CPRE Herefordshire Annual Report October 2012

A CASE STUDY
HCPRE recently challenged Herefordshire Council’s decision to remove a hedgerow in Credenhill as part
of the creation of the cycleway from the end of the Roman Road to Credenhill. HCPRE’s concern was how
the Council arrived at the conclusion that the hedge was not ‘important’.
The Council and HCPRE both agreed that the
hedge was species rich and very close to the
borderline of importance in terms of the
wildlife aspects of the Hedgerow Regulations.
The nub of the matter was the Council’s
conclusion that the hedge was not part of a
pre-enclosure field system and therefore not
important in terms of the Hedgerow
Regulations.
HCPRE member, Penny Farquhar-Oliver
prepared a detailed report, challenging the
Council’s opinion. It is an example of the
diligent work done by HCPRE to protect the
county’s heritage. Here are some extracts from
her report.
HCPRE ask that before finally determining its
status, the Council take full and proper account
of the 1840 Stretton Sugwas tithe map, and of
the 1757 and 1794 maps, and also take into
consideration numerous earlier written
documents confirming many of the fields in
the locality to be of long standing.
In HCPRE’s opinion, (and quite apart from the
Council’s case resting on inappropriate
speculations), documents and maps
collectively cast doubt even on the Council’s
contention that the field pattern in this area
(i.e. the area around the road and hedge) has a
strong co-axial character relating to the course
of the Roman Road’. In our view, map and
documentary evidence appears to suggest the
following: -
To the south of the Roman Road [A438], the
landscape in 1757 was predominantly one of
curvaceous and numerous strips in three large
open arable fields, with a number of scattered
curvilinear enclosures as well. By 1794, this
curvilinear pattern had been strengthened with
numerous additional curvilinear boundaries
arising from (pre-Parliamentary) enclosure of
all three open fields, and reflecting their former
furlongs. But then this area was changed again,
this time by comprehensive reorganization of
the field pattern (presumably by the Guys
Estate) and replacement of the former
boundary pattern with a strongly coaxial one
which was very evident in19th century tithe
and OS maps, but which had become
fragmented by the 1970s.
But in the vicinity of Stretton Court (and the
A480 road and hedge), the map shows that
any open arable had already been enclosed by
1757, (documentary evidence suggests that
this was taking place in the 1600s or earlier),
and although a number of curvaceous
boundaries were lost near the road between
1794 and 1840, and some straight boundaries
replaced them, there was little other change
(and little evidence in either map of any ‘strong
co-axial character’ save that introduced by the
new boundaries). The situation remained
similar through the 19th century, though some
of the new straight boundaries were removed
again between 1840 and 1886 and also five
short stretches of the 1757 network. But in the
main, the curvilinear pattern as seen in 1757 is
still visible today, with some remaining
additional 19th century straight boundaries
postdating it.
HCPRE knows of no evidence to suggest that
the curvilinear A480 is any less an integral part
of the field patterns in the locality than is the
equally curvilinear road (now a bridleway) to
its east with the medieval packhorse bridge, or
the curvilinear northern boundary of Stretton
around some of the fields called Hansell seen
in the redrawn tithe map on page 2. (The
Hansell names were Horneshill in the 1640s
and Hornsell by 1699).
We also note that since most historic parish
boundaries were established between five and
nine centuries ago, any such boundary mered*
to a road is likely to indicate that that road is
equally old. The available evidence is therefore
against the Council’s claim that this road or its
hedge ‘postdates’ the surrounding field pattern.
HCPRE continues to maintain that this roadside
hedge is important because it certainly meets
criterion 5(a). We further suggest that it may
well also be important under criterion 1 and/or
4, but of course, meeting one criterion is
sufficient to confer ‘Important’ status in terms
of the Hedgerow Regulations.
Parish boundary
Threatened hedge
Following this report, Herefordshire Council
agreed that it met the criteria for importance
but told HCPRE that “the regulations require
a judgement to be made as to whether its
removal is justified, having regard to the
reasons for its proposed removal and
comments of the Parish Council. In that
consideration, the wider public interest is a
factor.
The scheme will deliver a range of benefits in
linking the community of Credenhill with an
earlier phase of investment between the
Brecon and Roman Roads. The approved
scheme is supported by both Parish Councils.
Weighing these factors (we) have concluded
that the Hedgerow Removal Notice should
stand as issued. The footway/cycleway scheme
will continue to be implemented as designed
and approved, to deliver the enhanced links
which are sought. A replacement, species rich
hedgerow will be planted along the field
boundary.”
* Mereing is the association of a parish boundary with
ground features which define it.
5