navitusbaywindpark.co - National Infrastructure Planning 15.1 - Heritage assets selected for...
-
Upload
truongdien -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of navitusbaywindpark.co - National Infrastructure Planning 15.1 - Heritage assets selected for...
navitusbaywindpark.co.uk
DOCUMENT CONTROL
Document properties
Author Navitus Bay Development Limited
Title Setting of Heritage Assets
Document Reference
VERSION HISTORY
Date Version Status Description/Changes
10 April 2014 1.0 Final Issued for application submission
This document has been prepared to provide information in respect of the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park and for no other purpose.
In preparation of this document Navitus Bay Development Limited and their subcontractors have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the content is accurate, up to date and complete for the purpose for which it has been prepared.
Other than any liability detailed in the contracts between the parties for this work. neither Navitus Bay Development Limited or their subcontractors shall have any liability for any loss, damage, injury, claim, expense, cost or other consequence arising as a result of use or reliance upon any information contained in or omitted from this document.
© Copyright Navitus Bay Development Limited 2014
6.1.2.15
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page iii
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
TABLE OF CONTENTS
15. Setting of Heritage Assets ........................................................................ 1
15.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1
15.2 Legislation, Policy and Guidance ............................................................... 1
15.3 Assessment Methodology ......................................................................... 3
15.4 Baseline Environment ............................................................................ 11
15.5 Impact Assessment ............................................................................... 22
15.6 Mitigation of Impacts and Residual Impact Assessment .............................. 43
15.7 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................. 44
15.8 Summary Tables ................................................................................... 46
References ..................................................................................................... 48
Glossary ........................................................................................................ 49
Abbreviations ................................................................................................. 50
LIST OF TABLES
Table 15.1 - Summary of relevant NPS advice regarding setting of heritage assets .. 2
Table 15.2 - Summary of consultation responses ................................................. 5
Table 15.3 - Data sources ................................................................................ 12
Table 15.4 - Designated heritage assets assessed in the field ............................... 14
Table 15.5 - Realistic worst case scenario for setting of heritage assets ................. 23
Table 15.6 - Impact assessment summary (selected examples) ............................ 47
Table 15.7 - Glossary ...................................................................................... 49
Table 15.8 - Abbreviations ............................................................................... 50
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 15.1 - Heritage assets selected for detailed settings assessment ................. 19
Figure 15.2 - View west from Lower Needles Point Battery ................................... 25
Figure 15.3 - View south-west from Lower Needles Point Battery .......................... 26
Figure 15.4 - View north-east from Lower Needles Point Battery ........................... 27
Figure 15.5 - View south-east from St Aldhelm’s Chapel ...................................... 28
Figure 15.6 - View south-east towards St Aldhelm’s Chapel .................................. 29
Figure 15.7 - The lancet window in the eastern elevation of St Aldhelm’s Chapel ..... 30
Figure 15.8 - View south-west from Tennyson’s Beacon ....................................... 31
Figure 15.9 - View south-east from Swyre Head ................................................. 33
Figure 15.10 - View south-east from southern boundary of Encombe ..................... 34
Figure 15.11 - View west of Durlston Castle ....................................................... 37
Figure 15.12 - View east from pathway to south of Durlston Castle ....................... 37
Figure 15.13 - View south-east from Durlston Head ............................................ 38
Figure 15.14 - View south-east from cliff path at Durlston Head ............................ 39
Figure 15.15 - Cumulative Zone of Theoretical Visibility ....................................... 45
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page iv Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Page left intentionally blank
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 1
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
15. Setting of Heritage Assets
15.1 Introduction
This Chapter assesses the potential impacts on the setting of heritage 15.1.1
assets arising from the construction, operation and maintenance (O&M) and
decommissioning phases of the offshore elements of the proposed Navitus
Bay Wind Park Project (the Project).
A heritage asset is a “building, monument, site, place, area or landscape 15.1.2
identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in
planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage asset includes
designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning
authority (including local listing)” (DCLG, 2012, Annex 2).
For the purpose of this assessment, the Offshore Development Area 15.1.3
comprises the following elements: the Turbine Area and an Offshore Export
Cable Corridor. As the Export Cable Corridor is not visible from any of the
heritage assets considered within this assessment it has been scoped out.
Therefore the term Turbine Area is used when referring to the Offshore
Development Area. For details of the Project description used within this
assessment refer to Volume B, Chapter 2 Offshore Project Description. The
Chapter should also be read in conjunction with Volume B, Chapter 15
Setting of Heritage Assets Appendix 15.1 and Volume D, Chapter 5 World
Heritage Site).
The assessment uses the information on the seascape, landscape and visual 15.1.4
impact of the Turbine Area provided in Volume B, Chapter 13 Seascape,
Landscape and Visual (SLV).
As described in Volume B, Chapter 4 Offshore Site Selection and 15.1.5
Alternatives, feedback received during the consultation process with both
the public and other interested stakeholders, along with work undertaken as
part of the EIA process, informed changes to the Offshore Development
Area. As a result, the Turbine Area presented and assessed within the
Preliminary Environmental Information (the PEI3 Turbine Area) differs from
that presented within this assessment (the Application Turbine Area).
Changes to the Turbine Area resulted in a reduction in the area of 22 km2
and consequently a reduction in the maximum number of Wind Turbine
Generators (WTG) from 218 (PEI3) to 194 (Application). No changes have
been made to the density of development within the revised boundary or to
the turbine options or the foundation parameters and options.
Consideration has been given to whether the boundary change to the 15.1.6
Turbine Area is such that additional surveys or data collection should be
undertaken. For the reasons given below it has been concluded that no
additional survey or modelling work is required.
This assessment is supported by detailed surveys and data collection to 15.1.7
inform the baseline characterisation and impact assessment and this
Chapter should be read in conjunction with the Volume B, Chapter 15
Setting of Heritage Assets Appendix 15.1. Baseline surveys conducted
predate the decision to reduce the size of the Turbine Area and
consequently technical reports provide information on the previous (PEI3)
area. The alterations to the Turbine Area and associated project parameters
have reduced the potential impacts of the Project on the setting of heritage
assets by reducing the extent of view occupied by the project and
increasing the distance to coastal assets.
As the new Turbine Area falls entirely within the previous PEI3 Turbine Area 15.1.8
and no changes have been made that could lead to impacts on areas not
assessed during PEI3, the survey data collected remains robust and
provides the information required to identify and assess the likely significant
environmental effects of the Project within the Offshore Development Area,
for which development consent is now sought.
15.2 Legislation, Policy and Guidance
This section outlines the legislation, policy and guidance that is relevant to 15.2.1
the assessment of the potential impacts on the setting of heritage assets
associated with the Project.
There is no international legislation relating to the setting of cultural 15.2.2
heritage assets in the marine environment.
The Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) (DECC, 15.2.3
2011a), in-conjunction with the NPS for Renewable Energy Infrastructure
(EN-3) (DECC, 2011b), provide the primary policy framework within which
the Project will be assessed.
A summary of relevant National Policy Statements is presented in Table 15.2.4
15.1.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 2 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Table 15.1 - Summary of relevant NPS advice regarding setting of heritage assets
Summary of NPS provision Consideration within the ES
NPS EN-1
Paragraph 5.8.1: “The construction,
operation and decommissioning of energy infrastructure has the potential to result in
adverse impacts on the historic environment.”
The impact on the setting of heritage
assets is considered within the Impact Assessment (Section 15.5) of
this Chapter.
Paragraph 5.8.8: “As part of the ES the
applicant should provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets affected by
the proposed development and the contribution of their setting to that
significance. The level of detail should be proportionate to the importance of the
heritage assets and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the
proposal on the significance of the heritage asset.”
The significance of heritage assets is
considered within the Baseline Environment (Section 15.4) of this
Chapter.
Paragraph 5.8.10: “The applicant should
ensure that the extent of the impact of the proposed development on the significance of
any heritage assets affected can be adequately understood from the application
and supporting documents.”
The assessment is in accordance with
‘step 3’ of the English Heritage guidance methodology (see Section
15.3 of this Chapter).
Paragraph 5.8.12: “In considering the impact
of a proposed development on any heritage
assets, the IPC (now PINS) and the Secretary of State should take into account the
particular nature of the significance of the heritage assets and the value that they hold
for this and future generations. This understanding should be used to avoid or
minimise conflict between conservation of that significance and proposals for
development.”
The nature of the significance of
heritage assets is assessed in
accordance with ‘step 2’ of the English Heritage guidance
methodology (see Section 15.3 of this Chapter).
Paragraph 5.8.13: “The consideration of design should include scale, height, massing,
alignment, materials and use.”
This is presented in ‘step 3’ of the English Heritage guidance
methodology (see Section 15.3 of this
Table 15.1 - Summary of relevant NPS advice regarding setting of heritage assets
Summary of NPS provision Consideration within the ES
Chapter).
NPS EN-3
Paragraph 2.7.43: “The IPC is required to take into account the length of time for which
consent is sought when considering any
indirect effect on the historic environment, such as effects on the setting of designated
heritage assets.”
The duration of the Project is considered within ‘step 3’ of the
English Heritage guidance
methodology (see Section 15.3 of this Chapter).
Other national, regional and local policies are considered within this 15.2.5
assessment and a professional judgement has been applied on their
relevance and importance to the assessment of the project, including:
National Heritage Act 1983 (amended 2002);
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979;
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990;
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (DCLG, 2012);
Draft National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (accessed online
February 2013);
PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment
Planning Practice Guide (DCLG et al., 2010);
Regional and local planning policy documents, comprising;
Planning Purbeck’s Future: Purbeck Local Plan Part 1
Policy LHH
East Dorset Local Plan
Policy BUCON5
Poole Borough Council Adopted Core Strategy
Policy PCS 23
Bournemouth District Wide Local Plan
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 3
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Policy 4.2
Policy 4.16
Policy 4.18
Christchurch Borough Council Local Plan
Policy BE 5
Policy BE 15
Policy BE 16
Policy BE 20
New Forest District Council Core Strategy
Policy CS3
New Forest National Park Local Development Framework
Policy CP7
Island Plan: The Isle of Wight Council Core Strategy
Policy DM11
A full discussion of the legislative and planning policy is presented in Volume 15.2.6
B, Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets Appendix 15.1.
This assessment has been undertaken using the principles set out in two 15.2.7
key guidance documents published by English Heritage. The assessment of
heritage asset importance has been undertaken in accordance with the
guidance contained within “Conservation Principles: policies and guidance
for the sustainable management of the historic environment” (English
Heritage, 2008). The assessment of setting has been undertaken in
accordance with the guidance contained within “The Setting of Heritage
Assets” (English Heritage, 2011).
15.3 Assessment Methodology
a) Study area
Following consultation with stakeholders, and through professional 15.3.1
expertise, a 30 km study area was used as a proportionate distance over
which development in the Turbine Area could potentially affect the setting of
a heritage asset. The study area is presented in Figure 15.1.
The 30 km study area is considered appropriate for this assessment and no 15.3.2
heritage assets beyond the 30 km study area were considered capable of
being affected by the offshore elements of the project. In fact, all heritage
assets considered within this assessment, within the study area are located
within 27 km of the Turbine Area.
As described above, this assessment is supported by detailed surveys and 15.3.3
data collections undertaken prior to the 2014 amendment to the boundary
of the Turbine Area. As the new Turbine Area falls entirely within the
previous PEI3 Turbine Area, these surveys and data are robust and provide
information required to identify and assess the likely significant
environmental effects of the Project within the Offshore Development Area
for which development consent is now sought (refer to Volume B, Chapter
15 Setting of Heritage Assets Appendix 15.1 and Volume B, Chapter 13
SLV).
The study area presented below is unchanged from the study area used for 15.3.4
the assessment presented at PEI3. The revised Project boundary, with the
smaller Turbine Area, is shown and this Turbine Area is used in the
assessment of the likely significant effects on the setting of heritage assets
arising from the Project.
b) Consultation
Navitus Bay Development Limited (NBDL) has undertaken extensive formal 15.3.5
consultation, as follows:
a Scoping Opinion was received in November 2011, provided in
accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations;
consultation with the local community was undertaken in November and
December 2011 in relation to the siting of the Onshore Substation, in
accordance with Section 47 of the Planning Act;
consultation with statutory consultees was undertaken between June and
July 2012 in relation to Preliminary Environmental Information 21 (PEI2),
in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning Act;
1 PEI1 was produced to support the 2011 Statement of Community Consultation under Section 47 of
the Planning Act.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 4 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
consultation with the local community was undertaken between February
and April 2012 on the different development options for the Project, in
accordance with Section 47 of the Planning Act;
consultation with the local community was undertaken between February
and April 2013 on the revised site boundary, in accordance with Section
47 of the Planning Act;
consultation with all stakeholders (including statutory and non-statutory
consultees and the local community) was undertaken between
September and October 2013 on the final proposed development (which
includes PEI3), in accordance with Sections 42, 47 and 48 of the
Planning Act.
In addition, informal consultation has been undertaken with stakeholders 15.3.6
since 2010. Table 15.2 summarises the meetings and other communication
had with stakeholders outside of the formal consultation stages in relation
to this topic. The table also identifies how regard has been given to this in
terms of helping to develop the Project and shape the impact assessment.
Table 15.2 should be read in conjunction with Volume A, Chapter 4 15.3.7
Consultation, as well as the Consultation Report (see Document Reference
5.1 which forms part of the application for development consent), which
provides further details of each stage of consultation and overall
engagement.
As recorded within Table 15.2, a workshop was held on 28 November 2012 15.3.8
and provided an opportunity for Local Planning Authority (LPA) officers,
County Council officers, and National Park advisors to comment on the
assessment methodology and the heritage assets selected for detailed
assessment. The key outcomes of this workshop were:
the agreement that locally listed buildings should be included within the
settings assessment;
the agreement that selected listed buildings within Conservation Areas
and Registered Parks and Gardens should be assessed as distinct
designated heritage assets;
the agreement that LPA officers would provide information on newly or
proposed designated heritage assets.
Two further meetings were undertaken with English Heritage on 6 15.3.9
December 2012 and 16 May 2013. The key outcome of these meetings was:
the agreement that a separate assessment report would be produced in
relation to the Outstanding Universal Values (OUVs) of the Jurassic Coast
World Heritage Site.
Section 42 responses were received in October 2013 and pertinent 15.3.10
comments have been included within Table 15.2.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 5
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Table 15.2 - Summary of consultation responses
Organisation and date Summary of response Consideration within the ES
Scoping response (November 2011)
IPC
November 2011
The IPC encouraged early consultation with English Heritage and
the relevant local authorities to determine and agree methods.
Photomontages should be provided where assessment identifies potential harm to heritage assets and appropriate cross reference
to landscape and visual assessment should be made
English Heritage and appropriate authorities have been regularly consulted
throughout Project Development (see Sections 15.3.5 to 15.3.10 of this Chapter).
Cross reference to Volume B, Chapter 13 SLV is made as appropriate. SLV
includes necessary photomontages.
English Heritage
November 2011
EH requested that consideration is given to the potential impacts on listed buildings.
The potential impact of the Project on Listed Buildings has been assessed within this Chapter and Volume B, Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Appendix 15.1.
EH requested that the maritime context of heritage assets such
as the Lower Needles point Battery Scheduled Monument and St Catharine’s Oratory be considered.
The maritime context of the Lower Needles Point Battery Scheduled
Monument and St Catherine’s Oratory has been assessed within this Chapter and Volume B, Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets Appendix
15.1.
Stage 1 S42 responses to PEI2 (June - July 2012)
English Heritage
20/07/2012
Doubts were expressed that the SLVIA methodology will use
appropriate tools e.g. The National Heritage List for England, The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011) and Seeing History in the View
(2011).
A separate Cultural Heritage Settings Assessment has been undertaken
(this Chapter) and appropriate guidance utilised.
Christchurch Borough Council
07/08/2012
Concerns were raised regarding the impact on heritage assets, specifically the Needles Lighthouse.
A Cultural Heritage Settings Assessment has been undertaken (this Chapter) and the potential impact on the Needles Lighthouse assessed
within Volume B, Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets Appendix 15.1.
Stage 2 S42 responses to PEI3 (September - October 2013)
Purbeck District Council
October 2013
Further assessment requested of the Grade II Listed Durlston
Castle, including views from the Castle roof, the consideration of management plan policies and the Dark Skies areas at Durlston.
Potential mitigation measures were also provided.
This is addressed within the Baseline Environment (see Section 15.3) and
Mitigation of Impacts and Residual Impact Assessment (see Section 15.6) sections of this Chapter.
English Heritage
October 2013
Further assessment requested of the significance of remoteness
to the setting of St Aldhelm’s Chapel and its east light.
This is addressed within the Baseline Environment section (see Section
15.5) of this Chapter.
Other consultation
New Forest National Park
Authority, Isle of Wight Council, Poole Borough Council,
Agreement of methodology. Request to include locally listed
buildings and non-designated heritage assets within the assessment. Agreement of technical baseline (i.e. the 64
This is addressed within the Assessment Methodology (Section 15.3) and
Baseline Environment (Section 15.4) of this Chapter.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 6 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Table 15.2 - Summary of consultation responses
Organisation and date Summary of response Consideration within the ES
Bournemouth Borough Council
Workshop
28/11/2012
heritage assets considered).
English Heritage, South-East and South-West regions
Meetings
6/12/2012 and 16/05/2013
Agreement of assessment methodology. Agreement of technical baseline (i.e. the 64 heritage assets considered).
Request to include a separate assessment for the World Heritage Site (WHS).
This is considered within the Assessment Methodology (Section 15.3) of this Chapter. Potential impacts to the WHS are provided within a separate
assessment; refer to Volume D, Chapter 5 World Heritage Site.
English Heritage and UK
Commission to UNESCO
Meeting
29/05/2013
Discussion of the scope and content of the WHS Impact
Assessment. Agreement that the report would address the Outstanding Universal Values (OUVs) and setting of the Jurassic
Coast WHS.
Potential impacts to the WHS are provided within a separate assessment,
refer to Volume D, Chapter 5 World Heritage Site.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 7
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
c) The scope of assessment
The setting of a heritage asset is defined by the NPPF as “the surroundings 15.3.11
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”. As
English Heritage, (2011) states, setting “embraces all of the surroundings
(land, sea, structures, features and skyline) from which the heritage asset
can be experienced or that can be experienced from or within the asset.
Setting does not have a fixed boundary and cannot be definitively and
permanently described as a spatially bounded area or as lying within a set
distance of a heritage asset.”
The impact can be broadly characterised as the alteration of the distant 15.3.12
seascape vista (especially the maritime horizon) through the introduction of
the Turbine Area. The extent to which the Turbine Area has the potential to
have an effect on a heritage asset depends on the degree to which the
appreciation of the uninterrupted maritime horizon contributes to the overall
significance (and experience) of the asset and also to what extent that
appreciation is altered or prevented. As the guidance states, “most places
are within the setting of a heritage asset and are subject to some degree of
change over time”…and “protection of the setting of heritage assets need
not prevent change” (English Heritage, 2011).
Following consultation with stakeholders, the assessment considered the 15.3.13
setting of 2,882 designated and non-designated heritage assets within the
30 km study area. The scope of the assessment was agreed following
consultation with Local Planning Authority (LPA) Conservation Officers,
County Council Archaeological Advisors, and English Heritage Inspectors of
Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings.
The assessment considers the potential effects of the Turbine Area only, as 15.3.14
this is the only visible component of the Offshore Development Area with
the potential to change the setting of heritage assets. The Offshore Export
Cable would not be visible and is therefore scoped out of this assessment.
i Issues scoped out
The potential for any magnitude of effect, with respect to the setting of 15.3.15
heritage assets, would not reach its greatest extent until the construction
phase of the Turbine Area is complete. Construction impacts are temporary
in duration, and are not considered to be of a size and scale likely to affect
the appreciation of heritage assets onshore. Similarly impacts during
decommissioning are temporary in duration, of smaller size and scale
compared to operational impacts and upon completion of decommissioning
turbines and thus impacts are removed. The impact of construction and
decommissioning activities are therefore scoped out of the impact
assessment.
The noise assessment described within Volume B, Chapter 8 In-air Noise, 15.3.16
concluded that at Swanage, the location considered to be the nearest point
to construction, the noise level during piling for the turbine foundations
would be 26.7 dB(A), which is considered to be below background levels.
Noise levels during construction are therefore of no impact to heritage
assets, and alterations to the setting of heritage assets through changes in
noise levels have not been considered further. The impact assessment
below has considered change within the setting of heritage assets.
The potential for effects on the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage 15.3.17
Site (Jurassic coast) has been discussed with relevant statutory consultees
and is reported within a separate chapter (Volume D, Chapter 5 World
Heritage Site).
d) Impact assessment methodology
i Methodology for the assessment of the setting of heritage assets
English Heritage (2011) provides guidance on settings and development 15.3.18
management, including assessing the implications of development
proposals. Its five-step approach was adopted for this assessment.
The methodology adopted is a qualitative assessment of the setting of 15.3.19
heritage assets, in accordance with the following steps:
Step 1 is the identification of heritage assets whose setting may be affected 15.3.20
by the development. This exercise was undertaken using:
publicly available GIS data relating to designated heritage assets;
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 8 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
GIS data provided by county and local planning authorities;
descriptions of designated heritage assets from the NHLE;
information held within county and local planning authority datasets and
assessment documents;
Ordnance Survey mapping;
satellite imagery; and
the Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTVs) provided by LDA Design
(Included in Volume B, Chapter 13 SLV).
Step 2 assesses whether the setting of heritage assets makes a positive 15.3.21
contribution to their importance in terms of their designation criteria, how
this positive contribution is made and to what degree ( i.e. ‘what matters
and why’). Within this assessment, the importance of an asset has been
assessed in accordance with the definitions of value defined by the English
Heritage (2008), and discussed in more detail below. Step 2 also includes a
consideration of the key attributes of the heritage asset and then considers:
the physical surroundings of the asset, including its relationship with
other heritage assets;
the way the asset is appreciated;
the asset’s associations and patterns of use.
Step 3 (where appropriate) assesses the effect of the Turbine Area on the 15.3.22
importance of assets through the consideration of the key attributes of the
Turbine Area in terms of its:
location and siting;
form and appearance;
additional effects;
permanence.
Step 4 assesses the potential for the development to maximise 15.3.23
enhancement and minimise harm to heritage assets, which may be
achieved through:
removing or re-modelling an intrusive building or feature;
replacement of a detrimental feature by a new and more harmonious
one;
restoring or revealing a lost historic feature;
introducing a wholly new feature that adds to the public appreciation of
the asset;
introducing new views (including glimpses or better framed views) that
add to the public experience of the asset;
improving public access to, or interpretation of, the asset including its
setting.
Step 5 encapsulates the documentation of decisions and the monitoring of 15.3.24
outcomes. Although the EIA methodology utilised elsewhere within this ES
is not adopted within this Chapter (as a qualitative approach is
recommended by English Heritage), a summary statement of the
quantitative assessment of impact in relation to each designated heritage
assets is provided within the Impact Assessment below.
For the avoidance of doubt, the context, purpose and outcome of the 15.3.25
assessments of setting is quite distinct from Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment (LVIA), although the latter may often provide useful tools for
analysing setting (English Heritage, 2011: 24). The impact significance
identified within Volume B, Chapter 13 SLV may well contrast with the
impacts identified within this Cultural Heritage Settings assessment.
As such, the differences in impact significance identified by the settings 15.3.26
assessment and the SLVIA respectively are due to the differences in
methodology and the definition of sensitivity and effect, as opposed to
disparities or omissions in either assessment.
ii Defining impacts
An impact is considered to be the net change to a sensitive receptor 15.3.27
(heritage asset) as a result of the Turbine Area, which could be positive,
negative or neutral. An impact arises from activities occurring as a result of
the Turbine Area, and this can include the alteration to the setting of
heritage assets.
In relation to the Turbine Area there are considered to be no applicable 15.3.28
measures ‘to maximise enhancement and minimise harm to heritage assets’
(Step 4 of the assessment process) and as such all potential impacts are
considered to be adverse or negative, and could impact on any one or a
combination of the key attributes of a heritage asset’s setting. There are
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 9
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
considered to be no indirect impacts to the setting of heritage assets as a
result of the Turbine Area.
iii Sensitivity of an asset
The sensitivity of an asset is its susceptibility to be affected by a given 15.3.29
environmental change. Two variables are used in relation to cultural
heritage within this assessment to characterise the sensitivity of an asset,
comprising ‘Tolerance’ and ‘Importance’. The concept of ‘Recoverability’,
pertaining to the ability of an asset return to a state close to that which
existed before the event causing change, is not considered relevant to
cultural heritage, as the potential impact of the Project is upon the
experience of the asset (see ‘Duration’ in Magnitude of Effect, Section
15.3.38).
Tolerance
Tolerance is the susceptibility of an asset to impacts from an external 15.3.30
factor. In settings terms, the tolerance of a heritage asset is specific to the
individual asset, and is determined during Step 1 and Step 2 of the settings
assessment process and through the use of the ZTV. The tolerance of a
heritage asset to changes within its setting is dependent upon the degree to
which it derives importance from those elements of its setting. The guidance
(English Heritage, 2011) provides no quantitative method of assessing this
contribution, and recommends a qualitative approach regarding the
contribution of setting to the importance of a heritage asset (English
Heritage, 2011).
Importance
The NPPF defines the importance of a heritage asset in terms of its 15.3.31
‘significance’, which is defined as “the value of a heritage asset to this and
future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be
archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not
only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting”
(DCLG, 2012). Within this assessment, however, the term ‘significance’ is
avoided, so as to avoid confusion with the term ‘impact significance’ which
is used to define the significance impact of the Turbine Area on assets. The
term ‘importance’ is used instead. Importance is derived from four values
identified within the guidance Conservation Principles (English Heritage,
2008), comprising:
evidential value, derived from “the potential of a place to yield evidence
about past human activity” (English Heritage, 2008) and primarily
associated with physical remains or historic fabric;
historical value, derived from “the ways in which past people, events and
aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present” (ibid
28). Illustrative historical value provides a direct (often visual) link
between past and present people, while associative historical value
provides an association with notable families, persons, events or
movements;
aesthetic value, derived from sensory and intellectual stimulation and
including design value, i.e. “aesthetic qualities generated by the
conscious design of a building, structure or landscape as a whole”
(English Heritage, 2008). It may include its physical form, and how it lies
within its setting. It may be the result of design, or an unplanned
outcome of a process of events;
communal value, derived from “the meanings of a place for the people
who relate to it”. Communal value derives from the meanings that an
historic asset has for the people who relate to it, or for whom it is in their
collective experience or memory. It may be commemorative or symbolic,
such as meaning for identity or collective memory (ibid 31).
The setting of a heritage asset comprises the surroundings in which a 15.3.32
heritage asset is experienced. Setting is not a heritage asset, nor a heritage
designation. Its value lies in what it contributes to the importance of the
heritage asset (English Heritage, 2011). Elements of a setting may make a
positive or negative contribution to the importance of an asset, may affect
the ability to appreciate that importance or may be neutral. In some
instances the contribution made by setting to the asset’s importance is
negligible, while in others it may make a greater contribution to its
importance.
Non-designated heritage assets that were also considered to be of the 15.3.33
highest importance were identified through consultation with heritage
stakeholders. Therefore no additional quantitative descriptions of assets of
lesser importance have been provided (i.e. definitions of medium and low
importance) and all heritage assets assessed are considered to be of the
highest importance.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 10 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
The setting of a heritage asset can contribute to, or detract from, any of its 15.3.34
evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal heritage values (discussed
above), and each of these values may be harmed or enhanced by
development affecting setting.
iv Magnitude of effect
The magnitude of effect describes the nature of the change in the 15.3.35
environment and its effects on an asset. Relevant variables used to assess
the magnitude of effect in relation to the settings of heritage assets are
‘Extent of Effect’ and ‘Duration of Effect’. The ‘frequency’ variable as defined
in Volume A, Chapter 5 EIA Methodology is not considered relevant to the
assessment of the settings of heritage assets, as the effect upon setting is
assessed using qualitative terms as opposed to how often an effect occurs.
Extent
The extent is the area over which an ‘effect’ occurs and has also been used 15.3.36
to determine the study area. The ZTV was utilised to further determine the
extent of the effect. The ZTV utilised during this assessment relates to the
8 MW scheme, which comprises the tallest turbines (maximum tip height of
200 m) and therefore the greatest visual range (see Figure 15.1).
The extent of an ‘effect’ is also measured in terms of how it would change 15.3.37
the overall importance of a heritage asset. This is dependent upon the
extent to which the heritage asset derives importance from the element of
its setting, which may become changed by the Turbine Area. For example, if
the Turbine Area was to alter an intrinsically expressed element of
importance of a heritage asset (i.e. a seascape vista intentionally referenced
within designed parkland), the extent would be greater than if it was to
alter an element of its setting that contributes to a lesser degree (i.e.
incidental sea views from a coastal asset). Step 2 of the assessment
process aims to identify the contribution the varying elements of a heritage
asset’s setting makes to its overall importance.
Duration
Duration considers effects on a temporal scale. The Project is considered to 15.3.38
be a reversible, non-permanent proposal; with a planned operational
lifespan of 25 years.
However, within the context of understanding an effect on heritage assets 15.3.39
this duration is considered to be permanent, as the NPPF states that
heritage assets are to be conserved, so they “can be enjoyed for their
contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations” (DCLG,
2012). Therefore the proposed 25 year operational lifespan of the Project is
considered permanent in relation to ‘this current generation’.
v Determining impact significance
The assessment of impact significance in relation to the settings of heritage 15.3.40
assets is qualitative.
In terms of defining the impact significance, a ‘significant’ impact is deemed 15.3.41
to be equivalent to ‘substantial harm to or loss of’ a designated heritage
asset, as defined by paragraphs 132 and 133 of the NPPF (DCLG, 2012).
Such impacts equate to a major or moderate impact significance, in
accordance with the Impact Significance Matrix presented in Volume A,
Chapter 5 EIA Methodology. Because the assessment of the effect of the
Turbine Area is a qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) process, the
matrix terminology is not appropriate for this assessment.
Where a proposed development would lead to substantial harm to or total 15.3.42
loss of importance of a designated heritage asset, it is a matter for the
decision-maker to determine whether the effect is acceptable having regard
to all other relevant matters.
A key factor in determining the significance of effect within this assessment, 15.3.43
is whether the adverse impact goes to the heart of why the place is worthy
of designation – i.e. why it is important enough to justify special protection
(NPPG, 2013). Where the alteration to the setting of a heritage asset is not
considered to harm its importance, the impact significance is considered to
be Not Significant.
e) Cumulative impact assessment methodology
Cumulative impacts are the additional changes caused by a proposed 15.3.44
development in conjunction with other similar developments or as the
combined effect of a set of developments, taken together. This includes
non-renewable projects currently built and plans identified through
consultation and those that result from additive impacts caused by other
past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions. The Cumulative Impact
Assessment Methodology on the setting of heritage assets utilised the
cumulative ZTV produced by LDA Design and the stepped approach outlined
above.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 11
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
f) Limitations and Assumptions
i Information gaps
A database of locally listed buildings is maintained by four of the eight Local 15.3.45
Planning Authorities (LPA) within the study area. Data relating to locally
listed buildings was received from all four of the LPAs that maintain such a
list. No database of locally listed buildings is maintained by East Dorset,
Christchurch, New Forest or Purbeck District Councils.
In relation to other non-designated heritage assets, only the Isle of Wight 15.3.46
Council provided information relating to some specific heritage assets that
their advisors considered required assessment. No specific information
relating to non-designated heritage assets was provided by either Dorset
County Council or Hampshire County Council (New Forest National Park
Historic Environment Record (HER) provided partial HER data for the study
area). However, both parties were invited to provide information relating to
non-designated heritage assets they considered required assessment.
ii Limitations
Photomontages have not been produced for every heritage asset considered 15.3.47
within this settings assessment. As such, there is a limitation in assessing
the exact impact of the Turbine Area upon the setting of all heritage assets.
However, this approach is industry standard and photomontages have been
produced from sufficient locations to allow ‘representative’ viewpoints to be
provided for all heritage assets considered. Therefore, the information is not
considered to constitute a material limitation for the purposes of this
assessment.
g) Measures adopted as part of the Project
The assessment within this Chapter takes into account mitigation measures 15.3.48
that have been incorporated in the Project as part of the design process,
and other measures that are considered standard practice within the
construction industry. Together these measures are termed “measures
adopted as part of the Project”. This mitigation is distinct from additional
mitigation which is applied following the identification of potentially
significant impacts. Measures relevant to the assessment of the Setting of
Heritage Assets include:
reductions in size of the Turbine Area:
first Turbine Area boundary change: December 2012. This involved
repositioning of the northern most boundary so that the turbines were
located further from the coastline, and the view between St.
Catherine’s Point and St. Aldhelm’s Head remains open and clear.
second Turbine Area boundary change: February 2014. This involved
reposition of both the northern and north-western boundary to push
the turbines further still from the coastline, and specifically reduce the
visual impact upon visual receptors at the coast.
a ‘Substation Exclusion Zone’ has been demarcated in consideration of
the visual impact to coastal receptors. This zone lies approximately 1.5
km around the inside of the Turbine Area boundary. This serves to meet
the commitment to site offshore substations and platforms within more
distant locations within the Turbine Area;
the use of minimum levels of turbine and offshore substation lighting;
a marked reduction in potential total turbine numbers; and
a reduction in the maximum height of turbines.
All of these integral mitigation measures positively contribute to limiting 15.3.49
potential effects upon both seascape and landscape character as well as
upon visual receptors.
15.4 Baseline Environment
The following section details the baseline data gathering methodology for 15.4.1
the assessment and data sources used and presents the baseline
environment for the study area assessed.
a) Baseline data gathering methodology
i Data sources
This section provides information on the organisations from which relevant 15.4.2
contextual information was requested. The information gathered was used
to determine the tasks undertaken to inform the site-specific baseline (e.g.
the survey programme) and to inform the assessment undertaken. The data
requested and received is outlined in Table 15.3.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 12 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Table 15.3 - Data sources
Organisation Data Requested Data Received
Poole Borough Council Information on locally listed
buildings within the authority
boundaries
Data on all locally listed
buildings within the authority
Bournemouth District
Council
Information on locally listed
buildings within the authority
boundaries
Data on all locally listed
buildings within the authority.
New Forest National
Park Authority
Information on locally listed
buildings within the authority
boundaries
Data on all locally listed
buildings within the authority.
