This webpage contains the TimeWatch case against quarrying at Ladybridge, for a PDF downloadable file (555kb) please right-click here. Ladybridge Farm, North Yorkshire – The case against quarrying.   This document outlines the TimeWatch case against the proposal for quarrying at Ladybridge Farm and is itemised under the following headings: 1. Introduction 2. General Planning Issues 3. The importance of Neolithic archaeology in the region 4. The importance of Thornborough Henges 5. The importance of the archaeology of Ladybridge 6. Summary and our submission This document has been prepared by TimeWatch.org. The images and text remain copyright controlled. The document can be freely shared in its original form (PDF), but permission must be sought from TimeWatch prior to publication of any part in any alternative format.   info@timewatch.org 1. Introduction Ladybridge Farm is a 109-acre field located some 4-500m to the north east of the central monuments of the Thornborough Henges, a prominent complex of prehistoric sites close to Ripon in North Yorkshire, England. A proposal for the extraction of gravel at the site has been made by Tarmac (Northern) Ltd.       This document has been prepared by TimeWatch in order to highlight the key planning and other issues which we see as relevant to the proposal and which form the basis of our opposition to it. 2. General Planning Issues. Under UK provisions any proposal for large scale development impacting upon the landscape is subject to a complex system of publicly administered controls. In general, the ability to grant permission for most developments is devolved from national government to local planning authorities – in this case, North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC). Planning policy guidelines laying out desired practice have been specified. These cover matters such as the protection of the environment and ancient sites. Further specific mineral planning guidelines have been created in respect of applications to quarry for sand and gravel. These documents are administered by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and are then adopted by the regional planning authority within their own planning policy documents. For gravel quarries in North Yorkshire, the main policy guidelines are set down in the Minerals Local Plan. This is a primary source of guidance for planning officers and attempts to ensure that the correct amount of minerals are available to industry whilst avoiding overproduction to ensure maximum future sustainability. The plan attempts to do this whilst minimising any adverse environmental impacts to the local area. Each Minerals local plan attempts to control gravel production for a rolling ten-year period. The current NYCC Minerals Local Plan was adopted in 1997 and contains a number of policies relevant to the impending decision as follows: “5.2.5 The Yorkshire and Humber side Regional Planning Conference commended a reduction in the North Yorkshire sand and gravel apportionment by 22% per year, taking sand and gravel output from 2.7 Million Tonnes per year to 2.12 million Tonnes. North Yorkshire was required to ensure a landbank for future extraction of seven years was available, equating to 14.91 Million Tonnes.” The first question facing the planning committee is whether there is a need for the resource. The target for North Yorkshire has been set at just over 2 million tonnes per annum. Whilst figures for recent years are unavailable, the Aggregates Regional Working Party Annual Review published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister shows that actual gravel production in North Yorkshire since 1997 has been an average of 2.6 million tonnes per annum. Given this information, the output of the proposed Ladybridge quarry at 550 thousand tonnes per annum would appear to be surplus to requirements. However, within the minerals local plan there are additional clauses under which the application could still be considered: “Policy 3/2 In order to maintain landbanks of permitted reserves, proposals for aggregates mineral working in Preferred Areas will be regarded as acceptable in principle.” “Policy 3/3 Planning permission will be given for aggregate mineral working within Areas of Search where the Mineral Planning Authority is satisfied that sufficient mineral cannot be obtained from the Preferred Areas.” Thus, in order to achieve its extraction targets, the Minerals Local Plan identifies preferred areas for gravel extraction as well as preferred areas of search in case a Preferred Area should fall short of expectations. However, Ladybridge is neither within a Preferred Area nor a Preferred Area of Search and therefore does not fall within the scope of either of those clauses. Consequently, the following policy statement applies: “3.2.8 Having identified Preferred Areas and Areas of Search for future aggregate working, it follows that new aggregate mineral workings outside these areas would be contrary to policy.” This indicates that the planning authorities initial stance regarding Ladybridge is that the proposal is neither desired nor fitting with council policy. It is therefore up to the developer to show that special circumstances warrant the granting of the application: “3.2.8 Any planning permission for such development would need to be justified by other material considerations as required by Section 54A of the 1990 act. Such considerations might