Date: 23/03/2011

Our ref: NW10/11 CON10699 Your ref: 10/01151/FUL

Lancaster City Council Regeneration and Policy Development Management Team Hornbeam House Crewe Business Park PO Box 4 Electra Way Town Hall Crewe Lancaster LA1 1QR Cheshire CW1 6GJ

T 0300 060 2568 BY EMAIL ONLY

Dear Sir or Madam

Renewable energy project comprising the erection of 13 wind turbine generators, each with a maximum height of 126.5 metres, together with associated access track, hard standing areas, control and substation building, borrow pits, meteorological mast and temporary construction and site storage compounds on Claughton Moor and Whit Moor near Lancaster

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated and received 15 November 2010.

The delay in responding is due to our request for further information relating to ecology, in our email dated 17 February 2011

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

This major development is within the and Pendle Hill Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Natural England objects to the application to erect 13 turbines and associated infrastructure including access tracks on Claughton and Whit Moor within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Natural England’s objection is on the grounds that:

 The proposed development, both in its own right, and as a major extension to the existing Caton Moor wind farm, would have a significant adverse impact on the natural beauty and distinctive qualities of the Forest of Bowland and Pendle Hill AONB which would clearly conflict with the purposes of designation to such an extent that the objectives of designation would be compromised. We do not believe that the significant adverse residual landscape and visual effects could be adequately addressed by mitigation measures.

 The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of public benefit through the substantial reduction in tranquillity and integrity of landscape character of a large part of the AONB which currently offers a high quality and accessible recreational experience through well established routes and viewpoints, and more recent Open Access land under the CROW Act 2000. We consider that the turbines would dominate their surroundings within and beyond the AONB to such an extent that visitors and residents would have limited options for avoidance of effects should they so wish, and mitigation would not be effective.

Page 1 of 13 Please send consultations for the North West Region via email to: [email protected] North West Planning, Natural England, Hornbeam House, Crewe Business Park, Electra Way, Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ  The numerous revisions of the Environmental Statement (ES) produced for this scheme show much variation in information relating to the baseline assessment, details of surveys and assessment of impacts. This has made the overall assessment of the ES increasingly difficult, and we have particular concerns about the level of accuracy merited to the submitted version. This lack of confidence in the ES and insufficient information in the report gives Natural England no alternative but to retain our earlier objection on the grounds of adverse effects on the natural environment.

Detailed comments are set out in the appendix to this letter.

Our conclusions do not depend on technicalities but on a fundamental view that major development is inappropriate in the proposed location, for which the ES already provides ample proof of the effects, however we believe that the effects identified in the ES have been significantly downplayed or underestimated.

We conclude that the statutory planning framework is sound in terms of national, regional and local policy. As such, the protective nature of planning policy could not allow the scheme, which should be regarded as major development, to be approved other than in the most exceptional circumstances. We believe that the case for such exceptional circumstance has not been made for this scheme.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require further clarification. Queries on landscape aspects should be addressed to Ruth Benson ([email protected]. Tel: 0300 060 0214) and queries on nature conservation matters should be addressed to Pin Dhillon-Downey ([email protected] Tel: 0300 060 0003).

Yours faithfully,

Ruth Wearing NW Sustainable Land Use Delivery Leader Regional Advocacy and Partnerships Team Direct dial: 0300 060 2568 Email: [email protected]

Page 2 of 13 Please send consultations for the North West Region via email to: [email protected] North West Planning, Natural England, Hornbeam House, Crewe Business Park, Electra Way, Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ

Appendix

Landscape

Our objection, in terms of landscape, is on the same grounds as our objection to the application to erect 20 turbines on the same site, details of which were set out in our letter of 17th February 2010. In summary, we objected to the 20 turbine scheme on the following grounds:

 The proposals would conflict with the purposes of designation of the AONB, in terms of its natural beauty and distinctive qualities.  It would not be possible to sufficiently mitigate against the loss of public benefit associated with the AONB (i.e. recreational experience) that would result from the proposals.  It was not possible to ascertain whether the potential adverse effects on ecology and natural conservation could be adequately addressed by mitigation measures.

Natural England is the Government’s statutory adviser on the conservation of England’s landscape and on the promotion of access to the countryside and open space for recreation, with statutory powers and duties to support the conservation and enhancement of protected landscapes. We believe that these landscapes play a key role in the conservation, enhancement and delivery of the sustainable use and management of England’s natural environment.

Natural England recognises that mitigation of climate change is essential to secure the future of the natural environment and supports measures to increase the amount of energy generated from renewable resources in appropriate locations. However national planning policy supports renewable energy project in protected landscapes only where it can be demonstrated that the objectives of designation will not be compromised by the proposed development.

The current scheme of 13 x 3 MW turbines each 126.5 m high is a revised version of the previous scheme with 20 x 2.5 MW turbines each 126.5 m high. The proposed turbines, though fewer in number, have an improved design with more slender tower and longer blades, and the expected output per turbine is higher. Nevertheless, they still constitute a major development, and the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), which we have compared with the LVIA for the previous scheme, has shown that there will still be substantial adverse impacts over the a zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) of very similar extent.

Site selection and the existing Caton Moor wind farm

Site selection is discussed in Chapter 3 of the ES. As before, we fail to understand why the Claughton Moor site was not filtered out at an early stage.

Section 3.4 (Site selection evaluation of Claughton Moor) assesses acceptability of the site against a range of criteria. In relation to criterion 9 ‘National, Regional and Local policy’; criterion 11 ‘Landscape sensitivity’; criterion 13 ‘Nationally Designated Areas’, and criterion 16 ‘Visual Impact Consideration (likely to have visual impact on views in to the AONB from areas to the north of the site)’, Claughton Moor is assessed as having moderate acceptability. We feel that for these criteria a more realistic assessment would have been poor acceptability.

The conclusions of the Site Selection chapter again confirm the developer’s emphasis on the technical aspects of electricity regeneration and demonstrate that very little weight was given to the AONB and landscape considerations.

Based on the Environmental Statement Sections 3, 7 and the Non-Technical Summary, our reasons for believing that the objectives of the designation will still be compromised, and not outweighed by the benefits, are set out below.

Page 3 of 13 Please send consultations for the North West Region via email to: [email protected] North West Planning, Natural England, Hornbeam House, Crewe Business Park, Electra Way, Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ Effects on the natural beauty and distinctive qualities of the Forest of Bowland and Pendle Hill AONB

The ES has still not addressed the effects of the scheme on the special qualities of the AONB which led to its designation. Since the application for the 20 turbine scheme, Natural England has published its guidance ‘Making space for renewable energy: assessing on-shore wind energy development, 2010’, though this has not been referred to.

The Natural England guidance states on page 17 that ‘The process of assessment and judgement (for protected landscapes) is the same as for non-designated areas: the difference arises from taking into account the value society places on the special qualities of these areas and the additional determinative test of assessing whether major development is likely to compromise the objectives of designation’. It also states that ‘The scale of development is a key factor when assessing the degree that wind energy can be accommodated within a protected landscape’.

The guidance also states that ‘cumulative impacts are important considerations in respect of the setting of protected landscapes’. In this case the combined Claughton Moor and Caton Moor wind farms would dominate a large part of both the protected area and its setting, and would affect perceptions of the Forest of Bowland character when seen from the other areas of protected landscape which are intervisible - the AONB, the National Park and the National Park, and their proposed extensions.

The qualities which led to the Forest of Bowland being identified by the Hobhouse Report of 1947, and eventually to its designation in 1964 as a landscape of national significance for its natural beauty, are still present. They are even being enhanced, according to the most recent Countryside Quality Counts assessment for the period 1999-20031.

The main purpose of the designation is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area, which includes protecting flora, fauna and geological as well as landscape features. Recreational provision is not a primary aim of designation as for National Parks and though fully accepted in the current Management Plan as one of the functions of the AONB, it has to be consistent with the main function which is conservation of natural beauty.

The Forest of Bowland Management Plan 20092 provides further description of the special qualities of the AONB and sets objectives and actions for maintaining and enhancing them, while the related Forest of Bowland Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) 20093 classifies the landscape character types and areas found in the AONB and describes the sense of place to be found in each. The 13 turbine ES has reassessed the effect on the more detailed character types and areas identified in this LCA.

The AONB Management Plan lists the key characteristics of the AONB landscape identified in the Landscape Character Assessment as follows:

 Grandeur and isolation of the upland core  Open expanses of moorland  Cultural landscape of upland farming  Historic landscape management as royal hunting forest and more recently as sporting estates  Rural landscape of dry stone wall enclosed pastures, stone built farms and villages  Wooded pastoral scenery and parkland

1 http://countryside-quality-counts.org.uk/jca/Consultation/OverallAssessment.aspx?CqcJcaID=34 2 http://www.forestofbowland.com/cons_managementplan

3 Forest of Bowland AONB Landscape Character Assessment’, Lancashire County Council September 2009 which can be downloaded from the Forest of Bowland AONB website: http://www.forestofbowland.com/files/uploads/pdfs/strategies/Landscape%20Character_introduction_29-09-09.pdf

Page 4 of 13 Please send consultations for the North West Region via email to: [email protected] North West Planning, Natural England, Hornbeam House, Crewe Business Park, Electra Way, Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ  Steep scraps, deeply incised cloughs and wooded valleys  Broad river valleys  Contrasting gritstone/limestone geology

The AONB Management Plan expands on these under 4 broad headings. The pressures on these characteristics presented both by climatic change and renewable energy developments are recognised, but best practice is seen to apply only to responses which do not conflict with the purpose of designation.

We maintain that if the effects of introducing a 13 turbine wind farm had been assessed against the outstanding qualities described in the Countryside Commission Statement of Intent4, The Forest of Bowland Landscape publication5, it would have been impossible for the Non-technical Summary to conclude that the effects would be slight as it does below in section 8.1:

‘The proposed development would not be detrimental to the Forest of Bowland AONB as when considered as a whole, effects would be comparatively minor. This being so because the effects are limited to the north western part of the AONB, and in particular that part lying between the high plateau between , Ward’s Stone and White Hill and to the north west and north, including part of the Lune Valley.’

We would again strongly refute the assertion that the effect would be minor because only part of the AONB is affected:

 Fells to the south and east of the site do block visibility from the AONB beyond as described in the ES, but they form the highest and most significant uplands of the AONB, so in effect the central core, described in the Forest of Bowland Landscape as dominating the AONB, would itself be affected, with clear views of the whole development being obtained from the summits and ridges which enclose Claughton Moor.

The visual impact of the proposed development on viewpoints from the central fells at viewpoint 7, Clougha Pike, is judged by the LVIA for the 13 turbine scheme to be substantial, as for that of the 20 turbines scheme, but the impact on viewpoint 27 Ward’s Stone, 4.6 km distant, is now assessed as substantial (compared with moderate for the 20 turbine scheme) which implies that the impact was previously underestimated.

 To the north of Caton/Claughton Moor there is still a large area within the AONB, encompassing no less than four Forest of Bowland LCA landscape character types which are D Moorland Fringe, F Undulating Low Farm Land with Wooded Brooks, J Valley Floodplain, and K Drumlin Field, a type which continues northwards outside the AONB. The land drops steeply from Claughton Moor to the Lune Valley, and these types are mostly intervisible.

The ES itself provides compelling evidence that some of the most substantial and significant effects of the development would be on the Lune Valley, from whose south-facing valley slopes open, direct and close views are obtained of the fells and Claughton Moor, the scenic value heightened by the contrast. Some of the landscape character areas and viewpoints affected by the 13 turbines scheme are described below:

Type J Valley Floodplain, area J1 Lune is assessed in the ES as being moderately affected. Within this character area viewpoints 1 (Hornby on the A683 road bridge), 13 (Crook O’ Lune), and 23 (Lune Valley Ramble) are rate as of high sensitivity because they represent visitors who are mainly there to enjoy the special qualities of the area or residents. For each there is a high magnitude of impact, still of substantial significance as assessed for the 20 turbine scheme. For viewpoint 14 (Caton on the A683), with a high magnitude of impact, significance was assessed as substantial for the 20 turbine

4 Forest of Bowland Statement of Intent, Countryside Commission, 1985 5 The Forest of Bowland Landscape, Countryside Commission, 1992 Page 5 of 13 Please send consultations for the North West Region via email to: [email protected] North West Planning, Natural England, Hornbeam House, Crewe Business Park, Electra Way, Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ scheme but only moderate for 13 turbines. We would disagree, as from this direction the photomontage shows that the difference between the two schemes is not marked.

Character area F4 Caton, within the Undulating Low Farm Land with Wooded Brooks landscape type, is not assessed under section 7.6.3 (Effects on wider landscape character). Brookhouse Village, represented by viewpoint 22, is within this character area and would obtain views, probably more so from upper windows. However parts of this character area are outside the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) or would be screened by vegetation.

Type K Drumlin Field, area K1 , in which viewpoints 11 (Minor road near Redwell Fisheries) and 25 (Gressingham village) are set, is assessed as low sensitivity. The ES assessment of the significance of the scheme on these viewpoints is moderate (compared to substantial for the 20 turbine scheme). We would disagree – the photomontage for VP11 shows that the additional 13 turbines would extend the visible area of turbines more than slightly (see chapter 7 page 48) on the skyline and moderate-substantial, or substantial significance would be better description. The photomontage for VP 25 shows that the proposed turbines would be much more dominating than the existing Caton Moor turbines, and would still adversely affect the domed skyline of the moor, which is important in views from this area.

Site visits have established that the general openness and orientation of character area K1 within the AONB makes it more sensitive than the wider area outside the AONB of which it is part. The minor roads which lead to Aughton have direct views towards Claughton Moor, and it would be visible from most of the Lune Walk within the AONB.

Extent of visibility within the AONB

We do not agree with the idea put forward in the ES that the proposed development would just affect areas where the existing wind farm can be seen:

 Despite the visual intrusion of the blades of the two highest Caton Moor turbines on higher ground towards Burn Moor, there are still large expanses of Claughton and Whit Moor, and immediately beyond, from which the Caton Moor wind farm cannot be seen. This is glossed over in the ES, because the area looks small on the map in relation to the extent of the full 35 km radius ZTV. On the ground this is a significant area of land within the AONB, currently completely unaffected, which would be dominated in future by the proposed scheme.

A comparison of the ZTV of the original 20 turbine proposal compared with the existing one showed that an additional area on Claughton Moor of about 14-15 km2 would be included within the ZTV. This will be slightly less for the 13 turbine scheme, but the location of some turbines on the highest part of the moor means that the reduction in size of the scheme does not generally translate into a reduced ZTV.

As before, the extensive moorlands and upland pastures of Goodber Common and Tatham Fells to the east as far as Burn Moor would have clear views of the development where in many cases there is no view of Caton Moor wind farm at present.

 Even where it is possible to see the whole existing wind farm already, the ES conclusion does not take the additional degree of impact of 20 larger turbines compared with the existing 8 into account.

Cumulative effects

The cumulative effects with the existing Caton Moor wind farm were discussed in our letter of 17th February 2010, and although efforts have been made to site individual turbines to avoid visual conflicts as described in the Design and Access Statement, the two wind farms would still be seen as one 21

Page 6 of 13 Please send consultations for the North West Region via email to: [email protected] North West Planning, Natural England, Hornbeam House, Crewe Business Park, Electra Way, Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ turbine scheme, but with one section at a lower elevation, and with smaller turbines which in closer views would be seen as being of a different design.

While there are currently no other consented or operational wind farms with which there could be significant cumulative effects the situation could easily change, and in particular a revised scheme for Longfield Tarn wind farm near Kirkby Stephen is likely to be submitted, which would be intervisible with the Claughton Moor scheme. To the west, the perception of clutter around Lancaster, caused particularly by nuclear power station and the pylons which converge on it, and which could be exacerbated by proposed wind energy schemes, would be repeated on the nearby hills, with a consequent perception in the wider landscape of the expansion of urban and industrial influence into an area which is currently renowned for its tranquillity and unspoilt countryside. The cumulative effects of the combined Claughton Moor and Caton Moor wind farms on protected landscapes other than the Forest of Bowland are discussed below.

Recently, following public consultation on the areas proposed for extension of the Lake District National Park and the Yorkshire Dales National Park, revised boundary proposals have been made available on Natural England’s website.6 The following also assesses the likely effects of the proposals on these areas.

Cumulative effects on Arnside and Silverdale AONB

Overall, we consider that the change to perceptions of the Forest of Bowland landscape character as seen from the Arnside and Silverdale AONB is likely to be greater than assessed in the ES, as even at over 10 km distance the extended wind farm will appear as more intrusive than the existing, and in some weather conditions may be a focal point in the view as it breaks the generally smooth outline of the Forest of Bowland upland more than the existing lower turbines. The greater elevation and height of the Claughton Moor turbines will also appear to reduce the relative height of the upland mass. We consider that the wind farm would therefore have at least a slight impact on the Arnside and Silverdale AONB itself though the varied character of the AONB would reduce the overall effect. The viewpoints assessed are discussed below.

