Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Setting is a complex issue, and my understanding of the EH line is that it is better kept fuzzy because this allows more judgement to be exercised and doesn't tie their hands. If hard and fast guidelines were to be issued consultants etc would be able to put their own spin on them. The Wind Energy guidance was probably overdue - but in my opinion, as a resource doesn't really tell us anything we don't know. Pretty hard to top your response there Archaeophobe - respect!! Nice format and cover though.:face-approve:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
As a further aside, I've also been dealing with a couple of windfarm apps., as a curator. One of which has a scheduled site smack in the middle of the app. boundary. However, as the scheduled site is largely ignored, unvisited (low amenity value), and consists of a small area of set side in arable with no visible above ground remains, the issue of setting was fairly glossed over by all parties concerned. Another issue is impact on Registered Parks and Gardens - especially where turbines may interfere with lines of sight in heavily designed landscapes. Another grey area due to their lack of statutory status, although they should be 'a material consideration' in the planning process.... Hmmm. However, I do think you are being overly cynical Trowelhead in presneting the proposals as a fait accomplit.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
I have to admit to finding this thread rather educational having never specfically dealt with a wind turbine (thus far only seen responses). It does occur to me that you may find a friend in your colleague producing the landscape and visual assessment chapter.:face-huh:
Of the Clan Sutton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I actually see setting as something that is over complicated. If the setting of historic assets that are being considered then this is different to the general visual impact.
As for listed buildings this is actually precisely defined in PPG 15.
Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Just to give people some food for thought...
AND ME
( I have a Wind Problem myself!)
http://www.headlandarchaeology.com/Proje...s_EIA.html
and the mega Planarch document
http://www.planarch.org/downloads/librar...report.pdf
Headland have quite a few other links..
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
PPG15 Para 2.16 states that authorities must 'have special regard to ... the setting of the building'. Para 2.17 states that LPAs must publish a notice of all apps which 'in their [u]opinion</u>, affect the setting of a listed building'. The remainder uses the words 'may', 'might', and 'probably' several times. I see little in these paragraphs that is 'precise' on the contrary it is loosely drawn - so that each case can be considered on its merits. Remember the final call on these matters does not rest with advising curators but with planners, elected members, inspectors etc. As has been stated already the whole area is fairly grey and a matter of 'opinion' not fact. :face-huh:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
It too late on a hot summers evening to debate the meaning of setting with a curator. The point about PPG 15 it gives the reasons when setting can be an important factor. The idea of setting is not that anything which can be seen to or from a listed building or monument should not be built. If this where the case there would be no building allowed in virtually all of South Oxfordshire.
Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Precisely, and that is where the subjective angle comes in. The new smiley is especially appropriate in this situation. :face-huh:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Setting is one of the major problems with the protection of historic assets; there simply is no definition which is not almost entirely subjective in some way. Not least I have seen some people argue that burried SAMs, which are not visible on the ground surface, have a setting. this frankly makes the business even more painful.
Some of my planning authorities mark their lists with codes which show if the planning application impacts upon the setting of a listed building. this meet the minimum requirement of PPG15.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Buried SAMs with no visible surface remains - do they have a setting ? As I mentioned before, see the transcriptions of the Stonehenge A303 planning inquiry (http:
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/...transcript) particularly page 16 of 12th March 2004 am and pages 98-102 of 11th March 2004 pm.
The Inspector fell back on para. 27 of PPG16 which refers to 'a presumption against proposals which would involve significant alteration or cause damage, or would have a significant impact on the settings of visible remains' i.e. the remains must be
visible, and impact on setting must be
significant. In his report he wrote
'I do not accept, however, that exisitng planning guidance provides that non visible remains have a setting that needs to be preserved.'
The end result is that although we (the heritage profession) might debate the issue of setting, and of non-visible remains, planners will look to official planning guidance for their cue.
For this reason it would be useful to have further official guidance from EH or ODPM or DCMS - not because (thanks Vulpes) consultants like myself would be able to put their own spin on the guidelines, but because this might introduce a little bit more objectivity into the situation. At the moment there is plenty of room for me to put my own spin onto interpretation of issues of settings and impacts, but I would prefer to be more constrained (not literally of course).
Beamo
