Object

Representation ID: 98306

Received: 20/10/2019

Respondent: Mr JJ Gallagher

A Historical Objection To Quarrying In The Areas of AOS E and SIL 02
Please enter this letter as my historical objection to quarrying taking place in the areas of Area of Search (AOS) E and SIL 02 in the Preferred Consultation of the Mineral and Waste Local Plan (M&WLP) Review.
The Historic Environment Impact Assessment (HIEA) document states on page 3, "The prominent and elevated position of the gatehouse [Pentney Priory Gatehouse] means that it very difficult to mitigate the relatively severe setting impacts that extraction within SIL 02 and the north-eastern parts of AOS E would have on the significance of the designated heritage assets at Pentney Abbey." Note that it says within SIL 02 and not part of SIL 02. Therefore, why does the report go on to recommend the removal of the northeastern portion of SIL 02 out to 2 km distance to the east of the gatehouse, but to the south of the gatehouse it leaves the southern portion of SIL 02 after 1km distance from the gatehouse (see the map on page 28 of the report)? The view from Pentney Abbey Gatehouse to and from Spring Lane to the south is plain to see as it is for the view to the east-southeast of the gatehouse. You will know that 'The contribution that setting makes to the significance of the heritage asset does not depend on there being public rights or an ability to access or experience that setting.' (Historic England 2015); therefore, the recommendation concerning the view to the south is unsound. It should be reviewed and the southern portion of SIL 02 also removed for the same reasons as the northern and eastern area is recommended for removal.

The report is only concerned about heritage assets, i.e. buildings, monuments, structures, sites, places, areas or landscapes of historic and/or archaeological significance which are legally protected. The report does not mention the very real potential archaeological history in SIL 02 and AOS E. Both areas have had significant archaeological finds in the past and there is evidence of settlements from as early the Bronze Age. Shouldham Warren has the remnants of an ancient spring on its hill with a rhododendron avenue an important area for archaeological study. More recently the Warren was used for training soldiers in WW2 and the areas are preserved within the wood. Close by there have been finds of Roman pottery also suggesting a Roman settlement here including a potential Roman road. These would all be lost if quarrying were to occur in AOS E or SIL 02. AOS E and SIL 02 should be removed from the M&WLP immediately.

In summary, I object on historical grounds to quarrying in SIL 02 and AOS E for the following reasons:
● The historical setting of Pentney Priory Gatehouse is underplayed looking to the south towards Spring Lane. It is clearly viewed from there and is not afforded the same recommendation in the HIEA as the setting to the east-southeast. That is unsound and it should be changed to reflect the same recommendation to remove the area of SIL 02 to the south.
● The areas of SIL 02, AOS E and their surrounds are rich in evidence of the further potential of archaeological remnants that should be protected. To allow quarrying in these areas would destroy those artefacts. Quarrying is not performed by hand as it is at an archaeological dig site, so any claims by a mineral operator that they could spot something of archaeological importance and stop quarrying that area is an unrealistic claim of mitigation.