Commission Reference: 2018/C007
THE PLANNING ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 2011
SECTION 26
Regionally significant planning application by SSE Renewables Developments (UK) Ltd for the erection of 33 wind turbines (comprising 10 turbines with a maximum tip height of 136m and 23 turbines with a maximum tip height of 149m), associated transformers and switchgear at the base of each wind turbine, hard-standing areas for erection cranes at each turbine, internal access tracks and site access, operations buildings and wind farm substation compound and building, on site electrical cables, a parking area, two temporary construction compounds, five permanent meteorological masts and all ancillary works including borrow pits, peat storage, spoil deposition, forestry removal and minor works to the public highway between site and Magherafelt to facilitate turbine delivery (LA10/2015/0292/F) at land approximately 12 kilometres to the west of Draperstown, 2km to the north of Broughderg and adjacent to the B47.
Report by
Commissioner Julie de-Courcey
Inquiry Dates: 4th, 5th, 6th & 12th September 2019
Date of Report: 20th February 2020
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Glossary of Recurrent Abbreviations
AA Appropriate Assessment AOD Above Ordnance Datum AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty ASSI Area of Special Scientific Interest BIA Belfast International Airport BPG Best Practice Guidance to Planning Policy Statement 18 CC Carbon Calculator CAP Cookstown Area Plan 2010 CCC Committee on Climate Change CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan CTRN Calculation of Road Traffic Noise, Department of Transport 1988 dB Decibels DC District Council DAERA Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs DfI Department for Infrastructure DCSDC Derry City & Strabane District Council DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges EHD Environmental Health Department EU European Union EI Environmental Information EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ELF Extremely Low Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields EMF Electro Magnetic Field ES Environmental Statement FI Financial Interest/Financially involved FODC Fermanagh & Omagh District Council GB Great Britain GCS Generation Capacity Statement GW Gigawatts HA Heritage Asset HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HMP Habitat Management Plan HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment NSIC North-South Interconnector IoA Institute of Acoustics ICNIRP International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection I-SEM Integrated Single Electricity Market kV Kilovolts LDP Local Development Plan LCA Landscape Character Area MAP Magherafelt Area Plan 2015 MiSC Monument in State Care MUDC Mid-Ulster District Council NED Natural Environment Division within DAERA NI Northern Ireland NIA Noise Impact Assessment NIE Northern Ireland Electricity NILCA Northern Ireland Landscape Character Assessment
______2018/C007 Page 1
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
NIRLCA Northern Ireland Regional Landscape Character Area NISRA Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency NPSNI Noise Policy Statement for Northern Ireland MW Megawatts OAP Omagh Area Plan 1987 - 2002 OCEMP Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan PfG Programme for Government PPS Planning Policy Statement PSMP Protected Species Management Plan PSRNI A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland RDS Regional Development Strategy RR Rebuttal Report (appended to Applicant’s rebuttal statement) RoI Republic of Ireland SEF Strategic Energy Framework sHRA Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment SES Shared Environmental Services SM Scheduled Monument SONI System Operator for Northern Ireland SPA Special Protection Area SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance SPPS Strategic Planning Policy Statement SR Sensitive Receptor SS Sub-station TNI Transport Northern Ireland TPs Third Parties TR Technical Report (Appended to Applicant’s statement of case) UK United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland UW Ulster Way VP Viewpoint WHO World Health Organisation ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility
______2018/C007 Page 2
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
CHAPTERS Page No.
1.0 Introduction 4
2.0 Energy policy 9
3.0 Planning policy 14
4.0 Economic, social & environmental benefits 24
5.0 Public safety 34
6.0 Residential amenity 45
7.0 Health 59
8.0 The water environment 68
9.0 Natural Heritage & ecology 75
10.0 Visual amenity & landscape character 93
11.0 Archaeology & cultural heritage 123
12.0 Tourism 138
13.0 Conclusions & recommendation 151
APPENDIX 1
Table of 36 no. drawings on which this recommendation is based
______2018/C007 Page 3
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The proposal
1.1 The application site lies to the south of the B47 (Glenelly Road) with Sixtowns Road to the east and south-east of it. Davagh Road bisects the site, running north- south through it. It extends to just under 2,600 hectares. Within its boundaries, the most notable peaks range in height from 320m to the 562m summit of Carnanelly. The site predominately comprises wet modified bog, commercial conifer plantation and blanket bog. The Glenlark River and Coneyglen Burn run through it. There are a number of small surface water bodies such as Glenarud and Feighatan Burns that run through the central and north-western parts of the site. Lough Lark is located towards its northern end.
1.2 The proposal encompasses the wind farm and all associated infrastructure in addition to parts of the haulage route for the turbines (abnormal load route) with associated road widening and creation of passing places. All traffic associated with the proposed development would use a new point of access located approximately 190 m north-east of No. 259 Sixtowns Road. The proposed access arrangements have not changed since submission of this planning application.
1.3 The applicant amended the original scheme in 2017. They reduced the number of turbines from 36 to 33 but increased the capacity for each from 3.2 megawatts (MW) to 3.6 MW thereby increasing the total capacity from 115.2 MW to 118.8 MW. Hub heights, overall height, blade diameter and tower diameters were also increased.
1.4 The plans subject of this planning application are listed in Appendix 1 of this report. Plans and maps included with the Environmental Statement (ES) and its Addendum are part of the supporting environmental information (EI) required by Regulation 11 (2) of The Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015. These are distinct from the plans required by Article 3 (3) of The Planning (General Development Procedure) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 to accompany the planning application.
1.5 In addition to the suite of drawings listed in Appendix 1, Chapter 2 of the ES and Chapter 4 of its Addendum provide a comprehensive description of the constituent elements of the proposed development and the likely sequence of construction work activities.
1.6 The applicant’s revised P1W application form, amongst other things, gives the proposed turbines’: overall height; hub height; and rotor diameter. The applicant has not specified the turbine model to be used. If planning permission were forthcoming, regardless of model selection, the aforementioned dimensions are the maxima that would be permitted on the basis of that consent. These could be the subject of an associated planning condition as was done in appeal reference 2009/A0363.
______2018/C007 Page 4
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Micro-siting
1.7 For each proposed turbine, the revised P1W application form provided the turbine centre co-ordinates and the base height level above sea level (AOD). However, the application for planning permission was made on the basis that the applicant seeks the scope to vary: each turbine location (and the corresponding layout) for up to 50m; and the centre line of access tracks and other infrastructure by up to 25m. They said that, amongst other things, this would allow accommodation of possible variations in ground conditions across the site, which would only become apparent once extensive ground investigation works (e.g. trial holes and boreholes) are carried out at pre-construction stage. They added that this would enable the developer to make the best use of the local topographical and stratigraphically variations in order to mitigate the extent of earthworks associated with the development.
1.8 If I were to recommend that planning permission be granted for this proposal, all of the following matters would be considered in subsequent chapters of this report: the acceptability of the principle of micro-siting; the adequacy of the associated EI; the likely environmental impact of micro-siting; and whether the proposed tolerances should be reduced.
Third parties
1.9 Third parties (TPs) to the inquiry process included: local residents objecting to the proposal; objectors from further afield; elected representatives; District Councils; various voluntary organisations and community groups; and interest groups such as Mountaineering Ireland. Unless otherwise specified, they are referred to as TPs.
Legal and procedural issues
1.10 At the pre-inquiry meeting TPs raised concerns that the proposal had not been properly advertised and that not all local residents who may have had an interest in the application, were aware of it. There was also disquiet about how and when they were advised of the meeting and arrangements for participating in the inquiry.
1.11 The Department for Infrastructure (DfI) provided the Commission with a database of TPs’ details as set out on their letters to it. The Commission used this to correspond with those individuals, households, organisations or groups by letter of 20 March 2019. When made aware at the pre-inquiry meeting that the courier firm, that it is contracted to use, did not deliver correspondence in a timely manner to all potential participants, the attending Commissioners said that a statement of case would be accepted from all those who wished to submit one irrespective of whether they returned a questionnaire saying that they intended to do so. The meeting dealt only with procedural matters; no substantive issues were discussed. The Commissioners’ speaking notes were made available on the Commission’s website shortly thereafter. In addition, participation in discussion at the inquiry was not contingent upon having submitted a statement of case. On this basis, I discern no prejudice to the interests of TPs in these respects.
______2018/C007 Page 5
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
1.12 At this meeting TPs also raised the issue of whether DfI had properly described the location of the development in statutory advertisements. This also had implications for the site address that the Commission used in correspondence with them. In light of this, DfI was asked to review its position and advise whether: it was content that it had properly accepted and advertised the planning application; and wanted the Commission to proceed with the inquiry. It responded by letter dated 17 May 2019 saying that it was content that the application was both properly accepted and advertised by it and sought confirmation from the Commission that arrangements for the inquiry remained the same as those set out by letter of 20 March 2019. As agreed at the pre-inquiry meeting, this was placed on the Commission’s website upon receipt. The Commission responded individually with TPs who made further representations on foot of that letter.
1.13 In accordance with Section 26 (10) of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 [the Act] DfI asked the Commission to hold the inquiry to consider representations made in respect of the planning application. As required by sub-section 12 thereof, DfI must take into account this report in determining the planning application. However, as set out in Section 26 (13), DfI’s decision shall be final. In reaching that decision, in addition to the issues that it addressed in its letter of 17 May 2019 to the Commission, it is for DfI to:
Consider what weight should be given to local residents’ dissatisfaction that the landowners did not directly consult them about the proposal;
Assess whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of Sections 27 & 28 of the Act in respect of pre-application community consultation. This includes TPs’ concerns about: the integrity of their publicity material; choice of venues; timing of events; and reliance placed on the “findings” of those proceedings given that they were said to be managed by the applicant’s employees and not an independent facilitator or other such “middleman”; and
Satisfy itself that the requirements of: Article 8 (b) of the Planning (General Development Procedure) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 have been observed with regard to serving notice of the application on any identified occupier or neighbouring land; and also Article 13 thereof in respect of consultation arrangements.
1.14 At the inquiry a TP asked why the shadow Habitats Regulation Assessment (sHRA) had not been made available on the “Planning Portal”. This omission was said to disenfranchise TPs and deny them access to the range of information that they needed to enable them to fully participate in the proceedings.
1.15 The sHRA was submitted as Appendix 6 of DfI’s rebuttal statement. DfI referred to its statutory obligations in accordance with Regulation 23 (7) of The Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 whereby if a public local inquiry is to be held under Section 26 (10) of the Act, DfI shall, not less than 30 days before the inquiry is held, publish notice of it by local advertisement. Regulation 21 (8) stipulates two items that every notice published pursuant to Regulation 21 (7) shall contain. Regulation 23 (8) (b) requires that details be provided of where and when copies of any information provided for the ______2018/C007 Page 6
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
purposes of the inquiry may be inspected and, where practicable, copied by the public. DfI complied with this legal requirement. In addition to this statutory provision and in accordance with its published procedures, the Commission circulated DfI’s rebuttal statement to all parties who submitted a statement of case.
1.16 Before issuing a decision on this planning application, it is for DfI to satisfy itself that it has met its legal obligations in this respect and that the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision- making and access to justice in environmental matters have been observed. If DfI did not follow its own procedures, that matter would have to be pursued out with the remit of this inquiry.
“Project Splitting”
1.17 The required connection from the proposed sub-station to the national grid does not form part of this planning application. It would be subject of a separate, subsequent submission.
1.18 Reference was made to the Republic of Ireland (RoI) High Court decision in respect of O’Grianna & Others v An Bord Pleanala [214] IEHC 632. The court determined that the construction of a wind farm, associated infrastructure and connection to the grid is a single project; not two separate ones. Therefore, before granting planning permission for the former, an assessment of the cumulative effects of the combined or single project ought to have been carried out. It held that: this practice was effectively “project-splitting”, which was in breach of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (2011/92/EU); and applying for planning permission was premature when the Electricity Supply Board had not yet determined designs in respect of grid connection.
1.19 At Chapter 2.6.4 of the ES this applicant said that connection from the proposed sub-station to the national grid would be subject of a separate planning application. They confirmed that it was their understanding that such a submission would have to be accompanied by an ES which, amongst other things, would consider that proposed development’s cumulative impact on visual amenity and landscape character together with this proposal. TP concerns about the environmental impact of pylons and transmission wires needed to relay power from the wind farm, if approved, to the national grid could be considered at that juncture.
1.20 The applicant said that O’Grianna failed to refer to the case of the Commission of the European Communities v Spain that considered the failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations imposed by the EIA Directive. In that instance a rail project was split into shorter sections in order to avoid the need for EIA and consideration of the overall project’s cumulative environmental impact. They added that UK courts have adopted a different stance to the RoI High Court in respect of connections to the grid by electricity generators and pipes carrying energy from heat plants; whereby, provided the developer is not seeking to avoid their EIA obligations, it is reasonable to assess the environmental impact of that associated development as a separate issue provided the cumulative impact of both components of the project are then taken into account. DfI was in agreement with the applicant that this is
______2018/C007 Page 7
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
not a case where concerns about “project splitting” engage as the applicant is not seeking to avoid their obligations under the EIA Directive.
1.21 On this basis, I am satisfied that submitting two separate planning applications, each with an accompanying ES, does not represent “project splitting”. The current planning application is not invalid on this basis. If DfI was minded to approve it, consideration could be given to the imposition of a planning condition that would specify what, if any, development could take place on the application site prior to the developer securing permission for grid connection.
Compliance with planning conditions
1.22 Planning permission was previously granted on 24 May 2013 for the erection of 2 no. “temporary 80m met mast, and associated guywires. Access using existing entrance and tracks for a period of 5 years” – application reference numbers K/2013/0243/F & K/2013/024/F. Both permissions were subject to a condition stating that: “The permission hereby granted shall be for a period of 5 years from the date of the decision notice, after which time the mast and guy wires shall be removed and the site restored to its former condition”. If either or both of these masts are still in situ and their retention has not been regularised, the issue of expediency of taking enforcement action to secure their removal is a matter for Fermanagh & Omagh District Council (FODC).
1.23 That these masts remained on site after planning permission expired cannot be weighed against the applicant in consideration of the current application. Neither is it indicative that they would disregard the requirements of any conditions attached to planning permission for the proposed development, if forthcoming. Were that to transpire, non-compliance with conditions would be a matter for the planning authority to investigate and, if considered expedient, enforce against.
Decommissioning
1.24 When dealing with topics, unless specifically mentioned, separate reference has not been made to the decommissioning phase of the proposed development as associated impacts would be likely to be of lesser magnitude than during the construction and/or operational phases.
______2018/C007 Page 8
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
2.0 ENERGY POLICY
2.1 The applicant conducted a comprehensive review of energy policy in Chapter 3 of their ES. This was updated in Section 2 of Appendix 2 to their statement of case.
2.2 At Chapter 3.3.1 of the ES the applicant identified a number of global and European policies and explained why they considered them as providing strategic support for the proposed development. Included were:
Rio Earth Summit; Kyoto Protocol; The Durban Conference; The Paris Agreement of 2015; Strategic European Energy Review; Renewable Energy Road Map 2007; and EU Directive 2009/28/EC on the Promotion of the use of Energy from Renewable Sources.
UK Energy Policy
2.3 At Chapter 3.3.2 of the ES the applicant set out the rationale for identifying cited UK energy policy as supporting the current proposal. This included:
Meeting the Energy Challenge – White Paper on Energy 2007; UK Climate Change Programme; UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009, which forms the basis of the UK’s National Action Plan required under the terms of the aforementioned Renewable Energy Directive; and UK Renewable Energy Action Plan 2010.
2.4 The Climate Change Act 2008 committed the UK to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. Included in this target is the reduction of emissions from the devolved administrations, including Northern Ireland (NI). The Act established a system of legally binding carbon budgets that provide a “glide path” to achieving the ultimate goal. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) was appointed to advise on these and monitor progress. They said that NI’s fair contribution to the 5th carbon budget (2028 - 32), the most recently legislated for, requires at least a 35% reduction against 1990 levels by 2030. The most recent figure, from 2016, shows that a 16% reduction was achieved.
2.5 At the invitation of the NI Department for Agriculture and Rural Affairs (DAERA), in February 2019, the CCC published analysis of strategies to enable NI to achieve a 35% reduction and also greater levels of reduction up to 45%. It noted that DAERA’s projection of 2030 emissions is for savings of 32%; 3% short of the required reduction. Of the measures proposed to reduce NI’s emissions is the provision of a route to market for new low-cost intermittent renewables in the electricity sector, especially onshore wind. The report also noted that DAERA’s projections imply a grid carbon intensity of 230 gCO2/kWh, significantly above the CCC’s target of less than 100 gCO2/kWh by 2030 for the UK as a whole and that
______2018/C007 Page 9
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
NI will have to reduce carbon emissions well beyond 45% in the long-term. The carbon intensity of electricity is a measure of how much CO2 emissions are produced per kilowatt hour of electricity consumed.
2.6 The emissions reduction target set out in the Climate Change Act was derived so as to put the UK’s emissions on pathway consistent with keeping global average temperatures within approximately 2°C of pre-industrial levels. The Paris Agreement of 2015, ratified by the UK in 2016, requires governments to hold warming well below 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. In May 2019 the CCC published a report recommending that the UK’s 80% reduction goal be superseded by a still more stringent target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The recommendation was accepted by the UK government and passed into law in June 2019.
NI Energy Policy
2.7 At Chapter 3.3.3 of the ES the applicant cited and provided commentary on regional energy policy that they considered to support the proposed development.
2.8 The NI Sustainable Development Strategy 2006 highlighted the need for renewable energy, in particular wind energy. Strategic Objective 1 is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions principally by promoting energy efficiency and the use of renewables. Strategic Objective 2 is to establish NI as a world class exemplar in the development and use of renewable energy technology. Paragraphs 2.9 – 2.12 inclusive of Planning Policy Statement 18: “Renewable Energy” (PPS 18) specifically refer to this Strategy.
2.9 The NI Executive’s “Sustainable Development Strategy” (2010) strategic objectives included increasing the proportion of energy derived from renewable sources and increasing energy security. One of the Priority Areas for Action was ensuring reliable, affordable and sustainable energy provision and reducing NI’s carbon footprint. This was supplemented by the Sustainable Development Implementation Plan 2011-14, which identified objectives pursuant to the Priority Areas for Action. These included increasing the proportion of energy derived from renewable sources and increasing energy security.
2.10 Strategic Energy Framework (SEF) for NI 2004 and the SEF for NI 2010 recognised the importance of renewable energy and onshore wind in particular in helping NI secure its energy supply and meet European and national targets. It was committed to supporting and developing the industry. It set the goal to increase to 40% of electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2020. TPs claimed that this target was not the subject of properly accountable public consultation. However, as the time for legal challenge to the SEF has long since passed, it is an expression of current government policy and a material consideration.
2.11 The overarching goal of the NI Executive’s Economic Strategy: “Priorities for sustainable growth and prosperity” (2012) was to improve competitiveness of the NI economy by encouraging and developing the green economy and the sustainable energy sector. A “Key Action” on delivering economic infrastructure is
______2018/C007 Page 10
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
to overhaul our energy infrastructure to ensure it will be fit for purpose through to 2050. This includes encouraging proposals aimed at increasing security of supply
2.12 The overall aim of the draft Onshore Renewable Electricity Action Plan (OREAP) 2013 – 2020 is to optimise the amount of electricity generated from onshore renewable resources in order to enhance diversity and security of supply, reduce carbon emissions, contribute to the 40% renewable energy target by 2020 and beyond and develop business and employment opportunities for NI companies. It acknowledged the important role that the development of renewable technologies can play in the ongoing diversification of the energy mix in NI to insulate against cost increases of wholesale gas and oil. It added that large scale on-shore wind is the most mature and cost-effective of renewable technologies and, as such, helps the transition to a low carbon future with less pressure on fuel bills.
2.13 The draft Plan was accompanied by a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) dated October 2011. It considered two options in assessing the potential cumulative effects of onshore wind development – clustering versus dispersal. The potential benefits and costs of both scenarios were identified.
2.14 Clustering development in existing locations could potentially reduce significant adverse effects occurring in undeveloped locations. At that time, over 8 years ago, it was concluded that there was still capacity for additional development to be accommodated in existing locations e.g. the north-west. However, the assessment also concluded that development would not be able to follow this pattern indefinitely as, in all locations, there would be a limit on the amount of onshore wind farm developments that could be accommodated before significant cumulative effects start to occur. This threshold will vary from area to area and be influenced by a number of factors including landscape character and an area’s ecological value.
2.15 The qualified need for dispersal was considered. It should be focused on areas where there is already some onshore wind farm development, or which have been assessed as being of lower sensitivity to such development than other locations. The assessment said that it was unable to conclude the exact amount of development, if any that could occur in more sensitive areas, including Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), should development in current locations start to have significant cumulative adverse effects on a range of receptors.
2.16 Whilst the draft OREAP supports the principle of further onshore wind energy development, it does not necessarily support development of the scale proposed at this particular location within an AONB. Chapter 5 thereof refers to the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) Planning for Sustainable Development 2015 and PPS 18 as providing operational policy for assessing landscape capacity for further wind energy development. The plan was to have been reviewed in 2016.
2.17 The Sustainable Energy Action Plan 2012 - 2015 recognised the importance of decarbonising energy production in NI. An action in respect of electricity from renewable sources was to ensure recognition of the need for renewable energy to
______2018/C007 Page 11
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
address the environmental impact of climate change and that clear, consistent and proportionate procedures are in place for the consenting of renewable installations.
2.18 The NI Executive Programme for Government (PfG) 2011 – 2015 had a key commitment to achieving a renewable energy target that is now out of date and has since been exceeded. The development of “green energy” was identified as being a way of achieving the priority of growing a sustainable economy and investing in the future.
2.19 The Executive’s draft PfG was the subject of consultation in 2016. Therein it was proposed to address the future of energy policy and strategy, including the increased use of renewable and sustainable sources, through the SEF. However, with the intervening political hiatus, no explicit targets have yet been set for renewable energy generation in NI beyond 2020.
2.20 TPs called for: more focus on reducing energy consumption; a greater diversity of renewable sources - solar, tidal, off-shore wind farms and small-scale renewable schemes with community support that deliver power directly to consumers; and re- powering of older wind farms. They said that NI is overly dependent on onshore wind. The publication “Electricity consumption and renewable generation in Northern Ireland: Year ending June 2019” was published on 5 September 2019 by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) and the Department for the Economy (DfE) and showed, at Figure 4, that for the period July 2018 to June 2019, 85.3% of renewable electricity generation came from wind. TPs added that grid developments, improved electricity storage, electric vehicles and other technological development would enable enhanced benefit to be harvested from Ireland’s existing wind energy infrastructure. They saw this integrated approach as providing a much more efficient and less intrusive transfer to a low carbon economy, without the further loss of undeveloped, scenic landscapes.
2.21 TPs suggested that the Executive had set a cap of 80% on the contribution of wind energy to that generated from renewable sources as part of the Draft Programme for Government Framework 2016-21. The only mention of renewable energy therein is in the context of Outcome 2 “We live and work sustainably – protecting the environment” where its benefits are acknowledged.
2.22 The proposed development is not needed to achieve the 2020 SEF goal for the contribution of renewable energy to electricity consumption; this has already been exceeded. The aforementioned NISRA/DfE joint publication said that for the 12- month period July 2018 to June 2019, 44% of total electricity consumption in NI was generated from renewable sources located in NI. On this basis there is merit in the TP’s stance that NI’s energy policy is overdue for review. Given the recent political hiatus within the Assembly such review has not yet been undertaken; and the proposal can only be considered in the current policy context. This inquiry is not the vehicle for reviewing policy. Nevertheless, the SEF target is not a cap. There is no ceiling on the contribution of renewable energy generation, and/or specifically that generated by wind, to electricity consumption.
2.23 One of the identified benefits of the proposed North-South electricity interconnector would be increased ability to export electricity. Enhanced interconnection would
______2018/C007 Page 12
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
allow for increased penetration by wind energy in the all-Ireland electricity market and a reduction in constraint payments to operators. Its contribution to security of supply would facilitate the phasing out of fossil fuel power stations whose continued operation have financial implications for consumers. It would not eradicate the need for further wind generated power in NI. In these respects, the proposed development could contribute to savings to consumers and a reduction in fuel poverty. Associated financial benefits would accrue to consumers in the locality. On a fiscal basis, there is no persuasive evidence that there would be disproportionate gains to those in the wider market compared to local consumers. Therefore, the stated case for the interconnector and the current proposal are binary; the decision-maker’s role is not to choose between them.
2.24 TPs said that concerns about climate change are over-egged. They objected to “green energy propaganda” and the “brain washing” of children as regards the perceived benefits of wind energy without identification of associated problems. Issues relating to alleged politicisation of the school curriculum in respect of climate change are out with the scope of this inquiry. TPs were given opportunities to challenge the applicant’s EI and rebut their evidence on the proposed development’s perceived benefits. However, such submissions have to be weighed against the aims of energy policy at international, European, UK and regional levels. That adopted policy cannot be set aside and I cannot abdicate the weighing exercise that strategic policy demands; details of which are set out in the next chapter. In principle, making a contribution of up to 118.8 megawatts (MW) would assist in the achievement of strategic energy targets and associated policy aims.
______2018/C007 Page 13
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
3.0 PLANNING POLICY
3.1 Chapter 3 of the applicant’s ES dealt with the planning policy and development context. This was supplemented by Section 3 and Appendix 2 of their statement of case and paragraphs 2.23 – 2.34 inclusive of their rebuttal statement.
Local Development Plans
3.2 Section 6 (4) of the 2011 Act requires that any determination under it must be in accordance with the local development plan (LDP) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 45 (1) thereof requires the decision-maker to have regard to the LDP, so far as material to the application, and to other material considerations.
3.3 The bulk of the application site lies within the former Omagh District Council (DC) area. The proposed entrance off Sixtowns Road, adjoining parking area and initial stretch of the access track fall within the former Magherafelt DC area.
3.4 The Schedule to The Planning (Local Development Plan) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 provides that until a Council adopts a local policies plan for its district, or the Department approves the same, a departmental development plan shall operate as the LDP for the area for which it was made. Therefore, although past their stated end dates, the Omagh Area Plan 1987–2002 (OAP) and the Magherafelt Area Plan 2015 (MAP) operate for the time being as LDPs in the areas subject of the application.
3.5 The site is out with any policy area or environmental designation in the OAP. One of the Plan’s objectives (Paragraph 8.0) is to conserve and enhance the natural environment. It is silent on the subject of renewable energy. Paragraph 113.1 refers to the Sperrins AONB, designated under the Amenity Lands Act (NI) 1965; and paragraph 113.3 sets out policy therein.
3.6 Map No. 1 of the MAP shows the part of the application site within Magherafelt District as being within the Sperrins AONB. The Plan has no material policies for wind energy development or the management of development within AONBs.
3.7 The entirety of the appeal site is out with the former Cookstown District Council area. However, in part, it is contiguous with the north-western extent of the Beaghmore Area of Significant Archaeological Interest (ASAI) as shown on Map No. 27 of the Cookstown Area Plan 2010 (CAP). The associated Policy CON 4 deals with not only with large-scale development or the erection of masts within that area but requires that particular attention be paid to the impact of such proposals when viewed from Beaghmore Stone Circles and other critical viewpoints within this area. Notwithstanding the wording of the policy and that the applicant did not challenge other parties’ evidence that it applies in this instance, as this site lies outside the adopted ASAI, Policy CON 4 is not engaged. Although I am not bound by either, this approach is consistent with colleagues’ decisions in appeals 2007/A1313 and 2016/A0221 that various parties referred to.
______2018/C007 Page 14
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
3.8 Since submission of this planning application, FODC & MUDC published their Preferred Options Paper (POP) and draft Plan Strategy (dPS). POPs are not development plan documents and are not development plans for the purposes of Sections 6 (4) and 45 (1) of the 2011 Act.
3.9 Statements of case from FODC and MUDC referred to draft policies within their emerging LDPs, namely their dPSs and supporting guidance. Both have been subject of public consultation. Therefore, the weight to be afforded to the dPSs and whether the issue of prematurity arises are material considerations.
3.10 Looking at the FODC dPS, the main considerations that may be relevant to the proposal are:
Draft Policy L01 – Development within the Sperrins AONB; Draft Policy L02 – Special Countryside Areas; Draft Policy RE01 – Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation; and The Wind Energy Strategy (WES) at Appendix 7 of the dPS.
3.11 The principal policies with the dPS for the MUDC area that might be relevant to the current proposal are:
Policy HE 1 - Beaghmore Stone Circles – Area of Significant Archaeological Interest. Map 1.20 of the dPS shows a significantly enlarged Beaghmore ASAI by comparison to the adopted CAP. The proposed extension would encompass the part of the application site that comes within the MUDC area; Policy HE 4 – Archaeological Remains of Regional Importance & their Settings; Policy SCA 1 - Special Countryside Areas, as it applies to the High Sperrins; Policy NH 6 – AONBs; and Policy RNW 1 – Renewable Energy.
3.12 Paragraph 5.73 of SPPS addresses the issue of prematurity. It says that where a new LDP is under preparation it may be justifiable, in some circumstances, to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity. It adds that this may be appropriate in respect of development proposals which are individually so substantial, or whose cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant planning permission would prejudice the outcome of the plan process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which ought to have been taken in the LDP context. It continues that a proposal for development that has an impact only on a small area would rarely come into this category, but refusal might be justifiable where a proposal would have a significant impact on an important settlement, or a substantial area, with an identifiable character.
3.13 Paragraph 6.221 of the SPPS is also material. It says that Councils should set out policies and proposals in their LDPs that support a diverse range of renewable energy development, taking into account the aim in relation to renewable energy set out in paragraph 6.218 thereof together with regional strategic objectives, local circumstances and the wider environmental, economic and social benefits of
______2018/C007 Page 15
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
renewable energy development. It adds that whilst LDPs are being prepared, moratoria on such development are not appropriate.
3.14 The Joint Ministerial Statement (JMS) on “Development Plans and implementation of the Regional Development Strategy” was published in January 2005. It related to the pre-April 2015 unitary planning system under the auspices of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 and pre-dates the transfer of responsibility for plan- making to the new Councils. Its concern at paragraph 20 (a) is that a development proposal might prejudice the ability of the emerging new or replacement development plan to achieve general conformity with the RDS. However, paragraph 3 of DfI’s Development Plan Practice Note 6 “Soundness” (DPPN 6) [May 2017], that sets out the tests of soundness for development plan documents, requires that the Council take account of the RDS as opposed to be in general conformity with it. Nevertheless, the JMS is still extant and material. However, in so far as there is any conflict between it and the SPPS, more weight is given to the latter as it reflects the Environment Minster’s expectations for delivery of the planning system and was agreed with the NI Executive.
3.15 DPPN 6 says that a key feature of the LDP system is “soundness”, which requires the development plan document (DPD) to be tested in terms of content, conformity and the process by which it is produced, at independent examination (IE). Council witnesses confirmed that representations have been made in respect of the soundness of the LDPs on the basis of the policies and guidance set out in paragraphs 3.10 and 3.11. The applicant’s representation in respect of the FODC dPS (DPS252) makes specific reference to draft Policies RE01, L01 & L02. The applicant commissioned OPEN to, amongst other things, review the aforementioned capacity study. In respect of draft Policy RE01 the applicant’s representation says that there is "lack of robust evidence base for the formulation of Policy RE01 as established by OPEN’s reviews of the Wind Energy Strategy and Landscape Capacity Strategy report”.
3.16 The applicant said that, amongst other things, DfI had sought further clarification from FODC (as of August 2019) on elements of draft Policy RE01. They added that representations from the Historic Environment Division and Natural Environment Division challenge the content of the plan and underlying evidence. Whilst the Councils may be content with the soundness of their dPS, neither has yet been independently examined against the tests of soundness set out in DPPN 6 or found sound as required under Section 10 (6) of the 2011 Act.
3.17 The SPPS is clear in setting out the transitional arrangements that will operate until the adoption of a Plan Strategy (PS). Until its adoption for the relevant council areas, the planning authority will apply existing regional policies and those contained in the SPPS, as updated in October and November 2019.
3.18 The FODC website lists the Landscape Wind Capacity Study for Fermanagh & Omagh (January 2018) as a study associated with its dPS [The Capacity Study]. The “Study Purpose and Objectives” says it is to provide detailed technical assessment on landscape, visual and cumulative development matters in relation to wind energy, providing detailed guidance on the capacity of the landscape within the FODC area to accommodate wind turbine developments and associated
______2018/C007 Page 16
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
infrastructure of varying scale, to inform the policies of the Fermanagh & Omagh LDP 2030. The study focuses primarily on the FODC area, but the study extends 15km beyond the Local Authority boundary because of the potential landscape and visual effects of wind energy developments in neighbouring areas.
3.19 FODC said that use and application of the Study is not contingent upon adoption of its dPS and that the document had not been forwarded to DfI. MUDC echoed this stance, saying that whilst the Study informs the dPS, the weight to be given to it as operational policy is a matter for FODC; the witness contended that it will not be subject to IE despite the applicant referring to it in their associated representation.
3.20 The Introduction to the FODC dPS, at paragraph 1.4, says that it has been structured in three parts. Part three is said to comprise the WES and other areas of guidance that form part of the Plan. Paragraph 1.5 says that the whole Plan must be taken into account when assessing development proposals. This includes the vision, spatial strategy, policies, proposals and all associated supplementary guidance. It adds that certain policies or plan proposals cannot be ‘cherry picked’ and used in isolation; all relevant parts of the plan must be considered. Paragraph 1.6 deals with the maps that accompany the dPS and, of the WES Map, says that it should be read alongside Policy RE01 and Appendix 7 (the WES). Paragraph 1.5 of Appendix 7 of the dPS (WES) refers to the Wind Strategy Energy Map: Wind Turbine Development Opportunities and Constraints and the following paragraph says that these areas were identified in the Capacity Study, which is described as “a strategic level study”. The applicant said that they lodged an objection to the soundness of the dPS on the basis of the Capacity Study
3.21 The Capacity Study is not a factual document; it is based on professional judgement. Its stated purpose is to inform operational policies. It appears to be an integral part of the dPS that does not provide stand-alone guidance in advance of the LDP’s adoption. I cannot give it greater weight than emergent policy that it is intended to inform. Indeed, paragraph 2.3 of the dPS states that once both documents of the LDP are adopted (the dPS and Local Policies Plan) they will replace the current plans for the former constituent districts. Moreover paragraph 5.3.20 of DPPN 6, under the heading “Procedure for preparing the DPD”, says that it will be particularly important for a council to submit information other than that identified in Regulations 20 to 22 of the Planning (Local Development Plan) Regulations (NI) 2015 (LDP Regulations), where it may be necessary to justify a specific policy for the local area.
3.22 Paragraph 1.2 of DPPN 6 says that IE will focus on the soundness of the DPD as a whole rather than on individual representations on specific plan proposals, designations and zonings. It is not for me to test soundness of the DPDs in the context of this individual proposal. Given the current status of the emerging LDPs, DfI’s evidence that limited weight can be to their applicable policies in this case and that greater weight should be given to current planning policy, is persuasive. Accordingly, this is not a circumstance where it would be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity.
______2018/C007 Page 17
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Regional Development Strategy 2035 “Building a Better Future” (RDS) – March 2012
3.23 The RDS is an overarching strategic planning framework to facilitate and guide the public and private sectors in planning for the future development of NI to 2035. It is the NI Executive’s spatial strategy. Its purpose is to deliver the spatial aspects of the PfG. However, it also recognises that it influences private sector investment.
3.24 The RDS contains two types of strategic guidance namely Regional Guidance (RG) and Spatial Framework Guidance (SFG). Whilst not providing operational policy, Paragraph 1.8 says that the RDS is material to decision on individual planning applications.
3.25 in the Foreword the then Minister for Regional Development said that climate change is a key environmental and economic driver and that it is important that NI plays its part by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and plans for the impacts that climate change brings. In paragraph 2.4 climate change is acknowledged as a major environmental threat.
3.26 The main applicable provisions are as follows:
One of the 8 aims of the RDS is to take actions to reduce our carbon footprint and facilitate adaptation to climate change by, amongst other things, reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions and promoting sustainable production;
RG5 aims to deliver a sustainable and secure energy supply. Paragraph 3.8 says that NI needs a robust and sustainable energy infrastructure that should deliver reliable and secure sources of energy. It continues that new generation infrastructure must be carefully planned and assessed to avoid adverse environmental effects. It adds that decision makers will have to balance impacts against the benefits from a secure renewable energy stream and the potential for cleaner air and energy for industry and transportation. One of the 5 cited mechanisms for realising this aim is to increase the contribution that renewable energy can make to the overall energy mix. To achieve this it identifies the need for a significant increase in all types of renewable energy installations, including a wide range of renewable resources for electricity generation, including onshore, to meet the region’s needs. Paragraph 3.23 refers to reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation and home heating. Increasing the contribution of renewable energy will reduce this reliance and improve security of supply;
RG9 seeks to reduce our carbon footprint and facilitate mitigation and adaptation to climate change whilst improving air quality. One of the ways that this is to be achieved is by increasing the use of renewable energies. Decarbonisation of the power sector is one of two keys to achieving emissions reduction targets. It adds that renewable electricity installations must be appropriately sited to minimise their environmental impact. Paragraph 3.27 aims to protect and extend ecosystems and habitats that can reduce or buffer the effects of climate change. It adds that many habitats (such as peat bogs)
______2018/C007 Page 18
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
may provide protection against some effects and these should be protected and, where possible, extended;
RG11 seeks to conserve, protect and, where possible, enhance our built heritage and natural environment. It identifies the environment as one of NI’s most important assets and the responsibility that we have to protect and enhance this asset for the benefit of future generations. Specific objectives are set for the built and natural heritage including references to: protection of archaeological sites and monuments; historic landscapes; priority species; designated habitat sites; the conservation of local identity and distinct landscape character; protection and, where possible, enhancement of areas recognised for their landscape quality; and protection of designated areas of countryside from inappropriate development;
SFG13 aims to sustain rural communities living in smaller settlements and the open countryside. Paragraph 3.98 attaches importance to development being sensitive to the distinctive settlement pattern in the open countryside and the cultural tradition that the land itself and living in it provides. It adds that the rural community is the custodian of our exceptional natural and built environment and aims to sustain the overall strength of the rural community living in the open countryside. Paragraph 3.100 recognises that there are wide variations across NI in terms of economic, social and environmental characteristics of rural areas. Therefore, a need for local development to reflect these regional differences is recognised and sensitivity to local needs and environmental issues is urged including the ability of landscapes to absorb development. Paragraph 3.101 encourages sustainable and sensitive development;
Chapter 4 deals with regionally significant economic infrastructure and Strategic Projects that will contribute to economic infrastructure development including those contributing to the achievement of renewable energy targets;
The development of NI’s renewable energy sources is described as vital in Paragraph 4.15 in order to increase energy security, help climate change and achieve renewable energy targets in the SEF. It acknowledges that achieving that target is likely to mean an increase in the number of wind farms both onshore and offshore and the need to diversify renewables. Paragraph 4.18 acknowledges the job creation benefits of such developments. Paragraph 4.24 again mentions that increasing use of renewable energy sources will help address climate change targets.
Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS) Planning for Sustainable Development – September 2015.
3.27 The SPPS sets out overarching policy for development management. It was introduced to facilitate the plan-led system. It explains at paragraph 1.9 that the existing Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) and the remaining provisions of the 1993 publication “A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland” (PSRNI) will be cancelled when Councils have adopted a new PS for their areas. Transitional
______2018/C007 Page 19
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
arrangements are set out in paragraphs 1.10 -1.16 inclusive pending adoption of a Council’s PS.
3.28 During this transitional period planning authorities will apply the SPPS and policy contained within, amongst other documents: Planning Policy Statement 2: “Natural Heritage” (PPS 2); Planning Policy Statement 3 (Clarification): “Access, Movement and Parking” (PPS 3); Planning Policy Statement 6: “Planning, Archaeology and The Built Heritage” (PPS 6); Planning Policy Statement 15 Revised: “Planning & Flood Risk” (PPS 15); Planning Policy Statement 16: “Tourism” (PPS 16); PPS 18; and Planning Policy Statement 21: “Sustainable Development in the Countryside” (PPS 21). Paragraph 1.14 says that planning documents that will continue to be treated as material considerations during the transitional period include Best Practice Guidance to PPS 18 “Renewable Energy” (BPG) and supplementary planning guidance “Wind Energy Development in Northern Ireland Landscapes” (SPG), published in August 2010.
3.29 DfI published updates in October and November 2019 on extant planning guidance prepared by the Department of the Environment. Amongst other things, it identified guidance that is regional in focus and will be retained unless and until replaced by the Department. This included both the BPG and SPG.
3.30 The following provisions of the SPPS are also relevant to the proposal:
Paragraph 2.1 identifies the objective of the planning system as to secure the orderly and consistent development of land whilst furthering sustainable development and improving well-being. It says the planning system should positively and proactively facilitate development that contributes to a more socially, economically and environmentally sustainable NI. It adds that planning authorities should therefore simultaneously pursue social and economic priorities alongside the careful management of our built and natural environments for the overall benefit of our society;
Paragraph 2.3 is pertinent and considered in Chapter 6 of this report;
Paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 recognise the need for the integration and balancing of complex social, economic and environmental factors when decision-making in the interests of furthering sustainable development in the long-term public interest. The weight to be given to each consideration is a matter of planning judgement;
Paragraph 3.7 says that planning policy should not be considered in isolation and that it has a part to play in supporting the Executive and wider Government objectives and strategies in efforts to address any existing or potential barriers to sustainable development. This includes strategies, proposals and future investment programmes for energy infrastructure;
Paragraphs 3.8 and 5.72 set a presumption in favour of sustainable development, having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, unless the proposed development would cause harm to interests of acknowledged importance; ______2018/C007 Page 20
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Paragraph 3.9 states that in formulating policies and plans and in determining planning applications, planning authorities will also be guided by the precautionary principle that, where there are significant risks of damage to the environment, its protection will generally be paramount, unless there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest;
Paragraphs 4.3, 4.10 and 4.12 are pertinent and are considered in Chapter 7 of this report;
Paragraph 4.11 refers to a wide range of environmental and amenity considerations that should be taken into account when planning authorities are managing development such as noise and air quality;
Paragraph 6.214 says that NI has significant renewable energy resources and a vibrant renewable energy industry that makes an important contribution towards achieving sustainable development and is a significant provider of jobs and investment across the region;
Paragraph 6.215 states that making appropriate use of renewable energy sources is supported by wider government policy, including the RDS 2035 and SEF whereby the need to increase the contribution the renewable energy can make to the overall energy mix is emphasised;
Paragraph 6.218 says that the aim of the SPPS in relation to renewable energy is to facilitate the siting of renewable energy generating facilities in appropriate locations within the natural environment in order to achieve NI’s renewable energy targets and to realise the benefits of renewable energy without compromising other environmental assets of acknowledged importance. Paragraph 6.19 sets out three regional strategic objectives for renewable energy and two echo the provisions of the preceding paragraph;
Paragraphs 6.221 - 6.227 inclusive set out regional strategic policy for renewable energy development. Conflict between its provisions and those of PPS 18 will be considered in due course.
3.31 The Minister of the Environment’s written statement, dated 28 September 2015, introducing the SPPS said there is greater acknowledgement of the contribution the renewable energy industry makes towards achieving sustainable development as a provider of jobs and investment across the region and an acknowledgement of wider government policy support for the use of renewable energy sources, including the SEF. He added that the SPPS, in respect of renewable energy, is permissive where the proposal will not result in unacceptable adverse impact on interests of acknowledged importance.
3.32 The SPPS sets out the Executive’s current position on renewable energy development. The aforementioned Ministerial Statement said that, where appropriate, it also takes into account the recommendations of the Report of the Environment Committee’s Wind Energy Inquiry (dated 29 January 2015). This included the comment at paragraph 18 of the Executive Summary that “West Tyrone had already reached saturation point in terms of the number of wind developments ______2018/C007 Page 21
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
wither operational or planned in the region”. Paragraph 6.221 of the SPPS says that moratoria on applications for renewable energy development whilst LDPs are being prepared or updated are not appropriate. This inquiry is not a mechanism for revision of strategic regional planning policy or for declaring additional environmental designations.
3.33 Objectors said that, by comparison to this proposal, a disproportionately high policy hurdle is placed on proposals for single rural dwellings. They added that there are no wind turbines in the Lake District or Yorkshire Dales National Parks. Such proposals are assessed in a different policy context to that pertinent in this instance. The Commission’s role is not to make planning policy but to interpret and apply it in relation to the proposed development. BADA said that renewable energy proposals of much smaller scales have been assessed as inappropriate in this locality. However, each application must be assessed on its own merits and the weight given to relevant material considerations will differ between proposals.
Planning Policy Statement 21: “Sustainable Development in the Countryside” (PPS 21)
3.34 The aim of PPS 21 is to manage development in the countryside in a manner consistent with achieving the strategic objectives of the RDS; one that strikes a balance between the need to protect the environment from unnecessary or inappropriate development, while supporting local communities. Its objectives include conserving the landscape and natural resources of the rural area; protecting it from excessive, inappropriate or obtrusive development and from the actual or potential effects of pollution; and to promote high standards in the siting of development in the countryside.
3.35 Policy CTY 1 states that certain types of non-residential development may be acceptable in principle in the countryside e.g. renewable energy projects in accordance with PPS 18.
Planning Policy Statement 18: “Renewable Energy” (PPS 18)
3.36 The preamble to PPS 18 says that: it superseded Policy PSU 12 “Renewable Energy” of “A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland”; and where that policy is referred to elsewhere in the Strategy, policies in PPS 18 take precedence.
3.37 Paragraph 1.2 of PPS 18 acknowledges advantages associated with greater use of renewable energy technologies. The following paragraph identifies a range of associated economic benefits to NI that an indigenous renewable energy industry could provide. It goes on to state that NI will play its full part in helping the UK to meet its EU targets for renewable energy set out in the EU Renewable Energy Directive. It recognises that achievement of the targets for renewable energy will only be possible with strong co-ordinated efforts from a dynamic combination of central, regional and local government and the devolved administrations, including NI, as well as other public groups, the private sector and dedicated communities. Paragraph 2.13 cites other government strategies that were taken into consideration in preparation of the PPS.
