Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Search Representations

Results for Historic England search

New search New search

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

L1 clause 1

Representation ID: 7393

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The allocation would have a negative impact on the setting and be harmful to the overall significance the grade II* Church of St Leonard at Misterton and the Grade 1 Listed Church of St. Mary, Lutterworth and that which non-designated heritage assets derive from their setting. As such, Historic England object to this allocation on the grounds of soundness.

Full text:

The proposed development would be built to the north, west and south of the settlement of Misterton. The site is located between the grade II* Church of St Leonard at Misterton and grade 1 Listed Church of St. Mary, Lutterworth and close to a number of non-designated heritage assets. The non-designated heritage assets include a double moat north of the GII* church which forms part of a deserted medieval village. Misterton Hall lies on the site of the former medieval manor house and to the south east is the scheduled monument 'Bowl barrow at Misterton' (1008541).

The church towers are the most prominent features on the skyline and were intended to be, reflecting their importance and status. The church towers have acted as landmarks for hundreds of years and would have helped guide people through the landscape. There is an important intervisibility between the two churches and the division of the separate settlements and their parish churches is enhanced by the open fields that divide them. Extending the settlement of Misterton to the north, west and south would eliminate the open views of the fields and blur the division of the settlements, which in turn would erode the understanding of the landscape and settlement division as well as the rural character. This would have a negative impact on their setting and be harmful to the overall significance the churches and non-designated heritage assets derive from their setting, contrary to the NPPF. As such, Historic England object to this allocation on the grounds of soundness.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

CC2 1c.

Representation ID: 7396

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Historic England object to the wording of section one, criteria c in relation to 'harm', being unclear and over-simplistic in relation to 'substantial' and 'less than substantial harm', and to the approach taken within section two, it's supporting text and figure A.4 identifying potential areas for medium scale wind development and large wind farms, contrary to the NPPF.

Full text:

The policy wording in relation to criterion c of section one is unclear and over-simplistic in relation to 'substantial' and 'less than substantial harm', contrary to the NPPF.

The approach taken towards identifying potential areas for wind energy developments within section two of policy CC2 is not based upon sufficiently robust evidence. The Landscape Sensitivity to Renewable Energy in Harborough District study, July 2016 does not consider heritage assets. Indeed the areas which have been identified as being suitable for such developments may result in harm to a number of Harborough's most important designated heritage assets and hence render the policy incompatible with the NPPF's core principles of sustainable development and specifically paragraph 126.

Paragraph 007 of the Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and low carbon energy, states that "great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting:" The approach proposed does not reflect this.

Not only is the policy incompatible with the NPPF, it takes no account of the requirement of S.66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act for Local Planning Authorities s to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting. The Court of Appeal judgement in the Barnwell Manor wind farm case highlighted the legal duty to demonstrate special regard in wind farm cases. The duty under S.72(1) to pay special attention to preserving the character or appearance of conservation areas would also apply.

Consequently, it is considered that the approach of Policy CC2, its supporting text and the map shown at Figure A.4 is unsound for the following reasons:-

(1) The identification of specific areas as being suitable for wind energy development is not based upon a sufficiently robust evidence base

(2) The areas which have been identified for wind energy development could lead to pressure for such developments in locations which would be likely to result in harm to a number of Harborough's most important designated heritage assets. Consequently, the approach to the identification of specific areas as being suitable for wind turbine developments does not demonstrate that the plan is setting out a "positive strategy for the conservation of the historic environment" as is required in the NPPF.

The policy is not adequately addressed within the Sustainability appraisal.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

CC2 clause 2

Representation ID: 7402

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Historic England object to the wording of section one, criteria c in relation to 'harm', being unclear and over-simplistic in relation to 'substantial' and 'less than substantial harm', and to the approach taken within section two, it's supporting text and figure A.4 identifying potential areas for medium scale wind development and large wind farms, contrary to the NPPF.

Full text:

The policy wording in relation to criteria a on section one is unclear and over-simplistic in relation to 'substantial' and 'less than substantial harm', contrary to the NPPF.

