|
|
|
Sedgemoor District Council Statement PROPOSED
WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AT
INNER FARM, EDITHMEAD, BURNHAM-ON-SEA TA9 4HD APPEAL
APP/V3310/A/06/2031158 CLOSING
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF SEDGEMOOR DISTRICT COUNCIL Introduction i.
I have adopted the Inspectors Main Issues and Supplemental matters lists
merely in order that the Inspector can apply the arguments proffered on behalf
of Sedgemoor District Council [SDC] directly to the question he has raised. Inevitably there will be some cross over of arguments
(particularly on policy grounds) but I hope such duplicity can be kept to a
minimum by cross referencing, but each policy does not lose its impact merely
because it applies to several aspect of the proposed development. ii. The Inspectors
questions/topics were as follows: MAIN
ISSUES The
impact that the proposals would have upon: 1.
The character and appearance of the surrounding landscape, including that
of Brent Knoll, its village and setting; 2.
The living conditions of local residents, particularly in terms of
possible visual intrusion, noise and shadow flicker; and 3.
The setting of local listed buildings, notably St Michael's Church, and
of the scheduled ancient monument, Brent Knoll Hill Fort; In all cases bearing in mind the aims of local and national planning
policies: 4.
The contribution that the proposals would make to achieving regional and
national targets for renewable energy generation, bearing in mind national
planning policy; and the extent to which any such contribution should be weighed
against any adverse impacts in terms of the other issues. SUPPLEMENTARY
MATTERS A
The contribution that the proposal would make to national and regional
energy targets in terms of both installed capacity and electricity supplied i.e
bearing on the efficiency of the proposals. B
The extent to which potential and alternative sites have been considered,
the location of those sites and the assessment criteria used. C
What constitutes the setting of St Michael's Church and the Brent Knoll
Hill Fort. iii.
I will now consider and apply the evidence to each of these in turn. 1.
The effect of
the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape,
including that of Brent Knoll, its village and setting; 1.1
The first part of this question is to consider what is the character and
appearance of the landscape the Knoll and its village.
As was made clear by Mrs James in her evidence the area has been settled
as long ago as pre-bronze age (circa. 2,300-700BC), and the character of that
settlement has hardly altered over the intervening millennia.
Brent Knoll has provided an icon to which early settlers and then traders
have been drawn. 1.2 At
some stage, and undoubtedly for defensive purposes, a hill fort was constructed
(SM No. 24001 lies approximately 1.25km north-east of the nearest wind turbine).
This nationally important Iron Age hill fort is a prominent landscape feature,
and lies within National Trust land with open access to the public and whether
as a result of that, or possibly as a precursor, habitation has grown up on the
footings of the Knoll under its protection.
At some stage the village church of St Michael was added to care for the
souls of the parish (0.75km north-east of the nearest wind turbine). 1.3
The Inspector will have been able to judge the current nature of the area
from his site visits but I would suggest that the village represents an older
type of settlement where limited modern development has been allowed in keeping
with the design and feel of the rural/ancient landscape in which it sits.
I do not say that there has not been some unfortunate development but
this represents a minor intrusion in the area and is noticeable all the more for
its obtrusive modern design. 1.4
The surrounding countryside is in the main typical of low moorland areas
and has been designed historically around the need for drainage and to prevent
flooding. Thus field boundaries
have followed the ancient rhynes and mature and ancient hedgerows now abound.
With the exception of Inner Farm (the appeal site) the husbandry of the
surrounding farmland is certainly reasonable if not good. 1.5
The proposed development lies within the Somerset Levels and Moors, as
defined in the Countryside Agency's Character Map of England (Countryside
Character Volume 8: South West, 1998) [CD 80] Character Area 142. This area is
described as a flat, open landscape of pasture, arable and wetland, with
dramatic and prominent hills, such as Brent Knoll, rising above the Levels and
Moors (page 129). The Somerset Levels and Moors are described as having five
distinct elements:
'the hills and islands; the peat Moors which lie between them; the clay
Levels towards the coast; the dunes and tidal flats of the coast itself; and the
sand banks or 'burtles' marking the position of former river channels.'
