| Pemtirokesture Coast National Pari 4 Gtherpty

1 PEB 2024

Awdurdod Pare Cenediaethol Arforsir Penfro a ee E woes © ie

ALES oe i Se

a,

Consultation Response

Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority and Pembrokeshire County Council Joint Supplementary Planning Guidance Historic Environment (Archaeology),

ee? FO ana "Da

——

Scheduled Monument North Pembrokeshire

INDEX

1 Reason for Responding

2 Purpose of Supplementary Planning Guidance

3 Scope of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)

4 Flow-Chart at Page 6

5 Developments Affecting Scheduled Monuments and their Settings 6 Case Study 1 - Planning application 180P A

7 Case Study 1 - Anomalies

8 Case Study 2 - Planning application 180P A

9 Case Study 2 - Anomalies

10 Other PPW Considerations

11 Cadw’s Role in the Assessment of the Impact of Development on Settings

12 Conclusions

Page

10 12 12

14

1 Reason for Responding

1.1 It is evident from documents published on Pembrokeshire County Council’s (PCC) Planning and Building Control Applications website, that the impact of development within the setting of scheduled monuments 1s not fully understood; and based on my understanding of the legislation, policies and guidance underpinning the protection of Wales’ historic environment, I am not persuaded that the proposed joint SPG is robust enough to remedy these apparent weaknesses.

1.2 Significant resources have been invested in developing and implementing legislation, policies and guidance in order to help protect, conserve and enhance Pembrokeshire’s unique historic environment for future generations. Planning Policy Wales (PPW) provides the national planning policy framework for the consideration of the historic environment and this is supplemented by guidance contained in Technical Advice Note 24 (TAN 24) and Cadw’s guidance “Setting of Historic Assets in Wales”.

1.3 PPW (Edition 10) 6.1.23 (Archaeological Remains) informs that the planning system recognises the need to conserve archaeological remains and that the conservation of archaeological remains and their settings is a material consideration in determining planning applications.

1.4 Ata local level, PCC’s adopted Local Development Plan (LDP) policy GN.38 (Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment) informs that development that affects sites and landscapes of architectural and/or historical merit or archaeological importance, or their setting, will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it would protect or enhance their character and integrity.

1.5 Undoubtedly, the protection of Pembrokeshire’s scheduled monuments and their settings from inappropriate development is a national and local objective, and the purpose of my Response is to identify existing non-compliance with relevant policies and guidance, and emphasise the need to strengthen the SPG.

1.6 The SPG acknowledges that TAN 24; The Historic Environment is a “key policy document”; but it is evident from documents relevant to the case studies at paragraphs 6 and 8 of this Response, that applicants and decision makers have strayed from prescribed policies and guidance and have instead adopted ad hoc post-application processes, which are not in the interests of the public. And, I believe it is pointless if the proposed SPG is simply a vocabulary of policies and guidance that applicants and decision makers are already aware of, but simply fail to follow. If my analysis of the two case studies is correct, a key requirement of the proposed SPG is change behaviour; but that change cannot come about unless existing processes are identified, understood, acknowledged and where necessary remedied. It cannot be right that a development within one of Wales’ historic landscapes is perceived to require a 35 page Preliminary Ecological Survey and a 21 page Bat Survey but no information regarding the impact of that development on the area surrounding 2 scheduled monuments of national importance. That is the measure of the change required and while I acknowledge the contribution the proposed joint SPG will make to the local planning system, I believe there is much more work to be done.

2 Purpose of Supplementary Planning Guidance

2.1 The authorities inform that the purpose of SPG is to assist all applicants seeking planning permission whether their proposed development 1s large or small in scale and when adopted will have significant weight in deciding whether a proposal can receive planning permission.

3 Scope of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)

3.1 The SPG explains that it provides detailed information as to how planning applications with the potential to impact upon archaeology within Pembrokeshire will be dealt with, and provides information on the way in which Development Plan policies will be applied.

3.2 The proposed SPG was prepared in consultation with Dyfed Archaeological Trust (DAT) who is the authorities’ professional advisors on matters relating to the historic environment. DAT is a non-statutory body and while it has considerable archaeological expertise, it does not have the statutory responsibility and authority that Cadw has.

4 Flow-Chart at Page 6

4.1 The flow-chart at Page 6 is misleading on account of it informing applicants to consult with WAT at the pre-application stage and also for the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to consult with WAT at the post-application stage.

4.2 Within the planning system there is a statutory (formal) process (Section 6 Development Managers Manual), and a non-statutory (informal) process. Pre-application consultation should not be confused with the pre-application advice service provided by planning authorities. The former is a statutory service the planning authorities are required to provide to developers to help them to identify what policies, material considerations and constraints will be relevant to a decision on their application.

4.3 TAN 24 4.4 guidance explains that the needs of archaeology and development may be reconciled and potential conflicts between development proposals and the preservation of significant archaeological remains can often be avoided through pre-application discussion. This should be between the applicant, the local planning authority, their archaeological advisors and, in cases where scheduled monuments may be affected, Cadw. Local authorities that do not have in-house archaeological advisors, can draw upon the expertise and advice of the curatorial sections of the Welsh Archaeological Trusts (WAT) - DAT in this instance. DAT is the LPA’s advisor and it is the LPA who can draw upon the services of DAT, rather than the applicant. Indeed, TAN 24 1.26 informs that when development is within the setting of a historic asset, the LPA should be able to provide guidance to the applicant during pre- application discussions on the amount of information required to support a proposal. This may include providing a heritage impact statement if the proposal is likely to have an impact on a historic asset. How setting is to be addressed by the applicant should also be considered as part of any pre-application discussions with the authorities.

4.4 TAN 24 guidance is explicit. At the pre-application stage, discussions should be between the applicant, the local planning authority, their archaeological advisors (and if necessary Cadw). The Welsh government’s guidance identifies local planning authorities as participants at the pre-application stage, yet the authorities’ SPG flow-chart at page 6 excludes the local planning authorities from pre-application discussions. If the authorities wish to digress from national guidance, the reasons should be explained.

4.5 When a development is within a prescribed distance of a scheduled monument, the LPA is required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012 to consult Cadw (on behalf of Welsh Ministers), yet the SPG confusingly identifies WAT as the LPA’s sole consultee at the post application stage.

4.6 The SPG is misleading and fails to fully explain the requirements of PPW, TAN 24, Cadw’s guidance “Setting of Historic Assets in Wales”; and the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012.

5 Developments Affecting Scheduled Monuments and their Settings

5.1 The purpose of TAN 24 is to provide guidance on how the planning system considers the historic environment during development plan preparation and decision making and while setting is primarily visual, it can also include other features like tranquillity, remoteness, physical elements of its surroundings and its relationships with other historic features, natural or topographic features and its wider relationship and visibility within its landscape.

5.2 TAN 24 also provides specific guidance on how scheduled monuments and archaeological remains should be considered. TAN 24 1.19 recognises that designated and registered historic assets form only a small part of the historic environment. Nevertheless, such assets are of national importance and require sensitive consideration when development may affect their integrity or setting; yet the SPG fails to adequately acknowledge these sensitivities and inform applicants and decision makers of the prescribed processes they are required to follow when submitting, considering and determining development within the setting, or within a statutory distance of a scheduled monument.

6 Case Study 1 - Planning application 18 PA

6.1 The purpose of this case study is to establish the extent of anomalies in the local planning processes and does not consider the merits/demerits of the development. All the following information is in the public domain but I have redacted that information which might identify the development’s precise location.

6.2 This planning application refers to the conversion of an agricultural building to a dwelling and the construction of a 300 metre access track (Figure 1) in north Pembrokeshire.

f k =— = it- b p t= e EA EET ee aia a ‘ee ee y J- = Patsy = i

6.3 The proposed access track requires planning permission on account of the absence of a defined access [Delegated Decision Report (DDR) 3.1].

6.4 The development is located within the Preseli Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest and is 360 metres from scheduled monument i and 570 metres from

scheduled monument ii GN.38 is the relevant LDP policy. Cadw was advised of the development.

6.5 Paragraph 5.0 of the DDR (Figure 2) does not identify GN.38 as a main planning issue.

5.0

5.1

5.2

5.3

5,4

55

MAIN PLANNING ISSUES

- Whether the principle for the conversion of the agricultural building to a residential unit is acceptable- Policy SP 1, SP16, GN.1 and GN.11.

- Whether the development makes a positive contribution to the character and local context of the area- Policy GN.1 and GN.2.

- Whether sufficient amenity can be provided which would not adversely Impact neighbouring amenity Policy GN.1

- Whether an appropriate access which would not have an adverse impact upon highway safety can be provided- Policy GN. 1

Whether the proposal demonstrates a positive approach and wherever possible enhances biodiversity- Policy GN.37

Planning Reference No. 180P A

Figure 2

6.6 The Decision Notice to the applicant (Figure 3) did not record consideration of LDP policy GN.38 a relevant LDP policy.

Notes to Applicant

1, This Decision Notice grants planning permission. You are advised that it does not constitute approval under the Building Regulations.

2. Having regard to the details of the application proposals, and the relevant provisions of the Local Development Plan for Pembrokeshire (adopted 28 February 2013) as summarised below

Policies SP 1, SP 16, GN.1, GN.2, GN.11, GN.37 Figure 3

6.7 Nevertheless, the LPA did consider the development by way of policy GN.38 and confirmed at paragraph 8 (Figure 4) of the DDR that the development satisfied the requirements of policy LDP GN.38.

The nearest SAM is iR) This is located 360 metres

to the north of the site. it is considered given the separation distance and the intervening hedgerow screening the development would be sufficiently screened from the SAM and not affect its historical merit, archaeological importance or setting. Cadw has no comments to make on the proposed development. It is therefore considered fhe proposal would satisfy the requirements of policy GN.38 from the adopted LDP.

Figure 4

6.8 Cadw’s response is shown at Figure 5. Advice

Having carefully considered the information provided with the ing applicati . l planning application, our records show that there are no scheduled monuments or registered historic parks and

gardens that would be affected by the proposed development. We therefore have no comments to make on the proposed development.

Figure 5

7 Case Study 1 - Anomalies

7.1 The LPA’s claim that the proposed development would satisfy the requirements of GN.38 is unsustainable. LDP policy GN.38 (Figure 6) is clear. Developments that affects sites and landscapes of historic merit or their setting will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it would protect or enhance their character or integrity. It is for the applicant to demonstrate compliance with policy GN.38 by providing sufficient professional information to enable the LPA to assess the impact of the development and to ensure compliance with policies and national guidance which are material considerations.

GN.38 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment

Development that affects sites and landscapes of architectural and/or historical merit or archaeological importance, or their setting, will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it would protect or enhance their character and integrity.

Figure 6

7.2 In this instance, the proposal did not include information regarding the development’s proximity to and i or an assessment of the impact the development would have on the setting of these 2 nationally important scheduled monuments. As a result of these omissions, the proposal failed to accord with LDP policy GN.38; PPW 6.1.4 (Edition 9 November 2016); LDP policy GN.38 6.156(2); LDP policy GN.38 6.157; TAN 24 1.26; TAN 24 1.27 and Cadw’s guidance “Setting of Historic Assets in Wales”. The following are my Reasons.

7.3 PPW Chapter 6: The Historic Environment policy 6.1.4 (Figure 7) is clear. Decisions on planning applications MUST be based on adequate information provided by the applicant. In this instance, the absence of information in the proposal regarding the impact of the development on the historic environment precluded the LPA from considering the proposal by way of national policy PPW 6.1.4. The proposal therefore does not accord with PPW

6.1.4.

6.1.4 Decisions on planning applications and listed building and conservation area consents must be based on adequate information provided by the applicant and any action must be in proportion

to the impact of the proposals, and the effects on the significance of the assets and their heritage values.!

Figure 7

7.4 LDP policy GN.38 6.157 (Figure 8) confirms that sites of national significance are protected by national policy, and national policy will be a material consideration when determining planning applications. To accord with LDP policy GN.38 6.157, the proposal must accord with national policy PPW 6.1.4 - a material consideration, but the absence of sufficient information from the applicant precluded the proposal’s compliance with national policy PPW 6.1.4. The proposal does not accord with LDP policy GN.38 6.157.

6.157 Areas and sites of national significance are protected by national polimy inclucting Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Landscapes of Historic Interest and Historic Parks and Gardens. In addition to national policy adopted Conservation Area Character Appraisals will also be a material consideration when determining planning applications,

Figure 8

7.5 LDP policy GN.38 6.156(2) (Figure 9) requires the LPA to take account of the extent to which the proposed development is likely to impact upon archaeological remains. The proposal does not accord with LDP policy GN.38 6.156(2) on the grounds that the extent to which the proposed development is likely to impact upon the setting of the scheduled monuments has not been assessed by way of national guidance TAN 24 or Caw’s guidance “Setting of Historic Assets in Wales”. The proposal does not accord with LDP policy GN.38 6.156. 6.156 In assessing development that

may affect archaeological

remains the Council will take

into account

2. The extent to which the proposed development is likely to impact upon them

Figure 9

7.6 TAN 24 1.26 (Figure 10) informs that the applicant must provide sufficient information to allow the LPA to assess the development in respect of scheduled monuments. The absence of the relevant information cited by the guidance, does not allow the LPA to assess the proposal by way of TAN 24 1.26. The proposal does not accord with national guidance TAN 24 1.26.

1.26 It is for the applicant fo provide the local planning authority with sufficient information to allow the assessment of their proposals in respect of scheduled monuments, listed buildings, conservation areas, registered historic parks and gardens, World Heritage Sites, or other sites of national importance and their settings. These principles, however, are equally applicable to all historic assets, irrespective of their designation. For any development within the setting of a historic asset, some of the factors to consider and weigh in the assessment include:

e The significance of the asset and the contribution the setting makes fo that significance ¢ the prominence of the historic asset

e the expected lifespan of the proposed development

© the extent of tree cover and its likely longevity

e non-visual factors affecting the setting of the historic asset such as noise,

ee

Figure 10

7.7 TAN 24 1.27 (Figure 11) explains that other factors may affect the setting of a historic asset. The absence of sufficient information cited by the guidance regarding other factors which may impact on the scheduled monuments and their settings does not permit the LPA to assess the proposal by way of national guidance TAN 24 1.27. The proposal does not accord with national guidance TAN 24 1.27.

1.27 Other factors which may affect the setting of a historic asset include; intervisibilty with other historic or natural features, tranquillity, noise or other potentially polluting development though it may have litle visual impact.

Figure 11

Section 2.2 of Cadw’s guidance “Setting of Historic Assets in Wales” (Figure 12) informs that applicants should provide the LPA with sufficient, but proportionate information to allow the assessment of the impact of a historic asset and its setting. The absence of such information does not permit the LPA to assess the likely impact of the proposal on scheduled monuments Zi and —— and their settings by way of Cadw’s guidance “Setting of Historic Assets in Wales”. The proposal does not accord with Cadw’s national guidance.

a oa on i : an = T Iia ` Bg it A A di PO supmiEng a Panne Apsieator

Seige wA RGF es, Sey Eo Puai gi jy iy i el Applicants for planning permission should provide the local planning authority with sufficient, but proportionate, information to allow the assessment. of the likely impact of

proposals for development on a historic asset and ts setting in:

* a World Hentage Site

* a nationally important ancient monument or archaeological remains (scheduled or unscheduled)“

Figure 12

7.8 Section 4 of Cadw’s guidance “Setting of Historic Assets in Wales” (Figure 13) explains the processes required to professionally evaluate the impact of the development on scheduled monuments and their settings. The proposal was not assessed by way of Section 4 of Cadw’s guidance “Setting of Historic Assets in Wales” and consequently does not accord with Section 4 of Cadw’s guidance.

Deveionment within the Setting of Historic

This section outlines the general principles that bath assessors and decision makers should consider when assessing Lhe impact of a proposed change or development within the setting of historic assets, Essentially, there are four stages.

Stage |: Identify the historic assets that might be affected by a propased change or

development,

Stage 2: Define and analyse the settings tc understand how they contribute to the significance of the historic assets and, in particular, the ways in which the assets are

understood, appreciated and experienced

i

Stage 3: Evaluate the potential impact of a proposed change or develuprnent on that significance, *

Stage 4: If necessary, consider options ta mitigate or improve the potential impact of a proposed change or development. on that significance.

