The National Assembly's Inspector David Sheers has dismissed the appeal by the developer TXU Europe against the refusal to grant planning permission by Pembrokeshire County Council. That decision was controversial because although carried by an overwhelming majority of members, it was reached against the recommendation of planning officer Mrs. Lynda Taylor.

The proposal was to erect three 74m (243ft) turbines, larger than any yet built in Wales, on the crest of the Angle peninsula at their closest 140m from the ridge road and boundary of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, and within 1.5km of 18 residential properties. From some vantage points the turbines would have been visible against the backdrop of the Texaco refinery, but from many key view points, including sections of the Coast Path and Freshwater West, only the turbines would be seen on the skyline.

The inquiry took place at Pembroke Town Hall from March 20-30 (twice as long as expected due to the large amount of local objectors' evidence and lengthy cross-examination of the appellants).

CPRW was represented by its local consultant Geoff Sinclair who also gave three Proofs of Evidence covering landscape, visual impact, and energy aspects, and called as witness Prof. John Ratcliffe, chairman of the Friends of the National Park.

CPRW worked in tandem with a local objectors' group based on occupiers of potentially affected properties at Wallaston Green and other concerned local people.

The county council was represented by barrister Miss Tina Douglas who called professional landscape and planning witnesses and Ifor Jones from the National Park.

The Inspector found that the main issue was "whether or not the environment effects of the proposed development, on the character and appearance of the landscape, including that of the National Park, and on the visual and residential amenities of the area, are such as to outweigh the need for the development of a renewable energy scheme on this site."

He repeated CPRW's evidence on the unprecedented size of the proposed turbines, including that of the blade-swept area which would "have the potential for a very substantial degree of impact," noting also that it would "extend over a very wide area" of the National Park.

In contrast to the appellants' contention that "significant landscape and visual effects would be limited to locations within 3km of the site," he quoted CPRW's view that major impacts could occur at up to 6km, at which distance he found they could "appear intrusive in the landscape."

He noted "major differences of opinion" between TXU and the objectors over the role of detractors in the landscape such as the Texaco refinery, considering that these had been "somewhat exaggerated" by TXU and "would not serve as a backdrop to anything like the extent that the appellants claim."

Turning to the need for the development, the Inspector observed that support for renewable energy was "not unequivocal" and was "subject to the test of environmental acceptability and the need to balance it against the visual impact of wind turbines in the landscape."

He endorsed CPRW's evidence that by failing to explore other less damaging sites in the vicinity the appellants could not claim that there was an overriding need to develop the Wogaston site, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Commenting on the decision, Mr. Sinclair said: "This is a significant victory. It vindicates the determined view of county councillors who stood firm against the misconceived advice that this was a site they should sacrifice.

"The Inspector agreed with the local objectors that the impact on their amenity and the landscape of the National Park was unacceptably high in relation to the benefits which could be obtained elsewhere.

"The decision justifies CPRW's long-held view - supported at the inquiry by both Pembrokeshire's MPs - that the finest landscapes in rural Wales should not be 'cherry-picked' by developers just because they may have somewhat higher average wind speeds.

"It sends out a message that we should be looking to degraded sites and offshore locations for wind power, and developing other forms of renewable energy such as tidal currents in the Haven."

On a personal note, Mr. Sinclair complimented the residents of Wogaston Green and in particular Mr. Neil Machin who with "the minimum of coaching and restraint" had presented a complex set of witnesses at the inquiry, and cross-examined the developer's witnesses with some flair.

He also paid tribute to the tenacity of the county council's barrister Miss Tina Douglass and their landscape witness Mr. John Campion.

"We all worked together as a team," concluded Mr. Sinclair, "determined to protect this special place from what we knew to be an unnecessary and ill-considered development."