[ exact phrase in "" • ~10 sec • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]

LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

An ill wind? Summer 2014 sees wind farm planning refusals  

Credit:  by Lorna Bowry | Sharpe Pritchard | September 1, 2014 | www.sharpepritchard.co.uk ~~

Introduction

In late July 2014, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government refused planning permission for four on-shore wind farms. 

When considering these appeals, the Secretary of State had regard to the Court of Appeal’s judgement in the recent case of Barnwell Manor Energy Ltd  v East Northamptonshire DC & Others [2014] EWCA Civ 137,  which held that s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires a decision-maker to give “considerable importance and weight” to the desirability of preserving the setting of heritage assets when balancing the proposal against other material considerations.

Lorna Bowry, of the Sharpe Pritchard planning law team outlines the key features of each refusal.

Hill Farm, Milton Keynes

The first case relates to an appeal against non-determination of an application for five wind turbines on land at Hill Farm, Haversham, Milton Keynes. The planning inspector recommended that permission should be granted subject to conditions, but the Secretary of State disagreed with his recommendation.

The Secretary of State considered there would be substantial harm to visual amenity and harm in relation to the setting of heritage assets, though that harm would be less than substantial. He also considered that the impact of the proposals on a nearby property was sufficient to make it an unattractive place in which to live. On balance, he decided that planning permission should be refused.

Saxby Wolds, North Lincolnshire

The second case relates to land at Saxby Wolds, near Barton-upon-Humber, North Lincolnshire and an appeal against refusal of permission for 10 wind turbines. The planning inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed and planning permission refused. He considered that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the quality and character of this stretch of the Wolds and would diminish the contribution that the Wolds makes to the wider landscape. In addition the proposal would have a harmful visual impact on the nearby Ancholme valley and would be prominent in other views.

The Secretary of State agreed with the inspector’s conclusions, and refused permission.

Pilrow Farm, Somerset

A further case relates to the refusal of planning permission for four wind turbines at a site at Pilrow Farm, near Axbridge, Somerset.

The Secretary of State agreed with the planning inspector’s recommendation that planning permission be refused. Overall, he considered that the substantial harm to the landscape and visual amenity coupled with substantial harm to the setting of a scheduled ancient monument, harm to other heritage assets, and the significant adverse impact on residential amenity, clearly outweighed the benefits of the proposal.

Fenrother, Northumberland

The final case relates to a refusal of planning permission for five wind turbines on Green Belt land to the north of Fenrother, Northumberland.  The planning inspector concluded that the proposal is inappropriate development in terms of Green Belt policy and would harm the openness of the area. He also considered the proposal would harm the visual amenity of residents of nearby properties, and harm residents’ living conditions, especially those in Fenrother.

Overall, the benefits of the proposal did not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and to residents’ visual amenity/living conditions. Thus very special circumstances to justify the inappropriate development did not exist.

Source:  by Lorna Bowry | Sharpe Pritchard | September 1, 2014 | www.sharpepritchard.co.uk

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter