An objection by Bill Cash, MP
I object to the planning application [09/12437/FUL] for the erection of a 60m high wind monitoring mast for a temporary period of two years, on land at Aston Hall Farm, Aston-By-Stone. I support the proposals of the StopSTW campaign group and all local residents opposing this application and want to bring to your attention the objections raised by my constituents:
Unsuitable location: Aston Hall Farm is a 300-acre mixed farm estate in the River Trent Valley containing ancient and diverse hedgerows, with floodplain marsh, rivers and streams. Aston Hall Farm is made up of a mix of Grade 2 / Grade 3a / Grade 3b / Grade 3c / Grade 4 Agricultural Land, with the majority of the land mass being taken up by Grades 2 and 3a.
Public access: Aston Hall Farm has a registered public footpath running through its centre, known as the ‘Aston to Burston Trail’, which does indeed connect the Village of Aston By Stone with the Village of Burston. This footpath is widely used and enjoyed by both locals and visitors alike. In addition to this, the entire Farm holding, being very open and exposed, is widely visible from all its surrounding boundaries. Therefore, the degree of public accessibility to this area is tremendously high, and equally, any proposal upon this land area would be extremely prominent indeed.
Monstrous obstacle on skyline: The valley is overall fairly level to the naked eye in its topography, and very much exposed; aside form sporadic groupings of trees and tree and hedgerow field boundaries. The overall character of this local landscape is very much one of the open plain of the River Trent Valley surrounded on either side by the higher ground of both Butterhill to one side, and Pirehill to the other, with the Historic Villages of Burston and Aston By Stone at either end.
Landscape and listed buildings: Both the Landscape Character and its Historic Features are further enhanced by the presence of the River Trent, the Trent and Mersey Canal, with the Trent and Mersey Canal / Burston Villa Farm being a Conservation Area, and no less than 41 listed buildings. These listed buildings form part of the wider historic environment of this locality. They are an irreplaceable record of the past and cultural heritage of this area. Their presence adds to the overall quality of life by enhancing this familiar and cherished local scene, and sustaining the sense of local distinctiveness, which is a very important aspect of the character and appearance of this countryside location.
Wildlife and biodiversity: In 1999, Severn Trent launched their own Biodiversity Action Plan, and they chose Aston Hall Farm as the ‘Model’ site to undertake a scheme of Biodiversity Enhancement. Between 2001 and 2004, restoration works were undertaken including, restoring UK priority habitats such as River Margins by re-profiling of meanders, creating shallow pools and re-wetting of some 43 acres of grassland to form floodplain grazing marsh, and maximising the wildlife value of the arable farmland. As well as an increase in priority habitats, many UK priority species have increased, namely wetland and farmland birds. The area has a great deal of Bat activity and habitat for other Protected Species of mammal /Protected Species such as Otter, Watervole, Barn Owl and Great Crested Newts to name but a few examples. A substantial part of Aston Hall Farm is now already recognised within the Staffordshire Biodiversity Action Plan, with this area being deemed an area of Local Nature Conservation Importance. Whilst it does not have a formal designation at this moment in time, and subsequent recognition, it is currently in the process of being designated a Site of Local Importance by virtue of a Site of Biological Importance. Staffordshire Wildlife Trust have stated that this area is easily of SBI quality, and whilst not having its formal designation just yet, should be, none the less, treated as such until it has received the same in the near future.
Refused Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of concern: It was argued that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would be required to accompany this application. This view was substantiated with both Planning Policies and Guidances, and supporting correspondences from both the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust and Staffordshire County Council Environment and Countryside Department. This view was rejected by the Planning Department, and an EIA not requested.
Consultation: In making this decision on the EIA, it is reported that none of the following parties appear to have been consulted: Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, Stafford Borough Biodiversity Officer, Stafford Borough Senior Conservation Officer, or Staffordshire County Council Environment and Countryside Department. Should they have been consulted? Furthermore, Stafford Borough Council’s own Local Plan Policy E&D6 requires sufficient information to be provided to enable an ‘accurate’ judgement to be made on this matter. This view has been further reinforced by Staffordshire Wildlife Trust within their Consultee Response to you in respect of this application.
Is this a renewable energy application? The Applicants, within their accompanying Planning Statement seek to use Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22), the Government’s Planning Policy document on ‘Renewable Energy’, and its Companion Guide, the Government’s supporting document on ‘Planning for Renewable Energy’ as a basis to substantiate the granting of Planning Permission for this proposal. This is incorrect. PPS 22 and its Companion Guide concern themselves solely with Renewable Energy and Renewable Energy projects. This Planning Application is not for a Renewable Energy project. It is for a Commercial Development to enable and inform a decision on the potential for, and suitability and viability of a potential future Renewable Energy project, which is devoid from the above, and a development proposal in its own right. Whilst there is a relationship between the two, this is not, in itself, a Renewable Energy project application. Should a planning application come forward in the future for a Renewable Energy project, then such Planning Policy documents would be relevant, but not at this time. Therefore, this text should be disregarded in respect of this planning application.
Each planning decision is individual to that particular ‘site’: Furthermore, the applicants include four number Planning Appeal decisions as a basis to substantiate the granting of Planning Permission for this proposal. Whilst it is accepted that there will similarities to some degree, both the Officers and Members of the Planning Committee are fully aware, each Planning Decision is individual to that particular ‘site’, and does, in no way, set a president for development on other sites, with each site having its own set of individual circumstances, and assessed on its own merits accordingly. These Planning Appeal examples should have little weight.
No relevant Policies and Guidances: It is obvious that the Applicants have paid no regard or shown no understanding of either the relevant Policies and Guidances and the overall nature of this location specifically.
‘Incongruous’ and alien development: This structure would certainly constitute ‘Incongruous’ development in the countryside. It is an Industrial Structure, one that would offer no harmony, relationship or positive contribution to the area of its proposed siting. It would be completely alien to its surroundings and therefore, would be both inappropriate and out of place. This proposal is, in the context of its proposed surroundings, ill designed and of poor quality. It is not informed by, nor does it respect the character and local distinctiveness of its surrounds and forms no relationship with the same, nor would it ever, given that it is what it is. It will never achieve any level of harmony with its surroundings, and is therefore, by virtue of its very nature, incongruous.
Priority and Protected Species: Staffordshire Wildlife Trust have confirmed that records exist within the SER (Staffordshire Ecological Record) showing the existence of both Priority and Protected Species within the vicinity of the application site, and they have further stated that the presence of such a tall structure within this open habitat could have an adverse affect. This literally open countryside location is very sensitive to any kind of change, let alone one of an industrial development that would be very prominent in this location, and very much out of keeping with its surroundings.
Not appropriate: This proposal cannot, under any stretch of the imagination, be deemed as ‘appropriate’ for this locality. This is an exposed Open Countryside location, with no buildings or other structures within it. It would stand in isolation and offer no inter-relationship of any kind with its surrounds, being a prominent imposition of a negative nature. This proposal would undoubtedly detrimentally affect the Landscape, Nature Conservation and Historic features of this locality.
No attempt to safeguard the ‘best’ agricultural land: This proposal does not make any attempt to safeguard the ‘best’ agricultural land, being proposed upon Grade 2 Agricultural Land (in accordance with the Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales).
Pollution: It serves to increase the environmental pollution of the open countryside with an incongruous industrial development, being of a type and scale, which is not in any way in keeping with its surroundings. Under no circumstances could this proposal be deemed as maintaining nor improving the character of the countryside. This proposal in no way looks to neither conserve nor improve the quality of life of the local populous, nor their local environment. Its imposition and resultant impact would achieve the opposite effect. It is quite simply, the wrong development in the wrong place, inappropriate in all its forms.
