Objection to Planning Application 11/03208/RENE: Fenrother by Ax4F0n

VIEWS: 90 PAGES: 24

									Objection to Planning Application 11/03208/RENE: Fenrother
Anemometer Mast

On behalf of the Fight Fenrother Wind Farm Community Action Group I request
that our representations are taken into consideration when deciding upon this
application. It is submitted that the application for an anemometer mast (the
mast) must be determined on it’s own merits. In accordance with the council
officers published guidance the factors to be considered are as follows:

(1)   The need for the anemometer mast;
(2)   The visual impact of the proposal;
(3)   The impact on nearby residential properties/and others;
(4)   Planning policy guidance.

We enclose, as appendix 1, 3 examples of recent Met Mast applications were
refused by county councils and subsequently dismissed by the Planning
Inspector :

           Appeal Ref: APP/J3720/A/09/2118766
 Land between Bishop’s Itchington,
            Knightcote and Gaydon, Warwickshire CV47 2SL
           Appeal Reference : APP/G0908/A/06/2021214
 Land at Tallentire Hill Farm,
            Tallentire, Cockermouth, CA13 0PY
           Appeal Ref: APP/V2723/A/11/2162516
 Thornton Steward Water Treatment
            Works, Thornton Steward, Ripon North Yorkshire HG4 4BQ

The site of the proposed mast is between the A697 and A1 which act as the
gateways to the beautiful county of Northumberland. This is a site like no other.
The vistas are passed and enjoyed by thousands of people everyday.

This application is opposed not on grounds of emotion or inability to accept
change but because, judged objectively against the aforementioned four
factors, the application should be refused.

(1)   The Need for the Anemometer Mast

      (a)   The application for the mast with a height of 60 metres has been
            applied for on the grounds that it will provide data to assess the site’s
            suitability for a wind farm. In reality the applicant has already
            undertaken a pre-application enquiry to ascertain the requirements
            needed to apply for a wind farm of five turbines of 126.5 metres in
            height with a hub height of 80 metres. The council has already
            stated, most recently for the Tranwell met mast application, that it
            follows the PPS22 companion guide for guidelines on met masts.
            This clearly states “The masts should be approximately as tall as the
            hub height of planned turbine. However, often when the mast is
            erected it is not known either if the site is suitable for wind farming or
            which turbine type would be most suitable.” Energiekontor clearly
            have a current favoured turbine height of 80 metres. A met mast
            with a height of 60 metres would therefore provide no useful
            information and in fact produce data which was of no relevance



                                                                                       1
            whatsoever to a proposed 80 metre turbine. Need is not established
            here.

      (b)   The companion guide to PPS22 goes on to provide that
            measurements from anemometers help determine whether or not a
            site is suitable for renewable energy development. This decision has
            already been made by Energiekontor. A mail drop provided by this
            company referred to government NOALB wind speed data map
            stating that there is “a good wind resource” in Fenrother. The
            applicant is not approaching this application as an open minded
            exercise for the collection of data but merely as a process of going
            through the motions. This shows that there is no need for the mast.

      (c)   In accordance with PPS22 “development proposer should
            demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as
            well as how any environmental and social impacts have been
            minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design
            and other measures.” We must therefore assume as stated by the
            council’s solicitor at the Tranwell mast application and, as we are
            told in the official guidance, that the mast is not to be considered as
            stage one of a wind farm even though the Energiekontor pre-
            application for a wind farm at Fenrother details a met mast is part of
            the plan for their proposed wind farm. This point is of importance
            because the applicant in the design and access statement
            accompanying the application is seeking to justify the mast by
            reference to RE Policy. If these are issues which are relevant so are
            valid objections to a wind farm. It is settled that objections to a
            proposed wind farm will play no part in this planning decision so it
            must follow that any arguments in favour of such development do not
            feature. Although we can see why the applicant would seek to use
            this tactic this material is irrelevant. The mast application is to be
            judged on its own merits. On its own the anemometer mast provides
            no useful additional data and there is no scope for it being assessed
            outside of current UK planning laws. It must either be applied for as
            part of a wind farm application and be assessed on those merits or it
            must be assessed within current planning laws balancing the
            benefits against the disbenefits. Energiekontor have failed to
            demonstrate any need, social, environmental and economic benefits
            stemming from the application and it must therefore be strongly
            considered for rejection.

(2)   The Visual Impact of the Proposal

      (a)   The character and appearance of the surrounding area are
            traditionally rural. It is tranquil, attractive countryside, generally flat
            in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, but gently rolling to the
            north and west with strong field patterns evident in the vicinity. The
            landscape is worthy of sensitive treatment. From nearby dwellings
            and private land, there is no doubt that the mast would be perceived
            as prominent and would appear as an alien feature for local


                                                                                     2
      residents looking at it day in and day out. That would heighten
      anxieties about the prospect of further development and could
      significantly spoil the enjoyment of their rural homes.

(b)   Please refer to the attached planning inspectorate appeal decision
      reference APP/V2723/A/11/2162516. This decision was made on
      23rd January 2012 rejecting an appeal by the appellant against
      refusal by Richmondshire Council to grant planning permission for a
      met mast. The planning inspector found that “there would be high
      landscape sensitivity to the change that would result from the
      construction of the proposed mast.” Essentially “the tall mast would
      have an impact beyond the immediate confines…….and would to
      some degree impair the character, quality and value of the local
      landscape.” This links directly to the A697 and A1 roads as routes
      into rural Northumberland and for many a tourist the start of their
      journey through the county. In refusing the application the inspector
      says “I consider that the proposed development would have a limited
      impact on the character of the area, but would by reason of its
      adverse visual effects on an area of high amenity value, harm the
      appearance of the area.” This is exactly the position with the present
      application.

(c)   In the Richmondshire appeal the appellant expressed a willingness
      to install bird deflectors if required. The inspector’s view was that the
      addition of bird deflectors would increase the adverse visual impact
      of the proposed mast. In our case there are birds to be protected
      however as the inspector further stated “The addition of bird
      deflectors, if required would tip the balance even further against
      allowing the proposed development.”

(d)   Energiekontor claims it has mitigated against this in its application
      claiming, “7.13 The mast has been sited close to a field boundary to
      reflect as far as possible the existing agricultural landscape grain. It
      has also been located at a position which maximises separation
      distances from public viewpoints and residential receptors.” This is
      inaccurate and clearly from the map showing the site layout the mast
      is central in a field. There has been no attempt to site the mast in
      keeping with the grain of the land.

