Local Planning Auth Statement

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Appeals by EDF Energy Renewables Limited Land north east of the Bullington Cross Interchange at Upper Norton Farm, Sutton Scotney, Hampshire, known as Bullington Cross Wind Farm

------

PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCES: APP/L1765/W/14/3001602, APP/H1705/W/14/3001603, APP/C1760/W/14/3001604

------

STATEMENT OF CASE ON BEHALF OF WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL BASINGSTOKE & DEANE BOROUGH COUNCIL TEST VALLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL

APRIL 2015

------

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This is the statement of case1 on behalf of the three local planning authorities (“LPAs”), Winchester City Council (“WCC”), Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (“BDBC”) and Test Valley Borough Council (“TVBC”) relating to planning appeals concerning a wind farm development of 14 wind turbines (in total) and ancillary infrastructure and services (“the proposal”).

1.2 The proposal crosses the boundaries of the three local planning authorities and so necessitated three separate planning applications (and appeals), as detailed below, but the proposal is put forward as a single development.

1.3 At the inquiry the three planning authorities will be jointly represented.

2. REFERENCES

2.1 Planning Inspectorate Appeal Reference Numbers:

WCC: APP/L1765/W/14/3001602

BDBC: APP/H1705/W/14/3001603

TVBC: APP/C1760/W/14/3001604

2.2 Local Planning Authority Case Numbers:

WCC: 13/00800/FUL W22618/03

TVBC: 13/00753/FULLN

BDBC: 13/00046/FUL

1 Produced in accordance with the timetable first issued by Inspectorate under cover of letter 26.1.15

3. THE APPEAL SITE AND ITS LOCATION

3.1 The appeal site at Upper Norton Farm is located approximately 2km to the north east of the ‘Bullington Cross’ junction at the intersection of the primary east west and north south arterial roads A303 and A34. It is approximately 12km north of Winchester, 10km east of Andover, and 11km south west of the outskirts of Basingstoke. The settlements of Whitchurch and Laverstoke lie to the north in the river valley of the Test, with Hurstbourne Priors and Longparish to the west, whilst to the south, on the opposite side of the A303, are the settlements of Micheldever Station to the east and Upper Bullington to the west adjacent the A34. The valley of the River Dever lies further to the south and accommodates a number of small settlements between Micheldever in the east and Sutton Scotney in the west.

3.2 The topography rises to a ridge between the two river valleys, although the landscape character in which Upper Norton Farm is located is most appropriately described as one of open arable downland interspersed with areas of woodland. The farm comprises a complex of modern farm buildings that lie each side of a Public Right of Way (PRoW) which runs north eastwards through the farm and application site, from just north of the Norton Lane underpass of the A303 to its termination with Laverstoke Lane approximately 3.3km to the east. The farm complex also includes three dwellings. A large block of woodland, Freefolk Wood, lies to the north of the application site and there are several small blocks of woodland to the south including Blind End Copse and Norton Copse.

3.3 At its closest point the wind farm would be 10km from the boundary of the South Downs National Park and less than 4km from the boundary of the North Wessex Downs AONB.

4. THE PROPOSAL

4.1 The proposal is for a single wind farm development of 14 wind turbines for an operational period of 25 years.

4.2 The turbines have a height of 80 metres to hub and an overall maximum height of 126.5 metres to blade tip. The ground level heights range between 90 to 120 metres above sea level. Each turbine is served by a 4 metre access track from the main farm track and will include a hard surfaced lay down area and crane pad (45m x 28m).

4.3 Other ancillary development will include external transformers (which are likely to be required to be positioned alongside each turbine), a control building (comprising a 12m x12m single storey blockwork building) and metering point, a 70m anemometer mast, a temporary construction compound and underground cabling.

4.4 The turbines are likely to have a rated output capacity of 2MW and the generated capacity of the project will be around 28 MW depending on the final choice of turbine model.

4.5 The application does not include offsite works associated with the connection of the wind farm to the grid.

5. PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 Previous planning applications associated with Upper Norton Farm have been made in relation to the farming enterprise or, in some cases, the change of use of existing buildings. None are of relevance to the development proposed in this case.

5.2 The three LPAs, following a request for a screening and scoping opinion from the appellant on 23 April 2012, confirmed that the proposed development required an Environmental Impact Assessment and commented on the scope of the assessment.

5.3 Following the applications that are the subject of this appeal, a planning application was made to and approved by WCC on 15 November 2013 for the siting of an 80 metre high temporary anemometry mast, (almost adjacent to the permanent mast location that forms part of this application) for a period of three years (Case Number:13/01831/FUL).

5.4 In 2012, Hampshire County Council, as the minerals and waste planning authority, granted planning permission for the former public house site at Bullington Cross to be used for metal recycling depot purposes (Case Number: 12/02013/HCS).

6. BACKGROUND AND REFUSALS

6.1 The applications were accompanied by an Environmental Assessment, which included an Environmental Statement, a Planning Statement, a Design and Access Statement and a Statement of Residential Amenity.

6.2 Supplementary Environmental Information was submitted in December 2013 which included an Updated Planning Statement. Some additional documentation was also provided as referred to in the statement of case of the appellant2.

6.3 The applications were presented to the Planning Development Control Committees for the three LPAs at a joint meeting on the 16th June 2014. The committees were provided with a joint report which, where appropriate, addressed separately particular issues relevant to each LPA. The committees were also provided with an update sheet in relation to recent consultation responses and further information in relation to several issues. They were also provided with a supplementary noise report relating to further information provided by the Applicant, “Review of Applicant’s Environmental Information – Noise” dated April 2014.

2 Dated 18.12.14, section 3 – procedural background

6.4 The committee report concluded that although the proposed development was for a form of renewable energy which was supported by elements of national and local policy and the energy produced would make a meaningful contribution to local electricity demands (which carried considerable weight in the NPPF) there were significant and demonstrable adverse impacts associated with the proposal which outweighed the benefits. Following the meeting the LPAs issued decision notices setting out reasons for refusal as set out below.

6.5 In respect of WCC:

1 Landscape - Impact on Nationally Important Landscapes

The proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the purposes and special qualities of two national landscape designations; the South Downs National Park and the North Wessex Downs AONB. The proposals would not conserve or enhance the particular qualities of these areas and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape setting of these areas and on the views out from these areas. In addition, and for the same reasons, the development would result in an unacceptable cumulative impact when taking into account the wind turbine proposals at Woodmancott. The development is therefore considered as contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 113 and 115, National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and policies CP19 & CP20 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013. Additionally, as the development has an impact on land outside the district Saved Policies E1, E6 and A6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006 - 2011) and Test Valley Borough Local Plan policy DES01.

2 Landscape - Impact on the fabric, character and quality of the receiving landscape.

The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the landscape character of the area as due to the scale, prominent skyline location and visually disturbing movement of the turbines they would be incongruous and alien to the acknowledged attractive remote and tranquil downland countryside landscape character of the district in this location which also contributes positively to the setting of a number of designated and undesignated heritage assets. Development as proposed would also adversely impact on the visual amenity of this largely undeveloped area as the turbines would introduce an extremely tall, incongruous and visually dominant industrial presence that would significantly detract from cherished

6 panoramic views from extensive sections of public rights of way and from viewpoints within the South Downs National Park to the detriment of its setting and unique sense of place. The development is therefore contrary to Chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework; National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and Policies CP19 & CP20 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013. Additionally, as the development has an impact on land outside the district Saved Policies E1, E6 and A6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006 - 2011) and policy DES01 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006.

3 Heritage - Inadequacy of Information / weighting to show effects would not be harmful

The proposed development, due to its far reaching visual dominance breaking the skyline and introducing incongruous scale, form and movement as part of the backcloth setting to many heritage assets including Winchester Cathedral, other listed buildings, conservation areas, registered Parks and Gardens would devalue the important contribution that such assets make to the district’s character and heritage. In the case of Winchester Cathedral, as viewed from St Catherine's Hill, the impact of the development on the skyline, in an otherwise undamaged view enjoyed for centuries, must be given substantial weight in terms of adverse impact. It is therefore considered that the proposed development will be detrimental to the historic character of the northern part of the district and the contribution it makes to the setting of the city, its cathedral and to the South Downs National Park contrary to NPPF paragraphs 128, 132, 133, 134, 135 and Policy CP20 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013.

4 The E S assessment of heritage assets does not sufficiently extend to lower grade assets which make valuable contributions to the district's character, often at some distance from the site. As such, the LPA is unable to make a properly informed decision regarding the impact on the Historic Environment which is contrary to their duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses in accordance with Section 66(1) of the P(LBCA) Act 1990.

5 Ecology - Inadequacy of Information to show effects would not be harmful

It is considered that insufficient survey information has been provided to satisfactorily demonstrate that the development will not have unacceptable adverse impacts on protected species or their habitat. As a result of this lack of information, it cannot be concluded with confidence that the proposal would not cause harm to bats and dormice and their habitats which receive legal protection under UK

and European law. As such the proposals are contrary to Chapter 11 (in particular paragraph 118) of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and Policy CP16 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013 and Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policy ENV01 and ENV05.

6 Aviation

The proposed wind farm, by reason of its location, number and height of turbines, would pose an unacceptable additional hazard to military aircraft, particularly helicopters, within an area of relatively congested aviation activity which includes a designated MOD low flying training area where regular low level restricted landing manoeuvres are practiced with Chinook and other rotary wing aircraft. Relocation of such training facilities within the area, so as to avoid the proximity of the wind farm, is not practicable due to other restrictions and the development would thus undesirably prejudice aviation safety or continued use of such operational training facilities contrary to national interests and guidance in National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

7 Chilbolton Observatory

The proposed wind farm by reason of its location, number and height of turbines would be likely to adversely impact the operations of the Chilbolton Observatory Advanced Meteorological Radar which supports national meteorological research, including in regard to climate change and extreme weather event prediction. The turbines would partially encroach into the radar scan view leading to data corruption prejudicial to the observatory's provision of data for national academic research. The development would therefore be contrary to national and local planning objectives for the safeguarding of nationally important infrastructure in National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

8 Lasham

Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there will be an acceptable impact on the safety of operations at Lasham Airfield from the proposed development or that mitigation can create an acceptable impact. As such the application is considered contrary to National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

6.6 In respect of BDBC:

1. The proposed development would result in unacceptable harm, to the purposes and special qualities of two national landscape designations; the South Downs National Park and the North

Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposals would not conserve or enhance the particular qualities of these areas and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape setting of these areas and on the views out from these areas. In addition, and for the same reasons, the development would result in an unacceptable cumulative impact when taking into account the Wind turbine proposals at Woodmancott.

The development is therefore considered as contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 113 and 115, National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and Saved Policies E1, E6 and A6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006 ·2011); ‘Countryside Design Summary’ (Appendix 14) of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2008): Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Guidance (2001). As the development has an impact on land outside the borough Policies CP19 & CP20 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013 and Policy DES01 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006.

2. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the landscape character of the area as due to the scale, location and movement of the turbines they would be incongruous to the acknowledged unspoilt, undeveloped, rural and remote landscape character of the borough in this location which also contributes positively to the setting of a number of designated and undesignated heritage assets. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area as the turbines would create extremely tall, incongruous and industrial presence that would cause significant harm to views from extensive sections of public rights of way, as well as significant harm to views both to and from the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Along with the tall height of the structures, the rotating blades would create visual disturbance into the unspoilt, tranquil and largely undeveloped countryside. Views of the turbines would not respect or improve the scenic quality of the countryside and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or the unique sense of place. The development is therefore contrary to Chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework; National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and Saved Policies E1, E6 and AS of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006 - 2011). 'Countryside Design Summary' (Appendix 14) of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2008); Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Guidance (2001). As the development has an impact on land outside the borough Policies

CP19 & CP20 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013 and Policy DES01 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006. 3. The proposed development would fail to preserve the architectural, historic and landscape significance of The Bee House (Grade II* listed building), Hurstbourne Priors Conservation Area and Hurstbourne Park (Grade II Registered Park), which individually would each experience a significant degree of impact to their setting. It would also negatively affect their historic and current architectural and historical relationship with each other, and also with the nearby Grade II* listed Church of St Andrew. Additional harm would also be caused to the setting of the Conservation Area at the southern end of the boundary where a significant degree of impact would be experienced to the broader landscape context of the village. The degree of visibility of the turbines that would be experienced by each of these designated heritage assets would detract from the appreciation of the intended, designed as well as the fortuitous landscape setting of the assets, which is central or of great importance to their architectural, landscape and historic significance. As such the proposals do not comply with S.66 and S.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, or with Policies E2, E3, and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, and are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (Section 12), the local Supplementary Planning Guidance note entitled, ''The Historic Environment: Listed Buildings", and the guidance given by Appendix 4 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document, 'The Historic Environment: Conservation Areas", and the Hurstbourne Priors Conservation Area Appraisal. 4. The proposed development would fail to preserve the architectural, historic and landscape significance of Laverstoke Park (Grade II Registered Park) and Laverstoke House (Grade II"' listed building), by virtue of the impact that the expected visibility of the proposed turbines would have on the intended historic landscape design of the park and outlook from the house. As such the proposals do not comply with S.66 and S.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, or with Saved Policies E2 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, and are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (Section 12), the local Supplementary Planning Guidance note entitled, "The Historic Environment: Listed Buildings". 5. The propose development would fail to preserve the architectural and historic significance of the Whitchurch, and Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Areas, both individually and together, by virtue of the degree of impact that the turbines would have on the positive landscape views south from the area around London

Road, The Gables, and the Lynch. As such their proposals do not comply with section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, or with Saved Policies E1, E3 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996- 2011, and are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (Section 12), and to the guidance given by Appendix 4 of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document, "The Historic Environment: Conservation Areas" 8.nd the adopted Conservation Area Appraisals of the affected areas. 6. It is considered that insufficient survey information has been provided to satisfactorily demonstrate that the development will not have unacceptable adverse impacts on protected species or their habitat. As a result of this lack of information, it cannot be concluded with confidence that the proposal would not cause harm to bats and dormice and their habitats which receive legal protection under UK and European law. As such the proposals are contrary to Chapter 11 (in particular paragraph 118) of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3; Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006), As the development has an impact on land outside the borough Policy CP16 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013 and Policy ENV01 and ENV05 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan. 7. The proposed development is considered to have an unacceptable impact on the residents of the properties at Tufton Warren Farm for reasons of the number turbines and the width of the view impacted. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006). 8. The proposed wind farm by reason of its location, number and height of turbines would pose an unacceptable additional hazard to military aircraft, particularly helicopters, within an area of relatively congested aviation activity which is a designated MOD low flying training area where regular low level restricted landing manoeuvres are practiced by Chinook and other rotary wing aircraft. Relocation of such training facilities within the area, so as to avoid the wind farm, is not practicable due to other restrictions and the development would thus undesirably prejudice aviation Safety or continued use of such operational training facilities contrary to national interests and guidance in National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3. 9. The proposed wind farm by reason of its location, number and height of turbines would be likely to adversely impact the operations of the Chilbolton Observatory Advanced Meteorological Radar which supports national meteorological research, including in regard to climate change and extreme

weather event prediction. The turbines would partially encroach into the radar scan view leading to data corruption prejudicial to the observatory's provision of data for national academic research. The development would therefore be contrary to the objectives for the safeguarding of nationally important infrastructure in National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan. 10. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there will be an acceptable impact on the safety of operations at Lasham Airfield from the proposed development or that mitigation can create an acceptable impact. As such the application is considered contrary to National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN- 3.

6.7 In respect of TVBC:

01. The proposed development would result in the introduction of an extremely tall, incongruous and industrial presence into the countryside. Along with the tall height of the structures, the rotating blades would create visual disturbance into this largely undeveloped countryside which also contributes positively to the setting of a number of designated and undesignated heritage assets and would result in these major structures dominating the view from many points in Test Valley having a detrimental impact to both visual amenity and landscape character in views from the PROW network and the highway network within Test Valley. Therefore the proposals are contrary to Chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework; National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and Policy DES 01 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006. Additionally, as the development has an impact on land outside the district Saved Policies E1, E6 and A6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006 - 2011) and policies CP19 and CP20 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013.

02. The proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the purposes and special qualities of the North Wessex Downs AONB. The proposals would not conserve or enhance the particular qualities of these areas and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape setting of these areas and on the views out from · these areas. In addition, and for the same reasons, the development would result in an unacceptable cumulative impact when taking into account the wind turbine proposals at Woodmancott. The development is therefore considered as contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 113 and 115, National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and

policy DES01 and ENV07 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan. Additionally, as the development has an impact on land outside the district Saved Policies E1, E6 and A6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006 - 2011) and policies CP19 and CP20 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013.

03. The proposed development by virtue of its design, scale and location would fail to preserve the architectural and historic setting of designated heritage assets within Test Valley. The closest and most affected designated heritage assets are Bullington House (Grade II), Firgo Farm (Grade II), St. Michaels Church, Bullington (Grade II*), Barton Stacey Conservation Area and Tidbury Ring (SAM). The proposed development would have an adverse impact on their settings which are an aspect of their significance. As such the proposals do not comply with S.66 and S.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 or with policy ENV17 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan and contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

04. Insufficient information has been provided to enable the Local Planning Authority to properly assess the impacts of the proposal on European protected species (bats and hazel dormouse) and their breeding and resting places, or to demonstrate that measures to be implemented to avoid, mitigate or compensate for impacts are appropriate to the impacts and deliverable. Insufficient information has been provided to assess impacts to priority habitats, or to demonstrate that measures to avoid, mitigate or compensate for impacts to such habitats are appropriate to the impacts and deliverable. The application is therefore contrary to policies ENV01 and ENV05 of the Test Valley Local Plan, and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). As the development has an impact on land outside the borough Policy CP 16 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013 and Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006 - 2011).

05. The proposed wind farm by reason of its location, number and height of turbines would pose an unacceptable additional hazard to military aircraft, particularly helicopters, within an area of relatively congested aviation activity which is a designated MOD low flying training area where regular low level restricted landing manoeuvres are practiced by Chinook and other rotary wing aircraft. Relocation of such training facilities within the area, so as to avoid the wind farm, is not practicable due to other restrictions and the development would thus undesirably prejudice aviation safety or continued use of such operational training facilities contrary to national interests and guidance in National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

06. The proposed wind farm by reason of its location, number and height of turbines would be likely to adversely impact the operations of the Chilbolton Observatory Advanced Meteorological Radar which supports national meteorological research, including in regard to climate change and extreme weather event prediction. The turbines would partially encroach into the radar scan view leading to data corruption prejudicial to the observatory's provision of data for national academic research. The development would therefore be contrary to national and local planning objectives for the safeguarding of nationally important infrastructure in National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

07. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there will be an acceptable impact on the safety of operations at Lasham Airfield from the proposed development or that mitigation can create an acceptable impact. As such the application is considered contrary to National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

7. WITNESS EVIDENCE

7.1 At the forthcoming Public Inquiry the LPAs will call expert witness evidence addressing and supporting the reasons for refusal and in particular to deal with the following subject matters:

• Landscape and Visual impact

• Cultural Heritage

• Ecology

• Residential amenity

• Aviation (Lasham)

• Chilbolton Observatory Advanced Meteorological Radar

• Planning Policy and Planning Balance

7.2 The LPAs reserve the right to amend or add to this list of professional witnesses.

8. LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

National Guidance

8.1 The LPAs will refer to and discuss the range of relevant national policy and guidance in evidence.

The Development Plan

8.2 In respect of WCC, the Development Plan comprises the Local Plan Part 1(March 2013) and the saved policies of the Winchester District Local Plan Review 2006. The relevant policies include:

Local Plan Part 1 2013

• DS1 – Development Strategy and Principles • MTRA4 – Development in the Countryside • CP12 - Renewable and Decentralised Energy • CP16 – Biodiversity • CP19 - South Downs National Park • CP20 - Heritage and Landscape Character

Winchester District Local Plan Review 2006 saved policies

• DP.3 – General Design Criteria • DP.4 – Landscape and the Built Environment • DP.11 – Un-neighbourly uses • HE.4 - Conservation Areas • T.2 – Development Access

8.3 In respect of BDBC, the Development Plan comprises the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 – 2011 (saved policies). The relevant policies include:

• Policy E1 (Development Control) • Policy E2 (Buildings of Historic of Architectural Interest)

• Policy E3 (Areas of Architectural or Historic Interest) • Policy E6 (Landscape Character) • Policy E7 (Nature/Biodiversity Conservation) • Policy A6 (Renewable Energy)

8.4 In respect of TVBC, the Development Plan comprises the Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 (saved policies). The relevant policies include:

• Policy SET03 (Development in the Countryside) • Policy ESN32 (Renewable Energy Developments) • Policy ENV01 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) • Policy ENV05 (Protected Species) • Policy ENV17 (Settings of Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Archaeological Sites and Historic Parks and Gardens) • Policy HAZ06 (Safeguarded Aerodromes and Technical Sites) • Policy TRA08 (Public Rights of Way) • Policy TRA09 (Impact on the Highway Network) • Policy DES01 (Landscape Character) • Policy AME04 (Noise and Vibration)

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)

8.5 In respect of BDBC, the following SPDs and SPGs are of relevance:

• Countryside Design Summary (Appendix 14) of the Design and • Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2008) • Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Guidance (2001) • Landscape and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document (2008) • S106 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Interim Planning Guidance Note (July 2005, updated April 2013).

Other Material Considerations - emerging policy

8.6 The evidence presented will consider the relevance and weight of emerging policy. In particular, the BDBC Emerging Local Plan was submitted to the Inspector for examination in October 2014 and on the current timetable is due to be adopted in Spring 2016.

8.7 The Revised Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan DPD 2011 – 2029 was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 31st July 2014 and is now the subject of an independent examination by a Planning Inspector.

Legislative Requirements

8.8 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that:

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

8.9 Section 85(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 provides that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an area of outstanding natural beauty, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty.

8.10 By s. 11A of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section five of the 1949

Act and, if it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park.

8.11 Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that:

“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 may 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.”

8.12 Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.

8.13 By Regulation 3(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, an inspector shall not grant planning permission unless they have first taken the environmental statement into consideration, which must, by regulation 2(1) include such information referred to in Part 1, Schedule 4 as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and which the applicant can, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to compile. Part 1 of Schedule 4 refers to a description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment.

8.14 Regulation 9(5) of the Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 provides that a competent authority, in exercising any of their functions, must have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive3 so far as they may be affected by the exercise of those functions. Article 12 of the

3 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

Habitats Directive provides that member states shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range, prohibiting (a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild; (b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration; (c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild; and (d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.

8.15 By ss. 9(1) and (4) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is an offence to kill, injure or take any wild animal included in Schedule 5 of the 1981 Act and it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy any structure or place which any wild animal specified in Schedule 5 uses for shelter or protection, disturb any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection, or obstruct access to any structure or place which any such animal uses for shelter or protection.

8.16 By section 40(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.

9. THE CASE FOR THE LPAs

9.1 The LPAs will present evidence to the inquiry to support the reasons for refusal as set out above, addressing any more recent evidential and legal developments as is appropriate.

9.2 The LPAs will address the up to date policy position and guidance along with any developments in that regard.

9.3 The key issues from the LPAs’ perspective are:

(1) Impact of the proposal in landscape and visual terms

(2) Impact on the setting and significance of heritage assets (3) Impact on priority species and habitats (4) Impact on residential amenity (5) Impact on aviation (6) Planning policy and planning balance

10. LANDSCAPE

10.1 It is the LPAs’ view that the landscape and visual effects of large scale wind turbines as proposed are a very important factor within the assessment of the environmental aspect of sustainable development in the determination of whether a proposal is acceptable in national planning policy terms. This is endorsed within the NPPF, national planning policy guidance, national policy EN-1 and EN3 and planning appeal decisions. The impacts of development on the national landscape designations, in this case the South Downs National Park and North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and on the land outside of these areas, the wider landscape, are important material considerations.

10.2 Notwithstanding the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which accompanied the development proposals within the ES, the LPAs do not agree with the conclusions reached in the LVIA. The LPAs will show through their own LVIA assessment, prepared in accordance with the Landscape Institute’s current guidance ‘Guidelines for landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition April 2013’, that the LVIA is incorrect in its conclusions, under-estimating the significance of the impact on valued landscapes.

10.3 The appellant’s LVIA recognises that there are significant effects arising from the development. The LPAs however hold that these are not limited to the immediate locality, as claimed in the LVIA, nor that an area with a distance of up to 5km, can be regarded as ‘very localised’ or ‘localised’ as assessed in the LVIA. Rather the LPAs regard the impact

to be widespread, affecting the landscape character and views of extensive landscapes within and outside of national landscape designations.

10.4 The LPAs will describe the landscape character and special landscape qualities of both the receiving landscapes and those affected by views of the turbines. They will refer to the key characteristics of the wider landscape and special qualities of the national landscape designations which will be adversely affected by the proposed development. They will also identify representative viewpoints (single viewpoints to represent one or a group of views), drawing from but not limited to the LVIA viewpoints, and will describe the visual impact on these representative viewpoints. The LPAs will demonstrate the unacceptable landscape and visual impact of the proposed development including, but not limited to, its scale, dominance and/or prominence in the landscape, location in relation to the skyline, and movement of the turbine blades. They will also demonstrate that the proposed siting and incongruous nature of the turbines within a valued attractive landscape which is particularly noted for its sense of remoteness and tranquillity, undisturbed by modern development, would result in a widespread and major adverse change to the rural character of the receiving landscapes.

10.5 The LPAs contend that despite some slight variations in the wording of the three notices of refusal, all three LPAs are in agreement on the fundamental landscape and visual harm arising from the proposed development.

Visual effects

10.6 The LPAs will present evidence of the extensive and significant detrimental impact of the development on visual receptors within 10km of the site and important longer distance views up to a distance of 15km

including, but not limited to, those identified in the appellant’s LVIA. They will show that the turbines would significantly affect the existing quality of the local visual amenity as experienced by the local community including most notably extensive sections of public rights of way and public viewpoints within the national landscape designations. The LPAs will show that the visual impact on highways, particularly identified in Test Valley’s reason for refusal 01, and other public locations also contribute to the unacceptable adverse impact on the visual amenity. The sensitivity and value attached to all of these views will be considered and assessed in accordance with the current guidance within GLVIA3 where greater weight is given to visual receptors who are in locations where an appreciation and enjoyment of the views over open countryside is a key factor, as in this case.

Effects on landscape character

10.7 In accordance with GLVIA3, the LPAs regard the character of the landscape to embrace the features of the landscape as described in the relevant landscape character assessments, the influence of human activity or lack of it, the aesthetic and perceptual qualities of the landscape, scenic quality and the overall character as the result of the combination of the above. The LPAs will refer to the value and importance of these aspects as defined in the relevant national, regional and local character assessments and the guidance in relation to changes and development within these landscapes as set down within these assessments. All three LPAs include the impact on landscape character within their reasons for refusal, as distinct from the impact on visual amenity. Test Valley adopts a slightly different approach dealing with visual impacts in the first instance. However the LPAs all acknowledge the close inter-relationship between the landscape and visual impacts when considering the effect of such large scale

development where widespread visibility leads to impacts on the perception and experience of the receiving landscapes.

10.8 The LPAs will demonstrate that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the intrinsic landscape character, beauty and role of these rural landscapes as set out within the NPPF - including paras 17, 109, 113 and 115.

10.9 The LPAs will show that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable level of harm to the immediate receiving landscape; and the wider landscape where introduction of the proposed development into views from within these landscapes will have a detrimental impact on the intrinsic landscape character and beauty of the landscape and its contribution to the rural character of the area and landscape setting of the national landscape designations. The LPAs will show that the proposed development would be detrimental to, and out of scale with, the receiving downland landform and landscape pattern.

National landscape designations

10.10 The LPAs will show that although the proposed development does not lie within either the South Downs National Park or the North Wessex Downs AONB, the development is of such a large scale, and of a nature that is totally uncharacteristic of the landscape and visual setting of these national landscape designations, that it will result in unacceptable harm to the landscape and visual setting of these national landscape assets. The LPAs will refer to the definition of the landscape and visual setting of these national landscape designations as set out by the North Wessex Downs AONB and South Downs National Park. The LPAs will contend that material weight should be given to the impact on views from both national landscape designations when not just distance but also the value of these views, and change to those valued views, is taken into account. The LPAs will demonstrate that the development will

consequently result in harm to the purposes, special qualities and distinctive features of those parts of both national landscape designations affected.

Cumulative impacts on national landscape designations

10.11 The LPAs are in agreement that the development would also result in an unacceptable cumulative harm in each of their areas when taking into account the wind turbine proposals at Woodmancott. However, the proposed development at Woodmancott received a notice of refusal by Basingstoke and Deane in July 2014 and this refusal has not been appealed against. The LPAs will show that in the event that this application is revived, the cumulative effect of both developments on the landscape and visual setting and valued views from nationally designated landscapes would be unacceptable and consequently result in harm to the purposes, special qualities and distinctive features of those parts of both national landscape designations affected. It is accepted however that unless the application is renewed this issue will cease to be of relevance.

Residential amenity (RVAS)

10.12 The Appellant has indicated it will produce a new RVAS within the Landscape and Visual proof of evidence. The LPAs will review this when it becomes available (and they reserve their position until that time) and prepare its own case based on information provided by the appellant and independent visual impact studies to be undertaken as part of the landscape and visual evidence.

Additional visualisations submitted by the appellant

10.13 The LPAs welcome the suggested production and inclusion of additional single frame enlargements (statement of case of appellant p.30 refers) provided these are in accordance with the accepted current best practice as set out by the Landscape Institute and Scottish National Heritage. The selected viewpoints chosen will be examined and the LPAs would hope to agree such matters well in advance of the exchange of proofs and to include agreement within the statement of common ground.

10.14 New visualisations to include the site infrastructure are also expected to be agreed with the LPAs well in advance of the exchange of proofs and included within the statement of common ground. The LPAs have taken into account the impacts of site infrastructure, as well as the wind turbines, in determining the applications but will refer to the new visualisations as necessary.

10.15 The current visualisations with a 90˚ angle of view are agreed as within good practice. The LPAs have no objection to these views being set within a wider panorama to show wider context but will consider the accuracy and usefulness of the revised visualisations and the impact and significance of the effect on the context of these views in their LVIA and landscape and visual proof of evidence.

11. CULTURAL HERITAGE

11.1 The construction and operation of the proposed Windfarm would significantly alter the setting and harm the significance of a number of designated and undesignated heritage assets within the landscape around the proposed development site.

Winchester CC 11.2 The LPA’s heritage expert will demonstrate the importance of the skyline to the setting of Winchester Cathedral - an iconic Grade I listed building - and its setting. The city is set within a natural bowl which is unusual for a cathedral city where the cathedral is low down in relation to the surrounding topography. Its backdrop is relevant to its significance and the imposition of moving turbines on the skyline is regarded as incongruous with its historic presence and prestige when viewed in particular from St Catherine’s Hill - a major heritage site in its own right. The relationship of St Catherine’s Hill and other heritage sites on high ground surrounding the city, to the development and morphology of the settlement is key to the heritage value of the city itself, and the cathedral is the cultural focal point in terms of historic building and function. The LPA’s case will set out why viewing the turbines in the same view as the cathedral is therefore inappropriate and contrary s.66 of the P(LB&CA)Act 1990.

11.3 Since the LPA’s case is that the Cathedral can be viewed from St Catherine’s Hill in the same view as the wind turbines, it follows that there is theoretically a case to say that other heritage assets located between the Cathedral and the skyline would also be seen in conjunction with the turbines. However, the evidence given by the appellant has not demonstrated that these assets have been assessed let alone dismissed as not being affected. The LPA will demonstrate that harm will be caused to a number of such heritage assets due to the inter-visibility and simultaneous visibility of the turbines in the settings of a number of heritage assets.

11.4 It is the LPA’s case that this assessment should have been done by the appellant at application stage to demonstrate with some confidence that the development would not harm any heritage assets and the LPA will argue that the appellant has failed to sufficiently assess impacts on a range of heritage assets.

