Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NO: CMA/6/48 FULL APPLICATION Proposed erection of 4 no. wind turbines with maximum DESCRIPTION: tip height of 125m, control building, substation, site compound and other ancillary buildings with site access from Windy Bank Road to the north of the site NAME OF APPLICANT: Banks Renewables Ltd. ADDRESS: Land to north of the village of Woodland, south of Windy Bank Road
ELECTORAL DIVISION: Evenwood
CASE OFFICER: Claire Teasdale, Principal Planning Officer, 03000 261390, [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
The Site
1. The application site comprises of 295 hectares of land to the north of Woodland village and to the south of Hamsterley Forest. The village of Woodland is located to the south of the application site. The site is located to the south of Windy Bank Road (Road C31) with the road forming the northern boundary of the site. To the west is unclassified Road U33.5 and to the south Road C32. Unclassified Road U41.1 runs along the eastern boundary of the site. The application site comprises of mainly agricultural land with some pockets of woodland. Within the site there are three farms with associated agricultural buildings. These being Linburn Hall in the northern part of the site, Mayland Lea to the north, Linburn Head to the south west. Crake Scar Cottage, although not within the site is immediately adjacent to the site boundary in the south eastern part of the site. In addition there are several residential properties, the majority of which are farms, within a radius of approximately 1km of the site boundary. The Descend Hamsterley Mountain Biking site is located to the north within Hamsterley Forest.
2. There are a number of public rights of way within the vicinity of the application site including the Sustrans NCN National Route Walney to Wear & Whitby that runs through Hamsterley Forest. Within the site Footpath No. 6 (South Bedburn Parish) enters the site at the entrance to Mayland Lea and then runs south parallel with Windy Bank Road. Footpath No. 10 (South Bedburn Parish) runs to the north again parallel with Windy Bank Road. Bridleway No. 42 (Lynesack & Softley Parish) runs east west through the central part of the site. Footpaths No. 37 and 49 (Lynesack & Softley Parish) run through the south eastern corner of the site. Tributaries of Linburn Beck are within the site. 3. The northern part of the application site is within an Area of High Landscape Value which covers the northern ridge of the Linburn Valley, the Bedburn Valley (including Hamsterley Forest) and the main valley of the River Wear, with the proposed turbines being located entirely within the designation. There are no ecological sites within the application area, but there are a number in the vicinity. The North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is located approximately 1km (at its closest point) to the north of the application site. The North Pennine Moors Special Protection Area (SPA) and North Pennine Moors Special Area of Conservation (SAC) along with the Bollihope, Pikestone, Eggleston & Woodland Fells Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are also located approximately 1km (at their closest point) to the north of the application site. A number of statutory and non-statutory nature conservation sites are located within relative close proximity to the application site including Frog Wood Bog SSSI and Low Redford Meadows SSSI to the north. Redford Meadows Local Wildlife Site lies to the north with other site to the north east. Ancient woodland is located to the north west.
4. No designated heritage assets are located within the site. Within 15km of the site there are a number of Grade I, II* and II listed buildings, conservation areas, schedule monuments and registered parks and gardens. Within 2.5km there are a number of Grade II listed buildings, the closest being at Woodland to the south and Podgehole some 1.1km to the east. Retford Grove park and garden of local interest lies to the north within Hamsterly Forest. The submitted planning application through its assessment of landscape, heritage and ecological impacts, identifies a comprehensive list of such sites.
5. Land to the south west of the site boundary and in the southern part of the site has been subject to the surface coal mining. Crake Scar, Crane Row and Kays Lea Farm were worked and restored in the later 1960s and early 1970s.
The Proposal
6. The proposal is for the erection of four wind turbines, a control building, site compound and other ancillary buildings with site access from Windy Bank Road to the north of the site, the existing access to Mayland Lea Farm. Although the application site comprises 295ha, 1.5ha would be disturbed by the proposed development.
7. The proposed turbines themselves would each have a maximum tip height of 125m, hub height of 80m with a rotor diameter of 92m. Each turbine would have a proposed installed capacity of up to 3.4MW (the maximum installed capacity being 13.6MW (up to 14MW)). The actual turbines that would be used at the site would be selected from a range of turbines within the design parameters set out in the application, which is often the case with such developments.
8. Turbines T1, T3 and T5 would be located along Windy Bank Road. T1 would be the most northerly being to the north west of Linburn Hall. T3 would be located to the north of Mayland Lea and T5 to the south west of Linburn Hall. Turbine T2 would be located to the north east of Mayland Lea and to the south west of Linburn Hall. Access tracks to each of the turbines would be constructed (they would be 5m wide to deliver and build the turbines and then be reduced during the operational phase), 1.6km in total. 50m micro siting allowance is requested as part of the application.
9. Adjacent to each turbine a transformer would be sited within a housing of approximately 4.2m x 2.2m x 1.72m. The turbines would be sited on reinforced concrete foundations of approximately 18m x 18m square and a depth of approximately 3.5m. Each turbine would require a crane pad or hardstanding to be built adjacent to the turbine foundation and each of these would cover approximately 25m x 40m. 1.6km of onsite tracks would be required as part of the application.
10. A temporary construction compound is also proposed adjacent to the proposed site entrance. This would measure 70m x 40m and be used for the storage of plant and materials. The compound would also accommodate temporary site offices, canteen, drying rooms, toilets and washing facilities in addition to oil storage and bunding, a water tank/bowser and car parking area. The compound would be surrounded by a 2.5m high security fence as necessary.
11. The grid connection is yet to be confirmed but is likely to be via a combination of underground and overhead cables on wooden poles connecting to a nearby substation. The grid connection would be subject to a separate consenting process under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 if required. Electrical power from the turbine transformers would be transferred to the electricity distribution system through switchgear unit(s). The applicant’s preferred option is to connect the site to the into the Toronto substation to the east of the application site.
12. A control building is required to house high voltage switchgear, metering and other control equipment. This would be located within the footprint of the site construction compound. The control building would be approximately 14m in length, 7.5m in width and 6.4 in height to ridgeline. Cables, to be laid underground, connecting the control building to each turbine would be necessary and approximately **km of cable trenches would be required for this development.
Construction
13. The construction period for the development would take approximately 8 months from start to finish. Preliminary works include carrying out a site survey and investigation works and preparation, construction of site compound, upgrading of the existing access to Mayland Lea for the purposes of the development. Construction of control building, site compound, turbine foundations and crane pads. Concrete for the foundations would either be batched on site or premixed imported to the site. A concrete washout bay would be provided on site adjacent to the construction compound for use by vehicles to wash out the concrete drum following the depositing of concrete at the site. Excavation of trenches for cable laying and connection of on- site distribution and communication cables would follow before turbine delivery and erection.
Working hours
14. The proposed working hours for site construction works are 08:00 – 19:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00 – 13:00 Saturday with no working on Sundays or Public/Bank Holidays. Although delivery of abnormal loads requiring police escort may be outside of these hours. Turbine delivery and construction would take place 08:00 – 22:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00 – 22:00 Saturday with no working on Sundays or Public/Bank Holidays. Proposed turbine commissioning working hours are Monday to Sunday (including Bank Holidays) 08:00 – 22:00. Should works be required to take place outside of these hours then additional hours would be agreed in advance with the Council and local residents notified.
Traffic and access
15. During construction it is anticipated that HGV movements would vary. A maximum of 65 movements per day is predicted with an average of 21 per day over the construction period during the construction of the turbine foundations. It is estimated that each turbine would be delivered in sections and carried in approximately 10 abnormal loads. Delivery of the components would be for some three months with 3 to 4 abnormal loads being delivered per week.
16. The site access would be from Windy Bank Road (Road C31) to the north of the site. The existing access to Mayland Lea Farm would be upgraded to form a priority junction onto Windy Bank Road. The turbine components would be transported to the site from the Port of Blyth, although some parts may be sourced from the United Kingdom. From Newcastle it is anticipated that abnormal load route for blades would be via the A1, A69 and then south on the A68 to Etherley and to the site via the Road C33 that connects into Daniel Lane Road C30 northbound, joining Saunders Avenue (Road C31) at the village of Hamsterley. The route then continues westbound along Saunders Avenue and onto Windy Bank Road (a continuation of Road C31) to the site. The abnormal load route for the tower and nacelle would be along the A69 from the south where at Etherley it would continue on to the site as per the route for the blades. Abnormal loads would be normally timed to be during off peak periods at times to be agreed with the Police and the Highways Authority. Additional site traffic would include vehicles moving excavation plant and other items for a short period during the commissioning and de-commissioning phases. However, it is not proposed that these vehicles would pass through Hamsterley and it is proposed that this would be secured through condition and a traffic management plan. Additional vehicle movements would also be generated by employees.
Operational
17. The development has been designed to have an operational life of 25 years between commissioning and decommissioning. Regular maintenance would take place of the turbines on a six monthly basis following initial commissioning. Servicing of the high voltage switch gear would take place every 5 to 8 years. Replacement of turbine parts may take place and necessitate delivery by HGV. The same measures would be put in place as at the construction period.
Decommissioning
18. At the end of the operational life of the development it would need to be decommissioned. The application states that at least six months prior to the decommissioning of the site a decommissioning method statement would be prepared. This would be secured through condition should planning permission be granted. Decommissioning would include the removal of the turbines and control building. The upper sections of the turbine foundations would likely be removed and backfilled with appropriate material and topsoil replaced and the site restored to agriculture. Access tracks would be left in-situ if required for agricultural and land management operations or allowed to re-vegetate or be covered with soil and restored to agriculture.
Revisions
19. A number of revisions to the scheme have been made since the application was first submitted. Originally the application was for five turbines with maximum tip height of 115m each with an installed capacity of up to 12.5MW. Also included was a 70m high meteorological mast (for wind monitoring), a site control building, temporary construction compound for the duration of the construction period, hardstanding areas, fences and associated infrastructure and underground electrical cabling. A site access from B6282 to the south and approximately 3.9km of new access track were also proposed. In addition it was proposed to cross the Linburn Beck for access purposes as a result of the access to the site being to the south. A higher number of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) were originally proposed (a maximum of 78 per day and an average of 38 per day).
20. As a result of consultee responses to the planning application supplementary environmental information was submitted in March 2013. This related to the findings of an archaeological investigation including a geophysical survey, further pre- breeding ornithological surveys, and a further season of surveying bat activity. In June 2014, again as a result of consultee responses further supplementary environmental information was submitted along with a revision to the submitted scheme, this being the current proposed development. Additional information relating to noise was submitted directly to the Environmental Health Officer and those making representations were informed of this in 2015.
21. The main changes being: the reduction from four to five turbines with an increase in the maximum tip height of from 115m to 125m; removal of the meteorological mast and relocation of the site access to the northern part of the site off Windy Bank Road. As a result of the change to the access and reduction in the number of turbines there has been rationalisation of the track layout resulting in a reduction of the site infrastructure. In addition an amendment to the proposed ‘community benefit fund’ has been made. This has increased per annum from £2,000 per MW to £5,000 per MW over the 25 year life of the site.
22. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). This report has taken into account the information contained in the ES and subsequently submitted details including supplementary environmental information and that arising from statutory consultations and other responses.
23. The application is being presented to the County Planning Committee as the development comprises of more than two wind turbines with an output of greater than 1.5MW.
PLANNING HISTORY
24. In January 2010 planning permission was granted for the erection of a 60m high wind monitoring mast for a temporary period of three years (Planning Permission No. 6/2009/0271/DM). The mast was required to enable wind speed data to be collected to assist in the design of any subsequent wind farm proposal.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY
25. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependant. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’.
26. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal.
27. One of the twelve core principles of the NPPF (paragraph 17) supports “the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate….. and encourages the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy).” The NPPF also states in paragraph 98 that “when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should: Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions... Approve the application (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) if its impacts are (or can be) made acceptable.”
28. NPPF Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy. The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.
29. NPPF Part 3 – Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy. States that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, plans should: support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses; support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside.
30. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. It is recognised that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximize sustainable transport solutions which will vary from urban to rural areas. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.
31. NPPF Part 7 – Requiring Good Design. The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. Planning policies and decisions must aim to ensure developments; function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the lifetime of the development, establish a strong sense of place, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.
32. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities. Recognises the part the planning system can play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities. Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities.
33. NPPF Part 10 – Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change. Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy.
34. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes including Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, recognising the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land.
35. It is stated that development on land within or outside an SSSI likely to have an adverse effect on an SSSI (either individually or in combination with other developments) should not normally be permitted. Protection to other European sites is given (SPAs and SACs). It is stated that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined.
36. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf
37. Accompanying the NPPF the Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters including of most relevance to this application a dedicated section on renewable and low carbon energy.
http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/
LOCAL PLAN POLICY:
Teesdale Local Plan (adopted 2009) (TLP)
38. Policy GD1– General Development Criteria – permits development that (inter alia) is in keeping with the character and appearance of the area, and would not unreasonably harm the rural landscape of the area.
39. Policy ENV1 – Protection Of The Countryside – allows development in the countryside for the purposes of agriculture, rural diversification projects, forestry, nature conservation, tourism, recreation, local infrastructure needs and an existing countryside use where there is a need on the site and where it conforms with other policies in the plan provided that it does not unreasonably harm the landscape and wildlife resources of the area.
40. Policy ENV2 – Development Within Or Adjacent To The North Pennines AONB – only permits development capable of protecting the landscape quality and natural beauty of the designated area. 41. Policy ENV3 – Development Within Or adjacent To An Area Of High Landscape Value – allows development only where it does not detract from such an area’s special character and pays special attention to the landscape qualities of the area.
42. Policy ENV4 – Historic Parks And Gardens – seeks to protect the historic character and appearance of historic parks and gardens as designated by English Heritage and within these areas only new development proposals that are compatible with existing uses already within the area and specific following criteria will be granted planning permission.
43. Policy ENV5 – Development Within or Adjacent to Nature Conservation Sites – proposals which may affect a nature conservation site of international importance, will be subject to the most rigorous examination. Proposals not connected to and related to the management of the site will not be permitted if they have significant effects on the site, unless there is no alternative solution and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for the proposal. Approved development will be subject to planning conditions and obligations to secure mitigation or compensatory measures, including those necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.
44. Policy ENV6 – Safeguarding of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National – Proposals for development in or likely to affect SSSIs (including national nature reserves) will be subject to special scrutiny. Where such development may have an adverse effect on the SSSI, directly or indirectly, it will not be permitted unless the reasons for the development, including the lack of alternative solutions to that being proposed, clearly outweigh the nature conservation value of the site itself and the national policy to safeguard the national network of such sites. Where such development does proceed, it may be subject to planning conditions and obligations to secure mitigation or compensatory measures.
45. Policy ENV7 – Development affecting Local Nature Conservation Sites – Development proposals, which are liable to damage the nature conservation value of sites, notified to the district council as being of local nature conservation importance will not be approved unless: the case for development clearly outweighs the need to safeguard the intrinsic value of the site, and the resulting damage is kept to a minimum through careful design, siting and compensatory measures.
46. Policy ENV8 – Safeguarding Plant and Animal Species Protected by Law – does not permit development which would harm any animal or plant species afforded special protection by law.
47. Policy ENV12 – Protection of Agricultural Land – states that development of the best and most versatile agricultural land will not be permitted unless opportunities have been assessed for accommodating development need on previously developed sites, on land within the boundaries of existing developed areas, and on poorer quality farmland.
48. Policy ENV14 – Protection of Water Quality – states development will not be permitted which would unacceptably prejudice the quality of surface or ground water.
49. Policy ENV15 – Development Affecting Flood Risk – state development (including the intensification of existing development or land raising) which may be at an unacceptable risk of flooding or may increase the risk of flooding elsewhere will not be permitted. All applications for development in flood risk areas and/or where the development would result in an increased risk of flooding elsewhere will be accompanied by a flood risk assessment. 50. Policy ENV16 – Development Affecting Rivers Or Streams and Their Corridors – states that the Council will resist development, which would have a significant detrimental impact on natural features and wildlife habitats of rivers and streams or their corridors.
51. Policy BENV3 – Development Adversely Affecting the Character of a Listed Building – precludes development that would adversely affect the character of a listed building or its setting.
52. BENV11 – Archaeological Interest Sites – requires a field evaluation to be submitted prior to determination for a development that may affect a known or potential site of archaeological interest. Development which would unacceptably harm the setting or physical remains of sites of national importance, whether scheduled or not, will not be approved. Developments affecting sites of regional or local importance will only be approved where the applicant has secured a scheme of works which will in the first instance preserve archaeological remains in situ or where this is not possible by excavation and record.
53. Policy TR10 – Development affecting Public Rights of Way – precludes development that would directly affect a public right of way unless an acceptable and equivalent route is provided. Where possible, development should facilitate the incorporation rather than diversion of public rights of way.
54. Policy C5B – Wind Farms outside the AONB – permits wind farms of two or more turbines outside the AONB if a number of criteria are met. These being: a) there would not be unacceptable harm to the amenity of nearby residential occupiers by reason of noise emission, visual dominance, shadow flicker or reflected light; and b) the development, including servicing roads, any buildings and all transmission lines between the development and point of connection to the grid would not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area; and c) the development would not unacceptably harm the landscape of the area, nor unreasonably damage the landscape setting of adjacent land falling within the North Pennines AONB and/or Yorkshire Dales National Park; and d) the topography of the site has been taken into account for the locality; and e) there would not be unacceptable harm to wildlife; and f) there would not be unacceptable harm to an area of archaeological importance; and g) the turbines would not cause unreasonable harm to the performance of military radar or hazard to military low flying operations. The Policy requires that proposals should include provisions that the turbines are painted in a suitable colour, that any associated buildings are constructed in materials appropriate to the locality, and that any transmission lines between individual turbines and any associated transformer building are located underground. Proposals should conform with Policies GD1, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, and BENV11.
RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY:
The County Durham Plan
55. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF says that decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. The County Durham Plan was submitted for Examination in Public in April 2014 and stage 1 of that Examination has been concluded. However, the Inspector’s Interim Report which followed, dated 18 February 2015, has raised issues in relation to the soundness of various elements of the plan. In the light of this, policies that may be relevant to an individual scheme and which are neither the subject of significant objection nor adverse comment in the Interim Report can carry limited weight. Those policies that have been subject to significant objection can carry only very limited weight. Equally, where policy has been amended, as set out in the Interim Report, then such amended policy can carry only very limited weight. Those policies that have been the subject of adverse comment in the interim report can carry no weight. Relevant policies and the weight to be afforded to them is discussed in the main body of the report.
The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant in the Development Plan the full text, criteria, and justifications of each may be accessed at: http://www.durham.gov.uk/article/3271/Teesdale-Local-Plan (Teesdale District Local Plan)http://durhamcc- consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/planning/ (County Durham Plan)
CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY RESPONSES:
56. South Bedburn Parish Council – objects to the proposal. The reasons being: they would have a dramatic effect and spoil the general look of the landscape; tourism would be adversely affected; disturbance to wildlife including nesting birds; residents living in close proximity to the turbines would suffer from noise and flickering which would cause health problems; an expected fall in house prices, and close proximity to the AONB. The Parish Council undertook a survey in 2011 of every household in the Parish and 80 people were against the proposal, 14 in favour and 2 do not knows were received.
57. Lynesack and Softley Parish Council – objected to the five turbine proposal and to the supplementary environmental information submitted in 2013, 2014 and 2015. The Parish Council continues to object to the four turbine proposal recommending refusal of the application for the following reasons: severe damage to the living standards of all who are living in the area, particularly those living nearest to the development, or on any of the access routes; noise levels, including the effects/impact of noise for those living near to the development; the possible devaluation of properties in the area; proposed routes for HGV’s are totally unsuitable, and any routes through the parishes would have a hugely detrimental effect on the people who live in the villages and everyone has the right to enjoy their property peacefully/ without disturbance; road collapses in the surrounding area highlight that our rural roads are totally unsuitable for construction vehicles making numerous trips per day; the installation of an access road would cause disruption/risk to flora and fauna; the turbines are 10m higher than the previous application and therefore more visually intrusive, given that they will be almost the height of Blackpool Tower; disruption would be caused to those using public Footpaths and Bridleways; the turbines are a potential fire risk and are to be sited next to a forest; the development of the Durham Dales as a tourist destination is vital to the future of our local economy; many people depend on income from visitors/ tourism, and the erection of industrial-scale wind turbines would have a detrimental effect on the growing tourism of the area.
58. It is further stated that the turbines would detract from the tourist attraction and beauty of Hamsterley Forest; the site is currently used by the Great North Air Ambulance and the siting of the turbines could disrupt landings in the area, therefore putting lives at risk; the development would affect the scenery and tranquillity of the area; the site is next to an AONB and Special Protected Area; it is adjacent to the breeding grounds of many species of wading birds – risk or displacement of many rare and protected species; the proposed location has one of the highest concentrations of Golden Plover; danger of ‘Ice Throw’ from the blades; the North East of England and Co Durham in particular has exceeded requirements for renewable energy, so it is not required; it would appear to have been omitted that 1.75 million pounds has been made available in financial benefits to areas in Teesdale that are not going to be affected by the turbine, and concerns that if the proposal was agreed, it would set a precedent for Wind Turbines to be erected to the west of the A68, in areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). The Parish Council has expressed some concerns over some of the letters submitted in favour of the proposal where the wording in the letters appears to be identical.
59. Whorlton and Westwick Parish Council – objected to the original proposals citing reasons of noise; impact upon local residents and visitors to the area considering that visitor numbers would reduce. The Parish Council are very against the building of these not very useful, totally intrusive wind turbines and should not be placed in the very special area of AONB.
60. Peterlee Town Council – is in support of those making objections being offered by HUGAG against the proposed turbines.
61. Ingleton Parish Council – offers its full unconditional support to the objections to this application. The Council considers the proposed wind turbines are not appropriate in the location chosen; their size is not warranted, and would spoil the outlook of an area of natural beauty and cause unnecessary disruption to the lives of the residents of Woodland and Hamsterley; Teesdale is an attractive place to live, work and visit and the installation of these wind turbines is not in tune with the area.
62. Eggleston Parish Council – objected to the five turbine proposal and to the current proposal. The Council consider that the proposal is a totally inappropriate development for the site. The visual impact of the proposed development would be immense in this AHLV so close to Hamsterley Forest and the nationally important landscape of the North Pennines AONB and a turbine site would render this unique area of upland County Durham as a degraded ‘turbine landscape’. Concerns are raised regarding the ecological effect of the proposal the site itself and the surrounding area being host to a variety of upland wading birds and raptors, which have been in serious decline over recent years. It is stated that Hamsterley Forest and the North Pennines Special Protection Area (SPA) offers a safe haven for these birds and a significant protected bat population and the significant disturbance wind turbines would create to their habitats would undoubtedly threaten the viability of some important nationally and internationally important wildlife species living in this area.
63. Concerns are also raised in respect of tourism. The Parish Council consider that a windfarm in this location risks a dramatic reduction in the number of people choosing to visit the area, one of the least environmentally spoiled areas in all England, and this would have an impact on the livelihoods of those employed in tourism. Concerns are also raised that if the proposal was agreed, it would lead to further applications for similar schemes in other locations in Teesdale and Weardale. Whilst not being opposed in principle to establishing renewable energy projects in appropriate locations the application site is considered to be a totally inappropriate setting. The view that County Durham already exceeds its renewable energy target is expressed and less intrusive renewable technologies in sensitive location should be encouraged.
64. Barnard Town Council – objects to the proposal considering that the development does not accord with saved and emerging development plan policies in relation to wind turbine development. The Parish Council considers that the development would cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of nearby residential occupiers and local communities by reason of visual dominance and noise; it would significantly harm the landscape, character and appearance of the area, and would unacceptably damage the landscape setting of adjacent land.
65. Woodland Parish Council – objected to the five turbine proposal and to the current proposal. The Parish Council has submitted a detailed letter of objection setting out why the application should not be approved. It is considered that there is a strong body of evidence to support the notion that majority of local opinion is firmly against the proposal and this is following surveys carried out in 2011by the parish Council, Teesdale Mercury and the applicant. In terms of location, landscape and visual impact it is considered that the adverse framework and uncertainty of appropriate measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of the proposal leads to the conclusion that the application site is not an appropriate location for the development. There is real danger of further wind turbines and wind farm sites being encouraged in this area and of attrition to important local wildlife. It is considered that there is no local economic benefit to be gained by the proposal but there is a real possibility that local tourism could be harmed.
66. The Parish Council has grave concerns about the suitability of the proposed access routes in view of damage to minor roads and from a road safety aspect. It is considered that there is no suitable or safe access for construction traffic. It is further considered that County Durham has met its renewable energy target and there is no necessity for the development to achieve RSS targets. Concerns are also raised in terms of the proposed grid connection (that further information should be provided) and noise. In terms of noise, despite the submitted noise figures showing no discernible noise, low noise levels may produce affects greater than might be expected from their levels. Lack of sleep and stress related illnesses are cited as matters associated with noise from wind turbines. It is also considered that the advantages gained from the proposed development are far outweighed by the disadvantages in relation to the negative impact on the landscape, ecology, visual impact, tourism, road damage and all contribution to renewable targets and the application should not therefore be approved.
67. Hamsterley Parish Council – objected to the five turbine proposal and to the current proposal considering that its objections are intensified by the added size of the turbines. Its objections relate to the adverse landscape impact in an AHLV and in close proximity to the North Pennines AONB; the adverse impression that turbines would make on visitors to Hamsterley Forest; possible adverse impact on local employment which is heavily dependent on tourists and visitors coming to the Forest and surrounding area; possible adverse ecological impact in area of rich wildlife; probable adverse impact on some residents near the turbines by way of visual intrusion or noise, and it is felt that the limited benefits of the scheme would not outweigh these drawbacks. The revised access route also raises concerns but recognise that this is not a valid objection given that people can be subjected to any amount of disruption during a construction period but highlight that this a serious concern for local residents.
68. Wolsingham Parish Council – objects to the proposal. It is stated that the height of the proposed structure at 125m is 50m higher than the ones at Tow Law and these are seen for mike around. It is considered to have an extra 50m protruding into the atmosphere is quite preposterous and unwarranted also stating that they are inefficient and have a detrimental effect on wildlife especially birds. The location is really close to the North Pennines AONB and walking the fells in and around Bolihope, Egglestone and Stanhope these structures would be completely out of character with the surrounding countryside. It is requested to save the countryside, save money and save our wildlife for future generations to enjoy.
69. Middleton-in-Teesdale & Newbiggin Parish Council – objects to the proposal. It is stated that the turbines would be sited opposite the Hamsterley Forest which local residents seek to conserve and protect from any development that is likely to have an adverse effect on its character and appearance. By reason of its size and appearance the turbines would have an adverse impact on the North Pennines AONB, its valued characteristic and could have a significant impact on the qualities for which it was designated. It is considered that the turbines would not be in the public interest. It is noted that the site close to the SAC, SPA and SSSI and if approved would set a dangerous precedent. The Parish Council considers that the turbines would have an impact on amenity as it is close to Hamsterley Forest, popular with walkers and mountain bikers. It will injury motorists and residents who would be affected by lose frequency noise, electromagnetic interference, light flicker, ill health and psychological overbearing.
70. Cotherstone Parish Council – objects to the application and gives its full support to Woodland and Hamsterley against the wind turbine proposal and control buildings opposite Hamsterley Forrest on the edge of the North Pennines AONB.
71. Evenwood & Barony Parish Council – objected to the five turbine proposal and to the current proposal. The Parish Council support the continued endeavours of the residents and Parish Councils of Woodland and Hamsterley in their continued opposition to this proposal. The Parish Council consider the proposal is inappropriate given it is in an AHLV and AONB and would destroy the beauty and tranquillity of the area. It would have a serious impact on the ecology of the area and reduce the enjoyment of the numerous rights of way network. It is considered that there is no justification for more turbines as the County is already meeting Government renewable energy targets.
72. Gainford Parish Council – objects to the proposal and supports the continued endeavours of the residents, and Parish Councils of Woodland and Hamsterley in their continued opposition to this wind turbine proposal.
73. Witton le Wear Parish Council – objects to the proposal for the following reasons: the revised height of the turbines would be seen as a dominant feature of the landscape in this area and the development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area; it is quite likely that the turbines would be seen from Witton le Wear and the A68 spoiling the visual experience for visitors; the site is very close to the AONB resulting in harm to the wildlife and natural wild plant life; there is no requirement for this development given County Durham has exceeded the 2020 target for renewable energy and other than Northumberland is far ahead of any other County, and there be an adverse impact on tourism given there would be less people attracted to the County.
74. Rokerby, Brignall & Eggleston Abbey Parish Council – objects to the proposal considering that the proposed development would be so intrusive in the landscape and would have a devastating impact on the community and deter tourists from visiting Teesdale for its beauty, tranquillity and unchanged landscape. Businesses rely on tourism and it is hoped that the Authority will consider this and take into account everybody’s concerns and the strong objections raised. The Parish Council supports Woodland and Hamsterley with its campaign.
75. Etherley Parish Council – objected to the five turbine proposal and to the current proposal. The Parish Council oppose the development for the following reasons: the adverse effect of a development of this nature on the landscape and wildlife; impact of the development in an area close to the North Pennines AONB; negative affect upon tourism which is extremely important to the area; adverse effect upon local residents, and the limited benefit of the scheme in comparison to the negative effect this development would undoubtedly present.
76. Staindrop Parish Council – raise concerns regarding the application. The Parish Council is concerned about the height of the turbines and the visual intrusion and impact this would have upon the immediate area and in long distance views. The Parish Council would urges the County Council, in considering the application, to take into account these concerns and also to determine the application in the light of relevant policies in both the existing and emerging County Plans.
77. Startforth Parish Council – supports Hamsterley Upper Gauntless Action Group (HUGAG) in its opposition to Banks Renewables Windy Bank wind farm for four 125 metre turbines and control buildings opposite Hamsterley forest. Startforth Parish Council is deeply concerned about wildlife displacement, downgraded landscape quality and tourism to the area. Hamsterley attracted 200,000 people last year and there are holiday cottages which are people’s livelihoods. This area is special as one of the last unspoilt wildernesses in England renound for its beauty and open wilderness.
78. Marwood Parish Council – advises of its continuing support in respect of HUGAG’s objections of the proposed development.
79. Bolam Parish Meeting – objects to the proposed development citing reasons of adverse effect on the landscape with reference to the adverse views from and to the AONB; that the proposal would displace important wildlife such as birds and bats which could be killed by the blades of the turbine also noting that the RSPB objected to the original proposal; negative impact on the tourism industry and users of the area; a major increase in HGVs through the villages of Hamsterley and Woodland potentially causing accidents, damage to property and infrastructure and causing unacceptable disruption and nuisance. Concerns are also raised that if planning permission was granted it could set a precedent for further wind turbine developments in Teesdale.
80. Winston Parish Council – object to the planning application which proposes to erect 4 wind turbines with maximum tip height of 125m, control building, substation, site compound and other ancillary buildings with site access from Windy Bank Road to the north of the site. The Parish Council objects to the application on the grounds of its impact upon the surrounding environment, including wildlife, as well as the visual impact such a development will have upon the wider Teesdale and Weardale areas.
81. Mickleton Parish Council – objects considering that owing to their size the turbines would be seen over a wide area. The need for alternative methods of generating electricity is recognised but there are concerns about this particular development and the impact on the surrounding environment. The Parish Council feels that this proposal should not go ahead in its present form and is inappropriately located in England’s last wilderness being seen all over the unique environment.
82. Cockfield Parish Council – express its full support for the efforts by Woodland and Hamsterley Parish Councils to oppose this development.
83. Romaldkirk Parish Council – raises concerns considering that the size of the proposed wind turbines would be seen over a wide area of both Teesdale and Weardale and would have an impact on the surrounding environment. The proposed development is also in a unique environment, which needs to be protected. It is stated that although the Parish Council is not against wind farm development in appropriate places, it does feel that this proposed development is not in an appropriate place and should not be approved.
84. Barton Parish Council – supports HUGAG’s opposition to the proposed wind farm.
85. Melsonby Parish Council – objects to the proposal based on the size of the proposed turbines and the sensitive location close to Hamsterley Forest. It is possible that the height of the turbines would be visible from within the Parish adding to the clutter of wind turbines that can be seen already see on its horizon. Many of residents enjoy visiting the beautiful surroundings of Hamsterley Forest which would be spoilt by these large turbines.
86. The Highway Authority – has no objections to the development considering the proposed turbine delivery route to be generally acceptable, but considers the proposed HGV route (the use of the Unclassified 41.1 and Unclassified 33.4 link between the C32 and C31) not to be suitable for HGV construction traffic. Temporary passing bays would be required in specified locations on the C31 and Unclassified 33.5 prior to the commencement of the development. Turbines T2 and T3 are within topple distance of Windy Bank Road and the Highway Authority recommends the turbine locations are set back further to achieve maximum safety.
87. Should planning permission be granted then a number of works would need to be secured. These include: joint pre-commencement public highway condition survey; surveys following completion of the project, and any deemed necessary during the construction period; new highway verge access crossings for proposed delivery tracks, temporary carriageway widening, culverting drainage ditches, temporary signing, and temporary relocation of existing highway signs. In addition conditions requiring a schedule of street furniture proposed for relocation or temporary removal prior to commencement of turbine component deliveries; a condition survey of existing affected public roads prior to commencement of construction activities on the site, and within 3 months of completion of the turbines' installation returning any affected highway to its original condition and replacement of street furniture. These matters can be secured through condition or legal agreement should planning permission be granted. Additional information on the axle configuration were sought but not provided. Notwithstanding this, the principle of the route has been agreed and ultimately, if a structure needs strengthening, and there is no alternative route possible, then strengthening would need to take place.
88. Environment Agency – has no objection to the proposed development but provides advice and comments in relation to ground water and foul drainage. In terms of ground water it is noted that wind farm developments, particularly the installation of turbines and use off piling and/or deep foundations, have the potential to impact the quality and flow of local groundwater supplies. It is recommended that the developer assesses the risks to all controlled waters, including groundwater, surface water and springs, posed during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the wind farm. Any risks identified should be suitably mitigated to reduce the risk to water depended features supplies. In particular, the development should not impact potable drinking water supplies either public or private. In terms of foul drainage it is advised that the sewerage undertaker be consulted and be requested to demonstrate that the sewerage and sewage disposal systems serving the development have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional flows, generated as a result of the development, without causing pollution. An acceptable method of foul drainage disposal would be connection to the foul sewer. 89. Natural England (NE) – it is noted that the application site is in close proximity to the North Pennine Moors Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which are European sites. The site is also notified at a national level as Bollihope, Pikestone, Eggleston and Woodland Fells Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). It is stated that the site has the potential to affect its interest features of the European designated sites and that under provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) The Council should have regard for any potential impacts that a plan or project may have. It is noted that the potential impacts that may arise from the proposal relate to the presence of SPA interest features that are located outside the site boundary. It is advised that the potential for offsite impacts needs to be considered in assessing what, if any, potential impacts the proposal may have on European sites.
90. Having considered the shadow Appropriate Assessment submitted by the applicant Natural England concludes that Council is able to ascertain that the proposal would not result in adverse effects on the integrity of any of the ecological designated sites. Having considered the assessment, and the measures proposed to mitigate for all identified adverse effects that could potentially occur as a result of the proposal, Natural England advises that it concurs with the assessment conclusions, providing that all mitigation measures are appropriately secured in any permission given. No objection to this matter is raised. In terms of ornithology, Natural England reminds the Council of its duty in relation to wild birds and the contribution it should make in the determination of planning applications. This is in the context where the site and surrounding area has been identified as being of significant ornithological interest.
91. Natural England objects to the proposed development in terms of its impact on the AONB considering it to be contrary to Teesdale District Local Plan policies and the NPPF. It is considered that the location and scale would cause significant and adverse impact on the purpose of the AONB designation. It is also considered that the landscape and visual impact assessment has not been adequately undertaken and there is a potential for a significant impact on the purposes of the designation of the AONB. Reference is also made to the development capacity study: ‘Wind Farm Development and Landscape Capacity Studies: North and South Durham Upland Coalfield’ (ARUP/NEA 2009) and that one of the turbines is proposed within an area where it is stated none should be situated and the height of the other three would have a severely adverse impact upon the AONB. It is stated that the application has not been assessed for impacts on protected species and reference is made to Natural England’s standing advice on protected species. Although in previous letter states that following submission of additional information Natural England advised that the proposal would be unlikely to affect bats.
92. Durham Tees Valley Airport (DTVA) – DTVA originally objected to the proposal as due to the high ground the turbines would be sited upon they would be detected by DTVA primary radar creating clutter (e.g. in the form of twinkling or the formation of tracks on the screen). This effect can be distracting for controller and can cause confusion when trying to distinguish between real aircraft and false targets. As a result, the safe operation of the airport could be seriously compromised and no proposals to mitigate the impacts or evidence that indicates that the impacts could be mitigated had been submitted. Following consultation on the four turbine scheme DTVA has advised that it does not object to the development being satisfied that any effects of the proposed development can be managed or mitigated following discussions with the applicant. 93. NATS – has no safeguarding objection to the current proposal having examined the proposal from a technical safeguarding aspect the proposal does not conflict with its safeguarding criteria.
94. Ministry of Defence (MOD) – has no objection to the current proposal. The principal safeguarding concerns of the MOD with respect to the development of wind turbines relate to their potential to create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements, and cause interference to air traffic control and air defence radar installations. In the interests of air safety the MOD requests that all turbines be fitted with specific lighting and if planning permission is granted then details relating to the construction dates, maximum height of construction equipment and the latitude of every turbine are provided.
95. Historic England (formerly English Heritage) – commented in respect of the five turbine proposal and raised no objection to the proposals. Stating that the development would have no direct impact upon any designated historic environment for which Historic England has responsibility, nor would it compromise the setting of any such asset within the immediate vicinity. Historic England recommends that liaison takes place with the Council’s archaeologist as the proposed development may impact upon undesignated, buried, archaeological remains. As the proposals may have an effect on the general landscape character of the area it is recommended that liaison takes place with the Council’s Landscape officers and the North Pennines AONB as there may be setting issues relating to the close proximity to the AONB.
