HE2 Protection of Conservation Areas

Object

Representation ID: 65390

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Nigel Hamilton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This should include guidance and reference to English Heritages Report "SEEING THE HISTORY IN THE VIEW" 2011, in protecting their setting.

Development in conservation areas should be subject to sequential test that there are not alternative sites outside the Conservation area more suitable for development ?

Support

Representation ID: 65559

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Keith Wellsted

Good idea

Object

Representation ID: 66080

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

English Heritage welcomes the inclusion of the Historic Environment Section and the components of a positive strategy for the conservation of the historic environment. However to accord with the provisions of the NPPF the following modifications are recommended.

The components of this policy should be set within an overriding policy statement as some of the policy expectations appear rather exclusive.

Again, the title of the policy is perhaps misleading as the Policy is about managing change within conservation areas involving protecting and enhancing.

Object

Representation ID: 66126

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Methodist Homes

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The wording of Policy HE2 states that there is a presumption in favour of retaining
any unlisted building within a conservation unless any replacement building can demonstrate that it will preserve and enhance the conservation area. It further states that the demolition of unlisted buildings will only be granted where any replacement will preserve and enhance the Conservation Area. It finally states that any new development within a Conservation Area shall make a positive
contribution to the local character and distinctiveness.
These requirements conflict with the national guidance on the basis that the tests are greater than those set out within national planning guidance. It is on this basis that we consider the present wording of the draft policy is unsound in that it is not consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 66189

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This policy is inconsistent with many of the principles set out in the NPPF. In seeking to protect unlisted buildings in a Conservation Area, the draft policy blurs the statutory distinction between listed and unlisted structures. In respect of this matter, the policy exceeds the Framework advice in para.138 and gives rise to major inconsistencies.

Other parts of the policy operate a draconian presumption against many forms of development, leaving no room for the reasonable and flexible application of policy to deal with a range of circumstances.

The policy in our client's view requires extensive redrafting and simplification.

The final part of the policy is not clear since it appears as a statement of intent by the Council. Whereas the rest of the policy sets out measures to control development.

In our client's view the policy, in its current wording is neither justified nor complient with the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 66403

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Warwickshire Gardens Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We are pleased to see the reference in HE2 to the protection of the setting of conservation areas and the protection of views in and out of it. The housing proposals which will bring increased traffic into the conservation area and will impinge on the views from Banbury Road do not sit well with this policy Para 5.157 relates to the use of Article 4 directions to maintain areas of high quality townscape. We, of course, support the policy, but would wish the wording to be improved. There is an Article 4 direction on Warwick Castle Park, which could not be considered townscape. We would not wish it to be subject to challenge because of poor wording.

Support

Representation ID: 66679

Received: 18/06/2014

Respondent: Royal Leamington Spa Town Council

The Council recognises the importance of incorporating the impact of climate change and sustainable energy use within all new development in the District. Of equal importance however is the co-existence of new energy conservation and efficiency technologies with the requirements relating to Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. It is hoped that these sometimes conflicting objectives can be harmonised within a policy which encourages use of energy conservation measures by those living within houses of architectural significance.