In 2013 a planning Inspector overruled a decision by Pembrokeshire Planning Committee which allowed acres of fields in South Pembrokeshire to be covered with solar panels. I argued on that occasion that Planning Inspectors should only be allowed to grant appeals on one or more of the following grounds. “Security, Economics Environment and Law.” The default position has to be that one made by the democratically elected representatives. The Planning Committee.

I now raise another point, that of costs.

Because of my brief involvement in the solar panel matter I and other local residents were ready with opposition when Rhoscrowther Wind Farm Ltd (RWF) proposed the erection of five x 100 mtr high wind turbines on fields near to the solar panels. Objections were received from 84% of the local population as well as other National Groups. Pembrokeshire County Council refused the application on 21st January 2015.

An Appeal was lodged with the Welsh assembly and a Public Enquiry was arranged for hearing at the Cleddau Bridge Hotel in Pembroke Dock which commenced in early November 2015. The Inspector Mr.

Alwyn Nixon sat for 6 days of evidence and submissions and visited the proposed site on 2 further days ending the process in early December 2015. In February 2016 he dismissed the appeal.

RWF then applied for a Judicial Review. Their preliminary application at the High Court in Cardiff before Mr.

Justice Coulson was refused.

Costs of £3000 were ordered.

RWF then took their case before the court before Mr.

Justice Hickinbottom who also refused the application.

I am unaware of the costs awarded in that hearing Why were costs incurred by the Council in defending their decision not claimed from Rhoscrowther Wind Farm Ltd.?

The Council paid £19,279.68 for legal representation at that hearing.

The Council’s Barrister was assisted by the planning officer, a landscape expert, a historical expert (all who gave evidence) and two clerks to service the presentation and deal with members of the public.

Five Council employees who I am sure could have been better employed in other matters. The Council inform me that their presence at the hearing was part of their expected duties and therefor their cost to the council has not been divulged.

The Wind Farm Group have obviously budgeted for their legal costs in their original business plan. It seems to me that it is totally wrong that ratepayers, having legitimately funded the original application, are then called upon to fund the defence of that decision with no chance of recouping the costs. The applicant has nothing to lose in making an appeal.

With present restrictions on Council income believe that it would be quite legitimate for appellants, who lose their appeal, to have to pay the costs of councils who are forced to defend their democratically arrived at decisions. The cost of losing a public hearing would certainly out-way the cost of a couple of hours in Court and I am sure would dissuade many appellants bringing spurious cases.

I do not advocate such costs when appeals are dealt with in written form only.

Keith Bradney

Angle village