The government's inspector, Mr Philip Major, has upheld the appeal by npower renewables against the decision of Maldon District Council to refuse planning permission to a 10 turbine project for Bradwell-on-Sea. This means the project can now go ahead, despite massive local opposition. Apart from the twin turbines at the Dagenham Ford plant, this will be Essex's first wind "farm". The project developer is the same as that for Earl's Hall Farm.

Click here to see report.

The Inspector's report concludes: "This is a finely balanced case. The clear need to provide renewable energy facilities weighs heavily in favour of the development and is supported by national advice and other policy. Set against that is the undoubted and acknowledged major change to the appearance of the Dengie peninsula which would result, together with some policy conflict. I recognise that there are many who would be disappointed by the development proceeding in that location. However, I am satisfied that the essential character of the area would not be lost despite the changes which would ensue from this proposal. I also find that there would be no material harm to the setting of listed buildings, no material harm to living conditions, that ecological interests would be safeguarded, and no compromise of safety at London Southend Airport. On balance therefore I have reached the conclusion that the considerations in favour of the development outweigh those to the contrary" (Para 70 p. 15 Appeal Decision APP/X1545/A/06/2023805).

The Inspector's report starts with a comment which suggests that the appeal looked to be secure right from the outset, more or less whatever evidence those opposed to the project presented to the Inquiry : "I ... see it as imperative that schemes are brought forward quickly in order to meet renewables targets and to address climate change in the interests of the region and the country" (Para 11).

Although the Inspector slams the CPRE Tranquility map/report as being of limited help, he does refer to one of its arguments that suits his conclusions ie that wind turbines are 14th out of 22 in the list of factors identified as having an adverse effect [on tranquility] compared with pylons in 8th place, and thus that wind turbines would have a less significant effect than existing pylons (refer to Para 18). OF COURSE WE ALL KNOW THAT TURBINES ARE 4-5 TIMES TALLER AND ARE MOVING OBJECTS UNLIKE PYLONS !

And then there is the stark admission that he, the Inspector, personally likes the look of them: "... I have already commented on the slim and, to my mind, elegant form which the turbines would take ..." (Para 46) which leads to the conclusion: "At some distance they [the turbines] would be noticeable, but I do not consider that they would be oppressive or overbearing such that they would be harmful to the living conditions of local residents." 

On Noise, the Inspector shrouds himself in the protection of the much discredited ETSU-R-97 standard: "... whilst I recognise the concerns of nearby residents about the possibility of noise disturbance from the wind farm I can afford those concerns limited weight since nationally acceptable levels of background noise can be assured in accordance with published policy." (Para 44) These are "nationally acceptable" to whom ? Well, the DTI (which devised them), which looks after the needs of industry (and, of course, the powerful wind energy industry), and not really a body whose primary concern is the well-being of residents affected by developments. The Inspector reminds us of the stark reality of ETSU-R-97 when he says "... the advice of ETSU-R-97 sets out national policy on what are considered to be acceptable levels of noise in both daytime and night time situations IRRESPECTIVE [our capitals] of whether the receptor is in an exceptionally or unusually quiet location. " (Para 43). It should also not be forgotten that ETSU-R-97 is the only noise standard where the permitted night time noise is greater than that permitted during the day.

This is indeed a sad day.