Snitterfield Actioning Climate Change (SACC)

Small Wind Energy Feasibility Study

Final Issue – 30 March 2012

Sykamore Small Wind – Site Appraisal Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

Small Wind Energy Feasibility Study

Final Issue – 30 March 2012

Sykamore Small Wind Astech Mill 50 Stratford Road Shipston-on-Stour Warwickshire CV36 4BA t: +44 (0)1608 670 022 f: +44 (0)1608 238 284 w: www.sykamoresmallwind.co.uk

Copyright: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Sykamore Small Wind Limited. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Sykamore Small Wind constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: Sykamore Small Wind accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

Contents

1. Executive summary ...... 8 1.1 Introduction ...... 9 1.2 Background to this study ...... 9 2. The Study ...... 11 2.1 Issues in determining a small wind planning application ...... 11 2.2 The Study Area – Description of the study area ...... 13 3. Planning - Policies and guidance ...... 14 3.1. MCS Product Certification ...... 14 3.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Screening ...... 15 3.3 National priorities and guidance ...... 16 3.4 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development ...... 16 3.5 PPG2: Green Belts...... 16 3.6 PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth ...... 17 3.7 PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment ...... 17 3.8 PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas ...... 17 3.9 PPS22: Renewable Energy ...... 17 3.10 Planning policies - the local context ...... 18 3.1.1 Local Plan 1996-2011 ...... 18 3.1.2 PR6 Renewable Energy ...... 18 3.1.3 PR2 Green Belt ...... 18 3.1.4 EF2 Special Landscape Area ...... 18 3.1.5 Draft Core Strategy ...... 20 4. Statutory ecological designations ...... 21 4.1 Ecology – Guidance and policy...... 21 4.1.1 Potential impact on ecology ...... 21 4.1.2 Statutory Designated Areas ...... 21 4.1.3 Birds and bats ...... 22 4.1.4 Bats – specific considerations ...... 23 4.2 Ecology – Local context ...... 24 4.2.1 International designations ...... 24 4.2.2 National designations...... 24 4.2.3 Local/Regional designations ...... 27 5. Cultural Heritage ...... 28

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

5.1 Guidance and policy ...... 28 5.2 Cultural Heritage – Local context ...... 28 5.2.1 Internationally important heritage features ...... 28 5.2.3 Nationally important heritage features ...... 28 5.2.3 Locally important heritage features...... 31 Table 6 - Definition of historic features and terms (as defined by English Heritage) ...... 32 6. Landscape and visual amenity ...... 35 6.1 Guidance and policy ...... 35 6.2 Landscape and visual amenity – Local context ...... 35 7. Technical Considerations ...... 36 7.1 Aviation and MoD – Guidance and policy ...... 36 7.2 Aviation and MoD – Local context ...... 36 7.2.1 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) ...... 36 7.2.2 NATS En Route (NERL)...... 36 7.2.3 Ministry of Defence (MoD) ...... 37 7.3 Noise ...... 37 7.3.1 Guidance and policy...... 37 7.3.2 Noise – Local context...... 39 7.4 Telecommunications Links – Guidance and policy ...... 39 7.5 Telecommunications Links – Local context ...... 40 7.6 Shadow Flicker ...... 40 7.6.1 Guidance and policy...... 40 7.6.2 Shadow Flicker – Local context ...... 41 8. Site design ...... 42 8.2 Obstruction to wind flow ...... 42 8.3 Cost of cabling ...... 42 8.4 Other site design considerations ...... 43 8.4.1 Over-sail ...... 43 8.4.2 Topple distance ...... 43 8.5 Site design - Local context ...... 43 8.5.1 Potential Sites ...... 43 9. Local wind resource ...... 45 9.1 Publicly available data ...... 45 9.2 Commercially available data ...... 45 10. Appropriate small wind systems ...... 48

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

11. Annual Energy Forecast and financial performance ...... 54 11.1 Annual Energy Production Estimate ...... 54 11.1 Annual Energy Forecast ...... 54 11.2 Wind data used for AEP forecast ...... 55 11.3 Financial performance ...... 55 11.3.1 Feed-in Tariff Scheme ...... 55 11.3.2 Financial forecast ...... 56 11.3.3. VAT and Feed-in Tariff ...... 56 11.3.4 Financial Forecast Assumptions ...... 57 11.4 Financial Forecast Summaries ...... 57 11.4.1 Glebe Farm ...... 59 11.4.2 Luscombe Farm ...... 60 11.4.3 Bell Brook Farm ...... 61 11.5 Sensitivities ...... 62 11.5.1 Sensitivity to wind speed ...... 62 11.5.2 Sensitivity to capital cost ...... 62 11.5.3 Sensitivity to energy inflation ...... 62 11.5.4 Sensitivity to FIT Generation rates...... 63 12 Conclusions and recommendations ...... 64 12.1 Issue specific conclusions ...... 64 12.1.1 Planning ...... 64 12.1.2 Ecology ...... 64 12.1.3 Cultural Heritage ...... 64 12.1.4 Landscape and visual impact ...... 64 12.1.5 Aviation and radar ...... 65 12.1.6 Noise and shadow flicker ...... 65 12.1.7 Wind resource ...... 65 12.1.8 Financial analysis ...... 65 12.2 Planning Pack ...... 65

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

Table of figures

Figure 1 - Turbine comparison chart ...... 11 Figure 2 - Overview of GIS mapping process ...... 12 Figure 3 - Typical noise level map for a MCS accredited turbine...... 38 Figure 4 - Diagram of shadow flicker zones of interest in the UK (taken from MIS 3003) ...... 41 Figure 5 - Diagram of upwind and downwind significant obstruction zones ...... 42 Figure 6 - Virtual Met Mast wind map for the study area ...... 47

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

Document History and Status Revision Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Date issued Revision type Rev 0 M Wisniewski I Cooper 26 / 03 / 2012 26 / 03 / 2012 Draft version Rev 1 M Wisniewski I Cooper 30 / 03 / 2012 30 / 03 / 2012 Final version

File name: E055 SACC – FEASIBILITY TEXT – FINAL ISSSUE 30 032012 Author: Mark Wisniewski Project Manager: Mark Wisniewski Client: Snitterfield Actioning Climate Change Name of project: LEAF – Small Wind Feasibility Study Project ID: E055 Project location: Snitterfield, Warwickshire

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

Abbreviations

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty AGLV Area of Great Landscape Value CAA Civil Aviation Authority D Wind turbine rotor diameter DNO Distribution Network Operator (Electrical Network) DPD Development Plan Document EIA/ ES Environmental Impact Assessment/ Environmental Statement GIS Geographic Information System(s) IBA Important Bird Area LDD Local Development Document LDF Local Development Framework LFA Low Flying Area LNR Local Nature Reserve LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment m AOD Metres above ordnance datum MoD Ministry of Defence N, E, S, W North, East, South, West NATS/ NERL National Air Traffic Services / NATS En Route Limited NNR National Nature Reserve OS Ordnance Survey PRoW Public Rights of Way PPS Planning Policy Statement RSS Regional Spatial Strategy SAC Special Area of Conservation SAM Scheduled Ancient Monument SLA Special Landscape Area SPA Special Protection Area SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest SSW Sykamore Small Wind WTG Wind turbine generator ZVTI Zone of Theoretical Visual Influence

This document uses the International System of Units (SI).

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

1. Executive summary

In February 2012, Snitterfield Actioning Climate Change (SACC) commissioned a report into the potential for wind energy in their parish, Snitterfield in Warwickshire. Prior to this study SACC had already investigated other commercially available renewable energy technologies but had not considered wind in detail. Sykamore carried out a high-level investigation in preparation for this study and concluded that large scale wind (multi MW) projects would be inappropriate in the Parish and so the focus shifted to smaller generators (up to 50kW).

The West Midlands’ ‘Renewable Energy Capacity Study’ identified good potential for wind energy generation within Stratford District. This study identifies potential for small wind energy projects at a parish level, focusing specifically on the parish of Snitterfield in Warwickshire. The study has been commissioned by Snitterfield Actioning Climate Change (SACC) a local transition group with the aim of reducing the community’s carbon footprint.

The study was undertaken between February and March 2012 and involved a desk-based review of national and local policy and guidance, and of the locality; including its environmental, historic and technical features. A site visit was then undertaken which included site walkovers, interviews with key stakeholders and a public engagement session. All of the collected data were collated and analysed in order to form recommendations for taking forward small wind projects in the parish.

This feasibility study highlights three preferred locations for projects and as part of the wider project a ‘planning pack’ has been produced. The study has highlighted certain aspects which may require further investigation if SACC does decide to proceed with one or more planning applications. In particular the entire parish is designated as Green Belt.

A small wind energy project would be deemed to be inappropriate development and would have to demonstrate very special circumstances in order to be granted planning permission. That said, a small wind turbine has already been built and is currently in operation within the parish. The Heath End turbine, situated on Warwickshire County Council land was granted permission on the basis that it provides renewable energy and therefore helps towards decarbonising the farm. Any wind turbine application within Green Belt would have to demonstrate that any adverse impact is in proportion to any benefits it generates e.g. renewable energy, carbon savings, and financial income.

This study includes a financial analysis for a range of appropriate turbines and the very best wind resource data. This section also includes a brief analysis of the financial model’s sensitivity to changes in certain parameters. It is clear that the financial viability of a wind turbine depends heavily on wind resource and to a lesser extent capital cost.

Finally, this report contains issue specific conclusions and recommendations on how to successfully implement a small wind project or projects in the parish.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

1.1 Introduction

Following on from Telford and Wrekin Council’s ‘Renewable Energy Capacity Study for the West Midlands’, this study has been commissioned by Snitterfield Actioning Climate Change (SACC) with the aim of identifying potential for small wind energy projects within the Snitterfield Parish.

The Telford report found that the Stratford District has a good potential for small wind, but does not define specific appropriate sites. This study area has considered all land within the Snitterfield Parish boundary and highlighted areas which would be suitable for such projects.

The study highlights key considerations, policies and guidance in relation to small wind and applied them to the local context; outlining geographical areas which would be suitable, the likely energy generation from a wind project in the parish and a comparison of available technologies. Finally, the study put forwards recommendations for further work to be carried out so that SACC can take forward specific projects in the Parish.

1.2 Background to this study

In March 2011, Telford and Wrekin Council published an evidence based study entitled ‘Renewable energy capacity for the West Midlands’ 1 which revealed that the Stratford District has a potential renewable energy capacity of 4,200MW, which is around 8% of the total capacity identified for the West Midlands.

Predominantly, this capacity comes from wind (90% of available resource) reflecting Stratford-upon- Avon’s rural characteristics. The resource assessment results revealed 3,547MW potential capacity of commercial wind within the district and a further 211MW identified for small scale wind. It is with this in mind, and the fact that SACC has already investigated and implemented solar PV, that small wind has been chosen as a preferred technology on which to focus in this study.

In order to encourage deployment of this resource, further work needed to be undertaken to assess the economic consideration, environmental, financial and social constraints in order to assess the feasibility and identify the best locations at a local level.

In December 2012 the Energy Savings Trust launched the Local Energy Assessment Fund (LEAF) with the purpose of enabling community groups to develop energy projects. Snitterfield Actioning Climate Change (SACC), a community energy group was awarded funding to continue the work by Telford and Wrekin focussing specifically on the potential for small wind projects within the Parish of Snitterfield.

This study aims to provide sufficient information to enable SACC to be able to decide whether or not a community wind energy project would be appropriate. Broadly, the study aims to provide: • A policy context for small wind energy which has been determined by key stakeholders; • A review of local features or designations which would act as a constraint to a small wind project; • Identification of specific areas which would be appropriate for a small wind project within the Parish; • Local wind resource; • A financial or business case for a small wind project or projects within the Parish, and; • An overview of turbine technology currently available.

1 Study available online: http://www.telford.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.aspx?fileID=2884&categoryID=200105

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

As part of the LEAF project SACC have also been awarded funding to commission a ‘Planning Pack’. This will focus on three of the most suitable sites identified by this study and will include information to accompany a planning application for one, or all of these sites at a future date.

1.3 About SACC

Snitterfield Actioning Climate Change (SACC) is a community group with the objective of funding and supporting activities to reduce the carbon footprint of the village. SACC enjoys a regular income through the Feed-in Tariff scheme for several solar PV installations within the parish. The group has an established process for the distribution of funds for well- structured proposals received that are in line with the SACC’s mandate, involving all key stake holders (including the Parish Council). SACC and its property is managed and administered by a committee comprising the Officers and other members elected in accordance with its constitution. These members are the Trustees. Meetings must meet quorum to take decisions exercising all the powers exercisable by the Trustees. To date, all SACC activities have been started after discussion & agreement on priorities at well attended public meetings. Snitterfield Actioning Climate Change is all about its community, the trustees are elected by the community each year and the committee takes it steer from the community.

SACC has made great progress with solar installation in the village and this remains an on-going activity. The uptake of solar has been very positive and, through village communication and discussion, it has been found that there is interest in other forms of renewables, specifically; small scale wind, recycling projects, household and community building, energy bill reduction, household insulation and surveys.

1.4 About small wind turbines

Wind power is particularly appropriate in the UK. The UK has over 40% of all the wind energy in Europe, making it an ideal country for small domestic turbines. The Telford and Wrekin study found that the Stratford District has potential for nearly 4GW of wind power.

