Public Document Pack

Planning, Taxi Licensing & Rights of Way Committee

Meeting Venue Council Chamber - Neuadd Maldwyn, Welshpool, Powys

Meeting Date Thursday, 3 December 2015 County Hall Llandrindod Wells Meeting Time Powys 1.00 pm or on the later arrival of the LD1 5LG Committee

For further information please contact Carol Johnson 26th November, 2015 01597826206 [email protected]

AGENDA

1. APOLOGIES PTLRW107 - 2015

To receive apologies for absence.

2. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING PTLRW108 - 2015

To authorise the Chair to sign the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 12th November, 2015 as a correct record. (To Follow)

Planning

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PTLRW109 - 2015

a) To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to items to be considered on the agenda. b) To receive Members' requests that a record be made of their membership of town or community councils where discussion has taken place of matters for the consideration of this Committee. c) To receive declarations from Members of the Committee that they will be acting as 'Local Representative' in respect of an individual application being considered by the Committee. d) To note the details of Members of the County Council (who are not Members of the Committee) who will be acting as 'Local Representative' in respect of an individual application being considered by the Committee. 1 4. PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION PTLRW110 - 2015 BY THE COMMITTEE

To consider the reports of the Head of Regeneration, Property and Commissioning and to make any necessary decisions thereon.

(Pages 5 - 8)

4.1. Updates Any Updates will be added to the Agenda, as a Supplementary Pack, wherever possible, prior to the meeting. (To Follow)

4.2. P/2014/1102 Blaen y Glyn Llangurig, Llanidloes, Powys, SY18 6SL (Pages 9 - 50)

4.3. P/2013/1064 Penllanerch, Glascwm, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5SE (Pages 51 - 212)

4.4. P/2014/1191 Land at Brynrorin, Abermule, Montgomery, Powys, SY15 6JJ (Pages 213 - 236)

4.5. P/2015/0915 Land at Little Bank Farm, Mellington, Churchstoke, Montgomery, Powys, SY15 6TL (Pages 237 - 244)

4.6. P/2015/0840 Poyning Farm, Llanddewi, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 6SN (Pages 245 - 260)

4.7. P/2015/0605 Pt OS 4647 Land at Llanerfyl, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 0AS (Pages 261 - 274)

4.8. P/2015/0899 Land at Ty Isaf, Bont Dolgadfan, Llanbrynmair, Powys, SY19 7BQ (Pages 275 - 292)

4.9. P/2015/0931 Land adj. Pen Y Maes Tregynon Newtown Powys SY16 3EH (Pages 293 - 300)

4.10. P/2015/0197 Development adjacent to Graigwen, Llanllwchaiarn, Newtown, Powys, SY16 3BH (Pages 301 - 310)

4.11. P/2015/0461 Haulfryn, Pen-Y-Garnedd, Llanrhaeadr Ym Mochnant, Oswestry, SY10 0AW (Pages 311 - 318)

4.12. P/2015/0202 Pen y Berllan, Pontrobert, Meifod, Powys, SY22 6JH (Pages 319 - 326)

4.13. TREE/2015/0038 Trees adjacent The Old School, Tregynon, Newtown, SY16 3EH (Pages 327 - 330)

4.14. P/2015/0942 Council Depot (Waste & Recycling) Station Road Rhayader LD6 5AW (Pages 331 - 342)

5. DECISIONS OF THE HEAD OF REGENERATION, PTLRW111 - 2015 PROPERTY AND COMMISSIONING ON DELEGATED APPLICATIONS

To receive for information a list of decisions made by the Head of Regeneration, Property and Commissioning under delegated powers. (Pages 343 - 358) This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW110 - 2015

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee 3rd December, 2015

For the purpose of the Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the background papers relating to each individual planning application constitute all the correspondence on the file as numbered in the left hand column.

Applications for consideration by Committee:

Application No: Nature of Development: Community: Location of Development: O.S. Grid Reference: Applicant: Date Received: Recommendation of Head of Planning:

P/2014/1102 Full: Construct and operate 6 wind turbines with a maximum tip height of 100m Llangurig and maximum hub height of 59m together with ancillary development comprising 291676 281370 substation, control building, new and upgraded access points and tracks, new 04/12/2014 alternative recreational track, hardstanding and temporary compound and associated works

Blaen y Glyn Llangurig Llanidloes Powys SY18 6SL

Mr Stuart Vendy

Recommendation - Objection

P/2013/1064 Full: Installation of a single wind turbine (24.8m to hub and 34.5m to blade tip) and Glascwm Community Council associated equipment housing (retrospective) 313900 252520 Penllanerch, Glascwm, Llandrindod Wells, 01/11/2013 Powys, LD1 5SE

C & L Hammond

Recommendation – Conditional Approval

Page 5 P/2014/1191 Erection of a 32,000 bird free range egg production unit (extension of existing Llandyssil with Abermule poultry unit business) together with feed bins and associated works 314068 295375 Land at Brynrorin, Abermule, Montgomery, 21/11/2014 Powys, SY15 6JJ

Mr Daniel Jones

Recommendation – Conditional Approval

P/2015/0915 Erection of an affordable dwelling, installation of septic tank, formation of Churchstoke vehicular access including improvements to existing access at junction opposite "The 326764 291675 Pullets" (resubmission of P/2015/0463)

02/10/2015 Land at Little Bank Farm, Mellington, Churchstoke, Montgomery, Powys, SY15 6TL

Katie Higgs and George Thomas

Recommendation – Refusal

P/2015/0840 Erection of pig rearing unit, formation of muck store and siting of effluent tank, Llanddewi erection of feed bin, upgrading of existing access track and alterations to vehicular 313076 268051 access (resubmission of P/2014/0790)

21/08/2015 Poyning Farm, Llanddewi, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 6SN

Mr B S Bufton, B S Bufton & Son

Recommendation – Conditional Consent

P/2015/0605 Erection of a detached bungalow, formation of vehicular access road and installation of Llanerfyl a septic tank

303533 309416 Pt OS 4647 Land at Llanerfyl, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 0AS 26/06/2015 Miss Lowri Jones

Recommendation - Refusal

Page 6 P/2015/0899 Installation of a wind turbine (blade tip height 41.3 m and hub height 29.5 m) at Llanbrynmair grid ref: 287138 / 298383 and all associated works 287132 298358 Land at Ty Isaf, Bont Dolgadfan, 24/09/2015 Llanbrynmair, Powys, SY19 7BQ

Mr Aled Jarman

Recommendation – Conditional Consent

P/2015/0931 Erection of 2 dwellings, formation of vehicular access and associated works Tregynon C (outline)

309470 298585 Land adj. Pen Y Maes Tregynon Newtown Powys SY16 3EH 21/09/2015 Mrs Carol Jerman

Recommendation – Conditional Consent

P/2015/0197 Erection of five dwellings, creation of vehicular access and infrastructure Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn improvements

312454 292502 Development adjacent to Graigwen, Llanllwchaiarn, Newtown, Powys, SY16 23/02/2015 3BH

Mr & Mrs David & Sue Jones

Recommendation – Conditional Consent

P/2015/0461 Removal of condition no.3 attached to planning permission M17944 (occupancy Llanrhaeadr Ym Mochnant condition)

310420 323021 Haulfryn, Pen-Y-Garnedd, Llanrhaeadr Ym Mochnant, Oswestry, SY10 0AW 25/09/2015 Mr G Jones

Recommendation – Consent

P/2015/0202 Removal of condition number 2 of planning approval M12401 (Occupancy Condition) Llangyniew Pen y Berllan, Pontrobert, Meifod, Powys,

Page 7 311157 314819 SY22 6JH

23/02/2015 Mr & Mrs Gwalchmai

Recommendation – Approval

TREE/2015/0038 Reduction of canopies to 2 no. trees within a conservation area Tregynon Trees adjacent The Old School, Tregynon, 309525 298688 Newtown, SY16 3EH

29/10/2015 Mr Danny Jarman, Powys County Council

Recommendation - Approval

P/2015/0942 The redevelopment of the existing waste & recycling bulking facility including removal Rhayader of 2 store buildings, construction of building for bulking up of waste and cardboard, new 296632.9 267941.51 welfare amenity building, conversion of existing welfare unit to offices and all 28/09/2015 associated works

Council Depot (Waste & Recycling) Station Road Rhayader Rhayader LD6 5AW

Mr Simon Kendrick Powys County Council

Recommendation - Approval

Page 8 PTLRW110 - 20152

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2014/1102 Grid Ref: 291676 281370

Community Llangurig Valid Date: Officer: Council: 04/12/2014 Mr Andrew Metcalfe, Planning Consultant

Applicant: Bryn Blaen Wind Farm Ltd c/o Cunnane Town Planning LLP, PO Box 305, Northern Region, Manchester, M21 3BQ

Location: Blaen y Glyn Llangurig, Llanidloes, Powys, SY18 6SL

Proposal: Full: Construct and operate 6 wind turbines with a maximum tip height of 100m and maximum hub height of 59m together with ancillary development comprising substation, control building, new and upgraded access points and tracks, new alternative recreational track, hardstanding and temporary compound and associated works

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

Introduction

This application was submitted on 27 October 2014 and validated on 4 December 2014.

The application is subject to an appeal (lodged on 10th May 2015) to the Planning Inspectorate on grounds of non-determination. The applicant has requested that the appeal be ‘conducted by way of an Inquiry, as is the standard practice for wind farm appeals’. The appeal has been assigned the reference number APP/T6850/A/15/3133966.

The objective of this report is to secure the Local Planning Authority’s position on the proposed development.

Site location and description

A detailed description of the application site (site) can be found in Section 3 of the Environmental Statement (ES).

The site is located c. 3.5km south west of Llanidloes and 1.6km north of the village of Llangurig and is approximately 36.07 hectares (Figure 1.1 of Volume II).

The site is principally in agricultural use consisting of undulating grassland and arable land with habitats which are typical of modern agricultural holdings. The access track crosses the Class III C2075 local road in two locations in close proximity to Blaen y Glyn farm.

- 1 - Page 9

A full description of the proposed development is set out in Section 3 of the ES. In summary the proposal comprises:  Six wind turbines (each 100m to tip with a maximum capacity of 2.5MW) and associated infrastructure including crane hard standing areas.  Construction of c. 5.4km of new access tracks, with 420m existing tracks also upgraded. Including a new site entrance off the A470.  Construction of temporary site compound (20m x 30m) south of turbine T4.  Construction of new on-site substation (c. 40m x 20m) which includes a control building (25m x 10m) between turbines T1 and T2.  Two alternative recreational tracks (c. 3km).  Temporary construction compound to be removed following completion of the construction phase.

The proposal will generate up to 15MW of renewable electricity which is the equivalent of providing electricity for 8,400 homes and displace 23,126 tonnes of CO2 emissions during each year of operation. The development would be operational for a period of 25 years from the date electricity is first exported to the grid.

Consultee Response

PCC Commons Registration and Definitive Maps Officer

Responded but ‘has no comments’.

PCC Building Control

No response received at time of writing.

PCC Countryside Services

Response dated 12 November 2015 highlights that Countryside Services recommend that turbines are kept at least tip height from public footpaths and 200m from bridleways. Response notes that this proposal fails to achieve this for 4 turbines:  Turbine 3 is 120m from Bridleway 11  Turbine 4 is 160m from Bridleway 11  Turbine 5 is 100m from Bridleway 11  Turbine 6 is 110m from Bridleway 11 & 140m from Bridleway 11(A)

It also notes that this bridleway hosts a promoted event run by the British Horse Society. The applicant is offering a ‘Recreational Trail’ to compensate for failing to achieve the recommended separation distances. It is noted however that this ‘Recreational Trail’ does not achieve the recommended distances either.

That said, Countryside Services does not object to the proposal subject to a number of matters outlined within the response being secured by any permission. These include:

- 2 - Page 10  The Recreational Trail being open to walkers, cyclists and horse riders for the life of the wind farm. All costs for maintenance, furniture and signage lie with the applicant.  No PRoW are to be obstructed during the construction or operation of the wind farm.  No turbine to be micro sited closer to any turbine than is currently shown. An Access Improvement Fund of £15,000 to be provided on commencement by the applicant to be spent on maintaining and improving the Public Right of Way (PRoW) network.

[N.B. Countryside Services state several times in their response that matters are to be secured by condition. It should be noted that several matters listed above would need to be secured by a Section 106 Agreement, such as the permissive bridleway]

PCC Environmental Health

Email dated 20 November 2015 confirms that the wind farm can operate within the limits set by ETSU-R-97 and agrees that if granted appropriate noise conditions could be imposed. States that ‘Careful consideration of these noise limits needs to be made in order to ensure that the right degree of protection is afforded to residents and also that the future wind farm developments are not unnecessarily prevented due to use of the available limit.’

PCC Tourism

No response at time of writing.

PCC Land Drainage

No response at time of writing.

PCC Ecology

Response dated 25 November 2015 considers the potential impacts to local biodiversity and the appropriateness of any mitigation proposed. The response does not refer to impacts to Internationally and Nationally designated sites, European and Nationally protected species, or peat as it understood that Natural Resources Wales (NRW) will be providing comments on this. Key points raised in this response include:

 The ES confirms the loss of breeding Lapwing as a result of the proposed development would be considered significant under the EIA Regulations.  Little assessment has been provided within the ES with regards to disturbance or displacement impacts to Curlew. There is potential that these turbines could prevent any future breeding attempts by Curlew in the surrounding suitable habitats.  Concern regarding displacement of Golden Plover identified in ES, but that the impact on this species would not be significant.  Collision risk assessment identified that the collision risk is not significant to Golden Plover, Red Kite and Lapwing.  Whilst the loss of the area of blanket bog habitat associated with the track between turbines 1 and 2 and the substation is considered not to be significant with regard to the EIA Regulations the loss is nevertheless considered to be a district level of significance due to the poor quality of the blanket bog in these locations.

- 3 - Page 11  The loss of upland and lowland heath habitats due to the proposed development is not in accordance with the requirements of the Powys LDP policies.  A detailed pollution prevention plan in accordance with national pollution prevention guidelines to ensure that watercourses and habitats present on the site are not negatively impacted by the proposed development should be secured through an appropriately worded pre-commencement condition.  The EIA Scoping Opinion provided by NRW identifies that a Habitat Management Plan should be produced, this request from NRW is also referred to in table 7.6 in the Ecology Chapter of Vol 1 of the ES. No details of any habitat management plans have been provided within the ES. Details of potential habitat management are required to determine their appropriateness and to establish any potential impacts to existing habitats present on site.  Regulation 9 of the Habitats Regulations and Section 40 of the NERC Act (the NERC duty), Planning Policy Wales and Technical Advice Note 5: Nature Conservation and Planning, planning authorities are required to restore and enhance biodiversity and therefore a detailed scheme of habitat enhancements should be identified with regards to the proposed development. Table 7.13 of Volume 1 the ES contains a column entitled ‘Proposed Mitigation and Ecological Enhancement’, whilst some mitigation measures are identified no enhancement measures are provided.  A detailed Construction Phase and Post Construction Monitoring Plan should be secured through an appropriately worded pre-commencement condition. All post- construction monitoring surveys should follow standard and current best practice survey methodology and be undertaken for at least years 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 & 15 post- construction as set out in the SNH guidance.

The response concluded by stating that the application currently provides insufficient information to demonstrate that there would be no negative impact to the local biodiversity features present at the site. The following information is required to demonstrate that the application would comply with the requirements of local and national planning policy to conserve, protect and where possible enhance biodiversity:  Measures to compensate for the loss of areas of blanket bog  Measures to compensate for the loss of areas of dry heath  Clarification of impacts to potential Curlew breeding habitat and demonstration of consideration of potential displacement impacts particularly with regards to turbine locations 1 and 2  Details regarding proposed habitat management plans  Details regarding proposed biodiversity enhancement measures to be incorporated into the proposed development

Natural Resource Wales (NRW)

Response provided on 25 November 2015 objects to the proposed development on seven grounds. It provides detailed comments within the representation. In summary, the reasons for the objection area:  Given the number and spatial distribution of viewpoints from a core area of the Clywedog Valley registered landscape, the scale of the proposed development and skyline location which would give the development particular prominence, we consider

- 4 - Page 12 the proposal would result in significant effects upon the Clywedog Valley registered landscape.  The ES concludes that there is no potential for impact on the River Wye Special Area of Conservation (SAC). NRW disagree with this conclusion and advise that possible impact on water quality and otter need to be considered. NRW are of the opinion that appropriate mitigation can be put in place to address our concerns on impact.  The ES states that it has considered impact on the the Elenydd Mallaen Special Protection Area (SPA) but provides no detail or conclusion on likely significant effect. NRW advise that the potential impact on the SPA needs to be considered, in particular the impact on the Red Kite feature of this site.  There is uncertainty regarding the grid connection for the Bryn Blaen windfarm. The windfarm could potentially need to connect a considerable distance to the existing network on the Wales-England border. The Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the Bryn Blaen project will need to consider the potential impact of grid connect on European sites.4. European protected species (EPS) - further information is required to inform the assessment for European Protected Species namely Otter, Bats, Great Crested Newts and Dormouse.  NRW’s advice with regard to assessing the impact of windfarms on peatlands is contained in our guidance document ‘Assessing the impact of windfarm developments on peatlands in Wales’ (CCW, 2010). A key consideration in this guidance is the need to avoid and minimise impacts on peatlands and on deep peat over 0.5metres. The peat survey conducted on this site has been minimal, the baseline has not been adequately characterised and further mitigation is required including infrastructure resiting and the provision of a habitat management plan. In the absence of this information the carbon savings of the scheme cannot be said to have been maximised.  6. Curlew - Curlew are highly vulnerable to disturbance. Mitigation should be included in the Bird Protection Plan.  The ES states that closed culverts will be constructed (figure 1.6) where roads need to cross watercourses. The ES does not assess the impact on watercourses or fisheries of installing these structures on watercourses and no information is provided on the nature of the watercourses at the location of the crossings. The ES states that no infrastructure is located within 20m of watercourses or within the boggy areas at the headwaters to watercourses. Confirmation is required regarding the location of watercourse crossings and the distance of the edge of infrastructure ground disturbance from watercourses (rather than the centre of turbines).

PCC Highways

Response dated 24 November 2015 states that ‘this application is severely lacking detail when it comes to providing information with regard to the impact on county highways’. Concerns are raised that not all construction traffic will utilise the haul road from the trunk road. It goes on to comment that the proposed haul road directly interferes with the public county highway where it appears to merge, this ‘is considered not to be acceptable’. The later crossing which forms a cross road configuration over the county highway may be acceptable providing the developer introduces a Traffic Management Plan as to how this will be delivered without effecting flows of traffic along the classified county highway. There is a lack of information regarding how the site will be serviced post construction.

- 5 - Page 13 In its present format the Highway Authority is unable to support the application and recommend refusal in the interests of highway safety.

Welsh Government Highways

Initial response dated 30 January 2015 highlighted a number of points that required further clarification by the applicant or additional documentation to be submitted. Matters related to the access from the A470, the Traffic Management Plan and the Transport Assessment. The letter concluded by instructing that permission is withheld until the further information is provided.

A second letter was received on 16 November 2015, this stated that ‘the Welsh Government as highway authority for the trunk road network directs that any permission granted by your authority shall include’ 13 conditions to ‘maintain the safety and free flow of trunk road traffic’. It was also requested that 7 informatives be brought to the attention of the applicant and attached to any permission.

MOD

No response at time of writing.

Welsh Assembly Planning Division

No response at time of writing.

Dwfed Powys Police

No response at time of writing.

Civil Aviation Authority

Email on 9 January 2015 requests that the Defence Geographic Centre is notified of the turbines location(s) and height(s) and lighting status 6 weeks prior to the start of construction.

The Ministry of Defence will advise on all matters affecting military aviation.

Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust (CPAT)

Email dated 29 July 2015 requests that PCC consider refusing the application. Main matters raised include:  The proposed development is not within a TAN 8 SSA and is not a community based scheme, therefore would seem to be inappropriately located under TAN 8.  The assessment methodology included a desk based study, walkover survey and ASIDOHL2 assessment which are considered to be appropriate for the ES. Vol. III 8.1 Table 1 underplays the value of the heritage assets.  Consider that SAM MG 267 Domen Glw will be the subject of a significant adverse visual and setting impact and this should therefore be considered grounds for refusal.

- 6 - Page 14  The increased cumulative visual impact upon the Clywedog Valley registered historic landscape should be taken into consideration by the determining authority when making a decision on this application. Should the wind farm be given permission there will be a direct impact to the recorded earthen field boundaries highlights on Figure 2 (Vol. III Appendices).  Should the scheme be given permission, there is potential for damage to a number of non-designated heritage assets. Conditions suggested to mitigate these impacts.  Notes that the grid connection has not been assessed as part of this application.

Cadw

No response at time of writing.

British Horse Society

Email dated 23 December 2014 objects to the development ‘on the grounds that it is outside any TAN8 SSA. The turbines are too close to the bridleway and the alternative recreational route provides inadequate separation. The BHS also note that the final plan is substantially different from that to which they were originally consulted.’

RSPB North Wales

No response at time of writing.

Montgomery Wildlife Trust

No response at time of writing.

Welsh Water

No response at time of writing.

Wales & West Utilities

Letter dated 17 December 2014 confirms Wales and West has no apparatus in the area. However gas pipes owned by other gas companies and also privately owned may be present in this area. Information with regard to such pipes should be obtained from the owners.

Severn Trent Water

Letter dated 7 January 2015 confirms no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use.

- 7 - Page 15 Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution.

Open Spaces Society

No response at time of writing.

Nataional Grid UK Transmission

No response at time of writing.

Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales (RCAHMW)

No response at time of writing.

Powys Ramblers

Object to the application in principle. Welsh Government policy is to concentrate wind farms in Strategic Search Areas to ‘avoid proliferation’. The application would introduce large turbines into a remote and upland area with a damaging impact on the landscape. Turbines will be very close to the bridleway running north-south, if these are less than 100m from the bridleway, advice in TAN8 Annex C para 2.25 would be breached. In any event, such large machines would have an intimidating impact on bridleway users. They are also concerned that the site appears to include access land under the CROW Act.

Arqiva

Response dated 18 December 2014 confirmed they have no objection as the proposed development will not impact on the lines of sight between Re-Broadcast Link locations. However the proposed wind farm would be located approximately 2.8km north east of Arqiva’s broadcast site at Llangurig. Arqiva request that they are notified if the turbine layout changes.

Note that their response only relates to their ability to broadcast signal and does not relate to the potential problems associated with interference at receptors (such as dwellings).

Natural England

No response at time of writing.

Conservation of Upland Powys (CUP)

No response at time of writing.

Health & Safety Executive

No comment to make on this planning application.

- 8 - Page 16 Ancient Monuments Society

No response at time of writing.

Ceredigion County Council

No response at time of writing.

Rhayader Town Council

Letter dated 21 December 2014 states that the application was put to the Council on 10 December 2014 and the contents of application were noted.

St Harmon Community Council

Email dated 4 January 2014 raising no objections.

Llangurig Community Council

Letter dated 20 January 2014 states that the application should be refused on the following grounds:  Visual impact on local communities and surrounding area.  Turbines in close proximity to properties causing noise pollution and disturbance.  Can be seen from many areas of the market town of Llanidloes.  Turbines will have a serious effect on wildlife and cause disruption to public footpaths.  The access track from the A44 is going to put a scar on the landscape; also it is located on a bend which will be dangerous for the fast moving traffic when heavy lorries and plant are being moved.

Llandinam Community Council

Confirmed on 29 January 2014 that they have no comments as this application is outside the area.

Llanidloes Without Community Council

Letter dated 19 December 2014 states ‘No comment was made’ relating to the application.

Llanidloes Community Council

No response at time of writing.

Campaign to Protect Rural Wales (CPRW) – Montgomeryshire

Responded via email dated 22 January 2015. Provides comments relating to the proposal but does not support/object the scheme. Key points raised:  There is a presumption in TAN8 that windfarms outside of SSAs should be below 25MW and community type developments. Bryn Blaen does not satisfy these criteria.

- 9 - Page 17  Landscape and visual impacts would be significant including views from Prince Llewllyn’s Ride and the Wye Valley Walk.  The ES implies that Powys Countryside Services will remove objection to the scheme in exchange for £17,500 for PRoW improvements – this is not acceptable.  Negative impact on residential amenity.  Severe effect upon the setting of the Domen Glw Cairn Scheduled Ancient Monument.  Peat will be disturbed by the scheme, this will also have impact on ecology of area.  High bird strike rate anticipated of high risk species per annum (Lapwing 1.39; Red Kite 6.84; and Golden Plover 43). Also noted that curlew are attempting to breed at Bryn Blaen.  Grid connection for Bryn Blaen is highly tenuous.  The small amount of electricity generated should be weighed against the ‘deleterious effects on the county of an incongruous industrial development in a remote and lovely location’.

Llanidloes Town Council

First email dated 14 January 2014 confirms the application was considered on 12 January 2014. At this meeting 8 Councillors objected to the proposed development whilst 4 Councillors had no objection.

A further email was received on 16 December 2014 that states following their Council meeting on 15 December 2014 the Council has no objections.

Cultural Heritage Consultant acting on behalf of PCC

Atkins were commissioned by PCC to review the application and provide a professional opinion on the cultural heritage impacts of the proposal.

Atkins identified a number of concerns with regards to the methodology of the Historic Environment sections of the ES. These included: the use of a simplified and unspecified ZTV; the exclusion of designated assets from outside the ZTV (which has the effect that views in which the asset and proposal may be seen in conjunction) could have been excluded; the lack of cumulative assessment; an assumption that all Grade II buildings have a limited setting; and an absence of wireframes, montages etc to support the assessment.

They also expressed concern that the ES provided insufficient information to accurately assess the scale of impact on a number of monuments, these included: Pen y Castell Hillfort (Scheduled Monument MG082), Rhyd ur Onen Motte and Bailey Castle (Scheduled Monument MG088), the Dinas Camp Hillfort (Scheduled Monument MG020) and Pen y Clun Camp Hillfort (Scheduled Monument MG031). In relation to some of these monuments Atkins considered that, if appropriate information were provided, it may be that an assessment would show that the impact is significant (particularly when cumulative impacts were considered).

Atkins were also of the view that the assessment presented in the ES under-scores the potential impacts on designated assets.

- 10 - Page 18 Atkins undertook a selected assessment of the impact of the proposal on a number of designated assets. Their primary conclusions can be summarised as follows:  Domen Glw Cairn (Scheduled Monument MG262) – Significant impact in terms of PPW.  Pen-y-Gaer Camp Hillfort (Scheduled Monument MG085) – Significant impact in terms of PPW. It noted that this SAM had not been subject to a detailed and appropriate Cumulative Assessment  Clywedog Valley Landscape of Special Historic Interest – Significant Environmental Impact. It noted that the ASIDHOL assessment tended to underscore potential impacts on the character and setting of the landscape and its component HCAs. Again it noted that the landscape had not been subject to a detailed and appropriate Cumulative Assessment  Llangurig Conservation Area – The proposed development would ‘very clearly affect the rural setting of the conservation area’, as we as challenging the visual prominence of the Church of St Curig, a key characteristic of the settlement. The proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the Conservation Area and key buildings within it  The Grade II* listed Church of St Curig in Llangurig – The proposal would challenge the visual prominence of the Church, leading to a Large Adverse effect. Whilst the impact would be less than substantial in EN-1 terms, it would fail to preserve the setting of the listed building.

Landscape & Visual Consultant acting on behalf of PCC

A review of the relevant chapter in the ES was submitted in November 2015. In conclusion it states:

The ES LVIA methodology employed is, for the main part, set out with clarity and generally reflects the approaches of the guidance of GLVIA3 and those SNH publications on which it relies. However, we have a number of observations and identified a number of issues with it which we consider lead to the under evaluation of some aspects of the assessment. These latter issues include the failure to use LANDMAP in considering landscape value, the undervaluing of some visual receptors, the inclusion in the assessment criteria and literal use of “other similar structures” and the use of literal applications of precise angles of the view occupied by the wind turbines; all of these could and do reduce the degree of significance of the effects to some extent.

We consider that there are some shortcomings with the selection of representative viewpoints. Those that have been selected are satisfactory but several key scenic locations have not been included and that consequently this effects the assessment. These viewpoints include Public Rights of Way east of Marsh’s Pool about 2km from the turbines, a further view from the Prince Llewelyn Bridleway to the south to supplement Viewpoint 1 and a view from the Pen-y-Gaer hill fort by Lyn Clywedog. The visual representations appear to us to be of suitable quality and are adequate in most respects but crucially they do not include the access tracks. In some views, for

- 11 - Page 19 example Viewpoint 2, the access track would have a prominent visual effect in its own right and it is missing from the visualisation.

Indeed the access track does not feature at all in the detailed visual impact assessment and does not appear, therefore, to have been taken into account. A further visualization of the effect alone of the access track’s cuttings and embankments near ‘Hir-Brysg’, as seen from the Prince Llewelyn Bridleway, would have been of assistance. The access track is included within the landscape assessment but we consider the assessment to be cursory and based on a poorly detailed topographical survey which does not include all of the mature trees which would need to be felled or would be seriously affected by the construction of the track. The poorly detailed survey, the absence of the access track from the visual impact assessment and its cursory landscape impact assessment are serious omissions and, should the Council have been the determining authority, we would have recommended that this be the subject of a Regulation 22 request from the Council, including the upgrading of the visualisations where relevant.

The LVIA concludes that there would be a number of significant visual effects (for this we can assume Major/Moderate significance) including high sensitivity visual receptors up to 5km, high/medium to 3.5km and medium to 1.5km. We consider that the visual effects categories defined in the methodology are overly stringent and too literal, lacking the required flexibility for professional judgement, and lead in both the visual and the landscape assessments to an undervaluation of the real effects (because the landscape assessment relies fundamentally on the visual assessment). For example the location of Viewpoint 1 is only 200m from the nearest turbine. The magnitude of effect is assessed as Substantial, principally because the turbines occupy less than 90 degrees of the view, rather than the highest magnitude of effect of Very Substantial and which has the effect of capping significant assessments to an upper category of Major rather than higher categories up to Major ++. This is one example of a number of serious under evaluations which together undermines the reliability of both the visual and the landscape assessments because the landscape assessment is heavily reliant on the outcome of the visual assessment.

In our assessment Major/Moderate significant effects would extend to around 6km for high sensitivity receptors; unlike the LVIA we include users of local public rights of way at particularly scenic locations, albeit that these are not designated routes as such, for example Viewpoint 15 at the Lyn Clywedog scenic viewpoint. Within this range we also consider that the degrees of significance of the effects would be greater than assessed in the LVIA by virtue of the greater sensitivity we consider applies and, in many cases, a greater magnitude of effect that we also consider would apply.

The LVIA has assessed significant impacts on the visual amenity of residential receptors and settlements up to 5km from the turbines. As above we consider this range should be 6km. However, we note that there is no detailed impact assessment of residential visual amenity included with the ES. Normal practice with wind farm ESs would be to evaluate in detail the visual impact on each property within a certain range in order to assess the effects in terms of the so-called Lavender Test; this range varying with the particular circumstances of the proposal, typically up to 1-2km. Whilst it does not follow that there would necessarily be significant effects on residential visual

- 12 - Page 20 amenity (and we accept from our initial fieldwork on this matter that there may not be), decision-makers and readers of the ES do not have the information and are unable to form judgements about the proposals accordingly. Should the Council have been the determining authority, we would have recommended that this be the subject of a Regulation 22 request from the Council.

The Prince Llewelyn Bridleway runs through the application site, between and immediately beside several turbines. An alternative route is to be made available to users of the bridleway whilst the actual route would remain on its current alignment. Nevertheless the impacts on the visual amenity of the route would remain; the LVIA considers these to be significant. In our assessment these effects would be at the highest category of significance and would effect a length of some 2km of the route at this degree; lesser degrees of significant effect would also be experienced at other more distant sections of the route up to 6km away. The LVIA does not provide details of the length of the route would be affected and to what degree. Neither does the assessment consider the effect of the access track on the route; this alone would be significant at some locations.

The LVIA assesses the Open Access Land up to 3.5km from the turbines would experience significant landscape effects. We do not consider these effects to be landscape effects but rather visual effects on the users of the land as Open Access Land is principally about access by people and not about its landscape characteristics. We consider also that users of some of the access land are of high sensitivity, for example the highly scenic Pen-y-Gaer hill fort and Dinas hill at Lyn Clwyedog up to 6km from the turbines.

The landscape assessment of the LVIA considers that there would be localised significant effects on the landscapes of the Wye Valley Uplands, Clywedog Upland Grazing and Plynlimon Moorlands LANDMAP Visual & Sensory Aspect Areas, up to distances of 2km, 3.5km and 4km respectively. We consider that these VSAAs would be significantly affected although we believe the LVIA under estimates their sensitivity to wind farm development and the extent and degree of the significant effects. In the case of the Plynlimon Moorlands VSAA we consider the landscape to be of national value (in accordance with LANDMAP) and of high sensitivity. In addition we also consider that there would be a significant landscape effect on the Old Capel Hill Mosaic VSAA although this would be towards a lower order of significance.

The baseline for the cumulative effects section of the LVIA has been considerably altered since the submission of the application. In this time the outcome of the Conjoined Inquiry and the Mynydd y Gwynt DCO have become known. These have radically altered the potential future baseline scenario such that in our judgement before an ultimate decision on this proposal the cumulative section of the LVIA should be updated. Notwithstanding that a number of substantial proposals have fallen away, as with two other matters above, should the Council have been the determining authority, we would have recommended that this be the subject of a Regulation 22 request from the Council. In any event, we consider that Bryn Blaen would give rise to significant cumulative visual and landscape effects both incrementally and in- combination with the proposed Carno III in the Clywedog landscapes, noting that Bryn Blaen would contribute less to these than Carno III. In other respects of cumulative

- 13 - Page 21 effects we do not consider that Bryn Blaen would contribute substantially to any other significant landscape or visual cumulative effects and, overall, we do not consider as the current future baseline of wind farm proposals stands that cumulative effects should be a reason to object to the Bryn Blaen application.

We consider that, should the Council have been the determining authority, we would have recommended that a Regulation 22 request be made for the application to be supplemented with a detailed residential visual amenity assessment, for the assessment to be updated to include a fuller design and landscape and visual assessment for the access track and for an updated cumulative landscape and visual impact assessment. As the application stands, however, we consider that the proposals would be unacceptable, in landscape and visual terms alone, and would have recommended that the application be refused due to the extent and degree of the significant individual landscape effects on LANDMAP Outstanding and High overall evaluation landscapes, together with the extent and degree of significant visual effects on users of promoted (Prince Llewelyn Bridleway) and other local public rights of way, highways and Open Access Land, by virtue of the wind turbines, access tracks and associated infrastructure.

Representations

121 representations from members of the public have been received from 114 sources. All of these representations objected to the proposed development. The matters raised in these representations are summarised below:

TAN 8  It is outside of a TAN 8 area.  The nearest SSA (SSA D) is at least 11km away, on the west side of Pumlumon, so the proposal’s location cannot be regarded as being within a buffer zone.  TAN 8 firmly states that wind farms with a total generating capacity over 5MW should be restricted to these SSAs or to ‘urban/industrial brownfield sites’ and that ‘other areas outside the SSAs should remain free of large wind power schemes’.  If this application is approved this will provide unnecessary succour and encouragement for other parties to make similar applications outside the TAN 8 designated area and buffer zones. Highways/Access  The roads are not equipped to cope with building these turbines. Public rights of way and amenity  From the leisure point of view it is one of the few remaining high ridges above the valleys with a significant bridleway and several well used footpaths crossing it.  The turbines will be noisy and visually will dominate the upper Severn valley with both Glyndwr’s Way and the Severn Valley Way running nearby.  People will stop using the public rights of way within close proximity to the turbines.

- 14 - Page 22  The wind farm would be very close to the Wye Valley Walk and National Cycle Route 8.  The wind farm would cause a serious loss of recreational amenity.  Moving the bridleway would not compensate for this, as the windfarm would diminish peace, tranquillity and enjoyment for walkers in any case.  Walkers’ enjoyment of the access land adjacent to Domen Glw cairn would also be badly spoiled. Landscape and visual amenity  Wind farms spoil the beautiful countryside in Mid Wales.  The development will have an overbearing impact upon the local area and Cambrian Mountains.  It will despoil Plumlumon by dominating the landscape east of the massif and will also dominate the Severn Basin which is a protected landscape.  There will be a significant cumulative effect of this scheme with all the other plans.  There is little left of Montgomeryshire not being despoiled by turbines.  The scheme along with Mynydd y Gwynt and Cefn Croes will lead to the creeping industrialisation of the Cambrian Mountains.  The huge turbines and their infrastructure will ruin both the scenic and economic environment just to benefit wind farm developers.  This would be an outrageous act of despoilment and desecration of a completely unique area of outstanding natural beauty and completely inappropriate for the area.  Turbines will disturb the sense of space and peacefulness which is an essential ingredient of the attraction of the area to visitors and locals alike.  Pylons and power lines will cause further visual blight.  The proposal will inflict significant adverse impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the Bindno and upper Wye Valley and surrounding areas.  Views from the designated scenic Wye Valley Riverside Walk will be deleteriously affected in Llangurig area.  Turbines are enormous and extensive industrial installations, quite alien to upland main Wales’ landscape.  The wind farm would be widely visible as far away as Llanidloes, and would spoil the spectacular views from the summit of Pumlumon the source of the Severn, and hills near Llyn Clywedog, all of which are popular with walkers.  If Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm is granted consent there would be serious cumulative effects. Environmental issues  The area concerned is one of the few remaining moorland areas above Llanidloes which have been ‘improved’ by drainage and ploughing of the native heath and reed beds.  Skylark nest there and curlew, grasshopper warbler and snipe have also been seen on the site.  The access roads and drainage involved will inevitably destroy this environment.  One proposed wind farm track crosses deep peat and the substation would be on blanket bog.  Valuable habitats would be damaged even where no peat was removed.

- 15 - Page 23  Appalled at the predicated annual deaths of 43 golden plovers and 7 red kites due to the windfarm.  Powys should be aiming to preserve the wealth of wonderful wildlife.  Lapwings and badgers living nearby could also be disturbed or displaced by windfarm construction. Conservation/heritage  The proposed wind farm would spoil the setting of the Domen Glw bronze age cairn which is a SAM and known for its panoramic views.  The wind farm would also have an adverse effect on the Clywedog Historic Landscape. Residential amenity including noise  Turbines within close proximity to homes will be audible and via amplitude modulation cause disturbance to the living conditions. Socio-economic  It will not benefit the local population, nor provide any jobs and will damage tourism to this most beautiful part of Wales.  Mid Wales cannot be a viable tourist area and completely and ‘energy hub’.  Tourism is a vital source of employment in Mid Wales.

Relevant planning history

The application site planning history is as follows:

 P/2012/0957 - Erection of a temporary (12 months) 70m high anemometer mast. Approved 20th September 2012.

There are a number of schemes within 10km of this proposal that may create or result in cumulative matters that need to be addressed. The following schemes (within 10km of the site) are therefore relevant:

 P/2012/0687 - Malgwyn single 35m (tip height) wind turbine at Malgwyn Old Hall, Llanidloes. Approved 2nd October 2012 & now operational.  P/2013/1079 - Belan single 22m (tip height) wind turbine at Belan Glyn-Brochan, Llanidloes. Approved 3rd April 2014 & now operational.  P/2013/1045 - Glynhafren single 35m (tip height) wind turbine at Glynhafren Old Hall, Llanidloes. Approved 13th January 2014 & now operational.  P/2013/0945 - Lower Cefn Penarth 46m (tip height) wind turbine at Lower Cefn Penarth Old Hall, Llanidloes. Approved 10th January 2013 & now operational.  A000737 - Cefn Croes Wind Farm 39 no. 100m (tip height) turbines at Cefn Croes, Devils Bridge, Ceredigion. Approved 23rd May 2002 & now operational.  Bryn Titli Wind Farm 22 no. 49m (tip height) turbines at Between Rhayader and Llangurig. Operational in 1994.

- 16 - Page 24 The proposed Bryn Titli extension which consists of 12 turbines between Rhayader and Llangurig is currently at the pre application stage and within the 10 km area mentioned above. This may therefore be of relevance.

Also of relevance is the recently determined Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm EN010020. This consists of 27 no 125m (tip height) turbines at Sweet Lamb Rally Complex, Llangurig. This was refused development consent by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on 20th November 2015 and may have implications for this project, particularly in relation to grid connection.

Planning policy

Planning law (section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The duty of the decision maker is therefore to determine whether the application complies with the policies of the development plan and, if not, to consider whether material considerations justify the grant of planning permission. This assessment requires the identification of the relevant national and local policy framework and the key tests with them for assessing the effects of the proposed development.

Local Planning Policy

The Powys County Council Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted on 1st March 2010 and will guide development during the plan period until mid-2016. It provides a policy framework for positive forward planning, proposals and allocations for future developments and the basis on which consistent development control decisions can be made. The UDP is presented in two parts; Part One identifies the strategic aims, a growth strategy and defined settlement hierarchy which are achieved through fourteen strategic policies. Relevant policies of the UDP include:

Policy SP3 (Natural, Historic and Built Heritage) requires development to ‘protect, conserve and wherever possible enhance sites and features of importance for the aesthetic, amenity, biodiversity, ecological, geological, nature conservation, physiographical and scientific value’. In addition this policy seeks ‘to protect, conserve and wherever possible enhance sites and features of historic and built heritage importance including those of archaeological, architectural, heritage conservation and historic interest’.

Policy SP6 (Development and Transport) development which maintains and improves the existing transportation infrastructure and communications in Powys will be acceptable.

Policy SP12 (Energy Conservation and Generation) states that proposals for energy generation from renewable sources will be approved providing that they ‘meet the landscape, environmental, amenity and other requirements set out in the plan’.

Policy GP1 (Development Control) is an all-encompassing policy covering most aspects of a development, ensuring that it is of high quality design, minimises impact on the amenity of others, through ensuring local features are protected.

- 17 - Page 25

Policy GP3 (Design and Energy Conservation) sets out expectations for good design and energy conservation from new development.

Policy GP4 (Highway and Parking Requirements) requires adequate provision for access to the development site. In the case of wind farms this policy is particularly relevant as the roads leading to development sites are often not suitable and require alterations due to the size of wind turbine development vehicles. Making these alterations can often require hedges or other road boundary treatments to be removed which can have implications for the landscape and biodiversity that is unacceptable.

Policy ENV2 (Safeguarding the Landscape) seeks to ensure development takes account of Powys’ ‘high quality landscape’ and be appropriate and sensitive to the surrounding landscapes. It goes on to set three requirements that development should achieve to be acceptable.

Policy ENV3 (Safeguarding Biodiversity and Natural Habitats) provides where possible safeguards from development for biodiversity and natural habitats.

Policy ENV4 (Internationally Important Sites) seeks to ensure that development does not affect special protection areas (SPAs) and potential SPAs, special areas of conservation (SACs) and candidate SACs or listed RAMSAR sites.

Policy ENV5 (Nationally Important Sites) states: ‘There will be a presumption against proposals for development likely to damage, either directly or indirectly the nature conservation interest or national nature reserves or sites of special scientific interest’.

Policy ENV6 (Sites of Regional and Local Importance) protects areas of conservation interest of sites of regional or local nature conservation, geological or geomorphological importance for being adversely affected by development.

Policy ENV7 (Protected Species) reiterates legal protections five to European protected species and also requirements to ensure that other species are protected from the adverse impacts of development.

Policy ENV8 (Tree Preservation Orders) ensures that trees and woodland will be protected if they make a contribution to the landscape amenity and the character of conservation areas.

Policy ENV17 (Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites) states that if a proposal would ‘unacceptably affect the site or setting of a scheduled ancient monument or of an archaeological site of national importance’ it will not be permitted. Other sites of archaeological importance will be safeguarded where possible.

Policy ENV18 (Development proposals affecting archaeological sites) sets out requirements for pre-determination archaeological assessments and the requirements for preservation of sites in situ and also for mitigation and recording of sites where development is considered justified.

- 18 - Page 26 Policy T6 (Walking and Cycling) states that proposals for the improvement of existing facilities in relation to new development will be approved.

Policy TR2 (Tourist Attractions and Development Areas) gives protection to tourist attractions stating: ‘Development of any kind, which would have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the environmental setting of established tourist attractions, will be opposed’.

Policy RL4 (Outdoor Activity and Pony Trekking Centres) and Policy RL6 (Rights of Way and Access to the Countryside) are permissive policies for proposals for the establishment and enhancement of these facilities).

Policy E3 (Wind Power) requires an overall balance to be made to weigh up the identified harms against the significant contribution that an onshore wind proposal makes to the production of renewable electricity. Policy E3 supports new turbine generators provided that they do not unacceptably adversely affect the environmental and landscape quality of Powys either individually or in combination with existing or proposed schemes. The policy also requires that the cumulative impacts do not have unacceptably adverse impact on existing and approved developments. The same criteria and level of harm is provided to assess the impacts on wildlife and public rights of way – especially bridleways. Proposed turbines should also not unacceptably impact upon buildings or features of conservation or archaeological interest nor have an unacceptably adverse effect on the amenity of residents of properties. Schemes must be capable of providing acceptable means of access and the policy also requires that applicants are able to demonstrate through land management schemes that there would be adequate mitigation or compensation for any adverse impact on environmental quality, wildlife habitats or heritage features.

Policy E4 (Removal of Redundant Wind Turbines) requires the removal of redundant turbines and outline conditions that should be imposed on planning permissions in this respect.

Policy DC9 (Protection of Water Resources) seeks to ensure that development which impacts on the water environment are only permitted: where they do not impair the quality, quantity or flow of ground or surface waters; they do not lead to pollution problems; and the proposal is not of detriment to existing water abstractions, fisheries, amenity of nature conservation.

Policy DC12 (Overhead Lines and Pipelines) seeks to ensure that all lines should be placed underground (unless there are overriding reasons for them not be) to minimise their impact on the landscape and natural and built environment.

The Powys Regeneration Strategy (June 2011) prioritises harnessing Powys’ natural assets. It states that:

‘The value of the Country’s natural assets cannot be overstated. Green tourism, capturing renewable energy from wind and water, building on centres of expertise in alternative energy and developing supply chains and technology for low carbon energy are all areas around which Powys can build its Green Economy.’

- 19 - Page 27 National Planning Policy

Relevant national planning policy is not part of the development plan, but is an important material consideration.

National planning policies for onshore wind development are set out in:

 Planning Policy Wales (2014);  Technical Advice Note 5 (TAN5): Nature Conservation and Planning (2009);  Technical Advice Note 6 (TAN6): Agriculture and Rural Development (2010);  Technical Advice Note 8 (TAN8): Planning for Renewable Energy (2005);  Technical Advice Note 11 (TAN11): Noise (1997); and  National Policy Statements for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (NPS).

Planning Policy Wales (PPW - 7th edition – July 2014) is the principal national planning policy for Wales. PPW sets out the land use planning policies of the Welsh Government. Together with the series of Technical Advice Notes (TANs) and policy clarification letters it comprises national planning policy. Section 12.8 deals with renewable and low carbon energy.

PPW confirms that the UK is subject to the requirements of the EU Renewable Energy Directive. These include a UK target of 15% of energy from renewables by 2020. PPW highlights that the UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) and the UK National Renewable Energy Action Plan (2010) set the path for the delivery of these targets, promoting renewable energy to reduce global warming and to secure future supplies.

This document notes that the Assembly Government’s aim is to secure an appropriate mix of energy provision for Wales, whilst minimising, and where possible avoiding environmental, social and economic impacts.

PPW states that the Welsh Government is committed to using the planning system to:  optimise renewable energy generation;  optimise low carbon energy generation;  recognise that the benefits of renewable energy are part of the overall commitment to tackle climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as increasing energy security.

PPW notes that local planning authorities should facilitate the development of all forms of renewable and low carbon energy to more towards a low carbon economy to help to tackle the causes of climate change. Specifically, local planning authorities should make positive provision by:  ensuring that development control decisions are consistent with national and international climate change obligations, including contributions to renewable energy targets and aspirations;  recognising the environmental, economic and social opportunities that the use of renewable energy resources can make to planning for sustainability.

PPW reaffirms, specifically in relation to renewable energy proposals, that it is WG’s “aim…to secure an appropriate mix of energy provision for Wales, whilst avoiding, and where possible

- 20 - Page 28 minimising environmental…impacts” and expressly states that, when determining applications for renewable energy proposals, there is a need to “minimise impacts on local communities”.

PPW states that local planning authorities should:  ensure that international and national statutory obligations to protect designated areas, species and habitats and the historic environment are observed;  ensure that mitigation measures are required for potential detrimental effects on local communities whilst ensuring that the potential impact on economic viability is given full consideration.

PPW states that the most appropriate scale at which to identify areas for large scale onshore wind energy development is at an all-Wales level (para 12.8.13) and Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy (2005) identifies areas in Wales (Strategic Search Areas – SSAs) which are considered to be the most appropriate locations for large scale wind farm developments i.e. proposals of more than 25MW.

Development of a limited number of large-scale wind energy developments in these areas are required to contribute significantly to the Assembly Government’s onshore wind energy aspiration for 2GW in total capacity by 2015/17 and UK and European renewable energy targets; to mitigate climate change and deliver energy security (para 12.8.13).

Technical Advice Notes (TANs) should be read in conjunction with 'Planning Guidance (Wales): Planning Policy'. Planning Guidance, Technical Advice Notes and circulars should be taken into account by local planning authorities in Wales in the preparation of development plans. They may be material to decisions on individual planning applications.

TAN5: Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) was published in September 2009 and provides supplementary advice to the policies set out within PPW with respect of nature conservation issues and planning. TAN5 provides advice about how the land use planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation.

TAN 5 sets out the criteria for which development proposals will be judged with regard to sustainable development, protection and improvement of the environment, ensure appropriate weight is attached to designated sites of international, national and local importance, protect wildlife and natural features and adopt a step-wide approach to avoid harm to nature conservation.

The focus of TAN6: Agriculture and Rural Development (2010) is to provide practical guidance on how the planning system can support sustainable rural communities. TAN6 states that the quality of the agricultural land should be considered when determining planning applications.

TAN6 recognises that the planning system must respond to the challenges posed by climate change, for example by accommodating the need for renewable energy generation. However local planning authorities should also ensure local communities are not negatively affected, protect and enhance the natural and historic environment and safeguard the countryside and open spaces.

- 21 - Page 29

The Technical Advice Note for renewable energy is Technical Advice Note 8 (TAN 8): Planning for Renewable Energy (2005). TAN8 sets out the Welsh Government’s target of 4TWh of electricity per annum to be produced by renewable energy by 2010 and 7TWh by 2020. In order to meet these targets the Welsh Government has concluded that 800MW of additional installed capacity is required from onshore wind sources (para 1.3). It should be noted that these targets have been superseded by the letter from the Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development (July 2011), which identified maximum environmental capacities for each SSA.

In order to meet these targets TAN 8 identified 7 SSAs within which large scale (ie over 25MW) onshore wind development should be concentrated. TAN8 states that not all of the land within the SSAs may be technically, economically and/or environmentally suitable for major wind power proposals and that for each SSA indicative targets of installed capacity were set.

TAN 8 states that most areas outside SSAs should remain free of large scale wind farms. It advises that in areas outside SSAs ‘there is a balance to be struck between the desirability of renewable energy and landscape protection. Whilst that balance should not result in severe restriction on the development of wind power capacity, there is a case for avoiding a situation where wind turbines are spread across the whole of a county.’ (para 2.13).

TAN 8 (para 8.4) confirms that outside SSAs ‘the implicit objective is to maintain the landscape character i.e. no significant change in landscape character from wind turbine development’.

TAN11: Noise (1997) sets out how the planning system can be used to minimise the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens of business. It outlines some of the main considerations which local planning authorities should take into account in drawing-up development plan policies and when determining planning applications for development which will either generate noise or be exposed to existing noise sources.

TAN11 states (at para. 8) that:

‘Local planning authorities should ensure that noise generating development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance. They should also bear in mind that if subsequent intensification or change of use results in greater intrusion, consideration should be given to the use of appropriate conditions.’

Specific guidance to the noise issues raised by wind farm developments is provided at Annex B which states that guidance is available from TAN8 (1996). Following the revisions to TAN8 in 2005, appropriate wind farm noise guidance is found in Annex C.

The purpose of TAN12: Design (2014) is to equip all those involved in the design of development with advice on promoting sustainability through good design, planning sustainable developments and design and access statements.

TAN13: Tourism (1997) focuses on promoting and developing tourism in Wales.

- 22 - Page 30

TAN15: Development and Flood Risk (2004) advises on development and flood risk as this relates to sustainability principles (section 2.2 PPW), and provides a framework within which risks arising from both river and coastal flooding, and from additional run-off from development in any location, can be assessed.

TAN18: Transport (2007) focuses on the importance of transport to sustainability. Para. 3.11 reiterates this principles stating that:

‘Development in rural locations should embody sustainability principles, balancing the need to support the rural economy, whilst maintaining and enhancing the environmental, social and cultural quality of rural areas.’

TAN19: Telecommunications (2002) recognises that there are two types of radio interference from proposed development, including wind farm development; electrical interference and physical interference.

Large structures such as wind turbines can cause widespread disruption to television and other telecommunications services due to the physical obstruction or reflection of the wanted signals. Para. 91 states that local planning authorities will need to satisfy themselves that potential interference has been ‘fully taken into account in the siting and design of such developments, since it will be more difficult, costly and sometimes impossible to correct after the event’.

Other national & regional energy policy & guidance

There are a number of national and international agreements and policies relating to the provision of renewable energy and achieving carbon emission reductions. These are material considerations and include:  5/93: Public Rights of Way (1993)  Circular 61/96: Planning and the Historic Environment: Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas (1996);  Circular 60/96: Planning and the Historic Environment: Archaeology (1996);  Kyoto Protocol (1997)  Circular 11/99: Environmental Impact Assessment (1999);  Energy White Paper (2003)  Wales Spatial Plan (2004)  Energy White Paper (2007)  UK Climate Change Programme (2008)  Climate Change Act (2008)  UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009)  EU Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC (2009)  UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009)  A Low Carbon Revolution – The Welsh Assembly Government Energy Policy Statement (2010)  Written Statement by the First Minster, Welsh Government: Planning for Renewable Energy in Wales (17 June 2011)

- 23 - Page 31  Letter by the Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development (John Griffiths) - July 2011  Welsh Government Circular 016/2014: The Use of Planning Conditions for Development Management  Welsh Assembly Government (2007), Guide to Good Practice on Using The Register of Landscapes of Historic Interest in Wales In The Planning and Development Process.  Welsh Assembly Government (2011), Conservation Principals, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable management of the Historic Environment in Wales  Welsh Office Circular 60/96 Planning and the Historic Environment: Archaeology  Welsh Office Circular 61/96 Planning and the Historic Environment: Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas

EN-1 and EN-3 are UK policies that relate to the development of onshore wind farm schemes with a generating capacity of over 50MW. These are capable of being considered a material consideration, and whether they are material is a judgement for the decision maker. As the proposed development will generate up to 15MW, and is significantly smaller in scale than wind farms to which EN-1 and EN-3 apply, I do not believe that guidance is relevant and therefore EN-1 and EN-3 are not a material consideration in this instance.

Legislation

Other relevant legislation is found in the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Convention on Human Rights, The Planning Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1990, and Statutory Instrument No.243 (2011) – The Promotion of Use of Energy from Renewable Sources Regulations.

Officer Appraisal

A number of impacts have been identified through consultee responses, the applicant’s submissions and comments from members of the public. These are considered below under the relevant topics.

Climate change & Principle of Development

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in 2014 that ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen’1.

The Climate Change Act established a target for the UK to reduce its emissions by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. This target represents an appropriate UK contribution to global emission reductions consistent with limiting global temperature rise to as little as possible above 2°C. The Act established a system of five-yearly carbon budgets, to incrementally achieve this reduction. To date there have been four and a fifth carbon budget

1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report

- 24 - Page 32 is expected to be published in December 2015, covering the period 2028-2032 and draft legislation for this is anticipated in 2016. The legally binding reductions to date are:  23% reduction on 1990 levels by 2012  29% reduction on 1990 levels by 2017  35% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020  50% reduction on 1990 levels by 2025

To help achieve the above, in recent years there has been a push to increase the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources across the UK. These have been supported by the government in a number of ways including direct financial aid (such as subsidies) and planning policy. Planning policy is clear that there is a need to move towards renewable energy sources to combat climate change.

Whilst the need for the development is accepted, the contribution the scheme makes towards meeting that need is material and should be weighed in the planning balance. Some concerns have been raised by interested parties over the effectiveness of wind turbines and ability of this development to generate renewable energy. The proposed development would generate up to 15MW, however it is noted that wind farms only typically operate at around 30% of their capacity over the course of a year. The anticipated load/capacity factor in this instance is unknown but once this is taken into account the proposed development is likely to produce around 5MW - a relatively small contribution.

In Wales, PPW is supported by TAN8 which identifies Strategic Search Areas (SSA’s) where large scale (over 25MW) onshore wind developments should be concentrated. It is noted that this proposal would have a maximum generating capacity of 15MW and is located outside any SSA. Tan 8 paras 2.11 – 2.16 address ‘Onshore Wind in Other Areas’. In these paragraphs national policy relating to onshore wind outside SSA’s is established, most noticeably:  Local planning authorities are to encourage smaller community based wind farm schemes (generally less than 5 MW)  Para 2.12 states ‘Most areas outside SSAs should remain free of large wind power schemes.’ It goes on to say LPA’s ‘may wish to consider the cumulative impact of small schemes in areas outside of the SSAs… In these areas, there is a balance to be struck between the desirability of renewable energy and landscape protection. Whilst that balance should not result in severe restriction on the development of wind power capacity, there is a case for avoiding a situation where wind turbines are spread across the whole of a county.’

It is noted that the proposed development is not a community based wind farm, the ES confirms at para 1.2 that ‘Njord Energy are promoting the development and are backed by a FTSE listed national property company with assets in excess of £300m’.

As noted above, planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance the primary policy in the Powys Unitary Development Plan 2001- 2016 is Policy E3, this states:

Policy E3 - Wind-Power

- 25 - Page 33 Applications for windfarms including extensions to existing sites and individual wind turbine generators will be approved where: 1. They do not unacceptably adversely affect the environmental and landscape quality of Powys, either on an individual basis or in combination with other proposed or existing similar developments. Where the cumulative impact of proposals in combination with other approved or existing windfarms would be significantly detrimental to overall environmental quality they will be refused. 2. They do not unacceptably adversely affect wildlife habitats or species that are of international, national or local importance in accordance with policies env3-7. 3. They do not unacceptably adversely affect the occupants or users of sensitive properties (usually dwellings) or their amenities by reason of noise, vibration, shadow flicker or reflected light. 4. They do not unacceptably impact upon any buildings or features of conservation or archaeological interest. 5. They do not unacceptably adversely affect the enjoyment and safe use of highways and the public rights of way network, especially bridleways (including during the construction phase). 6. They would be capable of being served by an acceptable means of highway access and any new or improved roads and accesses required would not have unacceptable environmental impacts. 7. Applicants are able to demonstrate through land management schemes that there would be adequate mitigation or compensation for any adverse impact on environmental quality, wildlife habitats or heritage features. 8. Any ancillary structures or buildings are so sited and designed (including the use of locally appropriate construction materials) so as to adequately blend into their setting.

Whether the development is acceptable in principle is therefore a matter of judgement, one that should be reached by assessing the level of compliance with the UDP. I undertake this assessment below.

Landscape & Visual

The main body of the application area lies at an elevation of between 300m and 450m AOD with the turbines sites at levels between roughly 420m and 445m AOD. The landform of the local context is defined by the contrast of domed, rolling uplands with the flat-bottomed valleys of the Rivers Wye and Severn respectively. The area is mainly improved upland grassland, with some small conifer plantations. The land has been subdivided by fences into a regular pattern of large scale grazing areas, accessed by a system of unsurfaced tracks. There are a number of Public Rights of Way in and around the study area.

The ES assesses the Landscape and Visual impact of the proposed development at Chapter 5 which is supported by ES Figures 5.1-5.57 and ES Technical Appendices 5.1-5.9. Cumulative impacts are also assessed.

Mr Russell-Vick has independently reviewed the ES. He has confirmed that the ES LVIA methodology employed is generally set out with clarity and reflects the approaches of the guidance of GLVIA3 and those SNH publications on which it relies. However he has identified

- 26 - Page 34 a number of issues with the assessment which he considers leads to the under evaluation of some aspects of the assessment. The most noticeable of which is the applicant’s failure to use LANDMAP in considering landscape value.

The applicant maintains that there would be localised significant effects on the landscapes of the Wye Valley Uplands (up to 2km), Clywedog Upland Grazing (up to 3.5km) and Plynlimon Moorlands LANDMAP Visual & Sensory Aspect Areas (up to 4km). Mr Russell-Vick considers that these VSAAs would be significantly affected, and concludes that the LVIA under estimates their sensitivity to wind farm development and the extent and degree of the significant effects. In the case of the Plynlimon Moorlands VSAA the landscape is of national value (in accordance with LANDMAP) and of high sensitivity. In addition there would be a significant landscape effect on the Old Capel Hill Mosaic VSAA although this would be towards a lower order of significance.

