Planning Committee 03/09/2013
APPLICATION NO: P/2013/0373 LOCATION: PROMISED LAND FARM, ROBINS LANE, KINGS MOSS ST HELENS PROPOSAL: Erection of 2no. wind turbines 35m to hub height, 61m max to blade tip height, micrositing and associated infrastructures, including access tracks, areas of hard standing, control buildings and underground cabling. WARD: Rainford PARISH: Rainford CASE OFFICER: John Waddelow AGENT(S) / APPLICANT(S): MR KARL SPRATT PROMISED LAND FARM KINGS MOSS DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALLOCATION: Green Belt
National Policy National Planning Policy Framework Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy
St Helens Local Plan Core Strategy 2012 CAS5 – Rural St Helens CP1 – Ensuring Quality Development in St Helens CE1 – A Strong and Sustainable Economy CQL2 – Trees and Woodlands CQL3 –Biodiversity and Geological Conservation CQL4 – Heritage and Landscape
St Helens UDP 1998 – saved policies S1 – Green Belt GB1 – General Criteria for Development Control in the Green Belt GB2 – General Criteria for Development Control in the Green Belt ENV13 – New Tree Planting on Development Sites ENV17 – Farm Diversification
BACKGROUND PAPERS: See sections 3, 4 and 5 below REPRESENTATIONS: 51 letters of objection 38 letters of support RECOMMENDATION: That the decision be delegated to the Development Control Manager to grant planning permission subject to conditions following the removal of the objection from NATS
THE APPLICATION WAS DEFERRED AT THE LAST MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE IN ORDER TO ENABLE MEMBERS TO CARRY OUT A SITE VISIT
1.0 Application Site
1.1 The site is located in the vicinity of Kings Moss, approximately 1.65 km west of the settlement of Longshaw, 1.5km south- west of Crawford and 3km north east of Rainford. The site is within an agricultural holding known as Promised Land Farm. The holding sits within an area of gently sloping topography, which continues into a steep incline at Billinge Hill. The incline at Billinge Hill
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
is abrupt with the farm buildings sitting on a ridge part way up the overall slope.
2.0 The Application
2.1 It is proposed to erect two wind turbines, 35m to hub height, 61 m max to blade tip height and associated infrastructure, including access tracks, areas of hard standing, control buildings and underground cabling. The turbines are proposed to be located in a field at the base of the slope before it rises to Billinge Hill.
2.2 The development would consist of the two turbine installations with bases of 13mx13m each. Each turbine would have a transformer building of 3mx 2.5mx 3m.There would be a temporary crane pad 20mx 30m.
2.3 A temporary access track would be constructed within the site, constructed of granular material and/or to a specification required by National Grid in the vicinity of a high pressure gas main within the site. The temporary access track is proposed to be removed once the turbines have been constructed.
2.4 Access to the site for the delivery of turbine elements would be from the M6 junction 26, via the A577 to Moor Road ,St James Road, Crank Road to the site.
2.5 It is proposed that the turbines would have a life span of 25 years.
2.6 Primarily, energy would be exported to the National Grid, although some would be used by the holding which will be connected through an existing overhead line. It is estimated that the power would meet the needs of the holding and provide equivalent energy to met the needs of 614 homes. The electricity generation would be of the order of 2,500,000 kwh/ per year. The C02 reduction would be 1,040 tonnes per year.
3.0. Policy Context
3.1 The application has been considered having regard to Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998, which sets out a persons rights to the peaceful enjoyment of property and Article 8 of the Convention of the same Act which sets out his/her rights in respect for private and family life and for the home. Officers consider that the proposed development would not be contrary to the provisions of the above Articles in respect of the human rights of surrounding residents/occupiers.
3.2 This application has been considered in relation to Section 17 of The Crime and Disorder Act. The Police Crime Prevention Officer has been afforded the opportunity to comment on this scheme, but no comments have been received.
3.3 The application has been considered in accordance with the St Helens Council’s Comprehensive Equality Policy, which seeks to prevent unlawful discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and good relations between people in a diverse community. In this case the proposed development is not anticipated to have any potential impact from an equality perspective.
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
3.4 The following policies are relevant in the determination of this application:
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)
3.5 The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision-making, but is a material consideration in determining applications.
3.6 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. When determining planning applications this means; (i) approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and (ii) where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date; granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF or specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted.
3.7 In addition, a Ministerial Statement was made by the Secretary of State on the 6 th June 2013, in relation to on shore wind developments. The letter indicates that such proposals present a challenge for local councils in reaching decisions, which turn on whether a wind farms impact is acceptable in planning terms when the local community is quite clear that it is not. The Secretary of State makes it clear that it is important to get the balance right in reaching decisions, which turn on whether a wind farm’s impact is acceptable in line with the NPPF and as expected by the NPPF, any adverse impact from a wind farm development is addressed satisfactorily.
3.8 Also ,the letter gives guidance on how to set the planning balance in line with the NPPF. The Secretary of State’s letter is a material consideration most specifically in setting the planning balance.
3.9 Department of Energy and Climate Change National Policy Statements are also material to the determination of the application particularly EN1, which is the overarching guidance and EN3 in relation to renewable energy. Specifically, NPPF states that when assessing applications for wind energy, the approach set out in the ‘National Planning Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure’ (NPPSRE) should be taken. This document advises that such projects need to be designed carefully having due regard to landscape character. Whilst taking account of siting, operational and other factors the aim should be to minimise harm to the landscape, providing reasonable mitigation where possible and appropriate, including landscape strengthening off site. The document requires applicants to undertake landscape and visual impact assessment in accordance with the recognised guidance.
Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy (July 2013)
3.10 This guidance was published following the ministerial statement referred to above. It provides advice on the planning issues associated with the development of renewable energy and should be read alongside the NPPF. In
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
general, renewable energy developments should be acceptable for their proposed location. In particular, whilst it is the responsibility of communities to help to increase the use and supply of green energy, this does not override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities.
3.11 In assessing whether an area is suitable, the technical considerations relating to the particular technology are also important. For wind turbines this includes the predicted wind resource, considerations relating to air safeguarding, electromagnetic interference and access for large vehicles.
3.12 The guidance sets out the planning considerations in relation to different forms of renewable energy including wind turbines. It sets out technical standards and methodologies by which material considerations such as noise, shadow flicker, safety in relation to buildings, power lines, air traffic, defence, radar and the strategic road network should be considered, indicating that although there may be significant impact, that mitigation is also possible in relation to the issues stated.
3.13 In relation to ecology, the guidance states that there is evidence to suggest that there is a risk of collision between moving turbines blades and birds and/or bats, displacement of birds and bats and changes in air pressure that can be fatal to bats. There is a low risk of these incidents, but in close proximity to important habitats, the greater the risk to be assessed.
3.14 The guidance also sets out how to assess cumulative landscape and visual impacts and the information required. It also states that Local Planning Authorities should consider using planning conditions to ensure that redundant turbines are removed when they are no longer in use.
3.15 St Helens Local Plan Core Strategy (2012)
CAS5 – Rural St Helens
CP1 – Ensuring Quality Development in St Helens
CE1 – A Strong and Sustainable Economy
CQL2 – Trees and Woodlands
CQL3 –Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
CQL4 – Heritage and Landscape
3.16 St Helens Unitary Development Plan (1998)-saved policies.
S1 – Green Belt
GB1 – General Criteria for Development Control in the Green Belt
GB2 – General Criteria for Development Control in the Green Belt
ENV13 – New Tree Planting on Development Sites
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
ENV17 – Farm Diversification .
4.0. Consultations
4.1 Wigan Council – No objection subject to local planning policies being complied with.
4.2 Highways Advisor - There are no significant highway implications. However there are public rights of way nearby and it is recommended that the rights of way officer is consulted. Access to the site during construction will be challenging but would not give reason to object in highway terms. The onus is upon the applicant and his abnormal load haulier to survey the route to check its suitability and to make the necessary arrangements. Abnormal road hauliers very often need to arrange for street furniture such as bollards, lamp columns and traffic signal equipment to be temporarily moved to enable loads to pass. Any costs will have to be borne by the haulier and client. No objections are raised.
4.3 Public Rights of Way Officer- No issue regarding the position of the proposed wind turbines.The issue is the current condition of Public Footpath No. 863, which is the route to be used to access the site from the adopted highway (Crank Road).
4.4 The condition of Public Footpath No. 863 between Crank Road and Promised Land Farm has deteriorated since the applicant purchased Promised Land Farm, and will continue to deteriorate further with the extraordinary traffic expected to be associated with this proposed development.
4.5 Heavy rutting and poor drainage on Public Footpath No. 863 is a particular issue near to the junction with Public Footpath No. 875 (Robin's Lane) positioned approximately halfway between the proposed development site and Crank Road.
4.6 There is no objection on condition that the applicant improves the surface of Public Footpath No. 863 between Crank Road and the proposed development site in order to withstand private vehicular access.
4.7 Environmental Health (Contaminated Land and Noise) - No objection from a contaminated land point of view. The noise calculation submitted in support of this application indicate that the noise levels from the operation of the Wind Turbines when assessed in accordance with government guidance will be no higher than 35 dB LA90 at the nearest dwelling with no financial interest. This noise level is in accordance with Government Guidance, ‘The assessment and rating of noise from Wind Farms’.
4.8 Defence Infrastructure Organisation –MOD: No objection, although if planning permission is granted the MOD would like to be advised of the following:
• The date construction starts and ends • The maximum height of construction equipment • The latitude and longditude of every turbine
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
4.9 This information is vital as it will be plotted on flying charts to make sure military aircraft avoid this area If the application is altered in anyway this must be advised.
