Ian Kelly, a chartered planner appearing as an expert witness for ISORES (Inappropriate Siting of Renewable Energy Structures), told the ongoing public inquiry into three wind farm proposals for north Northumberland at The Maltings that individual targets should be set for schemes and checked after three years.

He said that as the appeal decision had been recovered by the Secretary of State because it was deemed as 'involving proposals of major significance for the delivery of the Government's climate change programme and energy policies,' it was essential that the relevant benefits were set out and could be delivered in a verifiable way.

He added: "I caution against the approach of being over-driven, in planning decision making, by renewable energy targets. There is nothing in the weight of policy to justify approving projects that are unacceptable in terms of their adverse impacts."

Mr Kelly suggested that a scheme should set out its own achievable target for saving a certain amount of greenhouse gases, and that if this was not met in three years then it should be "dismantled and moved".

He added: "The Government are suggesting that without compensation, local communities should accept the adverse effects for the wider good, and if that's the case the local community should know that target is being delivered."

Mr Kelly also said that he did not believe that just because Northumberland is short of meeting its renewable energy targets there should be a 'compulsion to approve' wind farm applications.

David Hardy, advocate for npower, cross-examining Mr Kelly, said that there was no requirement in national guidance for the benefits of individual schemes to be set out by applicants in terms of the carbon emissions saved by the wind farm.

Mr Hardy also said that national policy sets out that decision makers should give 'sympathetic and expeditious consideration' to renewable energy proposals, although Mr Kelly suggested that this actually referred to the initial planning and decision making stage and its process, rather than appeal decisions.

Earlier, Northumberland County Council's planning witness, Bob Taylor, gave his evidence and was cross-examined by all three appellants.

Paul Maile, representing Catamount, questioned how much Mr Taylor's evidence could assist the inquiry in terms of setting out the 'planning balance' of measuring the benefits of a wind farm against the 'disbenefits.'

Mr Maile asked: "How can you assist the inspector if you do not identify the benefits in your evidence?"

Mr Taylor answered: "I fully accept the benefits that come from renewable energy. I'm not seeking to minimise or deny those benefits but I do not set them out as the appellants witnesses have. I have not identified them specifically."

In re-examination by John Hunter, Mr Taylor clarified his position on this matter, stating that the benefits of renewable energy were well set out in government policy, and that he expected the inspector to be familiar with the benefits, particularly by the end of this lengthy inquiry, and that was why he had not included such details in his evidence.

During cross-examination of Mr Taylor by advocate Elizabeth Dunn for Moorsyde Wind Farm Ltd, she presented cases of inquiries where the proximity of nearby houses were taken into account, and where some were closer than those would be at Moorsyde, and where permission was granted.

However, Mr Taylor said that appeal cases can give a general approach to issues, such as proximity of homes, but that each case had to be determined on its own merits.

Mr Hardy, for npower, asked: "There was no objection from English Heritage to Toft Hill, was there not?"

Mr Taylor answered: "I think in many senses, it seems that English Heritage responds to some schemes and not others. The responses seem to be patchy."

Mr Hardy then put it to Mr Taylor that national policy states that decision makers should look favourably on renewable energy proposals and that there needed to be very good reasons to refuse permission for wind farms proposed for in broad areas of least constraint (BALC).

Referring to the Wandylaw decision in February, Mr Hardy said that its wording showed that a 'compelling impediment' would need to be demonstrated for the application to be refused.

He said: "The compelling impediment test should be applied to cultural heritage, just like any other matter such as noise or tourism. There has got to be a compelling impediment to fail in a BALC, and the treatment of a wind farm of a scheme in a BALC is different to one out of a BALC."

However, during re-examination, Mr Taylor said that the wording 'compelling impediment' came from the planning inspector at Wandylaw, David Cullingford, and not the Secretary of State and was not actual policy in any way.

Mr Taylor went on to say that as targets for renewable energy generation were met, schemes would be less likely to be approved as more weight would be attached to issues such as impact on the historic environment and on landscape and visual character.

However, Mr Hardy dismissed this completely, stating: "I must correct a heresy you start to run with here. There is not a shred of support in national policy to support that contention."

Mr Taylor responded: "No, there is nothing in national policy. That was my assessment, as a matter of logic, as there is some sense to it as once targets get closer to where the bar is set, the bar could be reduced as the target approached."

Mr Hardy answered: "You do not apply a magnifying glass to local effects as targets are approached. The attainment of targets should not stop approval of planning permission."