PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF ERIC SCOTT MARCROFT
on behalf of VOCAT
(Villages Of the Cliff Against Turbines)
PLANNING BACKGROUND AND BALANCE
Planning Appeal via Inquiry against the refusal of
planning permission by West Lindsey District Council
for a Wind Farm Development on land at Hemswell
Cliff, Lincolnshire
LPA ref. 128940
PINS ref. APP/N2535/A/14/2217829
1
December 2014
CONTENTS:
1. Background details of VOCAT.
2. Introduction and my background, qualifications and experience.
The appeal application:
3 Issues related to the submitted planning application:(a) Boundary of site of application
(b) Capacity calculations
(c) No adequate consideration of alternative sites
(d) Inadequate assessment of site constraints
(e) Additional information requested not submitted
(f) Misleading photomontages
(g) Assessment of images
(h) Numbers of dwellings affected
(i) Other affected residents
(j) Decommissioning
Planning Policy Background:
4. The Statutory Context
5. Development Plan Policy
6. National Planning Policy and Guidance
7
Planning Balance:
Assessment of benefits and harm
8 Conclusions
9. The amended 8 Turbine Scheme
10 Appendices
2
1. Background
1.1. VOCAT is a local group set up by residents of the communities affected by the
proposed development, being the villages and communities of Spital-in-theStreet, Hemswell Cliff, Hemswell, Willoughton, Blyborough, Grayingham,
Atterby, Snitterby, Bishop Norton, Glentham, Caenby, Normanby-by-Spital and
Glentworth.
1.2. The group came together in response to news of the proposed wind turbine
development and of concerns in relation to the possible impact of the
development for those residents and visitors to our locality and communities.
1.3. After months of discussion and investigation, numerous meetings, and
subsequently, the analysis of the submitted planning application, the group
sought to give a voice to the concerns of local people and to set out objectively a
valid and evidence-based argument against the proposed development.
1.4. These concerns are so deeply felt that the residents and communities have no
hesitation in making the necessary efforts, and the significant financial
commitments, to object to this development through the Public Planning Inquiry
process.
2. Introduction
2.1 My name is Eric Scott Marcroft and I have offered to assist VOCAT as a witness
in this appeal.
2.2 I have a Higher National Certificate in Cartography, Surveying and Planning and
a Post-Graduate Diploma in Urban and Regional Planning. Prior to my retirement
I was a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
2.3 I have worked in Local Government for most of my adult life and have worked
within Development Control Teams within Local Authority Planning Departments
for over 40 years, latterly (post 1991) as a Team Leader at West Lindsey District
Council.
2.4 Since retirement from local government (2004) I have also worked as a Planning
Consultant both in the Private Sector and also for several of the Local Planning
Authorities in Lincolnshire.
2.5 I have a wide range of experience of planning and development matters and
have acted as an expert witness in numerous hearings and inquiries, where I
have given relevant evidence concerning the related development in the context
of planning policy.
The appeal application:
3
Issues relating to the submitted planning application
(a) Boundary of Site of Application
3
3.1 The planning application the subject of this appeal (ref. 128940), as originally
submitted, clearly related to a site of application (red line boundary) extending to
some 330.4 hectares of land. See EIA para. 1.6 and Fig. 1.2.
3.11 Having inspected the initial application documents it was evident that an
application fee of some £24,965 had been paid and accepted by an officer who
validated the application and who has subsequently left the authority. According to
my calculations this would have accorded with an application site area (red line
boundary) of some 13.4 hectares of land.
3.12 Having explored the Fee Regulations and the guidance in DCLG Circular
04/2008 (now replaced), I noted that for an application site area of this size, for a
category of development falling within category 5 (Plant and machinery), the
maximum fee of £250,000 should have been paid. See also paras 40 and 61 of the
Circular. I am aware that the provisions of this Circular were replaced on 17
October 2014, however the same principles appear to still apply to fee calculations.
3.13 Following some questioning by myself about the accuracy of the submitted
fee, eventually a revised plan entitled “Fee Calculation Drawing” was submitted on
13 September 2013, which shows a much reduced site area comprising the swept
paths of the turbines, an allowance for micro-siting, the site compound and access
tracks etc. A revised application form was subsequently submitted on 27
September 2013 which amended the application site area to 37.5 hectares of land
(see response to question 21 on the application form in relation to Site Area). I
assume that the necessary additional application fee will have been paid, although I
have no information in this respect.
3.14 It should be noted that all of the EIA, SEIA and the two FEIA submissions
and related plans all show an application site extending to some 330 hectares of
land, including the FEI Reports which were produced some six months after the
boundary of site had been amended to 37.5 hectares.
3.15 More recently the Statement of Common Ground still includes a Site
Location Plan showing the original 330 hectares boundary.
3.16 I can fully understand the appellants’ desire not to have to pay any more
application fees than is necessary. However, the correct course of action would be to
indicate the correct red line boundary of site (as amended on 13 September 2013)
and to show all of the other land within the applicants’ ownership or control, by a blue
line boundary. This would be in accordance with the long established convention as
set out in para. 61 of DCLG Circular 04/2008 (now replaced by the planning fees
practice guidance published on 17 October 2014).
(b) Capacity Calculations
3.17 According to the Case Officer at West Lindsey District Council, the applicants
have wrongly calculated the generating capacity of the development (see wrong
calculations in officer report on 8 scheme para. 4.5).
4
3.21 In any event the potential generating capacity of the development has
reduced significantly, since the original concept of a wind farm having 14
turbines to one now having 8 turbines, which of course reduces the benefit of
the scheme. That might be desirable if the harm occasioned by the
development had also reduced, but it has not.
(c) No adequate consideration of alternative sites
3.3 There is no evidence that any alternative sites in West Lindsey were
considered.
3.31 The original submitted EIA (Vol. 1 para. 3.2) acknowledges that the
Regulations require the ES to provide “an outline of the main alternatives studied
by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into
account the environmental effects”. EN-1 at 4.4 also addresses ‘Alternatives’
stating that “applicants are obliged to include in their ES, as a matter of fact,
information about the main alternatives they have studied. This should include an
indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the
environmental, social and economic effects and including, where relevant, technical
and commercial feasibility.”
3.32 The ES here lists a range of factors that the appellants would take into
account in the assessment of sites. However, no alternative sites are
mentioned as having been so considered.
3.33 Following a specific request by the WLDC Case Officer to elaborate on
which alternative sites had been considered, it was explained in the SEI as
follows:“The applicant can confirm that in selecting sites, wide scale feasibility reviews
were conducted of the region, initially comprising geographical information
systems (GIS) mapping of any known environmental constraints, supplemented by
planning policy considerations and our knowledge of other topics which may
influence the potential for wind farm development such as wind resource and
possible interactions with radar operators”.
The SEI then continues as follows:"It was through this exercise that the wind farm site at Saxby Wold, North
Lincolnshire, was identified and a relationship established between the applicant
and the landowners, the Limestone Farming Company. Following from this a
further four potential wind farm sites were identified within the Limestone Farming
Company land holding. Further technical studies were conducted on these sites,
which lead to one site being discounted for difficulties with access, another in
relation to potential ornithological effects and one for reasons related to the
landowner's family. The remaining sites are the proposed Hemswell Cliff Wind
Farm and Saxby Wold Wind Farm, for which a public inquiry is currently ongoing.
Once it was decided to progress further investigations into the Hemswell Cliff Wind
Farm site, neighbouring landowners were then approached with a view to including
5
them within the scheme. The final application site encompasses holdings of three
landowners." [SEI - Vol. I – para. 3.3]
3.34 It is clear therefore that the main reason for the selection of this site was an
existing business relationship with the principal landowner, in the context of a
proposal for the development of a site within the area of another local planning
authority.
3.35 No information has been provided to show that any assessment of any
alternative sites within West Lindsey has actually been undertaken and no
evidence has been provided to show that the environmental merits of practicable
alternative sites has been properly considered.
3.36 Accordingly it is submitted that the EIA documents have not been produced
in a satisfactory manner or fully in accordance with the requirements of the Town
and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011,
Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 2. This requires as follows:- An outline of the main
alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main
reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.
3.37 No explanation or justification as to why a sensitive site immediately
adjacent to a Grade 1 listed building, close to other significant heritage assets,
close to a number of villages, an area of sensitive landscape and a dangerous
highway has been chosen. Accordingly it is considered that the submission is not
in accordance with the legislative requirements especially in relation to Schedule 4,
Part 1, and paragraph 2 of the EIA Regulations.
