“… a group of listed buildings located 500m north of the proposed development site. The Hall is a 17th century gentry house listed Grade I, and is associated with a Grade I 17th century aisled barn and other barns, outbuildings, walls, gatepiers and a mounting block all listed at Grade II. The whole assemblage is set in generally landscaped grounds, but with a more formal garden on the southern side. …. The Grade I buildings are of exceptional interest and the whole of the site is of national significance.”
“In considering whether to grant planning permission … for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority … 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.”
“48 … 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.”
“The following propositions can be drawn from the Directive as clarified by Waddenzee: 1. The Habitats Directive must be interpreted and applied by reference to the precautionary principle, which reflects the high level of protection pursued by Community policy on the environment—see Waddenzee [44] and [58]; 2. A competent national authority may only authorise a plan or project after having determined that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the protected site in question— art.6(3) and Waddenzee [56] and [57]; 3. Unless the risk of significant adverse effects on the site in question can be excluded by the competent authority on the basis of objective information, the plan or project must be the subject of an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site; 4. If, following an appropriate assessment, doubt remains as to whether or not there will be significant adverse effects on the integrity of the site, the competent authority must refuse authorisation of the plan or project, unless art.6(4) applies; 5. If in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site, and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must be carried out for imperative reasons overriding public interest (including those of a social or economic nature), the competent national authorities must, “take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected” and notify the Commission of such measures (art.6(4)).” “take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected” and notify the Commission of such measures (art.6(4)).”
“… although the addition of the emissions from a waste facility would be relatively small, acid deposition is already in excess of the critical load for this part of the South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC (Rombald’s Moor) and therefore a waste management use involving combustion processes on proposed Site 78 … would potentially exacerbate an existing situation. …. [I]t is therefore suggested that proposed Site 78 … may not be suitable for a waste management use which uses combustion processes and it is recommended that the [waste management DPD] is amended to reflect that this use should not be identified as suitable for Site 78. Alternative sites within the Plan Area should instead be identified … .”
“… the addition of the emissions from a waste facility would be relatively small but would not be welcome given that acid deposition is already so far in excess of the critical load for this part of the European designated site. The aim should be for an incremental reduction in acid deposition to below the critical load rather than potentially exacerbating an unsatisfactory situation.”
“It is also clear as a matter both of law and planning policy that harm (if it exists) is to be measured against both the scale of the harm and the significance of the heritage asset. Although the statutory duty requires special regard to be paid to the desirability of not harming the setting of a listed building, that cannot mean that any harm, however minor, would necessarily require planning permission to be refused.”
“… if expert advice induces a decision-maker into error in carrying out the judgments mandated by art. 6(3) [of the Directive], I consider that it would be both artificial and wrong to hold that the court should not characterise what has occurred as irrational.”