Case Officer: Sarah Scott File No: CHE/13/00420/FUL Tel. No: (01246) 345786 Plot No: 2/1562 Ctte Date: 18 th November 2013
ITEM 4
INSTALLATION OF ONE (1) MID SCALE WIND TURBINE OF MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO TIP OF 84M AND INCLUDING: UPGRADED AND NEW ACCESS TRACK, A HARDSTANDING AREA, A SMALL SUBSTATION ENCLOSURE, TEMPORARY GUYED METEOROLOGICAL MAST AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE - REVISED HERITAGE ASSESSMENT AND SHADOW FLICKER REPORT RECEIVED ON 17/10/2013 AT LAND TO WEST OF DUCKMANTON AND NORTH OF TOM LANE, CHESTERFIELD, DERBYSHIRE FOR ENERGY PROSPECTS CO- OPERATIVE
Local Plan: Open Countryside / Other Open Land Ward: Hollingwood & Inkersall
1.0 CONSULTATIONS
DCC Highways Comments received 13/09/2013 – see report DCC Planning (inc. DCC Comments received Landscapes) 27/09/2013 – see report DCC Rights of Way Comments received 16/08/2013 – no objections given nearest RoW is some 300m away from turbine location DCC Archaeology Comments received 12/09/2013 – no objections in respect of below ground archaeology given the sites previous open cast history and advise that in respect of designated heritage assets the application is determined in line with English Heritage and local Conservation Officer advice English Heritage Comments received 12/09/2013 and 16/09/2013 – see report Environmental Services Comments received 30/08/2013 – see report Design Services Comments received 20/08/2013 – no objections subject to development according with the Council’s minimum standards for drainage Economic Development No comments received Environment Agency Comments received 15/08/2013 – no objections as proposal is of low environmental risk Yorkshire Water Comments received 16/08/2013 – no objections as YWS observations are not required Bolsover District Council (adj Comments received LPA) 12/09/0213 – concerns raised in respect of the impact of the proposal on the setting of Bolsover Castle; and the wider cumulative impact of various turbine proposals within the landscape of the Castle setting North East Derbyshire District No comments received Council (adj LPA) OFCOM Comments received 19/08/2013 – advising that it is not their policy to advise or get involved with any planning applications National Air Traffic Services Comments received 19/08/2013 – no objections Joint Radio Commission Comments received 19/08/2013 and 28/08/2013 – confirming that they do not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the data provided Ministry of Defence Comments received 18/09/2013 – no objections Civil Aviation Authority No comments received Derbyshire Wildlife Trust Comments received 01/10/2013 and 08/10/2013 – see report Natural England Comments received 10/10/2013 – see report British Horse Society No comments received Coal Authority Comments received 15/10/2013 – no objection subject to condition requiring intrusive site investigations Conservation Officer Comments received 05/11/2013 – see report Ward Members No comments received Neighbours/Site 103 letters of representation Notice/Advertisement received
2.0 THE SITE
2.1 The site the subject of the application comprises of land at the former Arkwright open cast mine, off Tom Lane Duckmanton. The majority of the open cast site has since been reclaimed and the field specific to the application proposals is currently utilised for arable farming.
2.2 Access to the site is from Tom Lane to the south via a track which originally served the open cast site. The residential settlements of Duckmanton, Inkersall and Staveley / Poolsbrook lie to the east, west, and north of the site respectively. At the closest point the site lies 480m from the western fringe of Duckmanton and 1.35km from the eastern fringe of Inkersall. Several periphery dwellings lie to west / south west of the site approximately 600m from the proposals.
2.3 The M1 motorway is approximately 1km to the east of the proposal and links to Tom Lane via Markham Road. The A632 Chesterfield Road runs approximately 1.2km to the south and the Staveley Road / Inkersall Road runs approximately 450m to the west. In addition there are 400kW overhead transmission lines and pylons adjacent the west and north of the site towards Inkersall and Poolsbrook Country Park.
3.0 SITE HISTORY
3.1 CHE/13/00050/EIA - Screening request for a community wind turbine. Decision issued by CBC on 12/02/2013 advising that the proposal was regarded as EIA development which required a subsequent application for the development to be accompanied by an Environmental Statement.
3.2 Notwithstanding the screening opinion by CBC the applicant referred the same screening request to the Secretary of State National Planning Casework Unit (NPCU) for an independent screening decision. The NPCU responded to the applicants screening request on the 08/05/2013 advising that it was their view the development proposals did not constitute EIA development on the basis the matters of visual impact upon surrounding heritage assets could be addressed under normal working practices of the planning process. This over ruled the Councils view on the matter.
4.0 THE PROPOSAL
4.1 The application, which is submitted in full, proposes the erection of a single 84m high wind turbine with associated infrastructure as follows: • a temporary 50m high wind monitoring mast; • a substation adjacent the turbine containing the transformer, switchgear and metering equipment; • an associated hardstanding (for us by the crane during turbine erection); and • a 175m improved access track (inc. alterations to the existing track junction at Tom Lane).
4.2 The candidate turbine will be the 500kW Enercon E48 wind turbine which has a hub height of 60m, a rotor diameter of 48m and thus a maximum height to tip of 84m. The application submission details 3 no. further candidate turbines which all have a tip height of 84m, however should an alternative turbine be chosen the applicant indicates that any substitute will be required to match or better the environmental performance of the candidate turbine which forms the basis for all the assessments accompanying the application.
4.3 Prior to the installation of the wind turbine it is proposed that a temporary wind monitoring mast 50m in height will be erected on the same site to measure wind speeds and collect data. The mast, which will include an anemometer, is secured by guy ropes which are attached to 4 no. anchoring points which are sited at a radius 25m from the base of the mast. The guy ropes will extend from the mast at 5 no. vertical points (at intervals of approximately 9.4m, 18.8m, 28.1m, 37.5m and 47.0m).
4.4 The substation proposed will measure 5.1m x 3.1m x 2.5m high and will be located 31.5m south of the turbine. The hardstanding, also created to the south of the turbine itself, will measure 20m x 30m and will be accessed from a new 4m wide access track (incorporating 28m radius corners) created from the existing track located to the east of the site. Modifications are also proposed to the junction of the existing access track at Tom Lane to temporarily remove the fencing and gates and create a 28m radius track to allow access for construction vehicles.
4.5 In the application submission the proposed turbine is described as a community project and it is the applicants’ intention to set up a new co-operative to assist in raising capital to fund the turbine development. The creation of the co-operative will give local people an opportunity to invest in the project and become a member of the co-operative. The applicant submission details that local community will be offered the opportunity to invest between £250 and £20,000 in the project and thereafter revenue made from the sale of electricity generated by the turbine will be re-distributed to members of that co-operative proportionate to their investment. The applicant proposes that the co-operative will pay a proportion of the revenue generated to a local community fund (approx 1.5 – 2%, estimated to amount to between £5,000 and £7,000 per annum). It is the intention of the applicant to set up a Community Trust, to manage the community fund (in consultation with the local community).
4.6 The application is accompanied by the following additional documentation: Planning Application Documentation Booklet and Environmental Report; Planning Statement; Ecological Report (prepared by Wild Frontier Ecology) June 2013; Noise Assessment (prepared by ION Acoustics Ltd) May 2013; Heritage Assessment (prepared by CgMs Consulting) June 2013; Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (prepared by Viento Environmental Limited) June 2013. In addition to the above the application submission also contains documentation in respect of Initial Site Investigations, Screening, Aviation, Shadow Flicker and Telecom Utilities and TV.
4.7 A revised copy of the Heritage Statement (correcting a scaling error) and an addendum to the Shadow Flicker Assessments (expanding the assessment to include Duckmanton Primary School) were received on 17/10/2013.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 National / Local Planning Policy
5.1.1 The application site is situated on open countryside / other open land as defined in the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011 - 2031. Having regard to the nature of the application proposals the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy apply.
5.1.2 The NPPF (paragraph 98) directs that when determining planning applications for renewable energy development, Local Planning Authorities should: • not require applicants for renewable energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and • approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, LPAs should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable sites.
5.1.3 Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy 2011 – 2031 states the Council will support proposals for renewable energy generation particularly where they have wider social, economic and environmental benefits, provided that they: • minimise adverse impact on the historic environment including designated heritage assets; • minimise adverse impact on the natural landscape and townscape character; • minimise adverse impact on nature conservation; • minimise adverse impact on amenity - in particular through noise, dust, odour and traffic generation; • reduce impact on the open countryside by locating distribution lines below ground where possible; and • include provision to reinstate the site if the equipment is no longer in use or has been decommissioned. Subject to above, there will be a presumption in favour of proposals for generating energy from wind in areas more than 350m from existing buildings.
5.1.4 Renewable energy developments are widely accepted and solely having regard to the location of the turbine being proposed, the principle of the development in policy terms is acceptable. Detailed assessment of the local potential impacts of the development must however be considered and in this regard the sections of the report that follow look at each issue in turn.
5.1.5 In addition to the policy framework set out above regard should also be had to guidance issued by the Government in respect of the assessment of renewable energy proposals which accompany the NPPF: National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure - July 2011 (NPS EN-3); and the latest Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy - July 2013 (PPG-RLCE).
5.1.6 The PPG-RLCE above sets out clearly what the planning considerations are in respect of wind turbine proposals. These include noise, electromagnetic interference, ecology, heritage, shadow flicker/reflected light, energy output, and cumulative landscape and visual impacts. The guidance also advises consideration of decommissioning and this set of considerations are incorporated into policy CS5 of the recently adopted Borough Council Core Strategy.
5.2 Noise
5.2.1 In respect of noise the PPG-RLCE guidance clearly states that LPAs should use the ETSU-R-97 guidance ‘The assessment and rating of noise from wind farms’ and the Institute of Acoustics good practice guidance on noise assessments of wind farms to assess the potential impact of noise arising from a wind turbine proposal.
5.2.2 The application submitted is accompanied by a Noise Assessment undertaken by ION Acoustics dated May 2013 which presents the assessment of the proposed wind turbine in respect of the recognised guidelines.
5.2.3 ETSU-R-97 guidance advises on noise limits for wind turbines which are considered to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development. Where predicted noise levels are low at the nearest residential properties, a simplified noise limit is suggested such that noise is restricted to an LA90 level of 35dB(A) for wind speeds up to 10ms-1 at 10m height.
5.2.4 The assessment indicates noise levels from the candidate turbine would not exceed the lower noise limit stated by ETSU-R-97, and furthermore the Council’s Environmental Services officer has reviewed the Noise Assessment submitted and offered the following comments:
I have inspected the above application, with particular reference to the projected noise levels which will be caused in its operation.
The information supplied by the applicant indicates that the turbine will produce broad spectrum noise, with a slight increase at higher frequencies which will be noticeable as a high tone, or whine. However, given the decay of sound with distance, due to dispersion and ground absorption, the sound from the turbine should not cause appreciable disturbance due to the high ambient noise levels in the area from the constant traffic flows on the nearby M1.
5.2.5 The existing noise climate at nearby noise sensitive receptors (nearest dwelling) is likely to be greater than the noise levels produced by the turbine due to the site’s proximity to the M1 motorway and other local roads. The effect of noise from the proposed turbine at nearby noise sensitive receptors is therefore likely to be minimal and would not justify refusal of planning permission. Indeed the Councils adopted Core Strategy indicates a presumption in favour of such development over 350 metres from any dwelling. In this case the nearest building is 460 metres away from the proposed turbine siting (Duckmanton school).
5.2.6 Notwithstanding the above however, it is not clear from the noise assessment submitted whether background noise readings specifically from nearby properties have in fact been undertaken (as these results are not presented in the application submission). Therefore it would be reasonable to require the applicant undertake such readings and provide full evidence that the background noise readings around the site are as indicated in the noise assessment and that the assumptions made are correct. Appropriate planning conditions can be imposed, if permission is granted, to secure the undertaking of the works described above and further secure compliance with the noise limits and parameters set out in the ETSU-R-97 guidelines.
5.3 Electromagnetic Transmission Interference
5.3.1 PPG-RLCE guidance indicates that wind turbine proposals can potentially affect electromagnetic transmissions (e.g. radio, television and phone signals) and OFCOM act as a central point of contact for identifying consultees relevant to the specific application site.
5.3.2 In respect of the application the Council consulted with OFCOM, National Air Traffic Services, the Joint Radio Commission and the Ministry of Defence all of whom responded to the consultation raising no specific objections to the single wind turbine proposal. The response from OFCOM did advise separate consultation with JRC and to utilise the online BBC tool for assessing TV reception effects.
5.3.3 Notwithstanding the above it is noted that the applicant undertook a pre-application consultation with various telecommunication, utility and TV reception providers and their results and application recommendations are detailed as part of the application submission documents in paragraphs 1.311 – 1.332. Notably in respect of Television Reception, the applicant has already fed the details of the proposals into the online BBC consultation tool and as part of their submission proposed mitigation measures to assess and where it is proved necessary, undertake measures to resolve the issue of any signal degradation to properties that may be affected by the wind turbine proposals.
5.3.4 It is considered that overall the development proposals do not pose a severely adverse risk to electromagnetic transmission. Where it is acknowledged that the development proposals may interfere with television signals the developer has offered an acceptable mitigation practice to address this, which could be imposed as a conditional requirement of any subsequent planning approval.
5.4 Ecology
5.4.1 In respect of ecological impacts the PPG-RLCE guidance clearly states that LPAs should assess the potential risks of wind turbine proposals in respect of their impacts on birds, bats and other protected species. Natural England Technical Information Note TIN059 sets out appropriate considerations for single large turbine and bats, whilst Natural England Technical Information Note TIN069 sets out appropriate considerations for assessing the effect of wind farm on birds.
5.4.2 The application submitted is accompanied by an Ecological Assessment undertaken by Wildlife Frontier Ecology Ltd dated June 2013 which presents the assessment of the proposed wind turbine in respect of the recognised guidelines. The Ecological Survey included a Desk Study and Field Surveys of the application site and its surrounding area. A Bat Survey was also undertaken which monitored bat activity over 8 nights. The desk survey results include examination local wildlife records of protected species, statutory and non-statutory sites provided by Derbyshire Wildlife Trust; and the field survey results examine localised habitats, and evidence / records of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians in and around the site. The survey reports neutral impacts upon statutory and non-statutory sites, but recognises the turbine development does have potential for very minor localised impacts upon bats and birds. Examination of the survey results indicate that whilst these impacts cannot be eradicated they are considered to be unlikely. The survey concludes that the development is deemed unlikely to result in any negative ecological impacts beyond a minor magnitude for some species at a local scale. The magnitude and probabilities of these potential minor impacts are not sufficient to expect the development to pose a risk to the conservation status of any species or habitat recorded in or around the application site. The survey therefore concludes that the turbine development will have no significant impact on valued ecological interests and recommends a series of avoidance measures to protect local ecological interest during the development phase; and enhancement measures to improve habitat offer beyond a 100m radius of the proposed turbine.
The Council has sought the views of both Natural England (NE) and the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) on the Ecological Assessment presented with the application submission.
5.4.3 Initial comments from Natural England advise that the proposals do not appear to fall within the scope of the consultations that they would routinely comment on however they advise that the lack of specific comment from Natural England should not be interpreted as a statement that there are no impacts on the natural environment, but only that the application is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated sites, landscapes or species. Natural England advise that it is for the LPA to determine whether or not the proposals consistent with national or local policies on biodiversity and landscape and other bodies and individuals may be able to help the LPA to fully take account of the environmental value of this site in the decision making process, LPAs should seek the views of their own ecologists when determining the environmental impacts of this development.
5.4.4 The Council has a service level agreement with Derbyshire Wildlife Trust requiring them to review and advise the Council on any ecological issues arising as a result of development proposals. DWT has reviewed the Ecological Survey submitted and confirmed in their comments dated 01/10/2013 that the surveys and assessments undertaken were acceptable subject to confirmation of a calculation methodology set out in the assessment. Further details submitted by the applicant (prepared by Wild Frontier Ecology) dated 08/10/2013 were confirmed by DWT on the same date to address their methodology queries. The comments provided by DWT concluded that subject to the implementation of the avoidance measures and enhancement measures set out in para 6.1 and 6.2 of the Ecological Assessment they would not raise any objections on the grounds of adverse ecological impact to the development proposals.
5.4.5 In respect of the consideration of the potential impacts of the development proposals on ecology it is considered that the applicant has undertaken and presented an appropriate assessment that is conclusive that the development proposals will not, beyond a minor magnitude for some local species, adversely impact upon valued ecological interests. Furthermore the developer has offered appropriate avoidance and enhancement measures to mitigate these limited effects, which could be imposed as a conditional requirement of any subsequent planning approval.
5.5 Heritage
5.5.1 PPG-RLCE guidance indicates that because the significance of a heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence, but also from its setting, careful consideration should be given to the impact of wind turbines on such assets.
5.5.2 In accordance with the PPG-RLCE guidelines above the application is accompanied by the submission of a Heritage Assessment undertaken by CgMs Consulting dated June 2013. The Council has sought the views of English Heritage and DCC Archaeology and its own Conservation Officer on the Heritage Assessment presented with the application submission.
5.5.3 There are no recorded heritage assets within the application site however the accompanying Heritage Assessment identifies those which lie within a 5km radius of the application site. These include:- 10 scheduled monuments; (including Tapton Mott in CBC) 19 grade I and grade II* listed buildings; (including II* at Tapton House, Tapton Grove, The Hagge, Staveley Church in CBC) 2 registered parks and gardens; and 4 conservation areas. (including Staveley in CBC) In addition there are 5 grade II listed buildings which lie within a 2km radius of the proposed turbine. These include: Inkersall Farmhouse; (CBC area) Poplar Farmhouse; (CBC area) Cherry Tree Farmhouse; Barn at Manor Farm; and Manor Farmhouse
5.5.4 The accompanying Heritage Assessment concludes that the development proposed will have no direct impacts on any designated heritage assets including their setting detailed above. Furthermore the application is accompanied by detailed visual assessments of the proposals from both Bolsover Castle and Sutton Scarsdale Hall.
5.5.5 It is the view of DCC Archaeology that the Heritage Assessment undertaken meets the requirements as set out in paragraph 128 of the NPPF. DCC Archaeology has confirmed, given the sites previous land use and history that there is unlikely to be any retained archaeological potential at the site and therefore archaeological requirements / planning conditions are not necessary. DCC Archaeology has also indicated that it is their view the visual impacts of the proposed development are best assessed by English Heritage and the application should be determined in line with their views.
5.5.6 English Heritage has reviewed the application proposals and has offered the following comments:
Proposals for wind turbines in this area of the Doe Lea Valley have the potential to affect the setting of Sutton Scarsdale Hall and Bolsover Castle – both heritage assets which are designated at the highest level (Grade I listed and scheduled) as being exceptional national interest. Both these assets were deliberately sited by their owners to command a highly visible position on the Doe Lea Valley. Their architecture is specifically designed to both take in views across the valley and to allow views to be gained of the buildings. This stretch of the Doe Lea can be considered as something of a Millionaires Row with Harwick Hall, Sutton Scarsdale and Bolsover all proclaiming the wealth and social status of their owners in visual competition with each other. Bess of Hardwick’s Owlcotes (demolished in the 18 th Century) stood near Sutton Scarsdale and would have been a further notable mansion in the Valley.