Basingstoke and Deane BC 11.5 In relation to BDBC, the main assets that would be affected include:

Conservation Areas • Steventon Conservation Area • Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Areas • Whitchurch Conservation Area • Hurstbourne Priors Conservation Area • Chilton Candover Conservation Area • Brown Candover Conservation Area

Listed Buildings and Registered Parks • Litchfield Grange (G.II) and barn (G.II*) • Laverstoke Park (House, G.II*, Park G.II) • Hurstbourne Park (Park G.II, 4 x G.II listed buildings within park) • The Bee House, Hurstbourne Priors (G.II*, within Hurtsbourne Park registered park) • Church of St Andrew, Hurstbourne Priors (g.II*) • Church of St Peter, Brown Candover (g.II*) • Moundsmere Manor (GII* registered gardens) • Hampshire County Council registered park at Farleigh House

Locally Listed Buildings • Tufton Warren Farm

Undesignated Heritage Assets; • New Barn Farm house, Laverstoke • The Avenue, Chilton Candover

Test Valley BC

11.6 In relation to TVBC, the main assets that would be affected include:

Designated heritage assets: • Bullington House (grade II) • Bransbury Mill, Barton Stacey (grade II)

• Firgo Farm, including the farmhouse, barn 30 yards south of the farmhouse and stable 20 yards west of the farmhouse – all grade II • Church of All Saints, Barton Stacey (grade I) • Church of St Michael, Bullington (grade II*) • Southside Farm, Longparish, including the farmhouse, barn and cartshed 50 yards south-west of the farmhouse, granary 50 yards south-west of the farmhouse, and stable 20 yards west of the farmhouse– all grade II • Barton Stacey Conservation Area • Tidbury Ring (Scheduled Ancient Monument)

Non-designated heritage assets: • Bransbury Mill Cottage, Barton Stacey • Hill Barn, Bullington • Hill Farmhouse, Barton Stacey • Newton Down Farm, Barton Stacey

Harm to heritage assets

11.7 The LPAs will present evidence assessing the significance of the assets and their individual and/or collective value. The evidence will describe and assess the harm to the assets due to the adverse effect of the proposal on settings and significance and will identify for each of the assets harmed whether the harm would be substantial or less than substantial, and why. The LPAs will demonstrate that the location of the proposal is unsuitable for development of this scale.

11.8 The scale of harm gives rise to conflict with local and national policy and guidance including the following guidance and policies:

• NPPF paragraphs 132-134 • Policy CP20 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013 • Saved policies E2, E3 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2015 • ENV17 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 (saved policies)

11.9 As set out in Paragraph 132 of the NPPF “...heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.” Paragraphs 132 and 133 of the NPPF also set out that developments which result in substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets should be exceptional or wholly exceptional, depending on the significance of the asset. Paragraph 134 indicates that where less than substantial harm occurs the benefits of the development need to be weighed against the harm.

11.10 In this context the LPAs are mindful of guidance in paragraph 132 which states that “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.” This clearly indicates that in terms of assessing the relative harm and benefit of a scheme, great weight should be placed on the need to conserve an asset’s significance; and that when assets of the highest value are affected even greater weight should be placed on the conservation of their significance.

11.11 The guidance in paragraph 132 of the NPPF to place great weight on the conservation of an asset’s significance reflects the statutory requirement in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Section 66(1) to have special regard to the preservation of a listed building and its setting: “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 may 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”; and the requirement in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that “special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.” In that regard the LPAs will provide legal submissions addressing the correct

approach to decision making in this context in light of the Court of Appeal decision in Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northamptonshire DC, English Heritage, National Trust and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 137.

11.12 Recent decisions by the Secretary of State in relation to proposed wind farm developments at Lane Head Farm (APP/G0908/A/13/2191503, 16 April 2014), Thornholme Fields (APP/E2001/A/13/2190363, 21 May 2014), Land to the West of Bicton Industrial Estate between the villages of Kimbolton and Stow Longa APP/H0520/A/13/2207023, 11 February 2015), Former Asfordby Mine / Existing Asfordby Business Park (APP/Y2430/A/13/2191290, 4 March 2014), Land East of Rotherham Road (APP/R1010/A/14/2212093, 12 March 2015), Land at Bishopthorpe Farm (APP/D2510/A/14/2213150, 20 March 2015), Land to the North of Kingerby Wood (APP/N2535/A/14/2216163, 23 March 2015), provide further clarity on the great weight and special regard that needs to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets.

11.13 The Former Ashfordby Mine decision also provides a clear indication that harm to assets cannot be treated in an entirely segmented manner and that consideration of harm to the historic environment in the round must be considered when weighing up the balance between potential harm and benefits.

11.14 The LPAs’ evidence will demonstrate that the proposed scheme would not preserve the setting and would harm the significance of a number of important heritage assets.

11.15 In the LPAs’ opinion, the suggestion that the development might be reversible after 25 years is no justification in this case for discounting the significantly adverse, i.e. substantial and less than substantial harms to the settings of numerous heritage assets, some of which are of the highest order of significance.

12. ECOLOGY

12.1 The submitted details, including the Environmental Statement (dated April 2013) and Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI), fail to demonstrate that the proposed development (with particular regard, but not limited to the proposed turbines located within close proximity to woodland areas, including identified ancient and semi-natural woodland) would not result in any significant adverse impact on protected species. Insufficient and accordingly inadequate information has been provided to enable impacts on priority habitats to be fully and lawfully assessed or to demonstrate that such impacts can be appropriately avoided, mitigated or compensated using deliverable measures, including in relation to cabling and grid connection.

12.2 Evidence will be presented in order to show that the survey information provided is not sufficient to demonstrate that the proposals will not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on bat species, in particular medium to high-risk species with regard to wind farm developments.

12.3 Evidence will also be provided to demonstrate that insufficient information has been provided as part of the application in order to establish that the proposals will not result in any significant adverse impact on Dormouse, including individuals and their breeding sites and resting places, and that insufficient information has been provided such that it can be concluded that Natural England would not be unlikely to grant any necessary licences to facilitate the works in regard to Dormouse in line with the associated legislative tests under Regulation 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).

12.4 It will be shown that, on the basis of the information provided, it cannot be safely concluded that the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 or the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) would be met in regard to these protected species and associated

issues and that the application is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); National Policy Statements (EN-1 and EN-3); Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013 (Policy CP16); Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 (Policies ENV01 and ENV05); Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006), (Saved Policy E7), as well as other relevant legislation including the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

12.5 Reference will also be made to consultation responses received during the course of the application from Natural England and other external bodies including Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and Plantlife.

12.6 In the event that the appellant submits further environmental information, the LPAs reserve the right to reconsider their position.

13. AVIATION

Ministry of Defence Low Flying Training

13.1 The Ministry of Defence objected to the proposal on the basis of the adverse impact on a designated area for low-flying training, where regular low level restricted landing manoeuvres are practised by Chinook and other rotary wing aircraft.

13.2 Although the LPAs have not taken separate, independent advice in relation to this issue and are, to that extent, reliant on the MOD’s objection to the proposal, the LPAs have no reason to doubt that the MOD’s objection is soundly based and found nothing in the representations that could lead them to disagree with the conclusion that the proposed development would unacceptably affect the provision of low-flying training.

13.3 The LPAs understand that rule 6 status has been granted to the MOD. The LPA will rely upon the evidence produced by the MOD and will keep the position under review should any material changes arise.

