Agenda No. 5.1
Page 15
Page 16 Development Management Planning Housing and Regeneration Service
East Sub-Area Planning Committee Report 8 December 2014
Application number: PA14/07782 Site address: Furzedown Farm, Lanreath, Looe, Cornwall. PL13 2PD A single wind turbine of max 77m to tip along with Proposal: associated infrastructure including an access track and electrical housing. Parish: Lanreath Applicant: Mr A J Venning Target date for decision: 13 th October 2014 Reason for application At the request of the Divisional Member due to concerns being called to Committee: about impact on the surrounding landscape. Departure: No Electoral Division: Trelawny Electoral Division Member: Jim Candy Case Officer Mr Ellis Crompton-Brown http://planning.cornwall.gov.uk/online- Link to view documents: applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&k eyVal=NACR36FGJAO00 RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions.
Summary:
The application consists of the erection of a single 77m wind turbine which would be constructed in an agricultural field. The turbine would have a maximum generating capacity of 0.5 Megawatts (MW). Ancillary development associated with the turbine would include the provision of a temporary access track and switchgear housing.
The main issues concerning this application are i) the impact of the development on landscape character and the appearance of the surrounding area, and ii) the extent to which the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of nearby residential properties.
The proposed turbine would make a positive contribution toward the generation of renewable energy as endorsed in planning policy and there are not considered to be sustainable grounds for refusal based on ecology, landscape, neighbour impact or archaeology. The proposal would introduce a dominant vertical structure that would be visible on its own; however it is considered that the landscape can accommodate this turbine without unacceptably eroding its intrinsic quality. The degree of visual harm Page 17 that this turbine would cause to the landscape is in this instance considered to be outweighed by the positive contribution made toward renewable energy.
Site description:
1. The proposed site location is on land at Furzedown Farm at an elevation of 78m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum) and approximately 2.3km north east of St Veep. The site is relatively isolated, with the nearest non-involved residents situated ap- proximately 526m south-west with much of the immediate area being comprised of agricultural farm land. This gently rolling, undulating landform consists of me- dium sized open fields in agricultural use and is approximately 1.7km north east of Penpol, 2.3km east of St Veep, 2.7km south east of Lerryn and 2.3km south west of Lanreath.
2. The nearest public highway is approximately 100m east of the proposed turbine location and adjacent to the application field. This public highway connects Lanreath to the north east with Bodinnick approximately 4.6km to the south west.
3. The site is within a single agricultural field of approximately 6 hectares in area that slopes up from 62m AOD in the south west to 104m in the north east. The field is surrounded on three sides by agricultural fields and the public highway to the east. The area of the proposed development is approximately 0.9ha and the main access would be provided via a temporary track from the highway using an existing gateway.
Proposal:
4. The proposal is to install a single wind turbine of maximum hub height 50m and maximum tip height 77m, with a 3 bladed rotor design with blades of 27m in length. The proposed wind turbine model is an EWT 500kW wind turbine. Supplementary elements include: a permanent switch gear housing unit approximately 5m by 3m, temporary access track, underground cabling, and temporary crane hard standing area of approximately 35m×15m. The switchgear housing is proposed to be located at the base of the turbine. The tower height has been chosen by the applicant to maximise the wind resource at the site whilst minimising any visual impact on neighbouring properties. The tower would be manufactured from pre-fabricated steel and the blades from fibreglass and epoxy resin. In order to mitigate potential unforeseen impacts at this location, a micro- siting radius of up to 30m has been requested subject to clearance of the final location by the Local Planning Authority (LPA).
5. The tower is off-white and the turbine casing would also be off-white. A control cabinet housing the switchgear and monitoring equipment would be sited near the base of the turbine. The final design would be subject to agreement with Western Power Distribution once the grid connection is finalised, however it is likely that this would be green or grey in colour and measure approximately 3m x 5m and stand 3m high.
6. The total site area would be approximately 0.9ha and after construction any disturbed area would be reinstated to full agricultural use. The development would be carried out over a 6 month period with the construction phase lasting approximately 2 weeks. The construction phase would involve the following stages: Page 18
• Setting out and groundwork preparation; • Laying steel reinforced concrete base to prepare for turbine foundation anchor; • Foundation: concrete pour and curing; • Turbine component delivery, including: tower (two sections), three blades, nacelle, hub, and generator; • On site assembly of turbine to existing foundation; and, • Installation of earthing, and electrical connection and commissioning.
7. The erection of the turbine would typically last 2-3 days. Within this period two cranes would be taken to and from site, the turbine components would be delivered via Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV’s), and the turbine would be assembled on site. The temporary road through the field would be removed after the construction phase is complete.
8. Vehicular access to the site for construction purposes would be via the existing field gate on the public highway to the east of the site and then through an adjoining field to the location of the proposed turbine. This temporary track would be approximately 200m in length.
9. The transformer, switch gear and generation meters for connection of the wind turbine to the national grid and monitored operation would be contained within the switchgear building at the base of the turbine. The waterproof housing unit would be of a steel, GRP (dark green in colour) or stonework construction. The operation life span of the turbine is 25 years, after which the turbine would be decommissioned. This site would then be reinstated to its former state or to a condition agreed with the Local Planning Authority (LPA).
10. During decommissioning the turbine would be dismantled and removed from site. The foundations would be left underground and covered with topsoil enabling green cover to establish over the turbine site. Underground cables, disconnected from the local grid, could also remain in the ground.
Additional Information:
Electricity Generating Capacity
11. Electricity consumption in Cornwall is, on average, higher than the South West and UK. The turbine at Furzedown Farm would provide the equivalent renewable energy to meet the average daily electricity consumption of approximately 328 local households with the electricity they require for everyday needs.
Installed capacity Capacity Estimated Number of residential (MW) 1 factor 2 annual properties electricity production equivalent 4 (MWh p.a.) 3
0.5MW 36 % 1, 594 MWh UK – 391 houses Cornwall – 328 houses
Page 19 Notes:
1 Installed capacity is the full-load, continuous rating of generating equipment under specific conditions as designated by the manufacturer. In other words, this is the power generated when the equipment is working at full capacity. 2 Capacity factor is the calculated factor which compares the plant's actual production over a given period of time with the amount of power the plant would have produced if it had run at full capacity for the same amount of time. The capacity factor should take account of the specific equipment and the specific location. It is expressed as a percentage. 3 Estimated annual production of electricity based upon the installed capacity and the capacity factor. 4 Number of residential properties that would be powered by the estimated annual production based upon the U.K. average household consumption of 4,077.4 KWh/year (OFGEM). Note: average consumption in Cornwall is currently greater than the U.K. average at approx. 4,939.2 KWh/year (DECC 2011) and so the number of typical residential properties in Cornwall powered by a particular source would be lower.
12. A 20 year index linked annual community fund is proposed by the applicant. The Community Benefit offer is not relevant to the consideration of this application as neither the principle of the undertaking nor the details contained within it have been proposed in order to directly mitigate/remedy a specific planning objection to this proposal, and as such, the requirement for this community benefit is not considered to be compliant with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and cannot be required under planning law. Therefore no weight has been given to the inclusion of a community benefit scheme when considering this planning application.
Relevant constraints:
13. The closest Scheduled Monument is Giants Hedge (Lerryn to Lanreath) which is approximately 1.6km north of the proposed site. The Conservation Areas of Lanreath and Lerryn are approximately 2.1km and 2.5km respectively, from the site. The site is approximately 2km east of the South Coast Eastern section of the Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The Boconnoc Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) is approximately 1.8km North West and the Looe and Seaton Valleys AGLV is approximately 2.8km to the east. East Court and Court Wood County Wildlife Site is approximately 830m to the east. The land is classified as Grade 2 agricultural land. The closest Listed Building to the site is at Trevollard (Grade II) approximately 800m to the south west. The closest non-financially involved residential property to the site is Highgate approximately 540m to the south west.
