TIVETSHALL ACTION GROUP

Say NO to Turbines in Tivetshall.

With Enertrag now having submitted an appeal against the refusal by SNDC to grant permission for the erection of a meteorological test mast for up to 3 years on the proposed development land, TAG has prepared a response for submission and consideration of the Planning Inspectorate and this follows for information.

 

The grounds for appeal put up by Enertrag, which are presumably due to be expanded upon in their detailed application yet to be seen, are re-produced within the body of TAG’s response below.

 

The Planning Inspector will have been issued with copies of all correspondence produced during the public consultation for the original test mast planning application, so there is little point in repeating your objections at this time—it will only serve to bog the deliberation process down to no avail.  However, if you did not write before or have a fresh view to bring to the Inspector’s attention, it is imperative you write to record this before the consultation deadline of 30th July 2008.

 

All correspondence should be headed DCLG Ref: APP/L2630/A/08/2076890 and addressed to The Planning Inspectorate, DCLG, 3/15 Eagle, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN.

 

Alternatively, you may comment online by opening http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/casesearch.asp and entering the last seven numbers only of the Case Reference: 2076890 .  This will open the case file which provides an update of the current stage the appeal is at.  You can also comment from here and if you need to, upload any file attachments for the Inspector’s consideration.

 

The Planning Inspector will visit the site at his / her leisure as part of the deliberation process and an informal hearing will be held locally, at a time to be set, to hear the cases for and against before a decision is finally reached.  Venue and date of appeal subject to confirmation. Members of the public are able to attend the hearing and to raise issues at the hearing under the chairmanship of the Inspector.

 

 

TAG letter of objection to The Planning Inspectorate dated 14th July 2008

 

 

Planning Inspectorate

DCLG 3/15 Eagle,

Temple Quay House

2, The Square,

Temple Quay

Bristol BS1 6PN

14^th July 2008

By E-mail & Post

Dear Sirs,

 

Local Planning Authority Reference:   2008/0447

DCLG Reference: APP/L2630/A/08/2076890

Land at Grove Farm, Tivetshall St Mary, Norfolk

Appeal by: Enertrag (UK) Ltd

 

Further to the above referenced appeal by Enertrag (UK) Ltd, we write to reaffirm our objection to the proposed erection of a 60m high meteorological mast on agricultural land south of Tivetshall St Mary, Norfolk.

 

Tivetshall Action Group (TAG) was formed immediately following a public meeting convened by Tivetshall Parish Council on 11^th March 2008 at which some 130 residents met to voice their concerns and objections against proposals by Enertrag Ltd to redevelop agricultural land on the village outskirts for a wind farm development of six 125m high turbines and associated infrastructure.  TAG, administered by a small committee, acts on behalf of local objectors and in conjunction with the Parish Council, who have also lodged their objections to South Norfolk District Council (SNDC).

 

Enertrag (UK) Ltd lodged a scoping opinion request to SNDC in February 2008 and followed this with an application for the erection of a meteorological mast to remain in place for a period of up to 3 years to measure and record wind speed.  This application was refused unanimously by the Planning Committee on 22^nd April 2008; a popular decision, welcomed by residents.

 

Enertrag (UK) Ltd., submitted grounds for appeal are listed as:

 

· prior recommendation by SNDC Planning Officers for approval;

· that planning policy should be construed relative to the temporary (3 year) term requested;

· relative minimal structure of the mast to be erected on land that already accommodates HV lines and pylons, a mobile phone mast and railway line;

· in their view would not contravene Policies ENV1, ENV8;

· failure to grant permission pursuant to Policy UTL13.

 

TAG would respond to these in order:

 

· Yes, the Planning Officers did recommend acceptance to the Planning Committee, notwithstanding the high numbers of public objections received amounting to some 300 in number.  However, it is surely not incumbent on Planning Committees to accept all such Officer guidance, otherwise their duties and means of control would be redundant.

 

· It is not accepted that a three year period should be deemed temporary; nor that such a lengthy period is in fact necessary to measure average wind speed / direction.  Alternative means of ascertaining wind characteristics are surely available from published Meteorological Office data and from that recorded at the various airfields in the locality from which data could be interpreted.  It is interesting to note that Enertrag have made known their intention of erecting imminently a 10m mast for a period of 3 weeks with which to take measurements; this falling outside of Planning legislation requirements.

 

· Enertrag have stated publicly that the landscape in question is already “scarred” by HV pylons, the mobile phone mast and railway line in place.  Your own visit to the proposed site will inform you that the pylons in question are on the far western horizon, some 1.4km distant, and are of course of smaller relative scale compared with a 60m mast viewed at some 130m from the National Trail and somewhat closer (90m) when taking outriggers into account.  Also that the railway line, some 1.75km distance, is barely visible to the west apart from when trains pass and then only fleetingly as it is within a landscape that has matured in the 150 years since installation.  The phone mast to the east is partially screened by extensive hedging and trees and is again of much smaller scale within the landscape.  Also these features are all insignificant when viewed against the proposed 125m turbines for which this mast application / appeal is just a precursor.  To follow Enertrag’s spurious interpretation the majority of the UK would be deemed suitable for such intrusive industrial development as most rural areas have pylons, roads, and railways traversing the countryside in relative close proximity to they villages they serve.

 

What Enertrag fail to report is the value that this land provides the community in its present agricultural form, being crossed by well-used public footpaths, a National Trail and bridleways and providing an attractive focal point from the ancient (ruined) church of St Mary the Virgin to the north and other surrounding properties and village itself.

 

· TAG have procured a Landscape Assessment Report specific to the land in question prepared by Forestry, Woodland and Landscape Planning Consultants, R J Pass & Partners, which is attached for your information.  Reading this will provide further insight into the historic, ecological and community / amenity values placed on the land and which would be jeopardised by this intrusive development which would in our view impact clearly on Policies ENV1 and ENV8.

 

· Enertrag have always asserted that the test mast application should not be influenced by any subsequent intention by them to apply formally for the 6-turbine wind farm development for which a scoping opinion has been requested and provided and in accordance with which an Environmental Impact Assessment is in preparation.  SNDC Planning Committee strictly upheld this, forbidding any debate on the wind farm itself from being introduced at the mast application hearing.  This was despite local opinion suggesting the two were inextricably linked and should in fact be within a single application.

 

UTL13 clearly provides positive requirements which could in certain circumstances over-ride local policy on matters relating to the provision of renewable energy (wind power).  It is also clear however that a meteorological mast provides no energy at all; being an instrument purely to record wind speed and direction.  To suggest that UTL13 should apply therefore is unfounded relative to this “stand-alone” application of no direct use in the production of energy.

 

We would also respectfully draw your attention to correspondence received during the planning consultation from Defence Estates which stated that should permission be granted for the mast erection they would recommend the mast to be permanently lit with a warning lamp of no less than a defined lux level (TBC) in the interest of aircraft safety.  The night skies of Norfolk present one of the few “dark” areas of the UK and are valued accordingly and such a need would impact further on this landscape and indeed probably SNDC own Policy IMP25.

 

To ease your burden in dealing with still further correspondence, we have actively discouraged members of the local community from writing directly re-expressing their views already provided at planning consultation stage and which, we understand, would already have been made available to you.  You will no doubt receive a few however, but quantity of responses at this time should not in any way dilute the very strong objections evident from this community who will continue to oppose this and any subsequent wind farm application in this particular location vociferously in the interest of maintaining this area of land and its amenity; held in such high regard for so many years.

 

It should be clarified that TAG, and many of the residents it represents, are not opposed to wind power in principle when provided in the right places – the outskirts of Tivetshall is however not an acceptable location; and thus our strong opposition.

 

We thank you for your consideration of the points made in objection to this proposal and would request a copy of your decision in due course.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Appeal Objection—Meteorological Test Mast