With regard to cumulative effects, the LVIA is now somewhat out of date as the outcomes of the Conjoined Inquiry and the Mynydd y Gwynt DCO are now known. Regardless, the proposed development would create ‘significant cumulative visual and landscape effects both incrementally and in-combination with the proposed Carno III in the Clywedog landscapes’. That said, it is considered that cumulative effects are no so severe that they would warrant refusal of this application on their own.

In terms of visual impacts, the LVIA concludes there would be a number of significant visual effects. Mr Russell-Vick considers that the visual effects categories defined in the methodology are overly stringent and too literal, lacking the required flexibility for professional judgement, and lead to an undervaluation of the real effects. In Mr Russell-Vick’s assessment Major/Moderate significant effects would extend to around 6km for high sensitivity receptors;

Furthermore, the ES fails to consider a substantial part of the proposed development in Landscape and Visual terms. The proposed access track will form a large feature in the landscape which cuts across established features such as field boundaries or well established trees with little regard to the established character of the area (it is noted however that plans showing this track are largely inadequate). The impact of this access track over the wider has not been considered nor has the impact on residential amenity. Mr Russell-Vick has commented that ‘should the Council have been the determining authority, we would have recommended that a Regulation 22 request be made for the application to be supplemented with a detailed residential visual amenity assessment, for the assessment to be updated to include a fuller design and landscape and visual assessment for the access rack and for an updated cumulative landscape and visual impact assessment.’ This would have gone some way to assessing the impacts of the whole scheme (including the access track), and not just the turbines which, it is accepted, are a prominent element.

As the application stands, however, the proposed development would be unacceptable, in landscape and visual terms alone. This is due to the extent and degree of the significant individual landscape effects on LANDMAP Outstanding and High overall evaluation landscapes, together with the extent and degree of significant visual effects, including on users of promoted (Prince Llewelyn Bridleway) and other local public rights of way, highways and Open Access Land, by virtue of the wind turbines, access tracks and associated infrastructure.

- 27 - Page 35 These harmful impacts would be contrary to UDP Policy UDP SP12, ENV2, GP1 and E3, PPW and TAN 8.

Ecology, Ornithology

The application site covers a large area of upland Powys which has a mix of ecology present. Concerns have been raised by consultees about the adequacy of the ES in assessing the impact and proposed mitigation of the proposals.

European Sites

NRW have raised concerns about the potential impact of the proposal on two European Sites: the River Wye Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Elenydd Mallaen Special Protection Area (SPA).

In relation to the River Wye SAC, the applicant has concluded that the River Wye SAC would not be impacted as the project is not within the catchment of the Wye. However, as pointed out by NRW the new access road is within the Wye catchment and close to watercourses that feed into the Wye. Otters may also be present within the SAC watershed which would also include part of the application site. Therefore NRW disagrees with the Appellant’s contention that there is no potential impact on the River Wye SAC.

However, NRW recognise that appropriate mitigation (which they specify in their consultation response) ‘could avoid and minimise the potential for adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC.’

In relation to the Elenydd Mallaen SPA, NRW notes that the ES identifies the potential for impacts on the Elenydd Mallaen SPA and the need for an assessment on this site, but does not include such an assessment. The main risk to the features of the site is collision of birds with turbines, in particular Red Kite. However, NRW advised that insufficient information on bird surveys have been provided in order to assess the risk.

NRW’s position is that the project is likely to have a significant effect on the River Wye SAC and Elenydd Mallaen SPA. An appropriate assessment under the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) is required which should include consideration of suitable planning conditions to secure the necessary mitigation to avoid an adverse effect on site integrity. In light of the inadequacy of the information identified by NRW, it is considered that an appropriate assessment cannot currently be properly undertaken by the competent authority (who, following the appeal being brought, is now the Welsh Minister).

European Protected Species

NRW have advised that further information is required to inform the assessment of the impact of the proposal on Bats, Great Crested Newts and Dormouse.

Thus it is impossible at this stage for a decision maker to properly comply with their obligations under the Habitats Directive, as explained by the Supreme Court in R.(Morge) v

- 28 - Page 36 Hampshire CC [2011] Env. L.R. 19. There is also insufficient information to determine the impact on Badgers who are protected separately under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.

UDP Policy EN7 states ‘Developments which contravene the protection afforded to European Protected Species will only be permitted where they are necessary in the interests of public health or safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment. Evidence will be required to indicate that a developer has considered alternative sites for the development but that these have not proved suitable.’ The proposals cannot be said to comply with UDP Policy EN7.

Blanket bog and Dry Heath

UDP Policy SP3 identifies the need to maintain biodiversity. ENV6 is concerned with sites of regional and local importance and states that where development is considered to be acceptable appropriate compensatory or mitigation measures to offset the impact of the proposals should be secured. Given the fact that blanket bog and dry heath are both Powys and UK BAP habitats as well as habitats listed on the NERC Act: Section 42 list of habitats the lack of mitigation for the loss of areas of these habitats due to the proposed development is not in accordance with the requirements of the Powys LDP policies. The position is similar with regard to the loss of blanket bog.

The application has failed to demonstrate that the ecological and ornithological impacts of the proposed development are acceptable.

Hydrology and Geology

ES Chapter 9 looks at the impact of the proposed development on Hydrology and Geology. The key matters that are assessed include the impacts on the River Wye, private water supplies, fisheries and watercourses and groundwater.

It is considered the ES to be largely robust in its assessment that there will be limited impacts. However, the ES confirms that there should be a 20m buffer zone around watercourses or within the boggy areas at the headwaters to watercourses. Turbine 6 appears to be located within such a stream headwater and no mitigation has been provided. Further information is required regarding the distance of the edge of infrastructure ground disturbance from watercourses in order to confirm this buffer zone has been enforced.

Peat

‘Assessing the impact of windfarm developments on peatlands in Wales’ (CCW, 2010) is the appropriate guidance for assessing peatlands. NRW submitted in their scoping advice what the applicant should do to enable proper assessment of the impacts on peatlands. This advice has not been followed and the survey results submitted are inadequate to enable assessment of the impacts on peat. NRW highlight in their consultation response that it is unclear why the infrastructure layout has not been amended to avoid and minimise impacts on peatland habitats.

- 29 - Page 37

It is considered that the peatland baseline has not been adequately characterised and measures such as re-siting infrastructure, and the provision of a habitat management plan could significantly reduce the impact of the proposed development. Whilst relocating infrastructure may be able to reduce the impact on peatland to an acceptable level, it is noted that the application boundary it drawn tight around the proposed development meaning infrastructure cannot be relocated more than requested through micro-siting within the remit of this application. Currently, the carbon savings of the scheme cannot be said to have been maximised.

Residential Amenity

A number of dwellings and farmsteads are located in the area surrounding the proposed development, the closest of which are Hir-brysg which is c.810m south of T4, and c.900m southeast of T2 and Nant-Gwylit which is c.840m southeast of T1 and c.890m south- southeast of T2.

The nearest settlement is Llangurig approximately 1.6km to the south-southeast of T1 and the larger settlement of Llanidloes is c.4.3km to the east-northeast of T4, T5 and T6.

Whilst the above distances mentioned are in relation to the turbines, which would become a large feature in the landscape, it is important to recognise that the associated infrastructure would also require a substantial amount of development. The new tracks are approximately 5.4km in length and a further 420m of existing tracks are also to be upgraded. These access tracks would pass very close to dwellings often across virgin open ground. It should be noted that the impact on residential visual amenity has been discussed previously under Landscape and Visual.

UDP Policy requires wind farm development to not unacceptably adversely affect the occupants or users of sensitive properties (usually dwellings) or their amenities by reason of noise, vibration, shadow flicker or reflected light. These points are assessed below:

Noise

This proposal will create noise, both during construction and operation.

Construction noise is likely to be audible from the surrounding dwelling, particularly the construction of the access tracks which pass close to a number of dwellings. Unacceptable impacts of these works can be controlled by conditions relating to when construction work can take place.

With regard to operational noise, National policy and guidance refers to the need for operational noise levels to fall within the established limits of ETSU-R-97 (The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind farms (1997) Energy Technology Support Unit). This guidance sets out indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farms. ETSU-R-97 is supported as an appropriate standard in TAN8. PCC Environmental Health are satisfied that the noise generated by the turbines falls within the limits set by ETSU-R-97. It is therefore considered

- 30 - Page 38 that if permission were to be granted appropriate noise conditions could imposed to ensure the noise impacts remain acceptable. With this in mind the proposal is considered to fulfil national and local policy in respect of the likely impact from operational noise.

Reference has been made in representation to Amplitude Modulation, this is the rhythmical thud or swoosh that can be heard from wind turbines and this has been associated with epilepsy, sleep disturbance, irritability, headaches, nausea, and heart related problems. Collectively, these issues are generally referred to as “Wind Turbine Syndrome” or “Vibro- Acoustic Disease”. It should be noted that this has not been scientifically proven to date.

That said, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is currently looking to commission a research contract titled ‘Review of the evidence on the effects of and response to amplitude modulation (AM) from wind turbines, with a view to recommending how excessive AM might be controlled through the use of a planning condition’.

The Institute of Acoustics (IOA) is the independent professional body in the UK for those engaged in acoustics, noise and vibration. In April 2015 they published a document titled Methods for Rating Amplitude Modulation in Wind Turbine Noise. In it they note that ‘wind turbine AM has been observed in and around dwellings in the UK and elsewhere and in some cases has led to specific complaints from residents.’ Research on wind farm noise is ongoing and there is an emerging consensus that wind turbine noise, and amplitude modulation in particular, is primarily an ‘annoyance’ issue rather than a ‘health’ issue’. This annoyance does/would negatively impact the amenity of any affected dwellings.

Therefore a precautionary approach should be adopted and it is considered that a condition relating to AM should be attached to any permission. This approach has recently been accepted by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in relation to the Llandinam Repowering Scheme in Powys.

Vibration

No information has been received indicating that there would be negative impacts on dwellings as a result of vibrations. It is considered that should there be any impacts they would be during the construction phase and primarily relate to the construction of the access tracks or vehicular movements along the tracks once completed.

It is considered that any impacts, if there were any impacts, would be minor.

Shadow Flicker

Shadow flicker is when the sun passes behind the rotors of a wind turbine and casts a shadow over any neighbouring properties. When the blades (and associated shadows) rotate they move quickly which results in light levels flickering and is most noticeable when the shadow passes across window/door openings.

Only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can be affected at the latitudes of the UK – turbines do not cast long shadows on their southern side. The effect is also mitigated by the size of the turbine and the distance to the receptor. A distance of 10 rotor diameters is generally considered to sufficiently mitigate the impact.

- 31 - Page 39

In this instance there are no properties within the 10 rotor diameters (820m) of a turbine. Therefore the distance to neighbouring properties is such that it is not considered that shadow flicker would negatively affect any nearby dwellings.

Reflected light

Light reflecting off turbines and the rotating blades can impact dwellings in a similar (but opposite) way to shadow flicker and would primarily impact properties to the south. The applicants have sought to reduce this impact as far as practicable by making the turbines a minimal reflective, off-grey colour with a semi-matt finish.

It is considered that the impacts on dwellings as a result of reflective light would be minimal, if at all.

Cultural Heritage

UDP Policy E3 (4) states that new turbines should not ‘unacceptably impact upon any buildings or features of conservation or archaeological interest’.

There are no World Heritage Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields and Designated Wrecks within 10km of the application site. There are however a number of listed buildings, scheduled monuments, three conservation areas and two Registered Historic Landscapes nearby.

When considering the impacts of wind farms on cultural heritage assets (such as scheduled ancient monuments; listed buildings; conservation areas; and registered historic landscapes) it is important to consider both the direct impact on an asset (including the potential for undiscovered archaeology) and any indirect impacts on the character, appearance and setting of said assets. In this instance it is considered that here is potential for direct impacts through the construction process, primarily through the disturbance of currently unknown archaeological remains.

With regard to listed buildings, Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 makes states that ‘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’.

In the Barnwell Manor case the Court of Appeal made it clear that in enacting s.66 (1), Parliament had intended that the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings should not simply be given careful consideration by the decision-maker for the purpose of deciding whether there would be some harm, but should be given "considerable importance and weight" when the decision-maker carried out the balancing exercise.

Therefore special regard must be given to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their setting and any harm caused should be given considerable weight within the planning

- 32 - Page 40 balance. Further to this UDP Policy ENV14 and PPW para 6.5.9 also provide further policy protection for listed buildings and their settings.

The ES does not identify any adverse impacts on individual listed buildings but the conservation area in which it sits was assessed. The professional opinion provided by Mr Croft indicates that the wind farm raises considerable concern over the impact on the Grade II* listed Church of St Curig in Llangurig, it states:

‘This [Church of St Curig] is a key landmark feature of the Llangurig Conservation Area (see above) and it is a visually prominent local landmark. Its local prominence contributes substantially to its significance as the primary church in Llangurig and the local area. The proposed development would feature strongly in the backdrop of views of the church (see Plate 13 in Appendix 8.1 and Montage Vpt 6) challenging this visual prominence. Our view is that this would result in a Moderate Adverse Impact and Large Adverse Effect. It would fail to preserve the setting of this listed building’

Mr Croft goes on to confirm that there may be impacts on the settings of other listed buildings in the conservation area. A further three listed buildings have been identified by Mr Croft where insufficient information has been provided to fully assess the impact of the development on their setting. These are the grade II listed buildings at Glanrhyd and Blaennythigion (ES ref 241, 244 and 240).

In line with the statutory duties placed on PCC by Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 considerable weight should be given to the negative impact the proposed development would have on the listed Church of St Curig in Llangurig,

The proposed development will impact the setting of the Llangurig Conservation Area. Whilst there is no specific policy regarding this in the UDP it is noted that PPW para 6.5.17 provides a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission should a proposal conflict ‘with the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area, or its setting…’ the impact on the setting on conservation areas should therefore also be given weight in the planning balance. It is considered that the ES particularly underestimates the impact of the development on the rural setting on the Llangurig Conservation Area.

UDP Policy ENV17 states that ‘development which would unacceptably affect the site or setting of a scheduled ancient monument or of an archaeological site of national importance will not be permitted and other sites of archaeological importance will be safeguarded where possible.’ At the national level PPW para 6.5.1 and WO circular 60/96 para 17 also provide guidance in relation to SAMs. When PPW is read with WO Circular 60/96 it is clear that national policy establishes a presumption against proposals which will have a ‘significant impact on the setting of visible remains’.

Mr Croft has confirmed that the proposed development would have a Significant Impact on the Domen Glw Cairn (Scheduled Monument MG262) and Pen-y-Gaer Camp Hillfort (Scheduled Monument MG085). He also considers that not enough information has been provided to assess the impact on the Pen y Castell Hillfort (Scheduled Monument MG082), Rhyd ur Onen Motte and Bailey Castle (Scheduled Monument MG088), the Dinas Camp Hillfort (Scheduled Monument MG020) and Pen y Clun Camp Hillfort (Scheduled Monument

- 33 - Page 41 MG031) but that the impact on these may be significant once further information is provided to support the assessment of the 4 monuments.

Concerns were also raised by Mr Croft over the assessment of the Clywedog Valley Landscape of Special Historic Interest and he considered the impact would be Significant. These concerns are supported by NRW who consider the impact would be more severe. They highlight that ‘outside the SSAs, the implicit objective is to maintain the landscape character i.e. no significant change in landscape character from wind turbine development.’ NRW consider that there will be a significant effect upon the character of the Clywedog valley registered landscape from a number of viewpoints. This is a material consideration in the consideration of this application.

In summary, the identified impacts on Scheduled Monuments, local and national policy dictate that a presumption against the granting of consent for the proposed development applies. A further presumption against grant of permission is triggered by the impact on the settings of the conservation area at Llangurig. Additionally, the identified impacts on the setting and significance of Grade II* Church of St Curig must be given considerable weight against grant of permission. The impact on the Clywedog Valley Landscape of Special Historic Interest provides further weights against the proposed development.

In light of the above it is considered that the scheme is substantially harmful in cultural heritage terms and this must be considered in the planning balance.

Highways / Transportation

The proposed access track is extensive, crossing large areas of open ground over several kilometres from the trunk road (A470) to the turbines located to the northwest. In this section I will deal with the technical highway impacts and not any other impacts resulting from the access (such as landscape impacts for example).

The proposed left in, left out arrangement at the junction between the A470 and the access is cause for concern. I agree that it would be hard to ensure all construction traffic continues northbound for circa 4 miles before turning around and traffic turning at an earlier point would disadvantage other road users.

Both highway authorities have commented that the information provided is insufficient, no detailed engineering drawings have been submitted at either the junction with the A407 or the two junctions/intersections with the local highway. As a result of these poor plans other impacts (such as ecological impacts) cannot be properly assessed. There is therefore no way of determining the acceptability of the proposed access. Further to this the proposed access road route is considered unacceptable by PCC Highways where it intersects with the corner of the local road. Other deficiencies have been highlighted with regard to the suggested Traffic Management Plan and the information submitted alongside the Transport Assessment.

Notwithstanding the above the Welsh Government as Welsh trunk road highway authority have directed that 13 conditions should be imposed on any permission, the majority being an attempt to secure adequate information prior to commencement. The extent of the conditions requested are extensive and no further information has been submitted by the applicant.

- 34 - Page 42

It is clear from the information provided and responses received that the application fails to provide adequate detail relating to the access proposals. The plans indicating the route of the access track are unclear and fail to provide information that would normally be required when development proposals interact with the highway network. Furthermore the route proposed is unacceptable to the local highway authority and it is clear the Welsh Government as the trunk road highway authority have insufficient information to confirm whether the proposals are acceptable to them.

Some of the conditions proposed by the Welsh Government as trunk road highway authority only relate to the movement Abnormal Indivisible Loads, it should be noted that should permission be granted then all construction traffic would be expected to access the site via the A470.

It has not been shown that the proposed development would not unacceptably adversely affect the enjoyment and safe use of highways, nor has it been shown that it can be served by an acceptable means of highway access. The access proposals are therefore contrary to policies within the UDP.

Private Drinking Water Supplies

The ES has identified several potentially operational private water supplies near the application site but as these are all in excess of 395m or more away from any proposed development are considered unlikely to be affected.

No response has been received from PCC Environmental Health relating to private drinking water supplies and I have no reason to doubt the conclusions of the ES in this regard.

Public Rights of Way / Open Access Land

PCC recommends that turbines are kept at least tip height from footpaths and 200m from any Bridleway or PRoW of a higher status. Four turbines fail to adhere to this guidance.

The applicant consulted the British Horse Society (BHS) prior to submitting the application and as a result proposes to construct two alternative recreational tracks to provide users with a choice of route to retain a separation distance of in excess of 200m for the majority of their route.

It is noted however that 300m of the proposed ‘recreational route’ fails to meet this 200m separation distance, being 130m from T6 and 160m from T5. However, PCC Countryside Services (CS) have indicated that they do not object so must consider the route acceptable subject to it being open to walkers, cyclists and horse riders. For this to be secured it would be necessary for the route to become a permissive right of way for the lifetime of the development, something that could only be secured through a Section 106 Agreement. PCC CS also suggest no turbine should be allowed to micro-site any closer than their currently proposed condition to any PRoW if they fail to meet the PCC guidance.

- 35 - Page 43 PCC CS note that the ES does not set out how PRoW within the application site will be impacted upon during the construction phase nor how any impacts will be managed, they advise that this information must be provided prior to construction commencing. The need for this to be provided raises significant concern that there is insufficient information to enable a proper assessment of the acceptability of the scheme on PRoW. Moreover, by attaching a condition relating to this implies that any impact can be managed/mitigated in an acceptable way – whether this can be achieved at this stage is unknown. I note that an Access Improvement Fund has been offered and that PCC Countryside Services wish to accept it as this could, among other reasons, be used to improve the ‘local rights of way network during construction, when on-site paths may be subject to closure and disruption due to the works’. In its current state this fund would fail both the tests for a planning condition (as it is not precise) and S.106 (as it cannot be said to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms whilst the impacts are unknown), so this must be secured outside the planning system. The result of this is that the terms as set out within the PCC CS response cannot be met and they therefore at this stage object to the proposed development.

Further to the above the British Horse Society have objected to the proposed development as the turbines are too close to the Bridleway and the alternative recreational route provides inadequate separation. PCC CS reported in their response that further bridleway upgrades/improvements have been offered post submission to the British Horse Society but as these have not been formally submitted to PCC they cannot be considered in the determination of this application.

It is noted that the access track crosses National Cycle Route 8 which runs from Cardiff to Holyhead and is known by its Welsh name Lôn Las Cymru which interpreted means Wales' Green Lane. Whilst objections have been raised in relation to this by members of the public, no objection has been raised by PCC CS. Whilst there will be some impact on this route, the harm caused will be minor as it is will occur on a very small section of this 400km cycling route.

Part of the proposed development is on Open Access Land. PCC CS have not commented on the impact on this but it is noted that there will be a negative impact at least during the construction period. Post this period the ability of users to access the area would be regained, the visual impact of the development on Open Access Land has been discussed previously.

Grid Connection

The application does not include a connection to the National Grid as this will be the basis of a separate application. However it is proper to consider whether the principle of a grid connection from this site would in broad terms be acceptable.

The applicant proposes a new 132Kv overhead power line would connect with existing infrastructure to the west (substation at Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm). The applicant confirms that they have received a grid connection offer from SP Energy Networks dated 14th August 2014 in this regard. The proposed corridor for the connection is illustrated in Figure 1.7 of Volume II and an assessment of this proposed Grid Connection route is included at Technical Appendix 5.9.

- 36 - Page 44 Since this application was submitted the Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm (EN010020) has been refused development consent. This places the proposed connection route into serious doubt and would potentially require an alternative connection to travel a much greater distance to achieve a connection.

Furthermore, the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the Bryn Blaen project would need to consider the potential impact of the grid connection on European sites, something that cannot potentially be done if the grid connection route is unknown following the refusal of the Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm.

Socio Economic

The total capital cost of the proposed development is circa £20m.

The ES states in Chapter 6 that 8% of the direct economic benefits will be retained locally during the development (pre-construction) stage and 7% will be retained during the construction stage, this represents a direct impact of £1.37m into the local economy. The ES does not define the area referred to as ‘local’ in the chapter despite using the word 76 times, it is assumed that it refers to Powys. There would be a further £4.43m of direct economic benefits to rest of Wales as a result of the proposed development. It is noted that once you allow for indirect impacts it is estimated that the proposed development would bring around £8.89m into the Welsh economy.

It is estimated that the proposed development would generate around 4.8 full time equivalent jobs and it is estimated that the development would generate £0.23 million locally and £0.51 million of direct economic impacts in Wales per annum for its life time.

The applicant states ‘there is no clear evidence that wind farm developments positively or negatively affect levels of tourism.’ Whilst this is noted I am also mindful of the local concern raised in representations that the proposed development will negatively impact tourism, which is considered a vital part of the economy and source of employment in Mid Wales.

The applicant concluded that the proposed development ‘will have no detrimental socio- economic impact at the local or regional level’ and will have a small positive effect on the economy and employment. This is based on the assumption of no negative impacts on tourism, which the applicant provides no evidence to corroborate.

I consider that a wind farm development in this location has the potential to negatively impact the tourism economy. In addition, I also consider that whilst the construction phase will generate a significant economic boost, the long term economic benefits are somewhat flat.

I consider the overall socio-economic impact of the scheme to be slightly positive, which must be given due weight in the planning balance.

Aviation

- 37 - Page 45 The application site lies within the MoD Mid Wales Tactical Training Area (TTA). TAN 8 states that ‘consultation with the Ministry will be required for any proposals lying within what is known as the Tactical Training Area.’ Whilst the MOD have been consulted no response has been received to date.

The Civil Aviation Authority have responded and subject to conditions being imposed they do not object to the proposed development.

It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not result in any unacceptable impacts on aviation.

Telecommunications

Wind Turbines can potentially cause electromagnetic interference by blocking or deflecting line of sight radio or microwave links or by the scattering of transmission links. The ES has identified there is potential for temporary adverse impact on television signals during the erection of the wind turbines, but that this will only last three to four days per turbine (dependant on weather conditions).

No long term impacts have been identified on residential properties during the operational stage and the applicant accepts that individual mitigation at individual properties may be necessary.

It is considered that the impact on telecommunication signals can be made to be acceptable by the imposition of a suitable planning condition.

Conclusions

It is clear that the development proposals cannot be said to comply with the adopted development plan. Therefore, in accordance with planning law, one must one must look at the material considerations to see whether the benefits of the scheme are so great that they warrant granting permission contrary to the development plan.

In this instance there are strong material considerations in favour of granting permission. The need for renewable energy is unquestioned in the fight against climate change and, despite the relatively small contribution the proposed development would make towards this need, it is welcomed and provides considerable weight in favour of granting permission. Furthermore there would, on balance, be some economic benefit for both Powys and Wales over the lifetime of the proposal with most benefit during the construction period.

However, the weight of the material considerations against granting permission are greater. Unacceptable impacts have been identified with regard to Landscape and Visual Impact, Ecology, Cultural Heritage, Highways and Public Rights of Way. These impacts relate to the turbines, access track and associated infrastructure. Furthermore there are a number of impacts that are currently unknown as further information is required in order to assess the proposed development fully and consider the acceptability of these matters.

- 38 - Page 46 When the material considerations are placed in the planning balance, it is clear that material considerations do not indicate that this scheme should be granted permission. Therefore in accordance with the adopted Development Plan this proposal should be refused.

Recommendation

This report recommends that PCC objects to the application for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is unacceptable in landscape and visual terms. This is due to the extent and degree of the significant landscape effects on the Wye Valley Uplands, Clywedog Upland Grazing and Plynlimon Moorlands LANDMAP Visual & Sensory Aspect Areas, together with the extent and degree of significant adverse visual effects, including on users of promoted (Prince Llewelyn Bridleway) and other local public rights of way, highways and Open Access Land. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies UDP SP12, ENV2, GP1 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010), Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy (July 2005) and Planning Policy Wales: Edition 7 (2014).

2. The proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the setting of Domen Glw Cairn (Scheduled Monument MG262), Pen-y-Gaer Camp Hillfort (Scheduled Monument MG085), the Church of St Curig in Llangurig (Grade II* listed building), and the Llangurig Conservation Area. It would also have a significant adverse impact on the character of the Clywedog Valley Landscape of Special Historic Interest The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies SP12, SP3, ENV17, ENV14, ENV16 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010), Welsh Office Circular 60/96: Planning and the Historic Environment: Archaeology (1996) and Planning Policy Wales: Edition 7 (2014).

3. The proposed access track is unacceptable in so far as it has not been demonstrated that where the track intersects with the local highway road the enjoyment and safe use of highways will be retained. The proposed development is therefore contrary to guidance contained within policies UDP SP12, GP1, GP4 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010), Planning Policy Wales: Edition 7 (2014).

4. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that there would not be an adverse impact on the setting of the Pen y Castell Hillfort (Scheduled Monument MG082), Rhyd ur Onen Motte and Bailey Castle (Scheduled Monument MG088), the Dinas Camp Hillfort (Scheduled Monument MG020) and Pen y Clun Camp Hillfort (Scheduled Monument MG031). The proposed development is therefore contrary to guidance contained within policies SP12, ENV17 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010), Planning Policy Wales: Edition 7 (2014) and Welsh Office Circular 60/96: Planning and the Historic Environment: Archaeology (1996).

5. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development on residential visual amenity are or can be made acceptable. The proposed development is therefore contrary to guidance contained within policies

- 39 - Page 47 UDP SP12, GP1 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010) and Planning Policy Wales: Edition 7 (2014).

6. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the impacts on Public Rights of Way can be managed to an acceptable level. The proposed development is therefore contrary to guidance contained within policies SP12, GP1, RL6 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010), Planning Policy Wales: Edition 7 (2014).

7. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that impact of the proposed development on European protected sites, and European Protected Species and local fauna (Badgers) would be acceptable. The proposed development is therefore contrary to guidance contained within policies SP12, GP1, ENV4, ENV5, ENV6, ENV7 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010), Planning Policy Wales: Edition 7 (2014).

8. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the impacts on Peatlands are acceptable. The proposed development is therefore contrary to guidance contained within policies UDP SP12, GP1 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010), Planning Policy Wales: Edition 7 (2014).

- 40 - Page 48 Page 49 This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW110 - 20153

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2013/1064 Grid Ref: 313900 252520

Community Glascwm Community Council Valid Date: Officer: Council: 01/11/2013 Mr Andrew Metcalfe (Planning Consultant) Applicant: C & L Hammond, Penllanerch, Glascwm

Location: Penllanerch, Glascwm, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5SE

Proposal: Full: Installation of a single wind turbine (24.8m to hub and 34.5m to blade tip) and associated equipment housing (retrospective)

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

Previous Committee Reports:

Reports that went before Members on the 23rd January 2014, 20th March 2014 and 4th December 2014 are attached for consideration.

The reason for Committee determination

The application relates to a wind turbine over 24 metres in height.

Site Location and Description

The application site is located in an agricultural field approximately 230 metres to the east of Penllanerch farmstead. The nearest neighbouring residential property (Little Busnant) is located circa 610 metres south of the site.

The field boundaries comprise established vegetation (trees and hedgerows) with agricultural land beyond.

The site is located within the Community Council area for Glascwm.

This application is for a single wind turbine measuring 34.5 metres to blade tip (24.8 metres to hub) with an installed capacity of 50kW. Connection to the grid is via underground cabling.

The application originally proposed the construction of the turbine. It has now been constructed and was commissioned on 27th March 2014. This allows the actual impacts of the development to be assessed rather than just the predicted impacts. It should be noted that the fact it has already been built should not impact the question of its acceptability.

1 Page 51

Consultee Responses

No response has been received from the following organisations at the time of writing:

 Open Spaces Society  Ramblers Association  Penybont Community Council  Painscastle Community Council  Aberedw Community Council  Llanelwedd Community Council  PCC - Building Control

It should be noted that the following consultation responses have been received since the application was submitted to PCC in 2013.

Llandrindod Wells Town Council

Support the application.

Glascwm Community Council

4 members support the application, 2 opposed it and 1 abstained. A number of members of the public attended the meeting with the majority being opposed to the application. Members felt that overall the turbine was well sited.

Disserth & Trecoed Community Council

The above application was placed before the Council on 12th November 2013. No objections were made.

Powys County Council (PCC) – Highways

Highways responded in November 2013 stating that construction phase traffic management plan submitted does not offer sufficient information to enable the development’s impact on highway safety to be adequately considered, the response set out what further information was required. At this time Highways recommend refusal of the application

Further information was provided by Aeolus Power and in response to this PCC Highways confirmed that they consider the development will have no adverse effect on highway safety and withdrew their recommendation for refusal subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring the construction works to be carried out in accordance with the Construction Management Plan submitted.

PCC – Ecologist

The Glascwm and Gladestry SSSI is situated approximately 1.1km to the east and south of the site. The River Wye SAC and SSSI is 1.2km to the west of the site. It is not anticipated that the proposed turbine will have any detrimental effect on the protected sites.

2 Page 52 The site identified for the proposed wind turbine has been chosen to minimise potential environmental impact. The land is improved agricultural grazing land with limited ecological value.

There are a number of hedgerows and mature trees in the local area however the turbine has been located over 50 metres away from such features and as such the potential to impact on foraging bats and birds is minimised.

PCC - Environmental Health

ETSU-R-97 provides a method for determining operational noise limits for wind farm developments. For single turbines or developments where there are large separation distances between turbines and sensitive receptors, a simplified method can be adopted whereby, if operational noise is limited to LA90, 10 min of 35 dB(A) at the closest receptors in wind speeds up to 10 ms at 10m height. This limit may be increased to 45 dB where the occupier of a property has a financial involvement in the application.

No objection to the scheme in relation to noise, but suggested a condition to be included with any permission.

PCC – Public Rights of Way

Notes that public footpath GC1595 will be affected by the proposed underground cabling run linking the turbine to the grid.

Countryside Services request that the applicant contacts them prior to any ground works taking place as it may well require a short term temporary closure of the footpath whilst ground works take place.

Also ask that users of the legally recorded public footpath are given due consideration in relation to plant movement and operation within the site. Any access tracks which are to be used in relation to the development, which also carry public rights of access, must be given due consideration. This consideration could include appropriate signage, speed restrictions and passing places. It should be highlighted that users of the footpath would have priority of access over any plant machinery on site.

Also highlights that the applicant should at no time obstruct any public right of way during the development process and at no time should any materials be placed or stored on the line of any public right of way; any damage caused to the surface of any public right of way must be made good to at least its current condition or better.

No objection to the proposed application subject to the applicant making contact with the department to discuss the cabling works.

PCC – Common Land

Confirm that the application site is in close proximity to land registered as common land under the Commons Registration Act 1965 as Register Unit No. (Radnorshire)CL 60 – Little Hill Common. Commons Registration Records show that:

3 Page 53  Title to the adjacent common land was registered at the Land Registry in 1993: WA484811 – the registered proprietor at that time was Mrs Suzanne Fisher -The common is subject to grazing rights  Since May 2005, the common is also subject to a public right of access, on foot, granted by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 Both the Traffic Management Plan and the Planning Design and Access Statement indicate that the Applicant intends to use existing council roads and farm tracks however, no detailed plan showing the exact location of the proposed temporary access track and turning area was provided.

The Applicant is therefore advised that, should it be decided to construct or improve a vehicular access from the unclassified council road, U1500, across the adjacent registered common land; additional Consent under Section 38, Commons Act 2006 must first be obtained from the Welsh Ministers.

PCC- Contaminated Land

Site has been used for general quarrying. This is a potential contaminative use. In accordance with DOE Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission, the Local Planning Authority should adopt appropriate conditions in circumstances where a potential contamination issue may exist, therefore a condition is suggested should permission be granted.

PCC – Built Heritage

Considered the impact of the proposed development on listed buildings in the area surrounding the turbine. After reviewing the relevant listed buildings in the local area he concluded by stating that ‘I would not consider that the turbine as erected would have an impact on the setting of…listed buildings’ in the locality.

New Radnor Community Council

Expressed concerned at the size of the turbine and the impact one this high would have on the landscape. Also concerned about potential noise nuisance given the unforeseen consequences () of smaller turbines in the area. In addition the proposed site is very close to a public right of way. This has implications for public safety and the Community Council are concerned that the right of way should be retained and not affected by the development.

Gladestry Community Council

Note that it appears from the information supplied that this turbine will not impact upon the Gladestry Community Council area. Councillors are concerned that the proliferation of turbines in rural areas may have a cumulative adverse effect on the peace and tranquillity of the landscape and native wildlife. They would appreciate the issue being taken into consideration when determining this and other applications.

Natural Resources Wales (NRW)

The current proposal, which is located outside a Strategic Search Area as defined by Technical Advice Note (TAN) 8, is for a single turbine 34.5 metres high to tip of blade.

4 Page 54

The application site sits within LANDMAP Historic Landscape aspect area of Edw (RDNRHL914) that has been classed as ‘Outstanding’. LANDMAP describes Edw as a “historic landscape area defined by a fieldscape of irregular fields occupying the upland valley of the river Edw and its tributaries to the east of Builth Wells. Small to medium-sized fields of irregular and regular shape with predominantly hedged boundaries. Early prehistoric settlement and land use represented by chance finds and burial and ritual monuments. Later prehistoric activity represented by an Iron Age hillfort. Strategically-sited Roman fort at Colwyn Castle. The area includes extensive evidence of medieval settlement and land use denoted by small nucleated church settlements at Aberedw, Llanbadarn-y-garreg, Cregina, Glascwm, Llansantffraed-in-Elwel, and Rhulen and by scattered earthwork castles. Dispersed farmsteads of possibly medieval and early post medieval origin. Discrete areas of possibly medieval ridge and furrow cultivation. Small post-medieval nucleated roadside settlements at Hundred House and Franksbridge. Post-medieval water corn and woollen mills.’

Directly to the north of the site lies the Historic Landscape Area of Glascwm Hill (RDNRHL371) also classed as ‘Outstanding’ in LANDMAP. Glascwm Hill aspect area is described as an unenclosed common running along upland ridge. Early activity indicated by scattered prehistoric burial monuments on hilltops and upper slopes. Medeival and later land use represented by building platforms, a number of farmstead encroachments onto the common and small areas of cultivation ridges. Post-medieval shooting butts, small stone quarries and evidence of past cutting.

Despite the conclusion of the LVIA, that the turbine will result in a “slight adverse” impact on the historic landscape, NRW has concerns about the impacts that turbines could have on the landscape in this area of Radnorshire owing to its largely undeveloped nature, and considers that turbines would be likely to detract from the landscape character. The location of an existing 21m to blade tip wind turbine in Upper Llwyn Tudor, Rhulen (planning application reference P/2012/0959) has been considered in the LVIA which concludes that the proposed wind turbine is likely to contribute to very few cumulative effects within the study area. However no ZTVs have been included in the cumulative landscape and visual assessment to illustrate the extent and interaction of the visibility of both wind turbines. Different size wind turbines have the potential to create a poorly coordinated visual image when seen in combination.

NRW agrees that the visual impact on users of the Wye Valley Walk is unlikely to be significant, and there is unlikely to be significant visibility of the development from other Long Distance Paths or the National Cycle Route.

In view of the ecological report submitted in support of the application “Ecological Appraisal of the land at Penllanerch Farm, Glascwm, Hundred House, in relation to a proposed wind turbine” by One Planet Ecology, dated September 2013, NRW agrees with the Powys Ecologist in the memorandum dated 26th November 2013 and considers that protected sites and European protected species should not be affected by the proposal.

Please note that we have not considered possible effects on all local or regional biodiversity interests. Therefore, you should not rule out the possibility of adverse effects on such interests, which would be relevant to your Authority’s general duty to have regard to conserving biodiversity interests. Therefore, you should not rule out the possibility of adverse affects on such interests, which would be relevant to your Authority’s general duty to have

5 Page 55 regard to conserving biodiversity, as set out in section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006). We recommend that you speak to you Authority’s Ecologist in this regard.

CPAT

There are no significant direct or indirect impacts to non-designated archaeological sites within, or immediately around, this application area. We would therefore have no objections to the application.

There is some potential for a moderate adverse visual impact on SAM RD168 and Cadw should be consulted for their views on this aspect of the development. I have copied Suzanne Whiting into your consultation email. The SAM lies approx 420m upslope to the north east and it would appear from the LVIA that the upper hub and blades may be visible from the SAM. The applicant should supply a photomontage to CPAT and Cadw showing the view of the turbine from within the SAM area to assist in the assessment of visual impact.

Cadw

Cadw only provide responses in relation to those aspects of the proposal, which fall within Cadw’s remit, that being the impact of development on scheduled monuments or Registered Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens. They do not address any potential impact on the setting of any listed building, which is a matter for the local authority.

Cadw responded on 17th January 2013, highlighting that the nearest Schedule Ancient Monument (SAM) is the Gellidywyll Platform Settlement (RD168) at circa 450m from the application site. A further 23 SAMs are within 5km of the site. The response refers to the lack of proper assessment of the heritage assets but agrees with the conclusions of the applicants LVIA. In their concluding remarks they state that the ‘proposed development will in Cadw’s opinion have a moderate adverse impact on the setting of RD168 and a negligible to slight adverse impact on the settings of the remaining scheduled ancient monuments that fall within the ZTV’.

A further response was received on 13th December 2013. It stated that ‘Cadw would draw the Planning Officers attention the insufficient consideration of the historic environment within this application, in spite of the applicant acknowledging impacts in the LVIA. Scheduled ancient monuments are covered briefly as part of paragraph 8.2 of the LVIA. This acknowledges potential indirect impacts to RD168 (moderate adverse), on multiple unspecified monuments on Cefn Wylfre (slight adverse) and on unspecified more distant monuments (slight adverse at worst). No indication is given of the process by which these inclusions were reached, nor whether this has entailed any specialist archaeological input, p31 stating that a full archaeological or cultural heritage assessment was considered to be beyond the scope of the report. No photomontages or wireframe studios are provided and the accompanying Design and Access Statement and Environmental Statement do not consider the historic environment. The following advice is therefore based upon limited information.’ Cadw provided comments on the impact on SAMs but again concluded that ‘the proposed development will, in Cadw’s opinion, have a moderate adverse impact on the setting of RD168 and a negligible to slight adverse impact on the settings of the remaining monuments that fall within the ZTV.’

6 Page 56 Acoustic Consultant Acting on behalf of PCC Environmental Health Services

Following the deferral of this application at the last meeting on 4th December 2014, to enable consideration of a representation in relation to noise, Mr Bowdler (Acoustic Consultant) has provided independent advice on the matter.

Following a review of the application documents and late representations received, he concludes by stating;

‘It is clear from the application where the turbine is and what model is used. Furthermore there is a properly conducted test report showing the sound power level of the turbine. The whole of the NIA has been carried out correctly with only one minor error and shows a margin below the limit (after correcting for the error) of very nearly 5dB which is substantial. Accordingly I have no hesitation in saying that it is highly unlikely that the turbine will exceed the noise limits.’

Representations

49 letter of objection and 19 letters of support have been received. The main matters raised can be summarised as below.  Objections to the proposed development highlighted the following:  Landscape and visual impact.  Damage to Tourism.  Noise pollution to neighbouring residential properties.  Cumulative Impact.  Area of outstanding natural beauty.  Impact on bridleways and footpaths.  Shadow Flicker.  Turbines are not a sufficient producer of energy.  Larger turbine than required for domestic use.  No indication of the removal of the turbine.  Consultation Process.  Impacts on biodiversity.  Impact on common land.  Support for the proposed development highlighted the following:  Saving the use of fossil fuels which pollute our air.  Diversification for Farmers.  Enhance the environment.  Turbine at Llwyntudor has had no significant impact on businesses in the area.

Planning History

Due to the complex nature of this proposal I set out below in chronological order the site’s planning history:

17/07/2013 - A screening opinion (SO/2013/0050) was provided by PCC in respect of a proposal for a single turbine with a hub height of 24.8m and blade tip

7 Page 57 height of 34.5m. The opinion concluded that the proposal was schedule 2 development and that given its scale and location in an area recognised by LANDMAP as of high or outstanding historical, cultural and visual and sensory value, it was likely to have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore it was considered to be EIA development and an environmental statement would be required.

06/09/2013 - A scoping opinion (SC/2013/0010) was provided by PCC requiring the Environmental Statement to include information on site selection and design evolution, a landscape and visual impact assessment, a cultural heritage and archaeology assessment and transportation.

01/11/2013 - A planning application (P/2013/1064) for the installation of a single wind turbine, 24.8m to hub and 34.5m to blade tip, and associated equipment housing was validated.

23/01/2014 - The application was taken to committee with a recommendation for refusal on the basis that ‘The proposed development will have an adverse impact on the setting of Scheduled Ancient Monument RD168. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to guidance contained within policies UDP SP3, UDP SP12, ENV 17, and E3 of the Unitary Development Plan (March 2010), Planning Policy Wales (Edition 5, 2012), Welsh Office Circular 60/96: Planning and the Historic Environment: Archaeology (1996), and Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy EN1 (2011).’ The Minutes from meeting confirm that Members approved the application subject to conditions. Two reasons for approval were given: ‘1. That the comments from CADW and NRW indicate that the proposed development would have at worst a moderate effect on the setting of Scheduled Ancient Monument RD168. 2. That the committee considered that the economic benefits outweighed the concerns of other bodies.’

20/03/2014 - The application was subsequently reported to the committee on 20th March 2014. In an update report Members were advised that following the resolution to grant permission in January ‘significant concerns were raised regarding the determination of this application and no decision notice has been issued. The application is being brought back to Members prior to issuing a decision to ensure that the concerns raised have been adequately considered. Please note that this is an update to a previous report.’ The Committee weighed up the benefits of renewable energy development against the impacts on tourism and scheduled ancient monument, and considered all comments in the report on economic benefits, cumulative impact and all other relevant planning considerations including relevant policies. Members maintained their previous resolution with the same reasons for approving the application.

27/03/2014 - Decision notice granting permission issued.

8 Page 58 April 2014 - The Council were notified by a pre-action protocol (PAP) letter of four potential grounds for a legal challenge. The Council consented to judgment on the ground that the permission was unlawful in that the decision notice failed to record that the environmental information had been taken into account contrary to regulation 3 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 and the decision notice was quashed.

04/11/2014 - The proposal was subject to a screening direction from the Welsh Government on the 4th November 2014. This concluded that the proposal was not EIA development and therefore an Environmental Statement was not required to accompany the planning application.

04/12/2014 - Following the Welsh Government’s direction, the application was able to be considered again at committee without further environmental information being provided. The officer’s report recommended that the application be granted permission. However, prior to the committee additional information was submitted regarding noise levels from a third party objector. Your officers considered that this needed to be assessed by the environmental health officer (EHO) and therefore officers recommended that consideration of the application be deferred. Members duly deferred the application to enable the EHO to consider the noise information.

This report has been prepared following consideration of the further information.

Planning Policy:

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The duty of the decision maker is to undertake overall assessment to establish where the balance of advantage and disadvantage lies in the public interest. This requires the identification of the relevant national and local policy framework and the key tests with them for assessing the effects of the proposed development.

Local Planning Policy

The Powys County Council Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted on 1st March 2010 and will guide development during the plan period until mid-2016. It provides a policy framework for positive forward planning, proposals and allocations for future developments and the basis on which consistent development control decisions can be made. The UDP is presented in two parts; Part One identifies the strategic aims, a growth strategy and defined settlement hierarchy which are achieved through fourteen strategic policies. Relevant policies of the UDP include:

Policy SP3 (Natural, Historic and Built Heritage) requires development to ‘protect, conserve and wherever possible enhance sites and features of importance for the aesthetic, amenity, biodiversity, ecological, geological, nature conservation, physiographical and scientific value’. In addition this policy seeks ‘to protect, conserve and wherever possible

9 Page 59 enhance sites and features of historic and built heritage importance including those of archaeological, architectural, heritage conservation and historic interest’.

Policy SP6 (Development and Transport) development which maintains and improves the existing transportation infrastructure and communications in Powys will be acceptable.

Policy SP12 (Energy Conservation and Generation) states that proposals for energy generation from renewable sources will be approved providing that they ‘meet the landscape, environmental, amenity and other requirements set out in the plan’.

Policy GP1 (Development Control) is an all-encompassing policy covering most aspects of a development, ensuring that it is of high quality design, minimises impact on the amenity of others, through ensuring local features are protected.

Policy GP3 (Design and Energy Conservation) sets out expectations for good design and energy conservation from new development.

Policy GP4 (Highway and Parking Requirements) requires adequate provision for access to the development site. In the case of wind farms this policy is particularly relevant as the roads leading to development sites are often not suitable and require alterations due to the size of wind turbine development vehicles. Making these alterations can often require hedges or other road boundary treatments to be removed which can have implications for the landscape and biodiversity that is unacceptable.

Policy ENV2 (Safeguarding the Landscape) seeks to ensure development takes account of Powys’ ‘high quality landscape’ and be appropriate and sensitive to the surrounding landscapes. It goes on to set three requirements that development should achieve to be acceptable.

Policy ENV3 (Safeguarding Biodiversity and Natural Habitats) provides where possible safeguards from development for biodiversity and natural habitats.

Policy ENV4 (Internationally Important Sites) seeks to ensure that development does not affect special protection areas (SPAs) and potential SPAs, special areas of conservation (SACs) and candidate SACs or listed RAMSAR sites.

Policy ENV5 (Nationally Important Sites) states: ‘There will be a presumption against proposals for development likely to damage, either directly or indirectly the nature conservation interest or national nature reserves or sites of special scientific interest’.

Policy ENV6 (Sites of Regional and Local Importance) protects areas of conservation interest of sites of regional or local nature conservation, geological or geomorphological importance for being adversely affected by development.

Policy ENV7 (Protected Species) reiterates legal protections five to European protected species and also requirements to ensure that other species are protected from the adverse impacts of development.

Policy ENV8 (Tree Preservation Orders) ensures that trees and woodland will be protected if they make a contribution to the landscape amenity and the character of conservation areas.

10 Page 60

Policy ENV17 (Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites) states that if a proposal would ‘unacceptably affect the site or setting of a scheduled ancient monument or of an archaeological site of national importance’ it will not be permitted. Other sites of archaeological importance will be safeguarded where possible.

Policy ENV18 (Development proposals affecting archaeological sites) sets out requirements for pre-determination archaeological assessments and the requirements for preservation of sites in situ and also for mitigation and recording of sites where development is considered justified.

Policy T6 (Walking and Cycling) states that proposals for the improvement of existing facilities in relation to new development will be approved.

Policy TR2 (Tourist Attractions and Development Areas) gives protection to tourist attractions stating: ‘Development of any kind, which would have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the environmental setting of established tourist attractions, will be opposed’.

Policy RL4 (Outdoor Activity and Pony Trekking Centres) and Policy RL6 (Rights of Way and Access to the Countryside) are permissive policies for proposals for the establishment and enhancement of these facilities).

Policy E3 (Wind Power) requires an overall balance to be made to weigh up the identified harms against the significant contribution that an onshore wind proposal makes to the production of renewable electricity. Policy E3 supports new turbine generators provided that they do not unacceptably adversely affect the environmental and landscape quality of Powys either individually or in combination with existing or proposed schemes. The policy also requires that the cumulative impacts do not have unacceptably adverse impact on existing and approved developments. The same criteria and level of harm is provided to assess the impacts on wildlife and public rights of way – especially bridleways. Proposed turbines should also not unacceptably impact upon buildings or features of conservation or archaeological interest nor have an unacceptably adverse effect on the amenity of residents of properties. Schemes must be capable of providing acceptable means of access and the policy also requires that applicants are able to demonstrate through land management schemes that there would be adequate mitigation or compensation for any adverse impact on environmental quality, wildlife habitats or heritage features.

Policy E4 (Removal of Redundant Wind Turbines) requires the removal of redundant turbines and outline conditions that should be imposed on planning permissions in this respect.

Policy DC9 (Protection of Water Resources) seeks to ensure that development which impacts on the water environment are only permitted: where they do not impair the quality, quantity or flow of ground or surface waters; they do not lead to pollution problems; and the proposal is not of detriment to existing water abstractions, fisheries, amenity of nature conservation.

Policy DC12 (Overhead Lines and Pipelines) seeks to ensure that all lines should be placed underground (unless there are overriding reasons for them not be) to minimise their impact on the landscape and natural and built environment.

11 Page 61

The Powys Regeneration Strategy (June 2011) prioritises harnessing Powys’ natural assets. It states that:

‘The value of the Country’s natural assets cannot be overstated. Green tourism, capturing renewable energy from wind and water, building on centres of expertise in alternative energy and developing supply chains and technology for low carbon energy are all areas around which Powys can build its Green Economy.’

National Planning Policy

National planning policies for onshore wind development are set out in:

 Planning Policy Wales (2014);  Technical Advice Note 5 (TAN5): Nature Conservation and Planning (2009);  Technical Advice Note 6 (TAN6): Agriculture and Rural Development (2010);  Technical Advice Note 8 (TAN8): Planning for Renewable Energy (2005);  Technical Advice Note 11 (TAN11): Noise (1997); and  National Policy Statements for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (NPS).

Planning Policy Wales (PPW - 7th edition – July 2014) is the principal national planning policy for Wales. PPW sets out the land use planning policies of the Welsh Government. Together with the series of Technical Advice Notes (TANs) and policy clarification letters it comprises national planning policy. Section 12.8 deals with renewable and low carbon energy.

PPW confirms that the UK is subject to the requirements of the EU Renewable Energy Directive. These include a UK target of 15% of energy from renewables by 2020. PPW highlights that the UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) and the UK National Renewable Energy Action Plan (2010) set the path for the delivery of these targets, promoting renewable energy to reduce global warming and to secure future supplies.

This document notes that the Assembly Government’s aim is to secure an appropriate mix of energy provision for Wales, whilst minimising, and where possible avoiding environmental, social and economic impacts.

PPW states that the Welsh Government is committed to using the planning system to:  optimise renewable energy generation;  optimise low carbon energy generation;  recognise that the benefits of renewable energy are part of the overall commitment to tackle climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as increasing energy security.

PPW notes that local planning authorities should facilitate the development of all forms of renewable and low carbon energy to more towards a low carbon economy to help to tackle the causes of climate change. Specifically, local planning authorities should make positive provision by:

12 Page 62  ensuring that development control decisions are consistent with national and international climate change obligations, including contributions to renewable energy targets and aspirations;  recognising the environmental, economic and social opportunities that the use of renewable energy resources can make to planning for sustainability.

At the same time, PPW states that local planning authorities should:

 ensure that international and national statutory obligations to protect designated areas, species and habitats and the historic environment are observed;  ensure that mitigation measures are required for potential detrimental effects on local communities whilst ensuring that the potential impact on economic viability is given full consideration.

PPW states that the most appropriate scale at which to identify areas for large scale onshore wind energy development is at an all-Wales level (para 12.8.13) and Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy (2005) identifies areas in Wales (Strategic Search Areas – SSAs) which are considered to be the most appropriate locations for large scale wind farm developments i.e. proposals of more than 25MW.

Development of a limited number of large-scale wind energy developments in these areas are required to contribute significantly to the Assembly Government’s onshore wind energy aspiration for 2GW in total capacity by 2015/17 and UK and European renewable energy targets; to mitigate climate change and deliver energy security (para 12.8.13).

Technical Advice Notes (TANs) should be read in conjunction with 'Planning Guidance (Wales): Planning Policy'. Planning Guidance, Technical Advice Notes and circulars should be taken into account by local planning authorities in Wales in the preparation of development plans. They may be material to decisions on individual planning applications.

TAN5: Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) was published in September 2009 and provides supplementary advice to the policies set out within PPW with respect of nature conservation issues and planning. TAN5 provides advice about how the land use planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geological conservation.

TAN 5 sets out the criteria for which development proposals will be judged with regard to sustainable development, protection and improvement of the environment, ensure appropriate weight is attached to designated sites of international, national and local importance, protect wildlife and natural features and adopt a step-wide approach to avoid harm to nature conservation.

The focus of TAN6: Agriculture and Rural Development (2010) is to provide practical guidance on how the planning system can support sustainable rural communities. TAN6 states that the quality of the agricultural land should be considered when determining planning applications.

TAN6 recognises that the planning system must respond to the challenges posed by climate change, for example by accommodating the need for renewable energy generation. However local planning authorities should also ensure local communities are not negatively affected,

13 Page 63 protect and enhance the natural and historic environment and safeguard the countryside and open spaces.

The Technical Advice Note for renewable energy is Technical Advice Note 8 (TAN 8): Planning for Renewable Energy (2005). TAN8 sets out the Welsh Government’s target of 4TWh of electricity per annum to be produced by renewable energy by 2010 and 7TWh by 2020. In order to meet these targets the Welsh Government has concluded that 800MW of additional installed capacity is required from onshore wind sources (para 1.3).

In order to meet these targets TAN 8 identified 7 SSAs within which large scale (ie over 25MW) onshore wind development should be concentrated. TAN8 states that not all of the land within the SSAs may be technically, economically and/or environmentally suitable for major wind power proposals and that for each SSA indicative targets of installed capacity were set.

TAN 8 states that most areas outside SSAs should remain free of large scale wind farms although it notes that local planning authorities may wish to consider the cumulative impacts of small schemes in areas outside SSAs and establish suitable criteria for separation distances from each other and from the perimeter of existing wind power schemes or the SSAs (para 2.13).

TAN 8 (para 8.4) confirms that outside SSAs ‘the implicit objective is to maintain the landscape character i.e. no significant change in landscape character from wind turbine development’.

TAN11: Noise (1997) sets out how the planning system can be used to minimise the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens of business. It outlines some of the main considerations which local planning authorities should take into account in drawing-up development plan policies and when determining planning applications for development which will either generate noise or be exposed to existing noise sources.

TAN11 states (at para. 8) that:

‘Local planning authorities should ensure that noise generating development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance. They should also bear in mind that if subsequent intensification or change of use results in greater intrusion, consideration should be given to the use of appropriate conditions.’

Specific guidance to the noise issues raised by wind farm developments is provided at Annex B which states that guidance is available from TAN8 (1996). Following the revisions to TAN8 in 2005, appropriate wind farm noise guidance is found in Annex C.

The purpose of TAN12: Design (2014) is to equip all those involved in the design of development with advice on promoting sustainability through good design, planning sustainable developments and design and access statements.

TAN13: Tourism (1997) focuses on promoting and developing tourism in Wales.

14 Page 64 TAN15: Development and Flood Risk (2004) advises on development and flood risk as this relates to sustainability principles (section 2.2 PPW), and provides a framework within which risks arising from both river and coastal flooding, and from additional run-off from development in any location, can be assessed.

TAN18: Transport (2007) focuses on the importance of transport to sustainability. Para. 3.11 reiterates this principles stating that:

‘Development in rural locations should embody sustainability principles, balancing the need to support the rural economy, whilst maintaining and enhancing the environmental, social and cultural quality of rural areas.’

TAN19: Telecommunications (2002) recognises that there are two types of radio interference from proposed development, including wind farm development; electrical interference and physical interference.

Large structures such as wind turbines can cause widespread disruption to television and other telecommunications services due to the physical obstruction or reflection of the wanted signals. Para. 91 states that local planning authorities will need to satisfy themselves that potential interference has been ‘fully taken into account in the siting and design of such developments, since it will be more difficult, costly and sometimes impossible to correct after the event’.

Other national & regional energy policy & guidance

There are a number of national and international agreements and policies relating to the provision of renewable energy and achieving carbon emission reductions. These are material considerations and include:

 5/93: Public Rights of Way (1993)  Circular 61/96: Planning and the Historic Environment: Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas (1996);  Circular 60/96: Planning and the Historic Environment: Archaeology (1996);  Kyoto Protocol (1997)  Circular 11/99: Environmental Impact Assessment (1999);  Energy White Paper (2003)  Wales Spatial Plan (2004)  Energy White Paper (2007)  UK Climate Change Programme (2008)  Climate Change Act (2008)  UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009)  EU Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC (2009)  UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009)  A Low Carbon Revolution – The Welsh Assembly Government Energy Policy Statement (2010)  Written Statement by the First Minster, Welsh Government: Planning for Renewable Energy in Wales (17 June 2011)  Letter by the Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development (John Griffiths) - July 2011

15 Page 65  Welsh Government Circular 016/2014: The Use of Planning Conditions for Development Management

Other relevant legislation is found in the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Convention on Human Rights, The Planning Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1990, and Statutory Instrument No.243 (2011) – The Promotion of Use of Energy from Renewable Sources Regulations.

Appraisal:

A number of impacts have been identified through consultee responses, the applicant’s submissions and comments from members of the public. These are considered below under the relevant topics.

Climate change and principle of development:

The UK has a legally binding commitment to reduce emissions by 15% by 2020. This development would contribute towards this commitment helping the UK to achieve its target.

Whilst concerns have been raised by interested parties over the effectiveness of wind turbines and ability of this development to generate renewable energy, planning policy is clear that there is a need to move towards renewable energy sources to combat climate change.

Notwithstanding the size of the contribution, it is accepted that the scheme will generate renewable energy and this should be given weight in the planning balance.

Landscape & Visual

UDP Policy E3 (1) states that applications for individual wind turbines will be approved where ‘they do not unacceptably adversely affect the environmental and landscape quality of Powys’. It identifies the issues to assess and in particular:

 Direct landscape impacts on the site  Indirect impacts on the landscape character of the surrounding area  Direct impacts on views  Direct and indirect impact of the proposal on protected landscapes  Cumulative impact of wind turbine development

The application is located within the Upland Moor, Glascwm Hill visual/sensory aspect area as defined by LANDMAP. It is recognised as being of high visual and sensory landscape value and characterised as a good example of unspoilt timeless rural valley landscape with wilder hills surrounding it. Neighbouring aspect areas affected include the Upland Valley, Edw & Adjacent (evaluated as High), Rolling hills, Central southeast (evaluated as moderate), Upland Moor, North of Hundred House (evaluated as moderate), Rocky Moorland, Gilwern Hill (evaluated as moderate) and Rocky Moorland, Llandeilo Hill (evaluated as high). Other landscape receptors affected by the development include cultural landscape areas, historic aspect areas, geological landscape and landscape habitat.

16 Page 66 The applicant provided a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) with the application submissions. This contained a number of maps showing Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) but lacked full consideration of cumulative impacts. The landscape consultant for the applicant concluded by stating that ‘the proposed turbine at Penllanerch Farm is a mid-height model, which is not disproportionate to its surroundings, and is unlikely to make any significant change to the character of its landscape setting. Cumulative visual effects in the study area were found to be only slight adverse to negligible’.

The worse effects the LVIA identified were those on users of public rights of way network and open access land near to the turbine which was considered to have a high sensitivity with a medium magnitude of change.

NRW have ‘concerns about the impacts that turbines could have on the landscape in this area of Radnorshire owing to its largely undeveloped nature, and considers that turbines would be likely to detract from the landscape character’. They have also, together with members of the public, raised concern over the impact the proposed turbine will have cumulatively with existing turbines. The original application documents were lacking in the consideration of cumulative impacts, most noticeably with regard to an absence of cumulative ZTV’s.

I consider that whilst the turbine is visible from a number of accessible locations within the valley, its relatively moderate size does not appear to be out of place and the LVIA accurately predicted the impacts of the turbine both individually and cumulatively. The biggest impacts in LVIA terms are when up close but it is considered that it does not give rise to unacceptable adverse effects on the environmental and landscape quality of the area and is therefore overall compliant with UDP Policy E3(1).