The approach taken towards identifying potential areas for wind energy developments within section two of Policy CC2 is not based upon sufficiently robust evidence. The Landscape Sensitivity to Renewable Energy in Harborough District study, July 2016 does not consider heritage assets. Indeed the areas which have been identified as being suitable for such developments may result in harm to a number of Harborough's most important designated heritage assets and hence render the policy incompatible with the NPPF's core principles of sustainable development and specifically paragraph 126.

Paragraph 007 of the Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and low carbon energy, states that "great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting:" The approach proposed does not reflect this.

Not only is the policy incompatible with the NPPF, it takes no account of the requirement of S.66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 for Local Planning Authorities s to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting. The Court of Appeal judgement in the Barnwell Manor wind farm case highlighted the legal duty to demonstrate special regard in wind farm cases. The duty under S.72(1) to pay special attention to preserving the character or appearance of conservation areas would also apply.

Consequently, it is considered that the approach of Policy CC2, its supporting text and the map shown in Figure A.4 is unsound for the following reasons:-

(1) The identification of specific areas as being suitable for wind energy development is not based upon a sufficiently robust evidence base

(2) The areas which have been identified for wind energy development could lead to pressure for such developments in locations which would be likely to result in harm to a number of Harborough's most important designated heritage assets. Consequently, the approach to the identification of specific areas as being suitable for wind turbine developments does not demonstrate that the plan is setting out a "positive strategy for the conservation of the historic environment" as is required in the NPPF.

The policy is not adequately addressed within the Sustainability appraisal.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

IN3 4b.

Representation ID: 7405

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

Criteria b of section 4 is welcomed.

Full text:

Criteria b of section 4 is welcomed.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

RT3 clause 1

Representation ID: 7409

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

This policy is welcomed.

Full text:

This policy is welcomed.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

GD8 clause 1, criteria c

Representation ID: 7410

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

Criteria c is welcomed.

Full text:

Criteria c is welcomed.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

8.1.1 to 8.1.3 Explanation

Representation ID: 7426

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The provision of a built heritage policy is strongly welcomed, however it should be clearly strategic as emphasized by paragraph 156 of the NPPF. Without clarification in the Local Plan that the policy is strategic, the policy would not be considered to be sound.

Supporting text 8.1.12/13 should be shortened and amended to reflect the NPPF. By definition within the NPPF, enabling development is development that is not otherwise in accordance with adopted policy.

Full text:

The provision of a built heritage policy is strongly welcomed, however it should be clearly strategic as emphasized by paragraph 156 of the NPPF, which requires that local plans should include strategic policies to deliver conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. Without clarification in the Local Plan that the policy is strategic, the policy would not be considered to be sound.

Supporting text 8.1.12/13 should be shortened and amended to reflect the NPPF. By definition within the NPPF, enabling development is development that is not otherwise in accordance with adopted policy. Paragraph 140 of the NPPF states:-
"Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies."

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

8.1.13 to 8.1.15 Explanation

Representation ID: 7428

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The provision of a built heritage policy is strongly welcomed, however it should be clearly strategic as emphasized by paragraph 156 of the NPPF. Without clarification in the Local Plan that the policy is strategic, the policy would not be considered to be sound.

Supporting text 8.1.12/13 should be shortened and amended to reflect the NPPF. By definition within the NPPF, enabling development is development that is not otherwise in accordance with adopted policy.

Full text:

The provision of a built heritage policy is strongly welcomed, however it should be clearly strategic as emphasized by paragraph 156 of the NPPF, which requires that local plans should include strategic policies to deliver conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. Without clarification in the Local Plan that the policy is strategic, the policy would not be considered to be sound.

Supporting text 8.1.12/13 should be shortened and amended to reflect the NPPF. By definition within the NPPF, enabling development is development that is not otherwise in accordance with adopted policy. Paragraph 140 of the NPPF states:-
"Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies."

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.