Relevant planning/enforcement history:
14. Screening Opinion request (ref PA14/03181) for proposed turbine development. Issued 25 th April 2014 – Not considered to be EIA development.
Page 20
Relevant local/national policy/guidance:
Policy considerations
International and European
15. There are a range of International and European policy drivers that are relevant to the consideration of renewable energy developments. Under the terms of the Copenhagen Accord (2010) the UK, as part of the EU, agreed to make emissions cuts of between 20 and 30% by 2020 on 1990 levels (the higher figure being subject to certain caveats). This agreement was based on achieving a reduction in global emissions to limit average increases in global temperature to no more than 2°C. The European Renewable Energy Directive 2009 committed member states to a binding target requiring 20% of the EU's energy (electricity, heat and transport) to come from renewable energy sources by 2020. In particular, this Directive commits the UK to meet 15 percent of its total energy from renewable sources by 2020.
National
16. At the National level there are a range of statutory and non statutory policy drivers and initiatives which are relevant to the consideration of this planning application. The 2008 UK Climate Change Bill committed the UK to realising an 80% target in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (based on 1990 levels). The UK Committee on Climate Change 2008 `Building a Low Carbon Economy' provides guidance in the form of recommendations in terms of meeting the 80% target set out in the Climate Change Bill, and also sets out five year carbon budgets for the UK.
17. In 2009 the UK Government published the UK Renewable Energy Strategy (RES) which provided a series of measures to meet the UK’s obligations under the 2009 Renewable Energy Directive. The RES envisages more than 30% of the UK electricity generated from renewable sources.
18. ‘Under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 decisions on applications for planning permission and appeals must be taken in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise.
19. The National Planning Policy Framework stresses the importance of having a planning system that is genuinely plan-led. Where a proposal accords with an up- to-date development plan it should be approved without delay, as required by the presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Where the development plan is absent, silent or the relevant policies are out of date, paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires the application to be determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development unless otherwise specified.
20. In Cornwall the development plan comprises the ‘saved’ policies from the adopted Local Plans, the Balancing Housing Markets DPD in the former Carrick area and those development plan documents that deal specifically with minerals and waste. Cornwall Council is able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land
Page 21 when assessed against the requirement of 47,500 homes as set out in the proposed submission Local Plan and based on an objective assessment of need undertaken for the Strategic Housing Market Needs Assessment. Until our assessment is tested at an examination cogent arguments that are also untested will be promoted by others that support the same or a different conclusion on the 5 year land supply position in Cornwall. Therefore, in the absence of a fully tested objective assessment of housing need, it is not currently possible to conclude whether or not there is a five year supply and therefore in terms of paragraph 49 of the NPPF the relevant policies for the supply of housing in the saved local plans are not considered to be up to date.”
21. The policies in the emerging Cornwall Local Plan are not part of the development plan and have limited weight because of the early stage that the Local Plan has reached in the adoption process but the policy and explanatory text does give a clear indication of the Council’s direction of travel. This Local Plan has been developed from an up to date evidence base. Cornwall Council (14/1/14) resolved to amend the draft local plan and carry out a further period of consultation on a proposed submission version before submitting the Plan to the Secretary of State (SoS) for Examination. The substantive change (resolution 1a) is that the overall housing number be agreed at 47,500 with the associated distribution being as previously agreed by Cabinet. A number of other changes to text and policy wording were also approved. This further consultation took place during March and April for 6 weeks and was reported to members during July 2014. As a result of the representations received the Portfolio Holder for Environment Heritage and Planning has authorised focused changes to the Cornwall Local Plan - Proposed Submission – March 2014 which are currently the subject of a further period of consultation ending in mid –October. The representations received will be considered by Cabinet (November) and Council (December) with a view to Council approval and submission to the SoS at end of 2014. The examination is likely to be in the Spring 2015.’ ”
National Planning Policy Framework
22. The NPPF is not part of the statutory Development Plan however it does provide an overarching guide to making planning decisions in the UK. In terms of renewable or low carbon energy the NPPF advises that Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources and recognise that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts. In terms of determining planning applications for these types of developments, LPAS should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The NPPF advises LPAs to approve applications for energy developments if their impacts are (or can be) acceptable, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF also provides further advice in terms of impacts such as noise, health, quality of life and relative tranquillity.
23. In terms of historical impacts the NPPF states that LPAs should take such assessments into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal. The NPPF advises that LPA’s should take account of the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality. In terms of considering the impact Page 22 of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, ‘great weight’ should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Substantial harm to or loss of a Grade II Listed Building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably Scheduled Monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, Grade I and Grade II* Listed Buildings, Grade I and Grade II* registered parks and gardens and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.
24. In terms of the natural and local environment the NPPF seeks the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes and places great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.
25. Reference within the NPPF is also made to Government Energy Policy, specifically the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) both dated July 2011, both of which are generally supportive of reducing carbon emissions and securing energy supplies. In particular EN-3 looks at renewable energy schemes and in respect of landscape and visual matters advises there will always be significant impacts with large scale developments. The Statement indicates the need to balance this harm against the benefits of energy production. It also draws attention to the need to provide sufficient separation between the development and sensitive properties to ensure that noise issues do not arise, as well as the need to give due consideration to biodiversity issues and give appropriate weight to designated sites.
Cornwall Local Plan – Proposed Submission Document –Strategic Policies 2010- 2030
26. Relevant Policies are:
Policy 1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy 2 – Key targets and Spatial Strategy Policy 13 – Design Policy 14 – Development standards Policy 15 – Renewable and low carbon energy Policy 16 – Safeguarding renewable energy Policy 17 – Health and wellbeing Policy 22 – Best use of land and existing buildings Policy 23 – Natural environment Policy 24 – Historic environment Policy 27 – Transport and accessibility Policy 28 – Infrastructure
Caradon Local Plan First Alteration, 2007 (Saved Policies):
27. The following saved policies from the Caradon Local Plan First Alteration 2007 are still considered material to the consideration of this application:
Policy CL2 (Farm Diversification); Policy CL5 (Agricultural Land); Page 23 Policy CL7 (Development near Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Heritage Coast) Policy CL16 (Protected Species); Policy CL20 (Protection of Archaeological Sites); Policy EV3 (Listed Buildings & Redevelopment in Conservation Areas); Policy PU2 (Surface Water Protection) Policy PU4 (Groundwater Protection); Policy ALT4 (Management of Flood Risk); Policy REN1 (Non Fossil Fuel Sources); Policy REN2 (On Shore Wind Energy).
Other relevant information
28. As of June 2014, the County of Cornwall had achieved a collective total of 325.958 MW of installed electrical energy and 39.927 MW of installed heat energy from a range of renewable energy developments.
29. While a specific target for the provision of renewable energy in Cornwall has not been set for future years, the broad thrust of policy in both national and local planning policy provides a 'direction of travel' to secure, wherever appropriate and practicable, opportunities for additional renewable energy developments.
Other relevant planning guidance
30. The report ‘Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Landscape Character Study 2005/2007’ sets out the method in which Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) have been identified, and brings together the main findings of the study, in terms of landscape pressures and planning and development guidelines.
31. The report `An assessment of the Landscape Sensitivity to On-shore Wind Energy and Large Scale Photovoltaic Development in Cornwall' (April 2011), was prepared for Cornwall Council by Land Use Consultants (LUC), and provides guidance on the sensitivity of the landscape to wind and PV development throughout Cornwall. The assessment also sets out a `landscape strategy' for the deployment of these technologies for each LCA. This document has yet to be adopted and therefore attracts proportionately less weight.
