Committee and Date Item

Central Planning Committee

5th April 2012 9

Public

Development Management Report

Responsible Officer: Stuart Thomas email: stuart.thomas@shropshire.gov.uk Tel: 01743 252665 Fax: 01743 252619

Summary of Application

Application Number: 11/05629/FUL Parish: Alberbury With Cardeston

Proposal: Erection of a wind turbine with a hub height of 36.4m with 3No 9.6m blades (tip height 46m) Site Address: Lower House Farm Cardeston Ford Shrewsbury Shropshire

Applicant: Gethin And Co

Case Officer: Karen Townend email: [email protected]

Grid Ref: 339143 - 312082

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Shropshire Council 100049049. 2011 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012

Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to the conditions sets out in Appendix 1.

Recommended Reason for Approval

PPS1 supplement on climate change and PPS22 both actively seek to promote all renewable energy systems, large and small, as do the relevant adopted policies within the Shropshire Council Core Strategy. They acknowledge the importance of renewable energy provision and that appropriately sited and scaled wind turbines are acceptable and should be supported. Local objection has been received from residents of the surrounding area regarding the visual impact on the landscape, noise disturbance and impact on residential amenity. Having taken professional advice from consultees it is considered that on balance the scale, siting and design of the wind turbine is acceptable as it will not have a detrimental impact on either the quality or character of the surrounding rural and open landscape. It is also considered that whilst the turbine will be visible it is sufficient distance away from neighbouring properties to mitigate from any overbearing impact or intrusions through any significant or detrimental noise impact. As such it is considered that the proposal complies with policies CS5, CS6 and CS17 of the Shropshire Core Strategy, PPS1, PPS5, PPS9 and PPS22.

REPORT

1.0 THEPROPOSAL

1.1 The application proposes the erection of a 36.4 metre tall wind turbine with 3 vertical blades each with a length of 9.6 metres and as such the maximum height from ground to tip would be 46 metres. It is proposed to position the turbine on agricultural land, currently in arable use, adjacent to the existing poultry units within the applicant’s ownership. The applicant has identified the constraints within and surrounding the site to determine their preferred location for the turbine. The proposal has been assessed under the required screening procedures and does not require any assessment under the EIA Regulations 1999. This was confirmed in writing to the applicant on 24th October 2011.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION

2.1 Cardeston is a small settlement situated approximately 11 miles west of Shrewsbury off the A458 and is made up of sporadic small groups of houses and farms and a church, which is a grade II listed building. Lower House Farm is an established poultry farm approximately 1km from the identified settlement of Cardeston and comprises of a traditional farmhouse and brick agricultural buildings, four modern poultry sheds and associated structures and modern buildings and concrete yards used for in-vessel composting of garden waste recycling material from the Council waste collection service.

2.2 The nearest residential properties, not including the applicants dwelling, are the properties on Yockleton Road which are approximately 590 metres to the northeast, the converted agricultural buildings at Heath Farm which are approximately 623 metres to the east and Cardeston Church which is 620 metres to the northeast.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012

3.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION

3.1 The Parish Council has submitted a view contrary to officers which is based on material planning reasons and these contrary views cannot reasonably be overcome by negotiation or the imposition of planning conditions and the Area Manager, in consultation with the committee chairman, and the Local Member agrees that the Parish/Town Council has raised material planning issues and that the application should be determined by committee.

4.0 COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultee Comments

4.1.1 Alberbury and Cardeston Parish Council – Will not support this application, because of the adverse impact on the local environment.

There is a window of opportunity for the applicant to go back to his original solar panel scheme, as the Government decision to reduce subsidies has been set aside for the moment. The Parish Council, having carried out a site visit, agree with Pleydell Smithyman’s assessment that the magnitude of the impact of the turbine would be high for many local properties and the visual impact would be substantial. As stated, the turbine is out of scale with the surrounding farm buildings. The Parish Council therefore wish to object to the application.

However, the applicant’s wish to reduce the carbon footprint is clearly desirable and the Parish Council hope that the applicant will find it possible to complete the installation of photo voltaic panels as originally intended.

Following the amended application, the opinions previously submitted have not changed, and the Parish Council oppose this application as a blight on the local area.

4.1.2 Ministry of Defence – No objection to the proposal. The application is for 1 turbine at 46 metres to blade tip. The principal safeguarding concern of the MOD with respect to the development of wind turbines relates to their potential to create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and cause interference to Air Traffic Control and Air Defence radar installations.

