DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PANEL 17 DECEMBER 2012
Case No: 1200803FUL (FULL PLANNING APPLICATION)
Proposal: ERECTION OF 3 WIND TURBINES UP TO A HEIGHT OF 125 METRES AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING METEOROLOGICAL MAST, CONTROL BUILDING, ELECTRICITY TRANSFORMERS, UNDERGROUND CABLING, TRACK, CRANE HARDSTANDINGS AND ALTERATIONS TO VEHICULAR ACCESS, FOR A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS
Location: LAND NORTH WEST OF CHURCH FARM RECTORY LANE SOUTHOE
Applicant: COMMON BARN WIND FARM LTD
Grid Ref: 517295 265522
Date of Registration: 15.05.2012
Parish: SOUTHOE AND MIDLOE
RECOMMENDATION - TO BE ADVISED AT OR BEFORE THE PANEL MEETING 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The applicant company has lodged an appeal against non- determination of this application. The decision will now be made by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. As part of the appeal, the Local Planning Authority will need to set out its case. At the 17th December 2012 Development Management Panel meeting, the Panel is asked to indicate the decision it would have made on the application, which will then form the basis of the Local Planning Authority’s case at appeal.
2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
2.1 The site is located approximately 1.4km to the north west of the village of Southoe and 0.7km to the south east of Grafham Water. The site area has been tightly defined and includes the existing farm access track from the A1 and land adjacent to the track, and the land occupied by the temporary construction compound and the 3 proposed wind turbines. The site is at an average elevation of 40m AOD in comparison with Grafham Water which is 45m AOD. The land is currently used for arable farming. The surrounding countryside is gently undulating with arable fields divided by hedgerows, farm tracks and areas of woodland. There are a number of Rights of Way in the vicinity of the site including the Three Shires Way and a bridleway track running north/south and then west of the site. The nearest properties to the site are Lodge Farm and Highfield Farm to the northeast and northwest respectively; Midloe Grange and Midloe Cottage to the southwest and south respectively; and Church Farm Cottages to the south east.
2.2 Further afield Huntingdon and St Neots are approximately 8.6km and 4km respectively from the site. Grafham Water, which covers 600 hectares, is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and to the east on the other side of the A1 is Little Paxton Pits SSSI. Immediately to the south of Grafham Water are Anglian Water’s pumping station and water treatment works and HM Littlehey Prison.
2.3 This full application proposes the erection of 3 Wind Turbines up to 125 metres in height for an operational period of 25 years. They would have a hub height of approximately 80 metres and a rotor diameter of approximately 90 metres, have three blades and be pale grey in colour. It is proposed to site the turbines in the field immediately to the north west of the farm buildings known as Common Barn. Each turbine would have an area of hardstanding of approximately 16 m X 16 m in size adjacent. Also proposed is a permanent meteorological monitoring mast 80 metres high and this would be sited between turbines 3 and 2. The application also proposes a single storey control building 20m X 10m in size to be located adjacent to the main contractors temporary construction compound. The application also proposes that construction traffic will use the A1 existing grass track as the site entrance; this will be widened and given a tarmac surface. After this widened access track has crossed the unsurfaced road which runs north/south from Common Farm, there is no existing track and therefore a new access of the same width will be constructed to provide access to the turbines.
2.4 Underground cables will run from the turbines to a sub-station building which will house the equipment for the connection to the electricity network. To link the sub-station with the local electricity distribution network the nearest connection point is the 33kV line between Little Barford and Perry. This grid connection would be subject of a separate application under the Electricity Act 1989.
2.5 Construction traffic will take the form of ‘normal’ construction traffic, and abnormal loads which typically means the delivery of the turbine components. Both the ‘normal’ construction traffic and abnormal loads will access the site from the A1 site entrance. The temporary removal of street furniture at the A1 Buckden and Black Cat roundabouts may be required for the delivery of the larger components.
2.6 The Planning Statement states that each turbine would have an installed generating capacity between 2 MW and 3 MW. This would produce energy for up to 4,000 homes for the 25 year period.
2.7 The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement and was originally submitted on 15 May 2012. On 17 September and 8 November 2012 officers wrote to the applicants requesting further information on transport and highways matters, landscape, heritage assets, wildlife and ecology and residential amenity issues. The second letter clarified that whilst all the information was still required, it was only the additional photomontages required for heritage and landscape, the archaeological trial trenching and the information about the financial involvement of the occupiers of Church Farm Cottages and Church Farm House which was required under Regulation 22 of the Environmental Assessment Regulations in order to make the ES complete.
2.8 At the time of writing this report the applicants have not formally responded, except for the submission of an amended traffic management plan. They have not formally submitted the additional photomontages requested by English Heritage but they have forwarded them to English Heritage on an informal basis for their comments. They have also submitted a certain level of information in relation to the financial involvement of the residential properties.
3. NATIONAL GUIDANCE
3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development - an economic role, a social role and an environmental role - and outlines the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Under the heading of Delivering Sustainable Development, the Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for : building a strong, competitive economy; ensuring the vitality of town centres; supporting a prosperous rural economy; promoting sustainable transport; supporting high quality communications infrastructure; delivering a wide choice of high quality homes; requiring good design; promoting healthy communities; protecting Green Belt land; meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change; conserving and enhancing the natural environment; conserving and enhancing the historic environment; and facilitating the sustainable use of minerals.
3.2 PPS22 Companion Guide 2004 – ‘Planning For Renewable Energy’ – provides practical and technical advice for all forms of renewable energy. Section 8 deals with on shore wind power and deals with issues of noise, landscape and visual impact, heritage assets, safety, proximity to roads, railways and power lines, ecology and ornithology, electromagnetic transmissions, shadow flicker and construction and operational disturbance.
3.3 Climate Change Act 2008 became law on 26 November 2008 and sets legally binding targets for reducing UK greenhouse Carbon Dioxide emissions for 2020 and 2050.
3.4 Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 – outlines the move to a low- carbon economy, and the need for a dramatic change in renewable energy use in electricity, heat and transport.
3.5 Energy Bill 2012 - this bill puts in place measures to attract the £110 billion investment which is needed to replace current generating capacity and upgrade the grid by 2020, and to cope with a rising demand for electricity.
3.6 Circular 1/2003: ‘Safeguarding Aerodromes etc’, Paragraph 15 of this circular gives advice on the safeguarding requirements for civil aerodromes.
3.7 English Heritage ‘Wind Energy and the Historic Environment 2005: aims to provide a strategic approach to the land-use planning system which will maximise the benefits of renewable energy projects, while minimising their adverse effects on the historic environment.
3.8 English Heritage ‘Conservation Principles Policy and Guidance April 2008’: sets out principles of Conservation.
3.9 English Heritage: ‘Climate Change and The Historic Environment 2008’: Developments designed to generate renewable energy – like any other infrastructure developments – can have a wide variety of impacts, both positive and negative, that vary from the insignificant to the unacceptable. The benefits delivered by these new technologies can also vary considerably, particularly when considered on a whole- life basis. It is always important, therefore, to evaluate these benefits and impacts on a case-by-case basis. Among typical issues that will need to be considered are:
* The construction of new renewable energy infrastructure, including hydro-electric and tidal plants and onshore and offshore wind farms, may have direct impacts on archaeological remains. * Wind farms need to be carefully sited to avoid compromising significant landscapes or the visual setting of important sites or buildings where the integrity of that setting is an important part of their significance.
3.10 English Heritage: The Setting of Heritage Assets 2011 – currently under revision following the publication of the NPPF.
3.11 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment by Scottish Natural Heritage 2002 – provides guidance on the best practice for the identification, prediction and evaluation of key environmental effects.
For full details visit the government website http://www.communities.gov.uk and follow the links to planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Policy.
4. PLANNING POLICIES
Further information on the role of planning policies in deciding planning applications can also be found at the following website: http://www.communities.gov.uk then follow links Planning, Building and Environment, Planning, Planning Information and Guidance, Planning Guidance and Advice and then Creating and Better Place to Live
4.1 East of England Plan - Revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (May 2008) Policies viewable at http://www.go-east.gov.uk then follow links to Planning, Regional Planning then Related Documents
SS1: “Achieving Sustainable Development” – the strategy seeks to bring about sustainable development by applying: the guiding principles of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy 2005 and the elements contributing to the creation of sustainable communities described in Sustainable Communities: Homes for All.
ENV2: “Landscape Conservation” - Planning authorities and other agencies should recognise and aim to protect and enhance the diversity and local distinctiveness of the countryside character areas identified on Figure 6 by: developing area-wide strategies, based on landscape character assessments, setting long-term goals for landscape change, targeting planning and land management tools and resources to influence that change, and giving priority to those areas subject to most growth and change; developing criteria-based policies, informed by the area-wide strategies and landscape character assessments, to ensure all development respects and enhances local landscape character; and securing mitigation measures where, in exceptional circumstances, damage to local landscape character is unavoidable.
ENV3: “Biodiversity and Earth Heritage” it should be ensured that the region’s wider biodiversity, earth heritage and natural resources are protected and enriched through conservation, restoration and re-establishment of key resources.
ENV6: “The Historic Environment” - Within plans, policies, programmes and proposals local planning authorities and other agencies should identify, protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment of the region including Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings.
ENG2: “Renewable Energy Target” – the development of new facilities for renewable power generation should be supported with the aim that by 2010 10% of the region’s energy and by 2020 17% of the region’s energy should come from renewable sources. These targets exclude off shore energy and are subject to meeting European and international obligations to protect wildlife. The onshore targets for installed capacity are for at least 820 MW by 2010 and 1620 MW by 2020 for the region.
T9: “Walking, Cycling and other Non-Motorised Transport” – existing networks should be improved and developed as part of the Regional Transport Strategy.
4.2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) Saved policies from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 are relevant and viewable at http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk follow the links to environment, planning, planning policy and Structure Plan 2003.
None relevant.
4.3 Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan95
R14: “Grafham Water” – the District Council will support the promotion of Grafham Water as a major area for informal countryside recreation.
R15: “Countryside Recreation” – will seek to improve access to the countryside, including the network of public rights of way with a view to modifying, extending and improving the network where appropriate.
En2: “Character and setting of Listed Buildings” - indicates that any development involving or affecting a building of architectural or historic merit will need to have proper regard to the scale, form, design and setting of that building.
En5: “Conservation Area Character” - development within or directly affecting conservation areas will be required to preserve or enhance their character and appearance.
En9: “Conservation Areas” - development should not impair open spaces, trees, street scenes and views into and out of Conservation Areas.
En11: “Archaeology” – Planning permission normally refused for development that would have an adverse effect upon a scheduled ancient monument or an archaeological site of acknowledged importance.
En12: “Archaeological Implications” – permission on sites of archaeological interest may be conditional on the implementation of a scheme of archaeological recording prior to development commencing.
En17: "Development in the Countryside" - development in the countryside is restricted to that which is essential to the effective operation of local agriculture, horticulture, forestry, permitted mineral extraction, outdoor recreation or public utility services.
En20: Landscaping Scheme. - Wherever appropriate a development will be subject to conditions requiring the execution of a landscaping scheme.
En22: “Conservation” – wherever relevant, the determination of applications will take appropriate consideration of nature and wildlife conservation.
En23: “Conservation” – development within or which adversely affects, a site of special scientific interest, a national or local nature reserve or has a significant adverse effect on the interests of wildlife will not normally be permitted.
En25: "General Design Criteria" - indicates that the District Council will expect new development to respect the scale, form, materials and design of established buildings in the locality and make adequate provision for landscaping and amenity areas.
4.4 Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002) Saved policies from the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations 2002 are relevant and viewable at www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk/localplan - Then click on "Local Plan Alteration (2002)
None relevant.
4.5 Policies from the Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2009 are relevant and viewable at http://www.huntsdc.gov.uk click on Environment and Planning then click on Planning then click on Planning Policy and then click on Core Strategy where there is a link to the Adopted Core Strategy.
CS1: “Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire” – all developments will contribute to the pursuit of sustainable development, having regard to social, environmental and economic issues and including maximising opportunities for renewable and low carbon energy sources and on site renewable energy provision and improving energy efficiency. All aspects will be considered including design, implementation and function of development.
CS9: “Strategic Green Space Enhancement” - coordinated action will be taken to safeguard existing and potential sites of nature conservation value, create new wildlife habitats and contribute to diversification of the local economy and tourist development through enhancement of existing and provision of new facilities.
4.6 Policies from the Development Management DPD: Proposed Submission 2010 are relevant.
C3: “Renewable and Low Carbon Energy” – proposals for free standing renewable or low-energy generating schemes will be considered in accordance with PPS22 and considered favourably where: careful siting and design ensures the scheme does not have an unacceptable impact on the environment and local amenity; where located outside the built-up area has regard to the capacity of the surrounding landscape and provision is made for the removal of redundant apparatus and re-instatement of the site to an acceptable condition should the site become redundant.
E1: “Development Context” – development proposals shall demonstrate consideration of the character and appearance of the surrounding environment and the potential impact of the proposal.
E3: “Heritage Assets” – proposals which affect the District’s heritage assets or their setting should demonstrate how these assets will be protected, conserved and where appropriate enhanced.
E4: “Biodiversity and Protected Habitats and Species” – proposals shall be accompanied by assessments of the likely impacts on biodiversity and geology including protected species, priority species and habitats or sites of importance for biodiversity or geology.
H7: “Amenity” – development proposals should safeguard the living conditions for residents and people occupying adjoining or nearby properties.
P7: “Development in the Countryside” – development in the countryside is restricted to those listed within the given criteria.
a. essential operational development for agriculture, horticulture or forestry, outdoor recreation, equine-related activities, allocated mineral extraction or waste management facilities, infrastructure provision and national defence; b. development required for new or existing outdoor leisure and recreation where a countryside location is justified; c. renewable energy generation schemes; d. conservation or enhancement of specific features or sites of heritage or biodiversity value; e. the alteration, replacement, extension or change of use of existing buildings in accordance with other policies of the LDF; f. the erection or extension of outbuildings ancillary or incidental to existing dwellings; g. sites allocated for particular purposes in other Development Plan Documents.
4.7 Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 Draft Strategic Options and Policies
Policy 7 “Scale of Development in the Countryside” – a sustainable development proposal for renewable or low carbon energy generation will be acceptable where it is in accordance with other policies of this plan.
Policy 8 “Strategic Green Space” – areas of Strategic green space to be protected from inappropriate forms of development. Area ‘around Grafham water’ identified as one of the areas of Strategic Green Space. Council will seek to identify enhancement projects for these areas and identified related green corridors.
4.8 Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 Draft Development Management Policies
DM14 – a sustainable development proposal will be considered acceptable
DM21 - A sustainable development proposal for a renewable or low carbon energy generating scheme will be acceptable where its siting and design ensures there is no demonstrable significant or substantial harm to: a. the environment and local amenity including noise levels and impact on a heritage asset or its setting both in isolation or cumulatively with other similar developments; b. a site of international or national importance for biodiversity; and c. the character and capacity of the surrounding landscape as identified in the Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment SPD (2007) and the Wind Power SPD (2006) or successor documents. Where there is significant or substantial harm, this will be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Provision will be made for the removal of apparatus and reinstatement of the site to an acceptable condition, should the site become redundant.
DM24 – A sustainable development proposal will be acceptable where no significant adverse impact upon sites of international, national, regional and local importance and protected species unless the need for and the benefits of the proposal outweigh the impacts. Impacts should be identified and minimised by mitigation with the aim of protecting and enhancing biodiversity.
DM25 – A sustainable development proposal will be acceptable where it avoids loss or harm to trees, woodland, hedges or hedgerows of visual, historic or nature conservation value. The Design and Access Statement should show how these features that lie within the site are to be incorporated effectively within the landscape scheme for the development.
DM27 – A sustainable development proposal will be acceptable where it avoids or minimises conflict with the conservation of any affected heritage asset and the setting of any heritage asset.
4.9 Natural England and The East of England Regional Spatial Strategy shows that the site falls within the National Character Area 88 (NCA88) “The Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire Claylands”. Natural England has further detail on each NCA and describes this area as comprising a broad sweep of lowland plateau, dissected by a number of shallow valleys, including the rivers Great Ouse and Ivel. It is typically an empty gently undulating lowland landscape.
4.10 Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (2007) – identifies the site where the turbines are proposed as being within the Southern Wolds Landscape Character Area.
4.11 The Southern Wolds has 4 main characteristics:
* Relatively gentle topography, including the broad valleys of the river Kym and the Ellington Brook. * A well-wooded landscape, with hedged fields, and some more recent plantations * Scattered villages and few isolated farms * Significant modern influences on the landscape, including conifer plantations, power lines, housing estates, industrial areas, airfield, prison and the Anglian Water buildings around Grafham Water.
4.12 Huntingdonshire Wind Power (2006) - identifies the Southern Wolds area as having a high capacity to accommodate both a single turbine and a small scale group, the latter being defined as 2-12 turbines. It states that although a more obvious and dominant feature in the landscape a small scale development could respond well to the landscape structure and pattern. Key sensitivities are the need to retain the strong wooded skyline afforded by the central ridge between the two valleys. Particular care will need to be taken in siting turbines and to avoid creating visual clutter where existing vertical elements are already dominant. The location of a small scale group should take into account guidance in the form of 11 criteria:
a) Avoid those areas where already large number of vertical elements to ensure development does not result in visual clutter b) Respect existing landmark features such as key views to church spires and towers c) Relate to existing building clusters in the landscape, for example the occasional large farm buildings, utility buildings or industrial areas. There may be opportunity for a small scale development to relate to infrastructure associated with the main road routes d) Consider opportunities for siting in relation to extended urban areas on the edge of larger settlements. In this way a small group of 2-3 turbines could function as a landmark or gateway. e) Relate to the land cover pattern, in particular the woodland edges and field patterns with a consistent and repetitive spacing between turbines f) Consider a linear arrangement along contours as opposed to crossing contours g) Respect sites and settings of key valued landscape features, notably the extensive areas of woodland (SSSI) h) Avoid the more sensitive ridge which divides the valleys of the Kym and Ellington brook – the ridge should remain a predominantly rural wooded feature i) Consider the visual relationship of a single turbine with the Ouse valley j) Avoid introducing additional solid built structures, such as transmission stations, into rural areas which are generally characterised by the absence of buildings. Additional structures would be better accommodated in relation to existing farm/utility buildings. k) Seek opportunities to achieve wider landscape management objectives identified in the Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment in association with any proposed development.
4.13 Huntingdonshire LDF Consultation Draft SPD: Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Turbine Development 2012
This document was issued as a Draft Supplementary Planning Document on 16 November 2012 and seeks comments until January 2013. The main differences between this SPD and the original SPD is that the numbers of turbines within each group type have been redefined, so that a small group is now 2 – 5 turbines, a medium group is 6-12 and a large group is 13-25 turbines. The consultation Draft SPD identifies the Southern Wolds as having a high capacity for a small group subject to complying with the locational criteria:
a. Avoid those areas where there are already a large number of vertical elements (e.g. pylons and communication structures) to ensure that the development does not result in visual confusion and clutter. b. Respect existing landmark vertical features such as key views to church spires and towers. c. Relate to existing building clusters in the landscape, for example the occasional large farm buildings, utility buildings or industrial areas. There may also be an opportunity for a small scale turbine development to relate to infrastructure associated with the main road routes (A1, A14). d. Consider opportunities for siting in relation to extended urban areas on the edge of the larger settlements. In this way a small turbine group (e.g. 2-3 turbines) could function as a landmark or gateway. e. Relate to the land cover pattern, in particular the woodland edges and geometric field patterns with a consistent and repetitive spacing between turbines. f. Consider a linear arrangement along contours as opposed to crossing contours. g. Respect the sites and settings of key valued landscape features, notably the extensive areas of woodland (SSSI). h. Avoid the more sensitive ridge which divides the valleys of the Kym and Ellington Brook – this ridge should remain a predominantly rural, wooded skyline. i. Avoid impinging on skylines that provide enclosure to the river valleys. j. Consider the visual relationship with the Ouse Valley. k. Avoid introducing additional solid built structures, such as transmission stations, into rural areas, which are generally characterised by the absence of buildings. Additional structures would be better accommodated in relation to existing farm/utility buildings. l. Seek opportunities to achieve wider landscape management objectives identified in the Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment in association with any proposed development.
4.14 In respect of cumulative development it states:
“The landform and land cover pattern provides scope for more than one small-scale turbine group within this landscape. It is essential that there is consistency in form and siting of developments respecting the consistent character of the landscape. In this landscape some long- range views are often possible and views of more than one type of turbine development could create a potentially confusing viewing experience.”
5. PLANNING HISTORY
5.1 1101442FUL – erection of a 70m high meteorological wind monitoring mast for a temporary period of 3 years – approved.
6. CONSULTATIONS
6.1 Southoe Midloe Parish Council – recommend refusal (copy attached)
6.2 Grafham Parish Council – recommend refusal (copy attached.)
6.3 Perry Parish Council – recommend refusal (copy attached.)
6.4 Great Staughton Parish Council – recommend refusal (copy attached.)
6.5 Buckden Parish Council – recommend refusal (copy attached.)
6.6 Hail Weston Parish Council – recommend approval (copy attached).
6.7 Highways Agency – Directs that permission should NOT be granted until further information and clarification on the following matters is submitted:-
* an alternative access during peak periods for site operatives * concrete pouring to take place at weekends only and operations suspended in the event of a major traffic incident * reinstatement of access to a basic agricultural access on completion of construction * delivery of larger plant and equipment to be subject to separate approval processes
Additional information has been received. The Highways Agency’s comments on this is awaited.
6.8 County Council Highways – required clarification on a number of detailed points including access and construction. Additional information has been received and the County Council have commented that they have no objections subject to conditions.
6.9 County Council Footpaths Officer – recommend that wind turbines are sited at least 200m from public bridleways and note that the position of turbine 1 is well within this buffer. Also comments that any disturbance to the public road going north of Common Barn should be kept to a minimum.
6.10 English Heritage – originally stated that the applicant should provide additional photo-montages relating to Southoe church, Buckden Palace and the deserted medieval village of Broughton. In relation to the additional information submitted in response: it is accepted that there will be no harm to Buckden Conservation Area or St Andrews Church Great Staughton; there will be a degree of harm to the scheduled ancient monument of the deserted village of Broughton, St Leonards Church Southoe, and the turbines may be visible from parts of the Conservation Area of Diddington. In all these instances the harm would be less than substantial as set out in the NPPF and it would be necessary for the Local Planning Authority to consider the both the number and quality of the assets affected, as well as the degree to which their significance is harmed. To that end, English Heritage advise that, in its opinion, this wind farm would not be as harmful to the historic environment as the Bicton wind farm, which was dismissed on appeal.
6.11 County Council Archaeology – Likely that archaeological features will be affected by the development; EIA should include consideration of impact upon sub-surface archaeological remains; EIA should consider mitigation of the impact upon the development – recommend refusal.
6.12 Environment Agency – no objections subject to a condition relating to surface water drainage should planning permission be granted.
6.13 Natural England – no objections subject to conditions relating to a post-construction monitoring scheme for birds and bats to confirm that the development as submitted will not impact upon the special interest of Grafham Water and Little Paxton SSSIs. They also state that the application may provide opportunities for biodiversity enhancements and this can be achieved by a condition.
6.14 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – very detailed comments highlighting some deficiencies in the ES but conclude that the scheme is unlikely to have significant adverse impacts on wider populations of species of conservation concern. Request that a condition to secure a post construction monitoring programme be imposed.
6.15 Ministry of Defence Safeguarding – no objections. If permission is granted the MOD will request that the turbines are fitted with red lighting or infra-red lighting. Conditions relating to construction times, height of construction equipment and latitude and longitude of every turbine is also requested.
