So far the comments about Groverake have focussed on the desirable rather 
than the achievable.

I agree that the site needs some form of statutory protection but listing is 
probably not the best option and scheduling would be more appropriate. 
Listing is used for sites of architectural merit, scheduling for monuments 
deemed “of national importance”. Given that there are so few headgears left 
in the UK it should be easy to argue that the site is of national 
importance. That will not however protect the site from vandalism, but it 
would change the response made by the police and the courts, at least in 
theory.

Conserving the site is no longer a feasible option because of the extensive 
damage that has already taken place. Such a process should have started a 
number of years ago, ideally straight after closure. Turning the site into a 
museum or heritage centre would be expensive and given that there are 
already similar sites at Killhope and Nenthead, the area has probably 
already reached saturation as far as mining attractions are concerned.
Removing the headframe to another site is a possibility but where?  Beamish 
was suggested but they have a fixed focus on the north east in 1913. It 
would similarly be out of chronological context at Killhope.

As to preserving the headframe with its associated structures, its too late, 
much of that has also disappeared in the last few years. Due to the remote 
location of the site and its close proximity to the road continued vandalism 
is sadly unavoidable.

So what could be done? It would still be possible to produce a detailed 
archaeological record of the site and therefore preserve it on paper at 
least. Some of the missing detail could be recovered from photographs and 
from former workers on the site, assuming that they still live in the area. 
Involving the local community by holding an openday on the site or 
presenting the results of the survey in an exhibition or lecture is a good 
way to make local people feel involved and create a sense of ownership which 
is essential if you want local support for the protection of the site. Any 
project must also remember that this is not just a 20th century fluorspar 
mine, the site had a previous existence as a lead mine. Publication should 
also be a key part of the project. There is no point in recording a site and 
then burying the results in an archive.

The remains of 20th century mining have disappeared at a much greater rate 
that earlier sites due to many factors including planning conditions that 
included site restoration clauses and the fact that people have failed to 
recognise their importance until it was too late. This is not uncommon and 
has happened to a wide range of industrial sites that on abandonment were 
viewed as worthless only to be recognised as an important part of the 
historic environment 10-20 years later.

The fluorspar industry was very important in the North Pennines and a 
detailed archaeological / historical study of Groverake Mine would ensure 
that even if the fabric of the site decays or is vandalised there will be a 
record of its existence. Such an approach would be much cheaper and I would 
argue more effective that the other suggestions made so far.

Martin Roe

President, Northern Mine Research Society,nmrs.co.uk

Conservation Officer NAMHO, National Association of Mining History 
Organisations, http://www.namho.org

Lead Mining in the Yorkshire Dales, 
http://www.martinroe.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Meerstone Archaeological Consultancy 
http://www.martinroe.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/meerstone.htm