EAST DORSET DISTRICT COUNCIL With the compliments of the Chief Executive

Council Offices, Furzehill, Wimborne, Dorset BH21 4HN

Planning Committee Tuesday, 21 July 2015

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

6. Schedule of Planning Applications (Pages 1 - 90)

14 July 2015 This page is intentionally left blank Update Sheet Planning Committee 21st July 2015 Planning Applications

Application Address Updates

3/13/0681/FUL Mapperton Correction of area/output of Manor farm solar farm Farm following 2/7/15 committee site visit

Officers advise Members that the size of the recently built Manor Farm solar farm (application 3/14/1186 – between Three legged Cross and Verwood) is 45.7 hectares (113 acres) with output of 20.4 Megawatts.

This is similar in area to Mapperton (42.8 hectares/104 acres) and the output is smaller (Mapperton is 24.2 Megawatts).

Manor farm solar farm was approved with 81,400 solar panels and Mapperton would have 90,000.

Documents received since the last committee

Biodiversity Mitigation Plan endorsed by Dorset County Council’s Natural Environment Team and Great Crested Newt Survey now received.

Sturminster Marshall Parish Council comments (14/5/15). These replace those in the Officer report

OBJECT for the following reasons:-

1. The visual impact the development will have will spoil the openness of the Area of Great Landscape Value, which is also adjacent to a conservation area and in view of an AONB. It is inappropriate development for the location.

2. In View of the results of the archaeological survey a dig should be carried out.

3. A Physical Ecological survey needs to be carried out over the whole site and Marsh Bridge area. Due to anomilies.

4. World War 2 incident of munitions dumping by a German plane -MOD records should be requested, examined and a site survey conducted for any signs of contamination. No mention of this in any reports. Has this been checked?

5. Land Graded 3a should not be used for Solar Farms.

1 6. The deer fencing on the scale required for this site would have a detrimental visual impact on the area also on wildlife.

7. The infrastructure is felt to be inadequate to manage the quantity and size of the traffic movements. Safety issues for the residents and Public.

8. A full environmental impact survey has been conducted. Anomalies within this report. , i.e. data regarding the ecological survey, five large fields divided by hedgerow.

9. Accurate details of timescale and traffic movements needed, as details provided questioned.

10. There would be a detrimental impact on the listed buildings and the heritage site.

11. Conditions required that guarantee the removal of everything at the end of its working life span.

12. The construction of the substation requires conditions that restrict its use solely to this one site. Building Materials should be more in keeping with the environment. Wooden Clad Sedum Roof.

13. The pile driving is likely to cause a disruptive impact. The Hum of the panels on the locality.

14. There are anomalies in the documentation Figures regarding renewable energy targets.

15. The community funding would require protection. If the plans be approved.

16. Information is needed regarding the provision resources on the construction site

17. More detailed vehicle movements.

18. We request a site meeting by EDDC Planning Committee prior to the final decision.

19. Western Power Distribution has reached its capacity. And is no longer connecting renewable energy to the grid. This includes parts of Dorset. If built, could this be a White Elephant

20. These are the main points we have considered, but there are many more to be raised and clarification sort.

2 CPRE Letter dated 19/6/2015

I wish to draw your attention to two serious omissions in the Officers' Report for the above planning application:

1. The report fails to acknowledge that projected renewable energy generation for Dorset County has reached 585.7 gigawatt hours or 84.8% of its 2020 target and (b) the Christchurch & East Dorset Partnership has reached 194.9 gigawatt hours or 86.2% of its 2020 target (CPRE Response paras. 7.1- 7.5).

The Christchurch & East Dorset Partnership's outstanding performance provides vital evidence that can be taken into account when considering, on the one hand, the magnitude of need for a renewable energy installation and, on the other, the magnitude of the damage it would cause to landscape, heritage, amenity and agricultural assets. The requirement to take the issue of need into account is acknowledged in the Consent Order dated 19 May 2015 in the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division, Planning Court) in the matter of an application for Judicial Review, Reference CO/5206/2014.

2. The report mentions but fails to explain the significance of the fact that the area covered by panels has been reduced by only 20% compared with the original scheme. The report focuses on a misleading 38% reduction in area “where the panels are to be located”. The total area of the now proposed 90,000 panels is 14.6 hectares or 36 acres, equivalent to 23 soccer pitches (CPRE Response paras. 1.2-1.4). This compares with 29 pitches previously.

Dorset County Council Renewable Energy Development Officer’s comments in response to the CPRE’s letter 19/6/15

Regarding point 1 in this letter, I can confirm that the Dorset CPRE has unilaterally chosen to remove Bournemouth and Poole from the aspirational 7.5% renewable energy target in the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Renewable Energy Strategy to 2020.

The Dorset CPRE methodology has therefore reduced the 1200 GWh (7.5%) target in the Renewable Energy Strategy by almost a half down to 690 GWh.

3 Hence the Dorset CPRE is claiming 84.8% of their version of the 2020 target has already been met, whilst the Dorset Energy Partnership's Annual Review indicates 45% of the aspirational target was met by March 2015.

The Dorset Energy Partnership refutes the CPRE’s methodology, as the strategy clearly states that the 7.5% target is a collective target for Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole.

There are currently over 100MW of solar farms in Christchurch, East Dorset and Purbeck, which are producing enough renewable electricity on a sunny day to power 120,000 average homes.

This electricity is physically transmitted through the grid into Bournemouth and Poole. Therefore it would be illogical to remove Bournemouth and Poole from the strategy target as the existing solar farms contributing to the 7.5% target could not be have been built unless the conurbations of Bournemouth and Poole were available to use the electricity generated.

Mapperton Preservation Group - Summary of objections dated 18/6/15

The Mapperton Preservation Group represents local residents who are campaigning against this solar installation. Although we are supportive of renewable energy, we strongly object to this damaging proposal for the following reasons:

Size: This huge solar farm would cover 106 acres of productive arable land with 90,000 solar panels and ancillary equipment, including a massive electricity substation. However although the area occupied by panels and equipment may have been reduced by 38%, the area covered just by glass has only come down by 20%. We contend that the visual impact is determined primarily by the area of glass, not the acreage of solar farm. The size of the development site remains the same as for the first proposal, 175 acres, equivalent to 110 soccer pitches. If built today the scheme would be the second largest in Dorset.

The developer has acknowledged that the development site is large because it deliberately chose a 132 kV power line as a connection to the national grid. This choice necessitated a large and expensive electricity substation which, in turn required a large solar park to provide the large output and income needed to pay for it. It is clearly the case that a developer's requirement to make a profit is not a

4 material planning consideration and cannot possibly justify approval for a large damaging development.

Landscape and Visual Impact: It represents industrialisation of the beautiful countryside which lies within the Mapperton Area of Great Landscape Value, a protected landscape. It is relevant to note here that the report 'Landscape Sensitivity to Wind and Solar Development in East Dorset District', commissioned by East Dorset District Council, prepared by LUC and published in April 2014, provides strong evidence that this proposed development should not be approved. The report concludes that sensitivity to a solar PV scheme of more than 30 hectares, located on exposed higher ground close to Great Coll Wood in the South Blandford Downs Landscape Character Area, could be as high as “high” (the highest sensitivity) and not lower than “moderate-high”, the next to highest sensitivity.

We strongly support the authoritative critiques from both the Cranborne Chase AONB and the David Wilson Partnership on grounds of landscape and visual impact, to which the Officers’ report pays scant heed. AONB says the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is “significantly flawed”, arguing that the conclusions underestimate the impact of the proposal and that the photographic methodology is “contrived to make the proposals and their impacts appear smaller than in real life”. For example, the installation would be very clearly seen from Badbury Rings, an Ancient Monument within the Cranborne Chase AONB.

Amenity Impact: The vast area of glass panels would be in full view from surrounding footpaths and a bridleway that passes through the site. Walkers, riders and tourists would be adversely affected, especially those from Mapperton and Winterborne Zelston, which are only 500 and 750 metres away respectively.

Impact on Heritage Assets: There are abundant heritage assets in the area. The setting and views from Grade II* Listed Charborough Park would be adversely impacted. Pevsner, the acclaimed architectural historian, described “the landscaped park as the most splendid in Dorset”. The Officers' report has ignored the objection from the Dorset Gardens Trust, which has assumed the responsibility in Dorset of commenting on applications concerning parks and gardens from the Garden History Society. Views from Grade II* Listed Charborough Tower, which featured in Thomas Hardy’s “Two on a Tower”, would also be adversely affected.

5 Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land: Nearly a quarter of the proposed site is classified as Grade 3A, or “best and most versatile”. Greg Barker, the Energy Minister, said in April 2013 that ”where solar farms are not on brownfield sites, you must be looking at low grade agricultural land” which this is not.

Need for the Proposal: The County of Dorset has made huge strides towards meeting its Renewable Energy Target of generating 7.5% of its projected energy consumption in 2020 from renewable sources. Dorset CPRE calculates that the County had already achieved, by March 2015, 85% of its 2020 target due in large part to the approval of 36 solar farms. This suggests that Dorset's planning authorities have an opportunity to be more discerning before approving further sites. It can be noted here that the corresponding figure for the area covered by the Christchurch Borough Council & EDDC Partnership is 86%.

The Officers’ report highlights a Dorset Energy Partnership (DEP) progress figure of “3.4%”. This represents annual renewable energy generation, for operational installations only, for the area covered by Dorset County, Bournemouth and Poole. “3.4%” is 45% of the “7.5%” target. The DEP does not recognise Government renewable energy generation projection methodology. This takes into account installations that are under construction and awaiting construction, as well as those that are operational.

Local Community Objection: Well over 700 written objections have been registered by EDDC, against less than 70 in support. This is the largest ever protest in Dorset against a solar farm. More significantly about 90 protests come from less than two miles from the centre of the site, which represents nearly half the local population, excluding those in Charborough Estate properties, with only one letter of support from this area at all. All of the households of Mapperton, outside these properties, are objecting. The Lower Winterborne Parish Council have objected to the plan too as have Sturminster Marshall Parish Council, who did so unanimously.

Is this Temporary? Much play is made by the developer that the proposal, for 30 years, is temporary not permanent development. Natural England has taken the opposite view - “that a twenty-five year operational life equates to a human 'generation', arguably resulting in a permanent effect on a single receptor group” (Marc Turner, Senior Advisor, Dorset & Hampshire Team, Natural England, letter to Ann

6 Collins, West Dorset District Council re. 8.75 MW solar park PA WD/D/14/001307, 12 August 2014).

The following documents are attached;

 Good Energy’s response to the responses from the CPRE, Mapperton Preservation Group and Sturminster Marshall Parish Council  DCC Landscape Officer’s comments on AONB Team’s Letter of 13/4/15  CPRE Letter 15/5/15 and attachments  Dorset Gardens trust Letter 3/6/15  CPRE Letter to EDDC CEO dated 6/7/15

Department for Communities and Local Government and The Rt Hon Eric Pickles Planning update Delivered on 25 March 2015

Solar energy: protecting the local and global environment

Last year, the coalition government published a comprehensive solar photovoltaic strategy setting out our ambitions for the technology as an important part of the United Kingdom’s energy mix. In doing so, the strategy underlines the importance of focusing growth on domestic and commercial roof space and previously developed land.

My department supported this by consulting on reforms to permitted development rights which will encourage the take up of much larger scale solar power generation (solar photovoltaic) on non-domestic buildings and complement the existing flexibilities for home owners. These reforms allow for a 20-fold increase in the amount of solar that can go onto the roofs of non-domestic buildings such as warehouses and offices without having to submit a full planning application, subject to strict safeguards to protect local amenity. The proposals have been widely welcomed by the solar industry, and the measure will come into force from 15 April 2015.

The National Planning Policy Framework includes strong protections for the natural and historic environment and is quite clear that local councils when considering development proposals should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Yet, some local communities have genuine concerns that when it

7 comes to solar farms insufficient weight has been given to these protections and the benefits of high quality agricultural land. As the solar strategy noted, public acceptability for solar energy is being eroded by the public response to large-scale solar farms which have sometimes been sited insensitively.

Meeting our energy goals should not be used to justify the wrong development in the wrong location and this includes the unnecessary use of high quality agricultural land. Protecting the global environment is not an excuse to trash the local environment. When we published our new planning guidance in support of the framework, we set out the particular factors relating to large scale ground mounted solar photovoltaic farms that a local council will need to consider. These include making effective use of previously developed land and, where a proposal involves agricultural land, being quite clear this is necessary and that poorer quality land is to be used in preference to land of a higher quality.

We are encouraged by the impact the guidance is having but do appreciate the continuing concerns, not least those raised in this House, about the unjustified use of high quality agricultural land. In light of these concerns we want it to be clear that any proposal for a solar farm involving the best and most versatile agricultural land would need to be justified by the most compelling evidence. Of course, planning is a quasi- judicial process, and every application needs to be considered on its individual merits, with due process, in light of the relevant material considerations.

8

Mapperton Solar Farm

Mapperton Farm, Mapperton Almer, Blandford Forum, Dorset

East Dorset District Council reference 3/13/0681/FUL

Objection response by the Mapperton Preservation Group

May 2015

Charborough Tower The Robert J Barfoot Consultancy Environmental & Planning Consultants Huckleberry, East Knowstone, South Molton, Devon, EX36 4DZ Telephone: 01398 341623

9

Contents

Introduction and background Page 1 Failure to consider alternative sites Page 1 Use of Best and Most Versatile Land Page 2 Landscape and visual Impacts Page 4 Impacts on heritage assets Page 5 Community Benefit Page 12 Planning policy Page 12 Conclusions Page 15

Appendices

Appendix 1 The David Wilson Partnership Review Appendix 2 The South Torfrey Farm Consent Order Appendix 3 Plan of Charborough Park RPG Appendix 4 Photograph from Charborough Park RPG

1 Introduction and background

1.1 I was commissioned by the Mapperton Preservation Group (MPG) to produce a response to the Mapperton solar farm, along with Pete Leaver, Director of the David Wilson Partnership Ltd who dealt with the landscape and visual impacts. My relevant experience over the last 10 years includes evaluating and responding to over 150 renewable energy planning applications, both at the desk and in the field, along with taking part in numerous public inquiries on behalf of local residents. I also act as the assistant to a leading Queens Counsel in such public inquiries. The David Wilson Partnership review is at Appendix 1 of this MPG response and the review is summarised at Section 3 below.

1.2 MPG was formed by residents with concerns over proposals to install inappropriate renewable energy developments in the area.

1.3 MPG objects to the proposal for the Mapperton solar farm for the reasons set out in this response and requests that planning permission be refused.

2 Failure to consider alternative sites

2.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations require at Schedule 4, Part I and Part 2 that an Environmental Statement (ES) should contain an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.

2.2 The only reference to any assessment of alternative sites is at 3.10 of the Environmental Statement (ES) where it is stated inter alia that:

‘Some consideration of other sites has also been undertaken. Solar PV is highly constrained by the requirement to be close to a suitable grid connection point. A

1

10

suitable grid connection point will have the capacity to accept the requisite additional load onto electricity transmission lines. At Mapperton, the overhead electricity transmission lines that cross the site do have the ability to accommodate the additional load of energy that would be generated by the solar photovoltaic farm and, therefore, the site meets this critical requirement.’

2.3 It can be seen that the applicant states that alternative sites have been considered. However no details are provided of these sites and why they were rejected in favour of the Mapperton site.

2.4 Such an approach is contrary to the EIA Regulations, and the ES should have set out the alternative sites that were considered along with the reasons that they were rejected in favour of the Mapperton site.

2.5 The Council should request that the applicant provides the required information on alternative sites that were considered along with the reasons that they were rejected in favour of the Mapperton site. Failing that the Council should refuse planning consent on the basis of lack of adequate environmental information.

3 Use of Best and Most Versatile Land

3.2 At 2.4 of the Planning Statement it is stated that ‘The Project is located on agricultural land, consisting of grade 3a (good) and 3b (moderate) under the agricultural land classification (ALC) system. The land is currently used for arable crops.’

3.3 At 7.23 it is then stated inter alia that ‘Applying the relevant policy advice to the Project:

• The agricultural soil classification for the site has been identified as primarily grade 3b with some smaller area of grade 3a in the centre of the site. The Project does not lie within agricultural land classified at grades 1 and 2. The site selection demonstrates that the hierarchy of agricultural land classifications has been influential in identifying the application site for the Project, to seek to avoid where possible agricultural land of the highest classification.’

3.4 Reading Agricultural Consultants Ltd produced a document entitled Agricultural Land Classification and Soil Resources on behalf of the applicant.

3.5 Table 2 of that document is produced below and it can be seen that in fact 24% of the site area is Grade 3a land.

2

11

3.6 The NPPF states at paragraph 112 that ‘Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.’

3.7 The Glossary to the NPPF defines best and most versatile agricultural land as ‘Land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification.’

3.8 It is noted that at 2.4 of the Planning Statement it is stated that the land is currently used for arable crops. Chapter 9 of the ES states at 9.135 that ‘it is expected that the land beneath the solar panels will be grazed by sheep and the panels themselves will offer shelter and shade for these animals during adverse weather conditions.’ From this it is clear that the use of the land will change from arable to the grazing of sheep, a much less productive activity in terms of food production and one that is usually undertaken on land that is unsuitable for other agricultural activities.

3.9 The UK Solar PV Strategy refers to Solar Trade Association: Solar Farms: 10 Commitments one of which is ‘We will focus on non-agricultural land or land which is of lower agricultural quality.’ The Strategy then states that ‘ These best practice initiatives are important as they help address the perception that solar farms are diverting significant amounts of land from agricultural use and domestic food production. This, alongside the effects on the landscape and communities of the rapid growth in the deployment of large-scale solar PV installations, might erode public support for the sector overall.’

3.10 Bearing in mind that 24% of the site is Best and Most Versatile Land, the words of the Inspector in dismissing the Rogers Farm, Sudbury appeal 1 are relevant:

‘The appeal site, with regard to the aforementioned advice in the NPPG, would remain in agricultural use for the 25 year life of the development, probably for the grazing of sheep, and proposed perimeter planting and other measures would enhance biodiversity. However, the solar farm development would be on BMV land and, of greatest significance, no assessment has been made of the possibility of locating the development on 26 hectares of the more than 16,000 hectares of Grade 3b agricultural land in the District. The development would be reversible at the end of its life and the land could revert to being used for growing arable crops. However, it must be concluded that the development would result, if allowed and implemented, in a loss of BMV agricultural land.’

1 APP/D3505/A/14/2218072 3

12

3.11 The words of the Inspector in dismissing the Landthrone appeal 2 are also relevant:

‘A subsequent analysis prepared by Kernon Countryside Consultants for the appellant in December 2012 and correspondence from Luscombe Maye in October 2013 indicate Grade 3a across the majority of the site on which panels would be located and Grade 3b on most of the remainder. There is no question that the land remains in agricultural production. Whether the eastern portion is actually Grade 2 or 3a is of marginal significance because it remains undisputed that the site essentially comprises best and most versatile agricultural land which the NPPF indicates has benefits and should be safeguarded in the long term. Having regard to the most recent planning guidance, the land is demonstrably not of poorer quality and is being used. Indeed, the conservative yield figures indicate that barley yield from the eastern portion would be above average. There is nothing to suggest that this area (field 1) needs to be managed for a lower grade. The loss of agricultural production on best and most versatile agricultural land is a material consideration that weighs against the scheme.

Some weight attaches to the likelihood that the site would continue to be used for grazing while panels are in place. However there would be a great deal less grass under the panels than there is currently. The 25 year temporary nature of the proposal is a consideration, but that is a long time in which in which an attractive area of productive land would be used essentially for a non-agricultural purpose.’

3.12 Although all of the site in the Sudbury case was Best and Most Versatile Land and in the case of the Landthrone case the majority of the site was Best and Most Versatile Land the fact that 24% of the Mapperton site would be Best and Most Versatile Land must weigh heavily against the proposal.

4 Landscape and visual Impacts

4.1 The David Wilson Partnership review is at Appendix 1 of this MPG response and can be summarised thus:

The development would have an adverse moderate/substantial overall effect on the host Landscape Character Area. This is classed as Significant Adverse in relation to the EIA regulations. Using the criteria at table 5.5 of the LVIA, the development would have a large effect on the local area upon a landscape receptor of medium to high sensitivity.

The LVIA predicts significant adverse visual impacts on receptors at viewpoints 1 and 2. I predict significant adverse impacts on receptors at viewpoint 5. This gateway is on a well used local walk close to the village of Winterborne Zelston. The array takes up around 50% of the available view. The development would be a prominent new element in the view, contrasting with other, rural elements within the outlook.

Viewpoint 12, from Bradbury Rings, illustrates the cumulative visual impacts of the development when taken in conjunction with other renewable energy developments in the setting of the AONB. Within this view, 2 existing solar arrys at Blandford St

2 APP/D0840/A/13/2202450 4

13

Mary are visible to the north of the site. The West Dorset windfarm, if approved, would be situated just to the north of the development site.

The impact of the development on the designated AGLV is not assessed in the submitted LVIA. However, as the borders of the AGLV are concurrent with the South Blandford Downs LCA in this area, it is assumed that the significance of effect would be identical. In this case moderate/substantial, significant adverse landscape impacts are predicted. Such effects could not be said to be sympathetic with the particular landscape qualities and character of the South Blandford Downs LCA within the AGLV, as required by the policy.

The proposal site is some 1.3km to the west of the Grade II* Charborough Park. The Park is on a hill that is surrounded at its base by a broad area of woodland. The upper slopes are also clad in woodland and individual parkland trees, although there are views over the surrounding countryside from open areas of the Park. The main drive to the park runs through one of these open areas and is clearly visible from the proposal site.

It is beyond the scope of this report to provide expert advice on whether or not this is one such designed view, but it is recommended that the advice of a landscape heritage professional is sought as to the significance of the development on the setting of the listed park.

5 Impacts on heritage assets

5.1 Before dealing with the applicant’s assessment regarding heritage in the submitted documents it is advisable to consider recent clarification of the importance of harm to heritage assets that has been made by the Courts.

5.2 The issue of the degree of weight to be given to harm to heritage assets has been clarified by the Court of Appeal which examined the decision of Lang J in the Barnwell Manor case and confirmed her interpretation of S66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

5.3 Having examined the authorities, Sullivan LJ concluded at para 24 that: Parliament in enacting S66(1) did intend that the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings should not simply be given careful consideration by the decision maker for the purpose of deciding whether there would be some harm, but should be given ‘considerable importance and weight when the decision maker carries out the balancing exercise.’

5.4 In other words, the assessment of the degree of harm to the setting of a listed building was a matter for the Inspector’s planning judgement, but ‘he was not then free to give that harm such weight as he chose when carrying out the balancing exercise.’ 3 Indeed the judge made it clear that ‘that a finding of harm to the setting of a listed building is a consideration to which the decision-maker must give “considerable importance and weight.”

5.5 Furthermore, it is settled in law that ‘preserving’ a listed building or its setting, means ‘doing no harm’. The meaning is identical in S72(1) in relation to preserving the character of a conservation area. If harm will be caused to a

3 Paragraph 22 of the judgement 5

14

listed building or its setting, there is a ‘strong presumption against the grant of planning permission’ .4

5.6 If the harm caused is less than substantial in the terms of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) para 134 (reproducing the wording of policy HE9.4 of the now revoked PPS5), this does not mean that the statutory duty imposed by S66(1) can be ignored. The considerable weight to be given to the desirability of preserving the setting of all listed buildings must be put into the planning balance, thus distinguishing the process from the ordinary balancing process of weighing harm against benefit with no additional weighting on either side. The assessment of the degree of harm is a matter for planning judgement but the balancing of that harm against benefit must as a matter of law take into account S66(1) and the presumption against the grant of planning consent arising under it. 5

5.7 Where S66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act is in play, in the balancing exercise the scales are not evenly balanced. Following the Barnwell judgment it is clear that there must be ‘considerable importance and weight’ given to any harm to a heritage asset. It is not sufficient to simply weigh this harm against the public benefits.

5.8 On the matter of the degree of weight to be given to harm to heritage asset in the planning balance, it is worth studying the Consent Order which is at Appendix 2 of this MPG response. The Consent Order refers to the original Barnwell Manor High Court judgement and predates the Barnwell Manor Court of Appeal judgement.

