DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix a to Include a HRC, Community Facilities May Alongside the Other Uses Identified in Paragraph 5.2.1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix a to Include a HRC, Community Facilities May Alongside the Other Uses Identified in Paragraph 5.2.1 Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD): Representations received during public consultation (5th December 2014 – 15th January 2015) and changes made to SPD following consultation Explanatory Note: This report sets out a summary of the representations received during the consultation on the Draft ‘Developer Contributions’ SPD together with the Council’s response to these comments. This is a public document, and helps Fenland District Council meet its commitment to consult and keep people informed of progress on planning policy documents that form part of the Fenland Planning Policy Framework. This report also sets out changes made to the SPD which were necessary as a result of comments received through the consultation process. 1. Introduction 1.1. Fenland District Council wishes to thank all those who took the time between 5th December 2014 and 5th January 2015 to comment on the draft ‘Developer Contributions’ SPD. 1.2. The SPD has been prepared to support the Local Plan, specifically Policy LP13 – ‘Supporting and Managing the Impact of a Growing District’ part(b), - ‘Developer Contributions’. The SPD will provide clarity to developers, planning officers, stakeholders and local residents regarding the basis on when developer contributions will be sought and the type of developer contributions that may be required. 1.3. Policy LP13 ‘Supporting and Managing the Impact of a Growing District’, part(b), - ‘Developer Contributions’ of the adopted Fenland Local Plan 2014 is used as the starting point for this SPD. When adopted, the SPD will form part of the Council’s planning policy framework, supplementing Policy LP13 of the Local Plan. The adopted SPD will have status as a material consideration in the determining planning applications. The Local Plan policies will have the greatest ‘weight’ in legal terms when the Council determines planning applications. However, the Local Plan only sets the overarching policy approach to planning in Fenland; this SPD provides detailed guidance on how this policy will be implemented. 2. Compliance with National Guidance and Regulations 2.1. The SPD was prepared in accordance with national guidance, most notably the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and The Town and Country Planning Regulations 2012. Regulation 12(b) and Regulation 13 require the Council to consult the public and stakeholders before adopting a SPD. The Council is required by Regulation 12(a) to prepare a statement featuring details of those who the Council consulted; a summary of the main issues that were raised during the consultation; and details of how these issues were addressed by the Council as well as any consequential changes to the SPD. 2.2. The public and stakeholders were invited to comment on the SPD during the consultation period. This included all parish councils in and around Fenland, neighbouring district and county councils, local businesses, interest/pressure groups, religious organisations, infrastructure providers and any other body, party or individual that specifically requested to be consulted on the Local Plan. Annex A contains a list of those we consulted. 3. Changes to the SPD 3.1. A table below summarises all the comments received and how Fenland District Council responded to the issues raised by these comments. The table also shows any changes made to the SPD as a result comments received. Where there are changes or no changes were made, this is clearly explained in the Council’s Response column. Any changes to SPD are recorded in ‘Change to SPD’ column. Consideration of the issues raised by consultees Respondent Comments Council’s Response Change to SPD information COM-1 Thank you for your consultation on the above document. Comments noted No change Highway Fenland District Council have given sound advice to potential Agency developers in that they are advised to discuss their intentions early in the planning process in order to establish what mitigation may be necessary for the surrounding highway infrastructure whether Highways Agency or County Council. The remainder of the draft document relates to matters which specifically concern Fenland District Council policies and established practice. I feel therefore, that it is inappropriate for the Highway Agency to comment on those matters or the manner in which they are acquired via development in the area. COM-2 Thank you for inviting the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) Comments noted No change Marine to comment on the above consultation. I can confirm that the MMO Management has no comments to submit in relation to this consultation. Organisation COM-3 I wondered how the impact of the SPG will be affected by the recent An SPD is not permitted to No change L Bevens news from Government on the consultation exercise carried out in amend policy in a Local Associates Ltd March of this year, in which schemes of 10 units or less will not be Plan. As such, the Architects liable to affordable housing, nor contributions? adopted Local Plan policy I appreciate that this has yet to become adopted national policy but no on affordable housing doubt it will do. thresholds continues. Extract from national press 'The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) consulted on a proposed new 10-unit threshold for section 106 affordable housing contributions to reduce planning costs to developers. In its response to the consultation, published last week, the DCLG said that the proposal had received support from developers, development representative bodies and some members of the public, who argued that "excessive affordable housing contributions were often being applied". But the DCLG added that local authority responses "generally opposed both the principle of a national threshold for affordable housing contributions and the size of the proposed threshold". The consultation response said that, after "careful consideration" of the responses, the government will make changes to national policy to prevent local planning authorities from seeking affordable housing contributions from "sites of 10-units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of 1,000 square metres COM-4 The officer-level comments below are made on a without prejudice Comments noted. As Change - Insert new Norfolk County basis and the Norfolk County Council reserves the right to make there are locations on section entitled “Cross- Council further comments on the emerging SPD. Fenland boundary where boundary Working”. development would (a) Welcome the opportunity to comment on the SPD; require and benefit from cross-boundary working, (b) Section 4 – Consider that there ought to be reference in this this should be mentioned section to cross-boundary working where a new development covers in the SPD. two or more local planning authority areas or where the development is likely to have a demonstrable impact on services/infrastructure in a neighbouring area. This is particularly relevant in respect of proposed new housing development in and around Wisbech; COM-5 (c) Paragraph 4.4 – the text to this paragraph needs amending to An SPD is not permitted to No change Norfolk County reflect the Government’s recent amendment to policy on thresholds of amend policy in a Local Council housing development where affordable housing can be sought i.e. Plan. As such, the development of 10 or less dwellings are now exempt from having to adopted Local Plan policy provide affordable housing (5 or less in qualifying designated areas). on affordable housing thresholds continues. COM-6 2.2 However, this SPD takes its lead from Policy LP13 (see below) of . Change - Add ‘not met Steve Count the Local Plan. As a basic principle developers will be expected to The suggested changes by existing meet and pay for the infrastructure need that a proposed development are reasonable and add infrastructures’ after will generate, not met by existing infrastructures. In part (b) of the clarity to the paragraph. generate at the end policy, the need for developer contributions is referred to as well as second sentence in the need to provide further guidance on where it will be sought, how it paragraph 2.2. Add ‘to’ will be collected, and how the money collected will be spent. This between referred and as SPD addresses these issues. in the third sentence. Key: Text in blue is suggested as additional text or comments and strikethrough text suggested for deletion COM-7 3.1 There are four different mechanisms which can be used to ensure The term ‘unacceptable Change – delete the Steve Count that new developments address unacceptable any adverse impacts adverse impact’ would be word ‘any’ and replace which render a proposal unsustainable as well as contributing to the more suitable to use than this with ‘unacceptable’ local economy and improving the environment, where possible. These ‘any adverse impact’ in in the first sentence in are: this instant. A sustainable paragraph 3.1 between • Planning conditions; proposal can have address and adverse. • Planning obligations; unacceptable adverse • Unilateral undertakings; or the impact. For example a Change – delete S278 • Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) viewing platform which Agreement from the list • S278 Agreements could be considered as a in paragraph 3.1 (fifth sustainable development bullet point) as this is an If you leave “any adverse impacts” intact presentations will be made could have an adverse agreement to carry out to committees quoting this over even the smallest of impacts. impact in sensitive work for the local Additionally
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Organisations/Groups on the Consultation Database Planning
    Appendix B Organisations/Groups on the Consultation Database Planning Agents/Professional Representatives 3Fox International Limited Acorn, Land & Strategic Property Division Acorus Admiral Homes Affinity Sutton Homes Alliance Planning AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited Annington Developments Ltd Appledore Developments Ltd Artesian Asprey Homes Axes Lane Banner Homes Barton Willmore Planning Partnership Batcheller Monkhouse Baxter Phillips Bell Cornwell Bellway Homes Ltd Bellway Homes Ltd, Thames Gateway South Division Berkeley Homes (South East London) Berwood Homes Bidwells LLP Bioscan (UK) Ltd BNP Paribas Real Estate Boyer Planning Limited bptw Partnership BRE Brian Barber Associates British Land Company PLC Broadlands Planning Broadway Malyan Planning Burnett Planning & Development Limited Cala Homes Calfordseaden LLP Capita Symonds Castlefort Properties Ltd Cathedral Group CBRE Ltd CgMs Consulting Chart Plan (2004) Limited Chase & Partners Clifford Rance Associates Cluttons LLP Colliers International Conrad Phoenix Properties Ltd Correct as of 21/07/2016 Conrad Ritblat Erdman Co-Operative Group Ltd., Countryside Strategic Projects plc Cranbrook Home Extensions Crest Nicholson Eastern Crest Strategic Projectsl Ltd Croudace D & M Planning Daniel Watney LLP Deloitte Real Estate DHA Planning Direct Build Services Limited DLA Town Planning Ltd dp9 DPDS Consulting Group Drivers Jonas Deloitte Dron & Wright DTZ Edwards Covell Architecture & Planning Fairclough Homes Fairview Estates (Housing) Ltd Firstplan FirstPlus Planning Limited
