Derbyshire Dales District Council and another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another. Pays/Territoire Royaume-Uni Type de cour Nationale - cour supérieure Date Jul 17, 2009 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal High Court Siège de la cour London Juge Carnwarth. Numéro de référence [2009] EWHC 1729 (Admin) Langue Anglais Sujet Énergie, Terre et sols Mot clé Conservation de l'énergie/production de l'énergie Planification territoriale Énergie renouvelable Résumé The present case concerned a joint challenge by the Council and the Peak District National Park Authority against the Secretary of States decision to grant planning permission for four wind turbines. In the decision letter, the inspector had decided that consideration of alternative sites was not necessary, either as a matter of law or on the merits of the proposal, and, that the proposal would make a valuable contribution to strategic targets for renewable energy generation. It was submitted that as the inspector had made a clear finding that the proposal conflicted in some respects with the development plan he had made a fundamental error in holding that it was not necessary as a matter of law or policy to consider whether the need could be met on some alternative site that would cause less harm to development plan policy. Rejecting this ground of challenge, the Judge held that there was a difference between saying on the one hand that consideration of a possible alternative site was a potentially relevant issue so that a decision‐maker did not err in law if he had regard to it, and saying on the other hand that it was necessarily relevant so that he erred in law if he failed to have regard to it. To uphold the latter statement, one had to find a legal principle that compelled, and not merely empowered, him to do so. It was impossible to say that there was anything in section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) or in the relevant policies, that expressly or impliedly required the inspector to consider alternative sites, especially as none had been identified here. The emphasis of s.78 was on consideration of the particular application in question. Although the statutory provisions and policies relating to the National Park required special regard to be paid to their protection they fell short of imposing a positive obligation to consider alternatives that might not have the same effects. Accordingly, it was a matter of planning judgment on the facts. That was how the inspector had approached the point, and, which he had been entitled to do so. He therefore upheld the Inspectors approach. He said “it also appears to have been common ground that there is a shortfall of renewable energy sources judged by reference to regional targets, and also that the renewable energy output from this development had to be given significant weight in the planning judgment. The Inspector grappled with his submission based on para.16 of the Planning Policy Statement Supplement, and understandably adopted what he regarded as a rational reconciliation of the apparent conflicts in the policy statements". Texte intégral COU-156626.pdf