CITY AND COUNTY OF SWANSEA
NOTICE OF MEETING
You are invited to attend a Special Meeting of the DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL COMMITTEE
At: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Swansea
On: Thursday, 7 February, 2013
Time: 5.00 pm
AGENDA
Page No.
1. Apologies for Absence.
2. To Receive Disclosures of Personal & Prejudicial Interests. 1
3. Planning Application 2012/1221 - Mynydd y Gwair, Swansea. 2 - 265
4. Swansea Vale Flood Prevention Scheme - Enabling Works. 266 - 275
Patrick Arran Head of Legal, Democratic Services & Procurement 31 January 2013 Contact: Democratic Services - Tel: (01792) 636820
ACCESS TO INFORMATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 (SECTION 100) (AS AMENDED) (NOTE: The documents and files used in the preparation of this Schedule of Planning Applications are identified in the ‘Background Information’ Section of each report. The Application files will be available in the committee room for half an hour before the start of the meeting, to enable Members to inspect the contents).
Agenda Item 2 Disclosures of Personal Interest from Members
To receive Disclosures of Personal Interest from Members in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct adopted by the City and County of Swansea. You must disclose orally to the meeting the existence and nature of that interest.
NOTE: You are requested to identify the Agenda Item / Minute No. / Planning Application No. and Subject Matter to which that interest relates and to enter all declared interests on the sheet provided for that purpose at the meeting.
1. If you have a Personal Interest as set out in Paragraph 10 of the Code, you MAY STAY, SPEAK AND VOTE unless it is also a Prejudicial Interest.
2. If you have a Personal Interest which is also a Prejudicial Interest as set out in Paragraph 12 of the Code, then subject to point 3 below, you MUST WITHDRAW from the meeting (unless you have obtained a dispensation from the Authority’s Standards Committee)
3. Where you have a Prejudicial Interest you may attend the meeting but only for the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving evidence relating to the business, provided that the public are also allowed to attend the meeting for the same purpose, whether under a statutory right or otherwise. In such a case, you must withdraw from the meeting immediately after the period for making representations, answering questions, or giving evidence relating to the business has ended, and in any event before further consideration of the business begins, whether or not the public are allowed to remain in attendance for such consideration (Paragraph 14 of the Code).
4. Where you have agreement from the Monitoring Officer that the information relating to your Personal Interest is sensitive information, as set out in Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct, your obligation to disclose such information is replaced with an obligation to disclose the existence of a personal interest and to confirm that the Monitoring Officer has agreed that the nature of such personal interest is sensitive information.
5. If you are relying on a grant of a dispensation by the Standards Committee, you must, before the matter is under consideration: (i) disclose orally both the interest concerned and the existence of the dispensation; and (ii) before or immediately after the close of the meeting give written notification to the Authority containing -
- details of the prejudicial interest; - details of the business to which the prejudicial interest relates; - details of, and the date on which, the dispensation was granted; and - your signature
D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\7\6\AI00002679\$fvf5uvhr.docPage 1 Agenda Item 3
Report of the Head of Economic Regeneration and Planning
Development Management and Control Committee
7 February 2013
MYNYDD Y GWAIR, SWANSEA
Installation of 16 wind turbines (maximum height to blade tip of 127 metres with a hub height of 80 metres), with a maximum generating capacity of 48MW, associated tracks and ancillary infrastructure (including permanent and temporary anemometer masts, electrical substation compound, hardstandings, transformers and underground cabling) and construction of new access track from A48 (Bolgoed Road at Pontarddulais) (approximately 14.54km in length) incorporating improvements to 3.9km of existing road across Mynydd Pysgodlyn
Purpose: To determine the application for the etc
Policy Framework: European, UK, Welsh Government and Local Planning Policies
Reason for Decision: Statutory responsibility of the Local Planning Authority
Consultation: Statutory consultations in accordance with planning regulations as set out in the planning application report.
Recommendation(s): Approve, subject to a legal agreement & conditions set out in the report
Report Author: John Lock
Finance Officer: Not applicable
Legal Officer: Roderic Jones
Introduction This application is being reported directly to this Development Management and Control Committee because of its strategic significance in accordance with the Council Constitution. Additionally, the application has been “called-in” by Cllr. Gareth Sullivan.
The long and detailed report sets out the background history to the proposal, the data provided with the submission, the results of the Council’s consultation on the submission, an analysis of the merits of the scheme in the context of the relevant policy framework, and a recommendation on the Council’s decision.
In line with normal practice, at Committee a presentation will be given containing plans, photomontages, aerial photos, site photos and access road details etc. Page 2
. To ensure that Members can easily view and assimilate this information, it will be distributed at Committee together with the introductory PowerPoint presentation on the material considerations that Committee will need to take into account.
In the interests of aiding Committee Members to find their way around the report and to have an overview of the issues, this summary of the contents is provided. It is not a substitute for the report’s detailed consideration, but a guide to its contents.
Finally, the page numbers referred to relate to the page numbers at the top of the report’s pages, and not the agenda page numbers at the bottom of the pages.
Background Information
Section 1 Page 1 - The Policy Framework
This section details the policy frame work for the proposal’s consideration, which includes European Energy Policy, UK Renewable Energy Policy, Welsh Renewable Energy Policy, National Planning Guidelines, including TAN’s’ and the Council’s Unitary Development Plan policies.
Section 2 Page 6- Site History
This section details the site’s history, with particular reference to the application being a resubmission of the scheme for the development of a wind farm on the current site. A scheme for the provision of 19 large turbines was considered by this Council, and subsequently the Welsh Minister following a Public Inquiry into the Council’s non-determination of the application, in 2010.
The Council’s objection to the scheme, together with the objections and representations on interested parties, were considered by the Inquiry Inspector who recommended to the Welsh Minister that “the risk of an unacceptable degree of harm to the peat habitat is sufficient to justify refusal of this proposal”. This recommendation was accepted by the Minister, and permission was refused on this ground. Subsequent legal challenges quashed and then restored the decision.
Reference is also made to the permission granted by Carmarthenshire County Council for a wind farm on land adjacent to the current proposal at Mynydd y Betws.
Section 3 Page 9 – Consultations
This section details the consultations undertaken on the proposal and the extensive responses received.
Responses from interested parties include two petitions of objection with a total of 776 names, and 1263 letters. The action group SOCME has made both initial objections to the proposal and submitted a detailed critique of the scheme, which is reproduced in full in Appendices C to G of this report.
Page 3
. Overriding concerns relate to the visual impact of the proposal, its ecological, biological and archaeological impact, the loss of, and disruption to, common land and its grazing, and the inherent financial weaknesses of windfarm power generation.
Also, 504 letters of support have been received, commenting in the main on the economic benefits that would accrue to the local economy from the proposal, the community benefits that would accompany it, and the need for sustainable energy developments to be supported.
In terms of statutory consultations, no objections have been made, subject to particular issues being addressed. Of particular importance is the response of no objection from the Countryside Council for Wales as it was CCW’s objection on grounds of the effect on the peat deposits that caused the Inspector & Welsh Minister to dismiss the developer’s previous appeal. The deletion of three turbines and their associated access tracks and hard standings has addressed the issue.
The Council employed Landscape Consultants to assess the scheme. These were the same experts that supported the Council at the Public Inquiry into the previous proposal. Their conclusion was that the amendment of the scheme from 19 turbines to 16 would “probably not reduce the magnitude of landscape or visual impacts given the overall visibility of this proposed large scale development comprising 127m high turbines in the landscape”.
Section 4 Page 63 – The Appraisal & Conclusion
This section describes the proposal; sets out the context of this re-submission including the site selection and the design evolution; refers to the Inspector’s and Welsh Minister’s detailed consideration of the 2008 submission for 19 turbines at Mynydd y Gwair; details the relevance of the Mynydd y Betws Wind Farm currently under construction adjacent to the site for 16 turbines with a maximum height of 110 metres to blade tip; analyses the energy policy framework with its guidance on targets for renewable energy generation; indicates the conflict of the proposal with the criteria of Policy R11 of the UDP, and the weight to be afforded this; and comments in detail on the acknowledged impact on sensitive receptors of the proposal, both during the construction and operational phases, including access proposals.
The section’s conclusions, among others, is that notwithstanding the weight to be afforded the proposals’ conflict with the UDP in terms of its acknowledged significant adverse impact on the landscape, this is out weighed by the Welsh Government’s guidance in TAN 8 that significant landscape changes should be accepted in land allocated within Strategic Search Areas for wind farms.
Section 5 Page 135 – Heads of Terms for the 106 Legal Agreement and Proposed Conditions
The Recommendation The report recommends that the proposal is approved subject to a legal agreement being entered into and also subject to the set of conditions specified in the report.
Page 4
.
Background Papers: Local Government Act 1972 (Section 100) (As amended)
The following documents were used in the preparation of this report: Application file, together with the files and documents referred to in the appended report.
Appendices: Appendix A – Location Plan Appendix B – Report Appendix C – Objection from SOCME Appendix D – Barry Stewart statement on ecology on behalf of SOCME Appendix E – Barry Stewart references for commentary on behalf of SOCME Appendix F – Barry Stewart statement on ecology(2) on behalf of SOCME Appendix G – LGM commentary on Regeneris on behalf of SOCME Appendix H – Appeal Decision in respect of previous application for a Wind Farm at Mynydd y Gwair
Page 5
. x
eppendix2e
epplition2ite
leXE2IXSHDHHH2d2eR
hil2rolmesD2f2@ronsAD2wD2hip2ion
lnning2epplition2xoF2PHIPGIPPI
red2of2ionomi2egenertion282lnning
©2grown2gopyright2nd2dtse2right2PHIP wynydd22qwirD2wnsePage 6
yrdnne2urvey2IHHHPQSHW ? 9 ? 10
? 8 LEGEND ? ? 4 Turbine locatio ? 2 Wind Farm Tra ? ? # 3 5 ? 11 Development ? 1 ? 12 Wind Farm Temporary Wi ? Site 6 ? 16 # ? 13 Permanent Ma Hardstanding ? 7 ? 15 ? 14 Construction a Substation
Wind Farm Note: Infrastructure Lay Section 3 Site Entrance New Track Page 7
Section 2 Existing Road
Scale Ü 0 250
Reproduced by permiss Behalf of HMSO. © Cro right 2012. All rights res Ordnance Survey Licen
Title: FIG APPENDIX B
Page 1 of 151
ITEM APPLICATION NO. 2012/1221 WARD: Mawr Pontarddulais Area 1
Location: Mynydd Y Gwair, Swansea Proposal: Installation of 16 wind turbines (maximum height to blade tip of 127 metres with a hub height of 80 metres), with a maximum generating capacity of 48MW, associated tracks and ancillary infrastructure (including permanent and temporary anemometer masts, electrical substation compound, hardstandings, transformers and underground cabling) and construction of new access track from A48 (Bolgoed Road at Pontarddulais) (approximately 14.54km in length) incorporating improvements to 3.9km of existing road across Mynydd Pysgodlyn Applicant: RWE Npower Renewables
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES
Unitary Development Plan
Goal 2 To help promote the sustainable growth of the local and regional economy.
Goal 4 Make more efficient and sustainable use of the area’s resources. Objective 4 (e) - To support renewable energy projects which would make a positive environmental contribution.
Policy SP1 Sustainable development will be pursued as an integral principle of the planning and development process. Development proposals designed to a high quality and standard, which enhance townscape, landscape, sense of place, and strengthen Swansea’s Waterfront identity, will be favoured.
Policy SP11 The efficient use of resources – The upgrading of infrastructure provision and the generation of energy from renewable resources to meet the needs of existing and new development will be favoured, provided that environmental impact is kept to a minimum.
Policy EV1 New development shall accord with a defined set of criteria of good design.
Policy EV2 The siting of new development shall give preference to the use of previously developed land and have regard to the physical character and topography of the site and its surroundings.
Policy EV6 The Council will seek to protect, preserve and enhance Scheduled Ancient Monuments, archaeological and unscheduled archaeological sites and their settings
Policy EV12 The character of lanes and public paths that contribute to the amenity, natural, and historic qualities of an area will be protected. Page 8 Page 2 of 151
Policy EV21 In the countryside non residential development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that: inter alia (v) it is essential for communications, telecommunications, other forms of utility service provision, minerals or renewable energy generation.
Proposals would need to demonstrate, where relevant, that; The development needs to be located in the countryside rather than in a nearby settlement, and (a) The business is viable and financially sustainable, and (b) The proposal is in accord with conservation and design policies of the Plan.
Policy EV22 The countryside throughout the County will be conserved and enhanced for the sake of its natural heritage, natural resources, historic and cultural, environment and agricultural and recreational value through: (i) The control of development, and (ii) Practical management and improvement measures.
Policy EV29 Common land will be protected from development in recognition of its importance for agriculture, natural heritage, the historic environment and as an informal recreation resource.
Policy EV34 Development proposals that may impact upon the water environment will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that they would not pose a significant risk to the quality and or quantity of controlled waters.
Policy EV40 Development proposals will not be permitted that would cause or result in significant harm to health, local amenity, natural heritage, the historic environment or landscape character because of significant levels of air, noise or light pollution.
Policy HC17 The Council will, where appropriate, enter into negotiations with developers to deliver planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Council will expect developers to make contributions towards:
(i) Improvements to infrastructure, services or community facilities, (ii) Mitigating measures made necessary by a development, and (iii) Other social, economic or environmental investment to address reasonable identified needs.
Provisions should be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the individual development
Policy R11 Proposals for the provision of renewable energy resources, including ancillary infrastructure and buildings, will be permitted provided:
(i) The social, economic or environmental benefits of the scheme in meeting local, and national energy targets outweigh any unacceptable adverse impacts,
Page 9 Page 3 of 151
(ii) The scale, form, design, appearance and cumulative impacts of proposals can be satisfactorily assimilated incorporated into the landscape, seascape or built environment and would not unacceptably adversely affect the visual amenity, local environment or recreational/tourist use of these areas, (iii) There would be no unacceptable adverse affect on local amenity, highways, aircraft operations or telecommunications, (iv) There would be no unacceptable adverse affect on designated sites, species of acknowledged nature conservation value concern or sites of archaeological, or natural heritage and the historic Importance environment, (v) The development would preserve or enhance any conservation areas and not adversely affect listed buildings or their settings, (vi) The development is accompanied by adequate information to indicate the extent of possible environmental affects and how they can be satisfactorily contained and/or mitigated, (vii) The development includes measures to secure the satisfactory removal of structures/related infrastructure and an acceptable after use which brings about a net gain for biodiversity remediation of land following cessation of operation of the installation.
Proposals for large-scale (over 25MW) onshore wind developments shall be directed to within the Strategic Search Area defined on the Proposals Map subject to consideration of the above criteria.
Policy AS10 New developments will be required to incorporate appropriate traffic management measures to mitigate against significant adverse impacts that would otherwise be caused by traffic movements.
European Energy Policy The Kyoto Agreement of 1997, to which the UK is a signatory, came into force in February 2005. The current EU renewable energy targets are to meet 20% of the total energy demands in the Community by 2020. The result of the latest directive (2008/0016), enacted through the climate and energy package in 2009 (and endorsed by the UK Government), is that the UK has a binding target to meet 15% of its total energy consumption from renewable energy sources by 2020.
UK Renewable Energy Policy
Planning our Electric Future: a White Paper for secure, affordable and low-carbon electricity (2011) The Energy White Paper was published in 2011 by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and sets out the Government’s commitment to transform the UK’s electricity system to ensure that future electricity supply is secure, low-carbon and affordable. The White Paper sets out the Government’s intention to meet the 15% renewable energy target by 2020 and 80% carbon reduction by 2050.
The Climate Change Act (2008) The Climate Change Act (2008) sets a legally binding target of at least an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, to be achieved through action in the UK and abroad and commits the UK to a 34% emissions reduction by 2020.
Page 10 Page 4 of 151 Both targets are against a 1990 baseline. To drive the changes necessary to realise this transformation, the Government has published the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan, the national strategy for climate and energy. Together with the Renewable Energy Strategy, Carbon Reduction Strategy for Transport, Heat and Energy Saving Strategy, and Low Carbon Industrial Strategy, the UK Government has set out the detailed actions required to meet this ambitious target and ensure the transition to a low carbon economy.
UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (RES) was published in 2009 and sets out the approach to achieving the targets for renewable energy. The UK’s legally binding target is to achieve 15% of its total energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020. The scenario outlined in the RES envisages that in achieving this target, renewable electricity could rise to around 30% of total generation and that around two thirds of that figure should come from onshore and offshore wind.
National Policy Statements on Energy Infrastructure (2011) The energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out national policy against which proposals for major energy projects will be assessed and decided on by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). In future, the changes to the Planning Act 2008 made in the Localism Act 2011 mean NPSs will also be the primary documents for the new National Infrastructure Division (NID) within the Planning Inspectorate. NID will use NPSs in its examination of applications for development consent, and Ministers will use them when making decisions. There are six NPS and all six received designation under the Planning Act 2008 by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on 19th July 2011. The two considered relevant to this development are:
EN-1 Overarching Energy NPS This Policy restates the Government’s commitment to meeting the legally binding target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels). Analysis done on possible 2050 pathways shows that moving to a secure, low carbon energy system is challenging, but achievable. As part of the UK’s need to diversify and decarbonise electricity generation, the UK Government is committed to increasing dramatically the amount of renewable generation capacity. An increase in renewable electricity generation is essential to enable the UK to meet its commitments under the EU Renewable Energy Directive.
EN-3 Renewable Energy Infrastructure NPS This Policy restates the Government’s commitments to the development of renewable infrastructure listed in EN-1 and states that electricity generation from renewable sources of energy is an important element in the Government’s development of a low-carbon economy. A significant increase in generation from large-scale renewable energy infrastructure is necessary to meet the 15% renewable energy target.
UK Renewable Energy Road Map (July 2011) This sets out a comprehensive action plan to accelerate the UK’s deployment and use of renewable energy and seeks to achieve the 2020 renewables target whilst driving down the cost of renewable energy over time. It focuses in particular on 8 technologies that have either the greatest potential to help the UK meet the 2020 target in a cost effective and sustainable way, or offer great potential for the decades that follow. The Welsh Government has indicated that it has the potential to produce twice the amount of electricity it currently uses from renewable sources by 2025, and deliver 4 GW of this from marine energy.
Page 11 Page 5 of 151 Welsh Renewable Energy Policy
Welsh Assembly Government: Renewable Energy Route Map for Wales – Consultation Document (February 2008) The energy route map for Wales sets out proposals for moving Wales towards self- sufficiency in renewable electricity in a generation whilst at the same time driving very forcefully towards much more energy efficiency and much more of our extensive heating requirements being supplied from renewable sources. It confirms the intention to pursue the proposals in TAN8, with a view to reviewing targets upwards in due course.
The Welsh Assembly Government Energy Policy Statement – A Low Carbon Revolution (March 2010) This Energy Policy Statement sets out ambitions for low carbon energy in Wales. The statement builds on the results of consultations on the Renewable Energy Route Map and the Bioenergy Action Plan for Wales. This statement also reflects the UK policy position, the work of the UK Climate Change Commission and the UK National Policy Statements on Energy and Renewables. One of the actions contained within the document sets out the target of having 4.5 kWh/d/p of installed onshore wind generation capacity by 2015/2017. The Welsh Government will attempt to achieve this by:
• ‘optimising the use of existing strategic search areas set out in TAN8 on Planning for Renewable Energy and keeping the TAN under review in the light of progress towards these targets; • Ensuring that windfarms fully deliver wider community benefits, through our Forestry Commission based schemes and through the planning system; • Addressing any transportation concerns associated with larger wind turbines; and • Working closely with the grid company and the regulator to ensure that new grid connections are provided sensitively, including seeking that connections should run undergrounds where they would otherwise impact on protected landscapes’.
Climate Change Strategy for Wales (2010) The Climate Change Strategy for Wales sets out how the Welsh Government intend to limit greenhouse gas emissions, with the target currently set at a 3% reduction per annum. This does not include energy generation, but the consumption by end user has been included in the study. This means that promoting low carbon energy generation has an important role in meeting the 3% target.
National Planning Policy and Guidance
Planning Policy Wales (PPW) (Edition 5, November 2012) The 5th edition of PPW contains current land use policy for Wales and contains revised and updated policy on renewable energy (Section 12.8-12.10) and outlines the Assembly Governments commitment and aspirations for low carbon energy generation as part of tackling climate change. It replaces the Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement (MIPPS) 01/2005: Planning for Renewable Energy (July 2005).
Technical Advice Note (Wales) 5: Nature Conservation and Planning (September 2009) Provides advice on how the planning system can protect and enhance biodiversity and nature conservation and outlines the statutory requirements.
Page 12 Page 6 of 151
Technical Advice Note (Wales) 8: Planning for Renewable Energy (July 2005) Provides further advice and notes the best practice for wind energy. It also states that Local Planning Authorities must always weigh the desirability of exploiting a clean, renewable energy resource against the visual impact on the landscape of wind turbines. TAN 8 states that large scale (>25MW) onshore wind developments should be concentrated within Strategic Search Areas (SSAs). The SSAs were chosen on the basis of wind resource, landform, population, vegetation, designated sites (ecology/archaeology), land area, transmission, radar MoD land and other constraints. Seven SSAs were identified and for each SSA there are indicative targets of installed capacity (in MW), complied on the basis that the majority of technically feasible land for wind turbines in each area is utilised. SSA E straddles the upland area between the administrative boundaries of the City and County of Swansea and the County Borough of Neath and Port Talbot.
Technical Advice Note (Wales) 11: Noise (October 1997) Provides advice on how the planning system can be used to minimise the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development.
Technical Advice Note Wales (18): Transport (March 2007) Focuses on the integration between land use planning and transport. Many proposed developments will require access to the existing highway network. The number of accesses permitted will depend upon the type and nature of the road. Similarly, the type of access provided should reflect the type of road and the volume and character of traffic likely to use the access and the road.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
2011/0201 Temporary erection (for a period of 2 years) of an anemometry mast of up to 80m high, with guy rope anchoring points and stock proof fencing around each anchoring point and the mast base.
2008/1781 Installation of 19 wind turbines (maximum height to blade tip of 127 metres with a hub height of 80 metres), with associated tracks and ancillary infrastructure (including 80m high anemometer mast, electrical substation compound, hardstandings, transformers and underground cabling) and construction of new access track from A48 (Bolgoed Road at Pontarddulais) (approximately 13.8km in length) with improvements to 3.9km of existing road across Mynydd Pysgodlyn.
The application was subject to an appeal against non determination but it was resolved on 21 Jan. 2010 that the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the City and County of Swansea object to the granting of planning permission. The Planning Committee on 4 March, 2010 resolved that the reasons previously recommended for objecting to this application on 21 Jan. 2010 be confirmed with the addition of relevant Unitary Development Policies for the proposed wind farm for the following reasons:
(i) The Environmental Impact Assessment accompanying the application fails to properly consider the recommendation in the ARUP report that the maximum height of turbine within this part of Strategic Search Area E should not exceed 100 m because of the scale and type of land form of the area and to avoid the worst individual and cumulative landscape and visual effects.
Page 13 Page 7 of 151
This does not allow for the proper balancing of the acknowledged adverse landscape and visual impacts against the strategic objective of achieving the declared renewable energy targets as set out in TAN 8 and refined in the ARUP report commissioned in response to TAN 8. As such the proposal fails to accord with Policies R11, EV22 and EV29 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.
(ii) The Council considers the landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development to be unacceptably adverse and to outweigh the strategic energy objectives. As such the proposal fails to accord with Policies R11, EV22 and EV29 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.
(iii) The Environmental Impact Assessment accompanying the application fails to adequately justify the selection of the proposed route for construction traffic entering the site or to explain what alternatives have been considered. This does not allow for the proper assessment of the environmental impacts of alternative routes. The Council considers the proposed means of access to have an unacceptable and unjustified adverse environmental impact as a result of the extent of engineering operations necessary to construct the proposed access to the windfarm. As such the proposal fails to accord with Policies R11, EV22 and EV29 of the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan.
Moreover, the Council expresses additional concerns in relation to the potential and acknowledged adverse impacts on water quality (given the sensitive location of the site feeding the Lliw reservoirs), on ecology and nature conservation, on agriculture and on informal recreation on this public access common and on general amenity and highway safety and convenience as a result of construction traffic on the existing and proposed access to and from the site and asks that the Inspector give full consideration to these particular issues at the Inquiry .
Planning Application ref: 2008/1781 was subject to a Planning Inquiry held in July / August, 2010. The overall conclusions of the appointed Planning Inspector were:
I have already concluded above that this proposal is in conflict with criteria ii and iii of UDP Policy R11. Therefore, having regard to Section 38(6) of the Act, permission should only be granted if, material circumstances indicate otherwise. I have weighed all the aspects raised against the proposal and balanced them against the benefits of granting permission. I place significant weight on the WAG and UK Government policies and targets and in particular to those in TAN8. Also on the facts that this proposal is likely to be seen from most vantage points as part of a single larger wind farm with that at Mynydd y Betws, and the ability to link this site directly into the national grid.
Setting aside for the moment the question of the effect of the proposal on the peat habitat, I am satisfied that the benefits of the production of renewable energy from this proposal would outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan and all the other material considerations. In general terms a development of this number of turbines up to a maximum height of 127m is acceptable in this location. However, for the reasons given, the effect on the peat habitat cannot be overcome by the imposition of conditions designed to mitigate the harmful effects. For this reason I conclude that permission should not be granted.
Page 14 Page 8 of 151
The conclusions of the Inspector were agreed by the Welsh Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing who accepted that the development as proposed raises the risk of an unacceptable degree of harm to the peat habitat which is sufficient to justify refusal of the proposal. The Appeal was dismissed on 21 February, 2011.
The Welsh Minister’s decision letter indicates the following: Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that planning applications and appeals should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. With this in mind the Minister agrees with the Inspector that the proposal would be in conflict with criteria (ii and (iii) of UDP Policy R11 and takes the view that, having regard to section 38(6), planning permission should be refused unless material circumstances indicate otherwise.
The Inspector considered a wide range of issues arising from the proposed development and, setting aside its effect on the peat bog habitat, he was satisfied that the benefits of the production of renewable energy from this proposal would outweigh the conflict with the development plan and all the other material considerations. Subject to the following comments the Minister, also setting aside the effect of the proposed development on the peat bog habitat, agrees the Inspector’s conclusions on the other issues raised by the proposed development.
At paragraphs 86 to 91 of his report the Inspector considers the effect of the proposed development of the peat bog habitat and concludes that the risk of an unacceptable degree of harm to the peat habitat is sufficient to justify refusal of this proposal.
The Inspector has considered the possibility of relocating turbines but concluded that the consequences of this – for example moving turbines closer to others which, in turn, would have to be relocated and have effects which have not been considered – would be to significantly change the nature of the proposal and that changes could not be brought about by a condition attached to a planning permission. The Minister agrees with that conclusion. The Minister offers no comment on the Inspector’s view that a relatively minor re-design of the layout might remove most, if not all, of the impact on the peat deposits as the consideration of such issues, and any application for planning permission that would need to be made should significant changes be proposed, must be for the local planning authority in the first instance.
High Court Appeal Section 288 (of the 1990 Planning Act) application to the High Court against the decision of the Welsh Ministers was appealed successfully on 8 July, 2011 based on the decision being insufficiently reasoned.
Court of Appeal Decision Welsh Ministers appealed the above High Court decision and on 15 March, 2012, the three Appeal Court Judges unanimously upheld the original planning application appeal. In particular, Lord Justice Pill indicated:
It is of course open to the respondents,, as the Inspector recognised, so to reposition the turbines and access tracks that the impact on the peat bog habitat is reduced and to make a fresh application for planning permission accordingly.
Page 15 Page 9 of 151
2011/0201 Temporary erection (for a period of 2 years) of an anemometry mast of up to 80m high, with guy rope anchoring points and stock proof fencing around each anchoring point and the mast base. Temporary 2 Year Planning Permission August, 2011
Mynydd y Betws 2005/1413 Erection of 16 wind turbine generators, anemometer mast, electrical substations and control building, electrical connections, access roads, temporary construction compound and borrow pits on land at Mynydd-y- Betws, Ammanford, Carmarthenshire (referral from Carmarthenshire County Council). The hub of the rotors would be 68.6m above ground level with the rotor having a diameter of 82.4m, giving an overall height of 110m. Each turbine would typically be of 2.3MW installed capacity.
The City and County of Swansea determined to object to the proposed development (June 2007) for the following reasons:
1. The City and County of Swansea, whilst supporting the need for sources of renewable energy to be pursued in the interests of meeting established energy targets, would draw attention to the acknowledged adverse environmental impacts of the proposed development as set out in the Environmental Statement accompanying the application and object to the proposed development on the grounds that it fails to adequately assess the cumulative visual, landscape noise and human impacts of the proposal when considered together with any proposed windfarm development on Mynydd y Gwair. In doing so it fails to properly balance the strategic objectives for renewable energy with the cumulative environmental impacts within the Area E Strategic Search Area as defined in TAN 8. To approve the application would prejudice the proper consideration of any proposed wind farm development on Mynydd y Gwair.
2. Insufficient information has been submitted to properly assess the affect of large heavy goods vehicles on highway safety and the free flow of traffic on the proposed haul routes within the City and County of Swansea area.
On 5 October, 2007 the WAG Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing directed that the application be referred to the Welsh Ministers rather than be determined by the local planning authority. Following an Inquiry held 16 – 19, and 23 Sept. 2008 the Minister determined that planning permission be granted 10 June, 2009. The Mynydd y Betws wind farm is currently under construction.
3.0 RESPONSE TO CONSULTATIONS
PETITIONS OF OBJECTION
The application was advertised on site and in the local press as an application for planning permission accompanied by an Environmental Statement and which affects a Public Right of Way.
Page 16 Page 10 of 151
TWO PETITIONS OF OBJECTION have been received containing 731 and 45 signatures. Additionally, 1263 LETTERS OF OBJECTION have been received. The principal points of objection may be summarised as follows:
1. Threat to open access nature of the common with St. Illtyd’s Way, the Gower Way and Lliw Valley walk crossing it, and this enjoyment would be blighted by the visual dominance of the turbines and the excessive noise.
2. The previous application was rejected by the Welsh Ministers and this new proposal should not even be considered.
3. Negative cumulative impact on the landscape, especially as turbines are already present at Ffynnon Oer, and consented/being erected on Mynydd y Betws.
4. The 127m high wind turbines would not be in keeping with the landscape of Mynydd y Gwair and will diminish the open natural character of the upland landscape.
5. The proposed wind turbines will dominate the prominent skyline and cause harm to St. Illtyd’s Way, Gower Way and Lliw Valley Walks and the historical sites of Penlle’r Castell, Penll’r Bebyll cairn, Pentwyn Mawr cairn and Mynydd y Gwair cairn.
6. The turbines will be amongst the largest in Wales and will overwhelm an extensive area of open access common land to the detriment of the landscape.
7. The proposed wind farm will become a prominent and intrusive feature of the landscape for at least 25 years and as man made physical structures would dominate and reduce the sense of speciousness and remoteness of the rural area.
8. Disruption, risk of injury, and threat to their recreational enjoyment for members of the public using this open access common, including ramblers and balloonists. Horse riders and cyclists use the road that passes through the common, and their enjoyment of it is also under threat.
9. Mynydd y Gwair is presently a fantastic place for recreation, having a number of long distance footpaths crossing it, and is used by ramblers and bird watchers. The proposal threatens the tranquillity of the mountain, and would damage an important landscape.
10. Tourists would be deterred from visiting the area and the immediate area e.g. Ramblers, bird watchers, visual impact from the existing Gower AONB and the Brecon Beacons National Park.
11. The Brecon Beacons National Park boundary is within 5km and the wind turbine would be visible from the uplands of Mynydd Du.
12. Detrimental to current on-going EU funded sustainable tourism projects including the Garnswllt School which is in the process of being turned into a holiday outdoor pursuits centre.
Page 17 Page 11 of 151
13. Destruction of a rare, expansive moorland film location (Mynydd y Gwair appears in the Wales Screen Commissions’ database of locations, and filming has taken place on the mountain on more than one occasion).
14. Unacceptable increase in traffic during construction, maintenance and decommissioning of turbines.
15. Proximity of turbines to roads (e.g. Risk of driver distraction).
16. Safety concerns, e.g. ice fall from blades and risk of fire in the event of lightning strikes. The former could lead to road closures/injury, the latter is a particular concern owing to the presence of both grassland and peat; if a fire takes hold it could burn for weeks and spread over a very large area.
17. Wind farm operators erect signs warning the public to stay away from turbines during adverse weather conditions, due to lightening strikes or shedding ice over a wide area. This would deny walkers and horse riders access across the mountain.
18. Infrastructure concerns, e.g. concerning large loads, negative impacts on roads, access to hospitals, schools etc. The traffic movements to Mynydd y Betws have caused problems.
19. Multiple risks to the local economy. It is known that devaluation of property occurs when massive wind turbines are erected.
20. Threat to archaeology of the area with Penlle’r Castell being completely overwhelmed by the turbines.
21. There is no mention of the archaeological finds at Mynydd y Betws. Further finds are expected on Mynydd y Gwair if the site is dug, and the finds on the adjacent site validates and strengthens this concern.
22. The site was used for military purposes during the Second World War and there is a risk posed by such previous use.
23. The proposed turbines would be clearly visible along the skyline from Banc Bryn to the east and would interfere with appreciation of the setting of important archaeological monuments there. Further away, the wind farm would detract from an important view from Carreg Cennen castle.
24. Ecology – there could be a significant affect on the population of Red Kites and the expected of the loss of 2 Red Kites per year is unacceptable. The slaughter of birds and bats by moving blades is well documented. Lights fitted to turbines will exacerbate the problem by attracting insects on which bats feed.
25. There is no mention in the ES of the findings in the US concerning the death of large numbers of bats near wind turbines due to ‘Baratrauma’.
26. Conditions should be imposed to prevent development during the bird nesting season and the RSPB’s conditions should be attached.
Page 18 Page 12 of 151
27. Damage to and disturbance of peat, that locks down carbon, and which makes this an irrational location to site wind turbines.
28. There are substantial peat deposits which are known to reduce atmospheric carbon and peat habitats must be protected.
29. Despite the exclusion of three turbines (formerly 4, 9 and 13) there will be inevitable damage and disturbance to the peat bog. The access tracks will still affect areas of peat caused by drying out the peat bogs.
30. The draft Construction Method Statement acknowledges that the access tracks and cable trenching could cause harm to areas of significant peat.
31. The relocation of the access track closer to sections of St. Illtyd’s Walk would aggravate peat disturbance in this region.
32. Risk of fire in the event of lightening strikes, with particular concern owing to the presence of both grassland and peat, and fire could burn for weeks.
33. It would be a scandal to countenance construction on this common, as blanket bog is a priority habitat under both the UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plan.
34. Reinstatement would not be complete / adequate. Turbine foundations, etc, are left in place even if turbines are decommissioned, and peat takes an exceedingly long time to form.
35. Wind farms can affect local weather in a way detrimental to peat habitat.
36. Risk of landslips, owing to former mining activity in the area, and changes to the hydrology of the area if construction were to occur.
37. Hydrology issues/negative impacts on the catchment area for the Upper Lliw Reservoir and damage to source of two rivers.
38. Damage to springs that Farms and dwellings rely heavily on.
39. The report says that the water supply to Coynant Farm will be cut through. There are no potable water supplies in the valley and without water the farms and business lives would be ruined.
40. It is proposed to site a wind turbine near to the spring at Blaen Ffynonnau which historically has served the whole community.
41. Major affect on the geology of the common, in particular the impact on the natural water table which in turn supplies all the surrounding farms and all the wildlife and grazing animals on the mountain.
42. The development is proposed on an area of the mountain which is the prime catchment area for the Upper Lliw Reservoir.
43. Risk of localised flooding due to the amount of concrete contained in the turbine bases.
Page 19 Page 13 of 151
44. Mynydd y Gwair is a haven for wildlife, including many species protected by European and other laws, including otter, red kite, skylarks, golden plover and several species of bats. Scientific research has shown that bats are killed by industrial turbines, not only via collision, but also as a result of pressure changes caused by the sweep of the blades.
45. Turbines would have to be lit (danger to aircraft) and this would attract insects, and hence bats.
46. Mynydd y Gwair is close to Morriston Hospital and there will be a great danger to air ambulances by the wind turbines.
47. The light and noise pollution would also limit recreational enjoyment of the mountain as night time views will be impacted if navigation lights are fitted to the turbines.
48. The subject of amplitude modulation (am) is dismissed as being of no significance because BERR says so. The mechanisms causing are not understood and Noise Association Report states no turbine should be erected within 1 mile of a residence. This would rule this site.
49. Noise pollution would affect those living in dwellings bordering the site – Cwm Cerdinen, on land skirting the Upper Lliw Valley reservoirs, in Pentwyn Mawr forest and the eastern sides of the mountain.
50. Concern about lack of noise monitoring locations in the Cwm Clydach valley.
51. TAN8 and the refinement exercise carried out by Arups may well indicate that this is a suitable site for development, but this is the rather subjective view of a government sponsored consultant with a previously determined agenda, mainly ‘to meet WAG targets’.
52. The proliferation of other TAN8 wind farms in the area, particularly Mynydd y Betws, makes it more essential to reject this application.
53. Detrimental effect on commoner’s livelihoods and way of life. The animals would be disturbed off their hefts and this would cause serious welfare issues.
54. It is proposed that land is exchanged for the common land taken for this development. This new land is better land being parts of farms adjoining the mountain. These lands will immediately act as a draw for the animals pulling them off their sheep walks (grazed areas) and concentrating them into these areas. This will result in welfare problems (worms, sheep scouring, loss of weight and finally casualties).
55. The Inspector remarked in his report that the proposed replacement grazing exchange land would be impractical.
56. A picture at 13.1 in the Environmental Statement suggests animals grazing in peace around a base of a turbine. They are clearly fenced in and have no choice but to graze there. On Mynydd y Gwair there are no fences so the animals will roam away causing problems to the hefting system.
Page 20 Page 14 of 151
57. The ES (13.2.19) states there have been discussions with local graziers about setting up a council to run the common. Mynydd y Gwair falls under the West Glamorgan Commoner’s Association (WGCA), there have been no discussions with WGCA on this or any other matter regarding the application.
58. The ES (13.3.16) states that access tracks will remain to give public and graziers access. This will allow joy riders to access the common causing problems to livestock and the public. There is already a problem of fly tipping. Graziers don’t need tracks to move livestock.
59. The wind farm would be located on common land, (registered as CL74 and CL77) and part of the access route traverses another common, CL68. The proposal would be contrary to UDP Policy EV29, which relates to the protection of common land.
60. Risks associated with a change of permitted land use for the site to general industrial use, e.g. future uses (post turbines) of the land.
61. The construction of the access tracks will result in the use of motorised vehicles on common land with consequent environmental damage and disrupting and scattering animals. How will unauthorised vehicular access be prevented?
62. The 14km of new access road and concrete platforms will scar the upland area for a hundred years.
63. Wales is a net exported energy and should not be destroying its precious resources for a questionably calculated ‘greater good’.
64. The landscape would be changed to an industrial use.
65. The impact of the wind turbines has affected the beautiful landscape of Mynydd y Betws.
66. The mess being created on Mynydd y Betws for the construction of the new pylons is a fine example of the rape of the ancient country.
67. The development of another wind farm on Mynydd y Betws will cumulate their impact which is not large enough to support this additional development.
68. There would be a major risk of landslips, owing to former mining activities below the surface which in turn could severely effect the hydrology of the area.
69. Serious and potentially life threatening risk should a land slide be caused during construction or as an after effect of the weight of the turbines.
70. It is stated that the ground will be returned to its previous state, but an example of this not being the case is the condition of the reinstatement of land after National Grid have constructed the gas line from Milford to Gloucester over private land and commons.
71. Will there be a financial bond placed in escrow to cover the decommissioning of the turbines and infrastructure to ensure the landscape is reinstated at the of life of the turbines?
Page 21 Page 15 of 151
72. The delivery of turbines to Mynydd y Betws is only just starting and delivery promises and major failures are occurring. If Mynydd y Gwair is the same, the application should be rejected.
73. The access road adjacent to the residential properties on Bolgoed Road could de- value the properties, cause dust and noise. There will be a lot of disturbance whilst the access road is being constructed and the turbines transported to the proposed site.
74. Residents have campaigned for a speed limit reduction on Bolgoed Road for years and there have been several serious accidents. The increase in traffic caused by the turbines construction will compromise safety.
75. Access in and out of driveways will be dangerous and there will be a restriction of on-road parking.
76. Increase in heavy traffic will devalue the houses en-route.
77. The back-log of traffic will build up behind the abnormal loads.
78. Cost of damage far outweighs the efficiency and power outputs of such monstrosities.
79. The cost of building the massive structures cannot be justified by the insufficient power generated.
80. The energy output from wind farms would never be enough to cope with demands and would still have to be backed up other means.
81. Mynydd y Gwair is currently under consideration by the Welsh Government for inclusion in the extension of the Gower AONB, being in the ancient Lordship of Gower.
82. The massive visual impact will be visible from Cefn Bryn changing the character and appearance of the natural landscape forever.
83. This is the last totally unspoilt wilderness in the whole of West Glamorgan.
84. Closing off Bolgoed Road would have severe impact to local businesses.
85. People living around turbines have their health compromised.
86. Effects of ‘shadow flicker’ could be detrimental to the quality of life.
87. Shadow flicker could cause a health risk to people suffering from Epilepsy.
88. What will happen to the £240k annum, i.e. who will manage it, where will it be deposited, and who may get access to it?
Page 22 Page 16 of 151
89. It is frightening just how many operational, under construction, consented and proposed wind farms there are. Given that land owners receive up to £40,000 per turbine per year and the Government subsidies £500 million a year its no small wonder that wind farms are appearing on so many of our beautiful landscapes.
90. There are existing road safety issues with respect to livestock. Increased disturbance to livestock will occur across the Common.
91. The proposed access road at Bolgoed Road is steep, has unstable geology, and would increase surface water run-off.
92. Other habitats along the route from Cwm Dulais have been overlooked.
93. The wind industry is a scam, funded by subsidies and does nothing to combat climate change.
94. Wind turbines are not always reliable and mishaps, breakdowns and accidents have been reported. They are exposed to high risk from storms, lightening, fire and ice. The long blades can snap off and shatter into sharp shards and scatter hundreds of metres away.
95. The construction will affect the filtration of water to the Lliw Reservoir.
96. Misuse of public funds to subsidise wind farms at the cost of an environmental disaster. Wind farms need an enormous subsidy to make a profit.
97. It would take 3,500 turbines to produce the same power on average as a small conventional power plant, but with none of the security of supply.
98. The disturbance along the access road to the wind farm will be enormous due to smoke, dust and noise pollution and will obstruct local traffic.
99. The vibration from heavy trucks would cause structural damage to neighbouring properties.
100. Delivery vehicles will damage hedges and banks.
101. Wind farms are a feeble and unreliable source of power and typically full power is produced less than 20% of the time. Wind speed is unpredictable and conventional power stations must be kept on standby when the wind drops.
102. It is unlikely that there will be any saving of CO2 once all the energy used in manufacture, building of roads and infrastructure and eventual decommissioning are taken into account.
103. Without massive financial support, from taxpayers, via the Renewable Obligations Certificates, they would not be built, as they are not financially viable.
104. Traffic accessing the site from Bolgoed Road (A48) will have to pass closely to houses at 141 - 147 Bolgoed Road. The occupants will be subjected to a significant increase in noise and vibrations as large and heavy vehicles turn to move up the gradient.
Page 23 Page 17 of 151
105. The residential properties at Hengoed, Henglawdd and Cwm Dulais located all the access route would be affected by noise and vibration from the movement of large and heavy vehicles.
106. Existing traffic will be affected by the proposed traffic movements.
107. The wind farm should be connected to Mynydd y Betws which would save a tremendous amount of money, and not interfere with Penllergaer and Pontlliw.
108. The access track crosses the Welsh Water 66 diameter main. What measures are in place to overcome this issue?
109. The access track will impact upon Bridleways / footpaths LC80 & 82 over Goppa Hill.
504 LETTERS OF SUPPORT have been received. The reasons for support include:
1. The scheme would bring major benefits to the local communities. A considerable amount of expenditure would go to local projects / companies during construction phase, and by way of maintenance contracts and community investment schemes.
2. The economic report estimates the construction could potentially generate up to £12 million in Wales, with £8.5 million being invested in South and West Wales. During construction, the project could also potentially generate 104 full time equivalent jobs each year.
3. During its operation, the project could also create a further £12m for the South and West Wales region, and support 19 Welsh jobs, of which eight could be in South & West Wales.
4. RWE would offer a Community Investment Package based on a payment of £5,000 per MW per year. Assuming an installed capacity of 48MW, this would deliver a fund of £240,000 per year throughout the operational life of the wind farm.
5. Encouragement of wind farm schemes will help establish Wales at the forefront of progressive environment policy, and attract businesses and additional investment into the area.
6. This wind farm, if built, will number 16 turbines and have a total installed capacity of up to 48MW, enough to meet the demands of some 24,700 each year, offsetting the release of thousands of tonnes of CO2 over its lifespan of up to 25 years and contributing to local and national renewable targets.
7. Wind farms in the UK are an essential part of our efforts to combat man-made climate change by offsetting carbon dioxide emissions that would otherwise be produced by fossil fuel power generation.
8. Wind power must play a vital part in our energy mix alongside other renewables such as wave, tidal, solar and energy efficiency.
9. The UK has 40% of the European wind resource and the potential to be a world leader in this technology.
Page 24 Page 18 of 151
10. The wind farm will not effect the enjoyment of living in or visiting the area.
11. The visual impact must be put in context with the widespread environmental damage which climate change could cause in the area, and I accept the wind farm as a necessary feature on the skyline.
12. The UK has a commitment to international legally-binding carbon emission and renewable energy targets and these must be taken seriously.
13. The publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report into climate change adds to the already compelling evidence that global warming is happening and the severity of the consequences we face if we do nothing to address the situation. Consent for the Mynydd y Gwair wind farm will show that this County takes the threat of man-made climate change seriously.
Initial Summary Objection from ‘Save Our Common Mountain Environment’ (SOCME) - As in the case of the previous 2008 application, we act for the local action group ‘Save Our Common Mountain Environment’ (SOCME). I summarise below an objection to this proposal which will be expanded when detailed study of the supporting material and the necessary fieldwork and consultation are completed. As the Mynydd y Betws windfarm is now a reality, its impacts combine with those proposed at Mynydd y Gwair in every aspect under consideration, and increase the overall level of adversity of impact and the degree of objection.
Initial Objection In consultation with SOCME members I have made a general overview of the Environmental Statement (ES) and related material accompanying the planning application. Here are my general comments which form SOCME’s initial Objection to the proposal. I would stress that this is no more than a first response, but it is informed by the previous application and its examination at Public Inquiry. SOCME members are in the process of reviewing the documentation, including internal reports on certain key topics in addition to my own on landscape and visual impact. I plan to carry out fieldwork over the coming weeks, and will assemble a considered response, critique, and alternative assessment which can be related to the relevant policies under which the proposal will be assessed. It will of course also be necessary to establish the details of the parallel application on Common Land aspects and respond appropriately to that.
The landscape and the sense of place Mynydd y Gwair consists of a characteristic upland lung for Swansea and other areas, extremely popular for public recreation on its open uplands and around the recreational areas of the Lliw Reservoirs. It forms a large area of Open Access Land linking Swansea and adjacent populated areas and the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (under consideration for extension) to the Brecon Beacons National Park. With nearby urban Commons it forms the upland section of the Lordship of Gower, with important and characteristic cultural, farming, landscape and recreational characteristics.
The proposal in its policy context The Arup TAN8 refinement exercise for this part of Search Area E concluded that it is unsuited to ‘Very Large’ turbines above 100m in overall height. This is misrepresented at ES 6.8.8 which claims that ‘the zone is defined as suitable’.
Page 25 Page 19 of 151
The 15 machines at Mynydd y Betws already exceed this height by 10m, and contribute 34.5MW capacity – double that envisaged by Arup for its host Zone E12. However, the proposed 16 x 127m Mynydd y Gwair turbines are almost 30% taller than the Arup limit, would be the largest by far yet built in rural Wales and among the largest yet constructed on land in the whole of the UK. The 47m blades would sweep a circle of 6,940m2 (1.7 acres of sky) - 38% larger than those at Mynydd y Betws, and revolve around an axis 10m higher. In combination, a 31-machine ‘conturbination’ would be created.
Residential amenity Significant impacts are conceded in the ES for residents in a 2km radius. SOCME disagrees with the contention that this would nevertheless not adversely affect individual living conditions, when any normal test is applied. SOCME also believes that the collective adverse impact on residential amenity is an issue, and is avoided in the ES.
Visual Amenity and enjoyment of the countryside Extensive adverse impacts will be encountered by all classes of user on the roads which sweep over the open moorland, with profound, and in places overwhelming, impacts on walkers and others who enjoy – and are encouraged to enjoy - recreational use of the countryside on Open Access Land and public rights of way, including a 12km length of the St Illtyd’s Walk, which has the status of a National Trial. To distract attention from this important issue, as the ES does at 6.8.6 by reference to areas where there would be no views of the turbines, is misleading and disingenuous.
Landscape character The ES nevertheless accepts that a windfarm landscape would be created, merging with that deriving from Mynydd y Betws, and resulting in windfarm sub-types extending radially in areas of important visual impact. SOCME regards this as a landscape disaster and believes that It is erroneous for the ES to imply (6.8.4) that CCW guidance condones the construction of adjacent additional windfarms when the host areas are of similar character.
Cumulative Effects While the Mynydd y Gwair turbines are now to be assessed in relation to the impacts of the existing Mynydd y Betws scheme, the combined impact of the two is also a material consideration. Taken together, the two adjacent schemes would create not just a windfarm landscape but what may be experienced as a local windfarm world, perceived as stretching from the southern flanks of the Mountains of Mawr, across to the slopes facing the Brecon Beacons National Park. Wider impacts in conjunction with existing and proposed schemes would create a broad zone of landscape with industrial-features visible over increasingly large distances as turbine size increases and high-lying exposed skyline sites are targeted. Even where the Mynydd y Betws turbines are already visible, the additional of the larger Mynydd y Gwair machines brings that visual effect into a whole new level of dominance, by intensifying the impact and extending it to a wider spread.
Cultural heritage In combination with the existing adverse presence of Mynydd y Betws, the proposal would leave the important site of Penlle’r Castell and other individual monuments as islands almost surrounded by wind turbines thus changing the entire nature of their wider setting.
Noise and other disturbance While essentially a tranquil area, noise and other disturbance during both construction and operation will be totally at odds with the characteristics which make Mynydd y Gwair so important to those who live in and enjoy the area.
Page 26 Page 20 of 151
The disruptive, conspicuous and unusually lengthy Access Route from the A48 – over 5 miles long - would cause intense disturbance for local residents and the tranquil valleys and ridges which it traverses.
Ecology The ES dismisses the area as ecologically impoverished, but does concede that together with Mynydd y Betws, cumulative adverse impacts on the red kite population would be of greater than local significance. This oblique admission tells heavily against the scheme, now that Mynydd y Betws is in existence.
Common Land The ES fails to appreciate the significance of the common grazing system to the moorland, adjacent in-bye land and to the community of common graziers themselves who are a key part of the land use system which has maintained the open landscape as such a vital asset for Swansea and the surrounding area. SOCME believes that impacts will be greater and more disruptive than assessed, with potentially serious consequences to the land use of the Commons and the livelihoods of the Commoners not offset by offers of exchange land. A parallel Objection will be made to the Assembly Government in relation to the necessary but as yet unseen application in relation to the Common Land. Despite the extensive discussion on this issue at the Public Inquiry into the earlier proposal, the objections on this issue remain unresolved and will be sustained.
Conclusion All these issues raise concerns for the landscape, cultural and ecological resource, and for the resident, local and visiting population who presently appreciate and enjoy the unique qualities of this special area and its wildlife. The profound damage, in cumulation with the Mynydd y Betws turbines would exist for at least a quarter of a century. SOCME will explain and elaborate its concerns in a detailed submission, which will follow this initial objection, and demonstrate why this proposal should be refused planning consent. If, as in the case of the 2008 application, this progresses to a Public Inquiry, SOCME will progress its objections with the same zeal as it did previously. All these objections now have greater force than at the time of the original application because of the prior presence of the Mynydd y Betws turbines, and SOCME looks to the City and County Council of Swansea to recognise this increased threat to the landscape and environment of upland Gower by reviving its original objection to the scheme.
Open Spaces Society – Object to the application to site 16 wind turbines with associated infrastructure on common land at Mynydd y Gwair because they will destroy the landscape and people’s enjoyment of it.
This is a wonderful, open hillside with spectacular views where people roam freely enjoying the peace, tranquillity and exhilaration of the site. The wind turbines, with their associated paraphernalia, will urbanise it and destroy that feeling of wilderness.
The site is particularly important being so close to Swansea and therefore the backdoor recreation ground for the population of the city.
The land is registered common land where people have the legal right both to walk and to ride horses (thanks to a deed of access granted by the Somerset Trust) over the whole area, not just on public paths. The turbines and other works will severely interfere with those rights of grazing, and other common rights, over the area and they too will be adversely affected.
Page 27 Page 21 of 151
In any case, the development cannot take place on common land without consent being given by the Welsh Government under s38 of the Commons Act 2006. Indeed, for a development on this scale, the applicants should seek an exchange of common land but would be required to provide, in exchange, land which would be beneficial to the public. That, of course, would be impossible.
Your council has been robust in refusing applications for wind turbines in the mountains in the past. We urge you to be consistent and to refuse this one too, which is just as damaging as the previous ones.
Mawr Walking Club – Objection on the following grounds:
1. The construction, operation and maintenance of this development would profoundly impact on the stunning mountain scenery that charactises this historic, upland area of the Lordship of Gower.
2. The development is located alongside a public footpath, The Gower Way, which starts at Pennle’r Castell, the highest point on Gower, with absolutely magnificent views over Swansea, Carmarthenshire, Powys, Neath Port Talbot and Bridgend. The medieval, St Illtyd’s Way also crosses Mynydd Y Gwair and is located on the eastern boundary in close proximity to three of the turbines.
3. This area is being promoted as an area where a ‘peaceful walk’ can be enjoyed. It is an area which is being promoted for walking in rural Swansea. Indeed the community of Mawr has been identified as needing improvements in walking facilities and grants to improve public access have been received from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and Welsh Assembly Government.
4. This development will destroy the very beauty of the common land of Mynydd y Gwair. The sense of place for local communities will be destroyed.
Swansea Ramblers – The Committee of Swansea Ramblers wish to express its strong objection.
The Ramblers is an organisation whose primary charitable aim is to promote and encourage the public to go walking in the countryside to improve their health and wellbeing. This outstanding area of common land, so close to large areas of population should continue to be promoted and protected as a primary resource for the people of Swansea to enjoy.
We believe that the impact of this planning application, if successful, would irrevocably damage the recreational assets of the landscape. The visual appearance and noise of the turbines in this wild and beautiful upland area would be detrimental to the visual amenity and the recreational resource. The health and safety threats to the public of industrial units in the countryside should not be overlooked. There have been reports of ice forming on the blades of such turbines and once dislodged being hurled some distance into areas where the public normally wander.
Rhiwfawr Action Group – objects strongly. We consider that removing three turbines from the original proposal does not alleviate the problems that this proposal would create.
Page 28 Page 22 of 151
Many of our members are commoners. This proposal is opposed by the West Glamorgan Commoners Association as it would have an extremely detrimental effect on their livelihoods. The animals that graze this area would be disturbed off their hefts and this would cause serious welfare issues.
To allow the turbines and relate infrastructure to be installed would damage the blanket bog, a priority habitat that contains peat. It is in the national interest to protect this area not destroy it!
In addition there would be a vast number of practical problems caused by such an enormous industrial installation, such as hydrology issues (negative impacts on the catchment area for the Upper Lliw Reservoir), proximity of the turbines to roads and dwellings and associated safety issues, traffic problems during construction, maintenance and deconstruction, etc.
Mynydd y Gwair is used by ramblers, horse riders and bird watchers, among others. The proposal threatens the tranquillity of the mountain, and would damage an important landscape which is presently a fantastic place for recreation. The light and noise pollution would limit recreational enjoyment of the mountain.
Tourism is extremely important to the local economy and to the economy of Wales as a whole. Tourists could be deterred from visiting the area, and perhaps neighbouring areas too, as the turbines would be visible from both the existing Gower AONB and the BRECON Beacons National Park. There is serious issue of negative impact on the landscape, as turbines are already present at Ffynon Oer, and are being erected on Mynydd Betws.
Mynydd y Gwair is a haven for wildlife, including many species protected by European and other laws, including otter, red kite, skylarks, golden plover and several species of bats. Scientific research has shown that bats are killed by industrial turbines, not only via collision, but also as a result of pressure changes caused by the sweep of the blades. Turbines located on Mynydd Y Gwair would have to be lit because of the danger to aircraft and this would attract insects, and hence bats.
Wales should not be destroying its precious resources for a questionably calculated ‘greater good’. If planning permission were to be granted it would change the nature of the permitted land use for the site to general industrial use, which means that there could be no adequate guarantee that the landscape could ever be retuned to its current, glorious state.
We are extremely concerned at the risks to the local people as it is known that devaluation of property occurs when massive wind turbines are erected.
We urge you to stand up for the local people and the people of Wales and reject this planning application.
West Glamorgan Commoners Association – Objection. At present we have a membership of 102, all of which have grazing rights on the common. During a meeting last week (Sept. 2012) all of the members unanimously decided to object against the proposed development.
Page 29 Page 23 of 151
There are many reasons for our members not wanting the development to go ahead.
1. All graziers on the land proposed for development, have the legal right to graze their animals on the land 365 days of the year, and as written in the book of Common Land Law, “The peaceful enjoyment of such rights”, this development will interfere with this legal right of the rights holders.
2. The construction of the Wind Turbine site is going to create huge aggravation to our graziers, the sheer amount of traffic and noise is going to push the animals that graze in the vast area proposed for development away from their grazing stints, onto other graziers stints, this domino affect is going to create animals starving against fences because of the sheer number of animals that use the area, our graziers should not have to endure this kind of treatment, and their animals certainly do not need this disruption.
3. The roads that are going to be created will remain after the construction for maintenance purposes, this opens the common up for all kinds of crime, as I am sure you are aware it is illegal to use the common on anything other than by foot, we have enough trouble with motorbikes, sheep rustling, dumped cars and fly tipping, to name a few, at present, these roads will be an open invitation for the less law abiding members of the public to do as they wish.
4. The developers have earmarked some land as exchange land for the areas taken up by the tracks, turbines etc, this should not even be able to be considered as, again in the book of Common Land Law, it states that all exchange land “needs to be of a like for like exchange”, this land is not, it is improved land with different grasses and completely different feed and environmental values.
5. The development is going to interfere with the livelihoods of our members; they are not going to be able to farm in the manners that they are proud to farm in. The financial implications of such a development are catastrophical, the increased shepherding, feeding and animal husbandry costs will not allow many farmers to carry on with their business, and this simply cannot be allowed to proceed any further.
6. The wind turbine site will need tremendous amounts of excavation, the common is high up and catches a lot of the water that could easily run down to the higher populated areas of Swansea, the common plays a vital part in flood alleviation in areas lower down the valleys.
I urge you please to object to this proposal again, we as graziers have fought this fight for many years, and it was turned down on appeal earlier this year, and should be rejected again.
Please when making your decision, think of all the farmers that will be devastated by the creation of a Wind Turbine site, all the animals that graze the common that will be disturbed and threatened by the site, and remember that the common has been in this stare for centuries and is of tremendous environment value to animals, plants and us as humans.
Page 30 Page 24 of 151
We are very fortunate to have such an asset attached to our farms, please we urge you to reject this proposal and keep this unspoilt wilderness as it should be, natural.
Brecon Beacons Park Society - I am writing on behalf of the Brecon Beacons Park Society to object to the planning application cited above.
Although the proposed development would be outside the Brecon Beacons National Park, a group of 16 wind turbines with a hub height of 80 metres and a maximum height to blade wing tip of 127 metres would have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the Park. The site, on a raised plateau, is only 5 kilometres from the boundary of the National Park and wind turbines of this size would be visible from one third its upland areas, from the Fforest Fawr in the East to the Western boundary. This part of the Park, particularly the Mynydd Du (Black Mountain) Remote Area (National Park UDP 3.61) is especially wild and undeveloped and the intrusion of the proposed wind farm into the landscape would destroy the sense of wilderness and remoteness. This area is also designated as an International Geopark and its status as such would be compromised by this development.
The primary statutory purpose of National Parks is to conserve and enhance their natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage (PPW 5.3.4). The duty to have regard to National Park purposes applies to activities affecting these areas, whether those activities lie within or outside the designated areas (PPW 5.3.7). The National Park designation should confer the highest status of protection as far as landscape and scenic beauty are concerned and this protection should extend to areas outside the Park boundary that are conspicuous from the Park (UDP 2.2). We believe that this development would be contrary to:
• Policy G3 i) of the UDP, which states that developments must not have “an unacceptable impact on, nor detract from or prevent the enjoyment of, the special qualities, natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park.” • Policy S12: Wind Energy, particularly S12 i) which states that wind energy development will only be permitted where “there is no unacceptable impact either individually or cumulatively, either during or after construction, to the special built, historic or natural environment qualities for which the Park is designated.”
We also submit that the rejection of the application for a wind farm between the Lake District National Park and the Yorkshire Dales National Park should have some weight in the consideration of this application. While we are aware of the urgent need to make more use of renewable energy we contend that landscapes such as this, which are of national importance, should not be sacrificed. We therefore ask you to reject this proposal.
The Gower Society - wishes to register its objection to this application.
The proposal is not substantially different to the previous application for wind turbines at Mynydd y Gwair, application 2008/1781, which was refused by Swansea City and County Council. An appeal to PINS was dismissed and this decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal in March 2012.
Although the current application is for three fewer turbines than the earlier application, our objections remain substantially the same as those put forward by the Society in 2010.
Our grounds of objection are summarised below:
Page 31 Page 25 of 151
1. The proposal would be seriously detrimental visually to an area of exceptional beauty. The structures themselves would be hugely dominant and intrusive; but more intrusive still would be the movement of the blades. The movement draws the eye in a way that a static structure does not. It is impossible to ignore – a principle well known in advertising – and imposes itself onto the scene in a way that will utterly destroy the sense of calm and tranquillity of the area. This visual turbulence would be devastating to the immediate area and would also be evident from the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and from the Brecon Beacons National Park.
