5th March 2005, 10:04 PM
This is the sort of info we need to read... . It is real info that is needed.. from all sides.
If gravel is required... must it come from here? if ploughing is damaging the sites now.. why is it not put into set aside ( which is possible) as Tarmac actually own the land. so there is this strange message coming out that after 20 years the archaeology will be destroyed by ploughing (on land owned by Tarmac) unless the area is quarried now (by Tarmac who own the land)
The rights and wrongs can be argued... as you so eloquently put in the Oxfordshire case... but all I see so far is a will (a real will) to quarry the area, no matter what is found... in fact, with a sample that seems to be suggested, it is more likely that the area will be approved, and then... shock horror... perhaps more archaeology appears (as happened before) during the process of quarrying... not prior to the application being decided.
I expect that gravel will be extracted until we have exhausted it all? then what?
As English Heritage say
?Further to the Ladybridge Farm application, Tarmac have stated that they will seek the inclusion of the area adjacent to the henges, referred to as Thornborough Moor, as a ?preferred area? for aggregates extraction when the existing Minerals Local Plan is reviewed during 2004 ? 06.
English Heritage believes that any extraction within the Thornborough Moor area would have a substantial and detrimental impact on the archaeological environment and the setting of the henges. We are therefore resisting the inclusion of Thornborough Moor as a ?preferred area? in the revised Minerals Local Plan through our role as statutory consultee in the planning process.?
It seems that Tarmac want to quarry, no matter what the archaeology outcome.
Gravel for another 5 years (there is only enough gravel in North Yorkshire for 13 years (in the 1997 Minerals report) or archaeology to be studied??
David
If gravel is required... must it come from here? if ploughing is damaging the sites now.. why is it not put into set aside ( which is possible) as Tarmac actually own the land. so there is this strange message coming out that after 20 years the archaeology will be destroyed by ploughing (on land owned by Tarmac) unless the area is quarried now (by Tarmac who own the land)
The rights and wrongs can be argued... as you so eloquently put in the Oxfordshire case... but all I see so far is a will (a real will) to quarry the area, no matter what is found... in fact, with a sample that seems to be suggested, it is more likely that the area will be approved, and then... shock horror... perhaps more archaeology appears (as happened before) during the process of quarrying... not prior to the application being decided.
I expect that gravel will be extracted until we have exhausted it all? then what?
As English Heritage say
?Further to the Ladybridge Farm application, Tarmac have stated that they will seek the inclusion of the area adjacent to the henges, referred to as Thornborough Moor, as a ?preferred area? for aggregates extraction when the existing Minerals Local Plan is reviewed during 2004 ? 06.
English Heritage believes that any extraction within the Thornborough Moor area would have a substantial and detrimental impact on the archaeological environment and the setting of the henges. We are therefore resisting the inclusion of Thornborough Moor as a ?preferred area? in the revised Minerals Local Plan through our role as statutory consultee in the planning process.?
It seems that Tarmac want to quarry, no matter what the archaeology outcome.
Gravel for another 5 years (there is only enough gravel in North Yorkshire for 13 years (in the 1997 Minerals report) or archaeology to be studied??
David