York archaeologist challenges refusal to register Germany Beck as site of battle

Chas Jones on the battlefield site near Germany Beck

Chas Jones on the battlefield site near Germany Beck

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Chief reporter

A HIGH Court fight has broken out over the location of the Battle of Fulford.

Archaeologist Charles "Chas" Jones is challenging a refusal by English Heritage to register Germany Beck on York's outskirts as the site of the 1066 battle.

He argues that Germany Beck, where Persimmon Homes wants to build 650 homes in the face of huge local opposition, is the most probable site.

English Heritage refused in November 2012 to designate the Fulford site on an official Battlefield Register, concluding that even though it was "probable" it was the battlefield site, the evidence was "insufficiently conclusive" to "securely identify" it for registration.

Ian Dove QC, for Mr Jones, argued at London's High Court yesterday that the decision could not stand because the decision makers failed to apply the correct "location" test.

That involved consideration of whether there was evidence that a battle had occurred in a particular location "with a fair degree of probability".

The QC told Mr Justice Lindblom the test was contained in the Battlefield Designation Selection Guide: the only up-to-date statement of English Heritage's designation policy.

Referring to English Heritage, he said: "If they did not apply the 'fair degree of probability' test to the question of location then unarguably they erred in law in the decision they reached."

But Emma Dring, for English Heritage, argued it would be contrary to the aims of the Battlefield Register to designate sites "in the absence of a high degree of confidence that the correct location has been securely identified".

Designation of "unsecure sites" could damage the credibility of the register as a whole, she said.

Consequences for landowners, particularly their ability to develop land if a battlefield site was designated, also pointed to there having to be a relatively high standard that the correct location was identified.

She said English Heritage had concluded that the general location of the Battle of Fulford had not been securely identified.

That made it unnecessary to apply the secondary test and decide, on the basis of a fair degree of probability, the specific topographical location of the battlefield area.

The judge reserved judgment, saying he would take time to consider his decision.

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:55am Fri 23 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted?

Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.
its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted? Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 31

11:27am Fri 23 May 14

BL2 says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted?

Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.
Rubbish! I knew about the battle site when we were taught about it at primary school over 30 years ago!
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted? Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.[/p][/quote]Rubbish! I knew about the battle site when we were taught about it at primary school over 30 years ago! BL2
  • Score: -25

11:36am Fri 23 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

BL2 wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted? Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.
Rubbish! I knew about the battle site when we were taught about it at primary school over 30 years ago!
That’s interesting as it’s not even proven or evident that, that is the battle site? If you knew about it why didn’t you go to court and prove to the judge and therefore the case would be closed?

I got taught that god was true at primary school but iis that fact?
[quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted? Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.[/p][/quote]Rubbish! I knew about the battle site when we were taught about it at primary school over 30 years ago![/p][/quote]That’s interesting as it’s not even proven or evident that, that is the battle site? If you knew about it why didn’t you go to court and prove to the judge and therefore the case would be closed? I got taught that god was true at primary school but iis that fact? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 4

11:56am Fri 23 May 14

Firedrake says...

That there was a major battle at Fulford is beyond dispute. Medieval battles however, were often fluid, fast-moving affairs which ranged over vast tracts of landscape; starting in one place and finishing in another. Germany Beck may not be exactly where the fighting either commenced or concluded, but it will certainly have been fought across at some stage during the action.

All that aside, I thought it was the floodsing which was the real issue here!
That there was a major battle at Fulford is beyond dispute. Medieval battles however, were often fluid, fast-moving affairs which ranged over vast tracts of landscape; starting in one place and finishing in another. Germany Beck may not be exactly where the fighting either commenced or concluded, but it will certainly have been fought across at some stage during the action. All that aside, I thought it was the floodsing which was the real issue here! Firedrake
  • Score: 64

12:42pm Fri 23 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Firedrake wrote:
That there was a major battle at Fulford is beyond dispute. Medieval battles however, were often fluid, fast-moving affairs which ranged over vast tracts of landscape; starting in one place and finishing in another. Germany Beck may not be exactly where the fighting either commenced or concluded, but it will certainly have been fought across at some stage during the action. All that aside, I thought it was the floodsing which was the real issue here!
That depends on that month you read chas's blogs... first it was water voles stating they were protected but the council chucked it out and so did the police (note the battle was not his first worry). Now its the battle as a 2nd attempt to achieve an ulterior motive. Flooding is the main issue not the above. But permission has been granted so the contractor will have to build suitable defences or mitigation.
[quote][p][bold]Firedrake[/bold] wrote: That there was a major battle at Fulford is beyond dispute. Medieval battles however, were often fluid, fast-moving affairs which ranged over vast tracts of landscape; starting in one place and finishing in another. Germany Beck may not be exactly where the fighting either commenced or concluded, but it will certainly have been fought across at some stage during the action. All that aside, I thought it was the floodsing which was the real issue here![/p][/quote]That depends on that month you read chas's blogs... first it was water voles stating they were protected but the council chucked it out and so did the police (note the battle was not his first worry). Now its the battle as a 2nd attempt to achieve an ulterior motive. Flooding is the main issue not the above. But permission has been granted so the contractor will have to build suitable defences or mitigation. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 22

