Landscape Susceptibility in relation to Energy Generation, Storage and Transmission - SPD

Support

Representation ID: 4321

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Historic England

4.9.11 We welcome the references to heritage in bullet points 5, 6 and 7. However, there is currently insufficient reference to the historic environment including designated and non-designated heritage assets and their settings. For example, there can be considerable impacts on non-designated archaeology through cabling routes.
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new bullet point to read: Ensure that designated heritage assets including Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas Scheduled Monuments and Registered Parks and Gardens and their settings are conserved and enhanced through careful routing of underground cables. Careful consideration should be given to avoiding harm to non-designated heritage assets where possible.

Support

Representation ID: 4322

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Historic England

4.10.14 We welcome reference to designated areas of cultural value in Horlock’s Rule 2 for siting of substations.
4.10.17 We welcome the references to heritage in bullet points 8,9, 13, 15 and 18. However, there is currently insufficient reference to the historic environment including designated and non-designated heritage assets and their settings.
RECOMMENDATION: Add a new bullet point to read: Ensure that designated heritage assets including Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas Scheduled Monuments and Registered Parks and Gardens as well as non-designated heritage assets and their settings are conserved and enhanced through careful siting and design of substations as well as appropriate landscape mitigation.

Support

Representation ID: 4323

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Historic England

5.1.3 We welcome this paragraph which provides a helpful caveat explaining the limitations of Susceptibility Assessment. However, this could be expanded along the lines of the suggested paragraphs under b) on page 2. In addition, the caveats setting the use and limitations of the Study should not just be in Chapter 5 but should be clearly set out at the start of the document.
RECOMMENDATION: Expand the paragraph along the lines of our suggested paragraphs under b) on page 2. Also include scope and caveats at the start of the document in the Introduction.
It is unclear why Section 5 is just limited to Susceptibility and not widened to include value and hence Sensitivity like Section 6. Please can you clarify.

Support

Representation ID: 4324

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Historic England

6.5.7-6.5.10 Can you clarify, was landscape value used for the Norwich Main Substation Sensitivity Assessment but not for the wider Susceptibility Study in section 5? If so, why the difference in approach?

Support

Representation ID: 4325

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Historic England

7.2.11 Whilst underground cables would not affect the openness of the NSBLPZ, they do have other potential negative effects including impacts on below ground archaeology. Routing should give careful consideration of archaeology.
RECOMMENDATION: Include reference to consideration of archaeology in routing selection

Support

Representation ID: 4326

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Historic England

7.3.7 Whilst we appreciate that Overhead Power Lines are to an extent permeable in relation to views, they would be a significant detraction. As currently worded this paragraph seems to underplay their impact on views.
RECOMMENDATION: Amend paragraph to read ‘significantly detract’.

Support

Representation ID: 4327

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Historic England

7.4.8 Again we consider that as currently worded this paragraph underplays the impact of overhead power lines on undeveloped approaches to Norwich. There would be an urbanising effect and loss of sense of an undeveloped approach.
RECOMMENDATION: Amend paragraph to read,
Whilst the existing land uses tend to remain the same below the powerlines, so there would not be any direct effects on the undeveloped approaches.