include compelling unforeseen need for the mineral, which cannot be met elsewhere; the creation of such environmental, economic or other benefit as to justify substituting an allocated site; or minor adjustments to boundaries causing no significant policy conflict. In practice the circumstances where a proposal outside a Preferred Area or Area of Search would be more acceptable than one within is likely to be rare.” As to this, our submission is as follows: The Ladybridge application, at more than 100 acres, cannot be seen as a minor boundary adjustment and appears to cause a policy conflict. There have been no announcements of unforeseen need for gravel – on the contrary, thanks to recycling and the use of alternatives the Council for the Protection of Rural England and DEFRA recently indicated that North Yorkshires demand for gravel is in decline. The policy wording “the creation of such environmental, economic or other benefit as to justify substituting an allocated site” would appear to be equally against the granting of permission since substitution of an allocated site implies withdrawing permissions granted elsewhere. Furthermore, whilst the Ladybridge application delivers certain environmental benefits, i.e. the creation of nature reserves by means of flooding the workings, identical reserves have already been created at a number of other quarry sites in the area. We contend therefore that the environmental benefit is by no means an absolute since it comprises more of the same. Against this, the negative environmental impact is an absolute since the archaeological context of the Henges is unique and irreplaceable. In simple terms therefore we suggest that this is not a choice between “archaeology and agriculture versus birds” but about “archaeology and agriculture versus still more birds”. We support nature conservation but contend that there can be only one rational preference in this instance. Environmental Impacts “Policy 4/2: Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land - Mining operations on the best and most versatile agricultural land will only be permitted where provision is made for a high standard of restoration, such that either an agricultural after-use can be achieved or the future potential for agricultural use is safeguarded.” Ladybridge farm is classed as good quality agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 & 3a in the MAFF Agricultural Land Classification System). Land of this type is regarded as a national resource to be protected from irreversible loss. Since the application implies destroying this type of land and leaving it as quarry lakes it must be regarded as contrary to this policy in addition to the fact it would seriously impact on the sustainability of local farms. Further, the gravel in this area, unlike many other deposits, is of very limited depth. Hence, a much higher acreage of quarrying is required in order to obtain any given quantity of gravel. Gravel in this location therefore comes at a higher cost in lost agricultural land per ton of gravel than elsewhere. Thus, the previous quarry at Nosterfield delivered 500,000 tonnes for every ten acres quarried. At Ladybridge more than twice this area of land will need to be quarried to deliver that amount of gravel. We consider that this “disproportionate cost” to society is a crucial matter and the application should be weighed accordingly. Policy 4/8 - Archaeological Sites -Proposals for mining operations and the associated depositing of mineral waste which would have an unacceptable effect on nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, will not be permitted. The Mineral Planning Authority will seek to preserve, in-situ or by record, other sites of regional, county or local importance, as appropriate to their archaeological interest, in making decisions on planning applications. This policy requires a value judgement to be made – nationally important remains must be preserved in-situ, not quarried, but how is the archaeology to be measured? The next Section outlines the landscape and historical context of Ladybridge and then the nature of the archaeology on the site allowing its value to be judged in the proper context. 3. The importance of Neolithic archaeology in the region   The Devil’s Arrows, Boroughbridge. The Vale of Mowbray is a place of unique importance in Britain during the Neolithic period. Just over 5,000 years ago, at the end of the Stone Age, society in Britain was undergoing a dramatic change; a widespread transformation was taking place that many archaeologists regard as the founding of modern society. For most of the Stone Age (the period before the discovery of metal) the people of Britain were “hunter-gatherers”; the population was composed mainly of highly mobile family units that tended to follow a nomadic existence as they moved to areas rich in food depending on the seasons. But at the very end of the Stone Age, during the Neolithic period a new form of society based on a settled agrarian lifestyle emerged and quickly became the dominant way of life. To enable this dramatic departure from the previous lifestyle, a wide range of new technologies had to be developed, in many ways this was a time of innovation-based social revolution. Newfound skills of land clearance, better tool making, raising, harvesting and storing crops, animal husbandry and pottery meant that Britain was undergoing a physical and intellectual