South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Search representations
Results for Historic England search
New searchSupport
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Policy VC WOO1: Land south of Church Road
Representation ID: 3197
Received: 01/03/2023
Respondent: Historic England
Whilst there are no designated heritage assets on this site, the grade II listed Rectory lies to the east of the site and the grade II listed Manor Farmhouse lies to the north of the site. Therefore, any development of this site that the potential to impact upon the significance of these heritage assets through development within the setting of the assets.
We appreciate that the allocation has been moved away from these heritage assets which is welcomed.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
Monitoring Framework
Representation ID: 3198
Received: 01/03/2023
Respondent: Historic England
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
We continue to recommend including an indicator for the historic environment included in the framework.
Include an indicator for the historic environment in the framework.
Object
South Norfolk Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan (Reg. 19 Pre-submission Draft)
A.32. The preparation of the
Representation ID: 3199
Received: 01/03/2023
Respondent: Historic England
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
We are concerned at the over-reliance of GIS distance-based analysis for the Sustainability Appraisal (paras 5.3.7 – 5.3.10). The report itself comments of the limitations of this and states that it is not technically appraisal. And little or no potential to reach conclusions on significant effects. The report uses the example of biodiversity features. The same issue applies for heritage assets.
We do however welcome the preparation of Heritage Impact Assessments (noted at para 5.3.18)
The analysis at section 9.8 seems to pick up on the findings of the HIAs and also the inclusion of many of those recommendations in the supporting text or policies of the Plan which is welcomed.
In future SA reports, please ensure the correct notation is used for listed buildings e.g. grade1 should be grade I, grade 2 should be grade II.
The findings of the Analysis on pages 69-95, further highlights our concern that some of the analysis has been overly focused on distance.
We note that Scheduled monuments do not appear in Table A.