2. The application is for a development in the open countryside, and therefore contrary to Local Authority planning policy. No other large industrial structure, let alone sixteen individual structures of over 400 feet in height, would be considered appropriate in the area of this proposal. Wind turbines should not be exempt from normal planning procedures and policies.
3. The noise and disturbance during the construction period and afterwards would seriously affect the hefted sheep flocks of Mynydd y Gwair and impact importantly on the economy and life of the farmers in the surrounding upland area.
4. The extensive road structure needed during the construction period and for maintenance work on the completed turbines will have a serious detrimental effect on the immediate ecological and visual environment of Mynydd Y Gwair.
5. A substantial number of residents in the wider area towards the A48 will be adversely affected to a serious extent during the construction period by the volume and size of vehicles using roads never designed to take this type of traffic.
6. The proposal, (including the reinstatement plans, which would leave the huge concrete bases as alien features in the environment for hundreds of years) would be detrimental to the natural environment.
7. Key aims of the EC Water Framework Directive are the promotion of sustainable water use and to establish a framework for the protection of surface and groundwaters which protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems. TAN 5, paragraph 4.3.4 (b), although referring to non EIA developments, emphasises the need for a Geological / Geomorphological / Hydrological / Hydrogeological Report addressing the relevant issues on the site or features directly or indirectly affected by the proposed development.
8. The construction of these turbines, access roads and associated structures are likely to have serious detrimental effects on the catchment area of the Lliw Reservoirs. These reservoirs date back to the 1860s and still provide the Swansea area with much of its water. Any adverse run-off during construction of the proposed turbines and associated works is likely to impact detrimentally on the Swansea water supply. Indeed, the Lower Lliw Reservoir is a vital element in a system that supplies water to Swansea, Neath Port Talbot, Porthcawl, Bridgend and nearly into Cardiff. We understand that forestry access road construction and tree planting severely damaged the Cray Reservoir system some thirty years ago. This current proposal could endanger the water supplies of up to 400,000 people.
Page 32 Page 26 of 151
9. The area is open access land. In addition, two long-distance footpaths – The Gower Way and St Illtyd’s Way - pass through or on the boundaries of the proposed development site, as does the permissive Lliw Valley Walk. A number of wind turbine sites in Wales have already posted notices warning the public to keep away from the area at times of high wind and under icy conditions. Located in an area of high precipitation at some 1,000 feet above sea level, with blades reaching 400 feet higher, the proposed turbines are likely to be seriously affected by ice and snow at times in the winter months and, therefore, to present a potential threat to the public. As well as the threat of physical harm, the development would, in practice, deprive the public of their right of access to this area and, in effect, close these Rights of Way for significant parts of the year.
10. There is clear evidence, from the UK and abroad, that wind farms pose a small but significant threat to bird populations in their area. The re-establishment of the red kite in Wales has been hailed as one of the most important environmental successes of recent years. The current proposal for Mynydd y Gwair could put that success at risk. The barn owl is another listed species found in the area, and merlin has been recorded there. It is also an important plover and skylark breeding ground.
11. The proposal would be detrimental to the sustainable tourism projects currently being developed under European funding by the Swansea Rural Development Partnership (a delivery team of the Swansea Economic Regeneration Partnership). This project aims to strengthen the economic basis of the Mawr ward through sustainable tourism projects based on walking and cycling, with associated accommodation and food/drink provision. Walking and cycling are viewed as four- season activities, and any restrictions imposed or advised in the area by the proposed wind turbine development would undermine this project. While the wind turbine development might provide a short-term boost to the local economy (and a much bigger boost to outside contractors, the developers and the land owner), the Axis 3 project is aimed at providing broadly-based, long-term and sustainable economic development to the area. Several of the projects put forward for the Mawr area through the Rural Development Partnership are specifically based on or around Mynydd y Gwair. We are repeatedly told that tourism is an essential element in the South Wales economy generally and in Swansea City and County specifically. This proposal will at best hinder, and at worst, totally destroy the huge tourism potential for this area.
12. The Mynydd y Gwair area is currently under consideration for designation as an extension to the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal is now on the Countryside Council for Wales’ agenda. Swansea City and County Council has affirmed its support for this extension of the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty into the Upland area of Mynydd y Gwair.
“National Parks and AONBs are of equal status in terms of landscape and scenic beauty and both must be afforded the highest status of protection from inappropriate developments”. (Planning Policy Wales, Paragraph 5.3.6)
It would, therefore, be entirely inappropriate for planning permission to be given for development at Mynydd y Gwair until the proposed AONB designation of the area has been fully considered.
Page 33 Page 27 of 151
13. The present application must be seen in the context of other wind-farms agreed or proposed for this region and their cumulative impact on the environment.
14. The Dower Report, 1945, described the proposed National Parks and Areas of Conservation as “areas of beautiful and relatively wild country…which are not for any privileged or otherwise restricted section of the population, but for all who care to refresh their minds and spirits and to exercise their bodies in a peaceful setting of natural beauty. Few national purposes are more vital or more rich in promise of health and happiness…” Upland Gower and Mynydd y Gwair are ideally placed to provide this mental, spiritual and physical refreshment for the people of South Wales. The industrialisation of such an area of wild beauty in such close proximity to large urban populations, is untenable.
15. The Hobhouse Report, 1947, (which sprang directly from The Dower Report, and led directly to the 1949 National Parks and Countryside Act) emphasised the importance of landscape to an urban and industrialised nation: “Four fifths of the population dwell in urban areas….amid the ceaseless traffic and bustle of our industrial towns and larger cities. They need the refreshment which is obtainable from the beauty and quietness of unspoilt country… it is urgent to ensure that some at least of the extensive areas of beautiful and wild country in England and Wales are specially protected as part of the national heritage… and carry due weight in the inevitable competition with more utilitarian, and sometimes more powerful, claims to the use and development of land.”
Mynydd y Gwair is just such a landscape. It is an essential component of the magnificent uplands of North Gower, a landscape of rolling hills, huge skies and enormous views. It is a landscape that evinces grandeur and remoteness even though it is so close to one of the largest conurbations in South Wales.
Planning is not just a question of following regulations, but of balancing benefits and disbenefits. In our view, the damage to Mynydd y Gwair – one of the last accessible, beautiful, wild and tranquil places left in this part of Wales – far outweighs the small environmental gains that this scheme might produce.
16. TAN 5 makes the environmental, human and economic point eloquently: Biodiversity and geodiversity add to the quality of life and local distinctiveness. The geology of Wales… is diverse, visually impressive and of great scientific importance. (paragraph 1.5.1)
The enjoyment of wildlife and geology provides opportunities for lifelong learning, recreation and tourism. Environments where a rich diversity of wildlife and natural resources is appreciated, fostered and enhanced help to retain jobs, attract inward investment and diversify the economy. The conservation of our natural resources is a necessity, not merely a choice. (paragraph 1.5.2)
Further submission - The Gower Society has written previously on this application and what we have said still stands. However we would like to draw your attention to the following additional points and urge you to consider them when arriving at a decision or when advising your elected Members.
Page 34 Page 28 of 151
1. We have stated the importance of the upland landscape of Mynydd y Gwair to the people of Swansea and the Gower AONB. It has also been pointed out that the recent construction of the wind farm on Mynydd y Bettws should be a wake up call to all those who have expressed either indifference or support of the Mynydd y Gwair application. No one involved in the decision making process of 2012/1221 should be allowed to take part unless they have travelled over the Mountain Road from Morriston to Bettws on a fine clear day and taken stock of the scenery on route. • First at Penll’er Castell looking West Carmarthenshire and then traversing in a 360 degree panorama encompassing Gower, Swansea , The Vale of Glamorgan and coastline back to Port Talbot, The Neath Valley and finally the Black Mountains and Brecon Beacons. An unrivalled vista as a back drop to an unspoilt upland area that could be desecrated by this proposal.
• When approaching The Scott's Pine pub above Mynydd y Bettws stop again and now look at the devastation to habitat and landscape caused by the ongoing construction of a similar wind farm in Carmarthenshire. No one who witnesses this vandalism (both physical by way of access roads and bases and scenically by access roads and the turbines themselves) can possibly support a similar act upon the Lordship of Gower at Mynydd y Gwair.
2. You may be aware of the recent publicity about the United Nations Aarhus convention and a recent and ongoing appeal to the UN by Mrs Christine Metcalfe of Avich- Kichrenan community council in Argyll. The nub of this appeal is that the wind farm developers (this amounts to any developer anywhere in Europe) have not shown conclusively that wind power development essentially does what is claimed. Recent detailed work has shown that there is no overall long term reduction in carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions from wind power and indeed it has been shown that they make matters worse when all aspects are brought into the equation. There is little doubt that the many have been misled by exaggerated claims that wind farms are a panacea for reducing carbon dioxide. Learned scientists are now challenging the very core of the arguments for wind and other EU countries are reversing their policies. These are facts can not be denied and your Council should be made aware of the full situation.
We therefore request that:
1. all those involved in the Mynydd y Gwair decision undertake a site visit, travelling the Mountain Road as described above; 2. Planners and Councillors be made aware of the recent appeal to the United Nations and the Aarhus Convention.
South Wales Chamber of Commerce – Within the body of a number of documents issued by South Wales Chamber of Commerce over the last 2 years, there has been much emphasis on the importance the renewable Energy Sector can play in economic development across the Principality over the next decade.
Feedback from our membership and beyond has identified the need to work towards a balanced mix of energy schemes, which draw on the natural resources Wales has to offer, so as to create a sustainable, efficient and diverse provision for both business and private sectors.
Page 35 Page 29 of 151
Economically priced energy has the propensity to attract much needed Inward Investment schemes into Wales and particularly this region, where sustainable power sources and costs have a significant influence on Corporate decisions around business location.
Whilst multi dimensional, the aspects assessed would include:
1. Construction Phase – typically reflects greatest employment especially for the likes of civil engineering works, but also with wide-spread spin-off opportunities into infrastructure services including local accommodation providers and food supply business. There are also supply chain implications for those businesses successful in providing goods and services. Associated professional; costs of both scoping, developing and delivery of project. 2. Operational Phase – modest direct, skilled long term employment opportunities, with additional long term supply chain benefits and in some instances, attraction of tourism, depending on the scheme. 3. Maintenance Phase – still to be fully scoped but regular servicing of units has propensity to deliver additional work but also development of specialist skills. 4. Innovation – opportunity to link into local academia for ongoing efficiency and process enhancements.
The proposed wind farm scheme at Mynydd y Gwair certainly meets these aspects where direct economic benefit can be generated on behalf of both the local and regional economy. When considered as part of the wider schemes being progressed in neighbouring Local Authority areas, it really does present exciting opportunities for many. The direct economic impact assessment for this specific scheme has been very clearly articulated by Regeneris Consulting Limited in their proposal from August 2012. Its report states that, with consent, the wind farm could sustain up to 104 full time equivalent jobs on average during each year of construction and deliver £8.5 million to the local economies of South and South West Wales. Ongoing operations and maintenance could account for a further 19 full time equivalent jobs and an additional £1.2 million annually into the Welsh economy, of which 8 full time equivalent jobs and £0.6 million could be in South and South West Wales.
As an organisation representing private Business we appreciate the economic arguments for these type of schemes are often viewed as secondary by local and national media, which balanced against the opinion of local residents. But it’s worth stating that the impact on Business is an impact on local communities, given that local and regional Business generally tends to employ its workforces from the local area. Clearly we are keen to emphasis the economic legacy which extends well beyond immediate emotion.
Leadership in supporting scheme’s such as Mynydd y Gwair is critical if we are all working towards a better Wales and we certainly would add our support for granting planning permission to build the project. We would be available to work with both yourselves and RWE in maximising the involvement of local business in an approved scheme.
An exciting opportunity which will contribute to moving Wales forward.
Gower Branch of Plaid Cymru - The Gower Constituency Branch of Plaid Cymru wishes to register its objection to the proposed wind farm development proposed on Mynydd Y Gwair by RWE Innogy. The basis of this objection in terms of the wider policy framework within which the application has been submitted is outlined in greater detail below.
Page 36 Page 30 of 151
Please note that this objection is to a specific development and does not necessarily reflect Plaid’s position in policy with regard to either wind farms or renewable energy developments generally.
The basis of this objection is quite simple. The Mynydd Y Gwair development will not in fact address our commitments in policy to reducing Wales’ carbon footprint, and therefore the basis of the application is unsound. The basis of this objection lies in the Welsh Renewable Energy Policy framework drawn upon by RWE and the fact that recent projects undertaken by this company effectively undermine this framework.
The Importance of Targets. The “Planning and Policy” section of the Environment Statement references a number of key documents on Renewable Energy from European level down to UK and finally within the devolved remit of the Welsh Government. However the central framework for development in a specifically Welsh context is enshrined in the more detailed advice set out in Technical Advice Note 8 (“TAN8”).
TAN8 in effect sets the primary framework in which decisions on renewable energy planning are taken in Wales (RWE, 2012). This reality of course is implicit in RWE Npower’s decision to locate the Mynydd Y Gwair development in Strategic Search Area (SSA) “E” – Pontardawe, and TAN8 is cited on many occasions throughout RWE’s “Environmental Statement”.
To be viable however, the targets set out in TAN8 and the Welsh Government’s “Low Carbon Strategy” must in some degree be attainable. They are not. Proof of this assertion can be easily demonstrated by reference to another development in RWE’s energy portfolio in Wales – the Pembroke 1 Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine power station. This single power station has an installed capacity of 2000MWe and was commissioned in September of this year.
To put this into perspective, this figure equates to 20-times the original “Indicative Capacity” target set for SSA “E” (100 Mw) and even far outstrips the total Indicative Capacity targets set for all SSA’s (1120 Mw). As such, this single development completely undermines the entire basis of renewable energy planning as set by the Welsh Government.
The reality is that gas-fired (i.e. fossil fuel) generation in terms of installed per-Megawatt capacity in Wales is rapidly outstripping the development of renewable generation. As such it is notable that while RWE make extensive reference to their renewable energy portfolio in their ES, nowhere do they make reference to this development. Yet this single development completely throws into question the relevance of the targets set out in TAN8.
In light of this failure it is also notable that renewable energy targets as set by WAG are in Terra-watt hours (TWh) and not percentage targets, as they are at UK level and, indeed European and amongst other devolved administrations across the UK. In this respect the type of target set at Welsh level is anomalous. It does not allow for genuine comparison of the changing ratio of fossil fuel to renewable generation in Wales.
The simple reality is that a percentage target would show that fossil fuel generation in Wales (in the form of gas-fired generation) is increasing at the expense of renewable generation. As such, the nature of the renewable generation targets enshrined in TAN8 is fundamentally flawed.
Page 37 Page 31 of 151
The Planning Inspector himself, in his 2010 Report, accorded particular weight to TAN8 and the targets enshrined therein as a key factor in the decision to approve or refuse the development.
Given that these targets are unattainable, however, questions must be raised as to whether the local costs, in terms of visual, social and environmental impacts are worth paying. If planning policies are to be cited as a key justification for approval of developments of this nature, planners and policy makers need to consider whether the evidence base on which these policies are based is still sound.
Appendix 1. Errors in the Environmental Statement. Finally, we note a number of basic errors in some of the information provided in the Environmental Statement. These errors raise questions about the quality of the information provided in the Statement as a whole. Two examples are cited here:
Chapter 5 – “Planning Policy”. 5.8.5. “Climate Change Strategy for Wales (2010). The paragraph quoted below is incomplete. The missing section is highlighted in bold;
“The Climate Change Strategy for Wales was published in 2010 and sets out how the WG intend to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The WG target for greenhouse gas emissions is set at a 3% reduction per annum in areas of devolved competence”.
Pointing out this small omission might seem pedantic, but in reality goes to the heart of the matter. In particular, the Welsh Government does not have consenting powers for large power stations over 50 Megawatts. Such stations would include Pembroke 1 power station, which was approved by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The example of Pembroke 1 power station should clearly highlight the simple reality that without full consenting powers for large power stations, Welsh Government carbon reduction and renewable energy targets are meaningless.
Chapter 11 – “Hydrology and Hydrogeology” – Baseline hydrological features. The catchment maps provided in the accompanying map are inaccurate. The map for the Lower Clydach Catchment, for example, indicates an outlet point for the Lower Clydach on Mynydd Gelliwastad. This is incorrect. The outlet point for the Lower Clydach is on the River Tawe at Grid Ref: SN 689 012.
Suzy Davies A.M. - I wish to object to the above proposal for the following reasons:-
1. The common land should be protected for the enjoyment of its users. Under part 3 section 38 of the Commons Act consent is required from the Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development for these works.
2. The vast quantities of peat bog, a natural sequester of C02, present on Mynydd y Gwair should be preserved at all cost. There is no point in building renewable energy projects that potentially emit more carbon than they save.
3. I understand from my constituents that there are about forty people dependant upon spring water, mains water supply is unavailable to them. The construction of the wind farm, access road and underground cabling may deny these people of a very basic human right.
Page 38 Page 32 of 151
4. The detrimental visual impact of the proposed wind farm will be seen from Gower AONB, Castell Carreg Cennen and the Brecon Beacons National Park, all very important sites for our tourist industry in Wales.
5. The wind farm at Mynydd y Betws consisting of 15 x 110m. turbines, now under construction, combined with this proposal will constitute an unacceptable level of cumulative impact.
6. Council may wish to consider the recent United Nations decision regarding case ACC/C/2010/54 relating to renewable energy targets imposed on EU nation states, having been done so undemocratically and in contravention of the Aarhus Convention. The compliance committee made recommendations that the 27 EU member states must reassess their National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP), and submit them to popular consultation.
7. As the competent authority, Swansea Council may also wish to consider whether it regards the EIA as accurate and independent.
8. Council may also wish to consider the recent High Court ruling by Mrs. Justice Lang where she stated “The Government’s encouragement of renewable energy did not outweigh local conservation policies.”
Edwina Hart A.M. - I have been contacted by constituents who are dismayed at this new application for wind turbines at Mynydd y Gwair and I have undertaken to share their views with you. While my correspondents have noted the reduction in the number of turbines they feel that the new application is not so very different from the previous application and their concerns for the environment remain the same.
I understand that the Gower Society have submitted a letter of objection which details those environmental concerns so I will not repeat them here but I do know that there has been a long campaign for including the upland area of Mynydd y Gwair into the Gower AONB and that the City and County of Swansea has expressed its support for its inclusion.
Byron Davies AM – objection. As I understand it the Appellants intends to remove three of the previously proposed turbines, which reduces the number to 16 (removing nos. 4, 9 and 13); the locations of turbines 15 and 18 are to be altered. All other turbines and the access roads are in exactly the same positions as considered at the planning inquiry in 2010; there does appear to be some minor modifications to the access tracks within the site. The dimensions of the proposed turbines appear to remain unchanged.
Firstly, I do not feel that these alterations go far enough to alleviate the harmful effects on the peat bog habitat. I feel that the development would result in changes to the water table with the resulting drying out of the bog. The Planning Inspectorate in his findings pointed out that…if he considered that the impact on the peat would be unacceptable then the appropriate course would be to recommend refusal. The Planning Inspectorate subsequently dismissed the appeal. I therefore strongly recommend you refuse this application on those grounds.
Page 39 Page 33 of 151
Secondly, in paragraph 90 of the Planning Inspectorate’s decision he states….associated tracks and sections of the access track near turbines 6, 7 and 89 would directly affect the peat in those areas of the site. It would appear that Npower have not addressed these issues; accordingly I would strongly recommend you refuse this application on the grounds that the development still adversely affects the natural habitat.
Thirdly, I would refer you to the ARUP refinement study which was commissioned by a number of local authorities, including the City and County of Swansea, as a material consideration when wind turbine applications are considered. It states that….it is important to carefully consider how these new, often very large structures can be introduced into the landscape in such a way that the impact on environment and communities is minimised. I would state these structures do impact greatly on the visual amenity and will have an enormous impact on the local communities as highlighted in the Planning Inspectorate’s report …they would have significant effect on the views of a large number of people living in, working in and travelling through the upland areas and the valley settlements surround this site. This in turn would affect the livelihood of those people who operate small businesses in the tourism industry, which is essential to the economy of Wales. I therefore strongly recommend you refuse this application on these grounds.
Finally, I urge you to consider these points during your deliberations on this matter and to formally refuse the application on these grounds, given the proximity of the location to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Cllr Ioan Richard – I hereby submit my firm objection to planning application 2012/1221 for 16 wind turbines and all associated works at Mynydd y Gwair as submitted by RWE Npower Renewables hereafter referred to as “Npower”. I am the local Mawr ward Councillor representing the site area for twenty seven years continuously on Planning Committees. This issue has been with us for well over twenty years since Ecogen first suggested Wind Turbines at Mynydd y Gwair and has been virulently objected to for over twenty years by all the local Agencies and Authorities and the general public and local; villages and farmers. It has only ever had support from developers and outsiders in so called “green” movements.
For the purpose of brevity I agree with all of the objections of the local action group SOCME and with the local Graziers Commoners Association. They are the core of my objections.
I will also here outline with some evidence how essential Mynydd y Gwair and adjoining common lands are to the local hill farmers who using sustainable summer ancient grazing rights, with no pesticides or artificial fertilizers, rear for the food industry large tonnage of beef meat and lamb meat off this common land at virtual organic pure standards. I attached evidence of registered grazier holdings. Stock levels are 3,858 head of cattle or 20,663 head of sheep or a proportion of either. This is a serious level of meat production.
Livestock grazing will be seriously disrupted during construction. The livestock includes many herds of cattle; horses and particularly hefted sheep flocks who know their grazing patches (Arosfa). Any disturbance of this ancient system will cause immense problems for the Shepherd Upland Hill farmers. The proposed land exchanges 40 hectatres using previousd farm fields of Blaen Gerdinen and Blaen yr Olchfa Fach farms will be a lure to all livestock due to the better quality “sweeter” grass. This will cause flocks and herds to be attracted to graze intensively on these exchange areas.
Page 40 Page 34 of 151
This will result in crossing of herds and flocks and concentrations of any diseases and parasites particularly and sheep scab. This is an inevitable health and animal welfare situation that’s not solvable. There are further commons nearby. Sheep tend to stay on their “hefts” patches unless disturbed and then quickly lose their heft recognitions. Cattle will always wonder.
I write with an additional objection in that it has come to my notice that Swansea Council’s Countryside Section organises events from the Lliw Reservoir Café. One recent event was an evening bat watch led by a bat expert. They walked the Lliw Reservoir area and saw a very large number of bats including one rare species. These rare bats could be killed by wind turbines blades.
Further objections Whilst the 16 turbines would have a maximum capacity of 48MW, turbines are only 25% effective and the effective output would only be12MW, converted to 105,120MWh (Mega Watt hours). The scheme would power 22,366 homes (erratically), yet the new gas power station at Milford Haven will power 3,000,000 homes. Currently the electricity sales from Mynydd y Gwair would be £57.48 x 105,120 MWh = £6,042,298 per year, and additionally the subsidy for Mynydd y Gwair would be £4,689,403 per year. The community gain offer will only be £240,000 per year – or £1 back for every £20 the public pay in subsidies. Most of the finance put in for construction will go to foreigners and outsiders as will all the revenue and subsidies. The scheme will so insignificant in global terms it will do nothing to alter global; climate change. It will have a massive significant effect on the local environment, destroying an ancient local unspoilt wilderness and its traditional livestock grazing areas and watercourses that have always been unspoilt before.
Further objections I know for a fact that several farms and remote cottages in Mawr Ward still rely on springs and wells for their only water supply – including drinking water due to their remoteness from the water mains. I have wondered for a while if all these deep excavations for Wind Turbine bases could affect essential ground water supplies to these homes. Our Council’s Environmental Health Department has a map of all homes on private water supplies for Health reasons. What has prompted me to write now is the email from an eminent academic Dr John Etherington retired Reader at University Cardiff in Ecology and holder of many other honours. The e mail and confirms my fears that this massive disturbance to Mynydd y Gwair could result in many homes losing water supplies – a very serious matter indeed. Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence are reported today on the press as objecting to Wind Turbines at one other location as they consider Wind Turbines will create ground vibrations that will interfere with tracking of nuclear bomb tests by hostile regimes around the world. Of course that nuclear bomb tracking would not apply here, but if we get ground vibrations, as Ministry of Defence expert scientists say we will, then these vibrations could also disrupt ground water movements especially if they trigger underground collapses of old coal mine workings which riddle the entire area under consideration. These are serious reasons to add to a refusal decision.
Further objections On the News coverage of the recent tragic helicopter crash in London, it was stated that the crane and tower were 600 ft high. It also said that the pilot failed to see the crane's light in thick fog and that helicopters rely on being able to visually see tall objects. .
Page 41 Page 35 of 151
How is it safe to put literally thousands of gigantic wind turbines 475 ft in height [only 50 ft short of Blackpool Tower] across the UK? In Wales hundreds will be placed on 1500 feet high hills, giving an accumulative height of 1975 feet above sea level. If fog is such a problem, don't they even realise it descends in minutes in the hills? No fewer than twenty two complexes of Wind Turbines are being planned for Powys county in central Wales. Mynydd y Gwair is on the flight path for helicopters – especially those rushing emergency medical patients for Brain Surgery and the national Burns Unit and the regional Cardiac Unit at Morriston Hospital!
Not only that; there is Right to Roam in the same hills, so Police, Mountain Rescue helicopters and air ambulances will be flying regularly across these hills.
In South Wales, they are building a huge wind farm called Pen y Cymoedd for miles from Aberdare to Neath , with tens of thousands in the Valley villages and towns below.
How is it practical and safe to fly helicopters amongst gargantuan wind turbines in Britain, when thick fog can descend within minutes ....especially in the local hills.
Mawr Community Council – No response to date
Llangyfelach Community Council – object to the proposed new development as stipulated in the Council’s Objections on the previous planning application on this site for a wind farm and endorse the objections by Mawr Community Council on this new proposed development.
Pontarddulais Town Council – object for the following reasons:
Landscape The construction of a new access road of 13.8km across unspoilt open countryside will have a significant detrimental impact on the land. Aligned to this will be the infrastructure concerns when large lorries carrying the 12378 metre high turbines travel from the M4 through Pontlliw and access the land adjacent to 141 Bolgoed Road, Pontarddulais.
The proposed turbines are 127m in height and do not meet the sub-objective of TAN8 to avoid the worst cumulative visual effects. The height of the turbines will reduce the scale and effect of the landform and result in a significant adverse landscape effect. Turbines are already present at Ffynon Oer and currently being erected on Mynydd y Betws.
Ecology Damage to and disturbance of blanket bog, a priority habitat under both the UK and Local Biodiversity Action Plan. Damage to and disturbance of peat. Negative impact on the catchment area for the Upper Lliw Reservoir and damage to the source of two rivers. Damage to springs that local farms and dwellings rely heavily on.
Wildlife Mynydd y Gwair is a haven for wildlife, including many species protected by European and other laws, including otter, red kite, skylarks, golden plover and several species of bats. Scientific research has shown that bats are killed by industrial turbines, not only via collision, but also as a result of pressure changes caused by the sweep of the blades. Turbines located on Mynydd y Gwair would have to be lit and this would attract insects and hence bats.
Page 42 Page 36 of 151
Recreation Mynydd y Gwair has a number of ling distance footpaths crossing it and is used by ramblers, bird watcher and balloonists. Horse riders and cyclists use the road that passes through the common. Over the last few years efforts have been made to encourage greater numbers of visitors to the Mawr/ Pontarddulais area to improve the local economy. The construction of a wind farm will have a negative impact on this work.
Commoners issues At present the commoners graze their animals in the area. If the application is successful then their animals would be disturbed off their hefts and this would result in a threat to commoners livelihoods and way of life.
Safety Risk of icefall from the turbine blades and risk of fire in the event of lightening strikes. The latter is exacerbated by the presence of both grassland and peat with the possibility that the fire could burn for weeks and spread over a very large area.
Penllergaer Community Council – is opposed to the planning application.
The scheme will result in considerable disruption to the village of Penllergaer and will involve major disruption to the infrastructure during the construction period when heavy loads will be transported through the village requiring the removal of street furniture and changes to the current road layout.
The disruption is likely to continue post construction as heavy plant and materials will continue to be required for as long as the scheme remains operational.
Pontlliw and Tircoed Community Council - We are writing to let you have details of our observations on, and objections to, the above planning application.
We would make the following observations on the application:
Although the application suggests construction traffic will operate on a one way loop entering the site through Pontlliw loaded and returning empty via Rhydypandy it does not make an unequivocal commitment this will happen. If a one way loop system does not operate the traffic flow through Pontlliw will be nearly double that identified in the application. The applicant should be required to provide unequivocal confirmation of how the entry and return procedures will operate.
The application identifies that there will be a need to stop traffic during the movement of abnormal roads through Penllergaer and Pontlliw (see paragraph 12.7.5) but it does not state for how long, how frequently, what the effect of this will be on traffic movement, when this will happen or the danger that will be posed if emergency vehicles need to access Pontlliw or the surrounding area whilst this blockage occurs. It provides no indication of what arrangements, if any, could be made for emergency vehicles to access Pontlliw in the event of an emergency arising.
The movement of the abnormal loads through Pontlliw, particularly at the railway bridge, pose an obvious problem. Further, the investigation that has been carried out casts doubt on whether a 45m blade vehicle could negotiate the railway bridge even after extensive modification of the road at that point had been carried out (paragraph 12.5.22).
Page 43 Page 37 of 151
It is not clear from the application whether it will be necessary to access private land adjacent to the railway bridge in order to negotiate the bend at this point.
No mention is made of any issues in relation to traversing the mini roundabout at the junction of Bryntirion Road and Y Llanerch in Pontlliw and the alterations which maybe required to the highway at that point.
It is also stated that a drive through of the route by a demountable should take place (para 12.6.2) to ascertain what road modifications will be required and, implicitly, whether a vehicle carrying a 45m blade can negotiate the route. Reference is made to inviting stakeholders to that event. This council is clearly a stakeholder. If such an exercise has taken place representatives of this council have not been invited and no indication has been given as to what the outcome was. If it has not yet taken place, this council would want to have representatives present when this takes place.
It is asserted (see paragraph 12.8.3) that the movement of HGV vehicles will be 25 per week day. This is a significant increase in the volume of such traffic along the proposed route which is likely to have a significant impact on traffic flows through the area.
There is considerable doubt as to whether the abnormal loads will be able to negotiate the railway bridge in Pontlliw. Even if they can, it is beyond argument that considerable care will have to be taken whilst doing so. This will significantly increase the time that will be required to complete each journey. The disruption caused will increase commensurately.
There is no evidence that any form of risk analysis has been carried out to deal with the contingency of either an accident occurring to one of the vehicles carrying the abnormal load or an emergency occurring somewhere along the route that these vehicles will be travelling during the time that such a vehicle is on the route.
There is no indication of what operational arrangements will be put in place to prevent further disruption being caused to other road users and pedestrians by the drivers of these vehicles stopping other than as a consequence of traffic conditions.
As the application identifies there are schools in Penllergaer and Pontllw. Recent events in relation to the construction of a windfarm at Mynydd y Betws have indicated that notwithstanding commitments on the part of the developer to avoid transportation of abnormal loads during peak times and during the school run such commitments can turn out to be meaningless when changes in circumstances occur or there are delays in other parts of the journey.
Whilst reference is made to some of the abnormal load vehicles being capable of retraction to normal size it does not state how many of such vehicles will be used. If Pontlliw is used as a two way route to the site this will have a significant bearing upon the amount of disruption that will be caused.
Some of the vehicles travelling through Pontlliw will weigh 130 tonnes. There is no indication that the effect on the infrastructure in Pontlliw has been considered.
Page 44 Page 38 of 151
Our objections are as follows:
1. The preferred access route to the construction site is through the village of Pontlliw. The construction phase is estimated to last, at least, 22 months. During this period there will be a vast increase in the volume of heavy traffic through the village as well as a large number of abnormal loads. This volume and type of traffic is inappropriate for the area and the road system that currently exists. 2. In order to accommodate this abnormal traffic there will have to be significant changes to the road through Pontlliw that will be permanent and, but for this proposed development, completely unnecessary. 3. The types of vehicles that will be travelling through Pontlliw will pose a significant risk to road safety both for pedestrians and other road users. 4. The weight of the vehicles to be used is likely to harm the infrastructure in Pontlliw, particularly the bridge over the Lliw in the centre of Pontlliw.
We believe that the extent of the development proposed is so large and its implications during the construction stage and when completed are so great that this application should be called in by the Welsh Government.
We also believe that the case for refusal of the application is overwhelming but in the event that the City Council is minded to grant this application, or it is approved following an appeal, this is a suitable case for the issue of compensation to be considered for the communities that will have to endure significant disruption to their lives whilst this work is being undertaken. We would ask the council to ensure that this community council is included in any such discussions.
Ilston Community Council – objects to the application for the same reasons submitted by SOCME. This Council fully supports their objection, as it did when the original application was made, and this fresh application does beg the question that when everybody says no, it makes a mockery of the planning system when it can submit the new application again and again.
Rhossili Community Council – RCC is generally in favour of sustainable renewable energy development where the landscape is treated sensitively.
However many objections have already been raised about this site being used for a wind farm and we are aware that permission has previously been refused. We believe those objections are still valid and we would like to add our support to the opposition already expressed.
This is a magnificent area already being threatened by the development of other wind farms. Surely it would be more appropriate to confine development to those areas already approved and resist the spread into yet another beautiful area of South Wales.
Statutory Responses
Defence Infrastructure Organisation (MoD) - has no objection to the proposal.
The application is for 16 turbines at 127 metres to blade tip. This has been assessed using the grid references below as submitted in your pro-forma.
Page 45 Page 39 of 151
The principal safeguarding concern of the MOD with respect to the development of wind turbines relates to their potential to create a physical obstruction to air traffic movements and cause interference to Air Traffic Control and Air Defence radar installations.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation Safeguarding wishes to be consulted and notified of the progression of planning applications and submissions relating to this proposal to verify that it will not adversely affect defence interests.
In the interests of air safety, the MOD requests that the turbines are fitted with aviation lighting. All turbines should be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point.
If planning permission is granted we would like to be advised of the following; the date construction starts and ends; the maximum height of construction equipment; the latitude and longitude of every turbine.
This information is vital as it will be plotted on flying charts to make sure that military aircraft avoid this area.
If the application is altered in any way we must be consulted again as even the slightest change could unacceptably affect us.
I hope this adequately explains our position on the matter. If you require further information or would like to discuss this matter further please do not hesitate to contact me.
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)- There is currently a high demand for CAA comment on wind turbine applications which exceeds the capacity of the available resource to respond to requests within the timescales required by Local Planning Authorities. The CAA has no responsibilities for safeguarding sites other than its own property, and a consultation by a Council is taken as a request for clarification of procedural matters. Councils are reminded of their obligations to consult in accordance with ODPM/DfT Circular 1/2003 or Scottish Government Circular 2/2003, and in particular to consult with NATS and the Ministry of Defence as well as any aerodromes listed in Annex 3 of the above documents, taking note of appropriate guidance and policy documentation. Should the Council be minded to grant consent to an application despite an objection from one of the bodies listed in the circular, then the requisite notifications should be made. In addition, consultation should be undertaken with any aerodrome particularly if it has lodged an unofficial safeguarding map with the Council, including local emergency service Air Support Units (e.g. Police Helicopter or Air Ambulance).
There is an international civil aviation requirement for all structures of 300 feet (91.4 metres)* or more to be charted on aeronautical charts.
• Any structure of 150 metres* or more must be lit in accordance with the Air Navigation Order and should be appropriately marked. Smaller structures may also be required to be lit by aviation stakeholders particularly if they fall under Section 47 of the Aviation Act.
Page 46 Page 40 of 151
• Cumulative effects of turbines may lead to unacceptable impacts in certain geographic areas. The Ministry of Defence will advise on all matters affecting military aviation.
Should the Council still have a specific query about a particular aspect of this application the CAA will help in the clarification of aviation matters and regulatory requirements. Site operators remain responsible for providing expert testimony as to any impact on their operations and the lack of a statement of objection or support from the CAA should not be taken to mean that there are no aviation issues, or that a comment from an operator lacks weight.
NATS (‘National Air Traffic Services’) – NERL (‘National En-Route Ltd’) Safeguarding – The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company (“NERL”) has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
Swansea Airport – no objection
Atkins Windfarm Support – the above application has now been examined in relation to UHF Radio Scanning Telemetry communications used by our Client in that region and we are happy to inform you that we have no objection to the proposal. Atkins Limited is responsible for providing the Wind Farm / Turbine support services to the Telecommunications Association of the UK Water Industry (TAUWI).
Spectrum Licensing (OFCOM) – identifies microwave fixed links managed and assigned by Ofcom within a specified band and frequency range within a 500m radius of a centred point within the proposed wind farm. These include links by Surf Telecom Ltd and Arqiva Services Ltd.
Joint Radio Company (JRC) – is a Joint Venture between the Energy Networks Association (on behalf of the UK Energy Industries) and National Grid. JRC analyses wind farm proposals to asses their potential to interfere with radio systems operated by utility companies in support of their regulatory operational requirements.
In the case of this proposed wind energy development, JRC does not foresee any potential problems based on known interference scenarios and the provided data.
Brecon Beacons National Park – the Authority objects to the proposal on grounds that the wind farm, both individually and cumulatively would have a significant detrimental impact on the special qualities of the National Park. The following provides the Authority’s detailed response to the proposal.
Summary of Proposed Development The proposal seeks the erection of 16 wind turbines with a maximum height of 127m to blade tip on Mynydd y Gwair, situated approximately 5km south of the Brecon Beacons National Park southern boundary. The proposed wind farm is located approximately 1.5km south of the consented Mynydd y Betws Wind Farm. It is therefore essential that both the individual and cumulative impact of proposed and consented wind farms is taken into account.
Page 47 Page 41 of 151
It is acknowledged that this proposed wind farm, follows the dismissal of an Appeal for a 19 wind turbine wind farm in the same location in 2011. The Authority objected to this application on grounds that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the landscape character of the National Park.
In determining the Appeal, the Inspector commented that from viewpoints within the National Park, the “proposal would (not) have a significantly different effect to that of a wind farm on Mynydd y Betws or that the cumulative visual impact of both wind farms would be significantly greater” (paragraph 70). This comment echoes that of the comment made by the Inspector in relation to the Mynydd y Betws farm Appeal that had been determined prior. However, the Appeal was dismissed on grounds the proposed turbines would detrimentally harm the peat habitat siting particular locations of some turbines.
It is noted in the application documentation in support of the current proposal that the only difference between this proposal and the previous is the elimination of three turbines which were deemed to have the greatest impact on the peat habitat as long with the re- siting of two other turbines.
Notwithstanding the above, the Authority remains to consider that the proposed wind farm both individually and cumulatively (irrespective of the reduction in the number of wind turbines) would have a detrimental affect on the special qualities of the south western section of the National Park. The draft landscape character assessment identifies the particular cultural, remote, tranquil and unspoilt qualities of the landscape that would be most affected by this development and the need to limit the impact of development outside of the National Park on this landscape. It is evident from the submitted photomontages associated with the applicant’s landscape assessment that the wind farm would be highly visible from within the National Park and particularly from key tourist locations such as the Scheduled Ancient Monument of Castell Carreg Cennen and various public rights of way.
However, the previous Inspector has clearly determined that apart from the impact of the previous proposal on the peat habitats the development would have been acceptable. It is therefore acknowledged that despite the Authority’s continued objection to the current scheme, given the similarities between the two, it is unlikely that our objection could be supported in view of the Inspectors decision especially as there has not been, to date, any strategic shift in policy or legislation.
It is therefore requested that should the Council be minded to approve the planning permission that a suite of conditions are impose to ensure that the development is adequately controlled. In particular, the conditions should control the maximum heights of the proposed turbines their final location, the overall finish including colour, their longevity and the need for detailed remediation strategies and works.
Conclusion The Authority objects to the proposed development on grounds that, both individually and cumulatively the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact upon the special qualities of the National Park.
Carmarthenshire County Council - No response to date
Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council - No objection.
Page 48 Page 42 of 151
Environment Agency Wales – offer no objection to the application subject to the inclusion of our requested conditions.
Pollution Prevention To ensure the integrity of controlled waters, the storage of potentially polluting material, the risks of any leaks or spills and any potential pollution from the construction phase of the development need to be adequately addressed. We note that the ES includes a draft Construction Method Statement (CMS) and whilst the details provide are suitable at this stage, the final CMS must contain more detailed site specific pollution control measures.
This development has the potential to impact upon the Afon Lliw and the Dulais (including their headwaters) and possibly the Afon Cathan, Lower Clydach River and the Nant Ddu. The Afon Lliw already suffers from sedimentation which is currently being investigated as part of ongoing work under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Therefore, any works undertaken on site must not exacerbate this current situation.
It is therefore essential that site specific pollution control measures are implemented and water quality monitored before, during and after construction. As such the proposed development will only be acceptable if a condition is included requiring a CMS describing the works to be undertaken and the pollution prevention measures to be implemented during the construction of the development have been submitted to and approved by the LPA.
Foul Drainage We note from the submitted ES that permanent welfare facilities, served by a cesspit, will be provided within the proposed substation compound. We would normally oppose the use of a cesspit due to environmental impacts such as frequent overflows due to poor maintenance and inadequate capacity. However, from the ES we note that the wind farm will be operated remotely and the welfare facilities are for a team of 2 or 3 staff who will only be on site to undertake routine maintenance. Therefore, due to the infrequent use of the proposed facilities we would offer no objection to the use of the cesspit subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring that foul drainage shall be contained within a sealed and watertight cesspit, fitted with a level warning device to indicate when the tank needs emptying.
Site Drainage As your Authority will be aware there is potential for the development of a wind farm, which includes associated infrastructure such as roadways and control buildings, to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere due to increased surface water runoff.
We note that the ES has considered controlling surface water runoff and outlines a number of SUDS techniques to be employed as part of the development to ensure that flow paths and Greenfield rates are maintained. The details contained within Section 11.5.7 regarding site drainage are considered suitable however, whilst we are in favour of the prescribed approach we would recommend the inclusion of a condition for a detailed surface water drainage system to be submitted to the LPA.
Main Rivers / Ordinary Watercourses We note that Section 11.5.3 of the ES states that’20m buffer zone is recommended to prevent development near watercourses and drains on site’. We would fully support this recommendation and request that it is secured by means of an appropriately worded planning condition.
Page 49 Page 43 of 151
Biodiversity From the submitted ES, we note that the applicant has considered the impacts of the wind farm on Mynydd y Gwair by reducing the number of turbines on site and revising the proposed layout to avoid, as far as possible, area of deeper peat. As highlighted above we are satisfied with the proposed drainage arrangements on site in maintaining existing flow paths and acknowledge the developers intention to utilise floating tracks where required.
Whilst we are satisfied with the proposals we would advise that you liaise with CCW on this matter to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on this peat resource.
As highlighted above we note that there may be a requirement to cross informal ditches within the site. We would advise that these crossings should be kept to a minimum and, as stated within the draft CMS, surveyed for otters and water vole in advance of any construction. Should otter and / or water vole be found present appropriate mitigation should be detailed by the applicant and implemented on site. In addition, for a development of this scale, should any habitat be damaged as a result of the development in addition to mitigation, enhancement measures should also be considered. As such we would request that the following points are also included within the final CMS, as conditioned above.
• Confirmation that any ditches to be crossed will be surveyed for otter and water vole prior to construction. Details of appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures should either otter or water vole to be present. • Details of an appropriate monitoring programme should either specie be present on site. • Details of the emergency procedures to e implemented should otter or water vole be present on site.
In addition to the aforementioned consents, should any works be required within watercourse the applicant should also consider other relevant legislation such as the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, the Eel Regulations and the Water Framework Directive. In essence this means that there should be no deterioration to the WFD classification, movement of fish upstream and downstream must be preserved and eel passage / passes are obligatory.
We would also advise that there is an embargo period between 25 Oct to 15 Apr where no works are to take place within any watercourse spawning fish, their Redds (nests) and emerging fry. Mobilised silt can blanket out areas of river beds, smothering fish Redds and possibly choking emerging fry or juvenile fish. If any works are proposed outside of he embargo period there may also be a requirement t undertake a fish rescue by a fully qualified fishing contractor.
Should any invasive plant species be present on site (i.e. Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Balsam) we would also request the inclusion of an appropriate condition.
Water Resources The locations of private domestic sources may be held by the Local Authority on the register required by the Private Water Supplies Regulations 1992. It is however, the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the development will not affect existing legal water interests in the area.
Page 50 Page 44 of 151
In addition, we note from Section 11.4.46 of the submitted ES that one of the proposed access tracks crosses a Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water’s (DCWW) strategic pipeline. We would advise that where possible this pipeline is protected by an adequate buffer zone however, where this is not feasible we would recommend consultation with DCWW to ensure that any heavy plant crossing do not affect the integrity of the pipeline.
Dwr Cymru Welsh Water (DCWW) Due to the complex and extensive concerns DCWW has with this application, our consultation response has been formatted in a report. This has been appended to this letter and includes mapping and previous consultation in the Appendices.
The report sets out the concerns we have and the conditions we request to be imposed by the City and County of Swansea Council to protect our assets and our customer’s water supply, should you decide to award planning permission.
If you are not satisfied with the suggested conditions or should you wish to discuss matters further engagement with us is recommended as early as possible in order to avoid any delays in the consideration of this application, However, it must be noted that if you are minded to not include the conditions we have requested, then this document should be taken as a formal OBJECTION to this application.
Purpose of the Report The site has the potential for major impacts on the Dwr Cymru Welsh Water asset base. This report seeks to bring these issues to the attention of the City and County of Swansea Council and provides recommended conditions should the Council be minded to grant planning permission for this development.
Implications for Dwr Cymru Welsh Water The Upper and Lower Lliw reservoirs form an important watt storage asset for the provision of treated water to over 400,00 customers extending as far west as Carmarthen and as far east as the Vale of Glamorgan. Critical dependencies on this water supply include heavy and light industry, commercial centres and major health care facilities, such as the Morriston Hospital.
The Mynydd y Gwair common has large areas of peat deposits. When these deposits are disturbed, through excavation or changes to the hydrology, they become unstable and can release nutrients, metals and acids which can in turn affect the water quality of downstream water bodies. Large diameter, strategic watermains have also been identified which cross the application site.
We have therefore considered the proposed development and submitted documents in light of our assets within this area, with particular focus on the protection of water quality and the protection of important and strategic watermains crossing the application site.
In respect to water quality, it is summarised that the disturbance of the peat through the development of the site and the erection of wind turbines may cause detrimental harm to the water quality of the Upper Lliw reservoir. These matters are addressed within this report.
Page 51 Page 45 of 151
With regards to the delivery and subsequent construction of the turbines at the site, we have considered the potential impacts in respect to the traversing of the watermains via the proposed access road from Pontarddulais. The routes of the watermains are provided in Appendix 2 and are discussed within the body of this report.
Intended outcomes We have prepared a set of conditions which we request the co-operation of your authority to attach to any consent granted for this development. If you are not satisfied with the suggested conditions or should you wish to discuss matters further engagement with us is recommended as early as possible in order to avid any delays in the consideration of this application. However, it must be noted that if you are minded to not include the conditions we have requested, then this document should be taken as a formal OBJECTION to this application.
Risk to Dwr Cymru Welsh Water Assets As you will be aware, the previous application for the construction of a windfarm on Mynydd y Gwair (2008/1781) was submitted to the City and County of Swansea Council, hereafter CCS, in 2008. In our consultation response, we objected to the development on the grounds of potential impacts on the hydrological regime of the catchment of the Upper Lliw reservoir and that the access road is located such that it crosses strategic water mains.
Our concerns for the protection of the hydrological regime, the water quality in the Upper Lliw and the structural integrity of the asset remain, although we accept that the applicant has made some efforts to alleviate these concerns.
Whilst such efforts are welcomed, DCWW remain concerned that the potential impacts of the development upon the water quality in the reservoir and the structural integrity of the strategic water mains have not been full considered. In particular, reference is made within the Environmental Statement which suggests that if there is a disruption to the supply of either the 66” water main or the supply from the Lliw reservoirs, the alternative asset provides sufficient cover in terms of supplying water to customers. However, the proposed application places significant risk on both assets and it can be assumed that only one assert will be at risk or affected at any one time during the construction or operation of the development. In reality, both the water quality in the Lliw reservoirs and the structural integrity of the 66”water main are of critical importance and of both assets fail concurrently this would cause significant loss of water supply to customers and major industries.
Strategic watermain Between Pontarddulais and Mynydd y Gwair a new access road for the site is proposed, which will carry all abnormal loads to the wind farm site. This access road will cross the following watermains which are identified in the Public Sewer Records.
2” and 4” watermains There is a 2” and two 4” watermains crossing the application site will require standards protective measures.
26” watermain The 26” watermain provides portable water to all of Swansea West and the Gower with Singleton Hospital and University and Industrial Estates as critical supply points. It also supplies Ammanford, Pontarddulais, Gowerton, and Penclawdd. Due to this vast distribution area the main is highly strategic.
Page 52 Page 46 of 151
66” watermain The 66” diameter pipeline, along with the Lliw Reservoirs and Felindre WTW form integral parts of the largest water supply scheme ever constructed in Wales and were built in 1968 under an Act of Parliament known as the River Towy Water Supply Scheme. The 66” watermain is 17 miles long running from Nantgaredig Pumping Station to Felindre Water Treatment Works, and has no isolation valves along its entire length. It carries 240 Megalitres of water per day. This asset is the sole supply from ther Llyn Brianne reservoir, via Nantgaredig Pumping Station to Felindre Waster Treatment Works (WTW) and supplies water for 400,000 customers across South Wales extending as far West as Carmarthen and far East as the Vale of Glamorgan. Critical dependencies on this water supply include heavy and light industry, commercial centres and major health care facilities, such as the Morriston Hospital. Felindre WTW is one of only five DCWW assets in Wales which is classified by UK Government as of Critical National Importance. The strategic and importance of this asset therefore cannot be overstated.
Any works that would impact the integrity of the watermain would be of significant concern. It should also be noted that a fracture to this important watermain is likely to result in a major flooding incident as the water from the pipe drains out.
Water in this watermain is driven by Nantgaredig Pumping Station (5Megawatts). It is not possible to shut the pumps down immediately once a leak or fracture in the watermain is detected; Once a fault is identified, the pumps at Nantgaredig take 1.5 hours to step down, so as to prevent surging of the national grid network. Once the pumps have ceased, water will continue to exit the pipe until there is no further pressure or gravity to continue the draining. This process may take a considerable amount of time.
Should the application be granted planning permission, the turbines and other abnormal loads will be required to traverse the main on extremely heavy vehicles. It should be noted that when the route of the 66” watermain was designed it was on the basis that the land was at a very low risk of ever being subject to development above. Hence the pipe is only 3/8” thick with a nominal cover of 900mm. This does not provide any structural integrity or protection for the pipe and as such, a comprehensive engineering solution will be required for any crossing. Repair works on the 66” main would not be able to commence until the pipe had fully drained and the site of the burst had dried sufficiently to allow plant access. As the pipe is made of 3/8” steel, and as such, any repair is highly complex.
The issue of the critical importance of the 66” raw water main and its structural integrity is raised in paragraph 11.4.45 of the Environmental Statement, which states:
11.4.45 Consultation with DCWW on the 27 July 2012 indicated that a strategic pipeline leading to the Lliw Reservoir runs across the site and is traversed by the proposed access track leading to the wind farm site. DCWW advised that the load bearing equipment and heavy plant and machinery may have the potential to damage this pipeline. RWE NLR in liaison with DCWW will therefore ensure that civil engineering design measures will be put in place to avoid any impact or damage to this pipeline.
This issue was previously raised initially in the consultation response on 23 Dec. 2008 and again on 10 July 2009 (in reference to ref:2008/1781).
Page 53 Page 47 of 151
Should the supply of water from this watermain to Felindre WTW be interrupted, water would be sourced from the Lower Lliw reservoir. Although the Lower Lliw would provide storage for a time, once half of the reservoir’s stored water has been used the remaining water will be of very poor quality. The amount of treatment required for the water extracted at lower water is likely to exceed the treatment which can be provided at Felindre WTW in the quantities required for 400,000 customers.
Protective Requirements Given the strategic importance of this watermain, it is disappointing to see that no details on the protective measures for it have been included in the Draft Construction Method Statement. DCWW was supplied with an Engineering Report for the Access Road which was prepared in November 2009. This report outlines a solution for the crossing of the watermains.
The proposal in the Engineering Report on the Access Road would be acceptable for the crossing of 2” and 4” watermains. Providing the following issues are addressed and agreed, the methods proposed in the report would also be acceptable for the 26” main:
1. Engineering calculations determining the necessary strength of the deck and evidence that the proposed cross sections are sufficiently strong must be contained within a Construction Method Statement and approved in writing by Welsh Water. 2. Proof that there is sufficient competent rock on both sides of the crossing to bear the loading of the deck and the vehicles must be contained within a Construction Method Statement and approved in writing by Welsh Water.
Unfortunately the designed solution will not be adequate for the protection of the 66” main. As this watermain is so critical, the following two issues, which remain unresolved by the designed solution, must be addressed:
1. The designed solution incorporates a reinforced concrete deck. This deck will prevent access to the pipe. 2. The designed solution does not adequately ensure that no stresses are place on the pipe when abnormal loads are traversing it.
In respect to the above, access to the watermain must be maintained in case of a problem or maintenance issue with the pipe or an emergency where there is a failure. It is concluded therefore that the design solution, whilst adequate for the traversing of other watermains of a smaller diameter, would not be adequate in this instance. (N.B. the solution which has been proposed is comparable to the protective measures DCWW would require should a applicant intend to lay a road above 4” supply main).
Accordingly, this necessitates that an alternative solution is designed in order to prevent access restrictions of the 66” watermain and to alleviate concerns in respect to the structural protection and integrity of the pipe.
DCWW recommend that the details of an alternative should be contained within a Construction Methods Statement and we would therefore encourage the applicant to engage with us at the earliest opportunity.
Page 54 Page 48 of 151
Upper Lliw Water Quality As previously noted, the Lliw reservoirs are expected to provide 8 – 10 days storage for Felindre Water Treatment Works, and hence for to 400,000 customers, should the supply from the 66” watermain / Nantgaredig Pumping Station be interrupted for any reason.
Risks and Consequences Chapter 11 (Hydrology and Hydrogeology) of the Environment Statement states in paragraph 11.5.4 that the construction of turbines and roads in peat deposits areas greater than 300mm in depth will be avoided. However, permanent change in subsurface flows, especially due to roads, could change water table levels in areas below the road leading to drying or oversaturation of soils, and hence the release of humic acids, etc.
Paragraph 11.8.3 of the Environment Statement states that even with mitigation measures in place, heavy rainfall events may result in some sediment erosion which may enter the local water watercourses. Whilst DCWW acknowledge that the applicant has considered the matter, this statement is considered unacceptable as heavy rainfall does occur regularly and mitigation measures should be designed to be effective under extreme weather conditions.
All methods and mitigation measures should therefore be designed to work in any circumstance and in light of climate change and the increasing likelihood of extreme weather events, the risk cannot be quantified as negligible.
Paragraph 11.7.3 of the Environmental Statement describes methods to control sediment and soil erosion. It appears these methods would work to control sediment if designed and constructed properly, according to peak rainfall (considerations about climate change and higher than usual storms should be made) and carefully maintained. Nevertheless, they might work for suspended sediment but not for dissolved contaminants, such as colour and DOC (dissolved organic carbon) which do occur under peat disturbance.
A detailed Construction Method Statement is therefore required to provide confirmation of the techniques and mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid degradation of the peat. Any removal, stockpiling and reinstatement of peat / peaty surfaces will be very susceptible to the release of DOC to local water bodies. The peat survey which was undertaken (included in the Environmental Statement Appendixes Vol 2, Chapter 11: Hydrology, Subsection 11.4) would be useful in assessing risks of colour/DOC delivery; however, the study was focused on peat stability to avoid a failure on the terrain but not water quality. As a result, risks of pollution due to colour/ DOC have not been addressed and construction activities in areas of organic soils and peat will impose high risks. This is illustrated by the fact that table11.10 (reduced water quality) and paragraph 11.6.19 does not refer to DOC/colour.
Accordingly, Dwr Cymru Welsh Water cannot accept reduction of the classification of potential impacts in Reduced Water Quality from moderate to negligible as stated in paragraph 11.8.3. This is because DOC/colour was not included in the modelling and the mitigation proposed is not likely to be effective for these components. The approach primarily deals with sediment and metals and seems to underestimate the risk of accidental oils/fuel spills in the Upper Lliw catchment. Oils and fuels are a particular concern as they are very difficult to treat.
Page 55 Page 49 of 151
We have also considered the location of the construction site and in our view it would be best placed outside of the Upper Lliw catchment as this would minimise the risk of contamination. For example, a relocation would potentially
• reduce the amount of soil and peat disturbance • prevent the use of the toilet facilities and chemical storage within the catchment; and • protect the reservoirs from any fuel spills within the catchment.
Any change in peatland hydrology can have long lasting effects that may not be evident during or soon after the intervention. Monitoring of these impacts will provide valuable information on the changes and should be undertaken at the applicant’s expense.
Notwithstanding the above, we note that paragraph 11.7.7 of the Environmental Statement specifies that the site induction for contractors will include a specific session on good practice to control water pollution from construction activities, and we support the inclusion of this.
Protective requirements Further to the above therefore, we recommend that a method statement be submitted detailing the movement of soils (including digging and re-filling, and disposal). Mitigation measures should be included within this statement, and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of works at the site.
Additional concerns In addition to water quality, the proposed application could potentially affect ongoing forest management investigations at Brynllefrith Forest, adjacent to Mynydd y Gwair to the south east. DCWW is working in partnership with Coed Cymru to assess the effect of different continuous cover forest management techniques to water quality, which can potentially reduce forestry-related pollution in a number of DCWW portable water catchments. This research program monitors water quality in the forest and has the East and West Lliw streams as controls. As a result, any change in water quality on both streams would affect the investigation. Furthermore, the project is also assessing the effects of the management techniques to increase the biodiversity value of the forest. If the wind turbines decrease the migration of birds or other species to the forest, it will also affect the results of the investigation.
Recommended Conditions We request your authority’s co-operation in including the following conditions to be included, should you be minded to award planning permission. If you are minded to not include the conditions we have requested, then this document should be taken as a formal objection to this application.
Watermain Conditions No authorised development shall commence until the details for the adequate protection of all watermains which are crossed by the application site are to be provided in a Construction Method Statement and approved by the relevant planning authority in liaison with Dwr Cymru Welsh Water.
Page 56 Page 50 of 151
1. The details of the crossing of the 26” and 66” watermains must ensure that no stresses are placed on the pipes when vehicles are traversing it and that access to the watermains is maintained should emergency or maintenance works be required. 2. Easements in accordance with the Watermain Easement Sheets.
Water Quality Conditions
1. No authorised development shall commence until a construction method statement has been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority in liaison with Dwr Cymru Welsh Water. 2. The construction method statement shall include details of:- a. The pollution control and prevention measures including i. Sediment control measures ii. Measures for the bunding of fuel, oil and chemical storage areas iii. Sewage disposal measures iv. Measures for the protection of water courses and ground water and soils, which are to include 1. Mitigation measures which are effective in heavy rainfall events 2. Mitigation measure which are effective for the removal of odour, DOC and dissolved contaminants 3. A clear description and map showing how the mitigation measures would work b. A programme for monitoring water bodies before and during the authorised project, including details of the action to be taken if monitoring indicates adverse effects on water bodies c. The handling, storage and re-use on site of soil d. The design and construction methods of access tracks including drainage provisions, and the pollution prevention measures to be implemented to ensure that there are no polluting discharges from tracks and disturbed areas including provision to ensure that no polluting discharge from the access tracks and disturbed areas enters any watercourse. e. The management of ground and surface water (including mitigation to protect private water supplies) f. The proposed temporary site compounds for storage of materials, machinery and parking within the site clear of the highway, including the siting of the temporary buildings and all means of enclosure, oil/fuel and chemical storage and any proposals for temporary lighting, and details of proposals for restoration of the sites of the temporary compounds and works within 12 months of the first export date
3. Before any wind turbine is removed or replaced a revised construction method statement, dealing with that removal or replacement, shall be submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority. The construction method statement shall be implemented as approved.
The Coal Authority - Thank you for your further consultation notification dated 20 September 2012 seeking the views of The Coal Authority on the Mining Report that has now been submitted in support of the above planning application. The Coal Authority would like to make the following observations on this additional information.
Page 57 Page 51 of 151
The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. As a statutory consultee, the Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas.
The Coal Authority Response: Material Consideration The submitted Mining Report (which is dated May 2010) correctly identifies that parts of the application site may have been subject to shallow coal mining activity and that there is a concentration of recorded mine entries in close proximity to the proposed site access track. It therefore recommends that intrusive site investigation works be undertaken to confirm coal mining conditions, and to enable the design of any necessary mitigation measures, prior to commencement of the development.
The Coal Authority Recommendation to the LPA The Coal Authority concurs with the recommendations of the Mining Report; that coal mining legacy potentially poses a risk to the proposed development and that intrusive site investigation works should be undertaken prior to development in order to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site.
The Coal Authority therefore recommends that the LPA impose a Planning Condition, should planning permission be granted for the proposed development, to require appropriate intrusive site investigation works to be undertaken to confirm coal mining conditions prior to commencement of development, in line with the recommendations in section 6.1 of the Mining Report.
The condition should also ensure that, in the event that the site investigations confirm the need for remedial works to treat any mine entries and/or areas of shallow mine workings, and/or any other mitigation measures to ensure the safety and stability of the proposed development, these works should also be undertaken prior to commencement of development.
The Coal Authority considers that the content and conclusions of the Coal Mining Risk Assessment are sufficient for the purposes of the planning system and meet the requirements of PPW in demonstrating that the application site is, or can be made, safe and stable for the proposed development. Accordingly, The Coal Authority is able to withdraw its objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of the above condition.
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) – the proposed development is within the consultation distance of a major hazard gas pipeline. The HSE does not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission in this case.
Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT) – the proposals will require Archaeological mitigation.
The archaeological section of the Environmental Statement accompanying the application (Chapter 7, Cultural Heritage, and the accompanying figures) undertaken by Headland Archaeology notes that the Cultural Heritage section follows on from the original consultation and assessment during the 2008 application process. The main difference is the reduction in the number and siting of the turbines and the impact this will have visually and on the peat deposits.
