Erection of single 300kW wind turbine (maximum height 66.7m) andassociated infrastructure and access track.

Approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet. The Principal Planning Officer also verbally reported the receipt of a letter of objection from CPRE and an additional representation from Mrs Edwards, one of the local residents who had objected to the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Brown, representing some of the local residents, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Thomas, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor JW Millar, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

• The proposed application could be the first of many if approved.
• Legislative changes could make this one of the last large turbines permitted nationally.
• The proposed turbine was considerable higher than Hereford Cathedral and only 6ft lower than Westminster Abbey.
• Positive aspects of the application were the promotion of green energy and local employment.
• It was however noted that the suggested efficiency of the turbine had been questioned and that the majority of the employment would be through the manufacture phase resulting in jobs abroad.

Members opened the debate by thanking the officers for a detailed report and a thorough site inspection. A number of members did however disagree with the case officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission.

Members went on to discuss the relevant policy issues and were of the opinion that the application was in accordance with national planning policies PPS1, PPS7 and PPS22 and Herefordshire Council Unitary Development Plan policies LA2 and CF4 and should therefore be approved contrary to the case officer’s recommendation. It was also noted that the turbine would bring much needed green energy to Herefordshire.

The social, educational, environmental, and economic benefits of the application were also debated with specific note made of the applicants’ offer to accept educational visits to the site. It was also noted that neither Docklow and Hampton Wafre Parish Council, Humber, Ford and Stoke Prior Group Parish Council nor Natural England had objected to the application. Members also noted that the Council’s ecological officer and public rights of way officer had not objected to the application and that the conservation manager, who had objected to the application, had also stated that there would be no direct effect on key landscape and character elements.

Some members of the committee did however voice concerns in respect of the impact the application could have on the landscape. It was noted that the site was fairly isolated and granting the application could have an adverse impact on tourism within the county. Members also noted that there had been 35 letters of objection as well as objections from the Ramblers Association and the CPRE.

In response to a question, the principal planning officer confirmed that Carmarthenshire had introduced a 1500 metre separation distance between turbines and residential properties. He added that he had concerns in respect of any such policy as it failed to take into account the turbine position or the topography of the site.

Councillor JW Millar was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

• The proposed wind turbine was less efficient than stated in the report and was also less efficient than other green energy solutions.
• The turbine blades could reach speeds of 200 mph.
• The Impact on the landscape could not be mitigated and the turbine would not blend in with the surroundings.
• The lack of an environmental impact assessment was regrettable.
• The proposed wind turbine would be the highest structure in the County.
• The combined weight of local objections and policy issues should result in a refusal of the application.

The Planning Policy Manager advised Members that the Forward Planning Team had been looking into a renewable energy policy and echoed the Principal Planning Officer’s comments that a 1500 metre separation had not been proposed due to landscape and topography of different sites. It was also noted that the secretary of state had ruled that an environmental impact assessment was not necessary in respect of the application.

Finally the Planning Policy Manager noted that members had attended a site inspection and therefore felt that a further information report would not be necessary and that the committee could proceed to a vote.

The Democratic Services Officer explained the constitutional issues regarding a decision contrary to recommendation and advised that a further information report had not been requested by either the senior planning officer or the locum lawyer, representing the monitoring officer.

RESOLVED

THAT the application be approved, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, subject to appropriate conditions to be proposed by the Local Planning Authority