One of the largest areas of preserved mine craters on the British sector of the Western Front is seriously under threat; I happened to pass by the field which the British called 'The Glory Hole' today; it was an area of mining activity prior to the Somme in 1915/16. There is an extensive collection of different sized craters inside, in a very good state and in some cases remnants of trenches inbetween.

I was alarmed to see a commericial sign up indicating that a substantial house is about to be constructed on this site; perhaps the first of many. Another is being built in an adjacent field.

I fear that as - seemingly - permission to build has already been granted by the mairie in Ovillers (la Boisselle is part of the commune of Ovillers la Boisselle), then it may already be too late? However, I would appreciate being put in touch with the All Parties War Graves Group (or whatever it is called) who, I thought, was meant to be keeping an eye on things like this? And anyone with any detailed knowledge of French planning law.

I am going to contact the Conseil General de la Somme, but I suspect their wheels may move slowly.

I cannot believe that a site of such historical importance can be allowed to go in the 90th anniversary year of the Somme.

Below - general view towards the Glory Hole, taken today.

Close up of info panel.

Sorry, better view:

View I took into some of the craters over the summer:

And another:

That's alarming news Paul. I am quite surprised that permission has been granted to build there. The danger of the ground subsiding must be fairly high. It's a pity that there isn't another Richard Dunning out there to buy it. I any case I wouldn't want to build a house there !

If no house were built where fights took place a large part of North of France would be a desert ...
especialy if we consider this also for WWII ...

For the place itself there should be a document in the town hall (la Mairie) which indicates where houses could be built . This is called a POS (former documents) or a PLU (recent ones).
It gives where the town will grow in the next ten years and what could be built in each area of the village
This document is always available for anyone in the town hall.
It is decided by the town concil. However "public enquiry" is always done befor being official.
It let everybody to say I do not agre with that because ....

This is the key, the referee, for everybody.

I know this quite well, I am member of the town council of my village....


Kind regards

This is extremely bad news. We have already lost the Carnoy and most of the Redan craters. I hope that the local authorities can be persuaded that in the long term this area is more valuable to them preserved than destroyed.

The ground beneath this area has both German and British underground systems. The British has at least three underground levels at around 30, 50 and 100 feet depth. Click on this image for a section of the British system.



There will be a very substantial quantity of human remains, many of which are French, as the French lost several thousand men here attacking the village in 1914-15. There are tunnellers still in the mines.

Simon

Yves. I am referring specifically to the Glory Hole. You no doubt know the history of this particular patch of land. It is honeycombed with tunnels and old dugouts, hence my remark, not the entire western front as you say.

No one is saying we should preserve the whole battlefield; this particular part is extremely well preserved and it would be criminal if it were lost, in my opinion as both a local to the area and an historian.

Thanks to Simon Jones the All Party Parliamentary War Graves and Battlefields Heritage Group have been alerted and will be reacting accordingly.

I do not think that we should be imposing our ideas of what should and should not be preserved, on the people of France. The cemeteries and monuments are there in perpetuity. That should be enough. If it is possible to develop land and put it to good use, then I sincerely believe that is what should happen. More to the point perhaps, France is a democracy. These things are done, ultimately, because the French voters wish it. Look around Britain and see the wholesale destruction perpetrated in the name of development. When we have put our own house in order, it will be time to give advice to others. Land has a financial value as well as an historic one. The former will always take precedence as the historic fades from memory. I do not know the site in question but if it is honeycombed with tunnels and craters as suggested, it will be very expensive to develop. If the pressure to build is enough to accept this extra cost , then I do not think there is much can be done to stop the work.The work being carried out by De Diggers is being done , I believe, in advance of development. Is there provision for similar work to be carried out in France?

Thank you Paul for bringing this to the attention of the forum and inparticular to those of us who care about the preservation of the battlefields. Maybe the glory hole does not display the familiar green and white sign of the C.W.G.C but we all know (those who care) that this site is a grave yard!

Somebody once said "opinoins are like ****holes, everybody has one!"

Thanks again Paul your policing of the Somme battlefields is much appreciated.

Steve Binks

This site should certainly be preserved. As has been said, no one is suggesting that the Somme should be preserved in its entirety but sites such as this are surely very special. They need to be designated as such.

I presume the site has a certain value as a building plot and the owner is wanting to realise these monies or has applied for the planning permission himself. It such permission is denied , the land owner deserves compensation. The problem is who would pay ?

With respect Tom, I am a resident and landowner on the Somme, so even following your train of thought - which I do not agree with - then I have the perfect right to voice an opinion over this. There is no pressure whatsoever to build on the Somme. Space is vast and land is cheap and in the past two years a number of development companies have been making money by buying land cheap, building houses and selling at a large profit - that selling made possible by the wider availability of finance for people in France. Because of the previous rarity of mortgages, most people rented. Now house ownership is growing.

And there is hardly a shortage of land to build on - even in La Boisselle. I suspect this land came very cheap because it wasn't possible to farm on it and the ignorance of the developers will not have alerted them to the fact that tunnels etc are on this site; in fact, they probably haven't even asked themselves why the holes are there in the first place.

No-one is suggesting we preserve the whole of France, but anyone who has been visiting the Somme for even a few years will have seen how sites have been lost due to the CAP and development. Should we stand by and let this go? I don't think so, and I personally believe our chrildren and grand children would think the poorer of us if we sat back and did nothing.

Ian - this sign simply indicates planning permission has been granted. The name should refer to the client whom the house is being built for. I personally am not sure what can be done yet, but I am confident the All Party Group will be making immediate representations, so we will discover some possible outcomes shortly. The only good news is that no building work has started, but I would say we are only talking about weeks, or months at best before it does start.

That sign is up, so that objections to the project can be lodged within a specified period - 60 days? I can't remember, so why not lodge one?
Jack

Hello Paul,

I share your concerns.

Of the two points quoted by you above:

1. What is it in particular makes this piece of land so attractive to a potential buyer?

2. Perhaps if the developers or more specifically any buyer were to be made aware of this they would have a re-think? The risk of subsidence must be there and would surely affect any future sell on value?

Regards,

Steve.

Whoever protests might like to add the fact that it is a near certainty that there are unexploded charges beneath the site. It was mined and counter-mined for such a long period that some must still lurk below the surace.
Jack

La Boiselle and its 'Glory Hole' seem part and parcel of the 'Somme Heritage' experience to me. I would argue that its loss would be extremely short sighted.
Whether people like it or not, such sites/sights are very much one of the reasons that so many 'heritage/ancestral/military' tourists come to the Battlefields.
I would have thought the local authority would take note of the increased interest in WW1 and adopted a 'protect' strategy to ensure conservation of such highly emotive/famous sites.
Personally, I think this demonstrates how far sighted the Somme Association were when they took the chance of purchasing Thiepval Wood for future generations.
Des

Hi Paul and others. Paul, as a resident, you do indeed have a perfect right to voice your opinion and try your d****est to make it heard . One of the points I was making was that people who do not live in France have very little right to any say on what the French do with their land. Cemeteries and monuments excepted. I should have added that this right extends to all residents. The other point which I made was that, given the problems and expense of developing a plot of land in an area like this, anyone who did must be absolutely determined to do so and have the means to carry out their plans. I am at a loss as to why this land should be developed when you say that there is no pressure to do so. Perhaps it is to be a chambre d'hote for battlefield visitors?

Paul,

You will remember the extent of the expansion of Ovillers has cropped up before. As one who always stays in Ovillers it has been very clear over the last five years that the local Marie has no problem with this - every time I return another house is going up! I guess at the end of the day the Glory Hole is a prime spot and money talks as they say. It would be a crying shame if another prominent site disappeared. Unfortunately, if it is a straight and legitimate deal, short of appealing to the better nature of the landowner to respect the historical importance of the area I do not hold out much hope for it's survival.

If it's that cheap do you fancy going halves???

I am surprised this spot has been chosen considering the potential issue of human remains, undergound systems, difficulties in just building on such a site, etc. Then there is the historic aspect, which the builder and or owner might be unaware of.

When I was last there the amount of open, easy to build on land was everywhere and it does seem odd to pick a spot with so many difficulties or issues. I wonder if price was a consideration as it would not get the same amount for level land, etc.

I am at a loss to know even where to start. Hopefully as more information comes in we can save whatever is possible. Please keep us advised, thanks Paul.

Ralph

Many of you are assuming that the French won't build on something because you are presuming that they are aware of its importance and potential problems. The reality is they don't do surveys in the way they do in the UK and are very likely to have no idea that a war was even fought here, let alone an understanding of tunneling operations.

I watched a house in my village be built right on top of a large German dugout which I now estimate to be less than 10 feet from the (basic) foundations of the house. I went and told the builders when they started but they had no interest, and little belief in what I was telling them. One day the house will subside or disappear.

Ovillers seems house building crazy, as Giles has mentioned; the maire has allowed the construction of houses left and right of the old Y Sap mine site; both of which rest on the lip of the crater. The future of those structures can only be estimated at, but I suspect neither house will be then in 100 years; maybe a lot less. If the mairie will let them build there, then they will let them build anywhere it seems.

We can only hope that the All Parties group will have a result.