Page 58 Page 52 of 151
The assessment studies the impact of the development as direct and indirect physical, and impact on setting. The analysis studied the potential impact of the setting, taking into account the Landscape designations, and particularly on the Scheduled Ancient Monument of Penlle’r Castell, and concluded that the significance of the impact will be minor. Impacting on physical remains, four items of potential are noted, the Bolgoed Smithy, trackways, levels and tips and Bolgoed Uchaf are noted in 7.8.2. and these will require mitigation. In Para 7.6.19, it is noted that the parts of the structure numbered MG 69 in the report, Bolgoed-Uchaf settlement, will be demolished as part of the enabling for the access track; these should be recorded prior to the demolition.
The mitigation measures proposed in the assessment (Para 7.7) will provide suitable compensation for the impact of the development. The measures comprise a number of responses, tailored to the variety of sites and the particular nature of the impact. We therefore have no objection to the positive determination of this application, subject to three conditions being attached to the consent, to mitigate the impact of the new work on any buried archaeological resource and also on the historic structure.
The first condition relates to the buildings at Bolgoed and associated features including the quarries and dry stone wall previously identified, and as such will need to be undertaken prior to development commencing, ensuring that the structures are fully recorded prior to the development commencing. The completed record should then be deposited in a suitable repository such as the West Glamorgan Archives or the Historic Environment Record so that future historians can access it. It is worded:-
No site works shall be undertaken until the implementation of an appropriate programme of building recording and analysis has been agreed with the local planning authority, to be carried out by a specialist acceptable to the local planning authority and in accordance with an agreed written brief and specification
The justification for the imposition of the condition would therefore be: -
Reason: As the buildings are of architectural and cultural significance the specified records are required to mitigate impact.
The second condition relates to ground works associated with the proposed development and the potential survival of archaeological features in the area. Archaeological features and finds could be revealed during the work and as such should be properly recorded. We therefore recommend that a condition requiring the applicant to submit a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation should be attached to any consent granted by your Members. We envisage that this programme of work would take the form of an intensive watching brief during the groundworks required for the development, with detailed contingency arrangements including the provision of sufficient time and resources to ensure that archaeological features that are located are properly excavated and analysed. We recommend that the condition should be worded in a manner similar to the model given in Welsh Office Circular 60/96, Section 23:
No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Page 59 Page 53 of 151
Reason: To identify and record any features of archaeological interest discovered during the works, in order to mitigate the impact of the works on the archaeological resource.
Thirdly, in order to protect the identified and known areas of archaeological importance from accidental damage or destruction, we recommend that a condition is attached that will ensure that these areas are protectively fenced to identify them and to prevent access and damage. These are: the area of the Penlle’r Bebyll Cairn (GM202), the mound identified as MG62 near Turbine 15 and the area of the house platforms close to the access track at Craig y Bedw. It is worded:
No development shall commence until those areas of the identified area of historical merit that will not be directly affected by the construction work and the scheduled ancient monument GM202 have been fenced to a standard agreed with the local planning authority. Throughout the development no works will be undertaken within the area surrounded by the fencing without the written consent of the local planning authority.
Reason: - To prevent accidental damage to these important archaeological areas.
CADW – No response to date
Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) –
CCW have submitted the following consultation response in respect of the Gower Society’s reference to an extension to the Gower:
Thank you for your e-mail of 15 October 2012 attaching The Gower Society's letter ofobjection to the Mynydd y Gwair scheme. Given their reference to a possible extension of the Gower AONB, regional colleagues have referred the matter to CCW HQ for a reply because it relates to CCW's AONB work on an all-Wales basis.
I understand that CCW has been in correspondence with The Gower Society since 2005 concerning its proposals for an extension to the Gower AONB to include the Mynydd YGwair area. In all our correspondence and discussions with The Gower Society, we have been clear that our recent AONB work has focussed on developing and testing a methodology in North East Wales, which resulted in the designation of the Clwydian Range & Dee Valley AONB in November 2011.
Since this time, Welsh Government have instructed us to use our available staffing capacity to continue working on the governance and management arrangements for the new Clwydian Range and Dee Valley AONB and to investigate the adjacent Ceiriog Valley, a commitment given to Wrexham Borough Council. CCW has made no commitment and is not in a position to undertake any pre-designation work on a Gower AONB extension proposal.
CCW's statutory responsibilities for AONBs will, on 1 April 2013, transfer to the new Natural Resource Body for Wales (now named as Natural Resources Wales / Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru). Future decisions in relation to any proposals for new designations or boundary changes will be a matter for Natural Resources Wales. Such decisions will be within the changing policy framework of the forthcoming Planning, Sustainable Development and Environment Bills; Welsh Government’s emerging Designated Landscapes Policy Statement; Welsh Government's proposed review of designations (Sustaining A Living Wales – Green Paper January 2012) and natural resource planning.
Page 60 Page 54 of 151
CCW's position was reconfirmed by John Griffiths, Minister for Environment and Sustainability in his response to William Powell, Chair of Welsh Governments Petition's Committee in August 2012.
I hope that this confirms that CCW is not in a position to progress work on any proposed extension to the Gower AONB.
Main Consultation response In discharging its functions under section 130 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) champions the environment and landscapes of Wales and its coastal waters as sources of natural and cultural riches, as a foundation for economic and social activity, as a place for leisure and learning opportunities. We aim to make the environment a valued part of everyone’s life in Wales.
In its position statement ‘Energy and the Natural Heritage’ (2008), CCW supports the provision of renewable energy to help tackle the serious challenge of climate change. We have assisted the Welsh Government in developing its strategic approach to the development of renewable energy as described in Planning Policy Wales, Technical Advice Note (TAN) 8, Planning for Renewable Energy. Our aim was then, and remains, to ensure that energy developments are located and constructed in a way that safeguards nationally acknowledged heritage designations. These designations are held in high regard by the Welsh Government and CCW has a statutory duty on its behalf to advise on how they can be safeguarded and promoted. Our advice in this letter and its annex is therefore intended to assist you in assessing the proposed scheme.
The proposed scheme covers the area of a previous proposed development by the applicant (2008/1781). This scheme comprised 19 turbines, some of which were to be constructed in deposits of deep peat. A planning appeal was heard in 2011 and the proposal refused on the grounds of impact on deep peat. The redesigned scheme that is the subject of this application has realigned access tracks and removed the three turbines where peat deposits >300 mm would be affected.
With our duties in mind and the changes to the proposed scheme to overcome the concerns of the earlier application (2008/1781), the Countryside Council for Wales has no objection to the proposal, provided the following conditions or obligations are attached to any permission your authority may be minded to issue:
i. The submission and agreement of a Habitat and Species Monitoring Plan incorporating the commitments to monitoring made in the Environmental Statement and those extra elements suggested in the annex attached, prior to the commencement of any works on site. This plan should include: a. details of a peatland hydrology and vegetation monitoring scheme to include a site-specific assessment of the impact of the development on water levels within the peat, water movement within the peatland unit and the likely or observed effects of changes on mire quality b. details of a bird monitoring scheme to cover both vantage point surveys for site use and carcass searching for collision monitoring, the scheme to cover up to year 15, with reviews for stopping monitoring at years 5 and 10 c. all other habitat and species provision as outlined in the Environmental Statement
Page 61 Page 55 of 151
ii. off-site enhancement works proposed as compensation for the residual impact on peatland and heath habitats on site, the location and details of which should be agreed in consultation with CCW, and secured through a section 106 agreement.
ANNEX - DETAILED COMMENTS A. Grid Connection Information We welcome the provision of grid connection information. We concur with the findings of the environmental statement (ES) and do not consider that there will be any effects beyond those already outlined in the ES.
B. Landscape B.1 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment The Countryside Council for Wales considers that the approach to the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment undertaken for the ES is appropriate. We welcome that the definition of the study area was consistent with Scottish Natural Heritage guidelines, used all five LANDMAP Aspect Areas and provided suitable presentation of the wind farm and cumulative impacts through wire-frame diagrams and photomontages.
B.1.1 Landscape and Visual Effects We note the conclusion that there would be some significant landscape effects on landscape character within the area and there are significant visual effects from a range of receptors surrounding site, which would appear to be consistent with the acceptance of landscape change in Strategic Search Areas as recognised in TAN 8 and Planning Policy Wales.
As you will be aware, the Planning Inspectors report to the Welsh Government regarding the previous scheme at the site (planning ref 2008/1781) concluded that the scale of the proposed development could be accommodated at the site ‘without unacceptable harm to the landscape character of the site and its surroundings’.
Further to this, the report stated that the level of visual intrusion both on local population centres and viewpoints from the Brecon Beacons National Park would not be sufficient to justify withholding planning permission. The further removal of three turbines on deep peat, proposed in the previous application, has also reduced the density of the turbines from distant viewpoints.
As such, we consider that the Environmental Statement has reached a reasonable conclusion in respect of the landscape and visual effects of the proposal.
C. Ecology Although TAN 8 provides an acceptance that there will be a significant landscape change within and immediately adjacent to SSAs from wind farm development, this acceptance of change does not apply to other natural heritage features, and TAN 8 and PPW clearly state that even within the SSA the presumption should be that environmental impacts are avoided or minimised. They further state that there could be opportunities to enhance or recreate habitats of landscape and wildlife interest and that these opportunities should be grasped. The impacts of the proposal on these other interests therefore need to be considered.
Page 62 Page 56 of 151
We note that many of the habitats and species considered in the ES are included in the City and County of Swansea Local Biodiversity Action Plan (2005) and the Section 42 list of Habitats and Species of Principal Importance for Conservation of Biological Diversity in Wales.
We therefore remind you of your duty under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, to have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity when exercising your authority’s functions.
C.1 Habitats The ES highlights the presence of the following UK BAP and S42 priority habitats within the site:
• Blanket bog • Upland heathland • Upland flushes, fens and swamps
We note that considerable design changes have been undertaken since the inception of the scheme and especially since the 2008 application, including the deletion of turbines to reduce impacts on blanket bog habitat and the deep peat beneath; however some residual impacts to habitats remain. Further detail on this is provided below in section C.1.1.
With regard to residual impacts and any lost habitat as a result of construction, the Habitat and Species Management Plan should provide detailed proposals regarding the compensation of permanent habitat loss and for the mitigation of habitat damage. Where this cannot be adequately achieved on-site, the applicant should provide for appropriate compensatory measures to be undertaken in the locality, which should be secured through a section 106 agreement. Possible examples discussed with the applicant include a financial contribution to an existing rhododendron clearance scheme on a nearby common – we are happy to discuss details of this at a later stage.
C.1.1 Peat Given the importance of peat and peatland habitats as a nature conservation resource, their wider environmental role in terms of carbon storage and sequestration, and their particular sensitivity to construction works, the assessment of impacts of wind farm developments and their associated infrastructure on peat and peatland habitats is critical.
We agree with the statement in the ES8 that the peatland system at the site represents a severely degraded example of peatland habitat; a result of a legacy of atmospheric pollution and overgrazing. However, notwithstanding that, a substantial resource of peat remains at this site, which lies at the southern extremity of the range of upland peat deposits in Wales.
The peat depth survey methods undertaken by the applicant are appropriate, and a site visit in September 2012 attended by CCW confirmed that the peat depth and associated NVC classifications are correct. At that visit, it was observed that in the blanket peat areas, vegetation quality increased with depth of underlying peat. The peat bodies support areas of M20 vegetation, a priority habitat classified as ‘Blanket Bog’ under the Habitats Directive and UK Biodiversity Action Plan.
Page 63 Page 57 of 151
The best quality examples of the habitats classified as M20 found in the site are located within the northern peat body, and the quality of this vegetation increases with distance from the northern forestry block. The improvement in the quality of the habitat coincides with the increasing depth of underlying peat, which ranges from 500 mm to 1300 mm at its furthest from the breaks of slope. Although the siting of the access track away from the centre of this peat body minimises the impact on peat in this area, it is likely that there will be a residual impact arising from the construction of the access track on this peat body; the impacts will be due to compaction from the track and vehicle movements and may lead to long term or permanent hydrological impacts.
The eastern peat body hosts similar habitats but of a lower quality, and similarly hosts M20 but with a maximum peat depth of 450 mm and displaying characteristics of atmospheric pollution and overgrazing.
We welcome the commitment in the ES and the draft Construction Management Plan to use floating tracks where peat > 300 mm cannot be avoided. However we consider that floating tracks will only be required where peat depth exceeds 500 mm (i.e. only in the northern peat body), given the limited extent of the shallower peat bodies; the grading in and out of the floating track would mean the floating section would be of limited use. As such, the use of this method will only be required in the northern peat body and not the eastern peat body.
The proposal to implement other good practice measures, including the use of materials with low geochemical impact for access tracks and turbine bases is welcomed, as is the strategy to limit run-off and sediment.
We note that provision will be made for a Project Hydrologist during the implementation of the scheme. The ES suggests that the pattern of track alignment may serve to ‘re-wet’ peat and consequently restart peat forming processes. Given the acknowledged degree of uncertainty regarding this potentially positive impact, we suggest that a hydrological and ecological monitoring programme, specifically for this aspect, is developed and incorporated into a Habitat and Species Monitoring Plan. This would be consistent with condition 27, agreed at Public Inquiry, concerning a hydrological monitoring scheme. We suggest that the post-construction monitoring scheme to monitor this process is included in the Project Hydrologist’s remit.
C.2 Species C.2.1 Birds We welcome the intensive effort that has gone into the bird surveys for this application, especially the comprehensive vantage point surveys.
With regard to impact on specific species, although red kite is concluded to be subject to a significant impact at the District level during the operation phase – we note that no mitigation for this is proposed by the applicant. We advise that the removal of carcasses from site is incorporated into the routine maintenance of the operational wind farm. This would reduce scavenging opportunities at the site, making it less attractive to red kite and reduce collision risk. We would be happy to discuss with the applicant how this could be implemented as part of a Habitat and Species Monitoring Plan.
Page 64 Page 58 of 151
C.2.2 Monitoring We note that activity surveys, including vantage point surveys are proposed for years 1 and 5, with collision monitoring proposed for years 1, 3 and 5. Scottish Natural Heritage guidance indicates that monitoring should take place over at least 15 years after the wind farm becomes operational, during years 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 & 15. It may be appropriate to programme a 15 year plan with 5 year reviews. Should the review indicate that the predicted impacts at site are comparable to those observed, then the monitoring programme may be stopped, in agreement with the local authority and in consultation with CCW.
The collision monitoring should focus on carcass searching as proposed in the ES17 but also incorporate any other suitable techniques that may be developed in the meantime. Given the expected impact on raptors, especially red kite, and golden plover, the purpose of the long-term vantage point surveys is to understand if and how site use by these species changes. They should also draw in information from the wider area to better understand the suggested displacement effects. We advise that these measures are included in a Habitat and Species Monitoring Plan, which should covered by a planning condition should you be minded to approve the scheme.
C.3 Bats The methods of survey used to inform the ES are appropriate. With regard to bats commuting across the site, we note that all turbine blade tips are located at least 50m away from the forest edges, in keeping with best practice for avoiding blade collisions with bats.
As you are aware, all British species of Bat and their roost sites are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). Therefore, with regard to the potential impact of the access works on trees identified as suitable for bat roosting along the access route, we welcome the commitment in the ES18 to carry out further inspections of these trees prior to commencement of works along the route.
C.4 Badgers We note that an active badger sett was found during the 2010 walkover surveys, however, this was >30m outside the site boundary. As such we agree with the conclusion that the impact on badgers is not likely to be significant, provided the access route maintains the >30m stand-off limit.
C.5 Reptiles The ES recorded a small population of Common Lizard Lacerta vivipara at the site. As you are aware, all native reptile species are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) from intentional killing or injuring. We welcome the proposal to reduce the potential impact on reptiles at the site by mowing to exclude reptiles from the working area.
D. Commons Council We welcome the commitment from the applicant to offer funding for the establishment and early running costs of a Commons Council for Mynydd y Gwair. This should be secured through a Section 106 agreement.
Page 65 Page 59 of 151
E. Suggested Conditions In light of the comments set out above, should you be minded to grant permission for the scheme, the following conditions or obligations should be attached to it as follows:
i. The submission and agreement of a Habitat and Species Monitoring Plan incorporating the commitments to monitoring made in the Environmental Statement and those extra elements suggested in the annex attached, prior to the commencement of any works on site. This plan should include: a. details of a peatland hydrology and vegetation monitoring scheme to include a site-specific assessment of the impact of the development on water levels within the peat, water movement within the peatland unit and the likely or observed effects of changes on mire quality. b. details of a bird monitoring scheme to cover both vantage point surveys for site use and carcass searching for collision monitoring, the scheme to cover up to year 15, with reviews for stopping monitoring at years 5 and 10. c. all other habitat and species provision as outlined in the Environmental Statement.
ii. off-site enhancement works proposed as compensation for the residual impact on peatland and heath habitats on site, the location and details of which should be agreed in consultation with CCW.
Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB) – No response to date
Head of Pollution Control – offers no objections subject to the imposition of planning conditions based on the draft conditions as agreed between RWE NPower Renewables and the City County of Swansea on 5 Aug. 2010 plus the Planning Inspector’s Report dated 27 Oct. 2010. These relate to:
• Construction Traffic Management and Operation Traffic Management Plan • Construction Method Statement • Construction hours of 07.30 to 19.00 hrs on Monday to Friday and 07.00 to 14.000 on Saturday • Delivery of turbine and crane components allowed outside above hours subject to 24 hours notice • Noise emissions not exceeding stated values • Assessment of noise emissions • Provision of independent consultants assessment in the event of a noise complaint • Wind speed, wind direction and power generation data being continuously logged.
Highway Observations –
Background
This application is for the erection of a wind farm on Mynydd Y Gwair. The farm will comprise 16 turbines together with access roads, hard standings, anemometry mast and electrical sub-station.
A transport assessment has been submitted as part of the Environmental Statement which quantifies the construction traffic and subsequent operational requirements of the installation. A draft Traffic Management Plan has also been submitted.
Page 66 Page 60 of 151
This application is a resubmission following refusal and is for a reduced number of turbines. The traffic consideration however are the same and are reduced slightly from that considered with the previous submission.
Site Access Route
Two possible routes have been identified by the applicant. One route is through Pant Lassau and Rhyd y Pandy, however the rural nature of the roads along this route will not easily accommodate the abnormal loads required in the construction phase of the development. The alternative route that has been assessed by the applicant is along the A48 from Junction 47 of the M4 and through Penllergaer, Pontlliw and along a newly constructed access road from Bolgoed Road in Pontardulais. The junction of the access road would be located approximately 235m from the Fountain Inn and from this point the new road would traverse farmland and emerge at the top of Heol y Barna and then utilise the highway across the mountain, past the former Graig Merthyr colliery site over to Mynydd y Gwair, where the site access is situated.
Construction Traffic
The predicted construction traffic has been indicated in the assessment, which covers the 22 Month construction period. A variety of HGV movements by tipper lorries and flat bed lorries is indicated together with cars, vans and mini buses. The table indicated the number of vehicles per week-day over the period on a Monthly basis and this shows the highest volume to be 39 vehicles per day, with as little as 15 a day during quieter months.
Comparison to existing and committed development traffic flows indicates that the construction traffic will add 1% at the approach to Penllergaer raising to 3% on Pontardulais Road and 4% to the traffic in Pontlliw. The increase at Heol y Barna is higher as existing flows are so low and this is indicated to be an additional 13%.
In terms of significance, the Institute of Highways and Transportation recommends that in free flowing conditions a 10% increase in traffic could be considered significant, the additional flows through the residential areas peaks at 4% which is below this figure. With regard to the 13% increase along Heol y Barna, whilst this is significant in percentage terms, the actual numbers are quite low and do not give rise to concern.
All construction traffic would be travelling to and from the site in the 'inter-peak' period, this is between 10 am and 3 pm. This will avoid the am and pm peak periods when general traffic movements are at their highest and will also avoid the start and end of the school day.
The Traffic Management Plan indicates that empty HGV traffic will exit the site via Rhyd y Pandy Road and Pantlassau Road down to Junction 46 of the M4. There are some width restrictions along this route, however, the traffic surveys used to asses the affect of this routing indicate that existing traffic movements are low and the likelihood of conflict occurring between large vehicles is minimal. There are sufficient passing places for large vehicles and cars to pass, which is the current situation.
Within the traffic management plan, there will be contingency plans to route empty exiting HGV traffic via the access route in the event that any issues of conflict are encountered on the Rhyd y Pandy exit route.
Page 67 Page 61 of 151
Prior to any works commencing, the applicant will be required to undertake a road condition survey. This will serve to identify any damage as a result of additional HGV movements and identify the need for any repair work to be funded by the developer as a result of development traffic.
Abnormal Loads
The turbine components must be delivered under the Abnormal Loads procedure. Each turbine requires 9 abnormal loads, therefore the number of abnormal loads to the site over the construction period will be 144 and one additional load for the transformer substation. Abnormal loads will not start to arrive until Month 15, where it is proposed each convoy will consist of 2 abnormal load vehicles. It is proposed on that basis that there will be 72 convoys for the abnormal load deliveries.
Abnormal loads will require a Police escort and the applicant has identified locations where road alterations will be necessary. This was determined during a trial run which took place in November 2012. Works will be required at Penllergaer roundabout where central refuge islands on the Swansea Road and Pontardulais Road approaches will require modification. The previously anticipated alterations to the roundabout itself have proven unnecessary following the trial run. The footway under the railway bridge in Pontlliw may need to be lowered to allow over-run of the longer abnormal load vehicles. This will only be necessary if temporary traffic regulation orders to remove parked cars near the bend cannot be implemented. Further minor works on the mountain road will be required to adjust levels and reduce banks adjacent to the road where necessary. The full extent of road alterations would be subject to further detailed consideration. The time taken to travel the route from J47 of the M4 to the site is estimated at 24 mins. On that basis an abnormal load would take approximately 10 mins to travel through Penllergaer and Pontlliw. A minimum of 2 days notice is required for the abnormal loads with the largest loads requiring 5 days notice.
Clearly the transportation of abnormal loads will cause some disruption, however, the abnormal loads procedures are in place to address this as far as possible and subject to this requirement there is a right for such vehicles to use the highway. Prevention of abnormal loads is only possible if the route identified cannot physically accommodate the load, such as a weak bridge or restriction in dimensions making the passage of the load impossible, in other words objection can only be made on technical grounds. The trial run confirmed that the route can accommodate the required vehicles and loads. Any alterations identified will be at the expense of the developer and subject to detailed agreement of the Highway Authority.
In the event that there is an issue along the M4, where traffic has to be diverted through Pontlliw and / or Penllergaer, the transportation of abnormal loads will be suspended. Assessment has also been undertaken for a suitable lay-over area in the event that failure to complete the route within the specified time constraints is anticipated. The area identified as a temporary lay-over is along the A48 at Llangyfelach / Bryntywod where the road has 3 lanes allowing two way flow past any stationary abnormal load vehicles.
The Traffic Management Plan includes for the appointment of a traffic manager as a point of contact to address any issues that arise relating to construction traffic.
Page 68 Page 62 of 151
Operational Traffic
Operational traffic, following construction and commissioning, will be minimal and amount to the occasional service vehicle of the 4x4 type when the need arises. There is no day to day traffic movement associated with the site once construction is complete and the farm is operational.
Conclusions
Considerable detailed investigation into the suitability of the proposed construction traffic route has been undertaken by the applicant. This has identified the suitability of the route to accommodate the expected movement of construction traffic and highlighted areas where further detailed investigation is necessary to effect improvements to the highway route. The trial run has confirmed the suitability of the access route.
Traffic movements for an operational wind farm are minimal and there would be no adverse affect on the surrounding highway network associated with its operational use.
Recommendation
No highway objection subject to the following;
i. Prior to any work commencing on the site or on any part of the highway route leading to the site, details shall be submitted for approval of all works necessary to the haul route. All costs associated with any required alterations shall be borne by the applicant.
ii. Prior to any works commencing on the site or any part of the highway route leading to the site, a detailed traffic management plan shall be submitted for approval. Such approved plan shall be implemented and adhered to at all times unless written consent to vary has been received from the Local Planning Authority.
iii. Following completion of the construction phase, reinstatement of the highway and its associated street furniture shall be undertaken at the applicant's expense and in accordance with details to be submitted by the applicant and agreed.
iv. The applicant shall ensure that suitable facilities are installed within the site to prevent any vehicle leaving the site from depositing mud or other debris on the highway, all in accordance with details to be submitted and agreed.
Note: The Developer must contact the Network Manager City and County of Swansea, Highways Division, Players Industrial Estate, Clydach, Swansea, SA6 5BJ. Tel 01792 841601 before carrying out any work.
Applicant’s Supporting Information
This is an Environmental Impact Assessment application.
The following information has been provided in support of the application:
• Volume 1 Environmental Statement;
Page 69 Page 63 of 151
• Volume 2 ES appendices referred to in volume and includes Appendix 6.6 (Annex 2 Residential Wireframes); • Volume 3 ES figures referred to in volume 1; • Volume 4 ES Non -Technical Summary; • Planning Statement; • Design and Access Statement; • Socio-Economic Report;
All have been and are available for inspection at the Civic Centre / Contact Centre Reception desk and available to view via the Council’s and RWE’s websites.
4.0 APPRAISAL
4.1 The Proposal
The proposed development is for the erection of a wind farm consisting of 16 wind turbines and associated infrastructure including the access route, wind farm tracks, crane hardstandings, one permanent anemometry mast, underground cabling and an electrical substation and compound. The proposed turbines will have a maximum height to blade tip of 127 metres, with an indicative hub height of 80 metres. The 16 turbines are anticipated to have a rated capacity (maximum electrical generating capacity) of between 2.0 and 3.0 MW. The total capacity of the proposed wind farm would therefore be between 32 and 48 MW. This is anticipated to generate enough electricity to supply the average annual electricity needs of around 24,700 UK homes each year, based on the UK average annual domestic electricity consumption of approximately 4,700kWh.
4.2 Previous Proposal
Members will recall that the previous wind farm proposal for this site consisting of a planning application (ref:2008/1781) for 19 wind turbines was submitted to the City and County of Swansea in 2008 and RWE NRL subsequently appealed to the Planning Inspectorate Wales for non-determination of this application. The City and County of Swansea had resolved to object to the granting of planning permission and the planning inquiry relating to the application was heard in July/ Aug. 2010 and was subsequently dismissed by the Welsh Minister in Feb. 2011. The Planning Inspector’s report and determination focused upon the issue that a number of turbines would have an adverse impact on the peat resource at the site. Specifically 3 of the 19 turbines (together with associated access tracks) were considered to be located on peat deposits in excess of 0.3m. Therefore in order to specifically address this issue, RWE NRL have deleted the 3 turbines from those areas of deep peat deposits within the current re-designed Mynydd y Gwair scheme in an attempt to overcome the reasons for refusal of the proposed wind farm. The proposal for Mynydd y Gwair now under consideration is therefore based on 16 turbines with a maximum height to blade tip of 127 metres, with an indicative hub height of 80 metres.
4.3 Site Location
The proposed Mynydd y Gwair wind farm is located approximately 15km north of Swansea City Centre, and the application site boundary comprising the main wind farm site (where the turbines are located together with the access route) covers an area of 471.5 hectares (Ha).
Page 70 Page 64 of 151
The main wind farm site is located on the south facing slopes of Mynydd y Gwair and Pentwyn Mawr on land which rises to 330m above sea level and the majority of the site comprises of grazed open moorland. The site is located between the settlements of Glanamman and Ammanford (5.7km distant) to the north west, Pontardawe to the east, Clydach to the southeast, Felindre (5.6km distant) to the south and Pontarddulais (8km distant) to the west. There are a number of dispersed farms and dwellings in the vicinity of the wind farm, but there are no buildings within the application site boundary.
The site will be accessed via an existing agricultural access from the A48 (Bolgoed Road) in Pontardddulais. The site entrance will need to be upgraded and a new access track constructed running north east up the hillside towards Goppa Hill, then heading east towards Cwm Dulais, where it will join the existing unclassified road over Mynydd Pysdoglyn before proceeding over the common of Mynydd Garn-Fach via a new access track. This road will require improvements in several locations.
The proposed wind farm is located wholly within the City and County of Swansea, however, the application site is located near to the neighbouring boundaries of Carmarthenshire County Council (approximately 500 m to the north of the nearest turbine), and that of the Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, (which is located approximately 750m from the nearest turbine to the east). In addition, the Brecon Beacons National Park boundary is located approximately 5km to the north of the Mynydd y Gwair site. The Mynydd y Betws Wind Farm (16 turbines) which is located within Carmarthenshire was granted planning permission in 2011 and is currently under construction and is located adjacent to the wind farm site.
The site lies within the Pontardawe Strategic Search Area (SSA E), one of the 7 SSA’s for onshore wind power identified by the Welsh Government in Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy (July 2005). The significance of this is explained later.
The majority of the site is on common land, the freehold of which is owned by the Somerset Trust, who also own a field associated with Blaen Gerdinen on which the substation will be located. One small area of privately owned land is included within the site, a field near Bolgoed Farm where the junction with the A48 and the beginning of the access route is located.
Site Selection and Design Evolution The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) indicates that RWE npower renewables Ltd (RWE NRL) had identified the site at Mynydd y Gwair as offering a prime opportunity for the development of a wind farm prior to the publication of TAN 8 in 2005. In particular, the assessment of Mynydd y Gwair indicated the site as being appropriate for the following reasons:
• Strong and persistent winds resulting in high electricity generation output from the turbines; • A large land area allowing a wind farm design with good separation distances of around 800m (approximately half a mile) from the nearest inhabited properties; • On site connection to the electricity distribution system; • It does not have any international, national or other statutory designations on the site; • Good access to the existing road network; and • An existing land use (grazing) that is compatible with the development of a wind farm.
Page 71 Page 65 of 151
The site also underwent a further detailed assessment looking at the following aspects:
• Regional or local landscape designations; • Regional or local nature conservation designations and receptors; • Archaeological and cultural features; • The ability to access the site, with regard to the length and weight of turbine components; • The potential effects on radar through consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and the Ministry of Defence (MOD); • The ability of the site to accommodate turbines that meet recognised noise limits; • The relevant planning policies at all levels; and • A suitable grid connection and capacity on the local network.
The studies also included an assessment of the impacts on landscape and visual amenity, noise, ecology, cultural heritage, public access, land use, hydrology, hydrogeology, traffic and existing infrastructure.
The design process has evolved through a series of layouts of different numbers, separation distances and sizes of turbines. The design of the proposed wind farm and siting of the turbines has taken into account the following:
• The majority of the site is located on common land and the existing land use is agricultural’ • The distance between turbines and nearby dwellings; • The distance between turbines and forestry; • The proximity of the Lliw reservioirs and their catchment areas; • The presence of water courses; • The relative importance of habitats and protected species; • The proximity to Penlle’r Castell and other cultural heritage features; • The topography of the available land; • The visual impact of turbines on nearby settlements and individual properties; • The proximity to roads, bridleways and footpaths, including the National Trail, St Illtyds Way and the RhydyPandy Road that runs north to south east of the site; • The overall tip height of the turbines combined with the height above ground in order to keep within the constraints requested by the operators of Swansea Airport; • Other responses from statutory consultees and to public consultation; and • The outcome of the 2010 planning inquiry.
4.4 Planning Issues Identified at Inquiry Stage
As mentioned above RWE Npower Renwables Ltd. submitted a planning application for a 19 turbine scheme at Mynydd y Gwair in 2008 which was subsequently appealed on the grounds of non-determination (ref:2008/1781). Additionally, applications for three exchanges of land Orders under section 147 of the Inclosure Act 1845 and two applications for works on common land under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Although the Planning Inspector made a final recommendation report, the application was determined ultimately by the Welsh Ministers. The reason for the direction was because the most efficient and effective way of determining the appeal was for it to be decided in conjunction with the applications under the commons legislation over which inspectors have no jurisdiction.
Page 72 Page 66 of 151
The Environmental Statement surveys which accompanied the planning application did not identify significant areas of peat. However, prior to the Planning Inquiry, more detailed surveys were undertaken and identified several areas where turbines and access roads would be sited within areas of peat with a depth greater than 300mm. In particular, the Inspector observed that the location of turbine 4 was almost in the centre of the deepest section of peat. The main access track would pass this turbine and cross most of this central area of peat. Additionally, turbines 9 and 13 and associated tracks and sections of the access track near turbines 6, 7 and 8 would directly affect the peat in those areas of the site. Whilst recognising that some mitigation, such as ‘floating tracks’ could reduce the impact of the wind farm on the peat, there would still be a significant degree of impact on the peat deposits and the Inspector concluded that the risk of unacceptable degree of harm to the peat habitat was sufficient to justify refusal of the proposal.
The Planning Inspector overall conclusions stated: “I have already concluded above that this proposal is in conflict with criteria ii and iii of UDP Policy R11. Therefore, having regard to Section 38(6) of the Act, permission should only be granted if material circumstances indicate otherwise. I have weighed all the aspects raised against the proposal and balanced them against the benefits of granting permission. I place significant weight on the WAG and UK Government policies and targets and in particular to those in TAN8. Also on the facts that this proposal is likely to be seen fro most vantage points as part of a single larger wind farm with that at Mynydd y Betws, and the ability to link this site directly into the national grid.
Setting aside for the moment the question of the effect of the proposal on the peat habitat, I am satisfied that the benefits of the production of renewable energy fro this proposal would outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan and all the other material considerations. In general terms a development of this number of turbines up to a maximum height of 127m is acceptable in this location. However, for the reasons given, the effect on the peat habitat cannot be overcome by the imposition of conditions designed to mitigate the harmful effects. For this reason I conclude that permission should not be granted”.
The Inspector did consider the relocation of the turbines as it appeared to him that ‘a relatively minor re-design of the layout might remove most, if not all, of the impact on the peat deposits’. However, this would have significantly changed the nature of the proposal and could not be consider as part of that proposal. Whilst not commenting on the merits of such a proposal, the Minister agreed that a new application for planning permission would need to be made should significant changes be proposed, which must be for the local planning authority to consider in the first instance.
The Minister agreed with the Inspector’s conclusions and accepted that the development as proposed raises the risk of an unacceptable degree of harm to the peat habitat which is sufficient to justify refusal of the proposal and as such that planning permission should not be granted for the development proposed.
The conclusions of the Planning Appeal are a material planning consideration in the consideration of this current proposal and the Inspector concluded in respect of the landscape and visual effects that the scale of the turbines could be accommodated within the landscape without unacceptable harm to the landscape character of the site and its surroundings.
Page 73 Page 67 of 151
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In consideration of the appeal, the Inspector gave weight to UDP Policies R11, EV22 and EV29. Policy EV22 provides a general policy for the protection of the countryside and Policy EV29 similarly protects areas of common land. Policy R11 specifically applies to renewable energy, and whilst the Inspector acknowledges a conflict between the objectives of policies EV22 and EV29 and the large wind farm, the Inspector considered “the tests included within Policy R11 require the consideration of what are in effect the same matters. Therefore I consider that the most significant policy to test this proposal against is R11”. However, the Inspector highlighted that the wording of the criteria (ii) and (iii) introduce a test of ‘significant adverse effects’, whilst Annex D to TAN 8 accepts that within the SSA’s, the implicit objective is to accept landscape change i.e. no significant change in landscape character from wind farm development. The Inspector considered that the change brought about by the wind farm would be adverse and therefore in conflict with Policy R11. However, it was concluded that having regard to the benefits of the production of renewable energy from the proposal would outweigh the conflict with the R11 and all other material considerations and in that in general terms a development of the number of turbines up to a maximum height of 127m at this location is acceptable. This conclusion was accepted by the Welsh Minister, notwithstanding the issue regarding the impact on the peat deposits.
The Planning Inspector’s recommendation report and the Minister’s decision report focussed on a number of key issues, which the applicants now seek to address in this revised planning application and accompanying Environmental Statement. The Ministerial decision letter and Inspector’s Report are therefore material planning consideration and should be afforded significant weight in the determination of this planning application, particularly in view of the fact that national and local planning policy context has not significantly altered since the appeal.
4.5 Common Land
The main wind farm site is located on Common Land, registered as CL74 and CL7 and part of the access route traverse another common, between the A48 Bolgoed Road and Cwmdulais is located on Common CL68. The three Commons are primarily used for grazing by farmers who have historic rights on the Common Land. Each farm has specific rights, including the right to graze a set number of livestock.
The applicant proposes an approach whereby all of the common land affected by development will be replaced by exchange land. This will therefore include all areas of common land impacted during the construction and operation of the wind farm, in addition to those areas over-sailed by turbines. The land exchange process will involve an application to the Welsh Government under sections 16 and 38 of the Commons Act 2006 (“2006 Act”) enacted in Wales in April 2012. This is a separate process that runs in parallel with the application under the Town and Country Planning Acts. It is proposed to exchange land from two nearby farms into the Common. These farms known as Blaen-yr- ochfa and Blaen Gerdinen abound Commons CL77 and CL74 respectively. In total an area of approximately 39 hectares of land will be exchanged into the Commons.
It is proposed to “take out of the common” the operational land take area, including areas over sailed by turbines and all areas of common affected by construction activities.
Page 74 Page 68 of 151
This will include all areas needed for the access route and wind farm tracks, the turbine bases and all land oversailed by the turbine blades, the hardstandings needed for crane access, temporary work areas and land under which cables run. This is a conservative approach as areas affected by construction but not taken up by the development will be restored once the wind farm is operational and will re-vegetate and be available for grazing. In addition areas oversailed by the turbines will also be available for grazing.
4.6 Site Constraints
There are no statutory sites designated for their ecological or landscape value within the proposed application site. There are two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within approximately 1km of the main wind farm site, the Hafod Wennol Grasslands SSSI and Graig Fawr Pontarddulais SSSI. The Brecon Beacons National Park is designated partly for landscape and partly for recreational value, and is located approximately 5km north of the site boundary.
There is one Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) within the application site boundary, (Penlle’r Bebyll cairn) located adjacent to the main access route. A second SAM, Penlle’r Castell, which is the remains of a thirteenth century castle and is located outside the development boundary near the peak of Mynydd y Gwair.
As indicated the majority of the application site is on common land and is classified as ’open access land’ under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This means that people have a right of access on foot to walk freely off public paths and roam over the land.
There are several public rights of way within the vicinity of the development boundary. Additionally, there are a number of non-statutory footpaths which cross the site:
• St llltyds Way which runs along the northern boundary of the proposed wind farm site; • Gower Way is in proximity to the wind farm and terminates or starts on Penlle’ r Castell; • the Lliw Valley Walk. • In addition there is a bridleway (RN37) which runs north-east from the Rhyd-y- Pandy Road which is outside of the site. This bridleway does not provide a through route across the common land for horses or cyclists. There is another bridleway (MW28) on Goppa Hill which runs along the access route and will require temporarily redirecting during construction.
4.7 The Proposed Development
The main components of the proposed wind farm include:
• Construction of sixteen wind turbines (each with a maximum height to blade tip of 127m); The wind turbines will be three bladed, horizontal axis turbines with tubular towers. The blades will be made from reinforced composite materials such as fibreglass. The turbine towers will be made of steel. The turbines are normally coloured semi matt, pale grey (RAL 7035). Whilst typical images of wind turbines are submitted with the application, it is indicated that the actual turbine choice will be subject to turbine availability and commercial considerations; however, the final design and surface finish could be controlled by planning conditions.
Page 75 Page 69 of 151
• construction of approximately 14.54km of new access tracks both on the route and the main wind farm site; Access tracks will be 5m wide with1m verges adjacent;
• utilisation and improvements to 3.9km of existing unclassified road across Mynydd Pysgodlyn;
• construction of ancillary development comprising: i) on onsite electrical substation and compound, ii) 16 crane hard-standing areas, one external transformer adjacent to each turbine if required, iii) underground connecting cabling and one permanent wind monitoring mast; and iv) creation of a temporary construction compound and one temporary wind monitoring mast which will be in place during the construction period only.
Whilst the turbines locations are indicated within the layout, the ES indicates that a series of intrusive site investigations will be carried out pre-construction, and depending upon the findings, it may be necessary to adjust through micro-siting the location of the turbines and associated access tracks. A micro-siting allowance of up to 30m (in any direction) to allow for ground and environmental constraints is therefore proposed for the turbines themselves, and associated hard-standings, the permanent met mast and the access tracks. This may be adequately controlled by planning condition.
The turbines will be linked to underground cables which will connect to an electrical substation and compound located in the western corner of the application site, on an agricultural holding at Blaen Gerdinen, which would be adjacent to the proposed area of common land exchange. It is indicated that as far as possible, the cables will follow the route of the access tracks and typically would be laid in trenches approximately 0.5m wide and 1.0m deep on a sand bed. A typical elevation plan of a substation building is submitted which would be designed and constructed ‘to be sympathetic with the local environment’ to be similar to an agricultural building with rendered walls and a slate roof, with dimensions of 20m x 10m x 5m high, and within a compound comprising an area 60m x 60m. The final details of the external design, appearance and finish of the substation building together with that of the compound layout and associated enclosures could be controlled by planning condition. The substation will connect via a section of underground 132 kV cable measuring approximately 111m from the substation to the base of an existing electricity pylon; this will then connect to a platform to be constructed on the pylon, which is part of an existing 132kV overhead electricity line that crosses the site along a north – south route.
The hard-standing areas will be constructed adjacent to the individual turbines, and are required during construction for the cranes to lift and assemble the turbine components. The hard-standings will typically measure 50m x 25m and constructed using approximately 500mm of graded stone aggregate on a geo-textile base, and will be kept in situ during the operation of the wind farm for future turbine maintenance; however, they will be covered in soil and left to re-vegetate.
The temporary construction compound would be sited close to the location of turbine number 7 on level land to the south of the wind farm site, close to its site entrance. The compound will measure 50m x 50m and will include:
• a laydown area for materials and turbine components; • temporary portacabin type structures, for site offices and welfare facilities;
Page 76 Page 70 of 151
• parking for some cars and construction vehicles, and • hard-standings for local material storage.
Temporary fencing will be erected around the compound for health and safety reasons to exclude the general public and livestock. The compound will be removed and the land reinstated at the end of the construction period. It is proposed to implement a restoration and aftercare plan to ensure the habitats are properly re-established after construction and are maintained and monitored. This may be secured by means of a planning condition.
4.8 Construction Details
The construction phase of the project is anticipated to last for approximately 22 months, with a two phase approach to the work. The new access route needed from the A48 will be constructed in Phase 1 along with the necessary road improvements. Phase 2 will consist of the construction of the Access Route and the Main Wind Farm site, this phase should last approximately 18 months with major deliveries being largely completed within the last 12 months. The wind farm will be serviced and maintained throughout its life of 25 years after which the wind farm will be decommissioned and the site reinstated.
The outline construction programme will consist of the following primary activities:
1. upgrading the junction with the A48 (including visibility splays); 2. Construction of new sections of access track and upgrading sections of existing road along access route; 3. installation of construction compound; 4. construction of wind farm tracks; 5. excavation of cable trenches; 6. construction of turbine foundations; 7. building of substation and installation of electrical equipment; 8. erection and commissioning of the wind turbines; 9. erection of anemometry mast; and 10. reinstatement works.
The construction of the main wind farm site is expected to be completed within approximately 18 months of commencing work on-site.
4.9 Decommissioning
At the end of the operational life of the wind farm (approximately 25 years) the wind farm will be decommissioned. Site clearance and reinstatement would take approximately six months and would comprise the following:
• removal of turbines from the site; • foundations removed to a depth of 1000m and re-instated with topsoil; • turbine interconnecting cables disconnected and left in place; • demolition of substation building and compound and the area re-instated.
The working lifespan of a modern wind turbine is initially expected to be in the region of 25 years, although developments in technology could possibly extend this in the future.
Page 77 Page 71 of 151
In the event of planning permission being granted, a condition would be incorporated for 25 years only, after which a new application must be made or the turbines would have to be decommissioned and taken down. The developers have submitted a draft Heads of Terms for a proposed Section 106 Legal Agreement. With respect to an obligation to provide security for decommission and restoration, it is proposed to provide a financial payment (figure to be agreed per turbine) to be paid into an escrow account prior to the commencement of the development. Alternatively the developer would replace the escrow account with a decommissiong bond of equivalent value. The amount of security would be reviewed every 8 years and would be increased or decreased to reflect the estimated costs of decommissiong and restoration. This payment would be claimed by the City and County of Swansea in the event of the developer failing to decommission or restore the site and would cover the cost of dismantling / removal of the wind turbines when power generation finally ceases, removal of the concrete bases, the electricity sub-station, the grid connection and the access roads on the site – and returning the ground to its former appearance.
4.10 Community Benefits Arising out of the Development of a Wind Farm
Planning Obligations to enable development to proceed TAN8 advises that where the development would have implications for the public provision of infrastructure, a local planning authority may require the developer to make an in-kind or financial contribution towards its provision. The development of the wind farm could, for example, have implications for:
• highway infrastructure improvements outside of the application site. • wildlife habitat management or creation in mitigation for adverse impacts of the construction. • payments to overcome adverse implications for communication networks such as TV or radar
Under such circumstances the developer would be required to enter into an “obligation” under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to enable development to proceed.
Developer offers With regard to developer offers, Planning Policy Wales (para. 12.10.5) indicates that the Welsh Government supports the principle of securing sustainable community benefits for host communities through voluntary arrangements. Such arrangements must not impact on the decision making process and should not be treated as a material consideration unless it meets the tests set out in Circular 13/97 (Planning Obligations). Additionally, TAN 8 offers advice on ‘community benefit’ and states that ‘the developer might wish to volunteer “gains” outside obligations that could be legitimately described as necessary for the development to proceed. Such “gains” could be offered as part of the planning process, as outlined below, or they could be undertaken as a separate exercise. The courts have held that this approach is not, in itself, unlawful. Whether the developer enters into an agreement with the local planning authority or offers these extra benefits unilaterally (as he is permitted to do under section 106), the important point here is that, as such offers are not necessary for the development to proceed, they must not impact upon the decision-making process’. They are not therefore reported in this appraisal.
Page 78 Page 72 of 151 4.11 Wind Farm Proposal at Mynydd y Betws
As indicated within Section b above (planning history) the WAG Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing has determined that planning permission be granted (10 June, 2009) for the construction of 16 wind turbines (with a hub height of the rotors at 68.6m above ground level with the rotor having a diameter of 82.4m, giving an overall height of 110m) on land at Mynydd y Betws, Ammanford, Carmarthenshire (Ref:2005/1431). The Mynydd y Betws Wind Farm proposal is located on the fringe of the administrative boundary of the City and County of Swansea but within the County of Carmarthenshire and adjoins Mynydd y Gwair. The site lies adjacent to but not within the Strategic Search Area (SSA E) identified in TAN 8.
In granting planning permission, the Minister acknowledged the wind farm proposal on Mynydd y Gwair (ref:2008/1781) as a material consideration; however, the Minister did not consider that it could be accorded significant weight in the consideration of the Mynydd y Betws determination as it was undetermined although consideration was given in the Inspectors Report to the possible cumulative impact if both were built. In reaching her decision it is indicated that “the Minister accepts the Inspector’s assessments of the degree of harm that would be caused by the development in terms of ancient monuments, habitat, landscape and other matters raised at the inquiry but on balance concludes that the contribution the proposal would make to the provision of electricity from renewable sources would outweigh the harm that would be caused by the development”. As the consented Mynydd y Betws wind farm is currently under construction, the cumulative impact is a material consideration which should be given considerable weight in assessing this current proposal.
4.12 Planning Policy Context
The principal national and local planning policies and advice in relation to on-shore wind energy are:
• Planning Policy Wales, Edition 5 (November 2012) (Section 12.8.10 -21) Renewable and Low Carbon Energy) • TAN8 – Renewable Energy (July 2005) • Policy R11 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Additionally, Central Government has recently issued the National Policy Statements (NPS) for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN3 – July 2011). The energy NPSs set out national policy against which proposals for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) will be assessed and decided on by the National Infrastructure Directorate (NID) within the Planning Inspectorate. Previously NSIPs were dealt with by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). Under the Localism Act 2011, the IPC was abolished on 1 April 2012. Its functions transferred to the Planning Inspectorate on that date and are now delivered by its National Infrastructure Directorate. The NID will be responsible for determining projects over the devolved threshold of 50MW in Wales.
The consenting process for renewable energy projects in Wales depends on the size and location of the proposed renewable development. For the planning system the key area of responsibility is onshore development of less than 50MW, which includes this current proposal at Mynydd y Gwair.
Page 79 Page 73 of 151
Planning Policy Wales (PPW) - (Edition 5, November 2012) contains current land use planning policy for Wales and it provides the policy framework for the effective preparation of local planning authorities’ development plans. This latest edition of PPW at Sections 12.8-12.10 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy sets out the Assembly Government’s updated planning policy on renewable and low carbon energy.
PPW makes reference to the requirements of the EU Renewable Energy Directive, which includes a UK target of 15% of energy from renewables by 2020. The Assembly Government is committed to playing its part by delivering an energy programme which contributes to reducing carbon emissions as part of the approach by tackling climate change. The Welsh Government’s Energy Policy Statement (2010) identifies the sustainable renewable energy potential for a variety of different technologies as well as establishing their commitment to energy efficiency (para, 12.8.1).
Paragraph 12.8.2 advises that planning policy at all levels should facilitate delivery of both the Welsh Government’s overall Energy Policy Statement, and UK and European targets on renewable energy, and local planning authorities should have regard in particular to the guidance contained in Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy, TAN22 and Planning for Renewable Energy – A Toolkit for Planners.
Paragraph 12.8.6 of PPW advises that the Assembly Government’s aim is to secure an appropriate mix of energy provision for Wales, whilst avoiding, and where possible minimising environmental, social and economic impacts to be achieved through action on energy efficiency and strengthening renewable energy production. This forms part of the Welsh Government’s aim to secure the strongest economic development policies to underpin growth and prosperity in Wales recognising the importance of clean energy and the efficient use of natural resources, both as an economic driver and a commitment to sustainable development.
Paragraph 12.8.9 advises that local planning authorities should facilitate the development of all forms of renewable and low carbon energy to move towards a low carbon economy to help to tackle the causes of climate change. Specifically, they should make positive provision by:
• considering the contribution that their area can make towards developing and facilitating renewable and low carbon energy, and ensuring that development plan policies enable this contribution to be delivered; • ensuring that development control decisions are consistent with national and international climate change obligations, including contributions to renewable energy targets and aspirations; • recognising the environmental, economic and social opportunities that the use of renewable energy resources can make to planning for sustainability,
At the same time paragraph 12.8.10 advises that local planning authorities should ensure that international and national statutory obligations to protect designated areas, species and habitats and the historic environment are observed; ensure that mitigation measures are required for potential detrimental effects on local communities whilst ensuring that the potential impact on economic viability is given full consideration.
Paragraph 12.8.12 considers the potential for renewable and low carbon energy in Wales as established in the Energy Policy Statement demonstrates that strategic scale wind energy continues to offer the greatest potential in Wales.
Page 80 Page 74 of 151
Wales has an abundant wind resource and power generation using this resource remains the most commercially viable form of renewable energy. The Assembly Government accepts that the introduction of new, often very large structures for onshore wind needs careful consideration to avoid, and where possible minimise their impact. However, the need for wind energy is a key part of meeting the Assembly Government’s vision for future renewable electricity production as set out in the Energy Policy Statement (2010) and should be taken into account by decisions makers when determining such applications.
Paragraph 12.8.13 advises that the most appropriate scale at which to identify areas for large scale onshore wind energy development is at an all-Wales level. Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy (2005) identifies areas in Wales which are considered to be the most appropriate locations for large scale wind farm development; these areas are referred to as Strategic Search Areas (SSA’s). The detailed characteristics of SSA’s and the methodology used to define them are outlined in TAN 8 and its Annexes. Development of a limited number of large-scale(over 25MW) wind energy developments in these areas will be required to contribute significantly to the Assembly Government’s onshore wind energy aspiration for 2GW in total capacity by 2015/17 and UK and European renewable energy targets; to mitigate climate change and deliver energy security.
PPW further advises that within the SSA’s, whilst cumulative impact can be a material consideration, it must be balanced against the need to meet the Welsh Assembly Government’s renewable energy aspirations and the conclusions reached fully justified in any decisions taken. Developers will need to be sensitive to local circumstances, including siting in relation to local landform, proximity to dwellings and other planning considerations (para. 12.8.14).
Para. 12.10.1 states that in determining applications for renewable and low carbon energy development and associated infrastructure local planning authorities should take into account: • the contribution a proposal will play in meeting identified national, UK and European targets and potential for renewable energy, including the contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; • the wider environmental, social and economic benefits and opportunities from renewable and low carbon energy development; • the impact on the natural heritage, the Coast and the Historic Environment; • the need to minimise impacts on local communities to safeguard quality of life for existing and future generations; • the need to minimise impacts on local communities to safeguard quality of life for existing and future generations; • ways to avoid, mitigate or compensate identified adverse impacts; • the impacts of climate change on the location, design, build and operation of renewable and low carbon energy development. In doing so consider whether measures to adapt to climate change impacts give rise to additional impacts; • grid connection issues where renewable (electricity) energy developments are proposed; and • the capacity of and effects on the transportation network relating to the construction and operation of the proposal.
Page 81 Page 75 of 151
Technical Advice Note (TAN 8: Renewable Energy - July, 2005) provides technical advice to supplement the policy set out in PPW and is a material consideration to decisions on planning applications and will be taken into account by the Welsh Ministers and Planning Inspectors in the determination of called-in planning applications and appeals. It is the key document that drives the delivery of renewable energy policy in Wales. At its core is the requirement to enable the delivery, through the planning system of the Assembly Government’s targets for renewable energy.
TAN 8 indicate that onshore wind power offers the greatest potential of an increase in the generation of electricity from renewable energy in the short to medium term. The targets outlined in Paragraph 1.4 of the TAN state that:
“The Assembly Government has a target of 4TWh of electricity per annum to be produced by renewable energy by 2010 and 7TWh by 2020. In order to meet these targets the Assembly Government has concluded that 800MW of additional installed capacity is required from onshore wind sources and a further 200MW of installed capacity is required from offshore wind and other renewable technologies”.
In order to meet these targets, TAN 8 states that locations for large scale wind farm developments (over 25 MW) should be concentrated into particular defined areas referred to as Strategic Search Areas (SSA’s). Seven SSA’s are defined on maps in TAN8, with boundaries at a “broad brush” scale. However, not all of the land within the SSA’s may be technically, economically and / or environmentally suitable for major wind power proposals; however the boundaries are seen as encompassing sufficient suitable land, in one or more sites, to deliver the Assembly Government’s energy policy aspirations. The defined SSA’s are typically in extensive areas with a good wind resource (in excess of 7 metres per second), upland areas (over 300 metres), sparsely populated areas, moorland or conifer plantations, areas with an absence of nature conservation/historic landscape designations, sufficient area to generate over 25 MW and largely unaffected by broadcast transmission or radar etc.
The SSA of relevance to this application is SSA E (Pontardawe) which straddles the upland area between the Swansea and Neath Port Talbot administrative areas with an indicative installed capacity of 100 MW; however, this is not a definitive capacity figure for the area. The TAN advises that it is a matter for local planning authorities to undertake local refinement within each of the SSA’s in order to guide and optimise development within each of the areas.
In a letter to stakeholders in July 2011, Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development Mr John Griffiths sought to provide clarity on the issue of maximum installation capacities for onshore wind within the Strategic Search Areas (SSA’s) identified in TAN 8 in 2005. The maximum capacities of the SSA’s as provided for and referenced in TAN 8, were assessed by independent consultants Garrad Hassan and provide for almost 1700 megawatts of onshore wind across all SSA’s in Wales. It was concluded by the consultants that the potential maximum onshore wind capacity for SSA E is 152MW.
The Assembly Government commissioned a research document ‘Strategic Search Area (SSA) Reassessment and Validation (July 2010)’ to inform a revised planning policy framework for onshore wind development in and around the SSA in Wales.
Page 82 Page 76 of 151
This document indicates that the Wales’ Energy Policy Statement aspirational target of 2GW onshore wind to be delivered by 2015/17 is achievable by the 2017date. However, it does assume the ‘best case’ scenario i.e. concurrent construction of wind farms, planning permission being granted for all schemes submitted, on time delivery of improvements to the National Grid and negligible construction/transport delays. The previous submission for Mynydd y Gwair (ref. 2008/1781) was included in this assessment.
In addition the Assembly Government has published practice guidance to support the facilitation of renewable and low carbon energy development through the planning system in Wales. These documents provide additional guidance in support of PPW and TAN8:
- Practice Guidance: Planning for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy – A toolkit for Planners (2010). This document is aimed at assisting in the development of renewable energy assessments in support of local development plans. - Practice Guidance: Planning Implications of Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Developments (2011). This document looks at research that covers planning implications, local planning authorities’ roles and applications for renewable and low carbon energy development.
4.13 Arup Report; TAN 8 Annex D Study of Strategic Search Areas E & F: South Wales Valleys – Consortium of South Wales Valleys Authorities
The study was jointly commissioned by five local planning authorities that together comprise the “Consortium of South Wales Valleys Authorities”; Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, Rhondda Cynin Taff Borough Council, Bridgend County Borough Council, the City and County of Swansea and Carmarthenshire County Council. The brief for the study was to undertake a detailed assessment of the South Wales Valleys Strategic Search Area (E and F) and map the best locations for wind farm development within the SSA’s in accordance with the principles of Annex D of TAN 8, having regard to landscape, environmental and technical factors. The consultants were to consider the ability of the areas to deliver the TAN 8 indicative capacities and recommend refined boundaries that deliver only the indicative capacities, on the basis that these capacities are targets.
This Arup study was primarily a landscape and visual assessment exercise which seeks to identify a ‘Preferred Area or Areas’ for large-scale wind farms broadly within the boundaries of the Strategic Search Area(s), working within the context of the indicative capacity targets for the SSA’s (identified in TAN 8). The study however also used a range of technical and other environmental data to inform its work.
The consultants' report was intended to inform the preparation of supplementary planning guidance to be prepared individually by local planning authorities. It was reported to the Cabinet of the City and County of Swansea on 1 February 2007 where its contents were noted and to be used as a background paper to inform the preparation of supplementary planning guidance on Onshore Wind Energy, in support of the Unitary Development Plan. The report itself however, was not adopted as Council policy. However, it should be noted that the Arup Report concluded that within the refined SSA zone of Mynydd y Gwair, the wind turbines should be limited to a maximum height of 100 metres as it was considered that the Mynydd y Gwair massif was too small a landform to accommodate the largest turbines.
Page 83 Page 77 of 151 4.14 Unitary Development Plan
In consideration of Development Plan Policy, the Planning Inspector attached most weight to UDP Policies R11, EV22 and EV29. Policy EV22 is a general policy for the protection of the countryside throughout the County, whilst Policy EV29 similarly protects areas of common land. Policy R11 specifically applies to renewable energy and in particular is supportive of renewable energy proposals subject to no significant unacceptable adverse environmental impacts. The amplification to Policy R11 indicates in order to achieve the set targets in TAN8, WAG have identified seven Strategic Search Areas (SSA’s) around Wales into which all large scale (over 25MW) onshore wind power developments should be concentrated. SSA E has been identified which straddles the upland area between the Swansea and Neath Port Talbot administrative boundaries. Policy R11 confirms Council support for WAG’s policy for strengthening renewable energy production, and recognises the long-term benefits to be derived from the development of renewable energy sources. Renewable energy technologies can have a positive impact on local communities and the local economy in terms of monetary savings and in generating and underpinning economic development within the County. There are however concerns about the impacts that some renewable energy technologies can have on the landscape, local communities, natural heritage and historic environment, nearby land uses and activities. It is necessary to achieve a balance between supporting renewable energy proposals whilst avoiding significant damage to the environment and its key assets. Proposals for onshore wind energy will need to ensure that the adverse impacts of development on landscape character are not significant. This should take into account the cumulative effects of development proposals. As a general rule it will be preferable for onshore wind turbines to be located away from the more environmentally sensitive parts of the County. However each case would be considered on its merits as small turbines may be sited inconspicuously in the landscape.
The Planning Inspector recognised that there was “an inevitable conflict between the objectives of policies EV22 and EV29 and a large wind farm, but the tests included within Policy R11 require the consideration of what are in effect the same matters. Therefore I consider that the most significant policy to test this proposal against is R11. In my view this policy is generally in accord with WAG policy and sets out the range of issues which must be balanced. There is one potential problem…in that the wording of criteria ii and ii introduce a test of ‘no significant adverse effects’. Paragraph 8.54 of Annex D to TAN 8 accepts that significance landscape change should be accepted within SSA’s. In my opinion such change would be adverse and therefore, to that extent, this proposal is in conflict with Policy R11”.
However, within the overall conclusions the Planning Inspector stated “I have already concluded above that this proposal is in conflict with criteria ii and iii of UDP Policy R11. Therefore, having regard to Section 38(6) of the Act, permission should only be granted if material circumstances indicate otherwise. I have weighed all the aspects raised against the proposal and balanced them against the benefits of granting permission. I place significant weight on the WAG and UK Government policies and targets and in particular to those in TAN8. Also on the facts that this proposal is likely to be seen from most vantage points as part of a single larger wind farm with that ay Mynydd y Betws, and the ability to link this site directly into the national grid.
Page 84 Page 78 of 151
Setting aside for the moment the question of the effect of the proposal on the peat habitat, I am satisfied that the benefits of the production of renewable energy from this proposal would outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan and all the other material considerations. In general terms a development of this number of turbines up to a maximum height of 127m is acceptable in this location”.
4.15 Potential Designation as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
One of the point of objections, in particular made by the Gower Society, is that the upland area of Mynydd y Gwair area is currently under consideration for designation as an extension to the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that it would be entirely inappropriate for planning permission to be given for development at Mynydd y Gwair until the proposed AONB designation of the area has been fully considered. In respect to this point in the previous proposal (2008/1781), the Planning Inspector stated “however I am not aware that any such proposals have progressed to the point where such a designation would represent a material planning consideration of significant weight”.
In response to this issue, the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) were requested to address this particular issue and indicate that they have been in correspondence with the Gower Society since 2005 concerning the potential for extending the Gower AONB to include the Mynydd Y Gwair area. CCW indicate that they have made no commitment and are not in a position to undertake any pre-designation work on a Gower AONB extension proposal. CCW's statutory responsibilities for AONBs will, on 1 April 2013, transfer to the new Natural Resource Body for Wales (now named as Natural Resources Wales / Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru). Future decisions in relation to any proposals for new designations or boundary changes will be a matter for Natural Resources Wales. This position has been reconfirmed by John Griffiths, Minister for Environment and Sustainability and CCW confirms that they not in a position to progress work on any proposed extension to the Gower AONB. It is therefore reiterated that as such “proposals have not progressed to the point where such a designation would represent a material planning consideration of significant weight”.
4.16 Planning Assessment
The material considerations with regard to the application are as follows. These correspond largely to the impacts assessed in the Environmental Statement and addendum documents.
• Landscape and visual amenity; • Cultural Heritage; • Noise; • Ecology – Non Avian; (including peat). • Ecology - Avian • Traffic and Transport; • Hydrology and Hydrogeology; • Land Use (including common land); • Socio-Economic Factors; • Electro-magnetic Interference; • Shadow Flicker;
There are considered to be no additional issues arising from the provisions of the Human Rights Act. Page 85 Page 79 of 151
4.17 Landscape and Visual Assessment
Introduction The ES has undertaken a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) of the potential effects of the proposed development on the landscape character and visual amenity of the site and locality. The LVIA considers the effects upon the physical fabric of the landscape, upon the wider landscape character and upon views. The cumulative effects that could arise as a result of the proposed development together with other wind farm developments are also assessed. It is indicated that the methodology for the LVIA adopts a standards approach and seeks:
• the establishment of the baseline conditions, i.e. the existing character and sensitivity of the landscape, and the type and sensitivity of visual receptors; • the prediction of the magnitude of change that the proposed development would bring, allowing for mitigation measures, upon the landscape and upon visual receptors; and • an assessment of the significance of impact that would occur, by considering the predicted magnitude of change in line with the sensitivity of the landscape or sensitivity of visual receptor respectively.
The landscape assessment and visual assessment are separate matters, although closely related and interlinked issues. Landscape effects are indicated to relate to changes in the physical landscape, which may give rise to changes in its character and how this is experienced, which may in turn affect the perceived value ascribed to the landscape. Whilst visual effects relate to the changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people's response to the changes, and to the overall effects with respect to visual amenity.
Landscape Consultants (LC) have been commissioned by the City and County of Swansea to review the Landscape and Visual Assessment Chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES). Their review concentrated on whether the (LVIA) adopted best practice and current guidance in terms of assessment; the methodology used; the findings being clearly and appropriately reported; the varying sensitivity of landscape and visual receptors has been appropriately acknowledged; the appropriateness of the viewpoints; the cumulative landscape and visual impacts of the proposals in conjunction with other wind energy developments being fully considered; the application of Planning Policy’; and the adequacy of the supporting analysis plans, illustrations and photomontages being clearly presented. The review was also undertaken in the context of the issues raised at the 2010 Planning Inquiry and the Inspector's Report.
The LC concluded that although the LVIA generally follows best practice guidance, there were considered to be some significant shortcomings in the assessment of the baseline situation and assessment of effects; in particular, the application of PPW policies; the fact that the proposals lie within registered common land; the BBNP landscape character assessment and specific qualities attributed to LCA 2: Mynydd Du; visual effects on settlements, Carreg Cennen Castle, and linear receptors; and cumulative landscape and visual effects, including those on residential and linear receptors. In addition, the reporting of effects lacks clarity and robustness; namely, a number of statements are made without being justified by sufficient explanation of proven assessment work.
Page 86 Page 80 of 151
Therefore, it was recommended that City and County of Swansea request further landscape and visual information from the Applicant to assist in determining the Application, namely: further consideration of the impact on the landscape setting of BBNP, and also, the common land within which the proposal site; detailed assessment for the ten Aspect Areas not considered in Appendix A6.4; cumulative ZTVs, and panoramas and photomontages to relate to the existing cumulative wireframes, together with further assessment of cumulative landscape and visual effects including residential and linear receptors; and methodology for the production of ZTVs, photomontages and wireframes. In response to this request, the applicants (RWE) submitted further supplementary LVIA information to address the issues raised. Overall, it is considered that the methodology for the LVIA is justified.
Study Areas The study area for the LVIA is defined by the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) for the proposal which extends for a 35km distance from the nearest turbine. The visibility of the proposed turbines from sensitive receptors within this study area is considered.
The EIA acknowledges that it is inevitable that siting a wind energy development in the UK would result in some significant effects on the landscape and visual amenity. However, significant effects are not necessarily adverse or, if adverse, are not necessarily unacceptable. Therefore, the purpose of this LVIA is not just to ascertain whether the proposed wind turbines will or will not result in significant landscape and/or visual effects but to identify the extent to which these have been minimised and the extent and intensity of the significant residual effects and to determine whether, as a result, this proposal can be accommodated in this location without unacceptable adverse effects in landscape and visual impact terms. This is particularly relevant given the general polarisation of public opinion on wind energy and the way the public perceive wind farms differently. This will influence the threshold at which people consider unacceptable effects will occur. The LVIA therefore focuses on the magnitude of change that would be experienced due to the proposal and the resultant significance of the effect of such change on receptors of varying sensitivity.
The EIA states that the effects on landscape character diminish with distance and a clear distinction needs to be drawn between effects on the key characteristics of an area that influence its local distinctiveness and the related effects on specific viewpoints within a character area. A change in view does not necessarily imply an accompanying change in overall character, particularly where the turbines are more distant from the viewpoint, a point acknowledged by the Planning Inspector. The character of a landscape is derived from the interaction of a number of factors, of which the views available are one. The assessment of effects on landscape character has therefore focussed on that part of the study area within approximately 12km of the turbines and that are located within the blade tip ZTV for the proposed scheme (as was the case in the previous 2008 application and at public inquiry in 2010).
In this assessment, consideration of cumulative effects is focused on those sites within 30km of the proposed turbines, where potentially significant cumulative effects are likely to arise. This reduced study area is consistent with the approach followed at the Mynydd y Gwair Wind Farm Public Inquiry in 2010 and with the approach followed at the Mynydd y Betws Wind Farm Public inquiry in 2008.
Page 87 Page 81 of 151
Legislation, Planning Policy and Guidance Planning Policy Wales (PPW) sets out the land use planning policies of the Welsh Government (WG). It advocates the use of the Landmap study as an important resource for informing local policy, guidance and decision making with regards to landscape issues, and states that Landmap provides the basis of a consistent Wales-wide approach to landscape assessment.
The Brecon Beacons National Park lies approximately 5.5km north of the proposed development site at the closest point. The Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) lies approximately 15.5km to the south-west of the proposed development site at the closest point. Both these designations are protected under the auspices of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. PPW states that National Parks and AONBs are of equal status in terms of landscape and scenic beauty and both must be afforded the highest status of protection from inappropriate developments (para 5.3.6).. and the duty to have regard to National Park and AONB purposes applies to activities affecting these areas, whether those activities lie within or outside the designated areas (para 5.3.7).
TAN8 identifies areas in Wales which are considered to be the most appropriate locations for large scale wind farm development (25MW and over). It defines these locations as Strategic Search Areas (SSAs). The proposed Mynydd y Gwair site is located within SSA E: Pontardawe. TAN8 indicates that there is an implicit objective to maintain the integrity and quality of the landscape within the National Parks/AONB’s of Wales i.e. no change in landscape character from wind turbine development whilst at the same time states within (and immediately adjacent) to the SSAs, the implicit objective is to accept change i.e. a significant change in landscape character from wind farm development (as set out in TAN 8 Annex D paragraph 8.4).
The Arup Study sought to provide a refinement of the SSA boundaries as set out in TAN 8, based primarily upon landscape and visual issues. The study identifies that the wider Mynydd y Gwair area (which includes the site of the proposed development) is suitable for ‘large’ wind turbines (capacity 35-40MW based upon turbines of height 100m to blade tip.
The Council objected to the previous proposal (ref(2008/1781) partly on the fact that the Environmental Impact Assessment failed to properly consider the recommendation in the ARUP report that the maximum height of turbine within this part of Strategic Search Area E should not exceed 100 m because of the scale and type of land form of the area and to avoid the worst individual and cumulative landscape and visual effects. As such this did not allow for the proper balancing of the acknowledged adverse landscape and visual impacts against the strategic objective of achieving the declared renewable energy targets as set out in TAN 8 and refined in the ARUP report commissioned in response to TAN 8. However, in consideration of this issue the Planning Inspector indicated: I start my considerations with the ARUP Study since it is relevant to the question of landscape character and visual impact. My understanding of that study is that it was general in nature and intended to give an assessment of the likely capacity of the SSA to accommodate turbines. As such it had to make some general assumptions about what would be likely to be acceptable. At no time did it carry out a detailed EIA level study of a particular proposal. Again my understanding is that the recommended maximum height of the turbines would be set back further from the edge of the steeper sloping parts of this upland area. Therefore they would appear less prominent than would be the case if they were located at the edge of this particular ARUP study area.
Page 88 Page 82 of 151
In my view the ARUP study does not contain sufficient evidence to determine the appropriate height for turbines on this site. In the light of the Inspector’s report it is not considered that to maintain an objection against the maximum height of turbine exceeding 100m within this part of Strategic Search Area E could be sustained.
The Site and the Surrounding Area The topography and land use within the Mynydd y Gwair study area is relatively diverse. This includes the exposed upland moorland areas immediately surrounding the site, the Brecon Beacons National Park to the north and north-east, and uplands to the east. The proposed Mynydd y Gwair Wind Farm site is between 240m AOD and 360m AOD with the land beyond rising to a highpoint of approximately 371m AOD in the vicinity of Penlle’r Castell. In landscape terms it is an upland moor, consisting of grassland, with a gently undulating topography. There are no significant distinguishing natural features on the site itself; however there are several man made features, such as roads/tracks, electricity pylons and telecommunication masts in the immediate vicinity of the site. To the south are the Upper and Lower Lliw reservoirs which also act as visitor destinations. To the north the Mynydd y Betws Wind Farm is currently under construction. There are no residential or farm buildings on the site.
Effect on Landscape Fabric and Character Landscape effects are caused by physical changes to the landscape, which may result in changes to the distinctive character of that landscape and how it is perceived. The significance of effects on both landscape fabric and landscape character that would result from the proposed development is determined by considering the sensitivity of the resource, the magnitude of change arising from the development and professional judgement.
Landscape fabric is composed of the physical components of the landscape and developments can bring about both direct and indirect effects on landscape fabric. Direct effects occur where changes to the fabric of the landscape arise as the result of physical disturbance, such as the loss of hedgerows, walls and trees. Indirect changes for examples could result in modifications to surface water patterns. The construction phase would be likely to affect the landscape fabric with the construction of the turbine bases, hardstandings, access road and other operational development. However, the EIA concludes that as no distinctive landscape components would be lost as part of the development then there would be no significant adverse impact on the landscape fabric of the site and the temporary losses of landscape fabric in these areas would be reinstated following construction and within 2-3 years the fabric would be restored.
The main effects on the landscape fabric would occur as a result of the construction of the new sections of access track and the small scale localised engineering works required to upgrade the existing tracks. In addition there would be some effects on the landscape fabric associated with the compound/substation construction.
In particular, where the access route crosses the open moorland there will be a need for major earthworks. The edges of the track would be restored and this would help integrate the tracks into the surrounding landscape fabric. Whilst out of context with the existing moorland character, this character would change fundamentally as a result of the erection of turbines and become a wind farm landscape with tracks being a key characteristic/ landscape feature. This was acknowledged by the planning inspector, however, he concluded the amount of change would not be sufficient to have a significant effect on the landscape character of the area.
Page 89 Page 83 of 151
Following decommissioning, tracks would remain and this would have some long term effects on the fabric and character of the area, albeit tracks will have mellowed subject to usage and would gradually re-vegetate. Additionally, the landscape fabric would be affected by the substation compound comprises improved/semi-improved grassland that could be readily recreated following decommissioning of the scheme. As such, there would be no long term effects on this element of the landscape. The EIA does acknowledge that there would be some loss of existing cloddiau (dry stone wall with compacted earth core) to gain access, but this would be more than mitigated by the introduction of new landscape features typical of the surrounding landscape in proximity to the compound, including new cloddiau and native woodland. Over time and following decommissioning, these would have established to become positive landscape features.
Landscape Character The landscape character is described as the physical, biological, and social components combined with aesthetic and perceptual factors. It is recognised that the addition of a wind turbine development into a landscape that is not currently characterised by wind turbines would have an appreciable effect on the character of the landscape. A significant change in landscape character is likely to occur where the proposed development would become one of the defining characteristics of the landscape, would contrast with the existing character and / or where existing key characteristics would be lost or changed. The EIA acknowledges that it would be impossible to site a wind farm of almost any scale without significantly affecting the landscape character of at least the site and immediate surroundings. The site was however identified as part of the Strategic Search Area E (SSA E) under TAN8 on the basis of broad brush landscape and visual assessments, and therefore the point is made that the site has already been identified as being suitable for a large wind farm and the landscape would change if the renewables target is to be met.
In accordance with the guidance in Planning Policy Wales (Nov. 2012) and TAN 8, the landscape character baseline has been derived from the available LANDMAP data for the study area. LANDMAP is an important resource for informing local policy, guidance and decision making with regards to landscape issues, and states that LANDMAP provides the basis of a consistent Wales-wide approach to landscape assessment. LANDMAP is the approved landscape methodology and comprises of a series of “layers” including visual and sensory, geological landscape, landscape habitats, cultural landscapes and historic landscapes.
• Visual & Sensory - The proposed turbines would be located within Aspect Area VS735: Pentwyn Mawr. The scenic quality, character and overall evaluation scores for this Aspect Area are all identified as High. A belt of Aspect Areas with a High overall evaluation score corresponds closely with the upland landscapes in the immediate vicinity of the site. This includes the site of the Mynydd y Betws.
• Geological Landscape - The proposed turbines would be located within Aspect Area GL038: Mynydd y Gwair. The rarity/uniqueness and overall evaluation scores for this Aspect Area are both Moderate.
• Landscape Habitats - It is indicated that fourteen proposed turbines would be located within Aspect Area LH592: Mynydd y Gwair. The connectivity/cohesion score for this Aspect Area is Moderate. The overall evaluation score for this Aspect Area is High.
Page 90 Page 84 of 151
The remaining two turbines would be located within Aspect Area LH 480: Craig Fawr. The connectivity/cohesion score for this Aspect Area is Moderate. The overall evaluation score for this Aspect Area is High.
• Cultural Landscapes - The proposed turbines would be located within Aspect Area CL029: The Mawr. The rarity score for this Aspect Area is Low and the group value score is High.
• Historic Landscapes - The proposed turbines would be located within Aspect Area HL107: H28 Northern Upland Commons. The overall evaluation score for this Aspect Area is Outstanding.
The key aspects to be reviewed in the assessment are the Visual and Sensory Aspect and to a lesser degree the Cultural and Historic Landscape Aspects. Whilst Landscape Habitats are evaluated as high the aesthetic qualities of seasonal colour etc. that these areas contribute to the overall character of the area would continue due to the relatively small footprint of the development compared to the overall landscape resource.
Effects upon Landscape Character Landscape character classification is a process of subdividing the landscape into distinct character areas with similar or shared characteristics, distinguishing them from other character areas that have different shared characteristics.
As previously set out above the assessment of effects upon landscape character covers an area of approximately 12km from the proposed turbines. The theoretical visibility falls off at distances of between 5km and 10km from the proposed turbines. Changes in view at greater distances are unlikely to have any significant influence on character. Within this 12km radius, effects upon Landmap Aspect Areas are assessed. This is consistent with the previous ES for the 2008 scheme and the evidence presented at the Public Inquiry in 2010.
Landmap Aspect Areas were carried forward for more detailed assessment. Additionally two Aspect Areas that did not meet the current Landmap criteria for further consideration were also carried forward for more detailed assessment, namely SVS580: Cwmcerdinen and VS146: North Clydach, as significant effects were identified for these two areas at the Public Inquiry in 2010.
The EIA indicates that Five Aspect Areas would experience effects considered to be significant in EIA terms (significance of effect moderate to major or greater). Significant effects would occur within the Exposed Upland Moorland Plateau which comprises Pentwyn Mawr (VS735). Mynydd y Betws (VS504) would already be influenced by turbines. In these areas a more extensive wind farm landscape would be created by the combination of the already consented and under construction turbines at Mynydd y Betws and those proposed at Mynydd y Gwair.
Other areas that would experience significant effects on their landscape character would be the open upland valleys and grazed hills and lower plateau areas immediately adjacent to the above two character areas which are partially defined by characteristic views to the uplands of Pentwyn Mawr and Mynydd y Betws. These Visual and Sensory areas include; Cwmcerdinen (VS580), Nant Melyn & Bryn-chwyth (VS485), North of Clydach (VS146) and Bryn Mawr – Mynydd Carnllechart (VS951).
Page 91 Page 85 of 151
The latter three areas all relate to the west facing upper valley slopes of the Clydach Valley and transitional west facing uplands of Bryn Mawr and Mynydd Carnllechart. In these areas views of the turbines in close proximity would create a landscape subtype where turbines are a key characteristic of views. The Mynydd y Betws turbines would already influence these views as illustrated on the cumulative wireframes for Viewpoint 3. However, the Mynydd y Gwair scheme would be the key defining feature due to the number of turbines visible and proximity.
The effects on SVS580 Cwmcerdinen would only occur as a result of the proposed Mynydd y Gwair turbines and the associated substation compound. These elements would be particularly visible in characteristic easterly views from the upper slopes on the west side of the valley and in proximity to the substation compound at the head of the valley. Over time the effects of the substation will be significantly reduced through sensitive landscaping, however, the head of the valley and east facing upper slopes would remain a subtype where views of turbines are a key characteristic.
Cultural and Historic Landscape Aspect Areas The site and its surroundings are important for their cultural and historic landscapes and how these contribute to the overall landscape character of the area. The site is located within a Cultural Landscape Aspect Area of high value. Similarly, the site is located within a Historic Landscape Aspect Area of outstanding value. However these evaluations are similar to many other areas within TAN 8 SSAs E and F and most other existing and proposed wind farm sites would be within Cultural or Historic Landscape Aspect Areas of the same or similar value, such as Mynydd y Betws, Awel Aman Tawe, Hirfynydd, Maesgwyn and Pen y Cymoedd.
The scheme has been designed to minimise the direct physical impacts upon the cultural and historic assets within the site and the main residual impact being upon the setting of cultural/historic features. The Landmap survey forms for the historic landscape aspect identifies that the Outstanding evaluation is due to the integrity, survival, rarity, potential and high quality condition of surviving elements. Other than the potential for unknown archaeology none of these would be affected by the proposed development.
Effects on Landscape Designations The Brecon Beacons National Park lies approximately 5.5km north of the proposed development site at the closest point. The EIA states that there would be no direct physical effects on elements within the National Park or effect on its underlying character due to turbines being located in excess of 6km from its boundary. As such potential effects could only arise due to views of turbines appearing on a section of the southern horizon. The ZTV shows theoretical visibility extending along south facing valley sides, ridges and summits. Where views are attainable from open access land, footpaths and minor roads they are generally broad in scale across the lower lying landscape to the south. The proposed site lies within an area identified as acceptable for ‘Large’ wind farms in a local refinement study of TAN 8 Areas, and as such forces for change within the landscape are likely to significantly alter the landscape setting and views from the southern boundary of the National Park to one where wind farms are a defining characteristic of views.
Given that Mynydd y Betws is currently under construction and is closer to the National Park and will occupy a greater extent of the skyline than Mynydd y Gwair the incremental increase in effects associated with Mynydd y Gwair will be negligible.
Page 92 Page 86 of 151
Whilst the development would have some effects on views through the introduction of new elements and an intensification of turbines in the vicinity of Mynydd y Betws this would not have a significant detrimental effect upon the landscape character or special qualities of the National Park. Any effects of the Mynydd y Gwair scheme need to be considered against incremental change from the baseline situation of the Mynydd y Betws turbines currently under construction and the future development of wind farms in TAN 8 SSAs which will inevitably redefine views from the southern boundary of the National Park.
Gower AONB & Heritage Coast The Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is located approximately 15.5km south-west of the proposed development at the closest point. There would be no significant effects of the proposed scheme on the Gower AONB or Heritage Coast due to distance and the varied character of the AONB, which is strongly influenced by proximity to the coast and has little vulnerability to influences from more distant inland development. At separation distances in excess of 15km, the proposed turbines would not materially affect either designation.
Visual Assessment An assessment of visual effects is concerned with the potential effects that may occur due to a proposed development upon the population likely to be affected. It assesses the change in visual amenity undergone by specific receptors that would arise from any change in the nature of views experienced as a result of the proposed development.
Zone of Theoretical Visibility The visual baseline has been established by using a series of Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) maps have been utilised to determine the overall extent of theoretical visibility of the proposed development and the nature of existing views within the ZTV. These ZTVs enable an understanding of the visual context of the proposed development and allow the identification of those representative viewpoints and visual receptors that may experience views of the proposed development.
Viewpoints In order to assist with understanding the visual effects of the proposed development at each viewpoint, a series of photomontages and wireframes have been generated from a range of predetermined viewpoints, which superimpose a computer-generated model of the proposed development onto a photograph of the existing view. The methodology for the LVIA, however, imposes a caveat in that it stresses that the visualisations are tools in the assessment process. They illustrate the likely change in view in the context of a specific date, time and weather conditions, that would be seen within a photograph and not as seen by the human eye. As such, visualisations need to be used in conjunction with site visits and should be considered in the context of the totality of views experienced from the viewpoint and not just focussed on the proposed development.
Twenty viewpoints were included in the 2008 LVIA. Two additional viewpoints (nos. 21 and 22) were assessed as part of Supplementary Environmental Information in 2010 following concerns expressed by CCW in respect of the potential visual impact from Carreg Cennen Castle and the Beacons Way. A number of additional viewpoints were identified by objectors to the original application and two of these viewpoints (nos. 23 and 24) have been included to increase the coverage of viewpoints to the west of the wind farm.
Page 93 Page 87 of 151
The 24 viewpoints considered in this visual assessment are as follows:
• 1: Penlle.r Castell (0.78 km to the nearest turbine); • 2: St Illtyd.s Walk near Banc Llyn Mawr (1.96km to the nearest turbine); • 3: St Illtyd.s Walk, on Baran Road (1.99km to the nearest turbine); • 4: Rhyd-y-Pandy Road, near Tor Clawdd (2.09km to the nearest turbine); • 5: Pontfynnon Station, Ammanford (3.58km to the nearest turbine); • 6: Footpath around Lower Lliw Reservoir (3.74km to the nearest turbine); • 7: Walter Road off Wern Ddu Road, Ammanford (4.37km to the nearest turbine); • 8: Mynydd Garth/ Uchaf (5.39km to the nearest turbine); • 9: Mynydd Isaf (6.49km to the nearest turbine); • 10: M4 Junction 46 (8.03km to the nearest turbine); • 11: Foel Deg-arbedd (8.17km to the nearest turbine ); • 12: Car Park, Craig Derlwyn (9.204km to the nearest turbine); • 13: Bryn, Llanelli (11.60km to the nearest turbine); • 14: Moel Gornach (11.86km to the nearest turbine); • 15: Town Hill, Swansea (13.24km the nearest turbine); • 16: Sustrans Route No. 4, Millennium Bridge (13.28km to the nearest turbine); • 17: Sustrans Route No. 47, near Roman camp (15.00km to the nearest turbine); • 18: Sustrans Route No. 47, near Bancffosfelen (15.86km the nearest turbine); • 19: Sarn Helen (16.11km to the nearest turbine); • 20: Scenic viewpoint, Cefn Bryn, Gower Peninsula (23.44km to the nearest turbine); • 21: Carreg Cennen Castle; (10.16km to the nearest turbine) • 22: Beacons Way (11.12km to the nearest turbine); • 23: Pen y Gwar (1.27km to the nearest turbine); and • 24: Mynydd Pysgodlyn (3.06km to the nearest turbine).
Visual Context In visual terms the blade tip ZTV is more extensive to the north where it extends to the summits and south facing slopes of the Brecon Beacons and to the west where it extends across the east facing slopes of the hills and lower plateaux to the west of Ammanford. To the north and north west the landform of Mynydd y Betws restricts visibility from the lower lying settled valleys. Visibility from the south is more fragmented due to the numerous valleys which cut into the upland plateaux and the visual enclosure that this creates. The upland landform of Mynydd y Gwair Pentwyn Mawr forms the distant skyline for the lower lying areas along the M4 corridor and beyond. However the nature of visibility in these areas means that views are intermittent and are heavily influenced by development in the foreground and middle distance. To the east theoretical visibility is controlled by the upland area of Mynydd Uchaf and Mynydd y Garth and is limited to narrow ridges or more extensive areas at Mynydd Marchywel. This latter area comprises extensive coniferous plantations which limit views out from much of the area.
View from the south facing slopes of the Brecon Beacons are panoramic across developed and rural valleys to a belt of lower lying uplands dissected by numerous valleys. Views to the south incorporate development in the lower valleys and influencing the north facing scarp slopes of the lower uplands to the south (viewpoints 9, 11, 12, 14 & 22). Telecommunication masts, mineral extraction sites, electricity pylons and coniferous plantations are all components of views from this area. From upland summits views are even broader in scale with 360° vistas across the developed landscape to the south and undeveloped landscape of the National Park to the north.
Page 94 Page 88 of 151
Views from the west and southwest are illustrated by viewpoints 2, 7, 5, 13, 18, 23 and 24 with the uplands of Mynydd y Betws, Mynydd y Gwair and the Brecon Beacons forming the skyline to views from this generally lower lying landscape. As can be seen in the photographs for viewpoints 7, 5, 13 and 18 this skyline is generally seen in the context of other development in the foreground within the developed valleys and valley sides. The mosaic nature of this landscape also limits the actual visibility due to the influence of roadside vegetation and built development in lower lying areas. Viewpoints 2, 23 and 24 are from upland areas and illustrate the scale of panoramic views from these areas and the relationship between the simple large scale uplands and the finer grain more settled valleys.
Upland areas to the east have views limited by extensive areas of coniferous plantations with external views generally only available from woodland edge and elevated clearings. To the south views available include enclosed views within the valleys that drain the upland areas views over developed landscapes to the south and views of upland areas in the middle distance to the north. Views from within settled valleys are generally restricted by development or foreground vegetation, with only the edges of upland the plateaux visible from these lower lying landscapes.
The assessment of the 24 representative viewpoints indicates that seven would experience significant visual effects when considered against the context of future views. These are generally located within the upland areas within 5km of the proposed turbines (e.g. VPs 1, 2, 3, 4, 23 & 24) and high sensitivity receptors in the valleys that have views focussed towards the turbines and do not currently have views of turbines in the same field of view.
The visual effects associated with the introduction of turbines into the views from VPs 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 21 & 22 are already be influenced by wind turbine development at Mynydd y Betws which is currently under construction. Increasing the number and density of turbines would not fundamentally alter the nature or components of the view and as such the effects of the Mynydd y Gwair scheme on this baseline would not be significant. This would particularly be the case for the viewpoints to the north which would see the Mynydd y Betws turbines in front of those at Mynydd y Gwair and occupying a wider angle of the view.
The visual receptors most likely to be affected by the proposed scheme are walkers within open access land and along strategic recreational routes (such as St Illtyd.s Way, Gower Way and the Lliw Valley Walks), residential property on valley sides orientated toward the site and users of mountain top roads around the site. The main effects for recreational receptors would be for walkers on St Illtyd.s Way due to the cumulative effects with the consented Mynydd y Betws turbines and other schemes which would influence the eastern sections of the route. To some degree this is an inevitable consequence of the TAN 8 approach as the route passes through the heart of two SSAs.
The Rhyd-y-Pandy Road to Ammanford mountain road passes along the eastern boundary of the site and the nearest turbines would be in relatively close proximity sited and therefore motorists would gain extremely close and sustained views of the turbines. Baran Road passes 15 – 2.5 km east of the site. Viewpoint 4 (near Tor Clawdd) indicates the impact, although the EIA does not present any close views from Rhyd-y-Pandy Road itself. As a result of the proximity of the turbines and the duration of the view, motorists on the Rhyd-y-Pandy Road (and also the Baran Road) would experience a significant effect on their visual amenity when using this route.
Page 95 Page 89 of 151
The proposed wind turbines are the main elements of the proposed development that would be visible from the surrounding area and have, therefore, the potential to affect the visual amenity of receptors in the study area. However, this proposed development is on an elevated plateau surrounded by valleys in which most of the receptors locations and routes are located and from which there would be few open and sustained views of the proposed wind turbines. Therefore, the majority of residents in the study area, visitors to the numerous visitor attractions in the area, cyclists on the three Sustrans routes, motorists on the M4 and most of the other roads and train travellers on the Heart of Wales line would not experience a significant effect on their visual amenity.
As a result, significant effects on visual amenity would be limited to:
• Residents – with clear and open views of the wind turbines from their properties, up to 15km from the nearest wind turbine. This includes residents in individual dwellings and farmsteads in the surrounding area and some residents on Town Hill and in other elevated, north facing locations in Swansea, in Bryn and in some of the villages to the northwest of Ammanford.
• Walkers - on the extensive, elevated and open areas of access land in the study area up to 15km from the proposed turbines, on a 12km section of St Illtyd’s Walk, on the short section of the Gower Way along the Rhyd-y-Pandy Road and on the section of the Lliw Valley Walk that passes through and around the site.
• Motorists – travelling northwards and southwards on a 5km section of the Rhyd- y-Pandy Road that passes along the eastern boundary of the site and travelling northwards on a 1.5km section of the Baran Road.
The main cumulative visual effects would occur at viewpoint 1 (Penlle’r Castell) and similar locations between the two schemes. Due to views of multiple turbines in multiple directions in relatively close proximity this would result in some significant adverse cumulative visual effects.
This concentration of effect within specific locations to limit the additional visibility of wind farm development across the wider landscape is what underpins the strategic approach to wind farm development in Wales promoted by TAN 8 and the work undertaken in various refinement studies.
Views from Residential Property A Residential Visual Amenity Assessment has been submitted and is concerned with how the changes in views from residential properties in the area resulting from the presence of the proposed turbines would impact upon the residential visual amenity of nearby properties. The residential impact assessment considers properties within a 2km radius from the proposed turbines and identifies a total of 40 properties within this area. Wireframes illustrating the theoretical visibility of the proposed turbines have been produced from each property included in the assessment. Additionally, the wireframes also illustrate theoretical cumulative visibility of the proposed development with other proposed wind farm sites in the vicinity, notably Mynydd Y Betws. Within the assessment for each property, details include a description of the property and its existing views, predicted change in view, and a conclusion of the impact on residential visual amenity together with a cumulative impact.
Page 96 Page 90 of 151
The assessment acknowledges that given the height and relative prominence in the view of the proposed turbines, they would inevitably be clearly visible from many properties. It is considered that visual impacts would be significant from a large proportion of the properties included in the assessment; however, a significant visual impact does not necessarily imply an unacceptable impact upon residential visual amenity. The assessment identifies only 3 properties located within 1km of the proposed turbines (i.e. Coynant, Lygos and Tyle Goch). Whilst cumulative visual impacts are likely to be significant from 8 of the identified properties, where the cumulative influence of the wind turbines upon the view would increase notably as a result of the introduction of the proposed Mynydd y Gwair turbines.
The conclusion of the assessment is that at none of the properties would visual impacts translate into an impact upon residential visual amenity that would adversely affect living conditions to a level considered to be unacceptable in planning terms. There would be sufficient distance between each property and the proposed turbines to ensure that whilst in some cases very visible, the turbines would not appear as unpleasantly overwhelming and unavoidable. Views between the turbines would remain due to the separation between each turbine. The turbines would not obscure existing views and in many cases views in other directions would remain available and would be unaffected. In respect to the impact on residential properties, the Planning Inspector indicated: Turbines would be visible from most of the dwellings within about 2km of the nearest turbines, but following my visits to the vicinity of these dwellings, I do not consider that the visual intrusion at any dwelling would be unacceptably harmful to the visual amenity of the occupiers.
Cumulative Landscape Effects In addition to the landscape and visual assessment for the proposed wind farm, a cumulative assessment has been undertaken. The wind farm sites considered in the cumulative assessment are those that are constructed and operational, consented and awaiting construction or the subject of a current planning application or appeal at the time of writing. These include the operational wind farms at Ffynnon Oer (16 turbines – 93m); Maesgwyn (15 turbines – 115m) and the adjacent wind farm at Mynydd y Betws which is currently under construction (16 turbines – 110m). A series of cumulative wireframes have been prepared to assist the assessment and a number of the photomontages have been reproduced to illustrate the cumulative visibility and in particular to illustrate the relationship of the proposed wind farm at Mynydd y Gwair and the Mynydd y Betws Wind Farm.
The main cumulative landscape effects would occur due to the combined effects of the proposed scheme and the under construction wind farm at Mynydd y Betws. This would create an extended wind farm landscape across the upland area of Mynydd y Betws and Mynydd y Gwair extending to Pentwyn Mawr and creating a subtype of the upland landscape character where views of turbine are a key characteristic to the east and south. The EIA concludes that due to the separation distances to other wind farm developments significant cumulative effects that would expand this wind farm landscape further are not anticipated. Although, due to the designation of much of the area to the east as TAN 8 SSAs wind farms are likely to be a repeating element in the landscape creating wind farm landscapes in their immediate vicinity.
In consideration of the cumulative landscape effects, especially in relation to Mynydd y Betws, the Planning Inspector, in consideration of ref:2008/1781, made the following remarks:
Page 97 Page 91 of 151
This is particularly so in the views available from the higher ground in the Brecon Beacons National Park, along the Beacons Way National Trail and from Castell Carreg Cennen. From such viewpoints, I do not consider that this proposal would have a significantly different effect to that of a wind farm on Mynydd y Betws or that the cumulative visual impact of both wind farms would be significantly greater (para 70). Additionally:
The other important aspect to consider under visual effects is any potential cumulative effects of this proposal with other wind farms. I have commented above about the close relationship of this site to Mynydd y Betws. In my view there is sufficient spacing between these two wind farms [Mynydd y Betws and Mynydd y Gwair] and the others currently built or consented, that the cumulative effects are generally as one would expect from the selection of the SSAs in TAN 8. The main area where there would be a significant cumulative impact would be in the vicinity of Penlle’r Castell. From that location, between the two wind farms, the views in almost all directions would be dominated by turbines (para 72).
There would be sequential cumulative effects experienced by people travelling along the main roads through the area when one would see one wind farm followed by another. However, this again would be no more than as one might expect as a consequence of the selection of the SSA’s (para 73).
My considerations of the landscape and vial effects of this case have been on the basis of the existing planning permission for a wind farm on the nearby site at Mynydd y Betws. For the avoidance of doubt, if for any reason the scheme at Mynydd y Betws did not proceed, then the effects of this proposal on its own would be that much less significant and any harmful consequences would be reduced (para 74).
Summary and Conclusions It is inevitable that a proposal to site a new commercial wind energy development in the UK will result in some significant landscape and visual effects in the general locality of the development site. When considering the planning balance consideration needs to be given to the potential changes to the landscape that could occur as a result of climate change.
There would be some localised landscape effects on the landscape fabric along the first two section of the access road. However, the main long term landscape effects would be associated with Section 3 of the access track on the open moor which would be retained following decommissioning. Whilst resulting in some localised landscape effects on the character of the moor post decommissioning the overall character of the host landscape area would not be fundamentally changed due to the carefully designed route which follows the existing contours to minimise earthworks. This would particularly be the case as the access tracks mellow and re-vegetate over time.
The LVIA has concluded that there would be some significant landscape effects within the host landscape character areas that would redefine the character and create a wind farm landscape on Pentwyn Mawr that would merge with the wind farm landscape created by the scheme at Mynydd y Betws which is currently under construction. These areas are already similar in character and development of multiple wind farms in areas of similar character is supported by guidance published by SNH (Scottish Natural Heritage) in respect of designing multiple wind farms in the landscape. The access road and substation would not have widespread effects on landscape character but both would have localised effects on the landscape fabric.
Page 98 Page 92 of 151
The CCW, as Council’s statutory consultee on LVIA, considers that the approach to the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment undertaken for the ES is appropriate. Whilst they acknowledge that there would be some significant landscape effects on landscape character within the area and there are significant visual effects from a range of receptors surrounding site, this would appear to be consistent with the acceptance of landscape change in the SSA as recognised in TAN 8 and Planning Policy Wales.
Further to this, the report stated that the level of visual intrusion both on local population centres and viewpoints from the Brecon Beacons National Park would not be sufficient to justify withholding planning permission. CCW also highlight that the removal of the three turbines on deep peat, has reduced the density of the turbines from distant viewpoints and as such, consider that the Environmental Statement has reached a reasonable conclusion in respect of the landscape and visual effects of the proposal.
In addition, there would be significant visual effects experienced from a wide range of visual receptors in the surrounding landscape and this is to some degree inevitable when undertaking development within a TAN 8 Strategic Search Area that is relatively close to major centres of population. However there would also be many other areas where the effects would not be significant or there would be no views of the turbines.
The residential assessment has also concluded that many of the properties within 2km would experience significant visual effects, However, due to mitigating factors such as distance, orientation, filtering of views, focus of existing views and extent of locations where views would be available, these changes would not unacceptably affect the living conditions at the properties.
In Wales a strategic decision has been made to focus large scale wind farm development into certain locations that are considered best able to accommodate the scale of development necessary to achieve renewable targets. An inevitable consequence of this approach is that the SSA’s are likely to experience significant landscape and visual effects as a result of wind farm development. The proposed site is located within TAN 8 SSA E and within a zone identified as suitable in the refinement study commissioned by Local Planning Authorities. Moreover, it is reiterated that the Planning Inspector concluded that: I am satisfied that the scale of the turbines proposed on this site could be accommodated within the landscape without unacceptable harm to the landscape character of the site and its surroundings.
4.18 Cultural Heritage
The ES includes an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed wind farm upon the archaeological and cultural resource and has been carried out in accordance with principles and guidance issued by the Institute of Field Archaeologists.
The proposed wind farm site has already been the subject of a detailed cultural heritage assessment as part of the EIA for the previous scheme submitted back in 2008. This contained a comprehensive baseline study including desk-based study of existing records and a site survey. The footprint area for this current application remains unchanged from 2008 and it is therefore considered that the existing baseline study provides an appropriate starting point for the current assessment. The information has been reviewed and updated where appropriate.
Page 99 Page 93 of 151
For the assessment a distinction is made between assessing the effect on the development on heritage assets within the proposed development area and assets in the wider landscape (up to 5km from the wind turbines and referred to as the outer study area). In the development area, all heritage assets (designated and undesignated) have been considered and the purpose of the study is to understand the heritage potential of the development area and to identify significant impacts on heritage assets. In the outer study area only designated assets have been considered and the purpose is to identify significant effects resulting from change in the setting of heritage assets. There are no examples of World Heritage Sites, Conservation Areas, Historic Parks & Gardens and Landscapes of Historic Interest within 10km of the turbines.
There are eight recorded heritage assets within the wind farm site. All eight assets are considered to be of low sensitivity except for a possible medieval building which is of medium sensitivity. In addition to the eight heritage assets, the wind farm site also contains peat deposits that have potential to yield palaeoenvironmental information. Peat of sufficient depth has been identified in three parts of the wind farm site where prehistoric features could be buried. The age of the Mynydd y Gwair peat is not known so the potential for burial by peat is uncertain. Further information on the peat deposits is included in the non avian ecology section of the report.
The design of the wind farm layout has taken into consideration the presence of the eight recorded heritage assets, and seven of the eight will be unaffected by construction works. Some impact on the various informal historic tracks (MG27) that cross Mynydd y Gwair is unavoidable. Construction work will only affect short sections of historic tracks which are considered to be an asset of low sensitivity. The wind farm layout has also been specifically designed to avoid where possible peat deposits greater than 0.3m in depth.
The main site access track runs for 6.5km from the A48 at Pontarddulais up to Mynydd y Gwair. The central section of this route follows existing roads. The south and north end of the site access track diverge from the existing public road and there is potential here for harm to heritage assets due to track construction works. Three recorded assets will be affected by these works, all are considered to be of low sensitivity:
- Bolgoed Smithy (01327w) –At the south end, where it leaves the A48 the track will cross this site. The building has been demolished and nothing survives on the surface but any subsurface remains will be disturbed by track construction works. - Bolgoed-uchaf settlement (MG69) – A short distance from Bolgoed Smithy, the track will pass through the ruins of buildings. The principle buildings lie off to the east of the track but construction work will require the demolition of some minor structures. - Old Levels and tips (MG28) – At the north end of the site access track, it will pass through an area of 19/20th century coal workings. Construction works will disturb a small portion of this extensive area of former drift mines, tips and tracks.
There is one Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) within the development area; the Penlle’r Bebyll Cairn, (GM202), located on Mynydd Pysgodlyn. This asset is considered to be of high sensitivity to impacts on its significance. It is located close to the access track at a point where it is following a straight section of the existing public road. The boundary of the Scheduled area is only c.10m from the road verge. Cadw have recognised the potential for accidental damage by vehicles and protective fencing of this monument is therefore proposed to be maintained for the duration of the construction works.
Page 100 Page 94 of 151
Similar protective fencing will also be used to protect mound MG62 from accidental damage during construction of Turbine 15.
A second SAM Penlle’r Castell (GM255), the remains of a thirteenth century castle, lies immediately to the north-east of (but outside) the proposed wind farm site and immediately south of the Mynydd y Betws Wind Farm. The operation of the proposed wind farm will have an impact through a visual change in its setting. However any impact is considered of minor significance and whilst any effects will persist for the duration of the operational life of the wind farm, they will then be fully reversed on decommissioning. Topography and open views will remain despite the presence of the proposed turbines, and the already approved Mynydd y Betws wind farm.
On this point the Planning Inspector in his report on the previous scheme for Mynydd y Gwair acknowledged that “if both wind farm proposals are approved it would in effect be surrounded by turbines”. The clear views across the open landscape to the north will be dominated by the turbines on the already approved Mynydd y Betws, whilst this current proposal lies generally to the south west of the monument. The Inspector further acknowledged that whilst the turbines would be “prominently visible” the “effect on the setting of this monument, even bearing in mind the cumulative effects of the Mynydd y Gwair and Mynydd y Betws wind farms, is not sufficiently harmful to justify withholding planning permission”.
It is possible that other undetected heritage assets, may be present within the construction footprint. A programme of archaeological works will be prepared and submitted for approval prior to the commencement of the construction works. This will make provision, where appropriate, for the excavation and recording of any known feature of archaeological interest prior to the commencement of construction works. It will also make provision for monitoring of groundworks and the excavation and recording of any features of archaeological interest that are revealed. In addition to the programme of archaeological works, protective fencing of the Penlle’r Bebyll Cairn (GM202) will be maintained for the duration of the construction works to ensure no accidental damage from unauthorised vehicle movements. Similar protective fencing will also be used to protect mound MG62 from accidental damage during construction of Turbine 15.
It should be noted that Carreg Cennen Castle in Carmarthenshire has been specifically excluded from the assessment. Consideration of potential impacts on the setting of this castle was considered during the previous Mynydd y Gwair Inquiry and the Planning Inquiry into Mynydd y Betws. The Planning Inspector in the Mynydd y Gwair Inquiry acknowledged that “the turbines would be visible from both the Castle grounds and from the window in the inner courtyard and that at a distance of approximately 10km both developments would have the appearance of a single large wind farm”. The Inspector concluded that he “did not consider that the effect on this view was sufficient to withhold planning permission”.
Whilst the site and surrounding area contain a significant number of sites of archaeological interest, including SAM’s, it is important to note that the area is not the subject of any specific historic designation. It is considered that subject to mitigation measures proposed including a programme of archaeological works, fencing to protect the Penlle’r Bebyll SAM, and mound MG62 (in the vicinity of Turbine 15) it is considered that the proposed wind farm would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the cultural heritage resource of the site and surrounding area.
Page 101 Page 95 of 151
Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust (the Council’s archaeological advisor) has no objection to the positive determination of this application, subject to the imposition of conditions to mitigate the impact of the development on any burial, archaeological resource or historical structure.
4.19 Noise
The ES includes an assessment of the noise impact on the proposed wind farm on the residents of nearby residents in terms of both construction and operational noise. Consideration has also been given to the potential cumulative impact of operational noise arising from the proposed Mynydd y Gwair Wind Farm and Mynydd y Betws Wind Farm, which received planning permission in 2011, the construction of which is currently underway. The primary objective of the noise impact assessment is to establish the relationship between wind turbine noise and the naturally occurring masking noise at residential dwellings located around the proposed wind farm and to assess these against accepted standards.
Construction Noise Construction works include both moving sources in the form of mobile construction plant and Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and static sources including construction plant temporarily placed at fixed locations. The analysis of construction noise impact has been undertaken in accordance with BS 5228-1997 ‘Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites’ which provides methods for predicting construction noise levels on the basis of reference data of the emissions of typical construction plant and activities. These methods allow for the calculation of construction traffic along access roads and haul routes and also for construction activities at fixed locations such as the bases of turbines, site compounds or substations. The BS 5228 calculated levels are then compared with absolute noise limits for temporary construction activities which are regarded as providing an acceptable level of protection from the short term noise levels associated with construction activities.
The ES concludes that associated levels are expected to be audible at various times throughout the construction period, but remain with acceptable limits and their temporary impacts are considered negligible for the vast majority of the construction period. Only for the initial periods of access track upgrades are the noise levels expected to reach a level considered to represent a minor impact for a limited period while the southern portion of the track is upgraded. With regard to vibration, the ES concludes that given the nature of works and distances involved in the construction of a wind farm the risk of significant impacts relating to ground borne vibration are very low. Occasional momentary vibration can arise when heavy vehicles pass dwellings at very short separation distances but this is not sufficient to constitute a risk of significant impacts in this instance.
Operational Noise TAN 8 ‘Planning for Renewable Energy’ indicates that well designed wind farms should be located so that increases in ambient noise levels around noise-sensitive developments are kept to acceptable levels with relation to existing background noise. This will normally be achieved through good design of the turbines and through allowing sufficient distance between the turbines and any existing noise sensitive development. Noise levels from turbines are generally low and, under most operating conditions, it is likely that turbine noise would be completely masked by wind-generated background noise.
Page 102 Page 96 of 151
There are two quite distinct types of noise source within a wind turbine - the mechanical noise produced by the gearbox, generator and other parts of the drive train and the aerodynamic noise produced by the passage of the blades through the air.
Operational noise has been assessed in accordance with the methodology set out in “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms” referred to as ETSU-R-97, published by the Department of Trade and Industry in Sept. 1996. This methodology has become the accepted standard for such developments in the UK and is endorsed by TAN 8 Renewable Energy and the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).
The ES indicates that the noise impact assessment has been undertaken at a number of locations comprising residential properties lying in the vicinity of the proposed development. Despite extensive surveys being undertaken, reliable wind data records could not however be practicably obtained for the purpose of developing wind speed related noise limits. The assessment has subsequently been based on the conservative method of considering absolute value limits applicable to all wind speeds.
Applying the ETSU-97 derived noise limits at the assessment locations, the assessment demonstrates that, assuming downwind propagation, both the quiet day time and night time noise criterion limits can be satisfied at all properties across all wind speeds. Additional consideration was given to possible cumulative noise impacts arising from the operation of the Mynydd y Gwair scheme and the wind farm to the north-east on Mynydd y Betws, which is currently undergoing construction. It has been determined that the combined operational noise of the two wind farms would also remain below the relevant absolute value limits provided by ETSU-R-97. The Head of Environmental Management and Protection has offered no objection to the current proposal subject to the imposition of planning conditions based on the draft conditions as previously agreed between RWE NPower Renewables and the City and County of Swansea on the previous scheme plus the Planning Inspector’s Report. These relate to:
• Construction Traffic Management and Operation Traffic Management Plan • Construction Method Statement • Construction hours of 07.30 to 19.00 hrs on Monday to Friday and 07.00 to 14.000 on Saturday • Delivery of turbine and crane components allowed outside above hours subject to 24 hours notice • Noise emissions not exceeding stated values • Assessment of noise emissions • Provision of independent consultants assessment in the event of a noise complaint • Wind speed, wind direction and power generation data being continuously logged.
It should be noted that The Planning Inspector in his report on the 2008 scheme previously concluded on the issue of noise, that “given the distance to the neighbouring dwellings, the imposition of normal noise conditions would ensure that any additional noise would not be unacceptably harmful to the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings”.
Page 103 Page 97 of 151
Subject to the mitigation measures indicated in the ES and compliance with the noise conditions recommended by the Head of Environmental Management and Protection, it is therefore considered that the proposed wind farm will not cause unacceptable noise or vibration nuisance during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the development.
4.20 Ecology – Non Avian
The EIA comprehensively assesses the impact of the development on the natural heritage resource and this section in particular, deals with the potential impacts of the proposed wind farm on ecological resources other than ornithological (avian or bird) assets which considered in the next section. It analyses and evaluates the existing environment, both flora and fauna, and assesses the impacts during the construction and operational phases. It identifies mitigation and monitoring measures and assesses residual impacts. It should be recognised that TAN8 clearly state that the presumption is that ecological impacts are to be avoided or minimised. The Council’s and Government’s responsibilities and duties under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and all the other statutory controls and EC Directives described in TAN5: Nature Conservation and Planning are also clearly extant and are material considerations.
The EIA indicates that baseline ecological studies commenced in 2004, early in the evolution of the project, and baseline data has therefore been collected in various areas in and around the current application site. A much broader area of land than the current application site was covered initially, both to inform the development design and also to ensure that baseline use of the locality by wide ranging species such as birds of prey was covered at a wider range than simply where turbines and other wind farm infrastructure were likely to be built. As the project design developed, and the preferred location of the turbine array and access infrastructure was decided, later phases in the baseline survey process became more focused.
Study Areas For the purpose of the ecological studies, the various areas were divided up as follows:
Main Study Area (MSA) – the Main Study Area equates to the original site boundary at the beginning of the site design process in 2004. As a consequence it covers what is now the proposed wind farm site and also significant areas beyond the application site boundary. Bat Study Areas – targeted areas within the MSA where bat transects and emergence studiers were carried out. Access Route Study Area - this comprises those parts of the proposed wind farm access route that lie outside the Main Study Area. Blaen Gerdinen Study Area – is a holding of five small fields. One field, (where the proposed substation will be located) falls within the application redline and overlaps with the MSA. The other four fields would comprise exchange land for the purposes of the Commons Application. Blaen yr Olchfa Fach Study Area – this is a larger holding to the south-east of the Upper Lliw reservoir wholly earmarked for exchange land for the purposes of the Commons Application.
Page 104 Page 98 of 151
Designations Whilst the application site areas has no statutory nature conservation designation, the proposed wind farm site and much of the Main Study Area, as well as a wide surrounding swathe of upland extending to 1874 hectares has been identified by the City and County of Swansea as a candidate Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (cSINC) (Pentwyn Mawr and Mynydd Pysgodlyn cSINC). The principal reasons for the proposed designation are the presence of UKBAP priority habitats, in particular Molinia-dominated rhos pastures and lowland heath assemblages scattered within extensive areas of Nardus-grassland. Secondary (supporting) features include the presence of bird and Lepidoptera species considered „scarce in Glamorgan, although these are not defined on the checklist, as well as protected species such as great crested newt and badger. There are no Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) located within any of the ecological study areas. The nearest SSSIs are situated within 0.2km and 1.3km of the Main Study Area. These are the Graig Fawr Pontarddulais SSSI and the Hafod Wennol Grasslands SSSIs respectively. A further three SSSIs are located within 6km of the proposed wind farm site.
The habitat and botanical surveys indicate that the MSA occupies an extensive area of relatively gently undulating upland, with a predominantly south-facing aspect, which is incised by two main stream courses and some smaller tributary features. It encompasses the summit of Pentwyn Mawr as well as the majority of Mynydd y Gwair. The area is dominated by grazed acid-grasslands which is in places transitional to degraded examples of heath and mire habitats. Given the locality, climate and altitude, variable blanket peat cover might be expected, however the extent of deeper peat deposits on the site is restricted, and deposits over 0.5m (the minimum depth traditionally associated with blanket bog vegetation) are comparatively rare – being restricted to limited areas of the higher plateaux and some valley or headwater mires. The Access Route Study Area has a more diverse character and contains features that could potentially be ecologically sensitive. The exchange land holdings at Blaen Gerdinen and Blaen yr Olchfa Fach are farms or former farms on the edge of the moor with small fields are dominated by improved grasslands of little biodiversity value except for the traditional boundary networks and small mire remnants.
Otter and Water Vole Survey Results Whilst potential lying up habitat for otters are present along the main (Afon Lliw) stream corridor, specific searches for signs of otter and water vole throughout the survey periods (2004 – 2011) revealed no signs within the Main Study Area.
Bat Survey Results Bats will forage over high moorland sites similar to Mynydd y Gwair, but such usage tends to be intermittent, with likely concentrations in still and warm summer weather coinciding with mass insect emergence and flight which bats will commute out of nearby valleys to exploit. Catching such events is difficult, and therefore the initial bat activity surveys were designed after consultation with CCW to give an overview of the local bat fauna by transect studies that concentrated on peripheral areas away from the proposed wind farm itself but where habitat structures suggested that bat usage would be more predictable. Five species of bat were detected during the surveys which indicated concentrations of particular species in relatively small areas.
Overall, the various bat surveys carried out provide a robust base of evidence in support of the assessment that bat use of the proposed wind farm site is small-scale, intermittent and focused on the more sheltered gullies.
Page 105 Page 99 of 151
Higher levels of activity are only likely to occur as a response to a convergence of favourable weather conditions with mass insect emergence and flight – e.g. of pyralid moth species feeding on the grasses on the site. Bats will commute out of better quality habitats in nearby valleys to exploit such conditions, but even then, use levels are likely to be focused in the sheltered gullies, with little use made of the exposed moor tops.
Badger Survey Results Prior to 2007, no badger setts were located within the Main Study Area. It was considered at that time that use was probably limited to occasional crossing by dispersing animals. In May 2007, however, badgers were found to have dug into the filling of an old mine shaft or adit immediately west of a farm track passing along the west facing slope of Mynydd Garn-Fach. Further badger activity was also noted on the eastern side of Mynydd Garn- Fach during bat survey work in October 2007, and this may have been a precursor to a colonisation event that resulted in a previously unrecorded sett being found within the redline boundary encompassing the main access track route during walkover surveys in early 2010. Field sign evidence suggested it was a main sett at the time, and indeed it has remained in continuous use since. As this sett appeared to conflict with the access track alignment, further detailed work was carried out to ascertain its precise location relative to both the redline boundary and to physical constraints such as topography and nearby hydrological systems. The design response to the emergence of this constraint is described later in this section. Signs of badger activity have been noted periodically along the route of the access track, however no setts have been found at any point within 30m of the route alignment.
Reptile Survey Results Common lizard appears to be thinly dispersed over much of the upland common land in the area. In addition, slow worms have been found on lower ground outside the study area. This species is, however, less likely than common lizard to be making use of the open moorland.
Amphibian Survey Results Although great crested newts are mentioned in the citation document for the proposed Pentwyn Mawr and Mynydd Pysgodlyn SINC, no specific location information is given.
Habitat and Botanical Survey Results Evaluation of Peat Resource Surveys of peat depth were carried out by Bioscan in 2010 and submitted as Supplementary Environmental Information prior to the public inquiry. More recent peat surveys over the winter of 2011/12 were carried out to inform revisions to the turbine array and track alignment in order to minimise the impact on peat resources as far as possible. The peat studies confirm that certain areas of the site would appear to support “significant peat deposits, defined here as those in excess of 300mm in depth. The two principal ways in which peat resources are valued in ecological or quasi-ecological contexts are in terms of its role as a carbon store, and for the biodiversity value of associated vegetation. In terms of biodiversity, the vegetation associated with the peat deposits within the application site is low in quality, the degraded nature of the vegetation being explained by overgrazing.
Evaluation of Habitats Both the main wind farm site, and the land proposed for the new access track across Mynydd Garn Fach, are dominated by species-poor upland communities of acid grassland, with localised representations of degraded heath and mire within the wind farm site itself.
Page 106 Page 100 of 151
Although they cover a large area, these habitats are poor in species and are relatively damaged (and hence, unnatural), derivatives of more diverse mire vegetation that is likely to have historically been the dominant cover over the study area.
The areas of degraded heath and mire vegetation might marginally qualify as “degraded areas with some potential for recovery”, but this is contingent on that potential being there. Encouragingly, some recovery would appear to have taken place in the upland heath component, at least in the 27 years since 1985. This is consistent with the checklist provided by the Council in support of the cSINC – it is these types of habitat that have been identified as conforming to local BAP categorisations, not the extensive areas of species-poor Nardus grassland. Collectively these do represent a resource of County (i.e. Swansea) value, in part because the blanket mires, though degraded, represent edge-of- range examples of the type.
The holdings at Blaen Gerdinen and Blaen-yr-Olchfa Fach are dominated by agricultural grasslands that have been subject to past improvement and, in the context of such habitats being abundant locally and on a wider scale, they are of very limited biodiversity value.
Where new track is proposed for the access route, the main habitat affected is species- poor acid grassland (on Mynydd Garn Fach), although there are much smaller areas of improved grassland, scrub, mature trees, acid grassland, bracken-dominated vegetation and dry heath affected where widening or upgrade works will be necessary. Even for the more semi-natural components of these habitats, the small scale of the areas affected means that their value, if considered in isolation, is low and at no point measurable above immediate local level.
It is indicated that the impact of the current grazing of the common land, in terms of the habitat and vegetation, is the continued degrading of the upland habitat. The potential for managing the grazing regime in order to improve the biodiversity of the habitat is hampered on the main wind farm site is the diversity of interested parties that would need to be brought together into a consensus to enable any agri-environment scheme to work. The likelihood of significant habitat management changes occurring is therefore assessed as low.
Design Mitigation The EIA indicates that further changes to the design have been made since 2008 in response to detailed peat depth studies to avoid siting wind farm infrastructure on peat of even relatively shallow depth wherever possible. This has resulted in the number of turbines being reduced from 19 to 16, and the internal service track layout being re- configured to avoid deeper peat deposits wherever it is possible to do so. Where deposits in excess of 300mm depth cannot be avoided, floating track construction will be used to retain the peat resource in-situ.
Additionally, it is proposed to adopt measures to preclude any impact via changed drainage patterns or water chemistry to mire fragments within the Dulais and Lliw gullies, or indeed habitats associated with these watercourses downstream of the study area (including the Upper Lliw Reservoir). These include locating all turbine foundations, tracks, cabling and other ancillary equipment a minimum of 20m from ravine and gully habitats and associated mires and flushes. This has resulted in avoidance of the need for tracks or other features to cross gullies or significant watercourses. Drainage from tracks will be collected in track-side ditches designed to reduce water velocity and to filter out suspended sediments through being vegetated.
Page 107 Page 101 of 151
The access route has likewise been chosen to minimise additional works required to the local road system that might have adverse effects on ecology. Where such works are inevitable, new routes have been chosen to avoid semi-natural habitats on common land as far as possible, for instance on Goppa Hill where existing farm tracks are exploited, and to avoid specific features such as trees containing structures with potential for bat roosts. The route has also been chosen to avoid the need for new bridgeworks that might risk impacts on (for instance) otter passage or bat roosts. A design amendment has been employed to maintain a minimum 30m stand-off between the main badger sett on Mynydd Garn Fach and the access route alignment.
Finally, the substation has been placed in a field at Blaen Gerdinen that has been subject to past improvement and is of low biodiversity value. The bank section requiring removal for its access is likewise degraded and of little value. These design measures have avoided any significant impact from the substation.
Assessment of Impacts Indirect Impact Sources The principal secondary impact source for non-avian fauna relates to the potential for bats to collide with wind turbines. There is also the potential for the presence of turbines (and associated factors such as shadow flicker and any perceived change in the “openness of the site) to lead to effective displacement of site use by higher fauna through avoidance behaviour.
Construction Phase The potential for significant effects on habitat resources from the siting of turbines, access roads and other wind farm components has been minimised by confining such features wherever possible to degraded examples of upland vegetation that are assessed as of value only on the immediate local scale. A proportion of this landtake is expected to be temporary, lasting only for the duration of the construction phase, and thereby giving rise to short-term impacts. Whilst the remainder is a long term impact, only reversing once the wind farm site has been decommissioned and restored, it is minor in magnitude and in the context of the limited value of the habitats, not of significance at anything above the immediate local (i.e. site-wide) scale. The integrity of the Pentwyn Mawr and Mynydd Psygodlyn proposed Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, if adopted, would not be compromised by the presence of the wind farm. Similarly, amendments to the design mean that areas of peat deposits greater than 300mm in depth are only affected in a handful of areas, and here they will be retained in-situ through use of “floating track construction techniques.
There is the possibility, in the absence of applied mitigation, for impacts on fauna that are subject to legal protection. In respect of non-avian fauna, the access route alignment conflicts with an active badger sett and there is evidence of a diffuse population of relatively common but partly protected (from killing or injury) reptile species across at least parts of the upland area. In terms of the loss of available habitat for such species, there is no scope for impacts of anything above negligible magnitude in terms of local or wider populations, but the legal protection afforded to individual animals of these species requires that mitigation measures are taken, as detailed under “Mitigation below.
Direct impacts from access improvements for construction (i.e. along the access route between Mynydd Garn Fach and the A48) have also been restricted to habitats of low (i.e. immediate local) value and in all cases the landtake is minor in magnitude and too small in extent to give rise to habitat loss impacts of significance at any higher than immediate local (i.e. site) level.
Page 108 Page 102 of 151
However measures to ensure legal compliance are required in respect of one area where a narrow gap between trees with potential for bat roosting has to be negotiated by the access route. Bats typically use tree structures on an intermittent basis, so the worst case has to be assumed even if there is no evidence of roosting at the time of the baseline surveys. It is therefore proposed to offset the loss of bat roosting opportunities at this location by the provision of bat boxes on retained trees regardless of the lack of any evidence of a bat roosting issue here.
Operational Phase During the operational phase it is not considered that would be additional direct impacts from land take on fauna or flora, post construction. Bats may be more likely to traverse across upland areas when making post-breeding migratory movements, and it is during such movements that bats may be particularly susceptible to collision with wind turbines. The evidence from the baseline studies and from experience elsewhere therefore suggests that the risk of bat fatalities arising from collisions with the proposed wind turbines at Mynydd y Gwair is intrinsically low, and furthermore that the risk of any collision fatalities having population-level consequences for any of the species confirmed as using the site is negligible.
