Response from Ms Barbara Hooper, Historic England
1. Ms Barbara Hooper, Historic England : 14 Dec 2017 14:24:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show that you have read the guidance notes accompanying this consultation.
I have read the guidance notes
Policy Reference
AS07 - Historic Environment
1.1 Do you consider the AONB DPD to be legally compliant?
Yes
1.3 Do you consider the AONB DPD to be sound?
No
1.4 If NO please indicate the ground(s) on which you consider the DPD to be unsound
The DPD is not consistent with national policy
1.5 Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate. Please be as precise as possible.
If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the DPD or its compliance with the Duty to Cooperate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
Thank you for consulting Historic England on the Arnside and Silverdale DPD Publication document. As the Government’s statutory adviser on all matters relating to the historic environment in England, we are pleased to offer our comments. We champion and protect England’s historic places, providing expert advice to local planning authorities, developers, owners and communities to help ensure our historic environment is properly understood, conserved and enjoyed.
We welcome the very positive approach taken by the local planning authorities in pioneering the first DPD for an AONB. We have looked through the Plan, and have the following minor comments in terms of ensuring that it is sound.
Positive Strategy: The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out in various places the requirements for Local Plans in respect of the historic environment. A key element is the need to set out a positive and clear strategy for the conservation, enjoyment and enhancement of the historic environment. This DPD clearly achieves this, with a strong heritage policy (subject to amendment – see below), and recognition of the role that the historic environment plays throughout. For example, it is mentioned in the vision and objectives, and in policies AS02, section 4.5 and AS08, AS09, and AS13. In this respect the Plan is sound.
Adequate and relevant evidence: The NPPF (paragraph 169) requires that the Plan is based upon the ‘up to date evidence about the historic environment’. There is a list of much of the evidence used in paragraph 4.4.3, along with further evidence within the Document Library. In this respect the Plan is sound, although it would benefit from a fuller description of the richness of the historic environment within the AONB. For example, the natural environment section in 4.2 goes into some detail on the sites and species found within the area, but the historic environment section is a lot less informative. It would, for example, be helpful to have a synopsis of numbers and type of designated assets, any heritage at risk etc.
Strategic policies for the historic environment: The NPPF (in its paragraph 156) refers to the need to identify strategic priorities, and states that Neighbourhood Plans must be in ‘general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan’ (paragraph 184 of the NPPF). Given the role of this plan, and its straddling two local authority boundaries, it would be helpful to clarify exactly which are the strategic policies which would need to be referenced should Neighbourhood Plans be developed.
Identification of areas where development would be inappropriate: Site allocations should avoid harming the significance of both designated and undesignated heritage assets, including effects upon their setting. At the same time, proposed development sites may present opportunities for enhancing the historic environment. Site allocations should therefore be informed by sufficient robust evidence to help identify heritage assets likely to be affected, and consider the likely constraints or opportunities. The Plan therefore needs to be able to demonstrate that:
i. The sites that are allocated will be likely to “contribute to protecting or enhancing the historic environment” and are therefore delivering sustainable development in terms of the historic environment (NPPF Paragraph 7).
ii. The allocated sites are likely to “conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance”. (NPPF Paragraph 17).
iii. It has complied with the statutory duties under sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990.
We note that the impact of the sites upon the historic environment has been assessed as part of the Sustainability Appraisal, and opportunities for conserving and enhancing any heritage assets affected have been picked up within the mini briefs. We therefore consider that in this respect the Plan is sound.
Policy AS07 Historic Environment: We are concerned that the Plan may not be fully in compliance with the NPPF for the historic environment policy, AS07. While we fully appreciate the intent of the policy, some of the wording needs amending to be fully consistent with national policy.
The first paragraph refers to ‘locally important heritage assets…’. We are unclear of the distinction here, as this seems to imply that nationally important heritage assets are not covered by this policy? Yet the AONB contains a wealth of nationally significant assets, including listed buildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments, as well as Conservation Areas. As it stands, this policy is not providing adequate protection to designated assets, and is therefore not complying with national legislation and advice. In addition, it is not referring to the significance of the heritage assets, which is a critical concept and included throughout the historic environment advice within the NPPF.
We would therefore reword the wording of this first paragraph to read:
‘…including built, natural and historic features, and protect, conserve and enhance the significance of heritage assets (including any contribution made by their setting), historic landscape character, and the distinctiveness of settlements.’
Reference to significance should also be incorporated into the bullet point (1), which at present does not adequately protect archaeological assets (which may be below ground, or have no architectural interest). For example, we would suggest:
(1) Conserve and enhance the significance of the asset…
The penultimate paragraph refers to where development proposals will not be permitted. The NPPF makes it clear that where a development proposal will lead to harm to the significance of an asset, it must be weighed against public benefits or a number of criteria apply (NPPF paragraphs 133-135). The need for this balanced judgement need to be reflected in the wording, to ensure that the policy is compliant with the NPPF.
1.6 Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to resolve your objection and make the DPD legally compliant or sound, having regard to the matter(s) you have identified above. (Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Cooperate is incapable of modification at examination). You will need to say why this modification will make the DPD legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording of any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
Please see comments above.
2.1 If your representation is seeking a modification, do you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination?
No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, recommendations published and adopted.
Please notify me