12:59pm Fri 23 May 14

Dave Ruddock says...

if They dig around a bit more, there was a dumping ground for all kinds of materials, also if people are concerned you will find that at least one WW" aircraft crashed around that area. so we have contaminated ground, boggy ground, possible 2 historical sites. but life goes on and homes are needed. Stick a sigh up (POSSIBLE or PROBABLE )site of the Battle of Fulford.
if They dig around a bit more, there was a dumping ground for all kinds of materials, also if people are concerned you will find that at least one WW" aircraft crashed around that area. so we have contaminated ground, boggy ground, possible 2 historical sites. but life goes on and homes are needed. Stick a sigh up (POSSIBLE or PROBABLE )site of the Battle of Fulford. Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -39

1:13pm Fri 23 May 14

purelobo says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted?

Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.
i thought everyone knew where the battle site was but it was never that important until this ridiculous development was proposed.i take it that you don t live in the fulford area nor can you come up this end of town very much because if you did then you would realise that the last thing we need is more houses and cars.presumably you just see an article and feel obliged to stick your neb in.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted? Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.[/p][/quote]i thought everyone knew where the battle site was but it was never that important until this ridiculous development was proposed.i take it that you don t live in the fulford area nor can you come up this end of town very much because if you did then you would realise that the last thing we need is more houses and cars.presumably you just see an article and feel obliged to stick your neb in. purelobo
  • Score: -20

1:13pm Fri 23 May 14

purelobo says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted?

Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.
i thought everyone knew where the battle site was but it was never that important until this ridiculous development was proposed.i take it that you don t live in the fulford area nor can you come up this end of town very much because if you did then you would realise that the last thing we need is more houses and cars.presumably you just see an article and feel obliged to stick your neb in.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted? Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.[/p][/quote]i thought everyone knew where the battle site was but it was never that important until this ridiculous development was proposed.i take it that you don t live in the fulford area nor can you come up this end of town very much because if you did then you would realise that the last thing we need is more houses and cars.presumably you just see an article and feel obliged to stick your neb in. purelobo
  • Score: -31

2:16pm Fri 23 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

purelobo wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted? Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.
i thought everyone knew where the battle site was but it was never that important until this ridiculous development was proposed.i take it that you don t live in the fulford area nor can you come up this end of town very much because if you did then you would realise that the last thing we need is more houses and cars.presumably you just see an article and feel obliged to stick your neb in.
hahaha i have lived down there actually.... And no obviously no one actually knows where it took place or it wouldn’t be in court would it??!!!!! Oh right so fulford which is on the outskirts of York with minimal housing (Compared to say acomb or woodthorpe areas) and one main road can't handle more houses and cars? It has the last boundary to develop on close an outer ring road but all the other central and outskirt areas can? Can I ask what makes this so obvious as from driving though fulford the traffic there is just as sh@t as every other “main” entrance into york? Did that stop the tesco developments? No. Has traffic got worse there? No…..

So basically you don’t want more traffic and have a resistance to change? i take it you have no experience in construction or traffic management as the majority of traffic in your area is people travelling from south through fulford! how will more houses in fulford stop an issue that already exists?

