Land North of Willowbank Farm, Fritwell Road, Fewcott 13/00944/F
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Site Address: Land North of Willowbank 13/00944/F Farm, Fritwell Road, Fewcott Ward: Caversfield District Councillor: Cllr Jon O’Neill Case Officer: Caroline Roche Recommendation: Approval Applicant: Bolsterstone Innovative Energy (Ardley) Ltd Application Description: Extension of time limit to 08/02495/F – Erection of 4 no. turbines and ancillary development including a new site entrance, access tracks, a control building with substation and underground cabling. Erection of 1 no. anemometer monitoring mast and temporary construction compound. Committee Referral: Major development Committee Date: 3 October 2013 1. Site Description and Proposed Development 1.1 This application relates to a site and proposed development that has been considered by the Council previously, first in 2008/2009 (08/02495/F) and most recently in 2011/20012 (11/01932/F). Essentially the application is to extend the time period for implementation of a previous planning approval for four wind turbines and associated works. The application was approved by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State on 6 July 2010 following a Public Inquiry. In March 2013 a further Public Inquiry took place relating to two appeals against the refusal of the Council to discharge Condition 21 and 22 of the original consent and the refusal of the Council to vary Condition 21 of the original consent, each relating to aviation issues. The outcome of these appeals, in short, was that approval was given subject to amended and updated conditions. However the nature of the applications was such that the time period for implementation could not be extended. As such the three year period for implementation expired on 6 July 2013 and this current application was received 21 June 2013 and validated on 25 June 2013. 1.2 The site is an area of agricultural land located to the north of Willowbank Farm and south of the M40 motorway. It lies between the villages of Ardley with Fewcott to the south and Fritwell to the north west. 1.3 There has been some guidance published recently by the Department for Communities and Local Government entitled ‘Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy’ which will be discussed in greater detail throughout the report. However it sets out that, dependant on their generating capacity, not all renewable energy schemes will be determined by Local Planning Authorities. It is estimated that the proposal will have an installed capacity in the region of 10MW meaning that the Local Planning Authority remains responsible for the determination of the application rather than it being referred to the Secretary of State for Energy. 2. Application Publicity 2.1 The application has been advertised by way of neighbour letters, site notices and a press notice. In the region of 111 letters of objection have been received in relation to the application and 1 letter in support. Both the letters of support and objection are from local residents. Reasons for support are set out below; • Provide clean energy Reasons for opposing the scheme are set out below; • Applicants overcome problems, existing conditions cannot be discharged • Transporting the turbines will affect private properties, trespass, cause damage and be dangerous • Technology not available to overcome radar issues – air safety remains paramount • Proposal does not comply with Council’s guidance of proximity of turbines to residential dwellings – Council should not ignore its own guidance • Threat of turbines has had adverse effect on community for over 5 years – extension of time limit will prolong state of limbo • Cumulative effects of incinerator chimneys • Further industrialisation of countryside • New guidance regarding localism – local communities should be listened to • Negative social, economic and amenity impact • No benefits for the community • Landlocked wind farms don’t provide enough energy to justify the disruption • Information has been presented in an undemocratic manner • School in close proximity to the site • Noise from turbines • House sales suffering and values have dropped • Impact on birds • All previous objections still relevant • Allowing this application will set a further precedent • Impact on bridleways and equestrian safety • Conflicts with the Fewcott Conservation Area • Poor wind resource. Further assessment of wind resource should be conducted – may have been environmental changes making scheme less viable • Understood that no landowner has permitted installation of underground cables across their land – no grid connection nearby • Funds should be set aside to secure the decommissioning of the turbines when they cease to operate • Negative impact on conservation area and heritage assets • Turbines dangerous – potential for blades to come off • Turbines will exacerbate potential for flooding • CO2 savings will be significantly less than predicted • No more public time or money should be spent on considering this proposal • Health risks from noise and shadow flicker 3. Consultations (full responses can be seen on the Council’s website) 3.1 Ardley with Fewcott Parish Council: (Submitted by ARUP – independent firm of designers, planners, engineers, consultants and technical specialists). Set out new material considerations that should justify the refusal of this extension of time application. • Letter sets out the planning history of the site and proposals • Unclear why another monitoring mast is required – request that this be removed from the description of development • There have been changes to Development Plan since original application was allowed at appeal eg. South East Plan and Oxfordshire Structure Plan have been revoked and NPPF was adopted. • July 2012 – Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy – application should be fully assessed against this document – paragraph emphasises the role of local communities • One particular concern of the PC is the proximity of the turbines to residential properties and impact on the visual landscape as well as safety of London Oxford Airport (LOA) users. • CDC local guidance on proximity of turbines and residential amenity impacts – recommends separation distance of 800m – significant proportions of Fewcott and Fritwell are within this distance. • Principal overriding reason why the development should not be granted a time extension is the reason why the development has not yet been implemented. Don’t agree that the development has not been implemented for economic reasons – key reason is failure to discharge key conditions. • The Government guidance which allows extensions to time limits was aimed at increasing the opportunities for developments to come forward during the economic downturn – principally commercial and residential schemes. Renewable energy and wind turbine developments have not experienced the same decline. • Considered that the reason why this consent has not been implemented is not due to the economic downturn but due to the inability to discharge conditions • Considered that the impacts of the proposal cannot be made acceptable therefore the application should be refused as set out in the NPPF. • Ref. to para. 38 of Circular 11/95 Use of Conditions – unreasonable to impose conditions that developers could not comply with due to the involvement of a third party and where there is not a reasonable prospect of the action in questions being performed. • Some of the environmental credentials of the development are understood by the PC and Arup but not at the expense of other environmental aspects including local communities and aviation safety • Draw to attention the objection of the MOD (25 July 2013) where there are concerns about radar at Brize Norton • No evidence to suggest that the remaining conditions can be discharged and the request for a five year extension is about keeping the application alive rather than based on communications between the applicant and LOA. Nothing to stop the applicant resolving the problems with radar safety with LOA then resubmitting a new application. • Government guidance suggests that developments should only be granted extensions where there is improved prospect of sustainable development being brought forward more quickly – no evidence that this can be done therefore no justification for the extension of time limit. • If minded to approve the scheme the PC seek involvement in S106 agreements in accordance with Governments recent announcement relating to community benefits from wind farm developments. A suitable Community Benefit payment should be agreed. 3.2 Fritwell Parish Council: Object in the strongest terms – all conditions including the time limit imposed by inspector should by complied with. • Turbines within 500m of residential dwellings contrary to Council’s own guidance which suggests a separation distance of 800m – Council would be in untenable position if it ignores this guidance • Turbines overbearing on neighbouring residents – reinforced by the chimneys that have been erected at Energy from Waste centre. Chimneys and turbines will dominate the environment and diminish rural nature of the area • Localism Act is proof that Government wants locals to have more of a say in the planning process which affect their areas. New Guidance of onshore wind farms should be considered as a material consideration. • Clear that not all of the conditions can be complied with and the time limit should not be extended. Concern about access to the site by large vehicles – damage to roads and safety of residents • If application is to be approved