1.6
The proposed development falls within the clay levels, described as an
older landscape than the reclaimed moors, characterised by irregular fields and
sinuous lanes. A more detailed assessment of the local landscape is defined
in the Sedgemoor Landscape Assessment and Countryside Design Summary (Sedgemoor
District Council/Land Use Consultants, 1997)[CD 59]. The proposed development
lies within an area classified as 'The Levels', and is described as follows:
'This is a largely flat landscape, with a pattern of fields defined by a
combination of drainage channels and hedges. Unlike the Moors, the field pattern
on the Levels cannot be described as rectilinear. The pattern is much less
regular and it is notable that many of the major local drainage channels or
rhynes take a sinuous course. This is thought to be a consequence of the gradual
process of reclamation which began in prehistoric times and which took the
driest ground first and worked with an area's natural edges and drainage
channels. The course of an old river channel, possibly a meander of the River
Parrett but also referred to as the River Siger, is fossilised in the landscape
in this way at Applewithy Rhyne/Brent Broad Rhyne between Brent Knoll and
Burnham-on-Sea. The field pattern is therefore largely medieval or earlier, with
a few later additions on the margins of the Parrett estuary and near Brean
Down.' (para. 4.50)
1.7
The Assessment comments that:
'Despite
the area being the location of the District's main urban areas, coastal holiday
sites and the M5 motorway, much of the countryside retains a sense of quiet and
unspoilt rural charm. Whilst very little of the Levels area is included in the
designated 'Somerset Levels and Moors Environmentally Sensitive Area', the
Levels are nevertheless an important component of a distinctive Somerset
landscape.' (para. 4.55)
1.7.1 Dealing
with sensitivity, the Assessment describes how:
'The extent of views in this flat landscape is generally dependent upon
the extent of tree cover. Low-cut hedgerows often allow long vistas past the
pattern of hedges and farmsteads, to distant church towers or the enclosing
hills and knolls...' (para. 4.60)
1.7.2
Brent Knoll itself is classified in the Assessment as 'Isolated Hills',
which it describes as:
'Rising
out of the Levels and Moors, are the isolated hills of Brent Knoll... These
outcrops or knolls vary in their visual dominance. Brent Knoll in particular
provides a constant reference point from the coastal and Brue valley lowland
areas.' (para. 6.52)
1.7.3
With reference to sensitivity to visual impact, the Sedgemoor Landscape
Assessment and Countryside Design Summary states that:
'Brent Knoll and Nyland Hill are significant focal points and landmark
features, which could be adversely affected by new buildings. All development,
including agricultural buildings, should be very strictly controlled.'
1.8.1
Turning to the wider policy considerations PPS 7 is perhaps the best
starting point talking as it does for the LPA’s to ensure the protection of
the countryside. Planning authorities should continue to ensure that the quality and
character of the wider countryside is protected and where possible, enhanced. (CD
18, pg 12, para 15) 1.8.2
This protection and enhancement criteria must be encapsulated in RSS’s
and LDD’s: RSS should recognise the environmental, economic
and social value of the countryside that is of national, regional or, where
appropriate, sub-regional significance. Policies in RSS and LDDs should seek to
maintain and enhance these values, so enabling the countryside to remain an
important natural resource, contribute to national and regional prosperity and
be enjoyed by all. (CD 18, pg 11, para 14)
PPS 7 Continues; When preparing policies for LDDs and determining
planning applications for development in the countryside, local planning
authorities should:
......
(iii) take
account of the need to protect natural resources
(iv) provide for the sensitive
exploitation of renewable energy sources in accordance with the polices set out
in PPS22; and conserve specific features and sites of
landscape, wildlife and historic or architectural value, in accordance with the statutory designations. [Emphasis added (EA)] (CD 18, pg 12, para 16) 1.9
This has been applied the Somerset and Exmoor National Joint Structure
Plan Review 1991-2011 (CD 12) and the Structure Plan alteration 1996-2016
(CD13); The distinctive character of the countryside of
Somerset and the Exmoor National Park should be safeguarded for its own sake.
Particular regard should be had to the distinctive features of the countryside
in landscape, cultural heritage and nature conservation terms in the provision
for development. (CD 12, pg 32, Policy 5 – Landscape Character (same in CD 13, pg 17)) 1.10
Clearly the intention of statutory guidelines is to protect and preserve
the countryside in general terms and specifically to safeguard sites of national
importance and those within preset designations; but also to preserve, at a
higher level, countryside which is distinctive in terms of cultural heritage or
in landscaping terms. 1.11
PPS1 states; The Government is committed to protecting and
enhancing the quality of the natural and historic environment, in both rural and
urban areas. Planning policies should seek to protect and enhance the quality,
character and amenity value of the countryside and urban areas as a whole. A
high level of protection should be given to most valued townscapes and
landscapes, wildlife habitats and natural resources. Those with national and
international designations should receive the highest level of protection.
