Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on VALP Proposed Submission - BE1 Heritage Assets

Representation ID: 2555

OBJECT Buckinghamshire County Council (SA Sharp)

Summary:

Suggested amendments to be1

More details about Rep ID: 2555

Representation ID: 2444

SUPPORT Wendover Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Mr Jonathan Clover)

Summary:

The SG feels that the historic centre of the Town should be preserved from
inappropriate development and maintained as a key part of the Town's appeal to
visitors.

More details about Rep ID: 2444

Representation ID: 2156

OBJECT Historic England (Mr Martin Small)

Summary:

As drafted, we do not consider Policy BE1 to be an adequate strategic policy to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. We also consider that it should be complemented by a development management policy or policies to provide a clear indication to decision makers on how to react to a proposal.

More details about Rep ID: 2156

Representation ID: 2006

SUPPORT Adstock Parish Council (Ruth Millard)

Summary:

We strongly support and welcome the strict policy of protecting and conserving heritage assets.

More details about Rep ID: 2006

Representation ID: 1812

OBJECT Wates Developments Ltd. represented by Boyer Planning Ltd (Jonathan Liberman)

Summary:

The policy is inconsistent with the NPPF para 128 and 133. Also requiring an archaeological evaluation in all cases does not seem justifiable and onerous.

More details about Rep ID: 1812

Representation ID: 1704

OBJECT Richborough Estates represented by RPS Planning & Development (Mr Cameron Austin-Fell)

Summary:

The policy needs to be re-considered in light of the requirements of the NPPF and NPPG. For example the policy states that development will not be permitted if it causes harm to the character or appearance of conservation areas or their settings. This is inconsistent with chapter 12 of the NPPF. An example of where the Local Plan allows for the balancing approach to take place is Policy NE1 (first sentence). The Council should re-consider all policies in the plan in this context.

More details about Rep ID: 1704

Representation ID: 1638

OBJECT Gladman Developments Ltd (Ms Nicole Penfold)

Summary:

Does not apply the policy test set out in relation to non-designated heritage assets - and applying a balanced judgement in relation to the scale of the harm of significance of the asset.

More details about Rep ID: 1638

Representation ID: 1370

SUPPORT Weedon Parish Council (Ruth Millard)

Summary:

BE1. Heritage assets
We strongly support and welcome the strict policy of protecting and conserving heritage assets.

More details about Rep ID: 1370

Representation ID: 949

SUPPORT Chiltern Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Conservation Board (Dr Lucy Murfett)

Summary:

The Chilterns Conservation Board supports this policy.

More details about Rep ID: 949

Representation ID: 797

OBJECT Define (on behalf of Bovis Homes) (Mr Mark Rose) represented by Define (on behalf of Bovis Homes) (Mr Mark Rose)

Summary:

Bovis Homes recognise the overarching principle of safeguarding heritage assets. However, the requirement to preserve the historic interest of archaeological remains in situ is too prescriptive with the result that it could prevent otherwise sustainable development. The policy should simply require an appropriate desk based assessment and, where necessary, field evaluation that would then determine the appropriate mitigation required taking account of the merits of the proposed development (NPPF paras. 128 and 129).

Soundness:
For the reasons set out above, Bovis Homes object to Policy BE1, which is considered unsound on the basis that it is inconsistent with national policy.

More details about Rep ID: 797

Representation ID: 756

OBJECT Sue Barber

Summary:

The heritage assets of Halton have not been fully considered in the plan.

More details about Rep ID: 756

Representation ID: 735

SUPPORT Whaddon Parish Council (Ms Suzanne Lindsey)

Summary:

Whaddon PC support.

More details about Rep ID: 735

Representation ID: 278

SUPPORT Buckinghamshire Archaelogical Society (Mr Nigel Wilson)

Summary:

The Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (2017) reflects what the Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society has previously submitted in earlier versions of the Plan. Between pages 211 and 217, a coherent framework is set out for dealing with heritage assets to establish the formal policy BE1. It is particularly heartening that the Plan has taken on board the concept of protecting non-designated heritage assets during the planning process.

It is appreciated that non-designated heritage assets present complexities to the planning process for the simple reason they are often unknown, unexpected and even inconvenient. Their importance, however, cannot be underestimated as they contribute to local and regional perceptions of heritage which in turn have potential future economic impacts for the development of leisure and tourism.

More details about Rep ID: 278

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult