Placeshaping

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Comment

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6668

Received: 17/08/2018

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council

Representation:

Paragraph 4.8. The wording within this paragraph would not conflict with HCC's LTP. However, the wording within this paragraph does not mention joint working with neighbouring authorities to ensure connections between future areas such as Gilston that would join up facilitating movement into Harlow particularly by sustainable modes.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6689

Received: 20/08/2018

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

Suggest changing managed to enhanced in line with the wording in the NPPF.

Full text:

Harlow Local Development Plan - Pre-Submission Publication May 2018
Thank you for consulting Historic England on the Harlow Local Plan Pre-Submission Publication. As a statutory consultee, our role is to ensure that the conservation of the historic environment is fully integrated into planning policy and that any policy documents make provision for a positive strategy for the preservation and enjoyment of the historic environment.
Our comments below should be read with reference to our previous response dated 6th September 2017. Please also see our detailed comments in the attached table.
SUMMARY
We very much welcome the changes that you have made in response to our previous comments.
Whilst we consider the majority of the plan to be sound we have identified issues with some of the policies and site allocations which do compromise the overall soundness of the plan.
Under paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework ('The Framework') some aspects of this Plan are unsound as they have not been positively prepared, are not justified, effective, or consistent with national policy. We have identified in detail below where we find the Plan unsound and what measures are needed to make the Plan sound. In summary we highlight the following issues:
a) Reference is made to the Harlow and Gilston Design Charter throughout the Plan. This underpins many of the policies. However, we understand that this document is not yet available to view. Without sight of this document it is not possible to say whether sufficient protection has been given to the historic environment in policy
b) There is a lack of a detailed and proportionate historic environment evidence base underpinning the Plan and the Sustainability Appraisal. This is a particular issue for the strategic site at East Harlow and also site HS2-7 (Kingsmoor). Therefore we have provided more detail on these policies. We suggest that HIAs are prepared for both of these sites in advance of the EiP to test the suitability of these sites in terms of the potential impact on the historic environment. It is important to establish the suitability of the site per se prior to allocation. Paragraph 158 of the NPPF requires a proportionate evidence base for Plans. WE also have suggested the inclusion of a concept diagram for Policy HS3.
c) The site allocations in Policy HS2 require more detail. At the moment, the site address is simply listed. Paragraph 154 of the NPPF makes it clear that policies should provide a clear indication of how a decision maker should react to a development. The policies (particularly for the larger sites should be re-worded to include criteria for clarity and to provide greater protection for the historic environment and robust policies that provide the decision maker and developers with a clear indication of expectations for the sites.
d) Reference to enabling development in Policy PL11 should be deleted.
e) A policy to address Heritage at Risk should be included.
We have suggested a series of other changes to the Plan. Many of these changes suggested do not go to the heart of the Plan's soundness, but instead are intended to improve upon it. We believe that these comments can be addressed by changes to wording in the plan.
Conclusions
In preparation of the forthcoming local plan, we encourage you to draw on the knowledge of local conservation officers, the county archaeologist and local heritage groups.
Please note that absence of a comment on a policy, allocation or document in this letter does not mean that Historic England is content that the policy, allocation or document is devoid of historic environment issues.
Finally, we should like to stress that this response is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise as a result of this plan, where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.
If you have any questions with regards to the comments made then please do get back to me. I would be very happy to meet to discuss these comments further. In the meantime we look forward to continuing to work with you and your colleagues.

Comment

Local Development Plan Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 6879

Received: 31/08/2018

Respondent: Essex County Council

Representation:

This paragraph sets out Gibberd's master plan principles, but does not refer to the (Town & Country Planning Association) Garden City principles, which do not appear to be referenced in the LDP until section 5.14. ECC strongly suggest these should be specifically referenced in the Placeshaping chapter of the Local Plan.

Full text:

see attachments