THE FRIENDS OF NORTH NORFOLK

Article in Sunday Telegraph 6^th AuGUST 2017.

In October last year, Tony Gallagher threw his friend David Cameron a 50th birthday party at Sarsden House, his 17th-century mansion near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire. He served a dinner of roast beef and lamb, cooked on his Aga, to a private gathering of 23 people.

At the same time, Gallagher was also quietly planning to sell the company that he had built up over three decades, accumulating land, gaining planning permission, and auctioning it off at vast profit. After reportedly holding talks with the Pears family, the Wellcome Trust and Berkeley Homes, Gallagher Estates was sold to housing association L&Q in January.

It netted the entrepreneur a £250m payday, propelling him into 152nd place in The Sunday Times Rich List, with an overall fortune estimated at £850m.

Such is the life of the modern-day land baron. A group of private companies, largely unknown to the public, have carved out a lucrative niche locating and snapping up land across the UK.

Operating in the murky world of “strategic land” promotion, these firms prepare sites for development by doing the time-consuming work of gaining planning permission. It is then sold on “shovel-ready” to housebuilders.

These companies don’t ever build homes, but work within the labyrinthine planning system, taking advantage of its weaknesses and loopholes.

It’s a modern-day gold rush: the magazine Farmers’ Weekly is filled with adverts for companies offering to prepare agricultural land for building; Gladman Developments, a land promoter, offers its services on a “no win, no fee” basis to lure landowners interested in selling up, claiming a success rate of 90pc. The reason for this is the sheer profit that can be made by obtaining planning permission on a strategic site of land.

According to Simon Hodson, head of residential land at JLL, while an average acre of agricultural land may sell for £5,000 to £10,000, land with planning permission for residential development is normally worth £1m-4m per acre, depending on its location and the amount of infrastructure and preparation needed before building.

These companies will then take a cut of 10-30pc of the sale value, depending on the size of the site. This means that the murky underbelly of the land market is highly profitable: in the year ending March 31 2016, Gladman made a pre-tax profit of £11.6m, while Gallagher’s was £79m in the year to June 30 2016.

The company was bought for £505m, which included land to build 42,500 new homes. The companies keep a low profile, and so do their bosses. Gallagher quietly donated £110,000 to the Conservative party last year, while Gladman has also built his firm up over decades, selling his family home to invest in his first tracts of land.

The way they operate and the nature of the land market means it is difficult to know the scale of this opaque world.

When promoting land, these companies will seldom purchase it upfront, but instead either pay the owner an option for exclusive rights, or promise the money once it is sold, with the landowner retaining the land and being actively involved in the sale process.

The options don’t need to be registered anywhere, and they are not obliged to detail their deals in their results.

A search through a database created by Freedom of Information requests of land ownership by campaigner Guy Shrubsole reveals that Gladman owns just 304 acres, but it says it produces sites for 10,000 homes per year, a far higher amount.

Gallagher owns just 714 acres according to this database. Such is the opaque nature of these land deals that mythology swirls around the industry: one – unproven, and very likely untrue – claim is that 90pc of green belt has long-term speculative options in place, in case the Government of the day changes its policy on building on it.

The true size of the industry is almost impossible to find out. There are around eight big companies, and many more smaller ones, quietly preparing land around the country, though largely outside London.

Figures from Savills suggest that land promoters and investors currently control around 20pc of land due to be put through planning, enough for 153,400 homes.

This is compared to housebuilders which own just 7.7pc of land at this stage in development. This disparity is caused partly by the fact that these promoters work on a much longer-term basis, picking up options on land for development in 15 or even 20 years.

A site for 10,000 homes that Gallagher developed in Northstowe, Cambridgeshire, was acquired in 1998, and then finally sold to housebuilders last year.

It also takes away much of the risk for housebuilders, which can focus on building rather than the secondary, more inefficient planning side of the business. Some sites can get held up in a lengthy appeal process, or even fail to get planning, says Adrian Clack, Gallagher’s land director; housebuilders can’t afford to let that happen.

In this way these businesses play a valuable role in removing risk from developers by taking it on themselves.

“Historically the traditional UK housebuilder model has been focused on buying with three to five year profit margins. It’s short term, hand-to-mouth,” says Hodson. “It’s a business model that isn’t suited to the promotion of long term sites, as they can’t turn cash over quickly enough.”

A source in one of the large housebuilders says that it buys one third of its plots from these land promoters, although this figure varies. Some housebuilders have substantial land banks that they take through the planning system itself, such as Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon.

Much of the success comes from navigating the planning system. Land promoters track down underfunded local authorities that have not yet set out a local plan for housing in the next 15 years, or a programme for building in the next five years in its National Planning Policy Framework.

Enter a land promotion company, which finds sites in these areas where the council is likely to say yes.

David Gladman, co-founder of the eponymous company, told the High Court last July: “We normally only target local authorities whose planning is in relative disarray and … either have no up-to-date local plan or, temporarily, they do not have a five-year supply of consented building plots.”

Just 41pc of local authorities have a five-year plan for housing supply, according to Savills. If a local authority doesn’t have that in place, it means as long as a planning application meets certain criteria it will be approved.

Gladman employs a team of more than 50 town planners to develop these sites. Companies searching for land use aerial photography, maps, data and agents to find the sites, often simply knocking on doors to ask landowners if they want to sell up.

Last year Gladman sold 10,000 plots over 50 sites on the edges of towns, mainly to SME housebuilders, but Gallagher concentrates on fewer, much larger sites for thousands of homes, divvying it up between major developers.

One site, near Milton Keynes, will have 6,500 homes, built by six housebuilders. “We will look to the edge of settlements where there are sites that make a sensible extension to town or city,” says Clack.

After its takeover of Gallagher, L&Q will build a mixture of affordable homes and those for private rent and sale on its land, while it continues to use its expertise and produce more land for it and other developers.

The approach of many of these land businesses put them in the crosshairs of “Not in my back yard” residents. Local newspapers are full of references to acrimonious planning meetings caused by Gladman’s plans.

Last month, an application it lodged in the small Kent village of Charing was rejected and declared “outrageous” by the parish council chairman. Late last year the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, accused Gladman’s firm of “reflecting the worst features of capitalism” when it applied for planning permission opposite his Berkshire home, disrupting his plans to sell up.

Are these businesses a nefarious force? They are “an instrumental part of delivering housing,” says Hodson, and help accelerate the amount of land ready to be built on. Last year, 293,127 homes were granted planning permission, according to the Home Builders Federation, a record high.

By preparing large sites for development, like Gallagher does, it’s easier to create a combination of residential and commercial property, parcelling off areas to experts in that field. But by charging a premium for a clean site that’s ready to be built on, it forces developers to increase house prices to recoup the high outlay on land, while cutting the viability of building affordable homes.

“Land promoters deliberately pump the cost of land higher and higher, then reap the rewards when they sell it,” says Catharine Banks, policy officer at Shelter.

While housebuilders have recently been accused of “land banking” by Government, hoarding land with planning permission that could be built on, the same could be levelled at these businesses.

Research by Shelter last month found that almost a third of sites that have been approved to have homes built on have not been completed within the last five years. Gladman, however, claims it doesn’t hang on to land and offers it for sale within a couple of months of gaining planning as, under the option system, it only makes money when it is sold.

“The land market is inefficient and fragmented,” says Tom Aubrey, from the Centre for Progressive Capitalism, who argues that these land promoters are a natural product of its dysfunction and lack of transparency. He likens the model of these businesses to private equity firms, as an agile, speculative force. “It’s a bit like airlines before the internet was set up: it was difficult to know who had the best price because of the asymmetry of information.”

The Government has signalled it wants to open up the land market, making data on land and who owns it more accessible. According to Shelter’s Banks, this “would be a small but very powerful change, which could help the country build the homes we so desperately need.”

Well Done NNDC

To uproarious cheers on Wednesday evening NNDC let us know that they will challenge the Bodham and Selbrigg wind turbines decision in the High Court. They made a point of thanking everyone who had contacted them offering support. And I am passing their thanks on to all of you who either wrote, emailed or came along. The Friends of North Norfolk are obviously delighted at NNDC’s decision, it acknowledges the huge concerns of the people of this part of Norfolk and recognises their dedication and commitment to ensuring the landscape of north Norfolk stays free of such incompatible structures. If they were to be built they would stand there for decades mocking us with every turn of their blades and a constant reminder of a victory of foreign money over local democracy.

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 22-25 and 29-30 November and 1 December 2016 Site visit made on 2 December 2016
by John Braithwaite BSc(Arch) BArch(Hons) RIBA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 02 March 2017
Appeal Ref: APP/Y2620/W/15/3143028
Selbrigg Farm, Hempstead, Holt NR25 6NF

 The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.
 The appeal is made by Selbrigg Generation Limited against the decision of North Norfolk District Council.
 The application Ref PF/14/1669, dated 19 December 2014, was refused by notice dated 23 July 2015.
 The development proposed is installation of a single wind turbine, with a maximum height to tip of 78m, a new access track, a hardstanding, a small substation building, a temporary meteorological mast and associated infrastructure.
Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of a single wind turbine, with a maximum height to tip of 78m, a new access track, a hardstanding, a small substation building, a temporary meteorological mast and associated infrastructure at Selbrigg Farm, Hempstead, Holt in accordance with the terms of the application Ref PF/14/1669, dated 19 December 2014, subject to the conditions set out in a schedule attached to this decision.
Preliminary matters
2. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by the District Council against the Appellant. The application is the subject of a separate Decision.
3. The Inquiry was held to consider the appeal proposal and another appeal (Ref. No. APP/Y2620/W/15/3134132) for a similar proposed wind turbine on land at Pond Farm, Bodham. The sites of the two proposed wind turbines are about 3.2 kms apart. The Inquiry documents and Appearances listed in this Decision relate to both appeals.
4. Only the proposed wind turbine was referred to at the Inquiry and no harm is alleged resulting from other elements of the proposed development.
The proposed turbine and the site and its surroundings
5. The wind turbine would have a maximum hub height of 50 metres and a maximum tip height of 78 metres. It would be located at the edge of an arable field about 2 kms east of the town of Holt and about 1.25 kms south-east of the village of High Kelling. Close by to the west is an area of mixed woodland, Upper Fir Covert, and to the north is a small area of conifer woodland beyond which is Selbrigg Cottage, which is owned by the Appellant. The surrounding agricultural area is interspersed by blocks of woodland and is criss-crossed by country lanes.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

Planning Policy
Local planning policy
6. The development plan, for the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, is the Core Strategy (CS) of the North Norfolk Local Development Framework, which was adopted in September 2008.
7. CS policy EN1 relates to the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NCAONB) and CS policy EN2 seeks to protect and enhance the landscape and settlement character of the District. CS policy EN7 states that proposals for renewable energy technology will be permitted where individually, or cumulatively, there are no significant adverse effects on, amongst other things, the surrounding landscape and historical features. Other parts of the policy refer to large and small scale renewable energy developments (the development is large scale if the definition in a footnote to the policy is applied) but these parts do not impose any requirements additional to that already outlined. The main parties agree that CS policy EN8, which seeks to protect and enhance the historic environment and with regard to paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), is out of date. CS policies EN2 and EN7, though they pre-date the publication of the NPPF, are generally consistent with it and are not therefore out of date.
National Planning Policy
8. The NPPF contains provisions specific to renewable energy developments and other provisions relevant to the application. Paragraph 98 states that an application for a renewable energy project should be approved if its impacts are or can be made acceptable and if material considerations do not indicate otherwise. Paragraph 134 states that where a proposed renewable energy project will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
Reasons
9. The Council’s reason for refusal of the application refers to potential harm to landscape and heritage assets. Local residents, both in writing and at the Inquiry, have referred to potential harm to the visual amenity of the area.
10. The main issues are; first, the effect of the proposed wind turbine on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area; second, the effect of the proposed wind turbine on the settings and significance of nearby heritage assets; and third, whether the harm caused is significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the environmental benefit of the proposed renewable energy development. In the first two issues the proposed wind turbine will be considered both individually and cumulatively with the proposed wind turbine at Pond Farm.
The first issue – the landscape character and visual amenity of the area
11. The site of the proposed turbine is within an area of tributary farmland, specifically within Character Area TF3 ‘Tributary Farmland’ (CATF3), as defined and assessed in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (NNLCA). The NNCLA states that the key characteristics of tributary farmland include a landscape with an open character with long uninterrupted views, topography that is gently rolling, land use that is predominantly arable with small areas of pasture, the

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

skyline is very prominent due to the uninterrupted expanses of open landscape, and prominent features include telecommunication masts and churches. The NNLCA, for CATF3, remarks that the landscape character is fair to moderate and that the majority of the landscape has been affected by commercial agricultural activity and, in particular, by the removal of hedgerows.
12. The NNLCA states, with regard to an analysis of the key characteristics of tributary farmland, that the siting of wind turbines within the more rural locations would be inappropriate whilst the siting of wind turbines within the more disturbed and degraded landscapes would be less harmful. With regard to skyline, a key characteristic that is stated to be of high sensitivity, the NNLCA remarks that wind turbines could have severe impacts in certain areas. The NNLCA also remarks, with regard to issues relating to CATF3, that “Some parts may be suitable for small scale wind turbine siting taking care not to place them so prominently that they are apparent for miles (i.e. near the Cromer ridge)”. The Cromer ridge is a geological feature to the north of the site and is a ridge of glacial moraine that is about 14 kms long and parallel to the north coast of Norfolk.
13. The Cromer ridge has a relatively steep north slope and a gentle south slope. The ridge itself and the north slope down to the coast are within the NCAONB. The south boundary of the NCAONB is defined, to the north of the site, by the A174. The site is on the south slope of the ridge and over 1.3 kms to the south of the A174. The field in which the turbine would be sited is well enclosed by woodland to the west, north and north-east, and the farmland to the south and east has been degraded by the removal of hedgerows to create large fields. The tranquillity map of North Norfolk published by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) indicates that the area surrounding the site is of moderate tranquillity.
14. In the vicinity of the site the actual ridge of Cromer Ridge is not apparent and the area surrounding the site is simply an area of undulating mainly farmed countryside. The removal of hedgerows in the farmed parts of the area to the south of the site has adversely affected the character of the landscape; which is now that of commercial farming rather than traditional farming of small fields. The site of the proposed wind turbine is not, furthermore, given the areas of woodland to the west, north and north-east, particularly open. The landscape character of this part of CATF3 is no more than fair.
15. Nevertheless, the introduction of an industrial feature 50 metres high with spinning blades reaching up to 78 metres would have a significant adverse effect on landscape character and tranquillity. But the extent of the significant adverse effect would be limited by the nearby woodland and would only extend up to about 1 km to the south, south-west and east of the site. The area over which there would be a significant adverse effect is, furthermore, in almost wholly commercial farming use. Further away the effect on landscape character and tranquillity, up to a distance of about 2 kms, would be moderate.
16. Given the separation distance between the site and the NCAONB, and despite the height and industrial nature of the proposed turbine and its turning blades, the turbine would not compromise or undermine any of the special qualities, or the landscape character, of the NCAONB or its setting as set out in the Management Plan Strategy. The proposal does not conflict with CS policy EN1.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

17. A public footpath (FP1) follows the west edge of the field within which the turbine would be sited, and extends southwards towards the village of Hempstead. The proposed turbine would be a prominent and intrusive feature in the landscape for users of this footpath walking south from its junction with Selbrigg Road, and for users walking north from a right angled bend in the footpath about 0.75 kms to the south of the site. The turbine might be glimpsed from other footpaths further to the south, east and south-east but it would not be a significant intrusive feature.
18. The turning blades of the proposed turbine would be visible from vehicles travelling along Selbrigg Road to the west, along Hempstead Road to the south and along Church Road to the north-east but these would be, given the rolling topography of the area and intervening blocks of woodland in some places, no more than glimpses at distances of more than 1.5 kms. The turning blades might also be visible in views to the south-west from the A174 but at a distance in excess of 2 kms. The harm to visual amenity for road users would not be significant.
19. The proposed wind turbine at Selbrigg Farm would be about 3.2 kms to the west of the proposed wind turbine at Pond Farm, Bodham, which would also be within CATF3. The Pond Farm turbine would have a similar adverse effect on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area as the Selbrigg Farm turbine and there would thus be a cumulative adverse effect on landscape character and visual amenity. It is unlikely, however, given the topography and landscape features of the area and the distance between them, that the two turbines would be seen together in the landscape from any public vantage points. Travelling through the area the turbines might be glimpsed one after the other so there would be a degree of sequential harm caused to visual amenity. The cumulative and sequential harm caused by the two proposed turbines would not be significant.
Conclusion
20. The proposed wind turbine would have a significant adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area but only for users of a short section of footpath FP1. For users of other footpaths in the area, and for users of roads in the area, the turbine would be a glimpsed feature that would have only a minor adverse effect on visual amenity. The turbine would have a significant adverse effect on landscape character but the harm would be limited to a small area of disturbed commercial agricultural land. The turbine would also cause, with the proposed turbine at Pond Farm, less than significant cumulative and sequential harm. The proposed development would, however, conflict with CS policies EN2 and EN7.
The second issue – the significance of heritage assets
21. The significance of all the heritage assets referred to by the Council and others lies principally in their social, historic and architectural interest. The proposed wind turbine would not have any direct effect on that significance. However, the heritage assets all have a relationship to the landscape within which they are located. The setting of each heritage asset, the surroundings in which the heritage asset is experienced, is that landscape.
All Saints Church, Bodham
22. All Saints Church at Bodham, a Grade II* listed building, is on the north side of Church Road about 1.75 kms to the north-east of the site of the proposed

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

turbine. The mainly grassed churchyard is the church’s immediate setting and, given a high roadside hedge and other features in the landscape, the turbine would not be visible from within the churchyard. The principal views of the church and its tower are from Church Road and footpaths that cross the landscape towards Church Road from the south. The turbine would either be behind or outside any view of the church and its tower from these public vantage points. The tower is glimpsed from the east in views westwards from Church Road, and from the north in views southwards from Hart Lane, but it is unlikely, given the intervening distances and other topographical features, that the turbine would be visible in these views. Even if it were the turning blades would be in the distance and would not diminish any experience of the church and its tower in their landscape setting. The proposed turbine would not harm the significance of All Saints Church.
Baconsthorpe Castle
23. Baconsthorpe Castle, a moated ruined castle, is a Grade I listed building and a scheduled ancient monument (SAM). To the south of the castle are a fortified house, a gatehouse and a barn that are also listed buildings. The group of historic assets is in tranquil surroundings of arable land, pasture and blocks of woodland, such as Baconsthorpe Wood to the north and Hempstead Wood to the west. The setting of the SAM, given its historic defensive, economic and social role, extends well into the surrounding countryside. Footpaths cross the landscape from the north, north-east and south-west towards the SAM but the proposed turbine would not, given its distant location to the north-west, be visible in these views.
24. Another footpath is along the track that leads to the group of historic buildings from the south-west. The proposed turbine would be visible from this footpath and the track as they reach the group of buildings, as it would be in glimpses from within the ramparts of the castle. But Hempstead Wood lies directly between the group of buildings and the site of the proposed turbine and, notwithstanding any future thinning and other management of the woodland, only the turbine blades would be visible at a distance of about 1.3 kms. At such a distance the turning turbine blades would not be visually intrusive and would not appreciably undermine any experience of the group of heritage assets. However, some harm would be caused to the setting and thus significance of the group of heritage assets though the harm would be very much less than substantial.
Red House
25. Red House is a farmhouse and a Grade II listed building. It is, together with a substantial group of traditional and modern farm buildings, located about 0.75 kms to the south-west of the site of the proposed turbine. The immediate setting of the farmhouse is the area occupied by the group of traditional farm buildings, a garden area between the house and Selbrigg Road, and a rear courtyard area. The modern farm buildings prevent any intervisibility between the listed building and the site of the proposed turbine. However, the listed building has a historical relationship with the farmland that surrounds the farmstead, which is the wider setting of the heritage asset. From within this setting the listed building and the proposed turbine would be experienced together but they are not proximate to each other and though some harm would be caused to the significance of the heritage asset, this harm would be very much less than substantial.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

River Glaven Conservation Area
26. The large Conservation Area encompasses the River Glaven and its valley surroundings from close to its source to its sea outfall close to Blakeney Point. The source of the river is where three streams come together to the north of Selbrigg Cottage but the nearest part of the boundary of the Conservation Area is on the opposite side of Selbrigg Road to Red House. This part of the Conservation Area is heavily wooded and it is unlikely that the proposed turbine, given also its distance from the area, would be visible from within the Conservation Area. Furthermore, on the approach to the Conservation Area along Selbrigg Road from the vicinity of Selbrigg Cottage the turbine would be in the background, and it is unlikely that the turbine would undermine any appreciation of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area from any public vantage points. The proposed turbine would not harm the significance of the River Glaven Conservation Area.
Hempstead and Baconsthorpe Conservation Areas
27. Hempstead Conservation Area, which encompasses the village and All Saints Church, a Grade II* listed building, is about 1.7 kms to the south of the site of the proposed wind turbine, and Baconsthorpe Conservation Area, which encompasses the village and St Mary’s Church, a Grade II* listed building, is about 2 kms to the south-east of the site. There would be glimpses of the turning blades of the proposed turbine from some parts of both Conservation Areas but, given the intervening distance in both cases, no harm would be caused to the character and appearance of either area. For the same reason the proposed wind turbine would not cause any material harm to the setting or significance of either Conservation Area or the setting and significance of either listed building.
Other heritage assets
28. Taking into account intervening distances, topography and landscape features, the proposed turbine would not cause any harm to the setting or significance of any other heritage asset, including Barningham Hall, a registered park and garden and a listed building, and St Mary’s Church, Barningham Winter, a listed building within the grounds of Barningham Hall.
Conclusion
29. The proposed wind turbine would cause less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the listed buildings and SAM at Baconsthorpe Castle, and to the setting and significance of Red House. The proposed development thus conflicts, in this regard also, with CS policy EN7.
Other matters
30. Many residential properties were visited during the post-Inquiry site visit, including Highfield House, Manor Farm Holiday Barns and Rookery Farm Holiday Barns. The proposed turbine would be about 250 metres to the south-west of Highfield House but it would be screened by intervening woodland in all views from windows in the property and from within the garden area. Whilst there would be very distant glimpses of the proposed turbine from the vicinity of the two groups of holiday barns in neither situation would the turbine be prominent or visually intrusive. In no case would the proposed wind turbine result in the property becoming an unpleasant or unattractive place to live or stay.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

31. Local residents have raised concerns, at application and appeal stages, regarding the adverse effects of shadow flicker and noise. Both matters are the subjects of agreed conditions and in the unlikely event that local residents are affected by shadow flicker and/or noise these effects would be investigated and measures would be put in place to alleviate the adverse effects. Concern has also been expressed with regard to the wind turbine causing electro-magnetic interference to television and radio reception and, in particular, to broadband reception. These matters are the subjects of agreed conditions and in the event that television, radio or broadband reception is adversely affected the problem would be investigated and mitigation measures would be put in place.
32. With regard to Manor Farm and Rookery Farm Holiday Barns the proposed turbine, given its distant location, would not be likely to have any adverse effect on the viability of the holiday businesses. The economy of North Norfolk is enhanced by tourism; tourists being attracted to the attractive landscape and by, amongst other things, heritage assets in the area. Some visitors to the area might be surprised to see the wind turbine if it was to be permitted and installed but this surprise might be positive or negative. Given the limited harm that would be caused to landscape character and to the significance of only a few heritage assets it is unlikely that the proposed turbine would have any significant adverse effect on tourism or on the economy of North Norfolk.
33. There are large numbers of wind turbines off the North Norfolk coast and there are two large solar energy developments in the District. These developments are making significant contributions to the generation of renewable energy. But climate change is a national issue and will only be addressed by further reducing reliance on the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity. In this context the existing renewable energy developments do not justify a conclusion other than that the proposed development must be determined on its own merits.
34. All other matters raised, including ecological and ornithological issues, have been taken into account but they do not, either individually or collectively, affect the overall conclusions reached in this decision.
Conditions
35. The main parties agreed and submitted a list of 22 conditions at the Inquiry. All but one of these have been imposed though they have been, where necessary, amended in the interests of clarity and precision and in accordance with the National Planning Practice Guidance. The reason for each condition is given in the schedule of conditions attached to this decision. All phrases such as ‘unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority’ have been deleted.
36. The Council has suggested a condition that would require the submission and prior approval of a written scheme of investigation and alleviation of electro- magnetic interference to broadband reception caused by operation of the wind turbine. The Appellant considers such a condition to be unnecessary. Residents and businesses in the vicinity of the proposed wind turbine are reliant on broadband reception and any interference to this reception is likely to be inconvenient and possibly detrimental financially. The developer would not be inconvenienced by the imposition of such a condition if the turbine does not cause interference to broadband reception but if it does the condition would ensure that interference is satisfactorily remedied. The condition has therefore been imposed.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

37. An agreed condition that would require the prior approval and implementation of an ornithological monitoring programme does not require any action to be taken if the impact of the turbine is found to fall outside predicted levels, so fails the test of precision and has not been imposed.
The third issue – the planning balance
38. At the heart of the planning balance is Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
39. CS policy EN7 ‘Renewable Energy’ states, in addition to the provisions outlined in paragraph 7, that renewable energy proposals will be supported and considered in the context of sustainable development and climate change, taking account of the wide environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy gain. In essence CS policy EN7 recognises the balance to be struck in assessing wind energy developments; the environmental benefit of the proposal must be balanced against the environmental harm that it would cause.
40. National policy on renewable energy is set out in the NPPF. The NPPF supports the provision of renewable energy if the impacts are, or can be made, acceptable, and in paragraph 98 it is recognised that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. In terms of environmental benefit the proposed wind turbine would produce about 1,640,000 kWh of electricity per year and would reduce annual emissions of carbon dioxide by about 705 tonnes. The proposed renewable energy development would also contribute to farm diversification and would create direct and indirect economic benefits to the locality during the constructions phase.
41. In terms of environmental harm the proposed wind turbine would have a significant adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area, but only for users of a short section of footpath FP1, and would have a significant adverse effect on landscape character though the harm would be limited to a small area of disturbed commercial agricultural land. The proposed wind turbine would cause less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the listed buildings and SAM at Baconsthorpe Castle, and to the setting and significance of Red House.
42. Considerable weight and importance is given to the duty imposed by Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and therefore to the strong presumption in favour of the desirability of the preservation of heritage assets. In consideration of the main issues the proposed wind energy development conflicts with CS policies EN2 and EN7.
43. The balancing exercise that must be conducted requires planning judgement to be exercised. Setting aside other considerations the environmental benefits of the wind energy development, and therefore of exploiting a renewable resource in the national interest, significantly and demonstrably outweighs the harm that would be caused to the character of the landscape and to the visual amenity of the area, and the less than substantial harm that would be caused to the setting and significance of Red House and to the setting and significance of the listed buildings and SAM at Baconsthorpe Castle, notwithstanding its highest status of listing and

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

the presumption against the grant of planning permission that must be given considerable importance and weight. The planning balance is in favour of the wind energy development, which thus accords with CS policy EN7.
44. On 18 June 2015 a Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) was made by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The WMS states that planning permission should only be granted if, following consultation it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing. The WMS has been supported by changes and additions to the NPPG. Paragraph 33 states that “...whether the proposal has the backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the...” decision taker. Many of the concerns of the local community have been addressed by imposition of conditions and on the main issues the harm that the local community allege would be caused has been found to be less than significant. Furthermore, the WMS is a material consideration but does not override the development plan, particularly in this case where there is a development plan policy specific to renewable energy developments.
45. The environmental benefit of the renewable energy development demonstrably outweighs the environmental harm that would be caused to landscape character, visual amenity and heritage interests. Material considerations in this case, the environmental benefits of the renewable energy scheme, indicate that, with regard to the conflict with CS policy EN2, determination of the appeal must be made other than in accordance with the development plan.
46. Planning permission has thus been granted for the installation of a single wind turbine, with a maximum height to tip of 78m, a new access track, a hardstanding, a small substation building, a temporary meteorological mast and associated infrastructure at Selbrigg Farm, Hempstead, Holt.
John Braithwaite
Inspector

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Ms E Dehon She called
Mr L Broom-Lynne CMLI MRTPI
Dr J Burgess PhD MA(ArchCon) BPI BA(Hons) MRTPI IHBC
Mr P Maile
He called
Mr T Charrier BA(Hons) CMLI
Mr R Bourn BA(Hons) MA CIfA
Mr P Newland BSc BA(Hons) MICE FRGS
FOR GENATEC LIMITED: Mr D Hardy
He called
Mr J Billingsley BSc BPhil CMLI
Dr S Carter BSc PhD MCifA FSAScot
Mr D Bell BSc(Hons) DipUD MCIHT MRTPI

Of Counsel
Chartered Landscape Architect and Chartered Town Planner
Director of Beacon Planning Ltd
Senior Consultant at Beacon Planning Ltd FOR SELBRIGG GENERATION LIMITED:

Ms S Pain BA(Hons) MPlan MRTPI

Of Counsel
Principal Landscape Architect at Stephenson Halliday
Managing Director at Orion Heritage Ltd Principal of Albro Planning and Environmental
Partner at Squire Patton Boggs (UK) LLP
Director of The Landscape Partnership Limited
Senior Consultant at Headland Archaeology (UK) Ltd
Regional Director at Jones Lang LaSalle

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

FOR NO TO THAT TURBINE: Mr Bowes
He called
Prof Williamson MA PhD
Mr Grewcock
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mr S Ross
Mr S Temple Mr M Farnworth
Mr J Carver
Mr M Padfield
Mr D Connelly
Mr R McNeil-Wilson Mr P Crouch
Ms P Coast
Mr M Collis
Mrs A Courtauld
Ms J Dovey
Ms J Howell
Mr R Johnson
Ms B Powell
Mr S Russell Councillor N Coppack Mr M McMahon
Mr J Mangan
Ms E Hook
Mr C Armstrong
Ms K Benton Worboys Mr I Shepherd
Ms K Hall

Of Counsel
Professor of Landscape History at University of East Anglia
Local resident
Local resident Local resident
Microwave Network Architect Manager at Norfolk Constabulary
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident and Vice-Chair of Felbrigg Parish Council Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Ward Councillor
Local resident
Local resident
Representing North Norfolk AONB
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

DOCUMENTS

1 Council’s letter of notification of the Inquiry.
2 Appearances on behalf of North Norfolk District Council (NNDC).
3 Appearances on behalf of Genatec Limited.
4 Opening Statement on behalf of Selbrigg Generation Limited.
5 Opening Statement on behalf of Genatec Limited.
6 Opening Statement on behalf of North Norfolk District Council.
7 Opening Statement on behalf of No To That Turbine.
8 Kemnal Manor Memorial Gardens Ltd v First SoS [2004] EWHC 2638 (Admin).
9 Palmer v Herefordshire Council and ANR [2016] EWCA Civ 1061.
10 Statement of Common Ground between Genatec Ltd and NNDC.
11 Statement of Common Ground between Selbrigg Generation Ltd and NNDC.
12 Plan of proposed site inspections.
13 Plan of area showing land over 50 metres AOD.
14 Plan of footpaths in the area.
15 Plan of field boundaries lost in vicinity of the proposed Selbrigg turbine.
16 Response to evidence of Mr Charrier by Ms H Thompson.
17 Letter from Mr Farnworth of Norfolk Constabulary dated 15/11/2016.
18 List of wind turbine applications to NNDC since 2011.
19 Letter from Historic England dated 18 November 2016.
20 Plan of Cromer Ridge and location of proposed turbines.
21 Letter from Mr Farnworth to Mr Watson of PagerPower.
22 Extract of Laura Cummins v Barratt Homes Ltd [2001] EWHC Admin 1116.
23 Onshore Wind: Economic Impacts in 2014.
24 Amended Ecology Report by Wild Frontier Ecology dated January 2016.
25 Rebuttal evidence on Telecommunications by Mr Watson of PagerPower.
26 Decision and Report - APP/W4705/V/14/2228491.
27 S106 Obligation for Pond Farm wind turbine.
28 Agreed Conditions for proposed Pond Farm wind turbine.
29 Agreed Conditions for proposed Selbrigg Farm wind turbine.
30 Statement by Alicia Hull and Peter Crouch.
31 Statement by D Weston.
32 Statement by G Warner.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

33 Statement by Mr J and Mrs V Simmons.
34 Statement by Mrs B Summerfield.
35 Statement by Mark Farnworth of Norfolk Constabulary.
36 Statement by D Osbourne.
37 Statement by K Benton.
38 Statement by W Macadam of AONB Action Group.
39 Statement by C Armstrong.
40 Statement by E Hook of Norfolk Coast Partnership.
41 Statement by M McMahon.
42 Statement by J Mangan.
43 Statement by Councillor G Perry-Warnes.
44 Statement by S Russell.
45 Statement by I Shepherd.
46 Statement by B Powell.
47 Statement by R Johnson.
48 Statement by J Howell.
49 Statement by L Bentley.
50 Statement by J Dovey.
51 Statement by A Courtauld.
52 Statement by M Collis.
53 Statement by P Coast.
54 Statement by P Crouch.
55 Statement by R Wilson.
56 Statement by D Connelly on behalf of Felbrigg Parish Council.
57 Statement by M Padfield.
58 Statement by S Temple.
59 Statement by J Carver.
60 Costs application by NNBC.
61 Closing Submissions on behalf of NOTTT.
62 Council’s Closing Statement.
63 Appellant’s (Selbrigg Generation Limited) Closing Submissions.
64 Appellant’s (Genatec Limited) Closing Submissions.
65 Legal submissions on cultural heritage on behalf of Genatec Limited.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION PF/14/1669
1. The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.
Reason: Compliance with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. Except where may be required by other conditions attached to this permission the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans contained within the Planning Application Documentation and Environmental Report received by the Local Planning Authority on 15 January 2015:
Fig 1 - Site location
Fig 2 - Site layout plan
Fig 3 - Aerial site layout
Fig 4 - PowerWind 500 - typical turbine detail
Fig 5 - PowerWind 500 – typical foundation detail Fig 6 - New and upgraded Site Track typical detail Fig 7 - Hardstanding typical detail
Fig 8 - Typical Substation detail
Fig 9 - 50m Met Mast general arrangement
Fig 10 - Site entrance
The development hereby permitted shall also be carried out in accordance with a revised drawing showing the Junction of Selbrigg Road and Unclassified Road produced by Colletts (Drwg No. 239358-30A1.2) received by the Local Planning Authority on 4 March 2015.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3. This permission shall expire no later than 25 years from the date when electricity is first exported from the wind turbine to the electricity distribution network (‘First Export Date’). Written confirmation of the First Export Date shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority no later than one calendar month after the event.
Reason: To ensure that the land is returned to its previous condition once the turbine and associated equipment is no longer required for electricity generation purposes, in the interest of the visual appearance of the area.
4. Not later than 12 months before the expiry of this permission, a decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall make provision for the removal of the wind turbine assembly, substation, and all associated above ground equipment and foundations to a depth of at least one metre below ground. The scheme shall include:

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

a) The management and timing of any works;
b) A traffic management plan to address likely traffic impact issues during the

decommissioning period;
c) An environmental management plan to include details of measures to be taken during the decommissioning period to protect wildlife and habitats;

d) Identification of access routes;
e) Location of material laydown areas;
f) Restoration measures and a programme of implementation.

The approved decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be carried out in full within 24 months of expiry of this permission.
Reason: To ensure that the land is returned to its previous condition once the turbine and associated equipment is no longer required for electricity generation purposes.
5. If the wind turbine hereby permitted fails to operate for a continuous period of six months then the wind turbine assembly, substation, and all associated above ground equipment, and foundations to a depth of at least one metre below ground level, shall be removed from the site in accordance with a scheme of decommissioning and site restoration which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The developer shall submit the scheme under this condition for the approval of the Local Planning Authority within one month of a request to do so made at any time after the six month period provided for in this condition.
Reason: To ensure removal of the development if it is no longer required for electrical generation purposes.
6. Development shall not commence until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) including details of all on-site construction works, post-construction reinstatement, drainage, mitigation, and other restoration, together with details of their time tabling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CMS shall include measures to secure:
a. Formation of the construction compound and access tracks and any areas of hardstanding;

Dust management;
An Environment Management Plan including details of measures to be taken

during the construction phase to protect wildlife and habitats;

Details of emergency procedures and pollution response plans;
Pollution control in relation to water courses and ground water, subsoil,

bunding of fuel storage facilities and sewage;

Temporary site illumination;
Details of the disposal of surplus and excess construction materials and

arisings;
h. The construction of the access into the site and the creation and maintenance of associated visibility splays.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

The construction of the crane pad;
The carrying out of foundation works;
Method of working cable trenches;
The erection of meteorological masts;
Wheel cleaning facilities and arrangements for keeping the site entrance

and adjacent public road clean;
n. The sheeting of all Heavy Goods Vehicles taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway;

Soils storage and handling;
Post-construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas.

The Construction Method Statement shall be carried out as approved.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to protect the amenity of nearby residents.
7. No development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CTMP shall include:
a. Measures for the routing of construction traffic including protection and ecological measures;

Scheduling and timing of movements, including any dry runs;
The management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway;
Details of banksmen/escorts for abnormal loads;
Temporary warning signs;

f. Temporary removal and replacement as required of highway infrastructure/street furniture and, as required, reinstatement of any signs, verges or other items displaced by construction traffic;
g. Details of any works required to prune or fell trees along the specified route.
For the duration of the construction period all construction traffic shall comply with the approved CTMP.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
8. The hours of operation during the construction phase of the development, including delivery of construction materials or equipment to the site associated with the construction of the development hereby permitted, shall be limited to 0700 hours to 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays and 0700 hours to 1300 hours on Saturdays and no work shall take place on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Outside these hours, except in case of emergency, no works to implement the planning permission shall take place other than the safe completion of turbine erection activities where turbine assembly lifts are already underway. The Local Planning Authority shall be informed in writing of any emergency works within three working days of occurrence.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to protect the amenity of nearby residents.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

9. Delivery of turbine and crane components may take place outside the hours specified in condition 8 subject to the Local Planning Authority being given no less than two local authority working days prior notice of the traffic movements involved.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
10. All cabling on the site between the wind turbine and the site sub-station shall be installed underground.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
11. The wind turbine hereby permitted shall not be erected until the technical specifications, including the manufacturer’s model, design, external appearance, surface finish and colour of the turbine, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The turbine shall be installed and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved specifications.
Reason: To ensure the turbine to be erected accords with the design and predicted impact parameters established during the planning process.
12. The height of the wind turbine hereby permitted shall not exceed 78 metres to the tip of the blades when each blade is in the vertical position as measured from natural ground conditions immediately adjacent to the turbine base. The hub height of the wind turbine shall not exceed 50 metres as measured from natural ground conditions immediately adjacent to the turbine base.
Reason: To ensure the impact of turbine to be erected falls within the predicted impacts set out as part of the planning process.
13. The wind turbine hereby permitted shall be erected at the following coordinates - Easting: 610845, Northing: 338615. Any variation to the location of the turbine of greater than 10 metres deviation from these co-ordinates must first be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the location of the turbine accords with the expressed intentions of the applicant.
14. Notwithstanding any design or colour approved by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to condition 11 the wind turbine assembly shall be of a three bladed configuration, shall be of a semi-matt finish and shall not display any name, sign, symbol or logo on any external surfaces other than those reasonably required to meet statutory health and safety requirements.
Reason: To ensure the turbine to be erected accords with the design and predicted impact parameters established during the planning process.
15. At no time shall the wind turbine be externally lit for any purpose except by Ministry of Defence accredited infra-red aviation lighting or as may be required by law.
Reason: To protect the environment from light pollution.
16. The construction of the substation building hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the external surface materials to be used in its

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

construction have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the design of the substation is acceptable.
17. No turbine shall be erected until a written scheme to secure the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to TV or radio reception caused by the operation of the turbine has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall provide for the investigation by a qualified independent television and radio engineer of any complaint of interference with reception at a dwelling which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date of this permission where such a complaint is notified to the developer by the Local Planning Authority within 12 months of the First Export Date. Where impairment is determined by the qualified independent engineer to be attributable to the wind turbine, details of the mitigation works which have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme within 30 days of the notification of the complaint to the developer.
Reason: To ensure any adverse impacts of the turbine on tv and radio reception are properly mitigated.
18. The wind turbine hereby permitted shall not be erected until the developer has provided written confirmation to the Local Planning Authority of the anticipated date of completion of construction, the height above ground level of the highest structure in the development, and the position of the wind turbine in latitude and longitude.
Reason: In the interests of aircraft safety.
19. No electricity shall be exported from the development until a written scheme setting out a protocol for the assessment of shadow flicker at any affected dwelling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The written scheme shall include remedial measures. In the event of a complaint to the Local Planning Authority which the Local Planning Authority considers to be valid and made by the owner or occupier of a dwelling which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date of this permission, the approved protocol and associated remedial measures shall be put into operation.
Reason: To ensure any adverse impacts of the turbine on residential receptors from shadow flicker are properly mitigated.
20. Noise from the operation of the proposed turbine, when measured at the nearest noise sensitive premises, shall not exceed an LA90, 10 min of:
a) 35 dB(A), up to wind speeds of 10m/s at 10m height at dwellings with no financial involvement in the project or;
b) 45 dB(A), up to wind speeds of 10m/s at 10m height at dwellings with a financial involvement in the project.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

These fixed noise limits shall apply to the measured/predicted noise level including any tonal penalty assessed in accordance with the ETSU-R-97 “The Assessment and rating of Noise from Wind Farms” methodology.
Reason: To ensure the turbine does not result in adverse noise impacts during operation.
21. In the event that the Local Planning Authority receives a noise complaint, and once the wind turbine operator has been notified of the complaint in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the wind turbine operator shall, at its expense, employ a suitably qualified noise consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority, to undertake an appropriate noise assessment of the noise emissions from the wind turbine at the complainant’s property following procedures first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A report of the assessment shall be provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority within 60 days of the request under this. If the findings of this report identify that the wind turbine is causing noise levels at the property that are in excess of the fixed limits defined in condition 21, a scheme shall be included in the report detailing remedial works reasonably necessary to address the noise complaint, and these works shall be implemented in full in accordance with an agreed timescale.
Reason: To ensure any adverse impacts of the turbine on residential receptors from noise are properly mitigated.
22. The wind turbine hereby permitted shall not be erected until a written scheme to secure the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to broadband reception caused by the operation of the turbine has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall provide for the investigation by a qualified person approved by the Local Planning Authority of any complaint of broadband loss at a building which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date of this permission where such a complaint is notified to the developer by the Local Planning Authority within 12 months of the First Export Date. Where any impairment is determined by the qualified person to be attributable to the wind turbine, and that such impairment is of a degree that makes the current broadband service inoperative and that a comparable, in terms of service and cost, alternative broadband service is not available, then details of mitigation works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme within 60 days of the notification of the complaint to the developer.
Reason: To ensure any adverse impacts of the turbine on broadband reception are properly mitigated.

 The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) against a refusal to grant planning permission.
 The appeal is made by Genatec Limited against the decision of North Norfolk District Council.
 The application Ref PF/14/0925, dated 18 July 2014, was refused by notice dated 26 March 2015.
 The development proposed is erection of a single wind turbine with a maximum hub height of 40 metres and a maximum tip height of 66 metres, associated infrastructure, single storey substation building, access tracks and crane hardstanding.
Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single wind turbine with a maximum hub height of 40 metres and a maximum tip height of 66 metres, associated infrastructure, single storey substation building, access tracks and crane hardstanding at Pond Farm, Bodham, Holt in accordance with the terms of the application Ref PF/14/0925, dated 18 July 2014, subject to the conditions set out in a schedule attached to this decision.
Preliminary matters
2. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by the District Council against Genatec Limited. The application is the subject of a separate Decision.
3. The Inquiry was held to consider the appeal proposal and another appeal (Ref. No. APP/Y2620/W/15/3143028) for a similar proposed wind turbine on land at Selbrigg Farm, Bodham. The sites of the two proposed wind turbines are about 3.2 kms apart. The Inquiry documents and Appearances listed in this Decision relate to both appeals.
4. Only the proposed wind turbine was referred to at the Inquiry and no harm is alleged resulting from other elements of the proposed development.
The proposed turbine and the site and its surroundings
5. The wind turbine would have a maximum hub height of 40 metres and a maximum tip height of 66 metres. It would be located at the south-east corner of an arable field about 2 kms south-east of the village of Bodham and about 5 kms east of the town of Holt. The field has a west boundary to New Road and a north boundary to Osier Lane. The farmstead of Pond Farm is to the north-west of the site beyond New Road. The surrounding agricultural area is interspersed by blocks of woodland and is criss-crossed by country lanes. About 375 metres to the west

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

of the site of the proposed turbine is a telecommunications mast, Cock Point Mast, that is about 65 metres high.
6. The proposed development includes various landscape mitigation measures that are the subjects of a Unilateral Undertaking made pursuant to Section 106 of the Act. These include a new hedge, including hedgerow trees, alongside the south side of Osier Lane in the vicinity of two residential properties, Camp Farm and The Pylons, a mixed native hedgerow to the perimeter of a field to the east of the site, a small block of woodland directly to the north of the site, a small copse in the vicinity of Cock Point Mast, a hedgerow along the south boundary of the field between the site and the mast, and new hedge planting to the south of Pond Farm extending alongside a footpath that extends southwards to New Road.
Planning Policy
Local planning policy
7. The development plan, for the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, is the Core Strategy (CS) of the North Norfolk Local Development Framework, which was adopted in September 2008.
8. CS policy EN1 relates to the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (NCAONB) and CS policy EN2 seeks to protect and enhance the landscape and settlement character of the District. CS policy EN7 states that proposals for renewable energy technology will be permitted where individually, or cumulatively, there are no significant adverse effects on, amongst other things, the surrounding landscape and historical features. Other parts of the policy refer to large and small scale renewable energy developments (the development is large scale if the definition in a footnote to the policy is applied) but these parts do not impose any requirements additional to that already outlined. The main parties agree that CS policy EN8, which seeks to protect and enhance the historic environment and with regard to paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), is out of date. CS policies EN2 and EN7, though they pre-date the publication of the NPPF, are generally consistent with it and are not therefore out of date.
National Planning Policy
9. The NPPF contains provisions specific to renewable energy developments and other provisions relevant to the application. Paragraph 98 states that an application for a renewable energy project should be approved if its impacts are or can be made acceptable and if material considerations do not indicate otherwise. Paragraph 134 states that where a proposed renewable energy project will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
Reasons
10. The Council’s reason for refusal of the application refers to potential harm to landscape and heritage assets. Local residents, both in writing and at the Inquiry, have referred to potential harm to the visual amenity of the area.
11. The main issues are; first, the effect of the proposed wind turbine on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area; second, the effect of the proposed wind turbine on the settings and significance of nearby heritage assets;

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

and third, whether the harm caused is significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the environmental benefit of the proposed renewable energy development. In the first two issues the proposed wind turbine will be considered both individually and cumulatively with the proposed wind turbine at Selbrigg Farm.
The first issue – the landscape character and visual amenity of the area
12. The site of the proposed turbine is within an area of tributary farmland, specifically within Character Area TF3 ‘Tributary Farmland’ (CATF3), as defined and assessed in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (NNLCA). The NNCLA states that the key characteristics of tributary farmland include a landscape with an open character with long uninterrupted views, topography that is gently rolling, land use that is predominantly arable with small areas of pasture, the skyline is very prominent due to the uninterrupted expanses of open landscape, and prominent features include telecommunication masts and churches. The NNLCA, for CATF3, remarks that the landscape character is fair to moderate and that the majority of the landscape has been affected by commercial agricultural activity and, in particular, by the removal of hedgerows.
13. The NNLCA states, with regard to an analysis of the key characteristics of tributary farmland, that the siting of wind turbines within the more rural locations would be inappropriate whilst the siting of wind turbines within the more disturbed and degraded landscapes would be less harmful. With regard to skyline, a key characteristic that is stated to be of high sensitivity, the NNLCA remarks that wind turbines could have severe impacts in certain areas. The NNLCA also remarks, with regard to issues relating to CATF3, that “Some parts may be suitable for small scale wind turbine siting taking care not to place them so prominently that they are apparent for miles (i.e. near the Cromer ridge)”. The Cromer ridge is a geological feature to the north of the site and is a ridge of glacial moraine that is about 14 kms long and parallel to the north coast of Norfolk.
14. The Cromer ridge has a relatively steep north slope and a gentle south slope. The ridge itself and the north slope down to the coast are within the NCAONB. The south boundary of the NCAONB is defined, to the north of the site, by the A174. The site is on the south slope of the ridge and about 2.5 kms to the south of the A174. Apart from a small block of woodland to the south the site is in a relatively open location. Cock Point Mast is at a high point in the landscape and the site of the proposed turbine is only a few metres lower in the landscape that the site of the mast. The tranquillity map of North Norfolk published by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) indicates that the area surrounding the site is of moderate tranquillity.
15. In the vicinity of the site the actual ridge of Cromer Ridge is not apparent and the area surrounding the site is simply an area of undulating mainly farmed countryside. Cock Point Mast, given its open location on a high point in the landscape, is a significant feature of the area. Nevertheless, the introduction of another industrial feature 40 metres high with spinning blades reaching up to 66 metres high would have a significant adverse effect on landscape character and tranquillity. But the extent of the significant adverse effect would be limited by the presence of Cock Point Mast and would only extend up to about 1 km from the turbine. Further away the effect on landscape character and tranquillity, up to a distance of about 2.0 kms, would be moderate.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

16. Given the separation distance between the site and the NCAONB, and despite the height and industrial nature of the proposed turbine and its turning blades, the turbine would not compromise or undermine any of the special qualities, or the landscape character, of the NCAONB or its setting as set out in the Management Plan Strategy. The proposal does not conflict with CS policy EN1.
17. A public footpath (FP8) crosses a field to the west of New Road, another public footpath (FP9) follows the west boundary of the field within which the turbine would be situated, and the Norfolk Coast Cycleway follows Osier Lane to the north of the site. The proposed turbine would be a prominent and intrusive feature in the landscape for users of FP8 walking south from Osier Lane, before and after passing Pond Farm, and for cyclists following the cycleway in both directions. The proposed turbine, given its close proximity to FP9, would be particularly prominent and intrusive for users of this footpath. The landscape mitigation measures outlined in paragraph 6 would alleviate this harm to some degree but would take a number of years to become established.
18. The turning blades of the proposed turbine would be visible from vehicles travelling along Osier Lane and New Road in particular but these would be, given the rolling topography of the area and intervening blocks of woodland in some places, no more than glimpses. The turning blades might also be visible in views from other country lanes in the area and to the south-west from the A174 but these, for the same reasons, would be no more than distant glimpses. The harm to visual amenity for road users would not be significant. With regard to the position of the proposed wind turbine at a relative high point in the landscape, given the nearby presence of the Cock Point Mast, the turbine, despite its skyline position, would not have a severe impact on landscape character or visual amenity.
19. The proposed wind turbine at Pond Farm would be about 3.2 kms to the east of the proposed wind turbine at Selbrigg Farm, Bodham, which would also be within CATF3. The Selbrigg Farm turbine would have a similar adverse effect on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area as the Pond Farm turbine and there would thus be a cumulative adverse effect on landscape character and visual amenity. It is unlikely, however, given the topography and landscape features of the area and the distance between them, that the two turbines would be seen together in the landscape from any public vantage points. Travelling through the area the turbines might be glimpsed one after the other so there would be a degree of sequential harm caused to visual amenity. The cumulative and sequential harm caused by the two proposed turbines would not be significant.
Conclusion on landscape character and visual amenity
20. The proposed wind turbine would have a significant adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area but only for users of short sections of footpaths FP8 and FP9 and for users of a short section of the cycleway. For users of other footpaths and roads in the area the turbine would be a glimpsed feature that would have only a minor adverse effect on visual amenity. The turbine would have a significant adverse effect on landscape character but the harm would be limited to a relatively small area and this harm is offset to some degree by the presence in the landscape of Cock Point Mast. The turbine would also cause, with the proposed turbine at Selbrigg Farm, less than significant cumulative and sequential harm. The proposed development would, however, conflict with CS policies EN2 and EN7.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

The second issue – the significance of heritage assets
21. The significance of all the heritage assets referred to by the Council and others lies principally in their social, historic and architectural interest. The proposed wind turbine would not have any direct effect on that significance. However, the heritage assets all have a relationship to the landscape within which they are located. The setting of each heritage asset, the surroundings in which the heritage asset is experienced, is that landscape.
All Saints Church, Bodham
22. All Saints Church at Bodham, a Grade II* listed building, is on the north side of Church Road about 1.5 kms to the north-west of the site of the proposed turbine. The mainly grassed churchyard is the church’s immediate setting and, given a high roadside hedge and other features in the landscape, the turbine would not be visible from within the churchyard. The principal views of the church and its tower are from Church Road and footpaths that cross the landscape towards Church Road from the south. The turbine would either be behind or outside any view of the church and its tower from these public vantage points. The tower is glimpsed from the east in views westwards from Church Road, and from the north in views southwards from Hart Lane, but it is unlikely, given the intervening distances and other topographical features, that the turbine would be visible in these views. Even if it were visible it would be seen alongside and not materially higher than Cock Point Mast, and would not diminish any experience of the church and its tower in their landscape setting. The proposed turbine would not cause any material harm to the setting or significance of All Saints Church.
Baconsthorpe Castle
23. Baconsthorpe Castle, a moated ruined castle, is a Grade I listed building and a scheduled ancient monument (SAM). To the south of the castle are a fortified house, a gatehouse and a barn that are also listed buildings. The group of historic assets is in tranquil surroundings of arable land, pasture and blocks of woodland, such as Baconsthorpe Wood to the north and Hempstead Wood to the west. The setting of the SAM, given its historic defensive, economic and social role, extends well into the surrounding countryside. Footpaths cross the landscape from the north, north-east and south-west towards the SAM and there are views outwards across the landscape from within and around the castle.
24. The site of the proposed turbine is about 1.75 kms to the east of the group of heritage assets and, of particular note, the turbine would be directly beyond Cock Point Mast. In views from within and around the group of heritage assets the addition of the turbine mast in the views would be insignificant and it is only the turning blades of the turbine that would draw the eye of visitors to the castle. Trees on the east side of the moat would partially obscure the turbine blades and there is no evidence to indicate that the trees would be removed at any time in the future. Taking into account the intervening distance and the partial screening of the trees, and notwithstanding its position on a high point in the landscape, the proposed turbine would not seriously diminish any experience of the castle and the SAM and the associated listed buildings. However, some harm would be caused to the setting and thus significance of the group of heritage assets though the harm would be less than substantial.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

Bessingham and Baconsthorpe Conservation Areas
25. Bessingham Conservation Area, which encompasses the village and St Mary’s Church, a Grade II* listed building, is about 3 kms to the south-east of the site of the proposed wind turbine, and Baconsthorpe Conservation Area, which encompasses the village and St Mary’s Church, a Grade II* listed building, is about 1.7 kms to the south-west of the site. There would be glimpses of the turning blades of the proposed turbine from some parts of both Conservation Areas but, given the intervening distance in both cases, no material harm would be caused to the character and appearance of either area. For the same reason the proposed wind turbine would not cause any material harm to the setting or significance of either Conservation Area or to the setting or significance of either listed building.
St Peter’s Church, North Barningham
26. St Peter’s Church at North Barningham is a Grade II* listed building and is situated about 1.5 kms to the south-east of the site of the proposed wind turbine. Views of the turbine from the immediate setting of the church would be screened by dense mature vegetation. There are a few vantage points in the wider vicinity from where the tower of the church and the turning blades of the turbine would be seen in the same view. But the harm to the landscape setting of the church would be negligible and there would not thus be any material harm caused to the setting of the church or to the significance of the heritage asset.
Barningham Hall and St Mary’s Church, Barningham Winter
27. Barningham Hall is a Grade I listed building and is set within grounds that are listed at Grade II in the Register of Park and Gardens. The hall is of Jacobean origin but was altered and substantially enlarged by Humphry Repton and his son in the early 19th century. It was they who established the curved southern approach to the Hall through a group of trees that first provided glimpses of the Hall before, after turning eastwards, providing a fully revealed view. The Reptons retained but probably thinned the trees that form an avenue that extends westwards from the Hall to a now unused entry into the grounds. Within the grounds, to the north of the Hall, is St Mary’s Church, a Grade II* listed building.
28. The proposed turbine would be located about 3 kms to the north of the Hall, the church and the landscaped grounds. The turning blades of the proposed wind turbine would probably be visible above the skyline from the curved southern approach to the Hall, from the avenue and from the northern approach to the Hall as it passes the church. At such a distance the turbine would be a small and insignificant feature that would have no more effect on the setting of the heritage assets than a car travelling along either approach to the Hall, or does modern post and wire fencing within the grounds. The turbine might be glimpsed from the southern approach, and there is a large mature tree to the north of approach that would obscure the turbine from much of this approach, and it might be glimpsed from the vicinity of the church and from the avenue, but the harm to the landscape setting of the Hall, the registered garden and the church would be negligible. The proposed wind turbine would not thus cause any material harm to the setting of the heritage assets or to their significance.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

Other heritage assets
29. Taking into account intervening distances, topography and landscape features, the proposed turbine would not cause any harm to the setting or significance of any other heritage asset, including St Peter’s Church at North Barningham and St Michael’s Church at Plumstead.
Conclusion on the significance of heritage assets
30. The proposed wind turbine would cause less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the listed buildings and SAM at Baconsthorpe Castle, notwithstanding its highest status of listing. The proposed development thus conflicts, in this regard also, with CS policy EN7.
Other matters
Residential amenity
31. Many residential properties were visited during the post-Inquiry site visit, including Bodham House, The Pylons, Bluebell Barn, Red Barn Cottage, North Barningham House, Highfield House, Manor Farm Holiday Barns and Rookery Farm Holiday Barns. The nearest property to the site of the proposed turbine is The Pylons, which is about 550 metres to the north, and Camp Farm and Rose Cottage are about 100 metres further away in the same direction. The planting that is provided for in the unilateral undertaking, which includes ‘instant’ hedging, would provide some screening of the turbine but it would still be visible from within and around these properties. But the proposed development is a single wind turbine only 66 metres high to top blade tip and more than 500 metres away and would not result in any of the three properties being unpleasant or unattractive places to live. For the same reasons, though there would not be any mitigation planting to screen the turbine, no other property in the vicinity of the site would become an unpleasant or unattractive place to live.
32. Local residents have raised concerns, at application and appeal stages, regarding the adverse effects of shadow flicker and noise. Both matters are the subjects of agreed conditions and in the unlikely event that local residents are affected by shadow flicker and/or noise these effects would be investigated and measures would be put in place to alleviate the adverse effects. Concern has also been expressed with regard to the wind turbine causing electro-magnetic interference to television and radio reception and, in particular, to broadband reception. These matters are the subjects of agreed conditions and in the event that television, radio or broadband reception is adversely affected the problem would be investigated and mitigation measures would be put in place.
Tourism
33. With regard to Manor Farm and Rookery Farm Holiday Barns the proposed turbine, given its distant location, would not be likely to have any adverse effect on the viability of the holiday businesses. The economy of North Norfolk is enhanced by tourism; tourists being attracted to the attractive landscape and by, amongst other things, heritage assets in the area. Some visitors to the area might be surprised to see the wind turbine if it was to be permitted and installed but this surprise might be positive or negative. Given the limited harm that would be caused to landscape character and to the significance of only a few heritage assets

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

it is unlikely that the proposed turbine would have any significant adverse effect on tourism or on the economy of North Norfolk.
Police communications
34. Cock Point Mast was erected in 1985 to provide radio and telecommunications coverage for the Norfolk Constabulary, and it is currently used to provide various links. The Constabulary submitted evidence to a previous appeal for a wind turbine on the site and were clearly aware of this appeal and the application that preceded it. However, they did not submit evidence to support their concerns that the proposed wind turbine would unacceptably interfere with their operations in accordance with the appeal timetable. Instead they have sought to rely on a letter and an e-mail, the latter to the Appellant’s telecommunications consultant, sent shortly before the Inquiry by their Senior Technical Officer, Mr Farnworth, and an appearance by him at the Inquiry.
35. A new L-band link is to be deployed at Cock Point Mast and the Constabulary, as expressed by Mr Farnworth at the Inquiry, are concerned that “...the turbine may impact on plans for this link due to its proximity to (the Cock Point)...mast and the scattering/reflection zone attendant”. In the e-mail sent prior to the Inquiry Mr Farnworth stated that “We used the ‘Bacon Method’ to gain an indication of the advisable clearance from the proposed turbine. The results indicate to us that this link’s availability (with turbine proposed) will likely be reduced...”. No calculations by the Constabulary based on the Bacon Method have been submitted and the use of words such as ‘may’ and ‘likely’ suggest that there is some uncertainty that the deployment of the L-band would be compromised.
36. The Appellant’s telecommunications consultants, PagerPower, were afforded the opportunity to rebut the late evidence submitted by Mr Farnworth. Their conclusions, having applied the Bacon Method and using other assessments, are that the proposed wind turbine would not affect any current or future police telecommunication links. In the absence of any substantive evidence from the Constabulary to the contrary there is no reason not to accept the conclusions reached by PagerPower. Based on these conclusions the Appellant accepted, at the Inquiry, that a condition requiring the prior approval of a scheme to secure the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to broadband reception caused by the operation of the turbine should be amended so that the scheme should refer also to interference to ‘the police link’. The amended condition provides the opportunity for any adverse consequences of the wind turbine to police links to be addressed should they arise. The concern raised by the Norfolk Constabulary is not thus material to the outcome of the appeal.
Existing renewable energy developments in the District
37. There are large numbers of wind turbines off the North Norfolk coast and there are two large solar energy developments in the District. These developments are making significant contributions to the generation of renewable energy. But climate change is a national issue and will only be addressed by further reducing reliance on the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity. In this context the existing renewable energy developments do not justify a conclusion other than that the proposed development must be determined on its own merits.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

Conclusion
38. None of the aforementioned matters or any others raised before or during the Inquiry, including ecological and ornithological issues, either individually or collectively, affects the overall conclusions reached in this decision.
Conditions and Unilateral Undertaking
39. The main parties agreed and submitted a list of 25 conditions at the Inquiry; though the Appellant disputes six of these conditions either in detail or in substance. Condition 5, which relates to the decommissioning and removal of the turbine if it fails to generate electricity for a specified period, is disputed in detail. The Council is seeking a non-generation period of six months whereas the Appellant suggests that twelve months is more appropriate. The planning permission is time limited to 25 years by condition 3, and the removal of the turbine after the permission has lapsed is required by condition 4, so a non- generation period of twelve months, during which period the turbine blades are likely to be static, in condition 5 is appropriate. The detail of condition 12 is disputed by the Appellant but the condition is consistent with the development specified in the Statement of Common Ground and is therefore appropriate.
40. Two conditions suggested by the Council relate to the submission and prior approval of a landscaping scheme and to monitoring the effectiveness of that scheme once implemented. The Unilateral Undertaking entered into by the Appellant has been assessed on its merits as has the proposed development itself. Furthermore, it is the Council’s case that landscaping would not mitigate the effects of the development so conditions duplicating, in effect, the provisions of the undertaking are unnecessary. A suggested condition that would require the prior approval and implementation of an ornithological monitoring programme does not require any action to be taken if the impact of the turbine is found to fall outside predicted levels, so fails the test of precision and has not been imposed.
41. Another suggested condition would require the prior approval and implementation of a scheme of archaeological investigation but there is no evidence to indicate that the site is of any archaeological interest so the condition fails the test of necessity and has not been imposed. Condition 8 sets out construction hours for the implementation of the development and local residents have requested that 0800 hours be the specified start time rather than 0700 hours. The construction period is not likely to be long and the earlier start time, to maximise the use of daylight hours, is considered appropriate.
42. The conditions that have been imposed have been, where necessary, amended in the interests of clarity and precision and in accordance with the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). The reason for each condition is given in the schedule of conditions attached to this decision. All phrases such as ‘unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority’ have been deleted.
43. The provisions of the Unilateral Undertaking, outlined in paragraph 6 of this report, are related to requirements of development plan policies, are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, are directly related to the development, are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development, and are in place to mitigate the effects of the development. The Legal Agreement therefore complies with the tests set out in the NPPG and with

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010 (CIL) and, with regard to clause 2 of the Undertaking, is required if planning permission is granted for the development.
The third issue – the planning balance
44. At the heart of the planning balance is Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
45. CS policy EN7 ‘Renewable Energy’ states, in addition to the provisions outlined in paragraph 7, that renewable energy proposals will be supported and considered in the context of sustainable development and climate change, taking account of the wide environmental, social and economic benefits of renewable energy gain. In essence CS policy EN7 recognises the balance to be struck in assessing wind energy developments; the environmental benefit of the proposal must be balanced against the environmental harm that it would cause.
46. National policy on renewable energy is set out in the NPPF. The NPPF supports the provision of renewable energy if the impacts are, or can be made, acceptable, and in paragraph 98 it is recognised that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. In terms of environmental benefit the proposed wind turbine would produce about 2.437 MWh of electricity per year and, over its life span of 25 years, would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by about 9,300 tonnes. The proposed renewable energy development would also contribute to farm diversification and would create direct and indirect economic benefits to the locality during the constructions phase, and includes positive ecological mitigation measures.
47. In terms of environmental harm the proposed wind turbine would have a significant adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area, but only for users of short sections of two footpaths and a cycleway, and would have a significant adverse effect on landscape character though the harm would be limited to a relatively small area. The proposed wind turbine would cause less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the listed buildings and SAM at Baconsthorpe Castle.
48. Considerable weight and importance is given to the duty imposed by Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and therefore to the strong presumption in favour of the desirability of the preservation of heritage assets. In consideration of the first two main issues the proposed wind energy development conflicts with CS policies EN2 and EN7.
49. The balancing exercise that must be conducted requires planning judgement to be exercised. Setting aside other considerations the environmental benefits of the wind energy development, and therefore of exploiting a renewable resource in the national interest, demonstrably outweighs the harm that would be caused to the character of the landscape and to the visual amenity of the area, and the less than substantial harm that would be caused to the significance of the listed buildings and SAM at Baconsthorpe Castle, notwithstanding its highest status of listing and the presumption against the grant of planning permission that must be

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

given considerable importance and weight. The planning balance is in favour of the wind energy development, which thus accords with CS policy EN7.
50. On 18 June 2015 a Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) was made by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The WMS states that planning permission should only be granted if, following consultation it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing. The WMS has been supported by changes and additions to the NPPG. Paragraph 33 states that “...whether the proposal has the backing of the affected local community is a planning judgement for the...” decision taker. Many of the concerns of the local community have been addressed by imposition of conditions and on the main issues the harm that the local community allege would be caused has been found to be less than significant. Furthermore, the WMS is a material consideration but does not override the development plan, particularly in this case where there is a development plan policy specific to renewable energy developments.
51. The environmental benefit of the renewable energy development demonstrably outweighs the environmental harm that would be caused to landscape character, visual amenity and heritage interests. Material considerations in this case, the environmental benefits of the renewable energy scheme, indicate that, with regard to the conflict with CS policy EN2, determination of the appeal must be made other than in accordance with the development plan.
52. Planning permission has thus been granted for the erection of a single wind turbine with a maximum hub height of 40 metres and a maximum tip height of 66 metres, associated infrastructure, single storey substation building, access tracks and crane at Pond Farm, Bodham, Holt.
John Braithwaite
Inspector

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Of Counsel
Chartered Landscape Architect and Chartered Town Planner
Director of Beacon Planning Ltd
Senior Consultant at Beacon Planning Ltd FOR SELBRIGG GENERATION LIMITED:

Ms S Pain BA(Hons) MPlan MRTPI

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

DOCUMENTS

1 Council’s letter of notification of the Inquiry.
2 Appearances on behalf of North Norfolk District Council (NNDC).
3 Appearances on behalf of Genatec Limited.
4 Opening Statement on behalf of Selbrigg Generation Limited.
5 Opening Statement on behalf of Genatec Limited.
6 Opening Statement on behalf of North Norfolk District Council.
7 Opening Statement on behalf of No To That Turbine.
8 Kemnal Manor Memorial Gardens Ltd v First SoS [2004] EWHC 2638 (Admin).
9 Palmer v Herefordshire Council and ANR [2016] EWCA Civ 1061.
10 Statement of Common Ground between Genatec Ltd and NNDC.
11 Statement of Common Ground between Selbrigg Generation Ltd and NNDC.
12 Plan of proposed site inspections.
13 Plan of area showing land over 50 metres AOD.
14 Plan of footpaths in the area.
15 Plan of field boundaries lost in vicinity of the proposed Selbrigg turbine.
16 Response to evidence of Mr Charrier by Ms H Thompson.
17 Letter from Mr Farnworth of Norfolk Constabulary dated 15/11/2016.
18 List of wind turbine applications to NNDC since 2011.
19 Letter from Historic England dated 18 November 2016.
20 Plan of Cromer Ridge and location of proposed turbines.
21 Letter from Mr Farnworth to Mr Watson of PagerPower.
22 Extract of Laura Cummins v Barratt Homes Ltd [2001] EWHC Admin 1116.
23 Onshore Wind: Economic Impacts in 2014.
24 Amended Ecology Report by Wild Frontier Ecology dated January 2016.
25 Rebuttal evidence on Telecommunications by Mr Watson of PagerPower.
26 Decision and Report - APP/W4705/V/14/2228491.
27 S106 Obligation for Pond Farm wind turbine.
28 Agreed Conditions for proposed Pond Farm wind turbine.
29 Agreed Conditions for proposed Selbrigg Farm wind turbine.
30 Statement by Alicia Hull and Peter Crouch.
31 Statement by D Weston.
32 Statement by G Warner.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

33 Statement by Mr J and Mrs V Simmons.
34 Statement by Mrs B Summerfield.
35 Statement by Mark Farnworth of Norfolk Constabulary.
36 Statement by D Osbourne.
37 Statement by K Benton.
38 Statement by W Macadam of AONB Action Group.
39 Statement by C Armstrong.
40 Statement by E Hook of Norfolk Coast Partnership.
41 Statement by M McMahon.
42 Statement by J Mangan.
43 Statement by Councillor G Perry-Warnes.
44 Statement by S Russell.
45 Statement by I Shepherd.
46 Statement by B Powell.
47 Statement by R Johnson.
48 Statement by J Howell.
49 Statement by L Bentley.
50 Statement by J Dovey.
51 Statement by A Courtauld.
52 Statement by M Collis.
53 Statement by P Coast.
54 Statement by P Crouch.
55 Statement by R Wilson.
56 Statement by D Connelly on behalf of Felbrigg Parish Council.
57 Statement by M Padfield.
58 Statement by S Temple.
59 Statement by J Carver.
60 Costs application by NNBC.
61 Closing Submissions on behalf of NOTTT.
62 Council’s Closing Statement.
63 Appellant’s (Selbrigg Generation Limited) Closing Submissions.
64 Appellant’s (Genatec Limited) Closing Submissions.
65 Legal submissions on cultural heritage on behalf of Genatec Limited.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

Drwg. No. 17409/003 Rev F – Site Layout Overlaid to Topographical Survey.
Drwg. No. 1000901 Rev 03 – Directwind 54 – HH40.
Drwg. No. EDS 07-0102.05 Version C – Freestanding Brick-Built Substation

for Single Transformer.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3. This permission shall expire no later than 25 years from the date when electricity is first exported from the wind turbine to the electricity distribution network (‘First Export Date’). Written confirmation of the First Export Date shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority no later than one calendar month after the event.
Reason: To ensure that the land is returned to its previous condition once the turbine and associated equipment is no longer required for electricity generation purposes, in the interest of the visual appearance of the area.
4. Not later than 12 months before the expiry of this permission, a decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall make provision for the removal of the wind turbine assembly, substation, and all associated above ground equipment and foundations to a depth of at least one metre below ground. The scheme shall include:

a) The management and timing of the works;
b) A traffic management plan to address likely traffic impact issues during the

decommissioning period;
c) An environmental management plan to include details of measures to be taken during the decommissioning period to protect wildlife and habitats;

d) Identification of access routes;
e) Location of material laydown areas;
f) Restoration measures and a programme of implementation.

The approved decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be carried out in full within 12 months of expiry of this permission.
Reason: To ensure that the land is returned to its previous condition once the turbine and associated equipment is no longer required for electricity generation purposes.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

5. If the wind turbine hereby permitted fails to operate for a continuous period of twelve months then the wind turbine assembly, substation, and all associated above ground equipment, and foundations to a depth of at least one metre below ground level, shall be removed from the site in accordance with a scheme of decommissioning and site restoration which has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The developer shall submit the scheme under this condition for the approval of the Local Planning Authority within one month of a request to do so made at any time after the twelve month period provided for in this condition.
Reason: To ensure removal of the development if it is no longer required for electrical generation purposes.
6. Development shall not commence until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) including details of all on-site construction works, post-construction reinstatement, drainage, mitigation, and other restoration, together with details of their time tabling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CMS shall include measures to secure:

Formation of the construction compound and access tracks and any areas of hardstanding;
Dust management;
An Environment Management Plan including details of measures to be taken during the construction phase to protect wildlife and habitats;
Details of emergency procedures and pollution response plans;
Pollution control in relation to water courses and ground water, subsoil, bunding of fuel storage facilities and sewage;
Temporary site illumination;
Details of the disposal of surplus and excess construction materials and arisings;
The construction of the access into the site and the creation and maintenance of associated visibility splays.
The construction of the crane pad;
The carrying out of foundation works;
Method of working cable trenches;
The erection of meteorological masts;
Wheel cleaning facilities and arrangements for keeping the site entrance and adjacent public road clean;
The sheeting of all Heavy Goods Vehicles taking spoil to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway;
Soils storage and handling;
Post-construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas.

The Construction Method Statement shall be carried out as approved.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to protect the amenity of nearby residents.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

7. No development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CTMP shall include:

Measures for the routing of construction traffic including protection and ecological measures;
Scheduling and timing of movements, including any dry runs;
The management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway;
Details of banksmen/escorts for abnormal loads;
Temporary warning signs;
Temporary removal and replacement as required of highway infrastructure/street furniture and, as required, reinstatement of any signs, verges or other items displaced by construction traffic;
Details of any works required to prune or fell trees along the specified route.

For the duration of the construction period all construction traffic shall comply with the approved CTMP.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
8. The hours of operation during the construction phase of the development, including delivery of construction materials or equipment to the site associated with the construction of the development hereby permitted, shall be limited to 0700 hours to 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays and 0700 hours to 1300 hours on Saturdays and no work shall take place on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Outside these hours, except in case of emergency, no works to implement the planning permission shall take place other than the safe completion of turbine erection activities where turbine assembly lifts are already underway. The Local Planning Authority shall be informed in writing of any emergency works within three working days of occurrence.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to protect the amenity of nearby residents.
9. Delivery of turbine and crane components may take place outside the hours specified in condition 8 subject to the Local Planning Authority being given no less than two local authority working days prior notice of the traffic movements involved.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
10. All cabling on the site between the wind turbine and the site sub-station shall be installed underground.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
11. The wind turbine hereby permitted shall not be erected until the technical specifications, including the manufacturer’s model, design, external appearance, surface finish and colour of the turbine, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The turbine shall be installed and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved specifications.
Reason: To ensure the turbine to be erected accords with the design and predicted impact parameters established during the planning process.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

12. The height of the wind turbine hereby permitted shall not exceed 66 metres to the tip of the blades when each blade is in the vertical position as measured from natural ground conditions immediately adjacent to the turbine base. The hub height of the wind turbine shall not exceed 40 metres as measured from natural ground conditions immediately adjacent to the turbine base.
Reason: To ensure the impact of turbine to be erected falls within the predicted impacts set out as part of the planning process.
13. The wind turbine hereby permitted shall be erected at the following coordinates - Easting: 613970, Northing: 338220. Any variation to the location of the turbine of greater than 10 metres deviation from these co-ordinates must first be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the location of the turbine accords with the expressed intentions of the applicant.
14. Notwithstanding any design or colour approved by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to condition 11 the wind turbine assembly shall be of a three bladed configuration, shall be of a semi-matt finish and shall not display any name, sign, symbol or logo on any external surfaces other than those reasonably required to meet statutory health and safety requirements.
Reason: To ensure the turbine to be erected accords with the design and predicted impact parameters established during the planning process.
15. At no time shall the wind turbine be externally lit for any purpose except by Ministry of Defence accredited infra-red aviation lighting.
Reason: To protect the environment from light pollution.
16. The construction of the substation building hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the external surface materials to be used in its construction have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the design of the substation is acceptable.
17. No turbine shall be erected until a written scheme to secure the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to TV or radio reception caused by the operation of the turbine has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall provide for the investigation by a qualified independent television and radio engineer of any complaint of interference with reception at a dwelling which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date of this permission where such a complaint is notified to the developer by the Local Planning Authority within 12 months of the First Export Date. Where impairment is determined by the qualified independent engineer to be attributable to the wind turbine, details of the mitigation works which have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme within 30 days of the notification of the complaint to the developer.
Reason: To ensure any adverse impacts of the turbine on tv and radio reception are

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

properly mitigated.
18. The wind turbine hereby permitted shall not be erected until the developer has provided written confirmation to the Local Planning Authority of the anticipated date of completion of construction, the height above ground level of the highest structure in the development, and the position of the wind turbine in latitude and longitude.
Reason: In the interests of aircraft safety.
19. No electricity shall be exported from the development until a written scheme setting out a protocol for the assessment of shadow flicker at any affected dwelling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The written scheme shall include remedial measures. In the event of a complaint to the Local Planning Authority which the Local Planning Authority considers to be valid and made by the owner or occupier of a dwelling which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date of this permission, the approved protocol and associated remedial measures shall be put into operation.
Reason: To ensure any adverse impacts of the turbine on residential receptors from shadow flicker are properly mitigated.
20. Noise from the operation of the proposed turbine, when measured at the nearest noise sensitive premises, shall not exceed an LA90, 10 min of:
a) 35 dB(A), up to wind speeds of 10m/s at 10m height at dwellings with no financial involvement in the project or;
b) 45 dB(A), up to wind speeds of 10m/s at 10m height at dwellings with a financial involvement in the project.
These fixed noise limits shall apply to the measured/predicted noise level including any tonal penalty assessed in accordance with the ETSU-R-97 “The Assessment and rating of Noise from Wind Farms” methodology.
Reason: To ensure the turbine does not result in adverse noise impacts during operation.
21. In the event that the Local Planning Authority receives a noise complaint, and once the wind turbine operator has been notified of the complaint in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the wind turbine operator shall, at its expense, employ a suitably qualified noise consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority, to undertake an appropriate noise assessment of the noise emissions from the wind turbine at the complainant’s property following procedures first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A report of the assessment shall be provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority within 60 days of the request under this. If the findings of this report identify that the wind turbine is causing noise levels at the property that are in excess of the fixed limits defined in condition 20, a scheme shall be included in the report detailing remedial works reasonably necessary to address the noise complaint, and these works shall be implemented in full in accordance with an agreed timescale.
Reason: To ensure any adverse impacts of the turbine on residential receptors from noise are properly mitigated.

Appeal Decision APP/Y2600/W/15/3143028

22. The wind turbine hereby permitted shall not be erected until a written scheme to secure the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to broadband reception and the police link caused by the operation of the turbine has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall provide for the investigation by a qualified person approved by the Local Planning Authority of any complaint of broadband loss at a building which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date of this permission, or of any complaint of police link loss, where such a complaint is notified to the developer by the Local Planning Authority within 12 months of the First Export Date. Where any impairment is determined by the qualified person to be attributable to the wind turbine, and that such impairment is of a degree that makes the current broadband service or police link inoperative and that a comparable, in terms of service and cost, alternative broadband service or police link is not available, then details of mitigation works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme within 60 days of the notification of the complaint to the developer.

Reason: To ensure any adverse impacts of the turbine on broadband reception or pole link are properly mitigated.

THE FRIENDS OF NORTH NORFOLK

Total Pageviews

Monday, 6 March 2017