[EA] (CD 17, pg 7, para 17)
And; Good planning ensures that we get the right
development, in the right place and at the right time. It makes a positive
difference to people's lives and helps to deliver homes, jobs, and better
opportunities for all, whilst protecting and enhancing the natural and historic
environment, and conserving the countryside and open spaces that are vital
resources for everyone.
But poor planning can result in a legacy for current and future generations
.......and the loss of our finest countryside to development.
(CD
17, pg 2, para 1). 1.12 In Regional
terms the relevant policy is RPG 10 for the South West which states as follows: Protection of the Environment: a. ensuring that the level, distribution and
nature of development is consistent with the special character, diversity and
distinctiveness of the region and seeks to maximise benefits to the environment. b. safeguarding and enhancing the quality and
diversity of the natural, cultural and built environment across the region,
while giving the highest level of protection to designated areas and features of
national and international importance. (CD 10, pg 14, Table 1:
Key Aims and Objectives). 1.13.1
The Inspector has been taken to CD 59 already above, but in particular
attention is drawn to the paragraph at 4.60 which deals with Sensitivity
to visual impact and capacity for new development/Key principles for new
development. The extent of views in this flat landscape is
generally dependent upon the extent of tree cover. Low-cut hedgerows often allow
long vistas past the pattern of hedges and farmsteads, to distant church towers
or the enclosing hills and knolls. But conversely thick hedgerows and trees can
be very effective at obstructing views or helping to screen buildings. In the
traditional Levels landscape church towers were the only significant landmark
buildings and other buildings, which were generally no more than two storeys
high, were usually not visible at any great distance. This issue of scale is
particularly relevant in this flat landscape and structures such as electricity
pylons, the armaments factory in Puriton, and the former milk-processing factory
at Bason Bridge demonstrate the more intrusive impact of tall buildings. The
larger modern agricultural buildings and industrial units can also tend to be
locally prominent due not only to scale but also colour of materials.(CD 59 pg 46 para 4.60). 1.13.2
One of the issues for the Inspector is the size of the proposed turbines
and terms of their massing. The size of the proposed turbines far exceeds any
existing vertical man-made structures in this Levels landscape. They are
comparable in height to the hill of Brent Knoll, which is 139m AOD, whilst
Turbine 4, for example, is 120m to blade tip from a ground level.
As Ms Lennard points out “while relative height is one important factor; relative bulk is even more
important”
(RL proof para. 6.7). So when
comments are made of the limited footprint of the turbines this is misleading in
all but the context of the disturbance of the ground in archaeological terms.
It is the bulk of the turbine that will be apparent to the viewer rather
than its footprint. 1.14
It is submitted that the effect of all the foregoing is that the area and
the isolated hill, Brent Knoll forms an iconic feature within the landscape
which gives form to the character and distinctive nature of the entire area
including the other isolated hill of Glastonbury and over the intervening moor
land; but the geographic significance of the Knoll and its surroundings is not
the only criteria that constitutes the relevant ‘landscape’.
Perhaps the additional element is best summarised as it is put in the
GLVIA handbook: Landscapes are considerably more than just the
visual perception of a combination of landform, vegetation cover and buildings
– they embody the history, land use, human culture, wildlife and seasonal
changes of an area. These elements combine to produce distinctive local
character and continue to affect the way in which the landscape is experience
and valued.
(CD 54, pg 9, para 2.3) 1.15
In her visual impact assessment Ms Lennard made some fundamental mistakes
in her methodology, which it is submitted skewed her subsequent findings in
favour of the developer. She accepted that according to the Criteria for determining
magnitude of landscape impact the five criterion had been altered so that the
bottom magnitude was split into two categories yet the two most serious impacts
(high and very high) had been amalgamated.
It is submitted that the inevitable result of this distortion is that it
is impossible to award the highest significance of impact – extreme (pg 40 of
GLVIA). 1.16
Ms Lennard had also failed in the ES to consider the most sensitive of
receptors, namely residents in the area and while that has now been addressed in
the SEI she has continued to fail to follow the GLVIA best practice guidelines
in terms of the sensitive receptors of visitors to the historic landscape.
