Development No weeks on Parish Ward Listed by: Management day of Ref No committee F/2010/2266 29/16 Arborfield and Arborfield, and Head of Newland, Shinfield South Development Shinfield Wards Management
Applicant Partnerships for Renewables Location Land at Rushy Mead South of Lower Earley Way (Uppetwood Farm) Shinfield RG2 9,414 Proposal The proposed erection, 25 year operation and subsequent decommissioning of a wind energy development comprising of the following elements: Four wind turbines, each with a maximum overall height (to vertical blade tip) of up to 130 metres, together with new and upgraded access tracks temporary works, hardstanding areas, control and metering, building, cabling, improved vehicular access from Cutbush Lane and the A327, an anemometry mast and compensatory flood storage. Type Other largescale major development PS Category 6 Officer Laura Callan
FOR CONSIDERATION BY Planning committee on 27 April 201 1 REPORT PREPARED BY Head of Development Management
SUMMARY
The proposal is to erect 4 wind turbines up to a height of 130m (from ground level to vertical blade tip) and 80m to centre of hublnacelle. The development would also involve the creation of new and upgraded access tracks and hardstanding areas to allow construction, access and maintenance. In order to access the site with abnormal loads works to the public highway would be required. An anemometry mast 80m high would also be required on the site to allow continued monitoring of wind speed data. The development is proposed to have a 25 year operation. The proposal is considered to require an Environmental Impact Assessment under the Environmental lmpact Assessment regulations. An assessment has been submitted and given due consideration.
National Planning Policy such as PPSl and PPS 22 advises that increased development of renewable energy resources is vital in order to deliver the governments commitments to reduce emissions and tackle climate change. PPS22 advises that renewable energy projects should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. A balance has to be struck between the need for renewable energy and potential harm to environment and amenity.
The proposed development would generate between 15.7 and 21.9 GWh of electricity and would contribute to approximately 5% of the sub-regional renewable energy target as set out in South East Plan Policy NRM14.
An Environmental lmpact Assessment (EIA) has been carried out to identify and address the impacts upon traffic and transport, noise, landscape and visual impacts, Part of the site is within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and a flood risk assessment has been carried out and appropriate flood mitigation measures proposed, including compensatory flood storage. The Environment Agency is satisfied that the development would not have an unacceptable impact upon flood risk subject to a detailed flood compensation scheme to be agreed by condition should the application be approved.
Relevant consultees have confirmed that subject to conditions or a legal agreement to secure proposed mitigation measures where required, the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm in terms of impact upon potential ecological receptors including protected species and sites of nature conservation value, subject to accordance with the mitigation set out in the relevant chapters of the Environmental Statement (ES) received 8 October 2010 and Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI) received 7 March 201 1.
The initial objections raised by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the Council's Ecologist in terms of impacts upon ornithology were withdrawn following the further detail and proposed mitigation measures recommended in the SEI received 7 March 201 1.
The Council's Environmental Health department have assessed the impact of the proposed development in terms of noise and shadow flicker and are satisfied with these aspects of the Environmental Impact Assessment and that subject to accordance with conditions, the development could be satisfactorily accommodated without unacceptable harm to amenity.
However, it has not been demonstrated that the development can be accommodated without unacceptable harm to the landscape character and visual amenity of the site and surroundings. The undeveloped countryside location is highly valued locally for its remoteness and rural characteristics. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Core Strategy Policies CP3 and CP11 and saved Local Plan Policy WLL4.
It is also considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the heritage assets of Grade II listed Oldhouse Farmhouse and Barn and Grade I1 listed Carters Hill House, contrary to PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment.
National Guidance such as The Energy White Paper (2007) and The Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 promotes and supports renewable energy development. This is reiterated in national planning policy guidance such as PPSl and the climate change companion document and PPS22, Renewable Energy which encourages renewable energy development where environmental, economic and social impacts to be satisfactorily addressed. Policy NRM 15 of the South East Plan states that renewable energy development, particularly wind and biomass, should be located and designed to minimise adverse impacts on landscape, wildlife, heritage assets and amenity.
Therefore, significant weight must be given to the renewable energy benefits of the proposal however it is not overriding as the development must be sited where environmental, economic and social impacts can be satisfactorily addressed.
Having given significant weight to the renewable energy benefits of the proposal, on balance, the wider environmental and economic benefits do not outweigh the harm identified to heritage assets and landscape character and visual amenity and accordingly the recommendation is that the application be refused.
The application is brought before the planning committee at the request of the Head of Development Management. PLANNING STATUS a Overhead Cables Badger Sett consultation zone Public Footpath (no. 2) Arborfield Byway no.3 Gas Pipes Archaeological Site Local Wildlife sites Ancient Woodland - St Johns Copse Groundwater Zone 1 and 2 Listed Buildings Within 5km of SPA Sand and gravel extraction Strategic development location - South of M4 (boundary of site falls just within boundary of SDL in south western corner of site) Land liable to flooding - Flood Zone 2 and 3
.. . -. . . RECOMMENDA~ON ...... -- -. . . .- -7 he applicationbe refused planning consent for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development would have an unacceptable substantial and significant effect upon the landscape character of the site and surrounding area which is highly valued locally for its remoteness and rural characteristics. This is contrary to Core Strategy Policies CP3 and CP11 and saved Local Plan Policy WLL4. The renewable energy benefits of the proposed development are not considered to outweigh the harm identified and the proposal would therefore be contrary to PPS22 Renewable Energy and South East Plan Policy NRM15.
2. The proposed wind turbines by virtue of their size and location, in close proximity to a number of settlements would have a significant effect on the setting and visual amenity of these settlements including private land, public vantage points, footpaths and transport routes. The proposal fails to demonstrate how the development will protect the separate identity of the settlements and maintain the quality of the environment and therefore conflicts with Core Strategy Policy CP11 and CP3. The renewable energy benefits of the proposed development are not considered to outweigh the harm identified and the proposal would therefore be contrary to PPS22 Renewable Energy and South East Plan Policy NRM15.
3. The proposed development would result in material harm to the significance of the Grade II listed Farmhouse and Barn at Oldhouse Farmhouse (LB41457 and LB41458). The rural, isolated landscape setting within which this farmstead is experienced, and to which it relates, contribute to its aesthetic and historic interest. The overwhelming scale, industrial nature, and combined group impact of the proposed turbines are considered to harm this setting and as a result erode the heritage significance of the listed buildings. The renewable energy benefits of the proposed development are not considered to outweigh the harm identified and the proposal would therefore be contrary to PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment, PPS22 Renewable Energy, South East Plan Policy NRM15 and Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3.
4. The proposed development would result in significant harm to the Grade II Listed Building Carters Hill House (LB41458). In having consideration of views 'of and 'from' the heritage asset in accordance with PPS5, it is considered that turbines 3 and 4 would be visible and prominent within views from the Listed Building and its curtilage and the turbines would appear as industrial features of a scale that are disproportionate to the natural scale of the tree-lined lanes and wooded valley. As a result, the development would cause unacceptable harm to the setting and erode the significance of the Listed building contrary to PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment. The renewable energy benefits of the proposed development are not considered to outweigh the harm identified and the proposal would therefore be contrary to PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment, PPS22 Renewable Energy, South East Plan Policy NRMI 5 and Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3.
PLANNING HISTORY
F1200811725 The erection of a single anemometry mast, no more than 70m in heiaht. Temoorarv consent 25 Seatember 2008. Consent for 24 mo;lths. (Mast nod removed) VARROI 011624 Application to vary condition 4 of F1200811725 to allow retention of anemometry mast for a further 18 months. Application refused by the Planning Committee 15 October 2010 for the following reason:
'The Local Planning Authority is nof safisfied that there is adequafe jusfificafion for retention of the anemometer as proposed and as such there are no rnaferial considerations which outweigh fhe unacceptable harm caused to the visual amenity and character of the countryside location. The proposal is therefore contrary to PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, Core Strategy Policies CP3 General Principles for Development and CPI1 Proposals Outside Developmenf Limifs. '
SUMMARY INFORMATION For Commercial Site Area Total Site Area 202.06 hectares.
