No windfarm at Louth Canal, Lincs, after dismissal due to ‘harm’ to character

LIncolnshireLive071117The Application and appeal to build windfarm beside Louth Canal was dismissed by the Secretary of State Sajid Javid because of the ‘harm’ it would do to the character of the area.

Lincolnshire live writes:

A fresh bid to build windfarm beside Louth Canal has been dismissed by the Secretary of State. Energiekontor UK originally applied to East Lindsey District Council for planning permission to place the seven turbines beside the canal in January 2016. But the plan was refused by East Lindsey District Council and an appeal to overturn the decision was made to the Secretary of State. That appeal has now been dismissed.

East Lindsey District Council announced the news on it’s facebook page.
It said:  ’The appeal was dismissed because the harm to the character and appearance of the landscape, the adverse visual impacts, the harm to the nationally listed Thoresby Warehouse and the harm to other heritage assets significantly and demonstrably outweighed the public benefits of providing renewable energy on this site.’

Read more….

Wind-watch reports:

The secretary of state agreed with his inspector that the main issues related to the impact of the seven, 115-metre-high turbines in open farmland on the visual appearance and character of the area and on the setting of the many heritage assets nearby. The nearest settlements were between one and two and a half kilometres away.

The secretary of state agreed with his inspector that the local plan was silent on the issue of renewable energy and therefore paragraph 14 of the NPPF was engaged in this aspect. He also agreed that the cumulative harms to the setting of the heritage assets, including many listed buildings and deserted villages nearby, did not outweigh the public benefits of the scheme to energy generation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This meant that the second limb of paragraph 14 relating to specific policies was not engaged.

However, the secretary of state did agree that the cumulative harms relating to impact on the character of the landscape and visual impact of the seven turbines from short and distant views were significant and when coupled with the less than substantial cumulative harms to the heritage assets, resulted in an overall conclusion of adverse harms outweighing the benefits in relation to the first limb of paragraph 14.

Read more….

This entry was posted in Sector NewsBlog. Bookmark the permalink.