5.9 The Consent Order makes it very clear that ‘ the decision maker, having found harm to a heritage asset, has to properly direct himself that the harm must be given considerable weight or that there is a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission. So the test is not just whether the advantages of the scheme outweigh the harm in a loose or general sense, but whether they sufficiently outweigh harm so as to rebut the strong presumption against the grant of permission.’

5.10 In that case the Inspector found that there would be less than substantial harm in terms of the NPPF to a Grade I listed church and to a Grade II listed farmhouse. The Consent Order stated that ‘Applying Sullivan LJ’s approach, the Inspector falls into error. Having found harm, he did not direct himself that he had to give the harm considerable weight or apply a presumption against the grant of planning permission when balancing the benefits against the harm.’

5.11 The Consent Order concluded that ‘On this basis the First Defendant concedes that the Inspector’s decision should not be allowed to stand and that the decision should therefore be quashed and the matter be remitted to the First Defendant for his redetermination.’

4 See Lord Bridge in South Lakeland DC v Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] AC 141 at 150. 5 See Sullivan LJ in Barnwell at para 28. 6

15

5.12 The appeal was subsequently recovered by the Secretary of State and re- determined by means of a public hearing. The Secretary of State dismissed the appeal 6 on the recommendations of the Inspector.

5.13 The words of the Secretary of State in dismissing the recent Ashfordby appeal 7 decision are also helpful:

In carefully considering the Inspector’s assessment of heritage matters at IR74-104, the Secretary of State has done so in the context of the High Court judgment in respect of wind farm development at Barnwell Manor, Sudborough, Northamptonshire of 8 March 2013 (listed by the Inspector as Inquiry document 17.24 on page 79 of the IR); and the subsequent confirmation of that Judgment by the Court of Appeal on 18 February 2014. Whilst accepting that it is a matter of the Inspector’s judgment as to whether substantial harm would be caused to the significance of any other heritage asset in addition to St Bartholomew’s Church (IR83), the Secretary of State takes the view that the Inspector’s conclusion with respect to that building means that, under the terms of S66 of the LB Act and paragraph 133 of the Framework, he must give that matter considerable importance and weight. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR87) that the turbines would not combine with the Church or the positive features of its setting to form a harmonious group and, in view of the strong presumption against the granting of planning permission for development which will harm the character and appearance of the building, disagrees with the Inspector’s conclusions at IR88- 90 and gives substantial weight to the substantial harm to Welby Church .

The Secretary of State has also given careful consideration to the Inspector’s findings regarding the other designated heritage assets that would be affected by the appeal scheme and which the Inspector considers would suffer from significant but less than substantial harm to their intrinsic value (IR90-104). While the Secretary of State accepts that each of these assets may well suffer from less than substantial harm if considered separately as being the only asset of any significance, he takes the view that, looking at the sum total of the impact on so many and varied assets, the harm caused is arguably greater than the sum of its parts. Overall, therefore, and having regard to the need to weigh this against the public benefits of the appeal scheme in accordance with paragraph 134 of the Framework, the Secretary of State takes the view that, in his overall balancing exercise, the Inspector has placed less weight than appropriate on the harm caused to the significance of these heritage assets. (Emphasis supplied)

5.14 Furthermore, as set out in the Mordue judgement 8 ‘Where the proposed development will lead to less than substantial harm to that value (for example by development within its setting), that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal (as paragraph 134 states) but, in doing so, the requirement to give “great weight” to any harm and the need for clear and convincing justification for it (as stated at the outset in paragraph 132) remains……….In my judgment the correct interpretation of paragraphs 132 and 134 requires them to be read together in this manner.’

5.15 In summary, case law has now established that a finding of any degree of harm to the setting of a listed building is a consideration to which the

6 APP/D0840/A/12/2186603 7 APP/Y2430/A/13/2191290 8 Mordue v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors [2015] EWHC 539 (Admin) 7

16

decision-maker must give considerable importance and weight, whether that harm is substantial or less than substantial in terms of the NPPF is not material in this respect. Additionally, if any degree of harm will be caused to a listed building or its setting, there is a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission.

5.16 Additionally, where S66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act is in play, in the balancing exercise the scales are not evenly balanced. Following the Barnwell judgment it is clear that there must be ‘considerable importance and weight’ given to any harm to a heritage asset. It is not sufficient to simply weigh this harm against the public benefits.

5.17 Furthermore, it is settled in law that ‘preserving’ a listed building or its setting, means ‘doing no harm’.

5.18 It should further be noted that if a park of garden has been registered using the designation process under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act it has legal protection in the same way as any other heritage asset.

5.19 Charborough Park is a Grade I listed building which sits in its Grade II* Registered Park & Garden (RPG). Also within the RPG is the Grade II* listed Charborough Tower. All of these heritage assets are of national importance. The RPG lies ca. 1.3km from the site of the proposed solar farm at its closest point. Pevsner considers that ‘The landscaped park is the most splendid in Dorset’. A plan of the site contained within

5.20 The National Heritage List for England states that ‘There are extensive views to the northwest across the valley of the River Stour and west across the Winterborne valley from high ground within the park. The tower is also a significant landmark visible from many points in the surrounding country.’ A plan of the park from the National Heritage List is reproduced at Appendix 3 of this MPG response.

5.21 An example of such a view from within the RPG is at Appendix 4 of this MPG response. It is clear that the site of the solar farm would be clearly visible from within the setting of the RPG and thus would cause a degree of harm to that setting.

5.22 The National Heritage List for England also states that ‘Charborough Park (listed grade I) stands on high ground towards the centre of the site. The house comprises two storeys and an attic, and is constructed in a mixture of stone and stuccoed brick under hipped slate roofs which are concealed behind parapets.’ It is unlikely that the site of the solar farm would be seen from the house.

5.23 However the National Heritage List for England then states that ‘ Some 430m south-east of the house, the Charborough Tower (listed grade II*) stands on rising ground against the background of High Wood.’ The base of the tower is ca. 99m AOD and it is 30m high. The site of the solar farm is ca. 56m and the valley of the River Stour lies between the two. It is clear that the tower will be seen from the solar farm site and that the site will be seen from the upper parts of the tower.

8

17

5.24 Historic England guidance 9 is clear that ‘The contribution of setting to the significance of a heritage asset is often expressed by reference to views, a purely visual impression of an asset or place which can be static or dynamic, including a variety of views of, across, or including that asset, and views of the surroundings from or through the asset, and may intersect with, and incorporate the settings of numerous heritage assets’.

5.25 From this it is clear that the solar farm would be in the setting of the RPG and the setting of the tower.

5.26 Furthermore, the same Historic England guidance states inter alia that:

‘The NPPF makes it clear that the setting of a heritage asset is the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral. All of the following matters may affect the understanding or extent of setting:

• While setting can be mapped in the context of an individual application or proposal, it does not have a fixed boundary and cannot be definitively and permanently described for all time as a spatially bounded area or as lying within a set distance of a heritage asset because what comprises a heritage asset’s setting may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve or as the asset becomes better understood or due to the varying impacts of different proposals; for instance, new understanding of the relationship between neighbouring heritage assets may extend what might previously have been understood to comprise setting.’

5.27 In addition this Historic England guidance states under the title Designed Settings that:

‘Many heritage assets have settings that have been designed to enhance their presence and visual interest or to create experiences of drama or surprise and these designed settings may also be regarded as heritage assets in their own right. Furthermore they may, themselves, have a wider setting: a park may form the immediate surroundings of a great house, while having its own setting that includes lines-of-sight to more distant heritage assets or natural features beyond the park boundary . Given that the designated area is often restricted to the ‘core’ elements, such as a formal park, it is important that the extended and remote elements of design are included in the evaluation of the setting of a designed landscape .’ (Emphasis supplied)

5.28 The Charborough Park RPG clearly has designed settings and there can be no doubt that the proposed solar farm would be in such a line-of-site (otherwise known as a designed view) as demonstrated by the photograph at Appendix 4.

9 Historic England: Good Practice Advice Note 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets

9

18

5.29 The Summary of Chapter 7 of the ES makes a number of references to the RPG at Charborough Park and to Charborough Tower. At 3.20 it is stated that:

‘Charborough Tower Grade II* Listed building is located to the south-east of Charborough Park house and visible from the proposed development site (Fig. 1, 4b; Photo Fig. 1). Originally constructed in the late 18th-century, it was partially reconstructed and heightened in the mid-19th century. The tower has a viewing chamber at the top and is designed to command far-reaching views of the surrounding area, as well as being widely visible. Charborough House and the Carborough Tower are included in Thomas Hardy’s novel Two on a Tower.’ This amply sums up the purpose of the tower which was to provide wide-ranging views of the surrounding area, and also to signal the presence of Charborough House and its surrounding parkland when viewed from the surrounding area.

5.30 An attempt is made at 3.25 to diminish the significance of the surrounding landscape due to modern development:

‘Charborough Tower Grade II* Listed building mainly derives its significance from the historical and aesthetic value of its architectural form. Its association with Charlborough [sic] Park and Charlborough [sic] House provide the context to its construction and its design and therefore also contribute to its significance. The tower is designed to be both visible from the landscape and to command wide-ranging views. Although the general layout of the wider enclosed agricultural landscape may hold similarities to that which was present at the time of the towers construction, it has nevertheless continued to develop into the modern period and should not be viewed as a static entity. Although visible from the tower, wider agricultural land including the proposed development site does not directly contribute to its significance.’

5.31 Historic England guidance 10 deals with ‘Change over time’ and states that:

‘Settings of heritage assets change over time. Understanding this history of change will help to determine how further development within the asset’s setting is likely to affect the contribution made by setting to the significance of the heritage asset. Settings of heritage assets which closely resemble the setting in which the asset was constructed are likely to contribute to significance but settings which have changed may also themselves enhance significance, for instance where townscape character has been shaped by cycles of change and creation over the long term.’

5.32 Looking once again at the photograph at Appendix 4 of this MPG response it is clear that there are very few modern features in the landscape setting of the tower, and that the only major modern feature would be the solar farm which if constructed would change the landscape context in views from the RPG and the tower.

5.33 At 3.27 it is then stated inter alia that:

10 Historic England: Good Practice Advice Note 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets 10

19

‘The proposed development will most likely be visible in views west from open areas of parkland on the north-western facing slope in the western area of Charborough Park and will also potentially be visible in views from Charborough Tower…….. Furthermore, as discussed above, the proposed development site does not directly contribute to the significance of heritage assets at Charborough Park. The proposed development will not prevent wide-ranging views from Charborough Tower, and will at most represent a distant, slight alteration to a small part of views north-west. Given the distance to the proposed development, and the fact that it would be set within the existing agricultural framework, any slight change to this small part of the wider setting would not be detrimental to the significance of the tower. Likewise, distant views of the proposed development, set within the existing agricultural framework, from Charlborough [sic] Park, Charlborough [sic] Park house, or other Listed buildings within Charlborough [sic] Park would represent a slight change to a small part of the wider agricultural landscape. This would not comprise a degree of change which would adversely impact the significance of these assets.’

5.34 MPG disagrees with these conclusions. Any degree of adverse change within the setting of a heritage asset must constitute a degree of harm to that setting and thus to the significance of that heritage asset.

5.35 It is clear that there would be less than substantial harm in terms of the NPPF to the setting and significance of the RPG and to Charborough Tower. However this harm must still be given great weight in the planning balance as per the Mordue judgement:

‘Where the proposed development will lead to less than substantial harm to that value (for example by development within its setting), that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal (as paragraph 134 states) but, in doing so, the requirement to give “great weight” to any harm and the need for clear and convincing justification for it (as stated at the outset in paragraph 132) remains……….In my judgment the correct interpretation of paragraphs 132 and 134 requires them to be read together in this manner.’

5.36 This harm to the setting and significance of the RPG and to Charborough Tower must also mean an immediate presumption against the grant of planning permission.

5.37 Additionally paragraph 132 of the NPPF sets out that as heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. The applicant has not provided any justification for the harm to these heritage assets, and the application is therefore contrary to the NPPF.

5.38 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF sets out that:

‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.’

5.39 MPG contends that the public benefits of this proposal do not outweigh the harm to the setting and significance the Charborough Park RPG and the Charborough Tower and that accordingly the proposal should be refused planning permission.

