw together its built
and archaeological elements above and below ground, including those aspects of the natural
environment which constitute cultural artefacts.
5.2
The project will draw together and facilitate the manipulation of three broad bodies of data
concerning the historic environment in the project area:
A. data on current land management practices in the project area, further qualified by available data on
factors influencing such practices such as agri-environment schemes, management agreements,
designation, etc.
B. data on the historic environment of the project area
C. assessment of the stability of historic environment condition in the project area.
5.3
5.4
It is proposed that this characterisation will be largely a desk-based exercise, albeit one requiring
some travelling to access and assess sources and Annex A lists likely main sources for the required
data. It is anticipated however that some field visits and structured interviews with historic environment
specialists, land owners, occupiers, managers and other land users will be advisable for addressing
areas where coverage of existing data may be thin and beneficial in bringing into the project the
knowledge, views and intentions of those directly involved in managing the land concerned.
The project will be carried out in four main stages:
1. Setting up and familiarisation: with pilot area, sources and method
2. Characterisation: polygonisation, mapping and assessment
193
3. Data analysis, interpretation and review
4. Project Report and Archive preparation, and dissemination
Stage 1: Setting up and familiarisation.
5.5
Stage 1 will involve setting up the project with the essential tools - the hardware, software and
necessary licences. In this stage the Project Officer will undertake any required training; establish access
to and familiarisation with the necessary data sources (see Annex A), assessing their content, coverage
and relevance for the project, and will gain familiarisation with characterisation methodologies. The
Project Officer will need to develop appropriate means for rapid assessment of historic environment
stability and contribution to landscape character, the methods selected feeding into the project’s revised
Method Statement. The Project Officer will also use this stage to develop a detailed working knowledge
of the Project Area (see Section 5) and establish the necessary contacts relevant to the historic
environment and management of the Project Area.
Stage 2: Characterisation: polygonisation, mapping and assessment
5.6
The project proposes to adapt the attribute-based approach used for HLC (Aldred & Fairclough
2003; EH Characterisation Team 2002) and apply it to land management. A series of ‘land management
attributes’ comprising defined management practices, land uses, designations, incentive schemes, etc,
will be generated from the data gathered under 4.2 ‘A’ above. Combinations of those attributes will
produce classifications of ‘Land Management Types’ whose physical expression will, in turn, form the
basis for defining ‘Land Management Areas’ shown as polygons on a GIS database using MapInfo, with
OS MasterMap as the map base. To provide a level of resolution to inform the project’s data gathering, it
is proposed that the project’s presentation scale shall be 1:10000. At that scale, all but the very smallest
current land parcels and their boundaries are depicted, along with the internal layout of modern
settlements and farm plans. That scale can comfortably encompass extensive historic fieldworks such as
relict field system traces and industrial remains while retaining sufficient detail to show most individual
built structures such as field barns. That breadth of coverage is particularly appropriate for this as a
demonstration project: it certainly does not preclude larger or smaller scale application of the approach
as future needs may require.
5.7
Management detail at the level of the constituent attributes will be accessible as structured text data
held for each polygon in a MS Access relational database ; this will provide flexibility in the expression of
management data through the polygon network. This will contain data not only on management practices
themselves but also the stability of supporting mechanisms, for example, the types, duration and
coverage of supporting agri-environment schemes and management agreements or the presence and
constraints of designations where that information is available. Included in the structured texts for each
polygon will be a brief assessment summarising the stability trends in the principle historic environment
forms in that polygon (see 4.10) and the key drivers for change identifiable for the polygon.
5.8
Present combinations of management practices and support systems follow the often radical
changes in agricultural economics during 30 years of influence from the CAP. While the present
management regime provides the context in which present conservation planning and response needs to
operate, much of the present agricultural material infrastructure: the field size, patterns and boundaries,
farm plans and farm buildings, derives from a smaller scale, less intensive and less mechanised
agricultural regime (though not necessarily less responsive to change and external pressures) which
persisted in this area to the end of the Second World War. It is the land management under this relatively
recent regime to which we owe not simply so much of our present surviving agricultural infrastructure but
also those earlier survivals that form the extensive palimpsests we now seek actively to conserve
through sympathetic management. For this reason, the polygon’s texts will include a field for Previous
Land Management Types, one consistent source for which will be the 1941-3 National Farm Survey,
supplemented as necessary by the 1940s RAF vertical air photo coverage where available.
5.9
Historic environment data (5.2 ‘B’) will be subdivided for descriptive purposes on the basis of form,
function and chronology, conflating the YDNPA’s HER records to accommodate them within this
relatively simple categorisation. For each such subdivided category, structured summary texts will be
accessible from each of the Management Area polygons and from historic environment map layers on
the GIS which, when made active, will also link to the appropriate structured texts. The availability of
194
digitised map data for inclusion as layers for display against the management characterisation will
inevitably vary. Map based HER data, NMP mapping and other digitised survey data will be used where
available. For all areas however, the MasterMap base itself conveys an important range of historic
environment data, especially relating to the built historic environment, which will be referenced in the
linked texts. This should be amplified by links to historic landscape character data for all areas where
HLC has been completed on a MasterMap base. Whatever the inconsistencies of available map-layered
data, consistency in the representation of historic environment features will be provided at the level of
the structured texts accessible from each polygon, giving summaries of the chronological depth, present
form and character of historic environment material features within each management polygon. Those
summaries will be prepared from the HER data (which includes listed building information); other
available survey, air photo and research sources and from liaison with appropriate specialists.
5.10
The ‘present form’ field in the structured texts will also give access to a further tier of texts giving the
qualitative data in 5.2 ‘C’: an assessment of the stability of that feature’s form in that management
polygon: whether its condition is stable or unstable, the direction and speed of any instability, and how
this change is being expressed. This will also inevitably cross-refer to the summary of the polygon’s
drivers for change in the management text. It is not the purpose of the database to hold management
recommendations to arrest deterioration etc: that is the process that the database is designed to inform,
taking into account external factors such as funding availability, integration with other environmental
considerations, etc, but not for it to determine itself.
5.11
While some data may be available on the stability of historic environment forms for each polygon,
either directly (eg Field Monument Warden reports, management agreement and agri-environment
scheme farm surveys and condition surveys, planning applications) or indirectly (eg SMARS data, APs),
comprehensive data on this aspect is unlikely to have been collected specifically for most features of
most polygons so this element of the project will necessarily be dominated by assessment based on
professional judgement. That is not a weakness: much conservation planning for the historic
environment is already underpinned by such professional judgement applied on an ad hoc basis: what
this project seeks are the benefits of moving those judgements about stability of condition into a
comprehensive structured framework, allowing the resulting strategies for a range of objectives to be
articulated and fully informed.
5.12
Also accessible through the ‘present form’ field will be an assessment of the relationship of the
features’ expressions in each polygon to broader historic landscape character. Various means have
been used to elucidate and convey relationships between landscape component and character, for
example by combining text summaries and time-depth matrices (eg Herring 1998) or as the focus of indepth research in its own right (eg in the East Anglian Fields Project, Suffolk CC). This project will need
to develop a method which is explicit and consistent. For the purposes of this project in which it is but
one element of many, if a complex and important one, that method will also need to be rapid and deskbased, from the viewpoint of a historic environment curator, and based primarily on relating the ‘form’ of
the historic environment data (in 5.2 ‘B’) with the content of the Historic Landscape Characterisation
database, supplemented by other data (eg air photographs) as necessary.
Stage 3: Data analysis, interpretation and review
5.13
Stage 3 will comprise a preliminary analysis and interpretation of the project database, preliminary
as it will reflect only a part of the range of potential queries and analyses that the database will support
from a variety of applications. It is expected that analyses in this stage will concentrate on broad
correlations emerging between land management, its patterns of support, and historic environment
stability, using the database’s holistic coverage to express these relationships in terms of management
regime impact across the breadth of the historic environment and extending the analysis to discuss
impact on historic and wider landscape character.
5.14
The analyses in this stage, by case study or across the project area, should anticipate some needs
of the applications already identified for the database (see 2.4-2.7), providing pointers to the wider
potential of this approach in managing and steering change affecting the historic environment and
identifying themes and areas that would benefit from targeted conservation messages. Those
applications will be valuable for this project’s role as a demonstration project and for achieving its
195
objective to ‘assess the present uses and potential for the characterisation to inform the sustainable
management of change, conservation planning, spatial planning and outreach programmes, forging
active links with such programmes where appropriate’.
5.15
This stage should also show the potential for reviewing the management characterisation against
other characterisation-based presentations of the project area’s landscape and their accompanying
databases. The fine-grained scale of this project will undoubtedly affect the scope of meaningful
comparisons in this respect, but the project’s database will also inform the ongoing review of others
bearing on related themes, for example the thematic profiles behind the Joint Character Areas. The
value of this project’s detailed approach for informing community-based characterisation initiatives might
also be explored, adding a management dimension to local landscape character assessments of the
type recently undertaken at Burwardsley, Cheshire (CCN News, 14 (Spring 2004) 8-11).
Stage 4: Project Report and Archive preparation, and dissemination
5.16
The project’s main products will be:
• The Project Database, GIS mapping with supporting texts on Access
• The Project Report, incorporating a revised Method Statement
• The Project Archive
5.17
The Project Database will be integrated into the YDNPA HER with copies provided to others as
appropriate and in accordance with data-licence conditions. In the course of integrating the database,
the issue of the database’s maintenance needs exploration: besides informing the dynamics of land
management, the database needs to be updated to reflect them in order to remain relevant as a tool for
conservation planning.
5.18
A full Project Report will be compiled, drawing on this brief, the experience of the project’s execution,
and the project’s results and analysis. Copies of the Report will be distributed to English Heritage and
other bodies to be agreed. The Report will cover the following range and organisation of contents:
Introduction
Project background and context
Aims and Objectives
Methodology
Project Area
Non-technical Summary of Project Results
Land Management Characterisation
Revised Method Statement
Management Types expressed within Project Area
Overview of historic environment expressions in project area.
Discussion and Review
Overview analysis of patterns of management impact across the historic environment
Overview analysis of management regime impact on historic landscape character and
broader landscape character
Discussion of applications for project database and results
Scope and recommendations for further applications of project methodology
Recommendations for further applications of project results
5.19
The project’s archive will be compiled in accordance with English Heritage guidelines and will
include:
• project designs and briefs;
• correspondence;
• data generated or copied as part of the project
• a copy of the Project Report
• a benchmark copy of the characterisation on completion of the project
The archive of hard copy material deposited with the North Yorkshire County Record Office; the digital
archive will be offered to the ADS.
196
5.20
The project’s approach, database and capabilities will be publicised to wider popular and
professional audiences through a range of papers, web articles and lectures. This publicity will create links
with that for applications of the database underway by the end of the project.
6.0 Programming and Management
6.1
Some of the project’s methodological and software structures will be similar to those used in county
HLC projects; experience there suggests that a 10km square project area, as proposed for this trial
project, can be characterised quite quickly.
6.2
Other aspects of this project however will require more time than HLC; more stages of assessment
will be needed to create the management polygons, to present historic environment data consistently,
and to assess stability and relationship to landscape character. The output scale will be larger too. The
data to be sought and assembled differs substantially from that used in HLC and will require some
software adaptation.
6.3
The project is also expected to be more labour-intensive than HLC in the number, diversity and
accessibility of data sources. While essentially desk-basked as far as possible, more in-depth, on-site
discussion with partner agencies and representative land managers will be required than is normal for
HLC. Similarly liaison with other historic environment specialists will be beneficial.
6.4
Taking these factors into account, it is concluded that it will be reasonable to expect this project to be
completed over the course of eight months, with delivery of the project database, report and method
statement on completion. That period reflects the following allocation of time across the Project Stages
identified in Section 4:
Stage 1: Setting up and familiarisation:
1.5 month
Stage 2: Characterisation
4.0 months
Stage 3: Data analysis, interpretation and review
1.5 month
Stage 4: Project Report and Archive preparation, and dissemination 1.0 month
6.5
The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (YDNPA) will undertake the project, employing a single
project officer who will be under the management of the National Park’s Senior Conservation
Archaeologist and embedded within the National Park’s archaeological staff. A relatively simple
management structure is anticipated for so short a project, with only a Project Management Group
comprising: the Project Officer; the YDNPA Senior Conservation Archaeologist and representatives from
the English Heritage Characterisation Team; Yorkshire and the Humber Region; Countryside Policy, and
the Head of Rural Research. The project’s identified applications should also be represented: the English
Heritage Head of Rural Research will fulfil this role for the Informed Conservation booklet, with
representatives from the English Heritage HP Team for the HPR initiative. The relevance to ESS
targeting will be reflected by including the YDNPA Countryside Archaeological Adviser (HECAS officer)
and the DEFRA Historic Environment Adviser for the Yorkshire and the Humber region.
6.6
The aim for this to be a demonstration project will be furthered on its completion by a presentation of
the project database to a meeting of interested parties from the partner agencies, historic environment
professionals and specialists, land-owners, agents and occupiers.
197
7.0 Bibliography
Aldred, O & Fairclough, G (2003) Historic Landscape Characterisation. Taking Stock of the Method English
Heritage & Somerset County Council
Bagenal, T B (1998) Miners and Farmers. British Mining monographs, 62
Clark, J, Darlington, J & Fairclough, G (2004) Using Historic Landscape Characterisation English Heritage &
Lancashire County Council
DCMS/DTLR (2001) The Historic Environment: A Force for Our Future
DCMS (2003) Protecting our historic environment: making the system work better
DCMS (2004a) Review of Heritage Protection: The Way Forward
DCMS (2004b) Press Notice 081/04: Looking Forward to the Past , especially Case Study: Heritage Assets
on Agricultural Land
English Heritage (2000) Power of Place: the future of the historic environment
English Heritage (Characterisation Team) (2002) Historic Landscape Characterisation Template Project
Design
English Heritage (2004) People and Places
Fleming, A (1994) Swadal, Swar (and Erechwydd?): early medieval polities in Upper Swaledale. Landscape
History, 16, 17-30
Fleming, A (1997) Towards a history of wood pasture in Swaledale (North Yorkshire). Landscape History, 19,
57-73
Fleming, A (1998) Swaledale: Valley of the Wild River Edinburgh Univ Press
Gill, M C (2004a) Swaledale: Its Mines and Smelt Mills
Gill, M C (2004b) Lead Mining Affected Landscapes of the Yorkshire Dales, in: R F White & P R Wilson (eds)
Archaeology and Historic Landscapes of the Yorkshire Dales, 51-60
Gledhill, T (2004) Woodland, Industry and Landscape: A history of woodland in Swaledale, in: R F White & P
R Wilson (eds) Archaeology and Historic Landscapes of the Yorkshire Dales, 61-7
Herring, P (1998) Cornwall’s Historic Landscape Cornwall Archaeological Unit
Laurie, T C (2004a) Researching the Prehistory of Wensleydale, Swaledale and Teesdale, in: T G Manby, S
Moorhouse & P Ottaway (eds) The Archaeology of Yorkshire, 233-253. Yorks Arch Soc
Laurie, T C (2004b) Springs, Woods and Transhumance: Reconstructing a Pennine Landscape during Later
Prehistory. Landscapes 5(1), 73-102
Laurie, T C (2004c) Burnt Mounds in Wensleydale and Swaledale, in: R F White & P R Wilson (eds)
Archaeology and Historic Landscapes of the Yorkshire Dales, 79-88
Laurie, T C & Beckensall, S (1998) Prehistoric Rock Art of County Durham, Swaledale and Wensleydale.
County Durham Books
Roe, M (2003) Lead Mining Archaeology in the Yorkshire Dales. Landscapes 4(1), 65-78
Tyson, L O (1989) A History of the Manor and Lead Mines of Marrick, Swaledale. British Mining monographs,
38
Tyson, L O (1995) The Arkengarthdale Mines. British Mining monographs, 53
Tyson, L O, Spensley, I M & White R F (1995) The Grinton Mines. British Mining monographs, 51
Annex A
Pilot proposal: Swaledale, Yorkshire Dales National Park
Yorkshire Dales Pilot
Principal Data Sources
OS Mapping:
OS MasterMap
OS 6”:1 mile, 1st Edn (digital)
OS 25”:1 mile (for settlement areas & where available)
Air photo coverage: YDNP HER APs – including 1968 & 1972 APs
NMR APs
1940s RAF APs
Historic environment datasets & surveys:
YDNP HER
North Yorkshire HER
NMP, Yorkshire Dales Mapping Project
North Yorkshire HLC
198
Barns & Walls Conservation Area use & condition survey
Various research surveys (eg by Andrew Fleming; Tom Gledhill; Tim Laurie; NMRS)
YDNP granted surveys & consolidation works records
Yorks Vernac Buildings Study Gp records
NMR survey records
Northern Mines Res Soc records
North Yorks County Record Office
Atlas of Rural Settlement (Roberts & Wrathmell)
Land management surveys and datasets:
Enclosure Awards
Tithe maps
Estate maps
1910-15 Valuation Office Survey
Land Utilisation Survey (Dudley Stamp)
1941-3 National Farm Survey (PRO Kew)
Alice Coleman’s 1960s Land Utilisation Data
Common Land Register (YDNP or NYCC?)
DEFRA Agricultural Land Classification (digital)
Soil Assn Mapping (digital)
CRoW Act mapping and survey data
Other surveys & datasets:
JCA Profiles (Co-Ag)
Defra RDS GI Unit data and local RDS Office data
Natural Areas mapping (EN)
Ancient Woodland Inventory
Heathland, Grassland & Peatland Inventory
BGS geological mapping
Countryside Survey 2000
Land Cover Map 2000
Countryside Information Service
MAGIC
Designations:
SAMs & SMs
Listed Buildings
Conservation Area docmtn & mapping
Parks & Garden Register (no entries in pilot area)
National Park
SSSI
SAC
Common Land
ERDP Schemes:
ESA (phasing out)
Countryside Stewardship (phasing out)
Environmental Stewardship (from 3/3/05):
ELS
OELS
HLS
Farm Woodland Premium Scheme (phasing out)
Woodland Grant Scheme (phasing out)
England Woodland Grant Scheme (from 05)
Rural Enterprise Scheme
Other environmental agreements/initiatives:
YDNP Farm Conservation Scheme (none in pilot area)
YDNP Local Historical Features Scheme (none in pilot area)
English Nature Management Agreements
199
Other land management payments:
Single Farm Payment (from April 05) (inc basic cross-compliance req)
Hill Farm Allowance (+ optional envir enhancement payments)
Organic Farming Scheme
200
Appendix 2 Sources
Introduction
This review of sources is not a comprehensive directory but is intended as an overview and guide derived
from the experience of the pilot project. The project design required a wide variety of information, much of it
beyond the usual remit of heritage management, to be accessed and assessed. Some of the resources used
will be familiar territory to historic environment managers, but some will not and it was thought a brief review
of the types of sources found useful may help others in the future. Apart from printed material, documented
in the bibliography, there were many useful online resources and several archives were visited.
A considerable amount of time was spent at the beginning of the project investigating and assessing the
sources listed in Annex A of the project design. In the event, as the project progressed it moved away from
the incorporation of much historic archive material, but as the experience may help future researchers,
details of some of these sources, an assessment of their usefulness and indication of problems encountered
are included below. They are also included as part of the record of the research undertaken during the
course of the project, even if some of it was not used in the characterisation process. They are listed in
chronological order.
Many of the sources used were accessed through the YDNPA and its intranet. These have been referred to
in the text of the report at various stages and are not be listed again. They are obviously of little use to those
outside the YDNPA, but are an indication of the resources – in particular the GIS resources – needed to
make a project like this feasible within the projected timescale. It is likely other local authorities have similar
datasets, and it is worth devoting some time to researching institutionally available information, and
establishing its metadata.
The documentation and mapping for Conservation Areas came from internal Conservation Area Character
Appraisals, accompanied by GIS MapInfo files.
Extensive use was made of internal YDNPA MapInfo databases as a quick method of acquiring information
on anything from current footpaths to agri-environment schemes in operation, listed buildings to current and
historic woodland. Sometimes these datasets had been generated by the YDNPA, sometimes they had
derived from external sources, especially government bodies; these came with a variable amount of
metadata. Much of the information on agri-environment schemes and the HER just beyond the National Park
boundary was also accessible in this way, as between 1km and 10km external buffer zones are included in
much YDNPA data to cater for cross-boundary situations e.g. a farmer or estate with land on both sides of
the National Park boundary.
Maps referred to used included
st
• Ordnance Survey 1 edition
• Ordnance Survey 1: 2500 County series
• Ordnance Survey Explorer Map OL30 2005
Online resources
NB. Web addresses can change, and these are recorded as used during 2006 and early 2007.
Planning policies for both the YDNPA and Richmondshire District Council are available for viewing on line,
along with much more information at www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/yorkshire_dales_local_plan_2006__final.pdf and for Richmondshire District Council at www.planningportal.gov.uk/wps/portal. (NB. pagination in
the printed version of the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan 2006 is slightly different to the online pdf. version; it is
the latter which has been used throughout this report.) Other local authority planning policies are likely to be
similarly available on line, and an increasing number have accompanying maps and plans delineating the
particular areas associated with particular policies.
There are many online resources available. The most useful ‘one stop shop’ is the government website
MAGIC (www.Magic.co.uk), with an increasing number of downloadable GIS files on a whole range of
environmental and landscape schemes and designations along with their metadata (although in practice the
YDNPA had them all or an equivalent).
201
Websites covering land owning national charities and trusts like the Woodland Trust, (www.woodlandtrust.org.uk) and The National Trust (www.nationaltrust.org.uk) are easy to access, and frequently contain a
good deal of management information relating to particular sites and land holdings. Similarly detailed
information about the management of particular SSSIs was easily tracked down on the English Nature
(www.english-nature.org.uk) and Natural England (www.naturalengland.org.uk) sites. For information on the
Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust, who sponsor woodland planting in the National Park see www.ydtm.org/ .
Information regarding woodlands and the current grant schemes available can be viewed at
www.forestry.gov.uk/ewgs. Digitised maps for Ancient Woodland covering the whole of England are available
for download at www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/gis/tech-aw.htm.
The dataset for SSSIs in England can be viewed online via the Magic website, and is freely available for
download either piecemeal by grid block or in its entirety. At the beginning of the project this was from
English Nature website (www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/gis/gis_register.asp). This information is now
hosted by Natural England, though still has (Jan 2007) its old web address. It gives individual SSSI
boundaries, and according to the metadata is updated on a monthly basis. The scales at which the original
data is drawn up can vary – the basic map scale used is 1:10,000, but small sites may be tackled at 1:2,500,
and larger ones 1:15,000. For the purpose of the HLMC pilot project data quality and control was excellent,
and the difference in original scales irrelevant to the reliability of the information. The English Nature website
contained publicly available and intellectually accessible information on every SSSI and their management
prescriptions (www.english-nature.org.uk/special/sssi). Technical terms are explained, and the process of
monitoring sites is transparent. The ‘condition’ trend of sites is also made public.
The old Defra website, which still exists, contains useful information on the different agri-environment
schemes once and currently available (www.defra.gov.uk). However, as Countryside Stewardship and ESA
schemes become out-of-date this historic information will become more difficult to access on line, and it is
recommended that printed copies of these schemes be archived by Local Authorities in preparation for this
time. As the Environmental Stewardship Scheme is taken up, the future of the paper records associated with
the closed schemes will become uncertain. They contain a lot of information about how physical elements of
the historic environment were managed in the 1990s and later, in particular field wall and barn repair, which
may not be available in digital form i.e. if and when the paper archives are jettisoned the information may be
lost. Information on Access land and the CRoW Act is available at www.openaccess.gov.uk and
www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts20000/200000037 . Common land datasets can be requested from
[email protected]. Information on Joint Character Areas is available from
www.countryside.gov.uk and targeting priorities for the different JCAs were available at
www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/pdfs/jca-ts/021 (now defunct).
The Countryside Information System (www.cis-web.org.uk) contains a wide range of downloadable spatial
data concerning the countryside and environmental matters including administrative areas, agriculture,
critical loads (soil acidity), designated areas, land classification, land cover and linear features, natural areas,
physical information, species and vegetation. However, the resolution is not high.
Obviously the English Heritage website (www.english-heritage.org.uk) is an indispensable source of
information and remarkable for the number of downloadable resources. Pdf files are available covering a
wide range of environmental and conservation matters (follow links from Home Page to Online Resources,
Publications, Free Publications, Browse Publications A-Z) including A Landscape Legacy: National Parks and the
historic environment and a whole range of publications on Farming the Historic Landscape.
A considerable amount of time was spent at the beginning of the project investigating and assessing the
principal sources listed in Annex A of the project design. In the event, as the project progressed it moved
away from the incorporation of much historic archive material, but as the experience may help future
researchers, details of some of these sources, an assessment of their usefulness and indication of problems
encountered are included below. They are also included as part of the record of the research undertaken
during the course of the project, even if some of it was not used in the characterisation process. They are
listed in chronological order.
