Refusal of planning permission for solar panels upheld: St Anne’s Church, Ings

In June 2024, we reported that the Chancellor of the Diocese of Carlisle, James Fryer-Spedding, had granted a conditional faculty for the installation of 28 black solar panels on the south-facing roof of the Grade II-listed St Anne’s Church, Ings. The church had wanted to install the panels to tackle rising energy costs and to help ensure the building’s long-term financial and environmental sustainability.

The Lake District National Park Authority had refused planning permission for the development on the grounds that the solar panels would be a “visual intrusion” on the building and surrounding area resulting in an “adverse impact on the outstanding universal values of the English Lakes World Heritage Site” – and had done so despite its assessment that the harm to the building would be “less than substantial”. However, Fryer-Spedding Ch granted a conditional faculty on the basis that the petition satisfied the criteria imposed by the Church of England – the conditions being that planning consent should first be obtained and that the panels should be removed at the end of their expected lifespan of 26 years, based on the Diocesan Advisory Committee’s estimate that the useful life of the panels would be 25 years: see Re St Anne Ings [2024] ECC Car 2.

The applicants duly appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against the refusal of planning permission, and the BBC now reports that the appeal was unsuccessful. According to that report, the planning inspector said:

“I have identified harm to the significance of this important listed building.

“This harm relates to the erosion of the visual coherence of the southern elevation, a key aspect of the special interest and significance of the building and a focal point for the village of Ings.”

Cite this article as: Frank Cranmer, "Refusal of planning permission for solar panels upheld: St Anne’s Church, Ings" in Law & Religion UK, 23 October 2024, https://lawandreligionuk.com/2024/10/23/refusal-of-planning-permission-for-solar-panels-upheld-st-annes-church-ings/
.

2 thoughts on “Refusal of planning permission for solar panels upheld: St Anne’s Church, Ings

  1. The full six-page Appeal Decision of the inspector, A J Mageean BA(Hons), BPl, PhD, MRTPI, dated 22 October 2024, based on written representations and after a site visit, can be found here;
    file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Appeal%20Decision%203344153.pdf

    At para 3 the Inspector said that he had ‘taken into account the reasoning set out in the Diocese faculty judgement in reaching my decision.’

    At para 31 he said, ‘There is no doubt that the arguments relating to public benefits are compelling. These must be weighed against the statutory presumption against harm to designated heritage assets. Whilst this presumption is not irrebuttable, the [National Planning Policy] Framework at paragraph 206 sets out that any harm to significance should require clear and convincing justification.’

    He identified the benefits in para 32, ‘the proposal would assist in meeting Government targets in relation to addressing the causes of climate change, albeit at a modest level. It would also assist in providing for the long-term financial and environmental sustainability of the Church. I recognise that this is both of importance to the local community and would assist in ensuring the ongoing maintenance and preservation of the Church.’

    However, the Inspector’s assessment at para 33 was, ‘Set against this I have identified harm to the significance of this important listed building. This harm relates to the erosion of the visual coherence of the southern elevation, a key aspect of the special interest and significance of the building and a focal point for the village of Ings. Although less than substantial, this would nonetheless represent serious harm. I have also noted a little harm to the WHS [World Heritage Site]. I therefore conclude that, whilst the public benefits taken together would be of some significance, particularly locally, they would not outweigh the harm to these designated heritage assets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *