As suggested in IndyMedia last month, Tarmac Northern Ltd have been able to persuade English Heritage that corporate profit is more important that Britain's heritage. English Heritage have caved in on their insistence for a proper investigation and now only wish to see minimal investigation to avoid a total loss of face.
Thornborough Henges
Heritage Watchdog performs obedient u-turn for the corporate lobby.
Last month I reported that Tarmac Northern Ltd had applied for a delay in their application to quarry Ladybridge Farm in order that they could “perform further investigations” regarding the archaeology found on the site.
Ladybridge farm sits within one of Britain’s largest and most important ancient monument complexes, the Thornborough Henges and the archaeology on the site is of national importance and should not be quarried.
Tarmac asked for this delay due to the strong likelihood that the application would be turned down due to English Heritage’s strong rejection of the application due to the adverse impact on national heritage.
English Heritage objected to the application because the 2% survey performed by Tarmac was insufficient to locate all the archaeology on the site. Given this, and since Tarmac’s investigations did locate a number of Neolithic features English Heritage chose to regard the entire site as nationally important unless further work was done to prove the full extent of all archaeology on the site.
Readers may remember that I suggested in my previous article that Tarmac’s aim was not to ensure all archaeology was found and understood, but to stop English Heritage from causing them problems. It looks like they have succeeded.
Following Tarmac’s discussions with English Heritage, a new programme of investigation is being carried out at Ladybridge, but it looks like English Heritage have already accepted that Tarmac can quarry most of the site without performing any additional investigations!
So how can a public body perform such a u-turn without losing face? Simple, they have agreed a fudged programme of work, on the surface this appears to be an extensive programme of investigation but in reality more than 70% of the site will see no additional work and the implication is that only the little archaeology found so far is all that can be expected. In other words, English Heritage have accepted that they were wrong – there is no need to perform an 8-10% assessment of the site, the 2% will do.
So how does this affect Tarmac’s application? It is likely that around 15% of Ladybridge will be set aside by Tarmac, not to be quarried and this will be painted as a major step forward that should be acceptable to everyone. Any archaeology found in the areas to be quarried will be destroyed regardless of it’s importance and English Heritage will keep very quiet about this, as they do on all the quarry sites where this happens. They may have the right to schedule newly found archaeology but they never do this for fear of upsetting the developer.
Many will suggest that the archaeology is not the only aspect of the application that stands against Tarmac and this is true – it’s not actually the most important breach of council policy – the application will cause an overproduction of gravel and is not in any preferred areas set out within the councils Minerals Plan – these are far more important to the council as they fundamentally affect the validity of that plan.
However, I would suggest that if the council were really minded to implement the Mineral Plan then this delay would not have been granted – for these are issues so fundamental they are extremely strong grounds for rejection regardless of the situation regarding the archaeology.
Unless there is a major public outcry, expect this application to be granted, and once it is granted do not expect any site visits from North Yorkshire County officials or English Heritage to see that the terms of the application are adhered to.
Yet another piece of Britain’s heritage destroyed, yet another case of the corporate wielding far too much power and our “watchdogs” scampering for cover.
Do you want to be a part of the public outcry? Why not sign the petition?
http://www.petitiononline.com/TimeW1/petition.html
Why not spend a day getting your friends to sign? Why not visit the wwwtimewatch.org website and see how else you can help?
This battle should be very winnable – the application fails at least five council policies. But as always, if we let it slip under the counter we only have ourselves to blame.
Last month I reported that Tarmac Northern Ltd had applied for a delay in their application to quarry Ladybridge Farm in order that they could “perform further investigations” regarding the archaeology found on the site.
Ladybridge farm sits within one of Britain’s largest and most important ancient monument complexes, the Thornborough Henges and the archaeology on the site is of national importance and should not be quarried.
Tarmac asked for this delay due to the strong likelihood that the application would be turned down due to English Heritage’s strong rejection of the application due to the adverse impact on national heritage.
English Heritage objected to the application because the 2% survey performed by Tarmac was insufficient to locate all the archaeology on the site. Given this, and since Tarmac’s investigations did locate a number of Neolithic features English Heritage chose to regard the entire site as nationally important unless further work was done to prove the full extent of all archaeology on the site.
Readers may remember that I suggested in my previous article that Tarmac’s aim was not to ensure all archaeology was found and understood, but to stop English Heritage from causing them problems. It looks like they have succeeded.
Following Tarmac’s discussions with English Heritage, a new programme of investigation is being carried out at Ladybridge, but it looks like English Heritage have already accepted that Tarmac can quarry most of the site without performing any additional investigations!
So how can a public body perform such a u-turn without losing face? Simple, they have agreed a fudged programme of work, on the surface this appears to be an extensive programme of investigation but in reality more than 70% of the site will see no additional work and the implication is that only the little archaeology found so far is all that can be expected. In other words, English Heritage have accepted that they were wrong – there is no need to perform an 8-10% assessment of the site, the 2% will do.
