8278-3 Combined Files Binder1.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HALLAM LAND AND WILLIAM DAVIS WARWICK DISTRICT PUBLICATION DRAFT LOCAL PLAN APRIL 2014 REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF HALLAM LAND AND WILLIAM DAVIS Dr Chris Miele IHBC MRTPI Senior Partner Montagu Evans LLP Heritage Matters June 2014 HALLAM LAND AND WILLIAM DAVIS DRAFT LOCAL PLAN REPRESENTATIONS CONTENTS Section Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 REPRESENTATIONS ON THE DRAFT LOCAL PLAN 3.0 DETAILED REPRESENTATIONS 4.0 SETTING ASSESSMENT OF LAND AT GALLOWS HILL 5.0 OTHER HERITAGE ASSETS 6.0 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDICES 1.0 Red Line Plan of the Land at Gallows Hill 2.0 Dr Chris Miele – Background and Experience 3.0 Castle Park Registered Park and Garden Entry 4.0 Howe Malcolm Archaeology and Planning Ltd (2014) Warwick Castle Park Documentary Research 5.0 Montagu Evans (2014) Estate Landscape Historiography 6.0 Barnwell Decision 7.0 Montagu Evans Discussion on Barnwell 8.0 Views from Guy’s Tower, Warwick Castle HALLAM LAND AND WILLIAM DAVIS 1 DRAFT LOCAL PLAN REPRESENTATIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Hallam Land Management (HLM) and William Davis (WD), the joint promoters of proposed housing for land at Gallows Hill, have instructed Montagu Evans LLP to provide heritage and related master planning advice in relation to the site which formerly was subject to a planning application for residential development. 1.2 This application is withdrawn and had the reference W/13/1434. The red line plan accompanying that application is reproduced here as Appendix 1.0 for the sake of clarity 1.3 There is no doubt that the land immediately south of Warwick is a sustainable location for development, as reflected by the Council’s decision to allocate the land at Gallows Hill for housing in the earlier iterations of the Local Plan. 1.4 This representation was prepared by Dr Chris Miele, advising HLM and WD. He is a Senior Partner in the Planning and Development Department at Montagu Evans and an expert in heritage and related planning matters. It is intended he will take part in the Examination. Appendix 2.0 comprises a note on his background and experience for information. 1.5 As part of our instruction to review the recently withdrawn scheme and to make representations in response to the Publication Draft Local Plan, we have overseen the completion of extensive historical research to understand how the subject land can be said to relate significantly, if at all, to the adjoining heritage asset of Warwick Castle Park, a Grade I Registered Park and Garden. 1.6 It is accepted that other heritage assets have been identified through the development plan and application process, and these are considered in documentation prepared by the Council. The focus of this representation is on Castle Park, the key heritage asset, in our view, relevant to the allocation. 1.7 For completeness’ sake, we comment on the other heritage assets in the concluding section of this representation. 1.8 There is no dispute about the history and interest of that primary asset asset itself, the Grade I Registered Park associated with Warwick Castle. This is subject of different analyses and benefits from a detailed registered entry, which we reproduce at Appendix 3.0. 1.9 As part of our work, we reviewed the withdrawn application and supporting materials, as these relate to our topic area. We also considered consultation responses and a draft of the lengthy analysis prepared by the District Council which has regard to setting considerations. 1 HALLAM LAND AND WILLIAM DAVIS 2 DRAFT LOCAL PLAN REPRESENTATIONS This Representation 1.10 Accordingly we have reviewed the policies and proposals relating to heritage matters in the Publication Draft of the Warwick District Local Plan (2011-2029) with regard to the test of “soundness” as identified within the Guidance Notes supporting the consultation draft. Our findings are incorporated within the submissions to be prepared by Marrons Planning on behalf of HLM/WD. 1.11 The Draft guidance notes that the Inspector has to be satisfied that the Plan is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy. Plans also have to be based on sound evidence. We have therefore considered in some detail the Council’s approach to the development potential of our clients’ land in the context of those tests and the issue set out at 1.5 above. Our findings are set out below. Summary 1.12 In summary this representation draws two discrete conclusions. 1.13 First, whilst HLM and WD welcome broad principles that support the conservation of the historic environment, they are concerned that more detailed policies contained in the Plan do not comply with the provisions or approach of the National Planning Policy Framework. 