202
Tithe Maps and Apportionments
In 1836 the Tithe Commutation Act provided for the translation of all tithes still payable in kind to the Church
or other owners of tithes into money payments, and updating of any existing money payments. The original
agreements with the church were of ancient origin, and had been distorted in various ways by the enclosure
and improvement of lands since the Dissolution of the Monasteries. Various procedures were then
undertaken throughout England and Wales to assess the land on a parish by parish basis. The two most
important types of documents for HLMC purposes are the Tithe Apportionments and the Tithe maps.
The Apportionments list the owner and tenant, field or property number, its acreage, state of cultivation and
value. They followed a standard formula throughout the country. The Maps are more variable in standard,
and vary considerably in size, accuracy and scale. Those commissioned at the beginning of the period were
often of better quality than later ones, as corners were cut to speed the process. Only about one-sixth of the
Tithe maps (c.1900) were sealed by the Tithe Commissioners, and it is these alone which can be accepted
as accurate.
Accessibility and usefulness
Tithe records are well known and usually easy to access, either at County Record Offices or at The National
Archives, Kew. Records are usually on microfilm or microfiche. Acquiring copies of Tithe maps should not be
a problem, as Record Offices nationwide are in the process of scanning, and in some cases digitising the
records – for example the North Yorkshire County Record Office offers a scanning service @ £8.00 per scan
up to A1 size. Even without the accompanying Apportionment the maps hold a wealth of information and are
worth examining. Apportionments are usually available for consultation on microfiche, from which
photocopies can be made.
Figure 76 Booze at the time of the Tithe maps (1841) showing its origin scattered around common
land
The National Archives produce a useful Research Guide to the Tithe Records, viewable on line at
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue. The Tithe maps at Kew are in the process of being put on
microfiche; some maps still have to be viewed in their original state. Photography of maps and documents at
the National Archives, Kew is permitted provided flash is not used. Other copying facilities are available.
The maps relevant to the project area stored at Kew are in better condition than those at the North Yorkshire
County Record Office, and this may well be the case for other areas. The copies at the County Record
Office have been handled so frequently that areas of the document have actually been lost. These areas
can be filled in by the copies at Kew.
Tithe Apportionments and Maps provide a superb indication of the nature of farming, agriculture and property
owning patterns throughout England and Wales during the late 1830’s and early 1840’s. Because of the
system of giving field numbers and listing their condition and use, it is possible to discover exactly how each
enclosed field was being cultivated at this time. Unenclosed land was not mapped to the same degree, but in
203
the project area, lead mines, lime kilns, major boundaries etc. were often marked, adding to the richness of
the historical record.
The maps for this particular area of Swaledale and Arkengarthdale were surveyed and drawn to an excellent
standard and compare well with the first edition OS maps which followed in the 1850’s. They are among the
ones ‘sealed’ by the Tithe Commissioners i.e. recognised as reaching a high standard of accuracy. Only one
in six Tithe maps nationwide were deemed good enough to be ‘sealed’. It should be born in mind that not all
areas of the country were surveyed to the same high standard, and Tithe maps cannot be assumed to be
always accurate. The following observations are made only in relation to the Tithe maps in the project area,
but may be an indication of issues and problems elsewhere.
Some questions about historic land use and management in the mid-nineteenth century can be addressed
by consulting the Tithe records,
• How much arable farming was going on at this time in this area? One Tithe map (Reeth)
differentiates between arable and non-arable visually on the map and not just in the Apportionment.
• A reasonably consistent distinction appears to have been made between ‘wood’ and ‘plantation’
throughout the Tithe documents. Plotting where woodland/plantation has been is obviously of
considerable importance, as both relate to land use and archaeological survival issues. The creation
of woodland through planting schemes, whenever it happens, has an affect on sub-surface
archaeology.
• The maps contain much information about contemporary buildings, including the layout of hamlets
and villages, and the size and position of field barns.
• The maps and apportionments also contain a wealth of additional information including the existence
and line of field boundaries, place-names, footpaths and tracks as well as roads, mining areas –
often with dams, levels etc, the sites of limekilns & quarries, bields, field barns etc.
The methods of recording land use are not necessarily consistent between parishes. For example:
• A major difference between Melbecks Tithe Map and the others consulted is that it has one category
(grass) where the others have two (meadow and pasture).
• Small gardens and enclosures which were being used for potato growing are recorded as ‘arable’ in
some Tithe maps and ignored in others.
• At least one example was found in the Reeth Tithe records of a field recorded as ‘arable’ in the
apportionment but not on the map – sometimes a couple of years elapsed between the map and the
apportionment and this may reflect change in land use; alternatively it could be construed as
inaccurate data. Discrepancies between apportionments and maps are apparently not uncommon.
Limitations:
• Differences in data capture methods - it may be difficult in some areas to align the original survey
with modern OS land parcels due to inadequate survey methods. Different degrees of accuracy
were employed for buildings in particular.
o Unless a property was in a settlement and owed a tithe, it would generally be rendered
schematically on the maps e.g. all field barn structures appear as simple rectangles; while
this may reflect their ground plans, the regularity of the rectangle suggest it is being used as
a symbol
• Differences in real data - Land parcel boundaries have changed in some areas since the 1840s, and
may only approximate to today’s boundaries.
o This is less a problem ‘in the field’ in this area than within settlements, where modern
property boundaries can differ wildly from their Tithe counterpart.
• Tithe maps are sketchy in their depiction of land outside the enclosed fields and settlements, but
other sources may be available to help date these such as estate maps and documents.
204
Valuation Office Records
The Finance Act (1909) provided for the levy and collection of a duty on the increment value of all land in the
UK. A baseline survey was conducted in 1915, and contains details on all property, farms, houses,
workshops, factory etc contained in two records: Field Books and Maps. According to the online guide
(www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/localhistory/gallery1/valuation) the surveyors used Ordnance Survey
maps to identify each property and record its boundaries. It was allocated a heriditament number, and
details of the property entered in Field Books. These original records, the working maps and Field Books,
are generally found in County Record Offices, but do not always survive. The National Archive contains the
transcribed versions, which were frequently condensed versions of the originals.
According to the guide provided by the National Archives, the amount of information contained in the Field
Book varied considerably. The basic minimum was the names of the owner and occupier, type of occupancy
(freehold etc), details of tenancy and the area covered by the property. Additional details might cover the
date of erection, number of rooms, state of repair, liability for rates, insurance, repairs, sketch plan of
property etc.