The impacts of the turbine on the amenity of users of public rights of way network and the Open Access Land are considered later in this report.

Cultural Heritage

UDP Policy E3 (4) states that new turbines should not ‘unacceptably impact upon any buildings or features of conservation or archaeological interest’.

LANDMAP evaluates the historic landscape of the application site as outstanding described as a large sinuous area covering the entire length of the Edw valley and its tributaries. The land is enclosed with systems of irregular fields and contains significant archaeological remains of all periods all of which enhances its score.

The proposed development is has a number of heritage assets nearby. Listed buildings are located in the surrounding area, mainly at Cregina, Glascwm, and Ty’n-Y-Coed. The nearest Scheduled Ancient Monument is RD168 Gellidywyll Platform Settlement which is located within 450 metres of the application site, there are a number of further SAMs located within a 5km radius of the proposed turbine.

When considering the impacts of wind turbines, either individually or as larger groups, on cultural heritage assets (such as scheduled ancient monuments; listed buildings; conservation areas; registered historic landscapes; and parks and gardens of special historic interest) it is important to consider both the direct impact on an asset (including the potential

17 Page 67 for undiscovered archaeology) and any indirect impacts on the character, appearance and setting of said assets. In this instance it is considered that the proposals will have no direct impact on heritage assets, therefore indirect impacts should be considered.

With regard to listed buildings, it has been confirmed by the PCC Built Heritage Officer that she does not consider the turbine as erected to ‘have an impact on the setting of the individual listed buildings…’ in the locality. I agree with this assessment having regard to local and national policy, and legislation.

When considering SAMs the policy position is less straightforward. UDP Policy ENV17 states that ‘development which would unacceptably affect the site or setting of a scheduled ancient monument or of an archaeological site of national importance will not be permitted and other sites of archaeological importance will be safeguarded where possible.’ At the national level PPW para 6.5.1 and WO circular 60/96 para 17 also provide a position in relation to SAMs. Whilst PPW is ambiguous it is clear that WO Circular 60/96 is sufficiently clear to conclude that there is a presumption against proposals which will have a ‘significant impact on the setting of visible remains’.

Cadw’s Regional Inspector of Ancient Monuments visited RD168 on 1 April 2014 after being notified of the erection of the turbine, has now advised that the proposed development ‘does not have a significant impact on the settings of the scheduled ancient monuments identified’. The result of this is that the presumption against proposals which will have a ‘significant impact on the setting of visible remains’ is not triggered. Furthermore, there would be no unacceptably adverse impact on any SAM for the purposes of UDP Policies ENV17 and E3.

It is noted though that an adverse impact on the setting of RD168 occurs as a result of the monument being directly intervisible with the turbine. This impact is a material consideration for inclusion in the planning balance.

CPAT has advised that the location of the turbine and cable trench will not have any archaeological implications, they also consider that the proposal would not directly impact any nearby heritage assets or their settings substantially.

Accordingly, the proposal is considered to comply with UDP Policy E3 (4) in respect of its heritage impact.

Public Rights of Way (PROW)

Following consultation with Countryside Services, a response has been received which indicates that the siting of the proposed under route cabling would affect public footpath GC1595. The Rights of Way officer would like to ensure that the applicant make prior contact with the Service as a short term temporary closure may be required whilst the ground works are taking place.

Countryside Services would also wish to ensure that users of the legally recorded public footpath are given due consideration in relation to plant movement and operation within the site. Any access tracks which are to be used in relation to the development, which also carry public rights of access, must be given due consideration. This consideration could include appropriate signage, speed restrictions and passing places. It should be highlighted that users of the footpath would have priority of access over any plant machinery on site.

18 Page 68

It is further noted that at no time should any public right of way be obstructed during the development process and at no time should any materials be placed or stored on the line of any public right of way; any damage caused to the surface of any public right of way must be made good to at least its current condition or better.

UDP Policy E3(5) states that wind turbines should not ‘unacceptably adversely affect the enjoyment and safe use of highways and the public rights of way network, especially bridleways (including during the construction phase)’. Concerns have been raised by members of the public that the public rights of way network and Open Access Land near the site will be adversely affected. It is accepted that these are valid concerns however the impacts are not considered to be so harmful to render the proposal contrary to UDP Policy E3(5) in terms of enjoyment or safety.

In light of the above and that development has been completed it is considered that it complies with planning policy relating to public rights of way.

Ecology & Ornithology

The turbine has been constructed and construction impacts are now complete, however, it should be noted that in previous consideration of the application this did not form a particular area of objection.

Concerns have been raised from objectors regarding the potential impact the proposed turbine may have on biodiversity within the surrounding area. Planning policy guidance seeks to safeguard and where possible enhance biodiversity. PCC’S ecologist has confirmed that the Glascwm and Gladestry SSSI is located approximately 1.1km to the east and south of the site whilst the River Wye SAC and SSSI is 1.2 km to the west of the site.

The land is improved agricultural grazing with limited ecological value. It is further noted that the turbine is located over 50 metres away from hedgerows and mature trees and as such the potential to impact on foraging bats and birds is minimised to an acceptable level.NRW also confirm in their response that ‘protected sites and European protected species should not be affected by the proposal’.

In light of the above it is therefore considered that the proposed development fundamentally complies with planning policy relating to biodiversity.

Overall it is considered that subject to appropriate conditions the application is acceptable and in accordance with the environmental protection policies of the UDP – ENV3 – ENV7 and DC9.

Social and Economic impact

The applicant states that this proposal will provide a diversification of their agricultural business which is supported by national and local planning policy.

Members are advised specifically that they should consider economic benefits of the proposal outside the context of the individual applicant and the purported personal benefits of the proposal. Consideration should instead focus within the context of farm diversification.

19 Page 69 TAN6 recognises at para 3.7.2 that the production of renewal energy is an appropriate use on a farm when it is seeking to diversify.

The information on the likely economic benefits of the development on the farm business are noted, and it is considered that it will provide an additional income stream, reduce overheads and allow further diversification of the business. This additional income will reduce uncertainty in farming in light of the further falls in the support that the Industry enjoys, supplementing incomes and improving the viability of farm businesses.

The applicant also considers that diversification activities of any type have the benefit of securing the future of the farm business but this in turn will have a beneficial impact on the local community since prosperous businesses will make expenditure in goods and supplies and in the employment of staff. This does not occur where business is struggling to be viable.

Concerns have been raised about the impact on the development on tourist and the local economy.

With regard to tourism, particular concern has been raised about the impact the development will have on the British Horse Feeds Red Dragon Festival of Endurance. This is a long distance equestrian endurance event held annually. The organisers have expressed concern that having the turbine so close the route (along the bridleway) will discourage people from entering the event and therefore impact local tourism. In their representation they refer to UDP Policy TR2 which states ‘Development of any kind, which would have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the environmental setting of established tourist attractions, will be opposed.’ Whilst I accept that the event is well established, whether the whole route used by such an event is considered a ‘tourist attraction’ is debatable. As discussed previously, it is not considered that the proposed development will would have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the environmental setting of the PRoW and this event.

Regarding tourism more generally, no robust evidence has been submitted to show that there would be negative impacts on tourism in the area. The impacts of the turbine are localised and it is unlikely that tourists will decide not to visit as a result of this development. However, I do accept that there may be some minor negative impacts on the local economy.

The economic advantages of this development in the sense of supporting the farm and allowing for diversification are a material consideration. Equally however, some negative impacts may be experienced on the local economy as above. On balance, it is considered that the long term economic impacts are likely to be neutral.

Highways

As will is noted from the consultation responses above, following receipt of a Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan the Highway Officer has confirmed they are satisfied that the development will have no adverse effect on highway safety. Highways do not object to this proposal.

In addition, it is noted that the turbine has been erected and development completed. In light of this it is not considered that any further consideration is necessary in respect of this issue.

Telecommunications, aviation and public safety

20 Page 70

Wind turbines can potentially affect electromagnetic transmissions (e.g. radio, television and phone signals). Specialist organisations responsible for the operation of electromagnetic links typically require 100m clearance either side of a line of sight link from the swept area of turbine blades. In this instance, there is no indication that any such impacts have occurred since the development was completed. That said, it might take some time for effected properties to realise. A condition to ensure any negative effects are mitigated should be imposed on any permission.

Due to the size of wind turbines, and the moving parts they have the potential to have adverse effects on air traffic movement and safety. Firstly, they may represent a risk of collision with low flying aircraft, and secondly, they may interfere with the proper operation of radar by limiting the capacity to handle air traffic, and aircraft instrument landing systems. There is a 15 kilometre (km) consultation zone and 30km or 32km advisory zone around every civilian air traffic radar, although objections can be raised to developments that lie beyond the 32km advisory zone. There is a c.15km statutory safeguarding consultation zone around Ministry of Defence aerodromes within which wind turbine proposals would be assessed for physical obstruction. The Ministry of Defence have been consulted on this application, but have not responded. There is no indication that the proposal will give rise to any harm to aviation and in line with other consents for wind turbine development a standard condition has been imposed requiring that details of the turbine are provided to the MoD.

Hydrology and Hydrogeology

The construction and decommissioning of wind turbines can have potential impacts on local watercourses, water bodies, groundwater and water supplies due to pollution, erosion, sedimentation and impediments to flow resulting from construction activity.

The application is for a relatively small scale development with the only construction undertaking being the turbine, associated bases and the cable trench. It should be noted that Natural Resources Wales have offered no objections or comments on the application on hydrology and hydrogeology.

Following a site visit I have seen no signs of any likely significant hydrology or hydrological concerns from the proposal with no features identified within close proximity to the turbine. The proposal is considered therefore to comply with UDP Policies E3 (1), E3 (7) and DC9.

Residential Amenity and Noise / Acoustics

The primary effects of the proposed development on residential amenity are visual, shadow flicker, and noise. Visual effects are considered above.

Under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the impact is known as ‘shadow flicker’. Only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can be affected at the latitudes of the UK – turbines do not cast long shadows on their southern side. The effect is also mitigated by the size of the turbine and the distance to the receptor. A distance of 10 rotor diameters is generally considered to sufficiently mitigate the impact. The distance to

21 Page 71 neighbouring properties is such that it is not considered that this would give rise to significant harm to neighbours.

Wind turbine development creates noise, both during construction and operation. Construction noise can be generated from works such as piling, works to erect the turbine, to construct its base or to dig out cabling trenches, in this case these works have been completed.

Operational noise is created both through aerodynamic noise from the movement of the blades and through mechanical noise from the gear box / generators. The main source of noise from modern turbines is aerodynamic noise. The effects of which vary dependant on a number of factors including terrain, weather conditions, vegetation and distance from the turbine. The siting of turbines is important to ensure that ambient noise levels around noise sensitive development are kept to acceptable levels when compared with existing background noise.

National policy and guidance refers to the need for operational noise levels to fall within the established limits of ETSU-R-97 (The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind farms (1997) Energy Technology Support Unit). This guidance sets out indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farms. ETSU-R-97 is supported as an appropriate standard in TAN8. The levels are set relative to background noise limits, rather than as absolute limits, with separate limits for day-time and night-time. They are presented in a manner that makes them suitable for noise related planning conditions.

The application is supported by a noise impact assessment which concluded that the standards given in ETSU-R-97 can be met by this development. This view is further supported by the Local Environmental Protection Officer who recommended that conditions be imposed to ensure noise generated is acceptable. With this in mind the proposal is considered to fulfil national and local policy in respect of the likely impact from operational noise.

Concern has been raised by residents of nearby properties over the impact of noise on their properties since the turbine has been erected. Given the noise experienced, representations were received prior to the last committee requesting that noise complaints be assessed and monitoring be carried out so that the scheme can be assessed on actual noise levels rather than the predicted noise levels as set out in the noise assessment. As this request was received just prior to the date when this application was last considered by the committee, Members deferred the decision so that the Environmental Health Officer could review the request and advise on the matter.

In light of the unique position, where the turbine is already erected, PCC instructed Dick Bowdler (Acoustic Consultant), to review the situation and give an independent assessment on whether a noise compliance test at this stage is should be carried out. On 24th September 2015 he submitted a note on the matter in which he states it is ‘my view is that such a test is not necessary’. This is because noise limits can be controlled by condition and the supporting information (noise impact assessment) has been carried out correctly. Mr Bowdler concludes the note by stating ‘I have no hesitation in saying that it is highly unlikely that the turbine will exceed the noise limits’ (to be imposed by condition).

22 Page 72 Reference has been made regarding the impact of turbines on general health through noise, Amplitude Modulation. Amongst others, these concerns relate to epilepsy, sleep disturbance, irritability, headaches, nausea, and heart related problems. Collectively, these issues are generally referred to as “Wind Turbine Syndrome” or “Vibro-Acoustic Disease”. Neighbours consider that on these issues the emphasis should be on the applicant to demonstrate that there is no potential impact e.g. that the local planning authority should take a precautionary approach.

The Institute of Acoustics (IOA) is the independent professional body in the UK for those engaged in acoustics, noise and vibration. In April 2015 they published a document titled Methods for Rating Amplitude Modulation in Wind Turbine Noise. In it they note that ‘wind turbine AM has been observed in and around dwellings in the UK and elsewhere and in some cases has led to specific complaints from residents.’ Research on wind farm noise is ongoing and there is an emerging consensus that wind turbine noise, and amplitude modulation in particular, is primarily an ‘annoyance’ issue rather than a ‘health issue’.

Whilst no proven/tested research exists to prove AM has negative effects on people’s health, there is a growing evidence base and I consider that there is a need for a precautionary approach on the matter. This is highlighted by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) looking to commission a research contract titled ‘Review of the evidence on the effects of and response to amplitude modulation (AM) from wind turbines, with a view to recommending how excessive AM might be controlled through the use of a planning condition’.

It is considered therefore that a condition relating to AM should be attached to any permission. This approach has recently been accepted by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in relation to the Llandinam Repowering Scheme in Powys.

Overall, it is considered that the noise generated by the proposed development accords with national standards and the information provided within the application documents can be relied upon. The potential for AM is noted and a precautionary approach is advised by imposing an appropriate planning condition.

The proposal is considered to have acceptable impacts in relation to noise and to be in compliance with UDP Policies E3, GP1 and TAN8.

Planning balance

Having considered the impacts identified above in their proper policy and legal context, the proposed development has some adverse impacts. However, these impacts are not considered significant or unacceptable in the overall context of policy support for renewables. The proposal benefits from policy support both in terms of allowing the farm to diversify and through the production of renewable energy which will help to tackle climate change. This policy support exists despite the relatively small contribution the proposed turbine will make towards national targets.

When weighed in the planning balance, the policy support for this scheme, combined with the level of adverse impacts comes firmly down in favour of granting permission. The development is considered to be in accordance with the planning policy, with particular reference to Policies E3, ENV17, GP1, ENV18 and SP3.

23 Page 73

RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation is one of conditional approval.

Conditions

1. This permission being retrospective as prescribed by Section 73(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) shall be deemed to take effect from the date of this decision and shall expire 25 years after this date.

2. The wind turbine noise level measured shall be in accordance with the guidance contained within the Department of Trade and Industry Report 'The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms' (ETSU-R-97) and, as such, shall not exceed an absolute noise level of 35 dB expressed as L A90 10min at any existing dwelling with a non-financial involvement, up to on-site wind speeds of 10m/s measured at a height of 10 metres.

3. The level of noise emitted by the wind turbine shall be demonstrated at the request of the Local Planning Authority. Should the wind turbine be identified as operating at an absolute noise level that exceeds 35 dB expressed as L A90 10min at any existing dwelling, up to on-site wind speeds of 10m/s measured at a height of 10m, the turbine(s) shall be taken out of use until such time as maintenance or repair is undertaken sufficient to reduce the absolute noise level of the operating turbine(s) to within the parameters specified in condition34.

4. Within three months of the date of this decision a scheme for the assessment and regulation of Excess Amplitude Modulation (EAM) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented for the lifetime of the scheme and shall be in general accordance with, if it exists at the time of submission: (i) relevant guidance endorsed in National Planning Policy; or in the absence of endorsed guidance; (ii) Relevant guidance published or endorsed by the Institute of Acoustics.

5. Should the proposed turbine cease to generating electricity for a continuous period in excess of six months (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) it is to be removed from the application site and the land restored to grassland. The turbine removal shall take place within six months of the expiry of the six month period referred to in the first part of this condition.

6. A decommissioning and land restoration scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority no more than 24 years after the date of this decision. The scheme shall include: (i) The decommissioning and removal of the wind turbine and all associated development to 1m below ground level. (ii) Details for the restoration of the land. (iii) Details of the management and timing for the works above to be completed by the expiry of this permission.

24 Page 74 All decommissioning and restoration works shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with the approved scheme.

7. Within 21 days of the date of the consent full details of any lighting to be used in connection with the turbine shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development must be carried out in full accordance with the details as approved.

Reasons

1. To comply with Section 63 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. In order to manage noise levels to an acceptable level in order to protect the amenity of nearby residents, in accordance guidance contained within Planning Policy Wales (Edition 5, February 2012), Technical Advice Note 11: Noise (October 1997) and policies SP12, GP1 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010). 3. In order to manage noise levels to an acceptable level in order to protect the amenity of nearby residents, in accordance guidance contained within Planning Policy Wales (Edition 5, February 2012), Technical Advice Note 11: Noise (October 1997) and policies SP12, GP1 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010). 4. In order to protect the amenity of nearby residents, in accordance guidance contained within Planning Policy Wales (Edition 5, February 2012) and policies SP12, GP1 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010). 5. In order to manage the visual impact of the proposed development to an acceptable level, in accordance with policies E3 and ENV3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy (2005) and Planning Policy Wales (2012). 6. In order to manage the visual impact of the proposed development to an acceptable level, in accordance with policies E3, E4, ENV2 and ENV3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy (2005) and Planning Policy Wales (2012). 7. In order to manage the visual impact of the proposed development to an acceptable level, in accordance with policies E3, E4, ENV2 and ENV3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy (2005) and Planning Policy Wales (2012).

Informative:

If evidence of contamination is found in or around the development area (petrol stations, quarries or other filled ground may result in potential ground gas or other contamination issues that may require mitigation measures), development must not proceed until a report on potential contamination of the site has been prepared by an appropriately qualified person and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This report shall include a phased investigation approach, incorporating risk assessment, to identify the extent of contamination and any measures required to remediate the site, including post- development monitoring. Where remediation works are required, the development shall not be occupied/used until a Validation Report, to show that the works have been satisfactorily carried out, has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

25 Page 75 Page 76 Previous reports and updates December 2014, March 2014 and January 2014

Page 77 Planning Committee Report P/2012/1064

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2013/1064 Grid Ref: 313900 252520

Community Glascwm CC Valid Date: Officer: Council: 01/11/2013 Matthew Griffiths

Applicant: C & L Hammond, Penllanerch, Glascwm, Llandrindod Wells, Powys LD1 5SE

Location: Penllanerch, Glascwm, Llandrindod Wells, Powys LD1 5SE

Proposal: Full: Installation of a single wind turbine (24.8m to hub and 34.5m to blade tip) and associated equipment housing (retrospective)

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

1.1 OVERVIEW OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 1.1.1 The site subject to this application is located within the Community Council area for Glascwm. The application site is located within an agricultural field approximately 230 metres to the east of Penllanerch farmstead. The nearest neighbouring residential property (Little Busnant) is located approximately 610 metres south of the application site. Existing field boundaries comprise of established vegetation (trees and hedgerows). The application site is bound by agricultural land.

1.2 THE DEVELOPMENT 1.2.1 Consent is sought in full for the erection of a single wind turbine measuring 34.5 metres to blade tip (24.8 metres to hub) with an installed capacity of 50kW. Connection to Penllanerch will be via underground cabling.

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) 1.3.1 The proposal was subject to a screening direction from the Welsh Government on the 4 November 2014. The local planning authority has now been directed that the proposal is not EIA development for the purposes of the regulations. In light of this the material supporting the application has not been considered a statutory Environmental Statement for the purposes of the Regulations.

2 CONSULTEE RESPONSE

2.1 GLASCWM COMMUNITY COUNCIL 2.1.1 Please be aware that Glascwm Community Council discussed planning application P/2013/1064 at the last meeting. The results showed that 4 members supported the application, 2 opposed it and 1 abstained. A number of members of the public attended the meeting with the majority being opposed to the application. Members felt that overall the turbine was sited well.

Page 78 1 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

2.2 PENYBONT COMMUNITY COUNCIL 2.2.1 No response received at the time of writing this report.

2.3 NEW RADNOR COMMUNITY COUNCIL 2.3.1 The Community Council is concerned at the size of the turbine and the impact one this high would have on the landscape. It is also concerned that there may be noise nuisance given the unforeseen consequences (noise wise) of smaller turbines in the area. In addition the proposed site is very close to a public right of way. This has implications for public safety and the Community Council is concerned that the right of way should be retained and should not be affected by the development.

2.4 GLADESTRY COMMUNITY COUNCIL 2.4.1 Gladestry Community Council considered this application at its recent meeting and wish to record the following comments:

- It appears from the information supplied that this turbine will not impact upon the Gladestry Community Council area.

- Councillors are concerned that the proliferation of turbines in rural areas may have a cumulative adverse affect on the peace and tranquility of the renowned Radnorshire landscape and also its native wildlife. They would appreciate the issue being taken into consideration when determing this and other applications.

2.5 LLANDRINDOD WELLS TOWN COUNCIL 2.5.1 The above application was placed before my Council at its meeting held on 19th November 2013.

2.5.2 My Council would support this application.

2.6 PAINSCASTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL 2.6.1 No response received at the time of writing this report.

2.7 ABEREDW COMMUNITY COUNCIL 2.7.1 No response received at the time of writing this report.

2.8 LLANELWEDD COMMUNITY COUNCIL 2.8.1 No response received at the time of writing this report.

2.9 DISSERTH & TRECOED COMMUNITY COUNCIL 2.9.1 The above application was placed before my Council at its meeting held on 12th November 2013.

2.9.2 No objections were made

Page 79 2 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

2.10 PCC – HIGHWAYS 2.10.1 08/01/2013- I refer to the additional information provided by Aeolus Power dated 2nd January and can confirm that I am happy that the development will have no adverse effect on highway safety. I therefore withdraw my recommendation of refusal and trust

2.10.2 you will include a condition on any permission granted requiring the construction works to be carried out in accordance with the Construction Management Plan submitted.

2.10.3 18/11/2013- The construction phase traffic management plan submitted with the above application does not offer sufficient information to enable the development’s impact on highway safety to be adequately considered. Almost identical to the document provided for 13/0709 Cwmfaerdy, Abbey-cwm-hir, it fails to clarify what is meant by ‘standard’. It also states the need for 35 and 50 tonne cranes when acknowledging that there is a 26 tonne weight restriction on the final part of the delivery route.

2.10.4 I must therefore indicate that at this stage I must recommend refusal of the application but am sure that further information can be provided which will influence my views. I attach a recently compiled guidance note which you may wish to pass to the agent or Aeolus Power but my comments regarding the discharge of the aforementioned Abbey- cwm-hir condition are equally relevant.

2.10.5 I trust a revised plan will be sought in order that I can review this scheme.

2.11 PCC - BUILDING CONTROL 2.11.1 No response received at the time of writing this report.

2.12 PCC – ECOLOGIST- 2.12.1 Thank you for consulting me on the above application. I have received and read the ecological report ‘Ecological Appraisal of land at Penllanerch Farm, Glascwm, Hundred House in relation to a proposed wind turbine’ by One Planet Ecology dated September 2013.

2.12.2 I note that the Glascwm and Gladestry SSSI is situated approximately 1.1km to the east and south of the site. The River Wye SAC and SSSI is 1.2km to the west of the site. It is not anticipated that the proposed turbine will have any detrimental effect on the protected sites.

2.12.3 The site identified for the proposed wind turbine has been chosen to minimise potential environmental impact. The land is improved agricultural grazing land with limited ecological value.

2.12.4 There are a number of hedgerows and mature trees in the local area however the turbine has been located over 50 metres away from such features and as such the potential to impact on foraging bats and birds is minimised.

2.13 PCC - ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 2.13.1 With regard to this application, should members be minded to grant the application I would suggest the following conditions be included.

Page 80 3 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

2.13.2 ETSU-R-97 provides a method for determining operational noise limits for wind farm developments. For single turbines or developments where there are large separation distances between turbines and sensitive receptors, a simplified method can be adopted whereby, if operational noise is limited to LA90, 10 min of 35 dB(A) at the closest receptors in wind speeds up to 10 ms at 10m height.

2.13.3 This limit may be increased to 45 dB where the occupier of a property has a financial involvement in the application.

2.13.4 I would recommend that the following be included into planning permission if granted.

2.13.5 1. The wind turbine noise level measured shall be in accordance with the guidance contained within the Department of Trade and Industry Report ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97) and, as such, shall not exceed an absolute noise level of 35 dB expressed as L A90 10min at any existing dwelling with a non-financial involvement, up to on-site wind speeds of 10m/s measured at a height of 10m. Penllanerch can be afforded a higher noise level of 45 dB expressed as L A90 10 min.

2.13.6 2. The level of noise emitted by the wind turbine shall be demonstrated at the request of the Local Planning Authority. Should the wind turbine be identified as operating at an absolute noise level that exceeds 35 dB expressed as L A90 10min at any existing dwelling that is not financially involved, and 45 dB at Penllanerch up to on-site wind speeds of 10m/s measured at a height of 10m, the turbine shall be taken out of use until such time as maintenance or repair is undertaken sufficient to reduce the absolute noise level of the operating turbine to within the parameters specified in condition 1.

2.13.7 Reason: In order to maintain and protect the amenity of nearby residents by the reduction of ambient noise levels to an acceptable level in accordance with the requirements of Section 13.13 (Reducing Noise and Light Pollution) of Planning Policy Wales, Edition 4 (February 2011); Technical Advice Note (Wales) 11 (October 1997) and; Policy SP12 (Energy Conservation and Generation) of the Powys Unitary Development Plan, adopted 1st March 2010.

2.14 PCC - RIGHTS OF WAY 2.14.1 Thank you for the opportunity for Countryside Services to comment on the above mentioned application. It would appear from the information made available at this time that public rights of way are going to be affected by this application; namely public footpath GC1595 is shown to be affected by the proposed underground cabling run.

2.14.2 Countryside Services would wish to ensure that the applicant makes contact with the Service prior to any ground works taking place to discuss this element of the proposals; it may well be a requirement to obtain a short term temporary closure of the footpath whilst ground works take place.

2.14.3 Countryside Services would also wish to ensure that users of the legally recorded public footpath are given due consideration in relation to plant movement and operation within the site. Any access tracks which are to be used in relation to the development, which also carry public rights of access, must be given due consideration. This consideration could include appropriate signage, speed restrictions and passing places. It

Page 81 4 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064 should be highlighted that users of the footpath would have priority of access over any plant machinery on site.

2.14.4 Please could you also make the applicant aware that at no time should any public right of way be obstructed during the development process and at no time should any materials be placed or stored on the line of any public right of way; any damage caused to the surface of any public right of way must be made good to at least its current condition or better.

2.14.5 Countryside Services therefore has no objection to the proposed application subject to the applicant making contact with the Service to discuss the cabling works.

2.15 PCC – COMMONS 2.15.1 Thank you for your consultation letter received by email on 06/11/2013 concerning the above application.

2.15.2 From the information provided on the Powys Planning Portal I can confirm that the application site located at Grid Ref: 313900, 252520 is in close proximity to land registered as common land under the Commons Registration Act 1965 as Register Unit No. (Radnorshire)CL 60 – Little Hill Common. Commons Registration Records show that:

2.15.3 -Title to the adjacent common land was registered at the Land Registry in 1993: WA484811 – the registered proprietor at that time was Mrs Suzanne Fisher -The common is subject to grazing rights

2.15.4 -Since May 2005, the common is also subject to a public right of access, on foot, granted by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 Both the Traffic Management Plan and the Planning Design and Access Statement indicate that the Applicant intends to use existing council roads and farm tracks however, no detailed plan showing the exact location of the proposed temporary access track and turning area was provided.

2.15.5 The Applicant is therefore advised that, should it be decided to construct or improve a vehicular access from the unclassified council road, U1500, across the adjacent registered common land; additional Consent under Section 38, Commons Act 2006 must first be obtained from the Welsh Ministers.

2.16 NATURAL RESOURCES WALES (NRW) 2.16.1 NRW consider that PCC should take into account the following when determining this application:

2.16.2 NRW advice on the application: The current proposal, which is located outside a Strategic Search Area as defined by Technical Advice Note (TAN) 8, is for a single turbine 34.5 metres high to tip of blade.

2.16.3 The application site sits within LANDMAP Historic Landscape aspect area of Edw (RDNRHL914) that has been classed as ‘Outstanding’. LANDMAP describes Edw as a “historic landscape area defined by a fieldscape of irregular fields occupying the upland valley of the river Edw and its tributaries to the east of Builth Wells. Small to medium-sized fields of irregular and regular shape with predominantly hedged boundaries. Early prehistoric settlement and land use represented by chance finds and burial and ritual monuments. Later prehistoric activity represented by an Iron Age hillfort. Strategically-sited Page 82 5 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

Roman fort at Colwyn Castle. The area includes extensive evidence of medieval settlement and land use denoted by small nucleated church settlements at Aberedw, Llanbadarn-y-garreg, Cregina, Glascwm, Llansantffraed-in-Elwel, and Rhulen and by scattered earthwork castles. Dispersed farmsteads of possibly medieval and early post medieval origin. Discrete areas of possibly medieval ridge and furrow cultivation. Small post-medieval nucleated roadside settlements at Hundred House and Franksbridge. Post- medieval water corn and woollen mills.”

2.16.4 Directly to the north of the site lies the Historic Landscape Area of Glascwm Hill (RDNRHL371) also classed as ‘Outstanding’ in LANDMAP. Glascwm Hill aspect area is described as an unenclosed common running along upland ridge. Early activity indicated by scattered prehistoric burial monuments on hilltops and upper slopes. Medeival and later land use represented by building platforms, a number of farmstead encroachments onto the common and small areas of cultivation ridges. Post-medieval shooting butts, small stone quarries and evidence of past cutting.”

2.16.5 Despite the conclusion of the LVIA, that the turbine will result in a “slight adverse” impact on the historic landscape, NRW has concerns about the impacts that turbines could have on the landscape in this area of Radnorshire owing to its largely undeveloped nature, and considers that turbines would be likely to detract from the landscape character. The location of an existing 21m to blade tip wind turbine in Upper Llwyn Tudor, Rhulen (planning application reference P/2012/0959) has been considered in the LVIA which concludes that the proposed wind turbine is likely to contribute to very few cumulative effects within the study area. However no ZTVs have been included in the cumulative landscape and visual assessment to illustrate the extent and interaction of the visibility of both wind turbines. Different size wind turbines have the potential to create a poorly coordinated visual image when seen in combination.

2.16.6 NRW agrees that the visual impact on users of the Wye Valley Walk is unlikely to be significant, and there is unlikely to be significant visibility of the development from other Long Distance Paths or the National Cycle Route.

2.16.7 In view of the ecological report submitted in support of the application “Ecological Appraisal of the land at Penllanerch Farm, Glascwm, Hundred House, in relation to a proposed wind turbine” by One Planet Ecology, dated September 2013, NRW agrees with the Powys Ecologist in the memorandum dated 26th November 2013 and considers that protected sites and European protected species should not be affected by the proposal.

2.16.8 Please note that we have not considered possible effects on all local or regional biodiversity interests. Therefore, you should not rule out the possibility of adverse effects on such interests, which would be relevant to your Authority’s general duty to have regard to conserving biodiversity interests. Therefore, you should not rule out the possibility of adverse affects on such interests, which would be relevant to your Authority’s general duty to have regard to conserving biodiversity, as set out in section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006). We recommend that you speak to you Authority’s Ecologist in this regard.

2.16.9 I hope these comments are of assistance. If you have any queries, or if you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us at the above address.

Page 83 6 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

2.17 CPAT 2.17.1 There are no significant direct or indirect impacts to non-designated archaeological sites within, or immediately around, this application area. We would therefore have no objections to the application.

2.17.2 There is some potential for a moderate adverse visual impact on SAM RD168 and Cadw should be consulted for their views on this aspect of the development. I have copied Suzanne Whiting into your consultation email. The SAM lies approx 420m upslope to the north east and it would appear from the LVIA that the upper hub and blades may be visible from the SAM. The applicant should supply a photomontage to CPAT and Cadw showing the view of the turbine from within the SAM area to assist in the assessment of visual impact.

2.18 OPEN SPACES SOCIETY 2.18.1 No response received at the time of writing this report.

2.19 RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION 2.19.1 No response received at the time of writing this report.

2.20 MOD 2.20.1 No response received at the time of writing this report.

2.21 CADW 2.21.1 The advice set out below related only to those aspects of the proposal, which fall within Cadw’s remit as a consulted on planning applications- the impact of development on scheduled monuments or Registered Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens. Our comments do not address any potential impact on the setting of any listed building, which is properly a matter for your authority. These views are provided without prejudice to the Welsh Government’s consideration of the matter, should it come before formally for determination.

2.21.2 The proposed development is located in the vicinity of the following scheduled ancient monuments:

Nearest SAM (c 450m):

D168 Gellidywyll Platform Settlement

Within 5k buffer:

RD026 Six Stone Circle RD035 Colwyn Castle RD036 The Mount Mound & Bailey Castle, Hundred House RD069 Bryn y Maen Alignment (Four Stones) RD075 Fforest Wood Mound % Bailey Castle RD076 Penarth Mount Castle Mound RD109 Bryn y Maen Round Barrow RD130 Wern Camp Page 84 7 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

RD165 Cwm-Twrch Medieval Settlement RD168 Gellidywyll Platform Settlement RD169 Cwmblaenerw Enclosed Long Hut RD170 Cwmblaenerw House Platforms RD177 Cefn Wylfre Stone Circle and Round Barrow RD178 Cefn Wylfre Round Barrows RD179 Cefn Wylfre Platform House RD181 Llanbedr Hill Platform House RD182 Llanbedr Hill Cist Cairn RD183 Red Hill Cross Ridge Dyke RD185 Lettypeod Desserted Rural Settlement RD186 Cefn Wylfre Deserted Rural Settlement RD188 Cwm-piban Platform House RD218 Giant’s Grave round cairn RD230 Hundred House round barrow

2.21.3 Cadw would draw the Planning Officers attention the insufficient consideration of the historic environment within this application, in spite of the applicant acknowledging impacts in the LVIA. Scheduled ancient monuments are covered briefly as part of paragraph 8.2 of the LVIA. This acknowledges potential indirect impacts to RD168 (moderate adverse), on multiple unspecified monuments on Cefn Wylfre (slight adverse) and on unspecified more distant monuments (slight adverse at worst). No indication is given of the process by which these inclusions were reached, nor whether this has entailed any specialist archaeological input, p31 stating that a full archaeological or cultural heritage assessment was considered to be beyond the scope of the report. No photomontages or wireframe studios are provided and the accompanying Design and Access Statement and Environmental Statement do not consider the historic environment. The following advice is therefore based upon limited information.

2.21.4 A search of Cadw’s records indicated a range of scheduled ancient monuments (SAMs) within a 5km radius of the proposed turbine. The nearest of these to the proposed turbine is RD168, which is located approximately 450m to the south west of the development site, at a higher elevation on the same spur. Whilst it is possible that the topography of the hill may provide some degree of screening of the lower levels of the mast it is likely, as stated in the LVIA and indicated by the ZTV that the monument will be directly intervisible with the turbine and will therefore have an adverse impact on its setting. This is likely to be mitigated to some extent by the relatively small scale of the turbine, its distance from the monument and the backcloth provided by the ridges on the opposite sides of the Clas Brook and Edw Valleys when viewed from the monument.

2.21.5 The ZTV indicated that the turbine is likely to be intervisible with a number of more distant monuments on the northern edge of Cefn Wylfre and further along the intersecting valleys to the west, north- west and north east of the proposed site.

2.21.6 Several of these, including the motte and baileys RD036 and RD076, the Bronze Age funerary cairns RD177, RD178, RD179 and the stone circle RD026 may have been deliberately sited in order to command views over or to enhance their visibility within the largely undeveloped rural landscape which forms their broader setting. Whilst the proposed turbine will represent a substantial vertical and moving element to this landscape this will be at distances of 1.5km or more from the nearest monuments, set against a backcloth of steep valley sides and with varying degrees of screening being provided by

Page 85 8 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064 intervening topography, vegetation and buildings. In Cadw’s opinion a turbine of this scale is unlikely to significantly affect any sense of place or interpretation of these monuments.

2.21.7 Based upon the information provided, the proposed development will, in Cadw’s opinion, have a moderate adverse impact on the setting of RD168 and a negligible to slight adverse impact on the settings of the remaining monuments that fall within the ZTV.

2nd Response - 2.21.8 Cadw were consulted on the above named planning application on 11 November 2013. We responded to this consultation in our letter of 13 December 2013. You may wish to note the following observations now that the turbine has been erected.

2.21.9 Cadw’s role in the planning process is not to oppose or support planning applications but to provide the local planning authority with an assessment concerned with the likely impact that the proposal will have on scheduled ancient monuments or Registered Historic Parks and Gardens. It is a matter for the local planning authority to then weigh Cadw’s assessment against all the other material considerations in determining whether to approve planning permission.

2.21.10 The advice set out below relates only to those aspects of the proposal, which fall within Cadw’s remit as a consultee. Our comments do not address any potential impact on the setting of any listed building, which is properly a matter for your authority. These views are provided without prejudice to the Welsh Government’s consideration of the matter, should it come before it formally for determination.

2.21.11 The proposed development is located in the vicinity of the following scheduled ancient monuments:

Nearest (c 450m): RD168 Gellidywyll Platform Settlement Within 5km buffer: RD026 Six Stones Stone Circle RD035 Colwyn Castle RD036 The Mount Mound & Bailey Castle, Hundred House RD069 Bryn y Maen Alignment (Four Stones) RD075 Fforest Wood Mound & Bailey Castle RD076 Penarth Mount Castle Mound RD109 Bryn y Maen Round Barrow RD130 Wern Camp RD165 Cwm-Twrch Medieval Settlement RD168 Gellidywyll Platform Settlement RD169 Cwmblaenerw Enclosed Long Hut RD170 Cwmblaenerw House Platforms RD177 Cefn Wylfre Stone Circle and Round Barrow RD178 Cefn Wylfre Round Barrows RD179 Cefn Wylfre Platform House RD181 Llanbedr Hill Platform House RD182 Llanbedr Hill Cist Cairn RD183 Red Hill Cross Ridge Dyke RD185 Lettypeod Deserted Rural Settlement RD186 Cefn Wylfre Deserted Rural Settlement RD188 Cwm-piban Platform House RD218 Giant's Grave round cairn RD230 Hundred House round barrow Page 86 9 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

2.21.12 In our response to the planning application consultation in December 2013 Cadw concluded that whilst there were likely to be some distant visual impacts on the scheduled ancient monuments on opposing ridges, potential impacts on the setting of the nearest monument (the platform house settlement RD168, approximately 600m to the E) were likely to be limited by intervening topography and would be at most moderate in magnitude.

2.21.13 Cadw’s Regional Inspector of Ancient Monuments visited RD168 (which lies on access land) on 1 April 2014 after being notified of the erection of the turbine, and now concludes that this impact is less than had previously been predicted as only the blade tips of the turbine are visible over the shoulder of the hill from one house site, significant key views from the scheduled monument being along the valley to the E and S.

2.21.14 Whilst the proposed turbine represents a substantial vertical and moving addition to the undeveloped pastoral landscape which forms the broader setting of the scheduled ancient monuments identified, intervening topography and vegetation dictate that not all of these monuments are likely to be inter-visible with or subsequently effected by the turbine. The nearest scheduled monument, RD168, faces away from and is barely inter-visible with the turbine, the remaining monuments being 1.5km or more distant. At such distances this turbine does not have a significant impact on the settings of the scheduled ancient monuments identified.

2.22 PCC - BUILT HERITAGE 2.22.1 No response received at the time of writing this report.

2.23 PCC- CONTAMINATED LAND 2.23.1 Site used for general quarrying.

2.23.2 This is a potential contaminative use. In accordance with DOE Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission, the Local Planning Authority should adopt appropriate conditions in circumstances where a potential contamination issue may exist:

2.23.3 '76. Conditions might also be imposed requiring the developer to draw to the attention of the planning authority the presence of significant unsuspected contamination encountered during redevelopment. Further planning policy guidance on contaminated land is contained in PPG23: Planning and Pollution Control (England only) (paragraph 4 and Annex 10) (in Wales, Welsh Office Circular 22/87- Contaminated land. (See also model conditions 56-58)'.

2.23.4 Therefore, the following condition is recommended.

2.23.5 Condition B

2.23.6 Potential Contamination

2.23.7 If evidence of contamination is found in or around the development area, development must not proceed until a report on potential contamination of the site has been prepared by an appropriately qualified person and submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. This report shall include a phased investigation approach, incorporating risk assessment, to identify the extent of contamination and any measures required to remediate the site, including post-development monitoring. Where remediation Page 87 10 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064 works are required, the development shall not be occupied/used until a Validation Report, to show that the works have been satisfactorily carried out, has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3 REPRESENTATIONS 3.1.1 49 letter of objection and 19 letters of support have been received. The letters can be summarised as follows:

3.1.2 Objections:

- Landscape and Visual Impact

- Damage to Tourism

- Noise pollution to neighbouring residential properties

- Cumulative Impact

- Area of outstanding natural beauty

- Impact on bridleways and footpaths

- Shadow Flicker

- Turbines are not a sufficient producer of energy

- Larger turbine than required for domestic use

- No indication of the removal of the turbine

- Consultation Process

- Impacts on biodiversity

- Impact on common land

Support:

- Saving the use of fossil fuels which pollute our air

- Diversification for Farmers

- Enhance the environment

- Turbine at Llwyntudor has had no significant impact on businesses in the area

4 PLANNING HISTORY - SO/2013/0050- Screening Opinion. Environmental Impact Assessment required.

- SC/2013/0010- Scoping opinion.

5 PRINCIPAL PLANNING CONSTRAINTS - Public Right of Way Page 88 11 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

6 PLANNING POLICY

6.1 INTRODUCTION 6.1.1 The duty of the decision maker is to undertake an overall assessment to establish where the balance of advantage and disadvantage lies in the public interest. This requires the identification of the relevant national and local policy framework and the key tests with them for assessing the affects of the proposed development. The scheme is to be appraised, including consideration of the identified benefits, against the policy tests.

6.1.2 This section summarises the UK and International policy before considering Welsh Policy (including TAN8 and the adopted Powys UDP). The development plan for the purposes of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is the Powys Unitary Development Plan (Adopted March 2010). The principal matters of concern identified within the policies are the ecological, landscape, visual and cultural heritage impacts of the scheme and the impact of development on the public highway and the living conditions of neighbours.

6.2 UK & INTERNATIONAL POLICY 6.2.1 In order to meet national targets and objectives in relation to global warming and carbon emission targets, the UK needs to significantly reduce its dependency on fossil fuels. These targets and objectives are defined in European Union and UK law and policy such as the Climate Change Act 2008, the UK Government Climate Change Programme, the Energy White Paper 2007 and the Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 (RES).

6.2.2 The Renewable Energy Strategy (RES) was published in July 2009 and sets out the path for the UK to meet its legally-binding target of 15% of the energy coming from renewable sources by 2020. It puts forward a number of scenarios, the lead ones being:

• More than 30% of electricity generated from renewable.

• 12% of heat generated from renewable.

• 10% of transport energy from renewable.

6.2.3 The National Renewable Energy Action Plan for the UK (July 2010) sets out measures that would enable the UK to meet its 2020 target. Whilst it includes a number of statements of intent beyond 2020, it is not a Government policy document. The document sets out similar scenarios to the RES but stresses that these figures are illustrative as to how the overall 15% target for the UK could be met.

6.2.4 The Electricity Market Reform White Paper 2011; Planning Our Electric Future – a White Paper for Secure, Affordable and Low Carbon Electricity sets out the Government’s commitment to transform the UK’s electricity system to ensure that our future electricity supply is secure, low carbon and affordable. To de-carbonise electricity generation it is highlighted that it is important that the 15% renewable target is met by 2020 and 80% carbon reduction target by 2050.

6.2.5 The EU Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) April 2009 sets a legally binding target for the UK to meet 15% of its energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020.

Page 89 12 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

6.2.6 On the 23rd April 2009 the European Parliament under Decision No 406/2009/EC considered the position of Member States in the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020. The Council decided that the UK should aim for a 16% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, compared to 2005 emissions levels.

6.2.7 The Carbon Plan: Delivering Our Low Carbon Future (2011) produced by the UK Government sets out principles that will underpin the vision for a long-term transition to a low carbon economy by 2050. This includes low carbon power generation and the three sources of UK electricity are likely to be i) renewables (including onshore and offshore wind farms); ii) coal, biomass or gas-fired power stations fitted with CCS technology; and iii) nuclear power. There are uncertainties when looking 40 years ahead as to exactly how that vision will be achieved. However this is only a starting point. It goes on to say that attempting to pick a single pathway to 2050 by relying on a single model is neither possible nor a helpful guide in the face of great uncertainty. But it does give insight into the most cost effective way to achieve the low carbon transition, illustrating the technologies likely to contribute to reducing emissions, and the most cost effective timing for their deployment. It shows that achieving a cost-optimal transition overall often necessitates deploying technologies in the medium term that may not yet be statically cost effective against the carbon price.

6.2.8 The Carbon Plan also comments on the position in Wales stating that the Welsh Government is making solid progress on delivering its commitments since the publication of The Climate Change Strategy 2010. To date, Wales has some 830 MW of renewable energy operational, which represents a doubling in renewable energy operating capacity since 2007. This capacity represents enough electricity to power almost a half a million homes in Wales.

6.3 OTHER UK POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 6.3.1 The relevant National Policy Statements (NPSs) are a material consideration for this application. The proposed development accords with EN-1 and EN-3 in so far as they seek to meet the need for a greater number of electricity generating schemes that utilise onshore wind energy. The NPS’s support the bringing forward of renewable energy projects and the impacts of schemes of more than 50MW are recognised, including impacts on the landscape. However, these impacts (including on the landscape, visual and cultural heritage assets) need to be carefully assessed and weighed against the benefits which include the contribution towards renewable energy infrastructure, job creation and any long term or wider benefits.

6.3.2 EN-1 highlights in particular the role of renewable electricity generation in enabling the UK to source 15% of energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020 and that the need for new renewable electricity generation projects is urgent. It is in that context that EN-1 indicates that the decision maker should start with a ‘presumption in favour of granting consent to applications for energy NSIPs’. It is noted, however, that the subject application does not relate to an NSIP scheme of over 50MW.

6.3.3 With regard to the impacts identified within EN-1 and EN-3, their coverage is not intended to be exhaustive and the decision maker should therefore consider any impacts which it determines are relevant and important to its decision.

6.3.4 With regard to landscape impacts para 5.9.8 of EN-1 states that ‘Landscape effects depend on the existing character of the local landscape, its current quality, how highly it is Page 90 13 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064 valued and its capacity to accommodate change. All of these factors need to be considered in judging the impact of a project on landscape… Projects need to be designed carefully, taking account of the potential impact on the landscape. Having regard to siting, operational and other relevant constraints the aim should be to minimise harm to the landscape, providing reasonable mitigation where possible and appropriate.’

6.3.5 With regard to the impacts on the historic environment para 5.8.14 states that ‘substantial harm to or loss of designated assets of the highest significance, including Scheduled Monuments; registered battlefields; grade I and II* listed buildings; grade I and II* registered parks and gardens; and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.’

6.3.6 EN-1 goes on to state that ‘any harmful impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefit of development, recognising that the greater the harm to the significance of the heritage asset the greater the justification will be needed for any loss.

6.4 PLANNING POLICY WALES (EDITION 7, JULY 2014) (PPW) 6.4.1 PPW deals with renewable and low carbon energy. Local planning authorities should facilitate the development of all forms of renewable and low carbon energy to move towards a low carbon economy. At the same time, local planning authorities should ensure that international and national statutory obligations to protect designated areas, species and habitats and the historic environment are observed and that mitigation measures are required for potential detrimental effects on local communities whilst ensuring that the potential impact on economic viability is given full consideration.

6.4.2 PPW supports wind energy as it continues to offer the greatest potential for delivering renewable energy. It states that Wales has an abundant wind resource and power generation and using this resource remains the most commercially viable form of renewable energy. The Welsh Government accepts that the introduction of new, often very large structures for onshore wind needs careful consideration to avoid where possible, or minimise their impact. However, the need for wind energy is a key part of meeting the Welsh Government’s vision for future renewable electricity production as set out in the Energy Policy Statement (2010) and should be taken into account by decision makers when determining such applications.

6.4.3 Paragraph 12.10.1 is of particular relevance stating “In determining applications for renewable and low carbon energy development and associated infrastructure local planning authorities should take into account:

- the contribution a proposal will play in meeting identified national27, UK and European targets and potential for renewable energy, including the contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions;

- the wider environmental, social and economic benefits and opportunities from renewable and low carbon energy development;

- the impact on the natural heritage (see 5.5), the Coast (see 5.6) and the Historic Environment (see 6.5);

- the need to minimise impacts on local communities to safeguard quality of life for existing and future generations;

Page 91 14 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

- ways to avoid, mitigate or compensate identified adverse impacts;

- the impacts of climate change on the location, design, build and operation of renewable and low carbon energy development. In doing so consider whether measures to adapt to climate change impacts give rise to additional impacts (see 4.5);

- grid connection issues where renewable (electricity) energy developments are proposed; and

- the capacity of and effects on the transportation network relating to the construction and operation of the proposal.”

6.5 TECHNICAL ADVICE NOTE 8: RENEWABLE ENERGY (2005) (TAN8) 6.5.1 The site does not fall within a Strategic Search Area (SSA) as set out in TAN 8, the guidance recognises the contribution smaller schemes outside of SSAs could make to delivering renewable energy. However, it recognises in paragraph 2.13 that outside the SSAs “there is a balance to be struck between the desirability of renewable energy and landscape protection”. Also in paragraph 8.4 of Annex D the guidance points to an implicit objective in areas outside SSAs to “maintain the landscape character i.e. no significant change in landscape character from wind turbine development”.

6.6 OTHER RELEVANT TECHNICAL ADVICE NOTES (TANS) 6.6.1 Technical Advice Note 5: Nature Conservation and Planning (2009)

6.6.2 Technical Advice Note 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (July 2010)

6.6.3 Technical Advice Note 8: Renewable Energy (2005)

6.6.4 Technical Advice Note 11: Noise (1997)

6.6.5 Technical Advice Note 12: Design (2009)

6.6.6 Technical Advice Note 13: Tourism (1997)

6.6.7 Technical Advice Note 18: Transport (2007)

6.7 THE POWYS UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (2010) (UDP) 6.7.1 Policy E3 (Wind Power) is a permissive policy which supports new turbine generators provided that they do not unacceptably adversely affect the environmental and landscape quality of Powys either individually or in combination with existing or proposed schemes. The policy also requires that the cumulative impacts do not have unacceptably adverse impacts on existing and approved developments. The same criteria and level of harm is provided to assess the impacts on wildlife and public rights of way - especially bridleways. Proposed turbines should also not unacceptably impact upon buildings or features of conservation or archaeological interest nor have an unacceptably adverse effect on the amenity of residents of properties. Schemes must be capable of providing acceptable means of access and the policy also requires that applicants are able to demonstrate through land management schemes that there would be adequate mitigation

Page 92 15 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064 or compensation for any adverse impact on environmental quality, wildlife habitats or heritage features.

6.7.2 Policy E3 requires an overall balance to be made to weigh up the identified harms against the significant contribution that on an onshore wind proposal makes to the production of renewable electricity.

6.7.3 Policy E4 (Removal of Redundant Wind Turbines) requires the removal of redundant turbines and outlines conditions that should be imposed on planning permissions in this respect.

6.7.4 Policy SP3 (Natural, Historic and Built Heritage) requires development to “protect, conserve and wherever possible enhance sites and features of importance for their aesthetic, amenity, biodiversity, ecological, geological, nature conservation, physio- graphical and scientific value.” In addition this policy also seeks “to protect, conserve and wherever possible enhance sites and features of historic and built heritage importance including those of archaeological, architectural, heritage conservation and historic interest.”

6.7.5 Policy SP12 (Energy Conservation and Generation) states that renewable energy generation proposals “will be approved providing that they meet the landscape, environmental, amenity and other requirements set out in this plan.”

6.7.6 Policy GP1 (Development Control) is an all-encompassing policy covering most aspects of a development, ensuring that it is of high quality design, minimises impact on the amenity of others, through to ensuring local features are protected.

6.7.7 Policy ENV1 (Agricultural Land) seeks where possible to safeguard the best and most versatile agricultural land.

6.7.8 Policy ENV2 (Safeguarding the Landscape) seeks to ensure development takes account of Powys’s “high quality landscape” and be appropriate and sensitive to the surrounding landscapes. It goes on to set three requirements that development should achieve to be acceptable.

6.7.9 Policy ENV3 (Safeguarding Biodiversity and Natural Habitats) provides where possible safeguards from development for biodiversity and natural habitats.

6.7.10 Policy ENV7 (Protected Species) reiterates legal protections given to European protected species and also requirements to ensure that other species are protected from the adverse impacts of development.

6.7.11 Policy ENV17 (Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites) states that if a proposal would “unacceptably affect the site or setting of a scheduled ancient monument or of an archaeological site of national importance” it will not be permitted. Other sites of archaeological importance will be safeguarded where possible.

6.7.12 Policy ENV18 (Development proposals affecting archaeological sites) sets out requirements for pre-determination archaeological assessments and the requirements for preservation of sites in situ and also for mitigation and recording of sites where development is considered justified.

6.7.13 Policy GP3 (Design and Energy Conservation) sets out expectations for good design and energy conservation from new development. Page 93 16 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

6.7.14 Policy GP4 (Highway and Parking Requirements) requires adequate provision for access to the development site. In the case of wind farms this policy is particularly relevant as the roads leading to development sites are often not suitable and require alterations due to the size of wind turbine development vehicles. Making these alterations can often require hedges or other road boundary treatments to be removed which can have implications for the landscape or biodiversity that is unacceptable.

6.7.15 Policy TR2 (Tourist Attractions and Development Areas) gives protection to tourist attractions stating: Development of any kind, which would have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the environmental setting of established tourist attractions, will be opposed.

6.7.16 Policy RL4 (Outdoor Activity and Pony Trekking Centres) and Policy RL6 (Rights of Way and Access to the Countryside) are permissive policies for proposals for the establishment and enhancement of these facilities.

6.7.17 Policy EC1 (Business, Industrial and Commercial Developments) provides general criteria governing the acceptability of this type of development. Policy EC7 (Farm / Forestry Diversification for Employment Purposes in the Open Countryside) provides support for farm diversification projects. Policy EC9 (Agricultural Development) supports the provision of appropriate agricultural development. These policies show general support for farm diversification projects and agricultural development.

6.7.18 Policy DC9 (Protection of Water Resources) seeks to ensure that development which impacts on the water environment are only permitted: where they do not impair the quality, quantity or flow of ground or surface waters; they do not lead to pollution problems; and the proposal is not of detriment to existing water abstractions, fisheries, amenity or nature conservation.

6.7.19 Policy DC15 (Development on Unstable or Contaminated Land) seeks to manage the risk of contamination.

7 APPRAISAL

7.1 INTRODUCTION AND KEY ISSUES 7.1.1 The application as submitted, representations from interested parties, national and local planning policy and practice guidance published by the Welsh Government suggest the following as being potentially material to a decision on wind turbine development:

1. Landscape and visual impact

2. Heritage impact

3. Impact on living conditions

4. Impact on public rights of way

5. Ecological impact

6. Social and economic impact

7. Traffic and highways impact

8. Public opinion Page 94 17 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

9. Telecommunications, aviation and public safety

10. Hydrology and hydrogeology

11. Reversibility

7.1.2 This report considers these matters in turn, before evidencing findings on each issue. This is followed by an overall conclusion which provides a view on the balancing exercise necessary to make a decision on this application.

7.2 SCHEME BENEFITS AND PROVISION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY 7.2.1 This application is for a renewable energy development; the applicant states that the scheme will provide benefits, through the provision of renewable energy.

7.2.2 While noting the concerns of interested parties regarding the effectiveness of wind turbines and the effectiveness of this development on providing renewable energy. It should be accepted that there is a need to move to renewable energy sources and wind power is one of the options available and one that is making a significant contribution to the production of renewable energy. The UK has a legally binding commitment to reduce emissions by 15% by 2020. This development would contribute towards this commitment helping the UK to achieve its target.

7.2.3 Whilst substantial weight should be given to the potential contribution of the proposals to securing electricity from renewable sources, it is clear that the UK is now virtually certain to meet its overall target for installed on-shore wind capacity several years in advance of the target year of 2020. There is now every likelihood that the target will be exceeded by some margin. The UK Renewable Energy Roadmap Update (November 2013) states: ‘Since the publication of the last Update in 2012, the UK has made very good progress towards our challenging 2020 renewables target, to deliver 15% of our energy demand from renewable sources. We are fully committed to achieving this target and have seen a significant amount of deployment to date, particularly in the renewable electricity sector. This was demonstrated in 2012 when more than 4% of the UK’s energy came from renewable sources – above our interim target’.

7.2.4 That is not to understate the continued urgency of the need, but in terms of weight and balance it indicates there is no justification for accepting poorly located, poorly designed or inadequately mitigated proposals.

7.2.5 The applicant states that this proposal will provide a diversification of their agricultural business which is supported by national and local planning policy. It is now reasonably well established that the planning system does not protect purely private interests, unless there is a planning purpose or other special consideration involved. PPW 3.1.7 should be referred to, when considering private interests and states:

“3.1.7 The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another. Proposals should be considered in terms of their effect on the amenity and existing use of land and buildings in the public interest. The Courts have ruled that the individual interest is an aspect of the public interest, and it is therefore valid to consider the effect of a proposal on the amenity of neighbouring properties. However, such consideration should be based on general principles, reflecting the wider public interest (for example a standard of ‘good neighbourliness’), rather than the concerns of the individual.” Page 95 18 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

7.2.6 The weight given to the economic advantages of the development have been specifically challenged in previous determinations of this application a third party has expressed their concerns regarding the weight given to this stating:

“4. The very limited debate which did take place centred on the need of the applicant to supplement his farm income in order to enable his son to continue the business. No clear evidence has been provided to substantiate his claims of hardship, and no consideration at all was given to the likely damage to other local businesses, especially those providing accommodation for visitors and organising riding holidays”

7.2.7 Members are advised specifically that they should consider economic advantages of the proposal outside the context of the individual applicant and the purported personal benefits of the proposal. It is suggested that consideration should focus within the context of farm diversification. The conclusion that farm diversification is a reasonable consideration when considering wind turbine development has been supported by a Planning Inspector in determining an appeal for another single turbine in Powys with the Inspector stating:

“Other material considerations

18. The appellant is the fourth generation of his family farming at Morfodion and it was stated at the hearing that the appellant’s son is currently at agricultural college and hoping to carry on the tradition, although at present the business would not be able to employ him full-time. Whilst actual figures with regard to the current profitability of the business have not been divulged, it was evident from the discussion at the hearing that the loss of subsidies and the expected reduction in the single farm payment could have significant consequences for the viability of the business.

19. The main reasons given by the appellant for the proposed development is to generate an additional income stream, reduce overheads and allow further diversification of the business. At present the appellant is reliant on mains electricity as the only source of power to the farmhouse and buildings. The turbine would allow the generation of electricity for use on the farm with surplus being exported to the grid. Moreover the cost of electricity to the business would be fixed and additional income would be earned from exportation of the surplus generated. In addition the supply of electricity at a fixed cost would also allow diversification into other areas of agriculture which would not be economically viable if mains electricity had to be used.

20. Paragraph 3.7.2 of Technical Advice Note 6 Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (TAN6) recognises the production of renewal energy as an appropriate use with regards to farm diversification. The success of modern farming depends on diversification. I am satisfied by the evidence, particularly that given verbally at the hearing, that the additional income would allow the consolidation and continued success of the business. On this basis I consider that the diversification into renewable energy which the proposed turbine would allow and the consequent diversification into other areas it would facilitate carry significant weight in support of the appeal.” (Extract from appeal APP/T6850/A/13/2197989 – The development proposed is the installation of a 50kW micro generation wind turbine with control box and all associated works.blade tip height of 46m at Morfodion, Oakley Park, Llanidloes, Powys, SY18 6LU 19 December 2013 – appeal allowed) Page 96 19 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

7.2.8 In relation to this paragraph 3.7.2 of TAN 6provides (under the heading farm diversification):

“3.7.2 Many economic activities can be sustainably located on farms. Small on-farm operations such as food and timber processing and food packing, together with services (e.g. offices, workshop facilities, equipment hire and maintenance), sports and recreation services, and the production of non-food crops and renewable energy, are likely to be appropriate uses”

7.2.9 In this case the information on the likely economic benefits of the development are noted, it is considered that there will be similar pressures on the farm business as were given weight by the Inspector in the appeal referred to above, in particular it will give an “additional income stream, reduce overheads and allow further diversification of the business”. The applicants agent has also provided a further summary of the benefits accruing from the development:

“On-farm energy generation which either offsets on-site use or is exported to the grid is a diversification activity. Farm Diversification is of increasing importance to those with an interest in agriculture and rural communities as a whole. It is supported by National and Local Planning Policy. With rising uncertainty in farming and the expectation of further falls in the support that the Industry enjoys, diversification offers other ways of supplementing incomes and improving the viability of farm businesses. This proposal is intended to do just that and we referred to this in the original application.

The generation of renewable electricity will benefit the applicant but will also feed non fossil fuel electricity (with the associated carbon reduction) into the local grid which in due course will help to improve the cost of running the grid in that area. This has longer term benefits for the local community who would otherwise be faced by higher charges on their bills to reflect the high cost of transporting power to their community, rather than their ability to utilise green energy which is locally “injected” into that grid.

Diversification activities of any type have the benefit of securing the future of the farm business but this in turn will have a beneficial impact on the local community since prosperous businesses will make expenditure in goods and supplies and in the employment of staff. This does not occur where business is struggling to be viable.”

7.2.10 As in the appeal referred to there are limited facts and figures regarding the exact or forecast benefits that will accrue from the proposal in terms of farm diversification. But similarly to the appeal it is considered clear that there will be benefits. The economic advantages of this development in the sense of supporting the farm and allowing for diversification are a material consideration.

7.3 THE LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT 7.3.1 Landscape impact is identified within policy E3(1) as a significant consideration for wind related development. Landscape and visual impact can be separated into the following:

- Direct landscape impacts on the site

Page 97 20 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

- Indirect impacts on the landscape character of the surrounding area

- Direct impacts on views

- Direct and indirect impact of the proposal on protected landscapes

- Cumulative impact of wind turbine development

7.3.2 Landscape impact is considered firstly, the wind turbine through disturbance, construction activity and the presence of new development has the capacity to directly impact the landscape of the site where development takes place. Secondly the turbine and associated development will have the capacity for an indirect impact on the landscape character of the surrounding area, for example a change in the character of adjacent landscapes as a result of the change in outlook from those landscapes.

7.3.3 The applicant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), identifies that the site is located within the Upland Moor, Glascwm Hill visual/sensory aspect area as defined in the Countryside Council for Wales (Now NRW) LANDMAP information system. They also identify the other neighbouring aspect areas which are likely to be affected and characterise the nature of the surrounding landscapes. This includes the Upland Valley, Edw & Adjacent (evaluated as High), Rolling hills, Central southeast (evaluated as moderate), Upland Moor, North of Hundred House (evaluated as moderate), Rocky Moorland, Gilwern Hill (evaluated as moderate) and Rocky Moorland, Llandeilo Hill (evaluated as high). Other landscape receptors including cultural landscape areas, historic aspect areas, geological landscape and landscape habitat.

7.3.4 The application is supported by a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV). The landscape consultant based on field work identifies the landscape character of the site and surrounding landscape as follows: “Penllanerch Farm is located within a landscape of domed hills surrounding the River Edw and its tributary stream valleys. Above approximately the 300m AOD contour line, enclosed pasture gives way to common moorland covering the uplands. The area is largely unsettled, with only isolated farms and a few small hamlets located in the immediate vicinity, and the village of Hundred House approximately 3.2km to the north west. The largest town in the study area is Builth Wells, at its extreme southwestern boundary. Contrast is striking between the upland areas with reddish, heather-covered hilltops in contrast to the green valleys of pasture and broadleaved woodland. The farm itself is located at the southern base of Little Hill (adjoining the large Gwaunceste Hill to the north), and is sheltered by mature treebelts around the farmstead. A single-track PRoW connects the farm to the fields. Fields are generally lined by trimmed hedges on low banks, but with varying types and conditions of boundaries are found throughout the farm.” Based on a site visit, it is clear that the setting and character of the site is quite characteristic of this aspect area and the description provided by the landscape consultant is largely accepted.

7.3.5 Penllanerch is located within an area, which is recognised by Landmap as being of high visual and sensory landscape value characterised as a good example of unspoilt timeless rural valley landscape with wilder hills surrounding it. In support of the application a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was submitted. The study includes both fieldwork (including photomontages) and a desktop study relating to the site and study area. The landscape based on all evidence submitted exhibits a positive character and there appeared little evidence of alteration, degradation and erosion of features.

7.3.6 The view in the LVIA as summarised in the impacts and effects table is as follows: Page 98 21 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

Type of Receptor Sensitivity Magnitude of Assessment of receptor change Impacts or Effects Landscape Pasture Low Low Negligible Elements (site Hedges Medium Low Negligible and its Trees Medium Low Negligible landscape Stone Walls Medium Low Negligible setting) Landscape Open Access High Low to medium Distance Designations Land dependent (see below) Scheduled Medium Low to medium Slight Adverse Ancient Monument Long Distance High Very Low Negligible Paths LANDMAP Upland Moor, Medium Low Slight Adverse Glascwm Hill Visual & Upland Valley Medium Low Slight Adverse Sensory Areas Edw & Adjacent Rolling Hills, Medium Very Low Negligible Central Southwest Upland Moor, Medium Very Low Negligible North of Hundred House Rocky Medium Very Low Negligible Moorland, Gilwern Hill Rocky Medium Low Slight Adverse Moorland, Llandeilo Hill Radnor Forest Medium No Change Negligible River Edw Medium No Change Negligible Valley Uplands & Medium No Change Negligible Lowlands LANDMAP Radnor Forest Medium No Change Negligible Cultural Aspect River Edw Medium No Change Negligible Areas Valley Uplands & Medium No Change Negligible Lowlands

LANDMAP Glascwm Hill Medium Low Slight Adverse Historical Edw Medium Low Slight Adverse Aspect Areas LANDMAP Mosaic Medium No Change Negligible Landscape Habitat Aspect Areas

Page 99 22 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

Close range Isolated farms High Low Slight to visual receptors and residences moderate adverse Users of High Medium Moderate to PRoWs and severe adverse open access land Road users Low Medium Slight adverse Medium range Isolated Farms High Low Slight to visual receptors and Residences moderate adverse Users of Open High Low Slight adverse Access Land and PRoWs Residences in High Low Slight adverse Hundred House Road users Low Low Negligible Long range Isolated Farms High No Change to Negligible visual receptors and Residences Very Low Users of Open High No Change to Negligible Access Land Very Low and PRoWs Road users Low No Change No Change Extract from applications supporting Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Summary of Impacts and Effects Table 4).

7.3.7 Natural Resources Wales (NRW) have been consulted during the application and have commented as follows: “NRW has concerns about the impacts that turbines could have on the landscape in this area of Radnorshire owing to its largely undeveloped nature, and considers that turbines would be likely to detract from the landscape character”.

7.3.8 It is viewed that particularly in close proximity the proposed turbine will be perceived as a new, highly engineered and vertical feature in the landscape. Based on a site visit it is clear that the turbine can be easily perceived as a tall moving structure within the landscape, particularly in the landscapes that are in very close proximity to the turbine. The effects of the development will however decrease with distance. The enclosure given by the wider landscape with rolling hills and valleys, the existence of screening vegetation – hedges and woodland reduce the impact in the wider landscape. Representations have made a variety of points relating to the impact of the proposal on the landscape of the area and have outlined a case that the landscape impact should be considered significant and unacceptable. It is further noted that some support for these arguments can be taken from the comments of NRW. While noting these concerns and objections, it is considered that while the turbine is easily perceived, it is not be a determining factor of landscape character at anything other than a very small and localised scale.

7.3.9 The development of the turbine will have a direct impact on views as it introduces new development and construction activities into views. The application is supported by an assessment of the change to views from settlements and viewpoints. This includes a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) drawing. This shows that the proposed turbine would be visible from parts of Cregina and Hundred House. In light of the areas where the proposed turbine would potentially be visible photomontages have been submitted in support of the application. The LVIA identifies isolated farms and residences and users of PRoWs and Page 100 23 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064 open access land as having the most significant adverse impacts or effects. The LVIA as submitted concludes that the proposed development which is a mid-height model is not disproportionate to its surroundings and is unlikely to have an unacceptable visual impact. While noting concerns of third parties regarding this impact it is considered based on site visits and the supporting information submitted that the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on views. NRW state that “that the visual impact on users of the Wye Valley Walk is unlikely to be significant, and there is unlikely to be significant visibility of the development from other Long Distance Paths or the National Cycle Route” and do not identify unacceptable adverse visual impacts.

7.3.10 A further consideration is the direct and indirect impact of the proposal on protected landscapes. The applicants LVIA, it is considered, uses a sufficiently extensive study area to identify impacts on protected landscapes. Landscape designations were identified in the assessment and it is not considered that the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the features identified.

7.3.11 A final consideration is the cumulative impacts of the proposal with other development, particularly the provision of other wind energy development. The visual and landscape impact of this form of development should be considered in combination with other existing, consented or proposed wind energy developments with an indication of the combined impact on landscape character and views (including combined visibility from a single viewpoint and sequential effects on routes). The LVIA sought to identify likely cumulative effects of development.

7.3.12 NRW state the following in relation to cumulative impacts: “The location of an existing 21m to blade tip wind turbine in Upper Llwyn Tudor, Rhulen (planning application reference P/2012/0959) has been considered in the LVIA which concludes that the proposed wind turbine is likely to contribute to very few cumulative effects within the study area. However no ZTVs have been included in the cumulative landscape and visual assessment to illustrate the extent and interaction of the visibility of both wind turbines. Different size wind turbines have the potential to create a poorly coordinated visual image when seen in combination”. As well as the concerns of NRW, concerns and objections have been raised by third parties regarding the potential cumulative impact the proposed turbine may have with existing turbines.

7.3.13 The nearest consented turbine to the application site is located at Llwyn Tudor Farm approximately 1.7km distance from the application site. In assessing cumulative impact policy E3(1) states that turbines will be permitted only if: “They do not unacceptably affect the environmental and landscape quality of Powys, either on an individual basis or in combination with other proposed or existing similar developments. Where the cumulative impact of proposals in combination with other approved or existing windfarms would be significantly detrimental to overall environmental quality they will be refused…”. It is noted that in determining the application it is important to consider the proposal in combination with existing and proposed similar developments. In combination effects of proposed developments maybe very significant for example where the large scale wind farm development is occurring in Powys. However it is also important to consider it at the smaller scale of this development and a review has been undertaken to identify wind turbines in the locality that should be considered in determining this application. A review of existing, proposed and consented development has been undertaken. The review highlighted the following turbines determined and currently within the planning process within 10km of the application site:

P/2010/1393- Caebanol, New Radnor Page 101 24 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

P/2011/0111- Brynmelys, Hundred House P/2011/1115- Land near Cwmmaerdy House, Hundred House P/2012/0959- Upper Llwyn Tudor, Cregrina P/2013/0489- Tremaen Farm, Llanfaredd P/2013/0648- Maencowyn, Llanelwedd P/2013/0767- Upper Pengarth, Painscastle P/2013/0971- Ty Gwyn Farm, Llandrindod Wells

P/2013/1055- Cold Blow, Clyro (Refused, No appeal to date)

7.3.14 Within the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment a map has been included highlighting some consented turbines within 10km of the application site. Further consideration by officers has also been given to applications yet to be determined for similar schemes (wind turbines) within proximity to the site. Cumulative visual effects in the study as submitted were found to be only very slight adverse negligible impacts and taking into account these other turbines it is not considered that the conclusion on cumulative impact reached by the assessment is altered. It is considered that the proposed development would not be seen as having a negative impact in terms of cumulative issues taking into account existing, consented and proposed turbines and is therefore in line with criterion 1 of policy E3.

7.3.15 As a matter of planning judgement the adverse landscape and visual impacts identified above are considered limited, it is however clear that there remains an impact, which should be drawn into the balancing exercise undertaken in determining this application.

7.4 HERITAGE IMPACT 7.4.1 The key impacts of wind turbines, either individually or as larger groups, on features of cultural heritage (such as scheduled ancient monuments; listed buildings; conservation areas; registered historic landscapes; and parks and gardens of special historic interest) include:

- Loss or direct impact on identified features of historic interest, including undiscovered archaeology.

- Indirect impacts on the character or appearance and setting of features of historic interest.

7.4.2 CCW Landmap evaluates the historic landscape of the application site as outstanding described as a large sinuous area covering the entire length of the Edw valley and its tributaries. The land is enclosed with systems of irregular fields and contains significant archaeological remains of all periods all of which enhances its score.

7.4.3 Planning Policy Wales 6.5.1, provides:

“6.5.1 The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining a planning application, whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled. Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings are likely to be affected by proposed development, there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ. In cases involving lesser archaeological remains,

Page 102 25 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

local planning authorities will need to weigh the relative importance of archaeology against other factors, including the need for the proposed development.”

7.4.4 The matter is put slightly differently in WO circular 60/96 at paragraph 17 which provides:

“Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ i.e., a presumption against proposals which would involve significant alteration or cause damage, or which would have a significant impact on the setting of visible remains. In certain circumstances it may be possible to preserve important archaeological remains where developers prepare sympathetic designs using, for example, foundations which avoid disturbing the remains altogether or minimise damage by raising ground levels under a proposed new structure or by careful siting of landscaped or open areas.”

7.4.5 The Powys UDP provides at policy ENV 17:

“POLICY ENV 17 ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD UNACCEPTABLY AFFECT THE SITE OR SETTING OF A SCHEDULED ANCIENT MONUMENT OR OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE WILL NOT BE PERMITTED AND OTHER SITES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE WILL BE SAFEGUARDED WHERE POSSIBLE.”

7.4.6 Setting is defined in Cadw’s “Conservation Principles” (2011) is as follows:

“The surroundings in which an historic asset is experienced, its local context, embracing present and past relationships to the adjacent landscape.”

7.4.7 As described below it is considered that national policy contains a presumption against development which will have a significant impact on the setting of scheduled ancient monuments (SAMs). It is clear that in relation to SAMs there is no statutory protection for the setting. In challenging the authority’s previous decision reference was made to case law related to the presumption in favour of preserving the setting of a listed building. Given that there is no statutory protection for setting the correct legal approach to SAMs falls to be distinguished from that in relation to listed buildings, where there is statutory protection for the setting of the listed building.

7.4.8 Third parties in challenging the previous decisions of the local planning authority point to policy within PPW at 6.5.3 as a basis for a presumption to protect a SAM. This however only relates to the desirability of preserving both the physical portion of a monument and the setting of it is identified as being a material consideration, which was taken into account previously. There is however ambiguity on this matter, although not from the point where the third parties challenge arose, but from this sentence in para 6.5.1 stating: “Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings are likely to be affected by proposed development, there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ.” This could be read as presumption being in relation to physical damage to the monument, but no presumption in relation to the setting of the monument. However it is considered that as this sentence due to the subclause referring to ‘and their settings’, could be interpreted that the policy is seeking to take into account their settings and in referring to physical preservation in situ Page 103 26 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064 some reference is being made in some way to the preservation of the setting. A more important point is that WO Circular 60/96 provides: “Where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation in situ i.e., a presumption against proposals which would involve significant alteration or cause damage, or which would have a significant impact on the setting of visible remains” on this occasion it is made clear that there is a presumption against proposals which would have a ‘significant impact on the setting of visible remains’. While PPW is ambiguous it is clear that WO Circular 60/96 is sufficiently clear to conclude that there is a presumption against proposals which will have a ‘significant impact on the setting of visible remains’.

7.4.9 Cadw and CPAT have been consulted during the application process. Whilst CPAT note they have no objections to the application Cadw have noted that the proposed development is located within 450 metres to the nearest Schedule Ancient Monument (SAM) (RD168 Gellidywyll Platform Settlement) with a range of further SAMs located within a 5km radius of the proposed turbine. Cadw note the nearest SAM RD168 is located approximately 450 metres to the south west of the development site. This proximity and the advice of Cadw indicate that the turbine should be considered to be within the setting of the this SAM, this appears to be the case based on Cadw’s observation that:

7.4.10 As the turbine is within the setting of the SAM, the policy presumption to protect the setting of the SAM is engaged. The advice from Cadw is that “Whilst the proposed turbine represents a substantial vertical and moving addition to the undeveloped pastoral landscape which forms the broader setting of the scheduled ancient monuments identified, intervening topography and vegetation dictate that not all of these monuments are likely to be inter-visible with or subsequently effected by the turbine. The nearest scheduled monument, RD168, faces away from and is barely inter-visible with the turbine, the remaining monuments being 1.5km or more distant. At such distances this turbine does not have a significant impact on the settings of the scheduled ancient monuments identified”. The conclusion of Cadw is that the impact on the setting of the SAM is “not significant”, it is noted that this is not clearly a statement that there is no harmful impact on the setting of the SAM. The clear presumption identified in the circular is only against development which has a ‘significant impact on the setting of visible remains’ and it is noted that Cadw are now clear in their advice that the impact is not significant. In light of this the impact on the setting of the SAM needs to be considered and reflected in the balancing exercise as a material consideration.

7.4.11 As can be noted from the above the advice of Cadw has changed. The advice has changed from the previous responses due to the Cadw Inspector being able to make an onsite assessment with the turbine in place and operational. Cadw state that: “Cadw’s Regional Inspector of Ancient Monuments visited RD168 (which lies on access land) on 1 April 2014 after being notified of the erection of the turbine, and now concludes that this impact is less than had previously been predicted as only the blade tips of the turbine are visible over the shoulder of the hill from one house site, significant key views from the scheduled monument being along the valley to the E and S”. The fact that an on site inspection with the turbine in place has been undertaken, is considered to allow for a much more informed judgement on this issue and the change in advice from Cadw is considered justified in the circumstances.

7.4.12 Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust has responded to their consultation and advised that having checked the location of the turbine and cable trench that there are no

Page 104 27 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064 archaeological implications from the proposal. The proposal is also not considered to be in close proximity to any other features of cultural heritage so that they would be directly impacted or their settings substantially affected. The impact on conservation areas, historic landscapes and registered parks and gardens was considered in the applicants LVIA and the conclusions of this are accepted. The proposal is considered to comply with E3(4) in respect of its heritage impact.

7.4.13 The development is considered to be reasonably in line with development plan policies E3, ENV17, ENV18 and SP3. Impacts identified above are taken into account in the balancing exercise below.

7.5 LIVING CONDITIONS 7.5.1 The impact of noise and vibration and the impact to health of the proposal need to be considered. Wind turbine development creates noise, both during construction and operation. Construction noise can be generated from works such as piling, works to erect the turbine, to construct its base or to dig out cabling trenches, in this case these works have been completed. Operational noise is created both through aerodynamic noise from the movement of the blades and through mechanical noise from the gear box / generators. The main source of noise from modern turbines is aerodynamic noise.

7.5.2 The siting of turbines is important to ensure that ambient noise levels around noise sensitive development are kept to acceptable levels when compared with existing background noise. The main way of ensuring that this impact is minimised is to ensure that there is sufficient distance between the turbines and sensitive properties.

7.5.3 National policy and guidance refers to the need for operational noise levels to fall within the established limits of ETSU-R-97 (The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind farms (1997) Energy Technology Support Unit). This guidance sets out indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farms. ETSU-R-97 is supported as an appropriate standard in Technical Advice Note 8. The levels are set relative to background noise limits, rather than as absolute limits, with separate limits for day-time and night-time. They are presented in a manner that makes them suitable for noise related planning conditions.

7.5.4 Significant concern has been expressed by local residents with regards to noise levels from the development.

7.5.5 The application is supported by a noise impact assessment undertaken by acoustic consultants. This assessment has concluded that the standards given in ETSU-R-97 can be met by this development; the predicted noise level at Vaenor is the highest of any nearby residential properties (which are not involved in the development) and is 29.6 dBLA90. Little Busnant is 29.6 dBLA90. This predicted noise level is within the ETSU-R-97 requirement of 35 dBLA90. The noise impact assessment supports the conclusion that the ETSU-R-97 standard can be met at the site. This view is further supported by the Local Environmental Protection Officer who has recommended that conditions are imposed. The predicted noise levels for properties are as below:

Receptor Distance Valley Penalty Wind turbine Criteria Difference noise level dBLA90 dBLA90 dBLA90 Vaenor 449 N 29.7 35.0 -5.3

Page 105 28 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

Little Busnant 599 Y 29.6 35.0 -5.4 Helyg 736 N 24.4 35.0 -10.6 Gelynen 778 N 26.7 35.0 -8.3 Gellidywyll 824 N 26.1 35.0 -8.9 Cwm Mawr 786 N 26.6 35.0 -8.4 Penlanerch 239 N 36.3 45.0 -8.7 (financially Interested) (extract from supporting noise assessment)

7.5.6 The proposal is considered to fulfil national and local policy in respect of the likely impact from operational noise. Based on this evidence it is considered reasonable to impose a noise condition to ensure that ETSU-R-97 is met if the development is permitted. The concerns of residents are noted including on going noise concerns from the turbine operating without the benefit of planning permission. If there are further complaints and consent is granted for this proposal there will be scope to enforce under planning conditions.

7.5.7 Further noise and vibration impacts may result from construction and decommissioning activity. Decommissioning is still relevant to this application and impacts can normally be mitigated by restricting working hours and requiring the adoption of good practice measures for reducing noise in line with British Standards Guidance (i.e. BS 5228 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites and BS 8233 Sound Insulation and Noise Reductions for Buildings). Decommissioning requirements for noise and vibration control can be formed into a suitably worded condition.

7.5.8 Reference has been made regarding the impact of turbines on general health through noise, AM, low frequency noise and vibration. Amongst others, these concerns relate to epilepsy, sleep disturbance, irritability, headaches, nausea, and heart related problems. Collectively, these issues are generally referred to as “Wind Turbine Syndrome” or “Vibro-Acoustic Disease”. Neighbours consider that on these issues the emphasis should be on the applicant to demonstrate that there is no potential impact e.g. that the local planning authority should take a precautionary approach. Whilst it is not sought to downplay the seriousness of the issues raised by neighbouring residents; there is nothing put forward that could amount to substantive evidence that is viewed to justify departing from advice on acceptable noise levels relating to the operation of wind farms and to adopt a precautionary approach. This view is supported in appeals where Planning Inspectors have not accord significant weight to this issue in decision making.

7.5.9 Under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the impact is known as ‘shadow flicker’. Only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can be affected at the latitudes of the UK – turbines do not cast long shadows on their southern side. The effect is also mitigated by the size of the turbine and the distance to the receptor. A distance of 10 rotor diameters is generally considered to sufficiently mitigate the impact. The distance to neighbouring properties is such that it is not considered that this would give rise to significant harm to neighbours.

7.5.10 Overall the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on living conditions and to be in compliance with Powys Unitary Development Plan policies E3 and GP1 and TAN8.

Page 106 29 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

7.6 IMPACTS ON PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY 7.6.1 Following consultation with Countryside Services, a response has been received which indicates that the siting of the proposed under route cabling would affect public footpath GC1595. The Rights of Way officer would like to ensure that the applicant make prior contact with the Service as a short term temporary closure may be required whilst the ground works are taking place.

7.6.2 Countryside Services would also wish to ensure that users of the legally recorded public footpath are given due consideration in relation to plant movement and operation within the site. Any access tracks which are to be used in relation to the development, which also carry public rights of access, must be given due consideration. This consideration could include appropriate signage, speed restrictions and passing places. It should be highlighted that users of the footpath would have priority of access over any plant machinery on site.

7.6.3 It is further noted that at no time should any public right of way be obstructed during the development process and at no time should any materials be placed or stored on the line of any public right of way; any damage caused to the surface of any public right of way must be made good to at least its current condition or better.

7.6.4 In light of the above and that development has been completed it is considered it complies with planning policy relating to public rights of way.

7.7 ECOLOGICAL IMPACT 7.7.1 The main ecological impacts resulting from wind turbines are associated with the site infrastructure – i.e. construction compounds, the turbines themselves and cable trenches. These impacts may occur both during construction and during the operation of the turbines. The key potential ecological impacts include:

- Direct and indirect impacts of wind turbine construction on ecological receptors – for example habitat loss and/or loss of plant or animal species, disturbance and fragmentation.

- Direct and indirect impacts of wind turbine operation on ecological receptors – for example the disturbance of habitats and birds/bats colliding with the turbine blades during operation (known as ‘bird strike’) as well as the impact of barotrauma e.g. fatal impact from changes in air pressure induced by the turbine blades. These impacts will be less significant for smaller turbines.

7.7.2 The turbine in this case has been constructed and construction impacts are now complete, in previous consideration of the application this did not form a particular area of objection.

7.7.3 Concerns have been raised from objectors regarding the potential impact the proposed turbine may have on biodiversity within the surrounding area. Planning policy guidance seeks to safeguard and where possible enhance biodiversity. The Powys Ecologist has confirmed that the Glascwm and Gladestry SSSI is located approximately 1.1km to the east and south of the site whilst the River Wye SAC and SSSI is 1.2 km to the west of the site.

7.7.4 It is noted that the land is improved agricultural grazing with limited ecological value. It is further noted that the turbine is located over 50 metres away from hedgerows and Page 107 30 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064 mature trees and as such the potential to impact on foraging bats and birds is minimised to an acceptable level.

7.7.5 In light of the above it is therefore considered that the proposed development fundamentally complies with planning policy relating to biodiversity.

7.7.6 Overall it is considered that subject to appropriate conditions the application is acceptable and in accordance with the environmental protection policies of the UDP – ENV3 – ENV7 and DC9.

7.8 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT 7.8.1 The Mid Wales Tourism Strategy (TPMW, 2011) recognises the natural environment as Powys’ key visitor asset. Wind energy development, through landscape and visual impact has the potential to alter the natural environment by changing the landscape character and visual amenity. The proposed turbine is located within proximity of recreational and tourism assets including public rights of way. Within immediate proximity there are footpaths and open access land, concern has been expressed with regards to the potential impact that the proposed development may have on existing tourist attractions and local businesses within the area.

7.8.2 Policy TR2 of the Unitary Development Plan states that development of any kind which would have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the environmental setting of established tourist attractions will be opposed. There is limited information available on the impact of wind energy development on local economies particularly tourism.

7.8.3 Research has been carried out in the United Kingdom to establish whether wind farms are seen as having a negative impact on tourism. A study carried out by the University of Edinburgh as a submission to the Renewables Inquiry of the Scottish Government entitled “Tourism impact on wind farms” and provided the following conclusion: “In conclusion, the findings from both primary and secondary research relating to the actual and potential tourism impact of wind farms indicate that there will be neither an overall decline in the number of tourists visiting an area nor any overall financial loss in tourism related earnings as a result of a wind farm development.”

7.8.4 It is advised that consideration is also given to the “Study into the Potential Economic Impact of Wind Farms and Associated Grid Infrastructure on the Welsh Tourism Sector” by Regeneris Consulting Ltd (February 2014) for the Welsh Government. This is an up to date piece of research and is Welsh specific. It is an extensive report (145 pages long), takes in a wide variety of literature and uses case studies to look at the impact of wind farm development. The study is complex, but it is considered reasonable to state that it emphasises the need to look at each case and situation on its own merits. The study offers the following advice in relation to the scale of development and potential considerations:

“5.54 The authors of this study argue that it is the degree to which a development changes the character of the landscape rather than its absolute size that is the driving factor. While there is clearly a relationship between turbine size and number of turbines and the impact on landscape character these findings suggest that landscape context is as important as the characteristics of the development itself in determining impact. That is, a large wind farm in a landscape with lots of other man- made structures could have less of an impact than a single turbine in an area of particularly high landscape value. Page 108 31 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

5.55 This suggests that the context for the development is a critical factor in determining potential tourism impacts. The findings of relevant studies suggest that the context for the development influences three inter-related factors: the nature of the landscape, the importance of landscape in an area’s tourism offer and the characteristics and interests of visitors to a particular tourism area.”

7.8.5 The report tends to focus on the large scale wind farm development where there is significant landscape change. Paragraphs 5.54 and 5.55 do it is considered highlight the potential for harm to tourism from a single turbine in an inappropriate location. The suggested considerations in 5.55 are considered helpful in assessing this issue e.g. the need to consider the nature of the landscape (and the nature of the change from the turbine), the importance of the landscape in an area’s tourism offer and the characteristics and interests of visitors to a particular tourism area.

7.8.6 The report also identifies that there may be higher sensitivity to wind farms for certain visitor markets in close proximity to wind farms, stating:

“9.17 While most of the evidence points toward limited impacts on tourism from wind farms, there are examples of certain locations which are, on balance, more sensitive to wind farm development. This is on account of their landscapes, types of visitor, limited product diversity and proximity to wind farms. This is particularly the case where the key visitor markets are older people visiting for the tranquillity, remoteness and natural scenery offered in some parts of Wales. Remoter parts of Powys are the most notable examples of where this may be the case.

9.18 In these locations, the study has concluded that the potential negative effect on visitor numbers may still be low overall, but in some circumstances could be moderate. The case studies have revealed that there is clearly a great deal of uncertainty around the potential impact which may arise in practice. Greatest concern exists amongst areas and businesses closest to wind farms and appealing to visitor markets most sensitive to changes in landscape quality. The case studies did highlight some businesses reporting negative reaction from visitors and also holding back investment on account of the uncertain impact, although a majority were not affected negatively at all.

9.19 Although these areas account for a small proportion of tourism employment in Wales as a whole, the narrow economic base in these areas means the sector is an important source of local employment and income. The businesses in these locations may be sensitive even to small changes in visitor numbers as a result of wind farm development. They may have a particular challenge for businesses replacing those visitors which are deterred in areas where there may be limited appeal for other visitor markets.”

7.8.7 The research is not considered to be a categorical statement on the positive or negative impact of wind turbines on tourism. There is also likely to be other research available, but as a Local Planning Authority we are not aware of robust evidence of a detrimental impact. The whole issue of detrimental tourism impacts is a nebulous issue vulnerable to assessment by assumption rather than by evidence. There is little general evidence to support the assertion that the development of wind turbines will always have a detrimental economic impact on tourism.

7.8.8 Whilst the above considers the general situation and identifies some points raised by relevant research; the important consideration to take into account is the impact of this Page 109 32 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064 specific proposal on tourism. The area has a scenic value and there are public rights of way within immediate proximity of the application site, both of which are likely to be appreciated by tourists. This proposal notwithstanding the Landmap moderate low value for the visual sensory aspect area is considered to be generally attractive and relatively tranquil. It is not an area with large amounts of existing development. This situation is repeated across many of the rural areas of Powys. No particular tourism issue has been drawn to the attention of the local planning authority, beyond the identification of Public Rights of Way and highways in the locality and the potential of certain groups to be sensitive to the impact of turbines, particularly those engaged in outdoor recreation. It is also assumed that horses and tourists who use horse riding facilities are using these routes. It may also be possible that these users are more impacted by turbine development as horses maybe startled by wind turbines, a matter that could result in fewer people wishing to risk riding in the area. Any impact should be assessed in the context of relatively low tourist numbers and the suggestion that areas of Powys maybe more sensitive due to their remote unspoilt nature and tourism offer as indicated in the 2014 Welsh Government research.

7.8.9 It is considered that the proposal has an acceptable landscape and visual impact both individually and cumulatively, this development will not it is viewed be a dominant feature in the landscape – this view is articulated in more detail in the landscape impact section of this report. Concerns of a detrimental impact on tourism and the local economy are based on what appear to be genuinely held opinions, but they do not appear to be supported by any firm data that the proposed development will result in unacceptable harm.

7.8.10 Advising on this issue is difficult and the Local Planning Authority must be wary of straying into areas of un-evidenced assumption. While it may seem reasonable to consider that some visitors or that particular types of tourists such as horse riders could be put off by wind farm development in this general area, this is not well evidenced.

7.8.11 There is a lack of evidence that the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on tourist attractions and as such, a recommendation for refusal on the grounds of an adverse impact on tourism is considered difficult to sustain. There is limited information on other potential impacts on the local economy. In relation to this specific proposal it is viewed that it has a limited and acceptable visual and landscape impact. Impacts on rights of way which are linked in objections to impacts on tourism have been considered but these impacts will it is viewed be localised and not unacceptable The link to a detrimental impact on tourism, based on the 2014 Welsh Government report, appears largely based on a link to the landscape and visual impact of turbines. It is considered that the proposed developments landscape and visual impact is acceptable and the development is considered to be in accordance with UDP policy TR2.

7.9 TRAFFIC AND HIGHWAYS IMPACT 7.9.1 The highway department have been consulted during the application process. The Highway Officer noted that insufficient information had been submitted in terms of number of traffic movements together with the sizes of the component parts and the lorries upon which they will be delivered.

7.9.2 A Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan has been submitted by the agent as additional information. The information provided states that the turbine components will be brought to site using two 28 tonne articulated lorries with a standard 40’ trailer with a

Page 110 33 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064 maximum weight of 8 tonnes with a 40 tonne all-terrain crane required for the installation of the tower.

7.9.3 Following receipt of the Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan the Highway Officer has confirmed they are satisfied that the development will have no adverse effect on highway safety. The Officer therefore withdraws the recommendation of refusal.

7.9.4 The turbine has been erected and development complete at the site in light of this it is not considered that any further action is necessary in respect of this issue.

7.10 PUBLIC OPINION 7.10.1 The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another. PPW advises the following:

“3.1.8 When determining planning applications local planning authorities must take into account any relevant view on planning matters expressed by neighbouring occupiers, local residents and any other third parties. While the substance of local views must be considered, the duty is to decide each case on its planning merits. As a general principle, local opposition or support for a proposal is not, on its own, a reasonable ground for refusing or granting planning permission; objections, or support, must be based on valid planning considerations. There may be cases where the development proposed may give rise to public concern. The Courts have held that perceived fears of the public are a material planning consideration that should be taken into account in determining whether a proposed development would affect the amenity of an area and could amount to a good reason for a refusal of planning permission. It is for the local planning authority to decide whether, upon the facts of the particular case, the perceived fears are of such limited weight that a refusal of planning permission on those grounds would be unreasonable.”

7.10.2 Proposals should be considered in terms of their effect on the amenity and existing use of land and buildings in the public interest. The views of third party interests are material and should be taken into account. The weight given to third party representation will only reach significance where a decision is finely balanced.

7.10.3 The Authority has currently received 49 letters of objection and 19 letters of support. Further letters have been written following the determination of the application and judicial review requesting that the local planning authority considers enforcement against the development.

7.10.4 The application raises issues of national importance therefore it is proper to give all third party representations on the matter of global warming the same weight. On landscape issues it is difficult to judge whether more weight should be given to the views of someone who is familiar with the landscape as opposed to someone who has never visited the site or its surroundings irrespective of where they live.

7.10.5 The impact of the development on the day to day lives of those who live in the locality of the development and those who enjoy the locality on a regular basis are a proper consideration.

7.11 TELECOMMUNICATIONS, AVIATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY

Page 111 34 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

7.11.1 Wind turbines can potentially affect electromagnetic transmissions (e.g. radio, television and phone signals). Specialist organisations responsible for the operation of electromagnetic links typically require 100m clearance either side of a line of sight link from the swept area of turbine blades. There is no indication that any such impacts have occurred following development.

7.11.2 Air traffic and safety - Wind turbines may have an adverse affect on air traffic movement and safety. Firstly, they may represent a risk of collision with low flying aircraft, and secondly, they may interfere with the proper operation of radar by limiting the capacity to handle air traffic, and aircraft instrument landing systems. There is a 15 kilometre (km) consultation zone and 30km or 32km advisory zone around every civilian air traffic radar, although objections can be raised to developments that lie beyond the 32km advisory zone. There is a c.15km statutory safeguarding consultation zone around Ministry of Defence aerodromes within which wind turbine proposals would be assessed for physical obstruction. The Ministry of Defence have been consulted on this application, but have not responded. There is no indication that the proposal will give rise to any harm to aviation and in line with other consents for wind turbine development a standard condition has been imposed requiring that details of the turbine are provided to the MoD.

7.11.3 Turbines may present a risk to nearby buildings. Fall over distance (i.e. the height of the turbine to the tip of the blade) plus 10% is often used as a safe separation distance. This is often less than the minimum desirable distance between wind turbines and occupied buildings calculated on the basis of expected noise levels and due to visual impact and does not give rise to any concerns in this case. There may also be a risk to power lines - National Grid, and/or the relevant Distribution Network Operators will be able to advise on the required standards for wind turbines being separated from existing overhead power lines. In this case there are no power lines in proximity to the site of the turbine.

7.12 HYDROLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 7.12.1 The construction and decommissioning of wind turbines can have potential impacts on local watercourses, water bodies, groundwater and water supplies due to pollution, erosion, sedimentation and impediments to flow resulting from construction activity. The application is for a relatively small scale development with the only construction undertaking being the turbine, associated bases and the cable trench. It should be noted that Natural Resources Wales have offered no objections or comments on the application on hydrology and hydrogeology. Based on a site visit there were no signs of any likely significant hydrology or hydrological concerns from the proposal with no features identified within close proximity to the turbine. The proposal is considered to comply with E3(1), E3(7) and DC9 in this respect.

7.13 REVERSIBILITY 7.13.1 Policy E4 (Removal of Redundant Wind Turbines) requires the removal of redundant turbines and outlines conditions that should be imposed on planning permissions in this respect. As a single, just under 35 metre tall turbine it is considered that this proposal should be considered as reasonably reversible and that this can be required through planning conditions. The reversibility of the proposal can be given weight in decision making.

Page 112 35 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

7.14 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 7.14.1 The issue of impact of the proposal on registered common land has been identified as a concern. This has been addressed by the Commons Registration Officer who offered no objection to the application. The site has been subject to quarrying in the past, an informative has been recommended by the contaminated land officer and will be incorporated into any decision notice.

7.15 CONCLUSIONS ON KEY ISSUES 7.15.1 The conclusions on the key issues identified above are as follows:

• The scheme benefits it is considered are significant, but should not over ride other considerations.

• The turbine has a limited detrimental landscape impact

• The turbine has a limited detrimental visual impact.

• The turbine has an impact on the setting of a scheduled ancient monument but this impact is not significant. The impact on other heritage assets is not significant and is not unacceptable.

• The impact on living conditions is not unacceptable.

• The turbine will not have an unacceptable traffic and highways impact.

• The turbine will not have an unacceptable impact on public rights of way.

• The turbine will not have a significant or unacceptable ecological impact.

• The impact on the local economy is not unacceptable.

• Public opinion should be considered and maybe important in a finely balanced decision.

• The turbine does not have an unacceptable impact on telecommunications, aviation and public safety.

• The development is largely reversible and this should be give weight.

7.16 OVERALL CONCLUSION AND PLANNING BALANCE 7.16.1 This conclusion draws on the individual key issues identified above and all other material considerations identified in relation to the proposal. As with many wind turbine developments the turbine in this case does give rise to a detrimental landscape and visual impact it is also in close proximity to heritage assets in particular it is located within the setting of a scheduled ancient monument. The setting of the scheduled ancient monument is however not significantly impacted by the turbine in the view of Cadw. When compared to the benefits of the scheme in allowing diversification of a farm business and in securing renewable energy it is considered that the detrimental impacts of the development are clearly outweighed. It is considered that the detrimental impacts of the development are limited and localised and are not unacceptable or significant.

Page 113 36 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

8 RECOMMENDATION Conditional Permission

1. This permission being retrospective as prescribed by Section 73(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) shall be deemed to take effect from the date of consent.

2. The wind turbine noise level measured shall be in accordance with the guidance contained within the Department of Trade and Industry Report 'The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms' (ETSU-R-97) and, as such, shall not exceed an absolute noise level of 35 dB expressed as L A90 10min at any existing dwelling with a non-financial involvement, up to on-site wind speeds of 10m/s measured at a height of 10m

3. The level of noise emitted by the wind turbine shall be demonstrated at the request of the Local Planning Authority. Should the wind turbine be identified as operating at an absolute noise level that exceeds 35 dB expressed as L A90 10min at any existing dwelling, up to on-site wind speeds of 10m/s measured at a height of 10m, the turbine(s) shall be taken out of use until such time as maintenance or repair is undertaken sufficient to reduce the absolute noise level of the operating turbine(s) to within the parameters specified in condition 4.

4. The proposed turbine once implemented shall be removed from the application site and the land restored to grassland should the turbine cease operation (i.e. generating electricity) for a continuous time period in excess of six months unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The turbine removal shall take place within six months from the six month period referred to in the first part of this condition.

5. Twelve months prior to the end of the 25 year period from the date of the first use of the turbine, a decommissioning and land restoration scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall make provision for the removal of the wind turbine and the associated ancillary equipment. The scheme shall include details of the management and timing for the works to be completed. All decommissioning and restoration works shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with the approved scheme.

6. Within 21 days of the date of the consent full details of any lighting to be used in connection with the turbine shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development must be carried out in full accordance with the details as approved.

7. The developer shall provide written confirmation of the following details to the Local Planning Authority no later than 21 days following the date of this decision notice:

i) Proposed date of commencement of the erection of the turbine;

ii) The maximum height of any construction equipment;

iii) The latitude and longitude of the turbine.

Reasons

Page 114 37 Planning Committee Report P/2013/1064

1. To comply with Section 63 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. In order to manage noise levels to an acceptable level in order to protect the amenity of nearby residents, in accordance guidance contained within Planning Policy Wales (Edition 5, February 2012), Technical Advice Note 11: Noise (October 1997) and policies SP12, GP1 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010).

3. In order to manage noise levels to an acceptable level in order to protect the amenity of nearby residents, in accordance guidance contained within Planning Policy Wales (Edition 5, February 2012), Technical Advice Note 11: Noise (October 1997) and policies SP12, GP1 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010).

4. In order to manage the visual impact of the proposed development to an acceptable level, in accordance with policies E3 and ENV3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy (2005) and Planning Policy Wales (2012).

5. In order to manage the visual impact of the proposed development to an acceptable level, in accordance with policies E3, E4, ENV2 and ENV3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy (2005) and Planning Policy Wales (2012).

6. In order to manage the visual impact of the proposed development to an acceptable level, in accordance with policies E3, E4, ENV2 and ENV3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy (2005) and Planning Policy Wales (2012).

7. In the interests of aviation safety.

Informatives

If evidence of contamination is found in or around the development area (petrol stations, quarries or other filled ground may result in potential ground gas or other contamination issues that may require mitigation measures), development must not proceed until a report on potential contamination of the site has been prepared by an appropriately qualified person and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This report shall include a phased investigation approach, incorporating risk assessment, to identify the extent of contamination and any measures required to remediate the site, including post-development monitoring. Where remediation works are required, the development shall not be occupied/used until a Validation Report, to show that the works have been satisfactorily carried out, has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

______Case Officer: Matthew Griffiths- Senior Planning Officer Tel: 01874 612280 E-mail:[email protected]

Page 115 38 Page 116 to December 2014 report

Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 March 2014 report and updates

Page 148 ~PREVIOUS REPORTS & UPDATES

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2013/1064 Grid Ref: 313900 252520

Community Glascwm Valid Date: Officer: Council: 01/11/2013 Gemma Bufton

Applicant: C & L Hammond, Penllanerch, Glascwm, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5SE.

Location: Penllanerch, Glascwm, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5SE.

Proposal: Full: Installation of a single wind turbine (24.8m to hub and 34.5m to blade tip) and associated equipment housing

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

UPDATE REPORT

Members resolved that the above application be approved contrary to officer’s recommendation at the Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee on 23rd January 2014. Following this meeting significant concern was raised regarding the determination of this application and no decision notice has been issued.

The application is being brought back to Members prior to issuing a decision to ensure that the concerns raised have been adequately considered.

Please note that this forms an update to the previous report (and previous update) which is attached as Appendix 1.

Principal Planning Policies

National Policy Guidance

Planning Policy Wales (Edition 5, 2012) Technical Advice Note 5 – Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) Technical Advice Note 8 – Renewable Energy (2005) Technical Advice Note 11- Noise (October 1997) Technical Advice Note 13- Tourism (1997)

The University of Edinburgh, Tourism Impact of Wind Farms (April 2012)

Wales Tourist Board (2003) Investigation into the Potential Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in Wales, Cardiff: Wales Tourist Board.

Local Planning Guidance

-Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010)

1 Page 149 GP1 – Development Control GP3 – Design and Energy Conservation GP4 – Highway and Parking Requirement ENV1 – Agricultural Land ENV2 – Safeguarding the Landscape ENV3 – Safeguarding Biodiversity and Natural Habitats ENV7 – Protected Species ENV17 – Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites ENV18 – Development Proposals Affecting Archaeological Sites E3 – Wind Power E4- Removal of Redundant Wind Turbines EC9- Agricultural Development TR2- Tourist Attractions and Development Areas RL4 - Outdoor Activity and Pony Trekking Centres RL6 - Rights of Way and Access to the Countryside

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

Socio-economic impact-

Concerns have been raised with regards to the impact the proposed turbine may have on existing tourist attractions and local businesses within the area. Policy TR2 of the Unitary Development Plan states that development of any kind which would have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the Environmental Setting of Established Tourist Attractions will be opposed.

A number of the objections received highlighted concerns in respect of the proposals impact on tourism. After researching the subject of socio-economic impact, it is considered that there is limited information available. There are however, two relatively recent Inspector’s Reports that may help Members address this issue, although Members need to ensure that they determine this application on its own merits:

Fullabrook Down Wind Farm (2007): Inspector’s Report (page 48): “The question of impacts on tourism is extremely nebulous and vulnerable to assessment by assumption rather than by evidence; it is an area where it is easy to hold opinions but harder to back them up with firm data. There is also the fact that in 15 or so years of wind farm development no evidence has ever emerged from developed sites that tourism has suffered as a result”.

Middlemoor Wind Farm: Inspector’s Report (2008): (page 89): “There appears to be no evidence from other parts of the country or abroad to suggest that the presence of wind farms in open countryside has harmed the tourist industry. Both Cumbria and Cornwall have experienced a rise in tourist numbers since the first wind farms were installed. According to the presentation prepared by the British Wind Energy Association to the All-party Parliamentary Group on Tourism, 24 May 2006, surveys and reports investigating wind energy and tourism demonstrate

2 Page 150 that the effect on tourism is negligible at worst, with many respondents taking a positive view of wind farms.

The presentation argues that the judgement of acceptability based on landscape protection will provide ample protection from tourism since, in general, landscape is more vulnerable to wind farm development than is tourism. Therefore, if there is deemed to be no damage to landscape at the planning stage, there is unlikely to be damage to tourism”

Research has been carried out in the United Kingdom to establish whether wind farms are seen as having a negative impact on tourism. A study carried out by the University of Edinburgh as a submission to the Renewables Inquiry of the Scottish Government entitled “Tourism impact on wind farms”1 provided the following conclusion:

“In conclusion, the findings from both primary and secondary research relating to the actual and potential tourism impact of wind farms indicate that there will be neither an overall decline in the number of tourists visiting an area nor any overall financial loss in tourism-related earnings as a result of a wind farm development.”

The research is not considered to be a categorical statement on the impact of wind turbines, but it did take into account a range of research studies. There is likely to be other research available, but as a Local Planning Authority we are not aware of robust evidence of a detrimental impact.

To paraphrase the Inspector’s decision notice above the whole issue of detrimental tourism impacts is a nebulous issue vulnerable to assessment by assumption rather than by evidence. The objections are based on what appear to be genuinely held opinions, but they do not appear to be supported by any firm data that the proposal will have a significant harm. There is little general evidence to support the assertion that the development of wind turbines will have a detrimental economic impact on tourism. While considering the generality it is important to take into account the impact of this proposal specifically; it is noted that there are rights of way relatively close to the site and it is an area of attractive countryside likely to be used by tourists. Having noted this situation, it remains the case that it is an assumption, not supported by evidence, that the introduction of a turbine into this area will do harm to tourism. Based on site visits, the landscape and visual impact information submitted and the situation on site it is not considered that there are specific reasons why a different conclusion would be reached in this case.

It is therefore considered based on previous research findings and the situation of this application that the proposal will not have a significant impact on tourist attractions and that a recommendation for refusal based on tourism grounds and that the proposal does not accord with TR2 are not considered to be justified in this instance and therefore the proposed development is seen to fundamentally comply with relevant tourism policies.

1 “Tourism impact of wind farms” Submitted to Renewables Inquiry, Scottish Government, Professor Cara Aitchison, University of Edinburgh (April 2012)

3 Page 151 Cumulative Impact-

Concerns have been raised with regards to the potential cumulative impact the proposed turbine may have with existing turbines. The nearest consented turbine to the application site is located at Llwyn Tudor Farm approximately 1.7km distance from the application site.

In assessing cumulative impact policy E3(1) states that turbines will be permitted if: “They do not unacceptably affect the environmental and landscape quality of Powys, either on an individual basis or in combination with other proposed or existing similar developments. Where the cumulative impact of proposals in combination with other approved or existing windfarms would be significantly detrimental to overall environmental quality they will be refused…”. It is noted that in determining the application it is important to consider the proposal in combination with existing and proposed similar developments. In combination effects of proposed developments maybe very significant for example where the large scale wind farm development is occurring in Powys. However it is also important to consider it at the smaller scale of this development and a review has been undertaken to identify wind turbines in the locality that should be considered in determining this application. A review of existing, proposed and consented development has been undertaken. The review highlighted the following turbines determined and currently within the planning process within 10km of the application site:

P/2010/1393- Caebanol, New Radnor P/2011/0111- Brynmelys, Hundred House P/2011/1115- Land near Cwmmaerdy House, Hundred House P/2012/0959- Upper Llwyn Tudor, Cregrina P/2013/0489- Tremaen Farm, Llanfaredd P/2013/0648- Maencowyn, Llanelwedd P/2013/0767- Upper Pengarth, Painscastle P/2013/0971- Ty Gwyn Farm, Llandrindod Wells P/2013/1055- Cold Blow, Clyro (Pending determination)

Within the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment a map has been included highlighting some consented turbines within 10km of the application site. Further consideration by officers has also been given to applications yet to be determined for similar schemes (wind turbines) within proximity to the site. Cumulative visual effects in the study as submitted were found to be only very slight adverse negligible impacts and taking into account these other turbines it is not considered that the conclusion on cumulative impact reached by the assessment is altered. It is considered that the proposed development would not be seen as having a negative impact in terms of cumulative issues taking into account existing, consented and proposed turbines and is therefore in line with criterion 1 of policy E3.

Solicitors Letter on behalf of third party - A letter has been received from Irwin Mitchel Solicitors acting on behalf of a third party objector to the application. This letter has raised concerns regarding the consideration of tourism and also the cumulative impact of development addressed above, in summary it goes onto cover the following further issues:

4 Page 152 The Cadw advice is, based on “limited information” and is inconclusive in that it is given in the absence of detail with important elements remaining “outside the scope” of the LVIA. They therefore request that the Council confirms that the gaps identified by Cadw which still remain unanswered by the developer could not be assessed – including clarification of the process by which the conclusions were reached with regard to the impact on RD168 and other monuments, whether any specialist archaeological input was required, and whether the Council now believes that a proper archaeological assessment should not be undertaken.

The letter also goes onto question the reasoning for the decision that the “economic benefits outweighed the concerns of the other bodies” the only consideration which was given to such “economic benefits” by the committee in fact related to the personal circumstances of the applicant developer. It is apparent, for instance that councillors referred in their discussions to the specific business benefits for the applicant and not the wider public economic issues. The committee therefore took into considerations irrelevant and not material to the decision making process. Conversely, no consideration was given either in the decision making of the councillors or in the planning officers report to the economic benefits or detrimental effects on tourism.

The letter also goes on to note that development has commenced on site and that this should be subject to enforcement action.

In response to the concerns and objections in the solicitor’s letter the comments of Cadw were noted in the original report and formed the recommendation of refusal these matters were deliberated on in the original Committee meeting. The further comments on the “economic benefits” and concerns about what this means and how it was balanced in decision making should also be noted. Benefits of wind energy may include the economic benefits of development which could include the income for the individual or supporting the sustainability of a farm enterprise etc, this is considered a material consideration in line with paragraph 3.1.7 of Planning Policy Wales but it is not considered normally to be of significant weight as the planning system is not in place to protect an individual’s personal interest against another’s. There are considered to be national and local planning policy support for renewable energy development and the contribution of this development to meeting these needs may be sufficient to outweigh objections to the application.

______Case Officer: Gemma Bufton- Planning Officer Tel: 01597 827505 E-mail:[email protected]

5 Page 153 Page 154 Appendix 1 Jan 2014 report

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2013/1064 Grid Ref: 313900 252520

Community Glascwm Valid Date: Officer: Council: 01/11/2013 Gemma Bufton

Applicant: C & L Hammond, Penllanerch, Glascwm, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5SE.

Location: Penllanerch, Glascwm, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5SE.

Proposal: Full: Installation of a single wind turbine (24.8m to hub and 34.5m to blade tip) and associated equipment housing

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

Site Location and Description

The site subject to this application is located within the open community council area for Glascwm. The application site is located within an agricultural field approximately 230 metres to the east of Penllanerch farmstead. The nearest neighbouring residential property (Little Busnant) is located approximately 610 metres south of the application site. Existing field boundaries comprise of established vegetation (trees and hedgerows). The application site is bound by agricultural land.

Consent is sought in full for the erection of a single wind turbine measuring 34.5 metres to blade tip (24.8 metres to hub) with an installed capacity of 50kW. Connection to Penllanerch will be via underground cabling.

Consultee Response

Glascwm Community Council-

Please be aware that Glascwm Community Council discussed planning application P/2013/1064 at the last meeting. The results showed that 4 members supported the application, 2 opposed it and 1 abstained. A number of members of the public attended the meting with the majority being opposed to the application. Members felt that overall the turbine was sited well.

Penybont Community Council-

No response received at the time of writing this report.

New Radnor Community Council-

6 Page 155 The Community Council is concerned at the size of the turbine and the impact one this high would have on the landscape. It is also concerned that there may be noise nuisance given the unforeseen consequences (noise wise) of smaller turbines in the area. In addition the proposed site is very close to a public right of way. This has implications for public safety and the Community Council is concerned that the right of way should be retained and should not be affected by the development.

Gladestry Community Council-

Gladestry Community Council considered this application at its recent meeting and wish to record the following comments:

- It appears from the information supplied that this turbine will not impact upon the Gladestry Community Council area. - Councillors are concerned that the proliferation of turbines in rurual areas may have a cumulative adverse affect on the peace and tranquility of the renowed Radnorshire landscape and also its native wildlife. They would appreciate the issue being taken into consideration when determing this and other applications.

Llandrindod Wells Town Council-

The above application was placed before my Council at its meeting held on 19th November 2013.

My Council would support this application.

Painscastle Community Council-

No response received at the time of writing this report.

Aberedw Community Council-

No response received at the time of writing this report.

Llanelwedd Community Council-

No response received at the time of writing this report.

Disserth & Trecoed Community Council-

The above application was placed before my Council at its meeting held on 12th November 2013.

No objections were made

PCC – Highways-

08/01/2013- I refer to the additional information provided by Aeolus Power dated 2nd January and can confirm that I am happy that the development will have no adverse effect on highway safety. I therefore withdraw my recommendation of refusal and trust

7 Page 156 you will include a condition on any permission granted requiring the construction works to be carried out in accordance with the Construction Management Plan submitted.

18/11/2013- The construction phase traffic management plan submitted with the above application does not offer sufficient information to enable the development’s impact on highway safety to be adequately considered. Almost identical to the document provided for 13/0709 Cwmfaerdy, Abbey-cwm-hir, it fails to clarify what is meant by ‘standard’. It also states the need for 35 and 50 tonne cranes when acknowledging that there is a 26 tonne weight restriction on the final part of the delivery route. I must therefore indicate that at this stage I must recommend refusal of the application but am sure that further information can be provided which will influence my views. I attach a recently compiled guidance note which you may wish to pass to the agent or Aeolus Power but my comments regarding the discharge of the aforementioned Abbey-cwm-hir condition are equally relevant. I trust a revised plan will be sought in order that I can review this scheme.

PCC - Building Control-

No response received at the time of writing this report.

PCC – Ecologist-

Thank you for consulting me on the above application. I have received and read the ecological report ‘Ecological Appraisal of land at Penllanerch Farm, Glascwm, Hundred House in relation to a proposed wind turbine’ by One Planet Ecology dated September 2013.

I note that the Glascwm and Gladestry SSSI is situated approximately 1.1km to the east and south of the site. The River Wye SAC and SSSI is 1.2km to the west of the site. It is not anticipated that the proposed turbine will have any detrimental effect on the protected sites.

The site identified for the proposed wind turbine has been chosen to minimise potential environmental impact. The land is improved agricultural grazing land with limited ecological value.

There are a number of hedgerows and mature trees in the local area however the turbine has been located over 50 metres away from such features and as such the potential to impact on foraging bats and birds is minimised.

PCC - Environmental Health-

With regard to this application, should members be minded to grant the application I would suggest the following conditions be included.

ETSU-R-97 provides a method for determining operational noise limits for wind farm developments. For single turbines or developments where there are large separation distances between turbines and sensitive receptors, a simplified method can be

8 Page 157 adopted whereby, if operational noise is limited to LA90, 10 min of 35 dB(A) at the closest receptors in wind speeds up to 10 ms at 10m height. This limit may be increased to 45 dB where the occupier of a property has a financial involvement in the application.

I would recommend that the following be included into planning permission if granted.

1. The wind turbine noise level measured shall be in accordance with the guidance contained within the Department of Trade and Industry Report ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97) and, as such, shall not exceed an absolute noise level of 35 dB expressed as L A90 10min at any existing dwelling with a non-financial involvement, up to on-site wind speeds of 10m/s measured at a height of 10m. Penllanerch can be afforded a higher noise level of 45 dB expressed as L A90 10 min.

2. The level of noise emitted by the wind turbine shall be demonstrated at the request of the Local Planning Authority. Should the wind turbine be identified as operating at an absolute noise level that exceeds 35 dB expressed as L A90 10min at any existing dwelling that is not financially involved, and 45 dB at Penllanerch up to on-site wind speeds of 10m/s measured at a height of 10m, the turbine shall be taken out of use until such time as maintenance or repair is undertaken sufficient to reduce the absolute noise level of the operating turbine to within the parameters specified in condition 1.

Reason: In order to maintain and protect the amenity of nearby residents by the reduction of ambient noise levels to an acceptable level in accordance with the requirements of Section 13.13 (Reducing Noise and Light Pollution) of Planning Policy Wales, Edition 4 (February 2011); Technical Advice Note (Wales) 11 (October 1997) and; Policy SP12 (Energy Conservation and Generation) of the Powys Unitary Development Plan, adopted 1st March 2010.

PCC - Rights of Way-

Thank you for the opportunity for Countryside Services to comment on the above mentioned application.

It would appear from the information made available at this time that public rights of way are going to be affected by this application; namely public footpath GC1595 is shown to be affected by the proposed underground cabling run.

Countryside Services would wish to ensure that the applicant makes contact with the Service prior to any ground works taking place to discuss this element of the proposals; it may well be a requirement to obtain a short term temporary closure of the footpath whilst ground works take place.

Countryside Services would also wish to ensure that users of the legally recorded public footpath are given due consideration in relation to plant movement and operation within the site. Any access tracks which are to be used in relation to the development, which also carry public rights of access, must be given due consideration. This consideration could include appropriate signage, speed

9 Page 158 restrictions and passing places. It should be highlighted that users of the footpath would have priority of access over any plant machinery on site.

Please could you also make the applicant aware that at no time should any public right of way be obstructed during the development process and at no time should any materials be placed or stored on the line of any public right of way; any damage caused to the surface of any public right of way must be made good to at least its current condition or better.

Countryside Services therefore has no objection to the proposed application subject to the applicant making contact with the Service to discuss the cabling works.

PCC – Commons-

Thank you for your consultation letter received by email on 06/11/2013 concerning the above application.

From the information provided on the Powys Planning Portal I can confirm that the application site located at Grid Ref: 313900, 252520 is in close proximity to land registered as common land under the Commons Registration Act 1965 as Register Unit No. (Radnorshire)CL 60 – Little Hill Common.

Commons Registration Records show that:

-Title to the adjacent common land was registered at the Land Registry in 1993: WA484811 – the registered proprietor at that time was Mrs Suzanne Fisher

-The common is subject to grazing rights

-Since May 2005, the common is also subject to a public right of access, on foot, granted by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

Both the Traffic Management Plan and the Planning Design and Access Statement indicate that the Applicant intends to use existing council roads and farm tracks however, no detailed plan showing the exact location of the proposed temporary access track and turning area was provided.

The Applicant is therefore advised that, should it be decided to construct or improve a vehicular access from the unclassified council road, U1500, across the adjacent registered common land; additional Consent under Section 38, Commons Act 2006 must first be obtained from the Welsh Ministers.

National Resoures Wales-

No response received at the time of writing this report.

CPAT-

Thank you for the consultation on this application.

10 Page 159 There re no significant direct or indirect impacts to non-designated archaeological sites within, or immediately around, this application area. We would therefore have no objections to the application.

There is some potential for a moderate adverse visual impact on SAM RD168 and Cadw should be consulted for their views on this aspect of the development. I have copied Suzanne Whiting into your consultation email. The SAM lies approx 420m upslope to the north east and it would appear from the LVIA that the upper hub and blades may be visible from the SAM. The applicant should supply a photomontage to CPAT and Cadw showing the view of the turbine from within the SAM area to assist in the assessment of visual impact.

Open Spaces Society-

No response received at the time of writing this report.

Ramblers Association-

No response received at the time of writing this report.

MOD-

No response received at the time of writing this report.

