1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-i ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015 CHAPTER 11 11.0 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE .............................................. 1 11.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 1 11.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 2 11.3 Baseline........................................................................................................... 22 11.4 Assessment of Effects ..................................................................................... 46 11.5 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................... 84 11.6 Harm ............................................................................................................... 89 11.7 Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 90 11.8 Residual Effects and Conclusions.................................................................... 91 Figures (Volume 2 – Bound Separately) Figure 11.1 Heritage Assets within 1 km of Proposed Development Figure 11.2a Designated Heritage Assets within 2 km of Proposed Development Figure 11.2b Designated Heritage Assets within 2 km of Proposed Development: settings assessment undertaken Figure 11.3 Extract from Plan of Thorpe Old Enclosure (NRO BR 276/1/684) Figure 11.4 Extract from Plan of the Rivers Wensum and Yare, 1825 (NRO MC 103/47) Figure 11.5 Extract from Ordnance Survey map, 1886 Norfolk Sheet LXIIISE Figure 11.6 Extract from Altered Apportionment Plan, 1892 (NRO DN/TA 596) Figure 11.7 Extract from Ordnance Survey map, 1908 Norfolk Sheet LXIIISE Figure 11.8 Extract from Ordnance Survey map, 1929 Norfolk Sheet LXIIISE Figure 11.9 Extract from Ordnance Survey map, 1951 Norfolk Sheet LXIIISE Figure 11.10a Heritage Viewpoints Figure 11.10b Viewpoint A: Carrow Abbey Figure 11.10c Viewpoint B: Railway Cottages Figure 11.10d Viewpoint C: Norwich Castle Figure 11.10e Viewpoint D: Black Tower & Viewpoint E: The Dell, Trowse Newton Figure 11.10f Viewpoint F: Heathside Road/Cotman Road Figure 11.10g Viewpoint G: Yarmouth Road Appendices (Volume 3 – Bound Separately) Appendix 11.1 Gazetteer of heritage assets recorded within 1 km of the Utilities site by Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Record (HER) Appendix 11.2 Gazetteer of designated heritage assets recorded within 2 km of the Utilities site Appendix 11.3 Guide for Contextualised Aesthetic Appreciation of Monuments
94
Embed
CHAPTER 11 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE€¦ · Figure 11.1 Heritage Assets within 1 km of Proposed Development Figure 11.2a Designated Heritage Assets within 2 km of Proposed
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-i ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
CHAPTER 11
11.0 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE .............................................. 1
Unpublished report. 2 Lanpro Services (2010). Proposed Redevelopment of Site to provide Mixed Residential/Commercial
Development at Deal Ground and Former May Gurney site, Trowse, Norwich. 3 BGS Geoindex, accessed at http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html, on 29/04/2015.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-2 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
11.2 Methodology
Legislation and Guidance
Legislation
11.2.1 Statutory protection for archaeology is outlined in the Ancient Monuments and
Archaeological Areas Act (1979) as amended by the National Heritage Act (1983).
A schedule of nationally significant archaeological sites subject to legal protection
is maintained by Historic England (HE), which is a statutory consultee in the
planning process.
11.2.2 Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas receive protection under the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Planning Policy: National Planning Policy Framework
11.2.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government's
planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied, with a
central theme of ”presumption in favour of sustainable development”’4. Planning
policy regarding the historic environment is outlined in Chapter 12 of the NPPF,
with an emphasis on the need to determine the significance of any heritage assets,
including any contribution to this made by their setting, that may potentially be
affected by a proposed development5. This requires, as a minimum that the
relevant historic environment record should be consulted and effects on heritage
assets assessed using appropriate expertise. Where a site at which development is
proposed includes, or has the potential to include heritage assets with
archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to
submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field
evaluation
11.2.4 Where designated assets are concerned, great weight should be given to the
asset’s conservation and any loss of significance should require “clear and
convincing justification”6.
11.2.5 Effects upon non-designated heritage assets are also a pertinent planning
consideration. Where a heritage asset is to be lost, either in part or in whole, as a
result of the development, the local planning authority should require developers to:
4 DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework, 3
5 DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework, 128
6 DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework, 132
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-3 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
“…record and advance the understanding of the significance of any heritage assets
[…] in a manner appropriate to their importance and the impact, and to make this
evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible”.7.
Planning Policy: Local Planning Policy
11.2.6 The Utilities site straddles the boundary of the Norwich City Council and Broads
Authority local planning authority areas. The route of the proposed Access Road
would, where this runs south of the River Yare, pass through the South Norfolk
District Council area. Each of the local planning authorities have a number of
polices relating to the historic environment that are relevant to this assessment.
11.2.7 The Norwich development management policies local plan was adopted in
December 2014. Policy DM98 is aimed at safeguarding Norwich’s heritage.
11.2.8 Policy R109 of the Norwich local plan: Site allocations and site specific policies plan
(adopted December 2014) sets out policies specific to the allocation of the Utilities
site for mixed use development, including that any development should conserve
and enhance the heritage significance of the Utilities site and the surrounding area.
11.2.9 The Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (adopted 2011,
amended 2014) sets out spatial planning objectives which include the protection,
management and enhancement of the natural and historic environment10.
11.2.10 Policy 111 of the Core Strategy seeks to address climate change and protect
environmental assets. A number of other policies within the Core Strategy, whilst
not specific to heritage, call for the protection and enhancement of the historic
environment.
11.2.11 The current planning policies of The Broads Authority are set out within the Core
Strategy Development Plan12. Policies CS5 and CS6 of the Core Strategy deal with
cultural heritage and are applicable to this assessment.
7 DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). 2012 National Planning Policy
Framework, 141 8 Norwich City Council (2014). Norwich development management policies local plan
9 Norwich City Council (2014). Norwich local plan: Site allocations and site specific policies plan, 185
10 Greater Norwich Growth Board (2011 amended 2014). Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich & South
Norfolk, Objective 9, 26 11
Greater Norwich Growth Board (2011 amended 2014). Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich & South Norfolk, 30
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-4 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
11.2.12 The Broads Authority adopted its Development Management Policies document in
2011 and the Utilities site Specific Polices Local Plan in 2014 respectively, in order
to give more detail to the Core Strategy. Policy DP5 of the Development
Management Policies 2011-202113, deals with cultural heritage and is relevant to
this assessment.
11.2.13 The Broads Authority Site Specific Policies Local Plan (2014) contains a policy
specific to the ‘Utilities site’. Policy NOR1, unlike the equivalent policy for Norwich
City, does not specifically mention the enhancement or protection of the historic
environment and archaeological significance. It does however indicate, under
constraints, that the Utilities site is likely to be of archaeological interest given
Roman and WW2 finds in the vicinity14.
11.2.14 Many of the policies within the South Norfolk Local Plan were superseded by the
Joint Core Strategy for Broadlands, Norwich and South Norfolk. Policy ENV915,
dealing with archaeological remains has been saved and is relevant to this
assessment.
National Guidance
11.2.15 The National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) was released in March 2014 by
DCLG and replaced Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic
Environment Practice Guide. The NPPG contains guidance on the implementation
of the NPPF policies on conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
11.2.16 In terms of the heritage assets considered here the most important sections of the
Guidance relate to non-designated heritage assets. Issues relating to the setting of
designated heritage assets and to harm are addressed under separate headings.
14
Broads Authority (2014). Site Specific Policies Local Plan, 65. 15
South Norfolk Council (2003). South Norfolk Local Plan, 35.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-5 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Non-designated assets
11.2.17 In terms of non-designated assets, NPPG states that:
“The National Planning Policy Framework identifies two categories of non-
designated site of archaeological interest:
(1) Those that are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled
monuments and are therefore considered subject to the same policies as those for
designated heritage assets...
(2) Other non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest. By comparison
this is a much larger category of lesser heritage significance, although still subject
to the conservation objective. On occasion the understanding of a site may change
following assessment and evaluation prior to a planning decision and move it from
this category to the first
Where an asset is thought to have archaeological interest, the potential knowledge
which may be unlocked by investigation may be harmed even by minor
disturbance, because the context in which archaeological evidence is found is
crucial to furthering understanding.
Decision-taking regarding such assets requires a proportionate response by local
planning authorities. Where an initial assessment indicates that the site on which
development is proposed includes or has potential to include heritage assets with
archaeological interest, applicants should be required to submit an appropriate
desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation. However, it is
estimated following an initial assessment of archaeological interest only a small
proportion – around 3 per cent – of all planning applications justify a requirement for
detailed assessment”.16
Setting
11.2.18 With regard to setting, Paragraph 13 of the NPPG states that:
“A thorough assessment of the impact on setting needs to take into account, and be
proportionate to, the significance of the heritage asset under consideration and the
16
DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2014). Planning Practice Guide, Para 40
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-6 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
degree to which proposed changes enhance or detract from that significance and
the ability to appreciate it”. 17
11.2.19 The NPPF defines setting as:
“The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed
and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting
may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may
affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral”18.
