19th September 2005, 12:01 PM
Thanks Troll,
I think Thornborough is a good example of this but as you indicate, its not the only one. I'm now looking for other good examples.
A strict intepretation of the NYCC Mins Local Plan says this:
1. All nationally important archaeology will be preserved in situ.
2. All locally and regionally important archaeology will either be preserved in situ or recorded.
An interpretation that I think is more likely to be the case is as follows:
1. Nationally important archaeology could be preserved in situ but is more likely to be recorded.
2. Locally and regionally important archaeology can be recorded, but might not be. Most archaeology, even that on nationally important sites, is treated in this way.
This second interpretation is I think contrary to the spirit of PPG16 and also to the letter of the Local Minerals Plan.
Would you agree?
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org
I think Thornborough is a good example of this but as you indicate, its not the only one. I'm now looking for other good examples.
A strict intepretation of the NYCC Mins Local Plan says this:
1. All nationally important archaeology will be preserved in situ.
2. All locally and regionally important archaeology will either be preserved in situ or recorded.
An interpretation that I think is more likely to be the case is as follows:
1. Nationally important archaeology could be preserved in situ but is more likely to be recorded.
2. Locally and regionally important archaeology can be recorded, but might not be. Most archaeology, even that on nationally important sites, is treated in this way.
This second interpretation is I think contrary to the spirit of PPG16 and also to the letter of the Local Minerals Plan.
Would you agree?
Save the Thornborough Henge Complex - http://www.timewatch.org