EXAMINATION OF THE HARROGATE DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN DPD INSPECTOR’S MATTERS, ISSUES AND QUESTIONS FOR EXAMINATION

Response by National Trust Respondent ID – 1156292

Comments reference PD1156 and PD 1164

Matter 17 - Heritage and Place-making

Policy HP2 – Heritage Assets

(a) Is it sound to say that proposals “will be permitted” where they meet the criteria in this policy?

We consider that stating proposals ‘will be permitted’ at the outset of the criteria is potentially misleading, when policy HP2 also requires the NPPF tests of harm to be considered.

It is also potentially misleading particularly where the WHS is concerned under criteria c) as it does not reflect the complexity surrounding assessment that is required for impacts on the significance of the WHS.

Whilst HP2c supports proposals which will conserve and where appropriate enhance elements of OUV; it does not fully reflect the protection that is required where NPPF expects substantial harm to significance ‘must be wholly exceptional’. This is not reflected currently in HP2 in the paragraph relating to harm.

National Trust considers the criteria based policy might be more effective if the words were amended to state ‘development will be expected to….’

(b) Is it clear how criterion A relates to the other criteria? Would it more effective if this were an overarching criterion applicable to all development proposals affecting a heritage asset?

Yes, we agree it would be more effective to ensure that proposals should accord with overarching criteria a) as it is a general requirement which applies across to all heritage assets.

(c) Should the policy be more explicit about how non–designated heritages can/will be identified?

No comment

1 National Trust 07 December 2018 (d) To be effective does the policy need to give the full name of the Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal World Heritage Site to be effective? Is it clear what is meant by its “visual setting”?

We feel that the key issue is to ensure that all the references to the World Heritage Site in the Local Plan are consistent – this is not the case presently. Although the site is more correctly referred to on the World Heritage List as ‘Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey World Heritage Site’ we appreciate that this is a long-winded term to use throughout the plan and is not the name that the local community and visitors use when talking about the site.

In terms of our World Heritage Site Management Plan (2015-2021) we refer to the site as Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal World Heritage Site. It is important that whatever name is used to refer to the site it should include the two elements of ‘Fountains Abbey’ and ‘Studley Royal’ that are the reasons for the site’s inscription and it’s Outstanding Universal Value.

In the use of the words ‘visual setting’, we find there is a significant degree of complexity around the assessment of proposals which might impact on the OUV of the WHS that are not captured currently by HP2c). This is one reason why we have suggested a bespoke policy would be justified to give effective protection to this asset of the highest significance.

Our publication draft comments highlight our concerns with the second sentence of HP2c specifically, regarding the use of ‘Georgian Pleasure Grounds’ and also reference to tall buildings when we consider there should also reference a presumption against tall structures within the WHS its Buffer Zone and its setting. It is important to also have clarity for guidance on the WHS as particularly when it comes to the WHS and its Buffer Zone as we find in practice it can often be confusing. What is meant by each of those elements should be clearly set out in the supporting text.

Whilst we welcome the fact that the Council is seeking to identify that there is a need to protect the visual aspects of setting that are important to the OUV of the WHS; as the setting of a heritage asset is more than simply visual [being the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced] we consider the use of the words “visual setting” may not be effective.

We believe the Council have used the word visual setting as this relates largely to the terminology used when the Buffer zone was defined. To provide a little of the history for the Inspector, when the Buffer Zone was defined in 2012 the

2 National Trust 07 December 2018 work undertaken was based on the identifying the immediate visual envelope to the WHS. The extract from the proposal document for the Buffer Zone in 2011 states;

The buffer zone covers the immediate setting of the World Heritage Site and the key vista from the main deer park avenue east to Ripon Cathedral and beyond to Blois Hall Farm.

The proposed buffer zone aims to:

(i) Protect the visual setting of the monastic precinct and the Aislabies’ designed landscape at Studley Royal.

(ii) Respect the integrity of the Aislabies’ designed landscape including the visual setting (contrasting with the agrarian setting) where this was visible from within the bounds of the designed landscape.

(iii) Protect the views and vistas which were key to the Aislabies’ design.

This document is publically available on the National Trust website and the terminology ‘visual setting’ largely comes from this document.