Mitigation and Monitoring Appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the magnitude of identified effects on protected species and other ecological resources would be contained within the Construction Method Statement. The main measures to reduce ecological impacts over and above those taken as part of the design process are as follows:
• Any works to trees affected or potentially affected by the access route construction works at Bolgoed-uchaf will only be carried out after further full inspections for bat roosts by licensed ecologists. If no evidence of current or recent roosting is found at the time, then felling can proceed without further action. Should a roost be discovered, then any bats will require exclusion prior to works under the terms of a Welsh Government license required separately from planning consent. • The linear nature of wind farm construction and associated habitat disturbance means that any attempt to wholly exclude and remove reptiles from the construction area prior to commencement would be impractical and most likely unsuccessful. Instead, all affected areas will be mown prior to the start of construction and arisings removed. Mowing will take place either at times of year when reptiles are dormant (e.g. winter) or in suitably warm conditions during the active season, to minimise the scope for that operation to itself impact on individual animals. The effect of mowing will be to make the area (other than the fringes likely to be used for basking) relatively unattractive to reptiles (as well as nesting birds). The mown areas will be stripped of vegetation during the reptile activity season to allow any animals still present on these fringes to escape. • A comprehensive approach will be taken to mitigation of impacts on peat resources including use of floating track construction wherever peat deposits of >300mm have been identified from peat depth surveys, as well as special handling and storage measures for excavated peat and re-use of all peat resources on the site in restoration and habitat creation.
Page 109 Page 103 of 151 • Appointment of a Project Ecologist and Project Hydrologist to assist with construction phase surveys, monitoring and mitigation. The project ecologist’s role will extend to briefing contractors working near the identified badger sett and monitoring to ensure no significant impact on this or any other protected species.
Assessment of Residual Impacts on non-avian ecology Construction The impacts on habitats and peat resources as a consequence of the wind farm construction are assessed as not significant on any geographical scale above the immediate confines of the site.
In terms of protected fauna, the potential for bat roosts to be affected has been restricted by design and other mitigation to the need for works on a single tree and compensation would be provided through the provision of an artificial roost sites (bat boxes). The low level of bat use of this open upland site with its degraded habitat examples minimises the potential for significant effects from collision or displacement, both in terms of resident bat populations and any transient migratory movements. Residual impacts on bats are therefore assessed as not significant at any geographical scale.
Exclusion by habitat manipulation will remove the great majority of risk of any reptiles being harmed during construction. Soon after construction, any such impact would be compensated by habitat recovery and/or the additional habitat features associated with tracks and turbine bases. In the worst case the resulting minor magnitude impact would be significant on the immediately local scale, reducing within a few years to not significant.
Impact Summary Baseline ecological studies in and around the wind farm site have correlating information since 2004 which has allowed a very high level of understanding of baseline conditions has been achieved, with habitats and vegetation classified, mapped and evaluated and a wealth of survey information amassed for birds (see Avian Ecology), badgers, bats, water voles, otters and invertebrates in particular.
The proposed wind farm site sits within an extensive swathe of upland habitats much in keeping with the surrounding area. Remnant and in some instances potentially recovering examples of heath and mire communities are present, but in general these occur only as degraded fragments or diffuse examples amongst acid grassland of restricted value and diversity, itself reflective of high grazing intensity and an absence of blanket peat. This featureless aspect and fairly monotypic habitat structure harbours not only an impoverished breeding bird community dominated by a very few common species (see Avian Ecology), but also does not appear to be of particular value to the local populations of any other species of fauna or flora.
The site has no statutory nature conservation designation, although it is contained within an extensive “candidate non-statutory Site of Importance for Nature Conservation identified by the City and County of Swansea. The wind farm affects only a very small part of this “proposed designation, and does not impinge on any high quality examples of the key habitat features of interest mentioned in the draft citation.
Impacts on non-avian ecological resources are likely to be greatest during construction of the wind farm, including temporary and (smaller-scale) permanent losses of habitats during the construction of the 16 turbines, and the interlinking access tracks and cable routes.
Page 110 Page 104 of 151
Localised habitat losses will also occur along the road network used to access the site, and the construction of a sub-station and grid connection will necessitate minor additional land take. Compensation land has been identified that will be “exchanged as new open access common land, but in any event the losses of habitat occasioned by these activities are restricted and affect resources of limited value that are well represented in the locality. With the adoption of strict codes of working in respect of peat resources and site drainage, direct habitat losses or indirect habitat damage during construction will be of minor magnitude, and such effects are not predicted to be significant at any geographical scale above the immediate confines of the development boundary.
Mitigation measures, including appropriately timed removal of vegetation in advance of construction, are proposed to counter the potential for construction phase effects on reptiles and nesting birds that could generate issues of legal compliance, even if not significant in terms of these species’ local or wider conservation status. Indirect disturbance of upland fauna may also occur during construction, potentially resulting in temporary displacement of certain species from affected areas, however the extent of habitat in the upland area is ample to accommodate any temporary displacement without giving rise to significant effects and in any event no highly sensitive species occur on the wind farm site.
The main scope for post-construction or operational effects relates to the possibility of longer term displacement and/or collision risk effects on aerial fauna, principally birds and bats. Birds are addressed in Avian Ecology. In respect of bats, a number of common bat species occur in the surrounding area, where habitats are better suited to them, but use of the site by these populations is at a much reduced scale and in particular activity in the exposed areas of airspace where turbine rotors will operate is evidently minimal, in keeping with the exposed and featureless nature of the terrain. No significant risk to the conservation status of either local or wider bat populations has therefore been identified.
Cumulative impacts have been assessed with specific reference to the wind farm under construction nearby at Mynydd y Betws. Despite a rather more diverse habitat assemblage at that site, and factors such as the use of borrow pits there, the extent of overall habitat loss likely to arise from construction of the Mynydd y Betws wind farm is not dissimilar to that of the Mynydd y Gwair proposal. In the context of local availability of such habitats, the cumulative effect is not therefore considered to be significant at any geographical level above the immediate context of the two sites. The in-combination effects of the two wind farms on avian fauna are in the Avian Ecology section. In respect of non-avian protected fauna they are assessed as likely to be minimal, although in respect of bats the degree of certainty attached to this assessment is reduced by the fact that no bat survey work was carried out at that site.
Overall the conclusions of the EIA in relation to impact on the natural heritage resource are generally accepted. Following the changes to the proposed scheme involving the removal of three turbines and re-alignment of the access tracks to avoid the peat deposits were greater than 300mm, the Countryside Council for Wales is satisfied that the proposed scheme overcomes the concerns of the earlier application (ref:208/1781), and raises no objection to the proposal provided the following conditions or obligations are attached to any permission your authority may be minded to issue with respect to Habitat and Species Monitoring Plan incorporating the commitments to monitoring made in the Environmental Statement, in particular regarding details of a peatland hydrology and vegetation monitoring scheme and all other habitat and species provision as outlined in the Environmental Statement.
Page 111 Page 105 of 151
The issue of implementing a management regime in order to control grazing with a view to enhancing the habitat biodiversity of the commons is complicated by the commoners rights who would need to agree to such a commitment. The developer has therefore agreed to implement off-site enhancement works as compensation for the residual impact on peatland and heath habitats on site, the location and details of which should be agreed in consultation with CCW, and would be secured through a section 106 agreement.
4.21 Ecology - Avian
The ES includes an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed wind farm on ornithological (avian or bird) resources.
It should be recognised that TAN8 and PPW clearly state that the presumption is that ecological impacts are to be avoided or minimised. The Council’s and Government’s responsibilities and duties under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and all the other statutory controls and EC Directives described in TAN5: Nature Conservation and Planning are also clearly extant and are material considerations.
Baseline ornithological studies in and around the proposed Mynydd y Gwair Wind Farm site commenced in 2004 and have continued to March 2012. The initial studies covered all areas that were at that time under consideration for siting turbines or other wind farm infrastructure. As the project design has evolved and the preferred location of the turbine array and access infrastructure was chosen, later phases in the baseline survey process has become more focussed.
The area covered by the various ornithological studies – the ‘Bird Study Area’ (BSA) extends to a minimum of 500m and in some instances up to 2km beyond the boundary of the current wind farm site. Ornithological information along the sections of the proposed access route falling outside the BSA, (i.e. the Access Route Study Area) has been collected in a less systematic manner, consistent with the low habitat landtake proposed along this alignment and the minimal change in baseline conditions resulting.
The ES confirms that consultation was undertaken with nature conservation consultees to request existing records for the area. These included CCW, the ecologist at the City and County of Swansea, the Glamorgan Bird Club, the RSPB and the Welsh Kite Trust. Any additional information on the site’s use by birds presented as evidence by parties at the 2010 Public Inquiry has also been used to inform and update the assessment.
In order to inform an assessment of potential in-combination effects on local ecological resources should both schemes be constructed, the ES for the adjoining Mynydd y Betws was reviewed in 2008. This review was revisited in 2012 with specific reference to the risk of significant collision impacts on birds.
The wind farm sits within an extensive swathe of upland habitats much in keeping with the surrounding area and the wind farm site itself has a fairly featureless and monotypic habitat structure of degraded mire and heath habitats and extensive upland acid grassland. This harbours an impoverished breeding bird community dominated by a very few common species, and whilst the non-breeding assemblage for the area includes species of note, the wind farm site does not appear to be of specific value to the local populations of any of these. Nevertheless, significant use of the site is made by certain non-breeding species, including red kite in particular, but also buzzard, kestrel and (at least in some winters) golden plover.
Page 112 Page 106 of 151
For birds of prey populations the site’s value, appears related to its strategic position between valley systems and watersheds, such that much of the use is transient by individuals or small groups commuting between these areas. Any value for hunting and foraging appears secondary to this, except possibly in the case of kestrel. Wintering golden plover occasionally attain significant numbers, but there are no indications that the wind farm site is selected preferentially over other nearby and adjoining areas.
As well as design mitigation, that has resulted in avoidance of landscape features likely to be preferentially selected for bird nesting, additional avoidance measures include appropriately timed removal of vegetation in advance of construction to counter the potential for effects on nesting birds that could be significant in terms of legal compliance. Localised disturbance of birds during construction may occur but the proposed construction activity is adjudged to be too remote from sensitive bird breeding sites in the surrounding area to risk significant effects.
The main scope for post-construction or operational effects relates to the possibility of longer-term displacement and/or collision risk effects on birds. Displacement effects are not assessed as likely to occur to significant levels given the relative low value of the site to the receptors identified, the small scale of landtake involved compared with the wider resource and the commonality of the habitats present with those in surrounding areas.
The risk of significant effects arising from birds colliding with the turbines has been assessed through the use of statistical modelling derived from the baseline data, and qualified where appropriate by reference to experience at other wind farm sites and/or ecological studies specific to the species concerned. It is notable however that a correction factor of +17.5% has been applied to the collision rate data to account for the larger size of the turbines proposed. The methodology utilises avoidance rates and give a broad indication of likely ‘worst case’ and ‘best case scenario’. The only species adjudged to be at significant risk of collision are red kite, kestrel, buzzard and golden plover. In particular, the ES refers to a predicted annual collision rate for red kite of 1.96 per annum, giving a realistic prediction of an annual collision rate for red kite of or slightly in excess of 1 per annum. The species with the second highest predicted collision rate is the golden plover, with a collision rate of around 1.26 per annum. The ES concludes this is unlikely to be significant in the context of local wintering populations. The predicted collision rate for kestrel is 3.11 collisions per year, and the ES indicates that kestrels may be particularly susceptible to collision. This would be unlikely to have a significant effect on the regional kestrel population. The annual collision risk for buzzard is given as 0.4 per annum. This is fractionally lower that the collision risk assessment of the previous 19 turbine scheme, suggesting that as with red kite, any amelioration of risk due to the reduction in turbines has been cancelled out by increasing use of the local area by buzzard.
At the levels of collision predicted, the effects on the local populations of these species are assessed as likely to be significant only in the context of red kite and kestrel, both of which could see depletion of the immediate local population, and to a lesser extent buzzard. Effects at wider geographical scales are assessed as sub-significant however, in large part due to the relatively favourable conservation status of these species in the region. There are signs of a modest increase in the activity of certain species on site, such as red kite and buzzard that may reflect continuing consolidation and expansion of local populations. Whilst this might be expected to have given rise to elevated collision risks for these species, such effects have been countered by changes to the design of the scheme which have seen the reduction of the proposed number of turbines from 19 to 16.
Page 113 Page 107 of 151
Cumulative impacts have been assessed with specific reference to the wind farm under construction nearby at Mynydd y Betws. Contrary to the conclusions reached in the ES for the Mynydd y Betws scheme, a higher number of collision fatalities of red kite are possible or even likely at the Mynydd y Betws site compared with Mynydd y Gwair. As a consequence there would appear to be scope for cumulative impacts on red kite to be significant at geographical scales in excess of ‘local’ should both wind farms be constructed. The ES indicates that a detailed monitoring scheme is proposed to assess both collision fatalities and displacement effects at Mynydd y Gwair, with the multiple purposes of testing the accuracy of the predicted impacts to assist in the refinement of future assessments and to improve the fund of knowledge about the specific effects of wind farms on upland sites used by red kite in particular.
CCW have welcomed the intensive effort that has gone into the bird surveys for this application, especially the comprehensive vantage point surveys. They note the impact upon the local red kite population and in order to mitigate the potential impact they advise that the removal of carcasses from site be implemented as part of a Habitat and Species Monitoring Plan which would reduce scavenging opportunities at the site, making it less attractive to red kite and reduce collision risk.
Additionally, they advise that measures to included in a Habitat and Species Monitoring Plan, which should covered by a planning condition should include details of a bird monitoring scheme to cover both vantage point surveys for site use and carcass searching for collision monitoring, the scheme to cover up to year 15, with reviews for stopping monitoring at years 5 and 10, and all other habitat and species provision as outlined in the Environmental Statement.
Overall the conclusions of the ES in relation to impact on ornithological resources are generally accepted and it is noted that the predicated impact of the current Mynydd y Gwair Wind Farm proposal on local ornithological resources is considered of the same low order as the 2008 scheme. Moreover it is noted that the Planning Inspector previously concluded in paragraph 93 of his report into the 2008 scheme that “I consider that the surveys and evidence produced by the appellants demonstrate that the effect on birds and bats would not be unacceptably harmful”.
4.22 Traffic and Transport
Introduction The EIA incorporates a transport assessment which quantifies the construction / abnormal load traffic and subsequent operational requirements relating to the installation of the proposed wind farm. The main transportation impacts will occur during the construction phase of the development, and therefore the EIA concentrates on the movements of abnormal loads for turbine component delivery and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) delivering construction materials. Traffic during operation will be limited to periodic visits by a maintenance team travelling in a 4x4 land rover or similar vehicle. There may be an occasional need for HGVs to access the site for maintenance or repairs. The EIA indicates that the effects of operational traffic would be negligible, and therefore detailed assessment of the operational phase of the development is not included in the assessment. A draft Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to accompany the EIA.
Page 114 Page 108 of 151
As already indicated, the anticipated life of the wind farm is around 25 years, after which time either the turbines will be decommissioned or a new planning application submitted. During decommissioning, the traffic effects of the removal of the wind turbines would not be greater than the vehicular movements required to construct the wind farm. Detailed assessment of transportation impacts during the decommissioning phase is therefore not undertaken as part of the EIA.
Existing Highway Network It is assumed that the vast majority of deliveries to the site will utilise the M4 corridor regardless of their origin. The A48 single carriageway runs northwest from junction 47 of the M4 through the villages of Penllergaer and Pontlliw towards Pontarddulais. There are several rural unclassified roads that link the A48 with the site. Whilst the unclassified Pant Lasau and Rhyd-y-Pandy Roads provide a connection to the M4 at junction 46. To the north of the site, unclassified roads provide a link to Ammanford.
Access for Abnormal Loads The tower sections of the turbines require a route with a 5m tall by 5m wide clear zone. The combined length of each blade and its vehicle is 55m long, including blade overhang. Any junctions, bends or dips in the route must be accommodated by these vehicles. The route must also withstand a loading of 12.5 tonnes per axle.
Previous Studies The EIA indicates that a study to investigate the suitability of the existing road network to accommodate the required abnormal loads to transport the turbine sections and nacelles identified for potential routes from the M4. The two potential routes recommended as being most suitable for the abnormal loads were via the A48 through Pontlliw from junction 47 and via Pant Lasau Road and through Rhydypandy from junction 46. There are two bridges along the unclassified Pant Lasau and Rhyd-y-Pandy Roads, Pont Felin-wen and Rhyd-y-Pandy Bridge. It is indicated that the unknown strength and condition of these two bridges along this route, will limit the number of repeated heavy loads that could cross before reinforcement works would be necessary. Additionally, the unclassified Ammanford road is subject to a 7.5 tonne weight limit which would limit commercial vehicle movement. The applicants have therefore identified that the most suitable route for the movement of abnormal loads to the site would be from junction 47 of the M4.
Abnormal Load Operation Each abnormal load will require two 2 clear days notice to the South Wales Police, the South Wales Trunk Road Agency, City and County of Swansea and the Highways Agency. Transporting the blades will require Special Orders from the Highway Agency and five clear days notice. The haulier must indemnify each highway authority against any damage caused to any road, bridge or other structure. Upon notification, the South Wales Police will advise if a police escort is required and whether self-escorts can assist the movement. Hauliers can self-escort abnormal loads in accordance with the Department of Transport’s Code of Practice. An escort vehicle is likely to be required to warn other road users when moving the blades, nacelles and tower sections. The police may also require that the other abnormal loads have an escort vehicle. A police escort may be necessary for all or part of the journey. A combination of self-escort and police escort vehicles may be used, to be agreed by both parties.
Page 115 Page 109 of 151
Abnormal Loads Route The applicants have identified the most suitable route to transport abnormal loads from the M4 corridor to the site. Loads will travel north on the A48 from junction 47 via the villages of Penllergaer and Pontlliw. A new access track will be constructed from Bolgoed Road in Pontarddulais across the private land of Bolgoed Uchaf Farm to link the A48 to the public highway on Heol-y-Barna at Cwmdulais. The route will follow the existing road as far as Heol Glyn-Defal, from where a new access track will be constructed to the site entry. The length of route from the M4 will be approximately 12.7 kilometres. Assuming an average speed of 20 miles per hour, the journey to the site from the motorway would take 24 minutes.
Impact of Abnormal Loads on Physical Highway Layout The EIA has identified locations along the access route where the horizontal alignment of the highway may act as a constraint to the abnormal load movements and these have been subject to a vehicle swept analysis to identify areas where widening, land take and other road improvement works would be required to enable the passage of the turbine vehicles. These are based on an extended transport vehicle suitable for a 45m long wind turbine blade. The physical works / measures required along the abnormal loads route via the A48 / Pontlliw are as follows:
• On the M4 Junction 47, Penllergaer, the 45 m blade vehicle can traverse the motorway junction with no modification works, however, opposing traffic on the A483 would need to be stopped to allow the vehicle to exit the roundabout.
• At the A48 Pontarddulais Road / Gorseinon Road roundabout, the 45m blade vehicle would traverse the roundabout anti-clockwise and require overrun areas for the vehicle movement. This will include removing splitter islands and street furniture;
• The 45m blade vehicle can pass through the mini roundabout at Parc Penderri on the A48 without modification works, although opposing traffic would need to be stopped to allow the vehicle to exit the roundabout.
• At the A48 Pontlliw Railway Bridge, the 45m blade vehicle could have difficulty completing the turn beyond the railway bridge in Pontlliw, and extensive highway widening will be required fronting Nos. 63 – 67 Swansea Road to allow for over-running. The EIA acknowledges that more detailed surveys and analysis are required at this point along the route if a 45m blade is to be accommodated.
• At A48 / Bolgoed Road, the construction of the new access track will require removal of the street furniture but would also require significant engineering work on adjacent land.
• Construction of a new section of access track off-line between the A48 Bolgoed Road and Cwmdulais on Heol-y-Barna, including the requirement for works on common land;
• Improvement of the existing track across Bryn Bach Common to Glyn Dyfal, including significant modification of the ‘Five Way’ junction to allow the abnormal loads to traverse this dip on these narrow roads;
Page 116 Page 110 of 151
• Various highway widening works will be required along the unclassified highway encroaching on common land;
• Widen the existing road north of five way junction adjacent to Hengoed to accommodate the 45m blade vehicle.
• Create new access track off-line at the junction with Heol Glyn-Dyfal to the site.
Traffic Management Plan A draft Traffic Management Plan (TMP) has been submitted to address the likely impacts related to the movement of wind turbine components as Abnormal Loads and construction HGV movements. Additionally, a trial run (dry run) for the proposed transport route (Junction 47 of M4 to A48 Bolgoed Road, Pontarddulais) was undertaken on 21 November, 2012 which was observed / accompanied by officers from South Wales Police and highways officers from the City and County of Swansea. All parties have deemed the trial run to be successful, and the main points identified were:
• The Police noted that there is a need to use five escort motorcycles rather than the normal four, in order to appropriately cover the traffic management of the junctions and side roads; • The requirement to overrun two traffic islands on the A48 Pontarddulais Road / Gorseinon Road roundabout confirmed; • It was identified that either road widening or traffic management could be required to enable the load to pass under the railway bridge in Pontlliw; and • It was confirmed that there is no need to undertake works on the A48 Bryntirion Road / Y Llanerch Road roundabout.
The TMP will be implemented during the construction period in order to mitigate the potential impacts and will bring together the recommended physical mitigation measures with other traffic management measures and escort arrangements required for the abnormal loads. Some measures will apply only during the construction period, including the removal of street furniture, trimmed vegetation, etc. Other measures will be permanent, such as widening of sections of carriageway and the new sections of road, which will be private and gated when not in use. It is intended that the draft TMP to be a working document that would be subject to a planning condition.
Mitigation of Abnormal Load Route The A48 will generally be adequate to accommodate abnormal loads, however, physical modifications will be required on the Penllergaer roundabout, various items of street furniture would need to be temporarily removed, and the tight bend underneath the railway bridge in Pontlliw will be required. Additionally, the unclassified country lanes (Bryn Bach Road and Heol Glyn-Dyfal) are characterised by sharp bends, steep gradients and narrow widths which cannot accommodate abnormal loads and will require extensive works including grading embankments, levelling gradients, widening the road and providing passing places.
Traffic Capacity The EIA acknowledges the primary schools at Penllergaer and Pontlliw and that school- related traffic effectively extends the peak period through these villages. It is indicated that abnormal loads and general construction traffic will travel along key local routes either before the morning peak, after the evening peak or during the interpeak period of 5 hours (10:00-15:00).
Page 117 Page 111 of 151
The proportional increase in traffic as a result of the development has been shown to vary from 2% on the A48 near the junction with the M4 to 7% along the A48 Bryntirion Road in Pontlliw, depending whether the empty HGVs depart the site via the alternative Rhyd-y- Pandy route. There will be a noticeable increase in traffic through Pontlliw, but flows per hour would not be as high as in the evening peak period. The significantly higher proportional increase in traffic on the unclassified roads nearer to the site is due to the very low existing flows. It is proposed traffic following abnormal loads would be delayed and oncoming traffic would have to be stopped along the A48, especially through Pontlliw. Beyond the A48, roads would be closed to other traffic during transport of abnormal loads. Traffic management would be used on wider sections of road to minimise delay to existing traffic. Parking along sections of route would be suspended.
The identified abnormal route through Penllergaer and Pontlliw has triggered a considerable amount of objection, and the Head of Transportation acknowledges that the transportation of the abnormal loads will cause disruption along the public highway, however, the an abnormal loads procedure is in place to address this as far as possible and subject to this requirement there is a right for such vehicles to use the highway. The prevention of abnormal loads using the identified route is only possible if the route cannot physically accommodate the passage of the load, such as a weak bridge or restriction in dimensions making the passage of the load impossible. The completed trial run has confirmed that the route can accommodate the required vehicles and loads, and that any alterations identified will be at the expense of the developer and will be subject to detailed agreement of the Highway Authority agreement.
Access for General Construction Traffic General construction traffic will comprise HGVs delivering construction materials, fuel tankers and staff vehicles. It is assumed that all deliveries accessing the site from the M4 would follow the primary route via the A48 / Pontlliw, however, a secondary route via Rhyd-y-Pandy will be used for empty HGV’s leaving the site resulting in a one way system. The identified alternative route would exit the motorway at junction 46 and follows Pant Lasau Road via the village of Rhyd-y-Pandy. The length of route from the M4 will be approximately 8.5 kilometres. Assuming an average speed of 20 miles per hour, the journey to the site from the motorway would take 16 minutes. However, use of the route by fully loaded HGVs is limited by the strength and condition of the two existing bridges. The route will therefore be considered for use by staff vehicles and empty HGVs departing the site only.
Construction Programme The EIA indicates that the key determinants of the transport impact are the programme of delivery and supply of construction materials. The 22 month construction programme will be split into two phases. Phase 1 comprises the construction of the new off-site access track from the A48 over months 1 to 4 works while Phase 2 covers all the main construction activities on the site from month 5 to 22, once the access track is accessible.
Volume of Construction Traffic During Phase 1, the predicted traffic generated in each month is roughly equal to 27 vehicles per day, whilst during Phase 2, the highest volume would be 39 vehicles per day. The abnormal loads associated with the turbine components would not begin until month 15. The turbine components must be delivered under the Abnormal Loads procedure. The installation of each turbine will require up to 9 abnormal loads, therefore the number of abnormal loads to the site over the construction period will be 144 and one additional load for the transformer substation.
Page 118 Page 112 of 151
Abnormal loads will not start to arrive until Month 15, where it is proposed each convoy will consist of 2 abnormal load vehicles. It is proposed on that basis that there will be 72 convoys for the abnormal load deliveries.
The EIA considers the impact of the additional traffic and a comparison to existing and committed development traffic flows indicates that the construction traffic will add 1% at the approach to Penllergaer raising to 3% on Pontardulais Road and 4% to the traffic in Pontlliw. The increase at Heol y Barna is higher as existing flows are so low and this is indicated to be an additional 13%. The Head of Transportation indicates that in terms of significance, the Institute of Highways and Transportation recommends that in free flowing conditions a 10% increase in traffic could be considered significant, the additional flows through the residential areas peaks at 4% which is below this figure. With regard to the 13% increase along Heol y Barna, whilst this is significant in percentage terms, the actual numbers are quite low and do not give rise to concern.
Distribution of Generated Traffic As indicated, all abnormal loads will be moved along the identified route from junction 47 of the M4 via the village of Pontlliw. Deliveries to the site will be coordinated so that no construction traffic or abnormal load will travel on key local routes during the morning and evening peak periods. The peak hours will be extended on the Pontlliw route due to the proximity of local schools. Deliveries will therefore be undertaken either before the morning peak, after the evening peak or between 10.00 and 15.00. Construction traffic may use the alternative route via Rhyd-y-Pandy up to 16.00.
Alternative Route for General Construction Traffic The beginning of the Rhyd-y-Pandy route is an Accident and Emergency route to Morriston Hospital, however, ambulances and HGVs should be able to pass each other as the road is over 7m in width along its length to Morriston Hospital. The traffic impact on these more well-used roads is up to a 2% increase in all cases. Congestion in the interpeak period is generally not a problem, despite some delay at the A48 Clasemont Road / Pant Lasau Road junction. Beyond the hospital the route narrows, eventually to less than 5m. The route should not require widening, but cutting back overgrown hedges and trees may be necessary. The impact of the increased traffic on the residential properties along this route, can be partially mitigated by restricting times of deliveries, keeping residents of the area informed and establishing contract behaviour rules for construction vehicle drivers.
Operational Arrangements Along with the physical alterations to the route to accommodate the abnormal loads, an operational plan together with abnormal load escort arrangements will be necessary. These would cover transportation outside peak periods, traffic management, temporary road closures, grouping abnormal loads and escort vehicles.
Conclusion As indicated, the main impact on the local road network will occur during the 22-month construction period, and will be largely associated with the movements of abnormal loads for turbine component delivery and HGVs delivering construction materials. When operational, the wind farm would only generate occasional traffic on an irregular basis, while the traffic impact during decommissioning would not be greater than the impact of vehicle movements required to construct the wind farm. The identified route for the abnormal load route is from junction 47 of the M4 motorway to the wind farm site via the A48 and the village of Pontlliw.
Page 119 Page 113 of 151
An alternative route from junction 46 of the M4 via the village of Rhyd-y-Pandy may be used for empty HGVs leaving the site only. No abnormal loads or loaded HGVs would use this Rhyd-y-Pandy route.
The EIA indicates that in the worst case scenario, approximately 39 HGVs per weekday will be travelling to the site during months 10 to 13. However, the abnormal loads will be likely to have an even greater impact, and the nine abnormal loads required to transport each wind turbine to site will occur on the same day. The turbine components will not start arriving until month 15 and will be controlled to minimise the impact on the highway network. This would have a noticeable increase in traffic through Pontlliw, although flows per hour would still not be as high as the evening peak period, assuming all deliveries are made during the interpeak period. In reality, it is likely that deliveries will also be made before the morning peak and after the evening peak hour. The impact on the local road network during the interpeak is therefore likely to be less than demonstrated in this report. Nonetheless, this worst case analysis shows that the forecast traffic will not have a significant impact on either route.
The EIA indicates that traffic generated by the construction of the wind farm at Mynydd y Gwair would increase vehicle flows by up to 4% on most of the two routes in question, if all deliveries were undertaken during the 5 to 6 hour interpeak delivery period. The rural unclassified lanes across the common lands show a greater impact, but this is because the existing flows are extremely low. In the worst case scenario, the turbine component delivery phase, the impact on the A48 is much greater. However, the average hourly flow over the interpeak period during this worst case scenario is still less than the existing evening peak hour flows. On both the A-roads and the country lanes, there is adequate capacity during the interpeak period for the peak periods of the construction programme. Nonetheless, it is likely that a proportion of the construction traffic will travel either before the morning peak or after the evening peak. This report assumes that all deliveries will be made during the interpeak period to give a worst case perspective.
Various physical modification works will be necessary to ensure the preferred route is suitable for the passage of abnormal loads. Measures include carriageway widening and levelling and temporary removal of street furniture. The residual transportation impact on other road users and on local concerns will be controlled through the use of a Traffic Management Plan. This will include operational measures such as limiting deliveries to the interpeak period avoiding school and pre-school finish times, contracted behaviour rules with HGV drivers and abnormal load escort arrangements.
The conclusion of the EIA is that the transportation impact of the proposed wind farm will not be significant if suitably managed together with the implementation of the identified physical works. The Head of Transportation accepts the conclusions of the EIA and confirms the suitability of the identified route to accommodate the expected movement of construction traffic and that the traffic movements for the operational wind farm would be minimal and as such there would be no adverse affect on the surrounding highway network associated with its operational use.
Driver Distraction The proposed wind farm would be close proximity to the Rhyd-y-pandy Road to the east of the site. TAN 8 indicates that there is no evidence from other operational wind farms that motor vehicle accidents have been caused as a result of drivers being distracted by the movement of wind turbine blades and that wind turbines should not be treated any differently from other distractions faced by a driver.
Page 120 Page 114 of 151
TAN 8 does advise, however, all wind turbines should be set back a minimum distance, equivalent to the height of the blade tip, from the edge of any public highway. In this instance, all nearest turbines are set back at least 127m from the highway.
4.23 Hydrology and Hydrogeology
A hydrological assessment of the potential effects arising from the construction, operation and de-commissioning of the proposed Mynydd y Gwair Wind Farm has been undertaken as part of the EIA.
The catchments of four watercourses lies within the site boundaries of the wind farm site, namely the Afon Lliw, the Dulais, the Afon Cathan and unnamed tributary of the Lower Cyldach River. The Afon Lliw is impounded to create the Upper and Lower Lliw Reservoirs, which are both used for public water supply. The area experiences high rainfall and run off, which together with low permeability soils, indicates that the soils remain saturated for significant periods of the year.
There are numerous abstractions for public and private water supplies and fisheries within the area. Having regard to the rural nature of the area, many residential properties are not connected to mains water and have their own private water supply (PWS) from local sources such as springs, boreholes and wells, and the EIA has identified 42 properties with PWS’s.
As indicated a significant proportion of the site comprises the catchment for the Upper and Lower Lliw reservoirs, which form part of the licensed public water abstraction which supplies the Felindre Water Treatment Works (WTW). The abstraction licence consists of an abstraction on the Afon Tywi abstracted at Nantgaredig (Carmarthenshire), which is pumped as raw water to the Lower Lliw Reservoir. The raw water is delivered via a 66 inch 26 mile long steel water main and DCWW indicate that the abstracted river water at Nantgaredig is pumped directly into the Lower Lliw Reservoir at all times. The Lliw reservoirs then supply Felindre WTW. DCWW have indicated that the Felindre WTW is designated as Critical National Infrastructure (CNI), which means that the water supply is considered to be a key element of DCWW public water supply for the region without which this essential service cannot be delivered. DCWW also note that the quality of the water is of an exceedingly high and reliable standard. The Lliw Reservoirs and Nantgaredig Abstraction are located within one of the largest DCWW Resource Zones, the Tywi Conjunctive Use System (Tywi CUS). DCWW have stated that this water supply system is the most strategic in Wales.
The strategic water pipeline from Nantgaredig leading to the Lliw Reservoir would be traversed by the proposed access track leading to the wind farm site. DCWW advised that the load bearing equipment and heavy plant and machinery may have the potential to damage this pipeline without an agreed civil engineering design measures being put in place to avoid any impact or damage to this pipeline.
Private Water Supplies As indicated there are 42 properties with a private water supply (PWS) within the area, 9 of which are identified as being potentially within the drainage path of any potential wind farm activity, of which 3 supplies were identified as no longer in use. The 6 properties with PWS abstraction sources which are likely to extend into the site or across the Access Route leading to the site entrance are; Blaen Nant Ddu Farm, Cerdinen Ganol Farm, Coynant Farm, Glan yr Afon, Glandulais and Tyle Coch Farm.
Page 121 Page 115 of 151
Design Mitigation The reduction of impacts is an inherent part of the design of the layout of the infrastructure, and of the site drainage design in particular and are important elements in maintaining the long term continued stability of peat, minimising erosion and the potential for pollution of the watercourses draining the site. The potential impact of preferential routing of drainage, and associated erosion and sediment wash-off within the sub- catchments draining the site would be mitigated through a number of measures, which will be incorporated into the Construction Method Statement (CMS), a draft of which is submitted as part of the EIA and could form a condition within a planning permission. The CMS will contain standard practice and mitigation measures to prevent, as far as possible, any detrimental effects on the hydrological and hydrogeological environment from the construction of the wind farm, and will require approval from the EAW prior to commencement of the site works.
Impact on Lliw Reservoirs There is a potential impact upon the water quality of the abstraction. DCWW have raised the concern that if water is supplied directly from Nantgaredig to Felindre, this would increase the risk of high levels of Cryptosporidium in the intake to Felindre WTW. Cryptosporidium hominis is a microscopic protozoan parasite, which exists in the environment in a hardy form called an oocyst, and can causes a gastrointestinal illness. Oocysts can be washed into rivers, streams and reservoirs from farms, livestock, wildlife and discharges from sewage treatment works and septic tanks. Sheep, cattle, humans, birds, fish and reptiles (as well as other mammals) can harbour the parasite. Oocysts can survive for a long time in water, are chlorine resistant but can be removed by WTWs via coagulation and filtration and ultraviolet disinfection. Any occurrences of cryptosporidium within the Lliw will be dominated by the transfer from Nantgaredig, and DCWW have alluded to the use of the Lower Lliw to settle out cryptosporidium oocysts. There have no recorded instances of Cryptosporidium hominis outbreaks in the Afon Lliw catchment. The Felindre WTW is a modern works with up to date water treatment processes and continuous monitoring of cryptosporidium, and therefore it has been assumed that the Felindre WTW should be capable of removing cryptosporidium. However, having regard to the dilution and settling within the Lliw Reservoirs it is considered that this would reduce the potential impact of reduced water quality from moderate within the Afon Lliw catchment to small for the public water abstraction. The severity of this potential impact is thus Minor, which is not significant. However, standard mitigation through good practice will further reduce the unmitigated impact. DCWW have raised no objections to relation to the potential impact on water quality within the Upper Lliw reservoir subject to the implementation of the mitigation measures within the Construction Method Statement.
Private Water Supplies As indicated the water use within the catchment draining the site consists of a number of private water abstractions and there is the potential impact upon the private water supplies would be as a result of direct impacts upon the groundwater resources and groundwater quality. These abstractions are used for drinking water and therefore will be highly sensitive to reductions in water quality through sedimentation, hydrochemical changes and accidental spillage/loss of chemicals and materials throughout the construction phase. If not identified and protected, the associated abstraction infrastructure and pipes are also at risk from damage during construction. The potential impacts are significant and require mitigation which is achieved through good construction practice and the hydrological constraints on working in proximity to these water supplies.
Page 122 Page 116 of 151
The EIA concludes that in the long term and during the operation of the site there would be no significant impact upon the Lliw Reservoirs public water supply or the private water supplies draining the site. It should also be noted that in consideration of this issue, the Planning Inspector concluded that there would be significant harmful effects neither on the water catchment supply nor on the private water supplies to neighbouring dwellings.
As indicated above, DCWW have a strategic watermain crossing the proposed alignment of the access road and naturally are concerned that any disruption to the supply would have significant implications to the water supply. Preliminary discussions have taken place between the developer and DCWW in order to agree an appropriate civil engineering design solution, although an approved design has not been agreed as part of the submission. DCWW are therefore minded not to raise an objection subject to the imposition of a planning condition requiring a construction method statement to be submitted detailing the measures to be taken during the construction and operation of the development to ensure the protection of the structural condition of the 26" and 66" watermains.
4.24 Surface Water Run-Off
Concerns have been raised by residents that the construction of the haul route which would traverse Goppa Hill from Bolgoed Road would be likely to increase surface water run-off. The analysis of the proposed access track indicates that typographical surveys will be required prior to detailed design development and a planning condition is proposed (10) requiring full details of the proposed haul route access to be submitted for approval. The Planning Inspector made the following comments in respect of this issue:
“Representations were made about the flooding problems in the low lying area of Pontlliw and Pontarddulais which could be made worse by the proposal. My understanding is that these are existing flooding problems. However, the amount of development involved in this proposal all which would lie within the catchment area of the water courses that flow through Pontlliw or Pontarddulais is so small that I do not consider that it would have any significant effect on the frequency and extent of any future flooding events.”
4.25 Land Use
The ES has considered the potential impacts the proposed wind farm could have on the land use on and adjacent to the development site. The majority of the application site is grazed moorland, registered as common land and owned by the Somerset Trust. The commons affected by the proposal are CL74; CL77 and CL68. The proposed development boundary of the wind farm covers a total area of 471.5 hectares, and comprises:
• Main Wind Farm Site – located on common CL74; CL77 and a small area of private land near Blaen Gerdinen • Access Route – comprising three sections, crosses CL68; CL74 and a second area of private land.
As land take from these Commons is necessary to facilitate the proposed development, an application for consent to undertake works on the Common and to deregister part of the land in exchange for replacement land will be made under Sections 16 and 38 of the Commons Act (2006 Act) enacted in Wales in April 2012, and will be submitted to the Welsh Government (via the Planning Inspectorate) separate to this planning application.
Page 123 Page 117 of 151
The site is primarily used for grazing by historic rights to use the common land. The land use assessment considers the potential impacts of the proposed development on common land, for those with grazing rights and in respect of the public’s right to enjoy the common. Wind farms have the potential to affect land use as a result of the physical presence of the turbines and other associated infrastructure and as a result of construction activities and clearance necessary to meet safety requirements. The operating life of the wind farm is anticipated to be 25 years. Consequently none of the proposed development will be permanent.
Together the two commons CL74 and CL77 have a combined area of 1,713 ha. Grazing rights are currently exercised by 18 farmsteads situated around the commons. Although there are extensive grazing rights for the commons it is apparent that a smaller number currently exercise their rights to graze livestock on the common. Each farm has grazing rights which specify the number of sheep, cattle or other livestock which may be grazed on the commons.
To maintain the stock of common land it is proposed that the application to remove land from the existing common will be the minimum necessary to allow for the development of the wind turbines and associated access tracks and hardstanding areas. In exchange for the 39 ha required for the lifetime of the wind farm, it is proposed that equivalent areas of replacement land will be registered as an extension to the common.
The effect of the exchange arrangement will be that the rights of grazing and other registered rights will be transferred from the land covered by the development to the exchange land. Similarly, the rights of the public to roam on the land covered by the development will be exercisable on the exchange land. The Somerset Trust currently has rights to graze 284 sheep in total on the Common attached to the replacement land. These rights will be given up as part of the exchange arrangement, thus reducing the grazing pressure on the Common.
Two areas of exchange land have been identified: Blean Yr Olchfa Fach and Blean Gerdinen and these lie adjacent to the common land. These two parcels of land combined are larger in area than the land to be removed from the Common (approximately 21.61ha). Additionally the quality of grazing is higher on the exchange land than the area of Cl74 and CL77 where the wind farm is to be built.
Because the replacement (exchange) land is generally of a better grazing quality, there is a risk that grazing stock would be attracted to the replacement (exchange) land to the detriment of the remainder of the Common. A mechanism for management of access to the exchange land by grazing stock will be needed to be implemented in liaison with the registered commoners. It is therefore proposed that prior to the exchange taking effect an agreed set of works including boundary treatments and pedestrian styles will be undertaken to ensure that suitable access arrangements are in place both for grazing stock and for the public.
Activities associated with the construction of the wind farm, including temporary fencing will be subject to a separate application for consent to undertake works on the common.
On completion of the development, the access tracks will only be used infrequently for access for routine maintenance. They will however remain available for improved access to the Common both by the general public on foot and for the movement of stock.
Page 124 Page 118 of 151
During the construction period there may be an increased cost by those farmers with historic grazing rights on the commons. Additional shepherding is recommended to be provided during construction and the developer will fund this obligation. Preferred access routes across the site such as sheep walks, will be kept free from obstruction. Deep excavations including the turbine foundations will be fenced for health and safety reasons to minimise risk to livestock.
During the operational life of the wind farm, only the footprint of the turbine bases will not be available for use by commoners and the general public. It is predicted that replacement (exchange) land will be more extensive than those areas and that the interests of those with rights of common and the general public will not be adversely affected to any significant extent.
Observed behaviour of livestock on existing wind farm developments in Wales indicated that livestock are seemingly unaffected by the motion and noise of the turbines and tend to use them as shade from the sun and shelter from wind and rain. Other than the provision of the replacement land and the loss of grazing rights no mitigation is required for the operational phase of the development. The ES indicates that during the construction period there may be an increased cost incurred by those farmers with historic grazing rights on the commons and recommends that additional shepherding is provided during construction and the applicant proposes funds to the value of £50,000 to be used for this purpose.
The ES acknowledges that some of the grazing flocks on the common are ‘hefted’ to a particular common, which means that the flocks of sheep have an inbred instinct to graze on a restricted area of the common closest to their home farm. It is indicated, that construction activity would be restricted to a limited number of areas at any one time, which will give the livestock an opportunity to move around within their hefts during the construction period.
Apart from the area covered by the turbine bases and other fixed infrastructure, the public will retain their use of the Common. Subject to the management, mitigation and compensatory measures outlined above, and appropriate conditions to require this, it is not considered that the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on agriculture or agricultural land take and has the potential to provide some benefits. It will be for the Planning Inspectorate to consider separately the suitability of the exchange land in terms of its location and nature but it is not considered that this would constitute a reason for refusal of this planning application.
The EIA acknowledges that the commons would benefit from a management regime in order to control grazing etc. which would allow the vegetation to recover and encourage greater diversity and hence increase its conservation value. The benefits of implementing a Habitats Management Plan are highlighted within the Ecology (Non-Avian) Section of the report, however, the EIA recognises that having regard to …the diversity of interested parties that would need to be brought together into a consensus to enable any agri- environment scheme to work. The likelihood of significant habitat management changes occurring is therefore assessed as low. This view is consistent with previous discussions and the difficulty of engaging with the commoners whilst they are opposed to the wind farm proposal and the proposed Commons Act 2006 land exchange application.
Page 125 Page 119 of 151
The issue of habitat management was not directly dealt with by the Planning Inspector although he does refer to the difficulty of negotiations between the commoners and RWE in the Common Land exchange applications. Within the land use section of the EIA, it states the following:
There are currently no enforceable measures that can be used to prevent over grazing of common land where the registered rights are in excess of the grazing capacity available. The Commons Act 2006 enacted in part in April 2012 in Wales brings into place new arrangements for the establishment of commons councils with formal constitutions and the ability to make effective and enforceable regulations for the management and use of the common. Once these measures are in place, limits can be placed on the exercise of the grazing rights to ensure that the common is not damaged through over grazing. Initial discussions have taken place with the local farmers who currently use the commons and, RWE NRL is prepared to fund the establishment and early running costs of a commons council to facilitate the better management of the commons and to prevent over grazing (13.2.19).
Whilst there is no guarantee of the local farmers / commoners agreeing to participate within a Commons Council (it should be noted that the West Glamorgan Commoners Association do not represent all the parties who have rights over the common), the developer has agreed to fund the potential establishment and early running costs of a Commons Council under the Commons Act 2006 and include this within the Heads of Terms for the Section 106 Planning Obligation with a view to implementing habitat management / enhancement of the commons.
4.26 Socio-Economic Factors
The ES has considered the socio-economic and community context for the proposed wind farm, and the public access and amenity issues associated with the proposed development and operation of the wind farm. A separate report (Regeneris), which provides a summary of the socio-economic benefits that are expected to arise as a result of the constriction of the wind farm, its ongoing operation and maintenance, and the potential impact of community benefit payments made during the scheme’s operational life, has also been submitted for consideration as part of this application.
In addition to the socio economic impacts associated with agriculture the generation of electricity by onshore wind farms gives rise to a number of additional social, economic and community impacts that require assessment. Potential impacts arising from construction, operation and decommissioning may affect principally residents living or working nearby in the local communities based in and around Ammanford, Pontarddulais, Felindre, Clydach, Llwyncelyn, Pontardawe Craig-Cefn Parc, and Cwmcerdinen. In addition there is a wider socio-economic contribution to be made to employment and the renewable energy industry in both Wales and the UK.
The ES indicates that the construction of the wind farm will involve a significant investment which will provide an opportunity for direct and indirect economic benefits for Swansea and the surrounding area. The Socio-Economic Report estimates that the economic impacts during the construction phase of the would equate to 255 person-years of employment for Wales and 190 person-years employment for the South and West Wales area.
Page 126 Page 120 of 151
Based on the direct employment and supply chain expenditure the total economic benefits for the operation and maintenance phase of the wind farm (i.e. 25 year operation) would equate to 19 additional FTE jobs would be supported in Wales, 8 of these would be in the South and West Wales impact area.
The assessment of impacts found that the proposal is likely to be insignificant in most aspects. It is considered that some jobs might be created and/or supported locally. Whilst companies bidding for the work will do so through open tender it is likely that, given the nature of the local economy, many subcontracts will be placed with local companies employing local people. The socio-economic impacts of the proposed development are disputed by SOCME however, whilst any socio-economic benefits represent a material planning consideration, it is not considered that they provide the overriding fact in determining the application
4.27 Tourism and Recreation Impacts
The Mawr area performs a recreational role in attracting walkers both to St Illtyd’s Walk and the Gower Way. The proposal would not have a direct impact upon these recreational routes, however, the construction of the proposed wind farm would have a temporary effect upon users of the footpaths and bridleways that cross near to the main wind farm site and also run alongside the proposed access route. Both impacts are considered to be of a temporary nature and with the temporary mitigation measures proposed they are considered to be of minor significance. During the operational phase of the development employment activities will be reduced to regular monitoring and maintenance activities. Members of the public will be able to walk or ride along footpaths and bridleways and the provisions of the CRoW Act will maintain access opportunities across the site.
The ES states that results from numerous surveys demonstrate that the effect of wind farms on tourism are negligible at worst, in that a number of studies (detailed within the ES) suggest that the vast majority of visitors are not deterred by the presence of a wind farm, and that the impact of the proposed scheme on tourism is anticipated to be not significant.
However, it is also apparent from the weight of local opposition to the application that in many sections of the local community the development will be unpopular and resented as an unwarranted visual, physical and commercial intrusion into a cherished and undeveloped landscape. Moreover, the owners of various tourist related businesses in the area have expressed concerns about the impact on their business. The Planning Inspector indicated in this respect it is difficult to predict what, if any, the effects of the introduction of the wind farm would be on the area’s ability to attract the same level of visitors. However, the evidence from studies carried out elsewhere in the United Kingdom does not suggest that there would be significant long term harmful effects on tourism. Against the concerns on the effect on tourism must be weighed the declared national strategic objectives for delivering renewable energy to address global climate change and the location of this area within the Strategic Search Area in TAN8 and the refined zone defined in the ARUP report. Moreover, the conclusions of the Planning Inspector’s report into the previous wind farm application must also be taken into consideration. It is not considered that the declared weight of public opposition to this scheme in principle can justify refusal of the application in itself notwithstanding the potential adverse social effects, particularly during the construction phase and the earlier years of the wind farm’s operation. Subject to this qualification therefore, the conclusions of the ES in respect of socio-economic impacts are therefore broadly accepted.
Page 127 Page 121 of 151
Other Issues Site Safety During Operation The EIA indicates that under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations, detailed risk analysis and avoidance limitation measures are required for every facet of the development and operation of a wind farm. TAN 8 advises that the minimum desirable distance between the turbines and occupied buildings calculated on the basis of expected noise levels and visual impact will usually be greater than that required to meet safety requirements.
Ice Throw Ice throw has been noted as a risk in very cold conditions such as arctic areas and high altitudes. However, due to the temperate latitude and low altitude of the development site is it considered that blade icing will be a very rare event. TAN 8 indicates that the build-up of ice on turbines is unlikely to present problems on the majority of sites in Wales. Operational procedures would be put in place in relation to ice throw and will be installed for the very rare instances of potential blade icing. Procedures, if necessary, would include turbine shutdown and warning signage.
4.28 Impacts on Property Prices
The effect of the wind farm on property prices may be a residual impact of the proposed wind farm. The ES states that there is no conclusive evidence of the effects that wind farm developments have on property prices. The Planning Inspector in respect of the impact on property values stated; “The effect of the proposal on property values and the ability to sell properties was raised by a number of interested persons. Generally, these are not material considerations under planning legislation. However, the effects on the amenity of the residents of those properties is material; indirectly this could have a relationship in planning terms to potential value. Such matters as are relevant to this case have been considered above.”
4.29 Electromagnetic Interference (and Aviation)
The ES has considered the potential impact the proposed Wind Farm may have on existing communication and aviation facilities in the vicinity of the site. The operation of wind turbines can interfere with broadcast and other telecommunications services by causing electromagnetic interference (EMI), the possibility of which is a material planning consideration. EMI can affect communication systems including television reception, mobile phone transmitters, microwave links, radar and aircraft navigation beacons. Wind turbines can also impact on aviation, both civil and military aircraft.
TAN 8: Planning for Renewable Energy and TAN: 19 Telecommunications provide the most relevant planning policy guidance in relation to Electro-Magnetic Interference. TAN 8 indicates that wind turbines can interfere with the electromagnetic transmission in two ways – by emitting an electromagnetic signal itself, and by interfering with other electromagnetic signals. The very low level of electromagnetic radiation produced by the turbine itself poses no greater threat to health than do most domestic appliances. Provided careful attention is paid to siting, wind turbines should not cause any significant adverse effects on communication systems which use electromagnetic waves as the transmission medium (e.g. television, radio and microwave links).
Page 128 Page 122 of 151
TAN 19: Telecommunications, published in August 2002, gives guidance on planning for all forms of communications by electrical or optical wire and cable and radio signals (whether terrestrial or from satellite), both public and private. It covers both the transmission of signals and the disruption of signals, the latter being relevant to the proposed development. It states that large prominent structures such as wind farms can cause widespread disruption to television and other telecommunications services due to the physical obstruction or reflection of the wanted signals. Digital television signals are far more robust than analogue and the change to digital would offer the prospect of the elimination of such problems as interference caused by reflections from structures. In consideration of the potential for interference local planning authorities must satisfy themselves that this issue has been fully taken into account in the siting and design of such developments, since it will be more difficult, costly and sometimes impossible to correct after the event.
In the UK, the Office of Communications (Ofcom) is the government agency with central responsibility for protection of the radio spectrum. RWE NRL consulted Ofcom and microwave link operators were consulted to establish the location of links close to the proposal. The locations of any radar, or telecommunications links and the buffer zones requested by each organisation have been used to inform the constraints plan for the design of the proposal.
Links which operate across the application site are those operated by Surf Telecom who operate microwave links and scanning telemetry across the western and central part of the site respectively. Mitigation to prevent disruption to these links is through the micro- siting of the turbines
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Ofcom are jointly responsible for terrestrial TV transmissions for domestic reception within the UK. The ES indicates that the BBC’s wind farm assessment tool was used to identity properties potentially affected by the Wind Farm and the tool predicts what the impacts are likely to be for nearby households.
Potential Significant Impacts Electromagnetic Interference No radio links have been identified which may be affected by the Wind Farm. The ES considers that no potential impacts are therefore predicted on radio links and no mitigation measures will be required with respect to EMI.
TV Reception The ES indicates that using the BBC wind farm tool, three properties are likely to be affected but these properties are likely to have an alternative off-air service. A potential impact which could occur is ‘ghosting’ which can be caused by minor reflections of the TV signal. This is a more significant issue for properties utilising analogue signals through traditional aerial facilities than for those using digital signals. However, digital TV transmission does not generally suffer from ‘ghosting’ and the roll out of digital services has already been completed across Wales. On this basis the ES considered that there will be no significant impacts on TV reception. However, as part of the agreed Section 106 Planning Obligation Heads of Terms the developer has agreed to undertake a baseline TV reception study for an area of 5km around the site and if required implement a mitigation scheme for adverse impacts on TV signals (mitigation to be provided to a total of £20,000).
Page 129 Page 123 of 151
Aviation With regards aviation TAN8 states that “developments within a specified radius of major airports and aerodromes are subject to mandatory consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and/or the Ministry of Defence (MoD) under the Town and Country Planning (Aerodromes and Technical Sites) Directive 1992”.
The most significant concern is the potential for rotating wind turbine blades to generate unwanted returns on air traffic control and defence radar displays. The ES indicates that RWE NRL consulted with all appropriate parties responsible for aviation safety on the proposed layout. Consultation has been undertaken with the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (Ministry of Defence – MOD), Civil Aviation Authority, the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and also Swansea Airport.
Defence Infrastructure Organisation (MoD) The ES indicates that the site is located within a low priority Low Flying Military Zone. The MoD has offered no objection to the application but has indicated that should planning permission be granted they would like to be advised of: the date construction starts and ends; the maximum height of construction equipment; the latitude and longitude of every turbine. This information is vital as it will be plotted on flying charts to make sure that military aircraft avoid this area.
Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) The CAA advise that consultation should be undertaken with any aerodrome particularly if it has lodged an unofficial safeguarding map with the Council, including local emergency service Air Support Units (e.g. Police Helicopter or Air Ambulance). Swansea Airport have raised no objections to the proposal.
NERL NATS En Route Limited (or NERL) is the part of NATS providing Air Traffic Control services for aircraft outside of local airspace control. NERL have generated a number of maps that are designed to provide developers with information about areas where wind turbine developments may be of concern to them. These maps are provided for guidance only and do not affect the consultation requirements for formal planning applications set out in The Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosive Storage Areas) Direction 2002. The NERL maps are generated from a technical appraisal of the distance at which turbines can theoretically affect their radar and other navigational aids. The maps take no account of operational issues and so result in a very high coverage of the United Kingdom. The operational considerations are essential in determining the consequences of any such technical affects. The location of the Mynydd y Gwair site is plotted on the appropriate NERL map which shows that the proposed wind farm is located in an area identified by NERL as unlikely to have any impact on their infrastructure. NATS (NERL Sagefuarding) have been consulted on the proposed development, and who have examined the proposal from a technical safeguarding aspect and in this respect NATS (‘NERL’) indicate it does not conflict with their safeguarding criteria and raise no safeguarding objection to the proposal.
The ES indicates that the operators of Swansea Airport initially responded with concerns about impacts on their approach procedure for runway 22 and on their ILS (Instrument Landing System) in 2008 in regard to the previous 19 turbine application at Mynydd Y Gwair. These concerns were addressed through the agreement for an alterative procedure to be followed for runway 22, following which Swansea Airport removed their objection to the application.
Page 130 Page 124 of 151
Between 2008 and 2012 the ILS has been removed and the potential impact to the Airport somewhat reduced. The operators of Swansea Airport have offered no objection to this current proposal.
The conclusions of the ES in respect of electromagnetic interference and aviation interests are accepted. It is not considered that the predicted impacts with the mitigation measures that have been designed into the scheme would justify a refusal of the application.
4.30 Shadow Flicker
The ES has considered the potential effect of ‘shadow flicker’ which is likely to be caused by the proposed Mynydd y Gwair Wind Farm and the potential for impact on local residents. Under certain combinations of geographical position and time of day, the sun may pass behind the rotors of a wind turbine and cast a shadow over neighbouring properties. When the blades rotate, the shadow flicks on and off. This predominantly occurs during sunrise and sunset, and, when the effect is experienced inside buildings, where the flicker passes through a narrow window or door opening, the effect is known as ‘shadow flicker’. The flickering light levels within an affected room can cause nuisance to its occupants. TAN8 advises that the problem is seasonal and potentially only lasts for a few hours per day.
An assessment of the likelihood of shadow flicker occurring at Mynydd y Gwair has been carried out as desk top study using ReSoft software which calculates the expected number of hours that shadow flicker could occur at identified properties.
TAN8 does not provide specific guidance on the extent of the zone of shadow flicker, however, guidance on the extent of the zone of shadow flicker influence is given within the Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy Companion Guide, which indicates that in the UK, this zone covers a distance of 10 rotor diameters from each turbine and between 130 degrees either side of north (relative to each turbine). In the case of the Mynydd y Gwair Wind Farm, the modelling for this assessment has been based on a turbine within a rotor diameter of 94m and therefore this zone extends to 940 m from each turbine.
The ES indicates that no published significance criteria exist for the assessment of shadow flicker impacts and there is no UK statutory limit or guidance to stipulate acceptable levels of shadow flicker. However, PREDAC, an EU sponsored organisation promoting best practice in energy use and supply, suggests that a maximum of 30 hours of shadow flicker in a calendar year is acceptable, with no longer than 30 minutes on any single occasion. The ES has adopted these criteria in this assessment to represent the longest amounts of time that shadow flicker impacts can reasonably occur before causing what can be considered an unacceptable nuisance and therefore requiring mitigation.
A Shadow Flicker Assessment Zone is incorporated as Figure 16.1 within the EIA Volume 3 (Figures) and identifies three residential properties as being located within the 940m shadow flicker assessment zone.
Table 16.1 shows the distance from each property to the nearest turbine.
Page 131 Page 125 of 151 Table 16.1 - Distances of Proposed Turbines from Dwellings
Distance from House Name Nearest Turbine property nearest to turbine (m) ( 1 Lygos 12 805 2 Coynant 1 802 3 Tyle-coch-mawr 1 827
Lygos lies approximately 805m and 900m from turbines 12 and 10 respectively, these are the only turbines within 940m. The ReSoft model predicts that Lygos could experience shadow flicker from penumbras cast by turbine 12 on a maximum of 3hrs and 6 minutes per year, spread over 12 days with a maximum of 23 minutes experienced on any one day. No flicker is predicted to be generated from turbine 10 at Lygos.
Coynant lies 802m from proposed turbine turbine 1 and 912 m from proposed turbine 7, there are no other turbines within 940m. The ReSoft model predicts that this property could experience shadow flicker from penumbras cast by turbine 7 for 13hrs and 6 minutes, spread over 40 days with a maximum of 26 minutes experienced on any one day. No shadow flicker is predicted to occur from turbine 1 as this property lies outside of 130 degrees either side of North from turbine 1 and therefore lies outside of the which is the zone where shadow flicker can occur.
Tyle-coch-mawr lies 827m from turbine 1 but it is inside the non-shadow zone with respect to this turbine. This means that the property lies outside of 130 degrees either side of North where shadow flicker occurs. There are no other turbines within 940m. This conclusion is confirmed by the ReSoft model, which predicts that this dwelling will not experience shadow flicker from any turbines.
The above modelling results indicate that the potential hours of shadow flicker per year using worst-case assumptions and assuming there is no mitigation. It is indicated that there are no exceedances of the daily or yearly thresholds of 30 minutes and 30 hours respectively and as such it is not considered necessary to instigate any mitigation measures.
In considering the previous proposal under ref:2008/1781, the Appeal Inspector concluded in respect of shadow flicker: Given the distance between neighbouring properties and the relative positions of direct sunlight, the height of the turbines and windows facing turbines, shadow flicker is unlikely to affect any residents. However, it is a matter addressed by the suggested conditions should any property be affected. This issue could therefore be dealt with by a suitably worded planning condition requiring the adoption of mitigation measures if considered necessary. For example, it is possible to plant a screen of trees between the turbines and the affected properties to disperse light, or as wind turbines are controlled remotely and can be easily programmed to stop operation during the occurrence of when shadow flicker is predicted to affect certain dwellings.
No turbines from the adjacent Mynydd y Betws Wind Farm are located within 10 rotor diameters of Lycos, Coynant or Tyle-coch-mawr and therefore no cumulative impacts are predicted with respect to shadow flicker. The conclusions of the ES are accepted in respect of the potential impacts of shadow flicker.
Page 132 Page 126 of 151
In addition to the nuisance potentially caused by shadow flicker, the movement of wind turbine blades has also been linked with photosensitive epilepsy and glinting. These issues are also addressed below.
Photosensitive Epilepsy It has been suggested that shadow flicker poses a threat to the small percentage of epileptics who suffer from photosensitive epilepsy, in which seizures are triggered by flashing lights or contrasting patters of light and dark. The ES indicates that the frequency required to trigger seizures varies from individual to individual, but is generally between 16 to 25 Hz, although some people may be sensitive to rates as low as 3 Hz and as high as 60 Hz. Modern wind turbines typically have operating rotational speeds of 5 to 20 rpm. On this basis, and because they are all three-bladed, the flicker frequency will be equivalent to three times the operating speed of the wind turbine, or between 0.75 to 1.0 Hz. This is comfortably lower than the minimum level of 3 Hz which is indicated to be the minimum frequency which could trigger seizures. The proposed wind turbines (with a rotational speed range of 9.6 to 18.1 rpm) will not therefore operate within the frequency range that could trigger a photosensitive epileptic seizure.
Glinting TAN8 indicates that turbines can also cause flashes of reflected light (i.e. glinting), which can be visible for some distance. Glinting has, in the past, been associated with the reflection of sunlight off wind turbine blades as they rotate, and can also be considered a potential nuisance. However, as wind turbines have developed their colouring and finish have been re-designed to avoid any glinting impacts and this is not anticipated to be a problem.
