Appeal 6003225

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of the proposal as set out in the Council's Decision Notice, which is more accurate than that used in the application form. The appellant has used this revised description in the appeal form and so I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced as a result.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area, and • biodiversity.

The site lies within the North Devon Coast National Landscape, also known as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and within the designated Heritage Coast. It consists of an area of vegetated land adjacent to a parking area associated with [site address] , a dwelling. The site lies close to the edge of a steep cliff, part of the [name] coastline.

The Council’s Landscape Character Assessment identifies the area including the site as being a largely undeveloped coastline of steep rocky or vegetated cliffs forming a 'wild' and remote landscape. Section 245 of the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023 (the Act) requires that I must seek to further the statutory purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB.

The proposal seeks to erect two ground-mounted solar arrays on the site. Part of the area proposed for the arrays consists of a gravelled parking area. However, most of the site is undeveloped green space. Accordingly, it makes a small but positive contribution to the natural beauty of the National Landscape hereabouts.

Policy ST02 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan (the Local Plan), adopted October 2018, seeks to promote opportunities for renewable and low-carbon energy generation, whilst conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Paragraph 168 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes clear that small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The arrays would be capable of providing 210% of the energy needs of the dwelling, avoiding the need to use non-renewable means and putting power back into the National Grid. This represents a benefit of the proposal to which I give significant positive weight, in an area where such opportunities may be limited. They would also be removable at the end of their life.

Even so, the arrays could be in place for many years. They and their supporting structure would be hard features of an angled, functional design, and would contrast sharply with the natural landscape of the cliff edge and its coastal vegetation. As such, the proposal would have a negative effect on the landscape character of the area, thus harming its natural beauty. I saw that the arrays would be visible from the [name], a high-sensitivity visual receptor, adding to their harmful effects.

Local Plan policy ST16 supports renewable energy development where appropriate. However, its explanatory text makes clear that landscape assets of national importance will be protected. To my mind these include the National Landscape. Similarly, the Framework at paragraph 189 requires that I give great weight to conserving the scenic beauty of the National Landscape. Consequently, I consider that the adverse landscape effects of the proposal would outweigh the renewable energy benefits.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with Local Plan policy ST02, as well as with policies ST04, ST09, ST14, DM04 and DM08A. These seek to protect the undeveloped character of the Heritage Coast, to conserve the special qualities of the National Landscape, and to ensure a high-quality design. It would also conflict with the similar requirements of the North Devon AONB Management Plan, and with my duties under the Act. Local Plan policy DM08 relates to biodiversity, and so I find no conflict with it in respect of this first issue. I shall consider Local Plan policy ST01 under [name] below.

Local Plan policy ST02 seeks to manage climate change by promoting opportunities for renewable and low-carbon energy generation, whilst conserving the natural environment. Much of the appeal site is undeveloped grassland and it is close to denser vegetation and the cliff edge. Therefore, there is a reasonable likelihood that the site or its surroundings could be used as a habitat by protected or important species.

The proposed arrays would cover a relatively small area. That said, they would overshadow the grassland underneath, and would be likely to result in pressure to manage the surrounding vegetation, to ensure good exposure to the sun. No substantive information, such as a survey undertaken by an ecologist, is before me. Consequently, the proposal may well adversely affect biodiversity.

Additional trees and shrubs would be planted, and bird and bat boxes would be installed. However, in the absence of detailed ecological information, there is little to show that this mitigation would overcome or outweigh the adverse effects of the proposal. Based on the evidence available to me, I cannot be satisfied about its effects on ecology.

For the reasons given above, the proposal could well have a harmful effect on biodiversity. On this basis, it would conflict with Local Plan policy ST02, as well as policies ST14 and DM08, which seek to protect biodiversity and the natural environment. Policy DM08A relates to landscape character and accordingly there is no conflict with it in respect of this second main issue. Policy ST01 is considered below.

Local Plan policy ST01 relates to the principles of sustainable development. I have found conflict with the Local Plan policies as set out above. For the reasons already given, the balance of the advice in the Framework is against the proposal. There is no suggestion that the Local Plan policies are out of date. It follows that policy ST01 does not support the proposal. Reference has been made to substantial building works nearby, but I have few details of this, preventing useful comparison with the proposal.

The site is within the Ilfracombe Conservation Area (CA). This part of the CA consists of planned housing development dating from the late-19th and early-20th Century. Relevant to the appeal, its significance is the attractive appearance and design of its buildings. There is no dispute that the proposal would have no adverse effect on the CA or its significance. I have reached a similar view, and that the character and appearance of the CA would be preserved. This does not however alter my conclusion on the main issues.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.