A high-level feasibility study found that there was little or no potential for commercial scale wind turbines within the Parish; given that this is a community led initiative, SACC felt that the study should only consider small wind turbines. ‘Small wind’ is the term used to describe turbines rated up to a maximum generating capacity of 50kW and which tend to be sited individually, are less visually intrusive and are more suitable for providing energy close by. Figure 1 below compares small wind generators with larger commercial scale turbines and other features commonly found in the Parish.

At every scale, wind energy generators produce clean, green and sustainable electricity without the release of any harmful carbon dioxide or other pollutants. Generating electricity from wind is tried and tested; it is now the fastest growing renewable energy source and this trend is expected to continue with more reliable and efficient wind turbines coming down in cost.

Wind turbines (wind generators) come in many different designs and configurations; the most common is the horizontal axis, three bladed turbine, shown in Figure 1 below. This type of turbine uses aerodynamic blades to harvest the power of the wind. When the wind blows, the lift generated by the blades drives an electrical generator, producing electricity which can be used locally or exported into the local electricity distribution network.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

Figure 1 - Turbine comparison chart

2. The Study

2.1 Issues in determining a small wind planning application

Wind turbines have been used to generate electricity commercially for over 30 years. In 1991 the first ‘wind farm’ built in the UK was Delabole in Cornwall. As a result, much is known about the relationship between wind generators and the environment. Planning policies and guidance concerning the installation of a wind generator have been formulated over the years by key stakeholders including, but not limited to;

• Civil Aviation Authority • Scottish Natural Heritage • Ministry of Defence • Historic Scotland • Royal Society for the Protection of Birds • Countryside Council for Wales • English Heritage • Environment Agency • Natural England • Planning Officers’ Society • Town and Country Planning Association • Royal Town Planning Institute • The Planning Inspectorate • RenewableUK (formally BWEA)

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

This study considered the following issues: • Planning policy; • Ecology; including statutory designated areas, habitats and foraging areas; • Archaeology and heritage assets; • Landscape and visual impact; • Aviation and radar; • Noise produced by a wind turbine; • Electronic communication; • Site specific design issues.

Figure 2 below summarises how the study was carried out. Firstly the study area was identified; in this case the Parish of Snitterfield. Secondly, statutory ecological, landscape and heritage designations such as Special Protection Areas, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Listed Buildings were added as constraints. Thirdly, technical constraints such as local radar, housing and radio links were considered. Finally, any areas not covered by these designations or constraints were considered to be appropriate locations for a small wind turbine project. It is worth noting that some constraints are seen as either firm and definitive, i.e. ‘thou shalt not build here’ or soft and slightly flexible, i.e. ‘it may be appropriate, but more work should be carried out to establish how appropriate’. Given the main objective of the study is to find suitable locations for small wind projects in which the community could invest, it was decided that only sites completely free of all constraints should be considered suitable.

Figure 2 - Overview of GIS mapping process

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

2.2 The Study Area – Description of the study area

The parish of Snitterfield, shown in Figure 2 (in the appendix), lies wholly within the Stratford-upon- Avon District in the county of Warwickshire. Snitterfield neighbours the parishes of Stratford-Upon- Avon (which lies south of Snitterfield), Old Stratford and Drayton (SW), Bearley (W), Langley (NW), Wolverton (N), Norton Lindsey (NE), Fulbrook (E) and Hampton Lucy (SE). The parish is approximately 1,800 hectares in area, mainly consisting of agricultural land (arable and pasture). Snitterfield village can be described as a large rural settlement in the county of Warwickshire. The settlement has a population of c.1400 people, and comprises largely of residential c. 460 dwellings.

The parish takes its name from the village of Snitterfield which lies in its middle. The early name of Snitterfield was "Snytenfeld", open field of snipe, "Feld", signifying a cleared stretch of land amid the Forest of Arden and "Snyten" referring to the snipe frequenting the meadows near the Sherbourne Brook which runs through the village.

The parish supports several businesses including the Welcombe Hills vineyard, Prospero Barn, Stratford Manor Hotel, a Mercedes-Benz dealership, and a garden centre. The village has two pubs, a village shop, a primary school and several sporting clubs including a horse training centre, a riding school, and a sports club, incorporating tennis, bowls, cricket, and football. RAF Snitterfield a former Royal Air Force station is situated to the west of the village. The northern section of which is now a golf course and the south-east side home to a glider club.

Snitterfield is a ward of Stratford on Avon District Council and represented by Councillor Helen Haytor, Conservative. Nationally it is part of Stratford-on-Avon constituency, whose current Member of Parliament following the 2010 election is Nadhim Zahawi of the Conservative Party. It is included in the West Midlands electoral region of the European Parliament and the six members are; Mike Nattrass (UK Independence), Liz Lynne (Liberal Democrat), Malcolm Harbour (Conservative), Michael Cashman (Labour), Philip Bradbourn OBE (Conservative) and Nicole Sinclaire (UK Independence).

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

3. Planning - Policies and guidance

In interpreting local planning policy, Authorities will seek to balance the appropriate level of control over small wind project against the need for efficient processing of applications. In doing this, the high level of existing control over the manufacture and installation of Small Wind Systems is of assistance. Under the terms of the Feed-in Tariff eligibility, Small Wind Systems (up to 50kW) must be certified under the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) and the installation must also be carried out by an installer who is MCS certified.

In principle this provides a support to the planning process similar to the building regulations. As a consequence of this support, there are a range of issues that planning officers’ should not need to consider further in determining planning applications.

The Role of Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) certification process covers both the wind turbine systems themselves and the method of installation.

3.1. MCS Product Certification

The MCS Small Wind Turbine product certification (MCS 006 Product Certification Scheme Requirements: Micro and Small Wind Turbines) requires the product to be assessed and tested broadly in accordance with IEC61400-2 which is the small wind system part of the international wind turbine standards. This MCS 006 process assesses the design integrity of the product against established standards and tests the product for its performance and noise emission across a range of wind speeds. It also runs the product for an extended test period to demonstrate that the system integrity and performance are robust.

The manufacturing site is also assessed to ensure that sufficient factory production control is in place to maintain consistent product specification.

In assessing a planning application which specifies an MCS certified system, the planning officer can be sure that the system meets acceptable standards of design and manufacturing quality. In particular, the noise emission data that will be provided by the applicant for the system should be in the standard agreed format as shown in the relevant section of this guidance. This enables an accurate and consistent assessment to be made of noise emission at locations close to the proposed installation site that may be affected by system noise.

The general MCS Installer certification (MCS 001 - Installer certification scheme requirements) in conjunction with the MCS installation standard specific to small wind turbines (MIS 3003) requires installers to meet and maintain minimum standards in the siting and installation of small wind systems.

In assessing a planning application which will be carried out by an MCS certified installer; the planning officer has confirmation that a number of important issues are covered. All MCS accredited installers must install in accordance with MIS 3003 and maintain a range of quality and safety systems which are subject to annual audit, to ensure consistent standards are maintained. MIS 3003 covers the following key points: • System siting and sizing • Mechanical and Structural requirements • Wind Loading • Turbine Support structures • Electrical requirements

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

• Conformance to G83/1 or G59/1 • Turbine output cables, isolator and junction box • Tower earthing, lightning protection • Metering • Labelling and signage • Safe Siting and working • Commissioning and Testing

These are controlled on each site through a set of checklists to ensure that there is traceability for all installations. Through this process, there are a number of issues that have been raised in the past by planning authorities that do not need to be assessed as part of a planning application, other than to check that the correct process has been applied. This study has been undertaken in compliance with the relevant MCS standards.

3.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Screening

The Screening criteria specified for Schedule 2 developments as set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland state that any development of more than two wind turbines, or where any turbine is higher than 15m (tip height), should be screened for requiring an EIA. This means that many small wind developments will need formal screening for EIA.

However, accompanying Circulars recommend thresholds and state that significant effects will generally depend upon the scale of the development, and its visual impact, as well as potential noise impacts and that EIA is more likely to be required for commercial developments of five or more turbines, or more than 5 MW of new generating capacity. It is therefore clear that a number of small wind energy developments may fall well below the criteria for an EIA.

Requiring an EIA for development of small systems may render the development uneconomic in some circumstances. This presents local planning authorities with the need to demonstrate that an assessment of the development has been made and the decision not to require an EIA taken properly, with due consideration of the impact of the development.

The majority of small wind energy applications will not require a formal environmental impact assessment to accompany the application. The basis for deciding whether a formal EIA is necessary relates to whether or not the impact on the environment arising from the proposed development is considered likely to be significant. Even if an EIA is not required, in many cases a basic level of assessment will be necessary to assess whether there are any environmental issues, for example a protected species survey may be necessary to determine the habitats and any species using the site.

Requiring a formal EIA to accompany a proposal for a micro, small or small-medium wind proposal will potentially make preparing a planning application financially unfeasible. The Screening decision should therefore be made carefully and considered proportionally to the impacts anticipated to arise from the development proposals. Appendix 12 provides guidance on the critical aspects of environmental assessment for micro, small and small-medium wind turbine proposals including cumulative considerations of other wind development.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

3.3 National priorities and guidance

In July 2011 the Government published for consultation a draft National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF]. The consultation period elapsed a while ago and publication of the resulting NPPF is expected shortly.

The widespread delivery of sustainable development runs throughout, as does the need to continue to safeguard the natural environment and heritage assets. An expectation is expressed that planning decisions should encourage sustainable growth and investment.

These broad policy aims are relevant to this study because it is in this context that an application with the Parish will be considered. The draft NPPF makes clear that planning authorities should help to make the economy fit for the future. Rural businesses should be supported, and the rural quality of life improved. The current published national policy guidance relevant to this study comprises: • PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, and Supplement to PPS1 Planning and Climate Change • PPG2: Green Belts • PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth • PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment • PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas • PPS22: Renewable Energy

3.4 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS1 articulates the overall need for policies to protect and enhance the environment, especially in locations with a high value. In creating this protection and enhancement such policies must mitigate the effects of climate change through the use of renewable energy. The preservation of the built heritage is also a priority.

PPS1 requires planning authorities to assist economic growth by supporting businesses trying to improve productivity and competitiveness.

The published supplement to PPS1 makes clear the expectation that development must perform well in terms of mitigating the effects of climate change.

3.5 PPG2: Green Belts

The entire Parish is designated as Green Belt. PPG2 is very clear about what is, and is not, appropriate development in a designated Green Belt. There is a general presumption against the construction of new buildings [a wind turbine should be treated as a building in line with S336 of the 1990 TCP Act]. But in certain circumstances new buildings can regarded as ‘not inappropriate’. Buildings and related plant exclusively for agricultural use are in this category.

Relevant here is Paragraph 13 in PPS22 ’Renewable Energy’ about Green Belts. This guidance states that developers must demonstrate that very special circumstances outweigh the harmful effects; and that the wider environmental benefits associated with the increased use of renewable energy may form part of those ‘very special circumstances’.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

Any application made for the installation of a small wind turbine would need to make a case for very special circumstances. PPG2 also explains the importance of preserving the openness of the Green Belt, and not harming visual amenity.

3.6 PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

Much of the land that has been considered as part of the study is agricultural and therefore forms part of the local economy. A small wind energy proposal will improve the future economic output and wealth created by its operation. The guidance indicates that planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should be treated favourably. The impacts should take into account that the wind turbine will help to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and provide resilience to climate change.

3.7 PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment

This guidance contains a clear message about the protection of heritage assets in the context of proposals that bring climate change benefits. It states that local planning authorities should, prior to determination, and ideally during pre-application, help the applicant to identify solutions that deliver climate change mitigation but reduce the impact on heritage assets. The study carefully considers the location of a wind turbine relative to heritage assets.

3.8 PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

A Government objective for rural areas is to promote sustainable, diverse and adaptable agricultural sectors, whereby farming is competitive and profitable, and assists the management and maintenance of valued landscapes.

There is an expectation that planning authorities will support development proposals that enable farmers or businesses to become more competitive, sustainable and environmentally friendly; and adapt to changing markets. As explained above, the use of an on-site renewable energy source is fundamentally about responding to a good market opportunity by becoming larger, more efficient and more competitive.

3.9 PPS22: Renewable Energy

Local planning authorities should recognise the environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever the scale. Significant weight should be given to such benefits when assessing planning applications. The contribution small-scale projects can make in offsetting the consequences of climate change must be considered, and planning applications should not be rejected because the level of output is small.