    [Show full text]
  • Baseline Report Contents
    Whittlesey DRAFT Neighbourhood Plan Baseline Report Contents Introduction...............................................................1 Relevant Planning Policy.........................................4 Basic Conditions......................................................5 People and Place......................................................6 Flooding...................................................................11 Greenspace.............................................................16 Heritage...................................................................20 Land Use.................................................................24 Roads....................................................................... 28 Walking, Cycling and Public Transport..................32 Introduction This baseline report accompanies the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan and provides some context for the policies set out within it. It aims to give a high-level impression of the Neighbourhood Plan Area; it is not intended to be a detailed technical report but rather an introduction to the Parish, signposting to more detailed information and supplementary documents where necessary. Whittlesey Buttercross 1 Whittlesey Location The map opposite shows the Neighbourhood Plan Boundary. Whittlesey Edinburgh Town Council applied to Fenland District Council to designate the whole of the Peterborough Newcastle Parish of Whittlesey as a ‘Neighbourhood Wisbech Area’. Planning Committee on 29 April 2015 determined the application: The Leeds March entire Parish
    [Show full text]
  • Final Recommendations on the New Electoral Arrangements for Fenland District Council
    Final recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Fenland District Council Electoral review March 2013 Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England: Tel: 020 7664 8534 Email: [email protected] The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 100049926 2013 Contents Summary 1 1 Introduction 3 2 Analysis and final recommendations 5 Submissions received 6 Electorate figures 6 Council size 6 Electoral fairness 7 General analysis 7 Electoral arrangements 8 Whittlesey 8 Chatteris 10 March, Elm and Christchurch 10 Doddington and Wimblington 11 Wisbech 12 Roman Bank, Wisbech St Mary and Parson Drove 12 Conclusions 13 Parish electoral arrangements 13 3 What happens next? 17 4 Mapping 19 Appendices A Table A1: Final recommendations for Fenland District 20 Council B Glossary and abbreviations 22 Summary The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body that conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. The broad purpose of an electoral review is to decide on the appropriate electoral arrangements – the number of councillors, and the names, number and boundaries of wards or divisions – for a specific local authority. We conducted an electoral review of Fenland District Council to provide improved levels of electoral equality across the authority.
    [Show full text]
  • 13 DECEMBER 2018 Report Title: POLLING DISTRICTS and POLLING PLACES REVIEW 1 Purpose
    Agenda Item No: 9 Committee: COUNCIL Date: 13 DECEMBER 2018 Report Title: POLLING DISTRICTS AND POLLING PLACES REVIEW 1 Purpose / Summary To consider the outcome of the recent review of polling districts and places, as required by the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. 2 Key issues • The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 introduced a change to the timing of compulsory reviews of UK Parliamentary polling districts and polling places; • The last compulsory review was agreed by Full Council on 18 December 2014; • Subsequent compulsory reviews must be started and completed within the period of 16 months that starts on 1 October of every fifth year after 1 October 2013, which means the next review should be started and completed between 1 October 2018 and 31 January 2020; • This review is being carried out at this time due to the District and Town and Parish Council elections due to take place on 2 May 2019 and the need to implement changes as a result of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England Review of Cambridgeshire County Council to some parish wards and the Community Governance Review in Whittlesey; • The Council has undertaken a consultation exercise on the proposals within the report and received a number of comments which have been taken into account in the final recommendations. All comments and responses are detailed in Appendix B; • This review has no effect upon the number of electoral wards or councillors. 3 Recommendations That the Council • notes the outcome of the review and the consultation undertaken; • agrees the changes recommended to polling districts and polling places, as detailed in the report at Appendix C; • notes that a review of all polling districts will be undertaken at least every five years and delegates authority to the Returning Officer/Electoral Registration Officer to keep polling districts under review, in the intervening period between compulsory reviews, and propose any changes which appear necessary to Full Council for its consideration and determination.
