To: The Planning Inspectorate
3/20 Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square, Temple Quay
BRISTOL BS1 6PN
21 March 2012
Dear Sir
Appeal No APP/C3105/A/12/2170098
Erection of temporary wind monitoring mast by Regeneco – Hanwell, Oxfordshire
With regard to the above appeal and Regeneco’s Appeal Statement, I am writing on behalf of the localWindfarm Action Group SHAMWAG to respond and make the following additional points.
For your information, SHAMWAG (the Shotteswell, Hanwell and Mollington Action Group) has been formed to represent concerned residents in the six parishes likely to be most affected by the windfarm proposals, ie Shotteswell (in Warks), Hanwell, Mollington plus Cropredy, the Bourtons and Horley.
Formal notification of the appeal
With reference to the formal notifications of the appeal by Cherwell DC, unfortunately it is clear that a significant number of individuals who made written representations have not received notification letters over a month after the start date of 14th February. The Cherwell list recently submitted to PINS lists 418 individual contributors, compared with a total of 524 original representations (based on the Cherwell Officer reports) on the application, so one could estimate around 100. We are not aware of any residents who sent both letters and emails. Unfortunately we cannot advise who all these individuals are, but we know several were key members of SHAMWAG who were looking out for the letter. This was drawn to the attention of the LPA at the end of February. A small number have contacted the LPA direct to request the letter. As far as we know the majority of this 100 have still not been formally notified. We do not think this fair on those who may not be au fait with the appeal process and may well have wished to make additional comments on the appeal to the Inspector – and arguably the LPA should take steps to rectify the situation.
Whether this affects the processing of the appeal is presumably a matter for PINS to consider.
The Appeal
You will be aware that we responded to the original application and the previous letter (19th Oct 2011) is attached for your information.
In SHAMWAG’s view, the Council’s three grounds for refusing the proposed Regeneco wind monitoring mast are extremely sound and reasonable, and backed up by the evidence.
We would be grateful if the following comments were taken into account by the Inspector and have quoted the paragraph numbers of the Regeneco Appeal Statement where appropriate.
Regeneco Statement - Introduction Para 1.4 and 1.5
It is clear that the Cherwell DC Planning Committee considered substantial information about the potential environmental impacts of the mast – which unfortunately were only partially covered by the Officers’ written report, as we explain later. Having attended the committee meeting, we consider that they reached their conclusions carefully on grounds which were “reasonable and substantiated”. Regeneco were given ample opportunities before the committee meeting to rebut that evidence.
Regeneco’s appeal places considerable emphasis on the Officer’s report being “fair and balanced” and their statement seems to imply that the Members of the Planning Committee acted somewhat irrationally. Written submissions made by SHAMWAG, Hanwell PC and others just prior to the committee (to supplement original letters of objection) drew the Councillors’ attention to a number of key weaknesses in the Officers’ report and challenged a number of its conclusions. Serious concerns were expressed about the extent of consultations, rather superficial responses by certain consultees, and the overall officer assessment appearing to simply accept many of Regeneco’s arguments eg on the airfield, and not addressing adequately the mitigation of environmental impacts.
We believe it is very important to note that the Officers’ report does not in fact cover some of the detailed information which the Committee eventually considered and based their final decision on. The Officers felt it appropriate to provide a 5 page update for the Committee and also make a lengthy verbal presentation to the Committee, which inter alia acknowledged weaknesses in the information and assessment set out in the report. The Officers’ written report could hardly be relied on therefore as a “detailed and thorough analysis” with these shortcomings.
Fortunately the Planning Committee were able to consider all the issues and evidence properly and we believe reached a sound judgment on the information presented to them.
As we see the planning issues, there are very few policies (national or local) which directly help to assess wind monitoring masts per se (as opposed to wind turbines) and in effect one has to go back to basic principles. PPS22 sets out an important principle at 1(viii) that :
“Development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures.”
In our view, to accord with PPS 22 Regeneco should have demonstrated that they had taken all appropriate steps to address and minimise the impacts in this case. They had ample opportunities to do so – but the evidence shows they have not, hence the three grounds of refusal.
Given the siting of the mast in attractive, open countryside (historically an AHLV), and the proximity of an airfield, it is very disappointing that the LPA did not see fit to carry out formal consultations initially with key agencies such as Natural England, BBOWT, and CAA etc, and that a number of important environmental issues identified by local people to the LPA were only assessed very late in the day. The Officers’ report seemed to be rather dismissive of potentially damaging impacts in terms of wildlife, the landscape, and the nearby airfield, and simply concludes – because of national policy on energy – that “the benefits would outweigh the harm”. We do not consider the written report provided a thorough analysis balancing the totality of local impacts.
To accord with PPS 22, it is surely essential for the LPA to balance national energy policy against requirements in national and local planning policy to protect wildlife, landscapes and other interests, and identify reasonable measures to mitigate and minimise potential harm.
This approach contrasts somewhat with the way Stratford DC handled the application for a similar mast near Bishop’s Itchington just a few miles away. This was initially rejected on appeal as the Inspector concluded it did not accord with PPS22 principle 1(viii) set out above. It should be noted that the proposal was amended and re-submitted to address these specific planning concerns (and was eventually approved on appeal). (We would draw the Inspector’s attention to the Bishop’s Itchington appeals in which similar environmental issues were debated: Appeal Ref APP/J3720/A/09/2118766 and APP/J3720/A/10/2142109).
Stratford DC were consulted as neighbouring planning authority as the mast is sited right on the County boundary, and took the unusual step of taking this consultation to their Planning Committee because of its significance to local communities and the sensitivity of this development to Stratford district. Although the Officers recommended approval based on national energy policy, the Councillors considered that local environmental issues had not been afforded sufficient weight and after some debate resolved to object. It is accepted that the Stratford Officers’ report covered the appropriate planning issues, but we believe that the Councillors had a duty to use their own judgment in weighing the benefits and harm, and, on the information available, they reached a different but entirely reasonable conclusion.
Regeneco Statement – Issues Para 6.1 - 6.4
In para 6.2 Regeneco are claiming that “the opposition was in large part to the principle of a wind farm on this land.” This implies that the objection letters opposed a windfarm per se and should therefore carry little weight and be discounted. This is simply not the case. For the sake of clarity we wish to point out that, although there is naturally great concern about the prospect of a windfarm, SHAMWAG was at pains to stress to residents that any objections had to relate solely to the planning issues raised by the wind monitoring mast, and offered a sample response to help make relevant objections on valid policy grounds regarding material considerations only. There were two well attended public meetings in Hanwell village hall and the level of response – 500 plus individual letters – shows that the local communities have major concerns. The sample letter for residents did not quote the windfarm as a ground for objection and did not refer to the mast creating a precedent. Although a few individual letters from residents raised objections to a windfarm per se on the site, the material submitted to the LPA clearly indicates that the vast majority cited sound policy reasons to reject the mast. This issue was well understood and Regeneco’s comments do not have any bearing on the specific grounds of appeal. (Copy of sample residents letter attached).
Regeneco Statement – Issue 1 Landscape Para 6.5 – 6.10
It appears to us that neither Regeneco or the Council fully addressed the issues of impacts on the landscape. Regeneco’s appeal statement appears to add very little. We consider that the analysis should cover two aspects:
- A thorough assessment of the “visual” impacts from various viewpoints
- Some form of assessment of the impact on the “quality and character” of this typically high quality Oxfordshire landscape – including a proper assessment of the AHLV designation which, despite its age, is a “saved“ policy and a material consideration.
That the mast will, by reason of its scale and design, cause “visual intrusion” is acknowledged by both Regeneco and CDC Officers. The Officers’ report (para 5.4.1) called it “discordant …and visually harmful”. Regeneco have not demonstrated how any of this was addressed (to accord with PPS22) – other than to say, in effect, you won’t notice it so much from a distance.
We were very disappointed by the CDC Landscape Officer’s analysis which seemed extremely cursory. It was not clear that all views from adjacent and overlooking Public Footpaths both in Stratford and Cherwell were properly assessed – the report referred to “the Public Footpath”. In our view, the cumulative visual impact is therefore greater than that described.The Officer later confirmed that he had not taken steps to assess all the surrounding public rights of way. Views from public footpaths and roads to the east of the M40 are equally important and the mast would be in centre of the landscape and particularly discordant when viewed from that direction. There was also a confusing comment about the “focal point” which though queried with CDC was never clarified. At best this was only a partial assessment of the impacts.
In terms of the AHLV and landscape quality/character issue, Regeneco’s appeal statement appears to add very little. The Officers’ report (para 5.4.2) discussed the AHLV but we were disappointed that it seems to be rather dismissive and calls the impact “debateable”. We do not see how an industrial mast 197 feet high could “conserve and enhance the environment” by any measure given the quality of this particular rural landscape. Even if the AHLV is now an old policy, one must assume the value and quality of the local landscape has not changed since designation in the 1996 Local plan (note- six years after the M40 was built) – only the way the planning system describes and categorises landscape quality and character.
In summary, we believe it was entirely appropriate for the Planning Committee to reach their own judgment on the landscape impact issues as there were acknowledged negative impacts and Regeneco had not demonstrated that the proposal addressed these issues adequately. In our view, this ground for refusal is sound and reasonable, and backed up by the evidence.
In terms of residential amenity issues, SHAMWAG have not used this as a ground for objection and this is not one of the grounds for CDC refusing the mast. Regarding the comments in para 6.11, it is well understood that visibility alone is not a reason to object.
Regeneco Statement – Issue 2 Wildlife and biodiversity Para 6.12 – 6.14
We note Regeneco’s comments. However, it should be noted that CDC decided not to consult Natural England or the local trust BBOWT about potential impacts. It may not have been “necessary” to consult Natural England and BBOWT but given acknowledged issues with birds and bats in relation to hedgerows and test masts it would surely be good practice for CDC to have consulted them. They may also hold important information about local wildlife.
In contrast Stratford DC consulted Natural England and Warwickshire Wildlife Trust on the Bishop’s Itchington mast and two important points arose i.e. NE requested the 50 metre buffer between the mast and any hedgerow and WWT recommended bird deflectors. It is not unusual for farmland which has never been subject to planning proposals to have little in the way of a history in terms of protected species and wildlife habitats. It is perhaps forgotten by current officers that considerable efforts were made in design and building the M40 motorway to protect and improve local wildlife habitats very close to the location of this mast.
The simple point raised at an early stage by SHAMWAG and others with CDC was that, as a sensible precaution (to minimise potential environmental impacts in accord with PPS 22), should not the mast and its guy wires be moved away from the adjacent established hedgerow because of the potential harm to foraging birds and bats, as required by Natural England in the recent Bishop’s Itchington mast proposal. This would simply involve moving the mast and guy wires so no part of the structure was closer than 50 metres, to create a form of “buffer zone”. We find it baffling that clear, expert advice on a similar mast provided to the adjacent planning authority by Natural England in October 2009 should now be discounted by CDC Officers. Impacts on birds and bats using hedgerows to forage are a known issue and a material consideration. It is a very simple matter to relocate the mast and no reasons have been put forward by Regeneco or CDC explaining why this important requirement cannot be complied with.
In summary, we believe it was entirely appropriate for the Planning Committee to reach their own judgment on wildlife impact issues as there were potentially negative impacts and Regeneco had not demonstrated that they had addressed these issues adequately (as per PPS 22). In our view, this ground for refusal is sound and reasonable, and backed up by the evidence.
In terms of the precise siting of the mast, we do not consider it would be appropriate to now impose a condition that the mast should be in a less harmful location (see Bishop’s Itchington appeal). A new location could require further consultations and raise other issues. If this ground is deemed valid, the appeal should be dismissed. Regeneco had ample opportunity to submit a revised siting at an early stage when this issue became apparent, but for their own reasons have chosen not to do so.
Regeneco Statement – Issue 3 Aviation Para 6.15 – 6.20
We note that Regeneco’s appeal statement appears to add very little on this ground for refusal. We noted a number of shortcomings in the WPAC consultants report on the assessment of the airfield at Shotteswell in our original submissions. It is not clear whether there has been extensive contact between Regeneco/WPAC and the airfield operator Mr O’Donnell, but it is evident from Mr O’Donnell’s submissions that he continues to have serious concerns about the potential danger to pilots using the airfield – concerns that have not been satisfactorily addressed by the WPAC report or by Regeneco subsequently.
Aviation is a complex area with different responsibilities and Shotteswell Airfield raises a number of safety issues. We are not clear therefore why CDC did not formally consult the statutory bodies when Stratford DC have consistently consulted CAA and NATS En Route regarding test masts in Stratford. One must assume their expert comments and technical requirements are important and relevant, and it would seem to be good practice to do so.
If there are significant differences of opinion on aviation safety between the airfield operator and Regeneco, it would seem sensible for the LPA (not being aviation experts) either to accept the operator’s detailed knowledge and experience, or alternatively to commission an independent report. We are therefore not clear why CDC Officers should rely on the conclusions of the Regeneco WPAC report and conclude that there were no significant safety risks. The WPAC report has been paid for by the applicants, appears to be mainly a “desk exercise” and is hardly independent. On the question of lighting, we do not understand why CDC Officers would not require suitable lighting of the 197ft mast as a precautionary measure for aircraft safety (as raised in the consultations by CAA) as this cannot be a significant cost to the project.
In summary, we believe it was entirely appropriate for the Planning Committee to reach their own judgment on the airfield safety issues as it had not been demonstrated that the proposal addressed these issues adequately (as per PPS 22). In our view, this ground for refusal is sound and reasonable and backed up by the evidence.
Regeneco Statement – Other Issues Para 6.21 – 6.23
Heritage assets and Conservation areas – SHAMWAG has not used this as a ground for objection.
Highway safety - SHAMWAG has not used this as a ground for objection.
Other mast appeals – we would argue that each site brings its own environmental issues which need to be carefully addressed and no two are alike. However, we would draw the Inspector’s attention to the Bishop’s Itchington appeals in which similar environmental issues were debated and the specific issue of the 50 metre wildlife buffer zone was considered – Appeal Ref APP /J3720/A/09/2118766 and APP /J3720/A/10/2142109.
Conclusion
In our view, the Council’s three grounds for refusing the Regeneco test mast in this location are sound and reasonable and backed up by the evidence
PPS 22 sets out an important principle at 1(viii) that :
“Development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures.”
We believe the evidence shows that Regeneco have failed to demonstrate they have minimised the environmental impacts of the mast in this case – even if the structure is temporary in nature. Important planning issues were raised – notably on wildlife impact and the airfield – which it might have been possible to mitigate but the CDC Officers and Regeneco concluded that this was not necessary in submitting the application to the Committee. In our view, the Committee were then entirely justified in deciding that, notwithstanding the national issues and arguable “benefits” set out in PPS 22, Regeneco had failed to address these detailed matters adequately and hence on balance refused the application on the evidence before them.
We therefore consider the three grounds of refusal to be fully justified.
Finally, we would ask the Inspector to give due weight to the views of so many local people and our elected representatives, and to the Council planning policies which were established to give our rural areas the protection that they deserve.
We trust that the Inspector will dismiss this appeal.
Yours faithfully
SHAMWAG
Tags: environment, libya, politics, research, science, transportation
1,500 people turned up to one council meeting, held at Welshpool’s livestock market
