Consideration of a proposal by ScottishPower Renewables for the erection of a wind farm on land to the east of Bishampton Bank, Sheriffs Lench
10. Recommendation Refusal
Z001 Notwithstanding the importance of renewable energy provision and the contribution the proposed development would have towards meeting the regional targets, the proposal would lead to an unacceptably adverse impact on the character of the landscape and cause a significant visual impact. By virtue of the location, mass and height of the turbines and their associated blades, the proposal would adversely affect local landscape character when viewed from publicly accessible locations and the wider area having regard to the sensitivity of the landscape. The proposed development would fail to safeguard, restore or enhance the character of the natural environment through a lack of appropriate integration and sensitivity of the local landscape and the wider context. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy and its Companion Guide: Planning for Renewable Energy, saved Policies SD2, CTC1, CTC2 and EN2 of the Worcestershire Structure Plan 1996-2011 and saved Policies GD2 and ENV1 of the Wychavon District Local Plan – adopted June 1996.
Z002 Having particular regard to the principles outlined in ETSU-R 97 and advice contained within PPG24 it is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development would expose nearby residential properties such as Manor Farm and Manor Farm Cottage to excessive and unreasonable levels of noise to the detriment to the amenity of the occupiers of those properties. Turbine noise levels are predicted to be up to 10dB over the prevailing background at these locations. The proposal is therefore contrary to the advice and guidance contained within ETSU-R 97, Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy and its Companion Guide: Planning for Renewable Energy, Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise, saved Policy EN.2 of the Worcestershire Structure Plan 1996-2011 and saved Policy GD2 of the Wychavon District Local Plan – adopted June 1996.
Z003 The proposed development by reason of its siting, scale and proximity to residential properties, in particular Badgers Sett, Manor Farm, Manor Farm Cottage and Garfield House, would create an overly imposing, dominating and oppressive visual effect when viewed from habitable rooms in principal elevations of properties and outdoor amenity areas resulting in the occupiers of these dwellings suffering substantially unacceptable living conditions through significant and adverse visual intrusion into their living environment. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to saved Policy GD2 of the Wychavon District Local Plan – adopted June 1996.
Z004 The Highways Agency has submitted a holding direction based on need for further information regarding the delivery of the turbine components and ancillary items. The Highways’ Agency continues to have as yet unresolved concerns relating to the use of the M5 and A46 to deliver the wind turbine components. In the absence of the principles of a traffic management plan agreed with the police and the Highways Agency and method statements to quantify the possible disruption to the to the strategic road network such as removal/reinstatement of street furniture and verge strengthening, the viability of the works in order to accept the transportation route of turbine components cannot be fully assessed. Additionally, the County Highway Authority has raised objection on the grounds that without future safeguards against the impact construction traffic will have on the maintenance of the existing highway and any structures during the construction period, together with road improvements to ensure highway safety for existing users, the level of impact identified in the Transport Assessment is unacceptable. The proposed development is therefore contrary to saved Policy T1 of the Worcestershire Structure Plan 1996-2011 and saved Policy GD2 of the Wychavon District Local Plan – adopted June 1996.
This article is the work of the author(s) indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding