Policy P16 Conservation of Heritage Assets and Local Distinctiveness

Relocate the large developments to the outskirts of Solihull.

Impact on Balsall Common

The objective to conserve the qualities and characteristics of rural settlements is NOT DELIVERED by this plan:
1) These TOTALLY DISPROPORTIONATE developments will RADICALLY alter the physical size, architecture, population, demographics, road traffic, and activity levels in the village. Just one of these would be sufficient to demonstrate that the objective has not been met, but the SIX impacts on quality and characteristics make the developments indefensible.
2) The developments will actually degrade the sense of place, attractiveness, and quality of life.

Broadly accept. The equestrian industry contributes £4.7 billion to the UK economy. Horses are also an important part of our heritage. Developments should include consideration of access for equestrians in their design.

We would recommend that part 5 of this policy have the following sentence (based on the NPPF), or simlilar, added after the sentence 'This should be explained in the accompanying Design and Access Statement or, for significant proposals, in a Heritage Statement'.

'Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, developers will be expected to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation'.

We are pleased to note that a policy has been included recognising the importance of the historic environment to the borough and that it highlights the need for applications to be supported by appropriately informed heritage statements. We would, however, highlight that desk-based assessment alone may not be sufficient, especially in respect of assessing archaeological potential. Would therefore recommend that this policy acknowledge that further field evaluation may also be necessary.

This could be addressed by adding the following text, or similar, after the sentence reading 'The latter include buildings, monuments, archaeological sites, places, areas or landscapes positively identified in Solihull’s Historic Environment Record, or during development management work as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, such as those identified on the Local List of Heritage Asset':

Non-designated heritage assets may also include as yet unidentified heritage assets (for example previously unknown archaeological features).

We are pleased to note that a policy has been included recognising the importance of the historic environment to the borough and that it highlights the need for applications to be supported by appropriately informed heritage statements. We would, however, highlight that section 4 of this policy only presently references known heritage assets, without acknowledging that a proposed development site may contain as yet unknown non-designated heritage assets, such as previously unidentified buried archaeological features.

Criteria 3 to Policy P16 should be replaced with the provisions of paragraphs 195, 196 and 197 of the NPPF; alternatively, a simple cross-reference within the policy to the provisions of the NPPF could also be appropriate.

See attached documents

Criteria 3 to Policy P16 should be replaced with the provisions of paragraphs 195, 196 and 197 of the NPPF; alternatively, a simple cross-reference within the policy to the provisions of the NPPF could also be appropriate.

Dear Sir / Madam,

Please see attached Representations in relation to Regulation 19.

Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you have any queries.

Many thanks,

Clare Garrad

To ensure that is effective, the policy should reworded to ensure it does not go beyond the protection of heritage assets to encompass the protection of landscape character and local distinctiveness outside the settings of conservation areas and listed buildings.
The landscape character and distinctiveness that would be protected by Policy P16 should not be equated with the settings of these heritage assets or the contribution of settings to the heritage assets’ significance. The policy should be reworded to reflect this.

See attached documents.

The policy should include the following text, or a similar alternative:

Great weight will be given to the conservation of all designated assets and their settings (and non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments). Such assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Development which leads to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset will be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Development which leads to substantial harm to, or total loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset will only be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or where all of the following apply:

the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site;

no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation;

conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, 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.

Wording in Policy BC3 requires alteration as suggested below.

In respect of the Concept Masterplan document there are a number of concerns as follows:

 In terms of the historic environment, a ‘zone of significance on the setting of the listed building’ is indicated within concept masterplans where relevant. It is not clear what this means in terms of assessing the impact of a development proposal on the significance of a heritage asset or its setting since the wording does not tie up with the 2019 Heritage Impact Assessment analysis;

 It appears that listed buildings are indicated by the use of the English Heritage logo which has the potential to raise copyright issues and should be altered. It would not be appropriate to use the Historic England logo as alternative. A different identifying symbol should be used instead; and,

 Grades of listed buildings are set out in number format ‘2*’ etc and should be altered to the Roman numerals used in the listing process i.e. 2* would read II* etc.


With regard to the 2019 Heritage Impact Assessment for this site the analysis refers to ‘significant’ harm – it is not clear whether this means substantial harm or not. We note that the area to the south has not been taken forward.
2 i - Protection Conservation or enhancement of heritage assets and their setting;the setting of heritage assets adjacent the site;

2 ii - Provision of low density housing, and where relevant single storey housing to protect the setting and functionality of GII* Berkswell Windmill.

