PLANNING SERVICES –
CONSERVATION CONSULTATION
Application No.: 10/00463/FUL
Case Officer: Steve Philipson
Date of response: 12 December 2011
Location: Losk Lane
Proposal: Erection of 3 wind turbines, control building and mast and associated tracks
Considerations
Statutory duties under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990
S66(1) Pl (LBCA) Act 1990 – “In considering whether to grant planning permission for
development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or,
as the case my be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of
preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic
interest which it possesses”
Section 72 Pl (LBCA) Act 1990 - requires that “special attention shall be paid to the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation
area.”
Other Policy Considerations
Local Plan Policy CON4 – Development adjoining Conservation Areas
CON 10 – development affecting the setting of listed buildings
CON 12 – Historic Parks, gardens, graveyards and cemetries
CON13 – Archaeological sites and ancient monuments
PPS 22 - Renewable Energy Key para 11 states that: “in sites with nationally recognised
designations (SSSI’s, National nature reserves, National Parks, AONB,s, Scheduled
monuments, conservation areas, listed buildings, registered historic battlefields and
registered parks and gardens) planning permission for renewable energy projects should
only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the objectives of designation of the
area will not be compromised by the development, and any significant adverse effects on
the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by the
environmental, social and economic benefits
PPS 5 – Planning for the historic environment – sets out the Government’s planning
policies on the conservation of the historic environment
Relevant policies
Policy HE1 – HE 1.2 LPA’s are encouraged to “help the applicant to identify feasible
solutions that deliver similar climate change mitigation but with less or no harm to the
significance of the heritage asset and its setting
Policy HE1.3 states “that where conflict between climate change objectives and the
conservation of heritage assets in unavoidable, the public benefits of mitigating the effects
of climate change should be weighed against any harm to the significance of the heritage
assets in accordance with the development management principles on this PPS and
national planning policy on climate change
Policy HE6 – Information requirements for applications for consent affecting heritage
assets – LPA’s should require an applicant to provide a description of the significance of
the heritage assets affected and the contribution of their setting to that significance
Policy HE 9.1 – provides that the significance of a heritage asset can be harmed or lost
through development within its setting with a presumption in favour of the conservation of
designated heritage assets
Policy HE10 – additional policy principles guiding the consideration of applications for
development affecting the setting of a designated heritage asset
Other guidance documents
Scarcliffe Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan–
Hardstoft Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan
Astwith Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan
Stony Houghton Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan
Other considerations
Wind Energy and the Historic Environment – English Heritage publication October 2005
The setting of heritage assets: English Heritage guidance – published October 2011
English Heritage’s Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance April 2008
The Setting of Hardwick –Landscape Evaluation A report for the National Trust Mott
McDonald Study 2005 – Planning Committee (18/10/06) has endorsed this publication in
a public consultation exercise was carried out in January 2007. It was intended that the
results of the public consultation exercise would be reported to Committee and that the
document would be adopted as Council Policy and used as a material consideration in
the determination of planning applications until a generic policy on “setting of assets” was
included in the Core Strategy. The results of the consultation exercise were not reported
back to Committee because we were awaiting comments from the National Trust.
Historic Environment SPD – 2006
Primary considerations
The main issues for consideration in respect of the historic environment are
Statutory duties
1) Whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the
character or appearance of Conservation Areas at Palterton, Stony Houghton, Scarcliffe,
Astwith, Hardwick and Rowthorne and Hardstoft
2)The effect on the setting, architectural character and historic interest of
listed buildings at Grade I, II* and II
Other non statutory considerations
1) Impact on setting of designated scheduled ancient monuments (Bolsover Castle and
Hardwick Old Hall) and registered parks and gardens at Hardwick (GI) and Bolsover (GI)
(whilst there is not a statutory duty to consider the setting of these assets PPS 5 policy
HE 9.1specifically refers to these assets as being of the highest significance)
In addressing these duties national planning policies, in particular PPS 5 provide further
guidance on the considerations to be taken into account. In summary we need to consider
the following elements:PPS5
HE9.1 “there should be a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated assets
and the more significant the designated heritage the greater the presumption in favour of
its conservation should be......Substantial harm to or loss a grade II listed building, park
or garden should exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated assets of the
highest significance, including scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields,
grade I and II* listed buildings and grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, World
Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional
HE9.2 – Where the application will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance
the LPA should refuse consent unless if can be demonstrated that:
(i)
the substantial harm or loss of significance is necessary in order to deliver
substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss …
HE10 When considering applications for development affecting the setting of an
heritage asset (this includes all heritage assets including listed buildings and
conservation areas, historic parks and gardens, Scheduled ancient monuments) LPA’s
should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that
make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset. When
considering applications that do not so this, the LPA should weigh any such harm against
the wider benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance
of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval
I concur with the views of the statutory consultees that we need consider the impacts of
the development under both these policies as the setting of the heritage assets affected
do contribute to their significance (in particular the higher grade assets such as Hardwick
New and Old Hall, Bolsover Castle, Sutton Scarsdale).
Terminology
Significance
PPS 5 defines significance as “the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations
because of its heritage interest. This interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic
or historic”. Section 3 of the Practice Guide deals with significance and this is explained
as:The catch all term to “sum up the qualities” that make it a heritage asset
The significance of a heritage asset is ‘sum of’ its architectural, historic, artistic or
archaeological interest
Substantial harm
There is a consensus of opinion that there is no statutory definition of “substantial harm”
and that is the cumulative effect of the harm on the significance of the heritage assets that
needs to be considered and weighted against the public benefits. The appeal cases
quoted all appear to refer to degrees of harm and a decision made on the accumulation of
factors
Setting
PPS defined setting as “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 take a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may
affect the ability to appreciate that significance or be neutral” The planning practice guide
to PPS 5 paras 113 – 124 provides additional guidance on assessing the impact of
proposals on the setting of heritage assets
English Heritage’s Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance April 2008 para 76
defines setting as “an established concept that relates to the surroundings in which a
place is experienced, its local context, embracing present and past relationships to the
adjacent landscape. Definition of the setting of a significant place will normally be guided
by the extent to which material change within it could affect (enhance or diminish) the
place’s significance.”
English Heritage’s recent publication “The Setting of Heritage Assets” published October
2011 provides detailed guidance on the definition and interpretation of “setting” issues.
The setting of heritage assets includes those aspects of their surroundings which
contribute to their historic significance and which, if changed, might affect significance
together with the public appreciation of their significance.
Impact of proposal on heritage assets
Conservation areas
The main conservation areas affected by the proposal are:Palterton, Scarcliffe, Stony Houghton, Hardwick and Rowthorne, Astwith, Hardstoft and
Stainsby, Bolsover
The significance and value of a number of these conservation areas has been
documented in the form of adopted conservation area appraisals (Scarcliffe, Stony
Houghton, Astwith, Hardstoft). In addition, the Historic Environment SPD 2006 provides a
detailed description of the local distinctiveness of the area. In particular chapter 1
describes the local distinctiveness of the area and the strategic importance of the
limestone escarpment and the historic development of a number of the settlements
outlined above.
Palterton
Palterton is a small village, probably founded in the 12 the century. The strong pattern of
development in the settlement is routed in its medieval origins and the evidence of the
“burgage plots” running from Main Street to Back Lane are still evident (historic
Environment SPD para 1.7). The village has grown significantly in the last 150years but
the historic core of the rural village centred on Main Street and Back Lane still remains .
The buildings comprise mainly farms with outbuildings designed in the local vernacular
tradition, built in magnesian limestone with slate/pantile roofs, simple detailing to windows
and doors. Palterton Hall on Main Street (listed G II) is an impressive 3 storey stone
property dating from circa 1740 and occupies a prominent position in the conservation
area. Likewise Lilac farm on Main Street (listed GII) is a typical stone farm complex.
