Agenda item

To agree appropriate planning conditions.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Lawrence Weetman from the Civic Society - Chatteris Past, Present & Future.

Mr Weetman stated that he strongly agrees with the Planning Officer, and the Chief Archaeologist’s comments, and he urged councillors to apply the archaeological conditions to this application as presented. He stated that the proposed development at 25 Victoria Street lies within the boundary of the medieval Chatteris Abbey and it is merely a matter of yards from a previous archaeological survey, at 19 Victoria Street, where at the November planning meeting, the committee was advised that “a body was found”, but the report from that archaeological survey actually references six skeletons by number and these human remains were found very close to the surface - between two feet and three-and-a-half feet underground.

Mr Weetman referred to the report which said  “The number and extent of inhumations and disarticulated human skeletal remains revealed across the length of the trench, combined with the mixture of age ranges of the individuals, strongly suggests that the proposed development is located within a secular or lay cemetery within the abbey precinct.” He stated that the report goes on to say: “The depth and extent of the burial ground is not known but could be considerable.”, with the report even speculatings that: “It is possible that the burials uncovered in the trench are part of a parochial cemetery that was in use over a long period of time (perhaps hundreds of years).”

Mr Weetman stated that given the close proximity of the proposed site to the previous survey at 19 Victoria Street, the probability of a potentially extensive burial ground, and given that the remains were discovered so close to the surface, there is a very real possibility that the proposed development could disturb human remains. He made the point that the Senior Archaeological Officer has reminded the Council that disturbing burials without a licence is against Section 25 of The Burial Act of 1857 and the cost of exhuming human remains can be extremely prohibitive, so it seems as though it would be in the best interests of the developer, the Council, and local residents if a proper survey is carried out ahead of any building work .and, in his view, would help avoid a part-complete development being left abandoned within the town.

Mr Weetman expressed the view that there are substantial opportunities here and stated that it is the earliest settlement in Chatteris, but it remains largely unexplored since most of the buildings in this area pre-date the times of routine archaeological surveys. He stated that the lack of an archaeological survey would not only miss an important opportunity to learn more about Chatteris’ past but could completely destroy any opportunity to ever learn more.

Mr Weetman expressed the opinion that Councillors should ask themselves whether there is any need to reject the archaeological conditions that have been proposed, since there seems to be no source of opposition to these conditions. He added that the officer’s report says that the applicant has indicated that they would accept an archaeological condition and this reflects what the applicant told Chatteris Town Council’s Planning Committee in September when Mr Welland was asked if an archaeological dig would be carried out, with the minutes recalling that “Mr Welland said if required an archaeological dig would be carried out”.

Mr Weetman concluded by expressing the view that he can see no reason why the committee should reject the archaeological condition that has been proposed.It hasthe supportof theapplicant, itbenefits ourunderstanding ofChatteris’ past, and it provides important protection to both the Council and thedeveloper.

Members asked officer’s the following questions:

·         Councillor Meekins asked officers to confirm how long an archaeological survey would take to be carried out in a small area and questioned why the application has come back before the committee. David Rowen stated that the application is before members as part of planning procedure. The County Council’s Archaeology Officer, Kasia Gdaniec, explained that the evaluation of such a small plot is a very rapid process and she expressed the view that only a couple of trenches would be required in that area as there are already standing buildings and yard surfaces on site. She stated that normally a small area would be surveyed within a day or two, depending whether there are any stratified Medieval deposits of the priory buildings and any burials which would prolong the process. She stated that an evaluation must be carried out in properties such as this, because there needs to be an understanding of any heritage assets which may be there and also the integrity of them as it may mean that previous land use associated with the 19^th century redevelopment of Victoria Street removed a great deal of the deposits.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Sutton noted from the report that the applicant and agent appear to be content with the conditions and, therefore, members should also be satisfied with the conditions.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he can fully understand why an archaeological investigation would need to take place at this site as there does not appear to be anything above ground in existence from the original abbey, apart from a few stones, which was the important part of the heritage of Chatteris. He added that everybody appears to agree that an investigation should take place and in his opinion it should proceed. 

·         Councillor Meekins stated that the developer has agreed to the conditions and the Archaeological Officer has advised that a survey will only take a couple of days, therefore, the works should commence without delay.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that a reasonable time frame should also be added to the conditions. Nick Harding stated that a timetable cannot be added as the detail concerning when the development and archaeological works will commence is not known. He added that members need to make their decision based on the heritage asset and carrying on without any archaeological input would risk the non-designated asset and, therefore, conflict the advice of the national policy guidance on that issue. Nick Harding clarified that the reason the application is before the committee today is because officers were aware of what was said at the Planning Committee meeting in relation to the ‘sister’ application and, therefore, officers felt that members should have the opportunity to make a decision on whether they felt an archaeological condition should be added on this application.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that the timeline is entirely down to the developer as to when he wishes to commence work on the site.

Proposed by Councillor Cornwell, seconded by Councillor Sutton and decided that the conditions as set out be AGREED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Following comments made by Councillor Benney in relation to a conversation he stated had taken place with himself and the agent  regarding the proposed conditions being added to the application, and legal advice sought from Stephen Turnbull, Councillor Benney left the meeting for the remaining duration and determination of this item, and took no further part)

(Councillor Mrs Mayor left the meeting prior to the commencement of this item, and took no further part in the Planning Committee meeting)