32. The adopted Economic Development Strategy for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly 2007-2021, "Strategy & Action" is supportive of renewable energy schemes, including wind turbine developments. Extracts from 'Theme - Improve Competitiveness: Ensure Energy Sustainability' pp 44-47 of the policy focus on key priorities for economic development and identify objectives needed to achieve sustainable prosperity.
Other relevant guidance
33. ‘Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system’;
‘Natural England Technical Information Notes; TIN051 - Bats and onshore wind turbines, TIN059 - Bats and single large turbines, TIN69 - Birds and onshore wind farms’;
‘UK Renewable Energy Roadmap - Jul 2011’; Page 24
Cornwall Council renewable energy guidance notes
‘Eurobats Agreement No 3 (2008) - Guidelines for consideration of bats in wind farm projects’;
‘Scottish Natural Heritage (2010) – ‘Micro-renewables and Nature Conservation’;
Bat Conservation Trust (2011) – ‘Bat Survey Guidelines Draft wind farm guidance (consultation current)’;
Natural England – ‘Making space for renewable energy: assessing on-shore wind energy development’;
English Heritage – ‘Wind Energy and the Historic Environment’.
‘Planning Practice Guidance for renewable and low carbon energy, DCLG dated July 2013’.
Cornwall Council Landscape (wind and solar) and cumulative impact guidance consultation document Nov 2013.
On-line Planning Practice Guidance.
Consultations:
34. The following responses may have been summarised by the Case Officer in order to identify the main relevant planning issues and concerns.
35. Lanreath Parish Council
Objection - Based on Caradon District Council's Local Plan, this application fails REN1, REN2, CL2, CL18, CL19, CL20, EV3 and paragraph 109 of NPPF.
36. Environmental Health Officer
The EHO is satisfied with the data, methodology and conclusions of the noise report. Assessment of the noise report identified some minor errors, which make no difference to the overall singular and cumulative prediction. I therefore have no objections to the proposed development on the proviso that an appropriate noise condition is applied to any consent.
37. Highways Development Group
No objections.
38. English Heritage
There is a degree of harm to the setting of Lanreath Church caused by the proposed turbine; both in the context of immediate views of the church from higher ground to the East of the village, and in distant views from St Veep Church. In the former, the church tower’s visual primacy in the landscape would be challenged by the close proximity and rotating movement of the turbine in a rural
Page 25 landscape in which the church tower was clearly built to be the dominant man- made feature. In the latter, the view of Lanreath Church from St Veep church, a designed visual relationship, would suffer adverse effect from the proposed turbine drawing the eye, when Lanreath Church should be the distant focus of view as conceived.
The harm is not substantial, but Lanreath church is a heritage asset of the highest significance, and as the NPPF notes, the more important the asset, the greater the weight that should be given to its conservation. We leave it for your authority to weigh the harm that we have identified against the public benefits of the proposal.
39. Historic Environment Officer
Notified.
40. Natural England
Based upon the information provided, Natural England advises the Council that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites. In respect of protected landscape, Natural England does not wish to comment on this development proposal. The development however, relates to the Cornwall AONB. We therefore advise you to seek the advice of the AONB Unit. We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice on protected species. The Standing Advice includes a habitat decision tree which provides advice to planners on deciding if there is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ of protected species being present. You should apply our Standing Advice to this application as it is a material consideration in the determination of applications in the same way as any individual response received from Natural England following consultation.
41. Cornwall Wildlife Trust
Notified.
42. AONB Management Team
Notified.
43. NERL Safeguarding
The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company ("NERL") has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
44. MOD
Notified.
Page 26 Representations:
45. The Council has received 30 letters or e-mails of objection in relation to this application. The main issues raised, which have been summarised are as follows;
• Concerned as to the detrimental effects that this turbine would cause to local residents, wildlife and businesses; • Tourism is a large part of the economy of the area and would be adversely affected by turbine; • The health of local residents would be affected by its presence; • Turbines do not produce very much electricity; • Another application for a wind turbine at Carwen Farm close to this one has already been turned down for environmental reasons. As this proposed turbine is so close, surely this application must be turned down for exactly the same reasons; • The turbine would be easily seen and visually prominent from the AONB and would dominate the skyline; • Shadow flicker and noise impacts; • Adverse impacts on the nearby AGLV; • This proposal conflicts with Caradon Local Plan policies CL2, REN 1, REN 2, CL18, CL 19, CL 20, EV3 and paragraph 109 of NPPF. • Impact on equestrian sports; • Wind turbines are not economical; • Potential flooding issues; • Cumulative impact of piecemeal turbine development; • Cornwall Council policy framework which is currently in place is not sufficiently robust in the protection it affords landscape value and the landscape sensitivity assessment has not been adopted; • Wind turbines should not have a place in what is a relatively unspoilt part of South East Cornwall, which is a mixture of rolling hills, pastureland, woodland, small towns, villages and hamlets, and isolated farmsteads; • There would be no benefit to local residents and to our many valued visitors to this area; • Within the immediate surrounding area of the turbine there are a number of important historic sites, Pelynt Round Barrows Cemetery (10 Bronze Age Bowl Burial Barrows), Bake Ring Settlement Enclosure (Late Iron Age), Hall Rings Settlement (Iron Age Hill Fort), Giants Hedge Earthworks (Massive Post Roman Earth work. Originally running from Lerryn to Looe the largest remaining section runs for 5.5 miles from Lerryn to Muchlarnick passing close to the village of Lanreath), Burial Barrow at Lanreath. Also in view of the turbine and within 3.5 miles are the historic Hill Forts of Bury Down (Lanreath) and Castledore (Fowey). These historic sites are part of our heritage and contribute to the beautiful landscape which attracts visitors from both Britain and abroad. People come to this area for its beauty and its historic interest and an industrial turbine would have a negative impact on the landscape;
46. There have been approximately 65 letters or e-mails of support for this application with the following summarised comments;
• Fossil fuels are a finite resource that is rapidly running out; • Wind power is a sustainable source of electricity; • Wind turbines are a far more sustainable use of farmland rather than the alternatives of solar panels;
Page 27 • Like solar and anaerobic digestion (and hopefully in time wave power), wind power has a crucial part to play in supplying a diverse and sustainable power supply; • Aesthetically wind turbines are elegant; • Prefer solar to Nuclear such as in Somerset; • The wind turbines in Cumbria do not deter walkers using the Cumbrian countryside and this turbine would not reduce tourism; • The site is next to a main road with good access and will not cause significant disturbance during the construction and it is sufficiently far from residential dwellings that noise would not be an issue; • Making a living just through farming is becoming harder and harder therefore we need to support farm diversification; • As the most current planning document and the one that carries the most weight, the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 paragraph 98, states that: 'Local Planning Authorities should... approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable' ; • Several of the objections to this proposal seem pre-occupied with a perceived inefficiency of wind turbines and the overall need for such developments against the government’s targets. The NPPF clearly states; 'When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; • There are targets to be met in the reduction of our use of fossil fuels; • The site is not subject to any significant landscape designations and Cornwall Councils own 'An Assessment of the Landscape Sensitivity to Onshore Wind Energy and Large Scale Photovoltaic Development in Cornwall' (November 2013) supports proposals such as this one; • The NPPF also states that to help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources.'; • All communities therefore have a responsibility to play their part in ensuring a sustainable future for our younger generations; • By consistently objecting to significant schemes such as this, the parish council are effectively considering only the short term desires of the (generally more vocal) older objectors, and neglecting the long- term sustainability of our low carbon energy supplies; • Support any development that promotes the use of Cornwall's natural resources whilst also employing the local community and boosting the economy; • While I can see that there will be a small localised impact, this proposal will not be visible from the vast majority of the wider landscape and the AONB; • The renewable industry is great for Cornwall as it continues to employ local people and boosts our economy; • There is much local support for this project.