I can not wait for this to go ahead! all the time and money and resources wasted over mythical and pointless legal stoppers is a joke! throw a great crested newt down there and delay it some more! But thats all it is a delay! face it houses will get built there and its up to the council to come up with a transpiration infrastructure to support this!
[quote][p][bold]purelobo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted? Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.[/p][/quote]i thought everyone knew where the battle site was but it was never that important until this ridiculous development was proposed.i take it that you don t live in the fulford area nor can you come up this end of town very much because if you did then you would realise that the last thing we need is more houses and cars.presumably you just see an article and feel obliged to stick your neb in.[/p][/quote]hahaha i have lived down there actually.... And no obviously no one actually knows where it took place or it wouldn’t be in court would it??!!!!! Oh right so fulford which is on the outskirts of York with minimal housing (Compared to say acomb or woodthorpe areas) and one main road can't handle more houses and cars? It has the last boundary to develop on close an outer ring road but all the other central and outskirt areas can? Can I ask what makes this so obvious as from driving though fulford the traffic there is just as sh@t as every other “main” entrance into york? Did that stop the tesco developments? No. Has traffic got worse there? No….. So basically you don’t want more traffic and have a resistance to change? i take it you have no experience in construction or traffic management as the majority of traffic in your area is people travelling from south through fulford! how will more houses in fulford stop an issue that already exists? I can not wait for this to go ahead! all the time and money and resources wasted over mythical and pointless legal stoppers is a joke! throw a great crested newt down there and delay it some more! But thats all it is a delay! face it houses will get built there and its up to the council to come up with a transpiration infrastructure to support this! Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 22

2:29pm Fri 23 May 14

sharpish says...

Archiebold - your posts suggest that you actually know very little about the Battle of Fulford or the Germany Beck development, so please stop making such uninformed comments.

You might think that taking legal action is a joke but you should understand that this is the only recourse open to those who feel that wrong decisions have been taken by public bodies. It is not a step taken lightly, just the opposite in fact!
Archiebold - your posts suggest that you actually know very little about the Battle of Fulford or the Germany Beck development, so please stop making such uninformed comments. You might think that taking legal action is a joke but you should understand that this is the only recourse open to those who feel that wrong decisions have been taken by public bodies. It is not a step taken lightly, just the opposite in fact! sharpish
  • Score: -15

3:20pm Fri 23 May 14

wildthing666 says...

People will find it impossible to get insurance for the property on a flood plane
People will find it impossible to get insurance for the property on a flood plane wildthing666
  • Score: 2

3:40pm Fri 23 May 14

eeoodares says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
purelobo wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted? Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.
i thought everyone knew where the battle site was but it was never that important until this ridiculous development was proposed.i take it that you don t live in the fulford area nor can you come up this end of town very much because if you did then you would realise that the last thing we need is more houses and cars.presumably you just see an article and feel obliged to stick your neb in.
hahaha i have lived down there actually.... And no obviously no one actually knows where it took place or it wouldn’t be in court would it??!!!!! Oh right so fulford which is on the outskirts of York with minimal housing (Compared to say acomb or woodthorpe areas) and one main road can't handle more houses and cars? It has the last boundary to develop on close an outer ring road but all the other central and outskirt areas can? Can I ask what makes this so obvious as from driving though fulford the traffic there is just as sh@t as every other “main” entrance into york? Did that stop the tesco developments? No. Has traffic got worse there? No…..

So basically you don’t want more traffic and have a resistance to change? i take it you have no experience in construction or traffic management as the majority of traffic in your area is people travelling from south through fulford! how will more houses in fulford stop an issue that already exists?

I can not wait for this to go ahead! all the time and money and resources wasted over mythical and pointless legal stoppers is a joke! throw a great crested newt down there and delay it some more! But thats all it is a delay! face it houses will get built there and its up to the council to come up with a transpiration infrastructure to support this!
Tell us more Archie. You seem to know everything "i take it you have no experience in construction or traffic management as the majority of traffic in your area is people travelling from south through fulford" you are amazing!....when do you find the time to survey traffic? with your construction, archaeology, flooding, town planning and of course legal knowledge which you dispense so freely.

What a guy!
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]purelobo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted? Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.[/p][/quote]i thought everyone knew where the battle site was but it was never that important until this ridiculous development was proposed.i take it that you don t live in the fulford area nor can you come up this end of town very much because if you did then you would realise that the last thing we need is more houses and cars.presumably you just see an article and feel obliged to stick your neb in.[/p][/quote]hahaha i have lived down there actually.... And no obviously no one actually knows where it took place or it wouldn’t be in court would it??!!!!! Oh right so fulford which is on the outskirts of York with minimal housing (Compared to say acomb or woodthorpe areas) and one main road can't handle more houses and cars? It has the last boundary to develop on close an outer ring road but all the other central and outskirt areas can? Can I ask what makes this so obvious as from driving though fulford the traffic there is just as sh@t as every other “main” entrance into york? Did that stop the tesco developments? No. Has traffic got worse there? No….. So basically you don’t want more traffic and have a resistance to change? i take it you have no experience in construction or traffic management as the majority of traffic in your area is people travelling from south through fulford! how will more houses in fulford stop an issue that already exists? I can not wait for this to go ahead! all the time and money and resources wasted over mythical and pointless legal stoppers is a joke! throw a great crested newt down there and delay it some more! But thats all it is a delay! face it houses will get built there and its up to the council to come up with a transpiration infrastructure to support this![/p][/quote]Tell us more Archie. You seem to know everything "i take it you have no experience in construction or traffic management as the majority of traffic in your area is people travelling from south through fulford" you are amazing!....when do you find the time to survey traffic? with your construction, archaeology, flooding, town planning and of course legal knowledge which you dispense so freely. What a guy! eeoodares
  • Score: -14