Isle of Wight Council Information on locally listed
buildings within the authority
boundaries
Specific details of two locally
listed buildings considered to
require assessment within the
authority
Hampshire County
Council Archaeological
Service
Information relating to non-
designated heritage assets
considered to include the
Turbine Area as part of their
setting
Partial data on all relevant
non-designated heritage
assets within the authority
provided by New Forest
National Park
Isle of Wight Council
Archaeological Service
Information relating to non-
designated heritage assets
considered to include the
Turbine Area as part of their
setting
Specific details of three non-
designated heritage assets
considered to require
assessment within the
authority
The primary data sources for information relating to designated heritage 15.4.3
assets was the National Heritage List England (NHLE) website2, which
contains the designation descriptions for all designated heritage assets
nationally. This information is freely available online, and was not requested
directly from English Heritage. Further information, regarding the
2 http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/protection/process/national-heritage-list-for-
england/
importance of the designated heritage assets, was derived from published
secondary sources (see References section below) and documents provided
by the Local Planning Authority and County Council advisors.
The ZTV and photomontages, including the night-time photomontages, used 15.4.4
during the assessment were provided by LDA Design, and are included in
Volume B, Chapter 13 SLV. The photographs included within this
assessment were taken by Cotswold Archaeology during field visits
undertaken in October and November 2012 and a full list is provided within
Volume B, Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets Appendix 15.1. Each
heritage asset (identified via a desk-based exercise) was visited in the field
and its setting assessed in accordance with the staged assessment process
recommended by English Heritage. The relationship between the heritage
assets and the Turbine Area was considered and the contribution, if any, of
the seascape to the importance of the heritage assets was assessed.
Proforma settings assessment sheets were completed for each heritage
asset and a register of digital photographs retained.
The baseline provided here comprises the results of the Step 1 exercise to 15.4.5
identify the ‘heritage assets affected and their setting’. This provides the
results of the selection exercise to determine which heritage assets are of
sufficient sensitivity as to require Step 2 and Step 3 assessment. In total 54
designated heritage assets and 10 non-designated heritage assets were
selected for Step 2 and Step 3 assessment.
b) Step 1: identifying the heritage assets affected and their setting
The step 1 exercise was undertaken to determine which designated heritage 15.4.6
assets derived value from elements of their setting particularly susceptible
to adverse effects from the Turbine Area. The complete assessment process
is included within Volume B, Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets Appendix
15.1.
This exercise was initially desk-based, and involved an analysis of the 2,882 15.4.7
designated heritage assets within the 30 km study area. The ZTV was used
to filter the dataset of designated heritage assets within the 30 km study
area (Volume B, Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets Appendix 15.1). The
ZTV related to an 8 MW proposal (the ‘worst case’ scenario in terms of
visibility, refer to Table 15.5) and adopted a ‘bareground’ model, in which
only the contours of the landscape are taken into account. In a bareground
model, the potential screening effect of vegetation and built form is not
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 13
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
incorporated. As such, the bareground 8 MW ZTV provides the ‘worse case’
scenario in terms of the visibility of the Turbine Area and the greatest
number of potential designated heritage assets from which it might be
visible.
There are 1,466 designated heritage assets potentially visible within the 8 15.4.8
MW bareground ZTV. These designated heritage assets are considered to be
of the highest importance, and comprise:
one World Heritage Site;
four Protected Wreck sites;
124 Scheduled Monuments (of 245 located within the 30 km study
area);
68 Conservation Areas (of 93 located within the 30 km study area);
1,257 Listed Buildings (of 2,524 located within the 30 km study area);
12 Registered Parks (of 15 located within the 30 km study area).
The next stage in the Step 1 exercise was to identify which of the 1,466 15.4.9
designated heritage assets has a low tolerance to change as a result of the
Turbine Area. In relation to the World Heritage Site, this asset forms the
basis of a separate chapter (Volume D, Chapter 5 World Heritage Site).
Protected Wreck Sites are assessed separately within Chapter 14, Offshore
Archaeology. For the remaining 1,465 designated heritage assets, further
assessment was required to determine which assets derived importance
from their setting, and if so, how and why. Those designated heritage
assets considered to derive importance from a relationship with the
seascape were considered to have a low tolerance to change within this
seascape setting, and were progressed through to Step 2 and 3 of the
assessment methodology.
The selection process included a review of the designation descriptions 15.4.10
provided on the NHLE website. Conservation Area appraisal documents and
information pamphlets were also assessed during this stage. Those assets
that included sea views or a relationship with the coastline, and were
considered to have a potential low tolerance to certain types of change,
were proposed for further assessment in the field. Ordnance Survey
mapping and satellite imagery was also utilised during this assessment.
The initial assessment identified 119 designated heritage assets considered 15.4.11
to be of such sensitivity as to require further assessment in the field (see
Table 15.4). These field assessments took place during October and
November 2012. Following the field visits, 54 heritage assets were selected
for Step 2 and Step 3 settings assessment, as they were considered to have
a low tolerance to change within their setting. Ten non designated assets
were also selected for steps 2 and 3. The 54 (of the 119) designated
heritage assets selected for Step 2 and Step 3 are illustrated in Figure 15.1
(see also Table 15.4). The remaining 65 designated heritage assets required
no further assessment as their setting did not include the Turbine Area, or
the visibility of the Turbine Area did not contribute to their importance.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 14 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Table 15.4 - Designated heritage assets assessed in the field
I.D. Asset Name Selected for detailed step 2 and step 3 assessment?
SM1 Early Christian enclosure on St Aldhelm's Head Yes
SM2 Hilltop enclosure and a pillow mound on Knowle Hill No
SM3 Group of medieval strip lynchets at East and West Man No
SM4 Bowl barrow on Swyre Head Yes
SM5 Bowl barrow on Emmett's Hill Yes
SM6 Bowl barrow on St Aldhelm's Head, 470 m north-east of St Aldhelm's Chapel Yes
SM7 Ballard Down Barrows Yes
SM8 Bowl barrow on Godlingston Hill No
SM9 Arne Hill Bowl Barrows No
SM10 Hengistbury Head Yes
SM11 Hurst Castle and Lighthouse Yes
SM12 Lower Needles Point battery Yes
SM13 Moated site 100 m north-east of Wolverton Manor No
SM14 Pre-Conquest monastery, early Christian cemetery, Augustinian priory and a motte and bailey castle at Christchurch
No
SM15 St. Catherine's Hill Camp No
BG1 Barrow Group - Purbeck Hills Yes
BG2 Barrow Group - Stour and Avon No
BG3 Barrow Group - New Forest No
BG4 Barrow Group - Isle of Wight Yes
P1 Bournemouth Pleasure Gardens Yes
P2 Grade II* Registered Pylewell Park No
P3 Grade II* Registered Encombe Yes
P4 Grade II Registered Durlston Historic Landscape Yes
CA1 Lytchett Minster Conservation Area No
CA2 Kimmeridge Conservation Area No
CA3 Worth Matravers Conservation Area Yes
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 15
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Table 15.4 - Designated heritage assets assessed in the field
I.D. Asset Name Selected for detailed step 2 and step 3 assessment?
CA4 Swanage Conservation Area Yes
CA5 Christchurch CE Conservation Area No
CA6 Stanpit Conservation Area No
CA7 Mudeford Conservation Area Yes
CA8 Beach Road Conservation Area Yes
CA9 Canford Cliffs Conservation Area Yes
CA10 Sandbanks Conservation Area No
CA11 Evening Hill Conservation Area No
CA12 Poole Park Conservation Area No
CA13 Poole Quay Conservation Area No
CA14 Old Town, Poole Conservation Area No
CA15 Kings Saltern Conservation Area No
CA16 Lymington Conservation Area No
CA17 Mottistone Conservation Area Yes
CA18 Hulverstone Conservation Area Yes
CA19 Freshwater Bay Conservation Area Yes
CA20 Brook Conservation Area Yes
CA21 Brighstone Conservation Area No
CA22 Holdenhurst village Conservation Area No
CA23 Christchurch Hospital Conservation Area No
CA24 Avon Buildings Conservation Area No
CA25 Bramble Lane Conservation Area No
CA26 Verno Lane Conservation Area No
CA27 Haven Road Conservation Area No
CA28 Harbour Heights Conservation Area No
CA29 Holdenhurst East Conservation Area No
CA30 Holdenhurst West Conservation Area No
CA31 Talbot Village Conservation Area No
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 16 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Table 15.4 - Designated heritage assets assessed in the field
I.D. Asset Name Selected for detailed step 2 and step 3 assessment?
CA32 Wick Village Conservation Area No
CA33 West Overcliff Drive Conservation Area Yes
CA34 West Cliff and Poole Hill Conservation Area Yes
CA35 Undercliff Road Conservation Area Yes
CA36 Westbourne Conservation Area No
CA37 Old Christchurch Road Conservation Area No
CA38 Dean Park Conservation Area No
CA39 Southbourne Grove Conservation Area No
CA40 Boscombe Spa Conservation Area Yes
CA41 Throop & Muccleshell Village Conservation Area No
CA42 Boscombe Manor Conservation Area Yes
CA43 The East Cliff Conservation Area Yes
CA44 Hazelhurst Conservation Area No
CA45 Shorwell Conservation Area No
LB1 Grade I Listed St Aldhelm's Chapel Yes
LB2 Grade I Listed Godlingston Manor No
LB3 Grade I Listed Church Of St Clement No
LB4 Grade I Listed Highcliffe Castle No
LB5 Grade I Listed Hinton Admiral House No
LB6 Grade I Listed Wolverton Manor No
LB7 Grade II* Listed Newton Manor No
LB8 Grade II* Listed St Anne's Hospital Yes
LB9 Grade II* Listed House Of Bethany No
LB10 Grade II* Listed Hurn Court No
LB11 Grade II* Listed Greystones Yes
LB12 Grade II* Listed Burard-Neale Monument No
LB13 Grade II* Listed Efford House No
LB14 Grade II* Listed Newtown Park No
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 17
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Table 15.4 - Designated heritage assets assessed in the field
I.D. Asset Name Selected for detailed step 2 and step 3 assessment?
LB15 Grade II* Listed Fort Albert Yes
LB16 Grade II* Listed Chale Abbey No
LB17 Grade II* Listed West Court No
LB18 Grade II Listed Brownsea Castle Yes
LB19 Grade II Listed Clavell Tower Yes
LB20 Grade II Listed Coastfields No
LB21 Grade II Listed Haven Cottage No
LB22 Grade II Listed Hordle War Memorial No
LB23 Grade II Listed Hoy's Monument Yes
LB24 Grade II Listed Hurst Lighthouse Yes
LB25 Grade II Listed Lighthouse Keeper's Cottage At Hurst Lighthouse And Attached
Yard Wall
No
LB26 Grade II Listed Lighthouse Keeper's Quarters Yes
LB27 Grade II Listed Lymington Town Sailing Club Head Quarters No
LB28 Grade II Listed Monument On Afton Down Yes
LB29 Grade II Listed Neck Or Entrance Building At Boscombe Pier Yes
LB30 Grade II Listed Needles Lighthouse Yes
LB31 Grade II Listed New Needles Battery Yes
LB32 Grade II Listed Obelisk (At Southern End Where Road Forks) No
LB33 Grade II Listed Old Needles Battery Yes
LB34 Grade II Listed Quay Cottages Yes
LB35 Grade II Listed Smugglers No
LB36 Grade II Listed Smugglers Cottage No
LB37 Grade II Listed St Catherine's Lighthouse Yes
LB38 Grade II Listed Swanage Pier Yes
LB39 Grade II Listed Tennyson's Beacon Yes
LB40 Grade II Listed The Boat House Yes
LB41 Grade II Listed The Boat House No
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 18 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Table 15.4 - Designated heritage assets assessed in the field
I.D. Asset Name Selected for detailed step 2 and step 3 assessment?
LB42 Grade II Listed The Family Pier, 60 m East Of Brownsea Castle Yes
LB43 Grade II Listed The Lighthouse Residential Block, Link Building, Sheds (Now Used As Garage, Engine House For Lights And Stores) And Wall At Anvil Point
Yes
LB44 Grade II Listed The Obelisk On North Hill Yes
LB45 Grade II Listed The Old Lighthouse Yes
LB46 Grade II Listed The White House Hospital (Including Flanking Wings) Yes
LB47 Grade II Listed Tower Of St Catherine's Oratory Yes
LB48 Grade II Listed Wall To Terrace In Front Of Garden Facade Of Hinton Admiral House
No
LB49 Grade II Listed Warden Point Gun Emplacement No
LB50 Grade II Listed Brook House Yes
LB51 Grade II* Listed Chale Church Yes
LB1
P3 P4
LB39SM12
Turbine Area30 km Study AreaGrade I Listed BuildingGrade II* Listed BuildingGrade II Listed BuildingConservation AreaGrade II* Registered ParkGrade II Registered ParkScheduled MonumentNon-Designated Heritage AssetsZTVLower Needles Point BatterySt Aldhelm’s ChapelTennyson’s BeaconEncombeDurlston Historic Landscape
SM12
LB1
LB39
P3
P4
Heritage Assets Selectedfor Detailed
Settings Assessment
Navitus Bay Development Ltd
Legend
Scale@A3:
Ref. No.:
Data Sources:
Date: 19/03/2014
1:250,000
Coordinate System:
Datum:OSGB 1936
Fig. No.: Figure 15.1
Author: Checked: R S LG Approved: RPS
This map is the copyright of Navitus Bay Development Ltd. The accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information is not guaranteed or warranted in any way and Navitus Bay Development Ltd and its representatives disclaim liability of any kind whatsoever, including, without limitation, liability for quality, performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose arising out of the use, or inability to use the data.
Revision No.: 02
British National Grid
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2013. Contains, or is based upon, English Heritage’s National Heritage List for England data © English Heritage.
0 105 km
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000 450000100000
3898 CA
LDAEnglish HeritageOrdnance Survey
0 73.5 miles
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 20 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Non-designated heritage assets considered to require assessment were 15.4.12
identified, in part, by the LPA and the County Council advisors. Information
relating to locally listed buildings was provided by a number of the LPAs,
and these datasets were assessed as part of Step 1. A summary of the
methodology is provided below. This is provided in full within Volume B,
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets Appendix 15.1.
The heritage assets have been assessed in the following groups and these 15.4.13
are discussed in more detail below:
Scheduled Monuments;
Conservation Areas;
Listed Buildings;
Registered Parks and Gardens;
locally listed buildings;
other non-designated heritage assets.
i Scheduled monuments
Of the 124 Scheduled Monuments recorded within the 30 km study area 15.4.14
ZTV, 86 comprise individual barrows (prehistoric burial mounds) or barrow
cemeteries. As such, it was deemed necessary to refine these barrows and
barrow cemeteries into manageable larger groups for assessment. Four
broad larger ‘barrow groups’ were proposed, each one comprising a number
of barrows or barrow cemeteries that shared common aspects to their
setting (see Table 15.4). These groups were designed to facilitate the
assessment of the likely impact of the Turbine Area on the setting of the
individual assets. They were assessed as groups primarily because the
inter-visibility of the barrows within a group was often the most important
element of the setting of the individual assets. However, where an
individual barrow was deemed to comprise a particularly important aspect
of the local landscape (e.g. Ballard Down Barrows, SM7), it was assessed
separately.
All four of the barrow groups were assessed in the field (see Table 15.4, 15.4.15
BG1-BG4). Following field assessment, the River Stour and Avon barrow
group and the New Forest barrow group (for representative views see
Volume B, Chapter 13 SLV) were deemed not to include the Turbine Area as
part of their setting, due to screening by built form or vegetation. As such,
these barrows were considered to be of such a tolerance as to not require
Step 2 and Step 3 settings assessment. The Isle of Purbeck barrow group
and the Isle of Wight barrow group were considered to be less tolerant to
effects on their setting and hence of higher sensitivity and were included
within the Step 2 and Step 3 assessment (see Figure 15.1). This
assessment was supported by the Volume B, Chapter 13 SLV assessment
undertaken for the Project.
The remaining 38 Scheduled Monuments were divided into broad thematic 15.4.16
groups (i.e. prehistoric enclosures, fortifications, medieval agriculture and
settlement) and the designation descriptions reviewed. Where the
description indicated that the seascape contributes to the importance of the
asset, it was selected for field assessment. For example, St Catherine’s Hill
Camp is a prominent hill fort designed to command views over the
surrounding landscape (potentially including sea views) hence, this asset
was selected for field assessment. In contrast, the Royal Naval Cordite
Factory at Holton Heath was omitted from further assessment as it was only
partially located within the ZTV on the limit of the 30 km study area, and
the important elements of its setting relate to its relationship with Wareham
Channel.
From the remaining Scheduled Monuments, 15 were selected for field 15.4.17
assessment (see Table 15.4). Of these 15 Scheduled Monuments, seven
were of such sensitivity as to require Step 2 and Step 3 assessment, while
eight were considered to be of sufficient tolerance, due to screening by built
form or vegetation, as to not require further assessment. For example,
Moated site 100 m north-east of Wolverton Manor (Table 15.4, SM13) was
not selected for further assessment as the seascape was not clearly visible
from the moated site and it does not contribute to the importance of the
asset.
ii Conservation Areas
To gain an understanding of the existing setting of the 68 Conservation 15.4.18
Areas within the 30 km study area, the appraisal or description documents
(where these existed) produced by the eight local authorities were utilised.
Where sea views, a coastal setting, or views of Bournemouth Bay or the
Solent were specifically mentioned, the respective Conservation Area was
put forward for field assessment (including a site visit).
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 21
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
As a result of this exercise, 21 Conservation Areas (with appraisal 15.4.19
documents) were selected for field assessment. For example, Worth
Matravers Conservation Area was selected for field assessment as the
appraisal document discusses its landscape context at the head of a short
coomb overlooking the sea. Where no sea views or a relationship with the
coast were mentioned, the respective Conservation Areas was scoped out of
further assessment. For example, Langton Matravers Conservation Area was
omitted from further assessment as it is located on land that falls away to
the north (away from the coast) and there is no mention of sea views within
the appraisal document.
