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.
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.