Planning officers stick to their guns in favour of wind turbine
Monday, 3rd February 2014.
Any attempt to refuse planning permission for the proposed wind turbine at Nosterfield End would be likely to fail at appeal, planning officers have ruled.
St Edmundsbury Borough Council's development control committee had been minded to refuse the application for a single 250ft wind turbine from farming landowner James Sills, but deferred the decision for an assessment of the risk in such a decision.
Planning officers have now reported that the think it very difficult to sustain on appeal on any grounds, but they recommend that if a refusal is contemplated at the committee's next meeting on February 20, it should be on grounds of the effect on the landscape.
Other grounds put forward by objectors, led by UKIP county councillor Julian Flood, are concerned with biodiversity, noise and disturbance to neighbours and the unachievability of the proposed power generation.
All these, planning officers say, after careful research, are unsupported by a shred of substantive evidence, and are not concerns shared by the experts consulted on these issues.
Effect on landscape is a more subjective view, so, even if it failed on appeal, which they are fairly sure it would, would not lead to the council facing a heavy bill for costs.
Costs are awarded against authorities who have refused applications on grounds which are not supported by praper analysis and substantive evidence, and could cost the council a small fortune.
Planning officers are therefore standing by the recommendation to approve the application.
Many residents and local councillors have been opposed to the plan, and their case has been taken up by Cllr Flood, who openly stated when he was elected in May that one of his main aims was to resist the development of wind turbines in the countryside.
St Edmundsbury Borough Council's development control committee had been minded to refuse the application for a single 250ft wind turbine from farming landowner James Sills, but deferred the decision for an assessment of the risk in such a decision.
Planning officers have now reported that the think it very difficult to sustain on appeal on any grounds, but they recommend that if a refusal is contemplated at the committee's next meeting on February 20, it should be on grounds of the effect on the landscape.
Other grounds put forward by objectors, led by UKIP county councillor Julian Flood, are concerned with biodiversity, noise and disturbance to neighbours and the unachievability of the proposed power generation.
All these, planning officers say, after careful research, are unsupported by a shred of substantive evidence, and are not concerns shared by the experts consulted on these issues.
Effect on landscape is a more subjective view, so, even if it failed on appeal, which they are fairly sure it would, would not lead to the council facing a heavy bill for costs.
Costs are awarded against authorities who have refused applications on grounds which are not supported by praper analysis and substantive evidence, and could cost the council a small fortune.
Planning officers are therefore standing by the recommendation to approve the application.
Many residents and local councillors have been opposed to the plan, and their case has been taken up by Cllr Flood, who openly stated when he was elected in May that one of his main aims was to resist the development of wind turbines in the countryside.
Comment on this story
[board listing] [login] [register]
You must be logged in to post messages. (login now)