JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH Archives

BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH  March 2008

BRITARCH March 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Temporary respite for Thornborough Henges

From:

Mark Horton <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

British archaeology discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:53:08 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (176 lines)

If indeed Neolithic pits have been found in the 2/3rds of the site  
that was supposedly under water in the Neolithic, this does rather  
call into question the whole 'deal' that was concluded behind the  
scenes between Tarmac EH NYCC and inter alia, the CBA, that led to  
the planning permission in the first place. It is quite clear that  
that there is a window of opportunity to object again, and lets hope  
that we can put up a rather better show than last time!

Mark


On 7 Mar 2008, at 12:50, George Chaplin wrote:

> Well word has it NYCC would have liked this to have slipped under  
> the radar
> so that the application can be passed without further stress.
>
> However, I'm beginning to wonder if the material circumstances  
> regarding the
> application have not changed:
>
> (Bearing in mind, there's very little information available to me)
>
> You will recall that the original planning application was rejected  
> because
> nationally important archaeology was found in the south west corner  
> of the
> proposed quarry site. At that time TimeWatch raised additional  
> concerns that
> the 2% of the land area surveyed was innadequate to properly  
> understand the
> nature of the archaeology at Ladybridge.
>
> Tarmac then chose to perform an additional evaluation, critically,  
> they
> decided that what had been found was the last of the Neolithic  
> archaeology
> on the site as (they claimed) the rest of the site would have been  
> under
> water during that period. They concentrated the additional  
> archaeology on
> finding the edge of the archaeological remains so far discovered.  
> Following
> this second evaluation, Tarmac, EH and NYCC all agreed that no further
> archaeology would be found to the north east of the proposed  
> boundary, and
> after excluding the south west corner of Ladybridge, with no serious
> objections from EH etc, and little mention of the petition or past
> objections as being relevent, the application was granted.
>
> However, during the initial archaeology on Ladybridge following the  
> granting
> of planning permission, I beleive the areas that would have been  
> deepest
> under water seem to have turned up yet more Neolithic settlement pits!
>
> Therefore it is clear that the assumptions proposed by Tarmac's
> archaeologists and accepted by EH and NYCC were wrong, and Tarmac have
> proved this.
>
> Given that it was on archaeological grounds that the original  
> application
> was refused, surely this is a most significant change to the  
> circumstances
> of the application, one that should warrant the submission of a  
> revised
> Environmental Impact Assessment surely?
>
> But then, as we all know, only a significant number of informed  
> objections
> will have any impact on this process; injustice, undermining rules  
> etc. is
> allowed so long as no-one notices and I bet there's a lot of tight  
> lips
> about this one.
>
> It is such a shame no high profile person is willing to stand up for
> Britain's heritage. At this stage in the game, the publicity could  
> make all
> the difference.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: British archaeology discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Wood
> Sent: 07 March 2008 11:39
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Temporary respite for Thornborough Henges
>
>
> I couldn't have put it better, well not much more!
>
>   Great stuff!
>
> Mark Horton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>   Well done the friends of Thornborough! Rather more effective than
> some of our better known archaeological organisations.
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 6 Mar 2008, at 14:50, George Chaplin wrote:
>
>> Temporary respite for Thornborough Henges as planning permission is
>> revoked:
>>
>> From todays Northern Echo
>>
>> PLANS for a controversial quarry extension near an ancient monument
>> site have been thrown into disarray following a legal challenge.
>>
>> Tarmac Northern won planning permission in January last year from
>> North Yorkshire County Council to extract 1.1 million tonnes of sand
>> and gravel over eight years from land at Ladybridge Farm, between
>> Bedale and Ripon, half a mile from the nearest of three Bronze Age
>> earthwork henges on Thornborough Moor.
>>
>> Tarmac said the unanimous decision would ensure the future of 15
>> full-time quarry workers and 40 hauliers at the neighbouring
>> Nosterfield quarry, where reserves are almost exhausted.
>>
>> The henges, described as the Stonehenge of the North, have legal
>> protection as a scheduled ancient monument, but worried campaigners
>> who organised a 10,000-name petition said that the formal decision
>> notice was not issued until October following completion of a  
>> detailed
>> agreement with Tarmac covering conditions attached to the permission.
>> their surroundings, including Ladybridge, must be protected from the
>> effects of further quarrying.
>>
>> A spokeswoman for pressure group Friends of Thornborough said it
>> challenged the decision in the name of one of its members. However,
>> council lawyers have now confirmed it should be quashed following a
>> legal challenge on eight grounds concerning the handling of the
>> planning application. The issue is expected to be reconsidered by the
>> committee at Masham Town Hall, on April 22. She said: "A number of
>> faults were identified in the way the county council made their
>> decision. They agree they have got it wrong on three counts and have
>> agreed to the quashing of the decision through the judicial review
>> procedure. "There are still five grounds outstanding which remain to
>> be challenged and, on that score, they should be extremely careful
>> when they take their decision at the meeting due to take place on
>> April 22."
>>
>> Gordon Gresty, the council's director of business and environmental
>> services, said: "This development has had a contentious history and
>> the legal challenge needs to be seen against the background of the
>> wide range of issues the committee took into account when it made its
>> decision.
>> "Those issues were properly and comprehensively considered.""Those i
>> in order to avoid further legal proceedings, we have agreed to the
>> quashing of the present planning approval and it would be our
>> intention to take the issue back to the committee in the future."
>>
>> Some preliminary work has been done at Ladybridge, but mineral
>> extraction has not started.
>>
>> A Tarmac spokesman said: "We understand that following legal
>> submissions, the planning consent is no longer in effect."We hope  
>> that
>> a corrected report will be placed before the committee at the  
>> earliest
>> opportunity. Meanwhile, we have stopped work at the Ladybridge site."
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> The World &#39;s Favourite Email.
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.6/1317 - Release Date:  
> 07/03/2008
> 08:15

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager