Appeal 6001259

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission was granted, subject to conditions, for a single storey extension to the rear of the existing dwelling. This includes condition 4, requiring a written scheme of archaeological investigation to be submitted prior to commencement of development, detailing a programme of archaeological works be carried out, that such agreed works be carried out and then, before occupation of the development, that the site investigation and post excavation assessment be completed with the results shared and archived. The Council considers the condition is necessary to protect archaeological interests that are likely to be present within the appeal site, as identified from the [name].

The appellant objects to the condition as they consider it is unnecessary, disproportionate, and not justified due to evidence previously provided. Therefore, they consider the condition does not meet the relevant tests for conditions as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Regulation 122 of the Community and [name] (CIL).

In view of the above, the main issue is whether the condition is reasonable or necessary in the interests of protecting heritage assets.

The appeal site is in an area where the [name] (SHER) shows there is likely to be the remains of [address] watermill complex. Also, the Staffordshire County Council archaeologist sets out there are records dating back to a potential Domesday mill on the site, although the precise location of such is unknown. Therefore, there is potential for archaeological remains relating to the 18th-19th century [name] mill complex and an earlier 11th century mill within the appeal site that could be affected by the proposal.

Paragraph 207 of the Framework sets out that where a site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.

While there have been previous archaeological assessments carried out within parts of the appeal site for other development elsewhere to extend the host property, this does not include all of the land where the proposed extension would be. Furthermore, more minor works carried out, including pipework and the laying of the patio area where the appeal extension is proposed, would not have likely extended significantly below ground. Therefore, such previous archaeological investigation and works do not mean, nor unequivocally demonstrate, that there are no archaeological remains present where the extension is proposed and that, such potential remains would be unharmed by the proposed development.

Even though there would be some financial and time burden associated with carrying out archaeological investigation and works, without substantive evidence to the contrary to demonstrate there are no archaeological remains where the extension is proposed, the requirements of the Framework would not be satisfied. In such circumstances and having regard to the staged requirements of condition 4, the condition is necessary and proportionate to protect potential heritage assets. Consequently, the condition is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, relevant to planning and the proposed development, and is precise and reasonable in all other respects. Therefore, it satisfies the relevant CIL and Framework tests for conditions and needs to remain.

Having considered all matters raised, condition 4 is reasonable and necessary in the interests of protecting heritage assets. Without it, the proposed development would conflict with Policy N9 of the Plan for Stafford Borough (June 2014), which requires development to sustain and, where appropriate enhance the significance of heritage assets and that, where harm to significance is unavoidable, appropriate mitigation will be put in place, including archaeological investigation (including a written report) or recording.

In conclusion, the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan read as a whole and material considerations do not indicate the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.