ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT MAIN TEXT VOLUME 1

PROPOSED THREE WIND TURBINES ON LAND ADJACENT TO HAMELDON HILL WIND FARM

May 2016

1

Environmental Statement

This Environmental Statement (ES) is prepared for the submission for planning approval of three wind turbines on land adjacent to the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm. The statement is prepared by AAH Planning Consultants with contributions from:

Copies of the ES can be obtained either through downloading from the website www.hameldonhillwindfarm.com or by contacting:

AAH Planning Consultants, 2 Bar Lane, York, YO1 6JU

Tel: 01904 629258

Email: [email protected]

The cost of printing for paper copies will be charged at cost price to cover the cost incurred for printing and postage. DVD versions can also be provided at a cost of £10. Paper copies will also be available for public viewing at Burnley Borough Council’s planning department at Housing and Development Control, Contact Centre, 9 Parker Lane, Burnley, BB11 2BY during the following office hours:

9am to 5pm Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday

10am to 5pm on Wednesdays

The Non-Technical Summary of the ES is also available free of charge upon request and again available for download from the above mentioned website.

2

Contents

1.0 Introduction to the Proposal ...... 1

2.0 Approach to Environmental Assessment ...... 5

3.0 Site Description ...... 14

4.0 Description of the Proposed Development ...... 18

5.0 Consideration of alternatives ...... 32

6.0 Legislation and Policy Context ...... 54

7.0 Landscape and Visual Amenity ...... 75

8.0 Noise ...... 154

9.0 Ecology, Ornithology and Nature Conservation ...... 180

10.0 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ...... 228

11.0 Traffic and Transportation ...... 342

12.0 Ground Conditions and Hydrogeology...... 353

13.0 Surface Water Quality, Flood Risk and Drainage ...... 386

14.0 Utilities Infrastructure & Telecommunications ...... 404

15.0 Shadow Flicker ...... 410

16.0 Summary and Conclusions ...... 420

3

List of Tables

Table 2.1: EIA Classification of Effects

Table 2.2: EIA Generic Effect Definitions

Table 4.1: Aspects of the Proposed Development

Table 4.2: Breakdown of Installed Turbines

Table 4.3: List of Candidate Turbines

Table 4.4: Co-Ordinates for the Proposed Wind Turbines

Table 4.5: Typical Crane Technology Requirements for Candidate Turbine

Table 5.1: Details of the Existing Turbines

Table 5.2: Table Illustrating the Initial Turbine Details Proposed

Table 5.3: Breakdown Summary of Initial Pre-Application Responses

Table 5.4: Design Objectives

Table 5.5: Further Design Objectives

Table 5.6: Final Layout Proposed

Table 5.7: Breakdown of Installed Turbines

Table 5.8: Table Illustrating Compliance with Objectives

Table 6.1: Table setting down the Degree of Consistency between Burnley Council’s Local Planning Policies and the NPPF

Table 7.1 Scale of Effects Matrix

Table 7.2: Other Wind Developments within 15km of the Study Area

Table 7.3: Small-scale Turbines within Immediate Study Area

Table 7.4: Viewpoints Selected for Assessment

4

Table 8.1: Turbine Sound Power Levels - Enercon E82 2350kW, 59m Hub

Table 8.2: Octave Band Spectrum – Enercon E82 2350Kw

Table 8.3 Enercon E82 2350kW with 2ms-1 Wind Shear Correction

Table 8.4: Construction Noise Assessment Limits

Table 8.5: Equipment Noise Data for Access Track Construction

Table 8.6: Equipment Noise data for Foundation Excavation and Construction

Table 8.7: Noise Sensitive Receptors

Table 8.8: Existing Noise Limits Enforced at Hameldon Hill Wind Farm and the Extension

Table 8.9: Noise Limits for Proposed Development

Table 8.10: Predicted Operational Noise Levels

Table 8.11: Margins Between Predicted Noise Immission Levels and Noise Limits

Table 8.12: Distances to Construction Activities

Table 8.13: Predicted Construction Noise Level

Table 8.14: Evaluation of Effects

Table 9.1 Key Legislation and Planning Policy

Table 9.2 Species Legislation

Table 9.3 Summary Of Consultation Responses (Ecology)

Table 9.4 Significance Effect Criteria

Table 9.5 Significance of Predicted Effects -Construction Phase of Works

Table 9.6 Significance of Predicted Effects -Operational Phase of Works

Table 9.7 Small Scale Turbines within Immediate Study Area

Table 9.8 Other Wind Developments within 15 km of the Study Area

5

Table 10.1: Co-Ordinates for the Proposed Wind Turbines

Table 10.2: Sources of Baseline Information

Table 10.3: Factors for Assessing the Importance of Archaeological Assets Sensitivity to Impacts on the Setting of a Heritage Asset

Table 10.4: Stage 1 Sensitivity of Heritage Assets to Impacts on Setting

Table 10.5: Stage 2 Impact Magnitude

Table 10.6: Stage 3 Impact Significance matrix

Table 10.7: Post-Medieval Monuments Recorded as Map Depictions

Table 10.8: Post-Medieval Monuments Recorded during Previous Field Survey Work

Table 10.9: Assessment of Potential Non-Physical (visual settings) Impacts to Scheduled Monuments within the 5km Study Area

Table 10.10: Impact on Listed Buildings within the 5km ZTV’s

Table 10.11: Impact on Registered Parks & Gardens within the 5km ZTV’s

Table 10.12: Impact on Non-Designated Assets Still Present within the 5km ZTV’s

Table 11.1: Estimated Vehicle Movements During Construction Period

Table 11.2: Summary Table of The Significance of the Effects

Table 12.1: Magnitude of Impact

Table 12.2: Sensitivity of Receptor

Table 12.3: Assessment Matrix

Table 12.4: Definitions of Classification of Effects

Table 12.5: Table illustrating the BGS Recorded Mineral Sites are noted within 500m of the Site

Table 12.6: Summary of Impact Significance

Table 13.1 Flood Zone Categories

6

Table 13.2: Magnitude of Impact

Table 13.3: Sensitivity of Receptor

Table 13.4: Assessment Matrix

Table 13.5: Generic Classifications of Significance of Effects

Table 13.6: Summary of Significance Evaluation

Table 14.1: Communication Link Consultation

Table 15.1: Matrix for Establishing Classification of Effects

Table 15.2: Theoretical Maximum of Shadow Occurrence (From existing Wind farm)

Table 15.3: Theoretical Maximum of Shadow Occurrence (From Higher Micklehurst Turbine)

Table 15.4: Table Illustrating the Worst Case Scenarios from the Indicative Locations

Table 15.5: Table Illustrating the Worst Case Scenarios Incorporating a 50m Micrositing Allowance

Table 15.6: Table Illustrating the Worst Case Scenarios Incorporating Allowances for Cloud Cover

Table 16.1 Summary of Short Term Mitigation Effects Identified during Construction

Table 16.2: Summary of Long term Mitigation Effects to be Implemented during Operation of Turbines

Table 16.3: Summary of Short term Mitigation Effects to be Implemented during Decommissioning of Turbines

7

List of Figures

Figure 3.1: Extent of Land Ownership

Figure 4.1: Proposed Site Layout

Figure 4.2: Candidate Turbine Elevation

Figure 4.3: Standard Crane Platform

Figure 4.4: Standard Access Road Spec

Figure 5.1: Initial Constraints Map

Figure 7.1: LVIA Study Area

Figure 8.1: Noise Assessment

Figure 10.1: Archaeological Monuments Recorded within a 1km Study Radius of the Site Boundary on the Lancashire Historic Environment Records

Figure 10.2: All Designated Heritage Assets within a 5km Study Radius, including Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, Conservation Areas and Registered Historic Parks and Gardens overlain with the ZTV to Hub Height

Figure 10.3: All Designated Heritage Assets within a 5km Study Radius, including Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, Conservation Areas and Registered Historic Parks and Gardens overlain with the ZTV to Tip Height

Figure 10.4: Photographic Plates from Site Walkover

Figure 10.5: Historic Ordnance Survey Maps

Figure 15.1: Shadow Flicker Study Area

Figure 15.2: Shadow Flicker Map: Proposed Turbines

Figure 15.3: Shadow Flicker Map: Proposed Turbines Worst Case Micrositing to the North-East

Figures 15.4: Shadow Flicker Map: Proposed Turbines Worst Case Micrositing to the North-West

Figure 15.5: Shadow Flicker Map: Higher Micklehurst Turbine

8

List of Appendices

Appendix 1.1: Pre-Application Response from the LPA

Appendix 2.1: Scoping Report

Appendix 5.1: Original Conceived Layout and Photomontages

Appendix 6.1: Details of Relevant Planning Policies

Appendix 7.1: Zone of Theoretical Visibility Pack

Appendix 7.2: Photomontage Pack

Appendix 8.1: Manufacturers Noise Emission Data

Appendix 9.1: Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension, Confidential Pre-Application Ecology Report

Appendix 9.2: Hameldon Wind Farm Extension Confidential Badger Survey Report

Appendix 9.3: Hameldon Wind Farm Extension Bat Survey Report

Appendix 9.4: Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension Great Crested Newt Survey Report

Appendix 9.5: Hameldon Wind Farm Extension Otter and Water Vole Report

Appendix 9.6: Hameldon Wind Farm Extension Confidential Breeding Bird Report

Appendix 9.7: Hameldon Wind Farm Extension Confidential Wintering Bird Report

Appendix 11.1: Traffic Management Plan

Appendix 12.1: Geo-Environmental Appraisal

Appendix 13.1: Flood Risk Assessment

Appendix 15.1: Shadow Flicker Report: Proposed Turbine (Indicative Location)

Appendix 15.2: Shadow Flicker Report: Proposed Turbines (Worst Case Scenario to the North-East)

Appendix 15.3 Shadow Flicker Report: Proposed Turbines (Worst Case Scenario to the North-West)

Appendix 15.4: Shadow Flicker Report: Higher Micklehurst Turbine

9

1.0 Introduction to the Proposal

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 This document comprises Volume I of the Environmental Statement (ES) which has been prepared on behalf of FAB Energy Solutions Ltd in relation to their proposals for the erection and operation of 3 wind turbines and associated ancillary infrastructure on land adjacent to the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm which is situated to the south of Burnley town.

1.1.2 FAB Energy Solutions are based in the north-west of England in Bolton and have a range of expertise in the renewable sector primarily within the wind and solar market. The company has been involved with the landowner (whom resides at New Barn) since 2013 and have been actively exploring the potential of the land ownership boundaries to maximise the sites potential. FAB Energy Solutions have no connection with the existing wind farm and this application is prepared by a different developer to the operators of the existing turbines. Any reference to extension is therefore limited to the visual and physical nature of the development rather than from an operator perspective.

1.1.3 The ES accompanies a planning application, made to Burnley Borough Council, as the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the proposed development pursuant to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The ES has been prepared in line with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

1.1.4 The key features of this development include:

 3 additional wind turbines positioned to the east and south-east of the existing wind turbines. Each turbine would have a maximum height of 100m to the tip;  The construction of associated infrastructure to include wind turbine foundations, crane pads, new and upgraded access tracks, underground cabling to connect the turbines to the National Grid, new substation/control buildings, drainage infrastructure and temporary construction compound(s); and  Landscaping works including habitat management, improvement and restorative works.

1.1.5 The operational life of the development will be 25 years. In addition, 12 months would be required for construction and following the 25-year operational period, 12 months would

1

be required for decommissioning. Decommissioning would involve the removal of the turbines and all above ground components of the development.

1.2 Background to the Site

1.2.1 The proposed development site is located approximately 1 kilometres (km) south-west of the outskirts of Burnley and 2km south of the M65 motorway, within Hapton County Parish, Lancashire. The land available for development extends east and south from New Barn Farm. The proposed development site consists of an existing wind farm of three turbines (constructed in 2007) and three further turbines (constructed in 2013 under planning permission APP/2009/0756).

1.2.2 The land extending south from New Barn Farm consists mainly of open moorland and grassland. The current vehicular access to the existing wind farm is via the track to the north-west of New Barn Farm, running past Old Barn which connects with the A689 (Burnley Road). This provides good access to the M65 to the north-east of the proposed development site. This track would be used for the purposes of constructing the proposed development, although other access arrangements have been considered as part of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) process.

1.3 Environmental Impact Assessment

1.3.1 The aim of an EIA is to protect the environment by ensuring that a LPA when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a project, which is likely to have significant effects on the environment, does so in the full knowledge of the likely significant effects, and takes this into account in the decision making process. The regulations set out a procedure for identifying those projects which should be subject to an EIA and for assessing, consulting and coming to a decision on those projects which are likely to have significant environmental effects. The proposed wind turbines adjacent Hameldon Hill Wind Farm exceeds the indicative thresholds in Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations (involving the installation of more than two turbines with hub height of greater than 15 m). As such, the proposed development constitutes ‘EIA development’, as confirmed by the pre-application response from Burnley Borough Council (Appendix 1.1).

1.3.2 The pre-application response from Burnley Borough Council provided a good basis on which to formulate a concise EIA Scoping Report that outlines the scope of works for the EIA. This Scoping Report was prepared by AECOM however due to the time constraints and

2

given the pre application advice it was unable to be submitted to the LPA. The proposed scope and methodology of the technical studies included within the EIA was set out in Sections 2 to 11 of this Scoping Report. These sections also highlight which activities were considered to be non-key issues that were not likely to lead to significant effects and could thus be scoped out of the EIA.

1.3.3 The purpose of the ES and the associated documents is to describe: the baseline environmental conditions, the options for development which have been considered and discounted to date, the design of the proposed development, and to provide an assessment of likely significant environmental effects during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases in each environmental topic area. Where it has not been possible to design the proposed development so as to avoid the occurrence of likely significant environmental effects, the ES describes the mitigation measures that have been identified and incorporated into the scheme.

1.3.4 The ES has been prepared having full regard to the Town and Country Planning Act EIA Regulations 2011 and associated best practice guidance documents.

1.4 Environment Statement Structure and Content

1.4.1 The Environmental Statement (ES) is reported within three volumes (main report, technical appendices and figures), with a standalone Non-Technical Summary (NTS). A restricted distribution volume containing confidential appendices (e.g. Appendix 9.1, 9.2, 9.6 and 9.7) is also provided. The ES includes the following assessment chapters:

1.0 - Introduction to the Proposal

2.0 - Approach to Environmental Assessment

3.0 - Site Description

4.0 - Description of Proposed Development

5.0 - Consideration of Alternatives

6.0 - Legislation and Policy Context

7.0 - Landscape and Visual Amenity

2

8.0 - Noise

9.0 - Ecology, Ornithology and Nature Conservation

10 - Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

11 - Traffic and Transportation

12 - Ground Conditions and Hydrogeology

13 - Surface Water Quality, Flood Risk and Drainage

14 - Utilities Infrastructure & Telecommunications

15 - Shadow Flicker

16 - Summary and Conclusions

1.4.2 Chapter 2 of the ES sets down the rationale for this approach and what other material considerations were scoped out.

1.5 EIA Project Team

1.5.1 The EIA has been managed by AAH Planning Consultants and the suite of ES documents prepared has benefitted from the assistance of expert contributions from the following specialist organisations:

 Landscape and Visual Amenity – JBA Consulting

 Noise – Blue Sky Acoustics

 Ecology and Nature Conservation (including Ornithology) – AECOM and Delta Simmons

 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage - Pre-Construct Archaeological Services Ltd

 Traffic and Transportation – HY Consulting Ltd

 Ground Conditions and Hydrogeology – AAH Planning Consultants

 Surface Water Quality, Flood Risk and Drainage – AAH Planning Consultants

3

 Utilities Infrastructure & Telecommunications – Pager Power

 Shadow Flicker – AAH Planning Consultants

1.5.2 This should enable the LPA to make an objective judgement and consider its acceptability within the context of National, Regional, Local Planning and Environmental Policy. The following section sets down the approach to the EIA adopted as part of this proposal.

4

2.0 Approach to Environmental Assessment

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 The requirement for an Environmental Assessment is established in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (and Amendments) and is derived from the requirement under EU Directive No.2011/92/EU.

2.1.2 This chapter of the ES is to establish the process followed in the consideration of the EIA.

2.1.3 The ES is provided as a volume of chapters, each of which deals with a specific technical area of expertise. As such each assessment will follow the following similar approach:

- Introduction: To the technical area and what is to be assessed.

- Methodology: How the technical area is to be assessed, to include any limitations to the assessment.

- Baseline Conditions: Details of the baseline relevant to that technical area.

- Mitigation Measures: Details of measures that can be taken to address any detrimental impacts of the development or measures to provide beneficial impacts to the area of study.

- Residual Impacts and Conclusions: What would be the resultant effects and conclusions of the area of technical assessment?

2.2 EIA Regulations and Guidance

2.2.1 The process of an EIA is governed by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, as amended. These regulations apply the EU directive “on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment” (usually referred to as the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive) to the planning system in England. The regulations only apply to certain types of development and/or projects. There are five broad stages to the process:

 Screening - Determining whether a proposed project falls within the remit of the Regulations, whether it is likely to have a significant effect on the environment and therefore requires an assessment.

5

 Scoping - Determining the extent of issues to be considered in the assessment and reported in the ES.

 Preparing an ES.

 Making a planning application and consultation - The ES (and the application for development to which it relates) must be publicised.

 Decision making.

2.2.2 As of 6th April 2015, new regulations came into force (Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2015. They raised the screening thresholds for industrial estate development and urban development projects. For wind turbines such as those proposed extending the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm, there were no adjustments to the threshold.

2.2.3 There is no statutory provision as to the form of an ES. However, it must contain the information specified in Part II of Schedule 4, and such of the relevant information in Part I of the Schedule 4 as is reasonably required to assess the effects of the project and which the applicant (FAB Energy Solutions) can reasonably be required to compile. It may consist of one or more documents, but it must constitute a “single and accessible compilation of the relevant environmental information and the summary in non-technical language” (Berkeley v SSETR [2000] 3 All ER 897, 908). In this instance the ES is reported within three volumes (main report, technical appendices and figures), with a standalone Non-Technical Summary (NTS). A restricted distribution volume containing confidential appendices (e.g., Appendix 9.1, 9.2, 9.6 and 9.7) is also provided. Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations 2011 sets out the information for inclusion with Environmental Statements as follows in Parts I and II:

PART 1

1. Description of the development, including in particular—

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases;

(b) a description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and quantity of the materials used;

6

(c) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc) resulting from the operation of the proposed development.

2. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.

3. A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors.

4. A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development, resulting from—

(a) the existence of the development;

(b) the use of natural resources;

(c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste,and the description by the applicant or appellant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment.

5. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.

6. A non-technical summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Part.

7. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant or appellant in compiling the required information.

PART 2

1. A description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of the development.

7

2. A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects.

3. The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment.

4. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.

5. A non-technical summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Part.

2.3 Scope and Structure of the Environmental Statement

2.3.1 There is no requirement for the applicant to consult anyone about the information to be included in an ES. However, LPA will often possess useful local and specialised information and may be able to give preliminary advice on those aspects of the proposal that are likely to be of particular concern to them. Informal discussions have been held throughout the process including initial pre-application discussions in 2014 and ongoing dialogue with statutory consultation bodies such as the RSPB to define the scope of surveys required.

2.3.2 The emphasis of Schedule 4 is on the “main” or “significant” environmental effects to which a development is likely to give rise. The ES prepared is therefore considered proportionate. Impacts which have little or no significance for the particular development in question will need only very brief treatment to indicate that their possible relevance has been considered. The list of aspects of the environment which might be significantly affected by any given project is set out in Schedule 4, and includes population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the factors. Consideration has also been given to the likely significant effects resulting from the use of natural resources, the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste. In addition to the direct effects of a development, the ES also covers indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects where these are identified as significant. These are comprehensive lists, and a particular project may give rise to significant effects, and require full and detailed assessment, in only one or two respects. In this respect, the following

8

environmental aspects were considered as part of the Scoping Report by their very nature to be insignificant and therefore not requiring further assessment as part of the EIA:

 Peat Slide Risk Assessment and Carbon Balance Assessment

 Socio-economics, Tourism and Recreation

 Ice Throw

 Air Quality

 Aviation

2.3.3 Page 6 of the Scoping Report attached as Appendix 2.1 to the ES outlines the rationale for this conclusion.

2.3.4 Where alternative approaches to development have been considered, the ES should include an outline of the main alternatives studied and the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects. Chapter 5 of this ES sets down the approach to alternatives. The ES is reported within three volumes (main report, technical appendices and figures), with a standalone NTS. A restricted distribution volume containing confidential appendices (Appendix 9.1, 9.2, 9.6 and 9.7) is also provided. The ES includes the following assessment chapters:

1.0 Introduction to the Proposal

2.0 Approach to Environmental Assessment

3.0 Site Description

4.0 Description of Proposed Development

5.0 Consideration of Alternatives

6.0 Legislation and Policy Context

7.0 Landscape and Visual Amenity

8.0 Noise

9.0 Ecology, Ornithology and Nature Conservation

9

10.0 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

11.0 Traffic and Transportation

12.0 Ground Conditions and Hydrogeology

13.0 Surface Water Quality, Flood Risk and Drainage

14.0 Utilities Infrastructure & Telecommunications

15.0 Shadow Flicker

16.0 Summary and Conclusions

2.3.5 Each topic area included in the ES is subject to its own specialist requirements, guidance and standards but is structured around a standard format which was set down in the Scoping Report prepared by AECOM and outlined below.

2.3.6 Within the ES, technical assessments will broadly consider the sensitivity or value of resources/receptors that could be affected, in conjunction with the magnitude of impacts in order to derive the classification of effects.

- The terminology to be used to describe the sensitivity of resources / receptors will be as follows: High, Medium, Low & Very Low.

- The terminology to be used to describe the magnitude of impacts will be as follows: High, Medium, Low & Very Low.

- The terminology to be used to describe the classification of effects will be as follows: Major, Moderate, Minor & Negligible.

2.3.7 Each technical assessment will set out in the ES the descriptions/explanations to accompany each of these three sets of four terms. A generic classification of effects matrix is provided in Table 1.1 of the Scoping Report and re-produced in Table 2.1 below. In some cases this may be adapted for a particular environmental topic to suit the particular topic and its characteristics (to align with their respective published topic guidance for example). The assessment methodology for each topic will be set out in full in the respective chapters of this ES.

10

Sensitivity or Value of Magnitude of Impact Resource/Receptor

High Medium Low Very Low

High Major Major Moderate Minor

Medium Major Moderate Minor Negligible

Low Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible

Very Low Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible

Table 2.1: EIA Classification of Effects

2.3.8 As outlined in the Scoping Report following the classification of an effect using this methodology, a clear statement will be made as to whether that effect is significant or not significant. In the majority of cases, major and moderate effects are considered to be significant, whilst minor and negligible effects are considered to be not significant. However, professional judgement can also be applied, including taking account of whether the effect is permanent or temporary, its duration/frequency and/or its likelihood of occurrence, and also the particular guidance followed (and outlined in the respective chapter) for that environmental topic. Generic definitions for the classification of effects are shown in Table 1.2 of the Scoping Report and re-produced in Table 2.2 below:

Effect Criteria

Major These effects may represent key factors in the decision making process. Potentially associated with sites and features of national importance or likely to be important considerations at a regional or district scale. Major effects may relate to resources or features which are unique and which, if lost, cannot be replaced or relocated.

Moderate These effects, if adverse, are likely to be important at a local scale and on their own could have a material influence on decision making.

Minor These effects may be raised as local issues and may be of relevance in the detailed design of the project, but are unlikely to be critical in the decision making process.

11

Negligible Effects which are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error, these effects are unlikely to influence decision making, irrespective of other effects.

Table 2.2: EIA Generic Effect Definitions

2.3.9 A baseline study describes the current (and predicted) condition of those elements of the environment which are likely to be significantly affected by the proposed development. The baseline environmental conditions are evaluated according to their importance and sensitivity. This can be achieved by reference to relevant designations and standards. Although the regulations do not specifically refer to baseline studies, there remains a need for such data to identify and assess the main environmental effects as a minimum requirement (Schedule 4, Part II). The collection of baseline data has been achieved through desk study, consultation, field survey and monitoring and is clearly reported in the ES in each chapter. In line with the regulations, each chapter of the ES also indicates any difficulties encountered in compiling environmental baseline conditions.

2.3.10 Each chapter is laid out in a broadly similar pattern with its own definition of what level of effect amounts of a “significant effect” in EIA terms. Each chapter includes an introduction, background to the relevant legislation, policy and guidance for that particular chapter and a bespoke assessment methodology based on best practice. The chapter content will broadly follow the structure below adapted to the bespoke needs:

 Introduction

 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance

 Methodology

 Description of Baseline Conditions

 Assessment of Potential Effects

 Mitigation of Effects

 Residual Effects

 Summary of Significance Evaluation

12

 References

2.3.11 Although each chapter is presented with specific environmental issues there are some over riding considerations that have been adhered to and the content structure is maintained for consistency. The term “environmental impact assessment” describes the process undertaken, the EIA directive calls for environmental effects to be identified and reported in an ES, so that decision-makers can be fully informed of the implications of a proposal. The wording throughout the EIA directive places clear emphasis on the identification of environmental effects, with limited reference being made to identifying impacts. Where definitions are available in EIA guidance, the general consensus is that impacts are defined as the changes resulting from an action, and effects are defined as the consequences of impacts. All ES chapters are methodologically specific to the nature and types of issue being evaluated have adhered to these generic characteristics and methods outlined in this section.

13

3.0 Site Description

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 This chapter of the ES provides an overarching description of the location of the application site and its associated characteristics. Each of topic area provides further descriptions.

3.2 Site Description

3.2.1 The application site is approximately 1km south-west of the outskirts of Burnley and 2km south of the M65 motorway, within Hapton County Parish, Lancashire. The land available for development extends east and south from New Barn.

3.2.2 The application site is located to the east and south-east of an existing wind farm comprising of three turbines (constructed in 2007) and three further turbines (constructed in 2013-4). The land extends south from New Barn and consists mainly of open moorland and grassland. There are also areas within the land ownership labelled as marshland on recent Ordnance Survey (OS) mapping. This has subsequently been examined by an ecologist through a Phase I Walkover as referenced in Chapter 9. The immediate surrounding area is now dominated by the wind farm activity, with the underlying character of the area comprising mostly of moorland and rough pasture as the land rises towards Helen Clough, Black Hill and Hameldon Hill. This peaks at 339m above AOD. Other notable highpoints also located to the south of the application site include Nutshaw Gill (384m AOD) and Black Hill (377m AOD).

3.2.3 The application site lies within the Pennine Hills on a north to north-east facing slope with a varied incline, which is gentle at its northern end and increasingly steeper towards its southern end before levelling off to an in bye pasture and moorland plateau on Hameldon Hill, Great Hill End and Porter’s Gate Height. The entire area is grazed, the lower slopes by mixed cattle and sheep, the higher southern slopes by a few sheep only. There is a marked difference in character between the southern and northern halves of the land ownership, which arises predominantly from the degree of agricultural improvement and grazing.

3.2.4 A broad division can be drawn, following a line roughly between Hapton Tower in the west and Lower Micklehurst Farm in the east (both of which are located just outside the application site), south of which the habitats change from relatively improved to relatively unimproved, and from superficially neutral and mostly dry to acidic and often wet.

14

3.2.5 The northern half of the land ownership is characterised by improved and semi – improved grasslands, punctuated by occasional wetter marshy grasslands. There are numerous cloughs draining through the landownership which tend to be bordered by scattered trees and scrub (predominantly hawthorn and ash).

3.2.6 The Environment Agency’s Flood Map for Planning (rivers and sea) online map indicates that the proposed development site is located in Flood Zone 1. This flood zone comprises land assessed by the Environment Agency as having a less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of river or sea flooding in any year (<0.1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP)) and the application site is therefore considered to be at low risk of fluvial flooding. It is acknowledged that the minor watercourses and drainage ditches within the wider site such as Tower Brook, are not taken into account in the Flood Map for Planning.

3.2.7 The whole of the land edged blue is intersected by a series of field boundaries, the majority of which are dry stone walls. Standing water is scarce, being restricted to one very small pool immediately adjacent to New Barn Farm and a larger pond adjacent to a fence line approximately 150m west of New Barn Clough. These are both in the lower portions of the landownership away from the application site.

3.2.8 The land available extends to the east and south-east of the existing 6 turbines. To the east, the land extends towards the residential properties in particular towards the farm at Lower Micklehurst which is financially involved in the proposed development.

3.2.9 The proposed access route for delivery vehicles is from Aldam Terminal (Goole) via the A161 Normandy Way and A614 to Junction 36 of the M62. Then from Junction 18 of the M62, onto the M66, and via the A56 and A679 that runs across the north-western part of the land ownership. An existing access point will be used for entry into the application site.

3.2.10 The application site lies at the boundary of National Character Areas (NCA) ‘36: Southern Pennines’ and ’35: Lancashire Valleys’. The document ‘A Landscape Strategy for Lancashire – Landscape Character Assessment’ which was commissioned in 1999 by Lancashire County Council, comprises two reports (a Landscape Character Assessment and a Landscape Strategy). Within this document, the land ownership falls within the following Landscape Character Areas (LCA):

 Rossendale Hills Enclosed Uplands LCA (within the Enclosed Uplands Landscape Character Type (LCT); and

15

 The Calder Valley industrial Foothills and Valleys LCA (within the Industrial Foothills and Valleys LCT).

3.2.11 The Burnley Way passes close to the west and south of the site. The Burnley Way long distance walk mainly follows existing rights of way and can be walked as a whole or in any combination of its five sections. It goes through varied terrain, past stately homes, over remote moorland and through towns and villages. Each section of the walk starts and ends on a public transport route allowing for day walks. The application site lies adjacent to Walk 5 from Towneley to Hapton.

3.2.12 There are no World Heritage Sites, registered battlefields, registered parks and gardens or conservation areas within 2km of the application site. There are two scheduled monuments within 2km of the application site. The first dates to the medieval period (AD1066-AD1500) and forms Hapton Castle. It was built in 1328 and was the seat of the Lords of Hapton until Hapton Tower was built in the 16th century. Hapton Castle is thought to have been a stone tower keep and was in ruins by 1725. The second scheduled monument dates to the modern period (1900 to present) and relates to the Second World War. The Starfish Bombing Decoy was built in 1941 and was one of five decoys located around the local area.

3.2.13 There are ten listed buildings, all Grade II listed, recorded within 2km of the application site. All but one date to the post-medieval period (AD1500-AD1900), the exception being the remains of a medieval market or buttercross. The majority of these listed buildings are associated with agricultural practices and include farmhouses and barns. Two of the listed buildings of post-medieval date are bridges which crossed the canal which runs in an east to west direction to the north of the land ownership boundaries. The impact on heritage assets is assessed in Chapter 10 of this ES.

3.2.14 Within the land ownership boundaries there are 24 recorded assets, including one designated Grade II listed building known as New Barn Farmhouse. The remainder are not designated and the majority of the sites date to the medieval and post-medieval period and relate to the agricultural and industrial use of the landscape. These assets include the remains of ridge and furrow, quarries, a coal pit and a colliery. There are also linear features and cropmarks of unknown date recorded across the land ownership which have been identified from aerial photography. These are further elaborated upon in Chapter 10 of this ES.

16

3.2.15 As outlined in the previous paragraph there are historic quarry, coal pit and colliery operations on the hill. The made ground associated with historical quarrying/mining is evident on the geological maps. The actual bedrock comprises rocks of the Pennine Lower Coal Measures Formation, further described in the British Geological Society (BGS) website as “interbedded grey mudstone, siltstone and pale grey sandstone, commonly with mudstones containing marine fossils in the lower part, and more numerous and thicker coal seams in the upper part”. Sandstone underlying the landownership boundaries comprises the following named strata; Helpet Edge Rock, Milnrow Sandstone, Woodhead Hill Rock (north-east of the application site, encroaching into the land ownership boundary) and Lawrence Rock (north-east of the application site, encroaching into the landownership boundary). Sandstone comprising Dyneley Knoll Flags is shown to be present to the south- west of the application site. Eight named coal seams are present across the land ownership boundaries; Bassy Coal, Lower Foot Coal, Inch Coal, Upper Mountain (Top Bed) Coal, Cannel Coal, Cemetary Coal, Pasture Coal and Arley Coal.

3.2.16 The superficial deposits on site are classified by the Environment Agency (EA) as Undifferentiated Aquifer for the glacial till and Secondary A Aquifer for the glaciofluvial sand and gravel. Peat deposits south-west of the application site are classified as a Secondary B Aquifer. The Pennine Lower Coal Measures Formation which underlies the land ownership boundaries is classified as a Secondary A Aquifer. The pre-2010 Environment Agency groundwater vulnerability maps indicate aquifers on site to be minor aquifers of high or low vulnerability, depending on the leaching potential of the overlying soils.

3.2.17 This site description is elaborated further in the subsequent chapters.

17

4.0 Description of the Proposed Development

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 This section begins by providing a brief overview of the key elements of the application and provides a detailed description of each of the various component elements of the scheme through the operation, maintenance and decommissioning phases.

4.1.2 Working in consultation with its appointed team of specialist consultants, FAB Energy Solutions has completed an iterative design process with a consideration of a number of alternatives which are outlined further in Chapter 5 of this ES. The final design for the application is presented in Figure 4.1 and forms the basis from which the environmental assessment work is based on in the ES documents.

4.1.3 The key features of this development include:

 3 wind turbines positioned to the east of the existing wind turbines. Each turbine would measure up to a maximum of 100m to the tip;  The construction of associated infrastructure to include wind turbine foundations, crane pads, new and upgraded access tracks, underground cabling to connect the wind turbines to the National Grid, new substation/control buildings, drainage infrastructure and temporary construction compound(s); and  Landscaping works including habitat management, improvement and restorative works.

4.1.4 The operational life of the development will be 25 years. In addition, 12 months would be required for construction and following the 25-year operational period, 12 months would be required for decommissioning. Decommissioning would involve the removal of the turbines and all above ground components of the development.

4.1.5 The connection of the wind farm to the national electricity grid which is permitted development in accordance with Part 15, Class B – electricity undertakings of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The remaining elements do require planning consent. Notwithstanding this, the likely significant effects of the electrical connection to the grid are assessed in complete as part of this ES, although the District Network Operator (DNO) would be responsible for completing the work.

18

4.1.6 In accordance with standard practice, the precise turbine model is as yet unknown although candidate turbines are provided. The precise size and output of the turbines will depend on the particular model selected and this depends on a number of factors including equipment availability at the time of construction. At this stage the preferred model is an Enercon E70.

4.1.7 The aim would be to match the appearance of the existing turbines at Hameldon Hill as much as possible, though the installed turbines are no longer available on the market. It would be essential that the selected turbine accord with the specifications of the planning consent particularly with regards to the height and noise specifications. The breakdown of the proposed development is set down below:

Aspect of Development Proposed Specification

No. of Turbines 3

Maximum Output of each turbine 2.35MW

Maximum Height to hub of turbine 65m

Maximum Height to tip of turbine 100m

Substation Building Single storey building measuring approximately 10m x 6m

Access tracks Useable access road width for jib assembly 6.00m, once installed would be reduced to 3m. Total area 5341m2

Grid connection Cables laid underground in cable trenches of 1m to 2m in width and approximately 1.2m in depth

Crane Pad Coarse-grained, completely levelled surface 0° to max. +/- 0.15°; (approx. 0.25%) with a top surface made from aggregate. Crane pad measuring approx. 40m by 37m

Table 4.1: Aspects of the Proposed Development

19

4.2 Proposed Wind Turbines

4.2.1 The proposals seek a traditional three blade horizontal axis wind turbine. The appearance of the wind turbines would be standardised and would include a tower, nacelle and three blades as per the existing turbines at the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm. The existing turbines comprise of three Repower MD70 (1.5MW models) and three Senvion MM82 (2.05MW models). The models have been installed at a range of hub and tip heights as set out below:

Hub Tip Turbine Description X Y MW Height Height Model

Original and Installed Repower 380750 430105 50 90 1.5 Turbine 1 MD70

Original and Installed Repower 381124 429918 50 90 1.5 Turbine 2 MD70

Original and Installed Repower 381165 430117 50 90 1.5 Turbine 3 MD70

Senvion Recently Installed Turbine 1 380730 429879 59 100 2.05 MM82

Senvion Recently Installed Turbine 2 380360 429876 69 110 2.05 MM82

Senvion Recently Installed Turbine 3 380276 430283 69 110 2.05 MM82

Table 4.2: Breakdown of Installed Turbines

4.2.2 Candidate turbines have therefore been selected to compliment the appearance and scale of these existing turbines as much as possible. A candidate turbine elevation plan is attached as Figure 4.2. These include the following:

Rotor Capacity Hub Height Tip Height Turbine Model Diameter (MW) (M) (M) (M)

Repower MM70 2.0 65 100 70

Enercon E70 2.35 57 92.50 71

Senvion MM82 2.05 59 100 82

Enercon E82 2.35 59 100 82

Table 4.3: List of Candidate Turbines

20

4.2.3 The proposed turbines would be constructed in the following locations subject to the application of a proposed micro-siting allowance:

Description Grid Reference X Y Latitude Longitude

Proposed Turbine 1 SD 81207 29690 381207 429690 53.763219 -2.2865555

Proposed Turbine 2 SD 81271 29423 381271 429423 53.760821 -2.2855684

Proposed Turbine 3 SD 81402 29876 381402 429876 53.764897 -2.2836088

Table 4.4: Co-Ordinates for the Proposed Wind Turbines

4.2.4 The rotor blades of the wind turbines are typically made of glass-fibre reinforced plastic (glass fibre + epoxy resin). The rotor blades are specially designed to operate with variable pitch control and at variable speeds. A microprocessor-controlled pitch unit would mean that each blade is independent of one another to adjust each of the three rotor blades. An angle encoder in each rotor blades would constantly monitor the set blade angle and ensure blade angle synchronisation across all three blades. This would provide for quick, accurate adjustment of blade angles according to the prevailing wind conditions.

4.2.5 The turbines would not be illuminated and there would be no permanent illumination on the site other than lighting required during the construction period, during planned or unplanned maintenance or emergency lighting, and a passive infra-red operated external door light for the substation doors to allow safe access.

4.3 Turbine Foundations

4.3.1 The turbines would be made up of steel towers and are steel tubes with solid walls that taper linearly towards the top. They would be prefabricated and consist of a small number of large sections. Flanges with drill holes for bolting are welded to the ends of the sections. The tower sections are then stacked on top of each other and bolted together on site.

4.3.2 The turbine would likely be installed with a foundation basket, though the final design iteration would dictate the precise make up. A foundation basket is concreted into the foundation instead of the foundation section. The foundation basket basically consists of four vertical steel rods that are arranged in a circular pattern and whose bottom ends are bolted to a common anchor ring. Their top ends protrude from the foundation concrete

21

and are equipped with a thread. These rods are used to connect the first tower section to the foundation; accurate alignment is ensured by means of compensation sleeves. The joint between the bottom tower flange and the foundation is grouted.

4.4 Micrositing

4.4.1 Micrositing is the final process in the design of the site layout and is undertaken towards the final stages of the development, once a particular turbine has been selected and as further information becomes available. It is not uncommon that the turbines selected for installation may have some particular design features that require minor changes to be made to allow for the installation of the approved development. Subsequently, flexibility through micrositing is commonly sought in order to determine the precise turbine locations and access track alignment.

4.4.2 In light of the above, it is requested that a 50m micrositing allowance be included as a condition of any consent. This condition could allow for the final site layout including the final position of turbines, access track and associated infrastructure to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to the commencement of works on site. This final location should be in accordance with the 50m micrositing allowance.

4.5 Crane Pads

4.5.1 The following crane technology is typically required to install the turbines (this is elaborated in Chapter 11 of this ES):

Crawler Crane Mobile Crane

Crane Type 500t 500t

Length/Basic Unit 11.00m 21.00m

Width/Basic Unit 9.00m 3.00m

Track Gauge 9.00m 3.00m

Supporting Base / 10.00 m x 10.00 m

Table 4.5: Typical Crane Technology Requirements for Candidate Turbine

22

4.5.2 The crane platform would be adapted to local conditions in consultation with the turbine manufacturer at the design stage hence the requirement for a micrositing buffer allowance. The construction of the crane platform has to be agreed; with the bearing capacity recorded by the geotechnical expert and would be guided at the detailed design stage by the initial work undertaken in Chapter 12. Typically the platform would comprise of a coarse-grained, levelled surface (0° to max. +/- 0.15°, approx. 0.25%) with a top surface made from aggregate with a grain size of 0 – 32mm. The entire platform would typically have a minimum surface pressure of 18.50t/m². The crane platform would be located Above Ground Level (AGL) to ensure that surface water is properly dispersed. The upper edge of the crane platform would typically be located a maximum of 200mm below the foundation’s upper edge. A drainage system would be installed as outlined in Chapter 13 to drain off rainwater from the crane platform. During the foundation construction, the crane platform would also typically serve as a storage area for materials (e.g. reinforcing steel) and machinery. A Standard Crane Platform is contained within Figure 4.3.

4.6 Vehicular Access to and within the Application Site

4.6.1 The proposed turbine and associated infrastructure would be delivered via the same route as the existing turbines. This was transported from the M62 (junction 18), onto the M66, and via the A56 and A679. Chapter 11 sets down in detail the transportation requirements and associated effects however, basically, the transport vehicles would not exceed the maximum axle load of 12t (usually 10t); thus, a transport vehicle with an actual overall weight of 100t has at least nine axles (plus towing vehicle). Approximately 20 transport cycles are required to deliver one wind turbine (incl. tower) to the application site. Vehicles required would include low-loader trailers, flatbed trailers, semi-trailers and adapter vehicles. Approximately 35 trucks would be required to transport the crane equipment to the crane and the assembly of the job.

4.6.2 The internal access road would utilise the junction from the Agra Indian Restaurant which was used for the previous scheme. The construction of the internal access roads would be agreed with the geotechnical engineer as part of the detailed design post consent and could vary depending on the ground conditions. A Standard Access Road Specification is illustrated in Figure 4.4. The number of water course crossings has been minimised to one in total over the Tower Brook. The crossing would be culverted and would be designed as part of the post consent phase in accordance with the Environment Agency requirements.

23

The access tracks, other hard surfaced areas, substation and turbines would remain unfenced/ungated once they have been constructed.

4.6.3 In order to facilitate consecutive assembly of the individual job components, a gravelled roadway would be required for the crane. The individual main jib (lattice tower of the crane) components would be assembled across a span of approximately 100.00m on site with the aid of an auxiliary crane and then raised. During this process, the auxiliary crane would be positioned to the side of the main crane jib. The design of the internal access roads has been undertaken in order to minimise the extent of hard surfacing, with the access road leading to each turbine designed at approximately 6m in width to allow the crane and installation of each turbine. Once installed these access tracks would be reduced in width to approximately 3m. These requirements and associated effects are elaborated further in Chapter 11 of the ES and prior to commencement of construction activities, a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) would need to be submitted to and approved in writing by Burnley Borough Council to ensure the potential for significant adverse environmental effects on local receptors is avoided. This would include measures for the routing of construction traffic, scheduling and timing of movements, the management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway and other Public Rights of Way (PRoW), details of escorts for abnormal loads, temporary warning signs, temporary removal and replacement of highway infrastructure/street furniture, reinstatement of any signs, verges or other items displaced by construction traffic and banksman/escort details where relevant.

4.7 Underground Cabling and Substation

4.7.1 The proposed turbine would be connected to the National Grid although the properties at New Barn and Lower Micklehurst would be financially involved in the scheme. The connection of the wind farm to the national electricity grid which is permitted development in accordance with Part 15, Class B – electricity undertakings of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The remaining elements do require planning consent. Notwithstanding this, the likely significant effects of the electrical connection to the grid are assessed in complete as part of this ES, although the District Network Operator (DNO) would be responsible for completing the work. Trenches would be required to lay the cables to the connection point at a depth of between 0.75-1m, subject to the DNO’s requirements and the ground conditions which vary through the site. The cable trenches would be excavated by a 360

24

degree tracked excavator and would have a layer of sand as per the specifications from the DNO and backfilled with as dug material and restored to normal agricultural status. To meet the different requirements of DNO’s, there is some limited flexibility with the internal configurations of candidate wind turbines. The inverter system in the tower base is typically dimensioned according to the particular turbine configuration. As a rule, a transformer inside or near the wind energy converter (as is the case with the existing wind turbines at the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm site) converts 400V low voltage to the desired medium voltage. A metering sub-station is then located at grid reference SD 80302 30603 which collects all the energy generated by the turbines releasing to the grid. This is located outside of the landownership of the application and thus its own metering substation would be required, although it may be possible to obtain an easement for a cable connection into the existing wind farm connection subject to technical studies. It is assumed however, for the purpose of this EIA that a new substation building would be required as shown in Figure 4.1.

4.8 Construction

4.8.1 The proposed construction activity would be undertaken in line with best practice between 0700-1900 Monday to Friday and 0700-1600 on Saturdays. No construction activity would be undertaken on a Sunday or Bank Holiday. Outside these hours, works at the site shall be limited to emergency works and dust suppression; unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA. The delivery of any construction materials or equipment for the construction of the development shall be restricted to the hours of 07:00 - 19:00 on Monday to Friday inclusive, 07:00 - 16:00 hours on Saturdays with no such deliveries on Sundays or Public Holidays. No tree felling, vegetation clearance works, demolition work or other works that may affect nesting birds would be carried out between March and July inclusive, unless the absence of nesting birds has been confirmed by on-site survey investigation.

4.8.2 It is envisaged that development would commence as soon as is practically possible from the grant of any consent and would be subject to a number of dependents including the discharge of any pre-commencement condition, availability of candidate turbines, ground conditions and environmental constraints. It is envisaged that this would be within 12 months of the grant of any consent and the turbines would be installed in a single phase. Chapter 11 outlines the general sequence of events for the install which would include the initial construction of temporary construction compounds and a site office, the construction of and extension to the access tracks, the construction of the turbine

25 foundations and crane pads, the delivery and erection of the turbines followed by the install. Works to the grid connection details and associated infrastructure can be undertaken concurrently allowing for the connection and testing following the erection of the respective turbines. It is envisaged that a Construction Method Statement (CMS) would be required by the LPA as a condition of any consent and this would be prepared and submitted. The CMS would include the following elements in line with the previous scheme on site:

 Details of the phasing of construction works;

 Notwithstanding the details given in the ES details of the construction of the substation building including external appearance, layout, materials and landscaping of the substation and any associated compound or parking area;

 Details of the construction and surface treatment of hard surfaces and tracks;

 Details of the proposed storage of materials;

 Dust management;

 Details of lighting for construction and maintenance purposes;

 Siting and details of wheel washing facilities;

 Details of all temporary construction works, temporary facilities including the site compound for storage of materials and machinery and temporary engineering operations;

 Cleaning of site entrances, site tracks and the adjacent public highway and the sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil or construction materials to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway;

 Pollution control, protection of water courses, bunding of fuel storage areas, surface water drainage, flood risk, sewage disposal and discharge of foul drainage;

 Details and timetable for post construction restoration/reinstatement of the temporary working areas;

 Details of emergency procedures and pollution response plans;

26

 Storage and off-site disposal of excavated material;

 Details of the protection of public footpaths during construction;

 Details of the underground cabling between wind turbines and the control building;

 Details for the protection of trees and hedgerows during construction.

4.8.3 Once the turbines are operational, a programme of reinstatement and landscape restoration works would be undertaken. A detailed Landscape Management Plan would need to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the LPA as part of a pre- commencement condition. This would include details for the restoration, within 12 months of the date that electricity from the development is first exported to the grid, of the works carried out for track verges, hard standings, construction compounds, areas excavated for foundations and cable trenches.

4.9 Operation and Maintenance

4.9.1 In order to ensure the long-term safe and optimum operation of the wind energy converter, maintenance is required at regular intervals. The maintenance would typically involve one mechanical maintenance visit, one visual maintenance visit, one grease maintenance visit and one electrical maintenance visit which would typically be carried out every year. The maintenance activities would be spread out over the year so that every wind energy converter is being serviced once per quarter. The first maintenance would usually be carried out at 300 operating hours after commissioning. During visual maintenance – as during the other maintenance activities – technicians would check the wind energy converter for damage (for example, damaged cables or rotor blades) and listen for audible concerns during operation (for example, noise from the bearings). During grease maintenance, technicians would also perform a visual maintenance but also top up or replace lubrication components, and apply lubrication to seals. In addition to grease maintenance, mechanical maintenance typically includes checks or tests of the following items:

 Fasteners (in particular of rotor blades) and weld seams

 Tightening torques (300-h maintenance)

 Yaw gears and pitch gears

27

 Safety ladders

 Tower cooling system

 Load-bearing parts

 Rotor brake

 Rotor blades (visual check from nacelle roof)

4.9.2 The electrical maintenance typically includes checks or tests of the following items:

 Sensors, detectors, measuring equipment, push buttons, switches, and fuses

 Shadow shutdown and noise optimisation (depending on equipment)

 Overspeed switch and emergency pitch system

 Transmission (depending on equipment)

 Accuracy of yaw angle and blade angle

 Start-up procedure and software version

 Release circuits and safety circuits

 Cables and connections

 Lightning protection and earthing

4.9.3 There would also be the potential for unscheduled maintenance arising from any problems that cannot always be predicted. These could be at any point during the lifecycle of the turbines though are more likely at the beginning or end of the turbine’s cycle.

4.10 Decommissioning

4.10.1 The operational life of the development will be 25 years. In addition, 12 months would be required for construction and, following the 25-year operational period, 12 months would be required for decommissioning. Decommissioning would involve the removal of the turbines and all above ground components of the development. Areas of disturbed land will be reinstated to the original condition prior to the installation of the proposed wind

28

turbines or to the condition just prior to the commencement of the decommissioning activities. It is envisaged that a planning condition would be attached to any consent requiring a decommissioning scheme which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The scheme shall include: (a) details of the removal of surface and above surface elements of the development and the restoration of the site following such removal; and, (b) details of the timing, management and traffic movements in relation to such removal and restoration. The scheme would be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

4.11 Community Benefit Fund

4.11.1 Currently the only situation in which financial arrangements are considered material to planning is under the Localism Act, as amended (2011) which allows a LPA to take into account financial benefits where there is a direct connection between the intended use of the funds and the development. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that “Local planning authorities may wish to establish policies which give positive weight to renewable and low carbon energy initiatives which have clear evidence of local community involvement and leadership.” At present the LPA does not have a specific planning policy in relation to community benefits from wind turbines. There is also a strict principle in the English planning system that a planning proposal should be determined based on material planning considerations, as defined in law. Planning legislation prevents LPAs from specifically seeking developer contributions where they are not considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Within this context, community benefits are generally not seen as relevant to deciding whether a development is granted planning permission. Nevertheless, the applicant is committed to offering community benefits beyond the existing agreements with the properties at New Barn and Lower Micklehurst Farm which are financially involved. The applicants propose a community benefit fund which would take the form of an annual payment by the developer based upon the installed megawatt (MW) capacity of the extended wind farm.

4.11.2 The fund would take the form of an annual sum paid per MW installed – in this case £5000. An annual sum would be paid into a fund over the lifetime of the project, with the community determining what the money in the fund can be used for. Annual payments would be index-linked. There would be a clause in the agreement with the wind developer that if the project ceases generating electricity for a given period for any reason, payments will temporarily cease. If planning consent is granted, the details of the community benefit

29 package would be formalised through negotiations between the developer and the local community directly by way of a legal contract between the developer and the community body that has been chosen to be responsible for managing the fund. The agreement would be linked to the development and maintain payment of the community benefits even if the wind development changes ownership. The agreement would typically cover the following elements in accordance with the Centre for Sustainable Energy et al (2007, updated 2009), for the Renewables Advisory Board Delivering Community Benefits from Wind Energy Developments: A Toolkit:

 Parties to the agreement;

 The payments that will be made and what, if anything, this depends on;

 Any inflationary increases the payment will be subject to;

 If the payment is related to electricity production rather than installed capacity, how this will be confirmed, by whom and on what timetable each year;

 When the payments will begin and cease;

 How payment will be triggered and what happens if there are any problems;

 What the fund may and may not be used for and who has liability/responsibility for its management once the money has been paid by the developer;

 Clarity on any other liabilities;

 Whether or not the agreement is exclusively between the signatories;

 How disputes should be dealt with;

 What obligations the community has to the wind farm owner in relation to the funds, such as reporting and auditing;

 Mechanisms for binding future owners to the same terms;

 Intended action if the recipient body ceases to operate;

 How the agreement terminates.

30

4.11.2 Typically community benefit funds are administered through an open grant scheme which is likely to be the preferential route here. In such a scenario individual projects in the community would apply for funding and the applications undergo an objective assessment by a panel, usually composed of local community representatives, who make the funding decisions. At £5000 per MW, this could lead to between £30-34,000 per year depending on the installed turbine which would have the potential to make a significant contribution to the local community schemes.

31

5.0 Consideration of Alternatives

5.1 Policy Context

5.1.1 There is no requirement, under law relating to EIA, for an applicant to consider alternatives. Notwithstanding this Schedule 4, Part 1(2) and Part 2(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, does specify the information to be included in an ES. Here in Criterion 2 it requires ‘An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects’.

5.1.2 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 are supplemented by the online National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). Here Paragraph: 033 within the section ‘What information should the Environmental Statement contain?’ elaborates further stating ‘There is no statutory provision as to the form of an Environmental Statement. However, it must contain the information specified in Part II of Schedule 4, and such of the relevant information in Part I of the Schedule 4 as is reasonably required to assess the effects of the project and which the applicant can reasonably be required to compile.’ Paragraph 4 of Part II of Schedule 4 requires the applicant to include an outline of the main alternatives considered and the main reasons for their choice in their ES. The NPPG guidance further confirms that ‘Where alternative approaches to development have been considered, the Environmental Statement should include an outline of the main alternatives studied and the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.’

5.1.3 The Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) sets out national policy for the energy infrastructure. This policy statement in Paragraph 5.3.7 requires applicants to seek to avoid significant harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests, including through mitigation and consideration of reasonable alternatives. From a policy perspective this NPS does not contain any general requirement to consider alternatives or to establish whether the proposed project represents the best option. However, applicants are obliged to include in their ES, as a matter of fact, information about the main alternatives they have studied. This should include an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental, social and economic effects and including, where relevant, technical and commercial feasibility.

32

5.2 Main Alternatives Considered:

5.2.1 A review of the existing grid infrastructure by the applicant showed that the grid at the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm site could accommodate an additional 6MW’s. The main options available were therefore:

- The do nothing scenario - Alternative designs and layouts for wind turbines

5.3 The Do Nothing Scenario

5.3.1 Guidance advocates that EIA considers the “do nothing“ scenario, to provide context for the assessment of the proposed development. In some cases, the “do nothing” scenario might assume development in accordance with a development plan; in other cases, it might assume ecological succession. In this situation, however, the existing site comprises of a wind farm with six turbines in situ and subsequently the “do nothing” scenario would mean that the character of the proposed development area will remain the same as it is today with the six operational turbines.

5.3.2 During the initial searches FAB Energy Solutions searched and analysed the potential for renewable, low carbon electrical generating stations in the north-west of England. The application site was selected during the company’s research and is one option within a wider portfolio of development by FAB Energy Solutions, aimed at significantly increasing the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources and meeting national targets. This search and selection process demonstrated to FAB Energy Solutions that the grid had capacity to accommodate more load than was being supplied by the existing wind farm. Subsequently, if the correct form of renewable energy provision could be accommodated within the environmental constraints on site then this would be preferable to the do nothing scenario.

5.3.3 In the do nothing scenario, any impacts associated with the proposed development would not occur. However, the “do nothing” option would result in the loss of the potential renewable energy resource due to the capacity in the grid at the application site despite the existing turbines in situ. The identified resource would make a key contribution to tackling climate change and, as set out in the policy section of this ES, the proposed development is supported by International, National and Local Planning Policy. The

33

assessment of the ‘do nothing’ scenario has not been extended beyond this section as it is not one of the ‘main alternatives’ studied by FAB Energy Solutions.

5.4 Alternative Designs and Layouts for Wind Turbines

5.4.1 Current national policy states that there is no requirement to justify the viability of wind energy or the need for it to be located in a particular location. Indeed, given the continued operation of the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm the type of renewable energy provision is guided by the current wind turbines. In EIA terms, alternatives are associated with alternative design solutions for the development of the site for example the site layout, design, turbine height and turbine numbers. This section of the ES describes the site identification process and design criteria used and alternatives considered as part of the scheme. This design process has considered a range of technical constraints and the potential for significant environmental effects through the design objectives in order to produce the most appropriate design for the site.

5.5 The Initial Site Identification Process

5.5.1 The EIA process commenced in 2013 when FAB Energy Solutions, as part of a regional wide search of the north-west of England sought to identify suitable sites for wind and solar development opportunities. Renewable energy developments should be acceptable for their proposed location and as such FAB Energy Solutions undertook a comprehensive site finding process. This site finding exercise allowed the early identification of some of the key technical, environmental and planning issues associated with each site which could either rule it out, or point towards further detailed studies and consultation. This would then be undertaken as part of the next phase of work in order to establish whether or not a project is feasible. Each potential site was evaluated independently of each other and a planning review was undertaken by AAH Planning Consultants. A review was then undertaken by FAB Energy Solutions based on criteria established for the evaluation of potential new wind or solar farm sites. For wind energy sites these included the following criteria:

- Are the noise impacts of wind turbines likely to comply with guidelines? - Can the safety (buildings, power lines, air traffic and safety, defence, radar or the strategic road network) risk of the turbines be avoided or mitigated? - How high is the risk of the wind turbines in relation to ecology?

34

- What are the potential impacts of transporting turbines to the site, and are there any possible limitations presented for example by winding narrow lanes? - How high is the risk of the wind turbines in relation heritage assets? - Is shadow flicker and reflected light likely to be an issue from the given locations in relation to neighbouring properties? - How sensitive is the site from a cumulative landscape and visual impacts perspective? - What is the likely energy output capacity for the site? - What is the grid capacity of the site? - What is the commercial viability of the site in relation to the grid capacity and energy output?

5.5.2 In this site finding search, the land adjacent to the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm site was identified as a potential location for further turbine development by FAB Energy Solutions, with the planning risk from the initial review and viability was considered appropriate to move to the next phase of analysis. This initial assessment of the feasibility of additional turbines was conducted by AAH Planning Consultants and reviewed high level planning constraints. The outcome highlighted that:

- The development site itself and its immediate surroundings had no statutory planning or environmental designations which would preclude the development in principle; - There were no local or structure plan policies which in principle precluded wind farm development; - There was likely to be an appropriate wind resource given the land contours and existing wind farm’s returns; - There were potentially suitable routes available to access the proposed development site reusing the route adopted previously;

5.5.3 The site review concluded that if the site was pursued further the following areas should be focused on as a priority to consider the capacity of the site to accommodate additional wind turbines:

- Desktop noise modelling of different turbine scenarios to understand if compliance with the relevant guidelines can be achieved; - Commissioning a telecommunications assessment of the site to understand if the links that pass through the site would preclude development or not;

35

- Commissioning an ecologist to undertake an initial phase I review of the site, the previous findings of the planning history and likely further bird and bat surveys to determine the best locations and capacity of the site.

5.5.4 If the above elements came back positive then a view could be made over the final number and location of turbines to pursue and work could commence on the preparation of the planning application. It was recommended that this would likely involve a level of pre- application work with the council and community consultation with the public; but further work on the capacity of the site was considered necessary first before any significant investment is made on all other technical areas of the site. Following discussions with the landowner and FAB Energy Solutions it was decided that the development site warranted further detailed environmental and technical assessment.

5.6 The Initial Design and Environmental Assessment

5.6.1 The current installed turbines include the following models:

Hub Tip Description X Y Turbine Model MW Height Height

Original Turbine 1 380750 430105 50 90 Repower MD70 1.5

Original Turbine 2 381124 429918 50 90 Repower MD70 1.5

Original Turbine 3 381165 430117 50 90 Repower MD70 1.5

Extension Turbine 1 380730 429879 59 100 Senvion MM82 2.05

Extension Turbine 2 380360 429876 69 110 Senvion MM82 2.05

Extension Turbine 3 380276 430283 69 110 Senvion MM82 2.05

Table 5.1: Details of the Existing Turbines

5.6.2 From the capacity at the grid it was suggested by FAB Energy that modelling be undertaken for 5 x 1.5MW turbines thus resulting in a total capacity of 7.5MW or 5 x 2MW turbines resulting in a total capacity of 10MW. As such, an initial design was sought based on this approach with the aim to complement the existing turbines as much as possible in design and appearance utilising Senvion models as the initial candidate turbine.

36

5.6.3 During the previous applications for the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm there were some minor adverse impacts on a number of habitats that are common, widespread and of low biodiversity value. These included the loss of small areas of improved and semi-improved grassland habitat to make way for the wind farm infrastructure, and disturbance or damage to these habitats during the construction and decommissioning phases of the proposed wind turbines. None of the more species-rich or unmanaged/unimproved habitats were to be affected by that scheme. The land ownership (in blue on the site plan in Figure 2.1) includes sensitive peatland/wetland and unimproved habitat, woodlands/mature scrub along watercourses, ponds and crags. These were indicatively surveyed as part of a Phase I Walkover in 2014 by the appointed ecologist to examine the potential constraints of the site and guide the location of development. From these indicative constraints an area of interest was defined which avoided the sensitive peatland/wetland and unimproved habitat. An initial layout was conceived in 2014 with five additional wind turbines at the site considered and proposed to Burnley Council through a formal pre-application request. The following coordinates were set:

Hub Tip Candidate Description X Y MW Height Height Turbine Model

Proposed Turbine 1 381516 429960 69 110 Senvion MM82 2.05

Proposed Turbine 2 381516 429784 69 110 Senvion MM82 2.05

Proposed Turbine 3 381186 429725 69 110 Senvion MM82 2.05

Proposed Turbine 4 381417 430293 69 110 Senvion MM82 2.05

Proposed Turbine 5 381652 430213 69 110 Senvion MM82 2.05

Table 5.2: Table Illustrating the Initial Turbine Details Proposed

5.6.4 These initial coordinates allowed for discussions with the LPA through a pre-application advice request. A meeting was held with Burnley Council on the 17th September 2014 during which the principle of development and an early identification of constraints was outlined. This advice was given following engagement with statutory consultees and was given without prejudice to the preparation of an application and further information from which to base a more robust judgement on. The following sets down a summary of the initial constraints identified by stakeholders (the full details are attached as Appendix 1.1).

37

Stakeholder Initial Feedback

Environment Agency Based on the information submitted, they would offer the following advice and guidance:

Flood Risk – The NPPF requires that all development over 1ha in Flood Zone 1 should be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment appropriate to the scale and nature of the development.

Biodiversity - Our records indicate a small area of Fen located at SD 81308 30310. We would recommend that this area is investigated further as it does not currently feature on the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map.

Natural England The information submitted for this pre-application consultation is for a proposal that does not appear, from the information provided, to directly affect any nationally designated geological or ecological sites (Ramsar, SPA, SAC, SSSI, NNR) or landscapes (National Parks, AONB’s, Heritage Coasts, National Trails), or have significant impacts on the protection of soils (particularly of sites over 20ha of best or most versatile land), nor is the development for a mineral or waste site of over 5ha. At present therefore it is not a priority for Natural England to provide advice on the detail of this development proposal at this stage.

Lancashire Badger No objection Group

Lancashire Highways No objection

Lancashire The County Archaeology Service would recommend that a Archaeology similar level and type of archaeological investigation be undertaken as was required for the original wind farm application, namely an initial Desk-Based Assessment and walkover survey as part of the EIA. A view on the need for any further works would then be made on the basis of the results of the DBA and walkover. However, on the basis of the

38

information held in the County Historic Environment Record (HER) it is not currently expected that the archaeological resource would be a significant constraint on the proposed development.

Lancashire Wildlife Initial comments on the pre-app info are as follows: Trust 1. The Proposed Development Site (PDS) supports a variety of habitat types, including habitats of principal importance in England as listed in the NERC Act 2006, but the site appears large enough to support up to 5 new turbines without compromising the integrity of these habitats.

2. The EIA for a full application should include detailed surveys of bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) and possibly fungi.

3. Turbines should not be located on areas of peat (dry modified bog) and acid flush.

4. Turbines should avoid ponds, badger sett(s) and areas of bat activity or potential and crossing of watercourses should be avoided or minimised.

5. Where possible, turbines should be located on areas of improved grassland, species-poor semi-improved acid grassland, species-poor semi-improved neutral grassland and species-poor marshy grassland.

6. There is considerable potential for habitat management and habitat creation to deliver significant net gains in biodiversity/nature/wildlife (in line with the requirements of the NPPF).

7. The areas of dry modified bog should be “re-wetted” and sympathetically managed in order to encourage the germination and/or growth of Sphagnum moss and regeneration of the modified bog back towards better

39

quality blanket bog.

8. Areas of woodland in Habergham Clough and New Barn Clough could be reconnected through woodland creation, where this wouldn’t compromise any other wildlife interests.

9. Any areas of species-rich neutral grassland should be identified and sympathetically managed.

10. Areas of species-poor acid and neutral grassland should be sympathetically managed in order to increase their biodiversity (including flora, fauna and fungi).

11. Existing ponds should be managed, where this wouldn’t compromise any other wildlife interests, and new ponds and/or scrapes should also be created.

12. Invasive non-native species, in particular Himalayan Balsam and Japanese Knotweed should be eradicated from the site and adjacent land.

RSPB The document is generally fine with regard to Ornithology. We have records for breeding Merlin from 2008, and there may be records that are more recent not yet on our system. Merlin (Falco columbarius) has highly fluctuating populations in response to population cycles of its main prey the short-tailed field vole [1]. It is very difficult to predict impacts on this species because surveys are unlikely to capture populations at their peak. It is for this reason that the SNH/NE guidance suggests that 2-years of survey are required where Merlin may be present and that these surveys should encompass a radius of 2km from the proposed turbines.

The County Highways The County Highways Officer has raised no initial concern with Officer the proposal as the previous delivery route was accepted under the previous application. Any changes to this route would need to be reassessed under any subsequent planning application.

40

Planning Officer The red edged site plan covers quite a wide area of land to the Comments on east of Hapton Tower and, as discussed during our meeting, Landscape and Visual based on the likely additional visual impact of additional Considerations turbines to the further eastern edges of this red edge, we would look to resist any turbines in this area. This is mainly due to the topography of the land, and where the additional turbines will be visible from. At present, when viewed from the north, the turbines stand in a line with the hill as a backdrop. When viewed from the east and west, the turbines are all viewed as narrow group due to their position on the side of the hill. The further east any additional turbines are sited, due to the hill side dropping away and southwards, the turbines will be seen in a much wider group from the east, and therefore have a greater visual impact upon a wider area. Once you have assessed the optimum potential sites for new turbines, perhaps best carried out by overlays (as suggested in Paragraph 4.6 of your report), I would advise that you bear in mind my above comments.

In terms of the LVIA scope, I would suggest following the same route as before in terms of the level of detail and in terms of viewpoints, I am happy to offer some additional suggestions for viewpoints from the east of the site. I would also include a Landscape Character Assessment and a Cumulative Impact Assessment within this document.

Planning Officer As requested at Paragraph 4.15, we would require a Heritage Comments on Impact Assessment of the proposal in relation to the nearby Heritage ‘Heritage Assets’ and ‘Listed Buildings’, and at a 5km radius is Considerations considered acceptable. – impact upon the wider setting

Planning Officer Having discussed the proposal with the Environmental Comments on Noise Protection Officer, he has advised that they use the ETSU-R97 and Shadow Flicker guidance note when considering proposals for wind farms, and Considerations advise that a cumulative Noise Impact Assessment is carried out. In terms of properties nearby, I would suggest looking at

41

Iron House, Watson Laithe, Lower Micklehurst, New Barn, Further Farm Barn and Barley Green as sites for carrying out such data collection.

In terms of shadow flicker, you appear to have considered this aspect and we would expect a detailed review of the existing turbines, and also an assessment of the additional ones

Table 5.3: Breakdown Summary of Initial Pre-Application Responses

5.6.5 Further details of the consultation activity undertaken at that time with the community and the views of respondents can be seen in the Statement of Community Involvement submitted with the application. Following these initial discussions, FAB Energy Solutions were satisfied that additional capacity was available on the Hameldon Hill subject to environmental constraints. It was considered that a design for 5 wind turbines may exceed the landscape and visual capacity of the hillside; however, further exploration was considered necessary to identify a bespoke set of design criteria and further understand the environmental constraints.

5.6.6 Following the completion of the initial Design and Environmental Assessment work and consultation through the pre-application process, there followed a lengthy period of gathering further baseline environmental information and a process of iterative design work, whereby various alternatives for the proposed development were tested by the consultant team appointed by FAB Energy Solutions.

5.7 Design Criteria

5.7.1 The NPS EN-1 advises that energy infrastructure developments are “as attractive… as they can be” (Paragraph 4.5.3) and states that “whilst the applicant may not have any or very limited choice in the physical appearance of some energy infrastructure, there may be opportunities for the applicant to demonstrate good design in terms of siting relative to existing landscape character, landform and vegetation”. Having identified a potential area of search within the landownership boundaries and having received initial constructive feedback from stakeholders, the next stage in planning this wind energy scheme was the identification of further constraints to inform a more detailed layout and design.

42

5.7.2 As outlined following the completion of the initial Design and Environmental Assessment, work and consultation through the pre-application process there then followed a period of gathering further baseline environmental information. This process developed an initial set of site design objectives which were modelled as constraints in July 2015.

Design Objectives Environmental Receptor

Avoid watercourses where possible to minimise Hydrology, Ecology and Peat-Land the number of watercourse crossings required. Environment

Locate turbines at least 50 metres from habitat Ecology features used by bats and at least 100m from woodland.

Locate proposed infrastructure at least 50 metres Hydrology from other hydrological features.

To achieve a separation distance of at least over- Users of PRoW sail from public footpaths and over-sail from bridleways.

Maintain suitable wake separation distances Landscape Character and Visual between turbines and 5x3 spacing based on a Amenity rotor diameter of 82m.

Locate turbines at least 121m from existing Public Safety Overhead Cables.

Locate turbines and associated infrastructure on Environment and Hydrology land outside of the defined Peat Area (BGS Map).

Table 5.4: Design Objectives

5.7.3 The identification of the aforementioned design objectives subsequently informed an initial constraint mapping exercise undertaken by AECOM, to identify those areas of the land ownership capable of accommodating wind turbines. The relevant constraint plan is presented in Figure 5.1. This was the first phase in the more detailed layout design process and the starting point for further investigations.

43

5.7.4 Following a design briefing further more detailed objectives were set at the subsequent stage. These are set down below which include additional technical, economic and environmental criteria:

Design Objectives Environmental Receptor

Ensure that existing and proposed turbines Landscape Character and Visual read as a coherent group in all the main views Amenity – aim for a balanced composition, minimising views of blade tips only in key views (which can be distracting).

Avoid ‘stacking’ of turbines when seen from Landscape Character and Visual one direction. Amenity

Avoid siting turbines which are remote from Landscape Character and Visual the rest of the group of existing Hameldon Hill Amenity Wind Farm turbines.

Ensure the proposed size is in proportion with, Landscape Character and Visual and does not overwhelm, the scale of the hill. Amenity

Ensure that the proposed wind turbines Landscape Character and Visual respect the hierarchy of elements in the Amenity landscape and do not compete with, or create clutter when seen together with, other man- made landscape elements such as the pylons, existing turbines and transmitter tower.

Ensure that the proportion of rotor diameter Landscape Character and Visual to tower height is balanced and all turbines Amenity (including the existing turbines) should rotate in the same direction and at the same rotation speed.

Minimise the length of new tracks introduced Landscape Character and Visual into the landscape, using existing routes Amenity wherever possible. Any new tracks should

44 follow contours, avoiding steep slopes or wet ground where possible, and following field boundaries or woodland edges where possible.