It is the topography of the village that which gives it its distinct character. The Main Street
is only developed along its eastern side, with the street and traditional buildings perched
on the very top of a 300-ft scarp slope overlooking the Doe Lea valley, which at this point
presents panoramic views across the valley. The views to the conservation area when
approaching from the west are also significant with this historic settlement perched on the
ridge.
The proposed turbines are sited 1.0km from Main Street (the historic core of the village)
and will be visible through gaps in the buildings and will appear above the roofline of the
listed properties when travelling north to south (as evidenced by the siting of the blimp in
the position of T1). In addition views from the conservation area at Back Lane which
currently comprise open fields and paddocks will be significantly affected by the proposals
and the turbines by virtue of their height and movement will be highly visible from this
area. The Cultural Heritage assessment para 3.5.5 appears to suggest that the historic
character of Palterton has been diminished and the setting “faded” and as a result the
impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area would be negligible. I
contest this assertion and believe that despite the new development in the village the core
of the conservation area still retains its essential characteristics as a medieval settlement
and later farming community.
I conclude that the development will neither preserve or enhance the character or
appearance of Palterton conservation area and will have a harmful effect on the historic
significance of this designated asset.
Stony Houghton
Stony Houghton is a small, dispersed settlement with its origins dating back to 1086. The
layout of the village is dictated by the local topography and the buildings comprise a
range of estate farms and cottages dating from 18thC and 19thC. Hall Farm is listed
building GII and the appraisal identifies a number of local heritage assets (unlisted
buildings of merit) . A conservation area appraisal has been produced and this clearly
demonstrates the village has “an intrinsic historical association with the agricultural
landscape within its sits and it retains a strong rural character. The significance of the
landscape component means it has a crucial role in setting the overall context for the
buildings of the conservation area”. A number of important viewpoints have been
identified on page 42 (Conservation Appraisal and Management Plan).
The turbines will be clearly visible from a number of vantage points within the
conservation area (1.2km away) in particular from the corner of Rotherham Road and
Green Lane and from the identified important viewpoint adjacent to Hall Farm (page 42
Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan) The development will also be visible
in views approaching the conservation area from the west.The current views comprise an
undulating rural backdrop (pylons excepted)and this, by virtue of its relatively unaltered
state, contributes to the character and significance of the village conservation area. Wind
turbines in the location proposed would have an impact on this landscape setting and by
virtue of the scale cause harm to the historic significance of this designated asset. As a
result, the development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of
the conservation area.
Scarcliffe
Scarcliffe is the sister settlement of Palterton and dates from the medieval period but
developed as an agricultural community in 18C and 19C with later 20C expansion. The
village is essentially a linear settlement with built development on either side of the main
Street following the contours of the shallow valley with higher land to the west and
northeast . The Church of St Leonard (GII*) sits on higher ground above the Main Street
at the core of the medieval village. There are two substantial listed farm complexes
dating from the 19C situated at the heart of the village (Hall Farm(GII) and Manor Farm
(GII). A number of unlisted buildings of merit have also been identified in the conservation
area appraisal and management plan (CAAMP).
The CAAMP recognises that the relationship between the farming village and the wider
landscape is integral to the character of the area. The appraisal also recognises that
views of the surrounding countryside from within the core of the village are limited due to
topography, alignment of buildings and mature vegetation however it does point out that
there are a few locations (such as opposite Manor Farm (listed GII) where clear site-lines
can be obtained of the open countryside beyond and that these views are important to the
setting of the conservation area.
The CAAMP specifically makes reference to the impact of potential large scale
development in the wider landscape (paragraphs 5.12 – 5.14). Paragraph states that “.. it
is considered that large scale developments, for example wind turbines, within the vicinity
of the conservation area are likely to have an impact on the character and appearance of
the conservation area”. Paragraph 5.14 states that when considering applications for
development the Council will consider the impact on the conservation area alongside
other national and local policy considerations before determining the application.
The proposed turbines will be sited approx 1.7km to the south west of the conservation
area and the listed buildings on Main Street. Due to the topography and layout of the
settlement there will be partial glimpses of the turbines from higher vantage points and
areas of open land. Whilst I do not feel that these would have a dominating effect on the
conservation area they will undoubtedly have an impact on the wider landscape setting
which has been recognised as being an intrinsic part of the character of the area. As a
result I do not feel that the development would preserve or enhance the character or
appearance of the conservation area.
Hardstoft
Hardstoft village and its agricultural origins date back to the medieval period and since
1593 the land in and around the settlement has been managed as part of the Hardwick
Estate. The settlement sits on a sandstone ridge overlooking the Doe Lea valley to the
east which is dominated by the escarpment on which Hardwick New and Old Halls stand.
The Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan 2010 recognises the
significance of this landscape setting. Due to the topography of the area there will be
some limited distant views of the proposed turbines from within the conservation area
(around the Green) and clearer views when exiting the conservation area past Yew Tree
farm along Deep Lane. However, given the distance from the site (over 5 km) away the
effects on the character and appearance of the conservation area would be negligible.
The character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved.
Stainsby and earthworks
Stainsby is a medieval ribbon settlement displaying the characteristic medieval pattern of
buildings along a main street with long thin crofts behind. Like Astwith and Hardstoft if has
been under the management of the Hardwick Estate since the late 16C. Within the village
envelope there is remains of a defended manorial complex (Scheduled Ancient
Monument) situated on the crest of the hill. The monument comprises below ground
remains of manor house and chapel and the surviving earthworks of the defensive ditch
and rampart, the outer circuit band and fishpond.
There is no Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan for the area but the
importance of the surrounding landscape has been recognised in the Historic
Environment SPD para 1.3 which states “the land surrounding the village gently
undulating and the views into and between the conservation areas are therefore
extremely important” . Views of the surrounding landscape are limited from the centre of
the village along Hawking Lane due to topography, built development and landscaping
and views only open up on the eastern edge of the conservation area.
There will a degree of impact on the setting of the designated asset but it is considered
that the character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved.
Impact on setting of scheduled ancient monument
Clear views are afforded to the proposed wind turbines from the crest of the hill adjacent
to the Scheduled Ancient Monument. The turbines will appear in the distance ( 3.3 km) on
top of the escarpment alongside Hardwick Hall. Whilst there is there will be an impact on
views from the ancient monument I do not think that this will harm the appreciation and
historic significance of the asset .
Astwith
Astwith, like Hardstoft is primarily an agricultural settlement which has also been under
the management of the Hardwick Estate. The settlement sits on a sandstone escarpment
overlooking the shallow valley of the Doe Lea.
The Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan 2010 recognises the
significance of this landscape setting and the importance of intermittent mid-long distance
views of the settlement from the north, east and southeast and views from the edge of the
settlement at Top Farm. Due to the topography of the area there will be distant views from
the conservation area around Top Farm and the centre of the village and Branch Lane.
However, given the distance from the site (over 5 km) away the effects on the character
and appearance of the conservation area would be negligible. The character and
appearance of the conservation area will be preserved.
Hardwick Old and New Halls and Registered Park and Garden
The National Trust, Derbyshire County Council and English Heritage in their responses
have provided evidence in support of the significance of the assets and the contribution of
the setting to the significance. This includes an analysis of designed and non-designed
views from the assets and long range views to and from the assets. I also agree with their
analysis of the importance of the registered park and garden as a historic asset in its own
right and not just as the setting to the Halls.
The Historic Environment SPD 2006 paras 2.48 – 2.51 provides a summary of the
significance of this historic estate and the aesthetic and functional interrelationships
between all the different elements.
