2nd September 2005, 12:37 PM
Dorchester is far from sorted but the current situation is as follows -
8.16. As regards the SBWB area itself, a number of local objections challenged the basis of its selection. English Heritage maintained that this was one of the most significant areas of archaeological remains in the Thames Valley. While not offering a detailed ?ranking? of the candidate areas, EH gave us to understand that SBWB would be far from their first choice for mineral working. Clearly the importance of archaeological assets within this or any other area cannot be known for certain without a detailed assessment, and even then discoveries in the ground may cause any assessment to be reviewed later. There is therefore some risk that, if SBWB is pursued as a strategic resource area, the yield may be compromised by archaeological issues. The County Council argued that the County Archaeologist had confirmed that the SBWB area contains substantial mineral resources that could be worked without affecting archaeological remains of national importance. We have not, however, seen the advice that was given, or what the view was in relation to the other candidate areas.
8.17. One of the arguments to emerge was that, while the County Council had taken as decisive the uncertainty over production levels caused by birdstrike risk and the limited restoration options at WCSM, they had not taken a similar view of the uncertainty caused by the archaeological issues at SBWB.
That is the inspectors have accepted my arguments that the uncertainty and economics means that the Dorchester area is a bad choice for gravel extraction.
Peter
8.16. As regards the SBWB area itself, a number of local objections challenged the basis of its selection. English Heritage maintained that this was one of the most significant areas of archaeological remains in the Thames Valley. While not offering a detailed ?ranking? of the candidate areas, EH gave us to understand that SBWB would be far from their first choice for mineral working. Clearly the importance of archaeological assets within this or any other area cannot be known for certain without a detailed assessment, and even then discoveries in the ground may cause any assessment to be reviewed later. There is therefore some risk that, if SBWB is pursued as a strategic resource area, the yield may be compromised by archaeological issues. The County Council argued that the County Archaeologist had confirmed that the SBWB area contains substantial mineral resources that could be worked without affecting archaeological remains of national importance. We have not, however, seen the advice that was given, or what the view was in relation to the other candidate areas.
8.17. One of the arguments to emerge was that, while the County Council had taken as decisive the uncertainty over production levels caused by birdstrike risk and the limited restoration options at WCSM, they had not taken a similar view of the uncertainty caused by the archaeological issues at SBWB.
That is the inspectors have accepted my arguments that the uncertainty and economics means that the Dorchester area is a bad choice for gravel extraction.
Peter