Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2013/0160 Grid Ref: 315262.37 290652.87

Community Kerry Community Council Valid Date: Officer: Council: 11/02/2013 Arwel Evans

Applicant: Mr Tom Jerman, Cloddiau, Kerry, Newtown SY16 4DY

Location: Cloddiau, Kerry, Newtown SY16 4DY

Proposal: Full: Construction of a single 50kw wind turbine (hub height 24.8m and blade tip height of 34.5m) grid ref: 315542/290768 at Cloddiau Farm

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

Site Location and Description

The proposal relates to the proposed installation of a 50kW three bladed wind turbine which will be 24.8m at the height of the hub and 34.5 m to blade tip. The specification of the turbine is indicated to be an Endurance E-3210 24m monopole which will have attached to the hub 3 x 9m blades. The rotor diameter is indicated by the submitted plan to be 18.2 m.

The E-3120 comprises fibre glass/epoxy blades in white (RAL 9010) with the nacelle and mast being a galvanised welded steel finished in white.

The Design and Access Statement clarifies that the turbine proposed is exactly the same as that established on land at Genau Hafod, Dolfor.

The application is submitted further to the withdrawal of a previous planning application (planning reference number P/2012/0711) which was in respect of a taller turbine which was proposed to be 45m to blade tip.

The submitted Design and Access Statement indicates that the application has been submitted with a view that the revised scheme seeks to address the objections raised previously.

The application is submitted with no benefit of any preliminary application discussions with the Local Planning Authority (as confirmed by Section 5 of the planning application form) which has not been sought further to the withdrawal of the previous planning application. The submitted site plan as presented indicates that the turbine proposed in this instance is to be located 45m to the North West of the site subject of the previously submitted application.

Page 11 of the submitted design and Access Statement however indicates that the turbine will be located at the same location as that of the original and withdrawn planning application.

Despite this statement the submitted plans clearly indicate that the location as now proposed has changed .

The 1:2500 and 1:1250 site plan indicates that the turbine will occupy a central location within an open and exposed field which is located adjacent to an existing 24,000 bird free range egg production unit which is located approximately 1080m North East of Kerry.

The precise distance of the proposed turbine from the existing poultry building is shown by the plans to be 165m (East). The limits of the planning application site is indicated to constitute a rectangular area being 27m square together with an area of proposed temporary track way 240m in length by 3 m wide which is shown to run from the turbine site across two fields in a westerly direction towards an existing track which is to be used by vehicles associated with the construction and erection of the turbine on site.

The plans also indicate the line of the proposed cable which will connect the turbine to an existing transformer which is located 25m directly south of the poultry shed.

No details are submitted in respect of the stated temporary track, which in the absence of information to the contrary does not suggest any engineering operations on land will be undertaken in connection with the construction phase.

The application is submitted on the basis that the development proposes a small scale renewable energy project in respect of a turbine which is 11m lower than the previously proposed turbine. The Design and Access Statement indicates that this form of renewable energy production constitutes the only feasible option having considered photovoltaic panels on the roof of the existing poultry building which was not considered a viable option.

The site is conspicuous by the very nature of the local topography which renders the site conspicuous from the main road on approach into Kerry, in addition to long range views particularly from the east, south east, south and south west. The topography is rolling with localised ridgelines. Particularly distinctive is the ridge between Kerry and Newtown and the ridge to the south of Kerry Hill.

The turbine is to be located 370m to the north east of the farmhouse at Cloddiau farm, with the closest residential property beyond the applicant’s land being Great Cloddiau, which is located 430m to the north east. It is indicated that a property known as Red House Farm is located 490m to the west of the site.

The nearest map reference to any archaeological interests or features is that of the annotated Earthwork to the North East of the site the boundary of which is 280m in distance from the turbine site.

2 The planning application has been screened in terms of whether the development proposed in accordance with regulation 5 (1) of the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 constitutes development which is subject to the submission of an Environmental Statement to support the application.

The Local Planning Authority does not consider that the development constitutes EIA development in the context of the ‘Regulations’ which requires an Environmental Statement to be submitted with the planning application.

However the issuing of such an opinion relates to the sole matter of whether the proposed development is considered to constitute EIA development and does not in any way commit or bind the Local Planning Authority to any particular stance regarding the acceptability of the site for such development - in the context of the material planning considerations which inform the decision making process.

The design and access Statement makes reference to the planning issues to be considered including Landscape and Visual Impact (supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Ecology (supported by a phase 1 habitat survey), impact upon amenity (shadow flicker and noise impact including cumulative noise impact and vibration), impact upon heritage and highway impacts. The statement also makes reference to the economic and social benefits of such development.

The proposed development is described within the submitted Design and Access Statement to constitute a small scale renewable energy project which will support the existing mixed beef and sheep farm.

CCW LANDMAP defines the site as part of the Llandyssil Hill and scarp grazing described as ‘rolling upland grazing centre on an intricate patchwork of small field parcels bounded by treed hedgerow. The majority of the area is of a more open nature with larger grazed and cultivated fields and dispersed settlements / farmsteads overlooking the flat open farmland of the Severn Vale. It is described as a typical example of mixed arable and livestock farming that is evident throughout the area. LANDMAP describes the area as one displaying an extensive patchwork of small to medium sized fields that are good examples of this aspect type but are suffering from the loss of character to the outer edges of the aspect due to the amalgamation of smaller fields for easier cultivation.

The Design and Access statement indicates that the site has moderate visual sensitivity, mainly because of the small, extensive patchwork of fields that have been amalgamated together over time. which has resulted in some loss of character.

Being within the Kerry and River Severn flood plain which is characterised by an open valley with a patchwork of open fields. The CCW LANDMAP area of Kerry Ridgeway lies to the far South, an area of open expansive grazing.

The site lies north of the TAN 8 Strategic Search Area (SSA) B with the nearest known operational wind farm site being located approximately 17km to the South of the turbine site (Llandinam). A single 55Kw turbine has been granted consent at Dolfor which is located 3.5km from the proposed turbine site. The Dolfor site cannot be seen from Cloddiau Farm due to the local topography.

3

Shadow flicker has been identified as a potential source of environmental impact which occurs when the sun passes behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow. The shadow flicks on and off as the blade rotates. The statement acknowledges that shadow flicker can potentially affect residential properties and can potentially affect the health of individual persons who are photo-sensitive epileptics. Shadow flicker is seasonal and last a few hours per day but needs to be investigated where any potential exists.

The report indicates that shadow flicker only occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a narrow window opening. In addition only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can be affected at latitudes in the UK. Shadow flicker can be mitigated by siting wind turbines at sufficient distances from residences likely to be affected. Flicker effects have been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of a turbine.

The turbine has blades 9m in length (18.2m diameter). Consequently based upon a multiple of 10, the potential for shadow flicker effect could be felt up to 182m from the turbine.

Shadow flicker has been considered as part of the assessment of impact. It is indicated that no properties will be affected by shadow flicker.

The Design and Access Statement indicates that the assessment of noise associated with the proposed installation has been assessed using ‘The Assessment of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97) which sets out the framework for assessing indicative noise levels associated with turbine installations.

It is indicated that the turbine is sited 430 m from the nearest residential property which is Great Cloddiau which is the nearest residential receptor point to the turbine site. .

It is stated that based upon a wind speed of 10 m per second the generated noise would result in an impact of 28 dB (A) at this residential receptor which is below the lower recommended daytime limit of 35 dB (A) and well below the night time ETSU recommended limit of 43dB (A).

In terms of considered cumulative noise impact of development the report indicates that there are no other noise sources within the vicinity of the proposed site to create a cumulative noise impact in conjunction with the turbine when in operation.

The submitted information indicates that cumulative noise combined with other sources of noise in the vicinity is acceptable, whilst it is indicated that impact of vibration was not as such that human health would be affected.

The report includes a section relating to Historic Environment and Heritage Assets which indicates that the turbine is located as such not to have any detrimental impact upon the prehistoric enclosure site of Greater Cloddiau Enclosure II.

4 The report makes reference to listed buildings within a 1km radius of the proposed turbine site which identifies 3 listed properties as being within 1km radius of the site. These properties are cited as the Grade II Listed Cefn Maenllwyd, Kerry, The Grade II Smithy at the confluence of the Abermule and Churchstoke road and the Grade II listed Glanmule Bridge, Kerry. The report concludes will not be affected by the proposed development.

Photomontages and visual representations of the proposed development from vantage points considered appropriate by the applicant’s representatives have been submitted to depict the perceived visual impact / effect of the development.

It is indicated that the temporary access track would be laid along the line shown on the site plan, whilst the topography of the landscape would not be changed by the proposed development.

It is indicated that the installation of the turbine would be completed in two stages, with the construction of the foundation taking half a day to complete and the erection of the turbine a further 2 days. Soil excavated will be retained on the applicant’s land.

It is indicated that the turbine will be delivered to site on a flat bed articulated lorry, with an anticipated 5 HGV lorry movements which can be accommodated by the public highway.

An existing private access track would be utilised at the construction stage which would avoid any movements through any part of the village.

An ecological appraisal has been submitted which constitutes a desktop study which considers nature conservation interests in the area including protected species, designated sites, hedgerows, vegetation and planning legislation including the planning policy context.

The report concludes that the development would not have any detrimental impacts in the context of the above.

The Design and Access Statement indicates that the farm consumes approximately 120, 000kWh per annum whilst the turbine is anticipated to generate 132 kWh of electricity annually, the surplus of which would be exported to the national grid.

The economic case put forward is that the fuels bills for Cloddiau will be less per annum. No further information is provided to support the economic case for the turbine.

A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) associated with the proposed development has been submitted based on a report which is dated January 2013.

The LVIA is split into seven sub sections which include the methodology used for the landscape and visual baseline assessment and in establishing the magnitude and significance of impacts from the proposed development. Section 3 relates to a baseline study of the landscape of the existing site and its surrounding based on the LANDMAP mapping system. LANDMAP is the national information system, devised by

5 the Countryside Council for W for taking landscape into account in decision making regarding development which potentially affects landscape.

Section 4 provides a baseline study of the visual resource of the existing site and its surroundings. A computer generated Zone of theoretical Visibility (ZTV) enabled the selection of 11 viewpoints to allow an assessment of the sensitive visual receptors. The visual assessment identifies any elements, features and receptors that might be particularly sensitive to the proposed development and considers the overall sensitivity of the selected viewpoints.

Section 5 sets out potential landscape and visual implications that the development could have without any mitigation, together with the proposed landscape strategy. This section also considers cumulative impacts from any other or existing developments in the nearby area.

Section 6 outlines any mitigation which should be considered.

Section 7 describes the predicted residual landscape impacts after mitigation has been considered and an assessment of the significance of landscape impacts.

Section 8 describes the predicted residual visual effects after mitigation has been considered and an assessment of the significance of visual impacts. Section 9 provides conclusions to the report.

The report (page 5) sets out the assumptions and limitations associated with the report which refers to matters discussed and agreed with Powys County Council all as relating to a previous planning application.

The assessment indicates that the application site itself has some cultural, landscape, ecological and historic value in varying degrees. The assessment indicates that in terms of sensitivity and quality that the overall quality of the landscape is considered to be medium due to the extent of the agricultural land in combination with mature although gappy hedgerows featuring mature trees and woodland groups.

The assessment seeks to appreciate the potential influence of the proposed development in the wider landscape and to indicate areas from which it might be possible to secure a view towards the application site. In this respect a Zone of theoretical Visual Influence has been created using Resoft Windfarm software which establishes the areas of the landscape surrounding the application site likely to experience views of the proposed application site.

The assessment indicates that the visibility of the application site is principally restricted by the surrounding landform, ridgelines to the North West, south west and southeast as well as high topography to the north east. Blocks of woodland and more local landform also contains and restricts views.

The LVIA includes the submission of photographs from the selected viewpoints which does not however clearly show the turbine as a visual representation set against the existing landscape. The location and height of the turbine however are shown on submitted wire frames.

6

It is indicated that those parts of the surrounding landscape likely to be more sensitive to the proposed development include Rights of Way close to the application site, Residents in Kerry and Sawmills.

Principal viewpoints are indicated in addition to secondary viewpoints which are rated by the degree of sensitivity from low through to medium and high.

The section concludes that the overall sensitivity of the immediate area surrounding the application site to visual impact is considered to be medium. However there are receptors of high and low sensitivity in the surrounding area whereby a greater number of or few people respectively would experience the view.

The report concludes that the potential landscape and visual impact of the development once completed will have a localised impact upon the landscape character due to the muted landscape and the relative lack of diversity in the land use, but this is contained due to the topography, scattered farmsteads and associated vegetation.

The majority of the longer distance views towards the application site will be unaffected due to the distance, intervening topography and associated landscape features, including large woodland blocks, mature hedgerows and individual scattered trees.

The report indicates that there is minimal scope for enhancement due to the nature of the proposed development and proposed height of the wind turbines above the surrounding landscape features.

The report concludes that the cultural landscape will not be affected since any archaeology in situ does not have dominant presence within the landscape which will remain as such unaffected.

It also concludes that the predicted residual landscape impacts are localised in scale and restricted to the application site, access track and immediate environs. It is concluded that the residual magnitude of the landscape impacts will be medium and adverse during construction and medium and adverse on completion.

A table is presented indicating the residual visual impacts of the turbine which considers the sensitivity of the viewpoint, the magnitude of change and the significance and nature of residual impacts which indicates that the magnitude of change from viewpoints selected. It shows that the turbine from viewpoints considered high and medium in sensitivity in terms of magnitude of change will have a low or negligible impact once complete.

In the context of the above, the report emphasises that the site is not located within any national statutory landscape designation, although there are three scheduled ancient monuments within close proximity of the planning application site.

It concludes that the development proposals will become a new feature within the landscape; it will be assimilated by surrounding vegetation, the sloping topography,

7 sunken winding lanes, hedgerows with mature trees and small woodland copses which close down a number of close up views of the site . The turbine will also be in the context of the existing transmission mast at Red House Farm and in the context of the adjacent farm buildings and poultry buildings.

The report concludes that there will be no overall impact upon the LANDMAP designations within the application site, with field boundaries, existing farmsteads, heritage, cultural or geological assets being affected and local habitats remaining intact.

Once the proposed development is complete there will be a localised change in the land use and a small change in character. However the character of the surrounding landscape will not be significantly altered and the wider landscape context to the north and beyond the ridgeline to the West will be unaffected.

The overall sensitivity of the receptor surrounding the application site to visual impact is considered to be medium. The more sensitive receptors are within and around Kerry and longer distance views from higher topography. It is indicated that there is low or negligible impact to the majority of viewpoints both during construction and on completion. The highest impacts are experienced by those viewpoints with clear views, in closer proximity of the application site with limited intervening vegetation. It is concluded that the overall magnitude and nature of the visual impacts would be negligible on completion.

The Design and Access Statement concludes that that the site has been chosen carefully to ensure that it can be absorbed by the local landscape and is inconspicuous in the landscape from most mid and distant view points.

The report concludes that the site of the turbine has been chosen carefully to ensure that it can be absorbed the local landscape and is inconspicuous in the landscape from most mid and long distance points. The report concludes that any intrusion in the landscape would be minimal which is outweighed by the economic, social and environmental benefit of the proposals outlined. The report also concludes that the quality of the local environment will not be adversely affected including the amenity of nearby residents.

