Thornborough "debate"

[Venutius]

The farmer.

Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org

[Grubby]

quote:Originally posted by Venutius

The farmer.

Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org

I think Mike Heyworth's(CBA)words say it all

It would be a hollow victory if we fought off the quarry only to find the site ploughed out and the archaeological knowledge lost for ever.

seems to me that is a distinct possibility.

Grubby

[Arthus]

Once again we hear 'It is about features being "roughly dug"'

I am sick and tired of being accused of shoddy work.

1. The work was of the highest standard and was totally transparent and this can be measured and proved.

2.The area around the Henges is of National Importance when added to the data from all similar sites. So all similar sites collectively are of National and International Importance.

3.The area around it should be Scheduled even if it means EH falling out with their friends in the NFU by arguing for it.

4.If it continues to be ploughed any archaeology will be gone in less than 20 years.

5. Because humans have always altered the landscape and will continue to do so (despite what ever laws we could bring in now in 2006),and given the depth of the features, any chance to excavate as much of the archaeology in the area surrounding the Henges should be taken now. In situ preservation being fine if you are laying concrete over something, but useless here as it is unlikely that magical robots who can see Neolithic pits underground and analyse artefacts and organic remains will be invented before its all destroyed.

6.The Henges themselves are quite fragile and any ill-conceived tourism will quickly damage them.

7. I bet the people who built the Henges would have been pleased with all the fuss since their designs and activities continue to enthrall us as we continue to worship at the Henges of The Three Breasted Northern Ice Queen! DON'T BELIEVE THE ORIONS BELT HERETICS


Arthus

[Venutius]

So your argument is this: So long as the developer can show the archaeology is being damaged, then a development should be allowed to go ahead regardless of its importance.



Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org

[Hi Vis]

quote:Originally posted by Venutius

So your argument is this: So long as the developer can show the archaeology is being damaged, then a development should be allowed to go ahead regardless of its importance.



Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org

As I see it, outside the development process - knowing that the archaeology on the site is going to be destroyed what are you going to do about it?

[Pixie]

quote:Originally posted by Hi Vis
As I see it, outside the development process - knowing that the archaeology on the site is going to be destroyed what are you going to do about it?

As I see it, there are plenty of people who realise the importance of the Ladybridge site on this forum, what are we all going to do about it?
Do we expect the campaign groups to do all the work. Have you written letters to the press and government about it?
The campaign group are working hard but can only do so much in the time, we could help with some of that work.

P

[BAJR Host]

What I may suggest is a basic template letter that can be added to for people.... now I am not saying we are lazy

If one could be put together I can host it on BAJR for people to download.. add to to etc.... and perhaps a list of useful people and the adressses (excluding your own MPs ) that it could be sent to.

... cheers for the prod Pixie

Another day another WSI?

[Real Job]

As I understand it, [u]nothing</u> can be done to stop the farmer ploughing if he wishes to continue. So any campaign will have to be for a change in the law. I don't know how likely such a change would be, but I would gladly support the campaign. If the appeal is turned down, then that will be the only way to stop the pits at Ladybridge disappearing without trace...

[Arthus]

Venutius.

I think you perhaps are assuming something about me because it is apparent that I?m an archaeologist who has worked at the Henges.

Is it possible that you have pigeonholed me and assumed that I have such opinions because you view me as the enemy?

If so, it is interesting to be a victim of such prejudice.

Where in any of my postings did I argue or suggest,

?that So long as the developer can show the archaeology is being damaged, then a development should be allowed to go ahead regardless of its importance??

Once you have re-read my postings. I await your reply.

Arthus

[the invisible man]

If there is to be a campaign for a change in the law (bearing in mind that PPG16 is not law, as such), what law will the campaign aim to change, and what is the change being proposed?

As I see it, to coin a phrase, we would need legislation to prohibit ploughing or other detrimental activities to or on areas with known archaeological remains.

Would there be an extension to PPG16 in effect, to include agricuture as development, thus requiring farmers to apply for permmission to plough? Would such an application be considered in the same way as a planning application, i.e. you might still get mitigation or "preservation by record?"

Or are you suggesting that class consents for scheduled monuments are abolished/amended? In which case only scheduled monuments are protected and we're back to square one, unless we schedule everything - then nothing ever gets built or ploughed.

Certainly the present arrangement could do with re-thinking but I see a number of questions to be resolved!

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.