PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
Proposed sites of archaeological interest
Consultation response and assessment
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is for the Minister for Planning and Environment to consider the response to consultation relative to the proposed designation of sites of archaeological interest in the Island, and to consider, in particular, the recommendations of the Jersey Heritage Trust (JHT) about the designation and Listing of sites of archaeological interest.
Background
Following the publication of new supplementary planning guidance (SPG) in January 2007, which effectively introduced archaeology as a material consideration into the planning process, a schedule of proposed sites of archaeological interest, prepared by the JHT under the Service level Agreement with the Planning and Environment Department, was approved, as a draft for consultation, in June 2007 (MD-PE-2007-0151). The schedule identified approximately 165 sites throughout the Island which were proposed for designation as either Sites of Special Interest, Archaeological Sites or Areas of Archaeological Potential, because of their potential archaeological interest, in line with the criteria for designating archaeological sites in the SPG (schedule at Appendix 1)
The proposed designation of these sites was publicised in a variety of ways including:
· media release
· Jersey Gazette Notice (appendix 2);
· publication of a White Paper on the States website and direct mailing to stakeholder groups and Public Consultation Register (appendix 3);
In the case of all proposed Sites of Special Interest (SSI) and Archaeological Sites (AS), attempts were made – through approaches to the parishes (for data from their rates lists); from the Environment Department’s Agricultural Land Registry and from the Planning Applications Register – to identify land ownership details in order that landowners could be informed directly, in writing, of these proposals. Where land ownership details were obtained, this approach was adopted. In addition, site notices were posted on, or in close proximity, to proposed SSIs and ASs.
The only definitive method for identifying land ownership is, however, a legal search through the Jersey Public Registry which – for 165 sites, many in multiple ownership – was not considered viable or cost effective, given the resources available.
The consultation period ran from 07 August to 01 October 2007. A total number of 38 representations have been received: the written representations received are presented in appendix 4.
Discussion and recommendations
An analysis of the consultation response reveals three distinct themes related to the mechanism of notification; support for the designations; and site-specific representations. These are dealt with in turn;
Notification
A number of comments have been received where those making representations have been more concerned about the manner in which they have found out about the proposed archaeological designations, rather than the substantive issue of the potential archaeological interest itself. In many instances, there has been an assumption that States departments possess intimate and comprehensive knowledge of land ownership and, therefore, an expectation that government will write to landowners directly about matters affecting their interest in land, rather than relying upon formal notices in the media, site notices and general media coverage.
As stated above, the approach of notification adopted was one based on an assessment of the scale at hand relative to the level of resource available.
Support
A small, but significant, number of representations have supported the proposed designation of sites of archaeological interest.
Site-specific representation
The majority of representations have been received from landowners and other stakeholders, concerned about the implications of designation for their land. In some instances, this is related to a perception of an undue constraint being placed upon the land; in others, the validity of the archaeological evidence is questioned.
As in the case of considering whether to add a building or place onto the Register or List, the impact of such upon a site’s development potential is not a material consideration. Similarly, when considering whether to include a site within the schedule of sites of archaeological interest, the potential implications of so doing – relative to the site’s development potential – is not relevant.
The key issue that has been examined in an assessment of these site-specific representations is the weight of archaeological evidence. In many instances, there is little substantive evidence – in the form of, for example, physical finds – and many of the proposed designations – particularly Areas of Archaeological Potential (AAPs) – are based on reference sources. It is the nature of archaeology, however, that the potential value of these sites will not be known until such time that they are properly researched and, therefore, the application of the precautionary principle is considered justifiable where there is sufficient evidence to suggest potential archaeological interest.
It is also clear that there is a perception that if sites of archaeological interest are in parts of the countryside where there already exists restrictive planning policies that these sites will be ‘safe’ from development and do not thus warrant any ‘archaeological designation’. This is misplaced and fails to recognise that the purpose of archaeological designation is to ensure that archaeology becomes a material consideration in its own right, which would not be the case were this archaeological interest not highlighted at the outset.
It is relevant to note that site-specific representations have been received from the Council for the Protection of Jersey’s Heritage (CPJH) and, more significantly, Societe Jersiaise Archaeological Section (SJAS). The representation of the SJAS is particularly significant given the knowledge of the Section and its members. It is relevant to note, however, that the schedule of potential archaeological sites has been developed, from the outset, as a result of close liaison between SJAS and JHT. SJAS has also had considerable opportunity to shape and comment upon the draft schedule which was taken through MRLAG on two occasions. Another point worthy of note is that a definitive view from SJ has not always been possible on some sites, given different learned perspectives – some of which are not archaeological - of the evidence to hand.
The substance of the SJAS representation has been the subject of further detailed consideration between JHT and the SJAS Chairman to ensure that the issues raised have been thoroughly reviewed.
The site-specific representations – there are 22 of them - have been considered in detail by Jersey Heritage Trust (JHT). In each case, the representation has been the subject of further, more detailed consideration by the Trust’s Curator of Archaeology, sometimes involving site visits or further research. The representation, the assessment of it and a recommendation from JHT to the Minister about how to respond to each is set out at appendix 5. A summary of this assessment, and the recommendations arising from it, is set out below.
Of the 22 representations, the JHT recommends that 11 changes are made to either amend the grade or boundary definition of sites; in 9 instances the JHT recommends that the substance of the representation is insufficient to warrant any amendment; and in the remaining two cases, the JHT recommends that any assessment is deferred pending further research and investigation, or the provision of further information. Where recommendation of grade or boundary is proposed, revised archaeological schedules are presented at appendix 6.
Table one: summary of site-specific recommendations
Site no. | Site of archaeological potential and proposed classification | Jersey Heritage Trust recommendation | |
5 | Mainlands Hoard
Field 864
off Rue de Haut
St Lawrence AAP | No change. Designate as AAP as per site schedule | |
|
8 | Town Mill Hoard
Le Mont de la Trinite
St Helier AAP | Designate as AAP. Amendment to boundary | |
|
17 | L’Etacquerel Flint Scatter Area
Fields 630-1, 632, 639 and area northwest of La Route des Côtes du Nord
Trinity AS | Designate as AS. Amendment to boundary | |
32 | Site of Menhir
Field 196
La Route de Vinchelez
St Ouen AAP | No change. Designate as AAP as per site schedule | |
40 | La Rogodaine (site of Belle Hougue menhir)
Field 576
off La Rue du Pont
Grouville AAP | No change. Designate as AAP as per site schedule | |
|
46 | Le Dolmen du Pré des Lumières
L’Avenue et Dolmen du Pré des Lumières
St Helier SSI | List as SSI. Amendment to boundary. | |
60 | La Hougue Bênarde
Fields 9 & 12
La Route de Vinchelez
St Ouen AS | Change designation to AAP | |
|
65 | Mound
Field 116 ‘Les Houguettes’
off Le Chemin du Câtel
St Mary AS | No change. Designate as AS as per site schedule | |
73 | Field 5/5A ‘Clos de la Belle Hougue’
north of Le Chemin de la Belle Hougue
Trinity AS | Change designation to AAP | |
|
|
|
75 | Mound
Field 518
off La Grande Route de Faldouet
St Martin AS | Change designation to AAP | |
89 | Le Cinq Pierres
Fields 591 & 592
off La Route des Genets
St Brelade AS | Defer consideration pending site boundary information from adjacent landowner | |
98 | La Pierre de la Fetelle (or La Roche à la Fée)
Trinity SSI | No change. List site for its archaeological and traditional interest within forthcoming ecological SSI for Egypte | |
106 | Prehistoric Landscape (La Moye Golf Club)
By Atlantic Hotel & north-west of La Route Orange
St Brelade
SSI & AS | Defer consideration pending further research | |
109 | La Moye Bronze Age settlement site
Fields 494, 494A, 495, 496 & 564
west of La Rue Baal
St Brelade AS & AAP | Register field 495 as AS as per site schedule Change AAP boundary to include fields 494, 494A & 496 as AAP excluding field 564 | |
112 | Le Chastel-Sedement (Les Câtiaux)
La Rue de la Falaise
Trinity SSI | Amend boundary and proposed designation such that fields T796, 796A, 915, 1405 & 1406 plus 10m beyond standing banks in fields 785, 791 & 794 are Listed as SSI; and the area of former embankments and ditches in fields 797, 917, 919 (north part), 920 & 934 plus 10m beyond field boundaries in fields 926A & 935 is designated as AS; and that the area of buildings to west (formerly field 916) is designated as AAP. | |
|
|
115 | St Helier Town AS & AAP | Register medieval town core as AS as per site schedule Extend boundary of proposed AAP around other historic areas of the town core to include the area of Manoir de la Motte, but excluding the area to the west of Gaswork dolmen and Havre des Pas. | |
118 | Belle Hougue Caves
Trinity SSI | List site for its archaeological interest within forthcoming geological SSI for Belle Hougue | |
|
|
127 | Le Câtel de Rozel (La Petite Césaree)
Rozel Point
Trinity SSI & AS | Amend AS boundary | |
|
129 | Site of defensive ditch relating to promontory fort
Fields 31, 32 & 34
La Chemin de la Belle Hougue
Trinity AAP | Designate as AAP as per site schedule | |
130 | Possible site of promontory fort earthwork
Fields 664, 665 & 669
Le Chemin du Portelet
St Brelade AAP | Designate as AAP as per site schedule | |
131-165 | Possible prehistoric sites of interest identified by field name AAP | Designate as AAP as per site schedule | |
149 | Group of fields: 112 ‘Clos de la Petite Hougue’ and 137 & 137A ‘Clos de la Hougue’
La Grande Route de St Pierre
St Peter AAP | Amend AAP boundary to include fields 137 & 137A but to exclude field 112. | |
Consultation
The feedback from this consultation will be collated and sent directly to those who have made representations, in addition to which it will be published on the States website. The feedback will be based on the schedule prepared by the JHT (at appendix 6) together with feedback on some general points of information raised during the consultation.
In the event that the Minister endorses the proposed designation of sites of archaeological interest, there will be further requirements to consult with landowners in particular about the formal designation of these sites. The nature of consultation will be dependent upon the categorisation of the site in question.
For all sites, it is proposed to publish details of their designation as an addendum to the existing SPG on Archaeology and Planning, in the form of an Island Map (showing the location, extent and categorisation of each), together with a detailed site schedule, listing, defining and describing all of the sites (as per an updated Appendix 1). A full listing of these sites will be published in the Jersey Gazette. This will effectively serve as formal notification of the designation of all of the Archaeological Sites and Areas of Archaeological Potential. Archaeological Sites will additionally be added to the Historic Buildings Register. There is no requirement, in law, to write to individual landowners in the case of these designations.
In the case of Sites of Special Interest, there is a formal process of notification that is stipulated by law which will need to be followed involving the formal service of a Notice of Intent to List the site as an SSI that must be served on the owner or on site. Every effort (short of a full legal search) will be made to identify land ownership to enable service of these notices in writing to the address of the owner: where this information cannot be found, site notices will be served, which satisfies the requirements of the law. The preparation of detailed schedules and Notices of Intent will be brought to the Minister subsequently for all proposed SSIs of archaeological interest, to enable this process to progress.
Legal and resource implications
The proposed designation of these sites accords with the provisions of the law whereby the Minister is able to Lists Sites of Special Interest (Article 51) and publish guidelines – in this case related to ASs and AAPs – under Article 6. It also contributes towards the objectives of international conventions, to which the Island is a signatory, and the States Strategic Plan.
The resource implications of designating sites of archaeological interest is that archaeology will become a material consideration in respect of planning applications in some cases. This will have potential resource implications for the developer, in providing information about archaeology, but also the department, in understanding and validating the information and proposals for archaeology. The department has no funds or posts to recruit a planning archaeologist, but has engaged the services of an archaeological consultancy practice to fulfil this role, as required, and is seeking to extend the Service Level Agreement with the JHT, to provide a local solution to the matter of on-site monitoring, as required. This additional work will remain to be funded from the department’s revenue budget.
Recommendation
On the basis of the above and the attached the Minister for Planning and Environment is recommended to:
- Note and endorse the approach to consultation, as set out above and at appendices 1, 2 and 3;
- Note the consultation feedback, contained in appendix 4;
On the basis of the assessment of site-specific representations, as set out in summary in table one above, and in detail at appendix 5 and 6, the Jersey Heritage Trust recommends the Minister for Planning and Environment to;
- Endorse the designation of those sites proposed as Sites of Special Interest; Archaeological Sites and Areas of Archaeological Potential, as set out at appendix 1, except where those sites are proposed for amendment, as set out in appendices 5 and 6, and to endorse those amended designations accordingly;
- Endorse the deferral of the consideration of those two sites identified in appendix 5, pending further information, to be brought back to the Minister subsequently for consideration.
In the case of those sites designated as Archaeological Sites and Areas of Archaeological Potential, the designation takes effect forthwith.
In the case of those sites proposed to be added to the List of Sites of Special Interest, further reports, together with the associated schedules and Notices, will be brought back to the Minister subsequently to enable the formal designation process for these sites to progress. This decision thus supersedes that made in June 2007 (see MD-PE-2007-0151).
Reason(s) for Decision
The Minister has considered the results of consultation and has weighed all of the evidence presented to him and, having done so, considers that the proposed designation of these sites accords with the provisions of the law and also contributes towards the objectives of international conventions, to which the Island is a signatory, and the States Strategic Plan.
Action Required
1. Advise consultees of the Minister’s response to consultation and publish details on the States website;
2. Publish additional Supplementary Planning Guidance and a Notice on the Jersey Gazette, detailed the designations and proposed Listing of SSIs;
3. Update the Historic Buildings Register;
4. Undertake further research in respect of land ownership details for proposed SSIs, to enable the preparation of Notices of Intent to List, and detailed schedules, to be brought back to the Minister for further consideration.
5. Undertake further research/ secure additional information in relation to those two sites deferred for consideration, and bring these back to the Minister for subsequent consideration
Written by: | Kevin Pilley, Assistant Director |
| |
Approved by: | Peter Thorne, Director |
Attachments:
1. Schedule of sites of archaeological interest;
2. Jersey Gazette Notice;
3. White Paper;
4. Consultation response
5. Jersey Heritage Trust assessment of consultation response
6. Proposed schedule changes: plans and individual site schedules
3/04/12/1
05 February 2007
gov.je