Comment

Representation ID: 22161

Received: 06/10/2021

Respondent: Marlie Civils

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

We are aware that there are heritage-related consent regimes under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that apply in the case of this site, given the Grade II and II* listed buildings present on site. We are also great weight should be given to the conservation of such assets. Paragraph 190 of the Framework states that 'Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a} the desirability ofsustaining and enhancing the significance ofheritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b} the wider social, cultural,
economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; c}
the desirability ofnew development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and d} opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character ofa place.'

2.15. We consider that in light of this, more emphasis should be placed on flexible approaches to alternative uses (viable uses consistent with their conservation) within ENVS to take account of the above guidance.

2.16. Paragraphs 20l and 202 of the Framework require the decision maker to assess whether a proposal will lead to substantial or less than substantial harm to, or total loss of significance of, a designated heritage asset. If the harm is assessed as substantial or resulting in the total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset paragraph 20l confirms that consent should be refused unless there are substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss or all of the four criteria listed in the paragraph apply. If the harm is less than substantial, paragraph 202 requires this harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. It is our view, even at this early stage, that the conversion and regeneration of these buildings is capable of resulting in 'less than substantial' harm (lower end) and that the public benefits generated from the new development and securing the building long term from future damage are substantial public benefits.

Given that the proposals in the emerging plan would be to preserve the colliery buildings (those listed) in situ, it is clear that a conversion to residential use is most likely the most viable (and therefore optimum) use. This could be a requirement of any future development to be proposed on the adjacent land - and to make it clear that one would 'cross-subsidise' the other.

2.18. We would therefore like the council to reconsider their position on this.