DOCSLIB.ORG

Minutes for Treasure Valuation Committee Meeting – 23Rd May 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Minutes for Treasure Valuation Committee Meeting – 23Rd May 2012 Minutes for Treasure Valuation Committee Meeting – 23rd May 2012 The meeting was held in the Hartwell Room at the British Museum on Wednesday, 23rd May 2012 at 11am. Present Committee British Museum DCMS Colin Renfrew (Chair) Caroline Barton Paul Blaker Trevor Austin Roger Bland Ian Carradice Janina Parol John Cherry Ian Richardson Peter Clayton Emma Traherne David Dykes Hetty Gleave Tim Pestell Item 1: Minutes of the meeting of Friday, 20th April 2012 Item 2: Objects Bronze Age artefacts 1. Bronze Age gold ring (broken) from Dalton area, Cumbria (2011 T499) The provisional valuer suggested £180-£200. The Committee examined the broken ring in light of this and noted that the suggested figure had an appropriate uplift on the bullion value of the equivalent amount of gold to reflect the item’s appeal. In agreement with the provisional valuer, the Committee recommended £180. Dock Museum hopes to acquire. NB – The Committee confirmed as a principle that the method of arriving at a recommended figure by means of the bullion value of the precious metal in an artefact (detailed in the minutes of the meeting of 20 April 2012) should only be applied when the item is non-descript and not of any particular recognisable form or function. In cases where the item’s form is clearly discerned, such as in the above example, where, although damaged, the item is clearly a ring, the Committee agreed that it would refer to the bullion value only to ensure that the recommended figure was at least equal to this amount. 2. Bronze Age gold ring from Headbourne Worthy, Hampshire (2010 T145) The provisional valuer suggested £400. The Committee viewed the ring in light of this, noting that it was plated with gold and had a bronze core. The Committee commented that examples of similar items in solid gold would be worth a greater amount than this piece, and pointed to the citation made by the valuer, of a triple-banded ring valued at £400-£500 (Benet’s Artefacts of England and the United Kingdom, 2003, pg. 53). The Committee commented additionally that it considered the figures suggested in Benet’s to more closely mirror retail prices, rather than the price settled on between a willing buyer and a willing seller, which is usually less than the retail price. The Committee also drew attention to a similar two-banded ring that it had previously valued at £500 (2008 T76 from Brighstone, Isle of Wight; Portable Antiquities and Treasure Annual Report 2008, pg. 47; PAS ID: IOW- 1F5D46). The Isle of Wight ring weighed 9g and was made of solid gold, whereas the ring under discussion weighed 5.92g and was not solid gold. Taking all of the above into consideration, the Committee recommended £300. Winchester Museum Service hopes to acquire. 3. Bronze Age gold torc fragment from Shorwell, Isle of Wight (2011 T501) The provisional valuer suggested £300-£350. The Committee viewed the fragment with this in mind and noted that it had earlier valued a similar artefact from Bradford Peverell, Dorset at £450 (2003 T19; Treasure Annual Report 2003, pg. 17). The Dorset torc fragment weighed 12.95g, and the item under discussion weighed 7.0g. In that respect, and in light of the arguments made in the provisional valuer’s report, the suggested range was felt to be accurate. In agreement with the provisional valuer, the Committee recommended £350. The Isle of Wight Heritage Service hopes to acquire. 4. Late Bronze Age hoard (15 Cu objects and 3 wood fragments) from St Ishmael, Carmarthenshire (11.10) The provisional valuer suggested £450. The Committee inspected the hoard in light of this and commented that a complete socketed axe (celt) of this size in reasonable condition would expect to retail at approximately £230, while its market value would be somewhat lower. The example contained in this hoard was not felt to be in the most desirable condition, and the Committee felt its value was £70. The Committee agreed with the valuer that the other items in the hoard possessed little commercial value, and felt that their combined worth was £180. Overall, the Committee recommended £250 for the entire find. Carmarthenshire Museum 5. Bronze Age – Early Iron Age hoard (114) from the Vale of Wardour, Wiltshire (2011 T684) The provisional valuer suggested £11,500. The Committee viewed the hoard in light of this and agreed that it appeared to be an archaeologically interesting hoard, and debated what that attraction would equate to in