Talk:Scheduled monument

Question

How many Scheduled Ancient Monuments are there? It would be nice to have a list of all of them on Wikipedia. dbenbenn | talk 05:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been searching for online lists of the Scheduled Ancient Monuments in order to populate the categories here and at the commons. The English Heritage website seems to be fairly useless, but putting Scheduled Ancient Monument into the advanced search at Images of England gives 1011 results. Historic Scotland are better as they have a searchable database of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, of which they claim there are about 8000 in Scotland. The Royal Commision on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales has an online database called coflein—I haven't spent much time with this yet, but I couldn't work out whether or not everything in the database is a Scheduled Ancient Monument (I think not, but it doesn't say). JeremyA 06:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be quite a list. The usual number given is somewhere over 20,000. In 1993, Hunter and Ralston's Archaeological Resource Management in the UK (IFA/Sutton, p46) gave 13,000 in England, 5,300 in Scotland and 2,700 in Wales. Of these, only around 1,000 are in state hands and not privately owned. The number will have risen since then as more SAMs are created than are descheduled. It was estimated in the late 1980s that there were a further 60,000 sites of National Importance deserving scheduling and this number will certainly have risen since PPG 16. 10:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

According to English Heritage there are 18,300 entries on the english schedule, at 31,400 sites. --VinceBowdren 23:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately,Wikipedia is not paper. DGG (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

New Navbox

I have drafted the {{Heritage protection in the United Kingdom}} navbox template, aiming to bring together scheduled monuments, listed buildings, monuments records, etc. Comments suggestions and improvements from anyone interested would be welcome (on the template talk page). Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Updating and references

I am going to have a go at adding more references and citations for this article. At the same time, I was thinking of expanding it to include sections on criteria for designation, how a monument is protected and managed, and more depth on the legislation so that it follows a similar structure to the other articles on heritage structures. Does anyone have any comments? FGLawson (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be very useful. I'd also like to see a bit about the history of the protection of ancient monuments in the UK, which goes back to the 1880s (or thereabouts), and is much older than protection of buildings. Just looking through the article there, I spotted the reference to Rosslyn Chapel as a scheduled monument - strictly speaking only the basement and churchyard are scheduled, not the part in use. According to Scottish Historic Environment Policy, "A structure in use as a dwelling house cannot be scheduled as an ancient monument nor can buildings in ecclesiastical use" [1], section 2.10. It would be worth clarifying what can and cannot be protected under this designation, and whether this varies between the different home nations. I'll keep an eye on the article and maybe chip in when I can. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for tidying up all these points on references and style - I was going to get around to it but ran out of steam - and you've made it read much better. Thanks. Is there anything else that you think needs adding to this page? FGLawson (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the geographical scope of Guardianship - it is GB-wide under (mainly) section 12 of the 1979 Act, and NI have an equivalent. Monuments like Arbor Low in England are Guardianship monuments. Also one or two minor edits. It's becoming more difficult to maintain the the page as differences grow between law and policy in the Home Countries. On the specific query about sites in ecclesiastical use, I think the Home Countries have all implemented the law (which is the same) in slightly different ways. In Scotland, carved stones within churches have been scheduled separately from the building in ecclesiastical use around them. I used to run the scheduling system in Scotland and was responsible for the SHEP until December 2009, and would be happy to provide any information I can (albeit now 18 months out of date). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjbarclay (talk • contribs) 10:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Could the article do with (one or two) younger examples?

The most recent Ancient Monument referred to in the examples section seems to be the Iron Bridge at Ironbridge, which is 250 years old. As there are now quite a few examples from as recently as the Cold War period, such as http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1020781, would it be possible to reach a consensus on adding a couple of more recent ones (preferably examples with their own Wikipedia article)? Ghughesarch (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the cruise missile complex at the former RAF Greenham Common? http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1021040&searchtype=mapsearch I've been WP:BOLD and added it for the time being Ghughesarch (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Are scheduled monuments inherently notable in wp terms?

Following a discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset/archive1 about the number of redlinks on List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset (and potentially others I am hoping to take to FLC) I promised to ask for the comments of other editors about whether all scheduled monuments meet the Notability requirements for a wikipedia article? Any thoughts gratefully received.— Rod ^talk 21:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scheduled monument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501093448/http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/ to http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scheduled monument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121204113822/http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/ScheduledMonuments.pdf to http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/ScheduledMonuments.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/Parliament/DG_077964
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/9/contents

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources regarding designation

Would anyone happen to know what sort of sources exist that relate to the designation of scheduled monuments? The specific monument I'm thinking of is the Asthall barrow, which was designated on 16 May 1934 per the Historic England website entry (link). There must be some sort of book or periodical from 1934/5 which records such designations. Does anyone know what it is and/or where to find it? Pinging some of the main contributors to the article: Gjbarclay, Gjbarclay, A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, Adamsan, RobinLeicester, Renata, Mais oui!, Jonathan Oldenbuck. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The best I can come up with is a series of books published by HMSO, of which the relevant one appears to be 'Southern England: Illustrated Regional Guide to Ancient Monuments No.2.' by Lord Harlech. These were first published around 1936, although the only editions I can spot are from the 50s and 60s, which seem to be available for modest sums online. Unfortunately I don't have a copy, and it is not available at Archive.org (unlike volumes 1 and 3), so I don't know how much (if anything) it describes the process of scheduling at that point. The only really good early description of the development of the scheduling process that I have come across is far too early to be of use to you, being a 1907 review of the 1882 act (available at The Preservation of Places of Interest or Beauty  – via Wikisource.). RobinLeicester (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal with "ancient monument"

