Stephen Humphreys Burges Salmon LLP Our Ref: APP/D0840/W/15/3014917 One Glass Wharf Bristol 26 July 2017 BS2 0ZX Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY GOOD ENERGY GENERATION LTD: CREDDACOTT FARM, WEEK ST MARY, HOLSWORTHY, CORNWALL APPLICATION REF: PA14/02107 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Mr Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC, who held a public inquiry between 26 April and 10 May 2016 into your client’s appeal against the decision of Cornwall Council to refuse planning permission for the erection of up to eleven wind turbines and attendant equipment and infrastructure on land at and adjoining Creddacott Farm, Week St Mary, Holsworthy, Cornwall in accordance with application ref PA14/02107, dated 26 February 2014. 2. The appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination on 30 July 2015 in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because the appeal involves a proposal of major significance for the delivery of the Government’s climate change programme and energy policies. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed and planning permission refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He has decided to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Environmental Statement 4. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and the Richard Watson, Decision Officer Tel: 0303 444 1627 Department for Communities and Local Government, Email: [email protected] 3rd Floor, Fry Building 2 Marsham St London, SW1P 4DF environmental information submitted to the inquiry. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR1.4-1.8, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental Statement and other additional information provided complies with the above Regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal. Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 5. Since the close of the inquiry, the Secretary of State received a large volume of correspondence, largely in the form of a postcard campaign. The Secretary of State notes that at the inquiry, amongst the core documents (IR page 80 – documents B2&B3), parties were aware of the emerging Cornwall Plan. 6. On 17 January 2017, the Secretary of State wrote to interested parties, inviting further representations following the adoption of the Cornwall Local Plan 2010- 2030. Representations received were circulated for comment on 8 February and 27 February. A list of representations received in response to these letters is at Annex A. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to all the representations received and is satisfied that the issues raised do not affect his decision and no other new issues were raised to warrant further investigation or necessitate additional referrals back to parties. Copies of the correspondence listed at Annex A may be obtained on written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. Policy and statutory considerations 7. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the adopted development plan for the area comprises the Cornwall Local Plan (LP) 2010-2030 (adopted in November 2016) and the relevant saved polices of the North Cornwall District Local Plan (1999) (NCDLP). 8. The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies of most relevance to this case are those contained within the LP and saved NCDLP policy ENV1. 9. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012 (the Framework), the associated planning practice guidance (the guidance) and the Written Ministerial Statement of 18 June 2015 concerning wind farms (the WMS). 10. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the appeal scheme or their settings or any features of special architectural of historic interest which they may possess. The Secretary of State has also paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas, as required by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Main issues 11. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues are those set out at IR10.2. Heritage assets 12. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s extensive analysis and reasoning set out at IR10.11–10.64 regarding heritage assets. He agrees that the proposal would cause harm to the setting of the Westbury Barrow Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) as well as the setting of the Ashbury Camp SAM (IR10.17,10.20, & 10.23). He further agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and analysis regarding the listed buildings and other heritage assets (IR10.24-10.42). Like the Inspector he agrees with the conclusion that there would be harm caused to the significance of a number of designated heritage assets as a result of the proposal (IR10.43). With regard to the temporary nature of the scheme (IR10.45), the Secretary of State takes the view that 25 years is a considerable period of time and the reversibility of the proposal is not a matter to which he has given any weight. He considers that a period of 25 years would not be perceived by those who frequent the area as being temporary and that the harmful effect on the heritage assets would prevail for far too long. Overall, and in line with the Inspector, the Secretary of State agrees that, as the designated heritage assets themselves, and the significance locked therein, would be untouched, the harm caused to the named heritage assets would, overall, be less than substantial (IR10.45). He further agrees that, given this conclusion, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal (IR10.46). Public Benefits 13. The Secretary of State has taken account of the Inspector’s findings at IR10.48- 10.57. He agrees that, based on the evidence, there is no good reason to cast any significant doubt on the output figures claimed by the appellant (IR10.53); that the scheme has the potential to act as a model for other renewable energy projects (10.55); and that the benefits of the scheme are extensive and weighty (IR10.58). Inspector’s interim conclusion 14. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s approach at IR10.59- 10.66, together with the information received from the parties following the reference back exercise following the adoption of the LP. While he agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion that the public benefits of the proposal are insufficient to justify the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets that would be caused, he has decided to consider the other matters considered at the inquiry and reported by the Inspector, before coming to an overall conclusion. Landscape 15. The Secretary of State has considered carefully the Inspector’s analysis of the impact of the proposal on the landscape (IR10.68-10.85). He agrees with that analysis and with the Inspector’s conclusion that the wind turbines proposed would be an incongruous presence of significant scale, in terms of wind turbine height and the spread of the array, in many views inland from the AONB and Heritage Coast. He further agrees that this alien presence would harm the AONB itself and the Heritage Coast (IR10.82). Living Conditions 16. For the reasons set out at IR10.87-10.102, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, in terms of living conditions, the proposal would be acceptable. Other matters 17. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions that there would be no harmful ecological impact as a result of the proposal; that highway safety is not seriously compromised; that the proposal would not have any detrimental impact on tourism; and here would be no harmful impact on aviation as a result of the proposal (IR10.104-10-108). Planning conditions 18. The Secretary of State has given consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR9.1-9.5 and recommended conditions as set out at IR Annex D, and to national policy in paragraph 206 of the Framework and the relevant guidance. He is satisfied that the conditions recommended by the Inspector comply with the policy test set out at paragraph 206of the Framework. However, he does not consider that the recommended conditions would overcome his reasons for dismissing the appeal. Planning Obligation 19. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s analysis at IR9.6-9.8 concerning the submitted planning obligation. However, he does not consider that the obligation overcomes his reasons for dismissing the appeal and refusing planning permission. The planning balance and overall conclusion 20. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s report, evidence presented to the inquiry, together with all representations received following the adoption of the LP.