Location
Turves, Fenland, Cambridgeshire
Client
Fivestone Ltd
Project
Burnthouse Farm Windfarm
Burnthouse Farm Windfarm
Pegasus Planning Group was appointed by Fivestone Ltd to provide expert landscape and visual witness services in relation to an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for a windfarm consisting of 3 wind turbines (100m to blade tip) by Fenland District Council.
The sole reason for refusal of the application concerned potential impacts on the outlook from nearby residential properties. The appeal was heard at a conjoined public inquiry with another adjacent windfarm proposal known as Floods Ferry and therefore potential cumulative landscape and visual impacts were also a key consideration at the public inquiry. The two appeals were recovered by the Secretary of State for his determination in August 2010 in exercise of his powers under section 79 and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
In advance of the public Inquiry Pegasus reproduced all of the visualisations and updated the cumulative impact assessment. This information was submitted as Supplementary Environmental Information as requested by the Planning Inspectorate. Our evidence was supplemented by a detailed residential visual amenity study which considered the specific circumstances of each residential property within 2km of the proposed development. The nearest non involved properties were located approximately 430-470m away from the nearest turbine.
The Inspector concluded that the Burnthouse Farm turbines would not render any of the properties surrounding the proposed development to become unattractive places to live. She recommended that both the Burnthouse Farm and Floods Ferry windfarms be allowed however the Secretary of State ruled that only the Burnthouse Farm windfarm should be granted planning permission.
In relation to residential visual amenity, the Secretary of State confirmed that ‘serious harm to living conditions which might lead to a recommendation for planning permission to be refused, in the public interest, is a more stringent requirement than the identification of a significant adverse impact. He further agrees that when assessing the effect on visual outlook, it is helpful to pose the question ‘would the proposal affect the outlook of these residents to such an extent, i.e. be so unpleasant, overwhelming and oppressive that this would become an unattractive place to live?’ (paragraph 10 of the decision notice).
He also confirmed that ‘though there would be a significant impact on visual outlook for occupiers of a number of properties in the area, no properties would be rendered unpleasant places to live by the Burnthouse Farm proposal (Appeal A); and that it would not be seriously harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular reference to visual outlook’ (paragraph 11 of the decision notice).
