Nun Wood Wind Farm Between Bozeat, Lavendon and Harrold
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Michelle Smith Our Ref:APP/Y0435/A/10/2140401; Eversheds LLP APP/K0235/A/11/2149434; Bridgewater Place APP/H2835/A/11/2149437 Water Lane Your Ref: SMITHMO/156396-000119 Leeds LS11 5DR 17 December 2013 Dear Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEALS BY RWE NPOWER RENEWABLES LTD LAND BETWEEN BOZEAT, LAVENDON AND HARROLD APPLICATION REFS: 08/02118/FULEIS; 09/00137/MAF AND WP/2008/0603/FEIA 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Andrew Pykett BSc(Hons) PhD MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry on 11-14 and 18-21 June 2013 into your client’s appeals against: • a failure by Milton Keynes Council to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for the construction of a wind farm comprising 3 wind turbines up to 125m in height to blade tip and ancillary equipment, access tracks and anemometry mast; in conjunction with planning applications to: Bedford Borough Council for 6 turbines and access tracks; and the Borough of Wellingborough for 3 turbines, substation, construction compound, access tracks and site access; as part of a single wind farm of 12 turbines for an operational period of 25 years (application ref: 08/02118/FULEIS dated 19 December 2008) (Appeal A); • a refusal by Bedford Borough Council to grant planning permission for the construction of a wind farm comprising 6 wind turbines up to 125m in height to blade tip and ancillary equipment and access tracks; in conjunction with planning applications to: Milton Keynes Council for 3 turbines, anemometry mast and access tracks; and the Borough of Wellingborough for 3 turbines, substation, construction compound, access tracks and site access; as part of a single wind farm of 12 turbines for an operational period of 25 years (application ref: 09/00137/MAF, dated 19 December 2008) (Appeal B); and • a failure by the Borough Council of Wellingborough to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for the construction of a wind farm comprising 3 wind turbines up to 125m in height to blade tip and ancillary equipment, access tracks, substation, construction compound, and site access; in conjunction with planning applications to: Milton Keynes Council for 3 turbines, anemometry mast and access tracks; and Bedford Borough Council for 6 turbines Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Tel: 0303 444 1626 Planning Casework Email: [email protected] Department for Communities and Local Government 1/J1, Eland House Bressenden Place London, SW1E 5DU and access tracks; as part of a single wind farm of 12 turbines for an operational period of 25 years (application Ref: WP/2008/0603/FEIA dated 19 December 2008) (Appeal C). 2. As explained at IR2, these appeals were initially transferred for decision by a Planning Inspector, and the Planning Inspector issued his decision on them on 23 December 2011. That decision was subsequently quashed by order of the High Court in August 2012 and the three appeals fell to be considered anew. In pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, they were then recovered for the Secretary of State's determination on 5 June 2013, because they involve proposals of major significance for the delivery the Government’s climate change programme and energy policies. Following the second inquiry, the Inspector recommended that all three appeals be dismissed and planning permission refused. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendations. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Procedural matters 3. The Secretary of State notes that Wellingborough Borough Council now consider that planning permission should be granted for the scheme and that they were not represented at the inquiry (IR2). He also notes that, partly in response to Wellingborough’s changed position, the Inspector raised the prospect of a split decision (IR294). However, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector and the parties that, notwithstanding the complications resulting from its location at the junction of various boundaries, the scheme has been planned and pursued as a single project for a number of years; and that it is the complete scheme which is the subject of the Environmental Statement (ES), the Supplementary Environmental Statement (SEI) and the evidence of the witnesses. He therefore considers it appropriate to determine the scheme on this basis. Notwithstanding Wellingborough’s changed position, the Secretary of State, like the Inspector, has considered the proposal against the contents of the development plans of all three councils. 4. The Secretary of State has had regard to correspondence submitted too late to be considered by the Inspector, as set out in the Annex to this letter. He has carefully considered these representations but, as they do not raise new matters that would affect his decision, he has not considered it necessary to circulate them to all parties. Copies of these representations can be provided on application to the address at the bottom of the first page of this letter. 5. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the ES and the SEI, submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 meet the requirements of these regulations (IR3). He considers that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the appeals. Policy considerations 6. In determining these appeals, 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 the case of Wellingborough, the development plan consists of the saved policies of the Borough of Wellingborough Local Plan 1999 and the North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy 2008. For Milton Keynes, the development plan consists of the saved policies of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2005 and the Milton Keynes Core Strategy which was adopted in July 2013 - after the close of the inquiry. In the case of Bedford, the development plan consists of the saved policies of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2002 and the Bedford Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan 2008. The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies most relevant to this case are those set out at IR14-21, except that Milton Keynes Local Plan Policy S1 has now been replaced by Milton Keynes Core Strategy Policy CS1. Furthermore, Policies CS15 and CS20 of the emerging Milton Keynes Core Strategy (as referred to in IR21) are now policies CS14 and CS19 respectively in the adopted Core Strategy, and the Secretary of State has given them due weight to reflect that. 7. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3); the Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1); the Written Ministerial Statements on ‘Local Planning and onshore wind’ (DCLG) and ‘Onshore wind’ (DECC); the Planning Practice Guidance for renewable and low carbon energy; Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 5 Planning for the Historic Environment Practice Guide; Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions; and the publications referred to in IR27-28 and IR30. The Secretary of State has also taken into account the “Milton Keynes Wind Turbines Supplementary Planning Document and Emerging Policy 2013” document, but he gives limited weight to the wind turbine policy contained in this document as it is still subject to change. The Secretary of State has had regard to the fact that on 28 August 2013 Government opened a new national planning practice guidance web-based resource. However, given that the guidance has not yet been finalised, he has attributed it limited weight. 8. In accordance with section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving listed structures or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. He 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 Landscape character 9. The Secretary of State has had regard to the national and local landscape character assessments which have been undertaken in the area (IR223-225), and he agrees with the Inspector that these documents provide a useful a framework against which to assess the impact of the proposal (IR226). He notes the appellant’s case that the change as a result of the development would be sufficient to create a windfarm landscape in a localised area extending some 650-700m from the turbines - where these would be the defining and dominant element in the landscape character; and that thereafter, and for a distance of some 3-4kms from the turbines, the development would be the cause of local landscape sub-types within the general context of the existing identified landscape character types (IR227). 10. For the reasons given at IR228-229, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR 229 that the appellant’s acknowledgement that a new windfarm landscape type would be created is itself a measure of the substantial impact of the proposed development. He agrees with the Inspector that, although the effect of the scheme on the landscape fabric would be limited (IR230), landscape character is derived from a number of contributory components; and that the division of the effect of the windfarm into relatively geometrical inner and outer areas pays insufficient regard to some of the other contributors (IR231).