Committee and Date Item/Paper
North Planning Committee (Oswestry) 7
26th April 2011 Public
Development Management Report
Application Number: 11/00498/MAW Parish: West Felton
Grid Ref:
Proposal: Installation of 1 wind turbine (66m high), erection of small substation, formation of new access track and hardstanding and associated infrastructure.
Site Address: Abbots Moor Farm, Haughton, West Felton
Company: JC & MW Suckley
Case Officer: Mr Grahame French email: planningdmc@shropshire.gov.uk
1.0 THE PROPOSAL 1.1 It is proposed to construct a single on-farm wind turbine generator with a maximum tip height of 66m, a hub height of 49m and a rotor diameter of 33.4m. The turbine would have a power output of 330kW based on an estimated wind speed of 6.1m/s, providing sufficient electricity for about 175 homes and would reduce annual Carbon Dioxide emissions by between 323 and 646 tonnes. The proposed access track would be constructed of stone chippings. In addition, concrete would be delivered to site for turbine foundation construction. A small electricity substation would also be constructed within the hardstanding area adjacent to the turbine. The construction phase would last 4 months.
2. SITE LOCATION / DESCRIPTION
2.1 The proposed site is located at the western edge of an arable field east of the former Rednal Airfield (see plan). The site is on a gentle rise at an elevation of 80m above ordnance datum. Surrounding land slopes gently to the east. The site would be accessed via an existing internal trackway running around the edge of the airfield and a proposed 175m long hard surfaced track across the field (see plan). Abbots Moor Farm (area 244 acres) forms part of a unit of 7000 acres farmed by the Suckley family and is predominantly arable.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
2.2 The site is located 500m to the north east of two existing large potato warehouse buildings owned by the Suckley family and 330m north of two new agricultural storage buildings, approved by Shropshire Council in 2009 and currently under construction. The agricultural track defining the edge of the former airfield to the west of the proposed site is bordered by a double row of mature poplar trees. Intermittent tree and hedgerow vegetation defines field boundaries to the north and south of the site. The low-lying poorly drained area known as Baggy Moor is located to the east. Part of this area commencing 500m from the site is being managed by the RSPB to promote habitats for ground nesting birds. A privately operated runway linked to Rednal Airfield is located some 800m to the west. A national grid line crosses the airfield site in a roughly north-south direction 290m to the west of the site. The nearest pylon is located 330m to the north -west.
2.3 The main area of Rednal Industrial Estate is located 1km to the north - east. The nearest private properties are located at Haughton 740 m to the south - west (10 properties), and Henbarns 880m to the south (8 properties) and the hamlet of Rednal 1km to the west. The potato warehouse buildings referred to above are located in an intervening position relative to most of the properties at Haughton. The small settlements of Lower Hordley and Bagley Marsh extend to within 2.1km to the north east and 1.6km to the east of the site respectively on the opposite side of Baggy Moor.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 It is recommended that the application is GRANTED subject to conditions to cover the matters listed in section 13 below.
4. REASON FOR COMMITTEE
4.1 The number of objections received in response to planning consultations exceeds the threshold specified in the Council’s Scheme of Delegation.
5. PLANNING HISTORY
5.1 There is no previous planning history relating to the current application site. A planning application for an Anaerobic Digester has been submitted for a site 300m to the south - west and forms a separate item on this agenda.
6. CONSULTEE RESPONSES
6.1 West Felton Parish Council – No comments.
6.2 Ruyton XI Towns Parish Town Council (adjacent parish) - The Parish Council members did not consider themselves to be suitably informed on the new technology to be able to make a decision on whether to support or oppose the application as in principle the Council supports alternative environmentally friendly renewable energy sources. However, the Council was unanimously agreed to make the following comments:
• That the structure proposed will dominate and disfigure the rural
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 2 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
landscape; • The Council had significant environmental concerns with regard to noise and wildlife.
6.3 Environment Agency - No objection.
6.4i. Civil Aviation Authority - The development (like any wind turbine development) has the potential to impact upon aviation operations and activities in a number of ways; the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI - now the Department for Energy and Climate Change) sponsored document 'Wind Energy and Aviation Interests' and Civil Air Publication 764 refer. From a study of the information it is evident that there is a need to consult with the owner/manager of Rednal aerodrome. Furthermore, to complete the aviation picture the related perspectives of the Ministry of Defence and NATS should also be taken into account during associated future planning deliberations, as they are both statutory consultees. In addition the following points may be raised during consultations with other aviation stakeholders.
ii. There might be a request to install aviation obstruction lighting to some or all of the associated wind turbines should this wind turbine development be progressed. This comment is made specifically if there were concerns expressed by other elements of the aviation industry, i.e. the operators. For example, if the Ministry of Defence (MoD) or a local aerodrome had suggested such a need, the CAA (sponsor of policy for aviation obstruction lighting) would wish, in generic terms, to support such a claim. We would do so if it could reasonably be argued that the structure(s), by virtue of their location and nature, could be considered a significant navigational hazard. That said, if the claim was clearly outside credible limits (i.e. the proposed turbine(s) was/were many miles away from an any aerodrome or it/they were of a height that was unlikely to effect even military low flying) the Authority would play an 'honest- broker' role. That said, in isolation, the CAA would not make any case for lighting.
iii. International aviation regulatory documentation requires that the rotor blades, nacelle and upper 2/3 of the supporting mast of wind turbines that are deemed to be an aviation obstruction should be painted white, unless otherwise indicated by an aeronautical study. It follows that the CAA advice on the colour of wind turbines would align with these international criteria. As with the potential need for lighting, in isolation, the CAA would make no special case for marking.
iv. The number of pre-planning enquiries associated with wind turbine developments has been significant. It is possible that the proliferation of wind turbines in any particular area might potentially result in difficulties for aviation that a single development would not have generated. It is, therefore, not necessarily the case that, because a generic area was not objected to by the aviation industry, future, similarly located potential developments would receive the same positive response. Due to the unique nature of associated operations in respect of operating altitudes and potentially unusual landing sites, it would also be sensible to establish the related viewpoint of local emergency services air support units. None of the above negates any requirement to consult in line
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 3 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
with ODPM / DFT Circular 1/2003.
6.5 Ministry of Defence - No objection. In the interests of air safety the turbine should be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms at the highest practicable point. The principle safeguarding concern of the MOD with respect to development of wind turbines relates to the potential to create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and cause interference to Air Traffic Control and Air Defence radar installations. Government guidance on renewable energy development as set out in Paragraph 25 of PPS22 stipulates that 'it is the responsibility of developers to address any potential impacts, taking account of CAA, MOD and Department for Transport guidance in relation to radar and aviation, and the legislative requirements on separation distances, before planning applications are submitted. Local Planning Authorities should satisfy themselves that such matters have been addressed before considering planning applications'. Defence Estates Safeguarding wishes to be consulted and notified of the submission and progression of planning applications relating to this proposal to verify that it will not adversely affect defence intrerests.
6.5 National Grid – To be reported verbally.
6.6i. Natural England – No objection. The application does not affect any nationally or internationally designated site for nature conservation. Natural England notes the comments in the application relating to the significant effects on the landscape of the area and from two selected viewpoints. Natural England welcomes the details included in the Ecology report relating to the assessment about the micro - siting of the turbine. Siting the turbine away from hedgerows, to avoid possible effects on birds and bats, is welcome. The report also considerers effects of disturbance on breeding birds (page 22) stating the turbine is more than 500m from the RSPB project site. Whilst the nearest active works for land improvements for breeding birds is indeed more than 500m away the potential area for conversion to breeding habitats for birds is within 500m, about 350m away, however the effects on lowland breeding birds by wind turbines is not proven at 500m, and 500m should be regarded as a precautionary standard. The Ecology report also includes possible off setting measures to compensate for habitat loss. The provision of additional bird - seed mix on field margins should be considered.
ii. If any other information such as representations from other parties highlights the possible presence of a protected or Biodiversity Action Plan species, the LPA should request further survey information from the applicant before determining the application in line with paragraph 99 of Circular 06/2005. Natural England advises that ODPM Circular 06/2005 to PPS9 states that "the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat." The applicants should be informed that planning permission, if granted, does not absolve them from complying with the relevant law, including obtaining and complying with the terms and conditions of any licences required as described in Part IV B of the Circular 06/2005.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 4 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
Internal Comments:
6.7 Public Protection - The noise assessment undertaken on behalf of the applicant indicates that the predicted noise levels from the turbine at all residential properties meets the ETSU-R-97 Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms criteria. Despite a number of criticisms of the above document it remains the only authoritative document against which the impact of wind turbines can be assessed and is referred to as a reference document in planning guidance. In keeping with the methodology contained in the above document it is recommended that the following condition be applied should permission be granted:
Condition: The noise from the site shall not exceed 35 dB LA90 up to a standardised 10 metre height wind speed of 10 m/s, when measured at the nearest residential property. Reason : To protect the amenity of the area
6.8i Highways Development Control – No objection. The application site would be accessed off the minor road from Rednal to Haughton via a 900m stretch of private metalled access track which runs along the southern and eastern edge of the former airfield site. The proposals, once operational are unlikely to result in any significant traffic. The applicant has provided information to confirm that vehicular access can be achieved to deliver the turbine components. However, it is recommended that any planning permission is subject to a condition requiring submission of a Construction Management Plan in order to manage site traffic during the construction phase.
Sustainability Group:
6.9 Natural Environment - Ecology No objection subject to the following comments:
i. Bats: There are a number of mature trees in the hedgerows around the site which have some potential for roosting bats according to Wild Frontier Ecology (2010) and the site has potential for foraging and commuting bats along the linear hedgerows. Best practice is for wind turbines to be 50m or more away from any hedgerow or tree, both the RSPB and Bat Conservation Trust recognise that a separation of 50m is likely to minimise any potential impacts of the wind turbine on bats and birds in the area. In this case the wind turbine proposed location is well over 50m from any hedgerow or tree and the nearest trees with any potential for bat roosts are 100m away. No hedgerow removals or removal of significant trees are proposed as part of the scheme. An informative note relating to bats should be placed on any decision notice:
Note: All species of bats found in the UK are European Protected Species under the Habitats Directive 1992, the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). If a bat should be discovered on site at any point during the development then work must halt and Natural England should be contacted for advice. In the unlikely event of a dead bat being found under the turbine once it is installed and working then further advice should be sought from an experienced bat ecologist.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 5 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
ii. Wild Birds: There is potential for nesting passerines to be present in the hedgerows around the site according to Wild Frontier Ecology (2010) but the arable field in which the proposed turbine would be located has very low suitability for nesting waders and there is no wet grassland in close proximity which would attract these species. There is some potential for raptors and owls to be using the field but the centre of the arable field is unlikely to be of high value to these species according to Wild Frontier Ecology (2010). Again since the proposed location of the turbine is over 50m from any hedgerow or trees the best available evidence indicates that there are unlikely to be any impacts on bird species. Conditions to ensure work is in accordance with the ecological report and requiring a pre-commencement ecological survey for birds, bats and badgers is recommended.
iii. Badger: There is an active badger sett in the wider area according to Wild Frontier Ecology (2010) although it would not be directly impacted by the proposed development. It is recommended that an informative note relating to badger safety during site construction is placed on any planning permission.
iv. Enhancements: There is a barn owl box within the disused outbuilding on the site, there was no evidence of it being used presently but a barn owl box is an excellent resource for the species and should be maintained if at all possible. If necessary the box (if confirmed by an ecologist to be still unused) could be relocated to a suitable mature tree within one of the hedgerows around the site. The Ecology Report by Wild Frontier Ecology (2010) states that the applicant is willing to consider an increased area of wild bird seed mix planting in the margins of the field – this would be a very welcome enhancement of the arable field and would probably be best located along the eastern hedge boundary of the site. The Ecology Report by Wild Frontier Ecology (2010) also states that the applicant is willing to enhance the hedgerow along the south of the site by gapping up with native species. This would also be a very welcome enhancement of the site.
6.10 Historic Environment - No objection. It is understood from Appendix 5 (Cultural Heritage Desk Based Assessment by Nexus Heritage) of the Application and Environmental Documentation report submitted with this application that the proposed development will not have a direct impact on any known archaeological sites or features. It is also understood from Appendix 5 that the location and design of the turbine has been selected in order to minimise the impact on the settings of heritage assets within the vicinity, and that as a result the impact is likely to be very minor. The recommendation within Appendix 5 that the ground works phase of the development are subject to an archaeological watching brief is supported. In view of this and in line with PPS5, it is recommend that a programme of archaeological work be made a condition of any planning permission for the proposed development.
6.11 Natural Environment (arboriculture): No objection. The proposed development would not be detrimental to any significant amenity trees or woodland.
6.12 Countryside Access – No objection. The application does not appear to affect public rights of way. The nearest footpath (FP15 West Felton) runs south of the proposed wind turbine. However, wind turbines have the capacity to cause
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 6 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
fright to horses and can therefore potentially be hazardous if sites too close to bridleways and other public routes used by horse riders. Problems can arise from 'shadow flicker', noise or simply from the turbines coming unexpectedly into view. The companion guide to PPS22 refers to the British Horse Society's recommendation that wind turbines ate sited a minimum 200m from bridleways and whilst acknowledging that there is no statutory requirement the guidance suggests further negotiations should this desirable situation be difficult to achieve. We would therefore request that the turbine is sited a minimum of 200m, or no less than three times the maximum height from the ground to the tip of the blade, whichever is the greater, from the bridleway or other routes likely to be used by equine traffic (including the public road network). If this is not possible we would request that further negotiation takes place in order to consider the individual case and any factors that could mitigate the potential risks to riders.
Note: The nearest right of way is a footpath and not a bridleway and is located substantially 600m from the proposed turbine at its nearest point. The access track running around the edge of the airfield is a private access road and it is understood that this is not used by equine traffic. At its nearest this track is 185m from the proposed turbine, but would be partially screened from the proposed turbine by a row of mature poplar trees and other intervening structures. In these circumstances it is not considered that there would be any unacceptable risk to equine traffic.
6.13 Councillor Charmley has been informed of the application. Councillor Caesar- Homden (adjacent electoral ward) has also been informed.
6.14 Councillor Williams (Meres Division) has indicated his opposition to the scheme on the following grounds: - The proposals would be completely out of scale with the surrounding gently rolling countryside. At 66m high it is the size of three quarters of the length of a football pitch. It will affect residents in the Meres Division who will have a structure of immense proportions disfiguring the rural countryside for a 10 mile radius. We would allow no other structure of this height in such a prominent rural location.
7.0 PUBLICITY AND REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 The application has been advertised in the press and by site notice and the nearest 89 private properties have been individually notified. In addition, a planning officer attended a public meeting at Hordley Village Hall with the applicant and agent in order to discuss the proposals. The application has attracted 13 objections and 3 letters of support in response to this publicity. The main concerns can be summarised as follows:
i Aviation Rednal aerodrome is an active airport and any large structure will be a hazard to aviaition. The high voltage line does not screen the turbine. The turbine can cause upset to arriving / departing aircraft due to wind shift. A full study of wind over the airport should be undertaken for flight safety purposes. As the turbine is higher than 200 feet it might require a danger zone to be applied to aviation, which would restrict helicopter training in the area. The proposed turbine is on a flight path used by landing aircraft. A detailed objection has been received
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 7 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
from the proprietor of Rednal Aviation and of The Classic & Vintage Aeroplane Company. The full wording of this is attached as Appendix 2. Aviation issues are considered in section 10 of this report.
ii. Meteorology / efficiency No informastion has been gathered as to whether the site is suitable for a turbine. A suitabiity study would have to be gathered over many years. No anenometric information on site suitability has been gathered over a reasonable time period (24 months). It is reasonable to expect that such data is collected due to the marginality of onshore wind energy production in relation to CO2 savings. The Enercon 33 model proposed has recorded decreased efficiency in relation to its immediate predecessor, due to to gearless operation. Over a 20 year time period this will result in considerable energy loss and related increased CO2 . There is no stated capacity factor for the proposed turbine. The nameplate capacity and actuality in recent historical abstracts differ by 17 to 40% negative. There is no statement of loss through reactivity or method by which this can be improved or compensated for. ( eg static Var). There is no statement for immediate grid balance requirements for intermittancy. Intermittency requires balance compensation which can completely negate renewable output.)
iii. Visual impact The assessment that there would be limited visual impact is false. One wind turbine is not friendly to the environment. It will change and spoil our view of the countryside. The hub and full sweep of the turbine will be visible from the rear and garden of my property - at a range of less than 800m. This will have a significant negative impact on the visual amenity of myself and my family. The various reports provide no details with regard to whether the turbine would be lit at night - if it was, this would increase the negative impact. The turbine would have significant negative impact on the visual amenity of local footpaths (including that running across Baggy Moor and 2 running from Tedsmore Estate, downhill towards Haughton) and roads, used regularly by local residents and walkers from both the local area and further afield. There are no other turbines of this (commercial) scale located on this part of the Shropshire Plain. I conclude that this is an inappropriate area to locate turbines. Currently, I am aware of plans to locate wind farms in the mid-Welsh hills. Experience of Scottish wind farms would suggest that large - scale turbines are much more effective when grouped together in "farms" in remote, hilly, windy locations.
iv. The turbine would be more than 66 metres above the surrounding land, as the site is on a slight hill. Visual amenity will be significantly affected by this turbine, from our home, garden and also when walking and driving in the area. Wind turbines have caused disturbances to residents in other areas. As I live in one of the properties closest to the turbine it will have a huge impact on the view and my quality of life, The Human Rights Act 1998 states that all should have the right to peaceful enjoyment of their property. The turbine and the bio digester contravene this right on both counts. As stated in the 'Assessment of Effects on Visual Amenity' (para's 1.113 — 1.158) a significant change in our view will be experienced. As the turbine would be only 760m from our property and our front windows overlook the area, our views would be substantially spoiled. In addition, the proposed Anaerobic Digester would also be in direct line of sight and the cumulative effects of these proposals should be considered. We would also experience significant change to our views when outdoors, or walking and driving on the paths and roads close by. All these would impact on our daily lives. The
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 8 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
blades of the turbine are designed to have lights on the tips and the constant rotation would result in a constant flicker ev#en if the separate lights would not be prominently visible. (note – the applicant has confirmed that lighting would be infra-red so not visible and would be mounted on the nacelle, not the blades)
v. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment carried out used 6 viewpoints for visual analysis and to calculate the overall impact and significance. These 6 locations although well distributed around the proposed site, and at varying distance, seem to have been selected at specific points where the viewpoint may be obscured, (i.e. Viewpoint 4, Sustrans route, towpath alongside the canal). Had the photograph been taken a short distance either side of that precise point, then Hawks Wood would not have obscured the view and the 'magnitude in change of view' would have been 'medium' if not 'high' rather than 'none as stated at 1.58 and the overall impact and significance would have become major/moderate '. Similarly at Viewpoint 3 (Footpath near Twyford), the photograph is taken where the electricity pole is in the foreground, whereas taken from a slightly different angle, this would not be the case. What was the basis for the decision of these locations? In addition, it became evident at the Public Meeting held at Hordley on 1 5th March, that the Zones of Theoretical Visibility were showing the 'best case' scenario and not the 'worst case' as was the requirement. It was also stated at the meeting that the proposed location already had other verticals in view, such as pylons and 'other obstructions'. We fail to see what these obstructions are, other than trees, which surely are natural and welcome!
vi. Noise The reports play down the noise impact of the turbine. Furthermore they make no mention of the noise levels at winds above 10m/s. From past experience of wind turbines I have every reason to believe there would be a considerable, constant noise from this development. Although the noise generated is predicted to be less than 35 db LA90 at neighbouring properties, as individuals we have no way of measuring this. There does not appear to have been sufficient structural foundation detail to ascertain the vertical stability of the tower and therefore possible vibration. Does the Council have any plans for regular monitoring of noise resulting from the wind turbine? The ETSU-R97 simplified noise limit with 1DB safety factor assessment is inadequate due to insufficient structural foundation detail. The sub soil conditions will allow a float factor and induce irregular lateral creep, which will affect the vertical stability of the tower and induce unwanted vibration. A complete soil analysis and suitable foundation detail should be designed and presented for independent analysis. No analysis of performance under severe (-17+) winter conditions and no wind data has been provided.
vii Community The construction of a turbine will provide no benefit to the local community. It will not generate employment. The applicants claim that it will provide educational benefit is, frankly, laughable. We feel that the claims to 'Local and Economic Benefits' 5.7, are spurious at best. The sectors detailed for their services/materials are in the main not likely to be found locally and some not even regionally (in the preparation of this and the anaerobic digester proposal, the applicant has used consultants from Suffolk, Norfolk and Wiltshire and Herefordshire). Other than the construction phase, no personnel would be employed at the site. The perceived benefits of the electricity being consumed locally are of no benefit whatsoever to ourselves, but only to the applicants.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 9 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
viii. Wildlife The report plays down the impact on wildlife in the area. However, I do not believe full year species specific surveys have been conducted. The local area provides habitats for both barn owls and bats in addition to a number of other hedgerow species of birds and mammals. I believe the proposed turbine would adversely effect the local wildlife. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation took extensive measures some years ago to protect Baggy Moor as a habitat for Lapwings. This work has shown some positive signs of having been successful. The applicant does not appear to have presented any research into the effect of the proposal on Lapwings or other species. We regularly observe bats from our garden and we fear these may be harmed as they can be attracted to the turbine by the ultra sound it creates. We are also concerned for the many raptors and owls in the vicinity as this is an area where they seek prey to survive. There is no ecological statement on methodology to cope with bat attraction to wind turbine ultra sound production There is no ecological statement on methodology to cope with migrating birds attraction to the River Perry in evening setting sun conditions at low turbine blade speed (shadow flicker) with resultant confusion and fatality. Raptor flight path analysis does not take into account perch positions on adjacent 400kv transmission lines these provide a temporal factor which would specifically increase the ability of a bird of prey to pinpoint mammals in contradiction of the assessment. The site is within 500 metres of where lapwings and over-wintering snipe nest. There is considerable movement of wild duck and geese along the River Perry and inland to the various ponds and drainage streams nearby
ix. Consultation There has not been sufficient public consultation on the proposal. For example, I do not believe the Council or applicant have informed the residents of Hordley, Lower Hordley or Bagley about the proposal. Some of these residents will have direct views of the proposed turbine across open countryside at ranges of between 2 and 4 km.
x. Interference The applicant has stated that noise and shadow flicker are likely to have an adverse effect. Since there would be a possibility of television interference, why must neighbours be expected to deal with it? Interference may cause loss of reception quality and although mitigation measures may be employed, we do not want the inconvenience of any visits by engineers, which may become necessary.
xi. Other concerns The cumulative effects of increased traffic during the 4 month construction phase, along with the increase which would be created by the proposed Anerobic Digestion plant would be significant in the area. What are the possible expansion plans of this project? 3. The contribution from a single turbine to the national grid is minimal and the figures quoted in the submission assume constant wind which certainly does not occur in the area under question. It is difficult to ascertain what the point of this project is unless there is an ambition to build further turbines at this location in the future. The building / dismantling costs are too high without a grant.
7.5 Three representations in support of the proposals make the following comments: Although likely to be seen from our property, no objections to application. In fact a welcome reminder of need to develop more practical use of our energy
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 10 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
supplies. Note close proximity of railway. Has consideration been given to moving as much material / equipment via rail network? I am supportive of renewable energy projects such as this if we are serious in our commitment to tackling climate change and improving the UK's long-term energy security. Having visited the site, reviewed the public consultation materials and discussed the programme with the Applicants and I believe this application to be worthy of approval.
8.0 PLANNING POLICY
8.1 The Development Plan The Development Plan for the area in question currently comprises the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (Phase 1 Revision), The Shropshire Core Strategy (adopted February 2011) and the saved policies of the Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin Joint Structure Plan, the Shropshire Waste Local Plan, the Shropshire Telford & Wrekin Minerals Local Plan and the Oswestry Borough Local Plan.
8.2i. West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (Phase 1 Revision) On 6th July the Secretary of State announced the intention to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies. However, a subsequent legal challenge has reinstated them during the current transitional period until they are formally abolished under the Governments Localism Bill. The current version of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS – Phase 1 Revision) was published by ODPM in January 2008. The following policies cover matters which are relevant to the current proposals:
ii. Policy EN1 Policy EN1 entitled Energy Generation, requires local authority development plans to encourage proposals for the use of renewable energy sources subject to an assessment of their impact on landscape, visual amenity, areas of ecological or historic importance, surrounding residents, traffic, the wider environmental benefits such as the reduction in emissions and the contribution to national targets. The policy does not set out any targets for renewable energy, these being established through the West Midlands Regional Energy Strategy also published in 2004
iii. Policy QE1 is a general policy seeking to conserve and enhance the environment and states that this is a key component of the Spatial Strategy. Criterion iii states that, in their plans, policies and proposals, local authorities should protect and where possible enhance irreplaceable assets and those of limited or declining quantity, which are fundamental to the Region’s overall environmental quality. These include specific wildlife habitats, historic landscapes and built heritage, river environments and groundwater aquifers. Criterion iv seeks to ensure that the distinctive character of different parts of the Region are protected and enhanced.
iv. Policy QE5 (historic environment) states that plans and strategies should seek to protect, conserve and enhance the Region’s diverse assets. It outlines those assets of particular significance, of which those relevant to the proposed wind turbine include historic rural landscapes, listed buildings, scheduled and unscheduled ancient monuments, conservation areas, historic parks and gardens together with their settings. The supporting text advises that mechanisms for achieving this should include protecting the resource from insensitive change.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 11 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
v. Policy QE6 (landscape) advises that local authority plans and policies should conserve, enhance and, where necessary, restore the quality, diversity and distinctiveness of landscape character. This can be ensured through a consistent approach to landscape character issues including consideration of tranquillity and reducing noise and light pollution, protecting and, where possible, enhancing natural, man-made and historic features that contribute to the character of the landscape and identifying opportunities for the restoration of degraded landscapes.
8.3i. The Shropshire Core Strategy (SCS) was adopted in February 2011 and sets out strategic objectives. The SCS recognises that climate change as possibly the greatest threat facing the world today, with potential impacts for Shropshire including a 4oC temperature rise, an increase in winter rainfall of 20% and reduction in summer rainfall of up to 30%. Paragraph 3.1 states that the County needs to plan for a lower carbon footprint ensuring development mitigates and adapts to the effects of climate change. The SCS refers to Shropshire aiming to be recognised as a leader in responding to climate change. This is further reflected in Strategic Objective 9, which seeks to promote a low carbon Shropshire, mitigating the effects of climate change by promoting, among other things, the generation of energy from renewable resources.
ii. Policy SO7 (diversification of the rural economy) stresses the importance of farming and agriculture and advises that development proposals should be appropriate in their scale and nature with the character and quality of their location.
iii. Policy SO11 (natural and built environment) states that the character, quality and diversity of Shropshire’s environments will be protected, enhanced and, where possible, restored in a way that respects this character.
iv. Policy CS8 (facilities, services and infrastructure provision) states that the provision of infrastructure will be positively encouraged where this has no significant impact on recognised environmental assets and that mitigates and adapts to climate change, including renewable energy generation. The explanatory text advises that further policy guidance on infrastructure, including that for large scale renewable energy generation, will be provided in the Site Allocations and Management of Development DPD (SAMDEV). Thus, while the Core Strategy in principle supports the generation of energy from renewable resources, the detailed criteria against which to assess development proposals are yet to be established. The SAMDEV is in the early stages of preparation and is not in a form to which any weight can be attributed. However, the existing policy on renewable energy in the Oswestry Borough Local Plan was not saved when the Core Strategy was adopted. Consequently, the provisions of PPS22 will be important in determining the current proposals.
v. Policy CS5 (development in the countryside and Green Belt) states that in the open countryside, new development will be strictly controlled in accordance with national planning policies protecting the countryside. Proposals in appropriate locations, which maintain the countryside vitality and character and which contribute to sustainability of communities will be permitted, especially where it relates to farm diversification. Note: The applicant has remarked in the context of this policy that PPS7 and
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 12 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
PPS22 suggest that renewable energy development can be an appropriate form of development in the open countryside.
vi. Policy CS6 (sustainable design and development principles) requires all development to be designed to a high quality using sustainable design principles, which respect and enhance local distinctiveness and which mitigate and adapt to climate change.
vii. Policy CS17 (environmental networks) requires development to identify, protect, enhance and expand Shropshire’s environmental assets to create a multifunctional network of natural and historic resources, ensuring that development does not adversely affect the visual, ecological, heritage or recreational values and functions of these assets, their immediate surroundings or their connecting corridors.
viii. Policy CS18 (sustainable water management) requires that runoff is not increased and that water quality remains unaffected.
8.4 The Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin Joint Structure Plan 1996-2011 was adopted in November 2002. Many of the policies in this Plan have now been superseded by the Shropshire Core Strategy.
8.7i. The Oswestry Borough Local Plan (adopted July 1999). The site is not affected by any specific designations in the Oswestry Borough Local Plan. Both PPS22 on renewable energy and the PPS1 supplement on climate change were issued in 2004 and 2007 respectively, substantially post dating the adopted local plan policies. The policies of the Plan which are relevant to the current application are summarised below:
ii. Policy NE18 concerns wind farm development and states that applications will be determined on their individual merits and on the cumulative effects of other such developments. It states that consideration should be given to the impact on local communities, areas of high landscape quality, wildlife habitats and water resources. Former Policy NE17 which dealt with renewable energy schemes sets out a range of criteria to be considered when assessing such proposals. However, the GOWM decided not to extend this policy as it was more restrictive than PPS22.
iii. Policy NE2 (new development in the countryside) states that such development should minimise adverse visual impacts taking into account the landscape surroundings, minimise loss of trees and hedges, conserve the wildlife value of the site and adjacent areas, not introduce inappropriate levels of traffic, noise, dust, fumes or effluent and avoid damage to the historic environment.
iv. Policy NE3 (agricultural land) states that development on land of grade 3a and better will not be permitted unless there is a strong case for development which overrides the need to protect such land. The applicant has noted that loss of agricultural land is minimal given the small footprint of the site.
vi. Policies NE9 and NE10 (protected sites) deal with Sites of Special Scientific Interest and sites of local ecological importance respectively. Both policies seek to
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 13 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
ensure that the conservation value of the sites are maintained and protected.
vii. Policy HE13 (archaeological remains of national importance) states that there will be a presumption against development which would cause damage to nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, or would have a significant impact on the setting of visible remains.
viii. Policy HE14 (archaeological sites of regional or local importance) seeks to achieve the preservation in situ of remains of this importance when considering development proposals. However, where such preservation is not possible, preservation by excavation and recording should be facilitated. Policy HE16 is related to this in that it requires an assessment of the archaeological features of the site to be submitted with any planning application where development proposals could affect archaeological remains. This has been carried out for the Abbotsmoor wind turbine.
EMERGING PLANNING POLICY DOCUMENTS
8.8 Local Development Framework (LDF) Document The new system of development plans involves the replacement of existing regional guidance, Structure Plans and Local Plans with Local Development Frameworks (LDFs). Shropshire Council has adopted the Core Strategy, which sets out strategic planning policies and identifies the level of development expected to take place in Shropshire up until 2026. All subsequent LDF documents including the Site Allocations Document (incorporating site waste allocations) will build upon the Core Strategy. However, during the current transitional period, saved policies from existing adopted plans will continue to form a part of the Development Plan.
8.9 The full wording of the main policies referred to in this report is included in Appendix 1.
PLANNING GUIDANCE
8.10 In addition to the above Plans the following Central Government Guidance is of relevance:
8.11i Planning Policy Statement 1: (Delivering Sustainable Development – 2005) advises that planning should facilitate and promote sustainable and inclusive patterns of urban and rural development:
• making suitable land available for development in line with economic, social and environmental objectives to improve people’s quality of life; • contributing to sustainable economic development; • protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment, the quality and character of the countryside, and existing communities; • ensuring high quality development through good and inclusive design, and the efficient use of resources; and, • ensuring that development supports existing communities and contributes to the creation of safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed communities.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 14 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
ii. The Climate Change - Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 (2007) advises that there is an urgent need for action on climate change and recognises that planning has a pivotal role to play. Amongst other matters the PPS1 supplement seeks to promote technological innovation in mitigating and adapting to climate change (s9) and to ensure opportunities for renewable and low-carbon sources of energy supply are maximised (s13). Local development documents should promote and encourage renewable and low carbon energy generation and should amongst other matters not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the need for renewable energy or question the energy justification for why a proposal must be sited in a particular location (s20).
8.12. Planning Policy Statement 4 (Planning for sustainable economic growth - 2009) identifies achieving sustainable economic growth as an overarching objective. This should be achieved by amongst other matters promoting more sustainable patterns of development. Local planning authorities should ensure that the countryside is protected for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and to ensure it may be enjoyed by all (EC6.1). In rural areas, local planning authorities should amongst other matters:
- strictly control economic development in open countryside away from existing a. settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plans; - set out the criteria to be applied to planning applications for farm diversification, and support diversification for business purposes that are consistent in their scale and environmental impact with their rural location (EC6.2);
Local planning authorities should adopt a positive and constructive approach towards planning applications for economic development and planning applications that secure sustainable economic growth should therefore be treated favourably (EC10.1):
8.13i. Planning Policy Statement 7 (The Countryside and the Rural Economy – 2004) sets out a number of key principles, some of which have subsequently been cancelled by the more recent PPS4 (above). A key objective to promote sustainable, diverse and adaptable agriculture sectors has been retained. Planning policies should support development proposals that will enable farming and farmers to amongst other matters become more competitive, sustainable and environmentally friendly and diversify into new agricultural opportunities (e.g. renewable energy).
8.14i. Planning Policy Statement 22 (Renewable Energy - 2004) - This guidance quotes the Energy White Paper which aims to cut the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions by some 60% by 2050 and generate 20% of UK electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. The development of renewable energy will make a vital contribution to these aims and is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government’s commitments on both climate change and renewable energy. Positive planning which facilitates renewable energy developments can contribute to all four elements of the Government’s sustainable development strategy:
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 15 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
• social progress / affordably heated homes; • effective environmental protection; • prudent use of natural resources – reducing reliance on fossil fuels; • maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment through the creation of jobs directly related to renewable energy developments, but also in the development of new technologies. In rural areas, renewable energy projects have the potential to play an increasingly important role in the diversification of rural economies.
ii. PPS22 sets out a number of key principles including amongst other matters:
• Renewable energy should be accommodated where technology is viable and environmental, economic and social impacts can be satisfactorily addressed; • The wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should be granted planning permission. • Development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures.
The guidance advises that small-scale projects can provide a limited but valuable
contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy and to meeting energy needs
both locally and nationally. Planning authorities should not therefore reject planning
applications simply because the level of output is small.
iii. With regard to visual effects, PPS22 advises that “policies in local development documents should address minimisation of visual effects (e.g. on siting, layout, landscaping, design and colour schemes), rather than trying to provide specific criteria against which potential harm is assessed.” With respect to wind turbines, local authorities should “...recognise that the impact of turbines on the landscape will vary according to the size and number of turbines and the type of landscape involved, and that these impacts are temporary if conditions are attached to planning permissions which require the future decommissioning of turbines.” The guidance advises further that local landscape and nature conservation designations should not be used in themselves to refuse planning permission for renewable energy developments.
iv. PPS22 states that noise assessment for wind farms should be undertaken in accordance with “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Windfarms” (ETSU R-97). Development plans should not include policies relating to the impact of wind turbines on aviation interests including radar and aircraft or on the separation distances from roads, power lines or railways, but it is for the developer to resolve these issues with the appropriate authorities prior to planning applications being submitted.
8.15i.Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22 A companion guide accompanying PPS22 provides guidance on renewable energy technologies including onshore wind energy. Paragraph 1.4 states that “If the targets are to be met, a greater diversity of renewable energy schemes will need to be developed in a wider variety of locations than in the past.” and paragraph
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 16 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
2.4 goes on to emphasise that, with current rates of renewable energy production at about 3% (in 2004), a step change will be required in order to achieve the targets. In this context, paragraph 2.5 notes that the Government expects each authority to contribute to meeting the targets and reducing the overall demand for energy.
ii. Chapter 5 outlines the development control issues and paragraph 5.1 sets the scene in stating that “If Government’s targets are to be met, policy support for renewable energy schemes will need to be backed up by development control decisions.” It goes on to state that local planning authorities should recognise that the landscape and visual effects will only be one consideration to be taken into account in assessing planning applications and that these must be considered alongside the wider environmental, economic and social benefits that arise from renewable energy projects.
8.16 In addition to PPS10 and PPS 23 other Government planning policy statements and guidance of relevance to the current application includes:
• Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning and the Historic Environment; • Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; • Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk; • PPG13: Transport; • PPG24: Planning and Noise.
8.17 The National Waste Strategy 2007 The National Waste Strategy acknowledges the important role which sustainable waste management can have in addressing the effects of climate change. The Strategy promotes energy recovery technologies so that unavoidable residual waste is treated in the way which provides the greatest benefits for energy policy. New recycling / recovery targets exceeding those of the Landfill Directive are also identified.
OTHER STRATEGIES AND CONSIDERATIONS:
8.18 The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (July 2009) implements the EU Renewable Energy Directive which includes a legally binding UK target to secure 15% of energy from renewables by 2020 (a seven-fold increase from 2008 levels). The government states that this will assist in addressing climate change and security of energy supply whilst creating up to half a million jobs in the renewable energy sector by 2020. The strategy advocates the following targets:
⇒ More than 30% of our electricity generated from renewables, (up from about 5.5% today). ⇒ 12% of our heat generated from renewables, (from very low levels today). ⇒ 10% of transport energy from renewables, (current level of 2.6%)
8.19 The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (July 2009) aims to deliver emission cuts of 18% on 2008 levels by 2020. This will be achieved amongst other matters by getting 40% of our electricity from low carbon sources by 2020 (30% from renewables) and by substantially increasing the requirement for electricity suppliers to sell renewable electricity. The plan also sets out measures to promote greener homes and industries. The Government has put in place a
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 17 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
legally binding target to cut emissions 80% by 2050 and a set of five-year “carbon budgets” to 2022 to keep the UK on track.
8.20 The Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 sets out the Government's long term goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 2050.
8.21 Planning Policy Statement Consultation: Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate (March 2010) This draft PPS was intended by the previous government to update the PPS1 Supplement on Planning and Climate Change and combine it with PPS22. The revision to both the PPS’s has been driven by the considerable changes in energy and climate change legislation and policy that have taken place over the last two years, including the Climate Change Act, EU Directive on renewable energy, the UK Transition Plan and the UK Renewable Energy Strategy. This draft reflects the up-to-date legislative context which is unlikely to change considerably. The Draft PPS notes that climate change is the greatest long-term challenge facing the world today and it is, therefore, the government’s principle concern for sustainable development. Plan making and development management should therefore “actively support and help drive the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy.” The draft guidance advises that “local planning authorities should ensure their development management does not prevent, delay or inhibit proposals for renewable and low carbon energy, and associated infrastructure, which would be permitted having regard to the objectives and policies in this PPS.”
9. THE MAIN PLANNING ISSUES
i) Whether the proposals comply with relevant policies and guidance in relation to environmental issues such as sustainability, climate change and energy policy;
ii) Whether Abbots Moor Farm is an appropriate location for the proposed development and other off-site impacts are acceptable including with reference to:
• visual impact; • aviation; • ecology • noise and vibration; • process efficiency; • community benefits.
10.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL
10.1 Assessment of need The climate change supplement to PPS1 advises that planning authorities should not require applicants for renewable energy schemes to demonstrate the overall need for the renewable energy. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has put forward a number of justifications for the proposals. It is stated that the proposals would:
i. help the UK to meet its renewable energy targets;
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 18 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
ii. help to combat climate change by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases; iii. help to secure the future of the farming enterprise by providing stable profitability.
