meeting Cabinet

date 11th October 2006 agenda item number

Report of the Leader

Strategic planning observations on planning application for five wind turbines at land to the west of Blidworth Lane, Rainworth,

Purpose of the Report

1. To seek approval for comments set out in this report to be sent to District Council in response to the request for strategic planning observations on the above planning application.

Introduction

2. On 3rd July 2006 a planning application was submitted to Newark and Sherwood District Council for a windfarm at land to the west of Blidworth Lane, Rainworth, Nottinghamshire.

3. Nottinghamshire County Council has been consulted for strategic planning observations on the application and this report compiles responses from Departments involved in providing comments and observations on such matters. On the basis of Cabinet’s decision, comments will be sent to Newark and Sherwood District Council in response to this consultation.

4. The planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) and a Planning Statement. This report is based on the information submitted with the application in the context of national, regional and local policy.

5. Through the consideration of the ES a number of omissions and incorrect assumptions have been identified. Most of these matters could be addressed through the submission of further information or reassessment of the situation based on a different assumption. The issues are raised in the relevant sections of the report below.

6. Although there are instances where not all of the information is available at the present time, it is nevertheless important that Nottinghamshire County Council take this opportunity to provide strategic planning observations to Newark and Sherwood District Council, albeit that they may be made subject to caveats regarding the outstanding information.

7. Where appropriate in this report, suggestions are made for conditions to be attached to a planning permission, should Newark and Sherwood District Council grant consent. It is important to include this information to ensure that potential harm caused by the development can be avoided, mitigated or compensated for.

8. A point to note is that on 29th March 2006 a report was brought before Cabinet relating to a planning application for seven wind turbines at land at Stonish Hill and former Colliery, Eakring Road, Bilsthorpe. This application has not yet been determined by Newark and Sherwood District Council.

Description of the proposed development

9. The application site (site plan attached) is located approximately 500 metres south west of the junction between the A617 and the B6020, to the south east of Mansfield. It lies to the west of the village of Rainworth and to the east of Harlow Wood. The entire windfarm site lies within Newark and Sherwood District, although it is close to the border of Mansfield District.

10. The site lies on arable farmland and the total site area is approximately 130 hectares.

11. The proposed development is for a windfarm consisting of five turbines, with associated infrastructure, including a substation building, an anemometer (to monitor wind speed) and access roads. The layout of the turbines is shown on the attached plan.

12. Each turbine is proposed to be a three bladed horizontal axis machine with a maximum hub height of 84 metres and a maximum blade diameter of 82 metres, giving a maximum height to blade tip of 125 metres. The application documents state that the exact model of turbine has not yet been selected, but the above figures are used as they represent the tallest potential wind turbine that would be erected on the site. (As a comparison, the chimney of the Eastcroft waste incinerator in Nottingham City is approximately 90 metres in height.) Indeed, they would be amongst the highest turbines so far installed on the UK mainland.

13. The installed capacity of the proposed windfarm, based on current proven technology, is between 8.25 and 12.5 MW. This equates to potentially providing enough electricity to supply the average annual electricity needs of between 4,700 and 5,100 homes each year. It is also estimated that the windfarm will contribute towards emission savings, offsetting up to around 18,900 to 20,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year. Whilst the above is based on the proposed capacity of the windfarm, it is worth noting that the application documents do not indicate the expected level of electricity generation from the turbines.

14. It is proposed that the windfarm will generate electricity for 25 years after which time the turbines and associated infrastructure would be decommissioned and removed from the site. A decision regarding whether the access tracks will remain in situ is proposed to be delayed until the time of decommissioning and will depend upon whether the disruption associated with such removal constitutes the best practicable environmental option at the time.

Site Selection and Consultation

15. The ES outlines the site selection process adopted by the applicants to enable them to identify potential sites for onshore wind energy developments. A two stage process is used with the first stage being described as a “sieve-mapping” exercise to identify sites based on a number of broad criteria.

16. Potential sites which pass this initial stage then undergo a more detailed assessment. This second stage assessment includes a detailed evaluation of the following: • predicted wind resource; • proximity of dwellings; • electrical grid capacity; • landscape constraints; • nature conservation constraints; • access; • availability of land; • military and aviation constraints; and • development plans and policies.

17. During the second stage assessment in this case, consultations were undertaken and have informed the design and layout of the proposal and the content of the ES. Consultation prior to the submission of the planning application was undertaken both with statutory consultees, to inform the ES, and with the local public on the details of the proposed development, through newsletters, a dedicated website and a two-day fully staffed public exhibition held in Rainworth (in October 2005).

18. Nottinghamshire County Council provided comments on the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report in a letter to Newark and Sherwood District Council (1st September 2005) stating that overall, the Scoping Report, and the approach to undertaking the Environmental Impact Assessment which it describes, was thorough and comprehensive. A number of suggestions for inclusion in the ES were put forward and these appear to have been taken into account in the application documents submitted here.

19. Through the consultation and assessment process, a number of modifications were made to the proposal, including reducing the number of turbines from seven to five and alterations to the layout of the turbines and substation in order to improve their visual appearance.

20. The applicants argue through the ES and other supporting documents, that this is an appropriate site for a windfarm which has been selected having due regard to the above factors.

Planning Policy Context

National Policy

21. The Government is committed to renewable energy. As set out in the Energy White Paper (2003) the aim is to put the UK on the path to cutting its carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 2050, with real progress by 2020, and the development of renewable energy is a key component of this. This is reinforced by the Government’s report on the 2006 Energy Review which proposes a range of measures, including strengthening of the Renewables Obligation (the key mechanism for the expansion of electricity from renewables) that, taken together, are intended to achieve 20% of UK electricity coming from renewable sources by 2020.

22. The Government has already set a target to generate 10% of UK electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010. This will be mainly measured by the amount of installed grid connected capacity which will add to the pool of green electricity available for purchase by consumers.

23. Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (PPS22) outlines the key principles to which regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should adhere in their approach to planning for renewable energy (paragraph 1). A number of these principles concern how the issue of renewable energy should be dealt with at the plan making process both at regional and local authority level. However there are two principles of note in PPS22 that have a direct influence in this instance.

24. Principle 1 iv) states that “the wider environmental and economic benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects, whatever their scale, are material considerations that should be given significant weight in determining whether proposals should granted planning permission”. Thus significant weight should be attributed to the benefits of the proposal in the decision making process. However principle 1 viii) states that “development proposals should demonstrate any environmental, economic and social benefits as well as how any environmental and social impacts have been minimised through careful consideration of location, scale, design and other measures” ensuring that the negative impacts caused by development are considered and where possible kept to an minimum.

Regional Policy

25. Regional Spatial Strategy for the (RSS8) Policy 41 supports the development of renewable energy resources where environmental, economic and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. Policy 41 outlines a number of considerations to be taken into account in the formulation of policies for onshore wind energy in development plans and local development frameworks.

26. A renewable energy resource study for the region was completed in 2001 and was revisited in 2003. It forms an evidence base for the support of the sub-regional targets in RSS8. These targets are indicative and paragraph 4.3.57 of RSS8 states that it should not be inferred that once targets are met within an area, efforts should not continue to deliver additional renewable schemes.

27. The Nottinghamshire target for all renewable electricity generation capacity, set out within Appendix 6 of RSS8, is to achieve 34 megawatts (MW) by 2010, out of a regional target of 672 MW. Onshore wind, biomass, hydro and landfill gas are seen as the most likely technologies to contribute. More specifically the suggested 2010 target for onshore wind in the County is a capacity of 10 MW, out of an overall East Midlands total capacity of 122 MW. (It is worth noting that these targets are expressed as installed capacity, not as actual or expected levels of electricity generation.) Renewable energy projects will help meet UK and international commitments for greenhouse gas reduction and assist in assuring diversity of energy supply.

28. A review of RSS8 is due to be published on 28th September which is expected to maintain an overall East Midlands regional target of 122 MW to 2010. (It is understood that this document will not break down the targets to county level, as the current RSS8 does).

Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Joint Structure Plan

29. In line with the advice in PPS22 and RSS8, the adopted Nottinghamshire and Nottingham Joint Structure Plan (JSP) policy 2/15 sets out the strategic approach renewable energy development.

30. In addition to policy 2/15, policy 1/2 “The Nottingham Derby Green Belt” is of relevance in this case because the southern most proposed turbine lies within the Green Belt and the whole development will have an impact upon views into and out of the Green Belt. Policy 1/2, in line with the advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 “Green Belts” (PPG2), seeks to protect the green belt from inappropriate and harmful development.

31. Policy 2/15 concerns the provision for renewable energy generation in accordance with the targets for the Plan Area in RSS8 and outlines how these targets are likely to be met. Point a) of this policy is of particular relevance with regard to the application, identifying the need to incorporate the criteria for renewable energy developments outlined in the RSS Policy 41, whilst also considering locally relevant issues, such as their scale in relation to their proposed setting, any economic benefits to local communities, and the wider environmental benefits of using renewable energy sources.

32. A point of note in the policy is the requirement that regard is paid to all the other relevant environmental polices of the JSP. Policies of particular relevance in this instance are:

• Policy 2/1 Sustaining Biodiversity - aims to ensure that there is no net loss of biodiversity. • Policy 2/5 Protected Species - developments likely to cause harm or damage to a species or its habitat will only be permitted where it is demonstrated there is an overriding need for the development. • Policy 2/7 Landscape Character - the approach is used to promote the conservation and enhancement of local character and distinctiveness and the maintenance of the landscape diversity in the plan area. • Policy 2/8 Trees and Woodland - developments that will result in the loss of areas of trees or woodlands will only be permitted where the overriding need for the development can be demonstrated to clearly outweigh the loss. • Policy 2/10 Development in the Countryside - protects the character and qualities of the countryside and only allows for development that demonstrates a need for a countryside location. • Policy 2/11 Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other sites of archaeological interest - with a presumption in favour of the physical preservation of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other nationally important archaeological remains, development that affects them and their settings will only be permitted where need outweighs the importance of the remains and/or settings. • Policy 2/12 Historic Character - protection and enhancement of the historic and architectural character and appearance of the landscape of the plan area identified in criteria.

Green Belt

33. As outlined in paragraph 30, part of the application site, including one of the proposed turbines, lies within the Nottingham Derby Green Belt. PPS22 recognises that “elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development, which may impact on the openness of the green belt”. Policy 1/2 of the JSP sets out the types of development which are considered appropriate in the Green Belt. In accordance with policy 1/2, windfarm developments such as the one proposed in this case, do not constitute appropriate development in the Green Belt and as such are harmful to the character of the Green Belt, in particular its openness.

34. In this case, planning permission could only be granted by Newark and Sherwood District Council if the developers demonstrate that very special circumstances exist which clearly outweigh the harm caused by the development. PPS22 advises that such very special circumstances may include the “wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources”.

35. It is also important to note that not only should that element of the proposal which lies within the Green Belt itself, be considered, but also the remainder of the development insofar as it is conspicuous from the Green Belt.

36. In the Planning Statement supporting this application, it is argued that the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that the visual amenity of the Green Belt would not be harmed by either the single turbine located within it or the windfarm as a whole. The Statement cites a number of appeal decisions to support this approach. Whilst the appeal decisions provide useful illustrations, each case must be assessed on its own merits in accordance with the development plan. Policy 1/2 of the JSP does not include windfarms as a type of development which is appropriate in the Green Belt, and therefore the conclusion of the applicant in this regard is not accepted.

37. The Planning Statement goes on to consider the situation if it was determined that the proposal was inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The Statement again refers to appeal decisions, this time relating to the existence of very special circumstances due to the national and regional benefits derived from renewable energy.

38. On 15th September 2006 a further supporting statement was supplied by the applicant to clarify the situation in relation to the Green Belt. This document explains that the reason one of the turbines is located in the Green Belt is as a result of technical assessments, in particular, those relating to visual impact and noise. In order to minimise the impacts on local residents and the surrounding area, and to ensure that the necessary spacing between the turbines, required on the basis of wind speed data can be achieved, the siting of one turbine in the Green Belt was deemed to be necessary.

39. The additional supporting statement then goes on to expand upon the Planning Statement’s case to demonstrate that there are very special circumstances to justify this otherwise inappropriate development. The statement says that the proposal will have environmental benefits and will contribute towards the targets for renewable energy generation which have been set at the regional and county level.

40. It is argued that, particularly in light of very little progress having been made to date in Nottinghamshire towards the County target for onshore wind energy developments, this proposal will make a significant contribution towards onshore wind energy provision.

41. As stated in paragraph 13 above, it is also argued that the proposal will contribute towards offsetting carbon dioxide emissions for each year of its operation and supply the average annual electricity needs of between 4,700 and 5,100 homes per year.

Green Belt conclusions

42. The proposed development does not constitute appropriate development in the green belt, in accordance with PPG2 and policy 1/2 of the JSP. However, the applicants have demonstrated why it is necessary to locate one of the turbines in the Green Belt and have demonstrated that very special circumstances exist in this case, because of the positive contribution that the windfarm would make to meeting regional, and therefore national, renewable energy targets, which outweigh the harm caused by the development by reason of its inappropriateness. As such, no strategic planning objection should be raised.

Landscape and visual impact

43. Whilst the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment in the ES is based on the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 2nd Edition (The Landscape Institute and the Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment 2002) and additional documents cited in the ES, there is a significant omission in the methodology in that there are no definitions given of the significance criteria of impact on the landscape.

Impact on specific features in the landscape

44. The site lies to the south east of the town of Mansfield and to the south west of the settlement of Rainworth. The whole of the existing site is in agricultural use and used for arable crops. Fields are large with hawthorn hedgerows which are gappy in places.

45. The highest point within the site boundary (135 metres A.O.D.) lies to the extreme west of the site adjacent to Lindhurst cottages. To the west of Lindhurst Farm, outside the boundary of the site, the land rises to 155 metres A.O.D. and to 163 metres A.O.D. closer to the A60 immediately to the south of Mansfield.

46. To the north of the site lie residential areas on the south of Mansfield, including the estate bounded by Chatsworth Drive and Bellamy Road estate. The recently completed Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route (MARR) passes to the south of these estates and to the north west of the site.

47. To the south west lies the area of predominantly coniferous woodland of Harlow Wood.

48. The site falls to the south east from its highest point on the existing track leading to Lindhurst Farm to approximately 100 metres to the valley of Rainworth Water.

49. To the east and north east lies the settlement of Rainworth, whose residential areas extend to the north west along the B6020 towards Mansfield.

50. A public right of way (bridleway) passes along the south east boundary of the site along the valley of Rainworth Water and another slightly to the south west of the site boundary along Lindhurst Lane. The Robin Hood Long Distance Footpath passes to the south of the site. The section of bridleway which runs through the site is a minimum of 270 metres from the nearest turbine. The Rights of Way Committee recommends that a minimum distance of three times the height of the turbine (to blade tip), from the bridleway, which in this case would be 375 metres.

51. The ES considers the impact of the development on the existing landscape of the site by looking at the sensitivity to change of the components of the site, defined as arable fields, low trimmed, partially fragmented hedgerows in varying condition and immature woodland planting. The ES concludes, because all of these are easily replaceable if lost, they have a low sensitivity to change.

52. Work to construct the turbines will result in a loss of vegetation but this would be a low magnitude of impact leading to a long term impact of minor significance.

53. The assessment of a minor significance of impact on arable fields and negligible significance of impact on young tree planting is agreed with, however, it is questioned whether there would only be minor significance of impact on hedgerows.

54. It is stated that “the hedgerow network is already gappy in places and any impact on this resource will be of low magnitude”. Whilst this is true of internal field boundaries, it is not true of the Lindhurst Lane track, which contains mature trees, including mature Holly trees. These will almost certainly be affected by the widening of the track to form the entrance in particular.

55. The applicant should provide more information on the possible number of mature trees which will be lost in this hedgerow, before defining this component as low sensitivity to change and low magnitude of impact, leading to a minor significance of landscape impact.

56. It may be appropriate to separate internal field boundaries from boundaries to the existing farm access track in this assessment.

57. Once the construction is complete and the site is operational, it is intended that arable land use continues and that impact on the landscape will be negligible. This assessment is agreed with.