3:47pm Fri 23 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

sharpish wrote:
Archiebold - your posts suggest that you actually know very little about the Battle of Fulford or the Germany Beck development, so please stop making such uninformed comments. You might think that taking legal action is a joke but you should understand that this is the only recourse open to those who feel that wrong decisions have been taken by public bodies. It is not a step taken lightly, just the opposite in fact!
So please explain why my comments are uninformed? Did he not first use water vowels to halt work prior to submitting to the heritage to state it’s a battle site? I know quite a lot about the development actually thanks. And also a fair bit about construction law as it’s my trade.

For such a historic battle ground how often is this recognised by you local enthusiasts? Or as you all say is it just a wasted flood land?

Welcome to the real world! Decisions get made that you will not like by people who run the city. Some in fulford will be for it such as local businesses etc... and some will be against it (people who are scared of change and additional traffic which btw does need looking at the road layouts are terrible). For people to say they wont get insured is wrong as through the development there are mitigations being constructed so they will. My house on the top of a hill was in a flood plain as it’s next to the knavesmire. I had no issues when I explained im about 100m above it. I'm saying as the location of this battle can never be proved to be at this exact location (and face it the area may actually already be built on, a guy who doesn’t want it built will obviously produce evidence to say it was there) it will not get stopped of a best guess...

so while I applaud people standing up to the man... sometimes the inconveniences of a little benefits the whole.... All that is happening is wasting contractors money, public money and time for some much needed housing in York. Yes you might stand by and say it will be a disaster it will flood (why do you care?) and there will be additional traffic… but ffs look around in york? Is anywhere traffic free? At the same time on the same routes roads are at capacity? How can this get worse?
[quote][p][bold]sharpish[/bold] wrote: Archiebold - your posts suggest that you actually know very little about the Battle of Fulford or the Germany Beck development, so please stop making such uninformed comments. You might think that taking legal action is a joke but you should understand that this is the only recourse open to those who feel that wrong decisions have been taken by public bodies. It is not a step taken lightly, just the opposite in fact![/p][/quote]So please explain why my comments are uninformed? Did he not first use water vowels to halt work prior to submitting to the heritage to state it’s a battle site? I know quite a lot about the development actually thanks. And also a fair bit about construction law as it’s my trade. For such a historic battle ground how often is this recognised by you local enthusiasts? Or as you all say is it just a wasted flood land? Welcome to the real world! Decisions get made that you will not like by people who run the city. Some in fulford will be for it such as local businesses etc... and some will be against it (people who are scared of change and additional traffic which btw does need looking at the road layouts are terrible). For people to say they wont get insured is wrong as through the development there are mitigations being constructed so they will. My house on the top of a hill was in a flood plain as it’s next to the knavesmire. I had no issues when I explained im about 100m above it. I'm saying as the location of this battle can never be proved to be at this exact location (and face it the area may actually already be built on, a guy who doesn’t want it built will obviously produce evidence to say it was there) it will not get stopped of a best guess... so while I applaud people standing up to the man... sometimes the inconveniences of a little benefits the whole.... All that is happening is wasting contractors money, public money and time for some much needed housing in York. Yes you might stand by and say it will be a disaster it will flood (why do you care?) and there will be additional traffic… but ffs look around in york? Is anywhere traffic free? At the same time on the same routes roads are at capacity? How can this get worse? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 14

