Content © Stopwoodlanewindfarm 2008 - 2013
Selby planners make the right call - Refuse Lumby turbine on Green belt issues and Riccall turbine refused on residential amenity.
£237,000 / year subsidy per turbine
The proposed turbines at Lumby, Riccall, Wistow Lordship and three other proposals at Balne, Cliffe and Womersley are all 500 KW machines. They vary in height up to 87 metres ( 285 feet).
The owner is paid for all electricity generated, even if he uses it all himself - plus extra for any fed into the grid.
A 500 KW turbine will expect a subsidy of about £237K per year, plus inflation increases.
Riccall turbine -
Design and access statement - Click here
Design and access statement Click here
Letter from Cunnane, on behalf of the residents. Click here.
Riccall and Lumby turbine
Report to planning committee Click here
7 May 2014
Lumby turbine - Refused by Selby Planning committee - High Court decision confirms that Selby decision was the right one.
Application 2013/0722/FUL - 500 KW - A single turbine 87 metres/ 285 feet “high” in a prominent position in Green Belt. The turbine was refused on grounds that special circumstances did not exist which would justify the erection of the turbine.
The day after the Selby decision the results of a High Court case where they approval of a similar turbine in Green Belt was announced. The decision was taken to revoke planning permission, even though the turbine had already been erected. This case placed great weight on the Green Belt and described the generation of renewable energy as a generic consideration but not a very special circumstance. Read the judgement here. Read the corresponding press release here. Read the report from Planning Resource
The Lumby turbine was refused by Selby because - very special circumstances did not exist for erecting such a “high” turbine in a prominent elevated position on the magnesian limestone ridge to the West of Selby. Proximity to the A1M would accentuate the intrusion into the landscape by making the turbine visible to people passing through the area and to those travelling into Selby District from the A1 via the A63.
The officer presented the application and showed a series of photomontages, many of which were taken with foreground in the images filled with trees or building which blocked the views to the turbines. It was not surprising that the turbine was not visible in many of the views presented.
In the discussion :-
Cllr Ian Reynolds asked how many properties were located at Pollums farm.
Cllr Steve Shaw Wright sought clarification about the way the turbine was described as “high”.
Cllr Dave Peart noted that the turbine would have to be fitted with a flashing red light.
The main focus of discussion was to the Green Belt, which is intended to prevent the spread of industrial development. If development is to be undertaken in Green Belt it has to be demonstrated that there are special circumstances, and these must outweigh the harm. In this case the harm caused by a 285 foot high structure is substantial and this was acknowledged in the planning officers report to the previous meeting. Cllr Ian Reynolds pointed out that the wording about the weight to be given to the degree of harm had been softened between the meetings.
Speakers against the turbine were Doug Fletcher, Bill Hobman and Cllr John Mackman. The applicant had his agent speak in favour of the application.
Five reasons for refusal were put forward
1. The harm to the Green belt was not outweighed by the benefit of the renewable energy and exceptional circumstances had not been demonstrated.
2. The loss of openness to the Green belt in the vicinity of the turbine.
3. The loss of residential amenity for those living within 500 metres of the turbine, it being noted that the farmer lives over twice as far away from the turbine. Some homes being within 450 metres.
4. The visual impact and the harm to a locally valued landscape.
5. The harm to designated heritage assets.
The application was refused. Precise wording will follow when minutes are available.
Riccall turbine refused after grounds for refusal were put to a vote
Application ref 2013/0610/FUL - 500KW - 77 metres high - the nearest properties are new holiday homes at 512 metres.
This turbine was considered at the April planning meeting and while the committee was minded to refuse the turbine the precise wording of the refusal was not defined and it was decided to defer the decision until the May meeting when a separate vote would be taken on the detailed grounds for refusal which were to be drawn up after legal consideration.
Ian Reynolds opened the discussion by reviewing the draft reasons for refusal and focused on the detrimental impact that the wind turbine would have on the residential amenity and enjoyment of people who stay at the holiday cottages located at South Newlands. The impact was considered so severe that it would make them unattractive places to live and certainly not somewhere that you would choose to go on holiday.
In reviewing the impact it was decided that the adverse impact on residential amenity was not outweighed by the benefit of the renewable energy that the turbine would produce.
There was discussion of the noise impact and the visibility of the turbine from the business park but it was concluded that the noise would be within the limits set by ETSU R 97 and that the screening around the business park would reduce the visual impact.
The two reasons for refusal were put to a vote and only one person voted against the recommended reasons for refusal. The turbine was accordingly refused planning permission.
Comment from Nigel Adams MP on the decisions.
I am very pleased that Selby District Council took well informed and carefully considered decisions in refusing these two wind turbines.
With respect to the Lumby turbine the recent High Court decision to revoke the planning permission for a wind turbine approved in Green belt shows convincing evidence that Selby has made the right decision.
The refusal of the Riccall turbine was the right decision because it respected local opinion and supports the diversification of the nearby farm into the leisure and tourist industry. Selby District needs to create wealth by maximising our generation of renewable energy in such a way that we do not jeopardise other businesses. We should focus on the opportunity to generate 2000MW of renewable energy from biomass at Eggborough power station.
Local view of the Court of Appeal decision. Click here.
Lord Justice Maurice Kay, sitting with Lord Justice Patten and Sir Stanley Burnton, found that the grant of planning permission was "legally flawed", and made on the basis of advice from a planning officer that was "simply wrong".