Where there was no appraisal document for a Conservation Area, the area 15.4.20
was automatically put forward for field assessment. Without an appraisal
document it was not possible to determine the Conservation Area’s
tolerance and, hence, sensitivity. A further 24 Conservation Areas were
selected for field assessment as a result of this process.
In total, 45 Conservation Areas were put forward for field assessment (see 15.4.21
Table 15.4). Following the field assessment 15 were deemed to be of such
sensitivity as to require Step 2 and Step 3 assessment, while 30 were
considered to be of sufficient tolerance as to require no further assessment,
either because they were not considered to include sea views towards the
Turbine Area or where they are screened by built form or vegetation. This
was determined following assessment of the heritage assets in accordance
with Step 1 to Step 3 of the English Heritage guidance. For example, the
seascape is not visible from Holdenhurst village Conservation Area (Table
15.4, CA22), and does not contribute to its importance. Therefore the
Conservation Area was not selected for further assessment.
iii Listed Buildings
There are 1,257 Listed Buildings identified within the study area. There 15.4.22
were 733 Listed Buildings located within Conservation Areas, and 15 Listed
Buildings within Registered Parks. If their setting was considered to equate
to the setting of the overarching Conservation Area or Registered Park they
were assessed as part of the respective encompassing asset. Where the
setting of the Listed Building was considered to extend beyond the setting
of the Conservation Area, or emphasise attributes that did not contribute to
the Conservation Area’s importance, the Listed Building was assessed
separately (although within the overall assessment for the Conservation
Area). In the majority of cases, the setting of the Listed Building is
considered to reflect that of the Conservation Area, although a small
number of Listed Buildings are considered to possess a distinct setting.
In total, 524 Listed Buildings not located within Conservation Areas or 15.4.23
Registered Parks are located within the 30 km study area ZTV. These were
initially reviewed to identify key words that may point to a particular
association with the seascape (for example ‘lighthouse’, ‘pier’, ‘harbour’,
‘quay’ etc.) or held prominent views across the study area (for example,
‘obelisk’, ‘manor’, ‘tower’, ‘court’, and ‘monument’). An assessment of the
Listing descriptions of the remaining Listed Buildings, along with an
assessment of their setting context (derived from Ordnance Survey
mapping and Satellite imagery) facilitated the scoping of the remaining
Listed Buildings. For example, the Grade II* Listed Church of St Michael and
All Angels was not selected for further assessment as it is surrounded by
dense vegetation with a key relationship with the adjacent River Avon, and
there are no sea views either towards, or from, the church.
Through this process a total of 51 Listed Buildings were selected for field 15.4.24
assessment (see Table 15.4, LB1-BB51). Following field assessment, 28
were considered to be of such sensitivity as to require a Step 2 and Step 3
settings assessment, due to the contribution the relationship with the
seascape makes to their overall importance. The remaining 23 were
considered to be of sufficient tolerance as to require no further assessment,
because the asset derived no importance from a relationship with the sea,
or due to screening by either built form or vegetation. For example, the
Grade I Listed Highcliffe (Table 15.4, LB4) was not considered to require
Step 2 and Step 3 assessment due to the density of surrounding vegetation,
and the orientation of views from the house, south-eastwards towards the
Isle of Wight (as opposed the Turbine Area). Although some incidental views
from the upper storeys of the building may include views towards the
Turbine Area, it was not considered that the nature of these was likely to
harm the cultural heritage importance of the asset.
iv Registered parks and gardens
Through the review of the designation descriptions provided on the NHLE 15.4.25
website, it was possible to determine in many instances whether the
seascape, or a relationship with the coast, was an important element of the
asset’s setting that contributes to its importance.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 22 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
In total, there are 12 Registered Parks and Gardens within the ZTV. 15.4.26
Four of the 12 Registered Parks included reference to sea views within their 15.4.27
designation descriptions. Of the remaining eight Registered Parks, Poole
Park was included separately as a Conservation Area (CA12), while the
remaining seven were scoped out of the assessment following consideration
of the ZTV or review of Ordnance Survey mapping and satellite imagery (for
instance Compton Acres and Poole Cemetery are located within densely
urban environments), or consideration of the designation descriptions (for
instance, the designation description for the Grade II* Registered Creech
Grange stated that the asset is located beneath the north-facing slope of
the Purbeck Hills with extensive views northwards across heathland).
In total, four of the Registered Parks were put forward for field assessment 15.4.28
(see Table 15.4). Three were considered to be of such sensitivity as to
require a Step 2 and Step 3 assessment, while the Grade II* Listed Pylewell
Park (P2) was considered to be sufficiently screened from the Turbine Area
(by vegetation within, and beyond, the park), as to not require further
assessment.
v Locally listed buildings
Following consultation with the LPAs, it was agreed that locally listed 15.4.29
buildings would be assessed as part of the settings assessment. Locally
listed building data was obtained from Bournemouth District Council, New
Forest National Park Council, and Poole Borough Council. Isle of Wight
Council provided information on two locally listed buildings. No database of
locally listed buildings exists for East Dorset, Christchurch, New Forest or
Purbeck District Councils.
The data relating to locally listed buildings, that was made available to the 15.4.30
project team, was assessed on an individual basis. The methodology
adopted was similar to that utilised to scope the designated Listed Buildings,
except there were no ‘listing descriptions’ to make use of. As such,
Ordnance Survey mapping, satellite imagery (in conjunction with the ZTV)
and Conservation Area Appraisals (where the locally Listed Building was
located within one) were primarily relied upon to determine whether the
Turbine Area potentially formed part of the setting of these assets.
In relation to locally listed buildings located within Conservation Areas, if 15.4.31
their setting was considered to equate to the setting of any overarching
Conservation Area or Registered Park, they were assessed as part of the
respective enclosing asset. These locally listed buildings were then assessed
on the basis of the scoping exercise relating to the respective Conservation
Area or Registered Park.
Seven locally listed buildings were selected for Step 2 and Step 3 settings
assessment. The remaining locally listed buildings were either located within
Conservation Areas (and thus already included) or were considered not to
include sea views towards the Turbine Area as part of their setting, and
therefore were not selected for further assessment.
vi Other non-designated heritage assets
Information relating to non-designated heritage assets was provided by Isle 15.4.32
of Wight Council. No non-designated heritage assets were identified by
Dorset or Hampshire County Councils (or the respective Local Planning
Authorities). Three non-designated heritage assets were proposed for Step
2 and Step 3 assessment by Isle of Wight Council, comprising Hanover
Point: Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeological remains, Sudmoor: Iron Age
and Roman occupation evidence and Barnes High: Bronze Age urn cemetery
and Roman occupation evidence.
15.5 Impact Assessment
a) Realistic Worst Case Scenario
In relation to the setting of heritage assets, the Realistic Worst Case 15.5.1
Scenario is considered to comprise the 8 MW development option (see also
Volume B, Chapter 13 SLV). The 8 MW option comprises a maximum of 121
turbines, with a maximum tip height of 200 m. This produces the largest
ZTV, and would be most prominent when viewed from the coastline. Table
15.5 outlines the Realistic Worst Case Scenario for potential effects
identified for the setting of heritage assets.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 23
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Table 15.5 - Realistic worst case scenario for setting of heritage assets
Potential effect Realistic Worst Case Scenario Rationale
Construction
Changes within the setting of heritage assets that
adversely affect (or in terms adopted by the NPPF, ‘harm’) the importance (or significance) of the heritage
asset and their ability to be appreciated.
Maximum of 194 x 5 MW turbines, with a maximum tip height of 177
m, 3 x Offshore Substation Platforms (OSPs) and 1 x Met mast.
Greatest amount of construction activity, and
associated vessel movements anticipated. This is considered to represent the ‘Realistic Worst Case
Scenario’ as it would be most prominent when viewed from the coastline. However, this is not
considered to be of a size and scale likely to affect the appreciation of heritage assets onshore. As
such, potential effects during construction have been scoped out.
Night time changes within the setting of heritage
assets that adversely affect the importance (or
significance) of the heritage asset and their ability to be appreciated.
Operation and Maintenance
Changes within the setting of heritage assets that
adversely affect (or in terms adopted by the NPPF, ‘harm’) the importance (or significance) of the heritage
asset and their ability to be appreciated.
Maximum of 121 x 8 MW turbines, with a maximum tip height of 200
m, 3 x Offshore Substations (OSPs) and 1 x met mast.
This is considered to represent the ‘Realistic
Worst Case Scenario’ as it produces the largest ZTV and would be most prominent when viewed
from the coastline.
Night time changes within the setting of heritage
assets that adversely affect the importance (or significance) of the heritage asset and its ability to be
appreciated.
Maximum of 194 x 5 MW turbines, with a maximum layout of 177 m
blade tip height. 3 x Offshore Substations (OSPs) and 1 x met mast.
A greater number of turbines would require
greater numbers of required navigation, aviation and operational lighting, which would result in
greater visibility at night time.
Decommissioning
The decommissioning phase of the Turbine Area would not result in any additional adverse effects upon the
setting of heritage assets.
Removal of all structures above the seabed including turbines (foundation, towers and nacelle), OSP (foundations and super
structure) and met mast (foundation and tower).
During the decommissioning phase the existing magnitude of effect (resulting from the O&M of
the Turbine Area) would decrease, and would be completely removed at decommissioning
completion.
A full decommissioning programme would be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of
State at least four months prior to carrying out any decommissioning works. At present,
decommissioning assumes removal of all structures above the sea bed.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 24 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
i Construction
The potential for any magnitude of effect, with respect to the setting of 15.5.2
heritage assets, would not reach its greatest extent until the construction
phase of the Turbine Area is complete. Construction impacts are temporary
in duration, and are not considered to be of a size and scale likely to affect
the appreciation of heritage assets onshore. The impact of construction
activities are therefore not considered in the following assessment.
ii Operation and maintenance
The potential for any magnitude of effect would be at its greatest during the 15.5.3
O&M phase of the Turbine Area. It is during the 25 year operational lifespan
of the Project that any alterations to the setting of heritage assets
considered as part of this assessment would be at their most perceptible.
Potential night time effects are also considered to be at their greatest extent
during the O&M phase of the Turbine Area.
iii Decommissioning
The decommissioning phase of the Turbine Area would not result in any 15.5.4
additional adverse effects upon the setting of sensitive terrestrial heritage
assets. Any alterations to the setting of heritage assets, including the
presence of jack up vessels and heavy lift barges within the seascape,
would be temporary and are not considered likely to affect the appreciation
of heritage assets. During the decommissioning phase any magnitude of
effect would decrease, and would be completely removed at the completion
of this phase with the anticipated removal of all structures above the
seabed.
b) Settings assessment
The assessment has been undertaken in relation to the O&M phase of the 15.5.5
Turbine Area, during which the potential for magnitude of effect would be at
its greatest.
The tolerance and importance (components of sensitivity) of the heritage 15.5.6
assets assessed are considered within Step 2 and Step 3 of the assessment
process. The importance of the heritage asset is discussed in terms of the
values identified within Conservation Principles (English Heritage, 2008).
The magnitude of effect (comprising extent and duration) is considered
within Step 3 of the assessment process. The extent of the effect is
considered in relation to which, if any, of the values of the heritage asset
(identified in Step 2) would be affected by the Turbine Area.
There are five assets considered to be most sensitive to the Turbine Area. 15.5.7
These were identified following the completion of Step 1 to Step 3 of the
setting assessment methodology and these are discussed in detail within
the following impact assessment. The remaining 59 heritage assets were
considered to have a higher degree of tolerance to the Turbine Area, which
was determined through consideration of the extent of the effect, combined
with an understanding of their importance. A full assessment of all 59
heritage assets is provided within Volume B, Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage
Assets Appendix 15.1.
These five assets (along with the remaining 59 heritage assets) are depicted 15.5.8
on Figure 15.1, and comprise:
Lower Needles Point Battery Scheduled Monument: extensive field of
fire and intentional views across the English Channel, the mouth of the
Solent, and Bournemouth Bay;
Grade I Listed St Aldhelm’s Chapel: remote headland setting with
extensive views of the English Channel that contribute to a sense of
‘wildness’;
Grade II Listed Tennyson’s Beacon: Remote cliff-top setting with
extensive seascape backdrop to the appreciation of monument;
Grade II* Registered Encombe: Designed views within the parkland
that make specific reference to the English Channel;
Grade II Registered Durlston Historic Landscape: Designed Victorian
landscape with strong association with the seascape.
i Lower Needles Point Battery
Step 1
Lower Needles Point Battery Scheduled Monument (which incorporates the 15.5.9
Grade II Listed Old Needles Battery) is located 17.6 km north-east of the
Turbine Area. It is situated on the cliff top at Needles Point, the
westernmost part of the Isle of Wight, at the terminus of the West Wight
Chalk Downland. It is one of the Palmerston Forts, a group of fortifications
built in the 1860s to combat the perceived threat of French invasion. In this
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 25
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
region, the forts were designed to protect the approaches to the Solent,
Southampton and Portsmouth. The Lower Needles Point Battery was
originally designed to prevent any potential French invasion force landing at
Alum Bay to the north, but was later enhanced to protect the Needles
Passage to the north (Cantwell and Sprack, 1986).
The original Battery was closed in the 1890s, as the Battery was too small 15.5.10
for modern guns, and their concussion was considered a threat to the
stability of the cliff (Cantwell and Sprack, 1986). However, the structure
and surroundings were used for defence up to and during World War II. The
Lower Needles Point Battery is constructed of cement, brick and flint, and
consists of a landward (east-facing) wall approached by a bridge across a
neck ditch, the parade ground of the Battery to the west with six gun
emplacements (Figure 15.2), a laboratory, guard rooms and stores, an
armoured searchlight emplacement, a fire command post, World War II
anti-aircraft emplacements and a cannon on the western edge of the cliffs.
There is a set of four further gun emplacements at the base of the cliff to
the north of the Battery, linked to the main Battery by a lift. A number of
other buildings which originally formed part of the old Battery no longer
survive.
The setting is formed by the fort walls to the east and south, partially 15.5.11
enclosing the parade ground in the centre. Sheer cliffs drop away to the
north and south. The main batteries are located on the north side of the
parade ground, with World War II buildings and emplacements to the west.
An earth embankment abuts the eastern Battery wall and beyond this is a
deep square-cut neck ditch which separates the Battery from the headland
to the east. The setting of the Battery is dominated by the parade ground
which forms the focus for the Battery structures, and the World War II
structures on the western side.
The Battery was designed with a strong northerly and westerly aspect, 15.5.12
facing across the entrance of the Solent (Figure 15.4). The observation of
the approach to the western entrance of the Solent and maintenance of a
field of fire that extended northwards across the mouth of the Solent was
the primary function of the Battery (there are no extant gun emplacements
facing to the south or south-west). Several searchlight stations were also
located within the Battery, but these predominantly face north also, and
were used in conjunction with the artillery. The original 19th -century
Battery was equipped with Rifled Muzzle Loading Armstrong guns with a
maximum range of 1.8 km. This created a field of fire that extended across
Alum Bay into the entrance of the Solent.
Figure 15.2 - View west from Lower Needles Point Battery
The Lower Needles Point Battery played an important role in the 15.5.13
development of searchlights during the 1880's, and the Needles Passage
was used for their trials. A new armoured searchlight emplacement was
built between 1898 and 1899 at the most westerly point of the Battery, and
this was used by an observer to control the minefields defending the
Needles Passage. A spiral staircase in the parade ground leads to the brick
tunnel to this lower emplacement (Figure 15.2). In 1908, a fire command
post was built in front of the gun positions at the western end of the
Battery. From here, all the guns defending Needles Passage could be
directed in daylight, and this position was subsequently used to control fire
in both World Wars. Britain’s first anti-aircraft gun was tested on the
Battery parade ground in 1913, and during World War II, the Battery was
augmented with anti-aircraft emplacements (including a cannon on the
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 26 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
western edge of the cliffs to prevent low-level air attacks on Needles Point
Lighthouse). The Battery was abandoned soon after World War II, although
the headland saw service again in 1956 for the development of rocket
research.
Figure 15.3 - View south-west from Lower Needles Point Battery
Wider views are possible from the battery from the headland to the west, 15.5.14
sloping down to the sea with the chalk stacks of the Needles beyond. The
Needles Lighthouse (LB30) is visually prominent at the western end of the
Needles, 570 m to the west (Figure 15.2 and Figure 15.3). Approximately
290 m to the east, a coastguard lookout on the southern side of the New
Needles Battery (LB31) can be seen silhouetted against the skyline above
visually striking chalk cliffs. The sea to the north, south and west forms part
of the extended setting, as do views of Alum Bay to the north-east and the
mainland 6 km to the north, including Hurst Castle (SM11), sweeping
around to the north-west towards Bournemouth Bay.
The sensitivity of this asset is considered to be of highest importance. 15.5.15
Step 2
The asset derives its importance from its historical and aesthetic value, and 15.5.16
its setting enhances the ability to appreciate these values. Its position at
the western end of Lower Needles Point, with chalk cliffs to the north and
south, surrounded by the sea on three sides, provides a striking setting for
the asset, and contributes to its aesthetic value. The green space to the
east and the surrounding sea create a sense of isolation and exposure,
while the importance of the asset is enhanced by the illustrative historical
value of the surviving relationships between the various World War II
buildings and modifications at the Battery, enabling the historic and
functional context of the asset as a coastal Battery to be better understood.
The aesthetic value of the impressive views of the surrounding seascape 15.5.17
make a large contribution to the asset’s importance, because they enable
the asset’s original function as a coastal defence Battery to be understood.
