Plant, R (On the Application Of) v Pembrokeshire County Council & Anor

Planning policies must be read as a whole. Where policies pull in different directions, the planning authority must identify and weigh the competing considerations, decide which policy is dominant, and determine whether the proposal accords with the development plan overall. A proposal does not become unsustainable merely because it has an adverse effect under one policy. Renewable-energy benefits may outweigh adverse landscape or heritage impacts if the decision-maker properly identifies and balances them. An environmental-impact screening opinion must address whether the development is likely to have significant environmental effects. A checklist is informative; the opinion itself is the operative decision. Screening documents must be read fairly and as a whole, without imposing an unduly exacting standard of drafting.

The claimant challenged the Council’s grant of planning permission for two wind turbines near several scheduled ancient monuments and other heritage assets. An earlier permission had been quashed because the Council had misinterpreted the applicable development-plan policy.

Following reconsideration under the newly adopted Local Development Plan, the Council again granted permission. The claimant alleged that the officer’s report misunderstood the plan and that the environmental-impact screening opinion was unlawful because it omitted relevant landscape considerations, failed to apply the significant-effects test, and was internally inconsistent.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. The development plan created competing policy strands. Policies concerning sustainable development and renewable energy had to be balanced against policies protecting landscape and historic assets. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 created a rebuttable presumption in favour of determining applications in accordance with the plan, but did not make any single environmental policy a trump. The officer’s report properly identified the conflict, assessed the adverse heritage effects, recognised the renewable-energy benefits, and concluded that the latter outweighed the former. That was a planning judgment open to the authority.
2. Policy SP1 required an assessment of whether the proposal achieved an overall positive economic, social and environmental impact. Policy GN4 likewise required judgment as to whether a renewable-energy proposal was environmentally acceptable overall. Breach of Policies GN1 or GN38 did not legally prevent compliance with SP1 or GN4.
3. Ground 2 dismissed. Under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, the Council had to decide whether the Schedule 2 development was likely to have significant environmental effects. The screening opinion did consider the historic and archaeological landscape, including the relevant material available to the officer. The opinion was not required to reproduce every consideration in detailed terms.
4. The screening checklist informed the decision but was not itself the screening opinion. References to a future landscape and visual impact assessment did not show that the Council had failed to decide the statutory question. The officer’s evidence clarified any ambiguity without impermissibly contradicting the contemporaneous documents.
5. The checklist and opinion were not materially inconsistent. Visibility to many people, unusual effects in the locality, or turbines exceeding existing natural features did not necessarily mean a significant EIA effect. The Council was entitled to conclude that the likely magnitude of impact was low.
6. Permission to amend and proceed was granted for the additional Ground 2 issues if required, but the substantive claim was refused. Judgment was entered for the Council.