11

20

6 Community Benefits

6.1 Section 7 of the Statement of Community Involvement outlines a number of community benefits. These community benefits cannot be considered to be material planning considerations for the following reasons:

• They are not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and so fail to accord with one of the tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). • They fail to meet the requirements in paragraph 204 of the NPPF.

• The Government has produced guidance on community benefits 11 that states: ‘These community benefits are separate from the planning process and are not relevant to the decision as to whether the planning application for a wind farm should be approved or not – i.e. they are not ‘material’ to the planning process. This means they should generally not be taken into account by local planning authorities when deciding the outcome of a planning application for a wind development.’

6.2 Therefore no weight can be given to the inclusion of a community benefits when considering this planning application.

7 Planning policy

7.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

7.1.1 Paragraph 7 of the NPPF recognises that sustainable development has an environmental role ‘contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment’ The proposal does not protect and enhance the natural or historic environment, and so cannot be classed as sustainable development according to Paragraph 7 of the NPPF.

7.1.2 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out 12 core planning principles which include:

• conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations;

This proposal does not conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations. It is therefore contrary to the NPPF.

7.1.3 Paragraph 109 states that ‘The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by……protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils.’

11 Community Benefits from Onshore Wind Developments: Best Practice Guidance for England 12

21

The proposal would be sited within the Stour Valley/ Mapperton Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). This designation as an AGLV demonstrates that it is a valued landscape as identified at paragraph 109 of the NPPF. The David Wilson Partnership review identified significant landscape effects on the AGLV. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF.

7.1.4 Paragraph 112 states that ‘Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.’ Some 24% of the site would be Best and Most Versatile Land and this must weigh heavily against the proposal.

7.1.5 Paragraph 131 states that ‘ In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: • the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; • the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.’

It is clear that the proposal will not sustain and enhance the heritage assets and their settings, does not take account of the positive contribution that those assets can make, and does not make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. The proposal is clearly contrary to all of the criteria in paragraph 131 of the NPPF.

7.1.6 Paragraph 132 states that ‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.’ The applicant has not given any justification for the harm that will occur to heritage assets. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraph 132 of the NPPF.

7.1.7 Paragraph 134 states that ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.’ There will clearly be less than substantial harm to the Grade II* listed Charborough Park RPG and to the Grade II* listed Charborough Tower. MPG contends that the public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh this harm.

13

22

Furthermore recent case law has shown that there must be considerable importance and weight given to any harm to a heritage asset. It is not sufficient to simply weigh this harm against the public benefits. Additionally if any harm will be caused to a listed building or its setting, there is a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission.

7.2 The Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part I – Core Strategy

7.2.1 Policy KS1 states inter alia that ‘when considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework….. Planning applications that accord with the policies in the Plan will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As will be shown below, the proposal does not accord with policies in the Core Strategy, and material considerations do weigh against the grant of planning permission.

7.2.2 Policy ME5 deals with Sources of Renewable Energy and states inter alia that:

‘The Councils encourage the sustainable generation of energy from renewable and low carbon sources where adverse social, environmental and visual impacts have been minimised to an acceptable level.

Proposals for renewable energy apparatus will only be permitted where:

• The technology is suitable for the location and does not cause significant adverse harm to visual amenity from within the landscape and views into it, and within the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is in accordance with its current Management Plan

• It avoids harm to the significance and settings of heritage assets.’

As can be seen from the David Wilson Partnership review, the proposal would have significant landscape and visual effects. It would also cause harm to the setting and significance of the Charborough Park RPG and to the Charborough Tower. For these reasons the proposal conflicts with Policy ME5.

7.2.3 Policy HE1 deals with Valuing and Conserving our Historic Environment and staets inter alia that:

‘Heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and will be conserved and where appropriate enhanced for their historic significance and importance locally to the wider social, cultural and economic environment…….The significance of all heritage assets and their settings (both designated and non-designated) will be protected and enhanced especially elements of the historic environment which contribute to the distinct identity of Christchurch and East Dorset.’

This proposal will harm the significance and setting of the Grade II* listed Charborough Park RPG and Grade II* listed Charborough Tower and is therefore contrary to Policy HE1.

14

23

7.2.4 Policy HE3 deals with Landscape Quality and states inter alia that ‘ Within the Areas of Great Landscape Value development will be permitted where its siting, design, materials, scale and landscaping are sympathetic with the particular landscape quality and character of the Areas of Great Landscape Value. Planning permission will be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where they are in the public interest.’ The David Wilson Partnership review identified significant landscape effects on the Stour Valley/ Mapperton AGLV. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy HE3.

7.2.5 Policy PC4 deals with the Rural Economy and states inter alia that:

‘Proposals for the development and diversification of agricultural and other land- based rural businesses will be supported which meet the criteria set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and also that……… Are consistent in scale and environmental impact with their rural location avoiding adverse impacts on sensitive habitats, Areas of Great Landscape Value and landscapes identified through landscape character assessments and the openness of the Green Belt.’

The proposal would be sited within the Stour Valley/ Mapperton Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). The David Wilson Partnership review identified significant landscape effects on the AGLV. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy PC4.

8 Conclusions

8.1 The applicant has failed to identify any alternative sites that were considered and why these sites were rejected in favour of the Mapperton site. Such an approach is contrary to the EIA Regulations and the Council should request that the applicant provides the required information on alternative sites that were considered, along with the reasons that they were rejected in favour of the Mapperton site. Failing that the Council should refuse planning consent on the basis of lack of adequate environmental information.

8.2 The ES sets out that 24% of the Mapperton site would be Best and Most Versatile land. This must weigh heavily against the proposal.

8.3 The proposal would have significant landscape and visual impacts, especially on the AGLV within which the proposal would be located.

8.4 The proposal would cause less than substantial harm in terms of the NPPF to the Grade II* listed Charborough Park RPG and to the Grade II* listed Charborough Tower. Any degree of harm to the setting of a heritage asset is a consideration to which the decision-maker must give considerable importance and weight, whether that harm is substantial or less than substantial in terms of the NPPF is not material in this respect. Additionally, if any degree of harm will be caused to a listed building or its setting, there is a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission.

8.5 MPG contends that the public benefits of this proposal do not outweigh the harm to the setting and significance the Charborough Park RPG and the

15

24

Charborough Tower and that accordingly the proposal should be refused planning permission.

8.6 Section 7 of the Statement of Community Involvement outlines a number of community benefits. No weight can be given to the inclusion of a community benefits when considering this planning application.

8.7 The proposal is contrary to the NPPF in a number of ways and therefore cannot be considered to be sustainable development, meaning that planning permission should be refused.

8.8 The proposal is contrary to a number of policies in the Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy. This must weigh heavily against the proposal.

8.9 MPG considers that the planning balance weighs heavily against the grant of planning permission and therefore requests that this proposal be refused planning consent.

16

25

Proposed Mapperton Solar Array Review Of Landscape And Visual Impacts This report summarises the findings of a desktop review and field visits in relation to the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) for the Mapperton Farm Solar Array (Planning App 3/13/0681/FUL). The review was carried out by Peter Leaver, a chartered landscape architect and director of David Wilson Partnership Limited. The review and site visit was carried out in May 2015. Landscape Impacts Sensitivity The sensitivity of the host landscape character area (South Blandford Downs) should be medium to high, not low – medium as assessed by LVIA. The 2014 document “ Landscape Sensitivity to Wind and Solar Energy Development in East Dorset District “assesses the sensitivity of the South Blandford Downs landscape character area to large scale solar PV as “medium to high” . The site and local area display the characteristics that are susceptible to development (page 51 of the report), such as: “Gently undulating downlands” (LVIA VP1 and VP4 illustrate this characteristic) “Intensively farmed with large to medium sized fields bounded by low straight clipped hedges” (as illustrated in VPs 1, 4, 5etc) “small geometric shaped plantation blocks which dot the landscape and define the horizon” (eg Bushes Farm Wood and Little Almer Wood, VP1 and VP2) “Widely spaced, straight roads ” “Great Coll Wood… a distinctive broad, flat hilltop feature ” (eg VP1) “Expansive landscape with open views to the horizon ” (VP3 and VP4 illustrate this quality well) “Open, empty character ” (VP10 gives a good impression of the openness and emptiness of the local landscape).

The Sensitivity Assessment considers value characteristics to be the inclusion of the area within the Stour Valley AGLV (the site is within the AGLV) The setting of the AONB (the site is visible from Badbury Rings in the AONB, VP12) Extensive views westwards from Spetisbury Rings (VP10 show that the development would be noticeable in these views).

26

The proposed development is 43ha in size (well within the development size category). The site and local area are representative of the wider landscape character area, and the site and local area do not contain detracting features that would reduce the value of the landscape. It is not clear why the LVIA assesses the sensitivity as “medium to low” (para 5.107).

Magnitude of Change The magnitude of change as a result of the development would be medium to high. The development would be a prominent new feature in the landscape, uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of an expansive, open landscape of intensively farmed fields. The effects would be at the scale of the landscape character area within which the development lies and the development would be long term in duration. Table 5.4 of the LVIA suggests that such a change would be medium to high in magnitude. These effects would cover an area of around 1km around the site (including VPs 1-6). Mitigation The Sensitivity Assessment suggests that development should avoid the higher ground close to Great Coll Wood. VPs 5,6,8 and 10 illustrate that the site will be seen in conjunction with Great Coll Wood and is on the rising ground below the wood. The array would create a jarring element in views towards the landmark woodland. The LVIA suggests that the boundary hedges on site are grown out to 3m in order to partially screen views of the array. However, in views from above the site or where the rising land on site is particularly visible, this slight increase in hedge height will have little effect. This is noticeable in VP5, where the boundary hedge is in a dip, hidden from view below the site and from Charborough, where the site is seen from above. Significance The development would have an adverse moderate/substantial overall effect on the host LCA. This is classed as Significant Adverse in relation to the EIA regulations. Using the criteria at table 5.5 of the LVIA, the development would have a large effect on the local area upon a landscape receptor of medium to high sensitivity. Visual Impacts The LVIA predicts significant adverse visual impacts on receptors at viewpoints 1 and 2. I predict significant adverse impacts on receptors at viewpoint 5. This gateway is on a well used local walk close to the village of Winterborne Zelston. The array takes up around 50% of the available view. The development would be a prominent new element in the view, contrasting with other, rural elements within the outlook.

2 27

Cumulative Visual Impacts Viewpoint 12, from Badbury Rings, illustrates the cumulative visual impacts of the development when taken in conjunction with other renewable energy developments in the setting of the AONB. Within this view, 2 existing solar arrays at Blandford St Mary are visible to the north of the site. The West Dorset windfarm, if approved, would be situated just to the north of the development site. Area of Great Landscape Value Policy HE3 of the Joint Core Strategy for East Dorset and Christchurch sets out the protection that is given to the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). “Policy HE3 Landscape Quality “Development will need to protect and seek to enhance the landscape character of the area. Proposals will need to demonstrate that the following factors have been taken into account: • The character of settlements and their landscape settings. • Natural features such as trees, hedgerows, woodland, field boundaries, water features
and wildlife corridors. • Features of cultural, historical and heritage value. • Important views and visual amenity. • Tranquility and the need to protect against intrusion from light pollution, noise and motion. Development proposals within and/or affecting the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will need to demonstrate that account has been taken of the relevant Management Plan. Within the Areas of Great Landscape Value development will be permitted where its siting, design, materials, scale and landscaping are sympathetic with the particular landscape quality and character of the Areas of Great Landscape Value. Planning permission will be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where they are in the public interest.” The impact of the development on the designated AGLV is not assessed in the submitted LVIA. However, as the borders of the AGLV are concurrent with the South Blandford Downs LCA in this area, it is assumed that the significance of effect would be identical. In this case moderate/substantial, significant adverse landscape impacts are predicted. Such effects could not be said to be sympathetic with the particular landscape qualities and character of the South Blandford Downs LCA within the AGLV, as required by the policy.

3 28

Historic Landscape Impacts The proposal site is some 1.3km to the west of the Grade II* Charborough Park. Pevsner considers that “The landscaped park is the most splendid in Dorset” (The Buildings of England – Dorset. P140 N. Pevsner 1972). The English Heritage listing for the Park describes it thus in part: “There are extensive views to the north- west across the valley of the River Stour and west across the Winterborne valley from high ground within the park. The tower is also a significant landmark visible from many points in the surrounding country.” The Park is on a hill that is surrounded at its base by a broad area of woodland. The upper slopes are also clad in woodland and individual parkland trees, although there are views over the surrounding countryside from open areas of the Park. The main drive to the park runs through one of these open areas and is clearly visible from the proposal site. My Fig 1 is a photograph taken from this drive towards the site (the location is marked with a red arrow on the attached listing map). This is at a point where views from the drive open out as one leaves the estate. Views are towards Great Coll Wood and the surrounding gently undulating landscape. There are no detracting features in the view, the intervening woodland restricts views of the main road and links the park to the surrounding countryside. The development site is visible as two of the fields between Great Coll Wood and the top of the Charborough Park woodland. This view is constrained to the left hand side by Kidney Clump and to the right by parkland trees and, further round, by Old Nursery wood. Designed views, defined by strategically placed tree groups, are characteristics of large scale, designed landscape of the English landscape garden movement. It is beyond the scope of this report to provide expert advice on whether or not this is one such designed view, but it is recommended that the advice of a landscape heritage professional is sought as to the significance of the development on the setting of the listed park.

4 29

Location: Fig 1 30

Figure 1: Photo from Charborough 31

6 32 33 34 35 36 Heritage Category: Park and Garden List Entry No: 1000713

Grade: II*

County: Dorset

District: Purbeck, East Dorset

Parish: Morden, Sturminster Marshall, Lytchett Matravers

Each official record of a registered garden or other land contains a map. The map here has been translated from the official map and that process may have introduced inaccuracies. Copies of maps that form part of the official record can be obtained from Historic England.

This map was delivered electronically and when printed may not be to scale and may be subject to distortions. The map and grid references are for identification purposes only and must be read in conjunction with other information in the record. 37

List Entry NGR: SY 92627 98372 Map Scale: 1:10000

Modern Ordnance Survey mapping: © Crown Copyright and database right 2015. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100024900. Print Date: 14 May 2015 This is an A3 sized map and should be printed full size at A3 with no page scaling set Name: CHARBOROUGH PARK

HistoricEngland.org.uk Solar panels in these two fields 38

Response to CPRE objections

CPRE comments Reply 1. The majority of Councillors at the planning 1.1 When first submitted in July 2013, the most committee in November 2013 considered the striking feature of this planning application was size area of the site to be acceptable due to its the sheer size and scale of the proposal. For well screened location within the terrain and example, this feature was referred to by a therefore approved the application. This was number of Planning Committee Members in also supported by officers of both EDDC and terms of the development being “big” or too DCC. big”, with the implication that the former was acceptable but the latter wasn't . 2. The application was approved by the 1.2 The resubmission has attempted to address committee in November 2013, so there was no this concern by reducing the number of panels concern that needed addressing. Since the JR, from 112,000 to 90,000, a reduction of 20 per we have re-assessed the proposed development cent. What this represents, exactly, in terms of a and carried out further site investigations. The reduction in total panel area, is not possible to site area has been reduced to avoid potential say. The resubmission specifies a notional panel archaeological features in the western field as with dimensions 1.65 metres by 0.99 metres discussed with DCC. Also, with technological (Project Description, Appendix 3.1) but no advancements, certain PV panels have become comparable information was specified in July more efficient and therefore to achieve the 2013. The total area of the currently proposed desired MW output, less PV panels would be panels is 14.6 hectares or 36 acres, equivalent to required. Therefore by careful configuration, we 23 soccer pitches –still “big” or “too big”. It is have been able to site the arrays within only suggested that, whatever notional panel the three of the five fields. It was also considered developer had in mind at the time of the first that to visually improve upon the previously submission, its replacement with the currently development that the north-western field (the proposed notional panel could not lead to a highest on the site) could be also omitted. reduction significantly greater than 20 per cent. The discussion about percentages by the CPRE is irrelevant. The original scheme for 5 fields was supported by Council Officers and the majority of Councillors. The revised scheme has been reduced in size area by the omission of two large fields. The independent LVIA and the Council Landscape officer supports the revised proposal. 3. The statement in the DAS referring to the 1.3 Design and Access Statement, para.2.2 reduction in site area used by 70.67 to 43.9ha is states “Initially the Project was to be developed a point of fact and is not misleading as referred over 5 fields totally 70.67...... this has been to by the CPRE. reduced to 3 fields totalling 43.9 hectares.” This statement is misleading. It implies that the As described in (2) above, the five fields have potential adverse visual impact of the proposed been considered by Officers and the majority of development has been significantly reduced as a councillors to be acceptable due to its location result of a 38 per cent reduction in the size of within the terrain which is well concealed. Now “the Project”. As explained above, the area that the development site has been reduced in covered by panels is not likely to be reduced by area with the omission of two fields, especially more than 20 per cent and it is our contention omitting the higher field, then of course the any that the determining factor that influences the potential visual impact is likewise reduced. visual impact of a solar PV installation is the area of the panels themselves, i.e., the area of glass, The CPRE discussion on percentages is unclear not the area over which the panels are and irrelevant.

39 Response to CPRE objections distributed. 4. As described in 2 and 3 above, the area for the 1.4 Planning Statement, para.8.2 states “A development has been significantly reduced and significant reduction in the area of land likewise, visual impact of the development incorporated within the proposed development would be reduced to. There is nothing has been achieved....”. This statement refers to misleading. the reduction of 38 per cent noted above and is similarly misleading. The important reduction achieved –that of panel area –is restricted to 20 per cent, close to half that. 5. The reduction in the development area is 1.5 Thus, the attempt to reduce size is not significant and pertinent. impressive. If built today, the installation would remain, at 24.2 MW on a 71 hectare The redline of the planning application site has development site, the second largest in Dorset to remain as submitted in 2013 in order for the County and rank the 11thlargest greenfield solar planning application to be reassessed after the park in the UK. JR.

The development area is now 43ha and is within only three fields. The two other fields are omitted from all development and will remain solely in agricultural use.

The LPA can impose a planning condition (or via the condition for a Landscape Ecology Mitigation Plan) to ensure these two fields are not used at all in the current scheme and are not developed in the future in relation to renewable energy.

1.6 On another aspect of the critical issue of size, 6. As referred to in 2 above, with technological the developer made it clear in July 2013 that“in advancements, certain PV panels have become order to be financially viable, it is necessary to more efficient and therefore to achieve the develop the whole of the designated site, which desired MW output, less PV panels would be itself is about 70 hectares. Due to the costs of required. Furthermore, since 2013, the cost of connecting into the electricity grid, it is PV panels has come down. Hence why the necessary to achieve a 28 MW production”.4 development at 24.2MW and on less land is The fact that the resubmission proposes a achievable. reduction of only 13.6 per cent in the proposed installed capacity, down from 28 MW to 24.2 MW, provides confirmation that size, through the requirement for a large output, remains the proposal's determining factor. 1.7 The conclusion that the developer hopes will be drawn from the extensive documentation it 7. The site location is well screened in the has submitted to support its proposal, is that a landscape causing minimal impact upon any large ground-mounted solar photovoltaic views or the amenity of residents in the villages. installation at Mapperton Farm is the only This is supported by the various independent remaining option if East Dorset wishes to studies, including the LVIA, Glint and Glare, generate any more significant amounts of Highways and Chartered Town Planning advice. renewable energy from its own resources -there The provision of renewable energy to fight is no other combination of location, technology, climate change is imperative and is backed by

40 Response to CPRE objections size or grid connection that would provide a National and Internationals studies and polices. comparable output without causing even more At Mapperton we have found a rare opportunity damage than they are asking to be accepted. to site a renewable energy project that has This is clearly a contrived and restricted view but minimal impact and that can feed into the assuming it is correct (and the Council maintains National Grid which has sufficient capacity. the principle of there being a level of damage that is unacceptable) the logical course of action for the developer is to look for opportunities for renewable energy deployment elsewhere, as they have done successfully in the past. 1.8 It is clearly the case that a developer's 8. Good Energy Generation Ltd is a responsible requirement to make a profit is not a material environmental company. The renewable energy planning consideration and cannot possibly development will help in combating climate justify approval for a large damaging change and improve upon the local biodiversity development. of the site which will have positive implications in the surrounding area. These two issues alone can not be described as large and damaging. Whilst there will be some very minimal visual impact, its siting and location have been carefully chosen to minimise its impact in the wider landscape and the amenities of residents. It is appreciated that the CPRE is set up to preserve England. However, the CPRE appear to be dismissive of our future and the pressing need to tackle climate change when there is any visual impact. In tackling climate change there needs to be some sacrifice. Each development site needs to be assessed on its own merits and the fact they consider that the proposed solar farm is too large, is their main agreement. The evidence supplied in the EIA shows that this site will only have a minimal visual impact irrespective of its size. Whilst there would be minimal impact, is it not the moral duty of our generation to make this sacrifice? 2.1 Dorset CPRE is supportive of renewable 9. The CPRE have not proved that the siting of energy but strongly objects to this particularly this site is ‘particularly damaging’. They make a damaging proposal. The proposed site is series of comments and unsupported opinions greenfield, in unspoilt countryside, agriculturally that are not backed by professionals. productive and protected by national and local policies. The size of the proposal is such that it The agricultural use will continue with the gazing would be a large, artificial intrusion into of sheep. The ‘unspoilt’ countryside will be beautiful, sensitive countryside and its scale planted with new hedgerows, grass and would be incompatible with the small-scale wildflowers and therefore will significantly landscape of its surroundings. improve upon the biodiversity that is currently lacking due in part to the heavy use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides . The land itself will be rested from crop growing for the temporary period of the solar farm which is proven will have a benefit to the land when it returns back to sole agricultural use

41 Response to CPRE objections

2.2 Dorset CPRE strongly supports the Cranborne 10. This opinion is not supported by the Chase AONB and the David Wilson Partnership independent LVIA that accompanies the planning authoritative critiques of this proposal on application. grounds of landscape and visual impact. 2.3 The long awaited critical report 'Landscape 11. The LSWS report refers to the various Sensitivity to Wind and Solar Development in landscape characteristics of the district and East Dorset District', commissioned by East gives them sensitivity scales in terms of potential Dorset District Council, prepared by LUC and solar development. However, the report does published in April 2014, provides strong evidence not assess the potential impact of each and that this proposed development should not be every field. Every site needs to be treated on its approved. own planning merits and the submitted LVIA does in fact assess every individual field required for the proposed development and concludes that there will only be minimal visual impact. 2.3.1 It concludes that sensitivity to a solar PV 12. See 11 above. scheme of more than 30 hectares, located on exposed higher ground close to Great Coll Wood in the South Blandford Downs Landscape Character Area, could be as high as “high” (the highest sensitivity) and not lower than “moderate-high”, the next to highest sensitivity. 2.3.2 Whether or not the location of the 13. See 11 above. proposed solar park warrants a designation of “high” or “moderate-high” is for specialist landscape architects to decide. 2.4The proposed site would be totally within the 14. The development site covers 43.2 ha and not Stour Valley/Mapperton Area of Great 70.67ha. Landscape Value (AGLV). East Dorset District Council's Local PlanPolicy LSCON2 states that The AGLV is a local county designation as within AGLVs development will be permitted opposed to the national AONB designations. where: (a) its siting, design, materials, scale and landscaping are sympathetic with the particular The independent LVIA that accompanies the landscape quality and character of the AGLV, and planning application supports the proposed (b) there would be no unacceptable damage to development. There will be loss of trees and the those built and natural features, including existing hedgerows will in fact be enhanced with important trees and hedgerows, that contribute extra planting. positively to the landscape quality and character of the area. Covering an area of 70.67 hectares, The development is therefore not contrary to the proposed development site would occupy policy LSCON2. and degrade 5.5 per cent of the AGLV. This is clearly incompatible with Policy LSCON2 and consequently this proposed development should not be permitted. 2.5 The site faces south east with an 15. The site is within a ‘bowl’ in the landscape. approximately 10 metre (33 feet) drop from top This terrain and the hedgerows and other to bottom(Project Description, Figure 3.1). This landscape features ensures that the guarantees that 3 metre high hedging would not development will be well concealed in the screen the site from medium and long distance landscape. The LVIA demonstrates that views in views from that direction. long and medium distances will be very limited and minimal in impact. 2.6 The impact on views from locations such as 16. These have been assessed in the LVIA and

42 Response to CPRE objections the Purbeck Hills in the Dorset AONB and EIA and shows that at the distance they are away Morden need to be assessed. and with regards to the terrain and landscape features, there will be minimal impact. 2.7 The site would be clearly seen from 17. There is a bridleway that runs north from surrounding footpaths and a bridleway that the village of Winterbourne Zelston about 750m passes through the site. Walkers, riders and to the south of the site which is on lower land tourists would be adversely affected, especially than the site. The track dividing the site is a c those from Mapperton and Winterborne Zelston, class road. The site will not be clearly seen from which are only 500 and 750 metres away, the bridleway due to its predominantly lower respectively. height and as there will be hedgerows and trees in between.

There are no footpaths in the village of Mapperton or its immediate surrounding area. 3.1 'Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable 18. Noted. and Low Carbon Energy', published by the Department for Local Communities and Local Government (DCLG) on 6 March 2014, states that a local planning authority should take great care “to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting. As the significance of a heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence, but also from its setting, careful consideration should be given to the impact of large solar farms on such assets. Depending on their scale, design and prominence, a large scale solar farm within the setting of a heritage asset may cause substantial harm to the significance of the asset.” 3.2 Heritage assets are abundant in the area: 19. The Heritage Report accompanying the 3.2.1 Grade II* listed 368 hectare Charborough application say there will be no harm caused to Park is 1.2 km from the proposed development Charborough Park. site which can be seen clearly from the extensive views to the west across the Winterbourne Valley from high ground within the park. 3.2.2 The proposed development would be a 20. The site is well concealed in the landscape dominant blot on the landscape from the top of from public vantage points. We strongly dispute Charborough Tower, also listed Grade II*. The it will be easily seen and it certainly will not be a base of the tower is 3.4 km from the site, 101 blot or cause any harm to heritage assets or metres AOD. The top of the tower is 128 metres their settings. AOD19. The Planning Statement at para.2.2 reports the height of the development site to be 50-80 metres AOD. 3.2.3 The south east edge of the 48.5 hectare 21. The Great Coll Wood is not a heritage asset. Great Coll Wood, an Ancient Woodland, is The largest part of the wood to the east is also approximately 490 metres from the north east not Ancient Woodland. It is classified as Ancient boundary of the area proposed for panels. Replanted Woodland. A small area to its far west is classified as Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland and this is about 1.3km away from

43 Response to CPRE objections

the development.

The site is now separated by two fields rather than one from the edge of the Ancient Replanted Woodland. 3.2.4 A Roman road crosses the site. 22. The course of the Roman Road that crosses the site is excluded from any of the development 3.2.5 There are listed properties in the nearby 23. The heritage report agrees that there will be hamlets of Mapperton and Almer and the village no harm to the setting of these listed buildings of Winterborne Zelston. which are located low in the village and separated by intervening trees, hedgerows, other buildings and the relief of the terrain. 3.2.6 Both Almer and Mapperton are 24. Views into and from conservation Areas are Conservation Areas. "The surrounding material planning considerations. In this case, countryside extends into and through the due to the distance they are away and the Mapperton Conservation Area. The gaps intervening trees, hedgerows and the relief of between the buildings should therefore be the terrain, the appearance of conservation considered as open countryside, rather than as areas will not be undermined. village spaces" . This observation can be viewed in the context of the replacement of open countryside 500 metres to the north of Mapperton with an industrial site containing 90,000 photovoltaic panels and supporting infrastructure. 3.2.7 Combs Ditch, 850 metres northwest, is the 25. The ditch will not be effected by the site of a major Romano-British defence line development. It is over 850 metres away and designed to hold back the Saxon invasion in the separated by intervening trees, hedgerows, and 6th Century. the relief of the terrain. 3.2.8 Badbury Rings, the Ancient Monument in 26. As demonstrated in the LVIA, the site can not the care of the National Trust and in the be clearly seen from Badbury Rings some 7km Cranborne Chase & West Wiltshire AONB, is 7 away. At the ground angles of any view, existing kilometres north east at an elevation of 95 trees, hedgerows and the relief of the terrains of metres. The development site can be seen the land will significantly screen the, at worse, clearly from the ramparts of the monument. potentially ‘slither’ of development seen which will not be skylined and will assimilate itself well into the overall landscape at this distance away. 4. Planning Policy 27. The NPPF needs to be read as a whole and 4.1 The National Planning Policy Framework not rely solely on snapshots from it. Renewable (NPPF) at para.1099 states that the planning energy is strongly encouraged in order to tackle system should contribute to and enhance the climate change and a balanced decision needs to natural and local environment by protecting and made with that of visual impact and the enhancing valued landscapes. The proposed amenities of residents. It is considered that the development is clearly incompatible with NPPF selected site is well concealed in the landscape policy and it should not be permitted. and will not undermine the amenities of residents. The Committee and Officers have already supported the site in terms of the policy and aims of the NPPF. 4.2 'Planning Practice Guidance' is clear that the 28. PPG 2014 and subsequent updates need for renewable energy does not encourages renewable energy to tackle climate automatically override environmental change but any decision needs to be weight up protections and the planning concerns of local with other material considerations such as visual

44 Response to CPRE objections communities. This statement recognises that the impact and the amenities of residents. In this weight given to the need for renewable energy case there is a strong argument in favour of the has led to a public loss of faith in the planning development because the selected site is so well system. concealed in the landscape and is well away and not neighbouring residential properties. Once established with the biodiversity enhancements in place, the site will contribute to renewable energy production in Dorset, an improved ecology of the site and also still have an agricultural use by the grazing of sheep on the field. This is a good site for solar energy that will be proved will not undermine the quality of the surrounding landscape. 4.3 'Planning Practice Guidance' also advises that 29. The proposed site will not be seen in context when considering locations for renewable with any other solar farm due to the distance energy cumulative impacts should be taken into they are away. The number of solar farms in account. For the County as a whole, 37 ground- Dorset is still very low compared to other mounted (>0.5 MW) solar PV installations have comparable counties such as Devon and already been approved. Their total projected Cornwall. Other solar farms in Dorset are also annual output represents 45.6 percent of all well concealed within the landscape. The renewable energy generation. A further 5 potential for a cumulative impact is therefore installations, apart from Mapperton, are reliable. (The 45.6% figure quoted is awaiting a planning decision. unsubstantiated or explained). 4.4 Twelve of the already approved installations See 29. Above. are within a 10 km radius of the Mapperton proposal. The biggest has an installed capacity of 12.14 MW, half that of the Mapperton proposal. There total installed capacity is 78 MW, more than 3 times the Mapperton 24.2 MW. The total number of panels is 310,226 and the total site area is 172 hectares or 426 acres, equivalent to 269 soccer pitches. The averages are: 6.5 MW installed capacity, 25,800 panels and site area 14 hectares or 35 acres, equivalent to 22 soccer pitches. 4.5 Minister of State for Energy and Climate 30. The site has support from many people in Change in the Department of Energy and Climate Dorset. They recognise the need for renewable Change (DECC), Gregory Barker MP, in his energy to tackle climate change and are aware keynote speech to the Large Scale Solar that some sites may be more dominant in the Conference held at County Hall, Truro on 25 April landscape. However, they concur that this site 2013, made the following statements that will be successfully assimilated into the wider confirm and provide more detail to support the landscape due to its well concealed location. planning guidance advice set out in the DCLG There will be a continued agriculture use of the document referred to above: solar fields by the grazing of sheep and so the agricultural land will not be lost. At the end of the temporary period of the solar development the land will have been ‘rested’ which evidence shows it will be returned much improved for sole agricultural production. We are careful in the site selection process and have used airfields however, brownfield locations are limited and

45 Response to CPRE objections

normally always reserved for housing or commercial developments and so unusable for solar installations or other renewable energies. 4.5.1 “Solar is a genuinely exciting energy of the 31. See 30 above. future. But not at any cost, not in any place, not if it rides roughshod over the views of local communities. As we take solar to the next level, we must be thoughtful, sensitive to public opinion and mindful of the wider environmental and visual impacts." 4.5.2 Referring to the current high public 32. See 30 above. support for solar, he said "We want to keep it that way. This means it must work for local communities ...... with larger deployments brownfield land should always be preferred." 4.5.3 "...... solar has been installed on disused 33. See 30 above. airfields, degraded soil and former industrial sites. This is the model for future solar projects". 4.5.4 "Our message is very clear. Where solar 34. See 30 above. farms are not on brownfield land, you must be looking at low (sic) grade agricultural land which works with farmers to allow grazing in parallel with generation." 4.5.5 It can be noted that comments similar to 35. Se 30 above. the above were made by the Minister in an Oral Answer to a Question from Dr Sarah Wollaston, MP for Totnes, in the House of Commons on 11 July 2013. 5. Best and most versatile agricultural land 36. Grade 3b land is not considered to be 5.1 The proposed development site contains classified as the Best and most versatile agricultural land that has been classified under agriculture land. We have excluded a large area the Agricultural Land Classification system as of Grade 3b which is within the two fields we Grade 3a “best and most versatile” (24 per cent) omitted to the west. As described in 2, 3 and 5 or 3b (76 per cent). With reference to 7.4 above, above, these field have been excluded due to neither of these is 'low grade'. their archaeological potential and also because we can now consolidate the required production of green electricity is just 3 fields. In terms of further minimising the potential visual impact, the two western fields have been excluded.

It is important to note that the planning application is for a change of use to a shared renewable energy and agricultural use. Therefore none of the three fields will be lost to agriculture and therefore still in accordance with policy. The three field will continue to be grazed by a herd of sheep which will produce meat and wool.

Also some 27ha of land within the red line will now remain in sole agriculture use for the

46 Response to CPRE objections

duration of the solar development.

An appeal at Lanyon in Cornwall, the Inspector also relates to agricultural land. In particular he quoted:-

Whilst both the Framework and PPG seek to ensure that safeguarding B&MV agricultural land is a key consideration in the assessment of projects, neither places a bar on its use. Paragraph 112 of the Framework says that the economic and other benefits of the B&MV agricultural land should be taken into account and where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be used in preference to that of higher quality. PPG identifies the planning considerations that relate to large scale ground-mounted solar farms. Amongst other things, these include the effective use of land by focussing development on previously developed land and non- agricultural land. PPG goes on to say that where a proposal involves greenfield land, factors to consider include whether the use of agricultural land has been shown to be necessary and poorer quality land has been used in preference to higher quality land and, where applicable, the proposal allows for continued agricultural use and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around the arrays. 5.2 The NPPF at para.112 states: "Local planning 37. See 36 above. authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land (i.e. Grades 1, 2 and 3a). Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality". With regards to this statement, it should be recognised that although Grade 3b land is poorer, relatively, than 3a it is not poor in an absolute sense -it is 'moderate'. 'Poor' is ascribed to Grade 4 (poor) and Grade 5 (very poor). 5.3 Thus, current Government policy, as set out 38. This is not Government Policy or local policy in NPPF and as expressed by a Minister of State to totally restrict solar development to only at DECC, is clear that only agricultural land grade 4 and 5 land. Grades 4 and 5 are appropriate for deployment of large solar farms and on this basis alone the planning application for the Mapperton Solar

47 Response to CPRE objections

Farm should be refused. 6. Alternatives to the proposal 39. Where we can site solar farms is very much 6.1 The following are suggestions for alternatives restricted to where there is a National Grid to the proposal: Connection nearby. 6.1.1 Several small solar parks in preference to a large one. A small solar park can potentially be Alternative sites within this restricted search accommodated within the landscape more area were terminated for a number of reasons. easily. An example is the proposed 5 MW solar park east of Manston, Sturminster Newton. The development site is 12 hectares (equivalent to Tarrant Rushton Airfield – visual impact on 30 acres or 19 soccer pitches) and has a panel badbury rings area equivalent to 5 soccer pitches –22% of the Church Farm Sturminster Marshall – flood risk area of the Mapperton panels. However, this Henbury Farm, Sturminster Marshall – shading specific example may have characteristics, other and flood risk than size, that render it unsuitable. Bishops Court Farm, Shapwick – visual impact on AONB North Farm, Spetisbury – land owner chose other developer South Farm, Spetisbury – no response from ladowner Gatcombe Farm Charlton Marshall – no response from landowner Bushes Farm, Winterborne Zelston – visual impact North West Farm, DT11 9AT Winterborne Kingston – Landower did not want to pursue project East Farm, Winterborne Kingston – land optioned for a wind farm. West Morden Farm – visual impact on AONB

These are all within 2-3km of Mapperton. We would say the only one which is ‘better’ from a planning point of view is North Farm which has been developed and built. Yet it could not accommodate a 108 acre site and be of lower impact… only 40 acres of North farm is tucked away.

6.1.2 The County's current shortfall in projected 40. This is not supported by statistics produced annual renewable energy generation of 105 by the Council on behalf of Dorset, Poole and gigawatt hours could be achieved if 3 to 4 solar Bournemouth. installations of this size were built in each of the six constituent Districts and Boroughs of the County (East, North and West Dorset Districts, Purbeck District and Christchurch and Weymouth & Portland Boroughs). 6.1.3 The Government has made it clear that it is 41. Whilst the Government encourages the use not acceptable for solar parks to replace the of non-agricultural land, this is not a directive or growing of crops on productive arable land. As law.

48 Response to CPRE objections an alternative, it promotes a substantial increase in the use of commercial and industrial roofs as The relaxing of permitted development rights more appropriate sites for solar panels. Reforms for rooftop, only means that larger rooftop to permitted development rights that came into developments can take place without planning force on 15 April 2015 allow for a twenty fold permission. Planning permission were normally increase in the amount of solar PV that can be granted anyway by Councils for solar on rooftops deployed on non-domestic roofs. as it accorded to their policies. Therefore we do no see that the relaxing of PD rights reduces the need for large scale ground mounted solar developments in order to meet national targets for renewable energy. 6.1.4 The Government promotes, encourages 42. Good Energy Generations Ltd is commited to and provides advice and support for community- providing annual contributions to both owned solar parks. That way communities enjoy Sturminster and Winterborne parishes as well as all the profits –not just token hand-outs from contributions to other groups and projects. developers or land owners. 7. The need for the proposal 43. See 40 above. 7.1.The current estimate for annual renewable energy generation in Dorset County is 585.7 gigawatt hours. This estimate, published by Dorset CPRE16, is based on (1) Government renewable electricity databases that are updated either monthly or quarterly and Government renewable electricity projection methodology which takes into account installations that are either operational, under construction or awaiting construction and (2) the RegenSW renewable heat database that is updated annually and takes into account operational installations only. 7.2 585.7 gigawatt hours (GWh) is equivalent to 44. See 40 above 84.8 per cent of the County's 2020 Target of 690.7 GWh (7.5 per cent of the County's estimated total 2020 energy consumption of 9,210 GWh)16. 7.3 On 22 April 2014 the Christchurch Borough 45. These figures are from the CPRE and not Council & East Dorset District Council referred to in the Council policy as implied. Partnership adopted a common Policy ME8 Sources of Renewable Energy. It is therefore See 40 above. relevant to know that the current projection for annual renewable energy generation for the Partnership area is 194.9 GWh or 86.2 per cent of the 226.2 GWh 2020 target (these figures can be deduced, by simple addition, from the data presented in the Executive Summary of Reference 16). It can be noted that this indication of progress is slightly greater than 84.8 per cent, that for the County as a whole. 7.4 Dorset County's record of and prospects for 46. See 40 above. renewable energy generation and progress towards its target are impressive. The fact that

49 Response to CPRE objections several years remain before the final run-up to the target date of 31 December 2020, suggests that from now on there is no need to approve any renewable installation that does more than minimal damage to the County's exceptional and highly valued landscape, heritage, agricultural and amenity assets. 7.5 Of course, a target is not necessarily a ceiling 47. The 2020 target of 15% renewable energy is and every effort must be made to fully exploit all only a target and once met there need to be a of East Dorset's renewable energy resources and progression onto the 2050 target of 50% photovoltaic technology cannot be an exception. renewable energy. However, as Minister of State Gregory Barker stated, with specific reference to large-scale solar, this must not be done at any price. The price that would have to be paid if the Mapperton Farm proposal were to be approved far exceeds anything that East Dorset should be prepared to pay. 8. Local community objection 8.1 To date, in excess of 650 written objections The CPRE belittle the fact that there are a lot of to the proposal have been registered by East people who disagree with them and their Dorset District Council. This is in stark contrast to opinions. There are many informed letters of the single letter of support. More importantly, support for this site. They are not reliant on pro- over half the residents living in the hamlets and forma letters churned out by the CPRE villages living within two miles of the centre of supporters who probably do not even know the site to the south, the main area affected, where Mapperton is located. have objected, excluding those living in Drax- owned property. Every household in Mapperton, excluding those living in Drax-owned property, has objected to the installation while over 80 letters of objection have been sent by residents of Winterborne Zelston, Winterborne Tomson and Anderson, all in the adjacent North Dorset district. Further, on 14 May 2015, Sturminster Marshall Parish Council voted, unanimously, to reject the proposal.

50 Sturminster Marshall Parish Council

1. Spoil the openness of the AGLV and The site is within a ‘bowl’ in the terrain that is views of the Conservation Area extremely well concealed in the wider landscape, with views restricted by existing mature hedgerows from the adjacent road/track. It therefore cannot be argued to detrimentally impact upon the openness of the AGLV due to its specific location.

The solar site is some 100m from the Mapperton Conservation Area boundary. Views from and into the Conservation are restricted by the terrain, and existing hedgerows. 2. Archaeology Good Energy are happy to undertake further archaeology surveys prior to the development commencing 3. Ecology A full ecology survey has been completed including Great Crested Newt surveys in the Marsh Bridge area. 4. WW2 munitions A geophysical survey has already taken place of the site, and no evidence of munitions has occurred. 5. BMV grade 3a land should not be used. Policy does not restrict the use of grade 3a or above for solar development although it encourages the use of lower grade land. In this case the development will share the existing agriculture use and this will not be lost. Sheep grazing will occur around the arrays producing wool and meat. 6. Deer fencing will have a detrimental The deer fence will be a 2m high and an open effect lattice wire supported by wooden posts. Such fencing has a high degree of visual permeability and will not be conspicuous. The fences are also allocated about 4-5 metres inside the existing hedge boundaries which are higher than the fences. 7. Highway issues The development will take about10-15 weeks to complete. The Highways England and DCC have not raised objections subject to some minor improvement. Good Energy has successfully developed solar farms that are significantly further from the main road. Health and safety are important issues and large vehicles can be escorted by banksmen when going through Mapperton. 8. EIA has anomalies The ecological survey has been conducted by a professional Ecologist. The fields are divided by hedgerows, although some have been removed

51 by the farmer, there course is still apparent on the ground.

9. Accurate build programme required This is provided in the Construction Transport Report and an further one will be included in the construction report as normally required by condition by the LPA. 10. There will be a detrimental impact on The heritage report produced with the EIA does the heritage assets not support that there is harm to any heritage assets. 11. Everything to be removed at the end of This will be undertaken and we are happy to the permission accept a condition for decommissioning. Even at scrap value, the equipment will be worth millions of pounds for recycling. 12. The substation should only be used by The building can be in vernacular materials the solar and the building of vernacular which can be agreed via condition. The materials. substation is designed to cater only for the solar farm. 13. The pile driving will cause disruption. The pile driving can be restricted to certain times The hum of the panels. of the days and avoid Sunday or bank holidays to minimise disturbance. This is the most noisy part of the development but will last only for about 3 weeks. The panels themselves create no noise. The inverters are housed within cabins which restrict the low level of noise generated which should not be audible above ambient conditions even at the site boundary. 14. There are anomalies in the renewable Unable to comment as these are not referred to energy target is the application by SPC. 15. The community funding will require We are happy to enter into a Unilateral protection. Agreements with the Council if they consider this to be necessary. 16. Information is needed regarding This is descried in the EIA. A further Construction construction report can be supplied as a condition if required.

17. More detailed vehicle movements This is supplied in the application. required 18. Recommend a planning committee site Good Energy would welcome a planning visit committee site visit and consider this is a good idea. 19. Western Power has reached its capacity Good Energy have reserved capacity with SSE (not Western Power area)

52 Response to Mapperton Preservation Group

2. Failure to Consider alternative sites MPG refers only to alternative sites in section 3.1 of the ES. However, it makes no reference to section 9.1 onwards which describes the site selection process in more detail.

We have (recently supplied extra information to the LPA on the addresses of alternative sites that were considered.

There have also been two appeal decisions in 2015 where the Inspector rejected the need that alternative sites needed to be assessed in terms of a sequential test:-.

Appeal APP/Z3825/A/14/2219843 at Priors Byne Farm, Bines Road, Partridge Green, West Sussex RH13 8NX was refused by the council because the applicant had not looked for alternative brownfield sites and also because of its perceived detrimental visual impact upon the countryside. The Inspector disagreed and allowed the appeal in March 2015, concluding that that there was no policy requirement for a sequential test. He noted that in a further appeal in Suffolk postdating the planning practice guidance (DCS Number 200-002-138), the secretary of state had not required a solar farm on greenfield land to be assessed against whether a brownfield site was available. The inspector acknowledged that national policy prefers the use of lower-quality agricultural land, but did not accept that this extended to examining non-agricultural sites. He concluded that its use as a solar farm was acceptable. He held that an adverse impact on visual amenity, particularly for users of two public footpaths, would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.

Appeal (APP/E3525/A/14/2218805) was dismissed for visual reasons in January 2015, on land of more than 50ha northwest of Ingham and north of Culford Road, Ingham, Suffolk. An inspector has agreed that the appellant does not need to demonstrate that suitable alternative sites cannot be found. The inspector accepted that the appellant was not required to undertake a sequential test to assess whether more appropriate locations might be available. He rejected the council's contention that the search should have encompassed the whole of the

53 Response to Mapperton Preservation Group

county or even the whole region. The appellant had explained why the site was chosen and there was no requirement for a detailed assessment of possible alternatives, he concluded.

3. Use of Best and Most Versatile Land This also is covered in Section 9 of the ES.

The MPG refer to the 72 ha of the site and that 17.6ha is Grade 3a and the rest 3b. It should be noted that now only 43ha of the site will be used for solar.

The MPG states that arable at the Mapperton Site is more productive than grazing but they do not substantiate this claim with any evidence.

Appeal 2219072 (Sudbury appeal) was dismissed for a variety of reasons including BMV and visual amenity. The site was on grade 3a land and the Inspector concluded that its loss would not be acceptable even for the temporary period of 25 years. However, there was no proposal before that Inspector that showed the land will remain in a shared agriculture use (ie grazing of farm animals, fruit growing etc) with the solar. This is not similar to the proposed Mapperton site which will continue a shared agriculture use.

The main reason 2202450 (Lanthrone appeal) was dismissed primarily of visual amenity reasons. The consideration of BMV land was not a main issue (Paragraph 3 refers ) The Inspector was misinformed that there is less grass under the panels. We have photographic proof that grass grows well under the panels and can be grazed by sheep. 4. Landscape and Visual Impacts The LVIA within the EIA concludes that ‘in paragraph 5.11.9 ‘This assessment has concluded that the Project would only result in very localised significant landscape and visual effects’ This is at odds with the separate David Wilson Partnership Landscape assessment produced by the objectors and this is only a review of the submitted planning application. It is considered that the EIA LVIA is an independent professional and a fair and accurate assessment. 5 Impact on Heritage assets It should be noted that English Heritage/Historic England have not raised objections and are happy to rely on the Council to make an assessment. The Council have not raised objections to the current revised layout which

54 Response to Mapperton Preservation Group

uses the lower land of the site in this regard and in any case supported the larger 2013 proposal. The Heritage report submitted as part of the EIA supports the scheme, due to its location and low height and existing boundary and intermediate landscape features, will not have a harmful impact upon the variety of listed buildings in the villages or the Registered Historic Park and Garden of Charlborough Park. It is considered that the MPG has not proved there is harm caused to the heritage assets in relation to the Tower and garden. They have also relied on the whole 70ha of the site in their assessments which included the higher land, which is now omitted from the layout. It is important to note that ‘change’ to a landscape, does not necessary constitute ‘harm’.

The justification for the scheme is to provide renewable energy and therefore tackling climate change which is supported as a justifiable development in the countryside by the NPPF.

Community Benefits It is appreciated that community benefits are not a material planning consideration. The description relating to community benefits within the Statement of Community Involvement are to show that Good Energy Generations Ltd are a company that wishes to make commitments to the local community for the life time of the solar development as they do for all of our schemes. 7. Planning policy This is addressed fully in the EIA.

