RECOMMENDATION Recommended Permission Decision Subject to the 1

em No: 05 Application No. S.11/0966/FUL Site No. 28913 Site Address The Salt Box, The Camp, Stroud, Gloucestershire

Town/Parish Miserden Parish Council

Grid Reference 390206,209997

Application Type Full Planning Permission

Proposal Installation of wind turbine.

Applicant’s Mr R Eaton Details The Salt Box, The Camp, Stroud, Gloucestershire, GL6 7EU

Agent’s Details None

Case Officer Darryl.J. Rogers

Application 17.05.2011 Validated

RECOMMENDATION Recommended Permission Decision Subject to the 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of following three years from the date of this permission. conditions: Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, full specifications as to the final finish and colour of the turbine and all supporting structures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in strict accordance with the approved scheme prior to it being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: In order to safeguard the rural character of this part of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

3. No development shall take place within the application site until the applicant, their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of archaeology.

4. The turbine, photovoltaic array and all associated supporting structures and equipment shall be permanently removed from the site when it is no longer required for the purposes of energy generation.

Reason: In order to safeguard this part of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty from unwarranted harm.

5. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with all plans and documents contained in the Design and Access Statement received on the 16th May 2011.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of good planning.

CONSULTEES Comments Parish / Town Received Cotswolds Conservation Board Environmental Health Officer (E) Natural England Mr Charles Parry

Not Yet Received Contaminated Land Officer (E) Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust Forestry Commission SW Eng (E)

CONTRIBUTORS Letters of Objection C Ratcliffe, Spindleholme, Sudgrove B Langrish, The Grain Store, Bidfield Farm J X Brennan, Woodedge, Bisley D Walker, Highridge House, Little Close A Heath, Lillyhorn Cottage, Bournes Green J Senior, The Cornmill, Bidfield Farm A Heath, Lillyhorn Cottage, Bournes Green D Walker, Highridge house, Little Close J.D..Lerner, Ashley House, The Camp J Biggs, The Coach House, Bidfield Farm P Hanson And D Hanson, St Benedict Cottage, Honeycombe Lane D Robinson, Lower Battlescombe, Hayhedge Lane, Bisley, Mrs J Savidge, Campion House, O Barrington, Dillay Farm, Bisley J Harvey Wood, Camp Lodge, Camp Stroud Mrs S Vesey, Kulena, Wells Lane, Bisley TJ Nicolas, The Estate Barn , Miserden Dr Malcolm Savidge, Campion House,, The Camp Miserden, A E Hoffman, Througham Court Througham Glos Gl6 7hg, Mr R Fairer, Far Oakridge House, Far Oakridge L Lee, Lilac Cottage Miserden , Mr And Mrs S. Ellis, The Anchorage, Far Oakridge M Hammond, Nation House, George Street Mr R And Mrs J Rycroft, Lower Southmead Farm, Bisley R J Harding, Yew Tree Cottage, Bisley Mr. And Mrs. J. Taylor, Maplewood, Back Lane, Bisley, Stroud, Glos., A Phillips, The Scrubs, Bisley J Cobbe, Myra House, Bisley Mr G Clyde, 9 Dncey Road, Churchdown Mrs E. Senior, Thessaly Croft, Stratton, Cirencester, J Morley, Down Barn Farmhouse, The Camp J Taylor, Maplewood, Back Lane, Bisley, Stroud, Glos. Dr Malcolm Savidge, Campion House,, The Camp Miserden, A Edward Hoffman, Througham Court Througham Glos Gl6 7hg, Mr R Fairer, Far Oakridge House, Far Oakridge P Dhenin, The Grain Store, Bidfield Farm P Jenkins, , J Nicholas, , Mr And Mrs A D Smith, Bear House, Bisley Mr And Mrs A Reeve, The Cotteswold Barn, Bidfield Barns Joel Lerner, Ashley House, The Camp L Channing, Througham Slad, Bisley, P L Goodhind, Clipping Barn, Bidfield Barns Mrs D Lerner, Ashley House, The Camp Dr C Hoffman, Througham Court, Througham, The Camp Mrs J Walker, Highridge House , Little Close N MacLeod, Stancombe House, Bisley Road Mr P Barton, Sydenhams, Bisley, Stroud, M Hatt, Clare Cottage, Througham Mrs I Radalowicz, 18 Huggins Lane, Welham Green, Anne Thomas, , D Payne, Chivers Thougham, The Camp Dr M Savidge, Campion House,, The Camp, Mr And Mrs S. Ellis, The Anchorage, Far Oakridge

