1 Catsfield Manor, Church Road, Catsfield, Battle, East Sussex

Catsfield Manor, Church Road, Catsfield, Battle, East Sussex, TN33 9BG
RR/2015/1745/P: CATSFIELD
INSTALLATION OF SOLAR FARM AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRICITY
INFRASTRUCTURE (WITH A POTENTIAL CAPACITY OF 3.8MW AT ITS PEAK
CONTENTS SUMMARY
1. THE SETTING OF HERITAGE ASSETS AND HISTORIC LANDSCAPE
CHARACTERISATION
i)
Consultant's failure to use the correct Historic England Good Practice Advice in
Planning (issued 25 March 2015) on the setting of heritage assets, meaning the
heritage statement is an unreliable document and cannot be relied upon to make
the decision (first advised in March 2015 but not reported to the Committee);
ii)
Consultant's failure to describe Historic Landscape Characterisation correctly or
consistently within the desktop study (first advised in March 2015 but not
reported to Committee);
iii)
New Planning Inspectorate appeal decision (18 May 2015) concerning solar
farms and the setting of heritage assets, which means the current approach
adopted by the heritage consultant and accepted uncritically within the
Committee Report cannot be sustained.
2. MISLEADING REPRESENTATION OF RIDGELINE CONTOURS
No 60m AOD ridgeline running E-W in western field. Western part of western field does not
exceed 54m AOD. Panels located on top of hilltop in eastern field, where local spot height of
69m AOD. This field known as "High Field" in 1839 Tithe. Panels located above identified
localised ridgeline of 60m AOD in eastern field. Wide historic skyline gap between ancient
woodland shaws in eastern field (Location of Aspect Viewpoint 5 misleading).
1
3. INCONSISTENT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE SCALE AND DETAILS
OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE APPLICATION DOCUMENTS
Details of application inconsistent throughout application documents.
Aspect Landscape
Assessment Addendum (July 2015) states intention and effect of relocation of solar array
from ridgeline on western field to ridgeline on eastern field is to maintain a 5 mega watt
capacity. Previous advised spacing 3-4m between panels; current proposed spacing 2m
between panels. Site Selection Process document outdated and not related to these proposals.
Inconsistent advice as to viability thresholds.
4. PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD THROUGH ANCIENT WOODLAND
Permission to develop an access road through the ancient woodland would breach national
policy requiring 15m buffer zone between any development and ancient woodland, as advised
in March 2014 Screening Opinion decision. This is not an issue that has been highlighted by
the applicant or identified by the officer.
5. DISREGARD FOR PREVIOUS DECISION REASONING: AS SET OUT IN THE
COUNCIL'S AUGUST 2015 APPEAL STATEMENT APP/U1430/W/15/3033695
(RR/2015/142/P) - ATTACHED AS APPENDIX 8
Reasoning for previous decision to refuse application to develop a solar installation within
this particular landscape, as set out in the LPA's August 2015 Appeal Statement for the
Planning Inspectorate, has clearly had no impression on the drafting of the Committee Report.
Content of Committee Report in direct conflict with content of Appeal Statement, in
particular regarding identification of fine "idyllic" landscape quality of the location and
surroundings in Appeal Statement; advice this landscape provides context for AONB and is
therefore part of the setting of the AONB; advice mitigation screening cannot be relied upon
and does not mitigate harm of introduction of industrial solar installation into this scene.
Officers appear to be recommending Members of the Planning Committee disregard
reasoning for previous refusal, as set out in Appeal Statement with policy support.
2
6. INCONSISTENT REASONING INDICATING OFFICER PREDISPOSITION TO
RECOMMEND APPROVAL IN THE COMMITTEE REPORTS
Officers previously advised confinement of industrial installation to one field caused less
harm. Officers now advise subdivision of installation between two fields causes less harm.
Changed advice indicative of predisposition to recommend approval in all circumstances.
Wording from previous Committee Report copied exactly but for this altered reasoning, for
example reference to significant reduction in scale as applied to 24ha to 11.1ha reduction not
current proposal to move array from ridge on western field onto ridge on eastern field.
7. OTHER ISSUES, as raised in previous objections:
- Cumulative Impact of major electricity infrastructure on this part of the Parish of Catsfield,
threatened loss of all open views across open countryside from Footpath 21; inconsistencies
between officer advice, again indicative of officer predisposition to recommend approval.
- Biodiversity Survey
8. APPENDICES
3
THE SETTING OF HERITAGE ASSETS AND HISTORIC LANDSCAPE
CHARACTERISATION
1. Three issues are addressed:
iv)
Consultant's failure to use the correct Historic England Good Practice
Advice on setting, meaning the heritage statement is an unreliable
document and cannot be relied upon to make the decision (Appendix 1);
v)
Consultant's failure to describe Historic Landscape Characterisation
correctly or consistently within the desktop study;
vi)
New appeal decision concerning solar farms and the setting of heritage
assets, which means the current approach adopted by the officer cannot be
sustained (Appendix 12)
(i) and (ii) were brought to the officer's attention in our objections in March 2015 and
in our appeal statement of 17 August 2015 but have been ignored, as the Committee
Report is a virtual facsimile of the previous report.
(iii) is a new issue and relates to an appeal decision dated 18 May 2015.
The
paragraph on recent appeal decisions in the Planning Committee report has not been
revised since the April meeting.
2. At the last Planning Committee meeting, members were advised by the officer no
reference to heritage issues can be made in a decision notice because previous
decision notices drafted by officers did not refer to heritage matters and could give
rise to costs. Members did refer to heritage impact in oral discussion leading to the
decision to refuse the first application, discussion opening with the impact on Tilton,
and reasons for refusal should not in any case be restricted in the interests of fairness
and justice. Further, the three heritage considerations are all new issues: either new
because they were not brought to the Committee's attention on previous occasions by
the officer (Historic England Good Practice Advice and flaws in Historic Landscape
4
Characterisation) and/or because the issue has arisen since April 2015 (Appeal
Decision).
Historic England Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of
Heritage Assets (25 March 2015)
3. The consultant's report was written in February 2015 and was submitted with the
previous refused scheme.
It did not reference the consultation version of the new
Good Practice Advice Note, published in draft in November 2014. The report refers
to and cites in the bibliography the now archived English Heritage 2011 guidance on
setting which is no longer usable and cannot be relied upon in sound decision-making.
Since March 2015, the 2011 guidance has been cancelled and archived, accessible on
request for information purposes only.
4. We have appended as Appendix 1 a copy of the Historic England document and
trust on this occasion its existence and the consultant's failure to apply its guidance
will not be ignored.
If alternative methodologies are to be adopted which do not follow the Practice
Advice, Historic England advises this is permissible but these alterative
methodologies should be evidenced to be methodologies demonstrably compliant
with national policy and guidance [ NPPF (2012) / PPG (2014) ]. Therefore, in most
cases, the Practice Advice will be followed.
Historic Landscape Characterisation [HLC]
5. We drew attention to the inconsistencies and flaws in the HLC in our previous
objection in March and appeal submission in August.
The Committee report is
unaffected and there is no reference to the flawed HLC within the report.
6. The consultant acknowledged HLC can be harmed by solar arrays.
7. The consultant argues the landscape is modern in origin (post 1800) and of
negligible significance. We pointed out the presence of ancient woodland (1600 or
5
earlier), pre-historic, Romano-British and medieval remains meaning the HLC is not
of modern origin. Tilton Farm is of medieval origin. Tilton Wood, though not
recorded as ancient woodland, of pre-1800 origin.
8. The heritage assessment is in any case internally inconsistent as it recognises from
the 1839 Tithe Map:
"The presence of woodland at the field boundaries and the irregularity of the field
boundaries are thought to indicate that the fields within the site were created as a
result of woodland clearance (assarting) which may have occurred in the medieval
period." [4.27]
before concluding, perversely given the identification of assarting, the landscape is of
purely modern origin (informal fieldscapes, as opposed to assarts). Some internal
field boundaries have been removed since 1839 but many boundary elements survive,
including the ancient woodland boundary elements. The HLC remains legible from
these extant elements.
9. The Sussex Historic Landscape Characterisation study (2014) identifies the
character type of "Sussex Assart or Ancient Enclosure Fields" and defines "assart
wood" as: "woodland from which small assart or ancient clearances have been made
from "the woodland left behind" fall within the general definition of Ancient seminatural woodlands"; and "gill" as "narrow, sinuous woodland occupying narrow
valleys often associated with assart woodlands and shaws".
Impact on HLC of the proposal
10. Both the industrial installation itself and the mitigation screening would damage
the HLC and this, in turn, would damage the setting of heritage assets.
6
Proposals to infill the established historic skyline between the ancient woodland
parcels with "extensive" new woodland screening belts, listed at 4.5 of the Officer
Report, would seriously damage the HLC and its legibility1.
Adversely impacted views:
11. The officer comments at 6.15.2 the proposed mitigation screening would
"eradicate" the current views of the landscape that can be obtained from public
vantage points.
The intention is to block views into the site from the public footpaths to the south and
north and from Tilton and its grounds.
12. Concerning the views from the north, threatened solely as the developer proposes
to position a solar installation on a ridge above an unspoilt stream valley:
In relation to the eastern field, the historic form of the ancient woodland enclosing the
ridge top lying above 60m AOD (showing spot height 69m central to the panels)
shows no alteration since the 1839 Tithe Map, used by the consultant to identify the
HLC of medieval assarting: see Appendix 2. The tithe map lists the two areas of
woodland as "shaw" and the arable field on the ridge in between the shaws appropriately named "High Field" - as plots 270, 299 and 300 within Tilton Farm.
The intention is to site the solar installation on the area of "High Field" and join up
the two parcels of ancient woodland shaw with mitigation screening, leading to loss of
the historic form of the landscape and view.
In relation to the western field, the fine appearance of the narrow strip of ancient
woodland following the ridge N-S receding into the distance, illustrated in Appendix
3 as viewed from the Catsfield Road footpath, is also key to the stream valley's
1
Attention is drawn to paragraph 42 of the Appeal Decision dated 2 June 2014
[APP/D3505/A/13/2204846] for a directly comparable assessment by an Inspector where it was stated:
"hedge screening along the site boundaries would reduce the site's openness and create a sense of
enclosure. As a consequence it would detract from the character of the immediate area by blocking
views of Ancient Woodland and wider landscape."
7
landscape character and quality. This fine view would also be lost/obscured by the
introduction of a woodland screening belt across the ridge E-W.
13. It is the ridgeline and these views from the north which are particularly related to
the wider setting of designated heritage assets, matters which should now be taken
into consideration following the publication of the new Historic England Practice
Guide and following the appeal decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2228679 (below).
APPEAL DECISION APP/Y3940/A/14/2228679: DATED 18 MAY 2015
14. The circumstances were similar to the general position as regards determinations
on this site. The Planning Committee had not followed the officer's recommendation
to approve the solar application. The Inspector dismissed the appeal against the
Committee's decision. The Inspector noted that:
"In dealing with this [the effect that the development would have on the setting of the
heritage assets in the area] in the report to committee the emphasis is placed upon
archaeological implications of the proposed development. While the EH advice is
noted, it seems to me that the conclusions of the appellant's archaeological and
heritage assessment are uncritically accepted".
That is undoubtedly the case here also, with the officer transcribing parts of the
consultant's conclusions into the report and uncritically reporting the consultant's
findings, without variation even when the Heritage Assessment is a document which
objectors have evidenced is factually and procedurally flawed.
15. The particular significance of the appeal decision is the solar farm was found to
cause limited harm to the setting of designated heritage assets lying at a far greater
distance from the application site than the heritage consultant and the officer
following has identified in this case and this limited harm had to be accorded great
weight in the decision in accordance with s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Area) Act 1990.
16. This decision has two implications:
8
(i) the impact of the development on the setting of heritage assets in the vicinity of the
application site cannot be confined only to those heritage assets in very close
proximity to the site, irrespective of whether there is a considerable separation
distance and screening afforded by the intervening topography and planting and preexisting loss of historic landscape features within the application site;
(ii) it cannot be concluded the application site does not fall within the setting, for
heritage purposes, of Tilton on the basis the industrial solar array is screened from
Tilton (which is disputed in any case) and does not form part of its current curtilage
(the occupier of Tilton no longer owning and farming the field). As the application
site does inevitably form part of the setting for heritage purposes of Tilton, it cannot
be argued the development would cause the heritage asset "no harm".
17. Correct application of the Historic England Guidance on the Setting of Heritage
Assets for Planning (published March 2015, reissued in new format July 2015) and
PPG Reference ID: 18a-013-20140306 "What is the setting of a heritage asset and
how should it be taken into account?" would result in the same conclusions as the
Inspector found.
18. In respect of the setting of designated heritage assets, the critical issue is the
impact on the historic landscape character of the fine stream valley to the north of the
development, through which the footpath leading from St Lawrence Church (Grade
II*) and the AONB passes. Views to and from this ridgeline are obtained: to the
spires of St Lawrence Church and the Methodist Church (Grade II) held within one
panorama from the ridge looking over Catsfield; to the ridgeline from the stream
valley; and to the ridgeline from the footpath leading from St Lawrence Church and
passing through the valley to the north to join the Catsfield Road path. These views
are shown at Appendix 4. The proposal threatens to develop an industrial installation
on the hilltop and to introduce mitigation screening to obscure the historic skyline and
landform.
19. Further, the heritage assessment is dated February 2015 and relates to the previous
application. The consultant states there would be no harm to designated assets in the
9
vicinity for the following reason: "This report has assessed potential effects of the
development upon the settings and significance of designated heritage assets located
within the wider environs of the site. It has been established that due to the location
of the site on south and west facing slopes and the extensive woodland cover within its
surroundings, the proposed development would not adversely affect the settings and
the significance of designated heritage assets." [6.14, emphasis supplied] Therefore
the heritage consultant did not conclude development on the open ridgeline above
Catsfield Stream valley would cause the setting of designated heritage assets in the
vicinity "no harm". Contrary to the heritage consultant's assumption, of course, the
impact of the development proposals (current and previous) is not confined to the
southern/western slopes. The current application proposes to site a solar installation
on top of the localised ridge in the eastern field, including around the spot height of
69m AOD and all above 60m AOD (identified by Aspect as the height of the localised
ridgeline). The suggested confinement of the panels in the western field below a
localised ridgeline of 60m AOD is flawed as no ridgeline 60m AOD crosses the field
E-W (see below).
20. In respect of Tilton, we have set these issues out at length on previous occasions,
shown at Appendix 5. The officer and the heritage consultant have accepted this
heritage asset as a likely omission from the National Heritage List. The appeal site
formed part of Tilton Farm, itself formerly part of the manorial lands and of medieval
origin, with a relationship of continuous settlement with the surrounding landscape,
visible in the HLC. The only reason why the consultant argued the development
would cause Tilton "no harm" is that the application site did not form part of the
setting of Tilton for heritage purposes and therefore its development could cause it no
harm. The Appeal Decision makes clear the land cannot be considered to be outside
the setting of Tilton simply because it is not a working farmhouse now and is
separated by some overgrown garden bushes/trees and a hedge from the surrounding
landscape.