Site area of actual proposed development equates to 6.53ha (total rotational area of the turbines added to the footprint of ancillary structures and engineering works) CONSULTATION RESPONSES
'arish Councils Arborfield - Objection Attached. The Parish also submitted a wind speed map and a report on wind turbine noise, sleep and health which has been forwarded to members of the planning committee for consideration. Wokingham Without - No objection Winnersh - Objection, visual amenity Finchampstead - No comment Sonning - No comment Shinfield - Objection Woodley - No comment Swallowfield -objection - limited output compared to loss of amenity, impact upon flooding, impact upon bird and bats, view from Farley Hill harmful to rural character, noise, health. Earley - Objection due to loss of visual amenity, potential noise problems and flooding issues. ~ouncillors Councillor Cockroft - Objection Cllr Jorgensen -objection due to visual impact, proximity to local residents, concern regarding noise and health, impact upon flooding, and traffic during construction Cllr Cowan -objection due to visual harm, to the inefficient and outmoded form of electricity generation, health and safety due to fire and ice should be considered, impact upon health due to noise and shadow flicker, harm to walkers, cyclists, horse riders and those enjoying countryside pursuits. Contrary to PPS22 and CPI. Sequential test should be applied. Harm to heritage assets and historic environment. Difficulties in implementing noise conditions would lead to harm to residents. Wider benefits of scheme do not outweigh the harms identified. Cllr Haitham-Taylor- site context differs from Green Park being within an area south of the M4 which is more rural in character, visually intrusive impacting upon residential amenity of residents of Shinfield, Arborfield, Sindlesham and Lower Earley, harm to recreational users of the countryside particularly equestrian uses due to proximity to byway, fails to protect separate identity of settlements and enjoyment of countryside, potential impacts may result in inhabitable dwellings, flood risk should take precedent over PPS22, harm to listed buildings, impact upon wildlife and woodland, concern that conditions regarding noise will be difficult to enforce. On balance, the potential renewable energy generation should not outweigh harm caused to amenity, ecological, heritage and landscape features. qeighbouring Authority No comment - Reading Borough Council 7ights of Way Officer No unacceptable impact upon Arborfield Public Footpath no. 2 and no objection subject to informatives. 200m distance is proposed from Arborfield Public Byway 3 (Barretts Lane). No objection. rrees and Landscape Objection. Significant and negative landscape and visual effects. Conservation Officer Objection. Significant effects upon listed buildings. Environmental Health No objection. Conditions recommended Archaeology No objection subject to conditions to ensure a programme of archaeological work is prepared and submitted and until fencing has been erected to satisfaction of Berkshire Archaeology and LPA. Highways and No objection subject to conditions, legal agreement and Drainage Section 278 agreement to secure highway works. Countryside Officer No objection in terms of impact upon ecological value of the site subject to the mitigation measures contained in the EIA being implemented. Fire and Rescue No additional fire hydrants required. Service Thames Water No objection. Civil Aviation Authority No objection subject to appropriate consultation with relevant stakeholders. BAA Airports No objection. No conflict with safeguarding criteria. Ministry of Defence No objection subject to re-consultation on any amendments to scheme and provision of details should planning permission be granted. NATS No objection. No conflict with safeguarding criteria Environment Agency No objection subject to conditions. Woodland Trust It is recommended that the track and turbine are placed as far away from the woodland (St Johns Copse) as is reasonable (this should be at least 100m away). RSPB No objection subject to a legal agreement to secure further studies and mitigation measures. English Heritage No objection in terms of impact upon Grade II* and Grade I listed buildings. Impact upon Grade II listed buildings not assessed (to be carried out by local conservation officer). Binfield Badger Group Objection due to lack of attention to an assessment of badgers and lack of mapping of badger territories. Thames Water No objection
REPRESENTATIONS 1 Consultation carried out by Local Planning Authoritv 1. The Councils Procedure is to notify those within 60m of the site however the adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) states that there will be opportunities for wider consultation and local involvement for more controversial 'significant' planning applications. According to the SCI, this proposal could be considered a Tier 1 or Tier 2 application being of considerable scale and controversy and may raise more than neighbourhood interest. As such, the SCI sets out what is expected of the applicants and the Local Planning Authority in terms of consultation.
2. The SCI expects a leaflet to be prepared and distributed by the applicants and a consultation statement and supporting planning statement to be submitted with the application. The Local Planning Authority are to send letters to statutory bodies, neighbours, relevant parish and town councils and ward councillors and application details and plans displayed on council website, site notices, allow 21 days for consultation, medialpress release (at discretion of council on tier 2 apps), inform those who commented of significant changes to plans, inform those who commented of decision made.
3. The Local Planning Authority has carried out the statutory consultation required and that which is recommended in the SCI. Given that this is not a site connected with council land or promoted by the Council a press release has not been issued.
4. In determining the number of addresses to be informed of the application by letter, the following calculation was used. PPS22 Renewable Energy, recommends that noise is audible at a distance of up to 350m and in terms of shadow flicker the document recommends consultation distances of 10 times the proposed rotor diameter. The turbines propose a 100m rotor diameter x 10 = 1000m (Ikm). The greater of the two totals is 1km. Due to the scale of the proposal the Local Planning Authority decided upon a distance of 50% above this level and the resultant radius of consultation was agreed at 1.5km from the site which involved 6, 621 addresses.
5. There have been 91 1 written representations made to the Local Planning Authority
Comments Received in Support of Application
Residents and Local Groups
Berkshire Friends of the Earth Network: Support Application. Reduce carbon emissions, contribution to energy security by reducing dependence on fossil fuels and reducing exposure to potentially rising prices, improve balance of payments by reducing imports of fossil fuels. Complies with renewable energy targets.
A petition has been received from 32 residents within Earley in support of the application stating that it is well sited and designed and represents a significant benefit.
A petition with 133 signatures has been received from Reading University Students Union supporting the project because on shore wind power is considered to be one of the most progressive, well established and cost-effective renewable energy technologies.
' Summary of representations received in support
Contribution to addressing climate change Berkshire should contribute to national targets No proven health issues No increase risk of flooding from turbines -global warming increases flood risk Communities where wind turbines have been installed all report a high level of satisfaction A step towards a sustainable community Excellent example of decentralised energy infrastructure Would not harm visual amenityllandscape Symbolic of a future powered by clean renewable energy Wind turbine design improvements of recent years have resulted in less noise and the lower wind speeds of the area would lead to less noise than turbines in high wind speed locations. Environmental impact outweighed by environmental advantages
Q Turbines can be seen as quiet and graceful and are a dynamic modern beauty and like power cables or motorways they should be part of modern life. e Wind power is needed as part of the solution to provide secure energy and reduce dependency on fuel imports
Q Can be considered an interesting landmark such as the turbine at Green Park e Some compromise should be made between visual impact and need for renewable energy.
Q On shore wind turbines are capable of rapid delivery and at much lower cost than off-shore.
Q Benefits of reduction in fossil fuel use outweighs the efficiency concerns of turbines.
Q Visual landmark that the Borough takes its renewable energy seriously Well sited and well designed Prior consultation exercises carried out by applicant have been timely and transparent. Structures sit benignly in the landscape attracting nothing more than fleeting compliments and causing no harm. There is a lot of quiet support for wind energy a Has the possibility to be an exemplar project o Enjoyment of countryside will not be harmed A view of wind turbines, even if considered visually harmful is a better consequence of our need for electricity than devastating floods or drought.
Q Existing wind turbine at Green Park is not an eyesore and is not noisy. 1 Summary of Comments Received Obiecting to Application I (the comments provided in ifalics are comments of the planning case officer' in response) Residents and Local Groups I HARM - Householders Against Rushy Mead I Q It is not in the public interest to allow significant ongoing negative effects to the amenity of many residents living within 1.5km of the development and impacts upon Sindlesham, Arborfield, Lower Earley and Shinfield e Is not appropriately located development for wind energy given the low wind resource and the proximity to and consequent blight to the amenity of thousands of people.
Q South east plan suggests that Kent, Hants, Isle of Wight, Thames Valley and Surrey appear to have the greatest potential for onshore wind development. Thames valley and surrey sub regions appear to have the greatest potential for biomass fuelled electricity. The Borough is exceeding the government target for wind electricity due to the single wind turbine at green park
Q Wind turbines will add to the flood risk because of the additional structure being placed on the flood plain contrary to CP1
Q This differs to the Green Park Turbine which was not considered to impact upon the open character of the countryside because of the commercial backdrop of the business park and surrounding area Development would be within an attractive and intimate rural environment in an otherwise heavily developed M4 corridor. ETSU R 97 is inadequate The size of turbine needed to generate the low level of output is disproportionate to the potential benefits that will be achieved. Alternative forms of renewable energy are therefore better suited to the site. Contrary to CP3 Lower Earley faced with noise, loss of visual amenity, loss of enjoyment of open space. Carters Hill, Arborfield Cross, Church Lane and Mole Road will be most affected Contrary to CP3 Harm to Carters hill house and Old Bartholemew Church contrary to CP3 and CS33 of South East Plan Dominant, harm to character of area contrary to CP3 Harm to framework of open space in terms of network of byways and bridle ways and implications for horse riders Housing stock significantly deteriorated in quality due to being unattractive place to live as a result of the development particularly carters hill and Lower Earley Way. Does not accord with CP11 in terms of contributing to diverse and sustainable rural enterprises within the borough. Does not accord with policy CP11 in that it leads to excessive encroachment and expansion of development within countryside and harm to enjoyment of countryside contrary to PPS7 Disruption during construction contrary to WBE3 of WDLP (saved policy) Negative impact upon LoddonlBlackwater Riverside Footpath contrary to Policy WR17 of WDLP (Saved Policy) No objection raised from rights of way officer and no indication fhat fhe aims of fhis policy could not be confinued Contrary to Policy WLL3 of the WDLP due to adverse effects upon hedgerows and species rich meadows and wetlands. This policy is applicable to the Thames Riverside not fhis site. Impact upon wildlife corridor Policy WNC7 Contrary to PPSl in terms of nothing to improve the quality of life, turbine size disproportionate to the opportunity for energy generation, does not protect quality
and character of countrvside, does not suooort. . local communities and business.' harm to byways and fooipathk putting pressure on other areas of open space Contrary to Scottish guidance and guidance from Denmark, that areas of search should maintain a separation distance of up to 2km between areas. 0 Lack of community involvement and consultation A recycling waste and reuse of materials plant such as the Grundon Plant at Colnbrook is far more appropriate. B Failure to take account of the provision of SANG within the adjacent SDL and the links with the existing wildlife corridors within the site Flood Risk - the applicant has not demonstrated that there are other suitable sites contrary to PPS25 and sequential test. Lack of detail in FRA. No maintenance plan included with FRA. Flood compensation scheme is at minimum level, flooding has not been tracked historically on the site.
Q False picture created regarding the rurallrecreational economy of the area in terms of failure of applicant to acknowledge who currently has access to the land and can pass through the site. Objection to loss of hedgerow U 0 Objection to bird survey, criteria set was not impartial as it was set by SNH in conjunction with British Wind Energy Association The BOC survey is not mentioned. Adverse impacts upon flooding could affect Kingfishers and snipe, risk of collision from geese, grebe, heron and swans, surveys have covered presence but not detail of behaviour, lack of acknowledgement of Redwing and Fieldfare which have been seen along Barratts lane, species of decline have been sighted, prey are common on the site but would be displaced should turbines be implemented, owls are more common that that suggested in ES, gravelpit woods was not surveyed however ES indicates it was, the site excludes the waterside area from A327 to Hall Farm which has resulted in lack of bird related conservation info in the report Allowing development may give rise to further development upon land and surrounding area. If turbines were proposed in an area with more wind the capacity factor would increase significantly, department of energy and climate change database shows wind speed at Rushy Mead to be approx 6mls at 45m height confirming it is a low wind speed area. Agreement with Professor Michael Jefferson who has stated: 'Pressures driven by subsidies to place turbines where there is little wind, in areas of high population density. Almost all of central England should be wind turbine free, only pay full subsidy to those developments where the capacity factor is 30% or . more. Deletion of key guideline I(v) of PPS 22 which states regional and local planning authorities should not make assumptions about the technical and commercial feasibility of renewable energy projects. Where mean wind speeds are below 7m/s at 45m then no wind energy proposals will be contemplated. Refuse permission for the placing of any wind turbine higher than 25m to blade tip closer than 1.5kms from nearest residential property unless compensation agreed.' Consideration should be given to good practice guide on noise exposure and potential health effects St Barts Old Church yard should have been included in ES Views should be considered from Bearwood Golf Club Construction traffic harm to dwellings within cutbush lane, particularly listed barn Disagreement with developers assessment of ornithology Disagree with EA's statement that safe access will be available for lifetime of the development DECC update of UK Shadow Flicker Evidence Base should be given consideration. Consideration should be given to Charles Hendry's press release on 1oth February 201 1 regarding subsidies.
-oddon Valley Residents Association
Fails to fully acknowledge and remedy the effect that the development would have on flooding in the area. B The flood compensation is set at a 'bear minimum' level. o There are no plans for maintaining the proposed flood assets and compensation on site and a maintenance schedule should be included in the FRA o In the scoping document SO1200812245 the Environment Agency stated that the local planning authority, WBC, should determine whether the sequential and exception tests have been passed. They have not met the requirements set by the Environment Agency.
Q Effects of run-off have not been properly analysed nor included in the overall flood assessment. Only one site visit has been carried out in determining this FRA, this is not adequate 9 In the 2007 floods many homes along the Loddon missed being flooded by inches. Any increase in flood levels, even minimal ones, could result in many homes and business's being flooded during the next flood event. LVRA would like to see further improvements in the compensation scheme and additional flood alleviation where possible. There are no compensation calculations for the Met Mast
Q The proposed management of run off is too woolly. Although the drainage im~actre~ort acknowledaes that SUD's will be reauired. this is not followed through in the main document. LVRA would like tb see the use of SUD's being reinforced in the main FRA document. The FRA uses the EA's flood model from 6'h March 2009. The Lower Loddon and Emm study was conducted after this date which means there is a more recent model that should be applied to this proposal. 9 To fully assess the impact that the development will have on surface water run- off, all the streams, ditches and other flood assets that criss-cross the area must be mapped fully. 0 Run-off rates are based on historical data and therefore are average data. We have all witnessed recent'changes in rain fall patterns. This increase in the ferocity of potential rain storms must be factored into the FRA to ensure that the site could absorb another July 2007 event, where our area received over 200% more rain normal (Met office data).
Q PPS22 Key Principles 1 (vvi) clearly states that the renewable energy projects must be located appropriately. Rushey Mead is not an appropriate location as part of the site is on the functional flood plains (3b) and the whole site is subject to flooding. The FRA states that the gravel roads will acts as soakaways, however there is clear evidence of a similar a gravel road off Barretts Lane that can be seen to dam and flood neighbouring fields (local information). The gravel roads alone with not compensate enough for the road infrastructure of the turbines.
Q In 4.7.8 Page 33. PFR state:"Material excavated for the foundations will be stockpiled for use in redressing the permanent access track edges.....". LVRA is gravely concerned that this material could greatly exacerbate the flooding problems down stream if not handled correctly. There needs to be a more thorough explanation of how this material will be handled and what flood risk it could pose.
Arborfield Local History Society - dispute the assessment given by English Heritage of the limited impact upon St Bartholomew's Church Arborfield. It is planned to integrate an avenue of old chestnut trees and carry out other works to St Bartholomews and the Society has raised concern for archaeological remains and straightening out of the single track road which bounds the church.
A survey has been received from Carters Hill Stables - 95 signatures have been collected from users of the byway Barretts Lane, confirming that the byway is used on a regular basis. The Green Park Turbine last year functioned at an average load factor of only 15.4 per cent of its maximum capacity through the last five years it has performed at an average of 17%. Demonstrating the location is wrong for turbines - not the most suitable. Health implications from noise, potential sleep disturbance, depression, anxiety, headaches Consideration should be given to World Health Organisation Guidelines lmpact upon landscape lmpact upon wildlife and horses Cumulative impact along with SDL locations. Loss of enjoyment of the countryside footpaths and bridle ways Potential noise would add to the noise from M4 not be masked by it Increase in rats and rodents due to decrease in birds Danger to wildlife Lack of consultation Benefits to be gained from renewable energy do not outweigh harms Disruption in terms of noise, disturbance and highway, during construction Lack of consideration for other energies such as biomass Economic impacts due to knock on effects to equestrian business as a result of not being able to use the byway. Television interference Loss of gap between settlements Impact upon ability too use telescope for amateur astronomy Harmful impact of low frequency sound and impacts of sound not audible by the human ear Reduce the amount of airspace light aircraft piloted by people with ppls by 500ft vertically. Re-routing such aircraft would result in more flights over more densely populated areas. Health Implications Relationship between Environment Agency and Applicant
APPLICANTS POINTS The applicant has submitted a planning statement, detailed plans, design and access statement and statement of community involvement in suppbrt of the application. An environmental impact assessment has also been carried out and supplementary environmental information submitted 7 March 201 1.
PLANNING POLICY
PPSl Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS7 Sustainable Rural Development, PPS25 Development and Flood Risk, PPS22 Renewable Energy, PPG24 Planning and Noise PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment, PPG 8 Telecommunications, PPG17 Open space, Sport and Recreation (in terms of enhancing rights of way network)
RSS South East Plan 2009 Policy CC1 Sustainable Development, Policy CC2 Climate Change, Policy CC3 Resource Use, Policy CC6 Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment, Policy NRM4 Sustainable Flood Risk Management, Policy NRM13 Regional Renewable Energy Targets, Policy NRM14 Sub-regional Targets for Land- Based Renewable Energy, Policy NRM 15 Location of Renewable Energy Development, Policy NRM16 Renewable Energy Development Criteria
Wokingham Borough Core Strategy: CP1 Sustainable Development, CP3 General Principles for Development, CP11 Proposals Outside Development Limits, CP6 Managing Travel Demand, CP7 Biodiversity
Wokingham District Local Plan Saved Policies: WHE12 Archaeology, WCC3 Central Berkshire Forest, WNC5 Wildlife Heritage Site, WLL4 Landscape and New Development
Other documents: The Energy White Paper 2007, The UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009
PLANNING ISSUES
Environmental lmpact Assessment
1. In accordance with the Environmental lmpact Assessment Regulations the proposal s considered to be development which falls within schedule 2 of the regulations jvhereby the need for an Environmental lmpact Assessment is determined on a case by sase basis. A screening opinion of the Local Planning Authority has been sought ref SO1200812239 and it was considered that given the scale and location of development uhich would have the potential for significant effects to arise, an Environmental lmpact Assessment would be required. The Developer has therefore undertaken an Environmental lmpact Assessment which has been given due consideration.
Material Considerations
2. The 2007 White Paper on Energy - Meeting the Energy Challenge (DTI) sets out policies and priorities for action to tackle climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions both within the UK and abroad and ensuring secure, clean and affordable energy to try and reduce dependency on imported fuel. Renewable energy is described as key to the strategy to tackle climate change.
3. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 (Department of Energy and Climate Change) sets out the governments' commitment to meet legally binding targets to ensure 15% of UK energy comes from renewable sources by 2020 in order to tackle climate change, reduce C02 emissions and promote the security of the UK energy supply. It states this will only be possible with strong co-ordinated efforts from central, regional and local government as well as other public groups, the private sector and dedicated community groups and individuals. It advises that whilst better planning for delivery is required renewable energy should not be sited in places where it is inappropriate and should continue to protect the environment and natural heritage and seek to minimise negative impact through the proper application of planning and environmental controls.
4. PPSl requires, amongst other things, new development and development plans to contribute towards global sustainability through a reduction in demand for energy, The supplement to PPSl ~lanning'andklimatec'hange emphasises the govern'ment commitment and drive towards continuing cuts in emissions and it expects local planning authorities to deliver sustainable development including a full and appropriate response on climate change. New development should be planned to limit C02 emissions and make good use of opportunities for decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy and to minimise future vulnerability in a changing climate. Climate change considerations should be integrated into all planning concerns. With regards tc renewable and low carbon energy generation local policies should provide a frameworl that promotes and encourages renewable and low carbon energy generation. Any applicant intending to develop. a .proposal that will contribute to the deliverv of the kev planning objectives set out in the PPS'S should expect expeditious and syhpathetic ' handling of the planning application.
5. PPS22 Planning for Renewable Energy and its companion guide provides the main national policy advice regarding renewable energy. Renewable Energy Projects shoul be capable of being accommodated through England in locations where the technolog: is viable and environmental, economic and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. The wider environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy ar material considerations and should be given significant weight. Small scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to overall outputs and should not be rejected because the level of output is small. A balance has to be struck between the need for renewable energy and potential harm to environment and amenity.
6. PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment seeks to ensure the historic environmer and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed. Where conflict between climate change objectives and the conservation of heritage assets is unavoidable, the public benefit of mitigating the effects of climate change should be weighed against an harm to the significance of heritage assets in accordance with the development management principles in this PPS and national planning policy on climate change.