Assessment of key planning issues:
47. The key planning issues are as follows;
Principle of development; Landscape and Visual Impact considerations including cumulative impacts; Historic Environment;
Page 28 Potential Noise Impacts; Potential Shadow Flicker Impacts; Highway impact and safety; Ecology and Duration of Permission.
Principle of development and use of Land
48. There is strong policy support at the national and local level for the proposed turbine at Wilton Farm, where development is considered to be appropriate. This reflects the priorities of the Government to provide renewable sources of energy. Specifically, it is a government target to generate 10% of the UK’s electricity supply from renewable energy resources by 2010, and as an aspiration 20% by 2020. Furthermore, it is considered that the main thrust of the NPPF is to positively support sustainable development, and there is positive encouragement for renewable energy projects subject to local issues being addressed. The remainder of the report addresses the other material considerations that have been taken into account by the LPA.
49. The land classification for this site is Grade 2 and as such is considered to be ‘best and most versatile’ land. The total site area for the planning application is approximately 0.9 hectares, the vast majority of which would be re-instated to full agricultural use after the construction period has been completed. This would leave the turbine and sub-station covering an area of only 64 square metres. It is not considered that the temporary loss of such a small area of agricultural land would be significant when balanced against the benefits of the renewable energy proposal. For that reason, there is not considered to be a complicit with Policy CL5 of the Caradon Local Plan (First Alteration) and the development is acceptable in this respect.
Landscape and Visual Impact considerations including cumulative impacts
50. By their nature wind turbines give rise to a visual and landscape impact, and the key issue is to assess whether this impact is considered to override the planning policy support for renewable energy developments, of which wind turbines play an important component. Landscape and visual impacts of wind turbine development are only one consideration to be taken into account in assessing planning applications and that these must be considered alongside the wider environmental, economic and social benefits that arise from renewable energy projects. It is acknowledged that any adverse impact would be temporary depending on the consented life span of the project.
51. The site lies within Landscape Character Area (LCA) CA22 South East Cornwall Plateau, the relevant characteristics of which are:
• Open, medium to large scale gently rolling plateau with pattern of low irregular Cornish hedges with hedgerows and sparse tree cover; • Mix of improved pasture on plateau with some arable, with Cornish hedges or post and rail fencing; • Trees occasional, on boundaries, around farmyards and farm entrances, generally only on lower land; • Gently sloping and undulating stream valleys with very small patches of woodland in lower-lying areas;
Page 29 • Large area of woodland in small valleys around Boconnoc with Deer Park and extensive designed landscape, also at Mount Edgcumbe; • Heavy recent settlement along transport corridors; and • Isolated farms and large modern houses scattered throughout.
52. The Cornwall Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2012) (CLSA) considers that this area has a moderate sensitivity to turbine development, though this increases within the AONB. Furthermore, the LCA would be particularly sensitive to turbines at the higher end of the ‘large category (100-150m).
53. Overall, as the proposed turbine would be sited on open high ground and not within a valley and approximately 1.9km outside the AONB, it is considered that the sensitivity of this part of the landscape to the introduction of a single medium- scale turbine would be moderate as a result. This assessment is supported by the council’s strategy for the deployment of turbines, which allows for single turbines up to the lower end of the large category in the relevant LCA, as well as for a landscape with wind farms, and given that the proposals involve the introduction of a single medium scale turbine set away from the more sensitive areas, it is considered that the proposal adheres to the council’s own landscape strategy and guidance for wind turbines.
54. While the proposed development may be visible from the AGLV designations to the north and to the north east, it is not considered that this impact would be significant due to the intervening distance (at least 1.8km) and local topography between the proposed development and the landscape designations.
55. A visual assessment has been made of the proposed turbine and the principle views in and out of the site, to identify the extent of visual impact arising from the proposed siting of the wind turbine. The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2 nd edition) do not state minimum or maximum zones for ZTV’s, however, 10km is often given as a best practice measurement. In addition, paragraph 63 of the Scottish Natural Heritage Visual Representation of Windfarms guidance (2006) also suggests that for turbines between 53m and 85m in height, it is not possible to identify the taper of a turbine tower or identify nacelle detail at distances of 10km. In practice visibility from these distances is likely to be restricted by vegetation cover, localised variations in the topography and intervening buildings. In addition, experience suggests that at distances in excess of 20km, any views of a single turbine are unlikely to give rise to significant adverse impacts on visual amenity. At this distance, significant adverse effects on landscape character are also unlikely.
56. Impact on the landscape and visual receptors is one of the key issues of wind turbine development that most affects people in the local and wider landscape area. In order to assess the potential impact of this wind turbine on the landscape and sensitive visual receptors, the applicants carried out a landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA). The landscape is assessed with regards to its ability to absorb development without becoming a ‘wind farm landscape’.
57. Landscape effects and viewpoint amenity were categorised by level of significance. Significance ranges from imperceptible, through slight, moderate, substantial, to severe. Impacts of moderate-substantial and above are considered significant and should be balanced against the benefits of the scheme. The LVIA assessment incorporated both a desk study, site survey and analysis of the study area. Page 30
58. The landscape around the proposed wind turbine is a gently undulating agricultural farmland of medium to large regular fields, divided by well-vegetated valleys including the River Fowey enclosed wooded valley approximately 3.7km to the west. These are bisected by a strong network of well-maintained thick hedgerows and hedgebanks as well as the occasional linear tree belt and woodland which divide the fields and provide enclosure and restrict selected views from the surrounding visual amenity receptors. This well-maintained and intermittently settled agricultural landscape, contrasts with the expansive coastline to the south.
59. Visual amenity receptors consist of scattered residential properties and farms and villages connected by a network of major and minor roads and public rights of way. The high sensitivity residential settlements are largely enclosed by a combination of undulating landform and linear vegetation on their boundaries and within the wider landscape. Selected views are possible from the scattered receptors, but generally only where gaps in vegetation cover or from elevated open land which allows expansive views.
60. The enclosure provided by the surrounding undulating landform and linear vegetation cover will ensure that the proposed wind turbine would have limited effects during construction and de-commissioning. Crane activity will be perceived, will draw attention to the proposed development within the wider landscape and be visible for selected visual amenity receptors. The cranes would however be present for a very short period of time and would also be temporary.
61. During the operational period, the proposed wind turbine, due to its scale, would be visible over a relatively large area. However, the majority of effects on landscape character, landscape relevant designations and visual amenity receptors and their views is considered to be neutral, largely because of the enclosure effect provided by the surrounding undulating landform and screening vegetation focussed around residential properties, settlements and transport corridors.
62. There would be views of the turbine for users of the public highway to the east at a distance of approximately 110m, however these effects would be transient in nature and reduce quickly with distance. In addition, the nearby settlement of Lanreath approximately 2.3km to the north east is unlikely to experience notable effects on their visual amenity due to the distance and intervening topography.
63. In respect of landscape and visual impacts, it is important to ensure that the cumulative impacts of the proposal are taken into account. The consented operational turbines close to this site include a 34.2m to tip turbine at Polean Farm approximately 4km to the south east and two 24.5m turbines at Botelet Farm 5.5km to the north east. There is an approved turbine of up to 79m to tip at Bocaddon Farm approximately 3.3km to the north east. This turbine was approved on appeal although is currently undergoing a Judicial Review. There are two further potential turbines to take into account, one 77m to tip at Carwen Farm approximately 360m to the east and one 77m turbine at Woodford Farm approximately 2.5km to the south east; both of which are currently under consideration by the planning Inspector. The turbine at Carwen was refused due to its potential impact on the landscape and setting of the AONB. However, it is proposed at a higher elevation than Furzedown albeit the two sites are relatively close. The turbine at Woodford Farm was proposed on much higher ground and Page 31 significantly closer to the AONB. It is not considered that the reasons for refusal for those turbines apply to the application at Furzedown. The existing turbines appear to be relatively well-absorbed into the sloping plateau landscape and are not considered to dominate the landscape.
64. The closest potential turbine, subject to the final decision by the Planning Inspectorate would be at Carwen Farm although if Carwen and Furzedown turbines were to be viewed from the main settlement of Lanreath, the two turbines would be seen together and at a distance of at least 2km. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable significant adverse landscape impact.
65. The LCA has been identified as having a ‘moderate’ overall landscape sensitivity for wind energy development. The landscape strategy for wind energy development is “for a landscape with occasional small or medium clusters of turbines, or single turbines, comprising turbines that may be up to sizes at the lower end of the ‘large’ category (turbine size and cluster size should relate to landscape scale which varies within the LCA) and no turbines along the undeveloped and undeveloped coastal edge and its immediate hinterland. Elsewhere in the AONB a landscape without wind energy development (except for occasional very small scale single turbines linked to existing buildings e.g. farm buildings).”
66. The proposed wind turbine therefore conforms to the requirements of the LSA and generally would be perceived as a single wind turbine or occasionally as a small cluster, widely separated from other operational, consented and in planning wind energy schemes.
67. Elsewhere, within the study area, the operational, consented and in planning wind turbines are not ‘concentrated’ in any location or dominate the landscape. The op- erational and consented wind turbines are generally perceived as scattered verti- cal elements within an undulating, expansive agricultural landscape. The addition of the proposed wind turbine however would not dominate the landscape charac- ter or create a wind farm landscape.
68. As wind turbines are tall structures which need an open location to fully function, it is neither practicable nor desirable to screen them with planting as is often the case with other types of development such as industrial units. Therefore there is no planting proposed or required as part of the scheme. The site would continue to be farmed and it would also be providing useful renewable energy outputs. Therefore, it is not considered that the application for this turbine should be refused for landscape and visual impact reasons.
69. The closest Listed Building to the site is at Trevollard (Grade II) approximately 800m to the south west. Between Trevollard and the site are a number of Cornish high hedges and the site levels fall by at least 12m from the proposed site. It is therefore considered that the impact on Listed Buildings by the proposal is not significant.
70. To conclude on this issue it is accepted that a turbine of this scale would have an impact on the characteristics of the LCA which the proposal would sit within and would have an effect on the nearby AGLV’s. However it is considered that the turbine would not unacceptably alter the fabric of the LCA or AGLV’s. The proposal has been considered for other landscape impacts and it is not considered that Page 32 these impacts are unacceptable. It is accepted that the proximity of the public highway to the east would give rise to a visual impact for drivers albeit for a relatively short period of time when passing the site, however, on balance, this is not considered to be an overriding reason for refusing consent, and it is concluded the development is considered acceptable in visual and landscape terms.
Historic Environment
71. The NPPF states at paragraph 129 that, ‘Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise.’ Paragraph 132 of the NPPF continues by stating that, ‘when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be accorded’.
72. A desk based assessment, walkover survey, geophysical survey & historic visual impact assessment was carried out on behalf of the applicant to assess the impact of the proposed development on the site and surrounding heritage assets. The assessment aims to consider the potential impact of the scheme upon each heritage asset within the study area and investigate the archaeological potential of the land in the direct vicinity of the turbine location.
73. However, it is important to ensure that any potential historic impact of the proposed turbine is assessed carefully to ensure that there are no significant impacts on either Scheduled Monuments, Conservation Areas or Listed Buildings. This assessment also considers the potential impact of the development on the settings of statutorily designated heritage assets, such as Registered Battlefields and Registered Parks. There is a statutory duty placed on the Local Planning Authority under Section 66(1) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which states;
"In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the Local Planning Authority, or as the case may be, the Secretary of State, shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.”
74. The survey identified two possible former field boundaries which have now been removed. In addition there are a series of possible archaeological anomalies of unknown origin, possibly further field boundaries or agricultural feature such as a field drain.
75. There are nine Grade I and six Grade II* Listed buildings or groups of buildings within 10km of the site that fall within the ZTV provided with the application, to- gether with 34 Grade II Listed buildings.
76. The closest Listed Building is Trevollard (Grade II) approximately 800m to the south west of the proposed turbine location. Trevollard is a 17th century farm- house, now divided into dwellings. It is set on the north side of a small valley which drops to the south and the west into the Trebant Water Valley, leading into Penpoll Creek. The road which runs along the high ground to the north also has tall mature hedgebank boundaries and there is a large modern farm complex to Page 33 the north-east of Trevollard which may further reduce views. The turbine is likely to dominate the area around the farm, although it does not stand within the land- scape context of the small valley in which the Listed Building is set. A minor nega- tive impact is anticipated. 77. Lanreath Conservation Area is approximately 2.1km to the north east and includes nine Grade II Listed structures, one Grade I Listed Church and the Grade II* Listed Court Barton Farmhouse. The village sits on high ground between two high knolls, one to the north-east and one to the south-west. The proposed turbine would be visible from areas within the village, particularly the western outskirts and the high ground to the north-west. Within the conservation area itself local blocking would apply, limiting all views at ground level, from the conservation ar- ea. The main approach to the village along the B3359 from the north and north- east would have direct views to the turbine across the conservation area and vil- lage.
78. The Church of St Manark and St Dunstan at Lanreath (Grade 1) is approximately 2.4km to the north east. This is a Parish church with Norman origins that under- th went significant rebuilding and remodelling in the 15 century. Located on the south east side of Lanreath, the church sits with hedgebanks to the north and south and a wall with gate piers to the west. It is surrounded by houses on its west side, but is still quite open, facing an open parking area. The church has a tall tower which would have wide and direct views to the turbine. The turbine would not stand within the landscape context of the church but is within the wider landscape setting.
79. The Giant’s Hedge is a Scheduled Monument approximately 1.6km to the north of the proposed site. The turbine would not stand within the same landscape context as the earthwork but it does lie within its wider landscape setting. There would be clear inter-visibility with the turbine from the monument and its immediate sur- roundings, although the section which drops into the valley to the west and again to the south-east will be locally blocked by the hedgebanks of the field systems in- to which it has now been completely subsumed. The monument itself would, in places, be locally blocked to some extent by the modern banking associated with the road, which bisects it at its northern end. This change in setting has reduced its landscape presence and the turbine cannot impact it to any great extent.
80. Bake Rings round with attached enclosure and outwork is a Scheduled Monument approximately 2.5km to the east of the proposed turbine. The turbine stands out- side of the landscape context of the rings, as they look down and across the valley to the west, but it does however stand within its wider landscape context. Set within an agricultural field these earthworks and crop marks lie on fairly level ground before the ground falls to a steep valley to the west. No longer located on open unenclosed ground the earthworks have lost their landscape presence within the valley and their functional relationship to the surrounding landscape. Views are slightly wider from the west side of the monument on the break of the slope, with views over the hedgebanks, but even so they are still quite limited. It is not considered that the potential impact on this Scheduled Monument would be signif- icant.
81. Most of the designated heritage assets in the wider area are located at such a dis- tance to minimise the impact of the proposed turbine, or else the contribution of setting to overall significance is less important than other factors. The landscape context of many of these buildings and monuments is such that they would be Page 34 partly or wholly insulated from the effects of the proposed turbine by a combina- tion of local blocking and the topography. However, the presence of a new, mod- ern and visually intrusive vertical element in the landscape would impinge in some way on some of the heritage assets, and have a more pronounced impact on the Church of St. Manarck & St. Dunstan and Ethy House due to the introduction of a new visual element in a relatively sensitive historic rural environment. With this in mind, the overall impact of the proposed turbine can be assessed as nega- tive/moderate, largely due to the introduction of a new visual element in a rela- tively sensitive historic rural environment.