From viewpoint 17, , in the AONB, at a distance of 11.6 km the ES assesses the additional cumulative effect with the Caton Moor turbines, as for the previous 20 turbine scheme, as slight. From this elevated location which represents similar viewpoints elsewhere in the AONB, the existing Caton Moor turbines are mostly backgrounded, but most of the proposed additional turbines will be visible on the skyline. We would not agree that the cumulative effect is only slight.

From Viewpoint 30, Jenny Brown's Point, at a distance of 12.7 km, all 13 turbines will be visible on the horizon, together with the existing Caton Moor turbines which are at a lower elevation. The ES assesses the significance of the change, as for the previous 20 turbine scheme, as only slight. We would disagree with this as while the view is broad and the wind farm distant, the location is of high sensitivity and as for viewpoint 17, the increase in size of the wind farm and greater elevation of turbines will be very noticeable due to skylining.

Viewpoint 29, Hutton Roof, at 12.7 km distance is not within the Arnside and Silverdale AONB but Farleton Hill/Hutton Roof was identified in the report ‘Recommended Area of Search for Land Worthy of Designation in the North West of England, March 2005’ by Alison Farmer Associates. Whilst Natural England currently has no plans to take forward the Hutton Roof area, the report examines the quality of the landscape and concludes that its special qualities make it worthy of further consideration for designation. The proposed turbines, as with the existing Caton Moor turbines, would be backgrounded from this elevated viewpoint. The cumulative effect is therefore likely to be less than on the existing protected landscape of Arnside and Silverdale, but we still believe that the additional impact of the proposed turbines with the Caton Moor turbines will be more than ‘slight’, particularly since the existing turbines are lower in the landscape.

6 http://www.lakestodaleslandscapes.org.uk/downloads

Page 7 of 13 Please send consultations for the North West Region via email to: [email protected] North West Planning, Natural England, Hornbeam House, Crewe Business Park, Electra Way, Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ

Cumulative effects on Lake District National Park and proposed extension

We generally concur with the ES on its assessment of impact on the Lake District National Park, although there has been no assessment of effect on the proposed area of extension (the Brigsteer area to the south east of Kendal).

At 23 km from the proposed wind farm, we agree that although the turbines would be visible on the skyline in clear weather conditions, the significance of the effect on viewpoint 18, Hampsfell Cairn, within the Lake District National Park, will be slight. At 24 km distance, we also agree that the impact on viewpoint 19, Cumbria Coastal Way, near Sampool Bridge, would also be slight.

The area proposed for extension of the Lake District National Park, lies north of viewpoint 19. From the higher areas, which would be around 26-27 km distant, it is likely that the turbines would be visible in good weather but unlikely that the impact would be significant.

Cumulative effects on Yorkshire Dales National Park and proposed extensions

Overall, we would consider that the proposed wind farm would have a slight effect on the special qualities of the areas of the Yorkshire Dales National Park which are intervisible, but that it would be of increased significance because it would be visible from very extensive areas of the high and open escarpment and not just a few selected viewpoints. The perceived character of the Forest of Bowland, as seen from the National Park would be adversely affected. The viewpoints assessed are discussed below.

Viewpoint 4, A65 near Westhouse is on the boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Park, 13 km distant. The ES assesses impact as slight, but we believe that the cumulative effect will be significantly more than the Caton Moor scheme alone because the turbines will be skylined, extend over a wider area, more of each turbine will be visible and they will be at a higher elevation.

We would agree that from viewpoint 4, , the effect would be slight because the turbines would be both distant, at 19 km, and backgrounded (although in some light conditions turbines stand out more when backgrounded). They would be dwarfed by the scale of the landscape but would still be more noticeable than the Caton Moor scheme alone.

The impact on viewpoint 21, Pen-y-ghent, is also likely to be slight due to distance (27 km), but again it would be noticeably greater than the impact of the existing scheme alone.

From the at viewpoint 24, the distant Claughton Moor wind farm would be a less significant element in the view than the cumulative effects of the existing turbines at Lambrigg, and proposed turbines at Longfield Tarn and Armistead.

Within the proposed Yorkshire Dales National Park extension the cumulative effect on viewpoint 20, (Leck Fells) is assessed as slight, at 17.2 km distance. We would consider that though backgrounded, the additional impact could be more than slight in some weather conditions.

Viewpoint 2, on the A65 near the A683 junction near Kirkby Lonsdale is on the boundary of the proposed extension area, at around 13.5 km distance (it is stated as 15 km in the LVIA, 13.7 km on the photomontage). In this case we do not agree with the assessment of the additional impact as slight, as it is clear from the photomontage that it will be much more prominent than the Caton Moor scheme alone, as the turbines would be fully visible on the skyline whereas the Caton ones are not, they would extend the area of skyline affected, and in relation to the topography would appear to diminish the height of the Forest of Bowland uplands. However the proposed Longfield Tarn wind farm (not shown on this photomontage or discussed) is closer and would be much more intrusive.

Access and recreation

Page 8 of 13 Please send consultations for the North West Region via email to: [email protected] North West Planning, Natural England, Hornbeam House, Crewe Business Park, Electra Way, Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ

The effects of the 13 turbine wind farm are likely to be very similar to those described for the 20 turbine wind scheme in our letter of 17th February 2010.

Mitigation

Proposed benefits from better land management funded by the development could be attained by other means, including Higher Level Stewardship agreements for which Caton/Claughton/Whit Moor is currently a priority area.

Conclusions

We consider that the 13 turbine wind farm would still have a very significant and severe adverse impact on the perception of isolation and grandeur associated with the central core of the Forest of Bowland, of which Claughton/Whit/Caton Moor forms an extension. It would still affect around a fifth of the AONB including most of the designated landscape to the north and west of the central core, which includes complementary but contrasting upland moorland, wooded clough and valley floodplain landscapes. The reduced scheme would still dominate the Lune Valley. The development would still interfere with the varied and often scenic compositions created by the different landscape types as the viewpoint changes, with attention drawn to moving turbines instead, and the integrity of the wider landscape would therefore be lost. It is also clear that not only would surrounding existing protected landscapes have open views of the turbines, several large areas proposed for extension under the current Lakes-Dales boundary revision would be adversely affected.

Page 9 of 13 Please send consultations for the North West Region via email to: [email protected] North West Planning, Natural England, Hornbeam House, Crewe Business Park, Electra Way, Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ Ecology

Impacts on statutory designated sites (Forest of Bowland Special Protection Area)

As mentioned in our previous letter this application may impact on the Forest of Bowland Special Protection Area, and the specific interest feature Hen Harrier. This application must therefore be considered in accordance with Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2010. Based on the information provided, we believe that there is now sufficient survey detail to demonstrate that Hen Harrier are unlikely to be at risk of collision with turbines. The majority of the hen harrier flights across the survey site were recorded at a height below the lower tip of the proposed turbines. We concur that this is typical behaviour for hunting hen harrier. Furthermore, we are not aware of any roost or nesting sites within the vicinity of the application site. All records of hen harrier flights recorded by the developer and also by Natural England specialist research staff, can therefore be attributed to foraging birds.

Available information concludes that the application site is largely within an area that is used during all months of the year by foraging and hunting Hen Harrier. Hen Harrier activity may be higher at certain times, but there is firm evidence that this is an important site for foraging SPA species. We believe that without suitable mitigation, adverse effect on the integrity of the Forest of Bowland SPA is possible. Research suggests that hen harrier can become displaced by the presence of wind turbines up to a distance of 300 m. Therefore the overall loss of available foraging habitat for hen harrier can extend up to 300 m from the wind farm site, this amounts to almost 250 ha. Without compensation of this loss of suitable foraging habitat, no Likely Significant Effect on the SPA cannot be concluded and an Appropriate Assessment would be required. Community Windpower have made some attempts to demonstrate that these impacts will be mitigated within the outline Environmental Management Plan. In order to satisfy the test under the Habitats Regulations and conclude no likely significant effect, it must be demonstrated that the details of suitable mitigation are provided, in addition to the confirmation that mitigation can and will be implemented and delivered in full for the life of the wind farm scheme (including pre-construction and decommissioning). Whilst we accept that the final draft of the Environmental Management Plan can form the basis of an appropriate planning condition, we would still require assurance that the land outside the planning application boundary can be secured for delivery of mitigation. This additional mitigation land as detailed in Figure 1 Environmental Management Plan Area must also be thoroughly surveyed prior to developing the mitigation plan in order to ascertain the existing biodiversity interests. We believe that there are still gaps in the baseline information for the proposed mitigation land.

Non-statutory designated sites

This scheme has the potential to adversely affect 5 Biological Heritage Sites including Claughton Moor, Caton Moor, Swaintley Hill Fields, Faithwaite Wood, and Grassland Adjoining Faithwaite Wood. Impacts on these sites should be avoided wherever possible. Where impacts cannot be avoided, suitable compensation or mitigation should be provided. We believe there is still insufficient information regarding the potential effects of this proposal on the interest of the BHS sites, as such, we do not believe that the mitigation suggested in the Environmental Management Plan can be accepted. We have discussed the need for a S106 agreement or similar to ensure delivery, they have mentioned in the Environmental Management Plan that a S106 will be developed.

Protected Species

We are concerned that there is no inclusion of any of the field survey data included within the planning application documents. It is therefore difficult to ascertain the validity of the surveys conducted.

Great Crested Newt

The applicant has not demonstrated that a full assessment of impacts on European protected species has been undertaken. All ponds/ wetland areas within a minimum distance of 250 m of

Page 10 of 13 Please send consultations for the North West Region via email to: [email protected] North West Planning, Natural England, Hornbeam House, Crewe Business Park, Electra Way, Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ the development should be assessed for suitability for supporting great crested newt, further surveys in accordance with the Great Crested Newt mitigation guidelines should then be undertaken on any ponds recorded as being suitable. In the absence of sufficient survey data, impacts on great crested newt cannot be fully assessed. Protected species are a material consideration in planning terms as stated in Part IV paragraphs 98 and 99 of Circular 06/2005 which accompanies PPS9, ‘Biodiversity and Geological Conservation’.

Bats

The various ES documents have reported inconsistent survey data relating to bat emergence surveys, again it is therefore difficult to determine which is the factual version. The field survey data including maps, field notes should be provided to justify how assessments have been made. We would also recommend that survey methodologies are clearly outlined to demonstrate which best practice guidance was used since the report refers to both Bat Conservation Trust Guidelines and Eurobats Guidance however, it is unclear how each of these have been applied. We have further concerns about potential impacts on bats commuting along the low wall to the East of the application site. We do not believe there is sufficiently robust survey data to enable us to determine the full impact on bat species as a result of this scheme.

Otters

Otter surveys have been conducted intermittently between 2009 and 2011, and all results have concluded that impacts will be insignificant. However, the Environmental Management Plan has included provisions for mitigation of impacts on otter. We would wish to see further clarification about whether the EMP prescriptions for otter are proposed as enhancement or mitigation. Any enhancement for otter should not be within the vicinity of the access track or immediate area of development of the wind farm to avoid accidental death or injury to otter.

Breeding Birds

There is likely to be a significant loss of area available for breeding birds, breeding waders from within the application site and a displacement distance of 500 m from the turbines. This essentially amounts to sterilisation of an area of approximately 360 ha where birds will not continue to breed.

As we mentioned above, there is potential to mitigate these impacts through provision of alternate compensation land of at least 360 m outwith the disturbance zone of the wind farm. This compensation land must be in addition to any compensation for loss of foraging grounds for Hen harrier. Again we would wish to see some assurance that this is achievable for the life of the wind farm project. This should be included within the S106 agreement.

UK BAP

Common toad, common lizard amongst numerous butterfly and other invertebrates will also be affected by this development. Impacts on these species have not been adequately assessed and incorporated into the Environmental Management Plan.

Habitats

Blanket Bog

The majority of the physical footprint of the proposal is on blanket bog. This is a Natura 2000 Annex 1 priority habitat on the (EU Habitats Directive). As a member state, we therefore have an obligation to protect such habitat from further loss or degradation. Natural England have provided the applicant with advice and guidance at both pre-application and during earlier versions of the ES for this scheme regarding the requirement for further and more thorough

Page 11 of 13 Please send consultations for the North West Region via email to: [email protected] North West Planning, Natural England, Hornbeam House, Crewe Business Park, Electra Way, Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ assessment of impacts on blanket bog and blanket peat. We note that under the current scheme layout, 9 turbines still appear to be positioned within areas of blanket bog, in addition to access tracks.

We have advised the applicant on a number of occasions to develop a conceptual model of the peat body within the functional hydrological unit where the wind farm is proposed. This study needs to establish the structure of the peat, the properties of the peat, and the hydraulic conductivity of the peat. In the absence of this information, it is not possible to determine the direct, localised and indirect effects of the development. Developing this conceptual model is an important step in assessing the impacts of developing a wind farm on blanket peat, and should be done prior to consideration of any mitigation.

Peatlands are also an important carbon store. The placing of wind farms on blanket bogs can disrupt their carbon budget, leading to a greater carbon outputs from the system and turning it from a carbon sink to a carbon source. We have recommended that the applicant undertake further study to assess this shift in the carbon budget through the various impacts of the development through direct habitat loss, and increased drainage, and any potential for mass movement of the peat.

Heathland

There is likely to be a loss of 2.18 ha of heathland along the route off the access track. Where possible, heath habitats should be avoided, or where unavoidable this loss of habitat should be compensated in full.

Acid Grassland

The development will entail loss of approximately 7 ha of acid grassland, this should also be compensated. Details should be provided in the Environmental Management Plan.

Species-rich grassland

An area of species rich grassland will be lost at the north end of the site by the new access track. There is insufficient detail, including species composition of this grassland. In the absence of this information, appropriate mitigation/compensation cannot be considered.

Environmental Management Plan

We believe that the Environmental Management Plan is currently incomplete. The general principle behind the EMP seems to be to offer a large area of land to offset loss of land through the development. The proposed mitigation area has not been surveyed to assess the range and extent of existing biodiversity interest within each of the land parcels. This must be established prior to developing the detailed mitigation/compensation designs for each habitat and species affected by the wind farm proposal.

Paragraph 1 in section 2 suggests that all habitat creation and management needed for compensation and mitigation will be squeezed into land available through the three land owners involved. This also suggests that a search for appropriate sites looking closely at site condition that complements the objectives for required mitigation, has not be undertaken.

The EMP states that further geotechnical surveys are required to inform the final scheme layout, this information should be provided within the application to enable the determining authority to make an informed decision about the impacts of this development. The EMP suggests that there will be a loss of approximately 17.5 ha of habitat, however this has not accounted for indirect loss of habitat particularly blanket bog, through changes in drainage and additional drying out of the peat around turbine bases

Page 12 of 13 Please send consultations for the North West Region via email to: [email protected] North West Planning, Natural England, Hornbeam House, Crewe Business Park, Electra Way, Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ and within the vicinity of access tracks. This figure is also likely to change as a result of any micro-siting of turbines as informed by the geotechnical surveys.

The report suggests that the access ‘floating’ track will not allow continuous flow of water through the upper peat membrane, but would impede water movement and act as a dam. This further suggests that some drying out on one side of the access track will occur. Where floating roads are used, we would expect the objectives of such design to enable site hydrology to be unaffected.

There is a clear admittance within the report that there is a requirement for a specialist in peat and peat hydrology to provide expertise to inform the mitigation design. This also suggests that this is a complex topic and requires further work.

We would also wish to see a soil/ peat management method statement to show the detail of any proposed habitat translocation and reinstatement works.

We have discussed site management for the compensation of loss of foraging habitat for raptors particularly Hen Harrier, also Merlin and Peregrine. We have also had discussions with the applicant and RSPB regarding replacement areas for breeding waders. This seems to form the basis of the management plan and should this be refined and presented in more detail with inclusion of a monitoring and review scheme, and commitment to delivery secured through a legally binding or S106 agreement, we would accept that impacts on ornithology can be successfully mitigated at this site.

Otter are present in the area, therefore measures need to be put in place to protect otter during construction and operation, particularly from increased vehicular movement along the access road. Works within a watercourse known to be used by otter may require a European protected species licence from NE.

Favourable site management for amphibians cannot be assumed until further surveys, particularly great crested newt, are completed in order to determine whether protected species will be impacted by this scheme. The amphibian management and mitigation plan should be informed by full survey information.

The mitigation for reptiles also needs further information, there is no plan showing where a suitable receptor site will be for any necessary translocation and how this area will be safeguarded during construction and operation.

There is currently no evidence within the EMP of how loss of habitats included heathland and species- rich grassland will be compensated. The EMP outlines measures that will enhance existing areas of habitat that may be under poor management, this needs to be further quantified to ensure there is no net loss in biodiversity, and also that there is significant enhancement to offset the adverse effects of the development.

Until such an Environmental Management Plan is produced and agreed to by ourselves, RSPB, Lancashire County Council ecologist, Lancashire Wildlife Trust and Lancaster City Council, and developed into a legally binding document, we are unable to withdraw our objection.

Page 13 of 13 Please send consultations for the North West Region via email to: [email protected] North West Planning, Natural England, Hornbeam House, Crewe Business Park, Electra Way, Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