Appeal Decision
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House Inquiry opened on 3 February 2009 2 The Square Temple Quay Site visits made on 6, 11 and 12 Bristol BS1 6PN February 2009 0117 372 6372 email:[email protected]. by Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC gov.uk Decision date: an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 11/05/09 Appeal Ref: APP/G0908/A/08/2073524 Parkhead Farm, Silloth CA7 4PZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by NPower Renewables Ltd against the decision of Allerdale Borough Council. • The application Ref.2/2007/0076, dated 22 January 2007, was refused by notice dated 20 December 2007. • The development proposed is the erection of four wind turbines and associated infrastructure and services including site roads, crane pads, substation control building and temporary construction compound. Preliminary Matters 1. The Inquiry sat from 3 to 6 February 2009. I carried out an accompanied visit to the appeal site and several properties in the vicinity on 6 February 2009. As agreed, I carried out a series of unaccompanied site visits to take in the most important viewpoints, existing wind farms at High Pow Farm and Wharrels Hill, the site of the proposed wind farm at Grise and the site of a proposed wind farm at Hoff Moor, dismissed at appeal (APP/H0928/A/07/2053230). I also passed close to the existing wind farm at Great Orton, observed the facilities at Bank Mill Nurseries, and spent some time in and around Silloth. 2. These unaccompanied visits took place on 11 and 12 February 2009. The weather on 11 February was dry and clear. On the 12 February it was cloudy with occasional snow flurries. On both days, visibility was more than adequate for the purposes of my site visits. 3. The proposal triggered a need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under the provisions of Statutory Instrument 1999/293. The originating application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) that deals with a wide range of matters. Further information was submitted during the appeal process. The adequacy of the ES is not in dispute. I have taken the ES and the further information into account in determining the appeal. Decision 4. I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission for the erection of four wind turbines and associated infrastructure and services including site roads, crane pads, substation control building and temporary construction compound at Parkhead Farm, Silloth CA7 4PZ, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref.2/2007/0076, dated 22 January 2007, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in Annex 1 to this decision. Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524 Main Issue 5. This is whether any harm caused in terms of the landscape, tourism, the living conditions of nearby residents, ecology, and any other matters, is outweighed by any benefits that may flow from the proposal. Reasons The Policy Background 6. As set out in the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG), the development plan includes the North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS), the saved policies of the Cumbria and Lake District Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 (JSP), and the Allerdale Local Plan First Alteration, adopted in 2006 (LP). The SoCG identifies the most salient policies. 7. RSS Policy EM1 seeks to identify, protect, enhance and manage environmental assets. Policy EM1(A) refers to the landscape and the need to identify, protect, maintain and enhance its natural, historic and other distinctive features. This is to be informed by recognition of the special qualities of, amongst others, the Lake District National Park, the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and World Heritage Sites, and their settings. 8. RSS Policy EM17 requires at least 10% (rising to at least 15% by 2015 and at least 20% by 2020) of the electricity which is supplied within the Region to be provided from renewable energy sources by 2010. According to the SoCG, the target for Cumbria is 210MW by 2010. Criteria that should be taken into account in assessing renewable energy schemes include, of most relevance, the impact on local amenity, the landscape, World Heritage Sites, other national and international designations and their settings, and nature conservation. 9. JSP Policy ST4 deals with ‘major development proposals’ and is permissive where, in essence, the benefit outweighs the detriment, the proposal complies with best practice for environment, safety and security and alternative less harmful locations and methods have been fully considered and rejected. The policy goes on to specify that all possible measures should be taken to minimise adverse effects and, where appropriate, provision made to meet local community needs, and decommissioning and site restoration. Policy ST4 defines ‘major development’ as one that has significant environmental effects and is more than local in character. Given that it required an ES following an EIA, it could be argued that the policy should apply. However, the text accompanying the policy says that it should be applied to large scale renewable energy supply schemes. I deal with this below. 10. JSP Policy R44 refers to renewable energy schemes outside the Lake District National Park and AONBs. Proposals should be favourably considered where there is no significant adverse effect on the landscape character, biodiversity and the natural and built heritage of the area, whether individually or cumulatively; there is no significant adverse effect on local amenity, the local economy, highways or telecommunications; and the proposal takes all practicable measures to reduce any such impacts. The policy also states that the environmental, economic and energy benefits of renewable energy proposals should be given significant weight and requires measures for decommissioning and remediation. 2 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524 11. JSP Policy E37 stipulates that development should be compatible with the distinctive characteristics and features of the landscape. Proposals will be assessed in relation to, of relevance, locally distinctive natural or built features; visual intrusion or impact; scale in relation to the landscape and features; public access and community value of the landscape; historic patterns and attributes; biodiversity features; and openness, remoteness and tranquillity. 12. LP Policy EN19 requires development proposals to have particular regard to the conservation and enhancement of the landscape. LP Policy EN20 deals with proposals within or adjoining the Solway Coast AONB and notes that the protection of its natural beauty will be given priority over other planning considerations. 13. A number of criteria are set out against which proposals will be judged. Criterion (i) prohibits any development that would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the natural beauty of the landscape unless there is an overriding need for it and the standards of criterion (v) are met. Criterion (ii) militates against any major developments unless, of relevance, they are in the national interest and the standards of criterion (v) are met. Criterion (v) says that all development within or adjacent to the AONB must preserve or enhance the distinctive landscape character and heritage of the area through appropriate siting, design, materials and landscape measures which minimise resultant environmental harm 14. LP Policy EN25 seeks to strictly control development in the open countryside. Proposals that would cause unacceptable harm to the landscape will not be permitted unless an overriding need can be demonstrated. 15. LP Policy EN26 addresses development proposals that may affect a European site, a proposed European site or a Ramsar site. Development that would have significant effects on the site will not be permitted unless (i) the need cannot be met in a less damaging way elsewhere; (ii) there are imperative public interest reasons; and (iii) conditions can be applied that would prevent damage to wildlife habitats or enhance the nature conservation interest of the site. 16. I have also noted the Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that replaced the previous Supplementary Planning Guidance: Wind Energy Development in Cumbria. The SPD has been the subject of consultation and has been formally adopted by Allerdale Borough Council, amongst others. As such, notwithstanding some of the criticisms made of it, that I deal with below, it attracts significant weight. 17. For the purposes of the SPD, the proposal which comprises four turbines is defined as a ‘small group’. On this basis, my view is that it does not trigger the requirements of SP Policy ST4 which is intended to deal with large-scale renewable energy supply schemes. The area around the appeal site is deemed to have a low/moderate capacity to accommodate a small turbine group and exceptionally a large group. 18. I have also had regard to Government guidance in Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (PPS22) and the Companion Guide, Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) and the Annexe on Climate Change, and Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7), amongst others. 3 Appeal Decision APP/G0908/A/08/2073524 The Site and the Proposal 19. The site of the proposed wind farm, which covers about 76 hectares in total, is approximately 3 kilometres south-east of Silloth and about 4 kilometres west of Abbeytown. The site is currently in agricultural use as part of Parkhead Farm and is predominantly used for pasture and to grow potatoes. 20. The four wind turbines and associated infrastructure proposed would be located in two fields, separated by an unclassified road that runs past Parkhead Farm towards Highlaws. The turbines would have a blade tip height of up to 121 metres and a hub height of around 80 metres.