4.10 NATS (Air Traffic Control): Objection raised in relation to RADAR, clarification from NATS on this matter has been sought. They advise that they have been in talks with the applicant and the issue of why two turbines impacts on the radar. With regard to the specific development they confirm that they are investigating a technical solution, and there is no reason to believe that such a solution is not possible. A number of factors have to be considered and confimation from internal stakeholders (air traffic unit etc) is being sought that any technical solution is indeed acceptable. NATS is in the final stages of confirming a solution, which would be in the form of a modification to the radar system. This is commonly known as radar blanking. As soon as technical mitigation is confirmed, a formal offer of mitigation will be made to the applicant and they will be referred to the commercial team to discuss the terms for accepting the offer and securing the mitigation. Once the mitigation offer is contractually agreed with the applicant, NATS will be in a position to withdraw its objection.
4.11 Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA): As part of the revised application, the applicant has provided a revised pager power line of sight assessment. The assessment concluded that the airport’s terminal buildings and other buildings within the vicinity of LJLA will shield the turbines and as a result will not be detected by the Airport’s Primary Surveillance Radars. LJLA mainly concurs with the assessment and envisages that the proposal will have no impact upon its operations. However, if LJLA find that the turbines are showing on the radar and that there is a potential to impact aviation safety, a condition is requested to cease operation to try and resolve the matter appropriately.
4.12 National Grid (NG)- A holding direction was originally in place because the proposal is in close proximity to a high pressure gas pipeline- Feeder 15 Bretherton to Warburton. This objection has now been withdrawn on the basis of agreed access track details between National Grid and the applicant. For wind turbines in close proximity to High Pressure GAS MAHP(Major Accidents Hazard Pipelines) UKOPA and BWEA require a separation distance of 1.5 times hub(nacelle) height.
4.13 Excavation works may only take place unsupervised at a distance no closer than 3m from the pipeline, once the actual depth and position has been confirmed. Similarly, hand held power tools are not permitted within 1.5m of the apparatus. All work must be carried out with NG supervision and guidance.
4.14 A national grid representative will be monitoring the works. National Grid will need to ensure that the pipeline is maintained during and after the construction. Ground cover of the pipeline should not be reduced or increased. If any excavations are proposed within 3m of the pipeline or 10m of any above ground installation or if any embankment or dredging works are proposed then the actual position and depth of the pipeline must be established onsite in the presence of a NG representative. A safe working method must be agreed prior to any work taking place in order to reduce the
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
risk of damage and to ensure the final depth of cover does not affect the integrity of the pipeline.
4.15 Excavation works may take place no closer than 3m from the pipeline once the actual depth and position has been confirmed on site under the supervision of a national grid representative. Similarly, excavation with hand held tools is not permitted with 1.5m from our apparatus and work is undertaken with NG supervision and guidance.
4.16 Where existing roads cannot be used, construction traffic should only cross the pipeline at locations agreed with the NG engineer. All crossing points will be fenced off with post and wire fence and with the fence returned along the easement for a distance of 6m. The pipeline shall be protected at the crossing points by temporary rafts constructed at ground level. No protective measures including the installation of concrete slab protection shall be installed over or near to the National Grid Pipeline without prior permission of NG. National Grid will need to agree the material, the dimensions and the method of installation of the proposed protective measures. The method of installation shall be confirmed through the submission of a formal written method statement from the contractor to NG. Written permission is required from National Grid before any works commence within the easement strip. A National Grid representative shall monitor any works within close proximity to the pipeline to comply with national grid specifications. A deed of indemnity is required for any crossing of the easement using cables. Cables may cross the pipeline at 90 degrees. This work is to be visually supervised by a National Grid representative. An impact slab should be laid between the cable and the pipeline if a cable crossing is above the pipeline. Where a new service is to cross over the pipeline a clearance distance of 0.6m between the crown of the pipeline and the underside of the service should be maintained. If this cannot be achieved the service must cross below the pipeline with a clearance distance of 0.6m.All work should be carried out to the relevant British Standards.
4.17 MEAS:
Habitats Regulations
4.18 The proposed development is within an area used by birds that are designation features of the following European designated sites: • Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA/Ramsar; and • Martin Mere SPA/Ramsar.
4.19 There are pathways from this proposal that may affect birds, for example, through the loss of feeding area or collision with the turbines. This is particularly relevant to pink footed geese that are known to be present in the area around the proposed development. Due to the potential pathways and impacts on birds that are designation features of the above sites, this proposal requires Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) test for likely significant effects. Local Plan Core Strategy policy CQL3 applies. This must be dealt with prior to determination
4.20 After carrying out the HRA, MEAS concluded that no appropriate assessment is required under the Habitats Regulations should the Council decide the grant planning permission.
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
General ecology
4.21 The applicant has submitted an updated ecological scoping report in accordance with Local Plan Core Strategy policy CQL3. This supports ecology reports submitted previously. The report has some omissions which limit its conclusions generally. To alleviate these omissions MEAS has undertaken, during each application submission, our own desk study to assess available data and information. This involves the ecological data from Merseyside Bio Bank, which the report does not contain. Based on the available data and knowledge, this did not raise any concerns with regard to bats and farmland birds.
4.22 However, recent expansion of knowledge nationally with regard to geese and wind turbines, combined with the collation of data by MEAS and Merseyside Bio Bank from a wide range of sources that was previously unavailable, has now flagged the concern over pink footed geese. Following this we have concerns over the conclusions on the likely impact upon pink footed geese. This has been recognised by the applicant, who has submitted further information that we will review and advise the Council upon further. This may be helpful to inform the HRA.
4.23 Previous comments, regarding the trees along Robins Lane and their potential to support roosting bats still applies. The trees are of an age range that could provide roosting potential for bats and the tree survey comments that some contain deadwood/stumps. This issue has been raised previously. An assessment of the potential for the trees to provide roosting potential for bats is required prior to determination. We understand the pruning is limited, but the potential for roosting bats to be present is required to be checked by an appropriately experienced ecologist. This has now been received and no evidence of roosting bats was found
Agricultural Land
4.24 According to the 1988 MAFF Agricultural Land Classification map, the mast and transmission cable(s) and any necessary construction and maintenance access will be located on grade 1 agricultural land which is best and most versatile. The impact to best and most versatile will be dependent on how soil resources are managed during the construction works. The access and construction of the turbine and cabling will require soil engineering works on site. Any area of agricultural land to be used for access / construction compound should be stripped of topsoil before use or the transport of HGVs and other construction vehicles. Any area of agricultural land disturbed as a result of the proposed scheme should be restored to its former condition pre- development and agricultural grade. This should be clearly stated within the Soil handling Method Statement.
Green Belt and Farm Diversification
4.25 The proposed wind turbine is located in the Green Belt and policies GB1 and GB2 of the adopted UDP apply. While schemes such as this are considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the NPPF does allow for the wider benefits of renewable energy to be taken into account when making a determination. It is also important to note that the principles of renewable energy generation have been established and are supported at national, and local level and as such the applicant is not required to justify need.
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
4.26 Information supporting the planning application indicates that the installation of the wind turbines on site will not only provide all of the farms energy needs but also provide a source of income for the farm holding through the Government Feed in Tariff scheme and, therefore, could contribute to farm viability. As such the proposals should be considered as farm diversification.
4.27 Planning Department Environment Team: Landscape and Tree issues.
Scale of turbines / Options
4.28 Analysis of the landscape and particularly the vertical elements such as mature woodland, tree lines, buildings and pylons suggests that turbines within the range of 25m –35m (to hub height) would broadly sit acceptably within the landscape around Promised Land Farm. The exact acceptable height is dependent on the precise location and the magnitude of resultant landscape impacts. Therefore an appraisal of options balancing the technical options (energy generation and grid connection requirements) against landscape and visual impacts is needed to establish the optimum scheme.
4.29 The applicant has undertaken an acceptable options appraisal where turbine height, turbine numbers and turbine locations have been considered. The process has clearly been set out in the submitted Design and Access Statement.
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)
4.30 The proposal has been subject to a comprehensive Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment carried out by a fully qualified and experienced Landscape Architect. The assessment has been carried out in a manner fully consistent with the industry standards set out in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.
4.31 The Impact Assessment must consider the two related elements: impacts on landscape character; and impacts on visual amenity.
Impacts on Landscape Character
4.32 Landscape Character can be defined as “The distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurs consistently in a particular type of landscape”.
4.33 The LVIA concludes that the likley impacts of the propsosal on the lanscape character of the area as being “minor ” as the composition and attributes of the baseline conditions will be similalr to pre-development conditions.
4.34 The assessment of impact on Landscape Character is agreed to be minor.
Visual Impacts
4.35 The LVIA has selected 22 viewpoints in order to illustrate the visual impact of the proposals. These are a combination of short, medium and long distance views with 6 principal views assessed and a16 further illustrative views. This is consistent with Guidance for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA) and is considered to be adequate to assess the visual impacts.
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
4.36 The LVIA concludes that the visual impacts will vary from low to moderate impacts.
4.37 The impacts on visual amenity of low – moderate is agreed.
Mitigation and compensation
4.38 The LVIA concludes that there will be some adverse effects resultant from the proposals and sets out a package of measures, which seeks to minimise visual intrusion by filtering views and to provide enhance the landscape structure in order to provide compensation commensurate to the level of harm predicted. These measures consist of approximately 1.07 km of hedgerow planting and 90 extra heavy standard trees.
4.39 The St Helens Landscape Character Assessment identifies Promised Land Farm as being mostly within the PH2 Landscape Character Area. The moderate to strong aesthetic character is derived from the interplay of field patterns with the steep slopes and woodland. The proposed hedgerow and tree planting will contribute to the resilience of the landscape character of the area and increase habitat provision and habitat connectivity.
4.40 It is accepted as adequate compensation for the low level impacts of the proposals.
Conclusion
4.41 The likely impacts on landscape character and visual amenity resulting from the proposals are low level. The proposed landscape compensation and mitigation measures are adequate to offset potential harm to the landscape fabric of the area.
5.0 Representations
5.1 The application has been advertised as a departure from the development plan by site notice(s) (31/5/2013) and press notice (06/06/2013) and individual neighbour notification letters (24/05/2013). The following representations have been received as a result of the publicity given to the application 38 of support and 53 of objection.
5.2 The grounds of objection are:
• Contrary to Green Belt contrary to policies GB1 and GB2, insufficient demonstration of very special circumstances. • Site adjacent to Fir Tree Farm, which has actively encouraged wildlife back into the area. There will be harm to local ecology namely pink footed geese, bats, owls, raptors various rural bird species. Over 90 native species of bird have been recorded on the farm. There is likely to be an adverse impact upon bees and other species. There has been an inadequate investigation of the impact on wildlife. • Such developments should be co-ordinated not ad hoc • There will be a noise nuisance associated with the development • Loss of high quality Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land • Turbines detrimental to the area and out of place • Detrimental to residential amenity and the users of the footpaths
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
• Additional turbine proposed makes the application worse than that previously refused. Mitigation will have little or no impact. • Site investigations carried out are inadequate. • Reduction in property prices, adverse impact upon views • Inadequate notification of the application. • Adverse impact upon local leisure, which is readily accessible • Adverse impact upon the local economy • Application down plays the impact on Kings Moss Village, which is only 800m from the site. There will be an adverse impact on sleep and general well being. • There will be adverse impacts from the turbines on health because of the low frequency noise, which will also impact local species including bats. Flicker and noise impacts have not been correctly assessed. • Wind power is an inconsistent and unreliable power source. It is not cheap and relies on government subsidies. The application is purely for the applicant’s commercial gain. Solar PV would be a better alternative. • Highway difficulties in getting the equipment to the site, servicing and connection to the grid. • An EIA should have been required. • The development would have an adverse environmental impact, which cannot be mitigated/compensated for. • High pressure gas main cross the site which has not been identified in the applicants submission.The turbines will have an adverse impact through vibration and there are requirements with regard to the access arrangements. • Danger to low flying aircraft • This is an area of outstanding beauty and a heritage landscape. The remaining countryside should be protected. Environment already eroded by buildings and power lines. Turbines should be located off shore. • How will the turbines be maintained in the long run? • Changes in government guidance place greater emphasis on local topography and views • Recently approved turbines at Shoots Delph farm are more appropriate /proportionate
5.3 The grounds of support are:
• Source of sustainable renewable energy. • Visually satisfactory –positive impact upon the landscape • Crucial to the environment • Application represents progress –sustainable energy source rather than fossil fuels • Positive farm diversification • Objections based on NIMBYism • Pink Footed Geese will avoid turbines. Gains outweigh any ecological harm • Better than the telecoms masts on Billinge Hill • Will not impact on agricultural use • Country’s energy problems need tackling now.
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
5.4 Rainford Parish Council: object to the development for the following reasons:
The reasons for rejection of the previous application remain valid, in that the installation would adversely affect a high quality rural environment; and there is insufficient demonstration of ‘very special circumstances’ to justify appropriate development in the Green Belt.
People visit this area of natural beauty and the visual impact of the structures would have a negative effect on the recreational pursuits of such people. The residents of the area would experience a negative impact on their surroundings. The development would impinge on the migratory path of pink footed geese. The habitat for bats in the area would be threatened if the development went ahead.
6.0. Planning History
6.1 P/2012/0091 Application for the installation of 1No EWT directional DW52 (500 KW) wind turbine on a 50m mast. Application Withdrawn 29/03/2012.
6.2 P/2012/0555 Installation of 1 no (500kw) wind turbine on a 40m high mast. Application refused 26/02/2013 for the following reasons:
The Local Planning Authority consider that the erection of the 40m (500KW) 67m total height wind turbine would be contrary to the provisions of the saved UDP policies GB1 and GB2 because the turbine would adversely affect the openness and visual appearance of the Green Belt, without any demonstration of the ‘very special circumstances’ of sufficient weight (low carbon energy generation) being demonstrated, when set in the planning balance against the harm which would be caused.
