C O N T E X T 1 1 5 : J U LY 2 0 1 0 23 account of the extent to which development within the setting of a listed building might be disruptive to its use, such use often being of importance to the ongoing preservation and enhancement of the building itself. In my analysis, setting may thus extend as near or as far as proposed development would encroach into any of those relationships, and may thus vary according to the scale and nature of development proposed as much as it might with regard to the inherent characteristics of the asset itself. ‘In the case of conservation areas,’ the inspector continued, ‘my consideration is assisted by the detailed draft conservation area appraisals that the council has produced in accordance with PPG15 advice. It follows that my judgement as to whether an effect on setting (or on conservation area views) ‘matters’ flows from consideration of the desirability of preserving or enhancing in line with the relevant statutory or policy requirements.’ The appeal failed because the inspector considered that the scheme was not fully compatible with wider environmental and biodiversity safeguards (notably bats). These factors were not outweighed by the benefits of the provision of power generation, which achieves energy efficiency and a reduction in emissions. In the final analysis it was not considered that the negative impact on heritage assets was sufficient justification for refusal. The inspector wrote: ‘In each case where I have identified harm to setting and/or views, it is apparent that sufficient of the setting or view would remain preserved to enable the building or settlement and its historically important environs to still be appreciated and enjoyed. On balance, when calibrated against the need to address climate change, I consider the appeal scheme to be acceptable in terms of its impact on cultural heritage features.’ If this appeal had been determined following the publication of PPS5 in March 2010, no doubt the inspector would have found it appropriate to give regard to Policy HE1 (Heritage Assets and Climate Change) of PPS5 over considerations of setting set out in Policy HE10. In March 2010 a different inspector refused an appeal by RH Bott and Son against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. Regarding a proposal to erect three 119-metre wind turbines on land to the east of Walkern Road Benington, Hertfordshire. The inspector considered a number of issues, including green belt, landscape, living conditions and national energy targets. The issue of impact on heritage assets was also considered. Within a five kilometre radius of the site there were nine conservation areas, 311 listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments, and registered historic parks and gardens at Benington Lordship andWoodhall Park. In considering heritage issues, the inspector concluded that there would be significant harm to the setting of two listed buildings, Gregory’s Farmhouse and Frogmore Hall, and to the character of the locally designated Frogmore Park. In both cases he considered that important attributes of their settings would be damaged, namely rural isolation at Gregory’s Farm and the historic park in the case of Frogmore Hall. He regarded the latter as particularly significant, given the role that hall and park together play in the local landscape and its history. In the inspector’s summary of all issues, he concluded that the benefits of the proposal, substantial though they were, did not outweigh the harm to the natural and historic environment. The environmental statement broadly determined that there was no significant impact on heritage assets other than the settings of three listed buildings, Gregory’s Farmhouse south east of the appeal site; the Wagon and Horses public house at Watton at Stone, and the gates to Frogmore Farm. The local planning authority conservation officer had no objections, advising that there would be no significant effects on conservation areas or unacceptable harm to the setting of any listed buildings. English Heritage did not raise objections on the grounds of effects on the setting of any scheduled ancient monument, highly graded listed building or designed landscape. Its advice was that although the turbines might be seen in views to or from such designations, they would be sufficiently distant or screened that their presence would seem incidental, although a small number of Grade II listed buildings would be affected more directly. The action group opposing the development objected on the grounds of adverse impact on Aston Conservation Area and on 10 listed buildings including Frogmore Hall, Frogmore Farmhouse, Frogmore Cottages,Waterbridge, Benington Lordship, Benington Park and Haultwick Hall, Benington Lordship
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=