“a. The impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape including the Peak National Park and its setting; and, in the latter respect whether approval would unacceptably harm the status of the National Park and undermine the objectives of its designation;” b. The impact of the proposal on the settings of the Carsington and Hopton, and Brassington Conservation Areas and whether approval would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of those Conservation Areas; c. The effects of the proposal upon enjoyment of the countryside by members of the public, including those using the High Peak Trail, the Limestone Way and local paths, and those visiting Carsington Water; and whether approval would have significant adverse effects on the contribution made by tourism and recreation to the local economy; d. Whether as a matter of law and policy, there is a requirement to consider alternative sites for the proposal; and if so, whether that process has been adequately pursued and alternatives have been convincingly discounted; in all cases bearing in mind the aims of local and national planning policies; e. The contribution that the proposals would make to achieving regional and national targets for renewable energy generation, bearing in mind extant and emerging national planning policy; and the extent to which any such contribution should be weighed against any adverse impacts in terms of the other issues.”
“84.... on the evidence I am not persuaded that the appeal proposal is one of the narrow range of cases (as agreed by both main parties) where alternatives should be considered as a matter of law; nor that there is any requirement in relevant planning policy to do so. In any case I consider that the nature of any adverse impacts that the proposal would have is such that a decision can properly be made on the merits of the case, balancing any such impacts against other considerations. Accordingly it is unnecessary to consider further the second part of the issue as framed, namely whether the process of considering alternatives has been adequately pursued and alternatives have been convincingly discounted.”
“120. As I have noted above, the appeal proposal conflicts with development plan policy in some respects, relating to impact on the setting of the National Park, on landscape elsewhere and on the setting of two Conservation Areas. However, as I have also noted, those conflicts are limited in nature and extent and in my view they are outweighed by the benefits of the renewable energy that would be supplied. That contribution would be modest in relation to targets set in extant and emerging regional policy, and Government targets and expectations, but it would be by no means trivial; and it is only by a succession of such individual proposals, of varying scales, that targets can be achieved. Although the RSS target for onshore wind generation is largely achieved, it is an indicative measure and only limited progress has been made towards overall regional targets. Targets in the emerging Regional Plan are even more challenging. On balance I have come to the conclusion that the considerations in favour of the development outweigh those contrary to it and that planning permission should be granted.”
“There has been a growing body of case law upon the question when it is necessary or at least permissible to have regard to the possibility of meeting a recognised need elsewhere than upon the appeal site…. These authorities in my judgment establish the following principles: (1) Land (irrespective of whether it is owned by the applicant for planning permission) may be developed in any way which is acceptable for planning purposes. The fact that other land exists (whether or not in the applicant's ownership) upon which the development would be yet more acceptable for planning purposes would not justify the refusal of planning permission upon the application site. (2) Where, however, there are clear planning objections to development upon a particular site then it may well berelevant and indeed necessary to consider whether there is a more appropriate alternative site elsewhere. This is particularly so when the development is bound to have significant adverse effects and where the major argument advanced in support of the application is that the need for the development outweighs the planning disadvantages inherent in it. (3) Instances of this type of case are developments, whether of national or regional importance, such as airports… coal mining, petro-chemical plants, nuclear power stations and gypsy encampments… Oliver LJ's judgment in Greater London Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [52 P&CR 158] suggests a helpful though expressly not exhaustive approach to the problem of determining whether consideration of the alternative sites is material… ‘comparability is appropriate generally to cases having the following characteristics: first of all, the presence of a clear public convenience, or advantage, in the proposal under consideration; secondly, the existence of inevitable adverse effects or disadvantages to the public or to some section of the public in the proposal; thirdly, the existence of an alternative site for the same project which would not have those effects, or would not have them to the same extent; and fourthly, a situation in which there can only be one permission granted for such development or at least only a very limited number of permissions.’ (4) In contrast to the situations envisaged above are cases where development permission is being sought for dwelling houses, offices … and superstores … (5) There may be cases where, even although they contain the characteristics referred to above, nevertheless it could properly be regarded as unnecessary to go into questions of comparability. This would be so particularly if the environmental impact was relatively slight and the planning objections were not especially strong…”
“The decision maker ought to take into account a matter which might cause him to reach a different conclusion from that which he would reach if he did not take it into account. If the judge concludes that the matter was fundamental to the decisions, or that it is clear that there is a real possibility that the consideration of the matter would have made a difference to the decision, he is thus enabled to hold that the decision is not validly made.”
“Crucial in this case, in my judgment, was the fact that there were not merely alternative sites, but those sites had been the subject of planning applications and were, in the case of three other applicants, the subject of appeals to the Secretary of State. These other sites were material planning considerations in the circumstances of this case, account of which would have created a real possibility that the Inspector’s decisions in the RDL appeal would have been different.”
“If, in the statute conferring the discretion there is to be found expressly or by implication matters which the authority exercising the discretion ought to have regard to, then in exercising the discretion it must have regard to those matters.”
“What has to be emphasised is that it is only when the statute expressly or impliedly identifies considerations required to be taken into account by the authority as a matter of legal obligation that the court holds a decision invalid on the ground now invoked. It is not enough that it is one that may properly be taken into account, nor even that it is one which many people, including the court itself, would have taken into account if they had to make the decision...”
“The existence or non-existence of an alternative site to accommodate the Claimant’s proposal was an immaterial consideration at this Inquiry as a matter of law”
“…since the Inspector had concluded that the proposed development would conflict with the policies in the development plan….. he was required by statute to dismiss the appeal unless he concluded that what were said by the Claimant to be the advantages of the proposal outweighed those objections.”
“In a case where planning objections are sought to be overcome by reference to need, the greater those objections, the more material will be the possibility of meeting that need elsewhere.”
“Strategic targets, including any developed for cutting carbon dioxide emissions, and trajectories used to identify trends in performance form part of the framework for planning decisions provided by the RSS. They should be used as a strategic tool for shaping policies and contributing to the annual monitoring and reporting expected of regional planning bodies. They should not be applied directly to individual planning applications...”
“88. My interpretation of para 16 of the PPS Supplement is that it proscribes assessing individual proposals directly by reference to regional targets, perhaps in the sense that a planning application should necessarily be refused because a particular target has been met, or allowed because there is a shortfall against a target. RSS policies, including Policy 41 of the extant RSS and Policy 39 of the draft Regional Plan, on renewable and low carbon energy respectively, are aimed at those preparing development plans rather than those assessing planning applications. However, it seems to me that regional targets, and the extent to which they have been or might be achieved, must be a relevant consideration when considering individual proposals simply because it is only through an accumulation of those individual proposals that any target will be achieved. 89. An approach which sought to keep individual planning applications and regional targets entirely separate would be irrational not only in terms of the Government’s aim of securing substantially more renewable energy generation capacity but also of the whole basis of the plan-led system...”