23. Do you agree with the suggested option?
Support
Development Management Development Plan (DPD)
Representation ID: 475
Received: 03/08/2010
Respondent: Carole Mulroney
Great care needs to be taken to ensure the prservation and enhancement of historic areas. The use of local listing and stringent policies of control is adviocated. Attention should also be paid to areas outside historic areas which nevertheless may impact on them.
Comment
Development Management Development Plan (DPD)
Representation ID: 668
Received: 09/08/2010
Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd
Paras.2&3. The test in a case to alter or demolish a building of special architectural or historic interest is more exacting than the assessment of development either affecting or demolishing a 'locally listed' building or building in a Conservation Area. The narrative implies they are all equally protected and that the processes are identical. PPG15 sets out the tests.
Support
Development Management Development Plan (DPD)
Representation ID: 949
Received: 19/10/2010
Respondent: English Heritage
Issue DM5 - Southend-on-Sea's Historic Environment, p30.
We are pleased to see the emphasis that new development should preserve and enhance conservation areas and historic buildings. We also welcome the acknowledgement of the economic benefits of the historic environment.
Comment
Development Management Development Plan (DPD)
Representation ID: 951
Received: 19/10/2010
Respondent: English Heritage
Historic Environment - suggested option, p30
English Heritage urges the Borough to take adequate steps to ensure that they have evidence about the historic environment and heritage assets in their area and that this is publicly documented as required by PPS5, policy HE2.1.
Comment
Development Management Development Plan (DPD)
Representation ID: 952
Received: 19/10/2010
Respondent: English Heritage
Within the Option we suggest a new topic with wording to the effect 'The appraisal of existing conservation areas and potential new designations, as well as surveys to further identify buildings and assets of local importance, with effective policies for the management of all of these assets.'
Comment
Development Management Development Plan (DPD)
Representation ID: 953
Received: 19/10/2010
Respondent: English Heritage
We also recommend the following in the suggested option:
Point 1. Add 'The effect on undesignated heritage assets will be assessed and considered when considering development proposals' (see PPS5, policy HE8.1).
Point 2. Add 'or their settings'.
Point 3. Refer to tests in PPS5, policy HE9.2, which include the need to demonstrate substantial public benefits of change, the need to prove that reasonable uses cannot be found, or uses in the medium term to enable conservation, or grant funding or charitable/public ownership are not possible, or the harm/loss is justified by finding a new use for a site.
Point 4. Add after appearance 'or setting of that conservation area.'
Object
Development Management Development Plan (DPD)
Representation ID: 996
Received: 20/10/2010
Respondent: Savills
Generally support thrust of preferred option. However policy to require full planning applications for developments affecting the setting of locally listed buildings is too onerous and contrary to planning law and governmental guidance.
We consider that all the main historical issues have been considered by the Council