Turbine Appeal Lost

A Planning Inspector has upheld a decision by Pembrokeshire County Council to refuse planning permission for a wind turbine at Manorowen near Fishguard.

The appeal by William Idris James was dismissed by Inspector Aiden McCooey because of its cumulative effect on the landscape and the visual impact it would have on the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park and local area.

A separate application by Mr James for costs against the Council was also dismissed by the Inspector.

Mr James had applied to build a 50kW endurance turbine – measuring 24.8m high to its hub and 34.5m to blade tip – in a field at Hendre Wen 550m south of the hamlet of Panteg. There are two similar turbines nearby.

Mr James appealed on the basis that planners failed to give notice within the prescribed period for making a decision on the application.

In dismissing the appeal, Inspector McCooey said that while the turbine was not a large one, his main concern was the cumulative impact it would have on the landscape character together with two nearby turbines.

In conclusion he noted the support for the proposal in the form of letters and a petition and he acknowledged the contribution that the proposal would make to meeting renewable energy targets and the benefit that the electricity generated would bring to the appellant’s farming business.

“However, these benefits do not outweigh the harm that I have identified in relation to the cumulative landscape and visual impact of the proposal on the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park and the local area, and to a lesser extent the nearby Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM).”

“The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy GN.1 and other relevant policies of the Local Development Plan. For these reasons, the appeal must be dismissed.”

In dismissing the application by Mr James for costs against the Council, the Inspector said he considered the planning authority had specific and adequate reasons for failing to make a decision.

“The applicant has not been put to unnecessary expense by the failure to make a decision on the application. The delay in making a decision would have been minor, in any event. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the Circular, has not been demonstrated.”