7. PPS25 Development and Flood Risk and Practice Guide, classifies wind turbine development as being essential infrastructure. The Policy aims to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding and new developments which are needed in medium or high flood risk areas will only occur where flood risk is clearly outweighed by other sustainability factors. However, being essential infrastructure wind turbine developments are not expected to demonstrate that they would pass the sequential test.
8. PPG24 Planning and Noise advises that where possible noisy uses should be sited away from noise sensitive land uses and LPNs should consider whether it is practicab to control or reduce noise levels, or to mitigate the impact of noise, through the use of conditions or planning obligations.
Regional Spatial Strateqv Policies
9. The Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East was revoked by the Secretary of State on 6 July 2010. However, this decision was deemed unlawful by the High Court on 10 November 2010 in the decision of Cala Homes (South) Limited v SoS for Communities and Local Government 2010. As such the RSS is a relevant policy consideration. 10. Policy CC1 Sustainable development seeks to ensure sustainable levels of resource use, conservation of physical and natural environment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and seeks to ensure south east is prepared for inevitable impacts of climate change.
11. Policy CC2 Climate Change -this policy aims to ensure that the potential drivers of climate change are reduced whilst measures to deal with the potential impacts of climate change are introduced. Polices and proposals should be included within plans to help reduce the regions carbon dioxide emissions by at least 20% below 1990 levels by 201 0, by at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2015 and by 80% by 2050.
12. Policy CC3. Resource use. This policy seeks to establish a programme to stabilise the South East's ecological footprint by 2016 and to reduce it by 2026.
13. Policy CC6 Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment aims to ensure that development will promote the creation of sustainable and distinctive communities.
14. Policy NRM4 Sustainable Flood Risk Management requires development within flood risk areas to follow the sequential approach to development.
15. Policy NRM13: Regional Renewable Energy Targets provides a set of targets for renewable energy generation within the region as follows:
Yearltimescale Installed Capacity (MW) % Electricity Generation Capacity 2010 620 5.5 2016 895 8.0 2020 1,130 10.0 2026 1,750 16.0
16. The policy identifies offshore wind, onshore wind and biomass as presenting the greatest opportunities for the generation of electricity and heat over the short to medium terms.
17. Policy NRM14: Sub-regional targets for Land Based renewable energy. This policy provides a set of sub-regional targets for land based renewable energy within the South-east. The proposed site is within the Thames valley and Surrey area, which has a target of 140 MW by 2010 and 209MW for 2016. This policy also states that the Thames Valley and Surrey area appear to have the greatest potential for onshore wind development or biomass fuelled electricity generation and also for the installation of photovoltaics.
18. Policy NRM15 Location of renewable energy development states local development documents should encourage the development of renewable energy in order to achieve the regional and sub regional targets. Renewable energy development, particularly wind and biomass, should be located and designed to minimise adverse impacts on landscape, wildlife, heritage assets and amenity. Priority should be given to development in less sensitive parts of countryside and coast, including on previously developed land and in major transport areas.
19. Policy NRM16 Renewable Energy Development Criteria, encourages local authorities through their local development frameworks and decisions to support the development of renewable energy in principle and local development documents should include criteria based policies. jLocal Plannina Policies
20. Core Strategy Policy CP1 seeks to ensure development meets the principles of wstainable development, a reduction in the emissions to air, a reduction in the use of Iresources and for a contribution towards zero carbon developments.
21. Core Strategy Policy CP3 which supports proposals (amongst other things) which Icto not result in detriment to visual amenity and neighbouring occupiers quality of life.
22. Core Strategy Policy CP6 Managing Travel Demand seeks to ensure developments Iprovide appropriate parking, enhance road safety and do not cause highway problems and provide for sustainable forms of transport to allow choice.
23. CP7 Biodiversity, requires sites designated as of importance for nature conservation st an international or national level will be conserved and enhanced and ina~~ro~riate.. . ,development wili be resisted. The degree of protection given will be appropriate to the !status of the site in terms of its international or national importance.
24. CP11 Proposals outside development limits (including countryside) sets out criteria for development within the countryside in order to maintain the quality of the environment and separate identity of settlements.
Wokinsham District Local Plan Saved Policies
25. WLL4 Landscape and New Development - requires new development both within and adjoining the countryside should respect the landscape character of the area and where appropriate provide measures for the protection and enhancement of that landscape character, particularly existing boundary features.
Renewable Energv Contribution
26. The Energy White Paper (2007) and the UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) consider renewable energy to be key to the strategy to tackle climate change through the reduction in emissions. The Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 commits the UK to meet targets to ensure 15% of UK energy comes from renewable sources by 2020. It promotes strong co-ordinated efforts from central, regional and local government and positively supports renewable energy.
27. PPS22 Companion Guide states that developments in the technology and electricity market over recent years means that wind power is found to be viable across the UK and as such wind farm developments can reasonably be expected to be proposed in all regions of the country. Technological advances and changes to the renewable electricity markets have resulted in wind speed being less pivotal in the site selection process.
28. PPS22 (Key principle iv) states that the wider environmental and economic benefits of all renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material benefits that should be given significant weight and projects should not be rejected simply because the level of output is low. This approach is recognised and supported by many appeal decisions. The scale of the project is irrelevant and a project should not be undervalued merely because it provides a small contribution to renewable energy targets. However the targets and contribution of renewable energy is not overriding and is always subject to siting where environmental, economic and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily,
29. It is recognised that the UK is behind in meeting its renewable energy targets. In any case, if targets were being met or close to being met the target should always be revised upwards and as such this could not comprise a reason for refusal of an application.
30. The applicant has described the potential electricity generation to be significant. The total capacity of the proposed turbines based on four Nordex N100 (2.5MW) machines would be 10MW. The net capacity factor is likely to be in the region of 18% to 25% with the actual figure dependent on a range of factors affecting operational performance, such as wind resource and turbine model. Taking into account that the turbines will not operate at full capacity all of the time, the amount of electricity produced by the proposed wind turbines has been estimated by the applicant to be between 15.8GWh and 21.9GWh per year (as detailed in chapter 6 of the Environmental Statement).
31. It is estimated that the yearly output of the turbines would be equivalent to the approximate domestic needs of between 3,440 and 4,790 average households in Britain. A wind energy development of this scale is expected to displace between 6,780 and 9,400 tonnes of C02 emissions per year (calculation in chapter 6 of the Environmental Statement).
32. In terms of contribution to regional targets, such as those set out in NRM13 and NRM14 the proposed development would represent approximately 5% of the sub regional target of 209 MW for 2016.
33. The policy emphasis is to support and promote renewable energy development. A project should not be undervalued because the contribution to renewable energy targets is small, and policy guidance makes it clear that the wider environmental and economic benefits of a renewable energy proposal is a material consideration that should be given significant weight in the determination of an application.
34. Residents groups and some consultees have requested that the applicant provide the wind speed data gathered for the site in order to demonstrate the likely energy contribution. It is not possible to challenge the proposal because the available wind source is low or better elsewhere. The applicant is entitled to seek to exploit the wind resource as he finds it and as such it is not considered necessary to have this information in order to determine the application.
Impact upon Landscape Appearance and Character
35. A detailed assessment has been carried by the Councils Landscape Officer. The following is the full assessment:
Landscape Character 36. The site is located within the countryside. Three of the wind turbines are locatec LCA C1 - ~rbo;field'~iverTerrace. However $thin 5km radius from the site 7 different landscape character areas are identified on Figure 9.9a of Appendix Ill, highlighting the complexity of the landscape within this 5km zone. (There are 6 different LCA within 2.5km of the site.)
37. The Landscape and Visual Effects chapter of the Environmental Statement describes the character of these LCA's and how they relate to the National Landscape Character Areas identified by The Countryside Agency and the landscape character areas at County Level. The landscape within which the turbines are located is not classified as having a National landscape designation such as National Park, or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), nor is the landscape designated at a local level. The Landscape and Visual Effects document therefore considers that in terms of a Nationally important landscape, this landscape does not have any greater landscape value than as described as part of the general landscape character of that landscape. This is a view that I accept.
38. The WDLCA provides some analysis on each of the LCA's. in relation to A2: Loddon River Valley LCA it considers that it is a landscape of high quality "due fo the sfrong confribufion fhaf the landscape components make fo the overall percepfion of fhe landscape coupled wifh fheir generally moderafe condifion." The landscape also has a strong character which "relafes particularly fo fhe meandering course of fhe river, the flat floodplain landscape, wifh ifs characferisfic features such as willow pollards.. ..including wet woodland and wet meadow rernnanfs." The overall strategy for this area is to conserve its current rural character and sense of remoteness, although there are opportunities to restore certain landscape elements that have been lost. The WDLCA considers the Loddon River Valley landscape to have a high sensitivity to change as it will be difficult to recreate many of the key characteristics of this landscape such as mature vegetation, habitats, naturalness of the river course and lack of development on the valley floor.
39. The Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment (LVEA) provided by the applicant does recognise this analysis. It then however suggests that the presence of the M4 has an undermining effect on the perceptions of remoteness and tranquillity of this area by stating the following: "... fhe reporf (WDLVA) does acknowledge the presence of the M4 moforway corridor and fhe undermining effect of this on the percepfions of remoteness and franquillify and consequently diminishing the sensifivify of fhe area close to the moforway corridor, which includes the area proposed for fhe Rushy Mead Energy Developmenf." Nowhere in the WDLCA does it distinguish between different parts of this LCA in considering varying degrees of landscape sensitivity to change and this conclusion is arrived at by the applicants rather than the WDLCA. The WDLCA does make reference to the presence of the M4 where it passes through the LCA A2 in relation to the continuous presence of the background noise of the Motorway and that the motorway creates a physical and visual severance along the flood plain, however the extent of this is not specified in the document so it is the conclusion reached by the applicants that the area affected by the M4 includes the area in which the four turbines are located. This statement is not given further analysis within the LVEA to quantify the exact area in which the motorway impacts on the sensitivity of this landscape.
