Agenda item

Repowering of the existing Rogers Hill wind turbine with a larger wind turbine.

The meeting adjourned from 13:39-14:30.

 

Cllr Morgan left the meeting at 13:39.

 

The Development Management Team Leader presented the application for the replacement of an existing wind turbine with a larger turbine. It was noted that the application had been brought to committee because of the finely balanced recommendation to approve.

 

It was explained that there was no site‑specific planning policy allocating the land, but the proposal would replace an existing turbine and generate sufficient renewable energy to supply the equivalent of up to 1,288 households. It was acknowledged that the increased height of the turbine would result in visual impacts, but officers considered that these impacts had been carefully assessed and that, on balance, the benefits of the application outweighed the harms identified.

 

The site context was shown on a map of the surrounding area. The existing turbine benefitted from a 25‑year planning permission. The proposed replacement turbine would be located approximately 250 metres to the south of the existing turbine and would sit around 15 metres lower in ground level. Permission was sought for a 30‑year operational period. Although the proposed turbine would be almost twice the height of the existing structure, it was described as being of relatively modest size in modern terms, given that turbines of 150–200 metres in height were now common. The blades would rotate more slowly than those of the existing turbine, which was considered to help mitigate visual effects.

 

The Development Management Team Leader referred to Renewable Energy Policy E3 and advised that the technology was considered suitable for the location. The surrounding land was currently used for motorcycle training and competitive events. The site lay approximately 4.4 kilometres from the National Landscape to the north and around 9.5 kilometres to the south. At these distances, the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment concluded that the turbine would give rise to moderate adverse impact, and members were reminded that great weight must be given to any harm to the National Landscape.

 

A series of photographs from the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) were shown from various viewpoints, illustrating how the existing and proposed turbines would appear. It was clarified that the accuracy of the representations as presented to the committee via projector was limited and Members had been encouraged to familiarise themselves with the LVIA. Views demonstrated that major and moderate adverse impacts would be limited to the immediate setting of the turbine. Specific viewpoints were shown, including from Wetherby Castle, Milborne St Andrew, Woodbury Hill, Winterborne Whitechurch, East Luscombe, Fishmore Hill, Rosehill Farm and Greenhill Nature Reserve. It was noted that under clearer sky conditions the turbine would appear more prominent. Remaining viewpoints in the LVIA within the National Landscape were further away, where impacts were assessed as negligible or low.

 

Members were advised that in order to accord with National Landscape policy compensation was. The proposal included a landscape enhancement scheme to help offset the moderate harm to the National Landscape. This would be secured through a contribution linked to gross revenue, as the level of harm would be linked to operation of the turbine subject to minimum and maximum values, would be allocated to landscape enhancement projects by the Council, informed by a panel for the purposes of strengthening the surrounding landscape character, improving rights of way or enhancing local facilities.

 

Temporary access would be constructed to facilitate the development and would be restored once the development ceased. Subject to appropriate conditions, no harm to highway safety was anticipated.

 

Residential amenity impacts were addressed. Rogers Hill Cottages were identified as the closest dwellings, located approximately 1 kilometre from the turbine. Shadow flicker could potentially occur within 900 metres, but it was explained that a condition would imposed; if shadow flicker were to arise, the turbine could be shut down at certain times of day to prevent harm. Photographs of and from nearby dwellings were shown, indicating that while the blades might be visible from some houses, the impacts would be limited by topography and screening.

 

Noise impacts were also considered. The predicted noise levels would remain below 35 decibels, comparable to the sound of rustling leaves. Properties to the south had initially been excluded from the noise assessment, but further information had since been submitted demonstrating that noise levels at those properties would also remain within acceptable limits.

 

Heritage impacts were then addressed. It was explained that there was a wealth of heritage assets in the wider area. Historic England had raised concerns about the impact on the Grade II* registered park and garden at Milton Abbas. The applicant had provided additional visual material showing that the visual impact would be modest and that the Grade I listed house would remain the dominant focal point within views across the park. Historic England nevertheless considered the turbine would be visually conspicuous. The proposal was assessed as causing less than substantial harm to these heritage assets, to which great weight must be given. Concerns were also raised in relation to Wetherby Castle and Woodbury Hill Fort Scheduled Monuments, and less than substantial harm was identified to the Milton Abbas and Bere Regis Conservation Areas. It was advised that, taking these matters together, the development could not be viewed as causing no harm to the significance or setting of heritage assets.

 

Members were informed that the turbine would be removed within 12 months of decommissioning or cessation of operation. It was confirmed that the development could be safely accessed. From a biodiversity perspective, the site, being an established motorcycle track with an existing turbine, was assessed as being of limited ecological value. Additional mitigation was proposed through a condition requiring an active bat curtailment system to protect bat populations.

 

The economic benefits were outlined, which included the provision of the equivalent of approximately one full‑time job supported through the development. In setting out the planning balance, it was explained that significant weight was attributed to the identified heritage harm, but also that substantial weight was given to the renewable energy benefits.

 

The headings of the 21 recommended conditions set out in the report were shown to members, with updates including an amended condition relating to the temporary permission in the event of cessation of electricity production, and additional conditions relating to road surfacing and turbine height.

 

Sylvia Messent, Richard Messent and Catherine Langham (on behalf of the Dorset CPRE) spoke in opposition to the application. They raised concerns including: the impact on nearby residents from the new larger turbine due to the low frequency noise with impacts on health; the negative impact on the habitats for birds, bats and other mammals; the significant impact that the new turbine would have on the landscape and on the setting of heritage assets, in comparison to the existing smaller turbine, due to increased visibility; the ineffectiveness of the proposed compensation; and the impacts on tourism. A concern was also raised about aviation safety and the change in comments from Bournemouth Airport. 

 

John Zamick spoke as the applicant for the application. He highlighted that the application would contribute significant renewable energy production and generate 6 times the amount of energy when compared to the existing turbine. In addition, the turbine would be located at a lower elevation and the speed of the turbine would be less than the existing turbine, thereby lowering its impact.

 

In response to the public speakers, the Development Management Team Leader clarified that following a meeting between the applicant and Bournemouth Airport the objection had been withdrawn.

 

In response to technical questions from members officers provided the following answers:

·       An objection had been raised by the Dorset Council Conservation Officer as the development would cause less than substantial harm to significant heritage assets and there was no heritage benefit of the proposal.

·       It was considered that flicker effects from the proposed turbine could be mitigated.

·       Government guidance stated that audible sound from the turbine should not exceed 35db and the noise assessment confirmed that none of the nearby properties would experience sound above that level.

·       No precedent would be set for approving turbines at future applications, as each application was considered on its own merits.

 

Having had the opportunity to debate the merits of the application, several members expressed support for the proposal, considering the turbine to provide significant benefits from renewable energy production outweighing any additional harm caused to the landscape over the existing turbine. While, one member raised concerns about the visual impact of proposed turbine, considering the larger turbine to be too imposing on views.

 

It was proposed by Cllr Sowry-House and seconded by Cllr Ezzard, that the application be granted.

 

Decision: That authority be delegated to the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management & Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manager Eastern Area to:

 

A)   grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the appendix to these minutes and the completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation under Section106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (S106 agreement) to secure a contribution of up to £120k to National Landscape enhancement.

 

Or

 

B)   Refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the appendix to these minutes if the S106 agreement is not completed by 23 October 2026 or such extended time as agreed by the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manage Eastern Area.