Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
11th November 2011, 08:28 AM
Proposals to build houses next to a Roman settlement site in Nottinghamshire have been rejected by councillors.
Caunton Properties Ltd submitted plans to build 29 properties on Church Street in Southwell.
Officers had recommended that Newark and Sherwood District Council should approve the application.
More than 3,000 people, including several high-profile academics, signed a petition against the development.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-not...e-15655165
So it can be done
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
14th November 2011, 07:05 PM
This preservation in-situ lark ain't doing the digging workforce much good.......... xx(
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2008
14th November 2011, 11:14 PM
But if the officers recommended approval, p. in situ was not being sought by the council: this must have been the councillors on the committee listening to the petitions.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
15th November 2011, 12:28 AM
I haven't been able to track down the decision notice for this one on-line, but I'm not sure this is the archaeological victory that seems to be suggested.
The BBC report whist focuses on the heritage interest of the site but within the article notes that the the application was refused on the grounds of design and density of houses proposed - no mention of archaeology as a grounds for refusal.
The site's planning history suggests that (a now lapsed) planning permission was granted for development on the site in 2005.
The officer recommendation was for approval - with conditions for archaeology - bizarrely this seemed to involve one for an access watching brief and one for a watching brief to be undertaken in accordance with a written scheme, plus one archaeological condition relating to fencing and one restricting the depth of non-approved construction works.
If the BBC report is accurate with regard to the reason for refusal - design and density of houses proposed - this along with the 2005 permission would seem to suggest that development on the site is possible, but that members (but not officers) were not happy with the detail of the scheme that had been brought forward - a revised scheme may be acceptable, archaeology or not.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
15th November 2011, 12:32 AM
Just to play Devils Advocate here (and to highlight what I see as a failing of the UK planning system).... Surely the developer will appeal this? If the professional officers of the council were recommending approval then there was nothing technically wrong with the application. Importantly it must have accorded with the local plan designating housing development as a potential option for the development of the site. If I were the developer I'd already be looking to a higher authority than the 'NIMBY' councillors who have rejected this application. If this is the way that councillors exercise their 'responsibilites' they are going to end up with the likes of Eric Pickles all over them...Discuss!!
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
15th November 2011, 01:00 AM
I have just been reading some background into this scheme. It seems the District Local plan calls for c450 new homes to be built in Southwell. The town council reckons 290. 'Housing density' seems to have been added to the rejection criteria after a councillor suggested that heritage reasons alone would not survive an appeal (especially as EH and the county archaeologist had not raised objections to the proposed scheme). There is a consultation period (ending 25th November) regarding the housing density issue. This was the reasoning for the second rejection to the scheme as being 'premature'. I totally agree with TMSArch that this cannot be seen as a 'victory' for archaeology....if that were the case it should have been rejected at a much earlier stage in the development process. One councillor (in his blog) intimates that if 13 rather than 29 dwellings were proposed for the site, he would remove his objection. This is crass NIMBYism if I have ever heard it, as the development only involves 14 building anyway. I am guessing his objection therefore is between semi- detached and detached housing.....
Still, I imagine this is how each and every new development is now going to be dealt with throughout England and Wales. Local councillors think they have been granted permission by Tory Central Office to object on 'localism' grounds, frantic scrabbling at the Ministry of Pickles to keep their developer friends rich and happy!! So look forward to many more examples of similar stories over the life of this parliament....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
15th November 2011, 12:28 PM
OOPS my original post edited itself and should have read .........xx(....... sure won't be long before application re-submitted as rejection was for reasons of design and housing density.......... could be a great site to excavate !
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
15th November 2011, 01:13 PM
monty Wrote:OOPS my original post edited itself and should have read .........xx(....... sure won't be long before application re-submitted as rejection was for reasons of design and housing density.......... could be a great site to excavate !
Might not be, as the archaeology could be well and truly trashed by the school that use to be on the site. I would question building modern housing that close to the Minster which is a fantastic building.