Lasham 13.4 Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there will be an acceptable impact on the safety of operations at Lasham Airfield from the proposed development or that mitigation can create an acceptable impact.

13.5 The 14 wind turbines would theoretically be detectable to the Lasham Primary Surveillance Radar system due to a lack of intervening terrain features. In the absence of any information in relation to the frequency of aircraft landing at the airfield in receipt of a Deconfliction Service, it has not been possible to discount any adverse impact or be satisfied that mitigation can make any such impact acceptable.

13.6 As such the application is considered contrary to National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

13.7 The LPAs have continued to liaise with Lasham Airfield to determine the extent of any impact. The LPAs have also noted what is said about the possibility of a mitigation programme at paragraph 11.65 of the appellant’s statement of case and will update the inquiry in relation to its position in light of any further information that comes forward.

14. CHILBOLTON OBSERVATORY

14.1 The proposal would be likely to adversely impact the operations of the Chilbolton Observatory Advanced Meteorological Radar, the world's largest fully steerable meteorological radar, which supports national and international meteorological research.

14.2 In particular, the turbines would partially encroach into the radar scan view leading to data corruption prejudicial to the observatory's provision of data for research.

14.3 The development would therefore be contrary to national and local planning objectives for the safeguarding of nationally important infrastructure in National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

14.4 The LPAs will present evidence to the inquiry in relation to this adverse impact.

15. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

15.1 The LPAs considered that the development would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of a number of dwellings from the perspective of noise and shadow flicker although, for the most part, the wind farm could be operated within limits considered to be acceptable as assessed against government policy.

15.2 However, in relation to Tufton Warren Farm, BDBC consider that the impact of the proposal would be such as to cause the dwelling to be rendered an unattractive and unsatisfactory place to live so that the effect of allowing development would, in reality, make the dwelling unbearable as a place to reside.

15.3 BDBC will provide evidence to demonstrate the perceived impact on the residential amenity of impacted properties, including Tufton Warren Farm. As noted above the LPAs will consider any new material produced by the appellant in relation to residential amenity.

16. PLANNING POLICY ISSUES

16.1 Having regard to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework, the LPAs will identify the weight which should be

given to development plan policy, supplementary planning documents, draft local plan policies and other material considerations.

16.2 The LPAs fully recognise the strong policy support for all forms of renewable energy developments, so long as they are appropriately located and satisfactorily mitigated, and so long as the public benefits outweigh the harm. It does not seek to question the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy developments. The LPAs will refer to national targets for renewable energy installation and consider performance against these. It will also consider the projected energy contribution to be made by the proposal.

16.3 The LPAs will have regard, as appropriate, to the July 2013 Planning Practice Guidance, now incorporated into the on-line National Planning Policy Guidance 2014 as amended (paragraph 007), that:

• The need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections • Local topography is an important factor in assessing whether wind turbines could have a damaging effect on landscape • Great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting • Protecting local amenity is an important consideration which should be given proper weight in planning decisions

16.4 They will also have regard to the energy contribution of the proposed development as advised by paragraph 021 of the on-line NPPG.

17. THE PLANNING BALANCE

17.1 The LPAs will consider the benefits of the renewable energy which would result from the proposal, and weigh these against the harm that would result from the proposal in light of relevant policy and statutory provisions.

17.2 Having regard to national policy and the statutory requirements contained in s. 85(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and s. 11A of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the LPAs will weigh the benefits of the proposal against the adverse impact of the proposal in landscape and visual terms and will conclude that the adverse impacts outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

17.3 Having regard to the national policy context and the statutory requirements, the LPAs will weigh the benefits of the proposed development that can properly be taken into account, against the degrees of harm which will be caused to a wide range of heritage assets when considered both individually and, as appropriate, for their group value.

17.4 In undertaking the planning balance, as well as considering the relevant national and development plan context, the LPAs will consider the distinct statutory duties imposed by Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

17.5 The LPAs’ case will conclude that the identified harm to the various heritage assets, whether considered individually and/or when the sum total of harm is considered in relation to the several assets, outweighs the benefits of the proposal.

17.6 The LPAs will assess the information provided by the appellant and demonstrate that it fails to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in any significant adverse impact on protected species or priority habitats or demonstrate that such impacts can be appropriately avoided, mitigated or compensated using deliverable measures.

17.7 Accordingly, the LPAs will show that the appellant cannot demonstrate that the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species

Regulations 2010 (as amended) would be met, nor those contained in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

17.8 The LPAs will weigh the benefits of the proposal against the impact of the proposal on designated low-flying training area, Chilbolton Observatory Advanced Meteorological Radar and Lasham Airfield and will conclude that individually, these impacts outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

17.9 BDBC will assess the impact of the development on residential amenity and will demonstrate in particular that the impact on Tufton Warren Farm would be unacceptable such that the adverse impact will outweigh the benefit.

17.10 The LPAs will demonstrate that, taken individually or cumulatively, the adverse impacts of the development outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

18. CONCLUSION

18.1 The appeals should be dismissed for the reasons set out above.

18.2 The LPAs reserve the right to refer to additional policies and guidance not referred to above if appropriate (including any new guidance which may be issued) and to suggest appropriate planning conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed. The LPAs note that the appellant has suggested various conditions. The LPAs will seek to agree appropriate wording in a statement of common ground.

18.3 The LPAs will seek to work together with the appellant and the Rule 6 parties to produce a statement of common ground.

18.4 It should be noted that the LPAs do not deal in this Statement of Case with the Supplementary Environmental Information dated April 2015

and sent by the appellant under cover of letter dated 30 March 2015. This information will be dealt with in due course.

19. DOCUMENTS TO BE REFERRED TO IN THE LPAs’ EVIDENCE

19.1 The following documents are likely to be referred to by the LPAs within the appeal. The documents are presented in topic order4:

Adopted Development Plan Documents

• Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 (March 2013) • Saved Policies of the Winchester District Local Plan Review (July 2006) • Saved Policies of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan (June 2006) • Saved Policies of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council adopted Local Plan (July 2006)

National Planning Policy and Guidance • National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (the Framework) • NPPG On-line version 2014 as amended • Written Ministerial Statements of 6th June & 10 October 2013 and 9th April 2014

Other Local Planning Authority Documents and Regional Documents • Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Emerging Local Plan (submitted for examination in October 2014). • The Revised Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan DPD 2011 – 2029

Relevant Acts and Regulations • Town and Country Planning Act 1990

4 A Core Document list will be agreed with the appellants

• The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 • The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 • The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 • Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 • The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 • The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 • The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 • The Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 • Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

Planning, Renewable Energy and Climate Change Documents • Climate Change: The UK Programme 2006 • The Energy Challenge 2006 • Energy White Paper, Meeting the Challenge 2007 • Energy Act 2008 • Climate Change Act 2008 • Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 • Energy Act 2010 • 2nd Progress Report of the UK Committee on Climate Change 2010 • Renewable Energy Action Plan 2010 • Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Capacity Study 2011 • UK Renewable Energy Roadmap 2011 • UK Renewable Energy Roadmap Update 2012 • Energy Bill 2012 • Annual Energy Statement 2012 • Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) July 2011

• National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) July 2011 • UK Renewable Energy Roadmap Update 2013

Landscape • National Character Area NCA • Hampshire Integrated Landscape Character Assessment • South Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment • North Wessex Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment • Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Character Assessment SPG 2001 • Winchester District landscape Character Assessment SPD 2004 • Test Valley Community Landscape Project • North Wessex Downs Management Plan 2014-2019 • North Wessex Downs Position Statement on Landscape Setting • North Hampshire LDF – Renewable Energy and Low Carbon Development 2010: • Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition 2013 • Visual Representation of Wind Farms (December 2014) SNH • Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Assessment - Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/11 Landscape Institute

Heritage • English Heritage, Wind Energy and the Historic Environment, 2005 • English Heritage, Guidance on Conservation Area Appraisals, 2006 • English Heritage, Guidance on the Management of Conservation Areas, 2006.

• Department of Transport, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges – Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 – Cultural Heritage, 2007 • English Heritage, Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment, 2008. • English Heritage, Understanding Place: Historic Area Assessments in a Planning and Development Context, June 2010 • English Heritage, Understanding Place: Character and context in local planning, 2011 • English Heritage, Understanding Place: Conservation area designation, appraisal and management, 2011 • English Heritage, The Setting of Heritage Assets, 2011 • English Heritage, Seeing History in the View, May 2011 • South Downs National Park Authority, Shaping the future of your South Downs National Park. 2013 • English Heritage, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 3, March 2015 • English Heritage, Good practice advice on setting and decision- taking • Landscape Design Associates (1998). Winchester City and its Setting - Stage 1 report. Winchester: • Winchester Heart of a City, Andrew Rutter, 2009, Winchester: P&G Wells. • The Buildings of England Hampshire: Winchester and the North, Bullen et al, 2010 • Winchester and its Setting, City of Winchester Trust, 2011, Winchester: City of Winchester Trust & The Hampshire Gardens Trust • Basingstoke and Deane BC, The Historic Environment Listed Building SPG, 2003 • Basingstoke and Deane BC, Design and Sustainability SPD, Appendix 4 – The Historic Environment: Conservation Areas, 2008

• Basingstoke and Deane BC Conservation Area Appraisals: Laverstoke and Freefolk, Whitchurch, Hurstbourne Priors, Steventon, Brown and Chilton Candover. • List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest for Barton Stacey, Bullington and Longparish (21st March 1984) • Barton Stacey Conservation Area Character Appraisal (TVBC 2008)

Ecology • BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development (BSI) • Chanin and Woods 2003. Surveying dormice using nest tubes: results and experiences from the South West Dormouse Project. English Nature Research Report No 524. Peterborough: English Nature. • Dietz., C., von Helversen, O. and Nill, D. (2009). Bats of Britain, Europe and Northwest Africa. London: A and C. Black Publishers Ltd. English Nature, ‘The dormouse conservation handbook’, 2nd Edition, Jan 2006 • Hundt (2012) Bat Surveys: Good Practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition, Bat Conservation Trust • Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom • Natural England: Standing Advice for Protected Species • Natural England Technical Information Note TIN051, Bats and onshore wind turbines Interim guidance • Rodrigues L, Bach L, Duborg-Savag M-J, Goodwin J and Harbusch C (2008) Guidelines for Consideration of Bats in Wind Farm Projects. EUROBATS Publication Series No. 3 (English version). UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. • Rodrigues L, Bach L, Duborg-Savag M-J, Karapandza B, Kovac D, Kervyn T, Dekker J, Kepel A, Bach P, Collins J, Harbusch C, Park K, Micevski B and Minderman J (2015) Guidelines for Consideration of Bats in Wind Farm Projects - Revision 2014.

EUROBATS Publication Series No. 6(English version). UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. • WWF-UK, English Nature, RSPB & BWEA (March 2001) Wind farm development and nature conservation: Guidance document for nature conservation organisations and developers when consulting over wind farm proposals in England.

Relevant appeal and judicial decisions • APP/Y2430/A/13/2191290 Peel Wind Farms (UKC) Limited: Former Asfordby Mine/Existing Asfordby Business Park LE14 3JL (4 March 2014) • APP/G0908/A/13/2191503: Appeal by Ms Mary Ruth Harker: Lane Head Farm, Boltongate, Wigton CA7 1DH (16 April 2014) • APP/E2001/A/13/2190363: Appeal by Wind Prospect Developments Ltd: Thornholme Fields, Rudston Road, Burton Agnes (21 May 2014) • APP/l2630/A/13/2203839: Land east of Semere Green Road. (Forming Part Of Upper Vaunces Farm), Pulham Market and Dickleburgh (With Access From A140), Norfolk (23 January 2015) • APP/H0520/A/13/2207023: Land to the west of Bicton Industrial Estate between the villages of Kimbolton and Stow Longa, Cambridgeshire (11 February 2015) • APP/R1010/A/14/2212093: Appeal by Roseland Community Windfarm LLP: Land east of Rotherham Road, Bolsover, Derbyshire (12 March 2015) • APP/D2510/A/14/2213150: Appeal by ASC Renewables Ltd: Land at Bishopthorpe Farm, Tetney, Grimsby (20 March 2015) • APP/N2535/A/14/2216163: Appeal by Mr Brant Clayton (Happy Days Farming Company) Land to the North of Kingerby Wood, Kingerby, Lincolnshire, LN8 3LX (23 March 2015) • APP/D2510/A/11/2161066: Appeal by Mark Caudwell Ltd: Land 7km north-west of Skegness and 2km south-west Of Orby Village, East Lindsey DC (27 March 2015)

• Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northamptonshire District Council and Others [2014] EWCA Civ 137; • North Norfolk District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and David Mack [2014] EWHC 279 (Admin) • Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13 • South Lakeland District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] 2 A.C. 141 • The Queen (on the application of The Forge Field Society, Martin Barraud, Robert Rees) v Sevenoaks District Council v West Kent Housing Association, The Right Honourable Philip John Algernon Viscount De L'Isle [2014] EWHC 1895 (Admin) (12th June 2014) • City of Edinburgh v Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] 1 WLR 144 • Morge (FC) v Hampshire County Council [2011] UKSC 2

19.2 The LPAs reserve the right to refer to additional documents as necessary.