10.2 The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (July 2009) requires the UK to provide 14% of its final energy production from renewable sources by 2020. The government has stated that on-shore wind energy will have a major role to play in achieving this. The applicant notes that locally produced electricity also has the added benefit of being consumed locally, which offsets the significant transmission losses experienced with respect to conventional power generating plants where the average UK losses are between 7 to 9% of generated electricity. The proposed facility would produce electricity equivalent to the amount used by around 175 residential properties. It is accepted that this would contribute locally to the objective of achieving the UK Renewable Energy Strategy target and providing more secure and diverse sources of energy supply. PPS22 advises that the ability to produce renewable energy is a significant material consideration.
10.3 Objective 9 of the Core Strategy seeks to promote a low carbon Shropshire, mitigating the effects of climate change by promoting, among other things, the generation of renewable energy. The proposals would also assist in helping to address the effects of climate change by replacing energy from fossil fuels and associated greenhouse gas emissions. This also is in accordance with the objectives of PPS1 and the associated climate change supplement.
10.4 The farm has undergone significant recent changes including closure of the local sugar beet factory. The current proposals would assist in providing a more stable profitability for the farm enterprise, including through sale of electricity to the national grid. PPS7 advises that ‘local planning authorities should be supportive of well-conceived farm diversification schemes that contribute to sustainable development objectives and help to sustain the agricultural enterprise’ (30 ii). It is considered that the proposals would comply with this objective of PPS7 in facilitating a sustainable and diverse farming business supporting the rural economy. It is therefore considered that the need for the proposals and the associated benefits in terms of renewable energy, climate change and farm diversification can be supported in principle. This is provided that the proposals are capable of complying with other relevant development plan policies, guidance and other material considerations.
10.5 Development in the countryside The proposals must be assessed against Core Strategy policy CS5 (Countryside and Green Belt), which advises that in the open countryside, new development will be strictly controlled in accordance with national planning policies. Development proposals on appropriate sites which maintain and enhance countryside vitality and character will be permitted where they improve the sustainability of rural communities by bringing local economic and community benefits, particularly where they relate amongst other matters to small-scale new economic development diversifying the rural economy, including farm diversification schemes.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 19 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
10.6 The current proposals comprise a form of farm diversification and would improve the sustainability of the farm. PPS22 advises in this respect that renewable energy should be accommodated where technology is viable and environmental, economic and social impacts can be satisfactorily addressed. The wider environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given significant weight. The companion guide to PPS22 states that “If the (renewable energy) targets are to be met, a greater diversity of renewable energy schemes will need to be developed in a wider variety of locations than in the past.” and “a step change will be required in order to achieve the targets”. The Government expects each authority to contribute to meeting the targets. Given the importance attached by planning policy and guidance to renewable energy and addressing climate change it is considered that although the current proposals would involve development in the open countryside, there would be no conflict in principle with Core Strategy policy CS5. This is provided however that the proposals are also capable of satisfying other development plan policies with respect to environmental and other land-use issues.
10.7 Landscape and visual impact Regional Spatial Strategy Policy QE6 seeks to conserve, enhance and, where necessary, restore the quality, diversity and distinctiveness of landscape character. PPS22 advises that local authorities should “...recognise that the impact of turbines on the landscape will vary according to the size and number of turbines and the type of landscape involved, and that these impacts are temporary if conditions are attached to planning permissions which require the future decommissioning of turbines.” The guidance advises further that local landscape and nature conservation designations should not be used in themselves to refuse planning permission for renewable energy developments. The PPS22 companion guide advises that local planning authorities should recognise that landscape and visual effects will only be one consideration to be taken into account in assessing planning applications and that these must be considered alongside the wider environmental, economic and social benefits that arise from renewable energy projects.
10.8 A landscape and visual assessment notes that the site does not lie within any designated landscape areas, being located within the Estate Farmlands landscape character type and on the margin of the Lowland Moors character type – landscape types which comprise a significant part of the North Shropshire Plain. The assessment acknowledges that local landscape character would be affected, but states that any effects would be limited to the vicinity of the site. With respect to visual amenity, the assessment notes that a number of individual residential properties within 1km of the site would experience a significant change in their views. This includes some residential properties at Henbarns 900m to the south and Haughton 750m to the south - west. Substantial farm buildings, a national grid overhead line and a row of mature poplar trees are however located in the intervening area relative to most properties at Haughton whilst intervening trees and woodland would filter most views at Henbarns. Residential properties at Rednal 1.6km to the west would be separated from the site by the existing buildings of Rednal Industrial Estate and associated trees.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 20 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
10.9 The assessment notes that some residents with un-obscured views of the proposed turbines within an area of up to 3.5km of the turbine may also experience a significant change, including the small settlements of Hordley, Lower Hordley, Bagley Marsh and Bagley on the east side of Baggy Moor between 2 and 3 km from the site. Any such views from the north and east will be seen against a backdrop of the pylon line and higher ground to the south and east of the proposed site. It is stated that most properties within 3.5km will have no views of the turbine, or would only gain partial views, which may result in the visual effects not being significant. Overall, the assessment concludes that the number of residents whose views are likely to be significantly affected would be very limited. The assessment also states that visibility of a turbine does not necessarily equate to an unacceptable impact.
10.10 The application plans indicate that the proposed turbine would theoretically be visible from a wide range of potential viewpoints within a 10km radius, including from elevated land between 2 and 10km to the south and west. However, photomontages accompanying the application suggest that many potential views are likely to be obscured by intervening vegetation and structures. The photomontages also indicate that the proposed turbine would be seen as a small part of a wider panorama from a distance of 2km and, in the opinion of this officer, would be have a very limited impact where visible from a distance of 4km and beyond. The applicant has undertaken a supplementary photomontage exercise for two further viewpoints to the south and east of the site which, it is considered, supports the above general conclusions.
10.11 Visual amenity / lighting and colour The MOD has advised as part of the applicant’s pre-application consultation process that omni-directional infra-red lighting would be sufficient for the turbine. Infra-red light would not be visible (except where night vision goggles are worn) so no 'flicker effect' from this light can therefore be anticipated. The lighting would be mounted on the highest practicable point on the turbine nacelle. The applicant has also confirmed that the proposed turbine would be an off-white colour rather that bright white and that it would be possible to treat the lower third of the turbine tower in green (darker green base with lighter green above). It is considered that this would improve the way in which the proposed development blends into the surrounding agricultural landscape.
10.12 Visual impact, conclusion The proposals involve constructing a large structure in the countryside. However, it is considered that the applicant’s landscape and visual appraisal demonstrates that the site has been well chosen and that, whilst there would be some changes in views, these would generally be local and intermittent. Any visual impacts need also to be assessed against the guidance in PPS22 with respect to renewable energy and associated policy guidance, including Core Strategy Objective 9. When these additional factors are also taken into account it is not considered that a refusal on grounds of visual impact could be justified. (PPS22, Regional Spatial Strategy Policy QE6, Core Strategy Policy CS5, Objective 9)
10.13 Aviation The proposed wind turbine lies adjacent to Rednal airfield, which is used by light aircraft. An aviation report concludes that there is no reason for objections to be raised in respect of MOD, air traffic control, air defence, low flying or the Met Office. The report notes that there is already a high voltage line, which lies
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 21 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
between the proposed turbine and the existing runway. As such, the proposed wind turbine would be effectively ‘screened’ from the runway and would not result in any additional impact on flying operations from this runway (the pylons are understood to be 45m high as opposed to the proposed 66m turbine). With respect to the Clee Hill radar, the report finds that an objection is unlikely as the proposal is for a single turbine and at a distance of some 55km from the radar. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and Ministry of Defence have not objected to the proposals.
10.14 Objectors, including Rednal Aviation have made a number of detailed objections with respect to aviation issues. The full text of the Rednal Aviation objection is included as Appendix 2. Key objections include:
i. Aviation obstruction - Guidance by the CAA recommends that there should be no obstructions over 150 feet in height within 2000 metres of the runway mid-point, and that the proposed structure would be 216ft and within 700m of the runway. ii. Visual distraction to pilots - If a light aircraft has to land at the runway during a SSW wind it would have to make an anticlockwise circle of the field and the placing of the turbine could, due to flicker, lead to an accident. iii. Turbulence - Turbulent eddies downwind of the turbine may cause an aviation hazard. iv. Aviation impact significance - The applicant has underplayed the significance of the impact of the proposal to aviation.
10.15 The applicant has commissioned a supplementary report from an aviation consultant in response to these representations, the full wording of which is included as Appendix 3. With respect to aviation obstruction, the report advises that the national grid lines which are 300m nearer the runway than the proposed turbine already compromise the runway setting. The report states that the proposed turbine, although not ideal in the context of the runway, would not make this situation materially worse from an aviation perspective. CAA guidance on light aircraft landing procedures is cited in support of this conclusion. It is stated that a number of constraints determine landing and take off approach routes to the airfield. This includes the north-south row of pylons 550m east of the runway, the high ground of Tedsmore Hill to the south and the need to avoid flying over Rednal to the west. Aircraft would therefore be expected to begin their decent to Rednal from the east and make a number of banking turns in order to land in a southerly direction on the runway. A plan provided in Appendix 3 indicates that during the initial approach from the east a light aircraft would be expected to be at a height of 800ft, which is at least 585 ft above the turbine. The consultant advises that that this would provide sufficient vertical separation, but that Rednal Aviation could increase this initial approach height in principle to 1000ft to provide a further safety factor if considered necessary. Whilst the proposed turbine would be taller than the nearby power lines its more distant location relative to the runway and the expected decent flight path suggests that it would not pose a hazard to light aircraft using the airfield.
10.16 With respect to visual distraction for pilots, the proposed turbine would be treated in a lower reflectance off-white finish, which would serve to reduce this. It is understood that shadow flicker is predominantly a localised ground level effect.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 22 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
The runway would be beyond the location at which shadow flicker effects would normally be expected to occur. With respect to turbulence, the applicant’s consultant has indicated that if this occurs it is likely also to be a limited and localized effect assuming normal wind speeds for a turbine of this nature. Moreover, the prevailing wind is from the south-west and therefore blows from the runway to the proposed turbine site, hence any localized downwind turbulence would be on the opposite site of the turbine to the airfield. With respect to the role of Rednal Aviation, it is recognized that this is an important local business, which makes beneficial use of the airfield site. It is not considered however on the basis of the available information that the proposed turbine would be incompatible with the continued use of Rednal airfield for aviation purposes. It is reiterated in this respect the Civil Aviation Authority and the Ministry of Defence have not objected to the proposals. Notwithstanding this conclusion, in the event that planning permission is granted the applicant is encouraged to make further contact with Rednal Aviation to establish whether there is scope to discuss possible ways in which further reassurance can be provided with respect to the windfarm scheme.
10.17 Noise and vibration PPS22 recognises that renewable technologies may generate small increases in noise levels and advises that local planning authorities should ensure that renewable energy developments have been located and designed in such a way to minimise increases in ambient noise levels (s22). A noise report predicts that the proposals would give rise to noise levels of less than 35 dB LA90 at all the closest neighbouring properties for wind speeds up to 10m/s. It is stated that a condition could be imposed on any planning permission to ensure that the proposed wind turbine does not exceed 35dBLA90 at any neighbouring property. Subject to this, the report concludes that noise would be unlikely to cause any significant adverse effects. The applicant has advised that background surveys are not required as the noise predictions used in this assessment assume the worst-case assumption of downwind noise propagation in all directions. Predicted noise levels are significantly below the 35dB simplified noise limit referred to in PPS22 (the ETSU-R-97 limit), below which noise monitoring is not required.
10.18 Objectors have remarked that the ETSfJ-R97 simplified noise limit is inadequate due to uncertainties about foundation design and vibration. The applicant has confirmed however that engineering solutions will be incorporated into the foundation design to maintain engineering compliance if abnormal ground conditions are encountered. The applicant’s noise consultant notes that a study of low frequency noise and vibration around a modern wind farm found that vibration levels from wind turbines, as measured at 100m from the nearest machine, were well below the criteria recommended for human exposure. At greater distances from turbines vibration levels will be even lower. The applicant states that there is no possibility of humans sensing the vibration and absolutely no risk to human health. Public Protection have not objected subject to imposition of an appropriate noise limit at the nearest residential property. It is considered that this noise limit would provide sufficient protection to the nearby residents and that an objection on noise could be sustained, given also the distance of the proposed site from the nearest private properties.
10.19 Ecology An ecological assessment advises that there are no international, national or local sites designated for nature conservation purposes within 2km of the site. The adjoining the landholding to the east is the RSPB project at Baggy Moor
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 23 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
which aims to raise the water table on land to encourage wading birds, but the lack of current wetland habitat surrounding the proposed turbine reduces the potential for such birds to venture onto or use the site. The ecological report concludes that the proposed wind turbine would not result in any significant effects on the ecological interests. A number of mitigation measures are proposed to further reduce any residual effects. An ecological consultant acting for objectors has challenged this conclusion, stating that insufficient evidence has been provided to allow the possible presence of protected species to be reliably established. However, Shropshire Council's Ecologist has not objected to the proposals. This is subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and advisory notes on any planning permission relating to badgers and nesting birds. It is noted that the applicant’s ecological report makes a number of recommendations for further ecological enhancement measures in the field margins surrounding the site. A condition covering ecological enhancement is recommended in section 13 of this report. It is considered that, subject to these measures the proposals can be accepted in relation to development plan policies and relevant guidance relating to ecology and biodiversity.
10.20 Community benefits: Objectors have questioned the extent to which the proposals would deliver benefits to the local community. The applicant cites PPS22 as acknowledging that the wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects are material considerations that should be given significant weight. The applicant details the envisaged local benefits of the scheme as construction employment and tertiary benefits from support and service sectors. Further benefits are identified as being associated with enhancing the long-term viability of the farm through diversification, reduced dependence on imported electricity (with the vast majority of the power being used on-site) and as an educational resource. The Applicant has reiterated a desire to also make the project available to support local environmental education and for local school visits to the turbine.