40. My opinion is that the M4 motorway does have an effect on the remoteness of a small part of this LCA immediately adjacent to the motorway; however as the distance from the motorway increases any disruptive influence significantly decreases. This is due to the strong rural character of the landsca~eand the sense of remoteness I3rovided by the intervening small woodlands, scale and irregularity of the fields and Iiverside vegetation. I consider that the influence that the motorway has on the Iandscape sensitivity of this part of the Loddon River Valley LCA is given more weight in 1:he applicants LVEA than actually transpires on the ground.
41. In terms of Landscape Character Area C1: Arborfield River Terrace, the WDLCA i assesses this landscape to have a moderate quality due to moderate character and Inoderate condition of most of the characteristics. The Arborfield River Terrace is Isonsidered to have a moderate sensitivity to change, with the "mosf sensitive elements Ibeing fhe remnant historic features such as parkland, ancient woodland and rural lanes snd tracks as well as the distincfive perceptual aspects including the tranquil rural Isharacter." The LVEA accords with this assessment.
42. The sensitivity of each landscape character areas to accommodate change is Idescribed in the WDLCA as "inherent sensitivity" which is defined as follows "...reflects IIhe sensitivity of the individual elemenfs that contribute fo fhe character and their Icondition, plus any particular visual sensitivities of the character area or key features, for example relating to scale, degree of enclosure (landform and tree cover) and the 1ootential visibility of change." The inherent landscape sensitivity is the sensitivity of the Ilandscape itself irrespective of the type of change; therefore it may or may not be the !same as landscape sensitivity to a particular kind of change, which in this case is the Iproposed wind farm.
13. The LVEA discusses the predicted landscape effects of the wind farm on the Ilandscape character of both the Loddon River Valley LCA and Arborfield River Terrace. The effects described in the LVEA are the landscape effects remaining following the Idesign process to achieve what the applicant considers to be an acceptable design solution. Within the LVEA each of the landscape character areas has been further assessed in terms of landscape sensitivity, magnitude of change and level of effect. I ,consider each of the landscape character areas in turn.
Loddon River Vallev LCA
Landscape Sensitivity 44. In considering the landscape sensitivity of this area the LVEA suggests that this area has a medium sensitivity to change to wind turbines. It generally considers the condition of many of the landscape elements which make up this landscape to be of moderate condition, however many of these elements together such as the meandering river, flat valley flood plain and associated waterside vegetation and small blocks of woodland combine to make a landscape of strong character, which is supported by WDLCA and an opinion which I agree with. The LVEA makes a judgement that this landscape is of medium quality due to loss of field boundaries, trees and hedgerows and is of medium value as it is not a Nationally or locally designated landscape and contains a number of visually detracting features such as overhead power lines.
45. Although I agree in part that this landscape does not have a National or local landscape designation, it is an important landscape locally. This part of the River Loddon is considered a rural landscape which is remote from many intrusions into ii either by roads or footpaths and is noted for its absence of any development within the -river valley. It has a naturalness to the area which has been retained even though the M4 passes though part of the river valley and numerous settlements surround the river valley on higher ground, including the large settlement of Lower Earley. The landscape is also ecologically important due to the number of habitats associated with the river. My assessment is-that the landscape has a high value and quality in an area which is under considerable pressure to develop.
46. The LVEA assesses this LCA to have some capacity for accommodate this type of development as it considers the landscape characteristics to include a broad and simple landform, large to medium scale field pattern, higher levels of screening elements, low density of settlement (only within this LCA and not within the adjacent settlement boundary), and lower levels of tranquillity due to the presence of the M4 motorway. The assessment does consider the characteristics that are sensitive to change such as small-scale features and presence of visual receptors within the surrounding area. The conclusion drawn by the LVEA is that this LCA has a medium capacity for change and therefore the Loddon River Valley has medium sensitivity overall.
47. 1 agree in part with this assessment as there are a number of largelmedium scale elements within the LCA especially some of the field sizes; however these fields are interspersed with small fields associated with the river as well as small woodland blocks and copses and riverside vegetation. Many of the fields are irregular shaped and lined with drainage ditches and mature trees. Although the underlying landform may be considered "simple" (i.e. it's a river valley) the landcover is not and therefore it is more difficult to place large scale elements such as wind turbines into it. Reference is also made to there being screening elements, there are these features but as the turbines are 130m high any woodland would only help to screen the base of the turbine so that in some views the full extent of the structure may not be gauged. I would also in part disagree that the landform is "broad" as the river valley is barely 2km across and in places the valley is incised with tributaries around Carters Hill which in essence visually and physically break up the extent of the landform and making it less "simple". The valley is also visually and physically enclosed to the east by the wooded horizons of Bearwood and The Coombes. Overall I consider the Loddon River Valley to have a lowlmedium capacity for change and high sensitivity.
Magnitude of Change and Level of Effect 48. 1 broadly agree with paragraph 9.5.10 of the LVEA in that essentially all the elements within the existing landscape and landscape resource will remain unaltered as it is not intended to remove any of them but to place the turbines within the landscape. The LVEA goes onto say that by introducing a new and incongruous feature into the landscape "...the vertical scale would contrast with that of other smaller scale elements appearing as a moving and prominent feature on the horizon or skyline, wifh some perceived reduction in landscape tranquillity where this is not already adversely affected by the M4. These largely negative effects would be unavoidable, in keeping wifh almost any wind turbine development."
49. The LVEA then argues in paragraph 9.5.11 that the turbines would be set in a landscape that has these larger scale elements and a simple and contemporary landscape of fields and trees. "The scale of the turbines relative to their surroundings, would make them a local feature of interesf which, given fhe simple and contemporary landscape confexf, would not be particularly harmful or unaccepfable. Indeed may consider fhe wind furbines to be a positive /neutral feature of interest in the landscape." It is a matter of personal opinion and therefore subjective as to whether the turbines are a positive 1 neutral feature within the landscape and therefore not a conclusion that j0. I have already discussed the scale and complexity of the landscape in previous ~aragraphsin which I do not consider the landscape to be either simple or large scale; herefore I disagree that the turbines would not be particularly harmful or unacceptable 2s stated in the LVEA. I consider that the landscape in which the turbines are proposed o be located is not one which is simple as suggested by the LVEA but relatively :omplex as there are six different LCA's within a 2.5km radius of the location of the urbines. The Loddon Valley River LCA itself is made up of a number of different small scale elements and therefore the scale of the turbines in comparison to the scale of the surrounding landscape will in my opinion cause harm to that landscape.
51. The conclusion drawn by the LVEA is that the magnitude of change affecting the -oddon River Valley LCA at a localised area is considered to be high, resulting in a VloderateISubstantiaI and localised effect of this part of the LCA. Within the wider LCA :he effect of the wind turbines would be reduced because of the changes in landform 3nd intervening layers of vegetation. I agree that the magnitude of change affecting the -oddon River Valley LCA at a localised area is considered to be high. If this is then ~sessedwith my finding that the LCA has a high sensitivity to change rather than nedium sensitivity as indicated in the applicants LVEA against Table A5-4 - Evaluation 3f Landscape and Visual Effects, the effect of the turbines on the local LCA would be :onsidered Substantial and the level of significance of the landscape effect will be Significant.
4rborfield River Terrace LCA
Landscape Sensifivify 52. The LVEA has assessed the part of the LCA within which turbine three is to be ocated to be generally representative of the overall landscape character area and also zomplies with the findings of the WDLCA in terms of the medium quality and value of the landscape and having medium landscape sensitivity overall. I do not disagree with this part of the assessment.
53. The landscape capacity for this LCA has also been assessed as being medium, and although I would disagree that this area has a "simple" landform (see comments on Loddon River Valley LCA), and that there are higher levels of screening elements, as ihe fields in this LCA are more regular with fewer boundary features. The location of turbine three is on slightly elevated ground above the other three turbines, on the valley side. Within this LCA there are a number of small-scale landscape features associated with the river valley and presence of visual receptors within the surrounding area. Overall I consider the Arborfield River Terrace to have a lowlmedium capacity for change and medium sensitivity.
Magnitude of Change an Level of Effecf 54. The same comments apply to the Arborfield River Terrace LCA as to those made within this section for the Loddon River Valley LCA. I do not consider the landscape to be either simple or large scale; therefore I disagree that the turbines would not be particularly harmful or unacceptable as stated in the LVEA.
55. The conclusion drawn by the LVEA is that the magnitude of change affecting the Arborfield River Terrace LCA at a localised area is considered to be high, resulting in a ModeratelSubstantial and localised effect of this part of the LCA. Within the wider LCA the effect of the wind turbines would be reduced because of the changes in landform and intervening layers of vegetation. I agree with the LVEA that there will be a Moderatelsubstantial effect on the local Arborfield River Terrace LCA and the level of significance of the landscape effect will be Significant.
Summaw of Predicted Landscape Effects
56. The summary for the predicted landscape effects for the LCA's in which the turbines are located, those LCA's adjacent to the site and local and National Designations are given in Table 9.12. The Sensitivity, Magnitude and Level of Effect are summarised within the table along with Significance. Some further information and guidance on "Significance" is given in Appendix 9 in which it states: "The conclusion that some effects are 'significanf' must nof be faken to imply thaf fhey are necessarily adverse or should warranf refusal. The predicted levels of effect, including those which are considered as significanf in fhis assessmenf should be considered further by fhe decision makers and forms one step in the process of defermining this planning applicafion. As wifh many aspecfs of landscape and visual assessmenf, significance of effecf needs to be qualified wifh respect fo fhe scale over which if is felf and fhe fype or nafure of the effecf. An effecf may be locally significanf, or significanf to a small number of receptors, buf nof significanf when judged in a wider context. "
57. The level and evaluation of significance is not qualified as part of the process and therefore is an omission from the assessment. It is essential the level of significance with some typical descriptors of are given so that the effect of the proposal can be fully assessed. All the assessment tells us is that where the level of effect of the proposed turbines has been assessed as being moderatel substantial or substantial, the significance will be "Significant". It doesn't state whether the significant effect would have a positive or negative effect. An earlier part of the assessment suggests the impact on both the LCA's would be 'Yargely negafive ....in keeping wifh any wind furbine development", although this seemed to be later qualified within the document by stating that many people may consider the turbines to be a positivelneutral feature in the landscape.
58. As the applicant does not provide any direction on the level of significance or typical descriptors as to the significance of effect of the proposal then in terms of the effect on the landscape character I conclude that the proposed wind turbines will have a moderatellarge adverse effect on the landscape character of the area for the following reasons: e It is a rural landscape with some sense of remoteness where not immediately adjacent to the M4 motorway, and in close proximity to the large settlement of Lower Earley. o The number of landscape character areas within the study area of 2.5km demonstrates that there is a complexity of landscape within the wider area, as well as complexity of the landscape of the Loddon River Valley LCA and Arborfield River Terrace LCA by the number of important riverside features associated with those landscapes. a The large scale of the proposed turbines in comparison to the smaller scale and complex character of the LCA's and their relative landscape features, will cause harm to the landscape character as this is an area which is sparsely developed and valued as such by a large number residents in the surrounding settlements. 59. The LVEA has considered the visual effects of the proposed development on views 3nd general visual amenity as experienced by people within the landscape as follows: a People within residences and settlements. u People travelling through the landscape, such as road users, walkers, horse riders and cyclists. b People visiting tourist and recreational destinations, including cultural heritage sites.
50. The LVEA used the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) of the turbines in association ~ithsite visits and viewpoint assessment to focus the study to those areas where significant visual effects are most likely and in particular within a 2.5km and 5km study area from the location of the turbines. The visual effects have been assessed by :onsidering the sensitivity of the receptor (people) against the proposed magnitude of :hange to determine the level of visual effect. The assessment also makes reference to :he activity and experience. of the viewer and the acceptability of the effect of the 3roposals.
51. Again within the LVEA the level and evaluation of "significance" is has not been qualified as part of the application and therefore is an omission from the assessment. It s essential the level of significance with some typical descriptors of are given so that :he effect of the proposal can be fully assessed.
52. The LVEA raises the issue of "valency" with regard to considering the various 2pinions of the public in respect to wind farms and whether they consider them to be ~ositive,neutral or negative to the view. This has been discussed in part in an earlier Daragraph, in which I consider this is a matter of personal opinion and therefore subjective. The LVEA cannot draw any conclusion from this and needs to follow the guidance and methodology provided in undertaking these assessments.
Visual effects on receptors within 2.5km
Residential Properties (Figure 9.13) 63. The LVEA considered 62 individual residential properties (although assessments on only 60 properties are found within Appendix 9) within this area based on viewpoinl analysis. (Settlements are assessed in a later section). The sensitivity of residential receptors is assessed as high (See Table A5-3 in appendix 9) and the magnitude of the change has been assessed for each of the properties and is given as follows: 0 High Magnitude - 2 properties; D Medium Magnitude - 28 properties Low Magnitude - 15 properties; o Negligible magnitude - 15 properties.
64. In evaluating the visual effects of the development and using Table A5-4 it- Appendix 9, for the two properties experiencing a high magnitude of change, the effec~ will be substantial and therefore the visual effect of the turbines will be Significant. FOI the 28 properties experiencing a medium magnitude of change, the effect of the development will be moderate/substantial and the visual effect of the turbines on these properties will also be Significant. No reference is given to whether the significance 01 the effect is either positive or negative for these properties, however my judgment is thai the effect will be negative. 65. To conclude paragraph 9.6.10 states "In considering the 30 properties that may be significantly affected (my emphasis) in terms of effects on views and amenity, it is not the conclusion of this assessment that any of these properties would be unacceptably affected by overshadowing, visual dominance, or oppression of views and so as to adversely affecf the overall visual amenity and attractiveness as a place to live, or the living standards of the property."
66. However by the applicant's own assessment 30 of the individual properties will be significantly affected (although significance is not quantified) by the proposed wind turbines and which I consider to be a negative visual effect on the visual amenity of these dwellings. This is due to the number of turbines that will be visible, the extent of the view of the turbines from the properties and the location of the turbines in a shallow valley of rural character where at present the absence of any development in an area which is close proximity to a relatively large urban area, makes the landscape of particular importance locally.
Settlements (Figure 9.13) 67. The settlements that are assessed within the LVEA are Lower Earley, Shinfield, Arborfield, Arborfield Cross and Sindlesham and have been subdivide into different areas as shown on Figure 9.13. The sensitivity of all the settlements is considered to be high as detailed in Table A5-3 in appendix 9 of the LVEA.
68. The magnitude of change for the majority of Lower Earley is assessed as being low to negligible and the level of effect to be moderate to slight. Therefore the visual effect of the turbines from these areas is not considered to be significant. However in part of Lower Earley identified as Area B on Figure 9.13 the magnitude of change would be medium to high with the level of visual effect being moderate/substantial to substantial and rated as Significant. Paragraph 9.6.15 concludes that: "The type of effect would be temporary (long-term / reversible) and negative, although the turbines would appear within a largely contemporary urban / suburban setting. Whilst there would be a significant change to the view, none of these areas would be affected by overshadowing, visual dominance, or oppression of views so as to adversely affecf the overall visual amenity and attractiveness as a place to live, or the living standards of the property. "
69. 1 agree that the visual effects of the wind turbines in parts of Lower Early will have a significant and negative effect on the dwellings in this area. The visual effects can be seen in the photo montage at Viewpoint 6 of the LVEA, and although just taken outside Area B, the size and location of the four turbines, relative to the dwellings in the southern part of Lower Early can be clearly seen above the horizon. I disagree that the turbines would appear within an urban I suburban setting. Many of the properties within this part of Lower Earley are set on the sides of the shallow valley of the River Loddon. Therefore the houses are on slightly elevated ground overlooking the rural landscape of the River Loddon. Visually this landscape is significant as there are borrowed views from the settlement across the valley to the wooded horizons of Bearwood ASLl and The Coombes. Although the turbines will be seen from Lower Earley they will be located in a rural landscape in which there are numerous views out across this landscape from the surrounding settlements. I therefore do not consider that the turbines would appear to be in a suburban setting let alone an urban one.
70. For the settlement of Shinfield the LVEA considers the visual effects for the majority I of the settlement will not be significant, however the document has assessed that for approximately 56 dwellings on the eastern side of Shinfield the magnitude of change will ,e medium to high with the level of visual effect being moderatelsubstantial to substantial and rated as Significant. The same conclusion is given for this area as for -ewer Earley in that although the effect will be Significant and negative it will appear in 3n urban Isuburban setting. Again I disagree with these findings due to the importance ~f the rural and remote character of the Loddon Valley in this area.
71. There are a number of locations in Arborfield Cross where the LVEA considers the magnitude of change to be medium, which would result in a moderatelsubstantial level ~f effect which is considered to be Significant and negative. However as many of these jwellings are approximately 2km from the nearest turbine tree cover and other nterviewing screening will limit views from the majority of dwellings within this settlement.
72. The settlement of Sindlesham has been assessed and details are given in Table A3 of Appendix 9 however these details have not been provided in the main body of text uithin the LVEA. Again there are a small number of properties on the western side of the settlement that are indicated as having a medium magnitude of change that would result in a moderatelsubstantial level of effect which is considered to be Significant and negative.
73. The majority of the settlement of Arborfield would be unaffected by the proposed wind farm due to mature woodland and belts of trees on the northern and western parts of the village. However it considers that approximately 12 properties will be able to see parts of the turbine and therefore the level of visual effects of the development would be considered as moderate and not significant.
74. The parts of the settlements where the level of the visual effect of the wind turbines is moderatelsubstantial or substantial leading to significant and negative visual effects on those properties, I concluded that the wind turbines will have a moderate Ilarge visual effect on these parts of the surrounding settlements which contain a large number of dwellings.
Main Transport Routes 75. The LVEA looked at the likely visual effects on the users of various railway lines, motorways, A-roads and B-Roads within the study area. The visual sensitivity of people passing through the landscape is considered to be medium as detailed in Table A5-3 in appendix 9 of the LVEA.
76. In summary the LVEA considered that level of visual effects on the majority 01 transport routes within 2.5km of the wind farm would be slight Imoderate, due to the constantly changing views that the viewers get when travelling through the landscape as the view is foreshortened by trees and hedges and other buildings and structures or changing landform. There are certain local sections of the M4 motorway, A327 and B3030 close to the site that the LVEA considers that there will be a high magnitude oi change and therefore the visual effects of the four turbines will be moderate I substantial leading to a Significant and negative effect for the users of sections of these routes. I do not disagree with this assessment of the main transport routes.
Public Righfs of Way 77. The LVEA has assessed the public Rights of Way (PROW) within 2.5km of the proposed wind farm and includes footpaths and byways. These are illustrated on Figure 9.12 within LVEA documents. The overall the sensitivity of footpaths has been classed as medium within the document as indicated in Table A5-3, within Appendix 9. However if a PRoW is considered popular and well used then the visual sensitivity of that PRoW increases to having a high sensitivity. In Appendix 9 where the individual assessment of each PRoW is provided, it is noted that 16 local PRoW are considered to have a high sensitivity. I would also include footpath S-39 which connects Lower Early with Shinfield across the M4 along the closed section of Cutbush Lane, as also having a high sensitivity rather than medium given in the assessment as it is well used locally by walkers and cyclists.