6.16 Civil Aviation Authority – do not raise an objection.
6.17 NATs Airfield Safeguarding – no safeguarding objections.
6.18 Cambridge Airport – no comments received.
6.19 HDC Environmental Health – No objections subject to conditions relating to noise and subject to the receipt of sufficient safeguards with respect to the financial involvement of the closest residential properties.
6.20 Council for the Protection of Rural England – Objection on the grounds of unacceptable adverse impact on the local landscape character of the countryside and on heritage assets.
6.21 The Friends of Paxton Pits are a voluntary organisation and a charity and aim to promote the nature conservation and natural environment of Paxton Pits for the benefit of the public. They have commented that they would like to have post construction monitoring and enhancement for the habitat of the Common Tern. They also request the input of RSPB and Natural England in the design of the mitigation measures.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 A total of 276 letters have been received of which 269 object to the proposal and 7 are in favour.
The points of objection raised by local residents can be summarized as:
Countryside issues - Impact upon the rural landscape - Impact upon the wildlife inc. Paxton pits and Grafham Water - Impact upon the bridleways (site in buffer zone) - Visual amenity - Impact on ecology - Destroy peaceful countryside - Dominant in countryside views - Impact upon Grafham as a recreational area - Impact on rural business
Impact upon highway safety - field access not appropriate - Bell Lane dangerous junction - Impact on villages road (installation) - Distraction to road users - No highway mitigation proposed
General amenity issues - Height not in scale/out of keeping - Loss of village enjoyment - Death of the village - Visual amenity - TV interference
Neighbour amenity issues - Strongly object - Noise (loss of sleep) - Flicker issues - Quality of life
Impact on historic environment - Setting of Highfield Farm - Historical landscape - Impact on Diddington Conservation Area
Other issues - Inefficient (no benefit to environment) - Health issues - Financial gain - Damage outweighs harm (money making project only) - Met mast (no time to monitor) - Aviation - Set precedent - Drainage - Additional cost to electric bills - Enough wind farms in the area - Not sustainable - Why not off shore? - Cost to tax payer
7.2 An objection from ‘Stop Common Barn Wind Farm Action Group’ (SCBWF) has been submitted. The forward to this document states that it contains the detail of SCBWF objections, supported by Grafham Parish Council, Buckden Parish Council, Perry Parish Council, Great Paxton Parish Council, Little Paxton Parish Council, Great Staughton Parish Council and Southoe Midloe Parish Council in total supporting 7877 local residents. The objection can be summarised as follows:
* Out of scale with surrounding villages and rural landscape creating a localised wind farm landscape. Proposal in conflict with HDC Wind Power SPD and Policy R14 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan which protects Grafham Water and the surrounding landscape * It will result in 5 properties being unattractive places to live and will be significant visual impacts on many of the 16 houses within 1km. The ES does not assess the 3 closest dwellings less than 400 metres from the turbines which are owned by the landowner. * Significant adverse impact upon the setting of listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and the Buckden Conservation Area. Additional photomontages have not been provided and the proposal conflicts with Policy ENV6 of the Regional Plan. * The noise impact assessment does not consider the 3 closest properties which will have noise levels in excess of ETSU-R-97 limits. This may result in sleep disturbance and adverse health impacts. * Adverse impact upon Public Rights of Way and the presence of Grafham Water makes the area of regional importance for recreation. * The site is between Grafham Water and Little Paxton SSSIs which are designated due to their bird populations. There is considerable bird movement between the two sites and the turbines will represent a threat to bird and bat species. * The only available access from the A1 is at a dangerous point next to the Southoe bends. The traffic management plan is highly disruptive. * There are outstanding aviation objections thus conflicting with National Policy Statement EN1. * The site has a very low wind speed and the amount of electricity which will be produced has been over-exaggerated.
7.3 They conclude that the adverse impacts have not been addressed, the scheme is in an inappropriate location and proposal is contrary to central government, regional and local planning policy.
8. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
8.1 The main issues to be considered in respect of this application are central and local government policy on renewable energy, renewable energy targets, landscape and visual impact, historic built environment, residential amenity, wildlife, traffic and highways issues, footpaths including the use of bridleways by horse riders, safety and aviation issues.
Renewable Energy Policy
8.2 The main thrust of central government policy is to help counter the serious effects of climate change which are considered to be significant and include potential increases in flooding, subsidence, water shortages and increased insurance associated with damage to buildings. The importance to Huntingdonshire District and Cambridgeshire as a whole cannot be underestimated since much of the area is low lying close to sea level. In addition Huntingdonshire’s residents have, on average, one of the highest annual per capita carbon footprints figures in the region at 9.2 tonnes of C02 (measured in 2010 and as calculated by DEFRA under the methodology for national indicator NI 186).
8.3 Huntingdonshire District Council is committed, as a signatory to the Nottingham Declaration, to taking steps to mitigate the negative effects of climate change. Common Barn Wind Farm will have an installed capacity of between 6 and 9 megawatts which is estimated to meet the annual power needs of approximately 4000 households. This proposal would therefore make a significant contribution towards the production of renewable energy.
8.4 The raft of Government documents from the Energy White Paper, Meeting the Challenge May 2007 to the July 2009 Renewable Energy Strategy leave no reasonable room or dispute regarding the seriousness of climate change and its potential effects, the necessity to cut carbon dioxide emissions or the seriousness of Central Government’s intention regarding its commitment to the generation of energy from renewable sources.
8.5 The key principles as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework which was published in March 2012 includes the fundamental provision that renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily (key principle i). The wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining proposals (key principle iv). Key principle (vi) goes on to advise that small-scale projects provide a limited but valuable contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy and to meeting energy needs both locally and nationally; with key principle (viii) advising that development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as how any such impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures.
8.6 There are also several further publications that reinforce the national energy policy position with the Renewable Energy Strategy of July 2009 clearly identifying that wind generation both onshore and offshore has an important role to play in the provision of renewable generation in the UK. The EU Renewable Energy Directive requires the UK Government to ensure that at least 15% of energy consumed comes from renewable sources by 2020 whereas at the end of 2010 only 3.3% of consumed energy comes from renewable sources.
8.7 The Energy Act 2011 follows on from the Energy Acts of 2008 and 2010 and provides for a step change in the provision of energy efficiency measures to homes and businesses, and makes improvements to our framework to enable and secure low-carbon energy supplies and fair competition in the energy markets. This has now been followed up with the Energy Bill November 2012 which seeks to provide certainty for investors.
8.8 The Climate Change Act 2008 has two main aims: to improve carbon management, helping the transition towards a low-carbon economy in the UK and to demonstrate UK leadership internationally, signalling commitment to and responsibility for reducing global emissions. The key provision of the Act is to introduce a legally binding target of at least an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, to be achieved through action in the UK and abroad. Also a reduction in emissions of at least 34% by 2020. Both targets are against a 1990 baseline.
8.9 National policy therefore remains strongly supportive of appropriately located proposals to generate renewable energy.
8.10 The Government has announced its intention to abolish the Regional Spatial Strategies; and at the time of writing this report the intention to abolish is a material planning consideration. The most up to date information on meeting those regional targets is contained within the East of England Renewable Energy Statistics December 2009 produced by Renewables East; this is obviously considerably out of date but is not expected to be updated. The East of England in 2009 had 659MW (10%) of installed renewable energy both on and off shore; and 436MW (7.6%) for onshore only. The region’s adopted target is for 10% of electricity consumption to come from onshore sources by 2010 and 17% by 2020. Since 2010 a number of schemes which were in the pipeline, such as Wadloes and Cotton Farm, are now either operational or close to being operational. There are also a number of other schemes, such as Chelverston and Woolley Hill Wind Farm, which have been allowed on appeal and are proceeding towards being operational in the near future.
8.11 Delivery of renewable energy will need to increase as the region refocuses on the 2020 target and therefore significant contributions will be needed from the onshore wind sector. Significant weight will therefore need to be attached to this aspect of the proposal.
