(7) Option 1: A single policy

5.7 This option would allow an applicant to view a potentially more user friendly single piece of guidance around proposals specifically involving planning permission for designated heritage assets. To achieve this particular approach the existing policies would need to be reviewed and potentially grouped together and the likely changes in national guidance would also need careful consideration. There could be some issues that are not covered by the existing policies that also need to be included in the eventual Development Management Plan policy.

5.8 The current local plan policies relating to designated heritage assets broadly cover the following topics: (For more detailed information please see the Hastings Local Plan 2004, pages 171 – 179).

5.9 Development within Conservation Areas: this outlines (amongst other things) that proposals should enhance the character of the designated area, its buildings and surroundings, there should be a high standard of design, use of sensitively chosen materials in proposals, that green spaces should be preserved and that the layout and arrangement of buildings should follow the existing patterns.

5.10 Demolition in a Conservation Area: This policy generally states that demolition is to be avoided unless it is to preserve or enhance the character of the area or there is not other viable use for the building(s) concerned.

5.11 Replacement Doors and Windows in Conservation Areas: this gives specific instruction around the materials and styles that should be appropriately selected for the area in question.

5.12 Roof Materials in Conservation Areas: Also specific guidance around replica treatments and appropriate material choices.

5.13 Development Involving Listed Buildings: this outlines (amongst other things) that proposals should be appropriate in scale, design, materials etc so as not to detract from the special architectural and historic character and appearance of listed buildings and their setting. Changes of use, external and internal alteration will only be permitted where they do not adversely affect the special architectural and historic character.

5.14 Demolition of Listed Buildings: this is also a policy to discourage demolition unless no other viable practical or suitable alternative can be found.

5.15 Replacement Doors and Windows in Listed Buildings: Specific guidance to the replacement of exact replicas or original features.

5.16 Roof Materials for Listed Buildings: Specific guidance to the replacement of exact replicas or original features.

5.17 Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments: assessments of implications of any proposals are required from any applicant and the protection of the setting of these assets is outlined in this policy.

5.18 Through the policies there is also the requirement for an applicant to demonstrate and provide evidence of assessments with most kinds of proposal involving these designated assets.

5.19 There is also some guidance towards specific proposals such as those for winch huts, advertisements and shop fronts.

Option 2: Split the guidance into separate policies

5.20 Another option could be to split the guidance into separate policies; this might help to reinforce the view that each aspect of designated heritage is important in its own right. A greater number of policies, however, covering one area could also have the consequence of reducing their impact when considering applications. The flexibility to respond to applications would remain if there were more policies but their consistent use might be reduced.

(1) Option 3: Some more stringent guidance

5.21 Some more stringent guidance is another way to view this policy. It is possible to be more prescriptive, especially around design matters in heritage terms, and this approach would have the advantage of achieving minimum standards across the town. Standards, however, can become outdated and setting them limits the chances of certain types of development occurring where it might be most needed. It could also be the case a standard for one area is different to the next, and what was intended to be a minimum standard could become an unintended maximum. It could be argued that a way to achieve specific standards for developments is through site specific negotiations or potential Neighbourhood Plans.

(1) Option 4: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy, and the general guidance from this consultation

5.22 It could be sufficient to rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy. The sites identified on the eventual proposals map would relate to the Planning Strategy and the less detailed policies of that plan. This option would allow greater flexibility in the consideration of planning applications, but could lead to less consistent decisions. This approach may also have the consequence of there not being enough specific guidance for development to suit the town.

(3) Option 1: A policy for non-designated heritage assets

5.26 This option introduces a policy basis for non-designated heritage assets and would alert potential applicants to the heritage value across the town that is not nationally recognised.

5.27 With any planning application is could be expected that proposers assess, in the same way as with designated assets, the potential impact that their scheme might have on the character and setting of a non-designated heritage asset. The assessment would likely need to take account of the reason for the identification of the asset, its local importance and what about it should be preserved. The level of protection that a non-designated heritage asset is given is likely to be proportionate the significance of that asset and the scale of any harm or loss proposed.

Suggested policy:

Non-designated heritage assets and their setting will be afforded protection that is proportionate to the scale of any harm or loss proposed and the significance of the asset in question.

(4) Option 2: Some more stringent guidance

5.28 Some more stringent guidance is another way to view this policy. It is possible to be more prescriptive, and this approach would have the advantage of achieving minimum standards of protection across the Borough. Standards, however, can become outdated and setting them limits the chances of certain types of development occurring where it might be most needed. It could also be the case a standard for one area is different to the next, and what was intended to be a minimum standard could become an unintended maximum. It could be argued that a way to achieve specific standards for developments is through site specific negotiations or potential Neighbourhood Plans.

(2) Option 3: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy

5.29 It could be sufficient to rely upon national guidance and policies in the Planning Strategy. This option would allow greater flexibility in the consideration of planning applications, but could lead to less consistent decisions. This approach may also have the consequence of there not being enough specific guidance for development to suit the town.

(11) Option 1: A policy for the assessment and provision of green space with new development

Suggested policy:

5.39 The Council expects that proposals, where appropriate, include assessments of existing ecology. These assessments should be of habitats, including trees, hedges, shrubs and ponds. The specific species of new planting should be given particularly careful consideration to avoid ‘invasive species’ and the loss of neighbouring amenity. Measures for protection and management of the ecology will also be required where appropriate.

Certain development allocation sites will be more able to provide more green space than others. Through the consultation process and into the final document those allocations that should include particular contributions to the green infrastructure as outlined above will be identified.

5.40 Please comment on the site specific part of this document if you know of areas within proposed allocations that should be protected.

(4) Option 2: Some more stringent guidance

5.41 Some more stringent guidance is another way to view this policy. It is possible to be more prescriptive, especially around the requirements for assessments, and this approach would have the advantage of assurance that every planning application was accompanied by a full ecological assessment. Some planning applications, however, especially in town centre locations, or for existing buildings, might not require the same level of assessment if there is not vegetation already in place. It could be argued that a way to identify those places most in need of the most detailed assessments is through site specific negotiations or potential Neighbourhood Plans.

(2) Option 3: Not to have a specific policy for this issue and rely upon national guidance and the Planning Strategy

5.42 It could be deemed sufficient to rely upon national guidance and policies in the Planning Strategy. The sites identified on the eventual proposals map would relate to the Planning Strategy and the less detailed policies of that plan. This option would allow greater flexibility in the consideration of planning applications, but could lead to less consistent decisions. This approach may also have the consequence of there not being enough specific guidance for development to suit the town.