96. The Coal Authority – raises no objection. The application site falls within the defined Coal Mining Referral Area therefore within the application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered in relation to the determination of the application. The CA concurs with the findings of the Geo- Environmental Desk Study that coal mining legacy potentially poses a risk to the proposed development and agrees with the recommendations of the study that include further site investigations being undertaken to establish the exact locations and to enable the design of appropriate foundation solutions. The proposed abnormal load traffic route of Nettlebed Lane/Crow Row Lane is noted as being liable to subsidence and this should be taken into account by the Council when determining whether or not the use of road is appropriate. Having reviewed the amended details and supplementary Environmental Information, which do not include additional information in regards to coal mining legacy issues including any update to the Geo-Environmental Desk Study, The Coal Authority does not wish to make any further comments on the planning application than those made in the original consultation.
97. British Telecommunications plc (BT) – has studied the revised application with respect to EMC and related problems to BT point-to-point microwave radio links. BT considers that the project as indicated should not cause interference to BT’s current and recently planned radio networks.
98. Northumbrian Water – Has no comments to make having assessed the impact of the proposed development on its assets and assessing the capacity within its network to accommodate and treat flows arising from the development.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES:
99. Landscape – Officers have made a number of comments regarding the application. It is noted that the proposals would lie within an area identified in RSS as a ‘broad area of least constraint’ and would be reasonably consistent with the findings of the Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind. However, the proposals would not be supported by the findings of the ARUP Wind Farm Development and Landscape Capacity Study which identifies the area where they broadly lie as having no capacity for development due to effects on local landscape character and the AONB. Officers consider that the proposals would not have significant adverse physical impacts on the fabric of the landscape but would have significant effects on the character of the local landscape and particularly within around 2 or 3 km. In addition they would have significant effects on the special character of an Area of High Landscape Value, and particularly in respect of views across the upper Linburn Valley towards the AONB moors and views across the Wear Valley along the Bedburn, and would conflict with saved policy ENV3. Furthermore, the proposals would have significant effects on the special character and qualities of the AONB and particularly in respect of their effect in views across moors to the west and north and would conflict with saved policies ENV2 and C5B. It is not considered that the proposals would have significant effects on registered Historic Parks and Gardens in the locality contrary to TLP Policy ENV4.
100. The proposals would have a high impact on the visual environment of a small number of residential properties but would not be overbearing in the way the terms is generally understood in respect of residential amenity other than in respect of involved or vacated properties. Although lying close to a number of settlements the proposed development would generally not dominate their immediate visual environment. It is considered that there would be significant visual effects on the recreational footpath network in the head of the Linburn Valley and on paths, tracks and access land on moors north and west of Hamsterley Forest in a well-used part of the AONB. In terms of cumulative effects officers consider that there would be some in conjunction with existing and approved wind turbines in the area, on the landscape of the West Durham Coalfield but this would not in itself give rise to significant harm to the general character of that landscape. However, the proposals would have significant cumulative effects, in conjunction with existing and approved wind turbines in the area, on the special character and qualities of the AONB in respect of the erosion of the sense of wildness, remoteness and tranquillity of moorland landscapes along its eastern edges and would conflict in that respect with Teesdale District Local Plan saved Policies ENV2 and C5B.
101. Ecology – officers object to the proposed development. It is acknowledged that the applicant has recognised the risk to birds and bats and has offered mitigation in the form of both on and off site habitat management but there remains a significant, not fully quantified residual risk to birds and bats by turbines at this location. Combining the high value of the site for birds and bats, the real risk of mortality/displacement for important numbers of breeding and pre-breeding birds, the mortality/displacement potential for a number of bat species, the anomalies within the bird survey and the subsequent potential errors in the collision risk assessment then I consider that the application does not support Windy Bank as a location for wind turbines and that the Shadow Appropriate Assessment is also subsequently flawed. Officers consider further survey work for two years for golden plover is required to advise a new Shadow Appropriate Assessment. Given that the NPPF suggests that where negative impacts on biodiversity are predicted then alternative sites should be considered, which has not happened in this case, and that the planning process should consider sites at a landscape scale for species which are mobile, this also adds weight to the argument against the Windy Bank location being suitable for wind turbines.
102. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection – do not object to the proposed development recommending a number of conditions should planning permission be granted. Officers consider ETSU-R-97 to be the appropriate guidance and are satisfied that the noise generated from the proposed development would be acceptable.
103. Archaeology – no objections are raised. Officers acknowledge that on the basis of the results of the evaluation, the predicted archaeological resource (as interpreted from the geophysical survey) does not appear to exist. However, notes the limitations of geophysical surveys and the small scale trenching that was undertaken. Taking into account the results of both the note that it would appear that there are no significant archaeological assets which would impede development. However, noting that there are remaining queries given that the geophysical results and the trial trenching results do not tally with documentary evidence (the medieval nunnery is documented to have been visible as earthworks until the mid-19th Century). It is therefore recommended that should planning permission be granted conditions be imposed requiring archaeological monitoring of all groundworks associated with Turbines 1, 2 and 3 and the access roads between them. A condition would also require the strip, map and recorded in advance of development commencing in the area of the proposed new compound area and control building (an area not previously subject to evaluation).
104. Design & Conservation – having reassessed the revised proposals for 4 turbines of up to 125m in height, officers do not foresee any adverse impact on setting of historical assets. The Grade II listed Grove Bridge is well concealed within the surrounding woodland, the group of listed buildings at Podge Mill are screened by intervening vegetation and there are no other designated assets within a 2km radius. The 5km radius does include a number of Grade II listed buildings and the scheduled monument carved rock at Hindon Edge, but these are unlikely to be affected by the development.
105. Access & Public Rights of Way – officers advise that it would appear that registered Footpaths 6 and 10 (South Bedburn) are not within the fall over distance of any of the turbines. The access track to turbine 2 would cross Footpath No. 10 and access tracks to turbines 3 and 5 would cross Footpath No. 6. The construction of the compound may also affect Footpath No. 6. It is recommended that should planning permission be granted that through condition the applicant is required to undertake discussions and agree proposals for the protection of these rights of way during and after construction with the Access & Public Rights of Way Team.
106. Economic Development –TRT- notes that the submission identifies that there would be an economic impact from this development through the Community Fund of £1.75m over 25 years; equivalent to £70,000 per year which the applicant has asked hat y have already asked County Durham Community Foundation to manage. Taking this into consideration and the fact that the short construction time makes it difficult to achieve new employment and skills opportunities therefore TRT is not requested on this occasion as part of the S106 agreement for this project.
107. North Pennines AONB Partnership – object to the proposal considering that the proposed development is of a nature and scale that makes it wholly out of keeping with its proposed setting and that it would have a significant adverse on the purpose of AONB designation from much of the eastern part of the AONB.
NON-STATUTORY RESPONSES:
108. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) – considers that the correct consultees are identified in the ES and their positions regarding the proposed development should be established by consultation. It is also recommended that Emergency Service Helicopter Support Units are consulted as they may operate in the area of concern and be affected by the introduction of tall obstacles. If the proposed development is approved, it is advise that the Defence Geographic Centre be informed of the locations, heights and lighting status of the turbines and meteorological masts, the estimated and actual dates of construction and the maximum height of any construction equipment to be used, prior to the start of construction, to allow for the appropriate inclusion on Aviation Charts, for safety purposes. Owing to the proposed height (maximum tip height 125m) of the proposed turbines there is no CAA requirement for the turbines to be lit, although if an aviation stakeholder (including the MOD) made a request for lighting it is highly likely that the CAA would support such a request.
109. Teesdale Local Council Forum – objects to the proposed development raising concerns in respect of impaction upon tourism being concerned that any installation of such magnitude would affect the landscape and have a negative effect on visitors to the area. Given the length of time the application has been submitted it is requested that a decision is reached. Reference is made to the letters of support for the application from suppliers to the applicant but the view is expressed that this is short sighted as once the work is completed there would be no need for their services. It is also noted that the County has over reached the required level for renewable energy and that turbine do not contribute as much to the national grid as was expected and if turbines are proposed to be used then they should be site offshore.
110. RSPB – objected to the five turbine proposal, no comments have been made on the four turbine proposal. The reasons being: insufficient bird survey effort in key periods; impacts on the North Pennine Moors Special Protection Area (SAC); impacts on the Bollihope, Pikestone, Eggleston & Woodland Fell Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); impacts on migrating golden plover, a Birds Directive Annex 1 species, and impacts on upland waders, including UK BAP species, breeding on the site and adjacent areas. Some concerns were addressed through the submission of surveys in 2012 but its objection remained as the RSPB consider the proposal as submitted was likely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the North Pennine Moors SPA and an Appropriate Assessment was necessary to assess the impact.
111. Durham Wildlife Trust – objected to the five turbine proposal, no comments have been made on the four turbine proposal. The reasons for objection were: inadequate survey effort; damage to the integrity of the Special Protection Area, and negative impact on the landscape of the North Pennines AONB. The Trust considers that the importance of the site for wildlife is obvious from the ecological reports submitted, even though they are deficient, and that the protected landscape of the AONB will always be compromised by a wind farm in that location.
112. Durham Bat Group – objected to the five turbine proposal considering that the damage wind turbines do to bats is well documented and has been accepted by Durham County Council and is not in question. The issue in this case is whether the proposed site of the turbines will put them into contact with the turbines. It is considered the bat survey/report submitted with the application to be deficient and that further survey works would be required.
113. Durham Bird Club – objected to the original five turbine proposal and continues to object to the four turbine proposal as well as supporting objections from the RSPB. Comments are provided following consideration of the application and a site visit. It is noted that the whole site is used by birds but particular concerns are raised in relation to waders, raptors, nightjars and black grouse. Durham Bird Club believes that the application site is one of the most important for birds in County Durham and that the numbers of golden plover and lapwing in particular is significant and it is believed that there is no alternative suitable site for these birds in the locality. The Club believe that there is no alternative suitable site for these birds in the locality. If the application is approved it is believed that it will lead to either an unacceptable risk of bird strike or of birds being displaced from this site and this is not an acceptable risk.
114. Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Durham – objected to the original five turbine proposal and continues to object to the four turbine proposal considering that it would not have the same detrimental effects on wildlife as the original, but would increase the impact upon the landscape which is sensitive particularly in view of its proximity to the AONB. A number of comments are made and these include: reference to the introduction of the PPG since the application was originally submitted which the application should be assessed against; reference to the ARUP Study and that one of the turbines is proposed within an area where it is stated none should be situated and the height of the other three would have a severely adverse impact upon the AONB. The site falls within the Natural England National Character Assessment Area 16 – Coalfields Pennine Fringe noting that it contains a number of turbines and notes that there is likely to be a continuing demand for wind turbines in the area. Given the location it is considered that the development would severely and detrimentally affect the landscape. It is also queried if the change in the proposed development was an amendment or if it should have been considered a new application and required compulsory pre-application consultation.
115. Adverse impacts upon tourism; use of the area for cycling; concerns about the impact upon landscape and tranquillity; that the area is predominantly a dark skies area; impact upon the AONB; queries regarding the ability of the County to accommodate more wind farms; the need for further wind turbines; that the submitted photomontages so not comply with the relevant professional guidelines; concerns regarding the close proximity to the road. The site and general area is attractive the proposal would demonstrably harm it; it is likely to have a significant effect on the Durham skyline when viewed from other areas in the locality, especially when viewed in conjunction with other constructed and permitted wind farms; it could detract from the public enjoyment of Hamsterley Forest, a popular visitor area and the approaches to it, and it would have a detrimental effect on the AONB in respect of views from the AONB and views into it.
116. Open Spaces Society and The Ramblers Society – a joint response has been submitted and previous objections are maintained. It is considered that the turbines are of industrial proportion and would have a damaging impact on the landscape for miles including the AONB. It is considered that: the presence of the turbines would have a detrimental effect on the those who currently visit the area for quiet enjoyment (walkers, horse riders, cyclists, drivers); considerable disruption to the road network during construction causing enormous disruption to visitors a and local residents with a permanent impact since the character of the countryside would be unlikely to return to its present quiet rural nature. It is highlighted that an appeal against refusal of a wind turbine at Hulands Quarry was dismissed on the grounds that the benefits were not sufficient to over-ride the environmental protection accorded to the landscape of the local area and the AONB and consider that the same criteria applies in this case. Concerns are also raised regarding shadow flicker; subsidence and close proximity of the proposed turbines to public rights of way. PUBLIC RESPONSES:
117. The proposals were displayed at public exhibitions held by the applicant prior to formal submission. The application was advertised through site notice and in the local press as part of the planning procedures. Neighbour notification letters were sent to properties within the vicinity of the site boundary. Receipt of Supplementary Environmental Information in 2013 and in 2014 along with the revisions to the proposal was also publicised. Those who made representations were also advised of receipt of additional noise information in 2015.
Objections
Objections to the 2011 - 5 turbine proposal
118. 249 letters of objection were received at the time the application was originally submitted. The issues raised being summarised below.
Principle of the Development . View that energy generation figures are being ignored as the site suffers greatly from either very strong to very little wind which is generally inconsistent. . County Durham has already exceeded its renewable energy targets and there is no justification for further turbines. . More suitable sites should be found with a less devastating impact on the surrounding area. . The proposal would not contribute much to the national grid and concerns are raised that the entire region would be overrun by turbines. . Alterative renewable energy sources such as solar farms are mentioned. . It is queried why County Durham is allowing a disproportionate amount of turbines compared to other counties in England. Less than 5% of cabinet ministers have wind farms in their constituencies. . It is queried how good turbines really are when many in Tow Law are often at a standstill and that turbines do not produce the amount of energy claimed by the companies who build them. . It is claimed that the Tow Law turbines only generate 24.8% of their potential power capacity. . It is considered that the Government should put more money into less damaging green energy such as solar, tidal and hydro-power and reduce the reliance on fossil fuels. . The view is expressed that the rational for the development based upon the UK’s commitments under the Kyoto agreement is baseless as it is considered that it is literally impossible that the Kyoto Protocol can secure reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It is considered that any emissions reductions by the UK are of no significance whatsoever in preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference. . The turbines would not be viable without Government subsidies. . It is considered that turbines are inefficient and a gross waste of taxpayers money. . No demonstrated need for a wind farm in this location. . Cradle to grave carbon accounting should be provided. . Electricity generated would not benefit local people. . Queries are raised as to what would happen if Government subsidies stop. Also if the development would be removed at the end of its life.
Residential amenity/Safety Issues . Disturbance to local residents during the construction and operational phases are cited as concerns. . Loss of tranquillity. . People living in the North Pennines do so to maintain a simple lifestyle not blighted by modern development. . Concerns regarding the impact on the village communities are raised. . Concerns that blades may become unhinged and cause accidents. . Concerns over ice throw, collapse, turbine failure, possible electrical fault and risk of fire (fire risk to the Forest). Criticism is made regarding the assessment of such matters in the application. . Shadow flicker is raised as a concern and effects on health. . It is not considered that residential amenity or public safety have been adequately addressed in the application. . Neighbouring landowners have raised concerns about impact on their businesses and amenity as well as their health. . There is a great strength of local opinion against the proposed development. . Concerns relating to access to broadband as a result of the proposal. . Right to enjoy home and garden and proposal would impact upon residents human rights.
Noise . Concerns that questions regarding noise levels were not answered by the applicant at a public exhibition. . Concerns relating to noise generated during the construction and operational phases are expressed. . Noise Aerodynamic Modulation and Amplitude Modulation concerns and the risks to health are raised. . The house in the centre of the site would have to close as the noise levels would be above the legal limit. . The turbines are too close to Woodland and Hamsterley and given the contours of the land in certain conditions sound can travel long distances. . Noise pollution is considered to be one of the most difficult positions to live with and a whole village and surrounding area could be affected. . Concerns that the sound of wind and bird song would be replaced by the wooshing of turbines and the noise generated by the turbines would be very annoying for those living in close proximity. . Amplified noise is intrusive and can cause illness to those affected by it. . It is stated that Scottish planning guidance recommends homes to be at least 2km from a wind turbine development site and in this case several homes would be within that distance. . Request that the Council does not reply on ESTSU-R-97 when assessing the noise impact as it is considered that these guidelines are out of date and are not now relevant to such large turbines. Reference is also made to recent appeal and High Court decisions. . Proposals in relation to Mayland Lea are not in compliance with ETSU recommendations. . Concerns relating to increases in noise levels bit during the day and at night and adverse impacts upon health and risk of sleep disturbance.
Traffic . The increase in number of vehicles as a result of the proposal is considered to be unacceptable. . Concerns that the proposed turbines would be within topple distance of the nearby roads, cycle paths and Hamsterley Forest. . Unsuitability of local roads for increased traffic movements and size of vehicles given that particular roads have collapsed due to subsidence and previously infilled by the Coal Authority. The closure of the roads during repair caused inconvenience during that period. . Unsuitability of local roads for increased traffic which would pass through villages and passed houses and parked cars with potential for accidents and damage. . It is queried who would be responsible for should the road or adjacent property be damaged. . There would be safety issues relating to cyclists using the local road network as a result of increased traffic. . Concerns that the movement of the turbines would cause distraction to drivers.
Landscape and Visual impact . The scale and size of the turbines is a matter of concern being intrusive and overbearing given their industrial appearance. . The turbines would be too close to a rural village. . There would be harmful visual impact and intrusion as a result of the proposed development and result in harm for future generations. . There would be a loss of areas of beauty and tranquillity. . The turbines at Tow Law are cited as being unattractive and the fear of a wind turbine landscape is expressed. . Adverse impacts on the AONB (both views into and from) and AHLV would result conflicting with the designations destroying the sense of wildness and remoteness. . Residents have a right to enjoy their homes. . Concerns that there would be harmful cumulative impacts with other wind turbines. The development at Tow Law and other smaller turbines are mentioned. . The adverse visual impact would be in place for 25 years. . Concerns are raised regarding the quality of information submitted with the planning application, and the standard of the visualisations are specifically mentioned.
Ecology . The close proximity of designated ecological sites (North Pennines Moor SAC and SPA and SSSI) and Hamsterley Forest is highlighted and the negative impact that would result. . Reference is made to the great ornithological interest of the application site and the surrounding area noting the range and number of birds including curlew, lapwing, red kite, nightjar and barn owls. . Presence of a number of species and birds on the RSPBs red, amber and green lists are present at the site. . The importance of the site as a gathering point and stopover for migrating birds is highlighted. . Concerns relating to displacement of birds are highlighted as well as potential adverse impacts on loss of habitat. . Concerns that no regard has been given to horses and riders which use the forest and roads in the vicinity of the site. . Considerable bat activity is noted and concerns relating to these protected species are expressed. . Disruption of the natural habitat and effect on wildlife during construction and operation of the turbines. . The adequacy of the submission is queried in respect of ecology. It is considered that there are deficiencies in terms of the bat survey work and the predicted impact upon birds. The impacts upon the ecological designations are considered to be underestimated. . Local wildlife would be affected by noise generated from the turbines. . No reasons of overriding public interest. . Disturbance to cattle and other fauna during the construction and operational phases are cited as concerns. Hydrology . It is considered that there is inadequate focus on the possible threat to domestic water supplies which are dependent upon springs. . Concerns regarding the severity of the foundation excavation for the turbines and the impact on the water table and water course in the area are raised. . Concerns that the proposed access tracks would affect surface water drainage. . Concerns that the source feeding Linburn Beck may be disrupted which provides a water supply for stock on neighbouring land.
Recreation . Concerns that there would be an adverse impact on Hamsterley Forest as a result of the proposed development and concerns that it could be sold resulting in a loss of a recreational facility. . View that there would be an adverse impact on the recreational value of the area. . The close proximity of the proposed turbines to public rights of way are heighted as a concern. . The issue of impact on the public road and local footpaths has not been addressed adequately. . The area is well used by cyclists and walkers and the enjoyment of the enjoyment of these pursuits would be diminished as a result of the proposed development.
Agricultural land . Reference is made to loss of land for food production.
Legacy issues . It has taken many years to rectify the negative impact of mining and heavy industry of the 19th/20th Century which has now been replaced with spectacular views which would be lost along with the greening up of the area. . Mine shafts exist across the land and local roads have collapsed due to subsidence concerns are therefore raised.
Cultural heritage . The adequacy of the submission is queried in respect of archaeology is raised with specific concerns raised regarding a possible former convent on the site and that trial trenching should be undertaken. . The adequacy of the assessment in respect of the impact on listed buildings and conservation areas.
Aviation . Concerns of significant risk of an accident with low flying aircraft given that the air force use the area regularly and that the armed forces should be consulted prior to any approval of the application. . Concerns that Durham Tees Valley Airport object to the proposal.
Impact on tourism and effect on the local economy . The proposal would be detrimental to tourism and the area would suffer as a result. . It is stated that Woodland is often referred to as the gateway into Teesdale. . The view that the area has been recognised in the past as one of rural deprivation is mentioned and that tourism has helped to redress that. . It is also noted that shops and pubs are being closed in Weardale and Teesdale resulting in a loss of revenue as a result of the proposal. . The proposal would deter new businesses such as holiday accommodation. . No local employment would be generated from the proposal. . Destroying the landscape would not enhance the County’s reputation during a time it is attempting to raise its profile. . A negative perception of the area would result should the development be permitted. . Letters have been received from visitors to the area expressing their concerns in relation to the visual impacts of the development. . It is important for DCC to protect tourism and long tern jobs in rural areas.
Future development . Concerns that granting approval would open the floodgates for future planning applications.
The applicant . The applicant has used questionable methods to try to bring about agreement to their proposal and must be stopped. . Lack of argument offered by the applicant for the proposed development in this location, other than profit and no Banks employee would wish to live next to a turbine (as stated at a public exhibition).
Other matters . Request for a public inquiry into the proposal given the nature of the development and its location being opposite County Durham’s largest forest, one of the largest wildlife and tourist area 2,000 ha, 5,000 acres of forest in Teesdale and County Durham and dangerously close the surrounding moorland of the North Pennines AONB make it a heaven for wildlife and visual impact of the surrounding areas of the North Pennines AONB and North Yorkshire Moors. . As the turbines would be built in Germany it is considered that the figures quoted in respect of money coming into the area are overstated and the benefit to residents of the area is minor. . Exception is taken to the name of the site as it gives the impression that it is perfect for this type of development and the area has not been known as this. . The landowner does not live in the area and the house in the centre of the site would have to close as the noise levels would be above the legal limit. . Concerns that there would be an adverse impact on Hamsterley Forest as a result of the proposed development. . Potential house purchasers are being put off by the proposed development. . Devaluation of property is raised as a concern. . Hope that true democracy will be demonstrated by the Planning Committee and refuse the application. . Concerns regarding the construction period and areas of concrete that would remain after the developers have gone as well as the view that concrete is a polluting building material. . The incentives offered to local people in exchange for supporting the scheme are miniscule in the context of the income that the Company would receive from subsidies. Comments are also made in respect of benefits that landowners would receive. . The County Council should be looking after the interests of its residents and not just those of the developers. . The proposal conflicts with development plan policies for the County. . The geological survey work is considered to be grossly deficient. . Potential environmental benefit is not sufficient to outweigh the detrimental impact of the scheme. . Lack of detail in terms of how electricity produced would be connected to the National Grid which will have environmental effects not yet identified. . A local survey indicated that locals were not in favour of the proposal. . Information contained in the application is incorrect.
Objections following the Supplementary Environmental Information submitted in 2013 - 5 turbine proposal
119. 25 letters of objection (excluding 4 letters from HUGAG as listed separately) reiterating previous objection set out above. Additional matters raised being:
Noise . Specific comments are made in respect of the noise impact on Mayland Lea, West Mayland, Pool Tree Farm and The Grove considering that the predicted noise levels would exceed noise levels set out in ETSU-R97 and the application should be refused as a result. This is supported by a specialist acoustic consultant . Concerns are raised that the Council’s Environmental Health response has not taken into account the consultant’s view in relation to additional noise monitoring and imposition of AM conditions given that the consultant considers that AM would be an issue at the site. . The UK Noise Association recommends that wind turbines are note sited within 1 mile of houses and other families have experienced serious problems with smaller turbines at a greater distance from their homes. . Concerns raised regarding the Council’s Environmental Health response to noise not taking into account
Landscape and Visual impact . Incorrect information has been provided cumulative impacts with other wind turbines. The development at Tow Law and other smaller turbines are mentioned. . The adverse visual impact would be in place for 25 years. . Concerns are raised regarding the quality of information submitted with the planning application, and the standard of the visualisations are specifically mentioned.
Ecology . The site is the main line of flight for racing pigeons in the North East and Scotland. . The additional bird surveys undertaken raise further queries and demonstrates further that the site is important for birds and should not be built upon. With the surveys being undertaken on certain days they are not a true reflection of what is happening. . Concerns that the construction period may be extended and impact on more than one bird breeding season. . Concerns raised regarding the independence of the surveys carried out in support of the application. . It is highlighted that Woodland Primary School is very close to the site and there are concerns regarding possible health effects on children.
Traffic . View that the documentation is unclear regarding the proposed access to the site.
Other matters . Additional information not clearly evident. . The additional information does not address previous concerns raised or alleviate fears regarding the development. . Queries regarding compensation if house prices are adversely affected. . Turbines would only be located on 1% of the application site raising concerns that this is a prelude to a larger extension of the project. . The community fund is no more than a bribe and shows the generating company is making too much money from these unsightly objects. . The local community is opposed to the scheme and the Localism Bill gives a strong mandate from the local community to refuse the application is enough people opposed. A recent survey in the villages of Woodland and Hamsterley showed that the majority of residents in these villages are completely against the scheme. . Since the application was submitted Government ministers have made statements emphasising that local feeling must be influential in deciding the outcome of planning applications. . Support for HUGAG is expressed. . This is an example of big business using the system to badger local communities into accepting the development and wasting Government time and money to push something through to benefit the applicant and not the local community. . The Parish Councils of all affected areas strongly object because of the effects the turbine installations would have on their areas. . Banks staff were not interested in local views and opinions at the public exhibitions held by the Company. . Information contained in the application is incorrect
Objection for the 2014 - 4 turbine proposal
120. 122 further letters of objection were received following the amendments to scheme in 2014. Those objecting to the four turbine scheme request that they are read in conjunction with their original objections. Issues raised in the new objection letters are set out below.
Principle of the Development . County Durham has already exceeded its renewable energy targets and there is no justification for further turbines. . More suitable sites should be found with a less devastating impact on the surrounding area. . Concerns are expressed that the Government has rushed into adopting green policies yet are trading with countries with no such policies with the effect of the increasing carbon emissions. . It is queried why County Durham is allowing a disproportionate amount of turbines compared to other counties in England and the Government’s perceived negative attitude to the North East. . It is queried how good turbines really are when many in Tow Law are often at a standstill and that we could not rely on wind energy alone. . No demonstrated need for a wind farm in this location. . Off-shore turbines would be preferable. . The view is expressed that the vast majority of scientific evidence suggests that wind farms are totally inefficient and impractical. . According to Lord Debben, Government chief climate advisor, in May 2014 stated that Brtiain does not need to permit any more onshore windfarms to meet our carbon emissions target. It is therefore queried why the application is being pursued.
Residential amenity/Safety Issues . Adverse impact on residential amenity is raised as a concern. . A less environmentally sensitive place should be found to install the turbines. . Residents would be adversely affected by noise and flicker. . Disturbance to local residents during the construction and operational phases are cited as concerns. . Loss of tranquillity. . Loss of quality of life for residents. . New residents would be deterred from moving to the area as a result of the proposed turbines. . Concerns that blades may become unhinged and cause accidents. . Concerns over ice throw, collapse, turbine failure, possible electrical fault and risk of fire (fire risk to the Forest). . Shadow flicker is raised as a concern and effects on health. . Neighbouring landowners have raised concerns about impact on their businesses and amenity as well as their health. . There is a great strength of local opinion against the proposed development. . Concerns relating to access to broadband as a result of the proposal. . Vibration would be caused by the turbines and HGVs.
Noise . Concerns relating to noise generated during the construction and operational phases are expressed. . The increase in height of the turbines and blades is likely to increase noise which is likely to carry over great distances. . Concerns are raised about the level of booming and pulsating that would be experienced from the turbine movement especially at night and potential detrimental effect on health. . Noise Aerodynamic Modulation and Amplitude Modulation concerns and the risks to health are raised. . Request that the Council does not reply on ESTSU-R-97 when assessing the noise impact as it is considered that these guidelines are out of date and are not now relevant to such large turbines. . Concerns are expressed over low frequency. . Concerns relating to increases in noise levels bit during the day and at night and adverse impacts upon health and risk of sleep disturbance. . Mayland Lea would be uninhabited and concerns are expressed that it would be abandoned and eventually turn into a ruin. . Specific comments are made in respect of the noise impact on Mayland Lea, West Mayland, Pool Tree Farm and The Grove supported by a specialist acoustic consultant. Queries are raised as to whether or not one of the properties is financially involved and reference is made to a planning appeal decision regarding this matter.
Traffic . Impact on traffic in the nearby area from shadow flicker. . Roads are unsuitable for construction traffic and would be subject to damage. . Mud would be dragged onto the road causing them to be slippy and hazardous. . Proximity to nearby roads which are narrow and winding are raised as concerns. . Unsuitability of local roads for increased traffic which would pass through villages, pass houses and parked cars with potential for accidents and damage. . The increase in number of vehicles as a result of the proposal is considered to be unacceptable. . The proposed new routes are narrow width causing passing difficulties and cars or HGV needs to reverse to passing points or use grass verge if they meet oncoming traffic. . The new traffic route via Woodland is considered to be unviable and at best would cause enormous inconvenience and disruption in addition to safety issues. . Concerns that the proposed turbines would be within topple distance of the nearby roads, cycle paths and Hamsterley Forest. . It is not considered that there is a suitable access for vehicles with heavy loads. . Unsuitability of local roads for increased traffic movements and size of vehicles given that particular roads have collapsed due to subsidence and previously infilled by the Coal Authority. The closure of the roads during repair caused inconvenience during that period. . Road widening could affect drainage and water supply and it is considered that survey of certain properties are undertaken in order to determine any possible detrimental effects. . Concerns that the movement of the turbines would cause distraction to drivers. . Concerns of noise and pollution as a result of HGVs. . Weather conditions given the location of the site are unpredictable and there could be problems with HGVs using local roads at times of snow and fog causing safety issues. . Access to the proposed site through Hamsterley Village would be detrimental. . The change to the proposed access arrangements are not considered acceptable to some.
Landscape and Visual impact . The visual impact on the environment, the nearby Hamsterley Forest and the nearby AONB would be negative. . The location of the turbines is not considered appropriate and the increase in height proposed is unacceptable resulting in greater visual impact, views from greater distance and loss of visual amenity. . Concerns regarding the landscape and visual impact assessment undertaken as well as the location and size of the proposed turbines and impact they would have. . There would be a loss of areas of beauty and tranquillity. . The turbines at Tow Law are cited as being unattractive and the fear of a wind turbine landscape is expressed. . Adverse impacts on the AONB and AHLV as well upon Cockfield Fell Scheduled Monument. . Wind turbines should be built where they are needed i.e. in cities next to existing power stations, industrial land but not in the AONB. . Two of the turbines should be refused in line with the Council’s Landscape Capacity Study which judges the zone identified for their location as unsuitable.
Ecology . Concerns are raised regarding the impact on wildlife, in particular birds and bats. Mention is also made to objections by the RSPB to the proposal. . It is stated that it is well known that large turbines can kill bats in large numbers and birds. . There would be an adverse impact upon wildlife from the sound of the turbines. . There would be an adverse impact upon wildlife from the ripping up of the ground to lay the foundations for the pads, especially given they would be the size of a football pitch. . The close proximity of Hamsterley Forest is highlighted and the negative impact that would result on the Forest and the wildlife that resides within it. . The close proximity of designated ecological sites (North Pennines Moor SAC and SPA and SSSI) and Hamsterley Forest is highlighted and the negative impact that would result. . Concerns relating to possible adverse impacts on nationally important flora along the sides of roads on the transport route which would be disturbed. . Reference is made to the great ornithological interest of the application site and the surrounding area noting the range and number of birds including golden plover, curlew, lapwing, nightjar and red kite. . Presence of a number of species and birds on the RSPBs red, amber and green lists are present at the site. . Concerns that no regard has been given to horses and riders which use the forest and roads in the vicinity of the site. . The adequacy of the submission has been queried in respect of ecology as further work has been carried out is shows that previous works was inadequate and that the site is important in ecological terms. . Disturbance to cattle and other fauna during the construction and operational phases are cited as concerns. The population of Roe Deer is said to have increased over recent years. . Construction of the turbines would threaten this important local bird and animal life, causing habitat loss, disturbance, displacement, road kill and bird strike. . The need for the proposed management habitat plan to enhance the area is questioned when existing species thrive there now. . The loss of turbine 4 is considered to be a minimal improvement to the proposal in terms of alleviating pressure on part of the site that is most heavily used by golden plover but it is still considered that there are significant issues with the proposed development.
Recreation . View that there would be an adverse impact on the recreational value of the area. . The area is well used by cyclists and walkers and the enjoyment of the enjoyment of these pursuits would be diminished as a result of the proposed development. . There would be safety issues relating to cyclists using the local road network as a result of increased traffic and no account is taken of this in the proposals.
Legacy issues . It has taken many years to rectify the negative impact of mining and heavy industry of the 19th/20th Century which has now been replaced with spectacular views which would be lost along with the greening up of the area. . Mine shafts exist across the land and local roads have collapsed due to subsidence concerns are therefore raised.
Cultural heritage . Concerns are raised regarding a possible former convent on the site and the impact the turbines would have on it.
Aviation . Concerns of significant risk of an accident with low flying aircraft given that the air force use the area regularly and that the armed forces should be consulted prior to any approval of the application.
Impact on tourism and effect on the local economy . The proposal would have an adverse impact on recreation and amenity in the area with tourism likely to suffer and thus the local economy. . This would not be a good gateway into Teesdale. . It is also noted that shops and pubs are being closed in Weardale and Teesdale resulting in a loss of revenue as a result of the proposal. . The proposal would deter new businesses such as holiday accommodation. . A negative perception of the area would result should the development be permitted. . It is stated that the areas has been championed as a holiday destination and the proposed development would be contrary to this. . Hamsterley Forest has had £300,000 investment in recent times and the proposal would only have a detrimental effect and reduce tourism.
Future development . Concerns that granting approval would open the floodgates for future planning applications.
The applicant . Lack of argument offered by the applicant for the proposed development in this location. . The view is expressed that the proposal would serve only to boost the profits of the applicant and shareholders with the provision of clean electricity being the afterthought.
Other matters . Regret is expressed that the application has been amended. . Devaluation of property and land are raised as concerns. . The beneficiaries of the scheme would be the applicant, the landowners and the manufacturers of the turbines whereas residents would face private costs including pollution, traffic obstruction, damage to buildings and roads. . A local survey indicated that locals were not in favour of the proposal. . Concerns regarding the letters of support received which are in the same/similar formats but signed by different individuals many considered to be employees, friends of and business associates of the applicant. It is assumed that theses would be treated as one objection rather than a number of objections or a petition. . There would be no financial benefit to villagers who would suffer greatly from their intrusion. . The previously poorly justified application has been made far worse in the resubmission. . Planning appeal decisions for wind farm developments are mentioned which are considered relevant. . Concerns that questions regarding various aspects of the development (for example employment, how farming would benefit) were not answered by the applicant at a public exhibition. . The view is expressed that the timing of the consultation on the 4 turbine proposal was underhanded being during the school summer holidays. . The adverse effects of the proposal in terms of landscape and visual impact, loss of residential and recreational amenity, possible damage to the visitor economy, and likely damage to sensitive bird species are too great to be outweighed in importance by the generating capacity of the proposed four turbines. . Adequacy of publicity of the application is questioned. . Concerns are raised regarding the views of the former MP which have been expressed in relation to this application, but support for comments made by another former MP against another wind farm proposal in the County.
121. Hamsterley and Upper Gaunless Action Group (HUGAG) – objected to the five turbine proposal, the supplemental information submitted in 2013 and to the current proposal. Concerns are raised regarding adverse landscape and visual impact as a result of the proposed development and impacts upon local businesses. A landscape architect commissioned by HUGAG undertook a critique of the submitted information relating to landscape and visual effects and impacts on residential receptors and an alternative assessment of impacts which disagrees with a number of the conclusions of the submitted documentation. Concerns are also raised in relation to noise financially involved properties, the adequacy of the submitted noise assessment is questioned, supported by a noise consultant. Further comments are made in relation to positioning of the turbines. There is concern that certain turbines would be within topple distance of the road, contrary to distances set out in certain planning appeal decisions and to the emerging County Durham Plan policy. The additional ornithology studies are considered to be to be deficient in terms of nightjars. A detailed response to the revised bat survey was been submitted and inadequacies highlighted.
122. Furthermore comments were made in respect of the unsuitability of the proposed access route and dangers associated with it. The adequacy of the archaeology and cultural heritage assessment has been raised and an archaeologist commissioned by HUGAG has identified a number of flaws with the assessment process considering that there is insufficient information on which to make an informed judgement on the degree of harm that would occur to the significance of the a number of heritage assets (Cockfield Fell, Scheduled Monument, The Edge Hotel, Woodland Grade II listed building and sub-surface archaeological remains) the affected by the propose development. The impact upon residential amenity and in particular the health of the resident of Crake Scar Cottage are raised and how the proposed development would have a detrimental impact upon him given the location of the proposed turbines and orientation of his property and the view that his position should be considered but that no contact has been with him either by the applicant or the County Council. It is noted that the fields at the entrance to Mayland Lea Farm have regularly been used by the Air Ambulance to deal with cases of injury. If turbines are erected then the fields could be no longer used. Reference is made to refusal of a wind turbine for two 46m high turbines in the vicinity of the site for reasons of adverse landscape impact and impact on the AONB considering that the Windy Bank application would be closer to the designation.
