Erection of a single wind turbine with maximum blade tip height of 67m (hub height 40m), formation of new vehicular access, access track and associated infrastructure. Land North East Of Lower Withnoe Barton, Freathy, Cornwall Cornwall Council reference PA15/08659 Objection response by No Rame Wind Turbines November 2015 Church of St. Mary and St. Julian, Maker with Rame The Robert J Barfoot Consultancy Environmental & Planning Consultants Huckleberry, East Knowstone, South Molton, Devon, EX36 4DZ Telephone: 01398 341623 Contents Introduction and background Page 1 Executive Summary Page 2 The flawed pre-application public consultation Page 6 The Written Ministerial Statement of 18 June 2015 Page 9 Landscape and visual Impacts Page 11 Shadow flicker/shadow throw Page 25 Impacts on heritage assets Page 27 Effects on tourism Page 34 Ecology issues Page 35 Noise issues Page 38 Community Benefit Page 44 The benefits of the proposal Page 46 The need for the proposal Page 51 Planning policy Page 55 Conclusions Page 62 Appendices Appendix 1 Relevant extracts from the Trenithon Farm appeal statement Appendix 2 Letter from Cornwall Council – Trenithon Farm appeal invalid Appendix 3 Tredinnick Farm Consent Order Appendix 4 Tredinnick Farm Statement of Facts and Grounds Appendix 5 Decision Notice for Higher Tremail Farm Appendix 6 Gerber High Court Judgement Appendix 7 Shadow Flicker Plan with landowner’s boundaries Appendix 8 Lower Torfrey Farm Consent Order Appendix 9 Smeather’s Farm Consent Order Appendix 10 English Heritage recommendations Appendix 11 Review by Dr Tim Reed Appendix 12 Email circulated by the PPS to the Prime Minister Appendix 13 Letter from Ed Davey to Mary Creagh MP Appendix 14 Letter from Phil Mason to Stephen Gilbert MP 1 Introduction and background 1.1 I was commissioned by No Rame Wind Turbines (NRWT) to produce a response to the application to erect a wind turbine at land north east of Lower Withnoe Barton, Freathy, Cornwall, commonly known as the Bridgemoor turbine. 1.2 NRWT was formed by residents of the parishes Millbrook, St John and Maker with Rame, along with residents from the surrounding areas, who were concerned about the potential harmful impact of the proposed wind turbine on the landscape, heritage assets, living conditions of residents and on livelihoods generated from tourism. 1.3 My relevant experience over the last 10 years includes evaluating and responding to over 150 wind power planning applications, both at the desk 1 and in the field, along with taking part in numerous public inquiries on behalf of local residents. I also act as the assistant to a leading Queens Counsel in such public inquiries. 1.4 NRWT also commissioned Dr Tim Reed, a leading ecologist, to review the ecological issues involved in this application. Dr Reed’s review is at Appendix 11 of this NRWT response and a summary of his review is at section 9.1. 1.5 NRWT objects to the proposal for the Bridgemoor turbine for the reasons set out in this response and requests that planning permission be refused. 2 Executive Summary 2.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure and Section 62A Applications) (England) (Amendment) Order 2013 (the DMPO) makes it a legal requirement to carry out public consultation before a planning application is submitted for any development that comprises more than two wind turbines or if the hub height of any turbine exceeds 15m. 2.2 The applicant held a number of consultation events and has detailed the responses made. However there was a failure to provide particulars of the account, if any, that was taken of those responses in the preparation of the planning application. 2.3 The applicant has failed to comply with the legal requirements, meaning that by section 327 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the Council is not able to entertain the application and so cannot grant planning permission. 2.4 Should the Council grant planning permission for this application then that decision would be open to a legal challenge. 2.5 On 18 June 2015 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government issued a written ministerial statement (WMS) which stated inter alia that: When determining planning applications for wind energy development involving one or more wind turbines, local planning authorities should only grant planning permission if: • the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan; and • following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing. 2.6 It is clear that, under the terms of the WMS, the Council can only grant planning permission if the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in the Local Plan or a Neighbourhood 2 Plan and that following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing. 2.7 The Local Plan in force at this time is the Caradon Local Plan which does not identify areas suitable for wind energy development. The Emerging Cornwall Local Plan similarly fails to identify areas suitable for wind energy development. 2.8 In addition the of level objections from members of the communities and from the host Parish Council clearly shows that the planning impacts identified by the local community have not been fully addressed and that the proposal clearly does not have the backing of the local community. 2.9 Consequently under the terms of the WMS the Council cannot grant planning permission for this proposal. 2.10 Notwithstanding the apparent attempts by the applicant to under-assess the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal, the effects on the surrounding landscape, including the AONB, along with the visual effects on a large number of dwellings, and also the failure by the applicant to assess the effects on the AGLV within which the turbine would be sited, mean that planning permission should be refused. 2.11 Shadow throw is the effect caused by the shadows of the turbine blades moving across the ground and can affect people enjoying their external areas and also farmers working their land. Shadow throw is closely related to shadow flicker but is much more difficult to mitigate. 2.12 NRWT considers that the effects of shadow throw on third party landowners are sufficient to warrant refusal of planning consent. The Council should also consider the fact that the turbine would be within fall over distance of land outside of the control of the applicant. 2.13 The applicant submitted an assessment of the effects on the setting of heritage assets produced by SW Archaeology (SWA). This assessment identifies a degree of harm to the setting of a number of heritage assets, and yet it would appear that the Council has not consulted Historic England. 2.14 The Council should be mindful of the High Court judgement in the case of Gerber, R (on the application of) v Wiltshire Council [2015] EWHC 524 (Admin) where Wiltshire Council failed to consult English Heritage (as it then was) over a proposed solar farm. The High Court quashed the planning permission on a number of grounds, one of which was the failure by the Council to consult English Heritage. The Gerber Judgement is at Appendix 6 of this NRWT objection response. Should planning permission be granted then that decision could lead to a Judicial Review. 2.15 The applicant’s heritage assessment identifies harm to the setting of 37 heritage assets. For a single wind turbine to cause this degree of harm 3 amply demonstrates that it is the wrong proposal in the wrong place and also justifies the conclusion in the applicant’s assessment that the aggregate effects would be Moderate to Major and thus classed as substantial in terms of the NPPF. 2.16 There can be no doubt that the effects of this proposal on heritage assets are sufficient on their own to warrant refusal of planning permission. 2.17 As with most of Cornwall, the local economy of this area is heavily dependent on tourism. One of the unique selling points of this location is the unspoilt coastal landscape. 2.18 Bearing this in mind it is surprising that no attempt was made to assess the effect that the proposal may have on local tourist based businesses. These businesses employ substantial numbers of local people and provide vital business to many local suppliers and contractors. The visitors are not static but move around the area, enjoying the tranquil landscape and visiting pubs, restaurants and shops, meaning that any reduction in visitor numbers would have a widespread impact. Any negative impact on these businesses would be contrary to Government policy as set out in Section 3 of the NPPF. 2.19 There are a large number of tourist based businesses in the area along with a large number of privately owned holiday chalets, the most affected of which will be at Freathy and at Whitsand Bay Holiday Park. 2.20 As the applicant has not assessed the possible effects of the proposal on local tourist based businesses there is no information on these effects. This must weigh against the proposal. 2.21 NRWT commissioned Dr Tim Reed, a leading ecologist, to review the ecological issues involved in this application. Dr Reed’s review is at Appendix 11 of this NRWT response. 2.22 Regarding the applicant’s assessments, Dr Reed concluded that: ‘When reviewing documentation, it is expected that all of the material claimed by a developer will be available, and that methods used were as stated in the text.