30th June 2015, 01:19 AM
Marc
I am sure that you will dislike and disagree with everything Iâm about to write, and given it is so late Iâm not sure why Iâm bothering, but I donât know why you consider that a Heritage Statement is an invented device that does not follow the NPPF.
Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states:
A Heritage Statement is precisely that - a statement on heritage (not limited to archaeology); it is where the applicant describes the significance of any heritage assets affected [by their application], including any contribution made by their setting. Such a statement might be a stand-alone document or it might simply be a paragraph/short section within a wider Design & Access or Planning Statement.
You could call it a Description of the Significance of any Heritage Assets Affected by the Development Statement, but Heritage Statement seems somehow simplerâ¦
Within the Heritage Statement the applicant might justify why the works are proposed, how they have responded to the siteâs heritage interest and identify any public benefits arising from the scheme. The statement could also explain how any harm to significance has been reduced or avoided, taking into account the âtestsâ set out in paragraphs 133 & 134. These arenât things that would normally fall within a desk-based assessment, howeverâ¦
Additional specialist assessment, for example of archaeological interest through âdesk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluationâ could also be required in order to inform a planning decision. Such desk-based assessment would support and feed into the Heritage Statement, but the two are not the same.
Desk-based assessment and field evaluation are âmethods to find out whatâs thereâ. The Heritage Statement describes what is significant about what is there and how the development has responded to that significance.
* Significance (for heritage policy): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage assetâs physical presence, but also from its setting.
I am sure that you will dislike and disagree with everything Iâm about to write, and given it is so late Iâm not sure why Iâm bothering, but I donât know why you consider that a Heritage Statement is an invented device that does not follow the NPPF.
Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states:
Quote:128 In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance* of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting.
A Heritage Statement is precisely that - a statement on heritage (not limited to archaeology); it is where the applicant describes the significance of any heritage assets affected [by their application], including any contribution made by their setting. Such a statement might be a stand-alone document or it might simply be a paragraph/short section within a wider Design & Access or Planning Statement.
You could call it a Description of the Significance of any Heritage Assets Affected by the Development Statement, but Heritage Statement seems somehow simplerâ¦
Within the Heritage Statement the applicant might justify why the works are proposed, how they have responded to the siteâs heritage interest and identify any public benefits arising from the scheme. The statement could also explain how any harm to significance has been reduced or avoided, taking into account the âtestsâ set out in paragraphs 133 & 134. These arenât things that would normally fall within a desk-based assessment, howeverâ¦
Additional specialist assessment, for example of archaeological interest through âdesk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluationâ could also be required in order to inform a planning decision. Such desk-based assessment would support and feed into the Heritage Statement, but the two are not the same.
Desk-based assessment and field evaluation are âmethods to find out whatâs thereâ. The Heritage Statement describes what is significant about what is there and how the development has responded to that significance.
* Significance (for heritage policy): The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage assetâs physical presence, but also from its setting.