Letter Confirming the decision of the Secretary of State to dismiss the appeal thereby confirming that no wind farm is to be constructed at Berrier Hill (near Blencathra, Greystoke, the Lake District National Park, between Penrith and Kendal)
Letter Confirming the decision of the Secretary of State to dismiss the appeal thereby confirming that no wind farm is to be constructed at Berrier Hill (near Blencathra, Greystoke, the Lake District National Park, between Penrith and Kendal) |
|
28 June 2010
Karen Elliott
West Coast Energy Ltd
The Long Barn
Waen Farm
Nercwys Road
Mold
Flintshire
CH7 4EW
Our Ref: APP/H0928/A/2093290
Your Ref:
Dear Madam,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78
APPEAL BY BERRIER HILL WIND ENERGY LTD
AT LAND AT BERRIER HILL, GREYSTOKE ESTATE, GREYSTOKE, NR
PENRITH, CUMBRIA
APPLICATION: REF 3/07/0636
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given
to the report of the Inspector, Andrew Pykett, BSc(Hons) PhD MRTPI, who held a
public local inquiry between 8 September 2009 and 23 February 2010 into your
client's appeal for non-determination of an application by Eden District Council for
construction of a windfarm comprising 9 turbines, substation, access tracks and
ancillary development at land at Berrier Hill, Greystoke Estate, Greystoke, nr
Penrith, Cumbria, in accordance with application number 3/7/0636, dated 3rd
August 2007.
2. On 3 February 2009, 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 because the appeal 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 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 stated, 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.
Procedural Matters
4. Like the Inspector (IR4), the Secretary of State has taken into account the
Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country
Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations
1999, as well as the Further Environmental Information submitted in June 2009.
The Secretary of State is content that the Environmental Statement, as
supplemented, complies with the above regulations and that sufficient information
has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the appeal.
5. Like the Inspector, the Secretary of State has taken account of the matters set
out at IR2 – 3. He shares the Inspector’s view (IR3) that no party was prejudiced
in relation to the notification of inquiry arrangements.
6. At the inquiry an application for costs against the appellant was made by Eden
District Council. That application is the subject of a separate decision letter.
Matters arising after the close of the inquiry
7. Following the close of the inquiry, the Secretary of State received a letter dated
29 March 2010 from Eversheds LLP. The Secretary of State has given careful
consideration to this letter, but does not consider that it raises any new issues
which require him to refer back to parties before reaching a decision. A copy of
the letter is available from the address at the foot of the first page of this letter.
Policy considerations
8. In deciding the application, 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 Regional Strategy for the North
West (RS) published in 2008; the Eden Core Strategy (CS), adopted on 31 March
2010 (after the close of the inquiry); saved parts of the Cumbria and Lake District
Joint Structure Plan 2001-2016 adopted in 2006 (SP), and saved parts of the
Eden Local Plan adopted in 1996 (LP). The Secretary of State considers that the
development plan policies most relevant to the appeal are: those set out by the
Inspector at IR15 – 20; policy NE1 of the LP; and objectives 2 and 11 and
policies CS1, CS16 and CS20 within the CS. For the reasons given at IR21, he
shares the Inspector’s view (IR161) that LP policy NE3 can have little applicability
in the determination of this case.
10. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into
account include: Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable
Development and its supplement Planning and Climate Change; PPS7:
Sustainable Development in Rural Areas; PPS22: Renewable Energy and its
companion guide Planning for Renewable Energy; PPG24: Planning and Noise;
Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permission; the Landscape
Institute’s Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2002);
Cumbria Wind Energy (2007); Cumbria Landscape Classification (1995); the
Lake District National Park Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines
(2008); The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009); EU Directive 2009/28/EC on
the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources; and the North West
Sustainable Energy Strategy (2006).