Avoid watercourses where possible to Hydrology, Ecology and Peat-Land minimise the number of watercourse Environment crossings required.

Achieve connection to the national electricity Landscape Character, Visual Amenity grid through the use of underground cabling and Ecology with cabling to the follow the alignment of the proposed access tracks.

Locate turbines at least 50m from habitat Ecology features used by bats and at least 100m from woodland.

Locate proposed infrastructure at least 50m Hydrology from other hydrological features.

To achieve a separation distance of at least Users of PRoW oversail from public footpaths and oversail from bridleways.

Locate turbines outside the buffer zones of Telecommunications telecommunication links.

Maintain suitable wake separation distances Landscape Character and Visual between turbines and 5x3 spacing based on a Amenity rotor diameter of 82m.

Locate turbines in a design which is 10dB Noise – Neighbour Amenity below the existing noise limits of the current wind turbines.

Locate turbines at least 121m from existing Public Safety overhead cables.

45

Locate turbines and associated infrastructure Environment and Hydrology on land outside of the defined Peat Area (BGS Map).

Table 5.5: Further Design Objectives

5.7.5 With these design objectives set alternative site layouts were investigated to compare the impacts of different designs and to find the optimum layout and design for extending the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm. The following elements were considered in relation to these design objectives:

• Layout and number of turbines; • Size, design and proportion of turbines; • Location of transformers and substation; • Design of access tracks; • Need for monitoring masts; • Design of lighting.

5.8 Layout and Number of Turbines

5.8.1 A number of scenarios were conceived for the layout of the proposed turbines. The first scenario was for five wind turbines which were conceived for the initial pre-application discussions with the council. These were formed prior to the constraints modelling undertaken by AECOM but aimed to keep a cluster of turbines on the hillside. This layout is shown in Appendix 5.1 of this ES. Following more detailed investigations, it was concluded that the impact of five turbines from noise would exceed the ETSU requirements on nearby properties to the east including Lower Micklehurst, Further Barn, Long Syke and Lower Oaken Eaves. Furthermore, engagement with the community set down in the accompanying Statement of Community Involvement also raised concerns about the visual impact from five wind turbines, particularly exceeding the capacity of the hillside to accommodate this number of turbines. This layout of five turbines was subsequently rejected.

5.8.2 A further layout was conceived that reduced the number of turbines from the initial layout to three wind turbines. This layout allowed the number of turbines in a design which is 10dB below the existing noise limits of the current wind turbines on site. Reducing the

46

number of wind turbines also allowed greater flexibility in the layout conceived. Areas to the north of the selected locations were discounted as this would result in the noise levels exceeding 10dB below the existing noise limits of the current wind turbines on site for the financially involved properties of New Barn and Lower Micklehurst Farm. The layout of the turbines was subsequently focussed on land extending to the south of the land ownership.

5.8.3 Notwithstanding the noise constraints it is acknowledged that at present, when viewed from the north the turbines stand in a line with the hill as a backdrop. When viewed from the east and west, the turbines are all viewed as narrow group due to their position on the side of the hill. Subsequently a balancing exercise was sought between the noise constraints and visual constraints on site. These constraints were further underlined due to the ecological values of the land to the south on the higher ground. Based on these constraints a layout was conceived based on three turbines in the following coordinates:

Description Grid Reference X Y Latitude Longitude

Proposed Turbine 1 SD 81207 29690 381207 429690 53.763219 -2.2865555

Proposed Turbine 2 SD 81271 29423 381271 429423 53.760821 -2.2855684

Proposed Turbine 3 SD 81402 29876 381402 429876 53.764897 -2.2836088

Table 5.6: Final Layout Proposed

5.8.4 These proposed turbines in the layout conceived have sought to minimise the constraints and ensure compliance with core objectives such as being 10dB below the existing noise limits of the current wind turbines on site.

5.9 Size, Design and Proportion of Turbines

5.9.1 The size of the turbines proposed has been guided by a design iteration process. The site is constrained by the existing wind turbines which are positioned in the following locations and include the following hub and tip heights and models:

Hub Tip Turbine Description X Y MW Height Height Model

Original and Installed Turbine Repower 1.5 1 380750 430105 50 90 MD70

47

Original and Installed Turbine Repower 1.5 2 381124 429918 50 90 MD70

Original and Installed Turbine Repower 1.5 3 381165 430117 50 90 MD70

Senvion 2.05 Recently Installed Turbine 1 380730 429879 59 100 MM82

Senvion 2.05 Recently Installed Turbine 2 380360 429876 69 110 MM82

Senvion 2.05 Recently Installed Turbine 3 380276 430283 69 110 MM82

Table 5.7: Breakdown of Installed Turbines

5.9.2 As can be seen the hub and tip heights range between 20m difference and has been guided by the topography with higher hub heights placed on the lower topography. This has aimed to allow for a smooth design with the overall perception on the hillside of a coherent design. Despite different models and heights approved an integrated design has been conceived, with the six turbines in accordance with good layout practice (Scottish Natural Heritage (2009) Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape). As with the previous scheme, this application seeks candidate turbines to ensure that the availability of models in the market can be explored post consent. Due to the location of the turbines on the higher ground in comparison with the Senvion MM82 turbines most recently installed, it is suggested that the maximum tip height is capped at 100m rather than the 110m previously approved. Design layouts were considered for larger scaled turbines or higher hub heights and modelled as wireframes, but to ensure the design ethos is maintained a hub height around 60m (with a maximum hub height of 65m) with a subsequent tip height of up to 100m is considered preferential.

5.10 Location of Transformers and Sub-Station

5.10.1 As a rule, a transformer inside or near the wind energy converter (as is the case with the existing wind turbines at the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm site) converts 400V low voltage to the desired medium voltage. A metering substation is then located at grid reference SD 80302 30603 which collects all the energy generated by the turbines releasing to the grid. This is located outside of the landownership of the application and whilst it would be preferable to use the existing sub-station, this might not be feasible as it may not be possible to obtain an easement for a cable connection into the existing wind farm

48

connection. Subsequently, its own metering sub-station would be required and this would be positioned on the lower slopes within the site to ensure that there is a minimal visual impact and positioned as shown in Figure 4.1.

5.11 Design of Access Tracks

5.11.1 The proposals have sought to minimise the impact on the landscape by reusing existing access tracks where possible. There are two tracks serving New Barn one from the Agra Indian restaurant and one from the industrial estate. Both were considered, however, due to the width of the access track and bordering land uses the track leading to the Industrial Estate was discounted. The preferred route is to utilise the existing track which was used to facilitate the access for the existing wind turbines. This partly falls on land outside of the landownership of New Barn; however, access rights exist to facilitate the turbines delivery in a similar manner to the previous scheme.

5.11.2 The proposed turbines can subsequently be delivered to site with any new access tracks kept to an absolute minimum. The extent of new tracks and works required are outlined in detail in Chapter 11 of this ES, with the design of the internal access road undertaken in order to minimise the extent of hard surfacing, with the access road leading to each turbine designed at approximately 6m in width to allow the crane and installation of each turbine. Once installed these access tracks would be reduced in width to approximately 3m, as the existing tracks serving the previous scheme have been undertaken.

5.12 Need for Monitoring Masts

5.12.1 Given the existing wind resource on site and the current operational wind farm, no monitoring masts were considered necessary. This would ensure that the number of vertical elements on the hillside was kept to a minimum.

5.13 Design of Lighting;

5.13.1 The planning application Ref: APP/2009/0756 for the second phase of the wind farm was approved with Condition 21 of the decision notice relating to lighting as follows:

21. The turbines shall not be illuminated and there shall be no permanent illumination on the site other than lighting required during the construction period, during planned or

49

unplanned maintenance or emergency lighting, and PIR-operated external door light for the substation doors to allow safe access.

5.13.2 Given the background context of this proposal representing three wind turbines adjacent to an existing wind farm, any alternative options to include lighting were dismissed to ensure a consistency in design.

5.14 Compliance with the Design Objectives

5.14.1 The following table sets down the design objectives and whether compliance has been achieved in the final layout:

Design Objectives Compliance or Not

Ensure that existing and proposed Compliance - although turbine 2 is positioned turbines read as a coherent group in furthest from the group of existing turbines its all the main views – aim for a scale and location in wireframes is still read as balanced composition, minimising part of the overall group. views of blade tips only in key views (which can be distracting).

Avoid ‘stacking’ of turbines when seen Compliance - each turbine is offset with a from one direction. separation distance from each other to ensure that the turbines do not appear stacked on the hillside.

Avoid siting turbines which are remote Compliance – Whilst the turbine positions are from the rest of the group of existing slightly further south than the current group in Hameldon Hill Wind Farm turbines. plan terms the final composition in visual terms appears well related to the rest of the group of turbines.

Ensure the proposed size is in Compliance – the scale sought at a maximum proportion with, and does not height of 100m, is 10m below the height of the overwhelm, the scale of the hill. maximum turbine installed at present so whilst the position is on higher ground a balance has been sought visually.

50

Ensure that the proposed wind Compliance – the proposed turbines have been turbines respect the hierarchy of sought on the higher ground beyond the pylons elements in the landscape and do not and the lower ground level below the compete with, or create clutter when transmitter towers. Their position has been seen together with, other man-made sought in combination with the existing landscape elements such as the turbines. pylons, existing turbines and transmitter tower.

Ensure that the proportion of rotor Compliance – the proposed turbines heights diameter to tower height is balanced have been designed to be in balance with the and all turbines (including the existing existing so as not to appear incongruous on the turbines) should rotate in the same hillside. The turbines can be controlled so as to direction and at the same rotation rotate in the same direction. speed.

Minimise the length of new tracks Compliance – the existing route used for the introduced into the landscape, using previous scheme would be reused. The access existing routes wherever possible. Any tracks in the site would be reused as much as new tracks should follow contours, possible and keeping new tracks to a minimum. avoiding steep slopes or wet ground The new tracks would follow the land contours where possible, and following field and avoid steep slopes. Only the southernmost boundaries or woodland edges where turbine would be positioned in wetter ground possible. and woodland would be avoided.

Avoid watercourses where possible to Partial Compliance - Two of the turbines would minimise the number of watercourse avoid watercourses completely; however, it has crossings required. been necessary to cross Tower Brook. The crossing would be culverted and would be designed as part of the post consent phase in accordance with the Environment Agency requirements.

Achieve connection to the national Compliance – All cables will be laid electricity grid through the use of underground and follow the alignment of the underground cabling with cabling to proposed access tracks as much as possible.

51 follow the alignment of the proposed access tracks.

Locate turbines at least 50 metres Compliance – the proposed turbines have been from habitat features used by bats positioned a significant distance from woodland and at least 100m from woodland. ensuring compliance. The only habitat features could be the Tower Brook and the 50m separation distance has been achieved from here.

Locate proposed infrastructure at Partial compliance - Two of the turbines would least 50 metres from other avoid hydrological features completely; hydrological features. however, it has been necessary to cross Tower Brook. The crossing would be culverted and would be designed as part of the post consent phase in accordance with the EA. The turbine itself would be positioned beyond the 50m buffer though.

To achieve a separation distance of at Compliance – All turbines comply with these least over-sail from public footpaths standards. and over-sail from bridleways.

Locate turbines outside the buffer Compliance – engagement is ongoing but where zones of telecommunication links. the turbines do fall within links mitigation can be applied to ensure compliance.

Maintain suitable wake separation Compliance – the position of the turbines would distances between turbines and 5x3 exceed this requirement. spacing based on a rotor diameter of 82m.

Locate turbines in a design which is Compliance – each turbine has been specifically 10dB below the existing noise limits of positioned in order to be 10dB below the the current wind turbines. existing noise limits of the current wind turbines.

52

Locate turbines at least 121m from Compliance – each turbine has been positioned existing overhead cables. in order to be at least 121m from existing overhead cables.

Locate turbines and associated Compliance – each turbine has been positioned infrastructure on land outside of the outside of the defined Peat Area (BGS Map). defined Peat Area (BGS Map).

Table 5.8: Table Illustrating Compliance with Objectives

5.15 References

 Scottish Natural Heritage - Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape (2009)

53

6.0 Legislation and Policy Context

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 This chapter addresses the Legislation and Policy Context of the proposal and has been prepared by AAH Planning Consultants. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

6.1.2 The NPPF addressed in this chapter is one such material consideration, in addition to the NPPF there are also PPG, Written Ministerial Statements (WMS) and the National Energy Policy (NEP) which is applicable to the consideration of this proposal. Case law suggests that WMS do not carry the weight of national planning policy. Comparably PPG is simply a material consideration. It does not alter the statutory status of the Local Plan, so as long as PPG is accorded sufficient weight by councils, a determining authority can find that it is outweighed by other material considerations.

6.2 National Energy Policy

6.2.1 The energy policy guidance is provided in Appendix 6.1. The Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1) sets out the national policy for energy infrastructure. This policy document is supported by the NPS for renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).

6.2.2 The NPS’ reiterate the commitment to meeting the legally binding target of 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels). EN-1 identifies that the UK requires an affordable and secure source of energy and that this is vital to our quality of life and economic prosperity.

6.2.3 Policy document EN-3 advises that onshore wind farms will continue to play an important role in meeting renewable energy targets and that the following factors are key in selecting sites for windfarm development:

 Predicted Wind;  Proximity of the site to dwellings;  Capacity of a site;  Electricity Grid Connection; and

 Access.

54

6.3 National Planning Policy Framework

6.3.1 The government’s NPPF was adopted on 27th March 2012 and represents the principal national guidance document and a material consideration which must be taken into account, where relevant, in determining planning applications. This framework replaces all previous NPS’, which were superseded on its adoption. Statements contained within cannot make irrelevant any matter which is a material consideration in a particular case, but where such statements indicate the weight that should be given to relevant considerations, decision makers must have proper regard to them. One particular consideration which will be teased out in this report is the weight which should be given to the appropriateness of development within the countryside, versus the weight associated with the wider environmental benefits of a wind turbine.

6.3.2 At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (Paragraph 14), which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. Sustainable development encompasses concepts of sustainable economic, social and environmental development which run concurrent with the spatial approach to planning. For decision-taking this means:

 approving development proposals that accord with the Development Plan without delay; and  where the Development Plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole; or

- specific policies in this framework indicate development should be restricted”.

6.3.3 Key to this application, the following excerpts are applicable to the proposals for the proposed wind turbines adjacent to the wind farm at this site:

Renewable Energy

6.3.4 To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, LPA should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should (Paragraph 97):

55

 Have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources;

6.3.5 When determining planning applications, LPAs should (Paragraph 98):

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

 Approve 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 consequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas.

Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment

6.3.6 Regarding the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment in Chapter 12 of the NPPF it states at 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.

Weight of the NPPF

6.3.7 The NPPF sets out national guidance on planning policies; many Local Authorities have development plans which were drafted prior to the introduction of the NPPF. The NPPF sets out how and where these policies should be weighted in the determination of planning applications. The following two paragraphs (214 and 215) taken from the NPPF establish where the weight should rest:

56

“214. For 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework.

215. In other cases and following this 12-month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).”

6.4 Planning Practice Guidance and Subsequent Written Ministerial Statements

6.4.1 The government released further guidance in relation to renewable energy proposals in July 2013 with the publication of the PPG for renewable and low carbon energy. This publication accompanied the NPPF but was withdrawn on 7th March 2014 and replaced by the new PPG launched 6th March 2014 on an external website. This guidance set out the main constraints relating to renewable energy proposals. Paragraph 014 (Reference ID: 5- 014-20150618) sets down what the particular planning considerations are that relate to wind turbines. It states that the following questions should be considered when determining applications for wind turbines:

 Do local people have the final say on wind farm applications?

 How are noise impacts of wind turbines assessed?

 Is safety an issue when wind turbine applications are assessed?

 Is interference with electromagnetic transmissions an issue for wind turbine applications?

 How can the risk of wind turbines be assessed for ecology?

 How should heritage be taken into account in assessing wind turbine applications?

 Is shadow flicker and reflected light an issue for wind turbine applications?

 How to assess the likely energy output of a wind turbine?

 How should cumulative landscape and visual impacts from wind turbines be assessed?

57

 What information is needed to assess cumulative landscape and visual impacts of wind turbines?

 Decommissioning wind turbines

6.4.2 On the 18th June 2015 The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government issued a WMS advising that:

“When determining planning applications for wind energy development involving one or more wind turbines, local planning authorities should only grant planning permission if:

- the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a Local or Neighbourhood Plan; and

- following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing”.

6.4.3 The PPG has subsequently been updated at Paragraph: 033 to reflect this WMS. Burnley’s Development Plan is discussed in detail in this chapter. There are no areas within the adopted Local Plan or the emerging plan to identify any area as being suitable for wind energy development. The NPPF notes at Paragraph 14 that the presumption in favour of development means that where a Development Plan is silent on any matter the LPA must grant permission “unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”. The NPPF is supportive of all renewable energy plant where adverse effects are, or can be made, acceptable. Subsequently, as there are no suitable areas for wind energy development allocated within Burnley’s Plan it is subsequently silent and Paragraph 14 of the NPPF would take effect. With regards to the second criterion of the WMS as to whether there is community support for the proposal. The application is supported by extensive community consultation and the application as presented has sought to address those areas of concern raised. It is for the determining authority to take a view upon whether the proposal has suitably addressed those concerns and can be considered to have the support of the community.

58

6.5 Local Planning Policy

6.5.1 Paragraph 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF and associated PPG continue to emphasise the importance of the plan-led approach to determining planning proposals.

6.5.2 The Local Plan for Burnley Borough Council comprises the Burnley Local Plan adopted 4th April 2006 and the suite of Supplementary Planning Documents accompanying the plan. The key policies within the Local Plan are:

Objective GP1 - To concentrate all new development, other than that appropriate to a rural area, within the urban boundary.

Policies:

 E4- Protection of Other Features of Ecological Value  E5- Species Protection  E10- Alterations, Extensions, Change of Use and Development Affecting Listed Buildings  E12 – Development in, or adjacent to, Conservation Areas  E18 – Scheduled Ancient Monuments  E19 – Development and Archaeological Remains  E27 – Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness in Rural Areas and Green Belt  E31 – Wind Farms

6.5.3 Details of these policies are provided within Appendix 6.1.

Decision Making and the Weight to be afforded to the Development Plan Policies

6.5.4 The NPPF was published in March 2012 and advises in Paragraph 215 that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this frame work (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the framework, the greater the weight that may be given)”.

6.5.5 In this respect, the policies within the Development Plan should be considered against the guidance in the NPPF to establish the degree of consistency and therefore the weight

59 which the decision maker should afford each policy. The assessment of this is set down in Table 6.1.

60

Weight to be Burnley Local Plan Policy Text NPPF Section and Aims Degree of Consistency Afforded to Policy Policy

Objective GP1 To concentrate all new development, Section 3 – Supporting a Prosperous The Development Plan Limited Weight other than that appropriate to a rural Rural Economy. Criterion 1 requires Policy seeks to restrict area, within the urban boundary. decision makers to “support the development in the rural sustainable growth and expansion of all areas of Burnley beyond types of business and enterprise in rural that established in the areas”. NPPF. As such there is a limited degree of conflict with the policy.

E4 – Protection of Features of ecological value and potential Section 11 – Conserving and enhancing These policies are in Significant Other Features of such as ponds, hedgerows, dry stone walls the natural environment. accord with each other. Weight Ecological Value and watercourses and their associated This section in Paragraph 114 first corridors will be safeguarded wherever criterion advises that local authorities possible by requiring their retention in should “set out a strategic approach in new development. Proposals should take their Local Plans, planning positively for advantage of opportunities to create new the creation, protection, enhancement wildlife habitats where these can be and management of networks of

61

included as part of a site layout and biodiversity and green infrastructure”. landscaping schemes. Where necessary, planning agreements will be required to secure appropriate management of such sites.

E5 – Species The presence of a protected species will Section 11- Conserving and Enhancing These policies are in Significant Protection be a material consideration in the Natural Environment. Paragraph 113 accord with each other. Weight determining any planning application. advises “Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against Development that would affect sites which proposals for any development on supporting species protected by law will or affecting protected wildlife or not be permitted unless geodiversity sites or landscape areas will a. adequate provision is made be judged”. within the proposed development to avoid disturbance to the species and habitat in question; or b. adequate provision is made, by way of planning conditions or agreements, to: i. facilitate the survival of the individual

62

species affected; ii. reduce the disturbance to a minimum; and iii. provide adequate alternative habitats to sustain the viability of the local population of that species.

E10 – Alteration, The council will not permit proposals Section 12 – Conserving and enhancing These policies are Significant Extensions, Change which adversely affect the character, the historic environment. Paragraph 131 generally in accord with Weight of Use and architectural or historic interest of a listed states “In determining planning each other. Development building, or its setting. Proposals will only applications, local planning authorities Affecting Listed be permitted where they: should take Buildings a. retain and repair features of account of: architectural or historic interest; ● the desirability of sustaining and b. use appropriate materials and enhancing the significance of heritage traditional working practices; assets and putting them to viable uses c. have no adverse effect on the setting consistent with their conservation; of the building, including trees, walls, gardens, and any other structure or object ● the positive contribution that within the curtilage of the building; conservation of heritage assets can make d. make provision for the appropriate to sustainable communities including

63

recording of any architectural or historic their economic vitality; and features that are to be removed during ● the desirability of new development repair or alteration; and making a positive contribution to local e. are appropriate in terms of siting, size, character and distinctiveness”. scale and design of any extension.

E12- Development The council will preserve and enhance the Section 12 – Conserving and enhancing These policies are Significant in or Adjacent to character of the Borough’s conservation the historic environment. generally in accordance Weight Conservation Areas areas, shown on the proposals map. with each other. Paragraph 131 states “In determining Where permission for new development planning applications, local planning and/or alterations to buildings in the authorities should take account of: conservation areas is required, permission ● the desirability of sustaining and will only be granted when the following enhancing the significance of heritage criteria are satisfied: assets and putting them to viable uses a. the proposal respects the character of consistent with their conservation; the conservation area in terms of quality, siting, detailing, height, scale, materials, ● the positive contribution that landscaping and external appearance; conservation of heritage assets can make b. the proposal will enhance the to streetscape and retain historic street sustainable communities including their

64

patterns and materials, avoiding the economic vitality; and creation of a gap in an established ● the desirability of new development frontage, or the inclusion of inappropriate making a positive contribution to local buildings or features which detract from character and distinctiveness”. the townscape features that make the Conservation Area special; c. significant views into and out of the Conservation Area are safeguarded; d. the proposal does not lead to the loss of open space, trees or other landscape features which contribute to the area; and e. the proposal does not generate levels of traffic and parking which would be detrimental to the character or appearance of the area.

E18 – Scheduled Scheduled Ancient Monuments should be Section 12 – Conserving and enhancing These policies are Significant Ancient preserved where they are found. the historic environment. generally in accordance Weight Monuments Development which fails to preserve the with each other. Paragraph 131 states “In determining archaeological value and interest of planning applications, local planning

65

Ancient Monuments or their settings will authorities should take account of: not be permitted. ● the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

● the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

● the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness”.

E19 – Development Before the council determines an Section 12 – Conserving and enhancing These policies are Significant and Archaeological application for development that may the historic environment. generally in accordance Weight Remains affect known or potential sites of with each other. Paragraph 128 advises “Where a site on archaeological interest, applicants will be which development is proposed includes required to make provision for an or has the potential to include heritage archaeological assessment. This assets with archaeological interest, local assessment should define: planning authorities should require

66

 the character and condition of any developers to submit an appropriate archaeological monuments or remains desk-based assessment and, where within the application site; necessary, a field evaluation”.

 the likely impact of the proposed development on such features; and

 the means of mitigating the effect of the proposed development to achieve preservation of the remains in situ, or, where this is not feasible or justifiable, provision for excavation and archaeological recording prior to the commencement of development.

E20 - Views New development will be permitted Section 11- Conserving and enhancing These policies are Significant where: the natural environment. generally in accord with Weight each other. a. it respects skylines, roofscapes and Paragraph 109 among other areas seeks views; and to “enhance the natural environment by b. it does not detract from the public … protecting and enhancing valued view of prominent or important buildings, landscapes”. or affect views into and out of Major Open Areas, by intruding into or on their

67

margins. E27- Landscape All proposals for new development in Section 11 - Conserving and enhancing These policies are Significant Character and Local rural areas and the green belt will be the natural environment. generally in accordance Weight. Distinctiveness in expected to contribute to the protection, with each other. Paragraph 109 among other areas seeks Rural Areas and enhancement and restoration of the to “enhance the natural environment by Green Belt Borough’s distinctive landscape character … protecting and enhancing valued by: landscapes”. a. protecting critical environmental

capital and key features in the landscape, b. protecting the setting of rural and NB. The proposal site is not located urban settlements; within the green belt and as such the c. protecting, enhancing and restoring green belt guidance in the NPPF is not archaeological and historical features; applicable in this case. d. protecting farmsteads, barns, mills and other prominent buildings, and man- made features such as ponds, lodges, and bridges; e. protecting and enhancing historic field patterns, including walls and hedgerows; f. seeking the use of local materials, or the nearest match, and vernacular styles

68

in all new buildings, walls, and fences, and by resisting urban style lighting, materials and standardised detailing; g. maintaining views and avoiding skyline development; h. encouraging tree planting, woodland and afforestation of native species when appropriate in the landscape setting; i. protecting and restoring native species; j. protecting, restoring, enhancing, and creating habitats; k. reclaiming derelict land where appropriate; and l. by conserving and enhancing river corridors.

E31 – Wind Farms The development of wind farms and Criterion ‘a’ refers to landscape and These policies are Significant related development will be approved, visual amenity and replicates the tests of generally in accordance weight with the provided that: Policy E27, this is covered in Paragraph with each other, with the exception of 109 of the NPPF. exception of criterion e criterion e a. there is no unacceptable impact on

69 the character of the landscape or on the Criterion ‘b’ refers to the setting of which should only be which is only visual amenity of the area by reason of heritage assets and archaeological sites. afforded limited weight. afforded the siting, number, design, colour or These are addressed by Policies E10, limited weight. layout of the wind turbines; E12, E18 and E19 and are covered in b. there is no unacceptable effect on the Section 11 of the NPPF. setting of buildings and sites of Criterion ‘c’ refers to the conservation of architectural and historic interest and nature and biodiversity sites. These are sites of archaeological importance; addressed by Policies E4 and E5 and are c. there is no unacceptable effect on covered in Section 11 of the NPPF. sites of nature conservation value or biodiversity action plan priority habitats Criterion ‘d’ refers to the protection or species; afforded to residential amenity. The d. there is no unacceptable effect on the NPPF within its core principles amenity of local residents (Paragraph 17) seeks to secure “a good e. the proposal is close to the electricity standard of amenity for all existing and distribution network and the length of future occupants of land and buildings”. any overhead electricity connection cables is minimised; f. it does not adversely affect any Criterion ‘e’ relates to the connection to recreational facilities and routes; the grid. The connection of the wind g. any electromagnetic disturbance on farm to the national electricity grid is existing transmitting or receiving systems permitted development in accordance

70 is minimised; and with Part 15, Class B – electricity h. applications are accompanied by a undertakings of The Town and Country scheme for removal of any associated Planning (General Permitted structures, and reinstatement of the site Development) (England) Order 2015. As to its former use in the event of the site such consent under this proposal is not becoming non-operational. required. There is nothing within the Development that would have a negative NNPF which supports this part of the cumulative impact in relation to existing policy and therefore limited weight wind turbines or extant approvals for should be afforded to it in consideration these, will not be permitted. of the proposal.

Criterion ‘f’ requires that the proposal does not impact upon recreational facilities and routes. NPPF Core Principles (Paragraph 17) advises that decisions should “take account of the different roles and character of different areas”.

Criterion ‘g’ requires that electromagnetic disturbance is minimised. Paragraph 98 of the NPPF advises that ”when determining planning

71

applications local authorities should… approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable”.

Criterion ‘h’ requires that application are accompanied by a scheme for removal of any associated structures in the event of the site becoming non operational. This is not covered within the NPPF; however, it is something which can reasonably be addressed through the addition of a suitably worded condition attached to any approval granted.

Table 6.1: Table setting down the Degree of Consistency between Burnley Council’s Local Planning Policies and the NPPF

72

Relevant Policy Tests from the Local Plan

6.5.6 The majority of policies in the Burnley Local Plan (2006) are in general accordance with the NPPF and therefore hold significant weight in the consideration of the proposal. As there are no suitable areas for wind energy development allocated within Burnley’s Plan, it is subsequently silent and Paragraph 14 of the NPPF, would take effect in that the application should be considered against the presumption in favour of sustainable development and whether any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole. The policy requirements in relation to proximity and connection to the distribution network are matters covered by separate legislation and therefore are not addressed within the NPPF and should not be afforded significant weight in the consideration of the proposal.

6.5.7 The key areas for consideration of the proposal are considered to be:

 The principal of the development in this location;

 The impacts of the proposal upon the visual amenity and character of the area;

 The impacts of the proposal upon the ecological interest of the area and biodiversity effects;

 The impacts of the proposal of noise;

 The impacts of the proposal on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Assets;

 The impacts of the proposal on Traffic and Transportation;

 The impacts of the proposal on Utilities Infrastructure and Telecommunications.

6.6 Material Considerations

6.6.1 As outlined in Paragraph 6.2 of this chapter, the NPPF addressed in this chapter is one such material consideration; in addition to the NPPF there is also the PPG, WMS and the NEP which are applicable to the consideration of this proposal and have been discussed. Case law suggests that WMS do not carry the weight of national planning policy. Comparably PPG is simply a material consideration. It does not alter the statutory status of the Local Plan, so as long as PPG is accorded sufficient weight by councils, a determining authority can find that it is outweighed by other material considerations.

73

6.6.2 To the extent that the Development Plan policies are material to an application for planning permission the decision must be taken in accordance with the Development Plan unless there are materials considerations that indicate otherwise (see section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). The NPPF stresses the importance of having a planning system that is genuinely plan- led. Where a proposal accords with an up-to-date Development Plan, it should be approved without delay, as required by the presumption in favour of sustainable development at Paragraph 14 of the NPPF. Where the Development Plan is absent, silent or the relevant policies are out of date, Paragraph 14 of the NPPF requires the application to be determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

74

7.0 Landscape and Visual Amenity

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 This chapter assesses the landscape and visual impact of the proposed development and has been prepared by JBA Consulting.

7.1.2 This study aims to assess the effects of the proposal on the landscape and visual resource of the area. The assessment has involved the following key stages:

 Desk-based research to determine the scope of the study, referencing ZTVs prepared by AAH Planning.

 Desk-based research to establish the landscape and visual baseline and identify potential receptors.

 Field work to verify the ZTV and baseline studies and ascertain how the landscape and visual resource will change.

 Assessment and reporting of potential effects.

7.1.3 The process is supported by the use of viewpoints to illustrate and evaluate effects at key sites relevant to the proposal, but the assessment of effects is not confined to these key viewpoints.

7.1.4 The report also includes a review of planning and other policy relevant to landscape and visual considerations in the area, which has helped inform the scope of the study and the assessments.

7.2 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance

National Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework 2012

7.2.1 The NPPF must be taken into account in the determination of planning applications as it sets out the government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Within the twelve core planning principles, it notes that planning should:

75

 "Always seek to secure... a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings;

 Take account of the different roles and character of different areas... recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside...

 Support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate... and encourage the use of renewable resources…

 Conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations"

7.2.2 With regard to the natural environment, Paragraph 109 states that the Planning System should "contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by... protecting and enhancing valued landscapes".

7.2.3 In relation to the historic environment, it notes that LPAs should, when determining planning applications:

"require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting... the level of detail should be proportionate to the assets' importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance".

7.2.4 Paragraph 132 goes on to state that great weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset:

"Significance can be harmed or lost through... development within its setting... any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification".

7.2.5 The effect on a “non-designated heritage asset” should also be taken into account in determining an application. Paragraph 135 notes that "in weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgment will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset". Furthermore, harm should be judged against the public benefits delivered by the proposal.

76

7.2.6 Note that effects on cultural heritage assets are assessed within a separate chapter. However, landscape and visual sensitivity may be informed by the presence of heritage assets or designations.

Planning Practice Guidance

7.2.7 The NPPF is accompanied by a suite web-based PPG documents that provides advice on many aspects of the planning process.

7.2.8 Landscape is covered within guidance on the natural environment, under Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 8-001-20140306, which refers to the principle that planning should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and indicates that Local Plans should have policies for the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment, including landscapes, both designated and the wider countryside. The guidance refers to the use of landscape character assessment at a national and local level as a tool to help inform, plan and manage change.

7.2.9 Within guidance on renewable and low carbon energy, Paragraph: 001 Reference ID:5-001- 20140306 highlights the importance of such technologies to help the UK secure energy supplies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stimulate investment, and suggests planning has an important role in their delivery, in locations where the local environmental impact is acceptable. Paragraph: 003 Reference ID:5-003-20140306 of the guidance outlines how local authorities can develop strategies to accommodate such technologies, and under Paragraph 005 Reference ID:5-005-20150618, the guidance identifies the planning considerations specific to wind turbines.

7.2.10 Furthermore, Paragraph 010: Reference ID: 5-010-20140306 states that renewable energy development should be acceptable for their proposed location, and Paragraph: 022 Reference ID:5-022-20140306 provides guidance on how cumulative landscape and visual impacts should be assessed for wind turbines, stating that such impacts are concerned with the degree to which a development will become a significant or defining characteristic of the landscape. Cumulative visual impacts concern the degree to which a development will become a feature in particular views, or sequences of views; and the impact this has on people experiencing those views.

7.2.11 The guidance continues through Paragraph: 023 Reference ID: 5-023-20140306 and suggests that in identifying impacts on landscape, considerations should include direct and indirect

77

effects, cumulative impacts and temporary and permanent impacts. When assessing the significance of impacts, a number of criteria should be considered including the sensitivity of the landscape and visual resources and the magnitude or size of the predicted change. It also notes that some landscapes may be more sensitive to certain types of change than others and it should not be assumed that a landscape character area deemed sensitive to one type of change cannot accommodate another type of change.

7.2.12 In assessing the impact on visual amenity, the guidance suggests that factors to consider include the establishment of the area in which a proposed development may be visible, identifying key viewpoints, the people who experience the views and the nature of the views. It notes that information which can usefully inform cumulative assessments includes a base plan of all existing and consented developments and those where planning applications have been received, a plan showing cumulative Zones of Visual Influence (Appendix 7.1) to identify from where one or more wind farms can be seen, and identification of locations for appropriate visual impact studies, including simultaneous views, repetitive views and sequential views, cumulative photomontages (Appendix 7.2) and a focused discussion of effects.

Regional Planning Policy

North-West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (2008)

7.2.13 Whilst the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North-West was revoked in 2013, it is useful to note one of the strategy’s objectives is to:

“promote and exploit low carbon and renewable energy technologies and increase the amount of electricity and energy for heating from renewable sources supplied and consumed within the Region.”

7.2.14 Furthermore, Policy EM 17 on Renewable Energy states that:

“Plans and strategies should seek to promote and encourage, rather than restrict, the use of renewable energy resources. Local planning authorities should give significant weight to the wider environmental, community and economic benefits of proposals for renewable energy schemes…”

7.2.15 The policy calls on several criteria to be taken into account in relation to renewable energy proposals, including visual impact, whereby:

78

“acceptability of the location/scale of the proposal and its visual impact in relation to the character and sensitivity of the surrounding landscape, including cumulative impact. Stringent requirements for minimising impact on landscape and townscape would not be appropriate if these effectively preclude the supply of certain types of renewable energy…”

Local Planning Policy

Burnley Local Plan (Second Review – 2006)

7.2.16 The plan was adopted in 2006 and in 2009, all its policies were saved. The emerging Local Plan is covered in the next section. Policies of note for this study include:

 Policy E20 – Views

Policy E20 is primarily concerned with the impact on views of development within the town, although it does highlight the importance of “long distance views into and out of the Borough (where) there are also many examples of prominent buildings and structures, the view of which could be obscured by insensitively placed development…”

 Policy E27 – Landscape Character and Local Distinctiveness in Rural Areas and Green Belt

Policy E27 calls on “all proposals for new development in Rural Areas and the Green Belt… to contribute to the protection, enhancement and restoration of the Borough’s distinctive landscape character by:

(b) protecting the setting of rural and urban settlements…

(g) maintaining views and avoiding skyline development…”

7.2.17 Furthermore, the policy notes that “Burnley’s surrounding open landscapes are one of the town’s greatest assets. They provide a visually striking setting for the urban area, a recreation resource and green links in close proximity to the urban area…”

 Policy E31 – Wind Farms

7.2.18 As with the North-West Regional Planning Strategy, Policy E31 cites visual impact as a criteria to consider in relation to wind farm proposals. The policy notes specifically that “the development of wind farm… will be approved, provided that:

79

(a) there is no unacceptable impact on the character of the landscape or on the visual amenity of the area…

(c) there is no unacceptable effect on the amenity of local residents…

(h) it does not adversely affect any recreational facilities and routes…”

7.2.19 Furthermore, the policy states that “development that would have a negative cumulative impact in relation to existing wind turbines or extant approvals for these, will not be permitted.” In relation to the area surrounding the proposal site, the policy clarifies, under justification 7.142, that:

“The open, exposed upland areas of Burnley with high, annual, mean wind speeds have potential for further wind farm development. The Council will seek to ensure any further wind farm development respects the character of the local landscape.”

 Policy GP2 – Development in Rural Areas

7.2.20 Policy GP2 describes developments that may be considered within rural areas, including:

(e) “other uses appropriate to a rural area, including those which help diversify the rural economy, while being in keeping with the rural environment…”

7.2.21 In addition, the policy states that “all new development will have to be in scale and keeping with the surrounding landscape, to have no negative impact on biological or ecological features of value, and to be consistent with other policies and proposals of the Burnley Local Plan.”

Burnley’s Emerging Local Plan

7.2.22 Burnley Borough Council is developing a new Local Plan and planning framework to replace the current Local Plan adopted in 2006.

7.2.23 Burnley’s Local Plan: Issues and Options is a key document part of the process of developing the emerging plan, and was available for public consultation between February and March 2014. The plan is currently scheduled for examination during mid-2016, with adoption during 2017. Although no draft policies have yet been produced, the narrative provides an indication of future policy.

80

7.2.24 Within Section 2.4 on the natural environment, Paragraph 2.4.1 on landscape and biodiversity refers to wind energy developments as a feature of the rural environment around Burnley, described also as “a significant resource for walkers, cyclists and horse riders and is an important location for the generation of wind energy.”

7.2.25 Under Potential Core Policy Options, Section 8.3.3, the document describes how “the adopted Local Plan does not identify suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy resources” but defines the criteria used for assessing renewable energy proposals, including:

 “impact on landscape character

 effect on the setting of buildings or sites of heritage importance (…)

 effect on the residential amenity of local residents (...)

 effect on recreation facilities or routes (…)”

7.2.26 Evidence Base documents used to inform the Emerging Local Plan include the following, which are summarised in Section 7.2.27 to 7.2.34:

 South Pennines Wind Energy Landscape Study

 Lancashire Sustainable Energy Study

 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Study

Additional Documents

7.2.27 Additional documents of relevance in the context of this study are summarised below, starting with the most recent.

South Pennines Wind Energy Landscape Study, for Rossendale, Burnley, Calderdale, Kirklees and Barnsley Councils (2014)

7.2.28 This study is an updated to the 2010 study described below. It provides detailed landscape sensitivity assessment and guidance for the landscapes that make up the study area that encompasses five LPA areas within the South Pennines. Further details of this study are provided in Section 7.4.3 - 7.4.17.

Peak District National Park Local Development Framework (2011)

81

7.2.29 The north-western boundary of the Peak District National Park is approximately 28km south- east of the proposal. Although policies are generally directed towards development within the park, references are made to potential impacts beyond the boundary.

7.2.30 Policy CC2 indicates that proposals for low carbon and renewable energy development will be encouraged provided they can be accommodated without adversely affecting landscape character and cultural heritage assets. It also notes that "cumulative impacts... visible beyond the boundary must be taken into account".

7.2.31 Reference is made to PPS22; while 'buffer zones' are considered inappropriate around the National Park, the potential impact of renewable energy projects on "designated areas close to their boundaries" is a material consideration. The National Park Authority will advocate consideration of less damaging alternatives to the National Park and its setting.

Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Developments in the South Pennines (2010)

7.2.32 This document forms part of the evidence base for Burnley’s Emerging Local Plan (Section 7.2.22-25). It is an extensive and detailed landscape capacity study for wind energy development across six LPAs in the South Pennines: Burnley, Bury, Calderdale, Kirklees, Rochdale and Rossendale. It identifies strategic, broad landscape areas that may be able to accommodate various scales of wind energy development. These areas are informed by a landscape character assessment and description of individual Landscape Character Types (LCT) and sensitivities. The study has been updated through the publication of the 2014 study described above.

Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Study (2010)

7.2.33 Following the UK signing up to the EU Renewable Energy Directive in late 2008, this 2010 study was undertaken to assess renewable energy capacity for Burnley, Pendle, and Rossendale Borough Councils, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council and Kirklees Metropolitan Council. On wind power, given the uplands found in the areas under the control of these councils are well suited for this type of energy generation, the report remarks that more interest is to be expected from developers, and the wind capacity section concludes there is a significant resource within the study area, to include both small scale and commercial scale developments.

82

Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Developments in Lancashire (2005)

7.2.34 This report was produced to provide strategic guidance on the sensitivity of Lancashire’s landscapes to wind energy developments, referencing areas defined in the Lancashire Landscape Character Assessment. A desk-top review was undertaken referring to the written LCA descriptions and each LCA was considered in respect of the selected sensitivity criteria. These criteria included scale, openness, landform, land cover, complexity and patterns, built environment, sense of remoteness/wildness, perception of change, views, landscape form/setting/backdrop/focal points, rarity of landscape, designation, cultural associations and amenity and recreation The output in respect of each LCA is expressed as High, Moderate- High, Moderate, Moderate-Low and Low sensitivity to wind energy development. The assessment process integrated the different components of sensitivity and the findings were tested on a sample of LCAs in the field.

7.3 Methodology

Introduction

7.3.1 This chapter aims to assess the effects of the proposal on the landscape and visual resource of the area and forms part of an EIA. The assessment of landscape and visual effects has been prepared with reference to Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment - 3rd edition (GLVIA3), published by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment in 2013.

7.3.2 The assessment has involved the following key stages:

 Desk-based research to determine the scope of the study, referencing ZTVs prepared by AAH Planning

 Desk-based research to establish the landscape and visual baseline and identify potential receptors

 Field work to verify the ZTV and baseline studies and ascertain how the landscape and visual resource will change

 Assessment and reporting of potential effects

7.3.3 The process is supported by the use of viewpoints to illustrate and evaluate effects at key sites relevant to the proposal, but the assessment of effects is not confined to these viewpoints.

83

Best - Practice Guidance

7.3.4 GLVIA3 (as noted above) is the principle guidance document, but other reports are also referenced and may be used to inform the methodology if appropriate. Whilst these may relate to larger or smaller scale developments than that covered by this assessment, the principles and guidance may be of relevance. These include:

 Assessing the cumulative impact of onshore wind energy developments. Scottish Natural Heritage, 2012.

 Siting and Designing wind farms in the landscape. Scottish Natural Heritage, 2009.

 Landscape Character Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and The Countryside Agency, 2002.

 Visualisation Standards for Wind Energy Developments. The Highland Council, 2013.

 Visual representation of wind farms. Scottish Natural Heritage, December 2014.

Assessment Terminology

7.3.5 In order to determine the scale of effects, two key aspects should be established. These are nature of the landscape or visual receptor likely to be affected, often referred to as its sensitivity and the nature of the effect likely to occur, which is often referred to as the magnitude of the likely change. The combination of these two results in a judgement of the scale of the effect. Consideration of the scale of the effect then enables a judgement to be made as to whether the effect is significant.

Professional Judgement

7.3.6 GLVIA3 recognises that professional judgement is an important concept within LVIA. Whilst there is scope for quantitative measurements of some factors, in many situations the assessment must rely on qualitative judgements that are based on reasoned and informed justifications.

84

Limitation of the Assessment

7.3.7 The assessment and the prediction of effects during the operation of the development are based on the available background information and supplied drawings of the proposal and involve a degree of informed professional judgement.

Assessment of Construction and Decommissioning Effects

7.3.8 It is anticipated that the effects experienced by the landscape and visual receptors during construction will be similar in magnitude to those experienced while the turbine is in operation. Effects related to activity at ground level such as the excavation and formation of the foundations are noted where appropriate. These will be restricted to the immediate surroundings of the turbine.

7.3.9 Adverse effects may be experienced across a wider area when the turbine is erected as a crane will be required, along with the movement of large vehicles. However, this stage will be short and the magnitude of the effect it will cause—and therefore the scale of resulting effects—will not result in any significant effects over and above those experienced when the turbines are in operation. Similarly, decommissioning effects are likely to be similar in scale and nature to construction and operation effects.

7.3.10 Given these reasons, the construction/decommissioning effects are not further discussed in this study. It should be assumed that they would be similar to or less than the operational effects.

Assessment of Residential Receptors

7.3.11 The outlook from a private property is, within the context of the planning system, essentially a private matter. The difference between the private interest of a residential view and how this might be protected in the public interest has been examined at a number of public inquiries relating to wind farm developments.

7.3.12 The most commonly referenced findings are those of Inspector Lavender in 2009, relating to the appeal against refusal for a large-scale wind farm in Kent. The 'overbearing impact' that is quoted would have arisen from the spread of up to five 120m turbines within residential views, amounting to an effect that was described as 'living in or at a wind farm'. Further commentary by the same inspector following another appeal site noted that simply being able to see a turbine or turbines from a particular window or part of garden or house would not be

85

a reason to find the visual impact unacceptable. However, it may be possible that a property becomes widely regarded as an unattractive place to live where turbines are present in such numbers that they are an unpleasantly overwhelming or an unavoidable presence in main views.

7.3.13 For such a situation, along with effects that would result in the turbines being oppressive or obtrusive such that living conditions are diminished to an unacceptable degree (terms used by other inspectors in similar situations), these have generally arisen where multiple turbines up to 126m in height would be experienced across a residential view at less than 900m distance. Elements that may inform the overall effect may include the scale of change in the view; the proportion of the view affected; the degree of contrast with the existing view; the angle of view; and the relative size or proximity of the development.

7.3.14 The assessment of visual effects on residential receptors provided here is an outline assessment only; it is not a detailed Residential Amenity Assessment. Such an assessment cannot be undertaken, given that no access was available to internal rooms or private gardens. However, a general description of visibility is given, alongside a comment on the likelihood as to whether the turbines will result in a loss of visual amenity that would be result in the turbines being overwhelming or overbearing and the property an unattractive and unsatisfactory place in which to live.

Timing of Surveys

7.3.15 Surveys and fieldwork were carried out in November and December 2015 when deciduous trees were bare of leaves. The effects of screening by vegetation were therefore low. Consideration of seasonal vegetation has been given within the assessment where appropriate.

Determining the Scope of the Study

7.3.16 The scope of the LVIA was defined through desk-top research and previous experience with turbines of similar size within comparable landscapes. Key matters reviewed in determining the scope were:

 The extent of the study area.

 Draft Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTVs).

86

 Sources of relevant landscape and visual information.

 The nature of the possible landscape and visual effects.

 The main receptors and any specific viewpoints.

 The extent and appropriate level of detail for the baseline studies, to be proportionate to the scale and type of development proposed.

 Methods to be used in determining the significance of effects.

 Methods to be used for the production and presentation of photomontages.

 The requirements for the cumulative impact assessment.

7.3.17 Experience with other LVIA studies has shown that wind turbines with heights of around 100m are prominent up to approximately 5km, but at a greater distance this prominence decreases. Where views are obtained at a distance of 15km, effort is required to distinguish them and the turbines are an extremely minor element in the landscape.

7.3.18 In addition, the presence of the existing six operational turbines is considered likely to make it more difficult to differentiate or identify the proposed turbines within long distance views.

7.3.19 Assessments relating to the previous two wind farm developments considered a 35km study area. However, given the baseline presence of the existing wind farm in close proximity, this assessment is focused on a 10km study radius as shown in Figure 7.1.

Illustrative Viewpoints

7.3.20 A viewpoint is a location from where a view of the proposal may be gained. A number of viewpoints have been chosen in order to support the assessment of landscape and visual effects, to illustrate effects at key locations or where effects are thought likely to be significant.

7.3.21 Viewpoints may be of the following type:

 Representative viewpoints: those selected to represent the experience of different types of visual receptors, where large number of viewpoints cannot all be included individually and where significant effects are unlikely to differ. For example, viewpoints may be

87

chosen to represent views of users of a number of footpaths or bridleways. Viewpoints may also be selected to reflect visual elements that inform the landscape resource.

 Specific viewpoints: important key viewpoints within the landscape. Examples of these may include local visitor attractions, settlements, routes valued for their scenic amenity, or places with cultural landscape associations.

 Illustrative viewpoints: those chosen specifically to demonstrate a particular effect or specific issues, e.g. restricted visibility at certain locations.

7.3.22 The viewpoints for this study are based on those used in previous assessments for the operational turbines, which were in turn informed through discussions with the LPA and consultees. Initial viewpoint selection was also informed by ZTV (Zone of Theoretical Visibility) figures and other maps, field observations and information on relevant issues such as access, landscape character and popular vantage points.

7.3.23 A range of views and viewers are represented through the choice of viewpoints. Factors which were considered in selecting the final viewpoints to be used for the assessment include:

 Landscape character type (separate and combinations of type).

 The presence of nationally designated landscapes and/or Areas of High Landscape Value within Local Planning Policy, recreational routes, local amenity spaces.

 Visual composition, for example focused or panoramic views, simple or complex landscape pattern, vistas or glimpses.

 Distance from the proposed development (short, medium and long range views).

 Aspect and elevation.

 Viewer type.

 Activities of the receptors, for example those at home, work, travelling in various modes or carrying out recreation.

 Modes of movement, for example those moving through the landscape or stationary.

88

 Potential for cumulative views of the proposed development in conjunction with other developments.

7.3.24 For this study, a series of viewpoints were identified to aid the assessment of effects, fifteen of which were developed by AAH Planning into photomontages (Appendix 7.2), to give an illustration of the visibility of the proposal. Note JBA Consulting was not involved with the photography, or the preparation of the photomontages or wireframes.

Methodology: Landscape Receptors

7.2.25 For the purposes of the LVIA, the landscape is considered to be a resource in its own right, The European Landscape Convention (2000)—which is noted in GLVIA3—provides the following definition of landscape:

"Landscape means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors".

7.2.26 The assessment of landscape effects considers the effects the proposed development or change will have on this landscape resource. Landscape effects that may arise include a change, loss or addition of elements, features, aesthetic or perceptual aspects that contribute to the distinctiveness or character of the landscape.

Establishing the Landscape Baseline

7.2.27 To enable the assessment of the effects of a proposed development or change, the landscape baseline or starting point must be established. This enables the identification of landscape receptors and the effects of the proposed changes on these landscape receptors can then be considered. In this study, the landscape baseline studies consider the following:

 Landscape Character - the distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occurs consistently in a particular type of landscape and how this is perceived by people. It reflects particular combinations of geology, landform, soils, vegetation, land use and human settlement but also encompasses its perceptual and aesthetic qualities. It creates the particular sense of place of different areas of the landscape.

Landscape character also includes the fabric of the site: these are they physical elements that are present such as landform, land cover, boundary features, trees and woodland.

89

 Landscape Designations - sites with landscape designations are considered in addition to the overall landscape character areas, to enable site specific judgements of effects on particularly valued sites.

7.2.28 These studies can then be considered in conjunction with the ZTV (Appendix 7.1), to enable a list of potential landscape receptors to be compiled.

Determining Sensitivity

7.2.29 The next stage is to determine the sensitivity of the landscape receptors to the type and scale of development proposed. In order to do this, the susceptibility and value of the receptor are considered, although within the assessment these may not be explicitly noted. In many cases, it is considered sufficient to describe only the sensitivity, which is informed by an overall professional judgement.

7.2.30 Susceptibility is the "ability of the landscape receptor to accommodate the proposed development without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline and/or the achievement of planning policies and strategies". (GLVIA3).

7.2.31 Where noted, susceptibility is described as follows:

 High - where undue negative consequences are expected to arise from the proposal.

 Medium - where undue negative consequences may arise from the proposal.

 Low - where undue negative consequences are unlikely to arise from the from the proposal.

7.2.32 Susceptibility may be informed by existing Landscape Character Assessments, which often note sensitivity. However, this is frequently 'intrinsic' or 'inherent' sensitivity, which may not directly relate to the type of development proposed. In such cases, a judgement must be made as to how this sensitivity might relate to the development in question.

7.2.33 The value of a landscape receptor is informed by designations, planning policy and documents, the contribution of special (cultural, historic or conservation) contributors or associations, scenic quality, rarity, recreational value and aesthetic, perceptual and experiential qualities. These are again reinforced by judgements, particularly where no designations are established. Conversely, care should be taken not to rely on designations as

90

the sole indicator of value; this should be reinforced by rationale where necessary. Where noted, value is described as follows:

 High - landscapes with national or international designations on account of landscape value, such as National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coasts or World Heritage Sites

 Medium - landscapes of local value, subject to additional policy protection (such as Areas of High Landscape Value), or where it is considered that particular features or appreciation of the landscape is of greater value than other nearby areas

 Low - landscapes that are not subject to designation but may be valued at a community or local level

 Very low - landscapes that are degraded or exhibit little or no community or local value

Landscape Sensitivity

7.2.34 Sensitivity combines the judgements made for susceptibility and value, as described above. Three levels of sensitivity are recorded:

 High sensitivity: A landscape of high value and a particularly distinctive character that is susceptible to relatively small changes of the type proposed;

 Medium sensitivity: A landscape of valued characteristics reasonably tolerant of change of the type proposed; and

 Low sensitivity: A landscape of relatively low value or importance which is potentially tolerant of substantial change of the type proposed.

 Very low sensitivity: A degraded or adversely modified landscape that is fully tolerant of the potential change proposed.

Other Landscape Considerations

7.2.35 The considerations noted above are further informed by general observations regarding the condition and quality of the landscape. These support the overall narrative and judgement of sensitivity. Landscape quality or condition may relate to the level of management,

91

distinctiveness, number of detracting features, pattern, unity, structure, sense of place, function, definition and aesthetic value.

7.2.36 Areas of landscape quality may not necessarily correlate directly with landscape character areas or designated sites, as defined by statutory agencies or LPAs. Where it is considered that this is the case, mention is made within the description and sensitivity evaluation.

Magnitude of Landscape Change

7.2.37 Effects on landscape receptors are assessed in terms of their magnitude of change. This is a combination of the size or scale, geographic extent of the area influenced and the duration and reversibility of the impact. Within the assessment, size and scale or extent may not always be noted. In many cases, it is considered sufficient to describe only the magnitude of change, which is informed by an overall professional judgement.

7.2.38 Size and scale concerns the amount of existing landscape elements that will be lost, the extent to which these represent or contribute to the character of the landscape. It also relates to the degree to which aesthetic or perceptual aspects of the landscape are altered through removal or addition of new features, such as hedge loss or introduction of tall features on skylines.

7.2.39 Size and scale, where noted, may be rated as follows:

 Large: Major change to the existing landscape including key elements, characteristics and qualities.

 Medium: Partial or noticeable change to key elements, characteristics and qualities.

 Small: Some discernible but largely minor change to key elements, characteristics and qualities.

 Negligible: Very minor or virtually imperceptible change to key elements, characteristics and qualities.

7.2.40 The geographical extent over which landscape effects are felt is distinct from the size or scale. For example, large scale effects may be limited to the immediate site area. Again, extent is subject to a degree of professional judgement, but where noted these may be rated as follows:

 Wide: Influencing several landscape types or areas, beyond around 5km.

92

 Medium: Generally within the local character area or up between 1-5km.

 Local: The site and immediate surrounds, up to around 0.75 to 1km.

 Site: Within around 0.75km of the site.

7.2.41 The duration of the effect relates to the time period during which the changes to the landscape will occur. This is rated as follows:

 Long-term: Beyond 10 years

 Medium-term: 2 to 10 years

 Short-term: Up to 2 years

7.2.42 Given that the expected life span of a wind turbine is generally given as 25 years, operational effects are assumed to be long-term in all cases.

7.2.43 The magnitude of change is a product of the size/scale, extent and duration of the impacts. This is judged as a four-point scale:

 High: Notable and long term change in landscape characteristics over an extensive area ranging to a very intensive, long term change over a more limited area;

 Medium: Moderate, short term change over a large area or moderate long term change in localised area;

 Low: Slight long term or moderate short term change in landscape components; and

 Very low: Virtually imperceptible change to the landscape’s resources;

 No Change: No change from the current landscape baseline.

7.2.44 Within the assessment, size and scale or extent may not always be noted. In many cases, it is considered sufficient to describe only the magnitude of change, which is informed by an overall professional judgement.

Methodology: Visual Receptors

7.2.45 Visual effects relate to how the development may affect the views available to people and their visual amenity. Visual amenity is the visual quality of a site or area as experienced by

93

residents, workers or visitors. Visual receptors are people that experience the view. Development can change people’s direct experience and perception of the view depending on existing context, the scale, form, colour and texture of the proposals, the nature of the activity associated with the development, and the distance and angle of view. Visual effects can be experienced through development intruding into existing views experienced by residents and day to day users of the area, and the views of tourists and visitors passing through or visiting the area.

Establishing the Visual Baseline

7.2.46 Identification of potential visual receptors is informed by desk and field studies in conjunction with consideration of the ZTVs (Appendix 7.1) for the proposed development, to identify places where people might be expected to receive a view of the proposed development. Once receptors have been identified, it is necessary to document the following information, though the degree of detail required will vary depending on the nature of the receptor and the view experienced:

 type, relative numbers and activities of potential receptors.

 the nature, composition and characteristics of the existing views, for example the nature and extent of the skyline, aspects of vertical scale and proportion, key foci, and elements which interrupt, filter of otherwise influence the view.

Visual Receptor Sensitivity

7.2.47 In order to determine the scale of visual effects, it is necessary—as with the assessment of landscape effects—to determine the sensitivity of the receptor. This is achieved through the consideration of the susceptibility of the receptor and the value of the view. Within the assessment, susceptibility and value may not always be noted. In many cases, it is considered sufficient to describe only the sensitivity, which is informed by an overall professional judgement.

7.2.48 Visual receptor susceptibility is a function of receptor type, location and activity. In assessing visual receptor susceptibility, factors such as the following have been accounted for with a degree of professional judgement:

 Receptor activities – for example, relaxing at home, undertaking leisure, recreational and sporting activities, at work.

94

 Movement/duration – whether receptors are likely to be stationary or moving, which influences how long they will be exposed to the change.

 Orientation – of receptors in relation to the development.

 Purpose/expectation – of receptors at that location.

 Context – the quality of the landscape.

 Importance of the view/location – popularity of location as indicated by existence of designations or local value.

7.2.49 The value of the view that is experienced may relate to associated landscape or planning designations, cultural references or the presence of facilities (car parking, interpretation boards, signage) that may emphasise importance.

7.2.50 In this assessment, sensitivity is judged as a combination of susceptibility and value and is ranked as follows:

 High: Visitors to promoted or valued viewpoints especially those with panoramic views; viewpoints noted within planning guidance or policy; visitors to heritage or tourism sites where views are important; residential views; most PRoW.

 Medium: Receptors travelling along cycle routes or local roads that are considered to be of scenic value; some PRoW that may be considered of low value (little evidence of use, no recreational value etc).

 Low: Receptors on most roads where the primary purpose of travel is not to appreciate the view, such as most local roads; workers or recreational receptors outside.

 Very Low: Receptors that are fast-moving (due to speed on motorways) or because they are engaged in an activity not concerned with the landscape or view (such as working indoors with limited views).

7.2.51 GLVIA3 does not explicitly state that the number of users of a receptor or the nature of a view should influence sensitivity, although this is implied within the narrative. An inaccessible right of way may be regarded as being of a lower value and therefore sensitivity than a national trail. Likewise, a view of a degraded landscape may result in receptors having lower expectations and therefore a reduced susceptibility to change. As with all aspects of the

95

methodology, these definitions are not rigid; where professional judgement has been applied, this would be noted in the narrative.

Visual Receptor Magnitude of Change

7.2.52 The assessment of the magnitude of change on visual receptors follows similar principles to a Landscape Assessment in terms of size or scale, the geographic extent of the area influenced and its duration and reversibility. Within the assessment, size and scale or extent may not always be noted. In many cases, it is considered sufficient to describe only the magnitude of change, which is informed by an overall professional judgement.

7.2.53 Size and scale concerns the relative change in the elements, features, qualities and characteristics that make up the view.

7.2.54 Size and scale, where noted, are rated as follows:

 Large: Major change to the existing view including key elements, characteristics and qualities.

 Medium: Partial or noticeable change to elements, characteristics and qualities within the view.

 Small: Some discernible but largely minor change to key elements, characteristics and qualities within the view.

 Negligible: Very minor or virtually imperceptible change to key elements, characteristics and qualities such that the view essentially remains unchanged.

7.2.55 Where specifically noted, the geographical extent over which visual effects is described as follows:

 Wide: Influencing most of a view or receptor (over half).

 Medium: Generally between one quarter or one half of a view or receptor.

 Small: Generally less than one quarter of a view or receptor.

 Limited: Generally affecting only a small part of the receptor.

96

7.2.56 The duration of the effect relates to the time period during which the changes to the landscape will occur. This is rated as follows:

 Long-term: Beyond 10 years.

 Medium-term: 2 to 10 years.

 Short-term: up to 2 years.

7.2.57 Given that the expected life span of a wind turbine is generally given as 25 years, operational effects are assumed to be long-term in all cases.

7.2.58 The magnitude of change is a product of the size/scale, extent and duration of the impacts. These are judged as a four-point scale:

 High - Where the development causes a very notable (or significant) change in the existing view for a receptor.

 Medium - Where the development would cause a very noticeable change in the existing view.

 Low - Where the development would cause a noticeable change in the existing view.

 Very Low - Where the development would cause a barely perceptible change in the existing view.

 No Change - Where the development would not be visible or result in no change to the baseline view.

Assessment of Landscape and Visual Effects

7.2.59 The second step is to determine the scale of effects. This is evaluated by combining the sensitivity (or nature) of the landscape or visual receptor and the magnitude (or nature) of change. The following matrix provides an objective rationale for determining the scale of effects, in order to provide consistency and transparency to the process; however, a degree of professional judgement is a key element of the evaluation.

97

Magnitude of Impact

High Medium Low Very Low

Sensitivity of High Major Major- Moderate Minor Resource/Receptor moderate

Medium Major- Moderate Minor Negligible moderate

Low Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible

Very low Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible

Table 7.1: Scale of Effects Matrix

7.2.60 The scale of effects detailed above can be classed as beneficial, neutral or adverse.

Classification of Landscape Effects

7.2.61 Adverse Landscape Effects occur when features or key landscape characteristics, such as established planting, old buildings or structures which—when considered singularly or collectively—help to define the character of an area are lost, or where new structures out of scale or character with the surroundings are introduced.

 Major Adverse Landscape Effects occur where the proposals are at considerable variance with the landform, scale and pattern of the landscape and would be a dominant feature, resulting in considerable reduction in scenic quality and large scale change to the intrinsic landscape character of the area.

 Moderate-Major Adverse Landscape Effects occur where proposals are out of scale with the landscape, or inconsistent with the local pattern and landform and may be locally dominant and/or result in a noticeable reduction in scenic quality and a degree of change to the intrinsic landscape character of the area;

 Moderate Adverse Landscape Effects occur where the proposals do not quite fit with the scale, landform or local pattern of the landscape and may be locally intrusive but would result in a minor reduction in scenic quality or change to the intrinsic landscape character of the area.

98

 Minor Adverse Landscape Effects occur where the proposals are likely to result in a very small-scale change in landform or local pattern of the landscape that may be perceptible but would result very limited change to scenic quality or characteristics.

 Negligible Adverse Landscape Effects occur where changes are expected to be barely perceptible.

7.2.62 Neutral Landscape Effects arise when the change proposed results in no discernible improvement or deterioration to the landscape resource. The proposals sit well within the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape and/or would not result in any discernible reduction in scenic quality or change to the intrinsic landscape character of the area.

7.2.63 Beneficial Landscape Effects occur where derelict buildings, land or poorly maintained landscape features are repaired, replaced and maintained or where new features are introduced such as new tree planting which helps to define landscape structure where none currently exists. Beneficial landscape effects can be slight, moderate or substantial.

Classification of Visual Effects

7.2.64 Adverse Visual Effects Occur when the proposed development will introduce new, non- characteristic, discordant or intrusive element/s into views.

 Major Adverse Visual Effects occur where the proposed development would cause a considerable deterioration in the existing view or visual amenity.

 Major-Moderate Adverse Visual Effects occur where the proposed development would cause a noticeable deterioration in the existing view or visual amenity.

 Moderate Adverse Visual Effects occur where the proposed development would cause a small-scale or deterioration in the existing view or visual amenity.

 Minor Adverse Visual Effects occur where the proposed development would cause a barely perceptible deterioration in the existing view or visual amenity.

 Negligible Landscape Effects occur where changes are expected to be barely perceptible.

7.2.65 Neutral Visual Effects Occur Where the change proposed results in no discernible improvement or deterioration to views or visual amenity.

99

7.2.66 Beneficial Visual Effects occur when the proposed development would enhance the quality of the receptor's view e.g. by creating a new focal point in a degraded landscape that includes a range of existing detractors. Beneficial visual effects can be slight, moderate or substantial.

7.2.67 Although public perception of wind energy developments is diverse, with some regarding them as an intrusion and others as a sculptural addition to the landscape worthy of visiting, the worst case evaluation is used in this assessment. As such, effects are assumed to be adverse except where stated.

7.2.68 The scale indicates the importance of the effect, taking into account the sensitivity (or nature) of the receptor and the magnitude (or nature) of the effect. It is usually rated on the following scale of effects:

 Major indicates an effect that is would be a key factor in the planning decision making process.

 Moderate - major indicates an effect that, if adverse, is likely to be important at a local scale and have a material influence on the decision making process.

 Moderate indicates a noticeable effect that may be important at the local scale and, if adverse, could be material in the planning decision making process.

 Minor indicates an effect that is unlikely to be critical to the planning decision making process.

 Negligible indicates an effect that is akin to no change and is thus not relevant to the planning decision making process.

Judging the Overall Importance of the Effects

7.2.69 Effects may be described as significant in projects that are subject to EIA. Significant effects are defined here as those that are major or moderate-major. However, whilst an effect may be significant, it does not necessarily mean that such an effect would be unacceptable.

Cumulative Assessment: Methodology

7.2.70 The area in which the turbine is located contains other wind farm developments and proposals. There is therefore potential for cumulative effects on landscape and visual amenity.

100

The cumulative effects of a set of developments are the combined effect of all the developments taken together.

7.2.71 Cumulative effects are generally assessed as a separate section. However, given the proximity of the operational Hameldon Hill Wind Farm and the likely visual relationship between the existing and proposed structures, cumulative effects are noted alongside those arising from the development in isolation. This also reflects consultation comments from BBC.

7.2.72 Cumulative effects on visual amenity consist of combined visibility and sequential effects:

 Combined visibility occurs where the observer is able to see two or more developments from one viewpoint. Combined visibility may either be in combination (where several wind farms are within the observer’s arc of vision at the same time) or in succession (where the observer has to turn to see the various wind farms).

 Sequential effects occur when the observer has to move to another viewpoint to see different developments. For example, this could be when travelling along roads or paths. The occurrence of sequential effects may range from frequently sequential (the features appear regularly and with short time lapses between, depending on speed of travel and distance between the viewpoints) to occasionally sequential (long time lapses between appearances, because the observer is moving very slowly and/or there are large distances between the viewpoints).

7.2.73 Cumulative landscape effects affect the physical fabric or character of the landscape, or any special values attached to the landscape.

 Cumulative effects on the physical fabric of the landscape arise when two or more developments affect landscape components such as woodland, dykes or hedgerows. Although this may not significantly affect the landscape character, the cumulative effects on these components may be significant – for example, where the last remnants of former shelterbelts are completely removed by two or more developments.

 Cumulative effects on landscape character arise from two or more wind developments. Wind turbines introduce new features into the landscape. In this way, they can so change the landscape character that they can create a different landscape character type. That change need not be adverse; some derelict or industrialised landscapes may be enhanced as a result of such a change in landscape character. The cumulative effects on landscape

101

character may include other changes, for example trends or pressures for change over long time periods, which should form part of any consideration of a particular project.

7.2.74 Wind farms may also have cumulative effects on the character and integrity of landscapes that are recognised to be of special value.

Approach Taken

7.2.75 The usual approach to the assessment of cumulative effects is to consider the effects of all applied, consented or operational developments in an area. This information has been gathered by AAH Planning Consultants for the study area and is shown on Figure 7.1. The information is as complete as could be compiled within the time available for the study.

7.2.76 A 15km study area radius was considered to be appropriate for this study.

Other Wind Energy Developments

7.2.77 Other than the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm which this proposal constitutes a visual extension to, there are 6 operational wind farms and 2 consented applications for associated extensions within 15km of the proposal site. Domestic scale turbines (20m or less to hub) are excluded from the assessment, although mention is made of small-scale turbines where relevant. Developments are outlined in Table 7.2 and Table 7.3. Projects at pre-application stage have not been included, as the information provided may be inaccurate, unavailable or out of date.

7.2.78 In addition to these described and illustrated on the ZTVs produced by AAH and found within Appendix 7.2, a further three developments within 2km of the site are also noted below. This includes the operational single turbine at Higher Micklehurst Farm located approximately 1.2km SE of the proposal site.

Development No. of Hub Blade Status Distance from Name Turbines Height of Tip Proposal Turbines Height Boundary (km) (m) (m)

Coal Clough Wind 8 70 110 Operational 6.7 Farm Repowering

102

Hyndburn Wind 12 Unknown 122 Operational 7.7 Farm

Hyndburn Wind 4 Unknown 122 Consented 7.7 Farm Extension

Todmorden Moor 5 90 125 Operational 8.1 Wind Farm

Reaps Moss Wind 3 73 125 Operational 9.1 Farm

Scout Moor Wind 26 Unknown 100 Operational 10 Farm

Scout Moor Wind 16 Unknown 115 Consented 10 Farm Extension

Crook Hill Wind 12 Unknown 125 Operational 14 Farm

Table 7.2: Other Wind Developments within 15km of the Study Area

Development Number Hub Blade Status Distance from Name of Height of Tip Nearest Turbines Turbines Height Proposed (m) (m) Turbine (km)

Higher 1 40 67 Operational 1.15 Micklehurst Farm

Habergham Hall 1 9.7 20 Operational 1.35 Farm

Crown Point Road 2 18 25 Operational 1.78

Table 7.3: Small Scale Turbines within Immediate Study Area

103

7.4 Description of Baseline Conditions

7.4.1 This section provides an overview of the baseline conditions for key landscape receptors, including a description of those receptors that are ‘scoped out’ due to the lack of expected significant effects. A more detailed baseline description for each landscape receptor is provided alongside the receptor for each reference. An assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development on receptors identified can be found in Section 7.5.

7.4.2 Landscape character and landscape designations can be assessed at a variety of different scales, from national to site-based. Desk-based and site-based studies considering these differing scales are outlined below and provide a basis for the assessment of landscape baseline and impacts.

Landscape Character: Baseline

National Character Areas

7.4.3 England has been divided into areas with similar landscape character, called National Character Areas (NCAs). The resulting map subdivides England into 159 NCAs and provides an overview of the differences in landscape character at the national scale. Each NCA is accompanied by a character description explaining the influences and features which determine the character of the area.

7.4.4 NCAs are high-level, strategic assessments which cover a comparatively wide area. They are not normally assessed in relation to a development of this scale; given the detail of the local landscape character assessment and their specific references to wind energy sensitivity and capacity, these are assessed in preference.

