Penderfyniad ar yr Apêl Appeal Decision
Gwrandawiad a gynhaliwyd ar 26/03 & 08/04/13 Hearing held on 26/03 & 08/04/13 Ymweliad â safle a wnaed ar 08/04/13 Site visit made on 08/04/13 gan Alwyn B Nixon BSc(Hons) MRTPI by Alwyn B Nixon BSc(Hons) MRTPI Arolygydd a benodir gan Weinidogion Cymru an Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers Dyddiad: 24/05/13 Date: 24/05/13
Appeal Ref: APP/F6915/A/12/2184131 Site address: Newton Down, Stormy Lane, Porthcawl The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the appointed Inspector. The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Richard Hadwin for Renewable Energy Partnerships Ltd against Bridgend County Borough Council. The application Ref P/12/368/FUL, is dated 15 May 2012. The development proposed is erection of two wind turbines with a maximum height to blade tip of 125m together with vehicular access, site tracks, substation and compound, anemometer mast, visitor facility and associated infrastructure, crane pads and external transformers.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of two wind turbines with a maximum height to blade tip of 125m together with vehicular access, site tracks, substation and compound, anemometer mast, visitor facility and associated infrastructure, crane pads and external transformers at Newton Down, Stormy Lane, Porthcawl in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/12/368/FUL, dated 15 May 2012, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule attached to this decision.
Procedural Matters
2. After the appeal was lodged the Council formally considered its stance in relation to the proposal. It determined that, had no appeal against non-determination been lodged, it would have refused planning permission. The reasons for taking such a decision would have been that the turbines, by virtue of their size scale and appearance, would be an incongruous and dominating feature within the landscape and surrounding area and, in themselves and cumulatively in combination with the adjacent proposed Stormy Down wind turbine, would be detrimental to visual amenity and to the settings of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast and the Merthyr Mawr, Kenfig and Margam Burrows Historic Landscape. In addition, the Council considered that insufficient information had been submitted with the application to adequately assess the impact of the development on nearby residential dwellings in terms of shadow flicker. These matters form the basis of its opposition to the development.
3. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) and various supporting technical assessments and statements. I have taken the environmental www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
information in the ES and the supporting technical and other information into account in arriving at my decision.
4. At the hearing it was confirmed that the application drawings, on which my decision is based, are those presented at Figs 1.2; 5.1; 5.2; 5.3; 5.4; 5.5; 5.6; 5.7; 5.8 and 5.9 of the ES (Volume 3: Figures).
5. As part of the hearing proceedings on 8 April 2013 I undertook an inspection of the site, the surrounding environs and various locations in the wider area, accompanied by representatives for the appellant, the Council and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) (formerly Countryside Council for Wales (CCW)). The tour of inspection included viewings from a range of private properties, residential neighbourhoods and public places, attended also by various individual objectors and by a local ward Councillor. In addition, I carried out further inspections of the area on an unaccompanied basis and also viewed recently- erected turbines of a comparable size to the appeal proposal at Fforch Nest (Bridgend/Rhondda Cynon Taff).
6. For part of the duration of my accompanied inspections a marker balloon was in place close to the proposed location of turbine 1. This had been erected on behalf of a nearby objector to the proposal, without the prior knowledge of the main parties. However, the operator of the marker balloon was present, and I, together with the appellant and the Council representative present, had the opportunity to speak with the operator and verify the basis of the contractual arrangements and the height at which it was being flown. I have also been supplied with a copy of the relevant Civil Aviation Authority permission certificate for the balloon, which states that the balloon shall not be flown above 410 feet (ie 125m) above ground level.
7. The balloon was moored in a position approximately 60 m south of the proposed location of turbine 1. Moreover, it was evident that the position of the balloon in the air (and consequently its exact height above ground level also) varied according to wind speed and direction at any given time. Nonetheless, I consider that the presence of the balloon offered a useful indication of the maximum blade tip height of turbine 1 and the position and overall height of the turbine in the landscape. As such, I have had regard to this, alongside the other information available to me and subject to the caveat above concerning balloon position variability, in assessing the visual impact of the development.
Main issues
8. The main issues in this appeal concern the effect of the proposed development on the landscape, including its effect on nearby designated landscapes, and its effect on visual amenity. Further issues are whether the proposal would harm living conditions by way of shadow flicker or noise effects.
Reasons
Summary of proposal and site location
9. The site occupies part of a ridge of higher ground inland (north-east) of Porthcawl and south-west of the A48 west of Bridgend and south of the M4. The site and its immediate environs comprise agricultural land, part of which was formerly a WWII airfield; a plantation of trees and a shelter belt also occupy some of the higher ground. The area surrounding the site is predominantly agricultural, although to the north of the site there are industrial developments centred on the former hangar buildings and areas of quarrying. The industrial complex includes a solar array and
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
there is also an extant permission for an anaerobic digestor. There are scattered residential properties in the surrounding area, the nearest of which are approximately 600 m from one or other of the two turbine locations.
10. The development comprises two three-bladed 2.5 MW turbines with an indicative hub centre-line height of 80 m and vertical blade tip height not exceeding 125 m. The turbines would be sited about 700 m apart, to the north (turbine 2) and south (turbine 1) of the plantation of trees. An 80 m high anemometer mast would also be erected further to the west, about 500 m from turbine 2 and 600 m from turbine 1. The proposal also includes ancillary development comprising access tracks, construction pads, underground cabling and substation. A small visitor and interpretation centre is also proposed, utilising an existing agricultural building and pen already present on the site. Access to the development would be taken from two points on Stormy Lane.
11. The edge of the built-up area of Porthcawl is about 2.5 km from the site, with the seafront area being about 4 km distant. The mainly residential area of Newton, an outlier to the east of Porthcawl, is around 1.5 km from the site. The western end of the Glamorgan Heritage Coast designation includes Merthyr Mawr Warren and Newton Burrows and the clifftop areas running south-east from Ogmore by Sea past Southerndown. The area of Merthyr Mawr Warren also forms part of the Merthyr Mawr, Kenfig and Margam Burrows historic landscape area. Merthyr Mawr Warren occupies an area between 1.5 and 3.5 km from the southern proposed turbine; at its closest the Kenfig and Margam Burrows part of the registered historic landscape is about 4 km west of the the northern turbine site. The Wales coast path follows the shore line along the south-west edge of Merthyr Mawr Warren and the edge of Newton Burrows.
Policy context
12. National policy in relation to renewable energy developments is contained within Planning Policy Wales edition 5 (PPW5) and Technical Advice Note (TAN) 8: Renewable Energy. These policy documents reflect a UK target of 15% of energy from renewables by 2020 and a Welsh government target of 2GW of installed onshore wind generation capacity by 2015/20171. TAN 8 recognizes that large scale (over 25 MW) wind developments will make the greatest contribution to meeting these targets, and advises that such developments should be concentrated into particular defined Strategic Search Areas (SSAs). However, TAN 8 also indicates that local planning authorities should, through their development plan policies and when considering individual planning applications, encourage smaller community-based windfarm scheme is (generally less than 5 MW). TAN 8 suggests that this could be done through local criteria that would determine the acceptability of such schemes and define in more detail what is meant by "smaller" and "community-based". TAN 8 recognizes that outside SSAs there is a balance to be struck between the desirability of renewable energy and landscape protection (paragraph 2.13). Support is offered to local planning authorities wishing to introduce policies in their development plans that restrict almost all wind energy developments larger than 5 MW to within SSAs and urban/industrial brownfield sites. Paragraph 8.4 points to an implicit objective in areas outside SSAs and outside National Parks and AONBs to avoid a significant change in landscape character from wind turbine development.
1 "A Low Carbon Revolution - The Welsh Assembly Government Energy Policy Statement" March 2010 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
13. The development plan for the area is the Bridgend Unitary Development Plan (UDP), adopted in 2005. UDP part 1 policy 19 favours the exploitation of renewable energy sources where it can best be demonstrated that any adverse effect on the best and most sensitive environments (in terms of landscape, architectural, historic and nature conservation value) would be minimal. UDP policy U2 encourages wind turbine and wind farm developments in the interests of promoting sustainable sources of energy. It states that such developments will be permitted if 4 criteria are satisfied. In relation to criterion 1, the site does not lie within the Glamorgan Heritage Coast designation (although it is close by). The Council does not seek to argue conflict with criterion 3 (harm to the setting of a listed building or the character and appearance of a conservation area) or criterion 4 (harm to the nature conservation interest of the Kenfig cSAC or a SSSI). The issue of conflict or compliance with UDP policy U2 thus turns on criterion 2, which requires that, by virtue of its size, design and siting the development would not be visually intrusive in a designated special landscape area or a designated historic landscape, park or garden.
14. UDP policy U3 identifies further detailed considerations to be assessed in the case of proposals for wind turbines and wind farms which do not conflict with policy U2. Of these, it seems to me that conflict or compliance with the policy, so far as the Council's case is concerned, turns on criterion 5, which requires that proposals will not detrimentally affect local amenity by reason, amongst other things, of visual dominance or shadow flicker. Criterion 5 also identifies noise emission as a specific matter in relation to which harm to local amenity should not arise. Although the Council does not identify noise effects as part of its case why permission should be withheld, some nearby residents have objected on this basis.
15. In addition, the Council has asserted that there is conflict with UDP policies EV1, EV7, EV9, EV42 and EV45. Policy EV1 strictly controls development in the countryside. However, the policy identifies development necessary in the interests of utility service provision amongst the types of development which may be acceptable exceptions to the rule. Policy EV7 requires that, where acceptable in principle in the countryside, development must have a scale and siting which is compatible with the landscape. Policy EV9 states that development which would adversely affect or be visually intrusive upon the natural beauty of the Heritage Coast will not be permitted. Policy EV42 states that development which would adversely affect an historic landscape will not be permitted. Policy EV45 is a generic design policy which sets out requirements relating to, amongst other things, reasonably protecting the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
16. The emerging Bridgend Local Development Plan (LDP) is currently at examination stage. However, no elements of its draft policies have been drawn to my attention as signalling a significant change in direction as regards onshore wind power developments. There was discussion at the hearing of the Council’s Renewable Energy Assessment & Energy Opportunities Plan, updated November 2011, which is part of the evidence base for the LDP. However, whilst this document identifies areas of potential wind resource and identifies particular constraints to development, it has no status as policy. Nonetheless, it clearly identifies Stormy Down as a wind resource area, which although outside the SSA is free from direct constraints in terms of nationally or locally designated landscapes.
Landscape and visual issues
17. The most significant components of the development proposals in visual and landscape impact terms are the two proposed turbine structures. At about 80m to www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
hub height and with a rotor diameter of about 90m, the turbines would undoubtedly constitute very large features in the landscape, and would introduce significant change. The introduction of large-scale structures with moving rotors is an inherent characteristic of commercial wind turbine proposals. The proposed anemometer mast, at 80m in height, would also be visible over a wide area, although this would be a slender structure of lattice construction and without rotating blades, and so would have a lower order of visual impact in the landscape.
18. Section 8 of the ES provides a detailed assessment of the landscape and visual effects of the development. The landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) has been an iterative process, involving extensive local consultation and the production of a comprehensive series of wireframes and photo-visualisations from surrounding public viewpoints and individual properties, together with zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) plans showing the extent of possible visibility of the blades and hubs of one or both turbines in the surrounding area. The assessment of effects was initially undertaken on the basis of a proposal for 3 turbines at the site; however, after considering the early consultation feedback and assessment results one turbine was deleted from the scheme design in order to reduce the level of visual impact at residential properties close to the site.
19. The landscape and visual assessment approach adopted in the ES is broadly consistent with current best practice and national guidelines. However, some criticisms are made by CCW/NRW of certain aspects of the detailed methodology and presentation of the assessment results. In addition, CCW/NRW express disagreement with the assessment of level of effect and consequent level of significance of impact at certain of the selected viewpoints. Concerns are also raised in relation to impact on the Glamorgan Heritage Coast; the Merthyr Mawr, Kenfig and Margam Burrows registered landscape of outstanding historic interest; cumulative landscape and visual impact effects; and impact on users of the Wales coast path. Subsequent to the lodging of the appeal the appellant has provided additional expert evidence concerning LVIA, including an ASIDOHL2 in respect of the Merthyr Mawr, Kenfig and Margam Burrows registered landscape of outstanding historic interest. These additional submissions were discussed at the hearing. Overall, I am satisfied that the landscape and visual assessment information and analysis provided is sufficiently comprehensive to enable me to reach an informed conclusion on all of the relevant landscape and visual impact issues in this case, when taken with the observations of other parties and my own observations of the site and its surroundings.
Visual effect on character and appearance
20. In essence, the primary significant elements of the development affecting the character and appearance of the area would be the two proposed turbines, located some 650m apart. The proposed anemometer mast, situated some 5-600m away from either turbine, would comprise a subsidiary element which, although widely visible due to its height and elevated location, would have a lower order of visual impact. The other elements of the development would be relatively unobtrusive and would not significantly impact upon the character and appearance of the locality.
21. The site and its immediate environs comprise a broad sweep of predominantly agricultural upland, located immediately inland of Porthcawl/Newton and the adjoining
2 Assessment of the Significance of the Impact of Development on Historic Landscape www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
coastal belt. From the east, north and south it is perceived as forming a more gentle crest in the landscape. Although located within the countryside, where agricultural use predominates, there is a complex of industrial/commercial buildings and structures close by to the north, together with a substantial area of quarrying activity. Other man-made structures such as masts and a water tower are also present in the area. There is a scattering of individual dwellings in the area, together with a group of dwellings at Stormy Down. The countryside to the north and north-east is traversed by the A48, M4, Paddington-Swansea railway line and overhead transmission lines.
22. Overall, I consider that the site and its environs comprise moderately attractive countryside, which although predominantly rural in nature also possesses a number of characteristics of a more industrial or urban nature. In addition the character of the locality is influenced by its proximity to the built-up area of Porthcawl and to the coast. These varied elements give the area a mixture of rural and more urban influences. The landscape of the site and its environs contains a number of comparatively strong structural elements, in the form of a rolling landform, tree plantations and shelterbelts, together with generally well-demarcated hedgerow lines. Taking all of these factors, together with the presence of the man-made elements in the locality outlined above, I consider that the proposed turbines and mast would not have an unduly dominant or overbearing visual impact, particularly once their initial impact as a new feature is past.
23. I appreciate that the Council has a particular concern about the scale of the turbines, which it feels is excessive. The proposed turbines would be larger than earlier generation machines. However, commercial wind turbine schemes with heights to blade tip in excess of 100m are not uncommon nowadays. I do not consider that turbines of this size are only to be associated with large upland wind farms. Balanced against the larger size of a 2.5 MW turbine is the fact that only two turbines are proposed. A significantly greater number of smaller machines would be needed in order to generate an equivalent power supply at the site, which I consider would, on balance, have a more significant visual impact. Moreover, the potentially eye-catching movement of rotor blades is lessened with a smaller number of turbines and the slower rotation speeds associated with larger machines.
Visual effects on residential amenity
24. The scheme design exercise and the LVIA undertaken as part of the EIA has considered the extent to which the turbines would be visible from the nearest properties in all directions around the site. The closest that any residential property would be to either turbine would be in the order of 600m in relation to turbine 1 and 850m in relation to turbine 2. However, owing to the scattered location of properties in all directions around the site, the varying aspects of individual properties and their gardens, and the effects of distance, topography, vegetation and buildings, the visual effects of the development upon each of these properties would vary considerably. From my inspections of the locality, properties at/near to Tythegston Kennels and Cambrian House, Manor Farm/Dan y Lan Farm and Greenacres would be those most affected. However, whilst greater or lesser parts of the turbines and the anemometer mast would be clearly visible on the skyline from garden areas and some windows within these properties, and I accept that the visual effect might be perceived by occupiers as significant, I do not consider that in any of these cases the visual effects of the structures would be of such magnitude as to be overbearing, or that their presence would result in unsatisfactory living conditions.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
25. Other residential properties would be affected to a less significant extent. Although turbine 1 would be less than 500m away from the upper section of the grounds of Coedargraig House, this area has a mature wooded character which effectively screens the rest of the gardens and the dwelling. Consequently I do not consider that the impact of the development would be such as to harm residential amenity to any material degree. Properties at Stormy Down would have little or no view of the turbines, owing to the orientation and layout of the dwellings and their curtilages and the presence of intervening woodland and bunding which also screens an adjacent disused quarry area. Whilst my attention has been drawn to the impact of the turbines on Ballas Farm, which offers holiday accommodation, I do not consider that the presence of the turbines, the nearest of which would be well over a kilometre away and partly obscured by intervening features, would be such as to significantly detract from the attractiveness of the environment offered to visitors.
26. The hamlet of Tythegston would be about 1.25km from the nearest turbine. However, the screening effects of topography and vegetation are such that the development would have no material visual effect upon residential properties in Tythegston. Particular concern is raised about the visual effects of the development for occupiers of the residential area of Newton, especially residents around Danygraig Avenue. However, although residents in this location and elsewhere in Newton would in some instances obtain views of turbine 1 and the anemometer mast at distances of 1 km or more and turbine 2 at distances of 1.5 km or more, the nature and extent of such views from within the built-up area would be substantially lessened by the presence of foreground buildings and the topography of the intervening partially wooded scarp slope in the foreground and middle-distance. Given also the more built-up nature of Newton and the complexity of visual elements associated with this I do not consider that the development would cause harm to visual amenity for residents of Danygraig or other parts of Newton. I similarly conclude that no visual harm to amenity would result for residents elsewhere in Porthcawl, who are further again from the appeal site.
Visual effects – other key public locations
27. I now turn to the visual effects of development in relation to key public locations where people, whether local residents or visitors to the area, would be likely to congregate. Particular concerns are raised about the visual effects on the area of Newton Burrows, a popular coastal recreational area for residents and visitors which also has public parking. From the car park the distance to the nearest turbine would be 2.2 km. However, from this area the lower part of this turbine would be hidden by the intervening wooded scarp slope. The LVIA assesses the level of effect as moderate. Whilst CCW/NRW point out that a moderate level of effect would normally be classified as significant for the purposes of EIA assessment, it seems to me that the primary focus of users of this area would be on the immediate coastal environs, whether using the beach and shoreline or the undulating area of dunes, following the coastal footpath or simply sitting in or close to their cars. I consider that the scale and position of the turbines and anemometer mast in relation to this area would be such that, whilst present as components of the wider landscape, by the great majority of users they would not be perceived as particularly intrusive or disturbing to the enjoyment of the area.
28. Similar considerations apply in relation to the recently designated Wales coast path. The stretch of the path following the shoreline between Newton Burrows and the southern end of Merthyr Mawr Warren would provide the closest clear views of the turbines and mast. As indicated above, the distance of the nearest turbine from the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
path would be in the region of 2.2 km in the area of Newton Burrows, increasing progressively to over 4 km towards the south end of Merthyr Mawr Warren. Whilst there would be clear views of parts of the structures from certain parts of this stretch of coast path, and users heading towards Newton Burrows would be walking generally towards the site, at these distances the turbines and mast would introduce a moderate to low magnitude of change. However, notwithstanding the comparatively high sensitivity as receptors ascribed to footpath users, I consider that in this case awareness of the development would be largely diverted by the much more immediate sensory focus provided by the sea and shoreline and the extensive dune area immediately inland, bounded by the wooded escarpment. Although man-made structures are largely absent from this stretch of the coast path, walkers approaching Newton Burrows become increasingly aware of the nearby urban areas of Newton and Porthcawl and the related holiday parks.
29. Other stretches of the Wales coast path would be affected to a lesser extent. Whilst there would be long-range views of the development from some elevated points east of Ogmore-by-Sea, the scale and appearance of the two turbines and mast in the overall scene would not be significant, particularly given the presence of other more dominant visual elements. Overall, I conclude that the visual effects of the development for users of the Wales coast path would not be significantly harmful.
30. Other key public vantage points are further afield. From the public car park at Ogmore-by-Sea, the nearest turbine would be 4.1 km away. Whilst the two turbines and mast would be clearly visible as large-scale skyline features in the distance, they would not dominate the view and would be subservient to the large-scale elements of sea, foreshore, dunes, wooded scarp and sky. From the promenade at Porthcawl Point the turbines and mast would again form clearly visible skyline background features at a similar distance. However, their visual prominence would be very much reduced by the foreground promenade and harbour features and other built elements. From public viewpoints in the areas of Kenfig Dunes, Lock’s Common and Sker Point, the turbines would be partly visible background elements of minor significance. From the play area and amenity space at Cefn Cribwr the turbines and mast would figure as large but distant features which would be noticeable but not unduly obtrusive or dominant. From other representative viewpoints in the wider area the development would have no untoward visual effects. The same applies in relation to views from public rights of way and designated trails other than the Wales coast path.
31. There would be close to medium range views of the turbines and mast from various roads in the vicinity of the site. From the A48 the views would be oblique and medium range and of short duration. From the A4106 Bridgend Road leading into Porthcawl the views of turbine 1, whilst close range, would again be oblique and of short duration. Views of the turbines from Stormy Lane, at a range of 400 to 500 m would be more pronounced. The turbines and mast would undoubtedly appear as large features in the landscape, and may appear dominant when seen at their closest. However, road users are not generally classed as particularly sensitive receptors. In this case, given the largely fleeting views from major routes, the relationship with other elements in the landscape and the mixed character of the locality, I do not consider that the development would give rise to unacceptable effects in these terms.
32. Particular emphasis is placed by the Council on the significance of Porthcawl as a visitor and holiday destination, and of the contribution which this makes to the local economy. However, there is no reliable evidence that wind farms dissuade people from visiting an area. Whilst some regard wind turbines as negative features in the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
landscape, others do not find them so. In the case of this proposal, there is nothing which leads me to conclude that the presence of two, albeit large, turbines and a single anemometer mast located on Newton Down would significantly adversely affect the propensity of visitors and holidaymakers to come to Porthcawl and its locality. Indeed, the visitor and interpretation centre, trails around the site and linkages to the solar array and proposed anaerobic digestion facility would provide what many may find an additional place of interest when visiting and staying in the area.
Landscape effects
33. The site and its near hinterland lie within areas classified as "moderate" in the visual and sensory aspect layer of LANDMAP. The site is not subject to any national or local landscape designation. Whilst there are locations close to the site which are subject to a local landscape conservation designation, no evidence has been adduced to show that the special landscape qualities of these designated areas would be harmed by the effects of the proposed development.
34. I deal with effects on the Glamorgan Heritage Coast and the Merthyr Mawr, Kenfig and Margam Burrows registered landscape of outstanding historic interest below. However, in relation to the visual and sensory aspect layer information provided by LANDMAP for areas other than the Heritage Coast and the registered historic landscape I conclude, on the basis of the analysis already outlined above, that the visual and sensory characteristics of the locality are such that the proposed development would assimilate acceptably as features in the landscape. Equally, I find no evidence pointing to significant adverse landscape effects in cultural, geological, historic or habitats terms. In reaching this conclusion I acknowledge that the proposed turbines are very large elements which will inevitably introduce a significant degree of visual change. From close vantage points, such as Stormy Lane where it passes the site, the full scale of the turbines will be apparent. However, in the light of the fact that the scheme proposes just two turbines, and on the basis of the landscape characteristics I have identified, I do not consider that the impact of the development, considered in the round, would be overwhelming, as the Council maintain, or even particularly dominant.
35. In considering the landscape effects of the proposal I have also had regard to the matters raised concerning seascape, which is a subset of landscape relating to the actions and interactions of land and sea upon any given area of sea, coastline and land. In this respect, the site is associated with the Porthcawl to Nash Point regional seascape unit. However, I find nothing in the submitted evidence on this which materially adds to the Glamorgan Heritage Coast considerations which are considered below.
36. The Merthyr Mawr, Kenfig and Margam Burrows landscape of outstanding historic interest comprises a single entry on the register, but is made up of two discrete parts. The Merthyr Mawr Warren portion is located to the east of Porthcawl and south-east of the appeal site. The nearest turbine would be about 1.5 km from the closest part of the Merthyr Mawr Warren historic landscape. The development would also be separated from the historic landscape by the intervening vegetated scarp slope, and would be clearly perceived as occupying a different, albeit adjacent, landscape area. The Kenfig and Margam Burrows portion of the historic landscape is about 4 km from the site of the nearest proposed turbine, providing a significant degree of separation in terms of distance and intervening landscape character.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
37. Merthyr Mawr Warren is a be-sanded coastal landscape, where the dune system has buried a more ancient landscape with evidence of occupation and activity from the Mesolithic period to the recent past. The Kenfig and Margam Burrows portion is registered as a be-sanded landscape that essentially derived from adverse weather conditions and tidal phenomena in the middle ages and perhaps earlier. On LANDMAP the overall evaluation of both Merthyr Mawr Warren and Kenfig and Margam Burrows is given as high on the visual and sensory aspect layer and outstanding on the cultural, geological, historic and habitats aspect layers. Both portions plainly constitute a lowland coastal landscape of prime importance.
38. Given the distance of the turbines and associated development from the registered historic landscape and the designated Heritage Coast, any effects on these designated areas would be limited to indirect visual effects. There would be no direct or indirect physical impacts. The ES accompanying the proposed scheme concludes that there would not be a significant effect on the Merthyr Mawr, Kenfig and Margam Burrows landscape of historic interest. Following pre-application consultations with Glamorgan- Gwent Archaeological Trust, Cadw and CCW/NRW an ASIDOHL was not requested and was not completed as part of the environmental impact assessment.
39. However, in the light of the concerns raised during the appeal process an ASIDOHL has subsequently also been undertaken, utilising amongst other things computer modelled zones of theoretical visibility (ZTV) information. The ZTV information represents the maximum theoretical extent of visibility to maximum blade tip height (125m) of one or both turbines and also in terms of visibility to base of rotor height (35m). The ZTV is based on ground contours alone and takes no account of the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. In addition it was evident from my inspection of Merthyr Mawr Warren that the ZTV is not able to represent accurately the extent to which the complex micro-topography of the dunes also restricts sight- lines towards the appeal site in this area.
