David Hardy Eversheds LLP Bridgewater Place Water Lane
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
David Hardy Our Ref: APP/B3030/A/13/2208417 Eversheds LLP Your ref: 073127.010701 Bridgewater Place Water Lane Leeds LS11 5DR 19 November 2014 Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (SECTION 78) APPEAL BY NOTTINGHAM TRENT UNIVERSITY LAND AT BRACKENHURST COLLEGE, BRACKENHURST LANE, SOUTHWELL, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE NG25 0QF APPLICATION REF: 11/00792/FUL 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Paul K Jackson BArch (Hons) RIBA, who held a public local inquiry between 15 and 18 July 2014 into your client’s application for the erection of two wind turbine generators and associated crane pads and access track dated 6 June 2011, in accordance with application ref: 11/00792/FUL. 2. The appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination on 20 February 2014, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, because the appeal involves a renewable energy development. Inspector’s recommendation 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions and recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Policy Considerations 4. In deciding this appeal, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The adopted development plan comprises the Newark and Sherwood Local Development Core Strategy (CS), March 2011, and Jean Nowak Tel 0303 444 1626 Planning Casework Division Email: [email protected] Department for Communities and Local Government 3rd Floor, SE Quarter, Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF the Allocation and Development Management Development Plan Document (DMDP) of July 2013 (IR12). The Secretary of State notes that the Council’s reasons for refusal refer to now superseded policies of the former Newark and Sherwood Local Plan; and he agrees with the Inspector that the CS and DMDP policies referred to at IR13-25 are the most relevant. He also agrees that, for the reasons given at IR238, the development plan is in broad conformity with national policy as set out in the Framework. 5. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework – March 2012) and associated Guidance (March 2014); the Written Ministerial Statements on ‘Local Planning and onshore wind’ (DCLG) and ‘Onshore wind’ (DECC); the Planning Practice Guidance for renewable and low carbon energy; the National Policy Statements (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy (EN-3); and Ministerial Written Statements on renewable energy published in June 2013 by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. He has also taken into account the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended. 6. In accordance with section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving listed structures or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. Main issues 7. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main considerations are those set out at IR237. The effect of the proposed development on the settings of heritage assets 8. Having given very careful consideration to Inspector’s findings with regard to the effect of the appeal scheme on the settings of heritage assets at IR239-268 and its wider visual impact at IR270, the Secretary of State agrees with him at IR276 that there would be a noticeable and significant adverse and harmful impact on the settings of listed buildings at Southwell Minster, Brackenhurst Hall and Thurgarton Hundred Workhouse together with its associated Registered Park and Garden. He further agrees that the landscape setting of Southwell Conservation Area, including the Minster at its centre, would be adversely affected; and that the settings of heritage assets at Manor Farm, Halloughton and Holy Trinity Church would be harmed to a lesser extent. He agrees that the heritage significance of each asset would be diminished; and that the visual amenity of the users of rights of way - particularly the Robin Hood Way, which includes as part of the experience appreciation of the conservation area and the Minster as well as landscape character - would be adversely affected. 9. However, for the reasons which the Inspector goes on to give at IR276, the Secretary of State also agrees with him that the level of harm would not be “substantial” in the terms set out in the Framework but that, in accordance with s66 of the LBCA, the preservation of setting is to be treated as a desired or sought- after objective, and considerable importance and weight attaches to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings when weighing this factor in the balance. The Secretary of State takes the view that it does not follow that if the harm to heritage assets is found to be less than substantial, then the subsequent balancing exercise undertaken by the decision taker should ignore the overarching statutory duty imposed by section 66(1) and, like the Inspector, he therefore sees a need to give considerable weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of all listed buildings. Whether the environmental and economic benefits of the scheme outweigh any harm 10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR277) that addressing climate change is in itself a public benefit and that renewable energy is sustainable by definition. For the reasons given at IR277, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, although the importance of renewable energy to the future energy security of the country cannot be underestimated, considerable weight and importance also needs to be placed on the desirability of preserving heritage assets and their surroundings. In this particular case, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the effect of the appeal scheme, which would only be about 2km from the Minster, would be to appreciably diminish the largely unaltered quality of its surroundings and alter for the worse the ability to understand and enjoy the heritage significance of the Minster and the conservation area – which have longstanding and meaningful links with the countryside around the town The Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that the harm to the significance of the heritage assets and to visual amenity, as referred to at IR279, add further weight to the case against the appeal proposal. 11. Having regard to the other side of the balance, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR278 that the adverse impact on the heritage significance of the Minster and the conservation area, although “less than substantial”, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited production of electricity that would be produced. He also agrees that, although the scheme would be time- limited, 25 years would represent more than a generation in which the heritage significance of the highest importance would be diminished. Conditions 12. The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on conditions, as set out at IR227-231. He is satisfied that they are reasonable and necessary and would meet the tests of the Framework and the guidance. However, like the Inspector, he does not consider that they overcome his reasons for dismissing the appeal. Planning Obligation 13. The Secretary of State has considered the terms of the Unilateral Undertaking submitted by the appellants and considered by the Inspector at IR232-236; but he agrees with the Inspector at IR236 that the undertaking does not meet the requirements of the Framework or the CIL Regulations and so can only be given very limited weight in the overall balance. Overall conclusions 14. The Secretary of State acknowledges the appellant’s desire to create a community fund into which local people and organisations would be able to invest, but the lack of any firm commitment or undertaking in this regard means that it can be given very little weight. He also acknowledges the benefits of the proposal in terms of an increase in the supply of renewable energy and a reduction in CO2 emissions, assisting in mitigating climate change. However, against the environmental benefits and outweighing them, the Secretary of State considers that there would be a noticeable and significant adverse and harmful impact on the settings of a wide range of heritage assets as well as a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the users of rights of way including the Robin Hood Way. Formal Decision 15. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby dismisses your client’s appeal and refuses planning permission for the erection of two wind turbine generators and associated crane pads and access track dated 6 June 2011, in accordance with application ref: 11/00792/FUL. Right to challenge the decision 16. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter. 17. A copy of this letter has been sent to Newark and Sherwood District Council. A notification letter has been sent to all other parties who asked to be informed of the decision.