Records are available at the National Archives, Kew, Surrey, but they are not comprehensive. Copies may
also be available at local Record Offices throughout the country, but this is not always so, and the records
that survive may be very partial and incomplete. The records for the project area were not located at the
North Yorkshire County Record Office and so the National Archives were used.
There were a number of problems associated with using these records: in particular there is no easy system
for tracking down the particular Field Books required. As there are 95,579 volumes, it can take time to locate
the relevant volumes. First of all you have to know the local Valuation Office which collated records for the
area you are interested in. There were 118 Valuation Offices nationwide, and there appears to be no simple
index of places and the relevant Office. For major towns or cities, this may be obvious, but for rural areas
like Swaledale it is not a straightforward system.
The National Archives service recommend use of maps (IR 121-135), as they act as an index to the Field
Books (IR58), and the country is divided into 13 regions, which can be accessed online. To give the
example of the project area, the Yorkshire Region is given as IR 134/1 to IR 134/10, and the closest possible
centre appears to be Harrogate at IR 134/4. The Harrogate section includes 1312 sheet maps, however, so
this is just the beginning of the search. The numbering system used reflects the Ordnance Survey 25”
County Series system, so it is necessary to know the sheet number(s) of the areas of interest. The project
area included maps of Yorkshire North Riding, Sheets 37, 51 and 52 (various parts), and by scrolling through
the National Archive online facilities it is possible to see if the archives hold any of these. The archive
holdings do not appear to be complete – sheets from 51 and 52 were located, but 37 (Arkengarthdale) was
not found. Either they are missing, or held under a different Valuation Office (possibly Darlington). The maps
have to be called up individually and - if finally tracked down - provide a visual record of property boundaries
together with their hereditament number.
The next stage is to use these numbers to find the appropriate records in the Field Books. This is not a
straightforward exercise either. It is not easy to locate any particular Valuation Office within the set of
c.95,000 Field Books. Harrogate was finally located online at IR 58/37409-37916, but the indexing of the
517 Field Books documenting this region is crude. The index is constructed by using the name of the first
place in each of the Field Books which means knowledge of local place names is required. In the event, it
was not possible to trace any of the Field Books local to the project area. Not even Richmond (never mind
Arkengarthdale, Reeth, Grinton or Gunnerside) was mentioned in the index, and the conclusion was reached
that the series may be incomplete.
A Field Book was consulted to gauge the sort of information available, but it contained little information on
land management or the condition of buildings. However, given that the information held in Field Books
varies, others may be more useful and rewarding to consult. The Land Valuation is potentially of use for
establishing the dates of buildings, size, state of repair etc, but the archive is not indexed in a user-friendly
way and accessing the right records is a time-consuming and tricky business.
205
Land Utilisation Survey – 1930’s
The first Land Utilisation Survey of Britain took place in the 1930’s, and was the brainchild of Professor L.
Dudley Stamp, of the London School of Economics. 7 basic land use categories were mapped, field by field,
parish by parish, onto 6” to a mile (1:10,560) OS maps. By late 1934 90% of the country had been mapped
and the bulk of the fieldwork was completed by 1935, mainly using volunteers – mostly schoolchildren under
the guidance of local schoolmasters. The information was then transferred by trained cartographers onto
one-inch maps (1:63,360) for publication – a long and expensive business which Stamp struggled to finance.
92 memoirs or county summaries were produced, the last in 1946 but not all maps reached the publication
stage. The Land Utilisation Survey information was much in demand during and after the Second World War.
Stamp’s book The Land of Britain – Its Use and Misuse first published in 1948, 3rd edition 1962, provides a
history of the project and some of its results.
The collated one-inch maps are now available online at the Vision of Britain website
(http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/map_lib_page.do). In 1962 the surviving original maps were
deposited at the Department of Geography at the London School of Economics and are now in that
institutions library. They were not consulted during the course of the project, but are obviously an invaluable
source of information for land use at this time.
It was decided the published survey material shed little extra light on the state of land management and use
which could not be gleaned from other sources, and therefore that it was of little use for the purposes of this
project. The original 6” sheets however might contain additional information about the state of agriculture in
the early 1930s.
National Farm Surveys of England and Wales, 1940-1943
In June 1940 the government initiated a national farm survey, to try and get a better idea of the state of
agriculture in the country, how land was being used, the availability of motor power, labour etc. The ability of
the country to feed itself during the war was of paramount importance, and information was needed on an
individual farm basis. The initial survey of land use on June 4 1941 was undertaken by official inspectors,
and this was supplemented by other questionnaires filled in by the farmers. The National Farm Survey
archive amalgamates these, and is a triumph of organisation, given that 300,000 farms larger than 5 acres
were covered by the survey.
The archive is housed at The National Archives, Kew, Surrey TW9 4DU and has been available for
consultation only since 1992. A research guide is published online for the National Farm Survey, giving the
historical background to the survey, the nature of the archive and instructions on how to access the records.
It is available at (www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/rdleaflet).
Individual farm records form the record series MAF 32. The accompanying maps, which detail the farm
boundaries and special code number handwritten on Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 sheets are in the series
MAF 73. Using both records it is possible to tie a particular farm and its land use to a particular set of fields
on the map.
Farms were surveyed and organised by parish. Providing the parish name is known, it is relatively easy to
track down the records in MAF 32 using online instructions (www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue). The
document references for all required farms or parishes can be ascertained prior to a visit.
The main problem in locating the parish comes from duplicate parish names – there is another Healaugh
(Yorkshire) and another Fremington (Devon).
The accompanying maps are found in series MAF 73/48 (North Riding). Each county has a different code
e.g. 47 is East Riding and 49 West Riding, and it is easy to locate these online. Once the county series
number is located, the Ordnance Survey Sheet numbers have to be known – there is a paper guide at the
National Archives for this. For example, the project area is covered by England and Wales, Yorkshire North
Riding (West Part) Sheets 37, 51 and 52 (marked in Roman numerals on the maps) and there will be
separate sheets within these numbers. Although in different series, the maps and records can be consulted
side by side, and digital photography is allowed if permanent records are needed.
The National Farm Survey provides a glimpse of the condition and management of farms in the early years
of the Second World War. As such they tend to provide a snapshot of farming traditions at the very end of
the last widely non-mechanised period of farming in the country, rather than the beginning of the more
206
mechanised phase which in some areas began during the second half of the war years, as the need for more
arable crops became urgent and an increased number of tractors became available.
