Support

Representation ID: 71677

Received: 17/02/2020

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

As per Spitfire’s previous representations, the intent of Policy RLS3 as drafted is not contested but the wording of the policy departs from Framework and statutory guidance on the treatment of heritage assets in the way it is worded. It is still suggested that the policy should be reworded to be consistent with Framework guidance in this respect.
Specifically, in addition to referencing the need to assess impact of a development on the significance of the heritage asset, it also indicates that there should be an assessment of the impact on the significance of the asset’s setting. This is not the correct approach.
‘Setting’ is not a heritage asset. Its value is in the contribution it makes to the significance of the asset itself, and the policy should be amended to reflect this. The policy should be clear that the assessment criteria listed within the policy, should be applied in terms of any assessment of the asset’s significance, and are not required to be applied to an assessment of the setting of the asset.
With regard to the criteria of the policy the following detailed matters are raised;
a) ‘…creates a sense of unity…’; it is unclear the sense in which this would be applied. The implication is that only development which mirrors or provides a pastiche of the existing architectural styles of the conservation would be acceptable. However, well designed modern buildings, constructed using materials of appropriate quality, may also have a role within the Conservation Area. Sometimes, buildings which are of their time, and clearly separate out the temporal development of an area, can be appropriate and the policy should recognise this.
e) ‘…retention of existing gardens…’; the policy refers to the retention of existing gardens, yet policy RLS1 recognises that the loss of gardens is acceptable, if made within the context of strategic Local Plan Policy H1. That policy states that garden loss will be acceptable, where it ‘reinforces, or harmonises with, the established character of the street and/or locality…’ Criteria e) should be amended to reflect Policy PSL1 and strategic Local Plan policy H1, both of which accept the loss of residential gardens subject to demonstration of design criteria. If the reference to ‘gardens’ is to the more formal public gardens of Leamington, as protected through draft Policy RLS8, then the policy should make this explicit.
f) Criteria f combines in a single policy tests for treatment of both designated and non-designated heritage assets, whereas statute and Framework guidance treat them both separately and subject to different assessment criteria. It is suggested that the policy be split into two, and that the tests proposed to the different assets be consistent with that contained in the Framework.
g) As with criteria e) the policy should be clearer as to the type of gardens it is seeking to retain. If the policy is simply replicating the protection afforded by draft Policies RLS8 and RLS9, then it is unnecessary and should be deleted.
j) The cross-reference to Policy RLS21 should be corrected to refer to RLS20.
m) ‘Proper evaluation…’; the terminology of the Framework para 189 is ‘appropriate’ assessment, and this should be the terminology followed here.
n) The policy would benefit from clarification of the phrase ‘key views’. Is it the intent of the policy that any development proposal should be accompanied by a site specific assessment of whether such views exist, or are there existing ‘key views’ of principle buildings and assets which specifically are looking to be protected? The policy should be re-worded to provide greater clarity as to what is desired.