3.38 Apart from the top of the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB and in locations within
the immediate setting of Lincoln Cathedral, I consider that it would be difficult to
find a site more unsuitable for a major wind farm development within West Lindsey
than that now proposed at Hemswell Cliff.
(d) Inadequate assessment of site constraints
3.4 It is clear from the sequence of events that the appellants failed to properly
assess the implications for any archaeological remains on the site at the time that
the application was submitted. Indeed the necessary Archaeological Evaluation
Report was not received until after the Planning Committee had made their
decision on the appeal development.
3.41 Similarly, air safety considerations had also not been adequately considered
at the time that the application was made and indeed original objections have only
been overcome by negotiations after the submission. The MOD are still not
satisfied that there interests will not be jeopardised by the appeal development and
request the inclusion of appropriate conditions in this respect.
3.42 Indeed it would appear that there is some doubt as to whether the concerns
are capable of being mitigated in any event and I would question the validity of
imposing a planning condition in these circumstances.
6
3.43 Further, issues relating to ornithology were inadequately addressed in the
original submission. Following concerns by the RSPB and others, the applicants
were requested to undertake further assessment work, the extent of which is set
out in Section 13 of the FEI report (para. 13.4)
(e) Additional information requested not submitted
3.5 West Lindsey clearly considered that the submitted EIA was deficient and
formally requested additional information by letter dated 7 March, 2013 under the
provisions of Regulation 22 of the 2011 EIA Regulations.
3.51 However, not all of this information was subsequently submitted. Additional
viewpoints for photo montages were requested from public footpaths in the vicinity
of the application site. However, the appellants declined to submit these on the
basis that they considered that it was not necessary (SEI para. 6.8).
3.52 In my opinion it is indeed most regrettable that photomontage views were
not included from the footpaths on the Cliff to the west of the appeal site and
between Hemswell and Willoughton villages, adjacent to the foot of The Cliff
landscape character area. In the absence of these it is not possible to properly
assess the impacts that the development will have from these significant locations.
We would urge the Inspector to include these locations whilst undertaking his site
visits.
3.53 Similarly, additional information in relation to the consistency of graphics
presentations was requested, but again was declined on the basis that sufficient
information had already been provided (SEI para. 6.11).
(f) Misleading Photomontages
3.6 I am aware of the work undertaken by Alan Macdonald and the studies by
Stirling University, which prompted the change to The Highland Council
Visualisation Standards. These now require that single frame image of at least
75mm focal length should be included to assist in viewpoint assessments.
3.61 It should be noted that Scottish Authorities have a long and extensive
experience of dealing with wind farm proposals and arguably lead the field in the
development of assessment technology.
3.62 It is now widely accepted that 50mm focal length views do not provide an
accurate reflection of the scale of the turbines, as perceived by the human eye. In
these circumstances the submitted photomontages do not accurately represent the
true scale of the proposed development. See example from the Highland Council
publication at appendix 1. This illustrates the significant difference in perception of
scale, based upon the same camera view, at differing camera focal lengths.
(g) Assessment of images
7
3.7 VOCAT submitted substantial documentation at the original application stage
in relation to the nature of the visual material submitted in support of the
application.
3.71 The public, consultees and Committee only have access to the misleading
images which the professionals have submitted and can only assess the impacts
on these bases. The appellants claim that these are only submitted as an aid for
the professionals. However, it is evident that even the professionals are unable to
agree upon the degree of harm that the appeal development will cause in
particular viewpoints.
3.72 In the FEI Reports the previous assessments in relation to Landscape and
Visual Assessment have been reviewed and revised. In particular there would
appear to be four instances where the effects have now been modified from those
originally identified (FEI paras 6.10 – 6.25).
3.73 In relation to the effects upon The Cliff Landscape Area, it is now conceded
that “for a small section of ‘The Cliff’ character area there would be a significant
effect on landscape character”. This is now consistent with the local view, and my
view, that the proposed turbines, sited in an elevated location on the skyline above
The Cliff (in views from both the east and the west) will provide a most prominent,
inappropriate and incongruous addition to this distinctive landscape feature, the
character of which has been long recognised.
