Comments  

Submission Type:Customer objects to the Planning Application.

Comments:

Based on studying the elements of this application and others of its type and having received representations from other elected members and members of parish councils and residents of Pontefract, East Hardwick, Darrington, Carleton, Wentbridge, Ackworth, Badsworth, Knottingley, Ferrybridge and Selby District, I wish to formally object to this application and ask that you put the following points forward to the planning committee for their consideration:

1. That application concerned is an inappropriate development in line with PPG2 Para 3.2 and 3.12 and as such this proposed development will be by definition a development on green belt that is harmful to the green belt, it further conflicts with local planning guidelines.

2. Visual Amenity: In PPG2 Para 3.15 it is stated that the visual amenities of the green belt should not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which might be visually detrimental by reason of their siteing, materials or design. At 125 metres in height it will not be possible to mask these six industrial wind generators from view and they will be visible from a distance and from several local locations including the West Park Residences and are therefore impermissible.

3. Archaeological impact.

I am advised by the past Chairman of the Council for British Archaeology (Yorkshire) that "the land has a number of archaeological sites beneath it, probably of Iron Age and Romano British Date. Building works of any kind will destroy these."  This proposed application is likely to result in unacceptable damage to the Archaeological environment.

PPG 16 Section A 3. States Archaeological remains are irreplaceable. Further in section A 8. The guidance calls for planning authorities where nationally important remains whether scheduled or not, and their settings are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation.

The plateau has a significant number of finds and there are additional features still to be explored, some within 50 metres of this proposed application site and it should be remembered that further along the contour line of this edge of the hills as part of the A1M improvements an  iron age chariot was discovered. As such on the grounds of preserving the important archaeology of the area this application should be rejected.

4.The villages of Wentbridge and Darrington and the smaller community of West Park already live with significant background noise caused by the flow of traffic on the A1/A1M which runs alongside the proposed location these generators will add further  low frequency sound to the noise spectrum adding wind related low frequency and strobe effects which will have a particular impact on residents sleep patterns as other noises drop away through the night.

The group that provided the current DTI guidance on noise nuisance in 1997 have confirmed that the original guidance was based on typically smaller industrial wind generators than those selected for this proposal and the council therefore has a duty of care to confirm that the health and well-being of residents will not be damaged by this installation. If that cannot be done then this application should be deferred or rejected until such time as that may be possible.

5.The location adjacent to the A1 would also offer significant road safety risk particularly by the distraction of motorists through a section of the A1 with several exits and access points where driver concentration is critical. This linked to Bank's own comment about strobing effect and shadow flicker will create a significant danger especially on bright sunny days or at sunset and dusk.

6. In the UDP Volume 1 OL20 the WMDC policy on renewable energy states that "Proposals for the development of renewable energy sources will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that effects on:

i) The Local Community

ii) The Landscape of the area

iii) The Ecology of the area

iv) Existing and proposed land uses in the locality

Are Acceptable

It is clear from the amount of concern raised in local communities across the district and the number of individual objections raised by local residents that this application does not meet point i) of OL20

The application if approved will contravene national legislation listed 1 & 2 above and as such the loss of amenity and damage to the views across the green belt mean that the application does not meet point ii) of OL20.

The review of the ecology of the area does not have sufficient time spread to take account of the seasons and the ecology of the area and therefore point iii) of OL20 cannot be tested, as such the application should be deferred or rejected subject to a more detailed and extensive ecological review.

Finally on OL20 the application adversely effects existing and proposed land uses in the area in its impact on existing public footpaths and other rights of way, walks and the rides on Went Edge from the Equestrian Centre at Westfields' West Field Lane, Darrington, WF8 3AQ, the proposed future alteration to the path of the A1M by the Highways Agency and the Eco-Towns proposal of Darringfield and therefore does not meet the test of point iv) of OL20.

Note OL20 remains listed in the Secretary of States direction of September 2007 is valid and should be given sufficient weight to reject when considering this application.

7. PPS 22 Principle 1.iv States that the wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects whatever their scale are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission.

Even taking account of that principle, there is insufficient environmental and economic benefit or national benefit provided by this particular application to set aside OL20 and that whilst taking account of PPS22 this application does not meet the vigorous tests mentioned in that document and should be rejected accordingly.

These are my initial points of objection and should give sufficient grounds for rejection, please note however that I propose to put additional specific points forward for the consideration of the planning committee.

Geoff Walsh

District Councillor - Pontefract South Ward 13

Deputy Leader - Conservative Group WMDC

If you have not already registered your concerns about this proposal with WMDC planning department or our MP, please do so as soon as you can.