At the time we did recognise there are wider aspects to the visual setting of the property which could not be captured by the Buffer Zone boundary [Buffer Zone proposal Doc Appendix 1]. The submission document set out;

In general, the visual envelope is very tightly drawn with three significant exceptions. The first of these is the narrow, but critical, vista line from the main deer park avenue east to Ripon Cathedral and then beyond to Blois Hall Farm, crossing the city of Ripon. This is included within the proposed buffer zone. The second and third exceptions arise from the wide-sweep external vistas, obtained from the eastern side of the park, especially Gillet Hill, over the Vale of York to the North York Moors beyond, and from the summit of How Hill stretching to Selby and beyond. These views were key to the Aislabie design, but extend over areas too large to be contained within a buffer zone boundary. Their significance will be recognised elsewhere in the planning system.

UNESCO guidelines on the management of WHS seek the protection of the “setting” of each site and suggest designation of the Buffer Zone. That around Studley Royal was approved by UNESCO in 2012, primarily embracing outlying

3 National Trust 07 December 2018 parts of the designed landscape not recognised in 1986, when the site was inscribed.

The 2012 ICOMOS report to UNESCO for the WHS reported that

‘The proposed buffer zone has been designed to contribute to the maintenance of the outstanding universal value of the site by including outlying parts of the designed landscape and precinct (and their visual settings) where these had not been included in the World Heritage Site boundary; by protecting the visual setting of the property, and by protecting key vistas from within the property to focii beyond it’.

The boundary extent runs south along the River Skell, Ripon Rowel Walk along the east side of the Skell Valley, and Whitcliffe Lane to How Hill Road, enclosing the visual envelope from within the Park ‘except for the expansive view from the summit of Gillet Hill’. The boundary then encompasses How Hill, which is the focus of the vista to the south along the canal within the Park,

Harrogate Borough Council’s planning decisions, based on their saved policies, have embraced the Buffer Zone as a material consideration alongside the designated WHS and the visual settings as described in the submission document and ICOMOS report (Contained at Appendix 2)

The Harrogate Management SPD [2014] contains ‘general principles for development that would affect the World Heritage Site, including development in its Buffer Zone’. Here there is reference to the visual setting as well as explanation of the Buffer Zone. The principles contained in page 5 of this document have been included in part in HP2 c) where there is reference to the tall buildings. In our opinion it would be more effective to include the principles in a specific policy for the WHS in the Local Plan.

Notwithstanding the evidence regarding the visual setting of the WHS and its Buffer Zone, what is fair to state however, is that in explicit terms the extent of the visual setting of the WHS beyond the boundary of the buffer zone has not been defined in further detail.

Effectively what this means is the Buffer Zone around the WHS is not the totality of the visual setting and it is actually impossible to disentangle it from the WHS, as what it represents is a subset of the setting of the WHS.

Work is planned by National Trust for the review of the World Heritage Site Management Plan to look at the wider setting of the WHS.

4 National Trust 07 December 2018 A key objective and high priority for the current WHS Management Plan is “ensuring the protection of the World Heritage Site, buffer zone and wider setting through the planning system”. (Objective e)

Clearly, there may be proposals that come forward beyond the boundary of the buffer zone that could impact on setting and this might not be solely related to visual aspects. It is important, we believe, for the plan to be clear and recognise that time has moved on and to acknowledge that particularly so in relation to an understanding of what constitutes setting. This has evolved significantly since 2012. Clearly, there are many other aspects of setting as recognised by Historic England Good Practice Advice (GPA3).

For this Local Plan our view is that recognising the potential impacts from tall buildings and structures is important as well as protecting key views and vistas but the references to visual setting could be amended to refer ‘to the WHS, the buffer zone and its setting’.

This would also be consistent with other adopted Local Plan policies we have reviewed (Appendix 3)

(e) Is the World Heritage Site Buffer Zone justified and soundly based?

The current international and national policy framework and guidance support the requirement for buffer zones where they are necessary to ensure the conservation of the World Heritage Site (WHS). This requirement is set out in paragraph 103 and 104 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention and National Planning Practice Guidance paragraph 033 ID: 2a-033-20140306 ‘How is the setting of a World Heritage Site protected?’.