82. English Heritage have commented on this application and they do not consider that the impact on the church would be substantial and therefore do not object to the proposal. The NPPF confirms that where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. This ap- plication is for a temporary development that would provide for renewable energy for the equivalent of over 300 household which would provide a valuable contribu- tion to cutting greenhouse gas emissions which is a principle supported by the NPPF. It is therefore considered that the proposal is supported by the NPPF.
83. In assessing this application, consideration has also been given to a proposed tur- bine at Bocaddon Farm (PA12/09363 - maximum blade tip height of 79m), which is closer and more visually prominent to the Giants Hedge, and has been granted planning permission on appeal. Within the Appeal Decision for that turbine (APP/D0840/A/13/2201006) it is noted:
“…the settings of these SMs have changed over time, including the addition of buildings, poles/masts and road traffic (noise and movement). I concur with the appellant’s detailed ‘Cultural Heritage Settings Assessment’, that the siting of the turbine, its slender form and off-white colour would ensure that it did not interrupt an appreciation of key lines of sight of Bury Down Camp or the Giant’s Hedge. The proposal would not dominate or change the general character of the settings of these SMs, which would remain overwhelmingly agricultural.”
84. Considering this appeal decision, it is not considered, even with the cumulative impacts taken into account that there is any reason to refuse this planning application on the grounds of visual impact towards the Giants Hedge Scheduled Monument.
85. The application has been assessed against the potential impact on the historic environment including special regard as set out above and it is considered that the likely impact on the historic environment would not justify refusal of this application in this respect. It is therefore considered that on balance the proposal is acceptable in respect of the historic environment. In coming to this view regard has been had to Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Noise
86. There are two distinct types of noise source from a wind turbine. The mechanical noise produced by the gearbox, generator and other parts of the drive train; and the aerodynamic noise produced by the passage of blades through the air. Technological advances have resulted in a significant reduction in mechanical noise
Page 35 and it is normally less than, or at a similar level to, the aerodynamic noise, which is generally unobtrusive.
87. The relevant guidance to assess wind turbine noise is ETSU-R-97 ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms (1996)’. The report provides a framework for the measurement of turbine noise and gives indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable degree of protection to neighbours without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind turbine developers or planning authorities. It is stated within ETSU-R-97 that daytime limits within the range of 35 to 40 dB (A) offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind turbine neighbours without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind turbine development. International Guidance concerning the effects of noise upon sleep is covered in a number of documents discussed within ETSU-R-97. In general, if internal noise levels are limited to a range of no more than 30 to 35dB(A), then sleep disturbance and any adverse effects of noise upon sleep would be minimised.
88. A noise assessment was carried out for the proposed site at Furzedown Farm and was undertaken by professional acousticians, according to the methods stipulated in ETSU-R-97 . The objective of the noise assessment was to assess the likelihood of the proposed wind turbine impacting adversely on the nearest noise sensitive receptors (NSR’s), and to assess, by calculation, the noise impact on those NSR’s in accordance with guidance given by the LPA and nationally recognised standards. The nearest non-financially involved residential noise sensitive receptors are Highgate approximately 500m to the south west and Treire Farm approximately 600m to the west of the proposed turbine.
89. The results of the noise assessment established that the 35dB limit would not be exceeded at either of these properties nor any other non-financially involved properties.
90. The assessment has been carried out according to ETSU-R-97. Predictions of the turbine noise have been carried out according to the agreed calculation method, ISO 9613-2, based on a EWT DW54 wind turbine. ETSU-R-97 states that "if the noise is limited to an LA90,10min of 35dB(A) up to wind speeds of 10m/s at 10m height, then this condition alone would offer sufficient protection of amenity" . The Councils Environmental Health Officer has considered the application and is satisfied with the proposal subject to an appropriate noise condition.
91. It is therefore considered that there are no reasons in respect of noise why this application should not be approved.
Potential Shadow flicker impacts
92. Shadow flicker is the casting of a shadow over neighbouring properties caused by the rotating blades of the turbine. The movement causes the shadow to flick on and off, and the effect of this occurs inside buildings where the flicker appears through a narrow window opening. Shadow flicker only occurs within 10 rotor diameters of a turbine and therefore could only affect the dwellings that would fall within a distance of 540m of the turbine location and are within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines. The effects of shadow flicker lessen with distance and the effect varies with weather conditions; the effect being greater during bright and sunny conditions.
Page 36 93. The incidence of shadow flicker is dependent on the following:
• the direction of the residence relative to the turbine(s); • the distance from the turbine(s); • the turbine hub-height and rotor diameter; • the time of year; • the proportion of day-light hours in which the turbines operate; • the frequency of bright sunshine and cloudless skies (particularly at low elevations above the horizon); and, • the prevailing wind direction.
94. If required, shadow flicker can be best mitigated by ensuring the turbine is positioned beyond a distance equal to the measure of ten rotor blade diameters. Colour and texture treatment of the blade can also assist with mitigation with light grey semi-matt finishes being the best from a visual point of view only.
95. The applicant has carried out modelling of the shadow flicker using a study radius of 600m. The shadow flicker assessment does not take into account any screening (e.g. from trees, hedges and other buildings) between the houses and turbine, and assumes perfect weather conditions when any possible shadow flicker effects will be at their worst.
96. Two houses were found within a 600m radius of the proposed turbine, one of which is financially involved and has therefore not been considered and the other house (Highgate) would not be subject to any shadow flicker (0 hours per year).
97. It is therefore concluded that shadow flicker would not have a significant impact on the residents of the properties located near to the proposed wind turbine.
Highway impact and safety
98. Abnormal loads are associated with the delivery of turbine components and cranes are required for turbine erection and therefore proposed access routes for these abnormal loads have been assessed. The proposed site is located on private land where there would be no public access to the wind turbine location and at least 110m from the public highway. Access for servicing and maintenance would be via an existing farm gate on the applicants land. The track through the field would be a temporary track required during the construction of the foundations and the erection of the turbine. Annual maintenance would not require a crane as the nacelle could be accessed via a ladder in the tower.
99. There have been no adverse safety comments received from the Highways Officer in relation to this application and the applicant has submitted and has agreed with the Highways Officer a Construction Traffic Management Plan for the proposal. There is no evidence to suggest that moving blades cause a distraction to motorists and it is therefore considered that the application is acceptable in respect of any highway concerns.
Ecology
100. Cornwall Council has a duty, as the competent authority as defined by Regulation 9(5) of the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2010 (the Habitats Regulations) and under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity Page 37 in exercising its functions; this duty includes the requirements to have regard to protected species.
101. The siting of the turbine accords with the “Recommended approach for Bats and single small wind turbines in Cornwall” (jointly agreed between Cornwall Council, Cornwall Wildlife Trust, Natural England (TIN051) and the Cornwall Bat Group), and is located beyond 60 metres from established hedges.
102. The applicant included an extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey with the application which was carried out in July 2014. The survey stated that the site of the proposed turbine consists of a single field of arable farmland that slopes towards the west and is bounded by Cornish hedgebanks. The hedgebanks on site support low, patchy hedgerows of native shrubs with a number of immature broadleaved trees present along the western hedge. A narrow band of semi-improved neutral grassland fringes the hedgebanks on site and a post and rail fence runs along the northern edge of the southern hedgebank. Well-worn mammal pathways are present across the site.
103. Woodland 700 metres to the east of the proposed turbine is part of East Court and Court Wood CWS. The survey established that there is no potential for a single wind turbine at this site to impact either the Habitats or Species of Principal Con- cern for which this CWS was chosen.
104. It is likely that bird species are nesting within hedgebanks at this site; any activi- ties that are likely to negatively impact these potential bird nesting habitats, such as hedgebank removal, should be completed in the period between September to February, outside the accepted bird nesting season. If this is not practicable, ac- tivities should be preceded by a thorough inspection for nesting birds by a suitably qualified person. If nesting birds are discovered activities should be halted until nested chicks have fledged. Furthermore, it is unlikely that birds sensitive to wind turbines use this site on a regular basis and it is extremely unlikely that birds would be significantly impacted by the operation of a single turbine at this site.
105. This site is generally of low value for foraging and commuting bats with no po- tential for roosting bats. It is highly unlikely that the construction phase at this site would have an impact on bat species. Bat survey work is generally recom- mended where the turbine would be located within 50m of various bat features. The proposed turbine has a hub height of 50 metres with a blade radius of 27 metres. To achieve a distance of 50 metres from the area swept by these blades, a 2 metre high hedge must be 60 metres or more from the turbine base. All of the hedges are outside of this range with the closest being to the south at 85m distant. Therefore, no further surveys are required to assess the impact of the operational phase on bats.
106. There is some potential that Dormice could be present within species rich hedge- rows on the Cornish hedgebanks enclosing this site. These habitats would not be impacted by the proposed wind turbine and Dormice do not need to be consid- ered further in relation to the proposed wind turbine at this site.
107. The LPA has had regard to Government Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System, in reaching a decision on this planning application. Taking all of the points into consideration, it is not considered that any protected species or habitats would be affected by either the installation or operation of the proposed Page 38 wind turbine and the proposal would not adversely affect the conservation status of any species. The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of ecological impact and potential mitigation in accordance with the NPPF.
108. It is therefore considered that on balance, there is no need for any further ecological survey work, the proposed wind turbine development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the ecology and nature conservation interest of the area and is considered acceptable.
Duration of Permission
109. The application seeks consent for a temporary period of 25 years and this can be conditioned within any planning permission. Once the life of the permission is reached, the site would be decommissioned, all infrastructure removed and the site restored to its original state.
Conclusion:
110. The application has been carefully considered against the existing policy framework for determining planning applications. There is an identified need to provide renewable energy initiatives to help bring about a reduction in Carbon emissions. There is no disputing that a 77m wind turbine would, if built, appear to be a substantial structure in the countryside.
111. The fact remains that wind turbines do impact upon the landscape; however, the visual harm from the turbine must be balanced against their ability to harness renewable energy. The renewable energy agenda is at the forefront of the planning system. Policy direction, at both national and local level, encourages the promotion of renewable energy schemes. The reality is that wind turbines form the most likely technology which is readily available to come forward in the short term to meet broad energy targets. This will inevitably change the character and appearance of the countryside and presence of wind turbines on undesignated landscapes will become increasingly common and something that needs to be accepted in pursuit of renewable energy. There is no disputing that for the energy targets to be met the development of wind turbines, in addition to alternative renewable energy generation systems, would be necessary.
112. The negative elements of the scheme primarily relate to the visual impact of the turbine. It is considered that other than the visual impact many of the other issues set out in this report can be mitigated to an acceptable extent and planning conditions are recommended to be used to ensure that no unidentified impacts arise from this development.
113. In respect of the ecological impacts, in choosing the site for the proposed turbine, the applicant incorporated mitigation measure and no ecological impacts are now considered likely. Furthermore, the impact upon residential amenity from noise generation has been considered and also whether the physical size of the turbine is overbearing upon individual residential properties. The welfare of wildlife and protection of flora and fauna was accounted for within the application.
114. The identified adverse impacts generated by the proposed wind turbine, as set out in this report, are not considered to be so great that they outweigh the identified benefits of the scheme. Therefore, after careful consideration of all the information
Page 39 available, it is considered that having regard to national and local policy for renewable energy development and on basis that the proposed wind turbine would not unacceptably harm the landscape character and visual appearance of the area as a whole, a recommendation for approval is warranted.
Recommendation:
115. Planning application PA14/07782 be approved subject to the conditions as set out below;
Conditions
1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within three years of the date of this decision.
Reason: To comply with s91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and to prevent accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.
2. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the following drawings and documents:
Drawing PR2817-PA-BP-01 (Block Plan) Drawing 1000900 Rev 02 (Direct Wind 54-HH50) Drawing PR2817-PA-LP-01 (Location Plan) Drawing PR2817-PA-SH-01 (Switchgear Housing) Construction Traffic Management Plan Dated 27/10/14
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and to meet with Government Guidance: Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions: October 2010
3. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) shall be notified in writing of the date when electricity from the development is first supplied to the grid and within 25 years and six months from that date, the turbine, foundations and all associated structures shall be dismantled and removed from the site. The developer shall notify the LPA in writing no later than five working days following cessation of power production. The site shall subsequently be restored in accordance with a Decommissioning Method Statement that shall be submitted for the approval of the LPA at least 18 months before the date of the decommissioning of the wind turbine. That method statement shall include details of the manner, management and timing of the reinstatement works to be undertaken and shall be accompanied by a Traffic Management Plan for the removal of the large turbine components. The removal works and the reinstatement of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA.
Reason: In recognition of the expected life of the wind turbine and that infrastructure needs to be removed to prevent unacceptable landscape and visual impacts in accordance with saved Policies CL9, REN1 and REN2, of the Caradon Local Plan First Alteration (CLP).
4. The LPA shall be notified if the wind turbine fails to produce electricity for supply to the electricity grid for a continuous period of 12 months. The wind turbine and
Page 40 its associated ancillary equipment shall be removed from the site within a period of 6 months from the end of that 12 month period, in accordance with a scheme that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. That scheme shall include the details of the manner, management and timing of the works to be undertaken and shall also include a Traffic Management Plan for the removal of the large turbine components. That part of the site shall be restored in accordance with a detailed scheme that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
Reason: In recognition of the expected life of the wind turbines and that infrastructure needs to be removed to prevent unacceptable landscape and visual impacts in accordance with saved Policies CL9, REN1 and REN2 of the CLP.
5. Only the approved 77m to tip wind turbine shall be installed on the site.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not have a detrimental impact on quality of life and the natural environment in accordance with saved Policies CL9, REN1 and REN2 of the CLP.
6. No development shall be begun until full details of the switch gear housing, including its design, dimensions, location and materials has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the LPA. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with saved Policies CL9, REN1 and REN2 of the CLP and Para 98 of the NPPF.
7. The noise emissions during construction of the proposed development shall not exceed an LAeq, T noise level of 65 dB 1-metre from the façade of any occupied residential dwelling, during the construction working day (0800-1800 Monday to Friday and 0800-1300 Saturday). There shall be no construction operations at any other times. The construction noise level shall be determined in accordance with the guidance presented in BS 5228: 2009: Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites.