(e)   The vast majority of the residents within the area feel that this will
      adversely impact upon them and accordingly this must be regarded
      as significant in terms of assessing visual impact.

(f)   Energiekontor have clearly failed to apply policy RE2 iv.
         “Proposals should be sited in sympathy with the local features
      and repect the grain and form of the land and be located so as to
      minimize visual intrusions”




                                                                             3
(3)   The Impact on Nearby Residential Properties/And Others

      (a)   Airspace Impact Safety. Met masts have significant implications with
            regards to airspace primarily due to them being inherently difficult for
            pilots to be able to acquire visually. The parish airspace has in
            recent years been increasingly used by the RAF. There have been
            an increase in both fighter jet and helicopter activities. Of note low
            flying helicopter flights have increased and were numerous in the
            preceding two years. A structure of this size, even if marked on
            navigation maps (which they are not), could provide a significant
            danger both to our RAF service personnel and also from those
            people living on the ground. The local airspace is also heavily used
            by small planes from the neighbouring small airstrip at Eshott and
            other planes visiting the region. The civil aviation authority on their
            safety information leaflet 2011 have reported that “pilots have
            recently expressed concern that anemometer masts have been
            erected in areas proposed for use as future wind farms…these
            masts are relatively thin and difficult to pick out from the air. Being
            less than 300 feet high they are not required to be lit or marked on
            CAA charts (and the sheer numbers of them would cause
            considerable clutter anyway), nor to be subject to NOTAM (notices to
            airmen) action unless they are considered by the aerodrome
            operator to affect safe operations around licensed aerodromes.
            There is no VFR (visual flight rules) minimum flying height mandated
            in UK airspace, so pilots may find themselves, quite legally,
            confronted by one of these anemometer masts while believing they
            are separated by 500 feet from persons, vessels, vehicles and
            structures. CAP 764 – the Civil Aviation Policy and Guidelines on
            Wind Turbines states “Wind energy developments (including
            anemometer masts) within a 9 NM radius of an offshore helicopter
            installation could introduce obstructions that would have an impact
            on the ability to safely conduct essential instrument flight procedures
            to such facilities in low visibility conditions. Consequently, any such
            restrictions have the potential to affect not only normal helicopter
            operations but could also threaten the integrity of offshore installation
            safety cases where emergency procedures are predicated on the
            use of helicopters to evacuate the installation.” This development is
            only 12 nautical miles from our esteemed RAF Boulmer.               This
            clearly indicates lack of knowledge by the applicant about safety for
            both aircrew and local residents. No consultation about this
            application appears to have been conducted with aerodrome
            operators or the RAF. It cannot proceed safely without this.

      (b)   Ecological Impact. Energiekontor claim the “The site does not lie
            within any areas which have been designated on a national, regional
            or local level as being particularly important or sensitive in terms of
            ecological or landscape interest.” in their application. This is
            inaccurate. The county ecologist has commented on the area in the
            scoping report for the proposed Fenrother wind farm. The ecologist
            clearly states “EIA would be supported on ecological grounds by


                                                                                   4
            virtue of the site being within an ‘environmentally sensitive area’ as a
            result of the close proximity to the SSSI (Longhorsley Moor) and
            SNCI.” Mr Marlee goes on to report to the council “Longhorsely
            Moor is, with regards to the SSSI and SNCI designations, mainly
            noted for it’s sub-atlantic lowland heath flora but also provides cover
            and suitable habitat for a range of breeding birds including whinchat,
            linnet, yellowhammer, willow warbler, grasshopper warbler, reed
            bunting, meadow pipit, skylark and swallow. In addition invertebrate
            populations are also noted with particular reference to lepidopterans
            including small heath, meadow brown and small copper butterflies
            together with chocolate tip and drinker moths. Recent records (from
            the Northumberland Bat Group) have noted, in addition to the usually
            resident bat species in the area, significant numbers of nathusius
            pipistrelle bats in areas to the east of the Fenrother site.” It is with
            alarm that in this application Energiekontor have stated “5.19 Policy
            C11 sets out that the council will not permit development which
            would adversely affect protected species or their habitats unless it
            can be demonstrated that the reasons for the proposed development
            outweigh any adverse effect on the species or their habitat” yet they
            have failed to provide any accurate ecological information with this
            application. I question whether any of the application can be
            considered as accurate as it in part refers to the site as being in
            ‘East Riding’ some 114 miles away. This provides clear evidence
            that the ecological impact must be assessed. There are ground
            nesting birds on the site, aerial predators, possibly great crested
            newts, bats and significant other flora and fauna. Met mast
            construction and the wire supports have been shown to affect these
            species and there are specific guideline details on setback distances
            from hedgerows for bat populations. It is clear no consideration has
            been given to these issues. No ecological benefits have been
            demonstrated. Ecological disbenefits are as described.

      (c)   Gas Safety. There is no documentation that the National Grid has
            been consulted on the application by the applicants. There is a
            major gas distribution pipeline under the surrounding area and the
            National Grid have informed us that they must be consulted prior to
            any groundworks. Energiekontor are aware of this pipeline and the
            lack of consultation is a clear indication of their lack of concern for
            public safety.

(4)   Planning Policy Guidance

      (a)   Consultation. In the application the applicants claim to have
            consulted widely about this application. This demonstrates their
            feeling that consultation is needed. In fact the only consultation was
            two evening meetings at short notice with little site specific
            information in October 2011 where only 22 words were used in the
            description of the met mast. Clearly it is the opinion of the applicant
            that public engagement is needed. This should also be of utmost



                                                                                  5
      importance to the council. The application should not be heard until
      an appropriate level of community consultation has taken place.

(b)   Inaccurate Application of Alnwick Planning for Renewable Energy
      Document. The applicant quotes this document referencing the area
      to that of the Longhorsley section of the Alnwick document. “The
      site is located within Landscape Character Area 22 ‘Longhorsley’
      which is assessed as having a ‘moderate’ sensitivity to wind turbine
      development. The SPD notes that any wind farm developments
      within this area should be limited to a single scheme with a
      maximum of 12 turbines, reflecting the moderate sensitivity of the
      landscape and moderate visibility within the wider landscape.” This
      statement and the implication that the site in question is what is
      being referred to is deliberately deceptive and serves only as to
      deceive the councillors about the site. Any local resident of this area
      will be well aware that the area referred to in this document is the
      area of Longhorsley that used to be under the Alnwick Council prior
      to the unified council. The area of Longhorsley it refers to is the
      North West of the parish and is many miles from the application site.
      At best this is a demonstration that the applicant has little
      understanding of the current area and at worst it is evidence that it
      wishes to mislead the council members with false statements.

