Thornborough "debate"

[mercenary]

That's pretty much the impression I get also. They should "put up or shut up" as the saying goes.

[Beardstroker]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary

A very good question indeed. Maybe it's got something to do with their sudden interest in above ground heritage, something I think reflects the interests of Simon Thurley more than the below ground stuff.

I have that impression too, from speaking to various EH folk over the last couple of years. They seem to be a lot more interested in the clicking of turnstiles now, prehaps not too surprisingly as they get less central government money now.

I know very little of the process of scheduling, but I get the impression that it's a expensive process.

[historic building]

Artus

It is not EH's job to campaign against quarrying at Thornborough. It is their job to advise the planning authority on the information supplied in a planning application. If the evaluation suggests that the archaeology which will be impacted by the proposed quarrying is of national importance it is English Heritage's job to advise the planning authority of this.

It must also be remembered that there is a conservation plan being produced for Thornborough which may well contain recommendations concerning the ploughing of known sites within the study area.

[Curator Kid]

Scheduling isn't so much expensive (unless buying out an existing planning permission is involved - EH don't go there, and given their miniscule budget, I can't say I blame them...), as extremely rigourous. As a legal designation and somewhat draconian protection regime, one of the first things you need to establish are "edges" to an area within which the legal protection can be enforced. This is why it is incredibly difficult to protect landscapes, and it's only really specific sites and features that can be protected by scheduling. There's no room for fuzzy or generic areas of protection in the law, and to be honest, the whole framework would almost certainly collapse under legal challenges if there was. The surrounding landscape at Thornborough is mainly post-medieval above ground, so short of stripping the entire area to see where the concentrations of significant features are, how could you define the area to designate?

To be frank, it's easy to shout "archaeology of national importance" from the safety of the public gallery, but when you have to justify this in front of non-qualified and often hostile opponents and planning inspectors at an enquiry, you'd be surprised how easily such a defence can be dismantled - even on the most obviously significant of sites. I'm not a massive fan of EH as some of you may have guessed from my previous postings, but in this case, I think they deserve a certain amount of support and sympathy for the difficult position they are being placed in.

[mercenary]

Difficult position they have placed Themselves in. They seem to be the only archaeologists directly involved that are shouting archaeology of national importance.

[Grubby]

Whilst scheduling the site wont save it from ploughing it will save it from being quarried away surely? From what I have heard there is no right of appeal when a site is scheduled. Does any one know if that is right?

[AchingTrenchHeadAtADesk]

Sites can be de-scheduled.

[Grubby]

quote:Originally posted by AchingTrenchHeadAtADesk

Sites can be de-scheduled.

Yes but how often does that happen?

[archae_logical]

quote:Originally posted by Grubby

quote:Originally posted by AchingTrenchHeadAtADesk

Sites can be de-scheduled.

Yes but how often does that happen?

It all depends how much gravel it is sitting on or which big company wants to develop it or if its called Stonehenge. [:p]

E
being cynical again

[AchingTrenchHeadAtADesk]

For instance, if a site can be proved to be less important than initially thought then you could probably argue successfully with English Heritics or Histeric Scotland to de-schedule a site, or if the nature of a group of sites is realised to be more common than realised when first scheduled, then that also could lead to de-scheduling. Funnily enough, the only time I have been involved in a project where a site was de-scheduled was when working for a well known services company with lots of clout in the home office....nuff said.... actually, I've never seen either of the two bodies that protect our heritage take up against developers and show some true grit. Can anyone tell me otherwise?