Windfarm update 20JUL14

You may recall that during the windfarm public inquiry held at Towcester last October, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, decided to "recover" the decision for his own determination. The Inquiry Inspector, John Woolcock, was thus relieved of the responsibility for making the decision but was required to submit his report and recommendation directly to the
Secretary of State. He was expected to have completed this task by the end of December 2013 and it was announced that the decision would be published on 28th May 2014.
The publication of new national planning policy guidance in March and a report on Amplitude
Modulation (noise issues) in April, led to the Secretary of State asking all parties for their comments on those matters to assist him in the making of his decision. In each case, the Helmdon Stuchbury and Greatworth Windfarm Action Group retained barrister Richard Honey to prepare and submit the necessary representations. It was then announced that the decision would be published on or before
9th July.
July 9th came and went without any announcements from the Secretary of State's office.
I have been asked by the committee to forward the following update:
On 15th July, South Northants District Council, Broadview Energy and Keith Jones (Chairman of the
Action Group) received a letter from the Secretary of State's office stating that the Secretary of State did not feel able to make his decision until he had considered the views of the three main parties on the implications of a recent Court of Appeal judgement. The subject of the judgement is the proposed
'Barnwell Manor' Windfarm for which planning permission was refused by East Northamptonshire
District Council. The developers duly appealed and after a Public Inquiry the Inspector concluded that although the windfarm would cause harm to local heritage assets, the degree of harm would not be
"substantial" and he therefore allowed the appeal. The District Council took the matter to the High
Court which ruled in favour of the Council, a judgement subsequently confirmed by the Court of
Appeal where the judge held that:
"It does not follow that if the harm to such heritage assets is found to be less than substantial, the balancing exercise ………. should ignore the overarching statutory duty (that) ……. considerable weight
(is) to be given by decision-makers to the desirability of preserving the setting of all listed buildings, including Grade II listed buildings."
Those of you who attended the inquiry will recall that considerable time was given to considering whether the harm to local heritage assets was or was not "substantial" (and indeed what was meant by "substantial"). We have no way of knowing what the Inspector recommended to the Secretary of
State. He may have concluded that the harm to local heritage assets was not "substantial" and on that basis recommended that the appeal be allowed. In the light of the above Appeal Court judgement, it may be that the Secretary of State might be prepared to take a different view. All complete conjecture, but you can see that the recent Court of Appeal judgement may play an important part in the decision making.
That being so, the Action Group has once more instructed barrister Richard Honey to make representations on its behalf. These have to be made by August 5th. As usual there has to be an opportunity for each party to comment upon the representations of the others and this will delay matters further until August 15th. The letter from the Secretary of State's office concludes: "We aim to issue the decision as soon as reasonably possible after any responses have been considered." The
Secretary of State's lawyers will no doubt need time to consider the judgement itself, the representations of interested parties and any comments upon those representations. This may take us well into September or October.
As soon as we have more information, we shall be in touch.
Kindest regards,
Gerry Neuhoff
Treasurer