Appeal 6003248

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of one 5kW wind turbine on 12m mast, including concrete foundations and underground cable between tower and house at [site address] , Woodland, [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01922/FPA, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: Site Location Plan; [site address] 5kW Wind Turbine Site Layout 6 [name]; 12M [name] 0140-AD-00626; Root Rebar Schedule EVNH_5KW_F_401_V2 [name]; and [name] arrangement EVNH_5KW_F_001_V2 [name].

Prior to the installation of the wind turbine, details of its colour finish shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter the wind turbine shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

Within six months of the cessation of the use of the wind turbine hereby permitted, it shall be removed from the site and the site returned to a grassed meadow (or other such landscaping that shall have previously been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority).

The rating level of noise emissions from the operation of the wind turbine (including the application of any tonal penalty) shall not exceed LA90, 10minutes of 35dB(A) at the location of noise sensitive receptors. Where a justified complaint is received and substantiated by the local planning authority from the installed turbine, the operator shall be responsible for carrying out a comprehensive noise assessment to establish compliance with agreed noise limit and/or implement operational wind modes to mitigate intrusive noise within one month of the local planning authority notifying the operator of the complaint.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed turbine on the character and appearance of the Area of [name].

The proposed turbine would be located in a grass field to the rear of the host property and the various outbuildings associated with it. It would be a small scale domestic turbine mounted on a freestanding column 12m in height and having a rotor diameter of 5.5m. The fields to the rear of the house slopes gently upwards from the road, with the field the turbine would be in representing the brow of the hill and being approximately at the first floor level of the roadside houses.

The field itself is largely flat, is surrounded by stone walls and contains a small rectangular brick building. A considerable number of young trees have been planted along the northern boundary, in the south eastern corner of the field and on the western boundary of the field immediately adjacent to the roadside houses. A public right of way runs north-south just beyond the western boundary wall of the field and numerous others are found within the wider area.

The site is located within an Area of [name] (AHLV) as designated in the County Durham Plan (adopted 2020) (CDP). Policy 39 of the CDP states that development in such areas will only be permitted where it conserves, and where appropriate enhances, the special qualities of the landscape unless the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the harm. In addition, Policy 10 of the CDP which relates to developments in the countryside, and criterion e) of Policy 34, which deals specifically with wind turbine developments, both require that developments should not unacceptably harm the countryside/landscape. The National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) also seeks to ensure developments recognise the intrinsic beauty and character of the countryside.

The site is within an area the CDP identifies as being suitable for micro and small wind turbines. Although the Council indicates that these are extensive areas with site specific factors needing to be assessed for each case.

The appeal site lies within the West Durham Coalfield County Character Area. Within this character area it is in the “Coalfield Upland Fringe Area”, and more specifically the “Gaunless and [name]”. Key characteristics of this area as identified in the County Durham Landscape Character Assessment (2008) include: regular grids of parliamentary enclosures bounded by dry stone walls or overgrown hawthorn hedges; isolated farms connected by straight enclosure roads; scattered mining villages and occasional larger towns; few trees – scattered hedgerow oak, ash rowan or birch; sparsely wooded – scattered conifer plantations and shelterbelts; pastoral land use with some arable cropping on drier ridges; telecommunication masts and wind turbines prominent on some ridges; extensive areas of restored opencast land – often open and featureless; and a visually open landscape with commanding views across adjacent valleys to distant ridges.

The strategy for the [name] as set out in the County Durham Landscape Strategy (2008) is to enhance the landscape where it has been degraded by mining or development, while conserving what is most distinctive and valued about its character, including its rural identity, its upland fringe qualities and its strong cultural associations with the coal and steel industries. One of the objectives of the strategy is to ensure that the scale and form of wind energy development is compatible with the character of the local landscape.

The area in which the appeal site is located is representative of the character area. The mainly pastoral landscape has regular fields bound by low stone walls. Other than Hamsterley Forest in the valley to the north there are few trees and a scattering of small woodlands. This gives rise to an open landscape with limited features. Beyond the confines of Woodland – a linear village following the road that runs through it, are scattered farmsteads, and there are wide panoramic views in all directions.

The main vertical features in the landscape are the wooden utility poles, street lights and a limited number of trees. There are two other domestic wind turbines of similar design and scale to the proposal that are also located to the north of the settlement, one a short distance to the east and the other a similar distance to the west of the site. In addition, to the north and east of the site a significant number of commercial scale wind turbines can be seen on the horizon.

The turbine would have a small footprint and would be a slim lightweight structure with a limited height so would not significantly detract from the open character of the landscape. It would, nonetheless, introduce a vertical man-made feature into a landscape where these are limited, causing some localised harm to the landscape character. Whilst in certain views, it would be possible to see the proposed turbine in conjunction with one or other of the other two nearby, the intervisibility is limited and so there would not be any cumulative harm to the landscape arising from the proposal.

Close to the site the proposal would be readily apparent when utilising the footpath immediately to the west. When walking in either direction the turbine would break the skyline. In some of these views it would be seen against the backdrop of buildings and/or small groups of trees in the distance, albeit the turbine would be seen as taller than these features, but in others it would be a standalone feature.