The GLVIA clearly states that in considering the landscape of an area for
assessment you must consider the historic background to the area and its
importance to artists, writers etc. In
the present case we have the words of Wesley, (see below at para. 1.21), to show
the areas importance and to be fair to Ms Lennard she does concede this in cross
examination. However she did not
include such an impact in her assessment (or methodology).
Further she dismisses any historical importance merely as the isolated
effects on the Hill Fort and the church and not the wider importance of the
historical nature of the area. I
submit that so to do fails to understand the character and the significance of
the landscape and therefore does not take into account its particular
sensitivity. 1.16.1
Ms Lennard has in her assessment also not included any factoring in terms
of the cumulative effect of the development (i.e. noise, movement etc),
preferring to define only the narrow interpretation of cumulative effect that of
other wind farms within the area. This
of course takes out the particular cumulative adverse effects that wind turbines
can produce, especially on residential receptors in such close proximity as in
the present case. 1.16.2
Because of the foregoing (all in favour of the developer) and in claiming
that the assessment is conducted in a neutral and impartial manner, but yet, as
a professional, she cites a journalist, Thomas Sutcliffe (RL 6.32)! PPS 22
clearly states that, “Proposed developments should be
assessed using objective descriptive material and
analysis wherever possible,” and the GLVIA has similar advice throughout.
Given all this her impartiality and especially her results must be
seriously questioned. 1.17 The link
between the proposed development and the Knoll is accepted on behalf of the
appellants by Ms Lennard : - “It
is of course inevitable that the proposed wind farm would be seen in conjunction
with this landform
[Brent Knoll]”
[RL 6.21]. She even acknowledges
that there will be an adverse effect upon it :- “Notwithstanding
the adverse effect on the distinctive feature of Brent Knoll is acknowledged in
my assessment...” [RL 6.22 ]. 1.18
Thus the appellants own witness accepts that the development will have an
adverse impact on the landscape so the only remaining question for the Inspector
is how adverse is that impact? 1.19
The GLVIA guidelines indicate that the impact of development on the
population clearly is a factor to be taken into consideration. Landscape and visual assessments are separate,
although linked, procedures. The landscape baseline, its analysis and the
assessment of landscape effects all contribute to the baseline for visual
assessment studies. The assessment of the potential effect on the landscape is
carried out as an effect on the environmental resource, i.e. the landscape. Visual
effects are assessed as one of the interrelated effects on population. [EA](CD
54, pg 12, para 2.13) 1.20 The
Guide continues; Changes in the landscape can have a direct and
immediately apparent effect upon people's surroundings. It is therefore necessary
to identify the landscape components that are valued by the community or society
as a whole, why and how they are valued and, where possible, the people to whom
they are valuable that is 'what matters and why'.
[EA](CD 54, pg 15, para 2.23) 1.21
Clearly in terms of visual impact and impact upon the landscape the test
is ‘what matters and why’? In
the present case it is clear that from the macro level of the policies and
descriptions of the valued landscape is Brent Knoll and its surrounding flat
open landscape. Even at the micro level, down to the individual whether John
Wesley (see below), or the residents of Brent Knoll, it is clear that the views
from the Knoll to the sea and the sense of the wide open landscape are of
imperative importance. 'I
know not whenever I saw such a prospect. Westward, one may see to the mouth of
the Bristol Channel; and the three other ways, as far as the eye can reach. And
most of the land which you see is cultivated, well wooded and well watered; so
that the globe of earth in its present condition can hardly afford a more
pleasing scene'. (extract
from John Wesley's Journal for 1769. Copy consulted in the New Room, John
Wesley's Chapel, Bristol by Anita Peach). (H. James pg 17) 1.22
Even if one accepts that the impacts on various visual receptors cannot
be said to be cumulative, the large number of major, (the highest category
available), significant impacts found by Ms Lennard have to be indicative that
on any interpretation the development of these turbines will represent a major
negative impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape and
the village of Brent Knoll 1.23
Thus SDC state that the proposed development is therefore in breach of
the policies designed to protect and preserve such landscapes. 1.24
The agreed directly appropriate policy in terms of the Local Plan is PCS5
but it was, I think, agreed by all that that policy must be read in conjunction
with all other relevant policies within the Local Plan. 1.25
Policy PCS5 states: Proposals for the development of the sources of
renewable energy schemes, including wind power, will be permitted provided that
all the following criteria are met: a) are sited and designed so as to minimise their
impact on the landscape, utilising landscape features; b) will not have an unacceptable impact on the
character or setting of a settlement; c) will not lead to an unacceptable level of nuisance by reason of noise, safety,
shadow flicker, electro-magnetic interference or reflected light. Particular
attention will be given to the impact on dwellings and other regularly occupied
premises; [Dealt with elsewhere]. d) will not unacceptably affect the character or
setting of a Listed Building, Conservation Area or a scheduled ancient monument;
and [Dealt with elsewhere]. e) will not unacceptably affect a site designated
for its ecological or archaeological value either during or after construction.
