9th June 2006, 02:28 PM
Hi everyone
Am also involved in a number of these. I fully agree with archaeophobe's comments regarding setting and would just point out that there are two separate but linked issues here:
1. How to assess the setting of a heritage feature (be it a monument, buildings, site, Conservation Areas etc. does the setting have a level of significance, and if so is that the same level of significance as the monument, building etc.
2. How to assess the impact of the windfarm on that setting.
Trowelhead's original request referred to intervisibility, and negative impacts on landscape. Just because a turbine is visible doesn't automatically mean that there is a negative impact - plenty of people (including my mum) think that wind turbines are strangely beautiful and can enhance a landscape.
If a turbine interferes with the intervisibility of two contemporary monuments, eg. two round barrows then there would be a good case for arguing that there is an adverse impact on the settings of those two monuments.
If a turbine is visble from a monument several hundred metres away, then this would not automatically mean that there is an adverse impact on the setting of that monument. You would first need to define what you understand to be the setting of the monument - this is difficult already as there is no guidance - Collcutt 1999 might be referred to but is only one person's opinion - more recent work by Headland and available on the net is also useful - see also the transcriptions of the Stonehenge A303 public inquiry.
Once you have tried to explain what the setting of the monument is, then try to assess the impact of the turbine on that setting, without being entirely subjective.
I have seen a number of planning decisions that refer to impacts on the settings of scheduled monuments where there has been no actual explaination of what is meant by 'the setting'. This will continue to be an issue as long as we have the woolly guidance of PPG15 and PPG16 on this matter, i.e. the concept that negative impacts on settings are material considerations, but without any advice on what is meant by 'setting', and how to assess impacts on 'settings'.
Beamo
Am also involved in a number of these. I fully agree with archaeophobe's comments regarding setting and would just point out that there are two separate but linked issues here:
1. How to assess the setting of a heritage feature (be it a monument, buildings, site, Conservation Areas etc. does the setting have a level of significance, and if so is that the same level of significance as the monument, building etc.
2. How to assess the impact of the windfarm on that setting.
Trowelhead's original request referred to intervisibility, and negative impacts on landscape. Just because a turbine is visible doesn't automatically mean that there is a negative impact - plenty of people (including my mum) think that wind turbines are strangely beautiful and can enhance a landscape.
If a turbine interferes with the intervisibility of two contemporary monuments, eg. two round barrows then there would be a good case for arguing that there is an adverse impact on the settings of those two monuments.
If a turbine is visble from a monument several hundred metres away, then this would not automatically mean that there is an adverse impact on the setting of that monument. You would first need to define what you understand to be the setting of the monument - this is difficult already as there is no guidance - Collcutt 1999 might be referred to but is only one person's opinion - more recent work by Headland and available on the net is also useful - see also the transcriptions of the Stonehenge A303 public inquiry.
Once you have tried to explain what the setting of the monument is, then try to assess the impact of the turbine on that setting, without being entirely subjective.
I have seen a number of planning decisions that refer to impacts on the settings of scheduled monuments where there has been no actual explaination of what is meant by 'the setting'. This will continue to be an issue as long as we have the woolly guidance of PPG15 and PPG16 on this matter, i.e. the concept that negative impacts on settings are material considerations, but without any advice on what is meant by 'setting', and how to assess impacts on 'settings'.
Beamo