The following is the closing submission by BLOT:
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (INQUIRIES PROCEDURE)
(ENGLAND) RULES 2000
______________________________________________________________
APPEAL BY INFINERGY LIMITED
Against the refusal by South Kesteven District Council
of planning permission for 10 wind turbines at
Thackson's Well
SKDC (LPA) REFERENCE: S07/1661/55
PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: APP/E2530/A/08/2073384/NFW
______________________________________________________________ 
______________________________________________________________
CLOSING SUBMISSION
Presented by Tina Douglass
1. I do not intend to revisit all the evidence nor discuss every policy. Were I to do so we should be here for a further 10 days and you none the wiser. You will, in any event, have the aid of Mr Kimblin for the LPA who follows me. I shall endeavour to concentrate on matters which indicate that the views of the local community regarding this development are better founded than those of the appellant.
2. Noise and health
2.1 BLOT accepts that the calculations carried out by the Appellant's are, if the baseline has been properly assessed, compliant with ETSU-R-97. However, they remain doubtful of the accuracy of that baseline. Mr Hayes is, no doubt, a redoubtable expert on assessing noise relating to wind development. However it was not his firm which collected the data. He was "parachuted" in simply to give the evidence at this inquiry.
2.2 The agricultural calendar of arable areas is inflexible. For 9 months of the year crops grow silently save for occasional sprayers as Mr Mawer told you. Then comes a period of intense activity. The crop is harvested and the land is broken down for re-seeding. This latter activity requires "hot seat" 24 hour a day working1. Mr Hayes asks you to accept that any anomalies in the noise data occasioned by tractor work during the second period of noise measurement would have been apparent to him.
2.3 I submit that the evidence that such analysis was undertaken is distinctly questionable. When giving evidence Mr Hayes did not contradict his advocate when it was put to him that nobody had questioned the September period "until Mr Mawer introduced the matter in chief for the first time." That was patently wrong for it had been contained in Mr Bob Davis evidence submitted a month earlier - a matter neither Mr Hayes no Mr Glover appeared to have noticed. Why should Mr Hayes have reviewed the data if he was previously unaware it had been questioned?
2.4 Further at one of the chosen noise monitoring locations there was installed a small wind turbine. Such a turbine is an unusual noise source, not only making the location non-typical as an example from which other backgrounds could be calculated, but also a noise source of unusual characteristics. All turbines cut in and cut out in certain wind conditions. If the noise data had been analysed, as Mr Hayes says, to seek unusual noise signatures one would have expected that to have been noted. It was not. Instead he told us he saw it and estimated its noise production by ear. He had obviously not been alerted to its presence by anything in the data.
2.5 Mr Hayes told us that the noise of the A1 and A52 would mask the turbines and was patent whenever he was on site. Clearly he has not spent very much time there if, having noted the small wind turbine, he did not have time to consider whether it would be appropriate to seek and use an alternative noise monitoring location. Mr Mawer, who has lived in the area for 15 years and, as a farmer, walker and cyclist, spends much of his time outdoors, says outside the seasonal agricultural work the area is quiet and that the road noise is only apparent for 10% of the time. CPRE note the area as tranquil. If the road noise were as apparent as Mr Hayes suggests one would have expected to see red rather than green on the map.
2.6 It is my submission that: you cannot be satisfied that the baseline is not flawed by seasonal work; the Glebe Farm noise monitoring location is patently unsuitable for deriving other baselines; the better evidence is that the A1 and A52 are intermittent noise sources. As a result there is no certainty that the requirements of ETSU-R-97 have been met.
2.7 ETSU-R-97 is already slanted to the benefit of the wind industry. It does not seek to preserve absolutely the current noise climate but to provide a reasonable level of amenity without restricting the deployment of wind turbines. Unlike any other means of rating and assessing industrial noise it permits a higher noise level at night and an arbitrary lower cut off point in quiet locations. As the reporter at Auchtermuchty observed it does not guarantee that the noise will not be audible and that may be taken into account when considering those already having their visual amenity affronted.
2.8 Ms Limerick does not assert in her evidence that infrasound or low frequency sound creates the malaise associated with living near wind turbines. She says, quite rightly, that such research as has been done has tended to concentrate on those areas and is, based only on acoustic measurement rather than combined medical and acoustic expertise, Hayes/McKenzie concluded that LFN could not be the cause. They then moved to assessing unusual AM which afflicts a small percentage of windfarms and cannot be identified in advance. The Noise Working Group which assessed that paper contained no medically trained members.
2.9 Ms Limerick indicated that the cocktail of noise rather than its component frequencies did not appear to have been studied and that the problem of ill health had been left to acousticians rather than being studied methodically by those skilled in epidemiology. The empirical evidence and published papers of those with medical qualifications indicates that there is a health risk associated with living by wind turbines. That the risk to health is not mythical is demonstrated by the French Academy of Medicine's concerns and reluctance to site large wind turbines near to dwellings.
2.10 There appears to be a certain Gallic insouciance in discussing 2.5MW turbines, which they do not yet have, and recommending a separation distance based on the concerns raised, presumably, by smaller machines. Although the Afsset response was not to use an automatic buffer zone but to assess each development individually it does not indicate that health is not a concern, rather it seeks further research. I note that the intent is to site turbines of greater power output than the illustrative turbines described in the ES if technological improvement permits.
2.11 Fear of harm to health, genuine public perception of danger, even if not objectively well-founded, is a valid planning consideration2. Even if you are not convinced that the evidence supports harm to health you can have no doubt that the local people are genuinely in fear. Mr Hayes cannot give them more comfort than a low risk of incidence of excessive AM. His lack of medical expertise provides no antidote to the fear induced by the empirical evidence already discussed. Mr and Mrs Davis presented evidence of the intolerable results where the risk of excessive AM eventuates. They identified the linear array as an aspect of design likely to predispose to that risk. The WHO documentation notes that annoyance as well as sleep disturbance can lead to health effects.
2.12 I submit that: there is evidence to support the genuine fears held by the local population, who inhabit 31 homes within 1.5km of the site; that fear is a material planning consideration; that mere audibility is an additional harm to amenity,
3. LANDSCAPE INCLUDING HISTORIC LANDSCAPE.
3.1 The inquiry has spent some time debating the extent of the Vale of Belvoir. It is an appellation which is applied by people of different interests to various geographical extents. Whether the site does or does not lie within the Vale is somewhat academic. What is important is the level of sensitivity ascribed by independent neutral landscape character assessments, for it is to such assessments that the companion guide tells us to look for the landscape baseline3.
3.2 The National Character area4 describes Belvoir Vale as separated from the Trent Valley by a ridge and from the Witham Valley to the north east by slight rises of undulating land. The ridge between the Trent Valley and the Belvoir Vale is that carrying the Fosse Way, now the A46. The LCA places the power stations, networks of pylon lines, sand and gravel extraction and processing in the Trent Valley and gives a contrasting description of the Vale of Belvoir as a self contained arable and pastoral landscape, with grazing cattle, full hedges, and a quietly winding canal. The undulating land separating the Vale from the Witham Valley is also described as quiet and distinctly rural in feel5.
3.3 The SKDC LCA indicates by its title that the landscape assessor considered the LCA to include a part of the Belvoir Vale. The southern part of the LCA clearly does not lie within the Trent Valley. The Fosse Way ridge which separates it from the Vale runs far north of the site. Examination of the ES topographical map6 shows the Trent Valley, Belvoir Vale and Witham Valley conjoining in an area of low ground south of Newark and far north of the site. The Trent and Belvoir LCA is described as extending over the county boundary into Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire.7 The LCA contains neither power stations nor major mineral extraction and has a rural feel contrasting with the wider Trent Valley further North8.
3.4 The Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Character Areas9 identifies the Vale of Belvoir as stretching from the foot of the Belvoir Scarp north and north eastwards into Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. The site boundary abuts the Leicestershire LCA Vale of Belvoir. It would seem that independent landscape assessor also considered the site to fall within the Vale of Belvoir.
3.5 Yet to the historian, Mr Dawson, the Vale was defined not so much by topography or landscape character but by power. To him the domain of Belvoir Castle defined the Vale. Where that seat of power looked out and over, and where allegiance looked up, defined the Vale. That view accords well with the close link with Staunton, owing service to the castle, keeping visual contact with the lordship, from a property now described as lying within the South Notts Farmlands LCA.
3.6 The BLOT residents think the Vale of Belvoir runs north of Long Bennington. A supporter of the scheme disputes that. The local historian Mr Honeybone at first describes the Vale so that the site is excluded10 but later notes11 that the early Vale Railway intended to enter the Vale via Foston, indicating that to be at the mouth of the Vale as Ms Bolger suggests.
3.7 The extent of the Vale and whether the site lies within it is a red herring. What is important is the sensitivity of the landscape area within which the site lies, and of those which adjoin it, and the identification of attributes which will make the development more or less easily absorbed. This proposal may stand physically within an area of medium sensitivity but it is within a blade length12 of an area of high/medium sensitivity13. Even Ms Fisher accepts that the site area plus an outer skin of 800 metres will become a windfarm landscape and that a 2 kilometre outer swathe will be significantly affected. The landscape sensitivity to wind development of the adjoining areas, of Grantham Scarps and Valleys and Harlaxton Denton Bowl, is, according to the SKDC LCA, high. The management objectives for both is to preserve views.
3.8 The SKDC LCA notes that boundaries illustrated should be considered loosely defined. As Ms Bolger advised the reason for the boundary between the two character areas is not based on a change in character but solely from the administrative boundary. On that boundary will lie a feature 1.2 kilometres in length, comprising 10 x 125m, engineered structures, each with a rotating blade span of 71m.
3.9 Indications of potentially more appropriate locations within the host LCA are those away from sensitive settlements but close to existing human influences such as the A1 and powerlines. The latter features transect the character area and are unhelpful as to the placement the assessor may have had in mind unless it was to be within the compass of the pylons. However it seems clear that the intention was not to site between, and significantly affect, 3 sensitive settlements. Allington, Bottesford, and Normanton (1.5km) all have conservation areas.
3.10 It was only the work of BLOT that brought the visibility of the development from Allington to Ms Fisher's attention14. She wishes to downgrade the impact demonstrated by the blimp on the basis that it was flown some 250 m nearer to the village than the nearest turbine. I note that when the blimp is flown further from a viewpoint and thus reduces the impact, or adjacent to turbine 2, that she makes no comment. Mr Le Quesne opines that there are no long distance views out of the historic core15. I ask you to form your own judgment of the impact from near the village cross (itself listed), looking past Allington Manor, (2*), to the WTs. The BLOT blimp may slightly exaggerate the impact but the ZTV16adjusted for 15m high woodland remains resolutely blue over the village, indicating that at least hubs, not merely tips, may be visible. Note also the view inwards from Gonerby Lane17 of the blimp flying at the furthest turbine site (turbine 2).
3.11 Mr Le Quesne was able to find a view point in Normanton to illustrate his moderate assessment of impact on the conservation area and its setting. You may find the BLOT photograph18 more helpful in envisaging the impact of 10 WTs looming over views of the village when approaching the conservation area from the South. Ms Fisher opines that the site is not near to any particularly sensitive locations19. It is an assessment that Ms Bolger does not endorse20.
3.12 Inevitably local residents are experts on their own area and value it highly. BLOT are unusual in having sought the expert testimony of a qualified landscape architect to calibrate their objections. You have had the benefit of hearing from a wide range of residents. It is notable that the same sentiments regarding the beauty and value of the landscape of the area was perceived by all from the Dowager Duchess, living hard by the castle, to the modest Mr Page, working on the local business park and cycling with his children.
