"But, how do English Heritage interpret setting? Is it hundreds of meters or nothing at all, which I think Tarmac will suggest - purely the land holding the archaeology."

As I think I've mentioned before, in the minutes of EH's meeting a year or two ago there is a clear record in the discussion about Thornborough of the Commission specifically directing that their officials should develop a viable definition of setting. If they have done so, it's there for the asking.

Even if it's a work in hand I would contend that such an important definition should be arrived at by reference to ALL ancient sites, not just one, since it will in future be of universal significance and could affect hundreds of heritage matters. In addition, such an important matter should be open for all to comment upon I suppose but the greatest influence on it ought to come from the professionals in archaeology, planning and EH in particular.

If we hear a quarrying company or even their professional advisors, taking upon themselves more than a very small expression of opinion on this matter, or in any way claiming they should have an input into it that's equivalent to EH's, it'll be cause for great complaint.

If the whole issue has come down to this single clear issue George, a simple yes/no, you are due for universal admiration, whatever happens. You've been accused of all sorts elsewhere, including misleading the public. Let those critics now show their colours - what do THEY reckon constitutes a setting? A blind man in a cellar would know the whole of the Ladybridge site is part of Thornborough's setting. Let them stand up and say otherwise if they dare!