Michelle Smith Our Ref: APP/Z2830//A/11/2165035 Eversheds LLP Bridgewater Place Your Ref: Spring Farm Ridge- Water Lane 181122.000002 LEEDS West Yorkshire LS11 5DR 22 December 2014 Dear Madam, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY BROADVIEW ENERGY LTD SPRING FARM RIDGE, LAND TO THE NORTH OF WELSH LANE BETWEEN GREATWORTH AND HELMDON APPLICATION REF: S/2010/1437/MAF 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, John Woolcock BNatRes (Hons) MURP Dip Law MPIA MRTPI, who held an inquiry beginning on 8 October 2013 into your client’s appeal against the refusal of South Northamptonshire Council (“the Council”) to grant planning permission for the erection of 5 wind turbines plus underground cabling, meteorological mast, access tracks, control building, temporary site compound and ancillary development at Spring Farm Ridge, land to the north of Welsh Lane between Greatworth and Helmdon. On the 11th 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. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 2. The Inspector, whose report is enclosed with this letter, recommended that the appeal be allowed and planning permission granted subject to conditions. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s recommendation, dismisses the appeal and refuses planning permission. All paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, refer to the Inspector’s report (IR). Department for Communities and Local Government Tel: 030344 42861 Richard Watson, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework 3rd Floor, Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Procedural matters 3. In reaching this position the Secretary of State has taken into account the submitted Environmental Statement (ES) dated October 2010 and the Further Environmental Information Report (FEI) submitted in February 2012 (IR2) and the updated noise assessment in August 2013 (IR5). Overall, and like the Inspector (IR188), the Secretary of State is satisfied that the ES and FEI comply with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal. 4. The Secretary of State has taken into account the planning guidance published in March 2014. 5. The Court of Appeal issued a judgment on 18 February 2014 in the case of Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited v East Northamptonshire District Council concerning the weight to be attached to harm to listed buildings and the overall balancing exercise that decision makers must undertake. The Secretary of State wrote to parties on 15th July 2014 inviting comments. The responses received, which were circulated to parties, have been taken into account in this Decision. He has carefully considered these representations but does not consider that they raise new matters that would affect his decision. Copies of these representations can be provided on application to the address at the bottom of the first page of this letter. Policy Considerations 6. 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 (IR9) that the development plan comprises the saved policies of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan 1997 (LP). 7. The Secretary of State notes that the emerging West Northamptonshire Draft Core Strategy (eCS) is in preparation. He has also had regard to SPD2007, SPD 2010 and SPD 2013 as set out in IR10. 8. 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); 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. 9. 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. Main Considerations 10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues in this case are those set out at IR189. Character and appearance 11. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s conclusions at IR190-208. He agrees that the proposed development would have a major adverse effect on the local landscape in the immediate setting of the turbines, reducing to moderate/major up to about 2.5km from the turbines and with no significant adverse impact beyond this distance (IR199). 12. As to the likely visual effects, it is noted that the appellant’s assessment acknowledges that the proposed development would have significant adverse visual effects from 9 of the 19 viewpoints assessed (IR201). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s analysis on the likely impact on the relevant viewpoints (IR202 to 205) and agrees that the proposed turbines would have a major adverse effect on many local views, diminishing with distance (IR206). 13. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the overall adverse effect on the landscape character and the visual amenity of the area would be of major to moderate/major significance (IR208). This harm weighs against the proposal and is in conflict with the aims of LP policies G3 (A), EV1 and EV25. Living conditions - outlook 14. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR217 that the proposal would not, by reason of deprivation of outlook, unacceptably affect the amenities and the use of the land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest. Living conditions – noise and disturbance 15. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR226 that noise from the turbines would be audible at nearby homes at times which would sometimes be heard at levels significantly above background levels. He agrees with the Inspector that the imposition of suitable planning conditions could minimise such impacts. Therefore he attaches little weight to this in the planning balance. Living conditions – other considerations 16. The Secretary of State agrees that there is no compelling evidence to demonstrate that the appeal proposal would give rise to unacceptable infrasound or adversely affect the health of local residents. Like the Inspector, he gives such fears little weight in the planning balance (IR227). Heritage Assets (HAs) 17. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions at IR231-244. He agrees with the adverse effects of the appeal proposal on the individual HAs identified by the Inspector at IR232-242. He further agrees that overall, the minor to moderate adverse effects of the proposed development on HAs would result in less than substantial harm to be weighed against the benefits of the scheme in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 134 and 135 of the Framework (IR244). The Secretary of State has given considerable importance and weight to the identified harm and to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed buildings. Public Rights of Way 18. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that some limited weight should be given in the planning balance to the perception of harm to safety by users of the PROW and further agrees that this issue is not determinative in the decision (IR245). Highway safety 19. The Secretary of State notes that the Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposal on technical highway grounds. He agrees with the Inspector that there is no basis to reject the proposal on highway grounds and he too finds no conflict with LP policies in this regard. Other considerations 20. The Secretary of State notes that some biodiversity enhancements are proposed as part of the appeal scheme and agrees that there is no evidence that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on protected species or nature conservation (IR247). 21. The Secretary of State agrees that the imposition of suitable conditions on any grant of planning permission would overcome concerns about drainage (IR248), impact on radio and television reception (IR249), land restoration following removal of the turbines (IR253). 22. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion on the issues raised in IR250, 251, 252 and 254. 23. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR255 that although the proposal would result in some socio-economic benefits, the impact on the local economy would be limited. Renewable energy (RE) 24. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the appeal proposal would, even using the bottom of the predicted range, make a significant contribution to meeting national targets for the generation of RE and this is a consideration which weighs heavily in favour of the proposal (IR258). Planning Balance and conclusions 25. 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.