3.74 I cannot accept the appellants’ view that these impacts will result in a low
magnitude of change which is not significant.
3.75 Also, perhaps significantly, I note that the consultants employed to
undertake the landscape and visual assessment work has changed. The
assessment on the original EIA and SEIA reports being produced by RSK
Environmental Limited. The more recently submitted FEI assessments having
been carried out by Pegasus Group.
3.76 Clearly different individuals and indeed professionals may come to a different
view as to the harm to landscape character which may be caused by the appeal
development. In my opinion and relying on the evidence of Stephen Welch on
behalf of VOCAT in this particular regard, the development will cause significant
and unacceptable harm to character and appearance of The Cliff landscape
character area.
(h) Numbers of dwellings affected
3.8 The original EIA identified 13 dwellings that would experience a large
magnitude of change as a consequence of the appeal development.
3.81 Following the updated consideration of residential visual amenity (by
Pegasus Group) the above totals are now increased in the FEI (paras 6.27 and
17.2) such that it is now considered that 35 properties “would experience a
significant visual effect on the view from some part of their house or garden”. I
assume that the reference to ‘properties’ also includes ‘grouped settlement areas.
8
3.82 Analysis of the results however, suggest the effected properties were not
counted accurately, as according to my calculation some 82 residential dwellings
are actually included in the list in FEI, Appendix Volume 3, para. A6.2.64 and the
list on the following page (182).
3.83 If the professionals are not able to agree on the degree of harm caused at
individual dwellings, or even on the numbers of affected dwellings, how on earth
can the public have any confidence in this attempt to make the assessment
process an objective one?
3.84 The conclusion reached, following the original EIA submission, was that the
harm to the occupiers of 13 dwellings was outweighed by the sustainability
benefits of the development scheme.
3.85 Following a reassessment of this issue by the appellants, that number has
now increased to 35 properties. According to my calculations, this actually relates
to some 82 dwellings, the occupants of which will experience a significant visual
effect. This is because the ‘properties’ referred to in the appellant’s submission,
actually refers to groups of dwellings (see the more detailed analysis in my
Landscape proof at section 8).
3.86 Given the cumulative total number of dwellings now accepted as being
significantly affected by the development, in my opinion, this harm weighs against
the scheme in that the residents enjoyment of their properties is going to be
curtailed by the appeal development. This is a further indication that this is the
wrong development on the wrong site.
(i) Other affected residents.
3.87 However, I would submit that a number of other residents are likely to also
be affected, and arguably with a more severe effects. These being the occupiers
of the Blenheim Residential Care Home at Hemswell Cliff. The reasons quoted for
exclusion of these properties (see table at FEI. Appendix Volume 3, page 186)
have clearly been assessed in my opinion on the basis of views from road level.
3.88 These are three storey buildings and the views from rooms on the upper
floors will most certainly not in my opinion be restricted in the manner suggested in
the table at A6.2.69 in the FEIA.
3.89 Given that the occupiers of these flats will have panoramic views of the wind
farm from all of their main living rooms, and have no available private garden area,
It is my opinion that the occupiers will suffer significant harm to their amenity as a
consequence of the appeal development, albeit that the harm will not be such as to
make those dwellings an unattractive place to live. However they have not been
considered as part of the RVAS (Residential and Visual Amenity Study).
(j) Decommissioning
9
3.9 VOCAT are concerned about the intended arrangements for the
decommissioning of the development and the potential impacts thereof. Primarily
the concerns relate to the intention to leave thousands of tonnes of concrete,
stone/hardcore and cables in situ on the termination of the proposed temporary
use.
3.91 Minerals are a finite resource and it is important to make best use of them to
secure their long term conservation (NPPF para. 142). Mineral planning authorities
are encouraged to include for secondary and recycled sources in the preparation
of their annual Local Aggregate Assessments (para. 145).
3.92 The NPPG advises mineral authorities, in preparing their Local Aggregate
Assessments, to “consider all aggregate supply options, including recycled
aggregates, including from construction, demolition and excavation waste”.
