Link to homepage

Agenda item

Local Heritage List Selection Criteria for Tewkesbury Borough Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

To approve the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for consultation: Local Heritage List Selection Criteria for Tewkesbury Borough and delegate authority to the Head of Development Services, to make any necessary minor amendments to the draft document as considered appropriate prior to consultation.

Subject To Call In::No - Ongoing Matter.

Decision:

1.    That the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD): Local Heritage List Selection Criteria for Tewkesbury Borough be APPROVED for consultation subject to the inclusion of bridges in the list of assets.

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

Minutes:

61.1          The report of the Planning Policy Manager, circulated at Pages No. 125-138, asked Members to approve the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD): Local Heritage List Selection Criteria for Tewkesbury Borough for consultation purposes.

61.2          Members were advised that the Local Heritage List Selection Criteria SPD provided the basis for deciding which nominated heritage assets identified were adopted onto the Local Heritage List which was a list of undesignated heritage assets which had special local architectural, archaeological or historic interest and contributed to the character of a place. A Local Heritage List provided information on the location of those assets and what was significant about them. The purpose of the local procedure for the Local Heritage List Selection Criteria SPD was to identify and utilise a robust and standardised procedure for nominating assets onto a Local Heritage List – the publication of the SPD ran in tandem with the creation of a Local Heritage List for Tewkesbury Borough. The Committee was asked to approve the draft Supplementary Planning Document for consultation and to delegate authority to the Head of Development Services to make any necessary minor amendments to the draft document, as considered appropriate, prior to consultation.

61.3          Referring to the nomination categories, a Member noted that bridges were not listed and felt they ought to be given the number of historic bridges in the Tewkesbury area. In addition, he questioned whether a call to the public was made for nominations to be listed. In response, the Heritage Engagement Officer advised that bridges should have been included and she would amend the list referred to. The public had been asked for individual nominations initially but feedback from Members was required in the first tranche to bring forward the unlisted characteristics of a local area – Parish Councils had also been consulted. She would visit and develop local knowledge alongside Parishes or they could just put forward their nominations – her role with the Council was time-limited and, once she left, other Officers would take forward the maintenance of the list. In addition, the Head of Development Services advised that the SPD set the criteria for how feedback was gained and assessed. A grant had been received from central government to set up the Local Heritage List and Councils would gain nominations but it needed to be robust in how it was adopted. In an ideal world, the criteria would be set up before the nominations were requested but there was a finite amount of time to get the project completed, as such, it was being undertaken together. So far the Parishes had been informed of the work which was ongoing and they had responded based on the draft criteria. A Member felt this needed to be made clear to Parishes otherwise they would think the document was final and that anything they wished to add would not be included. The Heritage Engagement Officer explained that she had provided a guide to the selection criteria and that was not dissimilar to the document which was currently before the Committee. Nominations for the list would be taken to the Panel and would then go on the provisional list.

61.4          Accordingly, it was

Action By:HDS

Supporting documents: