Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 February 2015 by B.Hellier BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 18 March 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/T2350/A/14/2217074 Englands Head Farm, , Clitheroe, BB7 4BJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission. • The appeal is made by Future Energy Partnership LLP against Ribble Valley Borough Council. • The application Ref 3/2013/0722 is dated 19 July 2013. • The development proposed is the erection of one 500kW wind turbine with a tip height of 67.9m and all associated works.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for the erection of one 500kW wind turbine with a tip height of 67.9m and all associated works is refused.

Application for costs

2. An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Procedural matter

3. The Council failed to determine the application in the extended timescale that had been agreed with the applicant. However it has subsequently indicated that it would have refused the application because of its impact on the landscape and on the setting and significance of designated heritage assets. It was also concerned about the potential impact on protected species and species of principal importance.

Main issue

4. I consider the main issue is whether benefits attaching to renewable energy production and other benefits of the proposal would be outweighed by any harm arising from its effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, on heritage assets and on wildlife.

Reasons

Planning policy

5. The Government is committed to developing renewable energy sources, including wind power, both to secure energy supply and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Underlying this is EU Directive 2009/28/EC which requires the www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/14/2217074

UK to achieve a legally binding target of 15% of all energy to be generated from renewable resources by 2020. More recently the 2009 UK Low Carbon Transition Plan sets out a national strategy for climate and energy that aspires to 30% of electricity coming from renewable resources by 2020.

6. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 1 sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Renewable energy is central to this aim and the NPPF advises that an application for renewable energy should normally be approved if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable 2. However the NPPF environmental dimension to sustainability includes recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Current national planning practice guidance (PPG) makes it clear that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. Particular attention should be given to cumulative impacts 3.

7. In relation to heritage assets paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm shall be weighed against the public benefit of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

8. Underpinning heritage policy for listed buildings Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to 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. The Court of Appeal 4 has recently determined that, in having this special regard under Section 66(1), any harm identified should be treated as a matter of considerable importance and weight.

9. The relevant development plan document is the Ribble Valley Core Strategy 5. Policy DME5 supports renewable energy schemes providing they would not cause unacceptable harm to the local environment or local amenity. It sets out matters that should be taken into account in assessing such schemes, including the effects on biodiversity and heritage assets and their setting.

10. In relation to character and appearance Policy EN2 expects development to respect the inherent quality of the landscape and resists development which would significantly harm important landscapes. Policy DME2 seeks to enhance the local landscape and refers to guidance provided by Lancashire County Council 6 defining local landscape character areas. The appeal site falls within an area described as undulating lowland farmland .

11. Policy DME3 seeks to protect wildlife species and important habitats and Policy DME4 does not support development proposals within the setting of listed buildings which cause harm to their heritage significance.

12. The Core Strategy has recently been adopted and I consider the above policies are generally in accordance with the NPPF and should be given full weight.

1 National Panning Policy Framework. March 2012 (paragraph 17) 2 NPPF paragraph 98 3 Planning Practice Guidance: Paragraph: 007 Reference ID: 5-007-20140306 4 Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited v East Northamptonshire District Council and Others [2014] EWCA Civ 137 5 Core Strategy 2008-2028 A Local Plan for Ribble Valley Adopted December 2014 6 A Landscape Strategy for Lancashire: Landscape Character Assessment Lancashire CC December 2000 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/14/2217074

Character and appearance

Landscape effects

13. The turbine would be situated at a height of about 135m AOD in a large rectangular field sloping down gently to the north. It lies within a band of rolling lowland with the incised course of the River Ribble running in a broad arc to the east. To the west there are several local hillocks or drumlins rising to a height of about 155m AOD which screen the site from Paythorne village. It is an agricultural landscape with a mix of improved pasture and rough grazing, clumps of trees, rather sparse hedgerows, scattered farmsteads and small settlements. There is little modern development. Buildings are mainly of traditional stone construction with clusters of newer development around farmsteads.

14. Beyond the river to the east and south the land is higher and more undulating with the prominent whaleback of Pendle Hill in the background. About 3km to the west is a low ridge at about 190m AOD marking the boundary of the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). To the north the lowland continues with the linear village of Halton West against the backcloth of the Pennines culminating in the flat summit of Ingleborough in the far distance.

