Replacement wind turbine at Sarnau Farm, Trelech

What was proposed

The application sought to remove the existing turbine and build a replacement with a 64-metre blade tip, access works and biodiversity improvements.

“Proposal: Removal of existing wind turbine and erection of replacement wind turbine, up to 64 m blade tip height, with associated development.”

“This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a replacement wind turbine. The existing turbine would be removed and it would be replaced by a turbine with a hub height of 40 metres and a blade tip height of 64 metres. The replacement turbine would be in a green colour at the base graduated to a grey matt finish. The existing access track to the south-east would be widened at the junction with the highway network and there would be a crane pad.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a small agricultural grazing parcel on an exposed upland plateau, with a footpath nearby and homes about 440 to 470 metres away.

“The application site consists of a small parcel of land that forms part of an agricultural field used for grazing. It covers approximately 0.85 hectares (2.1 acres). The land consists of a gravel track way, a wind turbine and an ancillary cabinet, together with a narrow strip of grassland to the south-west. A public footpath (PP101/9/1) runs north-south approximately 90 metres to the east of the application site.”

“The site is located approximately 6 kilometres to the east of Llanfyrnach and 1.5 kilometres north of Trelech. The county boundary with Carmarthenshire immediately adjoins the road to the south of the site. The area is an upland plateau with open and exposed fields and there are extensive views to the north and west into Carmarthenshire and, further north, into Ceredigion. Pembrokeshire Coast National Park is approximately 11 kilometres to the west.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and applications

An earlier turbine was approved in 2018, while a taller replacement proposal was withdrawn in April 2025.

“An application for full planning permission for a wind turbine, with a hub height of 31 metres and a blade tip height of 45 metres, on the site was approved on 8 January 2018 (Council reference no. 13/0045/PA). This was subject to a non- material amendment relating to the siting of electrical housing equipment which was approved on 2 April 2015 (Council reference no. 14/1134/NM).”

“An application for full planning permission for the removal of the existing wind turbine and the erection of a replacement wind turbine, up to 102 metres blade tip height with associated development on the site, was withdrawn on 1 April 2025 (Council reference no. 24/0944/PA).”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the proposal environmentally acceptable, with minor landscape harm, limited cumulative effects and no significant harm to other acknowledged interests.

“The agent has identified minor landscape harm associated with the development and, as such the development conflicts with policies SP 16 and GN.1. It is considered in this instance, however, that this is not sufficient to make the development environmentally unacceptable and thus the principle of development accords with the requirements of policy GN.4. The proposed development would not lead to harm to any other interests of acknowledged importance.”

Officer report

What people raised

Thirty-seven objections covered the turbine’s size and location, residential impacts, noise, shadow flicker, highways, biodiversity, water, health and property prices.

“Thirty-seven letters and e-mails have been received objecting to the proposed development. The majority of issues raised have been addressed above but additional issues include the hydrological implications of the development, the waste produced by constructing a replacement turbine, the lack of financial benefits for the local community, the impact on television reception and the impact on property values.”

“The erection of a wind turbine can impact on television reception. However, the nearest residential properties are Cadifor Hall and Caenant, approximately 470 and 440 metres to the north-east respectively, and there is no evidence that any television interference has occurred with regard to the existing turbine on site to date.”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

The agent, an objector and the local member spoke, addressing renewable energy, local benefits, noise, water supplies, tourism, roads and landscape impacts.

What members debated

Members discussed energy output, noise, turbine foundations, operating duration, landscape, health, community benefit, highway access and whether conditions could address concerns.

“Councillor Tim Evans asked whether a condition could require removal of the existing turbine base when the new turbine is installed, citing concerns over watercourses. The Planning Officer advised that such a condition would likely be considered unreasonable and disproportionate, as foundations are typically retained where removal is impractical.”

“The Chief Planning Officer clarified that the objector’s independent noise report was not published online at their request but was reviewed by Pollution Control. Despite its findings, officers concluded the proposal complied with ETSU noise standards. • Councillor John Davies sought clarification on landscape value and noted nearby features, including another turbine and a scrapyard.”

Minutes

Conditions attached

Approval included conditions covering implementation, plans, the 25-year duration, highways, traffic, noise, lighting and biodiversity.

“It is recommended that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:”

“Time period for implementation • Development in accordance with the approved plans and elevations • Time limited duration to the permission (25 years) • Highways structural assessment • Highways condition survey • Details of highway works • Highway remediation works • Traffic management plan • Noise mitigation • Aviation lighting • Biodiversity enhancement ___________________________________________________________________”

Officer report