40. The ZTV confirms that no part of either turbine would be visible from a significant part of the Merthyr Mawr Warren portion of the historic landscape, including Candleston Castle; most of the be-sanded area having scheduled ancient monument status because of the likelihood of buried archaeology; the area of most intensive visitor use around the public car park; or Merthyr Mawr village itself. The development would not significantly impinge upon views of or from Ogmore Castle, the setting of which would not be harmed. From the rest of Merthyr Mawr Warren, whilst there would be some visibility of parts of the turbines and mast, in practice this would be considerably restricted by the effects of micro-topography and vegetation. This would be accentuated by the fact that waymarked and other natural routes through the area tend to follow the lower ground, where views out are blocked by the higher surrounding dunes. The limited views, at a considerable distance, of parts of the turbines and mast from within the Merthyr Mawr Warren portion of the historic landscape would not, in my judgement, be so significant as to materially detract from the appreciation or understanding of the historic landscape. In reaching this conclusion I have also taken into account the views attainable from the Wales coast path and the environs of the car park at Newton Burrows.
41. From the area of Kenfig and Margam Burrows views of the turbines and mast would be obtained more consistently. However, this area lies considerably further away from the appeal site, and there are intervening areas of built development. Consequently, I consider that from within this portion of the historic landscape, including the main car park at Kenfig dunes the turbines and mast, where seen, would appear as minor
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
background features which would not disturb or detract from the appreciation or understanding of the historic landscape. The ASIDOHL considers that key aspects of the setting of Kenfig Castle would not be significantly harmed. From my examination of the visibility evidence and inspection of the area I am satisfied that there would be no harm to its setting. Similarly, I do not consider that there would be an adverse effect upon the setting of Sker House or that part of the historic landscape.
42. I have also considered the visual effects of the development in terms of appreciation and understanding of the historic landscape from the perspective of views in from outside. There are no significant viewpoints where the proposed turbines and mast would interpose, either directly or peripherally, between the viewpoint and the historic landscape. Whilst there would be views across parts of the dunes of Merthyr Mawr Warren of the turbines and mast, at distances of 4 km or more, from the public car park at Ogmore by Sea and its vicinity and parts of Ogmore Down, I do not consider that the visual impact of the development from these areas would be such as to significantly compromise the appreciation and understanding of the historic landscape.
43. The Glamorgan Heritage Coast designation is a national designation extending from Aberthaw in the east to Newton Burrows. The designated area includes the coastline itself and its setting. The western end of the Heritage Coast designation essentially covers Merthyr Mawr Warren. The nearest turbine would be outside and about 1.5 km from the edge of the Heritage Coast designation. As already described, the site of the proposed development is also separated from the designated area by the intervening vegetated scarp slope, and is clearly perceived as occupying a different, albeit adjacent, landscape area.
44. Although the proposed turbines and mast are very tall structures, they are also comparatively slender objects, even when the rotor blades are taken into account. Given their distance and separation in landscape terms from the Heritage Coast, I consider that the indirect visual impact of the two turbines and anemometer mast, whilst clearly introducing a change into that part of the surrounding landscape and being visible from within the designated area, would not materially harm the integrity or scenic value of the Heritage Coast area itself. In reaching this conclusion I note that unimpeded views of the coastline and coastal hinterland, as defined by the Heritage Coast designated area which includes the Heritage Coast setting, would remain.
45. The Newton Burrows end of the Heritage Coast designation is closely bounded by an extensive built-up area and a large holiday park, and is subject to intensive recreational use. Whilst it undoubtedly has scenic and amenity value, this part of the designated area, from where the turbines would be most closely seen, already exists in a context including substantial built development and human activity and is not characterised by tranquillity or remoteness. Although the Merthyr Mawr Warren part of the designated area does indeed lack man-made features and has a sense of tranquillity and remoteness, this in my view would not be materially disturbed. Whilst the turbines and mast would also be visible from parts of the coastal cliff top areas south of Ogmore-by-Sea, their visual significance in the landscape from these vantage points would decrease still further with increasing distance from the site. Accordingly my overall conclusion on this matter is that the character and amenity of the Heritage Coast would not be materially harmed by the proposed development.
46. I have taken into account the various points made by CCW/NRW concerning certain scorings in the landscape assessments. However, I have not based my conclusions simply on these scorings, or indeed solely on the representative viewpoints, which www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
inevitably can be only part of the picture. In coming to my conclusions I have had regard to all of the evidence, supplemented by own observations of the site and the various surrounding relevant locations and areas and the extent to which the development would impinge, visually or otherwise, on these locations and areas.
Cumulative effects
47. I have also considered all of the foregoing matters in relation to the potential cumulative impact of the proposed development when taken together with other existing and proposed wind turbine schemes in the surrounding area. The Taff Ely/Mynydd Portref and Pant-y-Wal/Fforch Nest schemes are all some 15 km away from the site and occupy a very different location in the wider landscape framework of the area. From the submitted evidence concerning cumulative visibility and my own observations of the site and wider locality I am satisfied that these schemes are sufficiently far removed from the appeal proposal that there would be no significant cumulative effects in these terms.
48. The ES also included consideration of a wind farm proposal at Mynydd Brombil, some 10 km north-northwest of the appeal site. Whilst the current status of this scheme is unclear, I am satisfied from the ES analysis that, even were this scheme also to go ahead, it would have no significant cumulative effect implications in relation to the proposal before me. I take a similar view in relation to proposals concerning the Atlantic Array offshore wind farm, given the distance of that proposal some 38 km west-southwest of the appeal site.
49. There is a small operational 20kW wind turbine (26.4 m to blade tip) at Stormy Farm, 1.4km north of the appeal proposal. Two further small wind turbines have also been recently permitted at Hare Grove Farm (50 kW, 34.2 m to blade tip) and The Stud (15 kW, 17.7 m to blade tip). These turbines would be 2.3 km and 2.75 km respectively north-east of the appeal site. However, given their much smaller size and their distances from the site I do not consider that these turbine schemes present any significant cumulative effects issues for the appeal proposal.
50. There is one further current proposal for a wind turbine in the vicinity of the site. A single 1.5 MW turbine is proposed at Stormy Down, 0.7 km north of the appeal site. The turbine would have a hub height of 65 m and a height to blade tip of 105 m. I consider that the Stormy Down turbine, if permitted and constructed, would be seen and experienced in conjunction with this appeal proposal from many locations in the area, thus potentially raising significant cumulative impact issues. However, this proposal is the subject of an appeal against non-determination, which has not yet been decided. As such, at this point in time there is no turbine proposal at Stormy Down which is able to proceed. Consideration of the proposal for a wind turbine at Stormy Down will need to take into account this appeal decision and the resulting planning permission for wind turbines at Newton Down and, in so doing, consider any resulting cumulative effects. Because determination of the Stormy Down turbine proposal will need to take this into account I do not regard the outcome of this appeal as necessarily setting a precedent in relation to any decision on that scheme.
51. Accordingly, I do not find the existence of the undetermined Stormy Down turbine proposal to be a material reason why planning permission should be withheld for the Newton Down scheme.
52. Overall, I conclude that there are no considerations concerning cumulative effect which constitute a sustainable reason for withholding planning permission.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
Shadow flicker
53. The ES includes an assessment of the potential for the rotor movements of the turbines to cause shadow flicker at the dwellings around the site. The assessment identifies two properties (Keeper’s Lodge and Tythegston Kennels), both at the outer limits of where shadow flicker effects could potentially extend, where shadow flicker might be experienced inside the dwelling. However, in both these cases the periods each day when shadow flicker might occur would be brief – a matter of minutes - and would occur through periods of about 25 days each at two times in the year. The period of exposure to possible shadow flicker for any affected window would be for no more than an aggregated duration of 18 hours in each calendar year. Actual shadow effects would in practice depend on the coincidence of a number of factors, including climatic conditions such that a shadow is cast and blade rotation and orientation; any effect on residential amenity would require the affected room to be occupied at the time in question.
54. Although the Council's statement of reasons why it would have refused planning permission refers to insufficient information having been submitted with the application to adequately assess potential shadow flicker impacts on nearby dwellings, it has provided no good evidence to substantiate this assertion. I am satisfied that shadow flicker impacts have been properly assessed within the ES. Whilst I consider that the assessment raises valid issues of residential amenity in respect of the two dwellings identified, I am satisfied that this issue could adequately be addressed by means of a suitably worded condition requiring the preparation of and adherence to a shadow flicker protocol. Such a protocol would set out the means by which shadow flicker occurrences should be recorded and reported, and the actions which the developer will agree to undertake in response. This is a standard approach in such circumstances, which would ensure that harm to living conditions in these terms can be avoided.
Noise effects
55. The Council has not cited noise as a reason why planning permission should be withheld, although some nearby occupiers have raised concerns about possible noise disturbance. However, the ES demonstrates that a thorough assessment of the potential noise impact associated with the proposed wind turbine development has been carried out, using the guidance contained within it ETSU-R-973. The methodology followed thus complies with national planning guidance on this matter. The assessment involved analysis of background noise measurements made at four locations neighbouring the proposed wind farm, based upon preliminary noise predictions and designed to include the most noise-sensitive properties in relation to the development and/or locations representative of prevailing background noise conditions at nearby dwellings surrounding the wind farm. The pre-existing background noise environment at these locations was then compared with predictions of wind turbine noise, based on a calculation procedure considered to be a conservative estimate of noise emission levels. The potential cumulative noise impacts of other proposed wind turbines in the area were also taken into account. The ES analysis indicates that, at all receptor locations neighbouring the proposed site, wind turbine noise levels from the development would meet the suggested noise
3 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Windfarms (1997) Energy Technology Support Unit www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
criteria based on the Amenity Hours Noise criterion and Night-time Hours Noise criterion proposed by ETSU-R-97.
56. An assessment of the potential noise impact due to construction activity of the proposed wind farm has also been carried out, with reference to published guidelines in BS 5228, Part 1: 2009. This included noise resulting from the construction traffic at each dwelling near to the site. The assessment concludes that, at each construction stage and at all receptor locations, construction noise would be at an acceptable level.
57. No evidence has been submitted that calls into question the methodology used to assess noise impacts or the results and conclusions of the ES noise assessment. The discussions between the Council and the Appellant have resulted in a suite of agreed conditions that would confirm the predicted capability of the turbines to satisfy the ETSU-based noise criteria at properties surrounding the site and enable remedial action to be taken in the event of verified complaints of turbine noise in excess of the agreed thresholds for the property or properties concerned.
58. There is disagreement between the Council and the Appellant concerning the justification for an additional condition to guard specifically against possible noise nuisance arising from any excess amplitude modulation (EAM) or noise that might occur over the normal level of blade swish noise. In considering this matter I have had regard to the various documents drawn to my attention in support of the respective stances of the parties, including the detailed reasoning and conclusions of the Inspectors in the Woolley Hill, Jack's Lane and Chiplow and Brechfa West cases; the Inspector’s decision in the Den Brook case; and the Renewable Energy Foundation information note examining the enforceability of the Den Brook amplitude modulation noise condition. On the basis of the submitted information I have concluded that, whilst there is clearly an ongoing debate about disturbance attributable to EAM, the extent of its occurrence in practice and the factors likely to bring it about are still unclear. It is argued for the Council that the ETSU methodology fails to safeguard adequately against potential disturbance effects associated with EAM. However, this matter was reviewed by ETSU in 2007 and nothing of sufficient consequence was identified to cause the ETSU-R-97 methodology, which is designed to take account of amplitude modulation in noise levels, to be changed.
59. ETSU-R-97 remains the recognized guidance for wind farm noise assessment. In relation to this appeal I find insufficient evidence to lead me to conclude that a condition over and above those agreed as needed to secure compliance with ETSU guidelines is necessary in this case. Whilst I understand the Council's concern to guard against any possible incidence of noise disturbance associated with EAM, I find the evidence before me of insufficient substance to warrant the imposition of such a condition even on a precautionary basis. Based on the evident limited understanding of causes of EAM and the uncertain extent to which EAM might occur in this case, I consider that the test of necessity for a condition relating to this is not met.
60. Whilst I do not suggest that the existence of statutory powers elsewhere to deal with noise nuisance is a reason not to impose a condition of the kind sought by the Council, it nonetheless remains the case that statutory nuisance powers would in any event remain potentially available as a remedy to any noise nuisance of a nature which for some technical reason could not be remedied by enforcement of the imposed noise control conditions.
61. Concern has also been raised by the operator of Tythegston Kennels over turbine noise causing possible disturbance and distress to dogs at the premises. However,
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
there is no evidence that this is a significant issue. The appellant has canvassed a range of bodies and authorities in an attempt to investigate this matter. In the light of the minimal available evidence I give little weight to this matter as an argument why planning permission should be withheld.
Other matters
62. I have considered all other matters raised by the parties and interested persons. I have considered the implications of the proposed development in terms of any effects on heritage assets other than those already dealt with, in accordance with the duties upon me in relation to these matters. I am satisfied that there would be no adverse effects on the character or the appearance of the Tythegston Conservation Area. Similarly, no harm would be caused to the setting of the grade II* listed Tythegston Court, nor to any other listed building. Neither would the setting of the registered Park and Garden at Tythegston Court be harmed, due to the screening effects of intervening mature woodland. The registered Margam Park lies at such a distance that its setting would not be harmed by the development. Although part of the area of Merthyr Mawr Warren is a scheduled ancient monument (SAM) containing archaeology beneath the sands, for most of the scheduled area there would be no visibility of any part of the turbines. Having regard to the limited extent of intervisibility and the distance of the turbines from the SAM I conclude that there would be no harm to its setting.
63. The ES covers other aspects of the significant environmental effects of the proposal, including highways matters and habitats. No other evidence has been submitted which leads me to conclude that the proposal would have unacceptable effects in these terms.
64. In reaching my decision I have taken into account the fact that a large number of objections were submitted in response to the application. I have had regard to all the material matters raised by those objections. However, objections to a proposal, however many in number, must be assessed against the specifics of the proposal, the policy framework against which it falls to be considered, and an objective consideration of the available evidence. Having considered all of these matters, I am satisfied that the submitted evidence demonstrates that the two turbines, whilst undeniably large features in the landscape, would nonetheless be acceptable in this location.
Conditions
65. The conditions that would be appropriate in the event of a decision to grant planning permission are largely agreed between the parties. In addition to the statutory time limit for commencement of development, conditions time-limiting the duration of the permission and requiring the subsequent restoration of the site and decommissioning of any turbine failing to produce electricity for a continuous period of 12 months are necessary given the short term and reversible nature of the development (conditions 2-4). In order to secure a visually satisfactory form of development conditions are needed relating to the direction of rotation of the turbine blades, restricting illumination of the development and restricting above-ground cabling (conditions 5, 7, 8). To secure the visitor centre and interpretive facility benefits of the proposal a condition is needed to ensure their provision (condition 9).
66. Prior approval of the details of the proposed substation is required, to ensure that this aspect of the development is appropriate to its location (condition 12). Agreement of
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
arrangements for a programme of archaeological work is needed to ensure that any archaeology is properly investigated (condition 13). Conditions relating to a construction environmental management plan and a construction method statement are needed to ensure that potential environmental and amenity effects of the construction phase of development adequately regulated and mitigated (conditions 14 and 17). Conditions relating to details of drainage works and hydrogeological investigation are necessary, in the interests of avoiding pollution of the water environment (conditions 15 and 16). Conditions are required to regulate various highway aspects of the development, in the interests of highway safety (conditions 18-21). Whilst a condition is needed to regulate the hours of construction work on the site, in the interests of residential amenity, I share the appellant’s view that imposing a peak hour exclusion of 0800 to 0900 is unjustified (condition 23).
67. Conditions 24-34 are needed to ensure that the noise effects of the wind turbines when operational are within the ETSU-based parameters determined as acceptable. For the reasons I have given above, I do not consider, on the available evidence, that an additional condition specifically concerning possible EAM effects is necessary.
68. Turning to other matters where there is a measure of disagreement, whilst the description of the development specifies the maximum height of the turbines as being 125 m to blade tip, the description does not include a maximum height to hub. The submitted turbines drawing showing a height of 80 m to centre line of hub is titled "Typical Wind Turbine" and labelled as an indicative drawing. Whilst I recognize that this is the basis on which development has been assessed, and the proportion of tower and blade is approximately the same for turbines of this class, nonetheless there are slight variations from model to model. It is reasonable to allow some flexibility in the precise choice of turbine, and I consider that a restriction of a maximum height of 85 m to centre line of hub, in combination with the established maximum height of 125 m to blade tip, would provide this whilst also ensuring that the broad parameters in which the turbines were assessed substantively maintained. Condition 6 therefore reflects this.
69. Given the parameters defined for size of the turbines and the agreed conditions setting acceptable noise limits I consider it unreasonable to impose an additional condition requiring approval of the make, model and warranted sound power level of the turbines. However, I agree that the details of the external appearance, including colour and surface finish, of the turbines and any unit transformer housing should be regulated, in the interests of visual amenity. Condition 10 therefore deals with only these latter matters.
70. As regards the precise siting of the turbines, I consider that some margin of tolerance is reasonable, in order to accommodate any specific micro-siting issues that may emerge. However, it is equally important that any adjustment to the siting of the turbines does not result in increased impacts upon the dwellings closest to the proposed turbine locations. Condition 11 therefore allows what I consider to be a reasonable degree of tolerance in relation to detailed siting, whilst avoiding undue increased impacts upon neighbouring occupiers as a result.