With regard to the 2019 HIA work and the Concept Masterplans information, we would welcome opportunity to discuss this site with you ahead of the EIP to establish whether the concept plan and Policy BC3 could be tightened up further in respect of impact on the GII* Berkswell Windmill and its setting. The LPA will need to be satisfied that the functionality of this heritage asset would not be affected through the proposed development.

Wording in Policy KN1 requires alteration in line with NPPF requirements for harm (this may be duplication however if text for Policy P16 is revised) and as suggested below.

In respect of the Concept Masterplan document there are a number of concerns as follows:

 In terms of the historic environment, a ‘zone of significance on the setting of the listed building’ is indicated within concept masterplans where relevant. It is not clear what this means in terms of assessing the impact of a development proposal on the significance of a heritage asset or its setting since the wording does not tie up with the 2019 Heritage Impact Assessment analysis;

 It appears that listed buildings are indicated by the use of the English Heritage logo which has the potential to raise copyright issues and should be altered. It would not be appropriate to use the Historic England logo as alternative. A different identifying symbol should be used instead; and,

 Grades of listed buildings are set out in number format ‘1’ etc and should be altered to the Roman numerals used in the listing process i.e. 1 would read I etc.
With regard to the 2019 HIA work and the Concept Masterplans information, we would welcome opportunity to discuss this site with you ahead of the EIP to establish whether the concept plan and Policy KN1 criteria could be tightened up further in respect of impact on the setting of GI Grimshaw Hall.

Policy P5: Provision of Land for Housing.

Section 1 - The Policy refers to a table setting out allocations which is one table of a number of unnumbered tables which follows the policy.

Section 6 - The setting of heritage assets is not referred to within the policy at present.
Section 1 – It is recommended the tables be provided with Figure numbers so that the allocation table can be linked with Policy P5 for the avoidance of doubt.

Section 6 - In line with NPPF requirements it is recommended that Section 6: Density criteria (iii) be revised to read ‘…and, heritage assets and their setting’.

Historic England would refer you to comments made at an earlier consultation stage where we encouraged SBC to take the opportunity to refine the early post NPPF heritage policy in the extant Plan.

Whilst our earlier comments are predominantly recommendations, the proposed policy wording does not differentiate between harm and substantial harm as set out in the NPPF and we are of the view that this should be addressed within the policy.
The policy should include the following text, or a similar alternative:

Great weight will be given to the conservation of all designated assets and their settings (and non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments). Such assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Development which leads to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset will be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Development which leads to substantial harm to, or total loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset will only be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or where all of the following apply:

the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site;

no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation;

conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, 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.

In respect of the Concept Masterplan document there are a number of concerns as follows:

 In terms of the historic environment, a ‘zone of significance on the setting of the listed building’ is indicated within concept masterplans where relevant. It is not clear what this means in terms of assessing the impact of a development proposal on the significance of a heritage asset or its setting;

 It appears that listed buildings are indicated by the use of the English Heritage logo which has the potential to raise copyright issues and should be altered. It would not be appropriate to use the Historic England logo as alternative. A different identifying symbol should be used instead; and,

 Grades of listed buildings are set out in number format ‘2’ etc and should be altered to the Roman numerals used in the listing process i.e. 2would read II etc.
In respect of the Concept Masterplan document there are a number of concerns as follows:

 In terms of the historic environment, a ‘zone of significance on the setting of the listed building’ is indicated within concept masterplans where relevant. It is not clear what this means in terms of assessing the impact of a development proposal on the significance of a heritage asset or its setting;

 It appears that listed buildings are indicated by the use of the English Heritage logo which has the potential to raise copyright issues and should be altered. It would not be appropriate to use the Historic England logo as alternative. A different identifying symbol should be used instead; and,

 Grades of listed buildings are set out in number format ‘2’ etc and should be altered to the Roman numerals used in the listing process i.e. 2would read II etc.
In respect of the Concept Masterplan document there are a number of concerns as follows:

 In terms of the historic environment, a ‘zone of significance on the setting of the listed building’ is indicated within concept masterplans where relevant. It is not clear what this means in terms of assessing the impact of a development proposal on the significance of a heritage asset or its setting;

 It appears that listed buildings are indicated by the use of the English Heritage logo which has the potential to raise copyright issues and should be altered. It would not be appropriate to use the Historic England logo as alternative. A different identifying symbol should be used instead; and,

 Grades of listed buildings are set out in number format ‘2’ etc and should be altered to the Roman numerals used in the listing process i.e. 2would read II etc.