The wind turbine installation would adversely affect a high quality rural environment consisting of the Billinge Hill Lower Slopes and Rainford Slopes Character areas in the St Helens Landscape Assessment. Billinge Hill Lower Slopes are generally unsuitable for development and Rainford slopes are only suitable for limited development in keeping with the existing development patterns. The aim within theses areas is to Conserve and Restore them as appropriate. In this context the installation is is overly large and intrusive. As such it is contrary to the provisions of the St Helens Local Plan Core Strategy policies CP1, CAS5 and CQL4
7.0. Assessment
7.1 The main issues to be considered in the assessment of the planning application can be addressed under the following headings:
7.2 Energy generation and the carbon balance.
7.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) advises that when determining planning applications, Local Planning Authorities should not require applications for energy generating developments to demonstrate a case for the need for the energy generated. The premise of the policy outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework, is that even small-scale schemes
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
can make a valuable contribution in discharging the duty of all communities to making a contribution to energy generation from renewable and low carbon energy developments.
7.4 Developments are generally to be approved, if impacts are or can be made acceptable, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
7.5 In this instance there are other acknowledged material considerations, which are of significance in determining the planning application.
7.6 Green Belt Policy.
7.7 The site is within the Green Belt as defined by the St Helens UDP and saved policies GB1 and GB2 are directly relevant. Also, the National Planning Policy Framework indicates that the government attaches great weight to the importance of Green Belt. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open: essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Green Belts once they have been defined are to be used beneficially, for example by looking for opportunities to provide access, to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.
7.8 In this context the introduction of developments, which do not meet these aims are by definition harmful to the Green Belt and to be permitted a case for ‘very special circumstances’ has to be made and found valid.
7.9 The National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 91 makes it clear that elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise ‘inappropriate development’. Whilst the energy projects can make a case of ‘very special circumstances’ on the basis of the wider environmental benefits, they have to be set in the context of the importance of retaining the openness of the Green Belt, respect for the overall environmental quality of the area and the other beneficial uses of the Green Belt as outlined in the paragraph above.
7.10 It is considered that the proposed turbines would have a material impact on the openness of the Green Belt and given their size they would materially affect what is a very high quality environment. Therefore, the applicant has to clearly demonstrate a case for very special circumstances for the turbines to be permitted
7.11 The applicant’s case for ‘very special circumstances’ is based on the environmental benefits , resulting from the renewable energy source and the scope for farm diversification in the future. It is also argued that the impacts on the purposes of Green Belt and its openness are very limited. The benefits are identified as follows:
• The approval of the turbines at Promised Land Farm, would go someway to achieving, national and sub regional energy targets from renewables. It is acknowledged that there are not currently adopted targets for St Helens but they should be regarded as a reasonable aspiration for St Helens. • The proposal for two smaller turbines, although less efficient than a large single structure has advantages in terms of environmental impact.
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
• The turbine would save 1040 tonnes of CO2 per year and the energy produced would be sufficient to power 614 dwellings per year.
7.12 These are demonstrable benefits and should be seen as ’very special circumstances’.
7.13 Further, the applicant’s statements on the energy generated by the turbine and how it would allow for farm diversification can be summarised as follows:
• Energy would be used for Promised Land Farm, including emerging lines of business. Energy would also be used in pig farrowing facilities and in the production of beef and hay. • The use of the renewable energy would encourage the business and a financial benefit would be derived from the feed in tariff to the national grid, which would promote the business.
7.14 It is clear that, if approved the turbine would meet the needs of the holding and also provide a substantive income by transferring power to the grid. The value of the turbine to providing low carbon energy is accepted and should be accorded weight in making the assessment of ‘very special circumstances’.
7.15 The energy is of value in itself and the applicant doesn’t have to prove need to accord with the NPPF in this respect. However, in instances where, such an installation clearly enables an established agricultural enterprise, to be viable in a sustainable way and the argument is made convincingly, reinforces the case for ‘very special circumstances’.
7.16 The use of the energy for diversification and the operation of the holding, is made out less convincingly. In part it is based on elements of existing agricultural activity on the site but other elements would no doubt present themselves in the future but there is less certainty over this..
7.17 In the absence of a fully costed management plan for the holding over the life time of the installation, the diversification arguments can only be accorded limited weight.
7.18 In summary, the case for very special circumstances, in relation to energy production can be accorded significant weight but the diversification arguments are not established. The issue now then is whether the very special circumstance in relation to energy production are sufficient to out weigh the harm to the purposes of Green Belt policy. The impact upon openness is more significant than argued by the applicant but the visual consequences associated with the larger single turbine previously refused are mitigated and reduced with this proposal.
7.19 Landscape Character Assessment.
7.20 The planning application, is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. This has been assessed by the Council’s Environment Team and their comments are outlined in the consultation section above.
7.21 The NPPF and Policy CQL4 of the St Helens Local Plan Core Strategy, seek to protect landscape character from development which would harm such
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
environmental assets. The NPPF also states that when assessing the impact of wind turbines, LPA’s should apply the principles of the NPPSE.