4.31 CONCLUSIONS
This is a complex planning application of strategic importance which has generated significant public interest. It has been accompanied by a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Statement (ES) which describes the proposal and its design evolution and set it within the National and Local Planning Policy context, particularly as it relates to renewable energy and the achieving of national targets. The ES then fully assesses the environmental impacts of the proposed development at construction, operational and decommissioning phases, identifies mitigation and monitoring measures and residual impacts. The scope of the ES addresses the principal effects on landscape and visual assessment, cultural heritage, noise, non-avian, avian, hydrology and hydrogeology, traffic and transport, land use, socio-economic, electro magnetic interference, and shadow flicker. This appraisal summarises the content and findings of the EIA and provides commentary on each.
The Ministerial decision letter and Inspector’s Report in respect of the previous wind farm proposal (ref:2008/1781) are fundamental material planning considerations and have been afforded significant weight in the consideration and assessment of this planning application, particularly in view of the fact that national and local planning policy context has not significantly altered since the appeal. The Planning Inspector’s recommendation report and the Minister’s decision report in respect of the previous proposal for 19 wind turbines focussed on a number of key issues, which the applicants has sought to address within this revised planning application and accompanying Environmental Statement.
Page 133 Page 127 of 151
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In consideration of the appeal, the Inspector gave weight to UDP Policies R11, EV22 and EV29. Policy EV22 provides a general policy for the protection of the countryside and Policy EV29 similarly protects areas of common land. Policy R11 specifically applies to renewable energy, and whilst the Inspector acknowledges a conflict between the objectives of policies EV22 and EV29 and the large wind farm, the Inspector considered “the tests included within Policy R11 require the consideration of what are in effect the same matters. Therefore I consider that the most significant policy to test this proposal against is R11”. However, the Inspector highlighted that the wording of the criteria (ii) and (iii) introduce a test of ‘significant adverse effects’, whilst Annex D to TAN 8 accepts that within the SSA’s, the implicit objective is to accept landscape change i.e. no significant change in landscape character from wind farm development. The Inspector considered that the change brought about by the wind farm would be adverse and therefore in conflict with Policy R11. However, it was concluded that having regard to the benefits of the production of renewable energy from the proposal would outweigh the conflict with the R11 and all other material considerations and in that in general terms a development of the number of turbines up to a maximum height of 127m at this location was acceptable. This conclusion was accepted by the Welsh Minister, notwithstanding the issue regarding the impact on the peat deposits.
The previous proposal was considered to have a harmful effect on the peat habitat. In particular, three turbines (4, 9, and 13) together with the associated access tracks would have directly affected the areas of peat with a depth greater than 300mm. The Inspector concluded that the risk of unacceptable degree of harm to the peat habitat was sufficient to justify refusal of the proposal, although did consider the relocation of the turbines as it appeared to him that ‘a relatively minor re-design of the layout might remove most, if not all, of the impact on the peat deposits’. However, this would have significantly changed the nature of the proposal and could not be consider as part of that proposal and such significant changes should be for the local planning authority to consider in the first instance. This revised proposal for 16 wind turbines has therefore been submitted within this context and the removal of the three turbines has sought specifically to address the adverse effect on the peat habitat. CCW are satisfied that the re-designed scheme has overcome the concerns on the impact on the deep peat of the previous scheme.
The starting point for the consideration of this application must be International, UK and Welsh Policy in relation to climate change and the role renewable energy plays in facing this global challenge. Planning Policy Wales (2012) and TAN8 Planning for Renewable Energy (July 2005) provide the key Welsh Planning Policy guidance and advice. It has established specific targets for renewable energy of 4 TWh per annum by 2010 and 7 TWh by 2020. TAN8 defines 7 strategic search areas (SSA’s) which are estimated to have the capacity to deliver these targets. The application site is located within SSA E (Pontardawe) which has an indicative installed capacity of 100MW, although this is not a definitive figure.
Technical Advice Note (TAN 8: Renewable Energy - July, 2005) provides technical advice to supplement the policy set out in PPW and is a material consideration to decisions on planning applications. It is the key document that drives the delivery of renewable energy policy in Wales. At its core is the requirement to enable the delivery, through the planning system of the Assembly Government’s targets for renewable energy.
Page 134 Page 128 of 151
TAN 8 indicate that onshore wind power offers the greatest potential of an increase in the generation of electricity from renewable energy in the short to medium term and established a target of 4TWh of electricity per annum to be produced by renewable energy by 2010 and 7TWh by 2020. In order to meet these targets the Assembly Government has concluded that 800MW of additional installed capacity is required from onshore wind sources and a further 200MW of installed capacity is required from offshore wind and other renewable technologies”. In order to meet these targets, TAN 8 states that locations for large scale wind farm developments (over 25 MW) should be concentrated into particular defined areas referred to as Strategic Search Areas (SSAs).
The SSA of relevance to this application is SSA E (Pontardawe) which straddles the upland area between the Swansea and Neath Port Talbot administrative areas with an indicative installed capacity of 100 MW; however, this is not a definitive capacity figure for the area. The TAN advises that it is a matter for local planning authorities to undertake local refinement within each of the SSA’s in order to guide and optimise development within each of the areas. In a letter to stakeholders in July 2011, Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development Mr John Griffiths sought to provide clarity on the issue of maximum installation capacities for onshore wind within the Strategic Search Areas (SSAs) identified in TAN 8 in 2005. The maximum capacities of the SSAs as provided for and referenced in TAN 8, were assessed by independent consultants Garrad Hassan and provide for almost 1700 megawatts of onshore wind across all SSAs in Wales. It was concluded by the consultants that the potential maximum onshore wind capacity for SSA E is 152MW.
PPW reiterates that development of a limited number of large-scale(over 25MW) wind energy developments in these areas will be required to contribute significantly to the Assembly Government’s onshore wind energy aspiration for 2GW in total capacity by 2015/17 and UK and European renewable energy targets; to mitigate climate change and deliver energy security.
4.32 Summary of Significance of Impacts
Landscape and Visual Amenity The EIA acknowledges there will be significant affect on landscape and visual amenity. This is inevitable with any wind farm however and is acknowledged by TAN8. Significant effects are not however necessarily adverse and adverse effects are not necessarily unacceptable. This is particularly true given the general polarisation of public opinion on wind energy and the way the public perceive wind farms differently. The methodology employed in the Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (CLVIA) is generally considered robust and its conclusions and recommended mitigation measures are generally accepted, although the Council’s Landscape Consultants, whilst indicating that the CLVIA generally follows best practice guidance, there were considered to be some significant shortcomings in the assessment of the baseline situation and assessment of effects. Therefore the Landscape Consultants recommended that further landscape and visual information was submitted to assist in determining the application. The supplementary CLVIA information does not effect the overall conclusions within the EIA.
The LVIA has concluded that there would be some significant landscape effects within the landscape character areas that would redefine the character and create a wind farm landscape on Pentwyn Mawr that would merge with the wind farm landscape created by the scheme at Mynydd y Betws which is currently under construction.
Page 135 Page 129 of 151
The access road and substation would not have widespread effects on landscape character but both would have localised effects on the landscape fabric. It is also acknowledged that there would be significant visual effects from a range of visual receptors in the surrounding landscape, this would be consistent with the acceptance of landscape change in the SSA and this is to some degree inevitable when undertaking development within a TAN 8 Strategic Search Area that is relatively close to major centres of population. However there would also be many other areas where the effects would not be significant or there would be no views of the turbines.
The residential assessment has also concluded that many of the properties within 2km would experience significant visual effects, However, due to mitigating factors such as distance, orientation, filtering of views, focus of existing views and extent of locations where views would be available, these changes would not unacceptably affect the living conditions at the properties.
In Wales a strategic decision has been made to focus large scale wind farm development into certain locations that are considered best able to accommodate the scale of development necessary to achieve renewable targets. An inevitable consequence of this approach is that the SSA.s are likely to experience significant landscape and visual effects as a result of wind farm development. The proposed site is located within TAN 8 SSA E and within a zone identified as suitable in the refinement study commissioned by Local Planning Authorities. Moreover, it is reiterated that the Planning Inspector concluded that: I am satisfied that the scale of the turbines proposed on this site could be accommodated within the landscape without unacceptable harm to the landscape character of the site and its surroundings.
Cultural Heritage The ES has considered a wide range of cultural heritage features over an extensive study area and the assessment undertaken has identified that the proposed development will result in adverse impacts on the cultural heritage resource during the construction phase and operating period. Construction work will lead to the disturbance of four known heritage assets, however these are all considered to be of low sensitivity. It should be noted that the current application removes three of the previously proposed turbines and one turbine has been re-located to a position at least 60m from a possible cairn (MG62). Protective fencing will be deployed for the duration of the construction works to ensure that no accidental damage is sustained by the possible cairn (MG62) and Penlle’r Bebyll Cairn (GM202).
Operation of the wind farm will impact on the significance of one heritage asset, Penlle’r Castell (GM255) through a visual change in its setting. However this impact is considered of minor significance and whilst any effects will persist for the duration of the operational life of the wind farm, they will then be fully reversed on decommissioning.
A programme of archaeological works will be prepared and submitted for approval prior to the commencement of the construction works. This will make provision, where appropriate, for the excavation and recording of any known feature of archaeological interest prior to the commencement of construction works. It will also make provision for monitoring of groundworks and the excavation and recording of any features of archaeological interest that are revealed.
Page 136 Page 130 of 151
It should be noted that the Planning Inspector in his report on the previous proposal at Mynydd y Gwair concluded that “the effect on the setting of those monuments within and adjoining the site would not be unacceptably harmful”.
It is considered therefore that subject to appropriate conditions and the mitigation measures identified in the ES the proposed development would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the cultural heritage resource of the site and surrounding area.
Noise The ES contains a comprehensive noise impact assessment both for construction and operational noise, albeit based on absolute limit values relevant to the site rather than measured background levels because of the impracticality of obtaining reliable wind data records owing to acts of vandalism to the anemometer and the difficulty in securing survey position. The dimensions of the proposed turbines are the same as the previous proposal although it should be noted that three of the previously proposed turbines have been deleted from this current scheme. The noise assessment has been updated and re- modelled based on the reduce scheme layout and has concluded that the operational noise of the proposed Mynydd y Gwair Wind Farm and the Mynydd y Betws Wind Farm would remain below the relevant criteria provided by ETSU-R-97.
The Head of Environmental Management and Protection has offered no objection to the current proposal subject to the imposition of planning conditions based on the draft conditions as previously agreed between RWE NPower Renewables and the City and County of Swansea on the previous scheme plus the Planning Inspector’s Report.
It should be noted that the Planning Inspector in his report on the previous proposal at Mynydd y Gwair concluded that “given the distance to the neighbouring dwellings, the imposition of normal noise conditions would ensure that any additional noise would not be unacceptably harmful to the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings”.
It is concluded therefore that subject to the mitigation measures indicated in the ES and compliance with the noise conditions recommended by the Head of Environmental Management and Protection the proposed development would not cause unacceptable noise or vibration impacts during the construction operation and decommissioning phase of the development.
Ecology – Non Avian The EIA comprehensively assesses the impact of the development on the natural heritage resource and overall the conclusions of the EIA in relation to impact on the natural heritage resource are generally accepted. It analyses and evaluates the existing environment, both flora and fauna and assesses the impacts during the construction and operational phases. Following the changes to the proposed scheme involving the removal of three turbines and re-alignment of the access tracks to avoid the peat deposits were greater than 300mm, the Countryside Council for Wales is satisfied that the proposed scheme overcomes the concerns of the earlier application (ref:208/1781), and raises no objection to the proposal provided the following conditions or obligations are attached to any permission the Authority may be minded to issue with respect to Habitat and Species Monitoring Plan incorporating the commitments to monitoring made in the Environmental Statement, in particular regarding details of a peatland hydrology and vegetation monitoring scheme and all other habitat and species provision as outlined in the Environmental Statement.
Page 137 Page 131 of 151
The developer has agreed to implement off-site enhancement works as compensation for the residual impact on peatland and heath habitats on site, the location and details of which would be secured through a section 106 agreement. Subject to the mitigation measures recommended in the ES and the conditions discussed above therefore it is not considered that the proposed development will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the nature conservation value of the site and its environs.
Ecology - Avian The ES comprehensively assesses the impact of the development on local ornithological resources. As well as design mitigation that has resulted in avoidance of landscape features likely to be preferentially selected for bird nesting, additional avoidance measures proposed include appropriately timed removal of vegetation in advance of construction to counter the potential for effects on nesting birds that could be significant in terms of legal compliance. Localised disturbance of birds during construction may occur, but the proposed construction activity is too remote from sensitive bird breeding sites in the surrounding area to risk significant effects. The most significant potential impacts are as a result of birds colliding with the turbines, particularly for red kite and kestrel. A detailed monitoring scheme is however recommended to record collision rates.
Overall the conclusions of the ES in relation to impact on ornithological resources are generally accepted and it is noted that the predicated impact of the current Mynydd y Gwair Wind Farm proposal on local ornithological resources is considered of the same low order as the 2008 scheme. Moreover it should be noted that the Planning Inspector previously concluded in paragraph 93 of his report into the 2008 scheme that “I consider that the surveys and evidence produced by the appellants demonstrate that the effect on birds and bats would not be unacceptably harmful”.
Traffic and Transport As indicated, the main impact on the local road network will occur during the 22-month construction period, and will be largely associated with the movements of abnormal loads for turbine component delivery and HGVs delivering construction materials. When operational, the wind farm would only generate occasional traffic on an irregular basis, while the traffic impact during decommissioning would not be greater than the impact of vehicle movements required to construct the wind farm. The identified route for the abnormal load route is from junction 47 of the M4 motorway to the wind farm site via the A48 and the village of Pontlliw. An alternative route from junction 46 of the M4 via the village of Rhyd-y-Pandy may be used for empty HGVs leaving the site only. No abnormal loads or loaded HGVs would use this Rhyd-y-Pandy route.
The EIA indicates that in the worst case scenario, approximately 39 HGVs per weekday will be travelling to the site during months 10 to 13. However, the abnormal loads will be likely to have an even greater impact, and the nine abnormal loads required to transport each wind turbine to site will occur on the same day. The turbine components will not start arriving until month 15 and will be controlled to minimise the impact on the highway network. This would have a noticeable increase in traffic through Pontlliw, although flows per hour would still not be as high as the evening peak period, assuming all deliveries are made during the interpeak period. In reality, it is likely that deliveries will also be made before the morning peak and after the evening peak hour. The impact on the local road network during the interpeak is therefore likely to be less than demonstrated in this report. Nonetheless, this worst case analysis shows that the forecast traffic will not have a significant impact on either route.
Page 138 Page 132 of 151
The EIA indicates that traffic generated by the construction of the wind farm at Mynydd y Gwair would increase vehicle flows by up to 4% on most of the two routes in question, if all deliveries were undertaken during the 5 to 6 hour interpeak delivery period. The rural unclassified lanes across the common lands show a greater impact, but this is because the existing flows are extremely low. In the worst case scenario, the turbine component delivery phase, the impact on the A48 is much greater. However, the average hourly flow over the interpeak period during this worst case scenario is still less than the existing evening peak hour flows. On both the A-roads and the country lanes, there is adequate capacity during the interpeak period for the peak periods of the construction programme. Nonetheless, it is likely that a proportion of the construction traffic will travel either before the morning peak or after the evening peak. This report assumes that all deliveries will be made during the interpeak period to give a worst case perspective.
Various physical modification works will be necessary to ensure the preferred route is suitable for the passage of abnormal loads. Measures include carriageway widening and levelling and temporary removal of street furniture. The residual transportation impact on other road users and on local concerns will be controlled through the use of a Traffic Management Plan. This will include operational measures such as limiting deliveries to the interpeak period avoiding school and pre-school finish times, contracted behaviour rules with HGV drivers and abnormal load escort arrangements.
The conclusion of the EIA is that the transportation impact of the proposed wind farm will not be significant if suitably managed together with the implementation of the identified physical works. The Head of Transportation accepts the conclusions of the EIA and confirms the suitability of the identified route to accommodate the expected movement of construction traffic and that the traffic movements for the operational wind farm would be minimal and as such there would be no adverse affect on the surrounding highway network associated with its operational use.
Hydrology and Hydrogeology The principal issues in relation to hydrology relate to the potential construction impact on the water catchment areas of the Upper and Lower Lliw Reservoirs, which are both used for public water supplies. Additionally, there are a number of abstractions such as springs, boreholes and wells used for private water supplies and the EIA has identified 42 properties dependant on such resources. The abstractions will be highly sensitive to reductions in water quality which may affect ground waters during the construction process. However, it is considered that such impacts may be mitigated against through good construction practice which would be incorporated into the Construction Method Statement (CMS), which be controlled through a planning condition. The CMS will contain standard practice and mitigation measures to prevent, as far as possible, any detrimental effects on the hydrological and hydrogeological environment from the construction of the wind farm, and will require approval from the EAW prior to commencement of the site works. Additionally, Welsh Water (DCWW) have raised no objections to relation to the potential impact on water quality within the Upper Lliw reservoir subject to the implementation of the mitigation measures within the Construction Method Statement.
DCWW also have significant infrastructure assets within the vicinity, notably 66” and 26” watermains which pump water into the Lower Lliw Reservoir and which is designated as Critical National Infrastructure. The strategic water pipeline would be traversed by the proposed access tracks and DCWW have expressed serious concerns that the movement of load bearing equipment and heavy plant and machinery may have the potential to damage the pipeline which would have significant implications to the water supply.
Page 139 Page 133 of 151
DCWW have indicated that preliminary discussions have taken place between the developer in order to agree an appropriate civil engineering design solution, and it has been agreed that a planning condition should be imposed requiring a construction method statement to be submitted detailing the measures to be taken during the construction and operation of the development to ensure the protection of the structural condition of the 26" and 66" watermains.
Land Use This is a material planning consideration but it will also be considered under separate Commons applications which will be considered by the Planning Inspectorate in respect of land exchange and the carrying out of works on Common land. The principal impacts will be during the construction phases. The impact on access to the common will be compensated for by the additional public access and grazing potential offered by the replacement land. During construction additional shepherding is recommended and the applicant proposes to contribute £50k towards this. A key mitigation measure will be the Construction Site Management Plan to include measures such as fences, bank and speed limits to minimise the risk to livestock. To maintain the hefting instincts of the livestock construction activity will be restricted to a limited number of areas at any one time.
It will be for the Planning Inspectorate to consider separately the suitability of the exchange land in terms of its location and nature under the Commons applications. Subject to the management mitigation and compensatory measures identified in the ES however and the use of appropriate conditions to require these, it is not considered that the development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on agriculture or agricultural land take and has the potential to provide some benefits. The Planning Inspector acknowledged the concerns in relation to the effects of the proposed on farming, in particular the disturbance to stock and the intrusion of the turbines on the working environment of the farmers. However, he did not consider that there would be any unacceptable harm to farming interests, notwithstanding his previous recommendations that the three Section 147 application under the Inclosure Act 1845 relating to the exchange land should be refused.
Socio-Economic Factors The socio-economic assessment concludes the socio economic impacts will be insignificant in most respects. There is potential for local job creation at the construction phase as a result of sub contracts being placed with local companies. The most significant impacts will be on the nearby local communities around Ammanford, Pontardulais, Felindre, Clydach, llwyn Celyn, Pontardawe, Craig Cefn Park and Cwmcerdinen. In addition there is a wider socio economic contribution to employment and the renewable energy industry in both Wales and the UK.
It is recognised however that there is significant local opposition to the scheme and this could result in an adverse social impact. Against that however must be weighed the declared national strategic objectives for delivering renewable energy and the location of the site within the TAN8 SSA and refined zone defined in the ARUP report. It is not considered therefore that the weight of local objection to the proposal in principle can in itself justify refusal of the application, notwithstanding the potential adverse social impacts, particularly during the construction and earlier years of the wind farm’s operation. The conclusions of the ES in socio economic impacts are therefore broadly accepted.
Page 140 Page 134 of 151
Electro-magnetic Interference No effects have been identified for EMI system or aviation although the turbines will need to be plotted on aeronautical charts. No cumulative impacts are predicted with respect to EMI and aviation. The conclusions of the ES in respect of EMI and aviation interests are accepted. It is not considered that the predicted impacts with the mitigation measures that have been designed into the scheme would justify a refusal of the application. Moreover no issues of this nature were raised at the Planning Inquiry into the previous wind farm proposal at Mynydd y Gwair.
Shadow Flicker Three residential properties are located within 940m of the turbines, the generally accepted realistic maximum to use as a basis for the assessments calculation. Shadow flicker can only be experienced inside rooms with the predominant light source coming from small windows facing the shadowing turbine. Individual assessments of the properties have not been made but if nuisance from shadow flicker occurs mitigation measures can be introduced including tree planting, the installation of window blinds or the possibility of utilising technology to inhibit turbine operation during nuisance periods. It is considered that a condition can be used to ensure adequate mitigation and the conclusion of the EIA are therefore accepted in respect of the potential impacts of shadow flicker.
Overall Conclusion In conclusion, having regard to all material planning considerations, considerable weight is given to National Planning Guidance supporting the production of renewable energy, in particular the location of the proposed wind farm within the Strategic Search Area (SSA) as identified by Technical Advice Note 8, which states ‘within the SSA’s, the implicit objective is to accept landscape change i.e. a significant change in landscape character from wind turbine development’. Additionally, significant weight is given to the conclusions within the Planning Inspector’s report under ref:2008/1781 (as accepted by the Welsh Minister) who concluded with regard to landscape impact In my view this site, which lies within SSA E, would not add significantly to the level of change in landscape character which had been anticipated in the adoption of the boundary SSA E in TAN 8. In my view, despite the conflict with policy R11 noted above, the inevitable change in landscape character of the site and its immediate surroundings to a wind farm landscape would be consistent with the advice in TAN 8. From my observations I am satisfied that the scale of the turbines proposed on this site could be accommodated within the landscape without unacceptable harm to the landscape character of the site and its surroundings.
The overall conclusion of the Planning Inspector was that Setting aside for the moment the question of the effect of the proposal on the peat habitat, I am satisfied that the benefits of the production of renewable energy from this proposal would outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan and all other material considerations. In general terms a development of this number of turbines up to a maximum height of 127m is acceptable in this location.
It is considered that this revised wind farm proposal for 16 turbines has addressed the specific impact of the siting of the turbines and access tracks on the peat habitat and therefore it is considered that the predicted impacts on cultural heritage, noise, ecology – non-avian and avian, traffic and transportation, hydrology and hydrogeology, land use, socio economic factors, electro magnetic interference and shadow flicker can be adequately mitigated by the measures recommended in the Environmental Impact Assessment.
Page 141 Page 135 of 151
The provisions of the proposed Section 106 Planning Obligation and the planning conditions described in the appraisal (and appended to this report). Approval is therefore recommended.
4.33 RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions indicated below and the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation in respect of:
• Security for decommissioning and restoration to be provided by way of monies (figure to be agreed per turbine) paid into an escrow account prior to commencement or alternatively to be paid by a decommissioning bond. • Prior to commencement an obligation by the developer to undertake a baseline TV reception study for an area of 5km around the site and details of any works required to mitigate any adverse impacts on TV signals to be approved by the City and County of Swansea (mitigation to be provided to a total of £20,000) • Obligation to fund an offsite habitat restoration scheme within the northern upland area of Swansea • Obligation to fund and assist in the establishment of a Commons Council under the Commons Act 2006 with a view to facilitating the management of the common land and enhance the habitat
Time Limits and Site Restoration 1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 5 years of the date of consent. Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
2 The permission hereby granted shall endure for a period of 25 years from the date of first generation of electricity from the development to the grid (the First Export Date). Written confirmation of the First Export Date shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority within one month of its occurrence. Reason: In recognition of the expected lifespan of the wind farm and in the interests of safety and amenity once the plant is redundant.
3 Not less than 18 months before the expiry of this permission, a decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall b submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its approval. The scheme shall provide for the removal of all above-ground elements of the development, underground cables, and turbine bases to 1 metre below ground level, together with restoration of the disturbed areas. Decommissioning and restoration shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection and in the interests of safety and amenity.
Page 142 Page 136 of 151
4 If any wind turbine fails to produce electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months and if so instructed by the Local Planning Authority, the wind turbine and its associated ancillary equipment (excluding the turbine bases more than 1 metre below ground level) shall be removed from the site within a period of 6 months from the end of that 12 month period unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A scheme for the decommissioning of that wind turbine and its associated ancillary equipment and restoration of the disturbed areas shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority before the expiry of 6 months from the end of that 12 month period, and the decommissioning and restoration shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the turbines produce electricity whilst in situ and that they are removed from the land if they cease to function.
Micro-siting 5 Turbines and tracks may be micro-sited within 30 metres of the positions shown on Figure 1.2 within the Environmental Statement volume 3 submitted with the application. Reason: To comply with the environmental assessments undertaken of the proposed development and to take account of local environmental conditions.
Construction Traffic Management and Construction Method Statement 6 Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Traffic management Plan and an Operational Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority in writing for its approval. The Construction Traffic Management Plan shall include proposals for construction vehicle routing, site accesses, the management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway and other public rights of way, the scheduling and timing of movements, details of escorts for abnormal loads, temporary warning signs and banksman/escort details. The Operational Traffic Management Plan shall include proposals for accessing the site for operations, routine maintenance, and exceptional maintenance purposes. The Construction Traffic Management Plan and the Operational Traffic Management Plan shall be implemented as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order to protect highway safety and the amenity of other users of the public highway.
7 Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Method Statement ('CMS') describing the works to be undertaken and the pollution prevention measures to be implemented in accordance to current best practice during the construction phase, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the construction of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CMS unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CMS shall address the following matters:
a. Mitigation measures to avoid harm to protected species and minimise damage to Local Biodiversity Action Plan habitats
Page 143 Page 137 of 151 b. Details of the timing of construction works, including the timing of vegetation removal to avoid the potential for effects on reptiles and nesting birds. c. Confirmation that any ditches to be crossed will be surveyed for otter and water vole prior to construction. Details of appropriate mitigation, enhancement measures, monitoring programme and emergency procedures to be implemented should either otter or water vole be present on site. d. Siting and details of wheel washing facilities e. Details of the timing of works and methods of working for cable trenches, foundation works and erection of the wind turbines f. Details of the timing of works and construction of the substation/ control buildings and anemometry mast g. Cleaning of site entrances, site tracks and the adjacent public highway and the sheeting of all HGVs taking spoil or construction materials to/from the site to prevent spillage or deposit of any materials on the highway h. Pollution control and prevention measures including sediment control measures, protection of water courses and ground water and soils, bunding of fuel, oil and chemical storage areas, sewage disposal i. Details of the surface water quality monitoring programme to be undertaken prior to, during and after the construction phase of development, including detailed arrangements to ensure any deficiencies within the CMS are rectified immediately. j. Measures for the protection of water courses and ground water and soils, which are to include mitigation measures which are effective in heavy rainfall events and for the removal of colour, DOC and dissolve contaminants, and a clear description and map showing how the mitigation measures would work. k. Disposal of surplus materials l. Construction noise management plan (including identification of access routes, locations of materials lay-down areas, details of equipment to be employed, operations to be carried out, mitigation measures and a scheme for the monitoring of noise) m. The handling, storage and re-use on site of soil and peat. n. Details of the design and construction methods of the access tracks including drainage provisions, and the pollution prevention measures to be implemented to ensure there are no polluting discharges from tracks and disturbed areas including provision to ensure that no polluting discharge from the access tracks and disturbed areas enters any watercourse. o. Details of the nature, type and quantity of materials to be imported on site for backfilling operations or construction of access tracks. p. The management of ground and surface water (including mitigation to protect private water supplies). q. The management of dust r. Details of the proposed temporary site compounds for storage of materials, machinery and operatives parking within the sites clear of the highway, and the restoration of the sites of the compounds within 12 months of the First Export Date, to include the siting of the temporary buildings and all means of enclosure, oil/ fuel and chemical storage and any proposals for temporary lighting.
Page 144 Page 138 of 151
s. Details of the method of borrow pit working, if applicable, including means of extraction, handling, storage and re-use of soil, drainage control and restoration. t. Details of any dewatering required. p. Landscaping proposals at the site access off the A48 and around the substation q. Details of noise and vibration measures for the residential properties 141, 143, 145 and 147 Bolgoed Road and the two dwellings known as Hengoed and Henglawdd, located along the access route. Reason: In the interests of environmental protection, the protection of controlled waters, the protection of the water quality of the Upper and Lower Lliw reservoirs, the integrity of the Felindre Water Treatment Works and the minimisation of likely significant environmental effects.
8 Foul drainage shall be contained within a sealed and watertight cesspit, fitted with a level warning device to indicate when the tank needs emptying. Reason: To protect controlled waters.
9 Prior to any work commencing for the erection of the wind turbines, a scheme of site investigation and assessment to identify the nature of the subsoil, bedrock geology and the extent and nature of the former coal mining workings across the site in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of section 6.1 and 7.1 of the submitted Halcrow Mining Report (May, 2010) has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its approval in writing. The findings of the scheme shall be used to inform the foundation designs for the turbines and new access tracks. Reason: In the interests of safety and site stability having regard to the former coal mining works within the area.
Highways 10 Notwithstanding the details indicated within the swept path analysis submitted with the application, no development shall commence until full details of the proposed access to the site from the public highway including temporary or permanent improvements, and the proposed haul routes for the movement of construction traffic / abnormal loads have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
11 Following completion of the construction phase of the development, reinstatement of the highway and its associated street furniture shall be undertaken in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Page 145 Page 139 of 151
12 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a construction method statement detailing the measures taken during the construction and operation of the development to ensure the protection of the structural condition of watermains within the application site (the 'site edged red') shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall include such details relating specifically to the 26" and 66" watermains. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect the integrity and avoid damage to the public water mains, and to ensure a reliant supply of portable water to the public.
Construction Hours 13 The hours of work during the construction phase of the development and any traffic movements into and out of the site associated with the construction of the development shall be to 0730 to 1900 hours on Mondays to Fridays and 0700 to 1400 on Saturdays other than as allowed for under condition 6. No work shall take place outside these hours, or on Public Holidays, unless otherwise previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity.
14 Notwithstanding the provisions of condition 6, delivery of turbine and crane components may take place outside the times specified in condition 13 subject to not less than 24 hours prior notice of such traffic movements being given to the Local Planning Authority and such deliveries first being approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Habitat Restoration Plan 15 No development shall take place until a Habitat Restoration Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall apply to re-instatement of disturbed ground during construction. The Plan shall be implemented as approved.
The Habitat Restoration Plan shall include:
* Methods of re-instating ground disturbed by construction * Methods for the maintenance and monitoring of the reinstated areas for a period of 5 years after the works of reinstatement have been carried out. Reason: To protect and encourage habitats in the interests of biodiversity and visual amenity.
Page 146 Page 140 of 151
Species Monitoring Plan (SMPS) 16 No development shall take place until a Species Monitoring Plan (SMPS) incorporating the environmental management commitments within tAble 17.1 of Volume 1 of the Environmental Statement including the provision for post- construction monitoring of bird and bats species has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The Scheme shall provide for monitoring as follows and the publication of a report within 6 months of the completion of each survey:
* Bird monitoring scheme to cover both vantage point surveys for site use and collision monitoring, the scheme to cover up on each of years 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 and 15 after completion of the development with reviews for stopping monitoring at years 5 and 10. * Removal of carcasses from the site in order to reduce scavenging opportunities.
The Scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To protect and encourage habitats in the interests of biodiversity and visual amenity.
17 No development shall take place until a method statement for removing or the long-term management / control of invasive plant species on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall include measures that will be used to prevent the spread of these invasive species and any operations e.g. mowing, strimming or soil movement. It shall also contain measures to ensure that any soils brought to the site are free of the seeds / root / stem of any invasive plant listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. Development shall proceed in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason: To prevent the spread of invasive species, without it, avoiding damage could be caused to the nature conservation value of the site.
Appearance 18 The wind turbines hereby approved shall not be erected on the site until details of the external appearance, colour and surface finish of the wind turbines and the design and appearance of the associated external transformer / switchgear units (if any) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection.
19 Notwithstanding any design or colour approved by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to condition 18, all wind turbines shall be of a 3 bladed configuration and shall be of a semi-matt finish and shall not display any prominent name, sign, symbol or logo on any external surface other than as required by law or for reasons of health and safety. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection.
Page 147 Page 141 of 151
20 All wind turbines blades shall rotate in the same direction. The turbines shall not be illuminated, save for a PIR-operated access light, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority for purposes of aviation safety. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection.
21 Prior to construction of the substation, details of the external design, appearance and finish of the electrical substation and any associated hard standing areas, car parking and electrical compound shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
22 The permanent means of enclosure around the electrical substation and any temporary enclosure / fencing around the construction sites shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
23 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details comprising the construction and restoration methods to be used in the implementation of the underground cabling connecting the wind farm to the electricity grid network shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Such details shall also indicate works required to any overhead pylons as necessary. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection and in order to minimise the impact on the peatland habitat.
Shadow Flicker 24 The wind turbines hereby approved shall not begin operation until a scheme for the avoidance of any shadow flicker effect at any dwelling (defined for the purposes of this condition as a building within Use Class C3 of the Use Classes Order) which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date of this permission, within 10 rotor diameters of any turbine hereby approved has been submitted in writing to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To mitigate any impact of potential shadow flicker.
TV Interference 25 Prior to the commencement of the construction of any turbine, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority providing for the investigation of and remediation of any interference with television reception at any dwelling (defined for the purposes of this condition as a building within Use Class C3 of the Use Classes Order) which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date of this permissions. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To mitigate any impact of potential television interference.
Page 148 Page 142 of 151
26 No site works shall be undertaken until the implementation of an appropriate programme of building recording and analysis has been agreed with the Local Planning Authority, to be carried out by a specialist acceptable to the Local Planning Authority and in accordance with an agreed written brief and specification. Reason: As the buildings are of archaeological and cultural significance the specified records are required to mitigate impact
27 No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To identify and record any features of archaeological interest discovered during the works, in order to mitigate the impact of the works on the archaeological resource.
28 No development shall commence until those areas of the identified area of historical merit that will not be directly affected by the construction work and the scheduled ancient monument GM202 have been fenced to a standard agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Throughout the development no works shall be undertaken within the area surrounded by the fencing without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent accidental damage to these important archaeological areas.
Wildlife & Ecology 29 Prior to the commencement of development an ecological clerk of works shall be appointed in consultation with the Local Planning Authority and shall be retained throughout the duration of civil construction works on site to advise on minimising ecological effects of the construction activities. Reason: In the interests of environmental protection and the minimisation of likely significant environmental effects.
30 Prior to the commencement of development, a Hydrological Monitoring Plan incorporating the environmental management commitments within Table 17.1 of Volume 1 of the Environmental Statement shall b submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. The Plan shall b implemented as approved. The Plan shall provide for details of a peatland hydrology and vegetation monitoring scheme to include a site-specific assessment of the impact of the development on water levels within the peat, water movement within the peatland unit and the likely or observed effects of changes on mire quality. Reason: In order to minimise the impact on the peatland habitat.
31 No development shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage system (including means of pollution control) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage system must then be constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of surface water drainage.
Page 149 Page 143 of 151
32 No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and management of a 20 metre buffer zone alongside all watercourses on site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The buffer zone scheme shall be free from built environment including access tracks and hardstanding. The scheme shall include:
* Plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone. * Details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development and managed / maintained over the longer term. Reason: Development that encroaches on watercourses has a potentially severe impact on their ecological value.
33 Within 6 months of the grant of this permission, a Fencing Scheme relating to the Exchange Land shown on Figure 13.1 Common land shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority of its approval in writing, the Fencing Scheme to provide for:
* Site clearance and removal of derelict fencing from the Exchange Land. * Installation where appropriate of new fencing to the boundaries of the Exchange Land * Fencing of the conifer plantation and scrub area on Blaen yr Olchfa to separate these areas from the grazing land * Provision of access gates for livestock using the grazing land * Provision of stiles and personnel gates to facilitate access to all the Exchange Land by the general public on foot * Timing of the implementation of the Scheme * Stock handling facilities and water supply for stock
The Fencing Scheme shall be implemented as approved. For the avoidance of doubt, these works do not constitute commencement of development. Reason: In order to allow the implementation of the exchange land to be incorporated into the Common Land.
Noise Conditions 34 The level of noise emissions from the combined effects of the wind turbines (including the application of any tonal penalty) when calculated in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes shall not exceed the values set out in the attached Table 1 or attached Table 2 (as appropriate). Noise limits for dwellings (defined for the purposes of these noise conditions as a building within Use Class C3 of the Use Classes Order) which lawfully exist or had planning permission at the date of this planning permission but are not listed in the Tables attached shall be those of the physically closest location listed in the Tables, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The coordinate locations to be used in determining the location of each of the dwellings listed in Tables 1 and 2 shall b those listed in Table 3. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area.
Page 150 Page 144 of 151
35 Within 28 days from the receipt of a written request from the Local Planning Authority and following a complaint to the Local Planning Authority from the occupant of a dwelling which lawfully exists or has planning permission at the date of this consent, the wind farm operator shall, at the wind farm operators expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to assess the level of noise emissions from the wind farm at the complainant's property following the procedures described in the attached Guidance Notes. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area.
36 The wind farm operator shall provide to the Local Planning Authority the independent consultant's assessment and conclusions regarding the said noise complaint, including all calculations, audio recordings and the raw data upon which those assessments and conclusions are based. Such information shall be provided within 3 months of the date of the written request of the Local Planning Authority unless otherwise extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area.
37 Wind speed, wind direction and wind turbine power generation data shall be continuously logged and provided to the Local Planning Authority at its request and in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes within 28 days of such request. Such data shall be retained for a period of not less than 12 months. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area.
INFORMATIVES
1 The development plan covering the City and County of Swansea is the City and County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of the application: (UDP Goals 2 & 4, Strategic Policies SP1 & SP11, Policies EV1, EV2, EV6, EV12, EV21, EV22, EV29, EV34, EV40, HC17, R11 & AS10)
PLANS
Fig 1.1 site location plan, Fig 1.2A plan, Fig 1.2B plan, Fig 1.2C plan, Fig 1.2D plan, Fig 1.2E plan, Fig 1.2F plan, Fig 4.5 substation layout, Fig 4.4 substation building, Fig 4.1 wind turbine with transformer, received 3rd September 2012
Page 151 Page 145 of 151 SCHEDULE OF NOISE GUIDANCE NOTES
These notes form part of the Noise Conditions.. They further explain these conditions and specify the methods to be deployed in the assessment of complaints about noise immissions from the wind farm.
Reference to ETSU-R-97 refers to the publication entitled “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farm” (1997) published by the Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU) for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).
NOTE 1 a) Values of the LA90,10min noise statistic shall be measured at the complainant’s property using a sound level meter of EN 60651/BS EN 60804 Type 1, or EN 61672 Class 1 quality (or the replacement thereof) set to measure using a fast time weighted response as specified in BS EN 60651/BS EN 60804 or BS EN 61672-1 (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements). This shall be calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142:1997 (or the replacement thereof). These measurements shall be made in such a way that the requirements of Note 3 shall also be satisfied. b) The microphone should be mounted at 1.2 - 1.5 m above ground level, fitted with a two layer windshield (or suitable alternative approved in writing from the Local Planning Authority), and placed outside the complainant’s dwelling. Measurements should be made in “free-field” conditions. To achieve this the microphone should be placed at least 3.5m away from the building facade or any reflecting surface except the ground at a location that shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. c) The LA90,10min measurements shall be synchronised with measurements of the 10- minute arithmetic mean average wind speed and with operational data, including power generation information for each wind turbine, from the turbine control systems of the wind farm. d) The wind farm operator shall continuously log arithmetic mean wind speed and arithmetic mean wind direction data in 10 minute periods from the hub height anemometer located on the site permanent mast unless otherwise requested by the Local Planning Authority to enable compliance with the conditions to be evaluated. The mean wind speed data shall be 'standardised' to a reference height of 10 metres as described in ETSU-R-97 at page 120 using a reference roughness length of 0.05 metres. It is this standardised 10m height wind speed data which is correlated with the noise measurements of Note 2(a) in the manner described in Note 2(c)
NOTE 2 (a) The noise measurements shall be made so as to provide not less than 20 valid data points as defined in Note 2 paragraph (b). Such measurements shall provide valid data points for the range of wind speeds, wind directions, times of day and power generation requested by the Local Planning Authority. In specifying such conditions the Local Planning Authority shall have regard to those conditions which were most likely to have prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise. (b) Valid data points are those that remain after all periods during rainfall have been excluded. Rainfall shall be assessed by use of a rain gauge that shall log the occurrence of rainfall in each 10 minute period concurrent with the measurement periods set out in Note 1(c) and is situated in the vicinity of the sound level meter.
Page 152 Page 146 of 151
(c) A least squares, “best fit” curve of a maximum 2nd order polynomial or otherwise as may be agreed with the local planning authority shall be fitted between the standardised mean wind speed (as defined in Note 1 paragraph (d)) plotted against the measured LA90,10min noise levels. The noise level at each integer speed shall be derived from this best-fit curve.
NOTE 3 Where, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, noise immissions at the location or locations where assessment measurements are being undertaken contain a tonal component, the following rating procedure shall be used. a) For each 10-minute interval for which LA90,10min data have been obtained as provided for in Note 1, a tonal assessment shall be performed on noise immissions during 2- minutes of each 10-minute period. The 2-minute periods shall be regularly spaced at 10-minute intervals provided that uninterrupted clean data are available. Where clean data are not available, the first available uninterrupted clean 2 minute period out of the affected overall 10 minute period shall be selected. Any such deviations from standard procedure as described in Section 2.1 on pages 104 – 109 of ETSU-R-97 shall be reported. b) For each of the 2-minute samples the margin above or below the audibility criterion of the tone level difference, Ltm (Delta Ltm), shall be calculated by comparison with the audibility criterion given in Section 2.1 on pages 104-109 of ETSU-R-97. c) The margin above audibility shall be plotted against wind speed for each of the 2- minute samples. For samples for which the tones were below the audibility criterion or no tone was identified, a value of zero audibility shall be substituted. d) A linear regression shall then be performed to establish the margin above audibility at the assessed wind speed for each integer wind speed. If there is no apparent trend with wind speed then a simple arithmetic average shall be used. e) The tonal penalty shall be derived from the margin above audibility of the tone according to the figure below. The rating level at each wind speed shall be calculated as the arithmetic sum of the wind farm noise level, as determined from the best-fit curve described in Note 2, and the penalty for tonal noise.
6
5
4
3
2 Penalty (dB)
1
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Tone Level above Audibility (dB)
NOTE 4 If the wind farm noise level (including the application of any tonal penalty as per Note 3) is above the limit set out in the conditions, measurements of the influence of background noise shall be made to determine whether or not there is a breach of condition. This may be achieved by repeating the steps in Note 1 & 2 with the wind farm switched off in order to determine the background noise, L3, at the assessed wind speed.
Page 153 Page 147 of 151 The wind farm noise at this wind speed, L1, is then calculated as follows, where L2 is the measured wind farm noise level at the assessed wind speed with turbines running but without the addition of any tonal penalty:
L2 L3 10 10 L1 = −1010log10
The wind farm noise level is re-calculated by adding the tonal penalty (if any) to the wind farm noise.
1. TABLES OF NOISE LIMITS RELATING TO CONDITION 28 FOR THE CASE THAT MYNYDD Y BETWS WIND FARM BECOMES OPERATIONAL AS PROPOSED IN APPLICATION 07/01411/FUL
Table 1(a): The LA90,10min dB Wind Farm Noise Level Between 23:00 and 07:00 hours: Standardised Wind Speed at 10 m height, m/s Property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Tirlan 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Coynant 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Cwm-cathan- isaf 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Henrhyd 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Penlanau 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Lygos 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Ty'r Darren 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Upper Lliw Reservoir 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Tyle-coch-mawr 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Blaen-myddfai 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Ty'r Waun 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Llwyn - Ifan 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Blaennant Ddu 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Yngs-ger-gathen 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Lletty'r grydd 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Nantricket 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Gelli-fawr (Llyn Celin) 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Pen-y-waun 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Trum-yr-hwch 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Ty'n-domen 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 South of Ty'n- domen 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Waun-hir 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Full Moon 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Scotch Pine PH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Blaenant Cadno 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Cwm-cathan- uchaf 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Hafod 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Page 154 Page 148 of 151 Standardised Wind Speed at 10 m height, m/s Property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Nant-melyn 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Bryn-mawr 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Table 1(b): LA90,10min dB Wind Farm Noise Level at all other times: Standardised Wind Speed at 10 m height, m/s Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Tirlan 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Coynant 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Cwm-cathan- isaf 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Henrhyd 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Penlanau 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Lygos 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Ty'r Darren 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Upper Lliw Reservoir 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Tyle-coch-mawr 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Blaen-myddfai 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Ty'r Waun 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Llwyn - Ifan 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Blaennant Ddu 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Yngs-ger-gathen 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Lletty'r grydd 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Nantricket 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Gelli-fawr (Llyn Celin) 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Pen-y-waun 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Trum-yr-hwch 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Ty'n-domen 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 South of Ty'n- domen 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Waun-hir 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Full Moon 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Scotch Pine PH 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Blaenant Cadno 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Cwm-cathan- uchaf 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Hafod 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Nant-melyn 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Bryn-mawr 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37
2. TABLES OF NOISE LIMITS RELATING TO CONDITION 28 FOR THE CASE THAT MYNYDD Y BETWS WIND FARM DOES NOT BECOME OPERATIONAL Table 2(a): The LA90,10min dB Wind Farm Noise Level Between 23:00 and 07:00 hours: Standardised Wind Speed at 10 m height, m/s Property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Tirlan 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Coynant 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43
Page 155 Page 149 of 151 Standardised Wind Speed at 10 m height, m/s Property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Cwm-cathan- isaf 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Henrhyd 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Penlanau 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Lygos 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Ty'r Darren 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Upper Lliw Reservoir 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Tyle-coch-mawr 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Blaen-myddfai 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Ty'r Waun 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Llwyn - Ifan 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Blaennant Ddu 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Yngs-ger-gathen 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Lletty'r grydd 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Nantricket 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Gelli-fawr (Llyn Celin) 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Pen-y-waun 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Trum-yr-hwch 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Ty'n-domen 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 South of Ty'n- domen 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Waun-hir 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Full Moon 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Scotch Pine PH 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Blaenant Cadno 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Cwm-cathan- uchaf 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Hafod 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Nant-melyn 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Bryn-mawr 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43
Table 2(b): The LA90,10min dB Wind Farm Noise Level At all other times: Standardised Wind Speed at 10 m height, m/s Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Tirlan 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Coynant 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Cwm-cathan- isaf 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Henrhyd 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Penlanau 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Lygos 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Ty'r Darren 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Upper Lliw Reservoir 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Tyle-coch-mawr 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Blaen-myddfai 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Ty'r Waun 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Page 156 Page 150 of 151 Standardised Wind Speed at 10 m height, m/s Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Llwyn - Ifan 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Blaennant Ddu 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Yngs-ger-gathen 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Lletty'r grydd 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Nantricket 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Gelli-fawr (Llyn Celin) 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Pen-y-waun 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Trum-yr-hwch 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Ty'n-domen 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 South of Ty'n- domen 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Waun-hir 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Full Moon 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Scotch Pine PH 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Blaenant Cadno 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Cwm-cathan- uchaf 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Hafod 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Nant-melyn 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Bryn-mawr 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
3. COORDINATE LOCATIONS OF THE PROPERTIES LISTED IN TABLES 1 AND 2. Property Easting Northing Tirlan 264552 209762 Coynant 264807 207013 Cwm-cathan-isaf 264429 209256 Henrhyd 267345 210038 Penlanau 267457 209074 Lygos 267227 208357 Ty'r Darren 265890 205630 Upper Lliw Reservoir 266243 205880 Tyle-coch-mawr 264051 207040 Blaen-myddfai 265126 204738 Ty'r Waun 267828 206287 Llwyn - Ifan 267875 207487 Blaennant Ddu 263960 205314 Yngs-ger-gathen 263337 209014 Lletty'r grydd 269151 209600 Nantricket 269682 210186 Gelli-fawr (Llyn Celin) 269751 210695 Pen-y-waun 269174 211526 Trum-yr-hwch 268261 211535 Ty'n-domen 267293 211653 South of Ty'n-domen 267502 211390 Waun-hir 266326 211653 Full Moon 265431 210604
Page 157 Page 151 of 151 Property Easting Northing Scotch Pine PH 264736 210309 Blaenant Cadno 264586 209691 Cwm-cathan-uchaf 264740 209291 Hafod 267979 209382 Nant-melyn 269651 209450 Bryn-mawr 268411 209677
Note to Table 3: The geographical coordinate references are provided for the purpose of identifying the general location of dwellings to which a given set of noise limits applies
PLANS
Fig 1.1 site location plan, Fig 1.2A plan, Fig 1.2B plan, Fig 1.2C plan, Fig 1.2D plan, Fig 1.2E plan, Fig 1.2F plan, Fig 4.5 substation layout, Fig 4.4 substation building, Fig 4.1 wind turbine with transformer, received 3rd September 2012
Page 158
APPENDIX C
Environment Information Services (EIS) Partners: Geoffrey & Mary-Rose Sinclair
GLEBE HOUSE, MARTLETWY, NARBERTH, PEMBROKESHIRE SA67 8AS Telephone 01834 891331 E-mail [email protected] Grid reference SN 034 108 OS Landranger sheet 158
January 2013
Dear Mr Owen
Mynydd y Gwair Wind Power Station, Planning Application for 16 x 127m wind turbines by RWE npower City & County of Swansea Council ref: 2012/1221
Expanded Objection from ‘Save Our Common Mountain Environment’ (SOCME).
1 Introduction
1.1 Following my letter of 5th October 2012 I am writing as promised to expand SOCME’s initial Objection, having since been able to consider and evaluate the latest material submitted by the applicants. This Objection is therefore based on the October objection material, which remains valid, but is here revised, re-organised and at key places supported by a greater level of detail. I have used the term SOCME for my assessments to avoid possible confusion between ‘EIS’ and ‘ES’.
2 The landscape and the sense of place
2.1 Mynydd y Gwair forms the centre-piece of a characteristic upland lung for Swansea and other areas, and is extremely popular for public recreation on its uplands and around the recreational areas of the Lliw Reservoirs. It forms a large area of Open Access Land linking Swansea and adjacent populated areas and the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (under consideration for extension) to the Brecon Beacons National Park. With nearby urban Commons it forms the upland section of the Lordship of Gower, with important and characteristic cultural, farming, landscape and recreational characteristics.
3 The proposal in context
3.1 The Arup TAN8 refinement exercise for this part of Search Area E concluded that it is unsuited to ‘Very Large’ turbines above 100m tall. This is misrepresented at ES 6.8.8 which claims without qualification that ‘the zone is defined as suitable’ The 15 Mynydd y Betws machines already exceed this height by 10m, and contribute 34.5MW capacity – double that envisaged by Arup for its host Zone E12. 1 Page 159
3.2 However, the now proposed 16 x 127m Mynydd y Gwair turbines are almost 30% taller than the Arup limit, would be the largest by far yet built in rural Wales and among the largest yet constructed on land in the whole of the UK. The 47m blades would sweep a circle of 6,940m2 (1.7 acres of sky) - 38% larger than those at Mynydd y Betws, and revolve around an axis 10m higher. In combination, a 31-machine ‘conturbination’ would be created – a factor that needs to be more carefully considered than in the applicants’ material when the Council is assessing the potential effects of the Mynydd y Gwair proposal.
4 Cumulative Effects
4.1 While the Mynydd y Gwair turbines are now to be assessed in relation to the impacts of the almost completed Mynydd y Betws scheme, and can thus be done in reality, the combined impact of the two is also a material - and complex - consideration. As late as 10th December 2012 the applicants RWE pointed out in their letter to the Council – quoting ES 6.6.24 that:
The main cumulative landscape effects would occur due to the combined effects of the proposed scheme and the under-construction scheme at Mynydd y Betws. This would create an extended wind farm landscape across the upland area …. extending to Pentwyn Mawr and creating a subtype …. Where views of turbines are a key characteristic to the east and south.
Notably, they added
This is considered to be the key cumulative landscape impact that is significant in EIA terms.
4.2 SOCME agrees, but would go further. Taken together in spatial and landscape terms, the two adjacent schemes would create not just a combined windfarm landscape but what may be experienced as a local windfarm world, perceived as stretching from the southern flanks of the Mountains of Mawr, across to the slopes facing the Brecon Beacons National Park. The crest of high ground, which forms both the northern limit of Mynydd y Gwair and the containing rim of the Mynydd y Betws turbine landscape, would cease to serve its present role as a visual separator, because turbines in each development would merge above the horizon when seen from nearby and distant locations. As many of the recently produced cumulative ZTVs now show, this would combine with relatively distant existing and proposed schemes to create a broad outer zone of ‘landscape with windfarms’. The larger the central core ‘windfarm landscape’ becomes, the more pervasive are the impacts of these other installations visible over increasingly large distances, as turbine size increases and high-lying exposed skyline sites are targeted.
2 Page 160
4.3 As the Council points out at section 6 of its response to RWE of 18th December, this is not fully explained by the late supply of a range of ZTVs but requires a more analytical and descriptive commentary. We certainly anticipated something that would have thrown more light on the multiple impacts I have described above. Even considering the ZTVs themselves, and in various combinations, the cumulative impacts begin to escalate to a point not covered in the ES or its amendments.
4.4 SOCME would therefore suggest - for the reasons set out at 4.2 above - that the Council should now consider the proposed Mynydd y Betws / Mynydd y Gwair combination as an expanded nucleus within this wider area. The various ZTVs only show radii encircling Mynydd y Gwair, when in reality they should also demonstrate circles radiating around the composite windfarm that would be created if Mynydd y Gwair were consented. This would then more realistically demonstrate the ‘windfarm world’ I mention above, and particularly its relationship to the inter-cumulative developments elsewhere.
4.5 Apart from these more widespread, spatial and essentially landscape characterisation effects, this would also help focus on what I believe to be a mechanistic and flawed approach in the ES to the assessment of the specific views of the proposed Mynydd y Gwair (MG) turbines when in conjunction with the Mynydd y Betws (MB) machines. The representative viewpoints (VPs) are now inevitably cumulative where MB turbines are also visible, notably at the closer positions. The addition of the larger MG machines brings that visual effect into a whole new level of potential impact, either by intensifying the impact when both schemes coalesce, or extending the impact across to a wider spread when the two are seen as separate but additional groups.
4.6 In ES Appendix 6.1 (LVIA Methodology) the applicants state in relation to Cumulative Effects that
… assessment of their significance is derived from the likely additional effects that would occur from the introduction of the proposed development upon a baseline scenario which is also experiencing the impacts of other schemes …
There is a danger that the use of this broadly correct approach could mis- represent the prior presence of the Mynydd y Betws installation as inevitably diminishing the impact of the Mynydd y Gwair turbines, by regarding the addition of the latter as merely some arithmetical adjustment. This would fail to reflect the range of circumstances in which the two windfarms will be seen in relation to one another.
4.7 At one extreme, at a location with MB in the foreground and MG behind (as at VPs 9 and 11 from the north) this does require consideration of MG as an increment, but even then not in abstract terms. The same principle applies to the opposite view from the south, (as at the new VP 24) where MG occurs in front of the MB turbines, which already compromise the baseline, but are in that case the minor component in the combined view. Some subjective judgment has to be applied in both cases as to the nature of the resulting impact when both sets are visible.
4.8 At other locations, where MG would extend the MB spread but with a clear distinction between the two (as at the new VP23 from the west) it is
3 Page 161
necessary to consider this expanded coverage in more synoptic terms as advised by the latest guidance by Scottish Natural Heritage (Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments – March 2012) which is accepted as the latest UK standard advice. In ‘Box 1’ on page 4 SNH provides examples relevant to the combined effects of MG and MB at certain viewpoints stating that ‘The cumulative effect of both developments taken together need not simply be the sum of the effect of A plus the effect of B; it may be more, or less’.
Box 1 Examples of cumulative effects
Imagine two separate developments, A and B. The cumulative effect of both developments taken together need not simply be the sum of the effect of A plus the effect of B; it may be more, or less. This is best demonstrated using some examples as shown below [the relevant one cited]
- Windfarm A sited on a ridge on one side of a valley is highly visible but acceptable, providing a single visual focus on an otherwise unremarkable skyline. A second windfarm B on a ridge on the other side of the valley would have a similar effect, if it were on its own. However, the effect of having two windfarms sited on either side of the valley may be to make the observer feel surrounded by development. The combined effect of both may be much greater than the sum of the two individual effects.
5 Impacts of the revised 16-turbine layout and its relation to the previous 19-turbine layout
5.1 With this in mind, I review the assessment of effects at viewpoints now provided in the current ES, which exclude a batch of distant views at original VPs 15-20, but add a further four. The first two (VPs 21 & 22) reflect critical comments previously made by CCW, and the latter pair (VPs 23 & 24) were introduced as additional locations by SOCME. This produces a comparative list of 18 VPs. I also assess the currently predicted impacts in relation to the previous 19-turbine scheme, and carefully consider the differences between the two as stated in the ES for each.
5.2 For consistency I use the same system as I did for the original proposal at both planning application stage and at the Public Inquiry. However, I need to point out that in contrast the applicants have regrettably abandoned their original Landscape and Visual (L&V) consultants E4Environment in favour of Axis Consultants for the present revised proposal. I am not aware of the reasons for this, but emphasise that while the methodology attempts to be broadly the same, the terminology has changed – a complicating factor which I have tried to explain in my comparative analysis.
4 Page 162
5.3 Due probably to differences of judgement there are some startling and otherwise unwarranted changes in the magnitude of impact which do not consistently reflect the reduction by three turbines. In addition there are also changes in the assessment of the sensitivity of receptors, which as a static factor should remain the same. The Council should bear these critically in mind when assessing the credibility of either assessment, and even the Inspector’s conclusions on the landscape and visual impacts at the Public Inquiry, which were informed by the E4Environment findings.
5.4 The present ES uses a set of different terms for Magnitude which can be related to those in the original ES (which were the same as mine) as follows. Intermediate categories are used, as before, which I have scored as 1 step each in the comparative Tables below. So, for example Moderate changing to Slight would be a decrease of 2 Steps, allowing for the intermediate possibility of Moderate to Slight/Moderate (1 step).
Magnitude Terminology . EIS [for SOCME] 16-turbine ES 19-turbine ES (2008) 2008 & 2012 (2012) Very Substantial Very Substantial Very Large Intermediate category as necessary Substantial Substantial Large Intermediate category as necessary Moderate Moderate Medium Intermediate category as necessary Slight Slight Small Intermediate category as necessary Negligible Negligible Very Small
5.5 As shown below the present 16-turbine ‘16T’ ES has adjusted the level of magnitude at some viewpoints to reflect the reduced number and changed layout for the in relation to the previous 19 turbines [19T]. The Table shows the alterations made, which at VP1 show an inexplicable increase in magnitude; at others no change (which can easily be the case reflecting the breadth of classification grades); while at several other VPs recording a considerable decrease of up to 3 ‘steps’ . I do not give this credibility on grounds of inconsistency and degree, and suggest that in some cases it also raises questions about the credibility of the 19T rankings. These problems and others explained below can only be properly resolved if on refusal of the present application there were to be a Public Inquiry with opportunity for appropriate cross-examination of witnesses, but in the meantime the Council should not feel unduly bound to accept either set of data.
5 Page 163
Changes in Magnitude VP ES ES Magnitude by ‘steps’ 19T Substantial/Very Subst 01 + 1 16T Very Large 19T Substantial 02 = 16T Large 19T Substantial/V Subst 03 - 1 16T Large 19T Substantial 04 = 16T Large 19T Moderate 05 - 1 16T Small - Medium 19T Slight/Moderate 06 - 2 16T Very Small - Small 19T Slight/Moderate 07 - 3 16T Negligible * 19T Moderate/Substantial 08 - 1 16T Medium 19T Moderate 09 - 4 16T Very Small 19T Moderate 10 - 2 16T Small 19T Moderate 11 - 4 16T Very Small 19T Slight/Moderate 12 - 3 16T Very Small 19T Slight/Moderate 13 - 1 16T Small 19T Slight/Moderate 14 - 3 16T Very Small 19T 21 - 16T Very Small 19T 22 - 16T Very Small 19T 23 - 16T Large 19T 24 - 16T Large
* At VP 7 the term ‘Negligible’ is used in error, perhaps from the 2008 terminology
6 Page 164
5.6 Allowing for the revisions to the scheme, my assessments of magnitude are set out below for both the 19T made in 2008 and 16T schemes in 2012.
Changes VP ES Magnitude SOCME Magnitude over ES + 1 01 19T Substantial/Very Subst Very Substantial 16T Very Large Very Substantial = + 1 02 19T Substantial Substantial/V Subst 16T Large Substantial/V Subst + 1 = 03 19T Substantial/V Subst Substantial/V Subst 16T Large Substantial/V Subst + 1 + 1 04 19T Substantial Substantial/V Subst 16T Large Substantial/V Subst + 1 + 1 05 19T Moderate Moderate/Substantial 16T Small - Medium Moderate + 1 = 06 19T Slight/Moderate Slight/Moderate 16T Very Small - Small Slight/Moderate + 2 + 1 07 19T Slight/Moderate Moderate 16T Negligible Slight/Moderate + 3 + 1 08 19T Moderate/Substantial Substantial 16T Medium Substantial + 2 + 1 09 19T Moderate Moderate/Substantial 16T Very Small Moderate/Substantial + 4 = 10 19T Moderate Moderate 16T Small Moderate + 2 + 1 11 19T Moderate Moderate/Substantial 16T Very Small Moderate/Substantial + 4 + 2 12 19T Slight/Moderate Moderate/Substantial 16T Very Small Moderate/Substantial + 4 + 1 13 19T Slight/Moderate Moderate 16T Small Slight/Moderate + 1 = 14 19T Slight/Moderate Slight/Moderate 16T Very Small Slight/Moderate + 2
21 19T 16T Very Small Slight + 1
22 19T 16T Very Small Slight + 1
23 19T 16T Large Substantial =
24 19T 16T Large Substantial =
7 Page 165
5.7 Similarly, but even less easy to understand, the ES changed the level of sensitivity of the same existing visual receptors at 10 of the 14 viewpoints:
Changes in Sensitivity VP ES Sensitivity by ‘steps’ 19T Medium/High 01 + 1 16T High 19T Medium/High 02 + 1 16T High 19T Medium/High 03 + 1 16T High 19T Medium/High 04 - 1 16T Medium 19T Medium/High 05 - 1 16T Medium 19T Medium/High 06 + 1 16T High 19T High 07 = 16T High 19T Medium/High 08 - 1 16T Medium 19T High 09 - 1 16T Medium/High 19T Medium 10 - 2 16T Low 19T High 11 = 16T High 19T High 12 = 16T High 19T High 13 - 2 16T Medium 19T High 14 = 16T High 19T 21 - 16T High 19T 22 - 16T High 19T 23 - 16T Medium 19T 24 - 16T Medium 5.8 Axis increase sensitivity to conform to SOCME’s, but unacceptably reduce it to Medium for users of Access Land instead of High (VPs 23 & 24 etc).
