Michelle Brown/David Hardy Eversheds LLP Eversheds House 70 Great Bridgewater Street Manchester M1 5ES Our Ref: APP/L2630/A/13/2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Michelle Brown/David Hardy Our Ref: APP/l2630/A/13/2203839 Eversheds LLP Your ref: GRANGESA/209756.00002 Eversheds House 70 Great Bridgewater Street Manchester M1 5ES 23 January 2015 Dear Madam/Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (SECTION 78) APPEAL BY UPPER VAUNCES WIND FARM LIMITED LAND EAST OF SEMERE GREEN ROAD. (FORMING PART OF UPPER VAUNCES FARM), PULHAM MARKET AND DICKLEBURGH (WITH ACCESS FROM A140), NORFOLK APPLICATION REF: 2013/0725 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Graham Dudley BA(Hons) Arch Dip Cons AA RIBA FRICS, who held an inquiry which commenced on 7 January 2014 into your client’s appeal under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of South Norfolk District Council (“the Council”) to refuse planning permission for an application for planning permission for three wind turbines and associated development for a period of 25 years, including control buildings, electricity transformers, underground cabling, access tracks, crane hardstandings and vehicular access dated 26 April 2013, in accordance with application ref: 2013/0725. 2. On 10 April 2014 the appeal was recovered for the Secretary of States determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because it involves a renewable energy development. Inspector’s recommendation 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed and planning permission granted. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s recommendation and 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. Richard Watson Tel 0303 4441627 Planning Casework Division Email: [email protected] Department for Communities and Local Government 3rd Floor, Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1p 4DF Procedural matters 4. In reaching this position the Secretary of State has taken account of the Environmental Statement (ES) which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (IR37, IR338). The Secretary of State considers that the ES complies with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposals. 5. Following the close of the inquiry, on 6 March 2014, the Government issued new planning guidance. The Inspector has had regard to references to the guidance by the parties (IR343). Policy Considerations 6. In deciding this 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. 7. In this case, the adopted development plan comprises the saved policies of the South Norfolk Local Plan (LP) which was adopted in 2003, and the 2011 Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (JCS). The Secretary of State notes that the parties agree that the Development Management policies Plan Document (DMP) is still at too early a stage to be of significant weight (IR19). The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies most relevant to the appeal are those identified by the Inspector at 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 published 6 March 2014; the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3); the Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1); and the Written Ministerial Statements on ‘Local Planning and onshore wind’ (DCLG) and ‘Onshore wind’ (DECC). 9. In accordance with section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Secretary of State has also 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. Main issues 10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues are those set out at IR254. Character and Appearance 11. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspectors reasoning and conclusions at IR255-IR272. He agrees with the overall conclusion that there is an impact upon the appearance of the immediate area conflicting with LP Policy ENV8; that the proposals protects the environment in terms of future harm to it from climate change, but causes some visual harm to the environment in conflict with the CS Policy 1; but maintains landscape character and accords with CS Policy 3 in this respect (IR273). Heritage Assets The Church of St Mary, Rushall 12. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspectors reasoning IR277- IR286 on this matter. He agrees that the church is an imposing historic structure and that its dominance and importance means that it would continue as a landmark feature in the landscape. In addition he accepts that the harm to the significance of the church, in terms of the Framework, would be ‘less than substantial’ and that the setting would not be preserved (IR283). 13. The Secretary of State has also had regard to the opinion of English Heritage as indicated by the Inspector at IR284. He observes that English Heritage consider the scheme still contains elements harmful to the setting and significance of the church and recommended permission be refused. He also notes that in terms of Rushall Church, English Heritage stated that although the turbines have been repositioned, they will still be seen in combination with the church, an effect which the previous Inspector found to have a harmful impact. The Secretary of State has also had regard to the Inspectors consideration at IR284-IR286. He agrees with his overall conclusion on this matter in that the removal of the nearest turbine, so that the turbines are not seen from either side of the tower, addresses the harm identified by the previous Inspector (IR286). Other Listed Buildings located around the appeal site 14. The Secretary of State notes the Inspectors findings IR294 and the conclusion that the visibility of the turbines will have an effect on the setting of these buildings, but the effect in relation to the overall significance of the listed buildings would be small and that for each little weight should be carried through to the balance against public benefits, in addition to that associated with Section 66(1). 15. In addition the Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s assessment of impact upon the Grade I listed church of St Mary, Pulham St Mary, Church of St Mary Magdalene, Pulham Market and Church of All Saints, Dickleburgh. He notes that the towers of the churches in the Pulham villages are tall and conspicuous in the landscape and focal points of the parish. The Secretary of State observes that where these turbines would be visible the experience of the church is diminished and accepts the Inspectors findings that given the considerable spacing of the churches from the turbines, the impact would be limited (IR295). Residences 16. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the evidence and the Inspector’s conclusions on the impacts of the proposals on residential amenity and living conditions. He notes that it is common ground between the appellant and the Council that any of the harm identified would be `less than substantial’ in terms of the Framework (IR287). Seamere Cottage and Barnacres (Grade II) 17. The Secretary of State has had regard to the evidence (IR288-IR290) on this matter. He observes that the main effect on setting would be visual intrusion in terms of views in and out. He also notes that the turbines will be visible from the gardens of the listed buildings (IR289). He also observes that in views approaching the properties turbines T1 and T2 would be visible and to some extent would compete with the cottages, in addition he notes that T1 would be seen to be located above the thatched roof of Barnacres (IR290). 18. Having regard to the Inspector’s assessment at IR290 the Secretary of State agrees with his conclusions on the impact of the proposals on these two Grade II listed properties (IR291). Semere Green Farmhouse (Grade II) 19. The Secretary of State notes that the principal view of the building would be from the north-west and the turbines would be seen in the background and would attract attention in the views. He has had regard to the Inspectors findings that the turbines would be a considerable distance away and T2 and T3 would be partially screened behind trees and that the turbines would be visible from the gardens that form the immediate setting of the listed buildings (IR292). He notes that the Inspector considers that because the turbines would be a considerable distance away they would not be overbearing or unacceptably dominant in relation to the listed building. For the reasons given by the Inspector the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspectors overall conclusion on this matter (IR293). 20. In accordance with the recent Court of Appeal decision in Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited v East Northamptonshire District Council and others [2014] EWCA Civ 137, the Secretary of State attaches considerable weight and importance to the harm caused to designated heritage assets in the planning balance. He agrees with the Inspector (IR277-IR295) that the scheme would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of some listed buildings and in particular to the setting of the Church of St Mary, Rushall, Seamere Cottage and Barnacres.