It is worth noting that the way the records are organised and made are very similar to the Tithe
Apportionments and Maps of a hundred years previously, in the sense that
• the parish system is used
• fields are numbered individually
This means that it is relatively easy to follow through land use chronologically within any given area by
comparing the Tithe Maps directly with the National Farm Survey.
Using the documents, it took very little time to ascertain the following:
• Most farms practised mixed animal farming – a few cattle (including dairy), sheep, an occasional pig,
poultry. Due to the bad roads and non-existent railway, it is unlikely dairy produce ever reached the
outside world except in the form of cheese or butter.
• There was virtually no arable land within the project area – Section F of the Farm Survey was for
Grass Fields Ploughed up for the 1940 and 1941 harvest. Apart from one exception given below all
the farms in the project area recorded ‘No ploughing’.
• Mechanical power on a farm was exceptional - most farms still relied on horse power in this area.
• Meadows and pastures occupied 99% of the enclosed land, of which hay meadows made up
rd
rds
between 1/3 and 2/3 of each farm – a rough estimate from the archives based on the acreages
given for each. However, unlike the Tithe Maps, the difference between meadowland and pasture
was not specified, despite the fact that each field on the maps has a number. There was a hint, in a
single record of an arable crop being grown (in Grinton parish, but outside the project area), that the
field numbering system was devised and used more to list and assess the amount of arable crops.
Differentiating grassland types appears to have been of little interest to the farm inspectors.
• Holdings varied considerably in size, from a single field of a few acres to several hundred. The
smaller holdings were often without a farmhouse, and the owner/tenant lived in the hamlets and
villages.
• For some farms the only pasturage was in the form of grazing rights or gaits on the common (i.e. the
unenclosed moorland). From this it should be possible to deduce that any enclosed land belonging
to these farmers was used solely as hay meadow. In fact, checking this through other records
suggests this is not actually the case (i.e. several farmers elsewhere said they had enclosed
grazing). Whatever the interpretational problems associated with this, it can be stated that this
arrangement was particularly prevalent for the smaller farmers and in Melbecks parish.
• Some sheep flocks were very large – 500 +.
• Buildings - information was recorded in the Farm Survey on the condition of farmhouses, farm
buildings, fences (interpreted as walls in Swaledale), ditches and other infrastructure (local roads,
farm tracks). The vast majority of these were deemed to be in Good or Fair condition, and notes
were only made if the structures were deemed to be in Bad condition.
• Infestations - Another category in the Farm Survey dealt with infestations. Categories of interest
included rabbits and bracken. Notes were made where these were mentioned. There were
surprisingly few mentions of rabbit infestation.
Further details:
MAF 32/1075/350 Arkengarthdale
42 farms and holdings
MAF 32/1075/365 Marrick (contains Hurst)
28 farms and holdings, only 4 within the project area.
MAF 32/1075/367 Melbecks
MAF 32/1075/372 Reeth (with Fremington and Healaugh)
MAF 32/1075/384 Grinton
207
Second Land Utilisation Survey
The Second Land Utilisation Survey was a nationwide survey (England and Wales) directed by Professor
Alice Coleman during the 1960’s and conducted with the help of both volunteers and professional surveyors
and cartographers. It was comprehensive in coverage, spanning rural and urban areas, and divided land
use into three ‘super categories’: farmland, vegetation and settlement. Complex multiple uses were catered
for through a ‘curtilage’ system of notation, identifying a primary land use, but allowing secondary use within
it to be specified e.g. car park within a factory site. The survey appears to have been methodical in its
approaches following detailed guidelines for surveyors, and the standard of information consistent.
Although some maps were published, much of the material remains in archive form, and has to be consulted
in Dulwich, London. The published and unpublished material are at different scales, the original Field Sheets
being prepared on 1:10,560 Ordnance Survey or 1:25,000 maps; the published versions only at 1:25,000.
The archive is housed at the official premises of the Second Land Utilisation Survey: 20 Giles Coppice,
Dulwich Wood Park, London SE19 1XF. Professor Coleman lives next door at 19 Giles Coppice and is
contactable by telephone on 0208 244 6733/6739. She is very keen for the archive to be used, and
arranging a visit was no problem.
15% of England and Wales are covered by published maps, which are at a 1:25,000 scale and can still be
purchased from the survey. For the remaining 85% (including the project area), the original Field Sheets
have to be consulted. The original Survey handbook used for the 1960’s mapping process is no longer
available, and has been superseded by a more detailed manual (Coleman A. and Shaw J.E. 1980 Land
Utilisation Survey: Field Mapping Manual King’s College, London) which explains the methods and
conventions used.
Figure 77 Coleman A. and Shaw J.E. 1980 Land Utilisation Survey: Field Mapping Manual King’s
College, London
B&W photocopying facilities are available for a very reasonable charge and Professor Coleman was happy
for digital photographs to be taken of the original maps, again for a very reasonable charge. There are no
plans for the archive to be moved in the foreseeable future, though ultimately it may become part of an
208
institutional archive, and possibly amalgamated with Dudley Stamp’s First Land Utilisation Survey (Prof
Coleman, pers. com.).
Only the maps relevant to the project area were accessed. However, the sophistication and breadth of the
land use categories (around 70 variations) and the clarity of the presentation scheme makes it relatively easy
for non-geographers to understand and use. Around 13,000 different variations in land cover and use were
recorded (Prof. Alice Coleman, pers. com.).
Four maps were relevant to the project area, three were at 1:10,560 scale (the NW, NE and SE quadrants)
and one at 1:25,000 (SW quadrant). An assessment of the methods of mapping quickly revealed the
following:
• There was no differentiation between pasture and meadow, and these are effectively categorised as
being the same. Generally all the enclosed land within the project area was grassland, although
further down the valley arable land was recorded – eg at Scar Farm, Ellerton Priory there were fields
of oats, barley as well as a fodder crop - kale.
• There are occasional fields marked Ka (kale); ‘improved’ (no explanation – presumably ploughed
and reseeded grassland ); DC dairy cows; S sheep; C calves; Q quarries.
• Different types of woodland were differentiated in the survey. In the project area the main types are
broadleaf, conifer and mixed.
• In moorland areas, the emphasis was on predominant vegetation cover for different parts, and one
can only admire the tenacity of the surveyors who tackled this subject over vast areas without the aid
of aerial photographs or satellite cover. Symbols for the main vegetation types were used, and
though they can vary in minor details from the printed handbook version, they can usually be worked
out. Of particular interest is the record of bracken (Pteridium) and areas with damp-loving species,
rushes (Juncus) and cottongrass (Eriophorum angustifolium). Where more than one category of
vegetation is recorded, the most predominant is put first and the least, last. Vegetation types of less
than 10% are not recorded. Pt symbol on green, means bracken infested field.
