WORKING AT HEIGHTS - Wind Energy Network

SPONSORS OF TYNE & TEES FEATUREVisualresidentialamenityseeingthrough theissuesThe Coalition Government’s LocalismAgenda is filtering down to localcommunities who feel empoweredto comment upon proposed localdevelopment. Some members of thepublic have strong views concerningwind energy development and objectto applications, seeking to influenceboth the relevant Case Officer and alsomembers of the planning committee.South SharpleyAn increasingly common issue is visualamenity associated with residentialproperties and local panning authoritiesare refusing projects on these grounds.One such example is at South Sharpleywhere Durham County Council issued arefusal notice concerning three turbines.The refusal notice alleged that theproposed development would have asignificant adverse visual impact on specificresidential properties. The applicant (REGWindpower) appealed against this decisionthrough written representation.No clear guidelinesCommercial wind farm development willinevitably cause some local visual effectsfor nearby residential properties. Despitemuch ill-informed rumour, there are no clearguidelines about the minimum distancefrom a property within which a wind turbinemay have an overbearing affect.A review of appeal decisions does assistin providing some useful benchmarkingconcerning the distance within which aturbine will be seen as being overbearing.The matter can be forensically analysedby undertaking a residential amenityassessment which specifically examinesparticular properties and their relationshipwith a development proposal. A number ofkey militating factors need to be consideredwhen assessing whether a turbine willhave an overbearing impact on any givenresidential property.No particular individual has a right to aview, but there comes a point by reasonof proximity and size of a turbine where aresidential property would be rendered sounattractive, as a place in which to live thatplanning permission should be justifiablyrefused. The key test is whether viewedobjectively, in the public interest, would aproperty become an unattractive place inwhich to live.Carland Cross and Burnt HouseFarm InquiriesThis test was applied at the Carland Crossand Burnt House Farm Inquiries. Clearly,there needs to be a degree of harm overand above an identified substantial adverseeffect on a private interest to take the caseinto the category of refusal in the publicinterest.Residential Visual Amenity Study(RVAS)A detailed RVAS was prepared for theSouth Sharpley appeal to examine to whatextent local properties would be affected.The appeal decision for South Sharpleywas issued in April 2011. In allowing theappeal, the Inspector was satisfied thatthe proposed development would notunacceptably harm the living conditions ofnearby residents. This demonstrates thatwhilst there can be substantial oppositionfrom local communities, careful examinationof the facts can clearly demonstrate thatthere would be no unacceptable harmupon residential visual amenity.Andy Cook/Paul BurrellPegasus Groupwww.pegasuspg.co.ukClick to view more info56www.windenergynetwork.co.uk