There has been a commitment to a buffer zone within all the iterations of the World Heritage Site Management Plan since 2001. [We have requested that the Current World Heritage Site Management Plan (2015-2021) is included as a Core Document to this examination] It is clear that developments outside the tightly drawn boundary of the World Heritage Site can impact adversely on the outstanding universal value (OUV) of the site itself. The buffer zone is primarily aimed at protecting the immediate setting of the World Heritage Site and those components of the monastic precinct and Aislabies’ designed landscape that current research suggests should have been included in the World Heritage Site boundary. The buffer zone also seeks to protect the vista line from the main deer park avenue east to Ripon Cathedral and beyond to Blois Hill Farm. The

5 National Trust 07 December 2018 buffer zone does not include the whole setting of the World Heritage Site – the agrarian landscape surrounding the estate and wider views and vistas from locations such as Gillet Hill across the vale to the North York Moors are so expansive they could not be captured within a buffer zone boundary. It’s therefore important that local plan policies recognise the potential impact of development on the OUV of the WHS both from development within the buffer zone but also that within the wider setting.

The buffer zone was drawn up by Mark Newman (National Trust archaeologist and expert on the estate and its history and author of the ‘Wonder of the North – Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal’) and Keith Emerick, Inspector of Ancient Monuments at Historic England who has been involved for many years in the management of the WHS. Harrogate Borough Council also reviewed the boundary and it subsequently went through two periods of public consultation as part of the Harrogate Local Development Framework Draft Sites and Policies DPD in 2012. It is identified within the Heritage Management SPD.

The Buffer zone has also been approved by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee at their June/July meeting in 2012. The buffer zone justification and map was reviewed by Historic England’s Head of International Advice on behalf of DCMS and then submitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in February 2012.

We feel the development of the buffer zone proposal, as set out above is evidence that the buffer zone is justified and soundly based.

(f) Is it effective to locate what appears to be policy in the supporting text (numerous paragraphs from 8.19 onwards)?

We remain of the view that there needs to be clarity about policy for the WHS. It might help the Inspector to have a flavour of other LPA Local Plan policies to explain typical approaches and helps explain why we are concerned. We have included as Appendix 2 current adopted Local Plan policies for Telford (Ironbridge WHS) and Bradford (Saltaire WHS) and Cornwall (Cornwall and West Devon Mining landscape WHS) . We have previously supplied Allerdale (Hadrian’s Wall WHS) in our publication draft comments. There are many others.

The common denominator to these policies is that they have all been adopted post 2012 NPPF and all frame the protection of the WHS in the strongest terms, this is whether they do so in a general ‘catch all’ Historic Environment policy or in one that is bespoke to the WHS concerned. Even where it is within a general policy the policies are framed in a way to provide suitable protection.

The difficulty we find with HP2c is that it provides for the opportunities to enhance the WHS but we consider it does not provide suitable ‘protection’ which

6 National Trust 07 December 2018 is the word used within the PPG in respect of advice to Local Planning Authorities [Paragraph: 032 Reference ID: 2a-032-20140306].

We agree that from 8.19 onwards some of the paragraphs provide supporting text; for example about the buffer zone, but other paragraphs particularly 8.28 are more explicitly policy. It is in this paragraph that the NPPF phrase that substantial harm must be wholly exceptional is contained.

The paragraph could be included within HP2, which would make this more effective, but it should also include a reference to the fact that there may be impacts from development within the setting of the WHS. The following words are suggested;

‘Development that would cause substantial harm to the significance of the world heritage site or from development within its setting will be allowed only in wholly exceptional circumstances’.

In practice, we have found that the buffer zone is confusing to people and it would be helpful to set out in the text that the buffer zone represents only the immediate setting of the WHS (as outlined above) and that development proposals beyond the buffer zone may need to be assessed for their impact on setting. (Similar to the policy approach at Hadrian’s Wall)

In para 8.30 – we consider that reference to the ICOMOS guidance for Heritage Impact Assessment [2011]; which is described as useful approach in assessing impacts on OUV and referred to in the PPG [Paragraph: 035 Reference ID: 18a- 035-20140306] should be referenced in this paragraph.

In reviewing other policy approaches we consider Reference to the WHS management plan within a policy, or within HP2 would be clear as it is this document which is a material consideration in planning decisions [as outlined in the PPG Paragraph: 034 Reference ID: 18a-034-20140306]

(g) Is the policy otherwise justified, effective and consistent with national planning

Yes, subject to modifications set out in answers above surrounding the protection for the WHS.

7 National Trust 07 December 2018