Fulford Battlefield Research Website


Designation appeal
 Recording the events of September 1066
tanged arrow from Fulford
yorks releif map

The Fulford Tapestry Website

Simply shocking
A19 in Flood
Questions for CYC
Finding Fulford report
Maps of battle of Fulford 1066
The evidence
Planning Inquiry
Designation appeal
Media releases

York City Planning documents online


YouTube videos


The Final Report

Finding Fulford cover

Kindle edition of Finding Fulford is now available

The Fulford Tapestry


Visiting Fulford

Map York


Registration Review Request Form


Before completing this form please ensure you have read the accompanying guidance notes. All sections marked * are essential; please complete all other sections as fully as you can.


Sharing of Information with interested parties


Information submitted by you in this review request may be shared with other interested parties as part of the consultation process of a review and/or in response to a request for information. Such disclosure will be subject to the statutory provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and those regarding the safeguarding of personal information. Please see Section H below.


Section A – Key dates*

Date on the decision letter     21 December 2012 (agreed effective date)


Date of this review request     18 January 2013


Section B – Applicant information *


Name (including name of organisation representing where applicable)

Chas Jones

Your contact address inc. postcode


Preferred telephone number


Alternative telephone number


E-mail address




Section C – Details of the site *

Site name

                     Battle of Fulford

Site address or location

 FORMTEXT                 Site runs along Germany Beck  (http://fulfordbattle.com/map_york.htm


English Heritage reference number                        469813




Section D – Brief summary of your grounds for review *

This appeal is made because:

·         Irrelevant considerations have been taken into account

·         The report and its annex make factual statements that are wrong

·         Many relevant considerations have been ignored and evidence omitted

·         Poor analysis as well as gross omissions of the available data represent a lack of balance which allows the report’s author to introduce ambiguity that does not exist in credible data

·         Failure to adhere to the published designation process, which along with other observations represent a breach of what is recognised as due process.

These grounds for appeal frequently overlap in the commentaries, annexes and appendices that follow.


Section E – Full grounds for review *
Please refer to supporting documentation where appropriate

A. Significant irrelevant considerations in this case

1. The Advice Report is heavily influenced by out-of-date planning documentation and the planning process up to 2007.

  • The Advice Report refers to the ‘Historic Landscape Assessment’, a thoroughly discredited document submitted on behalf of the developers in 2005 to support a planning application.
  • These partisan documents were compiled to gain planning permission and are not objective sources of information. It is inappropriate for EH to place reliance on these sources, or derivative documents which rely on them, unless consideration is also given to objector’s representations made to the planning inquiry (for example the evidence of the Battlefields Trust and my own evidence –appendix 1&2 to annex A).
  • These documents contain major errors of fact and misrepresentations that have been uncritically accepted in the designation report. I will give examples of how the erroneous nature of these sources permeate the whole report in annex A.

2. The fact that a planning permission was granted in 2007 has been given undue consideration in the decision. (See also Full grounds, annex C, 1c)

  • The first paragraph of the designation report draws attention to ‘an extant outline planning consent for housing’ but nowhere in the report does it state that the consent has now time-expired and is subject to an application to extend the time-limit for its implementation to which the COYC has itself raised issues and objections.
  • The second paragraph quotes from the Inspector’s Report (IR 24.147). The insertion of this contentious and subjective quotation from a report of 2007 is not relevant to EH’s decision which must be based on credible and up-to-date evidence. The inclusion of any quote should have addressed the extensive criticism of this report.
  • It should not be influenced by a planning application for the site.


B. Significant considerations were omitted

  • A body of evidence has been ignored in the designation report which is therefore so this is, in the terms of the designation report, new information.
  • Information was included that can be demonstrated to be incorrect and/or misinformed. Some of this is found in the critique of the Advice Report, annex A. The balance of the omitted or misrepresented evidence can be found as annex B.

Although all of this information has been made available, it is relevant here and must be seen as new information since the Advice Report demonstrates that they are not aware that there is so much decisive data available. I hope that within the review, the opinions expressed by the report’s author will now be checked against the published data.


C. Procedural errors

  • Failure to follow the process set out in the Designation Selection Guide for battlefields.
  • The decision takes into account significant irrelevant new considerations without any further consultation and lacks transparency with regard to representations made by all parties.
  • Fulford Parish Council owns significant portions of the land proposed for registration. They were not invited to respond to the consultation process and EH did not inform them about the designation process. The selection of the parties who were consulted appears to have been confined to those with vested interest and who were likely to be opponents of the system.
  • I object in the strongest possible terms to the lack of a proper appeal process and that an ad-hoc review procedure has been adopted that allows the erroneous decision to stand.
  • The references to changes and alterations to the landscape could and should have been addressed with a site visit. A modest attempt to redress this procedural failure is addressed with a set of annotated panoramas, photographs and a schematic in annex A appendix 2.
  • To emphasise the previous point, a designation of a landscape feature cannot sensibly be done without all of those who will be engaged visiting the site. Many of the errors within the designation decision could have been avoided if the writers had walked over the site.


Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary


Section F – Supporting documentation
Please list the titles of any supporting documentation submitted. You should not submit documents previously considered during the listing assessment.

Annex A. An analysis of the Advice Report noting wrong facts, missing information, misinformed information, failures of designation process and breached of legal due process.

  1. Appendix covering the evidence about the Germany Beck landscape
  2. Appendix images refuting the assertion that much has changed since 1066

Annex B. The evidence that was not reported or was misrepresented.

1.    RoyalArmouries AAA_06_Jones is added to show the military nature of the ferrous finds.

Annex C. Failures of due process


Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary


Section G – Substantiated threats to the site

Is the site the subject of a planning application, or the subject of existing planning permission or consent?

      Yes x         No  


Is the site the subject of pre-application discussions with the local authority?                       Yes x   No  


These are already extensively noted in the designation decision. But they fail to note that the decision is time-expired and currently being reviewed.


Section H - Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004 & Review Consultation


English Heritage is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). Both regimes require us to disclose information in certain circumstances where we receive a request to do so. Any personal information that we receive must be processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). More information on each of these regimes is available on the Information Commissioner’s website: http://www.ico.gov.uk/


Information provided to us by you, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the FOI, EIR and the DPA). In addition, consultation with interested third parties on the information disclosed by you may be necessary as part of the review process.


For the purposes of FOIA or EIR requests, and for review consultation, the information disclosed by you in this application will be presumed, in the absence of an explanation to the contrary, not to be confidential.


If you want the information provided by you to be treated as confidential, please explain to us why you regard it as confidential (see Section I below). If we receive a request for disclosure of the information under FOIA or EIR we will take full account of any such explanation provided by you but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances as the Department is required to act in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA, EIR and the associated  Code of Practice. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding upon the Department.


Please note that in certain circumstances, a review may not be possible without disclosure of information provided by you to interested third parties.


Data Protection Act 1998

The information you provide, including personal details, and any information obtained from other sources will be retained by English Heritage, in hard copy form and /or electronically.


English Heritage will process your personal data in accordance with the DPA and, in the majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties under an FOIA or EIR request or a review consultation.


Section I – Information regarded by you as confidential

If you regard the information you have submitted in support of a review to be confidential please explain why below. Please remember that, in certain circumstances, a review may not be possible without disclosure of information provided by you to interested third parties.


The file RoyalArmouries AAA_06_Jones is not my copyright and should not be put on any public retrieval system.


Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary


Submitting your listing review request

Please submit your completed Review Request Form with any supporting evidence, preferably by e-mail, to: designationoperations@english-heritage.org.uk (file attachments may not exceed 11 MB). Documents submitted by e-mail do not need to be provided in hard-copy as well.


If you do not have access to e-mail, or your documents exceed the 11MB limit, review requests may be posted to:


Designation Department, English Heritage, Waterhouse Square, 138-142 Holborn, London, England  EC1N 2NH

Related sites Facebook  Twitter (@ helpsavefulford)        Visiting Fulford        Map York

The author of the content is Charles Jones - fulfordthing@gmail.com   Last updated April 2015

This site does not use any cookies - so nothing is knowingly installed on your computer when browsing