Conservation Casework Log Notes February 2016
CONSERVATION CASEWORK LOG NOTES FEBRUARY 2016
The GHS/TGT conservation team received 129new cases in England and7new cases in Wales during Decemberinaddition to ongoing work on previously logged cases. Written responses were submitted by TGT and/or CGTs for the following cases. In addition to the responses below, 4‘No Comment’ responses were lodged by GCTs in response to planning applications included in the weekly lists.
Site / County / GHS ref / Reg Grade / Proposal / Written ResponseNational Planning Policy / E15/1524 / NATIONAL POLICY
Consultation on proposed changes to National Planning Policy / TGT WRITTEN RESPONSE 19.02.2016
Department for Communities and Local Government 19 February 2016
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
By email:
Dear Sir
Consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The Gardens Trust (formerly The Garden History Society) is the statutory consultee for all planning and development proposals affecting all sites included on the Historic England Register of Parks and Gardens. The Trust, along with its partners and colleagues in the County Gardens Trusts provide expert planning and conservation advice to planning authorities across England. The Gardens Trust, and before it The Garden History Society, has exercised this statutory role since 1995, giving it more than twenty years of direct experience of the planning system in relation to historic designed landscapes.
1.2 The Gardens Trust welcomes the opportunity to comment on the consultation paper on proposed changes to national planning policy published by the Department for Communities and Local Government in December 2015.
1.3 The National Planning Policy Framework was introduced in March 2012 after an extensive process of consultation and negotiation with stakeholders and interested parties, and, indeed, Parliamentary scrutiny. The resulting document with its overarching presumption in favour of sustainable development has worked well, and we believe that any proposed changes to it must be subject to similar levels of scrutiny and assessment in order to avoid potentially unintended, but never the less serious consequences.
2.0 Consultation process
2.1 The Gardens Trust welcomes the extension made by Government to the originally announced consultation period. The original deadline would have presented us, and others, with significant problems in responding, and we are very much hope that this extension signals an increased willingness to listen to consultees’ responses.
2.2 Notwithstanding this positive change, we remain very concerned that the present consultation document is lacking in vital detail which makes assessment of its likely impact in practice difficult. Significant policy changes appear to be envisaged, but no detailed wording of new policies is provided.
2.3 We note that this consultation on proposed changes to the NPPF is being progressed in parallel with the Housing and Planning Bill; much of the detail of the planning proposals intended to be implemented by this legislation is similarly unavailable, making it impossible for consultees to be reassured that the inter-relationship between the proposed changes in the NPPF and the Bill have been properly understood, and that their combined effect has been properly assessed.
2.4 The Gardens Trust is very concerned that the present consultation could be said to be taking place in something of a vacuum, with an absence of detailed policy wording or assessment of likely impact.
2.5 We therefore strongly hope that a further period of consultation will be held on the detail of these proposed changes once the corresponding detail of the Housing and Planning Bill is known in order that consultees may provide Government with a better informed response. An early announcement by Government on a second period of consultation would be welcome.
3.0 Detailed comments
3.1 The Gardens Trust’s overall concern relates to what appears to be a change in the overall emphasis and balance of national planning policy. Although the consultation paper seeks to provide assurances to the contrary, the proposals for relaxations in Green Belt policy, and the creation of new presumptions in favour of development on brownfield sites and in favour of starter homes seems to belie such assurances.
3.2 As indicated above, we consider that the NPPF in its present form is working remarkably well: it has delivered an increased number of planning consents, but at the same time it balances various core planning principles, including the need to “conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance” (NPPF 17), within the overarching presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in NPPF 6-15. We believe that giving additional emphasis to any one core principle could significantly undermine the crucial but delicate balance struck by NPPF, with the result that the planning system no longer delivers sustainable development in the sense intended by NPPF, and that this could prejudice the delivery of the protection of the historic environment which is integral to the NPPF understanding of sustainability. We are concerned that the overall quality of planning decisions could be reduced.
3.3 The Gardens Trust considers that NPPF in its present form offers appropriate protection to the historic environment, including historic designed landscapes, and makes it very clear how the protection of the historic environment is integral to the delivery of sustainable development. In the absence of detailed wording of the proposed changes to the presumptions underpinning NPPF, we must remain unconvinced that such changes will not undermine existing heritage protection policy either directly, or through inter-action between policy areas.
Development on brownfield land and small sites
3.4 The Gardens Trust has particular concerns with regard to some of the changes proposed in para 19-26 of the consultation document. Once again, the relationship between, and the weighting given, to different policy principles is very unclear. The consultation paper suggests that “substantial weight” will be given to the benefits of using brownfield land for development. This terminology is presently limited in NPPF to Green Belt protection. It follows, therefore, that the relationship of this proposed new brownfield policy to other policy areas to which NPPF ascribes “great” or “significant” weight, including various aspects of heritage protection needs elucidation.
3.5 We have strong concerns over the proposal to apply the new brownfield policy to “other small sites, provided they are within existing settlement boundaries and well-designed to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness”, notwithstanding the apparent commitment in the following sentence to “retain protection against unwanted development of back gardens”. Leaving aside the somewhat superficial and condescending reference to development in “back gardens” which significantly under-estimates the scale of the problem posed by “garden grabbing” and the consequent impact on local distinctiveness and heritage prior to the issue of policy guidance in 2010, we believe that Government should categorically and unambiguously state that a return to the situation prior to 2010 is not acceptable, and that the 2010 guidance to the effect that garden land is not to be considered to constitute “brownfield” or previously developed land remains in force.
3.6 The proposed changes to NPPF in this respect appear to indicate both a significant change to housing policy, and also the definition of previously developed land. The consultation document lacks any detail, and consequently the full impact of these changes on the protection of the historic environment (including undesignated elements of the historic environment) is difficult to assess. Clarity on these issues is required as a matter of urgency if our well-founded fears are to be assuaged.
Green Belt land
3.7 Many historic designed landscapes lie within or adjoin the Green Belt, especially in the South-East of England and around major settlements. Policy affecting Green Belt is therefore a matter of concern to The Gardens Trust.
3.8 We are particularly concerned by proposals for the use of neighbourhood plans to deliver starter homes. We see Green Belt policy as a much more strategic level of planning, and while the consultation document makes welcome commitments to keeping local plans “at the heart of the planning system” (para 58) and also to maintaining “strong safeguards on Green Belt” (para 51), we find it contradictory that exceptions to these over-arching strategic plans could be defined at neighbourhood level.
3.9 The consultation document lacks detail with regard to policies affecting the Green Belt (eg paras 50-54). While most might agree with the generalised sentiments expressed and the aspirations for increased housing supply, the lack of detail makes the impact of the proposed changes on the historic environment impossible to quantify.
Increased residential development density around commuter hubs
3.10 Just as many historic designed landscapes are located in Green Belt, so too many are situated within historic urban areas which are potentially affected by the proposed policy change. The impact of increased development on the setting of such urban designed landscapes should be highlighted and taken into consideration as part of the assessment of any proposed new development.
Unviable and underused commercial and employment land
3.11 The Gardens Trust has concerns with regard to this proposed change in policy which will encourage the use of this type of site for housing. We believe that this has the potential to impact adversely on heritage conservation and especially on historic designed landscapes if it is applied, for example, to conversion of historic farm buildings within historic parkland, or buildings associated with sporting activities within an historic designed landscape (such as stables, deer barns or game rearing premises). While use of such premises for commercial activities may be appropriate and have a limited impact on the designed landscape, domestic conversion with consequent need for ancillary development, parking, gardens etc may have a significantly adverse impact.
3.12 We are concerned that the proposal may lead in some cases to a deliberate abandonment of otherwise viable commercial premises within historic designed landscapes and other historic settings such as conservation areas which may contain significant landscape elements. Such an unintended consequence of this proposed policy change would clearly be undesirable both in terms of impact on the historic environment, but also on economic grounds.
3.13 As with other areas covered by this consultation document, the lack of essential detail of matters such as the definition of “unviable” is much to be regretted and hampers proper consideration of the likely impact of the proposed changes.
4.0 Summary and Conclusion
4.1 The Gardens Trust recognises that a need exists to address the present issues of housing supply. However, we are by no means convinced that the proposed changes to NPPF will deliver the benefits sought by Government without causing potentially serious disruption to the overall planning framework through the introduction of new “presumptions in favour”.
4.2 We believe these are likely to change the present balance of policy, undermining the objective of sustainable development which is central to NPPF.
4.3 We consider that such a change is likely to diminish the present, appropriate level of protection for the historic environment within national planning policy; and as such, is a change we cannot support.
4.4 The Gardens Trust believes that the NPPF in its present, delicately balanced form works well and is delivering generally good planning decisions. The proposed changes represent an unwelcome, and in our view unwarranted potential change to the system which threatens to undermine the principle of plan-led planning in England.