CADW-

The advice set out below related only to those aspects of the proposal, which fall within Cadw’s remit as a consulted on planning applications- the impact of development on scheduled monuments or Registered Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens. Our comments do not address any potential impact on the setting of any listed building, which is properly a matter for your authority. These views are provided without prejudice to the Welsh Government’s consideration of the matter, should it come before formally for determination.

The proposed development is located in the vicinity of the following scheduled ancient monuments:

Nearest SAM (c 450m):

RD168 Gellidywyll Platform Settlement

Within 5k buffer: RD026 Six Stone Stone Circle RD035 Colwyn Castle RD036 The Mount Mound & Bailey Castle, Hundred House RD069 Bryn y Maen Alignment (Four Stones) RD075 Fforest Wood Mound % Bailey Castle RD076 Penarth Mount Castle Mound RD109 Bryn y Maen Round Barrow RD130 Wern Camp

11 Page 160 RD165 Cwm-Twrch Medieval Settlement RD168 Gellidywyll Platform Settlement RD169 Cwmblaenerw Enclosed Long Hut RD170 Cwmblaenerw House Platforms RD177 Cefn Wylfre Stone Circle and Round Barrow RD178 Cefn Wylfre Round Barrows RD179 Cefn Wylfre Platform House RD181 Llanbedr Hill Platform House RD182 Llanbedr Hill Cist Cairn RD183 Red Hill Cross Ridge Dyke RD185 Lettypeod Desserted Rural Settlement RD186 Cefn Wylfre Deserted Rural Settlement RD188 Cwm-piban Platform House RD218 Giant’s Grave round cairn RD230 Hundred House round barrow

Cadw would draw the Planning Officers attention the insufficient consideration of the historic environment within this application, in spite of the applicant acknowledging impacts in the LVIA. Scheduled ancient monuments are covered briefly as part of paragraph 8.2 of the LVIA. This acknowledges potential indirect impacts to RD168 (moderate adverse), on multiple unspecified monuments on Cefn Wylfre (slight adverse) and on unspecified more distant monuments (slight adverse at worst). No indication is given of the process by which these inclusions were reached, nor whether this has entailed any specialist archaeological input, p31 stating that a full archaeological or cultural heritage assessment was considered to be beyond the scope of the report. No photomontages or wireframe studios are provided and the accompanying Design and Access Statement and Environmental Statement do not consider the historic environment. The following advice is therefore based upon limited information.

A search of Cadw’s records indicated a range of scheduled ancient monuments (SAMs) within a 5km radius of the proposed turbine. The nearest of these to the proposed turbine is RD168, which is located approximately 450m to the south west of the development site, at a higher elevation on the same spur. Whilst it is possible that the topography of the hill may provide some degree of screening of the lower levels of the mast it is likely, as stated in the LVIA and indicated by the ZTV that the monument will be directly intervisible with the turbine and will therefore have an adverse impact on its setting. This is likely to be mitigated to some extent by the relatively small scale of the turbine, its distance from the monument and the backcloth provided by the ridges on the opposite sides of the Clas Brook and Edw Valleys when viewed from the monument.

The ZTV indicated that the turbine is likely to be intervisible with a number of more distant monuments on the northern edge of Cefn Wylfre and further along the intersecting valleys to the west, north- west and north east of the proposed site. Several of these, including the motte and baileys RD036 and RD076, the Bronze Age funerary cairns RD177, RD178, RD179 and the stone circle RD026 may have been deliberately sited n order to command views over or to enhance their visibility within the largely undeveloped rural landscape which forms their broader setting. Whilst the proposed turbine will represent a substantial vertical and moving element to this

12 Page 161 landscape this will be at distances of 1.5km or more from the nearest monuments, set against a backcloth of steep valley sides and with varying degrees of screening being provided by intervening topography, vegetation and buildings. In Cadw’s opinion a turbine of this scale is unlikely to significantly affect any sense of place or interpretation of these monuments.

Based upon the information provided, the proposed development will, in Cadw’s opinion, have a moderate adverse impact on the setting of RD168 and a negligible to slight adverse impact on the settings of the remaining monuments that fall within the ZTV.

PCC - Built Heritage-

No response received at the time of writing this report.

PCC- Contaminated Land-

This is a potential contaminative use. In accordance with DOE Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission, the Local Planning Authority should adopt appropriate conditions in circumstances where a potential contamination issue may exist:

'76. Conditions might also be imposed requiring the developer to draw to the attention of the planning authority the presence of significant unsuspected contamination encountered during redevelopment. Further planning policy guidance on contaminated land is contained in PPG23: Planning and Pollution Control (England only) (paragraph 4 and Annex 10) (in Wales, Welsh Office Circular 22/87- Contaminated land. (See also model conditions 56-58)'.

Therefore, the following condition is recommended.

Condition B

Potential Contamination

If evidence of contamination is found in or around the development area, development must not proceed until a report on potential contamination of the site has been prepared by an appropriately qualified person and submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. This report shall include a phased investigation approach, incorporating risk assessment, to identify the extent of contamination and any measures required to remediate the site, including post-development monitoring. Where remediation works are required, the development shall not be occupied/used until a Validation Report, to show that the works have been satisfactorily carried out, has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Note to Applicant

Potential Contamination

13 Page 162 Further advice on compliance with this condition, and the Council’s guidance leaflet on the development of sites with potential land contamination, may be obtained by contacting the Environmental Health Service on 0870 1923757.

Representations

49 letter of objection and 19 letters of support have been received. The letters can be summarised as follows:

Objections:

- Landscape and Visual Impact - Damage to Tourism - Noise pollution to neighbouring residential properties - Cumulative Impact - Area of outstanding natural beauty - Impact on bridleways and footpaths - Shadow Flicker - Turbines are not a sufficient producer of energy - Larger turbine than required for required for domestic use - No indication of the removal of the turbine - Consultation Process - Impacts on biodiversity - Impact on common land

Support:

- Saving the use of fossil fuels which pollute our air - Diversification for Farmers - Enhance the environment - Turbine at Llwyntudor has had no significant impact on businesses in the area

Planning History

SO/2013/0050- Screening Opinion. Environmental Impact Assessment required. SC/2013/0010- Scoping opinion.

Principal Planning Constraints

Public Right of Way

14 Page 163 Principal Planning Policies

National Policy Guidance

Planning Policy Wales (Edition 5, 2012) Technical Advice Note 5 – Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) Technical Advice Note 8 – Renewable Energy (2005) Technical Advice Note 11: Noise (October 1997)

Local Planning Guidance

-Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010)

GP1 – Development Control GP3 – Design and Energy Conservation GP4 – Highway and Parking Requirement ENV1 – Agricultural Land ENV2 – Safeguarding the Landscape ENV3 – Safeguarding Biodiversity and Natural Habitats ENV7 – Protected Species ENV17 – Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites ENV18 – Development Proposals Affecting Archaeological Sites E3 – Wind Power E4- Removal of Redundant Wind Turbines ENV4- Removal of Redundant Wind Turbines EC9- Agricultural Development

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

Principle of Development

Guidance contained within Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy (2005) and policy E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) supports appropriate wind turbine development proposals. In principle, it is therefore considered that the proposed development is broadly supported by both national and local planning policies. It is however acknowledged that this support needs to be balanced against the specific impact of the proposed turbine.

Visual and Landscape Impact

Guidance contained within UDP policy E3 indicates that proposals for wind turbines will only be permitted where do not unacceptably adversely affect the environmental and landscape quality of Powys.

Penlannerch is located within an area, which is recognised by Landmap as being of high visual and sensory landscape value characterised as a good example of unspoilt

15 Page 164 timeless rural valley landscape with wilder hills surrounding it. In support of the application a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was submitted. The study includes both fieldwork (including photomontages) and a desktop study relating to the site and study area. The application is accompanied by a ‘Zone of Theoretical Visibility’ drawing. The aforementioned drawing shows that the proposed turbine would be visible from parts of Cregina and Hundred House. In light of the areas where the proposed turbine would potentially be visible photomontages have been submitted in support of the application. The LVIA as submitted concludes that the proposed development which is a mid-height model is not disproportionate to its surroundings and is unlikely to make any significant change to the character of its landscape setting.

Natural Resources Wales have been consulted during the application. No response has been received at the time of writing this report. Members will be updated directly on any correspondence received.

Cumulative Impact

Concerns have been raised with regards to the potential cumulative impact the proposed turbine may have with existing turbines. The nearest consented turbine to the application site is located at Llwyn Tudor Farm approximately 1.7km distance from the application site.

Within the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment a map has been included highlighting all consented turbines within 10km of the application site. Further consideration by officers has also been given to applications yet to be determined for similar schemes within proximity to the site.

Cumulative visual effects in the study as submitted were found to be only very slight adverse negligible impacts.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

CCW Landmap evaluates the historic landscape of the application site as outstanding described as a large sinuous area covering the entire length of the Edw valley and its tributaries. The land is enclosed with systems of irregular fields and contains significant archaeological remains of all periods all of which enhances its score.

CADW and CPAT have been consulted during the application process. Whilst CPAT note they have no objections to the application CADW have noted that the proposed development is located within 450 metres to the nearest Schedule Ancient Monument (SAM) (RD168 Gellidywyll Platform Settlement) with a range of further SAMs located within a 5km radius of the proposed turbine.

CADW note the nearest SAM RD168 is located approximately 450 metres to the south west of the development site. CADW note that the monument will be directly intervisible with the proposed turbine which will therefore have an adverse impact on its setting.

16 Page 165 It is therefore considered in light of the above comments that the proposed development will be seen as having an adverse impact on the setting of RD168 and therefore contrary to policy ENV17 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Noise

The nearest neighbouring residential property to the application site is Little Busnant which is located approximately 610 metres to the north of the application site.

In support of the application the applicant has submitted a noise assessment report. Environmental Health Services have been consulted on the submitted information and offer no objection to the proposed development. In accordance with ETSU-R-97 guidance, the Environmental Health Officer has recommended a number of conditions to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.

Whilst noting the concerns expressed by objectors, it is not considered that a refusal on noise grounds would not be sustainable by Planning Services. Subject to the recommended conditions, it is considered that the proposed turbine will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by occupants of neighbouring properties by reasons of noise.

Public Rights of Way

Following consultation with Countryside Services, a response has been received which indicates that the siting of the proposed under route cabling would affect public footpath GC1595. The Rights of Way officer would like to ensure that the applicant make prior contact with the Service as a short term temporary closure may be required whilst the ground works are taking place.

Countryside Services would also wish to ensure that users of the legally recorded public footpath are given due consideration in relation to plant movement and operation within the site. Any access tracks which are to be used in relation to the development, which also carry public rights of access, must be given due consideration. This consideration could include appropriate signage, speed restrictions and passing places. It should be highlighted that users of the footpath would have priority of access over any plant machinery on site.

It is further noted that at no time should any public right of way be obstructed during the development process and at no time should any materials be placed or stored on the line of any public right of way; any damage caused to the surface of any public right of way must be made good to at least its current condition or better.

In light of the above and subject to the applicant being made aware of the details and making necessary contact with Countryside Services prior to any ground works it is considered that the proposed development fundamentally complies with planning policy relating to public rights of way.

17 Page 166 Biodiversity

Concerns have been raised from objectors regarding the potential impact the proposed turbine may have on biodiversity within the surrounding area.

Planning policy guidance seeks to safeguard and where possible enhance biodiversity. The Powys Ecologist has confirmed that the Glascwm and Gladestry SSSI is located approximately 1.1km to the east and south of the site whilst the River Wye SAC and SSSI is 1.2 km to the west of the site.

It is noted that the land is improved agricultural grazing with limited ecological value. It is further noted that the turbine is located over 50 metres away from hedgerows and mature trees and as such the potential to impact on foraging bats and birds is minimised.

In light of the above it is therefore considered that the proposed development fundamentally complies with planning policy relating to biodiversity.

Highway Safety

The highway department have been consulted during the application process. The Highway Officer noted that insufficient information had been submitted in terms of number of traffic movements together with the sizes of the component parts and the lorries upon which they will be delivered.

A Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan has been submitted by the agent as additional information. The information provided states that the turbine components will be brought to site using two 28 tonne articulated lorries with a standard 40’ trailer with a maximum weight of 8 tonnes with a 40 tonne all-terrain crane required for the installation of the tower.

Following receipt of the Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan the Highway Officer has confirmed they are satisfied that the development will have no adverse effect on highway safety. The Officer therefore withdraws the recommendation of refusal.

A condition will be attached to any grant of consent ensuring that construction works are completed in full accordance with the Traffic Management Plan as submitted. In light of the above it is therefore considered that the proposed development fundamentally complies with relevant planning policy.

Contaminated Land

The proposed development site is located within 30 metres of a historic land use of general quarrying which is a potential contaminative use.

The Contaminated Land Officer has recommended should the application be approved that a condition is attached to any grant of consent ensuring if any potential contamination is found in or around the development site that development must not proceed until a report on potential contamination of the site has been prepared.

18 Page 167 In light of the above and subject to the recommended condition it is considered that the proposed development fundamentally complies with relevant planning policy.

Public Representations

Forty nine letters of objection have been received. Whilst it is considered a number of concerns raised have been previously addressed within my report there are a number of outstanding issues, these can be addressed as follows:

- Tourism

Concern has been expressed in respect of the proposals impact on tourism. After researching the subject of socio-economic impact of wind turbines, it is considered that there is limited information available on this topic to support an objection to the proposed development. It is considered that given the scale of the proposed development and the number and nature of tourism facilities in this area that the proposals impact would be limited. A refusal purely on tourism grounds is therefore not considered to be justified.

- Shadow flicker

Concerns have been raised with regards to shadow flicker on neighbouring residential properties. Shadow flicker is the flickering effect caused when rotating wind turbine blades periodically cast shadows through constrained openings such as the windows of neighbouring properties.

Guidance on shadow flicker states that at distances greater than 10 rotor diameters from a turbine, the potential for shadow flicker is very low. In this instance given the distance to the nearest neighbouring residential property (610 metres) it is considered that the proposed development fundamentally complies with relevant guidance on shadow flicker.

- Impact to Common Land

Concerns have been raised over the common land and proposed temporary access tracks. The Commons registration officer has been consulted and advises that should it be decided to construct or improve a vehicular access from the unclassified council road, U1500, across the adjacent registered common land, consent would be required under Section 38 of the Common Act 2006.

Recommendation

1. The proposed development will be seen as having an adverse impact on the setting of scheduled ancient monument, RD168. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to guidance contained with policies ENV17 and E3 of the Unitary Development Plan (March 2010) and Planning Policy Wales (Edition 5, 2012).

19 Page 168 REPORT UPDATE TO MEMBERS ON 23/01/2014.

Members are advised that the following responses have been received and form an update to the previous report.

Consultee Response

CADW-

Thank you for inviting Cadw’s comments on the planning application and the additional information for the proposed development as described above.

The advice set out below relates only to those aspects of the proposal, which fall within Cadw’s remit as a consultee on planning applications – the impact of developments on scheduled monuments or Registered Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens. Our comments do not address any potential impact on the setting of any listed building, which is properly a matter for your authority. These views are provided without prejudice to the Welsh Government’s consideration of the matter, should it come before it formally for determination.

The proposed development is located in the vicinity of the following scheduled ancient monuments:

Nearest SAM (c 450m): RD168 Gellidywyll Platform Settlement

Within 5km buffer: RD026 Six Stones Stone Circle RD035 Colwyn Castle RD036 The Mount Mound & Bailey Castle, Hundred House RD069 Bryn y Maen Alignment (Four Stones) RD075 Fforest Wood Mound & Bailey Castle RD076 Penarth Mount Castle Mound RD109 Bryn y Maen Round Barrow RD130 Wern Camp RD165 Cwm-Twrch Medieval Settlement RD168 Gellidywyll Platform Settlement RD169 Cwmblaenerw Enclosed Long Hut RD170 Cwmblaenerw House Platforms RD177 Cefn Wylfre Stone Circle and Round Barrow RD178 Cefn Wylfre Round Barrows RD179 Cefn Wylfre Platform House RD181 Llanbedr Hill Platform House RD182 Llanbedr Hill Cist Cairn RD183 Red Hill Cross Ridge Dyke RD185 Lettypeod Deserted Rural Settlement RD186 Cefn Wylfre Deserted Rural Settlement RD188 Cwm-piban Platform House RD218 Giant's Grave round cairn RD230 Hundred House round barrow

20 Page 169 This application is for a single wind turbine with a blade tip height of 34.5m, and associated ancillary works, to be located in pasture on a south facing spur of Little Hill. According to the classifications set out in the Welsh Government published ‘Practice Guidance: Planning Implications of Renewable and Low Carbon Energy’ (February 2011) this can be considered a ‘medium’ sized turbine of between 21m and 65m in height.

Whilst the Design and Access Statement and Environmental Statement accompanying this application do not consider the historic environment, scheduled ancient monuments are covered briefly as part of paragraph 8.2 of the LVIA and by additional photomontage views in the vicinity of RD168, rather than from the monument itself. This acknowledges potential indirect impacts on RD168 (moderate adverse), on multiple unspecified monuments on Cefn Wylfre (slight adverse) and on unspecified more distant monuments (slight adverse at worst). No indication is given of the process by which these conclusions were reached, nor whether this has entailed any specialist archaeological input, p31 stating that a full archaeological or cultural heritage assessment was considered to be beyond the scope of the report. The following advice is therefore based upon limited information.

A range of scheduled ancient monuments lie in a 5km radius of the proposed turbine. The nearest of these is the earthworks of the deserted settlement RD168, which is located approximately 450m to the south west of the development site, at a higher elevation on the same spur. Whilst the topography of the hill may provide some degree of screening of the lower levels of the mast it is likely, as stated in the LVIA and indicated by the ZTV and addition viewpoint 1 (which is taken from much nearer the turbine site) that the monument will be directly intervisible with the turbine and will therefore have an adverse impact on its setting, albeit within a limited arc. This is likely to be mitigated to some extent by the relatively small scale of the turbine, its distance from the monument and the backcloth provided by the ridges on the opposite sides of the Clas Brook and Edw valleys when viewed from the monument. As such the turbine is unlikely to significantly affect any sense of place or interpretation of the low earthwork remains of RD168 and in my view the LVIA assessment of the impact of the turbine on its setting as ‘moderate’ is correct.

The ZTV indicates that the turbine is likely to be intervisible with a number of more distant scheduled ancient monuments on the northern edge Cefn Wylfre and further along the intersecting valleys to the west, north- west and north east of the proposed site. Several of these, including the motte and baileys RD036 and RD076, the Bronze Age funerary cairns RD177, RD178, RD179 and the stone circle RD026, may have been deliberately sited in order to command views over or to enhance their visibility within the largely undeveloped rural landscape which forms their broader setting. Whilst the proposed turbine will represent a substantial vertical and moving element to this landscape this will be at distances of 1.5km or more from the nearest SAMs, set against a backcloth of steep valley sides and with varying degrees of screening being provided by intervening topography, vegetation and buildings. In Cadw’s view, a turbine of this scale is unlikely to significantly affect any sense of place or interpretation of these monuments.

21 Page 170 Based upon the information provided, the proposed development will in Cadw’s opinion have a moderate adverse impact on the setting of RD168 and a negligible to slight adverse impact on the settings of the remaining scheduled ancient monuments that fall within the ZTV.

Representations

Eleven letters of representations have been received since the previous reports. The letters can be summarised as follows:

Three letters of support:

- Renewables such as wind or solar are the way forward - Powys needs to be forefront of clean energy - Protects next generation of farmers - Diversification for farmers

Eight letters of objections:

- Adversely affect immediate and surrounding landscape due the turbines height and position - Noise - Shadow Flicker - Powys renowned for its beauty and rich diversity of bird and wildlife - Impact on tourism and jeopardizing the income from inappropriately positioned turbines - No information of grid connection - Impact on biodiversity - Decommissioning of the turbine - Destroy visual amenity - Area of outstanding landscape - Cumulative impact on Radnor Hills and existing businesses - Destroying the landscape you destroy tourism

______Case Officer: Gemma Bufton- Planning Officer Tel: 01597 827505 E-mail:[email protected]

22 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199 Page 200 Page 201 Page 202 Page 203 Page 204 UPDATES TO 23/1/2014 REPORT

Ein cyf/Our ref:NRW-13-079695 Eich cyf/Your ref: P/2013/1064

Tŷ Ladywell, Stryd y Parc, Y Drenewydd, LD1 5PS/ Ladywell House, Park Street, Newtown, LD1 5PS

Ffôn/Tel 01686 613400 Ffacs/Fax 01686 629556 Ebost/Email [email protected]

Gemma Bufton Planning Officer Powys County Council The Gwalia Ithon Rd Llandindrod Wells LD1 6AA

8th January 2014

P/2013/1064 INSTALLATION OF A SINGLE WIND TURBINE (34.5M TO BLADE TIP) AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT HOUSING, PENLLANERCH GLASCWM, LLANDRINDOD WELLS, POWYS

Thank you for your consultation referring to the above proposals.

NRW consider that PCC should take into account the following when determining this application:

NRW advice on the application

The current proposal, which is located outside a Strategic Search Area as defined by Technical Advice Note (TAN) 8, is for a single turbine 34.5 m high to tip of blade.

The application site sits within LANDMAP Historic Landscape aspect area of Edw (RDNRHL914) that has been classed as ‘Outstanding’. LANDMAP describes Edw as a “historic landscape area defined by a fieldscape of irregular fields occupying the upland valley of the river Edw and its tributaries to the east of Builth Wells. Small to medium-sized fields of irregular and regular shape with predominantly hedged boundaries. Early prehistoric settlement and land use represented by chance finds and burial and ritual monuments. Later prehistoric activity represented by an Iron Age hillfort. Strategically-sited Roman fort at Colwyn Castle. The area includes extensive evidence of medieval settlement and land use denoted by small medieval nucleated church settlements at Aberedw, Llanbadarn-y-garreg, Cregrina, Glascwm, Llansantffraed-in-Elvel, and Rhulen and by scattered earthwork castles. Dispersed farmsteads of possibly medieval and early post-medieval origin. Discrete areas of possibly medieval ridge and furrow cultivation. Small post-medieval nucleated roadside settlements at Hundred House and Franksbridge. Post-medieval water corn and woollen mills.”

Tŷ Cambria  29 Heol Casnewydd  Caerdydd  CF24 0TP Cambria House  29 Newport Road  Cardiff  CF24 0TP Croesewir gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg a’r Seasneg Page 205 Correspondence welcomed in Welsh and English Directly to the north of the site lies the Historic Landscape Area of Glascwm Hill (RDNRHL371) also classed as ‘Outstanding’ in LANDMAP. Glascwm Hill aspect area is described as an “unenclosed common running along upland ridge. Early activity indicated by scattered prehistoric burial monuments on hilltops and upper slopes. Medieval and later land use represented by building platforms, a number of farmstead encroachments onto the common and small areas of cultivation ridges. Post-medieval shooting butts, small stone quarries and evidence of peat cutting.”

Despite the conclusion of the LVIA, that the turbine will result in a “slight adverse” impact on the historic landscape, NRW has concerns about the impacts that turbines could have on the landscape in this area of Radnorshire owing to its largely undeveloped nature, and considers that turbines would be likely to detract from the landscape character. The location of an existing 21m to blade tip wind turbine in Upper Llwyn Tudor, Rhulen (planning application ref P/2012/0959) has been considered in the LVIA which concludes that the proposed wind turbine is likely to contribute to very few cumulative effects within the study area. However, no ZTVs have been included in the cumulative landscape and visual assessment to illustrate the extent and interaction of the visibility of both wind turbines. Different size wind turbines have the potential to create a poorly coordinated visual image when seen in combination.

NRW agrees that the visual impact on users of the Wye Valley Walk is unlikely to be significant, and there is unlikely to be significant visibility of the development from other Long Distance Paths or the National Cycle Route.

In view of the ecological report submitted in support of the application “Ecological Appraisal of land at Penllanerch Farm, Glascwm, Hundred House, in relation to a proposed wind turbine” by One Planet Ecology, dated September 2013, NRW agrees with the Powys Ecologist in the memorandum dated 26th November 2013 and considers that protected sites and European protected species should not be affected by the proposal.

Please note that we have not considered possible effects on all local or regional biodiversity interests. Therefore, you should not rule out the possibility of adverse effects on such interests, which would be relevant to your Authority’s general duty to have regard to conserving biodiversity, as set out in section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006). We recommend that you speak to your Authority’s Ecologist in this regard.

I hope these comments are of assistance. If you have any queries, or if you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us at the above address.

www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk Page 206 www.cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk Page 2 of 3 Yours sincerely

Caroline Moscrop Arweinydd Tîm / Team Leader Maesyfed a Gogledd Brycheiniog / Radnor & N Brecknock

www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk Page 207 www.cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk Page 3 of 3 Page 208 Page 209 Page 210 Page 211 This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW110 - 20154

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2014/1191 Grid Ref: 314068.4 295375.67

Community Llandyssil with Abermule Valid Date: Officer: Council: 21/11/2014 Louise Evans

Applicant: Mr Daniel Jones, Abermule, Brynrorin, Montgomery, Powys, SY15 6JJ

Location: Land at Brynrorin, Abermule, Montgomery, Powys, SY15 6JJ

Proposal: Erection of a 32,000 bird free range egg production unit (extension of existing poultry unit business) together with feed bins and associated works

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

The reason for Committee determination The Lead Professional for Building Control is closely related to the applicant.

Site Location and Description Brynrorin is an established agricultural business which lies in a rural and isolated location between the villages of Bettws Cedewain and Abermule.

The proposal is for the creation of a single poultry unit at the farm, to provide accommodation for up to 32,000 egg laying hens. The building is to be located to the north east of the main range of farm buildings at Brynrorin and adjacent to an existing poultry unit which accommodates 16,000 hens and which was granted planning permission in 2009.

The proposed building shall be 174.1 metres long by 15.5 metres wide, 3.3 metres to eaves and 5.4 metres to ridge. The proposal also involves installation of four feed bins and an area of hardstanding. The building shall be constructed using steel box profile sheeting of a juniper green colour.

Consultee Response Abermule with Llandyssil C C No objection.

Bettws C C Bettws Community Council have no objections to the above planning in principal but would like assurance that the Highways Department and Environmental Officers are completely satisfied with the conditions put forward in the planning application.

Highways Dept First response Thanks for the additional information that was previously requested. Having visited the site and liaised with my colleagues about the application we have concerns about the highway infra-structure serving the proposed site. The C2051 from the

1 Page 213 Trunk road network to the junction of the U2646 is for most parts a single track county highway which suffers from both poor horizontal and vertical alignment. There are various pinch points along the highway where if 2 vehicles were to meet then reversing movements would have to take place in order to pass. I appreciate there is an existing egg laying unit already on the farmstead and the manure spreading plan appears to detail that enough land is available for the spreading of all of the manure. However, as 50 ha is indicated to be in a long term arrangement with neighbours this cannot be taken into account as this contract could be terminated. As ‘the proposed size of the enterprise in increasing by two-thirds there will be significantly more feed required by the birds. In view of the above the Highway Authority cannot support the application in its present format and recommend refusal in the interests of highway safety.

Second response Many thanks for the re-consultation. Unfortunately, some of the mitigating measures put forward appear not be acceptable. Our Traffic Engineer has considered the proposal about realigning the county junction by the chapel and his rejected the idea as it would be detrimental to highway safety for users using this junction. Secondly, our Network Officer considers that the proposed lay-by down by the wooded area cannot be constructed without third party land and therefore I am unable to condition. I am satisfied that the proposed lay-by in close proximity to the junction by the chapel could be constructed and conditioned accordingly.

Wales & West Utilities According to out mains records Wales & West Utilities has no apparatus in the area of your enquiry. However Gas pipes owned by other GTs and also privately owned may be present in this area. Information with regard to such pipes should be obtained from the owners. Safe digging practices, in accordance with HS(G)47, must be used to verify and establish the actual position of mains, pipes, services and other apparatus on site before any mechanical plant is used. It is your responsibility to ensure that this information is provided to all persons (either direct labour or contractors) working for you on or near gas apparatus.

Environmental Health First response I have now had opportunity to read this application and also to visit the site. I note that the applicant has provided an odour assessment including odour dispersal models in support of the application. I would recommend that the opinion of Natural Resources Wales be sought both in respect of the modelling undertaken and the conclusions reached. In respect of noise it is my understanding that the new unit will be mechanically ventilated using roof fans, unless I have missed something in the supporting information, I would be my recommendation that the applicant undertake a noise impact assessment which shows the impact of fan generated noise at nearby residential receptors.

Second response As discussed earlier it will be necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that noise from the roof fans does not cause an unacceptable impact to the amenity of nearby residents. Whilst noise is covered by the Environmental Permit it does remain a material planning consideration and we are therefore required to be in a position to determine whether this is a suitable land use at this location in respect of its noise emission.

2 Page 214 The existing poultry shed is naturally ventilated and therefore a new noise source is being introduced into the environment. I therefore repeat my previous recommendation

Third response I have read and accept the noise report which has been undertaken in respect of this application. With the reporting demonstrating that fan noise will be very low at all of the neighbouring properties, I have no objection to this application.

Forth response I write further to our re-consultation in respect of this application and also our discussion this morning. In respect of noise, I have read the additional assessments that have been undertaken and this does not change my original position that noise from the site should not be a cause for objection. In addition levels of noise generation from the site are likely to be so slow that it would be inappropriate to attach noise conditions. From discussion with yourself and from reading the file including NRW correspondence it appears that the position with regard to poultry manure from the site is not 100% clear. It appears that shed will be washed down and fully cleaned every 14 months, however it is unclear whether there will be any manure removed from the shed during a cycle. If there is details of where it will be stored and spread will be required. Some clarification on this point would be greatly appreciated.

Fifth response Having received this and read the manure management plan I have no objection to this application.

Rights of Way Whilst the proposed development will not directly affect any public right of way the applicant should be aware that public footpaths 59, 60 and bridleway 49 cross the proposed range area. The submitted documentation does not acknowledge the public rights of way or how they are to be managed in view of the new proposal.

Obstruction (no matter how temporary), during, and after the development will be taken seriously. Rubble mounds, building materials, parked vehicles etc. during development and more permanent associated development such as fencing (including electric) will be viewed as an obstruction. It is therefore strongly advised that the applicant checks the definitive line of the public rights of way on their land to ensure that they understand where they are located.

The applicants can apply to the Authority to temporarily close the public footpath during development if they feel that they need the space and cannot guarantee the safety of the public. If it is not possible to safeguard the existing public rights, the applicant will need to apply for a legal diversion (Public Path Order) of the public right of way affected. However, this is a complex and lengthy legal procedure, which takes a minimum of six months to process and costs at least £2,000. The County Council is not obliged to make a diversion order and success of a Public Path Order cannot be guaranteed.

The Council will also expect any new or diverted routes to be created to a minimum width and of a suitable surface, at the developer’s expense. Development over, or illegal interference with, a public right of way before a diversion order application has been fully

3 Page 215 processed, is a criminal offence and enforcement action will be taken against a developer who ignores the presence of affected public rights of way.

It is expected that all development proposals will be in-line with the guidance set out in the Powys County Council’s ‘Rights of Way and Development - A Practitioners Guide’,

PCC Ecologist As the concerns have been raised by NRW and they will have been consulted regarding the additional information I will not respond at this time.

Natural Resource Wales First response Natural Resources Wales objects as there is insufficient information for us to advise on European Protected Species (great crested newts).

The proposal will result in the site having over 40,000 birds and it will therefore require a permit from NRW. A permit application is currently being considered by NRW and our advice in this letter is without prejudice to our determination and decision on that permit.

European Protected Species Great crested newt are known to be present in a number of ponds in proximity to the proposal. The applicant has submitted a report undertaken for this species to inform the previous planning application in 2009. As part of the 2009 application a number of mitigation measures were agreed for great crested newt in the vicinity of the proposed new unit. Great crested newt are protected under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the EC Habitats and Species Directive as implemented by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). NRW currently has insufficient information to advise that the proposal will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of the great crested newt population present at this site. We require the following information: • A revised map showing the area around the unit to which the hens will have access. A ranging map has been submitted to support the planning application but we note that it includes areas which were mitigation areas for great crested newt as part of the 2009 planning application. The mitigation included the fencing off of these mitigation areas so we do not see how they now be include in the ranging area. • An assessment of impacts to great crested newts from direct damage to terrestrial habitat likely to be used by newts, adverse changes to the water chemistry of the ponds from any contaminated run-off and the direct impact on the newts from predation by the hens. • Further details of the mitigation and avoidance measures that address the potential impacts. It would be helpful to have confirmation that the mitigation measures proposed as part of the 2009 planning application have been undertaken. These included the fencing off of the woodland and hedgerows.

Aerial Emission Impacts on Statutory Protected Sites and the Wider Countryside The proposed development has potential to impact protected sites through increased ammonia contributions and nitrogen deposition arising from the poultry unit. There are a number of SSSls within 5km of the unit and one Special Area of Conservation (SAC) within 10km.

4 Page 216 An assessment has been undertaken for ammonia critical level and nitrogen deposition against the relevant minimum critical loads for all terrestrial SSSIs within 2km of the proposed development site and all terrestrial European sites within 10km of the proposed development site. The ammonia report correctly identifies the Hollybush Pastures SSSI as being within 2km of the proposal. It incorrectly states that the screening distance for SSSIs is 2km rather than 5km, however there are no further relevant SSSIs within a 2-5km distance of the unit. The report assesses the potentially impacts on Hollybush Pastures SSSI. Given the modelled ammonia concentrations and nitrogen deposition rates NRW has no objection with regard to the impact. The Montgomery Canal SAC is situated within 10km of the proposal. However this site, being an aquatic site, does not have ammonia critical levels or nitrogen critical loads and therefore does not require an assessment of aerial impacts from these pollutants. In conclusion NRW does not have concerns with regard to aerial emissions.

Other matters The application states that manure will be exported from the site twice a week. This being the case no Manure Management Plan is required. There is no information about the treatment of wash down water from the unit. Any wash down water would be classified as slurry and the collection and storage of such would need to comply with the Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil Wales Regulations. The Applicant must ensure that any run off from the ranging area cannot reach a watercourse, including any ditches. We consider that it is for your Authority to consider the landscape and visual amenity effects of this proposal. We note that no landscape planting around the unit is proposed and you may wish to consider if this would be appropriate.

Second response Thank you for your further consultation dated 29 May 2015 on this application. NRW previously responded to this application in a letter dated 17 April 2015 in which we requested further information on great crested newt. In response the applicant has submitted an ecological report ‘Habitat Assessment and Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy’ by Ecology Services dated May 2015. Following the submission of this report NRW visited the site on 3 June 2015. This further letter from NRW responds to this report and the findings from our site visit.

Natural Resources Wales has considered the further information and maintains its objection as there is insufficient information for us to advise that the proposal will not affect the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of great crested newt in its natural range.

European Protected Species Great crested newt are known to be present in a number of ponds in proximity to the proposal. A previous planning application in 2009 established that four of six identified ponds supported great crested newt. We have considered the additional information and we have the following comments: 1. It appears that the ranging area for the chickens is increasing from the 2009 to 2014 application and that the chickens will have direct access to range in the area around ponds 3 and 5 and in proximity to ponds 4, 2, 1 and 6. The amended ecology report still does not address the issue of increased impact from these proposals including predation, deterioration in water quality and chemistry and further terrestrial habitat degradation. A clear map is also requited showing the previous ranging area and the new ranging areas as areas identified as being within the existing ranging area do not appear to be within the

5 Page 217 actual current ranging area. The ranging map in the May 2015 ecology report also amends the ranging map plan provided with the November 2014 application. 2. The report states that there are 6 ponds within 500m of the proposed chicken unit. Aerial photographs and maps suggest, however, that there are further ponds, such as at grid reference 313789 29575, which are within 500m of the building and within 200m of the ranging area. The number of ponds with the potential to be impacted has therefore been underestimated. 3. The distance of the identified ponds from the proposal is based on the distance of the pond from the proposed new building e.g. the nearest pond is said to be 160m from the proposal. This does not take into account that some of the ponds are immediately within the ranging areas and in close proximity to areas to be spread with manure. 4. The planning application granted in 2009 (P/2009/1188) included a condition to provide for mitigation measures for great crested newt. lt appears that some of this mitigation has not been undertaken. The vegetation around pond 5 has not been removed. The woodland which was supposed to be fenced out and left ungrazed has been fenced off but continues to be grazed. The functionality of the previous mitigation has therefore been compromised by the lack of enforcement of the previous planning conditions. The woodland fencing was also part of the landscaping plan for the previous unit. 5. The assessment does not take into account the potential for great crested newts to be affected by the increased ranging area. 6. We suggest consideration is required of further mitigation to be secured via condition and to be undertaken prior to construction. Based on our site visit we would suggest the following: (a) Compliance checking of the previous planning conditions and the undertaking of remedial works to include the removal of grazing from the previous woodland mitigation area and the removal of shading from pond 5. It needs to be checked that pond 1 has been dug out as required by the 2009 planning condition. (b) The fencing off of pond 5 at a distance of 5m form the pond edge and to connect to the hedgerows along the road on both sides of the pond. This would avoid access for ranging chickens and allow the growth of a vegetation understorey around the pond. (c) The reinstatement of pond 4 which has become silted up since 2009. We suggest that the extent of open water should be as in 2009 and there should be sufficient depth to ensure that silt clearance is not needed frequently. (d) The fencing off of the woodland around pond 3 to include the pond and to allow it to be managed as a non-ranging and non-grazing area. (e) The establishment of suitable aquatic vegetation in the ponds for use by great crested newts e.g. Myosotis scorpioldes.

Manure Management Plan With regards to the manure management plan which has now been submitted we have the following comments: 1. The plan does not state where the manure will be stored. Any new muck/slurry store should be SSAFO compliant. If the applicant is planning on using an existing store then they should ensure that there is sufficient capacity to take the additional volume of manure. If the manure is to be stored in field muck heaps then the applicant will need to comply with the Code of Good Agricultural Practice (CoGAP).

Third response This response superseded our response dated June 2015 in respect of advice relating to

6 Page 218 European Protected Species. All other comments made in our previous responses remain valid.

Natural Resources Wales has no objection in principle provided some possible impacts are avoided. We require additional information prior to the determination of the application in order to ensure that the proposal has no detrimental impact on the favourable conservation status of great crested newt, a European Protected Species.

European Protected Species — Great Crested Newts Great Crested Newts are protected under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). In our view, implementation of the proposal has the potential to cause direct and indirect impact on the population of GCN at this locality. These impacts include but are not limited to i) damage or destruction to resting places during construction phase of the proposal; ii) Deterioration of breeding site during implementation phase of the proposal iii) incidental injury or killing during the implementation phase of the proposal.

The current application is supported by Habitat Assessments and Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategies (dated November 2014 and May 2015) and also a Ranging Plan. We have the following comments to make on the latest available information; 1. We note that a document titled ‘Range Plan’ has now been submitted in support of the application which shows how the ponds are to be fenced off from the ranging areas. of this document shows details of newt mitigation within the range areas. It is noted that the ranging areas on the Range Plan is smaller than the ranging areas illustrated on drawing IPIDJ/04 also submitted in support of this application which included pond 3 and area B of the range area. You need to satisfy yourselves that the ranging plan submitted in support of the pending • application will not have an impact on the approved ecological mitigation in respect of GCNs. 2. Confirmation is still required in relation to the number and location of ponds within a 500m range of the proposed unit. Should any of these ponds be confirmed suitable for use by GCNs they need to be included in the ecological management plan and assessed against the likely impact of the proposal. Consideration should be given to whether the building construction, foraging chickens, manure management plan and any landscaping proposal will have any impact on any GCNs using these ponds. 3. Permission reference P12009/1188 included a condition requiring the approved mitigation measures in respect of GCNs to be implemented in full. During our site visit it was noted that not all of this conditioned mitigation has been implemented in full. In particular it was noted that the vegetation around pond 5 has not been removed and the woodland area has not been left ungrazed following being fenced off. The fencing off of this woodland also formed part of the approved landscaping scheme.

We would advise that any consent for the development includes a condition requiring a Newt Management Scheme to be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the LPA prior to the commencement of the development. This should be prepared by the appointed site ecologist. This scheme should include but not be limited to the following information; a. Identification of all ponds and terrestrial habitat dedicated specifically to newt conservation within a clear map; b. Include a method statement identifying reasonable avoidance measures (RAMS), habitat connectivity plan and long terms habitat management plan;

7 Page 219 c. Consideration of the current and proposed connectivity between newt habitat (ponds, wooded areas, hedgerows and grassland) require enhancement in some areas. Consideration to ponds outside the applicant’s ownership must also be given. ci. Include details of surveillance, habitat management, and ecological compliance audit; and e. Include a Biosecurity Risk Assessment

NRW would be happy to discuss the requirements of this Scheme with the appointed ecologist. This issue may be addressed by the imposition of a condition or under the provision of a Section 106 Agreement that considers the entirety of the applicants land holding at this locality 4. Pond 4 has become silted and should be reinstated. It is suggested that the extent of open water should be as that identified in 2009 and there should be sufficient depth to ensure that silt clearance is not needed frequently. 5. Suitable aquatic vegetation should be established within the ponds for use by GCN e.g. Myosotis scorpioides. We advise that development may only proceed, under a licence issued by Natural Resources Wales, who is the appropriate authority responsible for issuing licences under Regulation 53 (2) (e) of the above Regulations. This licence can only be issued for the purposes of: “preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature, and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment.” Furthermore, the licence can only be issued by NRW on condition that there is: “no satisfactory alternative’ and that “the development will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.”

We advise that any planning consent for the development is subject to the imposition of planning conditions and/or obligations (identified above) to demonstrate compliance with this statutory test. In view of the documents submitted in support of this planning application, Natural Resources Wales considers that the information provided does not demonstrate that the proposal will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of the great crested newt population present at this site and that further information is required as noted above. We will review our position once additional information has been received.

Environmental Permitting Regulations Please note that should the extension exceed the number of birds to over 40,000 a permit under the EPR 2010 regulations will be required by NRW.

Discharge (of Effluent) to ground or surface waters All wash water must be directed to an effluent containment tank. This would be classified as Slurry and needs to comply with the Silage Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil Regulations 2010 The applicant will need to apply for a Permit, or Exemption from NRW, if they wish to discharge anything apart from uncontaminated surface water to a watercourse/ditch. The applicant may also need to apply for a Permit from NRW to allow certain discharges into ground. Any necessary Permit must be obtained prior to works starting on site. Further information regarding permitting requirements including exemption is available on our website;

8 Page 220 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006) Please note that we have not considered possible effects on all local or those relating to the upkeep, management and creation of habitat for should not rule out the possibility of adverse effects on such interests, your Authority’s general duty to have regard to conserving biodiversity, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006). consideration of the planned provision of “linear” and “stepping stone” habitats, regional interests, including wild birds. . To comply with your authority’s duty under section 40 of the NERC Act, to have regard to conserving biodiversity, your decision should take account of possible adverse effects on such interests. We recommend that you seek further advice from your authority’s internal ecological adviser and/or third sector nature conservation organisations such as the local wildlife trust, RSPB, etc. The Wales Biodiversity Partnership’s web site has guidance for assessing proposals that have implications for section 42 habitats and species.

In summary, Natural Resources Wales has no objection in principle provided some possible impacts are avoided. On receipt of the information requested above we will review our position. I hope these comments are of assistance. If you have any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us at the above queries, or if you require

Fourth response This response supersedes our response dated 02 November 2015 in respect of advice relating to European Protected Species. All other comments made in our previous responses remain valid. NRW does not object to the development subject to any planning consent given for the development including the imposition of the requested conditions (or secured through a Planning Obligation) to ensure the favourable conservation of the population of great crested newts.

European Protected Species — Great Crested Newts We acknowledge receipt of the updated version of the ‘Great Crested Newt Additional Information dated November 2015 prepared by Ecology Services. All of the ponds within 500m of the application site have now been identified on Plan 3 of the October 2015 “Great Crested Newt Update Report”. This is now the basis for identifying measures within the application site and the applicant’s ownership to protect newts in the ponds and ensure there is sufficient suitable habitat around the ponds and between the ponds for foraging and connectivity between the ponds necessary to sustain the overall population.

It is noted that Plan 6 and Plan 7 of the ‘Great Crested Newts Additional Information’ dated November 2015 identifies the mitigation proposed for ponds and also includes the mitigation measures approved from the previous consent. The connection between pond 1 and other suitable GCN habitat is not identified within the submission and supplementary planting or a change in grazing regime would be required for the field where the pond is located. There is natural connectivity in the form of hedgerows between ponds 5, 4 and 3. There will be a need to identify this connection within the Great Crested Newt Management Scheme that will form subject of condition.

We request that any planning consent for the development includes a planning condition

9 Page 221 requiring a Management Scheme for Great Crested Newts to be completed to the satisfaction of your Authority before commencement of development. The condition shall specify that the Management Scheme will deliver and maintain the avoidance and mitigation measures summarised on Plans 6 and 7 of ‘Great Crested Newts’ Additional Information’ Reports dated October 2015 and November 2015. The Management Scheme should include but not be limited to the following information: a) Identification on a clear plan all of the ponds and terrestrial habitat required for avoidance and mitigation measures, including connectivity, to conserve the population of newts b) A method statement identifying reasonable avoidance measures (RAMS) during construction and a long term habitat management plan to ensure the establishment and maintenance of the areas identified on the map referred to in ‘a’ above, including avoiding enrichment of the ponds from the ranging areas; c) Details of surveillance, habitat management, and ecological compliance audit; and U) A Biosecurity Risk Assessment e) Includes all of the measures required under the existing consent, as well as the new consent.

We suggest that the above scheme is secured by means of planning obligation in order to ensure the long term implementation of the management plan and long term tenure of the ecology area that is maintained for the purposes of nature conservation. NRW would be happy to work with the appointed ecologist to prepare the Management Scheme for Great Crested Newts.

We advise that the summary maps provided in The ‘Great Crested Newts’ Additional Information’ Reports dated both October 2015 and November 2015 and a satisfactory pre- commencement Management Scheme, as recommended above, ensures that the proposal would not be likely to be detrimental to the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of the great crested newt population present at this site.

Finally, as previously advised, the potential for incidental killing or disturbance to resting places during construction means a licence under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations would also be required from Natural Resources Wales. The Management Scheme referred to above would, therefore, also be needed to inform consideration of the licence application.

Land Drainage Engineer Thank you for consulting the local Land Drainage Authority on this application. Having reviewed the submitted information may we make the following observations/comments/recommendations:- Flood Defence. Comment: The Authority holds no historical flooding information relating to the site. Informative: Any proposed interference of any existing watercourse (open channel or culverted) will require the prior consent from Powys CC Land Drainage under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (as amended by the Flood & Water Management Act 2010). Relevant application forms and guidance notes should be sought from the Land Drainage Section.

Surface Water Drainage. Observation: Reference is made in Item 13 - ‘Assessment of Flood Risk’ on the planning application, to the disposal of surface water to a sustainable drainage system. However, no

10 Page 222 drainage details/drawings have been submitted in support the design principles mentioned above.

Comment: The hydrology of receiving water bodies can be affected by the presence of a new impermeable surface. A new roof and hardstanding may increase the volume of runoff that reaches the receiving watercourse and also reduce the time it takes to get there. This has implications for channel stability, aquatic habitats and flooding. Where the movement of any existing channels is required, this may also affect the local hydrological regime.

The site is classed as Greenfield, therefore proposed surface water flows should be equivalent existing Greenfield run-off in accordance with good practice requirements. The use of soakaways or other best practice management sustainable drainage systems should be investigated in the first instance for surface water disposal. The design of such systems shall cater for a 1 in 100 year return storm event plus an allowance of 20% for climate change.

If soakaways/SuDS are not feasible, drainage calculations to limit the discharge rate from the site shall be equivalent to a 1 in lyr Greenfield run-off rate. The attenuation drainage system should be designed so that storm events of up to 1 in 100 year + 20% for climate change and will not cause flooding of any property either within the proposed development or any other in the vicinity. There must be no discharge to a surface water body or sewer that results from the first 5mm of any rainfall event.

Recommendation: No development shall commence until a scheme for the surface water drainage of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be completed before any of the site becomes operational. Reason: To ensure that the proposed surface water drainage system for the site are fully compliant with regulations and is of robust design.

Representations 1 letter from the Woodland Trust. The Trust is specifically concerned with regards to the release of ammonia. Due to the close proximity of proposed poultry unit to ancient woodland the site will be impacted by an increase in the amount of ammonia that is present on site. This increase in ammonia over time will impact on the ancient woodland and slowly change the composition of the site and cause damage to the ancient woodland. The Trust is aware that there is already a poultry unit which is sited closer to the ancient woodland than this proposed unit, the current unit will already be impacting the ancient woodland through small increases to ammonia. Therefore the second unit will increase the impact. Therefore the Woodland Trust objects to this proposal due to the increased impacts that it will have to the ancient woodland.

42 letters of objection from 23 local residents of the Abermule area. 19 letters of objection from visitors of Pencaenion farm (holiday accommodation) One petition of objections One ‘no objection’ representation One representation of support on the grounds that it is ‘nice to see young farmers expanding agriculture not a wind farm’.

11 Page 223 The grounds for objections set out in the representations are summarised as follows

Transport  The U2646 and the C2051 are unsuitable for additional traffic being single track in nature.  The C2051 is steep for the most part with blind bends.  The U2646/C2051 junction is not suitable for a lorry. It has severely restricted visibility and the proposed white line changes will not help.  The lorries in connection with the 2009 consent are in breach of planning conditions.  The lorries will affect the safety of walkers, cyclists and horse riders.  The lorries impact on the surface of the highway, on verges and on residential frontages.  The passing places required under the 2009 consent do not have sufficient space for a car and HGV to pass and are not maintained.  The transport assessment does not indicate traffic movements in relation to manure spreading.  Assessment based on projected figures and not fact.  Misleading statements made about the existing and proposed planning applications.  The locations of the proposed passing places are not safe.

Manure  Lack of information in application regarding manure management.  No manure plan for neighbouring farms on which some of the manure from this unit will be spread.

Ecology  Mitigation required under the 2009 application was not undertaken.  The proposal will impact upon local ecology including great created newt and ancient woodland.  Impact of emissions on the land and water quality in the local area.

Amenity  The proposal will impact on neighbouring amenity with regards to odour, noise and increased pests in the locality.  Impact on local water supplies.  Impact on landscape.

Tourism  The proposal will impact on local tourism.

Planning History P/2009/1188 - Erection of a 16,000 bird free range egg production unit & feed bins together with formation of vehicular access road and improvements to 3no. passing bays- CC

Principal Planning Constraints Bridleway 49 Footpaths 59 and 60 C2051 County Highway

12 Page 224 U2646 County Highway Great Crested Newt Habitat

Principal Planning Policies

National Planning Policies

Planning Policy Wales (7th Edition, 2014) Technical Advice Note 5 – Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) Technical Advice Note 11 – Noise (1997) Technical Advice Note 13 – Tourism (1997) Technical Advice Note 15 – Development and Flood Risk (2004) Technical Advice Note 18 – Transport (2007) Technical Advice Note 23 – Economic Development (2014) Welsh Office Circular 11/99 – Environmental Impact Assessment

Local Planning Policy

Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) SP3 – Natural, Historic and Built Heritage SP4 – Economic and Employment Developments SP14 - Development in Flood Risk Areas GP1 – Development Control GP3 – Design and Energy Conservation GP4 – Highway and Parking Requirements ENV1 – Agricultural Land ENV2 – Safeguarding the Landscape ENV3 – Safeguarding Biodiversity and Natural Habitats ENV4 – Internationally Important Sites ENV5 – Nationally Important Sites ENV6 – Sites of Regional and Local Importance ENV7 – Protected Species EC1 – Business, Industrial and Commercial Developments EC7 – Farm/Forestry Diversification for Employment purposes in the Open Countryside EC9 – Agricultural Development EC10 – Intensive Livestock Units RL6 - Rights of Way and Access to the Countryside DC9 – Protection of Water Resources DC13 – Surface Water Drainage TR2 – Tourism Attractions

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 reference lists of development and thresholds defining where a development proposal is EIA development. These are contained in Schedule 1 and 2 of the Regulations. Schedule 1

13 Page 225 of the regulations lists where EIA is mandatory and Schedule 2 where development must be screened to determine if it is EIA development.

Schedule 1 of the Regulations states that the threshold for the “intensive rearing of poultry is 85,000 places for broilers or 60,000 for hens”. Whilst an Environmental Impact Assessment is not a mandatory requirement for the proposed development, the floor area of the proposed building exceeds the applicable threshold of 500m² and therefore for the purposes of the regulations is Schedule 2 development requiring a screening opinion to be issued.

The development was assessed against the selection criteria contained within Schedule 3 of the Regulations and the Local Planning Authority concluded that the proposed development would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment such that it would constitute an EIA development.

Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR 2010) The operations at the site will require an environmental permit issued by Natural Resources Wales under the Environmental Permitting regulations (EPR) 2012. This is required on the basis that the amount of chickens accommodated on the site exceeds the threshold for an environmental permit. It is Natural Resources Wales’ role to determine if the operation can be managed on an ongoing basis to prevent or minimise pollution.

Planning Policy Wales states that Local Planning Authorities and Natural Resources Wales should work closely to ensure that conditions attached to planning consents and those attached to Environmental Permits are complementary however should not duplicate one another. Planning Authorities need to be satisfied that proposals are capable of effective regulations and Natural Resources Wales should assist in establishing this position. Good Practice suggests that the parallel tracking of planning applications and environmental permitting should be encouraged.

Members are advised that a permit application for this development was made to Natural Resources Wales on 17th November 2014, however, it is understood that no permit has been issued to date.

Principle of Development Rural enterprises play a vital role in promoting healthy economic activity within rural areas. Planning Policy Wales (2014) and Technical Advice Note 23 (2014) emphasises the need to support diversification and sustainability in such areas, recognising that new businesses are key to this objective and essential to sustain rural communities. Local Authorities should therefore look to facilitate appropriate rural developments. This support should be balanced against other material considerations, such as impact of proposals on the quality of the landscape and environment.

The agent has provided a statement which details that the current agricultural enterprise comprises of 650 breeding ewes, 50 ewe lambs and an existing 16,0000 hen egg production unit, farmed on 112.75ha of land. It is suggested that the proposed development will also allow for the further diversification of agricultural activity at the farm, which may be seen as further aiding the sustainability of the farming enterprise as a whole.

Poultry unit developments raise a number of planning issues such as smell, noise, dust, pollution and traffic. Whilst the County Council wishes to sustain an efficient, viable and

14 Page 226 diverse farming community, a balance must be struck against maintaining the well-being of the wider community and the high quality of the Powys landscape as detailed within policies EC1, EC9 and EC10 of the Powys Unitary Development.

Landscape Impact UDP policy ENV2 (Safeguarding the Landscape) states that proposals for the development and use of land should take account of the high quality of the landscape throughout Powys and be appropriate and sensitive to the character of the surrounding landscape. Further guidance within policy EC9, suggests that where possible, agricultural buildings should be grouped with existing units in an effort to minimise potential landscape and visual impact.

The proposed location of the building is set within a natural dip in the land between two areas of woodland and the building will be set parallel to the existing poultry building at the site. The steep valley sides and general topography of the area are considered to be appropriate to absorb a large agricultural building such as that proposed without significant detrimental harm to the landscape value of the area.

The proposed building is of large a large scale but is grouped with an existing development of a similar scale and character and as such, potential landscape and visual impact is considered to be minimised. Furthermore, given the height of the proposed building and the topography of the land, its profile is reduced and thus further reduces the potential landscape impact. Finally, it is noted that the buildings will be clad in green profile sheeting which is considered to be an appropriate colour in order to help the proposal integrate into the landscape.

Taking account of the above detailed matters and sensitivity of the landscape it is considered that the development would not have a significant adverse effect on the site and the landscape character of the area. The proposed development, with regards to landscape impact, is considered to be in accordance with policies ENV2, EC1 and EC9 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Wales.

Impact on Visual Amenity There are public rights of way from which the development will be visible. Users are likely to be using these routes recreationally and it is likely that they would be sensitive to changes in the established rural setting of these routes. Given that the proposed building will be sited adjacent to and parallel with an existing poultry building, it is considered that any views from local footpaths will not be unacceptably compromised by the proposed development. It is not considered that views will be possible from any public vehicular highways.

There are non-associated residential properties relatively close to the development proposal, these include the dwellings of Pencaenion, Yew Tree, Old Arbour, Castell Y Gwynt, Upper House, Middle House and Grigg House but the development will not be visible from these properties. Cwm Dockin is considered to be the closest residential dwelling from which the development would be capable of being viewed, but this property is located approximately 360m to the north of the building and part of the building will be obscured by the topography of the land.

Whilst the proposed development will be visible from sensitive receptors including public rights of way and a residential property, given the grouping of the building with a similar

15 Page 227 development and the separation distances involved, it is not considered that the proposed poultry development will have an unacceptable adverse impact.

Impact on Living Conditions and Health of Local Residents Poultry units have the potential to impact on the living conditions of residents living nearby. The submission considers odour, dust impact, ammonia, transport, and sustainability of the proposal which is considered relevant to assessing its impact on those who will have to live nearest to the development.

 Noise

UDP policy GP1 states that development proposals will only be permitted where the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of nearby or proposed properties shall not be unacceptably affected by levels of noise. Intensive livestock units have potential to generate noise impact from plant/equipment (roof mounted extractor fans) and general operational activities.

The application is accompanied by ‘Plant Noise Assessment’ prepared by Matrix Acoustic Design Consultants, dated 9th June 2015. This report concludes that the extract fan and transport noise as a result of the proposed development would not result in an adverse noise impact at the nearest dwellings.

Following consultation, no objections have been received from consultees in respect of noise. It is therefore considered unlikely that the proposed development will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by occupants of neighbouring properties by reasons of noise. Therefore, Development Management considers the proposal to be in accordance with UDP policy GP1.

 Odour

UDP policy GP1 states that development proposals will only be permitted where the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of nearby or proposed properties shall not be unacceptably affected by levels of odour.

Odour is potentially an issue affecting nearby residential receptors although mitigation measures can be used to reduce the impact of odour to a negligible nuisance. The control of odour from the buildings will be regulated by Natural Resources Wales through the Environmental Permit. However, the permit will not control the spreading of litter on the land outside of the site. The spreading of litter is an agricultural practice and the local planning authority has limited control over this operation. The activity is, however, subject to the Code of Good Agricultural Practice.

The information submitted in support of the application has been considered by Environmental Health who has not expressed concern regarding odour and Development Management have no reasons to question the judgements made.

 Dust

16 Page 228 It is acknowledged that the process of housing chickens has the potential to affect air quality through the generation of dust (including fine particles known as PM10s). However, dust would form an emission from the site which would be controlled by the Environmental Permit.

Impact on Heritage Assets  Listed Buildings

Section 66 (1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 details the statutory duty of Local Planning Authorities in determining planning applications to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building, its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest which is possesses.

It is not considered that the development would have any impact on a listed building or its setting. The development would not be visible from any local site.

 Scheduled Ancient Monument(s)(SAMs)

There is a policy presumption in favour of safeguarding Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their settings.

It is not considered that the development would have any impact, direct or otherwise, on any scheduled ancient monuments.

In light of the above, Development Management considers the proposed development to be in accordance with policies ENV14 and ENV17 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan, Welsh Office Circular 61/96 and Planning Policy Wales.

Highway Safety Policy GP4 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan indicates that development proposals will only be permitted where appropriate highway provision is incorporated in terms of a safe access, adequate visibility, turning and parking.

The site is accessed from the A483 trunk road along two minor highways, the C2051 and the U2646. The two minor highways are single width and have no additional statutory restrictions other than the national speed limit.

The existing poultry unit at Brynrorin was granted planning permission on the basis that the development would generate 2.7 HGV visits per week. The consent was conditioned to ensure the provision/improvement of three passing bays along the U2646, restriction of use of the U2646 and the C2051 only and between the hours of 8 and 9am and 3 and 5pm (to avoid peak traffic times) and a restriction of the size of vehicle permitted to collect eggs or deliver feed. The validity of the final condition mentioned has been brought into question and has recently been amended under a non-material amendment application (NMA/2015/0061). The reworded condition still restricts the size of the lorries associated with egg collection and feed delivery in the interests of highway safety.

It is stated that the proposed development would result in an additional feed delivery per week, 3 additional HGVs delivering birds at the beginning of the 60 week cycle and 3 additional HGVs removing birds at the end of the 60 week cycle. The transport plan submitted in support of the application does not take account of construction vehicles

17 Page 229 associated with the proposed development or movements in relation to manure spreading off the holding.

The Local Highway Authority has commented on the application and express concern for the infrastructure serving the proposed development. It is noted that that the C2051 is for the most part a single track county highway which suffers from poor horizontal and vertical alignment, and that there are various pinch points along the highway where if two vehicles were to meet then reversing would need to take place.

The applicant has sought to overcome the Local Highway Authority objections by making improvements to the highway network. The suggested improvements were the realignment of the U2646 junction with the C2051 and the provision of two further passing bays along the C2051. Following further consultation, the Local Highway Authority have rejected the junction improvements as being detrimental to highway safety and have suggested that one of the two passing places proposed could not be accommodated within the highway and would necessitate third party agreements. The remaining proposed passing place could, however, be constructed and would be an improvement in highway safety for all users of the C2051 county highway.