10.21 A range of benefits are also often voluntarily provided by some commercial developers to communities in the vicinity of renewable energy developments. With regards to further benefits to the local community, although not considered a planning matter, the Applicant is willing to offer for the operating lifetime of the project £300 per annum to the Parish Council for use specifically in the Haughton area. Although this project falls below the 5MW threshold of Renewable UK's Community Benefits scheme, the applicant states that this amount is directly in line with the rate members are encouraged to offer through community benefits schemes. The applicant’s willingness to offer an annual sum for local community purposes is welcomed. It is considered that this matter is capable of being addressed a unilateral undertaking and that the applicant has demonstrated the local benefits of the scheme to an appropriate extent.
10.22 Shadow Flicker and Reflective Light An assessment of potential shadow flicker effects advises that such effects may occur within 10 rotor diameters of wind turbines. In addition, potential nuisance from shadow flicker occurs at frequencies between 2.5Hz and 40Hz. The proposed turbine has a rotor diameter of less than 35m and all neighbouring properties are substantially further away from the wind turbine. As such, the report concludes that neighbouring residents will not be subject to shadow flicker.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 24 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
10.23 Electro-Magnetic Interference Consultation have not revealed any objections from microwave link operators. Analogue terrestrial television reception may be affected locally, but the area is switching to a terrestrial digital signal, which is less susceptible to interference. Nonetheless, the applicant is proposing to employ standard mitigation measures to ensure that any loss of reception quality is rectified at the cost of the developer, including pre-and post construction signal reception surveys and engineers visits if any dwellings experience loss of reception quality. It is recommended that such mitigation measures are capable of being controlled by the imposition of a condition if permission is granted.
10.24 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology An assessment concludes that the proposals would not pose any risk to cultural heritage assets. An archaeological watching brief would be maintained during initial construction.
10.25 Traffic and access The construction of the wind turbine requires the delivery of the main components to the site including turbine blades, tower and nacelle. A total of 104 deliveries to site would be required to construct the track, turbine and substation, including the 300 tonne crane to erect the turbine. This would occur over the 4 month construction period. The proposed route is already used by HGVs to access the site for agricultural purposes. No additional works are anticipated on the highway in order to facilitate the delivery of the turbine components to site. It is considered that a construction management plan should be required to manage traffic during the construction phase. Subject to this it is concluded that the proposals can be accepted in relation to traffic and access considerations.
10.26 Process efficiency Objectors have questioned the efficiency of the proposed turbine as it is not gear driven. The applicant has advised however that removing the gearbox in such a direct-drive design wind turbine removes a source of mechanical loss from the generation chain, making the design more efficient and being followed by other manufacturers. Objectors have also questioned the benefits of wind energy as it is an intermittent energy source dependent on the climate. The applicant states that the government has acknowledged that wind energy should be seen as part of the overall power supply solution and not in isolation. If wind energy supply levels increase then a backup reserve from another source (‘spinning reserve’) would also need to increase, but by a lesser amount, to offset any increase in uncertainty of supply. However, this does not negate the renewable energy contribution of wind energy and the associated climate change benefits.
10.27 Process efficiency / meterology Objectors advise that there is no wind speed information to demonstrate that the site is suitable. The applicant advises however that the national database of wind speeds, NOABL, identifies a wind speed at this location of 6.1 m/s at 45m. Although in certain terrains the database has its limitations, the applicant’s experience from detailed measurements at other wind farm sites with relatively similar landscapes shows the NOABL figures to be a reasonable guide to the resource in these circumstances. At this level of wind speed good commercial returns are made which justify the investment. It is reiterated however that PPS1 advises that planning authorities should not require
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 25 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
applicants for renewable energy development to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy and its distribution, nor question the energy justification for why a proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location.
10.28 Hours of Operation It is recommended that the hours for importation of materials associated with the proposed development are restricted in the interests of residential amenity. The applicant has been made aware of this requirement and an appropriate condition has been recommended in section 13.
10.29 Other issues The application notes that whilst house prices are not a planning matter, studies on this subject which conclude that there is no correlation between property prices and proximity to wind turbines.
11.0 CONCLUSION
11.1 The application has attracted a number of objections, mainly in relation to visual impact, aviation and ecology, but also with respect to other environmental issues. It is considered however that design and location of the proposed facility and the control measures being recommended would allow the impact of the proposals to be controlled within acceptable limits. Any permission would include detailed conditions amongst other matters covering construction, decommissioning and noise.
11.2 The proposed facility would be a large structure in the countryside, but it is considered that detailed siting and design would ensure that visual impact remained within acceptable limits. It is not considered that the proposals would prevent continued use of Rednal Airfield for aviation purposes. The MoD and CAA have not objected. Nor is it considered that the proposals would result in any unacceptable ecological or other environmental effects in this location. Shropshire Council’s Ecologist has not objected and ecological enhancements are proposed.
11.3 PPS22 advises that the ability to generate renewable energy is a significant material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Objective 9 of the Core Strategy also expresses an intention for Shropshire to be a leader in renewable energy technology. It is concluded on balance that the proposals are capable of being accepted in relation to relevant development plan policies, guidance and other local considerations.
12.1 HUMAN RIGHTS
12.1 Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community. First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact of development upon nationally important features and the impact on residents. This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the recommendation below.
13 RECOMMENDATION
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 26 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
13.1 It is recommended that the application is approved subject to the conditions listed in section 13.2 below and subject to the applicant entering into a prior unilateral undertaking to fund a local community fund throughout the period of operation of the proposed facility.
13.2 The conditions as follows:
Commencement of Development
1a. The development to which this planning permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
b. Not less than fourteen days prior notice shall be given of the intended date for the commencement of any development under the terms of this permission, including Site preparation and construction works. Such date shall be referred to hereinafter as "the Commencement Date".
c. Not less than seven days prior notice shall be given in writing of the intended date for the commencement of electricity generation operations at the site, hereby referred to as the “Commissioning Date”.
Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (1a), to define and provide appropriate advance notice of the Commencement Date (1b) and to facilitate proper monitoring of Site operations linked to the commencement of the use hereby approved (1c).
Definition of Site and Development
2. This planning permission shall only relate to the area edged red on the approved planning application boundary plan (drawing no. MB280610WG/1), hereinafter referred to as "the Site".
Reason: To define the area to which this planning permission relates.
3. Except as otherwise provided in the conditions attached to this permission the operations and uses hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved scheme comprising:-
i. The application form dated 7th February 2011.
ii. Application and environmental documentation, incorporating the following appendices:
Appendix 1 Enercon E33 Yield Table; Appendix 2 Project Screening Request and Response; Appendix 3 Full Ecology Report (Wild Frontier Ecology Ltd.); Appendix 4 Full Noise Report (Hayes Mckenzie Partnership Ltd.); Appendix 5 Full Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Report (Nexus Heritage Ltd.);
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 27 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
Appendix 6 Full Landscape and Visual Assessment (E4 Environment Ltd.); Appendix 7 Aviation Stakeholder Consultations; Appendix 8 Full Aviation Report (Wind Power Aviation Consultants Ltd.); Appendix 9 Utilities and Telecoms Consultations.
iii. Abbotsmoor wind turbine planning appraisal;
iv. The permitted drawings, namely:
Figure 1 Enercon E33 Typical Turbine Detail Figure 2 Enercon E33 Typical Foundation Detail Figure 3 Enercon E33 Typical Hardstanding Detail Figure 4 Site Tracks Typical Detail Figure 5 Typical Transformer Detail Figure 6 Typical Substation Detail Figure 7 Site Layout Plan Figure 8 Aerial Layout Plan Figure 9 Site Entrance Figure 10 Phase 1 Habitat Plan Figure 11 Location of Cultural Heritage Assets Plan Figure 12 National Character Areas Plan Figure 13 Local Landscape Character Types Plan Figure 14 Landscape Designations and Recreational Routes Plan Figure 15 Blade Tip Zone of Theoretical Visibility with Viewpoint Locations Figure 16 Hub Height Zone of Theoretical Visibility with Viewpoint Locations Figure 17 Visualisations 17.1-17.6
v. The letter from Farm Wind Limited to Shropshire Council dated 11th April 2011.
vi. The letter from Farm Wind Limited dated 4th April 2011 and the accompanying additional visualizations;
vii. The briefing note from Wind Power Aviation Consultants Ltd dated 10th April 2011.
Reason: To define the permitted development.
Micro-siting
4. The turbine may be micro-sited within 30 metres of the position shown on the approved site plan so long as the turbine shall be situated no closer to the overhead power line.
Reason: To provide an appropriate degree of flexibility to accommodate minor changes in placement of the turbine within the site for engineering reasons.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 28 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
Construction Hours
5a. The hours of work during the construction phase of the development and any traffic movements to or from the site associated with the construction of the development shall be to 0730 to 1900 hours on Mondays to Fridays and 0730 to 1400 hours on Saturdays other than as allowed for under condition 5b. No work shall take place outside these hours (including on Bank Holidays) unless otherwise previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
b. Notwithstanding the provisions of condition 5a, delivery of turbine and crane components may take place outside the hours specified subject to not less that 24 hours prior notice of such traffic movements being given to the Local Planning Authority and such deliveries first being approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of general and residential amenities (5a) and to provide some flexibility with respect to delivery of specialist components (5b).
Buildings
6. The existing redundant building within the Site shall be demolished prior to the construction of the turbine building.
Reason: To mitigate for the construction of the transformer building in the open countryside by removing an existing redundant building within the Site.
7. Prior to erection of the sub-station building and external transformer enclosure, details of the exact dimensions and external materials of construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To confirm and approve the details of the transformer building and transformer enclosure in the interests of visual amenity.
Surface Treatment for Turbine and Hard Surfaces
8. Prior to the commencement date a scheme detailing surface treatments for the turbine and hard surfaces within the Site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall confirm:
i. the finish and colour of the wind turbine, including incorporation of an off-white low-reflectance finish with provision for a green base to the turbine tower;
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 29 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
ii. confirmation of the exact extent and nature of concrete and other hard surfaces within the Site.
The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To confirm surface treatments within the Site in the interests of visual amenity (8i) and final restoration (8ii).
9. In accordance with the requirements of Defence Estates, a scheme providing for illumination of the turbine by mounting omni-directional infra- red lighting on the nacelle shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement date. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that lighting requirements do not result in adverse visual impact or disturbance to ecology, by specifying infra-red lighting of an appropriate design.
Archaeology
10a. No development approved by this permission shall commence until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority advised by the appropriate member of Shropshire Council's Historic Environment Team'.
b. The developer shall afford access at all reasonable times to any archaeologist nominated by the local planning authority, and shall allow the archaeologist to observe excavations and record items of interest and finds.
Reason: To safeguard any archaeological remains which may be present at the Site.
Wildlife
11a. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the recommendations of the Ecology Report by Wild Frontier Ecology (October 2010) accompanying the application.
b. Prior to the commencement of development a pre-commencement ecological inspection for bats, birds and badgers shall be carried out by an experienced ecologist to ensure that the situation on the site has not altered since the Ecology Report by Wild Frontier Ecology (October 2010)
Reason: To ensure the protection of wildlife on the site
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 30 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
12. Operations shall be managed to avoid the need to commence work affecting vegetation in the bird nesting season which runs from March to September inclusive. If it is necessary for work affecting vegetation to commence in the nesting season then a pre-commencement inspection of the vegetation and buildings for active bird nests shall be carried out. If vegetation cannot be clearly seen to be clear of bird’s nests then an experienced ecologist shall be called in to carry out the check. Work affecting vegetation shall not proceed unless it can be demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority that there are no active nests present.
Reason: To protect the wildlife in the area of the Site.
13. A scheme confirming ecological enhancement measures in the vicinity of the Site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the bringing into use of the wind turbine hereby approved. The scheme shall in particular make proposals for:
i. an increased area of wild bird seed mix planting in the margins of the field surrounding the Site with emphasis on the eastern hedge boundary of the site. ii. Enhancement to the hedgerow along the south of the Site by gapping up with native species.
Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and in accordance with the recommendations of the Ecology Report by Wild Frontier Ecology (2010) accompanying the planning application.
Notes:
i. The active nests of all wild birds are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (As amended). An active nest is one being built, containing eggs or chicks, or on which fledged chicks are still dependent.
ii. All species of bats found in the UK are European Protected Species under the Habitats Directive 1992, the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). If a bat should be discovered on site at any point during the development then work must halt and Natural England should be contacted for advice.
iii. Where possible trenches on the site to which this consent relates should be excavated and closed in the same day to prevent any wildlife becoming trapped. If it is necessary to leave a trench open overnight then a means of escape should be provided in the form of a sloped board, plank or earth ramp. All open trenches should be inspected at the start of each working day to ensure no animal is trapped.
Television interference
14. Prior to the commencement date a scheme to secure the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to terrestrial TV caused by the operation of the turbine shall be submitted to and approved in writing
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 31 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall provide for alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to terrestrial TV attributable to the wind turbine hereby approved. This shall include, if necessary, funding by the applicant for engineers visits to any affected properties within an agreed timescale of any problems being identified.
Reason: To provide satisfactory mitigation for any electro-magnetic interference to terrestrial TV which is attributable to the wind turbine hereby approved
Noise
15. Noise from the wind turbine, as measured and corrected for any tonal content in accordance with ETSU-R-97 when measured at any residential property lawfully in existence at the time of this planning permission, shall not exceed 35 dB LA90,10mins at any time (for wind speeds up to a standardised 10 metre height wind speed of 10 metres per second as derived from measurements at hub height and converted to 10 metres as described in ETSU-R-97 assuming a ground roughness factor of 0.05).
Reason: To protect the amenity of the area
Access
16a. No access to or egress from the Site shall take place other than by means of the approved internal farm track linking to the Rednal to Haughton road.
b. A scheme for managing traffic during the construction period shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement date. Traffic during the construction phase shall be managed in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to manage traffic including larger deliveries effectively during the construction phase, having regard to the limitations of the access route through Rednal.
Vegetation protection
17. All existing hedgerows, shrubs and trees on the margins of the Site and the internal access track from the public highway which are not allocated for removal as part of the development shall be protected from damage during construction period.
Reason: To avoid damage to existing vegetation during the construction period in the interests of ecology and visual amenity.
Time Limits / Decommissioning
18. Subject to condition 19b the wind turbine and its associated ancillary equipment shall be removed from the Site not later than 30 years from the date of this permission and the Site shall be restored to agriculture in
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 32 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
accordance with a scheme which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such restoration shall be completed not later than 31 years from the date of this permission and the restoration works shall be undertaken in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To facilitate decommissioning and restoration of the Site to agriculture within an acceptable timescale following the end of the planned design life for the facility in accordance with Government advice in PPS22.
19a. The developer shall notify the Local Planning Authority if the wind turbine fails to produce electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months within the period referred to in Condition 4 above. Such notification shall be given to the Authority within one month of the 12 month period.
b. Notwithstanding Condition 18, within 12 months of any notification under Condition 5a above and unless otherwise directed by the Local Planning Authority the wind turbine and its associated ancillary equipment shall be removed from the Site. The Site shall then be restored to agriculture in accordance with a scheme which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Restoration in accordance with this Condition shall be completed by not later than 12 months following any notification under Condition 19a. The restoration works shall be undertaken in full accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To facilitate decommissioning and restoration of the Site to agriculture within an acceptable timescale in the event that electricity production at the Site ceases prior to expiry of the period referred to in Condition 18 above.
14.0 REASON FOR APPROVAL:
14.1 With regard to energy efficiency / climate change considerations, the proposals would contribute to the diversity of sources of energy supply and hence the security of supply and would therefore be consistent with the objectives of the national energy strategy and PPS22. Regarding climate change, the beneficial aspects that would result from the proposed development are considered important, and compliant with and the Climate Change supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development).
14.2 Regarding landscape and visual amenity, whilst the facility would be a tall structure in the countryside it is considered that the relatively remote location, detailed siting and surface treatments of the proposed facility would avoid any unacceptably adverse impacts. It is not considered that refusal on landscape or visual amenity grounds would be justified. This is taking account of the benefits of the development including its contribution to future renewable energy supply. The proposal therefore complies with development plan policies concerning landscape and visual amenity including Core Strategy policy CS6.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 33 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
14.3 Overall, taking into account the Development Plan and other material considerations and subject to the planning conditions and legal obligations listed in section 13, it is considered that the proposed development would not give rise to unacceptably adverse impacts on the environment, local amenities or other interests of acknowledged importance.
15.0 POLICIES MATERIAL TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICATION
15.1 In determining the Local Planning Authority gave consideration to the policies listed in section 8 of this report.
INFORMATIVES None
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS Planning application reference 11/00421/MAW and associated documents.
Environmental Appraisal Included in the report.
Risk Management Appraisal Not applicable.
Community / Consultations Appraisal Included in the report.
Member Champion Malcolm Price.
Local Member Mr S.Charmley (Whittington).
Appendices Appendix 1, Relevant planning policies; Appendix 2, Objection comments from operator of Rednal Airfield; Appendix 3, Applicant’s consultant’s response to Rednal Aviation representations
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 34 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 35 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
APPENDIX 1 – RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES
A.1.1 The Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin Joint Structure Plan 1996-2011 (adopted November 2002)
P16: Air Quality Local Plan policies and development proposals shall take into account their effect on air quality having regard to national air quality strategy objectives, local air quality reviews and air quality management plans. This shall include consideration in local plans of the location, scale and type of development and the requirement to reduce the need to travel. Consideration shall also be given to the ameliorating effects of tree planting.
P35: Road Freight Local plan policies and development and management proposals shall ensure that the impact of lorries on communities and the environment is minimised by:
• encouraging heavy commercial vehicles to use the national primary road network and other designated routes; • establishing a network of transit lorry parks and discouraging the parking of lorries in lay-bys and residential areas; • locating new developments which are likely to generate significant amounts of heavy goods traffic where they are easily accessible by an appropriate route to the national primary road network or can be served by rail; • establishing where possible transhipment facilities; and • encouraging the transfer of freight to rail.
A.1.3 The Oswestry Borough Local Plan (adopted July 1999).
Policy LE12: Farm Diversification In considering development proposals which also comprise proposals for diversifying existing farm businesses, the following factors will be taken into account:
1). The degree to which the proposals can be shown to be part of an appropriate initiative to sustain the agricultural business and safeguard jobs. 2). The impact of the proposal on the character and environmental quality, including habitats, of the surrounding area. 3). The impact of the proposal on nearby land uses including the amenity of residential areas. 4). The impact of traffic generated as a result of the proposal and the potential for access by modes of transport other than the private car. 5). In the case of farm shops, the impact of the proposal on nearby village shops including the sale of local and non local produce.
Policy NE2: New Development in the Countryside Development in the countryside beyond the development boundaries of settlements will be strictly controlled. Proposals for new development in the
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 36 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
countryside will be assessed in terms of their perceived environmental impact. New developments should:
1) Minimise adverse visual impacts, and 2) Be of a design and construction which takes into account the landscape and surroundings, and 3) Minimise the loss of existing trees and hedgerows, and 4) Include a comprehensive landscaping scheme, and 5) Conserve and where possible enhance the wildlife value of the site and adjacent areas, and 6) Not introduce inappropriate levels of traffic, noise, dust, fumes and effluent. and 7) Avoid damage to the historic environment including archaeological remains and other historic features in the landscape and their settings.
Policy NE10: Wildlife Sites The Borough Council considers that Wildlife Sites of local ecological and environmental importance are a material consideration in the granting of planning permission. Proposals affecting such sites will be required to protect those features of scientific and conservation value.
Policy NE11: Watercourses The Borough Council recognises the importance of the natural watercourse system for providing essential drainage of land, as visual and amenity features and, in many instances, as a valuable wildlife habitat and will seek to protect these interests against adverse forms of development. This will include the prevention of:
i. The loss of access to watercourses for future maintenance. ii. The loss of natural floodplain except in exceptional circumstances and where compensatory measures as agreed with the Local Planning Authority are provided. iii. Drainage from development giving rise to substantial changes in the characteristics of surface water run-off unless adequate off-site works can be provided. iv. The loss of the valuable river corridor environment and the culverting of watercourses.
EMERGING PLANNING POLICY DOCUMENTS
A.1.4 The Shropshire Core Strategy (February 2010)
CS5 Countryside and Green Belt In the open countryside, new development will be strictly controlled in accordance with national planning policies protecting the countryside and Green Belt from inappropriate development. Subject to the further controls over development that apply to the Green Belt, development proposals on appropriate sites which maintain and enhance countryside vitality and character will be permitted where they improve the sustainability of rural communities by bringing local economic and community benefits, particularly where they relate to: Small-scale new economic development diversifying the rural economy, including farm
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 37 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
diversification schemes; dwellings to house agricultural, forestry or other essential countryside workers and other affordable housing or accommodation to meet a local need in accordance with national planning policies and Policies CS11 and CS12; With regard to the above two types of development, applicants will be required to demonstrate the need and benefit for the development proposed. Development will be expected to take place primarily in recognisable named settlements or be linked to other existing development and business activity. agricultural/horticultural/forestry/mineral related development, although proposals for large scale new development will be required to demonstrate that there are no unacceptable adverse environmental impacts; the retention and appropriate expansion of an existing established business, unless relocation to a suitable site within a settlement would be more appropriate; the conversion or replacement of suitably located buildings for small scale economic development / employment generating use; sustainable rural tourism and countryside recreation proposals in accordance with Policies CS16 and CS17; required community uses and infrastructure which cannot be accommodated within settlements; conversion of rural buildings which take account of and make a positive contribution to the character of the buildings and the countryside. Proposals for conversions will be considered with regard to the principles of PPS7, giving equal priority to the following uses: - small scale economic development/employment generating use, including live-work proposals and tourism uses; - affordable housing to meet local need (including agricultural workers dwellings); - other uses appropriate to a countryside location. Open market residential conversions will only be considered where high standards of sustainability are achieved and, except where the buildings are listed, a financial contribution for the provision of affordable housing to be delivered off site is provided in accordance with Policy CS11. In all cases, development proposals should be consistent with the requirements of Policies CS6 and CS17.
CS6: Sustainable Design and Development Principles To create sustainable places, development will be designed to a high quality using sustainable design principles, to achieve an inclusive and accessible environment which respects and enhances local distinctiveness and which mitigates and adapts to climate change. This will be achieved by: Requiring all development proposals, including changes to existing buildings, to achieve criteria set out in the sustainability checklist. This will ensure that sustainable design and construction principles are incorporated within new development, and that resource and energy efficiency and renewable energy generation are adequately addressed and improved where possible. The checklist will be developed as part of a Sustainable Design SPD; Requiring proposals likely to generate significant levels of traffic to be located in accessible locations where opportunities for walking, cycling and use of public transport can be maximised and the need for car based travel to be reduced; And ensuring that all development: Is designed to be adaptable, safe and accessible to all, to respond to the challenge of climate change and, in relation to housing, adapt to changing lifestyle needs over the lifetime of the development in accordance with the objectives of Policy CS11 Protects, restores, conserves and enhances the natural, built and historic environment and is appropriate in scale, density, pattern and design taking into account the local context and character, and those features which contribute to local character, having regard to national and local design guidance, landscape character assessments and ecological strategies where
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 38 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
appropriate; Contributes to the health and wellbeing of communities, including safeguarding residential and local amenity and the achievement of local standards for the provision and quality of open space, sport and recreational facilities. Is designed to a high quality, consistent with national good practice standards, including appropriate landscaping and car parking provision and taking account of site characteristics such as land stability and ground contamination; Makes the most effective use of land and safeguards natural resources including high quality agricultural land, geology, minerals, air, soil and water; Ensures that there is capacity and availability of infrastructure to serve any new development in accordance with the objectives of Policy CS8. Proposals resulting in the loss of existing facilities, services or amenities will be resisted unless provision is made for equivalent or improved provision, or it can be clearly demonstrated that the existing facility, service or amenity is not viable over the long term.
CS17: Environmental Networks Development will identify, protect, enhance, expand and connect Shropshire’s environmental assets, to create a multifunctional network of natural and historic resources. This will be achieved by ensuring that all development: Protects and enhances the diversity, high quality and local character of Shropshire’s natural, built and historic environment, and does not adversely affect the visual, ecological, heritage or recreational values and functions of these assets, their immediate surroundings or their connecting corridors. Further guidance will be provided in SPDs concerning the natural and built environment; Contributes to local distinctiveness, having regard to the quality of Shropshire’s environment, including landscape, biodiversity and heritage assets, such as the Shropshire Hills AONB, the Meres and Mosses and the World Heritage Sites at Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal and Ironbridge Gorge Does not have a significant adverse impact on Shropshire’s environmental assets and does not create barriers or sever links between dependant sites; Secures financial contributions, in accordance with Policy CS8, towards the creation of new, and improvement to existing, environmental sites and corridors, the removal of barriers between sites, and provision for long term management and maintenance. Sites and corridors are identified in the LDF evidence base and will be regularly monitored and updated.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 39 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
APPENDIX 2
OBJECTION COMMENTS FROM OPERATOR OF REDNAL AVIATION (By Mr R. Reeves, Rednal Aviation and the Classic & Vintage Aeroplane Company 31/03/2011)
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 I am the proprietor of both Rednal Aviation and of The Classic & Vintage Aeroplane Company, both businesses being located upon Rednal Airfield for the past 20 years and which have relied upon the essential aerodrome facilities for their business to thrive throughout this period and hopefully well in to the future. Throughout this document both these businesses and myself shall be referred to singularly and collectively as Rednal Aviation. I have been deeply involved with the aviation industry for over 40 years as both a professional pilot and businessman; being the co-founder and Chairman of North West Flying Services based at Manchester International Airport during the 1970's and 80's and since then with Avia Capital Group, an international aircraft leasing, financing and consultancy business, as its Chairman and Chief Executive until retiring two years ago.
1.2 I started the business of Rednal Aviation and located it at Rednal Airfield in June 1991; purchasing and occupying the hangar building for use as its main operating facility. Additionally, I have both organised and managed large, public air-shows and aviation events and taken an extremely active roll in the preservation of Britain's aviation heritage, personally participating in many flying displays throughout both Europe and North America, in both my own aircraft and also flying for aircraft museums and individual aircraft collections.
2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Rednal Airfield is very much alive and thriving as an operational airfield and it is regularly used by Rednal Aviation, its clients, customers and colleagues, who visit on regular occasions to accessing our aircraft facilities and aviation services. In summary the business helps preserve the British aviation flying heritage. In order for the businesses to exist at all, it is absolutely essential to have an operational airfield adjoining its workshops, storage and offices in order to carry-on its business.
2.2 Rednal Aviation maintains, restores and provide classic, vintage, historic and state-of- the-art aerobatic, racing and stunt aircraft for films, TV, advertising, promotions and air-shows to an international audience and client base. Rednal Aviation also specialises in trading these same type of aircraft, both as principal and as agent for other owners, as well as trading in items of aeronautica and aviation related works of art, historic aviation items and flying equipment for display in museums and for use as both props' and 'atmosphere' in a variety of production environments. It also acts as a consultant in historic aviation matters and provides related advice to a broad spectrum of organisations on a global basis.
2.3 Aircraft are frequently maintained, repaired and modified for specific purposes at the Rednal Aviation facilities, where there is an extensive inventory of machines, tooling and spare parts and equipment used for these purposes within the hangar building. Even as recent as last year we were in discussions with Shropshire Council together with Advantage West Midlands regarding the possibility of creating a 'living' Historic Aviation Centre at Rednal Airfield to illustrate to the public the significant contribution made by the airfield during WW2 when as an RAF station it trained fighter pilots for both the RAF and the Free French Air Force. Additionally, it was used as a transit airfield for war casualties needing treatment at the local orthopaedic hospital at Gobowen.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 40 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
2.4 As with many other businesses, we have also been effected by the present economic recession, but there are now positive signs of improvement within the target markets and we are therefore already positioning the business for the improving economy and planning further expansion in terms of more equipment and employees in order to meet the carefully calculated perceived demands for our services and products within a global marketplace over the coming years. It is my strong belief and understanding that the proposed wind turbine development in such close proximity to my business will render our essential aeronautical services and aviation facilities as being unusable, thereby jeopardising the future success of my business. In reality, the ramifications of such a development proceeding would close-down my business on its present site at Rednal Airfield and require relocation to another airfield, causing untold disruption and great expense assuming a suitable airfield could be found and therefore significantly retarding progress of the business, perhaps even making it unviable as a consequence.
2.5 There exists two extant Planning Permissions recently renewed by Shropshire Council (then Oswestry Borough Council) under references 07/15071/FUL and 02/12324/FUL for the development of a new aircraft hangar and associated facilities at Rednal Airfield, to provide for the future expansion of business activities at the Airfield. More information about the business of Rednal Aviation can be found on its website at www.redprop.co.uk
3. RESPONSE TO THE AVIATION REPORT 3.1 The Applicant submitted references to the impact on Aviation within their Planning Application reference 11/00498/MAW. This is referred to at Appendix 8. of the Planning Application and Environmental Documentation entitled the Full Aviation Report. There is also a short reference to Aviation within the Planning Appraisal Document on its page 37 and again referenced within the Planning Application Summary prepared by the Development Services of Shropshire Council. I shall refer to all three documents both singularly and collectively as the Aviation Report within this document.
3.2 It should be noted that Rednal Aviation was not served with the statutory notices to advise us of the Planning Application and it was only through talking with local residents that we have heard of this Application. Furthermore, Rednal Aviation was never consulted by the Applicant or their specialist consultant who prepared the Aviation Report. The only contact ever received by me or Rednal Aviation on this matter was by way of a single, brief letter dated 23-July-2010 from the Applicant's consultant, Engena Limited, mooting the possible interest by their client in a wind turbine development near to Rednal Airfield. The location of the potential development was identified on an accompanying plan.
3.3 On 05-August-2010 I responded by email and objected to the possible development, but they then failed to follow-up my response. No further communication has ever been received from them since then. Paragraph 1.124 of the Aviation Report in the Environmental Documentation refers to this correspondence but gives incorrect information and an erroneous assumption that no further contact would be necessary with me. Contrary to the contents of the Aviation Report, the airfield is not disused nor is it only occasionally used and, therefore, the Aviation Report gives a totally false impression of both the status and operational capability of Rednal Airfield. There are often more than two aircraft based at the airfield, and there are also many visiting aircraft belonging to clients and business colleagues who arrive by air. Again this is contrary to the Aviation Report.
3.4 It is correct to say that Rednal Airfield is unlicensed, and this is the normal status when
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 41 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
there is no scheduled commercial passenger or cargo aircraft operating from an airfield, nor any air-charter or air-taxi business operator. There is no regulatory requirement to make the airfield 'licensed' and the Aviation Report is once again misleading. The two active tarmac runways at Rednal Airfield (NE & SW) are regularly maintained by ourselves, despite the Aviation Report suggesting otherwise. The Aviation Reports make mention of "Circuits, if flown, are currently to the east to minimise noise over the nearby village". That is quite correct as Rednal village is located to the west of Rednal Airfield and we respect our neighbours' quiet enjoyment of their environment. Because of this concern, easterly circuit patterns have to be flown by aircraft both arriving and departing Rednal Airfield. Therefore, it should be noted that easterly circuits will always take those aircraft both departing and arriving at Rednal Airfield very close to or even immediately over the proposed wind turbine development which will be located further east than the existing National Grid power- lines. Whereas the existing power-lines do not present a problem to air traffic as they are located well inside the easterly circuit pattern flown by aircraft when either preparing to land at or after take-off from Rednal Airfield.
3.5 Contrary to the Applicant's assertions in their Aviation Report, the Civil Aviation Authorities dimensional recommendations of an “obstacle not being greater than 150 feet above the average runway elevation within 2,000 metres of the runway mid-point” equally applies to new structures being considered for erection in the vicinity of an existing aerodrome – such as the case here. (See CAP 793 referred to below). Furthermore, for the Applicant's aviation consultant to suggest that “there is no justification for an objection” and that the “turbine would make the runway easier (to) identify from the air and become an aid to navigation...... ” and for “the turbine to be constructed without detriment to aerodrome operations” is just fatuously ludicrous and totally incorrect.
3.6 Within their Aviation Report the Applicant has relied upon 'amateur' sources of information, such as Lockyear's Farm Strips and Private Airfield Flight Guide 2010, which receives no information directly from Rednal Aviation nor from the Civil Aviation Authority about Rednal Airfield. It is therefore open to gross errors and merely a 'grass- roots' guide for enthusiasts and never relied upon for serious aeronautical information. Thus it can be seen that the Aviation Report is wholly incorrect as regards its quality of information and is totally misleading on the operational status of Rednal Airfield and therefore it completely ignores the issues that will affect the airfield's use and my business should this Application be approved and the development proceed.
4. CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY REGULATORY GUIDANCE 4.1 The Government's regulatory body for all civil aviation matters within the United Kingdom is the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) who, amongst many other matters, assist airfield owners and operators, for both new and existing airfields, in achieving and maintaining acceptable and proven safety standards, and also offer guidance to local planning authorities and the planning inspectorate when considering matters influencing an existing airfield and its environment. Their regulatory guidance is made through publications known as Civil Aviation Publications, numbered as 'CAP xxx' where 'xxx' is the number of that particular publication. CAP 793 The Applicant's Aviation Report uses the Civil Aviation Authority's publication CAP 428 'Safety Standards at Unlicensed Aerodromes.' The Applicant both relies upon and yet also dismisses parts of this document; almost suggesting it to be irrelevant, and attempting to minimise its influence in this situation. It should be noted, however, that this document CAP 428 was made obsolete and was superseded on 01-July-2010 by the Civil Aviation Authority's new publication CAP 793, now entitled 'Safe Operating Practices at Unlicensed Airfields' and now having more up-to date guidance notes generally and more specifically concerning airfield obstructions and wind turbines.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 42 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
4.2 The Applicant's aviation consultant failed to realise that the document had been replaced. CAP 793 can be downloaded from the CAA website by going to this link: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP793.pdf I would bring your attention to Paragraph 3 in Chapter 1 which states: "Whether an unlicensed aerodrome is a 'farm strip', a helicopter landing site or a hard runway equipped airfield, the physical characteristics and operating standards should provide a safe operational environment. This publication provides guidance to the owners of, and those who operate or fly from, unlicensed aerodromes to enable safe operating practices to be met". And: "The fact that an aerodrome is unlicensed does not preclude compliance with the Air Navigation Order (ANO) or the Rules of the Air Regulations (RoAR). In particular, care should be taken to meet the requirements of Rule 5 of the RoAR 2007, which states: "Except with the written permission of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure". This proposed wind turbine development will create an obstacle to aircrew in complying with this regulation when arriving at or departing from Rednal Airfield. For the Applicant to suggest that the recommendations contained within CAP 428 (now CAP 793) are “not intended to carry such weight or have any influence.....” suggests that the Applicant's consultant considers itself to be better informed than the Civil Aviation Authority.
4.3 CAP 738: Another relevant document published by the CAA is CAP 738 entitled 'The Safeguarding of Aerodromes' and which can be downloaded from the CAA website by going to this link: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP738.PDF I would firstly refer you to Paragraph 1.2 in Chapter 1. of this publication that states:" it is the published advice of Her Majesty's Government that all aerodromes should be safeguarded". In Paragraph 5.5 of Chapter 1. it goes on to say: "Reserved matters or full planning applications normally provide sufficient information to assess the impact a development may have on an aerodrome. However, if insufficient information has been supplied, the application should be returned with a request that the applicant resubmit the application with the details required". It then continues by showing the 'Safeguarding Process Flowchart' at Figure 1. concerning heights and distances of obstacles being proposed in close proximity to an airfield. Additionally at Figure 2. there is a plan illustrating the "Guidance on the Measurement of the Location of a Proposed Development in Relation to the Aerodrome and its Obstacle Limitation Surfaces, Where the Longest Runway is Less Than 1800 m in Length." This reference to runway length being applicable to Rednal Airfield. The Process Flowchart in Figure 1. and the Guidance Illustration in Figure 2. have both been ignored by the Applicant in their Aviation Report.
4.4 It should be emphasised once again that the National Grid electricity pylons are an existing obstruction erected some 40 years ago. They are much less in height when compared with the proposed wind turbine and in a much less hazardous location. Their existence does not make a precedent for creating further obstructions at or in close proximity to Rednal Airfield or any airfield.
4.5 I would now refer you to Paragraph 5.7 in Chapter 1. and ask that you please consider this almost in its entirety, but in particular the following aspects and guidance, being of such essential concern in the planning process of this particular Planning Application:- b) Lighting, c) Cranage, d) Technical Site Safeguarding, e) Wind Turbines The Applicant has failed to recognise these important aspects within the Aviation Report by reference to this particular CAA guidance publication and has failed to make contact with Rednal Aviation to explore solutions, if any, in consultation prior to making this Planning Application.
4.6 CAP 764: The most compelling publication from the Civil Aviation Authority is CAP 764
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 43 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
entitled 'CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines' and which can be downloaded from the CAA website by going to this link: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP764.pdf It is stated within that "Clearly anyone involved or likely to be involved with wind turbines in relation to a flying site is strongly advised to obtain a copy of CAP 764." It is evidently clear that the Applicant's aviation consultant did not obtain a copy of this document as it is never referenced in their Aviation Report. I now refer to this CAA guidance publication CAP 764 and would particularly draw your attention to the following extracts of the regularity guidance: Chapter 1, Para 1.2 "Legislative provisions on wind turbine development are set out for England and Wales in Annex 2 of the Town & Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2002 (ODPM Circular 01/2003).” Chapter 1, Para 2.7 “It must be noted that the CAA has no regulatory involvement in the operation of unlicensed aerodromes; hence CAP 428 (now CAP 793) is a guidance document. Nevertheless, the safeguarding of such aerodromes still falls within the advice promulgated in DfT/ODPM Circular 1/2003 and Scottish Circular 2/2003, which, at paragraph 13 of Annex 2 state: Operators of licensed aerodromes which are not officially safeguarded and operators of unlicensed aerodromes and sites for other aviation activities (for example gliding or parachuting should take steps to protect their locations from the effects of possible adverse development by establishing an agreed consultation procedure between themselves and the local planning authority or authorities. Local planning authorities are asked to respond sympathetically to requests for non-official safeguarding.” Please note that Rednal Aviation will now be requesting non-official safeguarding of Rednal Airfield.
4.7 Chapter 2, Para 1.1 “The development of wind turbines has the potential to cause a variety of effects on aviation. These range from physical safeguarding, the generation of unwanted returns on primary radar and affecting the performance and propagation of PSR/SSR, navigation aids and communication facilities. It should be noted that, whilst it is generally the larger, commercial turbines that have the greatest impact on aviation, smaller domestic or micro-turbines could also have a negative impact that should also be assessed.” Chapter 2, Para 9.1 “In particular, turbulence will be of more concern to those involved in very light sport aviation such as parachuting, hang-gliding, paragliding or microlight operations.” This equally applies to most light aircraft and particularly to classic, vintage and historic aircraft due to their light build structure and fabric covering, as well as having more sensitive control issues in turbulent air.
4.8 Chapter 2, Para 10.1 “As a result of the role and responsibilities of the CAA and aviation stakeholders, action will be taken to maintain the high standards of safety, efficiency and flexibility. Therefore, as a consequence of wind turbine development, aviation activity may have to be constrained. Even in circumstances where a proposed development may not affect a current activity, future expansion (for example, as listed in an Aviation Masterplan1) may be restricted were it to go ahead. This could eventually have an economic impact on the airport, en-route service provider or activity and this aspect should be taken into consideration when assessing the impact of any proposed wind turbine development.” In this case to the dire economic impact it would have to Rednal Aviation.
