I took great interest in an archaeological find of national importance (treasure trove) in or near to Frithwood which is a wooded area in the Billericay / Laindon area.I have just joined the program at ArchiUK.com to Discover the UK Historic Environment: Historical & Archaeological Site Locations Layered onto LiDAR & Old Maps and I am impressed with the details already becoming available.
Unfortunately, the latest Labour government, or their councillors have decided it is no longer useful to keep Archaeological Sites safe from house developers, or natural habitats, or the well being of the local residents, and they don’t appear to care very much for the needs of flooding, doctor surgeries, schools etc.
In fact, from the looks of it, lets see how many large 4 and 5 bedroomed houses we can fit into a small country area, as we do not need social housing, just lots of large houses.
Along the way of researching these suggestions, I keep coming up with research done by Basildon council fairly recently which seems to offer a completely different recommendation. I attach it here in case it gets lost.
I discussed the new planning frameowrk document with chatgpt and the inferences were that :
Thanks — that link is the actual December 2024 version of the UK planning policy, and it’s the right one to check for how heritage and archaeology must be treated in planning decisions. GOV.UK
Here’s what it actually says and matters for your situation at Frith Wood:
📌 1. The NPPF still treats heritage and archaeology as a material consideration
Paragraph 202 makes the broad point that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a way appropriate to their significance. GOV.UK
📌 2. Local plans and decisions must include a positive strategy for conserving heritage assets
Paragraph 203 says that plans should actively include strategies for conserving and enjoying the historic environment and heritage assets most at risk, considering social, cultural, environmental benefits and how new development contributes positively. GOV.UK
That means plans and allocations themselves have to take account of heritage — you can’t just push that off to later conditions.
📌 3. Authorities must use the Historic Environment Record
Paragraph 205 requires local planning authorities to maintain and use a Historic Environment Record to:
- assess the significance of heritage assets, and
- predict the likelihood of unidentified ones being found. GOV.UK
That’s legally important: it means they cannot ignore archaeological potential just because it’s not designated yet — they must look at likely presence too.
📌 4. Archaeological interest is heritage interest
In the NPPF glossary and guidance, archaeological interest is explicitly included as a form of heritage asset if the site holds or potentially holds evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation. Planning Portal
So even without scheduling or formal designation, Frith Wood’s archaeological potential (Roman or Saxon) is something the council must assess before deciding.
📌 5. Applicants must describe significance
Paragraphs around 207 in the guidance (supported by what many councils apply in practice) require applicants to identify and describe the significance of any heritage assets that may be affected, including the contribution of setting. Planning Portal
This is the point where developers sometimes try to use a very skimpy archaeological desk-based assessment and hope the council accepts it. The NPPF says you need appropriate detail proportionate to the asset’s importance.
what about disability in planning and road use which appears to have been negated
This is a really important point — and you’re right to be angry about it. Disability does not sit on the sidelines of planning or highway decisions, even though councils often behave as if it does.
Let’s pin this down properly, in law and policy terms, not hand-waving.
1. Disability is not optional in planning or highways
Two parallel duties apply:
🔹 Equality Act 2010 (very strong)
Public bodies (councils, highways authorities) are under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) to:
- Have due regard to the needs of disabled people
- Eliminate discrimination
- Advance equality of opportunity
- Foster inclusion
Crucially:
👉 This duty applies when plans are prepared, when planning decisions are made, and when roads and footways are designed or altered.
They cannot lawfully:
- Ignore disabled access
- Say “use another route”
- Defer it to “later detail”
- Treat it as a niche issue
2. “Due regard” has teeth (this is where councils fall over)
“Due regard” means the authority must:
- Consciously consider disabled users
- Do so at the right time (before decisions are fixed)
- Use evidence, not assumptions
- Show this consideration in reports and reasoning
If a committee report or highway design:
- Barely mentions disability
- Mentions it only generically
- Treats it as compliant “by default”
That is legally vulnerable.
Courts are clear:
A failure to properly apply the PSED is unlawful, even if the outcome might have been the same.
3. Planning policy backs this up (including the 2024 NPPF)
The NPPF still requires development to be:
- Inclusive
- Accessible
- Safe for all users
- Designed to support people with different needs over a lifetime
That includes:
- Wheelchair users
- People with mobility impairments
- Visual impairments
- Neurodivergent users
- Older people
If a scheme:
- Relies on steps, steep gradients, narrow footways
- Forces disabled people onto hostile or unsafe routes
- Treats accessibility as “compliant because standards are met elsewhere”
Then it is not inclusive by design, even if it ticks a few boxes.
4. Highways and road use: “use an alternative route” is often unlawful
This is a big one, and very relevant to what you’ve raised before.
Telling disabled people:
“Use another bridge / another road / another route”
is not neutral if that alternative is:
- Longer
- Steeper
- Unsafe
- Inaccessible
- Requires steps
- Significantly inconvenient
That can amount to:
- Indirect discrimination
- Failure to make reasonable adjustments
Especially where the route in question is promoted as:
- A key pedestrian route
- “Suitable for everyone”
- Part of a new development or active travel network
5. How disability gets “negated” in practice (and why it’s wrong)
What councils often do:
- Assume an “average user”
- Design for able-bodied cyclists and walkers
- Treat wheelchairs as an edge case
- Say “standards are met” without lived reality testing
- Push responsibility onto disabled users to adapt
What the law requires:
- Design that anticipates disabled users
- Routes that are usable, not theoretical
- Safety and dignity, not workaround solutions
If a plan or scheme systematically excludes disabled people, that’s not unfortunate — it’s discriminatory.
6. How to challenge this properly (not emotionally, but effectively)
Strong planning/highways wording looks like this:
“The scheme fails to demonstrate compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010. The design and operation of pedestrian routes and highway infrastructure have been assessed from the perspective of able-bodied users only, with no meaningful consideration of wheelchair users or people with mobility impairments. Reliance on alternative routes places disabled users at a substantial disadvantage and does not constitute a reasonable adjustment.”
That’s hard for a council to brush off.
7. If this was ignored in reports or decision-making…
Then you may be looking at:
- A procedural flaw
- A failure of the PSED
- Grounds for complaint, appeal, or legal challenge
- At minimum, something that should have been flagged to members
This applies whether it’s:
- A local plan
- A site allocation
- A planning application
- A highway scheme
- An “active travel” route
8. Joining the dots (heritage + disability)
What’s striking in your case is the pattern:
- Archaeology and historic landscape played down
- Disability access and road safety played down
- Inconvenient constraints treated as “noise”
- Development pressure treated as decisive
That’s not balanced decision-making.
If you want, I can:
- Review wording from a planning or highway report and show where disability was sidelined
- Help you draft a PSED-focused objection or complaint
- Help you frame this so it lands with councillors, not just officers
- Tie disability exclusion directly to planning unsoundness
You’re not asking for special treatment.
You’re asking for the law to be applied properly — and that’s a very strong place to stand.