1.14 In these cases, the representation identifies the passages with which we take issue, explains the reasons why we do take issue, and so, as appropriate, makes suggestions for alternative policy wording. 1.15 These comments are set out fully in the commentary table comprising section 2.0 of this representation. 1.16 Our second discrete finding is in relation to the Site Allocations. 1.17 In essence, we consider that the site that HLM/WD have been promoting through the application process, and on the basis of an earlier allocation (see Appendix 1), should be identified as a potential housing site. 1.18 Furthermore, we conclude that the reasons for removing this site from the allocation are not well founded. Neither do they reflect a detailed understanding of the contribution which setting potentially makes to the particular significance of the various historic assets as identified in the area. For that reason we conclude the Council has no sound reason to exclude the land from its intended schedule of allocated housing land. 1.19 This is the finding we make on the basis of site inspections and the detailed research already identified. 1.20 This finding, being of a detailed nature, is set out separately in section 3.0. 2 HALLAM LAND AND WILLIAM DAVIS 3 DRAFT LOCAL PLAN REPRESENTATIONS 1.21 To support it we provide two pieces of evidence. The research report which we prepared jointly with Howe Malcolm (researchers we use regularly) provides new and more detailed information about the history of the park in relation to surrounding land. This is Appendix 4.0. 1.22 To supplement this work we have also prepared a note that considers the cultural context for planned and designed parkland, looking particularly at its interaction with surrounding land. This is Appendix 5.0. 1.23 On these bases, detailed analysis previously not carried out, we conclude that the principle of residential development on the site can be supported subject to mitigation through landscape and layout. We conclude that such development would cause no more than very limited harm at most, such that – with reference to paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework – the countervailing benefits of providing housing are easily capable of outweighing that harm. We rely in our judgments on those of HLM and WD’s consultants Marrons Planning. 1.24 Neither do we consider that there has been any material change to understanding or to policy that would lead us to draw a different conclusion. 1.25 We form this view mindful of the recent Court of Appeal Decision in the manner of Barnwell Manor (Appendix 6.0). In our opinion ‘Barnwell’ merely clarifies the approach put into play by statutory provision. Here it is section 72 of the Planning (LBCA) Act 1990 – relevant here because the parkland is in a conservation area – see Appendix 7 for its boundaries. 1.26 As the Council will doubtless be very well aware parks and gardens enjoy no specific statutory provision. Protection of their setting falls, however, within the scope of national policy on heritage (Chapter 12 of the NPPF) and also reasonably within the scope of the development plan. Nevertheless, section 72 gives effect to the Barnwell consideration, bearing in mind that the parkland is one element in a conservation area, and one that has been altered and is now separated – in use and ownership – from its supporting asset, the Castle itself. 1.27 We include as Appendix 7.0 a separate note on our understanding of how Barnwell applies to such matters, which is, as we repeat, only what was already generally understood amongst practitioners: great weight must be given to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the significance of designated heritage assets as distinct from the undertaking of any planning balance. 1.28 The decision of the Council to remove the HLM and WD site from the Schedule of Allocated Housing Sites appears to be based on an analysis undertaken with the assistance of English Heritage’s Guidance on the Setting of Heritage Assets (2011/republished with a flysheet commenting on NPPF compliance 2012). 1.29 We stress that this guidance is useful principally for setting out a method which is transparent. It does not comprise new policy. The Council have carried out an assessment against the terms of the analytic matrices at pages 19 and 21 of the 3 HALLAM LAND AND WILLIAM DAVIS 4 DRAFT LOCAL PLAN REPRESENTATIONS guidance document document. Apart from being needlessly repetitious and lengthy (against the terms of the guidance and suggesting, by sheer volume, substance), this document is not informed by any appreciation of the detailed evolution of the landscape and its surrounds, Nor does it appear to be based on any understanding of Georgian landscape design more generally. 1.30 For reasons set out in section 3.0, we question the findings of the analysis and evaluation which underpins the Council’s report.