Support

Representation ID: 4614

Received: 04/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Nigel Roberts

Agree

Support Noted.

Support

Representation ID: 5219

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Supported

Support Noted.

Object

Representation ID: 5535

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr C Udale and Grafton Spaces Ltd

The policy as drafted is supported, as it sets out a clear contextual approach to the way that heritage assets should be approached and managed in policy terms.

However, we consider that it could go further in recognising that the long-term management of many heritage assets is problematic in practice, particularly where there original purpose or function is no longer part of the landscape or is not economically viable.

Support of the policy noted.

Policy EN12 sets out how National Policy will be implemented and as such does not need to repeat National Policy.
Paragraphs 207 - 209 set out the requirements for where harm to or loss of a designated/non-designated heritage asset may be acceptable.

Support

Representation ID: 5680

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Williams

The setting of any heritage asset is extremely important particularly with reference to conservation villages and listed buildings. The setting must therefore be preserved with the building itself.

Support of the policy noted.
Policy EN13 states that development should respect the historic landscape character and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration, or the creation of appropriate new features.

Support

Representation ID: 5720

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Support

Support of the policy noted.

Support

Representation ID: 6359

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

I support this policy - but feel it could go further. Particularly this sentence 'A Historic Impact Assessment may be required to support proposals which affect historic assets and their setting". I think "may" ought to be "will".
Even if you need to add an "unless" at the end. "will be required unless...." is better than "may be required"

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 6423

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

Whilst I support the focus on the historic and cultural environment, the policy needs to state these assets will be fully protected and that development will not be allowed to impact on the historic and cultural environment

Objection noted.
As per the introduction to Policy EN12, the policy sets out how national policy will be implemented in Rutland, establishes what supporting evidence will be required, and how developments are expected to be designed.
Policy EN13 is for the protection of heritage assets.

Object

Representation ID: 6618

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

It is suggested that Policy EN12 and EN13 could be combined into a single policy.

Comments noted. Historic Environment and Heritage Assets have been included as 2 policies for clarity and to avoid a singular policy that is excessively wordy.

Object

Representation ID: 6776

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Barrowden Parish Council

We would ask that more guidance is provided as to what “appropriate” might mean.

Response noted.
Where the policy states 'where appropriate' this would be defined on a case-by-case basis.

Object

Representation ID: 7105

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Stamford Civic Society

Any development in North Stamford is likely to impact on Stamford Historic Town Centre – the first conservation area in the country. It will also impact on the Northfields Conservation Area, as people travelling from North Stamford to the Town Centre or to retails parks on the east side of the Town, may pass through it. The Town Centre is already subject to considerable traffic congestion and a lack of sufficient car-parking spaces. This is likely to have a serious impact on the Town Centre creating the risk of further damage to the historic environment.

Noted. Stamford's Conservation Area falls outside the County boundary.

Support

Representation ID: 7112

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Tim Maskell

I approve the overriding priority to protect and enhance the historic and rural nature of Rutland as prime benefits enjoyed by local residents.

Support Noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7273

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marilyn Clayton

The heritage assets are most important for Rutland and should be preserved. Rutland is an historic county.

Support of the policy noted.
Policy EN12 is for the conservation and enhancement of the historic and cultural envrionment.

Object

Representation ID: 7327

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The Policy needs to recognise that harm to historic assets can be justified and be acceptable if the public benefits of the development outweigh that harm. Policy EN13 includes “National Policy for designated assets will also be used to consider development proposals which affect the setting of designated assets” and this includes the assessment of public benefits, but Policy EN12 needs to include this too.

Objection noted.
Policy EN12 sets out how the national policy will be implemented, establishing what supporting evidence is required and how development proposals are expected to be designed and developed to take heritage assets into account. Para 206 of the NPPF states that 'any harm or loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification'. Para 207 states that 'where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm (or total loss) of a designated heritage asset, local authorities should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss..'

Object

Representation ID: 7474

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Preston Parish Meeting

We specifically support the concern raised by CPRE over policy EN12, which appears to allow for greater development in conservation areas such as Preston. Protecting the historic assets of Preston (and other conservation villages) is critical, and we would want to see any Local Plan reinforcing this protection. We would support the CPRE recommendation of ‘presumption against approval for development’ rather than ‘presumption in favour’. WE are concerned that the lack of a PLD will create a loophole that could be exploited by developers, is open to interpretation by the Planning Committee and ultimately the Secretary of State on appeal. Establishing PLDs for smaller villages would go a long way to address such concerns.