10
MISLEADING REPRESENTATION OF RIDGELINE CONTOURS
21. The Aspect Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment - Addendum (July 2015)
states at 2.4:
"The improved set back from the northern field boundary ensures that the proposed
PV arrays do not extend further north beyond the 54m AOD contour and as such will
be set well back from the existing northern field boundary and localised ridgeline of
approximately 60m AOD. This seeks to respond to respond directly to previous
concerns regarding visibility from the north, and allows the intervening topography
and localised ridgeline to completely restrict views of the proposed arrays and
perimeter fencing from the north / north east".
22. Illustration Viewpoint 5 in the Assessment labels the western field: "Western part
of the application site located entirely beyond the localised ridgeline and higher
ground of the field."
23. However, the 60m AOD ridgeline does not run E-W across the western field and
land 54m AOD is not located beyond a 60m AOD ridgeline. The ridgeline is centred
around the spot height 69m in the eastern field. On the western side of the western
field, the AOD heights do not rise above 54m AOD. So there is no intervening
ridgeline between the footpaths to the north / north west (over Eastlands Farm and on
Catsfield Road) and the development.
24. In contrast, the entirety of the proposed solar array is positioned above the
referenced localised ridgeline contour of 60m AOD in the eastern field, rising to the
local spot height 69m AOD. The proposed array compound occupies a hilltop. All
elements of the development would be seen on the ridge here from the stream valley:
panels, container building, fencing and CCTVs. The eastern field is the higher field.
25. Aspect state "the extent of PV arrays removed from this northern most section
have been relocated within to the northern part of eastern field to maintain the 5MW
capacity whilst being set within the most highly contained part of the eastern field and
surrounded by established woodland belts."
11
26. But this ridgeline is not contained by the woodland when viewed from the north
(public footpaths) or north east (stream valley), only when viewed from the east
(partly). There are no "occasional gaps" just one wide 50m skyline gap to the 69m
spot height between the ancient woodland shaws, which is not a "glimpsed or
occasional" view of the development as cited in the Landscape Assessment and
uncritically accepted in the Committee Report.
27. Viewpoint 5 in the Aspect Assessment is taken from a point of the public footpath
running through Eastlands Farm where trees surrounding the lake in the stream valley
rise into the 50m gap, which gives the appearance of the ridge gap being smaller than
it is.
28. Photographs of the skyline gap around the 69m spot height (i) from within the
unspoilt stream valley to the south, (ii) from the footpath running through Eastlands
Farm and (iii) from the Catsfield Road footpath are appended as Appendix 4.
29. Only sensitively positioned solar farms are supported by planning policy and
insensitively placed installations are specifically identified as unacceptable in policy
and ministerial statements (PPG). Siting an industrial installation/form on top of a
valley ridgeline and against a skyline, requiring mitigation screening to then block out
the ridge skyline, is self-evidently not sensitive placing and unnecessarily extends the
zone of visual impact to land on either side of the ridge, here the unspoilt fine
Catsfield Stream valley.
Neither St Francis Farm nor Pashley Farm involved
development on ridgelines against skylines.
INCONSISTENT
INFORMATION
CONCERNING
THE
SCALE
AND
DETAILS OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE APPLICATION DOCUMENTS
30. The following discrepancy found within the application documents was raised in
our appeal submission dated 17 August 2015 but no explanation by the applicant has
yet been provided, or sought by the officer, either in the appellant's final comments or
on the current application case correspondence file.
12
31. The application is described as "Installation of solar farm and associated
infrastructure (with a potential capacity of 3.8 mega watts of electricity at its peak)."
However, within Aspect's Supplementary Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
(July 2015) it is very clearly stated under "Revised Proposals":
"As with the second application, the proposed solar PV scheme aims to deliver
approximately 5MWp of electricity"
and
"The extent of PV arrays removed from this northern most section have been
relocated within the northern part of eastern field to maintain the 5MW capacity"
[2.1 and 2.5].
32. This is a very specific statement in a new addendum document dated July 2015
by Aspect consultancy that the intention and effect of relocation of the northern
section of the western field to the northern ridge top on the eastern field is to maintain
a 5MW capacity.
It is not part of an old document and cannot be explained as such: it is a document
specifically created for the current application.
33. When one looks at the detail of the differences in the installations, it emerges that
the details within the application documents are inconsistent, partly because many
documents are old and relate to the earlier refused schemes and partly because DLP
Planning advises about the installation details inconsistently in application documents
and these inconsistencies have been reported undetected to the Planning Committee.
34. The previous proposed scheme was described in the Officer's Report of April
2015 as: "The whole site now has an area of 11.1 hectares, previously 24 hectares.
The field area for the panels, excluding the 5m buffer to the fence, covers 5.85
hectares with only 3.3 hectares actually covered by the panels. A space of 3-4m is left
13
between the rows of panels to ensure there is no overshadowing and to allow space
for sheep to graze and the grass and wildflower mix to grow" [5.2]; "The solar panels
are to be located within the field arranged in east-west rows tilted southwards at
approximately 25 degrees" [5.4].
35. The current proposed scheme is described in the Officer's Report as: "The whole
site now has an area of 9.28 hectares, previously 11.1. hectares (and prior to that 24
ha). The ground area covered by the panels and other structures, excluding the 5m
buffer to the fence, is 4.55 hectares. A clear space of 2m is left between the rows of
panels. The solar panels, facing south, are spread out across the field with sufficient
gaps around the boundaries and between panels to avoid shading, provide space for
additional landscaping, for access and security and to allow grass to grow beneath
the panels to enable sheep to be grazed" [4.4]; "The solar panels are to be located
within the two fields arranged in east-west rows tilted southwards at approximately
25 degrees." [4.6]
36. For both applications, the solar panel installation plan details remain unchanged
showing a 2.5m gap (not 3-4m (April report) or 2m (September report)).
37. For the previous proposed scheme, the DAS stated there would be 2.5m between
each row [5.5], not 3-4m as advised by DLP Planning by letter on 23 March 2015 and
reported to Committee.
For the current proposed scheme, the DAS states there would be 2.0m between each
row.
38. For the previous scheme, the DAS stated the solar panels would be tilted at 20-25
degrees [3.6] or 25 degrees [5.5].
For the current scheme, the DAS states the solar panels would be tilted at 15-25
degrees [3.6] or 20 degrees [5.5].
39. The spaced intervals have reduced and the tilt angles altered, by 20% or more.
14
The new proposal appears to be more dense. With 2m intervals, the proposed scheme
is 50-100% denser than a scheme with 3-4m intervals, which is the density advised to
Committee on the last occasion when permission was refused.
How these changes relate to the figure of 4.55 hectares, which is not clearly
comparable to 5.85 hectares or 3.3 hectares in the manner it is expressed in the
Committee reports, is unclear. Nor is it clear how these alterations relate to the
statement by Aspect consultants that the intention of the current proposal is to
produce a 5MW scheme.
40. There are other inconsistencies in the application documents. For example the
DAS states 19 mounted CCTV cameras, as with the previous refused scheme but the
Planning Statement states 26 mounted CCTV cameras.
41. No attention is drawn to these factual inconsistencies in the officer reports and the
officer does not query the effect of the noted changes to the scheme, or advise that the
scheme is 50-100% denser on the information last provided to Committee.
42. The officer further continues to report the outdated results of the old site selection
document, which was produced for the 24 ha (12MW scheme) and was reissued for
the 11.1 ha (5MW scheme).
The officer advises the Committee only 10 hectare schemes (which the site selection
document explains translates to a utility scale 5MW installation) are viable at present
(6.6.2). Then, in the following paragraph, the officer advises conversely that this
scheme, apparently not a 5MW/10 hectare scheme, is still viable (6.6.3).
The officer advises no other sites of suitable size exist as large field areas of 10 ha or
more are required.
But the current proposal comprises two separate fenced
installations, according the officer "smaller areas". Each installation would cause
specific adverse impacts: landscape, heritage and ancient woodland impacts. The Site
Selection Process document does not justify the selection of the two areas proposed.
15
We have already pointed out that contrary to the advice in the reports, grid connection
availability is not limited to the immediate vicinity of a regional National Grid
transformer station (7.4-7.5) and officers have no evidence as to the availability of
grid connections in the District or outside the District.
43. The Site Selection Process document relates to utility schemes of >10ha/5MW.
The site selection document is cited in proposed Condition 2, alongside the other
application documents which contain different factual information about the scheme.
Condition 2 references PPG ID: 21a-022-20140306, guidance which states the
purpose of listing application documents in a conditions schedule is to record the set
of documents relating to final revisions, which in this case do not exist.
PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD THROUGH ANCIENT WOODLAND
44. As referenced above, the ridge profile of the two parcels of ancient woodland on
the eastern field ridge have not altered since the 1839 Tithe Map (Appendix 2). The
woodland is an important feature of the valley landscape character.
45. The western area of ancient woodland extends southwards to Eleven Acre Wood
and is recorded on the Ancient Woodland Inventory, with a small break of 2-3m
where the farmer has used an informal route through the ancient woodland between
the fields. The Inventory extract is at Appendix 6.
The aerial photography (dated
2004-2015) of this woodland is shown at Appendix 7.
46. The proposal is to cut through the ancient woodland to create an access road for
use by vehicles, trailers and machinery to allow for the construction and maintenance
of a solar installation in the eastern field which is surrounded by ancient woodland.
The application documents detail the road construction specification.
47. Permitting the construction of this road through the ancient woodland would
breach government policy guidelines, which are cited in the Officer's Report and were
further cited in the Screening Opinion decision of March 2014. A 15 metre buffer
zone is required between a development boundary and ancient woodland. It is not
possible therefore to construct an access road through the ancient woodland which
16
runs the full field boundary length as this would not observe the 15 metre buffer zone
requirement and would accordingly fail to comply with policy, national and local, for
the protection of ancient woodland.
References:
48. Screening Opinion from Mrs S Shepherd to Iota Solar Ltd dated 31 March 2014:
"The proximity adjacent ancient woodland. You will no doubt be aware that a
minimum 15m buffer zone is required between the ancient woodland and any
development."
49. Planning and development (https://www.gov.uk/topic/plannin-development) guidance "Ancient woodland and veteran trees: protecting them from development"
(13 October 2014, updated 3 August 2015): "leaving an appropriate buffer zone of
seminatural habitat between the development and the ancient woodland (a minimum
buffer of 15 metres is generally considered appropriate)".
50. National Ancient Wood and Veteran Tree Standing Advice covering England
issued by Natural England and the Forestry Commission in April 2014. Advice
applies to district councils exercising their function as planning authorities in
England. 6.4 "Mitigation measures: Buffer Zones: Development must be kept as far
as possible from ancient woodland, with a buffer area maintained between the ancient
woodland and any development boundary. An appropriate buffer area will depend on
the local circumstances and the type of development. In a planning case in West
Sussex, the Secretary of State supported the arguments for a 15m buffer around the
affected ancient woodland but larger buffers may be required."
51. Core Strategy Policies: EN1 (vi) and (viii); EN5 (viii).
Also references at
paragraphs 3.8, 12.49, 12.86, 17.1.
52. NPPF: Paragraph 118.
53. Officer's Report (paragraph 4.5): "A clear 15m buffer zone is left down the sides of
the fields to the boundary with the ancient woodland, in accordance with guidance by
Natural England", which overlooks the access road running through the ancient
woodland with no 15 metre buffer zone.
17
DISREGARD FOR PREVIOUS DECISION REASONING: AS SET OUT IN
THE
COUNCIL'S
AUGUST
2015
APPEAL
STATEMENT
APP/U1430/W/15/3033695 (RR/2015/142/P) - ATTACHED AS APPENDIX 8
54. Having read the Council's Appeal Statement of August 2015, it could not be
expected the officer's report would retain the same representation of the circumstances
as that put forward by the officer in the first two reports (which draw from the report
first produced for St Francis Farm), without regard to the reasons for refusal in the last
decision and the Council's Appeal Statement case for that refusal decision.
55. The Appeal Statement represents the Council's case against a solar farm
development on the appeal site. The Statement records the Council's view of the
quality of the landscape of this particular site and the landscape surrounding this site
and of the proposal to screen the development. The Council's case is fully supported
by reference to policies in the development plan, NPPF and PPG which seek to
maintain and improve rural character and conserve the intrinsic value, locally
distinctive rural character, landscape features, built heritage and natural resources of
the countryside.
56. In short, the Appeal Statement and the Committee Report are diametrically
opposed in content. There is no justification put in the Committee Report as to why
its content differs substantially from the Appeal Statement content: indeed, are
Members aware of the content of the Appeal Statement which records the view the
Council has already reached of the landscape quality of the appeal site.
57. The Appeal Statement identifies this landscape to be part of the setting of the
AONB and to share the qualities of AONB:
" Character and Beauty of the Countryside
Although not located within the High Weald AONB, the site is located within an
attractive and unspoilt area of countryside less than 800m from the edge of the AONB
at the closest points. The site is in an area of countryside that is characteristic of the
AONB with gently undulating topography and a patchwork of fields bounded by
native hedgerows, streams and ancient woodland.
18
[...]
Out of keeping
As highlighted in the preceding paragraphs although not within the AONB
designation the site reflects the same characteristics as the nearby AONB. As such it
is considered that a comparable level of protection should be afforded to maintain the
context of and views to and from the AONB."
[3.11; 3.13]
58. In contrast, the Officer's Report copying from previous reports states the direct
opposite, denying any relationship with the AONB or its qualities:
"In assessing the use of greenfield land, regard is also had to any landscape
designations on the land. It is noted that this site is not located in the High Weald
AONB and there are no other special landscape restrictions attached to it.
[...]
The site is not located in the High Weald AONB or within any other designated
landscape area."
[6.6.5; 7.2]
59. Of the quality of the landscape2 and the harm caused to that landscape by the
introduction of a solar energy installation into this particular landscape, the Appeal
Statement states Members were "fully appraised of the quality of the site and
surrounding countryside" [3.11], that screening would be "insufficient to outweigh the
harm resulting from the loss of the open undeveloped countryside that exists" [3.13]
and "the proposal to cover the site with industrial type installations is alien and
uncharacteristic in terms of the wider countryside setting and is wholly out of keeping
in this idyllic rural location" [3.15]; that use of Grade 3a and 3b land is "not
considered to be justified in this idyllic rural setting" and the proposal would "result
in a significant industrial type intrusion into the countryside. That intrusion would be
out of keeping with the character and natural landscape quality of the area and would
fail to protect or enhance the intrinsic character or beauty of the countryside." [4.2]
2
We bring to your attention again this is a landscape the authority has recognised on other planning
decisions to be of "intrinsic character and beauty" (RR/2014/124/P: Eastlands Farm, decision 13
March 2014, refusal notice reasons).
19
60. In contrast, the Committee Report - completely silent on the intrinsic landscape
quality of this particular location - simply states "the proposal is not considered to
represent significant harm to the landscape character of the area." [7.3]. The Report
does not even attempt address whether this landscape is a high quality landscape: it is
just greenfield land, outside the AONB, and can be mitigation screened.
Any
evaluation process or recognition of the position the Council has already taken in its
previous decisions as to the landscape character of this location is completely absent.
61. In support of the argument that the proposal would not cause significant harm to
landscape character, the Committee Report refers repeatedly to the proposed
introduction of mitigation screening to "eradicate" and "obscure" any views into and
across the application site. The Committee Report also refers to the hedge and
bushes/trees between Tilton and the fields as a reason why the landscape surrounding
Tilton does not form part of its setting for heritage purposes. This is the reverse
position to the Appeal Statement position on screening where it is stated:
"Irrespective of the level of screening to the site, proposals should protect or enhance
the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside for its own sake. The appellants
seem to consider that if the proposal is screened from view then it is automatically
acceptable [and in the Committee Report: it is!]. The native vegetation is deciduous
offering less screening in the winter months. Vegetation is also transient and can be
removed or die back at any time. To offer planting that will take considerable time to
establish is thus considered insufficient to outweigh the harm resulting from the loss
of the open undeveloped countryside that currently exists" [3.12] and "Even with the
provision of additional planting to screen the proposal, which would take a
considerable time to establish, the proposal would still result in a significant
industrial type intrusion into the countryside." [4.2]
62. In the Committee Report, the reason for the previous refusal and the effect of the
March 2015 Ministerial Statement is heavily weighted by the officer on the
agricultural land classification, which plays a subsidiary role in the Appeal Statement
which leads strongly with the harm to the intrinsic qualities of the countryside the
introduction of a industrial solar array into this location would cause.
20
63. The relocation of the northern section of the solar array from the western field
ridge to the eastern ridge does not mean this location has no particular qualities or that
the idyllic rural location and its intrinsic landscape character would be conserved by
the introduction of an industrial intrusion or that the site no longer shares the qualities
of the AONB, or forms part of the setting of the AONB, or that vegetation (existing or
new) will not pass through the winter months or deteriorate over time.
INCONSISTENT REASONING INDICATING OFFICER PREDISPOSITION
TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL IN THE COMMITTEE REPORTS
64. The reports further contain inconsistent officer arguments to reach the same
recommendation on the appealed and current applications and this indicates that
officers are predisposed to the approval of solar applications on this site and the
officers' position in favour of development is thus unalterable. This means it is
impossible for objectors to influence the recommendation officers will make.
65. The advice to Committee on 9 April 2015 said, under "Previous Refusal":
"7.14.2: The structures involved with the solar farm are still, by their nature, of an industrial
form, as with any renewable energy installation and they will still be located in an open field,
as they would not operate efficiently in an overtly enclosed environment. However, the size of
the installation is significantly reduced and it is contained within part of a single field and
does not now propose to spread across into neighbouring fields. It is also contained by
more extensive landscaping, which in addition would serve to reiterate the woodland
character of the surrounding countryside."
66. The advice to Committee now says, in the same part of the report under "Previous
Refusal":
"6.15.4: The structures involved with the solar farm are still, by their nature, of an industrial
form, as with any renewable energy installation and they will still be located in an open field,
as they would not operate efficiently in an overtly enclosed environment. However, the size of
the installation is significantly reduced and it is contained within smaller parts of two fields.
It is also contained by more extensive landscaping, which in addition would serve to reiterate
the woodland character of the surrounding countryside."
21
67. In April 2015, when use of one field is proposed by the applicant, an industrial
installation that is contained within a single field and does not spread into the
neighbouring field is less harmful.
In September 2015, when use of two fields is proposed by the applicant, an industrial
installation that is not contained within one field but is split between two fields is less
harmful.
68. In April, the officer is making a specific argument concerning the containment of
industrial development to one field and it is a different argument to the preceding
point in the same paragraph as to the reduced scale of development (from 12 MW to 5
MW). The remainder of the paragraph is replicated exactly in September.
69. Further, it is not as if the areas have been dramatically and incomparably reduced:
the upper part of the western field has been relocated to the upper part of the eastern
field. The landscape impacts on the application site are not incomparable. As the
current Committee Report is copied from the previous report, reference is still made
to a significant reduction: which was from 24ha to 11.1ha, not the current revision.
70. The development of an industrial solar installation on one third of the eastern
field, stacked up to the top of the ridge and against the skyline, with 1000s of mounted
photovoltaic panels, mounted CCTV cameras, security boundary fencing, inverter
container building and access road would determine the character of the field as part
industrial so two fields would be industrialised.
As DLP Planning would put it, both fields would be characterised by the presence of
electricity infrastructure, making both fields "far from an "idyllic" rural location"3.
OTHER ISSUES, as raised in previous objections:
3
7 September 2015: DLP Planning's Final Comments for the Appellant, commenting with regard to the
impact on rural character of electricity infrastructure.
22
71. With regard to cumulative impact (and further inconsistencies between committee
reports indicating predisposition to recommend approval):
The officer confirms the intention and effect of mitigation screening is to eradicate the
open views across the landscape to ancient woodland that are currently obtainable
from footpath 21a crossing to the south (Appendix 9)4. That means the entirety of the
walk between Catsfield Road and Potman's Lane would be mitigation screened or
woodland, with a continuous presence of electricity infrastructure (pylons, solar
installation and transforming station) along its path. DLP Planning now argue the
walk is already characterised by electricity infrastructure in their Appeal Final
Comments: this means in their view the "cumulative impact" threshold has already
been reached as cumulative impact is typically defined as the level at which the
development (in this case electricity utility infrastructure) becomes a significant or
defining feature of the landscape.
The ESCC Combe Haven Valley Landscape
Character Area identifies the Transforming Station to be a significant detracting
feature of the entire character area, yet the officer finds its presence and impact
insignificant on the mindset of a walker taking in sequential views due to the presence
of an intervening 400m walk through dense woodland. It is noted the officer relies
upon the presence of "Potman's Lane" and the "wider landscape context" and
"undulating terrain", presumably beyond St Francis Farm. Yet in the Committee
Report on St Francis Farm the case officer commented walkers tend generally not to
cross Potman's Lane but to walk the leg of footpath 21 on either side of the Potman's
Lane in isolation: "walkers tend to walk in one direction or the other from Potman's
Lane". In that case, this contributed to the conclusion the Ninfield Tranforming
Station and St Francis Farm could not be taken to give rise to cumulative impact 5.
Again, these inconsistencies in advice both leading to recommendations to approve
large scale solar developments around the transforming station point to officer
predisposition to recommend approvals to dispose of potential renewable energy
4
Attention is drawn again to paragraph 42 of the Appeal Decision dated 2 June 2014
[APP/D3505/A/13/2204846] for a directly comparable assessment by the Planning Inspectorate where
it was stated: "hedge screening along the site boundaries would reduce the site's openness and create a
sense of enclosure. As a consequence it would detract from the character of the immediate area by
blocking views of Ancient Woodland and wider landscape."