3.13 Ms Fisher's evidence was demonstrably flawed. Her reporting of the key characteristics of the area included sand and gravel quarries, associated by the national character assessment only with the Trent Valley and identified sheds and major roads as key characteristics of the SKDC LCA. Errors she admitted under cross-examination. Her position with regard to the need to define whether change was negative or positive has changed throughout her assessment. In the ES she was only concerned to consider that aspect in regard to cultural heritage. In the course of preparing the statement of common ground she moved to accept that visual impact should be so categorised. In regard to landscape she came to the astounding conclusion in oral evidence that she took the non-traditional view that change to a wind farm landscape need not be viewed as negative. Her assessment, described as compiled in accord with the guidance of her own institute, departed from it21 and also from the EIA Regulations which require that the positive or negative nature of the effect be described22.
3.14 She appears uneasy with simple English terms regularly used in planning. Intrusive appeared to require re-definition. She was unfamiliar with the word overbearing and its relationship to dominance23. She sought to suggest that overwhelming, an effect occasioning the receptor to feel uncomfortable and want to move away, was synonymous with dominance. She opined that "prominent" was not necessarily significant. She compared the local landscape impact of the development with that at Keadby in the Humber Levels. The differences in her view were of scale rather than nature. You may consider that the comparison of the tree screened Roseland Business Park with the major transport corridor, 75m high power station and multiple pylon lines of Keadby ludicrous: BLOT certainly does.
3.15 I submit that: her "valency" towards wind development demonstrably pollutes her assessment of the impact of this development; that the errors and omissions in her evidence make it unsafe to rely on; that the evidence of Ms Bolger, based in sound GLVIA derived principles, should be preferred.
3.16 The importance of the churches in characterising the area is highlighted in the LC Assessments and in the evidence of Ms Bolger24. There was an interesting attempt by Mr Glover to restrict the characterising church spires to a 5km ambit of the site. The SKDC LCA notes that villages with church towers and spires provide character to the Trent and Belvoir Vale LCA, a much wider compass. It is the significant impact of the WTs on that LCA which Ms Bolger restricts in the main to 4-5kms25.
3.17 EH advises that the historic character of the landscape should be considered alongside other aspects of character and visual and aesthetic issues when determining individual applications, and landscape capacity and sensitivity analyses should always include the historic dimension26. In particular visual dominance, scale, intervisibility, vistas, sight lines, movement, sound and light effects are relevant. The presence of hilltop monuments or fortifications, church spires, the need to see one feature from another, and designed views, are particularly noted. There can have been few proposals which have managed to score quite so many hits on vulnerable targets.
3.18 The inter-relationship of the landmark spire of the Grade 1 listed church of St Mary and the Castle (Grade 1); Staunton Hall (2*) and the castle; Harlaxton (Grade 1) and St Mary's; Belmount Tower and the Castle; Beacon Hill and the Castle are clearly identified by Ms Bolger27 as is the extent and presence of the nearby conservation areas28. The dominant presence of the Castle will be supplanted by the WTs29; historic and visually important connections between the Castle and other sites within the Vale landscape will be compromised. The tranquil designed view from Belmount Tower, over the parkland to the Grade 1 house and the backdrop ridge beyond, will be affected by the introduction of a restless element on the horizon. St Mary's Church spire will lose its pre-eminence in the landscape. Ms Bolger finds significant impact on views, historical associations, intervisibility, and in respect of the church, setting30. Harlaxton State long gallery, the terrace, viewing mound and Italian gardens will be affected to a slight to moderate adverse degree.
3.19 Mr Staunton's family have maintained their historic visual link with the Castle and Beacon Hill throughout the centuries31. Family portraits celebrate it32. More recently a viewing platform of the wider landscape of the Vale has been created within which the turbines will be apparent. Mr Le Quesne did not appear to understand the concept of curtilage features when discussing a listed building. His evaluations of historic sites appeared heavily influenced by public accessibility. BLOT are of the view that public access is irrelevant to the protection or importance of historic sites. Scheduled ancient monuments and Grade 1 LB's are of national importance whether accessible or private. Public access to such sites sounds in amenity not historic importance.
3.20 I leave the detailed discussion of the impact on the SAM, Bennington Grange to the LPA and English Heritage. I note however that Mr Le Quesne's response to a question about aural impact was dismissed with some levity "You do not listen to a monastic site". No, you don't, but your ability to appreciate a historic asset may be reduced by the distracting incessant overhead churning noise of the WTs - as noted By Inspector John Davies at Lettercynon33 and also by the EH document34.
3.21 I note that throughout their evidence both Ms Fisher and Mr Le Quesne declare impacts to be acceptable. It is my submission that it not the task of an assessor to excuse significant impacts. That is part of the balancing exercise which is left to you, the weighing of benefit against detriment.
4. LIVING AND WORKING CONDITIONS
4.1 Some 80 people live within 1.5 kilometres of the site. For some of them the development would dominate their homes in views from principle rooms and gardens. For all of them it would be a perpetual dominant presence, overbearing their villages, at their going out and their coming in there will be no escape. For some this effect will be exacerbated by the tedious and inescapable fluctuating noise of the turbines from which they will only be relieved when the wind fails to blow. Their enthusiasm for the proposal will then hardly be enhanced by the sight of static monsters failing to generate electricity.
4.2 For those who work at their home, such as Mr Mawer, or at the business park, such as Mr Rose and Mr Page, that dominant presence will haunt the working day. It is worth noting that parts of the business park will fall within that area described as "overwhelming" - a proximity capable of making the viewer uncomfortable and anxious to move away.
4.3 The recreational resource of the many PROW will be reduced for the residents as well as visitors to the area. The Dowager Duchess explained how the area is used by those from nearby conurbations and the numbers who seek escape to this beautiful, tranquil area. Mr Mawer and Mr Page explained how the locals depend upon this countryside for their recreation. Riders, cyclists, walkers all will have their enjoyment of this area reduced. The quiet pastime of bird-watching may suffer from the presence of the turbines. Mr Staunton noted that species not recorded as breeding and foraging on the site do frequent it and may be harmed.
4.4 I ask that you bear in mind the numerous letters of objection, 95% falling within that area significantly affected, almost all of which were individually composed, and which steadfastly expressed the view that the Vale of Belvoir, with its beauty, historic assets, and recreational routes, was an inappropriate location. Note also the equally numerous, solicited, standard letters supporting renewable energy in principle provided, 95% of the signatories living outwith the area affected. If "valency" can ever be relevant it appears to indicate a distaste for wind turbines located in areas justly valued by locals for sound reasons.
5. PPS 22, PPS 7, PPG15 & 16
5.1 (PPS 22) National guidance encourages renewable energy development and recognises that it is needed to ensure security of supply without increasing emissions of carbon dioxide. However it is clear that such development, recognised to have the greatest visual and landscape effects of all renewable technologies, should only be located where environmental, economic and social impacts can be satisfactorily addressed35. (PPS7)The exploitation of renewable energy sources must be sensitive36. It must not compromise the government's overall aim to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all37.
5.2 Although the guidance requires that significant weight be given to the wider benefits of renewable energy development38 there is no suggestion in planning guidance or government policy, no matter how stridently the Appellant asserts otherwise, that failure to meet targets, or the need for energy, can override the requirement to site provision appropriately.
5.3 PPS 22 says that the RSS should include regional targets for renewable energy and adds that "Targets should be reviewed on a regular basis and revised upwards (if they are met) subject to the region's renewable energy resource potential and the capacity of the environment in the region for further renewable energy developments. The fact that a target has been reached should not be used in itself as a reason for refusing planning permission for further renewable energy projects." BLOT does not suggest that the appeal should be dismissed on the basis that the target has been reached. It should be dismissed because its impacts are unacceptable. Your task in balancing the harm against the benefit is not aided by the disastrous state of the RSS. The emerging RSS, according to the panel report, contains targets which are described as "pie in the sky". However, it is BLOT's submission that no amount of energy, no level of failure against target, could excuse the use of this site.
5.4 The development plan for this site includes targets disaggregated to county level and separated by technology. That latter separation should only be indicative and, for the emerging RSS, will be, according to the recommendations of the Panel. For PPS22 says "It may also be appropriate to give a broad indication of how different technologies could contribute towards regional targets. But fixed targets for specific technologies should not be set given that rapid technological change may mean that new sources of renewable energy may be developed in the longer term."
5.5 The current regional target for on-shore wind has been overtopped by a significant amount: 122MW required by 2010: 143.3 either erected or permitted. Permission for twice the disaggregated Lincolnshire target of 42MW has been achieved. The emerging 2020 onshore wind target of 175MW is clearly within reach. However, BLOT recognises that the overall composite emerging regional target presents difficulties. The projected targets in the emerging RSS are unsupported by evidence as the Panel recognise. New targets are to be set by a partial review39 for which work has already begun. What is clear is that there has been no careful assessment of the region's resource potential or the capacity of the environment to host further development. The targets should not, according to PPS22, be revised upwards until that work has been done.
5.6 I do not intend to deal with local policy. Mr Sibthorpe has, Mr Kimblin may, 4 inches of text on policy is sufficient without me adding to your burden: I rely upon Mr Sibthorpe's analysis. It is BLOT's submission that you must start with the development plan and note that the target as set out in that has been met; that the emerging plan target is flawed but the targets are intended to remain within it; that there is no indication of how the partial review may or may not alter them once the necessary resource and landscape capacity work has been done; that the generalised encouragement for appropriately sited generation in PPS22 is material to your decision and does not support the use of this location.
5.7 Before leaving the potential benefit of renewable energy the evidence regarding benefits accruing from this site is at best mediocre. In rebuttal of Mr Horbury the Appellant's advised that Burton Wold40, which has the same WT's, is achieving less than 23% capacity factor. The hub height at that site is some 40m-50m higher than here. The wind speed at 45m agl is 0.1m/s higher41. BLOT say that it is "pie in the sky" to suggest a capacity factor of 27.44%. The C02 savings are based upon output and will be reduced proportionately. Further, the Appellant now accepts that 0.86t of CO2 per MWh should be reduced to 0.43t42. Those reduced levels are the wider benefits of the development.
5.8 (PPG15) I do not need to deal more than mention briefly the statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building43. You clearly have that duty and the national importance of the relevant buildings in mind. The policy guidance is not to construe setting too narrowly and that a high or bulky building can have effect on setting of a building some distance away or alter views of a historic skyline. Mr Le Quesne takes the view that the impact on the setting of St Mary's is "acceptable" being separated from the WTs by 2.5km. BLOT do not find this impact on the Lady of the Vale acceptable.
5.9 I ask that you consider the views of Inspector Pykett at Boxworth44, dealing with a similar challenge to a Grade 1 church, set in a conservation area, its tower rising from amongst the larger trees of the village, 4kms from the site for 15 x 100m WTs45. He found that from a distance their height, number and proximity would result in a "substantial collective impact" and fail to preserve the setting of the church46. Inspector Hiscox took a similar view of the impact of 2 x 76m turbines, the nearest being 1.4km from the Grade 1 listed church at Lanlivery47. Of course I do not claim these decisions as precedent for each landscape is different and each proposal is determined on its own merits. They do, however, illustrate that others have found the impact on setting of smaller turbines can be significant despite substantial separation distances. I shall leave Shooter's Bottom to Mr Glover. I have no doubt that you can distinguish it by size, number, impact, and the target position in Somerset which outweighed the harm to the setting of the listed building.
5.10 Again, I do not have to remind you of the Secretary of State's policy regarding development proposals outside conservation areas which would affect setting or views into or out of the area48.
5.11 There is one final policy requirement for windfarm development proposals: the duty to demonstrate how environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures49. Alternatives do not have to be considered but, Circular 02/9950 indicates that the nature of certain developments and their location may make the consideration of alternative sites a material consideration and can lead to a more robust application. Ideally EIA should start at site and process selection. It can be a tool for considering alternative approaches to development51. If alternatives are considered they must be described together with the main reasons for the choice52.
