Object

Representation ID: 13449

Received: 17/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Jean Laut

This policy statement doesn't seem to cover the detrimental effect to a listed building of a planned change/development to a property alongside that building

Comment

Representation ID: 15662

Received: 05/05/2016

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Policy 9.5 current wording is not 'Consistent with national policy'. The Policy advises that proposals for development affecting or within the vicinity of a Listed Building will only be permitted where these are sympathetic to its character and setting.

National policy directs that where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, a LPA should refuse consent unless the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or if the following apply:

The nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and
No viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and
Conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and
The harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

Alternatively, where a proposals leads to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset's significance, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Comment

Representation ID: 16331

Received: 18/05/2016

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

Agent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

Concerned that criteria a, b, c, d is not being implemented as a recent and ongoing example of this and ongoing example of this is the re-development of the Grade 11 listed Crown Public House in Ingatestone High Street.