Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2008
9th August 2009, 11:40 PM
HE9.8
Local planning authorities should not accept material harm to or removal of
significance in relation to a heritage asset unless:
(ii) the heritage asset impedes all reasonable uses of the site, there is clear evidence
that no viable use of the site can be found in the medium term that will enable
the retention of the asset?s significance, and conservation through grantfunding
or some form of charitable or public ownership is not possible or
YP-
so if there is no money for it then its ok to go.........?
(iii) it can be demonstrated that the material harm to or removal of significance is
outweighed by the wider social, economic and environmental benefits,
including mitigating climate change, that will be delivered by the proposed
development
YP-
sounds not so bad, but would depend on how much push is enough to push it off the agenda.
txt is
Mike
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2008
9th August 2009, 11:48 PM
HE10.4
In considering the significance of heritage assets local planning authorities should
bear in mind that not all elements of a World Heritage Site or Conservation Area
will necessarily contribute to its significance. Those elements that do contribute to
the significance should be considered as designated assets in themselves (whether
subject to separate statutory designation or not). When considering applications for
development, local planning authorities should take into account the significance of
such individual elements and their contribution to the significance of the World
Heritage Site or Conservation Area as a whole.
YP-
how does this relate to space as a void in relation to the european cultural landscape convention.
its big on wording and as part of the agenda but how?
what will be sympathetic siting?
txt is
Mike
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2008
9th August 2009, 11:50 PM
HE10.6
Due to the discretionary approach taken to the scheduling of monuments and the
statutory limitations on what can be designated as a monument there are many sites
that are significant for their archaeological interest that are not designated at
present. The absence of designation does not necessarily indicate lower significance.
Non-designated assets of archaeological interest equal in significance to that of
scheduled monuments should be treated according to the same principles
YP-
phew all concerns of HE10.2 addressed
txt is
Mike
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2008
9th August 2009, 11:54 PM
HE11.1
When considering applications for development within the setting of a heritage
asset, local planning authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve
those elements of the setting that enhance the significance of the asset. When
considering applications that do not do this, local planning authorities should weigh
any loss of enhancement of the asset against the wider benefits of the application.
Reflecting the importance Government attaches to development that contributes to
the wider principles of sustainable development, such benefits may include the
wider benefits associated with increased production of energy from low or zerocarbon
sources. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the asset, the
greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval.
YP-
so the carbon footprint can diminish a significance if a LA is running alittle on the high side of Zero Carbon?
txt is
Mike
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2008
9th August 2009, 11:58 PM
HE11.2
Where an aspect of an asset?s setting does not positively contribute to its
significance, local planning authorities should take into account the desirability of
enhancing or better revealing the significance, including through high quality
design of new development. This should be seen as a positive public benefit and
part of the process of place-making.
YP-
sounds positive unless you don't know the true extent of the asset around a known fixture.
if its not a known setting does this explore settings?
txt is
Mike
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2008
10th August 2009, 12:03 AM
HE12.1
Local planning authorities should use the following criteria to determine whether
the benefits of an application for enabling development to secure the future
conservation of a heritage asset outweigh the disbenefits of departing from the
development plan, bearing in mind the requirements of section 38(6) of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 200415.
? Will it materially harm the significance of the asset or its setting?
? Will it avoid detrimental fragmentation of management of the asset?
? Will it secure the long term future of the asset and, where applicable, its
continued use for a purpose sympathetic to its conservation?
? Is it necessary to resolve problems arising from the inherent needs of the asset,
rather than the circumstances of the present owner, or the purchase price paid?
? Is there a source of funding that might support the asset without the need for
enabling development?
? Is the level of development the minimum necessary to secure the future
conservation of the asset and of the design and type that minimises harm to
other public interests?
YP-
so no wasting money if the other stakeholders are too beligerant or uneconomical for winning grants through public interest or financial return through development
txt is
Mike
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2008
10th August 2009, 12:19 AM
there does not seem to be any mention of the private public funding issues providing for first or second opinions for the decision making process, let alone database focus and emphasis.
ie:
if it gets outsourced is there any provision for conflict of interest by way of developer or over commercialisation, let alone the sell out on a zero carbon excessivly zealous, green emphasis?
this seems alittle way out west but at what point are we going to sign over to the zero carbon community, from consciencous ethical development?
the heritage may need to pollute and the developer will want to minimise liabilities.
txt is
Mike
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2008
10th August 2009, 12:24 AM
HE13.1
A documentary record of our past is not as valuable as retaining the asset. The
ability to record evidence of our past should not therefore be a factor in deciding
whether consent for development that would result in a heritage asset?s destruction
should be given.
preservation as the record, is by no means a justification for the work itself........ah
txt is
Mike
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
12th August 2009, 12:11 PM
Perhaps YellowPete should be given his/her own thread too?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
14th August 2009, 02:50 PM
The architects and builders trade press is expressing concern over the new PPS, claiming that the definition of 'heritage assets' is too open. I'd like to see them some up with a definition of 'development' which covers all possible examples.
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sect...00019fd1ac
The architects are worried about local authorities being able to designate unlisted buildings outside conservation areas as heritage assets.
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/...89.article