11.2.20 In March 2015, Historic England published an updated guidance document on
setting as part of their Good Practice Advice Notes intended to explain how to
apply the policies contained in the NPPF. This document states:
“Setting is not a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation, though land within a
setting may itself be designated. Its importance lies in what it contributes to the
significance of the heritage asset. This depends on a wide range of physical
elements within, as well as perceptual and associational attributes pertaining to, the
heritage asset’s surroundings”19.
11.2.21 The Historic England Guidance sets out the ways in which setting may contribute to
the value of a heritage asset. It advocates a five stage approach which comprises:
the identification of the heritage assets;
an assessment of the contribution of setting to the asset’s value;
an assessment of potential effects upon the setting (and thus the value) by a
proposed development/change;
an exploration of potential enhancement and/or mitigation measures; and
to make, document and monitor the outcomes of the decision made.20
11.2.22 The guidance provides a checklist of potential attributes of setting which may
contribute to, or make appreciable the value of the asset in question. HE
acknowledge that the checklist is non-exhaustive and that not all attributes will
apply in all cases.
11.2.23 The current assessment has regard to the HE checklist, and the guidance in
general, but, in the interests of being proportionate to the effects that would occur, 17
DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2014). Planning Practice Guide, Para 13 18
DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework, 56 19
Historic England (2015). Good Practice Advise Note 3: Setting, 4. 20
Historic England (2015). Good Practice Advise Note 3: Setting, 7.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-7 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
only discusses attributes of setting where these are found to contribute to the value
of the asset. Similarly, in many cases effects upon setting are ‘less than substantial’
and are not significant environmental effects. As such, it is not always necessary or
appropriate to propose mitigation or enhancement measures. If relevant, mitigation
and enhancement measures are identified as part of this assessment.
11.2.24 The final bullet point set out in the HE guidance does not apply to this assessment
as the monitoring of decision outcomes can only be undertaken once the planning
decision in question has been made.
Harm
11.2.25 Developments can cause harm to heritage assets both through direct physical
effects upon particular assets and/or through indirect effects on the setting of
cultural heritage assets.
11.2.26 The NPPF, where designated heritage assets are concerned, requires a judgement
to be made as to the level of harm that could be caused to heritage assets by
development. It requires us to indicate whether that harm would be ‘substantial’ or
‘less than substantial’, and the level of harm predicted establishes the planning test
to be applied.
11.2.27 Harm is defined by HE as:
“Change for the worse, here primarily referring to the effect of inappropriate
interventions on the heritage values of a place.”21
11.2.28 The NPPG notes that:
“What matters in assessing if a proposal causes substantial harm is the impact on
the significance of the heritage asset”.22
11.2.29 The NPPG notes that the ‘substantial’ harm is a ‘high test’ and that as such it is
unlikely to result in many cases23.
11.2.30 Direct effects cause a reduction or loss of cultural value or heritage significance
because the physical alteration of the site, monument, building or feature reduces
its evidential value and its ability to inform this and future generations about our
21
Historic England (2008). Conservation Principles, 71. 22
DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2014). Planning Practice Guide, Para 17. 23
DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2014). Planning Practice Guide, Para 17
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-8 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
past. If the physical effect materially alters the appearance of the heritage asset it
may affect its aesthetic value.
11.2.31 Conversely, adverse indirect effects on setting commonly reduce the aesthetic
value of the cultural heritage asset. However, in some special cases the effects on
setting can reduce the evidential value of a building or monument, principally by
interrupting, or in severe cases completely obstructing, some designed-in view to or
from the asset or by adversely affecting the ability of the observer to appreciate the
heritage value of the asset. Such an effect upon setting would reduce the
information content, and thus the overall cultural value of the asset.
Local Guidance
11.2.32 Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Services requires that this
assessment is carried out in accordance with the appropriate sections of Standards
for Field Archaeology in the East of England24. For the purposes of this assessment
this is in the main limited to the section on desk-based research. The document
outlines the requirements for such research including listing sources to be
consulted. It notes that a site visit, an examination of the Historic Environment
Record (HER) and a map regression using available historic mapping are
compulsory elements to desk-based assessment. The guidance notes a number of
other sources to be consulted where appropriate. The guidance also sets out the
required elements of any reporting, including the identification and mapping of all
known heritage assets (and where possible areas of archaeological potential),
areas of previous ground disturbance or contamination and other constraints as
relevant.
11.2.33 The current assessment accords with the desk-based research section of the
guidance.
11.2.34 Archaeological fieldwork is currently being undertaken. A Written Scheme of
Investigation has been agreed with Norfolk County Council Historic Environment
Services and was designed with appropriate reference to Research and
Archaeology Revisited: a revised framework for the East of England25. The agreed
Written Scheme of Investigation is presented in Appendix 11.5.
24
Gurney, D. (2003). Standards for Field Archaeology in the East of England. 25
Medlycott, M (2011). Research and Archaeology Revisited: a revised framework for the East of England
Anglian Archaeology Occasional Paper 24.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-9 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Assessment Methodology
11.2.35 The primary source of information relating to the presence and significance of
known undesignated historic/archaeological remains in the area has been the
Norfolk HER. An extract was received from the HER in January 2015. Up to date
information on Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and
Gardens was obtained from Historic England in January 2015, together with GIS
data recording their locations and extent,. Information on boundaries of
Conservation Areas was obtained from the three local authorities with responsibility
for their designation (Norwich City Council, Broadland District Council and South
Norfolk District Council).
11.2.36 All heritage assets, whether designated or not, within a distance of up to 1 km from
the boundary of the Proposed Development have been identified within the EIA and
these are recorded in Appendix 11.1. The locations of all assets are illustrated on
Figure 11.1. Initially all designated assets including Scheduled Monuments, Listed
Buildings, Conservation Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens, at distances up
to 2 km from the boundary of the Proposed Development have been identified and
recorded in Appendix 11.2 (with locations illustrated on Figure 11.2a). Those
designated assets that might be subject to indirect effects upon their setting have
been identified via scoping and consultation, and these have been carried through
to full assessment.
11.2.37 Formal scoping responses from Historic England and Norfolk County Council
Historic Environment Services were included in the Scoping Opinion received from
Norwich City Council and the Broads Authority on the 31st March 2015. This is
discussed in full in Chapter 2.0. A summary of the responses provided by historic
environment consultees is given below in Table 11.1, this also includes advice in
addition to that provided as part of the Scoping Opinion
Table 11.1: Summary of Issues Raised During Consultation
Consultee Issue Raised Response
Historic England (Consultation Response dated 11 March 2015)
Identified the need for impacts upon the settings of the Scheduled Carrow Abbey, the Grade II Listed Railway Cottages and the Trowse Conservation Area to be assessed.
These are assessed in the EIA and visualisations have been produced for each.
The assessment should be carried out in accordance with established policy and guidance, including the
The assessment has been carried out in accordance with National Planning Policy and Guidance. Since the production
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-10 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Consultee Issue Raised Response
National Planning Policy Framework and its guidance and Historic England guidance on setting entitled The Setting of Heritage Assets
of Historic England’s consultation response, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets has replaced The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011) and it is used to guide this assessment.
Whilst standardised EIA matrices are useful tools, we consider the analysis of setting (and the impact upon it) as a matter of qualitative and expert judgement which cannot be achieved solely by use of systematic matrices or scoring systems. Historic England therefore recommends that these should be seen primarily as material supporting a clearly expressed and non-technical narrative argument within the cultural heritage chapter. The EIA should use the ideas of benefit, harm and loss (as described in NPPF) to set out ‘what matters and why’ in terms of the heritage assets’ significance and setting, together with the effects of the development upon them.
The assessment methodology is set it in Section 11.2 (the paragraphs subsequent to this Table), including the use of qualitative assessment and professional judgement
Historic England via Norwich City Council (pre-application consultation)
Historic England have raised concern about potential views from the Bracondale/City Centre Conservation Area from Ber Street/Bracondale. NCC subsequently requested that the impact from an additional viewpoint from Carrow Hill (specifically half way up and from around Black Tower on the City Wall) be considered.
Potential effects upon the setting of Bracondale and City Centre Conservation Areas are considered in this assessment, in particular views from near Black Tower are considered.
Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Services (24 March 2015)
Attached brief for Archaeology Desk-based Assessment
This brief has been discussed with Historic Environment Services and this assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the supplied brief.
Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Services email to AOC (5 May)
Following ongoing conversations about the need for archaeological evaluation to inform the EIA, Historic Environment Services indicated that the evaluation of this site will have two components: a geoarchaeological study, to
A programme of archaeological works has been agreed with Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Services (see Appendix 11.5). This archaeological evaluation is currently being undertaken. Details of the results of these works would be evaluated once
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-11 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Consultee Issue Raised Response
assess the potential for early prehistoric remains (Palaeolithic to Neolithic), and a shallower set of trial trenches, to look for other deposits (principally Bronze Age and Roman). A Generic Evaluation Brief was supplied.
the investigation has been completed and any further relevant mitigation incorporated.
Historic England; Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Services; Norwich City Council; Broads Authority (email from AOC 14 May 2015)
A list of heritage assets to be considered in the detailed setting assessment was provided to consultees for comment.
