A scheme to replace a wind turbine next to one of the main south Pembrokeshire roads to Tenby with one nearly 100 foot taller is expected to be refused by county planners.

Tim French of CWE DS Limited is seeking permission to replace a current 60.5m high turbine with one up to 90 metres, or just under 300 foot, high on land north of Summerton Farm, near the B4318 road from Sageston to Tenby.

The application, some 1.5km east of Sageston and 1.6km northwest of St Florence, will be considered by Pembrokeshire County Council planners at their February 13 meeting, with an objection to the scheme by the council’s landscape officer recorded in an accompanying report.

The replacement EWT DW61 wind turbine would have a generating capacity of 330kW with a hub height of 59 metres and a blade tip height of 90 metres.

Agent Neo Environmental Ltd, in a supporting statement, says: “The Proposed Development would consist of a single turbine, with a rated output capacity of 330kW to ensure the existing maximum site grid capacity is met.

“Whilst there is no change in the rated output capacity compared to the existing turbine, energy production on-site would be greater due to the following factors: improved reliability of newer turbine technology; increased wind speeds at higher elevations; improved wind to energy conversion efficiency of newer turbine technology; and increased swept area of wind capture.

“The applicant proposes to use a EWT DW61 as a candidate turbine, with the potential to replace with a similar model, with a maximum tip height of 90m.”

The report for members says the council’s landscape officer has disputed the applicant’s Landscape Visual Impact Assessment view the change in visual impact “for a very large turbine in a rural landscape” would be ‘slight’.

The report also says supplementary planning guidance recommends a far larger scoping area for potential visual impacts on larger turbines; a much smaller 5km study area instead being used, adding the proposal "is considered to contain insufficient information to demonstrate that the development would not have an adverse cumulative visual impact".

It finishes by saying the proposal" is considered to have a detrimental visual impact and contains insufficient information in respect of cumulative impact".

The application is recommended for refusal on the grounds its height and scale would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the locality, with the additional clause of failing to comply with supplementary guidance.