5
Paragraph 6.10.3 of Committee Report dated 17 July 2014 (RR/2014/558/P St Francis Farm)
23
obligations around the transforming station in the Catsfield countryside and use up
"available grid capacity".
The relevant PPG paragraphs on cumulative impact and the related extract from the
applicant's appeal comments dated 7 September 2015 are appended as Appendix 10.
72. With regard to biodiversity surveys (great crested newts)
The studies by Aspect Ecology were not conducted to produce optimum results in
2014, being started late in May and we refused permission for Aspect Ecology to
conduct studies starting in mid-May and not in mid-April this year (the consultants
having known about the need to survey ponds since November 2014). A succession
of false allegations have since been made by DLP Planning regarding this newt
survey, principally we know to try to distract from other parts of our objections in
addition to trying to cover the newt point. Our correspondence to the Planning
Inspectorate dated 17 August 2015 can be reviewed concerning this issue, with
information from our previous objections of November 2014 and March 2015 and our
letter of May 2015 appended as Appendix 11. Again, the officer has uncritically
accepted a consultant's report and not questioned whether a survey commenced half
way through a survey period window, contrary to Natural England standing guidance,
produces optimum survey results.
APPENDICES
24
1. HISTORIC ENGLAND: HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT GOOD PRACTICE
ADVICE IN PLANNING 3 (PUBLISHED MARCH 25 2015; REISSUED JULY
2015): ATTACHED AS A SEPARATE FILE (18 PAGES)
2. 1839 TITHE MAP EXTRACT: ANCIENT WOODLAND ON RIDGE
3. VIEW FROM CATSFIELD ROAD FOOTPATH
4. VIEWS.
5.
INFORMATION
CONCERNING
THE
HERITAGE
ASSET:
TILTON,
INCLUDING IMAGERY
6. ANCIENT WOODLAND INVENTORY MAP OF ANCIENT WOODLAND
AND ANCIENT WOODLAND ON RIDGE
7. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANCIENT WOODLAND ON RIDGE DATED
2004-2013
8. LPA APPEAL STATEMENT: ATTACHED AS A SEPARATE FILE
9. VIEWS FROM FOOTPATH 21A SOUTH OF THE APPLICATION SITE
ACROSS THE APPLICATION SITE TO SKYLINE / ANCIENT WOODLAND
10.
PPG CUMULATIVE IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND EXTRACT DLP
PLANNING FINAL COMMENTS TO PLANNING INSPECTORATE 7 SEPT 2015
11. BIODIVERSITY SURVEY - GREAT CRESTED NEWT
12. APPEAL DECISION APP/Y3940/A/14/2228679: ATTACHED AS A SEPARATE
FILE (8 PAGES)
25
APPENDIX 1: HISTORIC ENGLAND: HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT GOOD
PRACTICE ADVICE IN PLANNING 3 (PUBLISHED MARCH 25 2015;
REISSUED JULY 2015): ATTACHED AS A SEPARATE FILE (18 PAGES)
APPENDIX 2: 1839 TITHE MAP EXTRACT: ANCIENT WOODLAND ON
RIDGELINE ABOVE STREAM VALLEY - UNALTERED HISTORIC
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER FEATURE WHICH FRAMES THE SKYLINE
Tithe Map 1839 ESCC
Current OS Map ESCC
26
APPENDIX 3: VERY FINE VIEW FROM CATSFIELD ROAD FOOTPATH
SHOWING CATSFIELD STREAM VALLET AND RIDGELINE:
-
EXTANT HISTORIC LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
-
ANCIENT WOODLAND BOUNDARY RECEDING / SNAKING
INTO FAR DISTANCE AGAINST HORIZON
-
WIDE
OPEN
50M
UNINTERRUPTED
SKYLINE
GAP
AROUND 69M SPOT HEIGHT ON RIDGE, EASTERN FIELD
(Compare location from which Viewpoint 5 taken by Aspect)
27
28
29
30
31
APPENDIX 4: VIEWS OF WITHIN CATSFIELD STREAM VALLEY AND
VIEWS FROM AND TO RIDGELINE OF CATSFIELD STREAM VALLEY
VIEWS OF CATSFIELD STREAM VALLEY (CONTEXT)
From field opposite St Lawrence Church towards ridgeline
From field opposite St Lawrence Church into stream valley
32
From field opposite St Lawrence Church over stream valley towards ridgeline
Catsfield Stream Valley, looking towards ridge
33
From ridge near proposed site of installation on ridge in eastern field,
overlooking stream valley
34
From ridge near proposed installation on ridge in eastern field, looking towards
Methodist Church spire over Catsfield Stream Valley
Panorama of Catsfield Stream Valley
35
Panorama of Stream Valley
36
VIEWS FROM STREAM VALLEY TO RIDGE SHOWING WIDE OPEN
SKYLINE BETWEEN SHAWS WHERE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
INSTALLATION ON TOP OF RIDGE PROPOSED
37
38
39
40
41
VIEWS TOWARDS RIDGELINE FROM CATSFIELD ROAD FOOTPATH
SHOWING
WIDE
OPEN
SKYLINE
GAP
BETWEEN
ANCIENT
WOODLAND SHAWS ABOVE CATSFIELD STREAM VALLEY
42
43
44
45
46
APPENDIX 5
HERITAGE ASSET: TILTON
Tilton and Historic Landscape Characterisation (from objection dated 28 March
2015)
The archaeological remains are located close to Tilton and the surrounding farmland
and ancient woodland comprises its historic setting.
The earliest document referencing Tilton held in public archives is a 1346 document
referencing the land holding of "Simon de Telletone of Cattesfield". A 1604 deed
references the "messuage called Tilton Howse, in par. Catsfield, bounding land of
Edmund Pelham, knight, called Twisly [Twistly]" and there are several further 17thc
documents referencing Tilton Farm. The Historical Gazetteer of England's Place
Names6 provides the history of the place name Tilton Farm in Catsfield by reference
to further documents dated 1348 [Telletone], 1296, 1327, 1332 and 1487 [Telton] and
1555 and 1621 [Tylton, Tilton].
The current farmhouse was rebuilt in 1687 by the Ashburnhams, mainly from second
hand timber from Battle Place (abbey buildings).
The house was enlarged circa 1900 by A. J. Barry who laid out the Edwardian Arts
and Crafts gardens. Barry demolished some of the original farm outbuildings at this
date7 but mid 20thc auction particulars and aerial photography indicate several
buildings survived.
The auction particulars of 1953 (held at the English Heritage National Monuments
Record) describe Tilton as "the modernised and enlarged old Sussex farmhouse
beautifully set on a southern slope and commanding fine views ... overlooking its own
lovely grounds and the surrounding farmland and woodland".
6
Source: A. Mawer, F.M.Stenton and J.E.B.Gover, The Place-Names of Sussex, Part 2 (EPNS7)
Cambridge 1930.
7
From "Life in Catsfield: 1800-1910- History on our Doorstep" millenium project. The heritage
assessment suggests the farmhouse timber frame was likely enclosed in brick or tile in the Edwardian
period [5.17] but this could have occurred at any date since the late 17thc.
47
The auction particulars detail panelled halls and reception rooms, period stone, marble
and timber fireplaces including arcaded carved fireplace and inglenook fireplace with
oak bressummer, oak beamed ceilings, domestic offices etc.,. Surrounding extant
farm buildings, which include oast house and stables, include another fine panelled
room. The Edwardian ornamental grounds include oriental and water gardens and
grass court.
The field comprising the solar farm application site falls within the Tilton Farm estate
holding recorded in the 1839 Tithe Map and Apportionment, at that time in arable
production.