Letters of Support T Barnfield, 4 Gardiner Close, Chalford L Greene And A Evans, Catswood Cottage, Stancombe N Ilston, 162 Slad Road, Stroud Mr And Mrs J Bond, Burcombe Way, Chalford Hill R And J Crowley, Salutation, Far End J Davenport, The Skippets, Sheepscombe

Letters of Comment B Browne, Bunnage Barn, Wishanger Lane

OFFICER’S REPORT

THE SITE The application site consists of an area of agricultural land located to the rear of the residential property of The Saltbox, in the Camp / Bunnage area of Bisley to the north of the District. The 5 hectare field forms part of a small holding operated by the occupiers of the Saltbox, with the main Cheltenham - Stroud Road to the immediate west, open farm land to the north and east and the adjacent residential properties of Bunnage Barn and Bunnage Farm completing the southern boundary. The site is relatively flat and along with the majority of the surrounding land lies with the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In addition, to the west of the site on the other side of the main road is the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Conservation Area (SAC) of Cotswold Commons and Beechwoods.

THE PROPOSAL The proposal seeks permission for the erection of a 2.4kw wind turbine in the northern corner of the field along with the provision of an array of 18 photovoltaic cells. The turbine would be a Skystream 3.7 model with a hub height of 15m and a blade diameter of 3.7m giving an overall height of 16.85 from ground to tip. It would be of slim line steel construction and be located approximately 150m away from the boundary of the nearest non-related residential property. The photovoltaic (PV) array would be located towards the north eastern corner of the field and would be approximately 9m x 2.5m consisting of a series of three rows of six cells, angled at about 32 degrees supported on a metal frame. Both the turbine and the array would be located within stock proof fenced areas within the main field with the actual area of development being limited to approximately 60 square metres of the whole field.

MATERIALS The turbine would be of galvanised construction with the final colour and finish to be determined. The PV cells would be of aluminium / foil / laminate construction supported on a steel sub-frame.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY A previous application, reference S.10/1774/FUL, for the erection of a turbine was withdrawn in October 2010. This previous application sought permission for the erection a Proven 35.2 Wind turbine which was 15m hub height with blade diameter of 8.5m giving an overall height of 19.25m to tip. In addition the turbine was located further south and hence closer to the adjacent residential properties. The application was withdrawn following the expression of concerns by Officers over the potential noise impact of the structure given its higher output, height and proximity to other dwellings.

The current application is a resubmission of this proposal and seeks to overcome these concerns via the use of a turbine with less generation, smaller overall height and greater separation.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES Miserden Parish Council Object to the application for the following reasons:

The erection of this wind turbine would be in contravention of NE8 Stroud Local Development Plan as the siting and scale will make it clearly visible above the tree line particularly in winter. It would also be in contravention of National Planning Policy – in particular PPS22 and PPS7. It is within a particular area of The Cotswolds AONB which was noted for its “simple expansive quality” and will be detrimental to these rural views and environment.

The Council is concerned about the effect on road safety on a road which is already dangerous. In addition the effect on tourism, which is an important part of the local economy, was noted.

The impact on the close neighbours is considered to be unacceptable. There is an error in the design and access statement which states that neighbours had been consulted – however this is not the case. Finally the Council regrets that the photo–voltaic panels were included on the same application as any issues might be very different.