7.4.5 However, a brief appraisal of the local NCA is considered useful in setting the overall landscape context of the site.

7.4.6 The proposal site lies on the border between National Character Area 35 - Lancashire Valleys and National Character Area 36 - Southern Pennines. It should be noted for all Landscape Character Assessments – but particular those described at a large scale – that the boundaries are approximate and characteristics of more than one area may be apparent at such locations.

104

7.4.7 NCA 35 Lancashire Valleys lies to the north and north-west of the site. It is largely agricultural but heavily influenced by an urban character, including towns such as Blackburn, Accrington and Burnley which developed largely as a result of the Industrial Revolution. These are concentrated along the Calder valley, which also includes communication routes such as the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, the Preston to Colne railway and the M65 motorway. Farmed land is predominantly pasture for grazing livestock, with areas of acid and neutral grassland, flushes and mires. Upland heath and rough pasture occur on the Millstone Grit ridge between the Ribble and Calder catchments, which includes the prominent Pendle Hill.

7.4.8 NCA 36 Southern Pennines lies to the south and east of the site, encompassing the large-scale open sweeping moorlands that provide extensive views and distinctive backdrops to the wider landscape. The moors include blanket bog and heathland, with enclosed upland pastures and hay meadows enclosed by drystone walls on the hillsides, with dense gritstone settlements in the valleys. A dense network of footpaths and lanes between small fields link villages and smallholdings on higher shelves above valleys, often reflecting a rich heritage that encompasses medieval boundary stones, mineral extraction, mills and non-conformist chapels. Road, rail and canal routes run along the valleys, with reservoirs on the moors alongside more recent wind farms and telecommunication masts.

Regional Landscape Character

South Pennines Wind Energy Landscape Study (SPWELS) (2014)

7.4.9 This study is an update to the 2010 Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Energy Developments in the South Pennines. Both were commissioned by six LPAs in the South Pennines: Burnley, Bury, Calderdale, Kirklees, Rochdale and Rossendale. The 2010 study described 14 Landscape Character Types (LCT), informed by the NCAs described above and an earlier South Pennines Landscape Character Assessment, commissioned by the Standing Conference of Pennine Authorities (SOSPA). The LCTs described were further subdivided into Landscape Character Areas (LCAs). These local LCAs exhibit shared characteristics that can be grouped and described in a location-specific manner.

7.4.10 The 2014 report used the 2010 findings as a starting point, with minor refinements, in order to provide detailed landscape sensitivity assessments and guidance for each LCT in relation to wind energy development, based on a detailed methodology. It also includes consideration of existing and future potential cumulative landscape and visual issues, as well as information on

105

siting, guidance, layout and design of wind energy developments. An accompanying online mapping tool catalogues all cumulative developments.

7.4.11 Based on the ZTV, field observations and the fact that significant effects are not expected beyond 10km of the site, the following LCT have been assessed:

 LCT A High Moorland Plateau (incorporating LCT A1 South Pennine Moors).

 LCT C Enclosed Uplands (incorporating LCT C1, Rossendale Hills).

 LCT D Moorland Fringes/Upland Pastures (incorporating D3 Forest of Trawden/Worsthorne Moor Fringe).

 LCT E Rural Fringes (incorporating E4 Colne, Nelson Burnley Fringe).

7.4.12 All other LCT are scoped out of this assessment due to lack of or very limited expected visibility.

Landscape Strategy for Lancashire (LSL) (2000)

7.4.13 This landscape character assessment defines 21 main Landscape Character Types (LCT) and 81 geographically specific Landscape Character Areas (LCA). It has been further developed in relation to wind energy sensitivity through the study described below.

Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Development (LSWED) (2005)

7.4.14 This report, commissioned by Lancashire County Council and prepared by Lovejoy, provides strategic guidance on the sensitivity of areas defined in the Landscape Strategy for Lancashire in relation to wind energy development. A desk-top review was undertaken referring to the written LCT descriptions and each LCT was considered in respect of the selected sensitivity criteria. These criteria included scale, openness, landform, land cover, complexity and patterns, built environment, sense of remoteness/wildness, perception of change, views, landscape form/setting/backdrop/focal points, rarity of landscape, designation, cultural associations and amenity and recreation. The output in respect of each LCT is expressed as High, Moderate-High, Moderate, Moderate-Low and Low sensitivity to wind energy development.

106

7.4.15 Given the level of detail and date of publication of the SPWELS described above, character areas that lie within the contributing LPAs are assessed in preference to the LSWED. These include Rossendale, Burnley and Calderdale.

7.4.16 Based on examination of the ZTV, viewpoint photomontages, the findings of the previous LVIA reporting for Hameldon Hill and previous experience in relation to wind energy assessment, only the following LCT described in LSWED are assessed here:

 LCT 2 Moorland Hills (incorporating LCA 2e Pendle Hill, 2f White Moor/Burn Moor and 2c Longridge Fell Fringes).

 LCT 6 Industrial Foothills and Valleys (incorporating LCA 6a Calder Valley).

 LCT 7 Farmed Ridges (incorporating LCA 7a Mellor Ridge).

7.4.17 LCTs that are scoped out of this assessment due to lack of expected significant effects and/or being within areas covered by the SPWELS study include:

 LCT 1 (Moorland Plateaux).

 LCT2 (Moorland Hills).

 LCT3 (Enclosed Hills).

 LCT5 (Undulating Lowland Farmland).

 LCT 8 (Settled Valleys).

 LCT 14 (Rolling Upland Farmland).

Local Landscape Character

7.4.18 No character assessment was carried out at the local level. Burnley Borough’s Burnley Green Infrastructure Strategy 2013-2031 makes reference to the character areas defined in the Lancashire assessment.

Site-Based Character

7.4.19 The proposal is to be located on the north and north-east facing slopes of Hameldon Hill, around 210 to 300m AOD. The site is just above the existing wind farm, within an area of

107

upland pasture that is perceptually more open and less influenced by agricultural practice but is nevertheless still enclosed through widely-spaced drystone walls. These contrast with the smaller-scale, enclosed improved pasture within which the existing turbines are located. The site is arguably a transition zone between these more intensively farmed lower pastures and the open, upland plateau.

7.4.20 The site is effectively contained within the northern corner of a large parcel of land enclosed by a drystone wall, extending from the existing wind farm up the slope of Hameldon Hill to around 325m AOD. Within this field, there is a gradual change from semi-improved pasture, through increasing levels of rush infestation, to vegetation dominated by moor grasses. Tower Brook runs through the western edge of the field, as an incised feature within an otherwise gently sloping topography. There are no other physical elements within the immediate proposal site, other than the indications of farm vehicle movement that suggest limited use. Some pioneer birch woodland is visible along the edge of the Brook.

7.4.21 Immediately to the south and south-west of the site, the topography becomes steeper, with rocky slopes to the upper edges of Hameldon Hill. The site of a former quarry is reflected in the distinctively hummocky topography, with exposed areas of shale, along Tower Brook. More extensive areas of young birch woodland are present to the west. Drystone walls are visible, but sometimes in poor condition, reflecting the limited agricultural significance of these upper slope landscapes. These landscapes have a more rugged, wild quality, although always influenced by the presence of nearby urban elements. More mature woodland is present within Thorny Bank Wood, along the steep-sided clough.

7.4.22 To the north and north-east, the landscape becomes more settled, with scattered farmsteads or isolated properties such as New Barn and Old Barn, set within improved pasture bounded by drystone walls. Some properties have been recently restored, whilst other have a more agricultural character, with modern outbuildings and sometimes extensive, functional storage areas. The older, stone-built buildings date as far back as the 16th century with a number being Grade II listed. Farm tracks and occasional surfaced routes link the properties, alongside a network of public footpaths.

7.4.23 Historically, the site was within Hapton Park, an extensive medieval private deer park. The remains of Hapton Tower, possibly a hunting lodge used as a residence by the local Towneley family, are located to the west of the proposal site, although not readily apparent.

108

Archaeological surveys have indicated the presence of a medieval hamlet and earlier prehistoric settlement.

7.4.24 The elevated site means that the visual and perceptual qualities are strongly influenced by long-range views. Most dominant in these views, and the principal determining character of the site, are the six 100 or 110m high three-blade turbines of the Hameldon Hill wind farm. Other elements include two high voltage transmission lines that run to the east of the site, along with the expansive urban development along the valley of the Calder, including Burnley. Particularly prominent, in terms of influencing the urban fringe character, are the extensive flat roofs of nearby light industrial estates. These are balanced by long-distance views towards Pendle Hill, the Forest of Bowland, the Yorkshire Dales and the South Pennines.

7.4.25 Overall, the site has few physical features of note: the landscape fabric is largely comprised of semi-enclosed rush pasture and areas of moor grass. However, the open views are a dominant element, allowing a panorama that includes both a dramatic skyline of moorland and quarried scarps; large turbines; transmission lines and industrial development but also dramatic, long- distance views. The scale is—arguably—able to accommodate the existing man-made elements within a landscape that is typical of the South Pennine settled valley and moorland fringes.

Landscape Designations: Baseline

Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

7.4.26 The Forest of Bowland is one of 46 AONBs in Britain and was designated in 1964. The boundary to the AONB runs along the lower slopes of Pendle Hill, above the villages of Higham and Fence, around 7km north of the site. Pendle Hill is an outline of the designation, which largely encompasses the main moorland areas of the Forest of Bowland, 25 to 40km to the north-west.

7.4.27 AONB is a statutory designation intended to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape and environment, whilst recognising the needs of agriculture, rural industries and communities. The planning and management approach to AONBs varies, but the majority— including The Forest of Bowland—are coordinated by a Joint Advisory Committee (JAC), formed of representatives of local authorities alongside landowners, farmers, residents and conservation and informal recreation interest groups. The JAC develops and agrees the statutory Management Plan.

109

7.4.28 The plan identifies the special qualities and significance of the AONB, presents a vision, sets out policies, identifies actions and states the condition of the AONB and how this will be monitored. Key elements that the plan seeks to protect include the grandeur and isolation of the upland ‘core’; the visual contrasts between elements in the overall landscape and the serenity and tranquillity of the area.

Visual Baseline

7.4.29 Wide-ranging views have a strong influence on the character of the site. These are heavily constrained to the south and south-west by the high plateaux of Hameldon Hill and Great Hameldon, although these serve to provide a dramatic backdrop, particularly the disused quarries to the latter. In other directions the view is panoramic, encompassing the existing wind farm in the foreground, the settled valley of the Calder including Burnley and Padiham in the middle distance, with a more agricultural aspect beyond: a mosaic of small-scale fields, woodland and villages. The skyline is formed of distant high ground, with the prominent landmark mass of Pendle Hill within the centre of the view, but also extending to Longridge Fell, the Forest of Bowland, the southern edge of the Yorkshire Dales and the summits of Boulsworth Hill (Lad Law) and Black Hameldon to the east.

7.4.30 Key vertical elements in the view include the existing Hameldon Hill wind farm, smaller-scale isolated wind turbines at Habergham Hall Farm and Crown Point; transmission masts on Hameldon Hill, and high voltage pylons to the east.

7.4.31 Baseline conditions for residential PRoW, recreational and road receptors have not been described separately and can be found within the assessment of effects on these receptors in Sections 7.5.139-168.

7.5 Assessment of Potential Effects

Landscape Character: Assessment of Effects

7.5.1 The most appropriate study for the site and immediate area is the South Pennines Wind Energy Landscape Study (SWELS). The methodology is comprehensive, the report is very recent and the assessment specifically relates to wind energy development, including cumulative effects.

7.5.2 The site character is therefore assessed against the findings of this report. Indirect effects may arise where the development may influence key characteristics (usually visual and perceptual

110

influences) on landscape receptors (Character Areas or Types) outside the site. Some have been scoped out of the process where visibility is considered to be limited. To avoid cross- referencing with the baseline selection, the key characteristics, sensitivities and capacities are described for each landscape receptor.

Regional Landscape Character

South Pennines Wind Energy Landscape Study (2014)

7.5.3 The background to this study is described in Section 7.4.3 - 7.4.17. The site lies just within the boundary of LCT C Enclosed Uplands. The edge of LCT E Rural Fringes lies around 250m to the north. As with all boundaries between defined Landscape Character Areas, they usually reflect a gradual change in character; areas along boundaries may display characteristics of more than one LCT or LCA.

LCT C Enclosed Uplands (incorporating LCT C1, Rossendale Hills)

7.5.4 LCT C extends south from the site, encompassing the high, peat-capped ridges and summits of the often bleak uplands along the watersheds between the Rossendale valleys to the south and the Calder valley to the north. Key elements in the SWELS description that are applicable to the site include the network of gritstone walls that encloses virtually the whole of the upland area; a somewhat derelict landscape with rush-infested pastures and tumbled stone walls; and views of high tension power lines that cross the plateau top and reinforces the sense of bleakness. The description also notes the influence of settlement such has miner- farmer smallholdings and farms; these are less prevalent in this site area, being more typical of the Rossendale valleys to the south of Hameldon Hill.

7.5.5 Under key environmental features, it notes the distinct cultural landscape arising from industrial and mining remnants; coal mines and spoil heaps; abandoned 18th and 19th century fields and walls in a state of disrepair; blanket bog on the summits and isolated high altitude dwellings. Again, the industrial and settlement elements are less evident at the site, although small-scale quarrying took place along Tower Brook.

7.5.6 The overall sensitivity to large-scale (90-129m) wind energy development is considered to be moderate-high, due to the enclosed landscape pattern and role as an elevated upland backdrop to views from valley settlement. Within the commentary on turbine group size, it notes that the LCT is “highly sensitive” to large (11-20 turbine) and very large (over 21) wind

111

farm group sizes, whilst being “occasionally less sensitive” to small (4-5 turbine) wind farms and small clusters (2-3 turbines). The absence of commentary on medium wind farms of 6-10 turbines would indicate an intermediate level of sensitivity.

7.5.7 Key criteria displayed by LCT C that result in higher sensitivity include the skyline visible from Burnley, (although less so than views from the Rossendale towns); cultural associations with medieval hunting forests; 18th and 19th century industrial activity and settlement; and local recreational routes such as the Burnley Way. Criteria that inform lower sensitivity include the large-scale landscape; human influences such as quarrying and transmission lines; a declining appearance with rush-infested pastures and derelict stone walls; and views towards urban areas that diminish the feeling of remoteness.

7.5.8 Within the section Guidance for Wind Energy Development, it notes the following:

“The enclosed landscapes of the LCT may offer some scope for scattered ‘very small’ or ‘small’ single turbines or small clusters that are in keeping with the relatively small-scale landscape patterns or features. The open moorland areas to the north may, in some very limited locations, be able to accommodate larger turbines or groups of turbines.”

7.5.9 Key constraints relate to visibility from settled valleys to the south and central areas of the LCT, where they form sensitive skylines; as well as the higher tops and escarpments around Great Hameldon, Hameldon and Nutshaw Hill which form distinctive skyline features when viewed from Pendle Hill and the Forest of Bowland AONB to the north. Also noted are the routes of the Rossendale and Burnley Way, recreational viewpoints and areas at Hameldon Hill, the ‘Singing Ringing Tree’, as well as deep peat in upland areas.

7.5.10 Under opportunities it notes the following:

“Locally, where the landscape is somewhat larger in scale (more expansive, with large enclosures or open moorland and sparser settlement) there may be some limited scope for larger turbines or turbine clusters, subject to detailed consideration of landscape, visual and other environmental impacts.”

7.5.11 Under key considerations that are specific to LCT C, it notes that turbines should be sited where they will not interrupt key views from Pendle Hill and the Forest of Bowland to the north; away from steep or craggy valley sides above settlements (particularly within Rossendale), the approaches to and settings of historic features. It states that turbines “may

112

sit well on the gentle side-slopes of an upland area where they can be backclothed against the hill behind. In addition, access tracks should minimise damage to gritstone field enclosures and restored where appropriate; and the turbines should not overwhelm smaller scale features including landform, farmsteads, woodlands and stone walls. “

7.5.12 The study also provides guidance on cumulative assessment. This is current and includes the existence of all recorded operational wind farms in the study area.

7.5.13 Of particular relevance is the following:

“Visual connections between wind farms. Even small scale wind energy development within this LCT may intensify wind energy influence on the landscape in this part of the South Pennines because the LCT forms a visual link between existing wind farms at Hameldon Hill to the north, Scout Moor to the south and Coal Clough, Todmorden Moor and Reaps Moss to the east.“

7.5.14 Under guidance for siting multiple developments, the following are noted:

 “Avoid visually ‘connecting’ existing wind energy developments (in the same or adjoining LCTs) or dominating the landscape character of the LCT to the extent that the overall character changes.

 Be consistent in their relationship to key landscape characteristics, so as to present a simple image that relates clearly to landscape character – e.g. in this LCT locating turbines on gentle upland side-slopes.

 Also avoid close juxtaposition of different small turbine heights and designs, aiming instead for a consistent height and design in a given area.”

Assessment

7.5.15 The development will introduce three large-scale turbines, along with ancillary substations and access tracks. The presence of the six existing Hameldon Hill turbines 0.25 to 1.10km to the north-west is considered to represent a precedent for such structures, which locally moderate effects. Nevertheless, the turbines will be dominant new features within the immediate site area.

113

7.5.16 There is expected to be minimal loss to the landscape fabric of the site, which largely comprises semi-improved pasture with rushes and moor grass to the more elevated areas. There will be some loss to the concrete foundations, as well as the new 6m-wide tracks, although these also have precedent; the new routes will link with the existing wind farm service tracks. There will be much localised loss of gritstone walls, with the likelihood of a single break being required for the service track. A short section of the Tower Brook will be culverted, with possibly minor earthmoving and exposure of bedrock (likely to be largely shale) where the access track crosses the more undulating ground close to T2. There will be no loss of significant landscape features such as trees, hedgerows, woodland or blanket peat bog.

7.5.17 Effects arising from the turbines will almost wholly be through the presence of new, vertical features in the landscape. However, effects may be reduced through a number of mitigating factors, aside from the precedent of the existing wind farm noted above. These include the lower visible cultural heritage sensitivity of the site in comparison with other areas in LCT 2; the large-scale landscape, proximity of transmission lines and masts on Hameldon Hill; local urban influences that diminish the feeling of remoteness; the greater distance from settlement and the general appearance of a landscape in decline. Whilst the turbines will be sited at a slightly higher elevation than the wind farm, they are not located on the high plateau and will only result in a marginal increase in areas from which they will appear to break the skyline. In most views they will continue to be backclothed by Hameldon Hill, particularly from the more sensitive landscapes to the north. In addition, the local skyline includes detractors in the form of the transmission masts. The mass of Hameldon Hill will screen much of the immediate study area, with only a slight increase in perception to the south of LCT C, above Dunnockshaw and Crawshawbooth.

7.5.18 It is considered here that the qualities noted above would accord with those which the SPWELS study notes as offering “limited scope for large turbines or turbine clusters”. It should be noted, other than some areas around Barnsley, LCT C is the only LCT that is indicated as being not of the highest sensitivity to turbines of the proposed size within the study area. For the reasons noted above, sensitivity is considered to be medium. The magnitude of impact is considered to be high for an area up to 1km from the proposal site, but reducing rapidly with distance as topography limits effects on perception. Overall, the effect on LT 2 Enclosed Uplands is considered to be minor.

Cumulative Effects

114

7.5.19 The development is likely to be perceived as it is intended, as an extension of the existing wind farm despite the different operator’s. Although it will increase the presence of wind energy within LT 2 and may in some cases be perceived as infilling the gap with the single operational turbine at Higher Micklehurst Farm (around 1.1km east), the development will not visually connect with the more distant large-scale wind farms such as Todmorden or Scout Moor; it will remain as a discrete cluster. The similar scale and style of turbine, as well as the generally regular pattern of up-slope (but not plateau) development should result in a coherent pattern that reflects the wider topography. There will be inevitable cumulative effects through expansion of the wind farm, along with a slightly increased juxtaposition with the smaller-scale twin-blade developments at Habergham Hall Farm and Crown Point. The cumulative magnitude of impact is considered to be high within around 0.5km and cumulative effect is thus major-moderate within this perimeter although reducing rapidly with distance. Overall, the cumulative magnitude of change for LT C is low and the effect minor.

LCT E Rural Fringes (incorporating E4 Colne, Nelson Burnley Fringe)

7.5.20 LCT E lies immediately to the north of the site; the boundary runs through the existing wind farm and three of the turbines are located within the LCT. As mentioned previously, these boundaries are not intended to be clearly defined and characteristics of more than one LT may be apparent.

7.5.21 No direct effects are expected on this LCT, but effects may arise where the turbine appear in views that inform the sensitivity of the LCT. Factors which may influence effects, as described in the SWELS study, include their visibility to large populations within densely settled or urban areas, where they may form part of the view to and from such areas. The landscape condition has been affected by gradual encroachment of development and unsympathetic land uses, reducing sensitivity. Despite this, it may have a more sheltered quality with some tranquillity relative to urban areas.

7.5.22 The LCT E surrounds much of Burnley, with other areas at relative distance to the east in Kirklees. The area closest to the site is strongly influenced by detracting elements, particularly the expansive industrial estates and transmission lines, as well as the existing turbines. Sensitivity is considered here to be lower than the less degraded areas, such as to the east of Burnley, around Worsthorne; locally this is considered to be medium.

7.5.23 The turbines will be visible in views towards the dominant mass of Hameldon Hill from much of the LCT, although these are already influenced heavily by turbines and other detractors

115

noted above. These detracting elements diminish with distance but at the same time the effect of the proposed turbines will also reduce, such as from areas to the north and north- east of Burnley, and around Hapton. In most cases, the development will not break the skyline. The magnitude of change is medium within around 1km, where the effect would be moderate, but diminishing with distance. The overall effect on LCT E is considered to be minor to moderate.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.24 The development increases the presence of wind development in views towards Hameldon Hill, which are available from much of LCT E. However, the development will continue to appear as a discrete cluster, generally backclothed against Hameldon Hill and visible as an up- slope continuation of the existing structures or within the same angle of view. It may appear to slightly ‘infill’ towards the operational High Micklehurst Farm turbine, but it will not be viewed in close combination or result in connection to other large schemes such as Coal Clough and Todmorden. The cumulative magnitude of change may, within 0.5km, be medium and the effect moderate but overall the cumulative effect on LCT E is considered to be minor.

LCT O Industrial Business Parks

7.5.25 Two discrete areas are located to the north of the site, around 1.6 to 2km. The SPWELS describes sensitivity as low, due to lack of amenity value and the nature of the landscape character. Views may be available but are frequently screened by large ‘shed’ buildings. The effect is considered to be minor at most.

LCT D Moorland Fringes/Upland Pastures (incorporating D3 Forest of Trawden/Worsthorne Moor Fringe)

7.5.26 This LCT forms a narrow band above Mereclough and Worsthorne to the east of Burnley, around 7.5 to 10km NE. It has an open character, with long views out across the valleys, particularly to the west and towards the proposal site. The SPWELS describes sensitivity as high, although this may be marginally reduced within these local areas due to them being further from and not being a setting to designation landscapes such as the Peak District National Park. Views are invariably influenced by settlement along the Calder Valley, including Burnley. Sensitivity is medium-high. The proposal may frequently be visible, but often in expansive views that include detractors and it will be closely associated and potentially indistinguishable from the existing wind farm. The magnitude of change is locally low and the

116

effect is moderate at most, but for the LCT (encompassing D3) as a whole, it is considered to be minor.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.27 The development is expected to be perceived as a minor extension of the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm, slightly upslope from the existing turbines. The development will not result in any infilling or coalescence with other developments which are visible within expansive views; such as Todmorden, Coal Clough or Scout Moor. It will remain as a discrete development that will not extend the influence of turbines in the overall panorama, although there may be a degree of ‘infilling’ towards the single operational turbine at Higher Micklehurst Farm. The cumulative magnitude of change is locally low and the effect is moderate at most, but for the LCT (encompassing D3) as a whole, it is considered to be minor.

LCT A High Moorland Plateaux (incorporating LCT A1 South Pennine Moors)

7.5.28 This LCT lies around 4.4km E of the site at the nearest point, around Deeplay Moor and Thieveley Pike, with a further larger area centred on Black Hameldon around 8.5km E. It covers the most elevated, exposed uplands within the study area, characterised by remote, empty, windswept moorlands that are nevertheless rich in history, culture and wildlife. Resource exploitation is sometimes visible, including transmission masts, pylons and turbines, with intervisibility diminishing the sense of isolation.

7.5.29 Long-distance views towards the proposal site will be available, from the western slopes of the moors above Burnley, although views from Todmorden Moor are limited to the area west of Thieveley Pike. Where visible, the turbines will be seen in close association with the operational Hameldon Hill Wind Farm as well as the settled, urban landscape and flat-roof industrial estates along the Calder Valley. Sensitivity to wind development of this scale within the LCT according to the SPWELS study is high. Sensitivity in relation to views in the direction of the site is considered here to be medium-high. The magnitude of change is considered to be low at most, from the area around Thieveley Pike, and otherwise very low. Overall the effect is considered to be negligible.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.30 The development is likely to be perceived as being part of the existing wind farm; from many locations the new turbines are likely to be indistinguishable to the untrained eye. They will not

117

extend the influence of turbines within the view nor will it connect with other developments that are visible in expansive views, such as Coal Clough, Scout Moor or Todmorden. The cumulative effect is considered to be negligible.

Landscape Strategy for Lancashire (2000)

7.5.31 This landscape character assessment defines 21 main Landscape Character Types (LCT) and 81 geographically-specific Landscape Character Areas (LCA). The report forms the basis of the study Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Development (LSWED).

LCT 2 Moorland Hills (incorporating LCA 2e Pendle Hill, 2f White Moor/Burn Moor and 2c Longridge Fell Fringes)

7.5.32 This LCT encompasses the highest parts of the distinctive Pendle Hill and associated elevated moorland which forms a dominant, landmark presence to the surrounding area. The LSWED notes that sensitivity to wind development within the LCT is high; for the purposes of this report, sensitivity is considered to be high. Expansive views are available towards the proposal site from the south-facing slopes, such as the Nick of Pendle. The turbines will be visible but in close proximity to the existing scheme and within a view that includes more dominant urban elements, particularly the flat ‘shed’ industrial buildings along the Calder Valley. Given that the development will occupy only a very small proportion of these panoramic views, the effect is considered to be minor.

LCT 4 Moorland Fringe (incorporating LCA 4g South Pendle Fringe)

7.5.33 This LCT encompasses the rising ground between the valleys of the Calder and Ribble around the base of Pendle Hill. The LSWED notes that sensitivity to wind development within the LCT is high; for the purposes of this report, sensitivity is considered to be high. Views towards the proposal site are a key element that informs character around the southern side of Pendle Hill, above the villages of Higham and Fence. However, these views are across the heavily industrialised valley of the Calder, with large-scale industrial estates being particularly prominent. The turbines will be visible in close proximity to the existing wind farm and the magnitude of change is low at most, but generally very low. The effect is considered to be minor.

LCT 6 Industrial Foothills and Valleys (incorporating LCA 6a Calder Valley)

118

7.5.34 This LCT occupies the generally low-lying areas along the River Calder, much of which have been heavily influenced by communications, industrial development and settlement. The LSWED notes that sensitivity to wind development within the LCT is medium; for the purposes of this report, sensitivity is considered to be medium-low. Areas in close proximity to the site are assessed under LC E of the SPWELS. Views towards Hameldon Hill and the proposal site form a prominent and valued backdrop, particularly from residential areas, although these often include detractors such as transmission lines and industrial estates. The proposal will be visible in close conjunction with the existing turbines; the magnitude of change is low at most and the effect is negligible to minor at most, but negligible for the LCT as a whole.

Landscape Designations: Assessment of Effects

Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

7.5.35 The boundary to the AONB runs along the lower slopes of Pendle Hill, above the villages of Higham and Fence, around 7km north of the site. Pendle Hill is an outline of the designation, which largely encompasses the main moorland areas of the Forest of Bowland, 25 to 40km to the north-west. The elevated nature of the designated landscape means that views towards surrounding areas is an important aspect that informs character. Views towards the development site are available from south-facing slopes of Pendle Hill and the parallel ridge to the south, above Fence. These views are impressive but much more influenced by industrial and urban elements within the Calder valley; views in other directions are generally towards more agricultural or remote landscapes such as the Yorkshire Dales.

7.5.36 Where views are available, the turbines will be in close proximity to the existing scheme and frequently in views that include more dominant urban elements, particularly the flat ‘shed’ industrial buildings along the Calder Valley. Given that the development will occupy only a very small proportion of these panoramic views, the effect on the AONB is considered to be minor at most. No views are expected from the majority of the designated area due to screening by topography. There will no significant effects on the special qualities that the designation serves to protect, including the visual contrasts between landscapes, isolation of the upland ‘core’ and the tranquillity of the area.

Illustrative Viewpoints: Assessment of Effects

7.5.37 Table 7.4 lists the final viewpoints selected for the study, and the comments relating to their selection where appropriate:

119

Name of Viewpoint Distance and Reason Viewpoint Direction Number from Edge of Proposal

Hawshaw Moor, near 19.36km NE Used in LVIA for previous 1 Cowling extension: views from locally designated landscape.

Old Clitheroe Park, near 17.82km NW Used in LVIA for previous 14 Hurst Green extension: views from AONB

National Cycle Route 6, 9.58km NW Used in LVIA for previous 15 Rishton extension.

Long Causeway 8.02km ESE Used in LVIA for previous 3 extension.

Deer Park Road, 5.19km NE Added following comments by JBA; 2 Brunshaw Golf Course views from edge of popular park and Registered Landscape

Padiham Heights 4.77km NW Used in LVIA for previous 13 extension.

A678, Padiham 4.77km NW Used in LVIA for previous 12 extension.

Tree Panopticon 3.53km ESE Used in LVIA for previous 4 extension.

School Playing Fields, 3.5km N Used in LVIA for previous 11 Habergham extension.

Limy Valley Walk, 2.71km SE Added following comments by JBA; 7 Dunnockshaw views from edge of recently Community Forest established path network in new woodland.

120

Rossendale Way, 2.66km SE Added following comments by JBA; 8 Meadow Head views from local walking trail

A679, Hapton Inn 2.19km NW Used in LVIA for previous 10 extension.

A682, South of Burnley 1.71km NE Used in LVIA for previous 5 extension.

New Waggoners Public 1.66km ESE Added following comments by JBA; 6 House views from local public house and representative of local footpaths and walking trail.

Burnley Way, Great 1.36km W Used in LVIA for previous 9 Hameldon extension.

Table 7.4: Viewpoints Selected for Assessment

Viewpoint 1: Hawshaw Moor, near Cowling. Grid reference: 394377, 444242. Distance to Nearest Turbine: 19.36km

7.5.38 The viewpoint illustrates views from locally designated Craven Special Landscape Area and elevated ground to the north-west of the site.

7.5.39 The view looks south south-west across semi-improved pasture enclosed by stone walls within an elevated, open landscape punctuated by stone-built farmsteads, residential properties and occasional coniferous plantation blocks. The distant horizon largely comprises the expansive open moorland culminating in Boulsworth Hill to the south-east, before extending across the view to include Hameldon Hill. Intervening elevated farmland around Trawden screens views of the settled valleys around Burnley and Nelson. Further right is the prominent whaleback of Pendle Hill. Two small-scale wind turbines are visible on the nearest skyline, around Hainslack, with other medium or small scale turbines glimpsed in the middle distance. Some fly-tipping is evident alongside the viewpoint, suggestive of urban influences although the view is dominantly rural.

7.5.40 Receptors include users of the unclassified Tom Lane, which forms part of a network of unclassified roads linking isolated settlement and small villages in the lower valleys. It may also

121

represent some residential views and footpaths, including the Pendle Way. Sensitivity is medium-high.

7.5.41 The proposed turbines will be visible as very distant features, largely against the rising ground of Hameldon Hill although T1 may marginally protrude above the horizon. They will appear adjacent to the existing turbines and are unlikely to be perceived as new features by the untrained eye. The magnitude of change is considered to be very low and the overall effect negligible.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.42 Existing small-scale turbines are visible in the immediate foreground on the skyline; as well as above Trawden where they are viewed against the rolling background. Turbines may be glimpsed at Todmorden Moor Wind Farm only in good visibility. The turbines at Hameldon can just be glimpsed but again are likely to be only visible in good atmospheric conditions. The proposal will extend the Hameldon development but only across a very small part of what is an expansive view; it will not infill between developments. It is considered here that this change is unlikely to be appreciable unless the development is being specifically searched for. The magnitude of change is therefore very low and the cumulative effect is considered negligible.

Viewpoint 2: Deer Park Road, Brunshaw Golf Course. Grid reference: 386271, 431672. Distance to Nearest Turbine: 5.19km

7.5.43 The viewpoint illustrates views from the formal avenue (Deer Park Road) which forms part of the Grade-II Registered Park and Garden of Towneley Hall. The Hall is a Grade I-listed house with 15th century origins that now houses a museum and art gallery. The surrounding parkland is owned by BCC and forms the town’s largest and most popular park. Deer Park Road forms an important public route from residential areas to eastern edge of Burnley.

7.5.44 The view looks south-west along Deer Park Road, a surfaced vehicle access route that connects Springwood Road with the main Riverside car park. The route is the principal point of access from the north-west and one of the main entrances to the flagship town park. In the foreground is the 9-hole golf course, set within scattered mature trees and areas of rough grass. The centre of Burnley is visible to the right (west of the viewpoint location), including the characteristic mill chimneys. The valley of the Calder, Towneley Hall and the majority of the park are screened by areas of woodland, but views are available of the rising ground to the

122

south. These extend west from the open moorland of Thieveley Pike to Copy Farm and Crown Point House in the centre of the view. Views towards the Singing Ringing Tree from this location are screened by trees. Further west is modern residential development to the edge of Burnley, around Rose Hill.

7.5.45 Receptors will predominantly be recreational users to the park, including cyclists, pedestrians, golfers and vehicle users accessing the main facilities and the car park. The views may also be partly representative of some residential receptors to the edge of the park. Sensitivity is high.

7.5.46 The upper part of the blades for turbines T1 and T3 are just likely to be just visible on the horizon, alongside the tip of the blades for T2. These would be visible as very minor features within a generally wide and varied view that includes urban elements, although may be more noticeable by their movement and the lack of context given that the towers are screened. The magnitude of change is very low.

7.5.47 The effect is minor. It should be noted that views will be much localised within the area of the viewpoints and subject to intermittent screening by trees.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.48 No large scale developments are visible within the view, including the operational turbines at Hameldon; these are screened by topography although the blade tips just become visible higher up the park, to the north-east. However, two small twin-blade turbines may be perceived on the horizon at Crown Point House. Combined views may therefore be available with these two turbines, but the overall scale of change is very limited given the distance and the part of the view which is affected. The cumulative magnitude of change is considered to be very low. The cumulative effect is considered minor.

Viewpoint 3: Long Causeway. Grid reference: 389355, 428857. Distance to Nearest Turbine: 8.02km

7.5.49 The viewpoint illustrates views for receptors travelling along the unclassified road Long Causeway, which runs between West Yorkshire and Lancashire above the Calder Valley. It is located close to a recognised viewpoint and car park that provides access to the local Public Right of Way network.

7.5.50 The view looks west across rushy, semi-improved upland pasture enclosed by drystone walls and post-and-wire fencing. Immediately to the south and behind the viewer (not visible on the

123

photomontages) is the operational Coal Clough wind farm. A car park (to the right of the view) allows access via footpaths to open moorland. An expansive panorama extends from Thieveley Pike to the south, Hameldon Hill (including the tips of operational wind farm turbines and transmission masts); settlement around Padiham and high ground at Longridge Fell and the more distant Forest of Bowland. Further to the north-west, this continues with the prominent mass of Pendle Hill, then the distant summits of Ingleborough and Pen-y-Ghent in the Yorkshire Dales. To the north are the empty tracts of peat bog towards Black Hameldon.

7.5.51 Receptors are mainly road users, principally local commuters or residents, with a proportion of receptors that enjoy the expansive views and will make use of the adjacent car park for walking. The receptors also comprise users of adjacent rights of way, including the Pennine Bridleway and local footpaths towards Black Hameldon. Sensitivity is high as a result.

7.5.52 The upper part of the blades for all three proposed turbines will be visible just above the horizon. It is likely that they will be perceived only through movement, given that they are relative distant and affect only a very small proportion of what is a panoramic view that extends over 180 degrees. The magnitude of change is thus very low and overall effect is considered minor.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.53 The proposals, where visible, would appear in close combination with the uppermost blade tips of four of the operational turbines at Hameldon Hill, as well as the operational turbine at Higher Micklehurst Farm, for which the full blade length is visible. They may extend the influence of turbines between these two developments but only as very minor, distant features and as a very small proportion of expansive views. In addition, views in combination and succession will be available with the operational Coal Clough wind farm that lies immediately adjacent to the viewpoint, although not directly within the view. However, the overall cumulative effect is considered to be minor.

Viewpoint 4: Tree Panopticon. Grid reference: 384762, 428847. Distance to Nearest Turbine: 3.53km

7.5.54 The viewpoint represents views from an elevated, well-used and promoted viewpoint with car park that provides access to the Singing Ringing Tree, one of a series of structures or sculptures located at viewing points (Panopticons) that were created to encourage an appreciation of the wider landscape. It also offers views from the local PRoW network

124

including the Wayside Arts Trail that links Dunnockshaw Forest Community Woodland and Towneley Hall.

7.5.55 The view is expansive, encompassing almost 360 degrees across largely open moorland and areas of enclosed, semi-improved pasture. Within the angle of the view, this includes Hameldon Hill (with the prominent transmitter masts), linear settlement along the A682 at Dunnockshaw, and long-range views to Longridge Fell and the Forest of Bowland. Within the wider context, the view includes Pendle Hill, the Yorkshire Dales (including Ingleborough and Pen-y-Ghent); much of Burnley; Boulsworth Hill and south towards Scout Moor. Elements in the view include small-scale turbines at Crown Point House; large-scale operational turbines at Higher Micklehurst Farm and Hameldon Hill; high voltage transmission lines and the industrial/functional built form influences of Burnley.

7.5.56 Given the proximity to the car park and footpath to the Panopticon, receptors are primarily visiting to appreciate the view, although these are more focused to the north, away from this particular location. Users of the road are more likely to be local residents and commuters travelling from Bacup to Burnley although the view provides an attractive context. Overall, sensitivity is considered to be medium-high.

7.5.57 The tower of T2 is expected to be screened, but the majority of the other two will be visible and will just break the skyline. However, they will appear within only a relatively small proportion of what are expansive views and arguably away from the main focus of the view, which is to the north. It can also be argued that they appear within a part of the view that is more influenced by existing detractors. The magnitude of change is low and the scale of effect is moderate at most.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.58 The proposals will be visible in close combination with the operational turbines at Hameldon Hill and the single operational turbine at Higher Micklehurst Farm. T2 will be subject to more screening by the hill but will slightly extend the influence of turbines to the left (west) of the view. There may also be a degree of visual clutter where T3 interacts with the existing structures. Combined views will also occur with the two small-scale turbines at Crown Point Farm, whilst there may be successive views with the distant Scout Moor development. The latter is away from the main focus of the view. Overall, the level of ‘spreading’ of development within the full sweep of the view is very limited; the turbines will continue to be viewed as

125

part of a discrete cluster. The cumulative magnitude of change is low and the cumulative effect is moderate at most.

Viewpoint 5: A682, South of Burnley. Grid Reference: 383023, 430419. Distance to Nearest Turbine: 1.71km

7.5.59 The viewpoint represents views from the access track to a residential property (Long Syke) which is also a Public Right of Way; the viewpoint also illustrates views for receptors travelling along the A682 Burnley Road.

7.5.60 The view is of a settled, rural landscape but with man-made elements and an urban influence. It largely comprises improved pasture bounded by drystone walls, with unenclosed heather moorland and former quarries on the rising and higher ground of Nutshaw and Hameldon Hills. Settlement includes isolated farmsteads and residential properties, often associated with tree planting. To the north (right) of the view is modern residential housing to the edge of Burnley and a prominent public house, currently derelict. The A682 has a functional quality, with street lighting and a footway. Distant views include Longridge Fell and Pendle Hill, but also glimpses of modern shed buildings within industrial estates to the edge of Burnley. Large transmission pylons run east to west whilst the six operational turbines at Hameldon Hill form dominant features within the view.

7.5.61 Receptors are mainly road users, which are considered here to be commuters and residents travelling between Burnley and Rawtenstall. The track will be used by residents of the two properties at Long Syke, along with recreational walkers; the route provides local access to the countryside for residents. Sensitivity to change is high.

7.5.62 Although the turbines will be prominent when viewed directly from this viewpoint, it should be noted that the wider context of the view is more expansive and focused to the north. The turbines will be viewed in conjunction with the existing operational structures. However, the turbines will break the skyline of Hameldon Hill, though T2 will mainly be screened by topography. The magnitude of change is medium. The effect is therefore major-moderate.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.63 The proposals will appear in combination with the existing turbines at Hameldon Hill. There will also be combined views with the operational turbine at Higher Micklehurst Farm. All three turbines will extend the influence of wind energy away from the main cluster towards

126

Hameldon Hill, closer to Higher Micklehurst Farm, although maintaining a degree of separation that may prevent ‘straggling’ or ‘infilling’. The cumulative magnitude of change is medium. The cumulative effect is therefore major-moderate.

Viewpoint 6: New Waggoners Public House. Grid Reference: 382998, 429353. Distance to Nearest Turbine: 1.66km

7.5.64 The location represents views from the A682 above Burnley and receptors visiting the public house; the viewpoint is located within the car park. It also partly represents views from the nearby Burnley Way.

7.5.65 The view is of landscape that is agricultural but includes numerous modern features and functional elements. These include two high voltage transmission lines and associated pylons; an operational single wind turbine at High Micklehurst Farm alongside Hameldon Hill Wind Farm; and large-scale portal steel barns at High Micklehurst Farm. Further industrial buildings and settlement can be glimpsed to the north, to the edge of Burnley. Other features include semi-improved pasture bounded by drystone walls, sometimes supplemented by timber post and rail fencing; localised woodland including conifers; and upland heather moorland. Overall, the view has a rather cluttered character, suggestive of a degraded urban-fringe landscape.

7.5.66 Views for road users are generally oblique, but those from the car park and within the public house are more direct; there is a conservatory area to the rear that allows views in this direction.

7.5.67 Receptors will generally be focused on parking or eating/drinking within the public house, although the open views from the conservatory attest to some value being attributed to the semi-rural views which are close to Burnley. The landscape is not designated. Sensitivity is medium.

7.5.68 Only the tip of T2 will be visible above the skyline, whilst the blades and part of the towers will be visible for T1 and T3. The magnitude of change is medium. The effect is moderate.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.69 The proposals will appear in combination with the existing turbines at Hameldon Hill and the single turbine at Lower Micklehurst Farm, which is much closer to the viewer. There may be some visual clash with other turbines but overall this is viewed in the context of other, closer detractors such as the pylons and farm buildings. There will be some ‘spread’ of development

127

within the view and arguably an overall increase (cumulative) in relation to functional clutter. The magnitude of change is medium. The scale of cumulative effect is moderate.

Viewpoint 7: Limy Valley Walk, Dunnockshaw Community Forest. Grid Reference: 383790, 428435. Distance to Nearest Turbine: 2.71km

7.5.70 The location represents views from recently constructed paths and signed trails within the Dunnockshaw Community Forest.

7.5.71 The view has a varied composition, being dominantly one of open partly-enclosed moorland and rough grassland but with a strong human influence. The foreground comprises a stoned path which forms part of a number of relatively recent trails within a community woodland, evidenced by recent tree planting. Clowbridge reservoir is located alongside the A682, which forms a focus for scattered development such as terraced housing and farmsteads of Clowbridge and Dunnockshaw. Disused quarries are visible on the rising slopes of Hameldon and Nutshaw Hills, the former being topped by a number of transmission masts. More distant views are visible towards Padiham, Pendle Hill and the Forest of Bowland, albeit in the context of two high voltage transmission lines and operational turbines at Higher Micklehurst Farm and Hameldon Hill Wind Farm.

7.5.72 Receptors will be walkers and possibly off-road cyclists using the trails within the community woodland, which provide valuable recreational and amenity access close to settlements in Rossendale and Burnley. Sensitivity is high.

7.5.73 Only the tip of blade T2 will be visible, with the full blades of T1 and the majority of T3 likely to be perceived. These will be viewed in conjunction with a number of other detractors which arguably reduces the overall change in the view. The magnitude of change is low. The effect is moderate.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.74 The visibility of the proposed turbines is relatively limited, but they may arguably result in a degree of spread slightly outside the current range of influence. Although only the blade tips will be visible, the perception of wind energy development will increase to some degree towards Nutshaw Hill. The cumulative magnitude of change is low. The cumulative effect is considered moderate.

128

Viewpoint 8: Rossendale Way, Meadow Head. Grid Reference: 382499, 427063. Distance to Nearest Turbine: 2.66km

7.5.75 The location represents elevated views from a network of public footpaths above settled valleys, including the Rossendale Way.

7.5.76 The view is one that is arguably typical of the South Pennines in this area, being composed of open moorland but influenced by human settlement and activity. The foreground is rough grassland, enclosed by degraded drystone walls and dominated by rush. Settlement is focused along the valley of the Limy Water, including terraces, isolated properties, modern farm buildings and the three-storey Oak Mill alongside the A682. The slopes of Hameldon and Nutshaw Hills include steep cloughs, conifer plantations, derelict farmsteads and former quarries. Transmission masts and the satellite/weather station dominate the summit of Hameldon Hill. Views to more distant high ground, including Pen-y-Ghent in the Yorkshire Dales, can be glimpsed to the north, albeit visible in conjunction with power lines and the tip of a turbine at High Micklehurst Farm.

7.5.77 Receptors will be walkers using the local footpath network, including the Rossendale Way. Sensitivity is high.

7.5.78 Only the very tips of two of the turbines will be visible above the horizon, though within a portion that currently features no vertical features. The magnitude of change is low and the effect moderate.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.79 Combined views will be available with the Higher Micklehurst Farm turbine which can be glimpsed to the north-east. Views in succession are also expected for the Scout Moor Wind Farm, which is visible to the south, along with the approved expansion. Although a very minor part of the view, the development will result in wind energy development being visible within a greater proportion of the view. The cumulative magnitude of change is considered to be low at most and the cumulative effect moderate.

Viewpoint 9: Burnley Way, Great Hameldon. Grid Reference: 379859, 429446. Distance to Nearest Turbine: 1.36km

7.5.80 The location represents elevated views from the Burnley Way, which runs along a footpath (PRoW).

129

7.5.81 The view is open and elevated, being focused mainly in the direction of the proposal as topography screens other directions. The land falls away rapidly from the footpath to Thorney Bank Clough, beyond which is rising ground that marks the transition from improved pasture enclosed by drystone walls to open, upland moors along the north flank of Hameldon Hill. Some of these areas are covered in pioneer woodland. This middle distance is dominated by the settlement, with the full extent of Burnley visible, including the industrial estate closest to the viewer. Beyond is an expansive panorama of distant high ground, extending from Pendle Hill, the southern edge of the Yorkshire Dales and west to Boulsworth Hill. The defining feature is the operational Hameldon Hill Wind Farm, with all six turbines visible, spread across the middle ground.

7.5.82 Receptors will be walkers using the local footpath network, including the Burnley Way. Sensitivity is high.

7.5.83 All three of the proposed turbines will be visible, located to the south (right) of the existing structures; the existing turbines form a defining element in the view. However, the expansive panorama is partly able to accommodate the change. For these reasons, it cannot be argued that the development represents a major change in the existing composition. The magnitude of change is thus considered medium and the effect major-moderate.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.84 The proposed turbines will extend the influence of turbines within the view, although the size, model and arrangement is not considered here to be visually discordant with the existing structures at Hameldon Hill. A part of the view towards Black Hameldon which is currently not influenced by turbines will be disrupted, but the proportion of the overall view that is affected is relatively small. There is some visual clash with the small-scale, faster-moving twin-blade turbines at Crown Point Road, and it could be argued that the development will ‘infill’ the area between Hameldon Hill and Higher Micklehurst Farm, the tip of which can just be seen on the horizon to the right of the view. The cumulative magnitude of change is medium. The cumulative effect is major-moderate.

Viewpoint 10: A679, Hapton Inn. Grid Reference: 379422, 430961. Distance to Nearest Turbine: 2.19km

7.5.85 The location represents views from the A679 to the north-west of the site and residential receptors to the eastern edge of Hapton village.

130

7.5.86 The view is rather restricted by a rise in topography in the near distance, where improved pasture bounded by drystone walls forms part of the horizon. To the right (west) of the view is ornamental planting around the car park to the pub, with the A679 in the foreground. The road runs in the foreground; it has an urban fringe quality, with a footway and street lighting that reflects the proximity to settlement. A low-voltage overhead line runs across the foreground, whilst five of the six turbines are prominent features from this viewpoint, the blades at varying heights above the horizon. Overall, the view is focused away from the direction of the turbines, generally to the east and north, along the road towards Burnley and Pendle Hill.

7.5.87 Receptors are road users: mainly residents, commuters and commercial traffic, alongside occasional recreational users of the footway and visitors to the pub. The area is not subject to any landscape designations. Sensitivity is medium-high, given the proximity to residential receptors.

7.5.88 The new turbines will be visible in conjunction with the existing structures. There may be some visual discordancy and slight stacking, but overall they will not appreciably change the nature of the view. The magnitude of change is low. The effect is minor to moderate at most.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.89 The new turbines will be viewed in combination with Hameldon Hill but will not extend the wind farm outside the range of the existing features, nor will they appear to ‘advance’ the development towards the viewer. There is some minor visual discordancy through stacking. The cumulative magnitude of change is low. The cumulative effect is moderate at most.

Viewpoint 11: School Playing Fields, Habergham. Grid Reference: 380854, 433402. Distance to Nearest Turbine: 3.5km

7.5.90 The location represents views from the settled western fringe of Burnley, including residential, road and recreational receptors.

7.5.91 The view is across an open school playing field, bounded by mature trees to the far side. The school is visible to the right (west), with residential properties both backing onto the field and alongside Kiddrow Lane to the east. These give some sense of enclosure, but open views are available to the backdrop of Hameldon and Great Hameldon Hills, prominent on the skyline. Set against these are large-scale industrial estates and the network of drystone field

131

boundaries that bound pastures on the lower slopes of the moors. All the turbines at Hameldon Hill Wind Farm are visible, along with the single turbine at Higher Micklehurst Farm. Other vertical elements include the transmission masts on Hameldon Hill and high voltage power lines.

7.5.92 Receptors are varied, including recreational users of the playing field at school; road users (although mature trees screen the road); also residential views. Sensitivity is considered to be medium-high.

7.5.93 The new turbines will be visible in conjunction with the existing structures. T3 will be set slightly to the east and away from the existing cluster; it will also break the skyline slightly more than the other turbines. However, given the nature of the existing view and the presence of prominent detracting features, the appreciable change is limited. The magnitude of change is low. The effect is moderate at most.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.94 There will be a degree of expansion or spread of wind energy development outside the angle of view that the current wind farm occupies. This may also represent a degree of infilling between Hameldon Hill and the single operational turbine at Higher Micklehurst Farm. However, the two will continue to be seen as separate developments and will not coalesce. The overall proportion of the view that includes wind development will not appreciably change. The cumulative magnitude of change is low. The cumulative effect is moderate at most.

Viewpoint 12: A678, Padiham. Grid Reference: 378446, 433576. Distance to Nearest Turbine: 4.77km

7.5.95 The location represents road receptors close to Padiham within the largely settled valley of the Calder.

7.5.96 The view looks across a field of rough pasture bounded by overgrown hedgerows with occasional mature trees, but is otherwise has the appearance of an urban fringe landscape. This includes large-scale ‘shed’ buildings associated with industrial estates (some of the site of the former Padiham power station); edges of residential settlement and prominent high- voltage power lines. This visual clutter distracts from the otherwise expansive views of the skyline, stretching from Black Hameldon in the east, through Hameldon and Great Hameldon

132

Hills, as far as Darwen Moor in the west. The operational Hameldon Hill turbines add to the visual clutter, although these and the transmission masts on the top of Hameldon Hill occupy a relatively small proportion of the view.

7.5.97 Receptors include road users, which are mostly local residents, commuters and commercial traffic; little recreational use is expected although there is a footway. The view may also be partly representative of some local residential properties. The area is not subject to any landscape designation. Sensitivity is considered to be medium.

7.5.98 The magnitude of change is low. The new turbines will be visible in conjunction with the easternmost operational Hameldon Hill turbines, protruding above the skyline to a greater degree but smaller in relative scale than the pylons. The effect is minor.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.99 The new turbines will marginally extend the influence of turbines to the east (left) of the view, but only as a relatively small proportion of what is a wide panorama. They will add to the visual clutter alongside the pylons, although these are more visually dominant. No other wind developments are clearly visible in the view. The cumulative magnitude of change is low. The cumulative effect is minor.

Viewpoint 13: Padiham Heights. Grid Reference: 378446, 433576. Distance to Nearest Turbine: 4.77km

7.5.100 The location represents views from a car park and recognised viewpoint adjacent to unclassified roads and PRoW to the north of Padiham. It is located on an east-west ridge to the south of Pendle Hill.

7.5.101 The view is elevated, looking across the Calder valley towards Padiham and Burnley. The foreground comprises small-scale improved pasture bounded by post-and-wire fences and patchy overgrown hedgerows, with a slightly unkempt appearance. Mature trees screen the parkland associated with Huntroyde in the middle distance, with more distant views encompassing a mosaic of farmland, woodland blocks, residential areas and prominent large- scale industrial buildings. This pattern continues up the distant slopes, before being replaced by semi-enclosed or open moorland along an expansive horizon. This includes, from left (east) to right (west) Black Hameldon, Thieveley Pike, Hameldon Hill; and onwards to the west to encompass Oswaldtwistle, Holcombe and Darwen Moors. A number of wind farms are visible

133

within the view, including Hameldon Hill which is set against the rising slopes of the Calder valley.

7.5.102 Receptors include recreational visitors, parking to enjoy the view and use adjacent rights of way. The location is within the Forest of Bowland AONB. Sensitivity is high.

7.5.103 The turbines will be fully visible although in close proximity to the existing wind farm at Hameldon Hill. They may just break the skyline, unlike the existing structures, but will be viewed as part of a panoramic view that includes more dominant detractors such as industrial buildings, particularly in line with the proposal. The magnitude of change is low. The effect is moderate.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.104 There are a large number of wind developments within the view, particularly large-scale wind farms. These include (from east to west) Coal Clough, Reaps Moss (tips only, barely perceptible); the single turbine at Higher Micklehurst Farm; Hameldon Hill and Hyndburn. Whilst there will be an addition of turbines within the view, the angle occupied by these will be very limited as a proportion of the overall panoramic view and the turbines will not result in any appreciable spreading from the existing Hameldon Hill cluster. The cumulative magnitude of change is low. The cumulative effect is moderate.

Viewpoint 14: Old Clitheroe Park, near Hurst Green. Grid Reference: 366401, 439590. Distance to Nearest Turbine: 17.82km

7.5.105 The view is expansive and encompasses a wide sweep of largely agricultural landscapes. These are dominantly a mosaic of woodland, small-scale fields bounded by drystone walls, hedgerows and numerous hedgerow trees. This dominance of woodland is slightly offset by settlement, with the villages of Whalley and Billington visible within the broad valley of the Ribble. Beyond this are distant settlements along the valley of the Calder, including Burnley. A wide skyline stretches from Pendle Hill and Boulsworth Hill in the north-east, via Hameldon Hill to Oswaldtwistle and Darwen Moors. Distant wind farms are visible, although the view is largely free of obvious detractors.

7.5.106 Receptors include recreational visitors, most of which park to enjoy the view and use adjacent rights of way. The location is within the Forest of Bowland AONB. Sensitivity is high.

134

7.5.107 The turbines will be barely perceived and viewed as part of the existing operational cluster at Hameldon Hill; it is unlikely that the new turbines will be visible to the untrained eye. The magnitude of change is very low and the effect is minor.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.108 There are a number of distant wind developments within the view, including wind farms at Coal Clough, Todmorden Moor, Hameldon Hill and Hyndburn. The proposed turbines will form a very slight increase in the extent of Hameldon Hill wind farm, but barely perceptible within the overall view; it will not result in any spreading between discrete clusters. The cumulative effect is minor at the very most.

Viewpoint 15: National Cycle Route 6, Rishton. Grid Reference: 371669, 430553. Distance to Nearest Turbine: 9.58km

7.5.109 The location represents views from the canal towpath that also provides recreational access between local settlements and forms part of National Cycle Route 6.

7.5.110 The foreground comprises the Leeds-Liverpool Canal, with two sets of high voltage overhead power lines running parallel through semi-improved fields to the far bank. The fields are bounded by gappy, degraded hedgerows but provide rural views from the adjacent town of Rishton. The view is enclosed by gentle, localised topography, settlement and mature trees although a glimpse of the steep upper slopes of Hameldon Hill is visible above the boundary fence to school playing fields.

7.5.111 Receptors include recreational users of the towpath, including walkers, cyclists and anglers. Sensitivity is high.

7.5.112 No effects are expected. Although there is theoretical visibility to the proposal, it is that the turbines will be screened by small-scale features in the foreground.

Cumulative Effects

7.5.113 There are no cumulative effects as no other turbines are visible within the view.

Residential Receptors: Assessment of Effects

7.5.114 The assessment of visual effects on residential receptors is an outline assessment only: it is not a detailed Residential Amenity Assessment. Assumptions have been made about the types and

135

use of rooms within houses and are based on observations from publically accessible locations and aerial photography. Without undertaking the assessment from inside each room or within garden areas, it is not possible to be certain that the assessment is completely accurate. Further details are provided in Section 7.3.11-14.

7.5.115 For these reasons, no specific assessment of magnitude of effect or significance has been provided. Instead, a general commentary on outlook and likely views is given.

7.5.116 Based on our observations, we do not have reason to consider that the effects on the properties detailed below may be overbearing, inescapable and all-pervasive and that a property would be rendered an unattractive place in which to live. All the properties, other than those that belong to interested parties, are at a greater distance than 900m. Where direct views are available, factors such as these being a limited proportion of overall views alongside screening effects by localised building or vegetation are mitigating factors.

7.5.117 Distances are to the nearest proposed turbine.

Individual Properties within 1.5km of the Proposal

7.5.118 Property owners at both New Barn and Lower Micklehurst Farm are interested parties in the proposed developments.

7.5.119 New Barn (c.0.62km N) includes a Grade II-listed barn and former farmhouse located approximately 50m east of the residential dwelling at New Barn. The residential property has a principal front elevation to the north-west away from the turbines, although open views towards the site are available to the south-east. The proposal would appear beyond the existing turbines and would not extend their influence across a wider angle of view. Together, the existing and proposed turbines are thus expected to be read as one group and there would be limited cumulative effects.

7.5.120 Lower Micklehurst Farm (0.80km NE) is a Grade II-listed farmhouse. Views are expected from the western elevation, although these will be subject to localised screening by outbuildings and across a ménage area. Views from the garden may be screened by vegetation. T3 will be marginally closer (180m) than the nearest existing turbine and the development will extend the influence of turbines further uphill within the view.

136

7.5.121 Lower Micklehurst Barn (0.83km NE) is adjacent to Lower Micklehurst and largely screened by the main farmhouse. Some visibility may be expected from a west-facing window but key views are across the garden to the east, away from the site.

7.5.122 Spa Wood Farm (1.40km NNW) is a single story property with possible views towards the site, although these may be partially screened by outbuildings and trees. The new development will appear at a greater distance than the existing turbines although will marginally extend the influence of such structures to the east.

7.5.123 Watson Laithe Farm (1.34km NNW) is a Grade II-listed property which has views towards the site from the south elevation. The new development will appear at a greater distance than the existing turbines although will marginally extend the influence of such structures to the east. There may be some visual stacking or discordancy where T1 and T2 are viewed behind existing turbines.

7.5.124 Hillside Farm (1.34km NNW) has main elevation to the south-east, towards the site. Views may be partially screened or filtered by trees located to the front of the property. The new development will appear at a greater distance than the existing turbines although will marginally extend the influence of such structures to the east. There may be some visual stacking or discordancy where T1 and T2 are viewed behind existing turbines.

7.5.125 Iron House (1.08km NE) has principal views from the main elevation across a garden area to the west and a conservatory to the south. Any views of the proposed turbines would be at a more oblique angle than those already available of the existing wind farm and may be subject to screening by adjacent mature vegetation. Views are also expected to be less direct as the property is within the clough, with the proposal at a much higher elevation up the hillside.

7.5.126 Further Barn (1.08km NE) is a recent barn conversion. The immediate surroundings of the property have elevated views towards the proposal site, although the property itself has limited views in this direction; most views are towards the north-east, away from the site. Turbines may be visible within a slightly greater angle of view and be marginally closer to the residence but such views will be limited as a proportion of total visibility from the property.

7.5.127 Further Barn Farm (1.09km NE) is likely to have some views from the rear elevation towards the site, although principal views are to the north-east, away from the site. Ground floor views may locally be screened by outbuildings. Turbines may be visible within a slightly greater angle

137

of view and be marginally closer to the property but such views will be limited as a proportion of total visibility from the property.

7.5.128 Habergham Hall Farm (1.37km NE) has views from the main front elevation across garden areas towards the proposal site. Mature trees are likely to screen and filter views, although where visible the turbines may marginally extend the influence of wind development across the view.

7.5.129 Brunanburgh (1.46km NE) is a recently constructed property. Views may be available but these are likely to be oblique and subject to screening from outbuildings at Habergham Hall Farm.

7.5.130 Lower Oaken Eaves (1.31km ENE) is oriented to the south-east and north-west. Views to the proposed include high voltage electricity lines and pylons in the foreground, with the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm turbines visible beyond the proposal further to the north-west. The turbines would closer than the existing wind farm but at a more oblique angle and subject to localised screening by farm buildings.

7.5.131 Long Syke (1.35km NE) has the principal elevation facing towards the south-east, away from the site. Views towards proposal would be limited from the property itself and in subject to localised screening by vegetation in the foreground, with power lines and pylons in the middle ground and existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm turbines visible further to the north-west. More open views may be available from parts of the garden.

7.5.132 Long Syke Bungalow (1.46km NE) has only a single window with views towards the site. Any available views may be subject to screening by buildings at or associated with Long Syke.

7.5.133 Higher Micklehurst Barn (1.51km ESE) has open views towards the proposal site. The turbine would appear closer than the existing wind farm and may marginally ‘infill’ towards the single operational turbine associated with the property.

7.5.134 Thorny Bank (1.37km W) has open views to the north that encompass the existing wind farm. The new development would appear at a greater distance and extend the influence of turbines across a wider angle of the view. However, visibility is likely to be very oblique and the impact on the view is expected to be limited; the development is away from the main direction of view. Only a single window looks towards the proposal site.

7.5.135 Barley Green (1.44km NW) has open, elevated views to the north-east across the existing wind farm. The new development would appear at a greater distance and extend the influence of

138

turbines across a greater angle. However, visibility is likely to be very oblique and the impact on the view is expected to be limited; the development is away from the main direction of view. In addition, a mature tree is likely to screen and filter views.

Settlements within 3km of the Proposal

7.5.136 It is expected that some properties on the south-eastern edge of Hapton (c.2.2km NW) would have views to the proposal. The new turbines would appear beyond the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm. Potential views from Hapton are to some extent illustrated by Viewpoint 10: A679, Hapton Inn. Views are most open from properties along Manchester Road and Kirkside View, which back onto or face open fields. In the majority of cases, these views are relatively oblique. There may be some visual stacking or discordancy where the proposed turbines are viewed behind existing turbines, but they will not significantly extend the influence of wind energy development across a wider angle of view.

7.5.137 Properties on the south-western edge of Burnley (c.2km NE) are expected to have views to the proposed turbines. These would appear in front of existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm turbines and beyond the high voltage lines and pylons running roughly parallel with Rossendale Road or the A646.

7.5.138 Properties with the most open views will include those to the north-east side of Rossendale Road (c.1.75km NE), which have relatively open, rural or semi-rural outline albeit in the context of a relatively busy road. Similarly, some properties to Buttercross Close, Micklehurst Close and Helm Crescent have views across fields towards the site; although these are more subject to localised screening by garden vegetation and features; many views are more oblique. In most cases, the turbines will appear slightly closer than the existing structures and will extend the influence of wind energy across a wider angle of view. However, the new structures should be read as an extension to the existing grouping, rather than a new development.

Public Rights of Way (PRoW): Assessment of Effects

7.5.139 There is a relatively dense network of PRoW around the proposal site. Many are signposted and appear well-used, a reflection of their proximity to urban areas.

7.5.140 As indicated in the ZTV, screening from topography means no views to the proposed three turbines are expected almost all of the PRoW to the south of Hameldon Hill and Nutshaw Hill.

139

The assessment below will focus on an open area extending approximately 2km from the proposal, stretching east to Manchester Road (A682), north-east to Rossendale Road (A646), north-west to Accrington Road then Burnley Road (A679), and west to Barley Green.

7.5.141 Beyond this 2km perimeter, PRoW are generally expected to have much less open views to the proposal, with built form featuring within the views to a greater extent, whether from footpaths within Burnley to the north-east or Padiham to the north. To the south-east where the proposed turbines ZTV highlights pockets of visibility within the Forest of Rossendale, it is expected that distance, undulating topography and large intervening structures; such as the electricity pylons that run south-east of the proposal site across the Forest of Rossendale, should result in slight adverse effects only. Where views are available from more open locations, such as routes around Pendle Hill or the western flank of the South Pennines beyond Burnley, the proposed turbines will appear as minor features in close proximity to the existing scheme. Effects are likely to be slight adverse at most.

7.5.142 PRoW beyond 2km of the proposal site are therefore not covered within the following assessment; although potential effects on the Burnley Way and Rossendale Way within 5km of the proposal is considered in Section 7.5.5 on recreational receptors.

Footpaths within 2km of the Proposal

7.5.143 The area south-east of the proposal site features a network of footpaths linking:

 Hameldon Hill to the Burnley Way: 12-5-FP 5, 12-7-FP 23, 12-7-FP 24, 12-6-FP 16 and 12- 6-FP 17

 Hameldon Hill to Lower Oaken Eaves and Manchester Road : 12-5-FP 5, 12-7-FP 23, 12-6- FP 3 and 12-6-FP 11

 Hameldon Hill to Lower Micklehurst: 12-5-FP 5, 12-7-FP 23 and 12-6-FP 3

7.5.144 These footpaths are generally elevated in relation to the proposal. For footpaths running close to the crest of Hameldon and Nutshaw Hills, and those connecting with the Burnley Way, this means sloping ground to the proposed turbines is expected to offer partial screening, with the base of the turbines not expected to be visible. This effect is to some extent illustrated in Viewpoint 6: New Waggoners PH, with only the blade tips of T2 and the hub of T1 visible above the horizon line, and only T3 more clearly visible above ground. For the footpaths linking onwards to Manchester Road and Lower Micklehurst, screening from topography is

140

expected to have lesser impact, with views less obstructed and more open to the new turbines.

7.5.145 In most cases the turbines will be closer to the receptor than the existing wind farm, but generally within a similar angle of view. The landscape is rather functional, including two high voltage lines and views that include the fringe of Burnley and utilitarian farm buildings. However, a single route (12-5-FP 5 and 12-7-FP 23) crosses the high ground of Nutshaw Hill. Footpath sensitivity is high at most and the magnitude of change is generally considered to be low, given the baseline presence of both the Hameldon Hill wind farm and the single operational turbine at Higher Micklehurst which is more dominant in views. The overall effect is considered to be moderate.

7.5.146 Cumulative effects will arise through views in combination with the existing wind farm, Higher Micklehurst Farm and possibly the two twin-blade structures at Crown Point Road. There will be some ‘advance’ or infill between Hameldon Hill and Higher Micklehurst. Locally, this may result in a medium magnitude of cumulative change and major-moderate cumulative effect (eg. for FP 12-6-FP-11), although for the most part these are likely to be moderate only. Therefore there may be some localised significant cumulative effect.

7.5.147 The area north-east of the proposal site features the following network of footpaths, linking:

 New Barn to Lower Micklehurst: 12-7-FP 22.

 Lower Micklehurst to Long Syke and Manchester Road: 12-6-FP 10, 12-6-FP 3 and 12-6-FP 9.

 Lower Micklehurst to Manchester Road via Further Barn: 12-6-FP 10, 12-6-FP 3 and 12-6- FP 7.

 Lower Micklehurst to Rossendale Road via Further Barn: 12-6-FP 10, 12-6-FP 3, 12-6-FP 7 and 12-6-FP 8.

 Lower Micklehurst to Rossendale Road via Further Barn and Habergham Hall Farm: 12-6- FP 10, 12-6-FP 3, 12-6-FP 5 and 12-1-FP 77.

 New Barn to Rossendale Road via Iron House: 12-7-FP 18 and 12-6-FP 6.

141

 Iron House to Rossendale Road along Habergham Clough then Burnley Cemetery: 12-7-FP 18, 12-6-FP 4, 12-6-FP 1 and 12-6-FP 2.

 Iron House to Watson Laithe Farm: 12-7-FP 17.

7.5.148 For the most part, users of the above footpaths moving in the direction of the proposal are expected to have open views to the three new turbines, although there would in some places be localised screening from clumps of trees and pockets of clough woodland. Viewpoint 5: A682, South of Burnley offers some illustration of the visual impact of the proposal on local footpaths, in this case, that which links Long Syke with Manchester Road: 12-6-FP 9.

7.5.149 A number of the farm buildings linked by the footpaths in this area are Grade II listed: the barn and former farmhouse c. 50m east of New Barn Farmhouse, Lower Micklehurst farmhouse, Habergham Hall farmhouse, and Watson Laithe farmhouse and attached barn. These, along with the accessibility the paths provide from adjacent urban areas, mean that the value of the routes is high. Overall, sensitivity is high, although some routes (such as 7-22 when leaving Lower Micklehurst) were not easy to navigate.

7.5.150 In many cases the magnitude of change is low given the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm and Higher Micklehurst turbines that would, in most cases, fall within the field of view of footpath receptors. The effect overall is thus considered to be moderate. However, for the footpath from New Barn to Lower Micklehurst: (12-7-FP 22) the proposed turbines will be closer to the path and the effect is considered to be major-moderate.

7.5.151 Cumulative effects may arise where the turbines appear to spread the influence of wind energy development away from the existing Hameldon Hill cluster and potentially infill towards the Higher Micklehurst turbine. Localised medium cumulative magnitude of change may arise where views are directly towards the proposal site for distances of up to 500m, such as from 12-6-FP 9 and 12-FP-6-7.

7.5.152 The area north-west of the proposal site features a network of footpaths linking:

 New Barn to Watson Laithe Farm and Burnley Cemetery: 12-7-FP 14, 12-7-FP 16, 12-7-FP 15, (12-6-FP 1).

 Watson Laithe Farm to Accrington Road: 12-7-FP-11.

 Watson Laithe Farm to Old Barn: 12-7-FP 11(a).

142

 New Barn to Old Barn and Accrington Road about 350m east of the Hapton Inn: 12-7-FP 14, 12-7-FP13 and 12-7-FP 11.

 Old Barn to Accrington Road near New Forge: 12-7-FP 12.

 Old Barn to Burnley Road via Park Gate: 12-7-FP 11 and 12-7-FP 36.

 Old Barn to Barley Green: 12-7-FP 13.

 Barley Green to Park Gate: 12-7-FP 32.

 Park Gate to Barley Top: 12-7-FP 29 also 12-7-FP 78.

 Park Gate to Miste Farm: 12-7-FP 25.

 Park Gate to Hameldon Quarries: 12-7-FP 77.

7.5.153 With the topography in the area markedly sloping up towards Hameldon and Nutshaw Hills to the south and south-east, the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm, located in an elevated position before the hilltops, forms a prominent visual feature in the landscape. The proposed three turbines would be located south-east of the existing turbines on slightly higher ground.

7.5.154 Where views are available towards the site, the development will appear more distant than the existing turbines. It is unlikely to occupy an appreciably greater proportion of the overall view, although it may be perceived as expansion of the wind farm towards higher ground. There may also be some visual stacking and discordancy as the density of turbines increases.

7.5.155 As with all local footpaths, which in the main appear well used, sensitivity is considered high; although some of the routes are of a rather functional nature, such as 7-11 and 7-14 which run along turbine access tracks through New Barn. Magnitude of change is considered low given the existing wind farm. Overall effect is considered moderate.

7.5.156 Given the south-easterly direction of the first section of footpath 12-7-FP 14 linking Old Barn to New Barn, and its proximity to the existing wind farm and proposed extension, the cumulative magnitude of change due to stacking and increased density may be particularly apparent and the cumulative effect is locally major-moderate, which is significant.

7.5.157 Finally, the area south-west of the proposal site features the following network of footpaths, linking:

143

 Barley Green to Hameldon Hill via Thorny Bank and along the Burnley Way: 12-7-FP 13, 12-7-FP 34, 12-7-FP 33, 12-7-FP 35(a), 12-7-FP 30 and 12-7-FP 78.

 Thorny Bank to Barley Top: 12-7-FP 33.

 Barley Top to Hameldon Hill along the Burnley Way: 12-7-FP 30 and 12-7-FP 78.

7.5.158 There are fewer footpaths in this area, with those from Barley Green and Barley Top merging into the Burnley Way to Hameldon Hill and beyond. A good portion of the Burnley Way in this quadrant falls within the proposed turbines ZTV. Footpaths between Barley Green and Thorny Bank were difficult to navigate at the time of survey.

7.5.159 Views from this elevated footpath are extensive and far reaching, north to Pendle Hill and north-east to Burnley and beyond. The existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm turbines dominate the fore and middle ground.

7.5.160 Given the north-south direction of the Burnley Way and its position in relation to the proposed three turbines south-east of the existing wind farm, these would effectively extend the visual influence of the wind farm, with the turbines taking up a greater portion of the field of view, with little visual juxtaposition of turbines along this route. This effect is to some extent illustrated with Viewpoint 9: Burnley Way, Great Hameldon.

7.5.161 Footpath sensitivity is considered high. Given the above observations, magnitude of change is considered to be locally medium for footpath 12-7-FP 78 as it rises towards Hameldon Hill and the high for this small set of footpaths. The overall effect is thus considered major-moderate which is significant.

7.5.162 Similarly, for this section of 12-7-FP 78, the spread of turbines outside of the existing range of the view, alongside small-scale interactions with other turbine of a different scale (Habergham Hall Farm, Crown Point Road and a domestic turbine at Thorny Bank), may result in a medium cumulative magnitude of change and therefore a major-moderate cumulative effect, which is significant.

Recreational Trails: Assessment of Effects

7.5.163 The assessment below considers a number of recreational routes and local visitor attractions within 5km of the proposal site, including the Burnley Way, a short section of which is covered within the assessment for PRoW above.

144

Within 5km of the Proposal

7.5.164 The Burnley Way forms a c.60k circuit around Burnley. The loop crosses the town centre, takes in sections of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal towpath and other local industrial heritage features, it passes a range of reservoirs and provides access to high ground and moorland. Viewpoint 9: Burnley Way, Great Hameldon is from an elevated point located 1.36km west of the proposal, with clear views to both existing wind farm and proposed new turbines. Whilst the majority of the Burnley Way falls within the proposed turbines ZTV, many sections of the route would have oblique views only to the proposal, which would from most sections of the loop also be viewed in a much broader context featuring to varying degrees Burnley’s built-up and peri-urban areas, distant hill views, high moorland and existing wind farm developments such as Hameldon Hill Wind Farm and Coal Clough. Overall effect is thus considered moderate at most as overall magnitude of change is considered low. It should be noted that the significant effects that are described for the section of footpath 12-7-FP 78 above, which forms part of the Burnley Way as it rises towards Hameldon Hill, are specific to that footpath and arise from what is a greater proportion of the overall receptor.

7.5.165 The Rossendale Way is a c.65km circuit located south of Burnley that loops around Bacup, Rawtenstall and Haslingden. It crosses South Pennines moorland and farmland and coincides with a section of the Pennine Bridleway to the south. Sections of the route north of Rawtenstall fall within the proposed turbines ZTV and as illustrated by Viewpoint 8: Rossendale Way, Meadow Head, the effect might locally be considered moderate. Given the extent of the circuit however, broader South Pennines context and distance to the proposal, overall effect is considered negligible.

7.5.166 The Wayside Arts Trail is a 12km circuit south-east of Burnley that features a number of artefacts, sculptures and heritage features such as the Singing Ringing Tree near Crown Point and the Grade I-listed Towneley Hall. Only a section of the trail near Crown Point falls within the proposed turbines ZTV. Visibility to the proposal at Crown Point is illustrated by Viewpoint 4: Tree Panopticon where the effect is considered moderate. However, magnitude of change overall is considered very low and effect minor overall.

7.5.167 A range of trails and walks, including the Limy Valley Walk, has been created around Clowbridge and Clough Bottom reservoirs and through the recently planted Dunnockshaw Community Forest. Most of the routes fall within the proposed turbines ZTV, although woodland blocks should provide localised screening to the proposal along sections of the

145

walks and this effect should increase over time as the blocks mature. Where views north-west to the proposal are elevated and unobscured by the woodland, raised ground around Nutshaw Hill would in places still provide some degree of screening. As illustrated in Viewpoint 7: Limy Valley Walk, Dunnockshaw Community Forest, only the blade tips of two of the turbines and the upper section of the third turbine proposed would be visible above the hill. Given the proposal would appear alongside the existing windfarm, magnitude of change is considered low and overall effect moderate at most.

7.5.168 Cumulative effects in relation to the recreational trail receptors described above are considered to be moderate at most. There may locally be an increased in both combined and sequential views, but overall there would be, as a proportion of the overall length of receptors, very limited ‘infilling’ between developments or increase in the influence of wind energy over wider angles of view.

Road Receptors: Assessment of Effects

7.5.169 Roads highlighted within the proposed turbines ZTV to 5km that are likely to be affected by the proposed turbines adjacent to the existing wind farm are considered in this assessment. Distances are to the nearest turbine.

7.5.170 The A679 (Accrington Road, 1.92km) falls within the proposed turbines ZTV from the junction with the A56 north-west of the proposal across Burnley town centre, north-east of the proposal. However, effect along the A679 or Accrington Road within Burnley’s built-up area is expected to be negligible given there would be screening from built form, hedging and street trees along much of the route and magnitude of change is considered very low within the town. Where effect is expected to be greater is along the more open stretch of road west of the Network 65 Business Park to the Hapton Inn north-west of site. Viewpoint 10: A679, Hapton Inn illustrates the views along here, although for road users, views to the proposal would be oblique and given also the speed of travel, effect is considered minor at most. There are trees and hedging along the A679 or Burnley Road beyond Hapton and effect there is once again considered negligible at most.

7.5.171 The A646 (Rossendale Road nearest the site; 1.63km) falls within the proposed turbines ZTV, from beyond the junction with the A682 Manchester Road north-east of the proposal site to the junction with the A671 Padiham Road to the north. Much of the road is flanked by residential and commercial buildings, and clumps of trees, which would in most instances obscure views to the proposal for road users travelling south that may otherwise catch sight of

146

the new turbines. Along the stretch of Rossendale Road with more open views to the proposal south-west of Burnley, magnitude of change is considered low given the presence of the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm beyond the proposal, and effect here is thus considered minor.

7.5.172 Road users travelling along the A671 (Padiham Road, 3.60km), which falls within the proposed turbines ZTV, are not in fact expected to notice the proposed turbines as the direction of travel does not coincide with the direction of the proposal to the south.

7.5.173 The direction of travel for road users on the A682 (Manchester Road, 1.55km) does not coincide with the direction to the proposal. Although Viewpoint 5: A682, South of Burnley illustrates views from this road, road users are only expected to have oblique views to the proposal, and the effect for the section of road that falls within the proposed turbines ZTV is considered minor at most.

7.5.174 Sections of Crown Point Road (1.76km) fall within the proposed turbines ZTV. Views from the road are to some extent illustrated by Viewpoint 4: Tree Panopticon. Magnitude of change is considered low given the proposal would appear as part of the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm and in most cases, be viewed in conjunction with the turbine at Higher Micklehurst Farm. Overall effect is thus considered minor at most.

7.5.175 There is theoretical visibility to the proposal from the A6068 (3.49km) which joins with the M65 at Junction 8 north-west of site. For those travelling south, views to the proposal would be screened by road-side vegetation and earthwork along much of the route and overall effect is considered minor at most.

7.5.176 The M65 (2.49km) passes in an east-west direction north of the proposal site. Traffic is fast- moving and principally concerned with long-distance commuting and commercial activity. With views screened by road-side earthworks and vegetation along the greatest majority of the stretch falling within the proposed turbines ZTV, the overall effect is considered negligible at most.

7.5.177 For road users travelling south along the A56 (3.06km) from Junction 8 of the M65 to approximately 0.5km south of the junction with the A679, there would be oblique views south-east to the proposal although screening in the form of road-side woodland and earthwork is present along most of the route. Overall effect for this stretch of the A56 is thus considered minor.

147

7.5.178 Cumulative effects in relation to the recreational trail receptors described above are considered to be minor at most. There may locally be an increased in both combined and sequential views, but overall there would be, as a proportion of the overall length of receptors, very limited ‘infilling’ between developments or increase in the influence of wind energy over wider angles of view.

7.6 Mitigation of Effects

7.6.1 Due to the scale of the development and the open landscape within which it is located, significant mitigation measures are limited. However, the height and style of the turbine has been selected in order to reflect those already operational in order to minimise any visual discordancy. Similarly, the three turbines are proposed for locations that continue the spacing of the current wind farm and respond, as far as possible and within the context of other site constraints, to the rise in topography above the existing site. All efforts have been made to ensure that the proposed development will be ‘read’ as a single, coherent wind farm.

7.6.2 Beyond changes to the design and site layout, meaningful mitigation is not possible due to the impossibility of screening the structures where effects may be significant. Small-scale mitigation may include the restoration of any drystone walls that require breaking out in a sympathetic manner with appropriate materials and techniques; ensuring new access tracks avoid the more visually prominent locations whilst following the shortest possible routes; and any earthmoving around steeper areas such as the clough is kept to a minimum.

7.7 Residual Effects

7.7.1 Residual effects are those that remain once mitigation is in place and (in the case of planting) has matured. As noted in section 7.6, mitigation is largely ineffective in relation to landscape and visual effects arising from wind farm developments. Mitigation through the selection of turbine models and dimensions that match the existing wind farm has taken place and the assessment provided here incorporates this. As such, it is considered here that the effects described throughout this chapter may be collectively considered as residual effects.

7.8 Summary of Significance Evaluation

7.8.1 The proposal is to be located on the north and north-east facing slopes of Hameldon Hill, around 210 to 300m AOD, immediately above the existing wind farm. The three turbines are located within a single pasture that appears more open and less influenced by intensive

148

agricultural practices than the existing wind farm site, but is nevertheless still enclosed by widely-spaced drystone walls. It arguably represents a transition zone between the more intensively farmed lower pastures and the open, upland plateau. The site has few physical landscape features of note: it largely comprises a single, large-scale field of semi-improved grass with large areas of rush and moor grass. The dominant character is one of expansive, open views that encompass a dramatic skyline of plateaux and quarried scarps; large turbines; transmission lines and industrial development but also panoramic long-distance views towards the wilder upland landscapes of the Forest of Bowland and the Yorkshire Dales.

7.8.2 Landscape effects will arise almost wholly through the introduction of new vertical features within the landscape. However, the baseline presence of the six existing Hameldon Hill turbines 0.25 to 1.10km to the north-west is considered here to represent a precedent for such structures, which locally reduces sensitivity.

7.8.3 There is expected to be minimal loss to the landscape fabric of the site, which would arise through the construction of the concrete turbine foundations and 6m-wide access tracks within the semi-improved pasture. The latter may require the removal of a single, c.8m section of drystone wall and the culverting of a short section of the Tower Brook, along with minor earthmoving and exposure of bedrock close to the watercourse. There will be no loss of significant landscape features such as trees, hedgerows, woodland or blanket peat bog.

7.8.4 Landscape effects may arguably be reduced through a number of mitigating factors, aside from the precedent of the existing wind farm. These include the lower visible cultural heritage sensitivity of the site in comparison with other nearby areas; the large-scale landscapes; proximity of transmission lines and masts on Hameldon Hill; local urban influences that diminish the feeling of remoteness; the greater distance from settlement and the general appearance of a landscape in decline. Whilst the proposed turbines are situated at a slightly higher elevation than the wind farm, they are not located on the high plateau and will only result in a marginal increase in areas from which they will appear to break the skyline. From many views they will continue to be backclothed by Hameldon Hill, particularly the more sensitive landscapes to the north. Furthermore, the local skyline includes detractors in the form of the transmission masts, which are particularly prominent when visible from urban views within Burnley. The topography of Hameldon Hill will screen much of the immediate study area, with only a slight increase in perception to the south, above Dunnockshaw and Crawshawbooth.

149

7.8.5 The principal point of reference is the recent (2014) South Pennines Wind Energy Landscape Study, which is considered here to be a detailed and up-to-date assessment of sensitivity and capacity within the wider South Pennines areas, based on a comprehensive methodology. The site lies at the edge of Landscape Character Type (LCT) C, Enclosed Uplands, which is assessed as being of moderate-high sensitivity to the scale of development proposed; it is the only LCT within the entire study area that is not of the highest sensitivity to the largest scale of development. Given the mitigating factors described above, it may be argued that sensitivity of this part of the LCT is lower and would accord with the narrative within the study that indicates so me scope for large turbines or turbine clusters.

7.8.6 The effect on the landscape resource is considered to be major for an area up to around 1km from the proposal site, but reducing rapidly with distance as topography limits effects on perception. Overall, the effect on LCT 2 Enclosed Uplands is considered to be minor, which is not significant.

7.8.7 Cumulative landscape effects on LCT 2 are expected to be major-moderate within around 0.5km of the proposal site but reducing with distance to minor overall, which is not significant. The development will invariably be perceived as an extension of the existing wind farm despite the different operator. Although it will increase the presence of wind energy within LCT 2 and may in some cases be perceived as infilling the gap with the single operational turbine at Higher Micklehurst Farm (around 1.1km east), it will not visually connect with the more distant large-scale wind farms such as Todmorden or Scout Moor; it will remain as a discrete cluster. The similar scale and style of turbine, as well as the generally regular pattern of up-slope (but not plateau) development should result in a coherent pattern that reflects the wider topography.

7.8.8 No direct effects are expected for LCT other than LCT 2, although the development may indirectly affect views that inform sensitivity. A locally moderate but overall minor to moderate effect is expected for LCT E Rural Fringes, which lies immediately to the north of the site. Cumulative effects are also locally moderate but overall minor. For all other areas, including the LCT described in the Landscape Strategy for Lancashire, effects are minor at most, or negligible.

7.8.9 No significant effects are expected for Landscape Designations. The turbines will be visible from south-facing areas around Pendle Hill, an outlier of the Forest of Bowland and AONB, but the effect is minor at most.

150

7.8.10 Localised significant effects may arise for short sections of PRoW (footpaths) close to the proposal site, where the turbines will extend the influence of wind energy within relatively close-range views. There may also be localised significant cumulative effects where combined and sequential views are at close range. These include routes to the west around Barley Top, to the north-east around Lower Micklehurst Farm and to the south on Nutshaw Hill. Some of these routes are relatively well used and offer amenity access for local residents, including a section of the Burnley Way. Others were observed to be difficult to navigate during site visits. The overall effect on the Burnley Way is considered to be moderate and not significant. There may be marginally increased visibility from some walking trails in the Dunnockshaw Community Forest and short sections of the Rossendale Way, but effects are moderate at most and not significant.

7.8.11 No significant effects are expected for road receptors. Whilst some have open views towards the site, the majority are considered to be of low sensitivity with limited recreational value.

7.8.12 An outline assessment of likely views for residential receptor was made, from observations from publically accessible locations and aerial photography. Based on this information, we have no reason to consider that the effects (including cumulative) may be overbearing, inescapable or all-pervasive and that a property will be an unattractive place to live. All the properties, other than those that belong to interested parties, are at a greater distance than 900m. Where direct views are available, factors such as there being a limited proportion of overall views alongside screening effects by localised building or vegetation are mitigating factors.

7.9 References

 Burnley Borough Council (not specified), Burnley’s Local Plan: issues and options, Burnley Borough Council, document available online at http://www.burnley.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Issues%20and%20Options%20DocumentL ow.pdf

 Burnley Borough Council (not specified), Burnley’s Emerging Local Plan, Burnley Borough Council, information available online at http://www.burnley.gov.uk/residents/planning/planning-policies/burnleys-emerging- local-plan

 Burnley Borough Council (2006), Burnley Local Plan, Burnley Borough Council, document available online at http://www.burnley.gov.uk/sites/default/files/3_- _Composite_Plan_for_Adoption.pdf

151

 Department for Communities and Local Government (2012), National Planning Policy Framework, Department for Communities and Local Government, document available online at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2 116950.pdf

 Department for Communities and Local Government (2014), Planning Practice Guidance: Natural Environment, information available online at http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/natural-environment/

 Department for Communities and Local Government (2015), Planning Practice Guidance: Renewable and low carbon energy, information available online at http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/renewable-and-low-carbon- energy/

 Government Office for the North-West (2008), North-West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021, The Stationery Office, document available online at http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/pdf/PG18_RegionalSpatialStrategy-for-the-NorthWest.pdf

 Highland Council (2013), Visualisation Standards for Wind Energy Developments, information available online at http://www.highland.gov.uk/downloads/file/12880/visualisation_standards_for_wind_en ergy_developments

 Julie Martin Associates & LUC (2014), South Pennines Wind Energy Landscape Study for Rossendale, Burnley, Calderdale, Kirklees and Barnsley Councils, LUC, document available online at http://www.lucmaps.co.uk/SPWED/Links/6014_South%20Pennines%20LSA_20141023_v 2_0.pdf

 Landscape Institute (2011), Photography and photomontage in landscape and visual assessment, Landscape Institute, document available online at http://www.landscapeinstitute.co.uk/PDF/Contribute/LIPhotographyAdviceNote01- 11.pdf

 Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (2013), Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Landscape Institute

 Lovejoy (2005), Landscape sensitivity to wind energy development in Lancashire, Lancashire County Council, document available online at http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/council/meetings/displayFile.asp?FTYPE=A&FILEID=13369

 Maslen Environmental (2010), Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Study, Burnley Borough Council, document available online at http://www.burnley.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2009s0647%20Renewable%20Energy%20S trategyFINALtext.pdf

152

 Natural England (not specified), National Character Area profile: 35. Lancashire Valleys, Natural England, document available online at file:///C:/Users/marielagerwall/Downloads/35%20Lancashire%20Valleys.pdf or from http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/12237027

 Natural England (not specified), National Character Area profile: 36. Southern Pennines, Natural England, document available online at file:///C:/Users/marielagerwall/Downloads/36%20Southern%20Pennines%20RYv11%20(1 ).pdf or from http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/511867

 Scottish Natural Heritage (2014), Visual representation of wind farms, Scottish Natural Heritage, information available online at http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and- development/renewable-energy/visual-representation/

 Scottish Natural Heritage (2012), Assessing the cumulative impact of onshore wind energy developments, Scottish Natural Heritage, document available online at http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A675503.pdf

 Scottish Natural Heritage (2009), Siting and designing wind farms in the landscape, Scottish Natural Heritage, document available online at http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A337202.pdf

 Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Agency (2002), Landscape character assessment – guidance for England and Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, information available online at http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/2671754

 SQW, Maslen Environmental and CO2Sense (2011), Lancashire Sustainable Energy Study: a technical report for Lancashire County Council, Burnley Borough Council, document available online at http://www.burnley.gov.uk/sites/default/files/1%20-LCC%20- %20Sustainable%20Energy%20Study%20- %20Technical%20report%20%20FINAL%202011.pdf

 West Lancashire Borough Council (2015), National and regional guidance: Regional plans, West Lancashire Borough Council, information available online at http://www.westlancs.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/the-local-plan/the-local-plan- 2012-2027/national-and-regional-guidance.aspx

153

8.0 Noise

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 This chapter addresses the effects of noise from the proposed development on nearby noise- sensitive receptors during both construction and operation, and has been prepared by Blue Sky Acoustics.

8.1.2 The assessment provides predictions of noise levels that may arise from the proposed development and assesses these against relevant standards and guidelines.

8.1.3 The Noise Technical Appendix, which is included as Appendix 8.1 of this ES presents further information used to support this assessment.

8.2 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance

8.2.1 The following policy and guidance has been taken into account within this assessment:

• National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);

• National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3);

• Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy;

• ETSU-R-97: The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms (‘ETSU-R-97’);

• Institute of Acoustics (IOA): A Good Practice Guide (2013);

• BS 5228-1:2009 + A1:2014 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites;

The National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘NPPF’)

8.2.2 The NPPF was published in March 2012 by the Department for Communities and Local Government. The NPPF details the present government policy on renewable energy and provides guidance to Local Authorities.

8.2.3 With respect to renewable energy developments, it is stated in a footnote to Paragraph 97 that:

154

‘in assessing the likely impacts of potential wind energy development when identifying suitable areas, and in determining planning applications for such development, planning authorities should follow the approach set out in the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure’.

National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3)

8.2.4 The NPS for Renewable Energy Infrastructure provides the basis for decisions by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) on applications it receives for nationally significant renewable energy infrastructure.

8.2.5 Whilst the development is not within this category, this document does express current government policy and is therefore of relevance to the determination of this planning application. Paragraph 1.2.3 states that;

‘in England and Wales this NPS is likely to be a material consideration in decision making on relevant applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)’.

8.2.6 With respect to the assessment of Onshore Wind Farm Impacts for noise and vibration, Paragraph 2.7.56 states that:

‘The applicant’s assessment of noise from the operation of the wind turbines should use ETSU-R-97 in accordance with the latest industry good practice which should reflect any updated guidance in relation to ETSU-R-97 and accepted by Government’.

8.2.7 With respect to ETSU-R-97, an additional footnote states:

‘Notwithstanding the date of this report, the Government is satisfied on the balance of subsequent scientific research that its key conclusions (and in particular the limits it recommends) remain a sound basis for planning decisions’.

Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy

8.2.8 Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy provides PPG to be read alongside the NPPF. With respect to the assessment of noise from wind turbines, it confirms that:

'The report, ‘The assessment and rating of noise from wind farms’ (ETSU-R-97) should be used by local planning authorities when assessing and rating noise from wind energy developments.

155

Good practice guidance on noise assessments of wind farms has been prepared by the Institute Of Acoustics. The Department of Energy and Climate Change accept that it represents current industry good practice and endorses it as a supplement to ETSU-R-97'.

ETSU-R-97

8.2.9 ETSU-R-97 describes a framework for the assessment and rating of noise from wind turbine developments. It has become the standard for wind farm developments in the UK, and the methodology has therefore been followed for this assessment.

8.2.10 The document recommends that noise limits should be set relative to existing background noise levels and should reflect the site-specific variation of both wind turbine and background noise with wind speed.

8.2.11 ETSU-R-97 specifies the use of the LA90,10min descriptor for both background and wind turbine noise. Therefore, unless specified otherwise, all references to noise levels within this report relate to this descriptor. Equally, all wind speeds referred to within this report relate to a height of 10m AGL, standardised in accordance with the method described in IOA: A Good Practice Guide (2013) and BS EN 61400-11:2012 as appropriate, unless otherwise stated as measured 10m height wind speeds.

8.2.12 ETSU-R-97 advocates the use of external noise limits at the closest noise sensitive receptors to wind turbine developments. Noise limits are established as a 5dB margin above the prevailing measured background noise level, unless background noise levels are found to be lower than specified thresholds, where fixed lower limits apply. Absolute noise limits and margins above background should relate to the cumulative effect of all wind turbines in the area which contribute to the noise received at the properties in question.

8.2.13 Separate limits apply for quiet daytime and night-time periods, as detailed below.

Daytime Noise Limits

8.2.14 During daytime periods, defined as 07:00 to 23:00, the guidance specifies noise limits which are designed to protect the external amenity areas of resident’s properties, and should only be applied to those areas of the property which are frequently used for relaxation. The noise limits are based on the prevailing measured background noise level for ‘quiet daytime’ periods, which are defined in ETSU-R-97 as:

156

• 18:00 to 23:00 every day;

• Inclusive of 13:00 to 18:00 on Saturday; and

• Inclusive of 07:00 to 18:00 on Sundays.

8.2.15 The noise limit is therefore established as the greater of 5dB above prevailing background noise level measured during ‘quiet daytime‘ periods, or the fixed lower noise limit.

8.2.16 ETSU-R-97 recommends that the fixed lower noise limit for daytime periods must be within

the range 35 to 40 dB, LA90, 10min, with the selected noise limit dependent on such factors as:

• The number of dwellings in the neighbourhood of the development;

• The effect of noise limits on the number of kWh (kilowatt hours) generated; and

• The duration and level of exposure.

Night-time Noise Limits

8.2.17 During night-time periods, defined as 23:00 to 07:00, the guidance specifies external limits which are designed to prevent sleep disturbance. A fixed lower noise limit of 43dB(A) is recommended for this period at wind speeds where the prevailing background noise level is 5dB below this limit, i.e. the prevailing measured background noise level is lower than 38dB(A).

8.2.18 At all other times, the limit of 5dB above the prevailing background noise level applies.

Noise Limits Associated with Financial Involvement

8.2.19 In addition, ETSU-R-97 also states that where the occupier of a property has a financial interest in the development, the lower fixed noise limits for both daytime and night-time periods is increased to 45dB(A).

IOA: A Good Practice Guide (2013)

8.2.20 The good practice guide (IOA:GPG) was published by the Institute of Acoustics in May 2013 and was subsequently endorsed by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. It reports the good practice measures which are to be adopted in the application of the ETSU-R- 97 methodology and the assessment and rating of wind turbine noise. Whilst the guide

157

provides current good practice on all aspects of applying ETSU-R-97 methodology, pertinent elements relevant to this assessment are summarised in the following paragraphs.

Noise Propagation Model and Input Parameters

8.2.21 The IOA:GPG supersedes previous good practice guidance detailed in Bowdler et al. (2009) and provides the following clarification on the input parameters for the prediction of wind turbine noise, relevant to the widely used ISO 9613-2 standard:

 A soft ground factor (G=1) should not be used. Whilst a hard ground factor (G=0) is commonly used, it can over predict noise levels. For consistency it is recommended to use a ground factor of G=0.5;

 The adoption of a receiver height of 4.0m is recommended, regardless of the time of day;

 Atmospheric conditions of 10°C and 70% humidity are recommended to represent a reasonably low level of air absorption;

 Calculations should be made at points representative of the relevant outdoor amenity area (as defined in ETSU-R-97) at locations nearest to the proposed wind farm development;

 Barrier attenuation resulting from topographic screening effects should be limited to a reduction of no more than 2dB (A) and only in cases where there is no direct line of sight between the receptor and the highest point on the rotor;

 If significant screening from a landform barrier is present in close proximity to the receiver, higher barrier attenuation values of up to -10 dB(A) may be appropriate on the basis that full justification is provided;

 A correction of 3dB(A) should be added to the predicted overall noise level for propagation across a concave ground profile (as defined by prescribed criteria); and

 The predicted noise levels (LAeq,t) should be converted to the required LA90,10min by subtraction of 2dB.

8.2.22 ISO 9613-2 provides a prediction of noise levels likely to occur under worst-case conditions; those favourable to the propagation of sound (i.e. sound speed gradients due to downwind conditions or temperature inversions). Based upon the appropriate choice of input parameters

158

and correction factors as detailed above, ISO 9613-2 has been shown to demonstrate realistic prediction of noise from on shore wind turbines during worst case propagation conditions.

Turbine Source Noise Data

8.2.23 In addition to the input parameters detailed above, the guide also provides the following specific advice for handling turbine source noise data:

 Declared Sound Power Level: This can be used directly, assuming the use of 2 or more test reports;

 Warranted Data: In the absence of a stated margin of uncertainty, the suitability of the warranted data should be determined and a correction factor should be applied to the provided values where required. The suitability of the provided data can be established through the following methods;

o By comparing the warranted data with measurement test reports inclusive of uncertainty factor to determine if a suitable margin of uncertainty has been included;

o If the data prescribes a value of uncertainty or correction factor, this should be added to the values provided by the manufacturer; and

o If no data on uncertainty or test reports are available, a factor of +2 dB should be added to the provided values.

 Tested Sound Power: In the absence of the above, the results of a test made in accordance with IEC 61400-11 including a reported uncertainty (σ) can be referenced. The reported sound power level with the addition of a margin equal to 1.645 x σ can be used, in accordance with IEC 61400-14. In the absence of test uncertainty being stated in the report, then 2dB should be added to the measured sound power levels.

Cumulative Noise Assessment Principles – Existing Wind Farms

8.2.24 The guide provides further clarification on the treatment and application of noise limits in more complex cumulative scenarios. With regard to proposed new developments near existing wind farms, the guide states:

“If an existing wind farm has permission to generate noise levels up to ETSU-R-97 limits, planning permission noise limits set at any future neighbouring wind farm would have to be at

159

least 10 dB lower than the limits set for the existing wind farm to ensure there is no potential for cumulative noise impacts to breach ETSU-R-97 limits (except in such cases where a higher fixed limit could be justified).”

8.2.25 In addition, with regard to the noise impact of existing wind farms which are consented to operate to the full ETSU-R-97 limits, the guide states:

“In the first instance, the consented noise limits should be used within the cumulative noise impact calculations unless otherwise agreed with the local authority.”

BS 5228-1:2009 + A1:2014 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites

8.2.26 BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014 (BS5228) refers to the need for protection against noise of those living and working in the vicinity on construction and open sites, providing recommendations for basic methods of noise control.

8.2.27 The standard highlights the importance of community relations, awareness of neighbourhood nuisance and suitable project supervision which are likely to effect the acceptability of construction noise. It recommends consideration of factors including site location, the duration of site operations, existing ambient noise levels, hours of work and the specific characteristics of the noise produced.

8.2.28 BS 5228 also provides methods of calculating noise levels resulting from construction activities, in addition to a comprehensive range of sound power level data for typical construction plant, in order to adequately inform an assessment of construction noise impact. Annex E of the standard also defines criteria for assessing the significance of construction noise effects including acceptable noise limits.

8.3 Methodology

Consultation

8.3.1 Consultation into the proposed method of assessing noise from the operation of the proposed development was carried out with the Environmental Health Department at Burnley Borough Council (BBC).

160

8.3.2 It was agreed that due to existing noise limits at the nearest receptors for currently operational wind turbines, additional background noise measurements would not be appropriate and the noise impact of any additional turbines would use existing noise limits; based upon the findings of background noise monitoring previously undertaken in the absence of wind turbine development.

8.3.3 In accordance with the IOA: GPG, in the first instance it should be assumed that existing wind turbine developments operate to the threshold of the permitted ETSU-R-97 noise limits. Therefore, as detailed in the guidance, planning permission noise limits set at any future neighbouring wind turbine development would have to be at least 10dB lower than the limits set for the existing wind farm to ensure there is no potential for cumulative noise impacts to breach total ETSU-R-97 limits (except in cases where a higher noise limit can be justified).

8.3.4 On this basis, it was agreed that predicted noise levels from the proposed development would be at least 10dB below the existing noise limits. For New Barn Farm, which is the primary beneficiary of the proposed development, it was agreed that noise limits would be set at 5dB below existing noise limits.

Operational Noise Assessment Methodology

8.3.5 In summary, the operational noise assessment process includes the following:

 Identification of the closest and most noise sensitive receptors;

 Establishment of noise limits at the identified noise-sensitive receptors for acceptable levels of wind turbine noise;

 Undertaking noise predictions using a noise model across a range of operational wind speeds to quantify the likely level of wind turbine noise at each noise-sensitive receptor;

 A comparison of the predicted turbine noise levels against the identified noise limits in order to determine the margin; and

 Identification of any proposed mitigation measures where appropriate.

Identification of Noise Sensitive Receptors

8.3.6 Potential receptors around the proposed development were first identified from the noise assessment of the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm application, for which specific noise limits already

161

apply, in addition to further receptors which were identified from OS 1:25,000 scale digital mapping and freely available aerial photography.

Wind Turbine Noise Data

8.3.7 The wind turbines considered for the proposed development will have a maximum hub height of 60m and a maximum tip height of 100m.

8.3.8 The candidate turbine model considered used to inform this Noise Assessment is the Enercon E-82 2350kW, with a hub height of 59m and a tip height of 100m. It is considered that this turbine model is suitably representative of the scale and type intended for installation.

8.3.9 Enercon provides specified manufacturer’s noise emission data, which states a maximum sound power level of 102.0dB should be expected (measured level at 95% rated power). However, the Enercon document also recommends that an uncertainty value of 1dB should be added to the specified noise emission data in order to account for measurement tolerances.

8.3.10 With respect to good practice, the IOA: GPG states;

“Specified manufacturer data can be used provided that a margin to account for uncertainty has been included…. If the document prescribes a value of uncertainty then this can be added to the values stated.”

8.3.11 Therefore, the prescribed uncertainty value of 1dB has been added to the specified noise data for the purpose of this assessment in accordance with current good practice.

8.3.12 A copy of the manufacturer’s specified noise emission data is included in Appendix 8.1. The sound power level data provided by Enercon and that which has been used in the assessment including the recommended 1dB uncertainty factor are detailed in Table 8.1.

162

Wind Speed at 10m AGL, ms-1 5 6 7 8 9 10

MANUFACTURER’S SPECIFIED 95.3 98.8 100.9 102.0 102.0 102.0 SOUND POWER LEVELS, LWA, DB

Sound Power Level, LWA, dB Data used for Assessment Including 96.3 99.9 101.9 103.0 103.0 103.0 1dB Uncertainty

Table 8.1: Turbine Sound Power Levels - Enercon E82 2350kW, 59m Hub

8.3.13 The manufacturer has provided octave band data for the Enercon E-82 2350kW. The octave band data measured at 8ms-1 has been scaled to the maximum sound power level of 103.0dB(A), for use in the calculation of noise immission levels, as detailed in Table 8.2. A copy of the manufacturer’s octave band data is also included in Appendix 8.1.

Octave Band Frequency 100 200 400 800 63 125 250 500 Spectrum, Hz 0 0 0 0

SOUND POWER LEVEL DATA,

LWA, MEASURED AT A WIND 83.2 89.8 94.0 95.8 96.8 94.1 85.7 75.5 -1 SPEED OF 8 MS DB

Sound Power Level, LWA, dB 84.4 91.0 95.2 97.0 98.0 95.3 86.9 76.7 Scaled to 103.0dB

Table 8.2: Octave Band Spectrum – Enercon E82 2350kW

8.3.14 Turbine selection will be subject to a competitive procurement process. In the event that a turbine other than that assessed here is eventually selected for installation on site, a further Noise Assessment will be carried out to ensure that resulting predicted noise levels will also comply with planning conditions. A warranty will be sought from the manufacturer of the final turbine model selected for installation that noise emissions will not exceed those assessed for that turbine, and that no tonality will be present that would otherwise require a penalty to be applied in accordance with ETSU-R-97.

163

Noise Limits

8.3.15 As detailed, during consultation is was agreed that noise limits set for the proposed development would have to be at least 10dB lower than those already permitted by planning permission for the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm and its extension.

8.3.16 The existing noise limits are based on background noise levels which were measured during the Noise Assessment for the original Hameldon Hill Wind Farm application. At the time of these measurements, no allowance was made for the effects of wind shear on the background noise levels. Therefore, in order to provide an appropriate assessment against the noise limits in line with current understanding of wind turbine noise, corrections must be included to account for the effects of wind shear.

Wind Shear

8.3.17 In order to account for the effects of wind shear, a correction to the wind turbine source noise levels has been undertaken. The IOA:GPG advocates the following simplified procedure in the absence of long term wind shear data (Paragraph 4.5.4):

“The following simplified method is proposed for ease of use: applying a fixed correction by subtracting the following factors from the wind speed reference used in the turbine predictions: 1 m/s for turbine hub heights up to 30 m, 2 m/s for hub heights up to 60 m and 3 m/s for hub heights more than 60 m”.

8.3.18 As the proposed development will have a maximum hub height of 60m, it is considered that a subtraction of 2ms-1 from the reference wind speed is appropriate for this assessment.

8.3.19 Table 8.3 therefore details the revised Enercon E-82 2350kW sound power level data used for the assessment of the proposed development with a correction to the reference wind speeds by 2ms-1, to account for the effects of wind shear.

164

Wind Speed at 10m AGL, ms-1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

E-82 SOUND POWER LEVELS, DB N/A N/A 96.3 99.9 101.9 103.0 103.0 103.0 (AS DETAILED IN TABLE 8.1)

E-82 Sound Power Levels, dB with 96.3 99.9 101.9 103.0 103.0 103.0 103.0 103.0 2ms-1 wind shear correction

Table 8.3: Enercon E82 2350kW with 2ms-1 Wind Shear Correction

Operational Noise Significance Criteria

8.3.20 This assessment follows the guidance set out in ETSU-R-97 and the IOA: GPG. In drawing conclusions from this assessment for the purposes of EIA, predicted noise levels deemed acceptable under such guidance are regarded as not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations.

Construction Noise Assessment Methodology

8.3.21 Construction of the proposed development will generate noise principally through the construction of access tracks and foundation excavation and construction for each turbine, including the associated operation of machinery and plant. In summary, the construction noise assessment follows the below process:

 Identify location of indicative construction activities;

 Calculate proximity of nearest receptors;

 Undertake predictions of noise emissions from indicative construction activities in accordance with worst-case plant source levels specified in BS 5228-1:2009;

 Compare predictions against guideline noise limits detailed in BS 5228-1:2009.

8.3.22 The assessment criteria for construction noise is based on the lower thresholds detailed in BS 5228-1:2009, Annex E, Table E.1, reproduced in Table 8.4.

Period Times Lower Threshold, LAeq, period

Daytime 07:00 to 19:00 Weekdays 65dB(A)

165

07:00 to 13:00 Saturdays

Evenings and Weekends 19:00 to 23:00 Weekdays 55dB(A)

13:00 to 23:00 Saturdays

07:00 to 23:00 Sundays

Night 23:00 to 07:00 45dB(A)

Table 8.4: Construction Noise Assessment Limits

Construction Equipment

8.3.23 In the absence of a specific plant list, typical construction plant has been selected to represent a worst case noise impact from typical equipment required for the two principal construction activities; those being the construction of access tracks and foundation excavation and construction.

8.3.24 The plant selected is detailed in Tables 8.5 and 8.6 below for each activity respectively. All noise levels have been sourced from Annex C of BS 5228-1:2009. Small pieces of construction equipment such as hand held tools have not been included due to the noise impact being insignificant relative to the larger plant considered.

Sound BS 5228 Table Power On Time Activity/Equipment Size Power Ref Rating (%) Level, dB(A)

C.5, 18 Tracked Excavator 172 35t 100 108

C.5, 18 Tracked Excavator 172 35t 100 108

C.5, 16 Articulated Dump Truck 194 25t 100 109

C.5, 14 Bulldozer 250 35t 100 114

C.5, 24 Vibratory Roller 53 12t 100 112

C.2, 34 4 Axle Lorry - 100 108 Wagon

Table 8.5: Equipment Noise Data for Access Track Construction

166

Sound BS 5228 Table Power On Time Activity/Equipment Size Power Ref Rating (%) Level, dB(A)

C.2, 14 Tracked Excavator 226 40t 100 107

C.4, 32 Concrete Mixer+ Pump - - 100 106

C.4, 33 Poker Vibrator - - 100 106

C.2, 30 Tipping Dump Truck 306 29t 100 107

C.2, 37 Roller 145 18t 100 107

C.11, 18 Lorry 216 32t 100 116

Table 8.6: Equipment Noise Data for Foundation Excavation and Construction

8.3.25 It is assumed that decommissioning noise will be less than, or at a worst case comparable with construction levels and has therefore not been considered in this assessment.

Construction Noise Significance Criteria

8.3.26 For the purpose of this assessment, noise levels generated by construction noise are deemed to be significant if the lower thresholds presented in Table 8.4 are exceeded.

8.4 Description of Baseline Conditions

Operational Noise Assessment Locations

8.4.1 Only the closest receptors to the proposed development have been assessed; those considered to be the most noise-sensitive. Table 8.7 details the receptors identified for assessment. The Noise Assessment locations are also detailed on Figure 8.1: Noise Assessment.

GRID REFERENCE DISTANCE TO NEAREST Receptor Name DEVELOPMENT TURBINE, M EASTINGS NORTHINGS Barley Green Farm 379794 430049 1458

Higher Micklehurst Barn 382862 429530 1500

167

Iron House 382008 430766 1077

Lower Micklehurst Barn 382151 430150 798

New Barn Farm (FI) 380982 430382 658

New Laithe Farm 381402 428476 956

Old Barn Farm 380102 430853 1604

Thorny Bank Farm 379811 429704 1396

Watson Laithe Farm 380955 431040 1247

Lower Oaken Eaves 382708 429902 1306

Wagonners Inn 382984 429296 1685

Higher Oaken Eaves 382948 429617 1568

Table 8.7: Noise Sensitive Receptors

Operational Noise Limits

8.4.2 During consultation is was agreed that noise limits set for the proposed development would be 10dB lower than those already permitted by planning permission for the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm and its extension, in accordance with the IOA:GPG, which states:

“If an existing wind farm has permission to generate noise levels up to ETSU-R-97 limits, planning permission noise limits set at any future neighbouring wind farm would have to be at 10 dB lower than the limits set for the existing wind farm to ensure there is no potential for cumulative noise impacts to breach ETSU-R-97 limits (except in cases where a higher noise limit can be justified)”.

8.4.3 Existing noise limits applicable to the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm and its extension are reproduced below in Table 8.8, sourced from planning permissions APP/2004/1353 (2005) and APP/2009/0756 for Hameldon Hill Wind Farm and the extension respectively.

168

Wind Speed at 10 m, ms-1 Receptor Location 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

QUIET DAYTIME PERIOD

Watson Laithe Farm 39.3 39.7 40.4 41.3 42.5 43.8 45.4 47.2 49.3 51.6

Old Barn Farm 38.9 39.6 40.6 41.8 43.3 45.0 47.0 49.3 51.8 54.5

New Barn Farm 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.7 47.9 50.0 51.9 53.5

Lower Micklehurst 40.1 40.8 42.3 44.2 46.4 48.5 50.4 51.8 52.5 52.2 Barn

Barley Green 36.0 36.5 37.2 38.2 39.6 41.2 43.1 45.2 47.7 50.5

Thorney Bank 36.0 36.5 37.2 38.2 39.6 41.2 43.1 45.2 47.7 50.5

NIGHT TIME PERIOD

Watson Laithe Farm 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 44.4 47.1 50.0

Old Barn Farm 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 45.0 48.5 52.5 56.9

New Barn Farm 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 48.3 53.2 58.9 65.4

Lower Micklehurst 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.8 47.0 50.4 53.7 56.5 58.6 59.6 Barn

Barley Green 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 45.4 49.2 53.6

Thorney Bank 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 45.4 49.2 53.6

Table 8.8: Existing Noise Limits Enforced at Hameldon Hill Wind Farm and the Extension

8.4.4 For some noise-sensitive receptors detailed in Table 8.7, specific noise limits for Hameldon Hill Wind Farm and its extension are not specifically applied through planning condition.

8.4.5 In each case where this occurs, the most representative noise limits have been applied in order to provide a basis on which to inform this assessment, based on the background noise levels which would be most expected to occur.

169

8.4.6 As the receptors for which existing noise limits are not already specifically applied are located in relatively close proximity to the A682 (Manchester Road), which is considered to be the principal noise source in this area, the existing noise limits from Lower Micklehurst have been applied in all cases; as the background noise measurements originally taken at this location (on which the limits are derived) are considered likely to be the most representative. For clarity, noise limits applicable at Lower Micklehurst have been applied to the following noise-sensitive receptors:

 Iron House;

 Lower Oaken Eaves;

 Higher Oaken Eaves;

 Higher Micklehurst Barn;

 Wagonners Inn; and

 New Laithe Farm.

8.4.7 This approach was agreed during consultation with the Environmental Health Department of BBC.

8.4.8 New Barn Farm is financially involved in the proposed development and in accordance with ETSU-R-97, so can therefore be subject to higher noise limits. With regard to setting noise limits for new developments at properties where existing noise limits already apply, current good practice detailed in the IOA: GPG states:

“any future neighbouring wind farm would have to be at 10 dB lower than the limits set for the existing wind farm to ensure there is no potential for cumulative noise impacts to breach ETSU- R-97 limits (except in cases where a higher noise limit can be justified)”.

8.4.9 As New Barn Farm is the primary beneficiary of the proposed development, it was agreed with BCC that it would be justified should the noise limit for the proposed development be set 5dB below existing noise limits.

8.4.10 Table 8.9 presents the noise limits for the proposed development; 10dB lower than existing wind turbine noise limits at each noise sensitive receptor, and 5dB lower in the case of New Barn Farm.

170

Standardised Wind Speed at 10m, ms-1 Receptor Location 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

QUIET DAYTIME PERIOD

Watson Laithe Farm 29.3 29.7 30.4 31.3 32.5 33.8 35.4 37.2 39.3 41.6

Old Barn Farm 28.9 29.6 30.6 31.8 33.3 35.0 37.0 39.3 41.8 44.5

New Barn Farm 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.7 42.9 45.0 46.9 48.5

Lower Micklehurst 30.8 32.3 34.2 30.1 36.4 38.5 40.4 41.8 42.5 42.2 Barn

Barley Green 26.0 26.5 27.2 28.2 29.6 31.2 33.1 35.2 37.7 40.5

Thorney Bank 26.0 26.5 27.2 28.2 29.6 31.2 33.1 35.2 37.7 40.5

Iron House 30.1 30.8 32.3 34.2 36.4 38.5 40.4 41.8 42.5 42.2

Lower Oaken Eaves 30.1 30.8 32.3 34.2 36.4 38.5 40.4 41.8 42.5 42.2

Higher Oaken Eaves 30.1 30.8 32.3 34.2 36.4 38.5 40.4 41.8 42.5 42.2

Higher Micklehurst 30.1 30.8 32.3 34.2 36.4 38.5 40.4 41.8 42.5 42.2 Barn

Wagonners Inn 30.1 30.8 32.3 34.2 36.4 38.5 40.4 41.8 42.5 42.2

New Laithe Farm 30.1 30.8 32.3 34.2 36.4 38.5 40.4 41.8 42.5 42.2

NIGHT TIME PERIOD

Watson Laithe Farm 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 34.4 37.1 40.0

Old Barn Farm 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 35.0 38.5 42.5 46.9

New Barn Farm 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 43.3 48.2 53.9 60.4

Lower Micklehurst 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.8 37.0 40.4 43.7 46.5 48.6 49.6 Barn

Barley Green 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 35.4 39.2 43.6

171

Standardised Wind Speed at 10m, ms-1 Receptor Location 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Thorney Bank 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 35.4 39.2 43.6

Iron House 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.8 37.0 40.4 43.7 46.5 48.6 49.6

Lower Oaken Eaves 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.8 37.0 40.4 43.7 46.5 48.6 49.6

Higher Oaken Eaves 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.8 37.0 40.4 43.7 46.5 48.6 49.6

Higher Micklehurst 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.8 37.0 40.4 43.7 46.5 48.6 49.6 Barn

Wagonners Inn 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.8 37.0 40.4 43.7 46.5 48.6 49.6

New Laithe Farm 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.8 37.0 40.4 43.7 46.5 48.6 49.6

Table 8.9: Noise Limits for Proposed Development

8.5 Assessment of Potential Effects

Operational Noise

Predicted Operational Noise Levels

8.5.1 Predicted noise immission levels at the assessment locations resulting from the operation of the development were calculated using the methodology described in ISO-9613-2, with the following assumptions:

 Sound Power Level data detailed in Table 8.3, inclusive of added uncertainty factor and 2m/s wind shear correction;

 Acoustically mixed ground (G=0.5);

 No barrier attenuation;

 A receiver height of 4.0 m;

 A temperature of 10°C; and

 Relative humidity of 70 %.

172

8.5.2 Table 8.10 details the predicted noise levels for the noise sensitive receptors identified in Table 8.7:

Standardised Wind Speed at 10m, ms-1 Receptor Location 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

QUIET DAYTIME PERIOD

Watson Laithe Farm 22.0 25.6 27.7 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8 28.8

Old Barn Farm 19.8 23.4 25.5 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6

New Barn Farm 28.7 32.3 34.4 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5

Lower Micklehurst 26.1 29.7 31.8 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.9 Barn

Barley Green 20.7 24.3 26.4 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5

Thorney Bank 21.3 24.9 27.0 28.1 28.1 28.1 28.1 28.1 28.1 28.1

Iron House 23.0 26.6 28.7 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8

Lower Oaken Eaves 21.7 25.3 27.4 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5 28.5

Higher Oaken Eaves 20.0 23.6 25.7 26.8 26.8 26.8 26.8 26.8 26.8 26.8

Higher Micklehurst 20.6 24.2 26.3 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.4 Barn

Wagonners Inn 19.4 23.0 25.1 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2

New Laithe Farm 24.3 27.9 30.0 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1

Table 8.10: Predicted Operational Noise Levels

Operational Noise Assessment

8.5.3 Table 8.11 below details the margin between the predicted noise immission levels (Table 8.10) and the derived noise limits (Table 8.9) for the noise sensitive receptors. A negative margin indicates that the predicted noise level is below the derived noise limit.

173

-1 Receptor Standardised Wind Speed at 10m, ms

Location 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

QUIET DAYTIME PERIOD

Watson Laithe -7.3 -4.1 -2.7 -2.5 -3.7 -5.0 -6.6 -8.4 -10.5 -12.8 Farm

Old Barn Farm -9.1 -6.2 -5.1 -5.2 -6.7 -8.4 -10.4 -12.7 -15.2 -17.9

New Barn Farm -11.3 -7.7 -5.6 -4.5 -4.5 -5.2 -7.4 -9.5 -11.4 -13.0

Lower Micklehurst -4.0 -1.1 -0.5 -1.3 -3.5 -5.6 -7.5 -8.9 -9.6 -9.3 Barn

Barley Green -5.3 -2.2 -0.8 -0.7 -2.1 -3.7 -5.6 -7.7 -10.2 -13.0

Thorney Bank -4.7 -1.6 -0.2 -0.1 -1.5 -3.1 -5.0 -7.1 -9.6 -12.4

Iron House -7.1 -4.2 -3.6 -4.4 -6.6 -8.7 -10.6 -12.0 -12.7 -12.4

Lower Oaken -8.4 -5.5 -4.9 -5.7 -7.9 -10.0 -11.9 -13.3 -14.0 -13.7 Eaves

Higher Oaken -10.1 -7.2 -6.6 -7.4 -9.6 -11.7 -13.6 -15.0 -15.7 -15.4 Eaves

Higher Micklehurst -9.5 -6.6 -6.0 -6.8 -9.0 -11.1 -13.0 -14.4 -15.1 -14.8 Barn

Wagonners Inn -10.7 -7.8 -7.2 -8.0 -10.2 -12.3 -14.2 -15.6 -16.3 -16.0

New Laithe Farm -5.8 -2.9 -2.3 -3.1 -5.3 -7.4 -9.3 -10.7 -11.4 -11.1

NIGHT TIME PERIOD

Watson Laithe -11.0 -7.4 -5.3 -4.2 -4.2 -4.2 -4.2 -5.6 -8.3 -11.2 Farm

Old Barn Farm -13.2 -9.6 -7.5 -6.4 -6.4 -6.4 -8.4 -11.9 -15.9 -20.3

New Barn Farm -11.3 -7.7 -5.6 -4.5 -4.5 -4.5 -7.8 -12.7 -18.4 -24.9

Lower Micklehurst -6.9 -3.3 -1.2 -0.9 -4.1 -7.5 -10.8 -13.6 -15.7 -16.7

174

-1 Receptor Standardised Wind Speed at 10m, ms

Location 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Barn

Barley Green -12.3 -8.7 -6.6 -5.5 -5.5 -5.5 -5.5 -7.9 -11.7 -16.1

Thorney Bank -11.7 -8.1 -6.0 -4.9 -4.9 -4.9 -4.9 -7.3 -11.1 -15.5

Iron House -10.0 -6.4 -4.3 -4.0 -7.2 -10.6 -13.9 -16.7 -18.8 -19.8

Lower Oaken -11.3 -7.7 -5.6 -5.3 -8.5 -11.9 -15.2 -18.0 -20.1 -21.1 Eaves

Higher Oaken -13.0 -9.4 -7.3 -7.0 -10.2 -13.6 -16.9 -19.7 -21.8 -22.8 Eaves

Higher Micklehurst -12.4 -8.8 -6.7 -6.4 -9.6 -13.0 -16.3 -19.1 -21.2 -22.2 Barn

Wagonners Inn -13.6 -10.0 -7.9 -7.6 -10.8 -14.2 -17.5 -20.3 -22.4 -23.4

New Laithe Farm -8.7 -5.1 -3.0 -2.7 -5.9 -9.3 -12.6 -15.4 -17.5 -18.5

Table 8.11: Margins between Predicted Noise Immission Levels and Noise Limits

8.5.4 It can be seen from Table 8.11 that the predicted noise levels at all receptors are lower than the derived noise limits in all cases, at all wind speeds.

Construction Noise

Predicted Construction Noise Levels

8.5.5 The infrastructure of the development site is illustrated in Figure 4.1.

8.5.6 It is only considered necessary to assess the closest receptors for construction activities; the distances of the closest receptors to each construction activity have therefore been calculated. Access tracks for the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm and its extension will be used for the majority of the access route, therefore only limited track construction is required. Table 8.12 details the distances of the closest identified receptors to the respective construction activities.

175

Receptor Distance from Access Track Distance from Foundation Construction Excavation and Construction (M) (M)

New Barn Farm 430 630

Lower Micklehurst 780 760

New Laithe Farm 950 930

Thorny Bank Farm 1260 1350

Table 8.12: Distances to Construction Activities

8.5.7 Predictions of construction noise have been undertaken in accordance with Annex F2.2 of BS 5228-1:2009, assuming mixed ground, using the expected plant detailed in Tables 8.5 and 8.6. The results are presented in Table 8.13 below:

Receptor Access Track Construction, Foundation Excavation and Predicted Noise Construction, Predicted

Level LAeq, dB Noise Level LAeq, dB

New Barn Farm 54.5 50.5

Lower Micklehurst 48.7 48.6

New Laithe Farm 46.8 46.7

Thorny Bank Farm 44.1 43.1

Table 8.13: Predicted Construction Noise Level

8.5.8 As can be seen in Table 8.13, the predicted levels of construction noise are below the daytime

noise limit of 65dB, LAeq and the evening and weekend limit of 55 dB, LAeq. It is not anticipated that any night-time construction activities will be required.

176

8.6 Mitigation of Effects

Construction Noise Mitigation

8.6.1 Construction noise effects are predicted to be within acceptable guidelines in all cases, therefore no specific mitigation measures are required. However, general best practice guidance for controlling construction noise through the use of good practice given in BS 5228 will be followed. During construction of the proposed development operations shall be limited to working times agreed with BCC.

Operational Noise Mitigation

8.6.2 In all cases the levels of operational noise are predicted to be compliant with the requirements of ETSU-R-97 and the IOA: GPG; therefore, no mitigation measures other than those which are inherent in the design process are considered necessary.

8.7 Residual Effects

8.7.1 Application of the BS 5228 general best practice guidance for controlling construction noise will ensure that effects are minimised as far as reasonably practicable and that the construction process is operated in compliance with relevant legislation.

8.7.2 There is no noise mitigation measures proposed for the operation of the development; therefore, the residual effects are the same as previously assessed.

8.8 Summary of Significance Evaluation

8.8.1 As outlined, construction noise is not expected to exceed the lower construction noise thresholds detailed in BS 5228 at any of the nearest receptors, and any construction noise effects will be short term in nature. In addition, general guidance for controlling construction noise through the use of good practice given in British Standard 5228 will be followed.

8.8.2 It is assumed that decommissioning noise will be less than, or at a worst case comparable with the calculated construction levels. Noise from construction is considered to be of minor impact and is therefore considered to be not significant.

8.8.3 Operational noise has been assessed against noise limits established in accordance with current good practice methods detailed in the IOA: GPG, based on existing noise limits determined in accordance with ETSU-R-97 and background noise measurements. Noise levels

177

at all non-financially involved receptors are demonstrated to be at least 10dB below existing noise limits and 5dB below at financially involved New Barn Farm, as agreed with BBC. As a result, the impact is considered to be negligible at all receptors and is therefore assessed as not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations.

8.8.4 Table 8.14 below summarises the evaluation of effects for both construction and operation:

Resource Sensitivity of Mitigation Magnitude of Significance Receptors Impact

Construction Moderate Best practicable Minor Not Significant means in accordance with BS5228

Operation Moderate Inherent in Negligible Not Significant design process

Table 8.14: Evaluation of Effects

References

 Department for Communities and Local Government (2012): National Planning Policy Framework

 Department of Energy and Climate Change (2010): Revised Draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).

 Department for Communities and Local Government (2013): Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy.

 Department for Trade and Industry (1996): ETSU-R-97: The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms.

 Institute of Acoustics (2013): A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97.

 Institute of Acoustics (2013): A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97.

178

 BS EN (IEC) 61400-11 (2012): Wind Turbine Generator Systems – Part 11: Acoustic Noise Measurement Techniques

 Bowdler et al. (2009): Prediction and Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise: Agreement about relevant factors for noise assessment from wind energy projects.

 Bullmore et al. (2009): Wind Farm Noise Predictions and Comparison with Measurements, Third International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Aalborg, Denmark 17 – 19 June 2009

179

9.0 Ecology, Ornithology and Nature Conservation

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 This Chapter addresses the Ecological, Ornithological and Nature Conservation impacts that may arise from the construction and operation of the proposed three wind turbines within land to the east and south-east of Hameldon Wind Farm, having due regard to both the physical proposals, recommended avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures, and ecological enhancements included within the scheme design proposals. It has been prepared by Delta-Simons Environmental Consultants.

9.1.2 In order to establish the baseline conditions of the Site, an assessment has been completed based on information from surveys, desk-based information searches and consultations. Full results of the ecological surveys are presented in Appendices 9.1- 9.8. The remainder of the chapter is structured as follows:

 Methodology;

 Description of baseline conditions;

 Assessment of potential effects;

 Mitigation of effects;

 Residual effects; and

 Summary of significance evaluation.

9.1.3 The ‘study area’ includes all areas within the potential zone of influence e.g. within the land available for the proposed development. The ‘AECOM survey area’ is defined as the area within the study area which was scoped in by AECOM, the previous ecological consultants for this scheme, in 2014, as being the least ecologically constrained area for the locations of the wind turbines and all other supporting infrastructure, including access tracks. Consequently the focus of the AECOM breeding bird surveys and bat transect surveys was across this area (see Figure 2, Appendix 9.6 for comparable areas), whilst the Great Crested Newt (GCN) survey completed by AECOM considered the study area. Delta-Simons, since being appointed the ecological consultants for the proposed development in November 2015, have expanded the AECOM survey area back to the study area for completion of the wintering bird survey, badger survey, and habitat suitability assessment for otters and water vole.

180

9.1.4 The baseline conditions have been assessed against the details of the development to identify effects that may arise from the proposals. The development proposals are detailed in Chapter 4, though essentially comprise the construction of three additional wind turbines positioned to the east of the existing wind turbines. Each turbine would measure up to a maximum of 100 m to the tip. The construction of associated infrastructure will include wind turbine foundations, crane pads, new and upgraded access tracks, underground cabling to connect the expanded wind farm to the National Grid, new substation/control buildings, drainage infrastructure and temporary construction compound(s). Depending on the outcome of the ecological and landscape assessments, the landscaping works are anticipated to include habitat management, improvement and restorative works.

9.1.5 Where effects upon species and habitats have been identified as a result of the proposed development, details of appropriate environmental mitigation measures that are proposed to be undertaken prior to, and during the construction, operational and decommissioning phases to avoid, limit or compensate for such effects are included within this chapter.

9.2 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance

9.2.1 The key ecological legislation relevant to the proposed development is provided in Tables 9.1and 9.2 below. The table sets out the key legislation and policy supporting the conservation of habitats and species in England.

Table 9.1 Key Legislation and Planning Policy

Legislation/ Planning Description policy

The Wildlife and This is the primary domestic legislation which protects animals, plants Countryside Act (WCA) and certain habitats. It has numerous parts and supplementary lists 1981 as amended and schedules many of which have been amended since publication. It incorporates the implementation into national law of the Convention on European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the “Bern Convention”) and the European Union Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Directive 2009/147/EC) (“the Wild Birds Directive”)

Conservation of Habitats This legislation consolidates all the amendments made to the and Species Regulations Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 in respect of 2010 (as amended) England and Wales. The 1994 Regulations transposed Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (EC Habitats Directive) into national law. The 2010 Regulations provide for the designation and protection of 'European sites', the protection of 'European protected species', and the adaptation of planning and other controls for the protection of

181

European sites. They set out the requirements for undertaking assessment of impacts on “European sites” through the Habitat Regulations Assessment process.

The Countryside and Rights The Act provides for public access on foot to certain types of land, of Way Act 2000 amends the law relating to public rights of way, increases measures for the management and protection for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and strengthens wildlife enforcement legislation, and provides for better management of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The Natural Environment Section 41 (S41) of the Act requires the Secretary of State to publish a and Rural Communities Act list of habitats and species which are of principal importance for the (NERC, 2006) conservation of biological biodiversity in England. The S41 list updates and supersedes the list provided for in s74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The s41 list is used to guide decision-makers such as public bodies, including local and regional authorities, in implementing their duty under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in England, when carrying out their normal functions.

The NERC Act established Natural England in 2006 as an independent body responsible for conserving, enhancing and managing England’s natural environment for the benefit of current and future generations. The NERC Act sets out Natural England’s statutory purpose: ‘to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development’. One of Natural England’s powers under the NERC Act is to enter into management agreements with people who have an interest in land. The Environmental The Act provides the fundamental structure and authority for waste Protection Act 1990 (as management and control of emissions into the environment in the amended) United Kingdom, including through a system of environmental permits for certain activities. The Act is supported by a series of subordinate legislation including the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.

The Environmental Damage The 2009 Regulations apply in relation to prevention and remediation (Prevention and of environmental damage to land, surface or ground water, species and Remediation) Regulations habitats protected under the Wild Birds Directive or the EC Habitats 2009 Directive and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. In the case of damage to species and habitats, remediation measures that may be required include primary remediation (cleaning up), complementary remediation (such as cleaning an alternative site if the damaged site cannot be fully restored) and compensatory remediation (to compensate for the time the damaged site remained in its damaged state).

UK Biodiversity Action Plan The UK BAP describes the biological resources of the UK and provides (BAP) / England detailed plans for conservation of these resources. Action plans for the

182

Biodiversity Priority Species most threatened species and habitats are set out to aid recovery, and (EBP) national reports, produced every three- to five-years, show how the UK BAP is contributing to the UK’s progress towards the significant reduction of biodiversity loss. UK BAP priority species were those that were identified as being the most threatened and requiring conservation action under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP). As a result of devolution, and new country-level and international drivers and requirements, much of the work previously carried out by the UK BAP is now focussed at a country-level rather than a UK-level, and the UK BAP was succeeded by the 'UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework' in July 2012. The UK list of priority species, however, remains an important reference source and has been used to help draw up statutory lists of priority species in England. UK BAP Priority Species and Habitats continue to be regarded as conservation priorities in the subsequent UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework.

Habitats Directive – Council This legislation aims to promote the conservation of biodiversity in the Directive 92/43/EEC on the European Union. It requires Member States to maintain or restore the Conservation of natural natural habitats and wild species of a favourable conservation status habitats and of wild fauna listed in the Directives Annexes and protect those of European and flora Importance. Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are to be designated to protect these listed habitats and species and form an ecological network. Special Protection Areas (SPAs) within the Birds Directive also fall within these measures.

National Planning Policy National planning policy relating to the protection of biodiversity is and Framework (NPPF) and contained within the NPPF and the NPPG. The framework advises that National Planning Policy “development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or Guidance (NPPG) enhance biodiversity should be permitted" and, "opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged” (paragraph 118).

Working with the Grain of The strategy is a government strategy with input from stakeholders Nature: A Biodiversity within public, voluntary and private sectors. It ensures biodiversity Strategy for England considerations are incorporated into all main sectors of economic activity, with focuses on agriculture, water management, woodland management, marine and coastal management and within urban areas. It also aims to educate and engage the whole of society.

The Convention on The convention aims are the conservation of biological diversity, the Biological Diversity 1992 sustainable use of its components and the fair sharing of the benefits of the resources. The UK’s non-statutory strategy to achieve these commitments is contained in Biodiversity- The UK Action Plan (1994)

Bern Convention on the A convention primarily covering Europe which aims to conserve wild Conservation of European flora and fauna and their natural habitats, with a particular focus on Wildlife and Natural vulnerable and endangered species. This is implemented in the UK Habitats 1979 through the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended).

The Convention on the This convention protects migratory species and their habitat across Conservation of Migratory national or jurisdictional boundaries. In the UK the WCA (1981, as

183

Species of Wild Animals amended) provides the legal requirement for animals listed on 1979 (Bonn Convention) Schedule 1, whilst the Countryside Rights of Way Act (2000) strengthens the protection of certain species by increasing penalties and enforcement powers; and strengthens the protection of sites from damage caused by third parties.

EC Directive on The directive includes the maintenance of all wild bird populations, Conservation of Wild Birds creating Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for listed species, establishing a protection scheme for wild birds and their habitats, and restricting owning and selling wild birds.

Table 9.2 Species Legislation

Species Legislation / Description

Birds All wild birds are protected under Section 1 of the WCA 1981 (as amended). Subsection 1(1) makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure, or take any wild bird; take, damage or destroy the nest of any such bird whilst it is in use or being built; or take or destroy an egg of any such wild bird. It is, furthermore, an offence to either intentionally, or recklessly, disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird. The law covers all species of wild birds including common, pest or opportunistic species. Bats All bats are protected under Section 9(4)(b) and (c) of the WCA 1981 (as amended) and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).

It is an offence to destroy or damage a breeding site or resting place of a bat, to intentionally or recklessly obstruct access to any place of shelter or protection for bats, to deliberately disturb bat species, to intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat whilst it its place of shelter or protection, or deliberately capture, injure or kill a bat. It should be noted that a breeding site or resting place of a bat is protected whether or not bats are present, as long as it is likely that they will return, and any activity or works damaging or destroying such a breeding site or resting place are likely to require a Natural England European Protected Species Licence (EPSL). Badgers Badgers Meles meles and their setts are protected under the 1992 Protection of Badgers Act. Under this Act it is an offence to wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat badgers, or to attempt to do so. It is also an offence to intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy, or obstruct access to any part of a sett, or to disturb an occupied sett, either by intent or negligence. When interpreting the Act, Natural England defines a sett as any structure within an area used by badgers that shows signs of having been occupied by badgers within the last 12 months.

184

Otter Otter Lutra lutra is afforded strict protection under Section 9 of the WCA 1981 (as amended) on Schedule 5 of the WCA 1981 (as amended) and Annex IV of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010). They also receive protection through their inclusion in Schedule 5 of the WCA 1981 (as amended).

Under the legislation, it is an offence to intentionally capture; injure or kill an otter; intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of an otter; intentionally or recklessly disturb an otter while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for shelter or protection; obstruct access to any structure or place which it uses for that purpose; possess or control a live or dead animal, or part of; sell, offer for sale, possess or transport for the purpose of sale, a live or dead animal or part of one. Water Vole The water vole Arvicola amphibius received limited legal protection up until April 1998 through its inclusion in Schedule 5 of the WCA 1981 (as amended) for some offences. This protection was extended on 6th April 2008, so the water vole is now fully protected under Section 9.

Legal protection makes it an offence to:

 Intentionally kill, injure or take (capture) a water vole;  Possess or control a live or dead water vole, or any part of a water vole;  Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place which water voles use for shelter or protection; or intentionally or recklessly disturb water voles while they are using such a place; and  Sell, offer for sale or advertise for live or dead water voles.

9.3 Methodology

9.3.1 This methodology follows the principles set out within the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) in the UK and Ireland; Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal published by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) in 2016. The baseline for the EcIA has been established through a combination of desk study, field survey and consultation.

Consultation and Records Search

9.3.2 Statutory and non-statutory organisations were consulted regarding the proposed development. At the scoping stages in 2014 AAH Planning Consultants forwarded the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report along with a pre- application request to Burnley Borough Council (BBC). The Council then requested advice from statutory and non-statutory

185

consultees including several nature conservation organisations. Responses were communicated by the Council to AAH on 5th December 2014 (Appendix A). Comments with respect to biodiversity were received from the Environment Agency, Natural England, RSPB, Lancashire Badger Group and Lancashire Wildlife Trust (LWT). A summary of the responses specific to ornithology were received from the RSPB only. A summary of key consultation responses is provided in Table 9.3 below:

Table 9.3 Summary Of Consultation Responses (Ecology)

Organisation Response

Environment Our records indicate a small area of Fen located at National Grid Reference (NGR) SD Agency 81308 30310. We would recommend that this area is investigated further.

*review by Delta-Simons indicates that this area is outside of the study area

Natural The information submitted for this pre-application consultation is for a proposal that England does not appear, from the information provided, to directly affect any nationally designated geological or ecological sites (Ramsar, Special Protection Area (SPA), (Ecology and Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Ornithology) Nature Reserves (NNR) or landscapes (National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), Heritage Coasts, National Trails), or have significant impacts on the protection of soils (particularly of sites over 20 ha of best or most versatile land), nor is the development for a mineral or waste site of over 5 ha. At present therefore it is not a priority for Natural England to provide advice on the detail of this development proposal at this stage.

Lancashire No objection. Badger Group

Lancashire Initial comments on the pre-application info are as follows: Wildlife 1. The Proposed Development Site supports a variety of habitat types, Trust including habitats of principal importance in England as listed in the NERC Act 2006, but the Proposed Development Site appears large enough to support up to 5 new turbines without compromising the integrity of these habitats.

2. The EIA for a full application should include detailed surveys of bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) and possibly fungi.

3. Turbines should not be located on areas of peat (dry modified bog) and acid flush.

4. Turbines should avoid ponds, badger sett(s) and areas of bat activity or potential and crossing of watercourses should be avoided or minimised.

5. Where possible, turbines should be located on areas of improved grassland, species-poor semi-improved acid grassland, species-poor semi- improved neutral grassland and species-poor marshy grassland.

186

6. There is considerable potential for habitat management and habitat creation to deliver significant net gains in biodiversity/nature/wildlife (in line with the requirements of the NPPF).

7. The areas of dry modified bog should be “re-wetted” and sympathetically managed in order to encourage the germination and/or growth of Sphagnum moss and regeneration of the modified bog back towards better quality blanket bog.

8. Areas of woodland in Habergham Clough and New Barn Clough could be reconnected through woodland creation, where this wouldn’t compromise any other wildlife interests.

9. Any areas of species-rich neutral grassland should be identified and sympathetically managed.

10. Areas of species-poor acid and neutral grassland should be sympathetically managed in order to increase their biodiversity (including flora, fauna and fungi).

11. Existing ponds should be managed, where this wouldn’t compromise any other wildlife interests, and new ponds and/or scrapes should also be created.

12. Invasive non-native species, in particular Himalayan Balsam and Japanese knotweed should be eradicated from the Proposed Development Site and adjacent land. RSPB The document is generally fine with regard to Ornithology. We have records for (Ornithology) breeding Merlin from 2008, and there may be records that are more recent not yet on our system. Merlin (Falco columbarius) has highly fluctuating populations in response to population cycles of its main prey the short-tailed field vole. It is very difficult to predict impacts on this species because surveys are unlikely to capture populations at their peak. It is for this reason that the SNH/NE guidance suggests that 2-years of survey are required where Merlin may be present and that these surveys should encompass a radius of 2 km from the proposed turbines.

Closing As the above comments outline, there are no significant concerns raised initially in comment relation to the schemes impact upon ecological or archaeological matters, however from Burnley clearly once the position of the turbines has been fixed, the above consultees will Borough be able to comment further. Council

9.3.3 During 2014 - 2015, AECOM commissioned data searches from the following organisations:

 East Lancashire Bat Group (ELBG) (no response received);

 Lancashire Environmental Records Network (LERN);

 Lancashire Amphibian & Reptile Atlas (LARA) Project;

 Lancashire Badger Group (LBG);

187

 Lancashire County Butterfly Recorder (LCBR);

 The East Lancashire Ornithologists’ Club (ELOC);

 Lancashire County Bird Recorder; and

 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).

9.3.4 In addition, a search was undertaken on the websites of the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC), the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Natural England (NE) and, the East Lancashire Ornithologists’ Club (ELOC). Reports prepared by

AECOM for the previous 2009 windfarm extension (AECOM, 2009) were reviewed for any relevant ecological information.

9.3.5 The following information has been obtained from these resources:

 Ramsar sites, Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) within and up to 15 km beyond the proposed development site boundary;

 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves (NNRs) within and up to up to 10 km beyond the proposed development site boundary;

 Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) within and up to 5 km beyond the proposed development site boundary;

 Non – statutory designated sites (in Lancashire these are known as Biological Heritage Sites, (BHS) within and up to 2 km beyond the proposed development site boundary; and

 Species records within and up to 2 km beyond the proposed development site boundary.

Field Survey

9.3.6 An Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey was conducted in 2014 by AECOM (see Appendix 9.1) to identify key habitats within the proposed development site, and their potential to support protected and notable species. In conjunction with the survey, a badger survey, Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessments of ponds for GCNs (Oldham et al. 2000), and a bat habitat assessment were undertaken. The information obtained helped to determine which targeted

188

protected species surveys would be required at the proposed development site due to the presence of certain habitat types.

9.3.7 Based on the results of the field and desk study results, and the review of the likely layout of the proposed wind farm, the following ecological surveys were proposed and completed by AECOM, unless otherwise stated, the results of which have been used to determine the baseline conditions of the proposed development site and in turn inform this EcIA:

 Badger survey- undertaken as part of the Extended Phase 1 habitat survey in June 2014 across the study area, and since updated by Delta-Simons in December 2015 (see Appendix 9.2), in accordance with the standard methodology (Harris et al. 1989);

 Bat Surveys – daytime bat habitat assessment on the old barn at New Barn Farm, dusk and dawn activity surveys on New Barn Farm and individual trees with Bat Roost Potential (BRP) and climb and inspect tree surveys in August 2015; static detector surveys and transect surveys based on the frequency for a low risk site (as determined by AECOM), and defined by the Bat Conservation Trust Guidelines (Hundt, 2012) that were completed in May, August and October 2015 across the AECOM survey area (see Appendix 9.3);

 GCN surveys – presence/ likely absence survey on one pond (Pond 2, see Appendix 9.4) within 500 m of the study area, confirmed as suitable following the HSI assessment. Four survey visits were made to Pond 2 during May and June 2015 to determine presence/ likely absence; two of the four visits were made during the peak survey time of mid-April to mid-May in accordance with the English Nature Guidelines (English Nature, 2001);

 Habitat suitability assessment for otters and water vole completed by Delta-Simons (Appendix 9.5);

 Common Bird Census and breeding Vantage Point (VP) surveys undertaken across the AECOM survey area from April- July 2015 (Appendix 9.6); and

 Wintering Bird Surveys (WBS) that included walkover bird counts and VP surveys (Delta- Simons 2016, Appendix 9.7).

189

9.3.8 Although this was not submitted and agreed formally due to time constraints AECOM also proposed the following additional survey works in the EIA Scoping Report (October 2015) which is included in full in Appendix 2.1:

 Autumn bat swarming surveys (September- early November) and bat hibernation surveys (December- February) on mine shaft entrances. The swarming surveys were not completed by AECOM before they formally handed over the project. The hibernation survey was not considered necessary by Delta-Simons following an inspection of the mineshaft entrances in December 2015. One of the two mine shaft entrances was completely overgrown with vegetation so would be inaccessible to bats, and the second is located at a low point within the AECOM survey area, outside the proposed development site, with an entrance that has been boarded over, however, flood waters had caused it to fall down. The level of water within the mine shaft entrance was considered too high for bats to be able to access it to hibernate, should conditions inside it be suitable.

 Water vole surveys on six watercourses. Whilst AECOM did not complete the surveys during the optimal survey season for this species, they were not considered necessary by Delta-Simons since the proposed location of the turbines does not require crossing points to be installed on any of the watercourses proposed for survey, nor do any of the proposed turbines lie within proximity. However, the Tower Brook will be crossed and, therefore, this has been assessed by Delta-Simons.

 Otter surveys on Habergham Clough and New Barn Clough. These surveys were not completed by AECOM. Surveys of these watercourses for otter are not considered necessary given their distances of 1 km and 650 m, respectively, from the proposed development site.

Evaluation and Assessment Methodology- Significance Criteria

9.3.9 The methodology for the EcIA was guided by CIEEM (CIEEM, 2016) and comprises a staged approach to assessing the potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Development on the ecological features at the Site. The EcIA has entailed the following stages:

i. Definition of baseline conditions;

ii. Prediction of potential impacts;

190

iii. Definition of applicable mitigation measures;

iv. Assessment of residual effects;

v. Cumulative impact assessment; and

vi. Statement of significance.

9.3.10 ’Important ecological features’ have been determined based on existing statutory, policy and conservation objectives on an international, national, county and local level.

9.3.11 The integrity of a site is defined in Government Guidance as, “the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or levels of populations of the species for which it was classified”. This acceptable definition applies easily to designated sites, but for sites which have not been designated, ecological judgment and background information is required to provide the context. The assessment of the significance of the impact requires consideration of the ecological value/ significance and the magnitude of impact. If significant impacts are identified then appropriate mitigation should be proposed.

9.3.12 The CIEEM Guidelines encourage an approach to evaluation that involves taking apart the different values that can be attached to ecological features, whilst acknowledging that their attempt to produce guidance on defining how habitats and species could be assigned to different levels of value was unworkable. Therefore, instead, and in accordance with the CIEEM Guidelines the value or potential value of an ecological resource will be determined within a defined geographical context and assigned a value as set out below:

i. International and European;

ii. National;

iii. Regional;

iv. Metropolitan, County, vice-county or other local authority-wide area; and

v. Local.

9.3.13 Legislative protection does not form part of the evaluation of habitats or species. For example, the presence of a small population of GCN (an European Protected Species) on a site would not by default afford the site international importance (and thus analogous with a Special Area

191

of Conservation (SAC)). However, reflecting the conservation status of GCNs, it is reasonable to value the local population as important at, perhaps, the County level.

9.3.14 In addition to outlining the importance of the ecological features identified, the magnitude of predicted potential ecological impacts prior to any mitigation are evaluated. This is done by assessing the potential impacts on each of the identified ecological features based on available information including the background survey / reporting prepared by Delta- Simons, and available information on existing conservation status.

9.3.15 The likely effects of potential impacts on ecological receptors largely depend upon their sensitivity, whilst the level of certainty that an impact will occur as predicted is based on professional judgment. The following parameters may affect ecological features:

i. Magnitude – i.e. the size of an impact in quantitative terms where possible;

ii. Extent – i.e. the area over which an impact occurs;

iii. Duration – i.e. the time for which an impact is expected to last;

iv. Reversibility – i.e. is the impact permanent or temporary; and

v. Timing and frequency – e.g. related to breeding seasons.

9.3.16 In accordance with the CIEEM guidelines, “an ecologically significant effect is an effect that either supports or undermines the biodiversity conservation objectives for ‘important ecological features’ or for biodiversity”. The value of any feature that will be significantly affected is then used to determine the geographical scale at which the impact is significant.

9.3.17 As stated in the CIEEM guidelines “a significant effect is an effect that is sufficiently important to require assessment and reporting so that the decision maker is adequately informed of the environmental consequences of permitting a project”. As such, using an approach to valuing impacts that involves professional judgement and reference to available conservation objectives, neutral and minor effects are considered to be not significant, while moderate and major effects are assessed to be significant. Table 9.4 below provides a comparison of the terms used.

192

Table 9.4 Significance Effect Criteria

Effect Significance Equivalent CIEEM Assessment

Significant Positive Impact on biodiversity conservation Major Beneficial objectives at given geographical context Significant Positive Impact on biodiversity conservation objectives Moderate Beneficial at given geographical context

Limited Positive Impact on biodiversity conservation Non-significant Minor Beneficial objectives at given geographical context

No Significant Impact on biodiversity conservation Neutral Negligible objectives at given geographical context

Limited Adverse Impact on biodiversity conservation Non-significant Minor Adverse objectives at given geographical context

Adverse Impact on biodiversity conservation objectives Moderate Adverse at given geographical context Significant Significant Adverse Impact on biodiversity conservation Major Adverse objectives at given geographical context

9.4 Description of Baseline Conditions

9.4.1 The following section describes the baseline ecological conditions at the proposed development site outlining the results of the desk study and field survey findings. The desk study responses and all other relevant information collated as part of the desk study by both AECOM and Delta-Simons are included in full in Appendix 9.9. Those habitats and species relevant to the EIA are summarised below. The conservation importance of the features identified are then evaluated using the geographical scale outlined in the previous section. It is anticipated that there will be minimal delay between the cessation of agricultural practices (i.e. grazing) at the Site and commencement of the proposed development. Current management will remain unchanged up until development and, therefore, baseline conditions at the time of writing this Report are anticipated to reflect those at the commencement of the proposed development.

Statutory Designated Sites

9.4.2 The following statutorily designated sites were recorded within the search area:

193

 South Pennine Moors SAC/SPA located 6.5 km east of the study area boundary. The site is designated for the presence of dry heaths, dominated by heather Calluna vulgaris covering extensive areas. The South Pennine Moors is also represent areas of blanket bog, it is understood that the vegetation composition is botanically poor. Old sessile oak Quercus petraea woodlands are present around the fringes of the heathland and bogs. The Moors SPA supports populations of European importance of the following bird species: Merlin, 5.9% of the British breeding population, 3.3% of the British breeding population of golden plover Pluvialis apricaria, peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus nesting on the moorland crags (1.4 % of the British breeding population), 2.5 % of the British population of short-eared owl Asio flammeus, and 1.3 % of dunlin Calidris alpina breeding Baltic/ UK/ Ireland population, a migratory species of European importance. This site is considered of international / European importance;

 Six SSSIs, only one of which is designated for wildlife – South Pennine Moors SSSI, 6.5 km east of the study area boundary, and is the largest area of unenclosed moorland in West Yorkshire and contains the most extensive and diverse vegetation communities in the county. The Moors SSSI supports a breeding bird population of regional and national importance, and in addition to the internationally important breeding bird species that the habitats support (listed above), the Moors SSSI supports twite Carduelis flavirostris, (1% of the British breeding population), which is not a qualifying feature of the SPA. This site is considered to be of national importance;

 The remaining five SSSIs are designated for features of geological interest and, therefore, no ecological impacts are predicted such that they are not considered further in this assessment as potential receptors; and

 Two locally designated LNR sites – Deer Pond LNR 4 km east of the study area boundary, and Lowerhouse Lodges LNR, 1.3 km north of the study area boundary. Given that the former is designated for its importance to damselflies and dragonflies, it is considered to be outside the the zone of influence for the development and, therefore, this potential receptor is not considered further within this assessment. The latter supports over 200 plant species and 60 bird species, however, the site is separated from the proposed development Site by a motorway, railway line and industrial estate. Whilst species such as linnet Carduelis cannabina may use the Site for feeding as migrants, the majority of species known to occur at the LNR remain local and if moving between different areas

194

would tend to fly along sheltered valleys rather than over exposed high-ground. Therefore, this potential receptor is not considered further within this assessment.

Non-Statutory Designated Sites

9.4.3 A total of 11 non-statutorily designated sites were recorded within the search area, the closest of which is Thorny Bank Clough BHS, 0.6 km west of the study area boundary. The site is designated for its mosaic habitats supporting species–rich grassland, woodland and scrub and is considered to be of low value. Due to the presence of the pre-existing wind farm located within proximity to Thorny Bank Clough and the nature of the habitats, this receptor is not considered further within the assessment.

Online Information

9.4.4 The nearest sensitive bird areas to the study area identified in the guidance issued by RSPB et al. (2008) are the ‘Fylde Peninsular’ to the northwest, and the ‘South West Lancashire Mosses’ to the west and south-west, both of which are located more than 30 km from the Proposed Development Site at their closest points, such that they are considered to be outside of the zone of influence for the Site, such that they are not considered as potential receptors.

Habitats

9.4.5 The following habitat/vegetation types were identified within the Proposed Development Site:

 Broadleaved Woodland;

 Scattered Trees;

 Dense Scrub;

 Improved Grassland;

 Semi-Improved Neutral Grassland;

 Semi-Improved Acid Grassland;

 Unimproved Acid Grassland;

 Marshy Grassland;

 Acid Flush;

195

 Dry Modified Bog;

 Standing Water;

 Running Water;

 Buildings and Structures;

 Wall; and

 Invasive Plants

9.4.6 Each habitat is discussed in turn below with the key floral species within each habitat recorded, and any observation of current faunal use. The location of these habitats is shown in Figures 4a and 4b of Appendix 9.1. The nature conservation value has been included for each habitat type following the habitat description. Whilst the impacts upon habitats at the Site are localised, without the Proposed Development it is considered that the existing land use and associated management at the Site would continue and the range and status of the habitats would remain largely unchanged.

Broadleaved Woodland

9.4.7 Continuous stands of broadleaved woodland were present on the banks of Habergham Clough and New Barn Clough, comprising stands of English oak Quercus robur, ash Fraxinus excelsior and alder Alnus glutinosa over ground flora that varies from neutral to acid and marshy grassland. The woodland habitat provides ideal bird nesting habitat, as well as foraging opportunities and shelter for a range of faunal species. The majority of woodland trees were assessed as having negligible BRP, however, three woodland edge trees were assessed as having moderate bat roosting potential during the initial Phase 1 Habitat Survey. Low numbers of common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus were recorded commuting and foraging along the woodland edge during the 2015 bat survey, refer to Appendix 9.3. Woodland of these sizes, structure and species composition are frequently occurring throughout the local area and, although this habitat may provide opportunities for faunal species, they are considered to be of Local value, representing a small proportion of suitable habitat within the local area.

196

Scattered Broadleaved Trees

9.4.8 Scattered trees at the Site were confined to the eastern boundary and associated with the Cloughs and field drains within the north-eastern and eastern areas of the Site. The trees were mature or semi-mature in stature and comprised oak, ash, and alder. A total of eight trees were identified by AECOM to support features, such as storm damage, rot holes, lifted bark and ivy growth suitable to support roosting bats and were assessed as having low – moderate BRP. Nocturnal bat surveys identified a potential (non-confirmed) small common pipistrelle roost within OK4. Scattered broadleaved trees of the species recorded on-Site are widespread throughout the local area and, although this habitat may provide opportunities for faunal species, they are considered to be of Local value, representing a small proportion of potential suitable habitat for bat roosting and nesting birds within the local area.

Dense Scrub

9.4.9 Adjacent to, and grading into, mature woodland, stands of dense scrub were present mainly on the banks of Habergham and New Barn Cloughs in the north-eastern areas of the Site, species consisted of hawthorn Crataegus monogyna and elder Sambucus nigra over stands of bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. Whilst this habitat offers potential for nesting birds, habitat of this species composition is frequently occurring throughout the local area, and is considered to be of Local value, representing a small proportion of suitable habitat within the local area.

Improved Grassland

9.4.10 Grazed improved grasslands occurred within the northern and central areas of the Site. The grass swards were relatively species-poor and indicative of neutral soil conditions, supporting mainly perennial rye grass Lolium perenne, Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus, crested dog’s tail Cynosurus cristatus, and occasional herb species. Given the widespread occurrence of this habitat and its low species composition, it is considered to be of Local value.

Semi-Improved Neutral Grassland

9.4.11 Large areas of the northern half of the Site surrounding New Barn Farm supported this habitat type, which varied in terms of species richness and structure. The majority supported abundant crested dog’s tail, with variable amounts of perennial ryegrass, sweet vernal grass Anthoxanthum odoratum, Yorkshire fog, red fescue Festuca rubra, rough meadow grass Poa trivialis, and occasional soft brome Bromus hordeaceus ssp. hordeaceus. The more species - rich swards supported fairly numerous herbs and were seeded with the semi -parasitic yellow

197

rattle Rhinanthus minor, which suppresses the growth of graminoids enough to enable herbs to persist in what would otherwise be a grass dominated species- poor sward. Less species- rich versions of this habitat occurred on a number of fields, particularly to the east of New Barn Farm, where ryegrass and crested dog’s tail become more dominant and herbs were less frequent. The Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) revealed large numbers of skylarks Alauda arvensis and breeding lapwings Vanellus vanellus, both Red list Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC, Eaton et al. 2015), to be concentrated within the northern grassland area of the Site. Whilst this habitat is considered to be widespread within the area local to the Site, it is important to breeding lapwings and is, therefore, considered to be of District value.

Semi-Improved Acid Grassland

9.4.12 Semi-improved grasslands occurred mostly on the southern half of the proposed development Site where remnants of the acid grassland flora (such as, for example common bent Agrostis capillaris, sheep’s fescue Festuca ovina, Tormentil Potentilla erecta), and scattered tufts of mat grass Nardus stricta persist amongst a sward of species such as crested dog’s tail, rough meadow grass and tufted hair grass Deschampsia cespitosa, most of which is grazed to varying extents. This habitat is considered to be widespread within the area local to the Site and is, therefore, considered to be of Local value.

Unimproved Acid Grassland

9.4.13 This habitat was located on the lower slopes of the Site as fragmented stands of common bent, sheep’s fescue, mat grass, tormentil and heath bedstraw Galium saxatile on the steep banks of the small watercourses that crossed the Site. Further south on the steep slopes and upland plateau east of Hameldon Hill there were much larger continuous stands of acid grassland where mat grass, wavy hair grass Deschampsia flexuosa, heath rush Juncus squarrosus and sheep’s sorrel Rumex acetosella were more frequent. Given the limited species composition of this habitat type, and its widespread occurrence within the local area, it is considered to be of Local value.

Marshy Grassland

9.4.14 Areas of marshy grassland were present throughout the Site and in many cases covered large continuous areas of rush-dominated pasture, beneath which acid grassland or semi- improved grassland swards tended to occur. This habitat is widespread within the local area and is, therefore, considered to be of Local value.

198

Acid Flush

9.4.15 Flushes occur alongside some of the small drainage channels and seepage lines within some of the stands of marshy grassland on Hapton Park and Lower Park, in the southern half of the Site. Typically these contained soft rush Juncus effusus and a greater abundance of mosses than found elsewhere, including common hair moss Polytrichum commune and in some places Sphagnum mosses. This habitat is considered to be of Local value.

Dry Modified Bog

9.4.16 On the upland plateau of the southern-most parts of the Site, there were several stands of this habitat. It has been subject to drying and substantial amounts of the peat was exposed. The sward here comprises mostly cotton grasses Eriophorum spp. and wavy hair grass. There were no bog pools or peat-forming Sphagna that would be associated with active peat formation and the habitat is in poor condition. Given the poor condition of this habitat, it is considered to be of Local value.

Standing Water

9.4.17 Five ponds were found throughout the Site, however only those in the northern half contained significant amounts of water at the time of the survey. Two small depressions within acid / marshy grassland in the south eastern corner of the survey area were damp but overgrown with rushes and mosses. A third pond located on the eastern boundary of the Site contained open water of unknown depth at the time of the survey. There was a small pool immediately adjacent to New Barn Farm and a larger pond approximately 150 m west of New Barn Clough.

9.4.18 Three of the five ponds on-Site were considered to be suitable as potential breeding sites for GCNs. Furthermore suitable terrestrial habitat, including refugia, is present throughout the Site and within 500 m of it, which would be within the typical maximum terrestrial range of GCNs (English Nature, 2001). However, in the low lying northern parts of the area, such habitat is scattered and often separated from ponds by large expanses of improved grassland. Continuous stands of more suitable terrestrial habitat occur on the largely unimproved and marshy habitats that cover the southern half of the Site, however, suitable bodies of water in which GCN could breed were scarce here.

9.4.19 Pond 1 was located within the north-western area of the Site at Hameldon Hill Farm. The pond was a small flooded area of an associated field drain. The pond appeared to be lined and a small easterly flow was recorded. The pond did not support any aquatic vegetation. Pond 1

199

was assessed as having an HSI score of 0.59, indicating a ’below average’ suitability to support GCNs. No further GCN aquatic survey was undertaken.

9.4.20 Pond 2 was located within a field of pasture within the north-eastern extent of the Site. The water was shallow at the time of the assessment, and evidence that the water level fluctuates was recorded. Flote grass Glyceria fluitans was recorded throughout the pond. Pond 2 was assessed as having an HSI score of 067, indicating an ‘average’ suitability to support GCNs. Pond 2 was subject to further GCN aquatic surveys. No GCN were recorded during the 2015 GCN surveys, however, small numbers of common toad Bufo bufo, smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris and palmate newt Lissotriton helveticus were recorded.

9.4.21 Pond 3 was a small wet depression located in the southern area of the Site. The pond held no water at the time of the assessment in June 2014. The pond was assessed as having a HSI of 0.6, indicating an ‘average’ suitability to support GCN, however, it could be argued that if a pond is dry in June, it is unsuitable to support breeding GCNs. No further aquatic survey was undertaken on Pond 3.

9.4.22 Pond 4 was similar to Pond 3 but larger in size, and was at the stage of drying out. A small area of standing water was present, such that it was anticipated that this pond is seasonally wet. Pond 4 was assessed as having an HSI score of 0.64, indicating an ’average’ suitability to support GCNs. However, it could be argued that if a pond is almost dry in June, it is unsuitable to support breeding GCNs. No further aquatic surveys were undertaken.

9.4.23 Pond 5 was located within the southern area of the Site and within proximity to Ponds 3 and 4. Pond 5 was an ephemeral oligotrophic waterbody that did not support any aquatic vegetation. The pond was not assessed for its suitability to support breeding GCNs, moreover, the pond was not subject to further GCN surveys.

9.4.24 The ponds have not been found to be used regularly by wetland bird species, with recordings limited to occasional mallard Anas platyrhynchos. Whilst Pond 1 supported small populations of common toad, smooth newt and palmate newt, the others were all considered unsuitable to support breeding amphibians. This habitat is, therefore, considered to be of Local value.

Running Water

9.4.25 Running water was present within the narrow steep sided cloughs that drain the northern half of the Site and the shallower cloughs and channels that drain off the southern half of the Site. Tower Brook drains off Hapton Park and Lower Park, feeding into Thorny Bank Clough to the

200

west. All other watercourses drain to New Barn Clough and Habergham Clough on the eastern side of the Site. These are deep cut hill cloughs with steep stony channels of between 0.2 m and 2 m width for most of their length. The channels were mostly shallow (i.e. less than 0.5m deep, but the clough valleys vary from less than 1 m deep to as much as 5-10 m deep. The cloughs were generally flanked by grassland habitats which were often wet and rush - dominated and punctuated by ferns and willowherbs, but the larger cloughs (New Barn and Habergham Clough) were also flanked by continuous mature woodland and scrub in places.

9.4.26 Tower Brook was found to be fast flowing with a varying depth, which on average measured 10 cm, with notable deep and shallow sections. The banks were predominately undercut and at a 90° angle with an average height of 1.5 m, however, in sections where the banks were lower the water level reached the top. The banks were predominately rock with some earth, while the substrate predominately comprised soil with a limited amount of rocks and pebbles. No aquatic vegetation was found within the water channel, although, in sections dense rush Juncus sp. and grasses had overgrown across the banks. Given the widespread occurrence of running water within the local area, this is considered to be a habitat of Local value.

Buildings and Structures

9.4.27 Two buildings, a derelict barn and occupied residential property, were recorded at New Barn Farm within the western area of the Site. Two disused mine shafts were also recorded within the Site boundary.

9.4.28 The derelict barn comprised a large old stone barn with a pitched asbestos sheeted roof. The roof was in a poor state of repair, with areas of collapse. Several areas of cracks and crevices within the stone / brick work of the walls were recorded, which could be used by roosting bats. The old barn was assessed to have a BRP of moderate to high. For the purposes of this Assessment it is assessed to be medium since a high BRP value requires certainty of bat roosting, and no signs were found (Hundt, 2012). It is understood that a possible (non- confirmed) common pipistrelle roost site was recorded within proximity to the old barn.

9.4.29 The occupied residential property was not subject to a formal BRP assessment, therefore, no BRP rating can be given to the building.

9.4.30 Two disused mine shafts were recorded within the Site boundary. Both were assessed by Delta-Simons in December 2015. The first was located adjacent to the eastern Site boundary, and the entrance was covered with dense vegetation and deemed unsuitable to support roost bats. The second mine shaft was within the south-eastern extent of the Site, and the entrance

201

was open to allow free access and egress, however, the mine shaft was flooded as the time of assessment and, therefore, deemed unsuitable to support hibernating bats.

9.4.31 Given the frequent occurrence of buildings within the local area, including agricultural buildings, this is considered to be a habitat of Local value.

Wall

9.4.32 Dry stone walling forms the majority of the grassland boundaries at the Site. It was 2 m at its highest and was well maintained with few significant gaps / signs of damage. It is anticipated that the walls provide suitable linear commuting habitat for bat species within the local area, and may be used to provide a wind break by a range of faunal species. The walls were generally well-maintained such that they lacked opportunities for sheltering and nesting for small mammals and passerine bird species, and potential roost sites for bats. Given the widespread occurrence of dry stone walling within the local area, this is considered to be a habitat of Local value.

Invasive Plant Species

9.4.33 A number of stands of both Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica and Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera are present on the lower reaches of Habergham Clough. Further upstream along New Barn Clough, Helm Clough and some of the other small tributaries of New Barn Clough, Himalayan balsam is present in variable amounts from dense stands to scattered individual plants, becoming scarcer further upstream. The floral species that comprise this habitat category are non-native invasives and, therefore, not considered as potential receptors.

Species

9.4.34 Bird records were obtained both from LERN and from the online database held by ELOC in 2014. Other species records were also received from LERN, Lancashire Badger Group, LARA and the LCBR. East Lancashire Bat Group provided no response to either AECOM or Delta- Simons, and whilst Delta-Simons also attempted to contact the South Lancashire Bat Group, they were again unsuccessful in gaining a response.

Badger

9.4.35 Lancashire badger group identified 37 badger sett records from within the desk study area, of which one is on the eastern edge of the proposed development site, whilst all other records

202

are at least 1 km from it. Surveys of the previous wind farm extension area undertaken by AECOM (AECOM, 2009) recorded a single hole badger sett in Thorny Bank Wood, approximately 1 km to the west of the Site.

9.4.36 The December 2015 badger survey recorded four now disused setts within the Site boundary. Two of these setts were previously identified in the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the Site undertaken by AECOM in 2014. Sett 1, a possible main sett, that was known to have been previously active, had recently been dug out during what is anticipated to be an act of persecution on badgers, and showed no signs of recent badger activity at the time of the survey. Sett 5, an annex sett, was noted as having a single active entrance. No other signs of badger activity were recorded on-Site at the time of the survey. The Site offers suitable foraging and sett building habitat for badger.

9.4.37 Based on the results of the survey this species is considered to be of Local value.

Bats

9.4.38 The 2014 AECOM Pre- Application Ecology Report (Appendix 9.1) for the proposed turbines adjacent to the wind farm identified 11 mature trees within the northern area of the AECOM survey area as having moderate BRP. AECOM also recorded two mineshafts entrances within the Site. A single one was identified as providing a potential hibernating site as it was sheltered from inclement weather conditions, and access could be gained as the entrance was not obstructed. The derelict stone barn was the only building at New Barn Farm identified as having moderate BRP, while the residential property was undergoing renovation works at the time of the survey such that few features were recorded, and it wasn’t given a value to roosting bats.

9.4.39 No bat roosts were identified within the three trees (two rated medium BRP and a single rated low BRP) or buildings surveyed within the AECOM survey area. However, two suspected roosts were identified (within proximity to the old Barn and Tree OK4, a tree rated as having a low BRP). Both suspected roost sites were anticipated to support lone male or non-breeding female common pipistrelle bats. It is understood that neither the building nor tree roost will be impacted upon by the proposed development.

9.4.40 Three dusk transect surveys along two transect routes were completed in May, August and October 2015 across the AECOM Survey Area. The minimum survey guidance for low risk sites provided in Hundt (2012) was applied (one visit per transect each season – spring, summer and autumn).

203

9.4.41 Common pipistrelle and noctule Nyctalus noctula were recorded during the walked transect surveys, on the static detectors, and during dusk and dawn roost surveys In addition, Myotis sp. bats were recorded, which could not be identified to species level.

9.4.42 High collision risk bat species activity within the AECOM survey area was extremely low, and limited to a total of three passes by noctule bat. The activity level of this species was found to be consistent with AECOM’s findings in 2010. As such it is considered that the risk posed to this species by the proposed wind farm is negligible, as whilst all bat species activity recorded across the survey area was generally low, noctule activity comprised a total 0.05% of the total bat activity recorded. Nathusius pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii bats, the other high collision risk species of bat that was recorded by AECOM during survey works undertaken in 2009 and 2010 to inform the previous windfarm extension, were not recorded in 2015.

9.4.43 For medium collision risk species, the only species recorded, common pipistrelle, the highest levels of foraging and commuting activity recorded during the transect surveys was along the northern extent of the Site at Habergham Clough. The highest level of activity recorded on the static detectors was in August within the northern extent of the AECOM survey area at SM2-5, with 50 passes per hour, equating to 79.3 % of all bat activity within the AECOM survey area. It is considered that this area offers ideal foraging and commuting habitat for common pipistrelle, being sheltered with vegetated watercourses and Cloughs linked by dry stone walling. It is at a distance of 960 m to the north of the nearest proposed turbine location.

9.4.44 Based on the results of the surveys bats are considered to be of Local value.

Great Crested Newts

9.4.45 Five ponds were recorded within the Site boundary, all of which were subject to HSI assessments, and only a single pond (Pond 2) was deemed suitable to support GCN, with a calculated score indicating ‘average’ suitability. Pond 2 was surveyed for GCN in 2015, and this species was found to be absent from Pond 2, and, therefore, this receptor is not considered further within this assessment.

Otter and Water Vole

9.4.46 Whilst AECOM, the previous ecological consultant for the Site, did not assess the Tower Brook for its suitability for riparian mammals during the survey works to support the 2014 Pre- Application Ecology Report, the 2015 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report recommended comprehensive riparian mammal surveys on six watercourses within the

204

eastern extent of the Site. Now that the proposed turbine locations have been established this survey work is not considered necessary as they are outside the zone of influence for the Site.

9.4.47 The Brook was assessed as being unsuitable for both otter and water vole, and no evidence of either species was found. The exposed nature of the watercourse, and the absence of suitable tree roots / patches of dense scrub along the banks for creating holts, made it unsuitable for otter to inhabit. The water was too shallow for otter to swim and there were no foraging opportunities. The Brook was considered unsuitable to support water vole due to its fast flowing nature and the shallow water level that is prone to fluctuations following heavy rainfall, which in turn would flood burrows and create a current too strong for water voles to swim through. Furthermore, the lack of aquatic/ marginal vegetation for foraging and shelter, and the exposed nature of the watercourse further increased the Brook’s unsuitability. Therefore, otter and water vole are not considered further within this assessment as potential receptors.

Birds

9.4.48 Extensive bird records were obtained both from LERN, and from the online database held by ELOC. Only those known target species (‘high risk’) for windfarms and those species anticipated to occur at the Site were considered within the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) and WBS Reports (Appendices 9.7 and 9.8). Included within the results of the desk search were a number of species that were one or more of the following: England Biodiversity Priority Species (EBP) (previously UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) species), Red list Bird species of Conservation Concern (BoCC) (Eaton et al., 2015), Schedule 1 (WCA, 1981, as amended) and Annex 1 species (under the Birds Directive, 2009) . The LERN data search revealed historic records of Peregrine Falco peregrinus, a Schedule 1 species (WCA 1981, as amended) within 2 km of the Site boundaries. Historic records of the following EBP and Red List BoCC species were also identified within 2 km of the boundary: Curlew Numenius arquata, herring gull Larus argentatus, lapwing Vanellus vanellus, reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus, skylark Alauda arvensis and starling Sturnus vulgaris. In addition, the records of target species and those species anticipated to occur at the Site were identified from the desk search, and all were found to be Amber or Green list BoCC species, including short-eared owl, raven Corvus corax, kestrel Falco tinnunculus, snipe Gallinago gallinago, oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus, lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus, black-headed gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus, redshank Tringa totanus, mallard, and common gull Larus canus.

205

9.4.49 Records from the county bird recorder included the following birds likely to occur at the Site, all of which have been recorded between 2008 and 2011 within 2 km of the Site boundary: Hen harrier Circus cyaneus (Schedule 1 of the WCA, as amended), peregrine, curlew, herring gull Larus argentatus, lapwing, skylark, starling, black-headed gull, common gull, kestrel, lesser black-backed gull, mallard, oystercatcher, short-eared owl, snipe, redshank, shelduck Tadorna tadorna (BoCC Amber listed), buzzard Buteo buteo (BoCC Green listed), golden plover Pluvialis apricaria (BoCC Green listed), great black-backed gull Larus marinus, jack snipe Lymnocryptes minimus (BoCC Green listed) and raven.

9.4.50 In addition to the records from the County Bird Recorder, ELOC also highlighted barn owl Tyto alba and black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa, both Schedule 1 species (WCA 1981, as amended) as having been recorded between 2005 – 2014 within 2 km of the Site boundaries.

9.4.51 Previously bird surveys were undertaken by AECOM (Hameldon Hill Windfarm Extension Volume 1 – Environmental Statement, 2009) to support an extension to the original windfarm of three turbines, bringing the total to the current six turbines. WBS, BBS and VP surveys were all undertaken between November 2008 and August 2009 to inform that extension. With the exception of the displacement of wintering and breeding birds that was predicted to have a minor adverse (therefore, non-significant) impact, and the collision mortality risk to peregrine, which was considered slight (minor) adverse (and, therefore, non-significant), all other potential impacts on ornithology were considered to have a neutral impact.

9.4.52 In 2015, forty-two species of birds were recorded on-Site during the BBS completed by AECOM, of which 22 were confirmed breeding. Two of the species identified were Schedule 1 listed on the WCA (1981, as amended), with barn owl confirmed to have bred on-Site, whilst peregrine possibly bred within old quarry workings in the Hapton Park area to the south-west of the Site (off-Site). Nine species on the Red list of BoCC, and 13 Amber list BoCC were also recorded. Short-eared owl were recorded hunting over the Site though no evidence was found to indicate that this species bred within the survey area.

9.4.53 From the results of the survey works, it is considered that the Site is of low value to nesting birds, supporting a low level of species diversity, with meadow pipit Anthus pratensis and skylark the most frequently recorded breeding species. Both species were found to be widespread within the acid grassland present within the survey area. Within the Site, the areas supporting the greatest diversity of breeding bird species were the mature trees found around the edges of the cloughs, and associated watercourses.

206

9.4.54 Overall the breeding bird assemblage recorded during the surveys was assessed to be of Site value due to its relatively low species diversity and number of birds recorded, and the fact that the Site is likely to be used in combination with other surrounding similar habitats.

9.4.55 Forty species of birds were recorded on-Site during the WBS and VP surveys. Two Schedule 1 species (WCA, 1981 as amended), were identified, redwing Turdus iliacus and fieldfare Turdus pilaris, along with seven species on the Red List of BoCC, and 10 Amber list BoCC. The majority of bird activity was located within lowland areas of improved and semi-improved grassland.

9.4.56 Overall the wintering bird assemblage recorded during the surveys is considered to be of local value due to its relatively low diversity and numbers of birds, and the fact that the Site is likely to be used in combination with other surrounding similar habitats.

9.4.57 Collision Risk Modelling (CRM) was not undertaken on any of the target species recorded at the Site since none of them had flights in excess of 200 flight seconds occurring within the potential collision risk zone. CRM was also not undertaken for any secondary target species recorded, as flight activity within the collision risk zone was very low, such that due to the lack of data, collision risk is considered unlikely to be significant at the Site.

9.4.58 Insufficient flight data was available for CRM to be used to estimate collision mortality of peregrine. However previous CRM prepared by AECOM in 2009 on this species for the six turbines currently operational adjacent to the Site surmised that the likely impact magnitude of collision mortality for peregrine attributable to a total of six turbines would be minor negative, and that the impact would be slight adverse and, therefore, non-significant. Whilst peregrine are still present in the area, the survey results indicate that their use of the Site has diminished considerably since 2008-2009 and, therefore, the addition of a further three turbines is considered to have a negligible impact when considered in both isolation, and in combination with the existing six turbines.

9.4.59 Overall, the results of the BBS and WBS indicate that the bird assemblage occurring at the Site is, at most, of local value.

Statutory Sites Designated for Birds

South Pennine Moors SPA

9.4.60 The importance of the proposed development Site and the surrounding area for the SPA qualifying species has been considered. Neither merlin nor dunlin have been recorded on-Site, nor are there any records of these species within the study area. Golden plover was not

207

recorded at the time of the survey, however, they have been recorded within 2 km of the Site in recent years, although given that during the breeding season they have a core foraging range of 3 km (SNH, 2012), such that when this is considered together with the distance between the two sites, there is not considered to be any functional link between any birds that may occur locally to the Site and the SPA population. Whilst peregrine falcon is known to breed approximately 450 m from the Site, it utilises it infrequently for foraging, furthermore, this species is considered to have a core foraging range of 2 km from a nest site (SNH, 2012), such that when this is considered together with the distance between the two sites, there is not considered to be any functional link between the local peregrine population and that occurring at the SPA. Taking the above into account, there is not considered to be any functional link between the proposed development Site and the SPA, such that there are not anticipated to be any significant adverse impacts on the bird species for which it is designated. This designated site is, therefore, not considered further within this chapter as a potential receptor.

South Pennine Moors SSSI

9.4.61 The only species included within the citation of the South Pennine Moors SSSI that is not a qualifying feature of the SPA is twite. This species was not recorded on-Site during the BBS, nor has it been recorded in the study area and, therefore, no effect upon the SSSI population of twite is anticipated due to the distance of the SSSI from the Site. This site is, therefore, not considered further in this chapter as a potential receptor.

9.5 Assessment of Potential Effects

Construction Phase

9.5.1 During the construction phase, the development will result in the temporary loss of approximately 8.34 ha of grassland, whereas during the operational phase the site footprint would be reduced as grassland habitats surrounding the turbines will be re-instated. The construction activities are described in detail in Chapter 4 of this ES chapter.

9.5.2 During the Construction Phase of Works it is anticipated that impacts may arise from:

 Habitat loss or damage (combination of both permanent and temporary), including drainage impacts to bog or other marshy grassland habitats;

208

 Possible changes to groundwater flows affecting Ground Water Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTEs);

 Water pollution or sediment build-up;

 Accidental killing or injuring of fauna; and

 Disturbance / displacement of fauna due to increased vehicular traffic and associated construction works causing noise and visual disturbance, and the presence of construction workers.

Habitats

9.5.3 All of the habitats present on the Site are widespread on a local level, and the majority at a national level, apart from acid flush, unimproved acid grassland and dried modified bog that require specific ground and hydrological conditions for their formation. Whilst these three habitats could otherwise be considered of potentially greater value, they were all recorded to be in poor condition. Whilst the majority of habitats were considered to be of local value, neutral semi-improved grassland was assessed as being of district value due to the breeding bird assemblage it supports.

9.5.4 The following habitats will not be impacted upon during the construction phase of works and, therefore, are not considered further in this section: Broadleaved woodland, scattered broadleaved trees, dense scrub, improved grassland, semi-improved neutral grassland, unimproved acid grassland, dry modified bog, standing water, and, buildings and structures. Impacts upon other Site habitats are considered below.

Semi-Improved Acid Grassland

9.5.5 Whilst limited infrastructure works (access roads and turbine platform) associated with a single turbine are proposed within the area of acid grassland in the central eastern extent of the Site, it is anticipated that construction activities and the movement of equipment and machinery will result in the permanent loss of 2.6 ha, equating to approximately 8.6 % of this habitat present within the Site boundary. Given the limited value of the acid grassland, the impacts of the construction phase upon it are considered to have a minor adverse effect that is non-significant. The effects will be direct and permanent in nature.

209

Marshy Grassland

9.5.6 Whilst limited infrastructure works (access roads and turbine platform) associated with two of the turbines in the south-eastern area of the Site are proposed within the area of marshy grassland, it is anticipated that construction activities and the movement of equipment and machinery will result in the permanent loss of 5.2 ha of this habitat, equating to approximately 13 % of this habitat occurring at the Site. Given the limited value of the marshy grassland, the impacts of the construction phase upon it are considered to have a minor adverse effect that is non-significant. The effects will be direct and permanent in nature.

Acid Flush

9.5.7 The access road to the most southerly turbine is proposed to cross the area of acid flush associated with the Tower Brook, and, therefore, it is anticipated that construction activities and movement of equipment and machinery will result in the loss of a small proportion of this habitat at the Site. The construction of the Proposed Development has the potential to cause a change in the water table within this area, either, permanently or temporarily changing the conditions for the limited diversity of floral species present. In addition, the construction phase has the potential to impact on the water quality, with possible pollution events occurring. This would affect the survival of both floral and faunal species occurring within this habitat, as well as the quality of the habitat as a whole. Given the local value of this habitat and its low floral species composition, the construction impacts are considered to have a minor adverse effect that is, therefore, non-significant. The effects will be direct/ temporary and permanent in nature.

Running Water

9.5.8 The Tower Brook which bisects the southern extent of the Site is to be largely unaffected by the proposed development. However, a total length of 6 m of the Brook will be culverted through its central section as it crosses the Site, in order to allow installation of an access road to one proposed turbine location. This is anticipated to cause an adverse impact to this immediate area through damage to the banks of the Brook, possible minor obstruction to the flow, and loss of associated flora and fauna along that section. The construction phase also has the potential to cause a change in water level within the Brook, either, permanently or temporarily changing the conditions for aquatic and marginal vegetation and associated faunal species. In addition, the construction phase has the potential to impact on water quality, with possible pollution events occurring. This would adversely affect the survival of both floral and

210

faunal species occurring within the running water downstream, as well as the quality of the habitat as a whole.

9.5.9 Given the local value of the habitat, the direct impacts are considered to have a minor adverse effect that is, therefore, non-significant. The effects will be direct and permanent in nature.

Wall

9.5.10 It is understood that minor lengths (up to 13 m) of drystone walling that form the field boundaries may be removed to facilitate Site access and construction of the turbines. The well-maintained nature of the walls and associated lack of gaps/ crevices, means that they do not offer shelter to small mammals and birds, nor nesting bird habitat. However, their structure as a whole provides a windbreak to fauna. Without appropriate mitigation in place, this direct and permanent impact will have a minor adverse effect that is, therefore, non- significant.

9.5.11 An assessment of the significance of the predicted effects on habitats is shown in Table 9.5.

Fauna

Badger

9.5.12 Evidence of badger activity was recorded throughout the Site, indicating that the Site is both within a badger clan’s territory and is used for commuting between different areas of habitat. Furthermore, whilst the impact on the badger clan resulting from the harm to the possible main sett is unknown, there is the potential for this species to relocate the sett elsewhere on- Site, including within the proposed working footprint of the construction works. Without mitigation in place there is, therefore, the potential for this species to venture onto Site during the construction phase of works, and there is the direct risk of harm to them should they fall into pits or trenches left open overnight during the works. There is the potential for a new sett within the working footprint to be harmed or disturbed as a result of the proposed works. Furthermore, loss of grassland at the Site will reduce the available foraging habitat available to this species, and may impact upon the connectivity between different areas of habitat for badgers.

9.5.13 Whilst it would be unlawful to disturb or harm an individual badger during the proposed development works, the loss would not be anticipated to impact upon the local conservation status of this species. Furthermore, given the extent of suitable habitat within the local

211

landscape available to this species, the potential impacts to badgers are considered to have a direct and permanent minor adverse effect such that they are non-significant.

Bats

9.5.14 No confirmed bat roosts were recorded within any of the on-Site buildings or trees. Whilst two suspected small roost sites were noted by AECOM, both of these are at adequate distance from the proposed development works to not be impacted upon by the works. As a result the proposed construction works will have no impact on roosting bats.

9.5.15 The construction phase of works has the potential to result in temporary disturbance to bats through increased noise and vibration, both within close proximity to foraging and commuting corridors.

9.5.16 It is understood that pre-existing access points and trackways will be used for the construction traffic, however, up to a 13 m length of drystone walling may need to be removed to facilitate the development. This has potential to sever commuting routes for those species of bats, recorded to use the walls during the survey works, however, it is understood that pipistrelle bats, the most frequently recorded species group during the survey works, though recorded in low numbers, will cross gaps of up to 200 m in length (Natural England, 2014).

9.5.17 Anticipated construction working hours are 07:00 to 19:00 Monday to Friday, and between the hours of 07:00 and 16:00 on Saturdays. It is anticipated that during the main active bat season (April-October, inclusive), construction works will generally cease, or be winding down before dusk when bats emerge and will not begin before dawn when bats return to roost sites. Therefore, generally artificial lighting will not be required, and there are not anticipated to be any negative effects upon bat foraging and commuting behaviour from noise across the Site since construction works will not coincide with the timing of bat activity across the Site. In certain circumstances, for example, in late autumn or early spring when daylight hours are limited but weather conditions may be suitable for bats to be active, there may be a brief overlap between bat activity and on-Site construction works. During this period lighting may be required to enable the construction works to progress, and this along with any associated noise, may temporarily alter bats foraging and commuting activity across an area of the Site. However, the combined effects of lighting and noise from construction works during these occasional circumstances would only be a possible temporary deterrent to foraging and commuting bats in a concentrated area, and not across the wider Site and this is not anticipated to have any adverse impact upon bats.

212

9.5.18 Whilst approximately 8.34 ha of grassland habitat will be lost to facilitate the proposals, this open habitat is not considered to offer ideal foraging opportunities for bats, and nor was it found to be utilised by foraging bats during the survey works and, therefore, there is not considered to be any adverse impact upon bats through the loss of foraging habitat.

9.5.19 Overall, any impacts upon bats during the construction phase of works are considered to be of a temporary and direct nature and, minor adverse and, therefore, non-significant.

Birds

9.5.20 The construction phase of works will result in the loss of acid grassland and marshy grassland, both of which are suitable to support foraging and ground nesting birds. There is, therefore, potential for direct adverse effects on nesting birds that are permanent in nature as a result of such clearance. Under the WCA (1981, as amended), it is an offence to disturb active bird nests during the nesting bird season (March-August, inclusive). Furthermore, those bird species listed on Schedule 1 of the WCA (1981, as amended) receive additional protection during the nesting bird season. Whilst barn owl was recorded to breed in an outbuilding on- Site, the buildings on-Site will not be impacted upon at all as a result of the proposed development.

9.5.21 In addition, construction works being carried out within proximity to nesting birds may affect them indirectly, depending on the works being carried out, and the species of bird affected. Noise and vibration disturbance effects may result in birds being repeatedly flushed off nests, causing disruption to feeding activity, or even abandonment of nests. This is considered to be a temporary impact.

9.5.22 Further to the potential direct effects on birds whilst they are actively nesting, the removal of suitable vegetation will result in the direct loss of available bird nesting habitat, as well as a loss of foraging opportunities, connectivity, shelter and cover from predators. However, if the construction phase of works is undertaken through the winter months it is anticipated to cause disturbance to both fieldfare and redwing, Schedule 1 (WCA, 1981, as amended) species that are particularly sensitive to disturbance. Furthermore, whilst mixed groups of up to 40 black-headed gulls Chroicocephalus ridibundus (orange list BoCC) and herring gulls Larus argentatus (red list BoCC), with small numbers of other gulls, were recorded loafing on improved pasture close to the existing turbines, evidence that they are tolerant of them, it is anticipated that they would be displaced temporarily during the construction phase of works if completed during the winter months.

213

9.5.23 The potential adverse impacts to birds are considered to have a minor adverse effect that is, therefore, non-significant.

9.5.24 An assessment of the significance of the predicted effects on fauna is shown in Table 9.5.

Table 9.5 Significance of Predicted Effects -Construction Phase of Works

Ecological Feature Significance of Nature of Effect Duration of Impact (Value) Effect Semi-improved acid grassland Both permanent and Minor adverse – Habitat loss temporary Not significant (Local Value)

Marshy grassland Minor adverse – Habitat loss Permanent (Local Value) Not significant

Habitat loss - culvert Potential change in Running water Minor adverse – water levels Permanent (Local Value) not significant Potential pollution events

Habitat loss Permanent Acid flush Minor adverse – Changes to water Permanent/ (Local value) not significant table temporary

Wall Permanent and Minor adverse – Habitat loss (Local Value) temporary Not significant

Habitat loss Badgers Noise and vibration Permanent and Minor adverse – temporary not significant (Local Value) Sett damage/destruction

Habitat Fragmentation Bats Minor adverse – Noise, light and Temporary (Local Value) not significant vibration

214

Habitat loss Nest destruction Birds Permanent and Minor adverse – (harm to temporary not significant (Local Value) birds)/disturbance Noise and vibration

Impacts during Operation

9.5.25 During the operational phase of the wind farm, it is anticipated that impacts on faunal species at the Site may arise from:

 Increased vehicular traffic;

 Increased presence of people (audio and visual);

 Environmental incidents and accidents (e.g. spillages); and

 Death by moving turbine blades (bats and birds).

Habitats

9.5.26 Those habitats listed in paragraph 9.5.4 will also not be impacted upon by the operational phase of works. All retained habitats at the Site, including semi-improved acid grassland and marshy grassland, will continue to be farmed through livestock grazing, such that the current management regime will continue.

Fauna

Badger

9.5.27 During the operation of the Site, infrequent visits to the Site are anticipated to be made by maintenance vehicles. This slightly increased level of anthropogenic activity is considered unlikely to discourage badger activity at the Site due to its infrequent nature, and that it is anticipated to occur during daylight hours. Therefore, the impact from disturbance effects is considered to be negligible.

215

Bats

9.5.28 No high risk bat species are considered to be at risk from collision with wind turbines such that there will be no impact at either the individual or species population level, as very low levels of one high risk species, noctule bat, were recorded.

9.5.29 Common pipistrelle, a species which is considered to have a medium risk of collision at an individual level but a low risk of impact at a population level (Natural England (2014)), was the species recorded the most frequently, however, recordings were generally low. Furthermore, the lowest level of bat activity was identified as being the open grassland habitats, where the proposed turbines are to be located. The surveys found that what bat activity there was, was concentrated within the areas of woodland associated with the cloughs in the northern and eastern areas of the Site.

9.5.30 The survey results indicate that the dry stone walls within the Site boundary are used as commuting and foraging corridors by common pipistrelle bats. No turbines will be located closer than 50 m to the stone walls, which is the distance Natural England (2014) states that should be maintained between the turbine tip and linear features used by bats to reduce the risk of collision. Therefore, by leaving a distance of 70 m from the turbine base, any collision risk along these corridors has been negated. However, in the unlikely event that individual bats are occasionally killed through turbine strike, impact on the conservation status of the local common pipistrelle population is not considered likely to be significant. This is because the survey results indicated that the number of bats likely to forage within the Site area is considered to be low, and this bat species is widespread throughout the United Kingdom (UK) and is one of the UK’s most common species of bat (see for e.g. Bat Conservation Trust (2010)). Therefore, the impact from collision risk at the Site is considered to be negligible.

Birds

9.5.31 Potential sources of disturbance to birds during the operational phase of the turbines include turbine operation, both in terms of visual and audio disturbance and increased human activity through maintenance activities.

9.5.32 There is potential for disturbance to wintering and breeding birds due to increased human activity for turbine (and other wind farm infrastructure) maintenance purposes. However, this involves low level disturbance and is restricted to areas immediately associated with the turbine bases. Furthermore, the turbines will be located on active farmland that is subject to regular farm vehicle movements and livestock movements, thus the birds within the Site will

216

be habituated to the low-level presence of humans, including large vehicles through ongoing farming practices, such that any impact through disturbance is considered negligible.

9.5.33 Whilst the results of the survey indicate that no target species are considered likely to be displaced by the proposed turbines adjacent to the existing windfarm, there is potential for low numbers of individuals of both mallard and snipe (wildfowl and waders that are green and amber list BoCC, respectively) to be potentially impacted upon, however, such impacts are considered to be minor adverse and, therefore, non-significant.

Collision Risk

9.5.34 Birds that collide with a turbine are likely to be killed. This may in turn affect the viability of bird populations, particularly when populations are small. The level of collision with turbines will depend on the extent to which birds are displaced and the ability of birds to detect and manoeuvre around rotating turbine blades. CRM was not completed for bird species occurring at the Site as none of the target species had flights in excess of 200 flight seconds occurring within the potential collision risk zone (i.e. at collision risk height and within the turbine envelope). Furthermore, CRM was also not undertaken for those secondary target species recorded, as flight activity within the collision risk zone was very low, such that due to the lack of data, collision risk is considered unlikely to be significant at the Site.

9.5.35 Whilst gull species were recorded regularly during the winter surveys, the majority of flights were to the north of New Barn Farm where gulls used the in-bye fields for loafing. On the few occasions where flights were recorded within the turbine envelope, the greater part of each of the flights was either below or above rotor height.

9.5.36 Any potential impact upon bird species occurring at the Site as a result of collision risk is considered to be negligible and, therefore, non-significant.

9.5.37 An assessment of the predicted effects on fauna is shown in Table 9.6 below.

Table 9.6 Significance of Predicted Effects -Operational Phase of Works

Ecological Feature Nature of Effect Duration of Impact Significance of Effect (Value)

Badgers Anthropogenic activity- Temporary Negligible (Local Value) disturbance

217

Bats Collision risk Permanent Negligible (Local Value)

Negligible Anthropogenic Temporary activity- Birds disturbance Negligible (Local Value) Collision risk Permanent Minor adverse (not Permanent Displacement significant)

Impacts during Decommissioning

9.5.38 The operational life of the development will be 25 years. In addition, 12 months would be required for construction and following the 25-year operational period, 12 months would be required for decommissioning. Decommissioning would involve the removal of the turbines and all of the above ground components of the development.

9.5.39 The impacts from the decommissioning phase are difficult to predict. However, the impacts are likely to be similar in nature to those identified during the construction phase but of lower magnitude (as works will be restricted to the previously constructed access tracks and areas of hard standing at the base of the turbine). During the decommissioning of the wind turbines, it is anticipated that impacts may arise from:

 Habitat loss or damage (temporary) due to increased site footprint of wind farm; infrastructure due to operating plant and equipment storage;

 Possible changes to groundwater flows affecting GWDTEs; and

 Disturbance to fauna due to increased vehicular traffic, operating plant and the presence of construction workers.

9.5.40 The presence and distribution of protected faunal species at the Site at the time of decommissioning, potentially including species not currently occurring on-Site, or not currently subject to legal protection, cannot be predicted with accuracy at this stage. However, it is reasonable to assume that the distribution of protected faunal species will be broadly similar to that which is currently present at the Site. Therefore, on the basis that the decommissioning impacts are similar to the construction phase impacts, there are not predicted to be any significant adverse impacts upon flora or fauna.

218

9.6 Mitigation of Effects

9.6.1 Avoidance measures have been implemented, with significant areas of habitat to be retained and timing of works scheduled to avoid impacts, where possible. Where avoidance measures are not appropriate mitigation and compensation measures have been applied.

9.6.2 During the construction period the Applicant has indicated that all construction works will be carefully controlled in terms of their potential environmental impacts through implementation of best practice methodology. A Construction Management Plan will be followed in order to reduce potential environmental impacts. The main contractor will comply with The Control of Pollution Act 1989, Part III Environmental Protection Act 1990, The Noise at Work Regulations 2005, BS5228 Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites 2015, and Pollution Prevention Guideline 5 (PPG 5): Works in, near or liable to affect watercourses (Environment Agency n.d.). In addition, standard construction practices will be utilised to manage the use, storage and release of hydrocarbons and chemicals. Adherence to these best practice methodologies will minimise the impact of noise and the risk of pollution events into local watercourses.

9.6.3 Furthermore, in order to reduce the impact of changing water levels through increased sediment, water run-off and work adjacent to water course, appropriate mitigation will be implemented (see Chapters 12.0: Ground Conditions and Hydrogeology and 13.0: Surface Water Quality, Flood Risk and Drainage).

Habitats

9.6.4 Once the additional turbines are operational, a programme of reinstatement and landscape restoration works would be undertaken of the access tracks, and any other habitat that has been damaged by the construction phase of works.

9.6.5 A detailed Landscape Management Plan will need to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the LPA as part of a pre-commencement condition. This would include details for the habitat restoration works to be carried out for track verges, hard standing, construction compounds, areas excavated for foundations and cable trenches. The habitats should be all be re-instated within 12 months of the date that electricity from the development is first exported to the grid.

9.6.6 Whilst no evidence of riparian mammals was found, local conditions may change in the future such that the Tower Brook becomes suitable for these species and, therefore, it is

219

recommended that where the Tower Brook has to be culverted, certain principles are followed to enhance potential commuting corridors at the Site:

 Where possible, large box culverts (minimum diameter 2 m) should be used to allow maximum light to pass through and allow more headroom above the water; and

 Mammal ledges should be provided within the culvert.

9.6.7 Access tracks will be constructed for most of their length on existing farm tracks. It is, therefore, considered unlikely that any significant lengths of dry stone walling will be removed to accommodate vehicular movements.

Species

Badgers

9.6.8 Prior to the commencement of vegetation clearance to facilitate the Proposed Development, a suitably qualified ecologist should undertake a check for badger setts across the construction area footprint and land within 20 m of it. In the event that a new badger sett is identified, appropriate surveys and monitoring will be undertaken in order to establish the status of the sett. Where necessary, a watching brief will be maintained and/ or a licence obtained from Natural England to allow the disturbance or closure of the sett.

9.6.9 Furthermore, during the construction phase no open trenches or pits will be left uncovered or alternatively without a mammal ramp in overnight to prevent badgers, or any other mammals that may pass through the Site, from becoming trapped.

9.6.10 The potential impacts on badger post-mitigation are expected to be negligible and, therefore, non-significant.

Bats

9.6.11 The turbine layout has been designed with a minimum standoff of 50 m between habitat features, such as the dry stone walling and the Tower Brook, and the base of the turbine tower, resulting in the edge of the rotor swept area being more than 50m from dry stone walling and Tower Brook in accordance with Natural England guidance. If the turbine position is moved within the 50 m micro siting buffer, the dry stone wall should be realigned to achieve at least the 70 m distance from it, in order to ensure that the edge of the rotor-swept area is at least 50 m from the wall.

220

9.6.12 In order to limit disturbance to bats during the construction phase of works lighting to facilitate the works must be directional, and light spill onto linear habitats (Tower Brook and dry stone walling) must be avoided.

9.6.13 Works at the Site should be limited to standard daytime working hours (07:00 – 19:00) during the active bat season (April- October, inclusive) in order to prevent disturbance to bats when they emerge from roost sites to forage or commute to foraging habitats along the Site boundaries.

9.6.14 With the inclusion of mitigation, any impacts upon bats are considered to be negligible and, therefore, not-significant.

Birds

9.6.15 Where practicable, removal of the existing vegetation from the Site will be undertaken outside of the main nesting bird period (i.e. only within the months September to February, inclusive). If these works cannot be restricted to within this period, an Ecological Watching Brief will be maintained during the main bird breeding season to ensure that no nesting birds are adversely affected.

9.6.16 This will entail checking all suitable habitat for nesting birds due to be removed, and a buffer of at least 10 m beyond that area by a suitably qualified ecologist prior to the commencement of works. If, during the Ecological Watching Brief, birds are found to be within the area due to be cleared or the buffer zone, measures to prevent any disturbance to breeding birds, including the cessation of vegetation clearance, or construction works in areas close to breeding sites until the birds have completed breeding, will be put in place until the chicks have fledged.

9.6.17 The potential impacts of the construction phase post-mitigation are expected to have a minor adverse effect that is, therefore, non-significant.

Decommissioning Phase

9.6.18 The necessary mitigation measures required during the decommissioning phase of the turbines will be developed following the completion of updated ecological surveys prior to decommissioning of the turbines. At this early stage it is considered likely that any mitigation measures will be similar to those outlined for the construction phase of works.

221

9.7 Residual Effects

9.7.1 Whilst there may be a short-term effect on the biodiversity value of the Site in terms of the diversity of flora and fauna it supports, it is anticipated that full mitigation will be achieved and there will be no residual effects on habitats or fauna resulting from the Proposed Development.

Construction

9.7.2 There will be no residual effects on habitats and fauna resulting from the Construction Phase of the Proposed Development.

Operational

9.7.3 There will be no residual effects on habitats and fauna resulting from the Operational Phase of the Proposed Development.

Decommissioning

9.7.4 There will be no residual effects on habitats and fauna resulting from the Decommissioning Phase of the Proposed Development.

9.9 Cumulative Effects

9.9.1 For the purposes of the effects of cumulative impacts of any committed off-Site development combined with the Proposed Development upon ecology, all relevant proposed and recently granted planning applications have been considered, where publically available information allows, refer to Tables 9.7 and 9.8 below.

Table 9.7 Small Scale Turbines within Immediate Study Area

Development Number Hub Blade Status Distance from Name of Height of Tip Nearest Turbines Turbines Height Proposed (m) (m) Turbine (km)

Higher 1 40 67 Operational 1.15 Micklehurst Farm

Habergham Hall 1 9.7 20 Operational 1.35 Farm

222

Crown Point Road 2 18 25 Operational 1.78

Table 9.8 Other Wind Developments within 15 km of the Study Area

Development No. of Hub Blade Status Distance from Name Turbines Height of Tip Proposal Turbines Height Boundary (m) (m) (km)

Coal Clough Wind 8 70 110 Operational 6.7 Farm Repowering

Hyndburn Wind 12 Unknown 122 Operational 7.7 Farm

Hyndburn Wind 4 Unknown 122 Consented 7.7 Farm Extension

Todmorden Moor 5 90 125 Operational 8.1 Wind Farm

Reaps Moss Wind 3 73 125 Operational 9.1 Farm

Scout Moor Wind 26 Unknown 100 Operational 10 Farm

Scout Moor Wind 16 Unknown 115 Consented 10 Farm Extension

Crook Hill Wind 12 Unknown 125 Operational 14 Farm

9.9.2 Whilst single turbine developments have been included for consideration in each of the Chapters of this ES for cumulative impacts and are included above for reference, they have been omitted from consideration as ornithological impacts and those potential impacts upon bat species in relation to such developments are rarely assessed in detail.

9.9.3 Since the anticipated impacts on bird and bats species as a result of the proposed turbines at the Site are considered to be at most minor adverse and, therefore, non-significant, taking this

223

into account along with the distance of the other sites from the proposed extension area at the Site, there are not considered to be any cumulative significant on Ecology and Nature Conservation. Furthermore, no identified individual effects in other technical chapters have been identified that are considered to lead to cumulative significant effects with Ecology and Nature Conservation.

9.10 Summary of Significance Evaluation

9.10.1 The Site has been subject to a number of habitat and faunal ecology surveys between 2014 and 2016. In addition, existing survey data collated for the previous windfarm extension was also used to inform the assessment. The habitats present at the Site were identified as a combination of degraded peatland habitats, and predominantly marshy grassland and acid grassland, which were subjected to regular grazing. In addition, woodland, scattered trees and scrub were present, with steep-sided cloughs supporting running water, and five standing waterbodies were present at the Site, mostly supporting seasonal standing water.

9.10.2 Potential effects on faunal species considered in the assessment include:

 Habitat loss (construction);

 Disturbance and displacement (construction, operation and decommissioning);

 Damage to active bird nests (construction and decommissioning); and

 Collision of bats and birds with turbines (operation).

9.10.3 The South Pennine Moors SPA and SSSI is located 6.5 km to the east of the Site. However, following detailed assessment, it is concluded that there is no functional link between the Site and the South Pennine Moors SPA/SSSI, therefore, the proposed development is not likely to have a significant effect on the SPA/SSSI.

9.10.4 A detailed Landscape Management Plan will need to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the LPA as part of a pre-commencement condition. This would include details for the habitat restoration works to be carried out for track verges, hard standing, construction compounds, areas excavated for foundations and cable trenches. The habitats should be all be re-instated within 12 months of the date that electricity from the development is first exported to the grid.

224

9.10.5 In light of the anticipated impacts associated with the construction and operational phases of the proposed development, mitigation has been put forward to minimise the impacts and level of disturbance relating to the proposed development, such that there are not considered to be any significant residual impacts resulting from the proposals.

9.11 References

 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), HMSO.

 Council of Europe, 1979. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Heritage. Bern, Switzerland.

 Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 30th November 2009 on the Conservation of Wild Birds.

 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) HMSO

 HMSO (2000). The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 HMSO

 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006). Chapter 16. HMSO. London.

 Environmental Protection Act (1990). Chapter 43. HMSO. London.

 The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009. HMSO. London.

 Biodiversity: the UK Action Plan, 1994. (Cm 2428) London: HMSO.

 EU (1992) Habitats Directive – Council Directive 92/43/EEC. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm

 Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework.

 Department for Communities and Local Government (2014). Planning Practice Guidance.

 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2002). Working with the grain of nature A biodiversity strategy for England.

 United Nations (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity.

225

 The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (1979). Available at http://www.cms.int/en/convention-text

 The Protection of Badgers Act (1992). Chapter 51. HMSO.

 Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2016) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal

 Oldham, R.S., Keeble, J., Swan, M.J.S. & Jeffcote, M. (2000). Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal. 10: 143- 155.

 Harris, S. Cresswell, P. & Jefferies, D. (1989). Surveying Badgers. Occasional publication of the Mammal Society No 9. Mammal Society, London.

 Hundt, L. (2012) Bat surveys: Good practice guidelines, 2nd edition. Bat Conservation Trust.

 English Nature (2001). Great crested newt mitigation guidelines. English Nature (now Natural England). Peterborough.

 AECOM (2015). EIA Scoping Report Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension.

 RSPB, The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester & North Merseyside (LWT) in partnership with Lancashire County Council, Natural England and the Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (EAS), (2008), Wind Turbines, Sensitive Bird Populations and Peat Soils: A Spatial Planning Guide for on-shore wind farm developments in Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside.

 Eaton MA, Aebischer NJ, Brown AF, Hearn RD, Lock L, Musgrove AJ, Noble DG, Stroud DA and Gregory RD (2015) Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108, p 708– 746

 AECOM (2009) Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension Volume 1 – Environmental Statement

 Scottish Natural Heritage (2012). Assessing Connectivity with Special Protection Areas (SPAs).

226

 Natural England (2014) Technical Note TIN051 Bats and Onshore Wind Turbines Interim Guidance

 Bat Conservation Trust (2010). Bat Surveys - Good Practice Guidelines 2nd Edition Surveying for onshore wind farms.

 The Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989. HMSO, London.

 The Control of Noise at Work Regulations (2005). HMSO, London.

 BS 5228: The Control of Noise (Code of Practice for Construction and Open Sites) (England) Order 2015. HMSO, London.

 Environment Agency (n.d.). Pollution Prevention Guideline 5: Works In, Near or Liable to affect Watercourses [online]. Available from http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/ppmwater.pdf

227

10.0 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

10.1 Introduction

10.1.1 Pre-Construct Archaeological Services Ltd were commissioned by AAH Planning to undertake a cultural Heritage Assessment for a proposed erection and operation of 3 wind turbines up to a maximum height of 100m and associated ancillary infrastructure on land adjacent to the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm drainage systems and associated infrastructure. Although a separate operator the proposed development would be perceived as an extension to the existing wind farm and as such is described in this way in this chapter. This chapter presents the results of the baseline survey and an analysis of the potential effects of the development on the cultural heritage resource. This chapter should be read in conjunction with the LVIA chapter (Chapter 7) which includes a number of photomontages from 15 selected viewpoints.

10.1.2 The aim of this assessment is to identify the location, type/grading, importance and sensitivity of non-designated cultural heritage assets (archaeology, built heritage and historic landscape character) within a 1km study radius of the site. Designated cultural heritage assets (Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens) have also been assessed within a 5km study radius (as requested by the County Archaeologist). The level of magnitude and significance of the potential impacts upon those assets by the proposals are then assessed. The assessment includes a summary of recorded heritage assets, and, where appropriate, identifies mitigation measures for adverse effects (both temporal and spatial) that may arise in association with the construction, operation and use of the proposed development.

10.1.3 All heritage assets identified in this assessment are referred to by their unique assigned listed building, scheduled monument or historic environment record numbers and are presented in the tables in this Chapter.

10.1.4 The assessment includes:

• A brief description of the proposed development and study area;

• The methodology adopted for establishing the cultural heritage baseline and assessing predicted impacts on any heritage assets and/or their settings;

228

• A summary and description of the site’s archaeological and historical background;

• Recommendations for archaeological mitigation; and,

An assessment of potential impacts on the settings of identified heritage assets.

10.1.5 The key features of this development include:

• 3 additional wind turbines positioned to the east of the existing wind turbines. Each turbine would measure up to a maximum of 100m to the tip;

• The construction of associated infrastructure to include wind turbine foundations, crane pads, new and upgraded access tracks, underground cabling to connect the expanded wind farm to the National Grid, new substation/control buildings, drainage infrastructure and temporary construction compound(s); and

• Landscaping works including habitat management, improvement and restorative works.

10.1.6 The proposed turbines will be constructed in the following locations subject to the application of a proposed (50m) micro-siting allowance:

Description Grid Reference X Y Latitude Longitude

Proposed Turbine 1 SD 81207 29690 381207 429690 53.763219 -2.2865555

Proposed Turbine 2 SD 81271 29423 381271 429423 53.760821 -2.2855684

Proposed Turbine 3 SD 81402 29876 381402 429876 53.764897 -2.2836088

Table 10.1: Co-Ordinates for the Proposed Wind Turbines

10.1.7 The operational life of the development will be 25 years. In addition, 12 months would be required for construction and, following the 25-year operational period, 12 months would be required for decommissioning. Decommissioning would involve the removal of the turbines and all above ground components of the development.

10.1.8 A full description of the proposals is present in Chapter 4 of the ES.

10.2 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance

10.2.1 National and Local Planning Policies currently relevant to cultural heritage are:

229

• National Planning Policy Framework

10.2.2 The NPPF guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government and referred to in English Heritage’s correspondence came into force at the end of March 2012. The NPPF superseded PPS5 and advises that LPAs require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible' (NPPF, s141).

10.2.3 NPPF Paragraph 12.132 states that ‘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.’

• The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.

• The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

• The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

• The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

• Local Planning Policy consists of the Burnley Local Plan (adopted 2006).

10.3 Methodology

Guidance

10.3.1 The methodology for this assessment is based on current best practice and guidelines and conforms to:

• Code of Conduct, Chartered Institute of Field Archaeologists 2015;

230

• Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment, Institute of Field Archaeologists 2012;

• The Hedgerow Regulations 1997, DoE 1997;

• Scheduled Monuments. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. DCMS, 2010;

• The Setting of Heritage Assets, English Heritage Guidance, 2011;

• National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Department for Communities and Local Government. March 2012.

• Historic England: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (2015)

• Wind Energy and the Historic Environment (English Heritage/Historic England 2005)

• Local Planning Policy: Local Planning Policy consists of the Burnley Local Plan (adopted 2006). Policies: E10, E12, E15, E17, E18 & E19).

Scope of Assessment

Spatial Scope

10.3.2 The site location is shown on Figure 3.1. The spatial scope of the assessment comprises a study of the site itself; and also considers all archaeological monuments recorded within a 1km study radius of the site boundary on the Lancashire Historic Environment Records (Fig. 10.1). The assessment also incorporates all designated heritage assets within a 5km study radius, including listed buildings, scheduled monuments, conservation areas and registered historic parks and gardens (Figs. 10.2 & 10.3).

10.3.3 Within the 1km & 5km study radii there is a limited potential range of visibility of assets to and from the site. This range is based on observations made during the recent site visit during which it was noted that views to and from many of the recorded assets are screened by the sites position and intervening vegetation, buildings and other landscape features. The ZTV drawn up by AAH Planning Consultants was also utilised (Figs. 10.2 & 10.3). The ZTV is an assessment of the theoretical visibility of the proposed turbines from the surrounding area based on a ‘bare earth model’, which accounts for topography, but not for upstanding features

231

such as buildings, trees and hedgerows. It can therefore be considered as providing a worst case assessment of the actual visibility of the proposed turbines.

10.3.4 For the purposes of the assessment, consideration of the cultural heritage resource is sub- divided into designated and non-designated heritage assets.

Baseline Data Collection

HER Searches

10.3.5 The collation of the initial baseline cultural heritage data conducted during this assessment comprised an examination of relevant, up-to-date information held by the Lancashire Historic Environment Records LHER). Information pertaining to non-designated heritage assets (monuments and elements) was only considered within the 1km study radius. Information pertaining to SAM’s, listed buildings, conservation areas; and registered parks & gardens was obtained from English Heritage and various online resources (see Table 10.2 below). Designated sites and monuments were considered for the whole of the wider 5km (as detailed in paragraph 10.3.2) within the range of the ZTV.

10.3.6 This assessment has been based on the data sources as set out in Table 10.2 below:

Baseline Topic Data Source

Designated heritage assets of International & National Importance (as defined in NPPF 2012)

World Heritage Sites; - National Heritage List for England; NMR, English Heritage (EH); UNESCO; Magic/Defra; Scheduled Ancient Monuments; - Lancashire Historic Environment Records (LHER); Listed Buildings; Registered Parks & Gardens; Conservation Areas

Non designated Heritage Assets

Non designated - Site visit and walkover survey; archaeological - Lancashire Historic Environment Records (LHER); remains; - Archaeology Data Service (ADS); Historic landscapes; - Aerial photographic data (RAF, NMR, NHER); Buildings of local

232

Baseline Topic Data Source historic interest; - Grey Literature Reports; - Historic Maps;

Archaeological Events - NHER; ADS; EH;

Ancient Woodlands - Defra / Magic; Published landscape character assessments; - Historic Maps; Natural England.

Table 10.2: Sources of Baseline Information

Breadth of Topic

10.3.7 The term ‘heritage asset’ refers to, ‘a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions’ (NPPF, Annex 2). These include archaeological sites, monuments and artefacts, historic buildings and other components of the built environment, historic landscapes and historic landscape elements; which together comprise the cultural-heritage resource.

10.3.8 The assessment considers both direct and indirect impacts of the proposed development upon the heritage resource and has been carried out in three stages: firstly it evaluates the sensitivity of the cultural heritage resource based on considerations of its inherent importance; secondly it considers the magnitude of the development impact; and thirdly it assesses the significance or effects of that impact. The latter is a combination of the results of Stages 1 and 2. The criteria for assessing the heritage resource and assessing the levels of impact are described below.

Establishing Sensitivity and Value of the Asset/Resource

Stage 1: Asset Sensitivity

10.3.9 The NPPF Annex 2, names those elements of the historic environment with historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interests that hold importance as heritage assets. These fall into two groups:

10.3.10 Designated heritage assets: A World Heritage Site, scheduled monument, listed building, protected wreck site, registered park and garden, registered battlefield or conservation area designated under the relevant legislation; and:

233

10.3.11 Non-designated heritage assets: historic landscapes, important hedgerows, buildings of local historic interest, artwork and non-scheduled archaeological remains.

10.3.12 At the time of writing there is no nationally agreed method of measuring the relative value of heritage assets. The following criteria (which are not in any order of ranking), are used by the Secretary of State for assessing the national importance of a monument and considering whether scheduling is appropriate: Period, Rarity, Documentation, Group Value, Survival/Condition, Fragility/vulnerability, Diversity, and Potential (DCMS, March 2010 Annex 1).

10.3.13 The relative importance or value of non-designated assets is a matter of professional judgement, founded upon the assessment of an asset’s actual or potential ability, either individually or as part of a group, to contribute significantly to acknowledged international, national, regional or local research objectives. Such professional judgements are contingent upon the variable quality of the available data and the understanding of the assessor. Consequently, they may be contested and may need revision, if fuller information should become available.

10.3.14 For the purposes of this assessment, all identified heritage assets have been ascribed an importance rating of International, National, Regional, Local, Less than Local or Unknown. The considerations used when ascribing these ratings are set out in Table 10.3 below:

Asset Criteria used for Establishing the Importance of Heritage Assets Importance

- World Heritage Sites. - Assets of acknowledged international importance.

International - Assets that can contribute significantly to international research objectives. - Extremely well-preserved historic landscapes with exceptional coherence, time-depth or other critical factors.

- Scheduled Ancient Monuments. - Non-designated archaeological assets of schedulable quality & importance. National - Archaeological assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged national research objectives. - Listed Buildings.

234

Asset Criteria used for Establishing the Importance of Heritage Assets Importance

- Conservation Areas. - Non-designated structures of clear national importance. - Designated & non-designated historic landscapes of outstanding interest & demonstrable national value. - Non-designated historic landscapes of outstanding interest. - Well-preserved historic landscapes with considerable coherence, time-depth or other critical factors.

- Non-designated archaeological assets that can contribute significantly to regional research objectives. - Unlisted historic buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabrics or historical associations. Regional - Historic townscapes or built-up areas with important historic integrity in their built environments. - Non-designated landscapes of regional value. - Averagely well-preserved historic landscapes with reasonable coherence, time-depth or other critical factors.

- Non-designated archaeological assets of local importance. - Archaeological assets compromised by poor preservation &/or poor survival of contextual associations. - Archaeological assets of limited value but with potential to Local contribute to local research objectives. - Unlisted historic buildings of modest quality in their fabrics or historical associations. - Historic townscapes or built-up areas with limited historic integrity in their built environments.

- Assets with little or no surviving archaeological interest. - Buildings of no architectural merit & no significant historical Less than Local associations. - Landscapes with little or no significant historical interest.

Unknown - Heritage assets of unascertained value.

Table 10.3: Factors for Assessing the Importance of Archaeological Assets Sensitivity to Impacts on the Setting of a Heritage Asset

235

10.3.15 Setting (indirect impact) is not a heritage asset, nor a heritage designation. Its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset (English Heritage 2011, 7). Setting is generally considered as what can be seen and heard to, or from, the heritage asset. The NPPF of 2012 describes the setting of a heritage asset 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’. Unlike the physical attributes of a heritage asset, an asset’s setting does not always make a significant contribution to its value. Where the setting of an asset does make a significant contribution to that asset’s overall significance, that asset’s sensitivity to the impacts on its setting will correlate directly with the asset’s overall significance. Conversely, where an assets setting is judged not to make a significant contribution to that asset’s significance, that asset is judged to be Not Sensitive to impacts on its setting. This relationship is clarified in Table 10.4 below:

Sensitivity Description

Very High - World Heritage Sites.

- Assets of acknowledged international importance.

- Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged international research Objectives.

- Undesignated landscapes of international sensitivity including extremely well preserved historic landscapes with exceptional coherence, time depth, or other critical factors.

High - Scheduled monuments and undesignated assets of Schedulable quality and Importance.

- Grade I and II* listed buildings (Scotland category A and B).

- Other listed buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or association not adequately reflected in their listing grade.

- Conservation areas containing very important buildings.

- Undesignated structures of clear national importance.

- Designated landscapes of outstanding historic interest (including Grade I and Grade II* Registered parks and gardens) and undesignated landscapes that would justify

236

Sensitivity Description

such designation, including those exhibiting considerable coherence, time depth or other critical factors; landscapes of national sensitivity.

- Assets that can contribute significantly to acknowledged national research objectives.

Medium - Designated or undesignated assets that contribute to regional research objectives.

- Grade II (Scotland category C) listed buildings.

- Unlisted buildings which can be shown to have high qualities in their fabric or historical association.

- Conservation areas containing important buildings.

- Historic townscapes or built up areas with historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (for example including street furniture or other structures).

- Designated landscapes of special historic interest (including Grade II registered parks and gardens) and undesignated landscapes that would justify such a designation, including averagely well preserved historic landscapes with reasonable coherence, time depth or other critical factors; landscapes of regional sensitivity.

Low - Undesignated assets of local importance including those compromised by poor preservation and poor survival of contextual associations.

- Assets of limited value, but with potential to contribute to local research objectives.

- Locally listed buildings and unlisted buildings of modest quality in their fabric or historical association.

- Historic townscape or built-up areas of limited historic integrity in their buildings (for example including street furniture or other structures).

- Robust undesignated historic landscapes including those with specific and substantial importance to local interest groups and those whose sensitivity is limited by poor preservation and/or survival of contextual associations.

237

Sensitivity Description

Very Low - Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest.

- Buildings of no architectural or historical note and buildings of an intrusive character.

- Landscapes with little or no significant historical interest.

Uncertain - Archaeological resources the importance of which cannot be ascertained.

- Buildings with some hidden (i.e. inaccessible) potential for historical significance.

Table 10.4: Stage 1 Sensitivity of Heritage Assets to Impacts on Setting

Stage 2: Impact Magnitude

10.3.16 Impact magnitude is the degree of change that would be experienced by a heritage asset and its setting (where applicable) if a development scheme were to be completed, compared with a ‘do-nothing’ situation.

10.3.17 Impacts can be either direct or indirect. Direct impact might involve the physical destruction of a standing heritage asset or the physical alteration or destruction of below-ground archaeological remains, as a result of development activities such as topsoil stripping and quarrying. An indirect impact involves an effect on the setting of a designated heritage asset for example, visual intrusion, damage due to drainage, vibration or subsidence; or increased dust, noise or pollution. Such impacts can be adverse or beneficial, temporary or permanent. The magnitude of impact has been considered in terms of major, moderate, minor, negligible or no change, as set out in Table 10.5 below:

Magnitude Impact Description

High - Change to most or all key archaeological or historic building elements, such that the asset is totally altered.

- Total changes to setting of archaeological or historic building assets.

- Change to most or all key historic landscape elements, parcels or components;

- extreme visual effects; gross change of noise or change to

238

Magnitude Impact Description

sound quality;

- fundamental changes to use or access; resulting in total change to the character of a historic landscape area.

Medium - Changes to many key archaeological or historic building elements, such that the asset is noticeably modified.

- Changes to setting of archaeological or historic building assets, such that it is noticeably modified.

- Changes to many key historic landscape elements, parcels or components;

- Visual change to many key aspects of the historic landscape; noticeable differences in noise or sound quality; considerable changes to use or access; resulting in moderate changes to the character of a historic landscape area.

Low - Changes to key archaeological or historic building elements, such that the asset is slightly modified.

- Changes to setting of archaeological or historic building assets, such that it is slightly altered and noticeably changed.

- Change to few key historic landscape elements, parcels or components; slight visual changes to few key aspects of historic landscape; limited changes to noise levels or sound quality; slight changes to use or access; resulting in limited changes to the character of a historic landscape area.

Very Low - Very minor changes to archaeological or historic building elements or setting.

- Very minor changes to key historic landscape elements, parcels or components;

- Virtually unchanged visual effects; very slight changes in noise levels or sound quality; very slight changes to use or access; resulting in very small change to the character of a historic landscape area.

No Change - No change to archaeological elements or historic building fabric and setting.

- No change to elements, parcels or components; no visual or audible changes;

239

Magnitude Impact Description

- No changes arising from amenity or community factors.

Table 10.5: Stage 2 Impact Magnitude

Stage 3: Impact Significance

10.3.18 The significance of effects upon the cultural heritage assets is assessed by combining the Stage 1 sensitivity of the asset to indirect impacts upon its setting (assessed according to the criteria set out in Table 10.3 above) and the Stage 2 impact magnitude (assessed according to the criteria set out in Table 10.4 above). The results of that combination are set out in Table 10.6 below:

Very High Very Major Major Moderate Minor Neutral

High Major Major Moderate Minor Neutral Asset Sensitivity Medium Major Moderate Minor Negligible Neutral (Table 10.4) Low Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible Neutral

Very Low Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Neutral

High Medium Low Very Low No Change

Impact Magnitude (Table 10.5)

Table 10.6: Stage 3 Impact Significance Matrix

Assumptions and Limitations

10.3.19 The following assumptions and limitations apply to this baseline study:

10.3.20 The HER records all known archaeological monuments; built heritage find-spots and events within their respective counties. The distribution of these elements is representative of previous archaeological interventions and research. Consequently, there is always a small potential for previously unknown and unrecorded, buried archaeology to exist.

10.3.21 The Stage 1 sensitivity rating of certain designated heritage assets is difficult to accurately assess due to the fact that the contribution of each asset’s setting to its own significance is often an unknown factor that is not definable within the scope of this assessment (see Table

240

10.4). For the purpose of this assessment however, a ‘worse-case scenario’ has been adopted for each heritage asset, in relation to its assumed level of importance, whereby the maximum potential level of asset contribution (sensitivity) is assessed, as opposed to a non-sensitive asset, whose setting does not contribute at all to its significance.

10.3.22 Differences in the visibility of these assets is reflected in their levels of Stage 2 impact magnitude; as all designated and non-designated assets within the non-visible zone have a Stage 2 impact magnitude of ‘No Change’ and a resulting Stage 3 impact significance of ‘Neutral’ by default. Only those assets within the 5km visible zone are assessed for non- physical impacts on their setting in detail in the following paragraphs.

10.3.23 This assessment is based upon currently available information at the time of writing.

10.4 Description of Baseline Conditions

The Site and Surroundings

Situation

10.4.1 The proposed development site is located approximately 1km south-west of the outskirts of Burnley and 2km south of the M65 motorway, within Hapton County Parish, Lancashire (Figure 4.1). The land available for development extends east and south from New Barn Farm, as shown in Figure 3.1. The proposed development site consists of an existing wind farm of three turbines (constructed in 2007) and three further turbines (constructed in 2013). The land extending south from New Barn Farm consists mainly of open moorland and grassland. The proposed development site covers an area of c. 248 hectares and its approximate central NGR is SD 381618 430022.

Topography, Geology & Soils

10.4.2 The site lies in the area of the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm which covers and area comprised of improved pasture, rough grassland and wet moorland at a height of approximately 280m AOD. The predominant soil type identified in the vicinity of the proposed development comprises slowly permeable wet and very acidic upland soils (Magic.co.uk). The underlying geology consists of the Pennine Lower Coal Measures Formation and South Wales Lower Coal Measures Formation (Undifferentiated) – mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, coal, ironstone and Ferricrete. There are also superficial deposits of glacial sand and gravel. (mapapps.bgs.ac.uk).

241

10.5 Assessment of Potential Effects

10.5.1 This section includes a description and tables of all designated and non-designated heritage assets within the study radii; including a number of tables listing all heritage assets identified within and beyond the boundary of the windfarm site, together with the assessed ratings for their Stage 1 sensitivity, Stage 2 impact magnitude and Stage 3 impact significance. These results are based on the methodology described in Section 2 and the criteria set out in Tables 4-6.

Previous Archaeological Investigations and known Archaeological Remains

Previous Archaeological Investigations

10.5.2 There are nine archaeological events/interventions recorded within the wider study area of this assessment:

• ELA1058: Hameldon Hill Wind Cluster, New Barn Farm, Burnley - Watching Brief Centred SD 80635 30111 (1401m by 948m): Watching brief carried out by OAN on construction of access road and turbine bases for the windfarm. No archaeological features were noted during construction, but earthworks of a medieval field system were identified and surveyed.

• ELA1144: White Hill Wind Farm, Burnley: Desk Based Assessment. Centred SD 84079 28780 (1785m by 1632m). Desk Based assessment carried out by Wessex Archaeology on potential site of a wind-farm. Most of the sites affected by the development were of post- medieval or later in date.

• ELA1461: Hameldon Community College: Desk Based Assessment. Centred SD 82431 31556 (260m by 295m). In June 2008, Oxford Archaeology North (OA North) was commissioned to undertake a Desk Based Assessment of the site for the purpose of the planning application, to consider the impact any work would have on potential surviving archaeological remains. The report found that there were a number of sites in the vicinity of the proposed development, two of which would be directly affected by any proposed construction works, a colliery and associated tramway, or ginney. A number of archaeological features were recorded during the subsequent programes of archaeological work:

242

• ELA1530: Hameldon Community College: Geophysical Survey. Centred SD 8243 3161 (176m by 173m). A Geophysical Survey across the playing field of the college, in the vicinity of the Cherry Fold Colliery and chain ginney, to establish the location and extent of any associated features. A Magnetometer Survey was conducted over the whole area, with a smaller area of resistivity targeting the site of the colliery to determine the location of any structures (Stratascan 2009).

• ELA1531: Hameldon Community College: Watching Brief and Trial Trenching. Centred SD 8243 3161 (176m by 173m). In consultation with Lancashire County Archaeology Service (LCAS), the positions of five trial trenches were agreed, targeting a number of anomalies and potential features seen in the survey data. However, due to on-going construction works on-site, in close proximity to the archaeological remains, an archaeological watching brief was maintained during topsoil stripping to bridge the gap between the Geophysical Survey results being issued and agreeing the location of the trial trenches with LCAS. Additional watching brief was undertaken around the trial trenches.

• ELA1784: Archaeological Identification Survey of North-West Water's Dunnockshaw. Centred SD 8677 2988 (11571m by 7517m). A Desk Based Assessment and rapid identification survey, undertaken in the spring of 1995, on the upland estates of Dunnockshaw and Worsthorne held by North-West Water.

• ELA1649: Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension: Desk Based Assessment. Centred SD 8033 3012 (4051m by 4725m). ES - Chapter 8 covers a DBA and 1 day walk-over survey of the cultural heritage.

• ELA2215: Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension, Burnley: Geophysical Survey. Centred on SD 8077 2986 (202m by 169m). The report presents the results of a Geophysical Survey conducted in advance of proposed development at Hameldon Hill Wind Farm near Burnley in Lancashire. The works comprised Geomagnetic Survey of approximately 2ha. The works were commissioned by CgMs Consulting and conducted by Archaeological Services, Durham University. Large areas of disturbed ground (dumping) were detected in the north‐west and north‐east of the survey area. Smaller concentrations of ferrous/fired materials or burnt areas were detected at the top of the slope near the remains of Hapton Tower. A concentration of small anomalies was detected over and around the remains of Hapton Tower.

243

• ELA2259: Hameldon Hill Wind Cluster, Burnley: Desk Based Assessment and Walk-Over Survey. Centred SD 8089 3003 (889m by 940m). An Archaeological Assessment was undertaken by The Centre for Wetland Research @ Hull of the area of a proposed Wind Cluster at Hameldon Hill, Burnley, Lancashire. This report is a Centre for Wetland Research 'Pre-Planning Archaeological Assessment' of the proposed development site. It does not include all aspects of archaeological desk based, or impact assessments as defined under the Institute of Field Archaeologists guidance and standards policy, but is a comprehensive survey of material available at this time. The CWR's undertakings adhere to the all the IFA's standards as defined in the Code of Archaeological Conduct. The focus of this report comprises the siting of three turbines and associated ancillary activities. The proposed development is located approximately 2km to the south-west of Burnley in the lee of Hameldon Hill, which rises to 399m above sea level. Any significant known archaeology in an area of approximately one kilometre from the proposed development site is taken into consideration.

• No features of probable archaeological significance were identified.

Where relevant these are referred to in Sections 10.5.3 – 10.5.21 below.

Archaeological Remains

10.5.3 Details of previously recorded archaeological sites and findspots within the 1km study radius were obtained from the Lancashire Historic Environment Records (LHER) as part of the baseline data-gathering exercise. Other sources were also consulted (see Table 10.1). This informs the Baseline Survey and the assessment of potential direct physical and non-physical impacts. The following chronological information relates briefly to the history of the site and its immediate vicinity.

• Prehistoric (450 00 BC – 43 AD)

10.5.4 There are no known heritage assets of Prehistoric date within the area of the proposed development and two recorded within wider study area (orange on Fig. 10.1).

10.5.5 Clow Hill, Nutshaw Hill, Dunnockshaw field clearance cairn, or possibly burial cairn (PRN15336) is recorded c. 175m to the south of the southern boundary of the proposed turbines adjacent to the existing windfarm extension area. The site consists of a large oval cairn 7m x 6.5m and 100mm high. Upright stones on the outside of the cairn may represent a kerb.

244

10.5.6 Rectilinear Enclosure near New Barn Farm, Hapton (PRN3498) consists of the earthwork remains of an embanked rectilinear enclosure, date uncertain, possibly a Later Prehistoric/Romano-British settlement or a medieval enclosure associated with Hapton Deer Park. The site lies c. 30m to the west of the western boundary of the proposed development area. It is a sub-rectangular enclosure with wide earthen banks. The enclosure, situated on a north-facing slope overlooking Burnley, is approximately 30m by 25m, with interior dimensions of approximately 15m by 20m. There appears to be an entranceway in the south- western corner facing the prevailing wind, and the upper most of the banks also has a prominent ditch on the outer (south-eastern) side. The banks are visible as extant earthworks between 0.2m to 0.4m in height with associated ditches of approximately 0.2m depth. Both the banks and the ditches are approximately 5m wide. The north-eastern enclosure bank survives under a dry stone wall, which is built parallel to and over it, a rise in the line of the wall highlighting its presence. There also appears to be a smaller ditch on the other (far) side of the wall although this is not well defined. The earthwork is part of a wider field system of earthen banks and ditches, similar in form to the enclosure banks. The first is 15m to the south-east (uphill) running parallel to the enclosure and continuing for approximately 60m from NE to SW. There are other earthwork features running immediately below Hapton tower, and others downhill to the north-west, in particular, a small quarry 20m in diameter, a small grassy mound 5m in diameter and another shorter 17m long earthen bank 110m to north- east, again disappearing under the stone boundary wall. There are no finds by which to date the site and interpretation as such is difficult (and as stated above could also be of Romano- British or medieval date).

• Roman (43 AD – 410 AD)

10.5.7 There are no heritage assets of Roman date recorded within the area of the proposed windfarm extension and two in the wider study area (purple on Fig. 10.1).

10.5.8 Apart from the enclosure detailed in the Prehistoric section above (PRN3498), the only other heritage asset of Roman date recorded within the wider 1km assessment area is that of a Roman coin of Constantine II (AD 316-40 – PRN235) which was found in 1900 c. 600m to the east of the eastern boundary of the proposed windfarm extension.

• Saxon (410 AD – 1065AD)

10.5.9 There are no heritage assets of Saxon date recorded within the area of the proposed windfarm extension or wider study area.

245

• Medieval (1066 AD – 1485AD)

10.5.10 There are two heritage assets of medieval date recorded within the site boundary and five within the wider study area (Green on Fig. 10.1).

10.5.11 Long Dyke (PRN15366) lies in the south-west corner of the proposed windfarm extension area, c. 600m to the south of the nearest turbine (Turbine 2). The forest boundary bank and ditch known as `the Long Dyke', part of the boundary of the medieval Forest of Rossendale, is marked on the OS first edition 1:10,560 map on Hameldon, but appears to have been destroyed by the construction of the Radar Station. The field boundary ditch beyond the northern limit of the survey area may belong to it.

10.5.12 The site of Hapton Tower (PRN261) lies c. 125m to the west of the western boundary of the proposed windfarm extension, c. 400m to the north-west of turbine 1. Hapton Tower was sold to Gilbert de le Legh. He was the son of John de le Legh who married Cecilia, daughter and heiress of Richard de Towneley and his grandson is styled Richard de Towneley, alias de la Legh, Sheriff of Lancashire in the year 1375 and his descendent, Sir John Towneley, had a Licence for making a Park at Hapton. Hapton was sequestered after the battle of Marston Moor, and the Tower fell into decay after the Restoration. Hapton Park was formerly abundantly stocked with deer and there are the remains of pitfalls dug for impounding stray deer. The tower had become derelict by 1725 according to accounts recorded by Whitaker (1872). The accounts state that the tower at that time stood six yards high, appeared to have been a square tower with three cylindrical towers along one wall and two entrances opposite one another. Several dwellings had been erected from within the outbuildings. There is documentary evidence for a deer park (PRN39568) associated with Hapton Tower but there is insufficient documentary or physical evidence to ascertain its location. It is postulated that it covers a large area of the proposed development area; including the area of the proposed turbines, but as stated above there is no physical evidence for the park in the area of the proposed turbines.

10.5.13 The Grade II listed base of a former cross (PRN2335, LB Ref. 1274582), date uncertain but possibly late medieval, lies c. 1km to the east of the eastern boundary of the area of the proposed windfarm extension. It consists of a roughly cubical stone block, half sunk in surface of field, with square housing for shaft in centre of upper surface. The cross is now an isolated feature in field, but there is a hollow way passing on roughly a north-south line c.20 metre to the west.

246

10.5.14 Earthwork remains of a low bank (PRN26234) are recorded 30m to the west of the western site boundary. The earthwork consists of a low bank extending south-west from Feature 26232, but respected by the ridge and furrow around it. Beginning underneath the field wall and running westwards, the bank is 19m long, 0.6m high and 7.5m wide. The earthwork was probably constructed between the medieval and post-medieval periods and appears to be a component part of Features 26229, 26230, 26232 and 26233 (see post-medieval section below).

10.5.15 Two areas of ridge and furrow (PRN’s 23231 & 26236), dating to the medieval or post- medieval periods, are recorded within the wider study area. PRN26231 consists of ridge and furrow which can be seen across much of the field in which the earlier constructed Turbine 1 is located. The ridge and furrow covers an area roughly 75m by 400m, although much of it has already been disturbed due to the long term presence of agriculture and animal husbandry in this field. The ridge and furrow runs north-west/south-east along the north-east incline of the field but appears to respect many of the other features around it. PRN26236 consists of ridge and furrow which can be seen, in a roughly rectangular area (c 270m by c 80m), to the west of the stream. There is more definition here than there is to the ridge and furrow on the east side of the field, PRN26231. This site runs up to the foot of the hillock on which Hapton Tower once stood. The ridge and furrow may also have been truncated by quarrying to the west.

• Post-medieval (1485 AD – 1899 AD)

10.5.16 There are fifteen known heritage assets of post-medieval date within the area of the windfarm and fifty-eight recorded within the wider study area (Pink on Fig. 10.1). Out of these, four are listed buildings and are discussed in Section 10.5.25 below.

10.5.17 The majority of the known post-medieval heritage assets come from map descriptions and are detailed in Table 10.7 below:

HER Monument Name Description Distance and Reference Direction from Proposed Development Site Boundary

6889 Cherry Fold Playing Colliery shown on OS 6 inch map, c. 700m north-east Fields, Burnley 1848. Excavations in 2008 uncovered remains of the coal mine prior to the school's

247

HER Monument Name Description Distance and Reference Direction from Proposed Development Site Boundary redevelopment.

6895 Nr. Back Lane Farm, Coal pit shown on OS 1848 first on north-east Rossendale Road, edition map, no longer extant. boundary Habergham Eaves

6896 Between Habergham Coal pit shown on OS 1848 first c. 670m east Hall Farm and edition map, no longer extant. Rossendale Road, Habergham Eaves

6897 Nr. Habergham Hall Sandstone quarry shown on OS c. 400m north-east Farm 1848 six inch map, no longer extant.

6898 Adjacent to This smithy, next to Habergham c. 400m north-east Habergham Hall Hall, is shown on the OS first edition 1: 10,560 map. It is not shown on the current sheet.

6899 North-west of Coal pit and ruin shown on OS c. 250m north-east Habergham Hall first edition map, 1848, no longer extant.

7601 South-west of Coal pit shown on OS first edition c. 330m north Burnley Cemetery map, 1848, no longer extant.

7602 South-west of Coal pit shown on OS first edition c. 250m north Burnley Cemetery map, 1848, no longer extant.

7603 From Leeds Liverpool Tram road shown on OS 1848 six c. 650m north canal to south-west inch map, no longer extant. of Burnley Cemetery

7604 Boundary of Coal pit shown on OS first edition on north-east Habergham Eaves map, 1848. boundary and Hapton, West of Habergham Hall

7605 Nr. Watson Laithe, Spa well shown on OS 6 inch c.150m north Hapton map, 1848.

7606 Old Barn, Hapton Barn shown on OS first edition c. 630m north-

248

HER Monument Name Description Distance and Reference Direction from Proposed Development Site Boundary map, 1848, possibly incorporated west in later building.

7612 North-west of This sandstone quarry is shown c. 250m east Further Barn, on the OS first edition map, but Micklehurst Clough not on the current sheet.

7613 Further Barn, Pre-1848 combination barn, c. 425m east Habergham Eaves converted to residential use in 2009.

7614 West of Long Syke, Well shown on OS 1848 six inch c. 490m east Habergham Eaves map, no longer extant.

7615 Long Syke, Farmhouse shown on OS 1848 six c. 660m east Habergham Eaves inch map, shown as rebuilt to the north on the OS 1893 25 inch map.

7644 South-west of Great These two sandstone quarries are c. 1km south-west Hill, Hapton annotated ‘rubble’, and are shown on the OS first edition 1:10,560 map. The quarry at SD 80152848 is still discernible on the current sheet.

7646 West of Great Hill, Coal pit, pre-1848 and possible c. 650 south-west Hapton earlier bell pits.

7647 Cupola Colliery, Coal pit, pre-1848, working the c. 400m south- south west of Great Arley Mine seam, abandoned west Hill, Hapton 1887.

7648 Hameldon Hill, Sandstone quarry (rubble) shown c. 190m south north-west of New on OS first edition map, 1848. Laithe

7649 South of Hapton Three lime kilns in a possible c. 200m west, Tower hushed area shown on OS within 500m of 1:10,560 mapping of 1848. Turbine 1

7650 North-East of Hapton Sandstone quarry (flags) shown Within site boundary and

249

HER Monument Name Description Distance and Reference Direction from Proposed Development Site Boundary Tower on OS first edition map, 1848. within 500m of Turbines 1 & 3

7651 West of Hapton Coal pit shown on OS first edition Within site Tower map, 1848. boundary and within 500m of Turbines 1 & 3

7652 West of Springfield This group of sandstone quarries c. 625m south House, Dunnockshaw is shown on the OS first edition map. On the current sheet they are still discernible as a mixture of pits and quarry.

7653 Helm Clough, Hapton Sandstone quarry shown on OS Within site first edition map, 1848. boundary and within 500m of Turbine 3

7654 Between Helm Sandstone quarry (rubble) shown Within site Clough and Barn on OS first edition map, 1848. boundary Clough, Hapton

7655 North of Porter's Sandstone quarry (rubble) shown Within site Gate Height, Hapton on OS first edition map, 1848. boundary

7656 Black Hill, Hapton This reservoir is show on the OS Within site first edition 1:10,560 map. On the boundary current sheet it is shown as a pond within a marshy area the size of the original reservoir.

7657 New Laithe, New Laithe is shown on the OS c. 320m south Dunnockshaw first edition map and on the current sheet. The quarry, slightly to the south, is only shown on the older map.

7658 South-east of New This sandstone quarry is shown c. 380m south Laithe, Dunnockshaw on the OS first edition map and is still discernible on the current sheet.

250

HER Monument Name Description Distance and Reference Direction from Proposed Development Site Boundary

7661 Lower Nutshaw, House shown on OS 1848 six inch c. 600m south-east Dunnockshaw map, still extant.

7662 North of Lower This gritstone quarry is shown on c.500m south-east Nutshaw, the OS first edition map. An Dunnockshaw extended version is discernible on the current sheet.

7664 Higher Nutshaw, Higher Nutshaw, as it is called on c. 480m south-east Habergham Eaves the current sheet, is called ‘Nutshaw’ on the OS first edition map, as was a house slightly to the south (PRN 7661).

7665 North of Clowbridge This well is shown on the OS first c. 700m south-east Reservoir, edition map, but not on the Habergham Eaves current sheet.

7666 North of Higher This coal pit is shown on the OS c. 640m south-east Nutshaw, Burnt Hill first edition 1:10,560 map, but not on the current sheet.

7667 Burnt Hill, This sandstone quarry is shown c. 460m south-east Habergham Eaves on the OS first edition map and is still visible, though larger, on the current sheet.

7668 Burnt Hills Colliery, Two coal pits shown on OS first From south-east Habergham edition map of 1848. Two further corner of site and shafts and tramway, etc. appear up to 675m south- before 1893. Closed 1920. east

7669 North of Burnt Hill, This coal pit is shown on the OS c. 80m east Habergham Eaves first edition 1:10,560 map, but not on the current sheet. It may represent part of the Burnt Hills Colliery.

7670 Waggoners' Inn, Inn shown on OS 1848 mapping, c.600m east Manchester Road, still extant. Habergham Eaves

251

HER Monument Name Description Distance and Reference Direction from Proposed Development Site Boundary

7671 Higher Micklehurst, Higher Micklehurst, a small c.490m east Manchester Road farmstead, is shown on the OS (off), Habergham first edition 1:10,560 mapping of Eaves 1848. The early layout does not coincide with that shown on the 1893 1:2,500 sheet and modern maps and it has probably been rebuilt.

7672 Lower Oaken Eaves, Shown on OS 1848 six inch map, c.450m east Habergham Eaves still extant.

7673 Higher Oaken Eaves, House, perhaps a small c. 670m east Manchester Road, farmstead, pre-1848, still extant. Habergham Eaves

7674 Higher Gibfield, Higher Gibfield, as it is called on c. 950m east Habergham Eaves the current sheet, is shown as on ‘Gibfield’ on the OS first edition map.

7676 Limey Lane, This sandstone quarry is shown c. 650m east Clowbridge on the OS first edition map. On Reservoir, the current sheet it is under Habergham Eaves Clowbridge reservoir.

15348 Cronkshaw Hill, A cottage marked on the OS first c. 900m south-east Clowbridge edition 1:10,560 map with this Reservoir, name is now beneath Clowbridge Dunnockshaw Reservoir.

15383 Hapton Valley Colliery dated 1901-82, though c. 200m north Colliery possibly originated in 1853. Shown on OS 1894 25 inch map.

19193 Hapton Valley Coal Late C19 drift mine still in use, c. 300m north Mine closure imminent. Two shafts with headgear, some late C19 brick buildings and some early steelframed structures.

22113 Old Quarry, north of An 'Old Quarry' is shown on the Within site

252

HER Monument Name Description Distance and Reference Direction from Proposed Development Site Boundary New Barn, off A679 1894 OS 1:2,500 mapping but not boundary Accrington Road, the 1848 1:10,560 sheet. A near Hapton second 'Old Quarry' has appeared by the time of the 1912 1:2,500 mapping. Earthworks are still visible on aerial photographs.

22119 Air Shaft, c.800m Post-1848 No longer extant. Within site south of Billington boundary Road, Burnley

22123 Old Quarry, Belshaw Post-1848 No longer extant. c.140m north Court, Billington Road, Burnley

32977 Hameldon Hill, east An air shaft is shown on the OS c. 290m west of Tower Brook, first edition 1:2,500 mapping (but Hapton not the 1848 1:10,560 map) and is still shown on modern maps and aerial photographs. It is probably a ventilation shaft associated with former coal mines.

32978 Hapton Lower Park A rifle range is shown on the OS Within site first edition 1;10,560 mapping boundary and within Lower Park at Hapton. within 500m of Some of the earthworks can still Turbines 1 & 2 be seen on aerial photographs.

32981 West of New Barn, An 'Old Quarry' is shown on the Within site Hapton OS 1893 1:2,500 mapping but not boundary the earlier 1:10,560 sheet.

32982 East of Hapton A fold is shown in the corner of Within site Tower two fields on the 1848 1:10,560 boundary mapping. It had vanished by 1893.

36694 Porter's Gate, Farmstead shown on OS 1848 six Within site Hapton inch map. boundary

253

HER Monument Name Description Distance and Reference Direction from Proposed Development Site Boundary

36695 Porter's Gate Colliery shown on OS 1893 25 Within site Colliery, Hapton inch map, no longer extant. boundary

36716 Old Barn Farmhouse C19 farmhouse, probably pre- c. 620m north- (now Old Barn House 1848. Now divided into three west and Old Barn dwellings. Cottage), Hapton

36761 Horelaw or Wholaw Site of farmstead or cottages, c. 890m south-east Nook, Manchester pre-1848. Road, Habergham Eaves

37111 Moss End, Hapton Farmstead shown on OS 1848 six c. 790m south- inch map, no longer extant. west

37719 Burnley Cemetery The cemetery was opened on 1st c. 550m north Jun 1856. Listed as Grade B in 1998 and recommended for inclusion in English Heritage's Register of Parks and Gardens.

Table 10.7: Post-Medieval Monuments Recorded as Map Depictions

10.5.18 A number of other landscape features (earthworks etc) were also identified within the wider study area during an Archaeological Identification Survey undertaken by Gifford and Partners in 1995. These monuments are detailed in Table 10.8 below:

HER Monument Name Description Distance and Reference Direction from Proposed Development Site Boundary

11210 Thorny Bank Wood, The linear earthwork running c. 700m west Hapton east-west across the centre of AP N3184 is the former boundary of the wooded area (shown on OS first edition map). Other features

254

HER Monument Name Description Distance and Reference Direction from Proposed Development Site Boundary appear to be drainage.

15289 Hameldon Hill, Linear cultivation marks, aligned c. 50m south Dunnockshaw downslope NW-SE with an elevation of 100mm and a spacing of c.700mm. Initially thought to be ridge and furrow, but because the marks run downslope, thought to be modern drainage.

15290 Nutshaw Hill, Linear bank and ditch c.4m wide c. 125m south Dunnockshaw and with an elevation of 400mm - 1m from ditch bottom to bank top. Orientated SW-NE, parallel to the N boundary of the survey area extending to merge with a dry stream bed at its eastern extremity. Boundary bank and ditches, forming part of field system earlier than those fields delineated by drystone walls marked on present OS map.

15291 Nutshaw Hill and On southern slope of Nutshaw c. 520m south Clough Height, Hill a very ruinous drystone wall Dunnockshaw (marked on current OS maps) orientated NE-SW, approximately 100mm high, with the spread of collapsed and overgrown stone varying from 1 to 2m. Quarrying activity has truncated the wall to the south field boundary wall.

15313 Bank Clough, On the eastern edge of a small c. 500m south Dunnockshaw stream valley lies a length of drystone wall (10m long, 1.2m high) at base of pasture/top of valley, covered by soil encroachment from the land above to the north. Preventative

255

HER Monument Name Description Distance and Reference Direction from Proposed Development Site Boundary measure for landslips into water channel PRN 15314

15314 Bank Clough, South of revetment PRN 15313, c. 500m south Dunnockshaw the stream banks have been straightened and retained by a drystone wall, 32m long 1.5m wide and 500mm high. Water flows out through into curved 500mm wide stone-built channel. A small tributary channel joins the main one from the NE. The combined flow enters a stone built arched culvert which appears to divert the flow from the stream bed which is dry thereafter. Channels draining the surrounding pasture.

15315 Bank Clough, A stream bed between two man- c. 500m south Dunnockshaw made levees, 2m deep and 7m wide. Major agricultural drain.

15316 Bank Clough, A T-shaped drystone structure 23 c. 500m south Dunnockshaw x 13m with walls 1.3-1.6m high. Sheep shelter.

Table 10.8: Post-Medieval Monuments Recorded During Previous Field Survey Work

 Modern (1900 – Present)

10.5.19 There are no heritage assets of modern date recorded within the area of the windfarm and a single heritage asset of modern date recorded within the wider study area. New Laithe Height, Hameldon Hill (WWII 'Starfish' bombing decoy – PRN1970) lies 275m to the south-west of the windfarm site boundary. The decoy is a SAM (SAM Ref. 1020666). Aerial photographs show numbers of small rectangular features, and some larger sub-rectangular features, subdivided (usually into four). All are very regular and have the appearance of fairly recent features of little or no antiquity. The monument includes the Hameldon Hill World War II bombing decoy

256

located in enclosed land on the south-facing slope of Hameldon Hill 390m north of Heights Farm. It is one of five bombing decoys which were located on the east Lancashire moorlands around Accrington and it was constructed with the intention of replicating the fire effects an enemy night bombing raid would cause to industrial and urban targets in Accrington or its surrounding towns, thus encouraging further attack on the decoy as opposed to the real target. Although the precise lifespan of this decoy is unknown, official records indicate that construction began during early spring 1941 and that it was still operational during March 1942. The bombing decoy includes the earthworks and buried remains of numerous rectangular and sub-rectangular firebreaks within which various types of fires were ignited, together with the remains of two associated control buildings and the access roads between these features. When first constructed Hameldon Hill bombing decoy was of a type known as a `Permanent Starfish', also known as `SF' or `PSF' decoys, within which assorted fire types such as coal, oil and paraffin were ignited from the control building and burned in discrete areas surrounded by firebreak trenches. During the autumn of 1941 the decoy was enhanced by the addition of simulated urban lighting, also known as `QL' decoys, and from then on became a joint QL/SF decoy. Official records indicate that the simulated urban lighting at Hameldon Hill took the form of railway marshalling yards, furnace glows and locomotive glows. An aerial photograph taken in 1946 clearly depicts four large sub-rectangular areas delineated by relatively freshly-cut firebreaks, each of which has been sub-divided into numerous compartments by additional firebreaks. Each of these compartments would have contained flammable material ready for igniting in advance of an enemy air attack. Also visible on the aerial photograph are over 20 small rectangular features considered to have been used as the simulated lighting replicating the marshalling yards. The site of the two control buildings is also visible at approximately SD80712830. All the firebreaks are now grassed over although their earthworks can be clearly seen. The control buildings have been demolished although their original location is represented by building platforms. Scattered building material suggests that these control buildings were wholly or partly of drystone construction. All modern field boundaries and gateposts are excluded from the scheduling, although the ground beneath these features is included.

• Undated

10.5.20 There is a single known undated heritage assets within the boundary of the windfarm and six recorded within the wider study area (black on Fig. 2).

257

10.5.21 A watching brief undertaken in 2006 during the construction of the access tracks for the current turbines on the site revealed no archaeological features, but did note earthworks thought to relate to a medieval field system (PRN26215) c. 380m to the north-west of the proposed turbine 1.

10.5.22 A possible D-shaped enclosure (PRN1982) is visible on aerial photographs c. 650m to the west of the site boundary.

10.5.23 A series of earthworks are recorded to the north-west of the proposed new turbines (beyond the western site boundary) - (PRN’s 26232, 26233, 26235 & 26237). PRN26232 consists of the earthwork remains of a small sub-circular mound, c. 10m wide and 1.5m high. To the north lies a similar feature and a banked enclosure with which it appears to be associated. There is some hollowing-out of this feature, which is now used by sheep as a place to shelter from inclement weather. It is not clear whether the hollow is natural or man-made (Oxford Archaeology 2006). PRN26233 consists of two banked hollows, both partly surmounted by the modern field wall. The southern-most feature appears to have an entrance to the north. The bank is 1m high and 2m across. The internal size of the hollow is 8m x 5m. It is not clear whether the hollows are an original component of the feature or a later man-made addition. Both appear to relate to PRN26230, the banked enclosure. PRN26235 consists of the earthwork remains of a ditch and twin banks c 206m long. The ditch has a bank to the south, although this may be a lynchet partly formed by ploughing. A second bank was located 3m to the north, where the access road crossed it. It is probable that some building foundations may be submerged around this site. PRN26237 consists of the earthwork remains of a possible building platform. Measuring roughly 15m north/south by 5m east/west. Although overgrown, there is evidence of masonry and other building materials.

Designated Heritage Assets

10.5.24 The heritage baseline data identified a single designated heritage asset within the proposed development area (Grade II listed building of a barn and former farmhouse circa 50 metres east of new barn farmhouse – listed building No. 1222601). Within the wider study areas there are 211 designated heritage assets within the visible zone (ZTV) of the 5km study area (3 scheduled monuments, 3 Grade I listed buildings, 4 Grade II* listed buildings, 186 Grade II listed buildings, 5 registered parks and gardens and 10 conservation areas. All of the remaining designated heritage assets within the wider 5km study area are screened from the area of the

258

proposed turbines by intervening topography, buildings, vegetation, and other landscape features.

10.5.25 Only those designated assets having potential intervisibility (within the ZTV) are assessed in detail below.

Scheduled Ancient Monuments

10.5.26 There are six scheduled monuments within the 5km wider study area, three of which lie in or on the edge of the ZTV. All of these assets have been assessed and are summarised in Table 10.9 below:

SAM No. Summary Distance & Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. Direction Sensitivity Impact Impact from to Indirect Magnitude Significance Windfarm Impacts Boundary

1020666 NEW LAITHE HEIGHT, 275m High No Change Neutral HAMELDON HILL (WWII south-west 'STARFISH' BOMBING DECOY) This asset lies outside the ZTV: changes in topography result in no intervisibility between the monument and any of the proposed turbines. This asset is described in Section 10.5.19 above

1013816 HAPTON CASTLE c. 2.9km High No Change Neutral north-west This asset lies on the very edge of the ZTV and during the site walkover it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines due to changes in topography and screening provided by

259

SAM No. Summary Distance & Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. Direction Sensitivity Impact Impact from to Indirect Magnitude Significance Windfarm Impacts Boundary

modern housing.

1005084 OAKMOUNT MILL ENGINE c. 3.7km High No Change Neutral AND ENGINE HOUSE, north-east WISEMAN STREET This asset lies outside the ZTV: changes in topography result in no intervisibility between the monument and any of the proposed turbines.

1005089 ICE HOUSE AT TOWNELEY c. 4.2km High No Change Neutral HALL east

This asset lies outside the ZTV: changes in topography result in no intervisibility between the monument and any of the proposed turbines.

1005100 IGHTENHILL MANOR (SITE c. 4.3km High No Change Neutral OF) north There is no intervisibility between this heritage asset

and any of the propsed turbines due to screening provided by modern housing and vegetation (trees to the immediate south).

1018362 WARREN AT EVERAGE c. 3.8km High No Change Neutral CLOUGH 450M NORTH-EAST east OF NEW COPY FARM This asset lies outside the ZTV: changes in topography result in no intervisibility between the monument and

260

SAM No. Summary Distance & Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. Direction Sensitivity Impact Impact from to Indirect Magnitude Significance Windfarm Impacts Boundary

any of the proposed turbines.

Table 10.9: Assessment of Potential Non-Physical (visual settings) Impacts to Scheduled Monuments within the 5km Study Area

Listed Buildings

10.5.27 Buildings are graded according to their importance:

• Grade I buildings are those of exceptional interest;

• Grade II* are particularly important buildings of more than special interest;

• Grade II are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them.

10.5.28 A single Grade II listed building (Ref. 1222601) lies within the boundary of the windfarm site, c. 700m to the north of the central point of the proposed new turbines, 193 (Grade I , II* & II) within the visible zone of the 5km ZTV (Table 10.10). Where direct access to the listed buildings was not available, the nearest publically available accessible land was used to determine views towards the proposed development area.

261

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts

1237626 I GAWTHORPE HALL AND SURROUNDING BALUSTRADE c. 4.5km High No Change Neutral north

During the site visit it was determined that there are no views between this asset and any of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings and vegetation (woodland) to the south.

1237628 I GREAT BARN CIRCA 100 METRES WEST OF GAWTHORPE c. 4.5km High No Change Neutral HALL north

During the site visit it was determined that there are no views between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to interveening vegetation (woodland) to the south.

1274420 I SHUTTLEWORTH HALL c. 3.8km High No Change Neutral north-west

During the site visit it was determined that there are no views between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to interveening vegetation, buildings and other landcape features.

1022640 II* CHURCH OF ST PETER c. 4.5km High No Change Neutral north-east

During the site visit it was determined that there are no views between this asset and any of the proposed turbines

262

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts (including projected blade tips) due to interveening vegetation, buildings and other landcape features.

1222599 II* ARCHED GATEWAY AND GARDEN WALL ATTACHED TO c. 3.8km High No Change Neutral SOUTH FRONT OF SHUTTLEWORTH HALL north-west

During the site visit it was determined that there are no views between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to interveening vegetation, buildings and other landcape features.

1244905 II* BURNLEY MECHANICS c. 4km High No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies on the very edge of the ZTV and during the site visit it was confirmed that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1274125 II* STOCKBRIDGE HOUSE c. 4km north High No Change Neutral

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site visit that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to the interveening buildings to the south.

263

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts

1022604 II LEEDS AND LIVERPOOL CANAL BOUNDARY MARKER ABOVE c. 3.3km Medium Very Low Negligible GANNOW TUNNEL north-east (not significant)

It was noted during the site visit that it would be possible to see both the turbine hubs and blade tips behind and to the east of the existing turbines from this asset.

However, the distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the small-scale nature of the proposed development, and the prescence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

1022605 II CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY c. 3.6km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1022606 II WOODTOP PRIMARY SCHOOL, WITH FORECOURT WALLS, c. 3.3km Medium No Change Neutral PIERS, RAILINGS AND north-east OVERTHROW This monument lies on the very edge of the ZTV and during

264

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts the site visit it was confirmed that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1022610 II MILL CHIMNEY AND ATTACHED ENGINE HOUSE WEST OF c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral JUNCTION WITH CALDER VALE ROAD north-east

This monument lies on the very edge of the ZTV and during the site visit it was confirmed that there is no intervisibility at ground level between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and changes in topography.

1022612 II FISHWICKS COTTAGES c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies on the very edge of the ZTV’s and during the site visit it was confirmed that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and changes in topography.

1022613 II THE CHURCHILL PUBLIC HOUSE c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies within the turbine tip ZTV. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub &

265

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts blade tips) due to interveening buildings

1022614 II 64, 66 AND 68, BANK PARADE c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies within the turbine tip ZTV. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings.

1022616 II BURNLEY COLLEGE ADULT EDUCATION CENTRE c. 4.5km Medium Very Low Negligible north-east (not

significant) This monument lies within the ZTV’s for both hub and blade tips. It was noted during the site visit that it was possible to see the top of the hub and blade tips for two of the existing turbines on the site and therefore it may be possible that there would be distance views of the proposed turbine(s) may be possible.

However, the distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the small-scale nature of the proposed development, and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

The construction of the turbines, and any views towards them, will also not impact on the important relationship

266

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts between the Education Centre and the listed railings and gatepiers to the south of the main building. The relationship between the Education Centre and the other nearby listed monuments (below) will also be unaffected.

At worse there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

1022617 II CROSS OF ST PAULINUS IN GARDEN OF BURNLEY COLLEGE c. 4.5km Medium Very Low Negligible ADULT EDUCATION CENTRE north-east (not significant)

This monument lies adjacaent ot he Burnley Education Centre and it may be possible there would be distant views of the turbine tips from this monument (although the Education Centre is likely to screeen any views.

At worse there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset..

1022618 II MARKET CROSS AND STOCKS IN GARDEN OF BURNLEY c. 4.5km Medium Very Low Negligible COLLEGE OF ADULT EDUCATION CENTRE north-east (not significant)

This monument lies adjacaent ot he Burnley Education Centre and it may be possible there would be distant views of the turbine tips from this monument (although the

267

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts Education Centre is likely to screeen any views.

At worse there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

1022619 II SHOREY WELL IN GARDEN OF BURNLEY COLLEGE ADULT c. 4.5km Medium Very Low Negligible EDUCATION CENTRE north-east (not significant)

This monument lies adjacaent ot he Burnley Education Centre and it may be possible there would be distant views of the turbine tips from this monument (although the Education Centre is likely to screeen any views).

At worse there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

1022621 II RAILINGS, GATE PIERS AND GATE TO BURNLEY COLLEGE c. 4.5km Medium Very Low Negligible ADULT EDUCATION CENTRE north-east (not significant)

This monument lies within the ZTV’s for both hub and blade tips. It was noted during the site visit that it was possible to see the top of the hub and blade tips for two of the existing turbines on the site and distance views of the proposed turbine(s) may be possible. However, the key relationship between this monument and the Education Centre will not be impacted on by the construction of the proposed

268

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts turbines.

At worse there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

1022622 II RETAINING WALL OF RIVER BRUN WITH ASSOCIATED c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral RAILINGS north-east

This monument lies within the turbine tip ZTV. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings.

1022623 II THE GOIT c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies within the turbine tip ZTV and during the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings.

1022625 II THE STACKHOUSES c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies within the turbine tip ZTV and during the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub &

269

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts blade tips) due to interveening buildings.

1022626 II 4 AND 6, BANKHOUSE STREET c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies within the turbine tip ZTV. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings.

1022629 II WAREHOUSE OCCUPIED BY READERS SCRAP METAL c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral MERCHANTS north-east

This monument lies on the very edge of the ZTV and during the site visit it was confirmed that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to interveening vegetation, buildings and topography.

1022632 II JIREH BAPTIST CHURCH c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1022634 II BRIDGE INN AND ATTACHED RAILINGS c. 4.3km Medium No Change Neutral north-east This monument lies on the very edge of the ZTV and during the site visit it was confirmed that there is no intervisibility

270

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to interveening buildings.

1022635 II THE TOWN MOUSE PUBLIC HOUSE c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies on the very edge of the ZTV and during the site visit it was confirmed that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to interveening vegetation, buildings and topography.

1022636 II MILESTONE INSET INTO TURF MOOR FOOTBALL GROUND c. 4.4km Medium No Change Neutral PERIMETER WALL north-east

This monument lies on the edge of the ZTV’s to the east of Burnley toen centre. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and topography.

1022637 II 83, 85 AND 87, CHURCH STREET c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies within the ZTV’s for both hub and blade tips. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings,

271

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts vegetation and topography.

1022639 II 89 AND 91, CHURCH STREET c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies within the ZTV’s for both hub and blade tips. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and topography.

1022643 II CHAFFER MONUMENT APPROXIMATELY 12 METRES SOUTH c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral OF CHURCH OF ST PETER north-east

This monument lies within the ZTV’s for both hub and blade tips. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and topography.

1072720 II CANAL BRIDGE (ALTHAM BRIDGE) c. 4.2 north- Medium Very Low Negligible west (not

significant) There would be clear views of both the turbine hubs and blade tips from the bridge. However, the distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the smal-lscale nature of the proposed development, and the prescence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be very

272

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

1072745 II CHURCH OF ST AUGUSTINE (OF HIPPO) c. 4km west Medium No Change Neutral

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1072754 II HIGH BRAKE HALL c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-west

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1222601 II BARN A34ND FORMER FARMHOUSE CIRCA 50 METRES EAST c. 700m Medium Low Minor (not OF NEW BARN FARMHOUSE north significant)

This is the closest listed building to both the existing turbines and the proposed new turbines. Both the turbine hubs and blade tips will be visible from this asset, but they will lie adjacent to the existing turbines and as such will not introduce a new element into the vistas from this asset.

273

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts There are no significant vistas which would be impacted on by the erection of the proposed turbines which will lie to the south of the barn, uphill and away from the views over Burnley, Hapton and Padiham.

The current setting of this post-medieval asset consists of modern industrial activity (existing turbines), which themselves were constructed within a landsacpe consisting of post-medieval industrial activity (extraction of sandstone etc).

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset .

1238536 II LOWER FENNY FOLD FARMHOUSE c. 3.9km Medium Very Low Negligible north-west (not

significant) It was not possible to gain close access to this monument during the site visit, but it is likely that there would be clear views of the turbine hubs and blade tips from this monument.

However, the distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the smallscale nature of the proposed development, and the prescence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be very minor changes to the

274

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts setting of this heritage asset.

1237623 II HAPTON HALL FARMHOUSE c. 2.7km Medium Very Low Negligible north-west (not

significant) It was noted during the site walk visit that there were no views towards the turbines at ground level. However, it may be possible to gain distant views of the turbines from the east facing first floor windows.

However, the distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the small-scale nature of the proposed development, and the prescence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

1237624 II CANAL BRIDGE NUMBER 121 c. 2.9km Medium Very Low Negligible north-west (not

significant) There would be clear views of the turbine hubs and blade tips from this monument. The new turbines would lie behind and to the east of the existing turbines on the site and as such would not be an entirely new landscape feature visible from this monument.

However, the distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the small-scale nature of the proposed development, and the prescence of existing turbines on the

275

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts site means that there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

1237625 II BOUNDARY STONE AT NORTH END OF COPSE ON PLAYING c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral FIELD AT SD 805 343 north

During the site visit it was determined that there are no views between this asset and any of the proposed turbines due to intervening buildings and vegetation.

1237627 II TERRACE WALL FORMING NORTH BOUNDARY TO GARDEN c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral OF GAWTHORPE HALL OVERLOOKING RIVER CALDER north

During the site visit it was determined that there are no views between this asset and any of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings and vegetation (woodland) to the south.

1237629 II ESTATE OFFICES ETC, ON SOUTH SIDE OF COURTYARD, CIRCA c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral 20 METRES SOUTH OF north GREAT BARN

During the site visit it was determined that there are no views between this asset and any of the proposed turbines due to intervening buildings and vegetation (woodland) to the south.

276

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts

1237630 II 22-26, BANK STREET c. 4.8km Medium No Change Neutral north-west

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings.

1237634 II GATEPIERS AT STOCKBRIDGE LODGE Medium No Change Neutral

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1237655 II 2 FACTORY LANE c. 4.8km Medium No Change Neutral north-west

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings.

1237658 II 29, MILL STREET c. 4.8km Medium No Change Neutral north-west

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the

277

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation a nd other landscape features.

1237867 II HABERGHAM HALL FARMHOUSE c. 1.6km Medium Low Minor (not north-east significant)

Both the proposed turbine hubs and blade tips will be visible from this asset, but lying adjacent to the existing turbines they will not add a new element into the setting of this asset. The current setting of this post-medieval asset consists of modern industrial activity (existing turbines and adjacent industrial estate), which themselves were constructed within a landscape consisting of post-medieval industrial activity (extraction of sandstone etc).

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset.

1237998 II WATSON LAITHE FARMHOUSE AND ATTACHED BARN c. 1.4km Medium Low Minor (not north significant)

Both the proposed turbine hubs and blade tips will be visible from this asset, but lying adjacent to the existing turbines they will not add a new element into the setting of this post- medieval asset. The current setting of this asset consists of modern industrial activity (existing turbines, overhead power cables and adjacent industrial estate), which

278

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts themselves were constructed within a landsacpe consisting of post-medieval industrial activity (extraction of sandstone etc).

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset .

1238155 II 2, BANK STREET c. 4.8km Medium No Change Neutral north-west

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings on the south-side of Church Street/Mill Street.

1238196 II BARCLAYS BANK c. 4.8km Medium Very Low Negligible north-west (not

significant) It was noted during the site visit that there was no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines and the bank at ground level.

It may be possible to see the new turbines, behind and to the east of the exisiting turbines, from the south-west facing first floor winds or from the turret windows at the northern end of the building.

279

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts However, the distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the smallscale nature of the proposed development, and the prescence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

1238257 II STOCKBRIDGE LODGE c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral north

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1238377 II NAZARETH UNITARIAN CHURCH c. 4.8km Medium Very Low Negligible north-west (not

significant) During the site visit it was noted that it was possible to see distant views of the turbine from the memorial park adjacent to the church, but it was not possible to see the turbines from the accessible areas around the church.

However, it is likely that there would be distant views of the turbines from the south-side of the church. These views would already include the existing turbines behind which, and to the east, the new turbines would be located.

280

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts The distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the small-scale nature of the proposed development, and the prescence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

1244799 II FORMER PUBLIC HALL AND TECHNICAL SCHOOL c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244806 II OLD VICARAGE c. 3.3km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features. 1244883

1244808 II 5, GRIMSHAW STREET c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in

281

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts topography.

1244809 II REGISTRY OFFICE c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244810 II NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244811 II FORMER BURNLEY COOPERATIVE SOCIETY PREMISES c. 3.9km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244813 II 12 AND 14, HAMMERTON STREET c. 3.9km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the

282

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244814 II SHIFTERS c. 3.9km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244815 II NUMBER 79 AND MOUNT PLEASANT BAPTIST CHURCH c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244832 II POST OFFICE c. 3.9km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244833 II FORMER CLIFTON FARMHOUSE AND CLIFTON COTTAGE c. 4.2k Medium No Change Neutral north-east Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site

283

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings and vegetation.

1244834 II ROSEDALE c. 3km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings and vegetation.

1244835 II WAREHOUSE ON CANALSIDE AT JUNCTION WITH c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral MANCHESTER ROAD north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244836 II BUILDING ATTACHED TO WAREHOUSE ON CANALSIDE AT c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral JUNCTION WITH MANCHESTER ROAD north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

284

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts

1244843 II ROYLE LODGE AND GATE PIERS c. 4.4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation a nd other landscape features.

1244850 II BOUNDARY STONE ON EAST SIDE APPROXIMATELY 50 c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral METRES SOUTH OF JUNCTION WITH IGHTEN ROAD north-east

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1244852 II BOUNDAY STONE ON WEST SIDE APPROXIMATELY 50 c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral METRES SOUTH OF JUNCTION WITH IGHTEN ROAD north-east

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

285

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts

1244868 II BRITISH LEGION CLUB c. 4.6km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1244870 II BACK OAK COTTAGE c. 2.8km Medium No Change Neutral north

It was noted during the site visit that although it was possible to see one of the existing turbines through a gap in the vegetation to the south of the cottage, it was not possible to see the area of the proposed new turbines due to the interveening vegetation.

1244875 II 204-238, LOWERHOUSE LANE c. 2.8km Medium No Change Neutral north

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1244876 II 217-227, LOWERHOUSE LANE c. 2.8km Medium No Change Neutral north

286

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that views between these buildings and the area of the proposed new turbines are screen by the buildings on the opposite site of Lower House Lane.

1244878 II LAMP POST OPPOSITE NUMBER 217 c. 2.8km Medium No Change Neutral north

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that views between this asset and the area of the proposed new turbines are screen by the buildings on the opposite site of Lower House Lane.

1244879 II 274-298, LOWERHOUSE LANE c. 2.8km Medium Very Low Negligible north (not

significant) During the site visit it was not possible to see the area of the proposed turbines at ground level and unlike the buildings at the other end of the terrace (1244882) there appears to be more screening between this end of the terrace and the area of the proposed new turbines (from new dwellings and existing vegetation to the south).

However, it may still be possible to view the new turbines from the south facing first floor windows.

The distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the smallscale nature of the proposed

287

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts development, and the prescence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

1244880 II 295-317, LOWERHOUSE LANE c. 2.8km Medium No Change Neutral north

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that views between these buildings and the area of the proposed new turbines are screen by the buildings on the opposite site of Lower House Lane.

1244883 II WAREHOUSE AND CANAL COTTAGE AT DUGDALE WHARF c. 2.8km Medium No Change Neutral north

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1244884 II THE OLD RED LION HOTEL c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

288

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts

1244886 II ENDSLEIGH INSURANCE IMPERIAL CHAMBERS c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244887 II 41, MANCHESTER ROAD c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244889 II 72 AND 74, MANCHESTER ROAD c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244891 II WHARF MASTERS HOUSE AND TOLL OFFICE AT c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral MANCHESTER ROAD CANAL WHARF north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with

289

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244892 II CENTRE WAREHOUSE TO REAR OF WHARF MASTERS HOUSE c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral AT MANCHESTER ROAD CANAL WHARF north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244893 II NORTH WAREHOUSE TO REAR OF WHARF MASTERS HOUSE c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral AT MANCHESTER ROAD CANAL WHARF north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244894 II SOUTH WAREHOUSE TO REAR OF WHARF MASTERS HOUSE c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral AT MANCHESTER ROAD CANAL WHARF north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

290

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts

1244896 II STABLE BLOCK ON NORTH SIDE OF YARD AT MANCHESTER c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral ROAD CANAL WHARF north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244899 II BOUNDARY WALL TO MANCHESTER ROAD CANAL WHARF c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244901 II SPRING HILL c. 3km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1244902 II 147, MANCHESTER ROAD c. 3km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

Although lying within the ZTV’s it was noted during the site

291

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts visit that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1244903 II GREEN HILL BOWLING CLUB c. 3km Medium No Change Neutral

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site north-east walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation a nd other landscape features.

1244904 II NUMBERS 171, 173 AND 175 AND GARDEN WALLS c. 3km Medium Very Low Negligible north-east (not

significant) Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility at ground level between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings and vegetation. It is theoretically possible that there may be distance views of the turbines from the upper widows of the buildings.

However, the distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the small-scale nature of the proposed development, and the prescence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

292

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts

1244908 II TOWER AND SPIRE OF FORMER METHODIST CHURCH c. 3km Medium No Change Neutral (DEMOLISHED) AND ADJOINING north-east BALUSTRADE

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility at ground level between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation a nd other landscape features.

1244910 II TOWN HALL WITH ATTACHED RAILINGS c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244912 II THE CASTLE c. 2.3km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings and vegetation.

1244913 II FRONT GARDEN WALL TO NUMBER 254 c. 2.3km Medium No Change Neutral north-east Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site

293

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings and vegetation.

1244923 II 1 AND 3, NICHOLAS STREET c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244956 II 29 AND 31, ROSE HILL ROAD c. 3km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings and vegetation.

1244957 II ROSEHILL HOUSE HOTEL c. 3km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings and vegetation.

1244958 II BACK LANE FARMHOUSE c. 2km Medium No Change Neutral north-east Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site

294

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts walkover that there was no intervisibility at ground level between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings (Modern Warehouses) and vegetation.

1244959 II CHERRYFOLD c. 2km Medium Very Low Negligible north-east (not

significant) Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings (Modern Warehouses) and vegetation. However, it may be possible to get glimpsed views through the tree line during the winnter months from the first floor windows.

1244970 II VIRGIL ANDERTONS SHOPS c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244971 II 16, ST JAMES STREET c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in

295

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts topography.

1244972 II 18, ST JAMES STREET c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244973 II WHITE LION PUBLIC HOUSE c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244974 II SWAN INN c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244976 II CORAL BINGO (FORMER EMPIRE THEATRE) c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the

296

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244977 II SANDYGATE CANAL BRIDGE c. 3.6km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244978 II SLATER TERRACE c. 3.6km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244979 II STRUCTURE ADJOINING SLATER TERRACE TO NORTH-WEST c. 3.6km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244980 II RETAINING WALL OF RIVER BRUN WITH ASSOCIATED c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral RAILINGS north-east

297

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation a nd other landscape features.

1244981 II SCOTT MONUMENT IN SCOTT PARK c. 3km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings and vegetation.

1244984 II NEWTOWN MILL CHIMNEY c. 3.9km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244985 II ST MARYS PRESBYTERY AND PART OF FRANCISCAN c. 4.4km Medium No Change Neutral CONVENT WITH ATTACHED GARDEN WALL north-east

This monument lies on the edge of the ZTV’s to the east of Burnley town centre. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening

298

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts buildings, vegetation and topography.

1244987 II 11, 13 AND 13A, NICHOLAS STREET c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244989 II 14 AND 16, NICHOLAS STREET c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244990 II 18 AND 20, NICHOLAS STREET c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244991 II 22 AND 24, NICHOLAS STREET c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the

299

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244997 II BURNLEY COLLEGE WITH ATTACHED RAILINGS c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral

This monument lies within the ZTV’s for both hub and blade north-east tips. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and topography.

1244999 II MACKENZIE MEMORIAL IN THOMPSON PARK c. 4.5km Medium Very Low Negligible north-east (not

significant) This monument lies within the ZTV’s for both hub and blade tips. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines due to interveening vegetation.

However, during the winter months it may be possible to gain distance views of the turbine(s) from the monument.

The distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the small-scale nature of the proposed development, and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be very minor changes to the

300

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts setting of this heritage asset.

1245005 II 487, PADIHAM ROAD c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral north

Although lying within the ZTV and close to the location of Viewpoint 11 of the LVIA, where there are clear views towards the current and proposed turbines, it was noted during the site visit that there are no views between this asset and the area of the proposed turbines due to the screening provided by the buildings on the southern-side of Padiham Road.

1245007 II CHURCH OF ALL SAINTS c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral north

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features to the south of Padiham Road. Although the church spire is visible from the area of the proposed turbines the distance between the two means that the ominance of the spire in the landscape will not be impacted on by the proposed turbines.

1245009 II GATEWAY AND WALL TO CHURCHYARD OF CHURCH OF ALL c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral SAINTS north

301

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features to the south of Padiham Road.

1245011 II HABERGHAM LODGE WITH ATTACHED GATE PIERS c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral north

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1245013 II DRINKING FOUNTAIN SET IN WALL APPROXIMATELY 15 c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral METRES SOUTH-EAST OF HABERGHAM LODGE north

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1245014 II 4-10, PARADISE STREET c. 3.9km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with

302

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1245015 II BURNLEY BUILDING SOCIETY BURNLEY BUILDING SOCIETY c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral OFFICES north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1245017 II CENTRAL LIBRARY c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1245021 II AENON BAPTIST CHAPEL c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1247304 II THE FORMER BILLIARDS HALL c. 3.6km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

During the site visit it was determined that there was no

303

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening vegetation, buildings and other landscape features.

1274433 II CANAL BRIDGE (KNOTTS BRIDGE) c. 2.8km Medium No Change Neutral north

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening vegetation, buildings and other landscape features.

1274553 II NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK c. 4.8km Medium Very Low Negligible north-west (not

significant) It was noted during the site visit that there was no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines and the bank at ground level.

However, it may be possible to see the new turbines, behind and to the east of the exisiting turbines, from the south-west facing first floor windows or from the turret windows at the northern end of the building.

The distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the small-scale nature of the proposed development, and the presence of existing turbines on the

304

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts site means that there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

1274563 II CELLAR RESTAURANT c. 4.8km Medium No Change Neutral north-west

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings on the south side of Church Street/Mill Street.

1274564 II TREVELYAN GUEST HOUSE c. 4.8km Medium No Change Neutral north-west

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings on the south side of Church Street/Mill Street.

1274565 II GATE PIERS AND GATES AT NAZARETH UNITARIAN CHURCH c. 4.8km Medium No Change Neutral north-west

This monument lies immediately to the north of the Church which screens all views between the gatepiers and the proposed turbines.

305

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts

1274567 II 2-6, GAWTHORPE STREET c. 4.8km Medium No Change Neutral north-west

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings.

1274582 II BASE OF FORMER BUTTER CROSS c. 1.8km Medium Very Low Negligible east (not

significant) This base of a former cross, of uncertain but probably medieval date, is half sunken into the surface of an agricultural field. It is an isolated feature with no obvious original setting. Although both turbine hubs and blade tips will be visible from this asset they will not change the current setting which consists of both a post-medieval and modern industrial landscape. Construction of the proposed turbines will not impact on the understanding or setting of this asset.

1274584 II LOWER MICKLEHURST FARMHOUSE c. 1km east Medium Low Minor (not significant)

Blade tips of all three of the proposed turbines and two of the turbine hubs will be visible from this asset, but lying adjacent to the existing turbines they will not add a new element into the setting of this post-medieval asset. The current setting of this asset is largely of rural moorland

306

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts which already contains both modern and post-medieval industrial activity.

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset.

1274587 II BOUNDARY STONE ON PLAYING FIELD AT SD 806 344 c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral north

During the site visit it was determined that there are no views between this asset and any of the proposed turbines due to intervening buildings and vegetation.

