Appeal Decision Inquiry opened on 27 November 2012 Site visits made on 30 November and 1 December 2012 by K D Barton BA(Hons) DipArch DipArb RIBA FCIArb an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 22 January 2013
Appeal Ref: APP/E2001/A/12/2179233 Land east of the A165 Bridlington Road at Manor Farm, Fraisthorpe, Bridlington, East Riding of Yorkshire • The appeal is made under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission. • The appeal is made by Fraisthorpe Wind Farm Limited against the East Riding of Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref 12/00640/STPLFE, is dated 9 February 2012. • The development proposed is the erection of 9 wind turbines, a meteorological mast and control building, and ancillary development including access tracks and hardstandings.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 9 wind turbines, a meteorological mast and control building, and ancillary development including access tracks and hardstandings on land east of the A165 Bridlington Road at Manor Farm, Fraisthorpe, Bridlington, East Riding of Yorkshire in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 12/00640/STPLFE, dated 9 February 2012, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.
Preliminary Matters
2. The Inquiry sat for 4 days from 27 to 30 November 2012. Accompanied and unaccompanied site visits were carried out on 30 November and further unaccompanied visits were undertaken on 1 December.
3. The proposal is ‘Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development’ for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and an Environmental Statement (ES) was submitted with the application. Some local residents consider that the ES is deficient, in part on the basis of comments by statutory consultees. English Heritage (EH) considers that the impact of the proposal on the Burton Agnes Hall complex of heritage assets has been underestimated, but this does not mean the ES is deficient. Indeed, EH states that the harm would be less than substantial and so would require clear justification in the public interest.
4. It is also alleged that there is insufficient information on birds and their movements but English Nature does not object to the proposal as it considers that it would be unlikely to affect any European Protected Species. In addition, the Council’s Conservation Officer (Biodiversity) concludes that the proposal is
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
unlikely to cause any significant harm to any local or national Biodiversity Action Plan bird species and notes that surveys support the ecologist’s conclusions. I conclude that the ES meets the needs of the relevant Regulations and have taken it, and the views of statutory consultees and others, into account in reaching my decision.
5. The Energy Bill was published on the penultimate day of the Inquiry. The Council confirmed that it had no comment to make on the Bill whilst the appellant considers that it demonstrates the Government’s continuing support for low-carbon, renewable energy generation projects and re-affirms its recognition of the crucial role that renewables, in particular wind energy, have in ensuring future electricity generation.
The Proposed Development
6. The nine proposed wind turbines would be up to 130 metres in height to the blade tip and each would have a generating capacity of 2-3 MW. If planning permission were to be granted, a final turbine selection would be made following a competitive tendering process. However, a Vestas V100 2.6 MW turbine was used for the purposes of the ES, except for noise where a Repower 3.XM 3.4 MW turbine was assumed. The proposal would also include alterations to the existing vehicular access, site access tracks, a permanent 80 metre high meteorological mast, a control building, crane hardstanding areas, and a temporary construction compound. A condition should be attached to any permission to allow a micro-siting tolerance of up to 30 metres from the turbine co-ordinates provided to allow for any site specific conditions that might be encountered.
7. A Planning Statement submitted with the application makes clear that the operational life of the wind farm would be 25 years from commissioning to decommissioning. Conditions could clarify this and require a comprehensive decommissioning plan to be submitted for approval to ensure that the site was returned to its current condition to safeguard the landscape in the long term. Whilst consideration must be given to the temporary nature of the proposals as required by National Policy Statement EN-3, 25 years would be a significant time period for local residents as opposed to heritage assets that have existed, and will continue to exist, for very many years.
8. The connection between the wind farm and the local distribution network is not part of the proposal but the point of connection is expected to be approximately 5 kilometres to the north. This would be the subject of an application under the Electricity Act 1989 and would be accompanied by its own ES in due course.
The Site and its Surroundings
9. The appeal site has an area of 184 hectares, of which some 10.4 hectares would be directly affected by construction activities. It comprises coastal farmland with an average height of 10 metres above ordnance datum (AOD). The nearest settlement is the village of Fraisthorpe to the west, which comprises three farmsteads and 11 other residential properties. There are also a number of isolated farmsteads in the vicinity with Auburn Farm to the east of the site being the closest. Bridlington is some 2.1 kilometres to the north east, whilst Barmston lies in the region of 2.8 kilometres to the south.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
10. The A165 Bridlington Road to the west of the site runs north/south and an unclassified road traverses the site connecting the main road to Auburn Farm and a car park at Fraisthorpe Sands on the coast to the east. No public rights of way or long distance walking routes cross the appeal site. The nearest national cycle network route is around 4 kilometres to the north and runs into Bridlington from the west whilst the nearest bridleway would be approximately 820 metres to the north of the nearest turbine.
Planning Policy
11. The development plan for the area includes the Yorkshire and Humber Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy to 2026 adopted in 2008 (RSS), saved policies in the Joint Structure Plan for Kingston upon Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire 2005 (SP), and the saved policies in the East Yorkshire Borough Wide Local Plan 1997 (LP). The National Planning Policy Framework ( Framework ) was published in March 2012 and, as the most up-to-date policy statement, is an important material consideration. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework, relevant policies in extant plans adopted in accordance with procedures that predate the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 should be given weight according to their consistency with the Framework .
12. Reference has been made to the Council’s Interim Planning Document on Renewable Energy Developments 2009 (IPD) but this has not been through a formal consultation process and so attracts little weight as a policy document. Indeed, the Council considers it a guidance note for developers of renewable energy schemes.
13. National energy policy includes legally binding targets, set by the Climate Change Act 2008 , for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 and CO 2 emissions by at least 26% by 2020 against a 1990 baseline. Paragraph 43 of the December 2011 Carbon Plan states that the power sector accounts for some 27% of UK total emissions by source and that by 2050 emissions from the sector need to be close to zero.
14. The Government is committed to making the country more energy secure and protecting consumers from fossil fuel price fluctuations. The current goal, set by the Renewable Energy Directive 2009 , is for 15% of the UK’s energy demand to be met from renewable resources by 2020. There is also an ambition, in the UK Renewable Energy Roadmap issued in July 2011, for renewable energy to meet 30-45% of all energy consumed in the UK by 2030. The Committee on Climate Change published the Renewable Energy Review in May 2011 and this acknowledges that, compared with onshore wind, most other renewable energy generation technologies are expensive and are likely to remain so until at least 2020, and in some cases considerably later.
15. LP Policy EN25 is generally supportive of renewable energy schemes subject to a number of criteria being met whilst RSS Policy YH2 seeks, amongst other matters, to increase renewable energy capacity. RSS Policy ENV5 is consistent with the Framework and sets local targets for contributing to renewable energy capacity. Although the Government has expressed the intention to abolish the RSS, the evidence base that underpins it is still relevant. The target for East Riding could be met, or exceeded, by projects with planning permission if they were all built out. However, the Council accepts that the targets are indicative and should be considered a floor rather than a ceiling.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
16. The Climate Change Committee’s report to Government in June 2012 notes that investment in onshore wind fell short of the indicator trajectory for a second year in a row, and well below the levels required to meet the 2020 target of 15% of energy to be from renewable sources. As a result, significant weight must be placed on the need for new sources of renewable energy, of which onshore wind is an important element.
17. Whilst some residents are concerned that more acceptable sites have not been investigated, there is no requirement to demonstrate the need for renewable or low carbon energy. Paragraph 98 of the Framework indicates that applications for energy development should be approved if the impacts are, or could be made, acceptable and notes that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This effectively introduces a balancing exercise.
18. National Policy Statement EN-1 states that a judgement has to be made as to whether any adverse impact on the landscape or adverse visual effects on sensitive receptors outweigh the benefits of the scheme. Even when any impacts have been minimised the acceptability of impacts has to be assessed. Any harm that the proposals might cause has to be balanced against the presumption in favour of sustainable development that runs through the Framework . The Council accepts that significant weight should be given to the benefits.
Effect on the Character and Appearance of the Surrounding Landscape including Heritage Assets
19. A general thrust of national and development plan policy is to protect the character of the countryside. The importance of the coastal zone is also recognised in policy. Paragraph 109 of the Framework indicates the planning system should contribute to protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, whilst RSS Policy ENV10 seeks to safeguard and enhance landscapes that contribute to the distinctive character of Yorkshire and the Humber, including: (B) The coastal landscapes of the East Coast.
20. LP Policy EN2 permits proposals acceptable in the open countryside provided, amongst other matters, they do not harm the character of the surrounding area, safeguard sites considered important for their landscape value, and not harm the landscape setting of settlements. LP Policy EN25 states that proposals for renewable energy generators and ancillary infrastructure will be permitted provided that, amongst other matters, they would not unduly harm the appearance of the landscape. Any harm in this case would have to be balanced against the benefits and the policy is consistent with the Framework .
21. A report by AEA Technology Planning for Renewable Energy Targets in Yorkshire and Humber 2004 indicates that the overall sensitivity of the Holderness Area to wind energy development is medium. It notes that development should be sited in more open areas and avoid settlements but accepts that it is more likely to be successfully accommodated around urban areas, although care should be taken not to increase visual complexity and confusion. A strong association with the sea and the coast is noted and the development typology to be adopted is stated to be small to medium.
22. The East Riding of Yorkshire Landscape Character Assessment 2005 divides the County into landscape character types and areas. The appeal site lies within
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
Landscape Character Type 20: Holderness Coastal Farmland, and predominantly within Landscape Character Area (LCA) 20C Bridlington to Hornsea Coast, although the north west corner of the site that would include the access from the A165 is within LCA 19C North Holderness Open Farmland. LCA 20C is a narrow strip of coastal farmland summarised as having a mix of recreation and tourism facilities amongst large scale arable farmland, punctuated with occasional small scale villages of historic interest. Overall the landscape type is considered to be ordinary. Its sensitivity to wind farm development is generally assessed as medium, although high in areas close to major resorts.
23. Neither report assesses the sensitivity of some of the areas in and around Bridlington including the Parkland and Rural Seafront.
24. LP Policy CZ8 is similar to Policy CZ8 in the East Riding Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan . Although turbines were generally smaller when the LP was adopted, the policy recognises the suitability of the Holderness Plain for commercial wind farms, subject to a number of criteria. I consider that there is little inconsistency between Policy CZ8, in so far as it applies to the appeal site, and the Framework . However, regardless of whether the Policy is consistent with the Framework or not, the Council accepts that all but the first bullet point to the Policy, which requires development not to visually dominate the landscape, are met, including the requirement to be set back at least 400 metres from the cliff top.
25. The Inspector in the Monkwith decision noted that the limited width of the coastal farmland strip adds to its distinctiveness, and that development there would result in the establishment of a new sub type that would diminish the distinctiveness of the Coastal Farmland. In this case, the justification for LP Policy CZ8, which deals with wind turbine development in the coastal zone, refers to the prominence of any development in that area being reduced by extensive tracts of undeveloped land between the A165 and the coast, particularly north of Barmston. That area includes the appeal site. The text goes on to indicate that elsewhere only proposals of a domestic scale and size would be appropriate, reflecting the Monkwith comments.
26. A more detailed landscape assessment, undertaken on behalf of the Council, identifies the western part of the site as having low sensitivity, the majority of the remainder as medium, and a small area in the south east corner, which would not be occupied by any development, as high sensitivity. The medium sensitivity coastal strip is separated from Bridlington by an area of low sensitivity and another area of medium sensitivity before reaching Hilderthorpe Conservation Area which has high sensitivity. With the exception of the Council’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Team, there is a general consensus that the sensitivity of the site is medium. Notwithstanding this, and criticism that the proposal has not followed the advice in the Scottish National Heritage guidance Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape , the impact of the proposal on the landscape should be considered on its own merits.
27. The appeal site is not within any statutory or local landscape designation. The nearest designated area is the Wolds Area of Landscape Protection, around 2.5 kilometres to the north-west. There are no European or national statutory designations within 4 kilometres of the site. The defined Flamborough Head Heritage Coast, which is also a Special Protection Area (SPA), Site of Special
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is some 6.8 kilometres to the north-east at its closest point. The SPA is designated for its internationally important sea bird assemblage, predominantly on the northern edge of the headland from where the proposal would not be visible.
28. A number of photomontages have been produced and whilst the Statement of Common Ground states that the visualisations offer a fair and reasonable representation of the proposed development, there was some criticism in the Council’s landscape evidence. The general location of the various viewpoints was agreed with the Council, but there was also criticism of the exact locations of some viewpoints. Whilst photomontages are a useful tool, they are no substitute for visiting viewpoints. Indeed, views are rarely seen in isolation but are experienced by people walking, or undertaking some other pastime, within the landscape. For that reason visits were undertaken in accordance with an itinerary agreed between the main parties, including some locations suggested by local residents. I have assumed that all receptors would have a high sensitivity.
29. From most of the inland viewpoints (1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, the junction of Bempton Lane/Short Lane north of Bridlington, and along Woldgate between viewpoint 15 and the junction with Church Lane), not all of which were visited due to their similarity, the views are of a sweeping arable landscape which is well able to accommodate the scale of the proposed turbines. There would be little impact on the general character of the landscape in these views.
30. The proposed turbines would not be visible from the area around the lighthouse at Flamborough (Viewpoint 21) but would be from the coastal path that runs from South Landing along the cliffs to Bridlington. From Beacon Hill (Viewpoint 22), the Lissett turbines are distinguishable on the very far side of the bay and the proposal would be seen in conjunction with them. However, Bridlington is, and would remain, the focus of panoramas across the bay and there would be little change to the overall view. That would be the case along much of the coastal path. Whilst I did not view the coast from a boat in the bay, I consider that the impact on any views obtained from boats, other than those very close to shore in the south of the bay, would be similar to the views from the cliff path in terms of impact.
31. When the footpath reaches Sewerby cricket pitch, it becomes more ‘formal’. Views from the pavilion and Sewerby Path are drawn towards the built up area of Bridlington at the centre of the sweep of the bay with church spires and a tall block of flats being strong vertical features (Viewpoint 10). The Lissett array can be seen beyond the harbour and the proposed turbines would be seen in front of them above the horizon and against the sky. However, whilst their scale would be appreciated, they would not arrest views of the sweep of the bay. Indeed, many of the benches are orientated to look out to sea rather than south towards the appeal site and I consider that there would be a moderate effect on the view from this location.
32. Bridlington Quay Conservation Area includes the north and south harbour piers that are listed Grade II. The busy harbour and densely built townscape contrast with the sweep of the bay and the town separates the cliffs to the north from the flat coast to the south. The area makes an important contribution to understanding the siting and historic context of the town. This would still be the case, despite the fact that the proposed turbines, as with
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
those at Lissett that would lie beyond the Fraisthorpe turbines, would be visible in views to the south appearing beyond the built up area of Bridlington (Viewpoint 4 and Rockliff Viewpoints G2 and G4). They would not draw attention from the old town nor create a new focal point. The impact on the view from the south pier would be moderate and the overall effect on the Conservation Area and its setting would not be significant.
33. Hilderthorpe Conservation Area is some 2.4 kilometres from the Fraisthorpe site (Viewpoint 9). The turbines would not be visible from many locations within the Conservation Area itself but would be visible from Belvedere Parade and possibly from the bowling green. In addition, the houses in the south east corner of the Conservation Area were built to take advantage of the view out over the bay and can be seen from South Marina Drive, which lies outside the Conservation Area. From this vantage point, the existing Lissett turbines can be seen as small features in the landscape beyond the built up area and the proposed turbines, being closer, would be seen as larger features with two of the turbines being slightly to one side in this view having a moderate effect. Notwithstanding that the turbines and blades would be visible from these vantage points the impact on the Conservation Area as a whole would be limited.
34. The view from the Wilsthorpe Park & Ride has been criticised for being ‘set back’ to increase the vertical clutter in view (Viewpoint 5). However, even if viewed from further forward the prospect is of a car park surrounded by holiday parks with numerous static caravans, amongst which there are tall vertical lighting standards. The Lissett turbines are visible in the distance. The number of receptors in this location in the holiday season makes it particularly sensitive. The proposed turbines would appear larger than the Lissett ones due to their proximity but would occupy a relatively small part of the field of view and reflect the existing vertical features. Nevertheless there would be a significant change in the view from this location.
35. South of this point the beaches becomes less family orientated and commercial. From Ulrome Sands looking north (Viewpoint 8), the beach is separated from the grassland by a low clay cliff. A caravan park occupies the grassland above the cliff but the majority of the caravans are only present between March and October when the Park is open. Bridlington can be seen in the distance around the bay. All the turbines would be visible above the horizon but occupy a limited horizontal angle of view. The prospect would remain largely open and the agricultural and coastal landscape would still be appreciated. I therefore consider that the impact would be moderate.
36. Auburn Sands and the car park above the low clay cliff are representative of the beach close to the appeal site (Viewpoint 11). The nearest turbine would be some 735 metres away. Hedges, and to some extent cars and caravans would screen the base of the turbines but the number of visitors in the area increases the sensitivity. The effect on views from this location would be significant due to the proximity of the turbines but any wind farm landscape created would be restricted to very close to the turbines. It would not extend to the opposite side of the A165, which would give a visual separation. Neither landscape expert referred to Lissett as creating a landscape sub-type, and neither would the proposal in this case.
37. Manor Farm and St Edmund’s Chapel in Fraisthorpe are the closest listed buildings to the appeal site. Manor Farm is a late 17 th century house with farm
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
outbuildings in a rural setting on the edge of the hamlet. It stands in a generally level area and is not topographically prominent. When entering Fraisthorpe from the north the turbines would be seen behind the farm and its outbuildings (Viewpoint 12). However, the setting would still be rural, notwithstanding the introduction of wind turbines with rotating blades. The impact would therefore be moderate.
38. St Edmund’s Chapel stands on a mound close to the southern edge of the settlement in an area that has not changed significantly since it was rebuilt in 1892-3. Notwithstanding its raised position, the small Chapel is not particularly prominent in the landscape, due to vegetation between it and the road, and the rural hamlet provides its setting. The proposed turbines would be to the north on the opposite side of the road to the Chapel with intervening vegetation and buildings, although some of the turbines would be visible (ES Vol 2 of 3 Part 3 of 3 ID43). The turbines would not dominate the setting to the extent that it would cease to be the edge of a rural hamlet and the impact would again be moderate.
39. Approximately 5 kilometres to the west of the appeal site is a cluster of listed buildings within the Burton Agnes Conservation Area. The Hall, Gatehouse and Manor House are listed Grade I and a number of other structures are listed Grade II. The buildings sit within their own garden setting, which itself sits in the wider rural landscape. The proposed turbines would be seen from some locations in the formal gardens, from the first floor in the Manor House and from the second floor in the Hall, all of which are open to the public, as would the permitted Carnaby turbines. However, due to the distance from the historic assets the turbines would appear as small features in the overall sweeping landscape and so would have a relatively limited impact.
40. My conclusions on the impact of the proposed wind farm on the landscape and heritage assets in the surrounding area generally accord with those in the ES. Although both EH and the Council consider that the impact has been underestimated, both conclude that the impact on the settings of the listed buildings and conservation areas would not be substantial. Indeed, the Council does not consider that the effect on heritage assets, as opposed to wider views, would justify refusing the proposal. The appeal scheme would, therefore, accord with the aims of RSS Policy ENV9, SP Policy ENV8, and LP Policy EN20.
41. There would be substantial harm in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site that would need to be considered in the overall planning balance. However, whilst the proposal would slightly harm some wider views it would not dominate the wider landscape. There would be some conflict with the aims of RSS Policies YH6 (1), C1 (C), ENV10 (B), SP Policy SP1, SP4(a), SP5(1), and LP Policy EN2(2), particularly in the areas close to the appeal site.
42. The cumulative impact of the proposal with other wind turbine sites also needs to be considered. Within 25 kilometres of the appeal site there are a number of wind farm developments that are either operational, consented, or in the planning pipeline. The only operational site is 12 turbines at Lissett some 5.1 kilometres to the south west and this can be seen from a number of the identified viewpoints but appears as a distant array. Three additional sites have planning permission. Two, Hall Farm and Withernwick, which would have 12 and 9 turbines respectively, would be in the region of 19.3 and 20.3 kilometres to the south west and south and would not readily be seen in views including the appeal proposal. The third site at Carnaby would be the closest
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
to Fraisthorpe some 1.4 kilometres to the north. It would have two turbines which would be seen in conjunction with the proposal.
43. There are also three sites in the planning system and a fourth site which is at scoping stage. The latter at South Dale would have 14 turbines but would be in excess of 15 kilometres to the north, close to the outskirts of Filey, and would not readily be seen in conjunction with Fraisthorpe. Single turbines at Cottam some 15.4 kilometres to the west and North Frodingham approximately 11.6 kilometres to the south west, would similarly not be readily seen in conjunction with the appeal proposal. The final proposal, for 9 turbines at Thornholme around 4.2 kilometres north west of Fraisthorpe would, like Lissett, be visible in some views of Fraisthorpe but again would appear as a relatively distant array.
44. People travelling towards Bridlington, or those leaving Fraisthorpe in any direction, would pass a number of different wind farms. However, the distance between the various sites is such that the cumulative impact would not unacceptably detract from the journey experience. The Council accepts that the proposal would not cross the frontier between the current ‘landscape with wind farms’ to ‘a wind farm landscape’. The proposal would not lead to any significant landscape effect over and above the impact of the proposal on its own.
Effect on Air Safety
45. Initially both NATS (En-Route) plc (NATS) and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) objected to the proposal. NATS on the basis that there might be an adverse impact on the Claxby radar and associated air traffic operations and the MOD as it would be detectable by, and might cause unacceptable interference with, the Air Defence radar at Staxton Wold.
46. In a letter dated 29 October 2012 NATS confirmed that it had entered into an agreement with Fraisthorpe Wind Farm Limited for the design and implementation of an identified and defined mitigation solution which would be implemented under the agreement. It therefore withdrew its objection, subject to the imposition of two conditions preventing development until: firstly, a Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme(PRMS) has been agreed; and secondly, until the PRMS has been implemented. The second condition would also require the proposed windfarm to be operated in accordance with the PRMS.
47. Similarly, the MOD, in a letter dated 23 November 2012, states that it has received a proposal from Fraisthorpe Wind Farm Limited to mitigate the unacceptable effects of the proposal by the application of circular ‘non-auto initiation zones’ over the proposed development. The MOD considers the mitigation to be specific to the proposal, that it would be acceptable, and that it is capable of being realised within the lifetime of any planning consent that might be granted. Consequently the MOD is prepared to withdraw its objection subject to the imposition of conditions requiring a Radar Mitigation Scheme to be submitted for approval and preventing any wind turbines becoming operational until the mitigation measures proposed have been implemented. A further condition is suggested requiring 25 candela omni-directional aviation lighting or infra-red warning lighting to be installed at the highest practical point on each turbine and for them to remain operational for the lifetime of the permission in the interests of air safety.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
48. The Council indicated at the opening of the Inquiry that in light of the two letters it would no longer pursue its second deemed reason for refusal relating to aviation safety. With the safeguards provided by the suggested conditions, which would meet the test in Circular 11/95 , the proposal would not have any unacceptable impact on aviation safety and would accord with the objectives of paragraph 164 of the Framework .
Effect on Tourism
49. The landscape and coastline around Bridlington have been painted by David Hockney who considers that the proposal would deface the landscape and seafront of Bridlington. These are important elements in attracting visitors to the area and some local residents, but not the Council, have expressed concerns that the proposal would adversely affect tourism in the area. However, there is little evidence from other parts of the country that wind farms, in areas with at least local landscape designations, have led to an adverse impact on tourism. In Cornwall and Cumbria, the counties with the largest number of developed sites in England, total visitor numbers have continued to rise from the mid-1990s when sites were first developed.
50. A presentation to an All Party Parliamentary Group on Tourism in May 2006 suggested that the threshold of landscape protection was more sensitive to wind farms than tourism and that where there was no damage to landscape at the planning stage there would be no damage to tourism. A report for the Scottish Government in 2008 concluded that provided planning and marketing were carried out effectively there was no reason why wind farms and tourism should be incompatible. Tourism numbers in Scotland are continuing to grow despite over 2,200 onshore turbines.
51. In Bridlington, the Town Centre Action Plan 2011-2021 accepts that “the seaside and tourism are no longer the town’s economic mainstays”. A key development in the Action Plan is a marina. The main focus of trips from the Harbour is Flamborough Head and the coastline to the north. This would not be directly affected and the turbines would be some 12 kilometres away in the opposite direction. Beaches are another attraction but whilst the turbines would be visible there is no suggestion, from experience elsewhere, that visitors to Bridlington would be put off a return visit by development at the sort of separation distances proposed.
52. The Council has undertaken a number of improvements in recent years, Sewerby Hall has attracted lottery funding, moorings have been provided in the harbour, and Yorkshire Water is undertaking works to ensure the beaches have Blue flags when new Directives come into being in 2013. Fraisthorpe beach has been used to film a Visit England tourism advert and David Hockney has attracted attention to the local landscape in an exhibition. Fraisthorpe beach is used for activities, such as kite-surfing and horse riding, not associated with the more family oriented beaches further north. It is also available all year round for dog walking. There is no reason why these types of usage would be alienated by the proposal. Indeed, income from the wind farm could be used to improve facilities at Fraisthorpe for the benefit of future visitors.
Effect on Health
53. Some residents have expressed concerns about the impact of the proposal on health, particularly as people react differently and there are those locally who
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
suffer from epilepsy, are affected by low frequency noise, or who suffer from Relapsing, Remitting Multiple Sclerosis. Reference has been made to a number of documents available on the internet. Paragraph 123 of the Framework notes “Planning policies and decisions should aim to: avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions”.
54. Shadow flicker might affect those with epilepsy but needs a specific set of circumstances before it occurs. These can be calculated and an analysis has been undertaken that indicates that, as a worst case, 10 properties have the potential to be affected by shadow flicker. Auburn Farm is the only property that might be affected for more than 30 hours in a year and the other most affected homes would be Gravel Pit Cottages at 23.79 hours a year and Kingsfield Cottages at 17.65 hours. Intervening vegetation, outbuildings and boundary treatments would reduce the effect, as would cloud cover, such that worst case scenarios are unlikely. In any event, a condition could be attached to ensure that if there were complaints of shadow flicker the turbines would be turned off until the concerns were resolved.
55. Reference has been made to a letter from residents close to the Lissett wind farm. However, the Council’s Environmental Control section confirms that whilst there were two complaints shortly after the wind farm was commissioned, one complainant failed to respond to correspondence and the complaint was closed off. The other complainant provided detailed diary sheets which were used to identify the wind speeds and directions that caused the disturbance in excess of that allowed by a noise condition. Mitigation measures were implemented following which the wind farm was found to comply with the noise conditions and the complainant accepted there had been an improvement.
56. In terms of low frequency noise, a study published in 2005 by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency concluded that infrasound from upwind turbines can be neglected when evaluating the environmental effects of wind turbines. A report commissioned by the former Department of Trade and Industry and released in 2006 concluded that infrasound associated with modern wind turbines is not a source which will result in noise levels which may be injurious to the health of a wind farm neighbour.
57. Vibro acoustic disease (VAD) is caused by exposure to high levels of low frequency noise over long periods. Whilst a paper was presented by Dr Alves- Pereira to the second international meeting on wind turbine noise in 2007 no scientific evidence has been provided to support the statements made and the work has not been published in peer reviewed journals. In December 2009 an expert panel comprising medical, audiology and acoustic specialists from the United States, Canada, Denmark and the United Kingdom published a review of the topic. It noted “There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects. The ground-borne vibrations from wind turbines are too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans. The sounds emitted by wind turbines are not unique. There is no reason to believe, based on the levels and frequencies of the sounds and the panel’s experience with sound exposures in occupational
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
settings, that the sounds from wind turbines could plausibly have direct adverse health consequences”.
58. Noise and sleep disturbance can have adverse health effects. However, the most recent World Health Organisation report in 2011 makes no mention of wind turbines but highlights the significance of transport and social sources. Evidence by Dr Henning to the Low Spinney Inquiry (APP/F2415/A/09/21109745) was based largely on an unpublished study from Maine. This has now been published and the local standards applied there are not as strict as ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Turbines that is used here. Moreover, the actual noise levels are not given in the study. The Low Spinney scheme has now been constructed and operates without issue.
59. Reference has been made to various stand off distances but this approach would be in conflict with ETSU-R-97. In any event, the proposed stand off distances appear to be arbitrary. The UK Noise Association cites 1 mile, a report by Frey and Hadden suggests 2 kilometres, whilst a report by the French Academie Nationale de Medicine recommends 1.5 kilometres. This latter has not been accepted in France and individual site assessment continues to be used.
60. Coverage in the press of a book on Wind Turbine Syndrome provoked a response from the NHS Knowledge Service that “This study provides no conclusive evidence that wind turbines have an effect on health or are causing the set of symptoms described here as “wind turbine syndrome”. The study design was weak, the study was small and there was no comparison group”.
61. The Statement of Common Ground notes that the methodology set out in ETSU-R-97 has been applied properly, despite the concerns of some residents that noise readings have not been taken at their properties, and that it is the appropriate guidance. National Policy Statement EN-3 states that “Notwithstanding the date of this report (ETSU-R-97), the Government is satisfied on the balance of subsequent scientific research that its key conclusions (and in particular the limits it recommends) remain a sound basis for planning decisions”. It goes on to state “Where the correct methodology has been followed and a wind farm is shown to comply with ETSU-R-97 recommended noise limits, the IPC may conclude that it will give little or no weight to adverse noise impacts from the operation of the wind turbines”.
62. I understand the concerns of those who might find themselves living in relatively close proximity to the proposed turbines but care needs to be taken that the best scientific evidence considered. The documents from the internet have been considered at previous inquiries. They are not conclusive and have not led to a change in the Government’s position that ETSU-R-97 is the appropriate methodology. There is little evidence before me to justify a health fear sufficient to justify a refusal of permission and operational noise control measures could be addressed by condition.
Other Matters
63. Whilst there is no general right to a view, turbines could adversely impact on the outlook from some residential properties. The ES includes a Residential Visual Amenity Study (RVAS) the methodology of which is acceptable. There are 46 residential properties within 1 kilometre of the proposed turbines. The
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
two closest are Manor Farm and Auburn Farm some 593 and 602 metres from the nearest turbine respectively but these are both owned by landowners of the appeal site. Of the properties within 1 kilometre of the turbines, 23 would experience a substantial effect during some part of the year but 16 of these would lie 750 metres or more from the nearest turbine, which in my opinion is sufficient to prevent any unacceptable overbearing impact.
64. Southholme and Windshaven to the north east of the site, some 718 and 728 metres from proposed turbine 8, are oriented west/east. The view of the turbines from windows would be oblique and the main views and garden are to the east overlooking the sea whilst the curtilages to the rear are used for storage and parking. The impact would not be unduly overbearing.
65. 8 Fields Cottage and 9 Gravel Pit Cottages lie to the east of the A165 between Fraisthorpe and Carnaby some 646 metres from proposed turbine 7. They are oriented north/south with the main garden to the south. Turbine 4 around 687 metres away would be in full view with other turbines at a slight oblique angle. However, the outlook is generally unrestricted and there are also views to the east from the curtilage and I consider that the impact would not be unacceptably overbearing.
66. Westward Ho and Manor Dene are in Fraisthorpe approximately 617 metres from proposed turbine 2. Views from the front and side windows of these properties would be unaffected but the rear windows would have direct views of turbines 1, 2 and 3 and oblique views to the remaining turbines. Electricity and telegraph poles are existing vertical features. There are outbuildings to the rear of Westward Ho and buildings at Manor Farm to the north that would obstruct views of several of the bases. A tree belt to the immediate east would provide some screening for part of the year. The impact could be overbearing in winter, although there is potential for additional planting just beyond the rear garden boundary that could reduce the impact to moderate. A condition could be attached, which could be triggered by the occupiers of the houses if they so wished within three years from the First Export Date, requiring a landscaping scheme to be approved and implemented.
67. Shasta is a detached bungalow facing south west some 679 metres from proposed turbine 9. It is surrounded by gardens and mature deciduous and evergreen trees that would screen and filter views of the turbine bases. All views of the turbines from the house would be oblique to the south east but views from the garden would be more direct with gaps between trees providing some clear views of the turbines. The impact on views from the house would be moderate but from the garden would be substantial. There is good potential for mitigation of evergreen planting beyond the south and east boundaries, should the occupiers wish it, that would ensure the impact would not be unacceptably overbearing. As above this could be covered by a condition.
68. Cliff Farm and 1 and 2 East Cottages are just outside the 1 kilometres radius. The front elevations of all three properties face south, as do the principal living areas. There would be clear views towards the turbines and, despite the Lissett turbines being visible on clear days, the impact would be significant. Nevertheless the separation distance from the turbines would prevent the impact from being unacceptably overbearing.
69. Four of the seven properties within 750 metres of the proposed turbines have no scope for mitigation planting, although a condition could provide for
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
mitigation planting at the other three if the occupiers required it. With such a provision the impact of the proposed turbines on residential amenity would not justify dismissing the appeal.
70. I understand the concerns of local residents about offers that have been made to some, claims about the number of people locally who are in favour of the development, and the extent of consultation. I also appreciate the strength of local concern as expressed in the number of responses to consultation at both application and appeal stages. Some local residents are worried that the proposal might affect their house prices or make them difficult to sell but those are not generally planning matters. Reference has been made to possible community funding but there is no mechanism to ensure its provision and I have given this matter no weight. Whilst the appellant is criticised for appealing against non determination, and so ‘leap frogging’ other applications, such appeals are an established part of the planning system available to applicants who do not receive decisions within the prescribed period.
71. Reference has been made to the laying of pipelines taking carbon capture from power stations to be stored under the North Sea, and to underground connections from Dogger Bank offshore wind farm to a connection near Cottingham. The routes for these developments may be in the vicinity of the proposed wind farm but have not yet been decided. They would not justify dismissing this appeal.
72. There is little evidence from schemes that have existed alongside major roads for many years that wind turbines prove a distraction leading to accidents, despite specific research on this matter for the Highways Agency. In terms of traffic generation, there would be minimal movements during operation and the proposal would be in accordance with the aims of LP Policy TM4.
73. The proposed transport route would be from the docks at Hull along the A165 to the site entrance in an existing lay-by. A Transport Assessment concludes that the site can be safely accessed from the public highway by HGVs and abnormal load vehicles. All roads could be navigated without major alteration, although some limited removal of street furniture may be required temporarily during delivery of turbine components. Construction traffic movements would increase traffic volumes on the A165 by less than 2% for 6-12 months and impacts during decommissioning would be no greater than during construction. A temporary closure of the unclassified road between Fraisthorpe village and the beach would be necessary but could be controlled through conditions requiring a Traffic Management Plan and a Construction Management Plan to be submitted for approval.
74. The site lies in Flood Zone 1 – low risk of flooding. There is no main watercourse running through the site but the Auburn Beck runs on the north east boundary close to turbine 8. Nevertheless a Flood Risk Assessment has been undertaken. Compaction during construction, access tracks, turbine bases and the control building would all increase surface water run off. However, the potential for flood risk is limited, Yorkshire Water has not commented and the Environment Agency has no objection subject to a condition regarding a surface water discharge scheme which could be attached to any permission. In terms of geology, the site is relatively flat and stable, although the cliffs to the east are subject to coastal erosion and the Shoreline Management Plan 2010 indicates no active intervention to protect the shoreline in this area. Erosion is not expected to affect the site in the lifetime of the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
proposal and the shoreline position in 2055 is expected to be just to the east of Auburn Farm well outside the appeal site boundary. Despite the concern of some local residents there is no evidence to suggest that the indicative foundations would not be adequate or that they would cause increased instability. The proposal would generally comply with the objectives of SP Policy NAT6 and LP Policies EN16, En17 and EN18.
75. An Ecological Impact Assessment was submitted as part of the ES. The habitats within the appeal site are common in the surrounding landscape but hedges and copses have some value as flightlines and foraging areas for birds and bats. The ecological value could be improved by ‘gapping-up’ with native shrubs. 42 metres of hedge would be lost but approximately 140 metres of new hedge, to join two existing sections of hedge, would be provided. There would be no works within 30 metres of a badger sett on the site but a survey would be carried out prior to construction in case of any new sett.
76. Surveys recorded little bat activity in the open fields and Natural England are satisfied that the siting of the turbines is acceptable in terms of their guidance. Whilst there is potential for reptiles, no Great Crested Newts were found during surveys. In terms of birds, only low numbers of common species were recorded and monitoring suggests that collision risk would be insignificant. Natural England is satisfied that sufficient ornithological information has been submitted to satisfy the requirements of TIN 069 Assessing the effects of onshore wind farms on birds . A condition could be attached to any permission requiring the mitigation and enhancement measures identified in the Ecology Chapter of the ES to be implemented and the proposal would accord with the aims of RSS Policy ENV8, SP Policy ENV3, and LP Policies EN10 and EN11.
77. The site is within a sensitive archaeological landscape with Romano-British and Medieval occupation connected with Auburn Sands to the east and numerous World War I and II defensive structures. A condition requiring a programme of archaeological evaluation prior to any development commencing would prevent any unacceptable impact on archaeology. With that safeguard the proposal would accord comply with the general aims of RSS Policy ENV9 and SP Policy ENV7.
Planning Balance
78. The proposal would make an important contribution to reducing the legally binding targets in respect of greenhouse gas emissions and to meeting the UK’s goal of 15% of energy demand being met from renewable sources. These benefits would be significant.
79. There would be no significant impact on highway safety, flooding, geology, ecology, or heritage assets. There is little evidence that local tourism would be affected, or that there would be any material adverse impact on the health of those living close to the site in terms of noise of various types, or shadow flicker. Effects on commercial and MOD radar systems could be overcome by conditions requiring mitigation should there be any impacts, and both NATS and MOD have withdrawn their original objections.
80. The occupiers of seven houses within 750 metres of the turbines would suffer a moderate detrimental impact on their outlook but some of these could be mediated to some extent by additional landscaping providing filtering. The main detrimental impact would be on the landscape in close proximity to the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
site although there would be no significant impact on the wider landscape character as perceived in views from further afield.
81. Notwithstanding comments by Mrs Justice Lang in a recent judgement relating to a proposal at Hemsby, I conclude that the benefits would, in this case, outweigh any adverse impacts.
82. Reference has been made to potential human rights violations. However, any interference with the rights of those who live in the vicinity of the proposed wind farm must be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others. If the development goes ahead I do not consider that its effects on local residents would be disproportionate.
Conditions
83. In addition to the conditions already mentioned, others have also been suggested by the main parties. In addition to the decommissioning condition already discussed, a further condition should be attached requiring decommissioning if any turbine ceases exporting electricity to the grid for a period of a year. This would be necessary to restore that part of the site to its existing condition and safeguard the landscape. To reduce the impact of the proposal as much as possible, details of the colour and finish of the various turbine components should be submitted for approval and no names, signs or logos should be allowed on external surfaces other than to meet health and safety requirements. Similarly, details of the control and electricity sub-station building and any associated compound or parking area, fencing and any surface or foul drainage should be submitted for approval.
84. All cabling between the turbines, and between the turbines and the electricity sub-station building, should be installed underground to reduce the impact on the landscape as far as possible. A condition allowing the occupiers of those properties that might benefit from additional planting to trigger a scheme of tree and/or hedgerow provision for a period of three years would enable them to assess the impact and to require some mediation if it was considered necessary.
85. To safeguard the living conditions of nearby residents the hours of construction work should be restricted. The maximum size of the turbines should be defined to ensure that they do not exceed those considered in the ES and all blades should be required to rotate in the same direction to minimise impact. A condition requiring a baseline survey and the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference should be attached to safeguard the living conditions of local residents.
86. In the interests of air safety written confirmation of the proposed commencement and completion dates, the heights above ground level and the latitude and longitude of each turbine should be provided to the local planning authority, the MOD and the Civil Aviation Authority prior to the erection of the first turbine.
87. No development should take place until details of the access to the site has been approved and constructed, in the interests of highway safety. For the sake of clarity and in the interests of good planning a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved drawing should be attached. As there are a number of matters that would need to be satisfied
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 16 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
prior to development, including radar mitigation, it would be reasonable in this case to extend the time period for commencement from 3 to 5 years.
88. I consider that all the suggested conditions would satisfy the tests in Circular 11/95 and that with these safeguards the proposal would be acceptable, although some have been amended slightly to comply with the guidance in the Circular . K D Barton
INSPECTOR
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 17 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
Schedule of Conditions Attached to Appeal Ref: APP/E2001/A/12/2179233 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than five years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: GB0112 P003 Rev A Detailed Site Layout. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be removed in accordance with condition 4 below after a period of 25 years from the date when electricity is first exported from any of the wind turbines to the electricity grid (“First Export Date”). Written notification of the First Export Date shall be given to the Local Planning Authority no later than 14 days after the event. 4) Not later than 12 months before the end of this permission, a decommissioning and site restoration scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall make provision for the removal of the wind turbines and associated above ground works approved under this permission and for the removal of the turbine foundation to a depth of at least 1 metre below the ground. The scheme shall also include the management and timing of any works and a traffic management plan to address likely traffic impact issues during the decommissioning period, location of material laydown areas, an environmental management plan to include details of measures to be taken during the decommissioning period to protect wildlife and habitats and details of site restoration measures. In the event that the Local Planning Authority fails to approve the said scheme in writing within 12 weeks of the full and final version of the said scheme having been submitted, the developer shall be required to appeal against non- determination. The scheme, as approved, shall be fully implemented within 18 months of the expiry of this permission. 5) If any wind turbine hereby permitted ceases to export electricity to the grid for a continuous period of 12 months, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, then a scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for its written approval within 3 months of the end of that 12 month period for the repair or removal of that turbine. The scheme shall include either a programme of remedial works where repairs to the relevant turbine are required, or a programme for removal of the relevant turbine and associated above ground works approved under this permission and the removal of the turbine foundation to a depth of at least 1 metre below ground and for site restoration measures following the removal of the relevant turbine. In the event that the Local Planning Authority fails to approve the said scheme in writing within 12 weeks of the full and final version of the said scheme having been submitted, the developer shall be required to appeal against non-determination. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timetable. 6) No development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Traffic Management Plan shall include proposals for the routing of construction traffic, scheduling and timing of
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 18 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
movements, the management of junctions to and crossings of the public highway and other public rights of way, details of escorts for abnormal loads, temporary warning signs, temporary removal and replacement of highway infrastructure/street furniture, reinstatement of any signs, verges or other items displaced by construction traffic, and banksman/escort details. The approved Construction Traffic Management Plan including any agreed improvements or works to accommodate construction traffic where required along the route, shall be carried out as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 7) No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction and post-construction restoration period, subject to any variations approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Method Statement shall include: a) Details of the temporary site compound including temporary structures/buildings, fencing, parking and storage provision to be used in connection with the construction of the development; b) Details of the proposed storage of materials and disposal of surplus materials; c) Dust management; d) Pollution control: protection of the water environment, bunding of fuel storage areas, surface water drainage, sewage disposal and discharge of foul drainage; e) Temporary site illumination during the construction period including proposed lighting levels together with the specification of any lighting; f) Details of the phasing of construction works; g) Details of surface treatments and the construction of all hard surfaces and tracks; h) Details of emergency procedures and pollution response plans; i) Siting and details of wheel washing facilities; j) 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; k) A site environmental management plan to include details of measures to be taken during the construction period to protect wildlife and habitats; l) Areas on site designated for the storage, loading, off-loading, parking and manoeuvring of heavy duty plant, equipment and vehicles; m) Details and a timetable for post construction restoration/reinstatement of the temporary working areas and the construction compound; and n) Working practices for protecting nearby residential dwellings, including measures to control noise and vibration arising from on-site activities shall be adopted as set out in British Standard 5228 Part 1: 2009.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 19 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
8) Construction work shall only take place between the hours of 0700 – 1800 hours Monday to Friday inclusive and 0800 – 1300 hours on Saturdays with no such work on a Sunday or Public Holiday. Exceptions for work outside these hours may be carried out with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Emergency works including wind turbine erection works delayed due to the weather may be carried out at any time provided that the operator retrospectively notifies the Local Planning Authority in writing of the emergency and works undertaken within 24 hours. 9) The blades of all wind turbines shall rotate in the same direction. The overall height of the wind turbines shall not exceed 130m to the tip of the blades when the turbine is in the vertical position as measured from natural ground level immediately adjacent to the wind turbine base. 10) Prior to the erection of any wind turbine, details of the colour and finish of the towers, nacelles and blades and any external transformer units shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No name, sign, or logo shall be displayed on any external surfaces of the wind turbines or any external transformer units other than those required to meet statutory health and safety requirements. The approved colour and finish of the wind turbines and any external transformer units shall not be changed without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 11) Prior to commencement of the construction of the turbine control and electricity substation building details of the design and the external appearance, dimensions and materials for the building and any associated compound or parking area, access roads and associated fencing and details of surface and foul water drainage from the substation building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development of the building and any associated compound or parking area shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 12) All electrical cabling between the individual wind turbines and between the wind turbines and the on site electricity substation shall be installed underground. 13) There shall be no permanent illumination on the site other than lighting on the turbines as provided for in condition 21, lighting required during the construction period (as approved through the Construction Method Statement referred to in condition 7), lighting required during planned or unplanned maintenance or emergency lighting and a movement sensor- operated external door light for the electricity substation building door to allow safe access. 14) Prior to the commencement of development an Ecological Habitat Enhancement Scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include but not be limited to a programme for and the provision within the site of at least 140m of new and replacement hedge planting and the provision of approximately 1ha of rough grassland as suitable reptile foraging habitat. The scheme shall be implemented as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 20 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
15) No development shall commence until a specification for checking surveys for nests of breeding birds on the site to be carried out by a suitably qualified independent ecologist has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specification shall include the methodology for the surveys, and a timetable for the surveys and submission of a report detailing the results of the surveys. The report shall also identify any mitigation measures required as a result of the surveys for any construction works or clearance of vegetation between 1 March and 31 August. The specification and mitigation measures shall be implemented as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 16) Prior to the construction of the final wind turbine a written scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority setting out a protocol for the assessment of shadow flicker in the event of any complaint to the Local Planning Authority from the owner or occupier of a dwelling (defined for the purposes of this condition as a building within Use Class C3 or C4 of the Use Classes Order) which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date of this permission. The written scheme shall include remedial measures to alleviate any shadow flicker attributable to the development. Operation of the wind turbines shall take place in accordance with the approved scheme. 17) Prior to the First Export Date a scheme providing for a baseline survey and the investigation and alleviation of any electro-magnetic interference to terrestrial television caused by the operation of the wind turbines shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall provide for the investigation by a qualified independent television engineer of any complaint of interference with television reception at a lawfully occupied dwelling (defined for the purposes of this condition as a building within Use Class C3 and C4 of the Use Classes Order) which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date of this permission, where such complaint is notified to the developer by the Local Planning Authority within 12 months of the First Export Date. Where impairment is determined by the qualified television engineer to be attributable to the development, mitigation works shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme which has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 18) Prior to the erection of the first wind turbine, written confirmation shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority, the Ministry of Defence and the Civil Aviation Authority of the proposed date of commencement and completion of the development and the height above ground level and the position in latitude and longitude of each wind turbine. 19) No wind turbine shall be erected until a Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme to mitigate the impact of the development upon the operation of the Primary Radar Installation at Claxby and the air traffic management operations of NATS (En Route) plc (incorporated under the Companies Act (4129273) whose registered office is 4000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hants PO15 7FL or such other organisation licensed from time to time under sections 5 and 6 of the Transport Act 2000 to provide air traffic services to the relevant managed area (within the meaning of section 40 of that Act)) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 21 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
20) No wind turbine shall be erected until the Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme approved by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to condition 19 has been implemented and the development shall thereafter be operated fully in accordance with the approved Scheme. 21) Prior to the erection of the first wind turbine, a scheme for the installation of Ministry of Defence accredited infra-red lighting on the wind turbines in a location to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The wind turbines shall be erected with this lighting installed and the lighting shall remain operational throughout the duration of this permission. 22) No development shall take place until a Radar Mitigation Scheme to mitigate the impact of the development upon the operation of the air defence radar at Remote Radar Head Staxton Wold (“the Radar”) and the air traffic control operations of the Ministry of Defence which are reliant upon the Radar has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Radar Mitigation Scheme shall set out the appropriate measures to be implemented in order to mitigate the impact of the development on the Radar, together with any performance criteria to be satisfied, and shall be in place for the period during which the Radar remains in operation. 23) No wind turbines shall become operational until all measures required as part of the Radar Mitigation Scheme approved by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to condition 22 have been implemented in accordance with the timescales specified within the Scheme. The development shall thereafter be operated fully in accordance with the approved Scheme. 24) No development shall commence until the wind farm operator 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. This written scheme shall include the following components: (i) an archaeological evaluation to be undertaken in accordance with the agreed written scheme of investigation; and (ii) an archaeological recording programme the scope of which will be dependent upon the results of the evaluation and will be in accordance with the agreed written scheme of investigation. 25) The wind turbines hereby permitted shall be erected at the following grid co-ordinates: T1 516515 462198 T2 515846 462152 T3 516259 462437 T4 515482 462518 T5 515895 462557 T6 516215 462907 T7 515766 462856 T8 516391 463299 T9 515956 463277 Notwithstanding the terms of this condition, the wind turbines and associated crane pads may be micro-sited within 30m and the consequential realignment of the access tracks between and to the wind turbines following micro-siting of the wind turbines shall be permitted. A plan showing the position of the wind turbines and access tracks
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 22 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
established on the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to the First Export Date. 26) Within 28 days from receipt of written notification from the Local Planning Authority of a request to it received no later than 3 years from the First Export Date from the occupants of any of the following dwellings: a) Shasta, Fraisthorpe, Bridlington YO15 3QP b) Westward Ho, Fraisthorpe, Bridlington YO15 3QT c) Manor Dene, Fraisthorpe, Bridlington YO15 3QT a scheme comprising of tree and/or hedgerow planting (which shall consist of native species and be of local provenance) to mitigate the visual impact of the development at the relevant dwelling shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in the first available planting season following receipt of the Local Planning Authority’s written approval. 27) No development shall commence until the design and layout of the site access from the public highway has been submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. No other part of the development shall commence until the access has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. 28) The rating level of noise immissions from the combined effects of the wind turbines (including the application of any tonal penalty), when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes, shall not exceed the values for the relevant integer wind speed set out in, or derived from, Tables 1 and 2 attached to these conditions and: (A) Prior to the First Export Date, the wind farm operator shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for written approval a list of proposed independent consultants who may undertake compliance measurements in accordance with this condition. Amendments to the list of approved consultants shall be made only with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. (B) Within 21 days from receipt of a written request of the Local Planning Authority, following a complaint to it alleging noise disturbance at a dwelling, the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, employ an independent consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority to assess the level of noise immissions from the wind farm at the complainant’s property in accordance with the procedures described in the attached Guidance Notes. The written request from the Local Planning Authority shall set out at least the date, time and location that the complaint relates to. Within 14 days of receipt of the written request of the Local Planning Authority made under this paragraph (B), the wind farm operator shall provide the information relevant to the complaint logged in accordance with paragraph (H) to the Local Planning Authority in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e). (C) Where there is more than one property at a location specified in Tables 1 and 2 attached to this condition, the noise limits set for that location shall apply to all dwellings at that location. Where a
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 23 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
dwelling to which a complaint is related is not identified by name or location in the Tables attached to these conditions, the wind farm operator shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for written approval proposed noise limits selected from those listed in the Tables to be adopted at the complainant’s dwelling for compliance checking purposes. The proposed noise limits are to be those limits selected from the Tables specified for a listed location which the independent consultant considers as being likely to experience the most similar background noise environment to that experienced at the complainant’s dwelling. The submission of the proposed noise limits to the Local Planning Authority shall include a written justification of the choice of the representative background noise environment provided by the independent consultant. The representative background noise environment and proposed noise limits shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The rating level of noise immissions resulting from the combined effects of the wind turbines when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes shall not exceed the noise limits approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the complainant’s dwelling. (D) Prior to the commencement of any measurements by the independent consultant to be undertaken in accordance with these conditions, the wind farm operator shall submit to the local planning authority for written approval the proposed measurement location identified in accordance with the Guidance Notes where measurements for compliance checking purposes shall be undertaken. Measurements to assess compliance with the noise limits set out in the Tables attached to these conditions or approved by the local planning authority pursuant to paragraph (C) of this condition shall be undertaken at the measurement location approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (E) Prior to the commencement of any measurements by the independent consultant to be undertaken in accordance with these conditions, the wind farm operator shall submit to the local planning authority for written approval the proposed assessment protocol setting out the following:
(i) the range of meteorological and operational conditions (the range of wind speeds, wind directions, power generation and times of day) to determine the assessment of rating level of noise immissions.
(ii) A reasoned assessment as to whether the noise giving rise to the complaint contains or is likely to contain a tonal component. The proposed range of conditions shall be those which prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise, having regard to the information provided in the written request of the local planning authority under paragraph (B), and such others as the independent consultant considers likely to result in a breach of the noise limits. The assessment of the rating level of noise immissions shall be undertaken in accordance with the
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 24 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
assessment protocol approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (F) The wind farm operator shall provide to the Local Planning Authority the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise immissions undertaken in accordance with the Guidance Notes within 2 months of the date of the written request of the Local Planning Authority made under paragraph (B) of this condition unless the time limit is extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall include all data collected for the purposes of undertaking the compliance measurements, such data to be provided in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e). The instrumentation used to undertake the measurements shall be calibrated in accordance with Guidance Note 1(a) and certificates of calibration shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority with the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise immissions. (G) Where a further assessment of the rating level of noise immissions from the wind farm is required pursuant to Guidance Note 4(c) of the attached Guidance Notes, the wind farm operator shall submit a copy of the further assessment within 21 days of submission of the independent consultant’s assessment pursuant to paragraph (F) above unless the time limit for the submission of the further assessment has been extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (H) The wind farm operator shall continuously log nacelle wind speed, nacelle orientation, power generation and nacelle wind direction for each turbine in accordance with this consent, all in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d) of the attached Guidance Notes. The data from each wind turbine shall be retained for a period of not less than 12 months. The wind farm operator shall provide this information in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) of the attached Guidance Notes to the Local Planning Authority on its request within 14 days of receipt in writing of such a request.
Note : For the purposes of this condition, a “dwelling” is a building within Use Class C3 or C4 of the Use Classes Order which lawfully exists or had planning permission at the date of this consent.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 25 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
Table 1 - Between 07:00 and 23:00 - Noise level dB LA90, 10-minute
Standardised wind speed at 10 metres height (m/s) Location (easting, northing grid coordinates) within the site averaged over 10-minute periods 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
LA90 Decibel Levels Bridge Farm (516041,464093) 47 48 48 49 50 50 51 51 52 53 53 54 South Holme (517000,463652) 41 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 49 50 Auburn Farm (516799,462745) Financially Involved 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 46 47 48 49 50 Manor Farm (515325,461913) Financially Involved 45 45 45 45 46 47 49 50 51 53 54 55 North Kingsfield (514213,462710) 38 38 38 40 41 42 44 45 46 48 49 50 Gravel Pit Cottage (515244,463218) 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Shasta (515391,463587) 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 60 South Kingsfield (514536,462319) 38 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 46 47 Fraisthorpe (515357,461818) 41 42 43 45 46 47 49 50 51 53 54 55
Table 2 - Between 23:00 and 07:00 - Noise level dB L A90, 10-minute
Standardised wind speed at 10 metres height (m/s) Location (easting, northing grid coordinates) within the site averaged over 10-minute periods 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
LA90 Decibel Levels Bridge Farm (516041,464093) 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 45 46 47 49 South Holme (517000,463652) 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 44 45 46 47 47 Auburn Farm (516799,462745) Financially Involved 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 46 Manor Farm (515325,461913) Financially Involved 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 47 49 51 North Kingsfield (514213,462710) 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 45 46 48 Gravel Pit Cottage (515244,463218) 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 45 48 50 53 55 Shasta (515391,463587) 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 46 48 50 52 55 South Kingsfield (514536,462319) 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 Fraisthorpe (515357,461818) 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 45 47 49 51 Note to Tables 1 & 2 : The geographical coordinates references set out in these tables are provided for the purpose of identifying the general location of dwellings to which a given set of noise limits applies. The standardised wind speed at 10 metres height within the site refers to wind speed at 10 metres height derived from those measured at hub height, calculated in accordance with the method given in the Guidance Notes.
Guidance Notes for Noise Condition These notes are to be read with, and form part of, the noise condition. They further explain the condition and specify the methods to be employed in the assessment of complaints about noise immissions from the wind farm. The rating level at each integer wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the wind farm noise level as determined from the best-fit curve described in Note 2 of these Guidance Notes and any tonal penalty applied in accordance with Note 3 with any necessary correction for residual background noise levels in accordance with Note 4. Reference to ETSU-R-97 refers to the publication entitled “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms” (1997) published by the Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU) for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).
Note 1
(a) Values of the L A90,10-minute noise statistic should be measured at the complainant’s property (or an approved alternative representative
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 26 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
location as detailed in Note 1(b)), using a sound level meter of EN 60651/BS EN 60804 Type 1, or BS EN 61672 Class 1 quality (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements) set to measure using the 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 should be calibrated before and after each set of measurements, using a calibrator meeting IEC 60945:2003 “Electroacoustics – sound calibrators” Class 1 with PTB Type Approval (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements) and the results shall be recorded. Measurements shall be undertaken in such a manner to enable a tonal penalty to be applied in accordance with Guidance Note 3. (b) The microphone shall be mounted at 1.2 - 1.5 metres above ground level, fitted with a two-layer windshield or suitable equivalent approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and placed outside the complainant’s dwelling and be not more than 35 metres from it. Measurements should be made in “free field” conditions. To achieve this, the microphone shall be placed at least 3.5 metres away from the building facade or any reflecting surface except the ground at the approved measurement location. In the event that the consent of the complainant for access to his or her property to undertake compliance measurements is withheld, the wind farm operator shall submit for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority details of the proposed alternative representative measurement location prior to the commencement of measurements and the measurements shall be undertaken at the approved alternative representative measurement location.
(c) The L A90,10-minute measurements should be synchronised with measurements of the 10-minute arithmetic mean wind speed and wind direction data and with operational data logged in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d) and rain data logged in accordance with Note 1(f). (d) To enable compliance with the conditions to be evaluated, the wind farm operator shall continuously log arithmetic mean nacelle wind speed (duly corrected for the presence of the rotating blades) arithmetic mean nacelle orientation, nacelle wind direction and arithmetic mean power generated during each successive 10-minute periods for each wind turbine on the site. The hub height wind speeds recorded from the nacelle anemometers or as calculated from the power output of each turbine shall be supplemented by standardised ten metre height wind speed data calculated for each 10-minute period from those measured at hub height assuming a reference roughness length of 0.05 metres and using the equation given on page 120 of ETSU-R-97. All 10-minute periods shall commence on the hour and in 10-minute increments thereafter synchronised with Greenwich Mean Time and adjusted to British Summer Time where necessary. Standardised 10 metre height wind speed data shall be correlated with the noise measurements determined as valid in accordance with Note 2(b), such correlation to be undertaken in the manner described in Note 2(c).
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 27 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
(e) Data provided to the Local Planning Authority in accordance with paragraphs (E) (F) (G) and (H) of the noise condition shall be provided in comma separated values in electronic format. (f) A data logging rain gauge shall be installed within 3m of any sound level meter installed in the course of the independent consultant undertaking an assessment of the level of noise immissions. The gauge shall record over successive 10-minute periods synchronised with the periods of data recorded in accordance with Note 1(d).
Note 2 (a) The noise measurements should be made so as to provide not less than 20 valid data points as defined in Note 2 paragraph (b). (b) Valid data points are those measured during the conditions set out in the assessment protocol approved by the Local Planning Authority under paragraph (E) of the noise condition but excluding any periods of rainfall measured in accordance with Note 1(f).
(c) Values of the L A90,10-minute noise measurements and corresponding values of the 10-minute standardised ten metre height wind speed for those data points considered valid in accordance with Note 2(b) shall be plotted on an XY chart with noise level on the Y-axis and wind speed on the X-axis. A least squares, “best fit” curve of an order deemed appropriate by the independent consultant (but which may not be higher than a fourth order) shall be fitted to the data points to define the wind farm noise level at each integer speed.
Note 3 (a) Where, in accordance with the approved assessment protocol under paragraph (E) of the noise condition, noise immissions at the location or locations where compliance measurements are being undertaken contain or are likely to contain a tonal component, a tonal penalty shall be calculated and applied using the following rating procedure.
(b) For each 10-minute interval for which L A90,10-minute data have been determined as valid in accordance with Note 2, a tonal assessment shall be performed on noise immissions during 2-minutes of each 10- minute period. The 2-minute periods should be spaced at 10-minute intervals provided that uninterrupted uncorrupted data are available (“the standard procedure”). Where uncorrupted 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 the standard procedure shall be reported. (c) For each of the 2-minute samples the tone level above audibility shall be calculated by comparison with the audibility criterion given in Section 2.1 on pages 104 -109 of ETSU-R-97. (d) The tone level above audibility shall be plotted against wind speed for each of the 2-minute samples. Samples for which the tones were below the audibility criterion or no tone was identified, a value of zero audibility shall be substituted. (e) A least squares “best fit” linear regression shall then be performed to establish the average tone level above audibility for each integer wind
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 28 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
speed derived from the value of the “best fit” line fitted to values. If there is no apparent trend with wind speed then a simple arithmetic mean shall be used. This process shall be repeated for each integer wind speed for which there is an assessment of overall levels in Note 2. (f) The tonal penalty is derived from the margin above audibility of the tone according to the figure below derived from the average tone level above audibility for each integer wind speed.
Note 4 (a) If a tonal penalty is to be applied in accordance with Note 3 the rating level of the turbine noise at each wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the measured noise level as determined from the best fit curve described in Note 2 and the penalty for tonal noise as derived in accordance with Note 3 at each integer wind speed within the range set out in the approved assessment protocol under paragraph (E) of the noise condition. (b) If no tonal penalty is to be applied then the rating level of the turbine noise at each wind speed is equal to the measured noise level as determined from the best fit curve described in Note 2. (c) If the rating level at any integer wind speed lies at or below the values set out in the Tables attached to the conditions or at or below the noise limits approved by the Local Planning Authority for a complainant’s dwelling in accordance with paragraph (C) of the noise condition then no further action is necessary. In the event that the rating level is above the limit(s) set out in the Tables attached to the noise conditions or the noise limits for a complainant’s dwelling approved in accordance with paragraph (C) of the noise condition, the independent consultant shall undertake a further assessment of the rating level to correct for background noise so that the rating level relates to wind turbine noise immission only. (d) The wind farm operator shall ensure that all the wind turbines in the development are turned off for such period as the independent
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 29 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
consultant requires to undertake the further assessment. The further assessment shall be undertaken in accordance with the following steps: i. Repeating the steps in Note 2, with the wind farm switched off, and determining the background noise (L 3) at each integer wind speed within the range set out in the approved noise assessment protocol under paragraph (E) of this condition.
ii. The wind farm noise (L 1) at this speed shall then be calculated as follows where L 2 is the measured level with turbines running but without the addition of any tonal penalty: L /10 L /10 2 3 L1 =10log[10 −10 ]
iii. The rating level shall be re-calculated by adding the tonal penalty (if any is applied in accordance with Note 3) to the derived wind
farm noise L 1 at that integer wind speed. If the rating level after adjustment for background noise contribution and adjustment for tonal penalty (if required in accordance with note (iii) above) at any integer wind speed lies at or below the values set out in the Tables attached to the conditions or at or below the noise limits approved by the Local Planning Authority for a complainant’s dwelling in accordance with paragraph (C) of the noise condition then no further action is necessary. If the rating level at any integer wind speed exceeds the values set out in the Tables attached to the conditions or the noise limits approved by the Local Planning Authority for a complainant’s dwelling in accordance with paragraph (C) of the noise condition then the development fails to comply with the conditions.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 30 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Martin Carter of Counsel Instructed by Head of Legal and Democratic Services, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, County Hall, Beverley, East Riding HU17 9BA He called Nigel Rockliff BA DipLA Senior Landscape Architect, Golder Associates MLI (UK) Ltd Susan Hunt BA(Hons) Principal Development Management Officer, East MA Riding of Yorkshire Council
FOR THE APPELLANT:
David Harvey LLB(Hons) BCL(Hons)(Oxon), Partner, Eversheds LLP, Bridgewater Place, Water Lane, Leeds LS11 5DR He called Brian Denney BA(Hons) Director, Pegasus Planning Group, 4215 Park DipLA CMLI CENV Approach Avenue, Thorpe Park, Leeds LS15 8GB MIEMA David Stewart David Stewart Associates, Selgars House, MA(Cantab) DipTP Uffculme, Cullompton, Devon EX15 3DA MRTPI
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Councillor Chadwick Councillor and Local Resident Mr G J Banks MBE Local Resident Mr Kirk Local Resident David Hinde Local Resident John Smith Local Resident Peter Ayling Ramblers Association Gary Burt Local Resident Mrs S E Burt Local Resident Mr John Daniels Carnaby Parish Councillor and Local Resident Mr Jones Local Resident Mr Elsom Local Resident Jennifer Clough Local Resident Bronwen Turton Local Resident
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 31 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
Michael Smales Supporters of the Environment of Bridlington Bay and Local Resident Alex Daniels Local Resident Steve Hey Local Resident Julia Hey Local Resident Gary Wheeler Local Resident Dr Brian Wells Supporters of the Environment of Bridlington Bay and Local Resident Mr Wilkes Local Resident
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AFTER THE INQUIRY OPENED
1 Council’s letter of notification of the Inquiry and a list of those notified 2 Letter dated 23 November 2012 withdrawing Ministry of Defence objection subject to two conditions 3 Opening Statement on behalf of East Riding of Yorkshire Council 4 Opening Statement on behalf of Fraisthorpe Wind Farm Limited 5 Notes submitted by Councillor Chadwick 6 Notes submitted by G J Banks 7 Note submitted by Peter Ayling on behalf of East Yorkshire & Derwent Area Ramblers 8 Officer’s Report in relation to Carnaby turbines application 9 Notes submitted by David Hinde 10 Note and attachments relating to health impacts submitted by John Daniels 11 Notes submitted by Mr Jones 12 Note from Anne Holmes 13 Note submitted by Bronwen Turton 14 Notes submitted by Alex Daniels 15 List of suggested conditions and e-mail comments on them. 16 Environmental Control response re noise complaints at Lissett wind farm 17 Notes submitted by Mr and Mrs Burt 18 Additional documents submitted by Mr Jones 19 Additional note and newspaper article submitted by David Hinde 20 Notes submitted by George Hornsey 21 Notes submitted by K Daniels 22 Rebuttal Statement on Noise and Health with three appeal decisions attached submitted by Fraisthorpe Wind Farm Limited 23 Additional condition submitted by East Riding of Yorkshire Council
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 32 Appeal Decision APP/E2001/A/12/2179233
24 Statement read by Michael Smales on behalf of Supporters of the Environment of Bridlington Bay 25 Notes submitted by Dr Brian Wells on behalf of Supporters of the Environment of Bridlington Bay 26 Note submitted by Mr Wilkes 27 Closing submissions on behalf of East Riding of Yorkshire Council 28 Closing submissions on behalf of Fraisthorpe Wind Farm Limited 29 Written Statement by the appellant relating to the Energy Bill 2012 30 Amended list of suggested conditions incorporating comments made during the session on conditions
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 33