24 C O N T E X T 1 1 5 : J U LY 2 0 1 0 registered historic park and gardens, and the locally important historic parks and gardens of Frogmore Park and Benington Park. With regard to the action group’s assessment, the inspector considered that for the purposes of the appeal there was no reason to suppose that there would be any significant adverse impacts on any historic assets beyond those referred to by the action group. In this regard the inspector considered that the distance from the appeal site or screening by trees or landform would greatly limit views of the turbines such that they would not noticeably impinge on either other conservation areas or listed buildings. However, the inspector made the point that as Aston Conservation Area was some two kilometres distant, it was hard to argue that the appeal proposal would be development ‘adjacent’ to it in the terms of local planning policy. The inspector made the following analysis: ‘The setting of the conservation area should be construed widely and without undue geographical constraint. However, I consider it is going too far to argue that any development with a visual relationship with a heritage asset must be within its setting. It seems to me that for something to be within the setting of a conservation area, then there must be some more or less direct visual or functional relationship with that area that directly contributes to or complements its character or appearance, and that reinforces, or at least reflects, the reasons for its designation.’ When tackling the issue of the impact of the development on the setting of a listed building, the inspector acknowledged that there was no statutory definition of what constitutes a ‘setting’. He offered the following analysis: ‘I do not believe that the setting of a listed building can generally be defined solely in visual terms, by reference to where it can be seen from or, conversely, whether proposed development would be seen from its curtilage. Other matters need to be considered, such as the function of the listed building and why the particular site was chosen for it; the relationship between building and surrounding area; the character of that area; and the extent to which the surrounding area contributes to the value and appreciation of the building. It is then necessary to assess the effects of proposed development on the setting and come to a view on the desirability of preserving the setting, weighing any adverse effects on the setting against other material considerations.’ When considering the setting of the Wagon and Horses pub, the inspector considered that, although the turbines would be visible from around the public house, they would be largely screened by trees in the foreground and middle distance, and would not feature strongly in views of the pub at close range. The inspector concluded that the setting of that building, both historically and visually, was confined to the main village street and its immediate surroundings, and that the setting would be preserved. When considering the setting of Frogmore House (a 19th century curiosity) and its surrounding park, the inspector acknowledged that the park had been reduced in size and was not in the same ownership, but wrote that this did not detract from their visual and historic relationship. The inspector also dismissed criticism that the significance of the viewpoints was not justified. The inspector considered that the setting extended visually to include rising ground towards the appeal site. The turbines, at a distance of some 1.4 kilometres and upwards, would appear above the house, dominating it in scale, and alien in their form and motion to the pastoral character of the park. When assessing the setting of Gregory’s farmhouse (a rural half-timbered farmhouse), he considered that, despite some screening from existing trees, there would be visual confusion and competition with the heritage feature. The overall impact would be considerable and significant. That issue was acknowledged in the environmental statement. The inspector wrote: ‘The generally low profile of the half-timbered house would be dwarfed by the scale of the turbines, and their unashamed mechanical appearance would be directly at odds with the historic and weathered character of the building.’ The inspector did consider that the setting had already been altered by modern equestrian-related development. But he concluded that ‘the height of the turbines, the motion of their blades and their uncompromising appearance would detract severely from the attractive, historically important, open and unspoiled setting of the listed building.’ These examples illustrate the potential disparity in interpretation of the significance of impact on setting. It remains to be seen if this will change with the introduction of PPS5. Julian Bagg is coordinator of the IHBC technical panel and a director of Castle House Heritage Consulting.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=