3.93 I cannot accept that the proposal to abandon thousands of tonnes of gravel
and concrete on the appeal site, at the termination of the proposed temporary
permission, is acceptable in terms of government policy. Additionally, I cannot
accept that it is appropriate to leave such quantities of waste in the countryside in
the interests of good agricultural practice or the rural environment.
3.94 During my local government career I have dealt with many planning
applications for temporary developments. In my experience, in dealing with such
applications, it has always been the case that a planning condition was imposed
requiring that at the termination of any temporary consent, then the permitted
development should be removed from the land and the site restored to its condition
prior to the carrying out of the development.
3.95 The applicants state that the removal of all the imported materials would not
be in the interests of the environment. For the reasons set out above, I cannot
agree. I suspect that the real reasons for leaving all the waste is that it would be
very expensive to break up concrete foundations and to remove all surplus
materials. Clearly such action would also detract from the sustainability (planning
balance considerations) of the project.
3.96 Also, leaving most of the materials in situ is unacceptable for a variety of
reasons. The site is located on an aquifer and leaving a residue of cables and
concrete surely cannot be in the interests of either the integrity of the aquifer or the
interests of agriculture.
3.97 The retention of a system of new gravel roadways cannot reasonably be
classed as being in the interests of modern or efficient agricultural methods. The
appeal site is currently based upon large and efficient arable fields, and indeed,
evidence from examination of historical Ordnance Survey sheet records show that
previously existing tracks and field boundaries have been removed in the past.
3.98 In my opinion it is unacceptable to leave cabling and thousands of tonnes of
gravel and concrete, as a legacy of “industrial waste” which future generations may
have to deal with. At best in my opinion this constitutes poor environmental
stewardship.
10
Planning Policy Background:
4
Statutory Context
4.1 Planning legislation requires that applications for planning permission must
be determined in accordance with the provisions of the development plan, unless
material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the
statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making.
See Paragraph 12.
4.2 Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be
approved and developments that conflicts should be refused unless material
considerations indicate otherwise. . The NPPF is a material planning
consideration in planning decisions, and where a development plan is absent,
silent or out of date, then paragraph 14 NPPF provides the decision making
context.
5.
Development Plan Policy
5.1 For the purposes of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase
Act 2004, the adopted development plan comprises the Saved Policies of the
West Lindsey Local Plan (First Review) 2006.
5.2 The saved policies most relevant to the current appeal are STRAT1, NBE8
and NBE10.
5.3 Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states that due weight should be given to
policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. I
concur with the Council’s view that these policies are consistent with the
Framework (para. 215) and therefore significant weight can be given to them in
the determination of this appeal.
6. National Planning Policy and Guidance
6.1 The UK has been a committed and key player in the various evolving
international endeavours in relation to global warming and climate change. This
commitment has been fully recognised in relevant national policy over recent
years.
6.2 In relation to planning control, paragraph 6 of the NPPF states that the
purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable
development.
6.3 There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social
and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning
system to perform a number of roles. Paragraph 7 includes an environmental role
– contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic
11
environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural
resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution and mitigate and adapt to
climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.
6.4 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out 12 core land use principles that should
underpin both plan-making and decision-taking. These include: that planning
should:- be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their
surroundings; be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the
places in which people live their lives; recognise the intrinsic character and beauty
of the countryside; encourage the reuse of existing resources and the use of
renewable resources; contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural
environment, conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their
significance.
6.5 Section 10 of the NPPF makes it clear that planning plays a key role in
helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
and in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy. Paragraph 98
requires that local planning authorities should approve such applications (unless
material considerations indicate otherwise) if the impacts are (or can be made)
acceptable.
6.6 National Planning Practice Guidance – The section on Renewable and low
carbon energy, issued 6 March, 2014, supplements and elaborates upon the
policies contained in the NPPF.
6.7 National Policy Statements (EN1 and EN3) and Ministerial Statements on
energy are also relevant and material considerations to the decision on this
appeal. In these respects, I have no reason to disagree with the assessments and
conclusions reached by the Planning Officers in their reports to the Planning
Committee on the appeal developments.
6.8 The West Lindsey Countryside Design Summary, which draws on
information in the West Lindsey Landscape Character Assessment, was adopted
as Supplementary Planning Guidance in December 2003 and is therefore also a
material consideration in the determination of this appeal.
6.9 The emerging Local Plan for Central Lincolnshire contains policies relevant
to the current appeal. However, given that consultation on the Preliminary Draft
Local Plan is currently being undertaken, it is assumed that little weight can be
afforded to the emerging policies at this stage.
7 Planning Balance:
Assessment of benefits and harm.
7.1 I strongly believe that this is the wrong development in the wrong place.
7.2 It is my view that the appeal development does not accord with the relevant
Saved Local Plan policies, nor does it satisfy other policies in the NPPF, notably
those relating to Countryside and Heritage.
12
7.3 It is my submission that the appeal development will cause significant and
demonstrable harm to both the character and appearance of the countryside and
also to the interests of various heritage assets.
7.4 I cannot agree with the appellant’s view that the harm caused by this
proposed development can be outweighed by the public benefits of the
renewable energy which may be generated by the scheme. Therefore the
application fails to meet the test of NPPF para. 98 - The impacts are not and
cannot be made acceptable.
7.5 The development will introduce a very large scale industrial development into
an area of attractive open countryside. The development involves alien structures
which will be totally out of scale with any existing natural or manmade features
and will cause harm to heritage assets, the character and appearance of the
countryside, the settings of nearby villages and a loss of amenity to residents.
7.6 Decisions must be made in accordance with the provisions of the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
7.7 Policy STRAT1 is a keynote policy against which all development proposals
will be assessed. It requires, inter alia, that development must:- reflect the need
to safeguard and improve the quality of life of residents; protect the Plan area’s
character, be satisfactory with regard to:- the impact on the character, appearance
and amenities of neighbouring and where relevant other land, including visual
encroachment into the countryside; the impact upon the character, appearance
and setting of historic assets; that adequate information be supplied so that the
effects of development proposals in relation to the policies contained in the Local
Plan can be properly judged. It is my opinion that the development fails these
criteria. Accordingly it is my view that the development is contrary to the terms
and criteria contained in policy STRAT1.
7.8 Policy NBE8 precludes development which would harm the character,
appearance, setting or features of historic parks and gardens within the list
compiled by English Heritage; and other parks, garden and formally laid out areas
identified by the LPA as being worthy of protection. Norton Place falls within the
second category and in my opinion the development would significantly harm the
character, appearance and setting of Norton Place, the associated entrance gates
and lodges and its formal garden. This is evident in the submitted photomontages
showing the appeal development in the context of the public views along the A15,
which show the gates and lodges; and also in the public views from the A631 to
the southeast. Accordingly it is my view that the development is contrary to the
terms of policy NBE8
7.9 Policy NBE10 gives a high priority to conserving the distinctive landscape
features, character and amenity value of the District Development will not be
permitted if it is likely to have an adverse impact on the features, setting or
general appearance of the Landscape Character Areas. The policy also identifies
criteria including a requirement that development should not have a detrimental
effect on skylines or important views. The policy also acknowledges that areas of
13
particularly high local landscape value because of their distinctive characteristics
have been identified as Areas of Great Landscape Value. It is my opinion that the
appeal development, would detract from the existing landscape character areas
and if permitted will become a new defining feature within the landscape, contrary
to policy NBE10.
7.10 In his evidence Stephen Welch, will demonstrate that the adverse
landscape effects will significantly and demonstrably outweigh the scheme
benefits (NPPF para. 14).
7.11 The development is contrary to Local Plan policies STRAT1, NBE8 and
NBE10 and so, it is not in accordance with the development plan. Whilst those
policies do not relate to renewable energy, they still provide a credible and
sensible basis upon which to determine development proposals. They are
appropriate for the purposes of the assessment of wind farm schemes, as they
are to other development proposals.
7.12 Furthermore policies in the NPPF indicate that the appeal development
should be refused. Paragraph 98 of the NPPF makes it clear that applicants are
not required to demonstrate the need for renewable energy. Also, unless material
considerations indicate otherwise, then the planning authority should approve the
development if its impacts are, or can be made, acceptable. I would submit that
the harm/impacts caused by the appeal development are not and cannot be made
acceptable in this instance.
7.13 The appellant submits that the appeal development will provide a “much
needed, reversible and sustainable form of development” ( SoC para. 12.4).
7.14 Much needed - Certainly, policies support the provision of renewable
energy developments and in this context I would accept that green energy
developments are much needed. However, renewable energy can be provided in
a number of ways but planning applications should fulfil the requirements of the
NPPF and this proposal doesn’t because it cannot be made acceptable.
7.15 Reversible - Clearly the worst effects of the development, the visual impact
of the turbines, are reversible. In the analysis of the arrangements for
decommissioning, I have questioned the appellants’ intentions. If the development
were truly reversible, then in my opinion all of the construction materials should be
removed from the application site.
7.16 Sustainable – The policies in the NPPF constitutes the Government’s view
of what sustainable development means for the planning system. The NPPF also
identifies three dimensions to sustainable development being the economic, social
and environmental roles (paragraphs 6 and 7).
7.17 Others will submit evidence to show that for a variety of reasons the
development should not be permitted and in particular that the appeal
development does not satisfy all of these roles, especially the third environmental
role. Evidence will also be presented to show that the appeal development is not
in the interests of the local rural economy or the local communities.
14
7.18 The benefits - The initial designs for the development of the appeal site
showed some 14 turbines. However, this was subsequently amended to 12 and
then 10 to take account of a variety of constraints. The current appeal now
proposes the alternative 8 turbine scheme.
7.19 Clearly, the community benefit of the development in terms of green energy
generation has reduced significantly from the original design concept. This is
notwithstanding the Case Officer’s contention that the energy benefits have been
incorrectly calculated. The harm however remains the same.
7 20 The harm - Evidence will be presented by others to show that the appeal
should be dismissed for reasons of harm to archaeology and aircraft safety.
Submissions will also be made that the development will not be in the interests of
local businesses and related employment opportunities.
7.21 I firmly believe that this is the wrong development on the wrong site. That it
will cause harm to nearby heritage assets and to the interests of the local
landscape, including significant harm to the interests of many local residents.
7.22 It is my opinion that the totality of this harm to an area, which is currently
unblemished by the large, dynamic industrial structures involved in the appeal
development, will not be outweighed by the benefits which may accrue. The
impacts are not acceptable and cannot be made acceptable (NPPF paragraph 98).
7.23 The NPPF states (para. 9) that “Pursuing sustainable development involves
seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic
environment , as well as in people’s quality of life, including….improving the
conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure….” It is my opinion
that when assessed against these objectives, the appeal development fails
significantly in respect of each of them.
8
Conclusions:
8.1 For the reasons elaborated above it is my opinion that the planning
application and the related EIA submissions are inadequate, contradictory and
confusing. Whilst the potential green energy benefits of the development may be
disputed, clearly it is accepted that there will be significant energy benefits, if the
appeal development were to be allowed. However, the various site constraints
already acknowledged by the appellants, which have impacted upon the extent of
the original design scheme (involving a reduction from 14 turbines to 8), has
significantly reduced these potential benefits.
8.2 In any event, evidence will be presented to show that the development will be
likely to prejudice the employment potential and business interests of local
companies, including those involved in tourism.
8.3 Whilst the developer is offering substantial community benefits, if the
development were to be permitted, it is clear that, whilst such investment would be
welcome, these are not material considerations in the determination of the appeal.
15
8.4 The development will undoubtedly cause harm to countryside, heritage and
other assets. There will also be harm to residential amenity and given the number
of dwellings affected, and the impact of the development on views from these
properties, weight should be given to the potential deterioration in living conditions
in the overall planning balance.
It is my view that all of the identified harm is not outweighed by the benefits of the
development in this instance. As such the appeal development is contrary to
Saved West Lindsey Local Plan policies STRAT 1, NBE 8 and NBE 10 and the
relevant policies in the NPPF which have been referred to above.
9 The amended 8 Turbine Scheme:
In my opinion none of the above issues will be overcome by the revised 8 turbine
scheme, indeed the 8 turbine scheme further reduces the energy generation
benefits of the development. Accordingly this alternative is even less acceptable in
my view in terms of the ‘planning balance’. This is the wrong development on the
wrong site.
10 Appendix (see separate file):
1 – “Visualisation Standards for Wind Energy Developments”. The Highland
Council (May 2013). Photomontage views at 50mm and 75mm, page 11.
16