3:52pm Fri 23 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

eeoodares wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
purelobo wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted? Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.
i thought everyone knew where the battle site was but it was never that important until this ridiculous development was proposed.i take it that you don t live in the fulford area nor can you come up this end of town very much because if you did then you would realise that the last thing we need is more houses and cars.presumably you just see an article and feel obliged to stick your neb in.
hahaha i have lived down there actually.... And no obviously no one actually knows where it took place or it wouldn’t be in court would it??!!!!! Oh right so fulford which is on the outskirts of York with minimal housing (Compared to say acomb or woodthorpe areas) and one main road can't handle more houses and cars? It has the last boundary to develop on close an outer ring road but all the other central and outskirt areas can? Can I ask what makes this so obvious as from driving though fulford the traffic there is just as sh@t as every other “main” entrance into york? Did that stop the tesco developments? No. Has traffic got worse there? No….. So basically you don’t want more traffic and have a resistance to change? i take it you have no experience in construction or traffic management as the majority of traffic in your area is people travelling from south through fulford! how will more houses in fulford stop an issue that already exists? I can not wait for this to go ahead! all the time and money and resources wasted over mythical and pointless legal stoppers is a joke! throw a great crested newt down there and delay it some more! But thats all it is a delay! face it houses will get built there and its up to the council to come up with a transpiration infrastructure to support this!
Tell us more Archie. You seem to know everything "i take it you have no experience in construction or traffic management as the majority of traffic in your area is people travelling from south through fulford" you are amazing!....when do you find the time to survey traffic? with your construction, archaeology, flooding, town planning and of course legal knowledge which you dispense so freely. What a guy!
Its not rocket science it’s a link from the a19 & a64 which people use to get into york you moron? both of which are south?

I don’t need archaeology experience if the heritage (who takes any chance they can to claim land or buildings) don’t believe it or can't prove it then it doesn’t matter.

So when the first digger pulls up pop and leave me a comment saying sorry Archie you were actually right... a construction site can not be halted on a best guess....

Ps all the other things you list off are actually part of my day job so yeh got a pretty good idea about construction, construction law and transport planning...

Next time though please actually put a comment that states something? you are pointless.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]purelobo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted? Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.[/p][/quote]i thought everyone knew where the battle site was but it was never that important until this ridiculous development was proposed.i take it that you don t live in the fulford area nor can you come up this end of town very much because if you did then you would realise that the last thing we need is more houses and cars.presumably you just see an article and feel obliged to stick your neb in.[/p][/quote]hahaha i have lived down there actually.... And no obviously no one actually knows where it took place or it wouldn’t be in court would it??!!!!! Oh right so fulford which is on the outskirts of York with minimal housing (Compared to say acomb or woodthorpe areas) and one main road can't handle more houses and cars? It has the last boundary to develop on close an outer ring road but all the other central and outskirt areas can? Can I ask what makes this so obvious as from driving though fulford the traffic there is just as sh@t as every other “main” entrance into york? Did that stop the tesco developments? No. Has traffic got worse there? No….. So basically you don’t want more traffic and have a resistance to change? i take it you have no experience in construction or traffic management as the majority of traffic in your area is people travelling from south through fulford! how will more houses in fulford stop an issue that already exists? I can not wait for this to go ahead! all the time and money and resources wasted over mythical and pointless legal stoppers is a joke! throw a great crested newt down there and delay it some more! But thats all it is a delay! face it houses will get built there and its up to the council to come up with a transpiration infrastructure to support this![/p][/quote]Tell us more Archie. You seem to know everything "i take it you have no experience in construction or traffic management as the majority of traffic in your area is people travelling from south through fulford" you are amazing!....when do you find the time to survey traffic? with your construction, archaeology, flooding, town planning and of course legal knowledge which you dispense so freely. What a guy![/p][/quote]Its not rocket science it’s a link from the a19 & a64 which people use to get into york you moron? both of which are south? I don’t need archaeology experience if the heritage (who takes any chance they can to claim land or buildings) don’t believe it or can't prove it then it doesn’t matter. So when the first digger pulls up pop and leave me a comment saying sorry Archie you were actually right... a construction site can not be halted on a best guess.... Ps all the other things you list off are actually part of my day job so yeh got a pretty good idea about construction, construction law and transport planning... Next time though please actually put a comment that states something? you are pointless. Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 16

3:58pm Fri 23 May 14

think! says...

