Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation on proposed changes to the examiners’ report

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Comment

Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan - Proposed Changes to the Examiner's Report

Representation ID: 8478

Received: 09/11/2020

Respondent: Anglian Water Services Ltd

Representation:

We note that amendments are proposed by the Council to the wording of Policy G3, G6 and E2 as set out in the Examiner's report and no change to the text of Policy E5. The changes do not appear to raise any issues of relevance to Anglian Water as a sewerage undertaker. Therefore we have no comments to make relating to the Neighbourhood Plan as amended.

Full text:

We note that amendments are proposed by the Council to the wording of Policy G3, G6 and E2 as set out in the Examiner's report and no change to the text of Policy E5. The changes do not appear to raise any issues of relevance to Anglian Water as a sewerage undertaker. Therefore we have no comments to make relating to the Neighbourhood Plan as amended.

Comment

Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan - Proposed Changes to the Examiner's Report

Representation ID: 8479

Received: 06/11/2020

Respondent: Transport for London (TfL)

Representation:

I can confirm that we have no comments to make on the proposed changes

Full text:

I can confirm that we have no comments to make on the proposed changes

Comment

Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan - Proposed Changes to the Examiner's Report

Representation ID: 8480

Received: 21/11/2020

Respondent: Hertfordshire Gardens Trust

Representation:

We have studied these proposed changes and the examiner's report and are satisfied that they be accepted by NHDC.

Full text:

We have studied these proposed changes and the examiner's report and are satisfied that they be accepted by NHDC.

Comment

Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan - Proposed Changes to the Examiner's Report

Representation ID: 8484

Received: 11/12/2020

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

See Attached

Full text:

See Attached

Attachments:

Comment

Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan - Proposed Changes to the Examiner's Report

Representation ID: 8485

Received: 18/12/2020

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council - Environment & Infrastructure Department

Representation:

HCC have the following comments to make in regard to the Policy G6 recommendations for changes within the document titled Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan: schedule of decisions which the local planning authority propose to make which differ from the recommendations of the independent examiner;

Local and Neighbourhood plans should be and are an opportunity for, more tailored policies for local heritage assets and environments rather than having an Asterix which says “as per NPPF”.

Our previous advice does not appear to have been taken and the text/policy only refers to buildings, hence NHDC comments. Heritage assets include archaeological remains and landscapes as well as historic buildings. Heritage assets can have local significance which used to be different from historic buildings that have been identified as locally significant by the local planning authority. This is often referred to as a Local List and gives some material consideration to otherwise undesignated buildings in planning, primarily to facades/exteriors. Interestingly, recent government guidance now expands this Local List to include all types of heritage asset as per their definition in the NPPF. So this is an opportunity for the plan to be clear about this and extend protection to all heritage assets that have been identified as “locally important”. Perhaps for example those that may relate to one another such as the part of the Baldock bowl that lies within the Neighbourhood Area to the north of the town and coordinate responses to new development accordingly. Previously, if something had local significance then that has been justification for archaeological planning conditions and investigation and recording in mitigation of development and in most cases I would assume this to still be the case. This is/was an opportunity for the community to do a little more for all types of heritage assets in the same way that they are proposing for buildings.

Given the development pressure on the historic settlement of Baldock and its surrounding historic landscape this is regrettable.

Full text:

HCC have the following comments to make in regard to the Policy G6 recommendations for changes within the document titled Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan: schedule of decisions which the local planning authority propose to make which differ from the recommendations of the independent examiner;

Local and Neighbourhood plans should be and are an opportunity for, more tailored policies for local heritage assets and environments rather than having an Asterix which says “as per NPPF”.

Our previous advice does not appear to have been taken and the text/policy only refers to buildings, hence NHDC comments. Heritage assets include archaeological remains and landscapes as well as historic buildings. Heritage assets can have local significance which used to be different from historic buildings that have been identified as locally significant by the local planning authority. This is often referred to as a Local List and gives some material consideration to otherwise undesignated buildings in planning, primarily to facades/exteriors. Interestingly, recent government guidance now expands this Local List to include all types of heritage asset as per their definition in the NPPF. So this is an opportunity for the plan to be clear about this and extend protection to all heritage assets that have been identified as “locally important”. Perhaps for example those that may relate to one another such as the part of the Baldock bowl that lies within the Neighbourhood Area to the north of the town and coordinate responses to new development accordingly. Previously, if something had local significance then that has been justification for archaeological planning conditions and investigation and recording in mitigation of development and in most cases I would assume this to still be the case. This is/was an opportunity for the community to do a little more for all types of heritage assets in the same way that they are proposing for buildings.

Given the development pressure on the historic settlement of Baldock and its surrounding historic landscape this is regrettable.

Comment

Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan - Proposed Changes to the Examiner's Report

Representation ID: 8486

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council - Property

Agent: WYG

Representation:

See Attached

Full text:

See Attached

Attachments:

Comment

Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan - Proposed Changes to the Examiner's Report

Representation ID: 8487

Received: 06/11/2020

Respondent: Buckinghamshire Council

Representation:

Thank you for the consultation on this neighbourhood plan examiners changes.
I confirm this council has no comments to make.

Full text:

Thank you for the consultation on this neighbourhood plan examiners changes.
I confirm this council has no comments to make.