When located in the Green Belt, elements of many (i.e. not all) renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development which may impact the openness of the Green Belt. Careful consideration will therefore need to be given to the visual impact of projects and developers will need demonstrate that very special circumstances outweigh any harm caused. Such circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

3.10 Planning policies - the local context

3.1.1 Local Plan 1996-2011

The District Local Plan 1996-2011, adopted in 2006 will, in time, be replaced by a Local Development Framework [LDF], elements of which, notably the Core Strategy, are emerging. The lately published draft Core Strategy is currently subject to a public consultation process. Thereafter, the draft will be revised in line with the assessment of representations and the available evidence. The District Council’s indicated programme envisages a submission in November 2012 to the Secretary of State for an examination of the plan. It is therefore likely that adoption will be during 2013. The extent to which local policies are relevant to certain areas is shown in the District’s Proposals map (Figure 3 in the appendix). The local policies relevant to this study are:

• PR6 Renewable Energy • PR2 Green Belt • EF2 Special Landscape Area

3.1.2 PR6 Renewable Energy

There are policies in the Local Plan which encourage energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources in new development. In particular policy PR6 Renewable Energy states that:

The provision of renewable energy schemes, particularly from wind, solar and biomass resources, will be encouraged. Proposals will be considered against the following criteria according to the scale and nature of the scheme:

• The proposed development would not have a detrimental effect on the environment and character of the local area, including visual impact and the generation of emissions; • The development is located and designed in a manner which would be sensitive to the character of any buildings affected; • The location of the scheme does not impinge on transport routes including aircraft flight paths and public rights of way; and • The scheme does not cause an unreasonable adverse effect on existing dwellings and business premises.

PR6 states that planning applications should be accompanied by supporting information that assesses the extent of possible environmental impacts and explains how they would be mitigated.

3.1.3 PR2 Green Belt

Policy PR2 Green Belt advises that inappropriate developments may harm the openness of the green belt. Development would only be acceptable where there are ‘very special circumstances’ to justify the development and the harm is outweighed by the benefits.

3.1.4 EF2 Special Landscape Area

Policy EF2 Special Landscape Area (SLA) advises that the landscape is of particularly high quality. The policy states that areas covered by the policy will be conserved and protected by resisting

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

development proposals that would have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the landscape. The policy is described within the local plan as follows:

The Warwickshire Structure Plan Key Diagram indicates the general extent of several Special Landscape Areas (SLAs) which lie within, or partly within, Stratford-on-Avon District. These are: Arden, Cotswolds Scarp Slopes, Feldon Parklands and Leam Valley. The SLAs date from the County Landscape Plan which was published in 1978 although the research upon which the definition of these areas was based dates from the early 1970s when the Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire Sub-Regional Study was prepared. The research concentrated on the scenic beauty of the landscape rather than assessing the distinctive characteristics of different areas within the county. The policy is consistent with the spirit and purpose of the Structure Plan’s designation of SLAs and focuses upon controlling forms of development which could be damaging to landscape quality.

Definition of these more detailed boundaries has been on the basis of landscape quality using, as far as possible, identifiable features of the landscape such as roads, canals and hedges. With regard to the definition of SLA boundaries around settlements, the District Planning Authority considers that smaller villages and the landscape features within them contribute to the quality of SLAs and, for that reason, this designation washes over such settlements.

The Main Rural Centres which lie within an SLA have been excluded from the designation to coincide with the built-up area boundary defined for them. In applying this policy, the District Planning Authority will take into account the ‘character based approach’ which has recently taken prominence as a means of assessing the impact of development on the landscape. The Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines, published by Warwickshire County Council in 1993, identify those features which contribute to the quality of the landscape. The District Council’s Countryside Design Summary and District Design Guide, together with individual Village Design Statements endorsed by the Authority, all develop this approach and provide valuable guidance in this respect.

Assessment of development proposals will have regard to cumulative impact. On an individual basis some proposals may seem innocuous but they could form part of a general trend towards decline in the quality of the landscape. The District Planning Authority will also consider whether proposals close to, but outside, an SLA would significantly harm the visual quality of the landscape within the area designated.

While the District Planning Authority is concerned to protect the scenic quality of the SLAs, it accepts that there are forms of development which are appropriate to these areas. In other words, SLAs should not be seen as a complete bar on development. On the contrary, proposals can include measures which are intended to maintain or enhance landscape quality, while others relate to services, facilities and employment important to local communities. The Authority will take into account these positive aspects when assessing proposals within the SLAs.

In short, much of policy ER2 is similar to PR2. Careful consideration of the Green Belt will have the effect of satisfying ER2 at the same time.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

3.1.5 Draft Core Strategy

Whilst the production of this plan has some way to go it has reached a significant milestone with the publication, in February 2012, of a consultation-draft Core Strategy. The vision and strategic aims stated in the document are very clear; and establish the Council’s view about the main planning challenges and priorities to be addressed.

In relation to this study those ambitions make interesting reading. Four of the top five strategic aims apply:

• Planning to meet the challenges of climate change; • Planning to protect the character of settlements and the countryside; • Planning to protect the District’s heritage and distinctiveness; and • Planning to promote and diversify the local economy.

Section 6.1 of the draft Core Strategy considers climate change and renewable energy, including wind energy development. Appropriate proposals for wind energy developments will be assessed taking the following factors into consideration:

• The impact of the scheme together with any cumulative impact (including associated transmission lines, buildings and access roads) on landscape character, visual amenity, historic features and biodiversity; • The extent to which the scale and nature of the proposal reflects the capacity and sensitivity of the landscape the accommodate the development; • Evidence that the scheme has been designed and sited to minimise any adverse impact on the surrounding area as far as is practical for its effective operation; any unreasonable adverse impact on users and residents of the local area, including generation of emissions and noise; • A minimum separation distance of 700m between large scale wind turbines and dwellings will be expected. Appropriate separation distances may be influenced by the orientation of views, and the local effects of trees, other buildings and the topography, as well as issues such as noise, safety, shadow flicker, and impacts on landscape or heritage assets; • The extent of any direct benefits to the local area or community; and • Provision should be made for the removal of the facilities and reinstatement of the site should operations cease.

So whilst it may be argued that these aims and policies are not yet adopted, the priorities and the direction being taken is particularly clear, it is therefore helpful to consider these as part of the study and a subsequent planning application.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

4. Statutory ecological designations

4.1 Ecology – Guidance and policy

All planning applications for small wind turbines should contain an assessment of the ecology of the site to demonstrate that the appropriate care has been taken in siting to minimise impact on local wildlife and habitat.

4.1.1 Potential impact on ecology

The impact of a small wind turbine on ecology is generally expected to be minimal where care has been taken in siting and design. Historically, ecology has been used by many campaigners to oppose large scale wind developments; however, many of these concerns are, on the whole, inappropriate to small scale wind turbines.

That said, correct design, siting and timing of build is essential to avoid causing adverse impact. Concerns relating to small wind projects will typically include damage of local flora, loss of habitat and disturbance or displacement of certain species. In considering the environmental impact of a small wind system, the installation, operation and decommissioning should be considered.

However, the main concerns on ecology relate to the operation of the system; in particular to the impact on flying fauna: bats and birds. Depending upon the habitats present at the site and the location of the turbines, other protected species may need to be considered. Provided the installation is not directly on a sensitive location, it is likely there will be minimal or no impact on flora and non-flying fauna.

4.1.2 Statutory Designated Areas

These protected areas vary with levels of protection and importance, therefore the potential ecological issues associated with small scale wind turbines will vary between each designation. Clearly, International Statutory Sites will carry most weight followed by National Statutory Sites, then Local/ Regional Designations. Table 1 below summarises the value of statutory sites and the recommended consultation zone.

Table 1: Environmental Statutory Sites 2 INTERNATIONAL STATUTORY SITES 500m Consultation Zone DESIGNATION PROTECTED UNDER Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) Habitats Directive (Council Directive NATURA 2000 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora) Special Protection Areas (SPAs) NATURA Birds Directive (Council Directive 2000 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds) Ramsar Under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) NATIONAL STATUTORY SITES 100m CONSULTATION ZONE DESIGNATION PROTECTED UNDER National Parks Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000

2 Table adapted from ‘Small Wind Planning Guidance’ RenewableUK, Nov 2011

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

National Nature Reserves (NNRs) Section 19 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, or Sections 34 or 35 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Areas of Special Protection (ASPs) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty National Parks and Access to the (AONBs) Countryside Act of 1949 Environmental Stewardship Scheme LOCAL/ REGIONAL SITES 50m CONSULTATION ZONE DESIGNATION PROTECTED UNDER Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) Section 21 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act Sites of Importance for Nature Conserva- tion County Wildlife Sites (not applicable in Scotland) Regionally Important Geological/ Geomor- phological Sites National Trust National Trust Act 1907-1971 as varied by a Parliamentary Scheme implemented by The Charities (National Trust) Order 2005 Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV)

It is advisable that if a turbine is proposed near to the boundary of a Statutory Designated Area then consultation should be sought to confirm that the effect of the turbine would not significantly affect the designation’s integrity or that harm to the site would not outweigh the benefit that the turbine will offer in terms of the generation of renewable energy.

Turbine proposals outside of these consultation zones are unlikely to require additional surveys; however, caution must be applied as there still may be protected species outside of these zones. If the proposed site is within the consultation zone, then details of the existing ecology should be sought from the relevant statutory body and discussions initiated in terms of the scope of survey work required.

4.1.3 Birds and bats

Concerns about the impact of large wind farms on bird and bat populations have led to a range of research projects both within and outside of the UK. Although there is limited evidence of both bird and bat mortality from wind turbines, the RSPB reported in March 2009: “High collision rates are, however, unusual” and a review of the available literature by Drewitt and Langston (2006) found that where collisions have been recorded, the rates per turbine are low, though variable with averages ranging from 0.01 to 23 bird collisions annually. Furthermore, typical bird collisions rates with wind turbines are much lower than those for overhead power lines.” This is in relation to a large wind farm and it is important to consider that a bird or bat approaching a turbine in a strong wind needs to take evasive action. When the turbine is 50m diameter a bird or bat must react much sooner to avoid a collision than a turbine with a 10m diameter.

All bird nests are fully protected from damage, destruction or interference whilst in use of being built under The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and it is not possible to move a nest or attempt to move a nesting bird to another site during the breeding season.

With respect to migration routes, the scale of these turbines means that they do not present a significant danger to migrating flocks in the smaller categories and it is not necessary to consider this

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

for turbines below 15m hub height. For small wind turbines above 15m hub height then details of migration routes should be sought from the relevant statutory body and discussions initiated (Council, NE / CCW / NIEA / SNH or RSPB). On any site where there is a known nesting site for any species of bird, the installation must not be carried out during the nesting season.

4.1.4 Bats – specific considerations

All species of bat in the UK are protected by law. In order to protect bat populations from the effects of large scale wind turbines, Natural England has produced a Technical Information Note (TIN051 and TIN059) which relates to single turbines. It is only necessary to follow the guidelines of the TIN051 if evidence exists that bat populations are present or if the habitat feature is likely to support the presence of bats. The Bat Conservation Trust has also recently produced Good Practice Guidelines.

The danger of bats being blown onto a large turbine is as for birds - the size of the blade has a large influence on the danger of collision. However for bats, there is evidence that the blades can damage the bats even if there is no direct collision as the pressure pulse caused by the passing of a large blade.

TIN051 therefore recommends that for large turbines, to minimise risk to bat populations, a 50m buffer is maintained around any feature (trees, hedges) into which no part of the turbine should intrude. This means that the edge of the rotor-swept area would need to be at least 50m from the nearest part of the habitat feature. Although the 50m buffer-zone may not be applicable to all small turbines, in terms of the precautionary principle it would be preferable to site systems out of this zone where possible. This study has considered and applied these recommendations.

Small turbines, sited near to bat roosts and or nurseries (including those in buildings) should not be automatically viewed as exempt from the sort of care required for larger ones near such sites. The potential impact of both micro-turbines and smaller turbines is not fully understood, though there is some evidence that they do present a risk to bats (BCT study 2007). It is recommended that micro- turbines are assessed on a case-by-case basis; even where they are permitted development in Scotland, SNH recommends a precautionary approach that roof mounted and free standing micro- turbines should not be installed on buildings known to, or suspected to contain bat roosts; within 50m of a known bat roost; on buildings where bats are frequently observed; or on known bat flyways.

There has also been concern raised that very small turbines, typically less than 1m diameter, can generate a high pitched noise that confuses bats or that their echo signature may confuse the bats. Research is on-going, but it is currently recommended by the Bat Conservation Trust that micro- turbines are not sited close to known bat populations. Where a site contains buildings that may host a bat roost and the turbine site is close to the building, or the turbine is mounted on such a building, a bat survey should be carried out.

For larger, multi-MW, turbines there is no evidence that bats are confused by these systems and so they should not be an issue, provided they are not directly in bat flight paths. TIN051 describes typical bat behaviour as follows: • Most species of bats have echo location calls with a useful range of only a few metres and so prefer to fly close to habitat features such as hedgerows, woodlands, walls, rivers, and within and just above the tree canopy. These species are probably less likely to collide with a turbine.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

• Some species of bats, particularly those with strong echolocation calls, will exploit open habitats and are more likely to be at risk from collision with turbines. Severance of flight paths of such species may be caused by the erection of turbines. • There is some evidence to suggest that the further away from linear/habitat features, the greater the decline in activity, even for high flying bats like noctules that tend to fly in open areas.

This means that turbines should not be installed along the line of an established hedgerow, or close to a tree canopy. TIN051 states that bats become fairly well dispersed in the landscape within a few hundred metres of the roost, though this depends in part on the species and the type of roost. This means that even where there is a bat roost on the same site as a proposed turbine, it should not present a problem, provided that the turbine is a reasonable distance from the roost.

4.2 Ecology – Local context

When considering local ecology the study considered an area which extended 500m beyond the Parish boundary. The search revealed the following statutory ecological designations:

4.2.1 International designations

The study area did not include any internationally designations, as defined in table 1 above.

