Saxby Wolds, Lincolnshire
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
David Hardy Our Ref: APP/Y2003/A/12/2180725 Eversheds LLP Bridgewater Place Water Lane 31 July 2014 LEEDS LS11 5DR Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (SECTION 78) APPEAL BY RWE INNOGY LTD: LAND AT SAXBY WOLDS, NEAR BARTON-UPON-HUMBER, NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE APPLICATION REF: WF/2011/0734 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, A D Robinson BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry on days between 8 and 22 May 2013 into your client’s appeal against a decision of North Lincolnshire Council (the Council) to refuse planning permission for: the erection of ten wind turbines for the purposes of generating electricity and associated infrastructure and services, including a meteorological mast, site roads, crane pads, site office, grid connection building and temporary construction compounds, in accordance with application ref WF/2011/0734 dated 17 June 2011. 2. On 23 August 2012 the appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed and planning permission refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Department for Communities and Local Government Tel: 0303 444 1634 Planning Casework Division, Email: [email protected] 1/H1, Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Procedural matters 4. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement (ES) that accompanied the application and the revised and updated environmental information which were submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (IR5-6). He agrees with the Inspector’s assessment at IR680- 684 and considers that the ES and updated information comply with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposals. Policy considerations 5. In deciding the appeal the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 6. In this case the development plan consists of the saved policies of the 2003 North Lincolnshire Local Plan (LP) and the 2011 North Lincolnshire Core Strategy Development Plan Document (CS). The Secretary of State considers that the policies identified at IR18-21 and IR485-495 are the most relevant development plan policies to this appeal. 7. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account are the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); the planning practice guidance published in March 2014; the National Policy Statements (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy (EN-3); and Ministerial Written Statements on renewable energy published in June 2013 by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. 8. The Secretary of State has also had regard to the local policy and guidance documents identified at IR22-23, 497-498 and 502-503. 9. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving any conservation areas and listed structures and their settings which potentially may be affected by the proposal. Main Issues Effect of the proposal on the landscape, including the public enjoyment of the landscape 10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s assessment on landscape and visual impact at IR522-586. For the reasons given he agrees that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the quality and character of the landscape, as well as having a significant visual impact. The harm would not be rendered significantly more acceptable by the prospect of the proposal being removed after 25 years (IR583). Whilst not giving rise to an unacceptable cumulative impact, the proposal would adversely affect those elements which distinguish this stretch of the Wolds, would diminish the contribution that the Wolds make to the wider landscape and would run counter to the undeveloped and open character of this part of the Wolds. The proposal would also diminish the physical tranquillity of this landscape. In addition, the proposal would have a harmful visual impact on the nearby Ancholme valley and would be prominent in other views (IR584). Accordingly, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would be contrary to LP Policy LC7 and also CS Policy CS16, and that the breach of these policies and the resultant harm would be substantial and serious (IR585). Effect of the proposal on designated heritage assets 11. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s assessment of the effect on designated heritage assets at IR587-605. For the reasons given, he agrees that the proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets surrounding the appeal site. In respect of the Jacobean Manor House and gardens and the Church of St Maurice, both in Horkstow, and Saxby All Saints Conservation Area, he agrees that the harm to their significance would be minimal at the most. He also agrees that the harm in respect of the impact on the significance of Chapel Farmhouse would also be of very low order (IR603). Impact of the proposal upon residential amenity in terms of noise, visual impact and shadow flicker 12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s assessment of the effect on residential amenity at IR606-652. For the reasons given, he agrees that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of those living nearby by reason of noise, visual impact and shadow flicker. As such, he also agrees that the proposal complies with LP Policy DS21 (IR653). Impact of the proposal on nature conservation interests and particularly the nearby Humber Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) 13. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s assessment of the impact of the proposal on nature conservation interests and in particular the Humber Estuary SPA at IR654-677. For the reasons given, he agrees that the proposal would not adversely affect nature conservation interests. Insofar as the Humber Estuary SPA is concerned, the proposal would not give rise to any significant effect upon the pink footed goose, nor would there be any likely significant effect upon the Humber Estuary SPA’s pink footed goose population and nor would there be any adverse effect on the integrity of this population (IR678). Accordingly, he also agrees that the proposal complies with CS Policy CS17 and the objectives of paragraph 109 of the Framework. Benefits accruing from the proposal 14. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s assessment of the benefits of the proposal at IR685-692. In addition to the significant benefits in terms of renewable energy and tackling climate change (IR688), he agrees that the contribution to energy security is an important benefit (IR689) and that there would be some other economic and environmental benefits of less importance (IR690-692). Conditions and obligations 15. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s comments at IR460-476 and the conditions in the Annex to the IR. The Secretary of State is satisfied that these conditions are reasonable and necessary and would meet the tests at paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework. However, he does not consider that the conditions would overcome his reasons for dismissing the appeal. 16. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s assessment of the two Unilateral Undertakings at IR477-481. He agrees that both Undertakings would be necessary to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms and would accord with the CIL Regulations 2010 and the tests in paragraph 204 of the Framework (IR479 and 481). However, for the reasons set out above, he does not consider that the Undertakings are sufficient to overcome his reasons for dismissing the appeal. Planning balance and overall conclusions 17. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s overall conclusions and weighing of benefits and harm at IR693-696. The proposal would give rise to important benefits in terms of climate change, renewable energy generation and energy security and the Secretary of State accords these benefits significant weight in favour. He also attaches some weight to other economic benefits and the work that would be undertaken to improve the nature conservation interest in the site (IR693). 18. Weighing against the proposal, the harm to heritage assets would be of a very low order and the benefits that would accrue from the proposal would substantially outweigh this limited harm (IR694). However, the proposal would cause substantial harm to the quality and character of an important feature within the landscape, result in significant visual impact and diminish the enjoyment of this part of the countryside in general and of the Viking Way in particular. Having regard to paragraph 98 of the Framework, the Secretary of State considers that these impacts cannot be made acceptable. He agrees with the Inspector that the harm to the landscape, visual amenity and enjoyment of the countryside would be such as to more than outweigh the benefits of the proposal.