Well, I`ve received a reply from EH, and it`s not good news.
Apparently, they`ve had a few complaints about the duckpond.
Shortly after it appeared, the Inspector of Ancient Monuments for Dorset visited the site with the owner. The owner told him that all that he had done was to clear out an existing hollow to allow standing water to remain.
Part of the pond does encroach into the scheduled area, the inspector told the owner that he should have requested a consent, however, because there was no malicious intent, he allowed it.
I believe that the inspector had the wool pulled over his eyes and will be emailing him to tell him!
IronMan, you intimated, in an earlier post, that you will be removing this picture from the site.
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/image.php?image_id=11463
I think that it should remain. It`s the best evidence that we have which shows the extent of the damage and I will put a link to it in the email that I send to EH.
baz
Reply | with quote | Posted by baza 20th February 2003ce 18:37 |
The duck pond (baza, Feb 09, 2003, 17:33)- Re: The duck pond (The Werg, Feb 09, 2003, 18:47)
- Re: The duck pond (Pete G, Feb 10, 2003, 01:27)
- Update (baza, Feb 14, 2003, 18:08)
- hellstone duck pond (pure joy, Feb 15, 2003, 12:20)
- Re: Duckpond Update (baza, Feb 20, 2003, 18:37)
- Re: The duck pond (moggymiaow, Feb 17, 2003, 00:20)
- Re: The duck pond (FourWinds, Feb 17, 2003, 12:44)
|
|