When travelling in an easterly direction along the B6282, the top of the turbine would be visible in the distance breaking the skyline, for a short stretch of the road just after the cemetery. When travelling in the other direction, it would not be a noticeable feature. Some views of it would also be possible from the rear elevations of the small number of houses to the south. However, the distance to these houses means it would not be an overly dominant or overbearing feature in these views.

From other footpaths and roads, views of the proposed turbine would come and go depending on the intervening landform, vegetation and buildings. Often no more than the top of the turbine would be seen, and its limited scale and mass would result in it being an unobtrusive feature in the landscape. In long range views, the small scale of the proposed turbine means that, where it would be possible to see it, it would form a very small part of the wide panorama.

As such, I consider the visual effect on receptors would be slight adverse, rising to moderate adverse on the footpath immediately adjacent to the west of the appeal site.

Bringing these points together, the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the AHLV but for the reasons set out above, the degree of harm would mostly be slight and at worst, in a limited area, would be moderate. The harmful impact would also be reversible. Given this, I consider the degree of harm would not be sufficient to mean the proposal would conflict with [name] 10 or 34e), but it would result in it not conserving the special qualities of the landscape so in line with Policy 39 of the CDP it is necessary to consider whether the benefits outweigh the harm. I address this later in my decision.

Policy 34 of the CDP indicates that wind turbine development will only be permitted in areas identified as suitable for development on the policies map and where, following consultation planning related impacts identified by the affected community have been addressed and the proposal has their backing. In those circumstances the policy then sets out criteria the proposal should meet.

Whilst as already noted the site is within an area the CDP identifies as being suitable for micro and small wind turbines, the Framework no longer requires wind turbines to be in areas identified in the local plan or to have the backing of their local community. As such, in this respect, the CDP policy is not consistent with the more recent national policy, which limits the weight I give to any conflict with these matters. However, the criteria for determining proposals are still relevant.

Criteria a) – c) deal with the potential impact on living conditions of local residents. As highlighted above, whilst the proposal would be visible from the rear elevations of a small number of houses, the distance maintained to these properties means the proposal would not lead to any loss of light or adverse visual impact. In addition, from the evidence before me, I agree with the Council’s conclusion that the development would not have an adverse impact with regard to noise, either individually or cumulatively. Nor, given the small scale of the turbine and short construction period, would the proposal result in any impact on local residents with regard to traffic generation. The siting of the turbine is such that it would not result in shadow flicker for sensitive receptors. As a result, I am satisfied the proposal would not harm the living conditions of nearby residents.

There is no evidence to show that the existing similar turbines in the area have had any adverse impact on wildlife and so I consider this proposal would not be any different. Furthermore, the Council have not identified the proposal would have any impact on protected habitats or species. Nor have I been informed that there are any heritage assets in the vicinity. Given the height of the turbine, it is not anticipated that it would have any impact on radar, aviation, navigation or telecommunication systems or on TV reception.

In the light of this, and my conclusion in terms of landscape harm, I consider the proposal would not conflict with the criteria in CDP Policy 34.

Although it has been argued that the scheme would result in a loss of property prices the Planning Practice Guidance states that “[the courts] have taken the view that planning is concerned with land use in the public interest, so that the protection of purely private interests such as the impact of a development on the value of a neighbouring property or loss of private rights to light could not be material considerations1.”

It is estimated that the proposal would create enough electricity to run the ground source heat pump at the host property that was formally reliant on coal as well as meeting the rest of the electrical needs of the occupiers. It would therefore be beneficial in reducing carbon dioxide emissions over its expected 20 year life span. The Framework is clear that even small scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and that significant weight should be given to the benefits associated with renewable and low carbon energy generation.

I have concluded that the proposal would not conserve the special qualities of the landscape and so conflicts with CDP Policy 39, unless the benefits clearly outweigh the harm. As the harm to the special qualities of the landscape would be limited and localised, I give it limited weight.

The Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and renewable energy development is central to achieving a sustainable low carbon future. Although small scale, the appeal scheme would still make a valuable contribution to this. In accordance with the Framework, I give the benefits arising from the generation of renewable energy significant weight.

Consequently, I consider the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the harm it would cause and so it would not conflict with Policy 39 of the CDP.

As the proposal attracted a small number of letters of objection from local residents the proposal does not have the backing of the local community, contrary to Policy 34 of the CDP. However, I give this conflict minimal weight, as this requirement is not consistent with the Framework, and as set out above, I consider that the planning related impacts identified in the letters of objection have been addressed. In this case I consider the benefits of the proposal are a material consideration of sufficient weight to outweigh the harm arising from the conflict with this policy. Consequently, in this instance, this justifies allowing the appeal other than in accordance with the development plan.

For this reason, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.

In addition to the standard implementation condition, to provide certainty it is necessary to define the plans with which the scheme should accord. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, and to accord with [name] 10, 34 and 39 conditions 3 and 4 are necessary. Condition 5 is required to protect the living conditions of nearby occupiers. To ensure the effectiveness of condition 5 I have added an implementation timeframe clause.