“The landscape effects of the proposed development on the wider character area are limited by the low-lying nature of the development which limits interaction with aspects of landscape character. There are limited areas within 2km where a view of the site is available, with only a slight minimal visual effect from a further distance; after the effects of the proposed screening, planting and other landscaping are taken into account, these effects would be further reduced. Planting of native tree species will be undertaken in the hedgerows surrounding the site, and the management regime will be altered to allow taller growth thus helping to screen the site further… The effect of the proposed development on the setting of nearby listed buildings would be minimal… Overall the proposed development would contribute to the aims and objectives of national policies as set out in the NPPF and also local policy. This development represents an excellent opportunity for East Staffordshire Borough Council to contribute to the UK’s legal obligations to derive 15% of energy from renewable sources and to reduce our carbon emissions by 26% by 2020. This proposal to generate electricity from solar power would contribute to these goals, and this site has been selected and carefully designed in order that any impact on the surrounding amenity and environment are minimised.”
“To the best of my knowledge I am not aware of any heritage assets which would be impacted by a solar farm in this location. We have objected to wind turbines proposed for land close to Croxden Abbey but Woodhouse Fields Farm [the site] is well away from there. I cannot envisage a heritage objection at this stage.” (c) Methodology The methodology to be adopted for accessing the impact of a proposed development on the setting of heritage assets was set out in section 5 of the HS. This made extensive reference to paragraphs 132-135 of the NPPF (which are expressly concerned with Heritage Assets). The table at section 5.7 said that a ‘minor’ effect was one which “will be noticed but is not relevant to the decision process.”
“10.6.2 Paragraph 126 of the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance. 10.6.3 The application is accompanied by an Archaeological Assessment which concludes that the site has minimal archaeological potential and a Heritage Report which concludes that the proposed will have minimal impact on the setting of listed buildings and recommends a program of investigation prior to commencement. It is not considered that the proposal would unacceptably affect heritage assets and the suggested condition should be included in any approval.”
“11. Conclusions 11.1 The proposal lies outside of any development boundary in an area where new development is strictly controlled by Policy SP8 of the Local Plan 2012-2031. The principle of the proposed Solar Farm in this rural location is compliant with Policy SP8 of the Local Plan 2012-2031. It is also compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework as it would generate renewable energy and in doing so would contribute towards the reduction of CO 2 emissions. 11.2 Whilst the proposal has the negative effects associated with development within the open countryside, in particular its impact upon the rural landscape, on balance it is considered that the significant benefits associated with the generation of renewable energy and associated reduction of CO 2 emissions outweigh any localised detrimental effects. 11.3 The principle of the development is therefore considered acceptable. The proposal would not unacceptably affect the character or appearance of its surroundings, the safe or efficient use of the highway network, the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby dwellings, protected species and their habitats, archaeology or flood risk.)”
“Whilst planning officers' reports should not be equated with inspectors' decision letters, it is well established that, in construing the latter, it has to be remembered that they are addressed to the parties who will be well aware of the issues that have been raised in the appeal. They are thus addressed to a knowledgeable readership and the adequacy of their reasoning must be considered against that background. That approach applies with particular force to a planning officer's report to a committee. Its purpose is not to decide the issue, but to inform the members of the relevant considerations relating to the application. It is not addressed to the world at large but to council members who, by virtue of that membership, may be expected to have substantial local and background knowledge. There would be no point in a planning officer's report setting out in great detail background material, for example, in respect of local topography, development planning policies or matters of planning history if the members were only too familiar with that material. Part of a planning officer's expert function in reporting to the committee must be to make an assessment of how much information needs to be included in his or her report in order to avoid burdening a busy committee with excessive and unnecessary detail.”
“Democratically elected bodies go about their decision-making in a different way from courts. They have professional advisers who investigate and report to them. Those reports obviously have to be clear and full enough to enable them to understand the issues and make up their minds within the limits that the law allows them. But the courts should not impose too demanding a standard upon such reports, for otherwise their whole purpose will be defeated: the councillors either will not read them or will not have a clear enough grasp of the issues to make a decision for themselves. It is their job, and not the court's, to weigh the competing public and private interests involved.”
“In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or a setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.”
“when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation”
“48. As the Court of Appeal has made absolutely clear in its recent decision in Barnwell, the duties in sections 66 and 72 of the Listed Buildings Act do not allow a local planning authority to treat the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings and the character and appearance of conservation areas as mere material considerations to which it can simply attach such weight as it sees fit. If there was any doubt about this before the decision in Barnwell it has now been firmly dispelled. When an authority finds that a proposed development would harm the setting of a listed building or the character or appearance of a conservation area, it must give that harm considerable importance and weight. 49. This does not mean that an authority's assessment of likely harm to the setting of a listed building or to a conservation area is other than a matter for its own planning judgment. It does not mean that the weight the authority should give to harm which it considers would be limited or less than substantial must be the same as the weight it might give to harm which would be substantial. But it is to recognize, as the Court of Appeal emphasized in Barnwell, that a finding of harm to the setting of a listed building or to a conservation area gives rise to a strong presumption against planning permission being granted. The presumption is a statutory one. It is not irrebuttable. It can be outweighed by material considerations powerful enough to do so. But an authority can only properly strike the balance between harm to a heritage asset on the one hand and planning benefits on the other if it is conscious of the statutory presumption in favour of preservation and if it demonstrably applies that presumption to the proposal it is considering. 50. In paragraph 22 of his judgment in Barnwell Sullivan L.J. said this: “… I accept that … the Inspector's assessment of the degree of harm to the setting of the listed building was a matter for his planning judgment, but I do not accept that he was then free to give that harm such weight as he chose when carrying out the balancing exercise. In my view, Glidewell L.J.'s judgment [in The Bath Society] is authority for the proposition that a finding of harm to the setting of a listed building is a consideration to which the decision-maker must give “considerable importance and weight””. 51. That conclusion, in Sullivan L.J.'s view, was reinforced by the observation of Lord Bridge in South Lakeland (at p.146 E-G) that if a proposed development would conflict with the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area “there will be a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission, though, no doubt, in exceptional cases the presumption may be overridden in favour of development which is desirable on the ground of some other public interest”
“Listed Buildings Alterations, extensions to listed buildings or development within the listed curtilage, or that which affects the setting of a listed building will be considered if accompanied with a Statement of Significance which sets out how the proposal potentially effects the significance of the asset.”