Option 1: A policy for non-designated heritage assets

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Comment

Development Management Plan Consultation Document 3rd February - 27th April 2012

Representation ID: 2257

Received: 13/02/2012

Representation Summary:

5.27 Page 34

What on earth does any of this mean. The syntax makes it impossible to understand. Has anybody proofread this entire document

Support

Development Management Plan Consultation Document 3rd February - 27th April 2012

Representation ID: 2472

Received: 23/04/2012

Representation Summary:

Yes

Object

Development Management Plan Consultation Document 3rd February - 27th April 2012

Representation ID: 3337

Received: 26/04/2012

Representation Summary:

Non-designated heritage assets and local lists

Paragraph 5.24: Reference to the potential significance of non designated landscapes is welcomed and in line with the European Landscape Convention in that all landscape should be assessed according to local significance, sense of place and character. This section however needs to make it clear that the concept of archaeological interest applies to all heritage assets including designated assets and non-designated assets of all types (buildings, landscapes, monuments etc.)

Option 1 is not favoured as its appear to be contuary to the NPPF. Making a distinction between designated and non-designated heritage assets, should be avoided. The NPPF is very clear in seeking to treat the historic environment as a holistic set of assets. Both designated and non-designated heritage assets can have Archaeological Interest. The NPPF states that "There will be archaeological interest in a heritage asset [including buildings, landscapes etc] if it holds, or potentially may hold, evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them".