MM53.

Object

Representation ID: 22486

Received: 27/04/2023

Respondent: Sproughton Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Just an observation in relation to our questioning of Protect being substituted with Conserve in previous sections. In this section there appears to be an understanding that ‘preserve’, ‘enhance’ and ‘conserve’ may have different meanings. In a planning sense one or other may be interpreted differently and therefore are open to legal challenge. In the same way ‘protect’ and ‘conserve’ may be.

Object

Representation ID: 22510

Received: 17/04/2023

Respondent: East Bergholt Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

The importance of the Historic Environment is not lost on those living in East Bergholt. In assessing the impact of new development on Designated and Non Designated Heritage Assets LP19/21 however, the policy lacks an accompanying schedule (list) of all the Non Designated Assets across the District, to which the policy applies. The absence of such a schedule is a serious omission and without such, prepared and approved by the LPA, this policy and its interpretation will remain as woolly as the term itself. It is simply insufficient for officers to look at an unlisted building and say “let’s treat that as a non designated heritage asset” when required. An official and maintained list is a pre-requisite for an effective policy.

Support

Representation ID: 22707

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Artisan PPS Ltd

Artisan supports the simplification of the requirements for a Heritage Statement in paragraph 1

Object

Representation ID: 22708

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Artisan PPS Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

In paragraph 3, the policy now requires heritage assets outside of a settlement boundary to be put to "the" optimum viable use. This phrase has long since disappeared from the Framework. The requirement now is that heritage assets are put to viable uses consistent with the conservation (NPPF197(a)). Accordingly, the addition of the word
"the" renders the policy inconsistent with national planning policy.

Object

Representation ID: 22710

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Artisan PPS Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

• Paragraph 4 is excessive and goes beyond the statutory requirements under the 1990 Act. It sets out that heritage assets􀀤 be preserved, enhanced or conserved. It is well­established caselaw that s.66, for example, sets a presumption against granting permission which harms the significance of a listed building. It does not mandate to avoid harm, nor that heritage assets must be preserved and so LP19 should not either. There is an extensive range of case law on this point, see for example Forest of Dean DC v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 4052 (Admin).
Moreover, paragraph 4 also refers to the preservation, enhancement and conservation of non-designated heritage assets. This plainly exceeds statutory requirements.
In any event, paragraph 4 is superfluous. Do the Councils really need a planning policy stating that they will comply with statutory obligations?

Object

Representation ID: 22712

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Artisan PPS Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Strongly object to final sentence of paragraph 5. This imposes a freestanding test of clear and convincing justification, for which there is seemingly no stated criteria with which to comply. This goes above and beyond the requirements of the Framework such that it is plainly inconsistent. The Framework does not impose such a freestanding test of clear and convincing justification. Caselaw has made this clear: see the High Court judgments in Bedford BC v SSCLG [2013) EWHC 2847 (Adm in) and in Pugh v SSCLG [2015) EWHC 3 (Adm in). These cases make it clear that the 'clear and convincing justification' referred to in what is now NPPF200 comes from the application of the sequential assessment found in the following paragraphs of the Framework. In other words, if the public benefits outweighed the level of harm (in what is now NPPF201 and NPPF202), that would be all the justification required. This policy needs to reflect this otherwise it will remain inconsistent with national planning policy.

Object

Representation ID: 22713

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Artisan PPS Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Strongly object to final sentence of paragraph 5. The Framework only applies the sequential test described above to 'designated heritage assets' and not to the wider category of 'heritage assets'. Therefore, the current draft of the policy will require some other justification for heritage assets that is not to be found within the Framework. This demonstrates further inconsistency of LP19 with the Framework.

Support

Representation ID: 22831

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Boyer Planning

Taylor Wimpey broadly supports the MM to Policy LP19 The Historic Environment.

Object

Representation ID: 22832

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Boyer Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

We again raise concern about the use of “convincing” in point 5. We fear that the word
convincingly can be used to request evidence beyond what is reasonable. It is suggested
that the word convincingly is also removed from this policy to ensure that the requirement is
effective and is only used to require appropriate evidence and justification in accordance with
the tests of soundness outlines in the National Planning Policy Framework. Application DC/21/02671 at Wolsey Grange 2 which was approved subject to legal
agreement at Babergh Planning Committee in January 2023 was supported by the
appropriate heritage evidence to inform the proposal.

Support

Representation ID: 22865

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the changes made to policy LP19. These provide greater protection for the historic environment and consistency with the NPPF.

Support

Representation ID: 22883

Received: 03/05/2023

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

SCC welcomes the changes made to this policy and considers it sound.