Four photographs are appended as [formerly Appendix 3], now inserted below as part of
this appendix: a current aerial view of the exterior of Tilton illustrating the original
old farmhouse now the east facade and the oast to the west; a view of the panelled
interior of Tilton from the 1953 auction particulars (publicly available image,
National Monuments Record); two images of the view from within Tilton's boundary
across the proposed development site to the surrounding ancient woodland, as
referenced in the particulars: "commanding fine views...overlooking its own lovely
grounds and the surrounding farmland and woodland".
The DAS states: "There are no Listed Buildings or Heritage Assets on or in close
proximity to the application site" [2.9, January 2015].
The original heritage
assessment dated May 2014 stated the site's historic landscape character was: "of
modern origin and, as such, in considered to be of negligible significance." [6.7] and
"The introduction of the solar array within the site has the potential to result in an
adverse effect to its HLC, which is considered to be of limited interest due to its being
of modern origin." [6.15]. Both statements are repeated in the heritage assessment
dated February 2015: no revision notwithstanding what has emerged in the interim.
48
The national HLC guidance8 advises "Historic landscape character comprises both
the material remains of the past and the perceptions and interpretations that allow us
to understand the present day landscape.9"
The site is surrounded by ancient woodland which is not recognised in the heritage
assessment. The national guidance states: "An example of the cultural influence on
the landscape is the present day distribution of ancient and semi-natural woodland.
Such woodland occurs only where it has been actively used by people, or where
woodland clearance was too difficult or costly. Much of the ancient woodland in
southern England, for instance, stands at parish boundaries or in steep-sided valleys,
a distribution that is more strongly related to human activity than natural
processes"10.
The archaeological investigations undertaken in October 2014 along the field
boundary with Tilton "indicate evidence related to agriculture in the form of
relatively small enclosed field systems close to a farmstead" and "that iron working
(including smelting) is likely to have taken place on site or in close proximity to it",
consistent with Iron Age to early medieval industrial activity. The finds include late
iron age / early roman pottery, post-medieval earthenware and ceramic material and
worked flint.
Time-depth HLC analysis recognises the long-term successive interactions between
man and the land revealed through built and landscape components, vegetation
patterns, and in the hidden, buried evidence.
The HLC guidance advises ""landscape" is an idea not a thing, constructed by our
minds and emotions from the combination and interrelationship of physical objects"11.
The claims in the heritage assessment are unsustainable.
Fundamentally, the
statement that the historic landscape character is "of modern origin and, as such, is
considered to be of negligible significance" [6.7, 6.15] is simply wrong.
Secondly,
8
Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland, Topic Paper 5: Understanding
Historic Landscape Character (The Countryside Agency, English Heritage, Historic Scotland) 2002
["HLC guidance"].
9
HLC guidance, paragraph 1
10
HLC guidance, paragraph 5.
11
HLC guidance, paragraph 10.
49
whilst the introduction of the Arts and Crafts ornamental gardens could be argued to
enrich the HLC, the long historic link between Tilton and its landscape setting has not
been removed [5.20] or obliterated [5.23] by its conversion to a "gentleman's
residence" in 1900. This ignores time-depth analysis. The visual quality of the
unspoilt landscape setting and the richness of the localised HLC make a substantial
contribution to Tilton's significance as a heritage asset and substantially control how
Tilton is perceived. A large commercial solar energy development is industrial in
character and would be a dominating presence in Tilton's immediate setting,
physically severing it from the wider landscape and causing the appearance and
character of its setting substantial harm.
In Seeing History in the View, May 2011, English Heritage define the "Historic
Environment" as "All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction
between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of
past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged and landscaped and
planted or managed flora" and "Heritage values" as "The reasons for which people
may value a place. Examples may include its distinctive architecture or landscape,
the story it can tell about its past ... its landform, flora, fauna, because they find it
beautiful or inspiring". This place has strong evidential value, as it yields primary
evidence about past human activity, strong historical value given the successive layers
revealed of its long history as a place of settlement and strong aesthetic value given
the natural beauty of the landscape setting in which Tilton and its Arts and Crafts
gardens are experienced.
In relation to screening, this does not affect the HLC assessment. It is also likely the
installation could be seen from Tilton and its grounds in winter and from upper floors
as the auction particulars reference fine commanding views of the surrounding
landscape. Tilton's elevated position provides seclusion from the highway but not the
wider landscape to the east, as the dense woodland lies north, west and southwest with
hedging to the east/southeast.
Tilton is situated 700-850m from the Ninfield Transforming Station, which already
detracts from the heritage asset's wider landscape setting although it is physically
removed from its immediate landscape setting. The power line running out of the
50
transforming station passes within 200-350m.
This proposal would extend the
industrial electricity development up to its curtilage, wholly industrialising the
vicinity and connecting the heritage asset with the electricity infrastructure from
which it is currently physically removed.
Setting of a Heritage Asset (from supplementary objection for April 2015 meeting)
Planning officers are equating "setting" with "curtilage", a legal term defined by the
consideration of ownership. This is not the correct approach. The small part of the
field retained within Tilton's curtilage does not comprise its "setting". The setting of a
historic asset includes but is more extensive than curtilage, particularly in rural areas.
There is extensive information and advice available on setting and English Heritage
(now Historic England) published in October 201412 detailed good practice advice on
setting to assist decision-makers with implementation of national policy.
The
guidance advises setting does not lie within a set distance of the property and is not a
spatially bounded area. It involves the relationship of a heritage asset to the character
of the wider landscape, particularly if that landscape is unchanged and comprises the
heritage asset's original setting, as in the present case. The guidance identifies the
important distinction of "curtilage" and "setting". In the assessment of setting it refers
to the asset's physical surroundings such as: topography; other heritage assets
(including archaeological remains); character of the surrounding landscape; land use,
trees and vegetation; tranquillity and remoteness etc.,. In relation to the potential of a
development to harm setting it refers to: proximity; position in relation to landform;
degree to which location of proposed development will physically or visually isolate
the heritage asset; dominance, extent and scale of development; whether of
industrialising character; whether development changes land use or land cover or
archaeological context. The guidance advises appreciation of setting does not depend
on public access as this would "downplay such qualitative issues as the importance of
quiet and tranquillity as an attribute of setting."
Further, in relation to the archaeological remains adjoining Tilton's "curtilage" but
within its "setting" and within the footprint of the proposed development site.
12
Date corrected by later email to March 25 2015 with draft version published in 2014.
51
Historic England (English Heritage) advises buried assets "retain a presence in the
landscape and, like other heritage assets, have a setting". Buried archaeological
remains "can be appreciated in relation to their surrounding topography or other
heritage assets or through the long-term continuity in the use of the land that
surrounds them". There is a requirement therefore to consider not just the potential
physical harm to the buried assets but also the harm to the "setting" of the buried
assets which also have group heritage value with Tilton13.
Planning officers are aware Tilton has definite potential to be of national significance
and hence a designated heritage asset, stating in a letter to the occupier dated 13
February 2015: " I would agree the building does appear to be of historic importance
with some parts of the building being of considerable age." Given this recognition, it
is not possible to treat Tilton as if it is an asset without national significance, whether
or not the asset has been formally designated and the conservation of its "setting" is of
equivalent importance in policy terms to the conservation of the asset itself.
Heritage impact on Tilton (from objection dated 28 March 2015)
Tilton farmhouse is the closest residence and heritage asset to the development: the
building is 130m, the garden less than 100m. [Note Sept 2015: Distance remains
c150m to house and gardens and the consideration is the setting for heritage purposes,
which is not particularly sensitive to small variations in distances].