The MPG does not demonstrate that the solar development will create any harm to the setting of listed buildings other than make this conclusion. These buildings and Park are at some distance away, the height of the development is very low, and intervening landscape features, buildings and roads ensure there in harm. It is important to note that ‘change’ to a landscape, does not necessary constitute ‘harm’.

The agricultural land will continue to be used for agricultural purposes. There is no requirement that BMV land has to be used for crops. The land 3a and 3b will be grazed with the production of wool and meat.

55 Response to Mapperton Preservation Group

The David Wilson Review in terms of visual impact does not accord to the full LVIA produced for the EIA. It provides an opinion relating to the reports that have been produced based on evidence and professional assessments.

56 57 58

Patron: Her Majesty the Queen

David McIntosh Dorset Branch Chief Executive Campaign to Protect Rural England Christchurch and East Dorset Partnership PO Box 9018 Furzehill DORCHESTER WIMBORNE DT1 9GY BH21 4HN Telephone 0333 577 0360 Email [email protected]

6 July 2015 Dear Mr McIntosh,

PLANNING APPLICATION 3/13/0681/FUL MAPPERTON FARM SOLAR PARK

I wish to draw your attention to the Officers' Report for the above planning application. We have found that it contains a number of significant errors and omissions. Collectively, these allow the conclusion that the Report is biased which renders its recommendation to approve the application unsafe. Our findings are listed below:

1. Cranborne Chase Area of Outstanding Beauty concerns

1.1 The Officers’ Report mentions these concerns (p.22) but does not recognise or comment upon specific points. In its Response (pp.63-69,82-84), the Cranborne Chase AONB states that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) is “significantly flawed”, that the conclusions underestimate the adverse impact and that the photographic methodology is “contrived to make the proposals and their impacts appear smaller than they would do in real life”. It also states that the LVIA does not follow best practice which requires depiction of a worst case scenario for photographic assessment. Photographs were taken in September when all the hedges and trees were in full leaf.

2. Evidence submitted by Dorset CPRE

2.1 The Officer's Report fails to acknowledge the statement in the CPRE Response (pp.70-76) that projected renewable energy generation for Dorset County has reached 85% of its 2020 target and the projection for the Christchurch & East Dorset Partnership has reached 86%.

2.2 Further, only part of the CPRE Response is included in the Report's Appendix of Consultation Responses. A list of 20 References has been omitted as has a copy of Reference 16, a comprehensive report which provides the Government validated data to justify the above renewable energy projections. On the issues of projections and progress towards targets, the Officers' Report (p.33) relies on a limited statement by the Dorset Energy Partnership that “current renewable energy generation in Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole is only 3.4% of total energy demand for this area...... and there is a long way to go to generate 7.5%”.

59 2.3 It should be noted that the requirement to take the issues of magnitude of need and rate of progress towards targets into account, when planning applications for renewable energy installations are under consideration, is acknowledged in the Consent Order dated 19 May 2015 in the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division, Planning Court) in the matter of an application for Judicial Review, Reference CO/5206/2014.

3. Visual impact of solar panels

3.1 There is repeated comment in the Officers’ Report to the effect that the developer has reduced the solar park area by 38%, but only one mention (p.25) that the area covered by glass has fallen by only 20%. This reduction is close to half that of the emphasised figure of 38%. The significance of this for reduction in visual impact is not recognised nor discussed. There is an argument to be had that the area covered by glass has more influence on visual impact than the overall area of the solar park.

4. Impact on landscape

4.1 The Officers' Report (p.36) summarises Wardell Armstrong's LVIA conclusions with the statement that “the solar farm would only result in very localised landscape and visual effects.” This is an oversimplified and highly misleading summary. It does not take into account the following statement in the LVIA (p.5.35): “The magnitude of the effects of new buildings/structures on the site and the immediate surroundings is assessed as medium to high, due to the partial alteration of the baseline, introduction of features that would be uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape and as the effects would be perceptible beyond the immediate setting of the site. Therefore, it is considered that the overall effects of these changes would be moderate to substantial (significant) (emphasis not added). The effects of the introduction of the new buildings/structures of the Project would generally be significant within approximately 0.5 km of the solar PV area of the site to the south and south east and within approximately 0.5 km of the substation area of the site to the north and south and some more distant views from the east.”

4.2 It can be noted that the independent consultant, Dorset County Council's Senior Landscape Architect, agrees with this assessment (p.56).

4.3 The area that would be subject to moderate to substantial adverse effects is assessed to be about 242 hectares or 598 acres, equivalent to the size of 378 soccer pitches. This would damage 11.7% of the Mapperton Area of Great Landscape Value (East Dorset District Council Supplementary Planning Guidance No.19, June 1997).

4.4 It can also be noted that the Wardell Armstrong assessment is consistent with that of East Dorset District Council's consultants (Land Use Consultants, LUC). They are clear that the sensitivity of the proposed site is at least moderate-high (the second highest sensitivity). The size of the site is 44.6 hectares (see para.9.1.2). This is close to 50% greater than the minimum of 30 hectares required to justify the quoted LUC assessed sensitivity (“Landscape Sensitivity to Wind and Solar Energy Development in East Dorset District”, LUC, April 2014).

4.5 Members of the Planning Committee should be reminded that this application is subject to the Environmental Impact Regulations. The purpose of the Environmental Impact Assessment is to assess significant adverse and beneficial impacts so that these can be weighed in the planning balance. As a result of not being made aware of residual

60 significant impacts, there is a risk that a decision made by the Planning Committee is based on a misinterpretation of the submitted LVIA.

5. Impact on social amenity

5.1 The LVIA is clear that in the vicinity of the site there would be moderate to substantial adverse effects on the landscape. The area affected is assessed to be about 598 acres. In spite of this, the Officers' Report does not acknowledge the adverse effects that this would have on social amenity through reduced enjoyment of footpaths around the site and a bridleway running through it.

5.2 Further, loss of social amenity is not amongst the 20 issues listed as being raised in Representations (p.23). Since this has been a major issue of concern to residents of the local community from the outset, this is likely to be a serious omission.

6. Impact on heritage assets

6.1 There is no mention in the Officers’ Report of the Dorset Gardens Trust's letter dated 3 June 2015 and it is wrongly classified as Neutral in the online Written Representations. The Trust has the responsibility to respond to development proposals affecting parks registered in Dorset by Historic England.

6.2 The Officers’ Report (p.41) concludes there would be no significant adverse impact on the setting of Charborough Park, one of only two Grade II* Registered Parks in Dorset. The Dorset Gardens Trust is clear that “harm would be caused” and recommends refusal of the application.

6.3 The response from the Dorset Garden Trust requires to be addressed. The Officers' Report concludes that the harm is less than substantial and thus para.134 of the NPPF applies.

6.4 Less than substantial harm does not equate to a “not significant” impact. A significant impact in an EIA application is one where the effect could be a determinative factor in the application, as the Dorset Gardens Trust claims. The fact that para.134 requires less than substantial harm to be weighed against public benefits means that it is a determinative factor and is therefore “significant” in EIA terms. The Officers' Report (pp.41&42) seems to have applied the test as to significance after the planning balance had been assessed. This is not in line with good practice, the assessment of significance of adverse effect is not related in any way to the counterbalancing assessment of benefits from a proposal. Both assessments should be carried out before the balancing exercise is conducted. To do otherwise suggests predetermination in the mind of the decision maker and is open to challenge.

7. Planning policy

7.1 There is a significant omission in the list of relevant documents in the Planning Policy section of the Officers' Report. Missing is a Planning Update (HCWS488), a Written Statement made by Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Mr Eric Pickles, in the House of Commons on 25 March 2015. The Statement is entitled “Solar Energy: protecting the local and global environment”. Amongst other issues, this refers to:

7.1.1 Reforms to permitted development rights that would come into force from 15 April

61 2015 which allow for a twenty-fold increase in the amount of solar that can go onto roofs, and

7.1.2 The requirement that “any proposal for a solar farm involving the best and most versatile agricultural land would need to be justified by the most compelling evidence.” (emphasis added).

7.2 The Officers' Report (p.38) states: “The loss of this good quality agricultural land may reduce the UK's capability to produce arable crops, and this issue carries some weight in the planning assessment, although Officers' do not consider this weight should be substantial.” (emphasis added).

7.2.1 Clearly this statement is in serious conflict with the Planning Update (7.1.2 above) and presumably would not have made if Officers had been aware of it. Further, the use of “may” is inappropriate. Based on past and current use of the land, the UK's capability to produce arable crops “would” be reduced.

7.3 The Officers' Report (p.38) claims that “a small area in the centre” of the application site is Grade 3a, i.e. best and most versatile. This “small area” covers a significant 24.4 % of the site and, further, Grade 3a is not confined to the centre of the site (see the attached plan). The total area of Grade 3a is 17.6 hectares or 43.5 acres, equivalent to 27.5 soccer pitches (Planning Statement, Appendix 9.1, p.3, Table 2). This obviously represents a minority of the site but to claim that the area is small is not only incorrect and misleading, it is dismissive of the importance given to best and most versatile land in Planning Guidance.

8. Numbers of objections and indications of support

8.1 The Officers' Report states that, at the time of writing, there were over 650 objections and over 50 letters of support. On 30 June 2015 these numbers had increased to 721 and 73, respectively.

8.2 The Officers' Report does not record the magnitude of local community objection, an important material consideration. The Mapperton Preservation Group, a local action group, has estimated that about 90 objections have come from less than two miles from the centre of the site. This represents nearly half the local population, excluding those in Charborough Estate properties. Only one letter of support has been registered from this area. All of the households of Mapperton, again not including those in Charborough Estate properties, have objected.

8.3 Both the Lower Winterborne Parish Council and the Sturminster Marshall Parish Council have objected, the latter unanimously.

9. Inconsistencies and errors of fact

9.1 There are also some errors and inconsistencies in the Officers' Report that we wish to bring to your attention:

9.1.1 It is suggested (p.38) that oil seed rape “is not a food crop”, which of course it unquestionably is.

9.1.2 The two areas quoted in para.1, p.25 are inconsistent with figures quoted elsewhere.

62 70.67 ha is the area of the Development Site for the first submission. For the second submission, this area has apparently been increased to 72.0 ha (Planning Statement, Appendix 9.1, Table 2 and two Figures, both identified as Figure RAC6436-1). The area referred to as 42.8 ha is identified as the area of the Development Site less the area of the field(s) that are not now proposed for development. The area of these field(s) is stated to be 67.6 acres or 27.4 ha (Field 2) in the Luscombe Maye Agricultural Report for the first submission. Hence the area now proposed for development could be 44.6 ha, not 42.8 ha. It is suggested that these errors or at least inconsistencies in reporting could be the result of a lack of communication or coordination between the developer, Good Energy, and its consultants Wardell Armstrong and Reading Agricultural Consultants.

9.1.3 It is claimed (p.26) that the proposed installation “has the potential to generate up to 24 MW of electricity per year”. This is not technically correct. 24 MW (or megawatts, i.e. megajoules per second) refers to a maximum rate of electricity generation for an installation, normally only achieved around noon in the summer months. The developer's stated estimate for annual electricity generation is 26.6 gigawatt hours (Non-Technical Summary, p.7). This indicates a load factor of 0.125 for the stated proposed power rating (or installed capacity) of 24.2 MW.

We consider that all these matters are of sufficient importance to require Officers to provide substantive responses.

I hope you would agree that it is essential for the Members of the Planning Committee to be provided with a balanced, unbiased Officers' Report that, together with other relevant input, will enable the Members to deliver a safe decision on this proposal for major, EIA development in the countryside.

Yours sincerely, Stephen Howard

Chair of Trustees, Dorset CPRE cc David Barnes Giles Moir James Brightman Councillor Mike Dyer Councillor Toni Coombs Councillor Derek Burt Councillor Steve Butler Councillor Spencer Flower Councillor Barry Goringe Councillor Cathy Lugg Councillor Barbara Manuel Councillor David Morgan Councillor Boyd Mortimer Councillor David Packer Councillor Julie Robinson Councillor David Shortell

Dorset CPRE Charity Number 211974 www.dorset-cpre.org.uk The Campaign to Protect Rural England exists to promote the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England by encouraging the sustainable use of land and other natural resources in town and country.

63

64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90