South Northamptonshire Council
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE COUNCIL Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 EXAMINATION INTO THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN UPDATE THE COUNCIL’S STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF IDENTIFIED ‘MATTER 2’ – ‘Does the Plan make appropriate provision for the steady and adequate supply of aggregates?’ Michael Warren BA (Hons) MRTPI for South Northamptonshire Council November 2016 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1.0 HERITAGE HARM 2.0 NEED FOR PASSENHAM EAST SITE 3.0 CONCLUSIONS APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Copy of the Council’s letter to NCC dated 14 July 2016. APPENDIX B: Copy of the report and relevant minute to Planning Policy and Regeneration Strategy Committee on 13 July 2016. This includes NCC’s assessment of the Passenham East site and a location plan. APPENDIX C: Passenham Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (adopted January 2016). APPENDIX D: Extract from Historic England Register - Church of St Guthlac Grade I Listed (List entry number: 1041642). APPENDIX E: Extract from Historic England Register - Manor House Grade II Listed (List entry number: 1371240). APPENDIX G Historic England consultation response on Final Draft Plan dated 13th July 2016. 2 INTRODUCTION This statement relates to the draft Matters and Issues and seeks to address the following issues: “MATTER 2 – Does the Plan make appropriate provision for the steady and adequate supply of aggregates?” Issues “3. Could Site Allocation M6: Passenham Extension East within in Policy 4 be delivered without causing unacceptable adverse harm to the Historic Environment, the Natural Environment or Flood Risk? How would the site’s omission affect the overall minerals strategy?” 3 1.0 HERITAGE HARM “Could Site Allocation M6: Passenham Extension East in Policy 4 be delivered without causing unacceptable adverse harm to the Historic Environment, the Natural Environment or Flood Risk?” Note: this section has been produced with the advice and input of Alan Munn, the Council’s expert heritage officer Significance of heritage assets and impacts arising 1.1 Site Allocation M6: Passenham Extension East is in close proximity to Passenham Village, its Listed Buildings and Passenham Conservation Area. Extractive operations will negatively impact on and affect the setting of these historic assets. In particular: • Passenham Conservation Area (First designated April 1985, last reviewed/amended January 2016). For full description and location plan, refer Passenham Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (adopted January 2016) attached at Appendix C. • Church of St Guthlac Grade I Listed (List entry number: 1041642). For full description and location plan, refer extract from Historic England Register attached at Appendix D. • Manor House Grade II Listed (List entry number: 1371240). For full description and location plan, refer extract from Historic England Register attached at Appendix E. 1.2 Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that in the exercising of planning functions with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. This is an onerous test. In particular, “preserving” means “doing no harm”, and the s.72 duty involves decision makers giving “considerable importance and weight” to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area: East Northamptonshire DC v SSCLG and Barnwell Manor [2015] 1 WLR 45 at [16] and [22]. There is a parallel duty to the same effect in respect of listed buildings and their 4 settings: s.66 of the Act requires that local planning authorities and the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. 1.3 When defining the ‘special interest’ of a conservation area it must be recognised that the distinctiveness of a place may well derive from more than its appearance. The Act makes it clear that the character and appearance of a conservation area must be considered separately, although they may, in some cases, mean the same. Such distinctiveness may draw on other senses and experiences, such as sounds, smells, local environmental conditions or historical associations. 1.4 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that: When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. 1.5 The NPPF defines significance as (glossary, p.56): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. 1.6 Setting of a heritage asset is defined as: The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral. 1.7 From this definition it can be understood that setting embraces all of the surroundings from which the heritage asset can be experienced or that can be experienced from or with the asset. It does not have a fixed boundary and cannot be definitively and permanently described as a spatially bounded area or as lying within a set distance of a heritage asset. Setting does not depend on public rights or ability to access it, significance is not dependent on numbers of people visiting it; this would downplay 5 such qualitative issues as the importance of quiet and tranquillity as an attribute of setting, constraints on access such as remoteness or challenging terrain. 1.8 The Passenham Conservation Area was last reviewed in January 2016 when the boundaries were amended and an up-to-date conservation area appraisal and management plan produced for the settlement (refer Appendix C). The conservation area covers the whole of the built form of Passenham which is a rare example of a settlement set within a floodplain with the appraisal explaining that the significance of the conservation area derives from its rural isolated character and appearance with a Manor House, Church, Mill, farms and outbuildings sitting within the floodplain to the River Great Ouse. Ridge and furrow and other archaeological elements further contribute to this significance in a form largely unchanged for generations and unaffected by the intervention of modern development. 1.9 The Passenham Conservation Area Appraisal (refer Appendix C) at paragraph 4.4 identifies the rural character of Passenham as being a key feature of the village establishing it as a settlement with agricultural origins. It states that vegetation and the surrounding landscapes help balance the built form with open space essential to creating the isolated feel of the settlement. The appraisal states that this is particularly evident at Ham Meadow and in views looking east towards the conservation area. 1.10 The relationship of the settlement and its conservation area to the surrounding landscape is clearly a defining characteristic and a contributor to significance. It is one that would, if the proposed allocation were to be approved and extractive operations undertaken at proposed site M6, be harmfully affected. This would be as a result of the change in character, appearance and form of the land which has remained undeveloped and uncultivated for centuries through the introduction of modern engineering operations and their associated paraphernalia. 1.11 The special qualities of the area not only derive from the appearance of the built form and relationship to the landscape but also a certain calmness and tranquillity that result from the existing land uses and activities which are historical and commensurate to the nature of the settlement. The introduction of a large scale engineering operation within the immediate setting of the conservation area and the noise, vibration and dust that that is likely to generate will again cause harm to the significance of the conservation area. 1.12 Paragraph 137 of the NPPF states that: 6 Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably. 1.13 The current proposals will neither preserve nor better reveal the significance of the conservation area and cannot be looked upon favourably. The proposals will result in harm and need to be considered in relation to paragraph 134 of the NPPF which states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits