8th November 2014 Dear Ms Foster,

It has come to our attention that a planning appeal in relation to a single 67 metre high (to blade tip) wind turbine proposed for the Bath & West Showground was decided on 31 October 2014. The appeal (reference APP/Q3305/A/14/2216306, and a copy of which is attached) was dismissed. We believe the facts of that case and the decisions made on those facts are directly relevant to the Thoulstone Farm single 86.5 metre wind turbine application, and we ask you to read and take into consideration those facts and decisions.

In his assessment of landscape character impact, the inspector considered that the proposed turbine would be a notable feature in the landscape introducing a noticeable change to the landform and pattern of the local landscape. On visual impact, he considered the proposed turbine would cause harm to the visual appearance of the area as perceived by some receptors such as those living in Prestleigh, a village within 2 km of, and on higher ground overlooking, the site. The harms to landscape character and visual appearance would be exacerbated, in his view, by the cumulative impact of the proposal, introducing a second wind turbine into the area. In relation to heritage assets and their settings, the inspector had t o consider a Scheduled Ancient Monument 3.5 km away and three Grade 2 listed buildings. He found harm to the significance of those heritage assets and their settings, albeit "less than substantial" harm. He noted that NPPF 134 requires some quantification of the public benefit flowing from the development proposal. He only found private benefit (to the Showground in a reduction of its running costs), and that therefore he was unable to conclude that the public benefit of the proposal outweighed the less than substantial harm he had identified in relation to the heritage assets. The special regard he was obliged under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have to the desirability of preserving ("doing no harm to" according to the inspector following judicial authority) the buildings or their settings weighed against the grant of planning permission in the overall planning balance scales. Finally, the inspector accorded very little weight to the developer's argument that after 25 years the development could be reversed and the landscape and site returned to its former state. 25 years is still a lengthy period during which the identified harms would endure.

There are many parallels between the Thoulstone turbine application and the Bath & West Showground turbine application. At nearly 30% taller, the Thoulstone turbine would certainly be a notable and noticeable feature in its landscape. Those on the Corsley Heath to Chapmanslade Greensand Ridge SLA, including the village of Chapmanslade itself, are going to be looking across at the development, just like the Prestleigh villagers. The Cley Hill SAM is over 1 km closer than the SAM hill fort in the Bath & West Showground case. While the Bath & West Showground proposal would be close to the Mendip AONB, the Thoulstone proposal is adjacent to the Cranborne Chase & West Wiltshire Downs AONB whose northern edge is Cley Hill, preserved for the benefit of the nation by the National Trust since 1954. The neighbouring parishes to Thoulstone have in the region of 100 listed buildings within them, including two Grade 2* properties which are of a higher heritage value than any of the three buildings mentioned in the Bath & West Show ground case. There is in addition the Grade 1 Park at Longleat. We have in our submission shown that even the derisory benefits in the form of intermittent electricity generation and greenhouse gas reduction claimed by the Thoulstone applicant are severely overestimated.

Please treat this e-mail and its attachment as an addendum to our submission of 28th October.

With kind regards,

For and on behalf of Stop Thoulstone Farm Wind Turbine

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 October 2014 by Brian Cook BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 31 October 2014

Appeal Ref: APP/Q3305/A/14/2216306 The Bath & West Showground, Shepton Mallet, Somerset BA4 6QN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Dr Jane Guise (The Royal Bath & West Society) against the decision of Mendip District Council. • The application Ref 2013/1221, dated 30 May 2013, was refused by notice dated 3 October 2013. • The development proposed is the erection of a single wind turbine with a maximum tip height of 67 metres, together with an accompanying access track, electrical switchgear housing, underground cabling, temporary construction compound and associated hardstandings.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Policy

2. Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that a presumption in favour of sustainable development lies at the heart of the document and should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. Framework paragraph 7 sets out the three dimensions of sustainable development and the roles (economic, social and environmental) that the planning system must perform. All this is however preceded by Framework paragraph 6 which says that “the policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole , constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system” (my emphasis). Framework paragraph 17 sets out the core principles guiding those policies and which should underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. One includes recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it. Another supports the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate and includes encouraging the use of renewable resources by, for example, the development of renewable energy. There is no priority order expressed within the 12 or preference given for one core principle over another.

3. Sections 10 (meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change), 11 (conserving and enhancing the natural environment) and 12 (conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the Framework therefore need to be read in that context. Within section 10, Framework paragraph 98 says that local planning authorities should approve applications if the impacts are or can be made acceptable. That is a reflection of the normal www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/Q3305/A/14/2216306

planning process of assessing if harm would be caused and, if it would, investigating whether that harm could be mitigated to allow the development to proceed.

4. Nevertheless, section 10 of the Framework is very supportive of the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure saying that this is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development (paragraph 93). Local planning authorities are asked to consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources where this would help secure the development of such sources (paragraph 97, 3 rd bullet) and footnote 17 specifically references National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 in this context 1. Framework paragraph 98 confirms that applicants do not need to show an overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and further confirms that local planning authorities (and by extension the Secretary of State on appeal) should recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions (1 st bullet).

5. Both National Policy Statements emphasise the urgency of the need for non- fossil fuel energy generation and set out the roadmap to 2050. In essence there is no ceiling on provision in either of these documents. EN-3 makes clear the part to be played by on-shore wind in the future electricity energy mix.

6. However, both documents also draw attention to the balance that needs to be struck between the effects on, for example, sensitive landscape and visual receptors and the benefits of the proposed development. This theme is also present in the Framework where, as stated above, paragraph 6 confirms that what amounts to sustainable development is set out in the Framework as a whole.

7. This balance has been further confirmed by the Minister in the statement accompanying the publication on-line of the Planning Practice Guidance on 6 March 2014 and in a further statement in the House on 9 April 2014 by the Secretary of State. He confirmed that in publishing the Planning Practice Guidance the coalition Government was making it clear that for more significant on-shore wind applications the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. The wind applications within the scope of ‘significant’ were defined as more than two turbines or where the hub height of any turbine would exceed 15m. This appeal scheme would have a hub height of about 40m and so clearly falls within the purview of the statement.

8. The National Policy Statements, the Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance and the two ministerial statements referred to are material considerations to which I attribute very substantial weight in the determination of this appeal.

9. The Mendip District Local Plan (LP) was adopted on 19 December 2002. A Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) was signed by the main parties on 18 February 2014. The parties are agreed that the emerging Mendip District Local Plan is at examination and therefore carries little weight. Since I have no evidence about the nature of the representations made or the scope of the examination I have no reason to disagree.

1 Framework paragraph 3 confirms that National Policy Statements are a material planning consideration in decisions on planning applications. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/Q3305/A/14/2216306

10. Saved LP policy ER2 specifically addresses wind energy. This policy says that wind turbines will be permitted where all six of the criteria set out are met. This policy is not inconsistent with the natural environment policies of the Framework. The policy does not require great weight to be afforded to non- designated landscapes as the appellant suggests. It simply requires wind turbines to be sited and designed so as to minimise their impact on the landscape. That is not inconsistent with the fifth core principle set out in Framework paragraph 17.

11. Nor does the Framework provide for development proposals to be supported unless adverse effects would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits as the appellant contends in criticising LP policy ER2. That is a substantial paraphrasing of Framework paragraph 14 and misrepresents national planning policy. Moreover, the appellant incorrectly combines the sixth and seventh of the 12 core planning principles set out in Framework paragraph 17.

12. LP policy ER2 is however inconsistent with the historic environment policies of the Framework. In simply requiring a development proposal not to detrimentally affect the character or setting of a Listed Building, Conservation Area or a Scheduled Ancient Monument it does not properly reflect the more subtle approach to gradations of harm to the significance of the heritage asset set out in Framework paragraphs 132 to 135. I therefore give greater weight to the Framework when considering this issue later.

Main Issues

13. In the appeal statement the appellant confirms that the final design of the proposed turbine is unspecified at this stage. The final model will be subject to a tendering process prior to the commencement of construction. However, for the purposes of the various technical reports accompanying the planning application, including those for noise and shadow flicker, a representative turbine model was used. This was a EWT DW54 with a hub height of 40m, a 54m diameter rotor blade assembly and an overall height of 67m to the blade tip. This is the model shown on the planning application drawings.

14. Included among the agreed conditions in the SOCG is number 10 which would limit the development to a EWT DW54 turbine or similar with noise and shadow flicker effects no greater than those identified for the assessed model. I consider the detailed wording of this proposed condition to be both problematic and, on the face of it, potentially inconsistent with proposed condition 2 which lists the approved drawings and plans. I have therefore assessed the proposal on the basis of the dimensions referred to above. Indeed, I draw support for this from the earlier positions taken by both main parties; the Council previously sought to condition the hub height while the appellant sought to control only the overall height. A condition combining both would also limit the important blade length by default.

15. From the evidence it seems that the associated developments are not controversial. From my inspection of the site and the surrounding area and my review of the evidence I therefore consider the main issues to be: (a) the effect that the proposed turbine would have on the landscape character and visual appearance of the area; and

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/Q3305/A/14/2216306

(b) the effect that proposed turbine would have on various heritage assets having regard to the contribution of the setting of the heritage asset to its significance.

Reasons

The effect on the landscape character and visual appearance of the area

16. The proposed turbine would be erected within the boundaries of the Bath and West Showground which lies to the south of Shepton Mallet between the A37 and the A371. The site where the turbine would be erected is an area of grassland in the north west of the Showground away from the core area comprising the main buildings and the show ring. In the Landscape Appeal Statement the appellant quite fairly acknowledges that effects on the landscape and principal visual receptors are inevitable for wind energy development. The appellant’s contention that in this case they would amount to a limited adverse impact within the immediate vicinity of the site and are plainly not so adverse as to be regarded as unacceptable is a matter of judgement. Landscape character and visual impacts are discrete matters that I shall deal with in turn.

Landscape character

17. The appeal site lies at the northern extremity of national Landscape Character Area (LCA) 140, Yeovil Scarplands. Nevertheless, some of the key characteristics of the LCA such as the varied landscape of hills, wide valley bottoms and ridgetops and the varied landuse of arable on the better low-lying land and woodland on the steep ridges and deep combes are present. In the main the character of the area is one of gently undulating farmland in amongst which villages and highways are present.

18. The topography of the local area is quite complex. Shepton Mallet in the north stands on considerably higher ground which extends round to the east of the Showground at Maes Down. Both the A37 and the A371 fall down from this higher ground and run either side of the Showground. Across the Showground itself the land falls gently from about 110m AOD in the north to around 85m AOD in the south. While the A371 continues south on the lower land to Ansford Bridge where it crosses the River Brue, the A37 starts to rise again quite sharply south of Street-on-the-Fosse onto the higher ground generally to the north of Ditcheat.

19. The Showground therefore lies within a vale more or less surrounded by higher ground. This limits the extent to which it can be seen from distance which the appellant’s Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) drawing confirms. It also affects, in my judgement, the way that the landscape character is appreciated from the various landscape receptors. The vale is relatively enclosed which, in my judgement, influences the sensitivity of the landscape to the introduction of notable new components in it.

20. Within the vale itself some views across it from the highways are restricted by the hedges and trees that typically enclose them. That is not always the case however and there are stretches along numerous roads and public rights of way from where a clearer and less obstructed view across the Showground is available. While I understand that the appellant’s viewpoints were agreed with the Council I do not consider them to be representative of all these views.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/Q3305/A/14/2216306

21. Looking broadly south from land to the north of the proposed turbine, it would stand out as an uncharacteristic vertical feature in the landscape. While there is an existing turbine elsewhere on the Showground, on the appellant’s evidence about its height it is only a little less than one third that of the appeal proposal; indeed, it is barely visible above the nearby trees. Moreover, the blades appeared to be quite short so the associated movement is not intrusive from ground level. I do not consider it to be other than a very minor component in the character of the landscape hereabouts.

22. Looking broadly north from areas to the south of the proposed turbine, it would be viewed against the backdrop of the higher ground between Shepton Mallet and Prestleigh. Across this ground runs an overhead power line supported by pylons. It would therefore be seen in the context of a landscape already characterised to a limited degree by energy infrastructure. However, pylons are static and open lattice structures whereas turbines are neither. In my judgement, the movement of the blades would actually become the dominant feature in what would be a fore- and middle-ground view. The uncharacteristic nature of the proposed development in this landscape would therefore be emphasised.

23. When looking across the vale from higher ground the uncharacteristic nature of a single large turbine would be more apparent. Looking south from the higher ground in Prestleigh where the public right of way leaves the car park of the Prestleigh Inn provides a broad sweep across the vale. Here, the rural and agricultural nature of the vale is readily apparent. While the Showground covers a large area, the built development on it does not being focussed around the entrance area and the main show ring. Elsewhere are dotted a few isolated buildings and toilet blocks. Moreover, although their dimensions have not been provided in evidence, none of the buildings appeared to me to be taller than the existing turbine. They would therefore be considerably lower than the development proposed.

24. Furthermore, in this view the only other vertical feature of note in addition to the existing Showground turbine is the relatively low church tower in Evercreech. This is of a similar hue to the materials from which most of the older buildings are constructed and therefore blends in to the background against which it is seen. That does not apply to the existing Showground turbine which stands out against the background colours, its presence being emphasised by the movement of the short blades. None of these characteristics are represented by the appellant’s viewpoint 1 which is considerably lower down the slope.

25. Looking broadly north from the higher ground, the turbine would again be a prominent feature in the landscape due to its height, the movement of the blades and its proposed colour against the background hills. This is in my view shown by the images from the appellant’s viewpoint 3 which appears to be at a position adjacent to the A37. This also shows that the existing turbine is not readily apparent as a feature in the landscape since it should be visible between the viewpoint and the proposed turbine; it is not. This viewpoint is also representative of other public rights of way in this area from where the view north does not appear to be significantly obscured by vegetation.

26. Taking all these factors into consideration and having regard to the matrices set out in Appendix 2 of the appellant’s application landscape and visual impact

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/Q3305/A/14/2216306

assessment (LVIA) I agree with the appellant’s view that the landscape character sensitivity is ‘medium’. I believe however that the appellant overstates the extent of the Showground’s development and thus its context for the appeal proposal. I consider the proposed turbine would be a notable feature in the landscape introducing a noticeable change to the landform and pattern of that local landscape. I believe the correct magnitude-for-change measure to be ‘medium’ also. In terms of impact significance that gives a ‘moderate’ outcome which contrasts with the one of ‘minor’ contended by the appellant.

Visual appearance of the area

27. Both the initial LVIA and the appellant’s landscape appeal statement contain a comprehensive assessment of the visual impact that the appeal proposal would have on the key visual receptors. This is based on the same limited number of viewpoints referred to above. However and notwithstanding this limitation, on the basis of my inspection of the area I see no reason to disagree with the broad sweep of the appellant’s conclusions. In very brief summary these are that the main effects will be experienced by those within about 2km of the appeal site given the effects on views available through both intervening topography and/or vegetation and the effect of distance on the size of the proposed turbine in the view.

28. Furthermore, the experience that would be gained and thus the significance of the impact would be influenced by the nature of the view gained. Where this would be transitory, such as for travellers on the main ‘A’ roads, the significance of the visual effect would be low. For others, such as those residents of Prestleigh that would overlook the development, the sensitivity to change is assessed as ‘high’, the magnitude of the change in the character of the view that they would have is also judged to be ‘high’ with the significance of the visual effect correspondingly being defined as ‘major’. From the representations made by residents of the village, they clearly concur.

29. This conclusion does not appear to have been carried forward into the summary section of the appellant’s LVIA (paragraphs 7.93 to 7.102). In placing the one ‘major’ visual effect in the context of what I have already identified as an overstating of the current development at the Showground, I believe the appellant downplays the harm that would be caused to the visual appearance of the area. Acknowledging that this harm would be caused to one, albeit significant, visual receptor only, the appellant’s final statement (Although there would be some visual change at the local level it would not necessarily be a harmful one, merely different to that which exists now ) is not a judgement with which I am able to agree. I consider that the development proposed would cause harm to the visual appearance of the area as perceived by some receptors such as those living in Prestleigh.

Cumulative impact

30. GLVIA3 2 sets out two methods for assessing cumulative impact. One looks at the additional effects of the scheme proposal; the other considers the combined effects of all past, present and future proposals together with the scheme project. The Planning Practice Guidance does not appear to express a preference for one over another. There is no evidence that the chosen method

2 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3 rd Edition 2013 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/Q3305/A/14/2216306

(additional effects) was discussed and agreed with the Council. This approach considers only the incremental effect of the scheme proposal against a baseline. The other turbine schemes ‘in planning’ and therefore considered in the baseline are listed. I agree with the appellant that the Torr Quarry scheme was not ‘in planning’ at any of the material dates for evidence preparation and I have not taken it into account. There appears to be a typographic error in the table on page 50 of the LVIA. On both relevant drawings the Landmark Farm turbine is well to the east of that at Weston Town Farm. It seems more likely therefore that it is 9km from the appeal site rather than 0.9km as stated.

31. I consider on the evidence that the cumulative impact of the appeal scheme and others would be limited to that concerning the pre-application proposal at Manor Farm. In my judgement the existing turbine at the Showground is too small to be viewed in the same context other than from the higher ground in the village of Prestleigh. From here, it would be viewed in combination but would, in my opinion, be dwarfed by the appeal scheme which is appreciably larger.

32. The Manor Farm proposal would be some 78m to the blade tip and thus slightly taller than the appeal proposal. The only evidence about its location available is the symbol on the appellant’s drawings. On the basis of that evidence (and in the absence of any viewpoints other than viewpoint 3 which has a different angle of view) I consider it likely that both turbines would be visible from points to the south along the A371 and public rights of way in this area. It would be less so from within Prestleigh itself. Two tall turbines would thus be seen where none exist now. In my judgement, in the event of two turbines being present, the harmful effect on both the landscape character and visual appearance of the area would be reinforced.

Conclusion on this issue

33. For the reasons set out I conclude that the impact on the landscape character of the area would be moderate and thus harmful to a degree. I also conclude that there would be harm to the visual appearance of the area as perceived by some residents living in villages on the higher ground above the Showground. These harms would be exacerbated to some degree by the cumulative impact of the appeal proposal and that for Manor Farm if both were to be constructed. To the extent that the term ‘landscape’ embraces both effects on the landscape character and the appearance of the area the proposal would therefore conflict with LP policies Q1 and ER2.

The effect on various heritage assets

34. As required by Framework paragraph 128 the appellant submitted a Heritage Settings Assessment (HSA) in support of the planning application. The HSA found that there would be a very small adverse effect on the setting of one Grade II Listed Building (although not sufficient to harm its overall value) and a very limited adverse effect on the overall significance of two others. While concluding that the development would not therefore be contrary to the policies of the LP or the Framework, it was nevertheless acknowledged that where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm (which a limited adverse effect must amount to) to the significance of the heritage asset, that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. There is no evidence that the appellant carried out that specific step as required by Framework paragraph 134.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/Q3305/A/14/2216306

35. While it was not inaccurate to record in the officer’s report English Heritage as raising no objection, they did raise concerns about the limited scope of the HSA and suggested further information as likely to be required. That was also the view of the Council’s conservation officer who, as reported to Members, was unable to support the application on the level of information provided. In reporting to Members the officer recorded what the HSA says and notes the conservation officer’s concerns. That section concludes without further explanation by saying that it is not considered that refusal on the grounds of the effect on heritage assets would be justified. There is no reference to the requirement in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting when considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a Listed Building or its setting. The courts have held that ‘preserving’ means ‘doing no harm’.

36. Since the s66(1) duty also falls upon the Secretary of State I consider this matter now even though it did not form a reason for refusal of the application. In doing so I have drawn on the evidence of the appellant and the conclusions in the HSA.

37. Brook House is a 17 th century stone-built Grade II Listed house within the village of Prestleigh. The significance of the asset is primarily historical and evidential deriving from its architecture. While setting contributes to the significance of the asset and the surrounding agricultural landscape is part of that setting, it is the surrounding buildings in the village and the gardens that surround the house that are of most importance. The turbine would be erected within that wider setting. However, views of it would be limited to the blade tips although their movement on the skyline may be discernable to a degree. There would therefore be a very small adverse effect upon the setting but the magnitude would be such as to not amount to any appreciable level of harm.

38. Bagborough House and walling is a Tudor-style house of more recent construction (mid-19 th century) which lies to the south west of the proposed turbine. It is a Grade II Listed Building. Setting contributes to the historical and evidential significance of the asset although the principal contribution is from the walled gardens within which the house sits. Nevertheless, the wider agricultural landscape has an historical relationship with the house contributing a rural tranquillity to its setting which, in turn, contributes to the asset’s significance. The turbine would result in some alteration of the skyline view from certain aspects of the asset and would also introduce an element of movement into the setting. This would lead to a small adverse effect upon the setting of the house and a very limited adverse effect upon its overall significance.

39. Duke Farmhouse is a little further away and is a 17 th century stone Grade II Listed farmhouse that is part of a linear settlement on the A37. Its situation is very similar to that of the other two assets reviewed. Namely, while the immediate setting is the most important contribution to the significance of the asset, and in this case includes the A37 as the route of the Roman Fosse Way, the surrounding landscape also contributes to the significance by giving a rural tranquillity to the surroundings and having an historical relationship with the house. The front of the house would face the turbine. While distance would affect the appreciation of it to some degree, views of the skyline would be altered slightly and there would be the introduction of an additional element of

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/Q3305/A/14/2216306

movement. The turbine would therefore have a small adverse effect on the setting of the house leading to a very limited adverse effect on its overall significance.

40. Finally, the hill fort Small Down Knoll Camp is a Scheduled Ancient Monument dating from the Bronze Age. Of relevance to this assessment is the key contribution to the significance of this important asset that is made by the visual relationship between this and other more distant monuments in the landscape. The asset lies about 3.5km to the east of the proposed turbine. Although the turbine would be visible, at that distance it would appear as a distant, very small feature in the landscape and may not be readily observable. It would not therefore appreciably alter the setting of the hill fort.

41. I have no evidence from others or from my own inspection of the area to dispute the appellant’s conclusions. I do not agree with the contention in the HSA, which is not elaborated upon, that the single turbine would be highly permeable, that is, the extent to which it can be seen through. As far as I am aware turbines have a safety mechanism to prevent them turning if the wind speed rises above a certain level. The turning blades would therefore always be visible unlike, say, the spokes of a fast turning wheel which appear not to be there. In my view, the very turning of what would be a 54m blade sweep would draw attention to the turbine. The appellant may therefore have understated the effect on the significance of the heritage assets since the ‘permeability’ point appears to be of some importance to the conclusions drawn. Nevertheless, I recognise that this is a subjective matter and, even if my opinion is correct, the harm to the significance of the assets would not be raised to the level of ‘substantial’. In all cases therefore it would still be Framework paragraph 134 that applies.

42. Where, as in this case, a development would lead to ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, that harm should be weighed against, in the context of this appeal, the public benefits of the proposal. The Planning Practice Guidance states that public benefits should flow from the development and should be of a nature and scale to be of benefit to the public at large. They should not be just a private benefit.

43. I have been unable to find anywhere in the evidence any quantification of the installed capacity that would be provided by the appeal proposal. The appeal statement refers to the contribution as being ‘modest’ and, in any event, confirms that an unspecified amount of the electricity generated would be used by the Bath and West Showground to reduce its running costs. In my understanding that would not be a public benefit and no further evidence is adduced to support the contention that future investment into the business and the local economy will flow directly from the appeal proposal going ahead.

44. I acknowledge that Framework paragraph 98 does not require applicants to show an overall need for renewable or low carbon energy. However, to carry out the balance necessary to draw the conclusion required by Framework paragraph 134 some quantification of the public benefit is necessary. On the evidence before me I am unable to conclude that in this case the public benefit would outweigh the less than substantial harm identified.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/Q3305/A/14/2216306

45. In accordance with the judgement in the Court of Appeal 3 I shall address the s66(1) duty in the overall balance.

Other matters

46. Local residents have raised a number of other matters most of which were the subject of reports accompanying the application. These have been considered by the Council and commented upon in the report to Members with the appropriate advice from responsible officers at the Council or from the statutory consultees provided.

47. Regarding the effect that there might be on the living conditions of local residents with regard to the turbine appearing overbearing in their outlook, I do not consider that it would be close enough to any property to give rise to such an effect. This is a different matter to the effect that there would be on the visual appearance of the area which I have addressed under my first main issue. In a similar manner any effects that there might be on the living conditions of residential occupiers from noise or shadow flicker could be controlled by conditions which are well established and generally effective if properly enforced. I note the observations of the Council in this respect and have no reason to disagree with what is said.

48. While I acknowledge the concerns raised with regard to the potential effects on bats and other species, this is a matter that the appellant addressed in some detail. Having considered that information the County Council’s ecologist raised no objection subject to conditions being imposed on any planning permission. Similarly, none of the relevant technical consultees raised any objection in respect of the effect on highway issues, aviation or telecommunications. No evidence has been produced to support the contention that there would be an adverse impact on income from tourism and, as the officer rightly pointed out to Members, any alleged effect on house prices is not a planning matter.

49. On the evidence before me I have no reason to come to a different conclusion to the Council on any of these matters.

Overall planning balance

50. I turn now to the planning balance and consider it in the same terms as the appellant in section 7 of the planning appeal statement. For the reasons set out above I do not agree with the appellant’s LVIA conclusions and therefore do not consider that the proposal is in accordance with those policies of the development plan. In addition, I have found that there would be less than substantial harm to the significance of two Grade II Listed Buildings which is not outweighed by any public benefit. The special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting that I am required by s66(1) to have regard to therefore weighs against the grant of planning permission.

51. For the reasons set out in the ‘policy’ section above I believe it is a misrepresentation of Framework paragraph 14 to assert that the development proposed is inherently sustainable and thus benefitting from the presumption that is emboldened in that paragraph. What constitutes sustainable

3 Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northants DC, English Heritage, National Trust and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 137 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/Q3305/A/14/2216306

development is derived from a consideration of the Framework as a whole, not from selected parts of it.

52. The other material considerations set out in paragraph 7.25 of the planning appeal statement cannot, in my view, be characterised as such. They are matters which will be subject of development plan policies and will either be in accordance with them or not as the case may be. For the reasons set out I do not consider that on heritage matters the less than substantial harm is outweighed by the limited public benefits that may arise.

53. In applying the planning balance required by s38(6) of the 2004 Act it is my judgement that the conflict with development plan policy and the special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting must be weighed against the remaining other material consideration, namely, the need for renewable energy. National policy is clear regarding the need for a range of renewable energy sources as the nation follows the roadmap to 2050 and works towards the binding targets set. It also recognises that even small-scale projects will provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. I am however mindful of the Secretary of State’s statement and the fact that the contribution from this scheme would be modest in the appellant’s evidence and, in fact, not quantified. While I note the appellant’s intention that the scheme would be in place for a period of 25 years only and could be conditioned accordingly, I give very little weight to this reversibility argument since that is still a lengthy period during which the harms identified would endure. Taking all those matters into account my judgement is that in this case the balance weighs against the grant of planning permission.

Conclusion

54. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Brian Cook

Inspector

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11