HARTINGTON TOWN QUARTER UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSE PLANNING APPLICATION NP/DDD/0423/0359

• Firstly, we believe a 30 metre mast is outside the maximum height of 25 metres permitted in protected areas such as national parks.

• The proposed development would have a significant adverse visual effect on the character of its landscape setting and would harm the scenic beauty of the National Park by virtue of its size, scale and siting. Even were the mast within the permitted height, we fundamentally disagree with the applicant’s concluding statement in their Landscape and Visual Appraisal Summary: “This appraisal therefore concludes that the proposed development at Hartington, Derbyshire, will not result in any important (major) landscape or visual effects.”

• In our view the reverse is true. This 30 metre high mast and its associated ground infrastructure, will visually dominate the landscape and destroy the essential character and vista of this area of the national park. Its construction would be against the statutory purpose of the park which is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape.

• In considering the applicant’s Landscape & Visual Appraisal, we believe the five viewpoints illustrated within the report, all clearly demonstrate the detrimental visual impact on the landscape. These are: 1. Highfield Lane, 2.Reynards Lane, 3. PR8, 4. PR’s 8,9 and 10 and 5. Main Street. Despite a deceptively faint dotted line portrayal of the mast, all clearly show the discordant and dominating presence of the mast. Its impact would of course be far worse if the rather than the weak dotted line, the actual illustration of the mast from the Site Elevation Plan was used.

• In addition to the illustrations, we disagree with almost all the assessments within the report.

• On Impact (para 2 of 3.4) the words make little sense but in describing the landscape as part of a flat open area of farmland is not in itself particularly rare or distinctive, totally ignores its elevation and therefore its impact on views. Their analysis that the landscape character of this location has capacity to accommodate change of the nature proposed arising from the mosaic of open farmland and woodland on the flat to undulating landform which would help to reduce effects. Furthermore infrastructure elements, including power and telecom infrastructure, are commonly understood as acceptable additional elements to the landscape, subject to being sited and detailed appropriately, and are not therefore necessarily incongruous with character – is in our view flawed and the exact opposite effect would result ie rather than acceptable the mast it is totally incongruous in character.

• In 3.5 Landscape assessment much is made of the fact that with a lifetime span of 20 years this is a temporary structure and after this period there will be no impact. Not for many of our residents that it will outlive!

• Nor is the project generally seen against the hillside which mute the view. In reality it is conspicuous and viewed from any number of viewpoints as it towers above the surrounding landscape.

• The argument that the proposal will not affect the wider national park or change overall Landscape Character Designation is entirely spurious. Clearly the PDNPA are not going to alter overall landscape designation, but that doesn’t mean that the effect of this installation, as claimed, is Negligible adverse.

• In 4.4 Highways Visual Receptor for H1 Reynards Lane (South) and Highfield Lane (East/West) the magnitude of visual change has been assessed as Medium – Low adverse. Anyone using these popular routes will be aware the visual change is high.

• In 5.1 Summary we disagree with almost every assessment. To claim it is sensitive to its setting; there would be no important adverse landscape effects; any landscape effects are therefore extremely localised; the greatest effects are expected along Reynards Lane (South) and Highfields Lane (East-West) (H1) with a finding of Moderate – Minor adverse effect. And finally this appraisal therefore concludes that the proposed development at Hartington, Derbyshire, will not result in any important (major) landscape or visual effects. Nonsense!

• Finally, if improved communications for this relatively small area are deemed essential, we believe that far more appropriate sites and solutions, less damaging to the landscape, either in location, upgrading of existing masts or reduced size of masts, must be thoroughly explored.

• We totally oppose this application.