Appeal Decision - Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Appeal Decision APP/F1610/A/12/2172135well trodden, whereas the appellant contends that it is little used. I saw noobvious signs of intensive use on my visit and, coupled with the fact that itextends a considerable distance across open countryside before linking withother public rights of way, I suspect that it has relatively little use (though thisis a tentative conclusion based on very limited evidence). Thus the harmresulting from the proposal is likely to be experienced by relatively fewramblers (who are acknowledged to be sensitive receptors) over a very shortstretch of their walk.Visual Impact - Conclusion12. Overall the development would not be conspicuous in the High Wold Dip-Slopelandscape. There would be glimpses of the structure from some nearby roads,but these would be transitory and, in the context of the tall pylons, the turbinewould not appear out of place. Intermittent sightings at closer range would begained from the well-used Helen’s Ditch bridleway, but again the backdrop ofpylons would significantly lessen the sense of visual intrusion. Only at closequarters, from a short stretch of the north-south footpath, would the turbineand mast be perceived as a dominant feature, but even here the line of pylonswould remain a major component of the landscape. Consequently thedevelopment would not cause significant harm to the character or appearanceof the AONB, nor would the objectives of the designation be compromised.13. In reaching this conclusion I have given careful consideration to the argumentthat the line of pylons is, in itself, a blot on the landscape and to add anothervertical element in close proximity would compound the visual detriment to anunacceptable extent. It is true that such infrastructure is not a characteristicfeature across the High Wold Dip-Slope landscape, but the existence of thepylons in this particular location cannot be ignored. Although the pylons andhanging cables have greater visual porosity, their substantially taller height,number and ground coverage means that they are the dominant feature acrossmost of the immediate landscape. And though the rotating blades of theturbine would manifestly attract attention at close quarters, they are relativelysmall and would not be conspicuous over the distances at which the proposedstructure would be seen by substantial numbers of people. I acknowledge thepotential for cumulative adverse effects as a result of additional verticalelements, but I have determined that this single turbine could be assimilatedwithout causing significant visual confusion or clutter.Other Matters14. All the other matters raised have been taken into account. Whilst theinformation about wind speeds at the site is limited, there is no compellingevidence that the location does not experience the amount of wind necessaryfor the satisfactory operation of the turbine. It is acknowledged that theenergy benefits of the proposal would be small and would largely accrue to theappellant, but as the Framework recognises, small scale projects can make alimited but valuable contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy and tomeeting energy needs at a local level. As to the concern about precedent,there is no evidence that the particular circumstances of this location areprevalent across the AONB; in any event, it is an established principle thateach application is assessed on its individual merits, which is what I have done.15. The concern of the nearest neighbours about noise from the turbine isunderstandable. However, the noise appraisal submitted with the applicationwww.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4