All heritage assets identified within the email were included in the assessment of effects on setting, with the exception of Cow Tower, which following a ZTV modelling exercise, was found to have no theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development.
Norwich City Council indicated they were generally happy with the approach, though then noted that Viewpoint D required more detailed consideration.
A visualisation from Viewpoint D (Black Tower) is included as part of the assessment. This superimposes the outline of the Proposed Development onto baseline photography.
The Broads Authority Historic Environment Manager indicated that the assessment should give an indication of the reasons for scoping in or out of designated heritage assets from the detailed setting assessment. The Broads Authority Historic Environment Manager also questioned why the Railway Station (Site 1244) and the City Hall (Site 1386) had not been included.
Appendix 11.2 identifies all designated heritage assets within 2 km of the proposed development. An indication of whether each of these assets has been included in the detailed setting assessment is given and a brief reason for an assets inclusion or exclusion is given. Certain assets are considered within the assessment of Conservation Areas in which they are located, rather than individually. Where this is the case, this is noted in Appendix 11.2. These assets are listed under the relevant Conservation Areas in Table 11.10 and where they are of particular prominence or sensitivity within the Conservation Area, they are mentioned within the text. AOC provided a response to comments by the Broads Authority Historic Environment Manager, noting that the Railway
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-12 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Consultee Issue Raised Response
Station would be discussed in the context of St Matthew’s Conservation Area. It was also noted that the City Hall had been scoped out as views of the development would be limited and because its relevant setting pertained to Norwich City Centre and the marketplace in particular.
Historic England responded by noting that a wider interpretation of the setting of heritage assets might be helpful in some instances. It was noted that ‘the significance of landmark buildings can be contributed to and better revealed by looking back towards them in their context. In the case of City Hall, as well as other landmark buildings such as the cathedral, castle and the numerous churches, it should be considered if a viewer were able to see them in combination with the proposed development, rather than just see the development from them or their immediate curtilage’.
Consideration has been given to long distance views of heritage assets and the contribution such views make to their value. Where such views have been identified and could be affected by the Proposed Development this has been addressed in Section 11.4 below. With regard to heritage assets within the City Centre Conservation Area, consideration has been given to the important long views and strategic viewpoints identified in Appendix 8 of the Norwich Local Plan: Development Management Policies Plan.
Assessment of Significance / Assessment Criteria
11.2.38 This sub-section sets out the methodology for assessing effects upon heritage
assets for both direct and indirect effects. It takes account of NPPF, its practice
guide and Historic England’s Good Practice Advice Note 3: the setting of heritage
assets, and Standards for Field Archaeology in the East of England as set out
above.
The Assessor
11.2.39 AOC Archaeology Group, which has undertaken the cultural heritage assessment,
conforms to the standards of professional conduct outlined in the Chartered
Institute for Archaeologists' Code of Conduct, the CIfA Code of Approved Practice
for the Regulation of Contractual Arrangements in Field Archaeology, the CIfA
Standards and Guidance for Desk Based Assessments and Field Evaluations.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-13 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
11.2.40 AOC Archaeology Group is a Registered Archaeological Organisation of the
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. This status ensures that there is regular
monitoring and approval by external peers of our internal systems, standards and
skills development.
Assessing Cultural Value (Significance) & Importance
11.2.41 The definition of cultural significance is readily accepted by heritage professionals
both in the UK and internationally and was first fully outlined in the Burra Charter,
Article One of which identifies that ‘cultural significance’ or ‘cultural heritage value’
means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or
future generations26. This definition has since been adopted by heritage
organisations around the world, including Historic England (HE). The NPPF defines
cultural significance as:
“The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage
interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic.
Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also
from its setting.”27
11.2.42 The term ‘cultural value’ will be used throughout this assessment as opposed to
‘cultural significance’, in order to avoid confusion with the concept of a ‘likely
significant environmental effect’ which is terminology readily used throughout the
ES.
11.2.43 All heritage assets have some value, however some assets are judged to be more
important than others. The level of that importance is, from a cultural resource
management perspective, determined by establishing the asset’s capacity to inform
present or future generations about the past. In the case of many heritage assets
their importance has already been established through the designation (i.e.
scheduling, listing and register) processes applied by HE.
11.2.44 The criteria used to establish importance in this assessment are presented in Table
11.2 below and are drawn from the Department of Media, Culture and Sports
publication, Principles for Selection of Listed Buildings,28 and the Scheduled
26
ICOMOS (1999). Burra Charter Article 1.2. 27
DCLG: Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). NPPF, 56. 28
DMCS (2010). Principles for Selection of Listed Buildings.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-14 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Monuments Policy Statements published by the same body,29 which outline the
criteria for designating heritage assets.
Table 11.2: Criteria for Establishing Importance
Importance Criteria
International and National
o World Heritage Sites; o Scheduled Monuments (Actual and Potential); o Grade I and II* Listed Buildings; o Grade I and II* Registered Parks and Gardens; o Registered Battlefields; o Fine, little-altered examples of some particular period, style or type.
Regional o Grade II Listed Buildings; o Grade II Registered Parks and Gardens; o Conservation Areas; o Major examples of some period, style or type, which may have been
altered; o Asset types which would normally be considered of national importance
that have been partially damaged (such that their ability to inform has been reduced).
Local o Locally Listed Heritage Assets; o Lesser examples of any period, style or type, as originally constructed or
altered, and simple, traditional sites, which group well with other significant remains, or are part of a planned group such as an estate or an industrial complex;
o Asset types which would normally be considered of regional importance that have been partially damaged or asset types which would normally be considered of national importance that have been largely damaged (such that their ability to inform has be reduced).
Negligible o Relatively numerous types of remains; o findspots or artefacts that have no definite archaeological remains known
in their context; o Asset types which would normally be considered of local importance that
have been largely damaged (such that their ability to inform has been reduced);
Methodology for assessing direct physical effects
11.2.45 A direct effect by a development can potentially result in an irreversible loss of
information content. The potential magnitude of change upon heritage assets
caused by the Proposed Development has been rated using the classifications and
criteria outlined in Table 11.3 below.
Table 11.3 Criteria for establishing magnitude of physical change
Physical Effect Criteria
High o Major loss of information content resulting from total or large-scale removal of deposits from a site.
o Major alteration of a monument’s baseline condition. o Any physical alteration to a Scheduled Monument. o Any physical alteration to a Grade I or II* Listed Building. o Massive alterations to a Grade II Listed Building.
Medium o Moderate loss of information content resulting from material
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-15 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Physical Effect Criteria
alteration of the baseline conditions by removal of part of a site. o Moderate alteration of a monument’s baseline condition.
Low o Minor detectable changes leading to the loss of information content. o Minor alterations to the baseline condition of a monument.
Marginal o Very slight or barely measurable loss of information content. o Loss of a small percentage of the area of a site’s peripheral
deposits. o Very slight alterations to a monument.
None o No physical change anticipated.
11.2.46 The predicted level of direct effect upon each asset was determined by considering
its importance in conjunction with the magnitude of change predicted on it. The
method of deriving the level of effect classifications is shown in Table 11.4 below:
Table 11.4: Method of rating level of direct effects on heritage assets by the
Proposed Development
Magnitude of Change
Importance of Asset
Negligible Local Regional National International
High Minor-Moderate
Moderate Moderate-Major
Major Extreme
Medium Minor Minor-Moderate
Moderate Moderate-Major
Major
Low Negligible Minor Minor-Moderate
Moderate Moderate-Major
Marginal Negligible Negligible Minor Minor-Moderate
Moderate
None None None None None None
The level of effects recorded in grey highlighted cells are considered to be ‘likely significant environmental effects’
Methodology for assessing indirect effects upon Setting
11.2.47 This sub-section outlines the detailed methodology used in assessing potential
effects upon the setting of heritage assets. A discussion of setting, including a
definition of it, is provided earlier in this section. The methodology presented here
sets out criteria for assessing sensitivity to changes to setting (Relative Sensitivity),
magnitude of change and level of effect.
Assessing Sensitivity of Assets to Changes to their Setting
11.2.48 Whilst determining the relative cultural value of a heritage asset is essential for
establishing its importance, it is widely recognised30 that the importance of an asset
is not the same as its sensitivity to changes to its setting. Thus in determining
30
Lambrick (2008). Setting Standards: A Review prepared on behalf of the IFA.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-16 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
effects upon the setting of assets by a proposed development, both importance and
sensitivity to changes to setting need to be considered.
11.2.49 Setting is a key issue in the case of some, but by no means all assets. A nationally
important asset does not necessarily have high sensitivity to changes to its setting
(relative sensitivity). An asset’s sensitivity refers to its capacity to retain its ability to
inform this and future generations in the face of changes to its setting. The ability of
the setting to contribute to an understanding, appreciation and experience of the
asset and its value also has a bearing on the sensitivity of that asset to changes to
its setting. Assets with high sensitivity will be vulnerable to changes that affect their
settings, and even slight changes may reduce their information content or the
ability of setting to contribute to the understanding, appreciation and experience of
the asset. Less sensitive assets will be able to accommodate greater changes to
their settings without significant reduction in their ability to inform, and in spite of
such changes the relationship between the asset and its setting will still be legible.
