Option 1: A single policy

Support

Representation ID: 2471

Received: 23/04/2012

Yes

Support

Representation ID: 2571

Received: 27/04/2012

5.9 Agree with this but is rarely (if at all) actually executed in the borough.

Support

Representation ID: 2572

Received: 27/04/2012

5.14
Support this. But should be extended to buildings of notable value that are not listed

Support

Representation ID: 2616

Received: 27/04/2012

I support this as we should be preserving our heritage and should maintain a high standard when it comes to upgrading existing properties. We should not be allowing our buildings to fall into disrepair so that the only option is demolition. We should be preserving our green spaces and if existing buildings are not to be converted the proposed developments should be in keeping with the surrounding area. Comparing new four storey town houses, that overshadow 1970s two storey dwellings, and saying they are like Victorian and Edwardian houses that complement each other does not wash.

Comment

Representation ID: 3315

Received: 26/04/2012

Option 1 'a single policy' - is the most appropriate option subject to the changes set out below.
Without more detail it is difficult to understand whether the proposed policy option is in compliance with national policy. Beyond the draft policy's basic emphasis on the desirability of sustaining and enhancing (preserving or enhancing) the significance of the heritage assets, the policy should also convey the importance of:
 taking a practical and positive approach towards the alteration of Listed Buildings to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and constraints of building regulations;
 the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness (para. 126.3 NPPF); and
 opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of place (para. 126.4 NPPF).

Comment

Representation ID: 3316

Received: 26/04/2012

In terms of replacement doors and windows, and roof materials (used in conservation areas and involving listed buildings), the draft policy states that 'specific instruction' and 'guidance' around the choice of materials will be given. This seems to be too detailed and restrictive for a Development Management Plan Document. This level of detail is usually better suited to supplementary guidance or a Conservation Area Audit, as the guidance is likely to differ across the borough area.

There is concern that unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain materials and styles may stifle appropriate innovation, originality or initiative which makes a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Comment

Representation ID: 3336

Received: 26/04/2012

Designated heritage assets

Paragraph 5.9: To emphasise their importance, it is suggested that there is a separate bulletpoint for Green Space and that all Public Realm spaces are included whether urban paved spaces and squares or soft green space or mixture of both.

Paragraph 5.16: The commentary could highlight the growing pressure for solar panels on roofs as renewable energy source in or adjacent to Conservation areas.