Register here - as a registered user you get more features and fewer ads.
Open minutes of the 29th meeting held at 10:30am on Wednesday 9 May 2007 at The Renaissance Chancery Court Hotel, London WC1
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/EHAC_May_07_open_minutes.pdf
Agreement had been reached on proposals to extract gravel at
Ladybridge Farm, between English Heritage, North Yorkshire County
Council and Tarmac Ltd. EH had withdrawn its original objection on
the grounds that the nationally important archaeology at Ladybridge
Farm was excluded from revised development proposals. Planning
permission was granted in January 2007 and a Section 106 agreement
between Tarmac, the landowner and North Yorkshire County Council was
agreed in April.
The 106 agreement has secured a full archaeological
mitigation and publication strategy and the development of a long
term management agreement for the area of excluded nationally
important archaeology. EH staff are now working with North Yorkshire
County Council, Tarmac and other key stakeholders on the development
of a wider vision and management strategy for the Henges and their
landscape.
George adds:
In otherwords, following the defeat of their previous planning
application, Tarmac and English Heritage got together behind closed
doors and without the involvement of any local campaigners.
Following that meeting English Heritage made the following u-turns:
1. They decided that a 2% survey of the site was now satisfactory,
having objected earlier that a survey of 8-10 was the minimum
required for a Neolithic/Bronze Age site. Industry guidelines state 8-
10% and a 2% survey carried out on exactly the same archaeological
profile (50m away) having prevously proven to totally miss "the
largest concentration of Neolithic features of this type so far
discovered in the north of England).
To help EH with their u-turn Tarmac agreed to sample a further 4% of
the site, but only within the area they knew they were going to
exclude from the quarry application.
2. Despite having argued previously that archaeological sites of
national importance such as that found on Ladybridge had to have
their setting preserved, English Heritage then decided that the site
of Ladybridge needed no setting other than a boundary.
3. Having agreed with Tarmac that the area to the north was
waterlogged during the Neolithic Period, English Heritage then
ignored the substantial and now widely acknowledged evidence that
during the Neolithic and Bronze Ages watery sites were the target for
ritual activity. They decided to agree with Tarmac that the water
meant there would be no archaeology on the rest of the site.
4. All of this was done without any form of consultation with local
people or campaign groups.
5. This u-turn was critical and instrumental in getting the planning
permission granted. Without it, the application would have been
rejected.
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road