It was particularly strange and coincidental that this article cropped up on BBC News after I had attended a degree seminar on the role of power, justice and information in the Town and Country Planning process. The article also covers autism, and I have many connections to this being on the spectrum itself.
What is the planning system supposed to achieve? The background that should be used for all cases, this included:
The Planning system of England and the devolved nations has been outlined in the Killian Pretty Review to be fair, proportionate, customer-focussed and transparent. It is not always so and there are a number of (thankfully) minority cases like recent prosecutions and corruption at Doncaster Council. Planners are supposed to mediate between the conflicting interests of the market and the general public. It involves the power of politics, descending down from a rather target driven central government and the regional tier, to the power of business and economic development.
The system aims to do its best to calculate an optimum solution (strategic decision making) in meeting policy criteria on the likes of housing demand, regeneration, economic and sustainable development, transport and preserving the historic environment. It should make decisions that give people enough say in the consultation process and for that to make a difference, providing that say is reasonable. Resulting from this (hopefully) is a modest amount of social justice because community needs have been met or a development has been altered in favour of those needs. There is a long running argument that planning does not favour the needs of the public when it comes to the appeal or inquiry process, instead preferring evidenced consultancy based representation.
The context of wind power
Onshore windfarms are a classic case of community opposition and power versus planning delivery of government targets. But the UK has the highest availability of windspeeds in Europe, and Lincolnshire is one of the prime target areas for sustained renewable energy growth. The county already has a substantial proportion of England’s onshore wind sites, and further development off the East Coast. I live near the site of a proposed windfarm that was rejected for planning permission and dismissed on appeal – it certainly is a contentious issue. I am personally very much in favour of onshore and offshore wind although I appreciate that disadvantages of the former are well marked. In my local application, there was strong opposition on the grounds of noise which is simply unacceptable given the proximity of the A1 trunk road to the settlements.
What are my views on this particular planning decision?
In this case at Burton on Stather it appears there is an additional personal framework to consider – the livelihood of the Glathorne family. This appears to be a complex case because there is already a wind farm in the vicinity of the family’s home, and that would have no doubt necessitated the application for a second renewable development. The article does not refer to other objections which means I cannot really comment on that side of the decision made, however it does state that the Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal solely on the basis further wind farm expansion constitutes as injustice towards the family.
A distinguishing characteristic of autism can be of intense personal interest in a topic, subject, hobby, routine, object and so forth. I must state however that this is not a behavioural feature in all autistic people. The children here had an intense satisfaction in spinning objects and a wind farm is likely to be a major aggravator towards this behaviour.
I consider this decision to be wholly acceptable in the planning profession although it could be likely that some planning inspectors would be prepared to accept the appealed wind farm development rather than rejecting it because the wind farm is in an appropriate area for wind power where there is already such a land use and that they constitute environmental benefits to outweigh the disadvantages.
The inspector John Braithwaite acted in a very sequential way in the appropriate method of working to come to his decision that the personal effects on the Glathorne family was a contravention of Local Plan policy DS21 which says permission will be granted for renewable energy development providing that any detrimental effect on features, including local character and amenity is outweighed by environmental/economic benefits (including acknowledged features). Clearly Mr Braithwaite considered that the wind farm would be a detrimental effect on such features and I tend to agree because the Glathorne family turned out to be a major acknowledged feature of the appeal procedure.
Here the livelihood of the family was likely to be compromised beyond repair if the Grange wind farm was to be constructed. The decision represents a major victory for planning in the public interest, which all too often is crowded out except in the adoption of conditions on development. The inspector considered the case of morals, social justice, welfare and residential amenity in this application and I do have tendencies to accept that the site would have gone through had it not been for the representation of the Glathornes. With the wording of the article it seems that the family has lived at their dwelling for considerably longer than the wind farms. I do however have a slight concern about this case setting precedent for the future because the family was unclear as to the effect of the original Bagmoor wind farm (from reading the planning appeal) and this raises questions about the legibility of planning information. Were they misinformed or was planning complying correctly with Bagmoor? Was the family fully aware of the children’s tendencies even after diagnosis? The answer to the latter is probably not, as these characteristics can develop differently over time.
The Planning Inspector’s report can be found here:NLincs Wind Farm Appeal Decision
Original BBC News article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/8646326.stm
Chrisadvisor 