navitusbaywindpark.co - National Infrastructure Planning 15.1 - Heritage assets selected for detailed settings assessment.....19 Figure 15.2 - View west from Lower Needles Point Battery

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


Page iv Volume B Offshore


Page left intentionally blank


Volume B Offshore Page 1


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.


Page 2 Volume B Offshore


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




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.




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.




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.




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.




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;




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




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.




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.




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.




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


Bournemouth District

Council

Information on locally listed


boundaries


buildings within the authority.

New Forest National

Park Authority

Information on locally listed


boundaries


buildings within the authority.

Isle of Wight Council Information on locally listed


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-


considered to include the

Turbine Area as part of their

setting

Specific details of three non-


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

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/protection/process/national-heritage-list-for-england/

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/protection/process/national-heritage-list-for-england/




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.




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






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






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






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






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




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).




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.




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.




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.




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




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




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




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




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.





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




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




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.



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).


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




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).



potential impact of the Turbine Area on the Grade II Listed Tennyson’s

Beacon is considered Not Significant.




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).




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.





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




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.


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,




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




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.




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




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.


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




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




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




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).



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




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




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.




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



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


Introduction of the



Tennyson’s Beacon Alteration to experience No harm High

Grade II Listed Building with strong sense

of ‘wildness’ derived, in part, from the

seascape


Introduction of the Turbine Area into

views from, within


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


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


Cumulative Multiple assets Alteration to experience No harm High None proposed Not Significant




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.




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.




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

Documents

navitusbaywindpark.co - National Infrastructure Planning 15.1 - Heritage assets selected for detailed settings assessment.....19 Figure 15.2 - View west from Lower Needles Point Battery