Object

Representation ID: 25826

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Cardinal Lofts (Mill) Ltd

The Company supports the general objectives set out in this policy, but considers that it should be re-worded, particularly in respect of the tests relating to harm caused to heritage assets, to better accord with the wording set out in the NPPF. In particular, the three criteria relating to listed buildings do not include a balancing exercise, whereby harm caused is weighed against any public benefits arising from a scheme.

Object

Representation ID: 26051

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Historic England

Recommend that Local List is expanded to cover other types of undesignated heritage assets or where documented in conservation area appraisals it's highlighted in policy terms.

The repetition of the NPPF tests in the second and third paragraphs should be reviewed as they refer to all heritage assets. Wording must be consistent with paragraphs 194, 195, 196, and 197. Alternative is to refer in policy that the tests on harm in the NPPF will be followed.

Grammar error.

Consideration to incorporating requirements in supporting text into policy such as what the requirements are for a heritage statement etc.

Object

Representation ID: 26110

Received: 01/04/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Constabulary

In order to ensure that listed buildings are not allowed to suffer repeated damage or unauthorised access, it is recommended that paragraph 9.13.17 is amended to include the following 'In assessing applications for retrofitting sustainability measures to historic buildings the Council will take into consideration the public benefits gained from the improved energy efficiency and security of those buildings....;