In this case we would not wish to object to the proposed turbine on account of its impact on the setting of either Sutton Scarsdale Hall or Bolsover Castle. This is because of the relatively modest size of the turbine and its location – to the north west of both assets with views filtered by existing development at Markham Vale Enterprise Zone and Duckmanton.
English Heritage has not considered the impact of the proposal on Grade II listed assets. In particular Inkersall Farmhouse appears to be in close proximity to the turbine. We would refer your authority to our guidance document on The Setting of Heritage Assets (October 2011).
5.5.7 In view of the advice from English Heritage above, the Council’s Conservation Officer has considered the proposals and their potential impact upon the surrounding grade II listed buildings and offered his following comments:
‘The Heritage Statement submitted suggests that there will be no direct impacts on any designated heritage asset. The effect on the significance of designated assets within the surrounding of the site has been assessed and has established it as being no more than a minor adverse on designated heritage assets therefore mitigation measures are not required in relation to designated heritage assets. I do not fully agree with this statement given that while the proposed turbine would not intrude any views or erode the significance or setting of designated heritage assets within its vicinity it may not impact on them all equally but in my opinion it will have an adverse impact on the setting of Inkersall Farmhouse a Grade II listed building on which the proposed turbine will be located to a very close proximity (0.64m) and its impact mitigation have not been fully explored.
The Heritage Statement suggests that the significance of Inkersall Farmhouse only derives from its architectural interest. It further suggests that the farmhouse’s setting is only associated with its gardens and farmyard and the turbine will be located beyond this setting. In my opinion this is the confines of farmhouse’s curtilage, the setting is much more extensive than this curtilage. I agree that the significance of a heritage asset lies primarily in their inherent fabric and architecture however “the significance of a heritage asset derives from not only on an asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting” as defined in the NPPF. Setting cannot therefore be definitively and permanently described as a spatially bounded area. The ‘Framework’ further defines the setting of a heritage asset as the surrounding in which it is experienced and its extent is not fixed.
Inkersall Farmhouse is located in a countryside area and its relatively undeveloped surroundings are likely to contribute to its attractiveness and appreciation. In my opinion, the agricultural landscape surrounding the farmhouse including land on which the turbine would be sited effectively forms part of the setting of the farmhouse and associated buildings. The experience of the setting of Inkersall Farmhouse is therefore not only related to its fabric and curtilage but also to its historic interest as part of a relatively unchanged traditional, distinctive and historic landscape. Within this landscape the experience of setting includes all these; they are interrelated.
The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment clearly indicates that “there are individual properties within 3.8km of the proposed turbine which may gain open views of the proposed wind turbine and which could expect a significant effect on their visual amenity”. At the same time, the Heritage Statement assessment describes the impact to Inkersall Farmhouse that “the visual change to the setting in the direction of the turbine will have a neutral contribution to its significance as a heritage asset and therefore there will be no effect on its significance”. This appears to underplay its significance and impacts to a degree.
The practice guide to PPS5 states that the extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual considerations. Views of or from an asset play an important part in the way it is experienced. Development or change capable of affecting the people’s experience of it can be considered as falling within its setting. The turbine would be a very prominent feature on the skyline when viewed from the farmhouse and its associated buildings although it is indicated that there are some trees to its foreground but no assessment has been mentioned on seasonal variations. The turbine would also appear as a feature unrelated to its immediate agricultural landscape which provides a historic link with the listed building. Therefore, due to the height and size of the proposed wind turbine and the close proximity to Inkersall Farmhouse (0.64km) this effect will be significantly experienced from the farmhouse as an almost complete structure as well as a significant change in view at its close proximity affecting considerably the setting of the listed building. In so doing will detract from the setting of this nationally important and of special interest building.
In my opinion, the adverse effect of the proposed wind turbine on Inkersall Farmhouse will have a serious adverse impact on its setting. Change of this nature will compromise the significance and appreciation of the heritage asset and may even affect the economic value of the listed building for a generation.
I have considered the effect of “setting” as a concept enshrined in statute in respect of listed buildings whereby Section 66 of P(LBCA)Act 1990 places a duty to have special regard to desirability of preserving the building or its setting. I have also considered guidance provided in NPPF, Local Plan and English Heritage guidance on setting.’
5.5.8 The Conservation Officers concerns relate mainly to the impact on the setting of Inkersall Farmhouse asset. The aerial photograph below illustrates the setting of Inkersall Farm relative to the application site (located to the east). The farmhouse dates back to the early 19 th Century and remains an operational dairy farm.
5.5.9 As the crow flies Inkersall Farm is located approximately 650m west of the proposed turbine and is visible from the application site given the valley topography of the application site relative to this building. The accompanying Heritage Assessment concludes that the proposed development is located beyond the garden and farmyard of this building and is therefore located beyond the listed buildings setting.
5.5.10 This interpretation of setting is clearly wrong as referred to by the Conservation Officer, as guidance contained in the NPPF and also issued by English Heritage clearly states that setting is the surrounding in which an asset is experienced. The “setting of a heritage asset” is defined in the Glossary of the NPPF as, ‘ The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral’.
The National Planning Policy Framework says:- Paragraph 132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.
Paragraph 133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: ● the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and ● no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and ● conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and ● the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.
Paragraph 134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
5.5.11 The Conservation Officer does not indicate whether the impacts of the proposal on the significance of the asset are considered to be ‘substantial’ harm or ‘less than substantial’ harm. In this instance it is first and foremost observed that the development proposed will not threaten the existence of the listed building itself, and in the case of determining what would constitute ‘substantial’ harm to a listed building, its physical loss would represent the worst case scenario. The proposed development of a wind turbine 650m away from the building will not result in the loss of the listed building itself, therefore it becomes necessary to define what would be considered to constitute ‘substantial’ harm to the setting of the listed building.
5.5.12 Substantial harm to the setting of a listed building might include a development which would permanently change the prevailing character and appearance of the landscape and setting in which the heritage asset is appreciated. This might include redevelopment of the areas surrounding the building for housing for example, where the character of the fields setting would be permanently changed by the introduction of a new housing estate for example. It might also include the introduction of a feature within the landscape which changes the visual experience of the heritage asset to a point where the building itself is no longer appreciated because of the visual intrusion of a development, such as a wind turbine.
5.5.13 There is no doubt that the turbine will be visible in the area including from listed buildings. Indeed it is possible to see the 6 turbines at Penny Hill in Rotherham from the Inkersall Farm but the impact on its setting is clearly insignificant. The setting of Inkersall Farmhouse was in the past quite significantly changed by the opencast works which took place in and around Arkwright and Duckmanton, however these works were not prevented from taking place by the fact they would for a time change the setting of the nearby listed buildings. The lesson learnt from this was that the opencast works were completed and the landscape was restored to an acceptable state of amenity without any detriment to the nearby listed buildings.
5.5.14 It is accepted in the NPPF that the character and use of a listed buildings setting is ever evolving and can change and it is an entirely unsustainable view to consider that just because a development will feature in the setting of a listed building that has not yet been experienced, it will contribute ‘substantial’ harm.
5.5.15 When standing on the public footway adjacent Inkersall Farmhouse it is unlikely that the wind turbine would actually be seen in the same context as the listed building because of the existence of woodland and landscaping located on intervening land and around the listed building. Furthermore when considering that the principle elevation and orientation of Inkersall Farmhouse is to the south, beyond which the building is heavily screened by its own large-scale agricultural buildings associated with the dairy farm operation, it is considered there are no views in the immediate surrounding area where both the farmhouse and the turbine would be competing for visual appreciation. Only at more distant vistas would both features be seen in the same context (all be it limited), and it is clear from the views expressed by English Heritage that this in itself is not considered to constitute ‘substantial’ harm.
5.5.16 The primary views of Inkersall Farm, in so far as its setting is appreciated, are very local to the building and which are generally limited to the approaches from Staveley Road from the south, Inkersall Road from the north and Inkersall Green Road from the west. Because of the topography and landscape features which exist and other intervening buildings, the appreciation of the listed building asset is not affected by the proposed turbine since it is unlikely the two would be seen competing together. It will be possible to see the turbine in front of the listed building from Duckmanton across the valley or see the turbine behind the listed building from Inkersall however the listed building is generally hidden and obscured in such views and the asset is not appreciated in this context such that the impact would certainly be less than substantial.
5.5.17 Furthermore the proposed development is sought for a period of 25 years, after which the development proposals will be decommissioned and removed from site. This constitutes what is deemed to be the typical lifespan of a wind turbine. Bearing this in mind and having regard to the fact the development site will be remediated following the development decommissioning, the development proposals could only be considered (because of the their visual imposition in the same landscape setting) that they constitute nothing more than ‘less than substantial’ harm upon the setting of the listed building.
5.5.18 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF clearly states that where there is ‘less than substantial’ harm upon a designated heritage asset the harm should be weighted against the benefits of the proposed development. In this instance it is not considered that the minimal visual impact on the heritage assets outweighs the low carbon credentials of the proposals such that the development should be refused.
5.5.19 Given all of the considerations set out above, contrary to the comments of the Conservation Officer it is not considered that the development proposals contribute a significant adverse visual impact upon the setting of any listed building to a point constituting ‘significant’ harm and which justifies the refusal of planning permission.
5.6 Shadow Flicker
5.6.1 Shadow Flicker is the effect potentially created by the erection of wind turbines in close proximity to properties. The effect is created as a result of sun shadow cast from the turbine blades crossing a window of a property, therefore the impact is only prevalent on properties in the UK orientated to the north of a turbine.