123. In response to the four turbine proposal a detailed letter has been submitted making representations in relation to the present project, the changes, the planning policy context, technical details, landscape and dwellings, noise, transport, visualisations, positioning, bats, ornithology, the air ambulance, Crake Scar Cottage, the new brochure and conditions. The landscape and visual effects critique has been revised following the revisions to the application in 2014 but raises similar concerns as previously. An ornithologist commissioned by HUGAG undertook a review of the relevant ecological information concluding that he considers are significant failings in the collection, presentation and interpretation of data used to assess the impacts of the proposed development on bird species and designated sites including the North Pennine Moors Special Protection Area (SPA). HUGAG is of the view that the Shadow Appropriate Assessment is fundamentally flawed and should therefore not be 'adopted' by the Council. It is also requested that as the competent authority Durham County Council require the submission of an up to date, appropriately detailed and scientifically robust assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on bird species and statutorily protected sites prior to determination of the application for planning permission.
124. Darlington & Teesdale Naturalists’ Field Club – raise concerns including the serious potential harm to the environment with particular threat to bats and birds. The close proximity to the AONB and the potential negative impact upon tourism are highlighted as well as the close proximity to roads and the potential adverse impact this could have if parts to be come off a turbine. Support
Support to the 2011 - 5 turbine proposal
125. 11 letters of support were received at the time the application was originally submitted from individuals and businesses who supply services to the applicant or to the wind industry. The issues raised being summarised below.
Principle of the Development . Support for renewable energy and installation of onshore wind farms within the region and the reduction in carbon footprint and emissions. . Provision of clean green energy to meet the annual consumption of requirements of 9,900 homes. . Although a relatively small amount of power may be produced in the bigger picture we must start somewhere.
Noise . The highest predicted impact in would be to the habitations at The Grove, but even this is within the background noise at this location.
Landscape and Visual impact . No objections to the visual appearance of the proposed development are raised and it is stated that from most locations within Hamsterley Forest the site would not be visible. . View that turbines are attractive. . Claims that the landscape would be permanently damaged seem to ignore the towers can be removed and grassed over in a matter of months. . The location is not viewed as one of unique beauty or national significance and hence the site is suitable for this sort of development.
Effect on the local economy . A local business who supply and install LED lights supports the proposal to assist the local economy. . The proposal would deliver jobs for the local economy. . The wind farm will contribute to the local economy by providing work for maintenance and management staff. . The proposed community fund is highlighted as a benefit of the scheme allowing the funding of community projects.
The applicant . Support is given to the Banks Group in general with reference to the history of the Company, the proposed community fund, its desire to procure services from local companies and its general support for the North East.
Other matters . Further resources should be invested for both onshore wind supplies and the ancillary buildings they support.
Support for the 2014 - 4 turbine proposal
126. 211 letters of support have been received, including from businesses that supply or would supply services to the applicant or to the wind industry. The vast majority of these letters are proforma template based letters raising the same or similar issues some from the applicant’s employees. Principle of the Development . Support for renewable energy schemes in suitable locations in the UK and at the proposed site with the effect of reducing the UK’s carbon footprint as well as ensuring security of supply and being more self-sufficient. . General support for green energy and sustainable construction methods and for the good of future generations producing free electricity. . It is stated that to protect the planet we need clean green energy renewable energy and that DCC, after looking into this matter in great detail and at great expense, DCC has correctly picked out Windy Bank, Woodlands as an ideal site for a wind farm. . It would generate up to 14MW of clean green energy, enough for approximately 8,700 households every year and make an important contribution to the Government’s 2020 renewable energy targets. . County Durham has a target to hit and the proposal would help towards this.
Residential amenity/Safety Issues . The population off the locality is relatively low and a limited number of people would be affected by the development.
Noise . Wind farms are quite, are pollution free and do not spoil the countryside.
Traffic . It is in a relatively isolated locality away from transport routes.
Landscape and visual impact . The proposal would not detract from the outstanding beauty of the area, but would enhance it further. . The site has been identified as a suitable site for turbines, being less harmful to the landscape relative to other locations being an area of least constraint. . The turbines at GSK plant Barnard Castle are seen as a much loved part of the skyline.
Effect on the local economy . The proposal would result in £16 million into the area of which £2.3 million would be available to go to local suppliers putting money into the local suppliers. . 30 onsite jobs would be created directly in constructing, operating and maintaining the wind farm. . It would support 25 rural jobs indirectly in local material suppliers and subcontractors for things such as fencing, drainage, hotel accommodation, catering and security as well as securing jobs within the Banks Group (135 out of 420 employees are based in County Durham). . It would help secure around 25 local jobs and make a vital contribution to the local economy. . These economic benefits to the local area are welcomed at a time when the North East is not recovering as fast as the rest of the UK. . The community fund up to £70,000 per year (£1.75m for the 25 year life of the site) to be spent on local needs. . The community fund is mentioned noting that local communities would have access to a wind farm fund of around £70,000 per year (£1.75m for the 25 year life of the site) to be spent on local needs, things that are needed such as facilities for kids and services for the elderly. . The green energy, jobs and money that the turbines would bring are needed. Ecology . A habitat management plan is proposed which would see new and enhanced habitats across 109 hectares of land.
Agricultural land . The location is an area of comparatively poor agricultural value. Predominantly sheep and cattle grazing, and the application would not affect good quality land.
Other matters . Disappointment is expressed that all the parish councils are objecting to the proposed development when there are a number of their residents supporting the development. It is considered that the parish councils should be aware of this and should represent the whole community and not just a few NIMBYs. . Local parish councils who have submitted letters to the Council opposing the wind farm do not represent the views of the supported or many of their neighbours and friend in the village in respect to the planning application. . Banks Renewables is promoting a ‘Learning, Working, Earning’ initiative that will create the opportunity for apprenticeships and retraining opportunities in County Durham. . That part of the land with no turbines can still be used for farming. . Supportive so long as not too close to habitation. . View that the applicant has addressed all the material issues relating to the development and the only remaining issues are those of perception.
127. In addition to the above letters of support have also been received from the following.
128. The North East Chamber of Commerce (NECC) – supports the application and considers it would bring £16 million into the area of which £2.3 million would be available to go to local suppliers, putting money into the local economy, creating 30 onsite jobs directly in constructing, operating and maintaining the wind farm. It is stated that the Banks Group is a significant employer in the County with a strong track record of working with local businesses and supporting community investments and this scheme would lead to substantial community benefits including leisure facilities and services for the elderly. It is stated that the UK needs to develop a sustainable mix of energy sources to meet future demand as well as carbon reduction targets and wind developments such as this will form a major part of the mix and are pleased that the County Council has rightly identified Windy Bank as a Suitable location for a wind farm.
129. Confederation of British Industry (CBI) – supports the proposal considering that it would bring significant investment into the area and create additional vital employment. It is stated that the Banks Group is a significant employer in the County with a strong track record of working with local supply chains and both supporting and investing in community projects and have committed to ensure that this is continued on this project. Tackling energy and climate change challenges in a smart way will ensure that the UK is greening and growing for the future. As the recovery continues minds should be focused on how to build a more prosperous and competitive UK economy. Delivering secure, affordable and low carbon energy will be more crucial to achieving this, supporting growth now and underpinning our economic health.
130. Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) – supports the proposed development. FSB highlights the benefits of renewable energy and that more are needed to ensure we have security of supply. The proposal would provide such a supply in a location rightly identified by Durham County Council. The project would bring £16 million investment into the area of which £2.3 million would go to local suppliers; create 30 onsite jobs would be created directly in constructing, operating and maintaining the wind farm; support 25 rural jobs indirectly in local material suppliers and subcontractors for things such as fencing, drainage, hotel accommodation, catering and security as well as securing jobs within the Banks Group (135 out of 420 employees are based in County Durham). The community fund up to £70,000 per year (£1.75m for the 25 year life of the site) is referred to and what it could be sent on. The benefit of the development on members of the FSB is highlighted in supplying services, providing apprenticeships and increased turnover.
131. Helen Goodman (former and candidate Member of Parliament for Bishop Auckland) – supports the proposed development for the following reasons. Our priority as a country is to maintain our energy security and wind has advantages as unlike fossil fuels is inexhaustible. It is a zero carbon fuel and does not leave us dependent on unstable politics of other countries and is safe as well as being the cheapest renewable fuel which is a key consideration at a time of souring energy bills (average household pays £1,345pa). Wind is considered reliable and produces electricity three quarters of the time. It is noted that no energy source is operational 100% of the time and the national grid needs a variety of different sources to meet demand. Tackling climate change is highlighted and examples of flooding abroad and in the UK are mentioned as a need to tackle climate change which as well as having an effect on people is having a negative effect on the lapwing population in Teesdale. It is noted that peopled have different views of the way windmills look but it is noted that the site is not within the AONB and is a mile from Woodland and 2,5 miles from Hamsterley village. Problems facing rural areas are highlighted including the lack of investment, few opportunities for skills development, not enough leisure facilities for children and young people, patchy services for the elderly and fuel poverty. In terms of the proposed development it is stated that it would inject a total of £16 million with £2.3 million available to local suppliers support our local economy; around 30 onsite jobs directly in constructing, operating and maintaining the wind farm; 25 jobs indirectly through local material suppliers and subcontractors for things such as fencing, drainage, hotel accommodation, catering and security as well as helping to secure 135 jobs at Banks Group in County Durham. It is considered that the local area would also benefit significantly from the substantial community benefits fund worth up to £1.75 million across the project’s 25 year lifespan. This funding offers the change to address local needs that local residents, parish councils and organisations have raised with her such as employability skills, leisure facilities for children and young people and services for the elderly that might not otherwise receive the attention they require. As someone who is firmly in favour of the renewable energy and onshore wind farms generally, and other communities in which such schemes are based benefiting from their development specifically, she is firmly in favour of the proposed development going forward.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT:
132. The Banks Group is a Durham-based employer with strong local connections in the County over 36 years. We employ 420 people across our business, with 135 of our employees living and working in County Durham. The Windy Bank project is an important part of our ongoing investment programme which has seen us invest in major development projects throughout the County, delivering significant economic, social and environmental benefits for the County.
133. On shore wind is the cheapest low carbon energy source. By investing in wind, as well as other indigenous sources of energy, we are reducing the country’s reliance on volatile foreign fuel prices and sources. 134. The Windy Bank site was identified by us because it lies in an area remote from a large population (the nearest settlements being Woodland at 2.2Km and Hamsterley at 4.3Km), and an area where cumulative effects from other wind farms is unlikely to occur.
135. Banks Renewables is part of the Banks Group and we are proposing to invest over £16 million in the Windy Bank project, and have committed to giving local firms the opportunity to tender for a range of related contracts worth up to £3.5 million for different aspects of the project, including construction, security, accommodation and catering. Leading business groups including NECC and the Federation of Small Businesses have expressed their support for the wind farm.
136. We have identified a number of local businesses capable of getting involved in the building and operation of the proposed wind farm and have already had a lot of statements of interest from local companies in the area.
137. These companies have confirmed that opportunities like that offered by the Windy Bank proposal remain limited in the North East and on behalf of these companies we would ask that the Committee recognize the importance of continuing to support local businesses.
138. In addition to the jobs within the Banks Group and its supply chain supported by this ongoing investment, around 30 jobs will be directly supported during the site preparation and construction of the proposed wind farm.
139. We think it is also important to consider the benefits to local people arising from the proposed development. In addition to supporting local employment, the proposed wind farm will also support local communities through the associated community fund which will contribute £70,000 per annum, or over £1.25 million over the life of the project which will work in partnership with the County Durham Community Foundation to support local community groups, environmental projects and a local Learning, Working, Earning Fund that breaks down the financial barriers that local unemployed people without age restriction face to getting access to workplace learning, training and employment. Local residents from villages around the wind farm site, including Hamsterley, Woodland and Evenwood have submitted over 200 letters of support for the project urging Members to approve the proposal whilst noting that their own views have not been taken into consideration by their respective parish councils.
140. Banks has been working closely with the Council, and its consultees on the Windy Bank proposal for over six years. In that time the project has been reduced in size from nine turbines to four to reduce its effects locally and in the event that planning permission is granted, Banks guarantee not to extend the site from that now proposed.
141. The discussions which have occurred over the past six years have focussed on matters relating to wildlife habitats and the visibility of the proposed turbines from within the AONB. In relation to habitats, the site is not designated for its ecological interest. The national designations nearby have been assessed by Natural England who have confirmed no objection.
142. In the case of Windy Bank, there is over four years of survey information available to enable the Council to take account of effects on birds and, as well as the data itself, the Council has been provided with reports by two independent ecological assessors, plus the habitat management proposals of another. The reports include detailed information on the usage of fields within and around the application site. It is clear that the level of usage by birds varies significantly across the survey area. This extensive survey information clearly demonstrates that, unlike the rougher fields to the south, the fields where the turbines and wind farm infrastructure are located are not well used by birds.
143. In relation to visibility from the AONB there is clearly only so much we can do to address this concern. As a result of the changes to the proposal, the area where the turbines will be visible in the AONB is very small. This area lies on the edge of the AONB with views out over large parts of County Durham where many manmade features intrude into these views already e.g. Raisby Quarry.
144. Neither Natural England nor the AONB Partnership have assessed the wider economic and environmental benefits of the proposal. Both bodies are leaving that balancing exercise for the planning officers and this committee. It is therefore entirely appropriate for the committee to draw a different balance from these consultees and its advisors and we respectfully request that the Members of the committee support us and local businesses in our endeavours to deliver clean, green energy for our homes, businesses, schools and hospitals from the Windy Banks Wind Farm which we believe is in an entirely appropriate location.
The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The application file is available to view at County Hall, Durham, DH1 5UQ, and more recent documents available to view on the Council’s website at http://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
145. Having regard to the requirements of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act 2004, the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material considerations including representations received it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle of development, landscape and visual impact, residential amenity, aviation and radar issues, impact on heritage assets, impacts on ecology and nature conservation, highway safety, recreational amenity, ground conditions and hydrology, and TV and other communication interference. Other matters are also considered.
Principle of Development
146. TLP Policy ENV1 seeks to protect the countryside allowing for development in the countryside for the purposes of an existing countryside use provided that it does not unreasonably harm the landscape and wildlife resources of the area. Renewable energy development is not cited an example of development that is acceptable in the countryside in principle. The proposed development would be contrary to TLP Policy ENV1. TLP Policy ENV1 is restrictive and the approach is not fully in compliance with the NPPF and therefore limited weight is attributed to this Policy. The TLP in Policy C5B contains a specific saved policy providing guidance on wind energy development outside of the AONB. The Policy sets out criteria which must met and these matters are considered within this report.
147. One of the twelve core principles of the NPPF (paragraph 17) supports “the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate….. and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example by the development of renewable energy).”
148. The NPPF also advises at paragraph 98 that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and that applications should be approved (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) if its impacts are or can be made acceptable.
149. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) includes dedicated guidance with regards to renewable energy and in principle also supports renewable energy development considering that planning has an important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure in locations where the local environmental impact is acceptable. National planning guidance therefore generally supports renewable energy schemes.
150. It is noted that public opposition to the development includes objection to matters surrounding the need, merit and efficiency of wind energy development. The NPPF advises that applicants need not demonstrate an overall need for renewable energy and there are no renewable energy production ceilings for the north-east. The PPG advises that considering the energy contribution to be made by a proposal can be given weight in decision making particularly when a decision is finely balanced. However, the energy contribution to reducing greenhouse gases in this instance would be significant. It is raised that no local employment would be generated. The construction phase of the development would create some employment opportunities. A figure of 30 jobs onsite during the construction period is predicted, whether they are all local or not cannot be confirmed. During the operational period there would be no onsite employment as the development would be maintained as and when necessary. Concerns are also raised if planning permission is granted then further turbines would follow.
151. There is national support to the principle of on-shore wind energy development, being compliant with Part 10 of the NPPF. However, the acceptability of the scheme in terms of TLP Policy C5B and rest with the assessment of the detailed issues and impacts in the following paragraphs of this report including the scope for control by condition or legal agreement.
Landscape and visual impacts
152. The County Durham Landscape Character Assessment (2008) shows the site as lying within the West Durham Coalfield County Character Area which forms part of the larger Durham Coalfield Pennine Fringe National Character Area, close to its boundary with the North Pennines. It lies in an area belonging to the Coalfield Upland Fringe Broad Landscape Type in the Gaunless and Linburn Uplands Broad Character Area. The greater part of the site and the surrounding area is identified in the County Durham Landscape Strategy (2008) as a Landscape Conservation Priority Area with strategies of ‘conserve and restore’ or ‘conserve and enhance’.
153. The site lies on a narrow, moderately sloping ridge between the valleys of the Linburn and Bedburn Becks. The landscape is one of open pastoral farmland with improved and semi-improved pasture on the higher ground of the ridge and rough grazing and rush pasture of lower ground. Field systems are medium in scale and regular in character, dating from parliamentary enclosures of the mid-18th Century with dry stone wall field boundaries in generally in good condition.
154. Small, largely broadleaved, woodlands are thinly scattered along the southern flanks of the ridge. The northern slopes fall within Hamsterley Forest and are clothed with continuous softwood plantations which form a wooded fringe to the ridge in views from the south. The ridge and the wider valley head to the south and west are strongly rural in character, broad in scale and visually very open. In views northwards across the valley the sweeping moorland skylines of Pikestone Fell form a dramatic backdrop. 155. The submitted landscape and visual impact assessment considers the impacts of the proposal during the construction, operational decommissioning phases of the development. Noting that the landscape and visual operational and constructional impact may vary from each other. During operation the turbines and moving blades are likely to be the most dominant element and during construction the ground based activities and cranes would cause some adverse impact. The assessment was updated to reflect the 4 turbine proposal that includes alternative access arrangements and removal of the anemometer mast. The assessment considers that the proposed changes to the scheme would bring about some small localised positive changes. It also considers that the proposed increase in the height of the turbines by 10m has resulted in some limited increased visibility although this would make a small difference to the assessment and not result in any step changes in effects. It notes that the loss of one turbine would decrease the numbers of turbines visible and reduce the incidence of overlapping turbines from most areas of visibility. Combined with the loss of the permanent anemometer mast, the assessment considers that this would reduce the density, massing and horizontal view splay of the remaining vertical elements. The updated assessment also considers the relationship of the proposed turbines with the North Pennines AONB.
Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity
156. The proposals lie within an area identified in the North East of England Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy (NERSS) to 2021 as a broad area of least constraint (BALC) for medium scale wind energy development. The area was identified as the South Durham Upland Coalfield in Policy 41. The proposals would therefore be broadly consistent with the RSS had to say about the location of wind development. The RSS identified the area as having potential for medium scale development, which it identifies as being ‘up to 20-25 turbines’. The South Durham Upland Coalfield area currently contains no large scale turbines. There is a single consented wind farm at Royal Oak in the south-east of the area and a number (17) of small (11-25m) turbines. While NERSS no longer forms part of the development plan, studies which informed it (the Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development 2003) (LAOWD) and which led from it (the ARUP landscape capacity studies) remain informative.
157. The Wind Farm Development and Landscape Capacity Studies: North and South Durham Upland Coalfield (NEA / ARUP 2009) subdivides the area into landscape zones which it assesses in terms of sensitivity and appropriate wind farm typology. Three of the four turbines would lie within Zone S7 which is assessed as being of medium - high sensitivity. Its suitability for wind farm development is assessed as being ‘none’. One of the turbines would lie within Zone S9 which is assessed as being of medium – medium high sensitivity and its suitability for wind farm development is assessed as being ‘limited’. The proposals would not be supported by the findings of the ARUP Study which identifies the area as ‘not suitable’ for development. This is partly in respect of the intrinsic character of the ridge and partly in respect of effects on the AONB. The Study is informative rather than definitive and does not form part of the development plan. The extent to which the proposals would have adverse effects on local landscape character and on the AONB is considered below.
Physical Effects
158. Aside from the impact of the tall turbines themselves, the associated developments would have a physical impact upon the fabric of the landscape. The submitted landscape and visual assessment summarises the impacts associated with the different elements of the development.
159. The development would involve a total of 1.6km of new access track. The turbine foundations and crane pads would together with the access tracks create significant amounts of new hard surface development on the land. Cables connecting the turbines to the control buildings would necessitate trench excavation. These would be constructed immediately adjacent to access tracks and be less than 1m in width, but with the 5m width of the proposed access track. Once construction was completed, however, the trenches would all be filled in, limiting the long term impact.
160. Similarly, whilst the construction compound covers a significant area of 2,800m2 the compound would be a temporary feature adjacent to the proposed site entrance an isolated location. The proposed control building and four transformers would be relatively modest in size.
161. The Council’s Landscape officer considers that the direct physical impacts of the proposals on the fabric of the landscape would be low and largely limited to the creation of access tracks, excavations for turbine bases, lay-down areas, crane pads, underground cable routes and the construction of the compound area. Some short sections of dry stone wall would be removed and areas of improved or rush pasture would be lost to tracks and hard-standings during the operational period.
162. The proposals are accompanied by a habitat management plan which provides primarily for mitigation of ecological effects. While the proposed measures would have some slight beneficial effects on the character of the landscape these would be modest and would not mitigate wider landscape and visual effects to any significant degree.
Effect on Landscape Character
163. The Council’s Landscape officer agrees with most of the findings of the submitted assessment but not all. Landscape and visual effects in the Tees Lowlands, Wear Lowlands and Limestone Plateau would not be significant. In views of and across these lowland landscapes at distances of greater than around 12km the turbines would be typically screened from view by topography, buildings and vegetation and would not be notable features of the visual environment. Where visible on the western skyline they would be small features seen in shallow views or in visually complex panoramic views from localised open vantage points. Effects on the character of these landscapes would be low and not significant. The effect in Lowland Valley Terraces and the Limestone Escarpment would be low. Landscape and visual effects in the Dales Fringe would not be significant. The turbines would be widely visible on the northern skyline in views across the Tees Vale but generally as rotors or rotor tips only and as small features at distances of 10 to 20km. More significant effects would occur within the West Durham Coalfield and North Pennines.
Effects on designated landscapes
164. The northern part of the application site is within an AHLV with the turbines being located entirely within the designation. The North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is approximately some 1.2km to the north of the application site. The submitted assessment considers the effect on these designated landscapes as well as designated and non-designated parks and gardens. 165. The Council’s Landscape officer agrees with most of the findings of the submitted assessment but not all. It is considered that the proposals would have some significant adverse effects on the special character and quality of the AONB and particularly in views within around 15km from the moors to the west and north. An arc of high ground running through Pikestone Fell is visually influential and limits visibility within the AONB at near and middle-distance ranges to the moors in that area and a little further on along the watershed, and to parts of the moors on the northern flanks of Weardale. The effects of the proposals within those areas would, however, be significant in places.
166. While some of the views affected are views in which other landscapes, or other developments, outside of the AONB have some visual influence, they include many functionally interior views of the AONB in which the characteristics of wildness, naturalness, remoteness, tranquillity and scenic beauty for which the AONB is valued are exhibited fairly strongly. It is considered that the proposed turbines would erode those qualities in the areas described.
167. The extent to which this level of harm would conflict with TLP Policies ENV2 which requires that development ‘protects the landscape quality and natural beauty of the designated area’ and C5B which requires that development should not unreasonably damage the landscape setting of adjacent land falling within the North Pennines AONB’ is a matter of judgement. The Council’s Landscape officer considers that the conflict would be clear and substantive.
168. The geographical extent over which the proposals would have significant effects would be limited to some degree by the effects of topography but is still substantial and includes well accessed areas of moorland and notable view points from public rights of way. The proposals would also affect some notable views of the AONB from the Linburn Valley and from the Wear Valley. Whether the effect in those views is best understood as an impact on the character of the local landscape, the AHLV or the AONB is a matter of interpretation. Landscape officers note that views of the eastern parts of AONB from those viewpoints are of a particularly high quality.
169. The proposals would have significant adverse effects on the special character and quality of the AHLV within its immediate context (around 2 or 3km) in the Upper Linburn Valley. The turbines would not be entirely out of keeping with its character but would be visually dominant and unavoidably intrusive in attractive panoramic views of the AONB moorlands to the north which are a notable feature of this part of the AHLV. The proposals would also have some significant adverse effects in views across the Wear Valley from the north-east. Impacts on the Wear and Lower Bedburn Valleys they would be conspicuous in scenic views across the Wear and along the Bedburn to the AONB moors.
170. The extent to which this would conflict with TLP Policy ENV3, which requires that development ‘does not detract from the area’s special character’ and the weight that should be attached to that is a matter of judgement. Landscape officers consider that the conflict would be clear and substantive.
171. The impact of the proposal on designated and non-designated parks and gardens has been considered by officers and it is considered that the proposals would not have significant effects on registered Historic Parks and Gardens in the locality.
172. The proposed turbines would be visible from some high ground within Auckland Park as small features on the distant western skyline (around 15km) in visually complex views across a settled landscape. The effect on the historic character of the park would be low and not significant. The rotor tips of the proposed turbines would be visible from some open ground within Rokeby Park as small features amongst other features on the distant northern skyline (around 15km). The effect on the historic character of the park would be low and not significant. The proposals would not be visible from Raby Park, Lartington Hall Park or Bowes Museum Park due to the effects of intervening topography.
173. The proposals would not be visible from nearby non-designated parks and gardens at St John’s Hall (4km north), Dryderdale Hall (4km north-east), Eggleston Hall (8km south-west) or Rogerley Hall (9km north-west) due to the effects of intervening topography.
174. The ZTV studies predict some visibility from the non-designated Retford Grove (750m) and Hoppyland Hall Park (3.5km north-east). Retford Grove is heavily wooded and the turbines would be unlikely to have a significant effect on its visual environment. Hoppyland Hall is more open although originally designed to be visually enclosed. The turbines would be visible from within areas of former parkland, and particularly from West Knotty Hill but would not have a substantial effect on its historic character.
175. There would be no significant effects on other designated or non-designated parks at greater distance.
Visual effects – individual properties/residential amenity
176. The Council’s Landscape officer agrees with most of the findings of the submitted assessment in relation to the effects on residential amenity. Three properties lie within a distance of 6 x tip height (750m), which is the likely distance within which turbines can be considered to be overbearing in open views.
177. In terms of Linburn Hall, the main elevation faces southwards. There would be oblique views to the nearest turbine (T2) from the front of the property and more direct views from the front garden at the kind of distance where it could be overbearing (440m). This is identified as involved property by the applicant.
178. The main elevations of Mayland Lea face north-west and south east. There would be direct views of one turbine (T2) at 250m from the southern elevation and the curtilages of the property, of T3 at around 300m and T1 at 630m. It is considered that the proposals would have an overbearing effect on the visual environment of the property. However, the applicant has stated that this property would be vacant for the duration of the operational period.
179. The dwelling at West Mayland faces south-east away from the development and there are no windows of habitable rooms facing the turbines. It is considered that there would be unobstructed views of T1 at distances of 465m where it could be overbearing from the general curtilages of the steading but not from principal rooms or gardens. The rotor of T2 would be visible over woodlands at greater distance (759m). Whether the development as a whole would have an unacceptable effect on residential visual amenity is a matter of judgement, Landscape officers think it would not. West Mayland is identified as involved property by the applicant.
180. It is considered that impacts would be high in views from Linburn Head (950m from the nearest turbine) and an identified involved property by the applicant), Robin’s Castle (1080m) and Crake Scar Cottage (1500m). Given the distances and the angles of view occupied by the turbines, the effect on the visual environment of these properties would be high, but it is not considered that this would be overbearing in the way the terms is generally understood in respect of residential amenity.
Visual effects – settlements
181. Views from individual settlements within 12km are considered in the submitted assessment. The Council’s Landscape officer generally agrees with its findings. The nature of views from settlements would vary considerably within the settlements close by.
182. The proposal would have substantial impacts upon settlements within around 6km from the site. These being Woodland, Copley, Butterknowle and Hamsterley. The turbines would be prominent features of the local environment, visible from some residential properties and from roads and recreational footpaths / bridleways serving those communities. In this respect they are not unique and the situation here would be similar to that in the locality of existing and approved wind farms elsewhere in the region.
183. Woodland (2.2km) lies just over the ridge from the proposed development. The upper parts of turbines would be visible from first floor windows and some ground floor window and gardens of properties north of the road in the centre and east part of the village, locally by garden vegetation and outbuildings. The turbines would be relatively prominent in some views but not dominant or overbearing at the distance involved. The view from the primary school would be similar. There could be some glimpses of turbines between buildings from the main road and from properties south of the road in the east of the village, but their impact on public spaces within the village would be low. The turbines would be prominent in views from roads approaching the village from the east but not from the south. They would be visually dominant in views from roads approaching from the north. They would not be visible from footpaths immediately south and east of the village but would be visually dominant in views from paths and country lanes north of the village. Landscape officers consider that they would not dominate the immediate visual environment of the village to an unacceptable degree noting that impacts of a similar magnitude have been considered acceptable elsewhere in the county.
184. Copley (3.4 – 3.8 km) lies in the head of the Gaunless Valley, separated from the development by a ridge of high ground. The turbines would not be visible from residential properties or public vantage points in the village. They would not be prominent from the approaches to the village by road or in views from the public rights of way network immediately around the village which is largely on low ground in the valley floor. The proposals would have very little impact on the immediate visual environment of the village.
185. Butterknowle (4km) lies on the floor of the Gaunless Valley, separated from the development by a ridge of high ground. The TZV suggests that rotor tips could be visible from some residential properties in the east of the village, though their orientation is generally to the south, looking away from the turbines. From this area generally only rotor tips would be visible on the northern horizon and impacts would be generally low from both within the village and from roads and footpaths immediately around it. This would also be true for properties scattered around the village and along Copley Road. The proposals would have a low impact on the immediate visual environment of the village.
186. Hamsterley (4.25km) lies on the same ridge as the proposed development. The village is orientated along the ridge with most properties having principal elevations looking north or south, although some properties in the east of the village look to the west towards the turbines. The turbines would be visible in views from some residential properties and gardens in the south and east of the village. They would not be dominant or overbearing at the distance involved. They would not generally be visible from open spaces within the village. They would be intermittently visible from roads approaching the village from the south but not generally from the immediate east or north. They would be prominent or dominant in views from Windy Bank Road to the west. They would be visible, and locally prominent, in views from paths and country lanes west of the village. It is considered that the proposals would have a low impact on the immediate visual environment of the village.
Effects on roads and footpaths
187. Significant effects in views from roads and footpaths would occur in views from minor local roads within 6km of the site; local footpaths in the head of the Linburn Valley between Hamsterley Forest and Woodland, and the network of paths and tracks on the moors north and west of Hamsterley Forest.
188. The LVIA notes in 6.201 that in views from the moorland paths and tracks in that area, which lies within the AONB, views across the moors ‘would be sequentially dominated by clear views to the wind turbines seen in the context of a relatively undeveloped landscape and close to the undeveloped moorland to the south-west’. The impact on the landscape experience of the AONB is described above. I would observe that the paths, tracks and access land in this area are particularly well used due to the proximity of Hamsterley Forest.
Cumulative effects
189. There are a number of existing and emerging clusters of development on the West Durham Coalfield. Over much of the northern part of the coalfield wind turbines are now notable, often prominent features in the landscape (pale blue areas). There remains a reasonable degree of separation between tracts of the more wind turbine dominated ‘wind farm landscapes’ associated with clusters of development around Tow Law, Burnhope and Kiln Pit Hill. A new small cluster of larger single turbines is emerging east of Rowley with development consented in that area. A similar area will develop at some remove to the south should the consented Royal Oak wind farm be developed. Should the proposals at Windy Bank be developed, wind turbines would become notable or prominent features in the upland fringes south of the Wear and a tract of ‘wind farm landscape’ would develop in the vicinity of the site. There would remain a reasonable degree of separation between the tracts of wind farm landscape north and south of the wear which would not coalesce into a more extensive tract, and between that of Windy Bank and Royal Oak. The separation distances between these areas would be 12km and 14km respectively; over twice the distance recommended elsewhere in ARUP studies to avoid that kind of coalescence.
190. In general terms the proposals would continue the pattern of development that has occurred elsewhere on the coalfield and would not cross any obvious threshold of cumulative effect on the character of the wider landscape of the coalfield valleys and upland fringes. There would be some cumulative effects between the nearer groups in particular given the inevitable wide visibility of tall structures but would not give rise to significant harm. There are a number of operational and permitted small turbines (13 – 20m high) along the southern ridge of the Linburn and in the valley head at Job’s Lodge. These would interact visually with the proposed turbines in some views and could give rise to adverse cumulative effects and particularly where the larger turbines were seen in the background and smaller turbines in the foreground. However, these effects would be very localised and it is not considered that these would give rise to significant harm.
191. Consideration must be given to the cumulative effects of wind development on the AONB. The baseline for assessing the cumulative effects of wind development on the AONB is the character of the AONB when it was designated and before development took place. Its sensitivity as a designated landscape remains high even if it has been affected in places by recent development. The submitted assessment show that existing wind development along the eastern edge of the AONB is already widely visible from the moors in north and east of the AONB at the kind of distance ranges where significant effects can occur. In the north of the area the Kiln Pit Hill and Boundary Lane turbines are widely visible from the moors falling north and west to the Derwent valley. Turbines in the Tow Law and Burnhope / Greencroft areas are also locally visible. In westerly views from those moors the effect of the turbines is often influenced by the presence of prominent urban and industrial areas outside of the AONB around Consett and tall masts at Pontop and Burnhope. In more enclosed views, and those of a more northerly aspect taking in rural rather than settled upland fringes, the effect of these turbines has been higher and has eroded the stronger sense of wildness and remoteness that occurred there to some degree.
192. South of the Wear watershed the visibility of the northern group falls off rapidly. Turbines around Tow Law and Burnhope / Greencroft are widely visible from the moors east of Collier Law and from the higher ground of Bollihope Common and Pikestone Fell to the south. As in views from the northern moors the effect of the turbines in westerly views from high ground is often influenced by the presence of urban and industrial areas outside of the AONB and the scale of landscapes outside of the AONB as a component on the view. In more enclosed views, and those where landscapes outside of the AONB are a smaller and less legible part of the view, the effect of these turbines has been higher and again has eroded the stronger sense of wildness and remoteness there to some degree.
193. Relative to the situation that obtained when the AONB was designated there has been some erosion of its special qualities in parts of the northern and eastern moors from wind development to the east. This is difficult to quantify but is clearly observable. The proposals would compound that process by eroding the sense of wildness and remoteness in additional views and additional areas of moorland southwards along the eastern part of the AONB, often in more functionally interior views of the AONB where landscapes outside are either a less significant element in the view or less conspicuously different in character. Landscape officers consider that the proposal would bring the overall level of impact of wind development on the special qualities of the AONB in this area to an unacceptable level, and that this would be in substantive conflict with Policies on its protection.
194. Consideration as to whether or not the level of landscape and visual impact as a result of the proposed development is acceptable is a matter of judgement. Having regard to the overall balance of landscape effects it is considered that the turbines would have significant effects on the character of the local landscape and particularly within around 2 or 3 km. In addition they would have significant effects on the special character of an Area of High Landscape Value, and particularly in respect of views across the upper Linburn Valley towards the AONB moors and views across the Wear Valley along the Bedburn, and would conflict with saved policy ENV3. Furthermore, the proposals would have significant effects on the special character and qualities of the AONB and particularly in respect of their effect in views across moors to the west and north and would conflict with TLP Policies ENV2 and C5B. 195. There would be some significant visual effects on the recreational footpath network in the head of the Linburn Valley and on paths, tracks and access land on moors north and west of Hamsterley Forest in a well-used part of the AONB. The proposals would have significant cumulative effects, in conjunction with existing and approved wind turbines in the area, on the special character and qualities of the AONB in respect of the erosion of the sense of wildness, remoteness and tranquillity of moorland landscapes along its eastern edges and would conflict in that respect with Teesdale District Local Plan saved Policies ENV2 and C5B. In addition it would be contrary to TLP Policy GD1 as the proposed development would unreasonably harm the rural landscape of the area. The proposals would also conflict with relevant guidance in Part 11 of the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance.
196. The application site is situated close the North Pennines AONB and is within in a sensitive area of Teasdale. Significant objections have been received from members of the public in relation to the potential adverse landscape and visual impact of the proposal given its scale and nature resulting in an unacceptable loss of an area of beauty and tranquillity as well as the cumulative impact of turbines in the area. Natural England and CPRE have also objected to the scheme on Landscape grounds. Formal objections have been received from the AONB Partnership regarding the impact on the AONB, considering that in this location and at this scale it would be likely to have, in some views, a significant and adverse impact on the purposes of the AONB designation. The AONB Partnership highlight the need to have regard to the purpose of the AONB designation and the and the likely impact of the proposal as set out in legislation and the NPPF as well as the TLP and the North Pennines AONB Planning Guidelines.
Other Impacts upon Residential Amenity
197. Aside from the potential visual intrusions of the development upon residential amenity, other matters such as the potential for noise, shadow flicker and safety must be considered. A number of representations have been received which reference impacts on residential amenity.
198. The proposed site lies in countryside to the north of Woodland village and to the south of Hamsterley Forest. Within the site there are three farms with associated agricultural buildings. These being Linburn Hall in the northern part of the site, Mayland Lea to the north, Linburn Head to the south west. Crake Scar Cottage, although not within the site is immediately adjacent to the site boundary in the south eastern part of the site. Although within the application site Mayland Lea, would be vacant from any residential occupier including tenants for so long as the turbines were operational. This property has not therefore been considered in the assessment of the application. The applicant has proposed that, through planning condition, for the duration of the carrying out of the development Mayland Lea would not be used or occupied by any person as a residential home.
199. There are several residential properties, the majority of which are farms, within a radius of approximately 1km of the site boundary. Identified sensitive receptors and their proximity to the site and distance to the nearest turbine are listed below (distances in metres). Approximate distance in metres from identified sensitive properties to site & turbines Property Distance to nearest turbine (approx.) Linburn Hall * 437 Pool Tree Farm 952 Crake Scar Cottage 1,507 Linburn Head * 907 Mount Pleasant Farm 1,932 Mayland Farm 1,031 The Grove 772 West Mayland * 448
*Financially involved property.
200. The site boundary is large compared to the area where disturbance would take place and includes areas subject to proposed ecological enhancement. As can be seen from the Table above the closest properties are those which are financially involved with the proposed development (Linburn Hall, Linburn Head and West Mayland) with the exception of The Grove located within Hamsterley Forest.
Noise
201. The National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 123 requires that LPA’s to consider the impact of noise relating to new development giving rise to health and amenity issues for adjacent residents.
202. Those objecting to the proposal have raised a number of concerns regarding the potential noise implications of the proposed development. These have been detailed and reflect the concerns of local residents and have been considered when assessing the application. These concerns include the applicability of “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms” (ETSU-R-97), whether or not predicted noise levels comply with ETSU-R-97 guidance, the impacts on neighbouring residents not financially involved with the proposal and the impact of amplitude modulation.
203. Planning Practice Guidance commends the use of ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97) (launched in March 2014). It describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours. Among other things, this document states that noise from wind farms should be limited to 5dB (A) above background noise for both day and night-time periods. The now defunct PPS24, former national planning guidance in relation to noise, advises that a change of 3dB (A) is the minimum perceptible to the human ear under normal conditions. Thus it is not intended that with developments there should be no perceptible noise at the nearest properties, rather the 5dB (A) limit is designed to strike a balance between the impact of noise from turbines and the need to ensure satisfactory living conditions for those individuals who might be exposed to it. The ETSU guidance also recommends that both day and night time lower fixed limits can be increased to 45dB(A) where the occupier of the affected property has some financial involvement in the wind farm.
204. The planning application was accompanied by a noise assessment the scope of which was to assess the noise impacts associated with the construction phase and the operation of the turbines themselves. The assessment was updated to consider the changes to the proposal made in 2014 that included the reduction to four turbines, the increase in height of the turbines and the relocated access. Further additional information was also provided. The assessment also considers wind shear, amplitude modulation and low frequency noise.
205. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers have assessed the development, the submitted noise assessment and related information and have confirmed that it conforms with to the procedural method statement detailed in the applicable advice ETSU-R-97 as highlighted in the Planning Practice Guidance. Officers are also satisfied with the submitted background noise levels in relation to the identified properties. In addition officers are satisfied that those properties identified as being financially involved are so and that higher levels set out in ETSU- R-97 are applicable in relation to those properties.
206. The submitted assessment demonstrates that for each of the identified representative noise sensitive receptors the predicted noise levels for the construction and operational phases of the development would be within the ETSU- R-97 derived noise limits for the majority of the time. This being for financially and non-financially involved properties. However, there would be some instances there the predicted noise levels would be in excess of 10dB(A) above measured background noise nevertheless they would still be in accordance with ETSU-R-97 guidance.
207. Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers commissioned an acoustic consultant to review the application. The consultant recommends refusal of the application due to the predicted breach of daytime noise limits and the impact on low background levels. However, this conclusion was reached by utilising a methodology that does not strictly follow ETSU-R-97, guidance recommended in the Planning Practice Guidance. As a result Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers do not object to the proposed development given the predicted noise levels would be in accordance with ETSU-R-97 guidance considering that the noise impacts of the proposed development would be acceptable subject to conditions. Recommended conditions relate to the setting of noise levels on the identified noise sensitive receptors, requirement for noise monitoring, provision of a noise complaints procedure and a method for complaint resolution. In addition it is recommended that a company representative is appointed as a contact for local residents.
208. The impact from increased traffic movements has also been assessed and no significant effect is anticipated.
209. Amplitude modulation is an area undergoing further research and there is no requirement under ETSU-R-97 to include any correction for amplitude modulation. If excessive amplitude modulation occurs from the development, it is hope this will be managed through an agreed noise management plan.
210. Those objecting to the proposal have raised a number of concerns in terms of noise. These include specific mention of noise during construction and operational phases and the applicability of using ETSU-R-97. Regard has been given to the views of Environment, Health and Consumer Protection officers as well as Government guidance, and it is considered that the application can be determined on the basis of the information provided.
211. The potential noise impacts accord with the relevant guidance for such developments and no objections are raised by Environment, Health and Consumer Protection subject to appropriate conditions. The proposal would not conflict with TLP Policies GD1 and C5B and Parts 10 and 11 of the NPPF.
Shadow Flicker
212. Shadow flicker can occur within 130 degrees either side of north and the effect is unlikely to be significant in distances greater than 10 rotor diameters. The application is accompanied by a shadow flicker assessment, reviewed following the reduction in the number of turbines. The assessment considered three properties within 1km of the site (Linburn Hall, West Mayland (both financially involved properties) and The Grove (a non-financially involved property). The assessment considers that the maximum occurrence of shadow flicker would be 87.4 hours experienced at West Mayland, 69.3 hours at Linburn Hall, both are financially involved properties. At The Grove a maximum of 44.5 hours is predicted.
213. Such a period of time is calculated on a theoretical worst case scenario basis using assumptions such as the following; that the rotor blades would be rotating for 365 days per year, that the sun shines in a clear sky every day of the year, that there is no tree cover or other local visual obstructions, turbine orientation and turbine operation that may prevent windows being affected. In reality the assessment considers that the amount of time when shadow flicker occurs would be less than predicted and affected windows may be in rooms that are not generally in use at the times when the effect may occur.
214. No routine mitigation is proposed for the three properties within 10 rotor diameter of the turbines. However, it is proposed that this is kept under review during the operation of the development in case circumstances arise that increase the potential for nuisance (particularly where rooms affected are in regular occupancy and the effect proves to be a frequent occurrence in reality). Mitigation measures can be devised to reduce the occurrence of shadow flicker. Measures include through the provision of screening measures or alternatively through controls to switch the turbine off in periods where shadow flicker can occur. In the event of any approval a condition can be attached so as to require mitigation measures to be implemented to remove the potential for shadow flicker occurrence.
215. Objectors are concerned about potential health issues associated with shadow flicker. The submitted shadow flicker report outlines that the frequency of shadow flicker occurrence is significantly less than the frequency at which photosensitive epilepsy is usually triggered. Irrespective, the mitigation measures that could be undertaken would also remove the instances of shadow flicker occurring.
216. No objections with regards to the effect of shadow flicker are therefore raised having regards to TLP Policies GD1, C5B and Parts 10 and 11 of the NPPF.
Safety
217. Objectors are concerned about the potential for ice throw, lighting strike and turbines setting on fire and the potential for the turbines and their components to fall.
218. The PPG advises that appropriate fall over distance with regards to nearby buildings is the height of the turbine plus 10% (in this case 137.5m). No buildings are located within this distance. Concerns have been raised by the Highway Authority given the proximity of the development to Windy Bank Road. Although it is recommended that the turbines are set further back from the road no objection is raised. 219. With regards to the concerns over ice throw, such matters are not directly referenced within the safety concerns section of the PPG in relation to wind turbines. There is reference within the Highways Agency/Department for Transport publication “The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development (2013)”. This document advises that wind turbines can be fitted with vibration and/or climate sensitive technology so that the turbine can be shut down if there is the potential for icing. In the event of an approval a condition could be imposed requiring that such technology is utilised.
220. Whilst there have been some high profile instances of wind turbines being struck by lightning or catching fire, this is not considered to be the usual. Wind energy is considered a safe technology and officers have no reason to suspect that the proposed turbines could not be operated safely.
Aviation and Radar
221. Wind turbines may represent a risk of collision with low flying aircraft and interfere with the proper operation of radar. The rotation of the turbine blades would be detected on the airport’s primary radar creating clutter, which could be highly distracting for air traffic control. Developments within a specified radius of major airports and aerodromes are subject to mandatory consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and/or the Ministry of Defence and the airport.
222. Durham Tees Valley Airport (DTVA) originally objected to the proposal being concerned that the turbines would be detected by DTVA primary radar creating clutter and compromising the safe operation of the airport. However, DTVA has now advised that it does not object to the development being satisfied that any effects of the proposed development can be managed or mitigated following discussions with the applicant. There are therefore no objections on the grounds of aviation safety.
223. The Ministry of Defence has raised no objection but requests that specific lighting be attached to the turbines should planning permission be granted. NATS has raised no objections having regards to its air safeguarding criteria. The CAA also raises no objection. The proposal would not conflict with TLP Policy C5B as it is not expected that the proposed turbines would cause unreasonable harm to the performance of military radar or hazard to low flying operations.
224. Objectors to the proposal have raised concerns regarding the use of the site by the air ambulance stating its convenient location and also noting that it is adjacent to the Descend Hamsterley Mountain Biking site and the Forest used for many outdoor pursuits. There are concerns that the air ambulance would not be able to land in this location should the proposal be approved. The CAA has recommended that Emergency Service Helicopter Support Units are consulted as they may operate in the area of concern and be affected by the introduction of tall obstacles. However, these are not statutory consutlees and it is unlikely that the fields are formally designated for such use. Should planning permission be granted then alternative landing locations would need to be identified.
Impacts on Heritage Assets
225. No designated heritage assets are located within the site but there are a number of Grade II listed buildings within 2.5km of the site. Further distant from the site are 15 Grade I and II* listed buildings (within 7.5km and including Witton Castle), two visible Scheduled Monuments (within 7.5km), fifteen conservation areas (within 10km) and five registered parks and gardens (within 15km). In addition 18 non-listed locally important structures have been identified, non-designated heritage assets. Mayland Lea Farm is identified as a non-designated heritage asset and is located within the application is site. The application is accompanied by a cultural heritage assessment which has assessed heritage assets within an immediate study area around the application site and a wider study area of 15km. The assessment seeks to identify cultural heritage sites that may be affected either directly or indirectly during construction, throughout operation or from decommissioning of the proposed development. The assessment goes onto assess the effects and significance of the effects on archaeological and built heritage sites that may be affected by the development, suggests means to mitigate and avoid any potential effects, and consideration of the cumulative impact on the historic environment of the proposal in combination with other wind farm sites.
226. The assessment considers that any direct impacts would have been caused at the construction stage and no further directs impacts would be anticipated during the operational stage. Impacts of minor significance as a result of the operational stage are anticipated on Cockfield Fell, Castles Camp, Church of St James, Hamsterley, Hamsterley Baptists Chapel, Church of St Mary, Cockfield and Edge Hotel, Woodland. It is stated that no archaeological mitigation can be applied to reduce the impact although additional tree planting may further obscure views. Impacts on the setting of a number of heritage receptors are anticipated to be but considered to be low.
227. In assessing the proposed development regard must be had to the statutory duty imposed on the Local Planning Authority under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of a conservation area. In addition the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 also imposes a statutory duty that, when considering whether to grant planning permission for a development which affects a listed building or its setting, the decision maker shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. If harm to the setting of a listed building is found this gives rise to a strong (but rebuttable) statutory presumption against the grant of planning permission. Any such harm must be given considerable importance and weight by the decision-maker.
228. Design and Conservation officers do not foresee any adverse impact on setting of heritage assets. It is considered that the closest designated heritage the Grade II listed Grove Bridge (0.65km to the north west) is well concealed within the surrounding woodland, that the group of listed buildings at Podge Mill (some 1.1km to the east of the site boundary but further distant from the closest turbine) are screened by intervening vegetation and there are no other designated assets within a 2km radius. Design and Conservation officers consider that although there are a number of Grade II listed buildings and a Scheduled Monument carved rock at Hindon Edge (3.3km to the south west of the site boundary) these are unlikely to be affected by the development.
229. The NPPF defines the setting of a heritage asset as; “the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.”
230. The NPPF is clear at paragraph 132 that the significance of an asset can be harmed by inappropriate development within its setting. The English Heritage (now Historic England) publication “The Setting of Heritage Assets” provides advice on matters of setting. The extent of the setting of a listed building will vary from asset to asset, it will generally be more extensive than its curtilage and setting can be influenced by not only views but noise, dust, vibration and the like. The English Heritage (now Historic England) publication clearly states that “Setting is not a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation. Its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of a heritage asset.”
231. There are no designated heritage assets within the application boundary. There would be an impact upon non-designated heritage assets as identified by the applicant as non-listed locally important structures. The Council’s Design and Conservation officers raise no objections.
232. In respect of the 5 turbine proposal Historic England (formerly English Heritage) raised no objections considering that the development would have no direct impact upon any designated historic environment for which it has responsibility, nor would it compromise the setting of any such asset within the immediate vicinity. Although not commenting on the four turbine scheme it is unlikely that its view will have altered despite the 10m increase in height of the turbines.
233. In terms of archaeology, the submitted assessment includes an assessment of baseline data and non-invasive evaluation in the form of a geophysical survey. The assessment through a geophysical survey highlighted the buried remains of a documented medieval nunnery and unexpected remains of the Prehistoric or Roman periods. Archaeology officers considered this as potentially being an issue for the development during the construction phase and recommended targeted trenching. Supplementary Environmental Information was submitted in March 2013 following an archaeological evaluation and geophysical survey. The works comprised the geomagnetic survey of one area and the excavation of four trenches across the site. No archaeological resource was identified that would impact upon the proposed development and no further scheme of archaeological works are recommended in relation to the development.
234. Initial concerns were raised by Archaeology officers in relation to the potential impact of the development on unknown archaeological remains. Archaeology officers acknowledge that on the basis of the results of the evaluation, the predicted archaeological resource (as interpreted from the geophysical survey) does not appear to exist. However, notes the limitations of geophysical surveys and the small scale trenching that was undertaken. Taking into account the results of both the note that it would appear that there are no significant archaeological assets which would impede development. However, noting that there are remaining queries given that the geophysical results and the trial trenching results do not tally with documentary evidence (the medieval nunnery is documented to have been visible as earthworks until the mid-19th Century). It is therefore recommended that should planning permission be granted conditions be imposed requiring archaeological monitoring of all groundworks associated with Turbines 1, 2 and 3 and the access roads between them. A condition would also require the strip, map and recording in advance of development commencing in the area of the proposed new compound area and control building (an area not previously subject to evaluation). It is unlikely that the development would have any adverse impact upon designated and non- designated assets.
235. Those objecting to the proposals have raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the submission in respect of archaeology and possible convent within the site, and the impact on listed buildings and conservation areas. 236. Design and Conservation officers do not object to the proposals considering that the proposals would have no adverse impact on the setting of heritage assets. Overall it is considered that there would be no harm to designated heritage assets given the proposed development is not within the setting of a designated heritage asset. There could be a direct loss of non-designated assets, however, the Council’s Archaeology officer considers that the imposition of conditions would ensure the excavation and recording of any asset discovered, and no objection is raised. No objections to the development on heritage grounds are raised having regard to TLP Policies GD1, BENV3, BENV11 and C5B and Part 12 of the NPPF.
Ecology and Nature Conservation
237. The PPG clearly outlines the obligations a Local Authority has with regard to biodiversity, in this case the specific risks that wind turbines pose in terms of ecology and nature conservation. These risks include the risk of collision between moving turbine blades and birds and/or bats and the death of bats caused by barotrauma, the result of dropping of air pressure near the blades causing fatal lung expansion. . Other risks include the disturbance and displacement of birds and bats from the turbine area, including in this case the displacement of a county value population of nesting curlew.
238. The application is accompanied by ecology and ornithology assessments with associated surveys and supporting documentation. The Supplementary Environmental Information submitted in 2013 and 2014 includes additional ecological information. The scope of the assessment was to identify all statutory and non- statutory designated sites within 2km of the site; non-designated habitats that could be affected by the development and protected or otherwise notable species which the site may support or have the potential to support. The assessments considers the likely significant effects on ecological receptors and any necessary mitigation measures required to avoid, reduce or compensate for possible negative effects and identify residual effects taking into account all elements within the scope of the assessment.
239. A number of statutory and non-statutory sites of ecological interest lie within close proximity to the site. The site is situated close to the North Pennines Moor SPA and SAC and the Bollihope, Pikestone, Eggleston & Woodland Fells SSSI. Other statutory and non-statutory nature conservation sites are located within relative close proximity to the application site including Frog Wood Bog SSSI and Low Redford Meadows SSSI, Redford Meadows and Hamsterley Forest Local Wildlife Sites to the north and Hindon Beck Local Wildlife Site to the south. Ancient woodland (Spurlswood Beck and Crossfield Plantation) lie to the north, Low Lays Lea Wood to the east and Steel Gill, Gibneese Plantation and Bogle House Wood to the south.
240. The submitted assessments consider that subsequent to changes made to the size of the wind farm in 2014 the modified the turbine application would result in a reduction in negative effects on ecological and ornithological receptors. The application recognises that without mitigation impacts are predicted for bats and birds with significant impact for nesting birds particularly curlew and lapwing and displacement of numbers of wintering and passage birds. A site specific habitat management plan is proposed by the applicant covering an area of 109 ha which seeks to offset any potential negative impact of the turbines on birds and bats and provide positive biodiversity benefits at a local level during the life of the site. The primary aim of the habitat management plan is to provide alternative habitat for the birds displaced by the proposed wind turbines and alternative foraging areas for bats. However given that birds are faithful to their feeding locations and that off breeding site feeding fields are of high conservation value then there is reasonable doubt that any mitigation strategy will not work. It also seeks to achieve general improvements to semi-natural habitats and fauna through modifications to management regimes within the area. The proposed access road for the development has been moved to avoid particularly sensitive habitats.
241. Several ecological assessments have taken place in support of the Windy Bank wind turbine application considering protected species and habitats. Eventually the key receptors have been determined to be birds and bats, all other receptors such as protected mammals (badger, otter and water vole), reptiles and amphibians and protected habitats are not significantly impacted by the turbine development and any negative impacts can be dealt with by habitat management on site and no concerns are raised. Given the distance from Local Wildlife Sites in the vicinity which are designated for flora, it is not considered that the proposal would conflict with TLP Policy ENV7 in respect of damage to the nature conservation value of such sites.
242. The presence of protected species is a material consideration, in accordance with Circular 06/2005 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System). In addition under the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (referred to as the Habitats Regulations hereafter) it is a criminal offence to (amongst other things) deliberately capture, kill, injure or disturb a species protected by the legislation, generally known as European Protected Species, in this case all bat species present at Windy Bank. It is possible to carry out works which may impact adversely on European Protected Species under licence from Natural England. Regulation 9 the Habitats Regulations requires local planning authorities to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in exercising its functions. Case law has established that local planning authorities must consider whether the applicant might obtain a protected species license from Natural England if there the application is likely to have a significant effect on a European Protected Species. This requires an examination of the derogation provisions provided within the legislation. These state that the activity must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety, there must be no satisfactory alternative, and that the favourable conservation status of the species must be maintained.
243. Officers concerns relate to the potential for negative impacts on bats and birds and the lack of a proven mitigation strategy for the site. Seven species of bats have been recorded as using the site, an important assemblage for the County, of these two species are at particular risk of being killed by wind turbines. Concerns are raised regarding the age of the bat survey data and the fact that the turbines have increased in size since that data was acquired. In addition the application recognises that there may be a negative impact on bats but the application clearly states that turbines will not be turned off if monitoring shows significant bat mortality.