Impact on landscape character

58. The site lies totally within the Forest Sandlands sub type of the Sherwood Landscape Character Area, with Settled Sandlands sub type lying to the east, as designated in the Nottinghamshire Landscape Guidelines (1997).

59. The Sherwood region is summarised as being a well wooded, and in places industrialised, region characterised by semi natural woodlands and heaths, historic county estates, large pine plantations, mining settlements and a planned layout of roads and fields.

60. The Forest Sandlands landscape sub type is described as an undulating, well wooded and in places industrialised landscape characterised by large arable fields, pine plantations and remnants of semi-natural woodland and heath.

61. The characteristic features of the landscape are: • dissected undulating topography; • frequent views of wooded skylines; • strong healthy character reflected in the widespread occurrence of bracken, gorse and broom species; • geometric pattern of large-scale arable fields; • planned layout of straight roads; • neatly trimmed hawthorn hedgerows; • large pine plantations; • mining settlement and associated spoil heaps; and • scrubby, semi-natural woodland and heaths with ancient stag- headed oaks.

62. Recent landscape character survey work carried out by Nottinghamshire County Council in this area summarised Landscape Character Parcel (LCP) 80, which includes the whole site area as “gently undulating arable farmland comprising large geometric fields. Open panoramic views across area mainly bounded by coniferous woodland views on skyline. The major new MARR route runs through the north of this LCP. Foulevil Brook runs through the north east of the region in a minor wooded valley. A track runs from Blidworth Lane to Lindhurst Farm and associated cottages in the middle of the region. Field boundaries consisting of mainly hawthorn hedges with some isolated trees. There are mature holly trees on the Lindhurst Farm track. Major threats to the area are urban expansion from Mansfield towards the MARR route and possible agricultural expansion leading to further increase in field size.”

63. The impact of construction of the development on the landscape character of the site is assessed as a minor significance of impact. The impact on the landscape character of the Forest Sandlands landscape sub type as a whole is assessed as minor significance of impact. The impact on the Sherwood Landscape Character Area as a whole is assessed as a minor significance of impact.

64. The operational impact of the development on the landscape character of the site is assessed as moderate. The impact on the landscape character of the Forest Sandlands landscape sub type as a whole is assessed as a minor significance of impact. The impact on the Sherwood Landscape Character Area as a whole is assessed as a minor significance of impact.

65. The site is defined as being of low landscape sensitivity to change and operational impacts of the proposal are of high magnitude, which gives a moderate significance of impact. Whilst the assessment of significance is agreed with in principle, before this or any other assessment of significance can be agreed, these would need to be precisely defined. It is therefore recommended that the applicant provides this further information.

Impact on landscape designations

66. There are no national landscape designations within the site or in the surrounding landscape. Within the site boundary there are no local landscape designations. However, there are several local designations in the vicinity.

67. Of the local landscape designations, the Sherwood Forest Special Landscape Area and Mature Landscape Area 94 (Blidworth) will have views of the wind turbines, which will change their character from the present situation.

68. The assessment of a minor significance of impact on Mature Landscape Area 94 is agreed with but the assessment that the impact on the Sherwood Forest Special Landscape Area is negligible, is not. However, the overall weight to be attributed to these local landscape designations is not a strategic planning matter and is for Newark and Sherwood District Council to determine in light of their local planning policies.

Visual impact of the proposed development

69. The ES includes a comprehensive visual impact assessment of the proposed windfarm with 17 viewpoints assessed. This concludes that there are visual impacts of major significance on four viewpoints during construction and operation and there are visual impacts of moderate significance on five viewpoints during construction and operation.

70. The only individual property affected is Lindhurst Cottage. The residential areas affected are the edge of Rainworth, Old Newark Road, the edge of Bellamy Road estate and Python Hill, Rainworth.

71. There will be a visual impact of proposed development on vehicular travellers on the MARR route, on the A6020 north of Blidworth and on the A60 north of Ravenshead.

72. In general, this is an accurate visual assessment because it clearly shows that there are major visual impacts on residential areas and vehicular travellers.

Cumulative impact

73. A cumulative landscape and visual impact assessment for the application for seven wind turbines at Stonish Hill, Eakring Road, Bilsthorpe and the five wind turbines in this application has been produced. The assessment identifies 17 potential cumulative impacts of the two windfarms and predicts the level of significance of the impact. Of the 17 potential impacts, it is concluded that only three are of moderate significance (the rest being either minor or none/negligible). Two of the three moderate significance impacts are views from MARR and the third is from a viewpoint in Blidworth which is described as an “in succession” cumulative impact. This means that both windfarms cannot be viewed in the same field of view (that would be “in combination”) but that the proposed Lindhurst windfarm would be visible to the north west whilst the proposed Stonish Hill windfarm would be visible to the north east. No mitigation is proposed in respect of any of the potential cumulative impacts.

74. There are no major areas of disagreement with this assessment.

Landscape and visual impact conclusions

75. In conclusion, whilst further information is required regarding the definitions given to the significance criteria of impact on the landscape, the overall approach is agreed with. The overall impact on the existing landscape is likely to range from negligible to minor and the impact on landscape character is likely to range from minor to moderate, with the highest impacts being experienced on the site itself.

76. There will clearly be major visual impacts on the local communities and on vehicular travellers. However, the extent of these impacts and the weight to be attributed to them in the overall assessment of the application is a non-strategic, detailed matter for Newark and Sherwood District Council to determine in light of their local planning policies.

Natural Environment

77. The ecological surveys undertaken to assess the impact of the proposed development on the natural environment have been appropriately conducted in accordance with standard methodologies.

78. From the results of these surveys, it appears that the post-mitigation ecological impacts of the proposal will be of limited significance.

79. Whilst it is appreciated that there are environmental benefits which arise from appropriately sited windfarm installations, it is disappointing to note that opportunities have not been sought to achieve a net gain for biodiversity, as recommended in JSP policy 2/6 “Wildlife Habitat Creation”, RSS8 policy 27 and Planning Policy Statement 9 “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation”.

80. It would however appear that there will largely be no net loss of biodiversity arising from the proposal.

Nightjars

81. Although nightjars were not identified as breeding within the application site, they have been identified within the wider area around the site. As stated in the ES, the Sherwood area is considered to be particularly important for nightjars. The nightjar is a species listed in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive, is identified as a UK Biodiversity Action Plan and Nottinghamshire Local Biodiversity Action Plan priority species, and is a “Red List” species of high conservation importance.

82. It is understood that a nightjar survey report and a collision risk assessment were undertaken and form part of the ES. However, these reports were considered sensitive and confidential and have therefore not been included within the standard documents or those sent to Nottinghamshire County Council.

83. Given the importance of this species, it is deemed necessary to assess the level of usage of the site for foraging by this species, and to ensure that impacts to nightjar are acceptable.

84. It is possible that additional survey work may be required to determine usage of the site by nightjars.

Natural Environment Conclusions

85. Provided that the results of nightjar survey work are found to be satisfactory and English Nature is satisfied that the impacts to protected species and the nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest are acceptable, the proposed development is considered satisfactory in relation to the natural environment and policies 2/1 and 2/5 of the JSP.

Cultural Environment

86. In relation to the cultural environment, it is considered that whilst the methodology in the ES is sound in principle, there are a number of omissions and certain issues have not been addressed appropriately.

87. The application site is part of a parcel of land known as Lindhurst, which documentary sources indicate was a significant area of woodland in the Mediaeval period. A number of buildings are recorded, at least one of which could lie within the application site. In addition, there is documentary reference to charcoal making in Lindhurst, one of the few such references for the whole of Sherwood. The ES says that the archaeological potential is low because the area was wooded. However, this was managed woodland, and as such, it would be entirely reasonable to expect remnants of management facilities within the archaeological record.

88. The ES mentions a scatter of prehistoric flint material. The centre of this scatter is less than 150 metres from the edge of the application site. Flint material of this sort, a mix of prehistoric tools and waste material from flint knapping, is found when archaeological features are damaged by ploughing. They can be very extensive, and can cover material spanning thousands of years of activity. It is to be expected that there will be more flint material from the area, and very possibly within the application site.

89. A highly detailed map of 1835, normally a standard source for desk based archaeological assessment in Nottinghamshire, has not been used. This is unfortunate as the map contains information relevant to the application site. If standard sources are not used, it raises questions regarding what other sources have been omitted.

90. Despite these concerns, it is likely that the potential of the proposal to impact upon archaeological remains is low to medium risk and can be covered by an appropriate condition.

91. In relation to historic building conservation, there are a number of concerns to be raised.

92. The assessment of the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) at Fountain Dale and the setting of Fountain Dale House, and the group of cultural heritage assets of which it is a part, is underplayed (it is said that the operational impact of the windfarm would be of minor significance) and it should be considered more widely than the ES does. As a result, the assessment of the impact of the proposal is disagreed with and is considered to be greater than that stated. It is suggested that further work is undertaken to assess the impact of the proposal on the SAM including taking this as one of the viewpoints from which an assessment is made.

93. Concern is also raised at the lack of account given to locally significant historic buildings. If these were considered in the assessment, the impact of the proposals would again be greater than is indicated. However, given the local nature of the designations, this is a non-strategic, detailed matter for Newark and Sherwood District Council to determine in light of their local planning policies.

Cultural Heritage conclusions

94. Overall it appears that the proposal will not conflict with policy 2/11 of the JSP insofar as it relates to archaeology, providing that an appropriate condition is attached relating to archaeological mitigation. However, it is unclear at present whether the potential impact on the SAM would be contrary to policy 2/11. Further assessment needs to be undertaken to determine this.

Shadow Flicker

95. The ES discusses the potential for properties to be affected by shadow flicker caused by the rotating blades at certain times of the day on sunny days. Although mitigation is proposed (ranging from installing blinds in the windows of the rooms affected, to providing planting or landscaping in the gardens of the properties concerned, to shutting down the turbines concerned during appropriate times), the impact on local residents is a concern. This however, is a non- strategic, detailed matter for Newark and Sherwood District Council to consider in determining the application.

Contribution of project towards regional renewables target

96. As outlined in paragraph 27 above, the indicative target for onshore wind in Nottinghamshire, as derived from Appendix 6 of RSS8, is 10 MW out of an overall East Midlands target of 122 MW. These targets are currently being reviewed as part of the roll forward for RSS8 to 2026 and as such, in line with PPS22, it should not be inferred that once targets are met, efforts should not continue to deliver additional renewable schemes.

97. If the proposal is developed, at a capacity of between 8.25 and 12.5 MW, it has the potential to significantly contribute towards the Nottinghamshire target and may even exceed it. In this respect, the development is in accordance with national, regional and JSP renewable energy policies.

Noise

98. JSP policy 2/17 states that all new development should minimise or avoid noise pollution by means including good design and control of operations. The ES states that for all dwellings neighbouring the proposed site, the noise from the new development will be within the amenity (quiet day time) and night time Noise Limit Criteria set out within government noise guidelines for windfarms. The ES concludes therefore that noise is not a significant impact. The County Council has not undertaken a background noise survey, and does not have access to the technical data required to corroborate these findings. However, compliance with these predicted noise limits should be recommended as a condition if Newark and Sherwood District Council grant planning permission.

Highways

99. The highways concerns in relation to this application arise from the transportation of necessary equipment to the site during construction. At present, the proposed access to the site for the transportation and the necessary equipment is inadequate. The access is not wide enough and visibility is poor. Newark and Sherwood District Council have been informed of this and an alternative access is to be requested from the applicant.

100. However, if planning permission is granted for the proposed development, once it is in place, there will be no highways objection to it.

Mitigation and Compensation Measures

101. Mitigation measures have been proposed in relation to landscape and visual impact in the ES. It is proposed that the two hedgerows situated along the site’s western boundary would benefit from replanting in gappy section, as well as tree planting at 150 metre intervals. Once established, it is argued that these hedgerows will provide an enhanced hedgerow network around the site, providing a positive contribution to wider landscape character. This proposed mitigation would be in line with the landscape strategy for the Sherwood region.

102. It is recommended that the opportunity should also be taken to gap-up internal field boundaries, which will reinforce the character of the site.