71. The appellant has put forward a condition requiring measures to be agreed to address shadow flicker, should it occur. I agree that a condition to deal with this matter is necessary. Whilst I note the Council's comments concerning the practicality of such a condition, in my view an appropriately worded condition is possible. Condition 22 provides what I consider to be a satisfactory, enforceable and reasonable means of addressing this issue. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 16
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
Overall conclusions and balancing
72. Based on the evidence, I conclude that the development would clearly have a significant visual impact upon its surroundings. However, having considered all aspects of its visual effects, I find no impact in this respect of such magnitude as to seriously harm the character, appearance or amenity of the locality, whether from the perspective of the resident population or others visiting, holidaying or otherwise passing through the area. In terms of visual effects for occupiers of individual dwellings in the vicinity of the site, there are no instances where the impact would be so significant as to harm the living conditions of such occupiers.
73. As to landscape effects, I conclude that the characteristics of the landscape around the site are such that the development would acceptably integrate with its surroundings in visual and sensory terms. Aside from the issues concerning the nearby registered historic landscape of Merthyr Mawr, Kenfig and Margam Burrows and the Glamorgan Heritage Coast there are no material adverse effects in terms of the other aspect layers identified by LANDMAP. No other specific heritage assets or areas subject to local landscape protection designations would be harmed by the development.
74. Effects on the Merthyr Mawr, Kenfig and Margam Burrows historic landscape would be restricted to indirect visual effects. Whilst there would be limited views, at a considerable distance, of parts of the turbines and mast from within the historic landscape, this would not be so significant as to materially detract from the appreciation or understanding of the historic landscape. In views into or across the historic landscape from outside, the visual impact of the development would not be such as to significantly compromise appreciation or understanding of the historic landscape. The settings of key assets within the historic landscape would not be harmed.
75. Effects on the Glamorgan Heritage Coast would likewise be limited to indirect visual effects. These would not materially harm the integrity or scenic value of the designated area, or its character and amenity.
76. There are no substantive matters concerning cumulative impacts which weigh against the proposal.
77. Potential adverse effects arising from shadow flicker can be addressed by means of a condition. Unacceptable noise effects are unlikely, and conditions can be imposed to ensure that undue harm from noise, should it arise, can be addressed.
78. The development is satisfactory in other respects, subject to imposition of appropriate conditions to regulate matters where necessary.
79. Assessed against the development plan, I conclude that the proposal is compliant with policy U2 concerning exploiting wind energy in principle, in the light of my conclusion that there would be no adverse visual effects sufficient to characterise the development as visually intrusive in relation to either the Merthyr Mawr, Kenfig and Margam Burrows historic landscape or the Glamorgan Heritage Coast, and no material adverse effects on other designated landscape areas or heritage assets. In the light of my conclusions that, subject to conditions, there would be no harm to living conditions in terms of visual effects, shadow flicker or noise effects I conclude that the proposal satisfies policy U3 concerning detailed considerations for wind energy developments.
80. Turning to other policies of the development plan, I find no conflict with policy EV1 given the identification in that policy of utility service provision as a potentially
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 17
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
acceptable form of development in the countryside. In the light of my detailed conclusions concerning the effects of the development, and bearing in mind the inherently large-scale nature of modern commercial wind turbines, I consider that the proposal satisfies the requirements of policy EV7 concerning the nature, siting, scale and design of rural development. I find no material conflict with policy EV9; given my conclusions on indirect visual effects I conclude that the natural beauty of the heritage coast would not be adversely affected and the visual effects of the development would not be so adverse as to be visually intrusive. As regards policy EV42, I conclude that there would be a minor element of conflict with this policy, since there would be minor adverse indirect visual effects on the historic landscape of Merthyr Mawr, Kenfig and Margam Burrows. However, as I have indicated, the extent of adverse effect, and hence the degree of conflict with policy EV42, would be marginal. There would be no conflict with policy EV 45, since the residential community of neighbouring occupiers would be reasonably protected.
81. Although the Council expresses concern about a 5 MW wind power scheme outside of the SSA, there is nothing in the development plan to support such a stance. The UDP does not contain locational policies relating to developments of 5 MW or more, or any other threshold for that matter. TAN 8 does not preclude or discourage in principle the consideration of 5 MW wind energy developments outside SSAs. Whilst TAN 8 recognizes that outside SSAs is there is a balance to be struck between the desirability of renewable energy and landscape protection, I consider that in this case the proposal strikes an acceptable such balance. I do not consider that the introduction of these two turbines would significantly change the character of the landscape in this area. Taking all factors into consideration, I conclude that the proposed development is consistent with the principles contained in national planning guidance concerning onshore wind energy development.
82. In addition, the government emphasis on providing an increased proportion of energy requirements from renewable sources plainly weighs in favour of the proposal. Also weighing in the balance in favour of the development is the fact that its presence would be for a limited period of up to 25 years, and the development would be reversible at the end of this period. I also conclude that the provision of a visitor centre, trails around the site and interpretive facilities would constitute a benefit, as a facility of general interest and education and also adding to the range of places of interest for visitors and holidaymakers in the Porthcawl area to see. I consider this to carry material weight in this case, given the convenient location of the site in relation to a significant visitor destination of importance to the local economy and the juxtaposition of the site with an existing solar array installation and a permitted anaerobic digestor proposal.
83. Overall, I conclude that the proposal is very largely compliant with the development plan, and moreover is supported by the thrust of government policy. The development would not give rise to adverse effects sufficient to comprise significant substantive objections to the proposal; to the extent that there would be minor adverse visual effects, these are outweighed to my mind by the contribution that would be made to meeting renewable energy targets and the time-limited and reversible nature of the development. Whilst I have found a very minor degree of conflict with the development plan in relation to policy EV42, I consider that the very large extent of accord with the development plan overall and the factors I have identified in favour of the development clearly point to the grant of planning permission.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 18
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
84. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and I grant permission subject to appropriate conditions, as set out in the schedule which follows.
Alwyn B Nixon
Inspector
Schedule of conditions forming part of appeal decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission.
2. The permission hereby granted shall endure for a period of 25 years from the date when electricity is first exported from a wind turbine within the site to the electricity grid network (‘First Export Date’). Written confirmation of this shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority within 1 month of the First Export Date.
3. Not later than 12 months before the expiry date of the permission, a decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme will include:
the removal of all surface elements, plus one metre of the turbine bases below ground level, of the wind farm;
confirmation of the management and timing of works;
a traffic management plan to fully address highway issues during the period of the decommissioning works;
an environmental management plan to cover the decommissioning process providing details of the means of avoidance and mitigation of any impacts on the species and habitats recorded within the development site and pollution prevention measures;
any other works of restoration and aftercare, following consultation with other parties, as the Local Planning Authority in their reasonable opinion deem to be necessary.
The approved decommissioning schemes shall be implemented and completed within 24 months of the expiry date of this permission.
4. If any wind turbine fails to produce electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months the Local Planning Authority shall be notified in writing and, if so instructed by the Local Planning Authority, the wind turbine and its associated ancillary equipment shall be removed from the site within a period of 6 months from the end of that 12 month period unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 19
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
Details of the proposed decommissioning shall first be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
5. All of the blades of the turbines hereby permitted shall rotate in the same direction.
6. The overall height of the wind turbines shall not exceed 125 metres to the tips of the turbine blades and shall not exceed 85 metres to the centre line of the hub as measured from natural ground conditions immediately adjacent to the turbine base.
7. Other than any aviation requirements the turbines shall not be illuminated and there shall be no permanent illumination on the site.
8. All cabling within the site shall be installed underground except where it exits the substation.
9. The proposed visitor centre and associated facilities shall be completed and open to the public within 12 months following the first export date from the wind farm.
10. No wind turbine shall be erected and no external transformer unit installed until details of the external appearance (including colour and surface finish) of the wind turbines and any unit transformer housing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
11. The turbines shall be sited in accordance with the locations shown on the approved layout drawing, subject to a tolerance of 15m in any direction or, with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority, by up to 50 metres. Any variation greater than 15m shall be subject to the following restrictions:
Turbine 1 shall not be micro-sited to a position closer to Coedargraig, Wig-Fach Farm, Greenacres, Fernwen Bungalow or Keeper’s Lodge.
Turbine 2 shall not be micro-sited to a position closer to Keeper’s Lodge, Tythegston Kennels, Cambrian House, Cross Winds, Cae Cornel or Manderlay.|
Any consequential realignment of the associated infrastructure is also permitted. A plan showing the position of the turbines and tracks established on the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within one month of the First Export Date.
12. Notwithstanding the approved plans the construction of the sub-station shall not commence until details of the exact siting, dimensions, appearance and external finishes of the sub-station building, the fencing and surface finish of the compound have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
13. No development shall take place until the applicant/appellant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
14. No development shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall provide full details of the works undertaken including construction timescale, details of the means of avoidance and mitigation of any impacts on the species and habitats recorded within the development site and pollution prevention measures to be implemented during the site preparation and
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 20
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
construction phases of the development. The CEMP shall be implemented as approved.
15. No development shall take place until such time as a scheme for: 1) disposal of any surface water drainage; 2) disposal of any foul water drainage; 3) monitoring of licensed and private groundwater abstractions; has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
16. Prior to the first excavation on site the requirement for a Hydrogeological Impact Appraisal shall be scoped and agreed with the Local Planning Authority. A Hydrogeological Impact Appraisal shall be undertaken, submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority if so required. It shall be implemented as approved.
17. No development, including any demolition, shall take place until a Construction Method Statement have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved method statements shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The statement shall provide for: a) the means of access for construction traffic; b) the loading and unloading of plant and materials; c) the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; d) wheel washing facilities; e) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; f) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; g) details of the construction compound for the proposed development; h) details of any storage facilities for oils; fuels or chemicals. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved.
18. No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of a traffic management plan along the A48, Heol Y Splot and Stormy Lane during the construction of the wind farm; and throughout the temporary highway works along the A48 and Stormy Lane has been submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority and implemented before and during such works.
19. Any gates erected across the proposed accesses onto Stormy Lane shall be set back not less than 10m from the nearside edge of the carriageway.
20. The proposed visitor centre access, car/coach parking and turning areas as shown in Figure 5.9 within Volume 3 of the Environmental Statement shall be completed in permanent materials with the individual spaces clearly demarcated in permanent materials in accordance with the approved layout prior to the visitor centre being brought into beneficial use and retained for the lifetime of the visitor centre.
21. The proposed accesses onto Stormy Lane and visions splays as shown in Figures 13.3 and 13.4 within Volume 3 of the Environmental Statement shall be constructed/laid out and retained as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development and maintained throughout the duration of the construction works. No structure, erection or planting exceeding 0.9 metres in height above adjacent carriageway level shall be placed within the vision splay.
22. No development shall commence until a written protocol relating to the assessment and mitigation of shadow flicker at any affected dwelling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The protocol shall include the identification of relevant dwellings and potential measures to be employed as mitigation in response to any established occurrence of shadow flicker. In the event of a complaint to the Local Planning Authority which the authority considers to be valid and made by the owner or occupier of a drawing which lawfully exists or had planning
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 21
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
permission at the date of this permission, the turbines shall operate in accordance with the approved protocol.
23. Construction work on the site shall be confined to the hours of 0700 - 1900hrs on Monday to Friday inclusive, 0700 - 1300hrs on Saturday with no working on a Sunday or national public holiday, unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority; save for the delivery of abnormal loads which may be scheduled following police advice outside these hours.
24. The rating level of noise immissions from the combined effects of the wind turbines (including the application of any tonal penalty), when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes, shall not exceed the values for the relevant integer wind speed set out in, or derived from, Tables 1 and 2 attached to this condition at any dwelling which is lawfully existing or has planning permission at the date of this permission.
Table 1 ‐ Between 07:00 and 23:00 ‐ Noise limits expressed in dB LA90,10‐minute as a function of the measured wind speed (m/s) at 10 meter height as determined within the site averaged over 10 minute periods
Measured wind speed at 10 m height, m/s Location 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
H8 40.6 41.3 42.0 42.7 43.6 44.5 45.5 46.5 47.7 48.8
H13 43.0 43.0 43.2 43.7 44.3 45.1 45.7 46.1 46.1 46.1
H19 45.5 45.5 45.7 46.3 47.2 48.3 49.6 50.0 50.0 50.0
H25 44.3 44.5 44.9 45.3 46.0 46.7 47.6 48.6 49.8 50.0
Table 2 ‐ Between 23:00 and 07:00 ‐ Noise limits expressed in dB LA90,10‐minute as a function of the measured wind speed (m/s) at 10 meter height as determined within the site averaged over 10 minute periods
Measured wind speed at 10 m height, m/s Location 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
H8 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.7 41.1 42.5 44.0 45.6 47.2
H13 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.6 43.3 45.1 46.9 48.8
H19 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 42.9 46.2 49.1 50.0 50.0 50.0
H25 41.7 41.8 42.2 42.8 43.6 44.7 45.9 47.3 49.0 50.0
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 22
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
Table 3: Coordinate locations of the properties listed in Tables 1 and 2
Location Easting Northing
H8 284938 179963
H13 283515 178484
H19 284144 178377
H25 285181 179140
Note to Table 3: The geographical coordinate references are provided for the purpose of identifying the general location of dwellings to which a given set of noise limits applies.
25. The wind farm operator shall continuously log power production, wind speed and wind direction, all in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d). These data shall be retained for a period of not less than 24 months. The wind farm operator shall provide this information in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) to the Local Planning Authority on its request, within 14 days of receipt in writing of such a request.
26. No electricity shall be exported until the wind farm operator has submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval a list of proposed independent consultants who may undertake compliance measurements in accordance with these conditions. Amendments to the list of approved consultants shall be made only with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
27. Within 21 days from receipt of a written and reasonable request from the Local Planning Authority following a complaint to it from an occupant of a dwelling alleging noise disturbance at that dwelling, the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, employ a consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to assess the level of noise immissions from the wind farm at the complainant’s property in accordance with the procedures described in the attached Guidance Notes. The written request from the Local Planning Authority shall set out at least the date, time and location that the complaint relates to and any identified atmospheric conditions, including wind direction, and include a statement as to whether, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the noise giving rise to the complaint contains or is likely to contain a tonal component.
28. The independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise immissions shall be undertaken in accordance with an assessment protocol that shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The protocol shall include the proposed measurement location identified in accordance with the Guidance Notes where measurements for compliance checking purposes shall be undertaken, whether noise giving rise to the complaint contains or is likely to contain a tonal component, and also the range of meteorological and operational conditions (which shall include the range of wind speeds, wind directions, power generation and times of day) to determine the assessment of rating level of noise immissions. The www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 23
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
proposed range of conditions shall be those which prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise, having regard to the written request of the Local Planning Authority under condition 27, and such others as the independent consultant considers likely to result in a breach of the noise limits.
29. Where a dwelling to which a complaint is related is not listed in Table 3 attached to these conditions, the wind farm operator shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for written approval proposed noise limits selected from those listed in Tables 1 and 2 to be adopted at the complainant’s dwelling for compliance checking purposes. The proposed noise limits are to be those limits selected from the Tables specified for a listed location which the independent consultant considers as being likely to experience the most similar background noise environment to that experienced at the complainant’s dwelling. The rating level of noise immissions resulting from the combined effects of the wind turbines when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes shall not exceed the noise limits approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the complainant’s dwelling.
30. The wind farm operator shall provide to the Local Planning Authority the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise immissions undertaken in accordance with the Guidance Notes within 2 months of the date of the written request of the Local Planning Authority for compliance measurements to be made under condition 27, unless the time limit is extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall include all data collected for the purposes of undertaking the compliance measurements, such data to be provided in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) of the Guidance Notes. The instrumentation used to undertake the measurements shall be calibrated in accordance with Guidance Note 1(a) and certificates of calibration shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority with the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise immissions.
31. Where a further assessment of the rating level of noise immissions from the wind farm is required pursuant to Guidance Note 4(c), the wind farm operator shall submit a copy of the further assessment within 21 days of submission of the independent consultant’s assessment pursuant to conditions 28-30 above unless the time limit has been extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
32. Once the Local Planning Authority has received the independent consultant’s noise assessment required by these conditions, including all noise measurements and any audio recordings, where the Local Planning Authority is satisfied of an established breach of the noise limits set out in Tables 1 & 2 attached to condition 24, upon notification by the Local Planning Authority in writing to the wind farm operator of the said breach the wind farm operator shall within 21 days propose a scheme of remediation for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be designed to mitigate the breach and to prevent its future recurrence, and shall specify the timescales for implementation. The scheme shall be implemented as reasonably approved by the Local Planning Authority and according to the timescales within it. The scheme as implemented shall be retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
33. For the purposes of demonstrating compliance with the levels stated in Tables 1 & 2 attached to condition 24, during the first 12 months of operation the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, employ a consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to assess the level of noise immissions from the wind farm according to the measurement protocol pursuant to condition 28 to be approved by the Local Planning Authority. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 24
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
34. In the event that the proposed turbine model for installation differs from the machine utilised in the ES, a revised noise impact assessment report shall be submitted, demonstrating that predicted noise levels indicate likely compliance with the noise condition levels stated in Tables 1 and 2.
Guidance Notes For Noise Conditions
These notes are to be read with and form part of the noise conditions. They further explain the condition and specify the methods to be employed in the assessment of complaints about noise immissions from the wind farm. The rating level at each integer wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the wind farm noise level as determined from the best‐fit curve described in Guidance Note 2 of these Guidance Notes and any tonal penalty applied in accordance with Guidance Note 3. Reference to ETSU‐R‐97 refers to the publication entitled “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms” (1997) published by the Energy Technology Support unit (ETSU) for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).
