'Harmful' wind turbine plans blown down

A ‘strong’ objection from the Peak District National Park has in part foiled a farmer from putting up a wind turbine – despite it being outside the Park's boundary.

The proposed site of the turbine on Cote Bank Farm in Chinley is 270m from the park’s edge, and despite planners from High Peak Council (HPBC) saying its blades would be ‘modest’ in height, they bowed to pressure from the National Park authority. 

John Keeley, Planning Manager for the northern portion of the Peak District National Park (PDNP), said in his objection letter that the LVA (Landscape and Visual Appraisal) didn't take the Park into account and was too focused on the views of car drivers rather than those using footpaths. 

“To conclude, the Authority objects strongly to this proposal on the basis that proposed turbine would have a significant adverse impact upon the setting of the National Park landscape and its special qualities,” said Mr Keeley.  

“In the absence of any ecological information it may also have an adverse impact on bird populations in the vicinity and the National Park.” 

The turbine would have provided enough electricity to power the farm and sell a small amount back to the National Grid. 

Indeed, planners from High Peak Council agreed that this would make a small contribution towards the borough’s net zero target. 

The HPBC also argued that it is ‘not uncommon’ for turbines to be in isolated locations, with planning officer James Stannard saying in his report: “Wind turbines are now a common and widely accepted feature of the rural landscape and therefore given the modest scale of this turbine comparable to others in the market, it is not considered that the presence of the wind turbine in the open countryside in its own right gives rise to any harm to the immediate rural landscape character.” 

However, HPBC’s planning policies mean that anything that could impinge on views into - or out of - the PDNP must be taken into consideration. 

Despite conceding that wind turbines would normally be in remote areas, the council added that the proposal would present ‘substantial harm’ to the local Green Belt and would need to meet ‘Very Special Circumstances’ for planners to give the go-ahead. 

Mr Stannard continued: “For a small turbine as this, the public benefits are somewhat limited, with the main benefit being to the applicant’s (private) business.  

“Whilst the sustainability of a rural business is also a benefit, it is the case that as a matter of planning judgement, Officers consider that these benefits attract only moderate weight in the overall planning balance.  

“This report has identified that the proposed development would amount to a degree of harm to the openness of the Green Belt in addition to being harmful by reason of inappropriateness.  

“Substantial weight must be given to such harm.”