15. There are few vertical features although from the appeal site an existing small wind turbine is visible on the skyline to the south at Moor Farm about 3km away and a radio mast the same distance to the north-west.

16. This is not a protected landscape. However, generic guidance on wind energy developments in Lancashire 1 assesses undulating lowland farmland as having a high sensitivity where there will be very limited development opportunities. This guidance assesses capacity in relation to wind farms rather than a single medium sized commercial turbine as proposed in this case. This does not alter the fact that it is a landscape having a high sensitivity to change.

17. The proposed turbine would be of a monopole design with a nacelle and three rotating blades with an overall height of just short of 68m. There would be a rotor diameter of 54m so that the structure would have a rather squat and ungainly appearance when viewed head on. Its height and massing would jar with the domestic scale of the settled countryside and its vertical form would disrupt the distinctive rolling sweep of the lowland landform. The movement of the blades would detract from the essentially undisturbed and tranquil rural surroundings. It would also be out of scale with the more intimate drumlin terrain immediately to the south west. In this sensitive setting the turbine would cause significant harm to landscape character.

Visual effects

18. The application was accompanied by a landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) which includes photographs and wireframe drawings of the site from 15 viewpoints with the proposed turbine superimposed. The LVIA concludes that the effect on visual amenity would only be significant within 500m. However I consider this underplays both the size of the proposed turbine and the sensitivity of the landscape to change.

1 Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Development in Lancashire. Lovejoy Assoc. for Lancashire County Council. February 2005 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/14/2217074

19. A number of rights of way run close to the site. Of greatest significance are the , a long distance footpath, and the Pennine Bridleway, a well signposted national trail, which both follow much the same route from Paythorne to Halton West. Over a distance of some 3km the turbine would be a prominent feature. Coming south it would be a dominant and discordant presence against the skyline interrupting fine views towards Pendle Hill. In the opposite direction from Paythorne there would be disconcerting partial views of the blades. Considerable weight should be given to the visual impact on these strategic recreational routes.

20. There would also be an adverse impact on the outlook of residents of Halton West who would see the turbine as a significant intrusion into open views south over Ribblesdale. Overall I consider the impact on residents, walkers and horse riders, would result in substantial visual harm.

Cumulative effects

21. The LVIA assessment of cumulative effects does not take into account the Sweden Moor Farm turbine. This is only half the height of the proposed turbine although it is a noticeable feature in views from the north where the two would be seen in combination. In some of these views two other small turbines further west are apparent but as only minor features. Given the size of these turbines and the separation distances, I do not find that any significant landscape or visual harm would arise from cumulative effects.

22. There is a proposal for three 100m high turbines at Brightenber Hill 1 to the south of the Sweden Moor Farm turbine which is currently the subject of an appeal. However since the appeal has yet to be determined I have not taken it into account.

Forest of Bowland AONB

23. The boundary of the AONB is about 3.5km from the appeal site. The LVIA concludes that views of the turbine would be limited to glimpses which at this range would not be of any significance. There is no evidence to the contrary and having tried to view the site from the AONB I agree with this assessment. The impact on the AONB would be negligible and does not weigh against the proposal.

Conclusion on character and appearance

24. I have found significant harm arising from landscape effects and substantial harm from visual effects. As a consequence of its height, its massing and the movement of its blades the proposed turbine would have a considerable adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to the objectives of Core Strategy Policies EN2 and DME2.

Heritage assets

25. Two Grade 2 listed buildings have been identified as being adversely affected. Paa Farm is 825m from the site and lies to the south of a small hill. The LVIA includes a view from close to the property but the wireframe is difficult to interpret as it does not appear to show the hill in the foreground. There is no doubt though that the upper part of the turbine would be visible above the hill

1 Appeal Ref APP/C2708/A/12/2186488 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/14/2217074

as an intrusion into the sheltered setting of the farmstead. Some mitigation would be provided by trees but there would nonetheless be an adverse impact.

