Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report

April 2015 Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 2

EDF Energy Renewables Limited

Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report

April 2015

Prepared by Prepared for TÜV SÜD PMSS EDF Energy Renewables 8 Latimer Walk Alexander House Romsey 1 Mandarin Road Hampshire Rainton Bridge Business Park SO51 8LA Houghton le Spring Sunderland DH4 5RA Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 3 Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 4

Table of Contents

List of Figures (See Volume 2a) 6 List of Appendices (See Volume 2b) 6 List of Abbreviations 7 1. Introduction 10 2. Structure and Contents of the SEI 12 Contents of the SEI 12 Structure of the SEI 12 Project Consultants 13 3. Project Description 14 Grid Connection 14 Project Access 14 4. Site Selection Process and Rationale for the Development 16 5. Planning and Energy Policy 18 6. Landscape Resource and Visual Amenity 20 Introduction 20 Residential Visual Amenity Study 20 Visualisations 20 Updated Site Access Drawings 21 7. Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Geology and Flood Risk 22 8. Ecology 24 Introduction 24 Additional Information – Ecology and Ornithology 24 Natural England Consultation and jointly drafted Biodiversity Mitigation and Management Plan 24 Phase 1 Habitat Report 25 Summary of Principal Findings 25 Habitats 25 Woodland 25 Grassland and Arable 26 Hedgerows 26 Species 27 Bats 27 Dormouse 27 Updated Site Access Drawings 28 9. Ornithology 30 10. Noise 32 Introduction 32 Updated Noise Impact Assessment 32 Final Noise Impact Assessment 33 11. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 34 Introduction 34 Hurstbourne Priors Conservation Area Detailed Heritage Setting Assessment 34 Laverstoke Park and House Assessment Update 34 Hurstbourne Park additional photomontages 34 Revision of existing heritage photomontages 35 High-resolution digital surface model ZTVs 35 12. Traffic and Transportation 36 Introduction 36 Highways Agency Access Study 36 Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 5

Topographical Survey and Updated Design Drawings 36 13. Electromagnetic Interference, Infrastructure and Safeguarding 38 Introduction 38 Farnborough Radar Line of Sight Report 38 MOD Air Traffic Control Radars Mitigation Proposal Letter 38 MOD Precision Approach Radar Objection – AAC Middle Wallop 38 14. Public Access and Socio-Economics (including Shadow Flicker) 40 15. Grid Connection 42 Introduction 42 Grid Connection Point 42 Outline Design Parameters and Construction Method 43 High Level Environmental Constraints 44 Methodology 44 Results and Outline Assessment 45 Ecology 45 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 49 Landscape 50 Groundwater and Flooding 50 Contaminated Land 51 Conclusions 51 Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 6

List of Figures (See Volume 2a)

Figure 11.1 - Site Location and Blade Tip Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) showing Heritage Assets Figure 11.2 - Site Location and Hub Height Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) showing Heritage Assets Figure 12.1 - Option 1 Road Improvement and Site Access Plan Figure 12.2 - Option 1 Road Long Section Drawing Figure 12.3 - Option 1 Swept Path Analysis of Road Improvement and Site Access Plan Figure 12.4 - Option 2 Road Improvement and Site Access Plan Figure 12.5 - Option 2 Road Long Section Drawing Figure 12.6 - Option 2 Swept Path Analysis of Road Improvement and Site Access Plan Figure 15.1 - Cable Route Desk-Study Search Area Figure 15.2 - Ecology Statutory Sites Figure 15.3 - Ecology Non-Statutory Sites Figure 15.4 - Priority Habitats Figure 15.5 - Heritage Assets Part 1 (east) Figure 15.6 - Heritage Assets Part 2 (west)

List of Appendices (See Volume 2b)

Appendix 6.1 - Residential Visual Amenity Study Appendix 6.2 - Visualisation Methodology and Viewing Instructions Appendix 8.1 - Additional Information – Ecology and Ornithology Appendix 8.2 - Biodiversity Mitigation and Management Plan Appendix 8.3 - Update Phase 1 Report Appendix 10.1 - Updated Noise Impact Assessment (2014) Appendix 10.2 - Final Noise Impact Assessment (2015) Appendix 11.1 - Hurstbourne Priors Conservation Area Detailed Heritage Setting Assessment Appendix 11.2 - Laverstoke Park and House Assessment Update Appendix 12.1 - Highways Agency Access Study Appendix 13.1 - Farnborough Radar Line of Sight Report Appendix 13.2 - MOD Air Traffic Control Radars Mitigation Proposal Letter Appendix 15.1 - Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre List of Species Appendix 15.2 - Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Desk Based Assessment of Indicative Cable Route Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 7

List of Abbreviations

AAP Area of Archaeological Potential AHAP Area of High Archaeological Potential AM Amplitude Modulation AOD Above Ordnance Datum AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty AP Aerial Photography Appellant EDF Energy Renewables Limited ATC Air Traffic Control BDBC Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council BERR Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform BMMP Biodiversity Mitigation and Management Plan BNG British National Grid CEnv Chartered Environmentalist CIEEM Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management dB (A) Decibel – A Weighted dB Decibel DBA Desk-Based Assessment DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government DEFRA Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs DNO Distribution Network Operator DSM Digital Surface Model DTI Department for Trade and Industry ECoW Ecological Clerk of Works EDF ER EDF Energy Renewables Limited EPSL European Protected Species Licence ES Environmental Statement GLVIA Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment GPG Good Practice Guide GPS Global Positioning System GSPZ Groundwater Source Protection Zones HA Highways Agency HBIC Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling HER Historic Environment Record Hz Hertz IEC International Electrotechnical Commission IEMA Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment IoA Institute of Acoustics IRZ Impact Risk Zone KHG Keep Hampshire Green km Kilometre LOAEL Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level LPA Local Planning Authority LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment m/s metres per second MOD Ministry of Defence N/A Not applicable NOEL No Observed Effect Level NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NPPG National Planning Policy Guideline NPSE Noise Policy Statement for England OAM Other Amplitude Modulation OS Ordnance Survey PAR Precision Approach Radar Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 8

PEA Preliminary Ecological Appraisal PMSS TÜV SÜD PMSS PoS Point of Supply PPG Planning Policy Guidance PPS Planning Policy Statement RMS Root Mean Square RVAS Residential Visual Amenity Study RVEI Roadside Verges of Ecological Importance SEI Supplementary Environmental Information SEPD Scottish and Southern Energy Power Distribution SINC Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation SNH Scottish Natural Heritage SOAEL Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level SODAR Sonic Detection and Ranging SRN Strategic Road Network SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest the Scheme Bullington Cross Wind Farm TIN Technical Information Note TVBC Test Valley Borough Council VRI Visual Route Inspection WCC Winchester City Council WPAC Wind Power Aviation Consultants Ltd WTG Wind Turbine Generator ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 9 Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 10

1. Introduction

1.1. EDF Energy Renewables Limited (the Appellant) submitted planning applications to Winchester City Council, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, and Test Valley Borough Council in April 2013, for planning permission for the construction of a wind farm comprising fourteen turbines (the Scheme) on land to the north-east of the Bullington Cross interchange between the A34 and the A303.

1.2. The project site falls within an area administered by three local planning authorities (LPAs), namely:

i. Winchester City Council (WCC) (7 turbines), ii. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC) (4 turbines), and iii. Test Valley Borough Council (TVBC) (3 turbines)

1.3. Applications were made to all three LPAs. The planning applications were assigned the planning reference numbers 13/00800/FUL, 13/00046/FUL, and 13/00753/FULLN respectively. Planning descriptions for each application followed the same structure but varied depending on the amount of infrastructure in each local authority area, however for reference the description to WCC is given below:

1.4. ‘Construction of a wind farm development comprising 7 wind turbines up to 126.5m in height to blade tip and ancillary equipment, site access, external transformers, foundations, crane hardstandings, access tracks, cable trenches, anemometry mast, control building and temporary construction compound, in conjunction with planning applications to Test Valley Borough Council for 3 wind turbines, ancillary equipment, external transformers, foundations, crane hardstandings, access tracks, cable trenches, and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council for 4 wind turbines, ancillary equipment, external transformers, foundations, crane hardstandings, access tracks, cable trenches, as part of a single wind farm of 14 wind turbines for an operational period of 25 years.’

1.5. The Appellant prepared and submitted Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI), and an updated standalone Planning Statement to the local authorities in November 2013, to be read alongside the existing Environmental Statement (ES), in response to matters raised by consultees and interested parties during the consultation process for the planning applications.

1.6. In response to consultation responses, the Appellant submitted a number of documents in support of the planning application including an Addendum Noise Impact Assessment (March 2014), a Detailed Heritage Setting Assessment in relation to the Hurstbourne Priors Conservation Area (May 2014) and a Radar Line of Sight Report (June 2014).

1.7. The planning applications were considered at a Joint Planning Development Control Committee on 16 June 2014. The Committee resolved to refuse planning permission for the Scheme and the Councils formalised this position by way of their respective decision notices.

1.8. The Appellant has submitted an appeal in respect of each refusal of planning permission for the separate applications which form the Scheme. The appeals were submitted pursuant to Section 78(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against the Councils’ decisions to refuse the applications for the Scheme.

1.9. The appeals were allocated the following appeal reference numbers:

i. Appeal against refusal by Winchester City Council - APP/L1765/W/14/3001602 ii. Appeal against refusal by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council - APP/H1705/W/14/3001603 iii. Appeal against refusal by Test Valley Borough Council - APP/C1760/W/14/3001604

1.10. On the basis that the applications together form a proposal for a single wind farm development, the Appellant submitted a consolidated Statement of Case in December 2014, and submitted one set of the supporting documentation to the Planning Inspectorate on the basis that the same documentation applies to each application and, in turn, each appeal. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 11

1.11. Similarly this submission of Environmental Statement Addendum of Supplementary Environmental Information is submitted in support of the single wind farm development known as Bullington Cross Wind Farm. This April 2015 SEI is to be read alongside the previous November 2013 SEI, and the April 2013 ES.

