Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT
APPLICATION DETAILS
APPLICATION NO: 7/2010/0236 Installation of 3 No. 2 megawatt wind turbines and foundations and associated underground cables, FULL APPLICATION anemometer mast, crane, hard standings, access tracks, DESCRIPTION : temporary construction compound, switchgear house and ancillary infrastructure NAME OF APPLICANT : Wind Prospect ADDRESS : Land east of Spring Lane / Foxton Lane, Sedgefield ELECTORAL DIVISION : David Walker, Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 03000 261054, [email protected]
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS
Purpose of the report
1. This report concerns a detailed planning application, reference 7/2010/0236/DM for 3 wind turbines and associated works at land east of Spring Lane / Foxton Lane.
2. The applicant has lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate because the Local Planning Authority has not determined the application within the statutory 16 week period. Once such an appeal is lodged, it is no longer possible for the application to be determined locally. The decision can only be made by an Inspector on behalf of the Secretary of State.
3. In order to defend the Local Planning Authority’s position at appeal, this report sets out the planning issues and asks that the County Planning Committee indicates what decision it would have been minded to make had it been able to do so.
The Site
4. The application site is located on an area of agricultural land which stands to the east of spring lane / Foxton Lane approximately 1.7km to the south of Sedgefield and 0.8 km north of Foxton.
5. The proposed site is located in an area of undulating farmland adjacent to Shotton Beck The area consists of a number small farmsteads and clusters of residential properties with the settlements of Sedgefield to the north, Mordon to the west, Great Stainton and Elstob to the south west, Foxton, Bishopton and Stillington to the south and Thorpe Thewles and Thorpe Larches to the east. Stockton on Tees is approximately 6.5 km to the south east and Darlington approximately 10 km south west Darlington.
6. Butterwick Moor and the Walkway Wind Farms which in total consist of 17 turbines are located approximately 3.2km north east of Sedgefield and 5.0km north east of the nearest proposed turbine under consideration in this application. To the south planning permission has recently been granted by Stockton Borough Council for the erection of 4 turbines at Lamb’s Hill, Stillington which is approximately 0.8 km to the south.
The Proposal
7. Wind Prospect are seeking planning permission for the installation of 3 wind turbines, associated access tracks, crane hard standings, a switchgear building and 69m high wind monitoring mast for a period of 25 years. A temporary construction compound is also proposed.
8. Access to the site for normal construction and maintenance traffic would be via the A689 along Station Road and West End onto Spring Lane. However, the proposed abnormal load access route to the site would be via the A689 north along the A177 onto B1278 and east onto Salters Lane leading onto Durham Road and Spring Lane.
9. The construction period for the proposed wind farm would be approximately 9 months with a 3 months decommissioning period. This would involve the widening of field access points, formation of passing places along Spring Lane / Foxton Lane, provision of on-site access tracks; and turbine foundations; electrical infrastructure installation; erection of turbine towers, nacelles and blades, site reinstatement and removal of temporary compounds.
10. The application boundary of the proposed development encompasses an area of approximately 53.7 hectares. However, following construction and re-instatement, the loss of land from agricultural use would be restricted to the footprint of each turbine, the crane hard standings, the access tracks, and the anemometry mast and switchgear house. These areas total approximately 1.66 hectares and would be required for the duration of the project lifespan of 27 years including construction, operation and decommissioning.
Wind Turbines
11. Each turbine tower will be approximately 69m in height with a blade diameter of 82m. This would give an overall maximum height of 110m to blade tip (when the blade is in a vertical position). Each turbine would have 3 blades. Although the exact model of turbine would be decided following a tendering procedure the turbines proposed for the development would be capable of generating 2 Megawatt (MW) each, providing a total of 6MW on site.
12. The precise colour and finish of the wind turbines would be agreed with the local planning authority. It is anticipated that they would be mid-grey in colour with a semi- matt surface finish so as to minimise potential for reflection.
13. A detailed geotechnical survey would be undertaken to establish the most appropriate foundation detail, however, it is anticipated that a 16m diameter x 2m thick reinforced concrete foundation would be constructed on top of engineering fill. The upper surface of each base would finish approximately at ground level with the central pedestal extending 1.5m above existing ground level to receive the bottom tower section.
Crane Hard Standing
14. An area of hard standing of approximately 50m x 25m would be required adjacent to each turbine position in order to accommodate the cranes required for turbine installation and maintenance. The exact arrangement of the crane hard standing would be modified to suit the specific requirements of each turbine and surrounding topography. The crane hard standings would be retained throughout the operational life of the wind farm.
Temporary Construction Compound
15. A temporary construction compound of approximately 50m x 75m would be provided for the storage of materials, plant and equipment as well as providing welfare and office facilities for staff engaged in constructing the wind farm. Most of the compound would be removed on completion of the windfarm (apart from a small area needed for the switchgear house) and the land reinstated.
Switchgear House
16. A single storey electrical switchgear house of approximately 10m x 8m, with a height of 6m and foundations to a depth of at least 1m would be constructed on the site. However, the exact dimensions of the building would be dependent upon the specific requirements of the local Distribution Network Operator.
Anemometry Mast
17. A 69m wind anemometry mast would be erected on-site to provide necessary information for the control and monitoring of the wind turbines. This would be of lattice form and would be retained throughout the operating life of the development.
Internal Access Tracks
18. A series of internal access tracks would be required to facilitate this development. The new tracks would follow field boundaries where possible, to minimise any impact to future farming operations and minimise land take A total of 1.6km of internal access tracks would be required to access the three turbines. Each access track would be a minimum of 5m wide and would lead to the hard standing adjacent to each turbine.
19. All access tracks would be retained throughout the operational life of the wind farm to allow periodic access for maintenance of the turbines.
Decommissioning
20. The wind turbines have been designed with an operational life of 25 years . Once installed, the turbines will operate automatically, responding to changes in both wind speed and direction. At the end of the operational life of the wind farm, a decision would be taken whether to replace the turbines or remove them from the site and reinstate the land. Replacement of the wind turbines at this time would require a future planning application.
Amendments
21. As a result of issues raised during the initial consultation exercise a suite of additional information was submitted by the applicant. These measures included: the resiting of Turbines 1 and 2; revised crossing arrangements of Shotton Beck; detailed access review; revised habitat enhancement proposals; arboricultural and ecological assessment of proposed works to trees and hedgerows along Spring Lane / Foxton Lane; suggested methodology relating to structural surveys of vulnerable properties adjacent to proposed access route; access review; Archaeological Evaluation undertaken; additional Protected Species Survey undertaken; and, additional Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment carried out.
22. Following the issuing of a screening opinion and subsequent scoping report, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been carried out in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (as applicable at time of submission), As such, an Environmental Statement (ES) accompanies the planning application. The ES provides information in relation to landscape and visual assessment, cultural heritage, biodiversity, noise and shadow flicker, Socio-economics, transport, telecommunications and aviation.
23. The application is also accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, a Planning Statement and a Statement of Community Involvement, Tree Survey, Access Review and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.
24. This application is reported to Committee as the application represents a major development.
PLANNING HISTORY
25. The original farm stead at Heley House consisting of Heley House and Heley House Cottage has been the subject of two planning applications. One related to the erection of a modern agricultural building whilst the other sought to convert the traditional farm buildings on site to three dwellings (Heley Mews). Both applications were approved.
26. A scoping opinion in relation to the siting of three wind turbines at the site (matters to be covered in an EIA) was provided in early 2009.
27. A subsequent planning application to erect a 60 m high temporary wind monitoring mast and associated data logger to record wind speed and direction was granted planning consent in August 2009. This temporary mast has recently been removed.
PLANNING POLICY
NATIONAL POLICY
28. Planning Policy Statement 1(PPS1) : Delivering Sustainable Development and Climate Change sets out the Government’s overarching planning policies relating to the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system.
29. Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) : Planning for the Historic Environment sets out the Government’s policy in respect of the conservation of the historic environment.
30. Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7 ) : Sustainable Development in Rural Areas outlines the Government's planning policies for rural areas, including country towns and villages and the wider, largely undeveloped countryside up to the fringes of larger urban areas.
31. Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) : Biodiversity and Geological Conservation sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system.
32. Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13) : Transport objective is to integrate planning and transport to promote more sustainable transport choices.
33. Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22) : Renewable Energy sets out the Government's policies for renewable energy, which planning authorities should have regard to when preparing local development documents and when taking planning decisions.
34. Planning Policy Guidance 24 (PPG24): Planning and Noise guide’s local authorities in England on the use of their planning powers to minimise the adverse impact of noise. It outlines the considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise-sensitive developments and for those activities which generate noise. It explains the concept of noise exposure categories for residential development and recommends appropriate levels for exposure to different sources of noise.
35. The emerging National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), currently in draft form, is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, and advances a presumption in favour of sustainable development to encourage economic growth.
REGIONAL PLANNING POLICY
36. The North East of England Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS) July 2008, sets out the broad spatial development strategy for the North East region for the period of 2004 to 2021. In July 2010, however, the Local Government Secretary signalled his intention to revoke Regional Spatial Strategies with immediate effect, and that this was to be treated as a material consideration in subsequent planning decisions. This was successfully challenged in the High Court in November 2010, thus for the moment reinstating the RSS.
However, it remains the Government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies when Orders have been made under section 109 of the Localism Act 2011, and weight can be attached to this intention. The RSS has a vision to ensure that the North East will be a Region where present and future generations have a high quality of life. It will be a vibrant, self-reliant, ambitious and outward looking Region featuring a dynamic economy, a healthy environment, and a distinctive culture. The following policies are considered relevant:
37. Policy 2 – Sustainable Development: Sets out the regions sustainability targets and objectives.
38. Policy 3 – Climate Change: This policy sets out how the region should aim to contribute to mitigating climate change. This includes seeking opportunities for and encouraging the use of decentralised energy supply systems based on renewable and low-carbon forms of energy.
39. Policy 6 – Locational Strategy places particular importance on the conservation and enhancement of the Regions biodiversity.
40. Policy 8 – Protecting and Enhancing the Environment seeks to maintain and enhance the quality, diversity and local distinctiveness of the North East environment.
41. Policy 31 – Landscape Character requires proposals to have regard to landscape character assessments.
42. Policy 32 – Historic Environment recognises that a number of elements constitute the historic landscape, including particular landscapes, buildings, semi-natural and natural features.
43. Policy 33 - Biodiversity and Geodiveristy advises that planning proposals should ensure that the Regions ecological and geological resources are protected and enhanced to return key biodiversity resources to a viable level.
44. Policy 39 – Renewable Energy Generation sets out the regional renewable energy target of 10% by 2010 and also the regional longer term targets to achieve 20% of regional consumption by 2020.
45. Policy 40 - Planning for Renewables states that strategies, plans and programmes should support and encourage renewable energy proposals. The policy also sets out the criteria that should be considered when assessing proposals including the visual impact in relation to the character and sensitivity of the surrounding landscape and the cumulative impact of the development in relation to similar developments.
46. Policy 41 Onshore Wind Development indicates the broad areas of least constraint that should be considered for wind energy developments in the region.
LOCAL PLAN POLICY :
47. The ‘saved’ policies within the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan (1996) are also of relevance to this proposal. Although the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan does not contain any specific policy that relates to renewable energy, several general policies outlined below are considered to be of relevance to this proposal.
48. Policy E1 (Maintenance of Distinctive Landscape Character) seeks to encourage the maintenance of distinctive landscape areas including the southern and eastern lowlands around Sedgefield.
49. Policy E11 (Sites of Nature Conservation Interests) seeks to safeguard sites of nature conservation interest.
50. Policy E15 (Tree Protection) specifies that development proposals are expected to retain woodland, important groups of trees, copse and hedgerows wherever possible and replace any trees which are lost.
51. Policy E18 (Preservation and enhancement of Conservation Area) seeks to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Borough’s Conservation Areas.
52. Policy L10 (Protection and maintenance of existing recreational routes) seeks to protect and maintain existing major recreational routes including circular walks around Sedgefield.
53. Policy D1 (Layout and Design of New Development) sets out a range of principles that are to be applied when considering the layout and design of new development including that the layout and design of new development takes into account the site’s natural and built features and its relationship to adjacent land uses and activities and assisting in achieving the objectives of the conservation of energy.
The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant in the Development Plan the full text, criteria, and justifications of each may be accessed at http://www2.sedgefield.gov.uk/planning/SBCindex.htm )
CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES
STATUTORY / EXTERNAL RESPONSES :
54. Natural England objected to the original proposal because the siting of two of the turbines is within 50 m of habitat features known to be used by bats. Concerns were also raised that the ornithology relied too heavily in desk surveys and clarification was requested as to why this had not been supplemented by reconnaissance surveys. It was also recommended that if this scheme were to be approved planning conditions be attached requiring further surveys to be carried out in relation to badgers and riparian mammals prior to the commencement of works. Following the re-siting of the turbines away from hedgerows and the submission of the additional supporting information Natural England are satisfied that their earlier concerns regarding bats, badger, otter and water vole have now been addressed.
55. One NorthEast is supportive of this application subject to mitigating any impacts on aviation, and the applicant satisfying all the necessary environmental, visual impact and access issues.
56. Highways Agency has no objection and it is felt that the proposed wind turbines will not cause a potential distraction for drivers using the Strategic Road Network. The applicant would, however, need to liaise with the Highways Agency abnormal loads team direct in order to co-ordinate the delivery of large components such as the turbine blades.
57. Highway Authority raises no objections to the routes to be taken for ‘general’ construction traffic and the abnormal load traffic to the site. It was, however, requested that were this scheme to be approved a Grampian style condition be attached requiring a joint highway condition survey to be undertaken along the proposed construction traffic routes with Highway Authority representatives prior to the commencement of construction works on site and requiring the passing places along Spring Lane and Foxton Lane to be constructed prior to the construction of the wind turbines and associated works and retained until or re-instated before decommissioning of the wind turbines in the future.
58. Environment Agency originally objected to this proposal, however, this objection has been removed following the submission of further clarification from the agent regarding the provision of non mains drainage. No objections subject to a planning condition being imposed requiring the submission of a scheme to treat and remove suspended solids from surface water run off during construction works has been submitted top and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
59. Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) object to this proposal whilst recognizing that wind energy can make an important contribution to tackling climate change CPRE believes this should not come at the expense of the beauty, character and tranquility of rural England. We assess wind turbine proposals for their potential impact on the landscape, taking into account of their cumulative impact, and strongly resist those whose impact we consider to be unacceptable. Significant concern was raised regarding the high number of wind turbines erected, approved and proposed in this vicinity. It was feared that the character of the area is in danger of being turned into a site for industrial wind farms. Concern was raised regarding the photomontages submitted in support of the planning application did not comply with best practice. CPRE also expressed regarding the detrimental impact that the proposed turbines would have on the tranquility of the area for residents, recreational users and tourists. Reference was made that the proposed turbines were located within those separation distances set out within the Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill. The proposed access to the site which passes through the centre of Sedgefield before leading onto a fairly narrow country lane was deemed to be both highly unusual and unacceptable because of the large numbers of construction traffic that would need to pass very close to a high number of residential properties and the need to improve the existing narrow lane to facilitate access.
60. The CPRE express great concern regarding the cumulative effect of wind farms in this area and the procedural difficulties facing Local Planning Authorities and the IPC because of the significant number of other wind turbine schemes including the A1 wind farm, Moor House and East Newbiggin sites in Darlington , Lambs Hill at Stillington are all located in and area this locality and the visual impacts of these planned schemes which are at various stages of the planning process cannot be viewed in isolation.
61. English Heritage have no objection, however, it was suggested that the views of the Council’s Archaeology Section be sought, so as to ensure that this proposal does not compromise archaeology on site.
62. Stockton on Tees Borough Council raised no objection in October 2010 to this proposal, subject to Durham County Council considering the visual impact of the scheme from key transport corridors within the Borough of Stockton and that the cumulative impact of this proposal with a scheme that was under consideration at Lambs Hill, Stillington.
63. However, further correspondence received in March 2011, stated that the development of a 3 turbine wind farm at Foxton would be visible in a number of views that include Lambs Hill wind farm and would create an unacceptable cumulative visual impact. The cumulative impact would adversely affect the amenity of residential properties, particularly those situated in Foxton as wind farms would be located to the north and south of the hamlet. The character of the landscape surrounding the Lambs Hill wind farm has a low capacity for change and the potential cumulative impact that would arise from a wind farm at Foxton when combined with the Lambs Hill wind farm could change the character of this rural landscape. The potential for impact on the character of the wider landscape from cumulative impact should be fully assessed in the determination of the Foxton application.
64. Hartlepool Borough Council has raised no objection to the principle of the development. However, although the site is located within an area considered to be of least impact and that although there is some capacity within the area for turbines, there are concerns in relation to the cumulative impact of the turbines on the Tees Plain Landscape when considered with the existing turbines and those with planning permission within the area. It was also advised that the determining authority should ensure that the potential noise impacts of this proposal be assessed in accordance with ETSU-R97 guidance document.
65. Darlington Borough Council has commented that this proposal is one of a number of current wind farm proposals within the locality including A1, Moor House, East Newbiggin and Stillington. Whilst this is relatively small scale proposal of three turbines it will nevertheless add to the clutter and cumulative effect of existing and proposed developments in this locality. It was felt that Sadberge will suffer an increase in potential visual clutter; however, these were considered to be distant impacts and would not be directly imposing when viewed from general views out of the village. The impact on Great Stainton was considered to be greater due to the closer proximity of Foxton Lane; however, because of their distance and lack of other schemes nearby in the line of sight the cumulative impacts will tend to be reduced. Overall, however, the impacts on these villages and other viewpoints are considered to be one of gradual infilling of distant views with wind turbine development.
66. Sedgefield Town Council objects to this proposal. The Town Council considers that wind turbines should be located in areas of low population density and bearing in mind that several thousand people live within 3 or 4km of the site this proposal is considered to be inappropriate. The proposed turbines will have a significant and detrimental visual impact upon the area generally and St. Edmunds Church and the Conservation Area and Historic Parkland at Hardwick Country Park in particular. Concern is raised regarding the cumulative impact of this proposal and other existing and proposed wind turbine schemes around the Sedgefield area. The mechanism for determining the cumulative impact of these individual proposals is questioned. The proposed means of access through Sedgefield and via the existing narrow lane leading to Foxton is inappropriate and necessary road improvements / alterations including works to adjacent trees would detrimentally affect the character and appearance of the area. Finally, it is considered that the proposal may detrimentally affect Durham Tees Valley airport.
67. Mordon Parish Meeting objects to this proposal and raises concerns regarding the cumulative visual impact of this proposal when considered in the context of existing 17 wind turbines at Butterwick and Walkway and further proposed developments of 4 turbines at Lambs Hill at Stillington. The Parish Meeting expressed significant concern that the several Unitary Authorities in the region including Durham County Council, Stockton Borough Council and Darlington Borough Council did not currently appear to have a single unified strategy for considering how best to accommodate regional renewal energy targets. It was suggested that the County Council either refuse the application or defer consideration until a joint strategy has been adopted. Reference was also made to the limited capacity of the landscape in this area, as identified within the Ove Arup Study, to accommodate further wind turbines.
68. Although not located within the designated historic landscape of Bradbury, Mordon and Preston Carrs the proposed turbines would be clearly visible from these areas. It was felt that because of the scale and prominence of the turbines this proposal would be contrary to Policy E3 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan which seeks to safeguard the above areas from inappropriate development. Concerns were raised that the potential energy generation from the turbines and carbon dioxide emission savings put forward by the applicant in support of this proposal were over inflated. The Parish Meeting also disputed that ascertain that local residents would get any direct benefit from this proposal and raised concern regarding both the individual and cumulative impact of noise arising from this proposal. The Meeting also expressed concerns that were this proposal to be approved this would set a precedent for further turbines within this area.
69. Stillington & Whitton Parish objects to this proposal. Members main concern related to the detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the rural area when considered in the context of the large number of turbines already erected, approved or proposed in this area. This includes the 17 turbines already at Butterwick and Walkway, approved sites for 5 turbines at Red Gap Moor and 4 turbines at Lambs Hill, Stillington and the proposed schemes at A1, Newbiggin and Moorhouse. It was feared that residents of the Parish would be surrounded by wind turbine developments.
The Parish requested that the local authorities of Stockton Borough Council, Darlington Borough Council and Durham County Council accept the recommendations of the Ove Arup report Commissioned by the Association of North East Councils and allow a total of only one additional wind farm within this area. Concern was also raised regarding the cumulative impact of the noise created by this proposal and the site at Lambs Hill and the construction traffic that would be generated.
70. Sedgefield Residents Forum (SRF) objects to this proposal pointing out that County Durham is already making good progress to achieving it’s renewable energy target of 164MW by 2020 with installed capacity at 133.735-138.735MW. These figures do not take into account wind turbine proposals for neighbouring schemes within both Darlington and Stockton. Significant concerns have been raised regarding the cumulative impact of the large number of wind turbine proposals currently constructed, those schemes with planning approval but yet to be implemented and those currently under consideration in and around the Sedgefield area and the limited capacity of the landscape to accommodate further development without detrimentally affecting landscape character and visual amenity.
71. SRF also question the need for this development pointing out the largely untapped potential of off shore wind turbines and referring to research which suggests County Durham is one of the most inefficient places for wind. There would be no added benefit to the local community and the limited power produced would not outweigh the damage to the landscape which will remain with the community for the twenty five years. SRF expressed concern that there is no sound strategic planning for renewables on which to determine this proposal.
72. Criticism was made about the applicant’s pre-application consultation photographs or montages of the area in question and that residents were not advised of the proposed means of access. Concern was also raised that because of the geology of the area most building have been constructed upon sand and gravel and that those buildings adjacent to the proposed access route would be susceptible to vibration damage. SRF felt that the highway works necessary to facilitate access would not constitute highway ’improvement’s in that the disruption caused by this proposal would be widespread and the effects on local wildlife catastrophic .
73. Sedgefield Civic Trust has raised no objection in principle to the erection of the turbines. However, the Trust does object to the alterations within the village centre which would be required to facilitate large vehicles delivering components or materials during the construction period. The Trust insists that any alterations to be made are temporary and that these are re-instated on a like for like basis.
74. Ramblers Association noted that the proposed turbines are to be sited sufficiently away from the Public Rights of Way network so as to ensure that in the unlikely event of the turbines toppling over these would not affect adjacent footpaths. However, concern was raised that the because turbine 1 will be approximately 250 m from Sedgefield Footpath No. 16 it was felt that this will affect the amenity of that route. It was stated that Spring Lane is often used in conjunction with public footpaths, bridleways and byways to make a circular route for walkers and it was feared that the amenity of the country road and walking route will be affected.
It was requested that if the Council were minded to grant approval and any rights of way were to be affected during the construction period alternative temporary arrangements are made to facilitate public access and that the Council seek agreement from the developer to further improve pedestrian access links between the existing Public Rights of Way network (footpath 15 Sedgefield) and Spring Lane.
75. Parish Paths Partnership Sedgefield object to the proposal unless it can be demonstrated that planning conditions or obligations will be implemented requiring the applicant to conserve and enhance the rights of way network in the area. The Partnership are seeking to enhance opportunities for family cycling in the area and Yarm Lane and Spring Lane / Foxton Lane has been identified as offering potential for a circular cycle / walking route.
76. British Horse Society has no objection the proposed siting of the turbines satisfies the British Horse Society guidelines with regard to the distance of wind turbines from rights of way used by equestrians.
77. Civil Aviation Authority advised that consultation will need to be undertaken with Durham Tees Valley Airport, NATS and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) of that they can validate and comment upon the Environmental Statement submitted in support of this planning application.
78. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) raise no objection stating that the proposed development does not conflict with their safeguarding criteria.
79. Newcastle Airport has no objection given the location of the turbines this would not result in any detrimental impact upon the safe operations of Newcastle International Airport’s airspace.
80. Durham Tees Valley Airport originally objected to this proposal because of concerns that the proposed wind farm would be likely to interfere with the primary radar located at the airport. However, a scheme of physical mitigation has now been agreed between the applicant and the airport operator. As a result, Durham Tees Valley Airport do not object to this proposal subject to planning conditions being attached requiring the submission and subsequent implementation of a detailed scheme to ensure that radar returns from the development will not adversely affect air traffic control.
81. Defence Estates has no objection to this proposal.
82. Fishburn Airfield has made no comment regarding this proposal.
83. Joint Radio Company Limited (who analyze proposals for wind farm on behalf of the UK Fuel and Power Industry) has no objection to this proposal.
84. Durham County Badger Group raised concern regarding the proximity of one of the turbines to an existing sett and concerns were raised that the vibration from this turbine may have a detrimental affect. The relocation of the turbines has, therefore, been welcomed. The proposals put forward by the applicant to work near one sett at a time as a means of minimising disturbance was welcomed as was the proposal to build in escape ramps during excavation works.
To compensate for the loss of badger foraging area resulting from the turbine foundations, new access roads etc. it was suggested that part of the site be retained as pasture. Further monitoring of badger activity during construction and initial operation was also suggested.
85. Durham Wildlife Trust has stated that in the Trust’s view the development could potentially affect protected species including bats and badgers. It was suggested that the risk of negative impacts to bats could be reduced by resiting turbines 1 and 2 to ensure that a minimum distance of 50m is provided between the turbine and habitat features likely to support bats, as per Natural England guidance. It was also recommended that the environmental enhancements initially proposed are limited. It was suggested that habitat improvements could be improved along Shotton Beck to benefit a range of species including otters and water vole. The re-siting of the turbines has subsequently been agreed by the applicant and it is considered that a planning condition could be attached requiring a detailed habitat enhancement works to be agreed prior to works commencing on site, to further improve biodiversity opportunities.
86. Durham Bat Group originally objected to this proposal because two of the turbines were too close to hedgerows used by bats and that the 50m clearance distance from the blade tips recommended by Natural England had not been met. The turbines have, however, subsequently been repositioned to take into account these concerns.
INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :
87. Landscape Section objects to this proposal on the basis that due to the location and scale of the proposed wind turbines, the proposed development would, in combination with existing and permitted wind turbine developments, have an unacceptable effect on the visual environment of the Foxton area and have an unacceptable effect on the visual amenity of several individual properties located at Foxton.
88. In addition to the wider impacts, it is considered that the proposed access arrangements across Shotton Beck would detrimentally affect the visual amenity of this part of the site because of the resultant loss of tree cover and that alternative routes across Shotton Beck be considered in order to minimize the impact upon the existing tree cover. Concern was raised that although this proposal would require deliveries to be made along Spring Lane / Foxton Lane the initial details failed to clarify the impact upon the trees and hedgerows flanking Spring Lane and Foxton Lane. It was also felt that the further opportunities existed to enhance the biodiversity and visual appearance of the area as part of the habitat enhancement proposals.
89. Ecology Section initially requested additional information regarding the trees and hedgerows alongside Spring Lane and Foxton Lane so that the potential implications relating to bats could be fully assessed and concern was raised that two of the proposed turbines would be too close to existing hedgerows presenting an unacceptable risk to bats foraging along the hedgerow. It was recommended that further information be provided in relation to the impact of the access track on badger setts and ornithology and that the proposed habitat and mitigation measures be improved to enhance biodiversity value further.
90. Confirmation was subsequently received that additional checking surveys are to be undertaken prior to the commencement of works on site. No objection is raised therefore subject to the proposed mitigation works in relation to badgers being the subject of a planning condition. It was also recommended that a planning condition be attached requiring detailed habitat enhancement works to be agreed prior to works commencing on site to further improve bio-diversity opportunities in this area, as the current enhancements are deemed to not take advantage of the opportunities available.
91. Environmental Health Section raised no objection subject to planning conditions be attached regarding micro siting, restrictions on working hours during construction and de-commissioning works, a method plan be prepared and submitted in advance of construction and de-commissioning including both proposed methods of working and mitigation measures. Planning conditions have also been recommended in relation to noise limits within the area and requiring suitable remediation measures from the applicant should any future noise complaints be received.
92. Tree Officer o riginally raised concern that the proposal would result in the unnecessary loss of several trees but that this could be minimized by re-aligning the proposed access. Concern was also raised that the impact of the proposal on the trees and hedgerows flanking Spring Lane / Foxton Lane had not been adequately assessed within the submission . The re-alignment of the access across Shotton Beck has been welcomed as has the additional clarification regarding the arboricultural works which states that 36 trees are to be pruned adjacent to Spring Lane / Foxton Lane to provide a 5m clearance. No objection is raised regarding these works. It was also suggested that where a small section of hedge is to be removed adjacent to a gate to facilitate access that this be re-instated with a hedge type to match the existing hedgerows in this area.
93. Archaeology Section originally raised concern that the geophysical survey undertaken on site had identified potential archaeological anomalies which warranted further investigation to understand their significance. The applicant then needed to carry out further evaluation works before determination. These additional works have now been undertaken and no objection is now raised subject to a planning condition being attached requiring a suitable mitigation strategy to be submitted and agreed prior to commencement of work on site.
94. Public Rights of Way Section has no objection. Sedgefield Public Footpath 15, crosses the planning application boundary and would be approximately 150 m from the turbines and in excess of any the topple distance. It was, however, requested that the applicant be made aware that the safety of members of the public using public rights of way must be ensured at all times, that these are to remain unobstructed by building materials and vehicle movements are arranged so as not to interfere with Public Rights of Way. If a temporary closure notice is required this would need to be formally applied for.
PUBLIC RESPONSES :
95. At the time of writing this report 138 letters of objection have been received. Two letters of support were also received stating that renewable energy is the way forward which should be supported by the community. Three respondents have also commented on the specific details of the proposed scheme such as the need to safeguard the archaeology in this area, the proposed access arrangements and suggested that the applicant enter into a legal indemnity with the Council in order to pay for the cost of any damages occurring from this proposal.
96. The responses from local residents below reflect those comments received at the initial consultation phase carried out in August 2010, a second phase of consultation in April 2011 after additional supporting documentation was received from the applicant and the a final consultation stage in August 2011 following the submission of additional cumulative landscape and visual appraisals.
Phase 1 Consultation
97. The public consultation exercise at the initial stage of this proposal involved the erection of site notices at strategic points around the periphery of the site and in surrounding settlements, a press notice was also placed in a local newspaper and over 1600 letters were originally sent to residents within a 3 km radius of the proposed development.
98. An information event was also hosted by planning staff at Sedgefield Community Hall and a comments sheet was collated at this time to which 60 people contributed.
99. A summary of the key points of concern are highlighted below:
Visual Impact
100. The proposed wind turbines will have a negative visual effect on the character, appearance and charm of Sedgefield as the proposed turbines would be visible from the Sedgefield Conservation Area and a back drop of wind turbines in very close proximity to the village would totally destroy the impact of the view.
101. The proposal would have an adverse and detrimental effect on the countryside around Sedgefield and in particular the views south over the Tees Valley and Tees River Basin towards the Cleveland Hills.
102. Each of the turbines will be a massive 360 feet (110m) high, 6 times the height of the Angel of the North. As such, these would overshadow the village.
103. The turbines would because of their siting and scale appear both oppressive and over bearing for local residents.
104. The 110 m turbines proposed will have a significant detrimental impact on the area and in particular on the wonderful views of Sedgefield when approaching from the south. The ancient landscape and view of the church surrounded by mature trees will be dominated by these giant structures.
