^' RECEIVED 2T JUNzott N:rth Wanvickshire KingsburyWind Energy Scheme Installationand operation of 1no;130m high wind turbine and associated infrastructure(includin g access track, electrical equipment, temporary constructioncompound and hardstanding). Plann i ng Application Referen ce : PAP 1201 3I 0321 Appendix D - Reviewof RelevantWind Energy Developments Preparedfor WienerbergerLtd by Wind Direct June2014 Appendix D - Reviewof RelevantWind Energy Developments D1. Rodba son ( APPI C343OI A I tO| 21322891- ap pe n ded D2.Frodsham Canal Depot (DP|/A0655/1V131 - sent electronicallythrough the planningportal D3.Burnthouse (APP/D05151 AlLOl2L237391) - sent electronically through the planningportal D4.Spring Farm Ridge (COl8849 AND 892212012) - appended RECEIVED 2 7 JUN?01[ North Warwickshire Council HIJ$5:1:?:I: RECEIVED 2 ? JUN?O1T Appeal Decision North Warwickshil€ Site visit made on 29 October2010 by Andrew Hammond MA MSc CEng HIET MRTPI an tnrpGctor rppolnted by th€ Sccretrry of Strt6 for communlticr and Locrl Gov€rnment D€clslon dats: 1 D€cenrblr 2OlO Appeal Ref: APP/C343O I Al rO I 2L322e9 South Staffordshire College, Rodbaston Campus' Rodbaston, Penkridge' Staffordshire ST19 5PH. The appealis madeunder section 78 of the Townand CountryPlanning Act 1990 againsta refusalto grant planningpermission. The appealis madeby Wind DirectLtd againstthe decisionof SouthStaffordshire Council. The applicationRef 09/00524/FUL, received by the Councilon 15 July 2009 was refused by noticedated 22 April2010. The developmentproposed is the erectionof two wind turbines,access track and ancillaryequipment, Decision 1. I allowthe appeal,and grant planningpermission for the erectionof two wind turbines,access track and ancillaryequipment at SouthStaffordshire College, RodbastonCampus. Rodbaston, Penkridge, Staffordshire ST19 5PH in accordancewith the terms of the application,Ret O9/OO524/FUL,received by the Councilon 15 July 2009, subjectto the conditionsin AnnexA. Main Issue 2. The main issuein this caseis whetherthe proposalconstitutes inappropriate developmentwithin the GreenBelt and, if so, whetherthe harm by reasonof inappropriateness,and any other harm, is clearlyoutweighed by other considerationsso as to amountto the very specialcircumstances necessary to justify the development. R€asons 3. Nationafpolicy in respectof renewableenergy is set out in PlanningPolicy Statement22: RenewableEnergy (PPS22), This statesthat "when locatedin the greenbelt, elementsof many renewableenergy projects will comprise inappropriatedevelopment, which may impacton the opennessof the green belt. Carefulconsideration will thereforeneed to be givento the visualimpact of projects,and developerswill needto demonstratevery special circumstancesthat clearlyoutweigh any harm by reasonof inappropriateness and any other harm if projectsare to proceed.Such very special circumstancesmay includethe wider environmentalbenefits associated with increasedproduction of energyfrom renewablesources." http l//www.planning-lnspectorate, gov.uk AppeafDecislon APP/C343O/ N 70/2f32289 I n a p p ro p fi ate devetop m ent 4. PlanningPolicy Guidance2: Green Belts (PPG2)sets out national policy guidancein respectof GreenBelts. PolicyGBl of the SouthStaffordshire LocalPlan 1996 (LP)sets out localpolicy which broadly follows the guidance in PPG2.Both PPG2and PolicyGBl state that developmentin GreenBelts is inappropriateunless it is for one of a numberof specifiedpurposes. 5. The proposeddevelopment does not fit into any of the categoriesof developmentdeemed to be not inappropriatein PPG2or PolicyGBl. The Counciland the appellantare in agreementthat the proposeddevelopment is thereforeinappropriate development which is, by definition,harmful to the West MidlandsGreen Belt. In view of the presumptionagainst inappropriate development,substantial weight must be givento the harm to the GreenBelt. Other ham to the Green Bett 6. PPG2states that "the fundamentalaim of GreenBelt policyis to prevent urbansprawl by keepingland permanentlyopen; the most importantattribute of GreenBelts is their openness".In this context"open" refersto a lack of developmentand not to beingvisually open. The proposeddevelopment would result in the introductionof developmentwithin the GreenBelt where nonecurrently exists. However,despite the heightand visibilityof the wind turbines,the extent of the introduceddevelopment would be limitedand the harm to the opennessof the GreenBelt wouldonly carry moderateweight in the determinationof the appeal. Visual aspects 7. In additionto the effectson the GreenBelt, the Council'sreasons for refusal cite the effectson the qualityof the landscapein the area and viewsfrom ShoalHill Commonwhich forms part of the CannockChase area of OutstandingNatural Beauty (AONB). 8. The appealsite is locatedin the predominantlyflat landscapeof the StaffordshirePlain, an intensivelyfarmed area crossedby overheadpower lines. The closestpart of the AONBis some 3.5km away with an important viewpointat the toposcopeat ShoalHill Common. 9. Staffordshireand Stoke-on-TrentStructure Plan 1996-2011 (SP) saved Policy NC2and LPsaved Policy LSl seekto protect,restore and enhancethe landscape.SP saved Policy NC3 relates specifically to the CannockChase AONBand statesthat the acceptabilityof developmentproposals outside the AONBboundary will be assessedwith regardto the extent of any adverse impacton the landscape,nature conservation or recreationinterest of the AONB. 10. By virtue of their heightand the sweptarea of the turbine bladesit is inevitablethat wind turbinesof the type proposedconstitute prominent featuresin their locallandscape setting and I recognisethat the wind turbines wouldbe visiblefrom a numberof localviewpoints, including footpaths, locar roadsand the M6 motorway. 11. Howeverthe wind turbineswould be relativelyslender and spacedsome distanceapart. As suchthey wouldnot detractfrom any senseof space within the flat landscape,nor wouldany long distanceviews be blockedor http://www. planning-inspectordte.gov,uk . Appeaf Decision APP/ C343O/Al l0l 21322A9 significantlyobstructed. Fromthe more localpublic vantage points the proposalwould not have an unacceptablevisual impact. 12. Theturbines would also be visiblefrom a numberof relativelylocal dwellings. Howeverthe closestof these is some 500m distant, Giventhe separation distanceand the broadexpanse of the StaffordshirePlain, the visualimpact experiencedby the occupiersof those dwellingswould not be unacceptable. 13. The most significantmore distantviews would be from higherground to the East,particularly from ShoalHill Common. Theseviews are expansiveand the turbineswould be seenin the contextof the M6 and built development, includingthe collegebuildings. Thereforethe presenceof the wind turbines would not havea significantlydetrimental effect in theseviews or on the specialqualities of the AONB. 14. Section72(I) ot the Planning(Listed Buildings and ConservationAreas) Act 1990 requiresthat specialattention be paidto the desirabilityof preservingor enhancingthe characteror appearanceof conservationareas. The Staffordshireand Worceste6hireCanal, the entiretyof which is designateda conservationarea, passeswithin approximately300m of one of the proposed wind turbines. Clearviews of the proposedturbines would be limitedto the stretchof the canalin the immediatevicinity, more distantviews being restrictedby high hedgesand trees. 15. The turbineswould be prominentin viewsfrom the canalalong a stretchof approximately700m length. Whilstthe changeto the landscaperesulting from the introductionof the proposedturbines would be substantial,in this vicinitythe characterand appearanceof the area is dominated,both visually and aurallyby the nearby,heavily trafficked, M6 motorway. Giventhe dominanceof the motorwayany detrimentto viewsout of the Conservation area would be very limited. Other malters 16. Whilstnot includedin the reasonsfor refusal,third partieshave raiseda numberof otherissues. 17. Someresidents have expressedconcerns in relationto noise. It is clearthat the major influencein the area is the presenceof the M6 motorway. The appellanthas demonstratedthat any noiseeffects will be acceptablein terms of ETSU-R-97which the Governmenthas confirmedremains the appropriate guidancein this respect. A suitablecondition can be imposedto ensurethe compliancewith the guidelines. 18. The majority of those with concernsover healthand safetycited fears over structuralfailure. Whilstthere have beena numberof accidentsduring constructionor maintenanceof wind turbinesthere are no substantiated instancesof injury to membersof the publicduring normaloperation. Such concernsare, thereforeunfounded, 19. Furthersafety concernswere relatedto driver distraction,particularly in relationto motoristson the M6. The HighwaysAgency did not objectto the proposalas motoristswould first see the wind turbinesfrom somedistance, so as to allow them to becomeacclimatised to their presence. http://www. planning-inspectorate. gov.uk AppealDecision APP/C343O/ N 1012132289 20. Exceptfor the deliveryof a few largecomponents during construction the proposalwould not introduceany significanttraffic movementsto the area. 2L, The only premiseswhich would be sufficientlyclose to the wind turbinesto potentiallyexperience the effectsof shadowflicker are in the controlof the college. Shouldthis occur,mitigation measures could be introducedin accordancewith detailswhich could be the subjectof a condition. 22. Whilstit is notedthat there are ecologicallysensitive sites in the vicinity,such as the