______2018/C007 Page 22
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
3.38 The aim of PPS 18, set out at Paragraph 3.1, is to facilitate the siting of renewable energy generating facilities in appropriate locations within the built and natural environment in order to achieve NI’s renewable energy targets and to release the benefits of renewable energy. This is tempered by the objectives set out in Paragraph 3.2, which include ensuring that: the environmental, landscape, visual and amenity impacts of renewable energy developments are adequately addressed; and adequate protection is given to the region’s built, natural, and cultural heritage features. However, the overall thrust of the document is supportive of renewable energy development. Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 says that development that generates energy from renewable resources, and any associated buildings and infrastructure, will be permitted provided they would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on a range of considerations. If this were the case, the decision-maker has to consider whether they would be outweighed by the wider environmental, economic and social benefits of the development.
3.39 As set out above, the policy provisions of other PPSs and supplementary planning guidance are relevant to this proposal. However, there will be considered within the chapter specific to that topic.
Conclusion
3.40 The proposal’s compliance with planning policy can only be assessed when issues such as, for example, impact on visual amenity and landscape character etc. have been considered in subsequent chapters of this report.
______2018/C007 Page 23
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
4.0 ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
4.1 Planning policy does not require that the applicant undertakes a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed development on a global, national or regional scale. I am not aware of any legal requirement for a private developer to provide a cost-benefit analysis of their scheme for public scrutiny. Therefore, the lack of an independent cost-benefit analysis, done on an international basis, and factoring in “negative externalities” that might accrue to TPs, is not fatal to the proposal. The public inquiry process provides a mechanism for considering the potential costs and benefits of the proposed development whether or not they can be quantified and/or monetised. The decision-maker has to strike a balance between competing concerns in the context of currently applicable law, policy and guidance irrespective of the participating parties’ perceived short-comings in that decision- making framework.
4.2 The SPPS and Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 differ in how they describe the weight that should attach to the proposed development’s wider environmental, economic and social benefits. The SPPS sates that these are material considerations that will be given appropriate weight in determining whether planning permission should be granted whereas Policy RE 1 says that they should be accorded significant weight. However, in accordance with paragraph 1.12 of the SPPS, its provisions take precedence over retained policy.
4.3 The applicant’s principal evidence on the topic is set out in: Chapter 5 of the ES; Chapter 7.9 of the ES Addendum; Section 4 of their statement of case and the accompanying TR1 and TR2.
4.4 TPs made verbal submissions that the applicant had incurred a £10.5m fine for mis- selling to customers and the Utility Regulator had or was investigating £450k that it gave to charities “as a result of misleading practices”. Weight cannot be attached to such allegations; this planning application must be considered on its own merits.
Economic Benefits
4.5 The Renewable Obligation Certificate scheme, which obligated electricity suppliers to buy a specific proportion of their energy from renewable sources, has closed. The Contracts for Difference scheme fixes prices received by low carbon generators with a generating capacity over 5 MW. However, it has not been extended to NI and there is no evidence that it is on the cards for the near future. Construction of the proposed wind farm would be funded solely through private investment; there are no other currently available public subsidies to assist with capital costs. It would proceed on a “merchant” basis, selling power and dependent on the market price for electricity. No evidence to the contrary was provided.
4.6 The applicant assessed the development and construction economic benefits using an established methodology that took account of:
The expected development and construction costs, based on the planned MW capacity and typical costs per MW of capacity installed;
______2018/C007 Page 24
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
The nature of the contracts and sub-contracts that would be necessary to develop and construct the proposed scheme and the value of those contracts;
The structure of the local and NI economies, including the numbers of potential suppliers and skills required to undertake the contracts and sub-contracts; and
The experience of other wind farm projects in NI including evidence of the proportion of work undertaken by local and NI suppliers and employers.
On this basis, estimates were made on the potential local (FODC area) and NI share of the contracts and sub-contracts that would be issued. Published economic statistics were used to estimate the economic output and employment that this activity would support (Chapter 7.9.3 of the ES Addendum).
4.7 The applicant made commitments to increase the local supply chain effects; this would be expected to result in a higher than average proportion of contracts being secured in the FODC area. Their associated evidential basis is set out in Chapter 5.8 of the ES. Given their experience in the wind energy sector and in developing wind farms in NI, the integrity of this intention is not doubted. However, the site could be sold to another developer and there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure that such commitments are realised. On the other hand, regional planning policy does not require that the economic benefits that are likely to flow from the proposal can only be considered if they are likely to directly benefit the Council area(s) in which the application site lies; nor does it stipulate that greater weight can be attached to them if this were proven to be the case.
4.8 The ES noted that the economic profile of the FODC area is well suited to the economic opportunities that could arise from the proposed development. The construction sector is more important to the FODC area than is the case for NI as a whole. NISRA figures at Table 5.8 of the ES showed that 6.2% of FODC area’s workforce are employed in the construction sector whereas the Ni average is 4.2%. So, the proposal has the potential to realise the local economic opportunities that have been identified. There is also merit in supporters’ point that the proposed development would allow specialist firms, such as those engaged in civil engineering, to retain skilled, technical staff within NI to develop their knowledge and skills base enabling them to compete for contracts for infrastructure projects at home and abroad.
4.9 The operational and decommissioning impacts were also assessed using a similar methodology, taking account of likely operating and decommissioning costs, the potential share of those that would likely be in the local and NI economy and the economic activity that would be supported. Account was also taken of the electricity capacity market on the island of Ireland, which is a mechanism to ensure that electricity supply continues to meet demand. The proposed development would have a “deemed credit” of 10% of its installed capacity i.e. a maximum of 11.8 MW, thereby allowing for the variable nature of the resource. If it failed to deliver this capacity, the operator would have to pay difference charges for capacity not delivered.
______2018/C007 Page 25
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
4.10 There was dispute about the effects of leakage of expenditure outside the region. TPs referred to an officer’s report to the FODC Planning Committee that explained why an applicant’s associated figures in respect of that particular wind energy development may have been over-inflated given this consideration and that of possible job displacement. However, no evidence was tabled to quantify this concern or otherwise explain how the applicant’s methodology was considered to be deficient. The applicant said that their methodology had taken such factors into account in addition to the quality of jobs that the proposed development would yield and associated remuneration. DfI’s Economics Branch was satisfied that the applicant’s methodology for assessing likely economic benefits was reasonable. They said that the economic benefits were reasonably estimated for a wind farm of the proposed scale, based on research and consideration of other similar developments. They added that that, as with most analysis of this nature, there are uncertainties. Nevertheless, all things considered, the economic benefits have not been over-estimated. Such forecasts could change due to external economic considerations and, by their very nature, cannot be precise. However, the applicant’s methodology and their assessment of economic benefits are robust.
4.11 Some of the identified directly related economic benefits that would be likely to accrue from the proposed development include:
Contracts awarded during the construction phase could equate to £145.8 million (m) of which £12m could be secured in the FODC area and £46.2m in NI as a whole. This could generate £12.4m and support 95 job years of employment in FODC area and £48.9m and 89 job years in NI during the development and construction phase;
During each year of the operational phase the proposed development could generate £2.6m (£64.4m over 25 years) for the FODC area and £3.8m (£94.2m over 25 years) across NI as a whole. Potential employment creation in NI was estimated at 40 jobs during the operation of the wind farm (of which 26 are expected to be in the FODC area);
During the decommissioning phase the proposed development could generate £2m and 19 job years of employment in the FODC area and £2.9m gross value added (GVA) and 30 job years of employment across NI as a whole; and
Over the 25-year lifetime of the proposed development, business rates estimated at £28.8m could be contributed to public finances.
Cost to consumers
4.12 The applicant cited two recent reports that have investigated the impact of renewable electricity on consumers in NI. This evidence was not rebutted. They are as follows:
One for the NI Renewables Industry Group (NIRIG) in 2017 that looked at the financial impact of wind power on NI consumers over the period 2000 to 2020. It considered the financial benefits of reduced wholesale electricity costs and avoided costs of non-compliance with EU renewables targets, alongside those ______2018/C007 Page 26
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
associated with wind power such as support, network, constraint and balancing services costs. It found that the wind generation capacity deployed in NI since 2000 produced a net benefit to consumers of £135m over the period; and
Another for the Irish Wind Energy Association compared the cost to consumers of adopting a 70% renewable energy target for 2030 (substantially achieved through additional wind capacity) versus a scenario where deployment of new renewable capacity is frozen after 2020. The study found that a 70% 2030 renewable energy target can be achieved in NI at net zero cost to end consumers provided onshore wind can be delivered as a Levelised Cost of Energy (LCoE) of 67 €/MWh. At LCoEs below this level there would be a net saving for consumers LCoE is a measure of a power source that allows comparison of different methods of electricity generated on a consistent basis. It can be regarded as the average minimum price at which electricity must be sold in order to break even over a project’s lifetime. Auctions in other European markets in 2018 delivered onshore wind levels as low as 40 €/MWh. Whilst such results are not transferable to other jurisdictions, an efficient framework in NI should be able to deliver onshore wind at an LCoE below 67 €/MWh.
These reports weigh in favour of the proposal.
4.13 TPs queried why electricity costs to consumers are rising when it is claimed that there are no costs involved in wind generated energy production once installed. The applicant said that the associated cost per MW/h is less than £1 whereas for gas- fired power stations, the figure ranges from £50-£80 dependent on wholesale costs. They added that consumers’ bills comprise costs accrued by all generators and, to a large extent, are driven by the cost of gas and the purchase of carbon credits in respect of gas and coal-fired generators. Whilst electricity generated from renewable sources currently accounts for 44% of output in NI, the cost associated with that derived from fossil fuels is pushing up prices. Therefore, greater market penetration of renewable generated electricity would reduce wholesale costs.
4.14 The developer would pay what the applicant termed a “substantial” up-front grid connection cost. If the grid infrastructure requires reinforcement, the transmission and distribution element of consumers’ bills contributes to associated costs. This is a characteristic of the electricity market as a whole and not just as it relates to energy generated by wind. It light of the 2017 NIRIG report, the lower wholesale price of power that is generated from renewable sources would compensate for such costs.
Grid Connection
4.15 The proposal includes the erection of an on-site sub-station (SS) and control building that would house the grid transformer, busbar, switchgear and metering that is needed to combine and feed the electrical power output from the proposed development into the connection to the transmission network. Details are set out on the relevant plans listed in Appendix 1 of this report and a lengthier description of this part of the proposed development is included at Chapter 2.6.2 of the ES. This sub-station would be constructed at the developer’s cost.
______2018/C007 Page 27
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
4.16 The issue of grid connection cannot be resolved until a developer has planning permission for the scheme that they are seeking to connect to the grid. In 2018 the applicant got an offer to connect into the Magherafelt 275kV SS. However, this lapsed as they could not meet the condition of making a detailed application within 90 business days as they did not have planning permission for this development. If it is approved, the applicant/developer would engage with System Operator for NI (SONI) who would determine the least cost connection method.
4.17 Magherafelt SS currently has no point of connection for the proposed scheme; it would require accommodation works to provide a connection point. This would be subject of further consideration by SONI only if/when the applicant/developer accepts an offer of grid connection from it and provided evidence of necessary consents. The requisite 110kV connection between the proposed SS within the application site and the Magherafelt SS would be a “shallow connection” whereby the cost would be borne by the developer. In addition, they would be responsible for the cost of the accommodation works at the Magherafelt SS to facilitate connection of the proposed development. Therefore, SONI’s offer would not entail cost to consumers. If connection was not possible before network reinforcement, its offer would be “non-firm” and the developer would receive no financial compensation for the lack of grid capacity.
4.18 TPs cited problems with operation of a local SS dating from the 1980s saying that for the first 35 years of its operation, there were no issues. However, with the proliferation of single turbines connecting to it, equipment has reportedly melted and blown up due to coping with the variable nature of wind energy. On foot of this experience, they were concerned about the pressure that an additional 118.8 MW might impose on Magherafelt SS with associated maintenance costs being borne by consumers. This would be a capacity matter for SONI to consider in assessing what work would need to be undertaken in order to enable Magherafelt SS to cope effectively and efficiently with the proposed maximum load that this development might impose on it. It is reasonable to expect that maintenance costs would form part of their consideration when setting the grid connection cost. Subject to such judicious, pro-active planning and the developer footing the cost of a new SS within the application site that would connect to Magherafelt SS, I am not persuaded that associated additional costs would accrue to the consumer.
4.19 There is no persuasive evidence that the generating capacity of this proposed development would have any bearing on the planned transmission capacity of the proposed North-South interconnector or that allowing it would have any implications for the costs that would be incurred by consumers in providing that infrastructure.
4.20 SONI’s witness was not in the position to definitively say whether the proposed development could connect to the grid via an upgraded Magherafelt SS prior to commissioning of the North-South interconnector. Such connection might be feasible subject to SONI guarding against overloading the system by turning down the output of this and other wind farms in the west of NI at times of high wind when power on the electricity network is trying to cross from west to east and on to the RoI. TPs said that wind farms should be built in the area(s) where demand for electricity is greatest. Paragraph 4.12 of PPS 18 recognises that renewable energy resources can usually only be developed only where they occur. Strategic locational
______2018/C007 Page 28
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
policy can only be reviewed at governmental level: it is not a matter that can be determined in the context of this individual planning application.
Social Benefits
4.21 The applicant said that they are committed to a community benefit fund of £5,000 per MW, which would equate to approximately £594,000 annually and £14.85m over the proposed development’s 25-year operational lifetime. They also expressed commitment to providing a further £1m in investment for the local area “to improve access and the tourism offering”, which they said would have the potential to generate further significant returns to the area. Extensive information on the Funds was provided at Chapter 5.6.2.2 of the ES.
4.22 Paragraph 5.71 of the SPPS states that such voluntarily offered community benefits cannot be considered material considerations in decision-taking. This is contradicted by the statement in paragraph 6.225 that the wider environmental, economic and social benefits of all proposals for renewable energy projects are material considerations to be given appropriate weight in determining whether planning permission should be granted. The case of R (on the application of Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Limited and Forest of Dean District Council [2019] UKSC 53 held that as regards an application for planning permission for a wind turbine development to be undertaken by a community benefit society, a promised donation to the community of a proportion of the turnover was not a material consideration for planning purposes. On foot of this judgement, the contributions presented are not related to the development proposed on the application site and do not serve a planning purpose. The delivery of these funds would ultimately be a matter for the applicant and I do not doubt their intention to agree an undertaking with the Councils to secure the same.
Environmental Benefits
4.23 The proposed project would represent a substantial addition to NI’s current installed wind capacity (approximately 1,200 MW at the end of 2018). The remaining generation capacity mix in NI is mostly made up of large thermal units (2,000 MW) and 480 MW coal units at Kilroot that are expected to close in 2024 at the latest. Demand for electricity in NI is expected to grow from approximately 9.0 TWh (terrawatt hours) in 2017 to 9.6 TWh in the median case of the 2018 Generation Capacity Statement (GCS). The GCS expects peak demand in NI to grow by approximately 100 MW to 1.84 GW (gigawatts) over the same period.
4.24 The NI wholesale electricity market operates as part of the I-SEM with the RoI. SONI and EirGrid operate the two transmission networks as a single, synchronous system connected by a 275kv (kilovolt) interconnector, creating a physical constraint and limiting the extent to which they can be considered as a single electrical system. The GCS assumes that the second 400kv North South interconnector will be commissioned in 2023. However, as the NI section of that project has yet to receive planning permission, the timing of its delivery is in doubt. In the context of growing peak and annual demand, the retirement of Kilroot and the uncertainty on cross- border transmission capacity, the proposed development would enhance security of supply in NI despite the variable nature of wind output.
______2018/C007 Page 29
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
4.25 The proposed wind farm is expected to generate 330,125 megawatt hours (MWh) of zero carbon electricity, equivalent to the consumption of over 103,000 or 13% of NI homes per year, and offset over 107,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions annually (based on the current carbon intensity of grid electricity).
4.26 TPs cast doubt on the applicant’s forecasts that are related to the nominal 118.8 MW output of the proposed wind farm. They referred to the publication “The Performance of Wind Farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark” (2012) by Dr G Hughes. His analysis of the age of wind turbines versus their performance showed a significant decline in the average load factor of onshore wind farms, adjusted for wind availability, as they get older. The load factor is calculated as the ratio of the amount of electricity actually produced over a given period divided by the amount of output that would have been produced had it operated at full, hypothetical rated/ nameplate/nominal capacity for that period. The study covered the period 2002- 2011 and showed that the normalised load factor for UK onshore wind farms declined from a peak of about 24% at age 1 to 15% at age 10 and 11% at age 15. Comparative data for Denmark peaked at 22%, reducing to 18% at age 15. Adjusted for age and wind availability, the performance of wind farms in the UK has deteriorated markedly from the beginning of the century. In addition, larger wind farms have systematically worse performance than smaller installations.
4.27 The applicant said that Professor D MacKay of Cambridge University and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change criticised the statistical methods employed by Dr Hughes and disagreed with his findings. They added that researchers at Imperial College London also refuted his conclusions. They said that his report is not held in high regard within the wind energy industry and that governments around the world and financial institutions seeking to limit their exposure in investing therein do not employ Dr Hughes’ findings. They added that if his study were reliable, it would require drastic overwriting of the economics guiding investors in wind farms. This rebuttal evidence was not challenged.
4.28 If this scheme were approved, procurement of the proposed turbines would be taking place more than 8 years after the most recent (2011) of Dr Hughes’ survey data. Taking account of this elapse of time and the applicant’s evidence that technology changes yearly, it is reasonable to conclude that, even based on his contentious findings, performance is highly likely to have improved in the intervening period. The applicant said that the current typical load factor for onshore wind farms is 33%. Applying this figure to the current proposal means it would yield 39.2MW. This suggests that load capacity has been taken account of it forecasting the MWh of electricity that the proposed development would generate.
Neodymium
4.29 Neodymium is a rare earth element that is used in the production of magnets, which are a constituent component of turbine hubs. TPs referred to the reportedly serious public health implications and a range of environmental impacts of its mining and processing in China. The applicant pointed to its use in a range of everyday items such as mobile phones, lasers and glass; demand for it is not confined to the wind energy industry. Refusing this planning application would have no significant
______2018/C007 Page 30
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
implications for associated pollution and public health issues in Asia: these are systemic issues.
Carbon Calculator
4.30 One of the aims of renewable generation of electricity is to mitigate against climate change by displacing grid electricity generated from fossil fuels. However, no form of electricity generation is completely carbon free. Wind farms located on peat soils can result in the drying out and subsequent oxidation of the peat, which releases carbon. This can occur either directly through extraction or indirectly through hydrological changes
4.31 The Scottish Government produced a Carbon Calculator (CC) that was launched in 2008. Its purpose is to assess, in a comprehensive and consistent way, the carbon impact of wind farm developments. This is done by comparing the carbon costs of such developments with the carbon savings they yield. It has been revised three times to take account of feedback and on-going research. The tool is an industry standard. The steering group that informed the final design of the latest version included members from the Scottish Government, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish National Heritage and Forestry Research. Therefore, it is independent of the wind energy sector. It can be adapted for use outside that jurisdiction as set out in Appendix 13 of the ES and RR 10 at Appendix 13 of applicant’s rebuttal statement. It is accompanied by guidance that includes the assessment of peat volumes, the reuse of excavated peat and the minimisation of waste (2014). As the NI Executive has not produced an equivalent tool, it is reasonable to use it.
4.32 The applicant undertook an assessment of carbon release and carbon savings associated with the project lifecycle of the proposed development as part of both the 2015 ES (Chapter 13 and Appendix 13) and 2017 ES Addendum (Chapter 7.10.4). As the original scheme was amended, consideration of the applicant’s evidence in this respect will focus on the 2017 assessment. The carbon assessments followed the guidance provided in support of the CC including testing of the sensitivity of the calculations to changes in assumed physical and hydrological characteristics of the peatland. Included are details of: the baseline characteristics of the peatland within the application site; the expected minimum and maximum volume of peat removed from the site; and the peatland to be restored therein. Amongst other things included were:
The loss of carbon from displacement and damage to peat during construction, operation and decommissioning;
The drying effects of peat close to the hard surfaces and the loss of conifers (albeit that these would be felled at any rate in due course);
Carbon emissions associated with the lifecycle of the wind farm construction including those associated with the production of construction materials;
______2018/C007 Page 31
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Carbon losses during production, transportation, erection, operation and decommissioning of turbines in accordance with associated guidance on the CC; and
Carbon losses relating to peat, including loss of carbon fixing potential, losses from soil organic matter and losses due to leaching.
4.33 The “pay-back period” is the period of time in which the proposed wind farm must operate in order to offset the carbon released during construction, operation and decommissioning, including the loss from removal and disturbance of peat. Chapter 7.10 of the ES Addendum, Table 7.10.9 showed the anticipated carbon that would be released and the payback period. The latter was forecast to be between 0.4 – 2.9 years depending on whether it is compared with grid mix or fossil fuel mix electricity. The applicant also explained at RR 3, paragraph 55, why the forecast represents the “worst-case” scenario (longest pay-back period). As the proposed development would have an operating life of 25 years, using the “worst case” scenario equates to it providing a carbon saving over 22.1 years. For reasons set out in paragraphs 55 to 57 of the applicant’s RR 3 and paragraph 19 of their RR 10 of their rebuttal statement, the carbon footprint as calculated by the Townland Residents Association for the proposed wind farm would be less than their own assessment thereby giving a quicker pay-back time.
4.34 There are no guidelines about what payback periods constitute a significant impact. In the simplest terms, a carbon payback period of less than the operational lifetime of the proposed wind farm would have a positive influence on global CO2 emissions. Scottish National Heritage deemed a payback period in excess of 10 – 15 years unacceptable; there is no equivalent figure for NI. The applicant’s “worst-case” scenario of 2.9 years is around 11% of the anticipated lifespan of the proposed development. Compared to fossil fuel electricity generation projects, which also produce embodied emissions during the construction phase and significant emissions during operation due to the combustion of fossil fuels, the electricity generated would be carbon neutral for 89% of its lifespan.
4.35 The carbon intensity of the electricity that the proposed development would produce would be well below the current carbon grid intensity. Therefore, it would contribute towards decarbonisation of the national grid and make a positive contribution to climate change mitigation. Whether or not this issue has been over-egged is not for my consideration; it is a driver of energy policy.
4.36 The CC’s input data is comprehensive with cross-references provided to the applicants’ data source within their EI. In its totality, the applicant’s EI satisfactorily addressed issues raised by TPs with regard to loss of carbon storage. Therefore, its forecast carbon saving weighs in favour of the proposal.
4.37 TPs made a generalised reference to concerns about the proposed development’s impact on methane storage and associated emissions. They did not say if this concern related to reliance on gas-fired power stations to supplement the variable wind resource or whether and, if so, how the concern was made in the context of rebutting the applicant’s evidence on carbon saving. As it is not my role to second guess their specific concern, I can attach little weight to it. ______2018/C007 Page 32
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
4.38 In chapter 9 of this report the net environmental benefits that would be likely to accrue from implementation of the Habitat Management Plan are identified. These weigh in the proposal’s favour.
Mullaghturk appeal decision
4.39 TPs referred to the appeal decision in respect of a proposed wind farm at Mullaghturk (Commission reference 2007/A1313) where the economic, social and environmental benefits that would accrue from the development were not given determining weight. That scheme would have generated a maximum of 10.5 MW of electricity whereas this proposal has the potential to yield a maximum of 118.8 MW. The previous Commission decision does not set a precedent for my recommendation. This must be made on the basis of this proposal’s specific facts and the weight accorded to them.
Conclusion
4.40 The applicant said that based upon the proposed development generating 350,000 MW/h of electricity a year, with onshore wind yielding a current income in NI of £50 per MW/h, it would yield an income of £17.5m a year from the wholesale electricity market. Elsewhere in evidence, it was submitted that output would be 330,125 MW/h a year. Using that lower figure to estimate income, this would yield £16.5m a year and £412.5m over the 25-year lifecycle. Until planning permission is granted, the cost of upgrading Magherafelt SS and connecting to it is an unknown variable. These forecasts were not rebutted. However, on the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not that the developer would be able to award contracts worth £148.8m during the construction phase and have sufficient funds for the life-time of the proposed wind farm to cover the costs of decommissioning and restoration.
4.41 It seems extremely likely that further renewable electricity generation will be required to meet objectives for decarbonisation notwithstanding exceedance of the associated SEF goal for 2020. Therefore, not proceeding with the proposed development would require that alternative renewable energy projects replace it. There was no dispute that of all renewable energy generators, both in NI and the island of Ireland, onshore wind has the lowest localised cost when considered in purely financial terms. At north-west Europe auctions for generated power, it is also the most cost-competitive form of generation. Given the scale of the proposed development, is it likely that alternative sources of electricity would be more expensive especially where they rely on technologies other than onshore wind, and likely to impose heftier associated costs on consumers.
4.42 Notwithstanding concerns about the impact of neodymium mining and processing in China and Its transportation, given the extent and scope of the potential net environmental and economic benefits, it is appropriate to attach significant weight to these considerations in determining whether the appeal should be allowed.
______2018/C007 Page 33
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
5.0 PUBLIC SAFETY
5.1 Criterion (a) of Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 says that the proposed development should not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on public safety. Criterion (e) thereof applies the same stipulation to public access to the countryside. Criterion (v) requires that no part of the development shall have an unacceptable impact on roads or aviation safety. To these ends, this chapter will consider the following issues:
Aviation; Roads; Proximity to roads and public rights of way; Safety; Ice throw; Lightning strike; Stray voltage; Peat slide; Proposed access track from Sixtowns Road; Radiation; and Radon.
Aviation
5.2 Paragraph 1.3.65 of the BPG identifies two aspects of air traffic movement and safety upon which wind turbines may have an adverse effect. In this instance the concern is that they may represent a risk of collision for low flying aircraft. Paragraph 1.3.67 thereof says that, in the interests of aviation safety, lights may be required on wind turbine development with structures less than 150m high. To help in assessing whether lights are required, DfI consulted: Defence Infrastructure Organisation; City of Derry Airport; and Belfast International Airport (BIA).
5.3 BIA’s consultation response of 5 June 2017 recommended that, given the height of the proposed turbines, the developer installs a medium intensity, omni-directional, night vision compatible, steady red obstacle light at the highest point of the turbines’ hub. It added that the light should be lit 24 hours a day, seven days a week and to warn low flying aircraft that there is an obstacle at this location. An email of 19 August 2019 refers to one sent on 8 July whereby BIA’s Project & Safeguarding Supervisor said that they were happy to accept infra-red lights. DfI subsequently suggested a planning condition relating to the installation of infra-red lighting at the highest point of the hubs on 6 of the proposed turbines.
5.4 BIA’s change in stance was due to the proposed development being outside its “safeguarded area”. Therefore, it advised that in the interests of aviation safety some aviation lighting be provided and that “infra-red lights would be better than no light at all”.
5.5 Upon further reflection and carrying out some investigation into the movements of light aircraft and micro-lights, BIA set out a list of considerations that led to the conclusion that it would be remiss in its duties to aviation safety if it did not
______2018/C007 Page 34
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
recommend that the developer “take into consideration” the installation of a number of 24/7 medium intensity obstacle lights around the extremities of the development. This would enable an aircraft that might accidentally fly into the area to see an obstruction light and know there was something to avoid; this could potentially reduce the risk of an accident occurring. One of the influential considerations for BIA’s revised advice is that infra-red lights can only be seen by military, police, air ambulance pilots or those with infra-red glasses.
5.6 As the proposed turbines’ height would exceed 91.4m, as paragraph 1.3.67 of the BPG advises, they would be required to be charted on aviation maps. BIA’s language does not identify any statutory or policy basis whereby the installation of aviation lighting that can be detected by the human eye is mandatory. Its language is not prescriptive. Nevertheless, aviation and public safety are material considerations. Pilot error and/or weather conditions might mean that the turbines’ inclusion on aviation maps might not be sufficient to avert an accident. The installation of obstacle lights that could be seen without infra-red equipment would reduce such risk. It is not helpful that BIA reviewed and changed its stance so late in the application process nor that this was brought to the attention of the inquiry in the late evening of the final day of proceedings. However, for the foregoing reasons, the installation of infra-red lighting would not be sufficient to minimise risk to public and aviation safety to a reasonable and acceptable degree. The provision of 24/7 medium intensity obstacle lights around the extremities of the development could be secured by condition. Therefore, the proposal is not prejudicial to aviation or public safety in this respect and is consistent with criterion (v) of Policy RE 1.
Roads
5.7 The proposed turbine delivery route does not include Davagh Road. At Chapter 4.6 of the applicant’s ES they advised that Davagh Road was one of a number of site access options considered during the pre-application process but that public feedback from that exercise saw it eliminated. The turbine delivery route would be via Sixtowns Road and the proposed site access to the east of No. 259 Sixtowns Road. Use of Davagh Road would be confined to a single crossing.
5.8 There is no conflict between operational policy within the “Transportation” section of the SPPS and PPS 3. Policy AMP 3 of the latter states that planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal involving direct access, or the intensification of the use of an existing access, onto a public road where: such access will not prejudice road safety or significantly inconvenience the flow of traffic; and the proposal does not conflict with Policy AMP 3 “Access to Protected Routes”. Policy AMP 6 of PPS 3 requires developers to submit a Transport Assessment in order to evaluate development proposals’ transport implications. In addition, criterion (v) of Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 requires that no part of the development shall have an unacceptable impact on road safety.
5.9 The planning application includes turbine delivery route works at:
Drumbeg Roundabout; Brecart Roundabout on the A6; Creagh Roundabout; ______2018/C007 Page 35
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Castledawson Roundabout; Hospital Road, Magherafelt; Hospital Road/ Tobermore Road, Magherafelt; Magherafelt Main Street junction; Main Street/Kilcronaghan Parish Church, Tobermore; Tobermore Road, Draperstown; Tobermore Road/St Patrick Street, Draperstown; Sixtowns Road; and Bealnamala Bridge, Draperstown
5.10 The proposal includes the provision of 23 passing places along Sixtowns Road between Straw and Bealnamala Bridge. These works are included on the last 17 drawings identified on the table at Appendix 1 of this report. If any associated improvements to the road network involve encroachment onto privately owned land that would be a civil matter whereby the applicant would need to seek the owner’s agreement. The grant of planning permission would not waive that responsibility.
5.11 The capacity of the road network to deal with transportation, traffic and access during the construction (24 months), operation and decommissioning phases of the proposed development, including necessary improvement works, were assessed at length in Chapter 14 of the ES and Chapter 7.8 of the ES Addendum. The assessment considered:
Traffic that would be generated over the lifetime of the proposed development;
The associated effects of the likely increases of traffic on the public roads identified as the haul route for deliveries to the site; and
The proposed access route between the public road and the site itself.
Amongst other things, it also took account of: the safety and convenience of other drivers including driver delay; hazardous loads, namely fuel; and the amenity and delay that cyclists & pedestrians might experience. That chapter also included an Outline Traffic Management Plan. If planning permission were forthcoming, a condition could be attached to require compliance with a final, agreed version. TR 14.1 of the ES included a lengthy and detailed Preliminary Assessment of Turbine Delivery Routes and TR 14.2 comprised an Abnormal Load Route Assessment.
5.12 Mitigation was identified and included measures embedded into the design of the development that were designed to ensure that any potential effects on traffic are minimised. If planning permission were forthcoming these could be secured by the imposition of associated conditions. Traffic management and associated mitigation measures during decommissioning could also be secured by a planning condition requiring compliance with an agreed plan for the management of that phase of the proposed development.
5.13 There was no challenge to or rebuttal of any of this detailed evidence. Its scope is comprehensive and its methodology sound. The conclusions set out at section 14.11 of the ES are persuasive.
______2018/C007 Page 36
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
5.14 Transport NI (TNI) is the public body responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of roads. The ES Addendum at Appendix 7.8.1 included a letter of 15 March 2016 from the applicant to DfI in response to TNI’s consultation response of the previous month. In its consultation response of 21 December 2017, TNI set out a list of conditions and informatives that it asked to be attached to planning permission if the proposal is allowed. These have been incorporated into the Department’s suggested conditions and include:
Prior to the commencement of development, the developer, in association with DfI, would carry out a condition survey on all haul routes/bridge structures along the delivery route. The developer would, at their own expense, compile a video record of the condition of the public roads to be used as haul routes;
During construction work, the developer would be required to carry out daily inspection of haul routes. The results would be required to be recorded and retained for inspection; and
Delivery of the road works and creation of passing bays prior to any other development starting.
5.15 Article 11 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 empowers TNI to take measures to recover any reasonably incurred expenses in consequence of any damage caused to the public road as a result of extraordinary traffic generated by the proposed development. If damage to Sixtowns Road occurred as a consequence of excavation works on land adjoining the road when forming the access to the site, Article 60 of the Order allows TNI to make good the damage and recover from the owner or occupier of the land any expenses reasonably incurred by it. If planning permission were forthcoming, TNI has recommended that the Department attach informatives to the consent remind the developer of their legal obligations to, amongst other things, apply to the Department for a licence indemnifying it against any claims arising from the implementation of the proposal. The imposition of associated planning conditions to any forthcoming planning permission, in addition to TNI’s legal powers, would ensure that the cost of repair of any damage to the public road (including bridges) as a result of the development would fall on the developer and not the public purse.
5.16 Subject to: implementation of the improvements to the road network proposed as part of the planning application; the developers’ compliance with an agreed Traffic Management Plan, including mitigation measures; the imposition of planning conditions as summarised above; and the provisions of the Roads Order, the proposal would not prejudice the safety or convenience of road users. Indeed, as a supporter of the proposed development pointed out, it would yield improvements to the local road network at no cost to the public purse. The proposal is consistent with Policies AMP 3 and AMP 6 of PPS 3 and criterion (v) of Policy RE 1 of PPS 18.
Safety
5.17 Paragraphs 1.3.50 - 1.3.52 inclusive of the BPG address the issue of safety. Loss of a piece of blade, or in exceptional circumstances, of the whole blade is identified as the only source of possible danger to human or animal life from a wind turbine ______2018/C007 Page 37
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
albeit that it is considered unlikely. The best practice separation distance of 10 times rotor diameter to occupied property is said to comfortably (my emphasis) satisfy safety requirements. Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 says that, for wind farm development, a separation distance of 10x rotor diameter to occupied property, with a minimum distance not less than 500m, will generally apply.
5.18 TPs said that this set-back distance would be inadequate if a turbine were “out of control” and that debris associated with the turbine failure/collapse at Screggagh was not contained within the wind farm site. This inquiry is not the forum for reviewing associated policy and guidance. There is no persuasive evidential basis for setting aside adopted policy and published guidance and applying more stringent requirements in this instance.
5.19 “Shepherd’s Retreat” (No. 66 Davagh Road) is within the application site. The owner advised that it is rented for holiday accommodation and let for short periods of time (typically 7 or 14 days). The property is on the edge of the 10x rotor diameter buffer zone. If T27 were micro-sited so that it was moved up to 50m nearer to this property, the cottage would fall within it, albeit that it would be at least 9 rotor diameters removed. Given that: it would be sited more than 500m from the nearest turbine; the BPG does not suggest that a less than 10x rotor diameter would pose an unacceptable threat to occupants’ safety; and the property is used for holiday accommodation rather than occupied on a full-time basis, it’s potential relationship with the development would not pose an unacceptable threat to its occupants’ safety. This consideration does not weigh against the proposed development.
Proximity to roads and public rights of way
5.20 Paragraph 1.3.54 of the BPG says that although wind turbines erected in accordance with best engineering practice are considered to be stable structures, they should be set-back at least fall-over distance plus 10% from the edge of any road or public right of way (PROW) so as to achieve maximum safety. Davagh Road bisects the site. Proposed T10 and T11 would be the nearest to it. Even allowing for the maximum requested micro-siting tolerance, they would be set back by approximately 720m and 336m respectively. This would be adequate to ensure that the possibility of turbine collapse would not prejudice road-users’ safety.
5.21 In some areas of Northern Ireland there is de facto access to open land whereby landowners tolerate access. However, irrespective of the historic use of the land, there is no legal basis to the situation and the public have no general rights to wander over such land. Even if people have always roamed over the land, they may still be trespassing and may be asked to leave. There is less restricted access to the countryside elsewhere in the UK. Nevertheless that is the legal situation in this jurisdiction. Reform of rights of access is a matter for the legislature and outwith the remit of this inquiry.
5.22 BADA supplied a copy of a letter from solicitors acting on behalf of a company involved in forestry, addressed to Omagh DC and dated November 1990. It expressed their clients’ willingness to enter into a Public Path Creation Agreement to create a public path over the “new road” that they constructed to the north of Glenlark River extending from Davagh Road westwards to Glencullin Road. This
______2018/C007 Page 38
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
letter and a draft PROW Assertion Agreement were considered by the Council in December 1990. However, there is no record of the Agreement having been concluded in accordance with The Access to the Countryside (Northern Ireland) Order 1983. Notwithstanding, BADA asserted that there is a legal PROW by virtue of long-standing use.
5.23 Under the 1983 Order, DCs have a legal duty to assert, protect and keep open any PROW and to make and preserve maps and other records of the rights of way in their area. They must enforce the public’s common law rights of passage and investigate and record where such rights exist. There is no evidence that the former Omagh DC or its successor body have asserted or recorded this route as a PROW. In the absence of such evidence, it is not for the inquiry process to stray into the civil legal matter of whether a PROW has become established through custom, usage and/or the passage of time.
5.24 The mass rock at Doraville/Mullaghturk is a heritage asset. The nearest proposed turbine (T35) would be set back from it by more than fall-over distance plus 10. However, by its intrinsic nature, it would have historically been publicly approached from various directions. Whilst it dates from penal times and mass was most recently celebrated there in 2014, there is no evidence that MUDC have recorded any right(s) of way from the public road network to it. Legal issues about access aside, the proposed development would not preclude continued worship at this site as there would be approaches to it that would not involve passing within fall-over distance plus 10% of the proposed turbines.
5.25 Reference was made to use of the application site by participants of the Duke of Edinburgh and President’s Award Schemes. However, as there is no record of any asserted or legally recognised public rights of way over it, little weight can be attached to this consideration. Whilst mindful of occupiers’ liability, determining weight cannot be attached to the risk to safety of those walking on the site without the owners’ or lessees’ permission. As contractors visiting the site during the operational phase would have to comply with health and safety requirements and maintenance is an intrinsic requirement for all established wind farms, the magnitude of risk of turbine collapse does not weigh against the proposal.
Ice Throw
5.26 Ice can build up on turbine blades, nacelles and towers under certain climatic conditions. The applicant said that it has been noted in very cold conditions in the northerly latitudes of Scandinavia or very high altitudes in continental Europe. It may fall or be thrown from the turbine during particular circumstances e.g. as a result of turbine movement or vibration, temperature rise or strong winds. During icing conditions there are two types of risks potentially associated with ice collecting on turbines:
Fragments blown off from the operating turbine due to aerodynamic and centrifugal forces: or
Ice falling from the turbine when the blades are stationary.
______2018/C007 Page 39
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
5.27 Paragraph 1.3.79 of the BPG acknowledges the possibility of ice throw. However, it says that even where icing does occur, the turbines’ own vibration sensors are likely to detect the imbalance and inhibit their operation. No set-back distance from roads or occupied properties is prescribed. Nevertheless, the applicant considered this issue at Chapter 13.5 of their ES. Adapting the methodology set out therein to take account of the larger of the proposed turbines, the study area for the ice throw assessment is based on a 312m buffer around the turbine locations. As already considered, the nearest residential property and public road are outside that maximum fall/throw distance.
5.28 The applicant cited the icing map of Europe that showed that parts of NI are within a light icing area (as a worst case) with an annual average of 2-7 icing days per year. Albeit that this information dates from 1999, the incidence is unlikely to have significantly increased. Taking account of this and the distance of the nearest turbine from Davagh Road and “Shepherd’s Retreat” and allowing for the maximum requested micro-siting tolerance, the potential for ice throw affecting members of the public is extremely low. Nevertheless, the applicant proposed mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the risk (Chapter 13.5.4 of the ES) and, if planning permission were forthcoming, these could be secured by condition,
Lightning strike
5.29 TPs were concerned that the proposed development would increase the propensity for lightning strikes leading to wildfires. Paragraph 1.3.57 of the BPG says that the possibility of attracting lightning strikes applies to all tall structures and wind turbines are no different. It adds that appropriate lightning protection measures are incorporated into wind turbines to ensure that lightning is conducted harmlessly past the sensitive parts of the nacelle and down into the earth. Accordingly, there is no persuasive evidence to support this contention.
Stray Voltage
5.30 Stray or ‘tingle” voltage is a low level electrical current or shock that. As I understand it, results primarily from an improperly earthed or, in some cases unearthed, electrical distribution system. It can be found in any such system and is a power distribution issue; improper earthing causes low voltage current to travel along a neutral wire. An electrical wiring system is earthed in order to keep potential differences between the neutral wire and the ground below levels that could be considered harmful. Neither the BPG to PPS 18 nor the SPPS deal with this phenomenon. If it were a common occurrence in NI in respect of wind energy developments it would be reasonable to assume that policy and guidance would address the issue.
5.31 TPs expressed concern about stray voltage but did not explain how they considered in might occur in this instance or who it might affect. The applicant said that there is uncertainty about its source and that it could be due to the use of plant or machinery in proximity to turbines. Given the extent of the application site and the nature and character of the terrain and land use, during the operational phase, the use of plant or machinery in proximity to the proposed turbines would be unlikely to be a common occurrence. As already set out, the turbines’ distance from public
______2018/C007 Page 40
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
roads and adjoining dwellings would be likely to provide a satisfactory buffer for road users and neighbours. At any rate, it is reasonable to expect that the SONI would require that the wind farm’s electrical distribution system is designed to meet current standards of best practice before allowing connection to the grid. In such circumstances, I am not persuaded that the proposed development would give rise to a serious risk of fire or prejudice health and safety in this respect.
Peat Slide
5.32 Criterion (iii) of Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 requires that the development will not create a significant risk of landslide or bog burst. TPs expressed concern about the potential for peat slides, which are naturally occurring landslides involving blanket bog. During these slides large amounts of peat soil move downslope. If they enter watercourses, associated organic sediment can cause significant water quality issues, particularly impacting on fish stocks. Some peat slides are associated with human use of peatlands, where drainage or construction has modified the hydrology or loaded the slopes, leading to failure.
5.33 The original scheme was subject of a Peat Stability Risk Assessment (PSRA) in appendices 10.1 and 10.2 of the ES. This work identified the salient features of the local bedrock, geomorphology, topography, peat profile, glacial drift deposits, drainage and weather that influence peat slope stability. As part of the work supporting the PSRA and geology, hydrology and hydrogeology assessment, peat depth profiles were recorded at 8,367 survey points. The average depth presented as 0.95m with the majority of survey points (4,064) recording peat depths of between 1m and 2m. Results are shown on ES Figure 4.6 – Peat Depth Contour Plan, which is pertinent notwithstanding that it has the superseded layout of the proposed infrastructure superimposed.
5.34 The PSRA was undertaken using the Peat Slide Hazard Rating System (PHRS) methodology. This approach uses site data recorded at hundreds of sample locations to generate a PHRS score for each. Scores are relative, with higher scores indicating a higher likelihood of peat instability. Threshold values indicate changes in risk class, e.g. PHRS scores =< 200 are considered “low risk”. Extensive evidence on methodology was set out in Appendix 10.1 of the ES and was not challenged. The PHRS procedure was applied at 1,495 positions across the application site. Probing for peat depth measurements only were undertaken at “many other locations”. This survey work was reviewed during preparation of the ES Addendum and a further 83 points were assessed. All survey findings are included in evidence. TPs expressed general dissatisfaction with this evidence but did not specify in what respect they considered it to be deficient or flawed.
5.35 Appendix 7.5.2 of the ES Addendum contains assessment of the peat slide risk across the whole of the application site in respect of the current. It explained how the infrastructure layout was designed to avoid areas of high risk. A summary of the assessment process and findings was provided in RR 11 of the applicant’s rebuttal statement. Albeit that Figure 4.5 of the ES titled Hydrological & Hydrogeological Constraints shows the layout for the development as originally proposed, it is still pertinent as it showed the PSRA zones where high and medium risk were identified.
______2018/C007 Page 41
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
5.36 The PSRA Interpretive Report at Appendix 10.2 of the ES acknowledged high rainfall conditions in the area whereby “rainfall is an important trigger for peat sliding events and it is noteworthy that the local microclimate…features high total rainfall” (paragraph 3 of the Executive Summary). Appendix 10.2 of the ES Addendum considered historic peat slides at Doraville (Section 3.4.3) as well as other geomorphological features (Sections 3.5 -3 .7 inclusive). On the basis of this extensive survey evidence, at paragraphs 25 and 26 of RR 11, the applicant persuasively addressed BADA’s concerns about flooding and the potential for bog burst within the site.
5.37 Paragraphs 6 to 21 of RR 11 summarised the extent of investigations carried out, their findings’ implications for the scheme’s layout and identification of mitigation measures within areas of low to moderate peat slide hazard and areas of deep peat; albeit that the majority of the proposed infrastructure would be located in areas assessed to be of low peat slide hazard. Section 5 of Appendix 10.2 of the ES and Section 9 of Appendix 7.5.2 of the ES Addendum specifically considered mitigation measures. If planning permission were forthcoming, such measures could be the required in the final, agreed version of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
5.38 Albeit that the Geological Survey of NI’s comments were made in respect of the original scheme, it found the field survey very detailed and well-documented. It was satisfied that the proposed infrastructure would be well sited in relation to areas of peat slide risk and that any potential issues could be mitigated during and following the construction phase. Given that additional survey work informed the revised layout, their stance would be unlikely to be less favourable. As a statutory consultee with expertise in this issue, significant weight is attached to their advice.
5.39 The applicant has properly considered this risk to public safety (including watercourses and fish stocks) and, subject to mitigation, the issue does not weigh against the proposal. Therefore, it would satisfy Policy RE 1 in these respects.
Proposed Access Track from Sixtowns Road
5.40 The proposed new access track from Sixtowns Road would cross steeply rising ground to meet an existing forestry track on Mullaghturk, a distance of some 280m. TPs were concerned about slope stability, especially given the size and weight of vehicles, plant and machinery that would use the proposed track, and implications for safety, principally that of workers on the site.
5.41 If the principle of micro-siting were accepted, the applicant would not seek to apply this to the new access track or initial stretch of existing track through Mullaghturk Forest. This could be addressed by condition were permission forthcoming. The applicant confirmed that as they were not seeking to micro-site the proposed point of access to/from Sixtowns Road that they would be bound by the relevant plans listed at Appendix 1 of this report were planning permission forthcoming.
5.42 The aforementioned PSRA included the proposed new access track. Figures 5.40 and 5.41 at Appendix 10.1 of the applicant’s ES show the precise location of the combination of dozens of core and probe detailed peat survey points that were
______2018/C007 Page 42
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
used along the proposed stretch of new access track. An accompanying “Field Data & PRHS Scoring Sheet” is provided for each. These results fed into the overall PSRA discussed in the preceding section of this report.
5.43 In their ES the applicant assessed the likely impacts arising from:
The type of ALV (Abnormal Load Vehicle) that would need to access the site (Chapter 14.6.1.1); Access tracks – in terms of maximum gradient (Chapter 14.7.2.2); and Traffic management at the site entrance (Chapter 14.7.3.1).
5.44 Figure 15 (referred to in the list drawings at Appendix 1 of this report) shows “Typical Excavated Track Detail”. It is annotated with a note that thickness and materials are subject to refinement at detailed design, thereby indicating that proposed tracks’ construction would take account of variables such as ground conditions and gradient. In a project of this scale such an approach is reasonable, not unusual and does not suggest that the proposal is “half baked” and should be rejected on this basis.
5.45 I am not persuaded that the design or use of the proposed new stretch access track would prejudice the safety of site workers or road users. In reaching this conclusion, account has been taken of TP concerns that avoidance of the bird breeding season would necessitate construction work during winter months.
Radiation
5.46 BADA said that the Sperrins were seriously affected by the fall-out from the 1986 Chernobyl explosion and that, as a consequence, many farms were restricted from selling sheep. They expressed concern that: disturbance and excavation of blanket bog in the volume proposed might release associated radiation into the atmosphere and groundwater prejudicing the health of humans and animals; consultees have not addressed this issue; and it was not considered in the ES.
5.47 In its consultation response of 22 December 2017 DAERA’s Industrial Pollution and Radiochemcials Inspectorate (IRPI) said that restrictions put in place in NI as a result of fall-out from the Chernobyl accident in 1986 were lifted in 2000. It added that there is no evidence to indicate that hazardous levels of radioactivity would be released as a result of the disturbance of soil and earth during the proposed development. Reference to BADA’s letter is made under the headings “Land, Soil & Air” and “Natural Heritage and Conservation Areas” but not in “Hazardous/ Radiochemical” where the IPRI’s advice is set out. However, it would seem reasonable to assume that that consultee also saw the letter and that their input was sought on the basis of the points BADA raised. At any rate, as I understand the term “earth” to be more general than “soil” and refer to any kind of ground material as long as it is underfoot; this would include the blanket bog and other ground conditions found within the application site. Nevertheless, if the Department is minded to approve this application, before making its decision, I may want to check that IPRI made their consultation response having seen the concerns set out in BADA’s letter and that the term “earth” has been used to describe the ground conditions within the application site. ______2018/C007 Page 43
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
5.48 Assessment of the proposed development’s likely significant environmental impacts is an iterative process. Therefore, the fact that the applicant did not address this concern in their ES or further EI does not, of itself, weigh against the proposal. The Department acted upon BADA’s concerns and sought their consultee’s advice on the matter and it is being considered at this stage of the decision-making process.
Radon
5.49 TPs said that Radon gas was prevalent in the area. Other than raise concerns about naturally occurring radiation in the substrata and bedrock underlying the site, they did not explain the perceived environmental impact of the proposed development on radon gas or vice versa. The applicant said that as Building Regulations are concerned with radon and its concentration in enclosed spaces, they failed to see how the proposed development would have implications for its incidence. In its consultation response of 22 December 2017, DAERA’s Regulation Unit (Land and Groundwater Team) referred to “Radon in Northern Ireland: Indicative Atlas” and said that high quantities of radon gas are not typically associated with geology such as is found regionally. The associated mapping indicate the likely extent of the local radon hazard in all buildings. My understanding is that government concern relating to radon is respect of the need to reduce long-term exposure to elevated levels in the home and workplace i.e. within buildings. Therefore, its incidence in this area carries little weight in considering the current proposal and does not detract from the environmental benefits associated with it.
Conclusion
5.50 Save for the possibility of the financially involved “Shepherd’s Retreat”, as the proposed development satisfies policy and guidance on set-back distances, it is not incumbent on the applicant to show that such magnitude of separation is safe. TP concerns that policy and guidance on set-back distances is not robust enough is a matter to be directed to policy makers; meantime only adopted policy and accompanying guidance can be applied. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with criteria (a) in respect of public safety, (e), (iii), (v) and (vi), as it relates to ice throw, of Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 and Policies AMP 3 and 6 of PPS 3.
______2018/C007 Page 44
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
6.0 RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
6.1 Criterion (a) of Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 requires that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on, amongst other things, human health and residential amenity. In the absence of a policy-based definition of “residential amenity”, the applicant defines it as the living conditions of a house, its garden ground (curtilage) that includes visual amenity, noise amenity and other factors such as shadow flicker. Therefore, in the main this chapter deals with:
The potential impact of noise on residential amenity during the proposed development’s construction, operational and decommissioning phases; Shadow flicker & reflected light; Impact on outlook from neighbouring properties; and TV reception.
Policy
6.2 Paragraph 2.3 of the SPPS under the heading “The Purpose of Planning” says that the planning system operates in the public interest of local communities and the region as a whole and encompasses the present as well as future needs of society. It adds that the system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another, although the latter may coincide with the public interest in some cases. It notes that it can be difficult to distinguish between public and private interests but this may be necessary on occasions. It says that the basic question is not whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect amenities and the existing use of land and buildings that ought to be protected in the public interest.
Noise
6.3 Annex A of the SPPS states that noise is an inevitable consequence of human activity and cannot be avoided entirely. However, it is recognised that noise, particularly where it is loud, prolonged or evident during normally quiet periods or in usually quiet areas, can impact adversely on human health and well-being. It continues that the planning system has a role to play in minimising the potential for adverse impact and that, in managing development, planning authorities should treat noise as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications for proposals likely to give rise to significant levels of noise. It also advises of the need for planning authorities to pay due regard to the “Noise Policy Statement for Northern Ireland” (NPSNI) as it seeks to set clear policy aims to enable decisions to be made and will ensure an appropriate inter-relationship between the planning system and what is an acceptable noise burden to place on society.
6.4 The NPSNI contains three objectives aimed at meeting Priority 3 of the Programme for Government “Protecting our People, the Environment and Creating Safer Communities”. Those are to:
Avoid or mitigate significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise; ______2018/C007 Page 45
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on heath and quality of life from environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise. However, it adds that this does not mean that adverse effects cannot occur, but that effort should be made to minimise them; and
Where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life.
It states that where noise is a significant material consideration this should involve consultation with the relevant Environmental Health Department (EHD). The role of the planning system, as set out by the NPSNI, is not a statement of planning policy but a description of the means by which the planning system can prevent and minimise noise through its influence on the location, layout and design of new development and consideration of the amenity impacts.
6.5 Criterion (vi) of Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 requires that, amongst other things, the development will not cause significant harm to the amenity of any sensitive receptors (including future occupants of committed developments) arising from noise. A footnote says that, for the purposes of this policy, sensitive receptors (SRs) are defined as habitable residential accommodation (although not necessarily occupied), hospitals, schools and churches. The accompanying BPG states that well-designed wind farms should be located so that increases in ambient noise levels are kept to acceptable levels in relation to background noise, normally achieved through good design of the turbines and by allowing sufficient distance between them any existing noise-sensitive development. Paragraphs 1.3.83 – 1.3.85 deal with construction and operational disturbance.
Noise Assessment – Construction phase
6.6 Guidance relevant to the assessment of construction noise effects is provided in BS 5228:2009+A1:2014 (BS 5228). The applicant reviewed its provisions in Chapter 12.4.1.1 of the ES. Construction traffic noise guidance is provided in The Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN), Department of Transport 1988 and The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Highways Agency, 2011. The former provides guidance on the calculation of noise levels from road traffic and the latter sets out assessment criteria for changes in traffic noise levels.
6.7 The applicant principally considered the issue at Chapter 12 and Appendix 12.1 of the ES. At Chapter 12.4.3.2 thereof details are given of the methodology underpinning their assessment of the magnitude of construction noise effects. This was carried out at 12 locations that are shown on Figure 12.1 and includes No. 259 Sixtowns Road that adjoins the proposed site access and parking area to serve the construction period. What would constitute a significant environmental impact in respect of construction and traffic noise were considered at Chapter 12.4.3.3. Details of predicted construction noise levels are provided in Appendix 12.1. Ten construction activities were assessed. Table 12.1 of Appendix 12.1 sets out the closet distance to each of the receptors of the individual construction activities. Table 12.2 summarises the predicted noise construction levels for the worst-case (noisiest) construction activity in relation to each receptor. If work on erecting turbines were to take place at night, no haulage would occur outside day- time working hours as defined in the CRTN. Predicted noise levels from turbine ______2018/C007 Page 46
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
erection (excluding haulage) would be less that the CRTN night-time limit at all SRs. Amongst other things, this activity would be distinct from: excavation of turbine or other foundations; tracks/crane pads; and construction of the parking area adjoining No. 259 Sixtowns Road. Therefore, the applicant concluded that noise from night-time turbine erection would not be significant. The most affected property in this respect would be the FI “Shepherd’s Retreat”, but levels would be 3 dB below the CRTN night-time limit.
6.8 Table 12.12 of Appendix 12 summarises the day-time results for the worst-case (noisiest) construction activity in relation to each receptor considered. Save for Nos. 259 and 262 Sixtowns Road, the predicted noise levels at the other 10 receptors would be below the CRTN day-time limit. It would be exceeded by 1dB at the latter due to 1 of the 10 construction activities namely creation of the temporary parking area, which would be likely to take less than a month. Due to the short duration and small magnitude of the predicted exceedance, this effect would not be significant. At No. 259 Sixtowns Road, work on tracks/crane pads and construction of the parking area, would be likely to exceed the CRTN day-time limit by 7 dB and 14 dB respectively. Due to the magnitude of the predicted exceedance, associated effects would potentially be significant without mitigation.
6.9 Possible mitigation measures are set out in section 4.1 of Appendix 12.1. Such measures were said to reduce associated construction noise levels to below the CTRN 65 dB (A) threshold or “as close to it as is reasonably practicable”. The applicant said this matter would require additional consideration within the CEMP. Notwithstanding the likely duration of the two construction activities, given the margin of exceedance of the day-time limit and that there is no evidence of the cumulative effect of the possible mitigation measures on potential noise levels, I cannot conclude that there would not be a likely significant effect on the residential amenity of the occupant(s) of No. 259 Sixtowns Road.
6.10 Table 3 of Appendix 12.1 sets out predicted haulage noise levels associated with each of the 10 construction activities. The CRTN day-time noise level would not be exceed at any receptor. The evening and weekend limit, as defined by the CRTN, would be exceeded at No. 259 Sixtowns Road for 9 of the activities, each by 1 dB. Construction of the adjoining parking area would be likely to exceed it by 3 dB. Despite the short-term nature of this activity, without mitigation, its cumulative impact when considered together with the other 9 might be significant. The applicant said that no haulage would take place “outside normal working hours”. Therefore, if permission were forthcoming a condition should be attached limiting haulage activities to day-time hours only as defined by the CRTN.
6.11 The potential impact of construction traffic noise was assessed at Chapters 12.6.1.3 and 12.6.1.4 of the ES and Chapters 3.3 and 3.4 of Appendix 12.1. The predicted increases in traffic levels on most sections of the access route, excluding Sixtowns Road, would not be significant. For Sixtowns Road, at the majority of SRs, which are situated 10m or more from it, the predicted noise level would be within the applicable day-time limit. Therefore, this likely impact would not be significant. However, the predicted noise levels at the closet receptors i.e. those less than 5m from Sixtowns Road, would exceed the DRMB day-time noise limit
______2018/C007 Page 47
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
by a margin of 2 dB for a total of 16 of the 24 month construction period. Without mitigation, these effects would be significant.
6.12 At section 4.2 of Appendix 12.1 the applicant said that the Site Traffic Management Plan would include mitigation to manage construction traffic noise in respect of properties less than 5m from Sixtowns Road. Examples of possible mitigation measures were identified. They added that these measures “may achieve a reduction in traffic noise levels (i.e. by reducing vehicle numbers) where this is practicable”. The applicant explained that the provision of information to occupiers of affected properties and restriction of delivery times are intended to reduce the sensitivity of receptors to the effects of construction traffic noise and that application of those measures would reduce the impact to acceptable (i.e. not significant) levels. In this evidential context, I cannot reasonably conclude that this facet of the construction phase would be unlikely to have significant impact on the occupants of an unspecified number of properties.
6.13 Notwithstanding that there is an associated outbuilding between the blank nearest gable of No. 259 Sixtowns Road and the proposed parking area with 133 bays, their proximity has the potential for a significant impact on its occupants’ residential amenity during the two year period that it would be in use. This possibility would be increased if turbine construction works take place at night and workers’ vehicles, used to travel to and from the site, were being parked in this area outside day-time hours as defined in the CRTN. Chapter 14.7.3.1 of the ES addresses the issue of construction traffic management but, other than encouraging vehicle sharing, there are no specific measures identified to address potential issues associated with this juxtaposition. Whilst mitigation in the form of a temporary noise control barrier might afford sufficient attenuation, as the potential significance of this likely impact has not been fully considered in the applicant’s EI, I cannot reasonably make that assumption. A condition limiting all construction activity to day-time hours would address the issue but, on the basis of the evidence before me, I cannot be sure that it would meet all the tests for the imposition of planning conditions set out in paragraph 5.65 of the SPPS. Similarly, there is no indication that the potential impact of works required to reinstate the temporary parking area at the end of the construction phase have been considered and that, if significant, could be mitigated to an acceptable degree. In both these respects, the construction phase of the proposed development could have an unacceptable adverse effect on the residential amenity of the occupant(s) of this dwelling.
6.14 Accordingly, the construction phase of the proposed development has the potential to be at odds with criterion (a) of Policy RE 1 of PPS 18.
Noise Assessment – Operational phase
6.15 The NPSNI does not contain any technical advice on the methodology to be used to ensure that its objectives are achieved, nor does it set any noise limits. The BPG says, at paragraph 1.3.46, that the report “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms” (ETSU-R-97) [the ETSU guidelines] describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development. It adds that the document
______2018/C007 Page 48
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
should be used in assessing and rating noise from wind energy developments and it is described as “relevant guidance on good practice”. Page 23 of the BPG states that the current practice on controlling wind farm noise by the application of noise limits at the nearest noise-sensitive properties is the most appropriate approach. Despite concerns about the continued use of the ETSU guidelines that were raised by the Assembly’s Committee for the Environment in 2015, the Executive did not depart from this established approach to noise assessment (NA) in the SPPS. TPs said that the ETSU guidelines do not represent the current thinking regarding NAs. However, they were unable to identify legislation, policy or guidance that should be used in preference.
6.16 “A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise” was published by The Institute of Acoustics (IoA) in 2013 (GPG). Its purpose is to set out good practice in applying the ETSU methodology. It encompasses additional research and experience that occurred since publication of the ETSU guidelines. The applicant also took this into account. Nos. 1- 5 of the IoA’s associated Supplementary Guidance Notes have also been considered.
6.17 The applicant addressed the issue at: Chapter 12 and Appendix 12.2 of the ES; Chapter 7 and Appendix 7.7.1 of the ES Addendum; TR 6 of their statement of case; and RR 6 of their rebuttal evidence. The EHDs of FODC, MUDC & DC&SDC helpfully made joint submissions to the inquiry. Together with the applicant, they submitted an agreed position statement, which was also of valuable assistance. This does not prejudice my consideration of TPs’ associated concerns.
6.18 The candidate turbines used in the NA had the same power output and overall heights as the maxima of those proposed. As required by criterion (ii) of Policy RE 1, it took account of wind energy developments that were operational, consented or the subject of a valid planning application at that time. The details of these are shown in map form at Appendix 7.7.1 of the ES Addendum and Figure 2 of TR 6. In assessing existing background noise levels, measurements were taken from 6 locations, agreed in consultation with the EHDs, and carried out in accordance with the ETSU guidelines and GPG. Extensive evidence on this background noise survey was provided in Section 4.2 of Appendix 7.7.1 of the ES Addendum. The applicant supplemented this by: addressing specific associated points arising at section 6.1 of their TR 6; and providing the EHDs with further evidence to address an identified concern that enabled the parties to reach an agreed position thereon. The noise impact on 50 sensitive receptors within the cumulative and individual 35 dB (A) contours were considered. The baseline measurements, set out in Table 4 of Chapter 12 of the ES, were agreed between the applicant and EHDs. The applicant provided a series of scenarios for fixed limits of 35 dB (A), 37.5 dB (A), 38 dB (A) and 40 dB (A).
6.19 At section 6.8 of TR 6 the applicant addressed BADA’s concerns about noise modelling in light of topography. This was not challenged. The EHDs acknowledged that the applicant applied the noise prediction methodology recommended by the GPG in relation to topography in tabulated noise levels. The modelling is robust in this respect.
______2018/C007 Page 49
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
6.20 The applicant said that the practice for noise limits on wind farms based on predicted noise levels presented within a NA restricts the choice of turbine model. This is subject to a competitive tendering process and turbine models available at that time might enable an increase in generating capacity. Therefore, their tabulated noise levels, based on predicted noise levels, included an addition of up to 2 dB to allow for flexibility in this respect. They explained that the additions would be capped where adding 2 dB to the predicted level would result in a limit higher than those specified across the wind speed range and subject of a planning condition. For example, if a fixed day-time limit of 37.5dB (A) were considered reasonable and necessary to avoid unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity, this approach would not allow the limit to be exceeded by 2 dB. If planning permission were forthcoming, the associated condition would need to be carefully worded to reflect this.
6.21 The EHDs were critical of this approach. However, provided there would be no exceedance of the specified limits, regardless of what turbine model is eventually selected, I do not share their objection to it. This issue aside, there were no remaining points of contention between these parties regarding the NA’s methodology. Save for TPs’ criticism of use of the ETSU guidelines, they identified no shortcomings in the NA’s scope or methodology.
6.22 If permission were forthcoming, an updated NA for the specific model of turbine to be installed would not be necessary as imposition of a condition specifying the noise emission level would set a limit that the chosen turbine model would have to comply with. This condition would give the EHD and planning authority a clear basis for the investigation of any complaints that the applicable limit(s) have been exceeded. Provision could also be made for the investigation of such complaints, assisted by the operator’s recorded data. On this basis, the flexibility that the applicant seeks is compatible with the application being for full planning permission; it is neither incomplete nor invalid in this respect.
6.23 Day-time noise limits applied in the NA were based on those recommended in the ETSU guidelines and BPG whereby: in low noise environments, the day-time level of the LA90min of the wind farm should be limited to an absolute level within the range of 35-40 dB (A). The applicant agreed with the EHDs that the night-time level should not be increased above the fixed day-time level. Guidance allows for an increase of both the fixed day and night-time limit to 45 dB (A) where the owner of the property has some financial involvement in the wind farm. This applies at No. 66 Davagh Road “Shepherd’s Retreat”.
6.24 Section 3.2 of the IoA GPG provides guidance on determining the fixed part of the ETSU guidelines’ daytime amenity noise limit. These are as follows:
i. The number of noise-affected properties. The applicant said that a maximum of 50 receptors would be subject to noise levels in excess of 35 dB (A). These are shown on Figure 3 of TR 6. No. 84 Davagh Road (ID 11) straddles the 40 dB (A) contour but, on the accompanied site visit after the inquiry, it transpired that the planning permission for a replacement dwelling, granted in 2001, had expired. As the noise contours encompass a 5 dB range, some receptors would be more affected than others. The EHD specifically referred
______2018/C007 Page 50
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
to the background data recorded at ID 4 (No. 79 Davagh Road), a proxy site for 12 SRs, with 24.4 dB LA90, 10 min at 4m/s during the day and 21.5 dB LA90, 10 min at night. The applicant acknowledged that there are low background noise levels in the general environs of the application site; albeit that they said that their range is typical of such locations. They added that at 76% of SRs and daytime wind speeds, the increase would be no greater than 5 dB above background noise level. This was not challenged.
The applicant’s point that this is a relatively small number for a wind farm of the scale proposed is noted; the GPG identifies the size of the scheme and study area as material considerations. They added that given the significant potential generation capacity of the proposed development and taking into account that a fixed lower limit of 37.5 dB (A) has been applied at a significant number of smaller developments across NI, a higher noise limit is appropriate in order to maximise the amount of renewable energy generated. By way of rebuttal the EHDs pointed to the 6 turbine wind farm at Crockandun (south- west of Slieve Gallion) as having been assigned a fixed limit of 35 dB (A);
ii. The potential impact on the power output of the wind farm. The applicant set out scenarios, which the EHDs agreed with. These are as follows:
A day-time fixed lower noise limit of 40 dB (A) would not constrain the operation of the proposed wind farm;
A day-time fixed lower noise limit of 38 dB (A) would result in a loss of generation of less than 1%;
A day-time fixed lower noise limit of 37.5 dB (A) would “have a minor impact on generation”;
A day-time fixed lower noise limit of 35 dB (A) would result in a loss of generation of 11% if applied during day-time hours only; and
If noise levels at night were no higher than those during the day, the loss in generation would be 16%.
The applicant said that a loss of generation of 11 - 16% would significantly jeopardise the development’s financial viability.
iii. The likely duration and level of exposure. The ETSU guidelines say that the likely excess of turbine noise relative to background noise levels should be a consideration. The GPG adds that, in rural areas, this will often be determined by the sheltering of the property relative to the wind farm site. Account can also be taken of the effects of wind directions (including prevailing ones at the site) and likely directional effects. From data gathered over a 28 month period from the 2 temporary meteorological masts within the application site, the applicant produced wind roses. Based on this evidence, the EHDs agreed with them that the prevailing wind direction would reduce the duration of the exposure to the majority of SRs, which are situated to the south and south- west of the proposed development. This includes ID 4, used as a proxy for 12
______2018/C007 Page 51
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
SRs in the NA, where the lowest day and night-time background noise levels were recorded. They also concurred that the level of exposure would be reduced for the majority of the time at most SRs under prevailing wind conditions.
6.25 The applicant submitted that a 40 dB (A) fixed limit is appropriate due to the proposed development’s generating capacity and relatively small number of affected receptors. The EHDs said that they would not generally be supportive of a daytime fixed limit of 40 dB (A) nor a 40 dB (A) limit to ensure flexibility in turbine selection. They considered that, on the basis of the NA and rural location, there is justification for a 35 dB (A) fixed limit. They added that they can advise the planning authority on the noise related considerations pertaining to the likely duration and level of noise. However, they concluded that the number of noise affected properties and the impact of the fixed limit on the power output of the proposed wind farm are considerations for the decision-maker. This statement does not weaken their position; the overall weighing exercise is the bailiwick of the decision-maker.
6.26 As the applicant does not propose to increase noise immission levels at night, my conclusion on the appropriate day-time fixed limit has consequences for power production on a 24 hour basis. Having taken account of all these factors, I consider that the weight to be attached to the magnitude of exceedance of background noise at up to 49 SRs outweighs: the likely level and duration of exposure; the scale of the proposal; and the effect that mitigation to achieve a fixed day-time level of 35 dB (A) would have on its power output with attendant implications for the project’s viability and delivery of the range of associated environmental benefits. On this basis, I conclude that a fixed day-time level of 35 dB (A) is appropriate and necessary in this instance for all but the FI “Shepherd’s Retreat” where a fixed level of 45 dB (A), during both the day and night, would be acceptable in accordance with the ETSU guidelines. The applicant considered the issue of mitigation in their EI. If minded to approve this application, DfI could address the need for a mitigation strategy by the imposition of a planning condition. Regardless of any decline in turbine performance with age, the prescribed noise emissions could not be exceeded.
Enforcement
6.27 If planning permission were forthcoming, the wind farm operator would be required to employ “a suitably qualified and competent person” to undertake a noise survey to assess the level of noise emitted. If the EHD received a “reasonable complaint” from an occupant of a SR, they would be required to make a further assessment in accordance with the GPG. Although recompensed by the site operator, the appointee would have to observe standards of practice imposed by their professional body. EHDs have professionally qualified officers who would be competent in interpreting and assessing the results of such surveys. Therefore, TPs’ concerns about lack of accountability and competence are not persuasive.
Micro-siting
6.28 In the main, the potential effects of micro-siting on the NA were considered in Appendix 7.7 of the ES Addendum. There was no challenge to the applicant’s evidence that, even if the maximum tolerance was applied, that noise emissions at
______2018/C007 Page 52
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
SRs would not increase by more than 0.4 dB. For reasons set out in chapter 10 of this report it is recommended that if the Department is minded to approve this planning application, that the micro-siting tolerance for 20 of the proposed turbines be reduced from 50m to 10m. The need to reduce the tolerance to 25m in respect of T25 is included in chapter 8. As the potential 0.4 dB increase is based on the worst-case scenario of all 33 proposed turbines being moved nearer to the FI No. 66 Davagh Road, the potential increase would be less. Therefore, micro-siting would have a minimal effect on predicted noise levels. As with the 2 dB “flexibility” as regards turbine selection, it would be for the applicant to ensure that noise limit(s) imposed by condition would not be exceeded as a result of micro-siting; it would not provide for a 0.4 dB exceedance of the fixed limit.
6.29 The EI provides a robust analysis of the likely impact of operational noise on SRs. Subject to the imposition of planning conditions, the proposed development would comply with policy and guidance and would not have an unacceptable adverse effect on residential amenity.
Decommissioning phase
6.30 Noise impacts during decommissioning would be similar to those during construction, although would likely to be of shorter duration. As the temporary parking area adjoining No. 259 Sixtowns Road would have been removed and the land reinstated at the end of the construction phase, this issue would not arise at this final stage of the development. If planning permission were forthcoming, issues such as hours of operation of associated site-works, including traffic movements, could be required to form part of a later plan for management of this final phase so that it would comply with applicable legislation, policy and/or guidance at that point in time; safeguarding the amenity of occupants of properties within 5m of Sixtowns Road.
Shadow flicker & reflected light
6.31 TPs said that epileptic fits and seizures can be triggered if light flickers on turbine blades more than 3 times a second, contributing to “wind turbine syndrome”. They added that whilst the extent of this phenomenon is unknown, investigations have proved that this is so. However, no evidence was submitted of such studies.
6.32 If planning permission were forthcoming, it could be subject to a condition specifying that the turbines’ rotor diameter should not exceed 117m as applied for on the amended Form P1W.
6.33 Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 says that for wind farm development a separation distance of 10 times rotor diameter to occupied property, with a minimum distance not less than 500m, will generally apply. Paragraph 1.3.72 of the BPG acknowledges the phenomenon shown as shadow flicker. Paragraph 1.3.76 says that problems caused by shadow flicker are rare; and that at distances greater than 10 rotor diameters from a turbine, the potential for it is very low.
6.34 The potential for shadow flicker was assessed in Chapter 16 of the ES, Chapter 7.10.2 and Appendix 7.10.1 of the ES Addendum. The assessment methodology
______2018/C007 Page 53
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
was set out in section 3 of the former. Receptors within a 1,170m buffer zone of each proposed turbine were identified, based on 10 rotor diameters of the turbines subject of the amended proposal. On the basis of the proposed turbines’ locations, set out on the table accompanying the amended Form P1W, the only buildings within the buffer zone are at Doraville Lodge. The footnote to Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 excludes agricultural buildings from the definition of SRs for the purposes of criterion (vi) thereof. Doraville Lodge is unoccupied but, if habitable, would be a SR. However, as it is located with the application site and FI in the proposal, the potential effect on it is not determining.
6.35 “Shepherd’s Retreat” is also within the application site and FI in the proposal. The owner advised that it is used as holiday rental accommodation and let for short periods of time (typically 7 or 14 days). The property is on the edge of the buffer zone. If T27 were micro-sited so that it was moved 50m nearer to this property, the cottage would fall within it. However, paragraph 1.3.73 of the BPG says that only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can be affected at these latitudes in the UK – turbines do not cast long shadows on their southern side. The property lies to the south-west, south and south-east of the proposed turbines so would be unlikely to be affected. On this basis, that potential relationship does not weigh against the proposal.
6.36 Even when allowing for the maximum requested micro-siting tolerance, there would be no other buildings within the buffer zone. Accordingly, the BPG identifies the potential for shadow flicker as very low. There is no persuasive evidence that site- specific considerations should be given greater weight than this guidance.
6.37 TPs referred to issues with shadow flicker associated with the turbine to the north- west of Broughderg Community Centre. No details were provided of the distance between it and the properties that are reportedly adversely affected. However, as its approval post-dated the issue of PPS 18 and the BPG, it is reasonable to assume that the guidance relating to the 10 times rotor diameter distance was observed. Topography, intervening vegetation and a dwelling’s orientation and design have implications for the duration and intensity of this phenomenon, not just separation distance. There is no evidence that the proposed turbines’ relationship with SRs is on all fours with that of the turbine at Broughderg and those in its vicinity. Therefore, neighbours’ reported nuisance associated with that existing turbine does not weigh against this proposal.
6.38 Paragraph 1.3.78 of the BPG acknowledges that turbines can also cause flashes of reflected light, which can be visible for some distance. It says that it is possible to ameliorate the flashing but it is not possible to eliminate it. It adds that careful choice of blade colour and surface finish can help reduce the effect: light grey and semi- matt finishes are often used for this but other colours and patterns can also be used to reduce the effect further.
6.39 DfI initially suggested a condition requiring, amongst other things, that turbine colour and finish should be approved by the planning authority. It subsequently said that these characteristics need not be subject to prior approval. However, given the scale, number and spatial extent of the proposed turbines and evidence about a local resident’s specific photosensitivity and its implications for their health and
______2018/C007 Page 54
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
safety, the original wording of the draft condition would be necessary in order to minimise incidence of reflected light. Reference was made to an appeal decision where the Commissioner reached a contrary conclusion. However, on the particular facts of this case, the condition would meet the tests set out in paragraph 5.65 of the SPPS.
6.40 The proposal would be consistent with guidance on shadow flicker and, subject to imposition of the aforementioned condition, the potential for either this phenomenon or reflected light do not weigh against it. In this context, the issue of “wind turbine syndrome” does not attract determining weight. As such, the proposed development is consistent with criterion (vi) of Policy RE 1.
Impact on outlook from neighbouring properties
6.41 The applicant undertook a residential visual amenity assessment (RVAA) that considered the likely effect that the proposed development would have on views from residential properties within a 2km radius of the nearest turbine (Appendix 7.2.1 of the ES Addendum). 18 properties were identified within that study area, including a cluster of properties at Moyard Road. These were identified on the accompanying map. For each, the applicant provided: a description the property or group of properties; the existing visual amenity gained from them; a description of the level of visibility of the proposed development from the property; an assessment of the effect that the proposed development would be likely to have on views from the property; and a wireline view that shows the theoretical visibility of it from each.
6.42 The applicant explained how the significance of effect was assessed and said that a significant visual effect does not equate to an unacceptable visual effect in planning terms. The RVAA identified a significant effect on visual amenity in respect of 5 properties. These are as follows:
The nearest (1.17km) would be “Shepherd’s Retreat”. As its owner(s) is/are FI in the proposed development and that it is used as a holiday let, I did not assess the visual impact from within it. Views of 12 full turbines and associated access tracks would be theoretically available. A further 5 would be seen from at least hub height with possibly another 3 as blade tips. The cottage’s principal elevation appears to be orientated south-eastwards whereas the proposed turbines in the Coneyglen Burn valley would be to the north and north-east. Landform would either screen views of the proposed turbines in Glenlark or limit them to upper blade tip only. The outbuilding to the north would screen any views in that direction from within the property. There would likely be views of the proposed development from what appears to be French doors on the north-eastern elevation. It would be seen from the outside space around the property and on the approach to it along a lane. The proposed development would significantly change the outlook and appear dominant from the dwelling’s approach and curtilage and possibly when inside and looking north-eastwards. The proposed development’s implications on the holiday let’s outlook is revisited when considering tourism;
______2018/C007 Page 55
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
A storey and half dwelling adjoins the junction of Keerin Road with Davagh Road. Its curtilage is largely open but with an embankment to the rear where the site was levelled out of topography, which rises north-westwards. Its principal elevation faces south-eastwards. By virtue of the dwelling’s orientation relative to the proposed development, views from windows on its front elevation are unlikely to change. I assessed the proposed development’s likely impact on residential amenity from the property’s curtilage and the kitchen window on the rear elevation. The proposed development would be to the north-west, north and north-east with the nearest turbine 2km away. At ground floor level on the rear elevation are 4 windows that serve: a triple aspect kitchen; bathroom; and 2 bedrooms. The proposed turbines in Glenlark would be screened by the embankment and landform. Due to the angle of view, no more than 2 of the proposed turbines in the Coneyglen Burn valley would be likely to be seen, both from at least hub level. The ground floor window on the north-eastern elevation serves a bathroom. It is the owner’s intention to have the first-floor window in that elevation serve a 4th bedroom. The view from this window would be most changed with theoretical visibility of 20 turbines, 12 as hubs. This would not be a living room in the same way as the kitchen/diner and sitting room. Therefore, despite the development being very evident from it, given its function and separation distance, the harm to the outlook would not be so significant as to unacceptably affect amenity.
The same view would be available from the dwelling’s curtilage on its north- eastern to south-western sides. There are extensive, open and far-reaching views available on the arc from its south-east to south-west. In this context and taking account of separation distance from the proposed development, it’s significant intrusion on the available views to the north-east and north would not be so dominant or over-bearing so as to unacceptably affect residents’ amenity to such an extent that would weigh against this proposal;
A site at No. 84 Davagh Road where planning permission for a replacement dwelling was granted in January 2001 but has since expired;
I assessed the proposed development’s likely impact on residential amenity from the curtilage of No. 82 Davagh Road. The dwelling has been unoccupied for several years but may represent an opportunity for a replacement dwelling (the owner’s stated intention) or be refurbished for re-occupation. I’s main elevation is orientated south-eastwards and the proposed wind farm would be to the north-west, north and north-east of it. The nearest turbine would be 1.85km removed. Mature vegetation and rising topography to the rear would limit theoretical visibility of 13 blade tips from the 4 windows on its rear elevation that serve 2 bedrooms, a bathroom and kitchen. Given separation distance, orientation, landform and vegetation I am not persuaded that the proposed development would unacceptably affect amenity in terms of available views from windows on the rear elevation, this property’s curtilage or the approach to it. If replaced, judicious design could minimise visual impact from the dwelling’s internal space; and
______2018/C007 Page 56
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
A storey and a half dwelling lies to the south-east of No. 82 Davagh Road, sharing the same lane. I assessed the likely impact on residential amenity from the property’s curtilage and kitchen. Its principal elevation is orientated southwards and the proposed wind farm would be to the north-west, north and north-east of it. The nearest turbine would be 1.94km removed. A shed, wall, hedge to its rear together with landform that rises northwards and the vegetation associated with No. 82 Davagh Road, would reduce the theoretical visibility of 11 blade tips. Windows at ground floor level on its rear elevation serve a bedroom, bathrooms and kitchen. The latter is dual aspect and is the nearest of the rooms to the shed. It is intended that a window at first floor level on the eastern-facing gable would serve a bedroom. Due to the oblique angle of view, the proposed development would be unlikely to be seen from it. Given separation distance, orientation, landform, vegetation and the shed, I am not persuaded that the proposed development would unacceptably affect residents’ amenity in terms of available views from windows on the rear elevation, this property’s curtilage or the approach to it.
6.43 As I find that the impact on residential amenity from the non-FI properties that the applicant identified as “significant” does not weigh against the proposal and having examined the assessment in respect of the other 13 within the 2km study area, I saw no need to make on-site assessment of the likely impact on their residential amenity or to look beyond this radius. If the Department was not persuaded by my conclusion in this respect, it could assess the likely impact on additional properties. Meanwhile, I am satisfied that the proposal is consistent with criterion (a) of Policy RE 1 in respect of the proposed development’s impact on outlook from nearby dwellings and their occupants’ residential amenity.
TV reception
6.44 Criterion (iv) of Policy RE 1 requires that applications for wind energy development be required to demonstrate that no part of the development would give rise to unacceptable electromagnetic interference to communications installations. The applicant considered this issue at Chapter 11 and Appendix 11.3 of their ES. The assessment revealed that there is low potential for interference; a small number of isolated homes in the vicinity of the development may encounter issues that require mitigation, once the proposed development were operational. If acceptable in principle, the applicant said that micro-siting would lead to negligible changes in the modelling result. Paragraph 1.3.60 of the BPG says where turbines cause scattering of signal affecting TV reception, experience has shown that it is of a predictable nature and can generally be alleviated by a range of measures such as aerial redirection/upgrade or the installation or modification of a local repeater station or cable connection. Arqiva is responsible for providing BBC and ITV’s transmission network and for ensuring the integrity of re-broadcast links. It had no objection to this proposal
6.45 If planning permission were forthcoming, provision could be made for any such required mitigation through imposition of a planning condition. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with Policy RE 1 in this respect.
______2018/C007 Page 57
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Conclusions
6.46 The noise limits prescribed by the ETSU guidelines designed to protect SRs’ external amenity only apply to those areas of the property which are frequently used for relaxation or activities for which a quiet environment is highly desirable. Future business plans that hinge on the absence of noise from wind energy outside SRs’ curtilage may be affected albeit that I have no persuasive evidence that this would be the case. In paragraph 6.4 I reviewed the objectives of the NPSNI which acknowledges that adverse effects from neighbourhood noise can occur, but that effort should be made to minimise them. That would be achieved in this instance through the imposition of planning conditions. I am mindful of the provisions of the paragraph 2.3 of the SPPS cited at the outset of this chapter. In this policy context, as the proposal, with the exceptions identified below, would not unacceptably affect amenity and the existing use of land and buildings that ought to be protected in the public interest, such concerns do not weigh against it.
6.47 I was told that lenders are unwilling to provide mortgages for those wishing to build houses in proximity to sub-stations, telecommunications masts and wind farms. Without supporting documentary evidence to explain those financial institutions’ rationale, I cannot reasonably conclude there is an established pattern of lenders unwilling to issue mortgages within the vicinity of wind farms.
6.48 Subject to the imposition of conditions on any forthcoming planning permission, residents in the vicinity of the wind farm would not be adversely affected by noise during the operational phase. The residential amenity of occupants of No. 259 Sixtowns Road (for up to 25 months) and those of an unspecified number of dwellings sited within 5m of Sixtowns Road (for up to 16 of a 24 month period) would likely be unacceptably affected by the proposed development were it to proceed without effective mitigation having been identified and agreed, which would minimise such impact to an acceptable degree. In chapters 7 and 8 the likely significant effects of the proposed development on users of insulin pumps and households and farm businesses reliant on private water supplies (PWS) are considered. Save for these exceptions, there is no persuasive evidence that rights of the general public under Article 8 and Protocol 1, Article 1 of Human Rights Act 1998 would be disproportionately affected by the proposed development. Notwithstanding, the proposal is contrary to criteria (a) and (vi) of Policy RE 1.
______2018/C007 Page 58
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
7.0 HEALTH
Planning Policy
7.1 Paragraph 4.3 of the SPPS says that the planning system has an active role to play in helping better the lives of people and communities and in supporting the Executive’s key priority of improving health and well-being. Health is defined as a “state of complete physical, mental; and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. Paragraph 4.10 adds that the countryside’s natural and heritage assets need to be recognised for the contribution they make to enhancing human health and well-being. Paragraph 4.12 identifies visual intrusion as an amenity consideration arising from development that may have potential health and well-being implications. Criterion (a) of Policy RE 1 requires that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on, amongst other things, public health.
Consultations
7.2 DfI did not consult the Public Health Agency (PHA). It said that the PHA are not generally consulted on proposed wind farms and that, at any rate, their advice is usually that if the proposal accords with established practice and guidance, then there is minimal to no risk to public health. As there is associated policy and guidance pertinent to this topic, I can reach reasoned conclusions thereon without its input. TPs’ contention that the PHA has been negligent in its duties is a matter for them to pursue outside this inquiry should they choose to do so.
7.3 The Health & Safety Executive for NI (HSENI) is concerned with promoting and enforcing health and safety at work standards include workplaces such as building sites and farms. A developer would have a statutory responsibility to comply with associated legislative requirements during the construction and decommissioning phases of the proposed development. The site operator would be accountable for the health and safety of maintenance staff and any agricultural workers within the site during the operational phase. Therefore, the fact that HSENI was not consulted on this planning application would not waive those duties; they would nevertheless be subject to statutory regulation.
Existing sub-station
7.4 Local residents referred to the prevalence of headaches that they attributed to the increased load that wind turbines have placed on a neighbouring electricity SS. Even if there is such a causal link, that issue is out with the scope of this planning application. The proposed sub-station would be approximately 2.3 km from the nearest dwelling. It is reasonable to assume that SONI would require it to be designed so as to have sufficient capacity to cater for the maximum load that the proposed wind farm would place on it, taking account of the fluctuating nature of the wind resource. The issue of its capacity to serve future wind energy development, with any attendant implications for public health, are out with the scope of this inquiry.
______2018/C007 Page 59
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Electromagnetic Fields
7.5 Power frequency electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) and extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELFs) arise from the generation, transmission, distribution and use of electricity. They occur around power lines, electric cables and domestic, agricultural, office or industrial equipment that use electricity. Their intensity diminishes with increasing distance from the source.
7.6 Paragraph 1.3.58 of the BPG says that wind turbines contain electrical machines producing power and, as a consequence, electromagnetic emissions. However, it adds that these are at a very low level comparable to most domestic appliances.
7.7 EMFs can have both direct and indirect effects on human health. The associated exposure limits in place in the UK for the protection of the public are those in the guidelines published in 1998 by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) – “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz)”. In the absence of persuasive evidence that these guidelines are out-of-date and/or not fit for purpose, the fact that they were published more than 20 years ago does not detract from the weight to be attached to them. The SPPS, at paragraph 6.249, states that current government policy is that exposures to power-line EMFs should comply with the ICNIRP Guidelines. This policy dates from September 2015.
7.8 The applicant is content with a condition on any forthcoming planning permission requiring that electricity transmission lines within the site are placed underground. The issue of “project-splitting” has already been addressed whereby a separate planning application, accompanied by an ES, would be required in respect of the proposed link from the SS within the application site to a larger one out with the site be that at Magherafelt or elsewhere. That would be the forum for considering the issue of the potential effect of EMFs on public health from electricity transmission lines extending outside the application site. The scale and extent of the proposed development alone does not necessarily mean that associated EMFs and ELFs would exceed the maxima in the ICNIRP Guidelines. Taking into account what is said at paragraph 1.3.58 of the BPG, I am not persuaded that they would.
Medical Devices
7.9 TPs raised the potential risk from the proposed development to those using cardiac pacemakers. As wind farms are an established feature in the contemporary landscape it is reasonable to assume that the manufacturers of those active implanted medical devices have to ensure that they are unlikely to malfunction due to EMFs and ELFs at a level at least consistent with the ICNIRP Guidelines for recommended maximum exposure. Accordingly, this issue does not weigh against the proposal. Nevertheless, were the Department minded to grant planning permission for the proposed development but concerned that this issue had not been fully considered, it could seek further evidence thereon in order to satisfy itself on the matter.
______2018/C007 Page 60
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
7.10 There was a lengthy submission from the user of an insulin pump, setting out their grave concerns about the potential effect that the proposal might have on the function of this device moreover as its manufacturer had no requirement to test for the effect of unusual EMF and ELF exposures. It is reasonable to expect that manufacturers of insulin pumps, even devices being used for experimental or research purposes, would have to ensure that they are unlikely to malfunction due to EMFs and ELFs to a level at least consistent with the ICNIRP Guidelines for recommended maximum exposure. There was no persuasive evidence that the proposed development would emit unusual EMF and ELF exposures. On the other hand, I was told that the user of the insulin pump had experience of it malfunctioning when travelling on public roads where there is a proliferation of wind energy development e.g. such as Whitebridge Road that runs between Carrickmore and Ballygawley. This gave rise to the fear that it could deliver a potentially fatal overdose of insulin and caused them to avoid travel on such routes. As the individual’s family home in in the vicinity of the application site, I was told that they could not reasonably vary their route and choose to avoid travelling on public roads in proximity to the proposed development. There is no evidence that experience of the pump’s seeming malfunction was reported to its manufacturer so that they could investigate if there is a causal link between the proximity to a concentration of wind turbines and this apparent issue.
7.11 These concerns are a material consideration that had been raised before the planning application was referred to the Commission. Save to remind me that, in preparing an ES an applicant is not required to consider every possible environmental impact, only those that are likely to be significant, the applicant did not address the matter further. The individual’s evidence has been informed by experience and was not just an expression of a generalised fear that an insulin pump might malfunction. On this basis, I cannot reasonably conclude that the proposed development would not be likely to have a significant impact in this respect.
Air Quality
7.12 Generalised concerns were expressed about the proposal’s impact on air quality without explanation as to how it might be significantly affected. In DAERA’s consultation response of 22 December 2017 under the heading “Land, Soil & Air”, it did not flag up any associated concerns. FODC, MUDC and DC&SDC EHDs did not pursue the issue.
7.13 The applicant addressed the issue in respect of the proposed development’s construction and operational stages in Chapter 13.3 of the ES. The only potential significant impact identified was that of construction activities (such as borrow pit quarrying) that would generate dust. Associated mitigation measures were included in the draft CEMP; these are standard in the construction industry. The inquiry heard that construction of the temporary car park adjoining No. 259 Sixtowns Road would involve stripping of topsoil and laying gravel. Subject to mitigation, dust from the proposed parking area’s construction and reinstatement would be unlikely to significantly affect air quality, the residential amenity and/or health and well-being of either its occupant(s) or of neighbours further removed from this part of the application site.
______2018/C007 Page 61
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
7.14 If planning permission were forthcoming, a condition could be attached requiring compliance with the final version of the CEMP, which would have to be agreed between the developer and planning authority. This would provide additional control of the issue over and above environmental health legislation. The same provisos would also be required to form part of the decommissioning plan and secured by condition. On this basis, the proposed development would not have a significant adverse effect on general air quality so as to prejudice the health and well-being of humans and/or animals.
Vibration
7.15 The applicant assessed this potential environmental impact at Chapter 12.6.3.2 of the ES. On the basis of that evidence, this consideration would not pose any risk to human health or well-being.
High frequency noise
7.16 TPs cited concerns about high frequency sound but did not expand on their reasons for doing so or provide any evidential basis for it. As an applicant’s EI is not required to identify every potential environmental impact that a development might have, only those of likely significance, that they did not engage with this issue does not weigh against the proposal.
Low Frequency Noise, Infrasound, Vibration & “Vibroacoustic disease”
7.17 Low frequency noise (LFN) is sound with frequency (pitch) at the lower end of the audible range. In musical terms, it is analogous to bass sounds. Infrasound has frequency below that of LFN and is normally inaudible. However, the applicant acknowledged that there is evidence that at very high levels it can become audible and that there is wide variation in audibility within the human population.
7.18 The BPG (paragraphs 1.3.37 – 1.3.49 inclusive) deals with LFN (infrasound). It says that there is no evidence that ground transmitted LFN from wind turbines is at a sufficient level to be harmful to human health. This 2009 guidance was not altered by the 2015 SPPS; it is still extant.
7.19 TPs expressed grave concerns about “vibroacoustic disease” that is allegedly caused by LFN and infrasound. They referred to associated research by a Portuguese team and a raft of health concerns that are said to stem from it including brain lesions, loss of cognitive ability, respiratory problems and epilepsy.
7.20 The applicant addressed these issues in Chapter 12.6.3 of the ES, RR 6 of the rebuttal evidence and their post-inquiry submission. Evidence was given of a number of studies whose conclusions are at odds with TPs’ submissions. The issues were reviewed in a 2014 report that the applicant commissioned from an independent acoustics consultant who concluded that, while there are a number of reports portraying adverse effects from LFN and infrasound from wind turbines, there are none that have been published in peer reviewed journals. They questioned the quality of such reports and said that it is important to note that LFN and infrasound are not unique to wind turbines; they are continually present in the
______2018/C007 Page 62
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
natural environment. They concluded that a review of high quality, peer reviewed research into LFN and infrasound from wind turbines indicates that the phenomena cannot be seen as an objective cause of wind farm related complaints or potential adverse health effects.
7.21 In 2018 the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe published “Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region”. It acknowledged that noise is one of the most important environmental risks to health. The guidelines’ abstract said that their main purpose is to provide recommendations for protecting human health from exposure to environmental noise originating from, amongst other sources, wind turbines. The foreword said that the comprehensive process of their development has followed a rigorous methodology and that their recommendations were based on systematic reviews of international evidence that consider more health outcomes of noise exposure than ever before. They were said to provide robust public health advice underpinned by evidence. There is no persuasive evidence that, even if the raft of studies that informed this guidance did not include any from NI, as to precisely how and in what manner the implications of wind energy development on health and well-being would be distinguishable in this jurisdiction.
7.22 The WHO found that: the evidence currently available in relation to the health effects of noise from wind turbines, other than annoyance, is either absent or of poor quality; effects related to attitudes towards them in general are difficult to differentiate from those related specifically to noise; and such attitudes may be partly responsible for those associations. In relation to infrasound, it said (page 85) that: “Wind turbines can generate infrasound or lower frequencies of sound than traffic sources. However, few studies relating exposure to such noise from wind turbines to health effects are available. It is also unknown whether lower frequencies of sound generated outdoors are audible indoors, particularly when windows are closed”. The guidelines corroborate the applicant’s 2014 report.
7.23 Verbal evidence was given to the inquiry by two professors in this field, including one of the Portuguese team, namely Professor Alvez-Pereira. She said that dwellings in the locality of the proposed development would be surrounded by turbines from a number of wind farms, which would result in a lack of respite from infrasound. Assuming that infrasound would be an adverse effect, this submission is contradicted by: Doc Ref. TR4-001 that shows all existing, consented and wind farms for which planning permission is being sought within a 30km radius of the application site; and Figures 2 & 3 of Appendix 7.7.1 of the ES Addendum that show those considered in the cumulative NA and the location of SRs in the proposed development’s hinterland.
7.24 As neither professor had submitted written evidence, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to make a post-inquiry submission. Therein they comprehensively rebutted that verbal evidence. The pivotal paragraph reads: “Professor Alvez- Pereira…. expressly and fairly acknowledged in response to points made on behalf of SSE that there is no scientific consensus on her theory that infrasound from wind turbines causes adverse health effects and that her work has been disputed by other experts in her field. She also accepted that the World Health Organisation (WHO), in their recent 2018 Environmental Noise Guidelines of for the European Region…. found that the evidence for health effects from wind turbine noise was generally of
______2018/C007 Page 63
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
poor quality and did not consider it appropriate to adopt her view (or equivalent) when preparing its guidance”.
7.25 The applicant’s stance on the issues is consistent with WHO and NI guidance. It may be that associated guidance from the WHO or other authoritative bodies will be radically altered in this respect in years to come on the basis of further research and developments in scientific knowledge. At that stage, it would be for policy makers to review their position. Giving determining weight to the possibility of such future outcomes in the context of this planning application would not be a reasonable application of the precautionary principle. Likewise, reported evidence that associated legislation has been enacted in Russia does not empower me, within the auspices of this individual planning application, to give greater weight to that consideration than policy and guidance that is currently applicable in this jurisdiction.
7.26 Professor Alvez-Pereira agreed with the applicant’s rebuttal evidence that: where homes were abandoned in Portugal, significantly larger turbines with markedly smaller separation distances from SRs were involved than would be the case here; and that recommended noise levels, in terms of decibels, were also exceeded. Therefore, the ensuing case in the Portuguese Supreme Court is distinguishable from this proposal on its facts. Furthermore, there is no persuasive evidence that: homes within up to a 5km radius of the proposed development might have to be abandoned were the proposed development to become operational; homes in “hot spots” up to 12km away might be adversely affected by the cumulative impact of air- borne pressure from it in association with existing, consented and proposed wind energy development; and/or that public healthcare costs would rise as a result of concerns about “vibroacoustic disease. I cannot reasonably impose greater responsibility on the applicant than that legally required by the EIA Regulations and require them to show that there is no risk to health. To rely on the precautionary principle and recommend that planning permission for the proposed development be withheld until more research is carried out on the issue would be unreasonable.
7.27 Subject to the imposition of conditions on any forthcoming planning permission, noise emitted by the proposed development would not unacceptably adversely affect residential amenity. In light of this and my conclusion on the issues of LFN, infrasound, vibration and “vibroacoustic disease”, there is no persuasive evidence that the proposed development would: have a likely significant effect on cognitive performance: cause disruptions of sleep structure, vegetative arousal and endothelial dysfunction (with implications for depression); elevate stress hormone levels and oxidative stress; and/or increase incidence of arterial hypertension, myocardial infarction, strokes, Alzheimer’s and diabetes.
Amplitude Modulation
7.28 Amplitude Modulation (AM) is the regular variation in noise level of a given source. This variation occurs at a specific frequency, which in the case of wind turbines, is defined by the blades’ rotational speed. The rate of variation can be within the frequency range of infrasound. However, it is not infrasound as the variation affects the full range of audible frequencies present within the sound rather than occurring as a very low frequency sound. There is distinction between “normal” AM of wind turbine noise, characterised as blade swish and increased AM, typically referred to
______2018/C007 Page 64
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
as enhanced AM or other AM. The ETSU guidelines describe and make allowance for normal AM.
7.29 At Chapter 12.6.3.3 and Appendix 12.2 of the ES the applicant reviewed research on AM. Appendix 7.7.1 of the ES Addendum and their post-inquiry submission supplemented this. There was no challenge to their evidence that the sample planning condition to address AM, on foot of research undertaken in 2013 by Renewable UK, has not yet been validated or endorsed by government. The suggested planning condition on foot of the IoA’s and Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s August 2016 publications is still in draft form. I am not aware of any guidance, monitoring regime or model condition having been issued subsequent to publication of the NPSNI and SPPS. Therefore, Section 7.2.1 of the GPG remains current whereby: “The evidence in relation to ‘Excess’ or ‘Other’ AM is still developing. At the time of writing, current practice is not to assign a planning condition to deal with AM”. Without an adopted yardstick against which to assess likely incidence of the phenomenon, there is no persuasive evidence that it would be likely to harm residential amenity. Neither is there an evidential basis for the necessity of attaching an associated condition on any forthcoming planning permission. To require, by planning condition, that the proposed development comply with some future standards would be unreasonable. If associated issues arose during the proposed development’s operation, they could be addressed under environmental health legislation or as a civil issue.
Mental health & emotional well-being
7.30 TPs said that the health impact of “visual burdens” cannot be underestimated. They added that Seasonal Affective Disorder exemplifies that the environment contributes to inner well-being. Reference was made to an epidemiological study by WHO that reportedly determined that a “bad view out of window” increased the risk for depression by 40%. I was not provided with a copy of this study to see its results in context. However, from what TPs say, they appear to be concerned about views outwards from dwellings. Save for the FI, short-term holiday let “Shepherd’s Retreat”, I concluded in the previous chapter that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact in this respect. Therefore, this concern does not weigh against the proposal.
7.31 In the previous chapter I concluded that, in respect of non-FI sensitive receptors, the proposed development would not have an unacceptably adverse impact upon residential amenity during its operational phase with the possible exception of those households and farm businesses reliant on private water supplies (PWS). On this basis, whilst not generally persuaded that there would be a likely significant impact on peoples’ mental health & well-being by virtue of worries related to the proposed development’s effect on their finances and enjoyment of their property, this specific group could be so affected by worries about its potential effect on the quantity and quality of water available to them and the implications of pollution incidences on their physical health and that of their livestock/pets. This exception also applies to users of insulin pumps for reasons already set out.
______2018/C007 Page 65
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
“Wind turbine syndrome”
7.32 In addition to the proposed development’s possible impacts on human health that have already been considered, TPs expressed concern about “wind turbine syndrome”. No explanation was given as to what this entails; indeed, they said that the extent of the phenomenon is unknown. A seemingly contradictory point was made whereby investigations were said to have taken place that proves it is detrimental to health. No such details were submitted. On this basis, there is no persuasive evidence that this consideration weighs against the proposal.
Perception of Fear
7.33 The perception of fear associated with the proposed development is a material consideration. Save for the users of insulin pumps and those reliant on PWS, after taking account of the evidence before me and the measures that Government has put in place for protection of the public, the degree of concern that is objectively justified is limited. Whilst the proposal, either by itself or in conjunction with other development proposals in the area, may: invoke feelings of anger, rage, and disempowerment: be perceived to jeopardise emotional well-being; engender fear and anxiety; and/or be seen to give rise to or exacerbate mental health issues that may worsen physical illnesses, the perceived risks would not be objectively justified. As a result, this consideration does not attract determining weight other than in respect of the two identified exceptions.
Animal health
7.34 TPs were concerned about the propose development’s impact on animal health, including pets and livestock, with attendant implications for agricultural income and livelihoods. These concerns were generalised and unsupported by substantive evidence save for citation of an article entitled “Wind Farms & the Irish Horse Racing Industry” in “The Law is my Oyster” (Nov 13th, 2014). This referred to a Portuguese study that linked wind turbines to birth defects in horses. The commentary reported that it concluded that a high incidence of deformities were as a direct result of the proximity of a wind farm to the stud farm in question and due to associated vibration and noise. I was not made aware of any stud farms in proximity to the application site but appreciate that TPs may be asking me to extrapolate these findings to animals in general.
7.35 The article to which I was referred provided only a link to the summary of the report; the full version is only available in Portuguese. The Abstract said that 11 affected animals were studied. This is a very small sample and concentrated only on the affected horses without apparently looking at any distinguishing factors as to why only some animals were afflicted. This is not an epidemiological study of the scale on which it would be reasonable to reach authoritative conclusions that are likely to be replicated elsewhere. Moreover, the summary of the report does not make the following factors clear: the sample number relative to the size of the overall stud; time-scale of the study relative to when the wind farm became operational; consideration, if any, that was given to other possible causative or contributory environmental and/or epidemiological factors; details of the farm’s distance from the development; and the number and scale of turbines involved. As a result, I cannot
______2018/C007 Page 66
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
reasonably draw a general inference that this single case study points to likely significant, widespread effects on animal health from proximity to wind turbines.
7.36 The applicant said that it is normal for grazing to continue on operational wind farm sites. They added that noise levels at the base of wind turbines are typically around 55 dB (A) and that this is lower than would be experienced by animals grazing adjacent to busy roads and motorways. This was not rebutted.
7.37 This submission together with the identified shortcomings of the evidence that I have access to as regards the cited report and my conclusion that LFN, infrasound, vibration and AM would not have an unacceptable adverse effect in general on human health, mean that I cannot reasonably conclude that the proposed development would be prejudicial to animal health in general. However, with unresolved issues pertaining to the proposed development’s potential impact on PWS, including the identification of proposed mitigation measures to address any instances of pollution thereof, associated animal health could be unacceptably adversely affected.
Conclusions
7.38 There is no persuasive evidence that rights of the general public under Articles 2, 3 and 8 and Protocol 1, Article 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 would be disproportionately affected by the proposed development and that it would be inconsistent with criterion (a) of Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 as it relates to human and animal health.
7.39 However, I cannot reasonably conclude that it would be unlikely to have a significant impact upon users of insulin pumps or those reliant on PWS (humans, livestock and pets). Therefore, there is the potential that it might be at odds with the relevant legal and policy provisions in these specific respects.
______2018/C007 Page 67
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
8.0 THE WATER ENVIRONMENT
Legislation, policy & guidance
8.1 At chapter 10.3 of their ES the applicant carried out a comprehensive review of legislation, policy and guidance as they apply to the implications of the proposed development on water resources.
Environmental Information
8.2 The aforementioned policy and guidance applies to all types and scale of projects; providing overarching principles as well as specific detail. They are used along with the application of hydrological, hydrogeological and geological understanding, assessment methods, models and equations to evaluate the effects from various infrastructure projects on the water and geological environment. They take into account the scale of infrastructure and all associated factors, including ground type and altitude, to allow the level of potential impact to be determined and any required mitigation to be identified.
8.3 Associated EI is principally found at Chapter 10 and Appendix 10 of the ES. The study area used to inform it focused the application site and its surroundings. However, in light of hydrological connections, it also considered catchments immediately downstream (Chapter 10.4.1). The methodology for the assessment is described at chapter 10.5. In establishing baseline conditions the applicant took account of data collected from the nearest rainfall gauging station over a 25 year period. They acknowledged that, due to relative elevation, data under-estimated the average rainfall for the application site (Chapter 10.6.2). In Chapter 10.6.7 the applicant considered four types of flooding that might result from the proposed development: fluvial flooding; surface water flooding; culvert blockage; and tidal and groundwater. Geology was taken account of in Chapter 10.6.8, including peat. In addition to generic potential effects during the construction phase (Chapter 10.7.1.1), specific effects were considered in relation to the proposed development’s three phases. These included those associated with: forestry clearance; turbine foundations and hard-standings; proposed borrow pits; and watercourse crossings (Chapter 10.7.1.2). Having summarised potential effects in Table 10.13, mitigation and monitoring measures were proposed at Chapters 10.8 – 10.11 inclusive. These include: details of water quality monitoring to be carried out before, during and after the proposed development; sediment & drainage control; measures to prevent pollution from concrete, fuel, oils and other chemical substances; and peat management Potential cumulative and transboundary effects were assessed in Chapters 10.13 and 10.14.
8.4 In light of consultees’ input and amendments to the proposed development, further EI and reporting was carried out; details are set out at Chapter 7.5 of the ES Addendum (principally section 7.5.3). Appendices 7.5.3 – 7.5.5 inclusive contained: an updated Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems Review: Dewatering Assessment; and Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).
8.5 TPs said that the EI does not identify all watercourses that they considered to be at risk from the proposed development. However, they did not name them. The
______2018/C007 Page 68
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
applicant’s Figure 10.1 (ES Volume 4) shows surface water features within the study area and the three catchments that they flow into. Impact on the Owenkillew River and River Foyle & Tributaries SAC/ASSIs were also considered. I perceive no deficiencies in the geographic scope of the EI.
8.6 The applicant’s RR 12 “Hydrology” addressed associated comments made in TPs’ statements of case. In common with most of the TP concerns on this issue, those potential environmental impacts had already been addressed in the extensive suite of EI. Save for the issue of Private Water Supplies (PWS), there was little by way of rebuttal of that existing body of evidence. Therefore, I will only address outstanding issues where there was specific challenge to the scope and robustness of the EI.
Flood Risk
8.7 The site is traversed by various undesignated watercourses as shown on Figure 10.1. It does not lie within a floodplain. The applicant referred to the Flood Maps (NI) as showing that the majority of the application site is not at risk from fluvial flooding. Seven watercourses therein were identified as being at risk of causing flooding during a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) (or 1 in 100) event. The applicant assessed the risk as predominantly limited to the immediate river corridor and surrounding floodplain areas and not laterally extensive (ES Chapter 10.6.7.1). Surface water flooding was considered in Chapter 10.6.7.2, again taking into account the Flood Map (NI) information base. Watercourses within each of three catchment areas that would likely be affected within the 0.5% AEP (or 1 in 200 year) event in this respect were identified in paragraph 79 thereof. The applicant concluded that surface water flooding would not be laterally extensive outside of the immediate river corridor and floodplain area. Chapter 10.9.4 identified measures to reduce flood risk and impact on fluvial geomorphology.
8.8 Policy FLD 3 of PPS 15 relates to development and surface water (pluvial) flood risk outside flood plains. As the proposed development would exceed the thresholds specified in the policy, the applicant was required to submit a Drainage Assessment (DA). The policy adds that development will be permitted where it has been demonstrated through the DA that adequate measures will be put in place so as to effectively mitigate the flood risk to the proposed development and from the development elsewhere. A Conceptual Drainage Management Plan (CDMP) was submitted as Appendix 10.7 of the ES. It concluded that, subject to mitigation and monitoring measures set out therein, the proposed development would not have a significant impact on the water environment.
8.9 When Rivers Agency (RA) was consulted on the original scheme, they referred to Policy FLD 3 and said in their response of 10 February 2016 that, in the absence of a DA, potential flood risk has not been adequately dealt with. From their subsequent letters of 13 & 18 April 2016, it appears that RA was subsequently advised that the required EI had been provided. RA referred to the “Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology report by SSE”, which I take to be Chapter 10 and appendix 10 of the E, and the CDMP by Jacobs and said that it accepted the report’s “logic” and had no reason to disagree with its conclusions.
______2018/C007 Page 69
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
8.10 Assessment of flood risk on foot of the revised layout was considered in chapter 7.5 of the ES Addendum. For reasons identified in paragraph 68 thereof, the applicant concluded that there would be no material change to the findings of the original FRA. That chapter and the FRA at Appendix 7.5.5 added little to the evidential base provide by the ES; its deliberate focus was the amendments to the scheme. In this respect, the Addendum was designed to update and supplement earlier EI rather than function as a stand-alone document.
8.11 In its response to consultation on the ES Addendum, on 4 July 2017 RA said that the FRA lacks detail to allow it to ascertain whether flood risk would be adequately managed. The author of the consultation response was different to the writer of those from April 2016. Based on the conflict between these two responses, it appears that the later one considered only the EI in the ES Addendum and did not read it in tandem with that set out at much greater length and scope in the original ES. DfI did not raise the issue of flood risk in the main body of its Development Management Report and simply listed RA’s last response at Appendix 3 thereof. Taking account not only of this apparent oversight on RA’s behalf but also: the scope and methodology of the FRA and CDMP: and there being no persuasive evidence that the EI is deficient in these respects, the issue of flood risk has been properly assessed. Subject to the imposition of conditions on any forthcoming planning permission to secure implementation of the identified mitigation and monitoring measures, the proposal would be consistent with Policy FLD 3.
Water quantity and quality
8.12 Chapter 10 of the ES and the accompanying DMP assessed the proposed development’s likely impact on geology, hydrology and hydrogeology. At their RR 12 the applicant summarised this in persuasively rebutting BADA’s assertion that the scale of the project means that its impact on ground water and the water table cannot be assessed.
8.13 The draft CEMP at Appendix 2.1 of the ES provided a wealth of detail on practical measures to safeguard water quantity and quality, principally at the following sections: 6.3 – definitions & potential pollution sources; 6.4 – general pollution prevention measures; 6.4.2 – water environment; 6.4.3 – watercourse crossings; 6.4.4 – water abstraction and dewatering activities; 6.7.1 – monitoring and controls; 10 – watercourse crossing plan; and 11- water quality monitoring plan, including water quality monitoring locations at 11.3.4. Detailed supplementary EI was provided at pages 8 – 16 inclusive of the Mitigation Measures document at Appendix 2.1 of the ES. On foot of this EI, the applicant set out their conclusion at Chapter 10.15 of the ES. The likely impact of revisions to the scheme were assessed in Chapter 7.5 of the ES Addendum supplemented by the previously cited Dewatering Assessment at Appendix 7.5.5. The applicant’s response to TP concerns about the proposed development’s impact on water quality, including that associated with forestry clearance, is also pertinent (RR 12, pages 167 & 168).
8.14 NI Water advised (19 January 2018) that it was satisfied that any residual impacts from the proposed development would be expected to be negligible provided that the proposed mitigation measures are implemented in accordance with the CDMP.
______2018/C007 Page 70
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
It confirmed that these would address its previous concerns regarding the proposed development’s impact on water quantity, quality and pollution.
8.15 TPs cited instances of water pollution associated with the construction of wind farms. That potential has been acknowledged as a risk; mitigation and monitoring measures have been proposed to minimise it. The developer and/or operator would not be “self-policing”; the applicant’s RR 12 persuasively addresses TP concerns not only about testing of water but also public water quality. One objector said that data relating to the collapsed turbine at Screggagh and any chemical leakages/treatments by the NI Fire Service were either redacted, suppressed or not properly investigated. There was no explanation as to the relevance of those concerns to this proposal; they are out with the remit of this inquiry.
8.16 TPs were concerned with the potential effects of blasting on ground water quantity and quality. There is no suggestion in the ES that blasting would be employed. Chapter 2 thereof describes the proposed development and provides information on each of the constituent components including borrow pits and turbine foundations that would be “located at a depth of approximately 3m below ground level” (chapter 2.7.7, paragraph 76). Section 8 of the CEMP, at Appendix 2.1 of the ES, comprises an excavation materials and reinstatement plan. On the informed basis of survey work, there is no suggestion that rock excavation to the aforementioned depth would necessitate blasting.
8.17 My assessment of the robustness of the EI in respect of the proposed development’s likely impact on public water supplies has been informed by:
DAERA’s consultation response of 22 December 2017 where it’s Regulation Unit (Land and Groundwater Team) addressed issues raised by BADA and the Concerned Broughderg Residents Association. Having considered, amongst other things: drinking water quality; impact on wetlands and waterways: risk to groundwater specifically from construction phase; permeability and porosity of bedrock; and the assertion that there is no proof to substantiate ES claims of no environmental harm, it concluded (cross-referencing to where issues of TP concern had already been dealt with in EI) that it is content with the proposed development; and
DAREA’s Water Management Unit (WMU), in accordance with the Water (NI) Order 1999, has a duty to promote the conservation of water resources in NI and the cleanliness of water in waterways and underground. In its consultation response of 4 August 2017 DAERA said that its WMU had considered the applicant’s CEMP and was content.
Private Water Supplies (PWS)
8.18 The applicant initially addressed the issue of PWS in Chapter 10.6.11 of the ES. They advised that consultation with the DWI and local DCs indicated that there are no registered PWS within 2km of the proposed development. However, PWS that abstract ≤ 10m3 per day are exempt from registration. On this basis, the applicant undertook a written survey, as well as face-to-face consultation with landowners, to confirm the existence and nature of the PWS and whether any are potentially ______2018/C007 Page 71
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
hydraulically connected to the application site. The survey area included properties within 2km of the site boundary and within the surface water catchments that drain the site. These are shown on Figures 10.4a, 10.4b and 10.4c of the ES. Table 10.10 identified 16 properties with potential PWS with hydraulic connection to the application site. The applicant clarified that the property mistakenly referred to as No.33 Liggins Road is No. 30. A summary of the ES was provided in their RR 12 at pages 165 & 166.
8.19 In DAERA’s final consultation response of 22 December 2017 it advised that its DWI had considered the impacts of the proposal in relation to PWS used for human consumption in the vicinity of the application site. On the basis of the information provided, it was content “subject to informatives and advice provided”. However, this was qualified by adding that if further information is available in relation to PWS which have not been previously investigated, the developer should assess them. Such an assessment should determine if there would be the potential for any adverse effects on either the quality or sufficiency of such supplies.
8.20 In respect of PWS, DAERA’s Regulation Unit (Land and Groundwater Team) referred to where the applicant had provided ES on the proposed development’s likely impact on such receptors and said that TPs had not provided details of the PWS about which they were concerned (location, depth, water levels). It is the applicant who is pursuing the proposed development. Therefore, the onus is on them and not TPs to ensure that they have rigorously assessed likely significant impacts on PWS. I note that some households chose not to participate in the aforementioned survey, leaving the applicant in a somewhat disadvantageous position. However, that was the latter’s prerogative and does not exempt the applicant from the requirement to assess whether the proposed development would be likely to have a significant effect on their PWS.
8.21 At the inquiry, local residents pursued concerns about the proposed development’s impact on PWS with implications for continued and uninterrupted access to sufficient, potable water for both domestic and agricultural purposes. They stressed that reliance on PWS was largely as a result of necessity rather than a life-style or commercial choice given the prohibitive costs that households would have to incur if the public water supply were extended to them. This possibility was investigated and costed some 8 – 9 years ago in respect of 12 properties. Even with a 50% subsidy, each household would have had to contribute £10,000, which they found prohibitive.
8.22 BADA provided the inquiry with an annotated map showing 10 properties in the Davagh Road and Keerin Road areas that rely on PWS (Doc. TP 19). I was given details of 13 in total that the applicant had not considered. They added that there were other properties on Liggins Road that are dependent on PWS but they did not have the house numbers. To this end, a second annotated map was submitted showing 5 properties with wells/springs (Doc. TP 18). They also advised that, contrary to the applicant’s conclusions, No. 40 Davagh Road is reliant on a PWS. They referred to unidentified agricultural holdings and opportunities for replacement dwellings in the area that would be prejudiced if they did not have a reliable, potable water supply from PWS. Of the identified properties, none are
______2018/C007 Page 72
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
along Glenelly Road and Corramore Road as assumed by the applicant at their RR 12, paragraph 11.
8.23 The following issues arise:
Of the surveyed properties, it was not confirmed whether 3 are reliant on a PWS either wholly or partially;
In respect of No. 32 Moyard Road the applicant said that if they rely on a PWS it is likely that the well would be in a similar location to that of No. 33 whose likely source was said to be very localised shallow groundwater. In respect of No. 30 Liggins Road and a property at Davagh Road, the applicant concluded that it is unlikely that any PWS would be hydraulically connected to the development. The owner of the former refuted this. Although informed by general consideration of topography, hydrology and hydrogeology, these opinions were not corroborated by investigation;
There is the issue of up to 18 existing residential properties whose PWS have not been considered other than the applicant’s reliance at the inquiry on an overview of the topography, geology, hydrology and hydraulics of the catchment areas whereby the expert witness concluded that she didn’t think that those PWS are connected to the application site; and
Amongst other things, the applicant’s proposed PWS Action Plan would include emergency mitigation measures to address a temporary or permanent material change in either the quality or quantity of an existing PWS. Apart from the important consideration that this is not currently available, the efficacy of such a plan would be questionable when not all PWS have been identified. In the absence of any specification of the proposed mitigation measures, it is difficult to envisage how the acknowledged potential issue of a permanent material change to water quantity and quality could be satisfactorily mitigated in a manner proportionate with land and property owners’ legal right to peaceful enjoyment of their property.
8.24 DAEREA’s DWI witness, who was in attendance at the inquiry, agreed with the applicant that the additional properties flagged up as having PWS would be unlikely to be hydraulically linked to the application site. This is somewhat at odds with the aforementioned consultation response of 22 December 2017, my reading of which suggests that such assessment should be more in-depth than the applicant’s verbal rebuttal of the TPs’ evidence relating to PWS that it had not previously considered. Otherwise, DWI could have made broad-brush, strategic conclusions on the basis of the EI in front of it at that time without qualification that further assessment would be required.
8.25 In light of my misgivings about the scope and quality of EI relating to the properties not considered prior to the inquiry and those where the survey evidence was inconclusive, I cannot reasonably conclude that the proposed development would not be likely to have a significant effect on PWS. Moreover, in the absence of a (draft) PWS Action Plan, it cannot be determined whether mitigation measures would be sufficient to reduce that significance. ______2018/C007 Page 73
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Conclusion
8.26 Save for the issue of PWS, the otherwise extensive and comprehensive EI robustly addressed the likely significant range of environmental impacts associated with the proposed development’s effect on the water environment be that above or underground. Save for that omission and subject to the implementation of identified mitigation and monitoring measures, there is persuasive evidence that adverse impacts would be unlikely to arise from it. However, on the basis of concerns about the robustness of the consideration given to its potential impact on PWS, the proposal does not satisfy criterion (d) of Policy RE 1. .
______2018/C007 Page 74
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
9.0 NATURAL HERITAGE & ECOLOGY
Law, Policy and Guidance
9.1 One of the objectives of the OAP is to conserve and enhance the natural and man- made environments. There are no specific associated policies therein. There are no policies in the MAP that are material to the proposal in respect of natural heritage and ecology.
9.2 Chapter 7.3 of the applicant’s ES provides a comprehensive overview of legislation, policy and guidance that apply to non-avian ecology. This was supplemented by paragraphs 11 – 14 inclusive of TR 3. They carried out equivalent reviews in respect of fisheries at chapter 8.4 and birds at chapter 9.3 of the ES. The latter included the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC). All have been taken account of in considering this proposal.
9.3 In terms of natural heritage considerations, there is no conflict PPS 2 and the equivalent provisions in the SPPS. Until the Councils adopt their Plan Strategies, the provisions of PPS 2 will apply, together with the SPPS, with no less weight attached to the retained policy. Therefore, the principal planning policy focus of this chapter is on PPS 2.
9.4 Policy NH 1 “European and Ramsar Sites – International” of PPS 2 says that planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal that, either individually or in combination with existing and/or proposed plans or projects, is not likely to have a significant effect on a European site, including an Special Protection Area (SPA) or a Ramsar site. It adds that where a development proposal is likely to have a significant effect (either alone or in combination) or reasonable scientific doubt remains, the Department shall make an appropriate assessment (AA) of the implications for the site in view of the its conservation objectives. Appropriate mitigation measures in the form of planning conditions may be imposed. In light of the conclusions of the AA, the Department shall agree to the development only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site.
9.5 Policy NH 2 “Species Protected by Law” states that, in respect of European Protected Species, planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal that is not likely to harm it. In respect of National Protected Species, planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal that is not likely to harm any other statutorily protected species and which can be adequately mitigated or compensated against. Development proposals are required to be sensitive to all protected species, and sited and designed to protect them, their habitats and prevent deterioration and destruction of their breeding sites or resting places.
9.6 Policy NH 3 “Sites of Nature Conservation Importance – National” states that planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal that is not likely to have an adverse effect on the integrity, including the value of the site to the habitat network, or special interest of, amongst others, an Area of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI).
______2018/C007 Page 75
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
9.7 Policy NH 5 “Habitats, Species or Features of National Heritage Importance” stipulates that planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal that is not likely to result in the unacceptable adverse impact on, or damage to, a list of considerations including priority habitats and priority species. One that is likely to result in an unacceptable adverse impact on, or damage to, habitats, species or features may only be permitted where its benefits outweigh the value of the habitat, species or feature. In such cases, appropriate mitigation and/or compensatory measures will be required.
Environmental Information
9.8 The applicant’s extensive raft of associated EI is principally found at:
Chapter 7 “Non-avian Ecology” & Appendix 7 of the ES; Chapter 8 “Fisheries” & Appendix 8 of the ES; Chapter 9 “Ornithology” & Appendix 9 of the ES; Chapter 10 “Geology, Hydrology & Hydrogeology”; 10.5 of the ES – Peat Management Plan; Chapter 7.3 “Ornithology” of the ES Addendum; Chapter 7.4 “Ecology and Nature Conservation” of the ES Addendum; Chapter 7.5 “Geology, Hydrology & Hydrogeology” of the ES Addendum: Chapter 7.10 “Other Issues” of the ES Addendum; Chapter 8 “ES Addendum Mitigation” of the ES Addendum; Chapter 9 “ES Addendum Conclusions” of the ES Addendum; Appendix 7.4.3 of the ES Addendum - Habitat Management Plan (HMP); TR 3 of the applicant’s statement of case; RR 3 “Ecology” at Appendix 6 of the applicant’s rebuttal statement; and RR 13 “Fisheries” of the applicant’s rebuttal statement
9.9 The majority of the associated points that TPs raised in both written and verbal submissions had already been covered in this suite of EI. In the main, those points were not rebuttal evidence. In light of this I will not be reproducing the applicant’s EI on their assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposed development on these issues including the lengthy list of species that TPs raised concerns about. It is already in the public domain.
9.10 The proposal and accompanying EI evolved to take account of statutory consultees’ responses. Paragraphs 22 – 24 inclusive of TR 3 gives examples of such on-going review in tandem with Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) Natural Environment Division (NED) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). There was no challenge to the applicant’s assertion that consultees have no remaining issues concerning survey methods or data gleaned from them.
Consultees
9.11 An allegation was made about the impartiality of NIEA. Investigation of a claim about impropriety on behalf of a government department is outside the Commission’s jurisdiction and a matter for TPs to pursue with the relevant authorities should they shooed to do so. I must take its advice at face value.
______2018/C007 Page 76
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
9.12 TPs were insistent that DfI could not proceed to make a decision on this application until it had the input of the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside (CNCC). DfI advised that CNCC had been consulted on the proposal. It did not pursue the consultee for a response. Not only was this the only consultee not to respond but DfI considered that it had adequate EI to inform its Development Management Report and call for this public inquiry. Not only does the Commission not have the power to compel consultees to respond but the issue of whether or not DfI has met its statutory obligations in this respect is a matter for it to satisfy itself on before making its decision. In light of the range of EI that I have identified, I can proceed to consider the issues raised. In doing so, if I consider there are significant gaps therein, I will deal with the matter in due course.
Impact on Habitats
9.13 Paragraphs 28-31 inclusive of TR 3 sets out the legal and planning policy protection afforded to habitat types within the application site together with NI policy and EC guidance as to what constitutes “active peat”. The proposal has been scrutinised by ecologists with expertise in peatlands. Details of the applicant’s active peat assessment are summarised at paragraphs 35 – 38 of TR 3 and shown on the accompanying Figure TR3.2 Active Peat Constraints Map. The issue is revisited in paragraphs 61 – 64 of their RR 3 in response to issues raised in TPs’ statements of case. The most notable outcome of the discourse between the applicant and statutory consultees was the removal of proposed infrastructure from the habitat assessed as being (partially) active peat (Chapter 7.4 of the ES Addendum & paragraphs 16 – 20 inclusive of TR 3). NED did not challenge the applicant’s position on foot of their revised assessment that the proposed development’s revised layout avoids European priority blanket bog habitat, as defined by the EC Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna). This tranche of EI is persuasive that: European priority blanket bog habitat is avoided; and that the Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 provisions in respect of active peat are not engaged.
9.14 The most recent evidence on the survey work underpinning the applicant’s HMP is set out in TR 3. NED agreed that their approach to vegetation mapping was acceptable; there was no persuasive evidence to the contrary. The Vegetation Map at Figure TR3.1 of TR 3 shows that the site consists of conifer plantations south of Coneyglen Burn and around the Glenlark valley in addition to open moorland comprising blanket bog, dwarf shrub heath, marshy grassland and various types of acid grassland situated north of Coneyglen Burn and along the southern boundary above the forestry. Outside the conifer plantations, blanket bog is the most extensive vegetation on the southern edge and north of Coneyglen Burn, where it is often mixed with other vegetation types. Dwarf shrub heath is limited, mostly confined to steeper stream banks and an area in the north-east of the application site. Flushes and marshy grassland, along with minor areas of other grassland types occupy the rest of the site.
9.15 Table TR3.1 of TR 3 (columns 2 - 4 inclusive), subject to the caveats set out in paragraphs 39-41 inclusive thereof, quantify the likely permanent and temporary loss of each habitat type if the proposed development were realised. The current (revised) proposal focuses on using the conifer plantations and lower value
______2018/C007 Page 77
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
habitats for siting of infrastructure. Of the 22.11 ha of habitat that would likely be permanently lost as a result of the proposed development, 3.73ha would be blanket bog and 0.16ha dwarf shrub heath. The corresponding figures for temporary habitat loss are 15.83ha, 2.73ha and 0.09ha respectively.
9.16 Blanket bog and dwarf shrub heath are priority habitats under the NI Habitat Action Plans (NI HAPs). This designation does not take into account their condition; an issue considered at paragraphs 32-34 inclusive of TR 3. The applicant concluded that the blanket bog is not in favourable condition and represents a generally degraded environment owing to the high density of drains across the whole site and, in a large (mapped) section, long-standing over-grazing by sheep. The dwarf shrub heath was also found to be severely damaged and in poor condition. The supporting habitats – acid grasslands, flushes and rush pastures – were also said to be in poor condition, mostly owing to drainage and heavy grazing by sheep that resulted in reduced floristic diversity. The habitat condition assessment in the HMP demonstrates that the application site is not untouched by human activity as TPs assert. Nevertheless, the proposal would be likely to result in unacceptable adverse impact on and damage to NI priority habitats.
9.17 Compensation is proposed by implementation of the HMP. This would cover over 720ha, excluding the proposed infrastructure. It provides: a comprehensive analysis of blanket bog and peat on the site and a restoration scheme; sets out a plan to restore blanket bog and dwarf shrub heath in place of conifers on a major section of the site south of Coneyglen Burn; and includes plans for site management during the proposed development’s operational phase, with associated monitoring and reporting. It would also provide for a review of habitat condition; and presented the full scope and scale of restoration measures, an analysis of their effectiveness and adequacy and the perceived benefits of the HMP. The efficacy, adequacy and effectiveness of the HMP is reviewed at TR 3 (paragraphs 71 – 86 inclusive). The range of identified compensation for the loss of priority habitats includes:
Raising and stabilising the water-table by a programme of drain blocking and reduced grazing, facilitating increases in Sphagnum cover (the ecological driver of active peat). Higher quality blanket bog communities (within 7 years) would enhance the habitat for a variety of species, including up to a 4.5 fold increase in Crane Flies (the key food source for breeding birds on the bogs) and significant increases in some breeding birds e.g. Snipe;
Establishing 10ha of broad-leaved woodland along Coneyglen Burn valley, together with measures to improve habitats for Pine Marten and Lizards;
Restoration within in the felled conifer block to provide the foundation for recolonisation of new blanket bog and dwarf shrub heath. This is estimated to yield over 100ha of re-established blanket bog by re-wetting the peat under the trees and some 91ha of dwarf shrub heath on the steeper slopes probably with establishment of some acid grassland, marshy grassland and flushes. NED sought an analysis of potential for such restoration and did not query the subsequent survey or associated findings. Increase in the areal extent and
______2018/C007 Page 78
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
quality of the two NI priority habitats would be of significant nature conservation benefit compared to the plantation;
“Ecosystem services” with a higher, more consistent and sustainable level of active peat than at present would enhance a European priority habitat and sequester carbon. Comparative figures are given for the carbon storage properties of coniferous plantation compared to a layer of Sphagnum-rich vegetation only 6.4cm deep; the latter would be almost 70% more efficient;
The loss of carbon in drying peat as dissolved organic compounds in water affects aquatic invertebrates downstream. Elevated water tables would reduce this loss within 2-4 years through drain-blocking, thereby enhancing downstream aquatic assemblages; of particular relevance to downstream Special Areas of Conservation (SACs);
Drain blocking, which results in more water being held within the habitats for longer, has also been shown to reduce moorland run-off in drains by up to 90% with an associated reduction in sediment load. Reduced run-off rates slows the flow and reduces peaks in downstream flows, which can improve flood control; and
Blocking drains in the forestry section of the HMP is expected to reduce erosion and collapse of peat into the Coneyglen River, which would be of benefit in preserving peat and reducing sediment in the watercourse; of benefit to downstream SACs.
9.18 Paragraphs 8–12 inclusive and 47–50 inclusive of the applicant’s RR 3 persuasively set out how implementation of the HMP would improve the site’s carbon storage properties and rebuts TPs’ associated concerns in this respect.
9.19 The proposed development’s impact on wintering birds and selected individual species is dealt with elsewhere in this chapter. Meanwhile paragraphs 14 – 21 inclusive of RR 3 explained how habitat improvement and restoration, which would be secured by means of the HMP, would benefit a range of avian species.
9.20 Paragraphs 84 and 85 of TR 3, supplemented by Annex TR3.1, quantify proportionate gains relating to the overall area of restoration that the HMP is predicted to achieve and those relating to each of the priority habitats that would be damaged, compared to the likely permanent loss of lower quality priority habitat. This would represent a significant environmental benefit of considerable biodiversity value. The quantity and quality of compensatory priority habitat that implementation of the HMP would be likely to yield would be advantageous to colonisation by Bilberry, Purple Moor Grass, Hare’s Tail Cottongrass and probably unspecified species used in herbal remedies that TPs expressed concern about.
9.21 There was a difference of opinion between the parties as to whether the “do nothing” scenario would result in the degraded NI priority habitats remaining in their current condition or deteriorating further. There was no evidence of DAERA or other government funding that would facilitate or necessitate such extensive investment and management over a 25 year period as is set out in the HMP. The ______2018/C007 Page 79
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
applicant does not own the application site. Whatever the landowners’ financial means and credentials in respect of environmental stewardship, I cannot envisage this variety and scale of habitat restoration and enhancement being otherwise achieved. Reference was made to financial penalties that DAERA could subject a landowner to if their land were not managed properly, specific reference was made to grazing rates. If the landowners are claiming subsidy subject to such stipulations, changes to grazing rates alone would not offer the range of identified benefits that would accrue from implementation of the proposed HMP.
9.22 NED said that the degree of compensation offered would outweigh the likely detriment to habitats; DfI agreed with this. Implementation of the HMP and Peat Management Plan could be secured by condition on any forthcoming planning permission. The likely outcome would provide significant benefits, over a relatively short time, which would outweigh the damage to existing NI priority habitats both quantitatively and qualitatively. The proposed infrastructure would effect a relatively small area of land in return for a habitat enhancement and management plan with a range of benefits of disproportionate scale. It would represent compensation measures of an appropriate magnitude in terms of Policy NH 5.
Lifespan of Ecological Data
9.23 The applicant provided extensive rebuttal evidence at RR 3 of their associated statement (paragraphs 29-46 inclusive) on this issue. Their point that NED and the RSPB have not raised this as an issue for any species or habitat on the site, is noted. On the basis of this very full submission, their conclusion at paragraph 46 thereof is persuasive. This evidence was not challenged. BADA’s concern does not weigh against the utility and integrity of the survey evidence and mitigation measures that have been informed by it.
Bats
9.24 Bats are a European Protected Species. The likely impact on them was the subject of extensive survey work and EI. This included consideration of potential cumulative impacts between this proposed development and operational wind farms (chapter 7.12 of the ES), took account of the potential for barotrauma and informed the proposed development’s revised layout.
9.25 The EI showed that the application site is a poor habitat for Bats and that there was low use of it by them. Notwithstanding, their main routes through it were avoided in the scheme layout. The species was included in Collision Risk Modelling (CRM). Without mitigation during its operational phase, the proposed development would be likely to have a potentially large and adverse effect on the species owing to possible collisions with blades. By way of mitigation, NED required: a 200m tree-free buffer zone around each turbine within the afforested areas but could accept some regrowth of forestry therein, provided a permanent 100m distance is maintained between turbine bases and habitat features or forestry edge; and implementation of a Bat Monitoring and Mitigation Plan that would include contingency measures should unacceptable adverse impacts on the species nevertheless be detected. Combined with the low Bat activity patterns, NED was satisfied that, subject to mitigation, significant adverse impacts to them would be
______2018/C007 Page 80
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
unlikely. The proposed development was assessed as having a neutral impact on the species during the construction and decommissioning phases.
9.26 At paragraph 112 of TR 3 the applicant set out how the proposed HMP would enhance habitat suitable for Bats. At paragraphs 23 and 24 of the applicant’s RR 3, they responded to further points in BADA’s statement of case in respect of the species. In all, this evidence is robust. Subject to the imposition of conditions on any forthcoming planning permission that would secure the associated mitigation measures, the species would be unlikely to be significantly impacted upon.
Otter
9.27 Otter is a European Protected Species. Table TR 3.3 of the applicant’s TR 6 summarised survey findings in respect of this species and the likely significance of effect on it without mitigation. Works during the construction and decommissioning phases were considered to have the potential to have a slight adverse impact thereon. Accordingly mitigation is proposed in the form of pre-construction surveys for otter holts or natural dens immediately before the commencement of works to 150m either side of the crossings of the Coneyglen Burn and Glenlark River. This would form part of a required Protected Species Management Plan (PSMP) to be the subject of a condition on any forthcoming permission. On this basis, NED were satisfied that likely adverse impacts to others would be unlikely. In all, the proposed development would not harm the species.
National Protected Species
Badgers
9.28 Table TR 3.3 of the applicant’s TR 6 summarised their survey findings in respect of this species and likely significance of effect on them without mitigation, which included a 25m micro-siting area around proposed T25. Provided that this measure and implementation of an agreed PSMP are secured by condition on any forthcoming planning permission, NED was content that adverse impacts to badgers would be unlikely. On this basis, the proposed development would not harm the species.
Common Lizard
9.29 The applicant reviewed the findings of the ES in respect of this species at chapter 8.2.8 of the Addendum. Table TR 3.3 of their TR 6 summarised their associated survey findings and likely significance of effect on them, without mitigation, at each of the three phases of the proposed development. The HMP dealt with the issue at section 4.6.2 and included provisions for construction of 10 artificial hibernacula, which would off-set potential significant effects on the species. Additional details of proposed mitigation were contained at chapters 7.4.15 and 8.2.2 of the ES Addendum and page 2 of the Mitigation measures document at Appendix 2.1 of the ES. Subject to securing implementation of the HMP by planning condition, NED advised that the proposed habitat management is likely to have a positive impact on this species. Accordingly I am satisfied that the proposed development would not harm them.
______2018/C007 Page 81
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Marsh Fritillary Butterflies
9.30 The applicant undertook a survey of potentially suitable habitat for this species as set out at chapter 7.7.11 of the ES and included the results at Appendix 7.8 thereof. In view of the lack of suitable habitat and the distance from any other known breeding colonies, the site was considered to have negligible potential for breeding Marsh Fritillaries. Accordingly, they were not considered further in EI. On this evidential basis, that decision is reasonable.
9.31 TPs did not specify what species of butterfly they were concerned with. As the applicant’s scoping did not refer to any others, there is no evidence that the proposed development would have a likely significant impact on other species.
Pine Marten
9.32 Table TR 3.3 of the applicant’s TR 6 summarised survey findings in respect of this species and likely significance of the effect on it, without mitigation, at each of the proposed development’s three phases. The HMP (section 4.6.1) included provision for erecting 5 den boxes within the application site. This would compensate for the loss of coniferous forestry and removal of potential denning sites. Subject to securing requiring implementation of the HMP by planning condition, the proposed development would not harm the species.
Smooth/Common Newt
9.33 Table TR 3.3 of the applicant’s TR 6 summarised their survey findings in respect of this species and likely significance of effect on them, without mitigation, at each of the three phases of the proposed development. Proposed mitigation measures are summarised at paragraph 57 of the applicant’s RR 3 and explained at greater length in chapters 7.4.14 and 8.2.1 of the ES Addendum. Subject to securing this mitigation by planning condition relating to implementation of the HMP, the proposed development would not harm the species.
Priority Species
Red Squirrels
9.34 The applicant undertook a red squirrel survey as set out at chapter 7.7.9 of the ES and included the results at Appendix 7.7 thereof. No signs of the species were recorded within the application site and in chapter 7.9.11 (paragraph 198), they set out why red squirrels are unlikely to be present. Accordingly, they were not considered further in EI. This evidence was not challenged. On this evidential basis, that decision is reasonable.
Irish Hare
9.35 The applicant’s most recent evidence on the proposed development’s likely impact on the species is set out at TR 3, paragraph 110. The proposed peatland restoration and habitat management would benefit it by providing a larger habitat. Subject to securing implementation of the HMP by planning condition, the
______2018/C007 Page 82
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
proposed development would not be likely to result in unacceptable adverse impact on or harm to the species.
Fox, Rabbit, Grey Squirrel & Dragonfly
9.36 None of these are Protected or Priority Species. The applicant is not required to include every species that may be present on the application site or affected by the proposal within their ES. On this legislative footing and mindful that there is no specific evidence as to how the proposed development would be likely to significantly impact on these at species level, these considerations do not weigh against the proposed development.
Fisheries
9.37 The proposed development would primarily be located within the sub-catchments of the Coneyglen Burn and Glenlark River, both of which drain to the Owenkillew River SAC and ASSI. The freshwater pearl mussel is the main reason for designation of these protected sites although the Atlantic salmon is also a significant feature. A small area of the site is located in the catchment of the Moyola River which forms part of the Neagh Bann catchment.
9.38 Chapters 8 and 10 of the ES identified potential impacts on fisheries; and assessed the proposed development’s potential effects on freshwater pearl and Atlantic salmon, fish stocks and habitats in the river networks, both within the application site boundary and in downstream areas that are hydrologically connected to it. This was informed by survey work, whose methodology is set out at chapter 8.5., and consultees’ responses (Table 8.1). Baseline conditions within the potentially affected designated sites and local watercourses were considered at chapter 8.6. On foot of that evidence, the proposed development’s potential effects were assessed, including fish passage and surface water run-off, at all its three stages. This assessment included the potential effects of the proposed micro-siting. Having identified potential significant impacts, chapters 8.8 and 8.9 considered mitigation at all three phases of the proposed development and subsequent monitoring. Detailed supplementary EI was provided at pages 3-7 inclusive of the Mitigation Measures document at Appendix 2.1 of the ES. The potential residual effects of the proposed development with mitigation measures were assessed at chapter 8.10 in respect of all its three phases. Effects on designated sites was the subject of chapter 8.11. Potential cumulative impacts of this and any other operational, consented or application stages sites within a 30km radius of the application site were considered at chapter 8.12. As the application site is hydrologically connected to waters in the RoI, potential transboundary effects were assessed at chapter 8.13. In conclusion, the applicant said (chapter 8.14) that implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, that could be secured by planning conditions on any forthcoming permission, would ensure that there are no significant residual impacts on fisheries interests, specifically on freshwater pearl mussel as the primary feature of the Ownekillew River SAC, or on Atlantic salmon as a qualifying feature of the site. No significant residual impacts were identified on Atlantic salmon as the primary feature of the River Foyle and Tributaries SAC. A summary of the foregoing was contained in the applicant’s RR 13 at paragraphs 8-13 inclusive.
______2018/C007 Page 83
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
9.39 BADA raised associated issues in its statement of case and appended a submission on behalf of the Ulster Angling Federation. At their RR 3 (paragraphs 16 - 23 inclusive) the applicant responded to these concerns cross-referencing their rebuttal to where each issue had already been considered in the ES. I perceive no omissions or short-comings in the scope, methodology or conclusions of the EI in these regards. Accordingly, these TP concerns are not determining.
9.40 With regard to fisheries matters, the greater part of the application site drains westwards to the Owenkillew River and lies within the Loughs Agency’s geographic area of responsibility for the management, conservation, protection, improvement and development of the inland fisheries of the Foyle. A small section drains eastwards towards the Moyola River and falls within the remit of DEARA Inland Fisheries who have the foregoing responsibilities in respect of salmon and inland fisheries of NI.
9.41 On 31 March 2016 the Loughs Agency said that it welcomed the detailed mitigation measures proposed in the ES. If fully implemented, it was satisfied that there should be minimal impact on fisheries and water quality.
9.42 DAERA’s final consultation response of 4 August 2017 included that of its Inland Fisheries division. They said that on the basis of the revised (current) proposal and EI they were content that the potential impacts to fisheries interests have been identified and considered. The main potential impact with which they were concerned is the potential release of pollutants to surface waters during upgrading of two culverts. However, they were satisfied that proposed mitigation measures would address such risk. They concluded that the amended (current) proposal would have limited impact to fisheries interests within their jurisdiction.
9.43 Provided that the identified mitigation measures were implemented as specified, construction and operation of the proposed development would have a neutral impact on: the fish stocks and aquatic ecology of the Owenkillew and Moyola Rivers and their tributaries; and freshwater pearl mussel and Atlantic salmon as the key features of the Owenkillew River SAC/ASSI.
Ornithology
9.44 Chapter 9.2, paragraph 12 identified the 4 key issues for assessment of any wind farm’s potential effects on ornithology. These informed and structured the subsequent EI, which chapter 9.1 of the ES provided a useful summary of. It advised that all areas of the application site were subject to at least 2 years of survey effort as regards the proposal’s potential ornithological effects. Further details were provided at Appendices 7.3.2 and 7.3.7 of the ES Addendum. The study area included, but was not confined to, the application site. The applicant took on board the comments of the RSPB on the initial proposal: Table 7.5 of chapter 7.3 of the ES Addendum provides a useful summary of that consultee’s comments on the ES (set out in full at Appendix 7.3.2) and the applicant’s response and/or action taken on foot of it.
______2018/C007 Page 84
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Wintering Birds
9.45 The ES included four wintering bird surveys whose methodology was set out in chapter 9.5 of the ES. The primary target species included all waders and wildfowl. Chapter 9.6 explained how baseline conditions were established for the surveys. CRM was part of the EI. This element of the environmental impact assessment considered the proposed development’s likely cumulative and transboundary effects (chapters 9.12 and 9.13 respectively of the ES). The results of these surveys are set out at length in Appendices 9.1, 9.3 and 9.5 of the ES. The most recent survey report, dated March 2017, was carried out after consideration of NIEA and RSPB’s comments on the ES and amendment of the proposal. It is included as Appendix 7.3.7 of the ES Addendum. Subject to mitigation, consultees had no unresolved concerns in respect of migratory birds.
9.46 This extensive raft of EI is persuasive that the proposed development would have no likely significant effects on migratory birds in general during any of its phases.
Collision Risk Modelling
9.47 The applicant carried out CRM and analysis thereof in respect of the current layout for the proposed development. This considered both birds and Bats. Detail on methods and inputted values were described at Appendices 7.3.2 and 7.3.5 of the ES Addendum.
9.48 After some additional work on bird data and a re-run of the CRM after the proposed turbine numbers and siting were revised, NED and the RSPB raised no associated issues subject to mitigation. NED requested that an Ornithological Management & Monitoring Plan (OMMP), to be agreed with the planning authority and subsequently implemented, is required by condition on any forthcoming planning permission.
9.49 At RR 3, paragraphs 58-60 inclusive, the applicant addressed associated concerns raised by the Townland Residents Association (TRA). This rebuttal evidence is robust and persuasive and determining weight is not attached to TRA’s concerns on this issue.
Golden Plover
9.50 Golden Plover is a European Protected Species. Tables 9.5 and 9.6 of the ES summarised survey evidence in respect of it. Table 9.7 addressed its behavioural sensitivity to the proposed development. Chapter 9.8.1.5 consolidated this evidence and concluded that the application site is of district importance for winter Golden Plover. Chapters 9.5.5 and 9.9.6.2 of the ES set out details of CRM that was carried out in respect of the species and the implications of the amendments to the original scheme in this respect are considered in Chapter 7.3 of the ES Addendum. Chapters 9.9.3.1, 9.9.6.1 and 9.11 of the ES considered the implications for the species of habitat loss, short-term disturbance during construction, damage to active nests and residual effects.
______2018/C007 Page 85
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
9.51 NED addressed the results of the CRM for this species at paragraph 5.3 of its statement of case. Subject to mitigation in the form of the aforementioned OMMP, that makes special provision for the species, it was content that the likely risk to it would not be significant. DfI’s suggested ornithological conditions, subject to any revision discussed at the inquiry, would be necessary to address RSPB’s remaining concerns about the proposed development’s likely impact on this species that were set out in its letter of 7 August 2017.
9.52 Chapters 9.12 and 9.13 of the ES considered the proposal’s implications for cumulative impact (reviewed in chapter 7.3.1.14 of the ES Addendum) and transboundary effects on the species; neither were assessed as significant. Implementation of the HMP would benefit the species as the proposed enhanced habitat would be of more value to it that the existing conifer plantations. Associated evidence is set out at chapter 7.3.1.15 of the ES Addendum. This body of evidence is persuasive that the proposal would be unlikely to have significant impact on the species.
Species protected under Schedule 1 of The Wildlife (NI) Order 1985
Buzzards (Raptors)
9.53 No Buzzards were found to be breeding on the application site; that is not to say that BADA’s evidence that they have been recorded on it is disputed. A summary clarifying breeding Raptor survey results was provided at Appendix 7.3.2 of the ES Addendum. Chapter 9.8.1.7 of the ES (paragraphs 114 & 115) set out why the applicant considered the application site to be of no more than local importance of this species. Subject to provision within the OMMP for a 5 year programme of vantage point monitoring for the species, NED was content that the proposed development’s likely impact on it would not be significant.
9.54 The applicant concluded, for reasons set out in paragraph 113 of TR 3, that the proposed works carried out as part of the HMP would be likely to produce much better hunting habitat for any buzzards in the area and plenty of conifer plantation and small copses would remain for future breeding. I am satisfied that the proposed development is not likely to have a significant impact on it.
Curlew
9.55 The applicant carried out Curlew surveys as set out on Table 9.1 and chapter 9.6.2.1 (paragraph 81) of the ES. One territory was found 2km east of the application site and a peak count of 2 birds were recorded in the 2012 survey. The applicant did not dispute BADA’s evidence that curlew have been recorded on the application site. They set out in RR3 (paragraph 21) why they considered that the proposal would not be likely to result in unacceptable adverse impact on the species. Implementation of the HMP would increase the extent of habitat suitable for waders, in particular Snipe and Curlew; paragraph 111 of TR 3 and paragraphs 18, 20 and 21 of RR 3 address this issue. Chapters 9.12 and 9.13 of the ES considered the proposal’s implications for cumulative impact (reviewed in Chapter 7.3.1.14 of the ES Addendum) and transboundary effects on the species; neither were considered to be significant. Associated evidence is set out at chapter
______2018/C007 Page 86
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
7.3.1.15 of the ES Addendum. This body of evidence is persuasive that the proposal is unlikely to harm the species.
Goshawks
9.56 Target species agreed between NED, RSPB and the applicant at the scoping stage of the ES included Schedule 1 Raptors. That the species was not subsequently specifically mentioned in the EI suggests that it was scoped out from further assessment as the survey evidence did not point to there being a likely significant effect on it. Other than TPs’ generalised concern about the proposal’s impact on the species, there is no specific evidence that suggest the EI is deficient in this respect.
Hen Harrier
9.57 Survey results in respect of Hen Harrier are set out in Tables 9.5 and 9.6 of chapter 9 of the ES. Table 9.7 addresses its behavioural sensitivity to the proposed development. Chapter 9.8.1.2 consolidated this evidence and concluded that the application site is of no more than local importance for the species. Paragraph 19 of RR 3 explains why implementation of the HMP would benefit it. On this basis, the proposed development would not be likely to have a significant effect on it.
Merlin
9.58 In addition to general breeding bird surveys, a dedicated one was undertaken for this species (ES Chapter 9.5.4.2, paragraphs 51 and 52). Results thereof are included in Tables 9.5, 9.6 and chapter 9.6.2.1 (paragraph 86, with cross-reference to Appendix 9.6 of the ES). Table 9.7 addressed its behavioural sensitivity to the proposed development. Chapter 9.8.1.3 consolidated this evidence and concluded that the application site is of no more than local importance for Merlin. NED recommended that the required OMMP should also include this species for reasons set out in paragraph 5.4 of their statement of case. Subject to such mitigation, the proposal would be unlikely to have a significant effect on it.
Yellow Hammer
9.59 Chapter 9.5.3 of the ES set out the definition of “target species” and “secondary species” for the purpose of survey work informing the EI relating to ornithology. Yellow Hammer is a passerine species and not one of the 8 groups of species identified as relevant for further assessment. This does not equate to the potential effects of the proposed development on the species having been ignored; rather further survey work in this respect was scoped out of additional EI. None of the statutory consultees disagreed with this approach or asked that a species-specific survey be included. On this evidential basis, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed development would not be likely to have a significant effect on it.
Peregrine Falcon
9.60 Survey results in respect of Peregrine are set out in Tables 9.5 and 9.6 of chapter 9 of the ES. Table 9.7 addresses its behavioural sensitivity to the proposed
______2018/C007 Page 87
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
development. Chapter 9.8.1.4 consolidated this evidence and set out the rationale for the applicant’s conclusion that the application site is of local importance for Peregrine. On this basis, I am persuaded that the proposed development would not be likely to have harm the species.
Sparrow Hawk
9.61 The applicant’s breeding bird surveys showed that although Sparrow Hawk have territories within the study area, they were unlikely to have nested therein. Consolidated evidence on the species is found at chapter 9.8.1.7 including the rationale for the conclusion that the application site is of no more than local importance for it. This evidence and conclusion are persuasive that the species is unlikely to be harmed by the proposed development.
Priority Species
Red Grouse
9.62 In addition to general wintering bird surveys, a dedicated one was undertaken for this species (ES Chapters: 9.5.4.3, paragraph 54; 9.6.2.2, paragraph 90; 9.8.1.1, paragraphs 98-101 inclusive). The application site is considered to be of regional importance to this species. Table 9.7 addresses its behavioural sensitivity to the proposed development. Chapters 9.9.3.1 and 9.9.5.1 considered the implications for the species of habitat loss, short-term disturbance during construction, damage to active nests and residual effects; none of which were assessed as significant.
9.63 NED advised that as the species’ territories were over 500m from the proposed infrastructure, no impact is considered likely subject to mitigation in the form of an Ornithological Mitigation Strategy (OMS). The wording of an associated condition was considered at the inquiry and, subject to any revisions that DfI sees fit to make, it would be necessary if planning permission were forthcoming.
9.64 When implemented, the HMP would be of benefit to the species as the proposed habitat enhancement would be of more value to them that the existing plantations. Associated evidence is set out at chapter 7.3.1.15 of the ES Addendum. As the totality of the evidence points to a beneficial effect on the species, it would not be adversely impacted upon.
Other Species
Snipe
9.65 The EI showed this species breeding within the study area, with up to 3 territories identified (Chapter 9.6.2.1, paragraphs 61 & 62). Further evidence on the survey results, species population size, importance of the study area for it and associated conservation concern were set out chapter 9.8.1.6 of the ES (paragraphs 112 & 113). Chapter 9.9.3.3 of the ES dealt with the proposed development’s likely impact on this species in terms of: habitat loss; short-term disturbance during construction; damage to active nests; and residual effects. Chapter 9.9.7.1
______2018/C007 Page 88
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
addressed potential disturbance to and displacement of the species within the study area.
9.66 NED advised that as the species’ territories were over 500m from the proposed infrastructure, no impact is considered likely subject to mitigation in the form of an OMS, which could be secured by planning condition.
9.67 On this basis, there would be no likely significant adverse effect on the species at district level. Indeed, as the HMP is designed to provide increased extent of habitat suitable for waders, in particular Snipe and Curlew, it may be beneficial to them.
Ornithology & Noise
9.68 At Chapter 17.2.4 of the ES the applicant considered the likely impact of noise and visual disturbance associated with construction activities on named species. They set out why they concluded that such impacts are predicted not to be significant subject to mitigation considered elsewhere in this chapter and at chapter 6 of this report. This evidence was not rebutted and is persuasive.
Appropriate Assessment
9.69 The European Council Directive “on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna” 92/43/EEC, known as the Habitats Directive, requires Member States to make provision for measures regarding the conservation of nature and natural resources. Article 6 (2) thereof requires them to take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of species for which the areas have been designated in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the Directive’s objectives. Article 6 (3) requires that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be the subject of AA of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 6 (4), the competent national authorities (CA) shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.
9.70 These obligations have been transposed into domestic legislation at Regulations 43 and 44 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1995 as amended (Habitats Regulations). In considering whether a plan or project would adversely affect the integrity of the site, Regulation 43 (6) enables the consideration of the manner in which a plan or project is proposed to be carried out or to any conditions or restrictions subject to which it is proposed that the permission should be given. This provides a statutory basis for consideration of mitigation measures. Regulation 43 (5) says that in light of the conclusions of the AA, and subject to Regulation 44, the authority shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site.
______2018/C007 Page 89
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
9.71 The following European/Natura 2000 were considered:
Lough Foyle Special Protection Area (SPA); Lough Foyle Ramsar; Lough Neagh & Lough Beg SPA; Lough Neagh & Lough Beg Ramsar; Owenkillew River SAC; and River Foyle & Tributaries SAC.
9.72 These sites are of international and national importance and are protected by the Habitats Regulations. As such, there is a requirement under Regulation 43 (1) thereof for the CA, before granting planning permission, to consider whether the proposal would have a likely significant effect on those sites, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. The CA is that entitled to grant consent for a plan or project. In this instance, it is the Minister for Infrastructure and her Department, having regard to the independent expert view of the statutory consultee per Newry Chamber of Commerce and Trade’s Application [2015] NIQB 65. The information used to inform the CA’s decision normally takes the form of a Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA), which should follow a staged approach. Stage 1: Screening involves screening for likely significant effects (alone or in combination with other projects): if there are no likely significant effects the report would take the form of a “No Significant Effects Report” and Stages 2-4 would not be required. If stage 1 identifies likely significant effects, the CA shall make an AA of the development’s implications for the site in view of its conservation objectives.
9.73 The European Court of Justice Waddenzee judgement (C-127/02) and associated EC guidance do not equate the required precautionary approach to AA being one of zero risk.
9.74 Having assessed the totality applicant’s EI, NED carried out a Stage 1 Test of Likely Significance for the Natura 2000 features of Lough Foyle and Lough Neagh & Lough Beg SPAs and a Stage 2 AA for the Natura 2000 features of Owenkillew River and River Foyle & Tributaries SACs, as well as an assessment on the additional ASSI features. They did this on DfI’s behalf. It concluded that, provided specified mitigation measures contained therein were implemented, adverse impacts to designated site features would be unlikely. Shared Environmental Services (SES) carried out subsequent AAs dated 15 January 2018 and 4 January 2019. Both recommended that: “The appropriate assessment has concluded no adverse effect on site integrity provided detailed mitigation is adhered to”.
9.75 SES’s most recent AA is dated 25 July 2019. The shadow or draft Habitats Regulation Assessment (sHRA) provided a summary of its findings at pages 42 & 43 thereof. It concluded that the identified likely significant effects on the Natura 2000 sites would not adversely affect their integrity subject to the imposition of conditions on any forthcoming planning permission to secure specified mitigation measures, including the implementation of an agreed Watercourse Crossing Plan. As the Stage 2 AA of the proposed development’s implications for the Natura 2000 sites is not negative, there is no need to move to the next stage of the HRA process.
______2018/C007 Page 90
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
9.76 TPs did not challenge the process that the Department’s consultees followed in their Stage 2 assessment or voice specific concerns with the sHRA’s conclusions.
9.77 As the CA, DfI had a legal requirement to consult the statutory nature conservation body under Regulation 43 (5) of the Habitats Regulations. This took the form of receiving evidence from NED and then SES as statutory consultees. SES is the body responsible for assisting planning authorities in preparing HRAs. Where the statutory consultee expresses itself satisfied that a proposed development would be compliant with the Habitats Directive, the planning authority is entitled to presume that it is (Morge (FC) v Hampshire County Council [2011] UKSC 2, paragraph 30).
9.78 There is no persuasive evidence to suggest that the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites in view of their conservation objectives or that reasonable scientific doubt remains in this respect. As the proposal would not adversely affect the sites’ integrity, it appears to be consistent with Regulation 43 (5) of the Conservation Regulations. The responsibility for the definitive decision on this matter rests with DfI. However, subject to imposition of appropriate mitigation measures secured by planning conditions on any forthcoming planning permission, the legal requirements in this respect have been satisfied and the proposal would comply with Policy NH 1.
Impact on Areas of Special Scientific Interest
9.79 In section 3 of their rebuttal statement, in referring to the rationale for designation of Mullaghcarn ASSI, BADA seemed to be suggesting that an area including the application site is worthy of the same protection. They added that Coneyglen Burn and Glenlark River also merited such designation by virtue of the indigenous, isolated populations of brown trout. This inquiry is not the forum for considering whether the site, its constituent features and/or its environs merit designation as an ASSI; that statutory responsibility is not part of the Commission’s remit. Accordingly, the proposed development’s likely impact on designated sites can only be considered on the basis of current legal and policy provisions.
9.80 TPs referred to there being five AASIs within the application site. Figure 7.1 of the ES shows only one, Lough Lark. Statutory consultees did not identify any others.
9.81 Lough Lark ASSI is a small blanket bog lake lying at the northern edge of the application site. It is a shallow dystrophic lake lying in a peaty depression and drains into the head water of the Glenlark River or Feighatan Burn. The applicant set out details of its scientific interest at chapter 8.6.1.3, paragraph 57 of the ES. The proposed development’s likely impact on it was considered in chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the ES. The protected site is at least 1.2km upslope/upstream from any proposed infrastructure, at an elevation approximately 35m higher and there would be no development within its catchment. Therefore, there is no potential for upslope movement of pollutants that may arise from construction activities. The ES showed that there is also no potential for changes in stream flow as a response to changes in site drainage. Therefore, the proposed development’s likely impacts on this ASSI were shown to be of neutral magnitude and neutral significance. NED said (15 December 2017) that the potential risk to the site was not significant because no works, apart from the positive habitat management to enhance the ______2018/C007 Page 91
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
ASSI featured of Tall Bog-sedge, would take place within or adjacent to it. The proposal is consistent with Policy NH 3 in respect of this site.
9.82 The two SACs and two SPAs that are hydrologically connected to the application site, are also ASSIs. The reasons for designation of the Owenkillew River as an SAC includes Freshwater Pearl Mussel “for which this is considered to be one of the best areas in the United Kingdom”. The reasons for designation of the River Foyle & Tributaries as an SAC includes Atlantic salmon “for which this is considered to be one of the best areas in the United Kingdom”. Pages 10-12 inclusive of the latest iteration of the sHRA took into account the proposed development’s likely impact on Freshwater Pearl Mussels and Salmonids. Other likely impacts assessed in respect of all four sites included: Loss of/damage to habitat and impediments to fish passage; Otter; micro-siting; sediment & drainage control including the impact of forestry works; peat management; peat slide risk mitigation; measures to prevent pollution from concrete, fuels, oils & other chemical substances; and cumulative impact.
9.83 The physical extent of the respective SACs/SPAs and ASSIs are identical. There is nothing in the citation documents for the ASSIs that suggests there are materially different considerations associated with the proposed development that might affect their integrity over and above those assessed in respect of the SACs and SPAs. NED said that their AA took account of ASSI designation features over and above the Natura 2000 considerations. On the basis of the applicant’s associated EI on these issues and conclusions reached in the sHRA, which I am entitled to rely on by virtue of Morge, the proposed development would not be likely to have an adverse effect on the integrity of any of these ASSIs, including their value to the habitat network. Accordingly the proposal is consistent with Policy NH 3.
Micro-siting
9.84 NED said that it is content that the proposed micro-siting would not change its assessment of likely impacts on designated sites, NI priority habitats and species. As there is no explicit and persuasive evidence to the contrary, determining weight is attached to its advice on this consideration.
Conclusion
9.85 There is no persuasive evidence that the applicant’s EI on these issues, including their statement of case and rebuttal submissions, is inadequate in scope, methodology or detail. They took on board consultees’ concerns during the iterative process of environmental impact assessment. I discern no deficiency in the latest sHRA submitted on DfI’s behalf. Based on this comprehensive suite of EI, the proposed development, either individually or cumulatively, when subject to mitigation and compensation measures, would be unlikely to have a significant or adverse impact upon habitat, species or legally protected sites. It is consistent with prevailing law, policy and guidance. On this basis, determining weight does not attach to TPs’ associated concerns.
______2018/C007 Page 92
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
10.0 VISUAL AMENITY AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
10.1 The application site is formed by two valleys – that of the Glenlark River (the north- western part) and the Coneyglen Burn (the south-eastern section) and the narrow saddle of land that separates them. The valleys are enclosed to the north and south by higher ground: the Glenlark River valley by Quiggy Hill and Corratary Hill to the north and Spaltindoagh to the south; and the Coneyglen Burn valley by Carnanelly to the north and Mullaghturk to the south. The valleys are pronounced and well-defined by the surrounding hills with a relatively gentle landform profile.
10.2 1,513ha of the 2,600ha application site comprises predominantly coniferous woodland in two blocks. Glenlark Forest lies within the northern part of the site on both sides of the Glenlark River. Mullaghturk Forest lies in the southern part of the site, south of Coneyglen Burn. An extensive area of unplanted land separates them.
Policy
10.3 Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 says that development that generates energy from renewable resources will be permitted provided that it will not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on, amongst other things, visual amenity and landscape character.
10.4 The RDS does not provide operational policy. However, in commenting on how RG 11 might be realised as regards conserving and protecting our natural environment, the bullet point at paragraph 3.31 sets out the aim of recognising and promoting the conservation of local identity and distinctive landscape character. It says that landscape character is what makes an area unique and defines it as “a distinct, recognizable and consistent pattern of elements….in the landscape that makes one landscape different from another, rather than better or worse”. It adds that informed and responsible decisions on the management of sustainable future landscapes can only be made if proper regard is paid to their existing character. It concludes that by understanding how places differ, we can ensure that future development is well situated, sensitive to its location and contributes to environmental, social and economic objectives. The NI Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) 2000 is said to provide valuable guidance on landscape character and scenic quality.
10.5 The European Landscape Convention defines landscape as “an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors”.
10.6 The SPPS (paragraph 6.218) identifies the aim in relation to renewable energy as to facilitate the siting of renewable energy generating facilities in appropriate locations within the built and natural environment in order to achieve NI’s renewable energy targets and to realise the benefits of renewable energy without compromising other environmental assets of acknowledged importance. Paragraph 6.222 says that particular care should be taken when considering the potential impact of all renewable energy proposals on the landscape. Some may be able to accommodate wind farms more easily than others on account of their topography, landform and ability to limit visibility. Paragraph 6.230 adds that it will not necessarily be the case that the extent of visual impact or visibility of wind farm
______2018/C007 Page 93
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
development will give rise to negative effects; wind farm developments are by their nature highly visible yet this in itself should not preclude them as acceptable features in the landscape. The ability of the landscape to absorb such development depends on careful siting, the skill of the designer and the inherent characteristics of the landscape such as landform, ridges, hills, valleys and vegetation.
10.7 The Justification and Amplification (J&A) text to Policy RE1 recognises that larger- scale wind energy developments are likely to be visible over distances. It adds that of all renewable technologies, wind turbines are likely to have the greatest visual and landscape effects. It goes on to say that in assessing planning applications, the Department recognises that the impact of turbines on the landscape will vary according to their size and number and the type of landscape involved. It acknowledges that some of these impacts may be temporary if conditions are attached to planning permission requiring turbines’ future decommissioning.
10.8 Paragraph 1.3.18 of the BPG says that there are no landscapes into which a wind farm will not introduce a new and distinctive feature and that the need for development of renewable energy resources means that it is important for society at large to accept wind energy proposals as a feature of many parts of NI for the foreseeable future. However, at paragraph 1.3.19 it adds that this is not to suggest that areas valued for their particular landscape and/or nature conservation interest will have to be sacrificed. Paragraph 1.3.25 acknowledges that turbines in wind farms will normally be tall, frequently located in open land and therefore will often be highly visible. At paragraph 1.3.26, the BPG attempts to provide a general guide to the effect which distance has on the perception of a wind farm in an open landscape. It states that: at up to 2kms, turbines are likely to be prominent features; at 2 – 5km, relatively prominent; and at 5 – 15km, prominent in clear visibility and seen as part of the wider landscape. Paragraph 1.3.32 of the BPG says that in comparison to other, well-established, forms of development in the countryside, wind turbines are relatively unfamiliar, prominently vertical and have the significant characteristic of movement. They will be distinctive features in the landscape. Decision-makers must assess their visual impact with these characteristics clearly in mind. I note that more than a decade has passed since this was written and turbines are more prevalent.
10.9 Taking all of the foregoing into account, criterion (i) of Policy RE 1 requires that the development will not have unacceptable impact on visual amenity or landscape character through: the number, scale, size and siting of turbines. Criterion (ii) requires that consideration be given to the cumulative impact of existing wind turbines, those which have permissions and those that are currently the subject of valid but undetermined applications (and appeals).
10.10 Paragraphs 1.3.33 – 1.3.37 inclusive of the BPG provide advice on cumulative landscape and visual impacts. It does not define what constitutes “the area” referred to in paragraph 1.3.36. Paragraph 1.3.33 provides assistance where it says that the cumulative impact of a number of neighbouring developments is an important material consideration. The nature and character of the location and the landscape in which a development is located, will partly determine the acceptability or otherwise of siting proposals in proximity to each other. To my mind, the use of the words “neighbouring” and “proximity” indicate that, in considering the issue of ______2018/C007 Page 94
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
cumulative impact, the focus should primarily be on the area within which the proposal is located. Section 3.2 of the SPG provides further guidance on the matter. It says that separation distances ranging from 6km (for smaller sites in landscapes with some enclosure) to 12km (for larger sites in open exposed landscapes) are desirable to prevent the landscape becoming dominated by wind farms and to reduce intervisibility. It adds that judgements on cumulative impacts must be made on a case-by-case basis taking account of the specific character of the landscape and the siting, layout and intervisibility of the proposed wind energy development with other wind energy developments in the same LCA, in neighbouring LCAs and in the RoI. Guidance anticipates cumulative impact being a product of turbine numbers and separation distance.
10.11 The application site is part of the Sperrins AONB. TPs said that AONBs in NI have weaker legal protection than in GB. I can only apply policy and guidance applicable in this jurisdiction. Paragraph 6.186 of the SPPS notes that AONBs are designated primarily for their high landscape quality, wildlife importance and rich cultural and architectural heritage. Paragraph 6.187 says that development proposals therein must be sensitive to the distinctive special character of the area and the quality of their landscape, heritage and wildlife. Paragraph 6.188 states that in assessing proposals, including cumulative impacts in such areas, account will also be taken of the LCAs and any other relevant guidance. There is no embargo on wind energy development within AONBs.
10.12 Policy RE1 and its accompanying text makes no specific mention of AONBs. However, the BPG at paragraph 1.3.23 says that a cautious approach is necessary in relation to those landscapes which are of designated significant value, such as AONBs. The "cautious approach" therein that was advocated by the BPG is included in the SPPS at paragraph 6.223. The paragraph does not define what is meant by a “cautious approach” but refers to the potential difficulty in accommodating wind energy proposals in such sensitive landscapes without detriment to the region’s cultural and natural heritage assets. Whilst PPS 18 is not cancelled by the SPPS, the cautious approach advocated by the BPG has been given more weight by its inclusion therein.
10.13 Paragraph 5.16 of PPS 2 says that in assessing proposals account will be taken of the Landscape Character Assessments and any other published guidance such as countryside assessments produced as part of the development plan process as well as AONB Management Plans and local design guides. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) published ‘Wind Energy Development in Northern Ireland’s Landscapes’ (2000) as SPG to PPS 18. It divides the NI countryside into 130 LCAs each based upon local patterns of geology, landform, land use, cultural and ecological features. For each, the key characteristics and landscape condition are described and sensitivity to change analysed. It is intended to provide broad, strategic guidance in relation to the landscape and visual impacts of wind energy developments. Reference was made to the draft version of the current SPG and a draft capacity statement for LCA 24 and it was contended that those provisions should be accorded significance in the consideration of this application. Although a quotation was attributed to it, neither document seems to be publicly available so that the extract could be considered in context. Nevertheless, whatever the
______2018/C007 Page 95
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
rationale for the subsequent amendment, substantial weight must be given to the adopted version of the SPG, which is in the public domain.
10.14 Paragraph 4.15 of PPS 18 says that the document provides SPG and while it will be taken into account in assessing all wind turbine proposals, it is not intended to be prescriptive. There is no management plan or design guide for the Sperrins AONB. Paragraph 2.3 of the SPG says that landscape sensitivity to wind energy development depends on many factors. It adds that each landscape has its own sensitivities, depending on its landform and land over as well as on a range of other characteristics and values including, for example, enclosure, visibility, condition, scenic and perceptual qualities, natural and cultural heritage features and cultural associations. Importantly, sensitivity depends on landscape character as well as on landscape values. Table 2 thereof identifies criteria for assessing landscape sensitivity to wind energy development. In Section 2 d) of TR 4 in their statement of case, the applicant considered the proposal in the context of each of these criteria. Table 4 of the SPG sets out General Principles: Sensitivity, Opportunities and Challenges in Different Landscapes including upland landscape. Amongst other things, the applicant considers and applies this guidance to the proposal at Section 2 e) of their TR 4. This evidence has been taken into account.
10.15 The application site is situated within LCA 24 South Sperrins. The LCA has an approximate linear form extending from the Strule River Valley and Bessy Bell in the west to roughly the B47 Glenelly Road in the east from Leagh’s Bridge to north-west of the junction with Sixtowns Road. DfI submitted that the application site occupies a significant portion of this LCA, between 25% and 33% thereof. The SPG describes the area as having large scale, broad, rounded ridges rising to over 550m AOD and forming a backdrop to more intimate valley landscapes of Owenkillew and Owenreagh Rivers. Amongst other things, the LCA is described as:
Simple upland landform, with deep, branching gullies; Open mountain skylines tightly enclosing valley landscapes; Containing few intrusive influences except for forestry in the upper valley reaches; Having upland edges that enclose and form prominent skylines above the river valleys; Generally of very high scenic quality; Possessing a strong sense of tranquillity throughout due to the area’s remoteness and inaccessibility. Wild character on ridge tops and in upper valley reaches, although this character is affected by forestry in some areas; and Many views from valleys to surrounding ridgelines. The Central Sperrins Way offers hillwalkers a series of outstanding views into the Ownekillew and Glenelly valleys, north to the main Sperrin ridge and east to Slieve Gallion.
10.16 In terms of overall sensitivity to wind energy development, the SPG says that while the large scale and relatively simple landform and landcover of this LCA are in theory suited to wind energy development, most of the area of this LCA has an unspoilt character and many valued characteristics and features that make it highly sensitive to change It adds that wind energy development on the slopes or tops above (the enclosed lower valley reaches) could potentially have an overwhelming landscape impact. Further east, where the valleys have a more open form and where there is ______2018/C007 Page 96
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
extensive forestry, the character of the landscape appears better suited to wind energy development (this would include the application site). However, this is outweighed by the very wide visibility of this part of the South Sperrins. In views from the south particularly, Mullaghturk and Carnanelly appear as focal points, and the landscape is very sensitive to wind energy development. The document judges the overall sensitivity of LCA 24 for wind energy development to be high. On the other hand, note is taken that the SPG (page 22) acknowledges that within many LCAs there is considerable variation in sensitivity level across the area. The overall sensitivity level is therefore the level that prevails over most of the LCA’s geographic area. It adds that a high sensitivity level does not necessarily mean that there is no capacity for wind energy development within the LCA.
10.17 LCA 24 is described as having a sensitive landscape setting and wide visibility. However, the SPG does not rule out wind energy development therein. It says that, ideally, turbines should be associated with and reflect the scale of groups of buildings and trees or forestry plantation. Care should be taken to avoid adverse impacts on: the extremely sensitive skylines and the open, exposed and largely uninhabited landscapes of the upper slopes; the character and setting of features of natural and cultural heritage landscape interest; the area’s sense of wildness; and views from the South Sperrins Way. The latter is a 64 mile long driving route whose north-eastern extent includes the Gortin Lakes (Viewpoint 24).
10.18 In 2015 the Northern Ireland Regional Landscape Character Assessment (NIRLCA) was published. Its purpose is to supplement, not replace, the NILCA. It takes account of what it terms substantial development since the NILCA was surveyed. Its Introduction states that it aims to draw together information on people and place and the combination of nature, culture and perception that makes each part of NI unique. It says that this local identity can be referred to by the Irish term “dinnseanchas” meaning the spirit of a place, which results from interactions of natural and human processes over time – processes which continue today since landscapes must be viewed as a dynamic entity. The Assessment divides the NI countryside into 26 RLCAs. The application site is within RLCA 7, which is more extensive than LDC 24. Again, the Strule River Valley and Bessy Bell broadly form its western boundary, but it includes the Sperrins ridgeline on the northern side of the Glenelly Valley, Slieve Gallion and extends beyond the A6 (Maghera to Dungiven stretch) to Carntogher.
10.19 One of the key characteristics of RLCA 7 is that the hill areas of the Sperrins are a sparsely settled area with a high degree of remoteness and tranquillity. The mountains and upper glens have a distinct wildness character arising from their inaccessibility and are a dark sky resource. As regards renewable energy it says that the potentially significant impacts of large-scale wind energy development in the uplands, on the scale, openness and tranquillity of the area, must be a prime consideration and landscape sensitivity studies could help to identify these. It adds that such studies should give consideration to the potential effects, including cumulative effects, of wind turbines around the edges of this area.
10.20 At Chapter 7.2 of the applicant’s ES Addendum they commented on how the proposed development would relate to the RLCA. They set out why they consider that the NIRLCA does not provide a suitable baseline for assessing effects on ______2018/C007 Page 97
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
landscape character of the site and its surroundings and why the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) in their ES is preferred. Notwithstanding that baseline wind energy development has changed since the NIRCLA’s publication, it is a material consideration. Whilst mindful of the applicant’s critique in considering what weight should be given to it, this will be balanced with Mountaineering Ireland’s rebuttal of part of the former’s rationale for their stance.
Evolution of the proposal
10.21 The applicant’s associated EI shows the iterative nature of the design process that continued to evolve after submission of this planning application whereby the scheme was revised in 2017 in response to feedback from consultees. Section 2 c) of TR 4, that accompanied their statement of case, provided an overview as to how and why the current scheme was arrived at. The applicant said that landscape and visual mitigation measures were incorporated through the evolving design process in order to prevent or reduce potential associated adverse landscape and visual effects. They added that the layout has avoided the skyline of Carnanelly, the ridgeline of Mullaghturk, the southern slopes of Spaltindoagh and the western end of the Glenlark River valley. Design and subsequent revision of the scheme was evidently the subject of significant consideration. However, that it has been the subject of such careful review does not necessarily equate to the cautious approach required by paragraph 6.223 of the SPPS. Whilst the current layout may represent the “best fit” for the application site as regards trying to accommodate a wind farm of the scale proposed, its visual impact and effect on landscape character (VI&LC) might still be considered unacceptable.
Environmental Information (EI)
10.22 The applicant provided extensive evidence on the proposal’s likely impact on VI&LC. They principally considered the likely impact of the scheme in: Chapter 6 and associated Appendix 6 of the ES; Chapter 7.2 of the ES Addendum; Chapter 4 of their statement of case and accompanying TR 4 that they described as “a summary of the technical assessment carried out in relation to the landscape and visual resource, and any other relevant matters related to landscape and effects”; and Section 2 of their rebuttal statement and associated RR4. The methodology took on board a range of guidance including the SPG. The Department was consulted on various aspects of the assessment process including viewpoint (VP) locations, the production of visualisation information and wind farms to be included in the cumulative assessment. The applicant addressed all of DfI’s suggested VPs in accordance with paragraph 1.3.31 of the BPG and Table 6 of the SPG. Their extensive Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) included:
Various computer-generated Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) maps showing where the proposed development might be seen from and including its cumulative impact together with the operational, consented and proposed wind farms within a study area with a radius of 30km from the nearest proposed turbine. The most recent iteration of this was the Blade Tip ZTV at RR 7 (Doc. Ref: RR4-001);
______2018/C007 Page 98
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Computer generated wireline diagrams showing how the proposed development would appear from 25 VPs;
Photomontage visualisations whereby an impression of a proposed development was superimposed upon an actual photograph of the proposed site from the 25 VPs;
LVIA including viewpoint analysis of, but was not exclusive to, the 25 VPs: and
Section 4 of the applicant’s TR 4 helpfully set out changes to the baseline since the 2017 ES Addendum and informed my use of their visual evidence.
10.23 Notwithstanding criticism of the applicant’s visual analysis, I am satisfied that the methodology used to produce their raft of associated EI accorded with standards recognised throughout the UK. The ZTV maps, wirelines, photomontages and visual representations assisted me in assessing the likely impact of the proposal notwithstanding TPs’ criticisms of this EI. However, ZTVs rely on contour data and do not take account of the screening effect of topography, vegetation or other intervening landscape features. The ZTV shading takes no account of the way that visibility diminishes with increased distance from the site. Theoretical visibility may relate only to a single turbine, or even part of a turbine blade, whereas the associated shading denotes that 1-6 turbines might be seen. Therefore, in these respects, the ZTV represents the “worst case” scenario. Accordingly the proposed turbines would not be visible from all parts of the ZTV plotted on RR4-001.
10.24 TPs criticised the selection of some VPs as not being representative of the likely impact of the proposal on the area’s VI&LC. They identified additional vantages that they considered to be critical. Of the 25 VPs, save for one (VP 16), only those subject of TPs’ concerns have been considered. As I have visited all of these and most of the additional vantages that they were concerned about, my assessment of the proposal’s likely impact on VI&LC was not solely informed by the submitted EI albeit that it formed a sound basis for this analysis. Therefore, TPs’ concerns that many of the applicant’s baseline photos were taken in winter conditions that do not reflect the more usual character and appearance of the receiving landscape, carry little weight.
Mullaghturk appeal (2007/A1313)
10.25 Repeated reference was made to the decision in this appeal and my attention directed to Commissioner Speirs’ analysis of specific VPs. Albeit that I am not bound by that decision, no one submitted a copy of the plan for the site subject of that appeal showing the location of the proposed turbines or the location of the VPs that he referred to in his decision. At any rate, the current scheme must be considered on its own merits.
Commission’s approach to wind farm proposals
10.26 Based on quotations from two individual appeal decisions, one being Mullaghturk and the other 2015/A0135, BADA said that the Commission “now consistently supports the view that renewable energy developments have the potential to ______2018/C007 Page 99
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
industrialise a landscape.” The Commissioners’ remarks were made in a site and evidence specific context in respect of those individual proposals. The Commission is tasked by Section 45 of the Act with having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations including the raft of energy and planning law, policy and guidance set out in chapters 2 and 3 of this report. Again, the current scheme must be assessed on its individual merits.
Forestry
10.27 Construction of the proposed development would require the removal of over 520ha of coniferous forestry. The areas of forestry to be removed are located within the Glenlark River valley (Glenlark) and the Coneyglen Burn valley. The majority of felling areas are on the southern sides of both of these valleys with smaller areas on the northern side of Glenlark and the north-eastern end of the Coneyglen Burn valley. The extent of felling is shown on “Doraville Forestry Management Map 2” in Chapter 2 of the ES
10.28 This represents almost one third of the overall forestry in both valleys. However, approximately 675ha would be felled during the lifecycle of the proposed development as part of the commercial forestry cycle. Indeed at least 74ha has already been approved for harvesting as part of normal forest management. Therefore, the proposed development would accelerate but not notably alter the extent of the felling programme. As this element of change within the landscape would occur independent of this proposal, it does not weigh against it. Nevertheless, it will change the appearance and character of the receiving environment. I note the applicant‘s advice that: “The forestry that is currently found on the site area is not relied upon for screening” (TR 4, paragraph 39).
Assessment of viewpoints
10.29 Unless specifically identified as being outwith the Sperrins AONB, the VPs lie within it. In assessing the identified VPs:
I did not take account of the existing meteorological masts within the site as, at the time of the Inquiry, they did not have planning permission;
Where adjectives such as “significant” and “adverse” are used I am doing so as they are employed in everyday usage and not the qualified meaning given to them in LVIA by experts in that discipline;
I am mindful that there would be transient views of the proposed development in addition to static views. The applicant provides a useful summary thereof at section 3 f) of their TR 4;
VPs are not considered in chronological order as there are those that I have grouped together on a geographical basis for ease of reference. They are not ranked in any order of importance;
Where the turbine at Broughderg is mentioned, it is that some 436m north-west of the Community Centre and Post Office as the crow flies. The description ______2018/C007 Page 100
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
does not attribute any association with, ownership by, involvement in or approval/acceptance of it by BADA and/or the local community; and
All of the identified policy and guidance has been taken into account in making my assessment of the proposed development’s impact on the area’s VI&LC from individual and transient VPs. The SPG for LCA 24 acknowledges that the wild character on ridge tops and in upper valley reaches is affected by forestry in some areas. I do not interpret this as the presence of forestry cover in extensive parts of the application site precluding a wild character. At any rate, the site must also be viewed in its wider context irrespective of LCA boundaries.
Excavated soils
10.30 Save for some areas of exclusion due to sensitive environmental constraints, the subsoil that would be excavated for foundations and access tracks would be stored in the construction corridor shown on Figure 2.2 of the ES; namely alongside the tracks used to access the individual turbines. The height of the deposited material would generally be between 1-2m and the surfaces would be compacted. Upon decommissioning, part of the turbine foundations would be removed and the area graded over with soil and re-vegetated.
Davagh Road
10.31 VP 1 is from the part of Davagh Road (part of the promoted Gold Cycle Route), that runs through the application site, approximately 600m north of Doraville Lodge. Although the applicant’s visual evidence relates to a single point, they acknowledged that there would be transient views of the proposed development when travelling in both directions. They did not suggest that this is either the only vantage or the “worst-case” scenario as regards the potential views that would be experienced from Davagh Road. They did not assert that their associated visual evidence shows the only likely impacts were the development to proceed. The magnitude of change at all 3 phases of the proposed development are dealt with in detail at Chapter 1.8.3.1 of Appendix 6 of the ES in paragraphs 278-280 inclusive. These include visibility of the access tracks between turbines, site office, turbine hard standings, deforested areas and 3 of the proposed meteorological masts and access tracks.
10.32 The VP lies within the immediate landscape setting of the proposed development displaying the open, broad and simple landform, open moorland, forestry and remote character that characterise the South Sperrins LCA. Notwithstanding the prevalence of commercial forestry, the character of the landscape retains its sense of wildness and tranquillity. Its inclusion within the Sperrins AONB is indicative of its natural beauty. This stretch of Davagh Road is lightly trafficked. Its existence enables the traveller to appreciate the area’s sense of remoteness rather than detracting from that quality. This would especially be the case for cyclists on the waymarked route.
10.33 Looking up the Coneyglen Burn valley when travelling northwards and at VP 1, one can see Slieve Gallion with the telecommunications masts on top. Of the three turbines that are over 10.78km away at Brackagh, the blade tips of two are seen ______2018/C007 Page 101
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
and the hub of another. The applicant’s wireline shows that 4 of the turbines at Crockandun are theoretically visible. However, they are currently screened by forestry although the hub of one may be apparent upon deforestation, some 13.79km distant. 12 of the turbines proposed on the eastern side of Davagh Road would be seen in their entirety with views of the other 11 from at least hub height; the closest would be 0.53km away. The proposed meteorological mast to the north of T11 would be seen almost in its entirety. From VP 1, due to intervening landform, only the blade tip of one of the 10 turbines proposed in Glenlark would be evident. From the opposite approach, the proposed development on the eastern side of Davagh Road would be seen with: the single turbine at Broughderg 3.98km distant on lower ground and with a backdrop of landform: 5 turbines at Crockdun almost 14km away; an array of existing and approved turbines on the horizon extending from Cregganconroe (16km away) round to Altamuskin (27.5km away). They range in distance from the aforementioned Cregganconroe to Shantavny almost 30km distant. From a transient view when going to/from the Glenelly Valley on Davagh Road, the proposed turbines in Glenlark would initially visually predominate until the view up the Coneyglen Burn valley reveals itself. The applicant’s ZTV corroborates my assessment of the likely transient view of the proposed turbines.
10.34 The BPG recognises that at up to 2km distance, turbines will be prominent, this is not to imply that every proposal would be acceptable at close range. In this case the scale and number of proposed turbines, their verticality and movement and the cumulative visual impact of associated development would give those travelling north-south on Davagh Road the feeling of being within a wind farm landscape. The proposed development would wholly transform and monopolise its appearance and character. That there is convex landform on either side of the Coneyglen Burn valley would not screen views of development proposed therein or contain its effect on VI&LC. Whilst, from this vantage, the landscape is of a large scale, the magnitude and extent of the proposed development would dominate it. Banks of topsoil would bound the access tracks. Even if/when colonised and vegetated, they would appear incongruous due to their nature and extent.
10.35 VP 2 is also on Davagh Road but on the east-west section near Laghta as it passes to the south of the application site. The applicant said that the VP illustrates the type of visibility of the proposed development that would be gained from the minor roads that serve the area south of the site including the transient view in both directions from Davagh Road in this locale. Looking towards the site, no other wind energy development is evident. The closet proposed turbine would be 1.87km away and the development would extent across over 90° of the view. The farm building at Doraville Lodge is evident against the backdrop of a stand of conifers. Commercial forestry is a prevalent feature albeit that that some of that seen on the ridge on the upper reaches of Glenlark valley and part of that evident in the Coneyglen Burn valley would be felled. Moorland is the predominant feature but field enclosure and cultivated lands are seen on either side of Davagh Road in the foreground of Doraville Lodge and along the stretch of Davagh Road where the VP is located. Despite these signs of human intervention, the expansive, open views give a sense of spaciousness and remoteness.
10.36 Views of the 10 turbines proposed in Glenlark would be limited largely to the upper blades of 4. At least 13 hubs and 6 blades of the 23 turbines proposed in the ______2018/C007 Page 102
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Coneyglen Burn valley would be seen. The applicant acknowledged that while these would be the principal visible element of the proposed development, other elements are likely to be seen including access tracks between turbines, the site office, turbine hard standings, transformers and two of the meteorological masts. As one would be 1.87km from the neatest turbine, the development would not be as visually dominant as when viewed from VP 1 and sequential views on either side. However, my conclusion on its detrimental impact on VI&LC is the same albeit not of quite the same magnitude. Although the turbines described to the south of the site in VP 1 would be nearer, their presence in the landscape would not mitigate the proposed development’s significant and harmful effect on these considerations.
Broughderg area
10.37 VP 6 is on Broughderg Road (part of the promoted Gold Cycle Route). The closest turbine would be 4.43km away. The blade tips of 5 of the 10 proposed turbines in Glenlark would be seen above the ridge of Spaltindoagh. The 23 turbines proposed on the eastern side of Davagh Road would all be seen to varying extents, 16 from at least hub height upwards. The applicant said that there is also likely to be some limited and relatively distant visibility of other elements including short stretches of tracks between turbines, the site office and upper parts of three of the proposed meteorological masts. Albeit that topography would provide a backdrop to varying degrees, the blade tips of all 23 would be seen on the skyline.
10.38 Save for a nearby dwelling to the left hand side of this view, what appears to be a building or buildings adjoining a conifer strip in the mid-range view below Mullaghturk, the tip of the hub and blades of the single turbine 2.22km away at Broughderg, readily evident human intervention in the landscape is largely limited to small plantations and random strips/groupings of coniferous planting. The VP adjoins the last field within the intake before open moorland predominates. The lateral extent of the proposed turbines on the eastern side of Davagh Road would be very prominent and stark let alone the totality of the proposed development, which would extend across 60° of view. The single turbine at Broughderg is on lower ground. Its relative elevation and scale distinguish its impact on VI&LC from the comparatively detrimental effect that the proposed development would have.
10.39 Instead of the applicant’s VP 5, TPs asked that I consider the proposed development’s impact on VI&LC from a lay-by on the southern side of Broughderg Road just west of the hamlet that adjoins the “Welcome” sign, between VPs 5 and 6. Views towards the application site are more extensive than from VP 5. Whereas the wireline for VP 5 suggests that 17 turbines could be seen in part, the ZTV suggests that 25-30 would be seen from this lay-by. The magnitude of the proposed development’s impact on VI&LC would not be so significant as from VP 6 as the angle of view is narrower and the single turbine is a more dominant feature in the foreground, seen in its entirety including the associated fenced compound. However, the upper parts of upwards of 25 turbines would be seen extending above the ridge and on the skyline from a wide angle of view. Their scale, elevation, number and extent would distinguish them from the single turbine whose contribution to the baseline context is not so influential as to render the proposed development’s impact on VI&LC insignificant and not harmful.
______2018/C007 Page 103
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Glenlark
10.40 VP 8 is on Glencullin Road, a minimum of 5 km from the proposed development. It is also representative of a transient view when travelling northwards. The vantage affords a view up the Glenlark valley and also down into that of the Owenkillew River to the south. No approved or operational wind farms are seen. The applicant referred to “negligible visibility” of that at Cregganconroe almost 16km away. However, despite me actively looking for that development in the landscape, I could not make it out. Notwithstanding the presence of commercial forestry, dwellings/ farmsteads, electricity/telegraph poles and associated overhead lines in the view, the scale of the topography and the panoramic nature of the views, afford a sense of tranquillity and timelessness. The SPG notes the intrusive influence of forestry in LCA 24’s upper valley reaches but nevertheless describes it as having a “sense of wildness”. This vantage exemplifies that seeming dichotomy.
10.41 From this vantage there would be theoretical visibility of 10 turbine blade tips and 13 hubs, with 4 seen from base level. Access tracks between turbines, turbine hard standings, transformers and 3 of the proposed permanent meteorological masts would also be seen. The applicant’s visualisations show how they have tried to make the best use of topography in order to minimise the proposed development’s impact on VI&LC. Nevertheless, despite rising landform to the north and south and the backdrop of Mullaghbane and Carnanelly, the proposed wind farm, by virtue of its scale, extent, verticality and movement would have an overwhelming impact on the character and amenity of Glenlark, even when seen in the much wider landscape context than the valley itself. This comment is predicated upon the impact on VI&LC of the part of the proposed development that would be seen to the north and along the rise of Spaltindoagh. There would be theoretical visibility of 6 blade tips of turbines at the proposed development’s south-eastern extent along the slopes of Mullaghturk. It is difficult to discern from the applicant’s photomontage how many are likely to be seen. However, if as it seems that two blade tips would be seen on this southern side of Spaltindoagh, this movement would increase the lateral extent of the proposed development’s intrusion into the landscape. Despite a careful approach haven been taken to the proposal’s layout and design, from this vantage, it could not be accommodated without significant detriment to VI&LC.
Gortin area
10.42 VP 24 (254.16m AOD) is located approximately 13km south-west of the appeal site, occupying an elevated position south of Gortin village, at a parking area adjoining the Gortin Lakes picnic area and amenity area on the South Sperrins Scenic Route. It affords panoramic views over both the south and main Sperrins ridges. There are existing and approved wind farms to the north and north-west of this vantage. Bearing in mind my review of what the BPG says in respect of cumulative impact, I attach greater weight to the view north-eastwards and eastwards whereby the aforementioned turbines are out of one’s eye line. 2 of the 3 approved 74m high turbines at Crockanboy have been built (January 2020) and are seen to the south- west of the application site about 6km removed. Whilst they are located on the periphery of the cultivated fields where they march the moorland, one extends above the Mullydoo ridge. However, coniferous forestry aside, the uncultivated higher
______2018/C007 Page 104
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
lands have a distinct character to the lower lands with their field boundaries and numerous instances of dwellings and associated buildings.
10.43 All 33 of the proposed turbines would be seen. The applicant acknowledged that it is likely that there would also be some relatively distant visibility of stretches of the access tracks and part of the 5 proposed permanent meteorological masts. The proposed turbines in Glenlark would have a partial backdrop of topography, albeit that their blade tips would extend above the ridge in the background. Those on the eastern side of Davagh Road would be more prominent. Notwithstanding the presence of wind energy development in the foreground at Crockanboy, by virtue of their scale, lateral spread and relative elevation they would be dominant and prominent in the landscape. They would introduce wind energy development into the uplands thereby significantly changing the landscape character. The lay-by is marked on Ordnance Survey maps as a viewpoint and, as many motorists or cyclists would be stopping for the purpose of enjoying the view, visitors to this VP would be particularly sensitive to this significant and adverse change.
10.44 The summit of Mullaghcarn (542m AOD) lies about 3km south of VP 24. A tarmac track leads from Glenpark Road to the telecommunications masts thereon. An information board at the associated roadside lay-by refers to the annual Cairn Sunday community event at the summit from where there are panoramic views to Lough Neagh and the Mourne mountains. As with VP 24, the applicant’s ZTV indicates that 31-33 of the proposed turbines would be seen from the summit and a short transient view on the final approach to it. Like that lower VP, all 33 of the proposed turbines and 5 meteorological masts are likely to be seen. Due to the height differential between these VPs, there is greater awareness of existing wind energy development in the landscape from Mullaghcarn than VP 24. Therefore, whilst not quite so significant as when seen from VP 24, due to its individual and cumulative impact, the proposed development would nonetheless adversely affect VI&LC from this vantage.
10.45 Work is on-going within the Gortin Glens Forest Park to upgrade access and outdoor recreation opportunities. As Mullaghcarn is visually dominant on the eastern side of the Park it would screen views of the proposed development its visitors except those going to its summit. The applicant’s ZTV supports this assessment. Therefore, the proposed development would be unlikely to directly affect the economic benefits that this investment will hopefully yield.
Glenelly Valley
10.46 The applicant’s ZTV shows that 1-6 blade tips would be theoretically visible from the B47 that runs through the Glenelly valley north of the application site. Theoretical visibility would stretch from Cranagh intermittently eastwards to the vicinity of Goles Bridge, a distance of some 5.7 miles. However, this is subject to the 3 caveats set out in paragraph 10.23 above.
10.47 VP 4 is just east of Cranagh and the very tips of the blades of 3 turbines (4, 11 and 12) would likely be seen on the skyline, 3km away. Given the extensive nature of the view southwards, that the 3 blade tips would occupy a relatively small part of the view and the minimal impact of the proposed development on VI&LC, this does not ______2018/C007 Page 105
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
weigh against the proposal. This would be typical if not the “worst-case” scenario of the availability and extent of views along the identified 5.7 mile stretch of the B47. On this basis, I am not persuaded that body of concerns about the proposed development’s impact to users of the B47 weigh against it. However, if DfI was minded to approve this planning application and considered the principle of micro- siting to be acceptable, careful consideration should be given to the extent of tolerance permitted. The applicant said that proposed T1 to T10 inclusive have been specifically located so as to avoid notable visibility from the route through the Glenelly valley and it is therefore possible that minor changes to these locations could lead to an increased level of visibility. A limitation of 10m for micro-siting of these proposed turbines was discussed at the inquiry. However, in light of the above, DfI might also consider it prudent to extend this to proposed T11 and T12 if minded to approve this planning application.
10.48 VP 10 is on Sperrin Road (part of Sawel Cycle Route) near County Rock. It is 5.9km to the north and north-west of the application site. From this vantage there are no views of wind energy development, existing or approved. There is a localised crest (Mullaghrawer) in the foreground with views across the Glenelly Valley with the ridge to the north of the application site on the skyline; this is part of the south Sperrin ridge running from Slievemore eastwards to Slieveavaddy. Coniferous plantations are evident together with a strip of forestry that extends along the aforementioned ridge. The foreground is predominantly uncultivated moorland. The applicant acknowledged that this view would be available from approximately an 800m stretch of Sperrin Road. Save for a Dutch barn no other buildings are readily seen from this transient view. When travelling southwards on Park Road from Glashagh Bridge, north of VP 10, topography would screen views of the proposed wind farm until roughly 50m before reaching VP 10. The selected VP represents the “worst-case” scenario as regards views from Park Road.
10.49 Whilst the coniferous plantations are not a naturally occurring feature they do not detract from the sense of remoteness and tranquillity. That the road is lightly trafficked adds to this ambience. The upper part of at least 15 of the proposed turbines would be seen from this vantage, including the hub and full radius of the blades of about 3. There would also be limited visibility of parts of 3 of the proposed meteorological masts. The proposed wind farm would extend to either side of Mullaghrawer and would be a prominent and dominant feature on the skyline. The blades’ rotation would emphasise their significant visual intrusion and harm to VI&LC.
10.50 VP 14 is on Park Road and the closest proposed turbine would be 4.45km to the south-east. The VP adjoins the march between the open moorland and enclosed, cultivated fields that are evident on both sides of the Glenelly Valley. Roadside development is seen further south on Park Road whereas development across the valley is predominantly scattered farmsteads. Relatively small stands of coniferous planting are evident on both valley slopes with a more significant strip on the crest to the north of Glenlark River. Whilst there is not the relative sense of remoteness that one experiences further north on this road, the more pastoral landscape is tranquil with no existing or approved wind energy development evident. Various extents of the upper blades of roughly 20 of the proposed turbines would be evident together with the hub and full radius of the blades of a further 2 and limited visibility
______2018/C007 Page 106
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
of one of the permanent meteorological masts. The linear nature of their visibility above the south Sperrin ridge, north of the application site, would render them intrusive on the skyline and a dominant and prominent feature above the cultivated lower reaches of the valley.
10.51 The applicant’s EI acknowledges extensive transient views from Park Road extending in both directions of this static VP. From the upper valley slopes north of VP 14, existing wind energy development is seen and fewer of the proposed turbines would be evident. The ZTV suggests theoretically visibility of 7-12 and my observations bear this out. The lower reaches of Dart Mountain and/or the curvature of the road intermittently screen views of the ridge north of the application site. Having travelled southwards from a cattle grid roughly 2.1 miles to the north of VP 14 down into Sperrin village, the applicant’s visuals are a fair representation of the “worst-case” scenario whereby the turbines’ extensive linear intrusion on the skyline would harm VI&LC.
10.52 VP 19 is from the summit of Mullaghclogha, which is the 2nd highest peak in the Sperrins at 635m high. It cannot be reached by public road, asserted PROW or permissive path. There are panoramic views as far as Slemish. Looking towards the Glenelly Valley and the application site, the south Sperrins ridge and forestry within the Glenlark Valley are dominant features. There are numerous turbines seen on the horizon at the western end of this static view the nearest of which is 19.35km removed at Crockdun. The single turbine at Broughderg is not seen. To the east, on the opposite side of the Glenelly Valley to the application site, there are extensive views along the main Sperrin ridge with the summit of Sawel on the horizon. From here, clockwise to Crockbrack some 24.15km from the VP, just the two turbines at Crockandun (19.35km away) are seen against the backdrop of topography. All proposed 33 turbines would be seen with the hub and blade radius of all but two seemingly evident. From this elevated vantage, although not shown on the applicant’s visual EI, they said that some of the access tracks, the temporary construction compound and 5 of the permanent meteorological masts would also be seen to varying degrees. Where the access tracks are seen, tipping within the construction corridor would also likely be evident.
10.53 Moving through 360° are a range of existing and approved wind farms, the nearest of which is 6 turbines at Eglish some 10.3km north-west of the VP. Bearing in mind what the BPG says about cumulative impact, I attach greater weight to the views from east to south whereby the aforementioned turbines are out of one’s eye line.
10.54 The upper reaches of the cultivated lower slopes of the southern side of the Glenelly Valley are seen with scattered buildings along Corramore Road. Coniferous forestry is a significant element of the view towards the application site albeit that some of it would be felled before erection of the proposed turbines. In contrast to the turbines at Crockandun those proposed at the eastern extent of the Coneyglen Burn valley would be seen on the skyline with the nearest approximately 8km removed. The proposed development would extend across the ridge and have a prominent and domineering visual impact on the south Sperrins ridge. Whilst this landform is lower than that evident on the main Sperrins ridge and afforestation is part of its baseline context, the extent, scale and relative proximity of the proposed development would harm VI&LC.
______2018/C007 Page 107
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
10.55 Sawel Mountain, the Sperrins’ highest peak, is due north of the proposed development and 43m higher than VP 19. Given its relative disposition to the application site it is likely that the harm to VI&LC would be more pronounced from that vantage.
10.56 I have no reason to doubt that the summits of Mullaghclogha and Sawel are popular with hillwalkers either of themselves, in tandem with neighbouring tops or as part of the 30km long “Sperrins Skyway” that takes in this main Sperrins ridge. Indeed, the applicant described Mullaghclogha as a hill-walking destination and considered the susceptibility to change of people gaining this view when considering the VP’s sensitivity. However, for reasons set out in chapter 5 of this report, I can attach lesser weight to the harm that would accrue to VI&LC from these summits and the intervening tops on this ridge as a result of the proposed development by comparison to the public road network and places with formal public access. This is not discriminating against hillwalkers and other outdoor enthusiasts; it is a legal matter.
Ulster Way
10.57 The applicant’s Doc. Ref. RR4-001 helpfully shows the route of the Ulster Way (UW) superimposed on the Blade Tip ZTV. At paragraph 104 of the applicant’s RR 4 they identify the 4 stretches of the UW with theoretical visibility of the proposed development. Although I have not walked them all in considering this proposal, this evidence is consistent with the ZTV. When walking on the UW through the lower reaches of the Glenelly Valley the proposed development would not be seen.
10.58 The UW from Gortin to Moneyneany is also known as the Central Sperrins Way. Of the aforementioned 4 stretches of this long-distance route with theoretical visibility of the proposed development, that nearest to the application site is on the opposite side of the Glenelly Valley to the south-west of Moneyneany. The UW passes just below the 478m high summit of Crockmore and the 526m top of Crockbrack before dropping into the valley. The applicant chose the summit of the former as VP 11 as it is on the Crockbrack Way. From the end of Drumderg Road, Moneyneany the UW and Crockbrack Way are well sign-posted with associated interpretive boards on route. Notwithstanding that Carnanelly (562m) lies between this VP and the application site, given that there is permitted public access and the sensitivity of walkers and/or cyclists to changes to VI&LC it is a credible and representative vantage from which to assess the proposed development’s impact thereon. It would represent the “worst case” scenario as regards views of the proposed development from the Ulster and Central Sperrins Ways.
10.59 Climbing up the UW towards the branching track to Crockbrack one enjoys partial views of the ridges on both sides of the Glenelly Valley, both of which are currently devoid of wind energy development. From the steep track that zig-zags up to Crockmore, there are intermittent views of the 6 turbines at Crockandun below Slieve Gallion and the smaller turbine in the quarry at Cullion Road. When level with Crockmore, in addition to these, the 3 turbines at Brackagh and the one to the north of that wind farm are evident. On the onward walk onwards towards Crockmore one’s back is towards that view and to the south-west of the application site 5 turbines at Crockdun are seen in a line in the medium to long-range view.
______2018/C007 Page 108
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
From the VP are extensive views to Slemish, across Lough Neagh, Lough Fea and to the Mournes. If actively seeking out other wind energy development in the landscape, two distant wind farms away to the north-east of the VP can be made out but not in the same field of vision as the application site.
10.60 From this vantage 7 hubs and 8 blades would be seen, the closest 5.85km away. Of those that would be west of Carnanelly, save for 2 upper blade tips, the remaining partial views of the proposed turbines would be seen against the backdrop of landform. The other 8 turbines that would be evident to the east of Carnanelly would be seen on the skyline. Given the intervening ridge, there would be very limited visibility of other long-term site infrastructure.
10.61 Of the turbines at Crockandun, only the upper blade tip of the southernmost would be seen on the skyline. Likewise, the 2 northernmost of those at the more distant Crockdun. However, one has to be looking very closely to see this. By virtue of lateral spread, number and perspective, the proposed development would have an adverse impact on this view and harm its landscape character. Therefore, the appreciation and enjoyment of the local landscape by users of the Ulster, Central Sperrins and Crockbrack Ways would be adversely affected to a significant degree.
10.62 The UW website reports that only some 10% of walkers travel the whole 1,000km route. Given its length and that it passes adjacent to Evishagaran (east of Dungiven) and Bessy Bell (between Omagh & Newtownstewart) wind farms, the change to this view on a relatively localised basis is unlikely to significantly detract from the amenity of walkers who are undertaking the entire UW route.
10.63 In combination, the viewpoints that I have considered give a representative picture of the adverse impact that the proposed development would have on the area’s VI&LC when viewed from the main Sperrins ridge that runs eastwards from Mullaghcarbatagh to Crockbrack and Crockmore. The applicant’s ZTV shows the extent of theoretical visibility of the proposed turbines from the ridge. That photographs, wirelines and photomontages have not been provided for every intervening summit of more than 500m AOD does not render the analysis of the proposed development’s impact on VI&LC ineffectual, disingenuous or deficient.
10.64 TPs were also critical of perceived deficiencies in the applicant’s visual evidence as regards the proposal’s impact on the south Sperrins ridge from Craignamaddy eastwards to Slieveavaddy including Mullaghbolig and Carnanelly. Upon reflection after the inquiry, I did not consider that climbing onto the latter two summits would add to my understanding of the proposal’s impact on VI&LC for two reasons. Firstly, the applicant’s ZTV shows that there would be theoretical visibility of 31-33 of the proposed turbines from the tops of Mullaghbolig, Clogherney Top, most of the intervening ridge, Quiggy Hill and Carnanelly. Accordingly, the proposed development’s impact is not under-stated. Secondly, I can attach little weight to such views given that there is no asserted or permissive public access to them. Nevertheless, both this and the main Sperrins ridge form important skylines within both the application site’s context and the AONB. Whilst little weight can be attached to viewpoints from them from privately owned land, they proposed development would significantly and adversely encroach on views towards them.
______2018/C007 Page 109
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Greencastle area
10.65 At 335m AOD Crocknamoghil is the highest point on the ridge that separates the Owenreagh River valley from that of the Owenkillew River. The VP is below the summit. A track extends to it from the public road to the south-east. However, there does not appear to be formalised access given that there are no stiles to negotiate the intervening fence crossings. From that vantage the upper parts of the 2 turbines (3 approved) at Crockanboy are seen some 1.75km to the west. The turbine at Broughderg is some 7km to the east, viewed against the backdrop of topography; further east, 2 of the turbines at Brackagh (18.01km) and all 6 at Crockandun (20.55km) are evident. By virtue of distance and perspective, this wind energy development to the east is seen as a loose cluster. On the opposite side of the lane is an embankment with post and wire fence on top whereby the array of wind energy development extending from south-east to south-west is not a dominant feature; the applicant acknowledged this at chapter 6.8.12 (paragraph 220) of the ES.
10.66 All 33 of the proposed turbines would be seen to the north-east of this vantage some 6.7km removed, across approximately 29° of the view. All but 4 would be seen, to varying degrees, on the skyline. Several in the Coneyglen River valley would be seen from base height so access tracks would also be evident as would the 5 proposed meteorological masts. Due to distance, the proposed development’s lateral spread and the extent of visibility, notwithstanding that existing wind energy development would be seen in the same static view, it would become the pre- dominant feature. That the proposed development has been designed to avoid the higher ridges, including that of Spaltindoagh, does not mean that it could be visually accommodated without significant detriment to VI&LC.
10.67 Due to it being a point of public access and assembly and a focal point for the local community, not just for those involved in GAA activities, TPs asked me to consider the proposal’s impact on the GAA complex to the north-east of Greencastle village. They also requested that I take account of the view from the nearby junction of Greencastle Road with Carnaransy Road immediately to the north, known by the name of the adjoining dwelling “Pots & Pans”. From this junction there are extensive views towards the application site. It is on the 200m contour line and 135m lower than VP 12. Wind energy development is not seen from this vantage. The latest ZTV map shows 31-33 blade tips theoretically visible from VP 12 but 25-30 from the “Pots & Pans” junction. The difference in theoretical visibility would relate to some of the proposed turbines within Glenlark. The lateral extent of the proposed windfarm would likely to be less pronounced from this vantage than from VP 12 and intervening topography would probably screen views of proposed access tracks. Nevertheless, the proposed development would be the predominant feature is this panorama and notwithstanding the extent of the view, it would be out of scale and character in it to the detriment of VI&LC. As it would be from a public road, my conclusions in respect of it carry more weight than VP 12.
10.68 The GAA complex is set slightly below the level of the road to the east and there is mature vegetation along the northern side of the pitch nearest Greencastle Road. However, there would be more open views towards the application site from the pitch and associated stand furthest from northernmost access, reflecting the ZTV that suggests that 30-33 blade tips might be visible. Whilst the harm to VI&LC from
______2018/C007 Page 110
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
parts of the premises would not be as significant as from the “Pots & Pans”, it would nevertheless be significant and adverse.
10.69 TPs said that the view from Aughascribba/Aughascrebagh should be taken into account. They did not specify from what particular vantage. The applicant carried out a visual appraisal of the proposed development’s likely impact on the setting of the Ogham Stone within that townland, considered in the next chapter of this report. As the three VPs considered above are all from the higher slopes of the river valley than Aughascribba Road, account has been taken of the proposed development’s impact on the VI&LC of this locality.
Slieve Gallion & Lough Fea area
10.70 VP 25 is near the cairn on Slieve Gallion, north of the fenced compound that houses the telecommunications masts. One can drive up Tullynagee Road and park below the summit with a relatively short and undemanding walk to it mainly on tarmac and hard-core. From this vantage there are panoramic views through 360°. In the foreground the 6 turbines at Crockandun (2.36km away) are evident together with the 3 at Brackagh (5.58km removed) and a single turbine north of these that is similar in height but with a smaller blade radius. Several smaller, individual turbines are seen on the low-lying hinterland. The single turbine at Broughderg is seen some 16km removed. Save for the three uppermost turbines at Crockandun, all are seen against a backdrop of topography. The main Sperrins ridge and south Sperrins ridge are devoid of wind energy development. There is a significant visual break between these ridges and the dip in topography to the north-west where turbines at Glenconway and Altahullion can just be made out on the horizon.
10.71 In that same view, the proposed turbines would be seen beyond Brackagh wind farm, with the closest turbine 13.32km away. Given topography and landscape features, the theoretical view of the proposed wind farm shown on the applicant’s EI is likely to be realised. 32 of the proposed turbines would be seen, 22 from hub height. The applicant said that some relatively distant views of other long-term elements including access tracks and parts of the three proposed permanent meteorological masts would be likely. They added that the SS would be theoretically visible but is unlikely to be discernible as it is over 14km away. However, as the more distant turbine at Broughderg is seen, despite differences in height, I am not persuaded that the proposed SS would not. Although the proposed development would cover 9° of the view, it would have a harmful impact on VI&LC due to its extent, elevation, location and dominance. It would profoundly change the viewer’s appreciation of this part of the Sperrins.
10.72 VP 20 is from a small car park, with interpretive signage, at the entrance to a quarry on Cullion Road to the south-west of Slieve Gallion. Looking towards the application site, limited views of the upper parts of 3 of the turbines at Crockandun would be behind the viewer. The 3 turbines at Brackagh (2.35km away), that to the north and the Broughderg turbine some (12.45km away) are all seen against the backdrop of landform. Immediately north-east of the viewpoint, within the adjoining quarry, is a single turbine. However, this is not seen in the static view toward the application site. Despite actively seeking out other wind energy development to the west and south-west of the Brackagh turbines, I could not discern any of those shown as ______2018/C007 Page 111
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
theoretically visible on the applicant’s wireline.
10.73 Given the nature of topography and surface features, the theoretical view of 25 proposed of the turbines shown on the applicant’s EI, 16 from hub height, would be realised. My analysis of their impact on VI&LC is broadly the same as that for VP 25. However, with the relative differences in distance and perspective, they would be more prominent and dominant on the skyline.
10.74 VP 17 is on the path round Lough Fea, not far from the car park, play area and toilets that adjoin its north-eastern shore and accessed off the B162 that is part of the East Sperrins Scenic Route. Along the shore is a fishing stand/pier and various picnic tables, seats, shelters and a landscaped garden. The path is well-surfaced, very gently undulating and provides easy access. As evidenced by my anti- clockwise circuit of the 4.15km route on a cold and blustery mid-November Tuesday early afternoon, it is well-used by walkers and runners; it is evidently an important amenity site as well as a tourism asset.
10.75 From this vantage, with Brackagh and Crockadun farms to the rear, there is no wind energy development in view. Indeed, save for structures facilitating access to the lough, no built development is seen. There is a sense of wilderness and remoteness notwithstanding proximity to the public road. Looking over the lough and intervening land, which is predominantly uncultivated, the introduction of 12 turbines that would be clearly seen on the horizon and views of the blades of up to another 5 would adversely change the nature of this view and be harmful to the tranquil character of this expansive vista. Similar views would be available from points along the B162 as it runs along the eastern side of the lough and from the 4.15km path around it albeit that vegetation on its shore would screen and filter views of the proposed wind farm at various points and that partial views of the turbines at Crockandun and/or Brackagh (including that to the north) would be available at limited junctures. Even when viewed at a distance of 8km, the proposed turbines would be unsympathetic and detrimental to the area’s VI&LC.
A505 (Omagh to Cookstown road)
10.76 VP 23 is from a parking area on the A505 (part of the Central Sperrins Scenic Route) just after the turn-off to Greencastle when travelling eastwards. The applicant said that the viewpoint also represents the type of visibility that would be gained for about 2km of this road. That would include the area of the Seven Sisters. Looking towards the application site, the 2 existing turbines (3 approved) at Crockanboy are seen, partially on the skyline to the west of the view. Since the applicant’s photos were taken, the post and wire fence adjoining the lay-by has been replaced by a more substantial ranch fence that screens views eastwards towards Crockdun (4.74km away) when in a SUV. Only when I got out of my vehicle could I see the upper parts of three of the turbines. The applicant acknowledges that these have very limited influence on the view. The single turbine at Broughderg is not visible.
10.77 The proposed turbines would be seen above and against the highest landform in this view, with the nearest almost 12.7km away. 23 hubs and 8 blades would be theoretically visible. Whilst the backdrop of landform and intervening vegetation would screen 2 of the westernmost 5, their blade tips would be seen on the horizon. ______2018/C007 Page 112
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
All 23 of the turbines proposed on the eastern side of Davagh Road would be seen from at least hub height. There would be quite a visual break between them and the most prominent proposed within Glenlark. The applicant said that there is also likely to be some visibility of stretches of access tracks and the upper parts of 3 of the proposed meteorological masts. As the proposed windfarm would occupy the highest land within this view and due to its lateral spread, it would be prominent notwithstanding that it would occupy approximately 21° of the view. It would harm the view across the lower lands and intervening ridge that culminates at the higher, wilder mountain landscape. The proposal would adversely affect the VI&LC from this vantage and intermittently for a further 2km on the A505.
10.78 VP 22 lies south of the Creggan crossroads from Garryowen Road, which is a minor road that generally runs parallel to the A505. The VP is at a field gate just west of the old school and would be some 11.455km from the proposed development. The applicant said that it was included to represent the type of visibility that would be gained from elevated mid-range areas to the south of the site. Moreover, there is very limited visibility from the nearby An Creagan Visitor Centre due to screening by woodland and landform.
10.79 In the near foreground, commercial and residential development is loosely clustered around the crossroads. Vehicles on the A505 are readily seen. Theoretical visibility of Brackagh and Crockandun wind farms, shown on the applicant’s visual EI, are not available. The single turbine at Broughderg is seen 8.61km away against landform and beneath the ridge to the rear of which the proposed turbines would extend. There would be theoretical visibility of 6 of the 10 turbines proposed in Glenlark. If not screened by intervening vegetation, 2 of the upper blade tips would be viewed against landform and would not be readily evident. The blade tips of the remaining 4 would be seen above the higher part of the ridgeline. At least 22 of the 23 proposed turbines on the eastern side of Davagh Road would be evident to varying extents. Most would be seen above the intervening ridge and about half on the skyline. Setting aside 2 of the turbines proposed in Glenlark for the reasons set out above, the remainder would occupy 24°. The applicant said that stretches of the proposed access tracks, particularly towards the centre of the site, would be seen together with three of the permanent meteorological masts, of which two would be evident at nearly full height. Notwithstanding the character of the foreground, due to its lateral extent, elevated position and being prominent on the horizon, the proposed development would be a very dominant feature in this view and have an adverse impact on VI&LC.
10.80 VP 18 is at Loughdoo Road, south of the A505, east of VP 22. It is no more than a kilometre outside the AONB but looking into it from an elevated position that affords an open and expansive view towards the site. The applicant said that the view is theoretically intermittently available for just over 1km when travelling northwards on Loughdoo Road to this VP. On the left of this view are 6 turbines at Cregganconroe, 5 at Crockdun with three smaller ones between these 2 wind farms. These are seen to the left of a substantial cluster of dwellings with associated buildings mainly of modern agricultural scale and appearance. In their background is a single turbine. Almost due north of the VP is a single turbine, whose blade tip is seen, on the skyline, seemingly associated with a farm within a loose cluster of single dwellings. To the rear of these, 7.57km from the VP, is the single turbine at Broughderg, seen ______2018/C007 Page 113
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
against the ridge south of Glenlark. To the east of the application site, but within medium range view is a single turbine that is visually associated with a farm complex. It also breaks the skyline. There is no wind energy development on the furthermost ridge behind which the proposed turbines would be sited.
10.81 Of the 10 proposed turbines in Glenlark, 7 would be theoretically visible. However, the applicant’s photomontage is persuasive where it shows that only 4 would actually be seen – 2 the upper blade, the others from hub height. Of the 23 proposed in Glenlark, the upper blade of 6 would be evident, the remainder from hub height. Of the 27 that would be seen, all would extend above the northern ridge of those valleys and be seen on the horizon, with the nearest 10.15km away. The applicant said that there may be also some limited visibility of other elements, including a short stretch of the access track crossing the shoulder of Mullaghturk and 4 of the proposed meteorological masts. This rather underplays the visual impact of the proposed access track. Wind energy development is a feature in this landscape but, it is seen in the context of the lower, more extensively developed lands in the foreground where cultivated fields predominate moorland. Albeit more than 10km removed, due to its elevated position and lateral spread across the ridge, occupying approximately 30° of the view, the proposed wind farm would be a prominent and dominant feature. Notwithstanding that there are several plantations of commercial forestry on and near the ridge, it has a distinctive character compared to the lower lands; the proposed development would adversely affect this.
Davagh Forest
10.82 VP 13 is from a track within Davagh Forest Park. It does not appear to be part of the formal network of mountain bike routes but is readily accessible to cyclists and walkers. The latter would be particularly sensitive to changes to VI&LC. I approached it from Ballynasolus Road. The red mountain bike circuit crosses the approach track twice and from the first of these there would be partial views of some of the proposed turbines viewed along the “avenue” of trees. Only if one stops and turns to look eastwards are there filtered views of the turbines at Brackagh. Approaching the left turn to VP 13 there are extensive views of the site and these persist until the VP is reached. From this static and transient view, No. 259 Sixtowns Road can be picked out by virtue of the adjoining 3 Dutch barns. The single turbine at Broughderg is seen against a backdrop of landform. It is lower than both ridgelines that can be seen in its background. From VP 13 the view is across the mainly afforested lower land in the foreground, over cultivated land and moorland extending on either side of Sixtowns Road/Broughderg Road then with moorland and forestry towards the ridge. When leaving VP 13 to return to Ballynasolus Road, the 3 turbines at Brackagh and that to the north of them are seen. As one rounds the corner, with one’s back to the application site, the Crockandun turbines and the smaller one at the quarry adjoining Cullion Road come into view
10.83 From VP 13 the nearest proposed turbine would be 6.49km away. The applicant said that in addition to some of the proposed turbines, there is likely to be some “relatively distant visibility” of stretches of the proposed access tracks that run around the shoulder of Mullaghturk and between turbines and the upper parts of 3 of the proposed meteorological masts. The proposed temporary car park would be in front of the Dutch barns and would likely be seen in its entirety. Passing vehicles ______2018/C007 Page 114
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
can be picked out on Sixtowns Road but intervening topography would probably screen views of the proposed site entrance. However, the proposed access track leading into the application site from this point would be evident as it would cross steeply rising land to the shoulder of Mullaghturk. The car park is only to be retained during the construction phase of the proposed development, whilst the track is likely to remain after decommissioning. Both would be prominent and incongruous features in the landscape; their harm to VI&LC would be more pronounced than the applicant suggested.
10.84 Of the proposed turbines, 15 hubs and 16 blades would be theoretically visible, predominantly on the skyline. The proposed turbines at the eastern end of the Coneyglen Burn valley would be most prominent. The proposed wind farm would extend across 32° of the view. Together with the proposed access track and temporary car park, the proposed turbines would be the dominant feature in this expansive view and adversely affect VI&LC.
10.85 If DfI was minded to approve this planning application and the principle of micro- siting was considered acceptable, consideration should be given to imposition of a planning condition that would exempt the initial stretch of the access track (both proposed and existing) from the 25m tolerance. Albeit that the existing track within Mullaghturk Forest would have to be upgraded, including widening, and that those works would be apparent from this and several other vantages, deviating onto a completely new track would have further detrimental implications for the proposal’s significant effect on VI&LC.
10.86 The scenic drive in Davagh Forest Park is closed to vehicular traffic. I do not know whether this is on a temporary footing whilst construction work at the observatory is on-going. However, as an information board shows one of the mountain bike tracks running along a stretch of the drive, it would suggest that this is on a permanent basis. From the “top” car park and the nearby triangulation pillar at the summit of Beleevnamore Mountain, forestry screens views outwards. The proposed development would not alter these views. BADA said that the summit is to be cleared as part of a blanket bog restoration programme. Nevertheless, I can only assess the likely impact on the current outlook (early November 2019).
10.87 VP 7 is to the north of VP 13 and adjoins Davagh Road. It is on the Pump Track, which is part of an extensive network of graded mountain bike trails. It is near the “trailhead” where there are parking facilities, toilets, changing area, bike wash facilities, play area and picnic tables adjoining the main entrance to the Park. It is elevated relative to Davagh Road and only available to cyclists. Views from the approach to it (from an anti-clockwise direction) would be heavily filtered and then, at worst, glancing for the moving cyclist intent on their course. However, the applicant’s visuals are largely equally applicable to the view from the adjoining stretch of Davagh Road, mainly when travelling eastwards from the sharp bend in before the junction with Blackrock Road until shortly after the VP. There would be also views when travelling west on this stretch, though increasingly oblique. Although no wind energy development, including that approved, is seen from the VP, travelling westwards one can just make out what I think is the wind farm at Crockdun. However, one would have to be actively seeking it out as I was.
______2018/C007 Page 115
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
10.88 As described above, despite being on lower ground relative to VP 13, the proposed temporary car park and initial stretch of the access track would be prominent and incongruous together with tipping within the construction corridor. There would be theoretical visibility of 7 hubs and 9 blades of the proposed turbines, the nearest 4.14km away, and one of the meteorological masts. Taking forestry removal into account, I consider that this theoretical view would be realised, with the turbines seen on the skyline. The lateral extent of the proposed turbines along the ridge, considered together with the impact of the aforementioned ancillary development, would harm VI&LC to a significant and adverse degree.
Beaghmore & Blackrock Road
10.89 VP 15 is on Blackrock Road and would be 7.15km from the closest proposed turbine. Whilst it is a minor road, Beaghmore Stone Circles and Davagh Forest are signposted off the A505 at its junction with Dunnamore Road and shortly thereafter with Blackrock Road. These are tourism assets considered in Chapter 12. The road climbs to reach a crest some 0.5 km north-west of the junction with Corvanaghan Road revealing the view northwards to the ridge behind which the proposed turbines would be sited. Travelling northwards the view becomes more extensive and the type of vantage experienced from VP 15 would be gained from approximately 1.2km of Blackrock Road. It then drops down to reach a parking and picnic area and a little further on, Beaghmore Stone Circles. From VP 15 the turbine at Broughderg is seen against the backdrop of landform. Although other wind energy development is seen if turning full circle at this VP, when travelling north, it is not within eye line.
10.90 There would be a theoretical view of 30 of the proposed turbines. However, the applicant’s photomontage and my own observations suggest that 27 would actually be seen – 9 blade tips and 19 hubs. The access track would be seen as its crosses the shoulder of Mullaghturk together with the upper part of 4 of the proposed meteorological masts. Cultivated land in the foreground and along Sixtowns Road is evident but the higher land to the north has a different character. Below the ridge, whilst the plantations that are interspersed with moorland are commercial in character, they do not detract from the sense of openness when looking towards Mullaghturk and beyond to Carnanelly. The existing turbine at Broughderg is a small and relatively unremarkable feature in the landscape.
10.91 VP 9 is some 1.5 km away to the north-west of VP 15, at an elevation of almost 25m lower and from the southern edge of Beaghmore Stone Circles, looking across them. The nearest proposed turbine would be 5.7km away. It has the same visual and landscape context as VP 15 save for the turbine at Broughderg being nearer and its blade tip seen on the skyline. 25 of the proposed turbines would be seen including 9 hubs. The applicant said that there may be some limited visibility of other elements including a short stretch of access track crossing the shoulder of Mullaghturk. The proposed development would extend across less than 45° of the view. From both this and VP 15, the scale, lateral extent and verticality of the proposed development together with the blades’ rotation would dominate views to the skyline and have an adverse effect on VI&LC.
10.92 There would be static and transient views of the proposed development from Beaghmore Road that runs east-west and joins Blackrock Road between VPs 15 ______2018/C007 Page 116
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
and 9. The traveller, especially when going westwards, would have a more oblique view than from the northwards journey on Blackrock Road where the proposed development would be in front of them. Nevertheless, there are extensive views of the site from stretches of Beaghmore Road and for the same reasons as set out in respect of VPs 9 and 15, the proposed development would be detrimental to the area’s VI&LC when viewed from it.
Draperstown & Sixtowns Road
10.93 VP 21 is opposite the GAA complex at Cahore Road in Draperstown, approximately 1.5km outside the Sperrins AONB and about 10.5km from the nearest proposed turbine. 2 single turbines are seen in the agricultural land in the medium-range view; both against the backdrop of landform. Tall pylons carrying power lines extend across the view. The pylon in the middle foreground is seen to extend above the highest ground to the west, seemingly Carnanelly, but below that to the north at what appears to be Crockbrack. If permission is granted for the proposed wind farm at Corlacky Hill, the theoretical view of it from this vantage would not be realised.
10.94 The applicant’s wireline and photomontage show that 14 of the proposed turbines would be seen – 3 as blade tips only. These would all be to the east of Davagh Road at Mullaghturk and to north and the north-west at Brackagh North. These would extend over approximately 8° of the view. BADA said that at a height of just 112 AOD the VP would be more dominated by the proposed development than shown on the applicant’s photomontage. The wireline and photomontage are consistent with the applicant’s ZTV that shows theoretical visibility of 13-18 turbines from this VP. It is due to the VP’s elevation relative to the site, intervening landform and variations in the base and overall heights of the proposed turbines that I consider the applicant’s visual evidence to be reliable as regards the number and extent of proposed turbines that would be seen. However, I disagree with them that visibility of long-term infrastructure would be limited to the upper part of one relatively distant proposed meteorological mast as I consider that part of the proposed access track would also be evident.
10.95 Although the pylon in the foreground is seen on the skyline, the extent, scale and movement of the proposed turbines seen above the unbroken ridgeline extending westwards from Carnanelly would be prominent and overly dominant features in this landscape notwithstanding the degree of man-made influence therein. They would significantly harm the locality’s VI&LC.
10.96 VP 16 is located on Sixtowns Road about a mile south-west of the Church and school at Straw, between Disert and Labby. TPs were dismissive of it, preferring that the proposed development’s VI&LC be assessed from the vicinity of “The Shepherd’s Rest” some 5km to the south-west (nearer the site). VP 16 is representative of the “worst-case” view from Sixtowns Road for the following reasons:
The ZTV shows that there would be theoretical visibility of 13-18 of the proposed turbines from it. However, from south-west of the junction with Cavanreagh Road travelling towards the site and including “The Shepherd’s Rest”, 7-12 of the proposed turbines would be seen from Sixtowns Road; and ______2018/C007 Page 117
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Details of the applicant’s revised Residential Visual Amenity Assessment are set out in chapter 6 of this report. It includes 5 properties on the Broughderg side of the proposed access and another further south-west adjoining Mc Nally’s Bridge (these are Nos, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 & 14 on the accompanying map). They are on or near the road and on both sides of it. There would be theoretical visibility of between 2 and 7 of the blade tips on the skyline. As set out in paragraph 10.23 above, this does not take account of intervening surface features.
10.97 At VP 16 Sixtowns Road is in the foreground with vegetation extending to either side and partially screening the view of Mullaghturk and the lower reaches of Carnanelly. An electricity line extends across the road and in the foreground of the view. There are views northwards up the valley towards Moneynean; therein built development and field enclosures are evident. The ridge above which the proposed development would be partially evident is uncultivated “mountain” land that visually contrasts to the more intensively used land in the valley. There is no existing or approved wind energy development
10.98 7 of the proposed turbines would be seen from hub height, of which the full rotation of 5 would be evident. Varying extents of the blade tips of 2 would be seen together with the upper part of a proposed meteorological mast. The nearest turbine would be 7.4km removed and seen as an upper tower, hub and blade. Although it would extend across only 10° of the view, the proposal would introduce wind energy development and associated motion above the ridge and on the skyline. It would be a prominent and dominant feature whose vertical emphasis would render it out of scale with the character of development in the valley and hillsides’ lower reaches. It would harm the VI&LC of the area.
10.99 In paragraph 25 of the applicant’s TR 4 they said that, in the final layout, turbines were also pulled back from the sensitive skyline of Mullaghturk as relatively minor changes in turbine locations along this ridgeline were found to result in a notable reduction in the level of visibility to the south of the site. If amenable to the principle of micro-siting and minded to approve this application, I urge DfI to consider limiting the tolerance for proposed T29 – T36 inclusive to no more than 10m as discussed at the inquiry.
Proposed site entrance, access track and associated works
10.100 Creation of the proposed access into the site, the parking area that would be used during the construction period, the new portion of track on Mullaghturk and the proposed parking up layby (40m in length) at the site entrance before the temporary barrier would have implications for VI&LC from a stretch of Sixtowns Road when travelling westwards towards the proposed site entrance.
10.101 Despite this being an application for full planning permission, the submitted plans did not include details of the proposed fence behind the required visibility splays or the site entrance gate. In the absence of such details and given the nature of the proposed development, it is reasonable to assume that the fence and gates would be of metal construction and in the vicinity of 2m high, as opposed to a post and wire fence and field gate that are common within the locale. The applicant said that details of the fence would be agreed with the planning authority. Whilst ______2018/C007 Page 118
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
it is proposed to plant in front of the fence, vegetation would take time to mature and would be unlikely to screen it.
10.102 The temporary parking area would extend to approximately 3,150m2. It would involve the stripping of soil and laying down of a layer of gravel. Chapter 10 of the ES advises that after construction is completed, it is intended that it “will be largely reinstated to pre-construction conditions” (para 183). I assume the same would be true for the parking lay-by and temporary over-run area at the site entrance.
10.103 In light of the width and radii of the proposed access, dimensions of required splays, topography that rises steeply from the road, the approximate 280m length of new 6.5m wide track needed to link into that in Mullaghturk Forest and associated felling, the totality of the required works would significantly change the pastoral character and appearance of this stretch of Sixtowns Road. Tipping of soil within the construction corridor would also be a determinant in the magnitude of change. Albeit that the vehicle park would be restored after two years, the impact of the other construction works would remain for at least the operational phase. The applicant’s EI indicated that the extended track would likely be a permanent feature. By virtue of the undulating nature of Sixtowns Road in this vicinity, views of the proposed point of access, including the fence, would have a relatively localised impact when travelling along it. However, there would be more extensive visibility of the vehicle parking area, lay-by and new portion of access track. In all, they would be incongruous features in this receiving landscape and harmful to the experience and appreciation of it for those travelling westwards.
Moyard Road
10.104 Moyard Road is north of Sixtowns Road and north-east of the proposed access to the application site. I was told that it forms a loop off Sixtowns Road. However, the western end appears to be for private access only as: there is no road sign at its junction with Sixtowns Road; its surfacing suggests a private lane (albeit it may be shared); and the junction to the east is signposted and has a sign indicating that the road is a cul de sac. The aforementioned rRVAA included the “Moyard Road cluster” at the end of the public road and the foot of the Altaturk Glen at the eastern end of Mullaghturk and south of Slieveavaddy. The wireline showed that the very tip of a blade of proposed T20 would be seen from 1.75km away at No. 33 Moyard Road as views to the north and north-west are restricted by rising landform.
10.105 The topographical disposition of the public road relative to the application site together with vegetation and buildings would filter and/or screen views of the proposed turbines on the approach from the east. Towards the end of the public road, when at the entrance to No. 29, views open up towards No. 259 Sixtowns Road. The proposed site access, temporary vehicle park, initial part of the access track and parking lay-by within the site would be evident. If felling is limited to the corridor of the proposed access track only, as shown on Fig. 18 Site Access, its visual impact as it crosses the higher, steeply rising ground would be screened. During the construction period, the cumulative effect of these elements of the proposed development would have an adverse impact on VI&LC from this vantage and also from a short transient stretch of Moyard Road before views of it would be lost when descending to the cluster of buildings at its end. ______2018/C007 Page 119
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
10.106 I was not advised of MUDC having a record of legally asserted or permissive public access to Altaturk Glen. Therefore, I have not assessed the prosed development’s impact from that vantage as little weight could be attached to it.
LCA 25 Beaghmore Moors & Marsh
10.107 The SPG says that on its south side LCA 24 provides the setting for LCA 25 including its important archaeological remains. Of the VPs considered above numbers 6, Beaghmore Road, 7, 9 and 22 are all within LCA 25. Nos. 13, 18 and 23 are outside it but views towards the application site look over LCA 25. I have found the effect on VI&LC from these vantages and identified associated transient views to be significant and adverse. Therefore, the proposal would detract from the setting of LCA 25 and the ASAI.
Heritage Walk
10.108 Ballynagilly Community Preservation and Heritage Group submitted an annotated map showing a “Heritage Trail to Beaghmore Stone Circles”. They referred to the view from “Top Heights” but as they did not show its position on a map and were not present at the inquiry to identify it, I was unable to consider the proposal’s impact on VI&LC from this vantage.
The Mourne Mountains
10.109 From a number of the more elevated VPs there are distant views of the Mournes. However, as they would be upwards of 45 miles removed from one another, this does not necessarily mean that the proposed development would be seen from that AONB. Even if it were discernible over such distance, its impact on the VI&LC of the Mournes AONB would be not be significant.
Overall impact on VI&LC
10.110 The SPG acknowledges that forestry is an intrusive influence in the upper valley reaches of LCA 24. The applicant said that the design of the proposed wind farm is focused in the enclosed valley areas where commercial forestry and other infrastructure has already introduced notable human influences into the landscape. They asserted that as forestry does not display the inherent features and patterns for which the landscape is valued, that the landscape quality (condition) of the site is poor and less valued. However, the site cannot be divorced from its wider context. The proposed development’s impact on VI&LC has been assessed against its environs’ baseline characteristics. Its significant and unacceptable impact would not be limited to Glenlark and the Coneyglen Burn valleys. Whilst commercial forestry reduces the sensitivity of the landscape to wind energy development, its presence does not mitigate against the significant magnitude of the unacceptably adverse impact that the proposed development would have on VI&LC to the extent that would outweigh such harm.
10.111 Use of the site topography, particularly the valley landforms, to provide enclosure and limit visibility of the turbines to hubs and blades from the majority of views may minimise their visual impact given their scale, number and geographical extent. ______2018/C007 Page 120
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
However, mitigation through design would not avoid the overall development’s harmful effect on VI&LC when viewed from the wide extent of VPs from which it has been considered.
10.112 The proposed development would be out of scale with the receiving landscape and result in a dominant and overbearing influence on its key characteristics. Having considered the proposed development’s effect on the area’s VI&LC in the context of policy and guidance, I do not agree with the applicant that the site is highly suitable for wind energy development. Although the proposed wind farm would eventually be decommissioned, the eventual reversibility of its significant and unacceptably adverse effect on VI&LC would not compensate for the negative impact on those assets for at least 25 years; that is a significant timeframe. Although the proposal is consistent with criterion (ii) of Policy RE 1 of PPS 18, it is at odds with criteria (b) and (i) thereof.
Impact on AONB
10.113 Policy NH6 of PPS 2 applies to AONBs. It says that planning permission for new development therein will only be granted where it is of appropriate design, size and scale for the locality. It sets out three specific requirements that should be met, two of which are relevant in this instance:
(a) The siting and scale of the proposal be sympathetic to the special character of the AONB in general and of the particular locality; and
(b) The development respects or conserves features of importance to the character, appearance or heritage of the landscape.
These considerations are addressed by Policy RE 1 and its associated guidance. Policy NH 6 does not add anything of significance to the assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the AONB. Therefore, if the proposal satisfies Policy RE 1, it would also meet the requirements of Policy NH 6. The applicant specifically referred me to this approach to the interpretation and application of these two policies in paragraph 4.14 of their statement of case. DfI also endorsed this approach.
10.114 I am not aware of any publication, to be used for development management purposes, that defines the special character of the Sperrins AONB or any associated, designation-specific design guide. Various parties referred to the lack of a management plan. In these circumstances, there is no adopted benchmark against which a judgment can be made as to whether the proposed development would or would not be sympathetic to the special character of the Sperrins AONB.
10.115 For reasons set out in paragraph 10.23 of this report, the applicant’s RR4-001 showed the “worst case scenario” as regards theoretical blade tip ZTV. The proposed development would not be visible from the bulk of the AONB. However, from the majority of the numerous and geographically extensive VPs considered above, the receiving landscape does not have the carrying capacity to accommodate development of the size and scale proposed without significant detriment to VI&LC. Accordingly, from these vantages, the AONB’s scenic quality ______2018/C007 Page 121
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
would be compromised and the proposed development would be inconsistent with the cautious approach to wind energy development therein. Its unacceptably adverse impact on VI&LC would be exacerbated by the installation of aviation safety lighting. Indeed the applicant acknowledged this in their RR 4 (paragraph 14). Having concluded that the proposed development is at odds with criteria (b) and (i) of Policy RE 1, it would not comply with Policy NH 6.
Conclusion
10.116 The parties agreed that the definition of landscape has moved beyond the idea that it is only a matter of aesthetics and visual amenity. Although many TPs were anxious about the proposed development’s effect on VI&LC and the character of the Sperrins AONB, they also expressed visceral concerns about how it would fundamentally and unacceptably alter their strong cultural, spiritual and historic connections to their surroundings. The NIRLCA acknowledges local identity and “dinnseanchas” as material considerations. Whilst the landscape must be viewed as a dynamic entity, the scale of this proposal and the magnitude of change that it would affect thereon has the potential to detract from local peoples’ sense of place and connection to the land. Whether the totality of this harm to interests of acknowledged importance is outweighed by other material considerations is an issue that will be considered in the concluding chapter of this report.
______2018/C007 Page 122
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
11.0 ARCHAEOLOGY & CULTURAL HERITAGE
11.1 A heritage asset (HA) or historic asset is defined as any element of the archaeological and built heritage that is of sufficient importance to be a material consideration in determination of a planning application. An impact on the setting of a HA occurs when the presence of a development changes its surroundings in such a way that affects (positively or negatively) the asset’s heritage significance.
Policy Context
11.2 State care and scheduled monuments are regionally important historic monuments afforded protection under The Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (NI) Order 1995 [the Order].
11.3 Paragraph 17.2.2 of the OAP comments on “Heritage Conservation” but does not contain any policy material to such assets other than saying that the fact that a site or monument has not yet been scheduled does not diminish its archaeological importance or significance in the historic landscape. As regards sites of archaeological importance, MAP refers to PPS 6.
11.4 The RDS sets out regional guidance to conserve, protect and, where possible, enhance our built heritage and natural environment (RG 11). It considers the environment, both in terms of natural and built heritage, one of NI’s most important assets whose effective care provides very real benefits. Our built heritage is described as a key tourism and recreational asset whose sustainable management makes a valuable contribution to the environment, economy and society. The RDS seeks to: identify, protect and conserve the built heritage, including archaeological sites and monuments; and maintain the integrity of built heritage assets, including historic landscapes.
11.5 The SPPS, at paragraph 6.1, describes archaeological assets as important sources of information about our past that are often significant landmarks in the present countryside. This archaeological heritage constitutes an irreplaceable record and is an important economic resource that adds to the quality of life, promotes a sense of local distinctiveness and is an important aspect of rural character. Its aim is to manage change in positive ways so as to safeguard that which society regards as significant whilst facilitating development that will contribute to the on-going preservation, conservation and enhancement of these assets. Paragraph 6.4 lists the strategic objectives for archaeology as to:
Secure the protection, conservation and, where possible, the enhancement of our built and archaeological heritage; and
Promote sustainable development and environmental stewardship with regard to our built and archaeological heritage.
11.6 The SPPS provides strategic policy that must be taken into account in the determination of planning applications affecting archaeology. There is no conflict between the provisions of Paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9 and those of PPS 6.
______2018/C007 Page 123
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
11.7 Paragraph 3.1 of PPS 6 says that: much of the value of the historic landscape lies in, amongst other things, its local distinctiveness; that each site or monument has a unique contribution to make; and that some are distinctive landmarks. It adds that the siting of such places was important to the people who built them and were closely related to their landscape. It states that natural features, hills, valleys and sources of water form part of the wider setting of these sites, i.e. the area of historic landscape within which they functioned and can help us to understand them. Paragraph 3.2 says that they are part of our sense of place and the surroundings of any site or monument can provide further evidence about why that particular location was chosen for use and how it was used. It concludes that protecting sites and monuments and their settings is the means of maximising survival of information about our past. Paragraph 3.3 states that the desirability of preserving an archaeological site or monument and its setting, whether scheduled or otherwise, is a material consideration in determining planning applications. It points to the need to consider whether a development proposal would result in an inappropriate change to their setting and whether the existing quality and character of the site or monument would be retained. It refers to the many demands of modern society and striking the right balance between those competing demands.
11.8 Policy BH 1 of PPS 6 'The Preservation of Archaeological Remains of Regional Importance and their Settings' presumes in favour of the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains of regional importance and their settings including monuments in State Care (MiSC) and scheduled monuments. Development that would adversely affect such sites or the integrity of their settings will not be permitted unless there are exceptional circumstances. PPS 6 does not define “integrity”. The settings of MiSCs receive particular attention in paragraph 3.6 because these sites are a public asset that represent part of the rich archaeological and historic heritage of NI, which is presented for public access, education and enjoyment. The associated justification and amplification (J&A) text says that in assessing proposals for development in the vicinity of these monuments, particular attention will be paid to their impact on: the critical views of, and from the site or monument; the access and public approaches to the site or monument; and visitors’ understanding and enjoyment of the site.
11.9 Policy BH 2 of PPS 6 deals with archaeological remains of local importance and says that development proposals that would adversely affect them or their settings will only be permitted where the importance of the proposed development, or other material considerations, outweigh the value of the remains in question. The associated J&A text mentions the community value that may be attached to such sites and what they can tell us about our past. A number of factors are identified at paragraph 3.9 as indicators that contribute to a wider judgement of the assessment of the local significance of archaeological sites and monuments, based on the individual circumstances of a case.
11.10 Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 is also relevant in that for renewable energy development to be permitted, criterion (c) requires no unacceptable adverse impact on built heritage interests.
11.11 In February 2016 the Department for Communities Historic Environment Division (HED) published “Guidance on Setting and the Historic Environment”. Its ______2018/C007 Page 124
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Executive Summary advises that the document was produced by HED in consultation with a range of stakeholders in NI. However, their witness confirmed that it had not been the subject to public consultation. Whilst the provisions of the SPPS and PPS 6 carry greater weight, it is nevertheless a material consideration.
11.12 The document says that the setting of HAs is inseparably and intrinsically linked to their physical remains. It defines “setting” as the physical space that is part of, and contributes to, the significance and distinctive character of a HA and through which the asset may be seen, experienced, understood and enjoyed. It goes on to identify those key aspects of setting that can contribute to the significance of a heritage asset and outlines a three-stage process for assessing the impacts of change upon setting.
11.13 Appendix B of the guidance lists setting guidance in international charters and conventions and includes the ICOMOS Declaration on the Conservation and Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas (Xi’an declaration) 2005. Subsequent to this, ICOMOS published guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for World Heritage Properties in 2011. Given that HED guidance is mindful of the declaration and this pursuant publication, and that the ICOMOS guidance applies to World Heritage Sites, I am not persuaded that it is directly applicable in this instance.
Environmental Information
11.14 Chapter 15 of the ES contained a cultural heritage assessment that considered the potential impacts of the proposed development upon the physical fabric HAs within the application site boundary (inner study area) and potential impacts upon the setting of those within the wider landscape. The applicant agreed the scope of the assessment with NI Environment Agency: Historic Monuments Unit (NIEA:HMU) and consulted it on the proposed approach to the assessment whose methodology was set out in Chapter 15.5 of the ES. This included: Table 15.3 that set out criteria for assessing the importance of heritage assets; Table 15.4 identified criteria for assessing the magnitude of effects on heritage assets; and Table 15.5 comprised a matrix for determination of level of effect on a HA. In this chapter the applicant also commented on the setting of a HA. Notwithstanding that their literature review pre-dated publication of the HED guidance, paragraphs 47 and 48 of Chapter 15.5.3.1 have been borne in mind in my assessment of the proposed development’s impact on the integrity of the setting of HAs.
11.15 Baseline conditions were established, including the potential for undiscovered heritage assets within the inner study area, identification of 51 Scheduled Monuments within 10km of the proposed development and 93 locally designated heritage assets within 5km of it (Chapter 15.6). Construction impacts were identified (Chapter 15.7), mitigation through design and implementation considered (Chapter 15.8), residual effects of more than negligible significance were acknowledged (Chapters 15.9 & 15.10) and cumulative effects were assessed. This methodology is robust; there were no unresolved challenges to it.
11.16 The topic was reviewed in Chapter 7.6 of the ES Addendum in response to requests for further information from the DOE Historic Environment Division:
______2018/C007 Page 125
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Historic Monuments (HED:HM). TR 5 of the applicant’s statement of case revisited the issue and RR 5 of their rebuttal statement addressed issues raised in TP statements of case. The EI comprehensively reviewed the potential physical impacts on HAs and the likely effects on the setting of others during both the proposed development’s construction and operational phases.
11.17 The site and its hinterland, including the designated ASAI and its proposed extension, are not part of a designated World Heritage Site. I cannot pre-emptively treat them as such on the basis that undiscovered remains might merit the area being so designated at some point in the future. There is no policy basis for refusing this planning application on the premise that it might adversely affect unearthed/undiscovered archaeological remains or the integrity of their settings. Indeed, Policy BH 3 of PPS 6 and paragraph 6.10 of the SPPS specifically provide for a situation where the impact of a development proposal on important archaeological remains is unclear or the relative importance of such remains is uncertain. The applicant responded to DfI’s request for specified further information on particular archaeological sites. The fact that these parties still disagree on the proposal’s impact on several Scheduled Monuments (SMs) does not mean that DfI and its consultees are dissatisfied with the scope of the applicant’s archaeological assessment and evaluation or that they consider the proposal at odds with Policy BH 3..
11.18 Archaeological excavations may only be carried out under the provision of a licence granted by the Department under the provisions of the 1995 Order. Policy BH4 of PPS 6 and paragraph 6.11 of the SPPS set out policy on archaeological mitigation. The associated J&A text at paragraphs 3.14 – 3.19 inclusive of the former expands on the issue. Paragraph 3.17 thereof deals with situations where the significance of the preservation in situ of archaeological remains of lesser importance may be outweighed by other material considerations. This does not give a developer a free hand to destroy archaeological remains with impunity irrespective of the applicant’s evidence that such an asset within the application site was knowingly destroyed in the 1980s. Consideration of archaeological mitigation, as provided for by policy, reinforces the value of such HAs.
Scheduled Monuments in State Care
Beaghmore
11.19 Five scheduled monuments and a monument in state care form a small geographical group in Beaghmore townland to the south-east of the proposed development. The main complex (TYR 20:04) and MiSC (TYR 20:08) is a group of stone circles, cairns and alignments. Nearby to the east and north-east, on the opposite side of Blackrock Road, are two cairns (TYR 020:02 & 20:03) and a cairn and alignment (TYR 020:023). A 4th cairn (TYR 020:013) is to the south of the main complex. HED:HM expressed concern about the proposal’s impact on TYR 020:02, 03 & 04. The applicant provided extensive information on the sites’ context, relevance of views and the development’s effect thereon, principally in Chapter 15.7.2.2 of the ES.
______2018/C007 Page 126
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
11.20 Beaghmore is described on page 71 of the CAP as the most extensive stone circle complex in NI and one of the major complexes identified in Ireland. The importance of the site was recognised by all parties. Pollen studies suggests Neolithic activity occurred in the area from 3,500 BC and that the main period of construction took place from 1,500 – 800 BC. HED:HM advised that the main features are 6 stone circles occurring in pairs, with 12 small cairns and 10 stone alignments. The average height of the stones in these circles is 0.3m to 0.6m high. A further stone circle, known as “The Dragon’s Teeth”, is filled with closely set stones and contains the tallest stone, which stands at 1.2m. Running under these features are low banks of small stones, probably derived from clearing fields for arable farming in Neolithic times. They added that stone structures continue to the north, under the bog, and there are many other Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments in the surrounding area. The applicant acknowledged that the site is not fully exposed and more features may exist under the surrounding peat cover.
11.21 Based on the aforementioned pollen studies, the applicant said that the surrounding landscape around the time of the stones’ construction would have been dominated by woodland but with some areas cleared for agriculture and some areas of open heathland. Major clearance of forest cover did not take place until after 100BC and widespread accumulation of peat did not take place until about this time. The Stone Circles and cairns to the east of Blackrock Road with which the Department and TPs are concerned, were therefore likely to have been built in a clearing within what was still a largely forested landscape. This does not correspond with the present-day open and peat-dominated landscape.
11.22 The applicant provided a good description of the site context in paragraphs 182 and 183 of Chapter 15 of the ES and noted that there are open long views to the west, north and east of it. The information board within the stone circle complex discusses the “traditional” theories regarding astronomical alignments with contextual material on the layout of the complex. It points out that the landscape that is visible today is much changed from the Bronze Age. It is of modern rural character, predominantly shaped by agriculture comprising arable cultivation, pasture and commercial forestry. Roads, dwellings and farm buildings are dispersed across the view and the single turbine at Broughderg is seen approximately 3.7km to the north-west. The board describes the character and appearance of the landscape within which is believed that the complex stood. The applicant considered that the views along the alignments to the north-east and south-west, to the locations of sunrise and moonset, as described by this board, short-range views between the various components of the Beaghmore stone circles and views towards nearby monuments constitute the “critical views” of and from this MiSC. They contended that whilst there are views of the landscape and skyline to the north, they are not critical to any understanding or enjoyment of the stone circles. The added that the HA’s lack of visibility in the landscape means that views towards it are of limited relevance to understanding and appreciating it and that its wider setting contributes relatively little to its cultural significance. Whilst they agreed with the Department that the stone circles are likely to have had a functional relationship with other contemporary monuments in the area, they did not consider that an understanding or appreciation of this relationship relies upon any visual interaction between the monuments. Submitted evidence confirmed their contention that no other prehistoric monuments are seen from this site. ______2018/C007 Page 127
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
11.23 NED:HM said that the traditional, narrow interpretation of the monument emphasised the archaeological importance of the mid-summer sunrise. More recent research into the broader mid-Ulster grouping of stone circles and alignments focuses on other aspects of these monuments including the construction of identity and the importance of circularity in pre-historic societies, acoustics and wider astronomical and lunar associations. They contended that the key to understanding Beaghmore lies in its wider landscape setting including interrelationships with (unspecified) surrounding pre-historic sites and monuments and aspects of the natural environment, including the skyline. A cited academic source said that it is highly likely that the prehistoric landscape of the Sperrin Mountains was a designated, ritualised landscape. No explanation was given as to the function/importance of the skyline in relation to this site or the nature and purpose of the “ritualised landscape”. Notwithstanding, the parties’ interpretation of the site’s visual and functional setting varies in extent.
11.24 Evidence suggests that the nearest proposed turbine would be between 4.5km to 5.7km away. My measurement corroborates the latter. Vegetation would partially screen views of the proposed development on arrival at the roadside car park and from the initial approach to the stone circles. When on the path between the site and car park and vice versa, views of the proposed development would be peripheral. The applicant said that 30 of the proposed turbines would be seen from available VPs in this direction. Their wireline drawing from within the site shows that varying extents of the proposed turbines would be seen extending above the ridge that forms the horizon. Their lateral spread on the skyline would be extensive and visually dominant. The single turbine at Broughderg, due to its elevation and scale, would not mitigate against the visual impact of the proposed development. I could not make out any other existing wind energy development in this view and am not aware of any approved or proposed that would intrude on it.
11.25 Once within the complex, the presence of the proposed development would not interfere with the ability of a visitor to appreciate the stone circles, cairns and alignments, mostly experienced at close range, or their relationship with either other. It would be seen in the background of views looking north and north-west over the complex but would not diminish the legibility of the local landscape setting for the stone circles or impinge on understanding of the alignments’ function.
11.26 Albeit not explicit, the difference in the parties’ conclusions on the proposed development’s impact on this HA’s setting seem to stem from their interpretation of two of the three factors listed in paragraph 3.6 of the J&A text to Policy BH 1. These say that the decision-maker is to pay particular attention to: the access and public approaches to the site or monument; and the understanding and enjoyment of the site by visitors. To my mind, these suggest a liberal approach to assessing impact on setting that goes beyond the asset’s historic function and planned views to/from it and includes the wider experiential element as opposed to a more purist approach to its cultural heritage value. On this policy footing, a holistic approach to assessing its impact on visitor experience is reasonable as opposed to focusing on individual static and transient views of short duration. I consider it appropriate to take into account the proposal’s impact on the approach to the site from the south and north-east before the HA actually comes into view.
______2018/C007 Page 128
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
11.27 The proposed development would have a detrimental and unacceptable impact on VI&LC when viewed from: VP 15, stretches of Beaghmore Road and Blackrock Road; and when travelling eastwards on Davagh Road from the Forest Park towards its junction with Beaghmore Road. On this basis it would be likely to detract from visitors’ experience on approaches to this site. Wide-ranging views northwards from the monument contribute to the ambience and enjoyment of the site. It has a sense of remoteness and timelessness notwithstanding human interference within the landscape and its proximity to Blackrock Road. HED’s guidance says that the experience of an asset’s setting is not wholly visual but may include a site’s ambience and tranquillity. Paragraph 3.3 of that guidance identifies examples of issues that should be considered in any analysis of a proposed development’s impact on the setting of a HA. The second identifies the presence, extent, character and scale of the existing man-made structures within its surroundings as a consideration. Notwithstanding the changes to the site context since the Bronze Age, the scale, extent and elevation of the proposed development would be out of scale and character even with the modern rural landscape. These considerations, together with the turbines’ verticality and rotation, would render them the dominant physical and visual element in the wider landscape. Whilst this may not affect visitor’s understanding of the function of the site, this significant adverse impact on the wider landscape setting would be likely to detract from their enjoyment of it when considered in the round. As such, the proposed development would be at odds with the SPG for LCA 24 where it advocates that care should be taken to avoid adverse impacts on features of cultural heritage landscape interest.
11.28 Albeit that I am not bound by it, on the face of it, this conclusion is at odds with that of Commissioner Speirs in the Mullaghturk decision 2007/A1313. However, I do not have access to the evidential context, including plans and visualisations etc., in which he reached his conclusion on this issue. Moreover, the scale of the two proposals distinguishes them in that 7 x turbines with a maximum height 100.25m above finished ground level to blade tip and maximum hub height of 65m above finished ground level were proposed in that instance. On the other hand, it is consistent with that of Commissioner Rue in 2016/A0221 in respect of a single proposed turbine with a maximum overall blade-to-tip height of 92.5m approximately 3.5km to the south-east of the Beaghmore Stone Circle complex.
11.29 BADA expressed their belief that a potential new alignment from this site to the north-west and specifically Dart Mountain, has been discovered but said that this would verification from qualified archaeologists, which they hoped to provide in due course. As this was not forthcoming, little weight can be attached to this assertion.
11.30 As the proposed development would adversely affect the integrity of the setting of this SM, it may be at odds with Policy BH 1 of PPS 6
11.31 The cairns with which the Department is concerned are grassed-over mounds of stone likely to represent Bronze Age burial cairns. They are in similar moorland settings to Beaghmore Stone Circles save that views westwards are dominated by vegetation. Views to the east and north-east are more open as the ground falls gradually away towards the Davagh Water. They are not signposted, not visible from any great distance and are beyond a wire fence in private farmland. Without the path or visitor facilities, their immediate settings are less managed than that of ______2018/C007 Page 129
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
the Stone Circles and part of the working rural landscape. The main complex is not seen from either and vice versa.
11.32 The applicant contended that the cairns have been disturbed to such an extent that it is not clear if they have a particular alignment. However, their location on low- lying ground above the Davagh Water and overlooked by higher ground to the east and south does not indicate that they were intended as prominent landscape features. They added that, as with similar cairns in the area, both are likely to have localised settings with short distance views being of the most relevance. They suggested that the intervisibility of the 2 cairns is the only relevant view, although the presence of TYR 020:023 to the south should not be entirely discounted.
11.33 Albeit that I agree with the contention that few people visiting the “main” complex would also take the trouble to access these cairns, paragraph 3.2 of the HED guidance says that HAs have a setting whether they are publicly accessible or not. There is no evidence that access to these sites is restricted other than by lack of signage and a path. There would be broadly the same visual experience of the proposed development as from with the Stone Circles. HED:HM’s concern about the proposed development’s impact on these HAs is predicated upon its effect on the character of the wider landscape which they said contributes to the setting and distinctive character of these monuments. The reasons that I consider that the proposed development would adversely affect the integrity of the Stone Circles’ setting is equally applicable in respect of these remains. Again, the proposal may be contrary to Policy BH 1 in respect of them.
Ballybriest Dual Court Tomb, “Carnanbane”, Monument in State Care
11.34 This HA (LDY 045:003) is approached from Ballybriest Road where there is a small lay-by and directional and interpretive signage at the roadside. The tomb is one field in from the road (about 70m) on a locally prominent knoll. When on the site, there are panoramic views westwards, across nearby Lough Fea, and west north- westwards. The site is elevated above the host field’s northern boundary, which is marked by a line of thorn trees. Even in winter conditions they filter views of the quarry to the north within which the 3 turbines (110m to blade tip) at Brackagh are located. The nearest is almost 1.6 km away. There are partial views of these structures together with a single turbine to the north. These oblique views are somewhat peripheral when walking to the site moreover as the visitor is negotiating their way across the rough pasture and scattered stones on the collapsed field boundary. However, there is a greater awareness of this existing wind energy development when on the site and looking northwards. The upper parts of these turbines are seen against the sky. The single turbine at Broughderg can just be made out almost 12 km west south-west. There is a wedge tomb, another monument in state care, approximately 150m to the south (LDY 045:003). There are views from the tomb out over a modern, rural landscape of field boundaries, peat bog, rough pasture and occasional houses and farm buildings.
11.35 When returning to the road, the 6 turbines (125m to blade tip) at Crockandun are seen to the east with their hubs and upper blades against the sky. The nearest is approximately 2.1 km away. There is also a view into Gregg’s Depot on the opposite side of Ballybriest Road that is apparently used for mineral extraction and ______2018/C007 Page 130
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
processing. Noise from this site was a constant feature during my site visit on a weekday early afternoon; something that the applicant commented on.
11.36 The dual court tomb is aligned east/west and the applicant explains at Chapter 15.7.2.2 of the ES (paragraph 175) why they consider the eastern end to have been the main entrance. They said that this alignment, facing the sunrise, is a key characteristic of the monument type. Accordingly, views from its eastern entrance are considered to be “critical”. On the other hand, HED:HM considered that: as one of the tomb’s two courts is facing in the direction of the proposed development; that this view north-westwards is deliberate and functional. However, they did not elaborate on its perceived function.
11.37 The applicant’s wireline shows theoretical visibility of 22 of the proposed turbines at a minimum distance of 8.3km to the west north-west. The photomontage shows that 20 would actually be seen; 4 as blade tips and the remainder from at least hub height. Up to 5 would seemingly be seen from base upwards and, on this basis, there is also likely to be distant visibility of access tracks. When approaching the site, the proposed turbines would appear as less peripheral than those at Brackagh as they would be set at a higher elevation, views would not be filtered and they would be seen on the horizon.
11.38 The applicant considered long-distance views in the direction of the proposed development are of limited relevance to the cultural significance of the monument and not a key characteristic of its setting. They added that it would not interfere with the ability to understand this HA’s relationship with the court tomb to the south. They concluded that its operational effects would be negligible in magnitude. The Department placed more emphasis on the available views’ contribution to visitor experience, understanding of the site and the role they play in its significance and distinctive character. They were also concerned with visitor experience when approaching and leaving the monument and I was referred to the aforementioned appeal decision 2016/A0221 in this respect.
11.39 Looking at paragraph 3.2 of the HED guidance, I do not have enough evidence on the perceived function of the view north-westwards and the contribution it makes to the ability to appreciate and understand the HA to find against the proposal on this basis. Looking at paragraph 3.3, even if I accepted that the view westwards is key solely due to the tomb’s alignment, I have no evidence that the proposed development would dominate or detract from it in a way that affects the ability to understand, appreciate, experience and enjoy the cultural heritage value of the HA. Approaches to the monument on Ballybriest Road would not suffer any adverse impact as a result of the proposed development.
11.40 From the undisputed tomb entrance and when returning to Ballybriest Road, one sees the wind farm at Crockandun and the extractive industry at Gregg’s Depot. Although those turbines are not of the same scale as that proposed, they are 6km nearer. This instance is distinguishable from the cited appeal decision on the basis of context. In Commissioner Rue’s decision there is no mention of existing wind energy development being a feature of the receiving landscape in terms of appreciation of planned views, its function or approaches to/from the site. Indeed, he noted that the HA he was concerned with had a tranquil and timeless ambience
______2018/C007 Page 131
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
that is largely free of incongruous modern intrusions. The same is not true of the current situation at Ballybriest. The proposed development would harm the outlook from the site. However, in its more immediate context, the presence, extent, character and scale of the existing structures and land uses within the surroundings of this HA, the magnitude of this effect would not adversely affect the integrity of the monument’s setting. Accordingly, the proposal would not offend Policy BH 1 in respect of this site.
Scheduled Monuments
Broughderg & Keerin
11.41 HED:HM refers to a cluster of prehistoric monuments at Broughderg and Keerin, primarily funerary in nature. These are TYR 20:06, 20:07, 20:08, 20:20, 20:21 & 20.37. Respectively they are: Court tomb-Carnanagarranbane; Portal Tomb (Keerin townland); Court tomb (Keerin townland); Stone circles, alignment & cairn; 2 stone circles and a standing stone; and Megalithic tomb. 5 of the monuments are within approximately 360, of each other, with TYR 020:008 slightly further away, 660m to the west.
11.42 The applicant provided a description of their features, function, surroundings and access to 4 of the HAs - TYR 020:006, 007, 008 & 037 – principally in Chapter 15.7.2.2 of the ES at paragraphs 198 – 211 inclusive and at TR 5 of their statement of case, paragraphs 44 – 52 inclusive. TYR 020:008 is discernible at the greatest distance, approximately 150m, but none of the tombs are readily visible beyond around 50m. There is no intervisibility between them. They would be 3.2km, 3km, 3.6km and 3.2km respectively from the proposed development. They dealt with TYR 020:020 & 021 at paragraphs 143 – 149 inclusive in Chapter 15.7.2.2 of the ES and paragraphs 53 - 56 of TR 5. There is no intervisibility with other known prehistoric activity within approximately 500m which includes cairns, standing stones and megalithic tombs. They would be 3.3km and 5km respectively from the proposed wind farm. The ZTV shows that 25-30 of the proposed turbines would be theoretically visible from these 6 sites in views looking north and north-east.
11.43 HED:HM said that the proposed development would adversely affect critical functional views along alignments of these sites and also visual and contextual interactions between them. However, they did not identify the views of concern to them or the nature and extent of the visual and contextual interactions. They did not explain why they consider that the monuments demonstrate group value nor define “the distinctive visual character of their settings” so that I can understand their evidential basis for saying that the interactions between them are an important aspect of understanding and experiencing the historic landscape. TPs’ evidence did not assist in bridging this evidential gap. Taking into account the 3 criteria listed in paragraph 3.6 of PPS 6 and the 3 stage process in considering the impact of a proposed development on the setting of a HA set out in associated guidance, that the proposed development would be seen from these sites does not necessarily mean that it would harm the integrity of their setting. On the other hand, the applicant’s evidence explained the basis for their contention that: the proposed development would not interfere with the monuments’ functional setting; and that
______2018/C007 Page 132
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
their wider settings make only a limited contribution to their cultural significance and to their understanding and appreciation.
11.44 On this basis, the proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of this sites’ settings, the proposal satisfies Policy BH 1 in this respect.
Dermot and Graina’s Bed
11.45 These Scheduled Monuments are in the townland of Glenroan in the Glenelly valley. One is a portal tomb (TYR 012:005) and the other a wedge tomb (TYR 012:024). The applicant addressed these at Chapter 15.7.2.2 of the ES, specifically paragraphs 114 and 117. For the reasons set out therein I consider that the proposal would have no impact on their cultural heritage significance. The proposal is consistent with Policy BH 1 in respect of them.
Dun Ruadh
11.46 TYR 019:004 is a multiple cist cairn and henge at Dun Ruadh (Doonroe) in the townland of Crouck, dating from the Bronze Age. The applicant describes it at Chapter 15.7.2.2 of the ES (paragraph 168). The HA is on the south-western side of Crockyneill at around 210m AOD below the summit of over 250m and more than 5km from the application site. The cairn and henge have openings on their south- western side – the application site is to the north and north-west. The applicant said that the monument appears to have been built with reference to the Owenkillew valley and the monuments within it – these are described at paragraphs 166 – 173 inclusive of the ES Chapter 15.7.2.2.
11.47 The ZTV shows that between 1- 6 of the proposed turbines would be theoretically visible from the site. However, intervening topography is likely to impinge on this. The applicant concluded that long-distance views in the direction of the application site are of limited relevance to the cultural significance of this monument and are not considered a key characteristic of its setting. There was no specific evidence to rebut this analysis and conclusion. I note that HED:HM have no objection to the proposal’s impact on the integrity of the setting of this HA. Accordingly, in this respect, the proposal would be consistent with Policy BH 1.
Goles Stone Row
11.48 This stone alignment (TYR 013:001) comprises nine stones that extend approximately 15 km north from Glenelly Road. There is an information board at its southern end. The applicant’s ZTV shows that the proposed development would not be seen from this site. The applicant and HED:HM’s final, agreed position was that no visualisations would be needed in respect of this HA as none of the proposed turbines would be seen from this VP. In light of topography, this summation is persuasive and the proposal would be consistent with Policy BH 1 in respect of this site as it would not affect the integrity of its setting.
______2018/C007 Page 133
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Ogham Stone at Aughascribba/Aughascrebagh
11.49 At Chapter 15.6.1.3 of the ES (paragraph 64) the applicant said that this Ogham Stone (TYR 019:002) is apparently the only example of this type of monument in Co. Tyrone. It is a standing stone bearing an inscription in the ogham alphabet, which was in use during the period of conversion to Christianity. They added that ogham inscriptions are generally simple commemorations of individuals as is the case here. Though there is no evidence that they are marked graves, they may also have had a territorial function. From the site there are wide views across and along the Owenkillew valley. The applicant said (paragraph 170) that there are no obvious topographic alignments from this monument but it seems likely that it was built with reference to the valley and the river below. It is overlooked by higher ground, which they said creates a localised setting contained within the valley.
11.50 The ZTV shows that 7-12 turbines would be theoretically visible to the north and north east at a minimum distance of 6.2km away. Wireline and photomontage evidence was also supplied as part of the EI. For the above reasons, the applicant said that long-distance views in these directions are of limited relevance to the cultural significance of the monument and are not considered a key characteristic of its setting. This analysis and conclusion was not rebutted. HED:HM have no objection to the proposal’s impact on the integrity of the setting of this HA. Accordingly, in this respect, the proposal would be consistent with Policy BH 1.
Oughtboy
11.51 The SM of Oughtboy alignments and stone circles (TYR 012:022) is located in the Glenelly valley to the north-west of the application site. The applicant first addressed the proposed development’s impact on this HA at Chapter 15.7.2.2 of the ES (paragraphs 150 – 154 inclusive). They considered its relative location, access thereto, function, views outwards and visibility of the proposed development. They concluded that the HA’s lack of prominence in the landscape would mean that views towards it are of limited relevance in its understanding and appreciation and that its wider setting contributes relatively little to its cultural significance. Having reconsidered its position with regard to this HA, HED:HM withdrew its objection to the proposal as regards its impact on the integrity of the SM’s setting (email of 02.09.19). TPs did not specifically challenge the applicant’s analysis and conclusion. On this basis, I consider that the proposed development would not affect the integrity of these monuments’ setting and the proposal is compliant with Policy BH 1 in this respect.
Tullybrick
11.52 Tullybrick prehistoric pre-bog landscape (field and cairn complex) and megalithic tomb (LDY 45:18) lies to the south-east of the application site and north-east of Davagh Forest. The applicant first considered the proposal’s likely impact thereon at Chapter 15.7.2.2 of the ES. It was one of 5 SMs where they concluded that, as they were wholly or partially concealed under the surface of the bog, their setting and wider views to and towards them is of limited relevance to an understanding of their cultural significance; this lies more in their value as potential archaeological resources. HED:HM did not ask for further analysis of the site and, having
______2018/C007 Page 134
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
reconsidered its position with regard to this HA, it withdrew its objection (email of 02.09.19). TPs did not specifically challenge the applicant’s analysis of and conclusion on this consideration. On this basis, I consider that the proposed development would not affect the integrity of these monuments’ setting and the proposal is compliant with Policy BH 1 in this respect.
Crockatanty – Non Scheduled Monument in State Care
11.53 TPs referred to a HA “opposite Crockatanty Mountain that houses an ancient tomb of significant archaeological interest”. This was not identified on an accompanying map. In their Table 15.7 that lists SMs and MiSC included in their assessment, the applicant referred to TYR 019:109 in the townland of Crockatanty and Figure 15.5 of the ES shows it located near the summit of Greenan Hill, at around 310m AOD, to the north-west of where “Crockantanty” is marked on the OS map. They described it as a natural feature that may have been adapted for use as an improvised shelter whereby a hollow has been created beneath a large natural boulder. They said that there a wide views available from it, across the lower slopes of a hill, allowing herdsmen to comfortably monitor their livestock.
11.54 The ZTV shows that 31-33 of the proposed turbines would be theoretically visible from this vantage at a minimum distance of around 3.4km to the north-east. This would not compromise the ability to appreciate the open views across the hillside. As there is no alternative evidence as to how the proposal might affect the integrity of this HA’s setting, in this context, the proposal complies with Policy BH 1.
Heritage Assets of Local Importance
Doraville/Mullaghturk Mass Rock
11.55 The site was identified as located in the townland of Tievebrack and lying on the south-western slope of Mullaghturk at around 360 – 370 AOD and within the application site. HED:HM confirmed that it is not included in the NI Sites and Monuments Record and added that as there are many other mass rocks included therein, this would qualify for inclusion. The applicant agreed saying that such sites are included for their historical interest, folklore association and relative rarity, with only 38 listed in NI. Mass rocks were used when Penal laws were in force so were intended to be secret, hidden and often in isolated valleys but within walking distance of where the “congregation” lived and afforded surveillance of their hinterland.
11.56 The ZTV shows that from this vantage there would be theoretical visibility of 31-33 turbines. The nearest would be T35 at approximately 0.55km removed, with a blade tip height of 136m and its base at 352m AOD. It would be at least 110m higher than the elevation of the mass rock. Separation distance and perspective would detract from the magnitude in difference of their scale to a limited degree. Taking account of the appearance, scale and impact on landscape character of existing man-made structures within its surroundings, the presence, extent and character of the proposed development would be very dominant by comparison to them and this HA. The proposed development would significantly change the character of the views available from this HA. Whilst it would not significantly
______2018/C007 Page 135
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
impede the historic function of views outwards i.e. for surveillance purposes, the cumulative visual impact of the wind farm would markedly detract from the sense of remoteness, ambience, evocation of the past, removal from the modern world, cultural identity and spiritual response. That mass was celebrated there in 2014 (newspaper clipping submitted in evidence) illustrates its archaeological and cultural importance in the local context and that it is valued by the local community for its historic significance centuries after the repeal of Penal laws.