transformation. A landscape of mainly forest was turning into one of open field and the complexity of life was expanding greatly. The widespread move to a settled existence brought a requirement for other forms of social interaction, including the first signs of extensive trade across the British Isles, with significant communication networks having been established together with commensurate widespread social rules allowing safe passage through what we think of as tribal territories. It is possible that these communication links allowed for the exchange of ideas related to forms of communal religion, for as far as is known, this is the time when the first large scale communal religious monuments were created. The first large scale monuments, probably of a religious nature, were cursuses - very large cigar shaped enclosures, up to 500m or more by 40m wide. They have been described as ceremonial causeways although their exact use has not yet been established. They were constructed by first clearing the land, then constructing a ditch and outer bank to create an enclosed space. They are probably the most enigmatic monuments we have, as well as the largest and earliest. Surrounding most of them are clear signs that they were the scenes of ritual – they are certainly known to have served as focuses for burials and burial mounds. Throughout Britain a total of only about 80 cursuses are known, although many have been severely damaged or obliterated. By 3,000 BC additional, different monuments had proliferated throughout the British Isles, and cursuses were no longer the main ceremonial centres. Stonehenge in Wiltshire, the earlier earth henge (90m dia.) had Stone circles added several hundred years later. Circular “henges” were created in a similar way to the earlier monuments, but were of a more sophisticated design with an inner ditch and outer earth bank, additional wooden structures and multiple entrances. In all c.200 henges have been found in Britain, spreading from Lands End to John O’Groats though typically each retains its own unique characteristics. Whilst the majority of henges were quite small, some henges were built on a massive scale, with the largest being Durrington Walls in Wiltshire close to Stonehenge, this is 500m in diameter. These henges were the focus of ritual activity for more than 1,000 years. Over time, they were adapted and restructured; avenues were added and in some cases stone circles and rows. In some places, particularly where the larger “super henges” (more than 100m diameter) are located, there are found collections of grand monuments – these are known as ancient monument complexes, and the best known example is Stonehenge in Wiltshire. Stonehenge is the second largest ancient monument complex in the British Isles and exhibits similar characteristics to the majority of complexes of this type. It has a single “super Henge” - Durrington Walls, a number of smaller henges as well as avenues, and cursus monuments. Stonehenge monument complex – lesser monuments omitted. As far as we know, the Stonehenge monument complex began life when the two cursus monuments were built around 3,500BC. The Greater Cursus enclosing almost two miles of Salisbury Plain. Later in 3,200BC the original earthen henge was dug at Stonehenge, the other henges followed and this henge building culminated in 2,900BC with the building of Durrington Walls henge. Within a few hundred years, major monument building at the complex was coming to a close as the stones and the Avenue were added to the henge at Stonehenge. Stonehenge, like most of the ancient monument complexes in Britain, such as Avebury (Wiltshire) or Knowlton (Dorset) appears to have grown from relatively small beginnings, it was a development that lasted more than 2,000 years and ultimately created the second largest ancient religious monument complex ever created in Britain. Yet it was built at a time when population estimates for Britain vary from just 100,000 to a maximum of 400,000 people. There is however one larger ancient monument complex, one that appears to have had a very different development than most of the complexes created during the period – The Vale of Mowbray ancient monument complex in North Yorkshire. It stretches for more than 20 miles and contains no less than seven super henges – Britain’s largest concentration of such structures. Perhaps most extraordinarily, six of these henges are virtually identical. Like Stonehenge, the Vale of Mowbray ancient monument complex started from relatively humble beginnings. During c.3,500 BC two large cursuses were built, one at Thornborough and the other at Scorton, close to Catterick. It is significant that it is around this time that evidence emerges of the development of major trading involving highly polished stone axes – symbols of power and status. Large quantities of these were distributed along probable trade routes stretching hundreds of miles. The axes came from very specific axe “factories”, mainly located high up on mountains or cliffs and many appear to have moved in a distinctly westerly direction. The greatest of all stone axe factories in terms of numbers created were on the slopes of Scafell Pike in the Lake District. The vast majority of the axes appear to have travelled to the Humber Estuary, many by way of The Vale of Mowbray via the River Ure. This trading may well have affected the next phase of development of the monument complex, since this differs from that seen elsewhere. Instead of a gradual development of monuments over time we have the construction of at least five massive henges in a single phase. These are located at Hutton Moor, Cana Barn and three at Thornborough. These original henges were approx. 