Henges: clear choice

I suspect such sentiments stem from imperfect appreciation of the true significance of the area including Thornborough Henges. English Heritage's assessment was "the most important prehistoric site between Stonehenge and the Orkneys". This puts Thornborough amongst Britain's premier cultural possessions, equal in its way with St Paul's and York Minster.

It is now beyond reasonable argument that the whole surrounding landscape, including the proposed Ladybridge site, is rich in archaeology. It contains hundreds of buried features, many of national importance. This was clear long before the current application was made, so should come as no surprise to anyone.

The landscape is vital to the cultural legacy of the henges. An application to quarry those areas is an intention to commit cultural vandalism on a grand scale. It is as severe as an intention to quarry the surroundings of Stonehenge.

I am a realist. Balances must be struck between heritage and progress.

We lose 30,000 heritage sites yearly, showing that society leans overwhelmingly towards progress. But occasionally, a site is of exceptional significance and a different outcome is essential.

Thornborough, along with St Paul's, York Minster and Stonehenge, is such a place. Northern England should take huge pride in it, protect it and save it for posterity.

Any adverse effect upon the 15 Tarmac employees and others is clearly regrettable, and must be mitigated by the company. But society must choose - there is no middle way. The destruction of this precious area would signal that nothing of our national heritage is worth preserving.

I cannot believe that the public in general, even those most affected, can truly believe that.

NIGEL SWIFT

Chairman, Heritage Action.

Wilden Lane,

Stourport.

Misleading

Sir, - I am extremely concerned about the misleading comments of correspondents who seek to defend Tarmac (Northern) Limited and that company's plans to destroy our heritage (D&S, Aug 6).

Tarmac owns the larger part of Thornborough Moor, including the central and southern henges, and has previously made public proposals to quarry this area.

However, the company now says that a planning application for the Moor has been deferred (D&S July 9). This is hardly justification for a claim that the area surrounding the henges is not under threat.

In the planning application for the current quarry, Tarmac's own archaeology consultant stated that the site was within the sacred landscape area of the henges. Professional opinion is that this also holds true for the Ladybridge area, but that same consultant and the county archaeologist are the only dissenting voices to be heard.

The proposition that the best long-term use of viable arable land is to replace it with large water-filled holes is laughable. The best long-term destruction of the land would be a far more accurate description.

Yes, as a result of Tarmac's quarrying, many archaeological remains have been discovered at their various quarry sites, but how little has been preserved and how much more has been lost forever? A visit to the web site of Tarmac's archaeology consultant provides a stark answer.

For fully consulted with local communities read told local communities what we are going to do. When attempts have been made to have questions asked at liaison meetings, either full answers have not been given, or the questions ignored completely. Likewise correspondence is ignored unless it is sent a second time, with a copy to a more senior member of the company. This includes correspondence which has been requested specifically.

We are told repeatedly that Tarmac is a responsible company. I would hope that these responsibilities extend to keeping its workforce briefed as to their future employment prospects. Tarmac has planning consent to extract minerals on the current quarry site only. Employees should therefore be well aware that the planning application to quarry at Ladybridge Farm has not been considered by North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC), let alone approved; unless of course they know something we do not.

I understand that the words "Where gravel exists it will be quarried" were heard issuing forth at a recent Thornborough Henges Working Group meeting.

P W YATES

Tarnside Barn

Nosterfield

Bedale

Gravel cash

Sir, - Having been involved in local history groups and recently moved into Thornborough village, I was fascinated by Jan Harding's talk on the henges. I have been watching the quarry with growing horror - knowing that so much of our past and the graves of our ancestors are being destroyed at such a clearly important site is extremely upsetting.

I am also at a loss to understand why the villages of Thornborough and Nosterfield have not had more financial support for the burden this quarry imposes on them. My understanding is that the money collected by the Aggregates Sustainability Tax paid by all gravel buyers was supposed to be used to help communities affected by quarrying. Neither of the villages has a village hall any more and neighbours have told me about the number of businesses that no longer exist.

I did a small calculation based on £1.50 a tonne which amounts to £750,000 per annum in tax from the gravel from Thornborough. Where has it gone? It certainly hasn't been used to help the local communities that I can see.

Tarmac claims that it cares for heritage. Not moving forward with plans for Thornborough Moor because it will be covered by English Heritage's conservation plan and yet pressing ahead with Ladybridge Farm that is also covered by the plan, is, I think, hypocritical.

Tarmac appears to treat archaeology as a public relations opportunity to sanitise quarrying. They would have us believe that quarrying saves archaeology.

However, the total destruction at Nosterfield Quarry speaks for itself.

When I met George Chaplin last year, I told him I was unconvinced that he would be able to help us. He said not to judge him by his words but by his actions and I have not been disappointed. I suggest we judge Tarmac on the same grounds.

E SWANN

Chapel Hill Cottages,

Thornborough.

Weekend flying

Sir, - You recently published a letter complaining about the weekend activity of the aircraft based at RAF Leeming and it occured to me, as a former member of the Royal Air Force, that the complainant is unaware that when one enlists it is with the express understanding that the only free time one is allowed is between 23.59 hrs and 00.01 hrs the following day, hence, if called upon, aircrew must be prepared to take to the air whenever they are so instructed.

However, there may soon be some alleviation of the complainant's problem

It has recently come to my knowledge that half the aircrew in 25 Squadron are members of the foxhunting fraternity and perhaps he should contact hunts in the neighbourhood requesting that they arrange more weekend meets during the season when the personnel concerned might seek compassionate leave to follow their chosen country sport.

I trust this suggestion goes some way to ease the mind of the gentleman concerned.

E D MORRIS

Crossbeck Road,

Northallerton