Propose merging Ancient monument into this article. My understanding is that the terms are synonymous, and Scheduled monument is the preferred term (see, e.g., reference to "Scheduled Monuments (sometimes known as Ancient Monuments)" in this Historic England blog). Any objections? Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dave. I would suggest that the categories not be merged. 'Scheduled monument' is not a synonym of 'ancient monument': it's a subset - the small proportion given legal protection. The legal definition is:

(12) “Ancient monument” means—

(a) any scheduled monument; and

(b) any other monument which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is of public interest by reason of the historic, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest attaching to it.

So 90% of Britain's archaeological heritage isn't scheduled, but those sites are still considered 'ancient monuments'. The 'Ancient Monuments' article is not very clear, and I'll find time to edit it. Gordon Barclay (formerly Principal Inspector of Ancient Monuments, Historic Scotland). gjbarclay Gjbarclay (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Seems reasonable to keep them separate in that case. I'd like to see the end of the phrase "scheduled ancient monument" though, which crops up a lot and seems a bit of a dated term (and an odd thing to call a structure that's less than 100 years old, as some of them are). Also - since I've got someone knowledgeable to ask: are the non-scheduled monuments listed anywhere? If so, why are there two lists, and if not, it seems a fairly strange idea that the Secretary of State has a notional list of monuments that are are of merit in his or her head, but not written down anywhere. I'm intrigued. Dave.Dunford (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dave. 'Scheduled Ancient Monument' has never been an accurate term. It's either 'Ancient Monument' or 'Scheduled Monument' but it's been in common use for a long time. All three jurisdictions in Britain (Scotland, England & Wales - NI has its own legislation) set up Royal Commissions on the Ancient and Historical Monuments in the first decade of the 20th century to list, county by county, all the ancient monuments in the country. It was expected that this would take only a few decades, but it's an endless process. As you've noted, what's considered worth recording has changed - from 'sites' to landscapes, for example; pill-boxes are now 'heritage'. RCAHMS and RCAM(E) have both merged with the government heritage agencies (Historic Environment Scotland and Historic England); the Welsh Royal Commission is still separate from CADW. Each national agency maintains a database of all know historic assets - archaeological sites, buildings, places etc. Hundreds of thousands of places are recorded, only a small proportion of which are considered worth legal protection. Each agency uses this database as the basis for selecting those that are either to be 'listed' as historic buildings or 'scheduled'. Scheduled monuments are legally defined as of national importance, and all three jurisdictions have their own criteria as to how that's defined. When I ran the scheduling programme in Scotland I oversaw a revision of the Scottish criteria.

The Scottish national database is 'Canmore', with its map-based version 'Pastmap'. Pastmap also displays what's scheduled, listed etc. It also displays data from some of the local authority databases. These are known as 'Historic Environment Records' and most local authorities maintain them: even where not scheduled or listed, the planning system can take account of the presence of a site or building, and a local authority may impose a planning condition, for example, that a site has to be excavated or a building recorded in advance of development. The national and local databases can't be relied upon to contain the same information! Canmore is at: https://canmore.org.uk Pastmap is at: https://pastmap.org.uk/map I didn't have the links to hand for the English and Welsh versions.

Hope that helps. GordonGjbarclay (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a practical difference between the two terms. A scheduled monument is covered by the powers in sections 1 to 9 of the 1979 Act. Furthermore, any ancient monument (whether or not is is on the formal list) is covered by sections 10 to 23 of the Act. For example, it is legal for a local council to spend money on the preservation of an ancient monument: they don't have to get it scheduled first. An ancient monument can be subject to compulsory purchase, but only a scheduled monument can be subject to a 'stop notice' or powers of entry to land, etc. They are related terms, but there is a good reason that "scheduled monument" is a subset of "ancient monument". Mauls (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, but might it still be more convenient to take the two terms together in the same article? Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my merge proposal, but I rather agree with Johnbod. Dave.Dunford (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If they were to be merged, it would make more sense the other way around. Ancient monument is the larger category, a scheduled monument is a particular type of ancient monument (an ancient monument that has been added to the schedule... or, to put it another way, a scheduled ancient monument). But this of course isn't the full story (because of Northern Ireland having a different route to being a scheduled monument), and ignores that the vast majority of the content is scheduled-monument specific. Mauls (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Re-phrase line on HP legislation

It is not wholly clear what is meant by this opening line in the 'Heritage Protection Legislation for scheduled monuments' section: There is no positive distinction yet for a single method of registering sites of heritage. The long tradition of legal issues did not lead to a condensed register nor to any single authority to take care of over the course of the last 130 years. Might it be rephrased. Geopersona (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)