Afternoon fellow archaeological types. I work as a consultant, hey shot me, and at the moment im trying to do a ES chapter for the cultural heritage receptors effecting the seting of monuments in an area to 3km that wind turbines may have an intervisabilty issue. How in the devils briefcase do you get it through to the thick sculls of developers that a 70m wind turbine is gona have a negative impact on the landscape wherever they put it!! I feel very frustrated at the moment and feel like with this sort of development I am just going through the ES motions. Because of the sustainablity issues involved with such projects the powers that be will grant aproval to build it anyway so why am I wasting my time and whats the point of having an intervisabilty issue when you just cant hide a 70m tall turbine.
Honestly I feel like Im taking the mountain to Mohammed only to find he`s already got one!!
AHH!!!!:face-confused:
Close enough for a country job!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
Have a handy paragraph from Historic Scotland saying just that: along the lines of wind farms which have an impact basically cannot be mitigated other than being moved to another site. Both EH and HS are normally fairly forthcoming with a scoping opinion for these things, which firms the ground up somewhat for the points you have to make (even if they will be rode over).
Of the Clan Sutton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Commiserations Trowelhead. You are, as you say, pretty much going through the motions on this one. Current policy is that we're going to get these things regardless of their negative impact on the landscape, and, perhaps more to the point, whether they actually make any significant difference to the national CO2 output (they don't). As far as the government is concerned they are a relatively cheap yet highly visible means of being "Seen to be doing something". (for facts and figures see the website of the Royal Society of Engineers.)I admit upfront to having a personal loathing for these things, however it's based on reading the subject as well as aesthetic objections.
Finally a subject I can rant about...2 days before I go off the radar in Wales...
"Never put off 'till tomorrow that which you can put off 'till the day after tomorrow.."
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Dear Trowelhead,
We have been doing quite a bit on these at the moment and there is appropriate legislation that frames the varied questions with regards to negative impact, inparticular:
ZTV Assessment: the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) assessment is undertaken where âvisual effect will be dependant on the distance over which a wind farm may be viewed, whether wind farms can be viewed adjacent to other features, different weather conditions, the character of the development and the landscape and nature of the visibilityâ (Planning Advice Note 45 (Rev 2002): Renewable Energy Technologies). The ZTV Assessment will involve the consultation of a number of existing datasets, namely:
· World Heritage Sites
· Scheduled Ancient Monuments
· Listed Buildings
· Conservation Areas
· Parks and Gardens
· Battlefield Sites
You probably know all this already and were just venting your spleen, but if not this stuff is useful stupid legislation to use against stupid clients.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Usually with EIAs for wind turbines there is a defined zone of visual influence which is established for the area which the turbines will influence rather than simply providing an arbitrary zone of 3km. When, in a previous life, i was acting in an enquiry against a wind farm this is how we argued against the entire basis of the eia and won.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
Having been involved with wind farm ESs and Planning Inquiries as an Expert Witness on numerous occasions I can only commiserate with your position. Wind Turbine developers do not generally want to record negative effects in their ESs as they prefer to portray turbines as a positive feature. Their view is broadly echoed by PPS22 which basically states âbuild wind turbines everywhere but not in National Parksâ (sorry for the paraphrasing but this is basically how the inspector translated it at my last inquiry).
The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment for the ES should extend to the full extent of the ZVI for the turbines. Obviously sites many kms away may only be subject to a low or negligible level of impact whereas sites in close proximity or with designed views facing the turbines (e.g. vistas in parks and gardens) may be subject to a greater degree of impact. I have worked on schemes with a ZVI in excess of 20km.
The paper on the Setting of Cultural Heritage Features by Colcutt in the 1999 Journal of environmental planning law is a good starting point for understanding what to consider when examining the setting of a site, but I disagree with many of his conclusions and have a different view on what constitutes setting. However, colleagues disagree with me and Colcutt and there is no agreed definition of what constitutes the setting of a cultural heritage feature or what the word âsettingâ actually means.
Numerous planning inquires and legal cases have addressed the issue of setting and consequently there is considerable material (much of which is contradictory â see Colcutt and other sources) available to practitioners. Case law is important and Revival Properties v. Secretary of State (1996) is an interesting judgement where the court held that when considering the impact of a development on a listed building or ancient monument it was proper to have regard to:
a) the view from the listed building or monument towards the proposed development;
b) the view from the development towards the building or monument and;
c) any other relevant view from the side.
This, and the general wording of PPG15 and PPG 16, places considerable emphasis on the visual aspects of an assetâs relationship with its environs. Other aspects such as ambience, sense of place etc are also generally considered when assessing potential impacts but visual matters are usually considered to be the dominant concerns when assessing the setting of a place and the potential impact of a development on that setting. I also place considerable emphasis on the general âcharacterâ of a features setting e.g. open rural landscape vs. hedged rural landscape or urban area etc. In addition, historical relationships, current land use (especially where this reflects possible or known past land-uses) and designed views to and from a place are also important.
Overall, we can shout about setting as much as you want but with wind turbines it is unlikely to sway the argument. What you need is a robust and defendable ES chapter that fairly records the potential impacts. The landscape architect for the developer will no doubt make the âlandscape on loanâ arguments and should be able to convince the planners that this is only a âtemporaryâ development of c. 20 years lifespan and that everything can go back to the way it was. Basically planning guidance recommends buildings turbines and unless you can show that nationally important cultural heritage features will be physically harmed and / or fundamental elements of the setting of nationally important cultural heritage features will be altered then cultural heritage will not be an issue for the ES or any future inquiry â so donât worry as no-one will read your chapter anyway!
Regards
Archaeophobe
[8D]
(p.s. apologies for typos etc - but I canât be bothered to check this aain)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
What an answer cheers dude...
Close enough for a country job!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
At the risk of being patronising, I take it you have referred to the EH guidance on Wind Energy at:
http://www.helm.org.uk/upload/pdf/Wind_E...nal%29.pdf
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
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
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
Good points Beomo and Vulpes - I had forgotten the EH guidance, but they seem to issue new guidance notes every other week at the moment!
Setting is an ill defined and complex area but a solid and robust analysis of what constitutes the setting of a site is critcal to any impact assessment but is rarely done for ESs or even inquiries.
I understood that EH has considered producing guidance on what setting is - but I have heard nothing on this for sometime (probably because there are a number of different opinions etc within EH)
Best of luck with it
Archaeophobe
