Protecting the distinctiveness of this very special coast

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

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.