Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension

Volume 1- Environmental Statement Submitted on behalf of RWE NPower Renewables Limited to Burnley Borough Council

December 2009

Prepared by: ...... Checked by: ...... Mark Herod Paul McQuillan Senior Environmental Scientist Principal Environmental Scientist

Approved by: James Smith Regional Director

Rev No Comments Checked by Approved Date by 0 Draft for Internal Review MH PM 07/12/2009 1 Draft for Client Review MH JS 11/12/2009 2 Final for Issue MH JS 16/12/2009

First Floor, One Trinity Gardens, Quayside, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 2HF Telephone: 0191 224 6500 Website: http://www.aecom.com

Job No 60050933 Date Created December 2009

This document is confidential and the copyright of AECOM Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. f:\environmental group management\marketing\hameldon extension\environmental statement\06_final for fomatting\environmental statement.doc

Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... i List of Figures ...... ii List of Appendices ...... iii 1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Environmental Impact Assessment ...... 8 3 Description of the Proposed Development ...... 11 4 Landscape and Visual Summary Chapter ...... 22 5 Noise ...... 24 6 Ecology and Nature Conservation ...... 35 7 Ornithology ...... 62 8 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ...... 88 9 Traffic and Transport ...... 105 10 Existing Infrastructure, Telecommunications, Television Broadcasting, Aviation and Military Interests ...... 111 11 Shadow Flicker ...... 114

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement i

List of Tables

Table 3.2 Location of Key Wind Farm Infrastructure Table 3.3 Indicative Construction Programme

Table 5.1 Background Noise Levels (LA90) and Existing Noise Limits Table 5.2 Turbine Noise Levels Table 5.3 A-Weighted Octave Band Spectra Table 6.1 Key Legislation Table 6.2 Species Legislation Table 6.3 Value of Features On Site for Bats Table 6.4 Summary of Vantage Points and Habitat Types Table 6.5 Survey Details Table 6.6 Determining Nature Conservation Value (Adapted from Hill et al., 2005). Table 6.7 Determining Magnitude of the Potential Impact Table 6.8 Ecological Impact Significance Table 6.9 Biological Heritage Site Data (Received from LCC) Table 6.10 Bat Records from Data Search Table 6.11 Summary of Bat Activity Survey Results Table 6.12 Collision Risk of Bat Species Recorded at Hameldon Hill Based upon Natural England 2009 Table 6.13 Impact Assessments for Habitats Table 6.14 Impact Assessments for Fauna Table 6.15 Wind farms Located Within 35km of Hameldon Wind Farm Development Table 7.1 Determining Nature Conservation Value Table 7.2 Determining Magnitude of the Potential Impact Table 7.3 Ecological Impact Significance Table 7.4 Wintering Bird Survey Dates and Weather Conditions. Table 7.5 Breeding Bird Survey Dates and Weather Conditions Table 7.6 Estimated Collision Mortality of Peregrine at Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Table 7.7 Impact Assessments, Mitigation and Residual Impacts Table 8.1 Determining Cultural Heritage Value Table 8.2 Determining Magnitude of Impact Table 8.3 Significance of Impact Table 8.4 Magnitude of Impact on Setting of Cultural Heritage Features Table 8.5 Setting of Cultural Heritage Sites Table 8.6 Archaeological Potential Table 8.7 Value of Cultural Heritage Sites Table 8.8 Impacts on the Setting of Cultural Heritage Sites Table 8.9 Residual Impacts on Cultural Heritage Features Table 9.1 Estimated traffic Generation During Construction Table 9.2 IEA Environmental Effect Table 10.1 Summary of Consultation Responses Table 11.1 Shadow Flicker Assessment Locations Table 11.2 Shadow Flicker Occurrence Table 11.3 Shadow Flicker cumulative Occurrence

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement ii

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Site Location Plan Figure 1.2 Site Boundaries Figure 3.1 Proposed Site Layout Plan Figure 3.2 Layout 1 - Initial Layout Figure 3.3 Layout 2 - Design Review 1 Figure 3.4 Layout 3 - Design Review 2 Figure 3.5 Layout 4 - Design Review 3 Figure 3.6 Final Layout - Constraints Plan Figure 3.7 Typical Wind Turbine Figure 3.8 Typical Track Cross Section Figure 3.9 Typical Crane Hardstanding Figure 3.10 Typical Cable Trench Figure 5.1 Noise Monitoring / Assessment Locations Figure 5.2a Noise Assessment - Daytime Figure 5.2b Noise Assessment - Daytime Figure 5.2c Noise Assessment - Daytime Figure 5.2d Noise Assessment - Daytime Figure 5.3a Noise Assessment - Night-time Figure 5.3b Noise Assessment - Night-time Figure 5.3c Noise Assessment - Night-time Figure 5.3d Noise Assessment - Night-time Figure 6.1 Phase 1 Habitat Map Figure 6.2 Bat Transect Route Figure 6.3 Vantage Point Locations Figure 6.4 Anabat Location Map Figure 6.5a Bat Transect Survey Figure 6.5b Bat Transect Survey Figure 6.5c Bat Transect Survey Figure 6.5d Bat Transect Survey Figure 7.1 Key Habitat Areas for Wintering Birds Figure 7.2 Breeding Bird Territories Figure 7.3 Peregrine Flightlines Figure 8.1 Known Archaeology Figure 8.2 Features Identified from Aerial Photographs Figure 9.1 Proposed Access Route Plan Figure 10.1 Radiocommunication and Infrastructure Plan Figure 11.1 Occurrence of Shadow Flicker Figure 11.2 Cumulative Occurrence of Shadow Flicker

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement iii

List of Appendices

Appendix 3.1 Example Construction Management Plan Appendix 3.2 Typical Sub Station Details Appendix 5.1 Noise Limits - Application APP/2004/1353 (2005) Appendix 5.2 Copies of Noise Test Data Sheets Appendix 6.1 Habitat Survey Target Notes and Botanic Species List Appendix 6.2 Site Citation and Boundary Appendix 6.3 Raw Survey Data Appendix 7.1 BTO Species Codes and Behaviours Notation Appendix 7.2 Hand Drawn Wintering Bird Maps Appendix 7.3 Hand Drawn Breeding Bird Maps Appendix 7.4 Vantage Point Survey Methodology Appendix 7.5 Description of Collision Risk Model Appendix 7.6 Species Records Appendix 7.7 Data Search Appendix 7.8 Wintering Bird Survey Results Appendix 7.9 Nature Conservation Evaluation Appendix 8.1 Significance Criteria Appendix 8.2 Site Descriptions

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 This Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared on behalf of RWE NPower Renewables Limited (RWE NRL) to accompany the planning application that has been made to Burnley Borough Council for permission to extend a wind farm known as Hameldon Hill Wind Farm. 1.1.2 The proposed extension to Hameldon Hill Wind Farm is approximately 1 km south west of the outskirts of Burnley and 2 km south of the M65 Motorway, within Hapton County Parish, Lancashire. The land available for development amounts to approximately 134 hectares (ha) and is centred on approximate National Grid Reference SD803298, as shown on Figure 1.1. The proposed wind turbines will be located to the west of the three existing wind turbines. The proposed planning application boundaries are shown in Figure 1.2. 1.1.3 The land available for development and the surrounding area generally comprise agricultural land. A narrow strip of wooded area known as ‘Thorny Bank Wood’ is located within the deeply incised Thorny Bank Clough valley adjacent to the western boundary of the land available for development. A farm (known locally as Old Barn) and an associated residential building (Old Barn Cottage) are present 400 m north of the proposed site and comprise four large buildings. 1.1.4 An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (‘the EIA Regulations’) to identify and assess the likely significant environmental impacts of the proposed development and establish an appropriate range of mitigation measures in order to reduce impacts where possible. This ES contains the findings of the EIA. 1.1.5 The EIA encompasses the construction, operation and decommissioning of three 3-bladed, horizontal axis wind turbines and associated infrastructure. The turbines will be limited to a maximum tip height of 110 m above ground level and each turbine will have a rotor diameter of no more than 82 m. This will allow for turbines with individual generating capacities of between 2 and 2.5 MW and, dependent on the final choice of turbine, will give the proposed extension an installed capacity of between 6 and 7.5 MW. 1.1.6 The proposal entails the construction of three wind turbines and associated infrastructure including new and upgraded access tracks, an onsite substation and control building, underground cables and a temporary construction compound. 1.1.7 The proposed wind farm extension will be connected to the electric distribution network via a new electrical connection. Electricity from the wind farm extension will be exported underground from the onsite substation. The responsibility for the grid connection, including the location, design and type (underground or overhead) falls to the local Distribution Network Operator (DNO). It is anticipated that the wind farm extension will be connected to the grid via underground cables running along the edge of the existing track and verge of the A679. 1.1.8 The proposed wind farm extension will have an operational life of approximately 25 years after which it will be decommissioned, unless a future application is made for planning permission to extend the life of the wind farm extension, or to repower the development. For the purposes of this EIA, it has been assumed the proposed Hameldon Hill Wind Farm extension will be decommissioned and the ground reinstated at the end of the 25 year consent period. 1.2 The Applicant