Conclusions

103. The overall planning policy context in relation to windfarms, as outlined in paragraphs 21 to 32 above, is supportive of the principle of windfarms in Nottinghamshire and the wide benefits of deploying renewable energy technologies, subject to a number of considerations. In relation to this application, the main areas of consideration relate to the positive contribution of the windfarm in meeting national and regional renewable energy targets and the potential impacts of the proposal on the Nottingham Derby Green Belt and the environment.

104. The proposed development would at least significantly contribute towards, and may even exceed, the Nottinghamshire target for renewable energy set out in RSS8. As explained above, these targets are indicative and PPS22 and RSS8 make it clear that it should not be inferred that once targets are met within an area, efforts should not continue to deliver additional renewable energy schemes. In this respect, the proposed development would be in accordance with national, regional and JSP renewable energy policies.

105. Whilst the proposed development is deemed inappropriate in the green belt, where very special circumstances are demonstrated which outweigh the harm caused by inappropriate developments, planning permission can be granted. PPS22 clarifies that very special circumstances can include the contribution of a renewable energy scheme to meeting national and regional targets. As stated above, this scheme would at the least, significantly contribute towards the regional renewable energy target for onshore wind and therefore make a contribution towards meeting the national targets. The applicants have demonstrated that very special circumstances exist in this case which outweigh the harm caused by the inappropriate nature of this development and as such no strategic planning objection should be made.

106. In relation to the landscape and visual impact of the proposed development, whilst further work is required regarding the definitions given to significance criteria, the overall impact on the existing landscape is likely to range from negligible to minor and the impact on landscape character is likely to range from minor to moderate, with the highest impacts being experienced, unsurprisingly, on the site itself.

107. Although there will clearly be some significant landscape and visual impacts as a result of the proposed development, the overall impact on the existing landscape and landscape character would not be contrary to policy 2/7 of the JSP.

108. With regard to the natural environment, provided that the results of nightjar survey work are found to be satisfactory and English Nature is satisfied that the impacts to protected species and the nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest are acceptable, the proposed development is considered to be in line with policies 2/1 and 2/5 of the JSP.

109. In relation to cultural heritage, overall it appears that the proposal will not conflict with policy 2/11 of the JSP insofar as it relates to archaeology, providing that an appropriate condition is attached relating to archaeological mitigation. However, it is unclear at present whether the potential impact on the SAM would be contrary to policy 2/11 and further assessment needs to be undertaken to determine this.

110. There are no highways objections to the principle of the development in this location, however, the access to the site currently proposed is inadequate and an alternative is required.

111. The issues explored in this report highlight that there will be impacts of the proposal on both the Nottingham Derby Green Belt and the environment, however, given the positive contribution that this windfarm can make towards achieving regional (and therefore contributing towards national) renewable energy targets for onshore wind, it is considered that these benefits outweigh any adverse impacts of strategic concern.

112. In conclusion, it is recommended that, subject to raising the concerns expressed in this report, together with the caveats relating to the satisfactory conclusions of additional information, and the imposition of certain conditions, Nottinghamshire County Council should not raise a strategic planning objection to the proposed windfarm.

Statutory and Policy Implications

113. This report has been compiled after consideration of implications in respect of finance, equal opportunities, personnel, Crime and Disorder and those using the service. Where such implications are material, they have been described in the text of the report.

Human Rights Act Implications

114. The Human Rights Act implications arising from this report have been assessed in accordance with the Council’s adopted protocol. At this stage, no human rights issues are raised. These matters are raised when specific planning and transport matters are being discussed as part of the discussions on specific development proposals.

Recommendation

115. It is recommended that Cabinet does not object to the proposed development, subject to: a) raising the concerns expressed in this report; b) caveats relating to the satisfactory conclusions of outstanding information; and d) conditions to be attached to any planning permission relating to archaeology and noise.

COUNCILLOR DAVID KIRKHAM LEADER

Legal Services Comments (JF) Cabinet has the power to decide the recommendation (20/09/06)

Director of Resources’ Financial Comments (PB) There are no financial implications arising from the report (19/09/06)

Background Papers Available for Inspection Planning application documents, including Environmental Statement, Non- Technical Summary and Planning Statement.

County Electoral Divisions Affected All.