Village Clusters Housing Allocations Plan - Reg. 19 Pre-submission Addendum

Object

Representation ID: 4193

Received: 30/09/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

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. We welcome paragraph 7.14 of the supporting text and criterion 5 of the policy which seek to respect the setting of the heritage assets through the provision of open space and preservation of long views.

Amend archaeology criterion to read

Norfolk’s Historic Environment Service is to be consulted prior to application to determine the need for any archaeological assessments.

Object

Representation ID: 4199

Received: 30/09/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We welcome the preparation of the HIA. The HIA recommends that archaeological investigation should be required prior to development commencing. The recommendations of the HIA in relation to archaeology
should be included in the policy requirements.

The current reference to archaeology at criterion 6 is insufficient. We suggest that the wording is slightly amended to read:

Norfolk’s Historic Environment Service is consulted prior to application to determine the need for any archaeological assessments.

Object

Representation ID: 4211

Received: 30/09/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Whilst criterion 2 refers to boundary treatments to the south of the site, the HIA recommends planting along the eastern boundary of the development as mitigation for the non-designated heritage asset, Weaver’s Cottage. We therefore recommend that the policy wording of criterion 2 is amended to read

‘Appropriate boundary treatments to the south and east of the site…’

Object

Representation ID: 4212

Received: 30/09/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Our main remaining concern relates to the archaeology criterion for a number of sites. We recognise that the policy should be proportionate to the site size and heritage sensitivity.

However, as currently worded the criterion is not really clear about who needs to be consulted and what assessment needs doing when. The policy also fails to provide for up-front assessment to inform the design and layout of sites to protect any sensitive archaeology.

The principal issues relate to both clarity over consultation and also timing of any assessment (desk-based or field-based).

As currently drafted, the criterion could be read that an applicant simply has to look at the Historic Environment Record online and decide if they think it needs any further assessment prior to development.

Finally, in preparation of the local plan, we encourage you to draw on the knowledge of local conservation officers, the county archaeologist and local heritage groups.

Please note that absence of a comment on a policy, allocation or document in this letter does not mean that Historic England is content that the policy, allocation or document is devoid of historic environment issues.

We should like to stress that this response is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise as a result of this plan, where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.