Fully support as ties in with natural and built environment efforts.

We welcome and support Policy EN7.

Roman Mosaics should get special treatment.

West Mersea was a Roman settlement of unknown size. It is unknown because successive piecemeal development has not required archaeological assessment. All new work that involves disturbing the soil should be checked out. It is scandalous that the Roman Tomb/ lighthouse in Pharos Lane was built over.

Draft Policy EN7 sets out the Council's approach to conserving and enhancing the historic environment, specifically in relation archaeological sites or areas, and states that:
"All development proposals that may affect archaeological sites or areas of archaeological potential must include a desktop study and, where necessary, an archaeological field evaluation to assess the impact on below-ground heritage assets".
Whilst the aim to protect designated heritage assets aligns with the provisions of the NPPF the requirements that proposals ‘must’ include is overly onerous when considered against the requirements of the NPPF (Dec. 2024, paragraph 207). This language is not contained in the NPPF, which states that 'local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation'.
In order to align with the provisions of the NPPF, it is therefore recommended that the requirement that all proposals ‘must’ include a desktop study is amended accordingly.
The Policy further states that:
"A written scheme of investigation (WSI) will be required to outline the methodology for archaeological investigation, excavation, or preservation in situ, as appropriate".
This statement appears to assume that archaeological investigation will be required in all instances. However, the NPPF (paragraph 207) advises that the level of information submitted with an application should be proportionate to the importance of the heritage assets and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impacts of a proposal on their significance. Accordingly, the policy wording should incorporate appropriate flexibility to avoid imposing unnecessary investigation where an initial desk-based assessment does not identify a reasonable likelihood of archaeological remains.
We note the alternative to include Archaeology within the Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment policy (EN6), we see no reason why such an approach should be discounted.