Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Cabinet"

See other formats


| 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 are not recent, 20/EE/P A is. 


09/02/202 t 


14 


Piodiversity and Historic Environment (Archaeology) Suppl... https://haveyoursay.pembrokeshire.gov.uk/biodiversity-and-his... 


William O'Brien 


15/255 


2, Organisation (where relevant) 


0/255 


3, Address (including Postcode) 


4, Telephone No 


5, Email (if you have one) 


6. Preferred method of contact 


Email xX wv 


7. Date 


2of3 09/02/2021, 15:52 


Liodiversity and Historic Environment (Archaeology) Suppl... https://havey oursay.pembrokeshire.gov.uk/biodiversity-and-his... 


Object: Historic Environment (Archaeology) X e 


9. Please make your response below. 


The National Park Authority will acknowledge the representations 
received. 

Representations on Supplementary Planning Guidance will be 
made publicly available. All comments will be reported to the 
National Park Authority, and Pembrokeshire County Council's 
Cabinet, where the Guidance proposed is jointly prepared by 
both authorities. All commentators will be advised of the 
outcome of these meetings. 


| have submitted my response to the consultation by royal mail special 


delivery. 


rerms and Conditions 
Privacy Policy 
Moderation Policy 
Accessibility 
Technical Support 
Cookie Policy 

Site Map 


09/02/2021, 13:55 


ore