    [Show full text]
  • 25 February 2010 Mr G S Kaddish Bidwells Trumpington Road Cambridge CB2 9LD Your Ref: Dear Sir, TOWN and COUNTRY PLANNING
    25 February 2010 Mr G S Kaddish Our Ref: APP/Q0505/A/09/2103599/NWF Bidwells APP/Q0505/A/09/2103592/NWF Trumpington Road Your Ref: Cambridge CB2 9LD Dear Sir, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY COUNTRYSIDE PROPERTIES PLC - AT LAND BETWEEN LONG ROAD AND SHELFORD ROAD (CLAY FARM), CAMBRIDGE - Application reference 07/0621/OUT APPEAL BY COUNTRYSIDE PROPERTIES (UK) LTD - AT GLEBE FARM, SHELFORD ROAD, CAMBRIDGE - Application 08/0363/OUT 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Ava Wood DIP ARCH MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry into your clients' appeals which sat for 10 days between 28 September and 19 October 2009: Appeal A: made by Countryside Properties PLC against non-determination by Cambridge City Council (the Council) of an application for residential development of up to 2,300 new mixed-tenure dwellings and accompanying provision of community facilities and landscaped open spaces including 49ha of public open space in the green corridor, retail (A1), food and drink uses (A3, A4, A5), financial and professional services (A2), non-residential institutions (D1), a nursery (D1), alternative health treatments (D1), provision for education facilities and all related infrastructure including: all roads and associated infrastructure, alternative locations for Cambridgeshire Guide Bus stops, alternative location for CGB Landscape Ecological Mitigation Area, attenuation ponds including alternative location for Addenbrookes’ Access Road pond, cycleways, footways and crossings of Hobson’s Brook at Land between Long Road and Shelford Road (Clay Farm), Cambridge in accordance with application number 07/0621/OUT, dated 5 June 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Whittlesey Community Groups Public
    WHITTLESEY COMMUNITY GROUPS Due to Coronavirus Meetings may be suspended 1st Coates Brownies Miss Molly Thorner Head Leader www.girlguiding.org.uk Coates Primary School Thursday The Fold, Coates 6pm-7.30pm PE7 2PB Through fun, friendship, challenge and adventure they empower girls to find their voice, inspiring them to discover the best in themselves and to make a positive difference in their community. Whittlesey (Gren Gds) Detachment Army Cadet Detachment Cammander Force 2nd Lt Richard Nicholson www.armycadets.com Ms Elizabeth Hyslop [email protected] 01223 442830 Cadet Administrator General Recruitment inquiries Army Cadet Force Centre Station Road Tuesdays 7pm-9pm Whittlesey PE7 1UF The Army Cadet Force (ACF) is one of the UK's biggest youth organisations. It enables children aged between 12 and 18 to engage in numerous activities, both military and non-military related, to develop the life skills and confidence to succeed in life all whilst having fun and making new friends. We are also looking for enthusiastic adults to join as uniformed volunteers to support and develop our cadets. You do not need any previous cadet or military experience as full training is provided. Please visit the Army Cadets website for more information. Coates Womens Institute Mrs Patricia Brookes 01733 840145 President [email protected] Secretary 01733 208516 Miss Fiona Heaysman Meets Coates Public Hall Meets 1st Wednesday of the month PE7 2BP 7.30pm For ladies of all ages AGM Nov Meetings with guest speakers and activities and visits Defibrillators
    [Show full text]
  • FOI Request 7771
    FOI Ref Response sent 7771 5 Oct 20 (CCC) Spend Data Thank you for publishing your spend data here https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/payments-to-suppliers. However, I notice that there isn’t any spending data published since March 2020. I'd like to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for all transactions over £250 from April 2020 to at most a month in arrears from the date at which you publish in response to this request. Response: Thank you for your request for information above, which we have dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I hope the following will answer your query: Please find attached the spend data requested for 2020/21. Further queries on this matter should be directed to [email protected] Body Name Supplier Name Account Number Invoice Date Document File Name Cost Centre / Project Code Cost Centre/Project Description Subjective Account Subjective description Invoice Amount (Excluding VAT) Cambridge City Council 2 Ton Productions Ltd 10326600 03/04/2020 053598 9900 Cambridge Live 20118 Receipts In Advance - Other Entities And Individuals £2,736.00 Cambridge City Council AA Global Language Services Ltd 10001100 01/03/2020 055279 1203 Corporate Policy 62408 Translation Services £717.11 Cambridge City Council ABC Food Law Ltd 10001400 14/04/2020 054332 1419 Environmental Health Operational Support 64300 Conference Expenses £1,072.50 Cambridge City Council ADC (East Anglia) Ltd 10002500 06/04/2020 053880 1883 Flood Risk Management 60501 Cleaning Services £1,875.00 Cambridge City
