26.03.2013 Views

Non Site Allocation Representations Report.pdf

Non Site Allocation Representations Report.pdf

Non Site Allocation Representations Report.pdf

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

SECTION FOUR - SPATIAL POLICIES, KEY DIAGRAMS AND SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL POLICIES<br />

4.7.3 Development Affecting Heritage Assets, 4.7.3.6<br />

Rep No Name<br />

People Type<br />

14494 The National Trust (Mr Chris Lambart) [872]<br />

1 Object<br />

Summary While we support the general intention of paragraph 4.7.3.6 and policies CTH/1 and CTH/2 which this text supports, the paragraph contains detail which is<br />

contrary to national policy and suggests a flawed understanding of the setting of registered parks and gardens by the Council.<br />

Change Sought:<br />

The essential settings of registered historic parks and gardens shown on the register entry do not encompass the entire setting and do not include all the<br />

elements that are significant to the setting of a historic park and garden. For example, views out are often a significant feature of the design of historic parks<br />

and gardens.<br />

We suggest that the second sentence of the paragraph 4.7.3.6 should be replaced by: New development which is proposed within or affecting the setting of a<br />

registered historic park and garden should not harm its special interest.<br />

19296 Bodysgallen Hall & Spa (Mr Matthew Johnson) [4548]<br />

1 Object<br />

Summary Weaknesses of the contingency allocation approach identified in the Sustainability Appraisal support our view that once a site is identified as a contingency<br />

allocation, development becomes inevitable<br />

Development would harm the setting of the grade I registered historic park and garden at Bodysgallen and could harm the setting of the World Heritage <strong>Site</strong>.<br />

It would also have landscape impacts.<br />

Development of this greenfield site for housing would be contrary to national planning policies. The proposed contingency allocation is not realistic and<br />

appropriate having regard to the alternatives. Timely plan review (now mandatory) removes the need for contingency allocations.<br />

Change Sought: We suggest that the second sentence of the paragraph 4.7.3.6 should be replaced by: New development which is proposed within or affecting the setting of a<br />

registered historic park and garden should not harm its special interest.<br />

403

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!