The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location. 

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting, which detailed further comments from Much Wenlock Town Council and indicated that they had now withdrawn their objection to the scheme, further objections from a local resident and comments from the applicant.

Members had undertaken a site visit that morning and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 83, and by virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of Full Council held on 27 February 2014, Councillor David Turner, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room and took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         The area attracted a substantial number of tourists and contributed to the important visitor economy.  The Shropshire Way and the Jack Mytton Way, which skirted this site, attracted many walkers and riders;

·         The proposal would be contrary to SCC3 of the adopted Neighbourhood Plan;

·         The applicant had developed a successful business around renewable energy and had created a number of jobs locally - which he welcomed.  However, on balance, planning applications for low-profile development that had been brought forward in support of the business’s growth had been supported, but he believed this was one step too far;

·         In a recent survey he had carried out of all Much Wenlock residents a clear majority of respondents disapproved of smaller turbines and an even greater majority against larger ones. This had reinforced the results of the Much Wenlock Neighbourhood Plan residents’ survey in 2012 which revealed strong local resistance to wind turbines, regardless of size;

·         Much Wenlock Town Council’s Planning Committee had made two incompatible comments illustrated by its objection in July when it described the site as being in an AONB and close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and its withdrawal from this position in October when it described the site as an industrial area.  As a reason for dropping its objection, it now cited the Neighbourhood Plan Policy concerning new business development without reference to the explicit qualification regarding harmful impacts and the Policy regarding individual and community scale energy without reference to its explicit presumption against wind turbines;

·         He drew Members’ attention to paragraph 115 and Footnote 9 to paragraph 14 of the NPPF:

·         He drew Members’ attention to the Shropshire Hills AONB Management Plan which indicated that “Proposals for wind turbines and associated infrastructure within the AONB should take account of factors including landscape character, visual amenity and recreation, biodiversity, heritage assets and their setting” and “Within 100m of buildings one or two wind turbines of up to 12m to blade tip are likely to be acceptable within the AONB.”;

·         The Design and Access Statement (D&A) stated that this turbine was necessary for training purposes so that the applicant could be accredited installers of these wind turbines in order to supply them to customers.  He questioned whether the turbine would be raised and lowered for approximately two business days per month, as stated by the applicant, or would be regularly assembled and disassembled for training purposes, as stated in the Officer’s report;

·         Construction - He requested further clarification on the concrete base and whether it would be flush with the ground as stated in the D&A or as stated in the Officer’s report which indicated that steel piles would be driven in to secure it without the need for concrete;

·         Scale - The applicant had acknowledged that the site of the turbines could be seen from higher ground nearby. Other structures in the vicinity did not move, they had not been assembled and disassembled and did not have moving parts such as rotor blades;

·         Landscape – The turbine would be higher that most of the trees.  The trees would only provide screening when in leaf;

·         Ecology - Bats and birds of prey, in particular peregrine falcons, were known to nest in the quarries;

·         He urged refusal.  However, he suggested that, if Members were minded to approve, consideration be given to:

Ø  The apparent discrepancy implicit in Condition 3.i. regarding the method of fixing the monopole to the ground;

Ø  Condition 4 regarding the colour of the turbine;

Ø  Condition 6a and 6b regarding the risks to birds, especially given the reported incidence of peregrine falcons;

Ø  Condition 7a which allows blade rotation in the winter between 09:00 and 17:00.  It was only mid-November now and already it was sufficiently dark for bats to be abroad before 17:00; and

Ø  A condition limiting the number of days on which the turbine may be raised.  The applicant had stated that it would be raised and lowered for approximately two days per month, and he suggested that a modest buffer be built in to allow erection for four days per month to avoid further subsequent amendment.

Mr John Woolmer, representing Campaign to Protect Rural England, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The Much Wenlock Neighbourhood Plan did not support turbines;

·         The proposal would be in an AONB and close to an area of SSSI and  contrary to CS6, CS16 and CS17 and paragraphs 14, 113, 115 and 116 of the NPPF;

·         Would have a detrimental impact on the environment, ecology, landscape and recreational opportunities; and

·         Applicant had ignored all local objections re visual effects.

Mr S Charteris, representing the applicant, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The company had been established 3½ years ago and in that time had been responsible for many renewable energy installations and had indirectly and directly employed approximately 50 people.  This project would generate further employment;

·         The proposal would now be for one turbine which would be used to train staff and to generate electricity;

·         The turbine would be well-screened and would not be visible to neighbouring properties and would be located within the existing authorised operational development;

·         There were other taller structures in the area;

·         Would not be contrary to the NPPF and CS policies; and

·         Would not impact on the area and would contribute to renewable energy and a reduction in omissions.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Charteris and the Principal Planner provided further clarification on the use of the turbine, construction and disassembly, and the hours/timings of intended operations.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.

RESOLVED:

That the application be deferred to a future meeting to enable the applicant to provide:

·         More detailed information with regard to the hours/timings of operation, construction and disassembly and when and how much electricity would be generated; and

·         Submit sufficient information to allow full and proper assessment of the potential impact on protected species.

(The meeting adjourned at 3.52 pm and reconvened at 3.58 pm.)