AN application by Octopus Energy Generation to replace a wind turbine with one 22 metres higher and with a blade “sweep” two and a half times larger in the Cornish countryside has been approved despite local opposition.

The renewable energy company applied to Cornwall Council to install the turbine and associated infrastructure on land west of Helsbury Park Woods, Michaelstow, near Bodmin. It came before a meeting of Cornwall Council’s east area planning committee on Monday, April 14, due to concerns raised by the parish council in respect of harm to a nearby heritage asset, local ecology and neighbouring properties.

The application sought to repower an existing wind turbine by replacing the current Turbowind T400 (hub height of 28.4 metres, rotor diameter of 34 metres and blade tip height of 45.4 metres) with a modern and more efficient turbine capable of providing up to 900 kilowatts of generating capacity with a hub height of 40 metres, rotor diameter of 54 metres and blade tip height of 67 metres.

The council’s planning department stated that the proposed repowering of the existing turbine on the site will assist in its ambition for the county to be carbon neutral by 2030. It agreed that as a result of its increased height and size, the proposal would result in a degree of additional harm to the landscape, which includes a designated Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). The increase in the height of the turbine would also increase its prominence within the setting of Helsbury Castle/Beacon, a scheduled ancient monument.

However, the planning department noted that noise from the proposed turbine would be quieter than the current model and recommended approval.

Dr Nicky Gilmour is one of those against the Woodlands Farm Wind Turbine Repowering Project. She told the meeting: “The increased size inflicts the greatest adverse impacts to nearby homes, while delivering less than half of the energy to justify the imposition of such a large industrial machine.”

She highlighted the lack of manmade structures, including no other turbines or pylons, on the landscape in the area and argued, as such, it was a major development.

Cllr Richard Whitby, from Michaelstow Parish Council, said the council’s planning report stating that the significantly larger turbine won’t increase its impacts or effects made “no sense”. “There is a clear link between the size of the turbine, how far it it set back from people and place and the magnitude of impact,” he said, adding that in its current location it will “obviously increase its impacts and effect to an unacceptably high and intolerably adverse level”.

He said it would be the only “incongruous and unnatural feature in the area of outstanding great landscape value”. Cllr Whitby added that at 67 metres tall there was no landscape or vegetation mitigation possible to screen the turbine. “It cannot be described as anything other than overbearing and overshadowing to those close by,” he concluded. “Despite what is claimed, there is no local support for this in any form.”

Simon Johnson, for the applicant, told the meeting that repowering with larger, more efficient machines significantly increases the production of older wind turbine sites on the same grid connection and can produce the maximum amount of renewable energy more regularly, more consistently and with more wind speed.

He said the company chose the smallest available turbine when many are now over 100 metres in height. The model would result in double the power output and could double production again if the grid connection is increased in the coming years without the need for any further development.

Mr Johnson added there would be a 37 per cent biodiversity net gain, a quieter turbine than the existing one, no shadow flicker to residents (due to an automated system assessing the weather conditions), voluntary community benefits and the potential for cheaper local energy.

Local member Cllr Dominic Fairman said that since calling in the application, he and other councillors had visited an almost identical turbine to understand what operational mitigations might be achieved to address noise and flicker concerns, which were made clear.

He mentioned that the council said there would be limited harm to nearby heritage assets, which include an Iron Age hill fort and a “very picturesque” Grade I listed parish church. “This is where I believe we need to be true to our declaration of a climate emergency. It surely cannot be that we seek to protect all views from historic structures that are centuries or even millennia old as we ourselves face an existential crisis?”

Cllr Fairman added that while there will be a measure of visual impact, appropriate conditions are recommended and the proposal was, on balance, policy compliant. He believed it should be approved.

Committee member Cllr John Fitter said: “We’ve got to think of the future, but we’ve got to think of the present as well and the present is where the people in that community are living.”

However, Cllr Jim Candy, who proposed approval, said the technology would be able to be managed much more efficiently than previously when it came to shadow flicker on neighbouring properties. A vote to approve was won.