7.22 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted as part of the application is now considered to be in accordance with the recognised guidelines and its conclusions are sufficiently robust. The Environment Team has concluded, that the likely impacts on landscape character and visual amenity resulting from the proposals are low level. The proposed landscape compensation and mitigation measures (see plan attached) are adequate to offset potential harm to the landscape fabric of the area.
7.23 It is now considered that the amended scheme has now achieved the correct planning balance in terms of the generation of low carbon energy in a sustainable way and the protection of the environment. Consequently, it is concluded that the development proposed can be accepted within the Green Belt on the basis of ‘very special circumstances’ and meets the requirements of St Helens Core Strategy Policy CQL4.
7.24 Residential Amenity.
7.25 This is a rural area but there are residences dotted in the landscape and the turbine would be a significant new structure. The distance to the individual properties means that a visual intrusion to the properties themselves cannot reasonably be argued. This is not in any way to detract from the wider public interest arguments outlined above in relation to the impact upon the landscape. However, there are other amenity aspects of the proposals, which have to be considered, most notably noise and shadow flicker.
7.26 Noise .
7.27 The nearest affected properties are identified as Billinge Hall Farm and other residential properties along Crank Road and Pimbo Lane, are nearby. An assessment using appropriate guidance (The assessment and rating of noise from wind farms document ETSU-R-97) identifies the impact upon Billinge Hall Farm well below the target levels. All remaining properties without a financial interest are at a greater distance from the turbine than Billinge Hall Farm. Therefore, it is considered that the turbine will not cause harm to amenity when in operation. There will be some disturbance during the construction phase but these impacts will be limited. In this respect the development proposed is considered to be in accordance with the provisions of St Helens Local Plan Core Strategy CP1 (3) i.
7.28 Shadow Flicker
7.29 The NPPSRE advises that an assessment of the likelihood of shadow flicker occurring only needs to be undertaken when wind turbines have been proposed within 10 rotor diameters of an existing occupied building. This is a large structure, with a blade which has a diameter of 52m.There are properties within the zone of influence (520m). An analysis of the shadow flicker effects has been presented with the application, indicating that properties will be affected. These properties are Maddocks Farm and Promised Land Farm itself. However, the impacts would be small when the total numbers of hours per year at 4 and 7 respectively are compared to the European Standard of 30 hours per year. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in this regard and accords with the principles of St
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
Helens Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CP1 (1) by ensuring that the development does not adversely affect adjacent occupiers in this regard.
7.30 Ecology
7.31 The site is within the Green Belt but is not affected by any special designation. The application is accompanied by an Ecological Scoping Report, prepared by an appropriately qualified person.
7.32 The application does raise a series of issues with regard to habitats and protected species and Environmental Impact Assessment.
7.33 With reference to the EIA regulations, the project is not a Schedule 1 development. Wind farms are considered to be Schedule 2 developments, under the terms of the regulations for which an Environmental Impact Assessment is discretionary. The requirement for an EIA is judged on the likely hood of significant environmental effects arising according to the specified thresholds and criteria. The guidance advises that the likelihood of significant environmental impacts arising depends on the scale and the visual impact of the development as well as potential noise impacts. The advice indicates that EIA is likely to be required for commercial developments of 5 or more turbines or where 5MW of generating capacity is to be installed. The current proposal falls below these guidelines. The proposed turbines are located within an area of agricultural land. It is not close to any nationally protected sites or habitats being 5.3km from the nearest SSSI. However, the site is within the Green Belt and the development proposals do require consideration of possible impacts on protected species and their habitats. Consequently an appropriate assessment pursuant to the Habitat Regulations has been conducted. The assessment concludes that the project is not directly connected with or necessary for the management of the sites and is not likely to have significant impacts either alone or in combination with other plans or projects on each of the following sites.
• Ribble and Alt estuaries Special Protection Area (SPA) • Ribble and Alt Estuaries Ramsar Site • Martin Mere SPA • Martin Mere Ramsar
Accordingly, no ’appropriate assessment’ is required to be made under Regulations 61,62 and 68 of the Habitats Regulations. In line with Natural England’s Standing Advice, no consultation is required with Natural England, prior to determining the application.
7.34 The site is not known to be affected by archaeological or historic interests and the development or raise issues of complex/potentially hazardous environmental impacts and therefore an EIA has not been required.
7.35 Aside from the appropriate assessment the impact upon protected species has been considered by the applicant’s advisors and these have been the subject of consultation with MEAS .The observations of MEAS are summarised above and appropriate conditions are attached as advised.
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
7.36 Aircraft Safeguarding and Pipeline Protection
7.37 The issue of airport safeguarding and air traffic generally is a significant matter in relation to wind turbine developments. The relevant bodies have been consulted. LJLA and the MOD do not raise objections to the proposals, subject to conditions and being advised of when the works are to take place. The National Air Traffic Service has lodged an objection, but it is likely that the objection will be removed subject to one of the turbines being electronically masked on the relevant radar systems (see above).