terms of a market value. Several of the pieces were felt to be attractive and aesthetically pleasing in their own right. The Committee noted that the provisional valuer had relied heavily on comparisons from the price guide Benet’s: Artefacts of England and the United Kingdom (2003) and observed that it was not clear whether the valuer had suggested equivalent prices for those objects in the hoard that paralleled similar items in Benet’s or whether the valuer had in fact suggested values that merely used the Benet’s price as a starting figure. This was a significant point, for the Committee noted that it regarded the prices in Benet’s to more closely reflect retail prices, rather than prices ‘for object(s) in a sale on the open market between a willing seller and a willing buyer’ (Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice, par. 65), the figure the Committee is tasked to recommend. The Committee therefore requested a second provisional valuation before it recommended a figure for the hoard. Salisbury & South Wiltshire Museum hope to acquire. 6. Late Bronze Age hoard (19) from Manobier, Pembrokshire (10.12) The provisional valuer suggested £900. The National Museum of Wales submitted comments. The Committee viewed the hoard in light of this and noted that the provisional valuer had relied heavily on comparisons from the price guide Benet’s: Artefacts of England and the United Kingdom (2003) and observed that it was not clear whether the valuer had suggested equivalent prices for those objects in the hoard that paralleled similar items in Benet’s or whether the valuer had in fact suggested values that merely used the Benet’s price as a starting figure. This was a significant point, for the Committee noted that it regarded the prices in Benet’s to more closely reflect retail prices, rather than prices ‘for object(s) in a sale on the open market between a willing seller and a willing buyer’ (Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice, par. 65), the figure the Committee is tasked to recommend. The Committee therefore requested a second provisional valuation before it recommended a figure for the hoard. The National Museum of Wales hopes to acquire. NB: For the record, the Committee felt that the provisional valuation for this item was high. Iron Age artefacts 7. Early Iron Age hoard (7) from Stockbury, Kent (2011 T110) The provisional valuer suggested £1,500. The Committee examined the hoard in light of this and noticed the provisional valuer’s suggested figure was partly based on the assertion that the horse bit and harness fragment ‘may be the first example found in the UK’. The Committee pointed out that the report had said that the horse bit under discussion was ‘the first of its kind to be found in Britain.’ The Committee therefore questioned the rationale applied by the valuer, and felt that the prices suggested by the valuer were closer to retail figures rather than prices ‘for object(s) in a sale on the open market between a willing seller and a willing buyer’ (Treasure Act 1996 Code of Practice, par. 65), the figure the Committee is tasked to recommend. Before recommending a figure for the hoard, the Committee requested a second provisional valuation. Maidstone Museum hopes to acquire. Roman artefacts 8. Roman gold phallic pendant from Knaresborough area, North Yorkshire (2011 T808) The provisional valuer suggested £250. The Committee examined the pendant in light of this and pointed to several other examples it had seen before, which had been mentioned in the report for the coroner. One was a phallic pendant from Braintree, Essex (Treasure Annual Report 2000, pg. 26; PAS ID: ESS-0CDDC1valued at £1300) which was much heavier (3.86g) and larger (27mm) than the pendant from Knaresborough. Another was the pendant from Hillington, Norfolk (2011 T78; PAS ID : NMS-94CA46, valued at £800). Both of the above were also in better condition than the Knaresborough example. The Committee felt that on balance, the suggested figure adequately reflected the attraction of the piece, and in agreement with the valuer, the Committee recommended £250. The British Museum hopes to acquire. 