4.9 Chapter 3, Para 9.1: “The need to promulgate the existence of tall structures that might constitute a significant aviation obstruction is self-evident. Notwithstanding the voluntary pre-planning notification, which advises civil and military aviation regulators of proposed future wind turbine developments, LPAs routinely advise the Defence Geographic Centre (DGC) organisation of all proposed developments. Notwithstanding this LPA role, developers should also report such information to DGC. Through the updated promulgation of a database document, the Directorate of Airspace Policy (DAP) Aeronautical Charts and Data section is advised of all such developments and
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 44 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
update aviation charts accordingly. All wind turbines in excess of 300ft above ground level are depicted on charts and details of each wind turbine are promulgated in the UK AIP, ENR 5.4 (CAP 032)9.2. In addition, wind turbines that are less than 300 ft above ground level may be depicted on charts if their presence is deemed to be of navigational significance.” This underpins the serious concern for safety being compromised by high structures, such as that proposed in this Planning Application.
4.10 Chapter 5, Para 1.3f: “Developers will be referred to the aerodrome operator of non- radar equipped unlicensed aerodromes with runways of less than 800 m within 3 km of the proposed wind turbine development.” Rednal Aviation was not contacted by the Applicant in this particular matter or at all. Chapter 5, Para 4.2 “In submitting a wind turbine development proposal, developers will regularly use consultants to prepare reports to counter any issues raised by aviation if the proposal is objected to. These reports are regularly forwarded to DAP for comment. In addition, as part of the formal process, developers are required to submit an environmental impact assessment that will address aviation issues and mitigations, often based on supporting reports commissioned by the developers. In responding to these documents, CAA will request that LPAs pursue any assertions or statements made in respect of aviation with the appropriate aviation stakeholder.” No Environmental Impact Assessment has been produced by the Applicant in relation to aviation issues in and around Rednal Airfield as none appears within the Planning Application or its accompanying documents. The above mentioned CAP documents are the relevant regulatory guidance statements and advice issued by the Civil Aviation Authority and are extremely relevant to this particular Planning Application.
4.11 Contrary to the Applicant's statement given in their Aviation Report, these CAP guidelines clearly put responsibility upon the planning process to ensure that proposed obstacles and interference in the vicinity of aerodromes do not cause obstructions or hazards to air traffic using that aerodrome. PPS 22 The Government's Planning Policy Statement 22 clearly states that both Applicants and LPA's should take into account the Civil Aviation Authority guidance when considering any planning application effecting aviation. This guidance is contained in CAA publications CAP 738, 764 and 793 referred to above. This proposed wind turbine development will compromise airfield safety and present a serious hazard to aircraft using Rednal Airfield due to its location and height. Therefore the location of it is not suitable from an aviation perspective and will cause significant detrimental impact on my aviation business interests – possibly forcing it to close. This Application is therefore contrary to the recommendations in PPS 22. 5.
5. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS & CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 There are other causes of concern created by the presence of a wind turbine development in such close proximity (800 metres) to Rednal Airfield, should the development proceed.
5.2 Electro-Magnetic Interference: Wind turbine generators do cause local Electro- Magnetic Interference which can cause harmful effects and spurious readings and errors to airborne navigation equipment, as well as causing interference to airborne and ground communications. Rednal Airfield and many of the aircraft using the airfield have such equipment on-board and is often in use in the vicinity of Rednal Airfield. In times of poor visibility it is essential that navigational aids are fully functioning and accurate in the information they display to the pilot(s) in order for them to safely navigate to and from Rednal Airfield, and to communicate with air traffic and radar services. Although admittedly thought to be fairly minimal when functioning correctly and efficiently, it never-the-less does present a major cause for concern when the wind turbine generator begins to fail, or fully fails, and which can then cause severe Electro-
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 45 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
Magnetic Interference, resulting in hazardous problems to aircraft in its vicinity until the cause can be investigated and corrected by the wind turbine operator. There is no provision in the Applicant's proposals for the safeguarding of such occurrences. Both the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Air Traffic Services are expressing concern over these potential hazards to aviation and are currently awaiting the results of further investigations into these phenomena before publishing their regulatory guidelines later this year.
5.3 Shadow Flicker and Reflective Light: There is already compelling evidence of Shadow Flicker causing discomfort and disorientation to people living in the vicinity of wind turbine developments. Similarly, as more wind turbines are being built, there is now increasing evidence of Shadow Flicker being reported by aircrew as causing disorientation when in the vicinity of wind turbines. This could have dire consequences and seriously compromise the safety of aircraft, its crew and passengers, and also to people on the ground especially during the landing and take-off procedures at airfields. A new and updated report explaining Shadow Flicker and its consequences dated March 2011 has been released by the Government's Department of Energy and Climate Change. Within this report it states that “Local residents have a legitimate concern about the safety of aircraft flying over their homes, and it is reasonable to ask the relevant experts to make a formal statement that this safety will not be compromised.” Understandably, this phenomena of Shadow Flicker is of concern to the Civil Aviation Authority in respect of compromising the safety of aircraft and it is currently awaiting the results of further reports and investigations into this hazard before publishing their regulatory guidelines.
5.4 Induced Air Turbulence: Air turbulence is a well known hazard to aircraft – especially when flying nearer to the ground. It has caused numerous accidents, often with many fatalities, and there are many publications and reports of accident investigations sighting the hazardous consequences of aircraft experiencing air turbulence. Turbulence from wind eddies created from the turning rotor blades of a wind turbine are not thought to be dangerous to larger aircraft. However, it is a different case for light aircraft, particularly those of a vintage and historic nature that can have differing and less authoritative control responses to those of more modern aircraft. They are therefore more susceptible to the hazardous effects of turbulence and hence more susceptible to suffering or causing serious damage. The business of Rednal Aviation specialises in vintage and historic aircraft, which are flown to, from and around Rednal Airfield for maintenance, repair, testing and evaluation purposes. Consequently, turbulence from this proposed wind turbine development will be a potential hazard and a serious safety concern to the business and operations at Rednal Airfield.
5.5 Conspicuity Lighting: The Civil Aviation Authority has suggested in Appendix 7. of the Application Documents that the Applicant makes contact with the operator of Rednal Airfield concerning proposals for obstacle conspicuity lighting being installed at the proposed wind turbine development. Rednal Aviation has never been approached by the Applicant on this most important matter. Wind turbine structures and their associated construction/maintenance cranes cause severe hazards to aircraft flying in the vicinity of an airfield such Rednal. Obstacle lighting is essential in such locations, especially during times of poor visibility and nightfall, otherwise severely endangering the safety of aircraft, their flight-crew and passengers. There shows to be no awareness and therefore no offered solutions within the Application Documents for the installation of such conspicuity lighting of the wind turbine structures, nor for the associated cranage during the construction process and during the maintenance periods. Once again, these omissions ignore the existence of an active airfield adjacent to the proposed wind turbine development site.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 46 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
5.6 Road Hazards: Despite the mooted 'assurances' of the Highway Report offered by the Applicant, the road serving the proposed development is wholly inadequate to support the undoubted intensification of use and the increase in average size of the heavy goods vehicles supplying the wind turbine and its associated AD plant; both during its construction and whilst in service. At present the road carries infrequent and light traffic. Part of its course takes it alongside the runway of Rednal Airfield, where there is only a 1.5 metre high, three-strand, wire fence separating the road from the airfield runway. The road also crosses the threshold of the runway at the southern end of the airfield and there are acute-angled bends of the road where it both joins and runs alongside the runway fence. The large size of heavy goods vehicles likely to be employed in serving the wind turbine and the AD plant would therefore become a dangerous hazard to aircraft using the runway whilst taxiing, taking-off and landing.
6. SUMMARY & CONCLUSION 6.1 The most obvious hazardous impact that wind turbine developments can have on aviation is the physical obstruction and possible collision caused by tall structures to aircraft; particularly relating to the flight paths of low flying aircraft when being adjacent to airfields such as Rednal Airfield. Of equal importance is the hazardous effect wind turbines can have on causing the visual impairment of pilots in command of aircraft during flight caused by Shadow Flicker from the rotating wind turbine blades. Again this is more severe when adjacent to airfields, such as in this particular case, when there are low-flying aircraft using the airfield for both taking-off and landing, and where the Shadow Flicker is more pronounced and dangerous. In addition is the influence the wind turbine generator itself can have on the communication and navigational equipment both on-board aircraft and at airfields, caused by Electro-Magnetic Interference emitted from the electrical turbine; and particularly when in close proximity to an airfield such as Rednal.
6.2 The Planning Application has failed to recognise, let alone provide for, the existence of an active airfield and aviation businesses immediately adjacent to the proposed site of its wind turbine development. It has therefore failed to understand the consequences that such a development will have on people's livelihoods and on the suffering of local as well as wider economies it will cause by compromising the viability of the aviation business of Rednal Aviation. Furthermore the Applicant has failed to acknowledge the existence of authoritative and informed regulatory guidance available from the Civil Aviation Authority particularly produced for development proposals such as those contained with this Planning Application. The Civil Aviation Authority clearly states within its published guidance that “When development of a wind turbine site is proposed, consultation s are required with the local air field (s) , National Air Traffic Service, Civil Aviation Authority and Minister of Defence to ensure there are no possible conflicts.” There are many severe conflicts with the proposals contained within this Planning Application as evidentially illustrated in the foregoing, and I would therefore respectfully urge you to refuse this Planning Application having Reference 11/00498/MAW.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 47 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011
APPENDIX 3
APPLICANT’S CONSULTANT’S RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS FROM REDNAL AVIATION (By Wind Power Aviation Consultants Ltd – 10 April 2011)
I have been asked to provide a comment on the outstanding objection by the operator of Rednal Aerodrome in relation to the proposal to construct and operate a single wind turbine approximately 800 metres to the east of the centre of the runway.
Rednal is an unlicensed aerodrome and the operator does not, therefore have to comply with the standards of safeguarding in relation to obstacles in the same way as a licensed aerodrome. The runway is orientated 04/22, approximately north east/south west and the direction of take off and landing will depend mainly upon the wind speed and direction. Rednal has no navigation aids, or published procedures. Guidance for any visitors is found in Lockyears Farm Strips and Private Airfields Flight Guide, a non authoratative guide book, and on the UK General Aviation Web Site.
The guidance provided by the aerodrome operator states that the visual circuit is joined at 1500 ft above the aerodrome in the overhead and the nominal circuit height is 800 ft. A diagram of a standard visual circuit is below.
CAA Standard Circuit Diagram
When using a standard circuit, the ‘downwind’ leg is flown at circuit height, the turbine is close to the mid point of the downwind leg in this case. It is not clear why the circuit height is 800 ft at Rednal, it could just as easily by 1000ft, however, it is currently a nominal 800 ft. It is noted that the circuit direction is to the east for both runway directions, which in itself is less than ideal as it takes aircraft towards, and over, a very tall power line, which is in excess of 200 ft high, the exact height is not known. The power line also crosses the approach to runway 22, requiring
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 48 North Planning Committee (Oswestry): 26th April 2011 pilots to execute a steeper than standard approach when on final approach once they have passed over it. When taking the proposed turbine into account there is no additional impact on aerodrome operations.
When considering the establishment of a new airfield or runway, the guidance contained with CAP 793 ‘Safe Operating Practices at Unlicensed Aerodromes’, states that: ‘The runway should, wherever possible, be designed such that trees, power lines, high ground or other obstacles do not obstruct its approach and takeoff paths. It is recommended that there are no obstacles greater than 150 ft above the average runway elevation within 2,000 m of the runway mid-point.’ Clearly in this case the proposed turbine is greater than 150 ft and within 2000 metres of the runway mid-point, however, the existence of the power line running approximately north to south and between the runway and the turbine means that this criteria is already impossible to fulfil, and the turbine is further away from the runway than the power line. Common sense would therefore dictate that the turbine has no additional impact on aerodrome operations. Aircraft already need to take the presence of the power line into account when flying round the visual circuit and modify their descent profile on ‘base leg’ and ‘final approach’ to the runway. The presence of the turbine will make no difference in this case as it is not close to the final approach.
Even if Rednal were to be considered as a licensed aerodrome, which is clearly impossible given the existence of the power line across the airfield, the rules laid down in CAP 168 ‘Licensing of Aerodromes’, dictate that the turbine and the power line would be underneath the Inner Horizontal Surface, as shown in Figure 2 overleaf. There would be no Outer Horizontal Surface at this airfield. The regulations within the IHS state that: New objects or additions to existing objects should not extend above an inner horizontal surface, a conical surface or an outer horizontal surface, except when in the opinion of the CAA the object would be shielded by an existing immovable object or it is determined that the object would not adversely affect the safety or significantly affect the regularity of aircraft operations.’ In this case the power line would be an existing immovable object and would provide sufficient screening for the turbine to be considered acceptable, particularly as it is only adjacent to the ‘downwind leg’, where aircraft are going to be at least 800 ft above the runway.
The turbine has a maximum tip height of 215 ft. Given that the ground elevation at the turbine and at the runway are very similar, this means that an aircraft going ‘downwind’ at 800 ft is at least 585 ft above the turbine. This is sufficient height separation from obstacles. If the aerodrome operator does not consider 585 ft vertical separation to be sufficient, he could choose to increase the circuit height to 1000 ft, however, it should not be considered necessary in this case. In my judgement, it will be much easier for pilot to maintain good visual separation against a wind turbine, than a power line in any case.
In conclusion, it is my view that whilst a single turbine in this location would not normally be considered ideal, the presence of the existing and very considerable and extensive obstruction that already exists, namely the power line and pylons, makes the additional impact of a single turbine on operations at this small private aerodrome either minimal or non-existent. The developer should ensure that once the turbine is constructed that it is marked on aviation maps and charts, and the aerodrome operator should ensure that a note is placed in his aerodrome briefing highlighting the existence of the turbine.
Contact: Grahame French on 01743 252595 49