5.6.2 NPS EN-3 details the appropriate measure of the effects of shadow flicker. These are stated for UK latitudes as 130 degrees either side of north; and within 10 rotor diameters of a wind turbine (in the case of the proposal 480m).
5.6.3 The application submission correctly concludes that there are no dwellings within the 480m arched shadow flicker zone and the application is accompanied by a data output of the closest dwelling (9 West Crescent, Duckmanton which is 480 metres away) indicating there will be no instances of shadow flicker affecting the property. Notwithstanding this however, the NPS EN-3 guidance states that both dwellings and places of work should be assessed and in this instance Duckmanton Primary School does sit on the periphery of the 480m arched zone.
5.6.4 The applicant subsequently has submitted additional assessment on 17/10/2013 which concludes there were instances when shadow flicker might have an effect on Duckmanton Primary School. The results presented suggest that these effects would take place on the north western facade of the school for 27 hours a year between 18:35 and 19:24; and on the south western facade for 17.6 hours a year between 18:49 and 19:27.
5.6.5 As a result of these findings officers visited the school to inspect which rooms were in situ on the north western and south western facades of the building. The north western façade comprised of the school hall; and the south western façade school classrooms (as per photographs below). It is the case that the times when the shadow flicker assessment indicate the school may be affected is beyond normal school hours. The school also indicate that the premises is only utilised outside of normal school hours once per week for a karate club, and this was undertake in the school hall.
South Western Elevation North Western Elevation
5.6.6 In cases where shadow flicker is presented as a potential issue wind turbines can be stalled at calculated times of the day / month / year to prevent the impact of shadow flicker from an operational turbine. In the instance of this happening the applicant has indicated that the turbine mechanism can be programmed to stall / shut down to prevent the effect of shadow flicker as calculated, if the issues are observed at the school. Obviously the issue will only present itself if the wind speed, direction and overall weather conditions are all as such that they accumulate to the scenario predicted in the assessment results. The instances of this happening can be measured by light sensors, and wind directions analysis such that the turbine can be programmed if this case is presented. An appropriate condition securing these measures can be imposed as a conditional requirement of any subsequent planning approval such that the effects of shadow flicker can be mitigated against.
5.7 Energy Output
5.7.1 Wind turbines generate power during their ‘cut in’ and ‘cut out’ wind speeds and the proposed Econ E48 turbine has a cut in wind speed at hub height of 3m/s and a cut out speed at hub height of 28-34m/s (storm force 11). The Econ E48 turbine has a rated capacity of 500kW and this capacity will be produced at wind speeds between 13m/s and the cut out wind speed. Up to 13m/s the output of the turbine will vary.
5.7.2 The application is supported by the submission of the applicants own site investigations in relation to the UK Wind Speed Database, where it is indicated average wind speeds of 5.9m/s exist at a height of 45m around the application site. Wind speeds at the proposed hub height of 60m would be higher, but based on the database figures an annual yield of 1,160,000kWh (which allows for 10% loss factor) could be anticipated from the proposed turbine. According to the applicants submission this level of output is sufficient to power 338 households per annum (based on CBC household consumption statistics).
5.8 Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impacts
5.8.1 PPG-RLCE guidance clearly sets out how cumulative landscape and visual impacts from wind turbines should be assessed; as well as setting out what information is needed to assess the impacts. The application submission is supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (prepared by Viento Environmental Limited dated June 2013).
5.8.2 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been prepared based upon a 10km search radius for visual amenity and 5km search radius for landscape character and designations. Cumulative effects have also been studied within a 10km radius. Presentation of the visual analysis comprises of mapping the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) that illustrates which areas of the 10km search radius the proposals (all or in part) will be visible; and further Viewpoint analysis is also presented at seven locations within the ZTV.
5.8.3 In respect of the assessments submitted the Council has sought the views of the Derbyshire County Council Planning Team (inc. their Landscape Officer) which are detailed below:
Landscape Overall the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been prepared in accordance with the relevant guidance, and provides a comprehensive overview of the prevailing landscape and visual baseline for assessing the potential impacts of the proposed development. However, there is no section within the report which sets out the main mitigation measures.
Landscape Assessment The landscape assessment does refer to the Derbyshire Landscape Character Assessment and correctly identifies that the site is located within the Derbyshire Coalfield: Estate Farmlands Landscape Character Type (LCT). The report concludes that the proposed turbine will have little direct impact on the landscape features of the site, other than the loss of 8.0m of hedgerow to accommodate the widening of the site access. It does however state that “the proposed wind turbine would result in a significant adverse effect on the character of the landscape of the Estate Farmlands LCT within a 2km zone”. This is by virtue of the fact that the turbine will introduce a new characteristic to the landscape at odds with its defining characteristics and will be generally visible over this area. It does not, however, go on to conclude that this would generate an unacceptable landscape impact.
Visual Assessment The LVIA includes information relating to the theoretical visibility of the site and the visibility from a number of viewpoints around the site identified and agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The viewpoints represent a range of sensitive visual receptors including residents, walkers, tourists and motorists. Generally, the LVIA suggests that there will be major to moderate impacts on local residents associated with parts of Duckmanton, Arkwright and Inkersall Green, although overall the conclusion in the report (based on the Lavender test) is that none of these impacts would be so significant as to make them unacceptable.
Cumulative Impacts The LVIA also assesses the potential cumulative impact of the proposed wind turbine in association with other wind turbine development already constructed, or awaiting determination. The report concludes that there are limited locations where the proposed turbine would be visible in the same view as with any operational and proposed wind turbines, and that each of these schemes is at least 5.2km from the proposed Arkwright turbine.
Mitigation There is little information in the LVIA relating to proposed mitigation proposals. It is stated that the turbine is to be finished in a mid-grey colour, either RAL 7035 or 7038. However, there is no reference to any replacement planting, for example, to reinstate the hedgerow to be removed as part of the construction phase. There is also no reference to any other landscape enhancement work that might assist in mitigating the local impacts of the proposal, or bringing about general improvements to landscape character or local distinctiveness. There is reference to the fact that the new sub-station will appear as an agricultural building, although there appear to be no details regarding its construction and design.
Overall The LVIA is comprehensive and provides a fair assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed development. The information provided shows that the proposed wind turbine is theoretically visible over a large area, but in reality these views will be restricted by intervening vegetation, localised landform and existing built development. Some distant vantage points to the east and the west are from elevated viewing positions, and as such, will tend to view the turbine against a background of rising land as opposed to being a skyline feature. The most significant visual impacts will be those on properties and footpaths closer to the site where the turbine will be more prominent and viewed against the sky.
However, many properties benefit from their particular orientation and will only have oblique views towards the site. With respect to the assessment of cumulative impacts, the findings of the report that other wind turbine development in the wider area is sufficiently distant from the site as not to be part of the majority of views from around the site, are agreed. The report correctly states that the proposed development will have some impact on landscape character primarily due to the open and unwooded nature of the Estate Farmlands LCT. However, the settled nature of the landscape and the presence of visual detractors (such as electricity pylons) ensures that this is also a landscape associated with built and industrial development, which are mitigating factors in the overall judgement of effects.
Colour will be a mitigating factor and, given the variety of likely backdrops against which the turbine might be viewed, the use of the darker grey (RAL 7038) colour would be preferred. The concept that, as the sub-station will appear as an agricultural building in the landscape, there should be a condition attached to address construction details and/or colour finish is supported. It is urged that any planning permission should also have a landscape condition attached to ensure that any vegetation lost as part of the construction phase will be reinstated, and be subject to a standard 5 year aftercare scheme to ensure that it becomes established. It is also recommended that any planning permission should aim to secure additional enhancement to the local landscape character and bring about further visual mitigation of the proposal. For example, by narrowing down the current bell-mouth to the access point to an agricultural scale (ie. single field gate) together with the replacement of current fence lines with further hedgerow planting to help reinforce local landscape patterns and provide additional screening from views immediately adjacent to the site.’
5.8.4 The landscape in which the proposal is to be sited is that of open countryside in a valley situated between the built settlements of Duckmanton, Inkersall and Arkwright. Associated features in the surrounding area include farm buildings, woodland, a river channel environment, a public footway; as well as man made features such as telecommunications masts, street lighting and electricity pylons (55 metres high) and overhead lines. Because of the siting of the turbine most distant views will see the turbine set against the landform rather than the skyline.
5.8.5 In many instances the development proposals will be visible in conjunction with man made features, predominantly the electricity pylons and overhead lines which cross to the north of the application site. However by virtue of the scale of the development proposal it is accepted that it is not possible , beyond selecting the correct colour for the turbine, to mitigate the visual impact of the turbine on the character of the area.
5.8.6 Notwithstanding the above wind turbines are now, like electricity pylons, an accepted feature of the countryside / landscape and they have been accepted in areas of high landscape and ecological value around the UK. Just because there are currently no turbines situated within the borough of Chesterfield this is not reason in itself to resist acceptance of this type of development, particularly where it is considered that the character of the area is not of any great significance to argue the proposals would result in a negative impact sufficient to justify refusal of planning permission.
5.8.7 The ZTV illustrations accompanying the application submission detail both the ZTV of the proposed turbine within a 10km radius (figure 22 of the application submission); as well as cumulative ZTV of the proposed turbine alongside other turbines which exist within the 10km search radius (figure 23 of the application submission).
5.8.8 The cumulative ZTV illustrations show that within the 10km search radius of the site, 2 no. other operational wind farms / turbines exist. These are the single turbine located at Shirebrook School to the south east of the site and the 3 no. turbines located at Loscar Farm to the north east of the site. The application submission has also illustrated an extended 15km search radius (figure 26 of the application submission) because the 6 no. 132m high turbines recently erected at Penny Hill Lane to the north of the site are also visible from the application site; and 10km search radius results of other proposed turbines (figure 24 and 25 of the application submission).
