In this case you may be correct :-) , but it's the cumulative effect that gets to me. This field used to be used for sheep. It's probably EU grants that are behind the field no longer being grazed. So, perhaps we shouldn't rail against the landowner. Perhaps there should be grants for the upkeep of monuments and an inspector to go around all of the monuments checking up on the upkeep. Too late ... I've bagsied it!!!!!!

I quite agree that a certain amount of vegetation can add to the atmosphere of a place.
IMHO though, is whether the vegetation is, firstly, causing damage and then whether the site has become hidden to the point that it is at risk of being swollowed back into the earth never to be seen again. Both of these maybe a matter of opinion.
I think I have saidbefore that with the land owners permission, I would be happy to keep my local sites clear of excessive overgrowth and safe from dilapidation.
Maybe we should all nominate a site or two for gardianship (with the owners permission of course) that we feel are at risk?