11/00713/F - Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk

Impact upon Pink Footed Geese
The arguments on this issue are presented in the main body of the report above. In the
absence of an adequate programme to mitigate against the impact upon the goose
population, then the consequent adverse impact upon the Special Protection Areas means
that, in accordance with the Habitats Regulations, consent should not be granted.
Cultural Heritage
English Heritage expresses concerns at the impact of the proposed development upon
Barmer Church, a Grade I listed building, Bloodgate Hill fort, a Scheduled Ancient
Monument, and Houghton Hall Park, a Grade I Listed Park/Garden. Policy HE1 of PPS5
allows the harm to heritage assets to be off-set by the contribution that a project may make
towards mitigating climate change.
The proposed wind farm would have a maximum installed capacity of 113.8MW and can
theoretically provide for 8,000 homes. This is a relatively small project in relation to off-shore
schemes in the area, such as Docking Shoal, which may have up to 166 turbines and an
installed capacity of 500MW.
Whilst the scheme’s contribution to mitigating climate change is recognised, in this case it is
not considered sufficient to justify the harm caused to the setting of the designated heritage
assets of Barmer Church, Bloodgate Hill fort and Houghton Hall Park.
Whilst on-shore wind farm developments can have substantial benefits to society and wider
environmental aspirations the adverse effects locally in terms of impact on heritage assets,
ecology, and significance of the impact on the local landscape renders this development
unacceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
REFUSE for the following reason(s):
1 The proposed development is considered to have a significantly harmful impact upon
the landscape character and visual amenity of the landscape in the local area, i.e.
within 2.5km of the site. This landscape is characterised by open skyline, a strong
sense of peace and tranquility as well as of rural isolation. The introduction of the
turbines as dominant, man made features, and in particular the movement associated
with the blades, will disrupt this character to the detriment of those living in the locality
and using the various footpaths and roads from which the turbines will be visible. The
proposal is therefore contrary to saved Local Plan 4/6 as well as national government
guidance expressed in PPS7, which states that Local Planning Authorities should
ensure that the quality of the wider countryside is protected and, where possible,
enhanced; and in PPS22, which states that the environmental impacts of renewable
energy projects should be addressed satisfactorily.
2 The proposed development, when taken with others proposed for the surrounding
area, is considered to have a significantly harmful cumulative impact upon the
landscape character and visual amenity of the landscape in the local area. The
introduction of the turbines as dominant, man made features, and in particular the
movement associated with the blades, will disrupt this character to the detriment of
those living in the locality and using the various footpaths and roads from which the
turbines will be visible. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved Local Plan 4/6 as
well as national government guidance expressed in PPS7, which states that Local
10/01419/FM Development Control Board
25 July 2011
66