4.2.2 National designations

National designations are shown in Figure 4 in the appendix and described below:

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

Sherbourne Meadows , SSSI Sherbourne Meadows comprises a series of eight adjoining unimproved fields lying on either side of Sherbourne Brook. Seven of the fields have a long history of management as hay meadows, the other is now grazed. Five of the fields along the brook, on alluvium overlying the Mercia Mudstone, have a vegetation characteristic of meadow foxtail– great burnet flood meadow.

The other three fields on higher land not adjoining the brook have ridge and furrow topography and overlie Mercia Mudstone. Map showing location of SSSI

Their herb-rich neutral grassland vegetation is of the common knapweed – crested dog’s-tall meadow and pasture type. There is evidence that in the nineteenth century these grassland types were widespread and common in some parts of Britain, particularly in the Midlands and also southern England in the case of flood-meadows. In the twentieth century, however, they have declined very severely as a result of agricultural improvement.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

The extent of flood meadows has been further reduced by neglect of common meadow rights and from gravel extraction. Sherbourne Meadows is the largest area of unimproved neutral grassland in Warwickshire.

The award associated with the meadow foxtail – great burnet community is species rich with a great diversity of herbs. It shows some variation in composition throughout the site due to local drainage conditions. Sixteen species of grass have so far been recorded and characteristically no single one of them appears dominant. The most abundant species are meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis , crested dog’s-tail Cynosurus cristatus , red fescue Festuca rubra , yellow oat-grass Trisetum flavescens and perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne . Other species that are very frequent are sweet vernal-grass Anthoxanthum odoratum , Yorkshire-fog Holcus lanatus , cock’sfoot Dactylis glomerata and common bent Agrostis capillaris . The density of herbs in the sward is exceptionally high with great burnet Sanguisorba officinalis , ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata , common knapweed Centaurea nigra , red clover Trifolium pratense and meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris all generally abundant.

Other species characteristic of this grassland which occur frequently include quaking grass Briza media , meadowsweet Filipendula ulmaria , meadow vetchling Lathyrus pratensis and rough hawkbit Leontodon hispidus .

The common knapweed – crested dog’s-tail community on the higher fields away from the brook also has a herb-rich sward which is low growing and especially tight on the ridges. The community is the lady’s bedstraw Galium verum type sub community, having lady’s bedstraw present as an occasional, and yellow oat-grass as a frequent component of the sward.

Twelve species of grass have so far been recorded, none of which shows overall dominance. Red fescue, common bent and crested dog’s tail are co-dominant with three other species, sweet vernal- grass, cock’s-foot and Yorkshire-fog almost as frequent and quaking-grass is a constant occasional species.

Amongst the herb species in the sward there is a high proportion of leguminous herbs with common bird’s-foot-trefoil Lotus corniculatus , white clover Trifolium repens and red clover being the most abundant species. Other species which are frequent include common knapweed, ribwort plantain, meadow buttercup, bulbous buttercup Ranunculus bulbosus and yellow rattle Rhinanthus minor . In places a marked zonation exists between the two neutral grassland communities.

Mature hedges with large hedgerow trees, particularly along the brook, serve to protect the site from surrounding improved fields and provide additional habitats for wildlife.

High Close Farm, SSSI High Close Farm lies approximately halfway between Warwick and Stratford-upon-Avon, 2 kilometres east of the village of Snitterfield. The site is a disused gravel pit now restored to agriculture.

This site provides unique evidence for a large part of the classic Pleistocene stratigraphy of the Midlands, as described in the Coventry- Rugby area. It shows a tripartite sequence which has been recognised over a wide area,

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

comprising a thick basal gravel (Baginton Map showing location of SSSI Lillington Gravel), an overlying sand (Baginton Sand) and a capping of clays and silts (Wolston Series). The gravel at this site contains more Jurassic material than is typical, suggesting the involvement of a tributary to the main Baginton Gravel river. The upper deposit at Snitterfield is exceptional. It comprises strongly laminated (possibly varved) clay and silt, passing upwards into structureless clay near the modern land surface (perhaps disturbed by soil processes). This laminated deposit would conventionally be attributed to deposition in glacial Lake Harrison, which is thought to have covered a large part of the Midlands during the Wolstonian Glacial Period. Adjacent sections at Snitterfield were of major importance in the original descriptions of Lake Harrison, while the present site provides probably the best exposures of these glacio-lacustrine deposits ever to have existed.

There is considerable controversy at present about the glacial stratigraphy of the Midlands, the extent of Lake Harrison, or even whether a single large lake existed at any one time. The Snitterfield site provides vital evidence for the debate and will be of major significance for future research.

The site at High Close Farm, Snitterfield was selected by the Geological Conservation Review (GCR) and forms part of the Quaternary of the Midlands block. The majority of the sites selected for this geological block represent the Quaternary drainage of Central England.

The High Close Farm site is of national significance for several reasons. The course of the river that deposited the lower sands and gravels (Baginton). Formation is controversial, although it is generally agreed that it drained the Cotswold escarpment. This is demonstrated by the presence of reworked Jurassic material and Triassic sands originating from the Cotswolds. These Triassic sands also occur at the Waverley Wood Farm GCR site.

The laminated deposits at the top of the High Close Farm sequence represent sedimentation into Lake Harrison, a feature associated with the Wolstonian Glaciation. The type site for the Wolstonian Glaciation is at Wolston, Warwickshire and the lake deposits at High Close Farm are the best example of lacustrine sedimentation associated with this glacial episode. These deposits comprise the Wolston formation.

Snitterfield and Bearley Bushes, SSSI Snitterfield and Bearley Bushes were once part of a larger area of semi-natural broadleaved woodland that has been split by a war-time airfield. The site has been selected as an example of two types of woodland now scarce in Warwickshire. The rich ground flora contains several species uncommon in the county. The site is also important for its butterflies.

The site is predominantly a pedunculate oak Quercus robur and ash Fraxinus excelsior woodland with a hazel Corylus avellana understorey. It was heavily cut over about 40 Map showing location of SSSI years ago and much of the woodland now consists of even-aged ash and silver birch Betula pendula with occasional standards of pedunculate oak. Despite this disturbance, two types of woodland associated with pedunculate oak can be recognised: ash with field maple Acer campestre , in both parts of the site and small areas of ash with wych elm Ulmus glabra in Bearley Bushes.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

The diverse shrub layer is dominated by hazel with frequent field maple, wayfaring-tree Viburnum lantana , guelder rose Viburnum opulus and dogwood Cornus sanguinea . The field layer is dominated by bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta and bramble Rubus fruticosus , but is very rich and includes several species with restricted distribution in Warwickshire; these are herb-Paris Paris quadrifolia and several orchids including early purple orchid Orchis mascula , greater butterfly-orchid Platanthera chlorantha and broadleaved helleborine Epipactis helleborine .

This site is also notable for its lepidoptera with 26 species of butterfly recorded including brown argus Aricia agestis , silver-washed fritillary Argynnis paphia , and the uncommon wood white Leptidia sinapis .

4.2.3 Local/Regional designations

Welcombe Hills and Clopton Park, Local Nature Reserve The reserve is located just north of Stratford- upon-Avon. Visitors can find rich and varied wildlife within a range of habitats, spectacular views across the Avon valley, and solitude in a traditional landscape. The reserve contains a mosaic of grassland, woodland and ponds with views across the Avon.

One of the main features of the site is Margaret's Well, which has possible Shakespearean connections. The 60ha (148 acre) reserve is managed by Warwickshire Wildlife Trust and Stratford District Council Map showing location of nature reserve

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

5. Cultural Heritage

5.1 Guidance and policy

A small wind turbine may have a physical or non-physical effect on heritage assets, but this will depend on location. Although small wind turbines have small footprints and limited associated infrastructure, it is important to ascertain whether or not there is any archaeology present, whatever the scale of the development.

Generally small wind systems are less likely to physically affect below ground archaeological remains than larger wind farm schemes as they have smaller foundations and flexibility to microsite away from buried heritage assets. Good design should ensure sufficient spacing between known buried archaeology and the turbine.

Non-physical effects can include visual changes, noise, and shadow flicker on the settings of cultural heritage resources. Visual changes can include turbines interrupting important vistas or sight-lines associated with heritage assets.

The siting of turbines on Listed Buildings (micro turbines) or within the associated curtilage of Listed Buildings would require Listed Building Consent. Siting of turbines within the general environs of a Listed Building would not require Listed Buildings Consent.

National Planning Policy guidance across the UK makes provision for the control of development which may negatively impact the setting and environs of heritage assets. The assessment of what constitutes negative impact is open to a broad range of interpretation.

In this context it is important to note that small wind systems do not constitute permanent structures. Planning permission is granted for the specific turbine proposed and the typical system life will be no more than 20 years. It will be a condition of consent that once the turbine is no longer operational it is removed.

5.2 Cultural Heritage – Local context

5.2.1 Internationally important heritage features

There are no World Heritage Sites within the study area.

5.2.3 Nationally important heritage features

English Heritage holds records for all nationally important historic assets including listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and protected parks and gardens. A search of the English Heritage database found that only Listed Buildings were present within the study area; they are listed below in table 2 and mapped out in Figure 5 in the appendix.

Table 2 – National heritage assets (Listed buildings) within study area

Listed Name of building Street Address Date of Listing GRADE Easting Northing Building ID BARN WITH ATTACHED BUILDINGS APPROXIMATELY 18 482547 KINGS LANE 30/10/1989 II 420957 258863 METRES SOUTH WEST OF HOLLOW MEADOW FARMHOUSE

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

(NOT INCLUDED)

482542 PARK HOUSE CHURCH ROAD 07/03/1997 II 421528 259673 482538 HOLLY COTTAGE CHURCH ROAD 18/03/1997 II 421589 259808 482536 THE OLD COTTAGE BROOKSIDE 02/08/1972 II 421514 260090 STABLE BLOCK IMMEDIATELY TO 366436 WARWICK ROAD 04/04/1994 II 420847 256829 NORTH OF WELCOMBE HOTEL 366137 CLOPTON TOWER 25/10/1951 II 420473 256443

BARN AND ATTACHED STABLE AND COW HOUSE 482558 APPROXIMATELY 10 METRES WARWICK ROAD 28/10/1999 II 423684 260543 SOUTH OF MARRAWAY FARMHOUSE WYVERN AND WOLDS COTTAGE AND BARN COTTAGE 482556 APPROXIMATELY 25 METRES THE GREEN 05/04/1967 II 420847 259412 SOUTH WEST OF THE WOLDS (NOT INCLUDED) WALL EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY 45 METRES 482546 CHURCH ROAD 28/10/1999 II 421815 260065 ALONG THE NORTH EAST BOUNDARY OF TALL WALL 366434 WELCOMBE HOTEL WARWICK ROAD 09/02/1972 II* 420865 256756 482534 HEATH END FARMHOUSE HEATH END 28/10/1999 II 423100 260880 NUMBERS 1 AND 2 HEATH END 482535 HEATH END 28/10/1999 II 422972 260986 COTTAGES THE PIGEON HOUSE ATTACHED 482555 TO THE WOLDS THE GREEN 05/04/1967 II 420858 259443 (THE WOLDS NOT INCLUDED) 482543 PARK VIEW CHURCH ROAD 05/04/1967 II 421608 259835 STABLE AND OUTBUILDING APPROXIMATELY 40 METRES 482499 INGON LANE 26/06/1979 II 421874 257765 NORTH NORTH EAST OF LOWER INGON FARMHOUSE OUTBUILDING IMMEDIATELY 482540 NORTH EAST OF SADDLERS ON CHURCH ROAD 05/04/1967 II 422000 260174 PARK LANE 482545 TUDOR HOUSE CHURCH ROAD 05/04/1967 II 421643 259880 482549 SADDLERS PARK LANE 07/03/1997 II 421984 260163 482554 THE GABLES SMITHS LANE 07/03/1997 II 421400 259812 482552 AVEBURY SMITHS LANE 07/03/1997 II 421379 259857 482539 JASMINE HOUSE CHURCH ROAD 28/10/1999 II 421637 259863 CART SHED APPROXIMATELY 18 METRES WEST OF 482548 KINGS LANE 30/10/1989 II 420930 258867 HOLLOW MEADOW FARMHOUSE (FARMHOUSE NOT INCLUDED) GLEBE FARMHOUSE AND 482559 WOLVERTON ROAD 02/08/1972 II 421196 260652 ATTACHED COTTAGE STABLE AND COW SHED APPROXIMATELY 45 METRES 482497 INGON LANE 26/06/1979 II 421853 257769 NORTH NORTH WEST OF LOWER INGON FARMHOUSE BARN APPROXIMATELY 50 482494 METRES NORTH OF LOWER INGON LANE 26/06/1979 II 421876 257776 INGON FARMHOUSE 482557 MARRAWAY FARMHOUSE WARWICK ROAD 28/10/1999 II 423695 260505 482491 LOWER INGON FARMHOUSE INGON LANE 26/06/1979 II 421863 257721 OBELISK APPROXIMATELY 150 482500 METRES WEST OF WELCOMBE INGON LANE 02/08/1972 II 420940 257072 BANK FARM

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

KENNEL AND ATTACHED WALL AND RAILINGS AND GATE 40 482496 INGON LANE 26/06/1979 II 421856 257754 METRES NORTH NORTH WEST OF LOWER INGON FARMHOUSE 482553 FERN COTTAGE AND FERNSIDE SMITHS LANE 07/03/1997 II 421439 259711 482550 PIGEON GREEN PIGEON GREEN 02/08/1972 II 422090 260235 PARK COTTAGES NUMBERS 1 482541 AND 2 AND 3 AND 4 AND CHURCH ROAD 06/02/1952 II 421811.01 260003 KEEPERS COTTAGE THE DOWER HOUSE AND 482544 ATTACHED COTTAGE AND CHURCH ROAD 02/08/1972 II 421715 260048 OUTBUILDING

Of the 33 listed buildings found within the study area, 32 are valued as being Grade II, only one, the Welcombe Hotel is valued as Grade II*. A small wind turbine would not physically impact these buildings but may adversely affect the building’s setting. When determining if a proposal is acceptable the Authority will use the matrix shown in table 3 below.

Table 3 – Matrix for assessing significance of impact

Value / Sensitivity (DMRB equivalent 3) Magnitude Lesser/Low (D) Local (C) Regional (B) National/International (A) Negligible Low Medium High / Very High High Not significant Not significant Significant Significant Medium Not significant Not significant Not significant Significant Low Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant Imperceptible Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant None Not significant Not significant Not significant Not significant

A Grade II listed building is given medium value and a Grade II* or I listed building is given a high value. The definition of the magnitude of an impact is given in table 4 below.

Table 4 - Definition of magnitude of impact on setting

Magnitude Definition High Total or substantial loss of a feature or complete loss of the characteristics of a feature’s setting. Medium Partial loss or alteration of a feature. Substantial change to the key characteristics of a feature’s setting, or a more total loss which is temporary and/or reversible. Low Minor loss to or alteration of a feature. Changes to a setting which does not affect the key characteristics, or which is short term and reversible. Negligible Minor alteration of a feature. Minor and short term or very minor and reversible changes to its setting which do not affect the key characteristics.

An application should be acceptable where the overall impact is deemed to be ‘Not significant’. It is unlikely that the potential build areas identified by the study would create a significant impact.

3 Department for Transport/Welsh Office/ Scottish Office Design Manual for roads and bridges (DMRB) Vol.11 Section 3 Part 2 Annexes 5 and 6 (revised August 2007).

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

5.2.3 Locally important heritage features

Warwickshire County Council 4 holds records of all locally important historic assets in the area, a search of the online database found 29 features within the Parish (summarized in table 5 below and mapped out Figure 6 in the appendix).

Table 5 – Locally important heritage assets – Warwickshire County Council Historic Environment Record

Feature description Record Number

A track way, dating to the Post Medieval period, is known from documentary evidence. It now exists as a footpath marked on the Ordnance Survey map. It is 844 situated south of Warwickshire Pit Spinney.

Find spot - a Roman coin, minted in Rome, was found 1km east of Snitterfield. 908

Find - Romano-British coins (43 AD - 409 AD) 909

Find spot - fragments of Roman pottery were found in a garden on Church Road, 910 Snitterfield. All of the fragments came from the same vessel, a sepulchral urn.

The site of a mill pond dam which is undated. It is visible as an earthwork and is 911 located 300m south east of Heath End Plantation, Heath End.

The site of a windmill which was in use in the Imperial period. It was a brick tower 912 mill and it stood on the north side of Black Hill, Snitterfield.

The Church of St James, which was originally built in the Medieval period. It is located 913 175m south west of Pigeon Green, Snitterfield.

The site of Snitterfield Hall, a house dating back to the Post Medieval period. The existence of the hall is known from documentary evidence. It was situated on the east 914 side of Church Road, Snitterfield.

The site of a platform, possibly a house platform, which survives as an earthwork. It is 915 of unknown date and is located to the east of The Green, Snitterfield.

Find spot - a Neolithic stone axe was found in the area of Snitterfield. The exact 1420 location of the Find spot is unknown.

Smithy marked on the OS first edition map of 1887, located in Snitterfield. 7760

The site of a Second World War bombing decoy. This was a system of lights or fires used as a decoy target for enemy aircraft which would drop their bombs on the decoy 8051 instead of RAF Honiley. The decoy site was located 900m south east of Wolverton.

The site of RAF Snitterfield, a Second World War airfield. It was used to train Belgian 8100

4 Records can be accessed at www.timetrail.warwickshire.gov.uk

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

air crews and closed in 1946. The airfield site is located east of Bearley.

A park land and formal garden attached to the Post Medieval park House. The grounds 8589 were later included in Welcombe estate.

The possible extent of the Medieval settlement of Snitterfield. The area of settlement is suggested by Greenwoods map of 1822 and the Ordnance Survey map of 9121 1886.

A boundary wall and a pit, both dating to the Imperial period were found during 9193 archaeological work. The features were situated near the church at Snitterfield.

Traces of undated ridge and furrow located within the school playing fields, 9861 Snitterfield Primary school, Snitterfield.

Four pieces of worked flint 800m southwest of Snitterfield. 10122

Two shards of Roman pottery 260m east of Marraway Farm, Snitterfield. 10124

Table 6 - Definition of historic features and terms (as defined by English Heritage) Word or Phrase Description

CHURCH A building used for public Christian worship. Use more specific type where known.

DAM A barrier of concrete or earth, etc, built across a river to create a reservoir of water for domestic and/or industrial usage.

Documentary Documentary evidence is another name for written records. The first written records in Britain date Evidence back to the Roman period. Documentary evidence can take many different forms, including maps, charters, letters and written accounts. When archaeologists are researching a site, they often start by looking at documentary evidence to see if there are clues that will help them understand what they might find. Documentary evidence can help archaeologists understand sites that are discovered during an excavation, field survey or aerial survey.

EARTHWORK A bank or mound of earth used as a rampart or fortification.

Earthwork Earthworks can take the form of banks, ditches and mounds. They are usually created for a specific purpose. A bank, for example, might be the remains of a boundary between two or more fields. Some earthworks may be all that remains of a collapsed building, for example, the grassed-over remains of building foundations.

In the winter, when the sun is lower in the sky than during the other seasons, earthworks have larger shadows. From the air, archaeologists are able to see the patterns of the earthworks more easily. Earthworks can sometimes be confusing when viewed at ground level, but from above, the general plan is much clearer.

Archaeologists often carry out an aerial survey or an earthwork survey to help them understand the lumps and bumps they can see on the ground.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

FIND SPOT The approximate location at which stray finds of artefacts were found. Index with object name.

HOUSE A levelled area of ground on which a house is built. A platform is often the sole surviving evidence for PLATFORM a house.

Imperial 1751 AD to 1914 AD (end of the 18th century AD to the beginning of the 20th century AD)

This period comes after the Post Medieval period and before the modern period and starts with beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1750. It includes the second part of the Hanoverian period (1714 – 1836) and the Victorian period (1837 – 1901). The Imperial period ends with the start of the First World War in 1914.

Medieval 1066 AD to 1539 AD (the 11th century AD to the 16th century AD)

The medieval period comes after the Saxon period and before the post medieval period.

The Medieval period begins in 1066 AD. This was the year that the Normans, led by William the Conqueror (1066 – 1087), invaded England and defeated Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Hastings in East Sussex. The Medieval period includes the first half of the Tudor period (1485 – 1603 AD), when the Tudor family reigned in England and eventually in Scotland too.

The end of the Medieval period is marked by Henry VIII’s (1509 – 1547) order for the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the years running up to 1539 AD. The whole of this period is sometimes called the Middle Ages.

MILL POND The area of water retained above a mill dam for driving a mill.

Neolithic About 4000 BC to 2351 BC

The word ‘Neolithic’ means ‘New Stone Age’. Archaeologists split up the Neolithic period into three phases; early, middle and late. The Neolithic period comes after the Mesolithic period and before the Bronze Age.

People in the Neolithic period hunted and gathered food as their ancestors had but they were also began to farm. They kept animals and grew crops. This meant that they were able to settle more permanently in one location instead of constantly moving from place to place to look for food.

PIT A hole or cavity in the ground, either natural or the result of excavation. Use more specific type where known.

PLANTATION A group of planted trees or shrubs, generally of uniform age and of a single species.

Post Medieval About 1540 AD to 1750 AD (the 16th century AD to the 18th century AD)

The Post Medieval period comes after the medieval period and before the Imperial period.

This period covers the second half of the reign of the Tudors (1485 – 1603), the reign of the Stuarts (1603 – 1702) and the beginning of the reign of the Hannoverians (1714 – 1836).

Roman About 43 AD to 409 AD (the 1st century AD to the 5th century AD)

The Roman period comes after the Iron Age and before the Saxon period.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

The Roman period in Britain began in 43 AD when a Roman commander called Aulus Plautius invaded the south coast, near Kent. There were a series of skirmishes with the native Britons, who were defeated. In the months that followed, more Roman troops arrived and slowly moved westwards and northwards.

TOWER MILL A windmill with a rotating cap containing the windshaft, and a stationary body in the form of a tower.

TRACKWAY A pathway, not necessarily designed as such, beaten down by the feet of travellers.

URN A garden ornament, usually of stone or metal, designed in the form of a vase used to receive the ashes of the dead.

WINDMILL A tower-like structure of wood or brick with a wooden cap and sails which are driven around by the wind producing power to work the internal machinery.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

6. Landscape and visual amenity

6.1 Guidance and policy

Wind turbines, by their very nature, will impact on the character of the landscape and form an additional visual element to the skyline. Through a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) it is possible to understand how a proposed development is likely to affect certain landscape features, landscape character and visual amenity of the surrounding environment. The level of detail required for a LVIA should be proportional to the scale of the proposed development; in most cases a limited landscape assessment should be sufficient. The scope of an assessment should be agreed with the Local Authority to determine the level of information required and whether or not any photomontages are required.

Visual amenity needs to consider the sensitivity of the landscape to change and the magnitude of the proposed wind turbine. Although National Planning Policy guidance varies across the UK, it is generally considered that small scale renewable developments should be permitted within such areas provided there is no significant environmental detriment.

6.2 Landscape and visual amenity – Local context

Given that the Parish lies within Green Belt and a Special Landscape Area it is likely that the planning authority would require some form of assessment which includes photomontages from key visual receptors (view points). This work is outside of the scope of the study, but is included in the accompanying ‘planning pack’.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

7. Technical Considerations

7.1 Aviation and MoD – Guidance and policy

It is important to consider local aviation and radar when planning a wind system for two reasons; firstly, to protect aircraft from coming into physical contact with a turbine, and secondly, to ensure that civil and military radar are not interfered with.

7.2 Aviation and MoD – Local context

7.2.1 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

The Parish lies approximately 17km south-west of Coventry airport, 23km south of Birmingham International airport and just over 5km from Wellesbourne airfield. Both Coventry and Birmingham airports insist on a 30km consultation zone, Wellesbourne airfield should be informed of any development within 5km only. At this distance from these civil aviation sites it is unlikely that an objection would be made to an application on the basis of a physical flying hazard or interference with protected flying surfaces. Figure 7A in the appendix shows civil airports and airfields in the region and their suggested consultation zones. However, as Coventry and Birmingham both have radars it is possible that a wind turbine could be seen and could interfere with one or both of these radars.

Two categories of turbines were devised; a generic 5-20kW turbine with a tip height of 20m and a generic 50kW turbine with a tip height of 35m. Using a radar line-of-sight model the study identified areas at which a turbine could be seen by these radars. It was found that at these heights only Coventry could see turbines within the Parish. The results of this exercise are shown in Figure 7B and 7C in the appendix. Figure 7B shows areas which would not be seen by radar if below 20m tip height, Figure 7C shows areas which would be invisible if below 35m tip height.

The radar study has been devised on the basis of previous consultation with both airports. It should be noted that airports do change their safeguarding policies on a regular basis and that just because a similar installation is acceptable it does not necessarily follow that another installation in the vicinity is also acceptable. It is therefore advised that as part of any planning application both Coventry and Birmingham be consulted to confirm their acceptance of a scheme in a particular location and at that particular time.

7.2.2 NATS En Route (NERL)

The Parish lies over 60km south-east of Clee Hill Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) station which is part of the National Air Traffic Service’s En Route radar network. NERL provide self-assessment maps which show areas that can be seen by their radars at certain heights (in 20m tip height steps). Figure 8A shows NERL constraints including these radar coverage maps. Figure 8B shows the radar coverage in more detail. It is worth noting that any turbine, regardless of tip height, in line of sight of Clee Hill is unlikely to cause an impact given that it would be over 60km away from the radar. The Parish does not lie within close proximity to any Navigation Aids or Air-Ground-Air (AGA) communications stations.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

7.2.3 Ministry of Defence (MoD)

The Parish does not lie within 50km of a Ministry of Defence airbase or radar station and is over 60km from the Met Office’s weather radar station at Clee Hill. The majority of the study area lies within a low priority Low Flying Area (LFA) although the northern tip of the Parish lies within a medium priority LFA. If turbines were built within this medium priority area it is unlikely that the MoD would object to a proposal given the limited size of the turbines being considered. Local MoD constraints are shown in Figure 9 in the appendix.