1274589 II GAME LARDER CIRCA 30 METRES WEST OF GAWTHORPE c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral HALL ON NORTH SIDE OF PATH TO GREAT BARN north

During the site visit it was determined that there are no views between this asset and any of the proposed turbines due to intervening buildings and vegetation (woodland) to the south.

1274590 II FORMER COACH HOUSE ATTACHED TO EAST SIDE OF GREAT c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral BARN AT GAWTHORPE HALL north

During the site visit it was determined that there are no views between this asset and any of the proposed turbines due to intervening buildings and vegetation (woodland) to

307

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts the south.

1274123 II PRESTIGE BEDDING CENTRE TO SOUTH-EAST AND NORTH- c. 4.8km Medium Very Low Negligible EAST OF COURTYARD FACING MILL STREET north-west (not significant)

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility at ground level between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to intervening buildings and vegetation.

However, it is theoretically possible that there may be views towards the turbines from the south facing upper windows.

The distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the small-scale nature of the proposed development, and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

1274185 II 1-21, GAWTHORPE STREET c. 4.8km Medium No Change Neutral north-west

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings.

308

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts

1274222 II BOUNDARY STONE AT SD 8054 3323 c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral north

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings and vegetation.

1274248 II BOUNDARY STONE AT SD 8046 3337 c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral north

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings and vegetation.

1270963 II 1 AND 3, COAL STREET c. 3.9km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1270965 II WEST PORTAL OF GANNOW TUNNEL c. 3.3km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

Although lying within the ZTV’s it was noted during the site visit that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening

309

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts recent buildings, vegetation a and other landscape features.

1270967 II BRIDGE OVER LEEDS TO LIVERPOOL CANAL c. 4.8km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

Although lying within the ZTV’s it was noted during the site visit that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation a and other landscape features.

1270968 II BURNLEY LANE BAPTIST CHURCH AND INSTITUTE c. 4.8km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

Although lying within the ZTV’s it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings (Church Hall) and vegetation.

1270969 II BURNLEY LANE BAPTIST CHURCH HALL c. 4.8km Medium Very Low Negligible north-east (not

significant) This monument lies within both ZTV’s but it was noted during the site visit that there was no intervisibility at ground level with the area of the proposed turbines (Blade tips & Hubs). It is theortically possible that there may be distant views of the turbine(s) from the south-west facing upper windows of the building. The distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the small-scale

310

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts nature of the proposed development, and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

1270973 II PRESTIGE BUILDING (1937 RANGE ONLY) c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

Although lying within the ZTV’s it was noted during the site visit that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings.

1270975 II 4, 6 AND 8, DUGDALE STREET c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1270976 II 10, 12 AND 14, DUGDALE STREET c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1280536 II VILLAGE STOCKS IN CORNER OF ROAD 100 METRES EAST OF c. 3.5km Medium No Change Neutral HILL HOUSE west

311

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts Although lying within the ZTV’s it was noted during the site visit that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings.

1313386 II DEXTER PAINTS WITH ATTACHED RAILINGS c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1313387 II TRAFALGAR MILL WALKER HEY FOOTBRIDGE c. 3.6km Medium No Change Neutral

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the north-east centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1313388 II VICTORIA MILL c. 3.6km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1313389 II EAST PORTAL OF GANNOW TUNNEL c. 3.3km Medium No Change Neutral

312

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts This monument lies on the very edge of the ZTV and during north-east the site visit it was confirmed that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to interveening vegetation, buildings and changes in topography.

1313390 II BURNLEY HOUSE c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies on the very edge of the ZTV and during the site visit it was confirmed that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to interveening vegetation, buildings and changes in topography.

1313391 II BELLE VUE TERRACE c. 3.6km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1313392 II BELLE VUE MILL c. 3.6km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in

313

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts topography.

1313393 II FORMER PLANE TREE PUBLIC HOUSE c. 3.6km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1313394 II OAK MOUNT MILL CHIMNEY c. 3.6km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1313395 II OAK MOUNT MILL ENGINE HOUSE c. 3.6km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1313396 II FRANCISCAN CONVENT AND CHAPEL c. 4.4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies on the edge of the ZTV’s to the east of

314

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts Burnley toen centre. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and topography.

1313398 II 78-84, YORKSHIRE STREET c. 4.4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies on the edge of the ZTV’s to the east of Burnley toen centre. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and topography.

1313399 II 4 LIME KILNS IN WALL ATTACHED TO CANAL EMBANKMENT c. 4.4km Medium No Change Neutral TO REAR OF NUMBER 38 north-east

This monument lies on the edge of the ZTV’s to the east of Burnley town centre. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and topography.

1313400 II ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ST MARY WITH ATTACHED c. 4.4km Medium No Change Neutral GATE PIERS AND RAILINGS north-east

This monument lies on the edge of the ZTV’s to the east of Burnley town centre. During the site visit it was determined

315

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and topography.

II KAY MONUMENT APPROXIMATELY 30 METRES SOUTH OF c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral 1365760 CHURCH OF ST PETER north-east

This monument lies within the ZTV’s for both hub and blade tips. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and topography.

1365761 II WADDINGTON MONUMENT APPROXIMATELY 10 METRES c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral SOUTH OF CHURCH OF ST PETER north-east

This monument lies within the ZTV’s for both hub and blade tips. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and topography.

1365762 II RETAINING WALL ALONG NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF ST c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral PETERS CHURCHYARD north-east

This monument lies within the turbine tip ZTV. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility

316

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings.

1365763 II WALL AND GATES TO ST PETERS CHURCHYARD c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies within the ZTV’s for both hub and blade tips. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and topography.

1365766 II ST PETERS CHURCH OF ENGLAND INFANTS AND JUNIOR c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral SCHOOL (EAST RANGE) north-east

This monument lies within the ZTV’s for both hub and blade tips. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and topography.

1365767 II ST PETERS CHURCH OF ENGLAND INFANTS AND JUNIOR c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral SCHOOL (WEST RANGE) north-east

This monument lies within the ZTV’s for both hub and blade tips. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings,

317

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts vegetation and topography.

1365770 II RAILWAY BRIDGE c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies on the very edge of the ZTV and during the site visit it was confirmed that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to interveening vegetation, buildings and topography.

1362014 II HUNCOAT HALL AND ATTACHED BARN c. 3.3km Medium No Change Neutral west

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1362019 II HILL HOUSE FARMHOUSE c. 3.3km Medium No Change Neutral west

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1022608 II BRITISH RAILWAYS VIADUCT c. 4km Medium No Change Neutral

318

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts This monument lies on the very edge of the ZTV and during north-east the site visit it was confirmed that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to interveening vegetation, buildings and topography.

1424126 II HUNCOAT WAR MEMORIAL c. 3.3km Medium No Change Neutral west

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1238469 II GREEN FARM COTTAGE GREEN FARM HOUSE c. 4.2km Medium No Change Neutral north-west

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1238535 II 1 AND 3 MOOR LANE c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral north

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to

319

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts interveening buildings on the south side of Church Street/Mill Street.

1237652 II TOWN HALL c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral north

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features.

1238054 II GATE PIERS AND BOUNDARY WALL TO COURTYARD OF c. 4.5km Medium No Change Neutral FORMER HOME FARM TO GAWTHORPE HALL north

During the site visit it was determined that there are no views between this asset and any of the proposed turbines due to intervening buildings and vegetation (woodland) to the south.

1238303 II CHURCH OF ST LEONARD c. 4.8km Medium No Change Neutral north-west

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings on the south side of Church Street/Mill Street. The top of the tower may well be visible from the area of the proposed turbines but with the

320

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts distance between the two its dominance in the skyline will not be impact on.

1244986 II 5, 7 AND 9, NICHOLAS STREET c. 4.4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to topography and interveeening vegetation, builkdings and other landscape features.

1247283 II CHURCH OF ST CATHERINE WITH ST ALBAN AND ST PAUL c. 4.4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies on the edge of the ZTV’s to the east of Burnley town centre. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and topography.

1244807 II GANNOW HOUSE c. 3.3km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape

321

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts features.

1244812 II 10, HAMMERTON STREET c. 3.9km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244816 II PROCTORS WORKS WITH ATTACHED CHIMNEY c. 3.9km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

1244867 II 34-40, KEIRBY WALK c. 3.9km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies on the very edge of the ZTV and during the site visit it was confirmed that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (including projected blade tips) due to interveening buildings.

1244872 II 2-22, LOWERHOUSE FOLD c. 2.8km Medium No Change Neutral north

322

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that views between these buildings and the area of the proposed new turbines are screen by the buildings on the opposite site of Lower House Lane.

1244882 II 305, 306 AND 308, LOWERHOUSE LANE c. 2.8km Medium Very Low Negligible north (not

significant) It was noted during the site visit that it was possible to see (from the drivewa to the west of the buildings) the current turbines on the site and the area of the proposed new turbines. Views appeared to be restriced at ground level by interveening vegetation but are likely from south facing first floor windows.

1313397 II T ROBINSON PROSPECT TERRACE c. 4.4km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies on the edge of the ZTV’s to the east of Burnley town centre. During the site visit it was determined that there is no intervisibility between this asset and any of the proposed turbines (hub & blade tips) due to interveening buildings, vegetation and topography.

1244871 II OLD OAK COTTAGE c. 2.8km Medium No Chane Neutral north

It was noted during the site visit that although it was possible to see one of the existing turbines through a gap in the vegetation to the south of the cottage, it was not

323

HE Ref Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts possible to see the area of the proposed nnew turbines due to the interveening vegetation.

1244983 II SANCTUARY ROCK BAR c. 3.9km Medium No Change Neutral north-east

This monument lies in an area just outside the ZTV’s in the centre of Burnley from which there is no intervisibility with the area of the proposed turbines due to the changes in topography.

Table 10.10: Impact on Listed Buildings within the 5km ZTV’s

Registered Parks and Gardens

10.5.29 There are no Registered Parks or Gardens within the area of the proposed turbines and five within the wider study area:

Reference Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts

1000946 II GAWTHORPE HALL c. 3.7km Medium No Change Neutral north Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site that visit there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening vegetation (woodland

324

Reference Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts

to the south), buildings and other landscape features. 1000954 II TOWNELEY HALL c. 3.9km east Medium No Change Neutral

Although this asset lies within 5km of the proposed turbines, it lies outside the ZTV. During the site visit it was confirmed that there would be no views between this asset and the proposed turbines due to interveening vegetation, buildings and other landscape features. 1001533 II SCOTT PARK c. 2.5km Medium No Change Neutral north-east Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation a nd other landscape features. 100539 II QUEENS PARK c. 4.6km Medium Very Low Negligible (not north-east significant) Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was generally no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features. From the very southern corner of the back, off Ormerod Road it was possible to see glimpses of the current turbines on the site.

The distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the small-scale nature of the proposed development, and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset. 1001496 II THOMPSON PARK c. 4.8km Medium Very Low Negligible (not

325

Reference Grade Description Distance Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. from Central Sensitivity to Impact Impact Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts

north-east significant) Although lying within the ZTV it was noted during the site walkover that there was generally no intervisibility between the monument and the area of the proposed turbines due to interveening buildings, vegetation and other landscape features. From the very southern corner of the back, off Ormerod Road it was possible to see glimpses of the current turbines on the site.

The distance between this monument and the proposed turbines, the small-scale nature of the proposed development, and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be very minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

Table 10.11: Impact on Registered Parks & Gardens within the 5km ZTV’s

326

Conservation Areas

10.5.30 There are no designated conservation areas within the proposed development area and ten within Burnley (Burnley Town Centre, Padiham, Burnley Wood, Palatine, Canalside, Top o’th Town, Jib Hill, Harle Syke, Worsthorne & Hurstwood). The Conservation Areas have been assessed through the assessment of the listed buildings which lie within them. During the site visit it became apparent that views of the proposed turbines from the listed buildings within the Conservation Areas would be very limited (see Table 10.10) and that the construction of the proposed turbines will have no impact on the key relationships between the various listed buildings within each Conservation Area. Each Conservation Area has a Medium asset sensitivity and it has been assessed that there would be a Very Low impact magnitude, resulting in an impact significance of Negligible (not significant) in all cases.

Registered Battlefields

10.5.31 There are no registered battlefields within the area of the proposed development or the wider study area.

Assessment of Non-designated Archaeological Remains

10.5.32 The information collated from the HER and other sources during the course of this assessment identified a total of ninety-one non-designated archaeological records within the 1km study radius. There are no heritage assets recorded within the area of the three proposed turbines or the 50m micro-siting buffers.

10.5.33 Out of ninety-one non-designated heritage assets recorded within the 1km study area twenty- three lie outside the visible zone of the ZTV’s and fifty-six relate to findspots and cartographic or documentary sources considered not sensitive to impacts on their settings, resulting in an impact magnitude of No Change and a Neutral impact significance. The remaining twelve heritage assets are of Local or Less than Local importance with Low impact sensitivity. These assets were assessed for direct and indirect settings impacts following the site visit, the results of which are presented in Table 10.12.

327

Reference Description Distance & Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. Direction from Sensitivity to Impact Impact Central Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts

3498 NEAR NEW BARN FARM, HAPTON c. 520m north- Low Low Negligible (not west significant) There will be no direct impact on this heritage asset caused by the constriuction of the proposed turbines and the small-scale nature of the proposed development and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be only minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset.

261 HAPTON TOWER c. 400m west Low Low Negligible (not significant) There will be no direct impact on this heritage asset caused by the constriuction of the proposed turbines and the small-scale nature of the proposed development and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be only minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset.

26215 HAMELDON HILL WIND CLUSTER, NEW BARN FARM, c. 450m north- Low Low Negligible (not

328

Reference Description Distance & Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. Direction from Sensitivity to Impact Impact Central Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts BURNLEY west significant)

There will be no direct impact on this heritage asset caused by the constriuction of the proposed turbines and the small-scale nature of the proposed development and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be only minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset.

26229 HAMELDON HILL, LINEAR BANK, ALIGNED EAST/WEST c. 500m north- Low Low Negligible (not west significant) There will be no direct impact on this heritage asset caused by the constriuction of the proposed turbines and the small-scale nature of the proposed development and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be only minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset.

26230 HAMELDON HILL, BANKED ENCLOSURE c. 500m north- Low Low Negligible (not

329

Reference Description Distance & Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. Direction from Sensitivity to Impact Impact Central Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts There will be no direct impact on this heritage asset caused west significant) by the construction of the proposed turbines, the small- scale nature of the proposed development and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be only minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset.

26231 HAMELDON HILL, RIDGE AND FURROW c. 650m north- Low Low Negligible (not west significant) There will be no direct impact on this heritage asset caused by the construction of the proposed turbines and the small- scale nature of the proposed development and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be only minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset.

26232 HAMELDON HILL, SMALL SUBCIRCULAR MOUND c. 650m north- Low Low Negligible (not west significant) There will be no direct impact on this heritage asset caused by the constriuction of the proposed turbines and the

330

Reference Description Distance & Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. Direction from Sensitivity to Impact Impact Central Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts small-scale nature of the proposed development and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be only minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset.

26233 HAMELDON HILL, EARTHWORK REMAINS OF TWO BANKED c. 650m north- Low Low Negligible (not HOLLOWS west significant)

There will be no direct impact on this heritage asset caused by the constriuction of the proposed turbines, the small- scale nature of the proposed development and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be only minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset.

26234 HAMELDON HILL, A LOW BANK EXTENDING SOUTH-WEST c. 650m north- Low Low Negligible (not FROM FEATURE 26232 west significant)

There will be no direct impact on this heritage asset caused by the construction of the proposed turbines, the small-

331

Reference Description Distance & Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. Direction from Sensitivity to Impact Impact Central Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts scale nature of the proposed development and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be only minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset.

26235 HAMELDON HILL, A DITCH AND TWIN BANKS C 206M LONG. c. 400m west Low Low Negligible (not significant) There will be no direct impact on this heritage asset caused by the constriuction of the proposed turbines and the small-scale nature of the proposed development and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be only minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset.

26236 HAMELDON HILL, RIDGE AND FURROW c. 660m west Low Low Negligible (not significant) There will be no direct impact on this heritage asset caused by the constriuction of the proposed turbines and the small-scale nature of the proposed development and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there

332

Reference Description Distance & Stage 1. Stage 2. Stage 3. Direction from Sensitivity to Impact Impact Central Point of Indirect Magnitude Significance Turbines Impacts would be only minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset.

26237 HAMLEDON HILL, EARTHWORK REMAINS OF A POSSIBLE c. 600m north- Low Low Negligible (not BUILDING PLATFORM. west significant)

There will be no direct impact on this heritage asset caused by the constriuction of the proposed turbines, the small- scale nature of the proposed development and the presence of existing turbines on the site means that there would be only minor changes to the setting of this heritage asset.

The construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of this asset.

Table 10.12: Impact on Non-Designated Assets Still Present within the 5km ZTV’s

333

Site Walkover

10.5.34 A site visit to the proposed turbine locations was undertaken on 8th December 2015 to ascertain if there were are previously unrecorded heritage assets evident on the site. The fields at the top of the hill are currently used as grazing land for sheep and are surrounded by drystone walls with occasional access gates. The lower slopes, in the area of the existing turbines, slope to the north and north-east but are generally flatter than the upper slopes which are more irregular and shaped by the elements to form small steep valleys with wide areas of flatter ground in between. The majority of the areas for the proposed turbines lie under short grass with patches of tufty grasses and marshy/boggy areas.

10.5.35 A potential mine shaft was noted in the north-eastern corner of the area of the proposed turbines, to the south-east of proposed Turbine 3, but there were no other potential archaeological remains noted within the immediate (50m micro-siting areas) of proposed Turbines 1 & 3. To the east of proposed Turbine 2 an area of ridges, perpendicular to the slope, were noted. These may represent the remains of ridge and furrow ploughing, but with ridges approximately only 2.5m apart this is by no means certain. On the slightly flatter ground to the south the ridges were still evident but less pronounced. It was not possible to ascertain how far the ridges extended to the south as the area quickly turned in the long grassed boggy moorland.

10.5.36 The site visit also confirmed the extent of the ridge and furrow and other earthworks to the north of Hapton Tower. It was noted that the ridge and furrow was on approximately the same alignment as the ridges noted to the south of proposed Turbine 2.

Historic Landscape

10.5.37 The early mapping for the proposed development area does not show the site in any appreciable topographic detail and there is no Tithe Map for Hapton; probably due to the presence of the deer park and more likely due to the land consisting predominantly of moorland which is not suitable for arable farming.

10.5.38 The earliest map to record the area of the proposed development in appreciable topographic style is the 1844 OS Map (Figure 10.5). This map shows the area of the proposed turbines as moorland with a sandstone pit (PRN7650) illustrated to the north-west of proposed Turbine 3. The OS Map of 1895 (Figure 10.5) show the same detail as the map of 1844 but with the addition of a rifle range (PRN32978), aligned south-west/north-east, along the western side of

334

the field containing the proposed turbine; to the immediate east of proposed Turbine 1. The rifle range earthworks do not appear on aerial photographs (Mario.lancashire.gov.uk) and were not evident during the site walkover. By the OS Map of 1909 (Figure 10.5) the riffle range is no longer shown, the sandstone quarry is still present to the north-west of proposed Turbine 3 and the rest of the field containing the proposed turbine locations is shown as moorland. No further changes are shown on the subsequent map of 1928 (Figure 10.5) or later maps from the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s & 80s (Old-Maps.co.uk – not illustrated). Study of aerial photographs from the 1940s, 1960s (Mario.lancashire.gov.uk) and 2000s (GoogleEarth) revealed no previously unrecorded heritage assets within the area of the proposed turbines or their immediate environs.

Historic Landscape Character

10.5.39 There are five Historic Landscape Character (HLC) types within the study area. The majority of the area comprises moorland, with the others being ancient and post-medieval industry, ancient and post-medieval wood (Shuttleworth Wood, Hagg Wood & Altham Clough Wood), ancient enclosure and post-medieval enclosure. Archaeological remains, such as pre-historic field boundaries, can be well preserved within areas of moorland as the type of land itself has discouraged development and ploughing, with grazing being the predominant form of agriculture practiced. Later sites may be contained within the moorlands, with areas enclosed by drystone walls.

10.5.40 Post-medieval industry both surrounds and lies within the proposed development area and principally comprises of extraction industries and limestone processing. The enclosed landscape, both ancient and post-medieval, is situated on the more densely populated areas, lower-lying areas and where roads have opened up the land for agricultural development rather than just grazing. Within the site boundary, the area surrounding New Barn Farm is considered to be ancient enclosure.

10.5.41 The moorland within the study area appears to be reverted moorland. Reverted moorland is moorland that has undergone agricultural improvements, namely enclosure, drystone walling, ridge and furrow cultivation evidence and water management in the form of culverts and levees. Industrial activities, usually part of a dual system of income for the population alongside agriculture, are also indicative of reverted moorland. This usage and improvement of the land has since ceased and the area reverted back into moorland.

335

10.5.42 The sites historic landscape is deemed to be of Local importance with Very Low impact sensitivity. Consequently, any impact on the setting of this landscape ranging from High -Very Low, would result in a Minor - Negligible impact significance (not significant).

‘Important’ Hedgerows

10.5.43 The removal of a hedgerow is unlikely to require planning permission, but if removal is proposed as part of a planning application then its impact on the heritage significance of the area and its impact on the setting of any heritage assets around may be taken into account in accordance with planning policies in the NPPF and the Local Development Plan.

10.5.44 A hedgerow is 'important' if it has existed for 30 years or more and it meets one of the criteria set out in the Regulations, which include:

• It marks a boundary between parishes existing before 1850;

• It marks an archaeological feature of a site that is a scheduled monument or noted on the Historic Environment Record;

• It marks the boundary of a pre-1600 estate or manor or a field system pre-dating the Enclosure Acts.

10.5.45 There are no historically important hedgerows within the area of the proposed development.

Summary of Impacts

Non-Physical Indirect Settings Impact - Designated Heritage Assets

10.5.46 The heritage baseline data identified a single designated heritage asset within the proposed development area (Grade II listed building of barn and former farmhouse circa 50 metres east of new barn farmhouse – listed building No. 1222601). Within the wider study areas there are 211 designated heritage assets within the visible zone (ZTV) of the 5km study area (3 scheduled monuments, 3 Grade I listed buildings, 4 Grade II* listed buildings, 186 Grade II listed buildings, 5 registered parks and gardens and 10 conservation areas. All of the remaining designated heritage assets within the wider 5km study area are screened from the area of the proposed turbines by intervening topography, buildings, vegetation, and other landscape features.

336

10.5.47 This assessment has determined that there would be a Minor – Negligible indirect impact on the setting of 37 out of the 211 designated heritage assets.

10.5.48 There will be no indirect impact on the setting of any of the scheduled monuments, Grade I & II* listed buildings or 3 of the registered parks and gardens.

10.5.49 Out of the 186 Grade II listed buildings within the 5km study area there will be a Minor impact on the closest four Grade II listed buildings due to a slight impact to the immediate setting of these assets. However, these impacts are not considered significant as the addition of three turbines will not further detract from the significance of the assets any more that the construction of the earlier turbines on Hamledon Hill. There will also be a Negligible impact on the setting of a further 21 Grade II listed buildings within the wider study area. These impacts are deemed to come from distant views of the turbines in the wider setting of these heritage assets. The appearance of the turbines in these distance views will not interfere with any of the relationships between these assets and their immediate or wider settings and are therefore not considered significant.

10.5.50 As with the majority of the Grade II listed buildings it has been determined that there will be a Negligible indirect impact on the setting of 2 registered parks and gardens and the conservation areas lying within the wider study area. These impacts are not considered significant because views of the turbines will not significantly impact on the immediate or wider settings of these assets and will not interfere with the visual relationships between assets within the conservation areas. The turbines will form a small overall element of the overall view of the surrounding landscape from these assets.

Non-Physical Indirect Settings Impact - Non-Designated Heritage Assets

10.5.51 Out of the 91 non-designated heritage assets recorded within the study area, most either lie beyond the visual zone or consist of findspots or cartographic and/or documentary descriptions which are not sensitive to impacts on their setting. It has been determined during this assessment that there would be a Negligible impact on the setting of the remaining 12 heritage assets. These impacts are not considered significant as the construction of three additional turbines will not further detract from the significance of these assets.

337

Direct Impacts

10.5.52 The only recorded heritage asset that may be impacted on by the proposed development is the late 19th century rifle range, depicted on the historic maps, on the western side of the area of the proposed turbines. However, no earthworks associated with the rifle range were noted during the site visit and according to the historic maps these lay some distance to the west of the nearest turbine (Turbine 1). Other earthworks were however noted to the south and east of proposed turbine 2, during the site visit. The exact nature of these earthworks is undetermined, but they may relate to medieval/post-medieval ridge and furrow ploughing and/or other agricultural practices similar to those recorded to the north-west of the proposed turbines during the earlier extension in 2009.

10.6 Mitigation of Effects

10.6.1 The construction of the turbines would have no direct impact on any designated or previously recorded non-designated heritage assets located within the proposed development area or wider study area. However, earthworks were noted to the south and east of proposed turbine 2, and depending on the final location of the turbine there may be a direct impact on these earthworks. The significance of any such remains is currently unknown, but if when the final turbine locations have been determined these features will be disturbed, archaeological monitoring is recommended during construction phase.

10.7 Residual Effects

10.7.1 Any indirect visual impact associated with the construction and operation of the turbines on designated and non-designated heritage assets and their settings are not able to be mitigated and will be residual.

10.8 Summary of Significance Evaluation

10.8.1 This chapter has summarised the known heritage resource of the proposed development area and wider study area, and the potential direct and in-direct impacts the proposed development may have upon them.

10.8.2 There will be no direct impact on any designated or previously recorded non-designated heritage assets within the area of the proposed development or wider study area. During the site visit earthworks were noted to the south and east of proposed turbine 2, which may be

338

impacted on by the construction of the turbines and associated infrastructure. If during construction of this turbine remains are encountered and recorded the impact will be partially mitigated by the recording, but a residual minor impact would remain.

10.8.3 The turbine construction and operation would have an in-direct impact on the setting of a number of heritage assets (both designated and non-designated) but it has been judged that these impacts would be no more than negligible – minor and are not considered to be significant.

10.9 References

 Centre for Wetland Research at Hull (2002) Archaeological Assessment: Hameldon Hill Wind Cluster, Burnley, Lancashire. Unpublished Report CWR/LAN01/2002.

 Countryside Commission. 1996. Views from The Past: Historic landscape character in the English Countryside.

 DCMS: Department for Culture, Media & Sport. March 2010. Scheduled Monuments. Identifying, protecting, conserving and investigating nationally important archaeological sites under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.

 Department of National Heritage, 1996. Protecting Our Heritage: A consultation document on the built heritage of England and Wales.

 DoE. 1997. The Hedgerow Regulations. 1997, No. 1160. Regulation 1.

 English Heritage. 1991. The Management of Archaeological Projects. Second Edition (MAP2) English Heritage, London.

 English Heritage. 1995. Development in the historic environment: an English Heritage guide to policy, procedure and good practice.

 English Heritage, 1996. Frameworks for Our Past: a review of research frameworks, strategies and perceptions.

 English Heritage. 1997. English Heritage Archaeology Division Research Agenda (Draft).

 English Heritage. 1997. Sustaining the Historic Environment: new perspectives on the future.

339

 English Heritage. 1998. Exploring Our Past, Implementation Plan 1998 (EOP98).

 English Heritage. 2006. Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment. The MoRPHE Project Managers' Guide. English Heritage, London.

 English Heritage. 2008. SHAPE: A Strategic Framework for Historic Environment Activities & Programmes. Guidelines for Grant Applicants.

 English Heritage. 2011. The Setting of Heritage Assets, English Heritage Guidance. Online publication at www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice /advice-by-topic/setting- and-views/setting.

 Highways Agency. 2007. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Section 11.3.2 Cultural Heritage.

 Highways Agency. 2001. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Volume 10, Section 6, Part 1: Trunk Roads and Archaeological Mitigation.

 Historic England. 2015. The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning 3.

 HMSO. 1979. Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

 HMSO. 1990a. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

 HMSO. 1990b. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

 HMSO. 1999. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 199. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

 Oxford Archaeology North (2006) Hameldon Hill Wind Cluster, New Barn Farm, Burnley, Lancashire.

 Archaeological Watching Brief. Unpublished Report 2006-07/511.

Cartographic Sources

 Altham Tithe Map 1842 CRO Ref DRB1/6.

340

 Cary, John. (1806) A new map of Lancashire divided into hundreds, exhibiting its roads, rivers and parks from Cary’s Travelllers Companion CRO Ref DP188.

 Habergham Eves Tithe Map and Apportionment 1842 CRO Ref DRB1/90.

 Hambleton Tithe Map and Apportionment 1839 CRO Ref DRB1/93.

 Hatchard, John (1807) Map of the ancient parish of Whalley in Whitakers History of the original parish of Whalley CRO Ref SRL/E01.

 Padiham Tithe Map 1842 CRO Ref DRB1/46.

 Ordnance Survey Map of 1844 (National Library of Scotland – NLS.co.uk).

 Ordnance Survey Map of 1895 (National Library of Scotland – NLS.co.uk).

 Ordnance Survey Map of 1909 (National Library of Scotland – NLS.co.uk).

 Ordnance Survey Map of 1928 (National Library of Scotland – NLS.co.uk).

 Ordnance Survey Map of 1930 (old-maps.co.uk).

 Ordnance Survey Map of 1955 (old-maps.co.uk).

 Ordnance Survey Map of 1961 (old-maps.co.uk).

 Ordnance Survey Map of 1965 (old-maps.co.uk).

 Ordnance Survey Map of 1977 (old-maps.co.uk),

 Ordnance Survey Map of 1988 (old-maps.co.uk).

 Ordnance Survey Map of 1989 (old-maps.co.uk).

Aerial Photographs

 http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk

 Google Earth.

341

11.0 Traffic and Transportation

11.1 Introduction

11.1.1 This chapter addresses the traffic and transportation effects associated with the proposed extension of Hameldon Hill Wind Farm and has been prepared by HY Consulting Ltd. The main vehicle movements will be associated with the construction period for the 3 proposed turbines and include abnormal loads to transport wind turbine components; minimal traffic movements are expected during the operational stage. This chapter focuses on the potential effects associated with traffic to and from the site.

11.1.2 The proposals include for an access road from the main highway to the proposed turbine location site, the potential environmental effects associated with the construction of the access road from the highway network to the specific turbine location are likely to be associated with ecology, drainage and surface water management and as such reference should be made to Chapters 9, 12 and 13 respectively for the assessment of the access road.

11.1.3 This chapter should also be read in conjunction with the Traffic Management Plan (reference HY Consulting, 15136), which is provided as an appendix to this document (Appendix 11.1).

11.2 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance

11.2.1 National policy relating to transport is given within the NPPF, which was published on 27th March 2012. This document superseded a number of national PPS’s and PPG’s. The national policy relating to transport and development that was formerly set out in PPG 13 ‘Transport’ is now replaced by Section 4 of the NPPF.

11.2.2 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF is considered relevant here and states that “All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether:

 The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;

 Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and

 Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or

342

refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”

11.3 Methodology

11.3.1 The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the guidance provided in the Department for Transport ‘Guidance on Transport Assessments’ (2007) and the Institute of Environmental Assessment’s ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ (1993).

11.3.2 The Technical Assessment consider the sensitivity or value of resources/receptors that could be affected, in conjunction with the magnitude of impacts in order to derive the classification of effects and whether they are potentially significant and require mitigation.

11.4 Description of Baseline Conditions

11.4.1 A baseline study describes the current (and predicted) condition of those elements of the environment which are likely to be significantly affected by the proposed development. The baseline environmental conditions should be evaluated according to their importance and sensitivity, in line with the EIA Regulations.

11.4.2 The proposed site is located within an open moorland setting, approximately 4km south-west of Burnley and 2km south-east of Hapton. The proposals will include the construction of an access track to the turbine locations that will involve crossing over this open moorland and peat bog areas and also the construction of a short section of culvert across the beck (Tower Brook) to turbine 2.

11.4.3 The road network to the site from the strategic road network (M66) is summarised as follows. Upon leaving the M66 vehicles will travel east along the A679, Accrington Road; this is a two way carriageway road with an approximate width of 8m. The first 1.5km section of Burnley Road to the cross roads with Manchester Road and Hameldon Road is interspersed with farm access points and scattered residential dwelling access points; however this section does not provide any access to services which may be associated with high levels of pedestrian activities such as schools, local shops or connecting public rights of way. Given this pedestrian activity levels along this section of the road are likely to be very low.

11.4.4 At the cross roads mentioned above, Manchester Road provides access to the village of Hapton to the north and Hameldon Road access to scattered residential dwellings and farms

343

to the south; however, the proposed route continues along Accrington Road and as such avoids the village centre. Around the cross roads there are a cluster of residential dwellings that represent the southern edge of the village; the road width remains wide as noted above and there are footpaths whilst pedestrian activity is likely to be greater in this area (local residents accessing the village on foot), there are again no services that may attract high level of pedestrian activity in this area. Accrington Road is lit along its full length to highways standards.

11.4.5 It is noted that there is a large industrial estate further along Accrington Road, that would normally be associated with large volumes of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV); however, there is direct access off the M65 for east and west bound vehicles to the estate and as such, most larger vehicles are likely to use this route and the Accrington Road.

11.4.6 The delivery routes continues on Accrington Road for approximately 250m before turning right onto an existing access road which serves a restaurant car park (Agra) and several farm buildings (Old Barn Cottage). This access road is approximately 900m prior to meeting the site entrance to the existing wind farm site to the south-east. The access track then serves two further properties and continues south east as an existing access track which serves the existing wind farm. Most of this track is a private access track and as such is associated with no vehicular or pedestrian activity from the public. The proposed route is provided in Figure 1 in the Appended Traffic Management Plan.

11.4.7 The delivery route follows the existing wind farm access track for approximately 840m to a point adjacent to one of the existing turbines. Three new access tracks will then be formed to connect to the three proposed turbines.

11.4.8 At the time of writing the exact turbine product has not been finalised. The planning application is however, based on three turbines with a specified hub height of 59m. The assessment of the route has been based on the turbines being an Enercon E82 (2.35MW) and as such, the assessments have been based on the largest vehicle which is likely to be used to transport the component parts of the Enercon E82. In this instance, the design vehicle is therefore a Volvo FH16 8x4 + Broshuis Blade articulated HGV.

344

Sensitivity

11.4.9 The sensitivity of the site itself is considered to be low to medium and the sensitivity of the road (from the strategic road network to site) given its characteristics the impact is considered to be low to medium. The ecological assessment concludes that the proposed development will have minor adverse effect, therefore, non-significant.

11.4.10 The sensitivity of pedestrians along the route to site is considered to be low given that the route does not pass through any town or villages and there is likely to be limited pedestrian activity; furthermore there is street lighting and a footpath along Accrington Road. A public footpath also follows part of the route along the existing access road and access track, which will be used as part of the delivery route for construction vehicles.

Consideration of Alternatives

11.4.11 The proposed route for the wind turbines provides the most direct route to the site with the maximum use of the strategic road network and A roads. It therefore minimises travel distances through potentially sensitive receptors (populated areas). As such, detailed consideration to alternative routes has not been considered.

11.4.12 The majority of the delivery route uses the delivery route for the existing wind farm. The new section continues south-east and splits into three routes to access each turbine with individual access roads and turning areas.

11.5 Assessment of Potential Effects

11.5.1 In considering the potential effects and their significance, consideration is given to the description of the baseline condition and proposals identified above. A summary of the anticipated traffic associated with the development to be considered in the assessment of construction and operational phase effects is provided below.

11.5.2 In considering the potential effects and their significance, consideration is given to the description of the baseline condition and proposals identified above. A summary of the anticipated traffic associated with the development to be considered in the assessment is provided below.

11.5.3 The proposals include for the erection of 3 wind turbines, which will involve the construction of an access track from the existing track to as is shown in Figure 4.1. Three separate access

345

tracks will be provided with individual turning areas for each turbine. Traffic generated by the construction elements of the project build and assumptions used are set out below:

 Access Tracks: Compacted aggregate tracks from existing wind farm access road to each turbine (approx. 923m). Assumes 200mm depth, 4 – 6m wide; total volume = 4300m3. Each HGV to carry 20 tonnes, aggregate density 1.8 t/m3 (total volume = 2389 tonnes). Geogrid also required beneath aggregate, 30 rolls assumed, 10 rolls per HGV. 1 x HGV for culvert installation.  Turbine Site: Includes turning area, crane platform, turbine foundations. The turning areas will be compact aggregate, 200mm depth (volume per turbine = 71m3 or 40 tonnes). The crane platform will also be compacted aggregate with a depth of 500mm (volume per turbine = 440m3 or 244 tonnes). Total volume for the three turbines is therefore 733 tonnes. Turbine foundations will be concrete foundations with a depth of 2m (volume per turbine = 392m3). Concrete mixers have a typical capacity of 6m3.  Turbine Components: This includes the tower and blades delivery (approx. 6 abnormal loads); transformer, nacelle and cranes.  Infrastructure: This includes the substation buildings and cabling (900m – 1 HGV). Sand for the cable foundation is required at an assumed depth of 0.3m x 1.5m with a density of 1.6t/m3 (405m3 or 253 tonnes).  Miscellaneous: staff (max. 10 on site at any time); enabling works (site compound, clearance and signage etc) and miscellaneous construction materials (reinforced steel, form work etc) – 40 HGVs for site compound foundation, 20 HGVs materials / plant delivery.

11.5.4 The assumptions set out above have been used to estimate the monthly vehicle movements for the construction period, which has been estimated to be 6 months. Table 11.1 also shows the daily vehicle movements, which is based on 22 working days per month.

Vehicle Movements per Month (Two Way) Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

Access Tracks

Aggregate 80 80 80 240

Geogrid 1 1 1 3

Turbine Site

346

Turning Areas 6 6 12

Crane Platform 37 37 74

Turbine Foundation 130 130 130 390

Turbine Components

Abnormal Loads 12 9 21

Normal Loads 24 9 33

Infrastructure

Substation Buildings 20 20 20 60

Cabling 14 12 26

Miscellaneous

Staff 440 440 440 440 440 440 2640

Enabling Works 80 80

Materials / Plant 40 10 50

Total HGV Movements 207 124 248 186 182 42 939

Daily HGV Movements 10 6 11 9 8 2 43 Table 11.1: Estimated Vehicle Movements During Construction Period

Construction Impact 1: Increase Traffic and Congestion on Road Users

11.5.5 If the timing of construction vehicles is uncontrolled or significantly increased over the baseline condition then this may have the potential to cause congestion and delays to the other road users including cyclists, horse riders and vehicles during the construction period. In some cases such increases in traffic may result in localised severance, where people may not be able to access local facilities, their homes or workplace, albeit for short periods of time. If the route is not suitable and vehicles get stuck or cause damage to the highway, this may also lead to greater impacts.

11.5.6 As previously discussed the proposed route uses the strategic highway network for the majority of the route from the port, with the exception of the last 4km, such roads will have sufficient capacity accommodate the very low levels of traffic the construction phase will generate, and therefore the level of impact will be very low. On the route from the highway network to the access track, traffic is free flowing and is unlikely to be subject to large traffic volumes (local access and farm vehicles only).

347

11.5.7 Given the above the road is considered to have a low sensitivity to change and the magnitude of change is considered to be medium, reflects the number and nature of the vehicles proposed and the short period of construction likely. As such, the potential impact associated with amenity and severance is considered to be Minor Adverse reversible and temporary in nature and is therefore not considered significant.

Construction Impact 2: Loss of Amenity and Severance Caused by Increase in Traffic

11.5.8 Increases in traffic volumes may restrict locals to utilise footpaths, and may result in local severance (actual or perceived restrictions to routes and/or cutting off routes and access to) increased traffic speeds, traffic volume or the distance that users need to travel can also affect the pedestrian amenity. The significance of the impact will depend on the likely pedestrian delay as well as the levels of pedestrian activity on the proposed route.

11.5.9 With respect to the former, PPG13 provides guidance for recommended walk distances to services, which is 800m for schools and up to 2km for wider services; this provides a useful reference point in the absence of specific thresholds in the EIA Guidance. With respect to the latter, the institute EA guidelines indicate that a doubling of traffic may result in an unacceptable impact on pedestrian amenity.

11.5.10 As stated above, there is likely to be limited pedestrian activity associated with Burnley/Accrington Road; there is a primary school located in the northern area of Hapton but given the likely walk distances to such facilities, those living on Accrington road (except perhaps those located on the southern edge of the village) are unlikely to walk their children to school. Furthermore, there are limited PRoW that may warrant use of Accrington Road to access.

11.5.10 The public right of way that utilises the access road connects to the moorland areas to the south and east of the site and is therefore likely to generate very low volumes of pedestrian activities (limited only to leisure use). Given the very low volumes and speeds of traffic associated with the proposals the risk of any conflict between vehicles and pedestrians will be very low.

11.5.11 Based on the above, the sensitivity of the pedestrian users along most of the route is considered to be low given the low pedestrian activity along the proposed route. However the sensitivity of the access road to the site is considered to be medium given that this is also a public right of way and connects to wider footpaths. The magnitude of the change impact is

348

considered to be low. As such the potential impacts associated with amenity and severance of loss of amenity and severance is therefore assessed as Minor Negative and is therefore not considered to be significant.

Construction Impact 3 Fear Caused by Increase Traffic on the Road Network

11.5.12 In some cases large volumes of heavy traffic can provoke fear for personal safety for any pedestrians on the proposed site routes, this may be particularly pertinent in areas where traffic speeds are high, footpaths and carriageways are narrow and poorly lit, where there are large volumes of pedestrians or where sensitive end users such as the elderly or children are using the footpaths. It is also more likely to have an effect where the vehicles used in the constriction vehicles are abnormal loads that may overhang the carriageway.

11.5.13 Pedestrian movement on Accrington Road are likely to be minimal, there is a footway along its length and the road is lit to national standards. Furthermore, there is sufficient carriageway width to accommodate abnormal loads without the need to over hang onto the footways.

11.5.14 Whilst the PRoW and delivery route are not segregated along the access road, the impact is considered to be minimal given that it is likely that the impact.

11.5.15 Given the above the road is considered to have a low sensitivity and the magnitude of change is considered to be medium, which reflects the number and nature of the vehicles proposed and the short period of construction likely. As such, the potential impact associated with amenity and severance is considered to be Minor Adverse reversible and temporary in nature and is therefore not considered significant.

Construction Impact 4 Potential Increase in Accidents during the Construction Period

11.5.16 A review of CrashMap indicates that there are only 5 minor accidents on the route from the strategic network to the access road during the years 2010-2014 inclusive. Whilst it is recognised that this data may not be wholly complete, this does not indicate that there is a significant highway safety issue along the route. It is noted that Burnley Road/Accrington Road has good forward visibility in both directions, and adequate exit visibility is provided from the site access.

11.5.17 Given the above the road is considered to have a low sensitivity and the magnitude of change is considered to be medium, which reflects the nature of the vehicles proposed during the construction period. As such, the potential impact associated with amenity and severance is

349

considered to be Minor Adverse reversible and temporary in nature and is therefore not considered significant.

Operational Impacts

11.5.18 Through the operational life of the windfarm there would be limited traffic movements (as set down in Paragraphs 4.9) and these would predominantly comprise cars and small vans that would be required in relation to site maintenance. Assuming that the mitigation measures identified in this and other EIA chapters are implemented as appropriate at design and construction stage, there are considered to be no potential environmental effects from the operational stage that warrant further consideration.

11.6 Mitigation of Effects

11.6.1 Whilst no significant impacts have been identified that warrant detailed mitigation measures, best practice indicates that measures should be put in place to reduce any identified impacts where possible and practical.

Construction Impact 1 and Construction Impact 2

11.6.2 A TMP (included within Appendix 6.1) has been produced which will be updated and approved prior to the delivery of the turbines. The TMP will fix the delivery route, vehicle types and timings of deliveries. It will also set out the notifications and licences required to deliver abnormal loads for the delivery vehicles.

11.6.3 The TMP will also identify what traffic signs are required to notify the public that construction activities are taking place. This therefore raises awareness to pedestrians and drivers, and also ensures delivery vehicles are using the correct routes and speed limits. As such, the signs will mitigate and reduce the risk of vehicle and pedestrian conflicts along the route.

Construction Impact 3 Fear Caused by Increase Traffic on the Road Network

11.6.4 Prior to construction, the contractor will need to liaise with the abnormal loads officer as stated within the TMP. Any abnormal load will be moved under strict conditions and under police escort, to ensure that the loads can be delivered safely to the site. Under the Highways Act it is a legal requirement to complete the electronic register for abnormal loads which allows the contractor to check other traffic management details in the area that may impact

350

on the movement of the abnormal loads; this provides a mechanism to ensure the appropriate timing of the loads.

11.7 Residual Effects

11.7.1 Prior to assuming the implementation of the above mitigation measures the sensitivity of the receptors is considered to be low and the magnitude of change low and as such, the residual impact is considered to be negligible and therefore not significant.

11.8 Summary of Significance Evaluation

11.8.1 The significance of the effects in relation to traffic and transportation at the site have been

assessed and are summarised in Table 11.2.

Mitigation, Predicted Monitoring &

Effect gnitude

Controls

Sensitivity Ma Significance Other Parameters Sensitivity Magnitude Residual Impact Other Parameters During Construction

Increased Low Med Minor Temp Implementation Low Low Negligible Temp traffic Negative of the Traffic Management Loss of Low Negligible Minor Temp Low Low Negligible Temp Plan. Liaison Amenity / - - low Negative with abnormal Severance med loads officer to manage vehicle routes and timings Fear Low Med Minor Temp Low Low Negligible Temp Negative Accidents Low Med Minor Temp Low Low Negligible Temp Negative Operation – no significant effects identified

Loss of V Low Negligible IR Raised turbine V Low Negligible IR amenity Low base, Low Permeable access track and hardstanding, swales. Table 11.2: Summary Table of The Significance of the Effects

351

11.9 References

 Department for Communities and Local Government, National Planning Policy Framework, 2013.

 Highways Act.

 Institute of Environmental Assessment, The Institute of Environmental Assessment’s, Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, 1993.

352

12.0 Ground Conditions and Hydrogeology

12.1 Introduction

12.1.1 This chapter comprises the Ground Conditions and Hydrogeology chapter of the ES, which has been prepared on behalf of FAB Energy Solutions Ltd in relation to their proposals for the erection and operation of three wind turbines and associated ancillary infrastructure, on land adjacent to the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm, which is situated to the south of Burnley town.

12.1.2 The ES accompanies a planning application, made to Burnley Borough Council, as the LPA for the proposed development pursuant to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The ES has been prepared in line with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

12.1.3 The following sections will outline the baseline and proposed site conditions and seek to provide confirmation of the appropriateness of the site for the nature of development proposed in accordance with local and national guidance. A description of the site and proposal is in Chapter 3 and 4 respectively of the ES.

12.2 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance

National Planning Context

12.2.1 The ‘National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – Planning and Contaminated Land’ sets out the legislative background needed for considering development on land affected by contamination. It also provides an overview of the contaminated land regime in England, whilst setting out the roles and responsibilities of local authorities, developers/operators and the EA. The document focuses on Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act as mentioned above’.

12.2.2 The NPPF identifies the roles of the LPA ensuring that:

“The site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions and land instability, including from natural hazards or former activities such as mining, pollution arising from previous uses and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation” and,

353

“Adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is achieved”.

12.2.3 A comprehensive Geo-Environmental Appraisal has been prepared. The report is contained in Appendix 12.1.

DEFRA: Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A – Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance

12.2.4 Guidance has been published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A promotes the 'suitable for use approach'. This focuses on the risks caused by land contamination, recognising that these will vary greatly according to the use of the land and a wide range of other factors, such as the underlying geology of the site. Risks therefore need to be assessed on a site-by-site basis.

12.2.5 The recently published PPG identifies that contamination is most likely to arise in industrial locations and as part of any planning application, a geo-environmental appraisal should be carried out to ascertain the level of risk posed by the site and surrounding land uses past and present.

12.3 Methodology

Study Area

12.3.1 For the purposes of this assessment, the study area has been taken as the site boundary. Consideration has been given to immediately adjacent hydrologically connected environs.

Consultation

12.3.2 Baseline conditions at the site relating to ground conditions and hydrogeology have been established using both published information and detailed site investigations. Published information has been obtained in the form of:

 BGS Published Geology  Environment Agency Data  Envirocheck Site Investigation Report

12.3.3 During the development of this chapter, the following statutory bodies and interested parties have been consulted regarding the proposals:

 Environment Agency  United Utilities

354

12.3.4 Additional guidance documents which are applicable to this assessment include:

 Planning Practice Guidance (2014)  National Planning Policy Framework (2012)  Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012)  CIRIA SP156 - Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites (2002)  Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A: Contaminated Land, (2012)  CIRIA C552 Contaminated Land Risk Assessment, A Guide to Good Practice, (2001)  CIRIA C665 Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings, (2007)  CLR 11: Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land.  PPG1: General Guidance to the Prevention of Pollution  PPG6: Working at Construction and Demolition Sites

Assessing Impact Significance

12.3.5 To assess the significance of the identified impacts related to ground conditions and hydrogeology, the value of receptor and magnitude impacts are considered. Broadly, the significance is a function of:

 The value of the resources (international, national, regional and local level importance)  The magnitude of the impact  The duration involved  The reversibility of the effect  The number and sensitivity of receptors.

12.3.6 The following tables set out the criteria for determining the magnitude of the impact (Table 12.1), the sensitivity of receptors (Table 12.2) and the significance of the impact (Table 12.3). Where the matrix offers more than one significance option, professional judgement has been used to decide which is the most appropriate.

Magnitude Typical Criteria

Where the proposed development could be expected to have a significant High impact (either positive or negative) on ground conditions and/or hydrogeology.

355

Where the proposed development could be expected to have a noticeable Medium impact (either positive or negative) on ground conditions and/or hydrogeology.

Where the proposed development could be expected to result in a barely Low noticeable impact (either positive or negative) on ground conditions and/or hydrogeology.

Where no discernible impact is expected as a result of the proposed Very Low development on ground conditions and/or hydrogeology.

Table 12.1: Magnitude of Impact

Receptor Typical Criteria Sensitivity

Receptor of county or regional importance with limited potential for High replacement.

Medium Receptor of local or county importance with limited potential for replacement.

Low Receptor of local or county importance with potential for replacement.

Very Low Receptor of negligible importance/sensitivity.

Table 12.2: Sensitivity of Receptor

Impact Significance

12.3.7 The significance of the identified impacts is derived from the table below. Note that these can be either positive or negative.

Magnitude of Impact Sensitivity of Receptor High Medium Low Very Low

High Major Major Moderate Minor

Medium Major Moderate Minor Negligible

356

Low Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible

Very Low Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible

Table 12.3: Assessment Matrix

12.3.8 Generic definitions for the classification of effects are shown in Table 1.2 of the Scoping Report (Appendix 2.1) and reproduced below:

Effect Criteria

These effects may represent key factors in the decision making process. Potentially associated with sites and features of national importance or likely Major to be important considerations at a regional or district scale. Major effects may relate to resources or features which are unique and which, if lost, cannot be replaced or relocated.

These effects, if adverse, are likely to be important at a local scale and on Moderate their own could have a material influence on decision making.

These effects may be raised as local issues and may be of relevance in the Minor detailed design of the project, but are unlikely to be critical in the decision making process.

Effects which are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of Negligible variation or within the margin of forecasting error, these effects are unlikely to influence decision making, irrespective of other effects.

Table 12.4: Definitions of Classification of Effects

12.4 Baseline Conditions

12.4.1 The following paragraphs are based upon the findings of the Geo-Environmental Phase 1 Desk Study contained in Appendix 12.1.

Geology

12.4.2 A Desktop Survey of mapped geological records has been undertaken as part of the FRA process. Evaluation of the British Geological Survey (BGS) Geology of Britain Viewer shows the

357

site has bedrock of Pennine Lower Coal Measures Formation - Mudstone, Siltstone and Sandstone. The BGS Hydrogeology maps show the bedrock as a moderately productive aquifer with moderate yields from sandstones and many springs. Mine water quality is poor but elsewhere reasonable. The superficial geology is Devensian Till Diamicton (mixed) and Head Diamicton of glacial origin. No intrusive investigation has been undertaken for this study.

Radon

12.4.3 The BGS and the National Geoscience Information Service record that the site is situated within a low probability area affected by radon, where less than 1% of homes are estimated to be above the action level, and that no radon protection measures are necessary for the construction of new developments within the site.

Mining

12.4.4 Proposed turbines 2 and 3 are located outside the potential zone of influence of any coal mine entries. Proposed turbine 1 is located close to a probable coal outcrop, but this was not visible by inspection during the site visit. The following BGS Recorded Mineral Sites are noted within 500m of the site, though all are separated from the turbine sites by topography and by field boundaries.

No Site name Commodity Status Distance (m)

90 New Barn Clough Ceased 430 Surface Mined Coal 91 Coal Workings Ceased 320

95 Hapton Park Sandstone Ceased 200

96 Ceased 480 Helm Clough Sandstone 99 Ceased 150

101 Hapton Park Sandstone Ceased 360

Table 12.5: Table Illustrating the BGS Recorded Mineral Sites are noted within 500m of the Site

Hydrology & Hydrogeology

12.4.5 The EA’s National Generalised Modelling (NGM) Flood Zones Plan indicates predicted flood envelopes of main rivers across the UK. The entire site is shown to lie within Flood Zone 1; being an area of Low Probability of flooding, outside both the 1 in 100 (1% AEP) year and 1 in

358

1,000 (0.1% AEP) year flood events. The FRA concludes that the site is therefore suitable for development from a flood risk viewpoint.

12.4.6 Further details on hydrology and flooding are outlined within the FRA and within the Hydrology & Drainage chapter (Chapter 13) in the ES.

12.4.7 The vulnerability of groundwater around the site is illustrated in the Phase 1 Report. The turbine sites all lie in an area defined as a minor aquifer of low permeability, and close to a minor aquifer of high permeability. The soils are of low leaching potential, in which pollutants are unlikely to penetrate the soil layer because water movement is largely horizontal or they have large ability to attenuate diffuse pollutants. Lateral flow form these soils contribute to groundwater recharge elsewhere in the catchment.

Historic Land Uses

12.4.8 In appraising the site history, published OS maps have been reviewed dating from the middle 19th century up to the present day. A selection of large scale maps used in this report is contained in Appendix B of The Phase I Ground Conditions and Hydrogeology Report attached as Appendix 12.1 to this ES.

12.4.9 Analysis of the OS mapping since 1848 has revealed very little activity in the vicinity of the site. The remains of Hapton Tower are shown approximately 600m to the west north-west of the site, and a disused quarry 500m to the west south-west. The quarry does not appear in the 1848 map, but is referred to in the 1894-95 map as the ‘old quarry’. Wind Turbines appear for the first time in the 2015 map, immediately to the north-west of the site. In 1848, a sandstone quarry is shown at the gated entrance to the site, 150m to the north-west of turbine 3, and a coal pit 250m to the north-east, but both have disappeared by 1894-95. They are noted as BGS recorded mineral sites no’s 95 and 99.

12.4.10 There is a Radar Weather Station 700m south of turbine 2, on Hambledon Hill.

12.4.11 With the exception of these developments, there is no evidence of any significant changes to the historic land uses within 1000m of the site which could pose a contaminative risk to the proposed development.

Contamination

12.4.12 To appraise the baseline contaminative conditions for the site, a generic Quantitative Risk Assessment was completed as part of the Desk Study. The following paragraphs provide an

359

overview of this. A review of the statutory registers provides further baseline contamination and waste related information.

12.4.13 Four instances of pollution incidents to controlled waters have been recorded. These occurred between May 1991 and September 1995, and all are categorised as Minor Incidents. Two substantiated pollution incidents have been registered between July 2003 and January 2012. These are detailed in full in the appendices. All are located some distance from, and downstream of the site, and most relate to the now discontinued quarry to the north-west of the site.

12.4.14 One water abstraction licence, now revoked, was issued for general agriculture and private water supply (domestic).

12.4.15 None of the following have been recorded within 1 km of the site:

 Contaminated Land Register Entries and Notices  Enforcement and Prohibition Notices  Integrated Pollution Controls  Local Authority Integrated Pollution Prevention And Control  Local Authority Pollution Prevention and Control Enforcements  Prosecutions Relating to Authorised Processes  Prosecutions Relating to Controlled Waters  Registered Radioactive Substances  Water Industry Act Referrals  Source Protection Zones

Landfill Waste

12.4.16 Three historic and three registered landfill sites have been identified within 1200m of the site, and one Local Authority Recorded Landfill. A now-defunct registered waste treatment or disposal site was identified in the same location.

12.4.17 None of the following have been recorded within 1km of the site:

 Historic Landfill Sites.  Licenced Waste Management Facilities.  BGS Recorded Landfill Sites.  Integrated Pollution Control Registered Waste Sites.

360

 Local Authority Recorded Landfill Sites.  Registered Waste Transfer Sites/Registered Waste Treatment or Disposal Sites.

Sensitive Land Use

12.4.18 None of the following are reported within 500m of the site boundary:

 Areas of Adopted/Unadopted Green Belt  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty  Environmentally Sensitive Areas  Forest Parks  Local, Marine or National Nature Reserves  National Parks  Nitrate Sensitive Areas  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones  Ramsar Sites  Sites of Special Scientific Interest  Special Areas of Conservation

 Special Protection Areas

12.5 Assessment of Potential Effects

12.5.1 This section describes the potential effects on ground conditions and hydrogeology that could arise in the absence of mitigation during the following phases of the proposed wind farm:

 Construction  Operation  Decommissioning

12.5.2 Due to the nature of the site and the proposed development, a number of the impacts of construction and decommissioning are predicted to be similar. The assessment of potential impact has been carried out for the proposed windfarm without any mitigation. Following consideration of possible mitigation measures, the residual impacts are then identified. In each case the potential magnitude is identified.

361

Impact during Construction/Decommissioning Phase: Short to Medium Term

Surface Runoff Characteristics

12.5.3 Localised increases in the rate and volume of surface runoff could potentially be caused by excavations, exposure of bare soils, and compaction of soils and poor design of site drainage. As well as increasing the risk of downstream flooding, this could also alter the water quality and hydrological regime of the site. Track and turbine foundation construction works have the potential to alter the drainage mechanisms within the site, for example through:

 diversion of surface runoff away from baseline drainage routes;  collection of runoff and rainfall within excavations;  reduction of rainfall interception in areas felled to accommodate construction;  reduction or increase in infiltration or percolation to groundwater; and  ponding of surface water through obstructions of flow paths, etc.

12.5.4 Compaction of soils may be caused by the movements of construction traffic and machinery across the site. This would reduce the soil permeability, alter flow paths and therefore rainfall infiltration, and potentially lead to higher catchment runoff rates, in particular during high rainfall. Although tracks and hard standing areas will be constructed using granular material, surfaces are likely to become compacted which is likely to limit infiltration through the track and hard standing area bases.

12.5.5 The potential impacts on runoff and infiltration are considered to have a medium magnitude and the sensitivity of the watercourses and drainage areas affected is considered to be medium, resulting in a moderate impact without mitigation.

River Flows and Flooding

12.5.6 Inadequately designed watercourse crossings could restrict watercourses flow regimes within the site. This may lead to increased water levels upstream and result in localised increases of flood risk. Additionally, poorly designed crossing structures could lead to localised erosion and sedimentation. Not only could this have an impact on the stability of the structure, but this could also have a detrimental impact on water quality caused by a higher than normal sediment load. Sudden changes in bed levels or flow regimes (for example hydraulic jumps) could occur at in-bank structures if not adequately designed.

362

12.5.7 The insertion of grout as part of the turbine foundation construction works could displace groundwater, which then discharge to surface waters, resulting in raised river flows or localised areas of flooding for a short period of time. Impacts on river flows and flooding are considered to be of medium magnitude and as the rivers are of medium sensitivity, this results in a moderate impact without mitigation.

Erosion and Sedimentation

12.5.8 Changes in natural drainage patterns due to runoff from exposed soil, dewatering, stripping of vegetation and topsoil may lead to the erosion and transport of sediment into watercourses. Increased flow rates due to changes in site drainage can also lead to increased erosion of watercourse bed and banks. Sedimentation of watercourses can have a detrimental impact on flood storage capacity and water quality. Where sediment-laden waters are allowed to pond in areas where bedrock is at or near the surface, there is a risk that the contaminated waters may flow through fractures in the solid geology, into local groundwater and into local watercourses.

12.5.9 The impacts from erosion and sedimentation on Tower Brook within the site and other watercourses downstream of the site which have medium sensitivity, are considered to be of a medium magnitude and moderate impact without mitigation.

Water Quality

12.5.10 A number of chemicals may be stored and used on-site during the construction of the proposed wind farm. These include unset concrete, concrete additives, fuel and oil. These pollutants may adversely affect the water quality of the receiving surface water and groundwater environment.

12.5.11 Spillages of concrete may occur during concrete pouring operations into turbine bases, which may runoff into surface watercourses or seep into groundwater. Contamination of surface water may also occur as a result of spillages from routine plant maintenance, improper storage and accidental spillages.

12.5.12 Should a pollution incident occur, heavy rain could increase the volume of surface water runoff with pollutant loads such as oils and fuels from hardstanding’s and unset concrete from turbine foundations. Grouting activities, which may also use concrete materials, also have the potential to affect groundwater quality. Displaced mine waters beneath the site as a result of

363

grouting activities prior to foundation construction for the turbine bases could result in discharge of mine water into the surface water environment either within or downstream of the site, which would adversely affect water quality.

12.5.13 The impact of chemical pollution on the watercourse quality (medium sensitivity) is likely to have a moderate impact without mitigation.

Modifications to Hydrogeological Regime

12.5.14 Any dewatering required for construction activities is likely to have a minimal impact due to the low permeability of the soils and superficial deposits. However, excavations such as those needed for the turbine bases are likely to disrupt any shallow groundwater systems within the peat deposits. Temporary groundwater controls such as dewatering or physical cut-offs may be required to prevent the excavations filling with water, which would be likely to result in the lowering of groundwater levels in the immediate vicinity of the excavation. Cable trenches can also provide preferential flow pathways for groundwater, especially if cut to the soil/drift bedrock interface.

12.5.15 The magnitude of these impacts on the groundwater environment at the proposed site is considered to be medium and the sensitivity of the groundwater is considered to be medium. The level of this impact prior to mitigation is therefore assessed as moderate.

Chemical Pollution of Groundwater

12.5.16 The leaching of hydrocarbons, chemicals (including those arising from the grout), transformer oils and fuel from any construction activities presents a potential source of contamination to underlying groundwater. The soil and superficial deposits present within the site are expected to provide protection to the groundwater in the bedrock where present.

12.5.17 Groundwater vulnerability will also be higher in areas where there are mineshafts at the surface, as these will provide a direct pathway for pollutants to enter the groundwater. The magnitude of this impact is therefore considered to be medium and the sensitivity of the groundwater is considered to be medium. The significance of this level of impact prior to mitigation is therefore assessed as moderate.

364

Peat

12.5.18 Disturbance of peat deposits might occur during construction activities on the site which could result in loss of carbon storage, generate waste peat materials from excavations and may affect the hydrology of peat. Excavations and floating access tracks may cause localised peat displacement. The Phase 1 Study concludes that, without mitigation, a low risk exists in relation to peat stability across the majority of the site.

12.5.19 Where the tracks or foundations are near deep peat, the construction may locally lower the groundwater table within peat deposits. In the long-term, this could then lead to degrading of the bog and a reduction in peat depth. Additionally, tracks intersecting with overland or groundwater flow paths could lead to increased drainage or lead to blockage of flows. The potential impact on peat bogs with medium sensitivity is considered to be of high magnitude and a major impact without mitigation.

Soils

12.5.20 During construction, some excavations may require temporary sub-surface water controls, such as physical cut-offs or dewatering. Cut-off drains divert flows away from construction activities, while dewatering temporarily lowers the water table in the vicinity of the excavation. Changes to soil flow patterns can be caused by the movement of construction traffic that may lead to compaction of the soil, reducing soil permeability and rainfall infiltration. The impacts of construction on drainage patterns on the medium sensitivity soils are considered to be of a medium magnitude and moderate impact without mitigation.

Solid Geology

12.5.21 The excavation of foundations for turbines may impact on the solid geology and have adverse impacts on the local geological resource. However, deep foundations into the rock are not anticipated given the depth of peat soils and superficial strata. The resulting potential for disturbance of solid geology is therefore limited. The sensitivity of solid geology within the proposed development area is therefore considered to be negligible, and therefore the magnitude is considered to be very low and the impact negligible.

Disturbance and Movement of Contamination Materials

12.5.22 There is the possibility of land contamination associated with mining activities. Excavations within contaminated land could generate contaminated run off, create pollution migration

365

pathways that allow pollution to migrate beyond the land already considered to be contaminated, and disturb any confined contaminated materials (e.g. below ground) thereby releasing them to surroundings soils/groundwater and watercourse baseflow. Construction activities in contaminated soils could also result in the generation of waste requiring special handling/treatment/disposal. Therefore the magnitude is considered moderate and the impact moderate without mitigation.

Human Health from Exposure to Land Contamination

12.5.23 The excavation/disturbance of soils may expose construction workers to contaminated material. Similarly the excavation of turbine foundations may expose material or create a pathway for exposure to soil gases/vapours. Construction workers could be exposed to contaminated soils/groundwater by direct contact with these materials during excavations or by inhalation of soil gases and vapours in confined spaces during construction activities. Construction activities in contaminated ground may generate dusts which could mobilise contaminants into the atmosphere and subsequently be inhaled by construction workers.

12.5.24 The majority of the proposed wind farm infrastructure has been located away from areas of suspected potential land contamination. In areas where contamination potential coincides with the proposed wind farm footprint, the magnitude of the impact is considered to be medium. Given the high sensitivity allocated to human health receptors, the level of impact is predicted to be major without mitigation.

Private Water Supplies

12.5.25 The potential impacts on the private water supply include disruption of the supply and pollution of the water quality supplied by the spring. The sensitivity of the supply is considered to be medium, and the magnitude high. Therefore the level of impact is predicted to be major without mitigation.

Impact During Operation Phase: Long Term

12.5.26 The following section identifies the potential impacts that could occur on the hydrological, hydrogeological and geological environment during the operation of the proposed wind farm.

366

Surface Runoff Characteristics

12.5.27 The proposed infrastructure, including turbine foundations and access tracks, could affect the surface runoff and drainage characteristics in nearby areas. The presence of lower permeability or impermeable surfaces could lead to a quicker catchment response with increased peak runoff rates. However, given the very small percentage of area used for infrastructure, this is unlikely to be significant. Additionally, the proposed infrastructure is sparse and surrounded by large areas of undisturbed pasture.

12.5.28 Access tracks have the potential to intercept surface runoff and alter drainage paths. For example, when tracks are constructed along contours, runoff could be intercepted and cause flooding of the track in the absence of mitigation measures. Tracks could become preferential drainage paths where runoff is channelled away from natural flow paths. This could lead to substantial overland flows causing erosion and a reduction in surface water infiltration.

12.5.29 The potential impact on runoff and infiltration on the medium sensitivity rivers and drainage areas is therefore considered to have a low magnitude and therefore a minor impact without mitigation.

River Flows and Flooding

12.5.30 The impacts on river flows and flood risk are similar to those expected during the construction phase. This is considered to have a low magnitude and medium sensitivity, resulting in a minor impact without mitigation.

Erosion and Sedimentation

12.5.31 Levels of erosion and sedimentation are likely to be much lower than during the construction phase as there are no excavations or bare exposed ground, following post construction restoration. Some erosion and sedimentation is still possible on the site tracks, hardstanding’s and drainage ditches as a result of scouring during extreme rainfall events. Similarly there could be some minor erosion and sedimentation around new and upgraded stream crossings as watercourses find a new equilibrium. Hydrological impacts on the medium sensitivity watercourses are considered to be minor without mitigation.

367

Water Quality

12.5.32 The potential risk of pollution is substantially lower during the operational phase because of the decreased levels of activity. The majority of potential pollutants will have been removed when construction is complete. However, lubricants for turbine gearboxes, hydraulic oils and the potential for possible fuel leaks from maintenance vehicles will remain. The impacts on water quality resulting from the grouting and piling activities are considered to be limited to the construction phase and it is considered unlikely to continue to affect water quality during the operational phase. The impacts on the medium sensitivity watercourses arising from these activities are considered to be of medium magnitude and therefore of moderate impact without mitigation.

Modification to Hydrogeological Regime

12.5.33 Cut tracks and their drainage may alter the water table within superficial deposits and the upper bedrock aquifer. Backfilled cable trenches may provide preferential flow pathways for groundwater. These impacts are considered to be of small magnitude and the sensitivity of groundwater medium, resulting in a negligible impact prior to mitigation.

Chemical Pollution of Groundwater

12.5.34 During the operational phase of the proposed wind farm there will be considerably less on-site activity than during construction. However, leaching of contaminants from chemicals stored on site and maintenance activities could still be a source of pollution to underlying groundwater. The soils and superficial deposits are expected to provide protection to the groundwater in the bedrock where present. These impacts are considered to be of medium magnitude and the sensitivity of groundwater is considered to be medium, resulting in a moderate impact prior to mitigation.

Peat

12.5.35 Impacts on peat are considered to be lower than during the construction phase as there is no further disruption and risk of instabilities. This is therefore considered to have a low magnitude and peat is assessed as being of medium sensitivity, resulting in a minor impact without mitigation.

368

Soils

12.5.36 The presence of the concrete turbine foundations, tracks and cable trenches may cause obstructions for natural drainage and flow patterns within the local soils. The potential impacts of these changes during the operation phase on the medium sensitivity soils are considered to be of low magnitude and minor impact without mitigation.

Superficial Deposits

12.5.37 No excavations of superficial deposits will occur during the operational phase. Therefore, the magnitude of impact on superficial deposits will be very low and the sensitivity is assessed as very low, resulting in negligible impact.

Solid Geology

12.5.38 No excavations of bedrock will occur during the operational phase. Therefore, the magnitude of impact on bedrock will be very low and the sensitivity as very low, resulting in negligible impact.

Private Water Supplies

12.5.39 Private Water Supplies (PWS) will be sensitive to water quality, and therefore the impacts are similar to those of water quality and chemical pollution of groundwater, with medium magnitude and medium sensitivity, resulting in a moderate impact.

Decommissioning Phase

Surface Runoff Characteristics

12.5.40 The potential impacts of the decommissioning works on surface runoff within the local fluvial system are similar to those during the construction phase although of a smaller magnitude. During the decommissioning, the turbine and track foundations are left in place and top-soils will be restored above the foundations. There is therefore a smaller risk of changes to runoff flow paths and drainage in general. As the receptor is considered to be of medium sensitivity and the impact to have a low magnitude, the level of impact is assessed to be minor without mitigation.

369

River Flows and Flooding

12.5.41 The decommissioning of the proposed wind farm is not likely to have any adverse impact on river flows and flooding on the site’s fluvial systems. The receptor is of medium sensitivity and the impact is considered to have very low magnitude, resulting in a negligible impact without mitigation.

Erosion and Sedimentation

12.5.42 Erosion or sedimentation may occur as a result of general earthworks as part of the decommissioning and landscaping works. Considering the medium sensitivity watercourses downstream of the site, and that the magnitude is likely to be low, the impact will be negligible without mitigation.

Water Quality

12.5.43 The impact on water quality and the potential for chemical pollution of the sensitive watercourses downstream of the site is similar to those arising during the construction phase and is considered to have a medium magnitude and a moderate impact without mitigation.

Modification to Hydrogeological Regime

12.5.44 The impacts are expected to be the same as those for the operational phase as tracks and turbine foundations would remain in place.

Chemical Pollution of Groundwater

12.5.45 The impacts are expected to be the same, or less than, than those of the construction phase.

Peat

12.5.46 Potential impacts of the decommissioning of the wind farm are neutral as there will no additional disturbance of the peat. Tracks and other underground infrastructure will remain in place and covered with peat or topsoil. The magnitude of this impact is considered to be very low. As the peat receptor is of medium sensitivity, the level of this impact is negligible.