105. Sedgefield has long been promoted as the jewel in the crown of Sedgefield Borough, Sedgefield Town Council and Durham County Council has a statutory duty to protect the environment.
106. The cumulative impact of this proposal would be unacceptable bearing in mind those already constructed and planned in and around Sedgefield. It has been noted that Sedgefield is bounded by several adjacent Local Authorities so that wind turbine proposals are also been considered by Darlington Borough Council, Stockton Borough Council as well Durham County Council.
107. Supporting documentation submitted with the planning application did not comply with good practice guidance in that this only showed consented and operational sites but did not include other applications currently undetermined.
108. Concern regarding the detailed siting of the turbines and any further development clustered to the north of Butterwick, The turbines are too close to local house and Sedgefield and the southernmost turbine is too close to Foxton, and future wind turbine schemes should be located off shore.
109. That the visual impact of the proposed turbines would because of their height and proximity detrimentally affect the character and appearance of the existing countryside as viewed both from individual properties, transport routes and public rights of way.
110. The residents of the three properties at Breckon Hill Farm, Hauxley House at Diamond House Farm, Merton Grange Farm at Stillington and Foxton Wood have all expressed concern that the visual impact of the proposal would be highly significant and detrimentally affected by the proposal. It was pointed out that on those properties which are working farms there would be no getting away from the constant presence of these structures and any detrimental affects that may arise including shadow flicker and noise.
111. That the access arrangements through Sedgefield Conservation Area and very close to several Listed Buildings would detrimentally affect the character and appearance of these areas and may affect the fabric of the buildings themselves.
112. The proposal represents an industrialisation of the countryside and that if this were to be allowed it would inevitably lead to further turbines being erected in this area.
113. The proposed highway improvements required along Spring Lane / Foxton Lane would require several large trees to be felled and a significant length of hedgerow to be removed, the effect of which would be to detrimentally affect the visual amenity of the area.
114. There is a restriction on how many new houses can be built in Sedgefield village as this may spoil the character of the village so it seems ridiculous that permission would be given for wind turbines to be erected. .
115. The Environmental Statement fails to take into account the planning application at Lambs Hill, Stillington and the wind farm proposal at East Newbiggin so that properties such as Foxton Wood would be surrounded by wind turbines over a 180+ panorama.
Impact on Highway Network
116. During the construction stage there will be excessive disruption because of the volume and size of construction travelling through Sedgefield and that the roads identified for construction traffic through Sedgefield Village are not capable of handling the proposed size and volume of traffic proposed.
117. The terminology used by the applicant that claims that the local transport network will be able to absorb additional traffic movements and that there will be localised minor highway improvements trivialises the impact of the abnormal heavy loads coming through a small village, past residential housing and schools.
118. Access through Sedgefield, as proposed, would represent an unacceptable safety risk during construction for local residents both young and old who need to cross the access route during their daily activities such, going to school or shopping within the village. Up to 1000 loads would travel along Spring Lane during the 9 month construction period. Were approval to be granted either the existing school crossing on Spring Lane should be manned during construction works or heavy works traffic should be limited to using Spring Lane only after the schools have started in the morning to a time when school finishes.
119. In view of the volume of construction traffic proposed it is suggested that additional traffic safety measures should be required including the installation of pelican crossings on Durham Road, Station Road and Stockton Road, at the applicant’s expense, during the 9 month construction phase.
120. The Environmental Statement estimates that that over the 9 month construction period there will be 674 HGV movements and 3374 non HGV. These vehicle movements will have a significant highway safety and capacity issue along the narrow access road.
121. Sedgefield by pass was originally built to avoid heavy traffic travelling through the village. The construction of the wind turbines will recreate this problem.
122. The proposal would lead to existing on street car parking along the access route being relocated elsewhere within the village leading to greater congestion and confusion.
123. Traffic calming measures introduced on Durham Road and the island opposite the Hardwick Arms would need to be completely removed –thus destroying their objective of reducing speed and improving pedestrian safety.
124. Alterations or the removal of existing roundabouts situated at Winterton, at the entrance to the Community Hospital and at the entrance to Hardwick Park will add to traffic congestion.
125. A 7.5 tonne weight restriction is in place through Sedgefield because the fabric cannot cope with heavy traffic. It is feared that the bridge and embankment crossing the A689 could not cater for heavy traffic and that the proposed access route would be in close proximity to the main sewer serving Sedgefield and this may be accidentally damaged by HGV vehicle movements.
126. The volume and size of the construction traffic and the close proximity of the road to the adjacent residential properties would lead to either direct damage by collision or indirect damage to foundations caused by vibrations. It was queried who would be responsible for any damage incurred and whether a full survey of properties and land in and around West End / Spring Lane be carried out prior to this application being determined. It was also suggested that the developer include an all inclusive indemnity to cover future damage to adjacent houses, gardens, roads, drainage and services and that this be checked by the Council’s legal department.
127. The access lane south of the existing by pass is a single track lane and this is already insufficiently wide to accommodate the increasing size of agricultural vehicles already using the road. This situation which would be further exacerbated by the size and volume of heavy goods vehicles required to construct the proposed wind farm.
128. Spring Lane and Foxton Lane currently serves a number of residential properties, existing farms, an existing kennels and separate livery building. This is also well used for recreational purposes by walkers, those jogging, cycling and horse riding. The construction traffic generated by this proposal would represent a safety risk particularly in wet weather when the road often becomes flooded.
129. There is concern that emergency services would be unable to access existing properties and businesses because of the volume and nature of the traffic generated during construction.
130. A number of alternative suggestions to access the site from the B1278 Race Course Road, A177 and B1778 have been suggested including the use of helicopters to transfer the components from the A177 to the site have been suggested by local residents to minimise traffic flows through the centre of Sedgefield.
Noise, Shadow Flicker and Health concerns
131. The proposed wind turbines are to be sited close to residential properties, and will impact on local residents in terms of general amenity, outlook, overshadowing, noise and shadow flicker. Due to these concerns the proposed wind turbines will also have a negative effect residential amenity.
132. Construction traffic would give rise to unacceptable levels of noise and vibration from the early hours of the morning as delivery vehicles ‘trundle’ over rumble strips and engines rev to negotiate the elevated bridge.
133. Potential noise problems include mechanical noise caused by the hub of the turbine rotating. Aerodynamic noise created by turbulent airflow across the blades, aerodynamic noise when blades of adjacent turbines become synchronised and low frequency noise caused by infrasound.
134. The construction operations and the rotation of the blades would also lead to additional noise in this rural area caused by the motors and gear box, noise from the airflow across the blades, aerodynamic modulation when the blades of adjacent turbines become synchronised and low frequency noise.
135. Noise from turbines will detrimentally affect health including sleep patterns, migraines and epilepsy for residents of properties closest to the turbines.
136. The potential shadow flickering effect could also cause problems of dizziness, loss of balance for an individual with a visionary condition affecting the judgment of distances
137. The heavy goods deliveries (which vary from 70-90tons for the nacelle, 30 tons for the blades and 25 tons for the columns) would damage the foundations of adjacent properties. Several respondents queried who would be responsible for making good any future damage.
138. The site is not located near to an existing electricity sub station and electricity connections from the site would potentially lead to further disruption in this area.
139. The turbines would be both audible and visible from the school playing fields and that this may lead to children trying to climb them.
140. The dog boarding kennel at Foxton Wood employs 4 full time staff (including the owners Mr. & Mrs. Holloway) and 1 part time employee. Concern was raised that the implications of the wind turbine scheme had been adequately taken into account the impact on this existing business. Because of the proximity of the proposed turbines (which would be approximately 1000m, 590m and 560m from the kennels) this proposal would lead to an increase in ambient noise level arising from the turbines themselves and construction traffic and that this would have a significant detrimental effect on the viability of the existing kennels because noise from the turbines (which would be intermittent in nature) will startle the dogs at the kennels leading these to bark causing greater noise and leading to distressed dogs threatening the long term viability of the operation because customers would seek alternative provision elsewhere.
141. Noise from the turbine rotation would cause a chain reaction of barking within the kennels thereby causing increased disturbance for the residents at Foxton Wood and neighbouring properties during the evening and night time. A letter from Durham County Council’s Principal Community & Animal Health Inspector was included stating that the under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 it is the duty of any person responsible for animals to ensure that the needs of the animal for which he is responsible are met.
142. The quality and appropriateness of the ETSU-R-97 regulations used to assess noise levels is questioned. It was noted that this document dates from 1996 and does not take into consideration the increase in the size and generation capacity of modern turbines. Further noise surveys would need to be undertaken in order to accurately assess the noise implications of this proposal.
143. The Environmental Statement identifies that several properties including Foxton wood will be subject of a shadow flicker for up to 25 minutes per year for a total of up to 17 hours per year.
144. DTI guidance states that shadow flicker diminishes by a distance of 10 rotor diameters (820m in this case) several and residential properties are located within the above radius.
Private Members Bill regarding stand off distances between residential development and new wind turbines
145. Many existing residential properties were located within this proposed stand off distance within the Private Members Bill put forward by Peter Luff MP The Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill which proposed that turbines over 100 m high but less than 150m in height should be no closer than 2000m from residential properties. If this becomes law the present proposal would be unlawful. Reference was also made to separation distances recommended in other countries which are far in excess of the 750m figure adopted by the applicant.
Need for and viability of renewable energy and wind turbines
146. The future energy needs of the UK cannot be met by renewable energy; therefore, existing financial incentives should be transferred from the renewable energy industry to nuclear and / or tidal power.
147. Although both power stations and wind turbines can have a dramatic visual impact a power station can contribute towards the varying electrical energy demands unlike wind power which can only provide an intermittent supply.
148. County Durham had already met its 2010 target for renewable energy and this area already has its fair share of this kind of development.
Strategic Overview of planning applications
149. Concern that individual planning applications for wind turbines may be being considered in isolation by a number of different Local Planning Authorities rather than in a co-ordinated fashion. This situation has been exacerbated by the disbandment of Regional Government.
150. Notwithstanding national support for renewable energy to meet international commitments to combat climate change several Planning Inspectors have concluded that the damage to the character and appearance of the landscape and residential amenity outweighed the benefit of the contribution this would make to regional renewable energy targets.
151. The National Policy Guidance which seeks to support renewable energy is at odds with the Localism Bill which seeks to empower local people. The views of Sedgefield residents should take precedence over the energy company and the planning department. The Localism Bill states that residents will have more input into their communities, let this be the beginning.
152. This proposal is not required or is premature because other sites with planning consent for the erection of turbines have yet to be developed, and bearing in mind the limited contribution that would be made to Durham’s target for renewable energy, the negative impacts of this proposal was disproportionately high.
153. The proposed wind farm lies within a lowland plain with a maximum elevation above sea level of 80m and its efficiency is likely to be somewhat lower than the 28% figure normally utilised, with a likely load factor more in the region of 16%-18%.The figures used within the applicant’s supporting statement regarding the equivalent number of households served by the electricity generated and the carbon dioxide levels saved were also considered to be over inflated.
154. The CO2 produced during the manufacture and construction of the proposed wind turbines and the concrete required for the foundations would negate any savings the production of renewable energy may have in reducing greenhouse emissions.
155. This type of proposal is only viable because of annual government subsidies and areas for wind turbines should be considered first in terms of efficiency and not just on the ability of the developer to receive Renewable Obligation Certificates.
156. The majority of the customers of the energy supplier are located in different parts of the country and it is inappropriate to site the turbines in this location. The turbines would also be operated by a foreign company and this proposal, if approved would not contribute towards UK targets for renewable energy.
Socio Economic Implications
157. The reliability of wind turbines is questioned, as other schemes which already exist have failed to produce the amount of electricity initially projected. Wind farm developments are not considered to be cost effective, construction costs and impacts on locality far outweigh the projected benefits of the scheme.
158. Despite claims made within the supporting documentation this proposal would create very limited opportunities for local economic or employment opportunities. It is also disappointing that the turbines are to be imported rather than being constructed in this country.
159. The recent investment in Hardwick Park and the proposed caravan park facility at Brakes Farm to encourage the development of tourism would be undermined very significantly by the presence of the wind turbines, which would dominate the view.
160. An existing mixed dairy, sheep and arable farm requires access along Spring Lane on a daily basis. Concern was raised that the construction works necessary for both the wind farm and the associated electricity supply would lead to access problems as large vehicles from the proposed development interact with farm vehicles including the milk tanker along this narrow lane.
Other matters raised including aviation, ecology, archeology, public safety and TV reception
161. Concerns were raised that aircraft flying to and from Durham Tees Valley airport would need to be diverted away from the proposed turbines and this proposal would affect the police helicopter and air ambulance.
162. The proposed wind turbines will affect wildlife in the local area, specific concerns raised regarding impacts on bats, birds and great crested newts.
163. The Environmental Assessment highlighted the potential of archaeology to be located within the application site and that further archaeological evaluation is carried out prior to this application being determined so that the importance of these features can be fully assessed as part of the planning application procedure.
164. The proposed turbines were too close to public footpaths and users risked injury because of blade throw, fire, tower collapse and ice shedding.
165. The proposal would detrimentally affect TV reception. The turbines are on a direct line between the Hillsdale transmitter and Sedgefield, and the BBC web based wind farm tool states that the proposed development may affect aerial reception at up to 3,083 licensed homes. Although these homes are in locations served by satellite or cable services which could be used as an alternative, it is suggested that a bond be provided with the Planning Authority in case future problems occurred.
166. The proposed scheme has no local benefits; the development is merely a money making exercise for the developer and land owner.
167. A small number of respondents expressed concern regarding the scope and extent of the consultation exercise undertaking by the Local Authority regarding this proposal whilst another could not understand why this was being considered at all. One resident raised concern that the report by North Energy on “Planning for Low Carbon in County Durham” commissioned by Durham County Council meant that the Council itself has already made up its mind to meet renewable targets at any cost and therefore this application will not be reviewed objectively.
168. Concerns regarding devaluation of property were also raised by a number of respondents.
Phase 2 Consultation
169. Following the receipt of additional information and amendments to the proposal, a second consultation exercise was undertaken with those respondents who have commented at the time of the original consultation exercise and those residents’ livings closest to the application site. All of the responses from local residents re- iterated they continued opposition to this proposal, and original points were reiterated. The following additional concerns were raised
170. The additional information submitted in respect of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment does not deal with the cumulative impact of the development proposals upon the wider landscape and from key public views taking into account the Lambs Hill wind farm development at Stillington. This is considered a fundamental flaw.
171. The additional visual impact assessment has been prepared without any visiting the relevant properties and contained a number of inaccuracies. The conclusions were also contested.
172. Planning for Renewable Energy (Companion Guide to PPS22) makes a specific distinction between cumulative effects where two or more renewable energy schemes may be visible in the same location, and the sequential effects which occur when an observer moves through a landscape and experiences two or more schemes. As such, both this proposal and that at Lambs Hill would be both oppressive and overbearing.
173. Notwithstanding the proposals to include a series of 3m wide 25m long passing places along Spring Lane the highway verge was so narrow that these could not be constructed without damage to the established hedgerows. The suggested bays would also not allow sufficiently for visibility and the increase in traffic along this road will be unsafe for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders turning any existing country stroll into a noisy, busy and dangerous outing.
174. In view of highway safety and highway connection concerns an alternative access to the site via A177 Stockton Road and then on the unnamed road to West Layton Farm should be utilised for all construction traffic.
175. Durham County Council is once again putting the interests of the developer before those of the local community and appear hell bent on surrounding Sedgefield and its environs with a circle of wind turbines and one must therefore question whether there is a political rather than economic motive behind these plans.
Phase 3 Consultation
176. A third consultation exercise was undertaken following the submission of an additional cumulative visual impact assessment taking into account the wind turbine proposal at Lambs Hill.
177. Sedgefield Village Residents Forum re-iterated early objections to this proposal and several further objections were received restating earlier points. These included those on behalf of the residents of Foxton Wood who strongly disagree with the findings of the revised cumulative landscape assessment and believe that the that the proposed development, both in isolation and cumulatively, would have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the occupants of Foxton wood, that the proposal would have a significant adverse cumulative visual effect upon the landscape when viewed from both a fixed point and travelling through it.
178. Concern was also expressed that justification for this proposal on the basis of the Arup study (2009) was inappropriate in that this report did not take account of the recently consented turbines at Lambs Hill. Although the Foxton and Lambs Hill turbines are located in different assessment zones there is a clear physical and visual inter relationship between the two clusters of turbines.
179. One additional letter of support has recently been received stating that renewable energy is the way forward and as a community we should be supporting this application.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT :
180. The applicant has submitted a detailed Planning Statement which outlines both National and Regional Planning Policy in relation to renewable energy, this also includes an assessment for the need for this development, an assessment of the location and layout of the proposed development in relation to it’s impact upon landscape, cultural heritage, bio-diversity, residential amenity, socio-economic issues, transport and other issues such as aviation.
181. This report highlights that it is Government policy, is to stimulate the exploitation and development of renewable energy sources wherever they have the prospects of being economically attractive and environmentally acceptable, in the interests of sustainable development.
182. Although the principal reference of national planning policy (in England) for renewable energy is outlined within Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 22 a series of policy documents on renewable energy are also considered material considerations when considering planning applications for wind turbine development including:
- the Kyoto Protocol of 2005 which sets binding targets for reducing green house gas emissions to an average of 5% against 1990 levels over the 5 year period 2008-2012.
- the Renewable Energy Directive which became law in June 2009 and imposes an EU wide target for 20% of total energy within the EU to come from renewable sources by 2020.
- the Renewables Obligation introduced in 2002 and due to continue to 2037 also sets an obligation on all UK electricity supply companies to source a rising percentage of electricity from renewable sources. Rising to 15.4% by 2015/16.
- the Climate Change Act (2008) commits the UK to a legally binding target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 15% by 2020.
183. The North East of England Plan (The Plan) is the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the area. The Plan sets out a broad development strategy for the region for the period up to 2021. The Plan is part of the statutory Development Plan, as described in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
184. The Plan makes reference to the Regional Renewable Energy Strategy, March 2005 (RRES) which sets out how the Region can contribute to achieving the objectives and targets contained in national and international strategies to minimise energy use and pollution, and move towards a higher proportion of energy generated from renewable resources.
185. The RSS notes that achieving the commitments set nationally by the Energy White Paper will require at least 40% of electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2060. In the shorter term the Government is committed to the achievement of 10% renewable electricity by 2010 and is aiming for 20% by 2020.
186. Policy 39 of the RSS sets the regional and sub-regional targets for renewable energy generation. This states that to facilitate the generation of at least 10% of the Region’s consumption of electricity from renewable sources within the Region by 2010 (454 MW minimum installed capacity). Durham would be expected to contribute 82MW.
187. The applicant points out that this proposal will help the region contribute to meeting national policy set out in the Energy White Paper and this would contribute to the sub regional target of 454 MW of installed capacity to 2010 and 908MW by 2020.
188. It has also been pointed out that RSS targets are not maxima. PPS22 states that the fact a target has been reached should not be used in itself as a reason for refusing planning permission for further renewable energy projects.
189. Also, the Climate Change Supplement to PPS1 states that strategic targets should not be applied to individual planning applications. Achieving a higher capacity of energy from renewable sources would support the principal objective to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
190. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (UKRES) 2009 sets a new target of 30% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020. The county is expected to meet around 21% of its electricity needs from renewable sources before then (2011/2012). Should all permitted development go ahead, some of the sites currently in planning or scoping (which includes the Foxton Lane Wind Farm) be permitted, and further acceptable sites come forward within the next 10 years, the 30% target could be attainable.
191. It is anticipated that the 3 wind turbines at the proposed Foxton Lane Wind Farm site would provide 6MW of installed capacity, contributing towards national and regional renewable energy targets. The turbines would generate, on average, as much electricity as is consumed by approximately 3540 households each year and the ES calculates that the scheme has the potential to result in a reduction of 8976 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per annum.
192. There is a clear and identified need for the development which establishes a presumption in favour of planning permission being granted subject to other planning policy and material considerations.
193. It has been acknowledged that a range of factors including technical as well as planning, land use and environmental considerations. In selecting this site consideration has been given to residential properties and settlements, landscape, ecological values, ground conditions, access, aviation, wind resource, grid connection and land availability.
194. A 750m residential buffer zone was applied to minimise the potential risk to noise amenity. The height of the proposed turbines has been reduced from 126m to 110m to address MoD concerns. Two turbines have been moved further away from existing hedgerow and the Shotton Beck crossing has been revised to minimise the impact of the access on existing trees.
195. The ES addresses the requirements of RSS Policy 40 to consider the acceptability of the location and the scale of the proposal and its visual impact in relation to the character and sensitivity of the surrounding landscape. In this regard the proposed development site is located within zone 20 of the Ove Arup Wind Farm and Landscape Capacity Studies: East Durham Limestone and Tees Plain (2008) report. This is specified as an area of medium landscape sensitivity, which could potentially accommodate a medium small wind farm (7.5 MW - 25 MW or 4 – 9 turbines approx.).
196. An addendum was issued to the report in October 2009. The addendum assesses developments currently in the planning system, one of which is the Foxton Lane proposal. It concludes that the Butterwick/Walkway wind farm plus one or two other wind farms would potentially be acceptable.
197. The findings of the Cumulative Appraisal appendix to the ES suggest that given the limited size of this development and the careful siting within a suitable landscape type, the introduction of this wind farm would be acceptable in landscape and visual amenity terms within the context of existing and permitted wind energy developments.
198. The ES recognises that impact on residential amenity is a material consideration to determination of planning applications. An assessment has undertaken of the potential effects of the development on individual residential properties in proximity to the development site and also on settlements in the surrounding area.
199. The ES notes that there are no residential properties within the planning application boundary. The nearest individual residential properties are approximately 760m from the nearest turbine. Most of the major settlements in the study area are located between 10km and 20km from the proposed development, Durham being approximately 17km northwest of the nearest proposed turbine. The closest settlements to the site are at Foxton (0.75km) and Sedgefield (1.7km).
200. Any identifiable adverse effects on the views from residential properties, and the amenity of occupiers, have to be balanced in the overall determination of the application. Given the conclusions in the ES there is no overriding reason to conclude that the development should not be granted planning permission having regard to the potential effects on residential amenity when considered in the context of development plan and national planning policies.
201. The ES has assessed the potential cumulative effect of the development with other existing, consented and proposed wind farms on the heritage assets identified in the study area. This concluded that the Foxton Lane turbines are not predicted to have any adverse effects upon the setting of the Durham Cathedral and Castle World Heritage Site; they would not have any effect on the special historic interest of any of the Listed Buildings or their settings located within 10km of the site; would not a significant effect on the character and appearance of the 4 conservation areas located within a 5km of the site; would not have a significant impact upon the 3 historic parks and gardens within 10km of the nearest turbine.
202. In summary it has been concluded that the additional effects of the Foxton Lane wind farm on the settings of heritage assets would not be significant.
203. The ES concluded that that this proposal is not likely to affect the 2 Sites of Special Scientific Interest located with 5km of the site, and that the impact of this proposal on European protected species can be safeguarded during construction with the overall value of the site enhanced via mitigation and compensation measures to create improved habitat within the area.
204. The ES notes that Noise measurements were carried out at 5 locations representative of the nearest dwellings to the proposed development. The assessment shows that the typical downwind predicted wind turbine noise levels at all residential locations meet the relevant night-time and lower daytime noise limits, under all wind conditions.
205. It has therefore been concluded that there will be no harm to residential amenity from noise arising from the proposed development to justify refusal of planning permission having regard to planning policies relevant to determination of the application.
206. The issue of shadow flicker and, in particular, its potential impact on residential properties is a consideration in proposed wind energy developments. In this case the applicants have undertaken an analysis of shadow flicker as a supporting document to the ES.The analysis considered the potential effect on 7 properties within proximity to the wind turbines at distances of between 7.5km and 1.05km. The results were based on assumptions that there is uninterrupted sunshine, the turbines are always rotating and their blades are perpendicular to the sun, i.e. a worst-case scenario.
207. The analysis showed that one property would not be affected at all. Of the other 6 properties there is potential for some shadow flicker events to occur for some residents within those properties for between 14 and 25 minutes duration. However, this analysis does not take into account any intervening vegetation or structures between the turbines and the individual properties. It also does not assess the specific circumstances of each case i.e. the positioning and size of window and door openings to the properties that might be affected by shadow flicker. The duration of effect would therefore be substantially less than the results of the analysis might indicate.
208. The impact of potential shadow flicker would be limited to a few properties and the impact on the residents within those properties would also be limited.
209. Where shadow flicker has been considered to have the potential for harm to residential amenity in other permitted wind energy schemes the imposition of a planning condition in the grant of planning permission to mitigate any demonstrable harm has been recognised as appropriate to meet the six tests set out in Circular 11/95.
210. The potential impact of shadow flicker on a small number of residential properties will be limited and measures can be put in place to mitigate any potential harm that may be caused to residents. There is therefore no justifiable reason to refuse planning permission based on shadow flicker considerations.
211. Traffic and transport issues will be largely temporary and intermittent in nature and any concerns can be addressed via the imposition of planning conditions or agreements.
212. The overall conclusion is that the development will not be in material conflict with national, regional or local planning policies and guidance promoting the production of energy from renewable resources.
213. The benefits of the proposal far outweigh any identifiable harm that may be caused. Planning permission can therefore be granted subject to appropriate and necessary planning conditions.
The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT
214. In assessing this proposal for the erection of 3 turbines and having regard to the requirements of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material planning considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle of development in terms of National, Regional and Local Plan Policies, landscape and visual impact, traffic and highway safety, residential amenity issues such as noise and shadow flicker, impact on nature conservation, health and safety and other issues raised by third parties.
Planning Policy
215. Government guidance contained within PPS 22 supports onshore wind farms. PPS22 reiterates the commitment to renewable energy generation and the aim to cut CO2 emissions by 60% at around 2050, with real progress by 2020, the aim is also to maintain reliable and competitive energy supplies. The target is to generate 10% of electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2010 and to aspire to achieving 20% by 2020.
216. The guidance states that renewable energy development should be accommodated in locations where it is technically viable and where the various impacts referred to above can be satisfactorily addressed. There is an acceptance that there will always be a compromise between maximising the capture of energy and the visual impact that will result.
217. The wider environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy projects are a material consideration whatever their scale; such benefits should be given significant weight in determining planning applications.
218. The sub-regional renewable energy target for County Durham given in the RSS was 82MW installed renewable energy capacity by 2010. At the time of writing this report the County has around 165MW of renewable electricity operational or approved. This will meet around 55% of County Durham’s household electricity consumption or 22% of the County’s overall electricity. County Durham’s 2010 target has been exceeded by a substantial margin and the aspiration to double that target by 2020, included in the emerging County Durham Plan, has already been achieved.
219. While the targets in RSS are ‘thresholds’ and not ‘ceilings’, the performance to date in Durham indicates that sufficient sites are being found to meet those targets and that there is no need to approve sites found to be environmentally unacceptable. Although the RSS is supportive of the development of renewable energy generation Policy 40 of the RSS also recognises that the acceptability of the location and the scale of the proposal and its visual impact in relation to the character and sensitivity of the surroundings, needs to be considered as does the cumulative impact of the development in relation to other similar developments.
220. The emerging National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development to encourage economic growth, particularly where it is supported by Local Plan policy. This draft guidance is a material consideration in determining planning applications, and this proposal is considered to be in general conformity with the NPPF.
221. The proposals lie within the Tees Plain an area identified in the RSS as a ‘broad area of least constraint for medium scale wind energy development’. The area is identified as the Tees Plain in Policy 41 and by a W symbol on the key diagram.
222. The RSS identifies the area as having potential for medium scale development, which it identifies as being ‘up to 20-25 turbines’. The Tees Plain area contains 38 operational or consented turbines in 5 separate developments (High Volts, Butterwick, Walkway, Red Gap Moor, Seamer, Lamb’s Hill and Moorhouse) and is therefore well over the scale of development envisaged in RSS.
223. The figure given in the RSS was not, however, based on an assessment of the capacity of the landscape of these broad areas. RSS makes reference elsewhere to the need for the location and design of proposals to be informed by landscape character and sensitivity assessments, particularly the Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development undertaken by the former Government for the North East in 2003. It also makes reference to development capacity studies being undertaken and identifies Local Development Frameworks (LDF’s), and the assessment of planning proposals, as being the ‘appropriate level’ at which to deal with the issue of the capacity of individual ‘broad areas of least constraint’.
224. The Landscape Appraisal for Onshore Wind Development identifies the area as belonging to the ‘Lowland Plain’ landscape type which it assesses as being of ‘medium’ sensitivity to wind energy development. The Appraisal uses the terms small, medium and large to refer to turbines heights of 80m, 110m and 140m respectively rather than turbine numbers. The 110m turbines proposed are within that ‘medium scale’ range. It is, therefore, considered that the location and scale of the proposals is generally consistent with the findings of the Appraisal.
225. The Wind Farm Development and Landscape Capacity Studies: East Durham Limestone and Tees Plain carried out by ARUP subdivides the area into landscape zones which it assesses in terms of sensitivity and appropriate wind farm typology.
226. The proposed turbines would lie in Zone 20 which is assessed as being of medium sensitivity. This was identified as having ‘some’ capacity and it is indicated that in principle the landscape could have the capacity to accommodate a medium-small scale development (i.e. 4-9 turbines). The site therefore lies within an area identified as having some suitability for development, and this proposal to erect 3 turbines is below the 4-9 turbines capacity suggested within the ARUP report.
227. The study examined the capacity of the wider study area by modelling a number of development scenarios envisaged at that time taking into account the potential cumulative impacts of four individual developments then in planning or scoping in conjunction with existing/ permitted development at Walkway and Butterwick.
228. Of the potential developments modelled in the study, the proposal for 10 turbines at Moorhouse has been refused and a 6 turbine proposal approved. An application for a 3 turbine development has been submitted for East Newbiggin (modelled as 9 turbines). The proposal for 10 turbines at the A1 has been withdrawn. An additional development at Lamb’s Hill has been approved and consultation has begun with regard to a scheme of up to 45 turbines at The Isles. Neither of these last two proposals was modelled in the ARUP study.
229. The scenario under consideration which includes Moorhouse and Lamb’s Hill were not modelled in the report or addendum. The addendum did conclude that the Butterwick/ Walkway wind farm plus three or more wind farm developments between Darlington and Sedgefield (i.e. Scenarios 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9) may be unacceptable, unless effects on settlement including Sadberge, Great Stainton and other settlements, local landscape character and scale can clearly be shown to be acceptable.
230. As the current situation is not one of the scenarios modelled in the ARUP studies its conclusions need to be handled with some care. This matter is discussed further in the ‘cumulative impacts section of this report.
231. The conclusion of the original report was that the Tees Plain wind resource area could potentially exceed the identified draft RSS recommended levels of development within the capacity of the landscape. This study has derived a “least impact” area where this should occur. The potential has been identified for around 9-15 turbines within the “least impact” area in addition to the existing and consented development. Scenarios developed for the study show 3 possible broad locations for any future wind farms. However the study suggests that generally any additional two wind farm clusters separated by around 5km (from existing consented or each other) may be acceptable in the Tees Plain “least impact” area.
232. Since that time an additional three wind farms totalling 15 turbines have been approved in the area, largely within the ‘least impact area’. The area has therefore reached the capacity identified in the study.
233. The Sedgefield Borough’s saved Local plan policies do not contain any specific policies that relate to renewable energy. However Policy D1 whilst seeking to assist in the objective of energy conservation , D4, E1, E11, E15, E18, L10, D1 and D4 seek to ensure that development proposals seek to ensure that the layout and design of new development are satisfactorily designed taking into account the site’s nature and built features and it’s relation to adjacent land uses.
Landscape and Visual impact
234. This proposal would have direct physical impacts on the landscape within the application site as a result of the construction of access tracks, operational areas, and the removal of short sections of hedgerow and streamside vegetation. It is, however, considered that these would be relatively low and these would be more than offset by suitable Habitat Enhancement proposals. As such, this proposal would be consistent in that respect with Policies E1 and E15 of the Local Plan.
235. Impacts on the fabric and character of Spring Lane and Foxton Lane are likely to be more substantial. Given the character of the lane with its narrow carriageway and soft verges it is anticipated that the provision of additional passing points along this route in order to facilitate construction would inevitably alter the character of this area. However, these physical changes would be limited to the 9 months construction period and final decommissioning at the end of the planning consent. Any damage to the verges could be repaired and re-instated via the imposition of an appropriately worded planning condition.
236. Wind turbines by virtue of their scale will inevitably have a visual impact upon the wider landscape within which they are located and an impact upon the amenities of people who live, work or visit that locality. The degree of impact depends on the form and character of the landscape and the perceptions of those affected by the development.
237. The applicants have submitted a detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which attempts to quantify the impacts of the development on a variety of locations using a basis of levels of sensitivity and magnitude of change ranging from negligible to high. This was subsequently updated in order to give due regard to the Lamb’s Hill planning application which was submitted after this planning application. This was granted planning permission by Stockton Borough Council, although, the decision has been the subject of a successful Judicial Review challenge. and the planning permission is therefore to be quashed, Stockton Borough Council are unable to re-consider the Lambs Hill proposal until such time as this occurs however, having regard to the technical issues upon which the decision is to be quashed, it remains a reasonable likelihood that after further consideration, planning permission will again be granted for the development.
238. The proposals would be widely visible across the Tees Lowlands, including the greater part of the Lowland Plain and Lowland Carrs landscapes and the Tees Vale south of the River Tees. Across this area generally the relatively open nature of the countryside and the flat or gently undulating terrain means that the turbines would be widely visible and typically as skyline features although occasionally seen against, or rising above, the backdrop of the Cleveland Hills which is an important and attractive feature of views southwards across the Tees Plain.
239. The scale of the impact in this kind of landscape is influenced heavily by distance, the presence of hedges, trees, woodlands and undulating topography becoming increasingly influential with distance in screening or assimilating turbines in the shallow views typical of this landscape. In general the turbines would have moderate or low impacts at distances beyond around 5 or 6km (50 x tip height) from the site, with high impacts occurring within around 2km or so (20 x tip height).
240. Within around 2 km of the site impacts would generally be high. The turbines would be prominent or dominant features in typical views. This is generally true for development of this nature in a rural landscape wherever it occurs. With the exception of the localised screening effects of hedges and undulating terrain, and some small woods, the turbines would be fairly consistently visible.
241. In views from the locality the existing turbines of Butterwick / Walkway are generally visible on the skyline to the north as would the turbines of the permitted Red Gap Moor to a lesser degree. Turbines of the permitted Lamb’s Hill wind farm would be generally visible to the south at closer range. Turbines of the permitted Moorhouse wind farm would also be generally visible to the south-west in middle distance views. The proposed turbines would clearly dominate the local landscape in many views although as a small cluster this is characteristic of similar development permitted elsewhere. In combination with other development the experience of the local landscape as a ‘wind farm landscape’ would be particularly intense and turbines would read as not only a dominant characteristic of the immediate locality but also of the landscapes to the north, east, south and south-west.
242. Within the 2km to 5km range the landscape remains generally open although there are some heavily wooded areas at Wynyard and Hardwick. The turbines would be widely visible and often relatively prominent features although locally screened by topography in pockets of low ground along the Shotton/Stillington Beck and the Elstob Beck and the Carrs fringes around Morden. Considered on their own, being a relatively small cluster, they would read as a discrete and coherent group that would not be dissimilar in an obvious way to that of developments of a similar scale elsewhere in the region which have been judged to be acceptable.
Designated Landscapes
243. These are described reasonably well in the LVIA and the impact of this proposal on the Area of High Landscape Value (AHLV), Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and Special Landscape Area (SLA) landscapes would be low.
244. There are three Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 10km of the proposals: Hardwick Park (2.4km northwest), Wynyard Park (4km east) and Windlestone Hall (9.5km northwest). It is considered that this proposal will have no significant landscape impact on these Registered Historic Parks and Gardens. The proposals would be consistent with Saved Policy E2 in respect of Hardwick Park and Windlestone Park.
Impact on Settlements
245. The Environmental Statement states that the proposal would have no significant change in the view of residents in Durham, Peterlee, Hartlepool, Stockton, Darlington, Newton Aycliffe, Shildon and Bradbury.
246. This did, however, find that the proposals would have more substantial impacts on some of those settlements within 5- 6km of the site including Foxton, Sedgefield, Stillington, Old Stillington, Whitton, Thorpe Thewles, Carlton, Redmarshall, Bishopton, Mordon, Great Stainton, Little Stainton, Bradbury, Fishburn, Bishop Middleham, Wynyard Village and Thorpe Larches.
Whilst it is felt that the turbines would be prominent features of the local environment, visible from some residential properties and from roads and recreational footpaths / bridleways serving those communities this situation would be similar to some existing and approved wind farms elsewhere in the region.
247. Views from individual settlements were considered to be described reasonably well in the LVIA, However, the nature of views from within settlements can vary considerably. For completeness, the main issues affecting each of the main settlements are outlined below.
248. Foxton (0.75km). The turbines would be visible from many properties and gardens although individual turbines would be screened in varying degrees by intervening buildings or vegetation. They would be at sufficient proximity to be dominant features in the view if not overwhelming. They would be dominant features in views from the only approach to the hamlet along Spring Lane. They would be dominant features in views from the footpath and bridleway network north of the hamlet. The Butterwick/Walkway complex does not have a substantial impact on the hamlet due to the screening effects of intervening topography and vegetation but is visible from Spring Lane and the footpath/bridleway network to the north.
249. The permitted Lamb’s Hill turbines would be visible from many properties and gardens through screened from some in varying degrees by buildings and vegetation. They would be at sufficient proximity to be dominant features in the view if not overwhelming. They will be dominant features in views from the footpath network running south from the village. The permitted Moorhouse turbines will be visible but not particularly prominent in similar views, probably as hubs and upper blades at distances of around 6km.
250. Sedgefield (1.8km). The turbines would be visible from some properties on the southern edges of the settlement although at sufficient distance not to be overwhelming or particularly dominant. The southernmost edge of the village is generally well provided with structure planting to screen the A689. Slightly more open views can be obtained from the Eden Drive, Naylor Road areas although again intervening vegetation would screen or partially screen the turbines. The turbines would be partially visible from parts of Station Road and Spring Lane but would not generally be visible from public areas or community facilities within the village. They would be prominent from the southern approaches to the village but would not be of a sufficient scale to dominate the view. They would be a prominent and at times dominant feature of the network of footpaths and country lanes south of the village, but not from the west towards and including Hardwick Park.
251. The Butterwick/Walkway complex is visible from some properties and vantage points on the eastern edges of the village but not generally from within the village or from receptors shared with Foxton Lane. The Lamb’s Hill turbines will be visible in the same views as Foxton Lane as more distant features coalescing to form a single group. The proposed Moorhouse turbines will be visible but not prominent at greater distance (around 9km) in similar views.
252. Thorpe Larches (2.5km). The turbines would be partially visible over intervening vegetation in views from some properties along the A177 but at sufficient distance not be visually dominant. From properties west of the A177 they would be screened by intervening buildings and vegetation. They would be prominent in views from the northern approach to the village on the A177 further to the north but would not dominate its setting. They would be prominent or dominant features from the footpath / bridleway network west of the village but not from the more convenient footpaths running west into the wooded landscapers of Wynyard Park.
253. Stillington (2.6km). The turbines would be visible from a small number of properties in the Morrison Street area although at sufficient distance not to be overwhelming or particularly dominant. They would be generally screened from view elsewhere by topography, buildings and vegetation. They would be prominent in views from the northern approach to the village but would not be of such sufficient scale to dominate the view. They would be a prominent and at times dominant feature of the network of footpaths and country lanes north of the village and would be prominent in views from parts of Stillington Forest Park.
254. Old Stillington (2.8km). The turbines would be visible or partially visible from some properties in Old Stillington although at sufficient distance not to be dominant features. They would be prominent in views from the northern approach to the village but would not be of a sufficient scale to dominate its setting. They would be a prominent and at times dominant feature of footpaths north of the village but not from paths to the south on lower ground along the Bishopton Beck. Operational turbines in the area do not have a substantial impact on the village due to the screening effects of topography and vegetation, but the permitted Lamb’s Hill turbines will have a substantial impact in views north towards Foxton. The Foxton turbines would appear behind or to one side of the Lamb’s Hill turbines, at greater distance but intensifying their overall impact in some degree.
255. Mordon (2.9Km). It is likely that turbines would be visible or partially visible from some properties and gardens in the west of the village but at sufficient distance not to be dominant. From most properties and public spaces they would be generally screened by buildings and vegetation. They would be visible in places from the northern and southern approaches to the village but at sufficient distance not to dominate its setting. They would be prominent or dominant features from the footpath / bridleway network east of the village but not from paths and bridleways to the west on lower ground. Other operational and permitted turbines in the area do not have a substantial impact on the village due to the screening effects of topography and vegetation.
256. Whitton (3.4km). The turbines would be visible as hubs and upper rotors from some properties but would not be widely visible within the village due to the screening effects of buildings and vegetation. They would be prominent in views from roads north of the village but would not dominate its setting. They would be prominent but not dominant features in some views from the footpath network around of the village. Operational wind farms in the area do not have a big impact on the visual environment of the village. The approved Lamb’s Hill turbines will be very prominent in some views from the road and footpath network around the village.
257. Thorpe Thewles (4.1km). It is likely that turbines would be partially visible from the 1 st floor windows of some properties in the north-west but would not be generally visible within the village. They would be prominent in some views from roads approaching the village but at sufficient distance not to dominate its setting. They would be prominent but not dominant features in some views from the surrounding footpath network. Operational wind farms in the area do not have a substantial impact on the village due to the screening effects of topography and vegetation. The permitted Lamb’s Hill turbines will be visible in some filtered views from the Durham Road area and from roads and paths in the area where they would be seen in conjunction with the Foxton Lane turbines.
258. Great Stainton (4.2km). The turbines would be partially visible in views from a small number of properties on the northern edge of the village, largely from 1 st floor windows. They would not be generally visible within the village due to the screening effects of topography, buildings and vegetation. They would be visible from roads leading to the village but at sufficient distance not to dominate its setting and would be visible from parts of the footpath network around the village as prominent but not dominant features. Operational turbines in the area do not have a substantial impact on the village. The permitted turbines at Lamb’s Hill will be prominent features in views from some properties on the western edge of the village and the roads and footpaths serving it. The permitted Moorhouse turbines won’t be visible from within the village generally but will also be prominent features in views from the roads and footpaths serving it.
259. Bishopton (4.3km). The turbines could be partially visible from 1 st floor windows of properties in the north but would not generally be visible from within the village due to the screening effects of topography and buildings and the high level of tree cover. They would be prominent in some views from the surrounding road and footpath networks but would not be dominant features. Operational wind farms in the area do not have a substantial impact on the village due to the screening effects of topography and vegetation. The permitted Lamb’s Hill turbines will be prominent in views from a small number of properties in the north but will not generally be visible within the village.
260. Bradbury (4.7km). It is likely that turbines would be visible or partially visible from some properties and gardens on the southern edge of the village but at sufficient distance not to be particularly prominent. From most properties and public spaces they would be screened by buildings and vegetation. They would be visible in places from the southern approaches to the village but at sufficient distance not to dominate its setting. They will not have a substantial impact on the footpath network close to the village.
261. Wynyard (4.7km). The turbines would not be visible from the village due to the heavily wooded nature of the area. They would be prominent in some views from roads approaching the village but at sufficient distance not to dominate its setting. They would not be generally visible from footpaths within the surrounding heavily wooded landscape.
262. Carlton (4.8km) and Redmarshal (5km). The turbines would be partially visible from the northern edges of the villages. At the distances involved the turbines would be notable but not dominant features in the view. They would not be generally visible from within them due to the screening effects of buildings and vegetation. They would be visible in views from the road and footpath network, but not as particularly prominent features.
263. Fishburn (5.1km). The turbines would be visible from a number of properties and public vantage points within the village but at sufficient distance not to be prominent features. They would be at sufficient distance to have no significant impact on the setting of the village and would have low impacts in views from the footpath network in the countryside immediately around the village.
264. Little Stainton (5.3km) the turbines would be likely to be visible in views from some properties in the north of the village but would be screened or partially screened elsewhere by buildings and vegetation. At the distances involved the turbines would be notable but not particularly prominent features. There would be clear views of the turbines form some roads or paths around the village but as relatively distant features. Operational turbines in the area do not have a substantial impact on the village.
265. Bishop Middleham (5.8km). It is likely that turbines would be visible or partially visible from some properties and gardens on the southern edge of the village but at sufficient distance not to be prominent features and often screened from view by intervening vegetation. They would be at sufficient distance to have no significant impact on the setting of the village. Although visible from parts of the footpath network to the south of the village they would be at sufficient distance not to be prominent features.
266. In summary, from the majority of villages in the area the proposed turbines would be visible or partially visible from some properties on settlement edges but not at sufficient proximity to be visually dominant. Given the shallow views typical of this landscape they would not generally be visible from public areas and community facilities within the villages, and would not dominate their visual environment either in terms of views of the settlement or from the surrounding footpath network as a whole.
267. The exception to this is the hamlet of Foxton on which impacts both individually and in combination with the permitted turbines at Lamb’s Hill, would be substantial. It is therefore considered that this proposal would dominate the visual environment of Foxton to an unacceptable degree, and therefore contrary to Policy 40 of the RSS and Policy D1 (A) of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan.
Visual Impact on Residential Properties
268. Whilst case law has established that there is no right to a view, there are nevertheless circumstances in which development including wind turbines can have an overbearing or oppressive effect due to scale and proximity, which can affect the living conditions of residents. In this case, the size of turbines and distance to them are important factors that affect their perceived scale. The number of turbines, the angle of view they occupy, the orientation of habitable rooms and gardens and screening by topography, buildings or vegetation are also important considerations.
269. A review of past appeal decisions tends to suggest that turbines are likely to be regarded as ‘overbearing’ at distances closer than four times the turbine height in open views, and unlikely to be overbearing at distances of greater than around seven times their height. For intermediate distances the acceptability or otherwise of their impacts is influenced by site-specific factors and by the judgements of individual decision-makers.
270. The ES contains an assessment of potential impacts on residential amenity for properties within 2km. It concludes that there would be no properties where the proposed turbines would be overbearing or oppressive. There are no properties within a distance of five times the turbine height (550m) and no properties within six times the turbine height (660m).
271. There are a number of properties within seven times the turbines height (770m) including properties at Shotton (740m). Foxton Wood (740m), North Farm (750m), Rafferdene (750m), four properties at Heley House Farm (750m), and Foxton Lodge (760m).
272. Properties on the western side of Shotton have windows on northern elevations. The proposed turbines would be visible in views to the north-west, slightly filtered by vegetation in the foreground at distances of around 740m, occupying an angle of view of around 45°. Visual impacts on the properties would be high. The turbines at Butterwick/Walkway and permitted turbines at Red Gap Moor, Moorhouse and Lamb’s Hill would, however, be largely screened by intervening buildings or topography.
273. There is a further property on the southern side of the Hamlet from where the turbines, at around 830m, would be largely screened in views from windows and south and east facing gardens by intervening buildings, as such, it is considered that the visual impacts on this property would be low. The permitted Lamb’s Hill turbines will be heavily filtered by intervening woodland and other existing or permitted turbines would not be visible.
274. Foxton Wood sits in an elevated position with windows on southern and eastern elevations and gardens to the south with open views to the east and south. The proposed turbines would be visible at around 740m from eastern windows and gardens, occupying an angle of approximately 50°. Impacts on the property would be high.
275. The permitted turbines at Lamb’s Hill will be visible in open views to the south at distances of around 2.1km. It is anticipated that the impact on the property to be medium - high. These two nearer developments would lie within an overall angle of view of around130°.Turbines of the Butterwick/Walkway complex are visible or partially visible at greater distance (6km) on the skyline to the north-east, as will the permitted Red Gap Moor turbines (8 km). The permitted Moorhouse turbines will be visible or partially visible (certainly nacelles and upper rotors) at 6.5 km to the south- west. Impacts of these more distant developments are considered to be individually low-medium but collectively medium.
276. North Farm is a farmhouse which lies to the south or agricultural buildings. The southern and central turbine would be visible or partially visible from ground level and first floor windows at the western end at distances of around 750m stacking in a narrow field of view. From other north-facing 1 st floor windows rotor sweeps may be visible over intervening buildings. Impacts would be of a medium-high magnitude. The permitted turbines at Lamb’s Hill would be visible to the south from ground level and first floor windows at a distance of around 900m occupying an angle of approximately 25°, the eastern turbine partially screened by the cottage opposite, the others seen over and through intermittent garden vegetation between it and the adjacent property. Impacts are expected to be high or medium-high. The turbines at Butterwick/Walkway and permitted turbines at Red Gap Moor and Moor House would be screened by intervening features and buildings.
277. Rafferdene is a bungalow with windows on northern and southern elevations and gardens to the north and east. The proposed turbines will be visible from north facing windows and garden areas at a distance of around 750m, stacking in a narrow field of view, filtered in some views by intervening vegetation. It is considered as a result of this, that the impacts on the amenity of the occupiers of this property would be high. The permitted turbines at Lamb’s Hill will be visible from south facing windows and garden areas at a distance of around 980m occupying an angle of around 20°. Impacts would be high. Turbines at Butterwick/Walkway and permitted turbines at Red Gap Moor will be screened by intervening topography, vegetation and buildings. The permitted Moorhouse turbines will be partially visible (nacelles and rotors) to the south-west at a distance of around 6.1km occupying a field of view of around 10°, as such, the visual impact of this proposal is expected to be low-medium.
278. There are four properties at Heley House Farm: Heley House, Heley House Cottage and Heley Mews No’s 1 and 2 with planning consent for a further unit in former farm buildings. Some of the properties have east facing windows. As conversion of the farm complex is not fully complete it is difficult to be precise about the orientation of windows, the future deployment of garden areas, or the role of agricultural buildings in screening views over the life of the proposed development. The proposed turbines would be visible at around 750m from eastern windows, occupying an angle of around 60°. Impacts in open views are forecast to be high. The turbines at Lamb’s Hill will be visible to the south from a single first floor window and front gardens of Heley House and Heley House Cottage at distances of around 2.5km, occupying an angle of around 15° are expected visual impact is therefore, considered to be medium or low. Turbines of the Butterwick/Walkway complex are partially visible at greater distance (5.5km) on the skyline to the north-east, as will the permitted Red Gap Moor turbines (8.5 km). The permitted Moorhouse turbines will be partially visible (nacelles and upper rotors) at 6.5 km to the south-west, partly filtered by intervening mature trees. As a result it is anticipated that the visual impacts of these more distant developments to be individually low or low-medium but collectively medium.
279. The front of the property at Neasless Farm has south-facing windows and gardens. The proposed turbines would be visible in views to the south at a distance of around 755m, occupying a narrow field of view with all three turbines stacking. Impacts would therefore be high on this property. The permitted turbines at Lamb’s Hill would be visible in the same view at a distance of around 3.4km, occupying a slightly wider angle of view (8°) directly behind the Foxton Lane turbines with some further stacking.
As such, the visual impact of this proposal is anticipated to be medium in themselves but compounding the high impact of the Foxton Lane turbines. The permitted turbines at Moorhouse would be visible as distant features (8.3km) to the south-west with rotors and nacelles visible over Neasless Covert and would have low impacts Turbines of the Butterwick/Walkway complex are partially visible on the skyline to the north-east at around 4.4km. I would assess its impacts as being of a medium magnitude.
280. The property Foxton Lodge has windows in all elevations and gardens /grounds surrounding it on all sides. The proposed turbines would be visible to the north from ground level at distances of around 760m, the rotors of the nearest two overlapping in a relatively narrow field of view (10°.) Although in some views individual turbines may be screened by a garage building to the north, the visual impact generally would be high. The permitted turbines at Lamb’s Hill would be visible to the south from open ground and first floor vantage points at distances of around 980m in a field of view of around 25°, the central two turbines close or stacking. Impacts would be high on this property. The permitted Moorhouse turbines would be visible in the same southerly views behind and to the west of the Lamb’s Hill turbines at a distance of around 6.3km giving a combined field of view of the two schemes of 50°. It is anticipated that the visual impact of these turbines would be low to medium in themselves, but adding to the high impact of Lamb’s Hill.
281. The Cottage , at Foxton is one of a number of properties at a slightly increased distance Main views from the property are to the south but there are north facing windows looking towards the site. The turbines would be visible in views to the north at a distance of around 790m, occupying a narrow field of view with the nearest two turbines stacking. Impacts would be high. Turbines at Butterwick/Walkway and permitted Red Gap Moor would be screened by intervening buildings and vegetation. The Lambs Hill turbines will be visible in open views from southern windows and the garden at a distance of around 900m occupying a field of view of around 25°. Impacts would again be high. Permitted turbines at Moorhouse will be partially visible (certainly nacelles and rotors) at a distance of 6.2km occupying a field of view of around 10° immediately to the west of Lamb’s Hill. Impacts will be low-medium but adding to the high impacts of Lamb’s Hill.
282. The main orientation of windows on the property at South Farm Foxton is to the east, west and south. The southern turbine would be visible at around 800m in views from the curtilages of the property together with blade tips of the central turbine above intervening buildings. Impacts would be medium. Turbines at Butterwick/Walkway and Red Gap Moor would be screened by intervening buildings and vegetation. The Lambs Hill turbines will be visible in open views from southern windows and the garden at a distance of around 900m occupying a field of view of around 28°. Impacts will be high. Permitted turbines at Moorhouse will be partially visible (certainly nacelles and rotors) at a distance of 6.2km occupying a field of view of around 10° immediately to the west of Lamb’s Hill. Impacts will be low-medium ion themselves but adding to the high impacts of Lamb’s Hill.
283. The proposed turbines would be visible in views to the north of Foxton Farm at a distance of around 800m, occupying a narrow field of view with all three turbines stacking. Impacts would be high. The permitted Lambs Hill turbines would be visible in open views from 1 st floor south-facing windows and from the garden to the west at a distance of around 900m occupying a field of view of around 30°. Ground level views will be screened by agricultural buildings. Impacts would be high. Permitted turbines at Moorhouse will be partially visible (certainly nacelles and rotors) from ground and 1 st floor windows and the garden. They will be filtered by garden vegetation at a distance of 6.1km and occupy a field of view of around 10° to the west of Lamb’s Hill. Impacts will be low-medium but adding to the high impacts of Lamb’s Hill.
284. The orientation of windows on Orchard House is to the south, east and north. The proposed turbines would be visible to the north, partially filtered by deciduous roadside trees and partly obstructed by farm buildings. The northern turbine at 1.7km would be visible as a complete structure, the central and southern (820m) turbines would be visible as upper rotors over agricultural buildings. Impacts would be medium. The Lambs Hill turbines will be visible in open views from southern windows and the garden at a distance of around 900m occupying a field of view of around 30°. Impacts will be high. Permitted turbines at Moorhouse will be partially visible (certainly nacelles and rotors) at a distance of 6.2km occupying a field of view of around 10° immediately to the west of Lamb’s Hill. Impacts will be low-medium but adding to the high impacts of Lamb’s Hill.
285. The visual impacts of the proposed turbines on many of these properties would be high. Whether they would be overbearing in themselves is a matter of judgement, but it would be difficult to sustain an objection on those grounds on the basis of the way the term has been understood in recent inquiry decisions. For those properties that would experience high impacts from both the proposals and Lamb’s Hill (Foxton Lodge, The Cottage, Rafferdene, Foxton Farm) it is likely that the combined effect would be considered by many to be overbearing. Two of these properties are understood to be involved in the development. It is clear that for many other residents the impacts in combination with other development would be substantial whether or not the turbines were considered to be overbearing in themselves. This would bring the proposals into conflict with Policy 40 of the RSS and Policy D1 (A) of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan.
Cumulative Impact
286. As indicted above this proposal cannot be considered in isolation and must be viewed in the context of the existing and permitted wind farm proposals elsewhere within this area. Bearing in mind the large number of wind farms in the planning system within the Tees Plain area it is considered that cumulative impact is a critically important issue.
287. The locations of the existing and consented wind farms within the location of the application site including Lamb’s Hill have been assessed within the ES and the cumulative visual impact assessment including a Zone of Theoretical Visibility plan (ZTV) has been provided in respect of this planning application.
288. In analysing cumulative impacts the ARUP report makes reference to zones of potential visual prominence and potential visual dominance. The zone of potential visual prominence, roughly within around 5Km or 50 x the turbine height is the area in which turbines are likely to be relatively prominent features in the landscape. The zone of potential visual dominance, roughly within around 2Km or 20 x the turbine height is the area in which turbines may be relatively dominant features, and corresponds broadly with what is sometimes referred to as a ‘wind farm landscape’. These zones are approximate and indicative, and subject to local factors affecting visibility and visual impact, but are nevertheless a useful tool in understanding the cumulative impacts of development in the area.
289. The current zone of potential visual prominence in which wind turbines are often visible as prominent features covers the northern part of the Tees Plain west of Sedgefield centred around the two clusters of operational turbines at the Butterwick/Walkway complex to the north east of Sedgefield and High Volts, west of Hartlepool. The current zone of potential visual dominance is focussed around these existing clusters with a degree of separation between them.
290. On construction of the developments approved at Red Gap Moor, Lamb’s Hill and Moorhouse, the area in which turbines will generally be experienced as relatively prominent features will extend further eastwards to Billingham and southwards across the central part of the Tees Plain to Newton Aycliffe and Darlington. Within parts of that area the experience will be of more than one wind farm being relatively prominent in the view. A more continuous tract of ‘wind farm landscape’ will develop in the north of the Tees Plain as the tract around Red Gap Moor coalesces with those around Butterwick/Walkway and High Volts. A new tract of wind farm landscape will develop in the central Tees Plain as the tracts around Moorhouse and Lamb’s Hill almost coalesce - although this area will still be separated from the northern zone by a gap of around 2km.
291. The current proposal for 3 turbines would be located between these two tracts resulting in a near continuous tract of ‘wind farm landscape’ across the central and northern parts of the Tees plain.
292. In terms of the overall impact on the Tees Plain this scenario would be similar to the scenario modelled in the original ARUP report of a 9 turbine development in Zone 20 and a six turbine development in zone 23 (scenario B) which it found to be ‘possibly acceptable’. The assessment did, however, find the scenario to be ‘likely to be unacceptable’ in respect of local landscape character on the grounds that the extent of the clusters in this scenario when considered with the existing and consented turbine development within the study area is beginning to dominate and overwhelm the scale of the landscape.
293. The assessment found the scenario to be ‘possibly acceptable’ in terms of impacts on residential properties although noting that, several proprieties located in close proximity to the cluster in Zone 20 have in excess of 100° of their field of view occupied by wind turbines. Possibly acceptable - depending on actual degree of visibility from dwelling.
294. The proposed scenario of three turbines at Foxton Lane along with four at Lamb’s Hill and six at Moorhouse, would be such that development would be spread over a larger area in a looser form and therefore would have greater impacts on the landscape than that described as ‘likely to be unacceptable’ for scenario B. The extended development footprint would also lead to a greater degree of coalescence of ‘wind farms landscapes’ across the area. The scenario of Foxton Lane and Lamb’s Hill coming forward as separate developments at a separation distance of around 1.7 km (rather than the recommended 5km) was not modelled but it is considered unlikely that the ARUP methodology would have found that scenario acceptable in respect of residential dwellings in the area between the two developments.
295. Whether or not the level of cumulative impact on the character of the landscape is acceptable should these proposals be permitted is ultimately a matter of judgement. The evidence provided in the ARUP studies indicates that, when recently permitted wind farms in the area are constructed, the area will be somewhere close to its capacity. The issue of whether this proposal would bring the area up to or over its capacity is a matter on which judgements will vary. Cumulative impacts are by their nature incremental and the point at which they become unacceptable is difficult to determine.
296. The proposals would result in high levels of cumulative visual impacts on residents of the Foxton area as described above. It would be reasonable to conclude from the evidence that the visual impact of the proposals combined with that of existing and approved development in the area would have an unacceptable effect on this community. These concerns echo the views of Stockton Borough Council when considering the Lamb’s Hill scheme. They were of the opinion that the cumulative impact of both this proposal and Lamb’s Hill would adversely affect the amenity of residential properties, particularly those situated in Foxton as wind farms would be located to the north and south of the hamlet.
297. In conclusion, it is considered that while the issue of whether the cumulative impact of the proposal on the character of the wider landscape is finely balanced, the level of cumulative impact on those living and working in the Foxton area would be unacceptable, and therefore contrary to Policy 40 of the RSS and Policy D1(A) of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and PPS22.
Highway and Traffic Implications
298. As a result of the location of this particular application site at Spring Lane / Foxton Lane, an area which can only be accessed by a single vehicular access route, the access arrangements relating to this wind turbine proposal have been a subject of significant concern to Sedgefield Town Council, Sedgefield Residents Forum and a large number of respondents living at Foxton but also those residents of Sedgefield who live adjacent to the access route and people who use local shops and services including the local primary school which is located to the east of Spring Lane.
299. The proposed wind farm would create two distinct types of traffic. Traffic generated during the construction and decommissioning stage including the abnormal loads (when the turbine components themselves are delivered) and maintenance traffic associated with the operational wind farm. The most significant impacts will occur during the 9 month construction period and the 3 month decommissioning period.
300. The proposed abnormal load route would be from A1 via A689 eastbound turning onto the A177 northbound, then turning onto the B1278 eastbound onto Salters Lane leading onto Durham Road, then turning onto Spring Lane southbound which leads on to Foxton Lane. Access for normal construction traffic and maintenance would be via A689 along Station Road onto Spring Lane. Abnormal loads have been assessed using the height and weight restrictions along the length of the route including the existing bridge over the A689 (several residents incorrectly thought that this bridge was subject to a 7.5 tonne weight restriction). Although several of the construction vehicles including the cranes used to assemble the turbines and lift these into position exceed this limit, the lorries used have multiple axles to ensure that the relevant weight limits are not exceeded.
301. It has also been clarified that the existing 7.5 tonne weight restriction signage at Salter Lane was erected to discourage day to day HGV traffic associated with the Salters Lane Industrial Estate from using Sedgefield as a short cut e.g. to the A177 towards Stockton or the A689 towards Wynyard and the A19 beyond. This restriction does not apply to loading or unloading purposes in Sedgefield as would be the case here.
302. A swept path analysis has been undertaken to ensure that the required vehicles can negotiate the junctions and pinch points. This detailed assessment has demonstrated that the route can accommodate the size of vehicle required subject to the temporary removal of a limited number of street furniture (bollard, sign posts, directional arrows and verge strengthening / widening works. Although this element of the scheme involves the transport of the largest components under police escort, it is estimated that the abnormal load deliveries would take no more than 3 weeks and that where road signs are temporarily removed these will be replaced during the delivery period by collapsible signs to maintain road safety. Bearing in mind the limited period of the abnormal load deliveries and the temporary measures suggested it is felt that highway safety could be safeguarded via the imposition of a planning condition requiring details of a traffic management to be agreed prior to commencement of development.
303. Access for normal construction traffic and maintenance would be taken via the A689 along Station road and West End onto Spring Lane. The Environmental Statement estimates that 674 HGV vehicle trips would be made during the 9 month construction period. The average number of HGV trips would peak at 8 HGV per day. The average movement of construction personnel and non HGV deliveries is estimated at 300 per month. It has been estimated that total construction traffic would peak at 459 trips per month with average total construction traffic of 23 trips per day. Although the access routes themselves have been found to be capable of accommodating the volume of traffic up to the road bridge crossing A689 it has been acknowledged that further improvements would be required during construction and de-commissioning works because of the narrow width of the existing track and the volume of traffic that would be generated. As such, the applicant has stated that up to nine passing places and verge widening works could be created to the south of A689 in order to facilitate traffic flows in this area. These passing places will be approximately 3m wide and 25 long, these passing places would be removed and the verge reinstated following completion of construction (unless it was felt that these were beneficial by the LPA or local highway authority). During the operational phase scheduled maintenance work would be carried out twice each year and this would involve one maintenance van on site for approximately six weeks.
304. The Highways Agency has assessed the planning application details and is satisfied that this proposal would not effect the safe and efficient operation of the strategic road network in this instance the A1(M) and A19. It is acknowledged that the construction and erection of the three turbines would inevitably increase traffic flows within the area, however, the Highway Authority has reviewed the traffic projections provided and found the routes to be taken for both ‘general’ construction traffic and the abnormal load traffic to acceptable in highway safety terms. This would however, be subject to a Grampian style condition requiring a highway condition survey to be undertaken along the proposed construction traffic routes prior to the commencement of construction works on site and requiring the passing places along Spring Lane / Foxton Lane to be constructed prior to the construction of the wind turbines and associated works and retained until or re-instated prior to the decommissioning of the wind turbines in the future.
305. The applicant, the Local Planning Authority and the Highway Authority note the concerns of local residents regarding the increase in traffic movements during the construction and de-commissioning period. The Access Review submitted in support of this planning application includes a range of mitigation measures which could be adopted in order to minimise disturbance to the local community. For instance, it has been suggested that prior to peak traffic flows (concrete foundation pouring) a traffic restriction would be enforced during term time in order to prohibit construction traffic using Spring Lane in the vicinity of Sedgefield Primary School at peak drop- off/collection times.
306. Some respondents did suggest alternative access arrangements to the site rather than utilize Spring Lane and Foxton Lane. The applicant has stated that they did consider an alternative access arrangement to the site rather than bring abnormal loads through the middle of Sedgefield village; however, this route would necessitate the use of third party land outwith the applicant’s control. Concern has also been raised by Sedgefield Residents Forum and a large number of residents living near to the access route that the construction traffic may lead to structural damage to adjacent properties both by way of accidental damage and vibration caused by deliveries of materials and plant to the site. In order to allay these fears the applicant would commission a scheme for structural surveys and inspections upon properties along Spring Lane which are most likely to be at risk from vibration caused by construction traffic. This scheme would include a program of pre-construction assessment, monitoring during the construction phase and any necessary remediation post construction. It is considered therefore, that while there will undoubtedly be impacts on the highway network, they would be relatively short-term and would not amount to grounds that would justify refusal of the application on these specific grounds.
Noise
307. Paragraph 10 of PPG24 acknowledges that much of the development which is necessary for the creation of jobs and the construction of infrastructure will generate noise. It cautions that the planning system should not place unjustifiable obstacles in the way of such development but advises that local planning authorities should ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance. The consideration of noise and its impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area and residents is a material planning consideration.
A number of objections have been raised in respect of the construction traffic and noise arising from the operation of the wind farm itself. It is acknowledged that the increased traffic generation arising from the construction of the proposed wind farm would inevitably result in increased levels of traffic noise.
308. The majority of the vehicles accessing the site will be standard road vehicles such as vans and Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV’s). It is considered that the increased levels of noise are likely to be most noticeable on Spring Lane and Foxton Lane itself which are more lightly trafficked than the B1278 and Durham Road. Although there will be some disruption from both the construction and decommissioning phases of development, this will be limited to a 9 month period at the start of the works and 3 months during decommissioning following the 25 year operational life of the wind farm. The submitted information predicts the maximum daily HGV flow as 8 HGV per day per month with average total construction traffic of 23 trips per day. The temporary impact of construction noise could be minimised and controlled through careful construction practices and by the imposition of planning conditions to limit working hours.
309. Although this proposal would lead to increased traffic noise from general construction traffic and HGV movements during construction and de-commissioning stage it is considered that this increase would not be of such a level that the application could be resisted on these grounds.
310. With regard to operational noise arising from the rotation of the turbines, the PPS22 Companion Guide states that well-specified and well-designed wind farms should be located so that increases in ambient noise levels around noise sensitive developments are kept to acceptable limits with regard to existing background noise. This will normally be achieved through good design of the turbines and through allowing sufficient distance between the turbines and any noise-sensitive development so that noise from the turbines will not normally be significant. The Guide also indicates that the noise levels from turbines are generally low and, under most operating conditions, it is likely that turbine noise would be completely masked by wind-generated background noise.
311. The Guide commends the use of ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97). It describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours. Among other things, this document states that noise from wind farms should be limited to 5dB(A) above background noise for both day and night-time periods. PPS24 advises that a change of 3dB(A) is the minimum perceptible to the human ear under normal conditions. Thus it is not intended that with developments there should be no perceptible noise at the nearest properties, rather the 5dB(A) limit is designed to strike a balance between the impacts of noise from turbines and the need to ensure satisfactory living conditions for those individuals who might be exposed to it.
312. The applicant, in line with advice contained within PPS22, has assessed the potential for noise impacts on nearby residential properties including Neasless Farm, Shotton Farm, Foxton Wood, Heley House and West Layton Farm.
The background noise measurements and consultants modelling confirm that the Spring Lane / Foxton Lane turbines will not exceed the relevant ETSU-R-97 day time or night time noise limits at any of the nearest neighbouring dwellings even with the proposed noise emissions from Lambs Hill wind farms. The Council’s Environmental Health Officers have been commissioned an independent assessment of these results and have concluded that this proposal would be acceptable subject to the imposition of relevant noise conditions.
313. The question of infrasound and low-frequency sound is often raised as an issue in relation wind turbine development. In this case representations received have not referred to such concerns, however it is considered relevant to consider this issue. The PPS22 Companion Guide asserts that there is no evidence that ground transmitted low frequency noise, caused by wind turbines, is at a sufficient level to be review the Government re-stated that ETSU-R-97 should be used for the assessment and rating of noise from wind farms. The same advice pertains to the phenomenon of aerodynamic modulation.
314. It is considered that the development would comply with the noise levels established in the ETSU-R-97 guidelines. Such compliance could be ensured by condition. It is not considered that any detrimental effect on local residents through noise associated with the proposed wind turbines would be sufficient to refuse planning permission.
Shadow Flicker
315. Under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may pass behind rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the effect is known as ‘shadow flicker’. The applicant has identified six properties, which could potentially experience shadow flicker. It is noted that the applicant has based this exercise on worst-case assumptions. The analysis showed that these properties could potentially be affected at a maximum of between 14 and 25 minutes on the worst day, with the maximum number of days per year varying from between 29 to 130 days. However, it is likely that the frequency and duration of shadow flicker would not be as intense as shown in the modelling work. If it does occur, it is considered that agreed measures would provide appropriate mitigation, the most suitable being computer programming of the turbine to cease operation at times when shadow flicker would occur.
316. Concern has been raised by some local residents that the turbines may exacerbate existing health problems including spacism, epilepsy and migraines. PPS22 advises that ‘around 0.5% of the population is epileptic of which 5% are sensitive to lowest frequencies of 2.5-3Hz, the remainder are only sensitive to higher frequencies. The flicker caused by wind turbines is equal to the blade passing frequency. A fast moving blade will give rise to the highest levels of flicker frequency. These levels are well below 2Hz. The new generation of wind turbines is known to operate at levels below1 Hz. Subject to the use of appropriate conditions, it is considered that any detrimental effect on local residents through incidences of shadow flicker would be insufficient to justify the refusal of planning permission.
Nature Conservation
317. The Environmental Statement submitted in support of the application has been fully assessed in order to quantify any impacts the proposed development may have on Nature Conservation. Natural England, Durham Wildlife Trust, Durham County Badger Group, Durham Bat Group and the County Council’s ecologist all originally objected to this proposal because the development could potentially affect protected species including bats and badgers. It was suggested that the risk of negative impacts to bats could be reduced by resiting turbines 1 and 2 to ensure that a minimum distance of 50m is provided between the turbine and habitat features likely to support bats, as per Natural England guidance. Concerns were also raised that vibration from one of the turbine may detrimentally affect setts in this area.
318. It was also recommended that the environmental enhancements measures proposed were inadequate and it was suggested that habitat improvements could be improved along Shotton Beck to benefit a range of species including otters and water vole. Following the re-siting of the turbines away from hedgerows and sett, the improvement to the proposed habitat enhancement plan and the submission of the additional supporting information, it is considered that this proposal is unlikely to have any adverse effect in respect of protected species subject to appropriate conditions being attached to any grant of planning permission.
Heritage Assets
319. A series of assessments have been undertaken to examine the potential effects of this proposal upon the historic environment of the site and the locality. These assessments have been used to establish any significant cultural heritage assets within the locality, to identify any predicted significant effects (both direct and indirect) that the proposal may have upon the historic environment and to propose appropriate mitigation measures.
320. The principal heritage assets in this case include Durham Cathedral and Castle World Heritage Site (WHS), Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered Historic Parks and Gardens (RHPGs). The potential for previously unrecorded archaeological remains within the proposed application site has also been considered.
321. The archaeological assessment considered the development in relation to a detailed study area extending to a 2km radius of the site. The potential indirect (visual) effects on the settings of all grade I and II* Listed Buildings within 10km of the nearest proposed wind turbine, plus all grade II Listed Buildings within 5km of the nearest proposed wind turbine has been assessed. The potential impact on Conservation Areas and RHPGs has also been assessed.
322. The archaeological assessment study identified that there are 30 recorded archaeological sites and finds within 2km study area. The only recorded sites or types of feature located within the footprint of the proposed development and immediate vicinity are former areas of ridge and furrow cultivation and field boundaries of probable 18th century date. The closest prehistoric finds are 1.8km from the nearest turbine, and the closest finds of Roman date are 1.7km to the west with some evidence of settlement 2.7km to the north.
A medieval settlement was focussed on the sites of former villages 0.4km to the south-east and 0.7km to the south. There are also earthwork remains of the former manorial settlement of Layton (a Scheduled Monument) 1.6km to the north-east of the proposed development.
323. A number of anomalies identified by a geophysical survey undertaken as part of the assessment suggest that there is the potential for previously unrecorded archaeological remains within the footprint of the proposed development. As a result, further evaluation works were required to be undertaken prior to determination in order to ensure that the significance of these is fully understood during the consideration of this planning application. These additional works have now been undertaken and no objection is now raised subject to a planning condition being attached requiring a suitable mitigation strategy to be submitted and agreed prior to commencement of work on site.
324. A total of 12 Scheduled Monuments are located within 10km of the proposed wind farm. The Foxton Lane turbines would be visible from 3 of those monuments within 6km of the site. No adverse effects upon the setting of any of these sites are predicted. The effect upon the setting of the deserted medieval village of Shotton, potentially a site of national importance, is not predicted to be significant and these would be totally reversible upon the decommissioning of the wind farm. The Foxton Lane turbines are not predicted to have any adverse effects upon the setting of the Durham Cathedral and Castle WHS.
325. The ES identifies 20 Grade I and II* Listed buildings within 10km of the turbines. A further 56 Grade II Listed buildings are within 5km of the site. The assessment concludes that the proposed turbines would not have any effect on the special historic interest of the Grade I and II* buildings. They would also not have any significant effect on their settings. The same conclusions are reached in relation to the Grade II Listed buildings. Several objectors including Sedgefield Town Council raised concern regarding the visual impact of this proposal in relation to The Church of St Edmund, Sedgefield, a Grade I Listed Building. The ES states that none of the proposed turbines would be visible from the church itself or its immediate setting. The proposed turbines and the church tower would be visible in parts when travelling along PROW No. 15 northwards, however, it is considered that this proposal would not be so significant so as to justify refusal of this planning application.
326. Several respondents expressed concern that the construction traffic would either directly or indirectly detrimentally affect the character and appearance of the area and those older properties adjacent to the construction route. One property No. 20 West End, a Grade II Listed Building, is located on the corner of West Lane and Spring Lane. A further 5 Listed Buildings and 1 Listed structure (1 Grade II* and 5 Grade II) are located on West End, High Street and North End adjacent to the abnormal load route. It is anticipated that because the abnormal load traffic would by travelling at low speeds and under Police escort it is considered that the risk arising from direct collision or vibration to the Listed Buildings would be limited. Confirmation has also been received the removal of existing street furniture required to facilitate the delivery of the abnormal loads would for a limited period of no more than 3 weeks with like for like re-instatement works.
327. However, these risks would be further minimised via the proposal to commission a scheme for structural surveys and inspections upon properties in the area which are most likely to be at risk from vibration caused by construction traffic. This scheme would include a program of pre-construction assessment, monitoring during the construction phase and any necessary remediation post construction.
328. The ES assessed the effects of this proposal upon Sedgefield Conservation Area, Hardwick Park Conservation Area and Mordon Conservation Area.
329. In terms of Sedgefield Conservation Area, none of the proposed wind turbines are expected to be visible from within the conservation area itself due to its tightly knit built form around the Church and village green. One key view of the conservation area was identified from the entrance to Hardwick Country Park; however, the proposed turbines would predominantly be screened from view by built form and vegetation so that the character, appearance and setting of Sedgefield Conservation Area would not be significantly affected. Hardwick Park Conservation Area was found to be a well vegetated and predominantly enclosed conservation area, with limited views into and out of the conservation area. The proposed Foxton Lane turbines would not be visible from the vast majority of this conservation area, except for some eastern parts. Here the proposed turbines would predominantly be screened from view by built form and vegetation and that the Foxton Lane turbines would only very partially be visible as a blade tip above intervening vegetation. Therefore, given the extremely limited visibility of the Foxton Lane turbines no significant cumulative effects are expected.
330. The ES concludes that the effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Areas resulting from the construction of the wind turbines would not be significant.
331. There are 3 historic parks and gardens, including Hardwick Park RHPG, within 10km of the nearest turbine and no local historic landscape designations within the study area. The ES concluded that given the limited visibility of the proposed turbines the effect on the special historic interest and setting of the historic parks and gardens would not be significant
332. The above assessment is considered to be an accurate representation and it is considered that the proposals would not diminish the significance of heritage assets identified having regard to PPS5 and in particular, in terms of the protection of Listed Buildings and their settings, the preservation or enhancement of conservation areas and other recognized features of cultural heritage.
Aviation
333. The Civil Aviation Authority, MOD – Defence Estates, NATS, Newcastle Airport and Durham Tees Valley Airport have been consulted regarding the proposed development. No objections have been raised on aviation grounds subject to a planning condition being attached requiring the submission of and subsequent implementation of a detailed scheme to ensure that radar returns from the development will not adversely affect air traffic control operations at Durham Tees Valley airport.
Impact on trees
334. Significant concern has been raised by local residents that the movement of abnormal loads and other construction traffic would necessitate the felling of several mature trees and the removal of significant stretches of hedgerow along the proposed access route along Spring Lane / Foxton Lane to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area and that this may detrimentally affect important bat roosts or flight corridors. As a result a tree survey was carried out in relation to the 57 trees in question and the boundary hedgerows. In conclusion, it was found that all of the existing trees could be retained with access being secured without long term damage to the health of the trees in question via the implementation of selective crown lifting and pruning works. This report also identified that hedgerow works could be restricted to the removal of 0.5m depth on three lengths of hedgerow measuring a total of 22m.
335. These measures were considered to be acceptable taking into account that the habitat enhancement scheme for the site would provide additional planting within the locality with hedgerows strengthened with new planting and existing plantations managed to improve their ecological value.
336. The proposed crossing point of Shotton Beck was also modified at the request of this Council’s Tree Officer so as to minimise tree felling and safeguard those specimens in this area that were considered to be most worthy of retention.
Impact on Sewer
337. Several respondents raised concern that the proposed access route along Spring Lane / Foxton Lane would detrimentally affect an existing sewer which was thought to cross the bridge over the A689. In response to these concerns it has been clarified with NWL that no sewers are located in this area. A main water distribution pipe has been found to be sited in the highway verge and verge widening works and the positioning of passing places would be designed in order to ensure that this is suitably safeguarded.
Connection to National Grid
338. The ES advises that the preferred connection to the national grid would be via underground cabling along public highways to Norton substation, Fishburn substation, Skernside substation, or Darlington North – Aycliffe Industrial line. The final decision on connection would be subject to further discussions with the Distribution Network Operator.
339. Bearing in mind the stated intention for underground cabling it is considered that subject to appropriate routing to avoid areas of ecological or archaeological importance such a scheme would not detrimentally affect the visual appearance of the area and would, therefore, be acceptable in principle.
340. Whilst comments are noted about the impact of connecting the wind farm to the national grid, this is a form of development that would not in itself require the approval of the Local Planning Authority. However, taking into account the provision of connection being either underground or on wooden poles, it is considered that this link, in principle, would not be unduly dominating on the surrounding area, being a common form of development in such areas.
Private Members Bill – Wind Turbines
341. Several objectors have referred to a Private Members Bill which was being considered by Parliament. The Bill seeks to ensure a 2km separation distance is maintained between wind farms and dwellings where the turbine heights are between 100 and 150 m as in this case. Although this Bill has had a second reading this has not been confirmed either in its current or amended form, and as such, it would be inappropriate and premature to apply such a stand off distance when considering this planning application.
Socio Economic benefits
342. PPS22 states that the wider environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy projects are a material consideration whatever their scale such benefits should be given significant weight in determining planning applications. This proposal would, if implemented, clearly make a positive contribution towards both regional and national targets to promote renewable energy. The proposal would also assist in agricultural diversification for the land owners concerned.
343. Separate to the planning application the applicant also proposes to create a trust fund into which £225,000 would be paid over the anticipated 25 year lifetime of the development (equivalent to £9000 per annum). The trust fund would be used to fund a locally controlled community fund for investment in projects that focus on carbon emissions reductions, sustainable energy projects, energy efficiency projects or general environmental enhancement projects.
344. Several respondents have raised concern that this proposal would detrimentally affect tourism in the area and deter visitors to Hardwick Country Park or the recently approved caravan site at Brakes Farm, Sedgefield.
345. Whilst this aspect is difficult to quantify in relation to this particular scheme it should be noted that studies in other areas where wind turbines have been erected demonstrate that the effects of wind farms on tourism is negligible and this does not appear to deter return visits. Detailed fieldwork found that the high levels of tree planting on the boundaries of the Park and the nearby built form of Sedgefield generally contain more distant views beyond the Park. As a result, it is considered that this proposal would not detrimentally affect the visitor experience to a significant degree. Although a visual assessment has not been carried out from Brakes Farm, the visual impact from this area is likely to be limited because of the screening from tree planting in this area.
346. Concern has been raised that the proposed wind turbines would directly and detrimentally affect local businesses in the local area, most particularly those which are located on Spring Lane / Foxton Lane. Whilst some inconvenience would be experienced during construction and de-commissioning because of increased traffic movements along the narrow access route, measures have been proposed to facilitate traffic flows in this area to minimise congestion via the introduction of passing places along this route. Although these passing places are primarily required during construction and de-commissioning, the opportunity exists for some or all of these to be retained in perpetuity to assist with general traffic flows in this area.
347. A number of objections have been raised on behalf of the owner of a 50 dog boarding kennel at Foxton Wood. Concern was raised that the operational noise from the turbines would increase noise levels in the area to such an extent that this would seriously threatened the commercial viability of the existing kennels and jeopardise the employment of the 4 full time staff and 1 part time staff member employed here. It was stated that this was a particular concern because so the sudden and intermittent nature of the wind turbine rotation and the increased sensitivity of hearing of dogs.
348. Whilst it is considered that the turbines would increase noise levels in the vicinity of the kennels whilst operational the level of increase and the sensitivity of canine hearing has been disputed between the objector and the consultants acting on behalf of the applicant.
349. On balance, it is considered that this proposal would, if implemented, make a positive contribution to the wider environmental and economic benefits although some local economic impact may be detrimental because of congestion during the construction period these effects will be minimized by the introduction of passing places alongside Spring Lane and Foxton Lane. The operational impact of the wind farm may potentially have some impact upon the commercial activities at Foxton Boarding kennels, however, it is considered that were this application to be approved these concerns could be safeguarded via the imposition of a bespoke planning condition relating to noise monitoring works and, if necessary, remediation works being carried out to improve noise insulation measures for the affected property.
TV and other communication interference
350. Wind turbines can interfere with radio signals such as micro wave links and broadcast transmissions. The Joint Radio Company (JRC) who analyze wind farm proposals on behalf of the UK Fuel and Power Industry were contacted in respect of this proposal and have confirmed that they have no objection regarding this proposal.
351. In respect of broadcast transmissions it should be noted that loss of TV reception is most likely to be an issue for properties using analogue signals. It is anticipated that roll-out of digital services will be complete in the area in 2012. For those houses currently using satellite or cable TV there will be no significant impacts to TV reception. The potential risk of TV interference was assessed using the BBC online web tool. The results show that there are no potential impacts for any homes for which no alternative terrestrial TV service can be sourced. However, for approximately 3204 homes likely to be affected, an alternative terrestrial TV service is available.
352. Should it be demonstrated that the wind turbine has an adverse effect on television reception; the applicant will undertake suitable mitigation measures, at its expense, to return reception to its pre-development quality. Such measures will include re-aligning existing aerials, fitting a booster unit to the aerial, or supply of a cable or satellite service. The use of an appropriate planning condition will be attached to any grant of planning permission to ensure such mitigate occurs.
Public Rights of Way
353. The Ramblers Association noted that the proposed turbines are to be sited sufficiently from the PROW network so as to ensure the safety of footpath users in the unlikely event that these should fall. However, concern was expressed that because of the close proximity of Turbine 1 to the adjacent footpath it was felt that the amenity value of this route as part of an important circular route from Sedgefield would be detrimentally affected by this proposal.
354. However, it was requested that if the Council were minded to approve this scheme the Council seek to further improve access links within the area. The Parish Paths Partnership Sedgefield also objects unless it can be demonstrated that planning conditions or obligations will require the applicant to further improve the rights of way network in this area. It is acknowledged that the construction of the proposed wind turbines would alter the character of the landscape in this area; however, whether this would affect the amenity of the route is largely subjective and will vary from user to user.
355. It has been mentioned that Spring Lane and Foxton Lane form an important recreational route for residents of Sedgefield and Foxton and visitors to the area. The recreational value of this route will inevitably be reduced during the 9 month construction period and 3 month decommissioning stage. However, paragraph 20 of PPS22 recognises that these ‘impacts may be temporary if conditions are attached to planning permissions which require the future decommissioning of turbines’.
Turbine Safety
356. A small number of objections have been received in respect to the safety of the turbines in respect to collapse, blade failure and them catching fire. The companion guide to PPS22 advises that properly designed and maintained wind turbines are a safe technology. The very few accidents that have occurred involving injury to humans have been caused by failure to observe manufacturers’ and operators’ instructions for the operation of the machines. There has been no example of injury to a member of the public. Blade failure is most unlikely. The minimum desirable distance between wind turbines and occupied buildings calculated on the basis of expected noise levels and visual impact will often be greater than that necessary to meet safety requirements. Fall over distance (i.e. the height of the turbine to the tip of the blade) plus 10% is often used as a safe separation distance. Ice throw, is where ice that has formed on a turbine blade is thrown off when the turbine begins to generate, and ice shear, is where ice forms on the blade on drops onto the ground below. In the associated guidance with PPS22, reference is made to a ‘Wind energy Production in Cold Climates’ report which estimates such an occasion to occur approximately one day each year in England. 357. Bearing in mind the stand off distances of approximately 175m from the nearest public footpath, approximately 650 m from the nearest bridle way and more than 750m from the nearest residential dwelling it is considered that the proposed scheme would not unduly compromise safety in association with the concerns raised including blade failure, turbine collapse, ice throw or fire.
Renewable Energy Targets
358. Representations received in relation to the planning application have suggested that there is not a need for any more wind turbine developments within the County as Durham has already exceeded its targets in relation to renewable energy production. It is correct that the sub-regional renewable energy target for County Durham given in RSS is 82 MW installed capacity by 2010. At the time of writing this report the County has around 165 MW of operational wind development so that the aspiration to double the installed capacity target by 2020 has already been achieved.
359. However it should be noted that RSS are ‘thresholds’ and not ‘ceilings’ the Local Planning Authority could not , therefore, justify refusal of this planning application on this basis if the site was deemed acceptable when judged against the Development Plan and other material considerations.
Energy Savings and the Viability of the Site
360. The applicant has predicted the energy output of the site to be 14716 MWh per year and that the turbines would generate, on average, as much electricity as is consumed by approximately 3352 households per year. It has also been estimated that this scheme would result in a reduction of 8976 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per annum.
361. These figures have been contested by objectors as being unrealistically high suggesting that they are less efficient and that the actual load factors are more likely to be in the region of 16% -18% efficient rather than 28%-30% figure normally quoted.
362. This matter has been raised with the applicant who was asked to clarify the wind load figures taken from the temporary monitoring mast. However, the agent has stated that he is unable to provide these figures because of their commercial sensitivity. It has been pointed out, however, that since the application was lodged figures produced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) estimate that a 6MW wind farm would generate on average as much electricity as is consumed by approximately 3540 households per annum. He goes on to point out that were the actual load factor to be lower then more wind turbines would be required to meet renewable energy targets.
363. Irrespective of the actual load factor at this site it should be noted that PPS22 states that even small scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy and to meeting energy needs both locally and nationally. Planning authorities should not therefore reject planning applications simply because the level of output is low.
364. Other objections also related to the inefficiencies of wind power as against other forms of energy generation. Although these concerns are noted wind turbines are an accepted part of National Planning Policy which this application needs to be considered in this context.
Precedent for further wind turbines at this site
365. A number of objectors raised concern that the capital costs of the scheme appeared to be unduly high for a total of 3 turbines. It was felt that were planning approval to be granted this would inevitably lead to an expansion of the turbine numbers. Whilst these concerns are noted, each planning application must be considered on its own merits and any subsequent proposal for wind turbines here would need to be considered at the time of submission, against all relevant policy and guidance.
366. Correspondence has also been received from a number of respondents that this application (and no further planning applications for wind turbine development) should not be approved until a comprehensive Regional Strategy has been adopted by the Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) in this area including Durham County Council, Darlington Borough Council, Stockton Borough Council because of the large number of proposals currently approved and proposed in this area including the proposal for a 25-45 turbine wind farm at The Isles.
367. Whilst these comments are noted each LPA (and the Major Infrastructure Planning Unit for Nationally Significant schemes) is duty bound to determine planning applications in accordance with the Development Plan and other material considerations. The cumulative impact of wind turbine proposals and the ability of the landscape to accommodate these is a major issue of consideration when determining planning applications. Despite the technical difficulties arising from the volume of planning applications approved and under consideration by various planning authorities, a LPA is unable to decline to determine a planning application in these circumstances.
Property Prices
368. Although devaluation of property has been raised by a small number of objectors, this cannot be regarded as a material planning consideration when assessing the planning application.
CONCLUSION
369. It is accepted that the proposed wind farm would make a positive contribution towards the overall supply of renewable energy, and contribute towards reaching regional and national targets in terms of energy production. There is very strong and consistent policy support for renewable energy projects. The scheme has significant benefits in this respect, and the key consideration in determining the application is whether or not this policy support for the proposal outweighs any environmental or social impacts the proposal may have. In this respect the determination of this planning application is finely balanced.
370. The proposals would be widely visible and would have significant effects on the character of the landscape of the Tees Plain within around 5km of the site. This level of impact is typical of development of this kind wherever it occurs. In conjunction with other operational and permitted development they would be approaching or exceeding the capacity of the local landscape.
371. The proposals lie relatively close to a number of villages and hamlets. The turbines would in most cases be prominent features, visible from some residential properties on settlement edges and from the roads and footpaths / bridleways serving them, but they would not dominate their visual environment. The proposals would, however, and particularly in conjunction with the permitted Lamb’s Hill turbines, dominate the visual environment of the Foxton area to an unacceptable degree.
372. The proposals would lie close to a number of residential properties. In themselves they would not be sufficiently close to be overbearing in the way that the term has been understood in recent enquiry decisions. For some individual properties the impact of the proposed turbines combined with the impacts of the approved Lamb’s Hill turbines would be high and in some cases overbearing.
373. The proposal would increase traffic generation leading to additional noise and congestion during the construction and de-commissioning periods, however, these effects are for a relatively limited duration considering the duration of the permission and it is felt that the worse impacts can be minimised via the imposition of planning conditions. Ecological impact has been fully addressed and this proposal brings with it the potential to secure additional ecological benefits via a habitat enhancement plan. It is considered that an impact the proposal may have on archaeology, ecology, noise, could be suitability addressed through the use of planning conditions.
374. If the appeal against non-determination of the application had not been made by it is likely that a report would have been presented to Committee recommending refusal of the scheme.
375. Bearing in mind that the Local Planning Authority cannot now formally determine the application Members are requested to accept the following recommendation and confirm that it would have been minded to refuse the application for the stated reasons.
RECOMMENDATION
That application would have been REFUSED for the reasons set out below:
1. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the location and scale of the proposed wind turbines would, in combination with existing and permitted wind turbine developments, have an unacceptable effect on the visual environment of the Foxton area contrary to Policy 40 of the RSS and Policy D1 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and PPS22.
2. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the location and scale of the proposed wind turbines would, in combination with existing and permitted wind turbine developments, have an unacceptable effect on the visual amenity of the residential properties at Foxton Lodge, The Cottage, Rafferdene, Foxton Farm contrary to Policy 40 of the RSS and Policy D1(A) of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and PPS22.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Submitted Application Forms and Plans Environmental Statement Design and Access Statement Planning Statement Tree Survey Access Review Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Ecology Report Planning Policy Statements/Guidance, PPS1, PPS5, PPS9, PPG13, PPS22, PPG24 and North East of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS) July 2008 Sedgefield Borough Local Plan 1996 ARUP Wind Farm Development and Landscape Capacity Studies: East Durham Limestone and Tees Plain Consultation responses and comments from local residents