Harrogate Borough Council Planning Committee – Agenda Item 6: List of Plans

HARROGATE BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE – AGENDA ITEM 6: LIST OF PLANS. DATE: 31 March 2015

PLAN: 02 CASE NUMBER: 12/03934/EIAMAJ GRID REF: EAST 425087 NORTH 455635 APPLICATION NO. 6.500.271.EIAMAJ DATE MADE VALID: 05.10.2012 TARGET DATE: 04.01.2013 REVISED TARGET: 02.04.2015 CASE OFFICER: Mr Gerard Walsh WARD: Falls Within 2 Or More

VIEW PLANS AT: http://uniformonline.harrogate.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MBXJCLHY05P00

APPLICANT: Tapar (PF) Ltd

AGENT: WYG Planning And Environment

PROPOSAL: Erection of 4 wind turbines (maximum height 110m high) and associated infrastructure including control building with substation and formation of vehicle access, access tracks and areas of hard standing, underground cabling and temporary construction compound.

LOCATION: Land Comprising Field At 425087 455635 Penny Pot Lane Hampsthwaite North Yorkshire

REPORT

SITE AND PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the erection of four wind turbines with a maximum overall height (to blade tip) of 110 metres and hub height up to 70 metres, together with a new access and access tracks, temporary construction compound, hard standing areas and control building with substation. The site covers 11.98ha and is located south of Penny Pot Lane approximately 5km west of Harrogate town centre. The site is in agricultural use involving grassland for dairy farming. The boundaries of the site are largely defined by field hedgerows and walls. The surrounding area is predominantly agricultural with farm houses and farm buildings and isolated dwelling houses. The Army Foundation College is situated approximately 1.1km to the east, the villages of Kettlesing and Hampsthwaite approximately 3km to the north and Fewston and Swinsty Reservoirs approximately 4.5km to the southwest. The Knabs Ridge wind farm is located approximately 1.8km northwest of the site on the opposite side of Penny Pot lane. The nearest residential properties are at Whinhill Farm (250 metres to the south), Prospect Farm (390 metres to the south), and Central House Farm approximately 400 metres to the south. High Moor Caravan Park is approximately 600 metres to the northwest on the opposite side of Penny Pot Lane. The boundary to the Nidderdale AONB is approximately 800 metres to the north. There are no public rights of way within the site and no overhead electricity lines crossing the site.

The scheme has the potential to provide up to 12 Megawatts of energy, which is equivalent to the amount of electricity used by approximately 5,800 average households. As a result this could save the equivalent of 11,300 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. The applicant selected the site on the basis of a number of criteria including the predicted wind resource, the availability of electrical connection, access (particularly for long load items), military and aviation constraints, separation from dwellings, landscape and visual impact, historic environment matters and nature conservation. The applicant has advised that, based on these criteria, the proposed site was identified as a potential location for a wind farm. The applicant has advised that the electricity generated will be used to satisfy local demand and to that end a dedicated electrical cable is proposed which will transfer energy from the development to the local distribution network. Each turbine will be coloured pale grey with a semi-matt finish. The control building will be constructed in stone with pitched tiled roof. The proposal is designed to have a 25 year operational life after which it will be decommissioned with the turbines removed and buildings and foundations broken out to below ground level. The access track will either be left for use by the landowner or covered with topsoil.

The application is supported by the following documents: * Environmental Impact Statement and Non-Technical Summary * Design and Access Statement * Planning Statement * Statement of Community Involvement

MAIN ISSUES 1. Principle/Benefits of the Proposal 2. Landscape Impacts 3. Residential Amenity 4. Aviation Matters 5. Heritage Assets 6. Highways 7. Ecology 8. Planning Balance

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY 11/05184/SCOPE - Scoping opinion for proposed wind farm.

CONSULTATIONS/NOTIFICATIONS Leeds/Bradford Airport The proposed wind farm is unlikely to conflict with LBIA aviation interests.

Business And Environmental Services No comments received

HAVERAH PARK PARISH COUNCIL (119,120)

FELLISCLIFFE PARISH COUNCIL (99)

Countryside Agency No comments received

Environment Agency - Dales Area Office No objection subject to conditions to control surface water run-off.

Natural England Natural England objects to this proposal, as they consider that the scale, nature and impact of the proposal are likely to adversely affect the purpose/s for which Nidderdale AONB has been designated. They suggest further mitigation is provided to enhance habitat for lapwing and golden plover outside of the area affected by displacement - This could be controlled by condition.

Health and Safety Executive No comments received

Ilkley Parish Council

Northern Gas Networks (Joint Radio) No objection.

BBC R And D No comments received

Leeds/Bradford Airport The proposal is unlikely to conflict with the aviation interests in regard to Leeds Bradford International Airport.

Environmental Health An independent noise consultant was employed to assess the impact on surrounding properties and on the basis of their report there is an objection to the proposal because of potential noise disturbance to surrounding residential properties - See assessment.

Landscape Officer Objection. See assessment.

Planning Policy No objection to the principle of the proposal.

Home Office No comments received

Cable & Wireless Worldwide No objection.

Policy Dev Unit NYCC No comments received

Principal Ecologist No objection subject to conditions. NYCC Highways And Transportation No objection subject to conditions. See assessment.

MOD Safeguarding Objection. See Assessment.

Heritage Unit of NYCC Trial trenching should be carried out to establish if there are any unrecorded archaeological remains on the site. This could be controlled by condition if necessary.

AONB - Joint Advisory Committee Objection: The AONB's Joint Advisory Committee believes that the AONB's landscapes are highly sensitive to the type of large scale development proposed for the High Boar site. The LVIA conceded that the proposal will result in an impact on the AONB that is 'Considerable/Moderate Adverse in places'. The committee believe that the impact will be more wide spread, and more severe. This is unacceptable in a nationally designated landscape and contrary to the NPPF.

National Air Traffic Services Ltd Objection - see assessment.

Arqiva (formerly NTL) No objection. Arqiva is responsible for providing the BBC and ITV's transmission network.

02 UK Ltd No comments received

Office Of Communications - Spectrum No objections raised.

British Telecom (Radio Network Protection) No objection.

Yorkshire Dales National Park They have advised that they have no comments to make on the application.

Historic England The proposal will have an impact on heritage assets but the harm will be 'less than significant' and therefore the harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Conditions proposed if the council are minded to approve.

DCS Arboricultural Officer No objection.

Yorkshire Water No objection subject to condition to protect existing watermain which runs across the site frontage.

Conservation and Design Section Concerns about the impact on heritage assets. Vodafone (Telent) No comments received

HAMPSTHWAITE PARISH COUNCIL (92)

Leeds City Council No comments received

Craven District Council No comments received

City of Bradford Metropolitan Council No comments received

The National Trust Accept that the application by itself may not have a significant impact but concern about cumulative visual impact. Serious concerns about the impact on Brimham Rocks. Inadequate consideration of impact on Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal.

Ramblers Association Group - Mr B Ellis Unacceptable visual impact. The proposed turbines are sufficiently close to the public right of way to the south of the site to result in them being extremely intimidating both visually and in relation to noise emissions for walkers. As a consequence the local peace and tranquillity of the countryside will be disturbed.

The British Horse Society No comments received

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY NPPF National Planning Policy Framework CSSG3 Core Strategy Policy SG3 Settlement Growth: Conservation of the countryside, including Green Belt CSSG4 Core Strategy Policy SG4 Settlement Growth: Design and Impact CSEQ1 Core Strategy Policy EQ1: Reducing risks to the environment CSEQ2 Core Strategy Policy EQ2: The natural and built environment and green belt LPC02 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy C2, Landscape Character LPR11 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy R11, Rights of Way LPHD20 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy HD20, Design of New Development and Redevelopment LPHD03 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy HD3, Control of development in Conservation Areas LPHD07 Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy HD7, World Heritage Site LPHD7A Harrogate District Local Plan (2001, as altered 2004) Policy HD7A, Parks & Gardens of Historic Interest SPDHRM Supplementary Planning Document: Heritage Management SPGLAP Supplementary Planning Guidance, Landscape Character Assessment of Harrogate District PPS05G PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide CSJB1 Core Strategy Policy JB1: Supporting the Harrogate District economy

APPLICATION PUBLICITY SITE NOTICE EXPIRY: 16.11.2012 PRESS NOTICE EXPIRY: 22.11.2012

REPRESENTATIONS HAVERAH PARK PARISH COUNCIL (119,120) Objection: Harmful impact on landscape (AONB), tourism and heritage sites

FELLISCLIFFE PARISH COUNCIL (99) Objection - Concerns about the adverse effects on the following : landscape and visual amenity, ecology, noise, archaeology, aviation, economy, residential amenity.

ILKLEY PARISH COUNCIL – No comments received.

HAMPSTHWAITE PARISH COUNCIL (92) Objection: Landscape harm, inefficient energy production, harmful impact on John O' Gaunts site and on PROW's in the area, harmful to setting of conservation area.

OTHER REPRESENTATIONS 413 representations have been received, 406 objecting to the scheme and 7 in support. The points raised are summarised below:

IN SUPPORT:

1. Strongly support wind turbines as a truly viable renewable energy resource.

2. Wind turbines can be removed from the landscape with no lasting impact.

3. There is a pressing need to expand the use of renewable energy.

4. They will help to reduce carbon emissions and are more cost effective and appropriate than nuclear, off-shore wind and wave and tidal options.

5. On-shore wind farms are a significant part of our national electricity industry and one of the most economic and practical ways to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions whilst also improving energy security.

6. These turbines, are eco-friendly, are nowhere near as noisy as protester's suggest, and are widely accepted.

7. No objection to the visual impact of the proposed turbines, especially when weighed against the environmental benefits of low carbon electricity.

8. Satisfied that siting of the turbines avoids adverse effects on amenity value of residential properties and levels of background noise. Concerns of shadow flicker are unfounded, as wind farms are operated in such as way to avoid this problem. Also, that no adverse effect on wildlife is expected.

OBJECTIONS:

1. Landscape Harm: Substantial harm to both the local landscape (including Special Landscape Areas) and the Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its wider setting including in long range views from within the AONB. At close range they would be dominating and intimidating. Red lights on top are highly visible. The natural beauty of the landscape within the AONB depends not only on views within the AONB, but also on views of the areas surrounding. Conflicts with the intrinsic value and purpose of the immediate, closer and wider area. Brings unacceptable industrialisation to the immediate and wider rural area.

2. The cumulative effect of this application with the existing wind farm at Knabs Ridge on landscape, amenity, wildlife and the tourism industry would be unacceptable, and would outweigh any benefits that might be gained in terms of renewable energy.

3. Negative impact on the tourism economy. Owners of tourist facilities depend on visitors attracted by the quality of the landscape

4. Negative impact on the amenity of area for walking, bird watching etc.

5. Potential noise impact.

6. Effect of noise and shadow flicker on residential amenity and health and wellbeing of local residents.

7. Doubts about the efficiency of wind turbines and the contribution they actually make to energy supply (the existing Knabs Ridge Turbines are motionless most of the time). Only about 25% efficiency is likely. They are funded by huge subsidies, paid for by us, in order to make it attractive for the shareholders of companies to propose these developments, whilst using the 'green' slogan to enhance their credentials.

8. Pollution caused in extracting the material to build them and building them would outweigh any savings in carbon dioxide output.

9. No meaningful form of public consultation.

10. Harm to wildlife - bats and birds in particular.

11. Flooding/drainage issues resulting from hardstanding areas.

12. Traffic disruption/road safety during the 6 month to one year construction phase. May make driving dangerous.

13. Harmful impact on setting, approaches and ambiance of Heritage buildings and sites – e.g. Listed buildings, Conservation Areas, Listed Parks and Gardens and Scheduled Ancient Monuments. 14. Negative impact on TV signals.

15. Too close to residential properties.

16. The Environmental Statement is flawed such that the effects on biodiversity cannot be properly addressed.

17. Concerns about future of the land following decommissioning.

18. The tranquillity of the area would be destroyed.

19. The existing Knabs Ridge turbines have had a dramatic negative effect on High Moor Farm Park Caravan Park business and the proposed development would exacerbate this effect.

20. Dangerous precedent.

21. People would be more tolerant if the whole business of building wind farms was financed differently, not involving the corporate world, but to involve the local authority, to make local people feel that the wind farm belong to Harrogate and is giving them cheaper electricity.

22. Conflicts with what makes the Dales and surrounding area special; sense of remoteness, endless uninterrupted views, tranquillity (visual and sound), historical countryside, setting.

23. The presence of Knabs Ridge and Menwith Hill does not mitigate the impact of the proposed development or justify more such facilities.

24. The height of the turbines is out of scale with buildings both outside and inside Harrogate Town Centre.

25. Hydro-electricity and wave power generation provide ‘clean’ electricity more reliably than wind power. If wind generation is thought to be a necessary supplement to more reliable forms of generation, the turbines may be better placed off shore.

VOLUNTARY NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION The applicant organised a programme of public consultation which included a public exhibition. A site specific website has also been set up to provide information and an on- going opportunity to post comments. The planning submission documents can also be viewed here.

ASSESSMENT OF MAIN ISSUES 1. PRINCIPLE/BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSAL - Para 14 of the NPPF confirms that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. One of the twelve Core Principles is to support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example by the development of renewable energy).

Paragraph 93 of the NPPF states that planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.

Paragraph 97 states that to help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources.

Paragraph 98 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should:

* not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and

* approve the application (Unless material considerations indicate otherwise) if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

Paragraph 187 states that local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

On 6 March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). This brings together important information previously published in separate documents including information on renewable energy. It replaces the Planning Practice Guide for Renewable Low Carbon Energy 2013.

The NPPG advised that increasing the amount of energy from renewable and low carbon technologies will help to make sure the UK has a secure energy supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow down climate change and stimulate investment in new jobs and businesses. It goes on to advise that planning has an important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure in locations where the local environmental impact is acceptable.

The NPPG advises that the UK has a legal commitment to cut greenhouse gases and meet increased energy demand from renewable sources but whilst local authorities should design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development, there is no quota which the Local Plan has to deliver.

Policy SG3 states that sustainable rural enterprises, including renewable energy proposals will be encouraged.

Policy EQ1 also establishes that renewable energy projects will be encouraged providing any harm caused to the local environment and amenity is minimised and clearly outweighed by the need for and benefits of the development.

Policy JB1 of the Core Strategy advises that the council will work with its partners and communities to maintain and enhance the economic role of the district.

The Harrogate District Planning and Climate Change Study (2011) provides information for applicants regarding the opportunities for renewable and low carbon energy within the District and the Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)has now been adopted (January 14th 2015) to provide further guidance for applicants on such proposals.

The council commissioned consultants AECOM to produce the ‘Harrogate District Planning and Climate Change Study’ (2011). This document forms part of the evidence base for the SPD, and sets out opportunities for renewable energy development across the district. This evidence base also supports Policy EQ1 of the adopted Core Strategy. Its main findings were that there is significant potential for renewable and low carbon energy within the Harrogate district, but it recognises that there are also constraints that need to be taken into consideration. These constraints largely relate to the exceptionally high quality of the natural and built environment of the area, but also to internationally protected sites for wildlife. However, even with these constraints, there is great potential to increase renewable and low carbon energy installations.

As can be seen from the above, renewable energy projects and a reduction in CO2 emissions are strongly supported by national and local planning policy. As mentioned earlier in the report, the scheme has the potential to provide up to 12 Megawatts of renewable energy, which is equivalent to the amount of electricity used by approximately 5,800 average households. As a result this could save the equivalent of 11,300 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. The benefits of the proposal in this regard must be given significant weight in the decision making process. Additionally the proposal will contribute to the economy of the district particularly during the construction phase and this must also be given weight in the decision making process. However these benefits must be weighed against any harm caused by the scheme. The site specific impacts of the proposal are discussed below

2. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS - Paragraph 115 of the NPPF advises that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and AONB’s which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

The NPPG advises that cumulative landscape impacts and cumulative visual impacts are best considered separately. The cumulative landscape impacts are the effects of the proposed development on the fabric, character and quality of the landscape; it is concerned with the degree to which a proposed renewable energy development will become a significant or defining characteristic of the landscape. The cumulative visual impacts concern the degree to which the proposed renewable energy development will become a feature in particular views and the impact this has upon the people experiencing those views. Cumulative visual impacts may arise where two or more of the same type of renewable energy development will be visible form the same point, or will be visible shortly after each other along the same journey.

The NPPG also advises that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections. It goes on to advise that proposals in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and in areas close to them where there could be an adverse impact on the protected area, will require careful consideration. It goes on to advise that cumulative impacts require particular attention, especially the increasing impact that wind turbines and large scale solar farms can have on the landscape and local amenity as the number of turbines and solar arrays in the area increases. Saved policy C1 of the HDLP advises that development that would have a significant adverse impact on the landscape of the AONB will not be permitted.

Saved policy C2 advises that development should protect existing landscape character.

Policy SG4 (Design & Impact) of the Core Strategy states that all development proposals in the District should be well integrated with, and complementary to, neighbouring buildings and the spatial qualities of the local area and be appropriate to the form and character of the settlement and/or landscape character.

Policy EQ2 (The natural and built environment and Green Belt) states that the District's exceptionally high quality natural and built environment will be given a level of protection appropriate to its international, national and local importance.

The Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment (HDLCA) (adopted as Supplementary planning Guidance in 2004) is used in support of ‘saved’ Policy C2.

Saved policy R11 advises that development which would result in harm to the character or recreational and amenity value of Public Rights of Way (PROWs) will not be permitted.

The application is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) contained in the applicant’s Environmental Statement (ES). The methodology used within the LVIA takes into consideration guidance and best practice including ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (GLVIA), Second Edition published in 2002 by the Landscape Institute/Institute of Environmental Management.

The overall predicted level of harm comprises effects on:

1. Landscape character; 2. Landscape features and visual effects; 3. The Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; 4. Settlements; 5. Transport and recreational routes; and 6. Cumulative effects.

Landscape Character: The Council’s Core Strategy also aims to protect the landscape character under Policy EQ2 and the Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment (HDLCA) is also used in support of ‘saved’ Policy C2. The HDLCA observes that this is an elevated exposed transitional landscape that is highly visible and as a result is sensitive to change through the expansion of existing development. The character area is relatively small and the presence of the new turbines would present a greater effect upon the overall character since the area already contains the eight turbines located at Knabs Ridge. The effects on landscape character are considered to be significant in EIA terms and the proposals would therefore be contrary to ‘saved’ Policy C2 and Core Strategy Policy EQ2.

Landscape Features and Visual Effects: The supporting Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) notes that of the site features recorded there would be high adverse landscape effects. In terms of visual effects, the LVIA predicts that there would be substantial/considerable effects upon views across the area. Views are important across the area particularly when seen against the highly valued backdrop of the AONB. The development would therefore conflict with ‘saved’ Policies C1, C2 and EQ2 of the Local Plan.

The Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty: The LVIA notes that the proposed turbines would be visible from the AONB although they would be viewed as part of the panoramic views gained from north east to south east. The site lies approximately 1km south of the designated area and views would be experienced from higher open ground along the upper valley sides of the River Nidd and its tributaries, the Washburn Valley and areas of open moorland to the north and west of the site. The effects on the AONB would be significant bought about by the increased spread of the turbines across the plateau and the fact that the spread of the turbines would appear greater than existing. The roads and footpaths leaving and entering Harrogate are considered to be highly sensitive as the routes to the AONB. The quality of the visitor experience to the AONB will be diminished by the extended wind farm development on the edge of the area. Conflict with ‘saved’ Policy C1.

There is additional concern that the LVIA does not provide a proper evaluation of the effects on the AONB. The report lacks consistency in that it diminishes the sensitivity and value of the landscape components of the area and consistently underestimates the magnitude of change that will result.

Settlements: The site lies adjacent to the more settled lowland parts of the district in very close proximity to Harrogate. The existing wind farm is a recurring feature from many settlements in the area and the development would extend the wind farm already created. The development would therefore conflict with ‘saved’ Policies C1, C2 and EQ2.

Transport and Recreational Routes: The highly sensitive landscape to the Oak Beck corridor to the south of the site would experience a significant level of impact over extensive lengths of public rights of way, including the Dales Way Link. There is concern that a combined development (including Knabs Ridge and Penny Pot) at this location would become the dominant and prevailing landscape characteristic of the area. The development would therefore conflict with Policies C1, C2, EQ2 and R11.

Cumulative Effects: In terms of the potential effects the LVIA considers that the overall scale of the co-joined development with Knabs Ridge in addition to other existing wind development in the planning system would lead to considerable/moderate adverse effects. The spread of the turbines would appear greater than existing across the skyline leading to a wind farm landscape, which would significantly exceed the landscape capacity of the area. The development would therefore conflict with Policies C1, C2, EQ2 and R11 of the Local Plan.

Conclusion on Landscape Issues: It is considered that the proposal would have significant and wide ranging effects on landscape and visual amenity both by itself and cumulatively with the existing wind farm at Knabs Ridge including significant impacts on the Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which is a nationally protected landscape. These impacts are a material consideration and must be given significant weight in the decision making process.

3. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY - Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should aim to:

* avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development;

* mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions;

The National Planning Practice Guide (NPPG) advises that protecting local amenity is an important consideration which should be given proper weight in planning decisions.

The NPPG advises that the assessment and rating of noise from wind farms (ETSU-R-97) should be used by the LPA when assessing and rating noise from wind energy developments. Good practice guidance on noise assessments of wind farms has been prepared by the Institute of Acoustics. The Department of Energy and Climate Change accepts that it represents current industry good practice and endorses it as a supplement to ETSU-R-97.

The NPPG advises that under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off; the impact is known as ‘shadow flicker’. Modern wind turbines can be controlled so as to avoid shadow flicker when it has the potential to occur. Individual turbines can be controlled to avoid shadow flicker at a specific property or group of properties on sunny days for specific times of the day and on specific days of the year. Where the possibility of shadow flicker exists, mitigation can be secured through the use of conditions.

Policy SG4 of the Core Strategy advises that residential and general amenity should be protected and where possible enhanced.

Saved Policy HD20 of the Local Plan states that new development should respect the privacy and amenity of nearby residents and occupiers of adjacent buildings.

Policy EQ1 of the Core Strategy states that proposals for renewable energy projects will be encouraged, providing any harm caused to the local environment and amenity is minimised and clearly outweighed by the need for and benefits of the development.

The Planning Authority has employed a specialist acoustic consultant (to assess the information submitted by the applicant’s acoustic consultant and to assess the likely impact of the proposal on surrounding residential properties. This includes both the sound level at the dwelling and the character of the noise. There is no noise limit on the existing Knabs Ridge wind farm and it is therefore essential to get an accurate assessment of the existing impact so that the likely cumulative impact with the proposed development can be accurately assessed particularly as the impact from the proposed development and the cumulative impact of both schemes is so close to the noise limit. This leaves little or no room for error/uncertainty. Based on predicted noise levels, which only estimate average noise under average conditions rather than measured noise levels under typical worst case conditions, it looks like the scheme is compliant with guidance. However, in reality the turbines are much more likely to exceed noise limits because the noise levels will be higher than indicated by the submitted assessment. MAS Environmental has advised that there they have concerns regarding night time impact and cumulative impact in terms of noise levels, noise character and lack of respite afforded to nearby residents due to the operation of two schemes. Furthermore, MAS predict noise levels will exceed noise limits and there is little or no headroom between noise levels and limits to allow for inherent prediction uncertainties.

In summary, on the basis of the submitted information and advice from MAS Environmental, it is officer opinion that the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the development will not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties through noise disturbance. Furthermore it is considered that the potential impacts cannot be adequately controlled by planning conditions.

In light of advice in the NPPG on the matter it is officer opinion that any impacts in relation to Shadow Flicker on nearby residential properties can be adequately controlled by planning conditions.

4. AVIATION MATTERS - The NPPG advises that wind turbines may have an adverse effect on air traffic movements and safety. They may interfere with the proper operation of radar by limiting the capacity to handle air traffic, and aircraft instrument landing systems. Wind turbines can also adversely affect a number of Ministry of Defence operations including radars and communication facilities.

NATS is a statutory consultee for all wind farm applications, and assesses the potential impact of every proposed development in the UK. They are responsible for the safe and expeditious movement in the en-route phase of flight for aircraft operating in controlled airspace in the UK. To undertake this responsibility it has a comprehensive infrastructure of radars, communication systems and navigational aids throughout the UK, all of which could be compromised by the establishment of a wind farm. In this respect NATS is responsible for safeguarding this infrastructure to ensure its integrity to provide the required services to Air Traffic Control (ATC). The proposed development has been examined by their technical safeguarding teams and they have determined that the proposal conflicts with their safeguarding criteria. A technical impact is anticipated which is deemed to be unacceptable. They have determined that the development is likely to cause false primary plots to be generated and a reduction in the radar’s probability of detection for real aircraft is also anticipated. Where an assessment reveals a technical impact on specific NATS radar, the users of that radar are consulted to ascertain whether the anticipated impact is acceptable to their operations or not. Prestwick Air Traffic Control has commented that the likely impact is unacceptable.

In the event that any recommendations made by NATS are not accepted, local authorities are obliged to notify both NATS and the Civil Aviation Authority (“CAA”) of their intention. As this further notification is intended to allow the CAA to consider whether further scrutiny is required, the notification should be provided prior to any granting of permission.

The applicants have been in contact with NATS over an extensive period of time in an effort to address the concerns raised. They have engaged a specialist Aviation Consultancy (Aviatica) to assess the impact on aviation matters but there still remains an outstanding objection. They consider that NATs have not produced evidence to support their claim that mitigation is required and have advised that they would accept a condition that requires reasonable mitigation to the satisfaction of NATS. The NPPG sets out the Governments policy on the use of conditions. One of the six tests is that conditions should be precise. It is officer opinion that the proposed condition is not sufficiently precise to meet the test because no parameters have been put on the extent of mitigation measures that may be required nor is there a definition of reasonable mitigation. In the absence of such detail it would be inappropriate to condition mitigation measures.

The consultant acting on behalf of the applicant (Aviatica) has concluded that the impact of the proposed development on Ministry of Defence (MOD) air traffic control operations would not be significant. The MOD maintains an objection to the proposal on the basis that it would have an adverse impact on Air Traffic Control radars at RAF Linton–on-Ouse. They have advised that proposed development infringes further than the Knabs Ridge site and therefore it has a greater impact. They consider that the impact on operations at that unit would not be manageable and advise that there are no mitigation measures that can be applied. They have stated that the lack of directly attributable incidents does not mean that the presence of wind turbines does not make incidents more likely.

5. HERITAGE ASSETS - Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 act requires that LPAs pay special attention in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of “preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area” and must take account of this in development control decisions. The site is not in a conservation area but the proposed turbines would be visible form surrounding conservation areas.

Sections 16 and 66 of the Act require authorities considering applications for planning permission or listed building consent for works which affect a listed building to “have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural interest which it possesses”

One of the Core Planning Principles of the NPPF specifically relates to heritage assets stating that planning should: “conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of this and future generations”.

Paragraph 132 of the NPPF advises that “significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification”.

Paragraph 134 states that “where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use”.

Paragraph 135 states that “the effect of an application on the significance of a non- designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset”. Paragraph 115 advises that the conservation of cultural heritage in the AONB is an important consideration.

PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide remains a material consideration.

In relation to heritage assets, the National Planning Practice Guide advises that great care should be taken to ensure that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting.

Policy EQ2 of the Core Strategy (The Natural and Built Environment and Green Belt) states that the District's exceptionally high quality natural and built environment will be given a level of protection appropriate to its international, national and local importance.

Saved policy HD3 of the Harrogate District Local Plan (Control of Development in Conservation Areas) advises that proposals that would harm the character or appearance of a conservation area will not be permitted.

Saved policy HD7A of the Harrogate District Local Plan states that development will not be permitted where it would adversely the character or setting of Parks and Gardens included in the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest.

It is considered that the settings of the scheduled ancient monuments, listed buildings and conservation areas contribute to their significance, and that the proposed development would cause some harm to their setting, and hence would cause harm to the significance of these designated heritage assets.

World Heritage Site (Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal): It is agreed that the wind farm will not be seen from the WHS, but will be seen from within the Buffer Zone (recently approved by UNESCO), particularly from Howe Hill. However given that the wind farm would not be inter-visible from Howe Hill in the view to the WHS, it is considered that no harm to the setting would ensue from the proposed development.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments: The windfarm would impact on the setting of the standing ruins and earthworks of the royal hunting lodge known as John O’Gaunt’s Castle and the linear iron-age earthwork of Bank Slack. The Environmental statement considers John O’Gaunts to have high value (that is lower than a grade I listed building) and claims that there would be only “slight negative” impact on this Scheduled Ancient Monument, which leads to Intermediate–minor adverse effect.

Clearly the earthworks of Bank Slack were designed to provide raised areas that provided views over a larger area for the protection of the occupants, thus views are intrinsic to its design. Similarly the Hunting Lodge of John O’Gaunts was likely to be the most prestigious and impressive building of the deer park hence it was sited to maximise its dominance of the nearby landscape and also takes advantage of views over the landscape, thus views are intrinsic to its design. The cumulative impact of the existing Nabs ridge wind farm and High Boar wind farm seen completely across the skyline from certain views would be detrimental to the setting of these monuments. It is not agreed that the setting of the monuments is limited to the Beaver Dyke Reservoir and its tributary. Although it is agreed that the wind farm would not to impinge upon the understanding of the monuments.

The existing turbines are on the periphery of the view towards Harrogate from the public footpath and from earthworks of John O’Gaunts, but from the monument the existing adjacent trees screen existing turbines from view. The existing plantation will not screen the views of the new turbines.

The Scheduled Ancient Monuments are on a public footpath, which forms the border of the AONB. It is a popular path, and John O’Gaunts in particular is a key destination. Walking from Penny Pot Lane, one passes through an intimate area below trees to the hillside where views open out and the Beaver Dyke Reservoir comes into view. From here one can see the standing remains and turbines in the same view (they will be inter-visible), whereas the existing turbines do not impact on that view of the monument.

It is not agreed that the development would have an effect of “slight negative magnitude”, there would be a material, but non-fundamental change. The sensitivity of the receptor is High, the magnitude of effect is greater than indicated by the applicant and hence the significance of the effect is Intermediate, not “Intermediate – Minor Adverse”.

Listed Buildings: In general the comments in the Environmental Statement regarding the setting of churches and other buildings in Harrogate and Hampsthwaite are agreed. However Harlow Tower is just outside the 5Km zone and Ripley Castle is less than 10Km away. Views out from these buildings contribute to their significance. The proposed wind farm will be seen from the tower, and it is likely it would be seen from the castle that enjoys views over trees, however it is considered by the applicant that in the context of the existing wind farm, the effect on the Tower would be “Neutral”. That is not agreed, although it is accepted that any harm would not be substantial in NPPF terms.

The applicant considers that the development would have no discernible effects on the setting of the listed buildings assessed. This is not agreed, it is considered that the settings of the listed buildings contribute to their significance, and that the proposed development would cause some harm to the setting of some, and hence would cause harm to the significance of these listed buildings.

Registered Historic Parks and Gardens: Whilst it is agreed that from many of the parks and gardens within the ZTV the wind farm will not be seen due to topography and woodland, the existing windfarm can be seen from Allerton Park and the proposed wind farm would be seen too. It is considered that the impact will be Slight- a detectable but non-material change.

Conservation Areas: The assessment includes assessment of the potential effect on only two conservation areas in any detail, these being Harrogate and Hampsthwaite in which the setting of listed buildings are considered in greater depth. The settlements within 10Km include other conservation areas, for example Staveley.

Two conservation areas in the Nidderdale AONB particularly enjoy extensive views because of their topographical locations. Both have up to date Conservation Area Appraisals, which include maps that show key views. These appraisals were prepared with local community involvement and are an evidence base for the Local Plan (LDF).

Key views from Timble Conservation Area (which is within 10km of the site and not included in the Table 9.2.2) looking northeast currently look across to the Knabs Ridge Windfarm. This development and the proposed Penny Pot wind farm would create a denser and wider area of turbines in conjunction with the existing. It is considered that the level of sensitivity is high, the magnitude of effect will be Slight and hence the significance of the effect is Intermediate.

The applicants have considered views from Kexhill, an area where there are a number of listed buildings and it is within the AONB, but have not considered views from the affected conservation area. Key views from Middlesmoor churchyard (over 25km away from the site) look southeast down the Nidderdale Valley where the Knabs Ridge Windfarm can be seen. This view down the valley is focussed and the development is likely to create a denser and wider area of windfarm in conjunction with the existing. It is considered that the level of sensitivity is high, the magnitude of effect will be Slight and hence the significance of the effect is Intermediate.

It is considered that the settings of the conservation areas contribute to their significance, and that the proposed development would cause some harm to the setting as discussed above, and hence would cause harm to the significance of the conservation areas.

Non-Designated Heritage Assets: The site is close to Whin Hill Farm, Prospect House and Central House Farm and near to North High Moor Farm and Red Barn Farm. These are not designated, but appear on the 1890 maps and none have been assessed. In accordance with NPPF any such assets should have been assessed in order to understand their significance, because the effect of the development on the setting of these assets, if the setting is important to their significance, must be included in the judgement of any harm.

English Heritage Comments: They have questioned the thoroughness of the Environmental Statement. They have stated that they consider the methodology to be inadequate for the purposes of assessing the visual impact of the turbines on the Archaeological and cultural heritage. They are concerned that the impacts in views from Ripley Castle have not been adequately assessed. They are satisfied that the proposal will not impact on the significance of the WHO and its Outstanding Universal Value. They consider that the proposal will harm the setting of the Scheduled Monument John of Gaunt’s Castle and Bank Slack Camp nearby, impairing public appreciation of their significance. However, the Knabs Ridge Wind Farm close by has already harmed the setting of these monuments. Also, the principal views from these two Scheduled Monuments are to the south and east, not towards the wind farm. They therefore suggest that the harm would be ‘less than substantial’ and that in line with Para 134 of NPPF, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Both English Heritage and the Conservation Officer have questioned the asserted level of impacts on heritage assets set out in the EIS, therefore officers have assumed the higher level of impact where there is disagreement. Even taking this approach, it is officer opinion that the harm that has been identified to Heritage Assets is not so significant that it would, in itself outweigh the benefits of the proposal, however there will be harm and this must be weighed with any other harm identified against the benefits of the proposal.

English Heritage and the Conservation Officer have also questioned the thoroughness of the Environmental Statement in relation to impacts on heritage assets. There may well be impacts that have not been fully identified in the assessment, however, taking on board the comments of English Heritage and the Conservation Officer it is officer opinion that it is unlikely that any unidentified impacts would add significantly to the harm identified. 6. HIGHWAYS - The proposed site access is onto Penny Pot Lane. The majority of construction vehicles will be standard HGV’s of standard road size, bringing aggregate and other construction materials for access tracks, hardstandings and foundations. There will also be additional HGV movements associated with the delivery of plant.

NYCC Highways Authority has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions requiring agreement on abnormal load movements, details of access, and wheel washing facilities. They also require a highways condition survey. Subject to the proposed conditions, it is considered that the impacts on the proposal on the highway network can be adequately controlled.

7. ECOLOGY - Paragraph 109 of the NPPF advises that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible.

Paragraph 115 advises that the conservation of wildlife is an important consideration in AONB’s.

The NPPG states that evidence suggests that there is a risk of collision between moving turbine blades and birds and/or bats. Other risks including disturbance and displacement of birds and bats and the drop in air pressure close to the blades which can cause lung expansion in bats, which can be fatal. Whilst these are generally a relatively low risk, in some situations, such as in close proximity to important habitats used by birds or bats, the risk is greater and the impacts on birds and bats should therefore be assessed.

The comments of the Rural Strategy Officer and Natural England indicate that ecological impacts can be adequately controlled by conditions. Subject to such conditions it is considered that the proposal complies with advice in the NPPF.

8. PLANNING BALANCE - It can be seen from the above that there is strong support, both nationally and locally, for renewable energy projects. This support is a material consideration which must be given significant weight in the decision making process. However it must be weighed against other material considerations. In this case the most significant of these are the impact on the character of the landscape, the impact on residential amenity, impact on the interests of the Ministry of Defence and the National Air Traffic Control Service and impacts on Heritage Assets.

In the above assessment it has been found that the proposal would provide substantial benefits in contributing towards renewable energy production and reducing CO2 emissions. Additionally the proposal will contribute to the economy of the district particularly during the construction phase and this must also be given weight in the decision making process. However it has also been found that the proposal will have wide ranging adverse effects on the landscape both by itself and cumulatively with the existing wind farm at Knabs Ridge including significant impacts on the Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which is a nationally protected landscape. In addition it has been found that the applicant has failed to establish, to the satisfaction of the local planning authority, that the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding residential property through noise disturbance. Furthermore it is considered that the potential impacts cannot be adequately controlled by planning conditions. It has also been found that the proposal would cause harm to a number of heritage assets and there are outstanding concerns regarding the impacts of the proposal on the interests of air traffic safety resulting from outstanding objections from NATS and MOD.

As is often the case, different policies in the NPPF pull against each other in the decision making process. Paragraph 115 of the NPPF places great weight on conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONB’s while Para 14 expresses very strong support renewable energy and reduction in emissions of CO2 and Paragraph 98 requires that applications for energy development should be approved (Unless material considerations indicate otherwise) if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Paragraph 123 advises that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise which would rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.

In the case of the proposed development, it is considered that the landscape impacts of the proposal both by itself and cumulatively with the existing wind farm to the north east of the site would be so significant that they are sufficient, in themselves, to outweigh the benefits of the proposal. With regard to the noise impact on residential properties, it is considered that the risk to residential amenity is unacceptable and is, in itself, sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the proposal. Furthermore there are no conditions that could be applied, or other solutions, that would mitigate the impacts on landscape or residential amenity such that the scheme could be made acceptable.

The impacts identified by NATS and MOD are of a very technical nature and whilst it may be possible to mitigate the impacts to an acceptable level it is considered that that point has not been reached and in these circumstances an additional reason for refusal is proposed.

The identified impacts on Heritage assets, whilst not so significant as to out-weigh the benefits of the proposal in themselves, add weight to the case for refusing the development.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development would cause significant harm to landscape character, in particular to the landscape of the AONB. Additionally the applicant has failed to establish, to the satisfaction of the local planning authority, that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding residential properties through noise disturbance. The proposal would also have a harmful impact on the interests of air traffic safety and on heritage assets. It is considered that the harm that would be caused by the development significantly outweighs the benefits in terms of the contribution it would make towards production of renewable energy, reducing CO2 emissions and to the local economy. The proposal should therefore be refused.

CASE OFFICER: Mr Gerard Walsh

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED. Reason(s) for refusal:- 1 The proposed development would, both by itself and cumulatively with the existing wind farm to the north east of the site, cause significant harm to landscape and scenic beauty, in particular to the landscape and scenic beauty of the Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Beauty. It would also cause harm to the significance of a number of heritage assets. It would therefore be contrary to advice in the National Planning Policy Frame work and to policies SG4 and EQ2 of the Core Strategy and saved policies C1, C2, R11 HD3 and HD20 of the Harrogate District Local Plan. 2 The applicant has failed to establish, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, that the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding residential property through noise disturbance. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to advice in the National Planning Policy Framework and to policy SG4 and EQ1 of the Core Strategy and saved policy HD20 of the Harrogate District Local Plan. 3 The proposed development would result in unacceptable increased risks to the safe movement of air traffic using Prestwick Airport and RAF Linton-on-Ouse.