9. Roman silver denarius reworked into a finger-ring bezel from Ulceby with Fordington, Lincolnshire (2011 T752) The provisional valuer suggested £25. This item was not considered as the finder and landowner had both agreed to waive their reward in respect of the Collection, Lincoln, allowing the item to be acquired at no cost. 10. Roman silver finger-ring from Walkeringham, Nottinghamshire (2010 T732) The provisional valuer suggested £200. The finder submitted comments. The Committee examined the finger-ring in light of this and looked at this alongside another ring (2011 T614 from Horncastle area, Lincoln; valued at £300) at the same meeting. It pointed out that many similar rings had been valued by the Committee in the past. One example from Scopwick, Lincolnshire (2005 T196; Treasure Annual Report 2005/6, pg.62) was valued at £300 and was felt to be slightly finer than the piece under consideration, particularly along the shoulders of the ring. Taking all of this into consideration, the Committee felt that a slightly higher figure than suggested was warranted, and recommended £230.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Heritage at Risk Register 2014, East Midlands
    2014 HERITAGE AT RISK 2014 / EAST MIDLANDS Contents Heritage at Risk III Nottinghamshire 58 Ashfield 58 The Register VII Bassetlaw 59 Broxtowe 63 Content and criteria VII Gedling 64 Criteria for inclusion on the Register VIII Mansfield 65 Reducing the risks X Newark and Sherwood 65 Rushcliffe 68 Key statistics XIII Rutland (UA) 69 Publications and guidance XIV Key to the entries XVI Entries on the Register by local planning XVIII authority Derby, City of (UA) 1 Derbyshire 2 Amber Valley 2 Bolsover 3 Chesterfield 4 Derbyshire Dales 5 High Peak 6 North East Derbyshire 8 Peak District (NP) 9 South Derbyshire 9 Leicester, City of (UA) 12 Leicestershire 15 Blaby 15 Charnwood 15 Harborough 17 Hinckley and Bosworth 19 Melton 20 North West Leicestershire 21 Lincolnshire 22 Boston 22 East Lindsey 24 Lincoln 32 North Kesteven 33 South Holland 36 South Kesteven 39 West Lindsey 44 Northamptonshire 49 Daventry 49 East Northamptonshire 52 Kettering 53 Northampton 54 South Northamptonshire 54 Wellingborough 56 Nottingham, City of (UA) 57 II EAST MIDLANDS Heritage at Risk is our campaign to save listed buildings and important historic sites, places and landmarks from neglect or decay. At its heart is the Heritage at Risk Register, an online database containing details of each site known to be at risk. It is analysed and updated annually and this leaflet summarises the results. Over the past year we have focused much of our effort on assessing listed Places of Worship; visiting those considered to be in poor or very bad condition as a result of local reports.
    [Show full text]
  • Cdc13 Phase 2 Consultation Feedback Report
    Viking Link: UK Onshore Scheme Planning Appeal Core Document Reference 4.7 Phase 2 Consultation Feedback Report UK Onshore Scheme Phase 2 Consultation Feedback Report Volume 1 VKL-08-39-G500-006 Chapter 01 December 2016 Introduction © National Grid Viking Link Limited 2016. The reproduction or transmission of all or part of this report without the written permission of the owner, is prohibited and the commission of any unauthorised act in relation to the report may result in civil or criminal actions. National Grid Viking Link Limited will not be liable for any use which is made of opinions or views expressed within it. Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................5 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Purpose of the report .......................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Structure of the report......................................................................................................... 7 2 APPROACH TO CONSULTATION .................................................................................8 2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Phase 1 Consultation ....................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Public
    [Show full text]
  • Lincolnshire. [ Keiii.Y'b
    414 SPILSBY, LINCOLNSHIRE. [ KEIII.Y'B wednesday, at l2 noon. The district comprises the fol­ Spilsby; Stickney sub-district, William Andrew, Stickney; lowing places :-Addlethorpe, Alford, Anderby, Ashby­ deputy, Henry Hand, East Kirkby; Wainflee~ sub-dia. by-Partney, Aswardby, Bilsby-with-Thurlby, Holingbroke, trict, William Peacock Ely Adlard, Market placet Wain­ Bratoft, Brinkhill. Burgh-in-the-Marsh, Calceby, Can­ fleet ; deputy, William Holmes Marshall, Wainfleet dlesby, Claxby, Croft, Cnmberworth, Dalby, Driby, East­ Registrars of Marriages for the Union, John Rimmington, villa, Farlesthorpe, Firsby, Friskney, Gunby St. Peter, Terrace, Spilsby; deputy, Kerkham Gresswell, Halton Hagnaby, Halton Holegate, Hareby, Harrington, Hogs­ road, Spilsby thorpe, H undleby, Huttoft, Ingoldmells, Irby-in-the­ The Workhouse, erected in 1838, is a large structure of brick Marsh, Keal East, Keal West, Kirkby East, Langton-by­ situated in the parish of Hundleby, & will hold 250 in­ Spilsby, Markby, Mavis Endarby, Midville, Mumby-with­ mates; Rev. Harry Greenwood H. A. chaplain; John West Chapel, Orby, South Ormsby-with-Ketsby, Partney, WalkerM.D. medical officer; JohnL. Ironmonger,master; Raithby, Rigsby-with-Ailby, Sausthorpe, Scremby-with­ Mrs. Emma Ironmonger, matron; Miss Elizabeth Wood­ Grebby, Skegness, Skendleby, Spilsby, Steeping Great &. ley, schoolmistress Little, Stick ford, Stickney, Sutterby, Sutton-in-tbe-Marsh, RuRAL SANITARY AuTHORITY. Thorpe St. Peter, Toynton All Saints, Toynton St. Peter, Meet at Board Rooms, Workhouse, Hundleby, alternate Ulceby-with-Fordington, Wainfleet All Saints, Wainfleet thursdays at n noon. St. Mary, Well, Welton-in-the-Marsh with Boothby, Wil­ Clerk, George Walker, Ashby road, Spilsby loughby, Winthorpe & West Fen Treasurer, Thomas Cheney Gartit, Bank, Spilsby Certified Bailiffs under the Law of Distress Amendment Act, Medical Officer of Health, l<'rancis John WalkerH.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Community Involvement
    Local Development Framework Statement of Community Involvement June 2007 Contents 0 Background Need Help with English? 3 Preface 4 Stages in the Preparation of the SCI 5 Glossary 6 0 Part One - The Local Development Framework 1 Introduction 9 2 The Local Development Framework 10 3 The Different Consultation Stages 12 4 Involving the Community 15 5 Listening to What You Say 26 6 Co-ordinating Consultation with Community Initiatives 27 7 Resources for Community Involvement 28 8 Reviewing the Statement of Community Involvement 29 0 Part Two - Planning Applications 9 Consulting on Planning Applications 30 0 Appendices 1 List of Consultees 37 2 The Structure 47 3 Tests of Soundness 48 4 Methods of Consultation to be used 50 Statement of Community Involvement Need Help with English? Need Help with English? Planning Services Tedder Hall Manby Park Louth Lincolnshire LN11 8UP Telephone 01507 601111 e-mail http://www.e-lindsey.gov.uk 3 Preface Preface New legislation means that our Local Plan (The East Lindsey Local Plan) is about to be replaced by a collection of planning documents called a Local Development Framework (LDF) This document is called the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and explains how and when the Council will consult with communities and other interested parties in drawing up all of the documents that will make up the LDF. It has been prepared in compliance with the statutory consultation requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004. You can see these regulations in full at www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20042204.htm or at the Council’s headquarters at Tedder Hall, Manby, during normal office hours.
    [Show full text]
  • Alford's War Memorial
    Alford War Memorials TF 455755 Alford is both a parish and a small but ancient market town. A small brook runs through the parish, which is 8 miles northeast of Spilsby and 13 miles southeast of Louth, and sits only six miles from the North Sea. The parish covers about 1,100 acres. © John Readman The parish church is of St. Wilfred’s, which is close to the centre of the town. Inside the church are several war memorials. These consist of the following:- Roll of Honour World War 1 Roll of Honour World War 2 A memorial to Richard James Sinclair in Northern Ireland 1972 A stained glass window for Maurice Nelson Baron Outside the church is the town’s war memorial, a cross upon four steps. The church is often open to the public, and all the memorials are easy to find within the church. They are maintained in a very good condition. © Lincolnshire Family History Society 2009 Roll of Honour World War One © John Readman This is a parchment Roll of Honour with the letters beautifully inscribed and decorated. A close - up of the names reveals the following: Almond to Hall © John Readman © Lincolnshire Family History Society 2009 Hammond to Riggall © John Readman Rhodes to Yates © John Readman There are 52 names altogether on the above list which is shown below: © Lincolnshire Family History Society 2009 ALFORD ROLL OF HONOUR IN THE GREAT WAR Bernard Almond: Sapper: Royal Engineers: November 8 1918 Charles Arrowsmith: Private, Liverpool Scottish: April 9th, 1917 Arthur Stephen Baggley: Lance Corporal, 3rd Lincolnshire Regiment: April 3rd, 1918 Maurice Nelson Baron: Flight Sub Lieutenant, Royal Naval Air Service: August 15th, 1917 John William Bell: Private, Royal Marine Light Infantry, HMS Hague: September 22nd 1914 Charles William Blades: Private, West Yorkshire Regiment: April 23rd, 1918 Sydney Brewer: Corporal, 1/19 London Regiment (St.
    [Show full text]
  • Lincolnshire Remembrance User Guide for Submitting Information
    How to… submit a war memorial record to 'Lincs to the Past' Lincolnshire Remembrance A guide to filling in the 'submit a memorial' form on Lincs to the Past Submit a memorial Please note, a * next to a box denotes that it needs to be completed in order for the form to be submitted. If you have any difficulties with the form, or have any questions about what to include that aren't answered in this guide please do contact the Lincolnshire Remembrance team on 01522 554959 or [email protected] Add a memorial to the map You can add a memorial to the map by clicking on it. Firstly you need to find its location by using the grab tool to move around the map, and the zoom in and out buttons. If you find that you have added it to the wrong area of the map you can move it by clicking again in the correct location. Memorial name * This information is needed to help us identify the memorial which is being recorded. Including a few words identifying what the memorial is, what it commemorates and a placename would be helpful. For example, 'Roll of Honour for the Men of Grasby WWI, All Saints church, Grasby'. Address * If a full address, including post code, is available, please enter it here. It should have a minimum of a street name: it needs to be enough information to help us identify approximately where a memorial is located, but you don’t need to include the full address. For example, you don’t need to tell us the County (as we know it will be Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire or North East Lincolnshire), and you don’t need to tell us the village, town or parish because they can be included in the boxes below.
    [Show full text]
  • Division Arrangements for Grantham Barrowby
    Hougham Honington Foston Ancaster Marston Barkston Long Bennington Syston Grantham North Sleaford Rural Allington Hough Belton & Manthorpe Great Gonerby Sedgebrook Londonthorpe & Harrowby Without Welby Grantham Barrowby Barrowby Grantham East Grantham West W Folkingham Rural o o l s t h o r Ropsley & Humby p e Grantham South B y B e l v o i r Old Somerby Harlaxton Denton Little Ponton & Stroxton Colsterworth Rural Boothby Pagnell Great Ponton County Division Parish 0 0.5 1 2 Kilometers Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2016 Grantham Barrowby © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 OSGD Division Arrangements for 100049926 2016 Syston Grantham North Belton & Manthorpe Great Gonerby Hough Heydour Welby Barrowby Londonthorpe & Harrowby Without Braceby & Sapperton Grantham East Folkingham Rural Grantham West Grantham South Grantham Barrowby Ropsley & Humby Old Somerby Harlaxton Colsterworth Rural Little Ponton & Stroxton Boothby Pagnell County Division Parish 0 0.35 0.7 1.4 Kilometers Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right 2016 Grantham East © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 OSGD Division Arrangements for 100049926 2016 Claypole Stubton Leasingham Caythorpe North Rauceby Hough-on-the-Hill Normanton Westborough & Dry Doddington Sleaford Ruskington Sleaford Hougham Carlton Scroop South Rauceby Hough L o n g Ancaster B e n n i n Honington g t o Foston n Wilsford Silk Willoughby Marston Barkston Grantham North Syston Culverthorpe & Kelby Aswarby & Swarby Allington Sleaford Rural Belton & Manthorpe
    [Show full text]
  • Ed034a Inland Commitments.Xlsx
    INLAND Application Location Comple Starts Outline. Planni Outstan Deliver Comments Afforable COMMITMENT number tions ng ding able Housing with S AS AT 1ST permis Commit analysi planning MARCH 2017 sion ments s for 5 permission Parish - Inland year extropolated Updated (Start & supply from the 19/10/17 as per PP's) permissions the incl Examination afforda Hearings ble Aby with GreenfieldN/001/0505/16 Land adjacent to Wold View Lodge, Main 3 3 3 work ongoing Oct 16 on building control and progressing Road Alford N/003/0308/10 Arthur Wood & Sons, Commercial Road 1 1 1 Builders on site, work is progressing, 3 to roof level per BC 6/5/14 email sent 29/9/14 Rang 8/4/15 no reply 3 complete, plot 1 work stalled at May 16 for a while Alford N/003/1324/07 Land at 49 East St, Alford 1 1 1 Access is through a private drive, can't see without trespassing. Static caravan visible on the site no progress Letter sent 29/9/14 Reply to say they are proposing to commence dismantling and relocation/erection of garages to rear of property mid 2015 which will allow access to be constructd for continuation of development in 2016 Alford N/003/1595/11 Land at Willoughby Rd (site 35G) 6 5 11 11 Site is being built out and should finish shortly Alford N/003/0595/13 Land at Parsons Lane 1 1 1 Rang 08/04/15 - Footings this year (2015), said it is likely to be built in 5 years Started 14/12/15 Alford N/003/854/16 Land at Station Rd (Site 35E) 28 28 28 Site has an approved inspector and appears to have started Alford N/003/1451/10 Hanby Lane (Site 35G) 1 19 20 0 Site is up for sale Alford W3/4 N/003/2233/11 Land at Station Rd (adjacent to alloc 20 20 20 Detailed pp 23/9/16 Site visit confirm that work has started in 35E) site 28.05.15 BC AI application.
    [Show full text]
  • Coin Register 2013
    COIN REGISTER 2013 EDITED BY MARTIN ALLEN, JOHN NAYLOR AND PHILIPPA WALTON COIN Register is an annual survey of single finds of Iron Age, Roman, medieval and post- medieval coins and tokens found in England and Wales, using data from the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS), Celtic Coin Index (CCI), and Corpus of Early Medieval Coin Finds (EMC), and other sources. The editors would be very grateful to be notified of any finds that might be included in Coin Register. All Celtic, pre-conquest Roman, Roman silver prior to AD 64, Roman gold and late Roman silver coins from the fourth century onwards are welcomed, as are Anglo-Saxon, Norman or Plantagenet coins and their continental contemporaries (down to and including the Cross-and-Crosslets (Tealby) type of Henry II), and most later medieval continental coins. However, finds outside these categories will still be considered for their numismatic interest. As always, the essential criterion for inclusion will be that the coin is new, by virtue of either being newly found or (if previously discovered) being hitherto unpublished. Single finds from archaeological excavations may be included if it seems that there would otherwise be a considerable delay in publication. Celtic material should be sent in the first instance to Dr Ian Leins, Department of Coins and Medals, British Museum, London WC1B 3DG ([email protected]). Finds of Greek and Roman coins should be notified to Dr Sam Moorhead, c/o Department of Coins and Medals, British Museum, London WC1B 3DG (smoorhead@thebritishmuseum. ac.uk). Other material should be sent to Dr Martin Allen, Department of Coins and Medals, Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge CB2 1RB ([email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage at Risk Register 2019, Midlands
    Midlands Register 2019 HERITAGE AT RISK 2019 / MIDLANDS Contents The Register IV Bassetlaw 73 Broxtowe 77 Content and criteria IV Gedling 78 Key Statistics VI Mansfield 79 Newark and Sherwood 79 Key to the Entries VII Rushcliffe 82 Entries on the Register by local planning IX Rutland (UA) 84 authority Herefordshire, County of (UA) 84 Derby, City of (UA) 1 Shropshire (UA) 95 Derbyshire 2 Amber Valley 2 Staffordshire 111 Bolsover 4 East Staffordshire 111 Chesterfield 5 Lichfield 111 Derbyshire Dales 5 Newcastle-under-Lyme 113 Erewash 7 South Staffordshire 114 High Peak 8 Stafford 115 North East Derbyshire 9 Staffordshire Moorlands 116 Peak District (NP) 10 Tamworth 117 South Derbyshire 10 Stoke-on-Trent, City of (UA) 118 Leicester, City of (UA) 13 Telford and Wrekin (UA) 120 Leicestershire 16 Warwickshire 122 Charnwood 16 North Warwickshire 122 Harborough 18 Nuneaton and Bedworth 125 Hinckley and Bosworth 20 Rugby 125 Melton 21 Stratford-on-Avon 127 North West Leicestershire 25 Warwick 131 Lincolnshire 26 West Midlands 133 Boston 26 Birmingham 133 East Lindsey 28 Coventry 138 Lincoln 36 Dudley 141 North Kesteven 38 Sandwell 143 South Holland 41 Walsall 143 South Kesteven 43 Wolverhampton, City of 145 West Lindsey 48 Worcestershire 147 North East Lincolnshire (UA) 53 Bromsgrove 147 North Lincolnshire (UA) 55 Malvern Hills 148 Northamptonshire 59 Redditch 151 Worcester 151 Corby 59 Wychavon 152 Daventry 59 Wyre Forest 155 East Northamptonshire 62 Kettering 64 Northampton 65 South Northamptonshire 65 Wellingborough 69 Nottingham, City of (UA) 69 Nottinghamshire 72 Ashfield 72 II HERITAGE AT RISK 2019 / MIDLANDS THE REGISTER Many structures fall into the ‘not applicable’ category, The Heritage at Risk Register includes historic for example: ruins, walls, gates, headstones or boundary buildings and sites at risk of being lost through stones.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage at Risk Register 2012
    HERITAGE AT RISK 2012 / EAST MIDLANDS Contents HERITAGE AT RISK 3 Reducing the risks 7 Publications and guidance 10 THE REGISTER 12 Content and assessment criteria 12 Key to the entries 15 Heritage at risk entries by local planning authority 17 Derby, City of (UA) 19 Derbyshire 20 Leicester, City of (UA) 29 Leicestershire 31 Lincolnshire 37 Northamptonshire 60 Nottingham, City of (UA) 65 Nottinghamshire 66 Rutland (UA) 74 Despite the challenges of recession, the number of sites on the Heritage at Risk Register continues to fall. Excluding listed places of worship, for which the survey is still incomplete,1,150 assets have been removed for positive reasons since the Register was launched in 2008.The sites that remain at risk tend to be the more intractable ones where solutions are taking longer to implement. While the overall number of buildings at risk has fallen, the average conservation deficit for each property has increased from £260k (1999) to £370k (2012).We are also seeing a steady increase in the proportion of buildings that are capable of beneficial re-use – those that have become redundant not because of any fundamental lack of potential, but simply as the temporary victims of the current economic climate. This year’s Register for the East Midlands highlights just how The case of St Helen’s House in Derby shows how, even adaptable our strategies need to be for rescuing heritage at in these straitened times, private-sector investment can risk.We can report a successful major intervention from breathe new life into neglected buildings. After 11 years on the private sector this year, but generally progress is being the Register it is now being actively repaired, as our case made through a long-term, step-by-step approach that study explains.
    [Show full text]
  • Land at the Mawthorpe Estate CA-7-1-224
    Parish: Claxby St. Andrews, Skendleby, Ulceby with Fordington, Well, Welton le Marsh, Willoughby with Sloothby Title: Land at the Mawthorpe Estate Reference number: CA/7/1/224 HIGHWAYS ACT 1980, SECTION 31 (6) – DEPOSITED MAPS, HIGHWAYS STATEMENT AND HIGHWAYS DECLARATIONS Date of deposit of map 31.10.2005 and highways statement Depositor's name and Mr S Roughton, Mawthorpe House, Alford, Lincolnshire, LN13 9LX address Dates of deposit of (1) 21.12.2005: Mr S Roughton, Mawthorpe House, Alford, Lincolnshire, LN13 highways declarations 9LX and names and (2) 04.12.2015: Mr S Roughton, Mawthorpe House, Alford, Lincolnshire, LN13 addresses of depositors 9LY Date deposit expires: 03.12.2035 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION Grid Reference: TF477 696, TF463 736, TF441 717 Address and postcode Hanby Hall Farm, Hanby Lane, Welton le Marsh, PE23 5TH; 1 & 2 Farwell of buildings on the Cottages, Well, Alford, LN13 9LT; 1 Field Cottage, Psalter Farm Bungalow, deposited land Psalter Farm, The Old Barn, 1 & 2 Wold Cottage, Valley House, Skendleby Psalter, Alford, LN13 0HH; 1 & 2 Spring Cottages, Claxby St. Andrew, Alford, LN13 0HJ; Hill Cottage & Hill Farm, Mawthorpe, Alford, LN13 9LY District East Lindsey Nearest city or town Alford ENQUIRIES ABOUT THE REGISTER OR DEPOSITS Enquiries concerning the register or the deposits lodged with the County Council should be made to the Definitive Map Officer at Lincolnshire County Council's Public Rights of Way & Countryside Access Section by email to [email protected] or by telephone on 01522 782070. INFORMATION ABOUT THE REGISTER OF DEPOSITS The County Council is required by law to keep and maintain a register of highways statements and highways declarations deposited under section 31 (6) of the Highways Act 1980 and landowner statements deposited under section 15A (1) of the Commons Act 2006 available for public inspection on its website and in a paper copy format, together with copies of the deposited documents.
    [Show full text]