Chas Jones has consistently researched the Battle of Fulford and received lottery funding for his project in 2000, well before permission was granted for a housing development.
The Foule Ford over Germany Beck is the site of the battle of Fulford and this is quite clear when applying military probability as well as analysing early sources. English Heritage states in its own guidance that for early battles such as the 1066 Battle of Fulford there is likely to be less archaeological evidence, but actually a large amount of evidence exists to allow the battle site to be confidently located at Germany Beck in Fulford.
It is clear that English Heritage changed its mind between June 2012 when it was minded to designate and November 2012 when it decided not to designate. Unfortunately the judgment will not address what the cause for this change was. English Heritage has stated that it changed its mind because of the objection to designation submitted by CYC’s archaeologist. This begs the question on whose authority CYC, who are guardians of York’s heritage, opposed designation of the site of the battle on behalf of the people they are supposed to represent?
For more information on Germany Beck and the battle site see facebook.com/helpsav
efulford or twitter @helpsavefulford.
Chas Jones has consistently researched the Battle of Fulford and received lottery funding for his project in 2000, well before permission was granted for a housing development. The Foule Ford over Germany Beck is the site of the battle of Fulford and this is quite clear when applying military probability as well as analysing early sources. English Heritage states in its own guidance that for early battles such as the 1066 Battle of Fulford there is likely to be less archaeological evidence, but actually a large amount of evidence exists to allow the battle site to be confidently located at Germany Beck in Fulford. It is clear that English Heritage changed its mind between June 2012 when it was minded to designate and November 2012 when it decided not to designate. Unfortunately the judgment will not address what the cause for this change was. English Heritage has stated that it changed its mind because of the objection to designation submitted by CYC’s archaeologist. This begs the question on whose authority CYC, who are guardians of York’s heritage, opposed designation of the site of the battle on behalf of the people they are supposed to represent? For more information on Germany Beck and the battle site see facebook.com/helpsav efulford or twitter @helpsavefulford. think!
  • Score: -12

4:06pm Fri 23 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

think! wrote:
Chas Jones has consistently researched the Battle of Fulford and received lottery funding for his project in 2000, well before permission was granted for a housing development. The Foule Ford over Germany Beck is the site of the battle of Fulford and this is quite clear when applying military probability as well as analysing early sources. English Heritage states in its own guidance that for early battles such as the 1066 Battle of Fulford there is likely to be less archaeological evidence, but actually a large amount of evidence exists to allow the battle site to be confidently located at Germany Beck in Fulford. It is clear that English Heritage changed its mind between June 2012 when it was minded to designate and November 2012 when it decided not to designate. Unfortunately the judgment will not address what the cause for this change was. English Heritage has stated that it changed its mind because of the objection to designation submitted by CYC’s archaeologist. This begs the question on whose authority CYC, who are guardians of York’s heritage, opposed designation of the site of the battle on behalf of the people they are supposed to represent? For more information on Germany Beck and the battle site see facebook.com/helpsav efulford or twitter @helpsavefulford.
So its not save the battle site? but save fulford? which is my point... you lot dont give a sh@t about the battle or where it was... you jsut dont want new houses built in your area....

Why was the first objection water vowel related?!
[quote][p][bold]think![/bold] wrote: Chas Jones has consistently researched the Battle of Fulford and received lottery funding for his project in 2000, well before permission was granted for a housing development. The Foule Ford over Germany Beck is the site of the battle of Fulford and this is quite clear when applying military probability as well as analysing early sources. English Heritage states in its own guidance that for early battles such as the 1066 Battle of Fulford there is likely to be less archaeological evidence, but actually a large amount of evidence exists to allow the battle site to be confidently located at Germany Beck in Fulford. It is clear that English Heritage changed its mind between June 2012 when it was minded to designate and November 2012 when it decided not to designate. Unfortunately the judgment will not address what the cause for this change was. English Heritage has stated that it changed its mind because of the objection to designation submitted by CYC’s archaeologist. This begs the question on whose authority CYC, who are guardians of York’s heritage, opposed designation of the site of the battle on behalf of the people they are supposed to represent? For more information on Germany Beck and the battle site see facebook.com/helpsav efulford or twitter @helpsavefulford.[/p][/quote]So its not save the battle site? but save fulford? which is my point... you lot dont give a sh@t about the battle or where it was... you jsut dont want new houses built in your area.... Why was the first objection water vowel related?! Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 16

4:16pm Fri 23 May 14

outofajob says...

Whatever Mr Jones may or may not be he most certainly is NOT a York archaeologist!! He lives in Oxfordshire which makes his obsession with this site even more bizarre.
Whatever Mr Jones may or may not be he most certainly is NOT a York archaeologist!! He lives in Oxfordshire which makes his obsession with this site even more bizarre. outofajob
  • Score: 9

4:48pm Fri 23 May 14

Ichabod76 says...

outofajob wrote:
Whatever Mr Jones may or may not be he most certainly is NOT a York archaeologist!! He lives in Oxfordshire which makes his obsession with this site even more bizarre.
An archaeologist doing archaeology !

How bizarre
[quote][p][bold]outofajob[/bold] wrote: Whatever Mr Jones may or may not be he most certainly is NOT a York archaeologist!! He lives in Oxfordshire which makes his obsession with this site even more bizarre.[/p][/quote]An archaeologist doing archaeology ! How bizarre Ichabod76
  • Score: -12

5:11pm Fri 23 May 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

Ah! The High Court! They'll probably decide that the Battle of Fulford took place somewhere in Leicestershire...
Ah! The High Court! They'll probably decide that the Battle of Fulford took place somewhere in Leicestershire... Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 25

5:35pm Fri 23 May 14

sharpish says...

outofajob wrote:
Whatever Mr Jones may or may not be he most certainly is NOT a York archaeologist!! He lives in Oxfordshire which makes his obsession with this site even more bizarre.
Well, the fact that he doesn't live in Fulford proves that he's not a NIMBY at the very least!

Could it simply be that he wishes to prevent the destruction of irreplaceable national heritage for the public good?
[quote][p][bold]outofajob[/bold] wrote: Whatever Mr Jones may or may not be he most certainly is NOT a York archaeologist!! He lives in Oxfordshire which makes his obsession with this site even more bizarre.[/p][/quote]Well, the fact that he doesn't live in Fulford proves that he's not a NIMBY at the very least! Could it simply be that he wishes to prevent the destruction of irreplaceable national heritage for the public good? sharpish
  • Score: -11

6:05pm Fri 23 May 14

think! says...

Archiebold, you have to read the article again. The article is about the court case by Chas Jones v English Heritage. As “outofajob” correctly states, Chas Jones does not live in Fulford. The court case addresses whether EH has applied its own guidance correctly. It is not about the Germany Beck development or housing.
I may have confused matters by adding links to Helpsavefulford. Helpsavefulford was set up because the ill-conceived Germany Beck plans will have disastrous consequences for Fulford village and its residents not least because one of its most important asset, the Fulford battle site will be devastated. One of the reasons it was set up is to raise money to challenge the flawed planning decision by CYC to approve the Germany Beck development. Although we are getting closer to the amount needed (thanks to the generosity of many residents!) Fulford still needs to raise further funds. Please view Facebook.com/helpsav
efulford.
Archiebold, you have to read the article again. The article is about the court case by Chas Jones v English Heritage. As “outofajob” correctly states, Chas Jones does not live in Fulford. The court case addresses whether EH has applied its own guidance correctly. It is not about the Germany Beck development or housing. I may have confused matters by adding links to Helpsavefulford. Helpsavefulford was set up because the ill-conceived Germany Beck plans will have disastrous consequences for Fulford village and its residents not least because one of its most important asset, the Fulford battle site will be devastated. One of the reasons it was set up is to raise money to challenge the flawed planning decision by CYC to approve the Germany Beck development. Although we are getting closer to the amount needed (thanks to the generosity of many residents!) Fulford still needs to raise further funds. Please view Facebook.com/helpsav efulford. think!
  • Score: -11

6:28pm Fri 23 May 14

MrChuckles says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted?

Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.
It's not the professionals who are out against it, anyone noted English Heritage response?
Chas Jones is more of a persistent hobbyist amateur with a bee in his bonnet.
I'm all for heritage protection and mediation along with responsible recording, but this is detracting from the real concerns with these homes which is the traffic, flooding, lack of infrastructure and price.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted? Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.[/p][/quote]It's not the professionals who are out against it, anyone noted English Heritage response? Chas Jones is more of a persistent hobbyist amateur with a bee in his bonnet. I'm all for heritage protection and mediation along with responsible recording, but this is detracting from the real concerns with these homes which is the traffic, flooding, lack of infrastructure and price. MrChuckles
  • Score: 19

7:46pm Fri 23 May 14

eeoodares says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
eeoodares wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
purelobo wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote: its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted? Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.
i thought everyone knew where the battle site was but it was never that important until this ridiculous development was proposed.i take it that you don t live in the fulford area nor can you come up this end of town very much because if you did then you would realise that the last thing we need is more houses and cars.presumably you just see an article and feel obliged to stick your neb in.
hahaha i have lived down there actually.... And no obviously no one actually knows where it took place or it wouldn’t be in court would it??!!!!! Oh right so fulford which is on the outskirts of York with minimal housing (Compared to say acomb or woodthorpe areas) and one main road can't handle more houses and cars? It has the last boundary to develop on close an outer ring road but all the other central and outskirt areas can? Can I ask what makes this so obvious as from driving though fulford the traffic there is just as sh@t as every other “main” entrance into york? Did that stop the tesco developments? No. Has traffic got worse there? No….. So basically you don’t want more traffic and have a resistance to change? i take it you have no experience in construction or traffic management as the majority of traffic in your area is people travelling from south through fulford! how will more houses in fulford stop an issue that already exists? I can not wait for this to go ahead! all the time and money and resources wasted over mythical and pointless legal stoppers is a joke! throw a great crested newt down there and delay it some more! But thats all it is a delay! face it houses will get built there and its up to the council to come up with a transpiration infrastructure to support this!
Tell us more Archie. You seem to know everything "i take it you have no experience in construction or traffic management as the majority of traffic in your area is people travelling from south through fulford" you are amazing!....when do you find the time to survey traffic? with your construction, archaeology, flooding, town planning and of course legal knowledge which you dispense so freely. What a guy!
Its not rocket science it’s a link from the a19 & a64 which people use to get into york you moron? both of which are south?

