• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Mr Darren Hendley Our Ref: APP/B3030/A/12/2183042 Arcus Renewable Energy Consulting Ltd 1C Swinegate Court East Your Ref: 309Hawton 3 Swinegate York YO1 8AJ 29 September 2014 Dear Sir, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY BOLSTERSTONE INNOVATIVE ENERGY (HAWTON) LTD THE ERECTION OF THREE no. WIND TURBINES ON AGRICULTURAL LAND TO THE EAST OF HAWTON, NEWARK-ON-TRENT - (APPLICATION REF: 11/01588/FULM) 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Zoe Hill BA (Hons) DIpBldgCons (RICS) MRTPI IHBC, who held an inquiry on 26-28 February 2103 into your client’s appeal against Newark and Sherwood District Council’s (‘the Council’) refusal to grant planning permission for the erection of three no. wind turbines of height between 105 metres and 126.5 metres to tip and associated infrastructure including access tracks, one switchgear and control building with transformers and grid connection infrastructure, underground cabling, turbine foundations, crane hardstandings, one new access point and one meteorogical mast (application ref 11/01588/FULM). 2. On 11 October 2013 the 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 on the grounds that it involves a renewable energy development. Department for Communities and Local Government Tel: 030344 42853 Philip Barber, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Third Floor, Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector, whose report is enclosed with this letter, recommended that the appeal be allowed and planning permission granted. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions and recommendation, upholds the appeal and grants planning permission. All paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, refer to the Inspector’s report (IR). Procedural matters 4. In reaching this position the Secretary of State has, like the Inspector, taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (IR13 and 142). The Secretary of State is content that the Environmental Statement complies with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the application. 5. Following the closure of the inquiry the Secretary of State received representations from Councillor Roger Blaney, Leader, Newark and Sherwood District Council on 21 May 2014. Following the Inspector making her recommendations, the Secretary of State has received representations from the following parties: Mr Peter Caswell 30 June 2014 Ms Jill Rose – Secretary, Belvoir Locals Oppose Turbines 14 July 2014 6. The Secretary of State has taken account of these responses in his consideration of the appeal before him but does not consider that they raise any new issues requiring circulation to assist his decision. He does not consider it necessary to summarise the responses here or attach them to this letter. Copies of the correspondence can be made available upon written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. Policy Considerations 7. In deciding the appeal, 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, he agrees with the Inspector (IR21) that the development plan comprises the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy (adopted 2011) and the Newark and Sherwood Local Plan (adopted 1999) (saved policies 2007 and as modified by the adoption of the Newark and Sherwood Core Strategy.) 8. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LB Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving those listed structures potentially affected by the proposals before him or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. 9. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector and the parties that the most relevant policies as they relate to this appeal are those set out at IR22-23; and that the documents listed at IR24-25 are also relevant. 10. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) and the planning practice guidance; the National Policy Statements (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy (EN-3); and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended. The Secretary of State has also taken into account the Written Ministerial Statements on renewable energy published in June 2013 by the Secretaries of State for Energy and Climate Change and for Communities and Local Government and the Written Ministerial Statement on renewable energy published by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in April 2014. Main Considerations 11. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues in this case are those set out at IR32. Heritage Assets 12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the issue in regard to heritage assets is the effect of the proposed wind turbines on the setting of heritage assets and whether or not this would affect their significance (IR143). In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving those listed structures potentially affected by the scheme or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. 13. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the Registered Park and Garden associated with Newark Castle is unlikely to receive any significant effect from the proposed wind turbines (IR146). He further agrees that the Registered Battlefield, the Battle of Stoke Field, would not be affected by noise impacts from the proposed turbines, that the turbines would appear only as small structures when viewed from the battlefield site, that there is no evidence to indicated that the turbines would separate the site from linked features, and that the Environmental Statement indicates that the development would have a negligible impact on the battlefield site (IR147). 14. The Secretary of State agrees that, of the Scheduled Ancient Monuments within 5km of the appeal site and within the theoretical zone of visibility, only Hawton Moated Site, Fishpond, Civil War Redoubt and Ridge and Furrow would experience anything more than a negligible impact from the proposed wind turbines. For the reasons set out at IR148 he concludes that the impact of the turbines on this monument would be minor. 15. For the reasons set out at IR149, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s view that only three of the five Conservation Areas within five kilometres of the appeal site were assessed as having potential to receive effects, and that these, Elston, Farndon and East Stoke, would only receive negligible impact from the proposed wind turbines. 16. The Secretary of State concludes, for the reasons set out by the Inspector at IR150, that of the 420 listed buildings within five kilometres of the appeal site, the effects on Hawton Church and St Mary Magdalene, Newark, should be the primary focus of his consideration of heritage assets. He further agrees, for the reasons set out at IR151, that the proposed development should not be prevented because of the impact upon the wider historic environment. For the reasons given at IR152 he concludes that there is no clear evidence that Belton House would have its setting substantially harmed by the proposed development. All Saints Church, Hawton 17. For the reasons given at IR156 the Secretary of State agrees that the setting of All Saints Church, Hawton, when seen from the east, is not particularly significant in reflecting its historic role. For the reasons given at IR162 the Secretary of State concludes that the setting of the church when viewed from this direction would be preserved. The Secretary of State concludes, for the reasons set out at IR157-8 that while there would be some visual harm when viewed while travelling north/south from the west of the site, it would not be substantial in terms of the contribution that the setting makes to the significance of the church. 18. For the reasons given at IR159-160 the Secretary of State concludes that while the significance of the Church’s setting when viewed from the Farndon/Hawton road would be harmed, it would not be substantially harmed. He similarly agrees, for the reasons given by the Inspector at IR161, that when viewed from the north and south the setting of the church would be largely preserved. 19. He agrees with the Inspector (IR163) that there would be harm in terms of the setting when viewed from the Farndon/Hawton Road, this would not be substantial. He thus agrees that when considering the setting as a whole, there would not be substantial harm to the setting of the church, but that this setting would not be preserved and as such there would be some harm to the significance of the church insofar as it is derived from its setting. The Church of St Mary Magdalene, Newark 20. For the reasons given by the Inspector at IR164-169 the Secretary of State concludes, in agreement with the Inspector at IR170, that while the proposed wind turbines would not enhance the setting of Mary Magdalene, Newark, the setting would be preserved, and as such substantial harm would not arise.

Load more

  64

Copy Link