5.8.9 The result of the ZTV illustrations show that in and around the application site; and extending to the borough boundary of Chesterfield cumulatively the proposed turbine will be visible with the turbines at Loscar Farm and Penny Hill Lane. Notwithstanding this the illustrations clearly show that both Shirebrook School, Loscar Farm and Penny Hill Lane are on the periphery of the 10km / 15km search radius and therefore rather than the cumulative effect being one of resulting turbines in close proximity to each other, the cumulative impact experienced will be one where only distant views of the 3 no. sites may be ascertained at certain points the landscape. It is also likely as a result of the orientational separation and distance between the proposed turbine and the periphery sites detailed that the resultant cumulative impact will be negligible.
5.8.10 Having considered the visual assessment package presented with the application submission and the advice given by the Counties Landscape Officer it is considered that the proposed turbine and its resultant visual impact upon the character of the surrounding area is acceptable subject to the conditions recommended in this report.
5.9 Highways Impact / Transport
5.9.1 Delivery and servicing of a proposed wind turbine development requires careful consideration and the implications of infrastructure improvements can have an impact upon the surrounding area. The application submission document details a dedicated Traffic and Transport section which sets out the project requirements for construction, delivery and future maintenance of the proposed turbine.
5.9.2 DCC Highways has reviewed the application proposals as detailed and make the following comments:
The existing field access onto Tom Lane is left over from the opencast haul road, and is wider than usual. The double gates are set back from the highway and the concrete bell mouth has large entry and exit radii. On this basis, and from the over-sail details on the application plan, it is considered that the construction vehicles will be able to access the site with no modifications required. Whilst I would usually seek that these accesses are reduced in size once the turbine parts are delivered, on this occasion, as this is an existing access, this would seem unreasonable.
The proposed routing of the delivery vehicles is shown as Junction 29A, then through Duckmanton village centre and approaching the site along Tom Lane from the east. Whilst I would raise some concerns regarding the routing of the vehicles through the residential centre it is recommended that early discussions are held with the Council’s Traffic Section (Dave Connell / Dave Bailey) to agree a route.
Subject to the above I would raise no further highway comments.
5.9.3 It is recognised that the construction phase of the development proposals will pose some impact upon the surrounding highway network due to the large-scale haulage requirements involved in the sites development preparation and delivery of the turbine components. The construction timetable is spread over 4 months and will comprise 292 vehicular movements during site mobilisation, site access and infrastructure, construction of the turbine foundations, turbine erection and site restoration. Whilst it is accepted that the traffic / transport impacts will create some level of local disturbance the duration of this impact is limited and therefore minimal. It is not considered that ongoing maintenance vehicles accessing the site throughout the lifespan of the turbine operation will adversely impact the surrounding area or highway network.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order the following public consultation exercises were carried out in respect of the application submission: • three site notices were placed on Tom Lane, Markham Road (Duckmanton Centre) and Erin Road (adj Poolsbrook Country Park Entrance) on 19/08/2013 and a further fourth notice was placed at the junction of Inkersall Road and Inkersall Green Road on 26/09/2013; • a press notice was published in the public notices section of the Derbyshire Times on 29/08/2013; and • thirty one neighbour notification letters were sent to properties on the western fringe of Duckmanton on 16/08/2013; and a further seven letters were sent to properties which align the western edge of the application site (along Inkersall Road and Staveley Road) on 26/09/2013.
6.2 As a result of the public consultation exercise 103 letters (12 support and 91 against) have been received as follows:
Support
7 Ladycroft Paddock, Derby I would like to write in support of the proposed turbine at the Arkwright Colliery site at Duckmanton. I believe the government has neglected putting investment into renewable forms of energy generation and local schemes can help overcome this. Income generated from the turbine will remain locally being cooperatively owned and would not be siphoned off by big investors. A single turbine will have a minimal environmental impact. The turbines production of energy would contribute to national energy policy targets and I think it would be good for local people and help reduce carbon emissions.
57 Fairway Crescent, Derby I support the application for a single wind turbine at Arkwright because we nationally need to generate more energy from renewable resources to meet government targets, the turbine will have little visual impact in an area of not great landscape value, and the turbine will be owned by a cooperative giving local people a stake in it and income from it.
16 Sinfin Moor Lane, Derby I am writing in support of the above application. I am a retired Professor of Industrial Design at Brunel University and as part of my work I made detailed studies of all forms of energy generation and the environmental problems associated with them. This included wind farms. I concluded that since Britain has one of the largest availabilities of wind energy in the world wind power was the most appropriate for us to develop. It is a mature industry and even with emissions from construction etc it is still a low emitter of CO2. Some years ago I invested in wind power. I find wind turbines attractive and even graceful but I am aware that others take a different view. It is important that as far as possible no one should feel like they have been blighted by the erection of a turbine. Local community involvement is a successful way of developing a positive attitude towards wind power. I am supportive of this project in particular because it is a single wind turbine that is not especially large thus reducing its visual impact and any risk of noise nuisance. The turbine will be located on a brownfield site, which again will reduce its impact on the community and as part of a locally cooperatively owned facility it should be able to attract a positive attitude. I live in Derbyshire and I welcome this development. If planning is approved there is a good chance I will invest in the new cooperative and I look forward to saying "yes I am part of that".
The Bungalow, Duckmanton Road (6 letters) Thank you for the information in response to our earlier letter. We came in to look at the plans and both my husband and I have no objections to the proposals. We have visited the Loscar Wind Farm and stood only a few feet away from the turbines there that are larger than the one being proposed. We were surprised how quiet it was. When we first heard about the turbine in Duckmanton it gave us a lift as we felt we had gone up in the world getting something clean in our area. We wish the application success. Apparently a Staveley Town Councillor and Chesterfield Borough Councillor both living in the Poolsbrook area have objected to the planning application as it is on a 'homing pigeons flight path' between Notts and Derbyshire. They insist they are not against a wind turbine in principle. I was wondering if the applicant might agree a position a bit further south on the plot to ease the situation? The wind turbine follows the line of the pylons and the birds do not fly into those but have a problem with the wires. I personally feel the application should not be dismissed without further discussion about possibly moving the position slightly. I think it is in a good position on this plot as it is away from most people's views. I think more education for people who know about turbines is needed for Councillors and the General Public as it seems to be fashionable to object to them when not much is known about them. I have been following with great interest the progress of the above application which John and I fully support. John is a town councillor and nobody has approached him for help about the turbine even though there has been an article in the Derbyshire Times. People who have not seen the plans may have signed the petition type letter on the strength of misinformation. We think that climate change affects bird and wildlife more than wind turbines. Building houses on these fields would kill more wildlife and I think it is unfair to say that wind farms kill wildlife without comparison with other wildlife deaths. In response to the lack of objections it is my opinion that opposing a wind turbine for people locally is not a priority. We visited Loscar Wind Farm on a wet windy afternoon and we stood roadside and were able to hold a conversation in our normal speaking voices. We could hear the sound of the blades but this was no louder than my computer for instance. We also did not see evidence of carcases littering beneath the turbines. At 500/600m no one in Duckmanton will hear the turbine, the motorway noise is too loud. We have also stood on Inkersall Road near the cottages trying to listen for the motorway but it was difficult due to the volume of traffic on the road beside the cottages. I would also comment on house prices being affected – given the history of the surrounding area people will not bother about a clean and green turbine in my opinion. I think we should welcome that someone is enthusiastic about trying to help our area. There are numerous interesting surveys available which discuss impacts of house prices and both side of the argument concerning wind farms and turbines. I think more education is needed on renewable energy as I have learned a considerable amount since following this application. If we are to look to the wider community about these proposals then as a union minded town Chesterfield should look to the electricians union and ask then what is their stance on wind power? Our electrician says they should ‘stick turbines up all over the place’. He has a caravan at Skegness and there is a big wind farm there. The National Farmers Union supports the use of more energy from renewables as well. I am not trying to say that either union would support this particular application but I am saying not everyone is opposed to wind farms / turbines either. As a school governor I know teachers and teaching assistants consider them majestic and relaxing and they tell me they cannot understand why people don’t like turbines. There is a single turbine between Troway and Ford near Sheffield and these owners clearly understand that a turbine secures the area surrounding it as green for the next 25 years. Lucky them. Tesco has been named as one of the top ten green companies and down the motorway there is a large wind farm at the side of one of their distribution centres with signs saying Tesco supports wind power. Again I am not saying Tesco would support this application, but I am reinforcing the message that not everyone is against them – that’s pretty clear. My contact in Shirebrook tells me that the community has received money from their community ownership scheme – not everyone was opposed to the turbine there. An objection raising specific concerns regarding homing pigeons has not been received.
189 Myrtle Road, Sheffield I am emailing to add my support to the wind turbine at Duckmanton. The proposed turbine is well placed on former industrial mining land and this project would be an excellent symbol for the area to show how it is moving from its mining past to a clean, modern and sustainable future. The cooperative plan will allow local people to invest in the scheme and benefit from it, rather than it being a large shareholder owned company with very little accountability to the local community. Modern turbines like the one proposed produce very little noise. I live within 100m of a turbine at Heeley City Farm and close to another 4 within a mile radius none of which I can hear from outside my house above background noise. The turbine will have very little impact on the site as the farming which currently takes place will continue. I think the project will go some way to help the local area tackle climate change which is the greatest threat of our time. Please grant planning permission and show that CBC is committed to doing its part to help the green economy.
