Applicant seeking planning permission for wind farm – Inspector recommending that permission be refused – Secretary of State agreeing with inspector – Whether inspector failing to properly consider government policies – Whether inspector failing to properly assess circumstances – Application dismissed
National Wind Power (the applicant) applied to the second respondent council for planning permission for a wind farm, which was to include 25 turbines, a sub-station and an anemometer mast, on land at Cocker Hill, County Durham. The council refused permission for the development. A public inquiry was held in June 1998. The inspector considered the principal matters were: the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, its impact on archaeological interests and the implications in terms of energy production. He concluded, inter alia, that the individual contribution to energy generation needs would be insignificant and unreliable, and that pollution savings would correspondingly be both small and uncertain. He further concluded that “in the absence of a comparative approach to lead site selection, I find nothing to persuade me that the desirability of exploiting a clean, renewable energy resource at this prominent skyline site outweighs other national policy considerations, which include avoiding damage to attractive areas of landscape and the presumption against development which has a significant impact on the setting of visible archaeological remains…on these considerations, permission should not be granted”. The Secretary of State agreed with the inspector’s conclusions and accepted his recommendations that permission should not be granted.
The applicant sought to quash the Secretary of State’s decision, pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on four grounds: (i) the inspector failed to apply government policy, contained in DTI Energy Paper 62, to stimulate renewable energy sources as a contribution to diverse energy supplies and to reducing the emission of pollutants; (ii) the inspector erred in finding that a comparative site analysis was necessary, as it was not a requirement of PPG 22 or PPG 7; (iii) regarding the landscape considerations, the inspector failed to take into account the inevitability of wind farms being sited in attractive landscapes; and (iv) the inspector misapplied PPG 16 in addressing the archaeology issue.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The inspector had considered and properly applied the relevant policies. Reading the decision letter as a whole, the inspector assessed the contribution of the proposal to energy and pollution savings as relatively small or modest. He properly set that contribution in the context of the overall national energy policy objective. Unless the question of alternative sites was expressly raised by the relevant policy, it was not for the court to determine, in advance and at large, whether the consideration of alternative sites was a material consideration to be taken into account. The applicant was not required, in the absence of a specific direction in the relevant policy, to undertake comparative site appraisal as a matter of general policy. It was a legitimate assessment of a material consideration that had arisen at the inquiry. The inspector’s approach and reasoning could not be faulted.
Michael Fitzgerald QC and Michael Druce (instructed by David Wilbraham & Co, of Leeds) appeared for the applicant; David Elvin (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
