PPS5 - Policy HE1: Heritage Assets and Climate Change - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Open group
|
Started - July 2012
|
Last activity - Today
PPS5 - Policy HE1: Heritage Assets and Climate Change
Tim Dawson, modified 12 Years ago.
PPS5 - Policy HE1: Heritage Assets and Climate Change
New Member Posts: 15 Join Date: 20/10/11 Recent Posts
0
PPS5 Policy HE1 (para. HE1.3) states: 'Where conflict between climate change objectives and the conservation of heritage assets is unavoidable, the public benefit of mitigating the effects of climate change should be weighed against any harm to the significance of heritage assets in accordance with the development management principles in this PPS and national planning policy on climate change.' Does anyone have any examples of how 'public benefit' has been/can be effectively weighed against any harm to the significance of heritage assets?
Tim English Heritage have a guidance documents which may help however I have just had to make such an assessment for the committee which was more on my own judgement and knoweldge of the area/site in relation to the SMAS and LBC's in the area in regards to harm (2 37m turbines) and benefits gained. Happy to send you the committee report if it helps. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/wind-energy-and-the-historic-environment/ http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/advice-by-topic/setting-and-views/heritage-assets/ http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/conservation-principles
As the public benefit would be 'reducing the impacts of climate change', it's a matter of deciding how great the benefit would be against how great the impact would be. We're getting solar panel applications all the time now, and have approved a few where visibility is minor on the grounds of the benefits they would have to climate change - normally this means on an outbuilding (most are from quite well-off, large sites with multiple buildings) or on a hidden roof slope. Similarly we have reviewed our approach to double-glazing, in that if the windows in question are of minor or no significance, we might allow good double-glazed replacements. We will still resist the removal of good traditional windows however, as there are much better and more sensitive ways of improving thermal performance. If you wish, I can send you references to specific cases that you can then look up on our system?