Sevenoaks District Draft Local Plan Consultation July 2018

Document Section Draft Local Plan July 2018 Ensuring new development respects local distinctiveness Heritage Assets Policy 17 - Heritage Assets [View all comments on this section]
Comment ID DLPP1135
Respondent Montreal Park Residents' Assoc… [View all comments by this respondent]
Response Date 01 Oct 2018
Current Status Accepted

In the third para there appears to be an unwarranted conflation of the relevant tests and a failure to distinguish between designated and non-designated assets. The wording set out is only appropriate for designated assets, though it omits the test where there will be substantial harm or loss (correctly stated in para 7.25 final sentence). For non-designated heritage assets, including those locally listed, the public benefits etc will always be relevant, and the reference to “less than substantial harm” is irrelevant. See paras 134 and 135 of the NPPG.

Chapter 8

Para 8.5 Should this read “…AQMAs which are sited alongside…”?

Para 8.6 In the second line, add “schools” as it is one of the most significant contributors to traffic congestion and therefore to poor air quality. This should read:  “…(e.g. schools, stations…”.

Para 8.6 The location of developments which generate high numbers of additional car journeys is critical. To reflect this, the second sentence should read:  “Measures to improve air quality include reducing the need to travel by maximising opportunities to develop (and develop more densely) close to existing or planned future sustainable transport and other facilities and services, providing electric….”