Michelle Smith Our Ref: APP/R1010/A/14/2212093 Eversheds LLP Bridgewater Place Water Lane LEEDS LS11 5DR 12 March 2015 Dear Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (SECTION 78) APPEAL BY ROSELAND COMMUNITY WINDFARM LLP: LAND EAST OF ROTHERHAM ROAD, BOLSOVER, DERBYSHIRE APPLICATION REF: 12/00159/FULEA 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 which opened on 4 November 2014 into your client’s appeal against the decision of Bolsover District Council (the Council) to refuse planning permission for a windfarm comprising 6 wind turbines, control building, anemometer mast and associated access tracks on a site approximately 2.5km south of Bolsover between the villages of Palterton and Shirebrook, in accordance with application reference 12/00159/FULEA, dated 25 April 2012. 2. On 20 June 2014 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 it involves a renewable energy development. 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 conclusions except where indicated otherwise, and agrees with his recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Julian Pitt Tel 0303 44 41630 Planning Casework Division Email [email protected] Department for Communities and Local Government 3rd Floor, Fry House 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Procedural matters 4. In coming to his decision, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement (ES) prepared in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, as amended, the Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI) including a visualisations addendum, and the Further Environmental Information (FEI) which supplements and in some cases supersedes the ES and SEI (IR4). The Secretary of State is satisfied that the ES, SEI and FEI comply with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposals. Policy considerations 5. In deciding the appeal, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan comprises the saved policies of the Bolsover District Local Plan (LP) of February 2000. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the most relevant LP policies in this case are those set out in IR12-13. For the reasons in IR252, he agrees with the Inspector that the weight to be attached to any non-compliance of the proposed development with LP policies CON 4 and CON 10 is reduced. He considers that this does not obviate the need to assess the proposal against the development plan, but that the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and paragraph 14 in particular carries more weight as a material consideration; and that for decision making this means granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. 6. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account besides the include the Framework include the associated planning practice guidance; the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended; EU Directive 2009/28/EC (The Renewables Directive); The Climate Change Act 2008; the National Policy Statements (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy (EN-3); the UK Renewable Energy Strategy; the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan; the UK Renewable Energy Roadmap (the Roadmap) published in 2011 and the update to the Roadmap published in 2013; the Community Energy Strategy (2014); the Community Engagement for Onshore Wind Developments: Best Practice Guidance for England (2014); the Community Benefits from Onshore Wind Developments: Best Practice Guidance for England (2014); and the supplementary planning documents The Historic Environment adopted by the Council in March 2006 and the Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans for Stony Houghton, Scarcliffe, Aston and Hardstoft Conservation Areas. The Secretary of State has also taken into account the Written Ministerial Statements on renewable energy published in June 2013 by the Secretaries of State for Energy and Climate Change and for Communities and Local Government and the Written Ministerial Statement on renewable energy published by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in April 2014. 7. For the reasons set out in IR14, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the replacement Local Development Framework in the form of the Bolsover Local Plan Strategy cannot be attributed any weight. 2 8. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LB Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving those listed structures potentially affected by the scheme or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. He has also paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas, as required by section 72(1) of the LB Act. He notes that the appeal site is not within any conservation area but that the proposed turbines would be visible from the nearest conservation areas in Stony Houghton, Scarcliffe, Palterton and Hardwick and Rowthorne (IR28). Main issues 9. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main issues in this case are those set out at IR251. The effect on the settings of designated heritage assets 10. The Secretary of State agrees that the Hardwick assemblage is of national importance and Hardwick New Hall is of international importance (IR256). For the reasons in IR255-2643, he agrees with the Inspector that the impact of the proposal on the setting of the Hardwick assemblage would not be one of substantial harm but would be considerably higher than suggested by the appellant (IR264). 11. For the reasons in IR265-267, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the effect on the setting of Bolsover Castle, and on its heritage significance, would be minor (IR267). For the reasons in IR268-269, he agrees with the Inspector that the turbines would only influence the setting of Sutton Scarsdale Hall to a minor extent and would not be so prominent as to significantly distract attention from the much nearer Bolsover Castle (IR269). For the reasons in IR270-273, he also agrees that the level of harm to the heritage significance of St Leonard’s Church through harm to its setting, and the harm to the character and appearance and heritage interest of the Scarcliffe Conservation Area, would fall short of substantial (IR273). 12. For the reasons in IR274-278, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that: the effect on the Stony Houghton Conservation Area would fall short of substantial harm (IR278). For the reasons in IR279-280, the Secretary of State agrees that the harm to the setting and heritage significance of Hall Farmhouse would be appreciably adverse and, although less than substantial in terms of the Framework, would be a material factor to weigh in the balance (IR281). For the reasons in IR282-283, he also agrees that the overall level of harm to the Palterton Conservation Area would be minor/moderate and less than substantial in terms of the Framework (IR283). For the reasons in IR284-286, he agrees that a high level of harm would be incurred to the Hardwick and Rowthorne Conservation Area but that it would not breach the threshold of substantial harm to heritage significance (IR286). 13. The Secretary of State notes, like the Inspector, that most of the other heritage assets within a 5km radius of the appeal site would not be significantly affected (IR287). However, for the reasons in IR287, he agrees that the level of harm to setting and consequently heritage significance of Glapwell Farm would be significantly greater than that indicated by the appellant although it would not breach the threshold of substantial harm in terms of the Framework. For the reasons in IR288, he also agrees that the proposed turbines would erode the experience of the setting of the Astwith and Hardstoft Conservation Areas and that this harm needs to be considered in the final balance. 3 Other considerations 14. For the reasons in IR290, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the evidence suggests that walking or riding the paths around Scarcliffe and Stony Houghton would be appreciably less attractive than it is now as a result of the development. As to the visual impact on local occupiers, he agrees that considerations of distance and orientation mean that the visual impact would not be so significant as to conflict with the visual amenity protection aims of the LP or national policy (IR291). Turning to living conditions, he agrees with the Inspector that in no case would turbines be so close or so numerous in the field of view from any dwelling as to significantly overwhelm the occupants or to be overbearing or oppressive to the extent that their dwelling would be an unacceptable place to live, although the effect on the occupiers of Harrison’s Nursery bungalow would be near the cusp of acceptability (IR292).