Appeal 6004773

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission has been granted for the works outlined above. The planning permission included a condition requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a [name] of Investigation (‘WSI’) submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The Council considers the condition to be necessary to ensure that, where a development site has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interests, that these are evaluated, and if appropriate preserved and protected. The appellant, however, objects to the condition as they do not consider it to be necessary, reasonable, or relevant to the development permitted.

I have taken the description of development and site address from the decision notice as these accurately describe the site and proposal.

The main issue is the effect of removing condition 4 on heritage assets with archaeological interest.

The appeal site has not been subject to archaeological assessment. However, on the evidence before me the [name] (the ‘HER’) identifies that the site may have historically contained a post-medieval building in its southwest corner. A previous consent was granted nearby for 2 holiday lets, which on the evidence before me did not include a condition requiring a WSI.

There is an agricultural field close to the appeal site on the other side of the lane which was, alongside other nearby land, subject to a survey which identified a number of anomalies likely indicative of archaeological activity. The associated [name] (2024) (the ‘Survey’) identifies that these anomalies are indicative of partial structures or enclosures and further sets out that activity has been identified in the wider area associated with [name], [name], Romano-British, medieval and contemporary periods.

The appeal scheme would entail the erection of a holiday let. The plans show the building and associated paving would be constructed close to the southwest corner of the site.

Whilst evidence from archaeological indicators in close proximity to the site may yet to be fully established, and recorded finds more distant, the evidence from the Survey, from the HER, and from the Council’s Archaeologist nevertheless all indicate the potential for archaeological remains both in close proximity to the site and within the site itself.

Whilst the appellant identifies that the Survey may have identified some non-archaeological indicators, the Survey nevertheless makes clear that the nearby field presented evidence of probable enclosures or structures which may date from [name] or Romano-British periods. The presence of non-archaeological anomalies found as part of the Survey does not therefore diminish the likelihood of below ground archaeology being present.

Given the extent of nearby archaeological indicators and the likely presence of a potential heritage asset of archaeological interest within the site itself, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the potential for buried archaeology at the appeal site, even in the absence of recorded finds nearby. Whilst the appeal site has not been subject to archaeological survey, this does not alter the potential for archaeological remains to be present.

In addition, as there is potential for archaeological remains to be present within the site, and as construction works would be undertaken close to a potential heritage asset of archaeological interest identified in the HER, were remains to be present these could be affected by construction work associated with the development.

Although the appellant suggests that construction work would be minimally invasive, I nevertheless have limited details before me as to how these works would be undertaken. In addition, the Council’s statement that excavation works would be required for foundations and below-ground services has not been disputed. As excavation would likely be required, in the absence of appropriate controls or oversight such excavation would risk damage to archaeological remains during exposure, were these to be present.

I acknowledge that permission was previously granted at appeal at a nearby site which did not include the requirement for a WSI. However, the evidence before me indicates that this permission was granted prior to the results of the survey of the nearby field being available. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that this scheme entailed construction works in close proximity to potential remains associated with the asset of archaeological interest identified in the HER. Therefore, whilst construction work associated with this permission may not have uncovered archaeological remains, this previous grant of permission is materially different to the case before me, and it does not therefore lead me to an alternative conclusion on this issue.

An alternative condition has been suggested, which would require construction works to cease in the event that archaeological remains were found. However, the proposed condition does not establish detail as to how construction works would be undertaken or any precautionary measures to avoid damage to buried archaeology. Nor does it identify how excavation works would occur were archaeological remains to be found. As a result, the appellant’s alternative condition would not be precise, and would not therefore be effective.

Excepting the appellant’s proposed condition, there are no other alternatives before me to the requirement for a WSI and watching brief. Given this, when coupled with my reasoning above and conclusion that a condition is required to ensure that harm to heritage assets of archaeological interest is avoided, the approach set out in the existing condition is reasonable, necessary, and relevant to the development permitted. In addition, it is reasonable for the condition to be a pre-commencement condition, to ensure that works are not undertaken that could affect archaeological remains in advance of the agreement of a WSI.

Whilst discharging the condition would be likely to result in additional time and cost, this does not outweigh the harm that could arise in the condition’s absence. The scale of development or shortage of such development does not alter this

Equally, whilst reference has been made to other decisions which did not impose a condition requiring a WSI, I have limited details before me as to these cases and these do not therefore lead me to an alternative conclusion on this issue.

Given the above, it is reasonable, necessary and relevant to the development to secure the provision of a WSI and for works to be carried out in accordance with it, to ensure that harm is avoided to heritage assets of archaeological interest. Given the archaeological context of the appeal site, the imposition of the condition is proportionate to the development proposed and consistent with the requirements of Policy DM6 of the Development Management Policies Sites and Policies Plan Part 1 (2016), which amongst other matters requires archaeological interests to be fully taken into account when determining planning applications.

The site lies within the consultation zone for greater and lesser horseshoe bats of the [name] and Mendip Bats Special Area of Conservation. Regulation 63(1) of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 states that a competent authority, before deciding to give any consent that is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, must make an appropriate assessment of the implications of the proposal for that site. However, given my reasoning in respect of the main issue, there is no duty upon me in that regard and I do not need to consider it further.

Comments relating to the resultant benefits of the proposal as a whole with respect to individual circumstances are acknowledged. In determining this appeal, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This requires me to consider the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Protected characteristics include a person’s age or disability. Given the potential harm arising to heritage assets of archaeological interest that would result from the condition’s removal, dismissing the appeal is a proportionate response in this case.

There is some local support for the proposal as a whole. However, this does not justify the removal of a condition I have found to be necessary, reasonable and relevant to the development to be permitted.

For the reasons given above the disputed condition is necessary to ensure that harm is avoided to heritage assets of archaeological interests, and therefore the appeal should be dismissed.