Appeal 6006838

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit, the proposal had been partially implemented. A hardstanding consisting of compacted stone had been laid, as had part of the frame to accommodate the solar panels, albeit in a contorted form. There were also some solar panels stored on the ground. [name] have considered in my decision however is the proposal as is shown on the submitted plans.

The proposal has been considered by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (SI 571/2017). A screening direction has been issued which states that the proposal is not Environmental Impact Assessment development.

The Council’s first reason for refusal concerns development in the countryside under Policy 10 of the County Durham Plan (2020) (Plan), where there is a dispute between the main parties over evidence, scale and siting. In this case, my views on this issue are largely dependent on the consideration of the subsequent reasons for refusal which concern character and appearance, including the North Pennines National Landscape ([name]), and the recreational use of a Public Right of Way (PRoW). Accordingly, I consider these issues first before considering development in the countryside and Policy 10.

The main issues are (i) the effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the [name]; (ii) the effect on the recreational use of the PRoW; (iii) whether the proposal would accord with the development plan with regard to development in the countryside; and (iv) if there is harm, whether this is outweighed by the benefits of the proposal.

The appeal site comprises open land associated with an animal rescue centre, which is run as a charitable operation. The main cluster of buildings are located to the north along Sidehead and separated from the site by vegetation. One of these buildings has had solar panels erected on it, which appear to be recent. Both main parties have referred to a consented prior notification of late for such a development. The site is located on a hillside and slopes appreciably down from these buildings. It is separated from pastural land to the south by a post and wire fence, and drystone walls are also found on its boundaries. A PRoW runs through the site from Sidehead and onwards across nearby fields.

The site lies within the [name]. It is an upland landscape divided by broad sloping dales with enclosed open pastures and meadows. Planting and tree cover is not a particular characteristic of this broader landscape, while the strong field patterns are largely defined by drystone walls. Small settlements and farmsteads are located in the valley floor with occasional dispersed development, such as Sidehead, found on the hillsides. The site also lies within the [name] (LCT) under the County Durham Landscape Character Assessment (2008). [name] shares many of the characteristics of the [name] as a broad upland valley landscape.

The open landscape character aspects of the site would be markedly diminished by the proposed ground mounted solar panel array and associated infrastructure. It would have an incongruous appearance compared to the predominant pastoral quality of the [name] and the area. The proposal would be of some scale in these largely undeveloped surroundings. Such an effect would be pronounced because of its siting away from the buildings on the site and with its sloping, elevated position high on the dale above the valley floor. It would not therefore be a small change on the landscape character, but would be a feature that would poorly relate to its environment.

In relation to visual impacts, there would be some harm at a distance because of the elevated positioning of the site over the valley and the contrast of the form of the development with its pastoral setting. As is shown in the viewpoints provided in the appellant’s Landscape and [name], there would be visibility even from the valley floor and with little screening in between. While greater impacts would be more localised, it would not be the case the proposed rows of solar panels would be appreciably screened by the front row because those beyond would be more elevated. Hence, it would appear as a larger, visually intrusive development.

The creation of a new drystone wall as mitigation, while a quality of the [name] and the area, would not reasonably be of a height that would provide sufficient screening quality. If it would be any higher than those in its vicinity, it would not be in keeping. The use of landscaping to provide screening would be discordant as this would not be a positive feature of this more open, pastoral landscape. Nor would it address that the nature of the proposal would not reflect the landscape character and so there would be a clear adverse impact.

I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the [name]. As such, it would not comply with Policies 29, 33, 38 and 39 of the Plan where they concern contributing positively to an area’s character including landscape features, renewable and low carbon energy development in appropriate locations, great weight to be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the [name] and not causing unacceptable harm to the landscape, including mitigation, amongst other matters. Similarly, it would not accord with part 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) which concerns achieving well-designed places, including landscape.

The statutory duty at section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended by the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023) requires a decision-maker to seek to further the statutory purposes of the [name] through conserving and enhancing its natural beauty. It has also amended the duties that are set out under Policy 38 and this has strengthened the duty involved with this protected landscape. The statutory purpose would not be achieved in this case. The proposal would also not accord with part 15 (paragraph 189) of the Framework where it states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes.

The ProW (No.2 [name]) which runs through the site affords ready appreciation of this upland pastoral landscape. It provides its recreational users a distinct sense of peace and tranquillity, which is also a characteristic of the [name] and this area.

The imposition of the proposal as a ground mounted solar panel array and associated infrastructure would unquestionably result in close range views of a development that would be out of character with how the PRoW is appreciated. As a consequence, it would negatively impact the public amenity of the users by way of how they would enjoy the route. Whilst passing the proposal, there would be little semblance of the natural environment and so the effect could not be considered to be low in recreation terms.

Views would also be afforded up the PRoW as it approaches the site from the valley and so the effect would not be localised in this respect. There would be little screening and it would appear elevated in that direction. From the opposite direction, while users would be anticipating an open view of the valley, their eye would instead be drawn to the stark nature of the proposal.

Landscaping mitigation would not offset such a harm, as users would be anticipating the satisfaction of an open, natural landscape rather than the creation of landscaped features. The appellant has also referred to a wildlife experience zone alongside the PRoW, but it would not justify a subsequent proposal for a development in such juxtaposition. In relation to an alternative route for the PRoW, these details are not before me and so I can only consider the effect on the users of the current routeing. Nor would conditioning an alternative route aid my deliberations, in the absence of details. I noted on my site visit that the route can be hard to navigate, but nevertheless it still needs to be considered as a recreational resource.

I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the recreational use of the PRoW. As a result, it would not comply with Policy 31 of the Plan in as far as it concerns impacts on the PRoW through the natural environment and visual intrusion. It would also not accord with parts 12 and 15 of the Framework, including where they concern a high standard of amenity and detrimental effects on recreational opportunities in National Landscapes.

For the purposes of the Plan, the site lies in the countryside. Policy 10 sets out, amongst other considerations, that development in the countryside will not be permitted unless allowed for by specific policies in the Plan. Footnote 54 lists these policies, including low carbon and renewables. [name] have already found the proposal would not comply with Policy 33, which concerns renewable energy development, it would not be permitted by this part of Policy 10.

Policy 10 then goes onto list a number of exceptions, and I note both main parties views on the applicability of development necessary to support economic development, in particular related to a land based enterprise. I am mindful that the appellant considers the proposal is both commensurate for its intended use, even with the solar panels installed on the building and there is a business case for its particular location, as underused land and in maximising energy generation. Equally, and as the Council has pointed out, there is not a great deal of empirical evidence in this regard to justify its scale and siting for a location which is not well related to the buildings, and especially as solar panels have now been installed on one of the buildings. Need in the context of Policy 10 means specific locational need, not overall need for renewable energy, and so I am not persuaded there is any particular policy conflict with the Framework in this regard.

However, even if I considered the proposal would comply with this exception, Policy 10 goes onto state that as a general design principle that it must not give rise to unacceptable harm to intrinsic character, beauty or tranquillity of the countryside either individually or cumulatively, which cannot be adequately mitigated or compensated for, amidst other considerations. [name] have found the proposal to have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the [name] and the associated development plan policies, it would also not comply with Policy 10. Similarly, the general design principle under this policy which concerns the impact upon general amenity would also not be met due to the recreational harm that I have identified.

I conclude that the proposal would not accord with the development plan with regard to development in the countryside because of the conflict that would arise with Policy 10 in the circumstances where development is allowed by specific policies in the Plan, the exceptions and the general design principles.

The proposal would be used to contribute towards the energy requirements for the animal rescue centre. Due to the isolated location, the appellant has set out it has been difficult to obtain sufficient power from the grid and increasing power is not feasible, and these challenges also include power cuts. The need also arises from rising energy costs and for future proofing. A larger number of solar panels is required. The proposal is deemed essential for future viability in providing care for the animals on the site, which are looked after for the rest of their natural lives. Matters have also been raised over what may become of the animals if the proposal does not go ahead. It would also sustain jobs on the site.

In addition, the proposal would contribute towards tackling climate change through carbon savings. It would accord with the Framework where it sets out that the planning system should support the transition to net zero by 2050 and support renewable energy and associated infrastructure, including increasing supply, and broader sustainability objectives linked to renewable energy. Nor is there a requirement under the Framework for overall need to be demonstrated.

The appellant also considers there would be some wider public benefit through rewilding and habitat creation. There is little detail however before me on what this would entail, including whether it would accord with the qualities of the [name]. Nevertheless, it still needs to be considered in the planning balance.

While not contained in its reason for refusal, the Council has also raised concerns over glint and glare from the proposed solar panels on the living conditions of the occupiers of the residential properties in the valley bottom. The properties are however a considerable distance away from where the proposal would be sited. Even though the appellant did not submit a glint and glare technical assessment, it would be therefore unlikely that unacceptable harmful effects would arise in this respect.

The proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the [name]. As the statutory purpose would not be achieved in this case and the effect on this designation and the area would be incongruous, this attracts very significant weight against the proposal. Both the unacceptable effect on the recreational use of the PRoW and the lack of accordance with the development plan with regard to development in the countryside attract significant weight against the proposal. With the conflict with the Plan policies that I have identified, it would also conflict with the development plan as a whole.

Set against this would be the benefits. The matters related to the future operation of the centre attract significant weight, as do separately the renewable energy credentials of the proposal. The rewilding and habitat creation benefits attract limited weight as a benefit. Glint and glare, and all other matters, do not weigh either for or against the proposal.

I have considered all matters that have been raised, but the benefits that would arise would not outweigh the harm caused by the proposal. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations to outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.