Howell & Ors v Stamford Renewables Ltd & Ors

A statutory duty to have regard to specified planning purposes requires those purposes to be specifically considered. It does not create a presumption in their favour or make them a trump card. Conflicting planning policies may be given different weight where a later, more specific policy is more consistent with national policy. Energy output is not invariably a mandatory consideration in a wind-turbine application; it need be addressed specifically only where it is a principal important controversial issue. A planning decision is not irrational merely because compliance with a noise condition may require reduced operation or cessation. A permission is interpreted from its terms, conditions, approved drawings and incorporated documents, read in context.

The claimant challenged under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 an inspector’s decision granting permission for a wind turbine near the Broads. The challenge alleged errors concerning the statutory duty relating to the Broads, the relative weight of local planning policies, the turbine’s energy output, noise conditions, and the setting of listed buildings. The claimant also disputed whether the permission authorised only the Vestas V90 turbine shown in an approved drawing.

1. Broads duty. Section 17A of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 required the Inspector specifically to consider the statutory purposes of conserving and enhancing natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, promoting public enjoyment, and protecting navigation. It did not require those matters to receive greater weight than other considerations, create a presumption in favour of a particular result, or prevent other matters from outweighing them. The Inspector had considered the whole designated area, assessed the landscape effects and explained his conclusion that the turbine would not fail to conserve the natural beauty of the Broads.
2. Planning policy. Applying Lark Energy v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Waveney District Council [2014] EWHC 2006 (Admin), the Inspector was entitled to give greater weight to the more specific renewable-energy policy DM03 than to policies CS16 and DM27 where they pulled in different directions and DM03 was more consistent with the NPPF. The approach did not invalidate or disregard the development plan.
3. Energy output. Planning Practice Guidance describing capacity information as useful did not make it a mandatory consideration in every case. The Inspector was required to address only substantial points and principal important controversial issues. On the evidence, energy output was not such an issue before him.
4. Noise. The noise condition was not irrational. The Inspector had considered the agreed 2dB uncertainty margin, the possibility of exceedance and the enforcement consequences. A further condition prescribing operation in the quietest mode was not required because that issue had not been raised before the Inspector.
5. Listed buildings and interpretation. The Inspector’s reasons for concluding that listed-building settings would not be materially affected were adequate when read fairly and as a whole. The permission authorised a turbine within the approved dimensions and with rated output of up to 2MW; it did not restrict development to the Vestas V90 model, since the Environmental Statement expressly treated that model as an example.
6. The application to quash the Inspector’s decision was refused.

First-instance judicial review claim. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.