1.2.1 RWE NRL is the UK subsidiary of RWE Innogy, and sister company to RWE npower. 1.2.2 RWE NRL is one of the UK’s leading wind farm developers and operators; operating onshore wind farms which have the capacity to generate over 400 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy. RWE NRL is also a major player in the development of offshore wind farms. In 2004 the company built the UK’s first offshore wind farm, North Hoyle, off the coast of North Wales and are now constructing a second offshore wind farm, Rhyl Flats.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 2

1.2.3 The business is dedicated to generating electricity using sustainable and environmentally friendly resources, and is part of a family of businesses that are developing the natural power of wind, water and biomass, as significant sources of power for the UK’s present, and future, electricity needs. RWE NRL is also working with marine energy technology partners to deliver new wave and tidal stream power projects in the UK. 1.3 Climate Change and Renewable Energy

1.3.1 Change in global and regional temperatures and precipitation patterns is a natural phenomenon and there have been a number of cooling and warming periods recorded over the last millennium. However in the late 1980s a growing concern emerged that climate change was being influenced by anthropogenic activity beyond the normal fluctuations. The main contributing activities include

emissions of greenhouse gases (in particular carbon dioxide (CO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) into the atmosphere and other effects such as land use changes which reduce the ability of the natural environment to recycle these gases. A significant proportion (56%) of the increased greenhouse gas emissions arise from the burning of traditional fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas for energy generation and transportation (Environment Agency, 2007). 1.3.2 Studies into the evidence for and implications of climate change have been largely coordinated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environmental Programme. Its remit is to study historical evidence for climate change up to the present, modelling climatic processes and future climate change scenarios, identifying regional variations in climate change, quantifying the risk of potential global and regional effects of climate change and recommending mitigation and adaptation measures for the international community and individual governments.

1.3.3 The IPCC reported in 2001 that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were at a level not seen for 55 million years and most of the increase over the last 50 years was attributable to human activities. These

activities include the emission of greenhouse gases such as CO2, SO2 and NOx from industrial and agricultural activities. 1.3.4 The severity of the impacts from climate change on human and natural systems depends very much on adaptability of systems to change. Natural ecosystems' ability to adapt will be, in many cases, severely inhibited by biogeographical fragmentation and other current existing pressures on ecosystems. Migration of whole ecosystems will be impossible in many areas, due to human barriers to movement such as agriculturally intensive areas and urban development. In addition to the effects of climatic changes, many coastal ecosystems will also be affected by sea level rises. 1.3.5 Human impacts are likely to be greatest in those countries with fewer resources to prepare themselves for adaptation. Developing countries are likely to be most affected, especially those reliant on primary production as a major source of income. The overall impact is likely to be a widening in the wealth gap between the industrialised and developing countries. 1.4 Renewable Energy and Wind Power

