Wind in their sails

Since the turn of the year there has been quite a lot of news in the Planning world regarding wind farms. Quite frequently suffering from “NIMBY-ism” it is not a surprise that we continue to see more and more applications for solar PV cells (well, over here in East Anglia anyway!). Whilst solar PV appear “in vogue” at the moment, the tests in respect of a grant of planning permission for renewable energy power-plants remain the same. With that in mind, two recent decisions concerning wind farms are of note.

Significant cases

Just over a week ago (and following a public enquiry), planning permission was granted for seven turbines, with associated electricity transformers, access tracks, control buildings and associated paraphernalia, near Southminster in Essex. In originally rejecting the application in 2011 Maldon District Council focused on impacts from noise, landscape and visual impact, residential amenity and impact on cultural heritage. In allowing the appeal The Planning Inspectorate found the proposal would have “only a minor adverse effect on cultural heritage”. In concluding the, accepted, moderate adverse affects of the wind farm were not sufficient to oppose a grant of permission; therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development under the National Planning Policy Framework “kicked-in”.

More recently, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the High Court’s decision to quash a grant planning permission for four turbines on land north of Catshead Woods in Northamptonshire was incorrect after a finding that there was a failure to give considerable weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of nearby heritage buildings. Whilst the facts are highly relevant I will not delve into details, suffice to say the proposed wind farm was within 1.7km of a building with a cultural value of national, if not international significance. In seeking to oppose the grant the local council, English Heritage and the National Trust successfully convinced the Court of Appeal that the Planning Inspector had failed to correctly interpret and apply the policies in Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5).

These two cases reinforce current policy and guidance with regards to development of renewable energy power plants and when there may be grounds for a sufficient challenge based on concerns over impact on cultural heritage. Although there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (i.e. per the Southminster case) decision-makers should give “considerable importance and weight” to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings when carrying out the balancing exercise (per the Catshead Woods case). In this respect, decision-makers should have regard for PPS5 and keep in mind that heritage assets are a non-renewable resource and, also, that decisions are to be based on the nature, extent and level of the importance of the heritage asset.