4.1.3 Council Conservation Officer – Having visited the site and considered the impact on the surrounding area is of the opinion that the proposed wind turbine will not have a detrimental impact on the setting of the surrounding listed buildings or setting.

4.1.4 Council Ecologist – The application states that the wind turbine will be 50m from the nearest hedgerow or tree and also that the turbine and any associated trench routes will be over 100m from the nearest pond. On this basis I have no ecological objection.

4.1.5 Council Drainage Engineer – No comments from a drainage and flood risk perspective regarding the erection of a wind turbine.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012

4.1.6 Council Environmental Health Officer – No objection.

4.2 Public Comments

4.2.1 23 letters of representation have been received following the consultation on this application. Of those letters 18 are in objection and 5 are in support of the scheme for the following reasons:

4.2.2 Object:  Inefficient form of electricity generation  No objection to solar panels which would provide more than enough electricity for the poultry farm  Turbines do not belong in rural areas they should be on remote hills or offshore  Negative visual impact from neighbouring properties  Lack of screening  Loss of views of open countryside  Impact on character of area  Impact on tourism  Height of turbine hub will be higher than horizon of Breidden Hills  The applicants statement agrees that the turbine is out of scale with the surrounding farm buildings  Will appear four times higher than the buildings  Constant turning of turbine will be a distraction  Contrary to PPS7 as not sensitive  Impact on listed buildings including barns at Heath Farm  Impact on amenity and well-being of surrounding residents  Noise levels in impact assessment are for a smaller turbine  Insufficient information on the social impact of the turbine  Wattlesborough turbine has fallen over, and others elsewhere have broken, as such serious concerns about viability and safety

4.2.3 Support:  Need to be producing renewable energy  Maintains agriculture which supports the rural society  Proposed turbine complements existing PV system  Better to produce electricity where it is to be used to reduce infrastructure  Area previously used wind power in windmills  Applicant would not apply if it was not viable  Will be visible but will not spoil views from neighbouring residents  Is better than the view of a pylon  Will only be glimpsed from the top of Onslow Bank  Is tall but not wide  Not audible beyond 144 metres  Wattlesborough turbine was not audible from 150 metres away due to background noise  Will not be heard over the road traffic noise from the A458

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 5.0 THEMAINISSUES

 Policy & principle of development  Landscape and visual amenity  Impact on heritage assets  Impact on residential amenity, including noise  Ecology  Public safety

6.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL

6.1 Policy & principle of development

6.1.1 The Shropshire Core Strategy sets out policies on renewable energy in policy CS6 ‘Sustainable Design and Development Principles’ and policy CS8 ‘Facilities and Services’. Policy CS8 positively encourages infrastructure (including renewable energy generation), where this has no significant impact on recognised environmental assets, and Policy CS6 requires new development to utilise renewable energy generation where possible whilst protecting the environment and safeguarding residential amenity.

6.1.2 Policy CS5 ‘Countryside and Green Belt’ of the Core Strategy also indicates that new development will be strictly controlled in accordance with national planning policies protecting the countryside. However, development proposals on appropriate sites, which maintain and enhance the countryside vitality and character, will be permitted where they improve the sustainability of rural communities by bringing local economic benefits, particularly where they relate to agricultural related development. Although proposals for large scale new development will be required to demonstrate that there are no unacceptable adverse environmental impacts.

6.1.3 Planning Policy Statement 22 ‘Renewable Energy’ and its companion guide are currently the most relevant National Planning Policy documents. Within PPS22 there is a general presumption in favour of small-scale renewable energy schemes provided that their scale, siting, design, and cumulative impact would not cause any significant detriment to the landscape. Policy does not set out arbitrary ‘fixed’ separation distances between turbines, turbines and houses or set ‘exclusion zones’ as this could automatically rule out locations which would otherwise be suitable for wind turbines.

6.1.4 Concerns have been raised by local representations that wind turbines are inefficient and that the approved solar panels provide all of the electricity required for the poultry farm. The proposed turbine will produce approximately 50kw (150,000 kw of energy per year) and the agent has stated that advice from Government in the National Planning Statement for Energy is that “on-shore wind is the most well established and currently most economically viable source of renewable energy”. The agent has also advised that only half of the approved solar panels have been erected due to the change in government tariff and the consideration of reduced benefit on cloudy days and during nights. The installed panels provide approximately half of the required energy, although this varies depending on the amount of sunlight. The agent has stated that the size of the

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 turbine has been chosen to meet the remaining electricity needs of the farm to enable it to become self-sufficient in energy terms.

6.1.5 It should be noted, however, that ‘need’ is not a relevant material planning consideration as PPS22 encourages renewable energy without a requirement to justify ‘need’. The wind turbine is proposed as part of a wider business plan to reduce the carbon footprint of the poultry farm along with the previously approved solar panels. The principle of erecting a wind turbine at the farm is acceptable, the consideration of the proposed location, scale and impacts are detailed below.

6.2 Landscape and visual amenity

6.2.1 Prior to the submission of the application the applicant requested an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening Opinion from the Council. This enables the Council to consider whether a full Environmental Statement is required to be submitted with the application and this consideration is against the EIA Regulations 2011. Although the proposal falls within Schedule 2 of the regulations it is not considered to have a significant effect as it is not a major development of more than local importance; is not situated within or impact on any environmentally sensitive areas and the proposed development would not be potentially hazardous to human health nor result pollution of the environment.

6.2.2 Local representations and the Parish Council have raised concerns about the impact on the environment and this is acknowledged as something which needs to be given careful consideration. However, the provision of 1 wind turbine is not considered to require a full Environmental Statement to be submitted. The impact can still be considered using specific detailed reports and statements.

6.2.3 In order to assess the impact on the landscape and visual impact from neighbouring properties the application has been submitted with a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment, which includes photomontages of the turbine in the wider landscape. The report advises that the applicants consultant considers that the scale of the landscape and the undulating landform provide scope for a development to be absorbed within it. Wooded field boundaries and plantations provide screening and visual mitigation for nearby receptors and those at long distances. However, they also note that the undulating landform and patches in the woodland provide opportunity for long, middle and short distance glimpses of the proposed development and that the size of the proposed turbine would be indistinguishable at a distance over 5km.

6.2.4 Three computer generated visual zones have been identified in which the turbine may have an impact on visual amenity. These zones are a worse case scenario as, due to the computer generation method, these do not take into account vegetation, structures or minor changes in land levels. Following this work the consultant has undertaken site surveys and provided their conclusion of the potential impact. This concludes that there are a number of residential properties, four other buildings such as churches and schools, 5 footpaths and 7 roads within the defined zones of impact. The consultant acknowledges that the proposed wind turbine will form a prominent feature in the local landscape when viewed from close proximity and that it is generally out of character and out of scale with the surroundings.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012

6.2.5 It is the opinion of the applicants consultant that the turbine will be screened from many of the local properties, roads and footpaths by the undulating landform, built structures and hedgerows/ woodland but that there will also be some properties and roads within 3km from where the turbine will be visible. The consultant has identified that there will be a substantial impact, defined as open views of the turbine in close proximity, to some properties but that none receive a severe impact. They consider that the turbine will have an impact on the immediate vicinity but that this will be contained within a small area and that the undulating landform and existing landscaping will help to mitigate this.

6.2.6 Local residents have raised concerns about the visual impact of the turbine on residential properties and the surrounding area, the lack of screening, the height of the turbine and that the constant turning will be a distraction. The objections are provided in greater detail at 4.2.2 of this report. One resident has also submitted a photomontage of the turbine as viewed from their property.

6.2.7 The photomontages submitted with the application imply that the wind turbine will only be visible from adjacent to the properties at Heath Farm to the east, however these were questioned by officers as the photos were panoramic and considered to show more of the landscape than would be visible to the eye when the turbine is in the centre of the view. The detail provided with the photomontages states that Rock Villa, 1 to 4 Hockley Cottages, the detached house to the south of Church Farm, the houses on Yockleton Road, Heath Farm and the converted properties, Wood End and Cardeston Park Farm would all be substantially impacted, yet the photomontage did not reflect this.

6.2.8 Amended photomontages have since been submitted which show a reduced view. Taking these, the original photomontages and the information provided by local representations into consideration the impact on the character of the area and the visual amenities of neighbouring properties can be considered. The information provided shows clearly that the turbine will be visible from neighbouring properties and from public points along the surrounding roads and within the church yard. It could be argued that as the turbine can be seen it results in a detrimental harm, however this conclusion could be taken for any man-made structure in the landscape. It should also be noted that there has been some support for the turbine which takes into account the visual impact. What needs to be determined is whether the proposed structure is of any greater detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area and the wider landscape than any other, existing structure.

6.2.9 PPS22 acknowledges that wind turbines are likely to have the greatest visual and landscape effects of all renewable energy developments. However it advises that “in assessing planning applications, local authorities should recognise that the impact of turbines on the landscape will vary according to the size and number of turbines and the type of landscape involved, and that these impacts may be temporary if conditions are attached to planning permissions which require the future de-commissioning of turbines.”

6.2.10 The applicant has suggested that the landscape is undulating and has existing hedgerows and blocks of trees and this landscape description is not questioned by

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 officers as it is taken from the Shropshire Landscape Assessment undertaken on behalf of the Council. Officers consider that the proposal is for a single turbine, which although will appear as a tall structure, is a medium sized turbine when compared to the scale to which turbines can be built and is narrow in terms of footprint. As stated above it is acknowledged that the turbine will be visible, it is also accepted that the turning of the turbine blades may make then more visually prominent. However, officers consider that the erection of a single turbine of the scale proposed would not have such a detrimental impact on the character of the landscape or the visual amenity of the area to warrant a refusal of the application and that a condition could be imposed to require it to be removed once it is no longer required or has passed its useful life.

6.3 Impact on heritage assets

6.3.1 Planning Policy Statement 5 ‘Planning for the Historic Environment’ indicates in policy HE6 that where a development may have an effect on a heritage asset an appropriate assessment is required. An independent Heritage Impact Assessment has been undertaken and assessed by the Historic Environment Team in which consideration has been given to the Practice Guide that accompanies PPS5, together with English Heritage's guidance on Wind Energy and the Historic Environment (October 2005) and The Setting of Heritage Assets (October 2011).

6.3.2 The applicants Landscape and Visual Assessment document identifies 24 listed buildings and a number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments within 2.5km of the site. The amended photomontage shows the turbine as viewed from the church yard, which is approximately 620 metres from the turbine position. The nearest listed building is the applicants farmhouse at Lower House Farm which is grade II listed.

6.3.3 Local objection has raised concern over the impact on the listed buildings and that the conversion of the agricultural buildings at Heath Farm was required to be undertaken sensitively but the turbine will not be sensitive to the landscape. As with the visual impact it is accepted that the turbine will be visible from some of the surrounding listed buildings, however the Council Conservation Officer has advised that, in their opinion, the proposed wind turbine will not have a detrimental impact on the setting of the surrounding listed buildings or landscape.

6.4 Impact on residential amenity, including noise

6.4.1 PPS22 recognises that renewable technologies may generate small increases in noise levels, like the aerodynamic noise from wind turbines for example and it is up to Local Planning Authorities to ensure that renewable energy developments have been located and designed in such a way to minimise increases in ambient noise levels. Details of the acoustic profile of proposed turbine have been submitted with the application which details the noise level of the turbine at different distances from the turbine and examples of other sound levels for comparison. Within the Design and Access Statement (D&A) the consultant on behalf of the applicant has also detailed the day time and night time limits recommended as measured from neighbouring properties. The D&A also details that the acoustic profile shows that a 30.6m high turbine would be inaudible at 144m and that a taller turbine, such as the one proposed, would increase the distance at which it was inaudible as the noise element would be higher.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 However, the consultant has also advised that in locations with quiet background noise this distance would be increased and the turbine would be audible at a further distance. As such they have recommended that the turbine be situated a minimum of 300 metres from properties not within the applicants ownership.

6.4.2 This distance has been achieved in the current application as the nearest neighbouring property is approximately 590 metres from the location of the turbine. However, a substantial level of objection has been received on the basis of increase in noise and neighbours have noted that they can currently hear the reversing “bleepers” of the vehicles at the poultry farm due to the prevailing wind direction. The concern is that the turbine will be audible and objectors do not consider that the non-site specific information submitted is appropriate.

6.4.3 These objections also need to be balanced against the letters of support which state that the turbine which was erected at Wattlesborough was not audible and that the proposed turbine will not be audible. It is acknowledged that the development needs to be considered on its own merit and site specific issues taken into account. The fears of the neighbouring residents are acknowledged, however the Council do not have any evidence contrary to the information submitted by the applicant and their consultant which details that the nearest neighbouring residents will not be adversely affected by the noise of the proposed turbine and the Council Environmental Health Officer has raised no objections.

6.4.4 The companion guide to Planning Policy Statement 22 ‘Renewable Energy’ outlines that shadow flicker occurs when the sun passes behind the hub of a turbine and casts a shadow and only occurs within ten rotor diameters of a turbine. This is the other main cause of impact on residential amenity from turbines. The rotor diameter in this case is 19.2 metres and as there are no residential properties within the 192 metre distance there will not be any impact from shadow flicker. Turbines can also cause flashes of reflected light, but a non- reflective matt finish to the blades will ameliorate this. No objections have been raised by the Council Environmental Health Officer and as such officers consider that the proposed turbine will not adversely affect the amenities of the residential properties in the surrounding area in accordance with policy CS6.

6.5 Ecology

6.5.1 Policy CS17 ‘Environmental Networks’ of the Core Strategy indicates that development should protect and enhance the diversity, high quality and local character of Shropshire’s natural environment and ensure that it does not adversely affect the ecological values and functions of these asset, their immediate surroundings of their connecting corridors. This follows Planning Policy Statement 9 ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’ which indicates the Government’s objective is to promote sustainable development by ensuring that biological and geological diversity are conserved and to conserve, enhance and restore the diversity of wildlife.

6.5.2 The applicant sought the advice of the Council Ecologist before submitting the application and this information has been shown on their constraints map. The proposed siting of the turbine will be 50m from the nearest hedgerow or tree and the turbine and any associated trench routes will be over 100m from the nearest

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 pond. The Ecologist therefore has no ecological objection and the application is considered to meet the requirements of policy CS17 and PPS9.

6.6 Public safety

6.6.1 Concerns have been raised by local residents regarding the stability and safety of wind turbines. Officers have received assurances from the operator that they have undertaken independent tests and that these have shown that the engineering design of the tower is acceptable and the turbines are safe for operation.

6.6.2 In relation to the proposed wind turbine the centre of the proposed turbine will be 300 metres from the applicants dwelling, over 50 metres from the nearest road, 400 metres from nearest public footpath and over 100 metres from the existing overhead electricity cables and Orange telemetry link, whilst the nearest neighbouring property is 600 metres away. The land immediately surrounding the mast forms part of an arable field and therefore in the event of any failure of the wind turbine no member of the public would be put at risk.

7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 PPS1 supplement on climate change and PPS22 both actively seek to promote all renewable energy systems, large and small, as do the relevant adopted policies within the Shropshire Council Core Strategy. They acknowledge the importance of renewable energy provision and that appropriately sited and scaled wind turbines are acceptable and should be supported. Local objection has been received from residents of the surrounding area regarding the visual impact on the landscape, noise disturbance and impact on residential amenity. Having taken professional advice from consultees it is considered that on balance the scale, siting and design of the wind turbine is acceptable as it will not have a detrimental impact on either the quality or character of the surrounding rural and open landscape. It is also considered that whilst the turbine will be visible it is sufficient distance away from neighbouring properties to mitigate from any overbearing impact or intrusions through any significant or detrimental noise impact.

8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT AND OPPORTUNITIES APPRAISAL

8.1 Risk Management

There are two principal risks associated with this recommendation as follows:

 As with any planning decision the applicant has a right of appeal if they disagree with the decision and/or the imposition of conditions. Costs can be awarded irrespective of the mechanism for hearing the appeal - written representations, a hearing or inquiry.

 The decision is challenged by way of a Judicial Review by a third party. The courts become involved when there is a misinterpretation or misapplication of policy or some breach of the rules of procedure or the principles of natural justice. However their role is to review the way the authorities reach decisions, rather than to make a decision on the planning issues themselves, although

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 they will interfere where the decision is so unreasonable as to be irrational or perverse. Therefore they are concerned with the legality of the decision, not its planning merits. A challenge by way of Judicial Review must be a) promptly and b) in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose first arose.

Both of these risks need to be balanced against the risk of not proceeding to determine the application. In this scenario there is also a right of appeal against non-determination for application for which costs can also be awarded.

8.2 Human Rights

Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community.

First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact on residents.

This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

8.3 Equalities

The concern of planning law is to regulate the use of land in the interests of the public at large, rather than those of any particular group. Equality will be one of a number of ‘relevant considerations’ that need to be weighed in planning committee members’ minds under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1970.

9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

9.1 There are likely financial implications of the decision and/or imposition of conditions is challenged by a planning appeal or judicial review. The costs of defending any decision will be met by the authority and will vary dependant on the scale and nature of the proposal. The financial implications of any decision are not a material planning consideration and should not be "weighed" in planning committee members' mind when reaching a decision.

10. BACKGROUND Relevant Planning Policies

Central Government Guidance: PPS1 : Delivering Sustainable Development PPS1 : Supplement - Planning and Climate Change PPS5 : Planning for the Historic Environment PPS9 : Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS22 : Renewable Energy PPS22 : A Companion Guide PPS23 : Planning and Pollution Control

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012

West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: PA15 : Agriculture and Farm Diversification QE1 : Conserving and Enhancing the Environment QE5 : Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment QE7 : Protecting, Managing and Enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Resources EN1 : Energy Generation

Core Strategy and Saved Policies: CS5 : Countryside and Green Belt CS6 : Sustainable Design and Development Principles CS8 : Facilities and Services CS17 : Environmental Networks

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

12/00348/MAW Erection of a building, concrete bays, 2 tanks, small mobile combined heat and power unit, hardstanding and associated works in connection with an existing waste processing facility. PENDING

11/05521/FUL Installation of boiler flue GRANTED 5th March 2012

11/04424/FUL Erection of a 2 bed affordable dwelling and garage GRANTED 8th March 2012

11/04285/AGR Erection of agricultural storage building GRANTED 10th October 2011

11/01493/FUL Installation of roof mounted solar photovoltaic panels on south facing elevations of four existing poultry units GRANTED 26th May 2011

10/00927/VAR Application under Section 73a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the variation of Conditions 17 and 18 of planning permission MS2002/1125/SY for on farm composting and shredding (Retrospective) GRANTED 18th August 2010

SC/MS2006/1454/SY Variation of condition 3 to continue the development on a permanent basis and condition 8B to allow cardboard to be included on the list of permitted wastes (existing planning permission reference MS2002/1125/SY) GRANTED 2nd March 2007

SA/02/1420/F Construction of an earth walled lagoon (retrospective) GRANTED 3rd March 2003

SC/MS2002/1125/SY on farm composting and shredding GRANTED 27th June 2003

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 11. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

List of Background Papers (This MUST be completed for all reports, but does not include items containing exempt or confidential information)

Cabinet Member (Portfolio Holder): Cllr M. Price

Local Member: Cllr David Roberts

Appendices APPENDIX 1 - Conditions

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 APPENDIX 1

Conditions

STANDARD CONDITIONS

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (As amended).

2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans and drawings.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.

CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE APPROVAL BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT COMMENCES

3. Prior to the commencement of the development exact details of the colour and finish of the monopole and the blades shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the development is satisfactory.

CONDITIONS THAT ARE RELEVANT FOR THE LIFETIME OF THE DEVELOPMENT

4. The wind turbine and associated infrastructure hereby approved shall be dismantled and permanently removed from the site and the land shall be restored to its previous condition within three calendar months of its ceasing the production of electric power.

Reason: To avoid the unnecessary accumulation of redundant structures in the open countryside.

5. The wind turbine hereby permitted shall be maintained to operate and perform in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications/recommendations.

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties and the area in general.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 Informatives

1. Where there are pre commencement conditions that require the submission of information for approval prior to development commencing at least 21 days notice is required to enable proper consideration to be given.

Your attention is specifically drawn to the conditions above that require the Local Planning Authority's approval of materials, details, information, drawings etc. In accordance with Article 21 of the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 a fee is required to be paid to the Local Planning Authority for requests to discharge conditions. Requests are to be made on forms available from www.planningportal.gov.uk or from the Local Planning Authority. The fee required is £85 per request, and £25 for existing residential properties.

Failure to discharge pre-start conditions will result in a contravention of the terms of this permission; any commencement may be unlawful and the Local Planning Authority may consequently take enforcement action.

2. If your application has been submitted electronically to the Council you can view the relevant plans online at www.shropshire.gov.uk. Paper copies can be provided, subject to copying charges, from Planning Services on 01743 252621.

3. Defence Estates Safeguarding wishes to be consulted and notified of the progression of planning applications and submissions relating to this proposal to verify that it will not adversely affect defence estates. You must tell Defence Estates Safeguarding: - The date construction starts and ends; - The maximum height of construction equipment; - The latitude and longitude of every turbine.

This information is vital as it will be plotted on flying charts to make sure that military aircraft avoid this area.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665