Dartmoor forum 5 room
Image by Mr Hamhead
close
more_vert

I'm told this is about joining two pits, and the barrow is in the way. Minerals consent was already in place when scheduling happened and taking the former away would cost the taxpayer vast sums in compensation. Scheduling means it must be thoroughly recorded but nothing else.

It's a gonner. Move on .....

:(

Perhaps they could lift it out of the way, dig the clay, fill the whole and re-build the barrow. Thought not.

nigelswift wrote:
would cost the taxpayer vast sums in compensation
Thats the crux isn't it. In the cost analysis, a barrow isn't worth the cost of the minerals underneath & round it to the tax payer. We've seen it time and again when barrows get in the way of "big" ie costly development, preservation by record is deemed acceptable. The opportunity cost being an archaeologists salary? It would be nice to have openness in it though, a frank admittance that EH are sacrificing some heritage to fund their other activities saving other heritage.