10th November 2005, 01:30 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Real Job
the choices for Thornborough seem to boil down to three options:
a)Preservation by record - The work paid for by Tarmac. Peanuts to them.
b) Preservation in situ - Tarmac's application is turned down and the land remains in cultivation.
c) The scheduling of the entire landscape around the henges.
Since c) is unlikely to say the least, and b) will only ensure thatn the archaeology is destroyed without being recorded, surely a) is the only option if you consider archaeology to be of value?
Then there is the other option - Tourism, one of the fastest growing industries in this country and sustainable which is more than can be said for quarrying.
One of Tarmac's arguments has been that the area would not provide the same tax revenue without them. As a student of Tourism Management with a particular interest in heritage I say they are wrong.
Leave the archaeology in situ, put in place a management plan with the farmer and a very nice income for the county could be made from it - providing more jobs than the 10? that Tarmac provide of which none are local residents. Their use of the jobs of hauliers is a complete red herring as most would get their gravel from other local quarries (just not Tarmac, but that is business).
This is not just about Tarmac quarrying a site it is also about the use made of the area, what local people would like and some forward planning for a long term future for the area. If Tarmac have their way the place would be surrounded by water with no more than 25 years of management guaranteed and then a bill to pay by the taxpayer for the upkeep. Going by the Nosterfield Nature Reserve this is an expensive way forward for the county.