Renewable Energy and Climate Change: Inspector Upholds Refusal of Permission for Solar Power Station in the Green Belt
The proposed development was for a solar power station covering approximately 32 hectares of Green Belt land between Hemel Hempstead and Berkhamstead.
It was agreed between the parties that the proposed development represented “inappropriate development in the Green Belt” and so the test at paragraphs 147-8 of the NPPF applied. The Appellant was required to prove that “very special circumstances” existed which outweighed any harm caused to the Green Belt (both by reason of the inappropriateness of the proposed development or otherwise).
The Inspector concluded, in summary:
- The proposed development would have a moderate negative impact on the Green Belt. The parties agreed that the proposed development would cause inherent harm to the openness by reason of its inappropriateness in and of itself. Moreover, the proposed development would have the appearance of a continuous mass of glass and metal which was clearly not what would be expected in the countryside, producing a moderate negative impact in spacial terms. The impact was enhanced by the fact that the proposed development would be visually prominent from a number of locations (see below). Moreover, it would have the effect (when combined with other development which had been granted planning permission but not yet built out) of substantially “linking” Hemel Hempstead with Berkhampstead. As such it would significantly harm three of the five Green Belt purposes (to prevent the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas, to prevent neighbouring towns merging, and to safeguard the countryside from encroachment.)
- The proposed development would have a moderate negative impact in terms of landscape and visual impact. The site was comprised of sharply undulating land and surrounded by higher ground, creating a sort of natural bowl. As a result, the landscape and visual impacts were substantially enhanced.
- The harm to the landscape was enhanced by proximity to the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposed development was not in the AONB but the site abutted its border. The Appellant argued that mere harm to the setting of the AONB could not amount to harm to the AONB itself. The Council pointed out that the proposed development would negatively impact on views into and (to a lesser extent) from the AONB. The Inspector preferred the Council’s case.
- While the renewable energy and climate change benefits of the proposed development carried significant weight:
…the harm to the Green Belt and that caused by the landscape/AONB issues would not be clearly outweighed by the other considerations identified and therefore the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.
Comment
The decision provides three important lessons for both local authorities and developers:
- Climate benefits are not necessarily a trump card. The Appellant relied almost entirely on the clean energy benefits of the proposed development. This over-reliance led it to choose an inappropriate location (see below) for a development that could potentially have succeeded elsewhere. Climate change is now a significant material consideration in appeals such as this (although the law may, and many have argued should, evolve further in this direction) but it is not the only one. Development designed to respond to climate change must, at both application and appeal stage (and, indeed, at the conceptual stage), properly grapple with traditional planning issues as well.
- Location matters. The proposed development would arguably have been acceptable in another Green Belt location. The balance was tipped against it largely by the “linking” effect of the proposed development and the distinctly inappropriate topography. This left the Appellant’s landscape and planning witnesses with a mountain to climb in attempting to reduce the weight placed on the negative Green Belt, Landscape, and AONB impacts. Their evidence was, ultimately, not accepted.
- 40 years is not “temporary”. Developments of this kind have, in other appeals, succeeded in mitigating their negative impacts by claiming that they are “temporary”. The Inspector gave this argument short shrift (adopting the Council’s analysis):
I do not find this argument to be persuasive in terms of reducing the effect on Green Belt openness. Although the proposal is for a limited period, the length of that period is very substantial. But even more importantly, the fundamental aim of national Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. With that well established policy background it cannot be right that the fact that approval is sought for a 40 year period is accorded more than very limited weight in favour of the scheme in relation to the loss of openness. To do so would go against the concept of permanence.
These issues could have been avoided by taking the Green Belt impacts head-on but choosing a flatter and less prominent (and, perhaps, smaller) site.
Developments, like renewable energy, which address climate change will often need to be built in the Green Belt for various practical reasons. But decision-makers (both for local authorities and developers) must take account of the full panoply of planning issues. Protecting the environment requires a more nuanced approach than writing a blank cheque for renewables.