A LEADING professor has hit out at those criticising the city council’s archaeology plans as part of the Silver Hill 2 scheme.

Professor Martin Biddle, a leading name in the field, has told the Chronicle that suggestions of digging up the area “impractical and ill-informed”.

It follows a meeting held last month, in which a report from the newly-formed Archaeology Advisory Panel, chaired by Prof Biddle, advised against digging in the city centre due to the risk of damaging historically important material.

Prof Biddle, who was not at the meeting, said in the report: “The site is immensely important both historically and archaeologically. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to learn about, capture and preserve the city’s rich past, and we must get this right. National planning guidance stresses that preservation should be the primary objective, and the panel shares this view.”

In response, 117 people, including city councillor Kim Gottlieb and General Sir Antony Walker, chairman of the Winchester Deserves Better campaign group, signed a letter calling for the site’s archaeology to be “properly excavated and evaluated”.

Sir Antony added: “Once there is clear picture of what the experts anticipate comprising significant remains, a plan for preservation and exhibition can be devised.”

Now, Prof Biddle, director of The Winchester Research Unit, has defended the city council decision. He said: “Apart from myself, the panel included professional colleagues with decades of experience in the archaeology of towns facing problems not unlike those of Winchester. Our findings and recommendations are the result of several months of rigorous work.

“Wherever possible archaeological deposits should be preserved untouched for future investigation, but where that is not possible ensure that excavation, record and publication are carried out to the highest standards and at the expense of the developer, on the generally accepted principle ‘polluter pays’.

“The city has long been well aware that those are my views, but at no stage was I given any indication as to what the panel should find, nor would my colleagues have agreed to say anything which was inconsistent with their professional judgement. Any suggestions to the contrary are ill-judged.

“National planning guidance stresses that the preservation of archaeological remains should be the primary objective. The report on the archaeology of the original Silver Hill project would have seen most of the archaeology destroyed. The present panel took the view that this must simply not be allowed to happen.”

Prof Biddle added: “The panel would never have recommended excavating the whole of the Central Regeneration Area, as your correspondents seem to wish. The cost of excavation and of the subsequent research of every kind needed to produce the reports would cost not a few, but many millions and take years to complete. Your correspondents do not suggest how this might be funded.”

The letter criticising the city council also referenced un-excavated items under The Brooks Shopping Centre. It said: “We also believe that the council’s assumption that the remains can be left unharmed in situ is misguided. Two thirds of what was found under the Brooks Centre, which at the time Prof Biddle described as the most important medieval excavation in Europe, was destroyed.”

In response, he said: “Reference to the Brooks Centre is irrelevant. The destruction was indeed disastrous, but the fault lay with central government which withdrew its promised funding at the last moment. As a result all the archaeology under the Brooks Centre was lost without record, but it was the city of Winchester itself which stepped in to provide considerable funding for the successful excavation of the northern part of the site.

“We well recognise the strength of feeling among local people, but the approach supported by the signatories to the letter you published is impractical and ill-informed. I would welcome any opportunity to take part in a question-and-answer event or something similar, to meet with people, to hear their views, and to provide further explanation of the panel’s recommendations.”