9th June 2006, 10:00 AM
Having been involved with wind farm ESs and Planning Inquiries as an Expert Witness on numerous occasions I can only commiserate with your position. Wind Turbine developers do not generally want to record negative effects in their ESs as they prefer to portray turbines as a positive feature. Their view is broadly echoed by PPS22 which basically states âbuild wind turbines everywhere but not in National Parksâ (sorry for the paraphrasing but this is basically how the inspector translated it at my last inquiry).
The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment for the ES should extend to the full extent of the ZVI for the turbines. Obviously sites many kms away may only be subject to a low or negligible level of impact whereas sites in close proximity or with designed views facing the turbines (e.g. vistas in parks and gardens) may be subject to a greater degree of impact. I have worked on schemes with a ZVI in excess of 20km.
The paper on the Setting of Cultural Heritage Features by Colcutt in the 1999 Journal of environmental planning law is a good starting point for understanding what to consider when examining the setting of a site, but I disagree with many of his conclusions and have a different view on what constitutes setting. However, colleagues disagree with me and Colcutt and there is no agreed definition of what constitutes the setting of a cultural heritage feature or what the word âsettingâ actually means.
Numerous planning inquires and legal cases have addressed the issue of setting and consequently there is considerable material (much of which is contradictory â see Colcutt and other sources) available to practitioners. Case law is important and Revival Properties v. Secretary of State (1996) is an interesting judgement where the court held that when considering the impact of a development on a listed building or ancient monument it was proper to have regard to:
a) the view from the listed building or monument towards the proposed development;
b) the view from the development towards the building or monument and;
c) any other relevant view from the side.
This, and the general wording of PPG15 and PPG 16, places considerable emphasis on the visual aspects of an assetâs relationship with its environs. Other aspects such as ambience, sense of place etc are also generally considered when assessing potential impacts but visual matters are usually considered to be the dominant concerns when assessing the setting of a place and the potential impact of a development on that setting. I also place considerable emphasis on the general âcharacterâ of a features setting e.g. open rural landscape vs. hedged rural landscape or urban area etc. In addition, historical relationships, current land use (especially where this reflects possible or known past land-uses) and designed views to and from a place are also important.
Overall, we can shout about setting as much as you want but with wind turbines it is unlikely to sway the argument. What you need is a robust and defendable ES chapter that fairly records the potential impacts. The landscape architect for the developer will no doubt make the âlandscape on loanâ arguments and should be able to convince the planners that this is only a âtemporaryâ development of c. 20 years lifespan and that everything can go back to the way it was. Basically planning guidance recommends buildings turbines and unless you can show that nationally important cultural heritage features will be physically harmed and / or fundamental elements of the setting of nationally important cultural heritage features will be altered then cultural heritage will not be an issue for the ES or any future inquiry â so donât worry as no-one will read your chapter anyway!
Regards
Archaeophobe
[8D]
(p.s. apologies for typos etc - but I canât be bothered to check this aain)
The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment for the ES should extend to the full extent of the ZVI for the turbines. Obviously sites many kms away may only be subject to a low or negligible level of impact whereas sites in close proximity or with designed views facing the turbines (e.g. vistas in parks and gardens) may be subject to a greater degree of impact. I have worked on schemes with a ZVI in excess of 20km.
The paper on the Setting of Cultural Heritage Features by Colcutt in the 1999 Journal of environmental planning law is a good starting point for understanding what to consider when examining the setting of a site, but I disagree with many of his conclusions and have a different view on what constitutes setting. However, colleagues disagree with me and Colcutt and there is no agreed definition of what constitutes the setting of a cultural heritage feature or what the word âsettingâ actually means.
Numerous planning inquires and legal cases have addressed the issue of setting and consequently there is considerable material (much of which is contradictory â see Colcutt and other sources) available to practitioners. Case law is important and Revival Properties v. Secretary of State (1996) is an interesting judgement where the court held that when considering the impact of a development on a listed building or ancient monument it was proper to have regard to:
a) the view from the listed building or monument towards the proposed development;
b) the view from the development towards the building or monument and;
c) any other relevant view from the side.
This, and the general wording of PPG15 and PPG 16, places considerable emphasis on the visual aspects of an assetâs relationship with its environs. Other aspects such as ambience, sense of place etc are also generally considered when assessing potential impacts but visual matters are usually considered to be the dominant concerns when assessing the setting of a place and the potential impact of a development on that setting. I also place considerable emphasis on the general âcharacterâ of a features setting e.g. open rural landscape vs. hedged rural landscape or urban area etc. In addition, historical relationships, current land use (especially where this reflects possible or known past land-uses) and designed views to and from a place are also important.
Overall, we can shout about setting as much as you want but with wind turbines it is unlikely to sway the argument. What you need is a robust and defendable ES chapter that fairly records the potential impacts. The landscape architect for the developer will no doubt make the âlandscape on loanâ arguments and should be able to convince the planners that this is only a âtemporaryâ development of c. 20 years lifespan and that everything can go back to the way it was. Basically planning guidance recommends buildings turbines and unless you can show that nationally important cultural heritage features will be physically harmed and / or fundamental elements of the setting of nationally important cultural heritage features will be altered then cultural heritage will not be an issue for the ES or any future inquiry â so donât worry as no-one will read your chapter anyway!
Regards
Archaeophobe
[8D]
(p.s. apologies for typos etc - but I canât be bothered to check this aain)