Presumption against development is not in accordance with the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 7480

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: The British Horse Society

New development plans provide opportunities to improve and extend the bridleway and byway network for the shared enjoyment of equestrians, wheelers. Resources through sl06 could also be utilised to extend the network through addressing anomalies on the Definitive Map and to assess claims for additional routes or to upgrade the status of a route. Developments should consider the existence of these routes as historic assets and use opportunities to dedicate additional routes to enhance the network for all non-MPV users who are vulnerable on the growing road network.

Noted. This falls outside the scope of Policy EN12.

Object

Representation ID: 7487

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

Designated Heritage Assets section has no meaning and provides no guidance for the implementation of the policy by Development Control. It cannot contribute to the determination of planning applications.

Conservation Areras section provides a presumption in favour of development in conservation areas. What does “significant weight” mean? How is “development within, affecting the setting of, or affecting views into or out of a Conservation Area” expected to “conserve, or enhance features that contribute positively to the areas special character, appearance and setting ---“?

Buildings of local importance/non-designated heritage assets section contains no benchmarks or guidelines for determination by Development Control. The terms used in this policy are subjective and are open to widely differing interpretations. They offer no basis for determination by Development Control.

Policy EN12 provides no improvements on adopted policy SP20 for the protection of heritage assets, even though development pressures have much increased over time. We would expect to see a clear presumption against development around heritage assets whilst clearly explaining the considerations which will be weighed in exceptional circumstances where development applications may receive sympathetic consideration.

These cases should be limited to where a clear and demonstrable public benefit results from any development which might impact heritage assets.

Paragraphs 1-3 relate to EN13.

Objection of policy EN12 noted.
Policy SP20 is replaced by policy EN13.
Policy EN12 is replaced by policy CS22.
EN12 provides improvement from CS22 and explains how national policy will be implemented, what supporting evidence will be required and how developments are expected to be designed. The policy is therefore in line with the requirements set out in the NPPF.

Support

Representation ID: 7525

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

Wing PC strongly supports this policy, but again notes that RCC highways have failed to apply such a policy in protecting the character of Wing Conservation Area

Support of the policy noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7590

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

This policy is welcomed.
Reference to ‘historic assets’ should be updated to
‘heritage assets’ to reflect NPPF terminology.

Within the supporting text, it would be helpful to refer to
non-designated ‘features’ as ‘assets’ to reflect NPPF
terminology. It would also be helpful to include reference
that some non-designated heritage assets are equivalent
to designated heritage assets and that in some cases
local authorities may also identify non-designated
heritage assets as part of the decision making process on
planning applications.

First and third paragraph –
change ‘historic assets’ to ‘heritage assets’ Why this policy is needed, paragraph two – update reference to non-designated ‘features’ to ‘assets’.

General support of the policy noted.

Within the introduction to the policy, it states that there is no need to repeat national policy within Rutland. Para 209 of the NPPF states that the significant of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application.

Object

Representation ID: 7808

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

We note Policies EN12 and EN13. We have some concern over the wording for conservation areas, which sits uncomfortably with the statutory duty for conservation areas under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Objection noted.
Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that 'special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area'.
Policy EN12 states that 'All development proposals, projects and activities will be expected to protect, conserve and where possible, seek opportunities to enhance historic assets and their settings...development should respect the historic landscape character and contribute to its conservation, enhancement, restoration, or creation of appropriate new features.'
Policy EN12 corresponds with the wording under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Support

Representation ID: 7954

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

EN12 The Historic & Cultural Environment - Support

Support of the Policy noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7976

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

The applicable national policies need to be specified and referenced. The policy provides a presumption in favour of development in conservation areas. What does “significant weight” mean? How is “development within, affecting the setting of, or affecting views into or out of a Conservation Area” expected to “conserve, or enhance features that contribute positively to the areas special character, appearance and setting ---“? This needs an explanation.

Regarding buildings of local importance/non-designated heritage asset, the policy contains no benchmarks or
guidelines for determination by Development Control. The terms used in this policy are subjective and are open to
widely differing interpretations.

Policy EN12 provides no improvements on adopted policy SP20 for the protection of heritage assets, even though development pressures have much increased over time since policy SP20 was drafted. We would expect to see a clear presumption against development around heritage assets in this Regulation 18 Local Plan whilst explaining clearly the considerations which will be weighed in exceptional circumstances where development applications may receive sympathetic consideration. These cases should be limited to where a clear and demonstrable public benefit results from any development which might impact heritage assets.

Objection noted.
Policy EN12 is not replacing SP20 but is replacing CS22. Policy EN13 (the protection of heritage assets) is replacing SP20. This is stated within the policy.

Designated and non-designated heritage assets and what is required for determination are covered by policy EN13. This includes development within a conservation area and provides criteria that need to be met for the development to be acceptable.