1.4.1 One of the principal contributors to the build-up of greenhouse gasses is the use of fossil fuels in

electricity generation. In the UK, 66% of CO2 emissions are attributable to electricity and heat production (BERR, 2007). Reducing the extent to which electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels will reduce the amount of harmful greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. 1.4.2 Renewable resources are defined as those which are not based on finite reserves stored within the earth. Renewable energy resources occur naturally and repeatedly in the environment and include sunlight, wind, water, waves and tides. One of the main advantages of renewable energy supplies over

conventional fossil fuels is that they create virtually no CO2 or other air pollutants during their operation and as such do not contribute to either global climate change or local air pollution. Renewable resources offer a contribution to the long term alternative energy supply. 1.4.3 Power from the wind has been harnessed for centuries through the use of windmills. The use of wind turbines to generate electricity has expanded rapidly since the energy crises in the 1970s when it first became evident that reliance on fossil fuels was unsustainable. Wind turbines are the most established form of renewable energy technology, with other technologies (such as tidal, wave and solar) lagging behind in generating potential and commercial terms.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 3

1.4.4 The UK is the windiest country in Europe, with over 40% of the available resource. Advances and improvements in technology have resulted in the financial cost of wind power falling close to those of conventional sources of electricity. In addition, the life cycle carbon cost of wind power is significantly smaller than that of other forms of conventional and renewable energy production (BWEA, 2008). 1.4.5 Furthermore, in addition to their environmental benefits, wind farms offer other important advantages. Firstly, they contribute to a reduction in our dependence on the finite reserves of fossil fuels, which are being rapidly depleted and the costs of which are rapidly escalating. Secondly, they reduce our dependence on oil and gas imports and increase our self-sufficiency in energy production. Wind farm developments are also reversible. This key feature allows a site to be decommissioned to the extent that no visible trace of the wind farm is apparent, thus allowing a site to retain its environmental legacy. 1.5 Climate Change Targets International and National Targets

1.5.1 The UK signed the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC, 1997) which is an international agreement that has

resulted in a binding target to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (principally CO2) by 12.5% relative to 1990 levels of the period 2008-2012. In 2000, the UK Government launched the UK Climate Change Programme to facilitate a means to achieve their international and domestic obligations and targets. However, under the UK Climate Change Programme the UK Government set itself targets beyond those

of its legal commitments under Kyoto, in that greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2 are to be reduced to 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. Furthermore, in the 2003 Energy White Paper, the UK

Government set a target of a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions over 1990 levels by 2050 (BERR, 2006). 1.5.2 The programme encourages the use of new and more efficient sources of energy generation, including renewable power generation; a set target of 10% of all electricity to be generated from renewable resources by 2010 and 15% should be generated by 2015. 1.5.3 To implement the strategies and stimulate the renewables industry in the UK, the Government introduced the Renewables Obligation (RO). The RO places an obligation on electricity suppliers to secure an increasing proportion of their power from renewable sources and includes a system of financial penalties where these targets are not met. Large scale hydro schemes and electricity generated by non-biodegradable wastes are not included in the definition of renewable energy. 1.5.4 The RO places an obligation on all UK electricity suppliers to provide 10.4% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010, rising to 15.4% by 2015 and further increasing to 20% by 2020. 1.5.5 The most recent figure shows that by 2006 around 4% of electricity from UK electricity suppliers is from renewables sources (up from 1.8% in 2002). Since 2006 this figure has further grown due to the installation of more than 540MW of wind turbines; however a significant additional renewable generating capacity is required to achieve the targets (BERR, 2006 & BERR 2008). 1.5.6 The UK Renewable Energy Strategy provides interim targets to ensure that sufficient progress is made each year to remain on track to achieve our 2020 target. Under the Renewable Energy Directive, the UK has interim targets to achieve the following shares for renewables in the energy mix: 4.0% in 2011-12; 5.4% in 2013-14; 7.5% in 2015-16; and 10.2% in 2017-18. The earliest interim target is widely understood to the most challenging target to achieve due to planning, financial and construction constraints (The UK Renewable Energy Strategy, 2009). 1.5.7 The Planning Statement outlines the guidance and policies directly relating to the proposed extension of the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm. Regional Targets

1.5.8 BWEA (2009) has compiled a detailed review of the state of progress towards 2010 renewable energy targets adopted by the English regions and the aggregate ‘English’ target. Table 1.1 provides a breakdown of each region’s 2010 target in terms of installed capacity.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 4

Table 1.1 2010 RSS onshore renewable energy targets against the current regional capacity (MW) Adopted Regional Current installed Percentage of 2010 Region 2010 Renewable Renewable Energy target achieved Energy target (MW) (MW)

SE 420 352.8 84%

SW 611 190 31.10%

EE 820 428.8 51.80%

EM 337 236 70%

WM 408 183 44.90%

YH 468 183 39.10%

NE 454 175 38.50%

NW 937 437 46.60%

Lon 99 117 118.20%

All-England 4,554 2,302.60 50.50%

1.5.9 Presently only half (50.5%) of the aggregate onshore RSS target for England has been met - with an estimated 2,302.6 MW of installed renewable capacity, compared to a cumulative RSS target of 4,554 MW. The North West is significantly behind its own onshore renewable energy target. 1.5.10 Table 1.2 provides the indicative onshore wind energy targets that are adopted by five of the regions. The table illustrates that progress towards the 2010 targets is universally poor. Table 1.2 Regional onshore wind targets and progress (5 Regions) Region SE SW EM NW London Aggregate

Adopted RSS 2010 170 354.5 122 648 15 1309.5 onshore wind target

Current installed onshore 68.3 54.4 101.8 180.2 3.6 408.3 wind (MW)

Percentage of 2010 onshore wind target 40.20% 15.30% 83.40% 27.80% 24.00% 31.20% achieved

Onshore wind under construction and 26.7 144.3 118.4 22.5 0 311.9 approved but not yet built (MW)

Optimistic 2010 installed 95 198.7 220.2 202.7 3.6 720.2 capacity (MW)

Percentage of 2010 onshore wind target 55.90% 56.10% 180.50% 31.30% 24.00% 55% achieved (optimistic scenario)

Conservative 2010 installed capacity (MW) 68.3 54.4 101.8 180.2 3.6 408.3

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 5

Percentage of 2010 onshore wind target 40.20% 15.30% 83.40% 27.8 24% 31.20% achieved (conservative scenario)

1.5.11 Even with an optimistic assumption that all projects currently with planning permission are commissioned by the end of 2010, the onshore wind element of regional renewable energy targets (aggregate of the individual onshore wind targets) will be missed by 45%. Specifically, the NW is predicted to miss its target by some 68.7%. 1.5.12 The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the North West provides the framework for development and investment in the North West region for the period 2008 to 2021. The RSS complements national policy as outlined in Planning Policy Statements (PPSs), circulars and White Papers. It brings an understanding of the North West region to target the delivery of such policy and address specific challenges and opportunities. 1.5.13 The RSS states that renewable energy technologies must now be developed to support an increasing proportion of the Region’s capacity for generating electricity. Indicative regional sub targets for onshore wind farms in 2010 and 2015 are given in Table 1.3. Table 1.3 Indicative Sub-Regional Breakdown of Target for Total Generating Capacity for Onshore Wind Farms in 2010 (including existing schemes) Onshore Wind Farm Target for Total Onshore Wind Farm Target for Total Region Generating Capacity in 2015 (MW) Generating Capacity in 2010 (MW)

Cheshire 87 129

Cumbria 219 256.5

Greater 102 118.5 Manchester

Lancashire 205.5 249

Merseyside 24 30 Warrington & 10.5 12 Halton Total 648 795

Source: North West RSS, BWEA 1.5.14 Lancashire has an onshore wind energy target of 205.5 MW by 2010. Table 1.4 shows the current deficient for the Lancashire region. Table 1.4 Lancashire onshore wind energy target against current generating potential Onshore Wind Operational Consented Planning Farm Target for (MW) (MW) (MW) Total Generating Capacity in 2010 (MW) Lancashire 205.5 32.07 47 82

Source: North West RSS, BWEA November 2009

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 6

1.5.15 If approved, the proposed wind farm extension at Hameldon Hill could account for up to 7.5 MW, a material contribution to the Lancashire target. 1.5.16 If these targets are to be met, a quick, sustained and substantial acceleration is needed in the development of renewable energy projects, with onshore wind energy making a very substantial and indeed critical contribution. The proposed development of the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension can make a key contribution to achieving the targets. 1.6 Atmospheric Emissions Displacement and Equivalent Domestic Needs Atmospheric Emissions Displacement

1.6.1 Every unit (kWh) of electricity produced through wind power will displace electricity which might

otherwise have been produced by a power station burning fossil fuel. The potential displacement of CO2 and other emissions as a result of operating the proposed Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension are estimated in Table 1.5.

1.6.2 These calculations assume wind energy will have a CO2 offset figure of 422 g/kWh, as per the latest figures published by the Department for Business Enterprise Regulatory Reform (BERR, 2008). It has

also been assumed that wind energy will have an SO2 offset figure of 9.9 g/kWh and a NOx offset figure of 2.9 g/kWh (BWEA, 2008b). 1.6.3 Figures are given for a 6 MW scheme and a 7.5 MW scheme. The figures are based on a capacity factor of 28%. Table 1.5 Potential emissions to atmosphere avoided if wind farm output replaces coal-fired power stations 6MW 7.5MW Annual Total Displaced Annual Total Displaced Gas Emission Displaced Emissions over Displaced Emissions over Emissions 25 Year Life Emissions 25 Year Life (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) (Tonnes) Carbon dioxide (CO2) 6211 155275 7763 194075 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) 146 3650 182 4550 Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 43 1075 53 1325 Equivalent Domestic Needs

1.6.4 The amount of energy generated by the proposed Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension has been calculated using an estimated capacity factor of 28%. This equates to an annual output for a development of between 14,716,800 KWh and 18,396,000 KWh per year or 14.7 TWh and 18.4 TWh per year for a 6 MW and 7.5 MW scheme respectively. The average annual household electricity consumption is 4700 KWh (BERR, 2008). 1.6.5 Therefore the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension could generate sufficient electricity for the domestic needs of approximately 3,800 households, or the equivalent of 10.3% of the households in the Burnley Local Authority. 1.7 References British Wind Energy Association: BWEA (2008b); Calculations for Wind Energy Statistics British Wind Energy Association: BWEA (2009): England’s Regional Renewable Energy Targets: Progress Report British Wind Energy Association: BWEA (2000); ‘Planning for Wind Energy: A Guide for Regional Targets’ British Wind Energy Association: BWEA (2008a); Top Myths About Wind Energy Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: BERR (2008); Energy Statistics Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: BERR (2007); Meeting the Energy Challenge: A White Paper on Energy Department of Environment Transport and Regulations: DETR (2000); UK Climate Change Programme Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform: BERR (2006); White Paper: ’Our energy future – creating a low carbon economy’

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 7

Environment Agency: EA (2007); A Strategic Environmental Assessment and Climate Change: Guidance for Practitioners Government Office for the North West (2008). North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 HM Government (2009); The UK Renewable Energy Strategy UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: UNFCCC (1997); Kyoto Protocol, Third Conference of the Parties (CoP-3)

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 8

2 Environmental Impact Assessment

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 This chapter sets out the broad method of approach taken to carry out the EIA of the proposed extension to Hameldon Hill Wind Farm. 2.1.2 The proposed wind farm extension will represent a ‘Schedule 2’ development, as defined under Schedule 2 of the Regulations, (see Section 2.3). Development that is listed in Schedule 2 requires EIA if it is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its size, nature or location. Therefore, any potential effects of the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed wind farm extension, deemed to have significant environmental impacts, will need to be subject of an EIA. 2.1.3 In the case of the proposed extension to Hameldon Hill Wind Farm, the scale of the development means that there is the potential for significant effects to arise. Therefore AECOM has been commissioned to co-ordinate and manage an EIA and to prepare an ES for the proposals. The ES incorporates the information on the project and its environmental effects. 2.2 The EIA Process