[Dealt with elsewhere]. (CD 14, pg 105, Policy PCS5) 1.26 Also
relevant are CNE17 which states: Development which would adversely affect
distinctive features of the local landscape (as identified in the AONB Landscape
Assessments, Sedgemoor Landscape Assessment and Countryside Design Summary or
Village Design Statements) will not be permitted. Development proposals
in the countryside rural settlements and urban fringes should retain,
replace, repair or otherwise add to the stock of features which create local
distinctiveness. (CD 14, pg 58, CNE17) 1.27 And
CNE2: Development which adversely affects local
landscape character or scenic quality will not be permitted. In particular: a) sitting and landscaping should take account of
visibility from publicly accessible vantage points; and b) the form, bulk and design of buildings should
have proper regard to their context in respect of both the immediate setting and
the defining characteristics of the wider local area. In determining planning applications the
important characteristics of landscape character areas described in the
Sedgemoor Landscape Assessment and Countryside Design Summary and/or AONB
Landscape Assessments will be a material consideration. (CD 14, pg 57, CNE2) 1.28
The conjunction and overlap of these policies, and the weight that needs
to be read into each in comparison with PCS5, is ultimately a matter for the
Inspector but by way of comment I would add that it would seem unlikely that the
policies which are designed in accordance with Government policy does anything
other than follow it. 1.29
I have not dealt at length with the previous decisions contained in CD 29
as the Inspector has indicated that each case must rightly be decided on the
basis of its own facts and its own particular circumstances but one case does
seem to be closer in terms of similar geography and the type of proposal than
the others. This is the Retford
decision at CD29r. In that decision
the Inspector noted firstly:
Clearly,
the turbines would be seen as large alien features in these surroundings. Their
impact would be compounded by the movement of the blades which would be
eye-catching, across a wide area, and in marked contrast to the mostly static
landscape. (CD 29r, pg 6, para 26) and
secondly, The appellant and the Council have agreed that
the development would be seen from the house and/or garden of most of the
approximately 43 dwellings in Grove. Those views would be glimpsed or partial,
in some cases, but largely uninterrupted in others. The appellant lists 11
properties whose principal rooms have a full and open view of the site. The
nearest turbines would be some 800-850m away and the group as a whole would
spread across the field of vision. Whilst they would be slender and arranged in
a grid so as to reduce obstruction to long distance views, it would be difficult
to see beyond them, because the eye would be irresistibly drawn to their size
and movement. (CD 29r, pg 7, para 35 – views from properties) 1.30
These opinions are not merely the isolated views of that Inspector as
they are clearly mirrored by Government in the White Paper [CD 26] stating as it
does: Planning has a role to protect and enhance the
quality, character and amenity value of the countryside and urban areas as a
whole, through positive policies. A high level of protection should be given to
our most valued townscapes and landscapes, wildlife habitats and natural
resources; and those with international and national designations should receive
the highest level of protection. (CD 26, pg 12, Protecting and enhancing the
environment and natural resources) 1.31
Ms Lennard has suggested that the dominance of these turbines can be
mitigated by the fact that in many views the footing of the turbine will be
obscured and therefore the scale of the development will not be apparent.
It is humbly submitted that it cannot be right that a 120m turbine
becomes less dominant because 1/10th
of its height is hidden from view. (It
is noteworthy that the 1/10th
is only appropriate where a fully grown tree is the obscuring factor if it is
hedges etc then it may be considerably lower).
The towering nature of these turbines will be undeniable. 1.32
The Inspector is invited to consider both the tree in the middle of the
field in photograph 20 (Mr Evers appendices) and the Willow man both of which
measure 12m (i.e. 1/10th
of the total height of the turbine). In
the case of the Willow man even though his ‘feet’ are hidden from view by
the hedge bordering the M5 his height is apparent from some distance.
