Burnham and Highbridge Town Council/Brent Knoll Parish Council Statement

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

SECTION 78

APPEAL BY NEXT GENERATION LIMITED AGAINST THE REFUSAL OF

PLANNING PERMISSION BY SEDGEMOOR DISTRICT COUNCIL FOR WIND

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING THE ERECTION OF FIVE WIND TURBINES, ELECTRICITY SUB STATION, FORMATION OF ACCESS TRACKS,

HARD STANDING AREAS, IMPROVED VEHICULAR ACCESS AT STODDENS LANE, BURNHAM ON SEA

PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: APP/V3310/A/06/2031158/NWF

LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY REFERENCE: 12/06/00007/CSM

CLOSING SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF BURNHAM ON SEA AND HIGHBRIDGE

TOWN COUNCIL AND BRENT KNOLL PARISH COUNCIL (“THE COUNCILS”)

41 St James Street

Taunton

Somerset

TA1 1JR

Solicitors for the Councils

1. Introduction

At the opening of the Inquiry the main issues and supplementary matters were helpfully identified and for the purpose of these submissions I will deal with the four main issues in the order referred to namely:-

(a) The impact the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape including that of Brent Knoll, its village and setting.

(b) The impact the proposals would have upon the living conditions of local residents, particularly in terms of possible visual intrusion, noise and shadow flicker.

(c) The impact that the proposals would have upon the setting of local listed buildings notably St Michael’s Church and of the scheduled ancient monument, Brent Knoll Hill Fort.

(d) Bearing in mind the aims of local and national planning policies, the contribution that the proposals would make to achieving regional and national targets for renewable energy generation and the extent to which any such contribution should be weighed against any adverse impacts in terms of the other issues.

2. The Character and the Appearance of the Surrounding Landscape

An assessment of the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape has been undertaken in detail by the Appellants, Sedgemoor District Council (“LPA”) and kNOll. These experts have endeavoured to give an objective appraisal of what is in reality a subjective issue.

However there are certain aspects of this landscape which are matters of fact and which, in the context of the appeal site, must be taken into account when assessing how this proposal will affect the character and appearance of the area.

The Knoll is a significant and dominant landmark feature rising to its summit at 137 metres. The Knoll can be seen from many miles around from the coast to the west, from the Somerset Levels to the east and from the M5 motorway from both the north and the south. In my submission, the Appellants have underestimated the importance of the Knoll both as a landscape feature in its own right and in the context of the Somerset Levels. The Knoll is important because the hill itself is in such stark contrast to the surrounding low lying areas of the coastal plain and the Somerset Levels.

It is this clearly defined landscape character that renders the appearance of four or five (and it really does not matter whether it is four or five) wind turbines so unacceptable. There is no way of mitigating their impact and although the structures themselves are not bulky, the mere fact that the rotor blades are moving draws attention to them and therefore, the development will detract to a significant and unacceptable extent from the importance of the Knoll.

These comments relate to the views from outside the immediate vicinity of the appeal site looking in towards it. The impact on Brent Knoll village must be determined both from the inside looking out and from the outside looking in. This long linear village is set against the foot of the Knoll with the church and other significant buildings on rising ground on the lower slopes of the Knoll. The proximity of the turbines to the village is such that they will completely dominate it and will permanently damage a previously unspoilt setting.

Looking out from the village towards the appeal site the view at the present time is one of virtually uninterrupted open countryside which, with the turbines in place, will be dominated by these tall moving structures. It is interesting to note that the impact of the M5 motorway on the village in terms of its character and appearance is minimal by comparison with the appeal proposal.

Much has been made of the fact that these turbines have a life of only 25 years and that the Appellants are willing to limit their permission to that period of time. A 25 year time span does not make this a temporary phenomena. Temporary permissions are granted when the need for the development is temporary and sometimes where a specific type of development is required as an exception to normal policy and is therefore not permitted on a permanent basis.

The need for renewable energy is a permanent requirement and therefore even if there are conditions requiring removal of the turbines after 25 years, it is nevertheless inevitable that the infrastructure which is already in place will be reused and something similar put in their place. This is not, in a planning or in any sense, a temporary development. The impact on the Knoll, on Brent Knoll village and its setting is to all intents and purposes both immediate and permanent.

These structures may be discrete in the sense of being separate or individually distinct but their height and constant movement renders them far more intrusive than a housing development, with which Ms Lennard seeks to compare them. The comparison of the rotating blades of the turbines to the movement of trees in a breeze is hardly an appropriate analogy. Tree branches do not rotate through 360 degrees; trees are naturally occurring whereas these turbines are not.

It is interesting to consider the photomontages in the Environmental Impact Assessment and in the Supplementary Environmental Information. They confirm that there is little difference between the impact of five turbines and four. It also seems to the Councils, that these do not support the Appellant’s case. On the contrary, they tend to highlight the points made in my evidence in paragraphs 4.3, 4,4 and 4.6, that these tall structures dramatically dominate the surrounding landscape, can be seen for many miles around and have an adverse impact on the footpath network in the vicinity of the site.

I referred in my supplementary evidence to the Toddleburn case where Scottish Planning Policy 6 supports a separation distance of 2 kilometres between turbines and the edge of towns and villages (an increase from a 1.5 kilometre distance suggested in the Consultation Draft of that policy). This does not preclude such development within those distances but it is nevertheless a starting point for assessing such development proposals. I also acknowledge that this relates to Scotland but whatever the difference is between the jurisdictions, this indicates a method of assessing wind farm developments which is in complete contrast to the Appellant’s proposal which is only 0.5 kilometres from the village of Brent Knoll.

Policies in the Local Plan dealing with landscape issues are CNE 2 and PCS 5. These are not policies which prohibit development but policies which set out criteria against which development must be judged. PPS 22 specifically acknowledges that wind turbines are likely to have the greatest visual and landscape effects. It also acknowledges that the impact of turbines on the landscape will vary according to the size and number of turbines and the type of landscape involved. Paragraph 19 suggests that the impact may be minimised through appropriate siting, design and landscaping schemes. In the context of this application the impact is substantial because of the type of landscape involved. It is substantial because of the size and number of turbines involved and it is impossible to minimise the impact “through appropriate siting, design and landscape schemes”. Put simply, it is impossible to mitigate the damaging effect of these turbines on the landscape and therefore on the basis of national policy, supported in the Local Plan by Policies CNE 2 and PCS 5, the proposal should be rejected.

3. The living conditions of local residents (visual intrusion, noise and shadow flicker)

The extent of local concern is apparent not only from the fact that the Parish Council together with the Burnham and Highbridge Town Council are represented at this Inquiry but by the substantial investment in a range of expert evidence by the local action group. This indicates a significant level of local concern which cannot and should not be ignored.

The impact of this development on local residents will have been seen from the site visit to various houses in Brent Street and will have been noted from the evidence of the action group. The impact on residential amenity, on the public footpath system in the area and other activities carried on in the village and on the enjoyment by local residents of their own properties, has been shown to be serious and detrimental as a result of visual intrusion from this proposed development which is in such close proximity to the village.

Specific concerns have been voiced regarding noise. The evidence on behalf of the Councils was submitted without expert evidence and on the basis that the close proximity of these turbines to residential property will give rise to noise. That much has been acknowledged but the Appellants would have it that because their assessments of noise meet objective criteria that this is not an issue but this does not take account of the impact of noise subjectively. It is the nature, the tone and the continuity of noise that causes disturbance and because these turbines are located so close to residential dwellings this cannot and should not be discounted.

It was acknowledged in XEX of Dr Mackenzie that the methodology for assessing noise from the turbines gives rise to an underestimation of the noise. Measurements which were taken 10 metres from the ground do not properly reflect the noise generated by the blades of modern turbines which, in this case, are a total of 120 metres in height. The noise evidence from the Appellants must therefore be considered with that proviso.

It is acknowledged that the improvement to turbine technology reduces noise from mechanical sources but aerodynamic modulation is an inevitable factor that cannot be removed.

Whilst it is acknowledged that electromagnetic interference and shadow flicker can be dealt with by condition, remote electronic control of the turbines may not always pick up conditions when shadow flicker is likely to occur.

In the context of this main issue, it is also appropriate to mention safety issues. Brent Knoll is an area popular with horse riders. Even if the nearest bridleway is almost as far away as guidelines proposed by the British Horse Society require, the possibility of horses being frightened by the proposed development remains. I referred in my evidence in paragraph 7.3 to the fact that fields in the vicinity of the appeal site are also used by horses and their riders including children learning to ride. And the problem is not just restricted to shadow flicker; it is the noise from the turbines and the movement which could cause horses to behave unpredictably.

There is also the issue of highway safety. Whilst Mr Trinnick may be correct in what he says about long distance views of the turbines from the motorway travelling either from the north or south, views of the turbines will be more sudden from the local road network. There is nevertheless a natural inclination to look at unusual moving structures at whatever distance they may be; it is all very well to rely on an expectation that motorists will exercise due care and diligence but it is not always the case and if structures are introduced in a prominent place close to heavily used roads there is always the possibility of distraction and therefore danger. The generic letter from the Highways Agency dated 6^th August 2007 confirms this problem.

It is accepted that the highway concerns can be overcome by the creation of an improved access to the site but this will in turn have a long term and damaging effect on Stoddens Lane which will change in appearance quite dramatically. This change will be irreversible no matter how long any permission lasts.

4. The setting of local listed buildings (St Michael’s Church and Brent Knoll Hill Fort)

As indicated in my evidence in response to the Inspectors question, the landscape context of St Michael’s Church is not limited to the area immediately around it. The church itself is prominent in the village and in the landscape, as it is located on the lower slopes of Brent Knoll. It is therefore seen from the public footpath network to the south of the village and is an important focal point not only for the village but also from wider vistas including the surrounding Levels and the appeal site. The existence of four or five wind turbines in the open landscape to the south of the Knoll and will seriously damage the setting of St Michael’s Church.

I have also referred in my evidence to the listed buildings in Brent Knoll of which at least nine are located on Brent Street. Whilst the visual and landscape setting of the individual houses is not as significant as St Michael’s Church, the existence of the turbines is, in my submission, damaging to the setting and character of these buildings. The character of the village is defined by its relatively unspoilt countryside setting and this will be damaged by the proposal.

The Scheduled Ancient Monument of the Hill Fort is important and others have spoken about its historical significance. The introduction of four or five wind turbines into the landscape surrounding the Hill Fort introduces an alien element into a landscape that is only otherwise interrupted by houses. Such an intrusion is unacceptable and damages its setting. This setting is not just limited to the hill itself but to the surrounding Levels and coastal plain.

5. The contribution the proposal would make to achieving regional and national targets for renewable energy generation

The Councils I represent do not have access to expertise on this topic. The Councils can only rely on information that has been obtained from other sources but it is significant that information obtained from the Renewable Energy Foundation in December 2006 revealed that other locations where Ecotricity have wind farms have only achieved the efficiency target of 30% in one case. The average, including that one case is 23.92% against a target of 30%. Other information from Moorsyde indicates that the company “Your Energy” will only produce 22.4% of its capacity at best. Evidence generally appears to indicate that levels of production do not achieve targets and therefore the contribution towards production of electricity, and therefore reduction in carbon emissions, is overstated.

The contribution towards regional and national renewable energy targets is likely to be far less than predicted. In terms of evidence this was addressed and confirmed by Mr Spencer on behalf of the action group. Based on past performance, the contribution that this development will make toward meeting targets will, in the fullness of time, be shown to have been overstated. However, even if this proposed development achieved its target, that in itself is not a sufficient benefit to outweigh the adverse impacts that I have already dealt with.

6. Conclusions

The proposal must be judged on the need (as set out in PPS 22) for the provision of renewable energy resources. Wind power is but one of those. The need has to be weighed against the impacts of such development and if those impacts are found not to be serious then permission may be granted. If the impacts are found to be adverse and serious then the proposal should be declined. Policy PCS 5 sets out criteria against which any such proposal must be judged. It is my submission on the basis of the comments I have already made that none of the criteria are met namely:-

(a) The impact on the landscape is significant and cannot be minimised and there are no landscape features that can be used to do this.

(b) By virtue of their proximity to dwellings and to the village school, their dominating effect and the nature and character of the closest settlement with its important landscape feature, the impact of the proposed turbines on the character and setting of the settlement is unacceptable.

(c) The noise, the closeness of the turbines to residential properties, the impact on amenities including the public footpath network will cause an unacceptable level of nuisance to residents in the village.

(d) The prominent landscape setting of St Michael’s Church will suffer unacceptable damage as will other listed buildings in the village, albeit to a lesser extent.

(e) The setting of the ancient hill fort will be damaged to an unacceptable extent

Planning is all about measuring and balancing the pros and cons of any development. This exercise has to be carried out against the background of national, regional and local planning policy. Whilst it is essential to provide for different types of renewable energy throughout the United Kingdom, any benefits that accrue must be weighed against any damage caused. In this case, the damage is significant, unacceptable and long term. It weighs very heavily against the benefits of this proposal, such as they are.

It is not for the Councils I represent to suggest alternative sites but if they had been asked to select a site for this type of development within the Sedgemoor District then this is not a site that would have been chosen; the damage and unacceptable impacts of the development in landscape, visual, residential and general amenity terms far outweighs the benefits. Quite simply it is the wrong place for this type of development. There will be a profound dramatic and adverse impact on the countryside, on residents in the locality and on visitors.

The appeal should be dismissed.

A Mason

Ashfords

41 St James Street

Taunton

Somerset

TA1 1JR

24^th August 2007

Solicitors for Burnham on Sea Town Council and Brent Knoll Parish Council

Home News & Events Clubs & Societies Amenities & Businesses Walks History Parish Council Useful Links

This site is provided by the Brent Knoll Parish Council. Constructed by Matthew Warnes and maintained by Owen Cullwick. Last updated 18-Sep-2009

All the information is presented in good faith and is believed to be correct but no responsibility can be accepted for any errors or omissions. Information on local businesses is similarly given in good faith but without acceptance of any liability in regard to any transaction that may be entered into by viewers of this site.