(c)   Land Use. The footprint of the mast and its associated structures is
      over 14,000 square feet. Were the application just for a slender
      structure that supported itself the land designation may not be an
      issue. The fact that the footprint of the application is approximately
      equivalent to the footprint of 35 average UK houses (RIBA house
      size standards 2008 symposia) and 3.75 times the height of Morpeth
      Clock Tower means the application should also contain a request for
      formal land use change from agricultural to industrial. The failure of
      the applicant to request this further serves as to mislead the
      councillors and public as to the size and nature of the proposal.

(d)   Countryside is in need of protection. In the Morpeth Local Plan,
      under the following section, the council has stated:

      1.2.1 “The council’s strategy is to protect and enhance the qualities
            of the environment, the open countryside, the many historic
            villages and larger settlements and in particular, the
            landscape and nature conservation value of the coast, river
            valleys and uplands. The council will encourage the planting
            of native broadleaved woodlands and changes towards
            environmentally sensitive agricultural practices.”

      1.1.4 “Inappropriate and over intensive development or insensitive
            agricultural practices will threaten important countryside
            features and wildlife habitats.”




                                                                           6
      1.7.6 “The council is aware that it’s coast and countryside is a
            valuable, fragile and finite resource to be protected through
            maintaining and managing existing, and planting new
            woodlands, preserving wildlife habitats and encouraging
            environmentally sensitive agricultural attitudes and practices.
            This will be implemented through education, the acquisition
            and management of land, the use of statutory powers to
            protect sensitive and important sites and the control of
            development.”

      4.4.1 “The council has an important and continuing role in
            enhancing and protecting the countryside. Considerable
            progress has been made over many years by the council,
            particularly by implementing schemes of woodland
            management for informal recreation. However, problems
            arise as a result of overuse or misuse of land for outdoor
            recreational purposes, leading to damage to footpaths. There
            is also a need to protect features of nature conservation and
            archaeological interest.”

(e)   Council policy C8. “The council will not permit development which
      could adversely affect the integrity of sites of special scientific
      interest (SSSI’s) either directly or indirectly, unless it can be
      demonstrated that the development is of overriding national
      importance and no alternative site is available.” These protections
      are relevant to this site. Longhorsley Moor is adjacent and so will be
      indirectly affected and policy 8 clearly shows other sites must be
      considered – there is no evidence this company has considered
      other local sites and there are clearly other sites which are deemed
      suitable for wind monitoring as they have already been developed.

(f) Temporay Structure
      A planning inspector has clearly set out how planning guidance
      should regard regard temporary permissions, concluding that: "If it is
      not possible to overcome the adverse effect on amenity, and if the
      damage cannot be accepted, then the only course open is to refuse
      permission."
      The appellant has made much of the reversibility of the project, but
      to my mind the extent to which this argument is deployed rather
      undermines its efficacy. If the development was compatible with its
      landscape setting, there would be no need to protest that the
      scheme is of a temporary nature. Indeed, Para 109 of DOE Circular
      11/95 The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions states that the
      reason for granting a temporary permission can never be that the
      time-limit is necessary because of the effect of the development on
      the amenities of the area. If it is not possible to overcome the
      adverse effect on amenity, and if the damage cannot be accepted,
      then the only course open is to refuse permission. (Appeal Decision
      APP/W0530/A/05/1190473, Para. 26, P.7 )



                                                                          7
In the event that the application is approved then we request that consideration
be given to imposing the following conditions:

(1)   The mast is not erected between March to September.

      Fenrother has a high number of ground nesting birds. The following have
      been regularly seen over recent years (including protection status):

      (a)   Wheatear (amber).
      (b)   Yellow wagtail (red – globally threatened).
      (c)   Grey partridge (red – globally threatened).
      (d)   Hen harrier (red – globally threatened).
      (e)   Meadow pipit (amber).
      (f)   Ostercatcher (amber).
      (g)   Short-eared owl (amber).
      (h)   Curlew (amber).
      (i)   Woodcock (amber).
      (j)   Lapwing (red – globally threatened).
      (k)   Skylark (red – globally threatened).

      Birds in England, Scotland and Wales are protected under the Wildlife &
      Countryside Act 1981 (and subsequent amendments). It is an offence to
      intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that
      nest is in use or being built. It is also an offence to take or destroy an egg
      of any wild bird or to kill, injure or take them. Special protection is also
      provided for rarer birds listed in Schedule 1 of the Act (see box above),
      where it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb a wild bird while
      it is building a nest or when it is in or near a nest with eggs or young; or
      disturb their dependent young. With this in mind the RSPB would advise
      that any construction MUST take place outside the period March to
      September. A clause is inserted by the planner on many met mast
      applications around the UK.

(2)   An appropriate bird survey.

      There is evidence that guy wires from met mast can harm birds,
      specifically aerial hunting birds. PPS2 Planning and Nature Conservation
      Section 68 in particular the presence of a species protected, or specially
      protected, under the Wildlife Order is material to the consideration of a
      development proposal, which if carried out would be likely to result in
      harm to the species or its habitat and, in particular, to places used for
      shelter or protection. The buzzards we have that are nesting close by at
      two locations and use the land to the east as their hunting ground are a
      protected species and have been since 1954. We have a number of birds
      of prey around here. Energiekontor have not supplied any evidence of a
      bird survey being carried out and have not mitigated against it. Due to the
      proximity to Longhorsley Moor an SSSI and the rich wildlife that attracts
      this should be considered vital.




                                                                                   8
      Should bird deflectors be installed it has been documented in recent
      planning inspector reports that this would further add to visual intrusion of
      the mast. If this condition was put in place we would request a full visual
      impact assessment be carried out and presented to the county planners
      and local population for consideration prior to construction.

(3)   The bond or collateral.

      The last two years have seen a significant number of wind energy
      companies go bankrupt with the latest being Quinn Wind Energy in
      Ireland, January 2012, with £2 billion debt. It might be the tax payer that
      pays to remove the non-functioning Alnwick wind turbines. The latest
      filed accounts at Companies House show Energiekontor in the year
      ended 2010:

           Had only 6 employees.
           Returned a loss on ordinary activities before tax of €983,818.
           Paid only €388 in tax.
           Has a shareholders deficit of €1,332,129.
           Owes €5,611,972 to creditors.

           A creditsafe credit check November 2011 showed :

         “In the previous 12 month trading period Net Worth decreased by
         282.8%.
 Pre-tax profits decreased by 493.8% in the previous 12
         month trading period.
 The company saw an decrease in their Cash
         Balance of 91.9% in the previous 12 month trading period.”

      Compared to accounts filed in the previous year losses have increased
      and debts have increased. This shows evidence the company does not
      currently have significant cash reserves and has not in the last two
      published accounts shown any net profit. There are large debts
      illustrated. We request that either a bond be placed to fund removal after
      three years or an agreement be reached with the landowner that they will
      fund its removal.

(4)   The permissive footpath under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme
      running from Fenrother to Fieldhead should be upgraded to a public
      footpath.    PPS22 clearly states “Development proposals should
      demonstrate (any) environmental, economic and social benefits as well as
      how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through
      careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures.” No
      social, economic or environmental benefits have been demonstrated by
      the applicant and we feel there should be some agreement with the local
      landowners to agree some benefit to local people through the formal
      upgrade of this path (with fall on land shown to be under the applicant’s
      control).


(5)   Gaps in the hedgerows.


                                                                                 9
      Energiekontor have stated in their planning application “7.13 the mast has
      been sited close to a field boundary to reflect as far as possible the
      existing agricultural landscape grain.” The idea that a 60m structure can
      be hidden by hedgerows and field boundaries is contentious. Should
      however the application be approved we would like to draw your attention
      to the statement Energiekontor made in their pre-application enquiry for
      Fenrother that “field boundaries primarily post and trees/woodland:
      individual trees wire fence with species poor hawthorn scattered
      throughout the site. Approx half hedge lines are intact, remainder and
      defunct and gappy. There are also some newly planted sections.” They
      accept that for mitigation planting should be considered, including
      hedgerow planting. We request that since Energiekontor feel they have
      positioned the mast so that field boundaries help conceal it that these field
      boundaries are brought up to the standard that they already suggest
      before any mast is constructed.

(6)   The raw and charted data must be released.

      It is stated in the application that the data used will be used in order to
      assess suitability for wind farm siting. The data collected is therefore of
      utmost importance to the council and residents. We feel the council must
      insist that if the anemometer is built, and there is a subsequent
      application for a wind farm, that all raw (not charted) data gathered from
      the anemometer is submitted with the application as part of the
      environmental information, so that independent noise and other
      consultants can examine that data on behalf of the council and local
      residents.




We object in the strongest possible terms to this proposal to place an alien
structure into the heart of the gateway into Northumberland and the Cheviots.
We have liad out the flaws in the application and provided evidence that
Planning Insectors have good grounds to dismiss any appeal.

We are available for any comments or questions you may have.


Signed


Dr James Lunn B.Med.Sci. (Hons.), B.M.B.S. (Hons.), D.R.C.O.G.,
n.M.R.C.G.P.
Chairman
Fight Fenrother Windfarm Action Group
Lyneburn House, Fenrother, Morpeth. NE61 3DS




                                                                                10
Appendix of Planning Appeals


Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 11 January 2012

by John Woolcock BNatRes(Hons) MURP DipLaw MPIA MRTPI
 an Inspector
appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 23 January 2012

Appeal Ref: APP/V2723/A/11/2162516
 Thornton Steward Water Treatment
Works, Thornton Steward, Ripon North Yorkshire HG4 4BQ

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act
      1990 
 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Kelda Water Services against the decision of
      Richmondshire 
 District Council.

• The application No.1/87/51D/FULL, dated 5 April 2011, was refused by
      notice dated 18 
 July 2011.

• The development proposed is the erection of a 50 m high anemometer mast
      and 
 associated guy ropes. 
 Decision

1. I dismiss the appeal.

Preliminary matters

2. The application form does not refer to a temporary permission, but the
Design and Access Statement and Grounds of Appeal refer to a temporary
permission for 3 years. The Council in its appeal statement has suggested a
condition were the appeal to succeed for a temporary period of 18 months. The
appellant clarified by email dated 10 January 2012 that ideally at least two
years of data would be necessary to ensure adequate coverage in the event
that wind speeds were unusually low in a given month, or to provide for loss of
data. This would accord with the advice in Planning for Renewable Energy A
Companion Guide to PPS22 (PPS22CG), which states that anemometer masts
are normally required on site for at least 12 months, but adds that the longer
measurements are taken the better the prediction will be. I have, therefore,
dealt with the appeal on the basis of an application for a temporary permission
for two years. PPS22CG notes that measurements from anemometers help to
determine whether or not a candidate site is suitable for wind turbines. The
proposed mast is intended for this purpose, and so I consider that renewable
energy policies are relevant, even though the scheme itself would not generate


                                                                            11
any energy.

Main issues

3. The main issues in this appeal are the effects of the proposed development
on:

3. (a) The character and appearance of the area.

4. (b) The living conditions of neighbouring residents with particular reference
       to visual I have also had regard to nature conservation interests and
       whether the benefits of the scheme would be sufficient to outweigh any
       harm that might be caused.

Reasons

Character and appearance

7. The proposed 50 m high mast would be a slender monopole located near to
       the south-western corner of Thornton Reservoir. The description refers
       to guy ropes, but the supporting statement refers to wire cabling. The
       drawings show the guys extending from five points on the mast to each
       of four anchor points, which would be located 25 m from the base of the
       mast. The mast would be sited near to a sailing clubhouse and a public
       footpath and bridleway (PRoW). The site lies some 600 m north of the
       small settlement of Thornton Steward, and some 3 km from the nearest
       part of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Nidderdale Area of
       Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) lies some 2 km to the south-west.

8. The appeal site lies within a designated Area of Great Landscape Value
       (AGLV), where saved Policy 7 of the Richmondshire Local Plan 1999
       (LP) provides that the distinctive qualities of the countryside are worthy
       of special recognition. However, Planning Policy Statement 22:
       Renewable Energy (PPS22) advises that such local landscape
       designations should not be used in themselves to refuse planning
       permission for renewable energy development. I have, therefore,
       considered the qualities of the landscape, along with the likely
       implications of the proposed development for landscape character, and
       its visual effects. In doing so, I have assessed, on the basis of the
       evidence in the written submissions and from what I saw on my site
       visit, sensitivity and impact magnitude, so as to make a judgement
       about the significance of the effects of the proposed development.

9. I deal first with landscape character. The site lies within the Pennine Dales
        Fringe Joint Character Area (JCA 22) of the Character Map of England
        published by the Countryside Agency. This is characterised by the side
        slopes of the Dales uplands, predominantly sloping down to the east,
        with locally varied topography formed by several significant river valleys,
        including the River Ure. It is a transitional landscape lying between the
        upland, predominantly grassland, landscape to the west and arable land
        to the east. With the rolling topography and attractive river valley I


                                                                                12
       consider that there would be high landscape sensitivity to the change
       that would result from the construction of the proposed mast.

10.    The magnitude of landscape effects concerns the degree of change to
       the landscape resource and the nature of the effect. The proposed mast
       would be a temporary change, but during the time it was erected its
       impact could not be mitigated. It would add a utilitarian structure to the
       landscape, but its magnitude of impact should properly take into account
       that other functional structures exist in this setting. In particular, the
       concrete inlet/outlet towers within the reservoir and their walkways,
       along with the unnatural banks to the body of water, identify this as a
       man-made landscape. Having had the opportunity to judge this on my
       site visit, I consider that an impact magnitude of medium for the local
       landscape would be appropriate here. Nonetheless, the tall mast would
       have an impact beyond the immediate confines of the reservoir, and
       would to some degree impair the character, quality and value of the
       local landscape. In terms of landscape character, I find that the
       significance of the impact of the proposed development on the
       landscape resource would be moderate and adverse.

9. I turn next to visual effects. The reservoir is a well used recreation facility. I
        consider that receptors in the vicinity of the appeal site would have very
        high sensitivity because the immediate context and views are likely to
        be an important element of their recreational experience. The proposed
        mast would be particularly prominent in views from the sailing club,
        which has an outdoor amenity area with a table and seats that would
        directly face the mast and its guys at close range. From the most
        intensively used vantage points around the southern part of the
        reservoir, in the vicinity of the car park and clubhouse, the mast and
        guys would appear as a dominating and intimidating structure in such
        close up views. I consider that the proposed mast would have a high
        magnitude of visual effects. This would, with very high sensitivity, result
        in a major and adverse degree of visual impact significance for the
        duration that the mast was erected.

10.    From more distant vantage points the slender mast would make little
       impact on the wider landscape. In such views the mast might only be
       visible in certain lighting and climatic conditions. Given the separation
       distance, it would not unduly affect the outlook from Yorkshire Dales
       National Park or Nidderdale AONB.

11.    On the first main issue, I consider that the proposed development would
       have a limited impact on the character of the area, but would by reason
       of its adverse visual effects on an area of high amenity value, harm the
       appearance of the area.

Living conditions

11. There is local concern about the impact of the proposed mast on the
outlook from dwellings in the vicinity. The nearest residential dwelling, Glebe


                                                                                  13
Farm, is about 300 m from the appeal site. The dwelling at Arklow Hill is further
away, but in a more elevated location. I was able at my site visit to assess the
relationship between the appeal site and dwellings in the local area.
Intervening trees would to some degree soften the impact of the proposed
mast from both the above dwellings. I am satisfied, given the separation
distance, that the proposed structure would not have an overbearing or
dominating effect on the outlook from nearby residential properties. I do not
believe that the scheme would impair the residential amenity of those living in
the area. On the second main issue, I do not consider that the proposal would
have an unacceptable adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbouring
residents by reason of its visual impact, and I find no conflict in this regard with
the provisions of saved LP Policy 1.

Other matters

12. The separation distance would mean that the proposal would not adversely
affect views into or out of the Thornton Steward Conservation Area. I also saw
at my site visit the relationship between the appeal site and Jervaulx Abbey.
The separation distance would again mean that the proposal would have
minimal affect on the appreciation of the Abbey and its surrounds. The
proposed development would not adversely affect the setting of heritage
assets in the wider locality.


12.    The appellant states that the mast would be sited 55.2 m, and the
       anchor points for the guy wires some 30.2 m, from the PRoW. This is a
       matter that could be required by condition. PPS22CG advises that a fall
       over distance plus 10% is often used as a safe separation distance. I
       am satisfied that the proposed mast would not pose an unacceptable
       safety risk to those nearby. It would have no large moving parts and so
       would be unlikely to result in noise or other disturbance that would
       startle horses. Many submissions raised concerns about safety, but I
       find no compelling evidence against the proposed development on
       these grounds.

13.    Local residents raised concerns about the risk to birds from the mast
       and wire cabling. There were many geese on the reservoir at the time of
       my site visit. There is no scientific evidence in the written submissions
       about the likely risk to birds, or whether it would be necessary to provide
       bird deflectors on the supporting cables, as was suggested in some
       submissions. I note that the appellant would be willing to install bird
       deflectors if requested to do so. However, the addition of bird deflectors
       would, if required, increase the adverse visual impact of the proposed
       mast.

14.    I have had regard to local concerns about low flying aircraft, but the
       relevant authorities are satisfied about the air safety implications of the
       proposal. There is no detailed or specific evidence that would justify me
       coming to a different conclusion. I have considered representations
       about an approval for a meteorological mast being a precursor to, or



                                                                                 14
       increasing the likelihood of, wind turbines in the area. The mast would
       help to quantify the wind resource in the area, but any subsequent
       proposal for turbines would be assessed on its merits. Speculation
       about the appeal scheme increasing the likelihood of wind turbines is
       not a consideration which can be given much weight in deciding the
       appeal before me, which I have determined on its own merits.

Planning balance

16. PPS22 advises that the wider environmental and economic benefits of all
proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material
considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether
proposals should be granted planning permission. Quantification of the wind
resource in this locality would be beneficial, and I consider that this is a matter
which should be given significant weight. However, in my judgement, the
benefits of the mast would not be sufficient to outweigh the substantial harm,
albeit temporary, to the appearance of the area that I have identified would
result from siting the mast so close to a valued amenity area. This is sufficient
to warrant dismissal of the appeal. The addition of bird deflectors, if required,
would tip the balance even further against allowing the proposed development.

Conclusions

17. I have taken into account all the other matters raised in the evidence,
including a temporary permission granted for a similar mast on the northern
side of the reservoir, at the Thornton Steward Water Treatment Works some
600 m to the north-east of the appeal site. This was not implemented and has
now lapsed. However, the northern side of the reservoir is a considerable
distance from the car park and sailing club premises. A previous permission in
that location does not justify the grant of planning permission for a mast on the
appeal site. Neither this, nor any of the other matters raised, is sufficient to
outweigh my conclusions on the main issues, which have led to my decision on
this appeal. Saved LP Policy 2 aims to protect the countryside, but does allow
for

development which would merit a countryside location. However, saved LP
Policy 3 requires that such development is sited so as to minimise its
landscape impact. I am not satisfied that the proposed siting would comply with
this policy. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters
raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

John Woolcock

Inspector




                                                                                15
                 Appeal Decision
                    Site visit made on 3 June 2010
                    by John Woolcock    BNatRes(Hons)
                    MURP DipLaw MPIA MRTPI

              an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
              Government
                    Decision date: 25 June 2010

               The Planning Inspectorate 4/11 Eagle Wing
 Temple Quay House
 2 The SquareTemple Quay
              Bristol BS1 6PN 0117 372 6372 email:enquiries@pins.gsi.g ov.uk




Appeal Ref: APP/J3720/A/09/2118766
 Land between Bishop’s Itchington,
Knightcote and Gaydon, Warwickshire CV47 2SL

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act
      1990 
 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Broadview Energy Developments Ltd against the
      decision of 
 Stratford on Avon District Council.

• The application Ref.No:09/01578/FUL, dated 17 July 2009, was refused by
      notice dated 
 27 November 2009.

• The development proposed is the erection of a 60 m meteorological mast.
      
 Decision

1. I dismiss the appeal.

Main issues

2. I consider the main issues in this appeal to be the effects of the proposed
development on the character and appearance of the area. I have also had
regard to nature conservation interests and whether the benefits of the scheme
would be sufficient to outweigh any harm that might be caused.

Reasons

5. The appeal site comprises part of an open agricultural field in the


                                                                                         16
      countryside. It lies within an area described as Vale farmlands
      landscape in the Feldon regional character area of Warwickshire. The
      character and qualities of this area are a flat open hedged landscape
      with few roads or settlements and wide views to rising ground on one or
      more sides.1 There are views towards the site from these areas of
      higher ground, including the Burton Dassett Hills to the south.

6. The scheme proposes a temporary mast for two years. It would be a slender
       structure, 152-219 mm in diameter, supported by 28 guy wires, 6 mm in
       diameter, 16 of which would extend 42 m from the base of the mast.
       The Council refused the application because of its likely effect on the
       character and appearance of the countryside. The 60 m high mast
       would appear as a utilitarian feature in this open farmed landscape. It
       would be particularly apparent as a discordant element in this context
       from nearby roads, but its impact would diminish with distance. From
       distant vantage points it would not be a prominent feature in the broad
       sweep of this wide landscape. This would be especially so from
       elevated sites, such as the Burton Dassett Country Park,

1 Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines, Warwickshire County Council and
Countryside Commission. Stratford-on-Avon District Design Guide.

which I visited on an unaccompanied part of my site inspection. The mast
would be seen, where it was apparent from such higher areas, at least in part,
against the backcloth of the farmed landscape rather than the sky.
Nonetheless, it might stand out in certain lighting conditions and it would have
an adverse impact on the local landscape. I have had regard to the outlook
from the nearby settlements, and have taken into account the village design
statements for Knightcote and Burton Dassett. However, I do not consider that
such a slim structure at such distances would significantly affect the outlook
from these villages or materially detract from their settings. Nevertheless, the
proposed mast would harm the local landscape. The extent to which such
harm weighs in the balance would need to take into account that it would be for
a limited duration of two years.

5. I consider that the proposed development would, to some extent and for a
limited time, harm the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict
with Policy CTY.1 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-
2011 (LP). I have considered whether the benefits of the scheme would be
sufficient to outweigh this harm and the resultant policy conflict.

6. Planning for Renewable Energy A Companion Guide to PPS22 (PPS22CG)
notes that measurements from anemometers help to determine whether or not
a candidate site is suitable for wind turbines. The proposed mast is intended
for this purpose, and so I consider that renewable energy policies are relevant,
even though the scheme itself would not generate any energy. LP Policy PR.6
encourages the provision of renewable energy schemes subject to certain
criteria. Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (PPS22) advises
that the wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for
renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations


                                                                             17
that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals
should be granted planning permission. Quantification of the wind resource in
this locality would be beneficial, and I consider that this is a matter which
should be given significant weight. In my judgement, the benefits of the mast
as constructed in accordance with the submitted plans, would be sufficient to
outweigh the limited harm to the landscape that I have identified.

11.   However, there are two other matters in this case which might
      potentially affect the impact of the proposal on the landscape, and so
      influence this balancing exercise. The Ministry of Defence, which has no
      safeguarding objections to the proposal, recommended the installation
      be lit in the interests of air safety. However, the CAA advised that the
      mast would not constitute an aviation en-route obstruction. No
      aerodrome specific safeguarding issues indicate a need for air safety
      lighting. I note also the guidance in PPS22CG that lights are only
      required on structures that are over 150 m high.2 The Council does not
      recommend a condition requiring lighting, and I find no compelling
      evidence that lighting would be necessary. The second issue concerns
      birds.

12.   There is a dispute between the parties about whether a condition would
      be necessary to install bird deflectors on the guy wires. The Council
      considers that a condition should require high visibility guy wire markers
      to be approved and installed. Such a condition was recommended in the
      Officer’s report to the

2 Technical Annex – Wind paragraph 92 page 181.

Council’s Planning Committee. This issue was not mentioned in the appellant’s
Grounds of Appeal and the appellant did not submit an appeal statement.
However, the appellant argues in its final comments on the appeal that such a
condition would not be necessary because no evidence has been presented
regarding notable bird species to justify its imposition.

12.   The Warwickshire Wildlife Trust in its representations on the application
      cited the Habitat Diversity Audit for the area and considers that the
      proposal would not pose any significant risk to any important species
      present within the locality. However, there is evidence from local
      residents, in representations to the Council, to buzzards, red kites,
      kestrels and other birds of prey using the area regularly, and to barn
      owls nesting in the locality. Bishop’s Itchington Parish Council, in its
      letter at the appeal stage, refers to migrating geese and to a variety of
      birds using the area as a migration route to the Chesterton lakes. In
      addition, the Ecologist from the Warwickshire Museum Field Services
      states, having searched the Warwickshire Biological Records Centre
      that she was aware that a number of notable bird species have been
      recorded across this site. In order to avoid any adverse impacts on birds
      that may not see the guy wires, she recommended that high visibility
      wire markers were used. Natural England (NE) supported the
      recommendations from the County Ecologist.


                                                                             18
13.   On the available evidence, I consider that bird deflectors would be
      required in the interests of nature conservation. However, no details are
      before me about the number or design of the deflectors that would be
      required in the circumstances that apply here. I am not, therefore, able
      to assess the likely visual impact of the proposed mast with bird
      deflectors. It may be, or may not be, the case that the required
      deflectors would significantly alter the balance to be drawn between the
      benefits and harm that I have outlined above. I have noted the advice in
      Circular 11/95 The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions that,
      where possible, conditions should be self-contained and do not require
      further approvals to be obtained before development can begin. The
      advice also provides for conditions requiring that details of a specified
      aspect of the development, which was not fully described in the
      application, be submitted for approval. However, in this case, bird
      deflectors were not mentioned in the application or grounds of appeal.
      Given the potential that bird deflectors would have to influence the
      outcome of the balance upon which any grant of planning permission
      would depend in this case, I do not consider that it would be reasonable
      to deal with this matter by means of a condition.

14.   The likely effects on nature conservation were not a reason for refusal,
      but third parties raised this issue. In addition, a condition was
      recommended by NE for a 50 m buffer zone around the mast so that
      anchor points would not be within 50 m of any hedgerow in any direction
      so as to protect bats that may use the hedgerows as flight-lines for
      foraging. I saw at my site visit the substantial hedgerows near to
      proposed anchor points. Bishop’s Itchington Parish Council states that
      the area includes significant bat populations. The Officer’s Report, which
      recommended granting planning permission, included a condition about
      a buffer zone. However, no such condition is recommended in the
      Council’s Appeal Statement, which states at paragraph 6.6 that “The
      mast guy ropes would be located within a field approximately 45 m from
      a hedgerow.” However, it is clear from Drawing Ref.6085-04-N-006 that
      the anchor points for the guy wires would be much closer to the
      hedgerow than the 50 m recommended by NE.

15.   I have no reason to disagree with NE that the anchor points for the guy
      wires would need to be 50 m from the hedgerow so as to safeguard bat
      flight-lines along hedgerows. I find that the scheme would not accord
      with key principle 1.(viii) of PPS22, which states that development
      proposals should demonstrate, amongst other things, how any
      environmental impacts have been minimised through careful
      consideration of location, scale, design and other measures. I have
      considered whether this is a matter that could be addressed by a
      condition. Re-siting the mast in accordance with such a requirement
      would not affect its visual impact, but it would take the scheme outside
      the appeal site edged red on the application plans, and would bring the
      mast closer to a small pond or wetland area located on the opposite
      field boundary. I do not, therefore, believe that this is a matter that could
      be addressed by a micro- siting or re-siting condition, where the revised


                                                                                19
      location might have different implications for wildlife, which would not
      have been assessed. On the evidence before me, I am not convinced
      that the scheme would minimise the impact on wildlife. This is a
      consideration which also weighs against allowing the appeal.

16.   There is local concern about the impact of the proposed mast on the
      outlook from dwellings in the vicinity. I visited several of these properties
      on my site inspection. I am satisfied, given the separation distance, that
      the proposed structure would be unlikely to have an overbearing or
      dominating effect on the outlook from nearby residential properties. I do
      not believe that the scheme would impair the residential amenity of
      those living in the area. I have had regard to local concerns about low
      flying aircraft, but the relevant authorities are satisfied about the air
      safety implications of the proposal. There is no detailed or specific
      evidence that would justify me coming to a different conclusion. I have
      taken into account all the other matters raised in the evidence, including
      representations about an approval for a meteorological mast being a
      precursor to, or increasing the likelihood of, a wind farm in the area. The
      mast would help to quantify the wind resource in the area, but any
      subsequent proposal for a wind farm would be assessed on its merits.
      Speculation about the appeal scheme increasing the likelihood of a wind
      farm is not a consideration which can be given much weight in deciding
      the appeal before me, which I have determined on its own merits.
      Neither these, nor any of the other matters raised, are sufficient to
      outweigh my conclusions on the main issues, which have led to my
      decision on this appeal.

17.   On the available evidence, I cannot be certain that the benefits of the
      proposed mast, with appropriate bird deflectors, would outweigh the
      harm to the landscape. I am unable to find that the proposal would
      comply with the part of LP Policy PR.1 which provides that proposals
      that would damage features of local distinctiveness would not be
      permitted unless significant public benefit would arise from the scheme.
      Furthermore, I do not consider that the proposal would minimise the
      impact on wildlife. For the reasons given above and having regard to all
      other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

John Woolcock

Inspector




                                                                                20
The Planning Inspectorate 4/11 Eagle Wing
 Temple Quay House
 2 The Square

Temple Quay
 Bristol      BS1   6PN
         372   6372
 e-mail:   enquiries@planning-
inspectorate.gsi.gov.uk

Date: 5 December 2006




Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 14 November 2006

by Keith Smith BA(Econ) DipTP DPA FRTPI ACIS

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government

Appeal Reference : APP/G0908/A/06/2021214
 Land at Tallentire Hill Farm,
Tallentire, Cockermouth, CA13 0PY

• The appeal is made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act
      1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Mr T Fewster, Renewable Energy Systems UK Ltd
      against the decision of Allerdale Borough Council.

• TheapplicationReference2/2006/0206,dated27February2006,wasrefusedbyn
      oticedated9May 2006.

• The development proposed is the temporary erection of 2 no. 70m high
      guyed anemometer meteorological masts for 36 months to enable the
      wind regime at the site to be defined in order to determine the viability of
      a wind farm at the site, 
 Summary of Decision : The appeal is
      dismissed. 
 Procedural Matters and the Appeal Application

         The proposal envisaged the erection of two 70m high, guyed
            anemometer towers on agricultural land at Tallentire Hill Farm.
            One mast would be located some 210m to the west of the public


                                                                               21
             highway and the other some 300m to the east. The towers would
             be retained for 36 months in order to gather wind speed and
             direction data in order to determine the prospective viability of a
             wind farm proposal. The mast diameter would vary between
             194mm and 167mm and 6 guys would be provided at varying
             heights. I have considered the appeal on this basis.

         A number of representations from interested persons raised objection
             to the construction and operation of a wind farm on agricultural
             land at Tallentire. However, this matter is not before me in the
             context of the present appeal. It was accepted by both the
             Council and the appellants that a decision on the present appeal
             proposal would in no way establish an expectation of planning
             permission for the wind farm proper. I concur with that view as
             such an application would fall to be considered on its own merits
             having regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and all
             other material considerations at the relevant date1.

• The site, its surroundings and planning history

3. The site is located in a rural area to the north of Cockermouth. The landform
is elevated and there are extensive long-distance views over the Solway Firth
and Cumbrian Coast. Tallantire Hill Farm is located some 450m to the south of
the site of both masts and the village of Tallentire lies about 1km to the south
east at a lower level. The boundary of the Lake District National Park is some
distance away to the south-east beyond the A595 Cockermouth-Carlisle road.

4. In 2003 permission was given for the erection of a 14m anemometer mast.
From the information provided to me in the present appeal it is not clear
whether this permission was ever implemented. In 2006, subsequent to the
Council’s decision on the present appeal application, permission was refused
for a single anemometer mast of 51.5m at Tallentire Hill Farm.

Planning Policy Background

7. The Development Plan for the locality currently comprises the Regional
       Spatial Strategy for the North West [RSS]; the Cumbria and Lake
       District Joint Structure Plan [CLDJSP] adopted in 1995 and the Allerdale
       Local Plan [ALP], adopted in 1999.

8. The RSS adopts a promotional stance in relation to renewable energy
       technology, including the setting of targets for contributions towards
       regional electricity generation2. The CLDJSP seeks to protect local
       landscape character in terms of its distinctiveness and aims to avoid
       visual intrusion or impact and protect openness, remoteness and
       tranquillity where appropriate3. Policy R44 allows for renewable energy
       developments (including ancillary infrastructure) outside the boundaries
       of the National Park provided there would be no adverse effect on
       landscape character, local amenity and other features. In the case of
       wind energy develpments there is also a requirement to secure


                                                                             22
       satisfactory removal and reinstatement following cessation of operation
       of the infrastructure.

9. In the ALP Policy EN19 applies protection to the countryside with the
        objective of conservation and enhancement of the landscape and
        retention of local distinctiveness. This is consistent with the scope of
        Policy E37 of the CLDJSP. Policies EN23 and EN25 allow for essential
        infrastructure developments in the countryside and designated
        landscape character areas where there is a locational need and subject
        to careful siting and design.

10.    Planning Policy Statement [PPS] 22 sets out national guidance on
       renewable energy developments. Chapter 8 of the Technical Annex in
       the PPS22 Companion Guide gives guidance on wind energy
       developments including the requirement to obtain data regarding the
       wind resource at a prospective development site.

Main Issue

9. The main issue is whether the temporary anemometer masts would result in
unacceptable harm to the local landscape, having regard to the objectives of
both national and local planning policies.

Reasons

10. I accept the view of the appellants that the proposal is, in effect, a
precursor to a renewable energy project which would be assessed against the
background of PPS22, the RSS (both current and emerging) and Policy R44 of
the CLDJSP. In reaching a decision on the present appeal I express no view
as to the suitability or otherwise of this locality to accommodate a wind farm
project (see paragraph 2 above). However, it appears to me that the proposal
does fall to be considered under Policy R44 of the CLDJSP, as an ancillary
development, and Policies EN23/EN25 of the ALP as a development
potentially providing for local infrastructure needs. In the case of all local
policies referred to I am satisfied that the requirement for satisfactory
reinstatement of the two sites could be secured.
There appears to me to be no dispute between the appellants, the Council and
other interested persons that the two anemometer masts would be highly
visible in the local landscape given their elevated location and the nature of the
surrounding landscape. When considered against the operative landscape
protection policies it

2 Policy ER13 refers. This objective is also carried forward into the emerging
review of the RSS at Policy EM17.

3 Policy E37 refers. Policy ST3 referred to by the Council is a general policy
seeking to promote sustainable forms of development and does not appear to
be at issue in the present case.

13.    appears to me that only the most compelling circumstances would justify


                                                                               23
      the present proposal. The appellants assert that the masts are required
      in order to evaluate the wind resource and two masts would give a
      better coverage of data relating to wind speed and direction. A 36 month
      period for data collection would, it was argued, give increased
      confidence in the results as it could mitigate the effects of variability.

14.   I am not persuaded by the arguments advanced in support of the
      proposal. Although a 36 month period would, I accept, have some
      benefits in terms of data quality it appears to be well in excess of the
      period of at least 12 months, recommended as being suitable in the
      Companion Guide to PPS22. In view of the lengthy time period sought I
      consider that the effects of the two masts must be regarded, in
      landscape and visual impact terms, as being akin to permanent
      development. Similarly, I do not consider that there is a persuasive
      argument in the present appeal either for two anemometer masts or for
      the proposed height at 70m.

15.   In the circumstances I conclude that the case for the anemometer
      masts, as proposed, has not been demonstrated as falling within the
      scope of Policy R44 of the CLDJSP or Policies EN23/EN25 of the ALP.
      This proposal would, I conclude, result in unacceptable harm to the local
      landscape in terms of its intrinsic quality and local distinctiveness,
      contrary to the objectives of CLDJSP Policy E37.

Conditions

14. I have considered whether the objections identified above could be
mitigated to a sufficient degree through the imposition of planning conditions.
The Council, without prejudice to its case, suggested a composite condition
requiring removal and reinstatement after 36 months. I accept that this would
meet the requirement for suitable reinstatement. No other conditions were
suggested by the parties.

Conclusions

15. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised,
I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Formal Decision

16. I dismiss the appeal.

Keith Smith

Inspector.




                                                                             24

								
To top