Consultee Response

Kerry Community Council : Councillors support this application generating electricity to provide electricity fopr their own business, provided that the application complies with powys County Council’s environmental impact policy. Powys County Council Highways : Reiterated its advice issued in respect of planning reference P/2012/0711 in that it has no objection subject to a section 106 agreement or unitalteral undertaking which details that the private access road will be used for all construction traffic as opposed to the use of the C2144 highway. Powys County Council Ecologist : No response received. Powys County Council Environmental Health Services : No objection on the basis of the submitted noise data which indicates that the decay of noise from the turbine over distance and importantly this shows that at a windspeed of 10m/s the sound

8 pressure is below 35dB(A) at a distance in excess of 400m. The turbine can thereofre comply with the simplified methodology assessment defined in ETSU-R-97, which does not require any background noise monitoring to be undertaken. Natural Resources Wales (Countryside Council for Wales): Does not object to this proposals but advises that if further applications for single turbines of this size were to be submitted within this area North West of the Kerry ridgeway then CCW would have concerns about the cumulative impact of these schemes.Indicates that the application site is not within a historic landscape. CCW indicates that it has not considered possible effects on all local or regional intrerests. Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust : No response received. MOD: No objection. Powys County Council Countryside Services : No objection. Shropshire County Council : No response received. Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn Town Council : of a quorate of 3 there was one objection on the grounds of visual blot on the lansdcape. Abermule & Llandyssil Community Council : No response recorded as being received. Montgomery Town Council : No response received. Churchstoke Community Council : The Council considers that the development will have no direct impact on Churchstoke Community Council area, but asks planning officers to take into account the cumulative impact of wind turbines. Beguildy Community Council : No response received. Llanbadarn Fynydd Community Council : No response received. Mochdre with Penstrowed Community Council : No objection. Cllr Kath Roberts-Jones : Requests to speak to committee. Cllr Russell George Cllr Joy Jones Cllr Gemma-Jane Bowker Cllr Peter Harris Cllr Bob Mills Cllr Wynne Jones Cllr Stephen Hayes Cllr Michael J Jones Cllr John Brunt No representations received from remaining ‘members’ consulted

Neighbouring Properties

Great Cloddiau The Willows Brookside Station View Cwmderw Ail Dy Red House Red House Cottage Red House Cottage (Morgan) Little Red House (Lewis) Red House Red House Farm (Morgan)

9 Cloddiau Little Cloddiau Fair Oaks Red House Bungalow

No representations received other than those indicated (below)

Third party consultation list (based upon who submitted representations in respect of the previous planning application).

10

Representations received

A number of written representations have been received including:

Pro forma objection letters which have been individually signed on the behalf of the stated household with individual comments being added:

The standard wording of the typed pro forma letter indicates as follows:

Dear Sir,

I wish to object to the construction of a 34.5m high (113 ft) single 50kw commercial wind turbine on the top of the hill at Cloddiau Farm, overlooking Kerry Village and vale.

The turbine will have an unacceptable visual impact on the important historic and cultural landscape of Kerry vale and on village properties.

The applicant owes it to the community to choose a less visually intrusive way to generate green energy because the site is so close to the village.

The following households submitted this letter objecting to the proposals on those grounds cited :

Jane Dowell, 8 Panarron Drive, Kerry,

E Thomas, 6 Oak Court, Kerry,

Mr Paul Richards, 3 Penarron Drive, Kerry

Jacqui Griffiths, 7 Penarron Drive, Kerry

Anthony Lloyd, Greenbank, Gloucester Rd, Swainswich, Bath

Mrs T Gore, 4 Park Street, Newtown

11 M.E.Williams, 303 Lon Rhosod, Trehafren, Newtown

Mrs P.D.A Hughes, Brooklea, Penarron Drive, Kerry

Caroline Jones, Eden Knoll, Kerry

George Jones, Eden Knoll, Kerry

Patricia Butterton, 31 Park Avenue, Kerry

Mr and Mrs Richards, 33 Park Avenue, Kerry

Evan, 7 Rowan Court, Kerry

C Trow, 26 Chesnut View, Kerry

Mr and Mrs S.P.Owen, 35 Park Avenue, Kerry

R.J.Weld, 23 Park Avenue, Kerry

John Harries, Cefn Brith, 5 Millfield, Newtown

K Harries, Cefn Brith, 5 Millfield, Newtown

J.L.Liddiard, Pine View, Sawmills, Kerry

L Topham, 54 Dolforgan View, Kerry

M.R.Hussey, 37 Dolforgan View, Kerry

Paul, The Old Court, Kerry

Graham Anderson, Upper Waen, Kerry

Michelle Anderson, Upper Waen, Kerry

Patricia Wheatley, Homestay, Bryn Lane, Newtown

C.T Wheatley O.B.E Homestay, Bryn Lane, Newtown

G Lloyd, Isfryn, 21 Dolforgan View, Kerry

M.E.Hussey, 37 Dolforgan View, Kerry

Georgia Hall, The Old Court, Kerry

A.F.J Rogers, 2 Meredith Court, Old Kerry Road, Newtown

D Gurden, The Old Court, Kerry

12 Issues raised

• Query raised what is the community benefit of such a proposal

• Concern that proposed turbine will be a blot on the landscape

• Concern regarding the impact of the turbine upon property value

• Concern regarding impact of the turbine on views when walking on the Kerry Hills

• Concern expressed that if the construction is approved many local farmers will be putting in similar applications, and the countryside will be full of such turbines.

Objections received via e mails were as follows:

Rhidian Wilson, Maenllwyd Farmhouse, Kerry, Newtown, Powys

Paul and Sandra Evans, 12 Chesnut View, Kerry

Carol and Rob Watson, Wernybeddau, Montgomery:

(Indicate that the points raised in their previous objection remain valid).

Neil Upton, The Mitre, 12 The Village, Kerry

* Footnote (The reference to a previous correspondence made by Carol and Rob Watson is noted as these comments or objections are not reiterated in full in connection with this application earlier comments cannot be taken into account in connection with this application)

Elvet and Janet Davies, 25 Dolforgan View, Kerry

Jayne and Andy Kirk, The Laurels, Common Road, Kerry

Chris and Michelle Lloyd, Old Wagoner’s Cottage, Sawmills, Kerry

John Collier, Cefn Y Mynach Barn, Kerry

Paul Sawtell, Esgair Geiliog Old Hall, Mochdre

Derek Wick, Hillgate, Kerry

B.A.Kibble C.Eng (No address provided)

Jane Stewart, Mill House, Sawmills, Kerry

Nigel Bullockon the behalf of N&S Bullock, Dol Frwynog, LD7 1YT

13 Mitzi Upton, 12 The Village, Kerry

Rhodri Thomas (no address provided with e mail)

Renita Hughes, Brook Cottage, Sawmills, Kerry

Brian Matthews, Lower Cwm Ffrwd, Llandinam

David Hughes, Brook Cottage, Sawmills

Paul and Sandra Evans, 12 Chesnut View, Kerry

Issues Raised

• Concern regarding the proximity of the planning application site to medieval sites including the Gwenthriew Enclosure Medieval site which is within 2-300 yards of the proposed turbine site.

• Issue raised whether Powys County Council could reject the application on the basis of significant visual impact and the lack of consideration to medieval sites , but to recommend to the applicant to consider photovoltaic cells?

• Concern regarding the potential cumulative impact of the proposed turbine

• Concern regarding visual impact and impact upon the character and visual amenity of the landscape.

• Perceived negative visual impact on the ancient Kerry Ridgeway, Listed Historic Buildings and Kerry Cemetery and the Sawmills Conservation Area.

• Concern regarding the impact of the turbine on the village, its inhabitants and scenery

• Concern regarding perceived effect of the turbine on the economy including tourism.

• View expressed that turbines are a waste of public money

• Concern expressed regarding the impact of the turbine on views from residential properties

• Concern expressed regarding the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment in terms of its quality with the submission of deliberately misleading photographs.

• Concern that visual assessment does not show clear site lines of the site from the vantage point

14 • Concern that the significance of Beacon Hill Area along the Kerry Ridgeway which is noted to be outstanding in terms of geological landscape in not reflected within the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which has omitted LANDMAP for this landscape type.

• Concern that habitat, historic landscapes and cultural landscapes with reference to and the use of LANDMAP has been omitted from the LVIA.

• Concern that the visibility of the proposed turbine within the LVIA has been over simplified.

• The turbine would be very visible and a dominant structure in the landscape and could be considered a distraction to highway users.

• The reduction in the tower section when compared to the previous P/2012/0711 application will not reduce the conspicuous nature of the proposed turbine, which would still be one and a half times higher than Kerry Church.

• Concern regarding the impact of the turbine from recreational receptor points including recreational routes and public footpaths.

• Concern that the phase 1 habitat survey referred to within the Design and Access Statement has not been submitted and therefore the overall assessment is still incomplete.

• Photomontages are considered meaningless as such do not show the turbine but merely an arrow indicating where the turbine will be located.

• Objection to the height of the turbine

• Concern relating to the impact of the turbine on Kerry Church.

• Concern regarding the disproportionate contribution of such turbine installations to the despoilment of the countryside

• Concern expressed regarding reflective light flicker and turbine component colour and impact upon residential amenity

• Concern expressed regarding issues of flicker in the form of reflected light which can affect properties and individuals over a much greater distance to the detriment of property amenity and highway safety due to the mesmerising nuisance and distraction that it causes.

• Issue raised that the above mentioned issue can be controlled or incidence minimised by ensuring that turbine towers, blades and nacelle will have a semi- matt light grey surface finish (RAL7035) which is aligned with Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Note 8

15

Representations of support

Pro forma support letters which have been individually signed on the behalf of the stated households:

Emma Wall, Walcot, Pant Nursery, Kerry

Shirley Davies, The Willows, Glanmule, Kerry

Anne Evans, 2 Plasybryn Bungalows, Llanfair Road, Newtown

Jill Jones, 3 The Gardens, Kerry

Margaret France, Boundary Cottage, Wellingore Road, Wellbounn

Jonathan Evans, 35 Willans Drive, Kerry

K.M.Davies, The Willows, Glanmule, Kerry

Chloe Davies, The Willows, Glanmule, Kerry

A.M.Davies, The Willows, Glanmule, Kerry

Natalie Davies, The Willows, Glanmule, Kerry

Iris Andrews, Fieldgate, 3 Dolforgan View

David Andrew Jones, 3 The Gardens, Kerry

Mr William and Mrs Camilla Ransford, Cefn Caled, Kerry

Janet Griffiths, Lower Penygelly, Kerry

Brian Griffiths, Lower Penygelly, Kerry

Robert Jones, Brynawelon, Kerry

Paula Jones, Brynawelon, Kerry

Amanda Evans, 35 Willans Drive, Kerry

Abbey Griffiths, Lower Penygelly, Kerry

Sally Ann Tan, Upper Brynwawr, Kerry

Greg Griffiths, Lower Penygelly, Kerry

Joe Smith, 2 Baghdad Road, Cramwell, Sleaford

16 Karl Davies, The Willows, Glanmule, Kerry

Suganya Jones, 1 Meredith Court, Old Kerry Road, Newtown

C Poston, 57 New Road, Newtown

Geraint Powell, Glanmiheli, Kerry

Cledwyn Jones, 1 Meredith Court, Old Kerry Road, Newtown

P Lovergorve, 26 Old Kerry Road, Newtown

John Wilde, 26 Old Kerry Road, Newtown

Rob Hamer, Ysgafell Bungalow, Aberhafesp

Mr Jack Francis, Greenhills, Dolforgan View, Kerry

Martyn Williams, West Fedw, Tylwch

Glenn Havarel, Bryn Y Gog, Machynlleth

D.L. Evans, Pantywynthrew, Berriew, Welshpool

Gareth Ruggeri, Fronlas Farm, Mochdre Lane, Newtown

Miss Lynwen Thomas, Wellfield House, East Street, Rhayader, Powys

Sophie Rees, Faidre Fach, Llawr y Glyn, Caersws

John Lloyd, Hafod, Carno, Newtown

Aaron Colley, 17 The Gardens, Newtown

Naomi George, Upper Penarron, Kerry

Becky George, Upper Penarron, Kerry

Maldwyn and Irene Lewis, Red House, Kerry

Heather Lloyd, Hafod, Cwmllwyd, Carno

James Jones, Bryn yr Hesglwyn, Llidiartywaen

Phil Jerman, Coed Mawr, Oakley Park, Llanidloes

Luci Roberts, 7 Avon Way, Canal Road, Newtown

Helen Clark, The Park, Kerry

17 J.E.Francis, Grenhills, Dolforgan View, Kerry

Phyllis Jones, 19 Dolforgan View, Kerry

Kelly Jones, Caebettin, Kerry

Chris Bright, C/O Nook Lane Garage, Nook Lane, Kerry

Aneurin Jones, Bryn Yr Hesglwyn, Llidiart Y Waen

Philip F Davies, Lower Panarron, Kerry

Llinos Reynolds, Oakwood, Kerry

Reg Evans, Dolrhiw, New Mills, Newtown

Clive Jones, 12 Llys Melyn, Tregynon

Ricky Pugh, Gilfach Farm, Kerry

Robert Wynne Gethin, Haulfryn, Caersws

Chris Reynolds, Oakwood, Kerry

Helen Meukinick, Caridwen, Kerry

Mr Elwyn Pugh, Old Post Office, Kerry

E Jerman, Number 2 Belle Vue, Kerry

Megan Jerman, Number 2 Belle Vue, Kerry

James Reynolds, Oakwood, Kerry

R Davies, 249 a Lodge Road, Dorrington Wood, Telford

Elaine Shirley Wright, Holly Lodge, Kerry

Gwyneth Jones, 16 Dolforgan View, Kerry

Craig Pugh, Red House farm, Garthmyl

Liam O’Brian, 1 Hendomen Cottage, Hendomen, Montgomery

Andrew Jerman, Coed Mawr Oakley Park, Llanidloes

Carol Burt, C/O Tanat Valley Motors, Nook Lane, Kerry

E Jones, 12 Camlad Cottages, Chirbury, Montgomery

18 Kevin Jones, Caebettin, Kerry

J.M.Jones, 13 Panarron Drive

Jean Morgan, 17 The Village, Kerry

Ben Owen, 48 Erw Wen, Welshpool

Bryn Jones, Bronfelin, Old Hall, Llanidloes

Amy Pughe, 27 Chesnut View, Kerry

Diane Jones, Caebettin, Kerry

S Davies, Beechcroft, Kerry

B.M.Jones, Penarron Drive, Kerry

Ellie Bevan, Windsbury Farm, Chirbury

Gaynor Joseph, Coach House, Dolforgan Hall, Kerry

R Bevan, Windsbury, Chirbury

J.E.Jerman, 5 Penarron Drive, Kerry

Scott Poston, Brickyard, Kerry, Newtown

Vic Madeley, Greenfields, Kerry

Karen Madeley, Brickyard, Kerry,

Vi Madeley, Greenfields, Kerry

Malcolm Lloyd, Hendre, Carno

Dafydd Jones, Maesllymystyn, Foel

C.A.Blackman, Burfield Farm, Clun

Darren Wayne, Bumford, 1 Springbank Cottages, Tregynon

Richard Adams, Anchorage Bungalow, Newcastle on Clun

Eric Bebb, Upper Common, Kerry

Peri Grant, 5 Garden Close, Kerry

Chris Howells, Penhyle, Llangurig

19 Mr Aled Evans, Dolymaen, Foel, Welshpool

Florence Bebb, Upper Common, Kerry

Mr G Stanford, 3 Garden Close, Kerry

Mr Robert Grant 5 Garden Close, Kerry

Roger Lloyd, 43 Dolforgan View, Kerry

Derek Jones, Cwmffrydd, Clun

Alan Davies, Blaenglyn, Llangurig

David Jones, Pant, Llandinam

Tobi Kellner, Pendraw’r Llan, Llanwrin

Gwyn Morris, Tyn Y Fron, Llanfair Caereinion

Matt Joy, 29 Parc Hafod, Four Crosses

David Price, 11 Sheppards Barns, Oswestry Road, Welshpool

Dave Rose and Cyleste Rose, Penygelli Mill, Kerry

David Lynne Jones, Bedwsyth, Carno

Sian Morgan, 69 Cae Gwyn, Llanidloes

G.T.Price, Upper Penrhyddlan, Llandinam

Tim Jones, Silver Springs, Belan, Welshpool

Kay Williams, 11 Sheppards Barns, Oswestry Road, Welshpool

Walter Pryce, Penygelli Mill, Kerry

Michael Davies, 53 Pavillion Court, Newtown

Seth Jones, Cwm Corn, Dollfor

Mrs L Kinsey, Red House, Dolwen, Llanidloes

Rob Thomas, Hidmore, Beguildy, Knighton

David Jeffry, Dee Close, Derby

Sion Thomas, Bronhaul, Carno

20 Gwyndaf L Davies Clegrddwr Farm

Roland Davies, Crud Yr Awel, Llidiart Y Waen, Llanidloes

Enid Thomas Jones, Melin Grug, Llanfair Caereinion

Chris Cloyton, Great Brimmon, Newtown

Dennis Chapman, Hafan, Llanidloes

Stephen Jerman, Tu Hwnt ir Afon, Carno

M Savage, Glanfeinion, Llandinam

Bryan Rees, 128 Colwyn, Treowen, Newtown

D.M Jerman, Lower Glynbrochan, Llanidloes

Emyr Davies, Tynypwll, Dolwen, Llanidloes

John Penhington, Rhiewdantyn, Kerry

Tessa Whitehall, Springfield House, Kerry

David Howells, Penhyle, Llangurig

William Whitehall, Springfield House, Kerry

Gwyneth Pugh, Red House Farm, Garthmyl, Montgomery

Sue and Denvy Sweeting, Reading Room, Kerry

N Jones, Awelon, Kerry

Daniel Davies, Pen Y Bank, Llanbadarn Fynydd, Llandrinod Wells

Stephen Price, Bryncoch Farm, Dolwen

Don Jones, Oakendale, Kerry

Paul Price, Bryncoch, Dolwen, Llanidloes

Chris Price Bryncoch Cottage Dolwen, Llanidloes

Mrs Gill Beavan, Winsbury, Chirbury, Montgomery

Llyr Thomas, Sarn, Carno

Rhys Jones, Cwm, Carno

21 Janet Orme, The Pack, Kerry

Lloyd Bros, Upper Wain, Dutlas, Knighton

Nancy Price, Arhosfa, Kerry

Ian Clark, The Pack, Kerry

Mervyn Price, Cwmearl, Sarn

Neil Francis, Frondeg, Llanwnog

Huw Tudor, Rhos y Gaer, Llanerfyl

Evan M Jones, Plas Derw, Caersws

R Jones, Bryn Awel, Kerry

Emyr Lewis, Bryn Llugwy, Llanbrynmair

Mark Williams, Pen Y Derw, Grove Lane, Forden

M Jones, Brynawel, Kerry

John Harold Haynes, Caeshenkin, Kerry

V Haynes, Caeshenkin, Kerry

Clive Morgan, Llidiardau, Mochdre

Edwards Chapman, Morfodion, Llanidloes

Alun Williams, Bwlchyllyn, Trefeglwys

David Lloyd, Cwm Yr Annel, Carno

G Thomas, Bronhaul, Carno