78. The magnitude of change as indicated in the LVEA is considered to be High for 11 footpaths although when checking the individual footpath assessments I could only find 8 that were considered to be High.
79. The LVEA indicates that there will be 11 PRoW's that would experience Significant visual effects from the wind turbines. However based on the applicant's individual PRoW assessments footpath E-9 in Earley and parts of the Byway W-I I in Sindlesham should also be included as having a significant visual effect from the turbines. The conclusion drawn from this in the LVEA is although the "...level of visual effects or; views from these PRoW towards the turbines would be significant, direct, long-term (reversible) and negative to neutral according to turbine composition. It is not however considered that the appearance of turbines in views from any of these local footpaths would be detrimental to the overall amenity and recreational use of these routes. Although large scale the turbines would not be overshadowing, oppressive or overwhelming, particularly given the relative small number of turbines proposed."
80. 1 do not agree with the above conclusion. All the PRoW's are within 1.7km of the nearest turbine as indicated in the LVEA and the majority of these footpaths anc byways are within rural locations. Therefore the addition of four turbines whether al four will be visible from certain PRoW's or not, are an additional built structure with E moving element which are at a scale at odds with the surrounding landscape, therefore the perceived tranquillity of this landscape will be affected by the proposal. The recreational use of the footpaths will not be affected as the location of the turbines dc not physically prevent the use of the footpaths, however the overall amenity includinc visual amenity I consider to be a negative impact due to the size, scale and location 01 the turbines within this rural medium scale landscape.
Recreational and Tourist Destinations 81. There are relatively few recreational and tourist destinations within 2.5km of the turbines. The LVEA has identified two golf courses and two riding schools within this area where the activities are undertaken outside. The level of visual effect for all foul destinations are assessed as being slight 1 moderate and not significant as they are al located in areas where there is a high level of screening provided by mature vegetation Although I recognise this as being important, the LVlA fails to take account that for the riding schools many riders will not stay within the confines of the school but will take the horses out along the bridleways which is part of the enjoyment of the countryside location of these schools. Therefore many of the horses will be using PRoW that have already been assessed as having a moderate/substantial or substantial level of visua effect and therefore will be Significant.
Visual effects on receptors over 2.5km from the proposed wind farm Sefflements 82. 1 am in general agreement with the LVEA that the potential views from settlements between 2.5km and 5km of the proposed turbines would range between low and negligible and therefore there would be no significant visual effects on the views from these settlements. My only concern is in views from the south-western parts of Winnersh where there will be clear and relatively open views towards the site along the River Loddon valley.
Main transport routes 83. 1 do not disagree with the assessment made for the visual effects on the transport routes beyond 2.5km from the wind farm, where the level of effect will be mainly slight I negligible and not significant (mainly neutral effect with some adverse or negative assessments).
Public Rights of Way 84. The LVEA does not do any further detailed analysis for local PRoW between 2.5km and 5km, based on the viewpoint analysis. I would however point out that there are still some footpaths where the four turbines will be visible on the open horizon beyond the 2.5km mark such as from S13 near Ryeish Green.
National Trails and Cycle Routes within 35km 85. 1 agree that the level of visual effect on the various routes listed in the LVEA will either be slight or negligible and therefore not significant.
Recreational and Tourist Destinations 86. 1 agree that the level of visual effect on the various destinations listed in the LVEA will vary according to the location and will range from slight, slight I moderate or moderate and therefore not considered to be significant.
Conclusion
87. The landscape effects of the proposed wind turbines on the Loddon River Valley LCA is identified as being substantial and for Arborfield River Terrace LCA is identified as moderate Isubstantial, therefore for both landscape character areas the level of landscape effect will be Significant. I conclude that the proposed wind turbines will have a moderatellarge adverse effect on the landscape character of the area and which cannot be mitigated.
88. The visual effects of the wind turbines from 30 individual properties, numerous properties within the surrounding settlements, 11 PRoW and local transport routes would also be Significant and negative.
89. The scale of the turbines and the intrusion of these man made features where there is a moving element to them will be at odds with the rural landscape in which the development is proposed, and which is not either large scale or simple as suggested by the LVEA. I consider that the significant and negative landscape and visual effects of the wind turbines will extend development into countryside and will cause significant harm to the landscape and a substantial number of receptors. This landscape is of particular importance locally because it is an area of undeveloped countryside of rural character in close proximity to a large number of settlements and which is valued for that reason. I therefore cannot support this application and recommend that the is refused.
90. The applicant responded to these comments through supplementary Environmental Statement Information received 7 March 2011 which questioned some of the assessment made by the Landscape Officer.
91. The Landscape Officer responded as follows:
Statement on Significance 92. The assessment methodology provided in Appendix 9.1 with reference to Table A5- 4 gives an evaluation of landscape and visual effects of the proposals where magnitude of change and sensitivity are tabulated in a matrix. The effects that the EIA Regulations considers to be "significant" are those levels of effects above Moderate. It is right to say that these levels of landscape and visual effects are given in the text throughout chapter 9 of the assessment, however where I am quoted at 5.2 in the supplementary text, my comments specifically refers to only one part of the document relating to residential properties 2.5km from the site in which a judgement on whether the significance was either positive or negative was not given, that's why I gave my judgement on this particular aspect.
93. However in general terms and clarifying my previous comments on this issue, I am seeking an understanding of the degree of significance for the proposal if it is considered "significant". The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessmenf, secona edition (Landscape Institute and IEMA) recommends in paragraphs 7.42 and 7.45 of the text that the degree of significance is provided as part of the final assessment stage. It also helps to have typical descriptors of the effects of the various levels of significance which could range from very large beneficial to very large adverse. it is this aspect of the evaluation of the wind farm I considered to be omitted from the assessment.
94. It is stated within the supplementary comments that my focus has purely been on negative effects of the wind turbines rather than commenting on the potential positive effects. I have thoroughly considered all the documents submitted as part of the Landscape and Visual Effects section of the Environmental Statement in writing my previous comments, and on balance I do not agree with the opinion given in paragraph 9.5.1 1 of the Landscape and Visual Effect Assessment (LVEA) and have given reasons for this in the section within my previous comments entitled "Summary of predicted landscape effects".
Loddon River Valley LCA 95. 1 agree that wind farm developments do have a limited footprint on the landscape and therefore the impact on the individual landscape features is minimal. However the combination of the individual landscape features together make up the overall particular landscape character for the area. The effect of the wind farm on the landscape character of the Loddon River Valley has been assessed as significant within the LVEA and one which I agree with. I have considered in my previous comments the effect that the introduction of four 130m high turbines will have on this landscape character area and provided reasons why I considered this landscape to have a high sensitivity.
96. Reference is made to tranquil areas identified by the CPRE. The methodology the CPRE have used to identify the most tranquil areas throughout the country is fairly complex and takes into account a large range of considerations. In looking at the maps of tranquil areas produced by the CPRE the majority of Wokingham Borough around the large townslvillages and conurbations is considered least tranquil reducing gradually the further one travels away from these areas. I have not mentioned tranauillitv in mv comments as I do not consider the majority if this landscape characte; are'a to bk tranquil as it is in close proximity to many built up areas and therefore not relevant to this particular assessment. However I have previously stated that the visual and aural effect of the motorway does have an impact on the sense of remoteness of a small part of this LCA adjacent to the motorway which decreases as the distance from the motorway increases.
97. 1 have already commented on paragraph 9.5.11 relating to positive aspects of the turbines and reiterate that this is a view that applicant has expressed which I do not share. Reference is also made to the complexity of the landscape stating that I have only provided an academic analysis of the landscape character of the area based on the subdivisions within the WDLCA. My comments are based on detailed knowledge and understanding of the landscape within this site and the surrounding area and have used the WDLCA to support my views. The landscape of this part of the borough is not a dramatic landscape and does not include the geological futures listed in the supplementary information. Although the changes in landscape character are subtle it therefore doesn't follow that the landscape is a simple one.
Arborfield River Terrace LCA (comments relate to the summary of predicted landscape effects section relating to both landscape character areas.) 98. 1 agree that that the landscape of both LCA's are not remote in the sense that they are far from built up areas and any other settlements, however there is a strong sense of being within a rural landscape in such close proximity to the large centres of population. I agree that the landscape is not designated for the greater public interest, however it is used by a large number of people because of the scarcity of rural countryside in the immediate area and valued as such. An important key characteristic of the Loddon Valley River LCA is that it is considered to be remote landscape. I note in the supplementary information that it states "These factors in themselves do not preclude wind farm development or indicate harm to the landscape that would be unacceptable". I agree with this in general terms, however each application needs to be assessed on its own merits considering all the factors affecting the proposal including where the wind turbines are located.
99. The subtle changes in the landscape are more defined on the ground and are not obvious from the viewpoint photographs submitted with the application.
100. 1 agree that the landscape is not a designated landscape, however due to the considerable development pressure of developing within and adjacent to the surrounding villages and urban areas, this area of undeveloped countryside is highly valued locally for its remoteness and rural characteristics.
Visual Effects 101. A comment has been made that I sought to ignore aspects of valency. I have made comment on this but as this is a subjective issue which depends on individual personal attitudes to wind farm development, I therefore do not consider the LVEA can draw any conclusion from this.
Visual effects on views from residential properties. 102. 1 have fully considered the effects of screening in the views from residential -properties and where the views will be perceived from. I have made the comment that / the effect on the 30 properties assessed as being significant will in mv o~inionbe a negative effect on visual amenity especially as Geri is an absence bf this form of development in current views.
