Appeal Decision
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.