Link to homepage

Agenda item

Tewkesbury Borough Heritage Strategy

To approve the draft Heritage Strategy for consultation purposes.  

Subject To Call In::No - Ongoing matter for consultation.


1.           That the draft Tewkesbury Borough Heritage Strategy be APPROVED FOR CONSULTATION PURPOSES.

2.           That authority be delegated to the Head of Development Services to make any necessary minor amendments, as considered appropriate, to the draft strategy prior to consultation.   


37.1          The report of the Planning Policy Manager, circulated at Pages No. 87-104, set out the general heritage considerations within the Borough along with the statutory duties and obligations of Tewkesbury Borough Council as a planning authority. It also included an analysis of heritage protection within the Borough and an action plan showing how the aims and objectives of the strategy would be implemented. Members were asked to approve the draft document for consultation and to delegate authority to the Head of Development Services to make any necessary minor amendments to the draft document prior to consultation.

37.2          Members were advised that Council’s Heritage Strategy was being brought forward as part of the development of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan in line with best practice. It was felt the strategy was especially important given the nature of Tewkesbury Borough and its variety of heritage assets. Referring to Page No. 102, a Member questioned whether the scheduled monument list was scheduled ancient monuments. In response, the Conservation Officer indicated that they were now referred to as scheduled monuments. The Member advised that there was land in Winchcombe – between the Redrow site off Gretton Road and Greet Road – which should be on the list due to Roman artefacts being found there. The Conservation Officer undertook to check that and add it to the list if appropriate. During the discussion which ensued, a Member requested that the reference to ‘Article 4’ be explained within the document, and the Head of Development Services undertook to add that explanation. Referring to Page No. 93, a Member asked that references to the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Conservation Board be amended to reflect its new name of Cotswolds National Landscape. Another Member referred to amendments required at Paragraphs 1.12 and 1.15 and the Head of Development Services agreed that she would make those amendments and ensure any other necessary minor amendments would be made before it was circulated for consultation. A Member questioned whether the moated site and fishpond at Urrist Barn was still there as he was not sure that it was; he understood the Gwynett family had lived there, one of whom had signed the American Declaration of Independence, and he felt this was something the Borough did not make enough of. In response, the Conservation Officer indicated that scheduled monuments were administered by Historic England through its inspectorate so he did not know what the condition of the monuments was. A lot of them were not as much about what could be seen as what the archaeological potential could be; however, he would draw the Councillor’s comments to the attention of Historic England so they could decide if they needed to visit the site.

37.3          There was a discussion about ensuring unauthorised works were not being undertaken to listed buildings, that appropriate shopfronts and signage were being installed as well as trying to draw more businesses into the High Streets and ensuring the strategy was not a barrier to that. The Conservation Officer understood the concerns and indicated that most national chains had business models which meant they were quite willing to adopt branding to suit the Heritage Strategy whilst smaller businesses would usually be happy to preserve the heritage. The Conservation Officer indicated that the Heritage Action Zone meant all shopfronts were being looked at and meetings would be taking place to persuade business owners to install something more in keeping if necessary. A Member was of the view that the description of Winchcombe within the strategy was overshadowed by the mention of Sudeley Castle; he felt Winchcombe could stand on its own in relation to heritage, as could Sudeley Castle, so they did not need to be linked. In response, the Head of Development Services indicated that Officers would consider that to see if any amendment would be made.

37.4          Accordingly, it was

Action By:HDS

Supporting documents: