+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Thornborough "debate" (/showthread.php?tid=2060)
Thornborough "debate" - BAJR Host - 3rd February 2006
Looks like you know what I am talking about at the IFA conf in Edinburgh
"Talk is Cheap" ps... MIFA application in and running.... will I make it??
Another day another WSI?
Thornborough "debate" - deepdigger - 4th February 2006
If you don't sire what chance the rest of us???
deep
Thornborough "debate" - troll - 6th February 2006
Don`t imagine you will have a problem sire.If you match the required-bingo! The very best of wishes for the IFA conference by the way.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Thornborough "debate" - sniper - 6th February 2006
remember seeing your name on the list of speakers the other day when a work mate was filling in application forms, will tell her to say hi...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Thornborough "debate" - BAJR Host - 7th February 2006
believe it or not.... thats the first I knew about me speaking there too... then I find out I am also a co-organisor! yipes!!
Another day another WSI?
Thornborough "debate" - deepdigger - 8th February 2006
Good luck Boss!!
deep
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 8th February 2006
Thought you'd like to see this:
Our reference: P00025529
27 January 2006
Dear Mr Jarvis,
Planning Application accompanied by an Environmental Statement for the proposed extension of sand and gravel workings and variation of Condition 2 of Planning Permission C2/92/500/53, Ladybridge Farm, Moor lane, Thornborough.
LADYBRIDGE FARM Moor Lane, Well, Bedale, East Tanfield
Your ref: C2/04/500/0053A
Thank you for your letter of 6th January 2006 in which you have provided further information enabling us to assess the impact of the proposals for the above site. We are now able to offer the following advice.
English Heritage advice
Background
This letter continues our advice contained in our initial and subsequent advice letters on the above application, dated: 11th August, 2004; 27th June, 2005; 8th September, 2005 and further clarifies the response of English Heritage to the above named application in the light of the information supplied to us in January 2006; "Report on an Archaeological Investigation", Mike Griffiths and Associates, December 2005.
As stated in earlier responses, English Heritage wishes to acknowledge the substantial work undertaken by Tarmac Northern and their consultants in putting together this body of information.
Significance of Assets
The application site lies within the Swale/Ure catchment. This larger area contains the most significant concentration of Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments and related archaeological deposits in the north of England. Within this larger area are seven henges, a cursus, several barrows, enclosures, pit alignments and the Devils Arrows standing stones. Many of the features within this landscape are scheduled as nationally important, whilst the application site itself is immediately adjacent to the three henges on Thornborough Moor, which are unparalleled in their size, alignment and form. The clustering of features (including the henge monuments) dating from the early prehistoric to the Romano-British period is mirrored at Newton Kyme and Ferrybridge.
The new archaeological evaluation report of December 2005 has addressed our initial concerns with regard to the characterisation of the archaeological deposits at Ladybridge Farm. The combined results of the two archaeological evaluations at Ladybridge Farm have identified the continuation of a swathe of nationally important early prehistoric archaeology and activity from the Nosterfield site into Ladybridge Farm, concentrated in the southern half of the application site. English Heritage considers that a clear relationship has been identified between the prehistoric activity on Ladybridge Farm and Thornborough Moor.
English Heritage considers that the report clearly demonstrates that the Nosterfield and Ladybridge deposits form part of the northern edge of an eastward projecting promontory of higher, drier ground. All of the prehistoric activity ? monumental, ritual and non-ritual - is located on this promontory, and thus the evaluations have defined an area containing a nationally important prehistoric landscape displaying complex spatial components and relationships.
Impact of proposals on significance.
The minerals planning proposal from Tarmac Northern Ltd will have a clear and negative impact on nationally important archaeology.
Recommendations
Position of English Heritage
The advice of English Heritage on the Ladybridge Farm application is as follows:
English Heritage sustains its objection to the classification of the application as a small-scale extension to the existing quarry (see Appendix One for detailed comment on the Minerals Local Plan context). The application therefore constitutes a departure from the Minerals Local Plan. English Heritage believes that the application would be more appropriately considered as part of the Minerals Local Plan Review (MLPR), due to commence in 2006. The significance and sensitivity of the Thornborough landscape, and the strong public interest in its future management, require exactly the wider strategic consideration of the options for meeting the County?s gravel needs which the MLPR will provide.
English Heritage believes that the archaeological evaluations have now adequately characterised the deposits within the Ladybridge Farm site and we have no hesitation in asserting that these deposits are of national importance, dating from the Neolithic period and related to the adjacent monument complex and its wider landscape as defined by the higher ground of the eastward projecting promontory.
English Heritage further advises that the proposed after-use strategy is an inappropriate landscape treatment with regard to the setting of the monument complex, particularly with regard to the accumulated impact of another body of water on the visual setting of the henges.
English Heritage advises that the application be refused on the following grounds:-
* The application site cannot be classified as being a small-scale extension to the existing quarry and is therefore a departure from the Minerals Local Plan Strategy;
* The application site is not a preferred area for extraction;
* The archaeological deposits within the application site are nationally important ? and inline with PPG16 should be preserved insitu.
* The proposed after-use is an inappropriate landscape treatment.
Next steps
We consider that the implications of this application are so significant that we would welcome the opportunity of advising on any further proposals.
Please send us a copy of the decision notice in due course. This will help us monitor actions related to changes to historic places.
Yours sincerely,
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 8th February 2006
All I can say is the FoT press release elude to information that I'm not privvy to. They have been working alongside te people they mention in the press release as part of the Thornborough Henges working group which has not involved TimeWatch or Heritage Action.
I therefore don't think it is pertinent for me to pass comment. Also, I'm aware that it would detract from our campaign for me to get embroiled in extended discussions about FoT statements - they made the statements not I.
I do notice that Tarmac have claimed this latest report as being fully peer reviewed. Must be the quickest peer review in history, and without the results of the specialist reports. Or am I wrong and peer reviews happen overnight?
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - BAJR Host - 8th February 2006
Thanks for that.... the English Heritage report is nice and clear as well as being unbiased opinion.
as to the FOT statement... we have been in discussion ...
the important thing is the protection of the area around the Henges as well as the Henges themselves, and perhaps the wording of the FOT release gave the wrong impression that the archaeology was deliberately done to destroy evidence and that Neil Campling was somehow part of a council conspiracy, detracted from the main issue. As troll said, this may be because of a failure to explain the ?way things work? in 21st century archaeology (answers on a postcard please!)
Anyway?. With both the CBA and EH placing strong importance on the landscape, it would be an interesting call for NYCC to ignore it. The archaeologists who worked at Ladybridge, IMHO, did a good job, from reading and viewing the site diary?. What is done with the results is a different matter.
More explanation of what archaeology actually is ? perhaps that?s a descent sized BAJR Guide??? Anyone??
Another day another WSI?
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 8th February 2006
Thanks David,
Have you looked at the conservation plan?
What do you think? A good consultation document? 222 pages? Seems a lot to expect of the public if you ask me.
Strange the plan area has been reduced from 16 square miles to less than one and the plan regards the landscape around Thornborough as not being of importance.
Certainly worth checking out, the contradictions within it would appear to negate a lot of its claimed intentions.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org