26. Cow Hill Farm is a farmhouse about 1.5km from the site situated in a slightly elevated position to the north close to the Ribble Way. Its orientation, which has the main front elevation looking across the lowland towards the distant hills, is not accidental and this setting makes a positive contribution to its heritage significance. At present the view is of a landscape which shows little sign of recent intervention. Certainly the lowland farms and the backcloth of the Pennines and Pendle Hill would have been there when the property was built in this position. Because of its size the turbine would be seen as a significant detractor in this setting.

27. Whilst the harm to the heritage significance of these listed buildings would be less than substantial it must still attract considerable weight. It would also conflict with Core Strategy Policy DME4.

Wildlife effects

28. The matters in dispute are the impact on bats and on two bird species, the curlew and snipe. The application was accompanied by a habitat survey which concluded that the appeal site and its surroundings were not suitable for bats and that the defunct hawthorn hedge nearest to the appeal site was unlikely to be used for foraging. There was a record of a brown long-eared bat roost 1.75km to the south west but from here the obvious foraging area would be the established hedges and woodland towards the river.

29. Whilst not disputing the logic of this scenario the Council considers that some empirical information should be obtained from the local bat group or from a survey to back up the assumption that bats would not use this as a corridor. Without this evidence it would wish to see the turbine moved further within the field to give a 50m separation between the blades and hedge in accordance with the standing advice from Natural . This is not an unreasonable stance. It is a matter that would be resolved by a condition requiring one of the above options to be adopted.

30. There is an area of poorly drained rough grassland some 300m to the north of the appeal site which records suggest is used as a nesting area for snipe and curlew. The dispute is whether the operation of the turbine would disturb and displace the birds from this area. However the parties have reached agreement that this concern would be overcome by the provision of a compensatory habitat using other land in the same ownership as the appeal site. This could be secured by condition.

31. Subject to the above conditions there would not be any material detriment to wildlife.

Balance between harm and the benefits of the proposal

32. The turbine would be expected to generate approximately 1,292,000kWh of electricity per year or the equivalent of that needed to power 287 households. It would also result in saving some 520 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. This would amount to a relatively modest but nonetheless very welcome contribution to the national grid and to renewable energy targets. The NPPF emphasises that even small scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/T2350/A/14/2217074

33. The development would also support the local economy both directly and indirectly. The proposal would meet a high proportion of the electricity needs of the farm which currently provides one full time and four part time jobs. The introduction of three phase electricity would enable the provision of fans and a heat recovery system into the milk production process and there is the potential of an additional job. There would also be local expenditure during construction and the possibility of additional spending power generated by the diversified farm business. I give substantial weight to these benefits.

34. However in this instance I find that the benefits are outweighed by the considerable harm arising from the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and on heritage assets, particularly Cow Hill Farm. I conclude that the balance is clearly against the development. The impacts of the turbine would not be acceptable nor could they be made acceptable. As such the proposal would be contrary to paragraph 98 of the NPPF, the advice in the PPG and Core Strategy Policy DME5.

Other matters

35. The application and appeal has attracted comments from a number of organisations, including the Ribble Banks Parish Council, the Halton West Parish Meeting and the branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. On the other hand there have been only a few objections from individuals and the appellant argues that this lack of local objection should weigh in favour of the proposal.

36. However the application was submitted before 17 December 2013 which is the date when the requirement 1 that applicants for wind turbine development should undertake local consultation came into effect. This may explain why a number of those responding refer to a lack of awareness locally of the proposal. In the absence of a formal community consultation I have not taken the level of response to the application as being in any way determinative of local support or otherwise.

37. Access to Englands Head Farm is along a privately maintained farm track known as Bow Hills Lane and its extension Paa Lane. The track also gives access to Paa Farm and Manor House Farm. The occupiers/owners of these properties have raised concerns about the impact of construction traffic on the track structure and the responsibility for any damage that might be caused. I consider the suitability of the track is a proper planning consideration particularly as it is also a public bridleway. Whilst noting the lack of consultation to date I am satisfied that this is a matter which could be addressed by a transport management plan and dealt with by condition as suggested by the Council.

Conclusion

38. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Bern Hellier

INSPECTOR

1 Consultation process set in train by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure and Section 62A Applications) (England) (Amendment) Order 2013 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6