Thanks to papiermache for the link. Interesting info on preserving the past. The historic environment cannot be replaced; it is a finite resource that is particularly sensitive to new development, particularly in an age when the needs to our society change so rapidly. Uttlesford District is fortunate enough to benefit from a rich built heritage, with 37 designated Conservation Areas and over 3,500 listed buildings which are recognised nationally by their inclusion on the National Heritage List for England and spread across a diverse landscape comprising towns and larger villages to more modest settlements and hamlets, all of which contribute to the rich tapestry of the historic and built environment in Uttlesford. This number includes houses, churches, schools, shops, castles, archaeological sites and walls; displaying a variety of styles representative of the best of architectural and historic designs from many centuries. Generally and very importantly the clear distinction between built form and open countryside has been maintained. 1.2 In addition to nationally listed buildings, there are also a wealth of non-listed buildings and structures that are considered to be locally significant and make a positive contribution to the character and distinctiveness of Uttlesford. This may be due to their historic, aesthetic, evidential or communal value, or a combination of these factors. These are non-designated heritage assets. 1.3 This List has been compiled to formally identify and celebrate these assets of local importance, in a form that is accessible and informative to the local community, developers and planning officers. The list should be used to inform future development proposals, with a view to ‘sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation’ Para. 185 – National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2018. 1.5 Due to their irreplaceable nature, Paragraph 197 of the NPPF states that ‘the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application’ and that a ‘balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset’. https://uttlesford.moderngov.co.uk/...Uttlesford Local Heritage List April 2021.pdf
An 11 MB download. Includes descriptions and photographs of various air-raid shelters, pillboxes, spigot mortar sites, a POW camp with huts, aerodrome buildings, an ancient railway carriage, and an Anglo-American war memorial. Extracts here, but the report has much more and is worth a look.
There are twelve district councils in Essex and finding a similar report to the one at Post 1 is impossible because they all deal with the subject in different ways. Uttlesford boundaries contain 247 square miles and Castle Point District Council to the north of the Thames estuary has a mere 17 square miles. Castle Point issued statements concerning heritage in 2020 as part of their "Local Plan" process and these refer to archaeology from all eras. 20th century sites include: a Cold War Monitoring Post, Aircraft obstruction ditches, World War II anti-glider ditches appearing as earthworks on RAF vertical photography, World War II Heavy Ant-Aircraft Battery site including Magazine, Barracks and Command Post, World War II Heavy Anti-Aircraft Battery site, Ammunition Shelter, and road barriers. However, some are no longer visible. There are four statements with photographs ( no more than 4MB each ). Scroll to the bottom for a list of sites. There are maps. https://www.castlepoint.gov.uk/download.cfm?doc=docm93jijm4n5149.pdf&ver=8722 https://www.castlepoint.gov.uk/download.cfm?doc=docm93jijm4n5240.pdf&ver=8670 https://www.castlepoint.gov.uk/download.cfm?doc=docm93jijm4n5241.pdf&ver=8671 https://www.castlepoint.gov.uk/download.cfm?doc=docm93jijm4n5150.pdf&ver=8723
At Shoeburyness ( Southend Borough Council ) the heritage may include unexploded bombs. Best left alone. 11.3.2. Anecdotal Evidence of Bombing Anecdotal accounts of local bombing incidents were sought from publications and the internet. The following account was located: The most significant raid on Shoebury occurred on the 18th August 1940 and involved a force of approximately 50 Heinkel 111 medium bombers which jettisoned numerous HE bombs over the village following an aborted attack on North Weald airfield. Thirty-one bombs were recorded in Shoebury with a further 200 recorded on the neighbouring tidal sands. Minor damage was caused to the Royal Artillery buildings, tracks and cranes. Report: 6180TA Rev-3 13 Dynasafe BACTEC Limited Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Explosive Ordnance Desktop Threat Assessment for Future Works Note that although the precise locations of strikes are not known, this raid could have resulted in German bombs landing on site. 11.3.3. Abandoned Bombs A post-air raid survey of buildings, facilities and installations would have included a search for evidence of bomb entry holes. If evidence were encountered, Bomb Disposal Officer teams would normally have been requested to attempt to locate, render safe and dispose of the bomb. Occasionally evidence of UXBs was discovered but due to a relatively benign position, access problems or a shortage of resources the UXB could not be exposed and rendered safe. Such an incident may have been recorded and noted as an Abandoned Bomb. Given the inaccuracy of WWII records and the fact that these bombs were ‘abandoned’, their locations cannot be considered definitive, nor the lists exhaustive. The MoD states that ‘action to make the devices safe would be taken only if it was thought they were unstable’. It should be noted that other than the ‘officially’ abandoned bombs, there will inevitably be UXBs that were never recorded. Dynasafe BACTEC holds no records of any officially registered abandoned bombs on site. See here for full report and colourful pictures. https://www.southend.gov.uk/downloads/file/4004/dynasafe-bactec-assessment-pdf
