Samantha Grange Our Ref: APP/D2510/A/11/2161066 Eversheds LLP Your Ref: GRANGESA/176094/000001 70 Great Bridgwater Street Manchester 27 March 2015 M1 5ES TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY MARK CAUDWELL LTD: LAND 7KM NORTH-WEST OF SKEGNESS AND 2KM SOUTH-WEST OF ORBY VILLAGE, EAST LINDSEY DC APPLICATION REF:N/084/00642/10 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, S R G Baird BA (Hons) MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry on 11 – 19 February 2014 and 1 – 3 October 2014 and which was closed in writing on 30 October 2014, into your client's appeal against a decision of East Lindsey District Council (the Council) to refuse planning permission for the installation and operation of a wind energy scheme comprising 9 wind turbines and ancillary infrastructure for a period of 25 years including external transformers, crane hardstanding and lay-down areas, control building and compound, switchgear on-site, access tracks and turning heads and ditch crossings, permanent monitoring met mast, site entrance, electrical cable connection, site signage and associated groundworks, in accordance with application N/084/00642/10, dated 23 March 2010. 2. On 5 June 2013, the appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, because the appeal relates to proposals of major significance for the delivery of the government’s climate change programme and energy policies. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed and planning permission refused. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Department for Communities and Local Government Tel: 0303 444 1626 Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Procedural matters 4. The Secretary of State considers that the Environmental Statement (ES) which accompanied the application, together with the Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI) submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 meet the requirements of the regulations (IR1.5) and provides the data and information required to adequately assess the impacts on the environment of the proposed development. Events following the close of the Inquiry 5. The Secretary of State is in receipt of a letter submitted following the close of the inquiry from the Rt Hon Sir Peter Tapsell MP dated 25 November 2014. The Secretary of State does not consider that this raises any new issues which would either affect his decision or require him to refer back to parties prior to determining the appeal. However, copies of his letter may be obtained on written request to the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. Policy considerations 6. 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. 7. In this case the development plan consists of the saved policies of the East Lindsey Local Plan First Alteration (LP) 1999; and the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the most relevant policies are those detailed at IR4.26-4.29. Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State has had regard to the emerging East Lindsey Core Strategy (CS); and he agrees that the most relevant policies are those agreed in the Statement of Common Ground and described at IR4.30-4.33. In considering this appeal, the Secretary of State has also taken account of the Inspector’s further consideration of planning and energy policy at IR12.107-12.113. 8. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the associated planning practice guidance; and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended. 9. The Secretary of State has also had regard to the further national energy policies referred to by the Inspector at IR4.1-4.16, as well as other planning policy and guidance referred to at IR4.34-4.39. Furthermore, in accordance with section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, 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 10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues in this case are those set out at IR12.1. Landscape and visual impact 11. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s conclusions on the effect of the proposed development on landscape and visual impact. For the reasons given at IR12.4-12.13 and IR12.15, the Secretary of State agrees with his conclusion at IR12.14 that the turbines, on their own, would not materially harm the landscape and enjoyment of the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB. 12. For the reasons given at IR12.16-12.26, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s assessment of the cumulative landscape impact of the proposal. He agrees that whilst there would be a significant change in landscape character, it would not be unacceptably adverse (IR12.19). Furthermore, though there would be sequential views of the turbines, the mitigating influences of this large scale landscape and big skies, the compact nature of the Orby Marsh scheme and the various degrees of separation, the magnitude of that effect would be moderate and would not result in an impression of the area being saturated by turbines (IR21.26). The effect on living conditions 13. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s evaluation of the impact of the proposed wind farm on living conditions by way of noise at IR12.28-12.49. He agrees that ETSU is currently the basis on which the noise impacts of wind farms should be assessed (IR12.33) and, having given careful consideration to the Inspector’s discussion at IR12.34-12.38, he shares the Inspector's view that there is insufficient evidence to come to a firm conclusion that atypical road traffic noise has been appropriately accounted for in the noise assessment for the appeal. Therefore, taking account of the Inspector’s further discussion at IR12.39-12.47, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR12.48 that it is reasonable to treat the results of the noise assessment and, as a consequence, the derived noise limits, with considerable caution; whilst also agreeing that the use of the equipment referred to at IR12.49 would not materially affect the setting of noise limits. 14. For the reasons given at IR12.50-12.70, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s findings on construction noise (IR12.54); cumulative noise impacts (IR12.55-12.57); amplitude modulation (IR12.58-12.61); headroom (12.62-12.63); and residential visual impact (12.64-12.70). He therefore agrees with the Inspector’s overall conclusions on living conditions at IR12.71-12.73. He agrees that, whilst many residents would experience a significant change in outlook, the degree of that would lessen with distance and would not be such that it would make the occupation of these dwellings or use of their external amenity areas unacceptable or unattractive places in which to live (IR12.71). However, with regard to the impact of noise, (IR12.72-12.73), the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the approach adopted to the setting of daytime noise limits should be treated with considerable caution and that there is potential for the living conditions of residents in the area to be unacceptably affected at significant periods of the year when background noise levels are not affected by tourist related traffic on the C541. The effect on tourism 15. Having carefully considered the Inspector’s assessment at IR12.74-12.76, the Secretary of State agrees with his reasoning and, accordingly, with his conclusion at IR12.76 that the there is no evidence to suggest that this scheme would have a materially adverse effect on tourism in East Lindsey or that that should be accorded weight in the overall planning balance. Other considerations 16. For the reasons given at IR12.77-12.84, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions with regard to shadow flicker (IR12.77); public safety, flooding and health (IR12.78-12.80); property values (IR12.81); Ashley’s Field (IR12.82); and television and internet reception (IR12.83-12.84). The Secretary of State is therefore satisfied that none of these factors needs to be weighed against the proposal in the overall planning balance. He similarly agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions with regard to horses (IR12.93), ecology (IR12.94-12.99); highway safety (IR12.100-12.101); alternative energy sources (IR12.102); and any potential impacts on human rights and localism (IR12.103- 12.105). Cultural Heritage 17. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions at IR12.85-12.92. For the reasons given at IR12.91 he agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion that the potential impact of the appeal scheme on the significance of Boothby Hall and its setting would be moderate and for the purposes of the balancing exercise required by paragraph 134 of the Framework the effect would be less than substantial; and he weighs it accordingly against the public benefits of the appeal proposal.