These views, however, are considered to have a high tolerance for change.
The main focus of the Battery is to the north (Figure 15.4), with views of
the Solent and Hurst Castle (SM11) and Lighthouse (LB24) 5.1 km to the
north-east. This illustrative historical value of the visual link with Hurst
Castle, also a 19th century coastal defence feature, makes a large
contribution to the asset’s importance as it illustrates its historic and
functional context as an element of the wider defensive network of this part
of the south coast.
The asset also has strong visual and historic links with Needles Point 15.5.18
Lighthouse (LB30) 570 m to the west (Figure 15.3). The aesthetic value of
the view of the Needles chalk stacks and the visually striking red and white-
striped lighthouse forms an important aspect of the asset’s surround, whilst
a cannon emplacement added to the Battery during World War II to protect
the lighthouse from air attack provides a further important association with
the Needles. This relationship is considered to have a limited tolerance to
certain types of change.
The aesthetic value of views towards Christchurch and Bournemouth to the 15.5.19
north-west and Purbeck to the far west (23.4 km) contribute to the asset’s
importance by providing a visually impressive seascape backdrop whilst also
forming part of the primary field of fire observed by the Battery. The view of
the English Channel to the south also contributes for this reason. Views
across the Battery’s field of fire also contribute to the illustrative historical
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 27
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
value of the asset, and are considered to have a limited tolerance to certain
types of change.
The asset can also be appreciated from the path which approaches it from 15.5.20
the east, from the chalk downland of Lower Needles Point to the east, and
from New Needles Battery (LB31). From these vantage points, the exposed
nature of the asset is appreciable. The asset can also be appreciated from
the surrounding seascape, particularly within the area around the Needles
which is a protected wreck site (NHLE no: 1000087).
Figure 15.4 - View north-east from Lower Needles Point Battery
The asset has a strong associative relationship with the other Palmerston 15.5.21
Forts on the Isle of Wight, including Fort Albert (LB15) 5.2 km to the north.
The Battery also has an association with important historic military events,
including the development of searchlights in the 1880’s and the testing of
Britain’s First anti-aircraft gun on the parade ground in 1913. The
associative historical value of these associations makes a positive
contribution to the asset’s importance.
In summary, the setting of the Battery is considered to contribute to its 15.5.22
importance through the aesthetic value of its exposed cliff-top siting and the
appreciation of the extensive sea views it commands (particularly to the
north and west), an appreciation of the illustrative historical value of its
relationship with the New Needles Battery (LB31), Needles Lighthouse
(LB30), and Hurst Castle (SM11), and the aesthetic value of its appreciation
from the chalk downlands to the east.
Step 3
The Turbine Area would be located 17.6 km south-west of the asset, and 15.5.23
would be visible within the distant sea views to the south-west, where the
proposed turbines would feature close to the horizon (see Volume B,
Chapter 13 SLV). Analysis of viewpoints developed for the Project
demonstrate that the Turbine Area would not prevent an appreciation of the
sea views and would have a degree of visual permeability that would not
appreciably obstruct sea views towards the horizon (refer to Volume B,
Chapter 13 SLV).
The historical value of the relationship between the Battery and the later 15.5.24
military buildings which altogether comprise Lower Needles Point Scheduled
Monument would not be affected by the Turbine Area (Figure 15.2), nor
would its relationship with New Needles Battery 260 m to the east (LB31)
(Volume B, Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets Appendix 15.1). The
aesthetic value of the strong northerly aspect of the Battery would not be
altered (Figure 15.4) and the windswept headland context would remain
unchanged. The views towards the coastline surrounding Bournemouth Bay
(including Purbeck, Bournemouth, Keyhaven to the north and Alum Bay on
the Isle of Wight to the north-east) would not be altered, nor would the
majority of the views of the surrounding seascape. Importantly, the
aesthetic (design) value the field of fire of the Battery (which originally
extended for no more than 2 km) would not be affected by the Turbine Area
and its appreciation from the seascape would not be altered. Furthermore,
the asset’s historic associations with other Palmerston Forts such as Fort
Albert (LB15) 5.2 km to the north would not be altered, nor would the
associative historical importance of its parade ground.
The visual link with Hurst Castle (SM11) and Lighthouse (LB24) 5.1 km to 15.5.25
the north-east would not be altered by the Turbine Area, although the
turbines may be visible on the periphery of views when appreciating Lower
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 28 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Needles Point Battery from Hurst Castle. Furthermore, the visual and
historic links with Needles Lighthouse (LB30) 570 m to the west would not
be altered (Figure 15.3). The aesthetic value of the appreciation of the asset
from the downland and paths to the east and from New Needles Battery
(LB31) would not be affected by the Turbine Area.
Overall, the Battery has been primarily designed to command views of the 15.5.26
sea to the north, west and south, and the Turbine Area would not affect this
element of its setting, nor would it affect the strong northerly aspect of the
Battery gun emplacements. The historical and aesthetic value of the
Battery’s visual and historic relationships with associated assets would not
be altered and the appreciation of the Battery from the chalk downlands to
the east would remain unchanged. Very distant sea views to the south-west
would be altered, but an appreciation of the aesthetic value of the extensive
seascape would not be prevented. The introduction of a new built form into
the distant seascape to the south-west of Lower Needles Point Battery
would not harm the contribution, or experience, of the historical and
aesthetic values that contribute to its importance.
The asset is considered to be of highest sensitivity. The Project would not 15.5.27
result in any harm to the overall importance of the asset and therefore the
potential impact of the Turbine Area on the Lower Needles Point Battery is
considered Not Significant.
ii St Aldhelm's Chapel
Step 1
The Grade I Listed St Aldhelm’s Chapel is located 19 km to the west-north-15.5.28
west of the Turbine Area. This square-plan Chapel of ease is constructed
from rubble stone and dates to the 12th century, and was subsequently used
as a sea marker following the Dissolution. The single storey Chapel is
surmounted by a pyramidal stone slate roof, and has a single lancet window
at its eastern end. It is possible that the building comprises a vaulted
undercroft for a projected (but uncompleted) tower structure.
The asset is located within an early medieval enclosure (SM1), and is 15.5.29
situated upon the crest of St Aldhelm’s Head, commanding extensive
panoramic views of the sea (Figure 15.5). The earthwork (SM1) surrounding
the Chapel is not a prominent feature and is best appreciated in proximity.
As such, it primarily forms part of the intimate setting of the Chapel. The
setting of the asset also comprises surrounding agricultural land, a modern
20th century coastguard lookout to the south, and a number of former 19th
century coastguard cottages to the north-west.
Figure 15.5 - View south-east from St Aldhelm’s Chapel
Views inland also form part of the setting of the asset. Worth Matravers 15.5.30
Conservation Area (CA3) to the north can be seen from the asset and Swyre
Head (part of Encombe Park [P3]) is visible to the west. The barrow on
Emmett’s Hill (SM5) is visible to the north-west against the backdrop of
Encombe Park. Anvil Point Lighthouse (LB43) is visible along the coast to
the east from the eastern elevation of the Chapel, while Clavell Tower
(LB19) can also be seen in the distance to the west. From within the
Chapel, the sole narrow window provides a restricted view of the sea to the
south-east, while views from the entrance way extend westwards towards
the coastguard cottages and the coastline beyond.
The sensitivity of this asset is considered to be of highest importance. 15.5.31
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 29
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Step 2
The importance of the asset is derived from its evidential (archaeological), 15.5.32
aesthetic, illustrative historical and communal value, and an appreciation of
these values through its setting. The surrounding earthwork enclosure
(SM1) is an important element of the asset’s setting, associating it with
early medieval activity on the headland. The illustrative historical value of
this relationship makes a strong contribution to the importance of the asset.
The panoramic views from the crest of St Aldhelm’s are likely to have been 15.5.33
a significant factor in the original setting of the Chapel (Figure 15.5).
Furthermore, the extensive sea views to the south led to the asset’s use as
a sea marker and the aesthetic value of these views contributes to its
importance. The modern coastguard lookout is visible to the south of the
asset, although it does not appreciably detract from these panoramic views,
or alter the contribution the views make to the asset’s aesthetic value.
These views are considered to have the potential for a limited tolerance to
certain types of change.
Due to the asset’s prominent position on the crest of St Aldhelm’s Head, it 15.5.34
forms a highly visible feature forming a well-known local landmark. The
asset is primarily appreciated from the footpath leading to the Chapel from
the north, but it is widely visible from the coastline to the east and west,
from the Isle of Purbeck to the north and the English Channel to the south.
This wider appreciation of the aesthetic value of the asset contributes to its
importance. The sense of isolation and remoteness the setting affords to the
Chapel also contributes to the spiritual communal value of the asset and is
considered to have the potential for a limited tolerance to certain types of
change.
The Chapel is primarily approached from the public footpath to the north, 15.5.35
from which it is outlined against the skyline creating a prominent local
landmark (Figure 15.6). However, the flanking coastguard station and, to a
lesser extent, the cottages challenge the prominence of the Chapel as well
as its sense of isolation and remoteness. Closer to the Chapel the public
footpath curves to the south-west so that the main approach to the Chapel
is from the north-west (facing the entrance to the Chapel). This provides a
view of the Chapel against an extensive backdrop of sky and sea to the
south and south-east, and the appreciation of the aesthetic value of the
Chapel from this vantage point contributes greatly to its importance. The
asset can also be appreciated from the coastal footpath that passes to the
south, west and north-west, from which it is viewed against a backdrop of
the sea to the east. This appreciation of the Chapel’s aesthetic value also
contributes to its overall importance, as well as emphasising the spiritual
communal value of its sense of isolation.
Figure 15.6 - View south-east towards St Aldhelm’s Chapel
Internally, the chapel has a strong sense of seclusion and intimacy (Figure 15.5.36
15.7). The structure only has a single fenestration, in the east-facing wall
above the altar. This lancet window is of stained glass, and its opaque form
largely prevents an appreciation of views through the window to the east.
The entrance is orientated to the west, and together with the lancet
window, serves as the only sources of light into the chapel. This creates a
rather intimate atmosphere within the chapel that contrasts starkly with the
open expanses of the headland and seascape visible from the building’s
exterior.
Overall, the expansive and open setting of St Aldhelm’s Chapel contributes 15.5.37
to its importance by emphasising the aesthetic value of its local prominence
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 30 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
when appreciated from the coastal footpath and trackway to the north, as
well as emphasising its spiritual communal value derived from its sense of
isolation. The importance of the Chapel is also derived from the associative
historical value of its relationship with the surrounding early medieval
enclosure (SM1), as well as the evidential value of the building itself.
Step 3
The Turbine Area would be located 19 km to the south-east of the asset, 15.5.38
extending to 23 km east of the asset. The English Channel forms an
extensive, uninterrupted horizon for approximately 180º from the east to
the west of the asset. The Turbine Area would alter part of this vista,
namely the views to the east and south-east (Figure 15.5) (see Volume B,
Chapter 13 SLV), across fishing areas and commercial shipping lanes
defined by the Historic Seascape Characterisation (Maritime Archaeology,
2011).
Figure 15.7 - The lancet window in the eastern elevation of St Aldhelm’s Chapel
The turbines would feature close to the horizon within these views, although 15.5.39
it would not obscure sea views towards the horizon. Furthermore, the sea
views to the south (beyond the existing coastguard lookout) and west
(beyond the coastguard cottages) would not be affected, and it is only the
views to the east and south-east from the asset that would be altered.
Although the turbines would be visible, distant views would still be possible
and the open and expansive setting of the asset would not be altered.
The Turbine Area would feature in the backdrop of views of the asset from 15.5.40
the coastal footpath to the west and north-west, but given the distances
involved, would not be especially prominent. An appreciation of the asset
from the footpath further to the north would not be affected, as the Chapel
is viewed against a backdrop of the southern skyline. The appreciation of
the asset from the sea would also not be altered. As such, an appreciation
of the spiritual value of the asset, derived from its sense of isolation, would
not be harmed. Furthermore, the sense of remoteness, which is primarily
derived from the distance between the asset and local settlements, would
not be harmed by the Project.
The Turbine Area would be visible within the seascape backdrop when 15.5.41
viewing the Chapel’s western elevation (including its entranceway) from the
track immediately to its west (Figure 15.6). As such, the Turbine Area would
be visible when viewing the primary elevation of the Chapel, but it would
not harm the aesthetic value derived from the local prominence of the
building or its seascape setting. The Turbine Area would not be visible from
the interior of the chapel (Figure 15.7). The lancet window is stained and
prevents any clear appreciation of the surrounding land and seascape, while
the narrow form of the window provides only a limited field of vision that is
not directly aligned upon the Turbine Area. Furthermore, the window is
recessed into the eastern elevation and is not easily accessible.
The Turbine Area would not harm the associative historical value of the 15.5.42
Chapel’s relationship with the surrounding early medieval enclosure (SM1)
or the evidential value of the Chapel itself.
Overall, the Chapel possesses a strong sense of isolation when viewed from 15.5.43
the surrounding landscape and from the sea, the spiritual communal and
aesthetic value of which contributes greatly to the importance of the asset.
The sense of isolation would not be challenged by the Turbine Area, and its
contribution to the importance of the Chapel would not be harmed. The
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 31
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Turbine Area would be visible in some views towards the Chapel, but is not
considered to harm the appreciation of its aesthetic or communal value.
Furthermore, the appreciation of the aesthetic value of the sea views from
the asset is not considered to be harmed by the Turbine Area. As such, the
alteration to part of the setting of the asset would not harm the appreciation
of its aesthetic or communal value, and the Turbine Area is therefore not
considered to result in any harm to its overall importance.
The asset is considered to be of highest sensitivity. The Project would not 15.5.44
result in any harm to the overall importance of the asset and therefore the
potential impact of the Turbine Area on the Grade I Listed St Aldhelm’s
Chapel is considered Not Significant.
iii Tennyson's Beacon
Step 1
The Grade II Listed Tennyson’s Beacon is located 19.3 km north-east of the 15.5.45
Turbine Area. It comprises a large granite Celtic stone cross with incised
decoration, standing on a moulded plinth surrounded by iron railings,
situated on Tennyson Down near Needles Point at the western tip of the Isle
of Wight, 1 km south of the town of Freshwater. It was erected to serve as
a shipping Beacon in memory of Lord Alfred Tennyson (an inscription on the
monument reads ‘A Beacon to Sailors’), who died in 1892. The monument is
located on the highest point of one of the regular walks from his house at
Farringford, Freshwater, and is a late work by J L Pearson constructed by
Farmer and Brindley (Lloyd and Pevsner, 2006).
The setting is formed by the surrounding grassy common land and the cliff 15.5.46
top to the south. The Common extending to the north-east and south-west
and the English Channel to the south (Figure 15.7) and east, the coastline
of the Isle of Wight, and inland views of the Isle of Wight towards
Freshwater and the mainland 6.1 km to the north also form part of its
setting. The beacon is currently maintained by Trinity House and used as a
seamarker (Brinton, 2006).
The sensitivity of this asset is considered to be of highest importance. 15.5.47
Step 2
The importance of the asset is primarily derived from its associative 15.5.48
historical and aesthetic value, and its setting enhances the appreciation of
these values. The isolated cliff-top location enhances the experience of the
monument, and clearly exhibits the monuments strong association with the
sea. The surrounding Tennyson Down (named after the poet) also provides
views of the asset which enhance its aesthetic value and contribute
positively to its importance. An appreciation of the spiritual communal value
of the relatively ‘wild’ surrounding Downs, with few obvious signs of modern
life, also contributes to the importance of the asset. This attribute of the
Listed Building’s setting is considered to have a limited tolerance to certain
types of change.
Figure 15.8 - View south-west from Tennyson’s Beacon
The asset is widely visible from the Isle of Wight to the north and east, 15.5.49
which emphasises its function as a visual marker. The stunning panoramic
views from the asset take in the Isle of Wight to the east, west and north,
the Solent and the distant mainland to the north and great swathes of the
English Channel to the south. When approached through the woodland
covering the northern slope of the ridgeline, the monument is dramatically
revealed (silhouetted against the skyline) upon exiting the tree cover which
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 32 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
emphasises the aesthetic value of the monument. This view is considered to
have the potential for a limited tolerance to certain types of change. This
experience of the asset is only appreciable during daylight hours.
The cultural association with the Victorian poet, Lord Alfred Tennyson, 15.5.50
provides the asset with associative historical value that greatly contributes
to its importance and no doubt draws visitors to this location. Tennyson,
who had spent his winters in Farringford House from the 1850s and was
made Baron Tennyson of Freshwater in 1884, once said that the air on High
Down (now Tennyson Down) was worth “sixpence a pint” (Isle of Wight
County Archaeology and Historic Environment Service, 2008: 10). From the
town of Freshwater, located approximately 1 km to the east of the
monument, the granite cross is clearly visible along the coastline. This
appreciation of the asset from along the coastline strongly contributes to its
aesthetic and associative historical value. This appreciation is only relevant
during daylight hours.
Overall, the setting of Tennyson’s Beacon contributes to its importance by 15.5.51
emphasising the associative historical value of the asset’s link to Lord
Tennyson, as well as by enhancing the ability to appreciate the aesthetic
value of the panoramic views from the monument, the local prominence of
the monument and the dramatic ‘reveal’ when approached from the north.
Step 3
The Turbine Area would be located 19.3 km south-west of the asset, and 15.5.52
would be distantly visible within the sea views to the south-west as an
extensive but distant array of turbines towards the horizon. As such, the
turbines may be visible in the distant background when appreciating the
asset from the Common immediately to the north-east (Figure 15.8), but
would not form an imposing element of the setting, and the Turbine Area
would not appreciably obstruct sea views towards the horizon (see Volume
B, Chapter 13 SLV). As such, the local dominance of the Beacon would not
be challenged, and the Turbine Area is not considered to harm the aesthetic
value derived from the local dominance of the asset.
The dramatic ‘reveal’ of the Beacon, when approached from the footpath to 15.5.53
the north, would not be altered by the Turbine Area. Views from the Beacon
to the south-west would be altered, but the ability to appreciate the
panoramic views from the asset would not be altered. Appreciation of the
asset from Tennyson Down to the north, south and south-west would not be
affected, nor would appreciation of the asset from the interior of the Isle of
Wight to the north and east.
Although the Turbine Area would be distantly visible close to the maritime 15.5.54
horizon, the unenclosed sense of ‘wildness’ when on the Common in the
vicinity of the Beacon, would not be challenged. The wider, ‘wild’ and
‘untamed’ seascape would be altered, but only on the periphery of the
perceptible seascape, and not in a way that would affect heritage
importance. As such, the spiritual communal value derived from the
surrounding Downs and seascape would not be harmed.
At night, views from Tennyson’s Beacon at the proposed wind farm would 15.5.55
appear as a distant group of distinct points of light (see Volume B, Chapter
13 SLV). These would not be sufficient in terms of number, scale, or mass
so as to harm the appreciation of the extensive night-time seascape. The
light levels would not be of such intensity as to illuminate the turbine shafts
or nacelles, and would not illuminate the surrounding seascape. As such,
the distant visibility of pin points of light is not considered to harm the
appreciation of Tennyson’s Beacon, which is primarily appreciated during
daylight hours, when the surrounding cliff-top landscape and its relationship
with the seascape can be appreciated. As such, the visibility of the Project
at night is not considered to harm the important elements of the asset’s
setting (in contrast to the findings of the SLVIA viewpoint analysis).
Overall, the Beacon was primarily designed to serve as a prominent 15.5.56
landscape feature on the cliff top overlooking the English Channel, and the
Turbine Area would not harm the appreciation of its aesthetic value. Very
distant sea views would be altered, but an appreciation of panoramic views
from the Beacon would not be prevented. As such, the associative historical
value and communal spiritual value of the asset would not be harmed. The
alteration within the setting of Tennyson’s Beacon would not harm the
ability to appreciate these values. The Project is not considered to harm the
important elements of the asset’s setting (in contrast to the findings of the
SLVIA viewpoint analysis).
The asset is considered to be of highest sensitivity. The Project would not 15.5.57
result in any harm to the overall importance of the asset and therefore the
potential impact of the Turbine Area on the Grade II Listed Tennyson’s
Beacon is considered Not Significant.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 33
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
iv Encombe
Step 1
Encombe is a large (337 ha) Grade II* Registered Park associated with the 15.5.58
Grade II* Listed Encombe House (NHLE no: 1230202), on the southern
coast of the Isle of Purbeck. The Park is located approximately 20.3 km to
the north-west of the Turbine Area, and is largely (including the Grade II*
Listed Encombe House) located outside the ZTV. Only the western part of
the Park, which extends onto the high ground of Swyre Head, and a small
part of the north-eastern area of asset close to Kingston (including the
Grade II Listed Lodge and gates) lie within the ZTV. The southern boundary
of the Park lies within the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site.
Encombe Park comprises an 18th century park, established in the 1770s 15.5.59
under the Pitts with an extensive circuit of carriage rides and pleasure
grounds allowing a succession of views and incidents, including a cascade
on the coast at the southern boundary of the Park, a picturesque grotto,
and a lake south of the house. Many of the ornamental features within the
grounds are the work of George Repton, who was commissioned to make
improvements to the estate village, Kingston, and to the grounds at
Encombe.
In addition to Encombe House, the Park contains ten Grade II Listed 15.5.60
Buildings and a single Scheduled Monument (Swyre Head Barrow, NHLE no:
1017271). These Grade II Listed Buildings comprise the gates and
associated Lodge to the Park, a large Obelisk, an ornate temple building,
the Grotto or Rock Bridge, the stables and attached cottages, a cottage
immediately south of the stable block, the walls of the garden immediately
west of the stables, and the house and stable at Encombe Dairy in the south
of the Park.
The 337 hectare Park is adjoined to the north, east, and west by agricultural 15.5.61
land, and by the coast to the south. The Park comprises a natural ‘bowl’
(Figure 15.9) with ridges of high ground encircling it to the north and north-
west at Swyre Head, and to the east at Westhill (150 m AOD). The high
ground sweeps round the north and north-west sides of the Park to reach
Swyre Head, 850 m south-west of the House. Within the natural ‘bowl’, the
landscape is undulating, with high ground to the north (203 m AOD)
dropping away southwards to the sea (20 m AOD at the cascade on the
southern boundary of the Park). To the north-east the Park adjoins the
estate village of Kingston, while to the west Encombe is contiguous with the
Smedmore Estate which had been the subject of landscape improvement by
its owner, George Clavell, in the mid-18thcentury.
Figure 15.9 - View south-east from Swyre Head
The main approach into the Park is from the B3069, Kingston Hill, to the 15.5.62
north-east. The entrance is marked by a pair of Grade II Listed mid-19th
Century stone piers under stepped caps flanked by low stone quadrant walls
(NHLE no: 1120228), and the Grade II Listed Lynch Lodge (NHLE no:
1230450), a single storey Gothic style stone structure built in 1864. Parts of
the north and west boundaries of the Park are enclosed by belts of
woodland, The Belt and Polar Wood, which connect Quarry Wood north-east
of the House with Swyre Wood to the south-west. The remainder of the Park
boundary to the east and west is formed by stone walls and fenced field
boundaries, while the southern boundary is formed by the cliffs overlooking
the English Channel (Figure 15.10).
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 34 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
The main focal point of the Park, located centrally within it, is the Grade II* 15.5.63
Listed Encombe House. It is a long, low structure which stands towards the
centre of the Park at the head of a valley falling away towards the coast to
the south. The House comprises two storeys and an attic, and is constructed
in Purbeck ashlar (Pevsner, 1972: 200) under hipped slate roofs. The south
façade was originally the garden facade but was reconstructed in 1871 as
the entrance front. It has a recessed central section flanked by projecting
wings and a strong southerly aspect, overlooking the informal pleasure
grounds that are situated principally to the south of the House, with a
further area of informal shrubbery and pleasure ground to the north.
A stream flows through a valley in the central part of the Park which 15.5.64
extends south from the House to the coast, while a cone shaped hill, the
Golden Bowl (90 m AOD), rises to the south-west of the House. The stream
emerges from the southern end of the valley, at the southern boundary of
the Park in a cascade descending to the foreshore. From this point a walk
extends eastwards along the coast to the Rock House, a summerhouse (no
longer extant) standing on Egmont Point affording views east and west
along the coast. The Park also includes the rocky headland at Egmont Point
in the south-east, from which there are views of Chapman's Pool, a cove 1.5
km south-east of the House.
The lake to the south of Encombe House acts as a prominent focal point 15.5.65
within the Park (Figure 15.9). From the south-east bank of the lake a walk
descends into the valley and continues c. 200 m south-south-east to reach
the Grade II Listed Rock Bridge (NHLE no: 1323481, outside the ZTV),
which carries the east drive over the pleasure ground walk. The bridge
forms a grotto leading beneath the drive to emerge above the lower valley
or South Gwyle. A rocky recess in the southern face of the Rock Bridge
would formerly have afforded views (obscured by vegetation since 2004)
across the lower lake and down the valley towards the sea and maritime
horizon. The Rock Bridge formed part of John Pitt's 18th Century landscape
and was a significant picturesque incident on the circuit of walks and drives
through the estate.
A grass track extending below and to the south of the northern boundary
plantations of the Park corresponds to an 18th century carriage drive
constructed by John Pitt, and described in 1836 by Lord Eldon's niece as
“the beautiful grassy terrace, on the high ground that surrounds the bowl
[of the Park]”. The carriage drive extended around the bluff of Swyre Head,
and turned west through the Park towards Smedmore, before turning south
and east to return along the southern boundary above the cliff tops (Figure
15.9). It then ran along the west side of the pleasure grounds in South
Gwyle to reach Encombe Farm. This south-west section of John Pitt's
carriage drive does not survive today and is partly outside the Registered
Park, although some footpaths and tracks may correspond to parts of the
circuit.
Figure 15.10 - View south-east from southern boundary of Encombe
There are a number of prominent landmarks within the Park, including the 15.5.66
scheduled bowl barrow (prehistoric burial mound) situated in a commanding
position upon the crest of Swyre Head, on the high ground in the western
part of the Park. Elsewhere, the Grade II Listed obelisk (NHLE no: 1120224)
in the northern part of the Park also forms a prominent local landmark,
while some 190 m south-west of Big Wood is Eldon's Seat, a large ornate
seat formed from two massive blocks of stone which dates to 1835.
The sensitivity of this asset is considered to be of highest importance. 15.5.67
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 35
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Step 2
The importance of Encombe is primarily derived from its illustrative 15.5.68
historical and aesthetic value, and its setting enhances the ability to
appreciate these values. The evidential and historical value of the Grade II*
Listed Encombe House makes a major contribution to the importance of the
Park, as it enables the asset’s origins as a country estate to be understood
as well as providing it with a strong focal point. The illustrative historical
and aesthetic value of the other Listed buildings within the Park contribute
to its importance as they represent part of the historic development of this
large country estate, as 18th and 19th century ornamental landscape
features. The bowl-shaped topography of the Park also contributes to its
aesthetic value by facilitating extensive views of the asset as well as
panoramic views of Dorset and the English Channel.
Although the House occupies a very secluded setting in the central part of 15.5.69
the Park, largely screened from view by surrounding woodland, more
extensive views are possible out of, into, and across the estate from the
higher areas to the west, north and east. These views, especially from the
carriage drive that passes through the Park towards the high ground of
Swyre Head (which forms a locally dominant landmark), allow for a good
appreciation of the illustrative historical and aesthetic value of the asset and
make a positive contribution to its overall importance. These views are
considered to have the potential for a limited tolerance to certain types of
change. The carriage drive forms an important designed element of the
Park, which offers a number of designed views and vantage points, and
contributes to the illustrative historical and aesthetic value of the asset.
Specific views from the carriage drive that contribute to the importance of
the Park include views south from Encombe House, views south-east across
from Swyre Head (Figure 15.8), and also views from Eldon Seat in the
south-western part of the Park. These elements of the Park’s setting are
also considered to have a limited tolerance to change.
There are a number of further vantage points that possess extensive sea 15.5.70
views, primarily from the carriage drive and the southern coastal part of the
Park (Figure 15.9 and Figure 15.10), that contribute to its aesthetic value.
These comprise views south from Encombe House which include views
across its associated ornamental lake towards the distant English Channel.
From this vantage point, there is an optical illusion that suggests the lake
and sea merge. This vantage point allows for an important designed
appreciation of the seascape that contributes greatly to the aesthetic value
of the Park. This view is considered to have the potential for a limited
tolerance to certain types of change.
Further extensive views are possible from Eldon's Seat, 190 m south-west 15.5.71
of Big Wood, affording panoramic views of the grounds and coast to the
south and south-east. There are also extensive sea views from Swyre Head
and the carriage drive in the western part of the Park, that overlook the
Park and the extensive seascape of the English Channel beyond. Extensive
sea views are also possible from the carriage drive as it passes along the
southern boundary towards Egmont Point in the south-eastern area of the
Park, which incorporate views south-east of St Aldhelm’s Head and the
English Channel beyond (Figure 15.10). The aesthetic value of the
immediate relationship with the cliff edge and foreshore below (primarily
appreciated through the sound of crashing waves) also contributes to the
asset’s importance.
Therefore, a number of vantage points within the Park incorporate extensive 15.5.72
sea views that contribute to its aesthetic value. Elsewhere, however, the
setting of the Park is limited by surrounding plantation or topography, and
belts of woodland (Polar Wood, Quarry Wood and Swyre Wood) on the
northern and western boundaries largely screen views in those directions.
Equally, this ensures that the Park is not readily appreciable from the wider
landscape, except from St Aldhelm’s Head to the east, where the broad
‘bowl’ of the parkland is appreciable to the north of the coastal plain.
The illustrative historical value of the village of Kingston, although not 15.5.73
visible from much of the Park, is considered to contribute to the importance
of the asset, as an historic settlement that developed in conjunction with
the Estate. The Smedmore Estate west of the Park, which had been the
subject of landscape improvement by its owner, George Clavell, in the mid-
18th century, is also considered to positively contribute to the importance of
the asset through its illustrative historic value, as a historic estate that also
developed in conjunction with Encombe.
Overall, the setting of Encombe Park is considered to contribute to its 15.5.74
importance through the distinctive ‘bowl’-like topography which allows for
an appreciation of the aesthetic value of the extensive views from the
surrounding ridgeline (and the carriage drive that follows it), the illustrative
historical and aesthetic value of the Listed (e.g. Encombe House) and
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 36 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
unlisted (e.g. Eldon’s Seat) buildings within the Park, which serve as focal
points, the appreciation of the aesthetic value of the differing relationships
with the seascape from various areas of the Park, and the illustrative
historical value the encircling carriage drive provides.
Step 3
The Turbine Area would be located 20.3 km to the south-east of Encombe 15.5.75
Park, although the majority of the Park is located outside of the ZTV, and as
such the extent of the potential effect of the Project is limited. The Turbine
Area would, however, alter part of the extensive seascape vista visible from
a number of locations within the asset. These sea views to the south-east
are primarily possible from Swyre Head in the western part of the Park
(Figure 15.8) (see Volume B, Chapter 13 SLV) and from the length of the
former carriage drive that extends along the cliff top (Figure 15.9). From
these vantage points the majority of the Turbine Area would be screened by
St. Aldhelm’s Head, although the turbines would be visible close to the
horizon extending beyond the headland. This partial visibility is not
considered to harm the appreciation of the aesthetic value derived from the
Park’s relationship with the seascape.
The area of turbines that is likely to be visible from within the Park would be 15.5.76
visible beyond St Aldhelm’s Head, located between 23 km to 29 km to the
south-east of the Park, and given the distances involved, would not form a
conspicuous feature of the wider seascape (defined as fishing areas and
commercial shipping lanes by Maritime Archaeology, 2011). The area of
distantly observable turbines is not considered to prevent an appreciation of
the extensive seascape to the south of the Park, and would not alter the
asset’s relationship with the English Channel. The illustrative historical value
of the important designed view across the ornamental lake to the south of
Encombe House would not be altered by the Turbine Area, which is
completely screened from this vantage point.
From the majority of the Park the Turbine Area would not be visible, 15.5.77
screened by the rising topography on the eastern boundary. From Encombe
House, there is an important vista southwards across its associated
ornamental lake and beyond to the English Channel. The Turbine Area
would not be visible within these views. Furthermore, the Turbine Area is
not visible from the majority of the low-lying central part of the Park, or
from the driveway that extends southwards from the northern boundary
towards the House. As such, the illustrative historical and aesthetic value of
the designed parkland would not be harmed.
Overall, the Turbine Area would result in a change to a peripheral part of 15.5.78
the extensive seascape that is visible from a limited number of vantage
points within Encombe Park (see Volume B, Chapter 13 SLV). This would
not alter the ability to appreciate the aesthetic and illustrative historical
value of the Park, or the appreciation of the seascape.
The asset is considered to be of highest sensitivity. The Project would not 15.5.79
result in any harm to the aesthetic and illustrative historical value of the
parkland and as such the overall importance of the asset would not be
harmed. Therefore the potential impact of the Turbine Area on Encombe
Grade II* Registered Park and Garden is considered Not Significant.
v Durlston
Step 1
Durlston is a relatively small Grade II Registered Park, located 15.5.80
approximately 14.2 km to the north-west of the Turbine Area, on the south-
eastern coast of the Isle of Purbeck. The Park comprises 19.2 ha of cliff top
woodland, shrubberies, paths and architectural features, within which the
Grade II Listed Durlston Head Castle (NHLE no: 1152288) forms the focal
point of the Park (Figure 15.10). The basic framework of the Park consists
of three parallel north-south routes; Lighthouse Road to the west, the Isle
of Wight Road, and a coastal path known as Undercliff to the east. All three
terminate at Durlston Head, close to Durlston Castle. Between these three
main routes there are pleasure grounds as well as educational features
reflected in the literary quotes inscribed on stone tablets (Figure 15.11) and
the information provided by architectural elements such as the Globe and
the Chart. A fourth main route, the Tilly Whim Road, leads along the cliff top
from Durlston Head to the Tilly Whim Caves at the south-western boundary
of the Park.
In 1864 George Burt, a local Swanage resident and self-made businessman, 15.5.81
bought a narrow strip of coastal land to the south of Swanage overlooking
Durlston Bay, hoping to develop it as an idyllic residential development and
resort complex. The planned development at Durlston Park Estate was
sometimes referred to at the time as “New Swanage” (Eyres, 1998). A
masterplan was produced in advertisements from the 1870s onwards,
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 37
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
showing houses, villas, shops, restaurants and extensive infrastructure –
roads (some named after London streets), sewers and gas mains. The area
was to be enhanced with ornamental plantations and pleasure grounds.
Although it was conceived as a commercial venture, the ornamental
landscape was also intended to be a public one.
