Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 October 2014 by Alan Novitzky BArch(Hons) MA(RCA) PhD RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 27 November 2014

Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/A/14/2218136 New Hartswell Farm, Herodsfoot, Liskeard, Cornwall PL14 4RA • 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 Geoff Sayers against the decision of Cornwall Council. • The application Ref PA13/11706, dated 20 December 2013, was refused by notice dated 1 April 2014. • The development proposed is a single Endurance 50kw wind turbine 24.6m to the hub and 34.2m to the tip, with a rotor diameter of 19.2m.

Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single Endurance 50 KW wind turbine 24.6m to the hub and 34.2m to the tip, with a rotor diameter of 19.2 metres at New Hartswell Farm, Herodsfoot, Liskeard, Cornwall PL14 4RA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA13/11706, dated 20 December 2013, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule.

Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr Geoff Sayers against Cornwall Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the landscape • Heritage assets • Living conditions

4. The Council’s single reason for refusal addressed the effect of the proposal on living conditions associated with the clients of Woodlay Holidays. The other issues are addressed in response to concerns expressed in written representations.

Reasons Character and Appearance 5. The site lies within Landscape Character Area (LCA) 22 – South East Cornwall Plateau, 1 having a moderate sensitivity to wind development.2 The strategy,

1 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Landscape Character Study, Cornwall Council 2007 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/D0840/A/14/2218136

with which the proposal accords, is for a landscape with occasional small or medium clusters of turbines or single turbines below 100m in height.

6. The local land form is undulating, characterised by deep folds carrying tributary streams to the West Looe River, and with extensive woodland to the east of the site. Bearing in mind its moderate size, the turbine would be fairly well contained by landform and layers of vegetation and unlikely to be experienced as a fixed or dominating feature in the landscape. The footprint would be small and the temporary access track would not be a significant intrusion. Its effect on the fabric, character and quality of the landscape would not be materially harmful.

7. There would be a number of views of the turbine assembly from publicly accessible positions, but not of a sustained or intrusive nature. One of the most significant views would be from Bury Down Hillfort and earthworks, some 1.5km to the south west, which command a 360 degree outlook. However, being located some way down the far slope of the intervening ridge, not all of the assembly would be visible and the blades would not break the skyline. Despite blade movement, the assembly would take its place in the panorama without becoming a focus of attention.

8. Turning to cumulative effect, there are two turbines presently operating at Botelet Farm approximately a kilometre to the south west of the site and, at 18m to hub, a little smaller than the proposal. From the site they are visible on the horizon, seen within a cluster of power transmission masts, but make little visual impact. The Botelet turbines and the proposed turbine assembly blades would appear in the same view from Bury Down Hill where, because of their scale, location and visibility, their cumulative impact with the proposal would not be significant either in terms of effect on the character of the landscape or visual amenity.

9. It is unclear whether they would be seen together from other public viewpoints but more likely that they would be glimpsed separately. The cumulative effect on landscape and visual amenity would not be significant either from a single viewpoint or experienced sequentially. Attention has been drawn to plans for turbines at Wilton Farm and Connon Bridge but, in the first instance, it is the responsibility of the Council to assess the overall cumulative effects which might arise.

10. Although there might be some harm to the character and appearance of the Area of Great Landscape Value in which the site lies, it would be small. Overall, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the landscape would be acceptable. Any residual harm will be balanced against the public benefits of the proposal.

Heritage Assets 11. Heritage assets include Bury Down Hillfort, an important scheduled monument, non-designated settlement earthworks at Bury Down, and a number of scheduled and non-designated barrows 2 or 3km to the north west and south east. The Hillfort is a prominent feature, but its character as a point of focus in the landscape is challenged by a visually bulky telecoms tower on the eastern part of the same ridge. Its significance depends on its historic and landscape

2 An Assessment of the Landscape Sensitivity to On-shore Wind Energy and Large–scale Photovoltaic Development in Cornwall, prepared for Cornwall council by Land Use Consultants, April 2011 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/A/14/2218136

interest. Its widespread visibility, which is thought to be a prime reason for its location, means that, together with the associated earthworks, it has a very wide setting which certainly contributes to its significance.

12. The presence of the proposed turbine within the setting would not be harmful in itself, since the character of the setting, although scenic, is one of mainly farming, with mixed features including modern farm buildings, transmission lines and other equipment. As noted above, the turbine’s visual impact from the Hillfort and earthworks would not be great. The turbine and the Hillfort would be seen together on occasions. However, the turbine would be typically at least partly shielded by landform, foliage and buildings and its visual impact would be slight in comparison with the telecoms tower. Any harm would be much less than substantial and, overall, the settings of the Hillfort and earthworks would be preserved.

13. Turning to the barrows, visibility in the landscape, in conjunction with the Hillfort and from one feature to another, is thought to be significant in terms of the reasons for their placing. This would not be interrupted by the turbine assembly. Therefore, harm would be negligible and their settings would be preserved.

14. Concern has been expressed over historic remains which may be present within the field where the turbine would be sited. These are noted in the appellant’s heritage report, drawing on the evidence of heritage records, as a possible but dubious enclosure visible as a crop mark bank on aerial photographs. There would be no physical impact from the development and, in any event, they would be protected by the operation of the archaeology condition suggested by the Council which prohibits development until a written scheme of investigation has been approved.

15. The nearest listed building, Botelet Cottage, lies over a kilometre to the south west of the site in a fold in the landscape. Its setting is quite local and does not extend to include the site. Overall, the effect of the proposal on heritage assets would be acceptable. Any residual harm, which would be much less than substantial, will be balanced against the public benefits of the proposal.

Living Conditions 16. Neighbouring dwellings which might be affected by the proposal are the dwelling at Woodlay Holidays, some 385m to the north west; Woodlay Farm, some 695m to the west; and Herodshead, some 516m to the east. The submitted report indicates that noise conditions would fall well within ETSU-R- 97 guidelines for all of the properties and no dwelling lies within or near the risk zone for shadow flicker. Only Woodlay Farm has a principal elevation facing towards the site. There is normally no right to a private view in planning practice and, given the separation distance and relatively small scale of the turbine, the effect on living conditions for the occupants of Woodlay farm, would not be overbearing.

17. Woodlay Holidays operate a business focussed on fishing, with accommodation facilities, from the series of linked small lakes within the secluded valley to the north of the site. Concerns have been expressed over the effect of the proposal on outlook and tranquillity, which many clients value and return repeatedly to seek, with consequent effect on business viability.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/A/14/2218136

18. Wireframe studies show that, from the lakes, landform would obscure all but the blade tips of the turbine assembly except from the most westerly lake where the turbine, but not the mast, would be visible in theory. The lakes are extensively wooded and a hedge line intervenes between the lakes and the site. Moreover, screen planting could be enhanced by conditioning the permission. In practice, therefore, even this limited visibility would be masked for most of the year with trees in leaf. The business aims to operate throughout the year and in winter screening might be diminished but would still be very effective.

19. Despite the possibility of an occasional glimpse of the tip of a rotating blade, visual distraction from the lakes would not be significant, nor would it be from the walks eastwards into the denser woodland. A walk follows the boundary of the property at higher level, from where much more of the turbine assembly would be visible, and it would also be visible from the sitting area at higher ground to the south west of the lakes. However, clients would not be involved in the concentrated activity of fishing in these areas and are unlikely to be materially disturbed.

20. The appellant’s noise impact assessment predicts that noise generated by the turbine would be experienced at acceptable levels in the vicinity of the lakes, and the Council agrees. Overall, I do not find that the holiday activity would be affected significantly in a physical sense by the proposal. A greater effect on the business might arise from the expectation rather than the reality of harm. However, no evidence has been presented to suggest that tourism would be discouraged by wind energy developments such as this. Once a familiar and accepted part of the landscape, it is likely that the turbine would have little effect on clients’ enjoyment of this or other local businesses.

21. I take seriously the concerns of the proprietors of Woodlay Holidays, and the extent of their financial commitment. However, I find that the effect of the proposal on the experience of their clients, and on living conditions generally, would be acceptable.

Other Matters 22. Attention has been drawn to the effect of the proposal on the welfare of bats and birds. However, from the evidence presented, I agree with the committee report which concludes that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on ecology. I also agree with the conclusions of the committee report that, because of the distances involved, it is unlikely the turbine assembly would be a distraction to motorists or horses, or that topple or blade shed would be a danger.

Conclusions 23. The public benefits of the proposal spring from the production of renewable energy and the consequent reduction in carbon emissions. These benefits outweigh any residual harm identified. The proposal accords with Policies REN1 and REN2 of the Caradon Local plan, adopted December 1999, which are consistent with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and accords with the development plan as a whole. The proposal is sustainable in economic, social and environmental terms.

24. The proposal is acceptable subject to the attached conditions based on those suggested by the Council. The first condition is necessary to prevent the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/A/14/2218136

permission being implemented when planning circumstances may have materially changed. The second, concerning adherence to the approved plans, is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

25. The third and fourth conditions, concerning reinstatement of the site after the turbine ceases operation, are necessary to protect the character and appearance of the area. The fifth is necessary to ensure that the noise generated is acceptable. The sixth is necessary for the protection of archaeological remains, and the seventh to protect living conditions and the character and appearance of the area.

Alan Novitzky Inspector

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/A/14/2218136

Schedule of Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans listed below unless required otherwise by this decision or its attached conditions: Site/location Plan 1:25000 LOCATION PLAN, received 23/12/13 Proposed E-3120 - 50 KW MONOPOLE Rev A, received 23/12/13 Site/location Plan STREETWISE 1:2500 Rev A, received 21/01/14

3. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified if the approved wind turbine fails to produce electricity for supply to the electricity grid for a continuous period of 12 months. The wind turbine and its associated ancillary equipment including temporary access track shall then be removed from the site and the site restored within a period of 6 months from the end of that 12 month period, in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. That scheme shall include the details of the manner, management and timing of the works to be undertaken.

4. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified, in writing, of the date when electricity from the development is first supplied to the grid. The development hereby permitted shall be removed from the site following the expiration of 25 years from that date. Specifically, the wind turbine shall be decommissioned, and the turbine and all related above-ground structures including the temporary access track shall be removed from the site. Following the removal of the turbine and associated structures, the land shall be re-instated in accordance with a detailed restoration scheme, which shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority 18 months before the date of the decommissioning of the turbine and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the timing of the restoration works, and the restoration shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

5. a) The noise emission from the wind turbine when operating in isolation shall not exceed the predicted integer sound pressure level LA90 10 minutes when calculated in accordance with “A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise” May 2013 using an effective sound power level of 94.3 + (1.6 x 1.645)] = 96.9 dB(A)], at the curtilage of any noise sensitive premises lawfully existing at the time of this consent at wind speeds up to and including 10 m/s at 10m height. Sound limits at noise sensitive properties include those stated in Table 1 below:

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/A/14/2218136

Table 1: Sound limits LA90 10 mins at wind speeds up to and including 10m/s at the curtilage of residential receptors:-

Property Name National Grid Ref Sound Limit Woodlay Cottage 219080, 060686 31 dB(A) Woodlay Farm 218787, 060560 25 dB(A) West Park 219264, 060058 24 dB(A) Herodshead 219935, 060634 28 dB(A) Woodlay Park Lakes 219172, 060980 34 dB(A)

b) For the purpose of this condition, curtilage is defined as “the boundary of a lawfully existing domestic garden area”.

c) At the request of the Local Planning Authority (LPA), the wind turbine operator shall, at their own expense, employ a suitably competent and qualified person to measure and assess, by a method to be approved in writing by the LPA, whether noise from the turbine meets the specified level. The assessment shall be commenced within 21 days of the notification, or such longer time as approved by the LPA.

d) The method described in paragraph (c) above shall include an assessment of tonality [capital delta]La,k as described in IEC 61400-11 (small/large turbines) and ISO 1996-2:2007 (small turbines). Where a tone is identified a penalty shall be added to the measured sound levels in accordance with ETSU-R-97.

e) A copy of the assessment, together with all recorded data and audio files obtained as part of the assessment, shall be provided to the LPA (in electronic form) within 60 days of the notification.

f) If the assessment requested by the LPA demonstrates that the specified level is being exceeded, the operator of the turbine shall take immediate steps to ensure that the noise emissions from the turbine are reduced to, or below, the specified noise limit. The operator shall provide written confirmation of that reduction to the LPA within a time period to be agreed with the LPA. In the event that it is not possible to achieve the specified noise limit with mitigation within a reasonable time period, then the operation of the turbine shall cease.

g) In the event that an alternative turbine to that contained in the submitted noise assessment (PDA Ref 7629/0115/04 3rd January 2014) is chosen for installation, then development shall not take place until a new desktop site specific noise assessment of the proposed turbine has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

h) Where micro-siting of the turbine has been approved, the applicant shall provide the 12-figure national grid reference of the installed turbine to the Local Planning Authority within 4 weeks of commissioning of the turbine.

6. No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological work including a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/A/14/2218136

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and:

a) The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording b) The programme for post investigation assessment c) Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording d) Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation e) Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation f) Nomination of a competent person, persons, or organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.

7. No development shall take place until a landscaping scheme showing the position, specification and maintenance of new and existing plantings for the north-western boundary of the site for a minimum period of 5 years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation and of the additional planting with native trees necessary to provide an improved screening of the development in views from lakeside points within the adjacent fishing holiday park (currently known as Woodlay Holidays). Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8