11.2.50 The criteria for establishing an asset’s relative sensitivity are outlined in Table 11.5
below.
Table 11.5: Criteria for Establishing Relative Sensitivity
Sensitivity Definition
High An asset whose setting contributes significantly to an observer’s understanding, appreciation and experience of it should be thought of as having High Sensitivity to changes to its setting. This is particularly relevant for assets whose settings, or elements thereof, contribute directly to their significance (e.g. form part of their Evidential and Aesthetic Value
31). For
example an asset which retains an overtly intended or authentic relationship with its setting and the surrounding landscape. These may in particular be assets such as ritual monuments that have constructed sightlines to and/or from them, or structures intended to be visually dominant within a wide landscape area e.g. castles, tower houses, prominent forts etc. An asset, the current understanding, appreciation and experience of which, relies heavily on its modern aesthetic setting. In particular an asset whose setting is an important factor in the retention of its cultural value.
Medium An asset whose setting contributes moderately to an observer’s understanding, appreciation and experience of it should be thought of as having Medium Sensitivity to changes to its setting. This could be an asset for which setting makes a contribution to value, but whereby its value is derived mainly from its physical evidential values. This could for example include assets which had an overtly intended authentic relationship with their setting and the surrounding landscape but where that relationship (and therefore the ability of the assets’ surroundings to contribute to an understanding, appreciation and experience of them) has been moderately compromised either by previous modern intrusion in their setting or the landscape, or where the asset itself is in such a state of disrepair that the relationship cannot be fully determined.
31
Historic England (2008). Conservation Principles, 28-29.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-17 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Sensitivity Definition
An asset, the current understanding, appreciation and experience of which, relies partially on its modern aesthetic setting regardless of whether or not this was intended by the original constructors or authentic users of the asset. An asset whose setting is a contributing factor to the retention of its cultural value.
Low An asset whose setting makes some contribution to an observer’s understanding, appreciation and experience of it should generally be thought of as having Low Sensitivity to changes to its setting. This may be an asset whose value is mainly derived from its physical evidential values and whereby changes to its setting will not materially diminish our understanding, appreciation and experience of it or its value. This could for example include assets which had an overtly intended authentic relationship with their setting and the surrounding landscape, but where that relationship (and therefore the ability of the assets’ surroundings to contribute to an understanding, appreciation and experience of them) has been significantly compromised either by previous modern intrusion to its setting or landscape, or where the asset itself is in such a state of disrepair that the relationship cannot be determined.
Marginal An asset whose setting makes minimal contribution to an observer’s understanding, appreciation and experience of it and its value should generally be thought of as having Marginal Sensitivity to changes to its setting. This may include assets for which the authentic relationship with their surrounding has been lost, possibly having been compromised by previous modern intrusion, but who still retain cultural value in their physical evidential value and possibly wider historical and communal values.
11.2.51 The determination of an asset’s sensitivity is first and foremost reliant upon the
determination of its setting. The criteria set out in Table 11.5 above are intended as
a guide. Assessments of individual assets are informed by knowledge of the asset
itself, of the asset type if applicable, and by site visits to establish the current
setting of the assets. This allows for the use of professional judgement and each
asset is assessed on an individual basis. Individual assets may fall into a number of
the sensitivity categories presented above, e.g. a country house may have a high
sensitivity to alterations within its own landscaped park or garden, but its sensitivity
to changes in the wider setting may be less.
11.2.52 In establishing the relative sensitivity of an asset to changes to its setting, an
aesthetic appreciation of that asset and its setting must be arrived at. Appendix
11.3 outlines the range of factors which should be considered when establishing an
aesthetic appreciation and therefore determining sensitivity. These have been used
as a guide in assessing each asset from known records and in the field. In defining
these criteria, emphasis has been placed on establishing the current setting of
each asset and how the Proposed Development would affect it.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-18 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Assessing Magnitude of Change
11.2.53 Determining the magnitude of change caused by the Proposed Development
requires an identification of the change to the setting of any given asset, and in
particular changes to those elements of the setting that inform its cultural value.
Table 11.6 below outlines the main factors affecting magnitude of change:
Table 11.6: Factors Affecting Magnitude of Change
Site Details Importance of detail for assessing magnitude of change
1) Proximity to centre of development
Increasing distance of an asset from Proposed Development will, in most cases, diminish the effects on its setting.
2) Visibility of development (based on ZTV model and visualisations where appropriate)
The proportion of the development that is likely to be intervisible with the asset will directly affect the magnitude of change on its setting.
3) Complexity of landscape
The more visually complex a landscape is, the less prominent the new development may appear within it. This is because where a landscape is visually complex the eye can be distracted by other features and will not focus exclusively on the new development. Visual complexity describes the extent to which a landscape varies visually and the extent to which there are various land types, land uses, and built features producing variety in the landscape.
4) Visual obstructions
This refers to the existence of features (e.g. tree belts, forestry, landscaping or built features) that could partially or wholly obscure the development from view.
11.2.54 It is acknowledged that Table 11.6 above primarily deals with visual factors
affecting setting. Whilst the importance of visual elements of settings, e.g. views,
intervisibility, prominence etc, are clear, it is also acknowledged that there are
other, non-visual factors which could potentially result in setting effects. Such
factors could be other sensory factors, e.g. noise or smell, or could be associative.
In coming to a conclusion about magnitude of change upon setting, this
assessment makes reference to traffic, noise, air quality, and landscape and visual
assessments undertaken for this ES as appropriate.
11.2.55 Once the above has been considered, the prediction of magnitude of change in
setting is based upon the criteria set out below in Table 11.7. In applying these
criteria, particular consideration is given to the relationship of the Proposed
Development to those elements of setting which have been qualitatively defined as
most important in contributing to the value of the heritage asset and the ability to
understand, appreciate and experience it.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-19 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Table 11.7 Criteria for Classifying Magnitude of Change in Setting
Magnitude Criteria
High o Direct and substantial change in view affecting a significant sightline to or from a ritual monument or prominent fort;
o Direct severance of the relationship between an asset and its setting; o Major alteration to the penumbral or close settings of a Scheduled
Monument; o Major imposition within a Cultural Landscape; o A change that alters the setting of an asset such that it threatens the
protection of the asset and the understanding of its cultural value.
Medium o Oblique change in view affecting an axis adjacent to a significant sightline to or from a ritual monument but where the significant sightline of the monument is not obscured;
o Changes which affect the glacis of a prominent fort (based on the proportion of the glacis that would be obscured);
o Partial severance of the relationship between an asset and its setting; o Notable alteration to the setting of an asset but not directly affecting
those elements of the setting which contribute most to the understanding of the cultural value of the asset;
o Notable, but not major, imposition within a Cultural Landscape; o A change that alters the setting of an asset such that the understanding
of the asset and its cultural value is marginally diminished.
Low o Peripheral change in view affecting a significant sightline to or from a ritual monument;
o Minor imposition within a Cultural Landscape; o A change that alters the setting of an asset, but where those changes do
not materially affect an observer’s ability to understand, appreciate and experience the asset or its value.
Marginal All other changes to setting
None No setting changes
Assessing Level of Effect on Setting
11.2.56 The level of effect resulting from changes in the setting of cultural heritage assets is
judged to be the interaction of the asset’s sensitivity (Table 11.5) and the
magnitude of the change (Table 11.7) and also takes into consideration the
importance of the asset (Table 11.2). In order to provide a level of consistency the
assessment of sensitivity, the prediction of magnitude of change and the
assessment of level of effect have been guided by pre-defined criteria. A qualitative
descriptive narrative is also provided for each asset to summarise and explain each
of the professional value judgments that have been made in reaching a judgement
on sensitivity of the asset and the magnitude of change.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-20 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
11.2.57 The interactions that guide the determination of level of effect on settings of the
assets in question is shown in Table 11.8
Table 11.8: Level of Effect on the Setting of Cultural Heritage Assets
Magnitude of Change
Relative Sensitivity
Marginal Low Medium High
High Minor Minor-Moderate Moderate Major
Medium Negligible Minor Minor-Moderate Moderate
Low None/Negligible Negligible Minor Minor-Moderate
Marginal None None Negligible Minor
The levels of effect recorded in grey highlighted cells are ‘likely significant environmental effects’
Harm
11.2.58 The NPPF, where designated heritage assets are concerned, requires us to make
an assessment as to the level of harm which could be caused to designated
heritage assets by development. It requires a judgement to be made as to whether
that harm is ‘substantial’ or ‘less than substantial’, and the level of harm predicted
establishes the planning test to be applied. Extant guidance on harm relevant to
this assessment is set out above.
11.2.59 There would be no direct effects upon designated heritage assets as a result of the
Proposed Development. As such, any discussion of harm in this assessment will
relate to indirect effects on the setting of designated heritage assets.
11.2.60 The NPPG notes that the ‘substantial’ harm is a ‘high test’ and that as such it is
unlikely to result in many cases. As noted previously, what matters in establishing
whether harm is ‘substantial’ or not, relates to whether a change would seriously
adversely affect those attributes or elements of a designated asset that contribute
to or give it its value.
11.2.61 In terms of effects upon the setting of designated heritage assets, only those
effects identified as ‘likely significant environmental effects’ in this assessment
have the potential to be of ‘substantial’ harm. Where no likely significant
environmental effect is found, the harm is considered to be ‘less than substantial’.
This is because, as set out earlier in this methodology, effects only reach the
significance threshold if their relative sensitivity to changes in setting is at the
higher end of scale, or if the magnitude of change is at the higher end of the scale.
11.2.62 For many designated assets, setting may not contribute to their value or the
contribution to value may be limited. For these assets, even High magnitude
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-21 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
changes to setting are unlikely to have adverse effects on the value of the
designated asset. As set out in Table 11.7, lower ratings of magnitude of change
tend to relate to notable or perceptible changes to setting but where these changes
would not necessarily obscure or damage elements of setting or relationships
which directly contribute to the value of assets. As such, effects that are not likely
significant environmental effects would be considered to result in ‘less than
substantial’ harm.
11.2.63 Where likely significant environmental effects are found, a detailed assessment of
the level of harm will be made. Whilst non-significant environmental effects would
be considered to cause ‘less than substantial’ harm, the reverse is not always true.
That is, the assessment of an effect as being ‘significant’ does not necessarily
mean that the harm to the asset is ‘substantial’. The assessment of level of harm in
this chapter, where required, will be a qualitative one, and will largely depend upon
whether the effects predicted would result in a major impediment to the ability to
understand or appreciate the heritage asset in question by reducing or removing its
information content and therefore reducing its cultural value.
Archaeological Evaluation
11.2.64 An archaeological evaluation, involving intrusive trial trenches and
geoarchaeological coring is currently underway within the development footprint on
the Utilities site. The scope and approach to this investigation has been agreed
with Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service (Appendix 11.5). The
results of this investigation will be evaluated and provided to the planning
authorities once completed. This chapter provides an assessment of likely
significant effects on buried archaeology based on desk-based evaluation, site
walkover and previous investigations on and close to the Utilities site, such as
those at Deal Ground.
Limitations
11.2.65 This assessment is based upon data obtained from publicly accessible archives as
described in Section 11.3 below and a walkover survey. Data was received from
Norfolk County Council HER and downloaded from the HE website in January
2015. The assessment does not contain records added after this date.
11.2.66 The site walkover was conducted in April 2015 – access was not possible to the
working sub-station area in the west centre of the Utilities site, though this area was
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-22 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
visible through fencing and is an area not subject to development as part of the
proposals. Several designated heritage assets could not be closely approached
during the settings assessment due to difficulties with access, e.g. the Listed
Buildings at Whitlingham Hall (Sites 1687, 1689 & 1690).
11.3 Baseline
Baseline Data Collection
11.3.1 The following data sources were consulted during preparation of this assessment:
Norfolk Record Office;
Norfolk Heritage Centre;
Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Record;
Norfolk Aerial Photographic Library;
The Historic England Archive (formerly the National Monuments Record)
(Historic England, Fire Fly Avenue, Swindon);
Historic England Designated Data set (downloadable from
Hardy Road (Site 109/1662), and 6 and 8 Hardy Road (Site 110/1374). These were
former railways workers' cottages built in 1847 by Grissell & Peto,
builders/architects to the Norfolk Railway Company. Together, the Railway
Cottages form a unique group of planned workers dwellings in Norwich City,
arranged around a roughly triangular common drying yard paved with flint and
cobbles.
11.3.47 In close proximity to the Access Road Development Area is an early 20th century
Grade II Listed bottle kiln (possibly an incinerator) (Site 129/1460).
11.3.48 Also notable is the Registered Park and Garden of Crown Point (Site 1697),
located across the river to the south of the Utilities site within Trowse with Newton
parish. The estate around Trowse Newton was purchased by the Money family
towards the end of the 17th century. John Money, in 1784, built himself a new
house on the site which he called Crown Point, surrounding the house with a small
park. By the time he died in 1817, a map shows that his house was surrounded by
41
Norwich City Council (2007). Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal, 6. 42
Norwich City Council (2007). Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal, 6.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-32 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
a c.31 ha park with a large lawn to the south and a new walled kitchen garden
linked by woodland walks to the house. Colonel Archibald Money planted Long
Wood along the ridge north of Crown Point and extended the park as far as Trowse
Newton Hall to the north and Whitlingham White House to the east. In 1872 the
estate was purchased by the local businessman J J Colman. The estate stayed
within the Colman family although in 1955 they sold the house and its grounds
which became the Whitlingham Hospital (Site 89/1687 & 1689-1690). During the
1980s the Norwich southern bypass was built, cutting off a section of park,
including the walled garden, south drive and lodge from the main body of the
park.43
11.3.49 There are numerous structures relating to World War II within 1 km of the Utilities
site. The eastward expansion of Norwich’s industrial quarter along the banks of the
Wensum and the absorption of the Domesday village of Thorpe Saint Andrew to
the north into a suburb of the city has much altered the area. Through the 20th
century the Utilities site changes from an undeveloped rural area to the location of
widespread industrial activity. This development is also indicated by cartographic
evidence.
11.3.50 A map of the area around Mousehold Heath, dated to c.1600 (not illustrated) shows
the Utilities site to be undeveloped, and labelled’ Thorpe Meadows’44. A map and
survey of the owners along the riverbank, dated c.176745 (not illustrated) lacks
detail but indicates that plots in the vicinity of the Utilities site mainly belong to
Thomas Vere Esquire. An associated record of owners of land accords with this
map46, indicating that the west and east ends of the Utilities site were in the mid-to-
late 18th century owned by Thomas Vere, with plots on the riverside in the centre
occupied from west to east by the Parish of St John Madder Market; Glebe Land;
Thomas Vere; Mr Hardy; Thomas Vere; Mrs Mary [illegible] and Samuel Deeds,
gentleman.
11.3.51 The Old Enclosure map of Thorpe, dated to 180047 (Figure 11.3) provides greater
detail. The Utilities site comprises enclosed fields, many of which are long linear
plots running down to the riverside to the south. The owners of the plots include
‘Chute’, ‘Glebe’, ‘Dryns’, ‘Hardy’, and ‘Kerrison?’ (the latter being somewhat
43
National Heritage List for England website; NHLE (2015). List Entry: Crown Point, accessed at http://list.historicengland.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1001480 on 01/05/2015. 44
Norwich Records Office; NRO MS 4460 (c.1600). Mousehold Heath Showing Sheepwalks. 45
Norwich Records Office; NRO 16e/110 (1767). Plans and Surveys of River Wensum (Yare) and Owners. 46
Norwich Records Office; NRO 16e/109 (1820). Riparian Owners 1820. 47
Norwich Records Office; NRO BR/276/1/684 (1800). Thorpe. Plan of Thorpe Old Enclosure.
Norwich Records Office: NRO PD 228/55 (1863).Altered Apportionment of the Rent Charge in Lieu of Tithes on Certain Lans in the Parish of Thorpe Next Norwich. 53
Ordnance Survey; O.S. (1886). Norfolk Sheet LXIII.SE, 1:10,560.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-34 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
mapping (not illustrated)54. On the southern side of the river, in the vicinity of the
Access Road Development Area through the Deal Ground, a Boat House and a
Timber Yard (Site 310) are indicated. Further south a number of buildings are
shown at Trowse (not illustrated on Figure 11.5), including a sewage works.
11.3.55 Trowse Pumping Station (Site 124) was constructed between 1865 and 1871 by
Bazalgette to pump sewage from the North and South Interceptor Sewers to
Whitlingham Sewage farm and also pumped into the adjacent river using three
beam engines. The system was abandoned when New Mills Station opened in
1899. The Pumping Station was modernised in 1910 when Whitlingham sewage
works replaced the sewage farm, and again in 1961.
11.3.56 A full description of the historic map evidence for the Access Road Development
Area can be found in the Deal Ground Environmental Impact Assessment55. In
short, it indicates the development of the railway to the west from the mid 1800s,
the development of industry along the river corridor to the north-west of the Access
Road Development Area from the time of the 1886 Ordnance Survey map
onwards, and the development of the timber yards (Site 310) into the 20th century.
11.3.57 An altered tithe apportionment map of 189256 (Figure 11.6) indicates a very similar
field layout to the OS map of 1886. Buildings (likely the boat houses) are again
shown at the north end of the inlet (three structures, including one apparently on an
islet) and at the south end two long rectangular structures are shown. The
apportionment labels fields and plots within the Utilities site from 427 to 434, 436
and 438 to 442. Plots 427 to 432 in the south-west of the Utilities site belong to
Jeremiah and James Colman, with Plots 427 and 430 forming timber yards in the
south-west corner of the Utilities site. At the south end of the inlet, boathouses and
plantations are present in Plot 432. The rest of the south-west of the Utilities site
contains arable and pasture fields. Plots 433 to 437, in and around the north-west
of the Utilities site, belong to the Great Eastern Railway Company, and comprise
meadow pasture. The east of the Utilities site (Plots 438-442) again is the property
of the Colmans, and comprises pasture.
