Pilrow Farm, Land East of M5 and South of A38 Bristol Road
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Michelle Smith Our Ref: APP/V3310/A/13/2197449 Eversheds LLP Your ref: 181122.000003 Bridgewater Place Water Lane Leeds LS11 5DR 31 July 2014 Dear Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (SECTION 78) APPEAL BY BROADVIEW ENERGY LIMITED SITE AT PILROW FARM, LAND EAST OF THE M5 AND SOUTH OF A38 BRISTOL ROAD, ROOKSBRIDGE, AXBRIDGE, SOMERSET APPLICATION REF: 24/12/00018 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Paul Jackson B Arch(Hons) RIBA, who held an inquiry into your client’s appeal under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision of Sedgemoor District Council (“the Council”) to refuse planning permission for an application for planning permission for four wind turbines with a maximum overall height (to vertical blade tip) of up to 130 metres; together with new access tracks, hardstanding areas, anemometry mast, transformers/switchgear kiosks, a control building, cabling, a temporary construction compound, and other works and development ancillary to the main development, dated 22 June 2012, in accordance with application ref: 24/12/00018. 2. The appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination on 14 October 2013, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, following the Secretary of State’s announcement on 10 October 2013 of his intention to consider for recovery appeals for renewable energy developments to enable him to consider the extent to which the new practice guidance referred to in his announcement is meeting the Government’s intentions. Inspector’s recommendation 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 and recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Richard Watson Tel 0303 4441627 Planning Casework Division Email: [email protected] Department for Communities and Local Government Zone 1/H1, Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU 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. In this case, the adopted development plan comprises the Sedgemoor Core Strategy (CS) adopted on 12 October 2011 and the Secretary of State agrees that the most relevant policies for this case are those set out by the Inspector at IR15-22. 5. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) and the planning practice guidance published 6 March 2014; the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3); the Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1); and the Written Ministerial Statements on ‘Local Planning and onshore wind’ (DCLG) and ‘Onshore wind’ (DECC). 6. In accordance with section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Secretary of State has also 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. Procedural Matters 7. The Secretary of State notes that the Councils second reason for refusal relating to the potential for a significant effect on bird populations moving between internationally designated sites was not pursued at the inquiry and that Natural England withdrew their objections (IR4). 8. He also notes that since the close of the inquiry the Court of Appeal issued a judgement on 18 February 2014 in the case of Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited v East Northamptonshire District Council concerning the weight to be attached to harm to listed buildings and the overall balancing exercise that decision makers must undertake. Comments on these cases were invited from the parties and have been taken into account by the Inspector (IR8). 9. Following the close of the inquiry the parties were invited to submit representations on whether the planning guidance published 6 March 2014 affected their case on this appeal. The Secretary of State notes that the Inspector has taken this into account in his report (IR9). Main issues 10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the main considerations are those set out at IR292. Landscape considerations 11. For the reasons given at IR293-IR306, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR305. The Secretary of State acknowledges that the sensitivity of the receiving landscape is increased by the existence of Brent Knoll which largely defines this area of the Levels and that its existence as a conspicuous isolated element also increases the magnitude of the impact of any turbines located near to it, which would compete with and diminish its significance (IR305). The Secretary of State notes the Inspector’s findings with regard to the cumulative landscape impact (IR306). Visual amenity 12. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s analysis (IR307-IR313). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR312) that, although the potential of removing the wind turbines after 25 years is important it does not mitigate for development that would affect the landscape character and visual amenity for a generation. For the reasons given by the Inspector (IR307- IR312) the Secretary of State agrees with his conclusion that there would be significant conflict with the landscape character and visual amenity protection aims of policies D4 and D14 of the CS, the NPPF and planning guidance (IR313). Other matters The effect on heritage matters 13. For the reasons given at IR314-IR319, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR320 that the height and moving blades of the turbines would significantly detract from the ability to appreciate the heritage significance of the hillfort although the magnitude of the effect would be moderate/major and that the harm caused would not amount to ‘substantial harm’ in terms of the Framework (IR320). Residential amenity and living conditions 14. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the evidence and the Inspector’s conclusions on the impacts of the proposals on residential amenity and living conditions (IR321-IR324). The Secretary of State agrees with the observations of the Inspector that many occupiers of individual properties would find their view altered to one of ‘countryside including wind turbines’ or ‘Brent Knoll with wind turbines’ and that most would find the change objectionable compared to their current outlook which despite the presence of the M5 and pylons in some views, is not dominated by man made structures (IR322). In most cases, due to the arrangement of windows, intervening features such as buildings or the M5, distance, vegetation and/or orientation, residential amenity would not be unacceptably affected. Biological diversity and wildlife/nature conservation 15. The Secretary of State has had regard to the evidence (IR325-IR326) on this matter and for the reasons he gives, he agrees with the Inspector that this matter does not weigh against the proposal (IR326). Aviation 16. The Secretary of State notes that a suggested condition requiring aviation lighting (IR327) and the suggested condition requires a physical shield to prevent downward illumination (IR328). For the reasons given by the Inspector the Secretary of State agrees that such lighting would only draw further attention to the height and nature of the turbines and this matter counts against the scheme (IR328). Noise 17. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the matter of noise and for the reasons given by the Inspector he agrees there is no reason to consider that operational noise from the development counts against the scheme (IR329) and that in terms of construction works the short term nature of the construction process and the control available on hours of working suggest these concerns can be acceptably mitigated (IR330). Energy and wind resource 18. The Secretary of State has had regard to the the Inspector’s observations about the energy benefits of the proposal and the level of Government subsidy. He agrees that wide environmental and economic benefits attach to all renewable energy proposals which is a very significant material consideration. TV interference 19. Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State considers that the likelihood of TV interference is very low but should it occur, mitigation measures can be provided and controlled by condition (IR334). Shadow flicker 20. For the reasons given by the Inspector, the Secretary of State agrees that this matter can be controlled by condition and that this matter does not weigh against the scheme (IR334). Foundation and track design 21. The Secretary of State has had regard to the evidence on this matter at IR 335. He agrees with the Inspectors analysis and his conclusion that there is nothing to indicate that the foundation and track designs proposed are unreasonable given what is known from all parties about the ground conditions. He therefore considers this matter does not count against the scheme (IR336). Highway safety 22. The Secretary of State notes that the level of traffic on the A38 is a serious matter of concern to residents of Rooksbridge because this busy road divides the village (IR337). He has had regard to the evidence (IR337-IR340) and for the reasons given by the Inspector and he agrees with his conclusion that there is no evidence that highway safety concerns should prevent the scheme going ahead (IR340) or that the proposals would give rise to an unacceptable risk or disadvantage to anyone (IR341).