Guidance Note 1
(a) Values of the LA90,10‐minute noise statistic should be measured at the complainant’s property, using a sound level meter of EN 60651/BS EN 60804 Type 1, or BS EN 61672 Class 1 quality (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements) set to measure using the fast time weighted response as specified in BS EN 60651/BS EN 60804 or BS EN 61672‐1 (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements). This should be calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 1997 (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements). Measurements shall be undertaken in such a manner to enable a tonal penalty to be applied in accordance with Guidance Note 3.
(b) The microphone should be mounted at 1.2 – 1.5 metres above ground level, fitted with a two‐layer windshield or suitable equivalent approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and placed outside the complainant’s dwelling. Measurements should be made in “free field” conditions. To achieve this, the microphone should be placed at least 3.5 metres away from the building facade or any reflecting surface except the ground at the approved measurement location. In the event that the consent of the complainant for access to his or her property to undertake compliance measurements is withheld, the wind farm operator shall submit for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority details of the proposed alternative representative measurement location prior to the commencement of measurements and the measurements shall be undertaken at the approved alternative representative measurement location.
(c) The LA90,10‐minute measurements should be synchronised with measurements of the 10‐minute arithmetic mean wind and operational data logged in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d), including the power generation data from the turbine control systems of the wind farm.
(d) To enable compliance with the conditions to be evaluated, the wind farm operator shall continuously log arithmetic mean wind speed and wind direction at hub height for each turbine and arithmetic mean power generated by each turbine, all in successive 10‐minute periods, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. During any noise compliance test, the mean wind speed and wind direction shall also be measured on‐site at a height of 10m above ground level. The wind speed measurement shall not be unduly affected by any turbine wake. It is this measured 10 metre height wind speed data which is correlated with the noise measurements determined as valid in accordance with Guidance Note 2, such correlation to be undertaken in the manner described in Guidance Note 2. All 10‐minute periods shall commence on the hour and in 10‐minute increments thereafter. In the event that it is not possible to undertake wind speed measurements at 10m, the wind speed can be measured at another height and converted to a height of 10m according to a method to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 25
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
(e) Data provided to the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the noise condition shall be provided in comma separated values in electronic format.
Guidance Note 2
(a) The noise measurements shall be made so as to provide not less than 20 valid data points as defined in Guidance Note 2.
(b) Valid data points are those measured in the conditions specified in the agreed written protocol under condition 28 of the noise conditions, but excluding any periods of rainfall measured in the vicinity of the sound level meter. Rainfall shall be assessed by use of a rain gauge that shall log the occurrence of rainfall in each 10 minute period concurrent with the measurements periods set out in Guidance Note 1. In specifying such conditions the Local Planning Authority shall have regard to those conditions which prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise or which are considered likely to result in a breach of the limits.
(c) For those data points considered valid in accordance with Guidance Note 2(b), values of the LA90,10‐minute noise measurements and corresponding values of the 10‐minute wind speed, as measured at a ten metre height wind speed using the procedure specified in Guidance Note 1(d), shall be plotted on an XY chart with noise level on the Y‐axis and the measured 10m mean wind speed on the X‐axis. A least squares, “best fit” curve of an order deemed appropriate by the independent consultant (but which may not be higher than a fourth order) should be fitted to the data points and define the wind farm noise level at each integer speed.
Guidance Note 3
(a) Where, in accordance with the approved assessment protocol under condition 28 of the noise conditions, noise immissions at the location or locations where compliance measurements are being undertaken contain or are likely to contain a tonal component, a tonal penalty is to be calculated and applied using the following rating procedure.
(b) For each 10‐minute interval for which LA90,10‐minute data have been determined as valid in accordance with Guidance Note 2 a tonal assessment shall be performed on noise immissions during 2 minutes of each 10‐minute period. The 2‐minute periods should be spaced at 10‐minute intervals provided that uninterrupted uncorrupted data are available (“the standard procedure”). Where uncorrupted data are not available, the first available uninterrupted clean 2‐minute period out of the affected overall 10‐minute period shall be selected. Any such deviations from the standard procedure, as described in Section 2.1 on pages 104‐109 of ETSU‐R‐97, shall be reported.
(c) For each of the 2‐minute samples the tone level above or below audibility shall be calculated by comparison with the audibility criterion given in Section 2.1 on pages 104‐109 of ETSU‐R‐97.
(d) The tone level above audibility shall be plotted against wind speed for each of the 2‐minute samples. Samples for which the tones were below the audibility criterion or no tone was identified, a value of zero audibility shall be substituted.
(e) A least squares “best fit” linear regression line shall then be performed to establish the average tone level above audibility for each integer wind speed derived from the value of the “best fit” line at each integer wind speed. If there is no apparent trend with wind speed then a simple arithmetic mean shall be used. This process shall be repeated for each integer wind speed for which there is an assessment of overall levels in Guidance Note 2.
(f) The tonal penalty is derived from the margin above audibility of the tone according to the figure below.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 26
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
Guidance Note 4
(a) If a tonal penalty is to be applied in accordance with Guidance Note 3 the rating level of the turbine noise at each wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the measured noise level as determined from the best fit curve described in Guidance Note 2 and the penalty for tonal noise as derived in accordance with Guidance Note 3 at each integer wind speed within the range specified by the Local Planning Authority in its written protocol under condition 28 of the noise conditions.
(b) If no tonal penalty is to be applied then the rating level of the turbine noise at each wind speed is equal to the measured noise level as determined from the best fit curve described in Guidance Note 2.
(c) In the event that the rating level is above the limit(s) set out in the Tables attached to the noise conditions or the noise limits rfo a complainant’s dwelling approved in accordance with condition 29 of the noise conditions, the independent consultant shall undertake a further assessment of the rating level to correct for background noise so that the rating level relates to wind turbine noise immission only.
(d) The wind farm operator shall ensure that all the wind turbines in the development are turned off for such period as the independent consultant reasonably requires to undertake the further assessment or any other assessment to determine compliance with Tables 1 and 2 as attached. The further assessment shall be undertaken in accordance with the following steps:
(i) Repeating the steps in Guidance Note 2, with the wind farm switched off, and determining the background noise (L3) at each integer wind speed within the range requested by the Local Planning Authority in its written request under condition 27 and the approved protocol under condition 28 of the noise conditions.
(ii) The wind farm noise (L1) at this speed shall then be calculated as follows where L2 is the measured level with turbines running but without the addition of any tonal penalty:
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 27
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
(iii) The rating level shall be re‐calculated by adding the tonal penalty (if any is applied in accordance with Guidance Note 3) to the derived wind farm noise L1 at that integer wind speed.
(iv) If the rating level after adjustment for background noise contribution and adjustment for tonal penalty (if required in accordance with note (iii) above) at any integer wind speed lies at or below the values set out in the Tables attached to the conditions or at or below the noise limits approved by the Local Planning Authority for a complainant’s dwelling in accordance with condition 29 of the noise conditions then no further action is necessary. If the rating level at any integer wind speed exceeds the values set out in the Tables attached to the conditions or the noise limits approved by the Local Planning Authority for a complainant’s dwelling in accordance with condition 29 of the noise conditions then the development fails to comply with the conditions.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 28
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr Richard Hadwin ACA Renewable Energy Partnerships Ltd
Mr David Kenyon BA MRTPI Technical Director, AMEC MIHBC
Mr Simon Atkinson BA MIFA Principal Consultant, AMEC
Ms Kay Hawkins BSc BLD CMLI Director, H.B.A Environment
Mr Paul Maile BA Partner, Eversheds LLP
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr Jonathon Parsons DipTP Development Control Team Leader, Bridgend MRTPI CBC
Mr Anthony Gore DipTP Planning Officer, Bridgend CBC
OTHER PARTIES/INTERESTED PERSONS:
Ms Sarah Green BA MLD CMLI CCW/Natural Resources Wales MA
Mr Scott Hand CCW/Natural Resources Wales
Ms Dawn Power CCW/Natural Resources Wales
Cllr Ken Watts Newton Ward Member Bridgend CBC and Porthcawl Town Council
Cllr Cheryl Green Local Ward Member Bridgend CBC
Mr Byron Davies AM Assembly Member South Wales West
Mrs Jean Croft-Baker Local resident
Mr Robert Hopkins Local resident
Mr Stuart Brown Local resident
Mr and Mrs Ball Local residents
Mr Richard Prosser Local resident
Mr Gerald Roberts Local resident
Mr Philip Vaughan Local resident
Mrs Margaret Case Local resident
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 29
Appeal Decision APP/F6915/A/12/2184131
DOCUMENTS
1 Notification Documentation for Appeal Hearing
2 Extract from Register of Landscapes of Outstanding Historic Interest in Wales
3 Historic Landscape Characterisations of Landscape Character Areas
4 Extract of UDP and Proposals Map
5 Schedule of Suggested Conditions and related information
6 Risk assessment information submitted by Mr A Williams (local resident)
7 Civil Aviation Authority certificate of approval submitted by Mr P Vaughan (local resident)
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 30