Highway safety is of particular concern to local residents, as evidenced by the representations received, and is the only outstanding objection from a consultee. Whist it is acknowledged that the proposed development will necessitate HGV movements along two single track highways to serve the development, the application does offer highway network improvements in addition to those agreed under the previous consent with the provision of an additional passing place along the C2051. In addition, it must be noted that the development will result in approximately 1 additional HGV visit per week, an amount which is not considered to be significant in highway safety terms. This does not however, take into account all movements associated with the development or give any indication of other traffic utilising the roads in question.

Members must decide, therefore, whether the development can be accommodated at the proposed site without significant detrimental harm to highway safety or whether there are other material matters which override this objection in the planning balance.

Ecological Impact Guidance contained within UDP policies ENV3, ENV4, ENV5 and ENV6 indicates that development proposals should preserve and enhance biodiversity and features of ecological interest. In addition policy ENV7 notes the protection afforded to European Protected Species and provides opportunities to seek conservation, maintenance and enhancement of populations though development proposals.

The proposed development has the potential to impact on protected sites through increased ammonia contributions and nitrogen deposition arising from the poultry unit. An assessment has been undertaken for ammonia critical level and nitrogen deposition to support the planning application. It has identified that the Hollybush pastures SSSI is within 2kms of the site but concludes that there will not be an unacceptable impact. In addition, The Montgomery Canal SAC is within 10kms of the site, however, being an aquatic site, it does not require an assessment of the aerial impact of these pollutants. NRW have commented and do not have concerns with regards to aerial emissions. Development Management have no reason to doubt the judgements made by NRW.

18 Page 230

Great Crested Newt are known to be present in proximity to the development site. The application has been accompanied by a Mitigation Strategy, dated May 2015, a range plan and additional information which includes mitigation and reasonable avoidance measures. NRW are now satisfied that sufficient information has been submitted in order to conclude that the proposed development would not be detrimental to the favourable conservation status of Great Crested Newt subject to a condition for a management plan to be submitted. The suggested condition is considered to be reasonable and should be attached to any permission granted.

Manure management The manure associated with the development is proposed to be removed on a regular basis and stored in the existing manure store on farm or spread directly onto the land in accordance with the manure management plan.

All manure applied to the land will be done so in accordance with regulations for Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions regarding soil and water. The manure shall be applied in accordance with the Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Regulations and in line with the manure management plan.

As manure is removed on a regular basis there will be minimal manure stored within the building, thus reducing the pollution, odour and the infestation of pests such as flies. The land available for manure application is indicated within the submission which will require some manure to be spread outside of the existing holding. This is not an unusual arrangement for such enterprises.

Impact on public rights of way Public footpaths 59, 60 and bridleway 49 cross the proposed ranging area. Any consent granted will contain and informative detailing this matter to the landowner so that appropriate provision can be made at the site. There are no direct impacts on these routes demonstrated thought the planning application.

Impact on Tourism The impact on tourism has been raised in representations. The UDP within policy TR2 states that development proposals which could have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the environmental setting of established tourist attractions will be opposed. The high quality landscapes of Powys, public rights of way and scheduled ancient monuments are noted to be of interests to tourists and a wide interpretation of should be given to what can legitimately be considered a tourist asset.

It is noted that there is holiday accommodation units within the locality as well as Dolfowyn Castle remains. Significant concern has been expressed within representations received regarding impact of the development on local tourism.

Members are advised when considering this matter that the impact on tourism is difficult to assess and that there is no evidence based on surveying of current or potential visitors to suggest that the proposed development will have an unacceptable impact on tourism in the area. In light of the above and notwithstanding the concerns expressed, given the lack of evidence available, it is not considered that significant weight can be given to the matter to

19 Page 231 justify refusal. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with policy TR2 of the Powys UDP, Technical Advice Note 13 and Planning Policy Wales.

Conclusion Taking into account national and local planning policy together with the consultee responses and the material matters raised within third party representations, it is considered that all matters aside from highway safety are either acceptable or can be reasonably controlled though the use of planning conditions. The judgement that must be made, therefore, is whether the benefits of the scheme in relation to farm diversification and benefits to the local farming economy outweigh the potential impact of the development on highway safety. It is accepted by officers that the development will lead to the increased use of single track highways for a distance of just under 2 miles by HGVs and that there are hazards along the proposed route to the development. However, the proposed route is without restriction (aside from speed limits) and the proposed increase, bearing in mind all movements associated with the development, are not considered to be significant also taking into account existing movements along these highways. It is the officer’s view that highway safety matters can be controlled through the use of conditions which will mitigate matters to some extent and that the proposal has economic benefits that are overriding in this instance. The recommendation is therefore one of conditional approval.

Decision Consent

1. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun no later than the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans stamped as approved.

3. HGV movements associated with feed delivery and egg collection for the proposed development shall be prohibited along the U2646 county highway and the C2051 highway between the hours of 0800 and 0900 and between the hours of 1500 and 1700.

4. The building hereby permitted shall be used for the production and packing of eggs only and shall be removed and the land reinstated to its former condition if at any time it ceases to be used for that purpose. The packing undertaken shall be limited to eggs produced on site only.

5. The size of the HGV movements associated with the feed delivery and egg collection for the proposed development shall be restricted to a maximum authorised mass of no greater than 32 tonnes and an overall vehicle length of no greater than 12 metres.

6. The passing place onto the C2051 as detailed within inset A of drawing number 150802 Figure 2 shall be constructed to an adoptable standard of the local highway authority prior to the first use of the building hereby permitted. No other works in relation to this drawing are allowed under this permission

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without

20 Page 232 modification), no extensions or alterations to the unit shall be erected without the consent of the Local Planning Authority.

8. Prior to the construction of the building hereby permitted details of a scheme for the disposal of surface water must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the first use of the development and retained in perpetuity.

9. No manure spreading shall take place within a 10 metre wide buffer zone measured from any nearby watercourse bank top for the whole extent of the site (bank top is defined as the point at which the bank meets normal land levels). The buffer zone shall be without structures, hardstanding, footpaths, fences or overhanging development.

10. Prior to the commencement of development a Management Scheme for Great Crested Newts must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Management Scheme should include but not be limited to the following information: a) Identification on a clear plan all of the ponds and terrestrial habitat required for avoidance and mitigation measures, including connectivity, to conserve the population of newts b) A method statement identifying reasonable avoidance measures (RAMS) during construction and a long term habitat management plan to ensure the establishment and maintenance of the areas identified on the map referred to in ‘a’ above, including avoiding enrichment of the ponds from the ranging areas; c) Details of surveillance, habitat management, and ecological compliance audit; and d) A Biosecurity Risk Assessment e) Includes all of the measures required under the existing consent, as well as the new consent. The development and use of land hereby permitted shall only be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reasons 1. Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. To ensure adherence to the plans stamped as approved in the interests of clarity and a satisfactory development. 3 to 6. In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with the provisions of Powys UDP Policy GP1 and GP4. 7. In order to control development which has the potential to have adversely affect the amenity of the area in contradiction to policy GP1 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010) and Planning Policy Wales (2014). 8. In order to ensure that satisfactory drainage arrangements are provided in accordance with policies GP1 and DC13 of the Powys County Council Unitary Development Plan. 9. To safeguard the environment in accordance with policies ENV3, ENV4, ENV5 and ENV6 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan, TAN 5 and Planning Policy Wales. 10. In the interest of protection and preservation of Protected Species in accordance with policy ENV7 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan, TAN 5 and Planning Policy Wales.

Notes The applicant is advised that at no time during the development phase should any public right of way be obstructed. No materials should be placed or stored on the line of any public right of way and any damage caused to the surface of any public right of way must be made good

21 Page 233 to at least its current condition or better. Any unlawful disturbance, damage or obstruction to any public right of way could have legal repercussions.

______Case Officer: Louise Evans- Planning Officer Tel: 01938 551127 E-mail:[email protected]

22 Page 234 Page 235 This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW110 - 20155

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2015/0915 Grid Ref: 326764.92 291675.4

Community Churchstoke Valid Date: Officer: Council: 02/10/2015 Eddie Hrustanovic

Applicant: Katie Higgs and George Thomas, Mellington, Little Bank Farm, Churchstoke, Montgomery, Powys, SY15 6TL

Location: Land at Little Bank Farm, Mellington, Churchstoke, Montgomery, Powys, SY15 6TL

Proposal: Erection of an affordable dwelling, installation of septic tank, formation of vehicular access including improvements to existing access at junction opposite "The Pullets" (resubmission of P/2015/0463)

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

The reason for Committee determination Request made by County Councillor Michael John Jones

“I wish to call the above application in for determination by the Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee on the grounds the application was considered by the said committee previously for policy reasons”.

Site Location and Description This is a resubmission of a recently refused application relating to erection of an affordable dwelling, installation of septic tank, formation of vehicular access including improvements to an existing access.

The application site is situated in a rural location east of the village of Mellington, Churchstoke. The site is accessed initially via a single track road leading to Little Bank Farm from the junction with C2149 and then via green track which served the former agricultural building at the site. The site is on a relatively elevated position with open views towards Mellington and Mellington Hall. The site contains a ruin of what appears to be a former agricultural building.

According to the plans submitted, the development would consist of a two storey four- bedroomed dwelling. The dimensions of which would be 8.05 metres to the ridge, 4.8 metres to eaves, with external footprint of 71m². Measured internally, the habitable floor space over two floors would amount to 130m². The proposed dwelling would be of brick and render construction with half-timber feature together with a slate roof. Parking and turning area will be provided in front of the proposed dwelling. A septic tank is also proposed as a means of foul water disposal. This re-submission indicates improvements to the existing access at the junction opposite the dwelling known as The Pullets.

The submission also includes Affordable Housing Eligibility Criteria Questionnaire.

1 Page 237 Consultee Response

Churchstoke CC

Notes the application without further comment.

Highways Dept (north)

Due to the proposed visibility and surfacing improvement to the junction of the private access with the C2149 the Highway Authority are able to support the application and recommend the following conditions be attached to any decision notice:-

HC4 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the access shall be constructed so that there is clear visibility from a point 1.05 metres above ground level at the centre of the access and 2.4 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, to points 0.26 metres above ground level at the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 45 metres distant in a westerly direction measured from the centre of the access along the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 10 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 10 metres in a westerly direction. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the areas of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction for as long as the development hereby permitted remains in existence.

HC7 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the area of the private access abutting the C2149 to be used by vehicles is to be constructed to a minimum of 410mm depth, comprising a minimum of 250mm of sub-base material, 100mm of bituminous macadam base course material and 60mm of bituminous macadam binder course material for a distance of 9 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Any use of alternative materials is to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the access being constructed.

HC21 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the area of the private access abutting the C2149 to be used by vehicles is to be finished in a 40mm bituminous surface course for a distance of 9 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. This area will be maintained to this standard for as long as the development remains in existence,

HC32 No storm water drainage from the private access shall be allowed to discharge onto the county C2149 highway.

Wales & West Utilities

Based on the information given and the address provided, Wales & West Utilities have no apparatus in the area of your enquiry.

Environmental Health

I have no objection to the application

2 Page 238 Rights of Way

No reply recieved

Affordable Housing Officer

No reply recieved

CPAT

 1st response (27 October 2015)

Thank you for the consultation on this application

Information retained within the Regional Historic Environment Record (HER) indicates that this application falls in an area of high archaeological sensitivity related to the remains of a former farmhouse and outbuilding. The structure is recorded as PRN 71270 placename "Old House" on the HER.

The structure clearly still exists as shown by the application details and satellite photography (Google Earth). The precise age and function of this group of buildings is not known. The building appears on the first edition OS mapping of 1883. The placename may actually refer to another old house to the west which is visible on the 1816 Ordnanace Surveyors mapping, but has now completely disappeared. The application building itself is not present on the 1816 mapping. The application structures may therefore date to somewhere between 1816 and 1883, but an earlier origin cannot be ruled out.

The proposed development will disturb any such remains surviving here, but from present knowledge it is impossible to estimate how damaging this might be, and thus to frame an appropriate archaeological response. The planning authority appears to have insufficient information about this archaeological resource, or the applicant's intended treatment of it, to make a balanced decision. As archaeology is a material consideration here I would advise that this application is not determined until this resource has been properly evaluated.

Welsh Government Planning Policy Wales (Edition 7, July 2014), Circular 60/96 - Archaeology and Planning (Dec 96) and Powys UDP Policies ENV 17 and 18 suggest that planning authorities should require applicants to supply a suitable archaeological assessment in support of an application where a potential impact to archaeological remains is identified.

The developer will need to engage an archaeological contractor to complete this work in accordance with a brief written by this office on request. In response the archaeological contractor will need to supply a written scheme of investigation along with their cost estimate. The written scheme of investigation will need to be approved by me before work can commence on site.

I would advise that in order to allow sufficient time for an evaluation to be carried out, and the discussion of a subsequent mitigation strategy, the determination of the current application is delayed so that this information can be gathered and presented in support of the application.

 2nd response (9th November 2015)

3 Page 239 Further to my previous correspondence I visited the former house site at the end of last week to assess the scope of works for archaeological evaluation.

It is clear from the visit that the surviving building has no architectural or archaeological merit whatsoever and we would therefore wish to withdraw the requirement for archaeological investigation. The building appears to be wholly 19th century in origin with no evidence of an earlier building on the site. The 19th century structure has been much altered over time and the front walls and roof have collapsed. The back walls are also leaning badly despite the added butresses and will imminently collapse. The building appears to have been used more as a barn than as a dwelling. We therefore have no further comments on this application.

CADW

The proposed development is located within the vicinity of the scheduled ancient monuments known as Offa’s Dyke: Cwm Section (MG151) and Offa’s Dyke: Mellington Hall Section Extending from Mellington hall Lodge to Lower Cwm (MG039) also within the vicinity of the registered historic park and garden known as Mellington Hall PGW (Po) 28 (POW.

Having carefully considered the information provided with the planning application, Cadw considers that the proposed development will have no impact on the aforementioned designated historic assets. Cadw therefore has no comments to make on the proposed development.

Representations None received

Planning History P/2015/0463 Erection of affordable dwelling and installation of septic tank - REFUSED

PPAE/2014/0035 – The applicant was provided with advice and guidance in respect of the proposal, namely the policy context for the development in the open countryside.

Principal Planning Constraints Open Countryside C2149 classified road

National planning policy

Planning Policy Wales (7th Edition, February 2014) Technical Advice Note 2 – Planning and Affordable Housing (2006) Technical Advice Note 6 – Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (2010) Technical Advice Note 18 – Transport (2007)

Local planning policies

Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) UDP DC11 – Non Mains Sewage Treatment UDP ENV 2 - Safeguarding the Landscape UDP ENV 3 - Safeguarding Biodiversity & Natural Habitats 4 Page 240 UDP GP1 - Development Control UDP GP2 - Planning Conditions and Obligations UDP GP3 - Design and Energy Conservation UDP GP4 - Highway and Parking Requirements UDP HP5 - Residential Developments UDP HP6 - Dwellings in the Open Countryside UDP HP9 - Affordable Housing in Rural Settlements UDP HP10 - Affordability Criteria

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Members are advised to consider this application in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise

Policy

The scheme is presented as an application for an affordable dwelling within the community council area of Churchstoke. The housing policies of the Powys Unitary Development Plan permit affordable dwellings to meet proven local needs on exception sites either adjoining settlements with development boundaries (UDP policy HP8) or within designated rural settlements (UDP policy HP9).

As an exception to normal housing policies, the development of single dwellings within designated rural settlements which provide affordable housing for local need is supported within UDP policy HP9. The stated policy notes that the development will be permitted where they comply with the following criteria:

1. THE DWELLING WOULD BE SENSITIVELY LOCATED AND DESIGNED AND WOULD BE CAPABLE OF BEING INTEGRATED INTO THE SETTLEMENT WITHOUT UNACCEPTABLY ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE AMENITY AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA.

2. SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT ENSURE THE HOUSING REMAINS AFFORDABLE IN PERPETUITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD COMPLY WITH POLICY HP7 CRITERIA (B), (C) AND (D).

3. THE PROPOSAL COMPLIES WITH UDP POLICY HP10.

Given the above, it is considered that the main issue to be whether the site is an appropriate location for a dwelling, particularly in terms of any effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and having regard to the housing objectives of Local and National Policies.

5 Page 241 The nearest housing cluster is some 350-400 metres west of the site which is considered to constitute the rural settlement of Mellington. In this particular context, it is considered that the site is physically detached from the rural settlement of Mellington and within open countryside as defined by the adopted Powys Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2010.

It is consider that the proposal is not integrated in the nearby settlement due to its detached location and as such it will be in conflict planning policy objectives, namely criterion 1 of Powys UDP policy HP9.

Visual Impact

Although the dwelling would be sited in a slight dip where the former (now derelict) agricultural building once sat, it is considered that the proposal would be readily seen from the road which passes through Mellington and from public viewpoints. The countryside should be protected for its intrinsic character and the proposal would appear as a relatively large, two-storey independent domestic dwelling. Therefore, it would have a harmful urbanising effect on the character and appearance of the area. It is acknowledged that planting and other landscape measures could in time provide some screening therefore some mitigation could be achieved. However, even this would not adequately mitigate the nature of the built development in this particular location.

Compliance with the Affordability Criteria

The eligibility criteria for affordable dwellings is set out within policy HP10 of the UDP. An affordable housing eligibility questionnaire has been completed and submitted by the applicant. According to the information supplied within and accompanying the questionnaire, it could be concluded that the applicant fulfils the criteria for an affordable home under the provisions of the above policy.

In terms of compliance with the other requirements of HP10 and requirements set out within the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, it is noted that the proposed internal floor area of the proposed dwelling would be 130m² as permitted by the said policy.

Highway access and parking

The proposal involves the construction of a vehicular access as well as parking and turning area within the application site. The access to the proposed property would be upgraded from the current grass track to form an adequate access route. This track would then link with the existing track/lane that currently serves Little Bank Farm and leads towards the junction with the C2149.

The current resubmission now indicates that improvements to the existing access at the junction opposite "The Pullets" will be secured in order to achieve appropriate visibility. Therefore, the Highway Officer confirms that due to the proposed visibility and surfacing improvement to the junction of the private access with the C2149, the Highway Authority is now able to support the application and recommends a number of conditions to be attached to any decision notice.

6 Page 242 Foul drainage

It is stated on the application form that the foul drainage is to be connected to the new septic tank. Environmental Health Services have confirmed that there are no objections with regards to the proposed method of foul water disposal.

Heritage and Archaeological Assets

CADW and CPAT have confirmed that the proposed development will have no impact on the historic or acheaological assets in the area or the site itself.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding the acceptability of the proposal in terms of other planning issues, it could be concluded that the erection of a dwelling within this rural setting would undermine the open, rural character of the area by introducing new built development into open countryside.

The dwelling would be in a relatively prominent position, visible from the surrounding area and would be out of character with the countryside in which it would be set. Development Management has taken into account all other matters raised. However, the personal circumstances of the applicant are not, in the view of officers, sufficiently exceptional to justify what would be an inappropriate form of development within the open countryside which is detached from the designated rural settlement.

In this context, the development would be in an inappropriate location for residential development and have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. For these reasons, the proposal would be in conflict with local and national housing objectives and policies.

Recommendation The proposed development is considered to be unjustified development in the open countryside. The recommendation is therefore one of refusal.

Reason:

1. The proposed dwelling is detached from the rural settlement of Mellington. The proposed development is therefore considered to be unjustified development in the open countryside. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of Powys Unitary Development Plan Policies HP9, GP1, and ENV2 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), the guidance set out within Technical Advice Note 6 and Planning Policy Wales (2014).

______Case Officer: Eddie Hrustanovic- Swyddog Cynllunio / Planning Officer Tel: 01938 551231 E-mail:[email protected]

7 Page 243 Page 244 PTLRW110 - 20156

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2015/0840 Grid Ref: 313076.02 268051.74

Community Llanddewi Valid Date: Officer: Council: 21/08/2015 Holly-ann Hobbs

Applicant: Mr B S Bufton, B S Bufton & Son, Poyning Farm, Llanddewi, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 6SN.

Location: Poyning Farm, Llanddewi, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 6SN.

Proposal: Erection of pig rearing unit, formation of muck store and siting of effluent tank, erection of feed bin, upgrading of existing access track and alterations to vehicular access (resubmission of P/2014/0790)

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

The reason for Committee determination

The planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and therefore is required to be determined by Members of the Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee.

Site Location and Description

Poyning Farm is located within the open countryside approximately 2.3km east of Llanddewi. The application site comprises of agricultural land and is located approximately 150 metres south west of the existing farmstead. Agricultural land bounds the proposed site of development to the north, east, south and west. Access to the application site is facilitated via an existing access off the public highway (C1058) located to the south west.

Consent is sought in full for the erection of a pig rearing unit, provision of a muck store, upgrading of existing access track and improvements to vehicular access. The proposed building will accommodate 1,000 pigs and measures approximately 60.96 metres in length by 15.24 metres in width, the ridge and eaves height measure 6.3 and 4.26 metres respectively. The proposed feed bins measure approximately 8 metres in height. The proposed building comprises of mass concrete and box profile sheeting (walls) together with a fibre cement roof.

Consultee Response

Llanddewi Ystradenny Community Council

No response received.

Highway Authority

1 Page 245 The County Council as Highway Authority for the County Class III Highway, C1058 wish the following recommendations/observations be applied.

Recommendations/Observations

The following conditions should be included on any permission granted:-

HC1 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling any entrance gates shall be set back at least 5.5 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway and shall be constructed so as to be incapable of opening towards the highway and shall be retained in this position and form of construction for as long as the dwelling/development hereby permitted remains in existence. HC4 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the access shall be constructed so that there is clear visibility from a point 1.05 metres above ground level at the centre of the access and 2.4 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, to points 0.26 metres above ground level at the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 120 metres distant in each direction measured from the centre of the access along the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the area(s) of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction for as long as the development hereby permitted remains in existence.

HC7 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be constructed to a minimum of 410mm depth, comprising a minimum of 250mm of sub-base material, 100mm of bituminous macadam base course material and 60mm of bituminous macadam binder course material for a distance of 5.5 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Any use of alternative materials is to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the access being constructed.

HC21 Prior to the occupation of the first operation of the unit the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be finished in a 40mm bituminous surface course for a distance of 5.5 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. This area will be maintained to this standard for as long as the development remains in existence.

Reasons

To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining county class III road.

Wales & west Utilities

No comments received at the time of writing this report.

Environmental Health

No response received.

Natural Resources Wales

Thank you for consulting Natural Resources Wales about the above development proposal.

Natural Resources Wales brings together the work of the Countryside Council for Wales, Environment Agency Wales and Forestry Commission Wales, as well as some functions of

2 Page 246 Welsh Government. Our purpose is to ensure that the natural resources of Wales are sustainably maintained, used and enhanced, now and in the future.

NRW does not object to the proposed development.

Protected Sites

We have reviewed the Detailed Modelling that supports the planning application and have the following comments to make.

Cwmsaise SSSI

Background ammonia is 1.48μg/m3 and background nitrogen deposition is 17.74kgN/ha/yr. The ammonia critical level is 3μg/m3 and the nitrogen critical load is 20 – 30kgN/ha/yr for the site. The farm contribution to ammonia is 0.025μg/m3 (0.83% of critical level) and to nitrogen is 0.19N/ha/yr (1.86% of the critical load).

Malienydd SSSI

Background ammonia is 1.24μg/m3 and background nitrogen deposition is 16.89kgN/ha/yr. The ammonia critical level is 3μg/m3 and the nitrogen critical load is 10kgN/ha/yr for the site.

The farm contribution to ammonia is 0.005μg/m3 (0.18% of critical level) and to nitrogen is 0.04N/ha/yr (0.40% of the critical load).

Far Meadow Hall

Background ammonia is 1.48μg/m3 and background nitrogen deposition is 18.08kgN/ha/yr. The ammonia critical level is 3μg/m3 and the nitrogen critical load is 20kgN/ha/yr for the site. The farm contribution to ammonia is 0.037μg/m3 (1.24% of critical level) and to nitrogen is 0.30N/ha/yr (1.48% of the critical load).

Having reviewed the SCAIL we are satisfied that the It is not considered that the proposed contributions are likely to damage the scientific interests of the nearby SSSIs as the contribution is below the critical loads for the nearby SSSIs.

Manure Management and Site Drainage

The application is supported by a Manure Management Plan.

The Plan describes a manure pad and suggests that run off from the manure is only lightly contaminated and that straw will absorb all rainfall. The application will also be scraping slurry from the non-bedded areas onto the manure pad.

The applicant should be aware that this area needs to have sealed effluent collection constructed in accordance with Silage Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil regulations 2010. We advise the construction of manure storage undercover capable of storing the manure produced by a cycle so that this can be applied at appropriate times to make best use of nutrients within the manure.

3 Page 247 As noted in the ES, spreading should not take place on the 15m strip of land either side of a watercourse.

All wash water must be directed to an effluent containment tank as this is also classified as Slurry under the Silage Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil Regulations 2010. The full details of manure management, effluent collection and pollution prevention should be agreed under the provision of a planning condition to the approval of the LPA prior to commencement of development.

Environmental Permitting Regulations

NRW confirms that a permit under the EPR 2010 regulations will be required should the holding rear over 2000 pigs (over 30kg) or 750 or more sows.

Discharge (of Effluent) to ground or surface waters

The applicant will need to apply for a Permit, or Exemption from NRW, if they wish to discharge anything apart from uncontaminated surface water to a watercourse/ditch.

The applicant may also need to apply for a Permit from NRW to allow certain discharges into ground. Any necessary Permit must be obtained prior to works starting on site. Further information regarding permitting requirements including exemption is available on our website; https://naturalresources.wales/apply-and-buy/waste/waste-permitting/do-you-need-to-apply- for-a-permit-or-register-an-exemption/?lang=en

To conclude, NRW does not object to the proposed development.

We thank you for consulting with NRW. Should you require any further information or clarification, Natural Resources Wales may be contacted at the above address.

County Ecologist

No response received.

Countryside Services

Correspondence received 21st September 2015 –

Thank you for your consultation regarding the above application.

Two public footpaths lie in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development site. Footpath LY433 enters field 0412 at the most northerly corner heading in a south-westerly direction to cross the farm track and enter field 2102. Footpath LY492 extends from LY433 in field 0412 heading east to cross the farm track and enter field 2012 before continuing in east, then turning north-east to Poyning Farm.

The submitted plans suggest that footpath LY492 will be obstructed by the erection of this agricultural unit. It is also unclear whether a sufficient gap (with or without a gate or stile) will

4 Page 248 be left in the hedgerow screen to be planted alongside the farm track to the south. Failure to provide adequate access would also result in an obstruction of the path. Countryside Services therefore object to this current application. The applicant is advised to contact us for further advice regarding siting of the unit and to clarify accommodation of the LY492 in the proposed planting scheme.

Correspondence received 11th November 2015 –

I keep missing you in the office I’m afraid. On plan 5195/2 showing the site plan, aerial view and vehicle access the size of the development area appears to vary in relation to the length of the field. I measured the length of the building in relation to the eastern fence line based on plan 5195/1 and this appeared to show that the development would affect LD492. Happy to double check if I can see the scale plan 5195/1 again please.

Land Drainage - Simon Crowther

No response received.

Open Space Society

No comments received at the time of writing this report.

Ramblers Association

It would appear that several RoW are close to the proposed development. Provided these are not obstructed either during or after the development I would have no objection. However, I would strongly object if any of them were obstructed.

Representations

The proposed development has been advertised by site display, local advertisement (paper) and neighbour notification. At the time of writing this report, no public representations have been received by Development Management.

Planning History

P/2014/0790 - Erection of pig fattening unit, creation of muck store, siting of effluent tank and upgrading of existing access track and alteration of existing access. Deemed Refusal.

Principal Planning Constraints

Public Right of Ways located within close proximity of the application site.

Principal Planning Policies

National Planning Policy

Planning Policy Wales (2014)

Technical Advice Note 5 – Nature Conservation and Planning (2009)

5 Page 249 Technical Advice Note 6 – Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (2010) Technical Advice Note 11 – Noise (1997) Technical Advice Note 16 – Sport, Recreation and Open Space (2009) Technical Advice Note 18 – Transport (2007 Technical Advice Note 23 – Economic Development (2015)

Welsh Office Circular 11/99 – Environmental Impact Assessment Local Planning Policy

Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010)

SP3 – Natural, Historic and Built Heritage SP4 – Economic and Employment Development GP1 – Development Control GP4 – Highway and Parking Requirements ENV1 – Agricultural Land ENV2 – Safeguarding the Landscape ENV3 – Safeguarding Biodiversity and Natural Habitats ENV4 – Internationally Important Sites ENV5 – Nationally Important Sites ENV6 – Sites of Regional and Local Importance ENV7 – Protected Species EC1 – Business, Industrial and Commercial Developments EC7 – Farm/Forestry for Employment Purposes in the Open Countryside EC9 – Agricultural Development EC10 – Intensive Livestock Units RL6 - Rights of Way and Access to the Countryside DC3 – External Lighting DC9 – Protection of Water Resources DC13 – Surface Water Drainage

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

Members are advised to consider this application in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise

Introduction

Having carefully considered the details submitted in respect of the proposed intensive livestock development, the principal matters considered relevant to determination of the proposal are as follows:

Environmental Impact Assessment

6 Page 250 Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 reference lists of development and thresholds defining where a development proposal is EIA development. These are contained in Schedule 1 and 2 of the Regulations. Schedule 1of the regulations lists where EIA is mandatory and Schedule 2 where development must be screened to determine if it is EIA development.

Schedule 1 of the Regulations states that the threshold for the “intensive rearing of poultry is 3,000 places for production pigs (over 30kg). Whilst an Environmental Impact Assessment is not a mandatory requirement for the proposed development, the floor area of the proposed building exceeds the applicable threshold of 500 square metres and therefore for the purposes of the regulations is Schedule 2 development requiring a screening opinion to be issued.

The development was assessed against the selection criteria contained within Schedule 3 of the Regulations, by virtue of its scale and location, the Local Planning Authority concluded that the proposed development constitutes EIA development. An Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared by the developer, in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment (England & Wales) Regulations 1999 as amended, which implement Council Directive No.85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (The EIA Directive), as amended by Council Directive No. 97/11/EC (EC, 1997) and now codified in Directive 2011/92/EU.

Principle of Development

Policies EC1, EC7, EC9 and EC10 accept the principle of appropriate agricultural development within the open countryside. Development Management is satisfied that the principle of the proposed development at this location fundamentally complies with planning Policy.

Farm Diversification

The agent has provided a statement giving details of the agricultural enterprise they are currently engaged in and also details of the proposed pig fattening unit. It is indicated that the proposal will allow for the diversification of agricultural activity at the farm into a new area, which may be seen as further aiding the sustainability of the farming enterprise as a whole.

Rural enterprises play a vital role in promoting healthy economic activity within rural areas. Planning Policy Wales (2014) and Technical Advice Note 23 (2014) emphasises the need for Local Planning Authorities to support diversification and sustainability in such areas, recognising that new businesses are key to this objective and essential to sustain rural communities. Whilst Local Authorities should look to facilitate appropriate rural developments, planning policy highlights that economic benefits need to be balanced against other material considerations. Such considerations are detailed below.

Landscape Impact

UDP policy ENV2 (Safeguarding the Landscape) states that proposals for the development and use of land should take account of the high quality of the landscape throughout Powys and be appropriate and sensitive to the character of the surrounding landscape. Further

7 Page 251 guidance within policy EC9, suggests that where possible, agricultural buildings should be grouped with existing units in an effort to minimise potential landscape and visual impact.

The application site comprises of agricultural land located approximately 150 metres to the south west of the existing agricultural complex – Poyning Farm. It is proposed to site the proposed livestock unit parallel to the southern boundary of the application site against the backdrop of an existing hedgerow. The topography of the application site is generally flat and is enclosed by existing hedgerows. The proposed plans indicate the implementation of a new hedgerow (native species) along the southern boundary which will assist in screening the proposed development from public vantage points including the public highway.

The proposal involves the construction a single building, feed bins, hardstanding and access works and would clearly represent a change to the application site. The development would result in the loss of the north eastern part of a large field whilst the proposed access track will trace the boundary of two additional fields representing the encroachment of built development into the open countryside.

The site of development is located within the ‘Rolling hills, central south-east’ aspect area of Landmap and is characterised as a peaceful landscape comprising of gently rolling hills and valleys with strong pastoral field patterns, wooded watercourses, scattered trees and farmsteads. Whilst acknowledging the attractiveness of the area and scenic value, the visual and sensory landscape value is recorded as moderate.

The proposed livestock building is of a large scale and whilst not grouped within the immediate context of the existing farmstead, the noted proximity (150 metres) and connectivity (existing farm track) means that within the wider landscape, the proposed development is seen in association with Poyning Farm. Furthermore, given the height of the proposed building and topography of the application field, the profile is reduced. Proposed landscaping together with the use of appropriate materials, including colour are considered to encourage the integration of the proposed development within the surrounding landscape thus reducing associated landscape impact.

Although Officers acknowledge that there will be a partial loss of an agricultural field, taking into account the proposed mitigation measures, proximity to the existing building complex and characteristics of the host landscape, it is not considered that the proposed development will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the site and the surrounding area. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with planning policy, particularly policies ENV2, EC1 and EC9 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Wales.

Visual Impact

The County Highway (C1058) is located to the west and south of the application site and separated by intervening fields and mature hedgerows which restrict views into the site. Visibility will be further limited by the implementation of additional landscaping along the existing boundaries of the site. It is further noted that from the highway, the proposed building would be seen against the back drop of the existing complex at Poyning Farm.

Officers note that highway users may be aware of the presence of the proposed building and associated feed bins however on the basis of the above observations, it is considered that

8 Page 252 views of the proposed development would be limited for users of the public highway in this location. On this basis and given the passing nature of traffic, it is not considered that road users would be highly sensitive to the limited visual impacts identified above.

The closest non-associated residential property is Poyning Cottage which is located in excess of 200 metres from the proposed building and separate by intervening fields and the public highway. Whilst noting that the occupiers of this property would be considered sensitive to visual impact, given the noted distances and existing screening, it is not considered that the visual impact from this location would be unacceptable.

The application site is crossed by public rights of way whilst the site is further located within proximity of the surrounding network. Officers acknowledge that public rights of way users are likely to be using these routes recreationally and therefore it is likely that they would be sensitive to changes in the established rural setting. Given the scale of the building, it would not be possible to screen the building entirely for users of the public rights of way crossing the application site however for those enjoying the surrounding routes would benefit from intervening landscaping thereby reducing the visual impact. On this basis, whilst acknowledging the visibility of the application building, the use would be in keeping with the character of the rural landscape and setting and therefore, Officers do not consider that the potential impact on visual amenity would be unacceptable. Whilst the proposed development will be visible from sensitive receptors including adjoining public right of ways, neighbouring properties and the public highway given existing and proposed landscaping together with observed distances, it is not considered that the proposed intensive livestock development will have an unacceptable landscape and visual impact. Overall the proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with relevant policies, including policies GP1, ENV2, EC1, EC9 and EC10 of the Powys UDP.

Highway Safety and Movement

Policy GP4 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan indicates that development proposals will only be permitted where appropriate highway provision is incorporated in terms of a safe access, adequate visibility, turning and parking.

The proposed livestock unit will be accessed via an existing agricultural access off the county highway. The scheme includes improvements to the entrance to facilitate safe access and egress of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) whilst turning provision will be provided within the application site boundary.

Following consultation, the Highway Authority has recommended a series of standard conditions which will ensure that adequate highway provision is secured on site and maintained thereafter. Subject to the attachment of the said conditions, Officers do not consider that the proposed development will have an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety and movement. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with policies GP1, GP4, EC1 and EC10 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan.

Biodiversity and Ecology

UDP policy ENV3 seeks to maintain biodiversity whilst policy ENV5 seeks to safeguard the conservation interests and integrity of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Policies EC1 and EC10 emphasise the need for proposals to be assessed both individually and in

9 Page 253 combination with similar developments in the surrounding area to ensure that the proposal does not adversely affect the environment.

The application site comprises of agricultural land which is not considered to be of significant ecological value. On the basis of the information provided, it would not appear that existing hedgerows or landscaping will be affected by the proposed development. In any case, it is considered that the implementation of additional hedgerows comprising of native species will enhance biodiversity opportunities at this location.

It is further noted that the site of development is located within 5km of five SSSI’s including Far Hall Meadow, Cwmsaise, Maeleinydd, Ithon Valley Woodlands and Cae Cwm Rochas. The proximity of the development to the above designated sites and potential development impacts justified the screening opinion and subsequent Welsh Government Direction.

It is considered that the proposed development has the potential to affect the identified designated sites through pollution (construction and operation), management of manure together with ammonia/nitrogen deposition. The application is supported by a manure management plan and detailed ammonia/nitrogen modelling which have been subject to review by Natural Resources Wales. The subsequent NRW consultation response confirms that the proposed development is unlikely to damage the scientific interests of the nearby sites both individually or cumulatively.

On the basis of the comments received, Development Management does not consider that the proposed development will compromise the conservation interests of the identified SSSI’s or the desire to maintain biodiversity. The proposed is therefore considered to be in compliance with policies ENV3 and ENV5 of the Powys UDP, Technical Advice Note 5 and Planning Policy Wales.

Residential Amenity

UDP policy GP1 seeks to safeguard the amenities enjoyed by occupants of neighbouring residential properties. Officers consider that the proposed development has the potential to affect residential amenities by reasons of odour and noise.

It is considered that potential noise impacts arising from the proposed development include associated transport movements and livestock activity within the building. It is noted that the building is naturally ventilated and therefore the proposal does not propose the installation of a ventilation system. Whilst acknowledging that the development has the potential to generate additional noise, given the distances between the site and adjoining properties together with existing farming practices, it is not considered that the proposed development will result in an unacceptable adverse noise impact.

In addition to noise, Development Management considers the proposed development, by virtue of its scale and intensity, has the potential to generate odour. Determination of odour levels can be assessed using odour dispersal model based on standardised values. Odour concentrations are expressed as European odour units per cubic metre (ouE/m3). The Environment Agency (EA) has published guidance for the objective assessment of odour impacts: How to Comply with Your Permit- H4 Odour Management. It recommends the use of 98th percentile of hourly average odour concentrations modelled over a year. Appendix 3 of this document provides a benchmark of 3.0 ouE/m3 for moderately offensive odours.

10 Page 254 Moderately offensive odours are identified as including those associated with intensive livestock rearing. It is noted that the use of this threshold has been supported by Inspectors in planning appeal decisions.

The application is supported by an odour assessment. The modelling predictions therein confirm that odour experienced at sensitive receptors (neighbouring residential properties) are below the suggested benchmark of 3ouE/m3. On this basis, the odour assessment concludes that the proposed developer will not adversely affect residential amenity.

Unfortunately, at the time of writing this report, no Environmental Health comments have been received. Nevertheless, Development Management will endeavour to secure a response which will be presented to Members in an update prior to the Committee meeting.

Public Rights of Way

Policies GP1, EC1 and RL6 seek to safeguard the public rights of way network together with the amenity of its users.

Two public footpaths lie in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development site. Footpath LY433 enters field 0412 at the most northerly corner heading in a south-westerly direction to cross the farm track and enter field 2102. Footpath LY492 extends from LY433 in field 0412 heading east to cross the farm track and enter field 2012 before continuing in east, then turning north-east to Poyning Farm.

Following consultation, Countryside Services have expressed concern regarding the potential obstruction of footpath LY492 due to the siting of the proposed building. In addition, concern has been expressed regarding appropriate passage through the proposed new hedgerow. Whilst Officers consider that a suitable condition could be imposed requiring an appropriate pedestrian access to be provided and maintained, the concern regarding the siting of the building is unresolved at the time of writing this report.

Notwithstanding the above, Members are advised that Officers will continue to investigate this matter and provide further clarification prior to the Committee meeting.

Recommendation

Having carefully considered the proposed intensive livestock development, Development Management considers the proposal to be in accordance with the listed planning policies. In light of the above and subject to suitable clarification in respect of residential amenity and public rights of way, the recommendation is one of conditional consent.

Conditions:

1. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun no later than the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans received 21st August 2015 stamped as approved.

11 Page 255 3. Notwithstanding the details submitted, a detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The submitted landscaping scheme shall include a scaled drawing and written specification clearly describing the species, sizes, densities and planting numbers proposed. Drawings must include accurate details of all existing trees and hedgerows to be retained with their location, species, size and condition.

4. A landscape phasing scheme (implementation scheme) for the landscaping scheme as approved (condition 3) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The landscaping scheme shall thereafter be fully implemented in accordance with the phasing scheme (implementation scheme) so approved.

5. The approved landscaping scheme as implemented by the landscape phasing scheme (condition 4) shall thereafter be maintained for a period of five years. Such maintenance is to include the replacement of any plant/tree/shrub/hedge that is removed, significantly damaged, diseased or dying, with plants/trees/shrubs/hedges of the same species and size within the next planting season, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

6. Prior to the commencement of building works full details of the colour of the external materials proposed in the construction of the application buildings and feed bins shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be fully implemented in accordance with the details so approved.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extensions or alterations to the unit shall be erected without the consent of the Local Planning Authority. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification, the premises shall not be used for any purpose other than that hereby authorised.

9. Notwithstanding the information provided, no development shall begin until a manure management scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be undertaken other than in full accordance with the manure management scheme as approved. The manure management scheme shall be fully implemented as approved in perpetuity.

10. No development shall take place until a scheme for separate foul and surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. None of the buildings shall be brought into use until the drainage works have been provided in accordance with the approved scheme.

11. No development shall commence until a Construction Pollution Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be undertaken strictly in accordance with the Construction Pollution Management Plan so approved.

12 Page 256

12. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling any entrance gates shall be set back at least 5.5 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway and shall be constructed so as to be incapable of opening towards the highway and shall be retained in this position and form of construction for as long as the dwelling/development hereby permitted remains in existence.

13. Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the access shall be constructed so that there is clear visibility from a point 1.05 metres above ground level at the centre of the access and 2.4 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, to points 0.26 metres above ground level at the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 120 metres distant in each direction measured from the centre of the access along the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the area(s) of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction for as long as the development hereby permitted remains in existence.

14. Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be constructed to a minimum of 410mm depth, comprising a minimum of 250mm of sub-base material, 100mm of bituminous macadam base course material and 60mm of bituminous macadam binder course material for a distance of 5.5 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Any use of alternative materials is to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the access being constructed.

15. Prior to the occupation of the first operation of the unit the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be finished in a 40mm bituminous surface course for a distance of 5.5 metres from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. This area will be maintained to this standard for as long as the development remains in existence.

Reasons:

1. Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. To ensure adherence to the plans stamped as approved in the interests of clarity and a satisfactory development.

3. To ensure that the application site is adequately landscaped in the interests of the amenity of the area, in accordance with policies GP1, ENV2, ENV3 and EC9 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), Technical Advice Note 5 – Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) and Planning Policy Wales (2014).

4. To ensure that the application site is adequately landscaped in the interests of the amenity of the area, in accordance with policies GP1, ENV2, ENV3 and EC9 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), Technical Advice Note 5 – Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) and Planning Policy Wales (2014).

5. To ensure that the application site is adequately landscaped in the interests of the amenity of the area, in accordance with policies GP1, ENV2, ENV3 and EC9 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), Technical Advice Note 5 – Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) and Planning Policy Wales (2014).

13 Page 257 6. To safeguard the character and appearance of the area in accordance with policy GP1 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010).

7. In order to control development which has the potential to have adversely affect the amenity of the area in contradiction to policy GP1 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010) and Planning Policy Wales (2014).

8. In order that the Local Planning Authority may control the use of the premises in the interests of the protection and preservation of the amenity of the area in accordance with policies GP1, EC1, EC9 and EC10 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) and Planning Policy Wales (2014).

9. To protect the local amenities of the local residents and environmental quality in accordance with GP1, ENV3 and ENV5 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (March 2010), Technical Advice Note 5 – Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) and Planning Policy Wales (2012).

10. To ensure that details of these elements of the development are adequately provided and to ensure that surface water drainage is adequately catered for at the site in accordance with policy DC13 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010).

11. In order to minimise pollution and ensure that the environment is not adversely affected by the construction of the proposed development. This condition is imposed in accordance with policies ENV3 and ENV5 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), Technical Advice Note 5 – Nature Conservation and Planning (2009) and Planning Policy Wales (2014).

12. In order to ensure adequate highway provision in the interests of highway safety and movement. This condition is imposed in accordance with policies GP1, GP4 and EC1 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010).

13. In order to ensure adequate highway provision in the interests of highway safety and movement. This condition is imposed in accordance with policies GP1, GP4 and EC1 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010).

14. In order to ensure adequate highway provision in the interests of highway safety and movement. This condition is imposed in accordance with policies GP1, GP4 and EC1 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010).

15. In order to ensure adequate highway provision in the interests of highway safety and movement. This condition is imposed in accordance with policies GP1, GP4 and EC1 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010).

______Case Officer: Holly-ann Hobbs- Planning Officer Tel: 01597 827319 E-mail:[email protected]

14 Page 258 Page 259 This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW110 - 20157

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2015/0605 Grid Ref: 303533.77 309416.75

Community Llanerfyl Valid Date: Officer: Council: 26/06/2015 Nicholas Morgan

Applicant: Miss Lowri Jones, Ty Cerrig, Llangadfan, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 0PW

Location: Pt OS 4647 Land at Llanerfyl, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 0AS

Proposal: Erection of a detached bungalow, formation of vehicular access road and installation of a septic tank

Application Application for Outline Planning Permission Type:

The reason for Committee determination

The local member has called the application to be determined at planning committee due to the specialist nature of the application.

The application is also a departure due to the proposal not satisfying the objectives of the housing polices contained within the Unitary Development Plan.

Site Location and Description

The application has been submitted in outline for the erection of a detached bungalow, formation of vehicular access road and installation of a septic tank on agricultural land at Pt OS 4647, Llanerfyl, Powys, SY21 0AS.

The site is located within agricultural land, some 270m south east of the centre of Llanerfyl. It is accessed from the U2895 highway, some 190m along a private track which terminates at property Pen y Rhos beyond.

As this application is submitted in outline form, all matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) are reserved for future consideration. An indicative layout has been provided which illustrates a detached bungalow and it is indicated that the dwelling would be 19m in length, 7m in width, 3m maximum height to the eaves and 6m maximum height to the ridge. In addition, it is stated that the gross floor space of the dwelling would not exceed 130m².

Consultee Response

Llanerfyl Community Council – No objections:

With regards to the planning application P/2015/0605 The community council had no objections to the planning application but expressed their concern as the location is outside the development boundary.

1 Page 261 Powys Highways Department – Object:

The HA cannot support the application as the junction onto the U2895 is sub-standard in terms of visibility. In addition, the U2895 is of a single track nature and offers no passing places to compensate for the extra traffic movements along this highway.

In view of the above the HA recommend REFUSAL in the interests of highway safety.

Powys Building Control

No comments received

Wales & West Utilities

No objection

Environmental Health – No objection

Initial Response:

I will require the foul drainage details, tank design, size. I will also need the detail of the soakaway including percolation test results.

Until I have this information I cannot comment on the application.

Final Response:

Following receipt of the additional information I have no objection to the planning application.

Powys Rights of Way – No Objection

Thank you for consulting Countryside Services on the above application.

A Public Right of Way – Footpath 28 – is partly on the proposed access track to the property.

The right of way must remain open and available for safe, unimpeded public use at all times and must not be obstructed – both during development and following completion.

Track surface changes must not adversely affect the public right of way.

Powys Land Drainage Officer – Original concerns raised however no objection subject to conditions:

Initial Response

Thank you for consulting the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) in respect to the above mentioned application. Having reviewed the submitted details and other related drainage information on the Planning Portal, the LLFA would make the following observations/comments/recommendations:-

2 Page 262 Land Drainage / Flood Defence

Observation: It has been noted from Ordnance Survey maps that there is a watercourse in close proximity to the proposed development, i.e. along its eastern boundary. Reference to this watercourse is made in Item 5 – Assessment of Flood Risk on the submitted planning application, whereby it is acknowledged the development is within 20 metres of a watercourse.

Comment: The Authority holds no historical flooding information relating to the site. However, having viewed the Environment Agency’s updated Flood Map for Surface Water, it is noted that part of the proposed site may be susceptible to surface water flooding during extreme rainfall events. Where detailed information in respect of flood risk is not available, the planning authority should require the developer to carry out a detailed technical investigation to evaluate the extent of the flood risk and what measures are needed to ensure flooding consequences on the development site can be managed to acceptable levels and that these proposals do not cause or exacerbate flooding elsewhere.

In this particular case the submission of a topographic survey will be required in order for finished floor levels to be determined and a contour below which there should be no development including the raising of ground levels. The minimum requirement for this site would be to allow for a 5 metre maintenance strip adjacent to the watercourse which would also allow for any overland flows. No buildings, structures, fences or alteration of contours shall take place within 5 metres of the watercourse, without prior permission from the Planning Authority.

Any interference to an ordinary watercourse (i.e. non Main River) will require the prior consent from the Lead Local Flood Authority (Powys CC’s Land Drainage Section) under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (as amended).

Recommendation: No planning permission be granted until an appropriate Flood Consequence Assessment (FCA) is submitted and approved by the LPA. The scope of the FCA will need to be agreed with the Lead Local Flood Authority.

Reason: To assess that the proposed development is not at risk of being flooded or that the development will cause or exacerbate flooding elsewhere. To safeguard the existing waterbody.

Surface Water Run-off

Observation: Reference is made within the Design & Access Statement – 4.5 ‘Environmental Sustainability’ to sustainable drainage techniques being used at the site. Further reference to the management of surface water run-off is indicated in Item 5 – ‘Assessment of Flood Risk’ on the planning application form, where it states that surface water is to be disposed to soakaway.

No further surface water drainage details or layout drawing(s) have been submitted.

The general soil type for this location is shown to be ‘slowly permeable seasonally wet acid loamy and clayey soils’. Soakage in this type of soil structure will more than likely be difficult to achieve and winter waterlogging will result in very wet ground conditions across the site.

3 Page 263

Comments: The site is classed as Greenfield. Therefore, proposed surface water flows should be equivalent to existing Greenfield run-off in accordance with the principles of TAN15 – Development and Flood Risk and good practice drainage design.

The use of soakaways and or other infiltration techniques should be investigated in the first instance for surface water disposal. Porosity tests and the sizing of the soakaways should be designed in accordance with BRE Digest 365 to cater for a 1 in 100 year return storm event plus an allowance of 30% for climate change.

If soakaways are not feasible, drainage calculations to limit the discharge rate from the site no greater than the Greenfield run-off rate shall be applied. The attenuation drainage system should be designed so that storm events of up to 1 in 100 year + 30% for climate change and will not cause flooding either on site or elsewhere in the vicinity. There must be no discharge to a surface water body that results from the first 5mm of any rainfall event.

Recommendation: No development shall commence until full engineering details, calculations (to include porosity test findings) and proposed soakaway designs shall be submitted and approved in writing by the LPA. The approved scheme shall be completed before the development is occupied.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed surface water drainage system for the site is fully compliant with regulations and is of robust design.

Second Response

I note the content of the data supplied. This is primarily for the foul water treatment design but the Vp value can be used to determine the soil infiltration rate for surface water disposal purpose. On the information supplied, the ground conditions seem suitable for surface water run-off to be disposed to soakaways. My recommendation in respect to surface water disposal would therefore be:-

Recommendation: No development shall commence until a surface water drainage design has been submitted and approved in writing by the LPA. The approved scheme shall be completed before the development is occupied.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed surface water drainage system for the site is fully compliant with regulations and is of robust design.

With regard to my earlier Land Drainage/Flood Defence comments, I see no additional or amended details to satisfy these concerns.

Final Response

In response, having again reviewed NRW’s indicative surface water flood risk mapping provided to all Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA), it shows a minor possibility of surface water encroachment towards the proposed site. This mapping has a better resolution to that shown on NRW’s website. From the LLFA perspective, a cautious approach is always taken.

4 Page 264 If this stance wasn’t taken and later problems did arise, then I’m sure the authority would be questioned, particularly when this information was to hand.

However, it has been noted that the site will not be located within 5 metres of the watercourse, which in this instance is an acceptable distance and therefore alleviates my earlier concerns. A FCA is therefore not required. However, a suitable condition could be applied whereby no development or alteration of contours shall take place within 5 metres from the watercourse.

In respect to surface water run-off, my earlier comments of today are still applicable but note the comments in respect to suitable mitigation. These could form part of any later reserved matters submission.

Powys Ecology – No Objection subject to conditions

Thank you for consulting me with regards to the Outline Planning Application P/2015/0605, I have reviewed the information submitted as well as photos of the site and aerial photographs and biological records for the local area.

There are no statutory or non-statutory designated sites within 1km of the proposed development. No records of protected or priority species were identified for the site itself.

The plans submitted identify that a short section of hedgerow will need to be removed to provide access to the new dwelling. There are records of dormice approximately 450m from the proposed development. Having reviewed the aerial photographs for the surrounding habitats as well as photographs of the hedgerow affected it is considered that the proposed hedgerow removal would not result in an offence being committed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) or the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) provided a scheme of reasonable avoidance measures is followed. Suitable reasonable avoidance measure would include: -

- Cutting the hedgerow to just above ground level during winter (November to March), dormice hibernate at ground level – this will also avoid impacting nesting birds during the bird breeding season ( all nesting birds and their nest, eggs and young are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) - Remove the roots and ground vegetation during the summer months when dormice are active and nesting above ground in hedgerows and trees.

The plans submitted indicate that the new dwelling will be surrounded by a new fence and hedgerow planting, this additional hedgerow planting will provide compensation for the section of hedgerow that will be lost to form the access. The Hedgerow planting should comprise a suitable native species mix consistent with hedgerows in the local area.

The OS map indicates that there are two small watercourses which runs along the eastern and western boundaries of the field in which the new dwelling is proposed, in order to ensure that these watercourses are protected during the construction of the new dwelling a pollution prevention plan will need to be identified, this should be based on the principles set out in EA Pollution Prevention Guidelines PPG5: Works and maintenance in or near water and PPG6: Working at construction and demolition sites.

5 Page 265 Development in the open countryside needs to consider potential impacts from artificial lighting to local nocturnal wildlife, a wildlife sensitive lighting plan should be identified to ensure minimal impacts to foraging and commuting behaviour of nocturnal wildlife in the local area.

In accordance with PCC's NERC Duty, TAN 5, PCC's Biodiversity SPG and UDP Policy SP3, a scheme of Ecological Enhancements should be developed and submitted as part of the application thus ensuring net biodiversity benefits (biodiversity enhancements) through the proposed development. This could include: • provision of a habitat management plan; • provision of bird and bat boxes including the details of the number, type and location of these boxes; • a wildlife buffer strip and a scheme of appropriate management of these areas, hedgerows should be retained within buffer strips and should be unlit or lighting to be directed away from the hedgerows to create dark movement corridors for nocturnal wildlife through the site; • a wildlife friendly hedgerow management regime, wildlife/green corridors through the site linking offsite and onsite habitats, and an appropriate after care period to ensure that any created habitats and buffer strips, hedgerows, landscape planting etc. become established (5 years may be appropriate).

Measures identified will need to be specific (i.e. details regarding locations, dimensions and numbers will need to be provided) and achievable.

Should you be minded to approve the application I recommend that the following measures are secured as reserved matters:-

A Scheme of Reasonable Avoidance Measures with regards to dormice and removal of a section of hedgerow to form the site access shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and implemented as approved.

A hedgerow planting scheme including details of species and aftercare measures, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and implemented as approved and maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA.

A Construction Pollution Prevention Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and implemented as approved and unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA.

A lighting design scheme to take any impacts on nocturnal wildlife into consideration shall be submitted for written LPA approval and implemented thereafter.

A detailed Biodiversity Enhancement Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and implemented as approved and maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA.

Councillor M. Alexander – Support

Representations

Councillor Viola Evans - Support

6 Page 266

Planning History

None

Principal Planning Constraints

Public Right of Way 224/28/1

Principal Planning Policies

National planning policy Planning Policy Wales (Edition 7, July 2014) TAN 6 - Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (2010)

Local planning policies UDP DC1 - Access by Disabled Persons UDP DC10 - Mains Sewage Treatment UDP ENV 1 - Agricultural Land UDP ENV 2 - Safeguarding the Landscape UDP ENV 3 - Safeguarding Biodiversity & Natural Habitats UDP GP1 - Development Control UDP GP4 - Highway and Parking Requirements UDP GP 5 - Welsh Language and Culture UDP HP10 - Affordability Criteria UDP HP15 - Lifetime & Mobility Homes UDP HP6 - Dwellings in the Open Countryside UDP HP8 - Affordable Housing Adjoining Settlements with Development Boundaries UDP RL6 - Rights of Way and Access to the Countryside

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Members are advised to consider this application in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise

Policy and Principle

It is recognised that the proposal does not explicitly fall within the relevant defined housing policies recognised within the UDP due to the combination of the specific type of property and the proposed location outside the settlement boundary, and therefore is considered a

7 Page 267 departure from planning policy. However, for the purposes of reference, the following policies are considered “key” for determination of the application.

UDP policy HP8 (Affordable Housing Adjoining Settlements with Development Boundaries) which enables favourable consideration to proposals for affordable housing where the site adjoins a settlement with a development boundary, where the proposal is small in scale, well located and sensitively designed together with assurance that the housing should remain affordable in perpetuity in line with UDP Policy HP10.

UDP policy GP5 Welsh Language and Culture will also be considered where the area has been identified as being important to the social, cultural and community fabric. Proposals shall only be acceptable where developers can demonstrate that they have full considered the importance of the welsh language and culture, including through the provision of an appropriate level of affordable homes.

In light of the relevant planning policy and the consultee and public responses, the key issues in considering this application relate to whether the proposal is located adjoining the settlement of Llanerfyl and whether it can be integrated within the settlement without affecting the amenity and character of the area or whether the applicant’s personal circumstances are a material consideration which outweigh the provisions of the development plan.

Siting and applicant’s needs

Llanerfyl is classified as a small village within the Unitary Development Plan. The village has two separate development boundaries with the southernmost development boundary and closest encompassing the village workshops and the housing estates of Maesyllan and Maes Menial. The proposed site is located some 197m from the development boundary and is essentially severed from the village by agricultural land. There are other properties within the vicinity outside of the development boundary including the nearest property Derwen approximately 230m to the north which is noted to be outside but adjoining the settlement boundary and Maes Gwyn (Farm house) approximately 240m south west, again outside of the settlement which is also approximately equidistant from the settlement boundary.

Due to the proximity and nature of the application, it is recognised that the application is a departure from the development plan and the applicant is seeking to justify the proposal in terms of their specialist needs via the submission of supportive letters from the University Health Board, Powys Teaching Health and Caereinion Medical Practice. The content of the letters are confidential however it is evident that the applicant’s requirements are very specific requiring the following: • the locality of the dwelling must be in a quiet environment away from the noise and traffic. • the dwelling must be single storey and have sufficient wheelchair access.

Taking into account the nature of the locality and the location, it is noted that the landowner owns the land all the way to the development boundary to the north, and therefore one could argue there is scope for a more suitable location of the property which may satisfy the objectives of policy HP8. This alternative and request for clarification on the extent of the sensitivity to noise which could be mitigated by the inclusion of sound proofing materials was put to the agent and dismissed on the following grounds:

8 Page 268 1. In order to meet the applicant’s needs, the bungalow needs to be located away from the public highway to provide a safe and quiet environment for the occupant inside and outside of the home, as highlighted in the medical professional letters. The concern is not so much for peacefulness within the bungalow itself (because soundproofing will achieve this), it is more the outside space for the occupant to enjoy around the home, away from traffic.

2. The land closer to the village lies on lower ground and is prone to surface water flooding – as confirmed by the Council’s Land Drainage Engineer's consultation response. It is therefore not sustainable.

In relation to the above, the applicant does not wish to amend the current application. I would therefore be grateful if it could be determined based on the information provided.

In order satisfy the specific needs of the applicant, it is suggested that they must reside within a quiet but accessible location. It is opined that this could largely be achieved with the property relocated to an alternative location adjoining the development boundary to the north. It is considered that the claims that a site adjoining the development boundary would not be suitable have not been sufficiently substantiated and the submission would benefit from demonstration through actual noise data that a location closer to the minor road would not be feasible to meet the applicant’s needs.

Having regard to the surface water drainage issues in the preferred alternative location option, it is recognised that there is an existing dwelling named Derwen adjoining the development boundary which adjoins the applicants land. It is assumed that the surface water flood issues did not hinder this proposal historically and therefore further evidence is required to substantiate the unsuitability of any adjoining proposal.

It is further noted that the applicant is a welsh speaker and under policy GP5, Llanerfyl has been identified as a welsh speaking stronghold and therefore the Welsh language is of significant importance in terms of the social, cultural and community fabric. The community area is also 2nd highest in terms percentage of welsh speaking in Powys and therefore the applicant wishes to remain within the welsh speaking community which satisfies the objectives of GP5. Again, this is not disputed, however, it is considered that a site adjoining the settlement would not result in harm to the applicant’s desire to reside within the Llanerfyl area and this matter alone does not justify the isolated location of the proposed dwelling.

In respect of the above, and on balance, it is considered that the proposed development would appear unacceptably detached from the settlement boundary and there are other suitable options available which have not been given adequate consideration. As such, in terms of siting, it does not comply with the requirements of policy HP8.

Efforts to Utilise or Purchase Existing Dwellings

The applicant has demonstrated that they have considered alternatives prior to considering a new build within the locality.

The first option was to adapt the applicant’s existing property. A number of alterations have already been undertaken in order to satisfy the needs of the applicant however further alterations to meet the life time standard, would not be possible due to the design layout of

9 Page 269 the property. Ty Cerrig is a large 5 bedroom property and is considered surplus to requirements by the applicant and carer and is argued that its use could be best occupied by other persons in the locality.

The second option was to purchase a bungalow within the community either in Llanerfyl or nearby Llangadfan however they are expensive and not built to fully accessible standards.

Based on the options considered, the option to erect a new build to satisfy the mobility needs may be the most suitable and viable option. However, despite the demonstration that alternatives have been considered, it is not believed that the applicant’s personal circumstances reasonably outweigh the detached location of the dwelling proposed contrary to planning policy.

Specialist Needs Dwelling

The application has been submitted for a specialist needs dwelling as discussed above and if planning permission were to be granted for the development, it would be considered prudent to restrict the property as an affordable dwelling upon the demised of the initial occupation by the applicant.

On the basis of this judgement, the property will need to be limited to 130m² of internal floor area, a plot size of 600m² and the proposal will need to be subject to a section 106 legal agreement which restricts the sale value of the property as well as eligible occupiers. These mechanisms are used to ensure that the property remains affordable in perpetuity.

The proposal appears to satisfy the 130m² limit with the plot being approximately 300m² in area and therefore below the 600m² threshold. In terms of policy, the dimensions of the property and plot are not excessive and therefore appear to satisfy the affordability criteria policy HP10.

In the event the application is approved, a condition removing the normal permitted development rights would be attached to any consent granted in order to control further extensions to the property itself which could impact upon the affordability of the dwelling the future.

Notwithstanding the opportunity for the dwelling to be restricted as an affordable dwelling, the dwelling as proposed would represent an unjustified dwelling in the open countryside contrary to planning policy.

Whilst in this instance the principle of development is not accepted by officers, the application with regards to other material planning matters is considered below.

Visual Impact and Design

In terms of visual impact and design, the application site forms part of a larger field which is bounded by a mixture of trees and bushes on the western boundary and native mix hedgerows on all remaining boundaries.

10 Page 270 The proposal would be an isolated development within the open countryside and therefore would be considered visually intrusive to the surrounding area as it is severed from the settlement boundary of Llanerfyl and any other built form.

The application has been made in outline form with external appearance reserved for later consideration. However, the application indicates that the dwelling would be no greater than 6 metres in height. Llanerfyl is characterised by a mixture of dwellings and types. Any reserved matters submission should consider design which should be sensitive to the site’s surrounding and reflect the local landscape and building styles. The use of local and traditional buildings materials is encouraged. In consideration of the scale of the existing dwellings within the area and near to the site, it is considered that the indicative scale and layout of the dwelling would not be unacceptable.

Whilst the design and scale may be acceptable, the location is too detached from the settlement boundary and on the basis of the above; the principle of a dwelling in this location is considered to have an adverse impact upon the surrounding landscape and visual amenity of the area.

Amenity and privacy of neighbouring properties and the proposed dwelling

The proposed site is situated in a relatively isolated location with the nearest neighbouring property (known as Derwen) is located approximately 230m to the north and given the distance involved, it is considered that the proposal would not unacceptably adversely affect the amenity and privacy of neighbouring properties.

Highway access and parking

The proposal is sited off a private track however the private track is accessed off a single track unclassified (U2895) road. Powys highways object to the proposal on the basis that the highway is sub-standard in terms of visibility and is of a single track nature which offers no passing places to compensate for the extra traffic movements.

In terms of parking and turning spaces, there appears to be sufficient space for 3 vehicles, one for each bedroom, along with turning areas on the south side of the proposal

In light of the Highway Authority’s comments regarding the increase in traffic unacceptably impacting upon the highway safety, it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to highway planning policy, in particular GP4.

Foul sewage disposal and surface water drainage

It is proposed to dispose of the foul sewage in a septic tank and dispose of surface water into a soakaway. The details submitted indicate that the septic tank and soakaway design will satisfy Building Regulations Approved Document H2 which is accepted by Environmental Health. In respect of this, no objections have been raised based on the information submitted and therefore the scheme is considered to accords with UDP Policies DC10 and DC13.

Loss of Agricultural Land

11 Page 271 The application site is currently land used for agriculture and it is anticipated that the land would not fall into grades 1, 2 or sub-grade 3a (as the most versatile and best land) classified by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Agricultural Land Classification. Therefore, given that the land is not known to offer the best quality for agricultural production, the loss of the application site from agricultural production does not require additional justification in accordance with UDP Policy ENV1 and TAN 6.

Impact upon Ecology

Powys Ecology has identified that there are records of dormice approximately 450m from the site and as it is noted that a small section of hedgerow will be removed in order to allow access to the site. A scheme of reasonable avoidance measures should be followed and further hedgerow planting is suggested around the boundary of the site. It is cosnidered that this will offset the removed section of hedgerow which will enhance the local habitat.

It is further noted that there are two small water courses both east and west of the site and in order to protect the watercourses against any construction pollution, a pollution prevention plan will be required.

Powys Ecology does not object to the proposal subject to a number of conditions relating to the above which could be secured and therefore will satisfy the objectives of policy ENV3.

Rights of Way

According to our records, the access route follows the route of footpath 28 and countryside services do not object on the proviso that at no time shall this public right of way be obstructed by the development.

Land Drainage

As already highlighted in this appraisal, there are two minor watercourses both to the east and west of the proposed site and the land drainage officer has assessed the site in terms of land drainage and surface water run off. The officer originally raised concerns of flooding and requested a Flood Consequence Assessment however this request was withdrawn following receipt of additional information. Subject to conditions requesting details of surface water drainage, the scheme is considered to comply with policy DC13.

Recommendation

Having considered the merits of the proposal, it is recognised that the principle of the outline application for a specialist need dwelling could be supported in an appropriate location subject to robust justification but this has not been provided within the current submission.

The dwelling proposed is in a location that it is detached from the settlement boundary and any other built form which in turn impacts upon the local amenity and landscape unacceptably, and as such, is contrary to planning policy. Furthermore, there are alternative locations that may satisfy the specialist requirements of the applicant that do not appear to have been sufficiently explored.

12 Page 272 Whilst it is appreciated and acknowledged the sensitive nature of the application with regards to the applicant specialist requirements, the need, in this instance, does not outweigh the significant harm of the isolated property upon the local amenity, landscape and the highway safety. It is for these reasons that the application is recommended for refusal.

Refusal Reasons:

1. No sufficient special need has been shown to warrant the granting of permission for the proposed development which would constitute an undesirable and isolated form of development outside a recognised settlement area which would be contrary to Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) policies HP6, HP8 and ENV2 as well as Technical Advice Note 6 (2011) and Planning Policy Wales (2014)

2. The U2895 county highway is considered to be sub-standard in terms of visibility at its junction with the county class III highway and is of a single track nature which offers no passing places to compensate for the extra traffic movements associated with this development. The proposal is therefore considered to be detrimental to highway safety and contrary to Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010) policy GP4, Technical Advice Note 18 (2007) and Planning Policy Wales (2014).

______Case Officer: Nicholas Morgan- Planning Officer Tel: 01938 551051 E-mail:[email protected]

13 Page 273 Page 274 PTLRW110 - 20158

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2015/0899 Grid Ref: 287132.8 298358.2

Community Llanbrynmair Valid Date: Officer: Council: 24/09/2015 Dunya Fourie

Applicant: Mr Aled Jarman Ty Isaf, Bont Dolgadfan, Llanbrynmair, Powys, SY19 7BQ

Location: Land at Ty Isaf, Bont Dolgadfan, Llanbrynmair, Powys, SY19 7BQ

Proposal: Installation of a wind turbine (blade tip height 41.3 m and hub height 29.5 m) at grid ref: 287138 / 298383 and all associated works

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

Site Location and Description The site is located approximately 2.3km south of Bont Dolgadfan and approximately 1.5km north west of Pennant. There is no direct road access to the site, however the site can be accessed via existing farm tracks off the B4518. The surrounding area comprises upland moor and agricultural land, overlooking riverine valleys.

Apart from the applicant’s own property, the nearest unassisted dwelling is Cawg, approximately 500m to the east. Bron-derwgoed approximately 870m north of the site, this property is also a Grade II listed building. The barn at the rear of Minfordd Cottages is also Grade II listed and is approximately 1.1km north east of the site. The closest scheduled ancient monument (Moelfre round barrow) is approximately 2.3km west of the site. The closest SSSI (Mwyngloddfa Ceulan) is approximately 1.9km south west of the site

This application seeks full planning consent to erect a single wind turbine, the dimensions of the turbine comprise a blade tip height of 41.3m, a hub height of 29.5m and is predicted to produce 100kw of energy. The proposal also includes a small enclosure measuring approximately 6m2 with a building to house a transformer, associated switch gear and electrical protection equipment. The proposal also includes a temporary crane pad (400m2). A proposal for a new access track has previously been submitted which confirmed that prior approval is not required. This track will be utilised to access the turbine site.

Consultee Response Carno Community Council Letter of 21 October 2015

No objection with comments

Environmental Health E maiil of 15 October 2015

Having read the application and visited the site I have no objection to this application subject to conditions.

Page 275 Page 1

The application demonstrates that noise levels at the 3 closest dwellings is below the simplified methodology level within ETSu-R-97 and therefore subject to the report representing an accurate identification of the closest dwellings there should not be cause for objection on grounds of noise.

The applicant has not undertaken a cumulative noise impact assessment and subject to their not being any consented turbines within a 1km radius of the site then I would recommend that the noise condition within the developers guide be attached to any consent granted.

Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust E mail of 12 October 2015

We note the contents of the supporting archaeological appraisal report by the Trysor consultants. This report highlights a number of direct impacts to boundary banks on the hillside immediately adjacent to the turbine. The boundary banks are possibly part of a post medieval field enclosure system in this upland area although their precise date is unknown. In section 11 of the archaeological report it is recommended that the banks are examined in further detail as a condition of consent and we would agree with this advice.

Consequently I have included a condition below which will allow the investigative trenching suggested in 11.1.2, 11.2.1, and 11.2.2 of the report to be taken forward by an archaeological contractor engaged by the developer.

The condition would be:

No development shall take place within the application area until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The archaeological programme of work will be undertaken and completed in accordance with the relevant Standards and Guidance laid down by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. A copy of the resulting report should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and the Development Control Archaeologist, Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust (41 Broad Street, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 7RR Email: [email protected] Tel: 01938 553670). After approval by the Local Planning Authority, a copy of the report and resulting archive should also be sent to the Historic Environment Record Officer, Clwyd- Powys Archaeological Trust for inclusion in the regional Historic Environment Record.

Built Heritage No response reveived.

CADW Letter of 28 October 2015

Cadw’s role in the planning process is to provide the local planning authority with an assessment concerned with the likely impact that the proposal will have on scheduled

Page 276 Page 2

monuments or registered historic parks and gardens. It is a matter for the local planning authority to then weigh Cadw’s assessment against all the other material considerations in determining whether to approve planning permission, including issues concerned with listed buildings and conservation areas.

The proposed development is located within the vicinity of the scheduled monument known as Moelfre Round Barrow (MG311). Having carefully considered the information provided with the planning application, Cadw considers that the proposed development will only have a limited impact on the aforementioned designated historic asset. Cadw therefore has no comments to make on the proposed development.

Natural Resource Wales Letter of 26 October 2015

Natural Resources Wales brings together the work of the Countryside Council for Wales, Environment Agency Wales and Forestry Commission Wales, as well as some functions of Welsh Government. Our purpose is to ensure that the natural resources of Wales are sustainably maintained, used and enhanced, now and in the future.

Natural Resources Wales does not object to the proposal. In our opinion, as explained below, the proposal is not likely to adversely affect any of the interests listed.

Landscape The proposed turbine 41.3m high to rotor tip is at sufficient distance from the Snowdonia National Park (12km) and the Clywedog Valley landscape of Special Historic Interest (3.6km) that we consider it is unlikely to introduce significant visual effects upon these landscapes singularly, or in combination with other consented and operational wind development in the area. NRW therefore do not object to the proposal.

European Protected Species – Bats The applicant has submitted a Bat Survey Report to inform the public decision making process. Reference: Vaughan, D (2015). Bat Survey Report: Ty Isaf Farm, Llanbrynmair SY19 7BQ. Biodiversity Solutions. Unpublished. Natural Resources Wales agree with the report’s conclusions in section 8.

Nesting Birds The applicant has submitted an ecological appraisal to inform the public decision making process. Reference: Langdon, S. (2015). Phase 1 Ecology Report: Ty Isaf Farm, Llanbrynmair SY19 7BQ. Biodiversity Solutions. Unpublished.

Natural Resources Wales agrees with the conclusion and recommendations in section 5 of the report.

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006) Please note that we have not considered possible effects on all species and habitats listed in section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, or on the Local Biodiversity Action Plan or other local natural heritage interests. To comply with your authority's duty under section 40 of the NERC Act, to have regard to conserving biodiversity, your decision should take account of possible adverse effects on such

Page 277 Page 3

interests. We recommend that you seek further advice from your authority's internal ecological adviser and/or nature conservation organisations such as the local Wildlife Trust, RSPB, etc. The Wales Biodiversity Partnership's web site has guidance for assessing proposals that have implications for section 42 habitats and species (www.biodiversitywales.org.uk).

To conclude, Natural Resources Wales does not object to the proposal. In our opinion, as explained below, the proposal is not likely to adversely affect any of the interests listed.

Powys County Council Ecologist E mail of 14 October 2015

Page 278 Page 4

Page 279 Page 5

Highway Authority E mail of 16 October 2015

The HA has no objection in principle to the development, however the private access serving the proposal off the B4518 has very limited visibility to the south and will need to be improved accordingly. In addition, the highway network serving the site which have structures placed upon them will need to be verified before any AIL (Crane movements) take place.

It is my understanding that the land to the south of the private access to be used to service the site is within the applicants control and as such I have conditioned accordingly. Please confirm that this is acceptable to you.

Page 280 Page 6

Please apply the following conditions:-

“Prior to any works commencing on site a transportation route for the delivery of the wind turbine components and vehicle cranes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.”

HC4 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the access shall be constructed so that there is clear visibility from a point 1.05 metres above ground level at the centre of the access and 2.4 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, to points 0.26 metres above ground level at the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 25 metres distant in a southerly direction measured from the centre of the access along the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 10 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 10 metres in a southerly direction. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the areas of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction for as long as the development hereby permitted remains in existence.

Transport Wales Letter of 28 October 2015

I refer to your consultation of 7 October 2015 regarding the above application and advise that the Welsh Government as highway authority for the A470 trunk road does not issue a direction in respect of this application.

Wales and West Utilites Letter of 8 October 2015

According to our mains records Wales & West Utilities has no apparatus in the area of your enquiry. However Gas pipes owned by other GT's and also privately owned may be present in this area. Information with regard to such pipes should be obtained from the owners.

Safe digging practices, in accordance with HS(G)47, must be used to verify and establish the actual position of mains, pipes, services and other apparatus on site before any mechanical plant is used. It is your responsibility to ensure that this information is provided to all persons (either direct labour or contractors) working for you on or near gas apparatus.

Please note that the plans are only valid for 28 days from the date of issue and updated plans must be requested before any work commences on site if this period has expired.

Public Response A site notice was erected adjacent to Ty Isaf farm and the site access point off the B road, no decision was made regarding the application for a continuous period of 21 days from the date of the application.

One third party representation has been received in objection to the proposed development. The grounds for objection are based on the visual impact of the turbine on the surrounding area.

Page 281 Page 7

Planning History AGRI/2014/0099: Agriculatural track. No proir approval required.

Principal Planning Policies National Planning Policy Planning Policy Wales (PPW, 7th Edition July 2014) Technical Advice Note 8: Renewable Energy (2005) Technical Advice Note 5: Nature Conservation and Planning (2009)

Local Planning Policy-Unitary Development Plan for Powys (UDP, March 2010) UDP SP1: Social, Community and Cultural Sustainability UDP SP3: Natural, Historic and Built Heritage UDP SP6: Development and Transport UDP SP8: Tourism Developments UDP GP1: Development Control UDP GP4: Highway and Parking Requirements UDP ENV1: Agricultural Land UDP ENV2: Safeguarding the Landscape UDP ENV3: Safeguarding Biodiversity and Natural Habitats UDP ENV7: Protected Species UDP ENV 14: Listed Buildings UDP ENV17: Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites UDP EC9: Agricultural Development UDP T2: Traffic Management UDP TR2: Tourist Attractions and Development Areas UDP RL6: Rights of Way and Access to the Countryside UDP E3: Windpower UDP DC9: Protection of Water Resources UDP DC12: Overhead Lines and Pipelines UDP DC13: Surface Water Drainage

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal Members are advised to consider this application in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise

Principle of Development Guidance contained within TAN 8 and UDP policy E3 is broadly supportive of onshore wind turbine development as a means to produce energy and combat climate change, but only where there would be no significant adverse effect on, amongst other things, the landscape, biodiversity, amenity, historic features or highway network.

TAN 8 recognises the role of the local planning authority in balancing renewable energy development and protection of the local environment and its occupants. The policy states “The Planning system has an important role to play in achieving the Assembly Government’s commitment to enabling the deployment of all forms of renewable energy

Page 282 Page 8

technologies in Wales”. The policy continues, stating “Outside of the onshore windfarm strategic Search Areas, a balance needs to be struck between the desirability of renewable energy and landscape protection. Whilst that balance should not result in severe restriction on the development of wind power capacity, there is a case for avoiding a situation where wind turbines are spread across the whole of a county”.

UDP policy E3 states within the reasoned justification “It is clearly recognised that international, European and national (UK and Welsh) policies and imperatives dictate that there is an obligation to promote renewable energy developments where they are environmentally acceptable”. The justification goes on to state “A careful balance needs to be struck between the pressing need to combat climate change and the need to protect a valued and attractive landscape”.

Paragraph 1.3 of the Design and Access statement confirms this project is part of farm diversification of Ty Isaf. Ty Isaf is a traditional family run Welsh hill farm and the Jarman family have farmed it since 1825. Ty Isaf farms organically and have embraced the Glastir Entry and Advanced Environmental schemes. The farm already benefits from a 15kw hydro electric scheme which they state produces power 75% of the year. The have also installed a biomass boiler and wood drying kiln on the farm in order to replace a domestic oil as a domestic fuel source. They state the addition of a wind turbine would ensure the viability of their business.

In accordance with current renewable energy planning policy, the proposed turbine is acceptable in principle, subject to meeting all the detailed considerations. These considerations shall now be discussed separately.

Landscape Impact

Criterion 1 of UDP policy E3 states “they do not unacceptably adversely affect the environmental and landscape quality of Powys, either on an individual basis or in combination with other proposed or existing similar developments. Where the cumulative impact of proposals in combination with other approved or existing windfarms would be significantly detrimental to overall environmental quality they will be refused”.

Moreover, in outlining the assessment of effects as required by the European Union Directive, the published Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment states in paragraph 1.17 that the “emphasis is on the identification of likely significant environmental effects”.

This policy context indicates that proposals for wind turbines will only be permitted where they do not unacceptably adversely affect the environmental and landscape quality of Powys.

The site does not lie within any national or local landscape designations. Landmap gives the site a landscape and cultural value of high and a geological value of outstanding.

Zones of theoretical visibility (ZTV) maps, photomontages, wireframes and a Landscape and Visual Impact Report comprise the assessment of the landscape and visual impact of the proposed turbine, individually and cumulatively with other operational turbine development in the surrounding area.

Page 283 Page 9

The radius of 5km is considered acceptable for a single turbine development in this location, the ZTV is mapped using blade tip height visibility, the dynamic nature of turbine blades, especially when breaking a skyline have the potential to have an impact on visual and landscape amenity and as such it is welcomed this potential visibility is reflected by the blade tip height ZTV.

The individual ZTV shows the turbine blade tip would be visible within short and medium range views, including views from the nearest listed building. The siting of the turbine to benefit from topographical screening is demonstrated by the ZTV, incoming views of the turbine are limited to the valley to the east of the site and do not extend to Bont Dolgadfan, which is the nearest settlement.

At approximately 41.3m to blade tip height and with a rotor radius of 25m, the turbine would be viewed as a vertical, moving and man-made element within the landscape. Views of the site from certain aspects include the backdrop of the operational turbines at Carno windfarm which is approximately 3km from the site, the turbine within these views would appear an additional but not a new feature. The turbine is sited below the skyline and as such has a landscape backdrop within most views into the site.

NRW do not object, they note the turbine is sufficiently separated from Snowdonia National Park (12km) and Clywedog Valley landscape of Special Historic Interest (3.6km) and as such they consider the turbine is unlikely to introduce significant visual effects upon these landscapes singularly or in combination with other wind turbine development in the area.

Based on the information submitted, the siting of the turbine is not considered to be within a sensitive landscape nor near to sensitive landscape features. The height of the turbine would be higher than other man made features in the surrounding area, however the turbine is set against a landscape backdrop. The turbine would therefore not appear unduly dominant or harmful to the landscape’s character. It is therefore concluded the turbine would have an acceptable impact on the landscape quality of the area, in accordance with policies GP1, ENV2 and E3 of the UDP.

Visual Impact

Landmap gives the site a visual and sensory value of moderate. A total of 5 individual turbine photomontages have been submitted, the viewpoints include views from surrounding sensitive visual receptors, including minor road (B4518), Glyndwr’s Way and nearby Public Rights of Way. Based on the photomontages provided, from all but one of the viewpoints the blade radius and part of the mast would be visible from all the viewpoints selected.

The ZTV show the turbine would not be visible over a wide area, the surrounding topography and landscape features reduce the visibility of the turbine by screening it from incoming views, particularly from the west, north and south.

The ZTV shows the turbine would not be visible from Bont Dolgadfan and as such no concern is raised regarding the visual impact of the turbine on residents of this settlement. The turbine wold be visible from the B4518, the vegetation along the road and the changing topography would mean views of the turbine by receptors using the road would be

Page 284 Page 10

intermittent. As shown in the photomontage, where the turbine would be visible, it would be viewed with a landscape backdrop. The Landscape and Visual Report confirms the turbine would be finished in an off white colour, a condition of any consent would require the colour of the turbine to be agreed. The reason for this is that a darker coloured turbine such as ‘RAL700-squirrel grey, would integrate better into the landscape.

Glyndwr’s Way is approximately 5km south of the site, the very tips of the turbine blades are shown to be visible from Glyndwr’s Way. Based on the photomontage provided and the separation distance between the turbine and Glyndwr’s Way, it can be concluded the turbine would not appear visually overbearing on user receptors of this national trail. Indeed, the photomontage shows the Carno Windfarm would appear more visible in the distance than the proposed turbine.

Residential receptors

All residential receptors are considered to be sensitive receptors, the ZTV shows the turbine would be visible from Cawg and Bron-derwgoed and as such wireframe images have been provided from these properties.

Cawg is approximately 500m from the turbine site and set at a lower ground elevation, the front elevation of the dwelling is orientated away from the turbine site. Wireframe (figure A) shows the turbine tower and blade diameter would be visible on the ridge to the west of the dwelling. While the turbine is visible from the dwelling due to the separation distances, orientation of the dwelling and the screening provided by the surrounding outbuildings, it is not considered the turbine would have a detrimental visual impact on the occupiers of Cawg and as such is considered in accordance with policy GP1 and E3.

Bron-derwgoed is the closest listed building, wireframe (figure B) shows the visibility of the turbine when viewed from this listed building, as shown on the view point there is a small area where the tip of the turbine blade would be visible along the brow of the hill. Based on this viewpoint turbine a small part of the turbine would be visible at a distance from the listed building and as such it is concluded the turbine would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the listed building or its setting, in accordance with policy ENV14.

Impact on receptors of the public right of way network

The views of the turbine from Glyndwr’s Way as it travels west to east would be intermittent long range views, where topography would screen the turbine from receptors and when visible the turbine would appear small given the separation distance of over 5km.

The nearest footpath is approximately 500m south of the site at a considerably lower elevation. The turbine blade radius is shown to be visible, however the view of the turbine is long range and with a more appropriate colour, would further integrate into the landscape backdrop. The proposed turbine would not appear overly visual or dominant on users of this public right of way.

Photomontages have been provided from the public right of way east of Pennant and from the footpath to the north west of the site which traverses the hill summit. The turbine blade radius and part of the tower would be visible from this route, however the turbine would be viewed in the context of the existing Carno wind farm turbines and as would not appear a

Page 285 Page 11

new man made feature within the landscape. The views of the turbine would be intermittent and short lived as the route of the path transverses behind other topographical features.

Cumulative impact The Carno windfarm is relevant to the cumulative effect of the proposed turbine, however due to the separation distance between the site and the proposed turbine it is accepted that there would be no significant cumulative effect.

Conclusion There is no dispute that the turbine would be visible within the landscape but the issue to be determined is whether the development would be likely to have an unacceptable adverse effect on visual amenity. It is concluded the turbine would not be highly visible within short, mid or long range views in aspects surrounding the site and would not appear dominant locally in the context of the wider landscape.

In conclusion, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on rural views enjoyed by local residents and visitors to the area. As such it would not harm visual amenity and complies with polices ENV2 and E2 of the UDP.

Historic Impact

Policies ENV14 and EN17 seek to protect the character and setting of listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and archaeological sites. A Historic Environment Appraisal is submitted with the application. The surrounding area, within 1km, accommodates a small number of features designated for their historic value and Landmap gives the area a historic value of moderate.

Moelfre Round Barrow (MG311) is separated from the proposed development by over 2km and the feature is set at a higher elevation than the turbine. CADW recognise the presence of the Moelfre Round Barrow (MG311), however conclude the proposed development will only have a limited impact on this designated historic asset and therefore do not wish to make a comment. Based on the above referenced factors, Development Management concur with the conclusions made by CADW and confirm the proposed turbine would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the nearest scheduled ancient monument.

CPAT raise no objection to the proposal, however they do recognise the presence of medieval field boundaries close to the site and as such recommend a condition of any forthcoming consent requires a program of archaeological works is agreed prior to development commencing.

There are two listed buildings in proximity to the turbine, the submitted wireframe image shows the turbine blade tip would be visible from the nearest listed building; Bron- dwergoed, however this small scale of visibility would not dominate the visual context of the building or its setting. In additional there is existing vegetative screening around this building which would further reduce the visibility of the turbine blade tip from the building. It is concluded, due to the small scale visibility, separation distance and the intervening topography, the development would not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the character or setting of the listed building.

Page 286 Page 12

Neighbour amenity impact Wind turbines have the potential to create noise from the mechanics of the turbine itself and the movement of the rotor blades through the air.

The nearest non-associated residential property is Cawg within 500m of the turbine. This distance is in excess of the separation distance generally used as a guide to avoid unacceptable noise impacts, in addition the dwelling is sited at a substantially lower elevation.

Paragraphs 2.14 to 2.16 of Annex C of TAN 8 offer guidance on the assessment of the actual effects of noise on residential amenity and recognise the recommendations made by ETSU-R-97 as relevant guidance on good practice. The submitted noise assessment states that noise at all sensitive receptor properties would be below the limits set out in ETSU-R-97 and conditions can be used to ensure that recommendations on noise levels would not be exceeded in practice. It is on this basis it is considered that the living conditions of occupiers of the nearest uninvolved properties would not be unacceptably affected by noise. This is supported by the Environmental Health department who raise no objection on noise amenity grounds.

With regard to shadow flicker it is generally accepted that significant shadow effects will not occur beyond a distance of 10 times rotor diameter. The blade diameter is 45, as such shadow flicker effect will not occur beyond 240m, the nearest non-associated dwelling is over 500m from the turbine. Given these separation distances, I am satisfied that local residents would not be affected by shadow flicker.

Impact on ecology and biodiversity

Turbine development has the potential to impact on ecology, impacts include habitat changes at the site and collision of bats and birds with the dynamic turbine blades. Policy ENV3 seeks to protect biodiversity and natural habitats from adverse forms of development. Policy ENV7 reinforces the protection afforded to European protected species.

The application is supported by an ecological appraisal carried out by Biodiversity Solutions. The findings of the Assessment concluded the development would not have a detrimental impact on protected species. The appraisal does recognise the surrounding habitat offers good feeding habitat for local bats in good weather conditions, however the absence of significant areas of good roosting and feeding habitat for noctule bats in the local area is reflected in the very low activity levels for this species.

NRW and Council Ecologist note the findings of the Assessment and conclude the turbine would not have a detrimental impact on the favourable conservation status of any bat population present and as such are satisfied no further survey work is required.

Should Members be minded to grant consent, a condition requiring the recommendations included within the Ecological Assessment form part of any forthcoming consent, in the interests of protected species and biodiversity.

Impact on the Highway Network

Page 287 Page 13

Access to the site would be via the consent farm tract off the B4518. It is proposed to access the track via the existing field entrance, the highway authority consider this access point would need to be improved in order to facilitate the access of the larger turbine components, and not at the detriment of highway safety.

The land surrounding the access point is within the applicant’s control and as such Development Management recommend a condition of any forthcoming consent requires details of the improved access to be submitted to the Local Authority and carried out prior to commencing construction of the turbine.

The turbine components to be transported would not require transportation of abnormal indivisible loads. The highway authority are satisfied, subject to the above recommended condition, the turbine could be transported to site without undue disruption to the highway network or harm to highway safety, in accordance with Policy GP4 and E3 of the UDP .

Impact on the Public Rights of Way Network Policy RL6 concerns rights of way within Powys and access to the countryside, this policy seeks to safeguard the existing public rights of way network. The area surrounding the turbine is host to a public right of way network including footpaths and Glyndwr’s Way.

The site is approximately 630m from the nearest footpath, the turbine siting complies is sited a sufficient distance from the footpath and would not restrict its use through obstruction.

The development complies with the policy RL6 and as such is considered acceptable.

Impact on Social Economics The proposed turbine is located in proximity to recreational assets including public rights of way and Glyndwrs Way.

Policy TR2 of the Unitary Development Plan states that development of any kind which would have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the environmental setting of established tourist attractions will be opposed.

Having researched the subject of socio-economic impact, it is considered that there is limited information available. Notwithstanding this, there are two relatively recent Inspector’s Reports that may help Members address this issue which are detailed below. Members however need to ensure that they determine this application on its own merits.

Fullabrook Down Wind Farm (2007): Inspector’s Report (page 48):

“The question of impacts on tourism is extremely nebulous and vulnerable to assessment by assumption rather than by evidence; it is an area where it is easy to hold opinions but harder to back them up with firm data. There is also the fact that in 15 or so years of wind farm development no evidence has ever emerged from developed sites that tourism has suffered as a result”.

Middlemoor Wind Farm: Inspector’s Report (2008): (page 89):

Page 288 Page 14

“There appears to be no evidence from other parts of the country or abroad to suggest that the presence of wind farms in open countryside has harmed the tourism industry. Both Cumbria and Cornwall have experienced a rise in tourist numbers since the first wind farms were installed. According to the presentation prepared by the British Wind Energy Association to the All-party Parliamentary Group on Tourism, 24 May 2006, surveys and reports investigating wind energy and tourism demonstrate that the effect on tourism is negligible at worst, with many respondents taking a positive view of wind farms.

The presentation argues that the judgement of acceptability based on landscape protection will provide ample protection from tourism since, in general, landscape is more vulnerable to wind farm development than is tourism. Therefore, if there is deemed to be no damage to landscape at the planning stage, there is unlikely to be damage to tourism”

Research has been carried out in the United Kingdom to establish whether wind farms are seen as having a negative impact on tourism. A study carried out by the University of Edinburgh as a submission to the Renewables Inquiry of the Scottish Government entitled “Tourism impact on wind farms”1 provided the following conclusion:

“In conclusion, the findings from both primary and secondary research relating to the actual and potential tourism impact of wind farms indicate that there will be neither an overall decline in the number of tourists visiting an area nor any overall financial loss in tourism- related earnings as a result of a wind farm development.”

The research is not considered to be a categorical statement on the impact of wind turbines, but it did take into account a range of research studies. There is likely to be other research available, but as a Local Planning Authority we are not aware of robust evidence of a detrimental impact. To paraphrase the Inspector’s decision notice above the whole issue of detrimental tourism impacts is a nebulous issue vulnerable to assessment by assumption rather than by evidence. The objections are based on what appear to be genuinely held opinions, but they do not appear to be supported by any firm data that the proposed development will result in significant harm. There is little general evidence to support the assertion that the development of wind turbines will have a detrimental economic impact on tourism.

Whilst considering the generality, it is important to take into account the impact of this proposal specifically on the surrounding area which has a scenic value and the public rights of way within immediate proximity of the application site, both of which are likely to be appreciated by tourists. Notwithstanding the above, it remains that the perceived harm is an assumption and not supported by robust evidence which clearly demonstrates harm to tourism. Based upon site visits, it is not considered that there are specific reasons why a different conclusion would be reached in this case.

It is therefore considered based on previous research findings and the situation of this application that the proposal will not have a significant impact on tourist attractions and as such, a recommendation for refusal on the grounds of an adverse impact on tourism is considered unjustified. In light of the above, Development Management is satisfied that the proposed development in accordance with UDP policy TR2.

Recommendation

Page 289 Page 15

The proposed development is in accordance with the national and local planning policies listed in this report and as such, the recommendation to Members is one of conditional consent.

Conditions 1. The development to which this permission relates shall be begun no later than the expiration of five years from the date of this permission. 2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans stamped as approved 3. The proposed turbine once implemented shall be removed from the application site and the land restored to grassland should the turbine cease operation (i.e. generating electricity) for a continuous time period in excess of six months. The outline removal shall take place within six months from the six month period referred to in the first part of this condition. 4. At the end of the 25 year period, the turbine shall be decommissioned and all related above ground structures shall be removed from the site. Twelve months before the decommissioning of the turbine, a scheme for the restoration of the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall make provision for the removal of the wind turbine and the associated ancillary equipment. The scheme shall include details of the management and timing for the works to be completed. All decommissioning and restoration works shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with the approved scheme'. 5. The wind turbine noise level measured shall be in accordance with the guidance contained within the Department of Trade and Industry Report 'The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms' (ETSU-R-97) and, as such, shall not exceed an absolute noise level of 35 dB expressed as L A90 10min at any existing dwelling, up to on-site wind speeds of 10m/s measured at a height of 10m 6. The level of noise emitted by the wind turbine shall be demonstrated at the request of the Local Planning Authority. Should the wind turbine(s) be identified as operating at an absolute noise level that exceeds 35 dB expressed as L A90 10min at any existing dwelling, up to on-site wind speeds of 10m/s measured at a height of 10m, the turbine(s) shall be taken out of use until such time as maintenance or repair is undertaken sufficient to reduce the absolute noise level of the operating turbine(s) to within the parameters specified in condition 6. 7. Notwithstanding the information submitted with the application, the colour of the external finish of the turbine shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 8. Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the access shall be constructed so that there is clear visibility from a point 1.05 metres above ground level at the centre of the access and 2.4 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, to points 0.26 metres above ground level at the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 25 metres distant in a southerly direction measured from the centre of the access along the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 10 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 10 metres in a southerly direction. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the areas of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction for as long as the development hereby permitted remains in existence. 9. Development shall be carried out in accordance with sections 5.0.4 and 5.0.6 of the Ecological Report by Biodiversity Solutions dated 1st July 2015 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA

Page 290 Page 16

Reasons 1. Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. To ensure adherence to the plans stamped as approved in the interests of clarity and a satisfactory development. 3. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, in accordance with policies SP12, GP1, E3 and E4 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010), Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for renewable Energy (2005) and Planning Policy Wales (2014). 4. In order to manage the visual and landscape impact in accordance with policies SP12, GP1, ENV2, E3, E4 of the Powys UDP (March 2010) Technical Advice Note 8 (2005) and Planning Policy Wales 2014. 5. In order to maintain and protect the amenity of nearby residents by the reduction of ambient noise levels to an acceptable level in accordance with the requirements of Section 13.13 (Reducing Noise and Light Pollution) of Planning Policy Wales (2014) Technical Advice Note 11 - Noise (1997) and policies SP12, GP1 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010). 6. In order to maintain and protect the amenity of nearby residents by the reduction of ambient noise levels to an acceptable level in accordance with the requirements of Section 13.13 (Reducing Noise and Light Pollution) of Planning Policy Wales (2014) Technical Advice Note 11 - Noise (1997) and policies SP12, GP1 and E3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010). 7. In the interests of visual amenity and to accord with Powys Unitary Development Plan policies GP1 and ENV2 8. In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Powys Unitary Development Plan policies GP1 and GP4 9. In the interests of ecology and to accord with Powys Unitary Development Plan policies ENV3 and ENV7

Notes

______Case Officer: Dunya Fourie- Planning Officer Tel: 01597 82 7230 E-mail:[email protected]

Page 291 Page 17 Page 292 PTLRW110 - 20159

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2015/0931 Grid Ref: 309470.04 298585.38

Community Tregynon C Valid Date: Officer: Council: 21/09/2015 Dunya Fourie

Applicant: Mrs Carol Jerman, Executors Of G & J Corfield Oakley Park c/o Coedmawr Llanidloes Powys SY18 6LS

Location: Land adj. Pen Y Maes Tregynon Newtown Powys SY16 3EH

Proposal: Erection of 2 dwellings, formation of vehicular access and associated works (outline)

Application Application for Outline Planning Permission Type:

The reason for Committee determination This application was called before Planning Committee at the request of the Local Member for Tregynon. The reason given for calling this application in was “in the interest of residents area of parking in close proximity and other highway issues”.

Site Location and Description The site comprises a parcel of greenfield land within Tregynon, the site sits adjacent to the existing detached residential development which bounds the south side of the highway and opposite semi detached properties which bound the road to the north. Access to the site is proposed off the C classified road via the private road serving the adjacent 3 detached properties. The site is one of four sites allocated for housing development within the Development Plan (M194 HA1).

This application seeks outline planning consent for the erection of two detached dwellings, the application also seeks consent for parking and access arrangements, with all other matters reserved for later consideration.

The submitted plans detail the proposed access and parking arrangements off the private road, the application includes an indicative layout and the agent has confirmed the maximum footprint of the dwellings shall be 160m2 with a maximum ridge height of 6m.

Consultee Response Local Member E mail of 16 October 2015 I would like the committee to consider this application.

Reason In the interest of residents area of parking in close proximity and other highway issues.

Tregynon Community Council E mail of 9 October 2015

Page 293 Following a meeting of Tregynon Community Council, I write with the following comments of the councillors regarding the application for land adjacent to Pen y Maes.

1. The proposed properties must be single storey. 2. They must be in keeping with the other dwellings on the same side of the road. 3. The development must not interfere with Llys Cynon parking. 4. A footway/pavement should be provided. This is an opportunity to make pedestrian access safer.

Highway Authority E mail of 3 November 2015

It should be noted that we only allow 5 properties off a private drive before the need of an adoptable road, therefore the road needs to be designed that no further development can take place. As it is there is potential for further development which will result in Advance Payment Code Notices being served on the plots requiring the deposit of road charges before the plots can be built. The applicants need to be aware of this fact as the layout will need amending if they chose to go down the adoptable route.

It is noted that the site does not have any footpaths that link back into the village and therefore it is not considered to be sustainable. However, it is noted that this land is within the current UDP allocation.

If planning committee are mindful to approve the application the following conditions should be attached to any decision notice:-

HC4 Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the access shall be constructed so that there is clear visibility from a point 1.05 metres above ground level at the centre of the access and 2.4 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, to points 0.26 metres above ground level at the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 43 metres distant in a westerly direction measured from the centre of the access along the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 5.5 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 6.0 metres in a westerly direction. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the area(s) of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction for as long as the development hereby permitted remains in existence.

HC9 Prior to the occupation of the dwelling, provision shall be made within the curtilage of the site for the parking of not less than 1 car per bedroom excluding any garage space provided. The parking areas shall be retained for their designated use in perpetuity.

HC30 Upon formation of the visibility splays as detailed in HC4 above the centreline of any new or relocated hedge should be positioned not less than 1.0 metre to the rear of the visibility splay and retained in this position as long as the development remains in existence.

Wales and West Utilities Letter of 7 October 2015 According to our mains records Wales & West Utilities has no apparatus in the area of your enquiry. However Gas pipes owned by other GT's and also privately owned may be present in this area. Information with regard to such pipes should be obtained from the owners.

Page 294

Safe digging practices, in accordance with HS(G)47, must be used to verify and establish the actual position of mains, pipes, services and other apparatus on site before any mechanical plant is used. It is your responsibility to ensure that this information is provided to all persons (either direct labour or contractors) working for you on or near gas apparatus.

Please note that the plans are only valid for 28 days from the date of issue and updated plans must be requested before any work commences on site if this period has expired.

Countryside Services No response received

CADW Letter of 14 October 2015 Cadw’s role as a consultee in the planning process is to provide the local planning authority with an assessment concerned with the likely impact that the proposal will have on scheduled monuments or registered historic parks and gardens. It is a matter for the local planning authority to then weigh Cadw’s assessment against all the other material considerations in determining whether to approve planning permission, including issues concerned with listed buildings and conservation areas.

Having carefully considered the information provided with the planning application, there are no scheduled monuments or registered historic parks and gardens affected by the proposed development. Cadw therefore has no comments to make on the proposed development.

Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust E mail of 12 October 2015

I write to confirm that there are no archaeological implications for the proposed development at this location.

Information retained within the Historic Environment Record indicates that the proposed new housing will lie within the easternmost extent of the essential setting for the Gregynog registered park and garden (PO 33). The development would be seen from the Gregynog grounds as part of the distant general massing of the settlement at Tregynon and the development plot would fill a natural westward frontage extension of the existing settlement boundary. Overall the significance of impact for the essential setting would be very low with views masked by intervening tree foliage and topography over the 1.5km between the development and Gregynog Hall.

Land Drainage Graham Astley No comment recieved

Public Response A site notice was erected adjacent to the site boundary, no decision was made for a continuous period of 21 days from the date of the site notice.

One third party response was received . Impact on flooding through increased surface water drainage . Impact on the private access road through intensified use

Page 295 Planning History P/2014/0505 -Outline application: Erection of 2 no. dwellings, formation of vehicular access and associated works - Withdrawn

Principal Planning Policies National Planning Policy Planning Policy Wales (7th Edition, July 2014) Technical Advice Note 12-Design (2014)

Local Planning Policy-Unitary Development Plan for Powys (March 2010) UDP SP2-Strategic Settlement Hierarchy UDP SP5-Housing Development UDP GP1-Development Control UDP GP3-Design and Energy Conservation UDP GP4-Highway and Parking Requirements UDP ENV1-Agricultural Land UDP ENV2-Safeguarding the Landscape UDP ENV3-Safeguarding Biodiversity and Natural Habitats UDP ENV14-Listed Buildings UDP ENV 17-Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites UDP ENV18-Development Proposals Affecting Archaeological Sites UDP ENV 16-landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest UDP HP4-Settlement Development Boundaries and Capacities UDP HP5-Residential Development UDP RL6 - Rights of Way and Access to the Countryside UDP DC10-Mains Sewerage Provision UDP DC1 - Access by Disabled Persons

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal Members are advised to consider this application in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Principle of construction of two new dwellings on the proposed site Policy HP4 concerns settlement development boundaries and capacities, the policy criteria supports residential development within development boundaries and where the scale and density of the development would not lead to overall capacity of the settlement being significantly exceeded.

The site is within an allocated site within Tregynon, the UDP does not specify the number of dwellings required on this site. The proposal for two dwellings, this scale of development is considered suitable of a site of 0.25ha and two dwellings would not exceed the overall capacity of the settlement.

Page 296 The principle of new residential development on the site is in accordance with policy HP4 and as such is considered acceptable.

Suitability of access and parking arrangements Policy GP4 concerns highway access and parking requirements, the policy criteria sets out a number of provisions which need to be met, these criteria shall now be addressed individually.

Criteria 1 concerns suitable visibility, turning, passing, dropped kerbs, circulation and servicing space. The indicative layout plan details individual turning areas for each plot and sufficient land to accommodate parking within the site. A condition of any forthcoming planning consent shall require parking spaces to be constructed within the site prior to occupation of the dwellings, this is in accordance with the advice provided by the highway authority.

The access road connecting to the classified road is a sufficient width to allow two vehicles to pass one another and as such the introduction of two dwellings would not have a detrimental impact on traffic circulation. The access proposals plan details the visibility splays for the proposed new junction and intensification of the existing junction onto the highway. Any forthcoming planning consent shall require the visibility splays to be constructed in accordance with the submitted plan and details contained within the condition, these details are to the satisfaction of the highway authority.

A third party representation has been received which raises concerns regarding the intensified use of the private shared access road. They state there is currently a legal agreement in place to secure the ongoing maintenance of the road. While this point is acknowledged, planning applications are determined within the public domain and as such the future maintenance of the road would need to be secured through a private agreement. The proposed new dwellings would result in the private road serving 5 properties, as confirmed by the highway authority, this private road would therefore not be adopted by the Authority.

Impact on built heritage Policies ENV14, 16, 17 and 18 concern the protection of built heritage features, including Scheduled ancient monuments (SAMS), listed buildings and listed gardens.

The site is within 500m of a Tregynon moated site and a spur of Gregynog listed gardens located south east of the site. It is not disputed that the proposed development would have a physical impact on these features, however consideration needs to be had regarding the impact of the proposed development on the setting of these features.

The development would be seen from the built heritage features, however these would be long range views and would appear as part of the existing residential development of Trygynon. Indeed CADW and CPAT raise no concern regarding the impact on the development on the built features, CPAT state “Overall the significance of impact for the essential setting would be very low with views masked by intervening tree foliage and topography over the 1.5km between the development and Gregynog Hall”, CADW state “there are no scheduled monuments or registered historic parks and gardens affected by the proposed development”

Page 297 It is concluded the proposed development, due to its scale and siting, would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character or setting of built heritage features in proximity to the site.

Other considerations

The Community Council raise a number of points which relate to the overall design and access arrangements associated with the proposed development.

Scale is a matter reserved for later consideration. However, to be considered acceptable and to protect the surrounding visually sensitive features, the height of the dwellings would need to be in keeping with those of the existing adjacent dwellings and be restricted to single storey height, as such a condition of this consent shall restrict the height of the dwellings to a maximum of 6 metres, this restriction shall inform any future reserve matters submission.

The absence of a pedestrian footway between the site and the village centre is acknowledged in this report and within the highway authority response. As a result of the separation distances between the village centre and the site, users are likely to utilise vehicle transport, in addition the private and classified highway are wide enough to facilitate vehicles and pedestrians without the same level of conflict relevant to a single access road. As such it is not considered appropriate to require the development to provide a new footway to connect to the village centre.

The site does occupy a greenfield site, however the surrounding land to the south and east remains green field land. The overall scale of the site is small and is outside of a designated flood area. A condition of any forthcoming consent shall require a scheme of surface water and foul drainage to be submitted and approved prior to development. It is considered a suitable drainage scheme could be achieved without increasing flood risk within Tregynon.

Recommendation The principle of two new dwellings on the proposed site complies with the relevant national and local planning policy set out in this report and as such it is recommended to members the proposal is acceptable in principle.

The proposed access and parking arrangements, subject to the attached conditions are to the satisfaction of the highway authority and as such it is recommended to Members parking and access arrangements are considered acceptable.

Decision The recommendation to member is one of conditional consent, subject to the planning conditions attached to the Officer Report.

Conditions

1. Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. 2. Any application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.

Page 298 3. The development shall begin either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. 4. Notwithstanding the information submitted with the application, the ridge height of the dwellings shall not exceed 6 metres. 5. Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the access shall be constructed so that there is clear visibility from a point 1.05 metres above ground level at the centre of the access and 2.4 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, to points 0.26 metres above ground level at the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 43 metres distant in a westerly direction measured from the centre of the access along the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 5.5 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 6.0 metres in a westerly direction. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the area(s) of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction for as long as the development hereby permitted remains in existence. 6. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling, provision shall be made within the curtilage of the site for the parking of not less than 1 car per bedroom excluding any garage space provided. The parking areas shall be retained for their designated use in perpetuity. 7. Upon formation of the visibility splays as detailed in HC4 above the centreline of any new or relocated hedge should be positioned not less than 1.0 metre to the rear of the visibility splay and retained in this position as long as the development remains in existence. 8. Prior to commencement of development, a scheme of surface and foul water drainage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons 1. To enable the Local Planning Authority to exercise proper control over the development in accordance with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3. Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 4. In the interests of amenity and to accord with Powys Unitary Development Plan policy GP1, ENV14, ENV16, ENV17 and ENV18. 5. In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Powys Unitary Development Plan policies GP1 and GP4 6. In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Powys Unitary Development Plan policies GP1 and GP4 7. In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Powys Unitary Development Plan policies GP1 and GP4 8. In the interests of drainage and to accord with Powys Unitary Development Plan policy DC13

Notes

______Case Officer: Dunya Fourie- Planning Officer Tel: 01597 82 7230 E-mail:[email protected]

Page 299 Page 300 PTLRW110 - 201510

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2015/0197 Grid Ref: 312454.53 292502.41

Community Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn Valid Date: Officer: Council: 23/02/2015 Louise Evans

Applicant: Mr & Mrs David & Sue Jones, Cwm Dockin, Abermule, Powys, SY15 6JJ

Location: Development adjacent to Graigwen, Llanllwchaiarn, Newtown, Powys, SY16 3BH

Proposal: Erection of five dwellings, creation of vehicular access and infrastructure improvements.

Application Application for Outline Planning Permission Type:

The reason for Committee determination The application requires a committee determination in line with the planning protocol as the development would be a departure from the development plan.

Site Location and Description This application is in respect of the erection of 5 dwellings and associated works on a greenfield site on the eastern edge of Newtown and adjacent to Llanllwchaiarn Church.

The application has been submitted in outline with the matters relating to appearance, landscaping and scale being reserved for later consideration. A layout plan has been submitted, as have full details of the proposed means of access.

The site is bordered to the north by a residential property and the B4568, to the west and south by the U2624 and the Montgomery Canal and to the east by an agricultural field that is allocated for residential development within the UDP.

Consultee Response Newtown & Llanllwchaiarn Town Council First response: The council supports the application and welcome additional housing, and is of the view: a) Pedestrian infrastructure is inadequate (no pedestrian pavement on nearby road. b) Safety concerns in that the vehicular access joins the nearby road at a road junction. c) A vehicle tuning area is needed on the development site.

Second response: The council welcomes the amendment addition of an affordable hosuing unit and a turning area, but reamins concerns that there is no safe pedestrian access from the main road, and would also like to request that an archaeologicak survey is undertaken at the site before development.

1 Page 301 PCC - Highways First response: I appreciate there is a significant history on this site and the access arrangements was subsequently approved at appeal stage. Can you confirm that the proposed access on this application is in the same position as was proposed in the appeal, unfortunately my records have gone to archives.

I have no objection in principle to the scheme, however it must be made clear as there is further scope for further development then an adoptable highway will be required unless it is re-designed that no further access to the back land can be achieved. We could approve this layout but it would be subject to APC Notices under the Highways Act 1980 and no works would be allowed to commence until monies would be secured with the Highway Authority. A re-design of the road layout would be required to comply with Highway Standards. A private turning head should be provided within this application so refuse vehicles do not have to reverse back out onto the highway. I note there is no footway linking into the site to cater for the increase in pedestrians and would cause sustainable issues.

Second response Thanks for the amended proposals. My comments in my previous email dated 4th March 2015 have not been addressed.

PCC - Building Control Please be aware that the development will require building regulations approval.

Wales & West Utilities Wales & West Utilities has pipes in the area. Our apparatus may be affected and at risk during construction works. Should the planning application be approved then we requite the promoter of these works to contact us directly to discuss out requirements in detail before any works commence on site. Should diversion works be required these will be fully chargeable. You must not build over any of our plant or enclose our apparatus.

Severn Trent Water I confirm that Severn Trent Water Limited has NO OBJECTION to the proposal subject to the inclusion of the following condition.

Condition The development hereby permitted shall not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use.

Reason To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution.

Canal & Rivers Trust In 2011 British Waterways advised Local Planning Authorities of changes to the notified area applicable to consultations with us, in our capacity as a Statutory Consultee. British Waterways introduced a notified area for household and minor scale development and a

2 Page 302 notified area for EIA and major scale development. The British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 has substituted references to British Waterways in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 to the Canal & Rivet Trust. As such, local planning authorities ate now required to consult the Canal & River Trust on applications for planning permission in the same way as British Waterways were previously consulted. This application falls outside the notified area for its application scale. We are therefore returning this application to you as there is no requirement for you to consult us in our capacity as a Statutory Consultee.

NRW Natural Resources Wales does not object to the proposed development and has no further comment to add.

CPAT The plot lies within the medieval historic core of Llanllwchaiarn as defined by the Montgomeryshire Historic Settlements Study. We had previously advised (application P/2008/1611) that an archaeological watching brief should be maintained on the new access and visibility splay ground works and on any buildings close to the road frontage opposite the church. This area may have been occupied by former medieval dwellings within the early layout of the village. The sub-surface archaeology here may include the foundations of timber-framed dwellings and their associated structures together with artefacts reflecting the daily activities of past inhabitants. This advice had been accepted by the LPA, but after the subsequent appeal and decision by the planning inspectorate we found that the condition had been accidentally removed. I would ask that the advice is re-instated for the current outline and the condition in this case is: The developer shall ensure that a suitably qualified archaeological contractor is present during the undertaking of any ground works in the development area, so that an archaeological watching brief can be conducted. The archaeological watching brief will be undertaken to the standards laid down by the Institute for Archaeologists. The Local Planning Authority will be informed in writing, at least two weeks prior to the commencement of the development, of the name of the said archaeological contractor. A copy of the watching brief report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and the Development Control Archaeologist, Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust, 41 Broad Street, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 7RR tel: 01938 553670 within two months of the fieldwork being completed.

Representations None received.

Planning History PREL/2014/0805 P/2012/1123 Section 73 application to vary condition 2 attached to planning permission P/2008/ 1611 to extend the time limit for submission of reserved matters. Conditional consent. P/2008/1611 Erection of 3 no. dwelling houses and formation of vehicular access (outline) (resubmission) Refused. Appeal allowed APP/T6850/A/09/2108060 M/2007/0870 Erection of 3 no. dwelling houses and formation of vehicular access (outline). Refused M/2004/0170 Residential development, erection of a building for community purposes and formation of vehicular access (outline) Granted subject to S106.

3 Page 303 M1998/0760 Residential development (outline) and formation of vehicular access. Refused 19765 8022

Principal Planning Constraints U2646

Principal Planning Policies

National Planning Policy

Planning Policy Wales (Edition 7, July 2014) Technical Advice Note (TAN) 1: Joint Housing Land Availability Studies (2015) Technical Advice Note (TAN) 2: Planning and Affordable Housing (2006) Technical Advice Note (TAN) 12: Design (2014) Technical Advice Note (TAN) 18: Transport (2007)

Welsh Government Circular 016/2014: The Use of Planning Conditions for Development Management

Local Planning Policy

Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010)

UDP SP1 – Social, Community and Cultural Sustainaibility UDP SP2 – Strategic Settlement Hierarchy UDP SP5 – Housing Developments

UDP GP1 – Development Control UDP GP3 – Design and Energy Conservation UDP GP4 – Highway and Parking Requirements UDP ENV3 – Safeguarding Biodiversity and Natural Habitats UDP HP4 - Settlement Development Boundaries and Capacities UDP HP5 - Housing Developments UDP HP10 – Affordability Criteria UDP HP3 – Housing Land Availability UDP DC10 – Mains Sewage Treatment UDP DC13 – Surface Water Drainage

Powys Residential Design Guide (2004) Affordable Housing for Local Needs Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Approved September 2010 Updated July 2011 Powys Joint Housing Land Availability Study (2015)

Deposit Draft Powys Local Development Plan 2011-2026

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

4 Page 304 Officer Appraisal

Principle of development The principle of the development should be considered in line with UDP policy HP5. This policy supports the provision of residential units within a development boundary providing that the development would not lead to the loss of land allocated for other purposes within the UDP and the proposal being acceptable in relation to affordable housing provision, design, safety, environmental and amenity matters.

The site subject to this application is located within the settlement development limits of Newtown as defined by the Powys Unitary Development Plan (inset map 181) and is allocated for community facilities/retail development. The land has been set aside for this purpose to serve the housing allocations M181 HA13 and M181 HA14, however they have failed to be developed and all planning permissions relating to the site have lapsed. It is also noted that these sites are not allocated within the draft LDP and whilst the site in question remains within the development boundary, it is not allocated for a specific purpose. The draft LDP, however, can only be given limited weight in the determination process at this time.

In addition to the above considerations, Planning policy (TAN1 and UDP HP3) states that the Council needs to have a five year supply of land available for housing. The Powys Joint Housing Land Availability Study (2015) concludes that there is 1.9 years of housing supply. Housing supply is a material consideration that should be given considerable weight in the determination of this application and balanced against compliance with national planning policies as set out within Section 6.2 of TAN 1:

‘The housing land supply figure should also be treated as a material consideration in determining planning applications for housing. Where the current study shows a land supply below the 5-year requirement or where the local planning authority has been unable to undertake a study, the need to increase supply should be given considerable weight when dealing with planning applications provided that the development would otherwise comply with development plan and national planning policies’.

Therefore, the 1.9 years of Powys housing supply is a material consideration which should be given considerable weight, however it will need to be weighed against the other material considerations and national and local planning policies. In this instance, the lack of housing land supply and the location within a settlement development boundary lends weight to the proposal.

Policy HP7 requires that on sites within settlement development limits for more than 5 dwellings, that a proportion of affordable housing will be sought based on the extent and type of need identified by the Council’s Housing need survey (2002) or other reliable and robust data sources. The application has offered for one of the five dwellings proposed to be affordable which is a 20% provision. It is noted that the Affordable Housing SPG identifies that although the scale of affordable housing to be provided will be a matter for negotiation on each individual site, as a guideline, proportions of between 30 and 35% should normally be achievable. Notwithstanding the above, the evidence base for the LDP which has resulted in the written statement of the Powys LDP 2011-2026 Deposit Draft states that the target contribution required for the Newtown area (Severn Valley) would be 20%. Therefore, on the

5 Page 305 basis of this evidence which is both reliable and robust, it is considered that the proposal for a 20% affordable housing provision would be acceptable in this instance.

Members are advised that this application should be considered in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

In this instance, it is acknowledged that the proposal would represent a departure from the development plan in that it would permit residential development on a site allocated for retail purposes, however, the material considerations in this instance are the relevance of the retail allocation given that the housing sites which it was intended to serve do not have valid consents and are likely to be removed under the LDP. Officers consider that this is a sufficient material consideration to depart from the development plan, also taking in account our current housing supply of 1.9 years.

Siting, Design and External Appearance Guidance contained within UDP policy HP5 indicates that residential development will be permitted where the development is of an appropriate scale, form and design and general character, to reflect the overall character and appearance of the settlement and surrounding area. It is noted that matters relating to scale, appearance and landscaping have been reserved for future consideration and therefore no details accompany the current outline application.

A layout plan does, however, accompany the application which is considered to demonstrate that the application site is capable of accommodating five detached dwellings together with associated highway and amenity provision on the site whilst also safeguarding the amenities enjoyed by occupants of neighbouring properties.

Highway Impact Policy GP4 requires adequate highway provision in terms of a safe access, visibility, turning and parking. Details of the proposed access have been submitted and form part of current consideration. Access to the application site will be provided via a new access off the U2624 county highway, whilst parking and turning provision will be provided within the site boundary.

It is noted that planning permission has previously been sought on part of the site for the provision of three dwellings. Both applications were refused on highway safety grounds. The later of these applications was appealed and the Inspector for the case concluded that ‘the proposal does not conflict with policy GP1 or GP4 of the Powys County Council Unitary Development Plan or guidance within TAN18’, and the appeal was allowed subject to conditions. The plans submitted with the current application detail the same access as that approved under the appeal.

For this reason, and whilst acknowledging that the development does propose two more dwellings than that approved under the appeal, Officers from Development Management and the Local Highway Authority do not object to the proposed access.

The Highway Authority has suggested, however, that a turning head be provided which is not detailed on plan, that the road be created to an adoptable standard (as it is capable of

6 Page 306 providing access to in excess of 5 dwellings), and that a pedestrian link be provided from the site to existing pedestrian link at the U2624/B4568 junction.

These matters are considered to be reasonably necessary for the purposes of highway safety to serve the development and it is considered that they are capable of being provided either within the application site or within the existing highway network. Therefore, to ensure that they could be completed under this outline application, the matters of access and layout will remain reserved for later consideration despite the request for these matters to be considered with this application. In addition, a Grampian condition will be attached to the outline consent to provide a footway within the highway.

In light of the above and subject to the submission of further details, it is considered that the proposed development is capable of being served with an adequate means of access and sufficient parking and turning areas within the development to ensure that the scheme would not be detrimental to highway safety. The finer details of the scheme will be dealt with at reserved matters stage. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with UDP policy GP4.

Surface and foul water disposal The application details that the site will be served mains systems in respect of the disposal of foul waters and via soakaways in respect of surface water. No further details are included within the application.

