A LANDSCAPE expert acting for npower has told the ongoing public inquiry into three wind farm appeals against planning permission refusal that he would not be giving evidence if had believed building turbines in north Northumberland was unacceptable.
Jeffrey Stevenson, giving evidence on contemporary landscape issues regarding Toft Hill, was cross-examined on day five of the inquiry at The Maltings on Wednesday.
Responding to a question from ISORES opposition campaign group advocate John Campb
ell, Mr Stevenson said: "If I had thought that effects had been unacceptable I would not be here."
Mr Stevenson added: "Whilst significant effects would arise at Toft Hill and with the nearest properties, it is reasonable to conclude that even if the effects are deemed adverse, they would not have an unacceptably adverse effect upon private residential amenity when appraised 'in-the-round'.
"Without question, significant visual effects would arise but the situations at Grindon, Grindonrigg, Grievestead, Duddo and at a number of individual properties and clusters are not such as to give rise to residential perceptions of being overwhelmed or oppressed when judged in the round.
"For some residents, viewing in the direction of the wind farm, the effect may transform what is currently pleasant and desirable into something which is regarded as unpleasant and undesirable. But this is not the same as unacceptable."
Cross-examining Mr Stevenson, Mr Campbell asked: "Do you agree that 'in the round' is really a subordinating term that tends to downplay effects?"
Mr Stevenson responded: "Visual amenity depends on more than one view or direction."
In his evidence, Mr Stevenson said: "In the context of what is valued nationally, regionally and locally with respect landscape resources and character and visual amenity, I cannot come to the conclusion that those changes, though adverse and locally significant, would be unacceptably so.
"Quite simply, however reluctantly, I would have to conclude that the scheme does not give rise to unacceptable harm."
On this point, Mr Campbell asked if Mr Stevenson was in fact on the 'very cusp of saying that this harm is unacceptable.' A point Mr Stevenson denied.
Mr Campbell also asked exactly when Mr Stevenson believed unacceptable harm would come about, and if this was at the point at which people could not inhabit a property near the proposed site.
Mr Stevenson responded that this was not the case, adding that there was a 'spectrum' of harm, at which point not being able to live in a property would be at the far end of the unacceptable scale.
He added: "Unacceptability would come about when the turbines would be oppressive and overbearing and I wouldn't consider that to be the case in this proposal."
Mr Campbell then asked at what distance would the proposed turbines at Toft Hill become overbearing on the open landscape, to which Mr Stevenson responded: "In this case it would be closer than 700m."
The inquiry continues.
