APP/E3715/A/14/2227479 Burges Salmon LLP Your Ref: CY02/PR01/43997.1/TRACE One Glass Wharf Bristol BS2 0ZX 18 January 2016
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cathryn Tracey Our Ref: APP/E3715/A/14/2227479 Burges Salmon LLP Your ref: CY02/PR01/43997.1/TRACE One Glass Wharf Bristol BS2 0ZX 18 January 2016 Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (SECTION 79) APPEAL BY RES UK & IRELAND LTD AT LAND AT CESTERSOVER FARM, CESTERSOVER FARM, CESTERSOVER, PAILTON, RUGBY, WARWICKSHIRE CV23 0QP APPLICATION REF: R12/2009 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector Paul K Jackson B Arch (Hons) RIBA, who held an inquiry into your client’s appeal under Section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of Rugby Borough Council (“the Council”) to refuse an application for the erection of 4 three-bladed, horizontal axis wind turbines, each up to 126.5 metres maximum to tip height, electricity transformers, underground cabling, site access tracks and watercourse crossings, site access upgrades, crane hard standings, turning heads, a control building, a communications mast, and a permanent free-standing meteorological mast. During construction and commissioning a number of temporary works including 2 construction compounds, crane hard standings, and temporary guyed anemometer/power performance masts, dated 31 October 2013, in accordance with application Ref: R12/2009. 2. The appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination on 23 October, 2015, 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 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed and planning permission refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions and recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Phil Barber Tel 0303 44 42853 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. The Secretary of State has noted the Inspector’s remarks and actions at IR1-6. Policy and statutory considerations 5. 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. In this case, the adopted development plan comprises the 2011 Rugby Borough Core Strategy (CS) and saved policies of the 2006 Rugby Borough Local Plan (LP). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the most relevant policies for this case are those set out at IR10-12, namely: CS14 (Enhancing the Strategic Green Infrastructure Network), CS16 (Sustainable Design) and LP Policy GP5 (Renewable Energy). He notes (IR14) that the Council has embarked upon a new Melton Local Plan, but this remains at consultation stage of development and agrees with the Inspector this has not reached a stage at which it can be given any significant weight. He further notes other planning guidance, namely, the 2010 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Resource Assessment and Feasibility Study, the 2011 Rugby Borough Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Developments and its 2013 update. 6. The Secretary of State has had regard to his Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) on Local Planning of 18 June 2015. The statement explained that the Secretary of State was setting out new considerations to be applied to proposed wind energy development. Subject to a transitional provision, the statement explained that the new considerations had immediate effect. Given its relevance to this case, the Secretary of State attaches substantial weight to the statement as the most recent expression of government planning policy for onshore wind development. 7. The statement includes a transitional provision for where a valid planning application for wind energy development had already been submitted to a local planning authority at the date on which the statement was made and the development plan does not identify suitable sites. In such instances, local planning authorities can find the proposal acceptable if, following consultation, they are satisfied it has addressed the planning impacts identified by affected local communities and therefore has their backing. In applying the transitional provision to this appeal proposal the Secretary of State has considered the representations reported in the Inspector’s Report. 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 March 2014; the National Policy Statements (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy (EN-3); the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended and Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (2013). The Secretary of State has also taken into account the WMSs on renewable energy published in June 2013 by the Secretaries of State for Energy and Climate Change and for Communities and Local Government; the WMS on renewable energy published by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in April 2014; and the English Heritage/Historic England guidance entitled “The Setting of Heritage Assets” as updated in July 2015. 2 9. In accordance with section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA), 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. The Secretary of State has also paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance conservation areas, as required by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Main issues 10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main considerations are those set out at IR246. The other consideration he has taken into account when reaching his decision is the WMS on Local Planning of 18 June 2015. Effect of the proposed development on the setting of designated heritage assets Holy Trinity Church 11. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s remarks on the setting of the Grade II* listed Holy Trinity Church (IR248-249). He further agrees that the rural setting adds to its historical significance and that the turbines would be visible together with the spire in views from the valley. For the reasons set out at IR250, the Secretary of State agrees that the impact on the heritage significance of the church is such that ‘less than substantial’ harm should be weighed against the benefits of the scheme. 12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR249) that in some views the turbines would spread directly behind or in front of the spire in an uncomfortable, out of scale manner noticeably diminishing the significance of the church in its landscape setting. The Secretary of State gives considerable importance and weigh to the desirability of preserving the setting of Holy Trinity Church. The Churchover Conservation Area 13. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR251-2 that the proposed turbines would not impinge to any great degree on appreciation of the heritage significance of the conservation area. Other heritage assets – non-designated and designated 14. Like the Inspector the Secretary of State has considered the effect of the proposed turbines on other heritage assets. He agrees with the Inspector that the non- designated ridge and furrow (IR254) would suffer a degree of harm from the adjacent access tracks and pads. The Secretary of State has considered the impact of the proposal on other heritage assets, designated and non-designated, within a 5km radius of the turbines, including the Georgian farmhouse at Streetfields Farm. He agrees with the Inspector that for reasons of distance, orientation and/or screening the effect on other designated heritage assets would be of a neutral magnitude (IR255). 3 Landscape Character 15. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR256-265. He agrees that the proposed turbines would have highly significant adverse landscape effects which would extend at least 2km. He further agrees that the proposed development would conflict with the landscape protection aims of the development plan, specifically policies CS14, CS16 and LP policy GP5. It would also not conserve or enhance remote rural character as set out in the management strategy of the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines (IR266). Visual Amenity 16. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR267-268) that the turbines would become a dominant feature of the local landscape which would re-define the experiences of local residents and the that adverse visual impact on recreational walkers on public rights of way would be major within 1 – 2 km. Other considerations Noise 17. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR 269 that, subject ot an appropriate condition providing for mitigation in the event of Excess Amplitude Modulation arising, turbine noise does not weigh against the scheme. Residential amenity 18. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s analysis at IR270-271 and agrees the change would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties but not unacceptable. Health concerns 19. The Secretary of State notes and agrees with the Inspector’s remarks at IR273. There is no available evidence to suggest that living in the vicinity of an existing turbine in the UK has had any harmful effect on health. Safety 20. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s remarks at IR274 and notes his use of a condition regarding relocation of the turbines within the micro-siting allowance.