An analysis of views of the blimp on the approaches to Hardwick from was carried out. On
the approach from Hardstoft, due to the existence of bands of mature trees and the
nature of the landform there were few areas where T1 could be viewed in direct
competition with the Hall. In addition, views of the blimp within the parkland were very
distant and set against mature vegetation. That said, there are obviously long distance
views of the turbines as evidenced by the view from Biggin Farm (viewpoint 11) and from
Branch Lane Astwith, and Chesterfield Road.
The submissions from the National Trust, English Heritage and Derbyshire County
Council make a case that the ridgetop siting for the Halls was intentional and the aspect
and strong visual prominence of the location was considered to be a distinct advantage.
This in turn suggests that the ridgetop setting plays an integral role in the historic
significance and that any changes to the surroundings will impinge on that significance.
It is accepted that there will be views of the development from various vantage points
within the historic park and garden but that generally these will be distant views set
against a background of mature vegetation (as evidenced by the position of the blimp). I
do not feel that these changes to the setting will have a serious impact on significance
and appreciation of the asset from within the park.
I consider that the most significant impact on the historic assets at Hardwick will be on
the long distance views of the Hall and historic Park when viewed from the west. There is
concern (as expressed by EH, DCC and NT) that the height, blade movement and visual
dominance of the turbines will compete with the dominance of this iconic asset.
However, it is noted that in views from the west the landscape setting is not unspoilt and
has been altered. The assets are currently viewed in association with modern housing
development in the foreground, M1 motorway and other modern development.
Bolsover Castle
English Heritage and Derbyshire County Council have provided detailed assessments of
the historic significance of the assets and the contribution of the setting to the that
significance. As with Hardwick there is a clear argument that the ridgetop positioning of
Bolsover Castle was intentional and clearly part of the design ethos to gain visual
prominence.
I am of the opinion that the main impacts of the development on the significance of the
Castle and Historic Park and Garden will be in long distance views towards the site. It has
been accepted by English Heritage that direct views of the turbines will be limited from
within the Castle grounds and consequently there will be a limited impact on historic
signifcance.
The positioning of the blimp gave a clear indication of the visual impact of T1. Given its
close proximity to the escarpment edge it was evident that it would appear as a large
structure on the horizon and despite the separation distance from Bolsover Castle there
will be an impact on long distance views. Due to the landform and the positioning away
from the escarpment edge the visual impact of T2 and T3 will be significantly less
(appearing as almost half the size in the distance). At present, Bolsover Castle and
Hardwick Hall are the dominant ridgetop features and there is a concern that the
dominance of T1 could affect this view which could have an impact on the significance of
the setting of the heritage assets..
However, it is noted that in views from the west the landscape setting is not unspoilt and
has been altered. The assets are currently viewed in association with modern housing
development in the foreground, M1 motorway, pylons and other modern development
Sutton Scarsdale
English Heritage and Derbyshire County Council have provided detailed assessments on
the historic significance of these assets and I concur with these assessments.
From the terrace the main views are directly across the valley towards Bolsover Castle
and town, Palterton village and Harwick Hall on the ridge. The positioning of the blimp
gave an indication of the visual impact of T1. Given its close proximity to the escarpement
edge it was evident that it (T1) would appear as a dominant feature on the horizon,
competing with the historic assets at Bolsover and Hardwick.
However it is noted that any visibility of the turbines from this asset would be viewed in
association with other modern intrusions including the M1 motorway, pylons and general
development around Bolsover.
Glapwell Lane Farmhouse
The detached farmhouse (listed GII) dating from mid 18C with later additions and
alterations sits in a visually prominent location the landscape adjacent to the main road.
There are a number of modern farm buildings to the rear of the property. The property
has undergone a number of alterations including the replacement of original windows with
modern 20thC casements and a flat roofed kitchen extension to the side. The alterations
to the property have undermined the historic and architectural significance of the building.
The list description refers to 20thC alterations and windows but it is unclear whether all of
the alterations were carried out prior to listing.
The farm stands alone as an isolated farmstead in the landscape and this backdrop forms
the setting to the listed building. The landscape setting is typical of the limestone
farmlands as characterised by Derbyshire Landscape Character Assessment (character
area 30) and comprises medium to large regular shaped fields. The landform is of an
elevated and for the most part gently rolling plateau and long distance views are
characteristic, due to the gentle relief, lack of hedgerow planting and large arable fields. It
is accepted that the views of the landscape are currently interrupted by a run of static
pylons.
The proposed turbines are sited 0.55km north and northeast of the farm. Having visited
Lanes Farm and viewed the site from the main living accommodation which is the kitchen
to the side, it is clear that there will be a significant impact on views from this part of the
dwelling. In particular, there are clear uninterrupted views of T1 from the side entrance
and the main kitchen window (the views of T2 and T3 are screened to a certain extent by
existing modern outbuildings in the farm yard). I have concerns about the impact of the
development on the residential amenity of the residents of the farm which may in turn
render the farm uninhabitable which could lead to the abandonment, dereliction and
ultimate loss of a heritage asset.
Given the isolated nature of the farm and the characteristics of the surrounding landscape
the proposed turbines will totally dominate and over shadow the farm. The listed building
would only be viewed in conjunction with the turbines. In the context of the listed building,
the turbines would be distinctly alien features because of their contrasting scale,
appearance and movement and as a result would harm the historic significance of the
asset.
However, It is noted that the architectural and historic interest and significance of the
building has been undermined by the 20th C alterations carried out and the setting of the
building has been compromised by the close proximity of the pylons.
Bothy
The Bothy, listed GII dates from late 18C was a garden feature in the now demolished
Glapwell Hall. The building is in a poor state of repair and is on the listed buildings at risk
register. The structure is located 1.1km from the proposed development and whilst the
proposed development would be visible from the site the impact on the significance of the
asset is considered to be negligible.
Ault Hucknall Church
The parish church of St. John the Baptist is positioned on top of a limestone ridge above
a semi-circle of villages. It is listed GI and is thought to date from the late Saxon period. It
has an ancient churchyard and cemetery which stand above the fields leading to Griff
Wood. The turbines will be visible from the rear of the Church. There are distant views of
the turbines with the church in the foreground taken from public footpaths within Hardwick
Park (view ??) and views from along Hodmire Lane. I am of the opinion that there will be
a degree of harm caused to the historic significance of this GI listed building by virtue of
scale of the turbines and the blade movement.
Bolsover Conservation Area
There will be limited long distance views of the turbines in views to the conservation area
as per Bolsover Castle assessment. It is anticipated that there will be limited views from
High Street and Backhills. It is considered that the impact will be negligible and the
character and appearance of the conservation area will be preserved.
Hardwick and Rowthorne conservation area
This conservation area covers a large area and includes a number of villages composed
of farm based settlements developed as part of the Hardwick estate. There are a number
of listed buildings in Rowthorne which is a typical medieval settlement. There will be
distant views of the proposed development from the settlements of Rowthorne and Ault
Hucknall and clear uninterrupted views on the road between these settlements. The
prominence of the turbines in views from the conservation area will have an impact on the
setting of the designated asset.
Conclusions
There is evidence to suggest that the presence of T1 so close to the escarpment edge is
a significant factor in contributing to the harm caused to the setting of a number of
designated assets.
Due to the close proximity to the heritage assets I am of the opinion that there will be
significant harm caused to the setting of both Lanes Farm and Palterton village – the
nature and degree of impact would be reduced by the removal of T1.
There are varying degrees of harm (which would amount to less than substantial harm) to
a number of other heritage assets. The extent of harm to some of the assets would be
reduced to a degree by the removal of T1







Bolsover Castle
Hardwick Old and New Halls
Historic parks and gardens – Bolsover and Hardwick
Hardwick and Rowthorne conservation area
Stony Houghton conservation area
Scarcliffe conservation area
Church of St John the Baptist Ault Hucknall