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

Object

Representation ID: 3175

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The grade II listed barn at Elm Farm lies within the site. Therefore, any development of this site has the potential to impact upon the significance of this heritage asset.
We welcome the preparation of the HIA.
The HIA makes a number of helpful recommendations in relation to the barn. We welcome the references in paragraph 23.8 and in bullet points 4, 5 and 6 of the policy which reflect these recommendations. It is clearly important for this land to remain open and we welcome that being reflected in policy.
We do have some concerns about the possibility of one part of the site being accessed across this open land by the barn. Any access road is likely to also include lighting etc and would harm the significance of the listed barn through development within its setting. It would be preferable for that part of the site to be accessed either through the development that is currently being built, or alternatively directly off Burnthouse Lane. We recommend that alternative access options be explored, and the policy wording amended accordingly to reduce harm to the listed building.
Bullet point 7 states that the HER should be consulted to determine the need for any archaeological surveys prior to development. In our view, some assessment is needed to inform any planning application.
We therefore advise that bullet point 7 should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’

Object

Representation ID: 3176

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Bullet point 3 states that the HER should be consulted to determine the need for any archaeological surveys prior to development. 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: 3177

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 on the site, there is a grade II listed Thatched Cottage to the north east of the site and the Bracon Ash and Hethel War Memorial to the north of the site. Home Farmhouse, also listed at grade II, lies to the south east of the site. Therefore, any development of this site has the potential to impact upon the significance of these heritage assets.
We appreciate that this site was allocated in the previous local plan and that an application for the site has been submitted, pending determination.
We welcome the reference to Home Farm and Thatched cottage and their settings in bullet point 2.
Bullet point 4 states that the HER should be consulted to determine the need for any archaeological surveys 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: 3178

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 grade I listed Church of St Peter, its boundary wall listed at grade II and Ivy Farmhouse, also listed at grade II, lie to the south west of the site. Therefore, any development of this site has the potential to impact upon the significance of these heritage assets.
The site is an important rural gap site in the village and consideration should be given to that role in combination with the setting of the heritage assets.
We welcome the preparation of the HIA. Although there are views along the road of the church from in front of the site, the site itself is set back. We welcome the reference to appropriate boundary treatments in the supporting text and policy.
Bullet point 4 states that the HER should be consulted to determine the need for any archaeological surveys 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: 3180

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.
Although the land does not include any designated heritage assets, the site is located between two grade II listed buildings – the United Reform Church and 155 High Road. Therefore, any development of this site has the potential to impact upon the significance of these 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.

Object

Representation ID: 3181

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, Redenhall church (grade I listed) is very visible from the northern part of the site.
We welcome the reference to the GI listed St Mary’s church, Redenhall in paragraph 26.23 and the reference to design and layout including building heights to the reflect the prominence of the site in the River Valley Landscape. We also welcome bullet point 4 of the policy.
We recommend an HIA is prepared for this site to fully assess the impact and ensure the appropriate mitigation is in place within the policy.

Object

Representation ID: 3182

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 grade II listed Bell Inn lies opposite this site. Another grade II listed property, known as Premises of Mr Brown, lies to the north of the site. Therefore, any development of this site has the potential to impact upon the significance of these heritage assets.
This is an important rural gap site in the village and consideration should be given to that role in combination with the setting of the heritage assets.
We welcome the preparation of the HIA. The HIA includes a number of helpful recommendations. Bullet point 3 of the policy reflects the recommendation in relation to historic grain.
The policy should also include a criterion reflecting the HIA recommendation in relation to landscaping to read,
‘Enhance landscaping along the west boundary, particularly behind the village green’
Bullet point 2 states that the HER should be consulted to determine the need for any archaeological surveys prior to development. In our view, some assessment is needed to inform any planning application.
We therefore advise that bullet point 2 should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’

Support

Representation ID: 3183

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Although Hill Farmhouse, grade II listed lies to the north of the site, the site is screened by the intervening woodland and so no impact would be had on the significance of this asset.

Object

Representation ID: 3184

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, three grade II listed buildings (Old Hall and two barns) lie around the western end of the site. We therefore have concerns about built development on the western end of the site.
We welcome the preparation of the HIA.
However, we disagree that the impacts Old Hall Barn and Farmhouse will be negligible. The collection of farm buildings has a relationship to the wider landscape. There needs to be a degree of set back and open space in the far western portion of the site to reduce the impact on these listed buildings. This should be added as a new policy criterion.
The HIA also suggests that the footpath link near the barn would need to consider the relationship to the barn and use appropriate materials. This should be included in the policy at criterion 4 to read ‘Careful consideration should be given to the relationship of the footpath to the listed barn and appropriate materials used’.
Bullet point 5 states that the HER should be consulted to determine the need for any archaeological surveys prior to development. In our view, some assessment is needed to inform any planning application.
We therefore advise that bullet point 5 should be amended to read, ‘Planning applications should be supported by archaeological assessment including the results of field evaluation where appropriate.’

Object

Representation ID: 3186

Received: 01/03/2023

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We welcome the preparation of the HIA.
The site should include criterion in relation to archaeology given the presence of finds within the site as identified in the HIA.