Friends of North Norfolk Submission to the Planning Inspectorate Bodham & Selbrigg Wind Turbines

 

Selbrigg

Po

APP/Y2620/W/15/3134132 & APP/Y/2620/W/16/3143028

Wind Turbines at Pond Farm Bodham North Norfolk & Selbrigg Farm, Kelling Road, Hempstead, Holt, NR25 6NF.

Please refer to my previous objections and comments made at the time of the initial Planning Applications and subsequent Appeals.

I now wish to submit further comments to expand upon objections/concerns and kindly request that these are allowed and taken into consideration when now reconsidering the Appeals against Refusal.

It is proposed to install two large wind turbine masts on high ground which forms part of the Cromer Ridge. The Ridge is highly visible from many points along key routes/ paths. The A148 is the main route connecting Fakenham through to Cromer and which much of the tourist traffic travels along when visiting the North Norfolk Coast and the AONB.

The Ridge is a feature in principally undeveloped countryside,provides a frame which informs an entrance to and enhances the character of the Coast and AONB.

The existing Police Communications Mast near to the two Sites for the proposed wind turbines is clearly visible as you travel along a large stretch of the A148 – between Bale to the west and Cromer to the east.

The existing Police Communications Mast is shorter than the two proposed wind turbines but although they will sit on lower ground the two turbine masts and blades will stand taller and be even more visible in the skyline.

The movement of the turbines blades will also further increase their visibility and materially disturb the tranquil landscape character, settings of Heritage Assets, Conservation Areas AONB and the sense of undeveloped countryside.

Baconsthorpe Castle is a very important Designated Site and I feel strongly that the proposed wind turbines would destroy much of its unique sense of Place, Tranquility and History – its very essence which is primarily formed from its setting and surrounds in which it has sat for hundreds of years.

The movement of the blades will attract more focus and cause greater distraction.
I would suggest that the visual impact of a wind turbine on this Heritage Asset alone would be of significant and major adverse consequence.

NPPF Para 132 confirms that the significance of any Heritage Asset can be harmed by development within its setting and NNDC Core Strategy Policy EN2 requires that development proposals should demonstrate that their location will protect,conserve and,where possible, enhance among other things the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area and the setting of, and views from, conservation areas.

Even if the adverse impacts of the two proposed wind turbines on a designated asset is deemed to be less than substantial it does not necessarily mean insignificant and each incidence of harm,as a matter of law, must be given considerable importance and weight.

If a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
Any public benefits must be clear, convincingly justified to meet a need which cannot be better addressed by other means in a different location and, be sufficient to outweigh the harm.

North Norfolk is making hugely significant contributions to Renewable Energy Generation Projects of National importance, which when developed will provide sufficient Green Energy via Solar Farms and Offshore Wind Farms to power millions of homes – more than 20% of the UK Domestic Electricity Demand.

Thank you.

William J Horabin. 10, The Pastures, Blakeney, Holt, NR25 7LY E-mail willhorabin@hotmail.co.uk

and on behalf of The Friends of North Norfolk. http://www.friendsofnorthnorfolk.org

sted Friday August 4th 2017

Inquiry opened on 25 April 2017 Site visit made on 4 May 2017

by C J Ball DArch DCons RIBA IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 05 July 2017

Conclusions

77. I have found that the development of the site would lead cumulatively to less than substantial harm to the significance of the Sculthorpe Conservation Area and 3 listed buildings as designated heritage assets. As Framework 134 makes clear, where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. ‘Less than substantial’ does not necessarily mean insignificant and each incidence of harm, as a matter of law, must be given considerable importance and weight. Together, the 4 incidences of harm carry significant weight in the overall planning balance.

11th September is end date for submission of updated statements and any procedure comments you may have. This extension applies to all parties.
Helen Skinner
 
The Planning Inspectorate
Major Casework
3/O Kite Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS1 6PN


Wind turbines victory for North Norfolk District Council
Planning Inspector’s decision into Bodham and Selbrigg wind turbines quashed

A Planning Inspector’s decision to allow two wind turbines to be built at Bodham and Selbrigg in North Norfolk has been quashed.

In early March, an Inspector overturned North Norfolk District Council’s refusal of planning permission, instead granting planning permission for the two schemes: a turbine at Pond Farm, Bodham, submitted by Genatec Ltd, with a maximum tip height of 66m; and a turbine at Selbrigg Farm, Hempstead, submitted by Selbrigg Generation Ltd, with a maximum tip height of 78m.

North Norfolk District Council decided to appeal against these decisions and commenced proceedings in the High Court under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

As a result of these proceedings, the Secretary of State has conceded that the Inspector’s reasoning was “inadequate” on two counts:
·         In relation to the cumulative impact on heritage assets.

·         In relation to the application of NNDC Core Strategy Policy EN7 (which deals with Renewable Energy).

The Inspector’s decisions have consequently been quashed and the appeals have been referred back to the Secretary of State for re-determination (which will be by way of further appeal(s) handled by the Planning Inspectorate).

Cllr Tom FitzPatrick, North Norfolk District Council’s Leader, said: “This has been a long running battle, but we believe that our actions are crucial in preserving the unique landscape of this beautiful area both for those who live there and for those that visit.
“I would like to think this will be an end to the matter.”

Cllr Sue Arnold, North Norfolk District Council’s Cabinet Member for Planning and Planning Policy, said: “These turbines are in the wrong place and should not be built.”


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s