Local Development Framework Consultation

DM1 General Requirements

POLICY DM1: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT
The purpose mentions “historic” as does the reasoned justification (para 2.1.1) yet the policy itself does not mention it.

DM3 Historic Environment

POLICY DM3: HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

Opening paragraph
• The NPPF recognises the importance of setting and therefore this should be included in this opening paragraph.

Assessing Significance and Impact
• It would be helpful if for clarity, that when referring to degree of significance it is clear as to what this refers to – is it the grade of the asset or what the asset's significance is.
• The bulleted list should read as a list of things which should be included within an assessment of development proposals.
• The policy (and others) should be clear and consistent in its uses of terms such as listed buildings, non-designated and designated assets, historic environment and etc.
• Given the first section of the policy appears to apply to the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting; it might be worth using this?
• It would be helpful to refer to harm as the test is to whether any harm is necessary and can be justified through substantial public benefits.

Nationally designated heritage assets
• The title only needs to refer to heritage assets, in line with the terminology in the NPPF and given the content of the following text.
• The policy refers to “affecting” which could be positive or negative and the sentence needs to be amended.
• As drafted it appears to imply that provided the information included in the bulleted list is submitted, the proposal will be supported. Rather it should read that the proposals should demonstrate the following.
• We welcome reference to Heritage at Risk, however as drafted it is a statement rather than a policy. Maybe it just needs rewording to say something that is more DM –led e.g. The Council will encourage proposals that secure the future of heritage assets identified at risk on Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register. However, South Lakeland has a mix of assets some SM and others LB etc, therefore it needs to sit in the right place so that it applies to all.


Archaeological sites
• The starting point for any application that affects a SM or site of national importance is that development will not be permitted where it harms these types of assets. However, this does not appear to be the starting point of this policy. IT appears to suggest that provided the information is submitted in the bulleted list to accompany the application then the application will be supported. The list is what is required to accompany an application and it is the harm which is important and the policy needs to reflect this.
• There is no mention of the types of archaeological assets that exist. SM and those of national importance are considered to be of the highest significance and should be treated accordingly.
• Reference to national policy or legislation would sit better within the supporting text.
• The policy should also have a section on how it will deal with non-designated assets or unknown assets.
• It should also make it clear that the information to support an application should be proportionate to the significance of the asset and may include desk based and/or field evaluation. Given the high significance of SM and those of national importance it should be clear that preservation in situ swill be the preferred approach but when this is not justified in terms of the tests in the NPPF then the policy should outline what the applicant will need to do including possibly excavation, recording, interpretation etc.

Locally designated or identified heritage assets

Conservation areas

• Conservation areas are not a local asset – they are statutory and are covered under the Act, therefore it shouldn't sit beneath this title.
• Again like mentioned above, the policy should clearly outline the Council's starting position on conservation areas, and the bulleted list should represent what needs to demonstrated/submitted to determine the application and the level of harm.

Non-designated heritage assets of local significance
• Whilst we welcome the inclusion of a policy to cover these types of assets, the policy would benefit from a rejig to show the Council's starting position on applications affecting these types of assets (paragraph 4)
• It would be helpful to finish off the policy with a sentence on when the loss of the asset is permitted what will be required e.g. survey, recording and deposited with the HER.

Historic Parks, Gardens and Landscapes
• This should sit in the designated section above.
• The opening paragraph should outline the Council's starting position for any applications that affect these types of assets (see above)
• Paragraph 2 appears to attempt to defined what makes a good proposal and would get planning permission. This should be reworded.

Substantial harm and the demolition or complete loss of heritage assets
• The opening paragraph appears to attempt to determine what substantial harm is which may or may not apply to all assets. The policy should allow for each application to be considered on a case by case basis.
• The policy would benefit from outlining that where demolition is proposed the following list of points needs to be demonstrated rather than if you include the following list, LBC/PP will be granted
• Paragraph 133 of the NPPF refers to funding not possible, feasible would refer to something different.
• Bullet 18 and 19 as drafted appears to infer that this justifies substantial harm.

Public benefits
Has this already been covered by the above?

Reasoned Justification

Para 2.3.4
Last three lines – this line does not appear to sit well within the text and is not factually correct so it would be best if it is deleted e.g. SMC is administered by Historic England not the LPA.

Para 2.3.6
The NPPF recognises the importance of setting and this should be mentioned here.

Para 2.3.7
See comment on main policy which needs to be reflected in the supporting text e.g. level of asset’s significance reference. Not sure what “reversibility in design mitigation” means.

Para 2.3.8
See comment on main policy which needs to be reflected in the supporting text. Note the reference to the need to undertake a heritage assessment here is mentioned and this needs to be reinforced within the policy.

Para 2.3.9
This outlines the Council’s position on non-designated heritage assets and this should be included within the Policy.

Para 2.3.10
This doesn’t appear to be in the right position in the text.

Para 2.3.11
The content of this paragraph is rather confusing and should be made clearer as to what it is requiring. Is the Council proposing public benefit requirements that are different to the requirements of the NPPF? It is not clear.

Para 2.3.12
As this follows on from above, is this a list of requirements for the Council’s test of benefits or national?

Updated Optional Housing Standards - Evidence Topic Paper

Update Optional Housing Standards - Evidence Topic Paper

Historic England do not have any comments to make on this topic paper