Planning Committee members discussed the substantial harm the development would
cause to the setting of Tilton. The revised development has not reduced the scale of
the development in the immediate setting of Tilton, it has simply been reduced to
impact principally on Tilton, which would be surrounded by the solar energy
development and not open countryside.
13
Further, the archaeological deposits are evidence of a site of early human occupation without
structure, with potential national significance accordingly in their own right (Paragraph 14, Scheduled
Monuments, DCMS March 2010). Archaeological deposits without structure cannot be listed or
scheduled but can be afforded equivalence to designated assets in their own right under the NPPF
paragraph 139. This has not been considered by officers. The construction proposals using concrete
feet in the locality of the archaeological deposits would only reduce physical harm to the assets and not
protect the assets and the officer report acknowledges the potential for loss of buried heritage assets.
52
In relation to renewable energy development, the NPPG states: "great care should be
taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their
significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting. As
the significance of a heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence, but
also from its setting, careful consideration should be given to the impact of large
scale solar farms on such assets. Depending on their scale, design and prominence, a
large scale solar farm within the setting of a heritage asset may cause substantial
harm to the significance of the asset". [ID-013-20140306]
The development plan only supports renewable energy developments with
insignificant adverse impacts on heritage assets.
The NPPG and the development plan protect heritage assets irrespective of
designation. The NPPF and NPPG direct the conservation of heritage assets in a
manner appropriate to their "significance", as defined by the NPPF.
53
VIEWS OF TILTON AND ITS LANDSCAPE SETTING
Tilton
Interior Wood Panelling and Arcaded Carved Open Fireplace
View from grounds of Tilton over application site to ancient woodland
54
Location: Tilton Wood = north/west/south;
House and grounds open to views over countryside (application site) = east
55
APPENDIX 6: ANCIENT WOODLAND INVENTORY EXTRACT
56
APPENDIX 7: PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANCIENT WOODLAND 2004-13
2004
57
2005
58
2009
59
2013
APPENDIX 8
LPA APPEAL STATEMENT AUGUST 2015 - SEPARATE ATTACHMENT
60
APPENDIX 9
OPEN VIEWS THAT CAN BE OBTAINED FROM FOOTPATH 21A ACROSS
THE APPLICATION SITE FIELDS TO SKYLINE AND ANCIENT
WOODLAND (ONLY OPEN LANDSCAPE VIEWS ON FOOTPATH 21A)
61
62
63
64
APPENDIX 10:
PLANNING PRACTICE GUIDANCE ON CUMULATIVE IMPACT AND
RELATED COMMENTS FOR IOTA SOLAR BY DLP PLANNING
NPPG ID 5-022-2014030614 specifies two forms of cumulative impacts:
-
cumulative landscape impacts
-
cumulative visual impacts
The NPPG states the two forms of cumulative impact are best considered separately.
The NPPG states cumulative landscape impacts are:
"the effects of a proposed development on the fabric, character and quality of the
landscape; it is concerned with the degree to which a proposed renewable energy
development will become a significant or defining characteristic of the landscape."
The NPPG states the sequential test of cumulative visual impact concerns:
"the degree to which proposed renewable energy development will become a feature
in ... sequences of views and the impact this has upon the people experiencing those
views. Cumulative visual impacts may arise where two or more of the same type of
renewable energy development will be ... visible shortly after each other along the
same journey. Hence, it should not be assumed that, just because no other sites will
be visible from the proposed development site, the proposal will not create any
cumulative impacts."
Related Final Comments at Appeal for Iota Solar by DLP Planning
"We content that that area is far from an "idyllic" rural location. The Inspector will
note there are a number of electricity pylons that are clearly visible, along with the
infrastructure from the nearby Ninfield Transforming Station, all of which have an
influence on the characteristic of the area."
[Final appeal comments, 7 September 2015, APP/U1430/W/15/3033695]
14
The NPPG states the approach to the assessment of the cumulative landscape and visual impacts of
large solar and wind energy developments is likely to be the same.
65
APPENDIX 11
GREAT CRESTED NEWT (from objection dated 28 March 2015)
The application breaches the standing advice of Natural England in respect of Great
Crested Newt. In the absence of a specific consultation, the standing advice is to
stand in the place of a consultation response.
This is a detailed regulated issue but in brief, under the standing advice, it is
impermissible to approve a development where the decision-maker does not know
whether the land is potentially newt habitat. The newt survey must take place before
any approval and mitigation measures in the absence of an adequate prior survey
cannot be covered by planning condition. The courts have established that approach
to be unlawful. In the case of the original application the ecologists were appointed
too late: a great crested newt survey must begin no later than March. Further, the
ecologist made no attempt to obtain permission to survey the pond within 150m of the
northern application boundary (in our ownership), a pond well within the indicated
survey radius in the Natural England standing advice (image of pond at (Appendix 4),
now inserted below as part of this appendix). In relation to the current application, no
survey has again taken place.
Natural England standing advice states in the absence of an adequate survey, an
application must be refused or deferred. The ecologist has not surveyed ponds within
the correct time periods or the ponds within the indicated survey radius: the survey is
accordingly inadequate.
To accord with Natural England standing advice, the
application can only be refused or deferred.
Great Crested Newts were found in ponds within the vicinity at Catsfield Primary
School in 2009 (see RR/2901/CC county application newt survey data) and any
assertion by the developer that the great crested newt is unlikely to be found in the
locality must therefore be disregarded. The development is major and extensive,
affecting a wide area of potential terrestrial habitat and there is no evidence in the
absence of adequate survey that negative impacts are unlikely.
66
A condition cannot be applied to mitigate prospective harm in the absence of a prior
adequate newt survey and the decision-maker must know prior to determination,
based on an adequate prior survey, whether the development could cause harm to the
protected species.
Catsfield Manor, Church Road, Catsfield, Battle, East Sussex, TN33 9BG
Ms J. Hawksworth MRTPI
Senior Planner
DLP Planning
1 Blenheim Court
Beaufort Office Park
Woodlands
Bradley Stoke
Bristol
BS32 4NE
Sent by email to: [email protected]
15 May 2015
Dear Ms Hawksworth
I collected your special delivery letter dated 6 May on 9 May at the post office and
note a request to undertake surveys on my property.
We have checked the government standing advice which we referred to in the
biodiversity section of our objection dated 11 November 2014 to your first planning
application, which was included again in our objection dated 28 March 2015 to your
second planning application. This standing advice states that the surveys should take
place between mid March and mid June, with a least two of the visits during midApril to mid-May and these should be spread through the survey period to maximise
the chance of finding newts if they are using the ponds. We are aware the surveys of
the local school ponds, for example, were undertaken between 6 April and 20 May in
accordance with the standing guidance.
You have not stated why you wish to undertake the surveys at this time. There is no
current planning application. More significantly, I am not sure why you have waited
to contact me now to undertake the newt surveys when the general survey window is
half way through and the peak survey window near its end: the standing advice states
the surveys should be spread through the survey period to maximise the chance of
finding newts. I cannot support the undertaking of a substandard survey by granting
access to the land to undertake the survey only near the end and after the peak survey
period and half way through the survey period as a whole.
Yours sincerely
Michael Parker
67
VIEW OF POND
APPENDIX 12: APPEAL DECISION APP/Y3940/A/14/2228679: ATTACHED
AS A SEPARATE FILE (8 PAGES)
68