Mr D Hardy Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP 6 Wellington Place Leeds LS1 4AP 25 October 2017
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Our ref: APP/D2510/W/15/3005975 Mr D Hardy Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP 6 Wellington Place Leeds LS1 4AP 25 October 2017 Dear Sir, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY ENERGIEKONTOR UK LTD LAND TO THE SOUTH OF FEN LANE, WEST OF LOUTH CANAL, NORTH OF FULSTOW, LINCOLNSHIRE APPLICATION REF: N/056/01036/14 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of Jessica Graham BA (Hons) PgDipL, who held a public local inquiry from 12 to15 and 19 to 21 January 2016 into your client’s appeal against the failure of East Lindsey District Council’s to determine your client’s application for planning permission for the installation of 7 wind turbines, ancillary equipment and associated on site infrastructure, in accordance with application ref: N/056/01036/14, dated 30 May 2014. 2. On 2 December 2015, this appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed and planning permission refused. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, except where noted, and agrees with her recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Environmental Statement 5. 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 environmental information submitted Department for Communities and Local Government Tel: 0303 444 2853 Philip Barber Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF before the inquiry opened. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR4.1- 4.6, 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. Policy and statutory considerations 6. 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. 7. In this case the development plan consists of the saved Policies of the East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration (1999), the Lincolnshire Minerals Local Plan and the Lincolnshire Waste Plan. The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies of most relevance to this case are those set out at IR5.2-5.3. 8. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’), as well as National Policy Statements for Energy (EN-1) and for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3), and his Written Ministerial Statement on Local Planning of 18 June 2015. 9. 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 proposals, or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. Emerging plan 10. The emerging plan comprises the East Lindsey Core Strategy 2016-2031. Paragraph 216 of the Framework states that decision makers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan; (2) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in the emerging plan; and (3) the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the policies in the Framework. As the Secretary of State considers that the plan is at an early stage, and there are unresolved objections to it, while it is fairly consistent with the Framework, he affords it little weight, in agreement with the Inspector at IR5.11. Main issues 11. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues are those set out at IR12.5. Heritage assets 12. For the reasons set out by the Inspector at IR12.11-12.27, the Secretary of State agrees that the proposal would not lead to ‘substantial’ harm to the significance of Thoresby Warehouse. However, for the reasons given, he agrees that the visual prominence of the warehouse would be eroded and its canalside way-marking function would be seriously diminished by the presence of the proposed development within its setting. As such he 2 concludes, in agreement with the inspector, that this would result in considerable harm to the significance of the building, falling not far short of ‘substantial’ harm. 13. The Secretary of State agrees, for the reasons given at IR12.28-12.32, that the presence of the wind turbines would have an adverse, though minor, impact upon the setting of Beesby Deserted Medieval Village (DMV) which would result in slight, and much less than ‘substantial’, harm to its significance. 14. The Secretary of State also agrees that the presence of the development would have an adverse, though minor, impact upon the setting of North Cadeby DMV which would result in slight, but much less that ‘substantial’, harm to its significance, for the reasons given at IR12.33 to 12.35. 15. For the reasons set out at IR12.36-12.40 the Secretary of State agrees that the proposal would not harm the setting or affect the significance of any part of Cadeby Hall. 16. He further concludes, for the reasons set out at IR12.41-12.43, that the impact of the proposal on Beesby DMV, North Cadeby DMV and Cadeby Hall when viewed collectively from the Silver Lincs Way, would cause harm to their setting. However, this would not amount to ‘substantial’ harm to the significance of any of them. As such, he agrees with the Inspector (IR12.43) that the totality of the harm the proposal would cause to the significance of Beesby DMV, North Cadeby DMV and Cadeby Hall would be at the lower end of ‘less than substantial’ harm. 17. The Secretary of State agrees, for the reasons given by the Inspector at IR12.44-12.50 that the harm caused by the proposal to the significance of the Church of St Mary at Ludborough would be appreciable, but would fall considerably short of ‘substantial’ harm. 18. He further agrees, for the reasons set out at IR12.51-12.55, that the proposed development would cause a limited amount of harm, falling far short of ‘substantial’, to the significance of Churchthorpe House and the Church of St Lawrence, Fulstow. 19. For the reasons given at IR12.56-IR12.59, the Secretary of State agrees that the proposal would cause a harmful impact to the contribution made by the setting to the overall significance of the Church of St Peter and St Paul, Tetney, but that this harm, while appreciable, would fall considerably short of ‘substantial’ harm. 20. He further agrees that the proposal wold not give rise to any harm to the setting or significance of the Church of St Mary, Marshchapel. Similarly he agrees that the development would not give rise to any harm to the setting or significance of the Church of St Nicholas, North Coates, for the reasons given at IR12.61. He further agrees that the proposal would not cause any harm to the setting or significance of the Church of St Martin, Waithe, for the reasons set out by the Inspector at IR12.62. 21. For the reasons given at IR12.63, the Secretary of State agrees that the harm to the significance of the Louth Canal would be limited, and would fall far short of ‘substantial’ harm. 22. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s analysis at IR12.65-12.66, and he agrees that when considering any indirect effect on the historic environment, account should be taken of the length of time for which consent is sought. However, he concludes that a period of 25 years amounts to a generation. As such, he considers that granting permission for 25 years would be a significant amount of time and he gives limited weight to the temporary nature of the proposal.. 3 23. For the reasons given at IR12.67-12.68 the Secretary of State agrees that the proposal conflicts with Policy C2. He further agrees that this conflict still carries some weight as the aims of the policy broadly accord with those of paragraphs 131-136 of the Framework. 24. The Secretary of State has gone on to consider the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets against the public benefits of the proposal, in line with paragraph 134 of the Framework. 25. For the reasons set out at IR12.70, the Secretary of State gives the public benefits of the proposal substantial weight. Against the proposal he gives significant weight to the harm to Thoresby Warehouse, and further significant weight to the harm to the other listed buildings and heritage assets, for the reasons given at IR12.72-12.73. 26. For the reasons set out above, he agrees with the Inspector that the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposed development, though not by a huge amount (IR12.74).