Reason: In the interests of protecting living conditions of the occupiers of nearby dwellings in accordance with paragraphs 98 and 109 of the NPPF
8. The rating level of noise emissions from the wind turbine/s (including the application of any penalties for tonal and/or amplitude modulation components), when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes (to this condition), when operating in isolation shall not exceed the values for relevant integer wind speeds set out in, or derived from Table 1 below, using an effective sound power level of 99.6 + (0.9 x 1.645)] = 101.1 dB(A), at the curtilage of any noise-sensitive premises lawfully existing or which has planning permission at the date of this consent at wind speeds up to and including 10 ms -1 at 10m height. Sound limits at noise sensitive properties include those stated in Table 1 below:
Page 41 Table 1: sound limits LA90 10 mins at wind speeds up to and inclu d- ing 10 ms -1 at the curtilage of residential receptors Property name National Grid Ref Sound limit Carwen Farm 216793,055786 33 dB(A) Boggamill 217031,055244 30 dB(A) Tregunnick 217021,054860 28 dB(A) Trefawl 216622,054667 28 dB(A) Highgate 215905,055204 34 dB(A) Treire Farm 215800,055789 35 dB(A)** Furzedown Farm* 216222,055815 37 dB(A) * denotes financially involved property ** includes valley penalty of 3 dB(A)
a) For the purpose of this condition, curtilage is defined as “the boundary of a law- fully existing domestic garden area”. b) At the request of the Local Planning Authority (LPA), the wind turbine operator shall, at their own expense, employ a suitably competent and qualified person to measure and assess, by a method to be approved in writing by the LPA, whether noise from the turbine/s meets the specified level. The assessment shall be commenced within 21 days of the notification, or such longer time as approved by the LPA. c) The method described in paragraph (b) above shall include an assessment of to- nality La,k as described in IEC 61400-11 (small/large turbines) and ISO 1996- 2:2007 (small turbines). Where a tone is identified a penalty shall be added to the measured sound levels in accordance with ETSU-R-97 and guidance note 2 attached to this condition. d) The method described in paragraph (b) above shall, where requested by the LPA, include an assessment of amplitude modulation as described in guidance note 1 and 2 attached to this condition. e) A copy of the assessment, together with all recorded data and audio files ob- tained as part of the assessment, shall be provided to the LPA (in electronic form) within 60 days of the notification. f) If the assessment requested by the LPA demonstrates that the specified level is being exceeded, the operator of the turbine/s shall take immediate steps to en- sure that the noise emissions from the turbine/s are reduced to, or below, the specified noise limit. The operator shall provide written confirmation of that re- duction to the LPA within a time period to be agreed with the LPA. In the event that it is not possible to achieve the specified noise limit with mitigation within a reasonable time period, then the operation of the turbine/s shall cease. g) In the event that an alternative turbine/s to that contained in the submitted noise assessment (MLM Acoustics Ref:AB/100499/R1 14/07/14) is chosen for in- stallation, then development shall not take place until a new desktop site specific noise assessment of the proposed turbine has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Page 42 h) Where micro-siting of the turbine/s has been approved, the applicant shall pro- vide the 12-figure national grid reference of the installed turbine/s to the Local Planning Authority within 4 weeks of commissioning of the turbine.
Reason: In the interests of protecting living conditions for occupiers of nearby dwellings in accordance with paragraphs 98 and 109 of the NPPF.
9. In the event that an alternative turbine to that contained in the submitted noise assessment is chosen for installation, then development shall not take place until a new desktop site specific noise assessment of the proposed turbine has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of protecting living conditions for occupiers of nearby dwellings in accordance with paragraphs 98 and 109 of the NPPF.
Guidance Note 1 (a) Where, in accordance with the approved measurement protocol under paragraph (d) of the noise condition, noise emissions at the location or locations where compli- ance measurements are being undertaken contain or are likely to contain an amplitude modulation component, the requirement for an amplitude modulation penalty is to be assessed and if necessary calculated using the following procedure.
(b) For each 10 minute interval for which LA90,10minute data have been determined as valid in accordance with the approved methodology from part (c) of the condition, an amplitude modulation assessment shall be performed on noise emissions on consec- utive, non-overlapping 10 sec periods within each 10 minute interval. Where a particu- lar 10 sec period is corrupted, that period shall be discarded from further assessment.
(c) For each of the 10 sec samples within a particular 10 min interval, the level of am- plitude modulation shall be determined using the following methodology, which is in- tended to determine the ‘average’ level of AM, at the blade passing frequency, within each sample: (i) The 10 sec data shall be reduced to a time series of 100 values of LAeq,100msec.
(ii) The time series is to be de-trended using a 5th order polynomial.
(iii) A single-sided, power spectral density function, using a Rectangular window, shall be calculated from the de-trended LAeq,100msec data. A frequency resolution, ∆f, of 5/128 Hz shall be used, and the spectrum shall comprise 128 lines, with a maximum frequency of 5 Hz.
(iv) For 10 sec periods where no amplitude modulation is observed, either in the time series of step (c)(i), or where there is no obvious peak in the modulation spectrum, from step (c)(iii), then the objective measure of the level of amplitude modulation, for that 10 sec period, Ai, shall be set as zero. (v) The energy in the band from 0.9fc to 1.1fc shall be calculated and denoted Ec, where fc is the blade passing frequency in hertz.
(vi) The objective measure of the level of amplitude modulation, for each 10 sec period, i, is then derived as Ai, where:
Ai = 2 ▪ √2▪∆ f ▪E c
Page 43 (d) The overall, objective measure of the level of amplitude modulation, A, for that 10 min interval shall be taken as the arithmetic mean of the 12 highest levels of amplitude modulation, Ai, from step (c)(vi), excluding any periods discarded as in (b) above. This is intended to determine an indicative level of AM, over each 10 min period, which is the average of the top 20 % of measured AM levels.
(e) If a value of A greater than 0 dB results from the above, the Independent Consult- ant shall investigate the SCADA data for that period and verify that the peak in the modulation spectrum, fc, is consistent with the rotational frequencies of the turbines’ rotors.
(f) Where there is doubt about the validity of a 10 min interval result, for example due to extraneous sources of noise, the Independent Consultant shall listen to the 10 mi- nute of recorded noise data from which the amplitude modulation penalty was derived. If it is clear that the amplitude modulation is generat- ed by such an extraneous source then the amplitude modulation penalty shall be dis- carded.
(g) The objective measure of the level of amplitude modulation shall be plotted against wind speed for each of the 10 minute periods. For periods in which no amplitude modu- lation is identified, a value of zero shall be used.
(h) A least squares “best fit” linear regression line shall then be performed to establish the average level of amplitude modulation for each integer wind speed derived from the value of the “best fit” line at each integer wind speed. If there is no apparent trend with wind speed then a simple arithmetic mean shall be used.
(i) The amplitude modulation penalty is derived from the average level of amplitude modulation for each integer wind speed according to the figure below.
Guidance Note 2 (a) If a tonal penalty and/or an amplitude modulation penalty is required in accordance with section d of the condition or Guidance Note 1 the rating level of the turbine noise at each wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the measured noise level as determined from the best fit curve described in (b) below and the penalties for tonal and amplitude Page 44 modulation noise as derived in accordance with section d of the condition and Guidance Note 1 at each integer wind speed. Where penalties are indicated for both tonal noise and amplitude modulation noise, then the total penalty to be added to the measured noise level shall be the arithmetic sum of the individual penalties.
(b) For those data points considered valid, values of the LA90,10 minute noise measurements and corresponding values of the 10- minute wind speed, as derived from the standardised ten metre height wind speed averaged across all operating wind turbines using the approved methodology from part (c) of the condition, shall be plot- ted on an XY chart with noise level on the Y-axis and the standardised mean wind speed on the X-axis. A least squares, “best fit” curve of an order deemed appropriate by the independent consultant (but which may not be higher than a fourth order) should be fitted to the data points and define the wind turbine/s noise level at each in- teger speed.
Informative
1. The applicant must inform the MOD of:
• the date construction starts and ends; • the maximum height of construction equipment and • the latitude and longitude of the turbine.
2. Where access tracks need to be provided, permeable tracks should be used, and localised SUDS such as swales and infiltration trenches should be used to control any run-off.
If suitable controlled wastes such as subsoils, shillet, bricks, tiles, concrete are to be used in the construction of the access track and the hardstandings then a U1 exemption will need to be registered with the Environment Agency (EA) before the use of any such waste is authorised. Further information can be found on the EA website:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/permitting/32322.aspx
All works should follow the guidance in the Pollution Prevention Guidelines, copies of which can be downloaded from the EA website:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/pollution/39083.aspx
Page 45