+- 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" - troll - 22nd February 2006
Congratulations to everyone! Round one is yours.Tarmac seem intent on appealing on the grounds that the decision was based on "speculation-not fact".In all honesty, I don`t feel that a huge effort will be required to knock them back in round two simply on the basis that their own behaviour and comments condemn them without any outside help.Superb effort by all.For once, there does seem to be a council in the UK thats not intimidated by corporate lobbyists.If as predicted by some here-aggregate companies now take on a more belligerent attitude as some sort of pubescent gesture then fine, planning authorities will have to be just that-an authority!
Happy days...............knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Thornborough "debate" - archae_logical - 22nd February 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by sniper
archaeology doesn't tend to have vast natural resources that the government would like to get their hands on, or fictional weapons of mass destruction...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Archaeology is a vast constructed resource the same as a gravel quarry. What income can you get from a quarry once it is worked out. Turn it into a nature reserve and you get very little income with the possibilty of future major expense to the community.
Tourism is the fastest growing industry and as such brings a lot of income to this country. Think what income Stonehenge brings to the country through tourism. What income is derived from other historical sites. They provide a sustainable income unlike quarrying.
Once people are told about the marvels that exist they want to visit them, this leads to them spending money in the area (the multiplier effect). You see it all depends on how you look at these things.
E
Thornborough "debate" - Grubby - 22nd February 2006
Just a couple of things
so now that the application has been refused what about the archaeology on the site? By the sounds of it this amazing stuff is just going to get ploughed away without record. If this is not just going to be a hollow victory surely someone has to stop that?
Secondly I think the tourism idea is a step forward, but has anyone bothered to ask the people that actually live in the area whether they want 100's or 1000's people turing up on a regular basis. Its alright spouting forth about benefits to the local economy and everything but what about the impact on the real community at Thornborough?
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 22nd February 2006
Hi Grubby.
Firstly. Yes you are right, ultimately that will involve either the good will of the landowners and farmers, who are currently dominated by Tarmac, or more dramatic action from EH/Gov. I suggest this is an issue that will only get sorted once the spectre of quarrying has gone for good, and we are a long way from that. So long as there's a change of making big mony from quarrying, there's no chance of entering into a management arrangement in my view.
I still think that the archaeology on Ladybridge should be scheduled, if Dr Harding is correct then this settlement is the largest so far discovered in Britain (300+ Neolithic occupation pits), surely good reason for Scheduling? I know this will not stop ploughing, but it would mean more controls than at present.
Also, Ladybridge and the rest of the archaeology zone needs to be included within the proposed conservation plan. These things are often more important for the funding they can generate, such funding would allow for the options regarding Ladybridge to be expanded.
To answer you second question, the answer is yes, this has been done, by me and several local people. I have detailed responses from 65% of the local people commenting on future options regarding quarrying, tourism, the landfill, nature reserve and general local issues.
No local person wants to see Thornborough tunred into some form of Megalithic "Theme park" attracting 100,000+ tourists. However, many recognised the employment possibilities and most felt that some of the areas that have already been quarried could be used to enhance the tourism possiblities without being too intrusive on local people.
I have also run two tourism open meetings at Masham, to try to judge wider local opinion. I knew three years ago that I was going to open this can of worms and I felt it important that I understood local opinion as best as possible.
I think you will find very few developers, of even campaign groups will go to the lengths I do in order to truly understand local feelings. I have always considered local people as being of paramount importance in this. These henges must be a source of pride for them, not a source of pain.
Strangely, my offer to share the results of this survey with the consultation group was never taken up, the result is, my conservaton plan would read very differently to the curerent one. I find it strange that it says so many people do not even know about the henges - clearly they have never knocked on peoples doors.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - mercenary - 22nd February 2006
Quote:quote:Stonehenge brings to the country through tourism. What income is derived from other historical sites. They provide a sustainable income unlike quarrying.
Thornborough Henges and environs may be comparable to Stonehenge and environs for archaeological value, but I don't think it has anywhere near the tourist appeal. A few points that spring to mind:
Few of the monuments are upstanding and visible.
Most of the land (all?) is privately owned, so access is not always possible.
The central henge has a huge eyesore, a landfill, next to it.
There are no visitor facilities, interpretation boards, or signs.
These are huge hurdles to overcome before even a modest tourist trade can begin in the area surely? The comparisons with tourism at Stonehenge are not favourable. By the way does Stonehenge make money or is it supported by govt. subsidy through EH, English Nature etc?
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 22nd February 2006
You are right Mercenary, clearly someone of vision and drive is needed to lead this if it is to be successful.
I think Stonehenge is EH's biggest earner - Many millions into its coffers.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
Thornborough "debate" - archae_logical - 22nd February 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by mercenary
Thornborough Henges and environs may be comparable to Stonehenge and environs for archaeological value, but I don't think it has anywhere near the tourist appeal. A few points that spring to mind:
Few of the monuments are upstanding and visible.
Most of the land (all?) is privately owned, so access is not always possible.
The central henge has a huge eyesore, a landfill, next to it.
There are no visitor facilities, interpretation boards, or signs.
These are huge hurdles to overcome before even a modest tourist trade can begin in the area surely? The comparisons with tourism at Stonehenge are not favourable. By the way does Stonehenge make money or is it supported by govt. subsidy through EH, English Nature etc?
There [u]are</u> huge hurdles to overcome which is why it is important to get the conservation plan to recognise the extent of the area involved.
Grubby: I recently used to live in Thornborough village, with friends in Nosterfield and West Tanfield, so am well aware of the local opinion having knocked on peoples doors and asked them. I have lived somewhere in that area since 1962.
Comparisons with tourism at Stonehenge may not be favourable - yet, but there is still a long way to go. As for tourist appeal, there are already visitors to the henges which shows there is an interest. This is before any great publicity of the site and before any signs or interpretation boards etc. So far these visitors have not impacted greatly on the local residents.
There is a better road infrastructure around Thornborough than at Stonehenge. Already these roads are used for visitors to Lightwater Valley theme park which attracts lots of visitors. There is little impact on local villages from all this traffic.
As Venutius says we have to get rid of the spectre of quarrying from the area before we can move forward in other directions, but we have given thought to the future.
E
(reading Tourism Management at University)
Thornborough "debate" - sniper - 22nd February 2006
to archae_logical...my post twas a little joke about the government finding money for guns but not for heritage...nothing to do with quarries...oh never mind...
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Thornborough "debate" - Grubby - 22nd February 2006
Hats off to you Venetius. I agree - if the archaeology on Ladybridge Farm is nationally important then it should be protected through some sort of designation. Have you or anyone else approached EH about recommending it for scheduling? I would have thought that considering their letter of objection and the overall support from the CBA they would have no problem in putting forward a good case to the secretary of state. The archaeological community is surely up for this! It would send a clear signal to any developer that this landscape is no go area!
Thornborough "debate" - Venutius - 22nd February 2006
I've not asked recently and to be honest I'm loathed to apply pressure to an organisation that is clearly demonstrating a strength of will over this issue that I am in agreement with.
Those that know me will probably be shocked that I say this, but I think I have to have an element of trust with EH over this particular issue.
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org