Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan - Proposed Changes to the Examiner's Report
Search representations
Results for Hertfordshire County Council - Environment & Infrastructure Department search
New searchComment
Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan - Proposed Changes to the Examiner's Report
Baldock, Bygrave and Clothall Neighbourhood Plan – Consultation on proposed changes to the examiners’ 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.