11.57 In terms of historical interest and rarity, at least two of the bullet points listed in paragraph 3.9 of PPS 6 as factors in assessing the local significance of archaeological sites or monuments apply to this HA. The proposed development would change the context of the mass rock’s wider setting to such a degree that its key characteristics would be substantively affected. Accordingly, as the integrity of the setting of this site would be adversely affected by it, the proposal may be at odds with Policy BH 2 of PPS 6.
Spaltindoagh Stone Man (TYR 013:003)
11.58 Spaltindoagh Stone Man lies within the application site. It is a prehistoric standing stone on the south-east slope of Spaltindoagh at a height of approximately 400m. It is approximately 1.5m high and is a HA of local importance. The applicant considered the function of, access to, views from and the proposed development’s impact on its setting in Chapter 15.7.2.1 of the ES and Table 7.6.2 of the ES Addendum. They identified the key characteristic of its setting as the wide views available from the HA north-east, east and south-eastwards.
11.59 The ZTV shows that there would be theoretical visibility of 25-30 turbines from this site. The 23 turbines proposed on the eastern side of Davagh Road would be to the north-east, east and south-east of it. The closest of these would be T27 some 1.35km away, at 278 AOD and 149m high to blade tip. One of the proposed meteorological masts would be located between T27 and this site. The proposed development would significantly alter the nature of the views available from this HA. However, it would not obstruct or prevent appreciation of “critical” views or change the details of the wider setting to such a degree that the key characteristics of this HA would be substantively affected. HED:HM was in agreement with this analysis. The proposal would not offend Policy BH 2 in this respect.
Unidentified heritage assets
11.60 TPs referred made to: court tombs, dolmens, wedge tomb, probable passage tomb, stone alignments, cairns, standing stones, early dwelling sites and “much more”; a range of archaeological monuments that includes more than 100 sites (some with multiple features); at least 59 sites of interest are already known in the area of Broughderg. However, save for those specifically considered above, none were identified, shown on a map nor an explanation given as to how the proposed development would affect their setting and understanding of their archaeological/ cultural significance. HED:HM said that it had focused on the proposal’s most serious impacts upon the most sensitive archaeological receptors of regional significance but this should not be considered as an exhaustive list of all sites affected. However, without specific evidence as to how the proposed development
______2018/C007 Page 136
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
might affect those HAs and/or the integrity of their setting, there is no evidence to weigh against the applicant’s extensive EI on the subject. Therefore, little weight can be attached to such generalised concerns.
Mitigation
11.61 The EI identified a diversity and wealth of archaeological features within the study areas, including the application site. Accordingly, there is potential for further archaeological findings. The applicant acknowledged that there is some potential for impacts on previously unknown archaeological remains within the site, particularly prehistoric features that may be concealed by blanket bog. Chapter 15.8 of the ES dealt with mitigation. Paragraph 291 thereof said that micro-siting, if accepted in principle by the Department, would avoid construction impacts on HAs where this is possible and proportionate to the significance of the predicted effect on the asset. However, if planning permission were forthcoming, and in accordance with planning policy, conditions requiring a programme of archaeological evaluation would be necessary to ensure that any features of archaeological significance are identified and recorded.
Conclusions
11.62 Albeit that I do not agree with their conclusion on all the identified HAs, the entirety of the applicant’s EI provides a robust analysis of the potential impact of the proposed development on them. It would have an adverse impact on the integrity of the setting of a Scheduled MiSC, two associated Scheduled Monuments and that of an archaeological remain of local importance. There are no appropriate mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts. This would potentially be contrary to Policies BH 1 and BH 2 of PPS 6 and criterion (c) of Policy RE 1 of PPS 18.
______2018/C007 Page 137
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
12.0 TOURISM
Tourism Policy
12.1 The documents referred to are not an exhaustive overview of tourism policy applicable to the application site and its environs; they are those that were cited.
Draft Tourism Strategy for NI to 2020
12.2 This provides the strategic direction and targets for NI tourism. In implementing it, Tourism NI aims to support tourism stakeholders in the production and delivery of Destination Development Plans. 9 key destinations are identified, one of which is Tyrone and the Sperrins. Making better use of natural resources such as forest parks is identified as a means of attracting visitors. Targeted marketing is also seen as playing a major role in boosting tourism with priority market segments including culture seekers, special interests breaks such as walking and green travel. The consultation period on this draft strategy ended in May 2010. It was announced in January 2012 that it would be revised to reflect the global downturn in the tourism market. Plans for an updated strategy appear to have stalled in 2016. Given that the 2010 document is a draft, it was to be re-visited and covered the period to 2020, limited weight is attached to it.
Draft Tyrone and the Sperrins Tourism Destination Management Plan – July 2013
12.3 None the parties who referred to this document submitted a copy of it or provided an operational link. Therefore, I was unable to consider its provisions, implications for the current proposal and quotations attributed to it in context.
Sperrins Outdoor Recreation Plan – September 2013
12.4 This was commissioned by Sport NI with the aim of preparing a framework for the sustainable development, management and promotion of future outdoor recreation facilities and opportunities within the Sperrins region, accommodating both the needs of the local community and visitors. Its scope is the Sperrins AONB and the four scenic driving routes identified later in this chapter. The most significant issue constraining future development was identified as the absence of a single co- ordinating management body with responsibility for the development, management or promotion of the Sperrins region as a whole. Development within the AONB was said to be constrained because there is no dedicated AONB Officer or Management Plan. At that time, the area was governed by 7 DCs.
MUDC Tourism Strategy
12.5 This document covers the period to 2021. A key identified issue is that the Sperrins AONB falls under the auspices of 4 local authorities and the absence of a single co-ordinating management body responsible for landscape, tourism and related issues, results in a policy vacuum and implementation weaknesses as they relate to countryside access and product development. Identified opportunities for the future included: archaeological sites and facilities; further initiatives such as the ______2018/C007 Page 138
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Dark Skies project to enhance off-season visitation; and the potential to exploit the Sperrins for outdoor activities and for its contribution to the history and heritage of the area. A strategic aim and objective is to develop three tourism strands around which the attributes of the area and the industry can cluster and attract visitors. Two are: archaeological sites, history and heritage; and outdoor activities.
Planning Policy
12.6 Paragraph 16.1 of the OAP says that Omagh District has a fine rural scenic heritage which has the potential to generate greater interest and revenue from tourism. The Gortin Glen Forest Park and the mountain and river valley scenery of the Sperrins are described as existing magnets in paragraph 16.2.
12.7 The MAP identifies the potential for growth in tourism in the District as resting on the beauty of the landscapes and variety of interests and heritage features to be enjoyed. Amongst other assets, the Sperrin Mountains are recognised for the quality of their natural landscapes.
12.8 One of 8 aims of the RDS 2035 is to support villages and rural communities to maximise their potential as they offer opportunities in terms of the provision of rural recreation and tourism. RG 4 seeks to promote a sustainable approach to the provision of tourism infrastructure and paragraph 3.7 sets out the advantages of doing so including health benefits to be gained by a more active resident population who are motivated to be out and about exploring more of NI’s tourism assets (TAs). Paragraph 11.4 sets out the valuable contribution that historic sites and landscapes make to the tourism economy. Paragraph 3.77 identifies the Sperrins as providing opportunities for tourism in what is now the MUDC area.
12.9 The SPPS (paragraph 6.251) acknowledges the vital contribution that tourism makes to the NI economy. Paragraphs 6.252 and 6.253 cross-reference to other strategic policy that illustrate that it is seen by the Executive as one of the building blocks to underpin its priority of growing a sustainable economy and investing in the future. The SPPS says that sustainable tourism development is brought about by balancing the needs of tourists and the tourism industry with conserving the TA. One of the regional strategic objectives for tourism is safeguarding TAs from inappropriate development.
12.10 Section 1 of PPS 16 acknowledges the important contribution that tourism makes to the NI economy both directly and indirectly. It is described as a key economic driver. The role of the planning system is recognised in fostering sustainable tourism development.
12.11 Policy TSM 8 of PPS 16 deals with the safeguarding of TAs. Paragraph 7.41 thereof says that there are many diverse features or combinations of features associated with the natural and built heritage in NI that are of intrinsic interest to tourists and examples include AONBs and historical and archaeological sites. Appendix 1 defines “tourism”, “tourists” and “tourism asset”. The latter is defined as any feature associated with the built or natural environment, which is of intrinsic interest to tourists.
______2018/C007 Page 139
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
12.12 As the definition of what constitutes a TA is set out in NI planning policy, I need not look beyond it. There is no policy requirement that a site/area must be shown to generate direct revenue/income to be classed as such. Accordingly, I do not agree with the applicant’s stance that if a particular entity is referred to as a TA, but generates little if any associated revenue, then the tourism designation of that asset must be challenged.
12.13 The applicant referred to the definition of tourism as involving taking a trip outside (their emphasis) one’s usual environment. In that context, they said that reference to users of public recreational facilities and local amenities would seem to infer activity within the usual environment; consequently, such users of local amenity are not tourists. The added that any facility that is predominantly frequented by local users should be understood as local amenity and is therefore not a TA. The latter inference goes beyond what is stated in NI planning policy. On that basis, I see nothing that would prevent a site or amenity that is frequented by users/visitors who are not defined as “tourists” from being both a TA and a local amenity.
12.14 Policy TSM 8 sets out a two-stage test with regard to a proposed development’s impact on TAs. The first is whether, by itself or in combination with existing and approved development in the locality, the proposed development would have an adverse impact on a TA. If the first stage test identifies a likely adverse impact, then the decision-maker has to consider whether it would significantly compromise that asset’s tourism value. If the first stage of the test does not identify adverse impact on a TA, the second stage is not engaged. Paragraph 7.42 of the associated J&A text gives examples of what might constitute “adverse impact” and includes visual impact, for example, within an area of high landscape quality, which could be important for attracting tourists. It adds that the definition of “adverse impact” and the determination of the extent of its influence are matters of planning judgement and each case will be assessed on its merits. There is no requirement that the likely adverse impact must be quantifiable in financial terms.
12.15 Amongst other things, paragraph 7.43 of PPS 16 says that Policy TSM 8 is not intended to prevent all development; that which would not significantly compromise the overall tourism value of the asset may be facilitated. It adds that where the TA is large scale, for example an AONB, key locations of tourism value at a local level should also be safeguarded. The J&A text states twice that an AONB is a TA.
12.16 Paragraph 1.3.80 of the BPG says that recreation and tourism are a significant element of the NI economy and can depend to varying degrees on the quality of the environment. It adds that wind energy developments are not necessarily considered to be incompatible with tourism and leisure interests but, it is acknowledged that care needs to be taken to ensure that insensitively sited wind energy developments do not impact negatively on tourism potential. The results of survey work in the RoI in 2003 are said to indicate that tourism and wind energy “can co-exist happily”.
12.17 Paragraph 1.3.81 thereof provides that for future wind farms, the judgement of acceptability based on landscape protection should provide adequate protection for tourism interests as the threshold of landscape protection is generally more sensitive to wind farm development than tourism. However, as I concluded in
______2018/C007 Page 140
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
chapter 10 that the proposal’s impact on VI&LC and this part of the AONB is unacceptable, the impact on tourism interests falls to be considered.
12.18 Whilst material considerations, planning policy does not require that where an adverse impact is identified on a TA that it must be shown that: it attracts visitors, directly generates visitor expenditure or specifically creates tourism employment in the local area; and that such an impact would lead to changes in tourist behaviour with attendant implications in spending by tourists in the local economy.
Environmental Information
12.19 Chapter 5 of the ES dealt with socio-economics, tourism and recreation. Chapter 7.9, Appendices 7.9.1 and 7.9.2 of the Addendum to the ES reviewed these topics. The issue of the tourism economy and tourism were discussed in TR 2 and TR 8 respectively of the applicant’s statement of case. Tourism was the subject of their RR 8.
Consultation
12.20 Tourism NI advised that on 1 April 2015, local tourism responsibilities transferred to Councils. However, they made some strategic comments mainly to do with the impact of wind farms on tourism. They said that this should be supplemented by the local tourism perspective and deferred to District Councils as having a greater level of familiarity with local tourism plans and product that the proposal may affect.
12.21 TPs referred to Tourism NI’s consultation response in respect of the proposed wind farm at Beltonanean, the appeal in respect of which was withdrawn (2017/A0257). However, as they did not submit a copy of it, I cannot consider the attributed comment in its context and attach little weight to it.
12.22 FODC said that the Sperrins AONB is a significant tourist attraction within its area, albeit that it is under-utilised; its landscape is the main TA. Whilst acknowledging that a balance must be struck between economy, environment and tourism in respect of this proposal, it strongly contended that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on tourism, especially activity tourism.
12.23 MUDC said that it and FODC have identified the Davagh/Beaghmore area and wider Sperrins region as having potential for tourism development. They added that with “honeypot” sites within the neighbouring Causeway Coast and Glens coming under unsustainable pressure, the issue needed to be considered on a regional basis whereby the Sperrins represent a largely undeveloped opportunity to generate further tourism spend within NI. They added that the applicant’s reliance on NISRA figures on economic activity with the tourism sector does not take this potential into account They submitted that many of the planned developments in this sector specifically focus on the unspoilt nature of the Sperrins, its natural heritage and archaeological richness.
12.24 Derry & Strabane DC (DSDC) had concerns with regards to the potential damage to the intrinsic character and quality of the tourism assets of the Sperrins AONB by reason of the proposed development’s unacceptable visual impact. This stance
______2018/C007 Page 141
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
appeared to have been strongly influenced by views of the proposed development from Glenelly Road and Sperrin Heritage Centre. However, for reasons set out in Chapter 10, such concerns do not weigh against the proposal. Their comments also related to hill walking in the high Sperrins and the Central Sperrins Way. No evidence was provided of asserted PROWs or permissive paths providing formalised access to any of the summits mentioned.
Visitor attitudes to wind farms
12.25 Conflicting evidence was presented on the impact of wind farms on tourism. DfI Economics Branch crystallised this dichotomy in saying that the issue is the perception of the impact a wind farm has on the visual environment depends on the individual.
12.26 Tourism NI referred to research it commissioned in 2011 whereby 52% of domestic visitors and 48% of RoI visitors would be happy to visit an area with wind turbines. This means that around half of domestic and RoI visitors failed to indicate that they would be happy to visit an area with wind turbines. 40% of respondents agreed that wind farms do not spoil the landscape and 33% that any negative impact would be outweighed by their environmental benefits. The applicant added that the study also found that 5% of tourists would avoid returning to an area with wind farms. As Tourism NI said, those attitudes were likely to be based on the level of wind farm development that had taken place in 2011. As they acknowledged, while there may be an impact on visitor perceptions and enjoyment, it is difficult to conclude how much of the impact, if any, would be reflected in visitor behaviour. Visitors may be deterred from visiting NI in general or such impact may be localised whereby visitors may be displaced from one area to another.
12.27 There was no reference to more recent research in the NI context. A report from 2012 commissioned by Failte Ireland followed up on one from a decade earlier. It found that:
Visitor attitudes to wind farms in RoI had not changed dramatically in that period and there was still generally a positive disposition amongst tourists to them. 47% of tourists considered that wind farms would have a positive impact and 10% held the contrary view;
71% of visitors said that potentially greater numbers of wind farms in RoI over the next few years would have either no impact or a positive impact on their likelihood to visit the country;
The location of the wind farm was also a key factor with greater negativity towards those located on coastal landscapes, mountains and farmland than there was to those on bog or industrial land; and
47% of visitors favoured large turbines over small (28%) and in smaller numbers with the option of 5 turbines the most popular, followed by 2 clusters of 10 and finally wind farms of 25 turbines.
______2018/C007 Page 142
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
12.28 The applicant referred to a report on perception of large-scale wind turbines in northern Michigan. As I have no evidence on what is defined as “large scale” and that the landscape characteristics, scale and topography are comparable to the Sperrins, I attach little weight to it.
12.29 Chapter 5.4.2.2 of the ES and TR 8 summarise conclusions from various studies in Scotland dating from 2008-2016. In the absence of a wider and more up to date NI evidence base, these are material considerations. These generally suggest wind farms’ impact on tourism to be minimal. On the other hand, letters objecting to the proposed development were received from visitors to the Sperrins who said that their enjoyment of the area would be diminished by the proposed development and would affect plans to return. However, as the aforementioned studies have a wider evidence base, more weight is attached to them albeit that they focus on experience in Scotland.
12.30 Mountaineering Ireland referred to a July 2017 survey by Yougov on behalf of the John Muir Trust. It reportedly found that: “80% of Scottish people believe that Scotland’s iconic “Wild Land Areas” should continue to be protected in the future from large-scale infrastructure, whilst the majority are ‘less likely” to visit scenic areas if they contain developments such as commercial windfarms, electricity transmission lines and super-quarries”. It would be surprising if the entire Scottish populace were surveyed as opposed to a sample of unquantified size. There is no indication whether “Wild Land Areas” is a descriptive term or a planning policy designation; and, if the latter, whether they have comparable policy protection to NI AONBs. The survey was not particular to wind farms and the scale, character, extent and overall impact of the other cited forms of development may have differentiated them in some respondents’ minds. The combination of these issues lead me to conclude that less weight can attach to this evidence than the earlier Scottish studies.
12.31 BADA referred to associated research by Visit Scotland and the Wales Tourist Board, both in 2003. In both instances, they reported that more than half of the respondents said that wind farms spoil the countryside. On the other hand, the applicant cited a 2003 Scottish study that found that 91% of 300 visitors to Argyll said that the presence of wind farms in an area made no difference as to whether they would return. Notwithstanding these divergent outcomes, I attach less weight to these than later studies whereby the presence of wind energy development in the landscape has since become more prevalent.
12.32 The applicant referred to a 2016 report that concluded that wind farms have little, if any, impact on tourism (RR 8, page 138). Mountaineering Ireland rebutted this by reference to a subsequent publication. Notwithstanding their dispute about the independence of the latter’s author, as neither report was submitted in evidence, I cannot consider the parties’ comments in their context. Therefore, little weight is attached to this exchange.
12.33 Reference was made to research from the Mountaineering Council of Scotland (2014), which suggested that the majority of mountain-goers are discouraged by wind farms and their main behavioural response is to avoid areas within them. The applicant considered mountaineers to be a unique special interest group thereby it
______2018/C007 Page 143
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
is unlikely that their views would be representative of society as a whole or of tourism consumers as a group. Walkers and on-road cyclists also have greater sensitivity to an area’s VI&LC than vehicle-borne tourists. They also have high sensitivity to changes in the landscape as their rationale is often, wholly or partially, to enjoy their surroundings. Therefore, I do not agree that the research finding is unique to mountaineers. This corroborates Mountaineering Ireland’s findings from consultation with their members in 2016 which showed that the quality of the environment and the quality of the recreational user’s experience are inextricably linked. There is no apparent evidential basis for the applicant’s proposition that the type of visitor who enjoys this open and wild landscape by walking and/or cycling through it would fully understand that renewable energy development is the mechanism through which the degradation of this natural heritage asset through continued fossil fuel can be avoided and so conserve the asset for future generations of walkers/cyclists (TR 8, paragraph 1.20).
12.34 A Scottish study from 2008 found that, amongst other things, 75% of people felt that wind farms had a positive or neutral effect on the landscape. It also considered “the potential worst-case scenario” whereby wind energy development had a possible negative economic effect equivalent to 3.5% of jobs in tourism over a 7 year period; this was due to visibility from tourist routes (affecting decisions to return) and visibility from accommodation (affecting prices some tourists might be prepared to pay). It did not conclude whether this worst-case scenario was likely to materialise. Nevertheless, in 2017, albeit that the MUDC and FODC areas had the lowest number of employee jobs in tourism of the now 11 Council areas, these amounted to 3,489 and 3,524 respectively. 3.5% of these figures would equate to 122 and 123 jobs respectively.
12.35 The applicant referred to wind farms that are visitor attractions in themselves. I have no evidence that the developer plans to open this site to the public and apply for directional tourism signage to it. There is no associated development currently proposed at this site that would be likely to single it out from existing and proposed on-shore wind farms within NI and make it a TA in itself such as a visitor or interpretive centre, a turbine that would be publicly accessible and incorporate a viewing platform etc.
Impact on Tourism Assets
12.36 There were some generalised comments about the negative effect that the proposed development would have on TAs and visitor numbers. Without explanation as to the specific sites and/or attractions that they are concerned about, limited weight can be given to these.
Davagh Forest Park
12.37 MUDC said that, over the next 2 years, it is investing over £2m in the Davagh area with “a potential additional £1 million investment”. They did not say whether this is anticipated to be private or further public investment and if these monies were solely in respect of the observatory or if some were going to further development of outdoor recreation opportunities. 4 no. glamping pods are almost complete at Davagh (September 2019), funded by private investment, with 4 more planned.
______2018/C007 Page 144
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
MUDC added that the Dark Skies initiative has been independently market tested by Tourism NI, which shows a strong potential domestic, RoI, GB, French and German market and “the culturally curious demographic” on the basis of its “rich heritage offering”. This initiative and associated facilities meet the TSM 8 policy test for TAs.
12.38 Davagh Observatory is due to open in Spring 2020. MUDC is responsible for seeking accreditation from the International Dark Sky Association (IDSA) for the associated Dark Sky Park. The Purpose of a Dark Sky Area is to enable enhanced views of the night sky whilst also reducing other environmental and human impacts caused by light emitted from manmade sources. The aim is to keep the effect of “sky glow” to a minimum (section 7.10.3 of ES Addendum, paragraph 32).
12.39 On the basis that infra-red lighting was then understood to address aviation safety concerns, MUDC’s principal witness on this topic said that the proposed development would not prejudice the likely success of that application. However, as it was 2 days after his contribution and almost at the end of the inquiry before I was made aware of BIA’s latest concerns (see Chapter 5 of this report), I did not have the opportunity to question him on whether the need for lighting around the extremities of the development, visible to the eye, would alter that position.
12.40 At paragraph 1.12 of TR 8 the applicant listed 5 examples of wind farm developments in GB and the RoI that secured planning permission on sites at, or on the perimeter of, Dark Sky areas. It seems as if aviation lighting of the non- infrared variety was required at one (Harestanes) but there was no indication as to whether it was necessary on all. If so, I have no details such as intensity of lighting, number of turbines needing to be lit, distance from the accredited area and save for one site, the turbines’ height. Accordingly, I cannot reasonably conclude that those sites are on all fours with the application site in these respects.
12.41 TPs were concerned that the proposed development would detract from understanding and appreciation of the stars when viewed from the observatory. Beaghmore Stone Circles was said to be one of the few sites in NI where the aurora borealis can be experienced. Other than the potential implications of necessary aviation safety lighting and in the absence of explicit evidence on how the proposed development would otherwise interfere with observation of the sky, I assume that their concerns are to do with the proposed turbine blades’ rotation.
12.42 Galloway Dark Sky Park and Observatory is located within Galloway Forest Park, which the applicant reported to be IDSA Accredited. It includes the 68 turbine Harestanes wind farm. The Head of Visitor Services and Communications at the Forestry Commission of Scotland gave the opinion that that red lights would have no impact on observing as most wind farms are not high enough to obscure it, the majority of which happens from 10 degrees and upwards above the horizon. He added that most wind farms do not stretch that high up unless one is observing from within the boundary of the wind farm itself or in a valley; neither are ideal places to stargaze. On the basis of this “informed opinion” and the separation distance between the proposed development and the Davagh Forest Observatory, the applicant asserted that it is reasonable to believe that the turbines’ presence or lighting thereon would not interfere with star gazers’ experience.
______2018/C007 Page 145
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
12.43 MUDC or other parties did not rebut this evidence possibly as it was generally understood that infra-red lighting would address aviation safety. However, notwithstanding the applicant’s submissions that associated light spillage would not have a significant impact on the night sky and an individual’s informed opinion, I am not persuaded that I can reasonably conclude that the proposed development would not prejudice the application to the IDSA for accreditation at Davagh. There is no scheme before me that shows the details of the lighting required to address BIA’s aviation safety concerns. If the Department is minded to approve this application, I strongly recommend that it seeks clarification from MUDC on the important issue of IDSA accreditation. If the proposed development were to jeopardise it and consequently returns on public and private investment in tourism infrastructure on foot of the Dark Sky Park project, it would have an adverse impact on these TAs and significantly compromise their value contrary to Policy TSM 8.
12.44 Although the site lies outside the former Cookstown DC area and the provisions of the CAP 2010 do not apply the application site, I note that it cites Lough Neagh and the Sperrins as the principal natural assets likely to attract visitors to the District. Davagh Forest Park is a designated Tourism Opportunity Zone to which Policy TM 1 Tourism Opportunity Zones of that Plan applies. Within it favourable consideration would be given to proposals for tourism and recreation development. Therefore the Forest Park’s potential to provide enhanced tourism and recreation opportunities is recognised by the current LDP.
Mountain Biking
12.45 A description of the facilities available for mountain bikers at the “Trailhead” was provided in chapter 10 of this report. In addition to the Skills Park and Pump Track, are three mountain bike trails extending to 26.5km. These facilities meet the PPS 16 definition of a TA in addition to catering for users from the local area. Concern was expressed about the proposed development’s effect on visitor experience. However, there was no explanation as to how or why the anticipated adverse impact would arise nor was any specific effect identified that would dissuade potential tourists coming to the area to avail of it. I was not referred to any survey evidence suggesting that mountain bikers would be deterred from using trails because of a wind farm in the area. Mountain bikers on a downhill slope are, of necessity, focused on what they are doing as opposed to taking in the scenery. That is especially the case here as the 16.5km “red” trail that extends to the upper part of the Park seems to be technically challenging. It is unlikely that the proposed development would deter special-interest mountain bikers from their sport. The proposed development, either individually or cumulatively with other wind energy development in the area, would be unlikely to have an adverse impact on this TA such as to significantly compromise its tourism value. Therefore, the proposal would be consistent with Policy TSM 8 in this respect.
Beaghmore Stone Circles
12.46 Approaches to the site are signposted with tourist signage, there is a car park and interpretation boards at the site and a further car park with picnic area a short distance to the south on Blackrock Road. MUDC has administered footfall counters at the site entrance for the last 5 years. In 2018 11,617 visitors were
______2018/C007 Page 146
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
recorded and to mid-September 2019 there were 9,871 with 2,444 of those in the three months from January-March. Whilst some may not have been tourists as defined in PPS 16, as the site would be unlikely to attract local residents simply seeking outdoor recreation opportunities, it is reasonable to conclude from the number of visitors and associated “infrastructure” that the site is a TA.
12.47 The PPS 16 definition of a TA does not require that a visitor survey is conducted in order to understand what it is that those tourists want and to what extent they enjoyed the experience on site. The archaeological value of this site was covered extensively in the previous chapter of this report where I concluded that the proposed development would adversely affect the integrity of its setting. The reasons for that assessment also lead to the conclusion that the adverse impact that the proposed development would have on this TA would significantly compromise its tourism value contrary to Policy TSM 8.
Other archaeological sites
12.48 The proposed development would adversely affect the integrity of the setting of Doraville/Mullaghturk Mass Rock. Whilst it might be of intrinsic interest to tourists if promoted as a TA, in the absence of signposting, way-marking, formalised access and/or interpretation, it does not presently meet the definition of a TA.
12.49 If they were to meet the definition of a TA, having concluded that the proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of the setting of various other archaeological sites, the second stage test of Policy TSM 8 would not be engaged.
“Shepherd’s Retreat”
12.50 This holiday let is a TA. In terms of the proposed development’s: noise impact thereon; and its overly dominant effect on the outlook from the cottage’s curtilage, approach and probably from within parts of the property, it would have an adverse impact on this TA such as to significantly compromise its tourism value. Associated social media reviews were submitted. The attributes that visitors valued as regards its location and context would, in the main, be negatively affected by the proposed wind farm. Regardless that its owners are FI in the scheme, it is still subject to Policy TSM 8, with which the proposal would be at odds in respect of this holiday let. However, this must be considered in the context that there are other accommodation providers in the locality. The applicant set out (2015) details of 13 other accommodation providers, with 27 properties, within 10km of the application site in chapter 5.5.4.3 of the ES. TPs’ evidence about the growing importance of tourism to the local area would suggest that this accommodation base has grown in the intervening period.
Activity-based tourism
12.51 Paragraph 7.43 of PPS 16 identifies AONBs as TAs and adverse impact thereon would include significant and unacceptable harm to their VI&LC. As I concluded that the proposed development would be contrary to Policy NH 6 of PPS 2 for the management of development therein, it would have an adverse impact on the TA. For reasons set out above, walkers and on-road cyclists would be more susceptible
______2018/C007 Page 147
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
to the unacceptable change that the proposed development would have on the visual appeal, amenity value and tranquillity of the part of this part of the AONB.
12.52 In chapter 10 specific reference was made to VPs from walking routes such as the Ulster Way, Sperrins Way, Crockbrack Way, Mullaghcarn, Slieve Gallion, the Lough Fea circuit and within Davagh Forest. I was also referred to a Heritage Trail to Beaghmore Stone Circles (VP 9). There are 12 Sperrins Cycle Routes and the VI&LC of this part of the AONB would be harmed when viewed from sections of the following routes:
Gold - mainly from Davagh Road that bisects the application site – VP 1;
Sawel – see analysis of VP 10 and views from Sperrin Road; and Strule Valley in the vicinity of the Gortin Lakes (VP 24);
White Hare – mainly, but not exclusively, from the vicinity of Greencastle GAA grounds, the Pots & Pans and Beaghmore Road;
Lough Fea – mainly from Tullybrick Road along the Lough’s western shore and an extensive, continuous section from south of VP 15 on Blackrock Road, Davagh Road, Broughderg Road, Keerin Road, Davagh Road (VPs 1 & 2) as it bisects the application site. A suggested short-cut uses the section of Davagh Road, through Davagh Forest (VP 7); and
Slieve Gallion – Cahore Road (VP 21) and Cullion Road (VP 20).
The proposed development, by virtue of its individual and/or cumulative impact, would be likely to detract from the outdoor recreation experience of such “sensitive” tourists and significantly compromise value of the affected parts of the AONB as a TA, contrary to Policy TSM 8.
12.53 At the inquiry MUDC advised that it would be seeking funding in December 2019 for the development of 2 thematic walks associated with the development at Davagh Forest: a “solar walk” between Beaghmore Stone Circles and an archaeological walk within the forest, which would incorporate virtual reality technology. If the plans come to fruition, these would also be TAs. For reasons already set out in this and the two preceding chapters, the proposed development would significantly compromise those assets’ tourism value. Whilst not seeking to apply Policy TSM 8 to developments that have yet to progress beyond the planning stage, such initiatives are examples of further opportunities to use the area’s landscape, cultural and archaeological resources to build on existing investment in the tourism sector and increase its economic profile and value.
Driving routes
12.54 There are 4 scenic driving routes in the Sperrins, shown on Figure 6.5 of the ES. These are signposted using official tourism signage and are TAs. According to Chapter 5.5.4.4 of the ES, all come within 10km of the application site. As identified in chapter 10 of this report, the VI&LC of this part of the AONB would be adversely and unacceptably affected when seen from the South Sperrins & East ______2018/C007 Page 148
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Sperrins Scenic Routes. The former is a 64 mile route that takes in Lenamore Road that runs past Gortin Lakes (VP 24). The proposed development would adversely affect VI&LC when viewed from this vantage and a short transient section of the route if driving anti-clockwise. There would be more extensive appreciation of the proposed development’s unacceptable impact on the area’s VI&LC when seen from the 90 mile East Sperrins Scenic Route, in the main from Blackrock Road (VP 15), Davagh Road, Lough Fea (VP 17), Cullion Road (VP 20) and Draperstown. However, in the context of the routes’ overall length and mindful of the prevalent findings of most recent research on visitor attitudes to wind farms, the proposed development would be unlikely to have an adverse impact on these TAs in their totality. Therefore, it would be consistent with Policy TSM 8 in this respect.
Conclusion
12.55 I note the applicant’s points that tourism across NI essentially operates on a three- part asset base – natural heritage, cultural heritage and built heritage; and that, to a large extent, this asset base is fundamentally immutable and will not greatly change as the result of a tourism strategy. However, they acknowledged that it is possible that the fixed asset base could be better presented, interpreted, animated, communicated and brought to life in new and imaginative ways. They added that this has not happened within the Council areas within which the application site lies, that tourists have demonstrated limited interest in much of this area and that the area surrounding the site is not a tourism-centric location. Their wealth of contextual evidence on, amongst other things, comparative activity in and revenue from the tourism sector in the constituent Council areas support this stance.
12.56 On the other hand, I am mindful of the absence of a management plan for the AONB and the historic lack of synchronised governance of the Area and co- ordination in developing the tourism potential of this part of the Sperrins. To this end, regardless of whether it has been subject of public consultation or has a budget for direct investment in tourism projects, the Sperrins Future Search Project is aiming to address the lack of co-ordinated governance and funding of local sustainable tourism initiatives. In addition, the “Heart of Ancient Ulster“ Landscape Partnership Scheme has the potential to benefit from a Heritage Lottery grant of £2m over 5 years to deliver a series of projects that will conserve and protect 144km2 of prehistoric landscape within the Lower Sperrin plateau and create 10km of new heritage trails. Such measures would be likely to increase the area’s interest to tourists. The development and marketing of the Davagh resource, which will cater for a greater range of visitors than the original Forest Park, is an example of how investment in the asset base can increase the area’s attractiveness for tourists. MUDC’s planned heritage trails also exemplify how the fixed asset base can be better presented to increase tourism draw.
12.57 DfI’s Economics Branch (22 June 2017) advised that the applicant’s evidence on the subject generally focuses on the current level of tourism in the area with the estimated economic impacts thereon based on current average spend. They said that, given that both Councils have produced tourism plans which seek to address a number of identified associated deficiencies, it is possible that the level of tourism (including overnight trips) could increase in the area in the future.
______2018/C007 Page 149
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
12.58 Statistical comparisons to the performance of the tourism sector in the constituent DC areas relative to the sector within NI as a whole and other DC areas show that the tourism sector of the local economy of the area within which the application site lies is relatively poorly performing. Whilst numbers employed in the tourism sector in the constituent DC areas are relatively low, I do not agree with the applicant’s associated conclusion that this would tend to support the view that a wind farm developed “at a peripheral location in an area with pre-existing low tourism activity is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the tourism sector”. Making better use of the asset base with that aim of growing the value of the tourism sector within the area of the application site would be more challenging if identified TAs were adversely impacted upon by the proposed development. Aside from the proposed development’s harmful effect on potential to develop this sector, the applicant’s own reference suggests the possibility of the loss of over 120 jobs in tourism in each DC area if it were to proceed.
______2018/C007 Page 150
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
13.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
13.1 The extensive range of issues associated with, and raised in respect of, the proposed development have been carefully considered. With a few exceptions, the applicant’s EI is otherwise comprehensive and thorough. In addition to the ES and the ES Addendum this includes: their statement of case and associated Technical Reports; rebuttal statement and accompanying Rebuttal Reports; and post-inquiry submission. Except where specifically highlighted, the proposal has been subject to rigorous examination of likely significant environmental impacts. Consideration was also given to its environmental and economic benefits. No further EI is required to enable a recommendation to be made.
13.2 The raft of economic and environmental benefits that would accrue from the proposed development are set out at length in chapters 4 and 9 of this report. Support for the proposed development was voiced by organisations with environmental and business remits, companies within the construction and civil engineering sector and several local residents; this has also been taken account of. Given the range and value of such benefits, both direct and indirect, it is appropriate to attach significant weight to these considerations.
13.3 In chapter 6 the rationale for imposing a fixed noise emission limit of 35 dB (A) was explained. The applicant said that such mitigation would result in a reduction in generating capacity of 16%. This would detract from the proposal’s environmental benefit in terms of: its proportionate addition to generating capacity from renewable sources and decarbonisation of the national grid; and add to the carbon pay-back time. If attendant financial benefits such as business rates are dependent on this capacity, this could have a proportionate effect on them.
13.4 If planning permission were forthcoming, connection process studies would be carried out to establish associated requisite transmission reinforcements to the national grid. SONI would then issue the developer with a constraints report showing the levels of “turn down” that would be required until all-island network reinforcements are commissioned. If connection was made prior to such works, the developer would be doing so at their own risk. Therefore, the issue of turbine selection aside, there is uncertainty as to if and when the proposed development could achieve the theoretical maximum power output (minus 16%). This could only be determined upon receipt of a constraints report, completion of grid reinforcements and the removal of constraints on generation. Upon receipt of the constraints report, the applicant/developer would be in an informed position to review their financial model and make a decision as to whether to proceed or wait until grid reinforcements had been commissioned. As yet, there is no planning permission for the proposed North-South electricity interconnector that is the lynchpin of the proposed improvements to grid capacity.
13.5 Constraint payments are made to generators where they are constrained from transporting their scheduled amount of electricity to the grid. For example, wind farms may be paid not to generate power if there is no simultaneous market demand or if the routes to market are not currently available e.g. if output is “turned down” to avoid overloading of the current transmission system. Under the rules of the I-SEM, such payments are priced according to cost and operators will not profit
______2018/C007 Page 151
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
from system interventions. At present, the possible cost to consumers in this respect is unquantifiable pending SONI’s associated report. However, the evidence before me would suggest that they would be likely to be engaged if this development were commissioned prior to the proposed interconnector becoming operational. This would temper the associated economic benefits.
13.6 In the intervening period, TPs were concerned that the area would be subject to “planning blight” by virtue of prolonged uncertainty about the project’s future with implications for investment decisions and the on-going toll on local residents’ mental health and well-being. On the basis that the applicant said that a loss of generation of 11 - 16% would significantly jeopardise the development’s financial viability, it is appropriate to attach weight to these concerns.
13.7 In the preceding chapters I found that the proposed development would, unless specified otherwise, have likely significant and unacceptable impacts in respect of:
The residential amenity of the occupant(s) of No. 259 Sixtowns Road and those of properties within 5m of Sixtowns Road during the construction phase. As appropriate mitigation was not identified that would reduce these potential impacts to a level of significance that would not be harmful to them, the effects are likely to be unacceptably adverse (chapter 6);
The safety of users of insulin pumps living, visiting and/or travelling in the vicinity could be prejudiced. If this significant and adverse effect did not materialise, their mental health and well-being would be prejudiced to an unacceptable degree as there is no persuasive evidence in the applicant’s EI that it is more likely than not that this impact would not occur (chapter 7);
Homes and farm holdings that are reliant on private water supplies. The submitted EI was not persuasive that the quality and quantity of their water supply would be unlikely to be significantly affected by the proposed development. Concerns about this potential impact with its attendant implications for their health, enjoyment of their property and residential amenity could prejudice residents’ and/or farmers’ mental health and well- being to an unacceptable degree (chapter 8);
Visual amenity and landscape character from every static and transient view that I considered with attendant, widespread negative implications for the character, heritage and appearance of this part of the Sperrins AONB. I concluded that the unacceptable scale of change that the proposed development would precipitate would harm local peoples’ sense of place (chapter 10);
The setting of Beaghmore Stone Circles, a Scheduled Monument in State Care, two cairns at Beaghmore and Doraville Mass Rock (chapter 11); and
Likely and possible adverse impact on specified tourism assets, existing employment in the tourism industry and the potential for developing the opportunities that the constituent District Council areas offer in terms of
______2018/C007 Page 152
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
tourism based on outdoor recreation, astronomy, cultural heritage and archaeology (chapter 12).
13.8 Taking all of these considerations into account and assessing them in the context of energy and planning law, policy and guidance, the significant weight attached to the range of economic and environmental benefits that the proposed development would be likely to yield is insufficient to outweigh the associated unacceptably adverse effects on a range of interests of acknowledged importance. The outcome of this balancing exercise would be the same even if the proposed community funds were taken into account. The proposed development does not comply with Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 and the attendant provisions of the SPPS. As there are no overriding reasons why it is essential, the proposal also fails Policy CTY 1 of PPS 21.
13.9 Whilst Policy BH 1 of PPS 6 presumes in favour of the physical preservation in situ of monuments in State Care and their settings, development that would adversely the integrity of their settings can be permitted in exceptional circumstances. The associated J&A text (paragraph 3.5) states that exceptions to this policy are only likely to apply to proposals of overriding importance in the NI context. This exception is not merited in this instance in respect of the adverse effect that the proposed development would have on the setting of Beaghmore Stone Circles and cairns. Accordingly, the proposal does not comply with Policy BH 1.
13.10 Policy BH 2 of PPS 6 makes provision for development proposals that would adversely affect the settings of archaeological sites or monuments of local importance where the importance of the proposed development or other material considerations outweigh the value of the remains in question. In this context, the importance of the proposed development and other material considerations do not outweigh the harm that the proposed development would have on the setting of Doraville/Mullaghturk Mass Rock. Therefore, the proposal is also at odds with Policy BH 2.
Precedent
13.11 Although each proposal must be assessed on its own merits, approval of this one could set an undesirable precedent for comparable future developments that do not satisfy: the requirements of Policy RE 1 of PPS 18 and the associated provisions of the SPPS; Policy CTY 1 of PPS 21; Policy NH 6 of PPS 2; Policies BH 1 and BH 2 of PPS 6; Policy TSM 8 of PPS 16; and which have the potential to disproportionately affect rights under Articles 2 and 8 and Protocol 1, Article 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Recommendation
13.12 I recommend to the Department that full planning permission be refused.
______2018/C007 Page 153
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
APPEARANCES AT INQUIRY (This does not include those who attended the inquiry but did not speak at it)
Department for Infrastructure
Mr P Mc Ateer, BL instructed by DfI Dr K Mc Ferran, DfI Ms J Curley, DfI Mr M Hammond, DAERA Ms C Ellison, DAERA Mr D O’Neill DAERA (Drinking Water Inspectorate) Mr A Gault, DfC Mr S O’Hare, DfI Mr M Kearney, SES Mr B Furey, FODC Mr P Mc Swiggan, DCSDC Mr L Fisher, SONI
Third Parties – Either a member of Broughderg Area Development Association or an Affiliate unless indicated otherwise.
Cllr S Clarke (BADA & MUDC) Mrs M Mc Kenna Mr S Mc Namee Mrs J Clarke Mrs K Mc Crory Mr J Quinn Ms F O’Kane Ms E Leddy Mr C Mc Aleer Ms P Mercer Mrs Warnock Ms P Mc Henry Mr D O’Neill Mr E Mc Mullan Mr G Simpson Professor A Evans Professor M Alves-Pereira (by video link) Ms H Lawless, Mountaineering Ireland Mr D Mc Aleer MLA Cllr E Mc Aleer, Fermanagh & Omagh DC Mr M Mc Carroll, Fermanagh & Omagh DC Ms D Mc Sorley, Fermanagh & Omagh DC Dr C Boomer, Mid-Ulster District Council Mr M Bowman, Mid-Ulster District Council Mr M Browne, Mid-Ulster District Council
______2018/C007 Page 154
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Applicant
Mr D Elvin QC, instructed by SSE Mr S Lyness BL, instructed by SSE Dr M Gordon, Turley Ms E Walker, Turley Ms L Parker, Fluid Environmental Consulting Mrs P Anderson, Penny Anderson Mr P Johnston, Paul Johnston Mr M Reid, Arcus Mr T Janes, Headland Mr A Pender, CPL Mr G Blackett, Biggar Economics Mr C Martin, SSE Mr E Phillips, Baringa Mr P Darnborough, ITP Energised Mr J Welch, Optimised Environments Dr M Turner
______2018/C007 Page 155
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
DOCUMENTS
Department for Infrastructure
PA 1 Statement of Case with 9 appendices PA 2 Rebuttal Statement with 6 appendices PA 3 Email exchange primarily between Dr Gault & Ms Curley dated 30.08.19 and 02.09.19 PA 4 ICOMOS “Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties – A publication of the International Council on Monuments and Sites” (January 2011) PA 5 Email exchange between I Toothill SSE, J Mc Guigan BIA & Ms J Curley DfI dated 04.07.19, 19.08.19 & 19.08.19 PA 6 Email from DfI of 02.09.19 regarding additional draft roads conditions
Third Parties
Statements of case from:
TP 1 Ms O Begley MP TP 2 Mrs J Clarke with 1 enclosure TP 3 Mr D Mc Aleer MLA TP 4 Ms E Sheerin MLA TP 5 Ballynagilly Community Preservation and Heritage Group TP 6 Broughderg Area Development Association with 9 appendices TP 7 Concerned Broughderg Residents’ Association TP 8 Fermanagh & Omagh District Council TP 9 Mid-Ulster District Council with 2 appendices TP 10 Mothers for Justice TP 11 Mountaineering Ireland with 2 appendices TP 12 Townland Residents’ Association
Rebuttal Statements from:
TP 13 Mrs J Clarke TP 14 Broughderg Area Development Association TP 15 Mid-Ulster District Council TP 16 Townland Residents’ Association
Received from BADA at Inquiry:
TP 17 Statement from BADA including email from Ms P Mc Henry to Mrs M Mc Kenna of BADA, both dated 11.09.19. Accompanied by: Letter from W.A.L Forest Services Ltd to Omagh District Council re. draft Public Path Creation Agreement dated 15.11.90; Draft PROW Assertion Agreement; Extract from minutes of Omagh DC meeting in December 1996
TP 18 Annotated pictorial map TP 19 Annotated copy of applicant’s Drawing Number LN001005-DOR-ENV-004 ______2018/C007 Page 156
Planning Appeals Commission Section 26 ______
Applicant
APP 1 Statement of Case with 8 Technical Reports APP 2 Rebuttal Statement with 16 appendices including 13 Rebuttal Reports APP 3 Rebuttal of Mr D Mc Aleer MLA’s statement of case, dated 27 August 2019 APP 4 Agreed Position Statement on noise between applicant & 3 no. EHDs as of 03.09.19 APP 5 NISRA & DfE “Electricity consumption and renewable generation in Northern Ireland: Year ending June 2019” APP 6 Letter on behalf of Blakiston Houston Estate Company dated 16 July 2019 APP 7 Post-inquiry submission - letter dated 10.10.19 with 4 appendices
Several iterations of draft conditions were received from the Department and applicant with comments on one another’s proposed amendments thereto.
______2018/C007 Page 157