• Occasionally the surveyor wrote notes on the maps. The ones on maps covering the project area
contained some interesting snippets of information, pertinent to the subject of archaeological
survival.
o On one part of the moorland in the NW quadrant, Flincher Moss just to the north of Great
Pinseat, a note was made of the extremely eroded nature of the peat cover there. Peat
beds (for the lead mining industry?) are noted by Ordnance Survey in the vicinity
o The survey was conducted in the project area in March/August 1963, and another note
remarks on the use of one particular set of lead mining spoil heaps at Merryfield (SD 950
014) to provide grit for the roads during the preceding bitter winter. (‘Gravels from these
used in frost grit for roads’). The evidence of removal must have been particularly fresh, and
no doubt the surveyor received up-to-date information from locals on this subject.
It is difficult to quantify how much specific and idiosyncratic information of this type can be
sourced from the Second Land Utilisation Survey, but it suggests that even where published
maps exist, the originals may be worth consulting for the particular insights into land condition,
use and management they may reveal.
Conclusions:
• The survey is of great interest and potential use for characterising land use, cover and management
in the post-war farm mechanisation period prior to Britain’s entry into the Common Market.
• The survey contains information collected at a consistently high standard and has very good
coverage.
.
209
Environment Agency LIDAR Imagery
Figure 78 Lidar coverage in part of the north of England against the pilot project area; the blank
areas have none
Light Detection And Ranging is an airborne sensing technique used in this country by organisations like the
Environment Agency, to help monitor flood risk areas through the production of cost-effective terrain maps.
It has tremendous potential for historic environment research and management. This was recognised
c.2000 after a survey of part of the Wharfe Valley in North Yorkshire revealed evidence for the survival of
earthworks of the Roman Fort at Newton Kyme, in an area previously thought to have been ploughed out.
Since then English Heritage have used it in several areas, such as the environs of Stonehenge and the
Forest of Dean, where it has continued to provide exceptionally sensitive new records, even through tree
cover and in areas comprehensively covered by existing conventional aerial photography.
The techniques of LIDAR are described and explained on the Environment Agency website
(http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/science/monitoring/131047/?lang=_e). The various projects
undertaken by English Heritage can be sourced on their own website (http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.00100200300400a001), as can their links with other organisations and
interest groups e.g. Heritage 3D.
Accessibility and Usefulness
The Environment Agency is gradually extending its coverage of Britain, and progress to date can be
examined via their website and a downloadable catalogue (Zip, 1564KB). The most recent of these dates
from 28 Feb 2006. Unfortunately the area so far recorded does not include the project area, barring a sliver
of moorland in the extreme south-east. Consequently Lidar coverage was not applicable to the project area.
210
Aerial Photographs
Aerial photographs, both obliques and verticals, can provide information on land use and building condition
which is difficult to acquire from other sources.
The vertical photographs provide more comprehensive and comparative data; those available for the pilot
project area span the period 1946-1976, but only 2 runs are ‘complete’ i.e. cover the whole project area.
Oblique photographs frequently provide more close-up detail, but are patchy in their cover; the earliest for
the pilot area generally start relatively recently, in the 1970’s, and continue to the present day i.e. they fill in a
period for which there are few verticals available.
The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority is currently acquiring a more recent vertical flyover, the
Millennium Flyover (2000), but this was not available for consultation during the lifetime of the project.
The YDNPA owns a set of Meridian verticals from 1970-71, and a varied selection of oblique photographs
taken specifically for the HER.
Vertical colour aerial photographs available for consultation dated from 1988 and 1995.
National Monument Record
The NMR Swindon contains 500 plus verticals of the project area (1946-1976), excluding the Meridian set,
and a similar number of obliques. Many of the latter have been provided by the YDNP, but a significant
number of the latter were NMR copyright.
It is possible, subject to permission, to take (Summer 2006 prices)
photocopies @ £0.20 each (A4-A3)
laser copies @ £3.50
prints @ £16.00 - £36.00 depending on size
scans@ £8.00 - £21.00 depending on resolution
•
•
•
The verticals were taken at a variety of scales and from different heights. Both of these factors affect the
end result. The best were 12”: 1 mile (e.g. Zeiss OS 1976), at which scale tremendous detail could be
picked out. 6”: 1 mile were useful, but more difficult to read.
Weather conditions affect the result. Clouds are an obvious problem, not merely that they blot out parts
of the landscape, but they also cast shadows, and generally affect the balance of the tone of the
photograph. Even when it is clear, hazy mist can be a problem e.g. RAF 1957.
Most of the sequences only covered Swaledale, and omitted Arkengarthdale. This was covered by one
survey only (RAF 1959) which happened to be affected by 30% cloud cover.
Advantages
• Illuminates the condition of the historic environment through the period of modernisation and
industrialisation of farming
• Particularly good for showing the advent of moorland gripping and its extent
• Can indicate if barns and other properties are roofless and derelict
• Can help indicate the condition of walls & hedges
• Can be used to help judge extent of hay meadows during the second half of the twentieth century
• Can help indicate extent of ploughing
Limitations
• They rarely show up the position of prehistoric field boundaries on the moorland. In fact in moorland
almost all archaeology, apart from the structures associated with lead-workings, is difficult to see in
these verticals – partly because of the deeper vegetation cover, partly because of the chequerboard
effect of the vegetation created by heather burning which distracts the eye and camouflages the
archaeology.
• To some extent what you can see varies with the time of year the verticals were taken – the enclosed
fields are dominated by haymaking in the summer months. Only the Meridian photographs were taken in
the autumn/early spring when evidence of new ploughing might be easier to spot.
• They only show the state of the roofs of buildings
• Visibility of earthworks, lynchets etc depends on the light, angle of the sun etc.
211
212

Historic Landscape Management Characterisation

Transcription

Similar documents

Where Historic Charm Meets Modern Comfort. Historic Smithton Inn

Online Casino Games Without Downloading

THE PIGHTLE, TOWN YARD

Historic Districts and Southern Architecture at its Finest

The Carson City

Brucemore, Inc.

La Fonda on the Plaza

File

2011 Historic Preservation Awards

C ity of P ontiac O verview M ap