NOT TO BE PRINTED_Draft Final TAAP comments duly

Mr Tom Gilbert-
Wooldridge English Heritage Cambridge 3 3.26 Comment
Mr Tom Gilbert-
Wooldridge English Heritage Cambridge
Mr Paul Leeming Carter Jonas Harrogate 3 3.34 Comment
3
3.28 Comment
We welcome the recognition in Table 3.2 of potential historic
environment, landscape and design issues arising from growth in
Thetford. However, we would also like to see recognition of current
historic environment issues within the town as part of Table 3.3. In
particular, there are a number of heritage assets on English
Heritage's "Heritage at Risk" (HAR) Register and Norfolk County
Council's "Building at Risk" (BAR) Register (the latter includes Grade
II listed buildings, whereas the former does not). On the current HAR
Register, there are two listed building entries (Church of St Mary the
Less and Abbey Farm Cottages and Barns) and the whole of
Thetford Conservation Area, while on the BAR Register there are
seven listed building entries (including the two from the HAR
Register). The preservation and enhancement of heritage assets,
especially those "at risk", is a current issue that needs to be
addressed. We recommend that a historic environment strategy is
developed, linked to the Area Action Plan (see below for comments
on the Implementation Section). Agree. Refresh table as per rep.
We note the reference to the Thetford 13 project in Paragraph 3.28,
which is cited as a key driver in revitalising and promoting the town's
historic core. While English Heritage supports the principles behind
the project, we have some concerns about the way in which certain
aspects of Thetford's heritage are being presented, as well as the
potential impact on our operational, management and casework
activities. The feasibility study and business case report contains
some factual inaccuracies as well as a rather simplistic portrayal of
some of Thetford's key heritage assets and how they might be
promoted. In the study, Thetford Castle is promoted as a Norman
monument to fit into "The Norman Age" period, with its important Iron
Age origins less explicit. The Nunnery of St George is shown as a
core asset for the Tudor and Stuart age even though it is chiefly a
medieval monument. St Peter's Church is presented as a core asset
for "The Viking Age", even though the current church is substantially
a 14 th century building with no visible remains of the Saxon / Viking
era.
The absence of an explicit "Saxon Age" greatly underplays the
significant Saxon settlement that existed for a number of centuries
(much of the archaeology of the Saxon town is protected &
scheduled). The focus on "ages" suggests a straightforward linear
chronology, when in reality, ages overlap. A focus on themes might
work better & would not preclude the use of appropriate buildings &
sites. The project also needs to address conservation issues
alongside promotional and marketing initiatives. The proposed way
of "marketing" Thetford Castle as a Norman site is likely to affect
current management priorities & a scheme to repair, manage &
enhance the site including its Iron Age features. As there are
proposals to develop st Peter's church to accommodate heritage The TAAP is referencing a piece of work being undertake by the
functions, we would welcome discussions about how this building Town Council with MTF funding support. The Principle of the
might be prepared for its future function. At Thetford Priory, any project will contribute to the regeneration of the town and meet
proposal that could affect a site which EH opens to the public would the theme of the TAAP which is 'Historic Past, Healthy Future'.
need detailed discussion with us to work well, as would many of the details and specific points about the project should be raised Pass on comments to Thetford Town
proposals within the study (given our statutory consultee role in the planning with the system). Town Council as the lead authority.
Council
We would suggest that it would be appropriate for the Submission
document to set out how the Council is dealing with the Coalition
Government's overhaul of the planning system. In particular this
could reference the importance of the Core Strategy and the
elements of the Localism Bill which emphasise the duty to cooperate,
locally justified housing numbers, an emphasis on private
sector/sustainable development-led recovery, neighbourhood plans
and the changes to the "monitoring" procedures.
Disagree. Changes to the planning system will probably change
between now and submission and the TAAP needs to now begin
it’s transition to a focussed planning document; secondly, the
emerging changes to the system will no doubt be picked up and
considered by the Inspector and it is something we will need to
cover in any appropriate hearing statements that we develop for
the EiP sessions. Therefore, it will be dealt with as evidence
base. No further action.