Villagers fight to keep Travellers off 1461 battlefield after comparing their effect on historic site to 'chipping bits off Stonehenge' - Yorkshire

From the Daily Mail

Villagers on the site of some of the bloodiest fighting on English soil are facing a new conflict as Travellers try to set up a permanent settlement on the battlefield.

Residents of Towton, where the Yorkists defeated the Lancastrians in 1461 to turn the tide of history, are outraged that a family of Travellers who moved on to the edge of the battlefield could be allowed to stay after plans were submitted for a site.

Campaigners say the effect on the historic battlefield near Tadcaster, North Yorkshire, was like chipping bits off Stonehenge.

Archaeologist Tim Sutherland, of the University of York, said: We’ve found some of the most important archaeological remains of a historic battlefield in Europe, if not the world, at Towton.’

He said granting planning permission would lead to the battlefield ‘being eroded through a trickle effect’, adding: ‘It’s the equivalent of someone going to Stonehenge and chipping a little bit off each year.

'You don’t allow people to take parts off Stonehenge, you shouldn’t allow parts of this battlefield to be built on.’

The ten-hour battle in a snowstorm on March 29, 1461, left 28,000 dead – around one per cent of the English population at the time – and put the Yorkist Edward IV on the throne in place of Henry VI.

A Traveller family who moved there were given temporary planning permission in 2009 while Selby District Council found a more suitable site for them.

It is green belt and although it is outside the marked boundaries of the battlefield, it will be included within revised boundaries this spring.

Peter Jesty, chairman of Towton Parish Council, said: ‘We are not making an attack on Travellers – someone who wasn’t a Traveller wouldn’t have been allowed to do this.’

Selby District Council said: ‘The proposal constitutes inappropriate development within the green belt.

The determination of the application was deferred to a future meeting of the planning committee.’ The family refused to comment.