Martin Diacon – 7 Whitfield Road, Sheffield I am writing in support of the planning application for a single turbine at the Arkwright Colliery site near Staveley. Energy is becoming a scarce resource and attempts at securing supplies is focussing on increased extraction of traditional carbon sources such as fracking. This will have a knock on effect on the environment and for this reason I fully support green technology. Some see turbines as ugly, others as graceful and calming. In and around Sheffield we have a number of turbines and although they faced hostility initially they have been an accepted part of our landscape – a landscape that over the years has changed from chimneys and furnaces to what we see now. Turbines are needed to secure our future and that of our children. Projects like the one proposed will help meet renewable energy targets. I have shared ownership in several cooperatively owned technologies and the coop model helps the local community take ownership of the project. Returns therefore benefit the local people.
100 Whirlowdale Road, Sheffield I would like to add my support for this application, which represents one of the simplest and easiest opportunities available for the local community to benefit from clean and safe renewable energy. Energy4All have an outstanding record of community involvement and engagement and have unrivalled level of experience with projects of this nature.
Objections
10 Duckmanton Road I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed installation of a wind turbine. I would object on a number of points but most seem to be covered by legislation other than that which applies in this instance. There are a number of points which I could raise but don't have the spare time just now. I do however object and will attend any meetings on this matter to make them.
Noted.
Paul Mann - by email (no address) Please can you give me more information on the proposed wind turbine at Duckmanton. Who has been consulted and any comments / objections you may have? Information provided. May I please put a request to speak at Committee but can I also put the right to withdraw this if and when I find out more and have all the reports. noted
Apple Tree Inn, Stanfree I am writing to formally object to the proposed wind turbine. My reasons for objection are that the turbine will be under 450m from the local school and it has been proven scientifically that wind turbines produce a low frequency that damages people. Plus recently there has been a case in Scotland where a blade flew off. I believe that if you put the wind turbine up it will damage the children of the local school. When are councils going to stop taking these proposals seriously when they are so close to the public, there is plenty of land where turbines can be placed away from the public.
The objectors suggestion of damage to health is not proven and based on guidance issued by DCLG it is not a material planning consideration of wind turbine proposals. The operator of the development will have a duty to ensure that the turbine operates safely. Examples of technology malfunction have been reported, but these are exceptional cases resulting from failings in the technologies own safety systems / mechanisms. The operator will have a duty of care to ensure the equipment is maintained in a safe and operational manner. The potential effects of shadow flicker are addressed in section 5.6 above. The school is outside the 350 metre zone referred to in the Councils adopted Core Strategy.
Dave Lane – by email (no address) We wish to object to the wind turbine application, we know first hand with our own fight in Stanfree the potential damage and health issue associated with wind turbines. My main concern is the close proximity to the school, the pupils will suffer health issues and lack of concentration which will have a devastating effect on their education.
The objectors suggestion of damage to health is not proven and based on guidance issued by DCLG it is not a material planning consideration of wind turbine proposals. The potential effects of shadow flicker are addressed in section 5.6 above. The school is outside the 350 metre zone referred to in the Councils adopted Core Strategy.
10 Beeley Close, Chesterfield I strongly object to this inappropriate proposal for a 84m high wind turbine. I am broadly in favour of renewable energy including that from wind power but this has to be in a viable location that does not impact on local amenity or that might have detrimental social / economic effects on those living nearby. The turbine is simply far too close to residential areas. The turbine will have a massive visual impact and will be visible from miles around. It would certainly devalue properties nearby and deter investment in new development. My daughter is primary school age and I am concerned there will an effect on her and other children in the area. There are studies that indicate noise from turbines affect concentration, cause sleeplessness and have other impacts on health. I hope CBC listens to local people that are against the application and other in the area. The cumulative impact has already begun to take effect with the wind farm at J32 of the M1, Loscar Farm and others planned between Glapwell and Barlborough. The only people who benefit from this are the developers, investors and the landowners who will make an enormous profit at the cost of the tax payer.
The objectors suggestion of damage to health is not proven and based on guidance issued by DCLG it is not a material planning consideration of wind turbine proposals. The potential effects of shadow flicker and visual impact are addressed in sections 5.5, 5.6 and 5.8 above. Property devaluation is not a material planning consideration. It is considered unlikely the development will deter investment in the area.
10 Beeley Close, Chesterfield I wish to object to this proposal for what is being described as a medium scale wind turbine that is more than double the height of any other structure close by. The application will have an impact on local amenity and a detrimental economic effect on those living nearby. This turbine is too close to residential areas and a local primary school. I am concerned there will be an adverse effect on children attending the primary school as there are peer reviewed studies that indicate noise from turbines can affect concentration, cause sleeplessness and have other impacts on health. The turbine is proposed only 450m from the school and is upwind, meaning that noise will be carried in that direction. The landowner however will be approximately 1300m away to the south. Although low frequency noise cannot be heard it doesn’t mean it doesn’t cause harm and children’s health and education should not be risked if there is a chance it will be affected. The wind industry continues to deny that there is a risk in the face of ever increasing evidence – reminiscent of the tobacco / asbestos industry. The turbine will have a massive visual impact and will be visible from miles around. It would certainly devalue properties nearby and deter investment in new development and change the character of the landscape. The cumulative impact has begun to take effect with the new wind farm at J32 of the M1 and Loscar Farm – both of which can be seen from my home. There will be a negative impact on local heritage assets and the turbine will be a dominant feature in the landscape previously renowned for the Castle. English Heritage have already objected to other nearby wind farm proposals. The positive benefits of the application are questionable as demonstrated in a study by Prof Hughes of Edinburgh University. The CO2 saving would be minimal and could in fact be zero or negative. The wind industry consistently fails to point out that backup generation is always required for times when the wind doesn’t blow. This turbine is between two hills, which makes absolutely no sense when you are trying to maximise the amount of wind being captured. Government NPPF Guidance states that Councils do not have to consider whether or not there will be any environmental benefits from wind turbines as they have already made that assessment on our behalf. However in August ’13 a UN legal tribunal ruled that UK Government had acted illegally by denying public decision making powers. Surely this has to be taken into consideration before any decision is made, as the Council could potentially be complicit in an illegal act. There should be a moratorium on any applications in the planning system until the Government has properly consulted with the public . The developers who want to put up turbines have a massive incentive to do so, as there are huge profits to be made at the expense of the taxpayer. The local benefits will be minimal therefore the environmental damage caused and negative impact on nearby residents outweighs these benefits.
The potential effects of shadow flicker, visual impact and noise are addressed in sections 5.2, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.8 above. Furthermore the policy framework against which proposals for wind turbines are to be assessed is set out in section 5.1 above. The objectors suggestion of damage to health is not proven and based on guidance issued by DCLG it is not a material planning consideration of wind turbine proposals. Property devaluation is not a material planning consideration.
Alison Rodger – by email (no address) I am writing to object to the proposed wind turbine at Duckmanton. The turbine is only 450m from a primary school and there is research which demonstrates the inefficiency of wind power compared with other renewable energy sources. The internet is a good source information on the problems of wind power and I suggest the planners take the time to read at least some of the research conclusions. The turbine will be situated less than 1km from some properties, this is unacceptable. Many countries have set minimum separation distance between turbines and properties ranging from 1km to 3km. A Bill is currently making its way through Parliament proposing a minimum distance of 1.5km for a turbine of the proposed size. The noise impact on residents from a turbine less than 1km away will exceed current criteria causing significant disturbance for the residents, especially the low frequency noise which research shows travels further than audible noise creating health problems. If there is a possibility that just one resident in the local area suffers from just one of the known health problems then the application should be refused. The turbine will add very little to the local community and what has been promised is not guaranteed. It will bring only adverse effects in terms of noise, significant visual impact and stagnate the housing market in the area – all of these are barriers to the regeneration of the area. The application should be refused.
The potential visual impacts and assessment of noise are addressed in sections 5.2, 5.5 and 5.8 above. The objectors suggestion of damage to health is not proven and based on guidance issued by DCLG it is not a material planning consideration of wind turbine proposals. Property devaluation is not a material planning consideration. See report for consideration of policy position with regard to such renewable developments.
June Ricketts – by email (no address) I wish to object to the planning application for the wind turbine. It is now well documented that low frequency noise from wind turbines and shadow flicker can have serious adverse effects on children’s health and their ability to concentrate. This turbine is proposed in close proximity to a school and I feel it could have a major impact on the children’s education. Local residents have indicated that they have had no notification of this application and are very concerned permission will be granted due to a lack of objection. As you will know Bolsover DC have recently turned down two applications for turbines taking into consideration all of the above points. I trust will give these comment serious consideration.
The objectors suggestion of damage to health is not proven and based on guidance issued by DCLG it is not a material planning consideration of wind turbine proposals. Details of the public consultation undertaken in respect of the planning application are set out in paragraph 6.1 above and are considered to meet the requirements in this respect. Refusal of applications for turbines in Bolsover District is not relevant since planning applications have to be considered on their individual planning merits.
The Old Vicarage, Gang Lane, Scarcliffe I would like to add my concerns to this application north west of Duckmanton. I am totally against it on the grounds there has not been enough information given out to residents whose lives will be destroyed by this development. Country roads are not wide enough to take such enormous transporters for the delivery of these turbines and I do not believe the public have any idea how large they are. Access to the site will cause untold damage to the rural hedgerows, which most are listed? The destruction of these would have significant detriment for the wildlife. There has been no plans laid out for the enormous pylons which will be part and parcel to this development or to consider underground cables so the landscape will not be further impaired. The visual impact the turbine will have on the historical sites it will undoubtedly overshadow. One has to ask what the government are doing to our land once noted for its beauty. Fulfilling government of its obligations to fulfil its commitment to Brussels – at the expense of rural Britain.
Details of the public consultation undertaken in respect of the planning application are set out in paragraph 6.1 above. Please refer to sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.9 above for considerations in respect of ecology, heritage and highways / transport.
90 Low Road, Clowne I am a resident of Bolsover DC however having been heavily involved in a series of wind turbine applications over the last 18 months in the area where I live I have become acutely aware of the impact they have on the community and the wider area in which they sit. I am opposed to wind turbine development in this area as they would have an impact on the Heritage Assets of Bolsover Castle, Hardwick Hall, Sutton Hall, The Magnesium Limestone Ridge between Barlborough and Hardwick hall and the Vale of Scarsdale. A series of wind turbine applications have been considered by BDC over the last 18 months and have been refused. I feel it is important to point out the cumulative effect all of these development would have on the heritage assets mentioned above. My understanding is that the National Trust and English Heritage have expressed major concerns about this effect. To gain a perspective on the impact on the countryside one only has to look at the recently installed turbines at the M1/M18 junction, they are visible from considerable distances. The Magnesium Limestone Ridge can be viewed from the A632 as it drops into Chesterfield towards Walton and the Town Centre. I believe the turbine could have a significant effect on how the Crooked Spire and Chesterfield itself fits into this landscape and vista. I am acutely aware of the impacts of major turbine developments on the local community and believe no turbine should be approved within 2km of residential properties. This guideline is adopted by many countries. This proposal has housing within 1km and a primary school only 420m away – watching a clip searched under ‘exploding wind turbine’ leaves one in no doubt of the risks to a school within such a short distance. At least 4 other schools can be identified in a 1km radius. Noise, shadow flicker and infrasound can have serious effects on health. The majority of Staveley, Brimington and Inkersall lie within a 2km distance which is unacceptable. I urge you to refuse the application.
Please refer to sections 5.2, 5.5, 5.6 and 5.8 for considerations in respect of noise, heritage, shadow flicker and visual effects. The objectors suggestion of damage to health is not proven and based on guidance issued by DCLG it is not a material planning consideration of wind turbine proposals. The operator of the development will have a duty to ensure that the turbine operates safely. Examples of technology malfunction have been reported, but these are exceptional cases resulting from failings in the technologies own safety systems / mechanisms. The operator will have a duty of care to ensure the equipment is maintained in a safe and operational manner. The school is 460 metres away however the adopted Core Strategy refers to a safeguarding distance of 350 metres. Refusal of applications for turbines in Bolsover District is not relevant since planning applications have to be considered on their individual planning merits. The impact on views of the crooked spire will be nil.
22 Clowne Road, Stanfree I write to object to the turbine proposals and my objections are summarised as follows: low frequency noise will disrupt the education of children and spoiling their life chances; close proximity to dwellings impacting on the local amenity and possibly creating a hazard; and lack of community benefit. In short, the wrong place for this technology.
Please refer to sections 5.2, 5.6 and 5.8 for considerations in respect of noise, shadow flicker and visual effects.
1 Inkersall Farm Cottages, Chesterfield (enclosing with it 41 copies of a standard objection letter – referred to later) We are writing to you regarding the application advertised in the Derbyshire Times dated 29 th Aug ’13. We as residents of the area strongly object to the application. We enclose a copy of some of these objections. This monstrosity will dominate the landscape at 273ft (84m). No one we have spoken to in the immediate area has been informed by letter about the application. Please help.
1 Inkersall Farm Cottages, Chesterfield (enclosing with it 28 copies of a standard objection letter – referred to later) We can find no evidence of a public notice being put near the site of the proposed turbine. We have looked for this over the past 2 weeks and questioned local people who do not know. Could you inform us when and if it was put up and the location and by whom? Community wind turbine, what a sick joke. information provided. Details of the public consultation undertaken in respect of the planning application are set out in paragraph 6.1 above.
1 Inkersall Farm Cottages, Chesterfield (enclosing with it 3 copies of a standard objection letter – referred to later and a copy of the Staveley Independents ‘News of the Ward’) We refer to a paragraph in your neighbour notification letter dated 26/09/2013 from which we quote, ‘Any representations you may wish to make concerning this application should be made in writing to me at the above address before 17 th October 2013. If I do not hear from you by this date I shall assume that you have no objections to the development proposed.’ In such a vital matter for us, in our opinion, this assumption cannot be made. There are various why people may not make representations to you, you cannot assume by this that they are in favour of this application. We put it to you that the wording in your paragraph could be biased in favour of the applicant. We understand Toby Perkins MP has written to you. In his letter to us he mentions proven adverse effect of Wind Turbines on wildlife. Please note that not one of the signatories on the forms we have delivered to you (referred to in the report as the main objection letter) had any previous knowledge of the application – this indicates that who would have made representations have clearly not been included in the application process and we feel this again goes in the applicants favour. The height of the turbine would be 273ft, spoiling the view for miles not just the immediate area – have these people been included in the chance to make representations about the application? It is believed there are plans to build substantial new housing in Duckmanton and other local areas, how can a turbine of 273ft appeal to prospective buyers? We would ask for consideration of the long term implications to our community to be taken into account.
Apart from the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the National Planning Policy Framework which states at paragraph 14 that development proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved without delay (unless material considerations indicate otherwise), it is considered that there is no bias tipped in the favour of the applicant as a result of the consultation procedures. The assumption contained in the consultation letter is also not bias toward the applicant. Whilst it is accepted that receivers of the letter may not respond for any number of reasons, it is concluded that the views of those consulted, whether objecting, supporting or just making comment cannot be taken into account if they are not made known.
1 Inkersall Farm Cottages, Chesterfield (enclosing 4 no. newspaper articles and 2 no. letters from Toby Perkins MP) In your letter dated 14/10/2013 you say you have not received a letter from Toby Perkins MP – however the MP’s offices says you have received and answered such a letter. I enclose my copies of the letter and other relevant material. Toby Perkins MP is sending me a copy of your reply, therefore if there are areas of useful information in it we would require further extension of the period for representation.
The letter which was being referred to had not been received at the time but has subsequently been received and was a copy letter from Toby Perkins MP to 1 Inkersall Farm Cottage. The letter did not include information which would result in the requirement for any extension of the periods for making representation on the proposal .
10 Avondale Road, Chesterfield We would like to let you know our strong objections to the building of a wind turbine between Duckmanton and Inkersall.
Noted – no reason set out for objection.
24 Clarendon Road, Chesterfield Please register our objection to the application.
Noted – no reason set out for objection.
Thomas & Elizabeth Pearson – by email (no address) Although we don’t know a great deal regarding wind turbines, we do know that they are definitely a blot on the landscape. Who is going to benefit from the supposed power the turbine creates? We understand that planning application for turbines in more scenic part of Derbyshire have been turned down, why allow them in our area? What about the noise these turbines create – don’t we have enough noise from the M1? We can only believe that if this application is granted, the planning officers passing the plans do not live near the area where it is proposed. Has there been any public notification of this application. We certainly haven’t come across any. We are country lovers and totally agree with conservation but we absolutely hate to see these monstrosities wherever we travel around the country.
Please refer to section 5.8 for considerations in respect of visual effects. Proposals are considered on their individual planning merits and not on the basis of whether they are close to where planning officers live.
19 Tollbridge Road, Woodthorpe The submission below does not argue for outright rejection of the turbine scheme; however this is a sensitive area, being near to existing housing and in a prominent position which can be seen for miles away (thus affecting views) and appropriate limits and conditions should prevail to minimise the impact both on the local community and the wider area. The applicant did not undertake the required local consultation before submitting the application. There should be a condition that only one turbine is allowed on this site. There should be a condition that the maximum permitted height is no more than 85m. The applicant has chosen to use manufacturer’s data when assessing the suitability of the Duckmanton site – questions are asked about the accuracy of this data. It would be reasonable to assume that noise levels will be 15% worse than stated. The applicant should show that all appropriate safety features, which include close down in adverse conditions, automatic fire extinguishing systems etc are in place in the candidate turbine and should a different turbine be substituted the applicant must demonstrate safety devices are present in the different turbine. It should be a condition that the applicant demonstrates appropriate safety requirements in the chosen turbine before erection is allowed. It should be a condition that transmission lines from Tom Lane should be below ground and pylons or poles only used when areas are reached where they would not be visible from the distance and where there is no great detriment to the surrounding environment. The temporary mast should as unobtrusive as practical and there must be strict 12 month time limit after which it must be removed. No comment is made about the financial arrangements of the project other than it should be treated on a par with any other commercial projects; that it claims to be community owned entitles it to no better rights that any other operator. Consideration should be given to using a proportion of the income as a rebate on electricity bills to those inhabitants of Duckmanton and immediate area who will in effect suffer because the turbine in there. The only equitable way to compensate the community for having a wind turbine on their doorstep is by giving local people an energy subsidy. It should be a condition that the wind turbine automatically stops operation in low wind conditions (when bats are most active). In respect of the applicants noise assessment there should be provided data from actual existing sites which have been in place for some reasonable time which has been measured – not desk based estimates using assumptions. CBC Planning Committee should consider not only this application but also the applications in Barlborough and the other nine sites suggested by the Planning Department and how they interact. Although the site is stated in the Sites and Boundaries options paper, no definitive paper has been passed. It is therefore not yet (and may never be a policy of CBC to have a site at Tom Lane. Planning Committee should have regard to this.
The applicant has only applied for one turbine of a maximum tip height of 84m - a different proposal would require a new planning application. Issues in respect of noise are set out in section 5.2 of the report above. The operator of the development will have a duty to ensure that the turbine operates safely. Examples of technology malfunction have been reported, but these are exceptional cases resulting from failings in the technologies own safety systems / mechanisms. The operator will have a duty of care to ensure the equipment is maintained in a safe and operational manner. Transmission lines are proposed to be laid underground. The financial arrangements of the development are not a material consideration. Issues in respect of ecology are set out in section 5.4 of the report above. The absence of the Council’s adopted Site and Boundaries document does not prevent the Council from considering any development proposals. In the interim period, decisions will continue to be made based upon the current policy framework. The NPPF states in paragraph 98 that LPAs should expect commercial scale proposals to come forward which are outside of identified / allocated sites. The cumulative impacts are considered in the report.
Standard Letter of Representation – 72 copies of which were received signed from residents mainly in the Inkersall and middlecroft area but also from Staveley, Brimington, New Whittington, Brookside, Hasland, Calow, Duckmanton, Old Whittington, Newbold, Birdholme and Bakewell and saying:
I strongly object to the proposals. The Poolsbrook Valley area is only just recovering from the decades of spoil tips from underground mining and opencast mining which was carried out twice on the land for over 20 years in the 1970’s and 1980’s and another 10 years in the 1990’s near Arkwright. Much of the natural beauty was destroyed but by the efforts of the Council, taxpayers and others in creating Poolsbrook Country Park with its lakes and woodlands, the land is slowly returning to a special place of natural beauty and a haven for wildlife and wildfowl which fly over the proposed site. The area will be spoilt by a turbine of such size (84m) and location. The area is used by horse riders, dog walkers, holiday makers, families, fishermen, caravaners etc and the area will be much less attractive to residents and visitors. House prices and saleability will be affected. Noise from the turbine will resonate in the valley. Views of Bolsover Castle and Sutton Scarsdale Hall will be ruined. Car drivers from the M1 could be distracted at an already accident black spot between J29 and J30; and local drivers. Local road traffic will increase due to construction traffic and post construction traffic caused by people ‘having a look’. Flicker or strobe effect from the turbine blades could also affect the area. As a community struggling to regenerate the area we do not need this imposing on use, please reject the application.
See considerations through paragraph 5.0 of the report.
7.0 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
7.1 Under the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force on 2 nd October 2000, an authority must be in a position to show: • Its action is in accordance with clearly established law • The objective is sufficiently important to justify the action taken • The decisions taken are objective and not irrational or arbitrary • The methods used are no more than are necessary to accomplish the legitimate objective • The interference impairs as little as possible the right or freedom
7.2 The action in considering the application is in accordance with clearly established Planning law and the Council’s Delegation scheme. The objective of arriving at a decision is sufficiently important to justify the action taken over the period of the life of the application. The decision taken is objective, based on all planning considerations and is, therefore, not irrational or arbitrary. The methods used are no more than are necessary and required to accomplish the legitimate objective of determining an application.
7.3 The recommended conditions are considered to be no more than necessary to control details of the development in the interests of amenity and public safety and which interfere as little as possible with the rights of the applicant. The applicant has a right of appeal against any condition imposed.
7.4 Whilst, in the opinion of the objector, the development affects their amenities, it is not considered that this is harmful in planning terms, such that any additional control to satisfy those concerns would go beyond that necessary to accomplish satisfactory planning control
8.0 STATEMENT OF POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE WORKING WITH APPLICANT
8.1 The following is a statement on how the Local Planning Authority (LPA) has adhered to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 in respect of decision making in line with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
8.2 Given that the proposed development does not conflict with the NPPF or with ‘up-to-date’ Development Plan policies, it is considered to be ‘sustainable development’ and there is a presumption on the LPA to seek to approve the application. The applicant / agent engaged in pre-application discussions with the Council following the submission of their original screening request to agree view points for their proposals visual assessment and to agree the scope of the supporting information required with the application submission. The LPA has used conditions to deal with outstanding issues with the development and has been sufficiently proactive and positive in proportion to the nature and scale of the development applied for.
8.3 The applicant / agent and any objector will be provided with copy of this report informing them of the application considerations and recommendation / conclusion.
9.0 CONCLUSION
9.1 Nationally renewable energy developments are strongly supported in the NPPF and the Council has a clear commitment to addressing climate change, as set out in the principles of Policy CS5 of the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011 – 2031. Where it is considered that proposed renewable energy generation developments meet the criteria of Policy CS5, the policy is explicit in stating the Council will support these developments and a presumption in favour of proposals for wind turbines more than 350m from existing buildings will be taken.
9.2 Having regard for all of the material considerations which have been set out and considered in this report it is concluded that the benefits of the development in so far as the provision of renewable energy and a reduction in carbon emissions amount to circumstances which outweigh the impacts of the development such that it is recommended planning permission be granted.
9.3 It is noted that the application proposals offer the payment of a local community fund, based upon the investment returns of the development. Unfortunately there is no mechanism in the Council’s current policy framework to seek this type of funding therefore it would be unreasonable to secure this payment through any planning obligation mechanism.
10.0 RECOMMENDATION
10.1 That the application be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
02. The development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details as shown on the approved plans, with the exception of any approved non material amendment.
03. The temporary anemometer hereby approved shall be erected on site within the timeframe set out in condition 1 above, for a period of no more than 18 months and the anemometer shall be removed from site prior to the installation of the wind turbine. The height of the anemometer shall not exceed 50m.
04. Prior to commencement of development of the wind turbine specific details of the turbine design, specification and colour shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration / written approval. The details shall include evidence that if the candidate turbine is not be installed, evidence that the supplementary turbine meets the same criteria as those measured in the noise assessment). The overall height of the wind turbine shall not exceed 84m to the tip of the blades.
05. All electricity supply cables from the turbine to the equipment building shall be installed below ground.
06. The planning permission is granted for a period of 25 years from the commencement of the wind turbine development. Not less than 12 months from the expiry of the 25 years or on cessation of electricity on site (whichever is sooner) details of the removal of the turbine and associated equipment; the restoration of the land to agricultural use; and the phasing of works shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration / approval. Not less than 6 months from the expiry of the 25 years or on cessation of electricity on site (whichever is sooner) all development hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to agricultural land in accordance with the approved scheme.
07. Development shall not commence on either the temporary anemometer or wind turbine until intrusive site investigations have been carried out by the developer to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site and approval for commencement of development given in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and conclusions shall include any remedial works and mitigation measures required / proposed for the stability of the site. Only those details which receive the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be carried out on site.
08. Development shall not commence on the wind turbine until a baseline television reception study has been carried out to a radius of 5km of the application site by a qualified television engineer that shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration / written approval. The study shall include details of the works deemed necessary to mitigate any adverse effects to domestic television within the 5km zone. Any claim by any person for domestic television loss or interference at their household within 12 months of the final commissioning of the wind turbine shall be investigated by the qualified engineer (at the expense of the applicant / developer) and the results submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Should any impairment to the television reception be determined as attributable to the wind turbine (on the basis of the baseline study), such impairment shall be mitigated within 3 months of the claim in accordance with the agreed scheme of mitigation.
09. Development shall not commence on the wind turbine until details of the materials / finishes to be used to construction the substation building have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration / written approval. The building shall only be constructed in accordance with the details agreed.
10. Development shall not commence on the wind turbine until details of all construction activities, method of working and timings have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration / written approval. Development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
11. Development shall not commence on the wind turbine until details of an ecological impact mitigation, biodiversity enhancement and landscaping scheme have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration / written approval. The scheme take account of the avoidance and enhancement measure recommendations of the Ecological Assessment submitted with the application. Only those details which receive the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be carried out on site.
12. If, within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree or plant, that tree or plant, or any tree or plant planted as a replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree or plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place.
13. Development shall not commence on the wind turbine until the widening and site access improvements to Tom Lane have been completed on site in accordance with the approved plans.
14. The turbine shall not be brought into use until a written scheme has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration / written approval setting out the protocol for the assessment and alleviation of shadow flicker in the event of any complaint from the owner or occupier of any lawfully occupied property which existed or had permission at the time of planning permission, including remedial measures. Operation of the turbine shall only take place in accordance with the agreed protocol.
15. Development shall not commence on the wind turbine until a full noise assessment has been undertaken to measure background noise levels at the properties to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and a report to illustrate that the chosen turbine will not exceed the upper limits of noise emissions for wind turbines as set out in the ETSU-R-97 has been submitted the Local Planning Authority for consideration / written approval. Only those details which receive the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be carried out on site.
16. In accordance with condition 15 above a scheme detailing arrangements including controls and methods for monitoring noise emissions from the turbine at nearby dwellings shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration / written approval. Noise shall be monitored in accordance with the approved scheme, within 12 months of commissioning, and the results shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be followed thereafter at all times.
Reasons
01. The condition is imposed in accordance with section 51 of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004.
02. In order to clarify the extent of the planning permission in the light of guidance set out in "Greater Flexibility for planning permissions" by CLG November 2009.
03. In the interests of visual amenity and the amenities of nearby residential properties.
04. In the interests of visual amenity and the amenities of nearby residential properties.
05. In the interests of visual amenity.
06. In the interests of visual amenity and the amenities of nearby residential properties.
07. To fully establish the presence and / or otherwise of any coal mining legacy and to ensure that site is remediated, if necessary, to an appropriate standard.
08. In the interests of residential amenity.
09. In the interests of visual amenity.
10. In the interests of residential amenity and highway safety.
11. The condition is imposed in order to enhance the appearance of the development and in the interests of the area as a whole.
12. The condition is imposed in order to enhance the appearance of the development and in the interests of the area as a whole.
13. In the interests of highway safety.
14. In the interests of amenity of nearby neighbouring properties.
15. In the interests of amenity of nearby neighbouring properties.
16. In the interests of amenity of nearby neighbouring properties.
Notes
01. If work is carried out other than in complete accordance with the approved plans, the whole development may be rendered unauthorised, as it will not have the benefit of the original planning permission. Any proposed amendments to that which is approved will require the submission of a further application.
02. This approval contains condition/s which make requirements prior to development commencing. Failure to comply with such conditions will render the development unauthorised in its entirety, liable to enforcement action and will require the submission of a further application for planning permission in full.