Environmental Protection Unit Having considered the technical specifications of the proposal, the accompanying noise report and the separation of the proposal from the adjacent non-related properties, the Council's Environmental Protection Unit raises no objection to the proposal.

County Archaeological Officer Following pre-application discussions with the applicant and the re-siting of the turbine raises no objection to the proposal subject to the provision of a watching brief condition.

Cotswold Conservation Board Comment that whilst the adopted Cotswolds AONB Management Plan supports the renewable energy projects including small scale wind turbines, the proposal will significantly break the skyline from some public viewpoints. This impact will be combined with the movement of the blades and will have a detrimental impact on the visual appearance of the area and hence object to the proposal.

In submitting this objection the board draw reference from a previous appeal dismissal for the erection of a Proven 6Kw 15m high turbine on land near Stow on the Wold in Cotswold District. (Appeal Reference APP/F1610/A/09/2114952/NWF, CDC Reference 09/00311/FUL).

Natural England Neither support or object to the application but merely outline the legislative background pertaining to the consideration of ecology issues.

Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Object to the application stating the proposal will be located in a prominent position within the AONB and will introduce an intrusive and unnatural vertical feature to the local landscape. No objection is raised to the PV array.

Public Responses In the region of 78 individuals have raised objections to the applications. The objections are made on the grounds of:

* detrimental harm to the character of the AONB. * alien addition to the AONB. * Wholly out of character with the designation of the AONB. * Impact on Quality of life for the adjacent occupiers and the users of the AONB. * Creates a hazard to road users. * Would destroy the archaeological remains in the field. * Unacceptable noise implications which have not been fully addressed in the application submission. * Flicker experienced by the adjacent properties. * Inefficient design and generating capacity does not outweigh the visual harm caused to the wider area. * Destroys the openness of the AONB and introduces industrial structures. * Harmful to the ecology of the area. * Completely contrary to guidance contain in PPS7, PPS22 and local plan policies NE8 and BE21.

Approximately 20 individuals support the application on the grounds of:

* Fully accords with national and local planning guidance. * Will not have a detrimental impact on the AONB. * Cotswold Conservation Board supports such projects. * A further step towards self-sufficiency. * Accords with all requirements on noise and amenity. * No objections from key bodies such as the National Trust or CPRE.

Two letters of comments have also been received.

ARTICLE 31 STATEMENT – REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

For the purposes of Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2010, the following reasons for the Council's decision are summarised below together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:

The main policy advice for an application of this type is contained with policies NE8 and GE1 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2005, together with Planning Policy Statement numbers 1, 7, 9 and 22. This guidance seeks to promote the development of renewable energy schemes whilst at the same time balancing the need to safeguard the rural character of identified landscapes such as the Cotswold AONB and the protection of residential amenity. In addition PPS9 outlines the requirement to ensure that the wildlife and ecology interests of designated sites are preserved. Furthermore regard must also be had to the contents of PPS5 in terms of any potential archaeological significance arising from the site.

Given this policy background and the nature of the representations received it is apparent that the key considerations relate to firstly the visual impact of the proposal on the character of the local landscape and its relationship with renewable energy provision; secondly the potential impact on residential amenity by way of noise and proximity; thirdly the ecology implications and finally the highway and archaeology

Landscape and Renewable Energy It is clearly acknowledged by the Local Planning Authority and all interested parties that the application sites lies within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and as such have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty according to paragraph 21 PPS7. Indeed paragraph 21 goes to state that the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should be given great weight in planning policies and development control in those areas.

However such a location does not place a moratorium on the erection of turbines or other renewable energy projects. It is noted that paragraph 12 of PPS22 states that:

'Small scale developments should be permitted within areas such as National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and heritage Coats provided that there is no significant environmental detriment to the area concerned.'

It is therefore clear from the guidance that the erection of turbines, especially small scale ones, can be supported provided the landscape implications are acceptable. It is would be contrary to guidance to merely dismiss the proposal solely because of its location in the AONB, despite the received representations to this affect.

In terms of the landscape impact of the proposal, the turbine will be of slim line construction set against a rising topography to the rear. As such the vertical nature of the turbine will be seen in the context of a rising backdrop of land and not as a single upright structure in an unbroken and clear skyline. In addition the promontory is topped by an elongated copse of trees running along the hill top against which the turbine would be seen. The proposal will merge into the local landscape especially in short distance views when seen from the main public view point of the adjacent B4070 highway looking eastwards across the site. This immediate impact will be further mitigated by the slim line profile of the turbine combined with the reduced overall height, compared to the previous scheme.

Although the proposal will be visible from the Bidfield Farm area, and indeed a number of representations have been received from this area, these properties are set atop the aforementioned promontory and hence will be looking down southwards onto the turbine from a distance of approximately 600m. From this distance the turbine will again be seen against the backdrop of the existing tree line along the rear of the Saltbox and again its impact will be mitigated.

Whilst it is undeniable that the proposal will be visible in short distance views, its overall impact is not considered unacceptably harmful to the local character of this part of the AONB.

With regard to long distance views, it is important to note that the land to immediate east of the site, the Cotswolds Commons and Beechwoods woodland area around Sheepscombe, is set significantly below the level of the application site and hence does afford any key views from public footpaths crossing this area. The most significant long distance views are available from the Ebworth area, in excess of 1.2km to the north east of the site. From this location the visual impact of the turbine will be minimal due not only to the distance involved, but also by the slim line design and the relatively small scale of the proposal at 15m. The visual impact from this position will not be significant and indeed will be similar to the impact of other man-made structures such as telegraph poles etc which already exist along the local skyline.

Given this situation it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to be unduly conspicuous from wider views and would not therefore have a significant impact on the wider landscape.

In respect of the comments received from both the CPRE and the Cotswold Conservation Board, it is again noted that both organisations support the provision of renewable energy schemes within the AONB subject to favourable or negligible landscape impact.

The objection from the Conservation Board makes reference to an appeal decision for a similar proposal which was dismissed on landscape grounds. However whilst each planning application must be considered on its individual merits, some parallels do exist between the proposals. The appeal case related to the erection of a 15m Proven turbine on land on the outskirts of Stow of the Wold adjacent to Stow Rugby Club and the main A436 highway. In the appeal the inspector concluded that the mast itself was not harmful or unduly conspicuous in the immediate landscape due to its slime line design and small scale. The harm identified by the Inspector arose from the proximity of the mast, 10m, to the adjacent highway and the fact that the wider landscape was predominantly flat and hence the mast would be more visible in long distance views.

The proposal being considered today is materially different from this proposal in terms of the adjacent road is less trafficked, the mast is set five times the distance away from the highway and the local landscape is of a wholly different topography.

The Cotswolds Conservation Board Management Plan states at Policy CCA4 that renewable energy projects in the AONB can be acceptable:

CCA4: Encourage and support appropriate scale renewable energy generation in order to help meet national and regional targets for renewable energy generation to mitigate the impact of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Clearly this policy has to be read in conjunction with other policy requirements regarding the safeguarding and enhancement of the AONB, and in this regard the contents of PPS7 and PPS22 must be considered along with local plan Policy NE8.

Planning Policy Statement 7 states at paragraph 16 (iv) that in determining planning applications local authorities should:

'provide for the sensitive exploitation of renewable energy sources in accordance with the policies set out in PPS22;'

Planning Policy Statement 22 goes on to state at paragraphs 11 and 12:

'planning permission for renewable energy projects should only be granted where it can be demonstrated that the objectives of designation of the area will not be compromised by the development, and any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by the environmental, social and economic benefits.' Paragraph 11 PPS22

Considering this guidance in the context of the current proposal, it is considered that the proposal is of small scale, will not compromise the designation of the area or cause significant adverse effects. The proposal therefore accords with Local Plan policy NE8 and PPS7 and PPS22. Policy BE21 is not quoted given that this policy was not a 'saved one' and has been replaced by the more relevant advice contained in PPS22.

Whilst the majority of the above discussion relates to the impact of the turbine, the erection of PV array also forms part of the application. However due to the significantly smaller scale and therefore reduced visual impact, this element of the scheme will have minimal effect on the AONB and fully accords with guidance in PPS22 and PPS7. This conformity mirrors the comments of both the CPRE and CCB together with a number of objectors who state that it is the turbine and not the PV array to which they object.

Residential Amenity The current proposal indicates that the turbine would be located approximately 150m away from the nearest residential property of Bunnage Barn to the south with the actual built form itself approximately 190m away. Given this distance and following consideration of the submitted noise and technical data by the Environmental Protection Unit, the overall impact on the adjacent properties of both Bunnage Barn and Bunnage Farm is not sufficient to warrant a refusal of permission. Although there will be some degree of background noise arising from the development, the level of this noise will not cause sufficient harm to residential amenity to render the proposal contrary to Local Plan policy GE1.

The same is also true of the potential for flicker given the overall separation between the residential units and the proposal.

With regard to the representations received regarding impact on personal views and property values, it has been firmly established in case law that such matters are not material considerations relevant to the determination of planning applications. Matters relating to the wider visual impact of the proposal have been discussed in the previous section.

Again the PV array does not give rise to any key concerns with regard to residential amenity to its scale and silent mode of operation.

Ecology In connection with the requirements of PPS9 and local plan policy NE3, the ecological impact of the proposal must be considered and if any significant impact is identified, suitable mitigation measures must be in place. This approach ensures that due regard is had to the environmental implications of the proposals and addresses the representations received.

The key ecological issues relating to this application arise from any potential impact on the designated SSSI and SAC of Cotswold Beechwoods to the far west of the application site. This site has been designated on the basis of its flora habitats in terms of rare plants and woodland species and not on the basis of protected fauna. Whilst it is accepted that such fauna may be present in the area, their presence would be covered by normal protected species legislation rather than via this designation. However given this situation and the nature of the proposal, is it evident that any impact on flora is negligible and on fauna is unlikely to be significantly detrimental.

Nevertheless the proposal does accord with Natural England guidance in terms of its location away from potential bat roosts within adjacent trees and provides sufficient separation so as to not to interfere with flight lights. The minimum distance sought by Natural England is 50m from the tip of the blades to the nearest potential species habitat. The submitted information indicates that this advice is exceeded by some consideration distance both in terms of the SSSI and SAC as well as exiting boundary tree lines.

In light of this situation the proposal will not have a significant or adverse effect on protected flora and fauna in the local and hence the proposal accords with advice contained in PPS9 and Local Plan policies NE3 and NE4.

Highways and Archaeology It is seen from the received representations that concerns have been raised with regard to the potential highway hazard posed by the turbine with regard to a potential distraction to road users. However this argument could be applied to any development along the roadside and as such cannot be reasonably quantified.

In terms of the potential 'topple' hazard arising from the turbine falling over the distance from the road at least three times the height of the turbine and hence would not pose a risk to traffic and complies with Local Plan policy GE5.

With regard to the archaeological implications of the proposal, the application has been formally assessed by the County Archaeologist who raises no objection subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a watching brief during the course of construction. As such the proposal accords with PPS5.

RESPONSES TO REPRESENTATIONS The received representations from both members of the public and consultation bodies have been fully considered and discussed within the main report.

RECOMMENDATION The proposal accords with national and local guidance and is recommended for conditional permission.

HUMAN RIGHTS In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected properties. In particular, regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no particular matters, other to those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that recommended.