The venture was largely unsuccessful, and the majority of the residential 15.5.82
buildings were never constructed, although new roads, paths, plantations
and gardens were established. After 1887 Burt attempted to revive interest
in the flagging development by creating new attractions such as the Globe
and Durlston Castle (both Grade II Listed; Figure 15.13 and Figure 15.11),
the latter to serve as a restaurant and recreational facility. Stone
inscriptions were also installed at this time - Burt wished to create an area
which had an educational and cultural infrastructure, to inspire and teach
people about the natural wonders of the coastline, the sea and the heavens,
but to also inspire feelings of awe in response to nature.
Figure 15.11 - View west of Durlston Castle
The Grade II Registered Park forms the eastern part of a larger Country 15.5.83
Park. The Registered Park, which dates to the Late Victorian period, is
wholly situated within the ZTV. Three Grade II Listed Buildings are located
within the Park, clustered close to Durlston Head in the south-east. The Tilly
Whim caves (a former quarry in which Burt’s uncle and patron John Mowlem
had worked in his youth) at the south-western boundary of the Park were
used as the impressive terminus of Burt’s planned landscape. A stone
inscription near the caves informs visitors of their industrial heritage and
other associated history. The southern and eastern parts of the Park lie
within the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site.
Figure 15.12 - View east from pathway to south of Durlston Castle
Burt’s enhancement of the landscape also included literary responses to 15.5.84
nature, alongside scientific data (Eyres, 1998: 33) and signs urging people
to protect local wildlife, such as “Please protect the wild fowl and other
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 38 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
birds.” The spirit of Burt’s views of nature is summed up by an inscription
which reads “Look round, and read Great Nature’s open Book.” Burt died in
1894 and the estate was broken up and sold off in pieces from 1919. In
1921 Swanage Urban District Council was sold most of the open land for its
preservation as a public space, and it was subsequently established as a
country park in 1973 - with the introduction of further seating, lettered
stones marking walking trails, and hard landscaping.
The setting of the Park is dominated by its dramatic cliff top location (the 15.5.85
summit of the cliffs rise to over 90 m AOD), although to the north are areas
of residential development off Lighthouse Road which are largely screened
by vegetation within the Park. To the east and south the setting is defined
by the immediate rocky foreshore and Durlston Bay beyond (Figure 15.14
and Figure 15.13), while to the west, Lighthouse Road forms much of the
Park’s boundary beyond which is pasture farmland. Dense vegetation within
the Park prevents any strong inter-visibility between many of the individual
components. Burt’s planned Arcadian landscape is now partly obscured by
over-mature and self-sown trees (Eyres, 1998), although Dorset County
Council has indicated possible plans to change this situation in the future
(Wessex Archaeology 2006).
The Grade II Listed Durlston Head Castle (NHLE no: 1152288) is still a 15.5.86
prominent landmark occupying a platform cut into the hillside commanding
views over Durlston Bay (Figure 15.12 and Figure 15.11), although early
photographs of the Castle depict a more open area around it rather than the
dense tree cover present today. Durlston Castle is a Purbeck stone
structure, constructed in 1887 to serve as a restaurant for the surrounding
development. A modern café building is located to the rear of the Castle (to
the east). The dense tree cover that has developed to the north and south
of the Castle has led to the creation of a dramatic “reveal” of the building
when approached from the car park.
Figure 15.13 - View south-east from Durlston Head
The seascape is not visible when viewing the primary elevation of the Castle 15.5.87
from the west, but when travelling past the Castle via the path immediately
to the south, the vegetation suddenly ceases, opening up an extensive sea
vista to the south-east, with the Globe in the foreground (Figure 15.13).
The Grade II Listed Globe (NHLE no: 1119930), erected in 1891, is a large
stone globe which depicts the world as seen by the Victorians, situated to
the south-east of the Castle. At the base is a tablet which records the
distances between stars and planets. To the rear of the Globe are a series of
stone panels with inscribed quotations from the Bible, Shakespeare,
Tennyson, the Aeneid and further tables of distances.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 39
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Figure 15.14 - View south-east from cliff path at Durlston Head
The Grade II Listed Chart (NHLE no: 1152321), located to the south of 15.5.88
Durlston Castle adjacent to the pathway to the Globe, was built circa 1890
and comprises a stone relief map depicting Southern England, the English
Channel and Northern France. The Chart also depicts distances from
Durlston to various cities such as London and Calais. The map is south
facing towards the coast, to match the viewpoint of the reader, looking
south across the English Channel. Another stone relief tablet (not Listed;
see Figure 15.12) attached to an outer wall of Durlston Castle shows
Durlston at the centre, surrounded by a series of concentric rings which
show distances to more local features such as Kimmeridge, Lulworth and
the Isle of Wight. An inscription on the Castle which reads “The seas but
join the nations they divide” provides a context to the meaning behind the
Globe, the charts and the views of the sea. These features give Durlston a
great sense of place and identity, which is “enhanced by the view from the
Globe, of the sea and horizon” (Eyres, 1998: 30).
The Castle is the most conspicuous built feature within the Park and acts as 15.5.89
a focal point for the paths. Many of the pathways within the Park were
designed so that surrounding vegetation ceases at a particular point to allow
for a picturesque ‘revealed’ view of the headland and the Castle. This is
especially true of Undercliff, a north-south coastal route along the eastern
coast of the Park (no longer physically accessible), which historic Ordnance
Survey mapping shows to have had a mixed plantation of conifers and
deciduous trees established along the coastal side of the path, designed
partly to give protection from the elements, but also to screen early views
of the Castle. The historic mapping records the vegetation ceasing half way
along the route, which allowed a picturesque view of the headland and the
Castle. Although it is no longer accessible, Undercliff is an “integral part of
Burt’s landscape visually and aesthetically” (WA, 2006: 6).
To the west of Undercliff is a footpath called the Isle of Wight Road (laid out 15.5.90
in 1880) along the cliff top. It was built as a carefully graded walk that ran
southwards from the northern extent of the Park towards the Castle at
Durlston Head and represents the backbone of the designed landscape.
Viewing platforms facilitating views of Durlston Bay, Swanage and the Isle
of Wight are sited at various points along the path although some of the
views have been partially obscured by tree growth. From the final of the
three parallel routes through the Park, Lighthouse Road, wider views are
largely prevented by surrounding vegetation, and this road primarily serves
as the main route to and from the Park. It would have led to a planned
terrace of houses at Lighthouse Field to the south, if Burt’s plans had been
successful.
The Tilly Whim Road, which led visitors from the Castle to the Tilly Whim 15.5.91
caves, extends along the south-western coastal area of the Park. This path
affords extensive sea views to the south-east and views of Anvil Point
Lighthouse (LB43) on the approach to the Tilly Whim Caves. It is bounded
on the south side by a stone wall, punctuated by a number of viewing
alcoves and inscribed stones that Burt introduced to provide directions and
information. To the west of the caves, the path leaves the Registered Park
and continues to the Lighthouse, which was built in 1881. The Round the
Head walk, a circulatory path, extends around Durlston Head in the south-
eastern part of the Park, below the Castle. It is bounded by a stone wall and
a clipped hedge on its seaward side. A number of simple stone blocks placed
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 40 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
at intervals along the walk served as convenient seating from where
extensive sea views are possible (Figure 15.14).
The area between the walk and the Globe is largely sloping grassland and 15.5.92
has a number of seats consisting of granite blocks each marked with the
points of the compass (Figure 15.13). From this part of the Park there are
extensive sea views to the north-east, east, south-east, south and south-
west, which incorporate views of the Isle of Wight to the east and Anvil
Point Lighthouse (and the Isle of Purbeck coast beyond) to the west. The
Tilly Whim Road and the Road the Head Walk form part of the modern
South West Coast Path.
The sensitivity of this asset is considered to be of highest importance. 15.5.93
Step 2
The importance of the Durlston Castle Historic Landscape is primarily 15.5.94
derived from its historical and aesthetic value and its setting enhances the
appreciation of these values. Durlston is primarily a man-made, designed
landscape (Eyres, 1998) and much of this late 19th Century landscape and
its associated features survive to this day, comprising a sublime recreational
landscape with its walks, drives and pleasure grounds. This surviving
integrity of the 19th Century Park layout contributes to the illustrative
historical value of the asset.
Burt’s landscape and Durlston Castle add “a designed and historic landscape 15.5.95
component to the Park, creating a different man-made aesthetic in contrast
to the natural one” (WA, 2006). Burt’s plantings were admired for the
mixture of exotic species with “interlacings of brambles and other plants
indigenous to the soil, in matchful beauty” (Eyres, 1998). Today Burt’s
historic plantings are more densely vegetated and are dominated by native
plants, which can make it more difficult to appreciate this important aspect
of the designed Victorian landscape. Dorset County Council’s Management
Plan for Durlston (2005) declares that rejuvenating the Burt landscape is an
objective (DCC, 2005: 49) although the Summary of the Conservation and
Management Plan (WA, 2006) indicates that the current management
regime does not consider this currently feasible as the “overmature”
plantings are of greater ecological value retained in situ (WA, 2006).
Although Burt’s elaborate plantings are no longer readily intelligible, they 15.5.96
form an integral part of the designed landscape and contribute to the
associative historical value of the Park. The educational purpose of the
parkland is also readily apparent, reflected in the literary quotes inscribed
on stone tablets and the educative information provided by architectural
elements such as the Globe and the Chart (as well as the exhibitions hosted
within Durlston Castle). The educational and recreational elements of the
Park’s setting are considered to make a key contribution to its communal
value.
Durlston was designed specifically to incorporate the extensive sea views 15.5.97
that are possible to the east (Figure 15.12), south-east, south and south-
west. The original layout of the Park, as devised by Burt, is still readily
intelligible and was designed both to maximise the visibility of these views
as well as carefully regulate them. As such, the extensive sea views that are
possible from the footpaths within the Park (Figure 15.14), and especially
from the Grade II Listed Globe and Castle in the south-east, contribute
strongly to the aesthetic value of the asset.
These views, which are only clearly appreciable during daylight hours, have 15.5.98
the potential for a limited tolerance to certain types of change. Durlston is a
Dark Sky Discovery Site (Milky Way Class) and there is an appreciation of
the seascape under moonlit conditions. The appreciation of the seascape
from Durlston under dark sky conditions makes a contribution to the
aesthetic value of the asset.
The designed views within the Park, especially from Undercliff path (now 15.5.99
closed), were devised to incorporate the Grade II Listed Durlston Castle and
the extensive sea views beyond; views which were intentionally concealed
by vegetation until a ‘reveal’ point in the footpath was reached. These
views, which are only appreciable during daylight hours, are considered to
have the potential for a limited tolerance to certain types of change. An
appreciation of these designed views, and the local dominance of Durlston
Castle make a strong positive contribution to the aesthetic and illustrative
historical value of the Park. However, the areas immediately to the north
and south of Durlston Castle which were once clear of tree cover, as
indicated by historic photographs, are now densely vegetated. These belts
of woodland screen the sea views when viewing the primary elevation of the
Castle from immediately to the west, on the main approach path.
The panoramic views created by George Burt at Durlston Castle have been 15.5.100
supplemented in the new sections of the renovated building by architectural
handling that enhances the revealed horizon effect. Inside the building the
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 41
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
windows have been designed to show vertical vignettes of seascape. When
exiting the building to the east there is an extensive widening of the vista.
One of the most important “reveals” from within the building comes when
emerging from the central keep into the garden area which leads to the
exhibition area at the lower level of the building. This contributes to the
aesthetic value of the asset.
The Grade II Listed Chart has a strong visual link with the sea, and the 15.5.101
extensive maritime vista available from the Park contributes greatly to its
importance by allowing an observer to visualise the geography of the
English Channel, linking Purbeck, the Isle of Wight and France.
Given the density of vegetation within the Park and the local topography, 15.5.102
wider views to the north and west are generally not possible. This ensures
the setting within the Park generally remains confined to the immediate
parkland scene, except where wider views are possible across the seascape
to the east and south. As such, this concentrates the appreciation of the
Park’s wider setting upon views across the adjacent seascape, which is
appreciable only during daylight hours, and contributes to its importance.
From the wider landscape the Park is not immediately appreciable, as the 15.5.103
wooded parkland forms part of a wider area of cliff top vegetation, within
which the Park is not immediately intelligible. However, given its elevated
position on a terrace on the cliff top, Durlston Castle is appreciable from
vantage points at Peveril Point to the north, where it is partly silhouetted
against the skyline and seascape. The wider visibility of Durlston Castle
helps to locate the Park when viewed from greater distance, and its
prominence contributes to its aesthetic value.
Overall, the elements of the asset’s setting which contribute to its 15.5.104
importance are considered to be the aesthetic and associative historical
value of its designed Victorian landscape including plantings and
architectural and inscribed features, the aesthetic value of the dramatic cliff
top location, the structured routes of movement through the Park, the focal
role served by the three Listed Buildings within the Park (the Chart, the
Globe, Figure 15.13 and Durlston Castle, Figure 15.11), the controlled
‘reveals’ of the seascape and Durlston Castle, and an appreciation of the
wider seascape views from the Castle and Globe (Figure 15.14 and Figure
15.12) and Tilly Whim Road.
Step 3
The Turbine Area, located 14.4 km to the south-east of the Park, would 15.5.105
form part of the extensive seascape vista visible from the cliff tops at
Durlston Head (Figure 15.13 and Figure 15.14). Analysis of viewpoints
developed for the Project, demonstrate that the Turbine Area would be
visible in the sea views to the south-east, where the turbines would be
visible close to the horizon extending from the east to the south (refer to
Volume B, Chapter 13 SLV). Given the distances involved the Turbine Area
would not dominate the seascape vista to the south-east (defined as fishing
areas and commercial shipping lanes by Maritime Archaeology, 2011). The
scale and massing of the turbines is such that they would form a
conspicuous feature within the seascape, but they would not distract
attention away from an appreciation of the extensive sea views.
The Turbine Area would feature as a distant, visually permeable, element of 15.5.106
the extensive sea views that are possible from the south and east elevations
of Durlston Castle (Figure 15.12), from the vicinity of the Globe (Figure
15.13), and from the Tilly Whim Road coastal path along the southern
boundary of the Park. From these vantage points, the seascape vista is
extensive and the Turbine Area would only alter part of the observable
maritime horizon. Furthermore, the Turbine Area would not prevent an
appreciation of the extensive vista, and would have no impact upon the
observer’s comprehension of the scale of the seascape.
The Project would be visible within certain views from Durlston Castle. From 15.5.107
the main balcony the Turbine Area would be visible extending across
approximately a third of the maritime horizon, while the Project would also
be visible from certain views within the Castle, including some of the
designed vertical vignettes of seascape. The visibility of the Project,
however, would not prevent an appreciation of the extensive seascape and
the Turbine Area would feature as a distant array of turbines close to the
maritime horizon.
At night, the Turbine Area would appear as a distant group of distinct points 15.5.108
of light (see Volume B, Chapter 13 SLV). These would not be sufficient in
terms of number, scale, or mass so as to harm the appreciation of the
extensive night-time seascape. The light levels would not be of such
intensity as to illuminate the turbine shafts or nacelles, and would not
illuminate the surrounding seascape. As such, although the Turbine Area
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 42 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
would be visible within the seascape at night, it is not considered to harm
the elements of Durlston Park’s setting that contribute to its importance.
Furthermore, the key periods of appreciation at Durlston are during daylight 15.5.109
hours, when the designed landscape and its relationship with the seascape
can be appreciated. As such, the visibility of the Project at night is not
considered to harm the important elements of the asset’s setting (in
contrast to the findings of the SLVIA viewpoint analysis, which is concerned
with potential visibility and impacts on the darkness of the night sky).
While the Turbine Area would feature in the backdrop in some long-distance 15.5.110
views of Durlston Castle from locations outside the Park, such as Peveril
Point 1.2 km to the north-east (and in views from Undercliff, if it is ever
reopened), the controlled “reveals” mean that the Turbine Area would not
generally be visible in views to the Castle from within the Park (Figure
15.11). The Turbine Area would, however, be prominently visible in the
“reveal” of the seascape when passing Durlston Castle on its southern side.
Views of the Turbine Area would be possible from the upper stories of 15.5.111
Durlston Castle, and the turbines would feature on the southern periphery
of views from its eastern elevation. The Turbine Area would be visible in sea
views from the terrace to the south-east of the Castle, adjoining the café.
The Turbine Area would also feature in the appreciation of the Globe from
the Castle. However, the Turbine Area has a high degree of visual
permeability, and it would not prevent an appreciation of the extensive vista
or an observer’s comprehension of the scale of the seascape.
The Turbine Area would be visible in the sea view from the Globe. The Globe 15.5.112
was cited to command extensive sea-views to the south-east, within which
the Turbine Area would be visible. Although the Turbine Area would feature
prominently in this view it would not prevent an appreciation of the
seascape and the visual permeability of the Turbine Area is such that views
towards the maritime horizon would not be prevented. Furthermore,
extensive sea views from the north-east around to the south-west are
possible from the Globe, so sea views in directions other than the south-
east would not be affected. The appreciation of the Globe as a historical and
sculptural feature which enables the Victorian view of the world to be better
understood would not be affected, nor would views of the Castle from the
Globe, although the Turbine Area would feature in the seascape backdrop of
views towards the Globe. Other modern (non-Victorian) features are visible
in the wider landscape, such as Bournemouth seafront, and these do not
detract from an appreciation of the Victorian designed landscape.
The Project would be visible within the sea views, possibly from the Chart, 15.5.113
as a distant array of turbines close to the horizon to the south and east. The
way that the Chart is orientated ‘upside-down’ to match the readers
viewpoint across the Channel means that sea views are central to the
understanding of the Chart. Views of the Turbine Area would not prevent an
appreciation of the seascape and, like the Globe, it would not prevent an
understanding of the wider landscape context. The Project would, however,
form a distant focal point within views across the English Channel to the
south-east.