Following consultation with Severn Trent Water, it is considered that there are no reasons that foul sewerage and surface water disposal cannot be acceptably accommodated and a condition requiring these details to be submitted and approved by the Council prior to construction will ensure adequate control over these measures in accordance with polices DC11 and DC13 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan.

Ecological impact It is noted that the development will be located on a grazed agricultural field that is devoid of hedgerow boundaries or trees. Bearing this in mind, the proposal site is considered to have low ecological value. It is further noted that the Montgomery Canal is located to the south of the site but does not hold water at this point and is neither a SSSI nor a SAC in this location. Natural Resources Wales have been consulted and do not object to the proposal.

Conclusion The proposal would result in development of a site within a development boundary for residential purposes. Whilst the proposal will utilise land allocation for another purpose within the development plan, it is considered that there are material considerations that indicate that the retail allocation is no longer necessary.

Based on the details provided, the proposal will not create unacceptable planning, safety, access, service, environmental or amenity problems subject to the use of appropriate conditions.

Recommendation Conditional Consent is therefore recommended as set out below and subject to the applicant entering into a section 106 agreement with the council in or to provide an affordable dwelling in perpetuity.

7 Page 307

1. Details of the access, layout, appearance, landscaping and scale, (hereinafter called ""the reserved matters"") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. 2. Any application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission. 3. The development shall begin either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. 4. No development shall commence until full engineering details of a pedestrian footway have been submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The footway must link the development site to the existing footway on the U2624/B4656 county highway junction. 5. The footway approved under condition 4 above must be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the commencement of development within the application site. 6. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewerage have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use. 7. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of any of the units or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. If any plants fail more than once they shall continue to be replaced on an annual basis until the end of the 5 year defects period. 8. Prior to the construction of the dwellings hereby approved details or samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 9. Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the access shall be constructed so that there is clear visibility from a point 1.05 metres above ground level at the centre of the access and 2.4 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, to points 0.26 metres above ground level at the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 42 metres distant in each direction measured from the centre of the access along the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 10 metres distant from the edge of the adjoining carriageway and 6 metres in each direction. Nothing shall be planted, erected or allowed to grow on the areas of land so formed that would obstruct the visibility and the visibility shall be maintained free from obstruction for as long as the development hereby permitted remains in existence. 10. Within 5 days from the commencement of the development the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be constructed to a minimum of 410mm depth, comprising a minimum of 250mm of sub-base material, 100mm of bituminous macadam base course material and 60mm of bituminous macadam binder course material for a distance of 15 from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. Any use of alternative materials is to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the access being constructed. 11. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings the area of the access to be used by vehicles is to be finished in a 40mm bituminous surface course for a distance of 15 metres from the

8 Page 308 edge of the adjoining carriageway. This area will be maintained to this standard for as long as the development remains in existence. 12. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings, provision shall be made within the curtilage of the site for the parking of not less than 1 car parking space per bedroom excluding any garage space provided and together with a turning space such that all vehicles serving the site may both enter and leave the site in a forward gear. The parking and turning areas shall be retained for their designated use for as long as the development hereby permitted remains in existence. 13. No storm water drainage from the site shall be allowed to discharge onto the county highway. 14. The developer shall ensure that a suitably qualified archaeological contractor is present during the undertaking of any ground works in the development area, so that an archaeological watching brief can be conducted. The archaeological watching brief will be undertaken to the standards laid down by the Institute for Archaeologists. The Local Planning Authority will be informed in writing, at least two weeks prior to the commencement of the development, of the name of the said archaeological contractor. A copy of the watching brief report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and the Development Control Archaeologist, Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust, 41 Broad Street, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 7RR tel: 01938 553670 within two months of the fieldwork being completed.

Reasons 1. To enable the Local Planning Authority to exercise proper control over the development in accordance with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3. Required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 4. Highways 5. To ensure that the proposed surface water drainage system and means of foul sewerage for the site are fully compliant with regulations and are of robust design in accordance with policies DC13 and DC11 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan. 6. To ensure that development is served by the public system in accordance with policy DC10 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan. 7. To ensure a satisfactory and well planned development and to preserve and enhance the quality of the environment, visual amenity and privacy in accordance with policies GP1 and ENV2 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan. 8. In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the building in accordance with policies GP1 and GP3 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan and the Councils Residential Design Guide. 9 to 13. In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policies GP1 and GP4 of the Powys Unitary Development Plan. 14. To ensure the archaeological interest of the site is recorded in accordance with policy Unitary Development Plan Policy ENV18.

______Case Officer: Louise Evans- Planning Officer Tel: 01938 551127 E-mail:[email protected]

9 Page 309 Page 310 PTLRW110 - 201511

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2015/0461 Grid Ref: 310420.4 323021.46

Community Llanrhaeadr Ym Mochnant Valid Date: Officer: Council: 25/09/2015 Kate Bowen

Applicant: Mr G Jones, Minafon, Mill Lane, Llanfyllin, SY22 5OG

Location: Haulfryn, Pen-Y-Garnedd, Llanrhaeadr Ym Mochnant, Oswestry, SY10 0AW

Proposal: Removal of condition no.3 attached to planning permission M17944 (occupancy condition)

Application Application for Removal or Variation of a Condition Type:

Reason for Committee determination

The original application was determined by Committee.

Site Location and Description

Haulfryn is a detached three bedroomed brick bungalow situated on the northern side of the U2022 unclassified highway approximately 630m south of the settlement of Penygarnedd and 7.2km from the centre of Llanfyllin. The property comprises of an entrance hall, living room, kitchen, utility room, rear hallway, WC, utility room, inner lobby, 3 bedrooms and a bathroom. The property was built approximately 22 years ago and appears to be in good condition and benefits from upvc double glazing. The bungalow is surrounded by a lawned garden and has a view over the surrounding countryside. The property also consists of two modern farm buildings and 48 acres of agricultural land.

Full planning permission M17944 for the erection of a bungalow, alterations to vehicular access and installation of septic tank was granted subject to conditions on the 20th June 1989. The application seeks the removal of condition 3 which states:

‘The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed prior to retirement, in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 290 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, or in forestry, including dependents of such a person residing with him or her, or a widow or widower of such a person’.

The condition was imposed for the following reason:

‘It is the approved policy of the local planning authority not to permit residential development outside settlements in the absence of special agricultural needs and this permission is granted specifically to provide accommodation for a person employed in agriculture’.

1 Page 311 Consultee Response

Llanrhaeadr ym Mochnant Community Council

No response received.

PCC Highway Authority

No response received.

PCC Building Control

No response received.

Wales and West Utilities

No response received.

Representations

Following display of a site notice, no public representations have been received.

Planning History

 M17944 – Erection of a bungalow, alterations to vehicular access and installation of septic tank. Conditional consent 20.06.1989  M17367 – Outline application for erection of a dwellinghouse and installation of a septic tank. Conditional consent 1989

Principal Planning Constraints

 Public right of way located to west of dwelling  Open Countryside

Principal Planning Policies

National Planning Policy

Planning Policy Wales (Edition 7, 2014)

Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6 – Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (2010)

Welsh Government Circular 016/2014 - The Use of Planning Conditions for Development Management

Practice Guidance - Rural Enterprise Dwellings - Technical Advice Note 6 Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities December 2011

2 Page 312 Local Planning Policy

Powys Unitary Development Plan 2001-2016 (Adopted March 2010)

HP6 Dwellings in the Open Countryside

HP10 Affordability Criteria

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Members are advised to consider this application in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Principle and Policy

Local planning policy generally restricts the erection of new dwellings in the open countryside, except in association with a suitable rural enterprise (UDP Policy HP6) which is consistent with the national guidance set out in Planning Policy Wales and TAN 6. UDP Policy HP6 also deals with the removal of occupancy conditions and advises that the removal will only be considered on the basis of realistic assessments of the continuing need for its retention and where genuine but unsuccessful attempts have been made to market the dwelling for at least 12 months at a price that realistically reflects the existence of the occupancy condition.

Other advice contained within Circular 16/14 ‘The Use of Planning Conditions for Development Management’ states that where a rural enterprise occupation condition has been imposed it will not be appropriate to remove it on a subsequent application unless it is shown that the existing need for such dwellings for rural enterprise workers in the locality no longer warrants reserving the house for that purpose.

Therefore, the key issues are (a) whether the property has been adequately marketed at a realistic price taking into account the existence of the occupancy condition, (b) whether there is a continuing need for the occupation of Haulfryn to be restricted, having regard to the existing agricultural occupancy condition and the potential to restrict the occupancy to rural enterprise workers and affordable housing in the area.

Marketing efforts and valuation

Haulfryn together with 48 acres of agricultural land and two modern farm buildings has been marketed at ‘offers in the region £515,000’. The property has been marketed on a local estate agents’ website, via the four offices and also on two national house buying websites since 24th April 2014. In addition, it was noted during the site visit that a ‘For Sale’ board was

3 Page 313 located at the property. The sales particulars indicate that an agricultural restriction applies. The viewing history of the property has been submitted which indicates that four viewings by two different potential purchasers have taken place between March 2015 and September 2015. The information states that the first potential purchaser was not interested because of the public right of way in close proximity. The information states that the second potential purchaser appeared interested and would be putting in an offer. As of 20th October 2015, the agent has confirmed that no offers have been received on the property. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the property has been marketed for rent.

The Council’s Valuer has reviewed the agents’ sales particulars and has used comparable market evidence to provide a Market Value of the freehold interest, with vacant possession, and at the date of the instructions, as below:

 Bungalow and garden without restriction £235,000 (Two hundred thirty five thousand pounds).

 The Market Value of the freehold interest, with vacant possession, subject to the occupancy restriction and at the date of the instructions, is £200,000 (Two hundred thousand pounds).

 Land and buildings- 48 acres, 2 modern buildings. =£300,000 (three hundred thousand pounds)

 Combined value, subject to the occupancy restriction = £500,000 (five hundred thousand pounds).

With regard to the valuation of Haulfryn, the UDP offers no guidance on how to assess a reasonable market price which reflects the existence of the occupancy restriction. However, it is generally recognised that the price should be at a considerable discount from its unencumbered valuation. The advice contained within the TAN 6 Practice Guidance advises that traditionally agricultural dwellings have been marketed at prices generally between 70 and 75% of their open market value.

Therefore, whilst the Council’s Valuer’s advice is respected, taking into account the advice contained within the TAN 6 Practice Guidance that, historically properties subject to agricultural occupancy conditions have been marketed at between 70 to 75% of their open market value, it appears that the bungalow with the land and buildings should be marketed at a price of approximately £464,500 (bungalow and garden at £164,500 and land and buildings at £300,000). This discounted price is approximately £50,000 less than the current market price. Whilst the extent of the marketing is accepted, i.e. that the property has been marketed widely, no information has been submitted to demonstrate whether alternative marketing methods such as splitting of the dwelling and land or part of the land has been considered. Offering the property with part of the land may enable persons complying with the occupancy condition but not able to afford all of the land to be able to purchase the dwelling. However, it is also recognised that genuinely interested parties who complied with the restriction have the opportunity to put forward a starting offer or seeking to open negotiations in terms of value or quantity of land etc. Although concerns are raised with the guide price of the property and the extent of the marketing efforts, taking into account the Council’s Valuation, there would not appear to be a sound reason to dispute the validity of the £515,000 discounted sale price of the property.

4 Page 314 Need

Other advice contained within Circular 16/14 ‘The Use of Planning Conditions for Development Management’ states that where a rural enterprise occupation condition has been imposed it will not be appropriate to remove it on a subsequent application unless it is shown that the existing need for such dwellings for rural enterprise workers in the locality no longer warrants reserving the house for that purpose.

In establishing whether or not there is a need for rural enterprise dwellings in the area in the last 2 years a review of all the planning applications received from agricultural or other rural workers has been carried out. 38 applications for single dwellings throughout the County have been submitted to the Council over a period of approximately two years (1st October 2013 to 31st October 2015). The application numbers indicate a significant need for agricultural/rural enterprise dwellings throughout the county. However, none of these applications were located within the community council area of Llanrhaeadr Ym Mochnant, and only 3 of these applications were located within communities adjoining Llanrhaeadr Ym Mochnant community council area. Furthermore, these dwellings were required on existing agricultural holdings to meet the particular functional needs of a farm enterprise.

Within the northern part of Powys Development Management is also aware of another property known as Pen Y Berllan, Pontrobert which is for sale with an agricultural tie (guide price of £199,950) and has failed to sell since it was brought onto the market in January 2014. This also demonstrates the presence of alternative agricultural worker accommodation which is available in the area and at a lower asking price. Therefore, this would also point towards to a limited demand in the locality.

Potential for imposition of new rural enterprise dwelling condition

Technical Advice Note 6 (TAN 6) ‘Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities’, issued in July 2010, indicates in paragraph 4.13.5 that where applications are received to lift an existing agricultural occupancy condition, the planning authority should consider replacing that condition with a rural enterprise dwelling occupancy condition as below:

The occupancy of the dwelling shall be restricted to: a) a person solely or mainly working, or last working on a rural enterprise in the locality, or a widow, widower or surviving civil partner of such a person, and to any resident dependants; or, if it can be demonstrated that there are no such eligible occupiers, b) a person or persons who would be eligible for consideration for affordable housing under the local authority’s housing policies, or a widow, widower or surviving civil partner of such a person, and to any resident dependants.

In effect, the broadening of the condition to the new rural enterprise condition would allow occupancy by persons employed or last employed etc in a rural enterprise in the locality or, if it can be demonstrated that there are no such eligible occupiers, persons who would be eligible for consideration for affordable housing under the local authority’s housing policies.

The property has not been marketed with the broadened occupancy condition and as such the need for accommodation for persons employed within a rural enterprise in the locality has not been tested through marketing.

5 Page 315 In terms of the affordability of Haulfryn, taking into account the 2015 Welsh Government Acceptable Cost Guidance (ACG) figures for Powys, it is considered that the property is a five person, three bedroom house located within the Band 2 (Llanrhaeadr Ym Mochnant) area which gives an ACG of £153,600. This is significantly below the £200,000 discounted price advised by the Council’s Valuer.

The floor area of the property is approximately 70 square metres (excluding the utility room and attached garage). The attached garage adds a further 21 square metres. Therefore, the property appears to have a floor space of less than the 130 maximum advised by UDP Policy HP10 ‘Affordability Criteria’. However, the dwelling is located in an isolated location with no facilities or public transport close-by, meaning that prospective occupiers would need to travel by car to access essential services or employment opportunities. Although the size of the dwelling may be compatible with the Council’s Affordability Criteria, given the value of the property, allied to its isolated position, it is considered that Haulfryn would not be a suitable property to be regarded as an affordable dwelling to purchase or rent.

Conclusion

Although concern is expressed over the guide price not reflecting the existence of the agricultural occupancy condition by a 30% discounted price, given the advice of the Council’s Valuer, it is concluded that adequate marketing has been carried out without any genuine interest. Taking into account the value of the property, there is little likelihood of the property being within the range of rural enterprise workers or as an affordable dwelling. Even though the rental market has not been tested, it is considered that any discounted rental valuation would still be out of reach of the overwhelming majority of tenants who might satisfy the occupancy condition. As a consequence, this further substantiates that there is little or no demand for Haulfryn as a form of accommodation for rural enterprise workers or persons in need of affordable housing in the area.

It is therefore concluded that there is no longer a continuing need for the occupation of Haulfryn to be restricted in the future. Thus, the removal of Condition 3 would not prejudice the need for rural enterprise worker’s dwellings or affordable housing in the area. As a result, there is no conflict with the aims and objectives of Policy HP6 of the UDP or TAN 6 and the supporting Practice Guidance.

Recommendation

Consent

______Case Officer: Kate Bowen- Planning Officer Tel: 01938 551268 E-mail:[email protected]

6 Page 316 Page 317 This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW110 - 201512

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2015/0202 Grid Ref: 311157.12 314819.31

Community Llangyniew Valid Date: Officer: Council: 23/02/2015 Nicholas Morgan

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Gwalchmai, Pen-y-coed, Pontrobert, Meifod, Powys, SY22 6JH

Location: Pen y Berllan, Pontrobert, Meifod, Powys, SY22 6JH

Proposal: Removal of condition number 2 of planning approval M12401 (Occupancy Condition)

Application Application for Removal or Variation of a Condition Type:

The reason for Committee determination The original application was determined by the Committee of that time and as such the Council’s Planning Protocol requires Committee determination for this current application.

Site Location and Description This application is in respect of the removal of an agricultural occupancy condition at Pen y Berllan, Pontrobert, Meifod. The property is a detached three bedroom brick bungalow located approximately 2km north of the settlement of Pontrobert along the C2030 highway. The particulars submitted with the application do not indicate the specific floor area of the dwelling however it is believed to measure in the region of 150m². The plot also includes a small barn with lean-to and amounts to approximately 0.1 hectares in area.

Planning permission M12401 for a bungalow was granted subject to conditions on the 9th August 1984. This application seeks the removal of condition 2 which states:

‘The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed prior to retirement, locally in agriculture, as defined in Section 290 (1) of the Town & Country Planning Act, 1971, or in forestry (including any dependents of such a person residing with him/her) or a widow or widower of such a person.

Consultee Response Llangyniew Community Council – no comments received

Powys Highways – no objections

Powys Building Control - no comments received

Wales and West Utilities - no comments received

1 Page 319 Public Response None

Planning History M12401 – Bungalow – Conditional Consent – 09/08/84

Principal Planning Constraints None

Principal Planning Policies National Policies Planning Policy Wales (7th Edition, July 2014) Technical Advice note 6 - Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (2010) Welsh Government Circular 016/2014 - The Use of Planning Conditions for Development Management Practice Guidance - Rural Enterprise Dwellings - Technical Advice Note 6 Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities December 2011

Local Planning Policy-Unitary Development Plan for Powys (March 2010) UDP HP6-Dwellings in the Open Countryside HP10 Affordability Criteria

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal Members are advised to consider this application in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which requires that, if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Background The dwelling was originally granted planning permission based on the need of tenant farmers who were nearing retirement age. The applicants at this time did not own any agricultural land but had been employed in agriculture in the locality prior to their retirement. The dwelling was occupied by the original applicants until 2013.

Principle and Policy Local planning policy generally restricts the erection of new dwellings in the open countryside, except in association with a suitable rural enterprise (UDP Policy HP6) which is consistent with the national guidance set out in Planning Policy Wales and TAN 6. UDP Policy HP6 also deals with the removal of occupancy conditions and advises that the removal will only be considered on the basis of realistic assessments of the continuing need for its retention and where genuine but unsuccessful attempts have been made to market the dwelling for at least 12 months at a price that realistically reflects the existence of the occupancy condition.

Other advice contained within Circular 16/14 ‘The Use of Planning Conditions for Development Management’ states that where a rural enterprise occupation condition has been imposed it will not be appropriate to remove it on a subsequent application unless it is 2 Page 320 shown that the existing need for such dwellings for rural enterprise workers in the locality no longer warrants reserving the house for that purpose.

Therefore, the key issues are (a) whether the property has been adequately marketed at a realistic price taking into account the existence of the occupancy condition, (b) whether there is a continuing need for the occupation of Pen y Berllan to be restricted, having regard to the existing agricultural occupancy condition and the potential to restrict the occupancy to rural enterprise workers and affordable housing in the area.

Marketing Efforts The application is accompanied by a supporting statement which sets out the basis for the need to remove the condition.

The statement highlights that the property has been continuously marketed since January 2014 at an asking price of £199.950 which is, according to the writer, a realistic value given the existence of the occupancy restriction. The marketing efforts have been in the form of office displays, adverts in the press, mailing and advertisement on the company website and other external sites including Right Move, Zoopla and On the Market.

The applicant states that there has been interest in the property however once the prospective purchaser becomes aware of the restriction, they immediately withdraw as they cannot satisfy the occupancy criteria.

Comparable Nearby Properties No details have been provided by the applicant of comparable properties in the area however our Valuation Officer has provided the following results:

 Llys Gwynfa, Dolanog, Welshpool SY21 0LQ A 3 bedroomed detached bungalow with associated outbuildings, internally in better comparative order. The property is of Woolaway Construction which has a similar detrimental effect on its value. On the market - £199,000.

 Bron Allt, Llanfihangel, Llanfyllin, SY22 5JD A detached brick built bungalow in a rural location with neighbours in an equivalent internal condition. Subject to a Section 106 occupancy restriction. On the market - £224,950.

 Penycoed, Pont Robert, Meifod, SY22 6JH A detached 3 bedroomed house. No occupancy restriction. Neighbouring property. Marketed May 2014 - £199,950. Assumed withdrawn.

 Pentre Barog, Meifod Powys A detached 3 bedroomed bungalow, smaller in size, smaller plot and near neighbours. No occupancy restriction. On the market - £169,950

Based on the above details, it is clear that there are a number of comparable properties within the area of similar price and specification.

3 Page 321 Valuation The property has been advertised for a price in the region of £199,950 which, according to the applicant is reasonable and realistic to reflect the occupancy condition. The council’s Valuation Officer has also provided a realistic valuation which is both based with and without the restriction:

 Current value inclusive of restriction - £190,000  Without restriction – £240,000

The Council’s valuation and applicant valuation inclusive of the restriction are relatively similar and the valuation of the property without the restriction is approximately 27% higher.

TAN 6 practice guidance advises that, traditionally, agricultural dwellings have been marketed at prices generally between 70 and 75% of their open market value and this will continue to be the case with rural enterprise workers and local affordability constraints. The Council’s valuations appear to reflect that difference in that the asking price is approximately 73% of the market price.

In terms of affordability, the Welsh Government Acceptable Cost Guidance (ACG) April 2015 states that a property such as this (5 person, 3 bedroomed) in Band 2 (Llangyniew) should be in the region of £153,600. This value is some £40,000 below the asking price which indicates a relatively large discrepancy. However, this may well be due to the fact that the property is around 150m² floor area as well being on a plot of around 0.1 hectares which is larger than the 130m² and 0.06ha limits of new affordable dwellings under UDP Policy HP10 Affordable Criteria.

Demand According to our records, 38 applications were received for agricultural or rural enterprise workers dwellings in Powys over the last two years. Of those 38, none are within the community of Llangyniew and two in total are situated within the surrounding communities.

In light of the above findings, one could argue there may be a demand for such properties across Powys however, in the locality; there is limited demand with only two applications being submitted over the last two years. Furthermore, such dwellings are generally, by their very nature, provided to serve a specific functional need of a farming enterprise in a specific locality, and therefore the demand for such a dwelling in this locality appears relatively low.

Potential for imposition of new rural enterprise dwelling condition When a request for the removal of an occupancy condition is considered, there is the option to replace the condition with Rural Enterprise Condition as set out within TAN 6. This condition effectively broadens the traditional agricultural occupancy condition to embrace a wider range (and therefore number) of eligible occupiers.

The TAN defines qualifying rural enterprises as; ‘land related businesses including agriculture, forestry and other activities that obtain their primary inputs from the site, such as the processing of agricultural, forestry and mineral products together with land management activities and support services (including agricultural contracting), tourism and leisure enterprises.’

4 Page 322 In addition, where an appropriate rural enterprise worker cannot be found to occupy the rural enterprise dwelling, eligibility is then extended to persons who would be eligible for consideration for affordable housing under the local authority’s housing policies. And finally, occupancy is extended to widows, widowers or civil partners of the above and any resident dependants.

This approach allows greater flexibility but still retains dwellings to meet the housing needs of a rural worker or those in need of affordable housing.

The applicant argues that the replacement condition outlined above is not a realistic solution based on the following two reasons:  If a rural enterprise worker had been interested in acquiring the property, they would have done so during the last 12 months to register such an interest however no such inquiry has been made to either the owner or estate agent.  There may well be people in the area which could satisfy the widened occupancy restriction however it is unlikely such persons could afford the asking price even with the 73% of open market price and as such, the property itself would not meet the sustainable affordable criteria due its size and attractive isolated location.

Circular 16/14 The Use of Planning Conditions for Development Management states that where a rural enterprise condition has been imposed it will not be appropriate to remove it on a subsequent application unless it can be shown that the existing need for such dwellings for rural enterprise workers in the locality no longer warrants reserving the house for that purpose. In this instance, it is argued that there is sufficient evidence that the property no longer warrants retention of the restriction on the basis that there has been limited interest in the property with the current restriction and that the property is unlikely to be affordable to those eligible for an affordable dwelling.

Conclusion Having regard for all of the evidence above, the following conclusions can been made.

Sufficient evidence of marketing has been provided in accordance with HP6 which reveals little interest in the property with the occupancy condition.

The applicant’s valuation is relatively accurate when compared and assessed by the Council’s valuation officer, both with and without the occupancy condition.

The dwelling does not serve any existing farm as the justification for approval was to allow a retired farmer and wife to reside close their family.

There is evidence of 2 applications for rural/affordable properties over the last two years within the adjoining communities however none within the same community. This would imply that there is little demand for such properties in the locality and therefore the restriction is deemed unnecessary.

The property and plot in terms of size (150m² and 0.1 hectares) exceed that which is deemed appropriate for an affordable dwelling. Furthermore, taking into account the value of the dwelling, it is not considered that a broader occupancy condition which also allows for use as an affordable dwelling would be appropriate in this instance.

5 Page 323 Taking all of the above factors into account, it is apparent that there appears to no longer be a need for the occupation of the property to be restricted and the removal of such would not prejudice the need for rural enterprise workers dwellings or affordable housing in the area.

To conclude, the proposal to remove the restriction would not conflict with the aims and objectives of UDP Policy HP6 or the requirements of TAN 6 and the application is recommended for approval.

Recommendation Approval

______Case Officer: Nicholas Morgan- Planning Officer Tel: 01938 551051 E-mail:[email protected]

6 Page 324 Page 325 This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW110 - 201513

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: TREE/2015/0038 Grid Ref: 309525.5 298688.38

Community Tregynon Valid Date: Officer: Council: 29/10/2015 Thomas Goodman

Applicant: Mr Danny Jarman, Powys County Council, Pool Road, Kirkhamsfield Depot, Newtown, Powys, SY16 3AF

Location: Trees adjacent The Old School, Tregynon, Newtown, SY16 3EH

Proposal: Reduction of canopies to 2 no. trees within a conservation area

Application Works to trees subject to a TPO and/or Notification of proposed works to Type: trees in conservation areas

The reason for Committee determination

The applicant is Powys County Council and therefore, in accordance with the planning protocol, the application is required to be determined by the Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee.

Site Location and Description

The trees subject of this notification are located within the highway verge adjacent to the public highway (C2064) and the entrance to The Old School and Annexe in the village of Tregynon. The trees are located within the conservation area of Tregynon and the reason why this notification has been submitted.

Consultee Response

Tregynon CC

No response received at the time of writing this report.

PCC Ecologist

No response received at the time of writing this report.

Cllr Joy Shearer

No response received at the time of writing this report.

Representations

None received.

Planning History

1 Page 327

TREE/2012/0002 – General maintenance of two Lime trees to include crown lifting, thinning of top growth and removal of any decayed limbs or those overhanging highway and private property. – Trees in Conservation Areas. Work Acceptable – 20/03/2012

Principal Planning Constraints

Tregynon Conservation Area

Principal Planning Policies

National planning policy

Planning Policy Wales (2014) Technical Advice Note 10 – Tree Preservation Orders (1997) Tree Preservation Orders: A Guide to Law and Good Practice

Local planning policies

Powys Unitary Development Plan (2010)

SP3 - Natural, Historic and Built Heritage ENV3- Safeguarding Biodiversity and Natural Habitats ENV8- Tree Preservation Orders ENV 10 - Conservation Area Enhancement & Town Schemes ENV 11 - Development in Conservation Areas

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

The application is in effect a notification to the local planning authority to inform us of the intention of the applicant to undertake works to tress located within a conservation area. The purpose of the application is to give the local planning authority the opportunity to consider making a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) in respect of the trees concerned.

This notification is for works to two Lime trees within the Tregynon conservation area. The proposed works are to reduce the canopies of both Lime trees in order to make these trees safe for road users and local residents.

A local planning authority may make a TPO if it is considered expedient in the interests of amenity. The following maters are considered relevant in making this determination.

Visibility – the trees are visible by members of the public using the county highway and also neighbouring residents.

Individual and wider impact – the fact that the trees are publicly visible is not itself considered to be sufficient to warrant a TPO. The Lime trees are mature and have had previous works to them to pro-long the life of the trees. The proposed works are recommended to prevent

2 Page 328 further branch failure in the future whilst allowing for the long-term retention of these prominent specimens in a healthy condition.

Expediency - Although trees may merit protection on amenity grounds it may not be expedient to make them the subject of a TPO. For example, it is unlikely to be expedient to make a TPO in respect of trees which are under good arboricultural or silvicultural management. It may be expedient to make a TPO if a planning authority believes there is a risk of trees being cut down or pruned in ways which would have a significant impact on the amenity of the area. In this instance, the proposed works are considered to be good arboricultural management which will not have a significant impact upon the amenity of the area nor the appearance of the conservation area.

In summary, it is considered as the works are in the interest of good arboricultural management and necessary to ensure safety to neighbouring buildings and the public highway. It is therefore considered that the proposed fundamentally complies with Policy ENV8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the proposed works shall be allowed to go ahead but that it is not expedient at this time to place a TPO on the trees.

The works shall be carried out within 2 years of the date of the notification.

______Case Officer: Thomas Goodman- Planning Officer Tel: 01597 827655 E-mail:[email protected]

3 Page 329 Page 330 PTLRW110 - 201514

Planning, Taxi Licensing and Rights of Way Committee Report

Application No: P/2015/0942 Grid Ref: 296632.9 267941.51

Community Rhayader Valid Date: Officer: Council: 28/09/2015 Robin Wynne Williams

Applicant: Mr Simon Kendrick Powys County Council County Hall Engineering Design Services Llandrindod Wells LD1 5LG

Location: Council Depot (Waste & Recycling) Station Road Rhayader Rhayader LD6 5AW

Proposal: The redevelopment of the existing waste & recycling bulking facility including removal of 2 store buildings, construction of building for bulking up of waste and cardboard, new welfare amenity building, conversion of existing welfare unit to offices and all associated works

Application Application for Full Planning Permission Type:

The reason for Committee determination

The application has been submitted by Powys County Council

Site Location and Description

The Rhayader Depot site is located on the south west edge of the town and along the northern edge of the B4518 that runs in a south westerly direction from the A470/A44 junction. The depot and existing recycling bulking facility is on the site of the old Rhayader railway station.

Since the station’s closure the site has been used as a Council depot as a highways depot and a waste transfer facility. The site at present contains a waste transfer building, weighbridge, welfare unit, two storage sheds, a glass collection bay, bunded concrete slabs, the railway station building which is used as site offices, a disused railway goods building, bunded vehicle wash-down area, bunded refuelling area, open areas of hardstanding for vehicle parking and manoeuvring.

Consultee Response

Rhayader TC - No objection

Highways Dept South – No objection

Building Control – No comment

1 Page 331 Wales & West Utilities Advisory in relation to working in close proximity to apparatus

Environmental Health No objections subject to the inclusion of plannig conditions relating to noise and pest control.

PCC Ecologist No objections subject to the inclusion of planning conditions relating to mitigation associated with bats, birds and contamination control

PCC Land Drainage (Simon Crowther) – No comment

Natural Resources Wales No objections subject to a condition specifying the requirement of Natural Resources Wales European Species Development License. Comments were also included relating to Flood Risk, Environmental Permitting, Land Contamination and the requirements of the Local Authority to have regard to conserving biodiversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Disability Powys - No comment

Cllrs – No comment

PCC Contaminated land Officer No objection subject to the inclusion of planning conditions for further survey work to be undertaken, the submission and implementation of a remediation scheme associated with any contamination. Further conditions are also advised in relation to unexpected contamination that may be discovered on site and a condition relating to a long term monitoring and maintenance scheme for the site.

Representations

Planning History

P/2013/0205-Full: Change of use of land to mixed use highway depot and Use Class B8 - CC P/2010/1227 - Full: Provision of new welfare unit CC PR159204 – Change of use to waste transfer station PR159205 – Change of use land to form new storage compound PR159202 – Provision of car park & shared use path link to Elan Valley Trail R1592 – Salt storage barn

Principal Planning Policies

National planning policy and guidance

Planning Policy Wales (2014) Technical Advice Note 5 – Nature Conservation and Planning (2009)

2 Page 332 Technical Advice Note 12 – Design (2009) Technical Advice Note 15 – Development and Flood Risk (2004) Technical Advice Note 21 – Waste (2014) Towards Zero Waste: The overarching Waste Strategy Document for Wales, June 2010 Collections, Infrastructure and Markets Sector Plan, 2012 The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011

Local planning policies

UDP SP 11 – Waste Management UDP GP 1 – Development Control UDP GP 4 – Highway and Parking Requirements UDP ENV 3 – Safeguarding biodiversity and natural habitats UDP ENV 7 – Protected Species UDP EC 1 – Business, Industrial and Commercial Developments UDP T 3 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans UDP MW 1 – Mining and Waste disposal UDP MW10 – Additional Waste Transfer Stations UDP MW 14 – Noise UDP MW 15 – Reversing Alarms UDP MW 16 – Dust and Litter UDP UDP DC 3 – External Lighting UDP DC 15 – Development on unstable or contaminated land

RDG=Powys Residential Design Guide NAW=National Assembly for Wales TAN= Technical Advice Note UDP=Powys Unitary Development Plan, MIPPS=Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement

Officer Appraisal

National and Local Policies - Waste

Members are advised to consider this application in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and paragraph 3.1.2 of Planning Policy Wales, which requires applications to be determined in accordance with the approved or adopted development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The main policies to be considered in the determination of this application are the policies of the Powys Unitary Development Plan. The policies and guidance contained within TAN21 are also central to the determination of this application. The materiality of the above polices are discussed in the following planning appraisal.

In exercising its planning functions in dealing with waste management applications; Local Planning Authorities must consider Articles 18 and 20 of The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, which states that the Waste Framework Directive - EC Council Directive 1999/31/EC (Landfill of Waste) and 2008/98/EC must be given weight.

3 Page 333 The EU Landfill Directive specifying European targets for the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill together with the Waste Framework Directive is driving Local Authorities to manage waste as high up the up the Waste Hierarchy as possible. In order to achieve this, the EU and Welsh Assembly Governments have set stringent recycling targets and have detailed their proposed penalties to Local Authorities who fail to deliver alternative waste management arrangements. As a result the Welsh Assembly Government has made it clear through the adoption of The National Waste Strategy document Towards Zero Waste that resources will be directed towards local authority policies which are based on very high levels of waste recycling and composting; together with minimal levels of landfilling.

In response, Powys County Council are seeking to develop fit for purpose bulking sites across the county which will allow the Council to bulk, mechanically separate, bale and transfer recyclable material and wastes more effectively. Powys County Council have identified the need to develop three regional waste transfer and bulking sites across the county to undertake this operation; so as to optimise the collection operations, save on haulage costs whilst also complying with national targets which requires waste to be managed as high up the Waste Hierarchy as possible. This is in accordance with strategic policy SP11 of the UDP which states that the provision of an integrated and adequate network of waste management facilities is supported in accordance regional waste plans and waste management and recycling strategies and plans.

The Rhayader Highways Depot was granted planning permission in 2006 for the use as a waste transfer station under planning reference PR159204. This planning application is to redevelop the recycling and bulking facility as the mid region waste and recycling bulking facility for the Council.

The proposed development will require the demolition of two existing steel framed store buildings and the construction of a new purpose built steel portal framed building for bulking of mixed municipal wastes and cardboard, a new welfare amenity building, the conversion of the existing welfare unit into serviceable offices, surfacing and lining of existing hardstandings for parking and routeing of vehicles together with associated infrastructure including rainwater harvesting system, new foul water link, a new three-phase electricity supply and new layout for lighting and cctv cameras on site.

Built element of the proposal

The proposed steel frame building is to replace the 2 existing pre-fabricated steel buildings which are in a dilapidated state. Although the footprint of the new building will be larger than the existing buildings; measuring 41metres in length, 20 metres in width and almost 10metres in height to its ridge, it can be easily accommodated on site and will not be adversely located within the landscape. The proposed welfare facility will measure approximately 16 metres in length, 8 metres in width and 3.4 metres in height and can also be easily accommodated on site without adverse impacts. Together with the associated work, it is considered that the development in

4 Page 334 relation to its design, scale mass and material will not have an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area, the environment or local amenity and therefore the proposal is in accordance with UDP policy GP1.

Environment and Amenity

The site is to continue to operate between the hours of 07:00 and 18:00 Monday to Saturday and will operate on Bank Holidays. The site will be closed on Sundays and Christmas Bank Holiday, unless emergency maintenance work is required.

The Environmental Health Department consider it expedient to include a noise condition to ensure that noise is maintained to an acceptable level in the interests of residential amenity. By also including conditions to control dust, litter, pests, lighting and noise of on-site machinery, it is considered that the development will not have an adverse impact on the environment and local amenity and therefore the proposal is in accordance with UDP policy MW1, MW14, MW15, MW16 and DC3.

In addition, the Environmental Health department states that the site currently operates under a permit issued by NRW and there are conditions attached to the permit to protect the environment from polluting air and land. TAN21 – Waste; states that planning authorities should take into account the ability of Environmental Permits to control the operations of waste facilities, and its interactions with the environment; and should not duplicate control more appropriately imposed as part of the permit.

Highways

Currently there are 17 refuse vehicles operating from within the application site, they are used to collect kerbside waste and recycling from the mid Powys region. These 17 vehicles all make one round trip daily with the residual waste being deposited at the Bryn Posteg tip near Llanidloes and the recyclate deposited at the application site upon the vehicles return. This proposal will allow all wastes to be deposited daily at the application site which will then result in:

Approximately 2 bulked HGV’s departing weekly to Bryn Posteg to dispose residual waste, 2 weekly food collections, and 1 weekly collection from site for glass, plastics, cans, paper and cardboard.

The recycled material is currently bulked and transferred on site; therefore the only additional vehicular movement associated with the proposal is the transfer of bulked residual waste to Bryn Posteg. Therefore it is considered that the development will not have an adverse impact upon the highway network and is in accordance with UDP policy GP4 and T3.

Ecology

It is noted that the Ecological Survey Report submitted in support of the application identifies the use of one of the buildings that is to be demolished as a day roost for one Soprano Pipistrelle bat which is a European Protected Species. The report

5 Page 335 states that a Natural Resources Wales European Species Development License is to be obtained to undertake works that will disturb, damage/destroy a European Protected Species. Mitigation will be undertaken in the form of undertaking the work between the 1st October and 31st March when bats are less likely to be present, ensuring that an Ecological Clerk of Works delivers a toolbox talk to all site personnel covering awareness of potential presence of bats and measures to be undertaken if protected species are encountered or identified during the works. Mitigation will also include the fixing of two bat boxes on the North West elevation of the new building.

Subject to the implementation of mitigation measures relating to bats, nesting birds and the pollution prevention plan referred to within the Ecological Survey Report; it is considered that the development will not have an adverse impact on biodiversity or protected species and therefore the proposal is in accordance with UDP policy ENV3 and ENV7.

Contaminated Land

The site’s previous use was as a railway station and former landfill. These land uses has the potential to cause contamination. In support of the application a Site Condition Report, Geo-environmental Desk Study and Ground Investigation Report has been submitted. Subject to the information submitted, the Authority’s Contaminated Land Officer has recommended that conditions are applied for further survey work to be undertaken to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on site, the submission and implementation of a remediation scheme associated with any contamination. Further conditions are also advised in relation to unexpected contamination that may be discovered on site and a condition relating to a long term monitoring and maintenance scheme for the site. The Contaminated Land Officer also recommends that the Council’s guidance leaflet for the development of sites with potential contamination is also brought to the applicant’s attention. Natural Resources Wales also recommends that an advisory is included should planning permission be granted requiring the implementation of the Guiding Principles for Land Contamination be followed. Subject to the applicant undertaking the required actions in accordance with the planning conditions recommended it is considered that the development accords with UDP policy DC15.

Other observations and representations

It is noted that a nominal part of the site along its northern boundary is located within the C2 flood zone. However the proposal does not include any development within the C2 zone and no adverse comments were received by NRW to this effect.

Representation has been submitted by Wales & West Utilities, suggesting that should planning permission be granted an advisory note is attached stating that apparatus may be present in the area and that measures should be put in place for their protection.

No adverse responses have been received by statutory consultees or members of the public to the application.

6 Page 336

Recommendation

Based on the above report it is considered that the proposal accords with local and national policies noted within this document. Subject to the inclusion of the planning conditions noted below that are considered to be necessary, fulfil a planning purpose and fairly and reasonably relate to the development it is recommended that planning permission is granted.

Conditions

1. The development to which this permission relates shall begin no later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Acts

2. Unless otherwise required by planning condition or agreed in writing by the local planning authority the development shall be carried out in accordance with the drawings, plans and details validated on the 28/09/2015.

Reason: To secure the proper development of the site and to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Acts

3. Prior to the installation of any external lighting, a lighting scheme shall be submitted in writing for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The approved Lighting Scheme shall be installed and implemented as approved and maintained throughout the life of the development.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that lighting is designed to an acceptable level in which reduces light pollution from the site, in the interests of residential amenity and nature conservation.

4. Noise from the operation of the facility approved shall not exceed the background noise levels by more than 5dB(A) at the nearest noise sensitive properties as identified by the applicant and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents and occupiers of adjacent land.

5. All waste shall be delivered to the site in suitably enclosed vessels/containers/trailers and no delivery vehicles shall be permitted to leave the site unless the vessels/containers/trailers are suitably enclosed.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, in the interests of local amenity and to ensure that no waste or fugitive odour is released and/or emitted during transportation.

6. All vehicles and machinery operated within the site shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specification at all times, and shall be fitted with and use effective silencers. Vehicles when reversing will not emit

7 Page 337 warning noise that would have an adverse impact on residential or rural amenity.

Reason: To ensure minimum disturbance from operations and to minimise the adverse impact of noise generated by the operations on the local community.

7. Prior to the commissioning of the facility, an Operational Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority for written approval and shall be implemented as approved thereof. The approved plan/scheme shall include a monitoring/mitigation and management plan for dust, fugitive litter and pest control.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that impacts of the facility is mitigated and maintained to an acceptable level in the interests of residential amenity and nature conservation.

8. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority the hours of operation for the approved facility shall be restricted to:-

- 07:00 - 18:00 hours on Mondays to Saturdays - 07:00 – 18:00 hours on Bank and Public Holidays

Notwithstanding the above no operation shall take place on Sundays and Christmas Bank Holidays.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to protect the amenities of local residents.

9. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least 110% of the volume of the tank's capacity. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no disharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment

10. Prior to the commencement of construction, the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority:

a) A preliminary risk assessment, which has identified,

• All previous uses, • Potential contaminants associated with those uses, • A conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors, • Potentially unacceptable risks.

8 Page 338 b) A site investigation scheme based upon a) to provide information for as detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. c) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. d) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected to demonstrate that the works set out in c) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components will require the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved for the life of the development.

Reason: The site is in an area of potentially contaminative past uses. To protect the water environment and human health and in the interests of wildlife conservation.

11. Prior to the commencement of construction, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a "long term monitoring and maintenance plan") for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The site is in an area of potentially contaminative past uses. To protect the water environment and human health and in the interests of wildlife conservation.

12. If during construction and/or operation of the site, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site; then no further development shall be carried out in that area of the site until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

Reason: The site is in an area of potentially contaminative past uses. To protect the water environment and human health and in the interests of wildlife conservation.

13. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in relation to bats and nesting birds and the pollution prevention plan as detailed within the submitted Ecological Report Ref: H2333902 validated by the authority on the 28/09/2015.

9 Page 339

REASON: In the interests of biodiversity and nature conservation.

Notes

Wales & West Utilities The developer should contact Wales & West Utilities prior to works commencing in relation to general conditions to be observed for the protection of apparatus and the prevention of distruption to gas supplies. We refer you to the Notes and Informatives requested by Wales & West Utilitiesl in their letter dated 13/10/2015 Ref: 8150050042 including Safe Working Practice Notes attached to this decision.]

Natural Resources Wales The developer is advised to contact Natural Resources Wales prior to works commencing. We refer you to the Notes and Informatives submitted by Natural Resources Wales in their letter dated 26/10/2015 Ref: CAS-11444-R9K2 attached to this decision.

Powys County Council Ecology YGS We refer you to the Supplemenatary notes within the Ecological response of the 30/10/2015 attached to this decision.

Powys County Council Contaminated Land, Environmental Health Department We refer you to the supplementary notes within the Contaminated Land response of the 30/10/2015 Ref: WK/201517772 attached to this decision.

______Case Officer: Robin Wynne Williams- Minerals And Waste Planning Officer Tel: 01286 679833 E-mail:[email protected]

10 Page 340 Page 341 This page is intentionally left blank PTLRW111 - 2015

Delegated List

04/11/2015 00 25/11/2015 00 For the purpose of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the background papers relating to each individual planning application constitute all the correspondence on the file as numbered in the left hand column.

FOR INFORMATION Decisions of the Head of Regeneration, Property & Commissioning on Delegated Applications

Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Old Oak House P/2015/0696 09/09/2015 00CONSENT 04/11/2015 Householder: HOUS Demolition of rear porch and construction of rear Broad Street porch/sunroom and Presteigne glass porch LD8 2AB

Pen-y-Derw P/2015/0800 14/08/2015 00CONSENT 04/11/2015 Erection of a free range Forden FULL egg laying unit with associated feed bins and hardstandings and Welshpool construction of one passing place SY21 8NH

Page 343

1 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Pengwern P/2015/0836 09/09/2015 00 CONSENT04/11/2015 Conversion and Aberangell FULL extension of barn to form a dwelling, formation of vehicular Machynlleth access and installation of septic tank SY 20 9 NL

P/2015/0847 17/09/2015 00 CONSENT04/11/2015 Erection of a two storey Celyn Lane HOUS extension 20 Maes y Granllyn Guilsfield

SY 21 9 PE

Grevodig Bungalow P/2015/0855 15/09/2015 00 REFUSE04/11/2015 Application for lawful Llanbister CLA 1 development certificate (Section 191): Occupation by persons Llandrindod Wells not connected with agriculture LD 1 6 TW

Willow P/2015/0907 11/09/2015 00 CONSENT04/11/2015 Extension of existing HOUS property Llwynon Lane

SY 16 2 ED

Cefnaire Farm TEL /2015/0025 16/09/2015 00 PP 04/11/2015 Proposed TEL NOTNEEDED telecommucations installation upgrade and Off Heol Treowen associated works under Newtown Part 24 of Schedule 2 SY 16 3 AA

Page 344

2 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Greenhill Cottage P/2015/0934 23/09/2015 00CONSENT 04/11/2015 Demolition of existing Trewern HOUS leanto and erection of replacement extension

SY21 8EH

Glebe Farm P/2015/0481 18/05/2015 00CONSENT 05/11/2015 LBC: Erection of porch, Old Church Stoke LBC replacement of windows and erection of internal partition Montgomery

SY15 6DH

P/2015/0753 24/08/2015 00REFUSE 05/11/2015 Outline - 3 No detached Upper Cwmtrwch OUT 4 bedroom dwellings, associated access, Land South of Tai Gwalia parking and landscaping. SA9 2UP

Garden Plot P/2015/0791 10/09/2015 00CONSENT 05/11/2015 Erection of two FULL bedroomed house with adjoining carport to Off Church Road include alterations to Welshpool existing access and demolition of existing SY21 7LN building

Land part of Wye Garage P/2015/0798 10/09/2015 00REFUSE 05/11/2015 Outline: Erection of a Llyswen OUT detached dwellinghouse (all matters reserved) Brecon

LD3 0UR

Page 345 3 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Tir Brwnt P/2015/0805 14/09/2015 00CONSENT 05/11/2015 Proposed alterations FULL and conversion of adjoining barn to Tir Bwnt, Formation of an equestrian practice arena/menage and SY17 5QP change of use for equestrian purposes

The Old Vicarage P/2015/0160 11/02/2015 00CONSENT 06/11/2015 Section 73 Application : Carno REM Removal of conditions 3, 4 and 5 of planning approval P/2014/0273 Caersws (code for sustainable homes). SY17 5LL

Nant Ceiriog (formerly known as la nd adjoining Troed-y-Garth) d P/2015/0362 23/07/2015 00CONSENT 06/11/2015 Reserved Matters Van RES application in respect of outline application P/2013/1255 for access Llanidloes (comprising vehicular and pedestrian SY18 6NW accesses onto the County highway); landscaping in relation to the access

Pen y Pentre Caravan Park P/2015/0754 03/08/2015 00CONSENT 06/11/2015 Section 73 application: Llangyniew REM Variation of condition 11 of planning consent P/2012/0948 to remove Welshpool the size limitation of static caravans SY21 0JT

Bryncoch Sawmills P/2013/1049 24/10/2013 00CONSENT 09/11/2015 Erection of a dwelling Llanerfyl OUT S106 (outline), installation of a bio disk treatment plant and all associated Welshpool works SY21 0JD

Page 346 4 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Plot at Offas Dyke Business Park P/2015/0748 16/09/2015 00CONSENT 09/11/2015 Erection a new building Buttington FULL comprising single storey manufacturing space Fisher Road with two storey office Welshpool accommodation and all associated works SY21 8JF

Llwynaire P/2015/0869 15/09/2015 00CONSENT 09/11/2015 Change of use of FULL dwelling to form guest house (with owners accommodation) Llanbrynmair including upgrade of access and upgrade of SY19 7DX foul drainage installation

Land at Edderton (The Oaks) P/2014/1184 21/11/2014 00CONSENT 10/11/2015 Householder: Erection Forden HOUS of two storey, first floor extension and single storey extensions (part retrospective) SY21 8ND

Temple Chambers P/2015/0856 16/09/2015 00CONSENT 10/11/2015 Change of use: FULL Commercial to residential (part South Crescent retrospective) Llandrindod Wells

LD1 5DH

The Old Foundary P/2015/0904 17/09/2015 00CONSENT 11/11/2015 Section 73 application REM to remove condition no's 17, 18 & 19 from Tanrallt Road planning permission Machynlleth P/2013/1177 (code for sustainable homes) SY20 8HH

Page 347 5 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Rowan House P/2015/0922 18/09/2015 00CONSENT 11/11/2015 Erection of a two storey Llanllwchaiarn HOUS side extension to include carport, construction of front Newtown porch (demolition of existing garage) SY16 3BH

The Old Mill Bar (formerly United P/2014/0813 15/08/2014 00CONSENT 12/11/2015 Full: Change of use of Services Club) FULL first floor of the former United Services Club High Street into living Llanidloes accommodation for the Old Mill Bar, Llanidloes SY18 6BZ (retrospective)

Plot at 1 Nant-yr-arian Cottages P/2015/0363 13/04/2015 00CONSENT 12/11/2015 Outline with some OUT matters reserved: Proposed new dwelling Hospital Road and creation of new Builth Wells vehicular access LD2 3HG

Development Adj to Llynderw P/2015/0433 13/05/2015 00CONSENT 12/11/2015 VAR: Removal of Llanfyllin REM conditions 3, 4 & 5 of permission Bwlch y Cibau P/2012/0047 relating to Welshpool the requirement for the Code for Sustainable Homes

The Old Mill Bar (formerly United P/2015/0596 26/06/2015 00CONSENT 12/11/2015 LBC: Retention of four Services Club) LBC lightweight stud partitions; installation of High Street sanitary ware in existing Llanidloes toilet block; temporary removal and SY18 6BZ subsequent reinstatement of timber floor (on second floor) in order to install insulation; new extract

Page 348 6 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Natwest P/2015/0609 30/06/2015 00CONSENT 12/11/2015 Display of 2 ADV non-illuminated fascia signs, 1 non illuminated 30 Broad Street projecting sign, 1 illuminated ATM tablet, 1 non illuminated vinyl SY21 7RR entrance sign and 2 non illuminated opening hours/service signs

Malt House P/2015/0726 23/07/2015 00CONSENT 12/11/2015 Section 73 to vary Land rear of Coedway REM condition 2 of planning permission P/2010/0955 to allow Shrewsbury changes to design of dwelling including position with the site, variation of approved drawings and design statement.

Watsons Garage P/2015/0733 17/09/2015 00CONSENT 12/11/2015 Section 73 to vary REM condition no's 2, 3,4,5,8 & 9 attached to planning New Street permission Caersws P/2012/0603 in order to allow design changes in SY17 5DT connection with proposed change of use of first floor and part of ground floor of existing garage to a residential HSBC P/2015/0825 17/09/2015 00CONSENT 12/11/2015 Proposed new ATM to FULL replace existing ATM in same location, Middleton Street Modifications to internal secondary glazing and applied internally LD1 5ET frosted glazing to window

Come By P/2015/0870 23/09/2015 00CONSENT 12/11/2015 Erection of a detached Garthbrengy HOUS garage Brecon

LD3 9TW

Page 349

7 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Hundred House Inn P/2015/0918 17/09/2015 00REFUSE 12/11/2015 Rear extension to Bleddfa FULL existing pub and dwelling house Knighton

LD7 1PA

Land to rear of P/2015/0920 17/09/2015 00REFUSE 12/11/2015 Full: Erection of two Lower Cwmtwrch FULL bedroom dormer bungalow 87 Gorof Road

SA9 1DS

Glanirfon P/2015/0923 18/09/2015 00REFUSE 12/11/2015 Erection of a North Barn HOUS conservatory to front elevation Station Road Llanwrtyd Wells

LD5 4RR

Penybryn P/2015/0926 21/09/2015 00LAWFUL USE 12/11/2015 Application for lawful Dolau CLA2 development certificate for the proposed use of existing building as Llandrindod Wells ancillary accommodation to the LD1 5TW main dwelling

Y Granari P/2015/0928 23/09/2015 00CONSENT 12/11/2015 Change of use of land Llanfihangel Talyllyn FULL to domestic curtilage and erection of oak framed building for use Brecon as garage/parking LD3 7TG

Page 350

8 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

HSBC P/2015/0933 17/09/2015 00REFCADW 12/11/2015 LBC: Proposed new LBC ATM to replace existing ATM in same location, Middleton Street Modifications to internal secondary glazing and applied internally LD1 5ET frosted glazing to window

Trebarried Farm P/2015/0958 30/09/2015 00CONSENT 12/11/2015 Section 73 application Llandefalle REM for removal of conditions 3, 4 & 5 from planning approval Brecon P/2012/0896 (code for sustainable homes) LD3 0NB

Broadaxe Business Park P/2015/0554 03/06/2015 00CONSENT 13/11/2015 Full: Extension of FULL infrastructure proposals Presteigne

LD8 2UH

0

0

Page 351 9 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

0

Upper House Farm P/2015/0492 01/06/2015 00CONSENT 17/11/2015 Full: Conversion of Burlingjobb FULL existing threshing barn into a dwelling, including a small Presteigne garage/stable on site. LD8 2PW

Development adjacent to the r P/2015/0930 22/09/2015 00CONSENT 17/11/2015 Variation to design and Former Convent (Highland Moors) FULL layout of 13 dwellings as part of planning off Pentrosfa Road approval P/2011/0042 Llandrindod Wells for the residential development of 16 dwellings

The Dell P/2015/0932 22/09/2015 00CONSENT 17/11/2015 Section 73 application Boughrood REM to remove condition no. 2 from planning permission R3010/A Brecon (occupancy restriction) LD3 0BJ

Ty Brenllyn P/2014/0848 12/08/2014 00APPROVE 18/11/2015 Lawful development CLA1 certificate for the occupation of dwelling without compliance of Montgomery condition 4 of permission M19853 SY15 6HZ (agricultural occupancy)

Page 352 10 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Old House P/2014/1247 15/12/2014 00CONSENT 18/11/2015 LBC: Listed building Llanerchydol LBC consent for erection of a two storey extension to Lower Llanerchydol provide kitchen Welshpool extesnion and new bathroom to the west SY21 9PG elevation (revised design to previous approval)

Land at Caerlan P/2015/0434 30/09/2015 00REFUSE 18/11/2015 Outline: Erection of a Abercrave OUT single dwelling (all matters reserved) Swansea

Land between rear of 13 Broad St nd P/2015/0765 23/09/2015 00CONSENT 18/11/2015 Section 73 application a rear of Old Pound New Radnor REM for variation of condition 2 of P/2012/1025 Water Street (erection of a dwelling) Presteigne to extend time period for submission of LD8 2SY reserved matters)

Wide Open P/2015/0834 23/09/2015 00CONSENT 18/11/2015 Erection of a garage Penybont HOUS and store Llandrindod Wells

LD1 5TY

Y Llwybr Arian P/2015/0857 29/09/2015 00CONSENT 18/11/2015 Erection of a double Penybontfawr HOUS garage Maes y Fferm

SY10 0NZ

Page 353

11 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Upper House P/2015/0879 25/09/2015 00 CONSENT18/11/2015 Private manege and Leighton FULL creation of new vehicular access Welshpool

SY 21 8 HR

Land adjoining Bryn Tyrion P/2015/0884 23/09/2015 00 CONSENT18/11/2015 Construction of a Trewern FULL building for use as domestic garages / Sale Lane storage Welshpool

SY 21 8 SY

Cwm Carnedd Isaf P/2015/0888 28/09/2015 00 CONSENT 18/11/2015 Variation of condition 2 Dolfach REM of application P/2014/0496 to change the apperance of the Llanbrynmair building. SY 19 7 AF

Land adjacent to Severn Oaks P/2015/0929 23/09/2015 00 REFUSE18/11/2015 Erection of five Trewern OUT dwellings to include one affordable dwelling and construction of new Welshpool vehicular access (outline) SY 21 8 EA

Land adj No 23 Gerddi Cledan P/2015/0943 25/09/2015 00 CONSENT18/11/2015 Section 73 application Carno REM to extend time limit for submission of reserved matters Caersws

SY 17 5 JT

Page 354

12 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

P/2015/0945 30/09/2015 00 CONSENT18/11/2015 Erection of a porch Forden HOUS 18 Heritage Green Welshpool

SY 21 8 LH

CTIL 125353, VF10773, TEF N/A TEL /2015/0026 28/09/2015 00 PP 18/11/2015 Telecommunications Upper Heldre TELE NOTNEEDED notification under Part 24, Schedule 2 for Upper Heldre Farm proposed upgrade to Buttington base station installation and associated works SY 21 8 TF

P/2015/0960 30/09/2015 00 CONSENT18/11/2015 Erection of a side Llanfair Caereinion HOUS extension 18 Maes Gwyn Welshpool

SY 21 0 DX

New Inn P/2013/0874 24/08/2013 00 CONSENT 19/11/2015 Full: Change of use of Bettws Cedewain FULL S106 public house (A3 use) with living accommodation, to 5.no Newtown self contained residential apartments SY 16 3 DS (C3 use), shop (A1 use), together with external alterations (Resubmission)

Castellmoch Fach P/2015/0400 22/04/2015 00 CONSENT19/11/2015 Formation of a new Pedair-ffordd FULL access and track and associated works B4396 from C 2092 to U 2928 junction

SY 10 0 AJ

Page 355

13 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Ffraithwen P/2015/0846 29/09/2015 00 CONSENT 19/11/2015 Erection of a machinery Adfa FULL shed Newtown

SY 16 3 DB

Land at Lower Trederwen Farm P/2015/0900 30/09/2015 00 CONSENT19/11/2015 Erection of an Arddleen FULL agricultural building for livestock housing and Trederwen Lane associated works Llanymynech

SY 22 6 PY

Llwyn-Onn Caravan Park P/2015/0901 30/09/2015 00 REFUSE19/11/2015 Change of use, Llangadfan FULL alterations & extension of existing shower block to single holiday let (full) Welshpool

SY 21 0 QG

Former Police House next to Police P/2015/0906 30/09/2015 00 CONSENT19/11/2015 Change of use of Station FULL former police house from office use (class Dyffryn Road B1) to a dwelling (class Llandrindod Wells C3) LD 1 6 AN

Old Rectory P/2015/0713 05/08/2015 00 CONSENT20/11/2015 LBC: Removal of the Cregina LBC existing perspex lean to roof over the rear yard and construction of a traditional single storey extension to provide LD 1 5 SF dining room and laundry. Removal of the existing profile sheet lean to roof over the garage and replace with

Page 356

14 Application Valid Decision Decision notice Proposal Location No. Date sentdate

Pendre P/2015/0909 30/09/2015 00 CONSENT20/11/2015 Erection of two storey Trefeitha HOUS extension incorporating annex Brecon

LD 3 0 RN

Reads Petrol Station P/2015/0944 25/09/2015 00 REFUSE20/11/2015 Section 192 application CLA 2 for lawful development certificate for a Heol Pentrerhedyn proposed use in relation Machynlleth to use of hand washing of cars SY 20 8 DN

Cae Pandy P/2015/0946 28/09/2015 00 CONSENT20/11/2015 Reserved Matters: Llanwrthwl RES Erection of 4 dwellings and garages and Land at Talwrnmaenog associated works Llandrindod Wells

Tregynon Hall School P/2015/0961 30/09/2015 00 CONSENT20/11/2015 Change of use from a Tregynon FULL residential school (D1) to single residential dwelling and associated Newtown curtilage (C3) SY 16 3 PG

Craig Mawr P/2015/0863 29/09/2015 00 CONSENT24/11/2015 Erection of two storey Erwood HOUS extension to form annexe for aged relative to reside Builth Wells

LD 2 3 PQ

Page 357

15 This page is intentionally left blank