Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft
Search representations
Results for Historic England search
New searchComment
Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft
4.9 Good Design & Design Statements
Representation ID: 342
Received: 02/07/2007
Respondent: Historic England
We welcome sections 4.9 and 4.10, and also the references to the historic landscape of the Upper Roach valley. The Council may wish to consider how far the Essex Urban Place Supplement [UPS] should be applied since development in some small settlements needs to assessed according to a more rural character, and less dense/smaller scale development is often appropriate. If the LDF does not adopt the UPS in its entirety, then it should be clear which parts are not applicable.
We welcome the commitment to reinstate the local list in the light of the Heritage Protection White Paper. In the preferred policy option it is not necessarily explicit that enhancement is included. We are also unsure if archaeology is reflected here.
Thank you for your letter dated 21 May 2007 consulting English Heritage on the above document. There are a small number of issues which we would like to mention at this stage in the LDF process.
Southend Airport
English Heritage has been involved in discussions in the past over proposals for expansion of the airport involving the demolition of St Laurence and All Saints church [listed grade I] at the south west end of the runway. We understand that future plans do not now require demolition, which we welcome, and we trust that the church, and its setting, will be protected.
Evidence base
Rochford, together with Essex County Council, has undertaken some exemplary work on Historic Environment Characterisation and Conservation Area Appraisals. There is every opportunity for Rochford to be an exemplar in using this information to shape the policies and implementation of the LDF. We very much hope that the way the evidence base has been used to influence the plan will be made explicit as the plan progresses.
Historic environment and design policies
We welcome sections 4.9 and 4.10, and also the references to the historic landscape of the Upper Roach valley. The Council may wish to consider how far the Essex Urban Place Supplement [UPS] should be applied since development in some small settlements needs to assessed according to a more rural character, and less dense/smaller scale development is often appropriate. If the LDF does not adopt the UPS in its entirety, then it should be clear which parts are not applicable.
We welcome the commitment to reinstate the local list in the light of the Heritage Protection White Paper. In the preferred policy option it is not necessarily explicit that enhancement is included. We are also unsure if archaeology is reflected here.
We would be happy to discuss any of these comments if you would find this useful.
Comment
Rochford District Core Strategy Regulation 26 Draft
4.10 Character of Place & the Historic Environment
Representation ID: 343
Received: 02/07/2007
Respondent: Historic England
Southend Airport
English Heritage has been involved in discussions in the past over proposals for expansion of the airport involving the demolition of St Laurence and All Saints church [listed grade I] at the south west end of the runway. We understand that future plans do not now require demolition, which we welcome, and we trust that the church, and its setting, will be protected.
Evidence base
Rochford, together with Essex County Council, has undertaken some exemplary work on Historic Environment Characterisation and Conservation Area Appraisals. There is every opportunity for Rochford to be an exemplar in using this information to shape the policies and implementation of the LDF. We very much hope that the way the evidence base has been used to influence the plan will be made explicit as the plan progresses.
Historic environment and design policies
We welcome sections 4.9 and 4.10, and also the references to the historic landscape of the Upper Roach valley. The Council may wish to consider how far the Essex Urban Place Supplement [UPS] should be applied since development in some small settlements needs to assessed according to a more rural character, and less dense/smaller scale development is often appropriate. If the LDF does not adopt the UPS in its entirety, then it should be clear which parts are not applicable.
We welcome the commitment to reinstate the local list in the light of the Heritage Protection White Paper. In the preferred policy option it is not necessarily explicit that enhancement is included. We are also unsure if archaeology is reflected here.
Thank you for your letter dated 21 May 2007 consulting English Heritage on the above document. There are a small number of issues which we would like to mention at this stage in the LDF process.
Southend Airport
English Heritage has been involved in discussions in the past over proposals for expansion of the airport involving the demolition of St Laurence and All Saints church [listed grade I] at the south west end of the runway. We understand that future plans do not now require demolition, which we welcome, and we trust that the church, and its setting, will be protected.
Evidence base
Rochford, together with Essex County Council, has undertaken some exemplary work on Historic Environment Characterisation and Conservation Area Appraisals. There is every opportunity for Rochford to be an exemplar in using this information to shape the policies and implementation of the LDF. We very much hope that the way the evidence base has been used to influence the plan will be made explicit as the plan progresses.
Historic environment and design policies
We welcome sections 4.9 and 4.10, and also the references to the historic landscape of the Upper Roach valley. The Council may wish to consider how far the Essex Urban Place Supplement [UPS] should be applied since development in some small settlements needs to assessed according to a more rural character, and less dense/smaller scale development is often appropriate. If the LDF does not adopt the UPS in its entirety, then it should be clear which parts are not applicable.
We welcome the commitment to reinstate the local list in the light of the Heritage Protection White Paper. In the preferred policy option it is not necessarily explicit that enhancement is included. We are also unsure if archaeology is reflected here.
We would be happy to discuss any of these comments if you would find this useful.