    [Show full text]
  • ECONOMY and ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE Date:Thursday, 14
    ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE Date:Thursday, 14 March 2019 Democratic and Members' Services Fiona McMillan Monitoring Officer 10:00hr Shire Hall Castle Hill Cambridge CB3 0AP Kreis Viersen Room Shire Hall, Castle Hill, Cambridge, CB3 0AP AGENDA Open to Public and Press 1. Apologies for absence and declarations of interest Guidance on declaring interests is available at http://tinyurl.com/ccc-conduct-code 2. Minutes 7th February 2019 Economy and Environment Committee 5 - 18 3. Minute Action Log update 19 - 24 4. Petitions and Public Questions DECISIONS 5. East West Rail Company Consultation on Route Options between 25 - 54 Bedford and Cambridge 6. North East Cambridge Area Action Plan - Issues and Options 55 - 62 Consultation 2 Page 1 of 260 7. Land North West of Spittals Way and Ermine Street Great Stukeley 63 - 94 Outline Planning Application - Consultation Response 8. Kennett Garden Village Outline Planning Application - 95 - 110 Consultation response 9. Wellcome Trust Genome Campus Outline Planning Application 111 - 174 10. Connecting Cambridgeshire Programme Full Fibre Target 175 - 196 INFORMATION AND MONITORING 11. Finance and Performance Report to end of January 2019 197 - 240 12. Agenda Plan, Training Plan and Appointments to Outside Bodies, 241 - 260 Partnershp, Liaison, Advisory Groups and Council Champions 13. Date of Next Meeting 23rd May 2019 Subject to the April meeting being cancelled. The Economy and Environment Committee comprises the following members: Councillor Ian Bates (Chairman) Councillor Tim Wotherspoon (Vice-Chairman)
    [Show full text]
  • Contract Leads Powered by EARLY PLANNING Projects in Planning up to Detailed Plans Submitted
    Contract Leads Powered by EARLY PLANNING Projects in planning up to detailed plans submitted. PLANS APPROVED Projects where the detailed plans have been approved but are still at pre-tender stage. TENDERS Projects that are at the tender stage CONTRACTS Approved projects at main contract awarded stage. Plans Submitted for church Client: The Consultancy, Pawnshop Passage, Mercer Client: Mr. Sayyed Shah Developer: Anthony BIRMINGHAM £1M LICHFIELD £0.25M Detailed Plans Submitted for offices & DARLINGTON £2.3M International Church Agent: CAD Architecture Row, Louth, Lincolnshire, LN11 9JQ Tel: 01507 Rickett Architects Ltd, Wood Farm, Everdon, Emmanuel Church, 22 Holyhead Road Former Hepworth Building, Eastern industrial storage unit Client: Sustain Former Beaumont Hill Middle Sc, Glebe MIDLANDS/ Ltd, Albion Wharf, Albion Street, Manchester, 611155 Daventry, Northamptonshire, NN11 3BH Tel: Handswort Avenue Trent Valley Industrial Landscapes Ltd Agent: Sustain Landscapes Road Playing Field G M1 5LN Tel: 0161 236 8014 ATTLEBOROUGH £0.33M 01327 361268 Planning authority: Birmingham Job: Detail Planning authority: Lichfield Job: Detail Ltd, Leadgate Industrial Estate, Lope Hill Planning authority: Darlington Job: Detail EAST ANGLIA NEWARK £1.3M Breckles Farm, Brookside off A, RUGBY £6.9M Plans Granted for church hall Client: Plans Granted for ambulance station Client: Road, Consett, County Durham, DH8 7RN Tel: Plans Granted for 32 houses & 2 flats Client: Maltkiln Lane Breckles Herbert Gray College, Little Church Emmanuel Church Agent: Aspect West
    [Show full text]
  • Q1 2013 UK Investment Trends
    www.costar.co.uk CoStar UK Investment Bulletin Quarterly Update Q1 2013 Marianne Fitzpatrick Mark Stansfield +44 141 354 0822, [email protected] +44 207 7009 2989, [email protected] Q1 2013 UK Investment Trends CoStar Investment Research has recorded a busy start to 2013, with a total of £8.83bn transacted in 445 deals; up 24% from Q1 2012 figures (£6.7bn), though down 14% on the more fervent levels of activity seen in Q4 2012 (£10.3bn). For more information please contact the CoStar Investment Team. £3.2bn was spent on offices in Q1, accounting for more than one third of total investment. However, Investment by Sector (£bn) this figure marks a 25% decrease on the high levels 4.0 witnessed in Q4 2012, and the weakest quarter for 3.5 office investment since Q3 2011. ) bn 3.0 (£ Shopping Centres saw over £1bn of expenditure in 2.5 the first three months of the year, continuing on 2.0 from the upward trend seen in Q4 2012. Shopping 1.5 centre investment was up 76% on a quiet Q1 2012. 1.0 Expenditure Expenditure 0.5 Alternative sectors such as healthcare, hotels and 0.0 service stations were also popular in the first three Industrial Mixed Office Retail Other months of 2013, seeing £2.2bn of investment Q1 2013 598.8 249.7 3,209.0 2,385.1 2,345.4 overall. Q1 2012 564.7 114.2 3,480.9 1,632.2 865.2 Sales of multi-regional portfolios witnessed Regional Investment (£bn) Q1 13 something of a renaissance in the first three months Q1 12 of 2013, with £3.4bn of activity across the UK; up 4.5 80% on both Q1 2012 and Q1 2011 figures.
    [Show full text]
  • HERITAGE at RISK REGISTER 2009 / EAST of ENGLAND Contents
    HERITAGE AT RISK REGISTER 2009 / EAST OF ENGLAND Contents HERITAGEContents AT RISK 2 Buildings atHERITAGE Risk AT RISK 6 2 MonumentsBuildings at Risk at Risk 8 6 Parks and GardensMonuments at Risk at Risk 10 8 Battlefields Parksat Risk and Gardens at Risk 12 11 ShipwrecksBattlefields at Risk and Shipwrecks at Risk13 12 ConservationConservation Areas at Risk Areas at Risk 14 14 The 2009 ConservationThe 2009 CAARs Areas Survey Survey 16 16 Reducing thePublications risks and guidance 18 20 PublicationsTHE and REGISTERguidance 2008 20 21 The register – content and 22 THE REGISTERassessment 2009 criteria 21 Contents Key to the entries 21 25 The registerHeritage – content at Riskand listings 22 26 assessment criteria Key to the entries 24 Heritage at Risk entries 26 HERITAGE AT RISK 2009 / EAST OF ENGLAND HERITAGE AT RISK IN THE EAST OF ENGLAND Registered Battlefields at Risk Listed Buildings at Risk Scheduled Monuments at Risk Registered Parks and Gardens at Risk Protected Wrecks at Risk Local Planning Authority 2 HERITAGE AT RISK 2009 / EAST OF ENGLAND We are all justly proud of England’s historic buildings, monuments, parks, gardens and designed landscapes, battlefields and shipwrecks. But too many of them are suffering from neglect, decay and pressure from development. Heritage at Risk is a national project to identify these endangered places and then help secure their future. In 2008 English Heritage published its first register of Heritage at Risk – a region-by-region list of all the Grade I and II* listed buildings (and Grade II listed buildings in London), structural scheduled monuments, registered battlefields and protected wreck sites in England known to be ‘at risk’.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage at Risk Register 2010 / East of England
    HERITAGE AT RISK 2010 / EAST OF ENGLAND Contents HERITAGE AT RISK 3 Reducing the risks 6 Publications and guidance 9 THE REGISTER 11 Content and assessment criteria 11 Key to the entries 13 Bedford (UA) 16 Cambridgeshire 18 Central Bedfordshire (UA) 28 Essex 30 Hertfordshire 37 Luton (UA) 42 Norfolk 42 Peterborough, City of (UA) 53 Southend-on-Sea (UA) 55 Suffolk 55 Thurrock (UA) 64 The English Heritage scheme for identifying and reducing our Heritage at Risk has been running for more than a decade. Over that time, we have reduced the number of historic sites which have been at risk from destruction or demolition in many parts of the East of England region.The first category of assets which we focused on were Buildings at Risk. In our region, which has suffered the vicissitudes of industrial slumps and changing demographics alongside periods of rapid economic growth, this has led to a number of important buildings facing serious threats. Some of these are redundant farm buildings, mills and industrial structures, others are anything from private houses to ornamental follies. With the expansion of the Buildings at Risk Register and developers to proceed with some building projects, to a Heritage at Risk Register we have undertaken an with the reduced availability of funding. We understand, assessment of registered battlefields, registered parks and too, why it may sometimes be necessary to delay a gardens, scheduled monuments, conservation areas and project, although we also know that to put off routine protected wreck sites. These additional categories have repairs can in the long term be a false economy.
    [Show full text]