|
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 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 14th 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 11th 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 22nd 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,
Inspector’s Decision on the Appeal (Upheld) published 12th January 2009
Appeal Decision Hearing held on 16 December 2008 Site visit made on 16 December 2008
by Andrew S Freeman BSc(Hons) DipTP DipEM FRTPI FIHT MIEnvSc
The Planning Inspectorate 4/11 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN 0117 372 6372 email:enquiries@pins.gsi. gov.uk
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 12 January 2009 Appeal Ref: APP/L2630/A/08/2076890 Land at Grove Farm, Tivetshall St Mary, Norfolk
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 Enertrag UK Limited against the decision of South Norfolk District Council. The application Ref 2008/0447/F, dated 26 February 2008, was refused by notice dated 24 April 2008. The development proposed is erection of a 60m x 152mm meteorological mast of steel tubular construction to measure, record and log wind speed and direction; it is self contained requiring no foundations or external power or cabling.
Application for costs
1. At the hearing an application for costs was made by Enertrag UK Limited against South Norfolk District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. [Note it has subsequently been learnt that in fact the Planning Inspector rejected Enertrag’s application for costs against SNDC—Well done Mr Inspector!)
Decision
2. I allow the appeal and grant planning permission for erection of a 60m x 152mm meteorological mast of steel tubular construction to measure, record and log wind speed and direction; it is self contained requiring no foundations or external power or cabling on land at Grove Farm, Tivetshall St Mary, Norfolk in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2008/0447/F, dated 26 February 2008, and the plans submitted with it subject to the following condition:
1) The mast hereby permitted shall be removed from the site, all materials and equipment brought onto the site in connection with the development shall be removed and the land shall be restored to its former condition on or before three years from the date of this decision.
Main issue
3. The main issue is the effect on the beauty, character and recreational value of the area.
Reasons
4. I saw that the appeal site is in the open countryside southwest of the village of Tivetshall St Mary. The area is subject to saved Local Plan Policies ENV 1 (Protection of landscape) and ENV 8 (Development in the open countryside). In addition, and given that the development is a precursor to a possible wind farm proposal, Policy UTL 13 (Renewable energy) may be relevant.
5. It is a flat, agricultural landscape that I did not judge to be exceptional in any way. The mast itself would be sited in a corner of an arable field. There is a hedge and ditch to the west. The land is open in easterly directions. In the distance overhead electricity services are clearly visible. These are both pole mounted and suspended from pylons. There is also a telecoms mast a little distance to the west of the site.
6. A little distance to the west there is also a bridleway (Patten Lane) that runs north-south through this area. In turn, the bridleway forms part of Boudicca’s Way, a long-distance footpath between Diss and Norwich.
7. I consider that a mast with a height of 60m, supported by a network of stays, would be a very substantial structure within this open landscape. In addition, it would be an alien feature in the sense that it would be constructed of manmade materials and would not be a familiar sight in the agricultural countryside.
8. Nevertheless, it would essentially be a “lightweight” construction. Viewed from the fringe of Tivetshall, including the grounds of the listed St Mary’s Church, I do not consider that it would be prominent. It would, however, be noticeable particularly to users of Boudicca’s Way to the east of the appeal site.
9. In terms of the Local Plan, I note that Policy UTL 13 is supportive of renewable energy projects provided that the benefits of exploiting the renewable resource in the national interest are not outweighed by demonstrable harm in terms of factors that include visual intrusion. Whether or not the meteorological mast should, of itself, be regarded as a renewable energy project is a moot point. In addition, the national interest was not a matter of discussion at the hearing. I am not able to conclude that the policy as worded gives any particular exemption from the terms of Policies ENV 1 and ENV 8.
10. Under Policy ENV 8, permission will only be granted for certain types of projects demanding of a rural location. These include instances where development is justified to sustain economic and social activity in rural communities. In my opinion, there is no direct link in this regard such as there would be for a scheme of farm diversification or affordable rural housing. However, I acknowledge that there is a tenuous connection. As such, I do not consider that the proposal would be directly contrary to the policy.
11. Turning to Policy ENV 1, this would preclude development that would significantly harm the identified assets important to the character of the landscape. In this regard, the Council has emphasised the open aspect of the landscape and the views from footpaths, notably Boudicca’s Way.
12. I conclude that the mast would be a noticeable and alien feature in the landscape, particularly when viewed from Boudicca’s Way. However, bearing in mind the unexceptional quality of the landscape, the lightweight nature of the construction and the fact that the mast would be in place for no longer than three years, I do not consider that significant harm would be caused.
13. Government policy is generally supportive of renewable energy projects. In this case it would be completely wrong to pre-judge a wind farm proposal or to enter into any detailed discussion in that regard. However, in the absence of significant harm, the appellant is entitled to monitor and record the characteristics of the wind in this part of Norfolk. This is in circumstances where the meteorological mast would not materially affect the beauty, character or recreational value of the area. The objectives of the development plan would not be prejudiced.
Andrew S Freeman INSPECTOR
|
|
Appeal Objection—Meteorological Test Mast |