I don’t need archaeology experience if the heritage (who takes any chance they can to claim land or buildings) don’t believe it or can't prove it then it doesn’t matter.

So when the first digger pulls up pop and leave me a comment saying sorry Archie you were actually right... a construction site can not be halted on a best guess....

Ps all the other things you list off are actually part of my day job so yeh got a pretty good idea about construction, construction law and transport planning...

Next time though please actually put a comment that states something? you are pointless.
You seem quite agressive for a renaissance man! LOL.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]purelobo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: its amazing how they discovered a battle field that previously no one cared about until new homes were going to be developed. Surly such keen and eager archaeologists would have been out with metal detectors to prove such a case prior to a housing plan being submitted? Nice delay tactic but you are simply wasting more money on a last gasp chance.[/p][/quote]i thought everyone knew where the battle site was but it was never that important until this ridiculous development was proposed.i take it that you don t live in the fulford area nor can you come up this end of town very much because if you did then you would realise that the last thing we need is more houses and cars.presumably you just see an article and feel obliged to stick your neb in.[/p][/quote]hahaha i have lived down there actually.... And no obviously no one actually knows where it took place or it wouldn’t be in court would it??!!!!! Oh right so fulford which is on the outskirts of York with minimal housing (Compared to say acomb or woodthorpe areas) and one main road can't handle more houses and cars? It has the last boundary to develop on close an outer ring road but all the other central and outskirt areas can? Can I ask what makes this so obvious as from driving though fulford the traffic there is just as sh@t as every other “main” entrance into york? Did that stop the tesco developments? No. Has traffic got worse there? No….. So basically you don’t want more traffic and have a resistance to change? i take it you have no experience in construction or traffic management as the majority of traffic in your area is people travelling from south through fulford! how will more houses in fulford stop an issue that already exists? I can not wait for this to go ahead! all the time and money and resources wasted over mythical and pointless legal stoppers is a joke! throw a great crested newt down there and delay it some more! But thats all it is a delay! face it houses will get built there and its up to the council to come up with a transpiration infrastructure to support this![/p][/quote]Tell us more Archie. You seem to know everything "i take it you have no experience in construction or traffic management as the majority of traffic in your area is people travelling from south through fulford" you are amazing!....when do you find the time to survey traffic? with your construction, archaeology, flooding, town planning and of course legal knowledge which you dispense so freely. What a guy![/p][/quote]Its not rocket science it’s a link from the a19 & a64 which people use to get into york you moron? both of which are south? I don’t need archaeology experience if the heritage (who takes any chance they can to claim land or buildings) don’t believe it or can't prove it then it doesn’t matter. So when the first digger pulls up pop and leave me a comment saying sorry Archie you were actually right... a construction site can not be halted on a best guess.... Ps all the other things you list off are actually part of my day job so yeh got a pretty good idea about construction, construction law and transport planning... Next time though please actually put a comment that states something? you are pointless.[/p][/quote]You seem quite agressive for a renaissance man! LOL. eeoodares
  • Score: -14

6:12pm Sat 24 May 14

Vine Weevil says...

The relevant facts here are that the developers own historical investigation confirmed that this was the battle site. They also established that Germany Beck is an artificial drain and the level of the land on the north side was artificially raised to protect Fulford from flooding. The developers plans then show this raised ground cut through in several places. This will expose the surface of the battlefield and Fulford to flooding for the first time since Germany Beck was first dug hundreds of years ago. Fitting a sluice on the outfall of the Germany Beck into the Ouse may solve the problem or may make it worse.
The relevant facts here are that the developers own historical investigation confirmed that this was the battle site. They also established that Germany Beck is an artificial drain and the level of the land on the north side was artificially raised to protect Fulford from flooding. The developers plans then show this raised ground cut through in several places. This will expose the surface of the battlefield and Fulford to flooding for the first time since Germany Beck was first dug hundreds of years ago. Fitting a sluice on the outfall of the Germany Beck into the Ouse may solve the problem or may make it worse. Vine Weevil
  • Score: -19

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree