THE decision of the country’s highest court on a Forest wind turbine plan could have ‘far-reaching consequences’ for all kinds of developments in the future.

The row over whether the Forest of Dean District Council was right to take into account an annual pay-out to the local community when it gave permission for the turbine at Severnvale Farm in Tidenham, reached the Supreme Court last week.

The Woolaston-Based Resilience Centre and the council have lost the argument in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal and putting the case before the five Supreme Court judges is the last chance to overturn the decisions of the lower courts.

There has been a promise of £500,000 going to the community over 20 years, the court – sitting in Cardiff for the first time – was told.

But Neil Cameron QC, acting on behalf of Tidenham resident Peter Wright who has fought the granting of permission, asked: “When does the promise to pay money into a community fund become buying and selling of planning permission?”

He said if the appeal by the Resilience Centre and the council was upheld, councils could tell developers that without a community donation, planning permission would be refused.

Mr Martin Kingston QC, for the Resilience Centre and the council, said planners were right to take into account the fund which would further the government’s aim of getting communities involved in renewable energy.

Mr Cameron said that taking into account the community benefits was “where the council went wrong”. 

He said allowing the appeal would have “far reaching consequences” as it would allow councils to insist on community benefits as a condition of granting planning permission.

He said: “However this scheme is described, however much one refers to the community benefit society, what is happening here is four per cent of the turnover is being offered and being taken into account by the local authority and that’s where the local authority went wrong. 

“There is no doubt the scheme would be community led and managed.”

Mr Cameron used the example of two groups from St Briavels which had benefited from donations from the village’s wind turbine.

He said: “It is not suggested there is anything wrong with that, but it doesn’t relate to the character of the use of the land – it is desirable but not material.”

Mr Cameron argued that if anything which furthers the aim of policy – such as encouraging renewable energy – was material to decision-making it would remove a protection against “buying and selling planning permission”.

He added: “All you would have to do is make a planning policy which encouraged donations to local communities by developers

“It would enable local planning authorities to promote planning policies which indicated that in the absence of community donation, planning permission would be refusedw

“The effect would be akin to introducing a tax based on the exercise of administrative discretion.”

Mr Cameron told the court: “If this appeal were to be allowed it would be a departure from the long line of cases which have restricted material considerations for both policy making and decision making to those relating to the use of land.”

Earlier Mr Kingston had told the court – which was sitting in Cardiff for the first time – “The issue raised in this appeal is a simple one.  

“Is the financial benefit to be provided by the community benefit society in the form of the fund a material consideration.  

“The Court of Appeal and the judge below thought it wasn’t. The appellants contend it is. 

“The Court of Appeal’s approach focuses inappropriately on a consequence of community involvement, so it is focused on what the community fund might be spent on to the point of identifying where every pound might go, a consequence, rather than the planning purpose 

“The planning purpose in this case is to engage communities in renewable energy generation, to encourage that engagement, have them engaged in the management and this is what this development does.”

Mr Kingston rejected an accusation made on behalf of respondent Mr Peter Wright that there was no real difference between the Severnvale project and a wholly commercial scheme. 

Mr Kingston said: “This is very far away from anything that could be described as commerical.

“It is fundamentally not commercial, it is fundamentally driven by the desire to benefit the community 

“The respondents concentrate on how the money is spent – that is a wrong approach that leads to the absurdity of chasing every pound to see what it is spent on.” he said.  

“What matters is whether the development effectuates the lawful policy which is focused on community involvement for positive local benefits.” 

The justices will make their decision at a later date.