Paul

My remark was general. Could we built where there was many trench tunnels and deads ?
If the answer was no there would be no villages at all at la Boisselle, Thiepval, Souchez, Loos, and so many towns or villages...

So my thinking is: yes it is possible to build where there were battlefields.
Of course those buidings must be done carefully, because of sleeping weapons, holes or bodies.
I suppose it was done for the Thiepval memorial and the new museum here !



Several places have been protected or bought by the Conseil General of the Somme : Fay village, The crater at La Boisselle for example.

For this specific place I have not seen it yet.
It is why I did not write it should be protected neither it does not need to be kept.


However I understand your point of view: it seems an "interesting" place.


If you are not too far from Ovillers - la Boisselle you can ask to the town hall which part of the area is described as "building possible" or "must be kept as natural area".
If you need some support to understand such document I may help.
You will know if is a small part of the area or the whole which is "building possible".

I hope buildings are only possible along the road we can see on the first picture !

Keep us informed !

Kind regards

more houses means more local taxe d'habitation, then Ovillers will be able to build that jewel in every French village's crown, the 'salle des fetes'

Hello,

This sign up means all official authorization has been given.

The owner, Mr Sauvage (!) could use this authorisation during two years.
Because the authorisation is written at the building place, works will very probably start very soon.
The building company is alredy chosen.

I am afraid it will be very hard now to stop it, unless somebody says I am the real owner of the place !

Kind regards

Completely agree with this. It would be a great pity if this very interesting site would disappear. It would be a tragedy if it disappears without full archaeological survey and excavation, which given the extent, could take months.
Sadly enough, if there is allready a sign up as Paul showed, 99% chance that the building works will go ahead. If this project has allready past its planning phase and permissions have been given, as the placement of this plaquette shows, it will be nearly impossible to stop. I think a middle way soluation, having archaeologists come in to look at it first, will be the best outcome we can hope for.

I also agree with the above statement.....I visit the battlefields of the Somme every year, as do thousands of others....if places like the glory hole disappear under a housing estate factory or whatever, this will have a negative effect on the local economy....no places to visit...then no battlefield tourists spending millions of euros each year......fair enough this will not happen overnight, but in 20 years time how many other places of great historical interest on the Somme will have been build on......can the local authorities in the area not see they are very slowly cutting their own throats.

Imagine that you are a farmworker here in Britain. You wish to build a house where you will raise your family.They will swell the roll at the local school and you will use the local shops and Post Office, all under threat from lack of use. Although the owner is willing to sell, permission to build is refused because it is on the site of a Civil War battlefield. A local farmer decides that there is no future in agriculture , he will build a factory and staff it with the local people who used to work on farms. No way, the site is a battlefield from the Wars of the Roses. Never mind, the local B&B ticks over nicely with summer visitors so that's all right then.

I have just checked the rules about a Permis de Construire at http://www.pratique.fr/vieprat/log/construc/daf1801.htm It states quite clearly, as I said, that within two months of the sign going up on the site, the authorities can withdraw their permission if an error is discovered but, in addition, the neighboursor any other third party can lodge a protest within those two months; first with the Mairie and if that does not work, before an administrative tribunal.

Anyone got a wad of cash to buy the whole site?

Jack

I see where Tom's coming from, here. Paul -as a local your views would have infinitely more clout than the rest of us, but I forsee they will still see your objection to the house as that of a battlefield guide. I think any campaign would have to garner the support of many local residents in order to put across your perfectly valid point, without it seeming to be outsiders poking their nose in. Short of personally appealing to the owner, it would be better couched in terms of local objection with international support, than anything else.
I do hope that the building is not put up on this site and we do not lose it, for future generations.

Is it possible to find out how much the site might be bought for? I may be able to find a way to fund an acquisition, if it is still possible...

I am not saying don't build houses, factories etc, I rightly agree with you, new enterprise does bring prosperity to any community......but why build on top of places like the glory hole....like Paul said earlier ...the space on the Somme is vast and land is cheap. The Glory hole is one of the view places that is still visible as one of the largest areas of preserved mine craters on the British sector of the Western Front, sure build, but why here.
I might be wrong here, but has part of the French sector at Verdun not got a conservation order slapped on it, and if so why not on places like the Glory Hole. I have visited Verdun several times, parts of it are like a Sioux burial ground, absolutely sacred ground....and rightly so!...never in a million years will houses etc be build there, again rightly so........so why build on sites like the Glory hole......build yes ...but build elsewhere!

Jack - excellent work, we need to formulate the objections properly. I will liaise with the Parliamentary Group on this.

Chris – an appeal to raise funds to buy the land may be the only solution.