The carefully controlled ‘reveal’ points within the Park are considered to 15.5.114
have especially limited tolerance to certain types of change. From these
vantage points the visibility of the seascape is determined by the density of
surrounding vegetation. As such, intentional views of the seascape are
made visible to the observer at selected locations. Through the introduction
of the turbines, the impact of the ‘reveal’ of the seascape would not be
lessened. Although the character of the open uninterrupted horizon would
be changed, this change would not be an adverse one. Distant points of
reference, whether man made or natural, were always used (and still are
today) in designed landscapes, optimising ‘reveals’. The Turbine Area could
perform this role, and the impact of the ‘reveal’ of the extensive seascape
would not be lessened.
Overall, the Park was primarily designed to function as a residential and 15.5.115
resort development, greatly enhanced by an elaborately-designed Arcadian
landscape. While the development was unsuccessful, the Victorian
landscape has survived, albeit in an altered form. The main reasons for
siting the Park at its headland location were to facilitate extensive views of
the surrounding seascape, including surprise reveals, as well as to provide
an area of recreational public space close to Swanage town.
The Turbine Area would introduce a new, distant, built form into the wider 15.5.116
seascape visible to the south-east from parts of the Park. This would alter
the experience of the seascape from the vicinity of the Globe, Durlston
Castle and the Tilly Whim Coastal Path, where the sea views are extensive.
As such, the Turbine Area is likely to alter the seascape vistas from some
locations within the Park. This would change one element of the setting of
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 43
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
the asset, which makes a contribution to the overall importance of the
asset, but is not considered to adversely affect the contribution the sea
views make to the aesthetic value or experience of the Park because the
extensive, open views would remain
The Turbine Area would be completely screened from large parts of the 15.5.117
park by dense vegetation within its grounds and the extent of the proposals
visibility is very limited. As such, the Turbine Area is not considered to
conflict with objectives contained in Dorset Areas of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB) Management Plan 2009-2014 (including objectives L1, L2
and H1). Furthermore, the Project is not considered to harm any of the
important elements of the asset’s setting (in contrast to the findings of the
SLV viewpoint analysis).
The asset is considered to be of highest sensitivity. The Project would not 15.5.118
result in any harm to the overall importance of the asset and therefore the
potential impact of the Turbine Area on Durlston Grade II Registered Park
and Garden is considered to be Not Significant.
The remaining 49 designated heritage assets and 10 non-designated 15.5.119
heritage assets have been assessed in detail and can be found within
Volume B, Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets Appendix 15.1. No effects
have been identified on the importance of these heritage assets, and in
each case, the impact is considered to be Not Significant.
c) Impact summary
This Chapter provides an assessment of those assets considered to be most 15.5.120
sensitive to the Project. A full discussion of the sensitivity of heritage assets
to change is included within Volume B, Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage
Assets Appendix 15.1.
The Turbine Area is likely to be visible from all heritage assets assessed as 15.5.121
part of this Chapter. However, the visibility of the Turbine Area is not
considered to alter the key attributes of the settings of any of the assets
assessed. As such, the reason why these heritage assets were important
enough to justify special protection (English Heritage, 2013) is not harmed
and the assessment has concluded that the alteration to the setting of the
heritage assets through the introduction of the Turbine Area would not harm
the importance of any of the heritage assets considered.
Although no harm has been identified, the assessment has identified 15.5.122
designated heritage assets that are considered to be particularly sensitive to
alterations of their setting. Those considered to be of the greatest sensitivity
to the Turbine Area are the Lower Needles Point Battery Scheduled
Monument, Grade I Listed St Aldhelm’s Chapel, Grade II Listed Tennyson’s
Beacon, Grade II* Registered Encombe and the Grade II Registered
Durlston Historic Landscape. In each of these instances, the Turbine Area
would alter part of the setting of the asset but would not result in any harm
to their importance.
In summary, the Turbine Area is considered to alter the setting of all the 15.5.123
heritage assets assessed as part of the detailed settings assessment.
However, in no instances is the introduction of the Turbine Area into the
setting of the heritage asset considered to detract from the values, or
experience of those values, that make a principal contribution to its overall
importance. As such, the Turbine Area is not considered to conflict with any
national or local policies relating to the setting of heritage assets.
15.6 Mitigation of Impacts and Residual Impact Assessment
The impact can be broadly characterised as the alteration of the distant 15.6.1
seascape vista (particularly the maritime horizon) through the introduction
of the Turbine Area. The extent to which the introduction of the Turbine
Area has the potential to affect a heritage asset depends on the degree to
which the appreciation of the uninterrupted maritime horizon contributes to
the overall significance (and experience) of the asset and also to what
extent that appreciation is altered or prevented. As English Heritage
guidance states, “most places are within the setting of a heritage asset and
are subject to some degree of change over time”…and “protection of the
setting of heritage assets need not prevent change” (English Heritage,
2011: 15).
The Turbine Area would not prevent an appreciation of the extensive 15.6.2
seascape extending across the English Channel, but it could potentially alter
its character. This potential alteration to the extensive seascape vista
cannot be effectively mitigated.
The Turbine Area would be visible, to a varying extent, from a selection of 15.6.3
the heritage assets assessed. However, this would not alter any of the
important elements of the settings of these assets. As such, this
assessment has identified no effect on the importance of these assets as a
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 44 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
result of the Turbine Area. No additional mitigation has been identified and
therefore the impact on the importance of the designated heritage assets
and non-designated heritage assets is assessed as Not Significant.
15.7 Cumulative Impacts
The following section describes the potential projects and proposed 15.7.1
developments that may give rise to cumulative effects in the context of the
Project, and the likely potential impacts as a result of these effects. This
assessment follows the approach outlined within Volume A, Chapter 5
Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology.
The proposed developments included within the cumulative assessment are 15.7.2
as follows:
Alaska Wind Farm, East Stoke (four turbines, approved 06.07.12),
89.5 m hub height, 125 m blade tip height (see Figure 15.15,
Consented Wind Farm);
Cheverton Down Wind Farm, West Isle of Wight (three turbines,
approved 1993), 51 m blade tip height. The original approved
application for the Cheverton Down wind farm (1993) remains valid.
Camp Hill wind farm on the Isle of Wight, is an in planning scheme, and
will consist of two turbines of up to 125 m blade tip height (see Figure
15.15, In-Planning Wind Farm).
A ZTV relating to the cumulative visibility of these consented and in-15.7.3
planning schemes was produced as part of the Volume B, Chapter 13 SLV
chapter and was utilised within the 30 km study area adopted for the
cultural heritage settings assessment. It is considered that the ZTV over
emphasises visibility, as it does not factor in the lack of clarity of views over
distance. The cumulative ZTV is reproduced as Figure 15.15.
The following description of the potential cumulative visibility of these 15.7.4
schemes is derived from Volume B, Chapter 13 SLV.
Across much of the Purbeck and Dorset landscape, the Purbeck Ridge and 15.7.5
hills serve to contain views inland and prevent visibility of the Project other
than along the coastline and coastal fringe south of the ridge. Conversely,
Alaska Wind Farm will typically be seen across many areas of Purbeck and
Dorset to the north of the Purbeck Ridge; however views would be largely
screened by topography from areas on the coast or coastal fringe to the
east of Lulworth. Across much of the Isle of Purbeck, there will be only
limited areas where views of the Project and Alaska wind farm are
anticipated.
The Camp Hill and Cheverton Down wind farms will typically be visible 15.7.6
across parts of the west of the Isle of Wight, and across the southern
coastal fringes of the New Forest National Park. The Chalk Ridgeway and
downs across the west of the island serve to contain views either inland
east of the ridge, or west of the ridge along the coast, coastal fringe and
across the sea. Given the nature of the elevated topography, there are
likely to be very few locations where the Project would be visible in
combined or successional views with Camp Hill and / or Cheveton Down
wind farm. The combined views of the Project will be limited due to the
small size of the wind farms, and the lack of clarity of views of the Project
due to distance. In addition, where the ZTV indicates inland views of Camp
Hill and / or Cheverton Down with the Project, site observations have
illustrated that views of the Project are extremely limited due to distance
and screening by intervening vegetation.
The ZTV also over emphasises visibility of the cumulative wind farms on 15.7.7
land at considerable distances from their locations. It indicates that from
the Isle of Purbeck there will be visibility of the Project with Camp Hill;
however it is considered that these wind farms lie too great a distance from
the Isle of Purbeck for it to be clearly visible (Camp Hill approximately 50
km and Cheverton Down approximately 42 km). Conversely, the ZTV
indicates that from areas on the west coast of the Isle of Wight there will be
visibility of the Project with Alaska wind farm; however Alaska wind farm
lies at too great a distance from the Isle of Wight for it to be clearly visible
(approximately 50 km or more).
The SLVIA concludes that the combined or individual cumulative effects 15.7.8
arising from the three cumulative wind farms in combination with the
Project will not be greater than the effects arising due to the Project alone.
In consideration of the designated and non-designated heritage assets 15.7.9
identified, the cumulative ZTV was reviewed in conjunction with the ZTV
produced for the Turbine Area. No cumulative effects on the importance of
these heritage assets greater than the effects arising due to the Project
alone have been identified, and in each case, the impact is considered to be
Not Significant.
5 km 15 km
olutions, 2013, 022009.004 & 022009.005.half of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright, All rights reserved. 2013 Reference number 100031673
55 kkmm 1155 kkmm
olutions,s 2013, 022009.004 & 022009.005.half of the Contrtt oller of Her Maja estyt ’s’’ Statt titt oneryr Offff iff ce © CrCC orr wn Copyrirr ght,tt All rirr ghtstt rerr served. 2013 Refeff rence number 10003167377
Navitus Bay Development Ltd
Legend
Scale@A3:
Ref. No.:
Data Sources:
Date: 19/03/2014
1:250,000
Coordinate System:
Datum:OSGB 1936
Fig. No.: Figure 15.15
Author: Checked: R S LG Approved: RPS
This map is the copyright of Navitus Bay Development Ltd. The accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information is not guaranteed or warranted in any way and Navitus Bay Development Ltd and its representatives disclaim liability of any kind whatsoever, including, without limitation, liability for quality, performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose arising out of the use, or inability to use the data.
Revision No.: 02
British National Grid
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2013. Contains, or is based upon, English Heritage’s National Heritage List for England data © English Heritage.
010 5 km
000054000044000034000024000014000004000093000083
100000
3898 CA
LDAEnglish HeritageOrdnance Survey
70 3.5 miles
5000
60
00
00
00
90
00
08
00
00
70
0
Turbine AreaGrade I Listed BuildingGrade II* Listed BuildingGrade II Listed BuildingConservation AreaGrade II* Registered ParkGrade II Registered ParkScheduled MonumentNon-Designated Heritage AssetsZTVLower Needles Point BatterySt Aldhelm’s ChapelTennyson’s BeaconEncombeDurlston Historic Landscape
Urban Areas (modelled to 7.5m)Woodlands (modelled to 15m)Alaska Wind FarmCamp Hill Wind Farm
Zone of Theoretical Visibilty:
SM12
LB1
LB39
P3
P4
Navitus Bay Wind Park8MW (200m blade tip)
In-Planningwind farms
Consentedwind farms
Cumulative Zone of Theoretical Visibility
LB1
P3 P4
LB39SM12
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 46 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
In relation to Durlston Registered Park (P4) it is possible that both the 15.7.10
project and an in planning scheme (Camp Hill) will be visible. The in-
planning scheme will form part of the distant landscape to the east (over 40
km from the Park), whilst the Project is located within the seascape at a
considerable distance to the south-east. However, any potential visibility of
the terrestrial wind farm is not considered to result in a cumulative effect in
conjunction with the Project.
Equally, it is possible that both the Project and an approved scheme 15.7.11
(Alaska) will be visible from Lower Needles Point Battery Scheduled
Monument (SM12). Again, however, the Project will be located at a
considerable distance to the south-west within the wider seascape, whilst
the approved scheme is located over 40 km to the west. There is no
cumulative effect on the importance of the asset.
In relation to the remaining heritage assets, no cumulative impacts were 15.7.12
identified due to the considerable distances involved between the assets
and the cumulative schemes and the limited overlap between the project
ZTV and the cumulative ZTV. As such, no cumulative impacts on heritage
assets were identified.
Potential cumulative impacts as a result of proposed actions identified in 15.7.13
Management Plans and Conversation Area appraisals (i.e. the proposed
planting at Durlston Park as part of the Management Plan) have been
considered within this assessment. Proposed actions within Management
Plans and Conservation Area appraisals are designed to result in a beneficial
effect on an asset, and are not considered to result in an adverse
cumulative impact in conjunction with the Turbine Area. As such, no
cumulative impacts are predicted.
15.8 Summary Tables
The following table presents a summary of the impact assessment 15.8.1
undertaken for this Chapter. It summarises the nature and extent of the
likely significant effects of the Project identified at each stage (construction,
operation and maintenance, and decommissioning, where applicable), and
includes the assessment of cumulative impacts. It identifies the asset/s
likely to be impacted and their sensitivity, and the resulting significance of
the effect on the asset/s. Appropriate mitigation measures are outlined,
followed by the resulting residual impact assessment.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 47
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Table 15.6 - Impact assessment summary (selected examples)
Effect (change) Asset Nature of impact Magnitude Sensitivity Mitigation Not Significant or Significant
Operation and maintenance
Introduction of the
Turbine Area into views from, within
and towards the heritage asset
Lower Needles Point
Battery
Alteration to physical
surrounds
no harm High
Scheduled Monument and Grade II Listed
Building with field of fire extending across Bournemouth Bay
None proposed Not Significant
Introduction of the
Turbine Area into views from, within
and towards the heritage asset
St Aldhelm’s Chapel Alteration to experience No harm High
Grade I Listed Building with strong sense of
isolation and remoteness derived from
headland and seascape
None proposed Not Significant
Introduction of the
Turbine Area into views from, within
and towards the heritage asset
Tennyson’s Beacon Alteration to experience No harm High
Grade II Listed Building with strong sense
of ‘wildness’ derived, in part, from the
seascape
None proposed Not Significant
Introduction of the Turbine Area into
views from, within
and towards the heritage asset
Encombe Alteration to physical surrounds and
experience
No harm High
Grade II* Registered Park and Garden with
designed views across associated lake
towards the English Channel
None proposed Not Significant
Introduction of the Turbine Area into
views from, within and towards the
heritage asset
Durlston Historic Landscape
Alteration to experience No harm High
Grade II* Registered Park and Garden with
key seascape views sensitive to change
None proposed Not Significant
Cumulative Multiple assets Alteration to experience No harm High None proposed Not Significant
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 48 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
References
Brinton, R. (2006) The Isle of Wight: The Complete Guide.
Cantwell, A. and Sprack, P. (1986) Solent Papers Number Two: The Needles
Defences 1525 – 1956.
Cotswold Archaeology (2014) Navitus Bay Wind Park, Dorset, Hampshire and the Isle
of Wight: Cultural Heritage Settings Assessment (Typescript report: 13108).
Included in Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement, Volume B,
Offshore Technical Appendices.
DECC (2011a) Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). Ref:
11D/711. Department for Energy and Climate Change.
DECC (2011b) National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).
Department for Energy and Climate Change.
DCLG, DCMS and English Heritage (2010) PPS5 Planning for the Historic
Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide 5.
DCLG (2012) National Planning Policy Framework. Department of Communities and
Local Government.
Dorset County Council (2005) Durlston Management Plan – 2005 to 2010.
English Heritage (2008) English Heritage Conservation Principles: policies and
guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment.
English Heritage (2011) The Setting of Heritage Assets.
English Heritage (2013) The Government’s Review of Planning Practice Guidance:
English Heritage Consultation Response.
Eyres, P. (1998) New Arcadian Journal 45/46, Four Purbeck Arcadias.
Isle of Wight County Archaeology and Historic Environment Service (IOWCAHER)
(2008) Historic Environment Action Plan, West Wight Downland Edge and
Sandstone Ridge.
LDA Design (2014) Navitus Bay Wind Park SLVIA Technical Report. Included in
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement, Volume B’, Offshore
Technical Appendices.
Lloyd, D. and Pevsner, N. (2006) The Buildings of England: The Isle of Wight.
Maritime Archaeology (2011) Historic Seascape Characterisation: Hastings to Purbeck
and Adjacent Waters, Sections 1-3.
Pevsner, N. (1972) The Buildings of England: Dorset.
Wessex Archaeology (2006) Durlston Castle and Country Park, Durlston, Swanage,
Dorset, Summary of the Conservation and Management Plan.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Volume B Offshore Page 49
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Glossary
Table 15.7 - Glossary
Term Definition
Heritage Asset A building, monument, site, place, area
or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting
consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage
asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning
authority (including local listing).
Setting 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.
Navitus Bay Wind Park Environmental Statement
Page 50 Volume B Offshore
Chapter 15 Setting of Heritage Assets
Abbreviations
Table 15.8 - Abbreviations
Term Definitions
AOD Above Ordnance Datum
AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
BG Barrow group
BGS British Geological Survey
CA Conservation Area
dB(A) A-weighted decibel
DCC Dorset County Council
DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government
GIS Geographical Information System
HER Historic Environment Record
LB Listed Building
LLB Locally listed building
LPA Local Planning Authority
NBDL Navitus Bay Development Limited
NFPA New Forest Planning Authority
NHLE National Heritage List England
NMR National Monuments Record
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework
NPS National Policy Statement
OSP Offshore Substation Platform
SLVIA Seascape Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
SM Scheduled Monument
UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and
Cultural Organisation
WHS World Heritage Site
ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility