3. Are there any other options that you think the Council should consider as well as the ones suggested within this consultation document?

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Comment

Development Management Development Plan (DPD)

Representation ID: 447

Received: 28/07/2010

Respondent: Mono Consultants Ltd

Representation Summary:

We are suggesting that a clear and flexible telecommunications policy be introduced in one of the main LDDs. This should be introduced by a short paragraph outlining the development pressures and the Councils policy aims. We have suggested text for both. In keeping with the aims and objectives of the new legislation any background information should be contained within a separate LDD which would not need to go through the same consultation process.

Object

Development Management Development Plan (DPD)

Representation ID: 608

Received: 07/08/2010

Respondent: Herbert Grove Residents

Representation Summary:

More consideration should be given towards the current residents and the parts of their lifestyle which will be changed by the proposed plans, such as loss of sea views and how they should be compensated for the loss of amenities.

Comment

Development Management Development Plan (DPD)

Representation ID: 761

Received: 10/08/2010

Respondent: Burges Estate Residents Association

Representation Summary:

Page 5/6. Self evidently the policies which will eventually emerge from this participation exercise will not come into force until Feb 2012 based upon your timetable. Consequently should not the Council be making arrangements to keep the saved policies from the Borough Plan valid until they are superseded to avoid a vacuum?

Comment

Development Management Development Plan (DPD)

Representation ID: 971

Received: 20/10/2010

Respondent: Savills

Representation Summary:

We do not consider to evidence base adequate, as many of the supporting studies have yet to be completed.

Comment

Development Management Development Plan (DPD)

Representation ID: 1233

Received: 19/10/2010

Respondent: English Heritage

Representation Summary:

GENERAL COMMENTS AND PPS5

PPS5 builds on the earlier national guidance for the historic environment and brings it up-to-date based on the principles of heritage protection reform. The following parts are of particular relevance:

Policy HE2.1 '...local planning authorities should ensure that they have evidence about the historic environment and heritage assets in their area and that this is publicly documented. The level of detail of the evidence should be proportionate and sufficient to inform adequately the plan-making process.'

Policy HE3.1: '...local development frameworks should set out a positive, proactive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment in their area, taking into account the variations in type and distribution of heritage asset, as well as the contribution made by the historic environment by virtue of (inter alia) its influence on the character of the environment and an area's sense of place.'

Policy HE3.2 advises that the level of detail contained in a LDF 'should reflect the scale of the area covered and the significance of the heritage assets within it'.

Policy HE3.4 states that 'At a local level, plans should consider the qualities and local distinctiveness of the historic environment and how these contribute to the spatial vision in the local development framework core strategy. Heritage assets can be used to ensure continued sustainability of an area and promote a sense of place. Plans at local level are likely to consider investment in and enhancement of historic places including the public realm, in more detail. They should include consideration of how best to conserve individual, groups or types of heritage assets that are most at risk of loss through neglect, decay or other threats'.

The emphasis on a positive, proactive approach to the historic environment in plans is especially noteworthy. We would also highlight the need to understand the significance of heritage assets within the plan area. In the context of the Southend LDF we hope that assessment of the historic environment will be pursued as an important and integral part of the evidence base.

Other points from PPS5 worth noting at this stage:
- The term 'heritage asset' is now the appropriate term to refer to those parts of the historic environment that have significance, both designated and un-designated. Paragraph 5 provides the definition.
- Paragraph 7 of the PPS recognises the positive contribution of heritage assets to local character and sense of place
- The historic environment should be integrated into planning policies promoting place-shaping (paragraph 7)
- Policy HE5 refers to the need for monitoring indicators. We recommend that heritage at risk, including grade II buildings at risk, should form part of the LDF monitoring framework.