MLAG BLOG | Latest News & Comment
Help! New application for Maescadog Caio
despite being refused by CCC and on Appeal.
The new Planning Application number for this machine is E/32181 and your help is urgently needed
to ensure we get this turned down - for the third time!
This Application received a record number of objections first time round - but none of these will count in the resubmission.
It's a big ask, but PLEASE resubmit your letters to CCC, with edits as suggested below.
More info will also be available at a meeting for objectors to be held at 7.30 PM on Wed July 8 at Pumsaint Village Hall.
As feared, the wording of the Planning Inspector's Notice of Refusal, more or less invited the developer to resubmit a Planning Application for a turbine on land at Maescadog Farm on the outskirts of Caio village. This he has now done, full documents are available here: http://online.carmarthenshire.gov.uk/eaccessv2/pa-applicationsummary.aspx?applicationnumber=E/32181
Objections to this resubmitted application should be made as soon as possible, in writing, by post or email, quoting the relevant Planning Number (E/32181) to:
Planning Services, Civic Offices, Crescent Road, Llandeilo, SA19 6HW
Background Info - please use as you wish
The proposed site (agricultural land adjacent to Caio Forest) is exactly the same and the spec of the machine is unchanged. In fact, the second application is virtually identical to the first, except in respect of the Transport Plan, which as been somewhat revised.
Transport and access were the only major grounds upon which the PI turned it down - but Carmarthenshire County Council themselves refused it on many different, and equally valid grounds, to do with visual impact. This pic shows the hitherto unspoilt landscape of the proposed site.
In writing your new objection letter, we would suggest you :
Reference briefly the fact that you also objected to the original application
Be sure to quote the new Application Number (E/32181)
Repeat all your original objections, but bear in mind there has been one important change to the SLA and other boundaries, since the original objection letters went in as, immediately prior to the Appeal, Maescadog lost its SLA status. So, if your objection is partly based on the site being within an SLA, you will need to reword it, e.g. to state that CCC and other objectors believe the impact of the proposed development upon the landscape as a whole is not dependent upon the SLA status of the site, which continues to be bounded by SLA on 3 sides and is clearly visible within the whole protected landscape.
You could also reiterate some of the visual and other concerns, expressed by CCC in their Notice of Refusal, as shown below. If nothing else, this may serve to remind them why they turned it down last time, and ought to do so again!
- In respect of long term, adverse effects, versus any possible benefot of the machine, the Council stated that: … in this particular case the long term, adverse effects outweigh the economic and environmental benefits of the turbine … and… the potential for landscape quality harm is severe enough to outweigh the benefits …
- In respect of further landscape concerns, CCC stated that, '...the proposed wind turbine will have a significant adverse impact on the landscape character of the surrounding area'.
- CCC also had concerns over cumulative development and the fact that cumulative landscape and visual impacts are becoming ' an increasingly significant issue as WT development begins to challenge the capacity of this landscape '.
- And concerns over delivering the implicit objective of TAN 8 – i.e. that no significant changes in landscape character should occur due to Wind Turbine developments outside of the SSA's
- They also expressed concern that impacts to landscape character from wind turbine development cannot be directly mitigated. Positioned at such a high point in the Caio hills that it will reach a total height of 433 metres, this industrial scale wind turbine will damage the landscape character of the area, dominate the skyline and will be seen from great distances.
- Their Notice of Refusal pointed out that the 25 year life span of the machine is equivalent to an entire generation of people, whose landscape has been adversely affected
- The Refusal also clearly stated that the application triggered CCC to request that an Objection to the scheme be registered on the grounds that 'the development would cause demonstrable harm to the quality of the local environment'
General notes and guidance on how to object most effectively to Planning Applications for Industrial Wind Turbines in our county can also be found on the Planning and Objections page of this site.