Initial Consultation document
Search representations
Results for Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service search
New searchComment
Initial Consultation document
Question 85: Proposed site MIN 212
Representation ID: 93201
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service
We agree with the initial conclusion for this site.
Comment
Initial Consultation document
Question 86: Proposed site MIN 79
Representation ID: 93202
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service
We agree with the initial conclusion for this site.
Comment
Initial Consultation document
Question 87: Proposed site MIN 80
Representation ID: 93203
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service
We agree with the initial conclusion for this site.
Comment
Initial Consultation document
Question 48: Proposed site MIN 201
Representation ID: 93204
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service
The barrow mentioned within MIN 201 has already been partly excavated, levelled by ploughing and has been cultivated, so NCCES believes the impact on it could be mitigated (full excavation) - we would be happy if it was to be removed from the reasons not to allocate. We agree the scheduled cross is a significant constraint.
Comment
Initial Consultation document
Question 51: Proposed site MIN 48
Representation ID: 93205
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service
We agree with the initial conclusion, but with the following comments:
It is worth including in the reasons why the site is unsuitable that MIN 48 could not be allocated if the scheduled barrow was within its extent - it would not get Scheduled Monument Consent and would be contrary to the requirements of the NPPF.
Comment
Initial Consultation document
Question 56: Proposed site MIN 203
Representation ID: 93206
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service
As indicated in the archaeology section of the text, this site has been subject to a trial trenching evaluation with largely negative results and NCCES have advised that no further archaeological work will be required at this site.
Comment
Initial Consultation document
Question 66: Proposed site MIN 32
Representation ID: 93207
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service
The archaeology text needs amending: A number of Anglo-Saxon buildings and remains of burial mounds were found during excavations on adjacent land (not one significant building as described).
Comment
Initial Consultation document
Question 69: Area of Search AOS E
Representation ID: 93208
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service
We agree with the conclusion to allocate the area of search, but with the following comments:
E.5 should state that the archaeological assessment should include a desk-based assessment and field evaluation. It should also refer to archaeological remains rather than 'deposits'
Comment
Initial Consultation document
Question 70: Area of Search AOS F
Representation ID: 93209
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service
We agree with the conclusion to allocate the area of search, but with the following comments:
F.3 should state that the archaeological assessment should include a desk-based assessment and field evaluation. It should also refer to archaeological remains rather than 'deposits'
Comment
Initial Consultation document
Question 71: Area of Search AOS I
Representation ID: 93210
Received: 16/08/2018
Respondent: Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service
We agree with the conclusion to allocate the area of search, but with the following comments:
I.4 should state that the archaeological assessment should include a desk-based assessment and field evaluation. It should also refer to archaeological remains rather than 'deposits'