Nick Davies, Esgairddraenllwyn, Llaithdu, Llandrindod Wells

Wynn Benbow, Ffrydd Farm, Bryn lane, Newtown

Iwan Owen, Cyffiau, Trefeglwys

M.J Garson, Cefn Caled, Kerry

Leslie Danson, Post Office Kerry

22 Comments received :

• Farmers are been encouraged by the government to diversify.

• Mr Jerman wishes to erect a wind turbine to support his investment in egg production, thus helping to make the business sustainable and viable for the future.

Representations of support received by letter

A.D. Roberts, The Oaks, Glanynant, Llanidloes

Comments received

• The development is considered to be a suitable project for Welsh farm diversification.

• Single windmills have less visual impact than wind farms

Other representations

Neither for or against

Mrs V.A.Wildish, Linley House, Common Road, Kerry

• Concerned that that copies of letters are being circulated widely in the area for signature. View expressed that correspondences from people living within the boundaries of the Kerry community are taken into account.

Representations of objection received by letter from:

Mr Chris Lloyd, Old Wagoner’s Cottage, Sawmills, Kerry

Chris and Michelle Lloyd, Old Wagoner’s Cottage, Sawmills, Kerry

David Hughes, Brook Cottage, Sawmills, Kerry

Mr Richard Bonfield, Lexington Court, Kerry

Carolyn White, Snowfield, Kerry, Newtown.

Carol and Rob Watson, Wernybeddau, Fron, Montgomery

Carol O’Reilly, Cwm Isaf, Abermule

Patricia Deborah Anne Hughes, 3 Brooklea, Penarron Drive, Kerry

M.R. Lloyd, 36 Dolforgan View, Kerry

23

R.J.Lloyd, 36 Dolforgan View, Kerry

Mrs Janice Bonfield, Lexington Court, Kerry

Patricia J Lloyd, Isfryn, 21 Dolforgan View, Kerry

N Spalding, Pen Miwl, Gilfach Lane, Kerry

Issues raised:

• The applicant has many other areas of land within the control of the farm where a commercial wind turbine of this size could be better located that would be much further away from a residential population with less impact on residential amenity and valued historic, cultural and sensory landscape area.

• Concern regarding the cumulative effect of turbine development in the area.

• Concern regarding perceived adverse landscape and visual impact.

• Cumulative Impact

• Adverse affect on views from the C10th Norman Grade 1 Kerry Church, The Sawmills Conservation area and from many parts of Kerry Vale.

• Concern regarding the usefulness of the submitted photomontage.

• The application pays insufficient attention to alternatives.

• Concerns expressed that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment fails to acknowledge the Kerry Ridgeway which has a high evaluation in terms of visual sensory as does the application site which is not recognised within the LVIA.

• Concern expressed regarding the impact of the turbine on views from the conservation area of the and from Penarron Drive where the tower of the listed Church will be seen in the same view as the turbine

• Drawing reference 11/2/13 nearest neighbours/TL does not extend to a distance of 1 km and are not even centred on the proposed turbine location. Concerns that this drawing deliberately seeks to underestimate the impact of the proposed turbine in terms of visual impact and impact upon the amenity of residential properties in the area.

• Concern that a pure white colour finish will not blend in with the surrounding landscape at close or longer distances which will render the turbine conspicuous against any back ground.

• Concern that the mechanical noise associated with the egg production unit have been overlooked within the undertaken noise assessment.

24

• The noise model has taken the form of an airflow model which estimates the effect of topography on wind speeds. There is no allowance for the effect of locally thermally driven winds such as sea breezes or mountain/ valley breezes.

• Concern that the Acoustic Data is limited in that such does not take into account higher wind speeds than the indicated theoretical average of 5.3 m/s or 10m/s.

• Concern that the actual wind speeds at the site could be completely different to the estimated wind speed. Without collecting wind speed data from an anemometry mast on site at the proposed hub height, the true average wind speed and likely average/maximum noise output cannot be assessed.

• Concern that the stated farm electricity usage has been over estimated from what was originally stated to be 80,000kWh (in connection with planning reference P/2012/0711) to now 120,000 kWh – this overstatement perceived as a means of justify a turbine of this size.

• Concern that the submitted application fails to identify a multiple of heritage sites in the local vicinity. The submitted application only identifies 3 listed properties within a 1KM radius of the application site. If the area of consideration was widened to 1.1 km a number of listed properties would be identified. Concern that this section of the Design and Access Statement is grossly inaccurate and deliberately misleading.

• There is no economic or social benefit to the wider community.

• Until the actual wind speeds at the turbine site is established, the true effectiveness of the turbine cannot be assessed and its economic impact cannot be weighed against other material planning considerations such as impact upon landscape and visual amenity.

• Concern that highway movements associated with the development is underestimated which it is considered to be in the region of 80 as opposed to 5 HGV movements.

• Concern regarding the impact of the proposed turbine on the historic landscape

• Concern that the submitted photomontage is poor in quality, and no attempt has been made to show the height of the turbine other than an arrow pointing to its location which is totally meaningless.

• There is no photomontage of the site from one of the main conservation areas in the village which is that of the Kerry Church Cemetery where the turbine will be in full view at close range.

• It is not understood why the applicant has dismissed photovoltaic panels as an alternative. It is noted that Bowler Energy (Agent) now have new PV panels / systems which they submit on their web site as being able to be installed on all type of buildings whether south facing or not to achieve significant performance.

25

• Kerry village, in the middle of the vale of Kerry has a unique position with the ancient Kerry Ridgeway overlooking the village. The landscape is rated as being high quality. In addition Kerry has a number of listed historical buildings and conservation areas including the adjacent Sawmills conservation area.

• If this application is allowed to proceed it will have an unacceptable negative impact on the whole of Kerry and the surrounding areas.

• The turbine will constitute a massive visual intrusion into daily life.

• The majority of the people of Kerry do not want to live with this monstrosity as they do in Dolfor every day

• The turbine is a commercial scale turbine and not a community wind turbine as the applicant will be the only beneficiary and will provide no community benefit whatsoever.

• Perceived impact of the turbine on the village school in terms of noise pollution, lights flashing on the blades and other possible effects we are not yet fully aware of

Representations received via Public Access (Objection)

Richard Bonfield, Lexington Court, Kerry

Deb Justice, Stone Cottage, Llanllugan, Cefn Coch, Welshpool:

Debbie Gilbert, Miaren, Lon Disgwylfa, Aberhafesb, Newtown:

Ken Whitmore, 2/3 Hendomen Cottages, Hendomen, Montgomery:

Gary Swaine, The Elms Field, Domgay Lane, Four Crosses, Llanymynech:

Mrs H Christian, Penywern, Kerry

R Eaton, Penyboncyn, Bwlch Y Cibau, Llanfyllin

Oili Hedman, Penthryn, Mochdre Lane, Newtown

Karen Clelow, Brookland House, Four Crosses, Llanymynech

Nigel Williams, 5 Court Close, Abermule

Bernadette Castile, Bryn Heulwen, Bettws Cedewain

Mrs M Hilton, Penywern, Kerry

Beryl Crone, 7 Maes Trannon, Trefeglwys

26 R Easton, Penyboncyn, Bwlch Y Cibau, Llanfyllin

Dr C Clews, 3 Campbell Drive, Beaconsfield, HP9 1TF

Michael Blood, Waen Fach, Carno

Matthew Bonfield, 13 Pound Lane, Marlow, SL7 2 AH

Sharon Bonfield, 13 Pound Lane, Marlow, SL7 2 AH

Vicky Jones, 17 Rosemary Crescent, Portishead

Oliver Jones, 17 Rosemary Crescent, Portishead

David Taylor, 8 Saw Mill Lane, Addingham, Ilkley

Issues raised:

• Concerns relating to impact upon the character of the landscape and residual impact which would detract from the visual amenity of the open countryside.

• Perception of low levels of background noise and impacts upon residential amenity

• View expressed that no single small business turbines should be granted when there are any dwellings within 2kms unless the community is in agreement and is all benefitting from the turbine.

• View expressed that there is a need to protect this area of natural beauty from creeping industrialisation.

• Concern regarding the perceived impact of the development upon tourism

• Concern that precedent would be set allowing more turbines in the area in future.

• Concern relating to the perceived blighting effect of the turbine upon the landscape.

• Concern expressed regarding impact upon views as the turbine will be seen from the Conservation Area in Kerry and Sawmills and also Kerry Ridgeway.

• It is indicated that the LANDMAP designation under ‘historic’ (which is rated as high) has been ignored within the submitted application.

• It is indicated that the application fails to meet Powys Unitary Development Plan policy E3 and should be refused.

Representations received via Public Access (Support)

John and Maria Jones, Cefn Hyfryd, Kerry, Newtown

27

Dawn, 28 Dolforgan View, Kerry

Buddug Bates, Rallt Ucha, Llanfair Caereinion

Sara Francis, 2 Dolforgan Hall, Kerry

Russell Francis, 2 Dolforgan Hall, Kerry

Karen Francis, 2 Dolforgan Hall, Kerry

Ade Francis, 21 Fairfields, Kerry

Miss Bev Morris, 21 Fairfields, Kerry

Daniel Williams, 10 Dolforgan View, Kerry

Steven Isaac, Plot 2 Fraithwen, Asda

Mark Barton, Lomond, Common Road, Kerry

Steven Pryce, 5 Herbert Court, Kerry

Mary Pryce, 5 Copper View, Kerry

Dorothy Kenwrick, Tandderwen, Pentre, Kerry

Joshua Wall, Walcot Pant Nursery, Common Road, Kerry.

John Pryce, Rosehill, Nook Lane, Kerry

Mr Francis Shirley, Maesteg, Llandinam

Mrs M Shirley, Maesteg, Llandinam

Mr R Davies, Maesteg, Llandinam

Representations received:

• The development is considered as a step to having clean, green local energy

• It is not considered that the turbine will have any greater visual impact than the telephone mast which is already cited in the vicinity.

• The turbine will be side on to the village, thus lessening any visual impact as some might comment upon

28 Planning History

P/2012/0711 Full: Construction of a single 50kw wind turbine 45m to blade tip at Cloddiau Farm, Kerry

Principal Planning Constraints

LANDMAP Historic landscape aspect area of the Upper Mule (MNTGMHL630) an area which has been classed as outstanding. LANDMAP’s Cultural Landscape aspect area MNTGCL048, categorises the village of Kerry and the immediate surroundings area including the application site as having an overall evaluation of ‘high’. LANDMAP identifies this area as having ‘an historically evolved landscape whose integrity is generally unburdened by modern development. The principal management recommendations are to continue to limit modern development.

Principal Planning Policies

Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Note 8 (2005) Renewable Energy UDP GP1 Development Control UDP GP4 Highways and Transportation UDP E3 Wind Power Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Note (TAN) 11: Noise UDP ENV2 Safeguarding the Landscape UDP ENV3 Safeguarding biodiversity and natural habitats UDP E4 Removal of redundant wind turbines UDP DC9: Protection of Water Resources UDP EC7: Farm / Forestry diversification for employment purposes in the open countryside UDP EC 09: Agricultural Development Planning Policy Wales Edition 5 November 2012 (Chapter 7 Economic Development

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

The Local Planning Authority is bound by statute to determine planning applications in accordance with the provisions of its adopted ‘Development Plan’, this being the Powys Unitary Development Plan adopted March 2010 together with any other relevant national and local policy which provides guidance to Local Planning Authority in its decision making process. The planning process therefore is a plan led process which requires judgement to be exercised in each individual case whether development proposals are aligned with planning policy or alternatively where there is considered to be conflict, whether there are other material planning considerations which outweigh the principal policies and which indicate that development subject to planning conditions should be allowed to proceed.

The principal policies informing this application are those of Powys Unitary Development Plan policies E3 (Wind Power), which relates to single turbines and wind

29 farm development and Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Note 8 (Renewable Energy). In addition, other policies as cited are relevant including Powys Unitary Development Plan policy ENV 2 which seeks to safeguard the high quality landscape and to ensure that development remains appropriate and sensitive to the character of the local landscape.

Planning Policy Wales Edition 5 (November 2012) (Chapter 7 Economic Development also recognises the importance of the planning system in promoting economic development in Wales, which has been elevated in terms of its importance and which has to be taken into consideration when balancing planning considerations in the decision making process.

The principle planning policy which informs the decision making process relating to single wind turbines is Powys Unitary Development Plan policy E3 which is cited as follows:

30

As indicated within the opening remarks under officer appraisal ‘The planning process therefore is a plan led process which requires judgement to be exercised in each individual case’, it is emphasised that despite a previously submitted planning application for a larger turbine at Cloddiau Farm (which was subsequently withdrawn the day before the case was to be presented to members) it is not considered that any case for a smaller turbine as is the case in this instance should be compared against the ‘would be development’ which was proposed in that instance.

31 It is also emphasised that this current planning application has been submitted without any pre application advice been sought from the Local Planning Authority subsequent to the withdrawal of the previous planning application.

The basis of the application as submitted by the agent is that such seeks to address the issues that were considered to be such with the previous planning application. The submission also states that the application site constitutes the very same site as that under previous consideration. However the submitted plans do not indicate that this is the case.

This fundamentally calls into question the whole validity of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which can only be concluded that such have been based upon a specific turbine location which differs from the actual turbine location indicated on the submitted plans.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) also makes reference to correspondences between Powys Council, The Countryside Council for Wales and the agent company and its consultants which took place prior to the submission of the previous planning application and during the time the previous planning application remained undetermined prior to its withdrawal.

This previous correspondence which does not relate in any way to correspondence relevant to this current planning application is referred to within the planning submission as a means of justifying the selection of specific vantage / receptor points associated with the undertaken Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA).

It is emphasised and indicated that Powys Council has not been asked in the context of this current planning application or in advance of its submission what specific viewpoints of the turbine site and sensitive receptor points should be considered as part of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA).

The assessment is based on the assumption on the applicant / agent’s part that those view / receptor points previously discussed with the Council and The Countryside Council for Wales constituted a definitive and comprehensive view of the scope of any assessment to be undertaken in connection with any future planning application ,which is not the case as far as the Council is concerned.

Given the proposed location of the site which it is considered constitutes a prominent site, together with the specifications of the turbine including its height which will be 34.5 to its highest point, the key material planning issues are considered to be as follows:

1. Whether development would unacceptably adversely affect the environmental and landscape quality of the area which is noted by LANDMAP as being classed as outstanding in terms of historic landscape and ‘high’ in terms of cultural landscape?

32 2. Whether the proposed development would have a significant visual impact in that the turbine would fundamentally and detrimentally affect public views in the area and whether the visual amenity of the area would be detrimentally affected if the development were to proceed.

3. Whether the turbine would have any cumulative impact and whether such would be significantly detrimental to overall environmental quality and integrity of the area in this context?