8 Page 166
VP ES Sensitivity SOCME Sensitivity Difference 19T Medium/High + 1 01 High 16T High = 19T Medium/High + 1 02 High 16T High = 19T Medium/High + 1 03 High 16T High = 19T Medium/High + 1 04 High 16T Medium + 2 19T Medium/High = 05 Medium/High 16T Medium + 1 19T Medium/High + 1 06 High 16T High = 19T High - 1 07 Medium/High 16T High - 1 19T Medium/High + 1 08 High 16T Medium + 2 19T High = 09 High 16T Medium/High + 1 19T Medium = 10 Medium 16T Low + 2 19T High = 11 High 16T High = 19T High = 12 High 16T High = 19T High - 1 13 Medium/High 16T Medium + 1 19T High = 14 High 16T High = 19T - - 21 High – V High 16T High + 1 19T - - 22 High 16T High = 19T - 23 High 16T Medium + 2 19T - 24 High 16T Medium + 2
5.9 When combined into the final assessment of Significance, the differences emerge into the open, as it were. Unfortunately, the present ES uses a set of different terms for Significance which need to be related to those in the original ES (which were similar to SOCME’s) with some care, as follows.
9 Page 167
Intermediate categories are used, as before which I have scored as 1 step in the comparative Table below. A particular pitfall is the introduction of the term ‘Substantial’ as meaning greater than Major, which perhaps suggests that Axis Consultants are short of a lexicon, but may also cause confusion with the conventional and generally accepted use of ‘Substantial’ as an expression of Magnitude. In practice the 2012 assessment also records transitional effects as indicated in square brackets below.
Significance Terminology 19-turbine ES (2008) SOCME 16-turbine ES (2012) Major ++ Extreme Substantial Major / Extreme - Extreme Major + Major / Extreme Major to Substantial Major - Major / Extreme Major Major Major Major/Moderate + Moderate/Major - Major Major/Moderate Moderate/Major Moderate to Major Moderate + Moderate – Mod/Major [Moderate–Mod to Major] Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate/Minor + Minor/Mod - Moderate [Minor–Mod to Moderate] Moderate/Minor Minor/Moderate Minor to Moderate Minor + Minor - Minor/Moderate Minor Minor Minor Minor/Negligible + Negligible / Minor Slight to Minor Minor/Negligible Negligible Slight [No material effect]
5.10 The two ES texts present a ‘Significance Matrix’ to demonstrate how their individual assessments of Magnitude and Sensitivity are used in combination to produce their Significance rankings - (E4Environment ES 2008 Appendix Table 7.3/3 p23 & Axis ES 2012 Appendix 6.1 Table 6 p 9). While each deploys its own terms and gradations, they are both internally consistent. This means that their conclusions for Significance are not (as is sometimes the case) distorted by errors of combination but follow a logical process. Accordingly they perpetuate the variations in assessment for both Magnitude and Sensitivity as described above.
5.11 The combined Table below shows the results for each of the two ES assessments in 2008 and 2012 limited to the key Viewpoints 1-14 covered by each. When compared together the considerable degree of reduction in significance shown for 2012 is in my opinion unwarranted as a consequence of the 3-turbine reduction to the scheme.
10 Page 168
Significance as recorded by the two ESs VP Magnitude Sensitivity Significance 19T 01 Substantial/Very Subst Medium/High Major 16T Very Large High Substantial 19T 02 Substantial Medium/High Mod/Major+ 16T Large High Major/Substantial 19T 03 Substantial/V Subst Medium/High Major 16T Large High Major/Substantial 19T 04 Substantial Medium/High Mod/Major+ 16T Large Medium Moderate/Major 19T 05 Moderate Medium/High Moderate+ 16T Small - Medium Medium Minor/Mod - Mod 19T 06 Slight/Moderate Medium/High Moderate 16T Very Small - Small High Mod – Mod/Major 19T 07 Slight/Moderate High Moderate+ 16T Negligible High No material effect 19T 08 Moderate/Substantial Medium/High Moderate/Major 16T Medium Medium Moderate 19T 09 Moderate High Moderate/Major 16T Very Small Medium/High Minor / Moderate 19T 10 Moderate Medium Moderate 16T Small Low Slight / Minor 19T 11 Moderate High Moderate/Major 16T Very Small High Moderate 19T 12 Slight/Moderate High Moderate+ 16T Very Small High Moderate 19T Moderate+ 13 Slight/Moderate High 16T Small Medium Minor / Moderate 19T 14 Slight/Moderate High Moderate+ 16T Very Small High Moderate
5.12 In terms of overall significance, the current 16-turbine assessment’s increase in sensitivity to High for VPs 1-3 offsets the reduction in or agreement with magnitude for VPs 1&2 for the 19-turbines scheme. For VP1 it further increases the discrepancy producing an irrational conclusion that the level of significance has vastly increased. The results for these three VPs thus stand apart from the remainder in terms of relative change, which in stark contrast is recorded as disproptionately less than the reduction of three turbines would suggest, as shown in the comparative table below.
11 Page 169
Changes in VP Significance Sensitivity by ‘steps’ 19T 01 Major 16T Substantial + 4 19T 02 Mod/Major+ 16T Major/Substantial + 3 19T 03 Major 16T Major/Substantial + 2 19T 04 Mod/Major+ 16T Moderate/Major - 1 19T 05 Moderate+ 16T Minor/Mod - Mod - 2 19T 06 Moderate 16T Mod – Mod/Major + 1 19T 07 Moderate+ 16T No material effect - 8 19T 08 Moderate/Major 16T Moderate - 2 19T 09 Moderate/Major 16T Minor / Moderate - 4 19T 10 Moderate 16T Slight / Minor - 5 19T 11 Moderate/Major 16T Moderate - 2 19T 12 Moderate+ 16T Moderate - 1 19T Moderate+ 13 16T Minor / Moderate - 3 19T 14 Moderate+ 16T Moderate - 1
5.13 These findings are expressed in the Table below which shows graphically the inconsistent and exaggerated findings of the 2012 Axis assessment of 16-turbines as compared to that for the 19 turbines in 2008.
Significance of Effect: Number of Viewpoints Using the gradations in the 2008 and 2012 ESs
12 Page 170
ES 2008 ES 2012
Major ++ = Substantial 1 Major + = Major to Substantial 2 Major = Major 2 Major/Moderate + 2 Major/Moderate = Moderate to Major 3 1 Moderate + [ = Moderate – Moderate to Major] 5 1 Moderate = Moderate 2 4 Moderate/Minor + [ = Minor Mod to Moderate] 1 Moderate/Minor = Minor to Moderate 2 Minor + Minor = Minor Minor/ Negligible + = Slight to Minor 1 Minor/ Negligible = Slight No material effect 1
Overall Totals 14 14
5.14 Taking the 2012 assessment – which irrespective of my criticisms is the one now being considered by the Council – my assessment for SOCME shows further radical disagreement, as set out below.
13 Page 171
Significance – 2012 ES and SOCME VP Magnitude Sensitivity Significance 16T 01 Very Large High Substantial SOCME Very Substantial High Major / Extreme 16T 02 Large High Major/Substantial SOCME Subst / V Substantial High Maj–Maj/Extreme 16T 03 Large High Major/Substantial SOCME Subst / V Substantial High Maj–Maj/Extreme 16T 04 Large Medium Moderate/Major SOCME Subst / V Substantial High Maj–Maj/Extreme 16T 05 Small - Medium Medium Minor/Mod - Mod SOCME Moderate Medium/High Mod – Mod/Major 16T 06 Very Small - Small High Mod – Mod/Major SOCME Slight / Moderate High Mod – Mod/Major 16T 07 Negligible High No material effect SOCME Slight / Moderate Medium/High Moderate 16T 08 Medium Medium Moderate SOCME Substantial High Major 16T 09 Very Small Medium/High Minor / Moderate SOCME Mod / Substantial High Mod/Maj - Major 16T 10 Small Low Slight / Minor SOCME Moderate Medium Moderate 16T 11 Very Small High Moderate SOCME Mod / Substantial High Mod/Maj - Major 16T 12 Very Small High Moderate SOCME Mod / Substantial High Mod/Maj - Major 16T Minor / Moderate 13 Small Medium SOCME Slight / Moderate Medium/High Moderate 16T 14 Very Small High Moderate SOCME Slight / Moderate High Mod – Mod/Major 16T 21 Very Small High Moderate SOCME Slight High/Very High Mod – Mod/Major 16T 22 Very Small High Moderate SOCME Slight High Moderate 16T 23 Large Medium Moderate / Major SOCME Substantial High Major 16T 24 Large Medium Moderate / Major SOCME Substantial High Major
14 Page 172
Number of Significance of Effect: Viewpoints
SOCME ES 2012
Extreme = Substantial 1 Major/Extreme - Extreme 1 Major/Extreme = Major to Substantial 3 2 Major – Major/Extreme Major = Major 3 Moderate/Major - Major 3 Moderate/Major = Moderate to Major 3 Moderate – Mod/Major [ = Moderate – Moderate to Major] 4 1 Moderate = Moderate 4 6 Minor/Mod – Moderate [ = Minor Mod to Moderate] 1 Minor/Moderate = Minor to Moderate 2 Minor – Minor/Mod Minor = Minor Negligible/Minor - Minor Negligible/Minor = Slight to Minor 1 Negligible – Neg/Minor Negligible = Slight No material effect 1
Overall Totals 18 18
5.15 In conclusion on this issue, I submit that the 2012 assessment by Axis consultants is inconsistent with the previous 2008 exercise assessment by E4Environment. It has exaggerated the reductions in magnitude and thus significance of all but the three closest viewpoints, and has inexplicably increased magnitude for the closest viewpoint despite the reduction by three turbines. It has also recorded erratic levels of receptor sensitivity as compared with the previous ES, when there is of course no change at the 14 locations which are common to both.
5.16 On behalf of SOCME I therefore ask that you consider the assessment I have carried out, using the same methodology as in 2008, with the results set out below. I request that you conclude that the impacts of the proposal are barely less than they were at that time when the Council determined to refuse consent for the proposal and that it therefore remains unacceptable.
15 Page 173
6 Other issues
6.1 Visual Amenity and enjoyment of the countryside
Extensive adverse impacts will be encountered by all classes of user on the roads which sweep over the open moorland, with profound, and in places overwhelming, impacts on walkers and others who enjoy – and are encouraged to enjoy - recreational use of the countryside on Open Access Land and public rights of way, including a 12km length of the St Illtyd’s Walk, which has the status of a National Trial. To distract attention from this important issue, as the ES does at 6.8.6 by reference to areas where there would be no views of the turbines, is misleading and disingenuous.
6.2 Landscape character
The ES nevertheless accepts that a windfarm landscape would be created, merging with that deriving from Mynydd y Betws, and resulting in windfarm sub-types extending radially in areas of important visual impact. SOCME regards this as a landscape disaster and believes that It is erroneous for the ES to imply (6.8.4) that CCW guidance condones the construction of adjacent additional windfarms when the host areas are of similar character.
16 Page 174
6.3 Residential amenity
Significant impacts are conceded in the ES for residents in a 2km radius. SOCME disagrees with the contention that this would nevertheless not adversely affect individual living conditions, when any normal test is applied. SOCME also believes that the collective adverse impact on residential amenity is an issue, and is avoided in the ES.
6.4 Cultural heritage
In combination with the existing adverse presence of Mynydd y Betws, the proposal would leave the important site of Pen Lle’r Castell and other individual monuments as islands almost surrounded by wind turbines thus changing the entire nature of their wider setting.
6.5 Noise and other disturbance
While essentially a tranquil area, noise and other disturbance during both construction and operation will be totally at odds with the characteristics which make Mynydd y Gwair so important to those who live in and enjoy the area. The disruptive, conspicuous and unusually lengthy Access Route from the A48 – over 5 miles long - would cause intense disturbance for local residents and the tranquil valleys and ridges which it traverses.
6.6 Ecology
The ES dismisses the area as ecologically impoverished, but does concede that together with Mynydd y Betws, cumulative adverse impacts on the red kite population would be of greater than local significance. This oblique admission tells heavily against the scheme, now that Mynydd y Betws is in existence.
6.7 Common Land
The ES fails to appreciate the significance of the common grazing system to the moorland, adjacent in-bye land and to the community of common graziers themselves who are a key part of the land use system which has maintained the open landscape as such a vital asset for Swansea and the surrounding area. SOCME believes that impacts will be greater and more disruptive than assessed, with potentially serious consequences to the land use of the Commons and the livelihoods of the Commoners not offset by offers of exchange land. Despite the extensive discussion on this issue at the Public Inquiry into the earlier proposal, the objections on this issue remain unresolved and will be sustained.
17 Page 175
7 Conclusion
All these issues raise concerns for the landscape, cultural and ecological resource, and for the resident, local and visiting population who presently appreciate and enjoy the unique qualities of this special area and its wildlife. The profound damage, in cumulation with the Mynydd y Betws turbines would exist for at least a quarter of a century. SOCME will explain and elaborate its concerns in a detailed submission, which will follow this initial objection, and demonstrate why this proposal should be refused planning consent. If, as in the case of the 2008 application, this progresses to a Public Inquiry, SOCME will progress its objections with the same zeal as it did previously. All these objections now have greater force than at the time of the original application because of the prior presence of the Mynydd y Betws turbines, and SOCME looks to the City and County Council of Swansea to recognise this increased threat to the landscape and environment of upland Gower by reviving its original objection to the scheme.
Finally, I would be grateful if you would acknowledge this Further Objection and ensure that it is given appropriate publicity.
Yours sincerely
Geoffrey Sinclair
Copy to :
Mr Glyn Morgan Chairman, SOCME (Save Our Common Mountain Environment) Blaenmyddfai Felindre Swansea SA5 7NJ
18 Page 176
APPENDIX D
An initial Ecological Commentary on planning application 2012/1221 by Barry Stewart & Associates
Barry Stewart & Associates, Consultant Ecologists are a Swansea-based consultancy practice with extensive experience of wildlife surveying, monitoring, evaluation and mitigation, particularly where there is a need for engineering projects to deliver ecologically sustainable quality environments whilst causing the least disruption to existing wildlife interests. The practice provides skilled professionals in the fields of ecological survey and assessment, wildlife and conservation planning and habitat management, enhancement and creation.
Barry Stewart is an accomplished ornithologist, botanist and entomologist, skills learnt over more than thirty years, principally during employment with the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) both at Slimbridge and Penclacwydd, Llanelli. He also has considerable expertise in habitat assessment, aviculture, horticulture and reserve management. He was awarded a First Class B.Sc. (Hons) degree in Environmental Biology by the University College of Wales, Swansea in July 1997. Although an ordinary and committee member of various organisations, those considered to be of most relevance, when he gave evidence for Save Our Common Mountain Environment (SOCME) to the 2010 public inquiry that was concerned with the previous planning application 2008/1781, included: He is the elected plant recorder for West Glamorgan for the Botanical Society of the British Isles. He is a qualified A bird-ringer licensed by the ‘British Trust for Ornithology’ (BTO), and has conducted ringing studies on a number of species and communities and is a committee member for the Gower Ornithological Society. He has a special interest in entomology, in particular the Lepidoptera, and was until recently the butterfly and moth recorder for Glamorgan and co- author of the Moths of Glamorgan. In the last 12 years he has worked on a number of wind-farm projects both in Mid- Wales and South Wales.
Background:
Barry Stewart & Associates, Consultant Ecologists were commissioned by Save Our Common Mountain Environment (SOCME) in 2004 to carry out baseline surveys of Mynydd y Gwair (unpublished). The purpose of this data gathering exercise was to enable an unbiased, yet informed appraisal to be made of the then proposed Mynydd y Gwair Wind Farm Application. A report that was subsequently produced presented comments on the ecological aspects of the planning application 2008/1781 and is attached to this commentary for ease of reference.
Page 177 1 It is not the intention of this commentary to provide the same in-depth consideration of the new planning application 2012/1221, not least as it would be impossible to undertake further, adequate survey work, within the time frame within which a decision must be made, to help inform such a consideration. Rather it is hoped that this initial commentary on the new planning application, and its context, may assist City and County of Swansea Council in their consideration of the new planning application.
Reasons for the rejection of planning application 2008/1781:
The Inspector, when reporting to the Minister after the public inquiry, advised her “the effect on the peat habitat cannot be overcome by the imposition of conditions designed to mitigate the harmful effects. For this reason I conclude that permission should not be granted.”
The principle reasons for rejection of planning application 2008/1781 was the site’s peat habitat. Furthermore, after two High Court Appeals, this decision was upheld. The judgements from both the Appeals noted that:
“CCW's written submission to the inquiry stated that it was apparent following the submission of the SEI that 'the peat resource is more substantial than the original ES determined and that peat…will be directly affected by turbines and access tracks': see paragraph 4.3.2. At paragraphs 4.3.3 – 4.3.10 CCW made a number of general comments about the importance and sensitivity of peat land habitats and stated wind farm developments should avoid impacts to peat as far as possible. At paragraph 4.3.4 it stated that 'operational decisions about whether particular impacts are tolerable will depend on many factors, including site status, the importance of the peatland features, likely significance of impact, potential benefits offered by Habitat Management Plans and the adequacy of mitigation'. CCW also considered (see paragraph 4.3.5) it critical to develop a site layout which substantially avoided the peat resource in the first place.”
And also that:
“Paragraph 4.3.7 of CCW's submission states that the peat land resource at the site has additional significance 'given its location close to the bio- geographical limit of the resource in Wales, and the importance of conserving edge of range examples' and (at paragraph 4.3.8) any additional pressure on the relatively small and often fragmented blocks of peat in the South Wales coalfield is likely to increase its vulnerability.”
Page 178 2 Extent of difference between the previous planning application 2008/1781, and the current planning application 2012/1221
The changes to the design and layout of the proposed turbines, and associated infrastructure, are minimal. The most beneficial change has been the removal of 3 turbines from the proposals, as the proposed position of these (in application 2008/1781) was shown to be on the deepest peat surveyed. The route of the main access track has likewise been varied in an attempt to avoid peat, but this attempt is less certain to result in a better outcome, for reasons I shall outline hereinafter.
With respect to ecological surveys, no vantage point bird surveys after March 2012 were undertaken to inform the planning application, and the last transect bird survey occurred in June 2011 (see Chapter 10 of the ES for 2012/1221). This is surprising given the construction work for the Mynydd y Betws Wind Farm that has been taking place this year (2012) on the adjacent common. The applicant appears to acknowledge in their ES for 2012/1221 both that the construction phase of a wind farm has specific impacts on ecology (e.g. 10.9), and that the cumulative impacts of proximate wind farms should be assessed (e.g.10.8.10). However, the dates of some of their survey work suggests that surveys were continued until it was certain that planning application 2008/1781 was not going to succeed, but were not continued with a view to informing the subsequent 2012/1221 planning application, despite an awareness on the part of the applicant that construction on the adjacent common might have significant implications for habitat use on Mynydd y Gwair.
With respect to Non Avian surveys undertaken to inform the planning application, as detailed in Chapter 9 of the ES for 2012/1221, the dates of last survey work are: Amphibians (2005), Bats (June 2010), Badger (March 2012), Otter and Water Vole (summer 2011), Invertebrates (August 2011).
Indeed, it is a general problem with planning application 2012/1221 that much of the supporting material included by the applicant within it was originally undertaken for, or with regards to, planning application 2012/1781, which involved a different site layout, and also different levels of understanding about the site at different times, not least owing to the initial peat findings, which were later shown to give an insufficiently accurate impression of the habitat of the proposed site. The discrepancies between supporting material, concerning avian collision risk, relied on when the Mynydd y Betws Wind Farm was given permission, and similar material re-visited in Chapter 10 of the ES for 2012/1221, as highlighted by the applicant, possibly illustrates some of the dangers inherent in such inconsistencies in approach.
Similarly, 9.7.27 claims that no bat survey work was carried out at the adjacent Mynydd y Betws wind farm site. The applicant should be commended for highlighting any such deficiencies, albeit factors such as this would make measuring and understanding some cumulative impacts of the
Page 179 3 adjacent wind farms, were 2012/1221 to be consented and constructed, much more difficult, if not impossible in some cases.
However, statements made in the ES for 2012/1221 are not always accurate. For example, a simple search of the City and County of Swansea website would have informed the applicant that the cSINC referenced in 9.3.4 is now considered a SINC. Again, this is indicative of the problems that occur if a new planning application relies too heavily on research undertaken for a previous planning application.
There are also inconsistencies within the ES. Chapter 6 (6.6.44) states that there would be no effects on either species or habitats within the National Park. However, if the applicant is correct that some species of birds will relocate to avoid the site, were turbines to be erected on it, then it is not implausible to believe that knock-on effects (not necessarily positive, as relocating wildlife may, for example, use resources that were being fully exploited in their new site by existing fauna) may occur within sites some distance away.
Not all birds will avoid the turbines. 10.9.26 concerns the negative impact on the local kestrel pair. As I stated in my previous evidence, once a pair of birds are ‘removed’ it is likely that new birds would attempt to occupy the vacant territory resulting in a continuous ‘removal’ of the local Kestrel population, this being a species already in local and national decline. Similarly 10.9.18 references the damage that would be done to Red Kite at both a local and regional level.
For another example of inconsistencies at times in the applicant’s approach, compare 10.2.5 and 10.5.4. The inaction ‘justified’ in 10.2.5 is not warranted, given the previous identification of Yellowhammer (an RSPB Red list and NERC Section 42 list species).
It should be noted that some ecological survey work has happened since the public inquiry, i.e. that will not have formed part of previous considerations. For example 9.4.70 records that “Of note in 2011 was confirmation of the presence of bog bush cricket Metrioptera brachyptera in the lower part of the Lliw gully, in a location falling just within the application site. There are relatively few other records of this species in South Wales and this therefore represents a significant record.” Accordingly there are good grounds for City and County of Swansea to consider afresh whether the site is suitable, from a conservation perspective, for a development that risks habitat fragmentation. The presence of this species also flags the possibility of a scarce invertebrate assemblage which appears not to have been discussed or investigated.
Recent relevant changes in scientific understanding and government policy
The UK National Ecosystems Assessments (NEAs) do not feature within the planning application 2012/1221, despite the relevance of NEAs to the policy
Page 180 4 direction of government, both in Wales and England.
Chapter 5 of the NEA mentions “the negative impact of wind turbines and their associated infrastructure on soil carbon storage”, and wind turbines are not mentioned anywhere within that chapter’s key findings about where the value in our Mountains Moorlands and Heaths lie.
NEA Chapter 20 (Status and Changes in the UK’s Ecosystems and their Services to Society: Wales) refers to the “Important ecosystem services provided by the uplands and lowland heathlands of Wales include carbon sequestration in peatland soils, catchment water services including water quantity and quality regulation (important for areas beyond the borders of Wales due to water transfers), nutrient buffering, food and fibre from agriculture and forestry, renewable energy and many cultural services including tourism assets that are highly significant for the Welsh economy (Section 20.5).”
The same chapter notes (the underlining is mine) “regarding the mitigation of future effects of climate change, the primary concern within Welsh uplands is to secure the existing carbon resource that is locked up within organic and organo-mineral soils. Welsh soils represent a significant store of carbon, currently estimated at 410 million tonnes, of which approximately one-third (121 million tonnes) is in the form of peat (ECOSSE 2007), despite the fact that peat deposits occupy only 3% of the surface area of Wales.”
The chapter goes on to explore how best to manage such places, suggesting, for instance, “Soil carbon pools may also be increased in grasslands with legumes such as birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) and white clover (e.g. de Deyn et al. 2009), and grassland management has potential to enhance carbon sequestration in agricultural landscapes (Smith et al. 2008); marshy grasslands on peaty soils are likely to be particularly significant in this respect.”
It also notes “Organic matter accumulated on wetter sites leads to peat formation” and that “Erosion in the uplands also increases the amount of peat (and carbon) in source supplies of drinking water, causing it to become peat- coloured and involving the water companies in considerable treatment costs”.
All of these statements might be thought to be of relevance to the planning application, and would, in the main, suggest rejection of the planning application would be the best course of action, or, failing that, at the very least much more stringent (conditioned) mitigation and ecological restoration/compensation measures than those proposed by the applicant should be required. However, as the applicant admits (6.5.8) that blanket bog on the wind farm site could not be replaced within a reasonable period of time by appropriate mitigation, there are ample grounds for rejecting the application altogether.
Another report that may be relevant to the Council’s considerations include the JNCC report, no 445 of April 2011 “Towards an assessment of the state of
Page 181 5 UK Peatlands“, which states (page 26) “Renewable energy generation represents a comparatively recent pressure, focused predominantly on upland peatlands. Impacts include direct loss of peatland habitat through windfarm infrastructure overlap but also longer-term degradation, due primarily to the hydrological effects of tracks cut through or ‘floated’ over peat. These impacts are poorly quantified”.
The draft Construction Method Statement (CMS) that forms part of the current planning application still proposes use both of cut type and floating tracks, and does not explain why these should be regarded as an adequate approach, despite acknowledging that there will be places “where the track crosses peaty … ground conditions”.
Similarly, little appears to have been clearly established yet about exactly where cable trenches will be required, despite the draft CMS acknowledging the extensive amount of cabling required (“Cables are required between each of the turbines and the substation compound at the northwest corner of the wind farm site”) and that there will be “damage to areas of significant peat during cable trenching”.
CCW’s 2010 Guidance Note "Assessing the impact of windfarm developments on peatlands in Wales" notes that one of the many potential risk factors for water quantity and water quality resulting from windfarm development include the creation of new drainage pathways as a result of windfarm infrastructure (chiefly tracks and cable trenches).
Similarly, whilst Point 43 of Robert Lindsay of UEL's Peatbogs and Carbon, A critical synthesis (2010), commissioned by RSPB Scotland with support from SNH, CCW, Natural England and the Forestry Commission, explains why an alternative to excavated roads is needed, Point 40, Discussion Topic 2 - Windfarms on peat, states that "The main physical impacts of windfarms on blanket mire arise from the construction and ongoing presence of service roadways running between the turbine towers". It notes that the "floating" roads approach presented in many recent EIA proposals are a relatively new technology and that "there have so far been few, if any, published studies on which to draw conclusions about the likely long-term ecological impacts of these roads". Point 41 points out that floating roads cause compression of the peat and cause more than one type of hydrological disruption, and Point 42 goes on to state that the installation of culverts associated with drainage proposals for such roads cause further erosion, with alternatives not having yet been demonstrated or even tested in practice.
A joint publication by Scottish Renewables and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Version 1.0 Jan 2012 “DEVELOPMENTS ON PEATLAND: GUIDANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT OF PEAT VOLUMES, REUSE OF EXCAVATED PEAT AND THE MINIMISATION OF WASTE” states that one should “Avoid laying underground cables in virgin ground and align within track verges.” However, there can be technical/safety issues with this requirement.
Page 182 6 It is clear that there is growing concern about permitting tracks across peat, and cables in peat. Another concern is habitat fragmentation. CCW (see Guidance Note) states that one should “Minimise track overlap with peat” and “Restore connectivity elsewhere on-site or in comparable nearby sites”. It is unclear to me how the applicant has tried to meet these criteria; the changes to the access track have been driven by concern about certain areas, of the deepest peat, but the new layout for track crosses a greater extent of peat (of varying depths), and the second CCW requirement does not appear to have been met.
Other elements of the CCW Guidance Note of relevance from a policy perspective include the following: “The Welsh peat resource is estimated to represent only 3% of the land surface, less than the equivalent UK figure of c. 7%, and given its importance yet relatively modest extent and often localised distribution in Wales, the argument for avoiding impacts on peat as far as possible is clear. This is reflected indirectly in TAN 8 which states (para 2.4) “Not all of the land within the SSAs may be technically, economically and/or environmentally suitable for major wind power proposals”.” Similarly, “The draft National Position Statement on Renewable Energy (DEC, 2009) also highlights the sensitivity of peat. Habitat loss resulting from all forms of windfarm infrastructure should be regarded as permanent. Even if ‘cut & fill’ type tracks were removed, insufficient stock-piled peat would be left on-site after c. 20 years operation to re-profile them. Tracks constructed as floating roads will be regarded as resulting in permanent loss of underlying habitat because of the inherent uncertainty associated with restoration following track removal. Excavated mass concrete foundations left in-situ post de- commissioning are unlikely to develop a functional peat profile and given they are unlikely to be removed should again be regarded as representing a permanent loss of habitat. “
When it comes to assessing the ES, the following part of the CCW Guidance Note may be of interest: “Although a large coherent block of bog is likely to be more resilient to hydrological impacts and climate change than multiple small blocks, scattered blocks of bog vegetation separated by acid grassland are encountered widely in Wales and often reflect variations in the underlying bedrock topography; they should not be under-valued in Environmental Statements.” With respect to the location of the specific site proposed in 2012/1221, this part of the Guidance Note may be of interest: “Erosion is often symptomatic of degradation, but with the important caveat that some forms of plateaux type erosion may be very long-standing and apparently natural features. Most erosion features are now technically restorable, and the significance of erosion as a negative attribute of habitat quality should be kept in perspective in habitat evaluation.”
Our understanding of peat habitat is changing. The JNCC report notes that "Trends on changes in the extent of BAP priority habitats associated with peatlands in Wales are provided by the most recent (2008) BAP reporting round which showed a ‘declining (slowing)’ trend for blanket and lowland raised bog and a ‘declining (continuing/accelerating)’ trend for lowland fens. These trends relate to the mostly small-scale loss of areas of habitat outside
Page 183 7 the SSSI series, generally as a result of localised development pressure (including wind-farms)” (the bold is my emphasis).
Key finding 8 of Robert Lindsay’s report states that the carbon stored per unit area in the living biomass of natural Sphagnum-rich peat bogs is "very much greater than has previously been realised" and Page 85 of the report explores the significance of Sphagnum-rich hummocks and lawns to regeneration of peat habitat and formation of peat and suggests, with reference to other research, that the loss of such hummocks and lawns has "the most marked [negative] impact on peat accumulation", even when compared with Sphagnum-rich hollows. This is relevant to Mynydd y Gwair and the applicant’s assessment of the site. The recording and reporting of Sphagnum mosses remains inconsistent within the new ES.
As our understanding improves, the need to avoid erecting wind farms on peatland becomes clearer. A letter titled “Renewable energy: Avoid constructing wind farms on peat” was published in September this year in Nature, with an online abstract that starts “Scotland's government is planning to build large-scale wind farms to reduce carbon emissions from electricity production, some of which could be situated on peatlands. We contend that wind farms on peatlands will probably not reduce emissions” One of the authors of the letter is Nayak, who developed the carbon calculator released by SNH and widely used by wind farm developers. The version used by the planning applicant is a version that precedes Nayak’s latest findings.
CCW’s Guidance Note states: "given the importance and sensitivity of peatland habitats, CCW's position is that windfarm developments should avoid impacts to peat as far as possible" (the bold is their emphasis, not mine). As policy and science start to point more firmly to the dangers of wind farms on peat, it would seem wise to apply the precautionary principle and refuse the planning application 2012/1221.
Page 184 8 APPENDIX E
References
City and County of Swansea website (2012) http://www.swansea.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=37448 and http://www.swansea.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=37194
Countryside Council for Wales (2010) Guidance Note "Assessing the impact of windfarm developments on peatlands in Wales"
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions: [2011] EWHC 1778 (Admin) and [2012] EWCA Civ 311
ES of planning application 2012/1221
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2011) Towards an assessment of the state of UK Peatlands, JNCC report No. 445.
Robert Lindsay, UEL (2010) Peatbogs and Carbon, A critical synthesis (2010), commissioned by RSPB Scotland with support from SNH, CCW, Natural England and the Forestry Commission
The Planning Inspectorate, report by Stuart B Wild (2010) Report APP/B6855/A/09/2114013
Scottish Renewables and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2012) “DEVELOPMENTS ON PEATLAND: GUIDANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT OF PEAT VOLUMES, REUSE OF EXCAVATED PEAT AND THE MINIMISATION OF WASTE” Version 1.0 Jan 2012
Coordinating Lead Author: Shaun Russell (2011) Lead Authors: Tim Blackstock, Mike Christie, Michelle Clarke, Keith Davies, Catherine Duigan, Isabelle Durance, Russell Elliot, Hugh Evans, Charlie Falzon, Peter Frost, Sue Ginley, Neal Hockley, Shelagh Hourahane, Barbara Jones, Laurence Jones, Julia Korn, Peter Ogden, Saskia Pagella, Tim Pagella, Brian Pawson, Brian Reynolds, David Robinson, Bill Sanderson, Jan Sherry, James Skates, Emma Small, Barbara Spence and Clive Thomas UK National Ecosystems Assessment (NEA): Chapter 20 (Status and Changes in the UK’s Ecosystems and their Services to Society: Wales)
Jo Smith, Dali Rani Nayak and Pete Smith, University of Aberdeen (2012) Nature 489, 33 (06 September 2012) doi:10.1038/489033d: “Renewable energy: Avoid constructing wind farms on peat”
Page 185 Coordinating Lead Author: René Van der Wal (2011) Lead Authors: Aletta Bonn, Don Monteith, Mark Reed, Kirsty Blackstock, Nick Hanley, Des Thompson, Martin Evans and Isabel Alonso Contributing Authors: Tim Allott, Heather Armitage, Nesha Beharry, Jayne Glass, Sally Johnson, Julia McMorrow, Louise Ross, Robin Pakeman, Suzanne Perry and Dugald Tinch UK National Ecosystems Assessment (NEA): Chapter 5 (Mountains, Moorlands and Heath)
Page 186 APPENDIX F
Barry Stewart & Associates, Consultant Ecologists are a Swansea-based consultancy practice with extensive experience of wildlife surveying, monitoring, evaluation and mitigation, particularly where there is a need for engineering projects to deliver ecologically sustainable quality environments whilst causing the least disruption to existing wildlife interests. The practice provides skilled professionals in the fields of ecological survey and assessment, wildlife and conservation planning and habitat management, enhancement and creation.
Barry Stewart is an accomplished ornithologist, botanist and entomologist, skills learnt over more than thirty years, principally during employment with the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) at both Slimbridge and Penclacwydd, Llanelli. He also has considerable expertise in habitat assessment, aviculture, horticulture and reserve management. He was awarded a First Class B.Sc. (Hons) degree in Environmental Biology by the University College of Wales, Swansea in July 1997. Although an ordinary and committee member of various organisations, those of most relevance to this inquiry include: He is also the elected plant recorder for West Glamorgan for the Botanical Society of the British Isles. He is a qualified A bird-ringer licensed by the ‘British Trust for Ornithology’ (BTO), and has conducted ringing studies on a number of species and communities and is a committee member for the Gower Ornithological Society. He has a special interest in entomology, in particular the Lepidoptera, and is butterfly and moth recorder for Glamorgan and co-author of the Moths of Glamorgan. In the last 10 years he has worked on a number of wind-farm projects both in Mid- Wales and South Wales.
Critique of ecological aspects of planning application referenced 2008/1781
Barry Stewart & Associates, Consultant Ecologists were commissioned by Save Our Common Mountain Environment (SOCME) in 2004 to carry out baseline surveys of Mynydd y Gwair (unpublished). The purpose of this data gathering exercise was to enable an unbiased, yet informed appraisal be made of the Mynydd y Gwair Wind Farm Application. This bulleted report presents comments on the ecological aspects of the planning application referenced 2008/1781. All quotes from the report are shown in italics.
VOLUME 1
2.10 Ecology and Nature Conservation
Pg.27.Para. 2: ‘…forms small part of ‘candidate’ non-statutory Site of Importance for Nature Conservation…’
Whilst candidate sites have not yet been adopted, the Guidelines for the Selection of Wildlife Sites in South Wales, state the following under the headings of…
‘HEATHLANDS AND GRASS-HEATH COMMUNITIES
The following should be considered for selection:
Page 187 all examples of unmodified wet heathland and wet grass-heath, and where cross-leaved heath is still present even though reduced in its cover due to grazing pressure
all examples of unmodified dry heathland
examples of degraded heathland, secondary heathland and grass-heath mixtures which either meet the guidelines for designation as acid grassland (and are thus designated as such) or which have at least 10% dwarf shrub heath cover
Lowland heathlands have become enormously reduced in extent through various human impacts, with an increasingly rapid decline in the period since the 1960’s. The decline in the UK is estimated to be of the order of 85% in the last 200 years. Heathland is an internationally restricted habitat, with many of the communities that occur on the continent and elsewhere bearing very little floristic resemblance to those which occur in the UK. Heathland and grass- heath vegetation can be very extensive in the uplands, but large undegraded blocks are now uncommon. Overgrazing, agricultural improvement, afforestation, land reclamation and opencasting have all reduced the extent of upland heathland and grass heath in South Wales, whilst lowland heath is even more restricted in its extent. Old colliery spoil can support significant areas of dry heathland and in some cases older previously reclaimed sites are being encouraged to do so. The Phase 1 habitat survey manual (NCC 1990) stipulates that 25% dwarf shrub heath cover is required for habitat to be considered heathland. However, the 10% threshold for degraded heathland has been chosen with respect to these guidelines for Wildlife Site selection due to the importance of the habitat, and its growing rarity.
Context Heathland habitats are included in the ‘Dwarf Shrub Heath’ category of the UK BAP, which identifies both upland and lowland heaths as Priority Habitats for conservation. These habitats are also identified in the Section 74 List of Habitats of Principle Importance for Conservation in Wales (WAG 2003).
The Welsh Biodiversity Guide (ALGE 1999) also identifies these categories as priorities in the region. Draft HAPs have been drawn up for lowland heathland in Glamorgan and Gwent.’
BOG HABITATS AND FLUSHES
The following should be considered for selection:
all examples of undegraded bog habitats, and degraded bog habitats which still show some remaining distinctive features of the habitat type
individual neutral, basic or acid flushes of any size, providing they are not grossly modified by agricultural improvement
‘Bog’ is a generic term covering mire vegetation occurring on peat 0.5m deep, where the water level is at or just below the surface and is maintained principally by rainfall rather than by groundwater sources. The main vegetation
Page 188 component is usually bog moss (Sphagnum spp.), with members of the sedge family and sometimes with ericoid (heath family) species.
Lowland raised bog is a scarce habitat in Britain as a whole but appears to be present in the Rhondda Cynon Taff, Caerphilly, Carmarthenshire and Neath- Port Talbot districts of Glamorgan at least, although it can be difficult to differentiate this habitat from related types such as valley mire and basin mire fens. Upland blanket-bog and raised bog are locally extensive in the uplands and most examples are likely to be of value.
Context The UK BAP identifies ‘Bogs’ as a broad habitat category, within which lowland raised bog and blanket bog are identified as Priority Habitats. These habitats also feature on the Section 74 List of Habitats of Principle Importance for Conservation in Wales (WAG 2003). These lists do not specifically recognise flushes as an independent habitat type, instead including them within a broader and more complex system of mire classification
Although the upland heath and bog communities within the development footprint are degraded, the underlined text in the guidelines above clearly demonstrate the area of of Mynydd y Gwair within the development boundary will easily qualify to be a ‘Site of Interest for Nature Conservation’ and be adopted as such.
Pg.27. Para. 3: ‘It supports an impoverished breeding bird community dominated by a very common species…’ Upland bird communities invariably have limited species diversity, to describe the community as impoverished is misleading to the non-specialist reader. Whilst the Skylark can be described as locally common, it is none-the-less listed under Section 42 of the NERC Act as well as being a UKBAP Priority species. The large population of this species on site is likely to be of local if not regional significance especially given the high density of 23 pairs per km2 recorded, this being significantly higher than the Welsh national average for stock-rearing farmland (see below).
10.2.3 Habitat and Botanical Survey Results Pgs.221-225 Descriptions of locations of vegetation types are all rather general with no detailed mapping of the most sensitive communities, indeed some mapping is clearly inaccurate, e.g. the mire/bog area at the head of the Afon Dulais is in the wrong place. A comparison of the phase 1 plan against aerial images shows little correlation between mapped features and some clear habitat boundaries shown on the aerial photographs. There are no species lists provided to support the communities described and several key species known to occur with the development footprint are not even mentioned. For example Bog Asphodel (Narthecium ossifragum) occurs along the Dulais gully, but is not mentioned. Pill Sedge (Carex pilulifera) is not mentioned at all in the text yet was recorded at several sites during our walkover surveys in 2004. Deer-grass (Trichophorum cespitosum) occurs extensively in some areas and is a key component in some community descriptions, yet again is not even mentioned once in the report. Identification of lower plants (mosses, liverworts and lichens) is critical for identification of many mire and heath communities, yet these are
Page 189 completely neglected; even the Sphagnum mosses are only referred to in general terms, with not one named species referred to. As stated above there are no species lists to compare our own data with and no grid references referred to, even for the target notes. In our opinion the level of survey carried out seems to have been minimal and much has either been missed or not reported. Pg.222. Para 2: ‘The vegetation types present suggest very little peat cover’ We can find no reference to any peat measurements having been made as part of the study other than examination at soil horizions at erosion points, which by their nature are unlikely to give a true picture of peat depth elsewhere on site. We measured peat depths from a sample area within the north-east of the development boundary in October 2008. This revealed that peat depths on open common varied substantially. Generally peat depth was between 10cm to 30cm, but this increased to over 50cm on some of the slopes leading down to the Afon Lliw. Peat in the valley mires was in excess of 100cm. Therefore we cannot agree with the above statement. Pg.224. Final para: In reference to the description of the Afon Lliw spring area: ‘There is little more than impoverished patches of M20 in the wetter areas with some bog pondweed (Potamogeton polygonyfolius) but no proper Sphagnum bog pools’ When we examined this area in October 2008 we found Flat-top Bog-moss (Sphagnum fallax) to be abundant in this mire, the vegetation fitting well into the NVC description for M2b Sphagnum cuspidatum / recurvum bog pool community. A similar and more extensive community (inaccurately mapped on Figure 10.3) is also found at the head of the Afon Dulais. Pg.229. Final para: ‘…patches of Radcliffe and Birks H2a (Juncus effusus-Sphagnum recurvum mire) at the twin heads of the stream flowing into the Upper Lliw reservoir are now either disappeared or are represented only by M20 mire’ A site visit in October 2008 showed both Juncus effusus-Sphagnum recurvum [name now changed S. fallax] to be abundant in the areas described above.
10.2.4 Bird Survey Results
Pg.230. Breeding Bird Surveys Para. 3: ‘Due to the limited scope for impacts from minor highway widening works… [along the access route]’ The Criag y Bedw ridge (access route sections 5 to 9) is a key site for Yellowhammer (listed under Section 42 of the NERC Act) and the Dulais and Lliw valleys are now the only remaining inland breeding areas in West Glamorgan for this species. The loss/disturbance of 873m2 of potential breeding habitat should have at least qualified this section for assessment of its bird communities.
Pg.232. Table 10.3: Heading ‘Total number of birds involved’ is highly misleading, it is inconceivable that the 98 flight events of Red Kite involved only 4 birds. Pg.233, last paragraph states that 6 kites were seen in the air together there. It is our opinion that given the strategic position of the site, it being an obvious stepping stone from the western point of the Black Mountains, that wandering Red Kites will regularly over-fly this site. Similarly the table gives total number of Buzzards involved as 2, yet pg. 234 para 3 states ‘…but with a maximum of up to four recorded on any one visit’. Table data either incorrect or not explained clearly enough.
Page 190 Pg.232. Table 10.4: Heading ‘Conservation Status’ uses outdated Red and Amber listings .i.e. footnote shows ‘(after Gregory, 2002)’ These listings were updated and much revised in 2007 (RSPB et al, Birds of Conservation Concern 2002-2007) and subsequently, therefore assessment based on outdated definitions.
Pg.234. Para 2: ‘This is consistent with a wider trend in population increase that has seen the local breeding population of red kite rise… ’ The collision risk analysis does not appear to accommodate predicted increases in the local red kite population, thus an even higher strike rate appears likely than that predicted given the current trend. Pg.235. Skylark: ‘…density of skylark…estimated at around 23 per km2.’ This figure is significantly higher than the average density for stock-rearing farmland in Wales, given by Lovegrove et al (1994) as 7.9 pairs per km2 and suggests the area is likely to be of high significance for the species.
Pg.239 Reptile survey results ‘…lizards were seen in three widely separated areas and are likely to be thinly distributed throughout the study area.’ This statement contrasts with Pg.235. Kestrel: which reads ‘…possibly indicating a good number of common lizards in the area.’ Assessments of reptiles based solely on incidental observations and frequency of their predators are of little use and clearly no appropriate surveys have been carried out for this group
Pg.239 Invertebrates Whilst some consultation took place no surveys were carried out. Upland sites are invariably poorly sampled and understood and whilst they are typically species-poor a number of scarce specialised species invariably occur in upland areas. We are surprised that no sampling took place to get a basic understanding of the invertebrate communities present. Casual observations made during in 2004 during site a walkover survey alone, from the development area have revealed locally restricted species such as Clepsis senecionana, Callophrys rubi (Green Hairstreak), Callistege mi (Mother Shipton), Sericomyia lappona, Bombus monticola (Mountain Bumble Bee) and Bombus jonellus (Heath Bumble Bee).
Pg.234. Para 2: ‘…cases of the moth Coleophora albitarsella were abundant on Juncus species through the open moorland’ This is clearly a misidentification as Coleophora albitarsella only feeds on labiates such as Marjoram and Ground Ivy and not rushes.
Pgs.241-242. Evaluation of Habitats: The communities described in the habitat description section of the report and mapped on Figure 10.3 are included by Averis et al (2004) to be in the following habitat categories listed under Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive†: European dry heaths: H12 Calluna vulgaris - Vaccinium myrtillus heath (~30% of MSA) H18 Vaccinium myrtillus - Deschampsia flexuosa heath (~50% of MSA)
Page 191 Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration: M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket and raised mire (~10% of MSA) M25 Molinia caerulea - Potentilla erecta mire
Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion: M21 Narthecium ossifragum – Sphagnum papillosum valley mire M29 Hypericum elodes – Potamogeton polygonifolius soakway
Habitats of Principal Importance in Wales under Section 74 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000†† as reviewed under section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2007 and UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitats that are present within the survey site are: Upland Heathland H12 Calluna vulgaris - Vaccinium myrtillus heath (~30% of MSA) H18 Vaccinium myrtillus - Deschampsia flexuosa heath (~50% of MSA) Blanket Bog M20 Eriophorum vaginatum blanket and raised mire (~10% of MSA) M25 Molinia caerulea - Potentilla erecta mire
The statement that the bulk of these habitats are ‘relatively damaged (and hence, unnatural)’ is strongly misleading to the non-specialist reader as most UK heaths and mires have been created and maintained by human intervention. All of the communities given above, regardless of their condition, should be considered to be of European and national significance due to their inclusion in the Annex 1 listings. Furthermore, the communities constitute more than 90% of the development area as shown by the pink, sky and blue shading on Figure 10.3 and make up a significant proportion of the county resource of each (see below). The species-poor acid grasslands, which are not listed as Annex 1 habitats, make up less than 10% of the MSA and are shown as only occurring along the southern boundary, as shown by the yellow shading on Figure 10.3.
Table showing context of habitat areas (ha) in local and regional contexts (Swansea and Glamorgan data after Jones et al, (2003) MSA data derived from Npower report Figure 10.3):
Development Swansea Glamorgan % Swansea % boundary resource Glamorgan resource
Dry Upland 341 290 1800 More than 19 Heath documented
Blanket Bog 33 42 1000 79 3
Given that the area of dry upland heathland in the development boundary is greater than the known Swansea resource, and that the area of bog there constitutes 79% of the known Swansea resource, the statement ’…construction land take for acid grassland and degraded mire and heath is estimated to amount to 28.22ha… …equates to a small percentage of the Application area, and a tiny percentage of the wider (e.g. county) resource.’ In reality this equates to just over 7% of the City and County of Swansea resource. Furthermore the turbine and access route layout barely encroaches on the least important of the communities mapped (i.e. acid grassland),
Page 192 but is extensive over the most important habitats of heath and blanket bog.
Pg.234. Para 2: ‘The wind farm site represents a very small part of the proposed [SINC] designation, and does not contain examples of key habitat features such as blanket bogs or Rhos pasture.’
‘Mire communities’ as mapped on Figure 10.3 are described as being representative of the NVC community M20 in the main habitat description section. M20 is in fact listed in the definitions for blanket bog by Jones et al (2003), so to state that the wind farm site does not contain examples of blanket bog is incorrect as 33ha are mapped as such on Figure 10.3.
† EC Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats of Wild Flora and Fauna, 1992 (The ‘Habitats Directive’) The Habitats Directive (No. 92/43/EEC) requires the UK to maintain and/or restore naturally occurring habitats, especially those which are deemed to be vulnerable and declining in Europe. It also requires the protection of many species of plants and animals which are similarly threatened and declining throughout their European range, therefore giving effect to both site and species protection objectives. The Directive requires the UK to designate sites, on land and at sea, which will form part of a network of special sites within a broader, sensitively managed landscape. The designated sites, referred to as ‘Special Areas of Conservation’ (or SACs), together with the SPAs designated under the Birds Directive, will form part of the EC ‘Natura 2000’ network of sites which are deemed to be of ‘Community Interest’, i.e. of significance in the pan-European context. SACs may be selected for their importance as natural habitat types and/or as habitats for the rare and vulnerable species listed in Annexes I and II of the Directive. The UK Government was required to present a list of candidate SACs by June 1998, and is in the process of refining and confirming the listed sites. In the UK, the requirements of the Habitats Directive are implemented through the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. All SACs are required to be notified as SSSIs under domestic legislation.
Page 193
†† The Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000 (the ‘CROW Act’) This Act came into force on 30 January 2001 and considerably improves the protection and administration of SSSIs, giving additional powers to the agencies and local authorities. Amongst the measures are: a duty on public bodies to secure positive management on land which they control or occupy; rights to refuse consent for damaging activities not previously subject to regulation; licence or rights-holders to be treated the same as owners/occupiers; agency-flexible compulsory purchase powers; restrictions on third party users; amendments to permitted developments rules; improved enforcement, etc. In addition to measures affecting SSSIs, the Act requires all Government ministers, departments and the National Assembly of Wales (NAW) to have statutory regard to the purpose and objectives of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. The National Assembly for Wales, in association with CCW, will publish lists of habitats and species which are regarded as being of principal importance in this regard. The Assembly are also required to take steps, and to promote the taking of steps by others, to further the conservation of the listed habitats and species. Precise interpretation of the implications of these measures is not possible at present, but a likely interpretation might be that local planning authorities would be required, through secondary legislation in the future, to formally recognise the importance of UK and Wales BAP habitats and species and afford these due protection in the planning and development process.
Pg.242. Para 3: The context given for Skylark and Meadow Pipit in the section ‘10.3.3. Evaluation of Ornithological Interest of the Site’, first describes their high conservation status nationally then goes on to state ‘Neither species is rare nationally or locally however’.
This statement in no way provides a reasoned ‘evaluation of ornithological interest’, for a species placed at the highest level of conservation concern. To imply that just because a species is not rare, that (potentially significant) elements of its population have minimal significance is highly detrimental to national and local biodiversity process.
Pg.243. Para 1: This section evaluates Kite interest on the site and states ’The study area appears to receive regular usage by the high density of birds now present in the surrounding area, but does not appear to be a key foraging or other important habitat area’
The first part of this statement is correct in that there is a high density of Kites in the immediate area, but what is perhaps not clear or fully understood is how Mynydd-y- Gwair is used by Kites from further a field. It is likely that birds commute considerable
Page 194 distances to visit the nearby Abernant landfill site (a fact not mentioned in the report), therefore the development could potentially affect birds from a wider area than predicted.
The second part of the statement is somewhat misleading, as away from landfill sites and feeding stations, kites generally forage extensively over seemingly unproductive landscapes. However, on occasions when food becomes available (e.g. a sheep carcase), birds can attain much higher densities than those typically observed. The fact that there is such a high frequency of over-flying suggests that the site does provide an important food resource even if only on an occasional basis.
Pg.245. Para 5: ’…restriction of access tracks to areas without a significant peat cover…’
We can find no reference to surveys of peat depth and our own investigations show peat lenses in excess of 70cm on open hillsides. Some valley mires were found to have in excess of 1m of peat. This issue clearly has not been appropriately investigated.
Pg.250. Table 10.7: ’Number of Red Kite passes through rotors per annum = 1736 Adjusted for 95% avoidance = 9.81’
This figure is very concerning. If this adjusted figure proves correct, it is likely that the local breeding population could be significantly reduced in a very short period of time. The ‘vacuum effect’ cold then lead to further erosion of the wider population. The explanations given to indicate that higher avoidance rates are more likely are tenuous. For example stating that viewpoint counts were carried out only on days when flight activity would be higher than normal, could easily be counter argued by saying bird strikes are more likely to occur on misty days, or when birds are flying in low cloud, a situation more likely to arise when birds are commuting to and from the nest whilst feeding young, a key period during which birds are more active and more likely to be forced to fly in poor conditions.
Pg.252. Kestrel: ’Mynydd-y-Gwair appears to be used by a single pair…which at the strike rates calculated would be likely to be removed from the local population’
Once a pair of birds are ‘removed’ it is likely that new birds would attempt to occupy the vacant territory resulting in a continuous ‘removal’ of the local Kestrel population, this being a species already in local decline.
VOLUME 3
Appendix 10.5
There are several surprising omissions from the full list of birds species presented as having been recorded within the bird study area. The following additional species have all been recorded during general bird club surveys within the same boundary by members the Gower Ornithological Society (GOS) over the same study period, but were missed by the Npower surveyors (Note that all information below is sourced from the GOS database. These data have always been available for consultants, in
Page 195 more recent years through SEWBReC (South East Wales Biological Records Centre), who appear not to have been consulted. Two SOCME sightings area also added to this list and are marked socme:
Blackcap (breeds annually at Bwllfa-isaf) Common Sandpiper (occasional passage birds recorded at reservoir) Cormorant (occasional visitor to reservoir) Curlew (seen on Mynydd y Gwair 07 july 2004) socme Dipper (breeds annually below reservoir) Feral Pigeon (small groupd seen flying over site in 2005 and 2007) *Golden Plover (400 recorded in 2008, this being larger count than figures given) Grasshopper Warbler (breeds most years at Bwllfa-isaf) Greenfinch (breeds annually at Banc Darren-fawr) Jack Snipe (occasional winter visitor) Kingfisher (recorded at Darren-serth) *Lapwing (pair seen displaying on Mynydd y Gwair in 2006) Moorhen (occasional visitor to reservoir) Osprey (seen above Lygos on 23 June 2004)socme Pied Flycatcher (breeds at Cwmcerdinen) Stock Dove (breeds annually at Banc Darren-fawr and Darren Serth) Tufted Duck (occasional visitor to reservoir) Whinchat (breeds occasionally at Banc Myddfai, Banc Darren-fawr and Bwllfa-isaf) Whitethroat (breeds annually at Banc Darren-fawr and Bwllfa-isaf) Woodcock (occasional winter visitor) Yellowhammer (breeds annually at Banc Darren-fawr and Bwllfa-isaf)
*Species listed in Appendix 10.5 are regular breeders that were not recorded by Npower surveyors. Given the extended survey period it is surprising to find that a significant number of regular and conspicuous breeding species listed above in bold were not detected. This indicates that parts of the survey area shown on Figure 10.3 were either, simply not visited, or were surveyed inappropriately.
Appendix 10.7 Missing from the volume
Appendix 10.8 Mislabelled as Appendix 10.7
References:
Averis, A., Avveris, B., Birks, J., Horsfield, D., Thompson, D. & Yeo, M. (2004) An Illustrated Guide to British Upland Vegetation, JNCC
Jones, P.S., Stevens, D.P., Blackstock, T.H., Burrows, C.R. & Howe, E.R. (2003) Priority Habitats of Wales: a technical guide, Countryside Council for Wales.
Page 196 APPENDIX G
Commentary!by!Professor!L!G!Moseley,!University!of!Glamorgan!on!“The!socioReconomic! benefits!of!! the!proposed!MynyddRyRGwair!Wind!Farm,!A!final!report!by!Regeneris!Consulting,!August! 2012”! ! ! Background! ! My!area!of!expertise!is!in!the!design!and!analysis!of!social!science!research,!largely!using! innovative!methods.!My!commentary!may!be!of!value!to!City!and!County!of!Swansea!as! they!determine!planning!application!2012/1221,!owing!to!my!understanding!of,!and!work! with,!quantitative!methods.!It!is!widely!accepted!that,!in!general,!the!UK!lacks!expertise!in! modern!quantitative,!robust,!social!science!methods,!and!that!this!is!a!problem.!For! example,!the!ESRC!Strategic!Advisor!reported!that!fewer!than!1!in!6!social!science! academics!in!the!UK!was!capable!of!giving!even!a!basic!methods!course,!let!alone!an! advanced!one!(MacInnes!2009).!There!are!few,!if!any,!examples!of!policyRoriented!studies! that!reach!standards!that!would!be!accepted!by!quantitative!researchers!in!the!field.!This!is! relevant!to!decision!makers,!as!policyRorientated!research!documents!that!are!flawed! cannot!be!relied!on!as!sound!evidence!for!the!decisions!they!face.! ! It!is!particularly!important!to!bear!this!in!mind!when!considering!policyRoriented!research! because!in!such!domains!authors!are!frequently!active!because!they!wish!to!change!the! world.!In!other!words!they!have!preRexisting!positions,!and!bias!may!influence,!either! intentionally!or!unintentionally,!their!work.!! ! I!am!not!aware!of!detailed!analyses!having!been!undertaken!in!planning!research,!but!in! three!practiceRbased!domains!in!which!researchers!have!strong!motivation!in!one!direction! or!another!(education,!social!work,!and!nursing)!it!has!been!shown!not!only!that!many! authors!draw!unwarranted!conclusions!from!their!own!work!but!that!their!research!designs! are!such!that!they!could!not!have!drawn!robust!conclusions!from!that!work!(Conn!et!al!2008! &!2011,!Rubin!&!Parish!2007a!and!2007b,!Zientek,!et!al!2008!Pino!et!al!2012).!Note!that! those!problems!arise!even!when!the!researchers!are!biased!only!by!their!own!prejudices! and!not!by!any!financial!inducements.!! ! When!money!is!involved!though,!then!the!situation!is!much!worse.!It!is!known!that!trials! funded!by!pharmaceutical!companies!produce!results!which!favour!the!companies!more! than!independent!trials!do,!often!by!between!20%!and!40%!bias!(Goldacre!2009!esp!pp!200! to!223).! ! It!is!very!easy!for!biased!people!to!do!misleading!research.!Given!that!the!current!study!was! commissioned!by!the!developers,!before!accepting!its!results!we!have!to!be!sure!that! safeguards!against!such!biases!were!built!in!to!it.! ! ! ! Can!we!trust!the!Regeneris!study?! !
! Page 197 1 Vague !and!limited!claims! ! I!have!no!criticisms!to!make!of!the!researchers!at!Regeneris.!They!were!given!a!brief!by!the! developers!and!quite!openly!worked!to!that!brief.!Even!the!title!of!the!report!shows!what! they!were!told!to!do.!It!talks!of!the!socioReconomic!benefits!of!the!proposed!wind!farm! while!on!page!10!they!openly!say!that!a!major!aim!is!“to!support!the!planning!application”.! Perhaps!more!vaguely!they!say!that!they!wish!“to!provide!evidence!of!potential!benefits”! and!“to!provide!guidance!on!actions!that!may!be!required!to!boost!the!proportion!of!the! economic!benefit!of!the!scheme!that!can!be!captured!within!Wales!and!specifically!in!South! and!West!Wales”.!Even!that!is!hedged!about!with!caveats:!they!talk!of!“potential!benefits”! and!of!“actions!that!may!be!required”.!The!authors!are!cautious!of!the!claims!which!they! make,!and!rightly!so.!I!respect!them!for!such!caution.! ! CostRbenefit!analysis! !! On!pages!5!to!8,!they!have!a!substantial!section!which!claims!to!identify!benefits,!but!the! report!contains!no!mention,!or!even!discussion,!of!costs.!It!looks!as!though!no!one!even! considered!the!possibility!that!the!scheme!could!have!any!negative!effects!–!even!though!a! previous!application!had!been!rejected.!! ! Of!course,!any!rational!planning!would!require!not!a!benefit!analysis!but!a!costRbenefit! analysis.!One!would!calculate!the!values!of!both!sides!of!the!equation!and!one’s!conclusion! would!depend!on!which!was!larger.!That!has!not!been!done!in!this!case.!To!look!at!one!side! of!the!equation!on!its!own!leads!to!the!economics!of!disaster.! ! For!example,!it!appears!that!the!construction!of!the!Chernobyl!nuclear!reactor!involved!a! benefit!analysis!(after!all!the!country!needed!electricity,!did!it!not)!but!no!accompanying! analysis!of!likely!or!possible!costs.!Such!an!unbalanced!approach!is!a!fundamental!design! flaw!in!any!research.! ! Therefore,!the!report!is!flawed!as!a!basis!for!any!policyRmaking!as!it!shows!only!one!side!of! the!equation.!That,!I!suspect,!was!because!of!the!brief!given!to!the!consultants,!not!because! of!their!own!calculations.! ! Anyone!who!is!familiar!with!the!standard!epistemology!of!science!(Popper!1963!&!2002)!will! know!that!the!hallmark!for!judging!research!is!the!concept!of!falsifiability.!One!can!never!be! sure!of!a!fact!or!relationship!merely!by!making!positive!observations.!The!key!criterion!is! that!one!should!be!able!to!postulate!a!negative!observation,!whether!or!not!such!a!negative! observation!proves!to!be!true.!The!oft!cited!example!is!that!no!matter!how!many!times!the! sun!rises!in!the!East!one!cannot!be!sure!that!it!always!does!so,!as!one!observation!of!it!rising! in!the!West!would!be!sufficient!to!be!sure!that!it!does!not!always!rise!in!the!East.!Once!one! has!postulated!that!the!sun!might!rise!in!the!West,!one!can!set!about!exploring!why!this!has! not!been!observed,!and!look!for!a!reason!as!to!why!the!sun!always!rises!in!the!East.!Without! the!first!simple!step,!an!expectation!that!the!sun!will!rise!in!the!East!is!a!matter!of!belief,!not! fact,!no!matter!how!often!it!has!been!observed!to!do!so.! !