Simon


“The Frenchmen never spoke of La Boisselle without tears in their eyes. Inch by inch they had won forward, but, exhausted with the effort, could not drive the stubborn enemy out of the terrible warren of the village. And now, when they were leaving, they charged us to hold those sacred sepulchres and defend them with our dead bodies. The pact was kept. But at what cost!”

The Fifty-First in France by Captain Robert B. Ross (1918) pp. 120-121

I know Paul is on site but if I can help out by phoning the mayor then let me know. We need to move quickly to preserve this unique site.

I would hold fire for the moment as some wheels have been set in motion; we will await to see what happens.

I see Truthergews (tom's) point of view but I say this ..

The general Somme area does NOT have spectacular scenery. It does not have great hotels etc etc .. what it does have is history of the kind which speaks to modern generations.
Take me to Agincourt and I will say .. there's a field.
Take me to various points along the Somme and I will say ... 'jeez'

I think for the sake of a new housing development this is not good.
And I am absolutely convinced there are other areas within a short distance which would provide housing space equally well.

I am not against 'getting over it' in WW1 terms .. I just think this is a .. landscape wise' site worth keeping?
Des

Given the practicalities of this site, and the apparent abundance of other more suitable sites for building, one has to wonder why a developer bought this plot. Whoever owned it originally must have known its historical significance; I wonder why they didn't approach people to buy it as a historical site, it must be worth more to them than to a developer ! Obviously it wasn't publically advertised for sale or one of the Pals would have seen it.
Strange.
But, per Chris's comment, a War Bond issue on this Forum would probably garner sufficient support to buy this land if we put our mind to it. Together there is nothing we can't do.
Jim

Well I for one am Belgian, and I believe that the first world war heritage is as much British and commonwealth heritage as it is ours. That means at least that we should hear their points and concerns and do our best to take them into account.
It is also clear that this very site is much more important and poignant than f.i. a regular piece of front line somewhere on the Somme. I think it is quite clear that preservation would be favourable here, whereas on other sites archaeological work before construction could be enough.

regards,

Bert.

Do you know the price of a Salles des fetes ? Taxe local d'habitation is generaly not a very high tax...
How many new houses do you need ?
No, that is not the reason.
The main reason is that poeple would like to live in that area. a town council try to find places where houses could be built.

Regards

Hello again,

The point I do not see clearly in this post is: how much the site will be touched by this building,
and then are there other houses which could be built there.

The house will be built on a place of 1100 square meters. (a square of around 33 * 33 meters, near the sign)
If it is the only house which can be built here, is it really a threat for the place ?

Kind regards

is it really a threat for the place ?

Kind regards
[/quote]
YES

Hello Bill,

It would be great if the site could be saved but then positive ACTION should be taken as is done with so many (not enough?) sites like the Lochnagar Crater, Bute d'W, etc. Having a rant at the French as foreigners for planning something on this site just does not fly with me. You couldn't build anywhere on the Somme then, or should we provide a list with sites that we as a forum find important enough not to let them build on? Life goes on I say. If someone wants to save a site they should buy it or make sure someone else buys it.

Regards,

Marco

Thanks to those who offered support and help; and thanks to Simon Jones in particular for liasing with the All Parties group.

I am disapointed and saddened with some people's attitude, especially at least two of them who seemed to be suggesting that I could in someway benefit financially from the preservation from this site; quite extraordinary!

Don't worry about it Paul, all who know you know your passion for places such as this.

Bob.

Paul
nothing stranger than folk! you have always been straight and honest, some people have nothing better to do than cause grief!
You are our man on The Somme so keep up the good work!
Tony and Danny

Lets hope that if this bit of land is preserved from the developers, it's made a bit more accessible to casual walkers than it currently is.

The German defenders of the Schwaben Hohe would be very proud of the barbed wire fencing that surrounds it at the moment..!!

Rob.

I have recently moved into La Boisselle. I noticed the builders placard over the weekend (presumably at about the same time as Paul Reed did), and I was about to make some enquiries at the Mairie to see what was happening.
Whereas all opinions on this subject are valid, I am somewhat concerned about the generalisations that some people are making. Until someone has spoken to the owner and/or developer, we do not know why this site has been chosen. If this situation is to be resolved satisfactorily, then it is essential to stick to the facts. We will be relying on the goodwill of the developer if we are to save some if not all of the site and some of the comments could be taken as insulting. This is unlikely to put him in a co-operative frame of mind. Obviously, a tactful approach is essential.

If the worst does happen, then I hope that this will be the catalyst for the formal identification and protection of all the remaining significant sites.

Paul

Don't worry - vast majority of Pals know your true motivation and how much you care about these things.

Regards


Simon

Jon could I ask if you have had the chance to do so yet, and, if so, what the response was?

I haven't for the above reason.