In the case of the tree it is fairly proximate to the position of one of
the turbines and so can be used to show how a naturally occurring vertical
structure of some 12m provides a very visible reference point within the
landscape. 1.33
In short whether the bottom 1/10th
of the hub is showing or not these turbines would dominate the landscape and
provide a clear detraction to the isolated nature of the Knoll. 1.34
Finally the appellants have sought to assuage any damage to the visual
amenity by the condition that the permission will expire after 25 years.
Leaving aside the real fear that if this development is allowed further
development will occur in and around the area to its detriment and the further
possibility that once granted the Appellant will simply apply to extend the
permission at the end of the 25 year period; as succinctly stated in the Retford
decision: I attach no great weight to the fact that the
life of the proposed development is limited to a period of 25 years. Certainly,
the effects of the scheme are reversible, in that the turbines and much of the
infrastructure would be removed after that period and the land would be restored
to its former condition. Even so, the impact of the development during its
lifetime is the main consideration; development which is unacceptable cannot, in
general, be made acceptable by limiting the duration of the planning permission. (CD 29r, pg 3, para 13) 1.35 This
it is submitted is good planning law and needs no further discussion. 2.1 Most
of the arguments under this heading are those raised by No to Knoll and
therefore SDC has little to add to their submissions, save as follows. Visual Intrusion 2.2 Much
of what represents the visual intrusion could be equally included under the
previous heading of the impact upon the landscape and Brent Knoll village and
therefore much of the arguments above can be therefore incorporated herein. However, the increased impact on a micro level, specifically
as it effects those houses closest to the turbines, cannot be ignored. 2.3 In
Appendix 6 to the ES Ms Lennard detailed the factors contributing to visual
impact. In A5 to A8 she details the
perceived impact that has been previously found by various studies in assessing
distance/impact. In all the cited
cases it appears that the degree of dominance of turbines on properties up to
2km is marked and most studies use the 2km marker as the point up to which such
turbines can be said to dominate the landscape. In this case the Inspector will be aware that the proposed
turbines are 120m to blade tip and thus represent some of the largest available.
Further for most of the properties within Brent Knoll the distance to
these turbines will be well under 2km. 2.4 In
the most part the arguments under this heading are best advanced by those who
live in the properties and of course the Inspector will have had the advantage
of visiting most of the worse affected sites on his site visit and can therefore
draw his own conclusions as to the nature and the extent of the effect. Noise 2.5 Any
discussion on noise must be predicated by the acceptance that the standard to be
set is ETSU-R-90. In the present
case the Appellant has striven via the evidence of Dr McKenzie to prove that in
noise terms the proposed development will comply with ETSU. In cross examination he accepted that the terms of reference
(10mins not 5mins) could have slightly lowered the ambient noise level as
charted. This coupled with the
acceptance that those inside caravans may suffer an increase in noise perception
of about 1db results in the graphs in the EIA either crossing, or all but. 2.5.1 The net result of
this is that it cannot, and indeed it was not, stated that the noise of the
turbines will not be heard above the background noise in existing
dwellings/caravan parks just that in the main it will be subservient to the
ambient noise. The Inspector will
know that it is not that the turbines will not make noise, simply that in the
main, the noise (at night) will be about or lower than that of the ambient
background level. 2.6 Finally,
PPS22 states that: Local planning authorities should ensure that
renewable energy developments have been located and designed in such a way to
minimise increases in ambient noise levels. (CD 20, pg13, para 22)
SDC are unaware that the proposed development has taken into account or
taken steps in minimising by location or design to ameliorate the effect, in
noise terms of the turbines. Shadow flicker 2.7 SDC
have no direct arguments upon this point and this area is left to the No to
Knoll campaign and the Inspectors views after the site visit.
3.
