22 C O N T E X T 1 1 5 : J U LY 2 0 1 0 Julian Bagg Wind farms: a matter of setting Recent appeal decisions regarding wind farms show the potential disparity in interpretation of the significance of impact on the setting of heritage assets. Applications for the development of wind farms are rarely without controversy. Most are initially refused and appealed through public inquiry.Wind turbines by their nature are tall and uncompromisingly mechanical, not only producing visual distraction by the turning of the blades but also in some cases producing noise. A significant factor in the determination of appeals is the impact of the development on heritage assets and their settings. Until the introduction of Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5), the main focus of appeals in terms of the historic environment has been designated heritage assets such as listed buildings and conservation areas. It remains to be seen if these criteria will broaden under PPS5. Determining the impact of a development on the setting of a heritage asset has never been straightforward. It has long been established that the setting of a listed building has no statutorily defined distance. With tall structures such as wind turbines, heritage professionals can find themselves assessing the significance of impact over several kilometres. In terms of policy and statutory determination, short of the courts, it falls on the planning inspector to determine the relevance and significance of setting, and the interpretation of previous legal judgments. The following two examples of appeal decisions offer insight into the thought processes of the inspector on such matters. In 2008 a planning inspector refused an appeal by Enertrag UK against the decision of South Norfolk District Council regarding the proposed installation of a seven-turbine wind farm on land around Busseys Loke, Hempnall, Norwich, Norfolk (ref 2008/0917/F). In assessing the impact on cultural heritage assets, the inspector stated that the argument would focus only on settings and, additionally in the case of conservation areas, views in and out. Both parties agreed that the issue should focus primarily on listed buildings and conservation areas within two kilometres of the appeal site.This included 53 listed buildings (one Grade I, one Grade II* and 51 Grade II) and two conservation areas, and some other buildings such a distant church beyond two kilometres. The inspector agreed with the appellant that the approach to the subject of setting should be, first, to assess the significance of the cultural heritage asset under consideration; second, to define its setting and identify any effect the proposed development might have on the setting; and, lastly, to determine whether that effect ‘mattered’. He cautioned that he did not seek to analyse the relative significance of assets in any greater depth than is apparent from the categorisation of listed buildings into three broad grades, and the differential statutory and policy regimes that variously applied to settings of listed buildings, and the settings (and views into and out of) of conservation areas. It is reported that the subject of setting was also debated at some length during the inquiry, in the light of extant and emerging advice on the subject from English Heritage. This includes PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide. The inspector wrote: ‘Having considered the submissions, I see little purpose in engaging in philosophical discussion over whether the setting might extend near or far, or may be regarded as fixed or variable, or whether the separate concept of context is wider or narrower than setting. Rather, I adopt a more pragmatic approach, which begins with consideration of factors that lend particularly (whether now or in the past) to an appreciation of the architectural and historic qualities of the asset, including the reasons for designation (relying mainly on paragraphs 3.5 and 4.2–4.5 of PPG15), and the extent to which those factors manifest themselves or are complemented by important visual or physical relationships to the surroundings. I also take
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=