8.12 Of relevance to the delivery of regional targets is the research into the renewable resource potential of the region carried out by EERA and called ‘Placing Renewables in the East of England’ Feb 2008. (The appeal into the Linton Wind Farm and Cotton Farm Wind Farm confirmed that this was a relevant material consideration.) This provided an assessment of landscape sensitivity at national level to identify areas where on shore commercial turbine power generation may be appropriate. The report is based on research into the renewable resource potential of the region against the electricity consumption up to 2020. The report also identifies a broad area where it is considered that there is the greatest potential for onshore wind and describes this as “an area of the region extending to the north of Bedford, St Neots and Cambridge, and west of Ely, Downham Market and Swaffham.” This broad area is termed as an area for the likely concentration of onshore wind and suggests that the intensity of development is encouraged to be higher than the national average. In its summary the national Joint Character Area (JCA) 88, which this site falls within, is assessed as low- medium/medium sensitivity but that the sensitivity of the area is increased by the variety of scale in some parts of the area. This report explicitly states that it is not to be used for development control purposes; nor does it conclude that every site within JCA 88 would be suitable for a wind farm.
Site Selection, Design of the Proposal and Consideration of Alternatives
8.13 The ES has stated that the site was chosen as it has a favourable wind resource, it has suitable topography, there is an available grid connection, there are no radar or aviation constraints, it has good access, it meets national and local planning policy and because there is a willing landowner. The temporary meteorological mast will collect wind data for a period of three years.
8.14 The ES also explains the evolution of the design through the consideration of a 6 stage process:
* The original preliminary design was for 4 turbines of 140m high on land to the west of the current site and to the south of Highfield Farm * This was followed up with a formal EIA Scoping Opinion request and a subsequent adjustment to the layout to take account of telecommunications at Anglian Water * Stage 3 was the consideration of a 7 turbine scheme which basically combined the Highfield Farm scheme with the current one. * Stage 4 was following the withdrawal of the Highfield Farm landowner and considered 5 turbines with a reduction in height to 126m high following concern from the MOD * Stage 5 was a Scoping request based on a 3 turbine scheme; this had been reduced from 5 to take account of ecology, landscape and heritage issues. * Stage 6, the final scheme, has made minor amendments to the Stage 5 scheme by responding to consultations of the Scoping process.
Landscape and Visual Impact
8.15 The proposal is for 3 turbines, with a hub height of 80 metres and a rotor diameter of 90 metres, giving an overall height to blade tip of 125 metres.
8.16 The Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment SPD locates the site within the Southern Wolds Landscape Character Area. The Huntingdonshire Supplementary Planning Document: Wind Power 2006 sets out the capacity of the different landscape character areas within the District to be able to accommodate different scales of wind turbine developments. A grouping of between 2 – 12 turbines is defined in the document as a small scale group and the SPD states that the Southern Wolds LCA has a high capacity to accommodate both a single turbine and a small scale group.
8.17 The site is 1.4 km north west of the village of Southoe and is in the Southern Wolds Landscape Character Area [LCA]. The site is also less than 2 km from the Ouse Valley and Grafham Water LCAs, and less than 5 km from the South East Claylands LCA on the opposite side of the Ouse valley.
8.18 The information and analysis presented in the “Landscape and Visual” chapter of the ES is generally acceptable but there are some instances where additional photomontages are required.
8.19 The ES has assessed the landscape and visual impact of the proposal using current best practice guidelines and in particular the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment’s “Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment” [GLVIA] 2002. The methodology establishes the current character, condition and sensitivity of the landscape and nature of existing views and visual amenity as a baseline against which the impacts of the proposal can be assessed. Pre-application advice was given on the viewpoints to be considered and visualisations have been produced in the form of photo-montages and wireframe visualisations from 23 viewpoints. The council submitted a Regulation 22 request for further information from 3 of these viewpoints due to the poor quality of the original submission. The ES has considered a number of documents including the national landscape character assessments, HDC Landscape and Townscape Assessment and HDC Wind Power SPD.
8.20 The GLVIA [para 2.13 onwards] gives a good summary of the relevant general issues; “Landscape and visual assessments are separate though linked procedures. The landscape baseline, its analysis and the assessment of landscape effects all contribute to the baseline for visual assessment studies. The assessment of the potential effect on the landscape is carried out as an effect on an environmental resource, ie the landscape. Visual effects are assessed as one of the interrelated effects on population … and they “relate to changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s responses to the changes, and to the overall effects with respect to visual amenity.”
8.21 Landscape Character Areas [LCAs] show a consistent, distinct and recognisable pattern of elements [hills, ponds, buildings etc] that occur in a particular section of a wider landscape. The Landscape and Townscape Assessment SPD divides Huntingdonshire into nine separate LCAs and discusses their different elements and characteristics; the Wind Power SPD considers how varying scales of turbine development might affect each of these LCAs and gives guidance on how potential impacts on certain elements and characteristics should be minimised or avoided in order that a particular LCA retains its distinctive identity and integrity. Landscape impact assessment considers changes to individual landscape elements and changes to landscape character.
8.22 The ES looks at the predicted impacts upon the landscape, landscape character, and visual amenity. The ES concludes that the proposed development would have no significant effects (in terms of the EIA Regulations) upon landscape and landscape character, other than that inevitably occurring at a localised level within a 2km radius of the site. These conclusions are accepted. The ES contains detailed consideration of the relevant sections of the Wind Power SPD and the arguments put forward are generally sound, including the conclusion that the more sensitive parts of the key wooded ridge between the valleys of the Kym and Ellington Brook have been avoided, and that the turbines will not be a dominating presence of the horizon.
8.23 There are some elements of the site specific guidance in the SPD that have not been strictly followed, specifically in the Southern Wolds chapter paragraphs 10.3 [c – relate to existing building clusters], [j – additional solid built structures] and [k – wider landscape management objectives], but there is no major conflict with the key aims of the SPD.
8.24 In a limited number of instances the quality of the baseline photographs and photomontages are not of the standard required by their purpose within the ES, and in these cases the Council has requested resubmission of enhanced material. The Council’s specialist landscape officer has however been able to make an assessment of the effects of the development on the basis of the submitted information and his own assessment.
8.25 In terms of visual impact the ES concludes that there would be significant effects experienced on many of the public rights of way and cycle routes within 2km of the turbines, and in some cases this effect would extend up to 3.5km from the nearest turbine. Although some of these routes are nationally designated and exceptionally well used, it is accepted that many of the visual effects would be transitory in nature with views of the proposed wind farm varying in degree from full to none as one moves through the surrounding landscape, and that there is good provision of alternative routes in this part of the district.
8.26 The ES finds that there will be no significant cumulative landscape and visual impacts and this conclusion is agreed because of the mitigating effects of land form and intervening vegetation which limits simultaneous views of the proposal and other wind farms.
Other Effects Upon Public Rights of Way and Recreational Users
8.27 The application site has a number of rights of way within 1 km of the site. The three long distance routes are The Three Shires Way, National Cycle Route 51 and the Grafham Water Cycle Route. At its closest point the Three Shires Way is 300m from the nearest turbine and the National Cycle route 290m from the nearest turbine. Grafham Water cycle route is considerably more at 650m. The Ouse Valley Way 3.3km from the nearest turbine and the Pathfinder Long Distance Walk is 6.9km from the nearest turbine. There are also a number of Public Rights of Way (PROWs) much closer to the site. At the closest point Turbine 1 will be 83 metres from the PROW, which has legal status as a public road, and runs from Common Barn through to Highfield Farm. Turbine 2 will also be 290m from the National Cycle Route 51. Also the existing access track from the A1 will be extended and pass across this road to provide construction and operational access to the turbines.
8.28 The County Council Rights of Way officer has commented that the proposal will not meet the recommendations of the British Horse Society in terms of distance from PROWs.
8.29 PPS22 Companion Guide which remains extant government advice, advises that there is no statutory separation between a wind turbine and a public right of way. Often, fall over distance is considered an acceptable separation, and the minimum distance is often taken to be that the turbine blades should not be permitted to oversail a public right of way. In this case at the closest point turbine 1 at a distance of 83 metres from the PROW will meet this criterion in that it will not oversail the PROW, although quite clearly it will be in very close view to users of the PROW.
Residential Amenity and Noise
8.30 The ES identified those properties within 1km of the site and has considered noise from both the construction and operational phases of the development. This concludes that the noise impact from the operational phase of the windfarm will meet the Amenity Hours and Night-time Criteria proposed within ETSU-R-97 for those dwellings not financially involved in the scheme. The holiday lets at Common Barn have not been assessed. The data has been scrutinised by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer and he is satisfied that subject to conditions the impact upon those residential properties not financially involved is acceptable within the criteria of ETSU-R-97. Church Farm Cottages and Church Farm House are the dwellings financially involved in the scheme. However at the time of writing this report officers are not satisfied that the level of information submitted in connection with the financial involvement of these dwellings is sufficient. This omission will be reported on further at or before the meeting. Therefore the conclusions on noise, as far those residential properties not financially involved, are accepted and in this respect it is considered that the noise impact of the proposal is acceptable and meets the relevant guidance. If planning permission were to be granted conditions should be imposed to deal with post construction monitoring and any complaints received. It is likely that for the construction phase details of piling and a working hours condition would be required to ensure that the impact during the construction phase is acceptable.
8.31 The issue of radio communications and TV reception has been considered in the ES. Advice in the PPS22 companion guide is that careful siting of turbines can mitigate any potential impacts. Pre- application consultation with telecoms operators and Anglian Water have resulted in some changes to the finally submitted proposal. The ES now concludes that the proposed development is unlikely to impact on television reception quality as the Sandy Heath transmitter has completed the switch from analogue to digital TV. Anglian Water have advised that the proposed development does not affect their micro-wave links but it does affect two ultra high frequency communication paths to their installations. They have proposed that the impact can be mitigated through the use of alternative base stations.
8.32 The visual impact upon homes and the living conditions of the occupants also needs to be considered. The ES submitted has considered the visual impact upon the amenity of those properties within 1km of the site. It has been acknowledged in the report that visual effects may be experienced from those further afield, however, those within 1km have the greatest relevance as far as residential amenity is considered, in terms of visual impacts.
8.33 In terms of visual impact the test is whether the turbines are present in such numbers, size and proximity that they represent an unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable presence in the main views from a house or garden such that the property concerned would come to be widely regarded as an unattractive and thus unsatisfactory place in which to live. This is commonly known as the Lavendar Test, as used by Inspector Lavendar at the Inquiry into the wind farm at Dover and is now used regularly by Inspectors determining windfarm applications.
8.34 Out of 12 residential properties sited within 1km of the site the ES states that there would be significant effect upon 5 properties and a moderate effect upon 4, with no impact upon 2 of the properties. Of the 5 properties experiencing a significant effect there are mitigating factors which mean that the impact will not be overwhelming or oppressive. The property named Lodge Farm which sits approx 605 metres to the nearest turbine will have oblique views of the turbines from within the property and they would not interrupt the primary focus of the view from the rear elevation, or when moving around the dwelling. The turbines will be evident from some parts of the garden, but from other parts will not be visible. Woodside and Gamekeepers Lodge that sit in the group with Lodge Farm will have interrupted views of the turbines due to the vegetation; the distance of 700 metres from the nearest turbine is also noted. Highfield Farm and Highfield Farm Cottages will only experience limited harm as only oblique views of the wind turbines will be evident due to the orientation of the properties, existing vegetation and the size of windows. Church Farm Cottages, whose occupants are financially involved with the project, lays approx 526 metres away from turbine 3 and surrounded by mature trees on the eastern boundary, and slight views of the turbines will be evident from the property. Midloe Cottage lays approx 864 metres due south from turbine 2. There will be a clear view of the turbines when approaching the dwelling from the road. Views from within the dwelling from the front, east and west of the building will not be affected as the turbines will not be visible. The rear of the building faces the site, but due to the limited size of, and views from windows in the rear of the dwelling, and the limited size of the rear garden the impact of the turbines upon the residential amenity of this property will not be unacceptable or overbearing.
8.35 The nearest residential properties have been specifically evaluated in respect of this test and some or all of the turbines would be visible from some parts of the dwelling or garden at the nearest properties. However individual assessment of the effects leads officers to conclude that the effects would not be such that the living conditions in the dwellings would become unsatisfactory.
Shadow Flicker
8.36 The ES has considered shadow flicker and the advice in the Companion Guide to PPS22. This states that about 0.5% of the population are epileptic and of these around 5% are photosensitive. It states that the extent of shadow flicker is in practice limited to the distance of 10 rotor diameters from the wind farm, when the sun is shining, when a shadow is cast through a door or window, the orientation of the turbine is correct, and there are no obstructions such as trees of other structures. The analysis was therefore performed on occupied houses within 900 metres of any proposed wind turbine. There are 9 residential dwellings which were assessed and the properties which could be most affected were for a total of 48 hours per annum. This represents a worse case scenario assuming clear skies all of the time and that the wind turbines are operating all the time.
8.37 The ES states that the turbines will have a control system utilising a photo cell to ensure that should climatic conditions be right they will shut down. This will be covered by a condition which will approve a protocol for dealing with complaints relating to shadow flicker – this is an accepted methodology for dealing with this issue and is commonly imposed upon appeal decisions. It is therefore concluded that the proposal will not result in an unacceptable impact upon residential amenity due to shadow flicker.
Cultural Heritage
8.38 There are 7 Scheduled Ancient Monuments, 9 Grade 1 listed buildings, 11 Grade 11* listed buildings and 183 Grade 11 listed buildings within 5 km of the nearest turbine. There are also 4 Conservation Areas within this 5km study area. The nearest Grade 1 listed building is St Leonards Church at Southoe. English Heritage requested an additional photo-montages illustrating the church with the wind turbines in the background and to show the effect upon other assets. This has been provided and shows that there would some views where the church is seen together with the turbines and the turbines would be more prominent in the winter months when the trees are without leaves. There would therefore be a degree of harm to this listed building. Similarly Buckden Conservation Area contains significant historic buildings including the Scheduled Ancient Monument of the Bishops Palace and Grade 1 St Mary’s Church. English Heritage asked for an additional photo-montage to illustrate the impact of the proposal upon Buckden Conservation Area and are now of the view that the turbines are unlikely to result in harm to this asset. The turbines will be clearly visible from the deserted medieval village of Broughton, which is a scheduled ancient monument, and the additional photomontages show that there will be a degree of harm to this asset. The photomontages also show the impact upon Diddington when viewed from near the church and this is considered to be minimal although other parts of the Diddington Conservation Area have not had photomontages and the turbines may be more visible from other areas.
8.39 The impact upon archaeological remains has been considered by the County Archaeologist who considers that the site is located in an area of high archaeological potential and that archaeological remains could be affected and unidentified sites could be affected. They requested a non intrusive aerial photographic assessment and an intrusive trail trenching investigation to determine the remains which could be affected. They have stated that without these the application should be refused. The applicant has agreed to do the aerial photographic assessment but has not yet agreed to the trial trenching. The further information has not yet been submitted.
8.40 Officers have therefore concluded that the proposal will result in some harm to the scheduled ancient monument of the deserted village of Broughton, and St Leonards Church Southoe, but that this is less than substantial.
Traffic and Highways
This section considers construction traffic, including abnormal load deliveries and operational traffic.
Construction Traffic
8.41 It is proposed that construction traffic, including abnormal loads, will use the existing farm access from the A1 located to the north of Bell Lane. This access will be improved, gated and widened to cater for these larger vehicles which means that construction traffic would not go through Southoe. A Temporary Traffic Management Plan (TTMP) is to be implemented during the entire construction period. The aims of the TTMP are to keep northbound traffic lanes open during the morning and afternoon peak periods, use Bell Lane as an exit route from Southoe village and extend the temporary traffic management to include the northbound on-slip road north of St Neots. On those days when HGV deliveries are planned, Mondays to Thursdays outside peak hours, Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) using traffic cones to prevent right turns in and out of Bell Lane would be in force.
8.42 Comments from the Highways Agency and the County Council as local highway authority have resulted in amendments to the TTM which closes the right turn from the A1 southbound into Bell Lane and the right turn from Bell Lane into the A1 southbound when the TTM is in operation outside peak hours. These closures would be effected by means of cones. The A1 would be kept open during the morning and afternoon peak periods. As such the traffic cones separating the two lanes would be removed during the peak periods and the right turns in and out of Bell would be open.
8.43 The applicants have also stated that it is accepted that the sustained concrete pouring operation in relation to the turbine foundations, which lasts for a continuous 10 – 12 hour period and cannot be interrupted, will need to take place at weekends only; and that this would need to be postponed in the event of a major traffic incident resulting on the A1. The applicants have also stated that post construction of the wind farm the A1 access will need to be retained to allow abnormal load vehicles to access the wind farm should it be necessary to replace a major component, such as a gearbox. This would be an extremely rare occurrence, and therefore, it is proposed that the access would be fenced and gated to accommodate farm vehicles only. The gates would be positioned to allow vehicles to park clear of the highway prior to opening the gate and should it be necessary to access the wind farm with an abnormal load the fencing and gate would be temporarily removed subject to the prior agreement of the Highways Agency and the Council in relation to routing and timing.
8.44 The delivery of larger plant and equipment using abnormal indivisible loads will need to be subject to a separate approval process and this would normally be dealt with by the imposition of a condition requiring a Construction Traffic Management Plan.
8.45 The applicants have also stated that they are willing to consider monitoring traffic speeds on the A1 prior to and during the operation of the TTM plan to help inform a possible permanent reduction in the speed limit in the vicinity of Southoe.
8.46 Following receipt of this additional information the Local Highway Authority has confirmed that it has no objections subject to conditions. Further consultation with the Highways Agency on this further information has taken place and their comments will be reported at or before the meeting.
Wildlife Issues
8.47 The site lies within 1km of Grafham Water SSSI and approximately 3km from Little Paxton Pits SSSI. There are also some legally protected species within 2km of the survey area boundary. The site however is not covered by any nature conservation designations. The ES details those surveys which have been carried out including a habitat and protected species surveys for bats, great crested newts, water voles and dormice. Field surveys were also carried out for birds in relation to wintering, breeding and passage in relation to Grafham Water SSSI and Little Paxton SSSI. The survey work and results have been considered by Natural England and RSPB and, while some very detailed comments have been made on the methodology of the survey work, both Natural England and RSPB have confirmed that the proposal will not have significant adverse effects upon protected species, species of conservation concern, or statutory designated nature conservation sites. They have therefore concluded that they do not object subject to conditions.
8.48 Both Natural England and RSPB have however stressed the importance of conditions which should include a post construction monitoring scheme for bats and birds. Such a scheme is considered essential as it should incorporate mitigation measures in the event of a higher than expected mortality rate such as turning off the turbines at critical times. They have also requested a condition requiring biodiversity enhancements and this requirement is echoed in the comments of the Friends of Paxton Pits who have requested specific enhancements for breeding birds in Paxton Pits SSSI.
8.49 The potential for ecological enhancement measures, is encouraged in paragraphs 117 and 118 of the NPPF and wider landscape management objectives set out in the relevant section of the HDC Landscape and Townscape Assessment.
8.50 There is therefore no fundamental objection to the proposal in terms of its impact upon Grafham Water and Little Paxton SSSIs or protected species, but it is considered that monitoring, enhancement and mitigation measures would be necessary to ensure that the scheme was made acceptable in terms of its impact upon wildlife.
Aviation Issues
8.51 The relevant Consultees with regard to aircraft safety include Defence Estates, Civil Aviation Authority, National Air Traffic Control Service and Cambridge Airport do not raise any objections to the proposal on the grounds of aircraft safety. The MOD has withdrawn their original objection in relation to the Primary Surveillance Radar at RAF Cottesmore and have stated that they have no objections to the proposal subject to appropriate planning conditions relating to lighting and locational information being imposed should planning permission be granted. The Civil Aviation Authority has advised that there may be the need to install aviation obstruction lighting. Consultation with aerodromes and local air emergency air support services has taken place but no response has been received. To conclude the national bodies dealing with airfield safeguarding have not objected to the proposal and there is therefore no objection from the aviation perspective.
Safety Issues
8.52 Third party representations have raised issues of safety, in particular the proximity of the turbines to footpaths, and the possibility of structural collapse or ice collecting on the blades. The ES has considered this aspect and stated that no member of the public has been injured by a wind turbine. There have been some cases where a turbine has shed a part or all of their blade and these have occurred in extreme weather conditions. The build up of ice on the turbine blade has also been raised as an issue. However, ice can only form on a stationary rotor blade and therefore ice would only be thrown off when a turbine initially starts up with the risk being restricted to the area immediately beneath the turbine. PPS22 Companion Guide advises that the minimum distance between wind turbines and occupied buildings is the height of the turbine plus 10%. This has been achieved in this case as the nearest occupied buildings are those let as tourist accommodation at Common barn where the distance is 320 metres. Modern wind turbines are equipped with a number of safety devices to ensure safe operation during their lifetime. These typically include vibrations sensors and brake systems to turn the turbines off in the event of malfunction.
Community Involvement
8.53 A public exhibition was held in 2011 in Southoe village hall and press releases were sent to local and national papers in November 2011. A web site was developed and leaflets sent to individual householders and Parish and District Councillors. In addition newsletters were sent to 4600 households in the parishes of Southoe & Midloe, Perry, Hail Weston, Great Staughton, Buckden, Diddington, Little Paxton and Grafham.
8.54 The applicants propose to provide payments to a community fund of £2,000/MW of installed capacity for the 25 year period of the project. This would equate to £15,000 per annum. The applicants have identified from the consultations received on how the money should be spent that the general consensus of opinion is that there is a need for improved access onto the A1, improvements to the playground to west of Southoe village hall and improving local cycle routes.
Efficiency of Wind Turbines
8.55 Many of the third party representations received have commented on the relative efficiency of wind turbines and questioned the amount of renewable energy which would be generated. The government guidance for renewable energy projects contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, makes it quite clear in paragraph 98 that local planning authorities should not require applicants to demonstrate the overall need for renewable energy and that also they should recognise that even small scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This stance was also taken in the recent Cotton Farm and Woolley Hill Wind Farm decisions. This issue does not therefore represent any basis for a reason for refusal.
Balance of Considerations and Conclusion
8.56 Officers wrote to the applicants requesting further environmental information – additional photomontages required for heritage and landscape, archaeological trial trenching and information about the financial involvement of the occupiers of Church Farm Cottages and Church Farm House. At the time of writing this report, this information had not been received. The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations prohibit the granting of permission without consideration of an Environmental Statement, including any further information reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development. In addition, a direction from the Highways Agency not to grant planning permission means that the application could not be approved. An update on these matters will be provided at or before the meeting.
8.57 In terms of other considerations, the harm and benefits of the proposal need to be weighed in the balance. This report concludes that, subject to conditions, there are no objections to the proposal in relation to wildlife and nature conservation interests, public rights of way, aviation issues, and the impact on the local highway network. It also concludes that the development will undoubtedly have an effect on the landscape and on cultural heritage, resulting in some harm. An update on the Highways Agency position, archaeology and residential amenity, specifically in relation to noise at Church Farm Cottages and Church Farm House, will be provided at or before the meeting.
8.58 In terms of the impact upon the landscape, it is relevant to note that the Inspectors for both Cotton Farm and the Linton Wind Farm have confirmed that the study ‘Placing Renewables in the East of England’ is a material consideration and that this site falls within the area of least constraints. This study however is not to be used for development control purposes and the logical conclusion is not that every site within the area of least constraint is suitable for a wind farm. The proposal will undoubtedly result in a big change to the local landscape. However, in the context of the position of the site at the eastern end of the higher ground between the valleys of the Kym and Diddington Brook, where ridges and valleys are not well defined, and as there is no major conflict with the key aims of the Wind Power SPD, it is considered that the harm to the landscape character is limited.
8.59 In the case of cultural heritage, less than substantial harm has been identified to the Grade 1 listed Church of St Leonards Southoe and the scheduled ancient monument of the deserted village of Broughton.
8.60 The latest position regarding archaeology will be reported at or before the meeting.
8.61 The recommendation in this case turns on a balanced judgement which has to be made between the benefits of renewable energy production and the adverse effects of the development.
8.62 Government policy takes seriously climate change and its potential effects, the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions and the deployment of renewable energy generation. There is a strategic need for renewable energy provision in the UK to assist in tackling climate change and to ensure the security of energy supply with significant weight attached to the environmental benefits. The proposal may only provide a small percentage of the renewable energy requirement but each wind farm development would be important in incrementally contributing to meeting the target.
8.63 Huntingdonshire is supportive of appropriate renewable energy projects and recognises the wider environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy projects and the importance of meeting the targets for renewable energy. Wind farms at Warboys, Cotton Farm and Woolley Hill will make a significant contribution towards the provision of renewable energy in Huntingdonshire. There are no targets for Huntingdonshire in terms of renewable energy, and the intention of the Secretary of State to abolish the Regional Spatial Strategies (and targets contained therein) is a material planning consideration. Government policy makes it clear that achieving a target does not mean that further proposals should be refused permission. This proposal will make a significant contribution towards renewable energy provision in the district and the benefits are therefore considerable.
8.64 A full assessment of the planning balance cannot be made until the full impacts of the development on the A1, residential amenity and archaeology are known. However, having assessed the landscape and visual impact of the development and the impact on heritage assets (except archaeology), the conclusion reached is that the limited harm to these assets is outweighed by the benefits of the renewable energy which will be generated. An updated assessment and conclusion will be reported at or before the Panel meeting.
If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.
CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Jennie Parsons Development Management Team Leader South 01480 388409.
To: DevelopmentControl[/O=HUNTS DISTRICT COUNCIL/OU=HDC/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=DEVELOPMENTCONTROL]; Subject: A1 Southoe transport issues, plannining application 1200803FUL Sent: Mon 6/11/2012 7:13:36 PM From: Alan Marnes X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/15.0.6 YahooMailWebService/0.8.118.349524 Message-ID: <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:13:36 +0100 (BST) From: Alan Marnes
---779725378-1976664656-1339442016=:25588 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
---779725378-1976664656-1339442016=:25588 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
---779725378-1976664656-1339442016=:25588--
Southoe and Midloe Parish Council
23 High St
Southoe
St.Neots
Cambs PE19 5YE 11th June 2012
Dear Mr Moffat
A1 Southoe transport issues, planning application 1200803FUL
At the Southoe and Midloe parish council meeting yesterday there was a long debate about the proposed Common Barn wind farm. Whether individuals were for or against the proposed wind farm it was very clear that the most of the people attending our meeting were most concerned about the A1 site access and the transport issues associated with the wind farm access.
Leaving aside the wind farm planning application, it is paramount in the eyes of the local community that the A1 in our parish is already the worst accident black spot in Cambridgeshire, if not the whole length of the southern reaches and we cannot see how any long term traffic management scheme is going to help us.
The local community have a real fear that the construction traffic and associated contractors vehicle movements will block our free movement in and out of our village using the A1, which is already intolerable at times. It needs to be looked at what happens when serious accidents and incidents happen.
It is our opinion that these real issues need serious consideration before there is any thought of allowing a 90deg turn directly off the A1 in the area just north of Bell Lane Southoe. This is right on the biggest accident black spot and any new junction could well cause additional accidents in this area.
We have seen the plans of how the developers envisage the access developing, but their plans seem to be seriously flawed, especially when any lane closures are in operation and there are other issues on the region’s main roads ie the A14 and A428.
The plan states the site personnel traffic movements will be addressed separately; that is not acceptable as this could add serious traffic movement to the Rectory Lane area and Lees lane.
We are also unhappy about the lack of clarity regarding the transport for “concrete pour” options, as there seems to be 3 variations on the table, and some of them to our minds are totally unworkable.
Yours sincerely
Alan Marnes chairman Southoe and Midloe parish council
Page 1 of 1
From: Dianne Palmer [[email protected]] Sent: 06 July 2012 09:18 To: DevelopmentControl Subject: Planning application 1200803FUL
Attachments: 0706 - 1200803FUL.JPG For the attn of Jennie Parsons
Dear Ms Parsons
Thank you for extending the deadline for the above planning application so that Great Staughton Parish Councillors could give this application their full consideration. You may be interested to know that an open meeting was held so that both parties, those for and those against the application, could present their case to villagers and Councillors.
The matter was then discussed further at the Parish Council meeting and it was proposed that the application be refused. Please see the attachment for further information.
Yours sincerely
Dianne
Dianne Palmer Clerk to Great Staughton Parish Council Garden House Causeway Close Great Staughton PE19 5BG Phone: 01480 861136
file://E:\Adlib Express\Input\2233e4b6-8c24-419a-8748-d32b2f348af9.html 7/9/2012
Huntingdonshire DISTRICT Pathfinder House St Mary’s StreetCOUNCIL Huntingdon PE29 3TN
Head of Planning Services Pathfinder House St. Mary’s Street Huntingdon Cambridgeshire PE 29 3TN
Application Number: 1200803FUL Case Officer: Jennie Parsons
Proposal: Erection of 3 wind turbines up to a height of 125 metres and associated development, including meteorological mast, control building, electricity transformers, underground cabling, track, crane hardstandings and alterations to vehicular access for a period of 25 years.
Location: Land North West of Church Farm Rectory Lane Southoe
Observations of BUCKDEN Parish Council.
Recommend refusal because the development is not in the right place. The Parish Council is very concerned about:-
The effect that the proposed development would have on the local road network during the construction phrase, in particular the A1 and possibly Perry Road Buckden. Buckden Roundabout is seen as an obstacle to the easy flow of vehicles of the size envisaged to and from the site.
The fact that the turbines are planned to be built within one mile of existing residential properties and the safety record of these structures is not proven to a point where such proximity could be regarded as safe to the residents. The noise from the turbines will also be intrusive at this distance.
There is concern over the effect that the development will have on bats, birds and other wildlife contrary to the guidance given in PPS 9.
The turbines are considered a blot on the landscape in this area and there is no information as to what happens in 25 years will they just be left to become an even worse eyesore.
The Council is still no convinced of the “green” benefits of these turbines.
Tel 01480 388388 Fax 01480 388099 [email protected] www.huntsdc.gov.uk
PLANNING SERVICES 1200803 Rectory Lane Southoe.docx
Huntingdonshire DISTRICT Pathfinder House St Mary’s StreetCOUNCIL Huntingdon PE29 3TN
Clerk to BUCKDEN Parish Council. Date :
Tel 01480 388388 Fax 01480 388099 [email protected] www.huntsdc.gov.uk
PLANNING SERVICES 1200803 Rectory Lane Southoe.docx
HAIL WESTON PARISH COUNCIL REF. 1200803FUL Southoe
Erection of 3 wind turbines up to a height of 125 metres and associated development, including meteorological mast, control building, electricity transformers, underground cabling, track, crane hard standings and alterations to vehicular access, for a period of 25 years.
APPROVED - As a neighbouring Parish Council, HWPC support this application on the grounds of supporting exploration of renewable energy sources, no significant impacts were felt strong enough to oppose the proposed application relating to wildlife or traffic once the proposed site was erected. The only issue of concern was the matter of proposed traffic management whilst the development was being constructed. HWPC wish that HDC take on board comments received from the relevant highway Consultees with regard to this proposed application.
On behalf of HWPC J Abell, Clerk Development Management Panel
Scale = 1:20,000 Application ref: 1200803FUL © Crown copyright and database rights 2012 o Date Created: 28/11/2012 Location: Southoe Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322
!
Legend
The Site Conservation Area