Figure 13

7.9 The absence of key professional information precluded the community council and the public from making an informed decision as to the merit of the application. That is unsatisfactory. It is also noted that Cadw dismissed the area as having no scheduled monuments’ that would be affected when in fact there are 2 and the area is rich in historic merit. For example:-

i) A deserted settlement 200 metres from the development site (PRN DATE). ii) A standing stone 180 metres from the development site (PRN DATE); iii) A standing stone 220 metres from the development site (PRN DA TH);

(iv) The development is inside the Preseli Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest and that Cadw informs that the historic landscape character area was part of the demesne lordship of E and retains elements of the medieval land holdings and enclosures; and that the fields adjacent to the development site have been identified as having evolved out of a system of sub-divided strip-field used for arable farming under medieval Welsh tenure;

(v) The development is 360 metres from scheduled monument (HM) which Cadw informs is of national importance for its potential to enhance our knowledge of medieval settlement, organisation and defence; and forms an important element within the wider medieval landscape;

(vi) Cadw informs that the nearby farmstead at E (400 metres away) and the abandoned farmstead at MM (130 metres away) are recorded in the 16" century (and could be much older) and the fields surrounding them are thought to be contemporary.

(vil) The development is 570 metres from scheduled monument E (PERE) which is of national importance.

(vili) The development’s access track (see Figure 1) transects historic bridleway (PP). This part-paved bridleway predates the existing road to the east and provided access from to the “supposed” Roman road to the south.

7.10 It has not been demonstrated that the development accords with LDP policy GN.38; PPW (Edition 9 November 2016) Section 6.1.4; LDP policy GN.38 6.156(2); LDP policy GN.38 6.157; TAN 24 1.26; TAN 24 1.27 and Cadw’s guidance “Setting of Historic Assets in Wales”.

8 Case Study 2 - Planning application 190P A

8.1 This application is for a One Planet Development (OPD) in north Pembrokeshire. The site is approximately 180 metres form Scheduled Monument E (PEM) and is within the Preseli Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest - one of Wales’ historic assets. The purpose of this case study is to establish the extent of anomalies in the planning process and does not consider the merits/demerits of the development. PPW Edition 10 (5 December 2018) was relevant at the time the development was considered. All the following information is in the public domain but I have redacted that information which might identify the development’s precise location.

8.2 At page 9 of the Management Plan, it states that there were no historic features on site (Figure 14) and consequently provided no information regarding the impact of the development on |

' Cadw’s Acting Historic Environmental planning Officer advised on the 25/07/2018 that scheduled monuments PERE and PERE were located within a 1km buffer of the application area.

Historic assets. A review of the site on the historic Wales website revealed no historic or archaeological features on the site.

WI oire opiate November 2032 Existing buildings and structures: There are no existing buildings. There is one metal cattle crush located at the site entrance which is due to be removed by the previous landowner by the end of 2018 as per a license agreement.

Landscape: EE features a mixture of improved grassland and mature hedgerows. These are typical characteristics of this area which is further detailed in the LANDMAP survey (see appendix

document G2), Figure 14

8.3 PPW, TAN 24 and Cadw guidance require the applicant to provide information regarding the impact of their proposal on the historic environment. In this instance TAN 6 OPD Practice Guidance 3.8 requires applicants to note cultural features close to the site. Scheduled monument PE B and Holy Well (PRN DATE) were not recorded.

8.4 At paragraph 6.15 of the Report to Committee (Figure 15), is a brief account of the scheduled monument, and the impact the development would have on the setting of the SAM (Scheduled Ancient Monument). It was considered that the development would protect the character and integrity of the area as is required by LDP policy GN.38.

6.15 The proposed development wauld be visible from the SAM, due to its elevated

position, however the development is low impact in nature and seeks to retain existing boundaries with further planting proposed, which once established would minimise the impact of the development. Although, some structures would be visible from the SAM, they would not be seen as unfamiliar in the agricultural landscape. Cadw has further commented that whiist there would be a change to the landscape surrounding the SAM, it would not alter the way it is understood, experienced and appreciated. On that basis Cadw do not consider that the proposed development would have any impact on the setting of this SAM. Due to low impact nature of the proposed development, which is comparable in scale to a farmstead, it is considered that the proposal would protect the character and integrity of the area as required by policy GN.38 (Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment) of the LDP.

Figure 15

8.5 On account of the proximity of the development to a scheduled monument, Cadw (on behalf of the Welsh Ministers) was required to respond to the application (Figure 16) .

Assessment

The application area is located some 180m soulhwest of scheduled monument

The monument comprises the remains of an earthwork/stone-built enclogure. The date or precise nature of the enclosure is unknown, but it ìs likely to be later prehistoric or medieval. iT is defended by a scarp, now between 1.2m and 2 5m high on the outside and ievel with the interior. On the west side, the bank is preserved in the field boundary, and is 67 high with an extemal ditch.

The proposed development will bhe clearly visible irom the scheduled monument, which is on an elevated position, Once matured, the site will appear from the monument te be mainly woodland. Although some of the structures may be visible, they will not be seen as alien in this agricultural landscape. Therefore, whilst there will be a change to the landscape surrounding the scheduled monument, it will not alter the way it is understood, axpenenced and appreciated. Consequently, Ñ is our opinion that the proposed development will not have any Impact on the setting of scheduled monument as

Figure 16

9 Case Study 2 - Anomalies 9.1 The LPA’s claim that the proposed development would satisfy the requirements of GN.38 is unsustainable. It is evident that paragraph 6.15 of the Report to Committee (See Figure 15) is based on Cadw’s assessment (Figure 16) of the impact of the development on HJ and its setting. Yet, Cadw’s assessment is not a full objective assessment as is required by PPW 6.1.9. It is a subjective assessment based on a brief internal report (Figure 17), rather than an impact assessment compliant with TAN 24 and Section 2.2 (see Figure 12) and the 4 stages at Section 4 (see Figure 13) of Cadw’s own guidance “Setting of Historic Assets in Wales”. Cadw’s advice does not constitute a compliant assessment.

Advice

iS SS

This advice is given in response fo a planning apolication

oo | PE COMmprsing residential and associated development at Land formerly 5a": a

Thè ication area is located some 180m southwest of scheduled monument

The monument comprises the csmains of an

éarthworkistone-built enclosure. The date or precise nature of the enclosure is

nknow itia likely fo be later prehistoric or medieval.

by a scarp, now bebvean fam and 2.5m high en the

outside and level with ihe interior. On the west side the bank is preserved in the feld boundary and ts 6f high with an extemal ditch.

The proposed develope nt MS Silt structures

incluse a singe storey dwelling, a workshop, a polytunnel, a potting shed a cald store, and word slore. The land wil be used for a market garden, orchard

and woodland

The gropesed development will be cleary visible from the scheduled monument which is on an elevated poziton, Once matured the site wijl appear fram the monument to be mainty woediand and whilst some of the structures may be visible they will not be seen as aien siructures in this agdautiural landscape, Theréfare, whist there will be a change to the landscape surrounding the scheduled monument it will not alter the way # is understood, experenced and appreciated GCansequently if is my opinion that the proposed develanment will not have any impact on the seting of scheduled monument

{ Job Title Redacted J1 Name Redacted J Figure 17

9.2 To comply with LDP policy GN.38 6.157 (see Figure 8), requires compliance with national policy PPW 6.1.9 (Figure 18) given that PPW 6.1.9 is a material consideration.

10

Any decisions made through the planning C) system must fully consider the impact

on the historic environment™™ and on

the significance and heritage values

of individual historic assets and their

contribution to the character of place*™*.

Figure 18

9.3 To comply with LDP policy GN.38 6.156(2) (see Figure 9), the LPA is required to take account of the extent to which the proposed development is likely to impact on the archaeological remains*. Further, national policy PPW 6.1.4 (Figure 19) explains that the national planning policy framework is supplemented by TAN 24 and Cadw guidance. To satisfy the requirements of national policy PPW 6.1.4, the LPA is required to fully consider the extent of the impact of the development on MIRREN by way of TAN 24 and Cadw guidance; otherwise the proposed development does not accord with LDP policy GN.38. Cadw’s advice at Figure 17 does not satisfy the requirements of TAN 24 and Cadw’s own guidance “Setting of Historic Assets in Wales”.

& he LF EE E D l E RA ey a Let a a: L a A FR RF ES

wide ranging role it can play, as key Lonbo t ving gid brnandng tie Bislouc

components of their natural and built Crviromyient ang 23 Asacis

tadric. Doing so will Maximise health cia The Ancent Monuments and

and well-being of commuanities and the Archaeological Areas Act 1979, Planning

environment. {Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas} Act 19690 and Historic Environment

Recognising the Special (Wales) Act 20116 provide the legislative

framework for the protection and

Characteristics of Places : es sustainabie management of the historic

The Histeric Environment environment in Wales. PPW provides the The historia environment comprises all ihe national planning policy framework for the surviving physical elements of previous consideration of ihe historie environment human activity and illustrates how past and this is supplemented by guidance generations have shaped the world contained in Technical Advice Note 24:

nelscape is dafirred in Poragraph 6.71 w has pullished & numpa af studies or: the character of towns agross Wales which provide further iformaion wih regards to the cost uf lowrScape as an importarneé histaie urban features. Hitge fond wea WD TH SLOT Ce vate ICA Fee CO Oe Or HAPS COP Ag?

aia ae a = neh Zyoin t ES N Licup SAE viel BE eg

ee

ning Policy Wiles i Edidon iO

The Historic Environment*! and Cadw » preserve the special interest of sites associated best practice guidance on the on the register of historic parks and historic environment”, gardens; and

Figure 19

9.4 It has not been demonstrated that the development accords with LDP policy GN.38; PPW Sections 6.1.4 and 6.1.9; LDP policy GN.38 6.156(2); LDP policy GN.38 6.157; TAN 24 1.26; TAN 24 1.27 and Cadw’s guidance “Setting of Historic Assets in Wales”. Indeed, Annexes A.1.1 and A.1.2 of the Report to Committee (Figure 20) confirms that TAN 24 and Cadw’s guidance were not material considerations.

* Archaeological remains include their setting (PPW 6.1.23). Archaeological remains include scheduled monuments (PPW 6.1.2)

11

Annex A,t The Development Plan/Other Material Considerations. A.1.1 The Local Development Pian Policy SP 1 Sustainable Development Poilcy SP 16 The Countryside Policy GN.1 General Development Policy Policy GN.2 Sustainable Design

Policy GN.4 Resource Efficiency and Renewabie and low- carbon Energy Proposals

Policy GN.37 Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity Policy GN.38 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment A.1.2 Other Material Considerations/ Weight Attached e Planning Policy Wales Edition 10 (December 2018) Significant weight

e Technical Advice Note 6 Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (July 2010)

Significant weight ə Practice Guidance One Planet Development (October 2012) Significant weight Figure 20

10 Other PPW Considerations

10.1 PPW 2.24 (Assessing the Sustainable Benefits of Development) explains that planning authorities should ensure that social, economic, environmental and cultural benefits are considered in the decision-making process and assessed in accordance with the five ways of working to ensure a balanced assessment is carried out to implement the Well-being of Future Generations Act and the Sustainable Development Principle. A key cultural consideration of PPW 2.25 (Figure 21) is whether or not the development protects the areas and assets of historic significance. PPW 2.25 is a material consideration in assessing the impact of the development on the setting of the scheduled monuments and its purpose is to protect Pembrokeshire’s unique historic environment. That requires an objective assessment based on policy and guidance, rather than a subjective assessment which does not accord with PPW, LDP policy GN.38, TAN 24 and Cadw’s guidance.

e whether or not the development protects areas and assets of cultural and historic significance;

Figure 21

11 Cadw’s Role in the Assessment of the Impact of Development on Settings

11.1 Cadw’s response to the planning application is shown at Figure 22. In its response, Cadw claims that its statutory role in the planning process is to provide the LPA with an assessment of the likely impact of the proposal on scheduled monuments. I disagree.

Planning Application - Residential and associated development (One Planet Development), Land formerly part of : i

Thank you for your letter of 08 February 2019 inviting our comments on the information submitted for the above planning application.

Advice Having carefully considered the information provided with this planning application, we have no objections to the impact of the proposed development on the scheduled

monuments. Our assessment of the application is given below,

Our role

Our statutory role in the planning process is to provide the local planning authority with an assessment concerned with the likely impact that the proposal will have on scheduled monuments, registered historic parks and gardens, registered hisioric landscapes, where an Environmental Impact Assessment is required and development likely ta have an impact on the outstanding universal value of a World Heritage Site. We do not provide an assessment of the likely impact of the development on listed buildings or conservation areas, as these are matters for the local authority.

It is for the local planning authority to weigh our assessment against ail the other material considerations in determining whether to approve planning permission.

Figure 22

10.2 The LPA consulted Cadw under Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012 on account of the development being within 500 metres of a scheduled monument. This legislation require LPAs to consult the Welsh Ministers (in this instance Cadw), before grant of permission, when a development is within a prescribed distance set out in the following table (Figure 23).

ilj (i Develonrnent whieh has a direct physical impact on 3 The Welsh inisters

senedd monument.

fi Oeveloproarit likely to pe visibie fram a Stchecwed monument and which meels ane of the foilawing criteria.

| aitis within a distance of 0.5 klamelres from any paint of the perimeter of a schetuied monument:

2} iLis within a distance cf 1 kimmnetre fran the penrneter of a scheduled monument and is 16 metres or more in height, or has | an arsa of D2 heclares at Mort:

gi is within a distance of 2 kilometres from the perimeter af 4 scheduled raonument and is 50 metres or mare in eight, or has an area of 0.5 hectares or mare;

di it is within a distance of 3 kilometres from the perimeter of a sctiedued monument and is 75 metres or rare in height, er has an area of 1 hectare ar more: ar

| e} tig within a distance af 5 kiiornetres fram the perimeter of a scheduled menument and is 100 metres or mare in height, or | has an area of | hectare or more.

fui} Development likely ic affect ihe sie g? a registered historic park or garden or its selling,

‘ivi Development within a registered histeric landscape that reques an Environmental Impact Assessment, or

iv} Developmen likely to have an impact on the guistanding universal value of a World Heritage Site

Figure 23

10.3 As far as I am aware, Cadw’s statutory role as a consultee under Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012 (as amended), is to provide a time critical substantive response. A substantive response (where an applicant did not seek pre-application advice) is set out under article 15E (Figure 24) of the amended legislation.

13

[F76 substantive response to consultation 15E. A substantive response for the purposes of section 100A<2) of the 1990 Actis a response which ia} states that the consultee has ne comment to make: (b) states that the consuliee has no objection to the matters which are the subject of the consultation and refers the person consulting to current standing advice by the consultee on the subject of the consultation; advises the person consuiting of any concerns identified in relation to the matters which are the subject of the consultation and how these concems can be addressed by the applicant: or

tc)

era!

(d) advises that the consultee objects to the matters which are the subject of the consultation and sete out the reasons for the

objection j Figure 24

10.4 In this instance, Cadw raised no objection to the development and also gave its assessment of the impact of the development on the setting of the scheduled monument. Yet, where a consultee offers no objection to the proposal, the legislation confines a substantive response to one which refers the LPA to current standing advice by the consultee on the subject of the consultation.

10.5 The stability of standing advice is similar to that of Council standing orders. They are long standing. In this instance Cadw (being part of the Welsh Government’ s Culture, Sport and Tourism Department, is representing the Welsh Ministers and the Welsh Ministers advice regarding Wales’ historic environment is that set out in PPW policies, TAN 24 and Cadw

guidance.

10.6 To enable Cadw to refer the LPA to current standing advice on the matter of a development within the setting of a scheduled monument, it is necessary for it to have sight of information required by way of PPW, TAN 24 and Cadw’s own guidance. If such information is provided, Cadw’s role is to scrutinise it and check compliance. If Cadw has no objection, it must advise the LPA that it has no objection and refer the LPA to PPW, TAN 24, and Cadw’s guidance (S15E (b)). If Cadw has concerns (for example the proposal does not accord with PPW policy 6.1.9), those concerns must be reported to the LPA together with an explanation as to how the applicant can address Cadw’s concerns (S15E (c)).

10.7 Cadw’s role is to inform the LPA. The LPA’s role is to assess that information together with information from the applicant, other council departments, statutory bodies, the Community Council and the public. I believe that Cadw’s role in its handling of Schedule 4 requests requires urgent review.

12 Conclusions

12.1 When an application for development within the proximity of a scheduled monument is submitted, a professional assessment of the impact of that development on the setting of that scheduled monument is required. That assessment is the responsibility of the applicant.

12.2 At national policy PPW (Edition 10) 6.1.4, footnotes 101 and 102 are cited. Following the link at footnote 102 accesses Cadw guidance “Setting of Historic Assets in Wales”. This explains the general principles that must be considered when assessing the impact of a proposed development within the setting of historic assets. Those principles go far beyond Cadw’s comments on the impact of the development, yet it is evident from the case studies that the LPA’s comments are sufficient. That is why the proposed SPG must be robust enough to eliminate any notion that something other than a professional assessment is “good

enough”, 12.3 While the 2 case studies examined