7.3 Noise

7.3.1 Guidance and policy

Wind turbines generate two types of noise; mechanical and aerodynamic. PPG24/ ETSU-R-97: PPG24 confirms that the impact of noise can be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and that new developments involving noisy activities should, if possible, be sited away from noise sensitive land uses (para 2). Authorities are asked to ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance (para 10). Detailed guidance dealing with certain major noise sources is appended to PPG24. Specific guidance with regard to noise generation from wind farms is found in ETSU-R-97 ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’. The document sets out a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development. In summary ESTU-R-97 states maximum noise levels that a turbine or wind farm should be allowed to contribute to the ambient or background noise levels at a residential property, they are: • 40dB(A) during the day and 43dB(A) at night • or 5dB(A) on top of the background noise level at all times.

For the purposes of ETSU-R-97, night time hours are between 11pm and 7am. The guidance uses

LA90,10min descriptor for both background noise and wind turbine noise. In non-technical terms LA90,10min is calculated by measuring the noise level over a ten minute period, disregarding the noisiest 90% of the time and taking the maximum noise level in the remaining (quietest) 10% of the time. The reason for using this particular descriptor was to allow reliable measurements to be made without corruption from relatively loud, transitory noise events from other sources.

If a site is near a busy road, for example, background noise levels could be considerably higher than 45dB. PPG24 Annex 1 provides guidance on the relative noise levels acceptable in residential environments. If a house has a road 100m away and a car passes at 40mph this will generate a noise level of around 55dB and a lorry at 30mph will generate 65dB. Note that the sound intensity doubles with every additional 10dB so a passing car is twice a loud as the 45dB threshold and a passing lorry four times as loud. It is advised that the background noise levels should therefore also be taken into account when determining the acceptability of a site where noise emission levels are predicted to be higher than 45 dB(A). It has been assumed that the Parish experiences relatively low background noise levels and that turbine property buffers should be set to achieve a maximum 40dB(A) noise level.

The noise emission from any MCS certified turbine is systematically measured in accordance with the BWEA Small Systems Safety and Performance Standard (29 Feb 2008) which references IEC 61400-11: 2003 and presented in the form of a noise map (see example below – Figure 3). The sound pressure level dB(A) is measured in decibels using an A-weighting as defined in the International

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

standard IEC 61672:2003. The A-weighting is commonly used for the measurement of environmental and industrial noise.

Figure 3 - Typical noise level map for a MCS accredited turbine

The graphic in Figure 3 shows the declared noise emission levels as well as calculated noise immission, or the sound that is received by the receptor, at different distances from the turbine and at different wind speeds. In the example, shown above, the noise plots states that for this particular turbine the noise emitted (that is transmitted from the turbine) has a sound power of 82dB LWd at a wind speed of 8m/s. This wind speed is used, as in the UK the wind is less than 8m/s for 90% of a typical year.

The LWd figure is a declared level in accordance with IEC 61400-14:2003 which applies the uncertainty on the measurement and presents a ‘worst case’ scenario. Taking this an example, in order for a neighbouring window to receive a sound pressure level (Lp) above the suggested threshold it would need to be within 28m of the turbine head. In assessing a specific site the wind speed used should be the V90 wind speed for that site as predicted using the NOABL database.

For projects achieving less than 40dB(A) (the green area in the noise chart), the consenting Authority should consider the scheme acceptable in terms of noise. In certain circumstances it might not be possible site a turbine away from a property to achieve the 40dB(A) limit. The diagram shows a yellow or amber area which refers to levels between 40dB(A) and 45dB(A). It is thought that a 45dB(A) threshold is appropriate in some cases. Under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) certain small wind turbines can be installed without planning permission provided that

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

neighbouring residential properties are not exposed to more than 45dB(A) (as measured externally) 1m from any window of an occupied room for more than 90% of the time.

7.3.2 Noise – Local context

For the purposes of the study, the noise threshold at properties was set at 40dB(A) (the green area shown in the noise profile). Table 7 below shows the stand-off distance required in order to achieve the <40dB(A) level at neighbouring properties.

Table 7 - Comparison of noise levels and stand-off distances for turbines considered in study

Turbine Buffer distance from housing to achieve <40dB(A) @8m/s

Aircon 10S (HAWT) 58m

Bergey Excel 10 (HAWT) 180m

C&F Green Energy CF15 (HAWT) 100m

C&F Green Energy CF20 (HAWT) 100m

Evance R9000 (HAWT) 100m

Evoco 10 (HAWT) 120m

Gaia 133 (HAWT) 100m

Kingspan KW6(HAWT) 100m

Quietrevolution QR5 (VAWT) 50m

Skystream 3.7 (HAWT) 120m

Westwind 20 (HAWT) 120m

Xzeres -442SR (HAWT) 136m

Endurance E-3120 (HAWT) 200m

C&F Green Energy CF50 (HAWT) 200m

7.4 Telecommunications Links – Guidance and policy

Wind turbines have the potential to disrupt television and radio signals due to electro-magnetic interference. Fixed point-to-point microwave radio links can be affected if a turbine is placed in the middle of the link. Small wind turbines are less likely to impact telecoms links because of their size.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

The BBC, who offers advice on the likely impact on television and radio signals of large scale wind turbines, has said that it is not aware of any impact due to small scale turbines.

7.5 Telecommunications Links – Local context

Following consultation with Ofcom, the body that regulates radio links in the UK, 10 fixed radio links were found. Table 8 below details fixed microwave radio links within the Parish. These have been taken into consideration in determining appropriate build areas. Typically, operators will advise a 100m stand-off distance from a link’s centreline; the study has buffered links that run near to potential sites by this distance. Radio links within the area can be seen in Figure 10 in the appendix.

Table 8 - Fixed radio links within 3500m of UK NGR SP 22500 59500

Links Company

0504334/1 Everything Everywhere Limited

0626199/1 Everything Everywhere Limited

0512051/3 Airwave Solutions Limited

0425166/2 Everything Everywhere Limited

0455153/2 Everything Everywhere Limited

0467366/2 Warwickshire County Council

0480132/1 National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Limited

0559385/1 National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Limited

0478408/1 Everything Everywhere Limited

0493362/1 National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Limited

7.6 Shadow Flicker

7.6.1 Guidance and policy

Shadow flicker occurs under a special set of conditions when the sun passes behind the hub of a wind turbine and casts a shadow over neighbouring properties. When the blades rotate, shadows pass over the same point causing an effect called 'shadow flicker'. Shadow flicker within houses occurs if a wind turbine is close enough to, and of a specific orientation with, a nearby house. It will not happen where there is vegetation or other obstructions between the turbines and the house; if windows facing a turbine are fitted with blinds or shutters; or if the sun is not shining brightly enough to cause shadows from a turbine.

MCS standard MIS 3003 defines the correct method to assess whether an installation is acceptable for shadow flicker. If there are neighbouring properties within the range in which shadow flicker could be an issue, the applicant should provide evidence of the calculation to demonstrate compliance to the standard. This method is summarised visually in Figure 4 below which has been taken from the standard.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

Figure 4 - Diagram of shadow flicker zones of interest in the UK (taken from MIS 3003) (Note: The wind turbine is at the centre, and that this diagram is appropriate for UK latitudes in the Northern hemisphere where the green sector forms an arc of approximately 100 degrees)

As a rule of thumb, shadow flicker should not affect properties provided they are beyond 10 times the rotor diameter of the wind turbine; for example the stand-off distance between a 50kW turbine and a property should be 200m (using a 20m diameter turbine).

7.6.2 Shadow Flicker – Local context

The study used Ordnance Survey address data to identify residential properties; a generic buffer was then applied to these buildings based on two levels of turbines: a generic 5-20kW turbine, which used a 100m buffer and a generic 50kW turbine which used a 200m buffer. As shown in Figure 4 above turbines can be built within these buffers provided they do not fall within a pink or red area or if a shadow flicker analysis has been carried out and concludes that flicker would not affect a property; the generic ‘stand-off distance’ approach used in this study avoiding the need for a full analysis.

Turbines can also cause flashes of light as the sun is reflected off moving blades however this is unlikely, especially as the coatings used on modern turbines have been selected to minimise reflection.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

8. Site design

The siting of a small wind turbine is governed by the guidance and policy considered above; and the study has applied these constraints as conservatively as possible to minimize impact on the environment. The exact location of a turbine within an area is subject to these and more practical considerations as set out in the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MSC) standard, MIS 3003. The standard ensures that the contractor involved is suitably qualified, the system is fully MCS compliant and that certain aspects of siting are properly considered including:

8.2 Obstruction to wind flow It is essential to site wind turbines a sufficient distance away from an obstruction, such as a tree, house or barn to reduce or remove the obstructions effect on the flow of the wind.

Figure 5 below is taken directly from the MIS 3003 standard and illustrates where a turbine should be sited relative to an obstruction. Zone A refers to the upwind area i.e. the area in front of the turbine providing clean wind, zone B refers to the downwind area i.e. the area in behind the turbine.

Turbine

Figure 5 - Diagram of upwind and downwind significant obstruction zones

These zones are defined in relation to the size of the turbine and the obstruction. The MIS 3003 standard provides simple algorithms for further correcting for the effect of obstructions however they do carry a high level of uncertainty. For the purposes of the study it was assumed that turbines should be located at least 10 times the height of an obstacle regardless of relative positions and the prevailing wind direction.

8.3 Cost of cabling The cost of cabling can vary considerably depending on the distance between the turbine and the meter. A 10kW turbine typically requires a 16mm 3 core armoured cable, a mains cable to power the on-board control systems and a signal cable to relay data to the control panel. If the cable run exceeds 200m then a thicker 3 core cable will be required, increasing the overall cost per metre.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

8.4 Other site design considerations

8.4.1 Over-sail

The study has assumed a turbine sited on a particular parcel of land would not over-sail another.

8.4.2 Topple distance

The site design has also applied a topple distance buffer to all Public Rights of Way or tracks of 1.5 times the tip height of the candidate turbines. In the case of the two generic turbines; a 30m buffer was used for the 5-20kW turbine and a 52.5m buffer used for the 50kW turbine.

8.5 Site design - Local context

8.5.1 Potential Sites

Following consideration of all of the policies, guidance and constraints a map showing potential build areas was formed. These build areas are shown in Figure 11.

During the study three specific sites were selected from the build areas by SACC as being preferred for further development; they are:

Site Name Site Location

Glebe Farm , Wolverton Road

Site would be suitable for up to four wind turbines; possibly up to 50kW subject to further work to determined impact on Coventry airport radar.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

Luscombe Farm , Snitterfield Lane

Site would be suitable for up to three 10kW turbines. Maximum tip height would be limited to 20m above ground level.

Bell Brook Farm , Snitterfield Lane

Site would be suitable for up to two turbines rated up to 10kW. Maximum tip height would be limited to 20m above ground level.

These sites have been considered in more detail in the ‘planning pack’ which accompanies this report.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

9. Local wind resource

9.1 Publicly available data

In the UK there are currently two publicly available and free wind speed databases; the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s NOABL dataset and the Carbon Trust’s NCIC dataset.

NOABL was originally produced by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and is widely used by the UK wind industry. The dataset comprises long-term annual mean wind speed estimates for each 1 km grid square of the UK, at three heights above ground level: 10m, 25m and 45m.

The alternative database is held by the Met Office National Climate Information Centre (NCIC). This is publicly available via the Carbon Trust’s website. Like NOABL, the data consist of long-term annual mean wind speed estimates for kilometre grid squares across the country, which in original form are at 10m above ground level but can be scaled to other heights. The NOABL and NCIC datasets both take orography into account, however local variations in roughness and ground features are not. This limitation is less significant in wide, open rural areas but more acute in forested or built-up urban areas.

There are differences between the two datasets: - NOABL is based on observations for the 10 year period 1975-1984 for 56 stations, - NCIC takes into account 30 years of readings between 1971 and 2000 for approximately 220 sites.

The longer time period implies that the NCIC data are more representative of long-term conditions, and the higher number of stations means the data are also less reliant on interpolation.

Compared to actual measurements, both NOABL and NCIC provide fairly good estimates in general. However, analysis by the Met Office suggests that NOABL tends to underestimate slightly for higher wind speed sites and overestimate for lower ones, including sites found in urban areas. This means that it might tend to over-predict the amount of power it is possible to generate with small turbines in built-up areas. The Carbon Trust’s assessment of the two datasets has led to the adoption of the NCIC data within their wind yield calculator. Figures 13 and 14 in the appendix illustrate the wind resource based on NOABL and NCIC across the Parish.

9.2 Commercially available data

As part of this study the Met Office were commissioned to produce a ‘Virtual Met Mast’ (VMM) report for the Parish. The VMM is based on the Met Office Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) system which has been continually developed since the early 1960s. An archive of hourly wind data at a 4km grid spacing covers the period from 2001 to date.

These data can be correlated with data on a 60km grid produced by the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF), to give a wind frequency analysis covering the period from January 1989 to date. Prior to the correlation and where appropriate depending upon terrain complexity the 4km data, that have been interpolated to the location in question, have the effects of local land use and topography applied. A key feature of the Virtual Met Mast is the techniques used to re-introduce the impact of localised effects on the wind field.

Although the uncertainty associated with the NOABL and NCIC database is difficult to evaluate, the VMM assessment provides several metrics to evaluate this. The report was centred on the Heath

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

End turbine. This meant that the 8x8km wind map covered all of the potential build areas and also provides an opportunity to correlate with data from the turbine. Figure 6 below shows the average wind speed across the Parish at 24mm above ground level. The full report can be found in the appendix, however key wind statistics for the site is shown in table 9 below.

