Hewell Grange Estate - Setting of Heritage Assets Assessment

RecurrenceN/AReversibilityThe development is likely to be irreversibleLonger term or consequential effects of the developmentThe attributes outlined in the EH document are changes to ownership arrangements,economic and social viability and communal use and social viability. These attributes arenot perceived as impacting greatly on the setting of the HAs.Step 4: Maximising enhancement and minimising harmThe EH document notes that ‘Maximum advantage can be secured if any effects on thesignificance of a heritage asset arising from development liable to affect its setting areconsidered from the projects inception’. In addition it is further stated that ‘Earlyassessment of setting may provide a basis for agreeing the scope and form ofdevelopment, reducing the potential for disagreement and challenge later in theprocess’. As application stage has not been reached yet in respect of any developmentwithin The Area, there is still time to consider, in light of the above analysis, whetheranother site maybe more appropriateMaximising enhancementThe EH document notes that ‘Enhancement maybe achieved by actions including:removing or remodelling an intrusive building or feature; replacement of a detrimentalfeature by a new and more harmonious one; restoring or revealing a lost historic feature;introducing new views (including glimpses or better framed views) that add to the publicexperience of the asset: or improving public access to, or interpretation of, the assetincluding its setting’. Extensive development of The Area would not enhance the settingof the HAs.Minimising harmThe EH document notes that ‘options for reducing the harm arising from developmentsmay include the relocation of a development or its elements, changes to its design, thecreation of effective long-term visual or acoustic screening, or management measuressecured by planning conditions or legal agreements’. In addition it states ‘ For somedevelopments affecting setting, the design of a development may not be capable ofsufficient adjustment to avoid or significantly reduce the harm, for example whereimpacts are caused by fundamental issues such as the proximity, location, scale,prominence or noisiness of a development’.Although the topography of The Area is undulating, having assessed the topography andsightlines in detail, to and from the southern boundary of the RPG and the CA, it isconsidered that any development in The Area would intrude into the setting of bothHeritage Assets.Step 5 – making and documenting the decision and monitoring outcomes.The EH document notes that ‘Broad guidance on weighing the degree of harm to thesignificance of a heritage asset against the benefits of changes, including developmentaffecting setting is provided in policies HE8, HE9 and HE10 of PPS5 (now supersededby Paragraphs 129 to 135 of the NPPF) and in paragraphs 83 to 95 of its (PPS5)Page | 21