Mapperton Solar Farm

Mapperton Farm, Mapperton Almer, Blandford Forum,

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, , EX36 4DZ Telephone: 01398 341623

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

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

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

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 . 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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

‘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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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

Location: Fig 1

Figure 1: Photo from Charborough

6

Heritage Category: Park and Garden List Entry No: 1000713

Grade: II*

County: Dorset

District: Purbeck, East Dorset

Parish: Morden, ,

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.

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