The setting of local listed buildings, notably St Michael's Church, and
of the scheduled ancient monument, Brent Knoll Hill Fort; 3.1 As
stated above the Church of St. Michael in Brent Knoll lies approximately 0.75km
north-east of the nearest wind turbine. This parish church is a Grade I listed
building dating back to the 11th
Century, and is located on rising ground, approximately 20m higher than Brent
Street, flanked by a group of mature trees. From southerly views, the upper
portion of the tower is seen above these trees, against a background of mature
woodland on the south-western flanks of Brent Knoll. Within the churchyard, some
10m south of South Chapel, is a Grade II listed monument to Edward Symes, the
parish surgeon. The Scheduled Monument of Brent Knoll hill fort (SM No. 24001)
lies approximately 1.25km north-east of the nearest wind turbine. This
nationally important Iron Age hill fort is a prominent landscape feature, and
lies within National Trust land with open access to the public. 3.2
Local policy has been applied the Somerset and Exmoor National Joint
Structure Plan Review 1991-2011 (CD 12) and the Structure Plan alteration
1996-2016 (CD13); (for completeness as there has been alterations in the process
I have tabulated the polices, and there changes, below). CD 12 & 13 Policy 9 – Built Historic
Environment
3.2.1 CD 12 & 13 Policy 10 – Historic Landscapes
3.3
Guidance can also be found in the English Heritage Guidance October 2005
[CD 53]. Under the heading Wind Energy and The Historic
Environment it states Setting and visual amenity In accordance with the guidance provided by PPS22
and its companion guide, consideration should be given to the impact of energy
developments on wider landscape setting and visual amenity of historic sites.
This consideration should be extended to the effects of any necessary
infrastructure (such as power transmission lines, access roads and signage) and
to the individual as well as the cumulative impact of developments. Seasonal
variations in visual impact should also be considered. While change within the setting of historic sites
may often be acceptable, in certain instances development will be considered
inappropriate. Among particular factors which should be borne in mind when
assessing the acceptability of developments within the setting of historic sites
are: 1.
Visual
dominance:
Wind turbines are far greater in vertical scale than most historic features.
Where an historic feature (such as a hilltop monument or fortification, a church
spire, or a plantation belonging to a designed landscape) is the most visually
dominant feature in the surrounding landscape, adjacent construction of turbines
may be inappropriate. 2.
... 3.
Intervisibility: Certain archaeological or historic landscape
features were intended to be seen from other historic sites. Construction of
wind turbines should respect this intervisbility. 4.
… 3.4
The GLVIA appreciates and echoes this advice: The determination of landscape value can be based
on particular characteristics that contribute to a 'sense of place' or influence
the way in which a landscape is experienced, and on special interests such as
cultural and literary associations, nature conservation or heritage interests.
Landscape value may also incorporate a description of the condition of the
landscape elements and features, and the way that they contribute to its
character. (CD 54, pg 15, para
2.24) 3.5
It is clear from this that in planning terms and in terms of best
practice guidance that it is not only the building or monument that needs
protection but its setting and the perception of it.
Mrs James gave clear and cogent evidence as to how setting is to be
perceived. She said: (Heather
James pg 20 at 6.2.1) In an influential paper, Colcutt has argued that
setting is primarily a visual concept with a strong implication of intent. He
reminds us that setting is a material consideration through planning guidance
and a material consideration by statute for Listed Buildings (Colcutt 1999).
Important though visual aspect is, Masser has further argued that setting
“contributes to people's understanding and appreciation of historic places”.
Sensory, aesthetic, emotional and spiritual values play an important role (Masser
2006). Whether on an occasional or frequent visit or daily experience, people
bring perceptions with them, together with their expectations of the forthcoming
experience of the visit or walk. In terms of landscapes, it is now widely
recognized that we should move beyond treatment of cultural heritage solely
through point data (basically the approach of the ES archaeological assessment).
Landscapes can be valued and experienced for their archaeological richness,
historic associations and potential for informing people about their past, all
of which can be adversely affected by inappropriate developments. 3.6
It is submitted that when one considers monuments such as the Hill Fort
and the church that inherent in their influence is the setting of the particular
building/monument. It cannot be beyond comprehension that those who visit sites
such as the Hill Fort will wish to try and experience the view and sights that
the ancient defenders would have enjoyed. Perhaps
the question is whether Brent Knoll becomes known as the site of the Hill Fort
and therefore of enduring protection or whether it is merely seen as a viewing
platform for the turbines. 3.7
SDC, through the District Local Plan, have sought to preserve not only
such sites as we are concerned with here but also and more importantly their
settings. Policy HE11 states: There will be a presumption in favour of
preservation in situ of nationally important archaeological sites, whether
scheduled or not. Planning permission will not be granted for development that would damage or
destroy these sites or their settings
unless the importance of the proposed development outweighs the national
significance of the remains. In that event, mitigation strategies should be in
place for the protection and recording of the site. [EA] (CD 14, pg 86) 3.8 In the GLVIA it states that “view points selected should provide representative coverage of the area including, where relevant, |