Table 9 – VMM wind speed summary statistics

Wind speeds Long term mean wind speed 5.0 m/s Standard deviation of wind speed 2.5 m/s Median wind speed 4.7 m/s Mean wind speed reduction (W90) 0.3 m/s Maximum gust 28.1 m/s Maximum 10 minute mean wind speed 17.5 m/s 1 in 50 year maximum gust 28.41 m/s 1 in 50 year maximum 10 minute mean wind speed 17.67 m/s Turbulence Mean turbulence intensity index 0.258 Turbulence intensity index at 15 m/s 0.203 Wind shear 99% Wind shear exponent (14 m to 34 m) 0.502 Mean wind shear exponent (14 m to 34 m) 0.264

Explanation of terms (Met Office)

Mean wind speed is our best estimate of the long term average wind speed from 1989 to date. The frequency distribution is plotted as a wind rose in Figure 3 (see full report).

Standard deviation of wind speed is the standard deviation of the hourly wind speed from 1989 to date.

Median Wind Speed is the long term middle of the range (50th percentile) of all values in the hourly time series of wind speeds from 1989 to date.

Mean Wind Speed Reduction (W90) is the wind speed to be subtracted from the long term mean wind speed to give a revised mean wind speed that there is 90% confidence of being exceeded. It is therefore a conservative estimate of the anticipated mean wind speed for this site. The level of certainty has been derived from extensive verification of the performance of the Virtual Met Mast™ model using data from over fifty sites. A full verification report can be found on the Met Office web site.

Maximum 10 minute wind speed is the highest wind speed taken from the hourly samples produced by Virtual Met Mast™ over the period from January 2001 to date unless stated otherwise.

Maximum gust is the highest 3 second gust that has been calculated over the period of the hourly time series, from January 2001 to date unless stated otherwise.

1 in 50 years maximum 10 minute wind speed is the 10 minute average wind speed to be expected once in fifty years, derived by performing extreme value analysis on the hourly time series from January 2001 to date.

1 in 50 years maximum gust is the 3 second gust speed to be expected once in fifty years, derived by performing extreme value analysis on the hourly time series from January 2001 to date.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

Mean turbulence intensity index is a measure of the proportion of the wind energy that is lost to random turbulence, placing stress on the blades rather than turning them. It is the average of the standard deviation divided by the mean wind speed for each hour of the time series, calculated using hourly data from January 2001 to date.

Turbulence Intensity at 15 m/s is the mean turbulence intensity at 15 m/s. Turbine manufacturers use TI15 to help gauge the strength of blades they need to install.

Mean wind shear exponent describes the difference in wind speeds between the tip of the turbines at the top and bottom of their sweep. This is used by turbine manufacturers to assess blade types.

99% Wind shear exponent is the value exceeded 1% of the time.

Figure 6 - Virtual Met Mast wind map for the study area

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

10. Appropriate small wind systems

The study used two generic turbines for the purpose of applying constraints; a 5-20kW (20m tip height) and a 50kW (35m tip height) turbine. Within this range of turbines considered there are 12 MCS accredited machines and two 50kW turbines which just fall outside the MCS. These turbines are summarised below in tables 11 and 12, photos of these turbines can be seen below in table 13. Table 10 below summarises typical specifications of a range of wind turbines.

Table 10 - Typical wind turbine specifications

Typical Wind Turbine 10kW 25kW 50kW 100kW 250kW 1.5MW

Project Costs (£'000) 6.0 10.0 18.0 40.0 85.0 500.0 Installation & Commissioning 60.0 120.0 260.0 350.0 575.0 2,000.0 Costs (£'000) Total Costs (£'000) 66.0 130.0 278.0 390.0 660.0 2,500.0 Annual running costs - 0.5 0.8 2.0 3.0 5.0 20.0 maintenance (£'000) Annual running costs - 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0 5.0 insurance (£'000) Rotor Diameter (m) 9.0 14.0 18.0 21.0 30.0 60.0 Tower (m) 12.0 20.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 70.0 14 - 19 26 - 30 70 - 80 100 200 1,500 Tonnes Annual Carbon Saving Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes 35-70 Rated RPM 220 rpm 110 rpm 50 rpm 59 rpm 16-20 rpm rpm Hydraulic Hydraulic Method of Installation Crane Crane Crane Crane Tilt Tilt Project Life (Years) 20 20 20 20 20 20 Annual kWh @ 6m/s 34,820 75,000 168,000 225,000 484,000 3,679,200 No. houses powered 8 17 38 51 110 836

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

Table 11 – MCS accredited turbines (up to 50KW)

Turbine Rated Capacity Rotor Diameter Tower Tip height Approximate Cost AEP @ Cost per unit Buffer Heights (excluding VAT) 6m/s (Cost/AEP) distance (at 11m/s) from housing to achieve 40dB(A) @8m/s

Aircon 10S 9.8KW 7.54m Lattice Tower height plus £60,000 fully 29,066 £2.06 per unit 58m (HAWT) tower 3.77m installed units

18 (tilt up), 24, 30m (crane)

Bergey Excel 10 10kW 7m Monopole Tower height plus £50,000 fully 10,242 £4.88 per unit 180m 18-37m 3.5m installed units (HAWT) Lattice tower 18- 49m

C&F Green 15kW 10.8m 15m 20.4m £75,000 fully 51,500 £1.46 per unit 100m Energy CF15 – monopole installed units single/three phase

(HAWT)

C&F Green 20kW 12.8m 20m 26.4m £93,000 fully 69,782 £1.33 per unit 100m Energy CF20 – monopole installed units single/split/three phase

(HAWT)

Evance R9000 5.5m Heights: Tower height plus £30,000 fully 13,186 £2.27 per unit 100m 10m, 12m, 2.75m installed units (HAWT) 5kW 15m & 18m

Evoco 10 9.55kW 9.7m 12m and Tower height plus £60,000 fully 31,176 £1.92 per unit 120m 15m, 4.85m installed units (HAWT) Hydraulic Tilt-up

Gaia 133 11kW 13.3m lattice: Tower height plus £55,000 - £60,000 37,959 £1.58 per unit 100m 15m 18m 6.65m fully installed units (HAWT) monopole: 18m, 27m

Kingspan 6kW 5.6m 9m / Tower height plus £30,000 - £35,000 11,326 £3.09 per unit 100m KW6(HAWT) 11.6m / 2.8m fully installed units 15m / 20m

Quietrevolution 5kW 3.1m diameter 6m or Tower height plus £30,000 – £35,000 4,590 £7.62 per unit 50m QR5 (VAWT) 18m 5.5m fully installed units 5.5m tall monopole

Skystream 3.7 2.5kW 3.7m 10 – 21m Tower height plus £15,000 fully 5,349 £2.80 per unit 120m monopole 1.85m installed units (HAWT) (tilt-up)

Westwind 20 20kW 10.4 15, 18, Tower height plus £70,000 fully 38,827 £1.80 per unit 120m 23m 5.2m installed units (HAWT) monopole or lattice

Xzeres -442SR 10kW 7.2 15m Tower height plus £45,000 fully 24,279 £1.85 per unit 136m

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

(HAWT) monopole 3.6m installed units

Table 12 – 50kW turbines

Turbine Rated Capacity Rotor Diameter Tower Tip height Approximate Cost AEP @ 6m/s Cost per unit Buffer Heights (excluding VAT) (Cost/AEP) distance from (at 11m/s) housing to achieve 40dB(A) @8m/s

Endurance E-3120 50kW 19.2 25, 36m Tower height plus £280,000 fully 189,430 £1.47 200m (HAWT) 9.6m installed units

C&F Green Energy 50kW 20m 29m 39m £260,000 fully 174,464 £1.49 200m CF50 installed units

(HAWT)

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

Table 13 – Photos of turbines

Aircon Bergey C&F Green Energy

10S (HAWT) – 10kW Excel 10 (HAWT) – 10kW CF15 - (HAWT) 15kW

C&F Green Energy Evance Evoco

CF20 – (HAWT) 20kW R9000 - (HAWT) – 5kW 10 - (HAWT) – 10kW

Gaia Kingspan Quietrevolution

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

133 - (HAWT) – 11kW KW6(HAWT) – 6kW QR5 (VAWT) – 5kW

Skystream Westwind Xzeres

3.7 - (HAWT) – 2.4kW 20 - (HAWT) – 20kW 442SR - (HAWT) – 10kW

Endurance C&F Green Energy

E-3120 – (HAWT) – 50kW CF50 – (HAWT) – 50kW

It should be noted that the information presented in section 10 is based on third party information and should not be relied upon solely to make an investment decision. This study has endeavoured to provide realistic indications of price and overall project costs based knowledge and experience of the

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

small wind market. That said, the price of a particular turbine and the cost of installation may depend upon various factors. If a project is to be taken forward it is recommended that detailed, up- to-date quotes be sought from system suppliers.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

11. Annual Energy Forecast and financial performance

11.1 Annual Energy Production Estimate

MIS 3003 states that an estimate of annual energy production shall be calculated using the standardised procedure involving publicly and freely available wind data, specifically NOABL. This study has considered NOABL, NCIC and VMM data as described in section 9 above.

Regardless of which data is used the MIS 3003 standard advises that the following disclaimer be given on all estimates of annual energy production:

“This energy performance estimate is based upon a standardized method using publicly available information. It is given as guidance only and should not be considered to be a guarantee. The energy performance of wind turbine systems is impossible to predict with a high degree of certainty due to the variability in the wind from location to location and from year to year.”

11.1 Annual Energy Forecast

Annual energy production forecasts have been made using performance data supplied by the relevant manufacturer and MCS testing data. The study selected three different turbines based on their cost per kWh rating shown in tables 11 and 12. The turbines selected were the Evance R9000 (5kW), the Gaia 133 (11kW) and the Endurance E3120 (50kW). These turbines represent a good range of size capacity that would be appropriate for the four preferred sites described in section 8.5 above. The annual energy performance for each turbine is shown below in table 14 as a function of annual average wind speed at hub height.

Table 14 - Annual energy production

Evance Gaia Endurance Turbine R9000 133 E3120

Capacity rating 5kW 11kW 50kW Average wind speed at hub Annual Energy Production (kWh) height (m/s) 5.0 8669 31356 113221 5.2 9546 33779 124289 5.4 10432 36139 135353 5.6 11323 38425 146353 5.8 12214 40630 157235 6.0 13101 42748 167955 6.2 13981 44774 178473 6.4 14852 46706 188757 6.6 15709 48542 198778 6.8 16552 50281 208516 7.0 17378 51925 217952 7.2 18187 53475 227072 7.4 18976 54932 235866 7.6 19745 56298 244327 7.8 20494 57576 252448

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

8.0 21222 58768 260226 8.2 21929 59877 267660 8.4 22615 60906 274749 8.6 23279 61858 281493 8.8 23922 62734 287893 9.0 24544 63538 293951 9.2 25145 64272 299670 9.4 25725 64939 305051 9.6 26284 65541 310100 9.8 26823 66079 314819 10.0 27341 66557 319213

11.2 Wind data used for AEP forecast

The annual energy production (AEP) figures listed above are based on the manufacturers’ power curves for a given average annual wind speed at hub height. The study has determined annual energy production figures for the four preferred potential sites based on NOABL, NCIC and VMM data. It should be noted that the average annual wind speed can vary from year to year, meaning that some years will be more or less productive than others. Over a twenty year operating period it is expected that the average AEP should average out to the figures forecast.

11.3 Financial performance

11.3.1 Feed-in Tariff Scheme

The Feed-In Tariff scheme (commonly referred to as FIT scheme) was introduced by the Government in 2010 to encourage individuals and businesses to generate their own renewable energy. The tariffs were introduced by the Government to help increase the level of renewable energy in the UK towards our legally binding target of 15% of total energy from renewables by 2020. The FIT scheme is designed to provide a sufficient financial incentive for early adoption of technology which, because of lack of volume sales in the market, is relative expensive compared to other forms of conventional power. The scheme makes provision for a reduction in tariff levels as technology becomes more widely used and costs fall.

The Tariffs provide three financial benefits:

• A payment for all the electricity you produce, even if you use it yourself, this is known as the ‘Generation Tariff’. The exact level of tariff depends on the type of eligible technology installed and its rated capacity. • Additional payments for electricity you export into the grid, this is known as the ‘Export tariff’. This tariff is the same rate regardless of technology or size of installation. • A reduction on your standard electricity bill as a result of using energy you produce yourself. The energy you generate and use onsite will offset the energy you have to buy from your supplier.

Once an eligible device has been installed and registered for FIT payments it will receive Generation tariff at the level at the time of registration. Both the Generation and Export tariffs are index-linked (RPI) to inflation. The Government is currently consulting on a reduction in the FIT levels for wind, if these changes are accepted they would become applicable in October 2012. It is worth noting that a system registered before this time would not be affected and would continue to receive payments

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

for the remainder of its 20 year (in the case of wind) FIT contract. Table 15 summarises the current tariffs for wind and the proposed changes. The current Export tariff is set at 3.1p/kWh.

Table 15 – Starting Feed-in Tariff levels for wind systems Tariff band Current tariffs Proposed tariffs (p/kWh) (kW capacity) (p/KWh) (from October 2012 if enacted) 1.5 35.9 21.0 >1.5 – 15 28.1 21.0 >15 - 100 25.4 21.0 >100 - 500 20.7 17.5 >500 - 1500 10.4 9.5 >1500 - 5000 4.9 4.5

11.3.2 Financial forecast

The financial forecast has been based on the four preferred potential sites discussed in section 8.5 above. As stated above, the assumptions regarding capital and operational costs and the annual energy production have been based on the very best available information, however it should be understood that these forecasts do not guarantee a certain level of income or return because of the inherent uncertainties.

11.3.3. VAT and Feed-in Tariff

HM Revenue and Customs guidance on VAT is given below: ATSC05224 - Further guidance for identifying supply: supplies of goods for consideration: Feed-in Tariffs: basic arrangements

In recognition of the higher cost of producing electricity in this manner, people participating in the Feed-in Tariff scheme will receive payment under a ‘generation tariff’. This payment is not consideration for any supply and it is therefore outside the scope of VAT.

Sometimes people will generate more electricity than they need, and this will become available for electricity suppliers to supply to others. In return, people participating in the Feed-in Tariff scheme will receive payments under an ‘export tariff’. These payments are consideration for supplies of electricity by people participating in the Feed-in Tariff scheme to the electricity company, where they are made by taxable persons in the course of their business. The Taxable Person manual VTAXPER explains the tests to apply in order to determine whether a supply is made in the course of a business. However, we are generally content that the activity of producing electricity to sell back to the grid can be a business activity. Where this is the case and the supplies are made by a taxable person acting as such, VAT is due on the supplies of electricity made to the National Grid, and any associated input tax is deductible (subject to the normal rules).

Wind turbines, in this context, fall under Schedule 7A of The VAT Act 1994. The rate of VAT paid on wind turbine installation is the reduced rate of 5% 5. The reduced rate covers the installation of all equipment essential to the operation of wind turbines, including mounting poles, electrical cables, battery banks and voltage controllers.

5 HMRC Reference: Notice 708/6 (November 2011), Section 2.10

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

11.3.4 Financial Forecast Assumptions

For each site a forecast has been calculated based on the following assumptions: • Wind speed data from NOABL, NCIC and VMM; • Turbine performance data (as per table 14); • Five wind turbines (as discussed in 11.1); • Current FIT levels and levels proposed to be introduced in October 2012 (as per table 15); • The cost of importing electricity is 10p/kWh in year (the forecast has assumed 5% annual energy inflation); • The annual rate of inflation has been assumed to be 3%; • The total project costs are based on tables 11 and 12 and assume 20% contingency (which includes provision for 5% VAT);

11.4 Financial Forecast Summaries

The local wind conditions for the three preferred sites are summarized in table 16 below.

Table 16 – Site specific wind speeds Turbine location Wind speed at hub NOABL NCIC VMM Glebe Farm 15m hub height 5.35 4.25 4.24 25m hub height 5.9 4.8 4.85 Bell Brook Farm 15m hub height 5.35 4.25 4.24 17.5m hub height 5.49 4.39 4.42 Luscombe Farm 15m hub height 5.35 4.25 4.24

The financial performance for each turbine/ location configuration has been calculated on a worse- case scenario basis; i.e. the lowest wind speed estimate and using the proposed reduced FIT rate of 21p/kWh.

The financial performance summary gives the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Net Present Value (NPV) and approximate payback period.

NPV is the difference between the present value of cash inflows and the present value of cash outflows. NPV is used in capital budgeting to analyse the profitability of an investment or project.

NPV analysis is sensitive to the reliability of future cash inflows that an investment or project will yield. NPV compares the value of a dollar today to the value of that same dollar in the future, taking inflation and returns into account. If the NPV of a prospective project is positive, it should be accepted. However, if NPV is negative, the project should probably be rejected because cash flows The NPVs presented in this analysis have used a discount rate of 5% and 10%.

IRR is the discount rate often used in capital budgeting that makes the net present value of all cash flows from a particular project equal to zero. Generally speaking, the higher a project's internal rate of return, the more desirable it is to undertake the project. As such, IRR can be used to rank several prospective projects a firm is considering. Assuming all other factors are equal among the various

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

projects, the project with the highest IRR would probably be considered the best and undertaken first.

IRR can be considered to be the rate of growth a project is expected to generate. IRRs can also be compared against prevailing rates of return in the securities market, or interest on savings. IRR does not account for risk and a certain rate of return from an investment may not be as safe as the equivalent savings interest rate.

Payback period is a commonly used to show when a turbine’s cumulative net revenue exceeds the initial cost.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

11.4.1 Glebe Farm Glebe Farm is the only suitable for all three sizes of turbines. Both the 50kW and 10kW turbines were modelled for this site. Table 17 shows the financials for at 10kW in year 1. Table 18 shows the financial performance for a 10kW over a 20 year operational period.

Table 17 – Financials for 10kW in year 1

Table 18 – Financial performance for 10kW over 20 years Payback period 11.5 years IRR 7% NPV @5% £69,986.79 NPV @10% -£51,267.34

Table 19 shows the financials for at 50kW in year 1. Table 20 shows the financial performance for a 50kW over a 20 year operational period.

Table 19 – Financials for 50kW in year 1

Table 20 – Financial performance for 50kW over 20 years Payback period 11.5 years IRR 7.43% NPV @5% discount rate £69,453.85 NPV @10% discount rate -£51,614.86

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

11.4.2 Luscombe Farm

Luscombe Farm is suitable for two sizes of turbines; a 5kW and 10kW turbine. Given the distance to a grid connection on the 10kW turbine has been modelled for this site. Table 21 shows the financials for at 10kW in year 1. Table 22 shows the financial performance for a 10kW over a 20 year operational period.

Table 21 – Financials for 10kW in year 1

Table 22 – Financial performance for 10kW over 20 years

Payback period 12 years IRR 7% NPV @5% discount rate £13,021 NPV @10% discount rate -£12,427

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

11.4.3 Bell Brook Farm Bell Brook Farm is suitable for two sizes of turbines; a 5kW and 10kW turbine. Both the 5kW and 10kW turbines were modelled for this site. Table 23 shows the financials for at 5kW in year 1. Table 24 shows the financial performance for a 5kW over a 20 year operational period.

Table 23– Financials for 5kW in year 1

Table 24 – Financial performance for 5kW over 20 years Payback period 18.5 years IRR 1% NPV @5% discount rate -£9,513.76 NPV @10% discount rate -£14,920.86

Table 25 shows the financials for at 10kW in year 1. Table 26 shows the financial performance for a 10kW over a 20 year operational period.

Table 25– Financials for 10kW in year 1

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

Table 26 – Financial performance for 10kW over 20 years Payback period 12.5 years IRR 7% NPV @5% discount rate £13,020.70 NPV @10% discount rate -£12,426.60

11.5 Sensitivities

The following analysis looks at the 50kW turbine sited at Glebe Farm only in order to understand the sensitivities in the financial model.

11.5.1 Sensitivity to wind speed

Table 27 – Sensitivity to wind speed 4.36m/s As per VMM 5.33m/s (-10%) 4.85m/s (+10%) Payback period 16.5 years 11.5 years 9.5 years IRR 2.56% 7.43% 11.42% NPV @5% -£64,481 £69,453.85 £194,723 NPV @10% -£ 138,952 -£51,614.86 £30,072

11.5.2 Sensitivity to capital cost

Table 28 – Sensitivity to capital cost £268,800 £396,000 (-20%) £336,000 (+10%) Payback period 9.5 years 11.5 years 12.5 years IRR 10.57% 7.43% 6.23% NPV @5% £133,454 £69,453.85 £37,987 NPV @10% £9,476 -£51,614.86 -£81,813

11.5.3 Sensitivity to energy inflation

Table 29 – Sensitivity to energy inflation 10% per annum 20% per 5% per annum annum Payback period 11.5 years 11.5 years 10.5 years IRR 7.43% 8.45% 12.06% NPV @5% £69,454 £105,863.04 £286,400 NPV @10% -£51,615 -£32,596.17 £55,532

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

11.5.4 Sensitivity to FIT Generation rates

Table 29 – Sensitivity to FIT Generation rate 25.4p/kWh 21p/kWh 23p/kWh (Current Rate) (Proposed – Alternative Oct 2012) reduction Payback period 9.5 years 11.5 years 11 years IRR 9.78% 7.43% 8.52% NPV @5% £141,393 £69,454 £102,153 NPV @10% -£4,524 -£51,615 -£30,210

The model’s sensitivity to wind speed is significant. A 10% change in the average annual wind speeds will change the IRR up or down approximately 4% points. Capital cost and generation tariff levels both contribute significantly to the overall financial viability of the scheme; a 10% change in cost or tariff results in a 1.2-1.5% point change to the IRR. Less significant is the effect of energy inflation; a 100% change in inflation rate results in a 1% point change to the IRR.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

12. Conclusions and recommendations

Following consideration of issues relevant to the siting of a small wind turbine, the study has identified several locations which would be suitable. It has gone further and highlighted three preferred sites and considered the performance of a range of turbines at each site. Overall the study concludes that a small wind project or projects would be feasible subject to the following issue specific comments:

12.1 Issue specific conclusions

12.1.1 Planning

National and local planning policy broadly supports the deployment of renewable energy; the positive benefits are fully understood and accepted. Wind energy was highlighted in the West Midlands’ ‘Renewable Energy Capacity Study’ has having the greatest potential within the District. It was noted that the parish is wholly designated nationally as Green Belt and locally as a Special Landscape Area. A small wind turbine or turbines would form inappropriate development and would only be permitted if very special circumstances (VSCs) were demonstrated. As part of any planning application, it is recommended that the benefits of the project be sited as VSCs. Specific reference should be made to the amount of energy forecast to be produced and the carbon emissions saved as a result. It may also be helpful to present an economic case, highlighted how a small wind turbine might help a particular farm or business to become more self-sufficient and less dependent on increasing energy prices.

Although many small wind turbines have been consented within Green Belt elsewhere and in the parish itself, it should be noted that this does not imply that similar installations would be automatically acceptable. The consenting Authority would want to see that harm to the openness of the Green Belt is proportional the overall benefits of the scheme.

12.1.2 Ecology

The study has deliberately screened out designated sites and positioned turbines in-line with relevant guidance on flora and fauna, specifically flying fauna; birds and bats. Given these design standards it is unlikely that a small wind turbine would require ecological surveys.

12.1.3 Cultural Heritage

As with ecology, the study has identified and deliberately avoided siting turbines in close proximity to heritage features. It is therefore unlikely that a detailed impact assessment would be required.

12.1.4 Landscape and visual impact

Given that the landscape is nationally designated as being Green Belt and locally as a Special Landscape Area it is likely that the consenting Authority would want an application to include an assessment appropriate to the size and scale of the proposal. It is understood that the Authority (Stratford District Council) does not currently have specific technical resource in this area i.e. a landscape architect.

Sykamore Small Wind – LEAF Study: E055 SACC – Snitterfield

12.1.5 Aviation and radar

The major constraint considered during the study was that of Coventry Airport’s radar. Coventry will only respond to specific turbine locations and will not provide advice on broad areas. As a result, and to pre-empt their view on a specific location, the study incorporated a radar coverage/constraints map. Large parts of the parish were deemed unsuitable because of this. It may be possible that in some of the preferred areas turbines may be built taller without impacting on Coventry airport’s primary surveillance radar. If taller turbines are desirable, it is recommended that Coventry be consulted directly about specific projects.

12.1.6 Noise and shadow flicker

Noise and shadow flicker were considered and turbines sited sufficiently away from residential dwellings to avoid disturbance to occupants. Given the land available within the preferred turbine locations it is not necessary to site turbines within these prescribed buffer areas. If, for any reason it was decided to site a turbine within these buffer areas it would be advisable to undertake a background noise assessment to establish ambient noise levels and then undertake a noise assessment based on these data and the noise profile of the proposed turbine.

12.1.7 Wind resource

The study used two publicly, and one commercially available datasets. The accuracy associated with the Virtual Met Mast report should be sufficient for a bank to lend against a particular project. It may be necessary to re-run the VMM for a specific site, but the report obtained for this study should provide sufficient confidence to justify further investigation. It should be understood that all data sources have been derived from computer simulations based on historic weather data. It may be sensible to install a meteorological mast onsite to collect real data for the minimum of 12 months.

12.1.8 Financial analysis

Finally, the financial performance of the three sites was analysed. Overall, the returns are thought to be acceptable, especially given that the assumptions in the model are considered to be fairly conservative. The analysis looked at the sensitivity of the model to certain factors and found that financial performance is, of course, highly sensitive to wind speed. It would be up to SACC and its investors to decide whether the rates of return were acceptable. If a project were to go ahead it would be advisable to re-run a financial model with the very latest, site specific information and costings. The financial returns might be further enhanced by incorporating energy storage into a project or explore the possibility of opting out of the ‘Export Tariff’ and selling excess electricity to an energy trading company.

It may also be sensible to consider the non-financial benefits of a project; for example the principal aim of SACC: to reduce the parish’s carbon emissions.

12.2 Planning Pack

These conclusions and recommendations are further explored in the accompanying ‘Planning Pack’.

END