Visual incursion: This proposal represents the very essence of ‘visual incursion’. This is an exposed, open area and this proposal would be prominent to the extreme within this context. It would also be ‘sporadic’ in that it will be isolated, out of context and unrelated in every way to its surrounds. Such a proposal could not be deemed as appropriate, nor ‘exceptional’ in any regard and would certainly not be consistent with or support the aims of rural regeneration.
Wind Energy is unsustainable without massive subsidy – but the subsidy goes to the land-owner and developer. The community does not gain from the development. Currently, an operator for a single 2 MW wind turbine operating at a 30 percent load factor will receive an annual subsidy of £235,000.
The Government took powers through the Utilities Act 2000 to impose an obligation on licensed suppliers in Great Britain to source specified amounts of electricity from renewable sources. The ‘Renewables Obligation’ places an obligation on electricity suppliers to purchase a percentage of qualifying renewably generated electricity but it also forces a consumer-sourced 'subsidy' to be paid to the renewable generator. During the year 2004-5 the obligation stood at 4.9 percent of qualifying electricity, rising to 10 percent by 2010.
The mechanism of payment results in an increase in electricity price to all consumers, whether or not they subscribe to a 'green tariff'. The complexity of this system is deliberately obscure in an attempt to conceal the fact that the Renewables Obligation is effectively a hidden tax on all electricity consumers and a huge hidden "subsidy" to providers of renewable energy – larger indeed than any subsidy in history.
It is only this cleverly sourced covert "subsidy" which allows wind turbines to be built at all. Paul Golby, the chief executive of E.ON UK (formerly Powergen), said: "Without the renewable obligation certificates nobody would be building wind farms." (Daily Telegraph, 26 March 2005).
In effect, the community is being asked to pay a premium for their energy costs and suffer a degradation of their environment, for no overall benefit and without an open or adequate debate. This means that the debate must be carried out at a local level, in the context of specific planning applications.
The effects of savings on greenhouse emissions are vastly overstated. The Government’s own figure of 9.2 million tons CO2 savings (from the totality of renewable energy) by 2010 is less than the emission from one medium-sized coal-fired station – less than four ten-thousandths of global emissions. Thus, even if we reach our targets, this has no chance of affecting climate change.
Up to 90 per cent of the capacity must be permanently online to guarantee power supplies at all times and to avoid destabilising the grid. This effect reduces potential savings by the same factor – 90 percent. It also destroys any economic argument.
A valuer in mid-Wales has suggested a probable 25 per cent reduction in house value caused by a proposed wind farm (Remax E.A. 2005) and at Lethbridge in Devon, two independent valuers predicted that a farm property will similarly lose £165,000 in value (Sunday Telegraph, January 2005). In a letter to a client about the effect of wind turbines on property values, dated May 1998, Estate Agent FPD Savills [Norfolk Office] concluded: "Generally, the higher the value of the property the greater the blight will be... As you go up the value scale, buyers become more discerning and the value of a farmhouse may be affected by as much as 30 per cent if it is in close proximity to the wind turbine." Since local residents will see their properties reduced in 25-30% in value, you must inform them of that.
The cost to the consumer of wind energy is huge. The Energy White Paper (DTI, 2003) says that by 2010, the Renewables industry will receive £1 billion per year from the Renewables Obligation and Climate Change Levy and all consumers will pay this.
Aviation: The proposed wind mast is under RAF low flying area 9, at the point it which it joins low flying area 8. The junction of these two areas, of which area 9 is the most used in the UK, represents a significant hazard. Furthermore, the Advantage West Midlands, through commissioning Halcrow Group Ltd., found in a 2008 report that "… only 0.21% of the total county area shows minimal interference with aviation. This would leave approximately a total 890Ha with theoretical potential for wind development within Staffordshire County. Additional constraints and site specific considerations will further reduce the available areas with actual potential for wind development." Since 890Ha is such a minor area, there are serious objections that such a mast is not suitable at all or at very least, will interfere with RAF/aviation pathways and facilities.
Stone & Trent Valley opposed to Severn Trent Water