11. In reaching his decision the Secretary of State has taken into account as a
material consideration his letter of 27 May 2010 to Council Leaders. This letter
stated “I am writing to you today to highlight our commitment in the coalition
agreements where we very clearly set out our intention to rapidly abolish
Regional Strategies and return decision making powers on housing and planning
to local councils. Consequently, decisions on housing supply (including the
provision of travellers sites) will rest with Local Planning Authorities without the
framework of regional numbers and plans. I will make a formal announcement on
this matter soon. However, I expect Local Planning Authorities and the Planning
Inspectorate to have regard to this letter as a material planning consideration in
any decisions they are currently taking.”
12. The Secretary of State does not consider it necessary to refer back to parties on
the implications of his letter of 27 May before he determines this particular
appeal. His conclusions on the merits of the proposal, and his judgement that the
very clear planning balance in this case is such that the appeal should be
dismissed and planning permission refused, is set out below. As noted by the
Inspector (IR186), both RS policy EM17 and SP policy R44 are the policies most
directly relevant to the appeal scheme and both seek to promote the growth of
renewable energy schemes, and also require that due consideration is given to
any adverse effects on landscape character, visual effects and local amenity.
Main issues
13. The Secretary of State considers that the main issues in this case are those
identified by the Inspector at IR120.
The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the
surrounding area, taking account of its proximity to the Lake District National Park
14. Having taken account of the Inspector’s remarks at IR123 – 131, the Secretary of
State agrees that the area in which the appeal site lies cannot be considered in
isolation from the Northern Fells to the west, and that the creation of a new
landscape sub-type would radically alter the landscape character of virtually the
whole of landscape sub-type 12c (IR131). He also shares the view of the
Inspector (IR131) that the alteration resulting from the installation of the proposed
wind farm would have a substantial impact on the character of the receiving
landscape.
15. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR133 – 147
and agrees with his conclusion that the proposed development would have a
variety of effects in terms of visual impact and that it is in the middle-distance that
these would be most harmful (IR147). In particular, for the reasons given by the
Inspector at IR136 - 137, the Secretary of State shares his view that, from the
A66 in the vicinity of Highgate Farm, the scheme would severely compromise the
appearance and role of the foothills (IR136), and that it would have a major
adverse visual impact on the scene, resulting in significant harm (IR137). He
also agrees with the Inspector that from Fort Putnam the scheme would severely
mar the quality of the view towards Blencathra and its associated fells (IR138),
and that from the vantage points identified at IR140 the turbines would severely
harm a memorable and inspiring prospect (IR140). In relation to views from
lower altitude locations on the fells to the west, the Secretary of State agrees with
the Inspector that, from the locations identified at IR146, the effect of the scheme
would be seriously harmful (IR146).
16. In terms of cumulative impact, the Secretary of State sees no reason to disagree
with the Inspector that the wind-farm at Warrells Hill, together with others nearer
the coast, and the single turbine near Hesket Newmarket are not sufficiently
close to the appeal site to result in the scheme having an adverse cumulative
impact (IR149). He observes that the Grise windfarm appeal (reference APP/
H0928/A/09/2093576) was dismissed on 15 March 2010 and, given this, the
Secretary of State has taken no account of the Inspector’s remarks at IR150 –
152, IR154 – 156 and IR185 on the Grise scheme and the cumulative visual
impacts of the two wind-farms. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector
that the existence of the radio masts of Skelton Transmitter Station should not be
ignored and that these make their own substantial contribution to the baseline
prospect from Carrock Fell (IR153). Overall, the Secretary of State concludes
that the cumulative visual effect of the appeal scheme when taken together with
the radio masts adds only slightly to the harm he has found in relation to the
appeal scheme alone.
17. The Secretary of State has had regard to IR157 – 161 in relation to landscape
policy. For the reasons given by the Inspector (IR158), he concludes that the
scheme should be construed as an impact on the National Park itself, and he
shares the Inspector’s view that the scheme would conflict with the advice in
Lake District National Park Landscape Character Assessment and Guidelines
(IR159), and with RS policy EM1, including EM1(A) (IR160), and paragraphs 2, 3
and 8 of SP policy E37 and LP policy NE1 (IR161). The Secretary of State
further concludes that the scheme would conflict with CS objective 2, point 12 of
policy CS1, and policy CS16.
The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of local residents
resulting from its visual impact
18. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s comments and analysis
at IR163 – 170. For the reasons given in those paragraphs, he agrees with the
Inspector that, although the significant effects identified by the appellant would
constitute an adverse impact in terms of the visual amenities enjoyed by the
occupants concerned, the resultant harm would be limited and would not result in
serious harm to living conditions (IR171). The Secretary of State shares the
Inspector’s view that only limited conflict arises with the relevant references to
local amenity in RS policy EM17 and SP policy R44 (IR171), and he is of the
same opinion in respect of the reference to local amenity in CS policy CS20. Like
the Inspector, he concludes that the development would not result in
unacceptable living conditions (IR171).
Whether, taking account of the relevant targets, any harm resulting from the above
considerations would be outweighed by the benefits of renewable energy generation
19. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s analysis at IR172 – 177 and
observes that there is no dispute amongst the principal parties that the scheme
would result in savings in emissions (IR173). He shares the Inspector’s view that
national and development plan policies are such that the landscape and visual
effect of a scheme is capable of outweighing its environmental and other benefits
(IR177).
20. In common with the Inspector (IR178), the Secretary of State concludes that, in
the circumstances of this particular case, the benefits offered by the scheme
outweigh the limited harm he has identified at paragraph 18 above in relation to
the scheme’s effects on living conditions. For the reasons given by the Inspector
at IR179 - 184, and in the light of his conclusions at paragraphs 14 - 17 above,
the Secretary of State concludes that the harm which the scheme would cause is
on a sufficiently substantial scale to clearly outweigh its benefits (IR184). For the
reasons given by the Inspector at IR186 - 187 and given his conclusions at
paragraphs 14 - 17 above, the Secretary of State also takes the view that the
scheme conflicts with the advice in Cumbria Wind Energy and with RS policy
EM17, and SP policy R44. He also concludes that, for the same reasons, the
scheme would conflict with CS policy CS20.
21. The Secretary of State has already recorded his view that the scheme would
conflict with RS policies EM1 and EM1A, SP policy E37, LP policy NE1, CS
objective 2, and CS policies CS1 and CS16. For the reasons given by the
Inspector at IR188, the Secretary of State agrees with his conclusion that the
scheme would not fully comply with RS policy DP1, that it would conflict with
policy DP7 and that it would conform with policy DP9. He further agrees with the
Inspector (IR190b) that, by reason of its location, scale and design, the scheme
would seriously harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
22. Overall, like the Inspector (IR189), the Secretary of State concludes that the harm
he has identified in this case would clearly outweigh the benefits of renewable
energy generation.
Conditions
23. The Secretary of State has considered the proposed conditions and the
Inspector’s comments on these at IR106 - 119. He is satisfied that the conditions
recommended in the Inspector’s schedule are reasonable and necessary and
meet the tests of Circular 11/95. However, these conditions do not overcome the
Secretary of State’s reasons for dismissing the appeal.
Overall Conclusions
24. The Secretary of State has concluded that the appeal is not in accordance with
the development plan. He also concludes that the application is not in
accordance with national policy in PPS22. Whilst the Secretary of State
attributes significant weight to the wider environmental benefit of the appeal
proposal as a renewable energy project, overall he concludes that the material
considerations are not of sufficient weight to determine the appeal other than in
accordance with the development plan.
Formal Decision
25. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby dismisses your client's appeal and
refuses planning permission for construction of a windfarm comprising 9 turbines,
substation, access tracks and ancillary development at land at Berrier Hill,
Greystoke Estate, Greystoke, nr Penrith, Cumbria, in accordance with application
number 3/7/0636, dated 3rd August 2007.
Right to challenge the decision
26. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of
the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged by making an application to
the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter.
27. A copy of this letter and the Inspector’s full report has been sent to Eden District
Council. All parties who appeared at the inquiry are being sent copies of this
letter and a copy of the Inspector’s conclusions.
Yours faithfully
Christine Symes
Authorised by Secretary of State to sign in that behalf