54
Ordnance Survey; O.S. (1886). Norfolk, Sheet 63.016, 1:2,500. 55
Lanpro Services (2011. Proposed Redevelopment of Site to provide Mixed Residential/ Commercial Development at Deal Ground and Former May Gurney site, Trowse, Norwich. 56
Norwich Records Office; NRO DN/TA 596 (1892).Parish of Thorpe Next Norwich. Altered Apportionment with Plan.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-35 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
11.3.58 The Ordnance Survey mapping of 190857 (Figure 11.7) indicates that the two long
boat house buildings at the southern end of the inlet had by this time been
removed, and had been replaced by a single small boat house structure. Two
buildings are now shown at the north end of the inlet. The western end of the
Utilities site is not marked as a timber yard although a boat house appears on a
field boundary/drain running down to the riverside. Timber yards (Site 310) with
associated buildings and rail tracks are shown on the south bank of the river, within
the Access Road Development Area. The Utilities site itself is essentially
undeveloped, including the area near Cremorne Lane, and remains unchanged on
the 1920 Ordnance Survey map58 (not illustrated).
11.3.59 CgMs notes that development within the Utilities site began in the mid 1920s with
the construction of the Thorpe Power Station59 (Site 290). A report by Ramboll60
indicates that this coal power station was constructed in 1922, and extended c.
1938. The Ramboll report notes that the original building had concrete pad
foundations (with its extension having piled foundations). Ancillary structures
included railway sidings.60 The riverside location of the power plant provided a
supply of water, and a means of transporting for coal, etc. There was a ready
railway connection and the power station stood on gravel resting on chalk61. The
1929 edition O.S. map (Figure 11.8) shows the original power station building with
associated railway sidings and two additional inlets from the river to its west. To the
south the timber yards (Site 310) and the sewage works (Site 124) are shown in
the vicinity of the Access Road Development Area. The area of the Utilities site
near Cremorne Lane (north of the railway) appears as allotment gardens.
11.3.60 The CgMs study62 summarises the early development of the Thorpe Power Station:
“The power station was officially opened in October 1926. Originally the station held
two 5000kw steam turbines powered by coal fired boilers...The station was built
from 550 tons of steel framework supporting concrete floored and walls faced in
china clay quartz. The large chimney was constructed during major extension work
to allow exhaust for the increased number of boilers. A culvert diverted water from
57
Ordnance Survey; O.S. (1908). Norfolk Sheet LXIII.SE, 1:10,560. 58
Ordnance Survey; O.S. (1920). Norfolk Sheet LXIII.SE, 1:10,560. 59
Grade II Listed Buildings 0.3 km The proposed development would be visible beyond the rail depot and infrastructure, such as lighting columns, gantries and fencing associated with the railway. The Railway Cottages themselves
Low Low Negligible
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-56 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Site No. Site Name Designation Distance to Stack
Other Factors Affecting Visibility
Relative Sensitivity
Magnitude of Change in Setting
Level of Effect
would partially block intervisibility from the other buildings on the block
1125 The Cathedral of The Holy and Undivided Trinity
Grade I Listed Building 1.6 km Located within precinct within urban area of Norwich. Intervisibility with Proposed Development largely limited at ground level by intervening built-up area
High Low Minor-Moderate
1186 Anglia House Grade II Listed Building 1.6 km Intervening built-up area of Norwich largely limits intervisibility with Proposed Development
Low Marginal None
1191 Ruin of Church of St Andrew
Grade II* Listed Building 1.3 km Intervening built-up area of Norwich largely limits intervisibility with Proposed Development
Medium Marginal Negligible
1200 Trowse House Grade II Listed Building 1.1 km Largely screened from Proposed Development due to low-lying location, with intervening mature trees and buildings
Low Low Negligible
1306 Thorpe Hall Grade II* Listed Building 0.85 km Partially screened from Proposed Development by intervening mature trees and structures
Medium Medium Minor-Moderate
1312 Sunnydale Grade II Listed Building 1.2 km Largely screened from Proposed Development by intervening mature trees
Low Marginal None
1313 Old Hall Farmhouse
Grade II Listed Building 1.35 km Intervening buildings and trees limit intervisibility with Proposed
Low Low Negligible
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-57 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Site No. Site Name Designation Distance to Stack
Other Factors Affecting Visibility
Relative Sensitivity
Magnitude of Change in Setting
Level of Effect
Development
1318 Bridge over Castle Moat and 2 Entrance Lodges, including Cast Iron Gates and Railings
Grade II Listed Building 1.65 km Intervening built-up area of Norwich, surrounding the castle, partially limits intervisibility with Proposed Development
Low Low Negligible
1432 Shire Hall Chambers
Grade II Listed Building 1.6 km Intervening built-up urban area of Norwich partially limits intervisibility with Proposed Development
Low Low Negligible
1437 Mousehold House
Grade II Listed Building 1.0 km Intervisibility with Proposed Development largely limited by modern intervening urban development.
Low Low Negligible
1460 Bottle Kiln at NGR TG24750748
Grade II Listed Building 0.5 km Intervisibility with Proposed Development slightly limited by surrounding vegetation
Low Low Negligible
1485 Church of St John De Sepulchre
Grade I Listed Building 1.3 km Intervisibility with Proposed Development limited by surrounding buildings of the later urban development of Norwich, in particular at ground level
Medium Low Minor
1511 Chapel at Rosary Cemetery
Grade II Listed Building 0.7 km Largely screened from Proposed Development by intervening mature trees and buildings
Medium Marginal Negligible
1536 Church of St Andrew
Grade II Listed Building 1.3 km Intervening built-up urban area largely limits intervisibility with Proposed Development
Medium Marginal Negligible
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-58 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Site No. Site Name Designation Distance to Stack
Other Factors Affecting Visibility
Relative Sensitivity
Magnitude of Change in Setting
Level of Effect
1538 Crown Point Tavern
Grade II Listed Building 1.3 km Largely screened from Proposed Development by intervening mature trees
Low Marginal None
1598 Mill House Grade II Listed Building 1.1 km Largely screened from Proposed Development due to low-lying location, with intervening mature trees and buildings
Low Marginal None
1663 Church of St John and All Saints
Grade II* Listed Building 2.3 km Intervening mature trees and built-up area would limit views from church at ground level and general intervisibility with Proposed Development
Medium Low Minor
1685 Shire House Grade II Listed Building 1.6 km Intervening built-up urban area of Norwich largely limits intervisibility with Proposed Development
Low Marginal None
1687 Whitlingham Hospital Blocks 04, 05, 06
Grade II* Listed Building 1.2 km Partially screened from Proposed Development by intervening bank and mature trees
Medium Low Minor
1688 Trowse Old Hall Grade II Listed Building 1.2 km Largely screened from Proposed Development by built-up area and intervening mature trees
Low Marginal None
1689 Boundary Wall and Gateway at Whitlingham Hospital
Grade II Listed Building 1.3 km Largely screened from Proposed Development by intervening bank and mature trees
Low Low Negligible
1690 Whitlingham Hospital Service Buildings, Block 03
Grade II Listed Building 1.3 km Largely screened from Proposed Development by intervening buildings and mature trees
Low Low Negligible
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-59 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Site No. Site Name Designation Distance to Stack
Other Factors Affecting Visibility
Relative Sensitivity
Magnitude of Change in Setting
Level of Effect
1693 Thorpe Tower Grade II Listed Building 1.1 km Intervisibility with Proposed Development largely limited at ground level by intervening mature trees
Medium Low Minor
1697 Crown Point Grade II Registered Park and Garden
0.5 km Large elements of the Park and Garden would be partially screened from the Proposed Development by mature trees on and in proximity to the northern edge of the parkland
Medium Low Minor
1698 The Rosary Cemetery
Grade II* Registered Park and Garden
0.5 km The Park and Garden lies within an urban area and would be largely screened from the Proposed Development by buildings. Elements of the cemetery would be screened by mature trees within and in proximity to the parkland
Low Low Negligible
1700 Trowse Millgate Conservation Area 0.9 km Elements of the Conservation Area (in particular to the south) are low-lying and would be partially screened from the Proposed Development by mature trees and buildings
Low Low Negligible
1701 Bracondale Conservation Area Includes several Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments including:
0.65 km Large elements of the Conservation Area (in particular to the west) are largely screened from the
Medium Low Minor
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-60 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Site No. Site Name Designation Distance to Stack
Other Factors Affecting Visibility
Relative Sensitivity
Magnitude of Change in Setting
Level of Effect
66a, Bracondale (Site 1137); Forecourt Wall, Gates and Railings to Numbers 66 and 66a (Site 1138); Forecourt Wall, Gate and Railings to Number 68 (Site 1139); 70, Bracondale (Site 1140); Bracondale Cottage (Site 1141); 62 and 64, Bracondale (Site1165); 60, Bracondale (Site 1623); 66, Bracondale (Site 1640); 68, Bracondale (Site 1641) and 72, 72a and 72b, Bracondale (Site 1642) – Grade II Listed Buildings
Proposed Development by intervening buildings, walls and mature trees
1702 City Centre Conservation Area Includes numerous Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments including: Watergate, The Close (Site 1012) – Scheduled Monument; All Saints Church (Site 1215); Church of St Peter Mancroft (Site 1387); Church of St John Baptist (Site 1499), and Church of St Peter Parmentergate (Site 1669) – Grade I Listed Buildings
