Agenda item

Pre-decision scrutiny of policy on designating three new Archaeologically Sensitive Areas (ASA’s)

The committee were presented with a policy which proposed extensions to the boundaries of existing Archaeologically Sensitive Areas (ASA’s) in Abergavenny, Monmouth and Trellech and designated a new Archaeologically Sensitive Area in Tintern.  Members heard that Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT) is the council’s archaeological advisor and that the conservation of archaeological remains is a material consideration in determining a planning application. The ‘Planning Advice Note’ will outline how the Council would exercise its duty through its Development Management function.

Challenge:

·         How do we support applicants currently? Will we signpost people to this advice? 

Currently, GGAT provide advice to applicants on this. We will need to signpost via the usual social media channels and through architects and agents. 

·         Why did you feel the need to produce the guidance?  What problems were you trying to address? 

The need for guidance has arisen following experiences where constraints have been raised late in the planning process which has resulted in time and cost implications, where applicants would have benefited from knowing restrictions much earlier in the planning process.  There has been an inconsistent approach to protecting and managing archaeology with general confusion around the level of information needing to be provided at an early stage.

·         Will this increase survey work for applicants?

Survey work will increase, but the Council will be able to give much clearer advice to applicants and will be able to make more informed decisions.

·         Will this restrict development?

We do not anticipate that development will be restricted. The proposed extension to the Monmouth archaeological boundary is due to a high potential for medieval finds ~ given that most of Monmouth is a historic area, this isn’t likely to further restrict development.  In Trellech, there have been a number of finds and there is much to learn about the development of Trellech historically, however, there are no implications for development. Tintern was not a defined archaeological area and there are strong arguments why it should be. The boundary around the ASA in Tintern is large, but this is justified due to archaeological finds in the area.

·         Who will be consulted on this?

Town and Community Councils, agents and architects will be consulted and we will ensure awareness via the website, Twitter and Facebook. All responses will be analysed and taken on board and reported back to this committee. 

·         We understand the need for balance, so that we protect areas but we do not hinder development. Are you confident you can provide clarity and transparency?

We feel that the guidance will assist applicants through consideration much earlier in the planning process.

·         What process have you used to identify a new one area around Tintern?

GGAT analysed information and concluded there were more finds in this areas and the academic work in Trellech also identified the need for the extensions. If we find surveys are not suggesting a need for the extensions, we would review the boundaries.

·         We understand how sites are identified, but if there are local areas that are not designated (for example, there are areas of Kingswood in Monmouth that have been associated with crucibles for forming gold), are there further areas that could be considered by GGAT?

We can certainly review further areas if there are archaeological finds. 

·         So if boundaries are identified by finds and there are chunks of Chepstow not included, is this suggesting there are no finds, or possibly that the information isn’t necessarily current?  Do you liaise with the curator at Fairfield Mabey?

What about areas such as Brockweir and Redbrook that have known shipping history? Do you look at areas between the settlements?

It’s a picture built up over time and we do need to continually review areas but it’s our learning so far that has led to the designation of the boundaries to date. We do liaise with the curator at Fairfield Mabey to see if there is any information that can be fed to GGAT which could inform a review of whether to include Mabey Bridge.  Regarding areas between settlements, we haven’t had resources to investigate these and there’s a limitation to how far we can designate, but we would still need to review this if further finds in these areas justified more archaeological importance.

Outcome and Chair’s Conclusion:

·         We have explored the rationale for bringing the guidance forward. We appreciate the balance between protecting and enhancing our historical environment whilst not hindering development or delaying planning processes. We also recognise the time and cost implication for applicants.

·         We have scrutinised the reason for the various boundaries and the areas between major settlements and we recognise the resource constraints. We are reassured by the inclusion of Tintern in its own right and appreciate the work undertaken to this point.

·         We would appreciate inclusion of our points raised and we fully support this policy. We would advise that you consult on this and report back to the committee with the consultation responses.