Much of the area was used for grazing but it also featured large areas of arable cultivation on plateaus and valley bottoms, incised valleys and country lanes linking local villages. As the area had no significant communications or other infrastructure, the inspector agreed that he turbine would stand out as an alien and obtrusive feature, changing the rural character to one dominated by the man-made structure.
He found it easy to see why objectors described the landscape as ‘quintessentially’ English countryside, ruling that the appeal proposal would undermine the amenity of walkers using public rights of way in the area. He also found information on the health and wellbeing of a local child persuasive. The child had difficulties with spinning objects, and the turbine could be viewed from its home.
Fitting obscure glazing in the child’s bedroom was not an acceptable solution because it could still see when out walking, he decided. In his view, the turbine would curtail the child’s ability to use a normal route to and from home and the availability of other routes would not undermine the significant health threat. The benefits of farm diversification and reducing the impact of climate change did not outweigh these drawbacks, he concluded.
Inspector: Philip Major; Written representations