5.12 The nature of windfarm development is to make significant change to landscape character and to occasion visual impact within a certain compass depending on the scale of the development and the sensitivity of the receptor, be that landscape or people. There is no indication in the ES that any alternative locations were considered. An indication of an unsuccessful site search within an area of less sensitivity, such as the Fens, could have rendered an application for a site in this location more robust. It would have shown careful consideration of site location. The statement of need only prevents discussion of the energy justification for a site. It does not dictate acceptance of the environmental impacts at any site no matter how sensitive. Further, there is no description in the ES of how 7 turbines became 10, or why the 20% shorter turbines which had figured in Ms Fisher's "scenarios" were discarded despite the requirements of the EIA Regulations. In so far as the evidence takes us it appears to demonstrate a maximisation rather than a minimisation.
5.13 I leave to Mr Kimblin the patent inter-relationship of the need to demonstrate minimisation, sensitive exploitation, and the statutory duty.
5.14 In passing I note other flaws within the application process: public consultation based on a reduced site area; field sheets and statutory consultation plans which differ from the assessment based upon them53. I trust that the necessary reponse to your letter addressing those issues has been produced.
6. BALANCE. It is the case for BLOT that in this location WTs of the scale and number proposed will have such significant impact, on so many valued assets and interests, that the slight contribution to the general need for renewable energy cannot outweigh the harm. Accordingly I respectfully ask that you dismiss the appeal.
1 Mr Mawer in evidence and Mr Strawson's letter
2 NEWPORT COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL Appellant - v -(1) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES (2) BROWNING FERRIS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LTD (1998) Env LR 174
3 PPS22 Companion Guide 5.15
4 Page 68, column 1, penultimate paragraph - column 2 second paragraph,
5 Page 68 column 2, second par.
6 ES Vol 4, figure 9.2
7 SKDC LCA CD 5.1 p.33, par.4.37
8 SKDC LCA CD5.1 p34, par 4.47
9 L,L &R Woodland Strategy, Michelle Bolger, Appendix D, page 66, 5.16
10 Honeybone page 1
11 Honeybone page 71
12 ES Vol3, 6.3, Figure 3.2.3
13 ES, Vol 3, App 9.3, Table 1, page 13
14 See 9.8.6 ES Vol 2
15 LQ proof 6.116
16 ES Vol 4 Figure 9.4 (in th plastic sleeve)
17 BLOT Vol3, map ref 5
18 BLOT Vol 3, map ref 25
19 Fisher proof page 16, par 5.1.6
20 Ms Bolger proof page 30-31, pars pars 4.3.3-4.3.7
21 GLVIA page 84, par 7.6
22 Schedule 4, Part 1, par 4.
23Mynydd y Gwyrhyd Inspector Sheer's decision, Ms Bolger page 18, proof 3.3.2 and Appendix B
24 Ms Bolger page 16, par 3.2.10
25 Ms Bolger page 26, par 3.10.1
26 Wind Energy and the Historic Environment page 9
27 Ms Bolger Appendices Fig 4
28 Ms Bolger Appendices Fig 3
29 Ms Bolger p.43, par 5.4.8
30 Ms Bolger Proof p.49
31 BLOT proofs, 7, history
32 Mike Dawson Appendix 3
33 CD 8.7 par 16.38
34 Wind Energy and the Historic Environment CD6.1 page 8, final par, column 1.
35 PPS 22 Key Principle 1 (i)
36 PPS 7 par 16 (iv)
37 PPS7 Key Principle 1(iv)
38 PPS22 Key Principles 1(iv)
39 Mike Sibthorpe Proof, page 12, par 25
40 Bill Richmond Critique of Benefits analysis, page 6, par. 8
41 M. Sibthorpe, Enclosure 27, Benefits analysis, page 7.
42 Bill Richmond page6, par 10
43 PPG 15, 2.16-2.17
44 CD 8.2,
45 CD 8.2 par 32
46 CD 8.2 46-47
47 CD 8.6 pages 9-10
48 PPG15, 4.14
49 PPS22 Key Principles 1(viii)
50 Circ 02/99 Par.83
51 Circ 02/99 Par. 14
52 EIA Regs 1999, Schedule 2, Part 1, par 2
53 EIA Regs 1999 Sched 4, Part 1, par 2
|