244. Although Natural England raises no issues with regard to bats, it is considered that this risk of mortality/displacement potential for this number of bat species is not acceptable. Although wind energy has its advantages it is not essential that a wind farm is developed in this location. It is therefore considered that a satisfactory alternative would be to consider a less ecologically sensitive site. Given the risks to the bat species present from the proposed development it is unknown whether the favourable conservation status of the species could be maintained and a precautionary approach is therefore appropriate. It is considered that despite mitigation the overall effect of turbines at this location would be detrimental to the conservation of species contrary to TLP Policy ENV8 and Paragraphs 109 and 118 of the NPPF. 245. The site is of County interest for breeding, passage and wintering birds. A number of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) bird species and birds on the RSPB’s red, amber and green lists were recorded utilising the turbine application site. The site and its immediate environs support an important assemblage of bird species for the County. Ecology Officers and the applicant agree that the site has a value for birds and the applicant has provided a mitigation strategy in an attempt to mitigate any negative effects the turbines may have. However, it is considered that there is still an unacceptable risk of mortality and displacement for important numbers of breeding and non-breeding birds, particularly given that feeding waders are very faithful to specific high value feeding locations.
246. The bird surveys and the data provided in support of the application and the subsequent collision risk assessment for birds was gathered for the first iteration of the turbine application, since that time the turbines have decreased in number and increased in size. Officers have some concerns over the methodology used to gather the data and therefore whether the data remains viable for subsequent risk assessments and impact calculations.
247. The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012, section 9A paragraph 3 places a duty on the council to preserve, maintain and re-establish a sufficient diversity and area of habitat for wild birds in the United Kingdom… having regard to the requirements of Article 2 in the new Wild Birds Directive. In particular paragraph 8 states: “So far as lies within their powers, a competent authority (in this case Durham County Council) in exercising any function in or in relation to the United Kingdom must use all reasonable endeavours to avoid any pollution or deterioration of habitats of wild birds”
248. The bird surveys accompanying the application indicate that the site has at least a County value for birds and officers consider that the turbine application presents an unacceptable risk to bird populations and therefore is contrary to the Wild Birds Directive. The applicant refutes the views of the Council’s Ecologist in this respect.
249. Durham County Council is the Competent Authority who must decide whether the application requires an Appropriate Assessment under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). The purpose of the Appropriate Assessment would be to determine whether the building of the turbines would constitute a plan or project under the Regulations which might have a negative, direct or indirect impact, on any European Protected Site on or near the application site or on any species for which the European site is designated. This will be undertaken by the carrying out of a screening exercise on the planning application using the survey data and the Shadow Appropriate Assessment submitted by the applicant. In this instance the potentially affected site would be the North Pennines Moor SPA. The developer has undertaken a Shadow Appropriate Assessment considering that there is no direct physical impact on the SPA but that golden plover a qualifying species of the SPA utilise the application site to a sufficient degree that an assessment of possible impacts on that species is required. The Shadow Appropriate Assessment provided by the applicant concludes that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA with regard to golden plover if the proposed scheme was consented, a conclusion supported by Natural England who is the statutory consultee in this process.
250. Natural England considers that there would be no impact on the SPA qualifying species (golden plover) providing that all mitigation measures are appropriately secured in any permission given. Natural England’s comments in respect of the SPA reflect those in relation to the Bollihope, Pikestone, Eggleston & Woodland Fells SSSI. However, it should be borne in mind that Natural England are only concerned with possible impacts to the SPA it does not consider the Wild Birds Directive, the NPPF or the Biodiversity Obligation under which the Planning Authority must consider the application, although they do make a point of drawing the Authorities attention to these obligations.
251. It should be noted that Paragraph 119 of NPPF states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directive is being considered, planned or determined.
252. Ecology officers consider the Shadow Appropriate Assessment to be compromised as a result of inadequate survey work. It is considered that further survey work should be undertaken for two years in respect of golden plover. It is therefore not possible for an Appropriate Assessment to be carried out. Members are therefore unable to approve the application in the absence of such an assessment and can only refuse the application or be minded to approve the application subject to the undertaking of an appropriate assessment.
253. Objectors to the proposal have referred to the adverse impact of the proposal on wildlife, in particular birds and bats as well as upon the designated ecological sites and Hamterley Forest. The full impact of the proposal cannot be assessed due to the inadequate survey data. However, considering the submitted information it is considered that the proposed development would provide an unacceptable threat to county value populations of birds and bats and that although the applicant has acknowledged the threat and provided a mitigation strategy the strategy remains un- proven and the risk to important county assemblages of birds and bats is unacceptable. The potential significant impacts upon the SPA and SSSI raise concerns despite the comments from Natural England raise concerns as well as potential harm to protected species. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not accord with TLP Policies GD1, ENV5, ENV6 and ENV8 and Part 11 of the NPPF.
Highways Issues
254. The application is accompanied by a traffic and transport assessment. This was updated following the relocation of the proposed site access on to Windy Bank Road and amended routeing for abnormal loads as well as the reduction in the number of turbines. The assessment considers the access, traffic and transportation implications relating to the development. The scope of this assessment was to consider the impacts of construction traffic and abnormal load deliveries to the site, access requirements during the operational phase and impacts and mitigation measures during decommissioning. An assessment of the suitability of the route has identified where some road widening within the highway would be required should planning permission be granted. The assessment considers that there would be a short term, insignificant increase in traffic levels during the construction of the development and a transport management plan would seek to minimise and control any minor impacts. During the operation and maintenance period are considered to be minimal and again not result in any significant impact. During decommissioning traffic levels are considered to be less than those associated with the construction and unlikely to be significant but a decommissioning assessment and transport management plan would be prepared prior to decommissioning. and during decommissioning. The Highways Authority raises no objections in respect of the submitted assessment.
255. The site access would be from Windy Bank Road to the north of the site. The existing access to Mayland Lea Farm would be upgraded to form a priority junction onto Windy Bank Road. No objections are raised in respect of the proposed access. New access tracks to the turbines themselves would also be necessary.
256. It is noted that public concerns over road safety relate to adequacy of the road network for HGVs and conflict with car users, suitability of the proposed traffic routes, increase in traffic, mud on road and proximity of the turbines to the adjacent road. Concerns have also been raised regarding possible damage to property along the haulage route.
257. A significant number of public representations have raised concerns regarding the impact the delivery of the proposed wind turbines would have on the local highway network, it has been suggested that due to the mining heritage of the area that roads are susceptible to collapse. The Highways Authority has not raised an objection in this regard. It would be normal practise for the condition to be attached to any grant of planning permission to require a joint road conditions survey to be carried out with the developer prior to any construction material being brought onto site, and to require the developer to put right any damage caused by the delivery of the wind turbines to the site.
258. The Highway Authority has no objections to the development considering the proposed turbine delivery route to be generally acceptable, but considers the proposed HGV route (the use of the Unclassified 41.1 and Unclassified 33.4 link between the C32 and C31) not to be suitable for HGV construction traffic. Temporary passing bays would be required in specified locations on the C31 and Unclassified 33.5 prior to the commencement of the development. Turbines T2 and T3 are within topple distance of Windy Bank Road and the Highway Authority recommends the turbine locations are set back further to achieve maximum safety. Should planning permission be granted then a number of works would need to be secured. These include the: joint pre-commencement public highway condition survey; surveys following completion of the project, and any deemed necessary during the construction period; new highway verge access crossings for proposed delivery tracks, temporary carriageway widening, culverting drainage ditches, temporary signing, and temporary relocation of existing highway signs. In addition conditions requiring a schedule of street furniture proposed for relocation or temporary removal prior to commencement of turbine component deliveries; a condition survey of existing affected public roads prior to commencement of construction activities on the site, and within 3 months of completion of the turbines' installation returning any affected highway to its original condition and replacement of street furniture. These matters can be secured through condition or legal agreement should planning permission be granted.
259. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts on development are severe. Traffic generated by the proposal could be accommodated safely and conveniently on the highway network and would not generate unacceptable levels of traffic on the road network.
260. A number of concerns are raised by those objecting to the proposal including traffic movements and routes, the close proximity of two of the turbines to Windy Bank Road. However the impact of traffic generated by the development on local and recreational amenity would be acceptable and the Highways Authority has no objections to the proposal, any damage to property would be a private matter between residents and the developer. There are no objections to the development with regard to highway safety and the proposed development would accord with TLP Policy GD1 and Part 4 of the NPPF. Recreational Amenity
261. Public concerns are raised with regard to the impact of the development upon the recreational value of the area and on users of the public rights of way network as well as to cyclists. The visual impacts of the proposal on the recreational footpath network are considered above.
262. Within the site Footpath No. 6 (South Bedburn Parish) enters the site at the entrance to Mayland Lea and then runs south parallel with Windy Bank Road. Footpath No. 10 (South Bedburn Parish) runs to the north again parallel with Windy Bank Road. Footpath No. 42 (Lynesack & Softley Parish) runs east west through the central part of the site. Footpaths No. 37 and 49 (Lynesack & Softley Parish) run through the south eastern corner of the site.
263. Footpaths 6 and 10 (South Bedburn Parish) are not within the fall over distance of any of the turbines. The access track to Turbine 2 would cross Footpath No. 10 and access tracks to Turbines 3 and 5 would cross Footpath No. 6. The construction and operation of the compound may also affect Footpath No. 6. Access and Rights of Way Officers raise no objection to the proposal but request that in the event of any approval a condition can be attached to ensure the protection of these rights of way during and after construction.
264. Although Footpath No. 6 may be affected during the construction period it is not considered that this would be to detriment of users and no alternative route would be required. Public rights of way within the site would be maintained during the course of the development and the proposal would not conflict with TLDP Policy TR10 in this respect.
Ground Conditions and Hydrology Issues
265. The northern part of the site is within a Coalfield Development Low Risk Area with the southern part of the site being within a Coalfield Development High Risk Area as highlighted by the Coal Authority. The Linburn Brook crosses the centre of the site and flows from west to east. The site includes channel and buried drains along with springs in the vicinity of Mayland Lea. The site lies primarily within Flood Zone 1 although a small area in the northern part of the site is within Flood Zone 3. The site is located upon a secondary aquifer. Although tributaries of the Linburn Beck flow through the site they would not be directly affected by the erection of the turbines and associated works.
266. The application includes an assessment of matters surrounding geology and hydrological, flood risk and related issues. This assessment identifies the former use of the southern part of the site as a colliery (1898 – 1923) giving rise to potential risks of contamination but the risk is considered to be low, but there are isolated areas where the risks are considered to be up to moderate. The assessment identifies and assesses the potential effects of the development during construction and decommissioning including the potential for pollutant leakages from the development from construction processes, potential increases in surface water runoff, for instance, as a result of increased areas of hardsurfacing.
267. The assessment identifies a number of potentially constraining factors related to adverse impacts of the development and appropriate mitigation measures in the design and methodology of construction are recommended. Impacts on soil quality and geology are considered to localised to the construction footprint but could be addressed through appropriate working practices and design measures. It is considered that hydrological impacts have the potential to be more widespread and need to be appropriately managed.
268. In order to reduce the potential for pollutant leakages a construction method statement incorporating environmental management proposals and an environment management plan are proposed in advance of the commencement of development so as to ensure best construction practices.
269. The Environment Agency has no objections to the development. No conditions are requested but it is recommended that the developer assesses the risks to all controlled waters, including groundwater, surface water and springs, posed during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the wind farm. It is also recommended that the sewerage undertaker be consulted. Northumbrian Water raises no comments or objections to the development.
270. Public concerns are raised with regards to land stability issues including as a result of coal mining legacy noting the presence of mine shafts and collapse of local roads in recent years. However, the Coal Authority raises no objection noting that that coal mining legacy potentially poses a risk to the proposed development and agrees with the recommendations of the study that include further site investigations being undertaken to establish the exact locations and to enable the design of appropriate foundation solutions. The proposed abnormal load traffic route of Nettlebed Lane/Crow Row Lane is noted as being liable to subsidence and this should be taken into account by the Council when determining whether or not the use of road is appropriate. The use of Nettlebed Lane/Crow Row Lane is not now proposed for abnormal loads.
271. It is not considered that there would be unacceptable impacts in relation to ground conditions, hydrology and flood risk. The proposed development would therefore no conflict with TLP Policies GD1, ENV14, ENV15, ENV16 and Parts 10 and 11 of the NPPF.
TV and Communication Interference
272. Wind turbines have the potential to disrupt telecommunication links and cause interference to television reception, matters raised by those objecting to the proposal. This risk is increased with larger wind turbines and multiple turbines. Reflection and diffraction of radio waves can occur causing a detrimental impact upon signals.
273. The application is accompanied by an assessment of the impact of the development upon radio communication links and television following consultation by the applicant with the Office of Communications (Ofcom), CSS Spectrum Management Services Ltd (CSS) and the Joint Radio Company (JRC). The latter manage fixed link radio connections on behalf of the electricity and gas utility companies. No objections are reported to have been received and it is not expected that the proposed development would give rise to any significant residual radio communications effects.
274. The submitted assessment states that a desk top and on site analysis of the impact of the proposed development on television signals and to model the effects of the wind turbines on the quality of the TV reception in the area surrounding the development has been undertaken. This concludes that the development would be unlikely to affect any homes for which there is no alternative off–air service and up to 146 homes where an alternative service would be required, thus there is a potential for interference. In the event of any approval conditions can be attached to ensure that mitigation measures are implemented and any complaints investigated if unacceptable levels of interference are experienced. However, this was in 2011 and since then a digital service for TV transmission has been introduced and the potential for inference has diminished.
275. No objections are therefore raised with regards to matters of communication interference.
Other Issues
276. The application site comprises 295ha but 1.5ha would be disturbed by the proposed development. Land within the planning application boundary is recognised as being Grade 4 of the Agricultural Land Classification with small areas of Grade 5 around the head of the Linburn Beck. There would be no loss of best and most versatile land (Grades 1, 2 and 3). The propose development would not therefore conflict with TLP Policy ENV12.
277. Objectors are concerned over the impact of the turbines upon the tranquillity of the area. The degree to which a wind farm development affects the tranquillity of users, for instance of the footpaths in the area, is subjective. It is considered that the general impact of a wind farm development would not adversely affect the enjoyment of an area to such a degree as to warrant objection to the application.
278. Similarly, public concerns are expressed over the impact of the development upon tourism. Officers would not raise objection in principle to a wind farm at this location due to a potential impact on tourism, however, objections to the visual impact of the development are raised as discussed in more detail elsewhere in the report.
279. Public concerns are expressed regarding the impacts upon local businesses due to the disruption during the construction period and operation impacts of the development. Officers consider that the impacts of the development would not have a demonstrably harmful impact upon local businesses during the operational phase with any disruptive activities during construction being undertaken for a limited period.
280. Some public concerns are expressed regarding impacts of the development upon property values. However, this is not a material planning consideration that weight can be attributed to. Similarly concerns over a loss of view are raised within public responses. However, weight cannot be attributed to the loss of a private view.
281. The lack of local support for the proposal is expressed and concerns raised to the format of the letters of support received. Details of the letters of support that have been received are set out in this report and it is for Members to consider the weight to be given to all representations received and the issues raised.
282. Concerns are raised that whilst the application states that the development would be decommissioned in 25 years it would likely remain or be replaced. In the event of an approval a condition would be recommended for attachment regarding decommissioning though this is not to say that a further planning permission could not be separately sought for an extended period or alternative wind energy development.
283. Officers acknowledge that the applicant has stated that their intention would be to provide a Community Fund of £5,000 per MW of installed capacity. Based on the current proposal this would amount to up to £70,000 per annum over the 25 year life of the wind farm. The applicant proposes that this would be administered by the County Durham Community Foundation. However, such a contribution is not proposed under a S106 legal agreement and it is not considered that the community fund meets the tests of when it is appropriate for the entering into of such a planning obligation particularly with regards to the contribution directly related to the development. As a result officers cannot attribute weight to the offer in the planning balance.
CONCLUSION
284. The proposed wind turbines would make a positive contribution towards the overall supply of renewable energy to the region. There is very strong and consistent policy support for renewable energy projects and the scheme has significant benefits in this respect. The key consideration in its determination is whether clear policy support outweighs any adverse environmental or social impact.
285. The NPPF explains that all communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, but this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. As with other types of development, it is important that the planning concerns of local communities are properly heard in matters that directly affect them. The proposal has generated much public interest with representations reflecting the issues and concerns of local residents affected by the proposed development. Representations received both objecting and in support and in have been weighed along with other responses including those of statutory consultees.
286. Certain matters which are raised as concerns are not considered sufficient to warrant refusal on those grounds such as principle of development, residential amenity/safety issues, noise, impact on heritage assets, highway safety, recreational amenity, ground conditions and hydrology, and TV and other communication interference. It is considered that such matters have been adequately addressed or could be so through appropriate conditions.
287. The landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development have been assessed. Due to the location, scale and nature of the proposed development there would be impacts upon on the visual environment for a number of residential properties and settlements it is not considered that these would be overbearing other than in respect of involved or vacated properties or dominant the immediate visual environment of settlements in the area. However, the significant effects are considered to be on the character of the local landscape and on the special character of an Area of High Landscape Value as well as significant effects on the special character and qualities of the North Pennines AONB. In addition, there would be significant cumulative effects, in conjunction with existing and approved wind turbines in the area, on the special character and qualities of the AONB.
288. In terms of ecology, the site is of high value for birds and bats but the full impact of the proposal upon these species cannot be assessed due to inadequate survey data. However, considering the submitted information it is considered that the proposed development would provide an unacceptable threat to county value populations of birds and bats and that although the applicant has acknowledged the threat and provided a mitigation strategy the strategy remains un-proven and the risk to important county assemblages of birds and bats is unacceptable. This also has implications for the undertaking of an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats and Species Regulations to assess implications on the nearby SPA sites cannot be made. 289. Whilst the development would deliver a contribution to new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure, the benefits of this would not outweigh the aforementioned harm and refusal of the application is therefore recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development would have significant effects on the character of the local landscape and on the special character of an Area of High Landscape Value conflicting with Teesdale Local Plan Policy GD1, ENV3. Furthermore, the proposals would have significant effects on the special character and qualities of the North Pennines AONB conflicting with Teesdale Local Plan Policies GD1, ENV2 and C5B and Part 11 of the NPPF.
2. The proposals would have significant cumulative effects, in conjunction with existing and approved wind turbines in the area, on the special character and qualities of the AONB in respect of the erosion of the sense of wildness, remoteness and tranquillity of moorland landscapes along its eastern edges and would be contrary to Teesdale District Local Plan saved Policies GD1, ENV2 and C5B and Part 11 of the NPPF.
3. The proposed development, by reason of its location, scale and nature, has the potential to significantly harm biodiversity, in particular important populations of birds and bats, and that cannot be adequately compensated or mitigated. The survey work and collision risk assessment for birds submitted to support the application are considered to be compromised and do not enable an accurate assessment of the impact of the development on birds to be made and therefore adequately inform the appropriate assessment required under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (and as amended in 2012). The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies GD1, ENV5, ENV6 and ENV8 of the Teesdale District Local Plan and Part 11 of the NPPF.
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT
The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to refuse the application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)
BACKGROUND PAPERS
- Submitted application form, plans, Environmental Statement, supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant including supplementary environmental information. - The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) - National Planning Practice Guidance - Teesdale Local Plan - The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft) - Statutory, internal and public consultation responses CMA/6/48
Proposed erection of 4 no. wind turbines with maximum tip height of Planning Services 125m, control building, substation, site compound and other ancillary buildings with site access from Windy Bank Road to the north of the site Land to north of the village of Woodland, south of Windy Bank Road This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Date April 2015 permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005