Appeal 6002170

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the stand alone microgeneration wind turbine to the south west of the plot at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] , Northamptonshire [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application 2025/4047/FULL and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing Nos FP2WT090925 [name] (Location Plan & Site Plan), FP1WT090925, in so far as they relate to the stand alone microgeneration wind turbine only. For the avoidance of doubt this planning permission does not include an Air Source Heat Pump.

An application for costs was made by [name] against [site address] Council. The application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The application is for the installation of a stand-alone microgeneration wind turbine. In refusing the application the Council cited an air source heat pump (ASHP) indicated on the plans. The ASHP is not included in the description in development and whilst accurate plans are important, it is possible to impose a condition for approved plans notwithstanding particular details. I return to this matter later in my decision.

[site address] is set out on the application form as the site address, but there is no such county. I have therefore removed West from my decision in the banner heading.

In support of the appeal, the appellant has submitted an amended plan which shows changes to the location of the wind turbine. In deciding whether it is appropriate to accept this plan, I have had regard to the Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. This states that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and what is considered by the Inspector at appeal should be essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and by interested parties at the application stage. In this instance, this revised plan alters the position of the turbine and therefore potentially raises new issues not previously considered. I am therefore not accepting this plan as it would prejudice interested parties. I have determined the appeal on the original plans submitted with the application.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) is cited on the decision notice. This relates to the statutory duty concerning direct impacts within a conservation area. As the appeal site is outside of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA) boundary the Act has not been determinative in my decision.

The Council’s decision notice cited Policy SPD1 of the [name] 2 Local Plan (2011-2029). The Council have subsequently confirmed that this should reference SDP1 of that Plan. I have therefore made my decision using this policy.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the property and surrounding area, including the significance of the adjacent conservation area.

The appeal site is situated at the entrance to a residential cul-de-sac which is accessed off [address] on the edge of the village of [site address] . Like the other properties in the cul-de-sac, the appeal site comprises a modern two-storey house with pitched roof and chimney. Along the approach and from the rear, its setting is largely rural with intermittent views towards it from the two public rights of way (AE18 and AE19). Only limited intervisibility with the built form of the village is afforded between banks of trees and the other houses in the cul-de-sac.

The proposal is for a stand-alone microgeneration wind turbine which would be attached to the rear of the chimney. Whilst the turbine would be elevated, sat clear of the ridge, and comprise a moving element to the house, it is modest in size and would not appear as a dominant component to it. When viewed in close proximity it will be read as an appropriate contextual fixture to this modern house. Whilst the house employs traditional local materials it has elements of contemporary design, found in its glazing and use of expansive solar panels which the turbine would assimilate with. Moreover, the white finish will blend with typical climatic

The appeal site is adjacent to the [site address] Conservation Area (CA). The CA covers the majority of the village core and historic development along the main routes running into the settlement. The Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP) notes that that whilst the origin of the village is medieval, formed around a radial plan, the majority of properties are from the 16th to 18th century. It notes that plots become larger in size, as do the buildings, along [address] towards the appeal site. Many of these buildings are noted to be significant to the CA and positioned along the street boundary, thereby enclosing views along the street. The appeal site is to the rear of the street frontage and not visible in these street views.

The section of the CA, adjacent to the appeal site, comprises a northern spur to the designation and is absent of built form. It is mostly experienced as an impervious site, bounded by established trees and hedging. The appeal site is not visible across this piece of land.

The vantage points from which the proposal would be visible within the setting of the CA as well as towards it from within the CA are not provided in this appeal and were not evident to me on my site visit. In views towards the appeal site from the entrance of [site address] as well as intermittently from the public right of way, the built townscape of the CA would be experienced behind the turbine, but fleetingly and from very limited locations between modern housing. Moreover, from within the CA there are no views between gaps in housing or over lower built form where the turbine would be visible. Furthermore, despite its elevated position, views of the turbine across the undeveloped northern spur of the CA would be completely obscured by trees. Therefore, the appeal site does not form part of the setting of the CA.

Therefore, I find no harm to the significance of the CA and no requirement to engage with paragraphs 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which requires the proposal to be weighed against public benefits.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the property or the surrounding area, including the significance of the nearby CA. As such, I find no conflict with Policies BN5 or R1 of the [site address] Joint Core Strategy Local Plan (Part 1) (2014) and Policies SS2, SDP1 or HE6 of the [name] 2 Local Plan (2011-2029). These policies, in summary, require development to protect and enhance the character of the historic environment, including that outside of a conservation area which have an adverse effect on the setting of the conservation area. Moreover, there would be no conflict with the objectives of the [name] (2017), insofar as it relates to micro-wind turbines

Whilst the Council notes that the turbine might be acceptable if positioned elsewhere on the site, other locations do not form part of this appeal and therefore this weights neither for nor against the scheme.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of certainty. This condition excludes the ASHP.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.