7.38 The land is crossed by a high pressure gas main, but the operator is now satisfied that the installations can be put in place and safely operated subject to their requirements being met.
8.0. Conclusions
8.1 The development proposed is by definition,’ inappropriate development’ in the Green Belt and there would be some harm to the openness of it. However, a case for very special circumstances has been made on the basis of low carbon energy generation and a reduced landscape impact than the schemes previously refused. The impact is now less and mitigated for. Demonstrable harm to protected species and their habitats is not anticipated and residential amenities will not be unduly harmed. On balance, it is considered that the development is sustainable and accords with the provisions of the NPPF, St Helens Core Strategy and the saved policies of the St Helens UDP.
9.0. Recommendation
It is recommended that the decision be delegated to the Development Control Manager to grant planning permission subject to the conditions stated below following the removal of the objection from NATS.
Conditions:
01.The development must be begun within three years of the date of this decision notice.
02. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the restoration scheme for the site of the turbines following their removal shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local planning Authority. Within 25 years of this decision or when the turbines hereby approved cease to be operational for 12 months (whichever is the sooner) the turbines shall be removed from the land and the agreed restoration scheme implemented.
03. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the planning application and associated documents submitted on the 9/5/2013 as amended by the site landscaping drawing PR/KSO1/13/PL/01REVA,received on the 18/6/2013 and transportation route drawing 02 Rev C received on the 3/7/2013.
04. No works shall take place on the site until an environmental management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall set out the best practicable means to minimise the impact of construction activities on the site and shall include but not be restricted to the following:
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
• Working methods and programme • Construction traffic routes • Equipment Selection • Equipment Siting • Provision of lines, sealed acoustic covers • Methods of directing noise away from sensitive locations. • Regular maintenance of equipment • No idling policy • Handling materials to minimise noise • Minimal use of audible vehicle alarms • Employ best practice in line with BS 5228 (1997)
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.
05. All agreed landscaping shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed landscaping plans prior to the first use of the turbines. Any planting which within a period of five years of implementation dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with others of similar size species, unless the Council acting as local planning authority gives written consent to a variation .Should replacement planting be necessary, The Council shall be notified in writing not less than 7 days prior to the planting taking place. Notification shall include details of the problem with the implemented scheme and the specification and timing of the replacement planting.
06. Prior to the commencement of development precise details of the access track, hard standings ,including areas to be segregated during the course of construction works, shall be submitted to and approved in writing as satisfactory by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
07. In the event that John Lennon Airport (LJLA) determines that when in operation the turbines are detected by radar and creating additional adverse clutter on the controllers radar screen, LJLA will require a further period of assessment to determine the safety impact on ATC operations and may require the developer to enter into a shutdown protocol agreement to ensure that safe operation can be maintained.
08. Prior to the commencement of development the developer/operator of the turbines shall provide to the Local Planning Authority legal confirmation that NATS are satisfied with and the basis of the operations of the turbines. The turbines shall only operate in accordance with the legal confirmation.
09. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit to and receive written approval for a methodology for the stripping storage and restoration of top soil disturbed-excavated as part of the works. The development shall proceed in accordance with the approved works.
Informative.
All air traffic bodies shall be advised of:
• The date construction starts and ends
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
• The maximum height of construction equipment • The latitude and longitude of every turbine
The applicant operator shall liase with the Gas Main operator at all times as appropriate.
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 06/08/2013
10.0 Images
Location Plan
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 06/08/2013
Amended Landscape Plan
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
Turbine Detail
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
Kiosk Details
Turbine Foundation
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
Section through temporary road
View from top of Billinge Hill
View public footpath in field off Crank Road
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
View from Rainford Road further down from Red Barn Lane
View from Alder Lane at junction with Rainford Road
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
View from Alder Lane opposite Alder Farm
View from Red Cat Lane at back of substation (opp Red Cat)
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
View from Mill Lane just past bend with Mill Lane Farm
View from Rainford by-pass adjacent to B5203
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
View from Pimbo Lane junction with Crank Road
View from Fir Tree Farm entrance / car park
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
View from public footpath opposite Maddocks Farm
View from Long Lane on entrance to Crawford village
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
View from Long Lane coming out of Crawford village on public footpath
View from Pimbo Lane outside Lancashire Manor Hotel
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
View from Pimbo Lane between Maddocks Farm & Long Lane
View from public footpath going up to Holiday Moss Farm
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
View from public footpath over hill going to Holiday Moss Farm
View from public footpath rear of PLF, 15 yards further down from cops
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
View from public footpath rear of PLF, at ridge line under large cops
View from just off A580 onto B5203 Blindfoot Road
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
View from public footpath on Blindfoot Road
Noise map
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
Shadow Flicker Map
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
P/2013/0373 Planning Committee 03/09/2013
P/2013/0373