Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Object

Representation ID: 99220

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Para 2.8/2.9 and site assessments for allocations
Historic Environment and Archaeology assessment
We have reviewed the site assessments methodology and the site assessments themselves.
Whilst these are a helpful starting point, they do not constitute Heritage Impact Assessments. As advised in previous consultations, we continue to request that Heritage Impact Assessments are prepared to inform a number of the more sensitive the allocations.
Our advice note 13 Mineral Extraction and Archaeology (https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/mineral-extraction-and-archaeology-advice-note-13/heag278-mineral-extraction-and-archaeology/) sets out the requirement for heritage impact assessments to inform site allocations in Minerals Plans.
It states, ‘Where potential allocations are identified as being likely to impact on heritage assets, undertake an appropriate Heritage Impact Assessment to evaluate the extent to which the significance of any assets may be harmed and to identify measures to remove or reduce that harm. Historic England Advice Note 3: The Historic Environment and Site Allocations in Local Plans sets out advice on site allocations in Local Plans’.
The 5-step methodology for HIA is set out on page 5 of our advice note HEAN 3 Site Allocations in Local Plans (https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/historic-environment-and-site-allocations-in-local-plans/).

Object

Representation ID: 99221

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

3.21- 3.23 Carstone
We welcome the reference to Carstone. It is important that provision should be made to protect historic sources of building stone from sterilisation from non-minerals development or from overuse as fill etc. in order that they might be used for the future repair of historic properties or even for new build using traditional vernacular. The plan should provide an appropriate Policy which would facilitate the reopening of historic sources of building stone where they are needed for the future repair of historic properties/ building in the traditional vernacular.

Comment

Representation ID: 99222

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Map 1 Key Diagram
We note that the map includes lots of different designations but no heritage designations. Whilst we appreciate that putting individual listed buildings on such a map of this scale would be difficult, area-based designations e.g. Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens and scheduled monuments could be included and would help to identify a wider range of environmental factors.

Object

Representation ID: 99224

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst we appreciate that you have made some changes to policy MW1 to include more references to the historic environment, which is welcome, it is still our view that there is currently insufficient policy provision for the historic environment in the Plan. Normally we would expect to see a specific separate policy for the historic environment in a Minerals and Waste Local Plan. This policy is insufficient as it stands. We are particularly concerned about the lack of detail in relation to below ground archaeology. In order to make this policy consistent with the NPPF and effective in securing sustainable development, we suggest that the policy wording is amended.

Although our preference would be for a separate historic environment policy, we recognise that this policy is now much more detailed in relation to the historic environment which is welcomed.
We note that the policy has been expanded to include greater reference to the historic environment which is welcomed. This has included reference to the NPPF, balancing harm and public benefit and avoiding harm in the first.
The policy does reference cumulative effects and enhancement which is welcomed.
The policy now also includes reference to the need to conserve and where opportunities arise enhance the historic environment which is welcomed.
In the list of bullet points we suggest a minor rewording to read;
• the [delete: setting] significance of heritage assets [insert: '(including any contribution made to significance by setting)'] and protected landscapes,
Although this represents an improvement on the previous draft of the policy, we remain concerned that the policy does not provide sufficient protection for the historic environment. Normally we would expect to see a specific separate policy for the historic environment in a Minerals and Waste Local Plan. This policy is insufficient as it stands. This policy remains unsound as it does not meet the requirements of paragraph 210(f) of the Framework.
In fact, Policy MW2 appears to be a similar list of areas to cover in paragraph 210 but provides limited historic environment criteria against which planning applications will be assessed so as to ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts.
As this policy underpins all the other policies in the plan we are concerned that, as drafted, this policy undermines the plan.
We are also concerned about the lack of detail in relation to below ground archaeology in this policy. In relation to archaeology, we offer the following more detailed advice:
When considering the historic environment, it is necessary to consider the below ground archaeological remains which includes structures, artefacts, and deposits/features of palaeoenvironmental and geoarchaeological interest such as palaeochannels.
The potential for these sorts of remains to be present, both within the area of proposed works and in the adjacent areas needs to be investigated as part of the desk-based assessment and evaluation stages.
The impacts of the proposed extraction works also need to be considered in terms of the direct and indirect impacts that may occur. This includes the potential for the works to alter the groundwater levels within the areas of the proposed works and in adjacent areas, which may affect the movement of water through archaeological deposits, or the preservation conditions. If this occurs it can result in the damage or even loss of vulnerable archaeological remains, such as waterlogged wood, leather or palaeoenvironmental remains, or effect the preservation of archaeological materials (e.g. peat).
There is also the potential for the effects of mineral extraction to impact adjacent areas. For example, hydrological assessments were carried out before, during and after the extraction of materials at the Over quarry, Cambridgeshire, which demonstrated that ground water levels were lowered by between 2 to 5m up to 500m from the quarry face (French 2004, Environmental Archaeology vol 9).
We would therefore recommend that the following Historic England documents are referred to in terms of the materials that may be present and how the potential impacts could be investigated, such as changes to the groundwater levels or chemistry in the area:
Preservation of Archaeological Remains (2016):
https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/preserving-archaeological-remains/
Environmental Archaeology (2011):
https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/environmental-archaeology-2nd/
Geoarchaeology (2015):
https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/geoarchaeology-earth-sciences-to-understand-archaeological-record/

Object

Representation ID: 99225

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst we broadly welcome the requirement for a heritage and archaeology statement to accompany a planning application, for some sites this assessment work may need to be done prior to allocation within the Local Plan as part of the evidence base. We would expect to see this work completed prior to EiP. Further detail on this is given in relation to the comments on specific sites later in this table.

Object

Representation ID: 99226

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We have raised concerns about the wording in relation to harm to the historic environment in policy WP2.
In order to make this policy consistent with the NPPF and effective in securing sustainable development, we suggest that the policy wording is amended.

We welcome the addition of designated heritage assets as a bullet point in this policy. Conservation Areas should also be added to this list as they are designated heritage assets.
Substantial harm is a very high bar. Less than substantial harm is still harm and harm should be avoided in the first instance. We suggest that you reword this bullet point to delete the word substantial and add reference to significance and setting.
The bullet point would then read:
• a designated heritage asset, including listed buildings, registered parks and gardens, [insert: 'conservation areas'] and scheduled monuments, or their settings if the proposed development would cause [delete: substantial] harm to [delete: or] the [delete: loss] [insert: 'significance'] of the heritage asset [insert: '(including any contribution to significance by setting)'].

Comment

Representation ID: 99227

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the changes made to criterion d to reference the historic environment. We also welcome the text at paras W11.3 and W11.4 regarding restoration and Historic Landscape Characterisation.

Comment

Representation ID: 99228

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the changes made to criterion e to reference the historic environment. We also welcome the text at paras W11.3 and W11.4 regarding restoration and Historic Landscape Characterisation.

Comment

Representation ID: 99229

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the reference to Crown Point RPG in the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 99230

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome bullet e) in policy WP16 on the use of design to protect, conserve and, where opportunities arise, enhance the historic environment.