Graham Bolton Our Ref: APP/A3010/A/13/2201459 The Graham Bolton Planning Partnership Ltd Your Ref: 06/2497/PA/CI Onward Buildings 207 Deansgate Manchester M3 3NW 21 October 2014 Dear Sir, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY JG PEARS (NEWARK) LTD MARNHAM ROAD, LOW MARNHAM, NEWARK, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE, NG23 6SL - APPLICATION REF 30/11/00005 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Mrs K A Ellison BA MPhil MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry on 14-17, 21-23 and 30 January 2014 into your client's appeal against a decision of Bassetlaw District Council (the Council) to refuse planning permission for a biomass fuelled combined heat and power plant, auxiliary boilers, product silos, new offices, revised trailer and car parking, associated facilities, landscaping and internal circulation roads at Marnham Road, Low Marnham, Newark, Nottinghamshire, NG23 6SL in accordance with application reference 30/11/00005 dated 20 December 2011. 2. On 20 December 2013 the appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 to Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the grounds that it involves 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 planning permission be granted subject to conditions. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions and agrees with her recommendation. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. James Henderson Tel: 0303 444 1632 Planning Casework Division Email: [email protected] Department for Communities and Local Government SE Quarter, 3rd Floor, Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Procedural matters 4. In reaching this position the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement (ES) which was submitted in December 2011 and the revised Environmental Statement (revised ES) submitted in August 2012 (IR26). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR235) that the revised ES provides adequate information on the likely main impacts of the proposed development and the mitigation measures that may be required so that it is adequate and meets the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. 5. Having had regard to the Inspector’s comments at IR4, the Secretary of State agrees with her that the notification procedure referred to in that paragraph was carried out in accordance with the spirit of the Inquiries Procedure Rules and that no prejudice has been caused to parties with an interest in the appeal. Matters arising after the close of the inquiry 6. The Secretary of State wrote on 11 July 2014 to the main inquiry parties, inviting comment on the implications for this case of the Court of Appeal decision in Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited v East Northamptonshire District Council and others [2014] EWCA Civ 137. The responses received were circulated to the main parties for further comment on 28 July 2014. In coming to his decision on the appeal before him the Secretary of State has taken into account the representations received in this respect, which are listed at Annex A to this letter. 7. The Secretary of State is also in receipt of the following correspondence received following the close of the inquiry: J V Machin dated 9 April; J V Machin dated 23 April; Charles Low dated 20 May; and from yourself on behalf of your client dated 22 September 2014. He has carefully considered these representations but does not consider that they raise new matters that would affect his decision. Copies of the representations referred to in paragraphs 6 and 7 can be provided on application to the address at the bottom of the first page of this letter. Policy considerations 8. 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. 9. In this case the development plan comprises the Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (CSDMP) which was adopted in 2011. The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies most relevant to the appeal are those identified by the Inspector at IR14-19. 10. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); the planning guidance; the National Policy Statements, the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy (EN-3); the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment; and the CIL regulations. 11. 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 proposals before him or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. Main issues 12. The Secretary of State considers that the main issues in this case are those identified by the Inspector at IR236. Landscape character and visual impact 13. For the reasons given by the Inspector at IR237-242 the Secretary of State agrees with her view at IR243 that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’s conclusion that the landscape is of medium sensitivity, which is in line with that of the Landscape Character Assessment, provides an appropriate basis for the evaluation of landscape effects. He also agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons given at IR244-246 that, in weakening the landscape pattern, the proposal would have a moderately adverse effect on its character (IR246). The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s assessment of visual effects at IR247-257 and, on the issue of external lighting associated with the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant, agrees that this would not materially add to the visibility of the overall site in the landscape except for the chimney (IR257). Having also had regard to the Inspector’s comments at IR258-263, the Secretary of State agrees with her conclusion at IR263 that, despite measures to mitigate the impact, the proposal would exert an urbanising influence on this rural landscape, to the detriment of the pastoral character of the policy zone and it would fail to demonstrate compatibility with policies to safeguard landscape character, as sought by CSDMP policy DM10A(i) Effect on the heritage interest of listed buildings 14. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions regarding the effect on the heritage interest of listed buildings at IR264-274. In terms of the Grade 1 listed St Wilfrid’s Church, he notes that, having viewed the church and its surroundings, the Inspector sees no reason to take issue with the analysis of its significance provided by the appellant (IR265). The Secretary of State has also taken into account the response of English Heritage when consulted about the proposed Thermal Oxidiser that the existing factory with its associated chimneys is recognised as already having had a harmful impact (IR266). 15. The Secretary of State has given careful consideration to the Inspector’s assessment on views in respect of St Wilfrid’s at IR267-270, and has taken into account the concern of Pears Action Group (PAG) that, because the CHP plant would intrude into several different views of and from the church, there is a risk of cumulative harm (IR272). He agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion at IR272 that, although the effect on the more important views close to the church would be offset to some extent by a reduction in ambient noise levels, particular harm to the setting would arise with regard to the medium distance views of the church in relation to the village, especially from the south (IR272). However, he has also taken into account the Inspector’s view that the high quality interior of St Wilfrid’s, which has been identified as the key element of heritage interest would not be affected by the proposal and that there was general agreement that the harm to significance would be less than substantial in the terms of Framework paragraph 134. With regards The Grange, for the reasons given at IR271 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there would some harm to its immediate environs (IR272). 16. For the reasons given by the Inspector, like her, the Secretary of State does not agree with the appellant’s argument that CSDMP policy DM8 is not wholly consistent with the Framework and should attract less weight (IR273). Overall he agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the church and the farmhouse, but would nevertheless be contrary to LP policy DM8. The Secretary of State has come to his conclusions on this matter taking into account his duties in the LB Act as set out in paragraph 11 above and attaches considerable weight and importance to the harm he has identified to the St Wilfrid’s Church and the Grange. Living conditions 17. Having had regard to the Inspector’s comments at IR275-276, the Secretary of State, like the Inspector, acknowledges the wealth of evidence from PAG and local residents that living conditions have already suffered as a consequence of the existing operation (IR276).