0.85 km Large elements of the Conservation Area are screened from the Proposed Development by topography, intervening buildings of the later urban development of Norwich, walls and mature trees; the castle has commanding views across the city
Medium Low Minor
1703 St Matthew’s Conservation Area Includes Norwich Railway Station (Site 1244) – Grade II Listed Building
0.8 km Much of Conservation Area (in particular residential element to north) is largely screened from Proposed
Medium Marginal Negligible
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-61 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Site No. Site Name Designation Distance to Stack
Other Factors Affecting Visibility
Relative Sensitivity
Magnitude of Change in Setting
Level of Effect
Development by intervening townscape and urban development
1704 Old Lakenham Conservation Area Includes several Listed Buildings including: 161, Mansfield Lane (Site 1431) – Grade II Listed Building
1.8 km Much of settlement, with exception of Church of St John and All Saints (Site 1663) is low-lying; intervening mature trees and built-up area would largely limit intervisibility with Proposed Development
Medium Marginal Negligible
1707 Thorpe Ridge Conservation Area Includes several Listed Buildings including: 2 and 4, Cotman Road (Site 1097) – Grade II Listed Building
0.25 km Much of settlement is largely screened from Proposed Development by mature trees and built-up area; there are clearer views from some locations, such as at the junction of Cotman Road and Heathside Road
Medium Medium Minor-Moderate
1708/1709 Thorpe St Andrew
Conservation Area Includes numerous Listed Buildings including: North Boundary Wall of Number 6 (Site 1078); Town House Hotel (Site 1187); Broadland District Council Offices Thorpe Lodge (Site 1189); Ivy Cottage (Site 1190); Buck Inn (Site 1192); Boundary Wall to Road Extending from Number 2 to Number 10 (Site 1195); Gazebo South East of
0.6 km Much of settlement is largely screened from Proposed Development by intervening vegetation, including mature trees, and built-up urban area
Medium Low Minor
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-62 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Site No. Site Name Designation Distance to Stack
Other Factors Affecting Visibility
Relative Sensitivity
Magnitude of Change in Setting
Level of Effect
Thorpe Lodge on Yarmouth Road (Site 1303); The Guild House (Site 1304); 10, Yarmouth Road (Site 1307); Manor Cottage (Site 1308); 18-20, Yarmouth Road (Site 1309); Kings Head Inn including Outbuildings to East (Site 1310); Serpentine Wall on the West Side of Eden Close (Site 1532); Old Thorpe House (Site 1537); The Manor House (Site 1606) – Grade II Listed Buildings; Walpole House (Site 1196) and Garden House 40m South of Walpole House (Site 1607) – Grade II* Listed Buildings.
1710 Trowse with Newton
Conservation Area 0.85 km Much of Conservation Area (in particular centre and east) is largely screened from Proposed Development by intervening mature trees and buildings
Medium Low Minor
1711 Gothic Works Locally Listed Building 0.3 km Railway structures and buildings partially limit intervisibility with Proposed Development
Low Low Negligible
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-63 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Railway Cottages and Gothic Works
11.4.32 The group of Listed Buildings at Railway Cottages, north-west of the junction of
screening for the Proposed Development, though high structures, most notably the
proposed stack, would be visible from several parts of the civic centre of Norwich,
including from the vicinity of the city hall and most clearly from the raised area of
the castle (see below). The tower of St Peter Mancroft (Site 1387), while
substantial, is primarily a significant feature of the centre of the city, and it is likely
that only the stack of the Community Energy Centre would be visible, as an
element of its wider setting, from its vicinity.
11.4.90 In relatively close proximity to the Proposed Development are two character areas
– Ber Street and King Street. These are two early thoroughfares leading south-east
104
Norwich City Council (2007).Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal, 32. 105
Norwich City Council (2007).Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal, 75-76. 106
Norwich City Council (2007).Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal, 32. 107
Norwich City Council (2007).Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal, 124.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-79 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
from the city centre that are of Roman and Saxon origin108. To the east, the King
Street area is considered in the Conservation Area Appraisal to be of ‘High’
significance, with a ‘very high’ concentration of historic buildings and a ‘significant’
presence of historical features109. It contains several Listed churches, within the
cityscape, notably the Grade I Listed Church of St Peter Parmentergate (Site
1669), which has a relatively prominent tower. Much of this area would be largely
screened from the Proposed Development by intervening urban structures,
including the Norwich City football ground.
11.4.91 The Ber Street area, west of King Street, is considered in the Conservation Area
Appraisal to be of ‘Low’ significance – it has a ‘low’ concentration of historic
buildings though a ‘significant’ presence of historical features110. Amongst the
Listed Buildings within this area is the Grade I Listed medieval Church of St John
De Sepulchre (Site 1485) (see below). Again the built-up urban area is likely to limit
visibility of the Proposed Development, though the proposed stack may be visible
to the east, generally to the rear modern residential, commercial and industrial
structures. At the north end of Ber Street, towards the civic centre of the city are
several Listed historic buildings including the Grade I Listed All Saints Church (Site
1215) and Church of St John Baptist (Site 1499). However, this area is located in a
dense urban townscape almost entirely screened from the Proposed Development
by intervening buildings.
11.4.92 Thus, large elements of the Conservation Area are screened from the Proposed
Development by topography, intervening buildings, walls and mature trees (with the
notable exception of the castle, which has commanding views in spite of lying
within the urban centre and being surrounded by later development).
11.4.93 As part of the assessment, it was considered whether the tall designated structures
within the City Centre, including the City Hall, and churches such as the Cathedral
and St Peter Mancroft, would be visible in combination with the Proposed
Development from elevated viewpoints, including from St James Hill to the east
(Figure 5.3h: LVA Viewpoint 10: St James' Hill) and from other long-distance and
strategic viewpoints as identified in Appendix 8 of the Norwich Local Plan:
Development Management Plan Policies111. In general, and with the notable
exception of the Cathedral (discussed below), the Proposed Development and in
108
Norwich City Council (2007).Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal, 8. 109
Norwich City Council (2007).Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal, 93. 110
Norwich City Council (2007).Norwich City Centre Conservation Area Appraisal, 117. 111
Norwich City Council (2014). Norwich Local Plan: Development Management Policies Plan, 271
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-80 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
particular the proposed stack, would either not be visible in the same field of view
as these landmark heritage assets due to the degree of separation between them,
or would be wholly screened from view by vegetation, topography and/or
intervening structures. In the limited instances where the Proposed Development
and heritage assets would be visible in the same field of view, the Proposed
Development would form a background feature very evidently distinct from any
heritage asset, and located clearly beyond the historic core of Norwich and beyond
other prominent intervening urban development. Similar views of the former power
stations at the Utilities site would have been available for much of the 20th century.
11.4.94 This assessment has not identified any long distance or strategic views towards
these city centre heritage assets (contributing to the value of the assets), which
would be significantly affected by the Proposed Development. Any visibility of the
assets and the Proposed Development in the same field of view would, for the
reasons outlined above, not lead to an appreciable alteration of the ability of the
observer to understand, appreciate and experience the heritage asset and its
value.
11.4.95 The Proposed Development would, when visible (most commonly in the form of
occasional views of the proposed stack to the rear of the existing diverse
townscape), not form a significant alteration to the setting of the Conservation Area.
It is arguable that the proposed Community Energy Centre, in particular, represents
a continuation in the use of this part of the city for energy production, as for much
of the 20th century the Utilities site was the location of power stations with
significant structures including towers. Change would not appreciably alter the
ability of the observer to understand and appreciate the cultural heritage
Importance of the Conservation Area and its various elements. Thus, a change on
the setting of the Conservation Area (Site 1702) of Low magnitude, with a Minor
level of effect, which is not significant, is predicted.
11.4.96 Within the City Centre Conservation Area, Norwich Cathedral (Site 1125) is a
Grade I Listed Building with an impressive spire that is clearly visible from many
viewpoints within the city, including the castle mound. It is judged to be of High
relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting, though primarily this is related to
potential effects on its immediate setting, within the Close, and to larger scale
effects within the Norwich townscape.
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-81 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
11.4.97 At ground level, in the vicinity of the Cathedral intervisibility with the Proposed
Development would be almost entirely prohibited by the intervening built-up area,
and topography, with the exception of glimpses of the proposed stack. However,
the stack, located at a distance of c.1.6 km would potentially appear peripherally in
the same view as the Cathedral spire, for example from the Norwich Castle mound.