So how does this affect Tarmac’s application? It is likely that around 15% of Ladybridge will be set aside by Tarmac, not to be quarried and this will be painted as a major step forward that should be acceptable to everyone. Any archaeology found in the areas to be quarried will be destroyed regardless of it’s importance and English Heritage will keep very quiet about this, as they do on all the quarry sites where this happens. They may have the right to schedule newly found archaeology but they never do this for fear of upsetting the developer.
Many will suggest that the archaeology is not the only aspect of the application that stands against Tarmac and this is true – it’s not actually the most important breach of council policy – the application will cause an overproduction of gravel and is not in any preferred areas set out within the councils Minerals Plan – these are far more important to the council as they fundamentally affect the validity of that plan.
However, I would suggest that if the council were really minded to implement the Mineral Plan then this delay would not have been granted – for these are issues so fundamental they are extremely strong grounds for rejection regardless of the situation regarding the archaeology.
Unless there is a major public outcry, expect this application to be granted, and once it is granted do not expect any site visits from North Yorkshire County officials or English Heritage to see that the terms of the application are adhered to.
Yet another piece of Britain’s heritage destroyed, yet another case of the corporate wielding far too much power and our “watchdogs” scampering for cover.
Do you want to be a part of the public outcry? Why not sign the petition?
http://www.petitiononline.com/TimeW1/petition.html Why not spend a day getting your friends to sign? Why not visit the wwwtimewatch.org website and see how else you can help?
This battle should be very winnable – the application fails at least five council policies. But as always, if we let it slip under the counter we only have ourselves to blame.
Comments
Hide the following 7 comments
Am I bothered?
31.10.2005 14:40
I've got Stonehenge and Avebury, who needs Thornborough?
Heritage buff
Tch Tch
01.11.2005 08:14
Incidentally, the name is a bit of a giveaway but I think you'll find that English Heritage is NOT the UK's heritage agency.
Architect
Doh!
01.11.2005 12:49
Architect: English Heritage has statutory powers invested in it by Mr Prescott to be in charge of all things relating to heritage including prosecutions. It is frightening that as an architect you do not know this.
However, could you imagine a policeman saying to a burglar arrested in your house "That is ok, I will not nick you" or an RSPCA inspector saying you can torture a cat and they will not prosecute; because that is exactly what is happening to the heritage of the British Isles.
Dr Thurley who is in charge of EH did not get where he is today by defending heritage but by shameless self-promotion, never fighting a development backed by the government and by concentrating heritage resources on posh people in big old houses.
English Heritage has done next to nothing to protect the heritage of Britain in the last 20 years; it merely provides a fig-leaf for politicians to hide behind. Mr Prescott will simply "take" EH's advice and remove the scheduled status.
The sooner we get rid of EH and establish a proper archaeological authority with teeth and committed to the protection of Britain's archaeological, cultural and historical assets the better.
Good luck with the campaign guys!
Cecil Carter
Oh Cecil!
01.11.2005 13:44
I know all about EH; I'm accredited on the AABC register and work extensively throughout England on a range of heritage projects. Trust me, though, they are by definition not the UK's heritage watchdog - well, not unless you're daft enough to think that England IS the UK!
I put it to you that EH have time and time again shown a willingness to go up against developers of all persuasions where there are serious issues about the protection of the built (and archaeological heritage). Any of us who deal with them know how difficult they can be.
However such an issue is academic because what matters here is the actual archaeological value of the site - and to reach a decision on whether the decision is wrong, we need to have sight of the archaeological report. Shouldn't be hard, as it would be covered by FoI once it was submitted to EH. So can anyone get a copy?
Architect
Double Doh!
01.11.2005 16:54
May be you are a 'good' architect but many developers will bend and break every rule in the book and EH will not even so much as whimper. I have seen case after case that are reported to EH that are not followed up and that should lead to prosecutions. I cannot see why architects or developers or land-owners should be able to break the law with impunity, but that is what is happening more and more frequently under New Labour.
Developers and architects have more lobbying power with New Labour than archaeologist do.
The basic wage for a qualified archaeologist in Central London £11 000 a year, assuming you work all year which you cannot. How much are you on architect?
Visit any architecture department and any archaeology department at any university where both exist and see who has the better facilities and bigger budget.
Britain has some of the weakest heritage legislation in the EU and New Labour have failed to fulfill its commitments to even EU heritage legislation that it has ratified.
Most of the new building in the UK is in the SE of England. Although Scotland and Wales have their own bodies EH is the authority empowered in England, as such they have the biggest area, the best preserved arcaheology, the largest amount of development and no nationalist lobby to highlight 'national' heritage.
Cecil Carter
Oh Carter
03.11.2005 22:54
More innacuracies than a government press statement. As soon as I get the knackered power unit on my own PC replaced I'll post a decent reply.
Architect
Nosterfield / Ladybridge Link
07.11.2005 14:28
The results of the ongoing investigation at Ladybridge can be viewed via:
Guy Hopkinson