Special Planning Control Committee Bullington Cross Wind Farm 13/00800/FUL, 13/0046/FUL(B&DBC) & 13/00753/FULLN (TVBC) U

Special Planning Control Committee

Bullington Cross Wind Farm 13/00800/FUL, 13/0046/FUL(B&DBC) & 13/00753/FULLN (TVBC)

Update Sheet

Monday 16 th June 2014

The information set out in this Update Sheet includes details relating to public speaking and any change in circumstances and/or additional information received after the agenda was published.

Ref No Address Recommendation Item No 1 13/00800/FUL, Proposed Bullington Cross Wind REFUSE 13/00046/FUL( Farm Site, Norton, Sutton Scotney, B&DBC) Hampshire 13/00753/FULL N (TVBC) Agenda Page:

Officer Presenting: Dave Dimon

Public Speaking

Objectors: Darcy Ladd – Chilbolton Observatory Graham & Jackie Hensman Christopher Napier – CPRE Douglas Paterson – Keep Hampshire Green Philip Dowson – Dever Society Eva Butler – Tufton Warren Martin Leay & Anthony Fortescue – Tesbourne Estate Gerald Smith (possibly Suzanne Church) – Popham Airfield

Parish Council representatives: Lucy Dowson - Wonston PC Anne Peal or June Perins – South Wonston PC Cllr Annabel Smyth-Osbourne – Bullington PC

Ward Councillor: Cllr Malcolm Wright (WCC Wonston & Micheldever) Cllr Tom Thacker (County Councillor – BDBC) Cllr Paula Baker (BDBC) Cllr Stephen Godfrey (WCC Wonston & Micheldever) Cllr Ian Tilbury (BDBC Laverstoke & Steventon) Cllr Mark Williams (BDBC Hurstbourne & Prior) Cllr Caroline Jolly (BDBC Laverstoke & Freefolk)

Supporters: Jeremy James Heath-Caldwell Martin Heath – Hampshire Renewable Energy Co-op Helen Jones Tanya Rahman Alan Walker Patrick Geraets

Applicant: Darren Cumming and Ernie Shelton - EDF

Update

(Section 4) Public Consultation Process

TVBC REPRESENTATIONS

The application received a large number of representations in the form of emails, letters and also a petition. The representations were made both in support of and objecting to the proposed development.

A petition was received that was signed by 3081 people. It stated the following:

“I, the undersigned, would like to register my strong objection to the proposed Bullington Cross and Woodmancott wind farm developments in Hampshire. This is due to the concerns of air safety in the area of intense Micro light activity and intense military aircraft. There are great dangers of mid-air collisions or engine failure on take-off, due to the excessive height of the 415ft wind turbines”.

1232 letters and emails – Objection:

This sentence was used as the basis for a significant number of the letters. Additional comments were then added in many cases.

“As someone who values the countryside I object to the proposed wind farm near Bullington Cross because these moving industrial structures will spoil the tranquillity and scenic beauty of the Hampshire Countryside.”

Comments relating to construction and operational issues:

• Access impact and traffic danger/distraction for drivers on A303/A34 • Physical impact of development including access and equipment and connection

to the grid • Noise and disruption during construction and decommissioning • Danger to aviation –military and light aircraft/microlights Interference with radar or TV/radio/telecom signals

• Industrial activity on agricultural land • There are better ways of making small amounts of electricity • Many countries are rethinking their approach to wind and no longer investing • What about the energy involved in commissioning/decommissioning

Environmental Issues

• Adverse impact on local amenity due to size and design – visually intrusive and harms the tranquil landscape character • Detracts from wider landscape character including AONB • Impact of low frequency noise and vibration when in operation • Adverse impact on users of footpaths, PROWs and bridleways • Harmful to archaeology and heritage assets including Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas • Need to value the countryside as there are very few spaces with unencumbered views • Not enough wind

Impact on people

• Shadow flicker effect from moving blades and impact of warning lights • Effect of low frequency noise and vibration on people • Evidence is mounting that ETSU-R-97 is insufficient to protect residents and noise • Proximity to dwellings – 2km separation distance required between turbines and houses

Ecological Issues

• Adverse impact on birds as a result of birdstrike, loss of habitat, disturbance and ability to hunt • Impact on bats as a result of barotrauma, inability to navigate around the turbines • Adverse impact on plant species • Loss of habitat • Impact on birds breeding sites

Other Matters

• Proposal is subsidy driven – only viable due to Government subsidy and then puts up energy costs • Inefficiency of wind turbines – only work 25% of the time • Harmful to local businesses/tourism in the area • Devalue properties • The manufacturing and construction processes creates more carbon dioxide than is saved through use of the turbines 1312 letters and emails Support:

A significant number of the representations were in the form of an email stating the following;

“I fully support the wind farm at Bullington Cross. It should also be partially owned for the benefit of the local community.”

Additional and/or separate comments were then added to many of the emails and the reasons for support were:

• Helps to meet Government and/or Hampshire green energy obligations. • Reduces carbon dioxide emissions and better than nuclear or fracking • Should include element of local community ownership • Wind turbines are interesting features in the landscape • Quiet, modern and efficient way of generating clean, renewable energy • Not in an ecologically sensitive area • Should visit France and Germany to see how many wind farms have been built – they may enhance the views • Land based wind power has the potential to create local jobs and improve local power resilience • Noise emissions are insignificant compared to the road noise from A34 and A303 • The local wildlife is more at risk from climate change than it is from the installation of wind power

Additional representations received since the publication of the main agenda report:

Test Valley

Support 196

Object 1

Total for Test Valley

Support 1312

Object 1232 + 3081 petition

WCC

Support 31

Object 1

Total for WCC

Support 1816

Object 1359 + 3081 petition

(Section 5) Consultation Responses

BDBC

Para 5.41 main papers – additional Tree Officer comments

Satisfactory arrangements shown for Freefolk wood. If approving would want conditions to secure 15m buffer for Freefolk wood and an additional condition demonstrating acceptable buffers or working methods to protect other trees / hedgerows.

TVBC CONSULTATIONS

The following consultation response from the TVBC Conservation Officer was omitted from the main agenda report and is set out below:

Design and Conservation – Object

The proposed development by virtue of its design, scale and location would fail to preserve the architectural and historic setting of designated heritage assets within Test Valley. The closest and most affect ed designated heritage assets are Firgo Farm (Grade II), Bullington House (Grade II), St. Michaels Church, Lower Bullington (Grade II*), Barton Stacey Conservation Area and Tidbury Ring (SAM). The proposed development would have an adverse impact on their settings which are an aspect of their significance. As such the proposals do not comply with S.66 and S.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 or with policy ENV17 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan and are contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposal is for an array of 14 wind turbines to be sited on land at Bullington Cross, where the boundaries to Test Valley Borough Council, Basingstoke and Dean Borough Council and Winchester City Co uncil converge. The part of the site within Test Valley would encompass 3 of the wind turbines, with the remainder lying within the boundaries of the two neighbouring local authorities. These proposed wind turbines are likely to be visible from numerous l ocations within Test Valley due to the topography of the site (with land levels approximately 90 to 110m above sea level) and by virtue of the overall height

of the wind turbines (overall height of 126.25m as measured from the ground to the rotor blade) , which as a result of their size and form, with large rotating blades, represent industrial scaled moving features incongruous to this part of Hampshire, where there are known heritage assets (Schedule Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas).

The submitted Environmental Statement produced by PMSS has identified a ‘Zone of Theoretical Visibility’ based on the site’s topography and the maximum height of the wind turbine (to blade tip height) calculated to encompass an area up to 30km f rom the site. However, for the purposes of assessing the visual impact the proposed wind farm would have on the setting of those designated heritage assets that fall within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility a 5km radius from the project site has been dete rmined (following advice from English Heritage) should be the parameter for assessments of impact. The assessment undertaken by PMSS follows well established methodologies, as set out in guidance produced by English Heritage, for ranking the significance of heritage assets and the setting of the asset.

With respect to those designated heritage assets that lie within Test Valley and would be situated within 5km distance of the proposed site these would include Tidbury Ring (Schedule Ancient Monument), the Grade I Listed Building Church of St Nicholas’s in Longparish, the Grade II* Listed Buildings of St Michaels at Lower Bullington, All Saints Church at Barton Stacey and Longparish House (Longparish). Furthermore, there are a number of Grade II Listed Buil ding within 5km of the proposed site, the majority of which are to found in the two designated conservation areas of Barton Stacey and Longparish, with a small number of the listed buildings to be found in either small hamlets, such as Bransbury or East Bu llington, or are otherwise in more isolated locations, as is the case with Firgo Farm and Bullington House. There are also known to be a further number of non-designated heritage assets that lie within 5km of the application site.

Design and Conservati on in making its assessment has undertaken a survey of the area of Test Valley that lies within 5km of the proposed site that like the survey undertaken by PMMS for the applicant’s environmental statement has been done at a time in the year when the trees are in full leaf. As such, it may be that during those months when there are no leafs on the trees that viewed from certain locations the wind turbine may become more visible. PMSS have undertaken a series of wire mapping models for specific sites to show the potential visibility of the wind turbines in context with the topography and vegetation (trees, bushes, etc.).

Of the designated heritage assets within 5km of the proposed wind farm it has been determined it is those closest to the proposed site tha t are likely to be the most effected. That said there are exceptions to this where the intervening topography and or structures can mean certain sites would be less effected, as it is believed would be the case with the small hamlet of East Burlington, whi ch whilst it is the site of a number of listed buildings

the impact of the window farm would its believed be low due to the steeply rising land to the north and the embanked A303. For the purposed of this response the closest and most affected of the desig nated heritage assets within Test Valley have been assessed to be Tidbury Ring, Firgo Farm, Bullington House, St Michaels Church, Bullington and the Barton Stacey Conservation Area.

Tidbury Ring (Scheduled Ancient Monument)

Whilst it is acknowledged th at Tidbury Ring is situated nearest the application site, which lies to the east of it on high land, however given these earthworks are a Scheduled Ancient Monument the Design and Conservation would in this case wish to defer to the conclusion drawn by Eng lish Heritage as to the potential impact to the setting of this Scheduled Ancient Monument.

Firgo Farmhouse, Aisled Barn and Stables (Grade II Listed Buildings)

The Grade II listed Firgo Farmhouse represents the second closest designated heritage as set, within Test Valle, to the application site. The farmhouse, a two storey property along with a separately Listed Grade II aisled barn and stables buildings constitute an historic farmstead. This farmstead sits in an isolated rural location with moder n farm buildings to the northeast and is surrounded by agricultural field, with the land rising up to the northwest of the farmyard. A nearby public footpath runs in a northwest/southeast direction allowing for views onto the farmstead and its rural settin g. The Archaeology and Cultural Heritage section of the submitted Environment Statement has assessed Firgo Farm to be of a medium sensitivity with respect to its significance and setting with the magnitude of effect of proposed wind farm being assess ed as being of ‘minor adverse significance’ to Firgo Farm. With the nearest wind turbine being located approximately 1.7km to the east it is anticipated that the wind turbines will be visible in those views of the farm from the public footpath northwest as well as in those views east of the farm complex. Although intervening buildings and vegetation would provide some screening it is considered the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the setting of this group of listed buildings, and as suc h would be contrary to policy ENV17 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan (2006).

The Church of St Michael & All Angels, Lower Bullington (Grade II* Listed Building)

The Church of St Michael is understood to be a late 12 th century/early 13 th century par ish church, extended and restored in the 19 th century. The church is listed as Grade II* and as such is deemed to be a particularly important building of more than special interest according to English Heritage (with only 5.5% of all listed buildings given Grade II* status).

The applicant’s Archaeology and Cultural Heritage section of the Environment Statement has assessed the church to be of high sensitivity, which Design and Conservation would not wish to dispute. When travelling eastwards along lane the church is seen in the context of its agrarian surroundings. The church is bounded to the east by a grazing

paddock and beyond that field boundary are trees. These trees provide a significant belt which would provide it appears screen the majority of win d turbine towers; however the submitted photomontage clearly indicates that parts of the rotor blades would be visible above the tops of the trees. Whilst it is acknowledged that only parts of the rotor blades would be visible, the introduction of these m oving industrial features would be inimical to the rural and tranquil setting of this Grade II* listed building which are considered to form an intrinsic part of its setting. As such given the status of the building it is considered the magnitude of effect of the proposed development would be one of ‘minor adverse significance’ as the moving rotor blades would prove visually intrusive to the setting of this church. The development would fail to preserve the setting of this listed building contrary to Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policy ENV17.

Bullington House (Grade II Listed Building)

Bullington House is a relatively small 19 th Century country house located to the east of the bisected (by the A34 trunk road) Bullington Lane, approximately 2.1km e south-west of the nearest proposed wind turbine of the development. The property is set within enclosed grounds with the garden area extending to the north and south and the property is set within a wider setting of agricultural fields. The A34 runs to the west of this house. The submitted photomontage clearly indicates that the turbines would potentially be visible in views to the northeast of the house although there is a tree belt along the rear garden boundary which provides some screening.

Design and Conservation would concur with the findings in the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage section of the Environment Statement that Bullington House is of medium sensitivity and that the property derives its sensitivity from its historic fabric and immedia te setting within the grounds it is sited, with the building’s principle elevation being it’s southern frontage. Bearing this in mind and the existence of the walling and tree belt to the rear of the property it is similarly concludes as with the findings of the Environment Statement that the proposed wind farm impact on the setting of this listed building would be one of minor adverse significance. That said it is considered the proposed development would fail to preserve the setting of this listed buildin g contrary to Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policy ENV17.

Barton Stacey Conservation Area

Barton Stacey lies to the south east of Andover on the southern valley edge of the River Dever. The village is located in a dry valley and is surrounded by ag ricultural land and downland and is intersected by two country roads – one running south from Longparish and the other running east from Chilbolton and Newton Stacey. The Barton Stacey Conservation Area appraisal sets out that, “Barton Stacey is an histor ic settlement within the chalk downland, the general plan form of which has changed very little over the centuries. The village consists of a mixture of buildings of varying ages and styles, but is probably best known for its brick and tile cottages, generally dating from the late 18 th and 19 th century after the great fire”. The appraisal goes on to identify that the character of

Barton Stacey is derived from a combination of factors which include the setting, layout and historic development of the village.

Travelling eastwards along the Chilbolton/Newton Stacey road the elevated nature of the road enables views of the village sitting within the surrounding countryside. From this point the wind turbines would alter the sky-line views introducing alien and moving features into this open and rural landscape. This change to the landscape character of the area would have an adverse effect on the special character and appearance of the setting of Barton Stacey Conservation Area, contrary to Test Valley Borou gh Local Plan 2006 policy ENV17.

Summary

It is concluded that as has been identified in the Environment Statement, produced by support this application, that in general the visual impact of the proposed scheme would range generally between being impercep tible to one of a ‘low magnitude of effect’ upon the majority of those heritage assets within Test Valley that lie within 5km of the proposed wind farm site, ‘resulting in an impact of minor adverse significance’ to those assets. With views of the wind far m being either completely hidden by the interceding topography and trees or where visible the wind farm would only be partially visible or glimpsed. That said there would appear to be four sites where clearly the wind farm would have a greater visual impa ct. These sites being the three sites closest to the proposed development namely Tidbury Ring, Firgo Farm and Bullington House (to a lesser extent) but also further afield Bullington’s parish church (St Michaels). The proposed development would have an adv erse impact on their settings, considered to be an aspect of their significance. As such the proposals do not comply with S.66 and S.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 or with policy ENV17 of the Test Valley Borough Loca l Plan and contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(Section 10) Ecology and Ornithology

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The main agenda report included a recommendation for a reason for refusal on insufficient information being provided to enable the Local Planning Authority to properly assess the impacts on protected species and their habitats (WCC reason for refusal 4), (B&DC reason for refusal 6) and (TVBC reason for refusal 4). The applicant’s agent has, subsequent to publication of the committee report, submitted additional information relating to ecology and ornithology which includes further clarification and the results of additional surveys carried out on site. This information has been forwarded to the Local Authority ecology teams to review and any comments received from them will be given in

a verbal update to Committee.

(Section 12) Heritage

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Since publishing the report additional information has been received in relation to impact on Hurstbourne Priors Conservation Area, which has been produced in response to consultation, but not the Conservation Officers comments.

BDBC comments.

The information has been received late but has been quickly reviewed. It is not considered that the information contained within it changes the recommendation.

(Section 13) Aviation

Osprey Report (Appendix B of main papers)

Since the report was drafted a number of responses have been received in relation to the impartiality and experience of Osprey Consultancy and the author of the report. The following statement has been received;

‘Osprey is a technical consultancy specialising in Operations and Safety support to aviation projects and prides itself on its impartiality. Our areas of expertise are not just within the wind energy sector, we work with air traffic systems providers, manufacturers and aerodromes (large & small) covering airspace projects, technical and physical safeguarding and airworthiness assessments; the company is made up of a mix of engineering staff, aircrew and air traffic controllers. We have restricted access to members of Osprey within the immediate project team to the files for both Bullington Cross and Woodmancott Down. The independent assessments of the impact of these Wind Farms on Popham Airfield operations have been completed and peer reviewed by employees within the Operations Team, based out of the Lincoln office, providing physical and IT separation for impartiality.

Osprey’s work on both projects has been impartial, offering our professional opinion and expertise of the perceived impact of both developments on those

aviation stakeholders requested. The aviation assessments completed for both developments have included analysis from a safeguarding expert, experienced aircrew (including one team member with gliding experience) and air traffic control subject matter experts. We have offered a balanced impartial view and have no changes of our opinion on the operational impact to the aviation stakeholders analysed.’

‘A s stated within the report for both Bullington Cross and Woodmancott Down, the reports were compiled not just by myself (with over 34 years of ATC experience at all manners of airfields and aircraft types), but also by a team consisting of a colleague with twenty eight years aircrew experience, 5,000 hours of which on fast jets and experience on training aircraft and gliders and a Safety Regulation Subject Matter Expert. Furthermore Osprey Director Jon Arden has over 2,000+ hours of flying experience on all aircraft types including General Aviation (in which he held a Private Pilot’s Licence) and has relevant experience on Gliders.’

Popham response to Osprey Report

Additional information was received from the operators of Popham Airfield commenting on the Osprey report, summarised as follows;

Report can’t be relied upon to make a decision on safety as it has errors. Osprey did not consult with Popham before drafting report.

Page 3 Para 3 – basic misunderstanding

a) The turbulence putting conditions outside the skill capacity of pilots and solo students. Oblivious to the fact that students fly solo before they get their licence; or the problems of controlling an aircraft with unexpected turbulence. b) Presumes 100% of aircraft perform faultlessly on all flights, flawed assumption. No legislation will keep an aircraft in the air after an engine failure after take-off. The loss of landing ground ahead for pilots is a real safety issue.

Section 7 – Turbulence

Based on a limited and selective view of the published literature on wind turbine

Wake turbulence (WTWT), and indicates little personal understanding. No evaluation of the 4 different aerodynamic ingredients of WTWT of great significant for light aircraft, gyrocopters and micro lights, and no acknowledgement that the downwind extent of such turbulence will be highly variable, according to the prevailing specific meteorological conditions.

No definitive scientific study published on WTWT on light aircraft and report uses CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines (CAP764) in the absence of such published information.

The use by the CAA of the 16 rotor diameter measurement as a possible extent downwind of WTWT is not regulation, but is merely advice from the CAA. In some wind and weather conditions the extent downwind of the WTWT will be longer than 16 rotor diameters and in other conditions it will be shorter, and neither this important variability nor the unpredictable nature of this variability is discussed. The important principle that in the absence of reliable information about a potential hazard, a precautionary approach must be adopted in air safety is ignored by Osprey CSL.

Appendices

The appendices to the Osprey report dealing with Safety Criteria, Safety Assessment, Safety Assessment Conclusions, Scenario Workshops, and a Table of Conclusions are insufficiently objective and are not based on quantitative evidence. Osprey CSL admits in para A.21 that they are based on qualitative assessments by their experts only.

Page 3 and 4 - para 4, bullet point 2 - deliberately misleading. The author quotes words but does not show the diagram which accompanies it which, by recommending the minor turn after take-off, points ALL aircraft at the wind farm site initially as part of our environmental and safety responsibilities to not overfly houses close to the airfield. The ones staying in the circuit will turn before the site (in potentially dangerous turbulence) but all aircraft leaving to the SW, W and NW will, through standard aviation practice, continue over the proposed site. Aircraft eventually departing SW cannot legally turn left on track until well clear of the vicinity of the airfield normally understood to be more than two miles.

To be absolutely clear the report is wrong, directly at the Wind Farm is exactly the route you will normally take when departing Popham Airfield.

Page 5, Bullet point 1 – “Ref 1 para 1.4”

They have not mentioned the experience of East Midlands Airport where, although the turbines are perpendicular to the runway, they are in a direct line with offices there, and have had to fit black out blinds to deal with the strobe effect of the lower sun on those offices affected.

Page 5, bullet point 3 - misleading. Popham is not allowed to have an entry in the IAIP as it is an unlicensed airfield. Neither is there any briefing possible against unexpected invisible turbulence beyond the skills of a normal hobby pilot to recover from. Landing ahead is standard recommended safe aviation practice and pilots are taught not to deviate from a small “cone” of landing possibilities directly ahead. To brief pilots against this is ridiculous and dangerous.

Page 29, Case Studies, 7:8:1 – East Midlands Airport

Do not mention that EMA has a no fly zone between the airfield and the turbines. Popham would not have the luxury of a no-fly zone.

Page 30 7:8:4 – Caernarfon Airport.

Only quote the part where Caernarfon appears to support EDF, very selective and failed to point out that it quite clearly says that if the wind is in any way aligned with the runway from the wind turbine, the runway must not be used at any wind speed. This can be found at point 4, http://www.caernarfonairport.com/runwayconditionsofuse.htm

At Popham the prevailing wind is aligned with the runway and the turbines. That is why it is built that way. QED if Popham applied the same ruling as Caernarfon, Popham would rarely be able to open.

Reference Caernarfon Airport, fail to mention a fatality there where a micro light suffered a sudden rotational loss of control immediately after take-off. The wind turbine has not been ruled out as the cause. An official report is awaited.

Generally the summary seems to allude to the fact that there has never been a problem with aircraft and wind turbines. This is not true. Only last month in the latest edition of “Aerospace” magazine, published by the Royal Aeronautical Society they detail a fatal accident on 27 th April 2014 in the US where an aircraft hit wind turbines and 4 people were killed.

In summary I hope we have demonstrated that there is sufficient doubt over the completeness of this report and highlighted enough inaccuracies, deliberate or otherwise, that will help you conclude that this report cannot be used as the definitive report on air safety relating to Popham Airfield and its surroundings.

Osprey Response to Popham

The information provided by Mrs Church does not change our opinion as previously informed in our reports. In answer to a couple of points:

East Midlands:

There is no mention of any “no-fly” zone at East Midlands concerning the wind turbines in The UK Integrated Aeronautical Information Package, the Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Rutland Air Ambulance helicopter operates from the south of the airfield, adjacent to the turbines. VFR arrival procedures for helicopters at the Airport instruct pilots to approach the aerodrome from the north or the south, remaining well clear of the approach and take off areas for Runway 09/27 then to make a close-in left or right base leg for the runway in use. There is no wind turbines restrictions on helicopters approaching the aerodrome from the south. There are restrictions on turbo-jet and turbo-fan aircraft routing to the south which are based on noise abatement procedures, not the location of the wind turbines.

Caernarfon:

Mrs Church points to Point 4 within the Runway 02/20 conditions of use, it is in fact within Point 3 which states that “If the surface wind is within the following directions 021 to 199 then runway 02/20 cannot be used, regardless of wind strength”.

However, it is known that the runway which is located to the south of the wind turbines (07/25) is not affected by wake turbulence from the two wind turbines, irrespective of wind direction, up to 30 kts. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) have deployed a team to investigate the mentioned micro light accident at the Airport. The results of the accident have not been published, and although “ the wind turbine has not been ruled out as the cause” , it has not been ruled in either. No special bulletins concerning the accident, (these special bulletins are published shortly after an accident or serious incident to highlight the initial facts and where appropriate make urgent Safety Recommendations) have been published on the AAIB website by the date of this email.

Fatal Accident Highmore, South Dakota 27 April 2014:

THE US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) preliminary report has been published on the accident, the full investigation will take approximately 8 to 10 months and the cause of the accident is not known. Flying magazine reports that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has confirmed that the 1978 Piper PA-32R-300 struck a blade of the wind tower outside Highmore, South Dakota, in poor weather, but offered no explanation as to why the airplane was so low when it was still several miles from the nearest airport. The US National Wind Watch Website states that “ a search of the NTSB database found one other accident that involved an aircraft colliding with a wind turbine. That incident took place in Palm Springs, Calif., in 2001. According to the NTSB final report, that accident occurred following an in-flight breakage of two pieces from the plane, causing the pilot to lose control and strike a wind turbine. The cause of the accident was attributed to the aircraft not being assembled properly” .

Officers Response

The aviation issues with this site are important and the LPA’s received two expert reports on the issues relating to Popham; submission from WPAC (on behalf of applicant) and submission from Mrs Church (on behalf of Popham). An independent third party was appointed to review them. The result is the Osprey Report attached at Appendix B in the main papers. The publication of the Osprey report has resulted in further comments which have been noted above.

In summary two of the three submissions are stating that the impact on Popham is acceptable, the third is stating it’s not. Officers have acknowledged in the report that although the reports find that the development is acceptable ‘the creation of the wind farm may increase the perception that airspace is less safe’ (para 13.40 main papers). The additional information received does not change the recommendation.

Lasham Airfield ( para 13.5 of the main papers)

No response has been received from Lasham ATC in relation to this application, despite officers chasing. However Lasham have maintained their objection to the Woodmancott wind farm application and BDBC commissioned a report to investigate the relationship; which has concluded that there may be some impact and further information is required. In addition the CAA has supported the objection raised by Lasham in relation to Woodmancott.

As a result and because of a duty of care BDBC also commissioned a report to look at the relationship between this application and Lasham ATC, the ‘2 nd Aviation report’. The 2nd Aviation report has concluded that there may be some impact, likely to be small and

operational mitigation may be available, but that further discussion and investigation is needed.

As such it is recommended that the impact on Lasham ATC is safeguarded and an additional reason for refusal is recommended as time has run out for further discussion and debate. The recommended Reason for Refusal is as follows;

Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there will be an acceptable impact on the safety of operations at Lasham Airfield from the proposed development or that mitigation can create an acceptable impact. As such the application is considered contrary to National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

Farnborough Airport (para 13.36 of the main papers)

The discussions between the applicant and the airport have taken place and an additional Radar Line of Sight Report was circulated to Farnborough on 10 June. It is hoped that this will resolve the Farnborough objection. Any comment from Farnborough will be updated at the meeting.

In addition to potential radar issues is should be noted that since the application was submitted Farnborough Airport have applied to increase the amount of controlled airspace around them. We also asked that this be considered in the 2 nd Aviation report and it concludes that there will be no impact on operations at Popham or Lasham.

(Section 18) Recommendations

AMENDED RECOMMENDATION– There has been a number of changes to the wording in the reasons for refusal to include reference to the local plan policies for all three Authorities, where relevant. An additional reason for refusal has also been added in relation to insufficient information being provided to the Local Planning Authority on the impact that the development may have on operations at Lasham Airfield. For clarity, section 18 of the main agenda report has been reprinted below which replaces section 18 of the main agenda report:

BDBC recommendation

Reason 2

The word ‘alien’ needs to be removed.

End of Updates

18 RECOMMENDATIONS

18.1 WCC That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

Landscape – Impact on Nationally Important Landscapes 1. The proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the purposes and special qualities of two national landscape designations; the South Downs National Park and the North Wessex Downs AONB. The proposals would not conserve or enhance the particular qualities of these areas and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape setting of these areas and on the views out from these areas. In addition, and for the same reasons, the development would result in an unacceptable cumulative impact when taking into account the wind turbine proposals at Woodmancott. The development is therefore considered as contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 113 and 115, National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and Policies CP19 & CP20 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013. Additionally, as the development has an impact on land outside the district Saved Policies E1, E6 and A6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006 - 2011) and Test Valley Borough Local Plan policy DES01.

Landscape – Impact on the fabric, character and quality of the receiving landscape. 2. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the landscape character of the area as due to the scale, prominent skyline location and visually disturbing movement of the turbines they would be incongruous and alien to the acknowledged attractive remote and tranquil downland countryside landscape character of the district in this location which also contributes positively to the setting of a number of designated and undesignated heritage assets. Development as proposed would also adversely impact on the visual amenity of this largely undeveloped area as the turbines would introduce an extremely tall, incongruous and visually dominant industrial presence that would significantly detract from cherished panoramic views from extensive sections of public rights of way and from viewpoints within the South Downs National Park to the detriment of its setting and unique sense of place. The development is therefore contrary to Chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework; National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and Policies CP19 & CP20 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013. Additionally, as the development has an impact on land outside the district Saved Policies E1, E6 and A6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006 - 2011) and policy DES01 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006. Heritage - Inadequacy of Information / weighting to show effects would not be harmful 3. The proposed development, due to its far reaching visual dominance breaking the skyline and introducing incongruous scale, form and movement as part of the backcloth setting to many heritage assets including Winchester Cathedral, other listed buildings, conservation areas, registered Parks and Gardens would devalue the important contribution that such assets make to the districts character and heritage. In the case of Winchester Cathedral, as viewed from St Catherine’s Hill, the impact of the development on the skyline, in an otherwise undamaged view enjoyed for centuries, must be given substantial weight in terms of adverse impact. It is therefore considered that the proposed development will be detrimental to the historic character of the northern part of the district and the contribution it makes to the

setting of the city, its cathedral and to the South Downs National Park contrary to NPPF paragraphs 128, 132, 133, 134, 135 and Policy CP20 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013.

4. The E S assessment of heritage assets does not sufficiently extend to lower grade assets which make valuable contributions to the district’s character, often at some distance from the site. As such, the LPA is unable to make a properly informed decision regarding the impact on the Historic Environment which is contrary to their duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses in accordance with Section 66(1) of the P(LBCA) Act 1990.

Ecology – Inadequacy of Information to show effects would not be harmful 5. It is considered that insufficient survey information has been provided to satisfactorily demonstrate that the development will not have unacceptable adverse impacts on protected species or their habitat. As a result of this lack of information, it cannot be concluded with confidence that the proposal would not cause harm to bats and dormice and their habitats which receive legal protection under UK and European law. As such the proposals are contrary to Chapter 11 (in particular paragraph 118) of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and Policy CP16 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013 and Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 policy ENV01 and ENV05.

Aviation 6. The proposed wind farm, by reason of its location, number and height of turbines, would pose an unacceptable additional hazard to military aircraft, particularly helicopters, within an area of relatively congested aviation activity which includes a designated MOD low flying training area where regular low level restricted landing manoeuvres are practiced with Chinook and other rotary wing aircraft. Relocation of such training facilities within the area, so as to avoid the proximity of the wind farm, is not practicable due to other restrictions and the development would thus undesirably prejudice aviation safety or continued use of such operational training facilities contrary to national interests and guidance in National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN- 3.

Chilbolton Observatory 7. The proposed wind farm by reason of its location, number and height of turbines would be likely to adversely impact the operations of the Chilbolton Observatory Advanced Meteorological Radar which supports national meteorological research, including in regard to climate change and extreme weather event prediction. The turbines would partially encroach into the radar scan view leading to data corruption prejudicial to the observatory’s provision of data for national academic research. The development would therefore be contrary to national and local planning objectives for the safeguarding of nationally important infrastructure in National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

Lasham 8. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there will be an acceptable impact on the safety of operations at Lasham Airfield from the proposed

development or that mitigation can create an acceptable impact. As such the application is considered contrary to National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

18.2 BDBC That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

The development is therefore considered as contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 113 and 115, National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and Saved Policies E1, E6 and A6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006 - 2011); Countryside Design Summary' (Appendix 14) of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2008); Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Guidance (2001). As the development has an impact on land outside the borough Policies CP19 & CP20 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013 and policy DES01 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006.

Landscape – Impact on the character and visual impact. 2. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the landscape character of the area as due to the scale, location and movement of the turbines they would be incongruous to the acknowledged unspoilt, undeveloped, rural and remote landscape character of the borough in this location which also contributes positively to the setting of a number of designated and undesignated heritage assets. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area as the turbines would create extremely tall, incongruous and industrial presence that would cause significant harm to views from extensive sections of public rights of way, as well as significant harm to views both to and from the North Wessex Downs AONB. Along with the tall height of the structures, the rotating blades would create visual disturbance into the unspoilt, tranquil and largely undeveloped countryside. Views of the turbines would not respect or improve the scenic quality of the countryside and the AONB, or the unique sense of place The development is therefore contrary to Chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework; National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and Saved Policies E1, E6 and A6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006 - 2011). Countryside Design Summary' (Appendix 14) of the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2008); Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Guidance (2001). As the development has an impact on land outside the borough Policies CP19 & CP20 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013. and policy DES01 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006.

Heritage – Hurstbourne Priors 3. The proposed development would fail to preserve the architectural, historic and landscape significance of The Bee House (Grade II* listed building), Hurstbourne Priors Conservation Area and Hurstbourne Park (Grade II Registered Park), which individually would each experience a significant degree of impact to their setting. It would also negatively affect their historic and current architectural and historical relationship with each other, and also with the nearby Grade II* listed Church of St Andrew. Additional harm would also be caused to the setting of the Conservation Area at the southern end of the boundary where a significant degree of impact would be experienced to the broader landscape context of the village. The degree of visibility of the turbines that would be experienced by each of these designated heritage assets would detract from the appreciation of the intended, designed as well as the fortuitous landscape setting of the assets, which is central or of great importance to their architectural, landscape and historic significance. As such the proposals do not comply with S.66 and S.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, or with Policies E2, E3, and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, and are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (Section 12), the local Supplementary Planning Guidance note entitled, "The Historic Environment: Listed Buildings", and the guidance given by Appendix 4 of the Design and Sustainability SPD, "The Historic Environment: Conservation Areas", and the Hurstbourne Priors Conservation Area Appraisal.

Heritage – Laverstoke Park 4. The proposed development would fail to preserve the architectural, historic and landscape significance of Laverstoke Park (Grade II Registered Park) and Laverstoke House (Grade II* listed building), by virtue of the impact that the expected visibility of the proposed turbines would have on the intended historic landscape design of the park and outlook from the house. As such the proposals do not comply with S.66 and S.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, or with Saved Policies E2 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, and are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (Section 12), the local Supplementary Planning Guidance note entitled, "The Historic Environment: Listed Buildings".

Heritage – Whitchurch and Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Areas 5. The proposed development would fail to preserve the architectural and historic significance of the Whitchurch, and Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Areas, both individually and together, by virtue of the degree of impact that the turbines would have on the positive landscape views south from the area around London Road, The Gables, and the Lynch. As such the proposals do not comply with section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, or with Saved Policies E1, E3 and E6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011, and are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (Section 12), and to the guidance given by Appendix 4 of the Design and Sustainability SPD, "The Historic Environment: Conservation Areas" and the adopted Conservation Area Appraisals of the affected areas.

Ecology – inadequate information

6. It is considered that insufficient survey information has been provided to satisfactorily demonstrate that the development will not have unacceptable adverse impacts on protected species or their habitat. As a result of this lack of information, it cannot be concluded with confidence that the proposal would not cause harm to bats and dormice and their habitats which receive legal protection under UK and European law. As such the proposals are contrary to Chapter 11 (in particular paragraph 118) of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012); National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN -3; Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006), As the development has an impact on land outside the borough Policy CP16 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013 and policy ENV01 and ENV05 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan.

Residential Amenity – Tufton Warren Farm 7. The proposed development is considered to have an unacceptable impact on the residents of the properties at Tufton Warren Farm for reasons of the number turbines and the width of the view impacted. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006)

Aviation – Impact on MOD Low Flying Training Area 8. The proposed wind farm by reason of its location, number and height of turbines would pose an unacceptable additional hazard to military aircraft, particularly helicopters, within an area of relatively congested aviation activity which is a designated MOD low flying training area where regular low level restricted landing manoeuvres are practiced by Chinook and other rotary wing aircraft. Relocation of such training facilities within the area, so as to avoid the wind farm, is not practicable due to other restrictions and the development would thus undesirably prejudice aviation safety or continued use of such operational training facilities contrary to national interests and guidance in National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

Chilbolton Observatory – Impact on Radar 9. The proposed wind farm by reason of its location, number and height of turbines would be likely to adversely impact the operations of the Chilbolton Observatory Advanced Meteorological Radar which supports national meteorological research, including in regard to climate change and extreme weather event prediction. The turbines would partially encroach into the radar scan view leading to data corruption prejudicial to the observatory’s provision of data for national academic research. The development would therefore be contrary to the objectives for the safeguarding of nationally important infrastructure in National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and Saved Policy E1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan.

Lasham 10. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there will be an acceptable impact on the safety of operations at Lasham Airfield from the proposed development or that mitigation can create an acceptable impact. As such the application is considered contrary to National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

18.3 TVBC That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

Landscape

1. The proposed development would result in the introduction of an extremely tall, incongruous and industrial presence into the countryside. Along with the tall height of the structures, the rotating blades would create visual disturbance into this largely undeveloped countryside which also contributes positively to the setting of a number of designated and undesignated heritage assets and would result in these major structures dominating the view from many points in Test Valley having a detrimental impact to both visual amenity and landscape character in views from the PROW network and the highway network within Test Valley. Therefore the proposals are contrary to Chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework; National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and Policy DES 01 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006. Additionally, as the development has an impact on land outside the district Saved Policies E1, E6 and A6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006 - 2011) and policies CP19 and CP20 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013.

2. The proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the purposes and special qualities of the North Wessex Downs AONB. The proposals would not conserve or enhance the particular qualities of these areas and would have a detrimental impact on the landscape setting of these areas and on the views out from these areas. In addition, and for the same reasons, the development would result in an unacceptable cumulative impact when taking into account the wind turbine proposals at Woodmancott. The development is therefore considered as contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 113 and 115, National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3 and policy DES01 and ENV07 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan. Additionally, as the development has an impact on land outside the district Saved Policies E1, E6 and A6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006 - 2011) and policies CP19 and CP20 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013.

Heritage 3. The proposed development by virtue of its design, scale and location would fail to preserve the architectural and historic setting of designated heritage assets within Test Valley. The closest and most affected designated heritage assets are Bullington House (Grade II), Firgo Farm (Grade II), St. Michaels Church, Bullington (Grade II*), Barton Stacey Conservation Area and Tidbury Ring (SAM). The proposed development would have an adverse impact on their settings which are an aspect of their significance. As such the proposals do not comply with S.66 and S.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 or with policy ENV17 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan and contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Ecology 4. Insufficient information has been provided to enable the Local Planning Authority to properly assess the impacts of the proposal on European protected species (bats and hazel dormouse) and their breeding and resting places, or to demonstrate that measures to be implemented to avoid, mitigate or compensate for impacts are appropriate to the impacts and deliverable. Insufficient information has been provided to assess impacts to priority habitats, or to demonstrate that measures to avoid, mitigate or compensate for impacts to such habitats are appropriate to the impacts and deliverable. The application is therefore contrary to policies ENV01 and ENV05 of the Test Valley Local Plan, and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) As the development has an impact on land outside the

borough Policy CP16 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 2013 and Saved Policy E7 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2006 – 2011).

Aviation 5. The proposed wind farm by reason of its location, number and height of turbines would pose an unacceptable additional hazard to military aircraft, particularly helicopters, within an area of relatively congested aviation activity which is a designated MOD low flying training area where regular low level restricted landing manoeuvres are practiced by Chinook and other rotary wing aircraft. Relocation of such training facilities within the area, so as to avoid the wind farm, is not practicable due to other restrictions and the development would thus undesirably prejudice aviation safety or continued use of such operational training facilities contrary to national interests and guidance in National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

Chilbolton Observatory 6. The proposed wind farm by reason of its location, number and height of turbines would be likely to adversely impact the operations of the Chilbolton Observatory Advanced Meteorological Radar which supports national meteorological research, including in regard to climate change and extreme weather event prediction. The turbines would partially encroach into the radar scan view leading to data corruption prejudicial to the observatory’s provision of data for national academic research. The development would therefore be contrary to national and local planning objectives for the safeguarding of nationally important infrastructure in National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-3.

7. Lasham

INFORMATIVES

1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in dealing with this application, the Council’s have worked with the applicant in the following positive and proactive manner:-

offering a pre-application advice;

working collaboratively with colleagues in adjoining authorities;

seeking further information following receipt of the application;

considering the imposition of conditions and or the completion of a s.106 legal agreement.

In this instance: the applicant was updated of any issues through meetings and emails;

In such ways the Council’s have demonstrated a positive and proactive manner in seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

2 The Local Planning Authorities have taken account of the following development plan policies and proposals:- Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 (Adopted 20 March 2013):

DS1; MTRA4, CP12; CP16; CP19; CP20; Winchester District Local Plan Review 2006 (Saved Policies):

DP3; DP4; DP11; T2;

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2011 (Saved Policies)

Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2006 (Saved Policies) SET03, HAZ06, ENV17, ESN32, ENV01, ENV05, AME04.