Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation on proposed changes to the examiners’ report
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
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.
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)
I can confirm that we have no comments to make on the proposed changes
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
We have studied these proposed changes and the examiner's report and are satisfied that they be accepted by NHDC.
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: 8481
Received: 16/11/2020
Respondent: Natural England - East of England Region
No comment on this neighbourhood plan
See Attached
Comment
Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan - Proposed Changes to the Examiner's Report
Representation ID: 8482
Received: 30/11/2020
Respondent: The Chilterns Conservation Board
No comments on this neighbourhood plan
See attached
Comment
Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan - Proposed Changes to the Examiner's Report
Representation ID: 8483
Received: 02/12/2020
Respondent: Natural England - East of England Region
Natural England does not have any specific comments on the proposed changes to the examiners’ report.
See attached
Comment
Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan - Proposed Changes to the Examiner's Report
Representation ID: 8484
Received: 11/12/2020
Respondent: Historic England
See Attached
See Attached
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
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.
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: Tetra Tech Environment Planning Transport Ltd
See Attached
See Attached
Comment
Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan - Proposed Changes to the Examiner's Report
Representation ID: 8487
Received: 06/11/2020
Respondent: Buckinghamshire Council
Thank you for the consultation on this neighbourhood plan examiners changes.
I confirm this council has no comments to make.
Thank you for the consultation on this neighbourhood plan examiners changes.
I confirm this council has no comments to make.