However, the stack and the spire are dissimilar in nature, and the presence of the
stack in the same view as the spire, separated by a considerable distance, would
not lead to the material alteration of the ability of an observer to appreciate and
understand the cathedral or its cultural value. Appendix 8 of the Norwich Local
Plan: Development Management Policies Plan112 identifies strategic viewpoints
looking towards the City centre from the vicinities of Gas Hill, St James Hill and
Kett’s Cave. In general these views look west or southwest towards the city centre
and the cathedral. The Proposed Development and the stack in particular, are
located to the south-southeast of these locations and as such would not be visible
in the same field of view (Kett’s Cave), or would be wholly screened by landform
and vegetation cover, such as from Gas Hill and from St James Hill (Figure 5.3h:
LVA Viewpoint 10). As such, an effect of at most Low magnitude on the setting of
the cathedral is predicted, with a Minor-Moderate level of effect, which is not
significant.
11.4.98 The Scheduled medieval city walls and towers (Site 1009) is an extensive complex
of features, comprising the remains of walls and towers in varying states of
preservation, commonly located on the boundary of the City Centre Conservation
Area. As the elements of this Scheduled Monument are largely set within an urban
area, commonly with buildings of much later date in close proximity, the setting of
this heritage asset has been much altered, and it is judged to be of at most Medium
relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting.
11.4.99 Although the later urban development would prohibit or limit intervisibility of the
monument with the Proposed Development, there are locations from which the
walls and towers would be intervisible with the higher structures of the Proposed
Development, in particular the stack of the Community Energy Centre, though
beyond intervening urban development. This would be true, in particular, from the
vicinity of the Black Tower at Carrow Hill (Figure 11.10e: Viewpoint D).
11.4.100 However, visibility from the Black Tower and its surroundings, on relatively high
ground overlooking the Utilities site from the south-west, is also limited for much of
112
Norwich City Council 2014 Norwich Local Plan: Development Management Policies Plan, 271
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-82 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
the year by mature tree cover located in close proximity. Additionally views towards
the tower and nearby walls from the roadside to the south commonly look upwards
and the Proposed Development would be screened from this direction by the walls.
Whilst the presence of the Proposed Development, and in particular the stack,
would lead to an limited change in view from the walls and towers, it would not
appreciably alter the ability of an observer to appreciate and understand this
heritage asset or its cultural value. This would be a change of Low magnitude, and
a Minor effect, which is not significant.
11.4.101 The Grade I Listed medieval Church of St John De Sepulchre (Site 1485) is located
near the south end of Ber Street, to the west of the Proposed Development. It has
a relatively prominent tower, which is visible for a considerable distance along Ber
Street and Bracondale, further south. In spite of its built-up urban setting, it is
judged to be of Medium relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting. However,
intervisibility with the Proposed Development is limited by surrounding buildings,
and whilst the church and the stack of the Community Energy Centre might be
visible in the same views, this would not materially alter the appreciation and
understanding of the monument. Thus a change of no more than Low magnitude,
on the setting of this Listed Building is predicted, leading to a Minor level of effect,
at most, which is not significant.
11.4.102 Norwich Castle (Site 1018/1612) is both Scheduled and Grade I Listed. It
comprises a highly prominent Norman keep on an extensive high artificial motte.
The extensiveness of the Norman fortifications results in a number of later Listed
Buildings being located within the bounds of the Scheduled area. Whilst the castle
is a highly prominent landmark within the city, its original setting has clearly been
hugely altered by later urban development, and the castle contains elements
relating to its utilisation in the 19th century as a prison. However, its visual
prominence leads to its having High relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting,
though this is primarily related to its immediate townscape.
11.4.103 The Proposed Development would be located over 1 km to the east of the castle,
and the structures would be visible to the rear of extensive urban development,
both residential and industrial, with the proposed stack being located some 1.5 km
from the Scheduled area. The presence of the Proposed Development, being
located on an area of former industrial development that for much of the 20th
century was the location of substantial power station structures, would be
consistent with historic influence upon the setting of the castle. The Proposed
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-83 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Development would result in an insignificant alteration to the wider setting of the
castle, and would not materially alter appreciation or understanding of it. This would
consititute a change of Low magnitude and Minor-Moderate level of effect, which
is not significant.
11.4.104 Listed Buildings within the bounds of the Scheduled area (but not themselves
Scheduled) include Anglia House (Site 1186) and Shire House (Site 1685), which
although impressive and large structures, are prominent only in the immediate
townscape, and are judged to be of Low relative sensitivity to alterations to their
setting. The intervening built-up urban townscape of Norwich almost entirely limits
intervisibility with the Proposed Development, with the possible exception of the
upper storeys of these buildings. At most changes of Marginal magnitude on their
settings are predicted, leading to effects of No significance.
11.4.105 Also in this area is the Grade II Listed Shire Hall Chambers (Site 1432), which
again is judged to be of Low relative sensitivity to alterations to its setting beyond
the immediate townscape. The built-up area of Norwich would partially screen
views from the vicinity of this building of the Proposed Development, but the stack
of the Community Energy Centre, and perhaps glimpses of other taller structures,
would be visible to the south-east. This would not materially alter appreciation or
understanding of this Listed Building, and a change of at most Low magnitude, with
a Negligible level of effect, which is not significant, is predicted.
11.4.106 To the south of the castle, and within the Scheduled area, the Listed Bridge over
Castle Moat and 2 Entrance Lodges, including Cast Iron Gates and Railings (Site
1318) comprises 19th century structures, connected to the castle, which forms the
main element in their setting. These ancillary structures are judged to be of Low
relative sensitivity to alterations to their setting, beyond the area of the castle. The
built-up area of Norwich would partially limit intervisibility with the Proposed
Development, and at most an insignificant alteration to the setting of this Listed
Building is predicted, a change of Low magnitude and a Negligible level of effect,
which is not significant.
Decommissioning Phase
11.4.107 At present, there is not an estimate for the decommissioning date for the Proposed
Development. It is envisaged that the decommissioning and removal of the
structures associated with the Proposed Development would not result in any
substantive direct effects, additional to those identified during the construction
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-84 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
phase, assuming that ground-breaking works would be limited to areas affected
during the construction phase.
11.4.108 No significant levels of indirect effect upon the settings of designated heritage
assets would result from the decommissioning of the Proposed Development.
Where indirect effects have been identified, these would generally be reversed
following the decommissioning and removal of the Proposed Development.
11.5 Cumulative Effects
Introduction
11.5.1 The following developments have been identified as having the potential to result in
cumulative effects.
Table 11.11 Cumulative Schemes
Application number(s) Description Status
St. Anne’s Wharf (04/00605/F)
The demolition of existing buildings to slab level and the development of the following mixes; 437 residential units ,2128 sq m of A1,A2 , A3 and D2 uses(max.2000 sq m A1),the provision of 305 car parking spaces.
Approved and awaiting implementation
Deal Ground (12/00875/O) Outline planning application for a mixed development consisting of a maximum of 670 dwellings; a local centre comprising commercial uses (A1/A2/A3): a restaurant/dining quarter and public house (A3/A4); demolition of buildings on the May Gurney site (excluding the former public house); an access bridge over the River Yare
Approved and awaiting implementation
11.5.2 Cumulative effects, in so far as they relate to cultural heritage, are limited to indirect
effects upon the settings of heritage assets. The potential for direct effects are not
considered as these would be unaffected by other developments, with the
exception of the area on the south bank of the River Wensum (Site 310) where
works on both the Proposed Development and the Deal Ground site may lead to a
cumulative effect.
11.5.3 Whilst cumulative effects on the settings of heritage assets may in some instances
exceed effects resulting from the Proposed Development alone, in other cases they
may reduce it. For example, if an intervening development could potentially mask
the Proposed Development under consideration, the effect of adding the Proposed
1619-01 / GENERATION PARK NORWICH 11-85 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – VOLUME 1 AUGUST 2015
Development to the cumulative baseline would be less than if the proposed
Development were to stand alone.
11.5.4 For this assessment, designated heritage assets up to 2 km from the Proposed
Development have been identified and the significance of the effect which may
result from the Proposed Development has been assessed. Cumulative effects
have only been considered for those assets where the level of effect from the
Proposed Development alone has been judged to be Minor or greater. This is
because it is judged to be unlikely that cumulative effects upon the settings of those
monuments subject to Negligible levels of effect from the Proposed Development
are likely to arise. The following 15 assets have been considered in relation to
cumulative effects:
City walls and towers Scheduled Monument (Site 1009);
Norwich Castle Scheduled Monument/Grade I Listed Building (Site 1018/1612);
Church of St Andrew (Trowse with Newton) Grade I Listed Building (Site 1029);
The Cathedral of The Holy and Undivided Trinity Grade I Listed Building (Site
1125);
Thorpe Hall Grade II* Listed Building (Site 1306);
Church of St John De Sepulchre Grade I Listed Building (Site 1485);
Church of St John and All Saints Grade II* Listed Building (Site 1663);