4. Whether development would unacceptably adversely affect wildlife habitat or species?

5. Whether development would unacceptably impact upon buildings or features of conservation or archaeological interest?

6. Whether the proposed development is capable of being served by an acceptable means of highway access and whether vehicle movements at the construction stage would significantly affect highway safety?

7. Whether the turbine when in operation would demonstrably affect the amenity of any residential receptors particularly in terms of noise and shadow flicker?

8. Whether there are any material planning considerations other than the above which should be taken into consideration when determining this application?

In consideration of the issues highlighted, the significant representations in objection and support of the application have been taken into account as many of the issues raised with the exception of the perceived impact of the development on property values in the area and the question posed who will personally gain from this development are relevant material planning considerations.

It is also important to emphasise that the Local Planning Authority is charged with assessing the application which has been placed before it for its consideration. Although the issue of potential alternative renewable energy solutions such as solar panel installations at Cloddiau as raised by concerned parties is noted, ultimately The Local Planning Authority has to determine this application on the basis of what has been submitted, its merits and considered effects.

In addressing the issues raised in particular by objectors it is emphasised that the consideration of impact of proposed development upon landscape is a particular consideration which despite being associated with the perceived visual impact of development is a different consideration to that of visual impact.

It is considered that the site context is a critical matter for consideration in this instance which informs consideration in terms of the councils consideration of the effect of the development on both views and visual amenity of the area, landscape impact and importantly the impact of the development upon the amenity of the village of Kerry and its surrounding area, which does not exist in isolation to land uses within its vicinity.

33 LANDSCAPE IMPACT

Assessment of the landscape impact of proposed development is based on qualitative analysis of those components which make up the landscape and which gives the landscape its characteristic features and to what degree would introduced development fundamentally demonstrably harm or affect the character and integrity of that landscape?

In terms of the provisions of the Environmental Impact Regulations 1999, the proposed turbine site does not fall within a sensitive site as defined by those regulations.

It is noted that The Countryside Council for Wales indicates that LANDMAP (a tool which assists in determining the characteristics, sensitivity or significance of land) describes the area as forming part of an historic landscape area forming part of the Upper Mule (MNTGMHL630) an area which has been classed as outstanding. LANDMAP’s Cultural Landscape aspect area MNTGCL048, categorises the village of Kerry and the immediate surroundings area including the application site as having an overall evaluation of ‘high’. LANDMAP identifies this area as having ‘an historically evolved landscape whose integrity is generally unburdened by modern development. The principal management recommendations are to continue to limit modern development.

Despite the technical advice on renewable energy proposals as cited in Planning Policy Wales technical Advice Note 8, outside Strategic Search Areas (SSA’s) the Welsh Government’s implicit objective is to ensure that landscape character is not harmed as a consequence of development subject to the planning process.

On consideration of the Landscape and visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) , it is considered that the assessment is limited in its scope in that it applies scientific objectives techniques of assessing landscape effects of the development and does not consider the human perception of the effect of such turbine.

It is not considered that the importance of the landscape in the local context has been taken into account. Published Research undertaken by Gareth Wyn Thomas, University of Wales, Aberystwyth March 1996 relating to visual and cumulative impacts arising from wind turbine developments in Wales indicates that one could argue that the landscape has no set value and that what one is doing is essentially imposing assumed values to human perceptions of landscape.

The representations received which express concern regarding landscape impact is noted and is a material planning consideration to take into account as it is not for the Local Planning Authority to determine whether the subjective view of landscape is less relevant than the objective view of landscape which is informed by published methodology for such assessment which is nevertheless definitive.

Despite the fact that Natural Resources Wales does not object to this application it is also very clear in its advice that it does not take into account local factors which the Local Planning Authority considers materially relevant to the case.

34 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment undertaken does include a view of the site from the Churchyard at Kerry which is within a 1000m of the site and provides an indication of the turbine location from other vantage points.

However in assessing landscape effects the key component of assessing the extent to which the development will be visible is a key matter to address. Development viewed at close range will normally have a much greater impact than when viewed at medium to long distance. Importantly it is not considered that a true assessment of the landscape effects and impacts and their acceptability can be made by the applicants agent in the absence of an assessment which shows or predicts in a truly representational form how the turbine is seen within a landscape.

It is considered that in order to assess the significance of impact, a judgement has to be made as to the extent to which the quality of the experience of landscape within the visual envelope is adversely affected.

The submitted information does not provide this assessment. The assessment is lacking since the scale of the development in relation to its surrounding has not been shown or clarified. It is my assessment that the submitted information seeks to justify the development within its landscape setting without the case being substantiated.

The representations received from third parties are noted in terms of the perceived limitations of the landscape and visual assessment of effects as has been undertaken by the agent. The concerns expressed by third parties in that the photo montages depicting the scale and impact of the turbine are meaningless are noted. I consider as the case officer that the assessment undertaken as a whole has limited value in informing judgements and conclusions made by the agent which I do not agree with.

Although some photomontages are considered limited in their purpose, it is considered that others particularly looking into the site from the direction of the Kerry Ridgeway and The Sawmills demonstrate how significant the long and mid range views into the site are and within its wider landscape context how conspicuous the site is.

Although the Local Planning Authority in principle supports the principle of energy generation from renewable sources, it is considered that the siting of a 34.5 m high turbine in the proposed location would detrimentally affect the local landscape.

The turbine constitutes a substantial vertical structure which in any event cannot be easily assimilated into its landscape setting. The operation of the turbine involves rotational movement in otherwise a motionless landscape which distracts and greatly increases its visibility over distances.

It is considered that the turbine will detrimentally affect the local landscape of the Vale of Kerry, an area which has remained unencumbered from large industrial type development.

It is considered that the intimate nature of landscape in the locality of the village of Kerry will not easily accommodate a tall, vertical structure of this scale with moving components without significant material harm to landscape.

35 It is considered that a turbine of the height proposed at this exposed prominent location given it’s landscape setting and landscape characteristics would have a demonstrably harm the character of the landscape thus conflicting with Powys Unitary Development Plan policy E3, ENV 2 and GP1.

VISUAL IMPACT

Visual Impact is to be distinguished from landscape impact in that the consideration of such will depend on issues such as the location and height from which the turbine is observed, the distance at which it is observed from, the topography of the land between the viewing point and the turbine site itself and public perception. It is acknowledged that perceptions of harm such as those expressed by objectors in this instance are based on personal perspectives and opinions.

In addressing this issue, the Local Planning Authority needs to consider those matters highlighted above in order to form an opinion whether this particular development would give rise to an overbearing visual impact or harm to the degree that such would constitute a fundamental reason to refuse the planning application.

The applicant has provided a number of photographs to assist in identifying local visual impact. However as advised by CCW the images produced do not comply with best practice guidance (Visual Representations of Wind farms: Good Practice Guidance; Scottish Natural Heritage 2006. CCW on this occasion indicated that photographs would be an acceptable means of producing information and assessing visual impact on the proviso that the height and location of the turbine was shown. Although submitted photographs show the location as indicated by an arrow, there is no representation of a turbine or indication of the height of the turbine on the images.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is lacking as the views of the application site are distorted by vegetation and as such the submitted information has miss represented the sensitivity of the selected viewpoints of the site.

On consideration of the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, the assessment method and detail is flawed and inadequate. It is considered that the image showing the site at a distance of 1.7 km from Sawmills is of poor quality and the proposed turbine is indiscernible. This is the case with all the submitted information. It is not considered that the turbine as is asserted by the submitted particulars would fade into the distance as the photomontages seek to demonstrate. Given its size and location on the skyline, on a clear day the proposed turbine has the capacity to be more prominent in the view.

It is considered that with distance, the perception of impact is altered and it is a rational consideration that the further one is away from an object, the less is its impact. This is a matter however of perception as is the case in the opinion of those persons who have expressed a concern regarding the visual impact of the propose turbine.

The impact of the development on public views at sensitive receptor points has been under stated and therefore an objective evaluation of the acceptability of the proposed development in this context has not been undertaken. I consider that a turbine within a

36 prominent location comprising rotational movement of three blades will fundamentally affect public views in addition to the visual amenity of the area.

Taking into account the highly prominent location of the proposed turbine together with the characteristics and topography of the landscape setting, The magnitude of the perceived visual impact which will affect long range, mid range and short range views. It is considered that the residual visual impact of that development will be a detrimental one which will detract from the visual amenity of the landscape setting. The proposal therefore conflicts with Unitary Development Plan policy E3, ENV 2 and GP1.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT

Cumulative impact is best described as impacts which occur when two or more individual project impact compound or increase the extent of an impact. Cumulative impacts are most often the result of concurrent developments within the same location or in an overlapping larger impact area where those developments can be viewed within the same view shed.

No single large wind farm has been established to date on land which is closely spatially and visually allied to this proposed development site, whilst single turbine developments in Dolfor are not seen within the same visual envelope as this site.

It is noted that the general planning advice on this issue is that any assessment of cumulative impact needs to consider the impact of locating large scale turbine in the area between Strategic Search Areas and the extension of a wind farm landscape area into these areas. It is not considered that cumulative visual impact or potential cumulative landscape or cumulative noise impacts are an issue in this particular case.

POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON WILDLIFE HABITAT OR SPECIES

It is established that turbines located in close proximity to hedgerows which provide bat species with transport corridors to feeding sites is a material planning issue. Due to the fact that the site constitutes an area of grazing and is not within close proximity of any hedge, it is not considered that there are any ecology issues associated with this development.

IMPACT ON FEATURES OF CONSERVATION VALUE OR ARCHAEOLOGY

There is no reason to consider that the proposed development will have any detrimental impact on any conservation or archaeological interests. The Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust previously indicated that it had no objection. No response is recorded in relation to this application.

The representations received in the context of this matter are noted. In accordance with government circular advice for a development to have a direct impact upon the setting of any historic building it would need to be demonstrated that the formal space associated with that building such as listed gardens or grounds were being affected. It is not considered that this is the case in this instance. There is neither evidence to indicate that the setting of a prehistoric or any other archaeological site will be affected by the proposed development.

37

HIGHWAY ACCESS AND IMPACT UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY

There will undoubtedly be some impacts upon the local highway network over the course of construction, which is however short lived. Such movements will be limited to the construction phase and will have no long term effects. Any anticipated short terms effects as such translate to detriment to other highway users along what in part is a narrow lane where speeds of traffic are relatively low can be addressed by planning condition.

IMPACT UPON THE AMNEITY OF RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS

The concerns raised within the representations received have been noted. Given the issues which arise in this respect as far as proposed wind turbines are concerned, there will always be a requirement for a planning application to demonstrate that the proposed development will not detrimentally affect the amenity of residential properties in the vicinity which have been assessed within the submitted planning application.

Amenity of residential properties can potentially be affected by the following:

POTENTIAL SHADOW FLICKER

This aspect has been addressed within the report which indicates that there is no property located within a distance of 10 rotor diameter (182 m) of the turbine, which defines the broad parameters in which shadow flicker can occur. It is not considered that this development would give rise to any issue associated with shadow flicker.

The issue raised by third parties with regards to the reflectivity of the structure in the sunlight is noted. In the event of planning permission being granted for such a structure a standard condition can be imposed to address the colour finish of any turbine to minimise glare and visual impact.

POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACT

An analysis of potential noise emissions generated by the turbine has been submitted which has been undertaken in line with the propagation model set out by the application.

The Design and Access Statement indicates that the assessment of noise associated with the proposed installation has been assessed using ‘The Assessment of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97) which sets out the framework for assessing indicative noise levels associated with turbine installations.

It is indicated that the turbine is sited 430 m from the nearest residential property which is Great Cloddiau which is the nearest residential receptor point to the turbine site.

It is stated that based upon a wind speed of 10 m per second the generated noise would result in an impact of 28 dB (A) at this residential receptor which is below the

38 lower recommended daytime limit of 35 dB (A) and well below the night time ETSU recommended limit of 43dB (A).

In terms of considered cumulative noise impact of development the report indicates that there are no other noise sources within the vicinity of the proposed site to create a cumulative noise impact in conjunction with the turbine when in operation.

The submitted information indicates that cumulative noise combined with other sources of noise in the vicinity is acceptable, whilst it is indicated that impact of vibration was not as such that human health would be affected.

Powys Environmental Health Services has no objection on the basis of the submitted noise data which indicates that the decay of noise from the turbine over distance and importantly this shows that at a windspeed of 10m/s the sound pressure is below 35dB(A) at a distance in excess of 400m. The turbine can thereofre comply with the simplified methodology assessment defined in ETSU-R-97, which does not require any background noise monitoring to be undertaken.

The representations received my Michelle Lloyd which indicates that the noise data has been based on lower windspeeds than the potential likely windspeeds is noted. In any event if planning permisison were to be granted for such development a planning condition would form part of the planning permisison to keep noise levels within acceptable limits and to safeguard residential amenity which if breached could be enforced.

OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

The application has been met with expressions of objection on the basis of concern regarding the impacts of the development both in terms of visual impact and landscape impact and also upon the visual amenity of Kerry. Concern has also been expressed regarding the adequacy of the information submitted in support of the application which is a concern also to the Local Planning Authority.

There have also been expressions of support to the proposals by people living within the locality and further afield which recognise the significance of the development within the wider context of renewable energy production.

Although no Information has been forthcoming from the applicant to support any economic case for the turbine, the Local Planning Authority recognise however the economic considerations and the strategic policies which in principle support renewable energy production which have to be materially weighed against those other considerations cited above.

The application is set against an economic backdrop of escalating energy costs which the applicant in the interest of his business seeks to take an element of control over the same time is endeavouring to meet the fundamental principles set out at national and international level in terms of meeting Government targets as such relate to renewable energy targets which in the UK was set at 20% of the UK’s electricity supply being generated by renewable sources.

39 At local level Powys county Council has a corporate objective to reduce its carbon footprint to meet the aspirations set out by the UK and Welsh Government. In this context there is a strong social and economic case to support such endeavours which is neither contradicted at national level or local level as set out by Planning Policy Wales and The Powys Unitary Development Plan.

Moreover, the council’s own economic development policies support the fundamental principles of sustainable development and community development which safeguards the social and economic fabric of rural Powys of which the agricultural community is a significant part of and which contributes to its continuation.

Given the concern which exists regarding the anticipated and perceived harm caused by the proposed development to the high quality landscape and detrimental visual impact arsing as a consequence of the proposed development, it would have been advisable in any event for the application to set out clearly and to quantify the perceived long terms benefits of the proposal to the farm business.

The extent of the contribution of this proposal to the business in terms of reducing input costs and also generating additional income has not been quantified. The economic benefits can only be guessed at present which as such does not provide any substantial information that the council to consider or give material weighting to in the decision making process.

In conclusion although there are policies which promote renewable energy projects at national and local level, specific proposals are always to be assessed on their individual merits where in this context a balance has to be struck between the desirability of renewable energy production and landscape protection and safeguarding the visual amenity of the countryside and settlements such as Kerry .

The provision of free standing photo voltaic panels within the field may have been an option the applicant could have considered prior to the submission of this application. However this line of enquiry was not progressed by the applicant or his agent.

In conclusion, In this instance it is not considered that the application reconciles these two aspects, since the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably harm the character and integrity of the landscape setting and would also result in significant detriment to the visual amenity of the countryside setting in which there is located a picturesque village, the amenity of which it is considered would also be significantly affected by the proposals.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the application be refused on the following grounds

1. The proposed development site occupies a conspicuous location which is prominent and conspicuous at close, mid and long range. The area is a sensitive area noted as having ‘an historically evolved landscape whose integrity is generally unburdened by modern development’. It is considered that the turbine when erected and in operation would constitute a prominent

40 incongruous feature which interrupts the continuity and character of the rolling landscape in which it is set

It is considered that a turbine of the height proposed at this exposed prominent location given its landscape setting and landscape characteristics would have a demonstrably harmful impact upon the character of the landscape thus conflicting with Powys Unitary Development Plan policy E3, ENV 2 and GP1.

2. The site occupies a highly visible location which is visually prominent from a number of public vantage points at close, mid and long range. It is considered that the visual impact of such a structure when erected and in operation would appear visually dominant and intrusive within its landscape setting and as such would have an overbearing physical presence. It is considered that the turbine would have an unacceptable residual visual impact which would also detract from the visual amenity of the open countryside and the amenity of Kerry village thus conflicting with Powys Unitary Development Plan policy E3, ENV 2 and GP1.

______Case Officer: Arwel Evans (MRTPI) - Uwch Swyddog Cynllunio / Senior Planning Officer Tel: 01938 551046 E-mail:[email protected]

41