! Page 198 2 The !Regeneris!report!makes!no!attempt!to!disprove!any!of!the!assertions!that!it!makes.!It!is! a!nonRscientific!document.!That!must!make!any!reader!cautious!of!the!claims!which!it! makes.! ! ! ! What!are!the!claimed!benefits?! ! The!major!measures!are!(a)!employment!(b)!GVA!(c)!other!benefits.!Even!without! considering!possible!costs,!the!benefits!are!(a)!over!a!very!short!timeRspan!and!(b)!on!a!very! modest!scale.!! ! ShortRterm!benefits.! ! The!shortRterm!benefits!claimed!arise!in!the!construction!phase!of!the!proposed!wind!farm.! That!would!generate,!the!report!claims!(page!5),!190!‘person!years’!in!South!and!West! Wales!but!only!during!that!phase.!This!could!have!been!alternatively!described!as!less!than! four!and!a!half!jobs,!if!‘person!years’!were!translatable!into!longRterm!career!opportunties.! However,!what!is!being!claimed!as!a!potential!benefit!would!not!be!a!sustainable!longRterm! benefit.! ! Quite!properly,!the!authors!undertook!some!sensitivity!testing.!They!report!that!those!tests! showed!that!the!actual!number!of!jobs!provided!during!the!construction!phase!could!in!fact! be!as!high!as!205!–!or!as!low!as!30!(section!4.10).!Given!the!fact!that!the!document!was! designed!to!show!benefits!for!the!developers!it!is!likely!that!any!potential!benefit,!even!in! the!short!term,!would!be!overRestimated.!Such!an!overRestimation!would!be!analogous!to! the!wellRattested!phenomenon!of!pharmaceutical!companies!claiming!benefits!from!studies! which!they!had!funded.!For!the!wind!farm!applications!it!is!much!more!likely!that!even!the! shortRterm!benefits!would!in!the!10s!rather!than!in!the!100s,!which!would!translate!to!less! than!one!half!time!permanent!job.! ! What!sort!of!employment?! ! The!authors!are!very!clear!that!the!sorts!of!jobs!that!will!be!needed!for!the!design!and! construction!phase!will!be!mostly!in!the!professional!and!technical!spheres.!They!note!(page! 21)!that!there!will!be!few!firms!in!the!locality!which!will!have!the!capacity!to!take!advantage! of!whatever!opportunities!occur.!One!striking!example!which!is!cited!is!that!of!Mabey!Bridge! who!produce!towers!for!wind!farms.!The!report’s!calculations!assume!that!100%!of!the! expenditure!on!the!towers!would!go!to!that!company.!Even!if!it!competed!successfully!and! won!the!business,!one!has!to!note!that!it!is!located!in!Chepstow,!some!70!miles!from!the! locality!of!the!proposed!development.!There!are!a!lot!of!assumptions!there,!as!in!the!rest!of! the!report.!If!that!company!did!not!win!the!contract!even!that!posited!benefit!would! disappear.! ! Point!4.8!(page!33)!states!clearly!“The!manufacture!of!turbine!towers!is!the!key!driver!of!the! economic!benefits!generated!for!Wales.!The!impact!presented!above!is!based!on!an! assumption!that!Mabey!Bridge!would!secure!the!contract!for!this!element!of!the!work.!If!
! Page 199 3 the !towers!were!sourced!from!elsewhere!in!the!UK,!the!economic!impacts!of!construction! within!Wales!would!be!less.”!That!seems!to!me!to!be!an!honest!assessment!of!the! probabilities.! ! A!similarly!honest!and!realistic!appraisal!comes!on!page!22,!point!2.21!where!the!authors! state!“It!is!probable!that!many!of!the!large!upper!tier!contracts!in!the!construction!phase! and!some!of!the!larger!contracts!in!the!operational!stages!would!be!let!to!companies! outside!of!Wales.!This!is!due!to!there!being!only!a!limited!number!of!companies!within! Wales!with!the!capability!to!bid!directly!for!these!large!contracts”.! ! Thus!even!at!the!design!and!construction!phase!there!are!serious!doubts!about!how!much! of!the!estimated!work!and!income!would!come!to!the!locality.!Even!if!we!ignore!the!social! and!economic!costs!of!the!proposed!development,!it!appears!that!even!during!the! construction!phase!(the!most!lucrative!as!well!as!the!most!damaging)!the!benefits!are!likely! to!be!modest.!As!I!shall!show!later,!they!would!probably!be!offset!by!some!very! considerable!longRterm!costs.!I!have!ignored!any!income!from!the!provision!of!hospitality! since!(a)!it!would!be!very!small!(b)!would!be!uncertain!and!(c)!would!do!nothing!to!upgrade! the!skills!of!the!local!labour!force.!There!are!industries!that!have!the!potential!to!bring!in! large!sums!in!income!to!an!area,!from!the!provision!of!hospitality!to!nonRresidents,!such!as! tourism!and!filming,!but!they!have!not!been!considered!by!this!report!in!any!detail!–!indeed! the!film/media!industry!is!not!mentioned!at!all,!which!as!the!site!is!included!on!the!Welsh! Screen!Commission’s!database!of!recommended!Locations!for!filming,!is!perhaps!a! somewhat!surprising!omission!R!and!even!tourism,!which!is!mentioned!in!passing!in!the! report,!is!not!used!as!a!comparison!with!respect!to!provision!of!hospitality.!Since!the! report’s!sole!focus!is!on!benefit,!rather!than!cost,!this!might!suggest!the!comparison!would! be!unfavourable!to!the!planning!applicant,!which!in!turn!might!explain!why!some!of!the! statements!about!impacts!on!tourism!that!are!included!in!the!report!are!brief!and!do!not! include!full!references!(e.g.!merely!one!example!is!given!as!a!footnote!to!point!5.9,!page!40,! despite!the!paragraph!making!quite!broad!claims).!I!will!return!to!the!subject!of!tourism! later.! ! ! LongerRterm!benefits! ! One!has!to!note!that!many!of!the!claimed!benefits!would!not!accrue!to!what!would!be! regarded!by!the!local!population!as!working!people.!For!example,!when!one!does!the!sums! at!point!4.15,!it!becomes!clear!that!68%!of!the!ongoing!supply!chain!expenditure!would!go! on!rates,!land,!rental!or!access!–!hardly!the!stuff!of!an!economic!revival.! ! When!the!farm!is!up!and!running!the!number!of!“average!annual”!jobs!in!the!area!falls!to!8! (of!which!only!3!would!not!be!from!RWE).!These!jobs!are!still!time!limited,!being!linked!to! the!up!to!25!year!life!span!of!wind!turbines!on!the!site.!!The!jobs!would!in!general!not!be! local!–!with!Swindon!being!cited!as!one!probable!location!(point!4.13).!Even!with!the! generous!assumptions!adopted!in!the!report,!in!the!longer!term!the!maximum!benefit!to! the!area!would!be!£300,000!per!annum.!Lest!anyone!is!tempted!to!be!impressed!by!that! figure,!it!should!be!noted!that!it!is!a!trivial!sum!and!would!quickly!be!offset!by!well!attested! costs.!
! Page 200 4 ! For!example,!a!small!market!research!company!in!the!Swansea!area!employs!30!staff,! earning!an!average!of!£20,000!per!annum!each.!In!total!they!thus!receive!30!x!20,!000!=! £600,000!p.a.!On!its!own!that!is!over!twice!as!much!as!the!proposed!wind!farm!is!estimated! to!generate!on!an!ongoing!basis.!Yes,!attracting!one!small!firm!would!provide!more!local! income!than!the!whole!windRfarm!project.! ! I!hope!that!that!example!of!one!small!company!in!the!knowledge!sector!of!the!economy!will! put!the!estimated!income!benefit!from!the!wind!farm!proposal!into!context.!Of!course,!one! hopes!that!the!economic!development!officers!of!the!local!council!will!attract!many!more! than!one!such!forwardRlooking!company,!but!only!one!would!be!sufficient!to!offset!any! benefit!from!the!wind!farm.! ! In!addition,!the!advantage!of!having!many!small!local!businesses!(over!a!few!large! international!ones)!would!be!produced!by!the!local!multiplier!effect,!sometimes!called!LM3,! as!proposed!by!the!New!Economics!Foundation.!In!one!study!undertaken!in! Northumberland,!for!example,!local!economic!development!officers!used!the!method!in! their!procurement!and!produced!almost!a!fiveRfold!increase!in!economic!benefit!to!that! rural!area!(http://www.neweconomics.org/pressRreleases/buyingRlocalRworthR400RcentR more)! ! If!the!construction!of!the!wind!farm!were!to!persuade!one!entrepreneur!not!to!locate!his! research!company!in!the!area!that!loss!(twice!the!estimated!benefit!given!in!this!report)! would!be!sustained!each!and!every!year!thereafter.!It!is!very!likely!that!if!the!proposal!went! ahead,!many!entrepreneurs!in!the!knowledge!economy!would!wish!to!locate!somewhere! else.!! ! There!is!a!substantial!literature!from!throughout!the!UK,!including!Wales!(see!bibliography,! of!studies!of!economic!importance!of!landscape,!within!the!References!section!of!this! document),!which!shows!how!a!good!quality!environment!attracts!not!merely! entrepreneurs,!but!entrepreneurs!who!offer!longRterm!sustainable!employment.! ! That!body!of!work!was!summarised!by!DEFRA!(2005)!which!reported,!“For!many!rural!areas,! their!greatest!asset!is!the!quality!of!their!environment”.!There!are!two!points!to!be!stressed! here.!Firstly,!it!is!not!“an!asset”!or!even!a”!great!asset”,!but!“the!greatest!asset”.!Secondly,! they!are!not!referring!to!the!obvious!aesthetic!or!environmental!effects!of!a!high!quality! environment,!but!to!the!purely!economic!effects.!It!is!clear!from!their!robust!economic! regression!analysis!that!the!quality!of!the!environment!is!more!important!than,!for!example,! either!a!stable!labour!force!or!low!business!rates.!Because!of!the!urban!bias!of!many! planning!courses!(and!the!professional!literature),!such!research!is!often!unknown!to! practising!professionals.! ! If!there!was!even!a!slight!danger!of!a!firm!from!the!knowledge!economy!being!dissuaded! from!investing!in!the!area!because!of!the!proposed!wind!farm,!that!on!its!own!would! completely!outweigh!the!tiny!and!shortRterm!benefits!which!are!claimed!in!this!report.! Indeed,!on!page!6!of!the!report!such!benefits!are!described!as!“more!modest,!but!ongoing”.!
! Page 201 5 If !the!consultants!for!the!developers!think!that!the!longRterm!benefits!would!be!modest,!it!is! difficult!to!see!how!anyone!else!would!challenge!that!conclusion.! ! Policy!considerations! ! One!has!to!note!that!even!when!they!speak!favourably!of!renewable!energy!(which!of! course!includes!many!less!damaging!technologies!than!onshore!wind)!both!allRWales!and! local!policies!are!careful!to!hedge!any!support!with!caveats.!WAG!Tan!8!for!example,! supports!such!development!“providing!it!does!not!have!an!unacceptable!impact!on!the! area”.!Similarly,!Swansea!UDP!policy!R11!states!“that!proposals!for!the!provision!of! renewable!energy!resources!will!be!permitted!providing!no!significant!adverse!amenity;! tourism;!infrastructure!or!built!environment!impacts!or!effects!are!present.”! ! Given!that!these!policies!express!concerns!about!amenity,!environmental!and!other!impacts! (i.e.!costs)!I!would!have!expected!any!rational!report!to!have!spent!much!of!its!time! examining!those!unacceptable!impacts.!The!current!report!is!silent!on!such!issues.! ! Decommissioning! ! In!the!past,!longRterm!planning!was!supposed!to!ensure!that!the!cost!of!any!project!was! amortized!over!is!whole!lifeRtime.!In!the!early!years!of!the!nuclear!industry,!for!example,!it! was!intended!to!set!money!aside!to!cover!the!eventual!costs!of!deRcommissioning!plants!at! the!end!of!their!useful!lifeRspan.!Unfortunately,!it!was!not!set!aside,!and!was!rather! allocated!to!general!taxation.! ! However!the!policy!eventuated,!the!planners!had!at!least!seen!that!deRcommissioning!was!a! longRterm!cost!which!had!to!be!accounted!for.!In!the!current!report!it!is!seen!very! differently.!On!page!8,!point!viii,!the!authors!claim!“At!the!end!of!the!operational!period,! there!would!be!additional!benefits!associated!with!decommissioning!the!wind!farm!at!the! end!of!the!operational!period”.!Somehow,!removing!the!turbines!and!the!associated! infrastructure!has!been!turned!from!a!cost!into!a!benefit.!That!is!real!sleight!of!hand.!! ! The!economics!are!interesting.!Burglary!is!normally!seen!as!a!social!cost!which!transfers! income!from!the!general!public!to!a!handful!of!burglars.!However,!if!one!asserts!that! because!we!have!burglars!we!need!police,!courts,!probation!officers,!prisons!and!the!like,! then!those!additional!costs!would!be!defined!by!the!authors!of!this!report!as!a!benefit.!In! the!current!case,!the!obvious!cost!of!decommissioning!has!been!defined!as!an!additional! benefit.!That!is!untenable.!Once!again,!one!would!only!have!to!ask!the!inhabitants!of! Chernobyl!and!its!surrounding!areas!whether!over!its!lifeRtime!the!plant!(construction,! operation,!decommissioning)!represented!an!economic!benefit!or!a!cost.!Although!the! research!has!not!been!done,!as!far!as!I!can!find,!it!appears!that!most!would!see!it!as!a!cost.! ! If!the!benefits!are!as!obvious!as!the!report!claims,!it!is!surprising!that!the!developers!have! not!proceeded!without!the!benefit!of!ROCs!and!have!not!volunteered!to!put!money!into! escrow!to!cover!the!costs!of!what!they!have!defined!as!the!economically!beneficial! decommissioning!phase.!Decommissioning!is!clearly!a!longRterm!cost!and!should!be!counted! as!such.!
! Page 202 6 ! Hence,!in!the!current!case,!counting!the!cost!of!decommissioning!as!a!benefit!is!misleading.! If!such!an!argument!has!to!be!dredged!up,!it!suggests!that!the!other!arguments!in!favour!of! the!wind!farm!proposal!must!be!weak.!Indeed,!in!reference!to!decommissioning!costs,!the! authors!wrote!“These!have!not!been!assessed!as!part!of!this!report!due!to!the!uncertainly! about!the!approach!to!and!costs!of!commissioning!at!this!stage.”!That!on!its!own!should!be! sufficient!to!alert!one!to!the!need!to!adopt!a!precautionary!approach.! ! Quality!of!jobs! ! On!page!24!and!25!the!authors!rightly!point!out!that!the!local!economy!lacks!an!adequate! supply!of!highRquality!jobs.!The!Local!Quotient!(LQ)!of!0.7!for!knowledgeRbased!services! makes!that!point!very!succinctly.!Given!that!the!city!has!two!universities,!one!of!them!with! an!international!reputation,!it!is!striking!that!the!high!levels!of!skills!have!not!become! routinely!embedded!in!the!local!economy.! ! This!problem!is!not!restricted!to!Swansea.!Not!only!has!the!UK!not!developed!the!skills!at! university!level,!but!we!have!dropped!behind!other!countries,!particularly!our!economic! competitors.!In!the!OECD!PISA!examinations!in!Mathematics!the!UK!dropped!from!12th!in! 2000!to!23rd!in!2011,!continuing!a!decline!from!4th!in!the!early!1990s.!Wales!lags!the!rest!of! the!UK!on!such!measures.!There!is!much!to!be!done.! ! It!can!be!argued!that!in!the!long!term!any!provision!of!jobs!that!require!skill!and!hard!work! may!serve!to!improve!the!situation.!However,!a!single!project!such!as!the!one!proposed!will! at!most!have!a!minimal!effect,!and!the!effect!may!be!negative!if!it!deters!alternative! employers!from!investing!in!the!area.!Further,!whilst!the!current!proposal!might!generate!a! few!higher!level!jobs,!those!are!unlikely!to!be!in!the!locality.! ! The!Green!Jobs!Strategy!for!Wales:!capturing!the!potential,!2009,!sets!our!requirements!for! skills!development.!Unfortunately,!that!has!not!yet!been!followed!through.!The!two!major! sources!that!I!have!contacted!(WEST:!Welsh!Energy!Sector!Training!and!LCRI!Low!Carbon! Research!Institute)!were!unable!to!point!to!any!published!literature!on!the!topic.!In!other! words!(a)!it!is!too!early!to!draw!conclusions!and!(b)!any!highRlevel!jobs!that!will!be!created! are!likely!to!be!effectively!in!export!businesses.!The!UK!will!design!and!manufacture!but!is! likely!to!deliver!overseas.!In!that!sense,!the!current!proposal!is!irrelevant.!On!page!6!the! authors!describe!the!benefit!as!“modest”.! ! ! Other!costs! ! Mining! ! Mining,!including!relevant!policies,!such!as!Mineral!Planning!Policy!Wales!(MPPW)!and! related!TANs,!is!not!considered!by!the!report.!! ! MPPW’s!first!key!principle!includes!the!need!“to!safeguard![mineral]!resources!from! sterilisation”.!
! Page 203 7 It !notes!too,!in!a!later!section,!with!respect!to!peat!and!economic!activities!related!to!peat,! that!such!sites!are!“of!significant!nature!conservation!interest!and!are!frequently!important! for!archaeological!interest,!and!these!areas!should!be!protected!and!conserved!for!future! generations.”! ! The!grounds!for!rejecting!the!previous!planning!application!2008/1781!included!the!peat! habitat!of!the!site.!This!issue!remains!an!issue!in!the!new!planning!application!2012/1221! (i.e.!the!site!remains!the!same,!and!whilst!there!are!3!turbines!less!than!in!the!earlier! proposal,!and!the!route!of!the!access!track!has!been!varied!a!bit,!the!site!still!contains!peat! that!would!have!to!be!extracted!as!part!of!the!project).!MPPW!suggests!that!damaging!peat! risks!future!economic!harm!and!that!this!should!be!avoided.!No!consideration!of!this!is! made!in!the!report.! ! Furthermore,!the!specific!need!“to!safeguard![mineral]!resources!from!sterilisation”!that! forms!part!of!the!first!key!principle!of!MPPW!is!challenged!by!the!planning!application.!In! September!2012,!the!BBC!reported!that!“Walter!Energy!is!concerned!about!the!implications! of!the!plan!for!a!wind!farm!near!its!Aberpergwm!Colliery,!near!Glynneath,!which!it!says! could!"sterilise"!land!for!mining.”!The!BBC!report!stated!that!up!to!90!jobs!are!to!go!owing! to!the!threat!that!the!planning!application!(mentioned!in!their!article)!poses,!but!that!in! total!350!jobs!are!at!risk,!as!more!jobs!may!be!lost!if!that!wind!farm!planning!application! proceeds!to!grant.!Indeed,!a!month!later!the!BBC!reported!on!shutdown!plans!for!the!same! colliery,!which!“will!affect!about!270!employees”.!Ironically,!perhaps,!the!report!noted!that! the!colliery’s!main!customer!is!a!power!station!run!by!RWE!npower,!which!stated!that!the! power!station!has!a!large!coal!stock!on!site,!and!that!operations!would!not!be!affected!by!a! shutdown!at!Aberpergwm,!which!whilst!presumably!a!relief!for!those!using!the!power!it! generates,!is!unlikely!to!have!been!much!consolation!to!the!laid!off!staff!at!the!colliery.! Once!again,!this!illustrates!why!the!potential!costs!as!well!as!the!potential!benefits!should! have!been!included!in!the!report!commissioned!by!the!planning!applicant.!
Tourism! ! The!authors!are!right!to!say!that!the!evidence!on!the!preferences!of!tourists!is!at!the! moment!not!well!documented.!However,!a!literature!review!for!Anglesey!County!Council! (The!Tourism!Company!2012)!notes!“Some!evidence!is!available!from!enterprises!reporting! on!their!own!canvassing!of!opinion!amongst!their!guests.!!Wilderness!Scotland,!an! environmentallyRfocused!tour!operator,!conducted!a!survey!among!their!clients!in!2005! which!showed!that!91%!would!not!return!to!the!Highlands!of!Scotland!if!wind!farms!are! developed!in!a!significant!way.!!Another!report!of!an!enquiry!by!the!owners!of!selfRcatering! accommodation!in!Argyll!found!that!70%!of!their!guests!said!that!they!would!not!return!if!a! windfarm!was!built!in!the!area!(Strachan,!2004)”,!and!also!states!that!many!tourism! enterprises“!have!concerns!about!the!future!effect!of!wind!turbines!on!their!business”.! !
! Page 204 8 This !suggests!that,!with!respect!to!economic!effects,!the!outlook!is!negative,!not!least! through!the!chilling!effect!that!fear!has!on!investment.!A!business!that!is!told!by!its!existing! clients!that!they!will!not!return!if!wind!turbines!proliferate!or!are!to!be!found!within!the! area!is!unlikely!to!try!to!grow,!if!such!development!is!feared,!and!is!more!likely!to!seek!to! relocate!away!from!the!perceived!threat!to!its!economic!welfare.!In!addition,!the!studies! included!in!the!attached!bibliography!suggest!that!there!is!a!danger!of!losing,!not!millions,! but!billions!of!pounds!of!tourism!income!if!the!environment!is!not!protected.! ! It!can!be!easy!to!overlook!the!economic!benefit!of!the!value!placed!by!visitors!on!the! environment,!which!can!be!substantially!greater!even!than!those!that!arise!from!initiatives! benefiting!from!government!support.!A!striking!example!arose!in!the!Forest!of!Dean.!The! government!funded!a!project!entitled!the!Integrated!Rural!Development!Program,!injecting! £1.6!million!over!a!6!year!period.!It!was!hailed!as!an!innovative!project.!During!the!same!6! years,!the!RSPB!made!an!economic!study!of!the!spending!of!visitors!to!see!the!Peregrine! Falcons!at!Symonds!Yat,!a!viewpoint!in!the!area.!The!benefit!from!those!birds!amounted!to! £3.2!million!i.e.!those!few!birds!brought!more!money!into!the!area!than!did!a!substantial! government!initiative!(Dickie!et!al!2006).!This!suggests!that!City!and!County!of!Swansea!has! been!and!remains!correct!to!look!for!innovative!economic!approaches,!such!as!using!the! Rural!Development!Plan!to!support!the!continued!growth!of!tourism!in!Mawr.!The!planning! applicant’s!consultants!have!failed!to!consider!the!impact!of!planning!application!2012/1221! to!such!existing!investments.! ! ! ! Visual!appearance,!noise,!health,!and!house!prices! ! The!following!sections!deal!broadly!with!questions!of!quality!of!life,!particularly!visual! appearance!of!wind!farms,!the!noise!that!they!create,!health!implications,!and!any!effect!on! property!prices.!One!must!start!by!noting!that!there!is!almost!no!consensus!on!these! questions.!For!such!important!issues!that!worries!me.! ! Visual!appearance! ! It!is!clear!that!many!people!find!windRfarms!an!eyesore!and!feel!that!they!completely!ruin! the!countryside.!That!is!clearly!expressed!in!most!popular!articles!on!the!topic.!Newspapers! such!as!the!Daily!and!Sunday!Telegraph!regularly!receive!contributions!on!the!topic!and!the! Daily!Mail!often!raises!the!issue!itself.!There!is!also!some!academic!writing!on!the!subject.! For!example,!in!the!Netherlands!when!the!visual!impacts!of!different!structures!were! compared,!the!authors!concluded!“Wind!farms!had!a!clear!negative!impact!in!all!cases”!(De! Vries!et!al!2012).!! ! Similarly,!in!the!Czech!Republic!it!was!reported,!that!“One!of!the!most!important!results!of! our!study!is!the!sensitivity!of!respondents!to!the!placement!of!wind!turbines!in!landscapes! of!high!aesthetic!quality”!(Molnarova!et!al!2012).!! ! An!attempt!at!quantification!was!made!in!a!study!in!Denmark!which!concluded!that! “attitude!towards!existing!turbines!is!negatively!related!with!the!number!of!turbines!
! Page 205 9 encountered!on!a!daily!basis”,!with!a!daily!dose!of!5!being!more!than!sufficient!for!most! people!(Ladenburg!and!Dahlgaard!2012).!Thus,!it!is!not!just!a!question!of!anecdotal!reports;! there!is!evidence!about!the!negative!effects!of!wind!farms!on!peoples’!visual!appreciation!of! the!countryside.! ! Noise!and!health! There!have!also!been!many!claims!both!by!newspapers!and!by!their!readers!that!there!have! been!illRhealth!effects!arising!from!the!noise!and!flicker!of!such!wind!farms.!One!of!the!more! dramatic!collations!of!experience!was!by!Dr!A!Harry!(Harry!2007).!It!is!a!collection!of! anecdotes!in!which!people!relate!negative!experiences,!but!there!are!sufficient!of!them!to! fill!62!pages!with!harrowing!stories.!81%!of!respondents!claimed!that!their!health!was! affected!(68%!sufficiently!to!go!to!their!GP).!73%!said!that!their!quality!of!life!had!been! affected.!! ! Those!claims!have!been!the!most!strongly!challenged!by!Chapman!(2012).!He!cites!17! reviews!on!the!topic!and!gives!a!number!of!quotations,!many!of!them!from!the!USA.!They! tend!to!use!phrases!such!as!“no!direct!link”,!“no!causal!link”,!“no!definitive!evidence”,!and! to!attribute!the!effects!to!respondents’!predispositions!or!felt!annoyance.!There!is!no! challenge!to!the!fact!that!people!living!near!wind!farms!regularly!report!impacts!on!sleep! and!other!quality!of!life!outcomes,!merely!that!the!authors!were!unable!to!relate!it!causally! to!the!turbines.!! ! Chapman!relies!heavily!on!the!Knopper!and!Ollson!2011!literature!review.!It!must!be!noted! though!that!the!final!section!of!their!paper!reads!“Conducting!further!research!into!the! effects!of!wind!turbines!(and!environmental!change)!on!human!health,!emotional!and! physical,!as!well!as!the!effect!of!public!consultation!with!community!groups!in!reducing!preR construction!anxiety,!is!warranted.!Such!an!undertaking!should!be!initiated!prior!to!public! announcement!of!a!project,!and!could!involve!baseline!community!health!and!attitude! surveys,!baseline!noise!and!infrasound!monitoring,!observation!and!questionnaires! administered!to!public!during!the!siting!and!assessment!process,!noise!modelling!and!then! postRconstruction!followRup!on!all!of!the!aforementioned!aspects.!Regardless!it!would!be! imperative!to!ensure!robust!study!design!and!a!clear!statement!of!purpose!prior!to!study! initiation”!(Knopper!&!Ollson!2011).!That!is!clearly!a!call!for!delay!and!caution,!especially!as! it!comes!from!a!source!widely!quoted!by!wind!farm!proponents.!Note!that!this!thorough! review!recommends!a!large!number!of!actions!before!either!study!initiation!or!public! announcement!of!a!project.!Until!such!actions!have!been!undertaken,!the!current!proposal! should!not!even!be!considered.! ! The!only!study!that!I!could!locate!which!formally!measured!respondents’!quality!of!life! (McBride!et!al!2011)!concluded!that!in!New!Zealand!people!living!within!2!kilometres!of!a! wind!farm!had!statistically!significantly!lower!overall!quality!of!life,!physical!quality!of!life,! and!environmental!quality!of!life,!significantly!lower!sleep!quality,!and!a!less!restful! environment!than!those!in!other!areas.! ! Effect!of!wind!farms!on!property!prices! !
! Page 206 10 Many!people!feel!that!their!property!value!has!been!decreased!by!the!placement!of!a!wind! farm!nearby!and!sometimes!even!by!a!planning!application!for!one!being!submitted.!Most! of!the!evidence!cited!by!the!wind!farm!lobby!comes!from!America.!The!USA!has!a! population!density!of!83!persons!per!square!mile.!For!the!UK!the!equivalent!figure!is!646!i.e.! about!8!times!more!crowded.!The!USA!has!sufficient!land!to!test!nuclear!weapons!on!their! own!land.!The!problem!of!visible!wind!farms!is!in!that!context!tiny.!It!would!be!ludicrous!to! pretend!that!they!are!in!any!way!comparable.! ! Frequent!claims!have!been!made!by!newspapers,!and!their!readers,!that!the!proximity!of! wind!farms!has!a!deleterious!effect!on!property!prices.!Developers!tend!to!dismiss!such! claims.!Which!is!correct?! ! There!have!been!two!major!reviews!in!the!UK!context.!One!was!an!attempt!to!model!prices! (Sims!et!al!2008).!The!results!were!fairly!typical.!It!reported!that!it!could!not!find!a!direct! causal!link!but!that!“there!was!some!evidence!to!suggest!that!both!noise!and!flicker!from! the!turbine!blades!could!blight!certain!property!and!that!the!view!of!countryside!enjoyed!by! the!occupier!had!some!value!which!may!be!affected!by!a!wind!farm”.!This!is!praising!with! faint!damns.!The!wording!is!very!grudging:!“some!evidence!to!suggest”,!“could!blight”,! “certain!properties”,!“the!view!of!the!countryside!may!have!some!value”.!Either!the!authors! had!some!results!or!they!did!not.!Clearly,!their!respondents!had!a!lot!of!complaints!but!the! authors!did!not!feel!able!to!report!them!in!full.! ! The!strongest!evidence!for!the!UK!comes!from!the!Royal!Institute!of!Chartered!Surveyors.!It! undertook!a!survey!of!its!surveyor!members!in!2004.!They!reported!that!60%!said!that! house!prices!were!decreased!by!the!proximity!of!a!visible!wind!farm!while!67%!said!that! property!prices!fell!even!when!a!planning!application!for!a!wind!farm!was!submitted.!For! agricultural!land!the!figure!was!not!so!striking!(28%!negative!effect).!However,!that!should! be!compared!with!those!who!said!that!there!was!a!positive!effect!on!agricultural!land!values! (9%).!Hence!the!negative!outweighed!the!positive!by!a!factor!3!to!1.!The!main!factors!that! led!to!the!decrease!in!value!were!proximity!(61%),!fear!of!blight!(67%),!and!visual!impact! 79%!(RICS!2004).! ! More!recently!the!RICS!collaborated!with!Oxford!Brookes!University!to!try!to!assess!the! impact!of!wind!farms!on!house!prices!(Sims!et!al!2007).!They!looked!at!the!effect!of!distance! from!a!wind!farm!on!house!prices.!Compared!with!similar!houses!four!miles!away,!for!semiR detached!houses!the!values!were!35%!lower!when!within!1!mile!of!a!wind!farm.!For! terraced!houses!the!differential!was!even!greater!–!their!value!was!54%!lower!when!within! one!mile!of!a!wind!farm.! ! One!would!have!thought!that!it!would!have!been!by!now!widely!accepted!that!wind!farms! lower!house!prices.!However,!the!wind!farm!lobby!has!tried!very!hard!to!deny!that!obvious! effect.!However,!as!Delingpole!has!shown,!the!wind!farm!lobby!has!been!desperate!enough! to!claim!the!RICS!studies!as!evidence!that!house!prices!had!not!been!affected.!He!quotes! Renewables!UK!as!saying!“And!there’s!no!direct!evidence!that!they!affect!house!prices,!in! fact!the!Royal!Institute!of!Chartered!Surveyors!says!they!don’t….”.!In!a!similar!vein,!he!also! cites!correspondence!from!DECC!using!the!same!claim!from!the!same!source.!I!must!admit! that!I!find!it!difficult!to!see!how!house!price!decreases!of!54%!or!the!proportion!of!houses!
! Page 207 11 losing!value!of!60%!can!be!said!to!show!that!the!RICS!found!no!evidence!of!an!effect,!and!to! do!so!without!blushing.!One!cannot!make!rational!policy!on!the!basis!of!misRinformation.! ! Of!course,!more!recently!there!has!been!acceptance!by!a!government!agency!that!the! values!of!properties!have!been!affected!adversely!by!the!construction!of!wind!farms.!The! Valuation!Office!Agency!(VOA)!has!moved!properties!to!lower!council!tax!bands!because! they!were!affected!by!wind!farms.!That!followed!the!initial!decision!in!the!Jane!Davis!case.!!! ! The!picture!becomes!clearer!by!the!day.!In!the!past!there!have!been!decisions!by!the! Advertising!Standards!Authority,!which!caused!the!developers’!lobby,!the!British!Wind! Energy!Association!(now!known!as!RenewableUK)!to!reduce!the!claimed!carbon!benefit!of! wind!by!a!factor!of!50%!(Sawer!2008).!More!recently!a!complaint!from!a!member!of!the! public!to!the!Advertising!Standards!Authority!led!a!developer!in!Scotland!to!withdraw!a! leaflet!which!claimed!the!there!was!no!effect!on!house!prices!(Cramb!2012).! ! ! ! Summary! ! During!this!commentary!I!have!expressed!bafflement!at!the!lack!of!consensus,!for!example! why!there!was!no!consensus!on!the!general!issues!of!the!effect!of!wind!farms!on!the!quality! of!life!of!residents.!I!now!believe!that!there!are!two!reasons.!One!is!rational,!the!other!is! propaganda.! ! The!rational!reason!could!well!be!that!different!people!have!different!views.!We!all!know! that!from!everyday!experience!but!there!is!some!scientific!evidence!to!support!that!view.! Most!social!scientists!(who!undertake!the!research)!are!not!methodologically!sophisticated! and!are!not!able!to!disentangle!confounding!variables.!However,!one!study!has!done!that! (Strazzera!et!al!2012).!They!used!a!technique!called!latent!class!analysis!to!get!below!the! surface!of!respondents’!views.!It!rapidly!became!clear!that!people!who!like!the!countryside! and!peace!and!quiet!and!who!have!a!strong!attachment!to!place!are!much!more!likely!to! oppose!wind!farms!and!to!resist!the!idea!of!a!tradeRoff.!For!them!no!compensation,!financial! or!otherwise!would!be!acceptable.!For!others!compensation,!either!public!or!private,!would! be!acceptable.!That!distinction!may!seem!obvious!but!it!has!been!demonstrated!with!great! clarity.! ! Naturally,!if!some!people!are!in!one!of!those!two!groups!and!some!in!the!other,!when!they! are!amalgamated!for!the!purposes!of!analysis!there!will!be!little!consensus.!That!is!one! possible!reason!for!my!bafflement.! ! If!one!is!to!undertake!an!analysis!of!preferences!and!likely!behaviour,!that!distinction!must! be!part!of!the!research!design.!People!who!live!in!the!countryside!do!so!for!a!reason.!Many! of!them!will!like!it!there!and!be!unhappy!at!the!idea!of!their!view!being!polluted!by!a!wind! farm!or!their!sleep!being!disturbed!by!intermittent!noise!from!one.!By!contrast,!people!who! prefer!to!live!in!urban!areas!likely!do!so!for!different!reasons.!Whilst!they!too!may!like!it! there,!they!enjoy!the!hustle!and!bustle,!the!noise,!and/or!the!fast!pace!of!life.!For!them,!the!
! Page 208 12 countryside!lacks!stimulation.!Perhaps!they!would!not!care!less!if!a!wind!farm!were!placed! outside!their!front!door.! ! That!means!that!if!a!decision!is!taken!in!favour!an!application!for!a!wind!farm,!one!is! automatically!giving!preference!to!the!views!of!the!urbanites!(who!will!not!be!directly! affected)!and!discounting!those!of!the!rural!dwellers!(who!will!be!directly!affected).!That! raises!a!question!of!equity.!By!comparison!I!would!note!that!some!males!develop!breast! cancer!but!in!general!women!are!more!likely!to!be!afflicted.!For!that!reason!we!give!greater! weight!to!women’s!views!when!it!comes!to!planning!provision!for!breast!cancer.!If!one! group!is!more!affected!than!the!other,!greater!weight!must!be!given!to!the!affected!group.! In!the!current!case!therefore!greater!weight!should!be!given!to!the!views!of!those!who!will! be!directly!affected!by!the!wind!farm!installation.! ! The!propaganda!reason!is!much!less!benign.!If!one!group,!in!this!case!the!wind!farm! developers,!stand!to!gain!considerable!sums!of!money!they!will!have!an!incentive!to!focus! only!on!portraying!a!positive!view!in!their!favour.!In!law!one!should!always!ask!cui!bono!–! who!will!benefit?!It!is!clear,!and!become!clearer!by!the!day,!that!the!wind!farm!lobby!at! times!sails!close!to!the!wind!when!it!comes!to!how!they!represent!“facts”.!They!have!done! so!sufficiently!to!be!cautioned!by!the!Advertising!Standards!Authority.!! ! It!is!interesting!that!the!Advertising!Standards!Authority!should!have!become!involved.!They! have!treated!the!arguments!in!the!case!of!many!wind!farm!proposals!as!advertising!–!not!as! the!discussion!of!evidence.!! ! Overall! ! 1. The!Report!is!not!a!scientific!one! 2. It!functions!as!a!piece!of!advertising!propaganda! 3. It!deals!only!with!posited!benefits.!It!is!not!a!costRbenefit!analysis! 4. The!benefits!claimed!for!the!construction!phase!are!small!and!certainly!smaller!than! the!median!estimates!made! 5. In!the!long!term!the!claimed!benefits!are!even!smaller! 6. Any!benefits!are!likely!to!go!largely!to!organisations!outside!the!area!and!indeed! outside!the!country! 7. The!effects!on!the!development!of!skills!and!attitudes!to!skills!are!likely!to!be!minimal,! thus!failing!in!one!of!the!major!aims!put!forward! 8. By!contrast,!the!costs!are!likely!to!be!substantial! 9. For!tourism!the!picture!is!mixed,!but!may!well!prove!negative,!especially!in!Mawr!! 10. For!attracting!modern,!knowledgeRintensive!companies!the!negative!effect!is! likely!to!be!even!stronger.! 11. If!only!one!modern!company!is!deterred!from!moving!to!the!area!that!on!its!own! would!negate!all!the!economic!benefits!(tentative!though!they!are)!that!have!been! suggested.! ! Overall,!the!economic!case!for!planning!application!2012/1221!has!not!been!made.!Indeed,! the!oldRfashioned!economic!model!adopted!implies!that!it!is!unlikely!that!such!a!case!could! be!made.!
! Page 209 13 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! References! !
Caithness!Windfarm!Information!Forum!(2012)! www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk! June!2012! ! Chapman!S!(2012)! Summary!of!main!conclusions!reached!in!17!reviews!of!the!research!literature!on!wind!farms!and! health.! From:[email protected]! January!2012! ! Conn,!V.,!Cooper,!P.,!Ruppar,!T.,!&!Russell,!C.!(2008).!! Searching!for!the!intervention!in!intervention!research!reports.!! Journal!of!Nursing!Scholarship,!40,!52R59.! ! Conn,!V.,!&!Groves,!P.!(2011).! Protecting!the!power!of!interventions!through!proper!reporting.!! Nursing!Outlook,!59,!318R325! ! Cramb!A!(2012)! Developer!drops!claim!wind!turbines!do!not!hit!house!prices! ! DEFRA!(2005).!Rural!Economics!Unit.!! Productivity!in!Rural!England.!! November!2005)! ! Delingpole!J!(2012)! Wind!industry!big!lies!no.!2:!your!property!values!will!not!be!affected! Blogs.telegraph.co.uk.!19!November!2012! ! Dent!P!&!Simms!S!(2007)!
! Page 210 14 What!is!the!impact!of!wind!farms!on!house!prices?! RICS!&!Oxford!Brookes!University!March!2007.! ! Goldacre!B!(2009)! Bad!Science! Fourth!Estate!2009! ! HaPS.!Heads!&!Professors!of!Sociology!(2010)! ! Harry!A!(2007)! Wind!turbines,!Noise!and!Health! NPD!2007! ! ! International!Benchmarking!Review!of!UK!Sociology! HaPS,!BSA!&!ESRC!March!2010! ! Knopper!LD!&!Ollson!CA!(2011)! Health!effects!and!wind!turbines:!A!review!of!the!literature! Environmental!Health!2011,!10:78!doi:10.1186/1476R069XR10R78! ! Ladenburg!J!&!Dahlgaard,!JO!(2012)! !Attitudes,!threshold!levels!and!cumulative!effects!of!the!daily!windRturbine!encounters! Applied!Energy,!98,!Oct!2012:!!pp!40R46!!!! DOI:!10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.02.070! ! MacInnes!J!(2009)! Proposals!to!support!and!improve!the!teaching!of!quantitative!research!methods!at!undergraduate! level!in!the!UK.! Report!by!ESRC!Strategic!Advisor! University!of!Edinburgh.!29!December!2009! ! Molnarova!K,!Sklenicka,!P!Stiborek,!J,!Svobodova,!K,!Salek,!M!&!Brabec!E!(2012)! Visual!preferences!for!wind!turbines:!Location,!numbers!and!respondent!characteristics! Applied!Energy,!92,!Apr!2012:!pp!269R278!!! DOI:!10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.! ! Pino!C,!Boutron!I,!&!Ravaud!P!(2012)! Inadequate!description!of!educational!interventions!in!ongoing!randomized! controlled!trials! Trials!2012,!13:63!doi:10.1186/1745R6215R13R63! ! Popper!K!(1963)! Conjectures!and!Refutations! Routledge!and!Kegan!Paul!1963! ! Popper!K!(2002)! The!Logic!of!Scientific!Discovery! Routledge!Classics!2002! ! RICS!(2004)!
! Page 211 15 Impact!of!wind!farms!on!the!value!of!residential!property!and!agricultural!land!An!RICS!survey! Royal!Institute!of!Chartered!Surveyors!(2004)! ! ! Ian!Dickie,!Julian!Hughes!and!Aniol!Esteban!(2006)! Watched!Like!Never!Before…!!the!local!economic!benefits!of!spectacular!bird!species! RSPB,!19!April!2006! ! Rubin!A!&!Parrish!D!(2007a)! Problematic!Phrases!in!the!Conclusions!of!Published!Outcome! Studies:!Implications!for!EvidenceRBased!Practice! Research!on!Social!Work!Practice!2007;!17;!334R348! ! Rubin,!A.,!&!Parrish,!D.!(2007).!Views!of!evidenceRbased!practice! among!faculty!in!MSW!programs:!A!national!survey.!! Research!on!Social!Work!Practice,!17,!110R122.! ! Sawer!P!(2008)! Promoters!overstated!the!environmental!benefit!of!wind!farms! The!Telegraph,!20!December!2008! ! Shepherd!D,!McBride!D,!Welch!D,!Dirks!KM!&!Hill!EM!(2011)! Evaluating!the!impact!of!wind!turbine!noise!on!healthRrelated!quality!of!life! Noise!&!Health.!13,!54!,!2011:!pp!333R339! ! Sims!S,!Dent!P!&!!Oskrochi,!GR!(2008)! Modelling!the!impact!of!wind!farms!on!house!prices!in!the!UK! International!Journal!of!Strategic!Property!Management,!12,!4!2008:!pp!251R269! DOI:!10.3846/1648R715X.2008.12.251R269!!! ! !Strazzera!E!,!Mura!M!&!Contu!D!(2012)! Combining!choice!experiments!with!psychometric!scales!to!assess!the!social!acceptability!of!wind! energy!projects:!A!latent!class!approach! Energy!Policy,!48,!September!2012:!pp!334–347! ! The!Tourism!Company!(2012)! The!impact!of!wind!turbines!on!tourism!:!a!literature!review! Prepared!for!Isle!of!Anglesey!County!Council! by!The!Tourism!Company! February!2012! ! Zientek!LR,!Capraro!MM!&!Capraro!RM!(2008)! Reporting!Practices!in!Quantitative!Teacher!Education!Research:!One!Look!at!the!Evidence!Cited!in! the!AERA!Panel!Report! Educational!Researcher,!37,!4,!2008:!pp!208R216! ! ! ! Some!bibliographical!references!to!studies!of!factors!which!lead!to!economic!progress!in! rural!areas!in!the!UK.! !
! Page 212 16 1.!Agarwal!S,!Rahman,!S!,!Errington,!A!,!Courtney,!P,!Moseley,!M!!(2003)! Determinants!of!Relative!Economic!Performance!Of!Rural!Areas!! Edited!by!Paul!Courtney!on!behalf!of!the!joint!authors!! University!of!Plymouth!&!University!of!Gloucestershire! July!2004! ! 2.!Park!J,!Jones!P,!Mortimer!S,!Stabler!M,!Tiffin!R,!Ijpelaar!J,!Strange!A!&!Tranter!R!(2004)! The!importance!of!the!quality!of!the!environment!for!economic!development!and!regeneration!in! rural!areas.! Final!report!to!DEFRA! University!of!Reading! June!2004! ! 3.!Bilsborough!S![CCW]!&!!Hill!S![University!of!Glamorgan]!(2003)! Valuing!our!environment:!the!economic!impact!of!the!environment!of!Wales:technical!summary!! January!2003! ! 4.!Stephen!Hill!&!Diane!O’Sullivan!(2003)! Valuing!our!environment:!a!regional!analysis!of!Wales! Glamorgan!Business!School! November!2003! 5.!Roberts!S!(2002)! Key!Drivers!of!Economic!Development!and!Inclusion!in!Rural!Areas! Initial!scoping!study!of!the!socioReconomic!evidence!base!for!DEFRA! May!2002! ! 6.!SQW!Ltd!(2004)! The!economic!value!of!protected!landscapes!in!the!North!East!of!England! Report!to!ONE!North!East! Executive!Summary! SQW!Ltd.!July!2004! ! 7.!Edward!Holdaway!&!R!Elwyn!Owen!(2004)! AONBs!and!the!economy!in!Wales.! Report!to!the!Countryside!Council!for!Wales! Contract!No:!FC!73R03R197! R.!Elwyn!Owen!Associates! November!2004! ! 8.!Welsh!Development!Agency!(2001)! Valuing!our!environment.!The!Economic!Impact!of!the!Environment!of!Wales! July!2001! ! ! 9.!GHK!(2003)! The!environmental!economy!in!rural!areas!of!South!West!England! report!to!SW!RDA,!English!Nature!and!the!RSPB! October!2003.! 10.!LUC!&!SKW!Ltd!(2001)! Environmental!prosperity:!business!and!the!environment!in!the!east!of!England:! Final!report!
! Page 213 17 LUC!and!SKW!Ltd!for!RSPB!et!al!! April!2001.! ! 11.!ERM!(2002a)! The!environmental!economy!of!the!North!West:!driver!for!economic!and!social!progress,!! ERM!for!NWRA,!NWRDA,!GONW!et!al! 2002! ! 12.!ERM!(2002b))! The!environmental!economy!of!the!East!Midlands! ERM!for!EMRDA!et!al! June!2002! ! 13.!ERM!(2001a)! The!Environmental!economy!of!the!West!Midlands! ERM! for! Advantage! West! Midlands,! the! Environment! Agency! and! regional! partners! in! the! West! Midlands! January!2001.! ! 14.!LUC,!SQW!et!al!(2002)! The!environmental!economy!of!the!South!East! LUC,!SQW!and!Cambridge!econometrics!for!SEEDA!et!al! August!2002.! ! 15.!ERM!(2001b)! !Valuing!the!environment!of!NE!England! ERM!for!regional!partners!NT,!EA,!ONE,!RSPB!&!CA! June!2001.! ! 16.!Holdaway,!E!(2000)! Landscapes!at!Risk?:!The!Future!for!Areas!of!Outstanding!Natural!Beauty!in!England!and!Wales.! Spon!Press17.! 2000! ! 17.!DEFRA!(2005)! Rural!Economics!Unit! Productivity!in!Rural!England! November!2005! ! ! 18.!Winter!M!&!Rushrook!L!(2003)! Literature!Review!of!the!English!Rural!Economy! Report!to!DEFRA! May!2003! ! ! 19.!Council!of!National!Parks!(2006)! Prosperity!and!Protection.!The!economic!impact!of!National!Parks!in!the!Yorkshire!and!Humber! region.! Council!of!National!Parks!2006! ISBN!096464!63!73!5!
! Page 214 18 ! 20.!Hudson!J,!Sessions!J,!Morley!B,!&!Davies!S!(2008)! Future!economic!activity!in!the!SouthRWest’s!rural!areas!and!smaller!settlements.! Final!Report,!February!2008! Department!of!Economics!and!International!Development! University!of!Bath.! ! !
! Page 215 19 APPENDIX H
Page 216 Page 217 Page 218 Page 219 Page 220 Page 221 Page 222 Page 223 Page 224 Page 225 Page 226 Page 227 Page 228 Page 229 Page 230 Page 231 Page 232 Page 233 Page 234 Page 235 Page 236 Page 237 Page 238 Page 239 Page 240 Page 241 Page 242 Page 243 Page 244 Page 245 Page 246 Page 247 Page 248 Page 249 Page 250 Page 251 Page 252 Page 253 Page 254 Page 255 Page 256 Page 257 Page 258 Page 259 Page 260 Page 261 Page 262 Page 263 Page 264 Page 265 Agenda Item 4 Report of the Head of Economic Regeneration and Planning
Development Management and Control Committee
7 February 2013
SWANSEA VALE FLOOD PREVENTION SCHEME – ENABLING WORKS
Purpose: To consider the breach of planning control arising from the relocation of the unauthorised but tolerated gypsy traveller encampment on land at Mill Stream Way.
Policy Framework: National and Local Planning Policies, and Welsh Government guidance on breaches of planning control.
Reason for Decision: Statutory responsibility of the Local Planning Authority
Consultation: Statutory consultations with the Environment Agency
Recommendations: 1. That no enforcement action is taken against the unauthorised gypsy and traveller encampment at Mill Stream Way and that the situation is monitored by the Head of Economic Regeneration and Planning and the Corporate Director (Environment) and that a further report be brought to this Committee in the light of the Council providing a permanent facility elsewhere in due course. 2. That the Council implements a set of Flood Emergency Measures for the site as required by the Environment Agency.
Report Author: John Lock
Finance Officer: Sarah Willis
Legal Officer: Roderic Jones
1 Relevant Planning History
2009/1249 Retention of change of use for a temporary period from public car park to informal Gypsy Traveller site for use by named families (Council Development Regulation 3) on land at Swansea Vale Park and Ride facility, Llansamlet, Swansea (See Appendix 1 for Plan);
Refused on 23rd December 2009 for the following reason:
1. The proposed site has been identified as being at significant risk of flooding. The potential depths and velocities are far in excess of those stated as acceptable for residential development in Appendix 1 of Welsh Assembly Government Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk (TAN 15).
Page 266 Having regard to the highly vulnerable nature of the development, its lack of justification against the criteria of TAN 15 and the potential risk to life as a consequence of a flood event, the proposal amounts to development that is contrary to national planning policy set out in TAN 15 and UDP Policies EV2(ix) and EV36.
2012/1376 Construction of the Lower Swansea Valley Flood Risk Management Project Various banks at the river Tawe, Swansea Vale North and Swansea Enterprise Park Swansea along the banks of the River Tawe involving the re-alignment of the existing Swansea vale north embankment and creation of a wetland habitat, raising the height of the existing embankments, constructing new flood defence walls, flood gate installation, the replacement of the Beaufort road bridge with a new pedestrian /cycle bridge, and protection works to the ordinary watercourse at the rear of Cwrt Llwyn Fedwen together with associated works, landscaping and cycleway / footpath reinstatement.
Approved on the 10th January 2013 subject to conditions as set out in the report to the Development Management & Control Committee of the same date.
2 Policy Background
Planning Policy Wales – Enforcing Planning Decisions; Technical Advice Note 09 – Enforcement of Planning Control; Swansea Unitary Development Plan 2008
o Policy EV36 - New development, where considered appropriate, within flood risk areas will only be permitted where developers can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Council that its location is justified and the consequences associated with flooding are acceptable;
o Policy EV37 - Tidal and River Defences - The integrity and continuity of tidal and river defences will be maintained and improved where necessary. Access to existing and future tidal and river defences for maintenance and emergency purposes will be protected and where appropriate, improved subject to satisfactory ecological and visual safeguards. Where development relating to tidal and river defences is permitted the stability and continuity of the defences must be maintained.
o Policy HC9 - Gypsy and traveller sites will be permitted where an unmet need is proven subject to the requirements of a defined set of criteria being met. - Criteria for consideration of gypsy and travellers sites where an unmet need is proven. The amplification indicates that the County has a small permanent population of gypsies, supplemented by a number of caravans that move into the area on a regular basis. The only statutory gypsy site within the County is at Pantyblawd Road, Llansamlet, which provides accommodation for 14 caravans.
o Policy HC19 – Tawe Riverside Park - The Tawe Riverside Park will be completed so as to enhance its ecology and appearance, improve its role as an attractive recreation area and complete the pedestrian and cycle network.
Page 267 3 Consultations
3.1 The Environment Agency has been consulted on the relocation of the named family, and have raised an objection on similar grounds to those previously expressed on the application for the temporary facility on the adjacent land.
Notwithstanding this, the Agency has indicated its understanding of the position, but noted the need for protocols and measures to be implemented by the Council whilst the family remain on the land. These are being developed with the Council’s emergency resilience planners
4 Planning Background
4.1 Members will be aware that the last meeting of this Committee resolved to grant planning permission to the Environment Agency for the Lower Swansea Valley flood risk management project (see above refers 2012/1376), which is intended to be implemented and completed in this calendar year.
4.2 However, part of the engineering works, together with a construction compound, lie on land occupied in part by an unauthorised gypsy traveller encampment. The land is owned by the Council. This encampment has been at the site for some years and the area occupied was excluded from an order for possession for the whole of the Enterprise Park obtained by the Council. Following a decision of Cabinet on 8th May 2009 the Corporate Director of Environment has been pursuing options for permanent alternative site provision. Members will be aware that the selection of land for the development of the permanent site has been constructively pursued by the Council. The timetable for securing the provision is within 2013/14
Turning to the policies of the Unitary Development Plan(UDP) set out above, Policy EV 36 sets out the need for areas liable to flooding not to be developed. This, in conjunction with Policy HC9, is of direct relevance as it was this policy that caused the Council to refuse its own application for a temporary gypsy and traveller site for the land mentioned in this paragraph. (Refers 2009/1249 above). Notwithstanding this decision, the continued presence of the unauthorised gypsy/traveller encampment on the site was tolerated whilst the Council’s plans for the identification and provision of alternative sites were developed.
4.3 Policy EV37 supports the development of the Swansea Vale Flood Management Project, and thus indirectly supports Council actions to facilitate this. Policy HC19 sets out the Council’s intentions to enhance the area, which is part of the flood management project
5 The Development
5.1 The Council needed to provide the land occupied by the unauthorised encampment to the contractors for the Environment Agency to allow the construction works to start this month, in line with the project timescale. To enable this, a temporary gypsy and traveller facility has been developed on Council land at Mill Stream Way.
Page 268 This comprises an access track from the public highway some 80 metres in length; the relocation of two temporary toilet and washing facilities, each being 3.05m x 2.57m x approx. 3m high, and the provision of hard standings for the caravans and the relocation of the caravans currently on the unauthorised facility to the new temporary facility. (See Appendix 1 for Site Plan).
5.2 Planning permission has not been sought for this development, because the Environment Agency has confirmed that it would raise an objection to such an application, similar to that made in respect of the existing adjacent site referred to above (Refers 2009/1249).
6 The Issues
6.1 The Council has three distinct responsibilities in this matter:-
it has to ensure that the implementation of the Swansea Vale Flood Risk Management Project is undertaken in accordance with the Environment Agency’s program in the interests of securing the safety of businesses/and residential premises at risk of flooding; it has to relocate the gypsy/travellers from the current unauthorised site to enable the consent granted to the Environment Agency to be implemented, and to meet its responsibilities until further additional site provision for gypsy/travellers is developed; and it has to ensure that the breach of planning control resulting from the relocation of the gypsy/travellers on the current unauthorised site and the associated facilities is acknowledged and considered fully in the context of the above responsibilities.
6.2 The first two responsibilities are not the responsibility of this Committee, and it is the last that this Committee is charged with considering.
6.3 The relevant legal provisions with regard to the taking of enforcement action are set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A local planning authority (LPA) may issue an enforcement notice where it appears to them that there has been a breach of planning control and that it is expedient to enforce , having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations. The question of whether it is expedient to issue an enforcement notice must be considered once the Council has determined whether there has been a breach of planning control and the question must be considered against all the background factors.
6.4 The taking of enforcement action against unauthorised development is discretionary. This is set out in TAN 9. However, the relevant sections quoted below clearly indicate that this is circumscribed by the need not to condone unauthorised development, and the need to safeguard amenity.
This is set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 of TAN 9 which state:
5 Although it is not a criminal offence to carry out development without first obtaining any necessary planning permission, such action is to be discouraged. The fact that enforcement action is discretionary and should be used as a last resort and only when it is expedient, should not be taken as condoning the wilful breach of planning controls. Powers are available to Local Planning Authorities to bring unauthorised development under planning control, and it is for them to decide which power, or combination of powers, to use. Page 269 6 In considering enforcement action, the decisive issue for the Local Planning Authority should be whether the breach of planning control would unacceptably affect public amenity or the existing use of land and buildings meriting protection in the public interest. Enforcement action should be commensurate with the breach of planning.
6.5 Thus it is for the LPA to exercise its discretion in the matter. In terms of considering an unauthorised development undertaken by the Council, the LPA has to consider the position in the same manner as it would for an unauthorised development by any other developer. The LPA must take into account the guidance given in TAN 9 and apply that guidance to the circumstances of this particular case.
6.6 Turning to the issue of amenity, this can be considered in terms of the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in terms of the continued presence of the family in the area; in terms of the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties and others in the Swansea Vale from the implementation of the flood management project; and the amenities of the family to be relocated.
6.7 Considering these in turn, the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring businesses will be no further affected than they currently are. The site now used to relocate the gypsy/traveller family is not significantly nearer to existing properties. Also the time scale for the Council to select and develop a permanent site in line with its responsibilities will not change., The amenities of those occupants of properties in the area whose likelihood of flooding in the event of severe weather conditions will be enhanced by the flood management project’s implementation. The amenities of the gypsy/traveller family will not be affected as the relocation is to a nearby site and the temporary facilities are being moved.
6.8 Turning to the policy issues, it can be seen that the development of the site goes against the provisions of policies concerned with development on land subject to flooding. However, this has to be weighed against the historic presence of the tolerated family facility on adjacent land.
6.9 It should also be noted that even after the flood remediation works are complete, the whole of the area is still within the Flood Plain and therefore would be deemed unsuitable for use as a gypsy/traveller site, so the use of the land for this purpose will be a temporary use.
7 Financial Implications
7.1 Failure to find a solution would jeopardise European Convergence money for the Flood Risk Management Scheme. In practical terms if the proposed Flood Risk Management scheme does not proceed due to the presence of travellers, the lower Swansea Valley which contains significant numbers of businesses and residential properties, will remain at significant known risk of flooding.
8 Legal Implications
8.1 These are identified throughout the report.
Page 270 9 Conclusion
9.1 Whilst the retention of the site contravenes policies of the UDP, it is considered that the benefits of the council having relocated the gypsy/traveller family for a temporary period out weigh the consequences of either allowing them to remain on the current site, and frustrating the construction of the flood management project, or of not providing them with the temporary relocated site,
9.2 The Council should develop emergency flood measures to help alleviate the concerns of the site being located on the flood plain.
9.3 The situation should be monitored by the officers with particular reference to the process of provision of a new permanent gypsy/traveller facility.
Background Papers: Local Government Act 1972 (Section 100) (As amended)
The following documents were used in the preparation of this report:
Planning Application documents relating to Application No’s: 2009/1249 & 2012/1376; TAN9; Unitary Development Plan – November 2008; Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
Appendices: Appendix A – Site Location Plan / Aerial Plan Appendix B – Environment Agency
Page 271 il2u2t
ei2riiv2hsi APPENDIX A gity282gounty2of2wnse
wsvvfyyu2hsi
wsvv2iew2e g gsfvi2eu repred2y2ennette2tones yrdnne2urvey2IHHHPQSHW eserh282snformtion2em gevi2E2IXPSHH2d2eR ©2grown2gopyright2nd2dtse2right2PHIP
ionomi2egenertion282lnning iv of2existing2fmily
emporry2relotion
iv gyle2th
qs2qov iver2weGefon2we xew2trk2ess il2u2t ih2fdy
f2RTPS IU2to2IW ond exis2gourt ond
IT
IS
T2to2IH
hrin
I S
wevveh2e exis2gourt
R
umping
P riyx2hsi il2u2t ixisting2enmpment iverside2fusiness2rk r2fusnes2qln2yr2efon Page 272
wyyrix2gvyi x APPENDIX A
gity282gounty2of2wnse
x
ixisting2enmpment
emporry2relotion
of2existing2fmily Page 273
xew2trk2ess
ionomi2egenertion282lnning
gevi2E2IXPSHH2d2eR
repred2y2ennette2tones
eserh282snformtion2em
©2grown2gopyright2nd2dtse2right2PHIP
yrdnne2urvey2IHHHPQSHW APPENDIX B
Page 274 Page 275 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT & CONTROL COMMITTEE (72)
Councillors: John C Bayliss Andrea S Lewis Peter M Black David J Lewis Nicholas S Bradley Richard D Lewis June E Burtonshaw Clive E Lloyd Mark C Child Paul Lloyd (Vice Chair) Uta C Clay Keith E Marsh Anthony C S Colburn Penny M Matthews David W Cole Paul M Meara Ann M Cook Hazel M Morris Sybil E Crouch John Newbury Jan P Curtice Byron G Owen Nick J Davies Geraint Owens W John F Davies David Phillips A Mike Day Cheryl L Philpott Phil Downing Jennifer A Raynor C Ryland Doyle T Huw Rees V Mandy Evans Ioan M Richard William Evans J Christine Richards E Wendy Fitzgerald Neil M Ronconi-Woollard Robert Francis-Davies (Chair) Pearleen Sangha Fiona M Gordon Paulette B Smith Joe A Hale Robert V Smith Jane E C Harris R June Stanton Terry J Hennegan Rob C Stewart Chris A Holley D Gareth Sullivan Paxton R Hood-Williams Gloria J Tanner Beverly Hopkins Mitchell Theaker David H Hopkins Ceinwen Thomas Dennis H James C Miles R W D Thomas Lynda James Des W W Thomas Yvonne V Jardine Mark Thomas Andrew J Jones L Graham Thomas Jeff W Jones Linda J Tyler-Lloyd Mary H Jones Gordon D Walker Susan M Jones Lesley V Walton Erika T Kirchner T Mike White
Page 276