PLANS for a 280-feet tall wind turbine on the outskirts of Coleford have been thrown out on appeal.

Mr Ronald Kear appealed against the Forest Council's refusal of planning permission for the 86.5-metre (280-feet) turbine, a 60-metre (196-feet) monitoring mast, access and the removal of 160 metres (525 feet) of hedgerow in a field adjacent to Poolway Farm and near the Forest Hills Golf Club and Great Oaks Hospice.

But while inspector Paul Griffiths agreed the proposal would bring considerable benefits in terms of renewable energy production, he said that was outweighed by the harmful impact on the landscape and sport and recreation and on the living conditions of local people.

He concluded: "On that basis, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development...The harmful impacts of the proposal are not, and cannot be made, acceptable."

The decision was welcomed by local county councillor Paul McMahon who said that it was opposition to proposed site, not the principle of renewable energy, that was the bone of contention.

One of the government's core planning principles is the encouragement of renewable energy with applicants not required to demonstrate an overall need for "green" energy.

The main issue was whether the benefits of the turbine – which would be limited to an operational life of 25 years – outweighed the impact on living conditions, recreation and the landscape.

At the inquiry into the appeal, held in Coleford last summer, Mr Kear accepted the turbine would produce enough electricity to supply 523 homes and prevent 959 tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere.

The council claimed the turbine would produce enough power for 396 homes, saving 604 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

While both sides could point to independent backing for their figures, Mr Griffiths said that without data from a measuring instrument, any assessment "must involve a magnified degree of speculation."

He concluded the figures would offer a useful indication of the range within which the turbine was likely to perform.

Mr Griffiths visited a large number of houses around the site as well as the hospice and an old people's home and it was clear the turbine would be a "distinct presence" and the detrimental impact on the landscape would be "very obvious" to residents and would have "something of a detrimental impact" on living conditions..

But he added that it was a long-established principle that nobody has a right to a view and it would be wrong to conflate the visibility of the turbine with harmful impact on living conditions.

He also considered that the presence of the turbine would not be "dominant, overbearing, oppressive or pervasive."

The turbine "would be a moving, man-made imposition on the landscape of significant scale

"There is nothing within the immediate context of the site that even approaches a similar height. This would make the wind turbine appear highly incongruous," said Mr Griffiths.

He added that its position in a "bowl" would mean there was no wider landscape context for it or a distant horizon to provide "visual relief".

Removing the hedge would disrupt a "very distinct" field pattern making it appear as if the turbine was in one, large field and that would appear "jarring".

The turbine would be a oppressively close to the 11th green and 12th tee at the Forest Hills Golf Club and would devalue the sporting and recreational experience of the course.

County councillor McMahon (Lab, Coleford East) said: "The outcome of the appeal is good news for the people of Coleford and particularly those living around the Forest Hills golf club.

"We are not against renewable energy but the centre of a market town is not the place for a turbine such as this."