All History Guide: Your guide to history on the Internet..
Now in paperback
The documents are in chronological order, latest at the end:
Letter to the Secretary of State after the
Inquiry
Summary of correspondence with developers and their agents May 2001 – Oct 2003. There are further planning documents in the evidence section.
This summary was submitted to the planning authorities when I asked them to help to arbitrate with the developers. I did not get any response from the City to this request. A few notes have been added and some of the content has been highlighted for clarity.
Sketch map of several large developments in south York
Tries to put the Germany Beck development in context. Suggests the need for a new road.
Letter to local councillor January 01
Reporting difficulties in getting information from developers and city council.
Letter to chief executive about access to data and planning gain January 02
I have not yet seen the ‘planning gains’ nor did I get access to the documents until I involved the local Ombudsman. Happily, this situation has improved recently and it is not quite so hard to obtain information.
Letter of June 02 to planning officers
Pointing out some objections to the road and requesting access to the studies that claimed to support the figures. Limited access was eventually gained to one report which did not support the claims made. The traffic study was withdrawn and replaced with the current, vague statement.
Letter of August 02 to planning officers
Already raising the accuracy of information contained in the planning application. Ironically, it was withdrawn and replaced with one that was in many respects worse in the questionable way it interpreted the data. It also asks for access to the source data.
List of questions for legal advisors (pro bono) July 03
The COYC solicitor was approached and was of the opinion that there were few constraints on developers to be accurate in their interpretation or presentation of the data. This has been confirmed by other legal opinions.
Letter to planners details objections to new submission October 03
Raises the extraordinary claims about the battle contained in the re-submitted application.
Peer review of some reports February 04
The expert opinion is very critical of the methods and interpretation set out by the developers.
Letter of 10 March 04 to Planning Officer COYC
This letter raises objections to the behaviour of the developers
Report April 04 by city archaeologist
Reviews the evidence and proposes further research before full permission is granted. However, it does approve granting of outline permission.
Comments by English Heritage May 04
'...your authority may still be minded to conclude that on the balance of probability it has a significance as the most likely site of this important event.’
Letter of July 04 to head of Planning Committee
Asking for help to break the deadlock as the developers were not communicating and, through the landowners, denying us access to the land for our research.
Letter of 2 February 05 to COYC
Asking if there is a conciliation process and documenting the instances where the developers and their agents do not seem to have acted in a way conducive to discovering the truth about the location of the battle
Response from Battlefield Trust to revised landscape report April 05
Identifies the continuing failure to undertake the necessary, relevant work on the site.
Response from Battlefield Society to revised landscape report April 05
Highlights many errors of fact and interpretation in the developers revised report.
Statement of case January 2006
This lists the points of challenge to be raised at the public enquiry.