Erection of one low profile wind turbine.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings and photomontage displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location.  He drew Members’ attention to the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which informed Members of an impending appeal which had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate regarding the non-determination of this application, and he reported that, in view of this appeal, the final decision on the application would now be taken by the Planning Inspectorate.  The application was now before Members to inform them of additional information which had been provided by the applicant and with an amended recommendation of ‘minded to approve’.  Any decision made by this Planning Committee would inform the appeal process.

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting detailing further comments from Shropshire Council’s Planning Officer, the applicant, objectors and Much Wenlock Town Council. 

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

In response to questions from Members, the Principal Planner provided clarification on the closure of the permissive footpath and the extent and impact of the proposed screening and fencing.

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:

·         He drew Members’ attention to his opening comments made at the November 2014 meeting, “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.”, and maintained his support for those words;

·         He commented that the Officer’s report had failed to mention that the Much Wenlock Neighbourhood Plan was opposed to “wind power in this location” and “that other alternative energy sources are more appropriate”.  Despite this being raised at the November meeting, this important facet of a statutory planning document had still been omitted from the Officer’s report; and

·         He drew attention to the many late representations both in favour and against the application, but he reiterated his own objection for the reasons cited previously, including scale, impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the potential impact on tourism.

Mrs C Barr, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         Would have detrimental impact on the landscape which played an important key role in the AONB;

·         This was a commercial venture and not a genuine renewable energy project;

·         Would have a detrimental impact on tourism; and

·         Contrary to the Much Wenlock Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor M Whiteman, representing Much Wenlock Town Council, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         Much Wenlock Town Council had originally objected to two turbines but now supported this application for one turbine;

·         Turbine would be sited in an industrial area and used for training/education purposes;

·         Scheme supported renewable energy;

·         Would be in accordance with the Much Wenlock Neighbourhood Plan;

·         Views of the turbine would be limited by trees and topography;

·         This was a good local company providing local employment who had undertaken much work in the area contrary to local opposition.  Unsightly gantries had been removed, future plans would improve the visual aspect of the site, and flora and fauna had been and would continue to be improved.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  In response to comments and concerns, the Principal Planner provided clarification on potential energy production, the logistics and timings relating to the assembly and disassembly of the turbine and drew Members’ attention to the amended Condition 6, which would require a separate planning application accompanied by an ecology report which demonstrated that there would be no impact on birds and bats, if the applicant was minded to run the turbine to generate electricity.

RESOLVED:

That following the submission of an appeal against non-determination, the Committee approved a resolution that, had a decision been required, they would have been minded to grant planning permission as per the Officer’s recommendation and subject to:

·         The conditions as set out in Appendix 1 of Annex 1 to the report;

·         The amended Condition 4, including 4a and 4b, as set out in the report; and

·         Condition 6 as set out in the report, subject to it being amended to ensure that the default position of the turbine shall be horizontal on the ground and that the turbine shall remain in this default position except for the purposes of training.