300m in diameter and created the largest ritual complex in Britain. The next phase of construction saw an even greater effort expended on the complex. Perhaps three hundred years after the five henges had been created, all five were completely refurbished; the outer bank of the henge was flattened and its earth used to build a new inner bank (within the old inner ditch circle, making it an outer ditch). Next an entirely new inner ditch was built. These new henges where again identical, being 240m in diameter and were much grander creations – the ditch deeper and wider, the bank taller and wider. There is even evidence to suggest they were plastered with Gypsum. At the same time, a new henge was built at Nunwick between Thornborough and Boroughbridge. Again this henge shared the same dimensions as the other five henges, this stage was the largest construction project undertaken in Neolithic Britain, it used more manpower and covered a far greater area than any other monument complex of the period. At some stage a seventh 100m dia. henge was added to the complex, at Catterick. The precise date and order in the sequence of building is unknown but this henge completes one of two linear alignments of monuments that can be seen in the Vale, one running from Boroughbridge to Catterick, the other from Boroughbridge to Thornborough. This is another unique aspect to the Vale of Mowbray monument complex, something that together with the perfectly circular identical henges creates a feat of engineering that rival’s aspects of Roman construction some 3,000 years later. The Vale of Mowbray monument complex is one of Britain’s grandest and most unique ancient landscapes. Like Stonehenge, its development continued into the Bronze Age when avenues and the famous Devil’s Arrows stone row were added. Recent evidence also suggests that the complex was in use for ritual purposes right up to the Roman invasion of Britain in AD43. 4. The importance of Thornborough Henges The Vale of Mowbray is acknowledged to be a truly remarkable ancient monument complex, one that rivals and perhaps eclipses others in Britain. It is increasingly recognised as being of world significance. At the heart of the complex is its greatest site – the Thornborough Henges. This has become internationally famous due to its massive size and unique place in world heritage. Its importance is further emphasized by the poor state of most of the other monuments of the complex: There are only two cursuses in North Yorkshire, both in the Vale of Mowbray complex – the most impressive was at Scorton – this has almost entirely been quarried away and is currently a landfill site. The second and last remaining cursus is at Thornborough – unfortunately half of its length has also been quarried away and it too is the location for a landfill site. Thus, 75% of North Yorkshires oldest and most enigmatic ancient monuments have been lost to quarries in the last fifty years alone. Post war ploughing has also taken its toll - Nunwick and Cana Barn henges have been all but flattened by plough action, a process that continues to this day. Catterick henge was first cut in two by the Romans when they built Dere St through its centre, later it was flattened for a racecourse and most recently half has been quarried along with a significant portion of its ritual landscape. It is ironic that much of this site is now being filled with recycled aggregate, less than ten years after it was restored as a nature reserve. The only structures that remain upstanding to any degree are Hutton Moor Henge, Devils Arrows stone row, and the Thornborough henges. Seen in this context, it is clearly vital that we preserve at least one monument of this outstanding complex and Thornborough Henges and its surroundings must surely be it. Not only is Thornborough potentially Britain’s largest ancient ritual site; the three henges that give this site its name are simply the most visible of an extensive collection of remains that form a complex that is more than one mile square in extent. Nosterfield quarry, major archaeological features Until recently, the landscape around Thornborough was known to contain only a handful of monuments. Within the application to quarry to the north of Nosterfield in 1994, the accepted assumption was that whilst the site lay within the “ritual landscape” of the Thornborough Henges the area was likely to contain little archaeology “even of local significance”. The ritual landscape of the Thornborough Henges. In the event, the archaeological watching brief for Nosterfield quarry revealed that the area contained large amounts of nationally significant archaeology, and in Tarmac’s own words “ Given their proximity to the henges, their significance is greatly increased.” This discovery provided significant evidence that the ritual landscape of the henges was filled with archaeological evidence of those that had visited the henges in prehistoric times – evidence that does not exist within the henges themselves. This provided archaeologists with a tantalising glimpse of the ritual landscape of major henges. It showed an extensive and long-term pattern of usage relating to the henges – burials, settlements, pit alignments and places where rituals were carried out covering a period much longer than had previously been considered. Unfortunately, the nature of the funding provided for the watching brief means that a great many features were lost to quarrying without having been fully (100%) investigated and both our knowledge and the potential for future investigation have been seriously limited. At the same time, English Heritage, who has called Thornborough “The most important ancient site between Stonehenge and the Orkneys”, funded Newcastle University to perform an extensive analysis of the ritual landscape of the Thornborough Henges ancient monument complex. This data, combined with that from the quarry and those features already known shows that Thornborough is a very extensive site, and just as with modern field-based festivals, those attending needed places to eat and sleep, as well as the burial grounds and ritual locations normally associated with such complexes. It is therefore a matter for extreme regret that so much of this complex has been quarried in earlier years when there was no requirement to record the archaeology. Despite all this, Thornborough has some of the best-preserved ancient monuments in the country. The Northern Henge is known as Britain’s best-preserved henge, and the central henge is not too far behind – possibly being Britain’s fourth best-preserved henge. The rest of the complex, whilst mainly lying hidden below ground is no less important as it contains the settlements, burial grounds and ritual sites of those that built and attended events at the henges. As such, the Thornborough complex provides a unique record of Britain’s largest sacred space from the Neolithic period. These surrounding features, connected with such a large and important complex are in themselves extremely rare, the sort of features that current planning guidance requires be preserved in-situ, along with their setting, regardless of their state of preservation. 5. The importance of the archaeology of Ladybridge Having established that the landscape surrounding the Thornborough Henges has a high likelihood of containing nationally important archaeology, the question that must be answered is whether the area that is subject to the current planning application – Ladybridge Farm - contains similarly important remains. For the best indication as to the likelihood of important archaeology on this little known site, it is best to first look at any archaeology discovered in adjacent fields. Excavation and field-walking evidence – Ladybridge and Nosterfield Quarry east. In the immediate vicinity of the south western edge of Ladybridge, in 1994, Tarmac’s archaeologists discovered an area they described as the largest collection of Neolithic features of this type so far found in the north of England. What they had discovered was a short term Neolithic camp. The main features (in green) were 70 “refuse” pits and nine hearths (for cooking). Dr Jan Harding of Newcastle University, combining this information with his own research has described Ladybridge as “the site of a major area of later Neolithic occupation”. The location and excavation by Tarmac of up to seven Neolithic features on Ladybridge provides definitive knowledge that this Neolithic settlement extends onto a large portion of the application site. It is important to note that Tarmac’s evaluation of Ladybridge has been insufficient to properly understand the true extent of the archaeology on the site. It should also be noted that most evaluation techniques such as geophysics and trial trenching have proven highly unsatisfactory at Nosterfield – less than 5% of the revealed features were forecast by archaeologists, eventually all evaluation techniques were abandoned in favour of total area soil stripping. It is therefore either extremely good fortune that so many features have been found at Ladybridge or else the feature density is even greater than so far found on Nosterfield quarry. 6. Summary and our Submission Ladybridge is neither a Preferred Area nor Preferred Search Area for mineral extraction within North Yorkshires Minerals Local Plan. This means that the council must hold a negative view towards the application unless the developer can persuade them that significant benefits will be forthcoming as a result of the development. Tarmac Northern Ltd may argue that the sand and gravel is needed but the fact remains that other places have already been identified as suitable for gravel extraction and North Yorkshire has consistently overproduced gravel since the Minerals Local Plan was adopted in 1997. To allow this proposal will continue this significant deviation from the plan and would throw North Yorkshire’s Mineral Local Plan into disarray. Furthermore, this application will result in the loss of a significant portion of good quality farmland – more than would occur should the extraction be located within reserves of greater depth elsewhere. In addition, archaeological deposits that have great potential for national importance are located over a widespread area of the proposed development, the loss of two such sites within Nosterfield Quarry and unknown quantities in the other quarried out areas make these remains all the more valuable and important to preserve in-situ. It is therefore our earnest wish that the planning authority refuses this application.