103. Reference is made to 'The Planning System: General Principles'. With reference to this document, I agree that the planning system does not seek to protect the private views of individuals. However a landscape and visual impact assessment needs to identify the impact of a particular development from individual properties. Taken together with the visual effects of views from settlements (which may include wider views from public places), and from footpaths and transport routes, the planning system does seek to identify unacceptable affects on the public amenities of the wider realm. In the case of this application due to the size and location of the wind turbines and the number of locations in which the turbines will be visible from, private and public amenity will be affected by the proposals.
Visual effects on views from settlements 104. In my previous comments I questioned the description of the wind turbines made in the LVEA as appearing within an urban I sub-urban setting. I agree in part with the additional information provided by the applicant that in some views such as from viewpoint 4 the viewer will not be able to tell whether the turbines are located in a rural or urban context and so from this particular viewpoint the turbines are seen within an urban setting as this is where the viewer is located and there is no reference points to the rural landscape beyond. However where there are other views out from Earley for example in viewpoint 6, especially where the properties are built on the valley side, there are glimpses through the settlement to Loddon Valley where it is clear that the turbines are located within a rural landscape and therefore do not have the strong urban elements with which to view the turbines against.
In Conclusion 105. Within the conclusion of the supplementary information it states that the wind turbines will have a significant visual effect on residential properties and settlements. However it also states that "...in no case is it considered that these effects would fail the 'planning test' set out in 'The Planning System: General Principles'." In my assessmenf of the documentation I consider there will be many areas within the settlements and along transport routes where public amenity will be significantly affected by the wind farm proposal.
106. Reference is also made to the PRoW where the effect of the wind turbines has also been assessed as having a significant effect on these receptors, and the following conclusion has been drawn; "...although in reality the public response and experience of people walking, cycling and riding along these routes would be variable and is unlikely to be negative based on the landscape assessment and the experience of the PRoW at other existing wind farms." The issue of what the public will think of the this particular wind farm is purely subjective with no firm facts on which to base this supposition and I consider it to be beyond the remit of the assessment to form this conclusion.
107. In conclusion the supplementary statement submitted has not provided an) additional information to alter my opinion of the development and I refer back to my previous comments on this application.
Impact -upon Heritage Assets 108. The proposed impact of the development upon Heritage Assets is assessed by English Heritage and the Councils Conservation Officer. English Heritages remit is to assess the impact upon Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings and Registered Parks and Gardens and the Councils Conservation Officer assesses the impact upon Grade I Listed Buildings.
109. English Heritage have assessed the impact of the proposed development and it is considered that the development may have an impact upon; The ruins of St Bartholomew's church, Arborfield - a scheduled ancient monument, Bearwood College Park and Garden and associated buildings (house and registered park and garden Grade II*) and The church of St Mary the Virgin, Shinfield (Grade I).
Ruins of St Bartholemews church
110. This lies 700m to the south of the proposed turbines. The significance of this monument is largely due to its value in illustrating the way in which the fortunes of a small parish are reflected in its church. The turbines are likely to be visible from the monument however there is no vista in the direction of the turbines nor any inter- visibility with other historic features. Its aesthetic value drives from its ruinous state rather than from any isolated location. It is therefore considered that the harm caused by the proposed development on the setting of the monument would be limited.
Bearwood Colleqe
111. This site lies 1100m from the easternmost turbine. The park is on the heritage at risk register due to the threat of piecemeal development affecting the significance of th~ landscape as a whole. The applicant provided Supplementary Environmental lnformation to demonstrate further the impact upon Bearwood College, Park and Garden after initial objections were raised from English Heritage and this information demonstrated that the impact of the proposed development on the setting of the principle building at Bearwood College and also the Registered Park are minorlnegligible and as such no objection has been raised from English Heritage.
The Church of St Mary the Virgin Shinfield
112. This is a key building which documents the development of the village of Shinfield and a handsome building within what is at present a village setting. English Heritage are satisfied that the turbines will not have an adverse impact on the setting of the Church.
Impact upon other Heritage Assets
113. The Councils Conservation Officer has assessed the proposed development in light of the information and photomontages submitted with the Environmental Statemer and the Supplementary Environmental Statement lnformation submitted 7 March 201 1
114. The Councils Conservation Officer has assessed the direct and indirect impacts the development may have on surrounding listed buildings, scheduled monuments, designated parks and consewation areas. Direct impacts relate to the construction of foundations, hard standings, access roads and ancillary structures such as monitoring masts, meterltransformer buildings and perimeter fencing. Indirect impacts include those that may impair the setting of historic sites or compromise the visual amenity of the wider landscape in which they are set. Specifically, these impacts relate to scale, visual dominance, vistaslsight-lines, movement/sight/sound effects and changes to previously unaltered settings.
115. The assessment has been made following site visits to designated historic assets :hat may be affected. The number of assets with potential sight-lines to the installation is arge. These comments are therefore limited to those that were considered to have the 2otential to be significantly impacted by the installation i.e. those that may be directly mpacted and others within a wider radius (approx 2km) that may be indirectly impacted. rhese are:
Oldhouse Farmhouse (LB 41457) and Barn approximately 50 metres south of Oldhouse Farmhouse (LB 41458) (both Grade 2).
0 Cutbush (LB 41455) and Barn adjoining Cutbush (LB 41456) (both Grade 2) Hall Place Farmhouse (LB 4141 1 - Grade 2) r Simonds family Tomb 4 meters north of Old Church (LB 41410 - Grade 2), Remains of Old Church at NGR SU 7495 (Scheduled Monument, LB 41409 - Grade 2) Church of St Bartholomew (LB 41415 - Grade 2) 0 The Old Rectory and The Old Rectory Close (LB 41416 - Grade 2) - Mole Bridge Farmhouse (LB 41428Grade 2) 0 Carter's Hill House (LB 41423Grade 2) Bridge House (LB 41412Grade 2) e Bearwood College (LB 41413 - Grade 2*) and Registered Park (Grade 2*)
0 Sindlesham Conservation Area Arborfield Conservation Area Upperwood Farm
3ldhouse Farmhouse and Barn
116. An early C17 farmhouse, rebuilt in the C18 and altered in the C19 and C20. The arge barn to the south is C19 and individually listed. The house and barn form the farmstead that is of aesthetic and historic interest, with C20 buildings of littlelno interest subsequently built to the south and east. Background noise from the M4 motorway, and ~rbans~rawl to the north of this road, have altered this farmsteads wider environment to some dkgree. However, the generalcontext is still one of isolated agricultural buildings set within an open, rural landscape broken up by mature woodland and hedges -this youp forming one of a number of dispersed historic farmsteads that characterise this 2rea. The ,orooosal , will not have a direct imoact on these assets. A new ohotomontaae ncorporating a view of the listed farmhouse'and listed barn fromlnear a p;blic footpa$ to the west show the hubs of all four proposed turbines visible above the existing areas 3f woodland to the east of the farmstead. Being furthest away, Turbine 3 appears to be the least visually intrusive and, in isolation, would not be considered to substantially harm the setting of the building group. Conversely, the two closest Turbines, 1 and 4, sxtend well above the wooded backdrop and dominate these views of the farmhouse and barn respectively. Turbine 2 appears between TI and T3 and, when in operation (rotating), the 4 turbines would be close enough to each other to alter the open rural character of the landscape, forming a visual block of industrial equipment of an 3verwhelming scale in relation to the listed buildings. 117. The wooded shaws and copses visible within this view are likely to have characterised the landscape at the time the farmstead was originally constructed. lgth century Ordnance Survey maps demonstrate that the landscape character has remained unaltered since at least 1879. The rural, isolated landscape setting within which this farmstead is experienced, and to which it relates, contributes to its aesthetic and historic interest. The overwhelming scale, industrial nature, and combined group impact of proposed installation are considered to harm this setting, and as a result erode the heritage significance of the listed buildings.
Cutbush and Barn adioininq Cutbush
118. A C16 former farmhouse and adjoining barn (now residential), altered C17 and early C20 and set within a plot to the north of Cutbush Lane. The immediate setting of the former farmstead is defined by the plot boundaries which are made up of hedging and mature trees to the west, north and east, providing an enclosed setting. The farmhouse and barn are not isolated in the sense that Shinfield Grange and its associated buildings to the south of Cutbush Lane have neighboured the farmstead since at least the C18. Views towards the proposal site to the east are obscured by mature trees along Cutbush Lane and the gardens of Shinfield Grange to the south east. It is therefore unlikely that the proposal will have more than a limited adverse impact on the setting of these listed buildings. The construction traffic passing along Cutbush Lane will be heavier and more frequent than that which has historically passed the roadside barn. Whilst timber framed structures and, to some extent, brick infill using lime mortar are capable of absorbing movement, it is reasonable to ask the applicant to specifically demonstrate that no harm will come to this listed building as a result of the construction traffic.
Hall Place Farmhouse 119. C19 farmhouse in an enclosed setting comprising traditional outbuildings to the west and south, a number of large modern farm buildings to the north, and a gardenllawn area to the south east with mature treeslhedge boundaries. The farmstead, once named Arborfield Hall Farm, is located near the site of Arborfield Hall, Arborfield Mill (both demolished) and the Old Church ruin (see below). There are a number of other modern dwellings within the parkland to the south. Given the above associations, the immediate setting of this farmhouse has never been particularly open or isolated, although more open views to the north would once have been possible prior to the construction of the C20 outbuildings. Despite being relatively near to the proposed turbines (525m), the negative impact of the installation on the setting of the building is therefore considered to be moderate.
Simonds familv Tomb 4 metres north of Old Church, Remains of Old Church 120. This group of historic assets include the C13 scheduled monument ruin of St Bartholomew's church and Simonds family Tomb. Whilst the proposed turbine installation will be visible from this location, the distance to the proposal site (700m) will reduce the extent to which it will overbear. With Hall Place Farmhouse and outbuildings to the north, the aesthetic value of the monument derives from its ruinous state rather than any isolated location. As a result the negative impact on the setting of the monument and tomb is considered to be limited.
Church of St Bartholomew