1.12. Copies of this SEI can be obtained from:

Bullington Cross Wind Farm Development Team EDF Energy Renewables Alexander House 1 Mandarin Road Rainton Bridge Business Park Houghton le Spring Sunderland DH4 5RA Telephone (freephone): 0800 048 4647 Email: [email protected]

1.13. Volumes 1, 2a, and 2b of the SEI are available at a cost of £50 per set in hard copy format as long as stocks last (including postage and packaging). Volume 2c of the SEI contains banner style visualisations printed to a specification in line with current Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) guidance, which are prohibitively expensive to produce and can be obtained separately at cost for £650 per hard copy as long as stocks last (including postage and packaging). Alternatively the entire SEI including all 4 volumes is available on DVD-ROM free of charge. The 2015 SEI, 2013 SEI, and the 2013 ES documents are also downloadable from the EDF ER website1

1 http://www.edf-er.com/OurProjects/Proposed/BullingtonCross/ProjectDocuments.aspx Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 12

2. Structure and Contents of the SEI Contents of the SEI

2.1. The SEI has been structured so that the main technical environmental chapter numbers match those of the previous ES and SEI submissions.

2.2. This document provides additional and updated Supplementary Environmental Information where this is relevant and necessary to assess the likely significant effects of the Scheme.

2.3. It is acknowledged that since the submission of the SEI in November 2013, there has been ongoing discussion with some consultees in relation to the proposals. There had also been ongoing correspondence and meetings with the LPAs prior to refusal of the original planning applications. Where necessary these have been discussed within the individual technical SEI chapters.

2.4. This SEI also includes pertinent information that has already been submitted to the LPAs subsequent to the issue of the 2013 SEI but before planning determination was made.

2.5. The information provided falls into the following categories;

i. Supplementary Environmental Information, which responds to issues raised by the relevant consultees and provides information which is additional to, or that supplements that provided within the original ES and 2013 SEI; and ii. Supplementary Environmental Information, which supersedes information within the original ES and 2013 SEI, for example as a result of bringing information up to date with current guidance that has changed.

2.6. A reading guide, describing where relevant the current, extant, and superseded environmental information is provided in the individual topic chapters of this SEI.

Structure of the SEI

2.7. This SEI comprises four volumes as follows:

i. Volume 1 – Main Report; ii. Volume 2a – Figures; iii. Volume 2b – Appendices; and iv. Volume 2c – Visualisations

2.8. This SEI is divided into fifteen sections, with the main technical chapters (listed below) reflecting the sections in the ES and 2013 SEI, in conjunction with which this SEI should be read:

i. Chapter 6: Landscape Resource and Visual Amenity; ii. Chapter 7: Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Geology and Flood Risk; iii. Chapter 8: Ecology; iv. Chapter 9: Ornithology; v. Chapter 10: Noise; vi. Chapter 11: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage; vii. Chapter 12: Traffic and Transportation; viii. Chapter 13: Electromagnetic Interference, Infrastructure and Safeguarding; and ix. Chapter 14: Public Access and Socio-Economics (including Shadow Flicker).

2.9. Since the publication of the November 2013 SEI the Appellant has submitted a Point of Supply (PoS) request to Scottish and Southern Energy Power Distribution plc (SEPD) who are the Distribution Network Operator (DNO) responsible for distribution network grid connections for the area in which the proposed Scheme is located. Updated indicative information on the revised grid connection point is included in Chapter 15 of this SEI. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 13

Project Consultants

2.10. A number of specialist consultants were appointed to prepare the SEI and undertake the environmental assessments where relevant. These are listed in Table 2.1 below.

Assessment Consultant Landscape Resource and Visual Amenity Pegasus Group, Pavilion Court, Green Lane, Garforth, Leeds, LS25 2AF Ecology and Ornithology SLR Consulting Limited, 69 Polsloe Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 2NF Noise 24 Acoustics Limited, Pepper Mill Barn, Old Salisbury Lane, Romsey, Hampshire, SO51 0GD Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Headland Archaeology, 13 Jane Street, Edinburgh, EH6 5HE, and

Cotswold Archaeology, Office 49, Basepoint Business Centre, Caxton Close, Andover, Hampshire, SP10 3FG Traffic and Transportation TÜV SÜD PMSS, 8 Latimer Walk, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 8LA Electromagnetic Interference, Wind Power Aviation Consultants Limited, Hazards, 38 Hadrian Way, Chilworth, Infrastructure, and Safeguarding Southampton, SO16 7HX Grid Connection TÜV SÜD PMSS, 8 Latimer Walk, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 8LA, and

Headland Archaeology, 13 Jane Street, Edinburgh, EH6 5HE Table 2.1 SEI Consultants Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 14

3. Project Description

3.1. All sections of the existing ES and 2013 SEI Chapter 3 remain extant with the exception of the sections below.

Grid Connection

3.2. Since the publication of the November 2013 SEI the Appellant has submitted a PoS request to SEPD who are the DNO responsible for distribution network grid connections for the area in which the proposed project is located. In their formal PoS offer SEPD have identified their Andover East 33/11 kV substation as their chosen grid connection point for the project. A connection at the Andover East substation would supersede the previously identified connection point at the 33kV Barton Stacey substation. Updated indicative information on the revised grid connection point is included in Chapter 15 of this SEI.

Project Access

3.3. Since the publication of the 2013 SEI, topographical survey has been undertaken of the Norton Junction off the A303, this new data has been used in updated drawings of the site access options. These drawings have been issued to the Highways Agency for comment. Based on the more accurate topographical survey data, changes are required in the amounts of hedgerow and secondary woodland removal, and access track alignment; these drawings are described in Chapter 12 and other topic chapters where relevant, and are presented in Volume 2a of this SEI. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 15 Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 16

4. Site Selection Process and Rationale for the Development

4.1. There have been no changes to the site selection process or rationale for development that resulted in the 14 turbine scheme which was described in detail within the April 2013 ES and November 2013 SEI. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 17 Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 18

5. Planning and Energy Policy

5.1. There are no updates to the findings of this section of the ES, the 2013 SEI, or the standalone updated Planning Statement. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 19 Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 20

6. Landscape Resource and Visual Amenity Introduction

6.1. This section of the report addresses landscape and visual matters and in particular describes the additional material which has been prepared with regard to the visual amenity of nearby residential properties and also the additional visualisations which have been produced. These visualisations are set out in Volume 2c of the SEI.

6.2. The additional material has been produced by chartered landscape architects from Pegasus Group who are the appointed landscape architect in relation to the forthcoming public inquiry.

Residential Visual Amenity Study

6.3. Following the submission of the ES and 2013 SEI a further consideration of residential visual amenity matters has been undertaken in order to provide an additional degree of detail with regard to this matter. In particular this included visits to those properties within approximately 1km of the site where access was permitted by the residents (a total of 7 properties were visited, including some where only access to the curtilage was authorised). A Residential Visual Amenity Study (RVAS) is provided as Appendix 6.1 to this SEI. This RVAS does not alter the findings of the Statement of Residential Amenity submitted with the planning application (and the subsequent additional detail provided as Appendix 6.1 to the 2013 SEI) with regard to the conclusions that no properties would experience an overwhelming or overbearing visual effect on their residential amenity. However, the RVAS has considered these properties in further detail based on on-site observations and provides more detailed information concerning the nature, location and extent of effects at the properties, and where significant effects are likely to occur.

6.4. In summary, there is one property (New Barn House), where the updated RVAS concludes there would be a significant visual effect which would be experienced from at least some part of the property, which was not acknowledged by previous assessment. In addition there are five properties (1-5 Tufton Warren Cottages) where the previous assessment had assumed a significant effect would occur, but where the further analysis has identified that no significant visual effects would arise. This relates to a more refined assessment concerning the effects on both curtilage and the available views from properties, and the screening/ containment they benefit from.

Visualisations

6.5. A series of new and updated visualisations of the proposals are provided in Volume 2c of the SEI. These include a number of visualisations prepared to inform the heritage assessment, which are discussed further in Chapter 11 of this SEI. With regard to the landscape and visual impact assessment there are 32 assessment viewpoints which were provided in the ES or 2013 SEI. The visualisations in Volume 2c of this SEI show greater context in relation to the views when compared with those set out in the ES (a 90 degree angle of view). Where such elements would be clearly visible the photomontages also show further detail with regard to the site infrastructure, including the access tracks, crane hardstanding areas, external turbine transformer housings, and the permanent anemometry mast. (The proposed substation would not be visible in any of the images). For each of these viewpoints a new set of visualisations has been prepared which illustrate the following:

i. A baseline photograph showing a 90 degree angle of view ii. A 90 degree angle of view wireframe image of the proposed development iii. A 90 degree angle of view photomontage view of the proposed development including any ancillary infrastructure iv. A 53.5 degree angle of view photomontage view of the proposed development including any ancillary infrastructure

6.6. Each of the images are presented with either summer or winter photography which for the most part uses the photography which was used in the production of the ES and 2013 SEI visualisations. In some cases where deemed beneficial both summer and winter images are provided and some new winter photography has Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 21

been taken for viewpoints close to the site. For viewpoints 1 and 23, which are located over 10km from the site, the 90 degree photomontage and 53.5 degree enlargement have not been provided at this time. It is proposed that new photography for these viewpoints shall be gathered during the spring when weather conditions allow for appropriate new images to be collected. Such images should illustrate a clear view of the site to enable a photomontage image and its enlargement to be prepared to supplement the existing wireframe images.

6.7. Following the submission of the ES and 2013 SEI new best practice guidance has been produced by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) regarding the production of wind energy visualisations for new planning application submissions in Scotland (Visual Representation of Wind Farms, Version 2.1, December 2014). Whilst this is Scottish guidance, it is understood the Landscape Institute have endorsed its principles for planning applications in England. As the Bullington Cross application had already been submitted at the time that this new guidance was published it is not a requirement that the material submitted with the application needs to be revised. However, as the new guidance requires the inclusion of a 53.5 degree angle of view photomontage, and that this is considered to be helpful for both decision makers and the general public, these images have been provided within Volume 2c of this SEI.

6.8. Some cumulative visualisations were included in the ES and 2013 SEI which included the proposed wind farm at Woodmancott Down. Woodmancott Down Wind Farm was refused planning permission by B&DBC Development Committee on 25 June 2014. The developer, TCI Renewables, decided not to lodge an appeal against the Council’s decision. The cumulative visualisations presented in the ES and 2013 SEI have been updated to new SNH guidance, but do not contain the Woodmancott Down turbines since there is now no cumulative impact to assess.

6.9. Background information in relation to how the visualisations have been prepared and presented, is provided in Appendix 6.2 of this SEI, and includes instructions of how the visualisations should be viewed.

Updated Site Access Drawings

6.10. Based on more accurate topographical survey data, there are necessary changes to the access track alignment. There are two options for this which are described in Chapter 12 of this SEI and which would increase the requirement for either hedgerow or secondary woodland removal. Only one option will be required. In Option One, the length required for removal of hedgerow would increase from that which was set out in Appendix 8.1 of this SEI from 18m and 10m either side of the access point, up to 48m and 27m. In Option Two secondary woodland removal would increase from 0.018ha to 0.023ha. It is therefore acknowledged that in Option One, there would be some additional significant effects on landscape features as a result of the direct loss of hedgerow at the point of access. For Option Two the additional 0.005ha of woodland removal is not considered to result in any additional significant effects. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 22

7. Hydrology, Hydrogeology, Geology and Flood Risk

7.1. There are no updates to the findings of this section of the ES or the 2013 SEI. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 23 Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 24

8. Ecology Introduction

8.1. This section of the report provides an overview of the ecological desk study and surveys conducted by the Appellant’s Ecologist since the submission of the SEI in November 2013, including survey information not previously submitted (see Appendix 8.3). This section has been reviewed by the Appellant’s Ecologist, who was also responsible for the writing of the Ecology Chapter of the ES and November 2013 SEI.

8.2. No significant effects on birds were identified in the ES or November 2013 SEI, however, desk based and onsite surveys have assessed bird species and mitigations and enhancements have been proposed as detailed in Appendices 8.1 to 8.3 of this present SEI. In the interests of brevity this section also includes ornithological information where relevant.

8.3. The following desk-study assessments, surveys, and consultation with the statutory consultee, Natural England, have been undertaken by the Appellant’s ecologist since the issue of the November 2013 SEI:

i. Additional information – Ecology and Ornithology ii. Natural England Consultation and jointly drafted Biodiversity Mitigation and Management Plan iii. Phase 1 Habitat Survey Update

Additional Information – Ecology and Ornithology

8.4. This report responds to a number of ecological points raised by Winchester City Council, Test Valley Borough Council and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and was originally circulated to the three local planning authorities in June 2014, but was prepared too late to form part of the formal 2013 SEI submission. It has therefore been included as Appendix 8.1 to this present SEI submission. The supplementary environmental information includes information on a range of topics including;

i. Bat roost survey of ‘The Lodge’ ii. Bat tree roost survey iii. Dormouse habitat assessment iv. Red kite survey v. Reptile habitat assessment vi. Hedgerow breach measurements vii. Hedge and woodland height measurements

Natural England Consultation and jointly drafted Biodiversity Mitigation and Management Plan

8.5. The Appellant’s ecologist met with three members of Natural England, including their area team species lead in May 2014 to discuss their objections and how these could be mitigated satisfactorily.

8.6. Natural England’s main concern was in regard to bats, they advocated that Eurobats’ guidance2 should be followed rather than the Natural England standard guidance outlined in TIN 0513. Eurobats’ guidance stipulates a greater buffer from woodland features to wind turbines to protect bats; 200 metres rather than Natural England’s own guidance of 50 metres. Although it should be stressed that the Appellant still considers that guidance in TIN 051 is the most applicable for the site since it is tailored to England, they have agreed with Natural England that a cut in speed curtailment will be applied to agreed relevant wind turbines within 200 metres of woodland.

8.7. Mitigations and enhancements to reduce the potential impacts on dormice were discussed in the meeting. Natural England did not share the belief that insufficient survey information has been provided to satisfactorily 2 Rodrigues et al. (2008) Guidelines for consideration of bats in wind farm projects. EUROBATS Publication Series No. 3. UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 3 Natural England (2014) Bats and onshore wind turbines Interim guidance. Technical Information Note TIN051 (third edition). Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 25

demonstrate that the development will not have unacceptable adverse impacts on dormice and their habitat. The area team species lead was of the opinion that with an appropriate method statement a dormouse EPSL may not be necessary.

8.8. Natural England requested that a Biodiversity Mitigation and Management Plan (BMMP) was jointly produced that would amalgamate the proposals put forward within the Biodiversity Management Plan and the Habitat Management Plan (Appendices 8.3 and 8.4 of Volume 2b of the 2013 SEI) which would also include details of the cut in speed curtailment mitigation for bats.

8.9. This BMMP outlined the mitigation and habitat management measures necessary to ensure that there would be no significant effects on any ecological receptor identified during the desk-study and survey programme. In August 2014 all suggested changes requested by Natural England were incorporated into the BMMP such that they had no further comments. In November 2014 Natural England stated that they would be inclined to withdraw their objection should they be re-consulted on the updated document by the LPAs. The agreed BMMP was subsequently issued to the LPAs in December 2014 and is included in this SEI as Appendix 8.2.

Phase 1 Habitat Report

8.10. This survey was undertaken by the Appellant’s ecologist in December 2014 and reported on in January 2015; however the report has not previously been circulated. It has therefore been included as Appendix 8.3 to this present SEI submission.

8.11. The report was undertaken to ascertain whether there had been any notable changes, on a habitat scale, to the proposed development site or if there were significant changes to the desk-study data available through the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC).

8.12. Previous Phase 1 Habitat Survey had taken place in April 2010 and May 2012. Desk-study data had previously been obtained from the local biodiversity records centre in May 2012.

8.13. Any changes found were examined in the context of the ecology and ornithology chapters of the ES (chapters 8 and 9 respectively) and the 2013 SEI.

Summary of Principal Findings

8.14. The information provided below summarises the information regarding receptors highlighted within the reasons for refusal only. These receptors being Priority Habitats (i.e. those listed as Habitats of Principal Importance in England), bats and dormice. For further details regarding the results of the 2014 ecological desk-study and Update Phase 1 habitat survey update see Appendix 8.3.

Habitats

Woodland

8.15. There are five main woodland areas within the site ownership boundary, (there are none within the planning red line boundary) supporting broadleaved or mixed woodland, of these three are Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs)4. In addition there are small areas of secondary woodland located on the site and further more extensive blocks that lie immediately adjacent to the boundary.

8.16. The 2014 survey noted that the majority of woodlands on the site had remained unchanged since 2012, the exception being that the woodland referred to as “unnamed plantation to the north of Upper Norton Farm” had been felled (some trees have been retained in the northern section) to create a largely open area with scattered scrub and immature broadleaf and yew trees.

4 A SINC is a non-statutory locally valued wildlife site. A site may qualify as a SINC due to the presence of a notable species or an important habitat, for example ancient woodland. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 26

8.17. Within the site 0.0028 ha (28 m2) of secondary woodland would be lost to development, with a further maximum of 0.023 ha (230 m2) lost at the site entrance (under Option 25). Although the former woodland could be classified as a Habitat of Principal Importance in England (Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland), the measures outlined within the BMMP to manage for conservation 16 ha (160,000 m2) of woodland within the site ownership boundary ensures that this loss is offset and that the project will result in a net positive benefit to woodland in the area. The 0.023 ha of woodland at the site entrance consists of recent broadleaf plantation and does not include any semi-mature or mature trees. It is the professional opinion of the Appellant’s ecologist that such habitat does not constitute a Habitat of Principal Importance.

8.18. Test Valley Borough Council, in their reasons for refusal, suggest there is insufficient information on which to base an assessment of priority habitats and to demonstrate that measures to avoid, mitigate or compensate for impacts are appropriate and deliverable. The Appellant is of the opinion that the surveys of the woodlands on site undertaken in 2010, 2012 and 2014 provide sufficient information on which to base an assessment for this receptor and that the implementation of the habitat management measures outlined within the BMMP would ensure that the woodland resource in the area would be improved.

8.19. All suggested changes requested by Natural England were incorporated into the BMMP such that they had no further comments in August 2014.

Grassland and Arable

8.20. The site remains dominated by agricultural fields primarily supporting arable crops with the majority having no, or only very marginal, boundary habitat. The repeat survey visits have noted the conversion of several arable fields into improved grassland. These fields are currently being used to hold free-range chickens and associated infrastructure (e.g. pens).

8.21. Arable field margins, a Habitat of Principal Importance in England, are present throughout the site although the locations and sizes of these margins vary with agricultural practice. A small amount of this habitat type would be lost to development, although the total loss is difficult to estimate due to its highly transitory nature. To ensure that there is a net positive benefit with regard to this habitat due to the project, 3 km of permanent arable field margin (3 m in width) will be established and managed as described in the BMMP.

8.22. In addition new arable margins will be created alongside the proposed wind farm tracks as part of the annual arable management of the site. These are likely to mimic those already in existence within the site.

8.23. The Appellant is of the opinion that the surveys of arable field margins provide sufficient information on which to base an assessment for this receptor and that the implementation of the habitat management measures outlined within the BMMP would ensure that the arable field margins in the area would expand in size and be improved by specific management.

8.24. All suggested changes requested by Natural England were incorporated into the BMMP such that they had no further comments in August 2014.

Hedgerows

8.25. The hedgerow resource on the site supports 32 hedgerows, many of which are considered to be species rich (18) and important (8), as defined by the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Between 2012 and 2014 the hedgerow that runs alongside the main farm track has altered markedly with gaps of 15, 20, 75 and 180 m having been created to accommodate the conversion of parts of the site for free-range chicken farming (gaps being filled with post and wire fencing). A further two hedgerows (one running south from Freefolk Woodland and the second west of Norton Wood) have become increasingly gappy and species-poor.

8.26. Of the hedgerows on site, approximately 173 m would be lost to development (including access Option 1). Measures outlined in the BMMP would ensure that approximately 960 m of hedgerow would be established, either within the gaps in existing hedgerows or along fence lines. The planting and management outlined

5 There are two access options (1 and 2) for the proposed wind farm. With regard to ecological impacts, the difference relates to the amount of secondary woodland and hedgerow that would be lost to development. See Chapter 12 for details. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 27

in the BMMP would ensure a net positive benefit to this Habitat of Principal Importance should it be implemented.

8.27. All suggested changes requested by Natural England were incorporated into the BMMP such that they had no further comments in August 2014.

Species

Bats

8.28. A range of bat species were recorded within the site, some of which may roost within trees and buildings within the local area. Following the surveys undertaken in 2010 and 2012, specific surveys were undertaken to identify if roosts were present within a tree at the edge of the current farm track or in the Lodge (a small derelict building on the site) in 2014. Neither of the features was suitable for roosting bats and therefore, the baseline situation remained static throughout the period of assessment.

8.29. Through discussions with Natural England a detailed plan to avoid potential impacts on bats was developed. This plan is described in the BMMP and includes a significant degree of precaution. This precaution is evident in the agreement to curtail wind turbine operation of those turbines considered to be located in areas of higher risk at low wind speeds. The basis for this mitigation is a 200 m buffer distance from woodland habitats used extensively by bats as derived from the Eurobats guidance. The Appellant notes that Natural England usually recommends a buffer distance of 50 m in their standard guidance (TIN 051). The willingness by the Appellant to meet the requests from Natural England to rely on Eurobats guidance rather than TIN 051 has enabled an agreement to be reached with the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisation that there would be no significant effects on bats.

8.30. All three of the local planning authorities give inadequacy of bat survey information as a reason for refusal. However, the Appellant’s ecologist is confident that the surveys undertaken in 2010, 2012 and 2014 provide a robust baseline on which an assessment can be made and that when allied with the mitigation measures outlined in the BMMP a conclusion of no significant effect can be drawn.

8.31. All suggested changes requested by Natural England were incorporated into the BMMP such that they had no further comments in August 2014.

Dormouse

8.32. Dormouse are known to be present within one of the woodland areas on the site, and an assumption was therefore made that individual animals are likely to be distributed more widely in the landscape due to the degree of habitat interconnectivity. Between 2010 and 2014, survey and desk-study updates have not altered the opinion of the Appellant’s ecologist with regard to the presence of this species on the site (i.e. a low population of dormouse is present across all suitable habitats within the site).

8.33. The BMMP details the vegetation removal methodologies that would be employed in the construction phase to prevent the killing or injury of individual dormice and to maintain habitat connectivity. During the operational phase the habitat creation and management measures described will result in an increase in habitat for this species. A loss of approximately 173 m of hedgerow would be offset by the planting and management of 960 m of species rich hedgerow, whilst the loss of 0.026 ha of secondary woodland (on site and near the site entrance where including Option 2) would be offset by the management of 16 ha of woodland within the site to create high quality habitat (including a coppiced under storey). Overall, a net positive benefit on dormice due to the project would be expected.

8.34. All three of the local planning authorities give inadequacy of dormouse survey information as a reason for refusal. However, the Appellant’s ecologist is confident that the surveys and desk-study undertaken provide a robust baseline on which an assessment can be made and that when allied with the mitigation measures outlined in the BMMP a conclusion of no significant effect can be drawn. All suggested changes requested by Natural England were incorporated into the BMMP such that they had no further comments with regard to the assessment of dormouse in August 2014. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 28

Updated Site Access Drawings

8.35. A suite of mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures have been identified, discussed with Natural England and detailed in the BMMP to ensure that habitat clearance works proceed in a manner which takes due consideration of protected species.

8.36. These measures are to be applied to all relevant habitats including those cleared to facilitate the site access.

8.37. There are two options for site access (see Chapter 12). These options both necessitate a change in the amounts of hedgerow and secondary woodland to be removed at the site entrance. Only one option will be chosen.

8.38. Option 1 would involve the removal of 0.012 ha of roadside verge and woody shrubs which include hawthorn, blackthorn, bramble and sycamore saplings. The majority of the belt of shrubs would be retained thus maintaining the link to hedgerows and shrubs in the wider landscape. Option 1 would also involve the removal of 75 m of species-rich hedgerow (rather than the previous calculation of 28 m), identified as Hedgerow E within the Hedgerow Survey and Building Inspection for Bat Roost report (November 2012). The hedgerow running to the immediate west (Hedgerow F) is of similar plant composition and would be retained.

8.39. Although the amount of hedgerow and shrubs to be removed differs from that previously presented by the Appellant there will be no substantial severance of green corridors for the movement of species such as bats and dormice, due to the retention of the adjacent hedgerow. All shrub and tree removal/trimming will be covered by a dormouse EPSL.

8.40. To avoid impacts on nesting birds, all vegetation clearance works, including scrub removal, would, wherever possible, be conducted outside of the core bird breeding season (March – August). Where this is not possible, a suitably experienced ecologist would be appointed to oversee the works, and would be responsible for ensuring that breeding birds and their young are not killed or injured, or their nests and eggs damaged or destroyed.

8.41. Given the substantial new hedgerow planting and proposed scheme of wildlife-friendly hedgerow management as detailed within the BMMP it is concluded that there would be no significant effect on any ecological receptor.

8.42. Option 2 will involve a slight increase (0.005 ha) in the amount of secondary woodland that will require felling. The woodland is a recent plantation that contains no mature trees. The proposal will create a gap through the woodland which, from an ecological perspective, would not represent a major severance to the movement of any species known to occur within the site. As with Option 1 the detailed mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures presented within the BMMP will ensure that there will be no significant effects on any valued ecological receptor. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 29 Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 30

9. Ornithology

9.1. There are no updates to the findings of this section of the ES, or November 2013 SEI. However, some desk based and onsite surveys have assessed bird species, and mitigations and enhancements have been proposed as detailed in Appendices 8.1 to 8.3 of this present SEI. In the interests of brevity ornithological interests where relevant are summarised in Chapter 8, Ecology. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 31 Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 32

10. Noise Introduction

10.1. This section provides additional information on a range of noise matters that has been prepared since the submission of the SEI in November 2013 by the Appellant’s acoustic consultant. The information all relates to effects on the noise-sensitive dwellings and is a summary of the technical reports by 24 Acoustics Ltd provided in Appendices10.1 and 10.2 of this SEI.

10.2. An updated (addendum) noise impact assessment was provided on 31st March 2014 (Reference R4162- 5 Rev 4). This was produced following consultation with Robert Davis Associates, acting on behalf of Test Valley Borough Council, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and Winchester City Council (the 3 LPAs) and formally submitted to the 3 LPAs as part of the planning submission. This assessment (like the original assessment) was based partially upon background noise surveys which were undertaken at proxy measurement locations (rather than within the curtilage of the receptor dwellings) as not all residents were prepared to allow access to their properties for noise monitoring purposes. This report is provided in full in Appendix 10.1 and is summarised in the next section of this chapter of the SEI.

10.3. In the Autumn of 2014 the Appellant again wrote to the residents requesting consent to undertake a background noise survey within the curtilages of their properties. This was granted (with conditions) and hence the latest noise impact assessment (‘Final noise impact assessment’), presented in full in Appendix 10.2 (24 Acoustics technical report Reference 4162-7 Rev 1) presents the most up to date and accurate noise impact assessment and fully supersedes the operational noise impact assessment described in the original and addendum noise impact assessments. The construction noise impact assessment described in the original noise impact assessment/ SEI remains valid. A summary of both reports are provided below.

Updated Noise Impact Assessment

10.4. 24 Acoustics’ Updated Noise Impact Assessment (Reference R4162-5 Rev 4) was published on 31 March 2014 (after the submission of the 2013 SEI) and addressed a number of points raised by Robert Davis Associates, acting on behalf of the 3 LPAs. It also provided an updated assessment following further noise surveys, directional wind filtering of background noise data and gave consideration to newly published technical guidance. The report is provided in full in Appendix 10.1.

10.5. The report updated the original noise impact assessment (submitted with the planning applications) to take into account the guidance ‘A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise’, published by the Institute of Acoustics after the initial noise impact assessment was completed. This guidance was endorsed as a supplement to ETSU-R-97 by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) as stated in the then extant Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) publication ‘Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy’. The report also gave consideration to research into amplitude modulation (AM) published by RenewableUK in December 2013.

10.6. 24 Acoustics has worked closely with the environmental health officers from the 3 LPAs and with their consultant, Robert Davis, throughout the project. Some residents had not allowed access to their properties to undertake background noise surveys and, therefore, the original noise impact assessment used proxy locations for the background noise surveys. This originally applied at Cranbourne House, Poachers Lodge, New Barn Farm and Tufton Warren. The Appellant wrote to residents again in the Autumn of 2013 requesting access to properties to undertake background noise surveys and, at that time, agreement was obtained at New Barn Farm (but not at the other receptors within a timeframe that would have not unduly delayed the determination of the Scheme by the LPAs). In addition, further (extended) noise surveys were undertaken at proxy locations considered representative of Upper Norton Farmhouse /Tufton Warren and directional filtering undertaken to determine the effect of easterly wind components on these receptors. Easterly wind components would place these properties downwind of the proposed wind farm but upwind of the dominant sources of background noise (road traffic using the A34 and A303). Surveys were undertaken for a total of 7 weeks and indicated only limited easterly wind components. For this reason a weather model was purchased from the Met Office to establish the frequency of worst-case (i.e. downwind) propagation Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 33

conditions to these properties. It was established that this could occur at Upper Norton Cottages for up to 28% of the time and at Tufton Warren for less than 20% of the time.

10.7. The assessment concluded that the noise level from the proposed wind farm would be lower than the derived ETSU-R-97 noise limits by a significant margin at all receptors.

Final Noise Impact Assessment

10.8. 24 Acoustics’ final noise impact assessment is presented in Appendix 10.2 of this SEI and provides the final noise impact assessment, based upon background noise surveys undertaken within the curtilages at Cranbourne House, Poachers Lodge and Tufton Warren (following consent from the residents which was granted late in 2014). The report also gives consideration to the latest (at the time of writing) research relating to AM and the techniques that are being developed by an Institute of Acoustics (IoA) working group to determine means of measuring AM. For these reasons this report supersedes the addendum noise impact assessment.

10.9. Additional noise surveys were undertaken between 5 February and 5 March 2015 within the curtilages of Cranbourne House, Poachers Lodge and Tufton Warren. A precipitation monitor was installed on site (at the same location as the original noise surveys, near to Upper Norton Farm House) and a LIDAR system used to log wind speed and direction was provided by Dulas Ltd at the same location within Upper Norton Farm as that used during the original surveys. All surveys were undertaken in conjunction with John Yelland, a consultant working on behalf of Keep Hampshire Green (KHG), and all raw background noise and meteorological data were shared with him.

10.10. Over the survey period a range of representative wind conditions was observed throughout the operational range of the wind turbine up to rated-power wind speed of 7 m/s (at 10 m reference height).

10.11. The background noise data was filtered to remove periods of precipitation, the dawn chorus and correlated with wind speed (assuming wind propagation from all directions) in accordance with the guidance of ETSU-R-97 and the IoA GPG. The data was also directionally filtered to consider the effects of easterly wind components (between 45 and 135 degrees) at Tufton Warren. This data may be used to determine operational noise limits from the wind farm, using the methodology of ETSU-R-97.

10.12. The previously calculated operational wind farm noise levels (determined using the propagation methodology of ISO 9613 and the guidance of the IoA GPG) were compared to the derived ETSU noise limits and established that, at all receptors, would be significantly lower than the noise limits derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97.

10.13. The closest margin will occur at Tufton Warren during easterly wind components, however, the analysis indicates that the predicted noise level will be at least 2 dBA below the derived ETSU-R-97 noise limits. Analysis of the wind model of the area provided by the Met Office indicates that these propagation conditions will occur for a maximum of 20% of the time, however.

10.14. Amplitude modulation is a normal aspect of wind turbine noise generated by turbulent flow on the trailing edge of the turbine blades (often termed as ‘blade swish’). Other (or excess) amplitude modulation (OAM), although rare, can occur under certain conditions and is characterised by a significant and relatively rapid variation in noise level along with a tonal shift to lower frequencies, sometimes producing more of a ‘thump’ than a ‘swish’. An Institute of Acoustics working group is currently actively working on an objective means of measuring AM (building on the work previously undertaken on behalf of RenewableUK) and techniques and instrumentation for the real-time measurement and identification of AM are becoming available, potentially enabling turbine operators to programme their turbine control systems to reduce the likelihood of it occurring. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 34

11. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Introduction

11.1. This section provides additional information on a range of cultural heritage matters that has been prepared since the submission of SEI in November 2013. The information all relates to effects on the setting of heritage assets and is presented below under the following five headings:

i. Hurstbourne Priors Conservation Area Detailed Heritage Setting Assessment ii. Laverstoke Park and House Assessment Update iii. Hurstbourne Park additional photomontages iv. Revision of existing heritage photomontages v. High-resolution digital surface model ZTVs

Hurstbourne Priors Conservation Area Detailed Heritage Setting Assessment

11.2. This report was prepared by Cotswold Archaeology and originally circulated to the three local planning authorities in June 2014 but was prepared too late to form part of the formal 2013 SEI submission. It has therefore been included as Appendix 11.1 to this present SEI submission.

11.3. The report addresses comments made by consultees regarding Hurstbourne Priors and contains a detailed assessment of the Conservation Areas, its constituent Listed Buildings and the predicted effect of the proposed wind farm on the significance of these heritage assets.

Laverstoke Park and House Assessment Update

11.4. This short report was prepared by Cotswold Archaeology in July 2014 but has not previously been circulated. It is included here as Appendix 11.2.

11.5. The report addresses comments made by consultees regarding the effect of the proposed wind farm on the significance of Laverstoke Park and House following receipt of the November 2013 SEI submission. A joint site visit was organised to Laverstoke Park in April 2014 to address outstanding concerns. This was attended by representatives of the Appellant, English Heritage and Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council and additional viewpoints were identified as part of the visit.

11.6. The report comprises a map regression for the park, an analysis of the woodland to the south of the park that would screen the wind farm from view within the park, and a series of three photomontages illustrating the predicted appearance of the wind farm from the park.

Hurstbourne Park additional photomontages

11.7. A detailed assessment of Hurstbourne Park was provided as part of the Heritage Settings Assessment, which formed Appendix 11.1 of the November 2013 SEI submission. The assessment of Hurstbourne Park, which may be found at paragraphs 3.15 to 3.28, had to be completed without a site visit to the majority of the historic park because access could not be arranged with the owners. The small area to the west of Hurstbourne Priors was accessible and one viewpoint, at the Bee House (Figure 11.9 of the SEI), did illustrate a location on the very edge of the park. This one viewpoint was not representative of the rest of the park.

11.8. Access was subsequently arranged to the main part of the park in January 2015, providing an opportunity to check the assumptions made in the SEI regarding the likely level of turbine visibility within the park. The site visit was undertaken by Dr Stephen Carter, the Appellant’s cultural heritage witness for the forthcoming public inquiry, accompanied by a professional photographer from Pegasus Group. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 35

11.9. It was found that, while the wind farm would be visible at the south-east edge of the park (as illustrated by the photomontage from the Bee House), dense tree cover along that south-east edge effectively screened the turbines from view in the remainder of the park. Two historically relevant viewpoints were selected within the park to illustrate the high level of screening: the principal view south from the Mansion House looking towards Hurstbourne Priors, and the view approaching the Statue from the north-west along the main drive. Photo- wireframe images from these viewpoints, prepared by Pegasus Group, are presented as Viewpoints H11 and H12 in Volume 2c of this SEI.

11.10. Comparing these new photo-wireframes with the assumptions made for the assessment of Hurstbourne Park it is clear that the assessor took a precautionary approach and slightly over-stated the predicted level of visual change within the park. The assessment therefore remains valid.

Revision of existing heritage photomontages

11.11. The SEI submission of November 2013 contains a set of photomontages illustrating viewpoints relevant to heritage assets (Figures 11.3 to 11.11). The photography for these photomontages was taken in summer with full leaf cover and, as many of the views include considerable screening by vegetation, they raise the issue of seasonal variation in screening.

11.12. The opportunity has now been taken to re-visit the four publicly accessible viewpoints where major screening of turbines by vegetation occurs and collect winter photography. These are the viewpoints at Laverstoke Lane (H7), Hurstbourne Priors (H8), The Church of St Michael, Stoke Charity (H9) and the riverside path in Whitchurch (H10). It may be noted that the viewpoints in East Stratton (H2) and Freefolk (H6) were not re-visited because the level of screening by dense woodland was so great that seasonal variation would be immaterial.

11.13. In addition to the collection of winter photography, the opportunity has also been taken to re-present all of the heritage visualisations using a 90° angle of view which provides additional context to the view. As at Hurstbourne Park, this work has been undertaken by Pegasus Group and the revised photo-wireframes are presented as H1 to H10 in Volume 2c of this SEI.

High-resolution digital surface model ZTVs

11.14. Mapping the predicted visibility of the proposed wind turbines is an important tool in the assessment of effects on the setting of heritage assets. Zones of theoretical visibility (ZTVs) were calculated assuming a bare- ground model and included in the ES as Figure 6.8 (hub-height) and Figure 6.10 (blade-tip). The blade tip ZTV was also used to illustrate the heritage setting assessment in Figure 11.2.

11.15. It is recognised that bare-ground ZTVs would over-estimate the actual visibility of the turbines because there was no allowance for screening by vegetation or buildings. The degree to which bare-ground ZTVs over-state the position depends on the character of the local landscape; the prevalence of screening by vegetation in the present case is illustrated by the heritage viewpoints (Volume 2c of this SEI).

11.16. This uncertainty regarding the likely extent of turbine visibility has now been addressed through the calculation of ZTVs based on high resolution digital surface model data. This provides data on the actual height of the surface, including any vegetation and buildings above ground level, at 2m intervals. It therefore allows the screening effect of obstructions such as woodland or houses to be accurately modelled and detailed maps of turbine visibility generated.

11.17. ZTVs have now been calculated using Digital Surface Model (DSM) data for both blade-tip and hub-height (Figures 11.1 and 11.2). They are presented in a format identical to Figure 11.2 of the ES to facilitate comparison with the bare-ground model. The new DSM ZTVs support what, in many cases, could only be assertions regarding the likely level of screening in the ES setting assessment. This is particularly marked for the Conservation Areas and Registered Parks in the valleys of the Test and Dever. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 36

12. Traffic and Transportation Introduction

12.1. This section provides additional information on Transport and Transportation matters that has been prepared since the submission of SEI in November 2013. The information is predominantly in relation to the site access from the Norton Junction of the A303 and is presented below under the following headings:

i. Highways Agency Access Study ii. Topographical Survey and Detailed Design Drawings

Highways Agency Access Study

12.2. This report was prepared by TÜV SÜD PMSS and originally circulated to the Highways Agency in March 2014. The report was prepared too late to form part of the formal SEI submission. It has therefore been included as Appendix 12.1 to this present SEI submission.

12.3. The report was prepared to inform a meeting between the Appellant’s traffic and transport consultant and the Highways Agency, and contains details on the following topics;

i. Detail on length of time access is required; ii. Detail on vehicles using access and type; iii. Timeframes for construction programme; and; iv. Alternatives considered.

12.4. The report also included preliminary junction design and road improvement plans for access and egress to the site utilising commercially available LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data produced by the Environment Agency. It was noted on the plans within the report that detailed land survey would be required to confirm the design.

Topographical Survey and Updated Design Drawings

12.5. Following a meeting between the Appellant’s traffic and transport consultant and the Highways Agency in May 2014, it was agreed that a detailed topographical survey would be undertaken around the Norton Junction of the A303, which would subsequently inform revised junction design drawings.

12.6. A topographical survey surrounding the Norton Junction of the A303 was undertaken in August 2014, according to procedures stipulated by Highways Agency.

12.7. The survey data was processed and used to produce six drawings that were issued to the Highways Agency in March 2015. There are three drawings per access option and these are presented in Figures 12.1 to 12.6 of this SEI in A3 format (not to scale). The drawings are also reproduced at their original scale on the DVD copy of the SEI. The drawings are titled as follows;

i. Road improvement and site access plan; ii. Road long section drawing; and iii. Swept path analysis of road improvement and site access plan.

12.8. Based on the more accurate topographical survey data, there are changes in access track alignment which changes the requirements in the amounts of hedgerow and secondary woodland removal. Where relevant and necessary this SEI provides additional and updated environmental information to assess the likely significant effects of the alterations to the site access options.

12.9. Updated access option information has been assessed. It is considered that for access Option One there would be some additional significant effects on landscape features as a result of the direct loss of hedgerow at the point of access. There would be no other changes to the conclusions of the assessment for either Option set out in the ES, 2013 SEI, or Appendix 8.1 of this SEI. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 37 Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 38

13. Electromagnetic Interference, Infrastructure and Safeguarding Introduction

13.1. This section provides additional information on radar matters that have been prepared since the submission of SEI in November 2013. The information relates to correspondence with Farnborough Airport and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) with regard to their respective radar infrastructures.

Farnborough Radar Line of Sight Report

13.2. This report was prepared by Wind Power Aviation Consultants Ltd (WPAC) originally circulated to Farnborough Airport Ltd and Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council in June 2014, in response to a late objection by Farnborough Airport to the proposed Scheme in March 2014, received after the formal 2013 SEI submission.

13.3. The report addresses concerns from Farnborough Airport of possible radar interference / clutter that their radar may pick up from the turbine blades. Radar projection modelling undertaken by WPAC and described in the report demonstrates that none of the turbines are likely to be visible to the radar and there will be no impact on the provision of air traffic control (ATC) services in relation to Farnborough. It has therefore been included as Appendix 13.1 to this present SEI submission.

MOD Air Traffic Control Radars Mitigation Proposal Letter

13.4. This letter was prepared by WPAC and originally circulated to the MOD in January 2014 in response to the MOD objection to the wind farm on account of ‘unacceptable interference to the ATC radars at Middle Wallop and Boscombe Down’. The letter was issued after the submission of the formal 2013 SEI. It has therefore been included as Appendix 13.2 to this present SEI submission.

13.5. The letter outlines a mitigation proposal and suspensive planning condition that would be suitable for mitigating any potential effects on the two ATC radars from the proposed Scheme at Bullington Cross. The MOD subsequently accepted the mitigation proposal in March 2014.

MOD Precision Approach Radar Objection – AAC Middle Wallop

13.6. In addition to the MOD objection in relation to two ATC radars, there was also an MOD objection in relation to the Precision Approach Radar (PAR) at Middle Wallop. After an exchange of information between WPAC and the MOD in early 2014, the PAR objection was withdrawn in May of that year. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 39 Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 40

14. Public Access and Socio-Economics (including Shadow Flicker)

14.1. There are no updates to the findings of this section of the ES or the 2013 SEI. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 41 Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 42

15. Grid Connection Introduction

15.1. The power generated by the proposed Bullington Cross Wind Farm would be fed into the local electricity distribution network using 33kV underground cabling. The transmission cables, between the onsite control building, and the interface with the local electricity distribution network would be provided, owned and operated by the Distribution Network Operator (DNO) Scottish and Southern Energy Power Distribution Ltd (SEPD) and subject to a separate planning application. This chapter provides updated information regarding the proposed connection point and provides an appraisal of the potential environmental constraints associated with the installation of the underground cabling. As details are not available regarding the exact route, electrical design and construction techniques to be used by the DNO, this appraisal is necessarily high level and is provided in order to understand the potential for cumulative effects to occur between the two projects (i.e. construction and operation of wind turbines and the installation and operation of new transmission infrastructure).

Grid Connection Point

15.2. The Appellant noted within the ES that the most likely connection point was the existing Barton Stacey 33kV substation, which is located to the north of Bransbury and adjacent to the A303 dual carriageway. However as noted in the 2013 SEI, the final decision regarding the location of the connection point is taken by the DNO. Furthermore, any planning application necessary to enable the installation and operation of this transmission infrastructure is made by the DNO and is separate from that made with regard to the Bullington Cross Wind Farm.

15.3. Since the publication of the 2013 SEI the Appellant has held further consultation with the DNO and has been advised that SEPD’s favoured connection point for the project is the Andover East 33/11 kV substation. A direct connection to the Andover East substation supersedes any requirement for upgrades of the wooden pole overhead line that leads back from the Barton Stacey 33kV substation to the Andover East 33/11 kV substation (as described in the 2013 SEI).

15.4. The Andover East 33/11 kV substation is located on the Walworth Industrial Estate to the east of Andover as shown on Plate 15.1.

Plate 15.1 - Existing 33/11kV Andover East substation Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 43

15.5. The Andover East 33/11 kV substation is shown in Plate 15.2 below.

Plate 15.2 - Existing 33/11kV Andover East substation picture

Outline Design Parameters and Construction Method

15.6. In order to minimise environmental and visual impacts of the proposed wind farm, the power will be transmitted to the DNO’s main network via underground cables. Figure 15.1 of Appendix 2a shows the wind farm control building in relation to the DNO’s 33kV/11kV Andover East substation. The exact route of the cable connecting the two locations is unknown, as this will be decided upon by the DNO, in-consultation with landowners, the local planning authority and stakeholders such as English Heritage. However, it is notable that SEPD has assumed that the majority of the cabling will be installed within major roads. For the purpose of this chapter the term “major roads” has been assumed to include roadside verges and the route is assumed to be the most direct (i.e. the A303) from the Bullington Cross Wind Farm control building to the Andover East substation. In order to ensure that design flexibility is maintained a 1km wide corridor, centred on the highway route, has been used to investigate environmental constraints.

15.7. It is estimated that three 400mm single core power cables will be needed to transfer the wind farm output to the DNO’s substation. The cables will be mainly buried to a minimum depth of 800 - 1000mm in a cable trench as shown in Plate 15.3 below, except where crossing roads or rivers, where they will be installed in cable ducts. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 44

Plate 15.3 - Typical Power and Fibre Optic Cable Trench Drawing - Non Highway

15.8. Once the cables are installed the trenches would be back-filled with the excavated material, with care taken to ensure that sub-soil and topsoil remain separate. The Contractor would then re-instate the route to the satisfaction of the local authority and would re-seed where necessary. If any land drains were affected by the project, these would be repaired or redirected as appropriate. In certain circumstances, such as at crossings of major roads or rivers, trenchless installation techniques (e.g. Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)) may be used to avoid surface impacts.

15.9. In addition to the installation and connection of cabling, SEPD have indicated that they will also need to carry out fault level and circuit reinforcements and transformer upgrade works at the Andover 132/33 kV substation. None of the activity required at the substation is considered likely to necessitate an increase in the length of overhead lines present or a change in their routeing or the infrastructure on which they are suspended. However, individual fittings including the overhead cables could need replacing to enable the efficient functioning of the connection.

High Level Environmental Constraints

Methodology

15.10. Desk-study information was gathered for a range of environmental topics where the potential exists for impacts due to the installation and operation of an underground electrical transmission cables to be realised. Information was gathered from a number of organisations via publically available internet databases and via services provided by Hampshire County Council and Winchester City Council (i.e. Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC) and Historic Environment Record (HER) data). The type of data obtained and the sources of information are provided in Table 15.1.

15.11. Information was gathered within a search area 1km wide centred along the length of the route (see Figure 15.1). Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 45

Topic Data Type Information Source Ecology Statutory sites (e.g. Sites of Statutory land-based designations dataset via www.magic.gov.uk Special Scientific Interest) (provided by Natural England) Non-statutory sites (e.g. Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (direct data request) Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation) Priority habitats (including Priority habitat inventory dataset via www.magic.gov.uk (provided those listed on the UK by Natural England) Biodiversity Action Plan, Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (direct data request) Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan and the Section 41 list of habitats of principal importance) Protected and conservation Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (direct data request) notable species records National Biodiversity Network via https://data.nbn.org.uk Cultural Heritage Digital spatial data for English Heritage Website www.english-heritage.org.uk and Archaeology designated heritage assets Descriptions of designated English Heritage Website www.english-heritage.org.uk heritage assets in the National Heritage List for England Digital spatial Historic Hampshire County Council and Winchester City Council (direct data Environment Record data request) Landscape Landscape designations Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty dataset via www.magic.gov.uk (provided by Natural England) Hampshire Downs National Character Area description provided by Natural England via http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publ ication/6738147345956864?category=587130 Hydrology Flood risk Flood risk mapping provided by the Environment Agency via http:// apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/default.aspx Groundwater pollution Groundwater Source Protection Zones mapping provided by the Environment Agency via http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/ wiyby/default.aspx Geological mapping provided by the British Geological Society via http://www.bgs.ac.uk/data/mapViewers/home.html Contaminated land Historic landfill locations Historic landfill mapping provided by the Environment Agency via http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/default.aspx Pollution incidences Reported pollution events mapping provided by the Environment Agency via http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/default. aspx Table 15.1 - Desk-study data sources

15.12. The types of data gathered are those used widely by engineers and environmental specialists at the early stages of an infrastructure project to inform the design through the identification of environmental constraints.

15.13. No site survey work was undertaken for this assessment as the exact routeing of the cable is unknown and the ability to access land within the search area is minimal.

Results and Outline Assessment

Ecology

15.14. The cable route lies within the Hampshire Downs Natural Area (Natural England 1997). This area is characterised by open rolling country with broad, gently domed undulating plateaux dissected by both steep and shallow valleys, numerous distinct hilltops, ridges and scarps. The habitats which are characteristic of this area include chalk grassland, woodland, arable farmland and rivers and river valleys. Fauna of particular interest include otter, dormouse, breeding farmland and wetland birds and salmonids. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 46

Statutory Sites

15.15. There are two statutory designated sites that lie within the search area, these being the River Test SSSI and Bransbury Common SSSI (see Figure 15.2). These SSSIs lie immediately adjacent to each other and are linked ecologically (i.e. Bransbury Common lies within the flood plain of the River Test).

15.16. The River Test SSSI bisects the cable route and therefore must be crossed by the cables regardless of the final design determined by SEPD. The citation for the River Test SSSI describes a classic chalk stream supporting a diverse flora, breeding bird and invertebrate assemblages. The river is also known to support otter, water vole, Atlantic salmon and sea trout. Flood pasture and fen meadow are present along the river valley, with the extent varying depending on location. These linked terrestrial habitats are often captured within the River Test SSSI designation, but are also often designated as separate SSSIs where large discrete units are present, such as at Bransbury Common.

15.17. Bransbury Common SSSI is made up of two elements, these being disused water meadow and ‘The Common’. The area of water meadow has been disused since the early twentieth century and lies across heavy soils that support a range of grasses and herbs. The Common is a major soil formation of peat over gravel supporting a diverse mix of grasses, sedges and herbs. This SSSI largely lies outside of the search area, with only a minor overlap at its northern extent.

15.18. The potential for any impacts on either of the SSSIs to be realised is low. As is common practice for cable crossings of rivers and statutorily designated sites, it is most likely that the crossing of the River Test would be made through the use of HDD. This technique avoids the need for any surface works within the SSSI, with all activity restricted to compounds set at either end of the proposed drill. SEPD have acknowledged that this technique provides a viable option for the connection of the Bullington Cross Wind Farm transmission cables. Bransbury Common SSSI is highly unlikely to be impacted upon by the installation of the cables, as simple route design would avoid the need to cross this area at all. No operational effects due to cable operation are expected as changes to the temperature profile of soils and the local hydrology would be minimal and accounted for in the design (e.g. via cable specification, use of clay stanks or sand fill with equivalent permeability of surrounding soils).

15.19. Based on the limited information available no significant impacts would be expected on statutory sites due to the installation and operation of transmission cables between the Bullington Cross Wind Farm and Andover East substation.

Non-statutory sites

15.20. Non-statutory sites within Hampshire are termed Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) or Roadside Verges of Ecological Importance (RVEI). There are 10 SINCs and 2 RVEI within the search area (see Figure 15.3). These are listed in Table 15.2 alongside the reasons for their designation and the potential impacts associated with the installation and operation of the transmission cables.

Site Name Reason for Designation Potential Impacts Churchill Way - London Road Verges, Grasslands that have become This SINC could be avoided by careful Andover SINC impoverished but retain relic routeing of the transmission cable. unimproved areas with the potential for recovery. A3093 Churchill Way RVEI Chalk grassland supporting bur chervil This RVEI could be avoided by careful and juniper routeing of the transmission cable. This would involve the cable route deviating from the local road network and crossing agricultural land or being installed within the carriageway. A3093 Walworth Road, Andover SINC Agriculturally unimproved grassland This SINC could be avoided by careful supporting narrow leaved bird’s-foot- routeing of the transmission cable. trefoil. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 47

A3093 Walworth Road, Andover RVEI Chalk grassland supporting woolly This RVEI could be avoided by careful thistle, basil thyme, narrow leaved routeing of the transmission cable. birds-foot-trefoil and reflexed salt marsh grass. Harewood Forest SW SINC (including Ancient semi-natural woodland and This SINC could be avoided by careful Upping Copse) (also listed on the other woodland with a semi-natural routeing of the transmission cable. Ancient Woodland Inventory) element. Harewood Forest (2) SINC (also listed Ancient semi-natural woodland and This SINC could be avoided by careful on the Ancient Woodland Inventory) other woodland with a semi-natural routeing of the transmission cable. element. Site supports dormouse and There is also the potential to use greater butterfly orchids. trenchless techniques to cross the area whilst avoiding surface works and minimising cable length. Harewood Forest (3) SINC (also listed Ancient semi-natural woodland and This SINC could be avoided by careful on the Ancient Woodland Inventory) other woodland with a semi-natural routeing of the transmission cable. element. Site supports dormouse. There is also the potential to use trenchless techniques to cross the area whilst avoiding surface works and minimising cable length. Gavelacre Water Meadow SINC Agriculturally unimproved grassland Immediately adjacent to Bransbury supporting fens and inundation Meadow SSSI. This SINC could be grassland. avoided by careful routeing of the transmission cable. Drayton Down (area 1) SINC Agriculturally unimproved grassland This SINC could be avoided by careful supporting Basil Thyme. routeing of the transmission cable. However, it should be noted that a track exists that appears to provide access to the A303 through this SINC. This track is however, already surfaced with stone and therefore is unlikely to require upgrading. Blind End Copse West SINC (also listed Ancient semi-natural woodland This SINC could be avoided by careful on the Ancient Woodland Inventory) routeing of the transmission cable. Blind End Copse SINC (also listed on Ancient semi-natural woodland This SINC could be avoided by careful the Ancient Woodland Inventory) routeing of the transmission cable. Norton Copse SINC (also listed on the Ancient semi-natural woodland This SINC could be avoided by careful Ancient Woodland Inventory) routeing of the transmission cable. Table 15.2 - Non-statutory sites

15.21. Although there are a large number of non-statutory sites within the search area, all could be avoided through careful routeing of the cable. This routeing may involve the cable deviating from a course along the A303 and entering adjacent farmland or focusing on areas strictly within the limits of the highway.

15.22. In the event that the cable route was to be installed across one or more of the sites (due to decisions taken by the DNO, in-consultation with the local planning authority) it is likely that suitable mitigation measures could be put in place to ensure that there would be no net loss of biodiversity in the medium to long term and that opportunities for biodiversity gain would be available. This conclusion is drawn as the level of habitat removal required to install the cables is minimal as the corridor is narrow, and the impacts would be temporary as no effects on flora or fauna would be expected during the operational phase. In order to achieve this, however, detailed discussions with the planning authority’s ecologist and/or Natural England would be required.

15.23. Based on the limited information available no significant impacts would be expected on non-statutory sites due to the installation and operation of transmission cables between the Bullington Cross Wind Farm and Andover East substation. It is considered that in the first instance, design of the cable route would be refined to avoid these areas and hence environmental impacts. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 48

Priority Habitats

15.24. A number of priority habitats have been mapped within the search area, including lowland mixed deciduous woodland and floodplain grazing marsh (see Figure 15.4). Along the length of the route two major concentrations of priority habitat are noted, the first being within the floodplain of the River Test and the second being Harewood Forest. In other areas priority habitats occur sporadically and in discrete areas, enabling avoidance through design.

15.25. The floodplain grazing marsh adjacent to the River Test is likely to be impacted upon during the installation of the transmission cables. This habitat is often agriculturally improved and is subject to management (e.g. grazing). This provides the opportunity to restore disturbed habitats quickly and effectively following disruption due to construction. Potential mitigation measures may include the stripping, storage and re-laying of turf to ensure floral diversity is maintained or the harvesting and sowing of seed of local provenance with similar floral assemblages (e.g. harvested from adjacent fields).

15.26. The mixed and deciduous broadleaved woodland within Harewood Forest is all covered by non-statutory designations (i.e. as SINCs). Therefore, as noted above, careful routeing of the cable and/or the use of trenchless techniques provide opportunities to avoid damage to this woodland.

15.27. Based on the limited information available no significant impacts would be expected on priority habitats due to the installation and operation of transmission cables between the Bullington Cross Wind Farm and Andover East substation as the majority of areas are likely to be avoided through design, and for those that are not, there is sufficient mitigation available to offset any losses.

Protected and Conservation Notable Species

15.28. HBIC provided records of a wide-range of conservation notable species within the search area including plants, invertebrates, birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians (a list of species is provided in Appendix 15.1 of Volume 2b). The cable route is likely to contain some of the species listed by HBIC, and this would be determined during the detailed survey programme that will be necessary to inform any planning application.

15.29. Impacts on the majority of species listed within Appendix 15.1 are likely to be avoided entirely through design. In the majority of instances the engineers are likely to favour open habitats that enable easier installation of cable (e.g. agricultural fields, road verges etc.) as opposed to areas supporting trees or dense scrub. This both facilitates fast and effective cable installation and helps to reduce the potential conflicts with protected and notable species (e.g. badgers). In addition, micro-siting of the cable route will enable discrete local features, such as badger setts, notable plants or veteran trees to be avoided.

15.30. Where habitats that may support protected or conservation notable species are temporarily disturbed or damaged, standard mitigation methodologies will ensure that significant effects on local populations are not realised and that legal compliance is maintained. These measures include actions such as the removal of vegetation outside of the bird breeding season or the trapping and translocation of common reptiles.

15.31. Due to the presence of woodlands and linking habitats such as tree lines, scrub and hedgerows there is the potential for dormouse to be present along much of the cable route. This European protected species will need to be accounted for by SEPD during the environmental survey programme required for the planning application, during the design phase of the project (i.e. supporting habitats are likely to be largely avoidable) and during the derivation of any mitigation required to ensure that the conservation status of this species is not compromised by the installation of the transmission cables. It is possible that cable installation works will require a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) to be issued by Natural England to enable habitat used by dormouse to be removed. However, in order to gain a licence Natural England will need to be satisfied that the project provides imperative reasons of overriding public interest, that there is no satisfactory alternative and that the action will not impact the conservation status of the local dormouse population in order to comply with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 49

15.32. Based on the limited information available no significant impacts would be expected on protected or conservation notable species due to the installation and operation of transmission cables between the Bullington Cross Wind Farm and Andover East substation on the proviso that suitable mitigation measures are put in place during the construction phase of the project.

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

15.33. A desk-based assessment considering potential impacts on any heritage assets from the indicative route was undertaken by the Appellant’s Cultural Heritage consultant. It is presented in full in Appendix 15.2 and a summary is provided in the following section.

15.34. Within the search area all heritage assets recorded in the Hampshire and Winchester HERs have been assessed for potential impacts. It is expected that the cable route will follow the approximate route of the road and will not be visible on the surface. Potential effects are limited to direct impacts from the excavation of the cable trench, which is likely to be next to the road in most instances, and the settings of heritage assets will be unaffected. Therefore impacts on the setting of Scheduled Monuments or Listed Buildings have not been assessed.

Scheduled Monuments

15.35. There are two Scheduled Monuments in the search area. These are listed in Table 15.3 alongside their list entry number and approximate grid reference.

List Entry Number Name Approximate Grid Reference 1001917 Old Pound Copse earthwork SU 396 446 1015678 The Andyke, Bransbury SU 425 428 Table 15.3 - Scheduled Monuments

15.36. The Andyke is a substantial earthwork structure over half a kilometre in length dating from the Middle Bronze Age. The monument survives both as an upstanding monument and a cropmark visible on aerial photography (APs), and is bisected by the A303. The scheduled area includes both elements of the monument although according to the List Entry the cutting of the road is of sufficient depth to have removed all archaeological deposits relating to the monument.

15.37. The Old Pound copse earthwork comprises of a large 5-sided earthwork and ditch with rounded corners and measures approximately 140m by 100m. The monument is of uncertain date; its form suggests it may be an Iron Age univallate hillfort or possibly a medieval/post-medieval stock enclosure. It is located on the southern slope of a hill within the Harewood Forest approximately 36m to the north of the A303.

Undesignated Heritage Assets

15.38. In addition to designated assets there are 91 undesignated sites or monuments located within the search area. Information of these is derived from the Hampshire HER with the exception of MWC101 which is recorded by the Winchester HER. All undesignated monuments or features included in the assessment are shown on Table two, Annex 1, of Appendix 15.2 and illustrated in Figures 15.5 and 15.6. Approximately 50 assets have been recorded as features visible on aerial photographs which would likely contain buried archaeological deposits, and of these the majority date to the prehistoric period. The remainder exist as upstanding features, with many relating to historic land use.

Predicted Effects of the Development

15.39. The proposed development would involve the stripping of topsoil and the excavation of cable trenches. This has the potential to damage or remove any heritage assets located within the cable route. As the cable will be buried no impacts on the setting of heritage assets are predicted. Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 50

15.40. The current indicative cable route as shown on Figures 15.5 and 15.6 enters the Scheduled Area of the Andyke (SM1015678). However, this would be avoided if possible as it would require Scheduled Monument Consent. The Scheduled Area excludes the carriageway and verges of the A303 and, according to the National Heritage List Entry for the monument, the road cutting is “sufficiently deep to have removed all archaeological deposits”. However, due to the scale of the monument, it is anticipated that deeper deposits relating to the monument may survive within the immediate vicinity of the A303, including quarry pits or ditches. Therefore any works within the road cutting at the Andyke should be accompanied by archaeological mitigation.

15.41. The current cable route avoids the Old Pound Scheduled Area (SM1001917) and this should be maintained during design.

15.42. A number of undesignated HER sites are recorded on the cable route visible on Figures 15.5 and 15.6. These include four round barrows recorded as cropmarks (18924, 18925, 18926 & 18893), two enclosures (34951 & 66853), four historic field boundaries (35700, 66855, 34890 & 66863), a Roman road (22154) and medieval cultivation marks (65584). If it is not possible to avoid these sites through design, a programme of archaeological mitigation works should be agreed with Hampshire and Winchester Council archaeologists and carried out in advance of development by the DNO. The works would likely include a full desk-based assessment of the route to support a planning application, field survey and monitoring of ground breaking works in any areas of archaeological sensitivity identified in the DBA.

Landscape

15.43. The cable route lies within the Hampshire Downs National Character Area, the majority of which is characterised by an elevated, open, rolling landscape dominated by large arable fields with low hedgerows on thin chalk soils, scattered woodland blocks and shelter belts. The underlying chalk is a large aquifer that feeds a number of small streams, however there are two major catchment areas (River Test and River Itchen), one of which is crossed by the cable route (i.e. the River Test). No part of the cable route lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); the closest being the North Wessex Downs AONB that lies approximately 2 km to the north of the search area.

15.44. The installation of cables within a narrow, shallow trench will only have a temporary impact on the landscape during the construction phase and in the period post installation whilst the working area recovers (i.e. once plants begin to grow across the disturbed soil). As the works will be highly localised (i.e. the cable would be installed in phases), will be limited in scale and be completed rapidly (i.e. the time taken to install cables in any point location is likely to be measured in days rather than weeks) it is unlikely that a detailed landscape assessment would result in any significant impact being identified.

Groundwater and Flooding

15.45. Flood risk mapping provided by the Environment Agency was checked via their website. The majority of the cable route is outside of the flood zone. However, where the cable route crosses or runs near to the River Test (or its tributaries) there are a number of locations that fall within Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3. Land within Flood Zone 2 may become submerged during extreme flood events (1 in 1000 chance of this occurring each year), whereas land within Flood Zone 3 may flood more regularly with a 1 in 100 chance of this occurring each year.

15.46. Areas within Flood Zones do not provide a major constraint during construction. This is because these areas can be avoided during periods of likely flooding (i.e. construction can be scheduled for the summer period) or trenchless installation techniques, such as HDD, can be used to operate outside of the risk area. Once installed the cabling will not increase flood risk due to the modest amount of buried infrastructure and their shallow burial depth. In addition in areas where the cables could form pathways for ground water movement, the use of clay stanks or sand fill around the cables of similar permeability to the surrounding soils may be used to reduce or remove any impacts.

15.47. The majority of the cable route lies outside of any Groundwater Source Protection Zones (GSPZ). GSPZ are categorised on the potential for any pollutants reached to migrate into groundwater sources, such as the chalk aquifers that are crossed by the cable route. The route of the cable from the site control building to the Bullington Cross Wind Farm Supplementary Environmental Information, Volume 1: Main Report 51

A34 crosses a GSPZ Outer Zone and has a small potential overlap with GSPZ Inner Zone. Within these areas SEPD will need to give specific consideration to pollution control during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the transmission cabling.

15.48. Effective management of pollution sources (e.g. fuel) on construction sites is common practice, with most contractors implementing pollution prevention advice issued by the Environment Agency. During operation the equipment is covered by protective sheathing which avoids the introduction of pollutants into surrounding areas.

15.49. Based on the limited information available no significant impacts would be expected due to changes in flood risk or pollution of aquifers from the installation and operation of transmission cables between the Bullington Cross Wind Farm and Andover East substation on the proviso that suitable mitigation measures are put in place during the construction phase of the project.

Contaminated Land

15.50. Contaminated land mapping provided by the Environment Agency was checked via their website. There are several historic landfill sites within the search area, these being the Cutty Brow Pit, land south of the A303, Bullington North and Bullington Tip. These landfills may contain pollutants that may be liberated by the excavation of a trench. At this point it is unclear what type of material is contained within these landfills or indeed the depth of the capping material.

15.51. There are several ways in which SEPD could eliminate any potential issues with regard to these historic landfills. The route of the cable could be designed to avoid the areas noted as historic landfill, trenchless techniques could be used to tunnel under the areas ensuring that any pollutants would be recovered within tightly defined areas (e.g. launch and retrieval pits) or the burial depth could be such that the bottom of the trench is still within the capping material. Regardless of the method chosen it is likely that a satisfactory outcome could be achieved that prevents the liberation of pollutants into surrounding areas.

15.52. Based on the limited information available no significant impacts would be expected due to interactions with historic landfill sites due to the installation and operation of transmission cables between the Bullington Cross Wind Farm and Andover East substation on the proviso that suitable mitigation measures are put in place during the construction phase of the project.

Conclusions

15.53. The assumed route of the transmission cables that would link the proposed Bullington Cross Wind Farm to the Andover East substation would run for approximately 12.5km through a landscape dominated by farmland, woodland and the River Test valley. There are several environmental constraints identified within the 1km wide corridor that will require consideration by the DNO prior to any planning application being submitted. The DNO is likely, wherever possible, to seek to avoid environmental constraints through design of the route. In many instances minor deviations in the route are likely to eliminate potential environmental impacts, especially given the narrow working corridor required and the temporary nature of the works. Where avoidance is not possible, it is highly likely that suitable mitigation measures will be available to enable cables to be installed without a long term negative impact on the local environment. No impacts are likely during operation or decommissioning.