4.4 The Gardens Trusts regrets that Government has brought forward a consultation document so lacking in necessary detail and at a time when the detail of the corresponding legislation is also unknown. Only these details will allow consultees to understand how the proposed changes will work in practice, and how they will inter-relate across the planning system. Without this detail we are unable to be reassured that the proposed changes will not have serious consequences for heritage protection as well as for the fundamental principles of planning.
4.5 The Gardens Trust would welcome a reassurance from Government at the earliest opportunity that a further period of consultation will be offered once the details of the proposed policy changes and legislation are known.
Yours faithfully
Jonathan Lovie
Principal Conservation Officer & Policy Adviser
The Gardens Trust
Tyntesfield / Avon / E15/1352 / II* / PLANNING APPLICATION
North Somerset DC
16/P/0166/F
Proposed development of existing woodland play trail with the construction of a ship balance space, sycamore crows nest, high ropes rigging, half made dens, forest school space with canopy and an extension to the existing tree house. Plantation woods in Tyntesfield Estate, Tyntesfield, Wraxall Grid Ref: 351174 170239. PLAY AREA / CGT WRITTEN RESPONSE 19.02.2016
Summary: The Avon Gardens Trust supports this proposal.
We are grateful for the opportunity to comment on this proposal which seeks to increase the two existing play areas within Plantation Woods area of the Grade II* registered park and garden.
We have made a site visit and confirm that the proposed works are well positioned and are confined to high woodland ground close to the north boundary wall. The Grade I listed main house and chapel are not visible from the proposed play areas.
We would ask that the following two points should be taken into consideration when a decision is made:
The density of trees and the natural setting of the play areas should be maintained and the recommendations of the arboriculture report, that an in depth formal climbing inspection of all trees in the high use area, should be in place and regularly executed.
• Also, that the tracks that are shown on the OS 1880 map that are adjacent to the Summerhouse Cottage be defined as it was not clear during the site visit where the edge of the tracks and the spread of the undergrowth divided.
We appreciate planning decisions have to be balanced based on prevailing planning policy. We would ask you to consider the proposal against section 12 of the National policy framework, [Conserving and enhancing the historic environment].
As previously notified to you, The Gardens Trust is the statutory consultee on matters concerning registered parks and gardens. The Avon Gardens Trust is the regional part of The Gardens Trust.
We would be grateful to be advised of your decision, or if further information is submitted.
Yours sincerely
Ros Delany (Dr)
Chairman, Avon Gardens Trust
Sandleford Priory / Berkshire / E15/1415 / II / PLANNING APPLICATION
West Berkshire DC
16/00106/OUTMAJ
Hybrid application seeks planning permission for: (1) Detailed proposal for 337 dwellings, associated means of access and green infrastructure (no matters reserved); (2) Outline proposal for a two form entry primary school on a parcel of land immediately South of Monks Lane (all matters reserved). Sandleford Park, Newtown Road, Newtown, Newbury, Berkshire. MAJOR HYBRID / CGT WRITTEN RESPONSE 17.02.2016
As you are aware, Berkshire Gardens Trust has recently responded to two other Planning Applications relating to the wider Historic England, Grade II registered landscape of Sandleford Park, which is also on the national HE At Risk Register. The full titles for these responses are within Footnote (¹) below. We understand that this current application is just for the full approval housing element on its own, although it is linked to the 15/02300/OUTMAJ, HYBRID PLANNING APPLICATION (for an outline approval for the whole site and full approval for the housing in the north of the site off Monks Lane), which is being applied for in parallel. The main difference appears to be that this current application does not include any proposals for the Country Park, except in relation to the wood next to the houses.
Given the particular links between this application and 15/02300/OUTMAJ, HYBRID PLANNING APPLICATION, we therefore look forward in particular to a response on those concerns which were previously raised by Historic England and West Berkshire’s Tree Officer and Landscape Advisor as well as ourselves and which apply to this application (as far as we can see any comments on the development aspects of the outline application to the north and west do not apply this time but otherwise things are much the same).
We would also like to take this further opportunity to restate that the proposals for the whole Country Park should go hand in hand with the full application for development as required by the West Berkshire SPD. In particular, it is essential that if permission is granted for any development, a designer with a proven track record in restoring Brownian landscapes should be employed by the developer now, prior to further consideration of this and the other applications affecting the HE registered landscape.
In conclusion, BGT and The Gardens Trust (TGT²) share the view that any permission for building and the Country Park in this part of the wider Sandleford Park must reflect the significance of, and be in keeping with, the setting for the Registered Brownian Landscape. This is particularly pertinent on the eve of the nationally promoted celebrations for the tri-centenary of Brown’s birth, led by the Capability Brown Festival Organisation(³).
Yours sincerely