South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)

Support

Representation ID: 3155

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

We advocate the preparation of a topic paper in which you can catalogue the evidence you have gathered and to show how that has translated into the policy choices you have made.

Support

Representation ID: 3156

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Although this site is located quite close to the grade I listed St Mary’s Church, the site is tucked behind existing development and so the impact on the heritage asset and its setting would be minimal.

Support

Representation ID: 3157

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the addition of the policy criterion in relation to listed buildings.

Support

Representation ID: 3158

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site boundary, there is the grade II listed Church Farmhouse to the south east of the site. However, given the distance and intervening development and vegetation, we consider that the development of the proposed allocation would have limited impact on the setting of the heritage asset.

Support

Representation ID: 3159

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site boundary, there are two grade II listed buildings on High Green to the south of the site. Any development of the site has the potential to impact on the significance of these designated heritage assets.
The site lies to the north of site VC GRE2 which has the benefit of planning consent for residential development. Assuming this permission is implemented, this site would form a logical extension. We welcome the second bullet point to minimise the visual impact and integrate the site into the landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 3160

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site boundary, there are two grade II listed buildings on High Green to the south of the site. Any development of the site has the potential to impact on the significance of these designated heritage assets.
We note that this site has the benefit of planning permission. However, it is helpful that there are still policy criteria in this policy for any new planning permission. It would be helpful to add a heritage criterion to read, ‘Development that preserves and enhances the significance of nearby listed buildings on High Green (including any contribution made to that significance by setting).’

Object

Representation ID: 3161

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within the site boundary, the grade II listed Sayers Farmhouse lies to the south west of the site. There are glimpsed views farmhouse from the site. Any development of the site has the potential to impact on the significance of this listed building.
We welcome the completion of an HIA to consider the impact of development on this asset and the non-designated Cock Inn.
We welcome the reference to Sayers Farm in bullet point 4 and the reference to heritage assets in bullet point 5.
We recommend that Sayers Farmhouse should also be referenced in bullet point 5 in relation to layout and design. The bullet point would read:
‘…given to the setting of Sayers Farmhouse and The Cock Inn.’

Object

Representation ID: 3162

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst there are no designated heritage assets within this site, the site lies immediately to the south of the boundary of the Bawburgh Conservation Area. Any development of this site therefore has the potential to affect the Conservation area and its setting including views into and out of the Conservation area.
We welcome the preparation of an HIA for the site. The HIA makes several recommendations. These have been included in bullet point 2 and 4 which is welcomed.
Bullet point 3 states that the HER should be consulted to determine the need for any archaeological surveys prior to development. However, this is different to the recommendation in the HIA which states that ‘Require investigation on the proposed site prior to development commencing to identify and further historic activity’.
In our view, some assessment is needed to inform any planning application.
We therefore advise that bullet point 3 should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’

Object

Representation ID: 3163

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Although there are no designated heritage assets on site, the site lies immediately adjacent to the grade II listed Pine Tree Cottage. Development of this site has the potential to impact upon the significance of this designated heritage asset through development within its setting.
We welcome the preparation of an HIA for the site.
Whilst we welcome the recommendation of the HIA to provide an area if open space to preserve views of the building and create a degree of separation, we note that this area is also now being proposed as an area of informal car parking.
We have some concerns as to whether an area of open space to protect the setting of the listed building is compatible with the land also being used as a car park. We suggest that consideration should be given to locating the car park in another area of the site, or even off -site – for example it might be more appropriate to locate the car park on the same side of the road as the school to reduce the number of children crossing the road.
If you are going to pursue the car park option on-site, we suggest the addition of wording to criterion 2 to read, Consideration should be given to the design of the car park to ensure that the grade II listed Pine Tree Cottage including its setting is conserved and enhanced.
Criterion 1 of the policy suggests that there should be frontage development and yet the HIA was specific about the need to set development back from the frontage. We suggest you review the wording of criterion 1 accordingly.
We welcome criterion 3 and 5 of the policy.
Bullet point 4 states that the HER should be consulted to determine the need for any archaeological surveys prior to development. However, this is different to the recommendation in the HIA which states that ‘This site would need to be investigated prior to development’. In our view, some assessment is needed to inform any planning application.
We therefore advise that bullet point 4 should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’

Object

Representation ID: 3164

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Although this is not an allocated site in the Local Plan, the settlement limit is being amended to incorporate this land.
The land lies within the Brooke Conservation Area and just to the south of The Warren (grade II listed). Any development of the land has the potential to impact on the significance of these designated heritage assets.
There does not appear to be an HIA for this site. We recommend the preparation of an HIA for this site ahead of the EiP.
Notwithstanding this, we have some reservations about the approach to the extension of settlement limits because it is unclear how site-specific policy requirements e.g. mitigation measures recommended in an HIA, can be secured in the absence of a site-specific policy.