Soils, Superficial Deposits, Solid Geology

12.5.47 The impacts are expected to be the same, or less than, those of the construction phase.

370

Potential for Exposure to Historic Contamination Sources

12.5.48 The impacts are expected to be the same, or less than, those of the construction phase.

Private Water Supplies

12.5.49 The risk to PWS during the decommissioning phase is considered to be similar to that of the construction phase. Therefore the potential for impacts on PWS is considered to be of high magnitude, resulting in a major impact.

12.6 Mitigation of Effects

12.6.1 A number of design and management measures during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed wind farm have been identified below. These measures are designed to reduce the significance of the effects predicted in Paragraphs 12.35 to 12.83 previously.

Construction Pollution Control

12.6.2 A Health, Safety and Environmental Management System (HSEMS), including pollution prevention measures, specifically aimed at the water environment, and construction Method Statements, will be in place during construction, operation and decommissioning. The HSEMS will include the mitigation measures to be implemented to prevent or minimise effects on the surface and groundwater environment, and will also include an Incident Response Plan. Construction works will be timed to avoid construction of tracks and other potentially polluting activities during periods of high rainfall, as far as reasonably practicable.

12.6.3 The HSEMS will address the following issues:

 Storage: all equipment, materials and chemicals will be stored in designated locations at an appropriate distance from watercourses. Chemical, fuel and oil stores will be sited on impervious bases within a secured bund in accordance with relevant guidance and best practice.

 Vehicles and Refuelling: standing machinery will have drip trays placed underneath to prevent oil and fuel leaks causing pollution. Drip trays will have minimum capacity of 110% of the fuel tank. Where practicable, refuelling of vehicles and machinery will be carried out in designated areas, on an impermeable surface, and well away from any

371

watercourse. Drip trays will also be used during refuelling and spill kits will be stored in vehicles on site, at designated refuelling areas and where chemicals are stored. Site staff will be trained in their use.

 Maintenance: where vehicles or plant require maintenance, this will be undertaken in a designated area within the construction compound where reasonably practicable, unless vehicles have broken down necessitating maintenance at the point of breakdown, where special precautions will be taken.

 Welfare Facilities: on-site welfare facilities will be adequately designed and maintained to ensure that all wastewater and sewage is disposed of appropriately. This may take the form of an on-site septic tank with soakaway, or offsite disposal, depending on the suitability of the site for a soakaway, and prior agreement with EA.

 Cement and Concrete: fresh concrete and cement are very alkaline and corrosive, and can be lethal to aquatic life. The use of wet concrete in and around watercourses will be avoided or, where essential, carefully controlled by provision of an agreed construction Method Statement prior to construction.

 Contingency Plans: will ensure that emergency equipment will be available on-site i.e. spill kits and absorbent materials, addition pumps, information on where and from whom to seek advice, and who should be informed in the event of a pollution incident.

 Inspections: All mitigation measures put in place, e.g. silt traps and sediment settlement tanks, will be inspected regularly and will be suitably maintained to ensure they remain fully operational and effective. Where failures or shortfalls within mitigation measures are noted, these will be recorded. Suitable action will be identified and undertaken within a suitable timeframe.

Construction Waste Management

12.6.4 The production of waste will be minimised throughout the works, including waste from peat. Where waste is generated, this will be reused and recycled where possible. A Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) will be produced to address the management of waste streams. The SWMP is typically incorporated into the HSEMS and will address the following issues:

 Waste reduction;

372

 Segregation of waste at source;

 Appropriate storage and disposal of waste taking account of stability and pollution prevention;

 Management of peat, superficial deposits and solid geology;

 Re-use of peat where possible on site;

 Management of waste oils; and

 Recommendations for inspection and maintenance.

Environmental Monitoring

12.6.5 A groundwater and surface water monitoring programme will be implemented to obtain baseline data, as well as data during construction works. The scope will be agreed with the regulatory authorities prior to implementation.

12.6.6 The surface water monitoring scheme will ensure that there are no detrimental effects on the quality of downstream watercourses as a result of the construction activities. The monitoring network will be established a minimum of six months prior to construction works and will consist of control monitoring points upstream and downstream of the works.

12.6.7 In addition to surface water monitoring, regular visual inspection of surface water management features such as culverts and receiving watercourses will be carried out in order to establish whether there are increased levels of suspended sediment, erosion or deposition. It is likely that there will be an ongoing need to maintain these structures, for example by the removal of debris, to ensure they continue to function as designed. Regular visual inspection of watercourses will also be required during construction and decommissioning stages, particularly during periods of high rainfall, in order to establish that levels of suspended solids have not been significantly increased by on-site activities.

12.6.8 Monitoring will also be required as a condition of any discharge consents, abstraction licences or other environmental regulations.

373

Ground Movement Monitoring

12.6.9 As the access tracks are being constructed, the appearance of the track and surrounding land will be monitored for increased rate of sinking or tilting or a rise in water levels. A line of surveyed and levelled pegs and visual monitoring is an acceptable method of monitoring movement adjacent to roads. During and immediately after periods of heavy rainfall, earthmoving activities will be reviewed with temporary restrictions where necessary.

Risk from Potential Historical Contamination Sources

12.6.10 In order to mitigate the risks associated with potential historic contamination sources it is recommended that the following measures be undertaken:

 Exploratory site investigations should be completed in areas of historic mineral extraction works to confirm the nature of any fill material. All bulk storage of liquids should meet the minimum required standards to guard against accidental product releases. These measures should be detailed in the Construction Phase Environmental Management Plan.

 On the basis of the results of intrusive investigations any mitigation action can be considered, should potential linkages to the water environment be apparent associated with these historic source areas on site.

 Appropriate health and safety measures should be adopted as part of the Construction Phase Health and Safety Plan to protect the health of site workers/users.

Geotechnical Design & Site Investigation

12.6.11 Detailed geotechnical design will be undertaken for each turbine location, access track, hard standing areas and the construction compound. This will be based on the location-specific mechanical characteristics of the peat and ground conditions and the morphology of the underlying strata (i.e. superficial deposits, solid geology, proximity to/likelihood of mine shafts). Further targeted ground investigation will therefore inform a detailed design utilising current and location specific geotechnical data. Prior written permission from The Coal Authority is required for intrusive activities which will disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits).

374

Peat Stability Risk

12.6.12 The Ground Stability Assessment included in the Ground Conditions Report (Appendix 12.1) has identified that the majority of the assessed area has a low baseline qualitative risk of peat stability for the site, indicating potentially acceptable conditions for gradual loading of the peat. The exception to the above is that an area of the site close to turbine 1 has been assessed as having a potentially high compressible ground risk. The report identifies a number of basic mitigation measures required to minimise the peat stability risk.

Turbine Foundations

12.6.13 Bunds or cut-off drains will be placed around turbine foundations to direct any overland flow away from open excavations. Drainage ditches will be constructed to attenuate and convey the runoff away from the excavation before being treated in a settlement lagoon. All drainage around the foundations will be removed on completion of the construction phase. Water derived from all dewatering activities during the construction phase will be treated via settlement lagoons before being discharged to groundwater or surface water.

12.6.14 Treated water can also be discharged onto vegetated surfaces and directed away from watercourses and drainage ditches to avoid direct entry into watercourses. For discharge onto rough grasslands to be effective the discharge must be spread efficiently. Where ground conditions require it, grouting will be used to increase ground stability prior to foundation construction. A methodology will be produced, based on the site investigation works, to control and minimise effects of grouting activities.

Turbine Hardstanding Areas

12.6.15 Turbine hardstanding’s will be designed in such a way that surface water will infiltrate through the relatively permeable surface or will discharge into the associated road drainage. This means that overall runoff rates remain close to greenfield conditions.

Site Tracks

12.6.16 The construction of new tracks will be of floating design due to the depths and sensitivity of the peat on site. This technique typically involves laying of a geogrid or membrane on the peat surface followed by layers of graded crushed bedrock. Tracks alignments have been developed to avoid areas of deep peat where possible. In general, tracks will be constructed with sufficient camber or crossfall to minimise ponding of surface water on the track surface.

375

12.6.17 Any surface water not infiltrating through the access track base will be directed into infiltration trenches and/or drainage ditches prior to being discharged into settlement ponds. These SuDS measures will treat and attenuate the runoff before discharging back into the natural drainage network, and will minimise the risk of erosion of the track surface and the subsequent risk of sedimentation.

12.6.18 Where the access tracks are constructed across natural areas of drainage such as springs, drainage measures in the form of drainage pipes will be installed under the access track to allow the run-off to continue to follow its natural course. Where required, existing field drains will be reconfigured to ensure an effective drainage of the area and to prevent surface water ponding behind tracks. The SuDS proposed as part of the access tracks and other infrastructure are predicted to reduce any potential effect on runoff characteristics to baseline conditions. This is due to:

 The sparse distribution of the proposed infrastructure, without large continuous impermeable areas;

 Access tracks and hard standing areas will be constructed using graded bedrock allowing some surface water infiltration and drainage through adjacent soils;

 Where drainage ditches are required, outfalls will be distributed along the ditches to minimise runoff rates and to allow infiltrate into adjacent soils.

12.6.19 Where tracks are situated near deep peat, drainage systems will be adapted to ensure that the water table in the adjacent peat is not affected or only affected over a short distance. For example, drainage ditches along the track will be as shallow as possible sufficient to drain rainfall from the track surface and to prevent runoff flooding the track. The track surface will be near the adjacent peat surface and cross-drains will be installed at or just below the track surface. These measures will ensure that runoff within the upper peat layer is not blocked by the track. The track base will be constructed using suitably permeable graded material such that the slow movement of water in the deeper peat layers is not significantly affected by the track.

Stream Crossings

12.6.20 Where the access track to turbine 2 crosses Tower Brook, a simple pipe culvert will be installed. The pipe invert levels will be installed slightly below upstream and downstream bed

376

levels to ensure that barriers for aquatic fauna and sediment transport are minimised. The new crossing structures will not form a barrier to river flows (low flows and flood flows) and aquatic fauna, and will be designed and constructed with respect to relevant guidance and best practice. Streams, crossings and drainage ditches will be inspected and cleared regularly to prevent blockages and remove the risk of flooding throughout the construction and operational life of the wind farm.

On-Site Buildings

12.6.21 On-site welfare facilities will be adequately designed and maintained to ensure all wastewater and sewage is disposed of appropriately. This disposal is likely to take the form of either a closed on-site septic tank with tankering offsite for disposal or a suitable on-site treatment system with discharge to soakaway. Design of the final system will require further consultation with and authorisation from EA.

12.6.22 Rainfall on roofs will be collected in a rainwater tank for re-use within the building. Any excess rainwater will be discharged to groundwater or surface water. The sizing and location of the various elements of the drainage system will be influenced by the topography, gradient and catchment runoff characteristics and the volumes of runoff intercepted by each drain. These factors will be determined at the detailed design stage.

Cables

12.6.23 Where cables are required to be buried, the following mitigation shall be put in place:

 excavations for trenches will be of minimal size necessary to undertake works; cable trenches will be dug, cables laid and filled in sections to minimise the areas of active excavation open at any one time;

 bunds will be placed along the route of the buried cable route to prevent the creation of a preferential pathway for groundwater arising along the path of the cable; and

 all cables will be marked above and below ground to ensure there is no danger to human health or the environment during maintenance or earth works within the vicinity of the proposed cable routes.

377

Concrete Pouring and Grouting

12.6.24 If concrete is to be used on site for activities other than grouting, when it is being poured shutters will be used and, if being poured into an excavation, only into an area free from standing water. Pumps should be used to keep excavations dry if required. Concrete pouring will not be undertaken during heavy rainfall. No concrete will be placed within 0.5m of an open water channel unless the area can be fully isolated from the stream, for example through bunding and lining. Concrete batching will be undertaken on-site only in the temporary construction compound.

12.6.25 Materials used for grouting will be used and managed on site in accordance with the grouting Method Statement. Site investigation works will confirm the requirement for grouting at each turbine location and a Method Statement will be produced for grouting activities for each foundation that requires it. The grouting Method Statement will set out the anticipated volume of grout required for each foundation and describe how effects on water quality and groundwater displacement will be minimised and monitored.

Private Water Supplies

12.6.26 Site investigation works will seek to confirm the location of the spring recorded at Grid Reference 380500, 430300 and will assess risk to this supply from the proposed development. If required, monitoring and a contingency plan will be put in place should the supply be interrupted or its quality affected.

Traffic

12.6.27 Site traffic will be kept to clearly designated tracks, in line with a site-specific Traffic Management Plan. Barriers and/or netting will be used to prevent vehicle movements in sensitive areas. Where vehicle movements are required to take place off-track, e.g. on soft ground during construction phase, these will be limited to the absolute minimum and where excessive off-track vehicle movements are required, temporary tracks (e.g. geotextile overlain with aggregate) should be used to prevent damage to the soil and creation of sediment laden runoff. Such tracks will be removed upon completion of the works.

12.6.28 If there is a requirement to wash vehicles on-site or as they enter, or leave site, this activity should be undertaken in a designated area that is bunded to prevent uncontrolled runoff or

378

release of water from the washing process. All water and runoff arising from vehicle washing will be controlled and treated prior to discharge back into any watercourse.

12.7 Residual impacts

12.7.1 The summary of impact significance tabulated below shows that all potential effects are effectively mitigated. All residual impacts are minor or negligible, and most are temporary. Key mitigation measures include a temporary (construction) and permanent SuDS drainage scheme incorporating flow attenuation and water quality treatment systems. Construction best practices and pollution control measures will also be implemented to prevent pollution of streams and groundwater. Impact on peat is minimised through the track alignment design and construction methods including a floating track above areas of deep peat.

12.8 Cumulative impact

12.8.1 The Hameldon Hill Wind Farms (existing and proposed) have the potential to result in cumulative effects on the small watercourses within the catchment. However, with the recommended mitigation measures in place, these cumulative effects are not expected to be significant, as the construction phases will not coincide.

12.8.2 Cumulative geological, soil and peat effects are not expected given the discrete nature of the works (e.g. turbine foundations).

12.8.3 Prior to any construction works commencing, the developer will review the cumulative effects and assess if the proposed construction programme will coincide with any other construction sites downstream and discuss any additional mitigation or monitoring requirements with regulators.

12.9 Summary

12.9.1 In terms of fluvial flood risk, the site lies within Flood Zone 1, outside both the 1 in 100 (1% AEP) and 1 in 1,000 (0.1% AEP) year flood events. The site also has a low probability of flooding from other mechanisms such as ground water, sewer and artificial water bodies. The FRA concludes that the site is suitable for development from a flood risk viewpoint.

12.9.2 The implementation of appropriate and sustainable development proposals coupled with appropriate mitigation will ensure that the Proposed Development does not result in a

379

significant adverse environmental impact during either the operational or construction /decommissioning phases.

12.9.3 Proposed mitigation implementation methods will be discussed and agreed with the EA. The significance of the impacts in relation to ground conditions and hydrogeology has been assessed and summarised in the following table.

380

Summary of Impact Significance

Development Magnitude Impact Impact Receptor / Effect Significance Significance Nature of Phase of Impact Mitigation Sensitivity Pre- Post- Effect Mitigation Mitigation

Watercourse/ Surface Runoff Construction Medium Moderate Construction Drainage System (SuDS) Minor/ Temporary Medium Characteristics Negligible

Operation Low Minor Track design including permeable Minor/ Permanent paving. Removal of drainage around Negligible foundations.

Decommission Low Minor Construction Drainage System (SuDS) Negligible Temporary

River Flow and Construction Medium Moderate Working buffers around streams. Negligible Temporary Flooding Operation Low Minor Stream crossing design. Negligible Permanent

Decommission Very Low Negligible Working buffers around streams. Negligible Temporary

Erosion and Construction Medium Moderate Construction Drainage System (SuDS) Minor Temporary

Sedimentation Operation Low Minor Landscaping and vegetation Minor Temporary restoration.

Decommission Low Minor Construction Drainage System (SuDS) Minor Temporary

Water Quality Construction/ High Major SuDS water quality treatment. Minor Temporary Decommission Pollution prevention and construction best practices. Water

381

quality monitoring. Geotechnical design and resultant grouting Method Statement.

Operation Medium Moderate Operation and maintenance pollution Minor Temporary prevention and best practice measures.

Disturbance of Construction/ Medium Moderate Intrusive investigations to confirm Negligible Temporary ContaminatedM Decommission nature of source material, adoption aterials of appropriate health and safety Operation measures and implementation of any resultant remedial measures. SWMP.

Groundwater Modification of Construction Medium Moderate Construction Drainage System (SuDS) Negligible Temporary /Medium Hydrogeological Geotechnical design and resultant Regime grouting Method Statement.

Operation/ Low Minor None. Negligible Temporary Decommission

Chemical Construction/ Medium Moderate SuDS water quality treatment. Minor Temporary Pollution of Decommission Pollution prevention and Groundwater construction best practices. Water quality monitoring.

Operation Medium Moderate Operation and maintenance. Minor Temporary Pollution prevention and best

382

practice measures.

Disturbance of Construction/ Medium Moderate Intrusive investigations to confirm Negligible Temporary Contaminated Decommission source material, adoption of Materials /Operation appropriate H&S measures and implementation of any resultant remedial measures. SWMP.

Soils and Effect on Peat Construction High Major Minimise peat excavation by layout Minor Permanent Peat/ Hydrology, Peat design. Floating roads over deep Medium Waste and Loss peat. Peat Waste Management Plan. of Carbon Maintain hydrological regime

Storage through drainage provisions and adequate construction materials.

Operation Low Minor Effective permanent drainage Minor Temporary provisions.

Decommission Very Low Negligible Landscaping and vegetation Negligible Permanent restoration.

Effects on Soil Construction/ Medium Moderate Construction Drainage System Minor Temporary Decommission Erosion and (SuDS). Drainage

Operation Low Minor Landscaping and Vegetation Negligible Temporary

383

Restoration.

Superficial Disturbance to Construction/ Low Negligible Minimising excavations. Re-use of Negligible Temporary Geology/ Superficial Decommission excavated materials. Negligible Deposits Operation None Temporary

Solid Disturbance to Construction/ Very Low Negligible Minimising excavations. Re-use of Negligible Permanent Geology/ Bedrock Operation/ excavated materials. Negligible Decommission

Human Exposure to Construction/ Very Low Negligible Minimising excavations. Re-use of Negligible Permanent Health Potential Decommission excavated materials. Historic Contamination Sources

Private Water Interruption of Construction/ High Major/ SuDS water quality treatment. Minor Temporary Supplies/Med Supply and Decommission Moderate Pollution prevention and ium Deterioration of construction best practices. Water Water Quality quality monitoring.

Operation Medium Negligible Temporary

Table 12.6: Summary of Impact Significance

384

12.10 References

 Site Specific Envirocheck Report (Landmark, 2015);

 British Geological Survey (BGS) 1:50,000 and 1:10,000 solid and drift maps;

 BGS Geological Memoir;

 BGS Borehole Records;

 Soil Survey of England and Wales Map;

 Environment Agency Hydrogeological Maps;

 Coal Authority Report;

 Coal Authority Mining Plans;

 Local Authorities Waste and Minerals Plans; and

 Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) webpage

385

13.0 Surface Water Quality, Flood Risk and Drainage

13.1 Introduction

13.1.1 This document comprises the drainage and flood risk chapter of the ES which has been prepared on behalf of FAB Energy Solutions Ltd, in relation to their proposals for the erection and operation of three wind turbines and associated ancillary infrastructure on land adjacent to the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm, which is situated to the south of Burnley town.

13.1.2 The ES accompanies a planning application, made to Burnley Borough Council, as the LPA for the proposed development pursuant to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The ES has been prepared in line with the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011.

13.1.3 The following sections will outline the baseline and proposed site conditions and seek to provide confirmation of the appropriateness of the site for the nature of development proposed in accordance with local and national guidance. A description of the proposal is located in Chapter 3 of the ES.

13.2 Legislation and Policy

National Planning Context

13.2.1 The NPPF (DCLG 2012) advocates the steering of development away from areas at high risk of flooding. However, the document acknowledges that development is necessary and that a key aim should be to ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. The NPPF also states that LPAs should ‘apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development to avoid where possible flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk, taking account of the impacts of climate change….’

13.2.2 The NPPF requires that developments covering an area of greater than one hectare prepare a FRA. The FRA is required to be proportionate to the risk and appropriate to the scale, nature and location of the development.

386

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

13.2.3 More detailed guidance on flood risk has been provided in the government’s PPG (DCLG 2014). This guidance reiterates that allocation and planning of development must be considered against a risk based search sequence. In terms of fluvial flooding, the guidance categorises flood zones in to four principal levels of risk, as follows:

Flood Zone Annual Definition Probability of Flooding

Zone 1: Low < 0.1 % Land having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of Probability river or sea flooding. (Shown as ‘clear’ on the Flood Map – Zone 2: Landall land having outside between Zones 2 a and 1 in3) 100 and 1 in 1,000 annual Medium 0.1 – 1.0 % probability of river flooding; or Land having between a 1 Probability in 200 and 1 in 1,000 annual probability of sea flooding. (Land shown in light blue on the Flood Map) Zone 3a: High > 1.0 % Land having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of Probability river flooding; or Land having a 1 in 200 or greater annual Zone 3b: Thisprobability zone comprises of sea flooding. land where (Land water shown has in to dark flow blue or onbe Functional > 1.0 % storedthe Flood in times Map) of flood. Floodplain

Table 13.1 Flood Zone Categories

Flood Risk Parameters

13.2.4 The guidance sets out categories of flood risk vulnerability, using the classifications: essential infrastructure, highly vulnerable, more vulnerable, less vulnerable and water compatible. According to this scale, residential and education development would fall within the ‘more vulnerable’ category, while buildings used for shops or non-residential institutions would be considered ‘less vulnerable’ and amenity open space, space for nature conservation, outdoor sports and recreation areas would fall into the ‘water compatible’ category.

13.2.5 According to the guidance, development within the ‘more vulnerable’ category should be located outside Flood Zone 3b and located outside of Flood Zone 3a, unless on application of the ‘Sequential Test’, the site is demonstrated to be the most appropriate for the proposed development and satisfactory flood mitigation can be provided. Additionally, ‘more

387

vulnerable’ development proposed within Flood Zone 3a is required to pass the ‘Exception Test’. The ‘Exception Test’ requires that:

 The development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk; and

 The development will be safe, not increase flood risk and where possible reduce flood risk overall.

13.2.6 More vulnerable’ development may be appropriate in Flood Zones 1 and 2. Development in the ‘less vulnerable’ category should be directed towards Flood Zones 1, 2 or 3a, while water compatible development may be appropriate in any flood zone.

National Context: Water Framework Directive

13.2.7 To improve the quality of water bodies, European legislation known as the Water Framework Directive (WFD) has been introduced to promote a new approach to water management through river basin planning. One aim of the WFD is to improve the ecological health of inland and coastal waters and to prevent further deterioration. A requirement has been placed on nearly all inland and coastal waters to achieve ‘Good Status’ by 2015.

Other Guidance Documents

13.2.8 In addition to the legislation and policy identified above, the following documents provide relevant guidance on measures to control effects on hydrology and flood risk and have been taken into account in this assessment:

 CIRIA (2004) Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems - Hydraulic, Structural and Water Quality Advice: C609;

 CIRIA (2015) The SuDs Manual v2: C753;

 CIRIA (2010) Planning for SuDs Making it Happen: C687;

 CIRIA (2014) Site Handbook for the Construction of SUDS;

388

 Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidance: PPG1 Understanding Your Environmental Responsibilities – Good Environmental Practices (Environment Agency et al. 2013);

 Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidance: PPG3 Pollution Prevention Guidelines: Use and Design of Oil Separators in Surface Water Drainage Systems (Environment Agency et al. 2006);

 Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidance: PPG 5 Works and Maintenance in or Near Water (Environment Agency et al. 2007);

 Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidance: PPG6 Working at Construction and Demolition Sites (Environment Agency et al. 2012);

 Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidance: PPG21 Pollution Incident Response Planning (Environment Agency et al. 2009); and

 WRc (2012) Sewers for Adoption 7th Edition.

13.3 Methodology

Study Area

13.3.1 For the purposes of this assessment the study area has been taken as the site boundary. Consideration has been given to immediately adjacent hydrologically connected environs.

Consultation

13.3.2 During the development of this chapter, the following statutory bodies and interested parties have been consulted regarding the proposals:

 Environment Agency

 United Utilities

13.3.3 Published information has been obtained in the form of:

 Published geology

389

 Environmental statutory registers

Assessment Approach

13.3.4 The FRA and associated drainage strategy follows the approach set out in the EA FRA Guidance notes, the NPPF and the Technical Guide to the NPPF along with the recently published NPPG and the requirements of the District Council Strategic FRA. The methods applied to this assessment are consistent with current guidance and recommendations in the form of statutory documents and recognised publications to ensure that the findings present a robust approach to the assessment.

13.3.5 This ES chapter is supported by a comprehensive FRA which is contained in Appendix 13.1.

Assessing Impact Significance

13.3.6 To assess the significance of the identified impacts related to flooding and surface water drainage, the value of receptor and magnitude impacts are considered. Broadly, the significance is a function of:

 The value of the resources (international, national, regional and local level importance)

 The magnitude of the impact

 The duration involved

 The reversibility of the effect

 The number and sensitivity of receptors.

13.3.7 Tables 13.2, 13.3, 13.4 and 13.5 set out the criteria for determining the magnitude of the impact, the sensitivity of receptors and the significance of the impact. Where the matrix offers more than one significance option, professional judgement has been used to decide which is the most appropriate.

390

Magnitude Typical Criteria

Where the proposed development could be expected to have a significant High impact (either positive or negative) on flooding, drainage, water quality and/or water resources.

Where the proposed development could be expected to have a noticeable Medium impact (either positive or negative) on flooding, drainage, water quality and/or water resources.

Where the proposed development could be expected to result in a barely Low noticeable impact (either positive or negative) on flooding, drainage, water quality and/or water resources.

Where no discernible impact is expected as a result of the proposed Very low development on flooding, drainage, water quality and/or water resources.

Table 13.2: Magnitude of Impact

Receptor Typical Criteria Sensitivity

Receptor of county or regional importance with limited potential for High replacement.

Medium Receptor of local or county importance with limited potential for replacement.

Low Receptor of local or county importance with potential for replacement.

Very Low Receptor of negligible importance/sensitivity.

Table 13.3: Sensitivity of Receptor

391

Impact Significance

13.3.8 The significance of the identified impacts is derived from the table below. Note that these can be either positive or negative.

Magnitude of Impact Sensitivity of Receptor High Medium Low Very Low

High Major Major Moderate Minor

Medium Major Moderate Minor Negligible

Low Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible

Very Low Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible

Table 13.4: Assessment Matrix

13.3.9 Generic definitions for the classification of effects are shown in Table 1.2 of the Scoping Report and reproduced in Table 13.5.

Effect Criteria

These effects may represent key factors in the decision making process. Potentially associated with sites and features of national importance or likely Major to be important considerations at a regional or district scale. Major effects may relate to resources or features which are unique and which, if lost, cannot be replaced or relocated.

These effects, if adverse, are likely to be important at a local scale and on Moderate their own could have a material influence on decision making.

These effects may be raised as local issues and may be of relevance in the Minor detailed design of the project, but are unlikely to be critical in the decision making process.

392

Effects which are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of Negligible variation or within the margin of forecasting error, these effects are unlikely to influence decision making, irrespective of other effects.

Table 13.5: Generic Classifications of Significance of Effects

13.4 Description of Baseline Conditions

Flood Risk Hydrology

13.4.1 In terms of fluvial flood risk, the site lies within Flood Zone 1, an area of Low Probability of flooding, outside both the 1 in 100 (1% AEP) and 1 in 1,000 (0.1% AEP) year flood events. The FRA (included in the Technical Appendices as Appendix 13.1) also finds the land to lie in an area that has a Low Probability of flooding from other sources including ground water, sewers and other artificial water bodies.

13.4.2 The FRA concludes that the site is suitable for development from a flood risk viewpoint.

Storm Water Hydrology

13.4.3 The land is currently not serviced by an artificial storm water drainage network. It is believed that storm water currently discharges to watercourses within the site boundary. The hydrology of the area is outlined in more detail within the FRA.

13.4.4 The EA currently monitor 40,000km of rivers across England. To help protect these areas each reach is monitored and given a river quality grade. This is based upon the chemical quality of the water. The rivers are then graded from A to E with A representing a river with very good water quality and E, a river with very poor water quality.

13.4.5 To improve the quality of water bodies, European legislation known as WRD has been introduced to promote an approach to water management through river basin planning. One aim of the WFD is to improve the ecological health of inland and coastal waters and to prevent further deterioration. A requirement has been placed on nearly all inland and coastal waters to achieve ‘good status’ by 2015.

393

13.4.6 There are no ecological, biological or chemical quality sampling points within the site. Samples taken from the River Stour 1.5km east of the site indicate a B for Chemistry and Biology, (good) and 5 for both nitrates and phosphates. Level 5 is high, but it should be noted that high levels of nutrients may occur naturally and are not necessarily bad for the environment.

Foul Drainage Hydrology

13.4.7 No records of foul sewers within the site boundary have been identified.

13.5 Assessment of Potential Effects

Impact during Construction Phase: Short to Medium Term

13.5.1 Two potential construction phase environmental impacts have been identified relating to hydrology and hydrogeology:

 Direct and indirect contamination of surface water due to mobilisation of soils, existing contamination and spillage of oils and the like from construction plant.

 Direct and indirect flooding and changes to baseline drainage hydrology due to disturbance of the ground during construction works.

Impact During Operation Phase: Long Term

13.5.2 Four potential operational environmental impacts have been identified relating to hydrology and hydrogeology:

 Direct and indirect flooding of surrounding watercourses, the wider catchment area, adjacent land and property due to increases in surface water runoff from positively drained hard areas.

 Direct flooding of the proposed development due to inadequate flooding resilience and management of residual flood risk.

 Direct contamination or deterioration of surface water quality due to leakages of fuel oils, general spillages and other contaminants from within the development and the associated collection of surface water drainage from hardstanding areas.

394

 Direct and indirect contamination of surface water, soil and potential groundwater contamination due to surcharging of the foul water network or the discharge of untreated foul flows.

13.5.3 The predicted impacts are identified and discussed in detail in the following sections of this chapter.

Construction Effect: Direct and indirect contamination of surface and ground water.

13.5.4 Disturbance of the ground during construction operations has the potential to contaminate the soil and both ground and surface waters due to mobilisation of soils, existing contamination and spillage of oils and the like from construction plant.

13.5.5 The discharge of suspended solids could contaminate surface and ground water. This will be avoided by prohibiting any temporary construction discharge without the prior approval of the EA. Discharges of waters resulting from construction activities will generally be treated prior to disposal to watercourses in the surrounding area, subject to approval of the drainage authority.

13.5.6 Some potential impacts relate to the contractor’s working practices. For example, there is the potential for fuel oil spillage from stored materials supplying site plant. This potential impact will be controlled by storing such materials within bunded tanks.

13.5.7 It is considered that before mitigation the proposed development would result in a short term minor negative impact.

Construction Effect: Direct flooding and changes to baseline drainage hydrology.

13.5.8 Changes to baseline drainage hydrology can occur due to various construction related activities, including deposition of materials within the floodplain, temporary diversion of a watercourse, altering preferential drainage flow paths and flood routes, and dewatering of excavations.

13.5.9 It is considered that before mitigation the proposed development would result in a short term minor negative impact.

395

Operational Effect: Direct and indirect flooding of surrounding area.

13.5.10 Increasing the impermeable area of a catchment can increase peak storm water discharge from an area due to the accelerated run-off and reduced times of concentration associated with hard paved areas, with resulting increase in flood risk.

13.5.11 Given the relatively small impermeable areas involved, it is considered that without mitigation the proposed development would result in a minor negative impact.

Operational Effect: Direct flooding of the proposed development.

13.5.12 The FRA indicates that site is at a very low overall risk of flooding. The small area of impermeable surface associated with the development would result in no overall impact without mitigation.

Operational Effect: General contamination or deterioration of surface water quality.

13.5.13 Groundwater and nearby surface watercourses are the prime receptors at risk of pollution as a consequence of the proposed development.

13.5.14 National and European legislation will ensure water quality is improved over time, primarily by the implementation of more stringent controls. However, the risk of rainfall becoming contaminated by the wind turbine and then running off to the watercourse is thought to be very small. Accordingly, it is considered that before mitigation the proposed development would result in no overall impact.

Operational Effect: Foul Water contamination of surface water, soil and groundwater.

13.5.15 It is considered that before mitigation the proposed development would result in no overall impact.

13.6 Mitigation of Effects

13.6.1 To minimise the potentially adverse environmental impacts on Flood Risk and Drainage, and in compliance with SFRA and NPPF guidance, the following specific measures are incorporated into the proposed development.

396

Construction Effect: Direct and indirect contamination of surface and ground water.

13.6.2 The discharge of suspended solids to watercourses and ground waters will be avoided by prohibiting any temporary construction discharge without the prior approval of the EA. Discharges of waters resulting from construction activities will generally be treated before being allowed to discharge to ground.

13.6.3 Site topography is such that limited, if any, earthworks will be required to provide gravity surface water drainage. Filling of the land where necessary will be by way of ‘cut and fill’ earthworks and imported inert material to trim levels and highway infrastructure to provide gravity drainage across the land. These works will be completed in a manner that protects the water quality environment and ecological interest of watercourses. The nature of the works and the proposed implementation methods will be agreed with the EA in advance and all works will accord with the recommendations of EA Pollution Prevention Guidance for Works in, Near or Liable to Affect Watercourses.

13.6.4 Other potential impacts relate to the contractor’s working practices. For example, there is the potential for fuel oil spillage from stored materials supplying site plant. This potential impact will be controlled by storing such materials within bunded tanks. The works will be completed in a manner that is consistent with the need to protect the surface and ground water quality environment.

13.6.5 It will be incumbent on the contractor to assess working practice related risks and impacts before implementation and control them by employing industry good practice techniques. Furthermore, the contractor will be required to develop emergency spillage, flood, fire and contamination control procedures such that any inadvertent incidents are immediately controlled to minimise the potential impact. All works will be completed in accordance with

the EA documents, PPG 6 Working at Construction and Demolition Sites and PPG21 Pollution Incident Response Planning together with current best practice measures for the management of construction activities.

13.6.6 Proposed implementation methods will be developed with the EA in advance of all works, and controlled through the production of a CEMP as required by a planning condition attached to

397

any planning consent. Construction phase Method Statements will be developed to ensure that no impact on the site hydrology or hydrogeology results from the construction activities.

13.6.7 It is assessed that following mitigation the proposed development may result in a short term minor negative environmental impact.

Construction Effect: Direct flooding and changes to baseline drainage hydrology.

13.6.8 Flooding and changes to the baseline hydrology can occur due to various construction related activities, such as deposition of materials within the floodplain, temporary diversion of a watercourse, infilling of land altering preferential drainage flow paths and flood routes, and dewatering of excavations. Such effects can have major consequences.

13.6.9 In mitigation of this potential impact, a CEMP will be prepared which will incorporate the following measures:

 Where a temporary diversion of a watercourse is necessary, the contractor shall implement an alternative flow route, as close to the source as possible, which will be designed to have no lesser capacity than the original feature. The proposals for such diversions shall be agreed with the regulatory bodies and implemented for the shortest possible time to progress the works.

 The contractor will not be permitted to temporarily store materials or introduce ‘borrow pits’ or the like in areas that may affect drainage flow paths.

 Any proposed dewatering will be designed to have no material impact on potential receptors, such as local watercourses and points of ground water abstraction. Where necessary, the contract will be required to implement ground water recharge as mitigation.

13.6.10 Implementation of appropriate working practices will ensure that no flooding or hydrological environmental effects result from the construction activities. The impact will therefore be negligible.

Operational Effect: Direct and indirect flooding of surrounding area.

398

13.6.11 Hydrological effects in terms of flooding and the like arise from changes in the catchment drainage characteristics. Increasing the impermeable area of a catchment can increase peak storm water discharge due to the accelerated run-off and reduced times of concentration associated with hard paved areas, with a resultant increase in flood risk.

13.6.12 Most of the turbine foundation platform will be buried, and will therefore not increase the runoff. A small portion (6.8m diameter) will be raised AGL. It is anticipated that the increase in runoff from this small area will flow directly to ground. Access roads will be non-metalled and constructed from locally obtained sand and gravel, and will have a swale on either side.

13.6.13 It is assessed that following mitigation the proposed development may result in a minor negative environmental impact.

Operational Effect: Direct flooding of the proposed development.

13.6.14 The raised turbine foundation will protect the structure from flooding. Additional flood resilience measures include providing roadside swales as means of flood conveyance and raising doorway threshold levels ABLs. Accordingly, the environmental impact is assessed as negligible.

Operational Effect: General contamination or deterioration of surface water quality.

13.6.15 No fuel or chemicals will be stored on site. In mitigation of the risk of silts, chemicals and oil products from visiting traffic being conveyed to surface and ground water, it is proposed to implement measures from current best practice surface water management guidance. All parking areas and access tracks will be permeable, which will result in a significant removal of contaminants at source.

13.6.16 Water discharged from such areas will be collected efficiently and receive passive treatment to improve water quality as part of a sustainable drainage system. The system for the collection, conveyance, treatment and disposal of surface water will be designed, in accordance with latest recommendations, to avoid the risk of leaching potentially contaminated materials to the soil and ground water. This approach is recommended in the EA documents Pollution Prevention Guidance - Prevention of Pollution (PPG1)6 and Use and Design of Oil Separators in Surface Water Drainage Systems (PPG3), together with other associated guidance.

399

13.6.17 Published research and procedures, outlined in CIRIA C609, shows that the incorporation of a treatment train as part of a sustainable urban drainage system provides the most effective method of removing polluting materials from surface water. Removal of between 80 - 95% of the suspended solids, heavy metals and oils can be achieved. Corresponding reductions in Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) can also be achieved.

13.6.18 As a result of the planned storm water management proposals, which incorporate sustainable drainage systems, the environmental impact is assessed as negligible.

Operational Effect: Foul water contamination of surface water, soil and groundwater.

13.6.19 No such contamination is anticipated, so the environmental impacts are assessed as negligible.

13.7 Residual Effects

13.7.1 Construction Effect: Direct and indirect contamination of surface water due to mobilisation of soils, existing contamination and spillage of oils and the like from construction plant. It is assessed that following mitigation the proposed development may result in a short term minor negative environmental impact.

13.7.2 Construction Effect: Direct flooding and changes to baseline drainage hydrology due to construction related disturbance of the ground. Implementation of appropriate working practices will ensure that no flooding or hydrological environmental effects result from the construction activities. The impact will therefore be negligible.

13.7.3 Operational Effect: Direct and indirect flooding of surrounding watercourses, the wider catchment area, adjacent land and property due to increases in surface water runoff from positively drained hard areas.

13.7.4 All access tracks and hardstanding areas will be permeable with an associated swale on either side, so there will be no increase in surface water runoff. Turbine foundations are largely buried, and the portion AGL is small and isolated, therefore any additional runoff will flow to ground.

13.7.5 It is assessed that following mitigation the proposed development may result in a minor negative environmental impact.

400

Operational Effect: Direct flooding of the proposed development due to inadequate flooding resilience and management of residual flood risk.

13.7.6 The raised turbine foundation will protect the structure from flooding. Additional flood resilience measures include permeable access track will mitigate the effects of flooding. Accordingly, the environmental impact is assessed as negligible.

Operational Effect: Direct contamination or deterioration of surface water quality due to leakages of fuel oils, general spillages and other contaminants from within the development and the associated collection of surface water drainage from hard standing areas.

13.7.7 No fuel or chemicals will be stored on site. In mitigation of the risk of silts, chemicals and oil products from visiting traffic being conveyed to surface and ground water, it is proposed to implement measures from current best practice surface water management guidance. All parking areas and access tracks will be permeable, which will result in a significant removal of contaminants at source. Accordingly the environmental impact is assessed as negligible.

Operational Effect: Direct and indirect contamination of surface water, soil and potential groundwater contamination due to surcharging of the foul water network or the discharge of untreated foul flows.

13.7.8 No such contamination is anticipated, so the environmental impacts are assessed as negligible.

13.8 Summary

13.8.1 In terms of fluvial flood risk, the site lies within Flood Zone 1, outside both the 1 in 100 (1% AEP) and 1 in 1,000 (0.1% AEP) year flood events. The site also has a low probability of flooding from other mechanisms such as ground water, sewer and artificial water bodies. The FRA concludes that the site is suitable for development from a flood risk viewpoint.

13.8.2 The implementation of appropriate and sustainable development proposals coupled with appropriate mitigation will ensure that the proposed development does not result in a significant adverse environmental effect during either the operational or construction phases.

13.8.3 With regards to mitigation measures specified for the watercourses, proposed implementation methods will be discussed and developed with the EA in advance of all works to ensure that

401

impacts are kept insignificant. The significance of the effects in relation to hydrology, hydrogeology, water quality, surface water and foul water drainage at the site have been

assessed and are summarised in the table 13.6:

Mitigation, Predicted Monitoring & Effect

Controls

Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Other Parameters Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Other Parameters

During Construction

Contamination Low Med. Minor TR With Low Med. Neg. TR appropriate Flooding V Low Neg. TR mitigation and V Low Neg. TR Low regulation Low through a CEMP, no residual impacts are anticipated after the construction stage.

Operation

Flood Risk to V Low Neg. IR Raised turbine V Low Neg. IR Site Low base, Low Permeable Flood Risk to Low Med. Minor IR access track Low Low Neg. IR Surroundings and hardstanding, Water Quality Low Low Neg. IR swales. Low Low Neg. IR

Foul Drainage V Low Neg. N/A V Low Neg. Low Low

Table 13.6: Summary of Significance Evaluation

Notes: Short term (0-5 years) = ST, medium term (5-10 years) = MT, long term (10+ years) = LT, permanent = P, temporary (construction) = T, intermittent = I, reversible = R, irreversible = Ir.

402

13.8 References

 SEPA, EA NIEA (1996) PPG6: Working at Construction and Demolition Sites

 SEPA, EA, EHS (2006) PPG3: Pollution Prevention Guidelines

 DTI, CIRIA (2004) C609: Sustainable Drainage Systems; Hydraulic, Structural and water quality advice

403

14.0 Utilities Infrastructure & Telecommunications

14.1 Introduction

14.1.1 This chapter addresses the likely significant environmental effects of the proposed development on telecommunications infrastructure in the vicinity of the application site. This assessment has been undertaken by Pager Power Limited. The work is based on the description of the proposed development described in Chapter 4.0 and accounts for the proposed micro-siting allowance of 50 metres. The chapter assesses the potential interference to wireless communications links that may cross the application site.

14.1.2 The term ‘wireless communications links’ refers to wireless data transfer between two fixed locations in either the microwave frequency range or the Ultra High Frequency [UHF] range. Such links are typically employed by mobile phone companies (as the backbone for a mobile network) and utility companies.

14.2 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance

14.2.1 There is no specific legislation with regard to telecommunication issues for wind energy developments, nor is there particular guidance on these issues within the NPS for Energy EN-1 (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2011); NPS EN-3 (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2011) or the NPPF. The PPG has limited guidance regarding telecommunications as described below.

14.2.2 This assessment has been made with regard to best practice and guidelines. Notable guidance is summarised below:

a) PPG for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy refers to the potential impacts of wind turbines on telecommunications services and refers to Ofcom as a central point of contact for identifying the relevant parties;

b) Ofcom has published guidance regarding the recommended approach for assessment of wind turbine impacts on microwave links. This document sets out the recommended approach for determining a stand-off distance for a wind turbine (known as an exclusion zone) around a microwave link based on its length and frequency;

404

c) The Joint Radio Company has published a methodology for assessment of the effects of wind turbines on telemetry links. This sets out an approach for calculating the relative strength of the wanted signal and the interfering signal relative to a minimum threshold.

14.3 Methodology

14.3.1 For wireless communication links, issues are generally not raised for turbines that are more than two kilometres from the link path. In order to ensure a robust assessment however, details of a larger area encompassing all potential turbine locations were made available to Ofcom as part of the consultation process. The study area considered by this assessment has been defined by a 500m radius centred on SD 814 301 – this is a circle that contains all turbine locations.

14.3.2 Details of the potentially affected wireless link infrastructure has been sought through desk- based analysis and consultation with the relevant stakeholders.

14.3.3 The potentially affected infrastructure with regard to wireless communication links is identified by means of comprehensive consultation with:

 Ofcom;

 Joint Radio Company [JRC];

 Arqiva; and

 Atkins.

14.4 Description of Baseline Conditions

14.4.1 Table 14.1 summarises the consultation that identified the baseline conditions for wireless communication links:

Party Contact Summary

Online Consulted December 2015. Ofcom Consultation Tool Online consultation undertaken for a 500m radius

405

Party Contact Summary

centred on coordinates SD 814 301.

No commercial link IDs identified within the search area.

Consulted December 2015.

December 2015 - JRC advised eleven UHF telemetry JRC (safeguard links licensed to National Gas Networks but did not UHF telemetry provide any further information. links on behalf [email protected] December 2015 - JRC advised two microwave links of electricity o.uk and gas licensed to Electricity North-West but did not industries) provide any further information.

December 2015 – Further advice and assessment requested from JRC.

windfarms@arqiv Consulted December 2015. Arqiva a.com No response to date.

Atkins (safeguard UHF telemetry links windfarms@atkin Consulted December 2015. on behalf of sglobal.com other operators No response to date. – water industry)

Table 14.1: Communication Link Consultation

406

14.5 Assessment of Potential Effects

14.5.1 Consultation with JRC, Arqiva and Atkins will continue so that active links in the area may be identified. The safeguarded zones associated with these links will be mapped and evaluated with reference to each of the three turbine positions – taking the 50 metre micrositing allowance into account.

14.5.2 Technical analysis can include 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional modelling. Whilst specific links have not yet been identified, it is possible that any links that do pass near the proposed development may be vertically clear of the wind turbines because the ground elevation of the communications masts at Hameldon Hill exceeds the ground elevation of the wind turbines by 100 metres or more.

14.5.3 The assessment of potential effects cannot be completed until the consultation process is complete.

14.5.4 If it is determined that no links will be affected then the effect of the development will be Negligible. If it is determined that one or more links could be affected then the effect is likely to be Minor.

14.5.5 If it is determined that multiple links will be affected then the effect is likely to be classed as Moderate.

14.6 Mitigation of Effects

14.6.1 In the event that it is determined that a particular turbine will have a significant adverse impact on an individual wireless communications link then mitigation will be arranged.

14.6.2 Typical mitigation solutions include:

a) Restricting wind turbine micro-siting towards a wireless communications link with a micro-siting planning condition.

b) Re-routing the wireless communications link. The wireless link is re-routed on a different path via an alternative (usually existing) communications mast.

407

c) Redesigning the wireless communications link. This may include increasing the radio frequency; using more directional radio antennae; replacing an analogue system with a digital system and/or increasing antenna height.

d) Using an alternative communications technology. This involves replacing the radio link with a fibre-optic cable; copper cable or satellite link.

14.7 Residual Effects

14.7.1 Any significant effects on wireless communications links will be mitigated.

14.7.2 Consequently any residual effects will be Negligible.

14.8 Summary of Significance Evaluation

14.8.1 Prior to mitigation the effect of the development on wireless communications links is likely to be Negligible, Minor or Moderate.

14.8.2 It may be necessary to mitigate the impact of the development on one or more wireless communications links. This mitigation may involve replacing or re-routing the links.

14.8.3 Following any required mitigation the residual effects of the development on wireless communications links will be Negligible.

14.9 References

 Bacon, DF, 2002, ‘A proposed method for establishing an exclusion zone around a terrestrial fixed radio link outside of which a wind turbine will cause negligible degradation of the radio link performance’, Ofcom.

 Peter Swan, et al., September 2009, ‘Calculation of the Clearance Zone. Version 3.1’, the JRC.

 Ofcom, 2009, ‘Tall structures and their impact on broadcast and other wireless services’.

 Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2011, NPS for Energy EN-1.

408

 Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012, National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF].

 Planning Practice Guidance [PPG].

409

15.0 Shadow Flicker

15.1 Introduction

15.1.1 This chapter has been prepared by AAH Planning Consultants. The chapter provides an assessment for the potential impacts from shadow flicker as a result of the proposed development.

15.1.2 Shadow flicker is an effect caused as the turbine blades, rotate and cause shadows to move quickly. As the turbine moves around the shadow is replicated resulting in the appearance of the shadow flicking on and off.

15.1.3 Shadow flicker can only be experienced indoors, under certain circumstances when the sun passes behind the turbine and the turbine is facing toward or away from the sun. Shadow flicker is generally not an issue outdoors as the shadows generally can be seen to be moving over wider areas. The greatest potential for shadow flicker to be experienced is within a room with a window facing the turbine, with the above criteria falling into place.

15.1.4 The likelihood and duration of the effect depends upon:

• Orientation of the property’s windows relative to the turbine: in the UK, only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines, can be affected, as turbines do not cast long shadows on their southern side;

• Distance from the turbines: the further the observer is from the turbine, the less pronounced the effect would be;

• Turbine height and rotor diameter;

• Time of year and day;

• Weather conditions (cloudy days reduce likelihood, wind direction).

15.1.5 Shadow flicker impacts vary with the extent of sunshine the position of the sun in relation to the turbine and the orientation of the turbine at any one time. However, the potential for shadow flicker is something which can be modelled with worst case scenario figures being able to be established.

410

15.1.6 The circumstances in which shadow flicker can occur to the extent to which it would significantly impact upon an identified receptor can be identified it is also possible to mitigate against unacceptable levels of shadow flicker. Where necessary determining authorities have attached conditions requiring a scheme to establish mitigation for those instances where show flicker would occur.

15.1.7 This chapter will establish those properties most likely to affected by shadow flicker and the extent to which they would be effected.

Shadow Flicker and Photosensitive Epilepsy

15.1.8 The latest figures from Epilepsy Society indicate that approximately 1 in 100 people in the UK have epilepsy. However, there are over 40 types of epilepsy and of those up to 5% are photosensitive. It is generally held that between 3 and 30 hertz is the common rate to trigger seizures in those who suffer from photosensitive epilepsy.

15.1.9 A typical turbine within the candidate model range has a rated operational speed of up to 20.5 revolutions per minute; with three blades the turbine would potentially result in up to 60 passes of a blade, and therefore shadow, over a particular point in a minute. This factors out to a rate of 1 hertz. The proposal would therefore in the worst case scenario result in a significantly lower level of flicker than that which has significance in terms of triggering photosensitive epilepsy. As such, there is no increased potential for the proposal to result in inducing photosensitive epilepsy and this area requires no further assessment.

Shadow Flicker and Outdoor Recreation

15.1.10 As discussed above, shadow flicker is an effect which is only experienced from within a property. Shadow flicker occurs when the shadow caused from the rotating blades effectively shadow a window repeatedly in succession. As such shadow flicker is not something which is experienced in outdoor recreation as the shadows move across a wide area and do not have the potential to result in the shuttering effect.

411

15.2 Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidance

15.2.1 Shadow flicker is not specifically referenced in the NPPF. The latest guidance on shadow flicker is found in the PPG (Paragraph:020 Reference ID:5-020-20140306) which advises that “Only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can be effected at these latitudes in the UK”. This guidance is informed by the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) Update of UK Shadow Flicker Evidence Base Report (2011). The DECC guidance in Paragraph 6.2 establishes that the potential for shadow flicker at greater than 10 x rotor diameter of a turbine is very low.

15.2.2 There are no set limits for impacts on a property in English guidance, however the figures set in Germany, Northern Ireland and Ireland establish limits of 30 hours per year or 30 minutes on the worst day. These figures are for the worst case modelled effects with the figures for a realistic level taking into account physical and meteorological effects, which reduce the actual impacts are limited to 8 hours per year. As such figures below this level are considered to be acceptable.

15.3 Methodology

15.3.1 The study is to be undertaken on the basis of the Theoretical Assessment of worst case shadow flicker based upon a Bare Earth Assessment. A shadow can only occur where there is no form of screening between the receptor and the source. The assessment is made on the basis of there being no intervening built or natural features between each receptor property and the turbine(s) providing the shadow. The assessment does take account of land contours and is undertaken utilising leading industry software (Windfarmer).

15.3.2 The Computer Assessment also makes further assumptions including; that the wind turbine is always rotating (in reality there will be periods where the wind speed is insufficient for the turbines to start up, and there will also be period of maintenance). The assessment also works on the assumption of clear and sunny weather at all times during daylight hours (in reality there will be periods of weather where the sun is not bright enough to cast shadows). The final assumption which ensures worst case scenarios are returned is that for the assessment the wind turbine tracks to be orientated toward the suns throughout the day (in reality the wind turbine will be orientated to face the wind direction at any one time).

412

15.3.3 The modelled shadow flicker levels given the above constraints are considered to be a worst case scenario. It is generally accepted that the real world impacts of shadow flicker will fall well below those identified in the model.

15.3.4 Given the above the study area is to be set at 10x rotor diameter from the siting of each turbine with an allowance of 50m for the proposed micro siting of the turbines. The 82m being the largest diameter of turbine blade of those selected, the study area is therefore 820m from the centre point of each turbine. With a 50m allowance for micro siting the study area is to be set at 870m from the indicative locations of each turbine.

15.3.5 The study area as defined can be seen in the following image. All properties which fall outside of the defined search area are excluded from further assessment as the level of potential impact is considered to be within the acceptable range.

15.3.6 Figure 15.1 sets down the study area encompassing an 870m buffer from each turbine. The following properties fall within the identified study area:

- New Barn

- Lower Micklehurst Barn

Assessing the Level of Impact

15.3.7 The computer modelling technique outlined above provides a figure of potential shadow flicker for each receptor. These figures are quantitative in nature and give an absolute worst case scenario for each property. There are no set limits for impacts on a property in English guidance; however the figures set in Germany, Northern Ireland and Ireland establish limits of 30 hours per year or 30 minutes on the worst day. These figures are for the worst case modelled effects with the figures for a realistic level taking into account physical and meteorological effects which reduce the actual impacts are limited to 8 hours per year.

15.3.8 In assessing the realistic impacts the extent of sunshine duration for the year should be factored in. The extent of sunshine hours is identified (at www.satel-light.com) as being 22% of the available daylight hours. Cloudy skies account 32% of the time and overcast 46% of the time. Given that shadow flicker can only occur when the sun shines bright enough to cast a

413

shadow it is considered that of the worst case scenario a realistic assessment would be that shadow could occur 22% of the time.

15.3.9 For assessing the level of impacts resulting from shadow flicker, the sensitivity of receptor as a dwelling would always be high however the potential level of impacts as defined in the policy assessment establishes anything over 30 hours worst case scenario or 8 hours realistic assessment would be a major effect. In assessing the level of impact the following criteria are to be utilised:

Sensitivity Magnitude of Impact of Receptor

High Medium Low Very Low

High Major Major Moderate Minor

>30 hours 21-30 hours 11-20 hours 0-10 hours worst case/0- worst case/8 worst case/6- worst case/4- 2 hour’s realistic case. hour’s realistic 8 hour’s 6 hours case. realistic case. realistic case.

Table 15.1: Matrix for Establishing Classification of Effects

15.4 Description of Baseline Conditions

15.4.1 The existing turbines have been assessed as part of the previous approval (reference APP/2009/0756) and found the potential impacts upon the neighbouring properties to be acceptable. The assessment provided that these properties would potentially experience the following levels:

Property Name Theoretical Maximum of Shadow Occurrence

Thorny Bank 9

Barley Green 53

New Barn 203

414

Old Barn 18

Table 15.2: Theoretical Maximum of Shadow Occurrence (From Existing Wind Farm)

15.4.2 Of these properties only New Barn Falls within this study area identified. Of the further properties identified in Table 15.2, all fall outside of the study area for the proposed development. Any impact can be assumed to be negligible at worse with no increase over and above the existing base line. Lower Micklehurst is the only other property identified within the study area for the proposed development and was not assessed as part of the application for the existing wind farm due its distance falling outside of the previous study area for the existing windfarm. Lower Micklehurst was previously therefore considered to have an acceptable level of effects from the existing wind farm; in addition there is a single turbine at Higher Micklehurst. The single turbine at Higher Micklehurst has the potential to result in shadow flicker effects further to the east with only Lower Micklehurst of the properties identified for this search being within the ten rotor diameter study area for the Higher Micklehurst turbine. The study as summarised below (and attached as Appendix 15.4 and illustrated in Figure 15.5) indicates that there would be zero hours of shadow flicker potential as a worse case theoretical study and therefore there would be no cumulative impacts to factor in alongside the potential shadow flicker from the proposed development.

Property Name Theoretical Maximum of Shadow Occurrence

Lower Micklehurst 0

Higher Micklehurst 16

Higher Oaken Eaves 8

Lower Oaken Eaves 9

Higher Gibfield Farm 4

Table 15.3: Theoretical Maximum of Shadow Occurrence (From Higher Micklehurst Turbine)

415

15.4.3 The assessment for the existing turbines found that climatic effects including sunshine hours and wind direction would significantly reduce the theoretical maximum shadow flicker occurrence. The location of the properties, orientation of the windows of the properties and size of the windows to each property would serve to reduce the potential impacts further.

15.5 Assessment of Potential Effects

15.5.1 The proposal assessed on its own, results in the following worst case scenario impacts based upon the indicative turbine siting locations. The full results of which are attached as Appendix 15.1 and Figure 15.2 of this report.

Property Name Theoretical Maximum Worst Day Time Period Shadow Occurrence

Lower Micklehurst Farm 10 30 minutes

New Barn Farm 42 70 minutes

Table 15.4: Table Illustrating the Worst Case Scenarios from the Indicative Locations

15.5.2 Taking into account the proposed allowance of 50m for micrositing, the worst case scenario of each turbine being located to create the greatest potential for shadow flicker has been modelled in Appendix 15.2 and Appendix 15.3. The worst case results of which are summarised in Table 15.5 (and illustrated in Figures 15.3 and 15.4) below:

Property Name Theoretical Maximum Worst Day Time Period Shadow Occurrence

Lower Micklehurst Farm 12 30 minutes

New Barn Farm 47 40 minutes

Table 15.5: Table Illustrating the Worst Case Scenarios Incorporating a 50m Micrositing Allowance

15.5.3 Taking into account that only 22% of the time the sun shines bright enough to result in appreciable shadows the realistic shadow occurrence hours are:

416

Property Name Realistic Maximum Realistic Maximum Shadow Shadow Occurrence Occurrence with Micrositing Indicative Siting (hours) (hours)

Lower Micklehurst Farm 2 3

New Barn Farm 9 10

Table 15.6: Table Illustrating the Worst Case Scenarios Incorporating Allowances for Cloud Cover

Level of Effect

15.5.4 Applying the matrix for classification of effects Lower Micklehurst would fall within the Very Low magnitude of effect and therefore have a Minor classification of effect. New Barn Farm would fall within the High magnitude of effect and therefore have a Major level of effect.

15.5.5 The property at New Barn is potentially affected the most, and it remains above the 8 hours threshold established for realistic impacts having taken account of the potential sunshine hours affect and therefore has a Major magnitude of effect. There are however further areas which will reduce the likelihood of shadow flicker occurrence and the potential impacts of any shadow flicker experienced. The occupants of the property at New Barn are financially involved with the proposals. Therefore the occupants have a greater degree of control over their own level of amenity and expectations.

15.6 Mitigation of Effects

15.6.1 As the potential impacts of shadow flicker can be accurately predicted there are suitable options for mitigation. As discussed, the sun must shine brightly enough for a shadow to be cast and the turbine must be turning to result in the shadow flicker. As such, there is potential to limit the impacts of shadow flicker caused by the proposal through turning off the rotation of the turbine blades in conditions where the potential for shadow flicker would be significant.

15.6.2 Mitigation measures are achieved through the careful selection of siting which has been incorporated in to the proposed layout. Additional options including suitable landscaping and vegetation screening and the installation of blinds are considered to be possible options.

417

However, in this instance the potential for vegetation screening and the installation of blinds to offer meaningful mitigation is considered to be low. The most effective mitigation measure available for the proposal will be a scheme to ensure that should the correct conditions for shadow flicker occur that the turbine rotation is shut down.

15.6.3 It is considered that through the addition of a suitable planning condition that the impacts of the proposals from shadow flicker can be suitably controlled to a degree to render the impacts to a level of significance within the nil classification of effects.

15.7 Residual Effects

15.7.1 The mitigation measures proposed would ensure that the shadow flicker effects of the proposal would be limited to below that level considered to be significant in EIA terms. Shadow flicker impacts are therefore considered to be nil. With regard to ongoing protection, the level of impacts during construction would be nil as the turbine(s) would not be rotating until such time as they were complete, with the mitigation measures in place. During operation the turbines would be suitably mitigated and once restored there would be no potential for shadow flicker to occur.

15.8 Summary of Significance Evaluation

15.8.1 The level of significance taken both cumulatively and in isolation from the proposal is considered to be fully mitigated. The impacts at New Barn Farm would be within the Major magnitude of effect category. However, through the addition of mitigation, secured by a condition of any approval granted, the level will be reduced to nil. Therefore, the proposed wind turbines subject to the identified mitigation measures would have a nil magnitude of effect of shadow flicker upon those properties identified as having potential for effects.

15.9 References

 Department of Energy and Climate Change (2009) ‘Update of UK Shadow Flicker Evidence Base’

418

 Department for Communities & Local Government, National Planning Practice Guidance [Online]. Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 5-021-20140306 Available from [Accessed 27 November 2015]

419

16.0 Summary and Conclusions

16.1 This chapter provides a summary of the mitigation measures identified throughout the ES which are required to mitigate potential significant environmental effects which may occur through the construction, operation and decommissioning stages of the proposed development. Further mitigation measures are also proposed where the effects are not significant in EIA terms but are designed to achieve appropriate best practice standards.

16.2 If the application is granted planning conditions should be included that allows for the LPA to control these aspects of the scheme. The following tables (16.1, 16.2 and 16.3) set down the mitigation required during the construction (short term), operation (long term) and decommissioning (short term) of the scheme.

420

Chapter Impact Mitigation Measures

Noise (8) Noise during construction. No specific mitigation measures are required. However, general best practice guidance for controlling construction noise through the use of good practice given in BS 5228 will be followed.

Ecology (9) Habitat loss through construction. A detailed Landscape Management Plan will need to be completed. This would include details for the habitat restoration works to be carried out for track verges, hard standing, construction compounds, areas excavated for foundations and cable trenches.

Ecology (9) Protection of Tower Brook through Where possible, large box culverts (minimum diameter 2 m) should be construction of a culvert. used to allow maximum light to pass through and allow more headroom above the water; and Mammal ledges should be provided within the culvert.

Ecology (9) Protection of any badger sett and management A suitably qualified ecologist should undertake a check for badger setts of construction to ensure species is protected. across the construction area footprint and land within 20 m of it. During the construction phase no open trenches or pits will be left uncovered or alternatively without a mammal ramp in overnight to prevent badgers, or any other mammals that may pass through the Site, from becoming trapped.

Ecology (9) Protection of bat activity and management of Any lighting to facilitate the construction works must be directional, and construction to ensure species is protected. light spill onto linear habitats (Tower Brook and dry stone walling) must

421

be avoided. Works at the Site should be limited to standard daytime working hours (07:00 – 19:00) during the active bat season (April- October, inclusive) in order to prevent disturbance.

Ecology (9) Protection of bird nesting activity and Where practicable, removal of the existing vegetation from the Site will management of construction to ensure species be undertaken outside of the main nesting bird period (i.e. only within is protected. the months September to February, inclusive). If these works cannot be restricted to within this period, an Ecological Watching Brief will be maintained during the main bird breeding season to ensure that no nesting birds are adversely affected.

Heritage (10) Earthworks noted to the south and east of If when the final turbine locations have been determined these features proposed turbine 2. will be disturbed, archaeological monitoring is recommended during construction phase.

Traffic and  Increase traffic and congestion on road Production of a TMP. Transportation (11) users.

 Loss of amenity and severance caused by increase in traffic.

 Fear caused by increase traffic on the road

422

network.

 Potential increase in accidents during the construction period.

Ground Conditions and Watercourse: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Surface runoff characteristics.  Construction drainage system (SuDS).

 River flow and flooding.  Working buffers around streams.

 Erosion and sedimentation.  SuDS water quality treatment. Pollution prevention and construction best practices. Water quality monitoring. Geotechnical design and  Water quality. resultant grouting Method Statement.  Disturbance of contaminated materials.  Intrusive investigations to confirm nature of source material, adoption of appropriate health and safety measures and implementation of any resultant remedial measures. SWMP.  Construction drainage system (SuDS) Geotechnical design and resultant grouting Method Statement.

 SuDS water quality treatment. Pollution prevention and construction best practices.

 Water quality monitoring.

 Intrusive investigations to confirm source material, adoption of appropriate H&S measures and implementation of any resultant

423

remedial measures. SWMP.

Ground Conditions and Groundwater: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Modification of hydrogeological regime.  Construction drainage system (SuDS) Geotechnical design and resultant grouting method statement.  Chemical pollution of groundwater.  SuDS water quality treatment. Pollution prevention and construction  Disturbance of contaminated best practices.   Materials. Water quality monitoring.  Intrusive investigations to confirm source material, adoption of

appropriate H&S measures and implementation of any resultant remedial measures. SWMP.

Ground Conditions and Soils and Peat: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Effect on peat.  Minimise peat excavation by layout design. Floating roads over deep peat. Peat waste management plan. Maintain hydrological regime  Hydrology, peat waste and loss of carbon through drainage provisions and adequate construction materials. storage.  Construction drainage system (SuDS).  Effects on soil erosion and drainage.

Ground Conditions and Superficial Geology: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Disturbance to superficial deposits.  Minimising excavations.  Re-use of excavated materials.

424

Ground Conditions and Solid geology: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Disturbance to bedrock.  Minimising excavations.

 Re-use of excavated materials.

Ground Conditions and Private Water Supplies: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Interruption of supply and deterioration of  SuDS water quality treatment. Pollution prevention and construction water quality. best practices.  Water quality monitoring.

Surface Water Quality,  Contamination. Mitigation to include: Flood Risk and Drainage  Flooding. With appropriate mitigation and regulation through a CEMP, no residual (13) impacts are anticipated after the construction stage.

Table 16.1 Summary of Short Term Mitigation Effects identified During Construction

425

Chapter Impact Mitigation Measures

Noise (8) In all cases, the levels of operational noise are None specific to comply with ETSU but turbines should be installed in predicted to be compliant with the accordance with the parameters of the noise assessment to ensure requirements of ETSU-R-97 and the IOA: GPG. compliance.

Ecology (9) Turbine layout’s resultant impact on bat The turbine layout has been designed with a minimum standoff of 50 m activity. between habitat features, such as the dry stone walling and the Tower Brook, and the base of the turbine tower, resulting in the edge of the rotor swept area being more than 50m from dry stone walling and Tower Brook in accordance with Natural England guidance. If the turbine position is moved within the 50 m micro siting buffer, the dry stone wall should be realigned to achieve at least the 70 m distance from it, in order to ensure that the edge of the rotor-swept area is at least 50 m from the wall.

Ground Conditions and Watercourse: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Surface runoff characteristics.  Track design including permeable paving. Removal of drainage around foundations.  River flow and flooding.  Stream crossing design.

426

 Erosion and sedimentation.  Landscaping and vegetation restoration operation and maintenance pollution prevention and best practice measures.  Water quality.  Intrusive investigations to confirm nature of source material,  Disturbance of contaminated materials. adoption of appropriate health and safety measures and implementation of any resultant remedial measures. SWMP.

Ground Conditions and Groundwater: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Chemical pollution of groundwater.  Operation and maintenance. Pollution prevention and best practice measures.  Disturbance of contaminated.  Intrusive investigations to confirm source material, adoption of  Materials. appropriate H&S measures and implementation of any resultant remedial measures. SWMP.

Ground Conditions and Soils and Peat: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Effect on peat.  Effective permanent drainage provisions.

 Hydrology, peat waste and loss of carbon  Landscaping and vegetation restoration. storage.

427

Effects on soil erosion and drainage.

Ground Conditions and Solid Geology: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Disturbance to bedrock.  Minimising excavations.

 Re-use of excavated materials.

Surface Water Quality,  Flood risk to site. Mitigation to include: Flood Risk and Drainage  Flood risk to surroundings.  Raised turbine base. (13)  Water quality.  Permeable access track and hardstanding.

 Swales.

Utilities Infrastructure & Consultation with JRC, Arqiva and Atkins will Mitigation solutions can include: Telecommunications (14) continue so that active links in the area may be  Restricting wind turbine micro-siting towards a wireless identified. communications link with a micro-siting planning condition.

 Re-routing the wireless communications link. The wireless link is re- routed on a different path via an alternative (usually existing)

428

communications mast.

 Redesigning the wireless communications link. This may include increasing the radio frequency; using more directional radio antennae; replacing an analogue system with a digital system and/or increasing antenna height.

 Using an alternative communications technology. This involves replacing the radio link with a fibre-optic cable; copper cable or satellite link.

Shadow Flicker (15) Shadow flicker effects at: A scheme to ensure that should the correct conditions for shadow flicker occur that the turbine rotation is shut down ensuring no effects.  Lower Micklehurst Farm.

 New Barn Farm.

Table 16.2: Summary of Long term Mitigation Effects to be Implemented during Operation of Turbines

429

Chapter Impact Mitigation Measures

Ecology  Habitat loss through decommissioning The necessary mitigation measures required during the decommissioning works. phase of the turbines will be developed following the completion of updated ecological surveys prior to decommissioning of the turbines. At  Protection of Tower Brook through this early stage it is considered likely that any mitigation measures will be decommissioning works. similar to those outlined for the construction phase of works.  Protection of any badger sett and management of decommissioning works to ensure species is protected.

 Protection of bat activity and management of decommissioning works to ensure species is protected.

 Protection of bird nesting activity and management of decommissioning works to ensure species is protected.

Ground Conditions and Watercourse: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Surface runoff characteristics.  Construction Drainage System (SuDS)

430

 River flow and flooding.  Working buffers around streams.

 Erosion and sedimentation.  SuDS water quality treatment. Pollution prevention and construction best practices. Water quality monitoring. Geotechnical design and  Water quality. resultant grouting Method Statement.  Disturbance of contaminated materials.  Intrusive investigations to confirm nature of source material, adoption of appropriate health and safety measures and implementation of any resultant remedial measures. SWMP.

 Construction Drainage System (SuDS) Geotechnical design and resultant grouting Method Statement.

 SuDS water quality treatment. Pollution prevention and construction best practices.

 Water quality monitoring.

 Intrusive investigations to confirm source material, adoption of appropriate H&S measures and implementation of any resultant remedial measures. SWMP.

Ground Conditions and Groundwater: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Chemical pollution of groundwater.  SuDS water quality treatment. Pollution prevention and construction best practices.

431

 Disturbance of contaminated.  Water quality monitoring.

 Materials.  Intrusive investigations to confirm source material, adoption of appropriate H&S measures and implementation of any resultant remedial measures. SWMP.

Ground Conditions and Soils and Peat: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Effect on peat.  Landscaping and vegetation restoration.

 Hydrology, peat waste and loss of carbon  Construction Drainage System (SuDS). storage.

 Effects on soil erosion and drainage.

Ground Conditions and Superficial Geology: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Disturbance to superficial deposits.  Minimising excavations. Re-use of excavated materials.

Ground Conditions and Solid Geology: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Disturbance to bedrock.  Minimising excavations. Re-use of excavated materials.

432

Ground Conditions and Private Water Supplies: Mitigation to include: Hydrogeology (12)  Interruption of supply and deterioration of  SuDS water quality treatment. Pollution prevention and construction water quality. best practices.  Water quality monitoring.

Table 16.3: Summary of Short term Mitigation Effects to be Implemented during Decommissioning of Turbines

433