Appendix C, Review of Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Assessment Introduction 1. This information (SEI) addresses the likely significant impacts of a six-turbine development in which T6 is removed from the layout. Impacts on the setting and significance of Winwick Manor and the Church of St Michael, Winwick, are the main issue. 2. The Statement (ES) and earlier SEI put forward an assessment in which the proposed development was said to be outside the setting of these heritage assets, and in which the impacts on the significance of those heritage assets was not significant in Impact Assessment (EIA) terms. In evidence at the recent appeal, this position was modified to one in which it was accepted that the development was within the setting of the listed buildings. It was also accepted that the effects of the development on long and short distance views of the manor and church were significant. 3. The methodology adopted during the appeal has been applied in the present SEI, and is set out below. Methodology 4. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) retains the same definition of setting as the now revoked Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5), namely: The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral. 5. Paragraph 131 of the NPPF sets out the basic principles that should be taken into account by authorities when making decisions, including such matters as the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities, and the desirability of new development making a positive May 2012 1
contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Paragraph 131 fulfils much the same function as the revoked Policy HE7 did in PPS5. 6. Paragraphs 132 to 134 of the NPPF describe the concept of balancing harm with benefit. Paragraph 134 deals entirely with harm that is less than substantial, and it corresponds to the broad position established in Policy HE9.4 of PPS5. The second part of paragraph 132, and the whole of paragraph 133, deals with substantial harm, which is exceptional or wholly exceptional, and is the same as or close to the total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset. This corresponds to the broad position established in policy HE9.2 of PPS5, now revoked. 7. The first part of paragraph 132 of the NPPF sets out the underlying policy position in relation to harm, namely: When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. 8. Paragraph 137 contains two sentences, the first of which is a requirement for local planning authorities that is not directly relevant to this SEI. The second sentence is relevant. It states that proposals should be treated favourably in two alternative circumstances, namely those proposals that: i. Preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the significance of the asset, or ii. Preserve those elements of the setting that better reveal the significance of the asset 9. It should be noted that there is no requirement for the proposal to make a positive contribution, or for it to reveal something that was not previously apparent. The emphasis is on preservation of certain elements of the existing May 2012 2
setting, which derives from sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Impacts 10. The church-manor group is located on the north-east side of a stream that runs from south-east to north-west towards what is now the Grand Union Canal. It is visible to varying degrees from the west and south-west, both from private land and from public rights of way and unclassified roads. 11. The heritage significance of Winwick Manor has been described extensively in the ES and in previous SEI, and it need not be repeated in detail here. In essence, the original part dates from the 16th century, and it has historical associations with Sir Thomas Malory, the author of Le MorteD Arthur, which was published in 1470. It was greatly extended in the 20th century by the architect Percy Richard Morley Horder (1870-1944). The grade II* listed building as a whole is of national interest and high significance. 12. The Church of St Michael is also described at length in the ES and in previous SEI. The building dates from the 13th and 14th centuries, with a chancel reconstructed c.1853. It has a cruciform plan with a west tower, and the nave has a 19th century roof structure. There are a number of important 18th century monuments and other features. 13. Although the church was heavily restored in the 19th century, there is no doubting that it is of high significance architectural, historical, aesthetic, communal and evidential. It also has a fine and sensitive setting which is related closely with Winwick Manor. 14. The basis for the methodology in this SEI is that contained in Annex 6 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), issued by the Highways Agency in August 2007 (HA 208/07). It is not intended to be prescriptive, and the matrices are not intended to mechanise judgement. 15. The methodology looks first at the significance (value/sensitivity) of the heritage assets, then at sources of impacts, then at factors in the assessment of magnitude of impacts, and finally at the significance of the effects. May 2012 3
16. Table 1 below is adapted from Table 6.1 in Annex 6 of DMRB and sets out a guide for the first stage in this assessment, namely an assessment of the significance of heritage assets. In this case, the assets in question all fall into the high sensitivity category for the purposes of the assessment. Table 1: Significance of Heritage Assets Sensitivity Very High High Medium Low Negligible Type of Heritage Asset World Heritage Site Sites of universal value, importance and significance Designated Heritage Assets as defined in Annex 2 of PPS5, in this case listed buildings, SAMs, RPGs and Battlefields Undesignated Heritage Assets, such as locally listed buildings and other sites locally identified as being of some significance Structures which may have some potential interest or significance, but which have not been identified as such by the local authority Buildings of no architectural, historical, aesthetic or communal significance 17. The magnitude of effect is the subject of Table 2, below, which has been adapted from Table 6.3 of Annex 6 of DMRB, and which sets out factors to be used in the assessment, while exercising professional judgement. Table 2: Magnitude of Effects Magnitude Major Moderate Minor Negligible Factors in the assessment Substantial (extensive and fundamental) change within the setting of a heritage asset. Modification of the setting of a heritage asset, affecting its significance and key characteristics. Noticeable change amounting to a difference to a key characteristic. Slight change affecting the setting of the heritage asset, but which does not erode the significance of the asset. May 2012 4
18. Table 3 contains a significance of impacts matrix, which assesses the magnitude of the impact in relation to the significance (value/sensitivity) of the heritage asset. Any impact falling within the major or moderate categories within this matrix would be capable of being considered to be a significant impact within the EIA definition. Table 3: Significance of Impacts Matrix Sensitivity Very High High Medium Low Negligible Effect Major Major Major Moderate Minor Minor Moderate Major Major Minor Minor Negligible Minor Major Moderate Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible 19. The church-manor group at Winwick falls into the high sensitivity category in Table 1. The buildings are of national importance and high significance, and are to be valued for their own sake in terms of the nation s heritage. 20. T6 was stated in evidence to bring about a noticeable change affecting the setting of the manor, amounting to a change to a key characteristic, namely the view of the front elevation of the listed building illustrated in Figures 6 and 7 of the earlier SEI. The deletion of T6 from the scheme reduces this noticeable change to a point where the wind farm would be much less visible in shorter-range views from the public footpaths and grounds to the south of the manor. 21. It was also accepted in evidence that T5, T6 and T7 would bring about a noticeable change in the wider setting of the church-manor group when seen from longer-range viewpoints on the gated road to the west. These would also amount to a change to a key characteristic, namely the appreciation of the church-manor group in its wider setting and context. T1, T2, T3 and T4 will also contribute to the same noticeable change, but their effect is more distant. The latter turbines would be some 2km to 2.6km from an observer looking from the gated road, and their effect would be less than that of the nearer turbines. May 2012 5
22. A large part of the significance of the church and manor is made up of architectural, historical, evidential and communal values which are not affected by the proposed wind farm. It only is the aesthetic value of those buildings which could be affected by the turbines. Both buildings are complex, and can be appreciated from a number of different places, angles and viewpoints, the majority of which will not be changed at all by the proposed development. The effects described in the ES, and the earlier SEI, and in evidence, narrowed down to what was then (i) a view of T6 at close quarters and (ii) a longer view, primarily of T5, T6 and T7. These effects (of the seven-turbine scheme) would be experienced in specific views from relatively short lengths of road and footpath. They would cause a difference to occur in key characteristics. 23. The deletion of T6 would materially reduce the impact in closer views, such that the impact would no longer be significant in this respect. 24. The deletion of T6 would also reduce the impact on longer views, but the combination of T5 and T7 with the other turbines to the east would still have a noticeable effect on the wider setting of the church-manor group. This effect would still be significant in EIA terms. 25. The assessment of EIA impacts is not exactly the same as an assessment of impacts under the NPPF. The terminology is different, and the policy assessment in NPPF is geared to harmful impacts whereas the EIA assessment is geared to a range of effects that may or may not lead to significant impacts. In both cases, however, it is the impact on the heritage significance of the asset, as the receptor, that is key. For the purposes of this SEI it is necessary to have regard to the provisions of the NPPF. 26. Paragraphs 132 (final two sentences) and 133 of the NPPF make it very clear that substantial harm amounts to the total or near complete loss of significance of a designated heritage asset. A six-turbine scheme in which T6 is deleted could not be classified as substantial harm. 27. The level of harm arising from a six-turbine scheme in which T6 is deleted would clearly fall within the meaning of paragraph 134 of the NPPF harm that is less than substantial. It would not come anywhere near the total or near-total loss of significance envisaged in paragraphs 133 and 132 (latter part), which should not be applied. May 2012 6
28. This SEI concludes that a six-turbine scheme without T6 would have a moderate impact and significant EIA impact on the basis of the long distance views from the west, even though there would be a material reduction in impact on shorterrange views. This level of impact would equate to the level in paragraph 134 in the NPPF. The impact would remain significant in EIA terms, but it would not be substantial harm within paragraphs 133 and 132 (latter part) of the NPPF. 29. The six-turbine proposal development would preserve the following elements of the setting of the listed buildings: i. Views within the churchyard and the grounds of the manor, together with short and medium range views which make a positive contribution to the significance of the heritage assets. ii. Views of the 16 th century element of the manor and of the south front and tower of the Church of St Michael. These fundamentally important views are those that best reveal the setting and significance of the listed buildings. 30. By preserving these important elements of the setting of the listed buildings, the six-turbine scheme would accord with the objectives in paragraph 137 of the NPPF. Conclusions 31. A six-turbine wind farm would have a significant impact on the grade II* listed church-manor group at Winwick in EIA terms, arising from the effects of long distance views from the gated road to the west. The impact would be moderate, but it would not be substantially harmful within paragraphs 133 and 132 (latter part) of the NPPF which should not be applied in this case. Paragraph 134, which refers to less than substantial harm, should be applied. Paragraph 137 of the NPPF, which seeks to preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the heritage asset, would be complied with. May 2012 7