Object

Representation ID: 420

Received: 14/03/2014

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

There is potential for redevelopment of this site although there are heritage issues with it. The development constraints mention these issues, but further assessment of heritage impacts will be needed to justify the site for allocation, and development criteria set if it is taken forward.

Object

Representation ID: 423

Received: 14/03/2014

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Disappointing that IP-One AAP does not contain more explicit reference to the historic environment, particularly given CS3f in the Core Strategy. This would help meet NPPF para126, which requires local plans to set out a positive strategy for the historic environment. Measures to tackle heritage risk could be included plus reference to updating conservation area appraisals and managing change to heritage assets through e.g. enforcement powers or Article 4 Directions. This could take the form of a policy and/or supporting text whilst mindful of existing policies DM52 or DM54

Object

Representation ID: 425

Received: 14/03/2014

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Waterfront area forms part of the town's historic environment and contains a number of important heritage assets including listed buildings and the Wet Dock Conservation Area. It continues to be identified for regeneration opportunities. Given the continued development opportunities and importance of heritage assets, greater reference to the historic environment would be welcomed in the policy and supporting text.

Object

Representation ID: 427

Received: 14/03/2014

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy is relevant to heritage with reference in the supporting text at 6.55. Retaining and enhancing existing facilities will benefit heritage assets currently used for the arts/culture/tourism whilst new facilities could also be beneficial provided they are sympathetically designed and located. Explicit references to the historic environment in this policy would be welcomed and could address some of the shortcomings identified in the current AAP.

Object

Representation ID: 428

Received: 14/03/2014

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We note that a new Wet Dock Crossing would facilitate access to the Island site and provide for through traffic, allowing for calming of the Star Lane Gyratory. We support the calming of the gyratory and its opportunities for linking the town to the Waterfront and encouraging the enhancement of heritage assets. However, care will be needed with the design of the crossing as it passes through the Island Site and Wet Dock conservation area. We would welcome further discussion of the scheme and recommend recognition of the heritage issues in the supporting text.

Object

Representation ID: 430

Received: 14/03/2014

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Revisions to car parking in the town centre should take account of the historic environment issues in regard to location and design of new car parks and release of existing car parks for other development. Many surface car parks have considerable archaeological potential and some are designated as scheduled monuments and lie within the area of archaeological importance.

Object

Representation ID: 432

Received: 14/03/2014

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The number of opportunity areas has reduced since 2007 so there are gaps between some of the remaining areas. This means some important sites (eg IP089) fall outside opportunity areas so their development may not align with aspirations for the opportunity areas. Identification of development sites in each opportunity area does not always correspond with site allocations (e.g. IP039a) and needs clarifying. No references to scheduled monuments and archaeology is also a concern. Development principles for each area are welcomed but development criteria are needed for specific sites.

Object

Representation ID: 433

Received: 14/03/2014

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This opportunity area is relatively coherent in terms of the sites it covers along the Waterfront. References to the built historic environment are good, but there also needs to be consideration of archaeology issues. We welcome statements such as maintaining the character of the conservation area and retention of historic structures. Low rise development is appropriate although it is debatable whether 4/5 storeys qualifies as low-rise.

Object

Representation ID: 434

Received: 14/03/2014

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This is a more complex and diverse area than A and less coherent, making it difficult to establish specific development principles regarding the historic environment. This transition area needs careful planning. Design issues e.g. building heights need to be clarified and further masterplanning may be useful. There are substantial archaeological issues in this area to be addressed, including scheduled monuments. Low rise in this area is defined as three storeys, whereas in A it is up to five; consistency and clarification is needed on this point, along with further refinement of development principles and specific criteria for specific sites.

Object

Representation ID: 435

Received: 14/03/2014

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This area is complex and diverse, but the current development principles relating to the historic environment are very generic. There is no mention of archaeology or scheduled monuments. Further refinement of the development principles is needed along with specific criteria for specific sites.