2.2.1 EIA is a process by which information about the environmental impacts of a project is collected, evaluated, and taken into account in its design and the decision as to whether it should be granted planning permission. The applicant presents the information on the project and its environmental impacts within the ES. This forms a basis for consultation and enables decision-makers to consider these impacts when determining the related development application. 2.2.2 The EIA process has a number of key characteristics: • It is systematic, comprising a sequence of tasks defined both by regulation and by practice. • It is analytical, requiring the application of specialist skills from the environmental sciences. • It is impartial, its objective being to inform the decision-maker rather than to promote the project. • It is consultative, with provision being made for obtaining information and feedback from interested parties including local authorities and statutory agencies. • It is interactive, allowing opportunities for environmental concerns to be addressed during the planning and design of a project. 2.2.3 This final point is particularly important with respect to the design of the proposed extension to Hameldon Hill Wind Farm where a number of design iterations have taken place in response to environmental factors identified during the EIA process (see Chapter 3). 2.3 Guidance and Methodology Guidance

2.3.1 The EIA for the proposed extension to Hameldon Hill Wind Farm has been carried out in accordance with the latest Regulation, guidance and advice on good practice comprising: • Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. • Preparation of Environmental Statements for Planning Projects that Require Environmental Impact Assessment, A Good Practice Guide, (Department of the Environment, 1995). • Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to procedures (Department for Communities and Local Government, amended reprint 2001). • Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment (Institute of Environmental Management and assessment, 2004). The Assessment Method

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 9

2.3.2 Appropriate methodologies have been used to assess the effects relating to each of the environmental topics that have been investigated as part of the EIA. These methodologies are based on recognised good practice and guidelines specific to each subject area, details of which are provided within each individual technical section. 2.3.3 The design team employed an iterative approach to the design of the proposed Hameldon Hill Wind Farm extension where the design evolved throughout the EIA process as different constraints and adverse impacts were identified and evaluated. This approach is considered best practice as mitigation measures can be integrated into the design throughout the EIA process in order to alleviate or remove adverse effects and measures can be incorporated into the design to enhance positive effects. 2.3.4 The final evaluation of significance considers the residual effects assuming all mitigation measures are applied. 2.4 Structure of the Environmental Statement

2.4.1 The ES comprises of the following volumes: • Volume 1 – Main Text • Volume 2 – Figures • Volume 3 – Technical Appendices • Volume 4 – Non Technical Summary 2.4.2 Volume 1 (Main Text) of the ES is organised as follows: • Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the applicant and provides a summary on the need for the project. It also provides an outline of the project and discusses government policies and legislation in relation to renewable energy and climate change. The chapter outlines how the project can contribute to renewable energy targets. • Chapter 2 provides an overview of the EIA process. It provides an outline of the assessment methodology used to ensure a consistent and transparent approach to assessment across topics. It outlines the structure of the ES, and provides brief details on the team that has undertaken the environmental studies and compiled the ES. • Chapter 3 provides information regarding the site and a description of the proposed wind farm extension development. This section also outlines the construction and operational requirements of the wind farm extension. It describes the construction programme and provides details of the principal construction operations.

2.4.3 Chapters 4 to 11 report the findings on each of the topics that were identified for inclusion during the internal scoping exercise. The purpose of this exercise was to identify what information might usefully assist the local planning authority in its determination of the planning application for the development. These topics are covered in the following sections: • Chapter 4 Landscape and Visual (summary chapter) • Chapter 5 Noise • Chapter 6 Ecology and Nature Conservation • Chapter 7 Ornithology • Chapter 8 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage • Chapter 9 Traffic, Transport and Access • Chapter 10 Existing Infrastructure, Telecommunications, Television, Aviation and Military Interests • Chapter 11 Shadow Flicker

2.4.4 In general, under each environmental topic, the following format has been adopted with regard to the presentation of information: • Introduction; • Scope of Assessment; • A summary of relevant Legislation and Policy;

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 10

• Details of topic-specific Consultations; • Methodology; • Description of the Baseline Conditions and evaluation of their importance or sensitivity; • Identification of Potential Impacts; • A description of the Mitigation Measures to be incorporated into the development; • Identification of the Predicted Residual Impacts generated during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases (allowing for the agreed mitigation) and an assessment of the nature and magnitude of these impacts; • An Evaluation of the Significance of the predicted residual effects. Significance is generally a product of the importance or sensitivity of the environmental resource and the nature and magnitude of the predicted impacts. Effects are assessed as being of major or minor significance or not significant and can be positive as well as negative; • Consideration is given to Cumulative Impacts; • The findings of assessments are brought together in the Summary and Conclusions; and • References. 2.4.5 Where individual disciplines adopt variations on this format, this is noted in the relevant technical section. 2.4.6 Volume 2 contains the ES figures and graphics. 2.4.7 Volume 3 contains detailed technical information relating to some environmental topics in order to minimise the amount of technical information presented in the Main Text. Information includes detailed methodologies, baseline data information and data analysis. 2.5 The Project Team

2.5.1 A number of consultancies have carried out the EIA. The project was managed by AECOM, who also undertook a number of technical chapters, and the collation and production of the ES documents. 2.5.2 SLR undertook the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. The Energy Workshop and Pager Power undertook the radiocommunications assessments. 2.5.3 All other technical input was provided by AECOM. 2.6 Consultation

2.6.1 Consultation has been undertaken with organisations with an interest in the features or elements potentially affected by the wind farm extension and with members of the public resident in the area (through a public consultation exercise undertaken by RWE NRL). 2.6.2 Details of the consultations are provided within the relevant section of each technical chapter within this ES. For example, the outcome of discussion held with local wildlife groups are discussed in Chapter 6 Ecology, and details of the outcomes of the consultations held with radiocommunication operators are provided in Chapter 10 Existing Infrastructure, Telecommunications, Television, Aviation and Military Interests.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 11

3 Description of the Proposed Development

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 This chapter provides a description of the proposed wind farm extension, the layout and the design process undertaken to inform the layout, and the site infrastructure including the turbines, access tracks, electrical components and temporary works associated with the construction phase of the development. This chapter also provides an overview of the construction methods likely to be employed, the likely timescale over which various construction activities will take place and provides an overview of the operational phase of the development. A statement regarding decommissioning of the site after the operational period is also provided. 3.2 The Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension Site

3.2.1 The proposed extension to Hameldon Hill Wind Farm is approximately 1 km south west of the outskirts of Burnley and 2 km south of the M65 Motorway, within Hapton County Parish, Lancashire. The land available for development is located towards the west of the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm site and is shown in Figure 1.1. 3.2.2 The land available for development amounts to approximately 134 ha and is centred on approximate National Grid Reference SD803298. The wind farm itself will occupy a much smaller area of the site and approximately 1.5% of the land available will be affected by the development due to the relatively small footprints of the infrastructure and the wind farm design criteria applied in the design process. The area of land expected to be affected by the development is approximately 2 ha. This is indicated by the infrastructure shown on Figure 3.1. A micro-siting flexibility is sought to allow mitigation following post- consent geophysical and other detailed site investigation works. To accommodate for a 50 m micro- siting for the turbines and crane hardstandings, 30 m micro-siting for the temporary construction compound and control building and 5m micro-siting for access tracks, the planning application boundary occupies 7% of the land available for development (9.82 ha). The remaining land available for development will be unaffected and continue to be agricultural land. 3.3 Wind Farm Design Criteria

3.3.1 The design of a wind farm is optimised in order to produce a layout that maximises the use of the land available for wind power generation, balanced against the overall environmental impact of the development. The optimal layout of a wind farm depends on a range of technical, economic and environmental criteria as follows: • Ground conditions must be suitable for the installation of wind turbines, access tracks and cables e.g. avoidance of areas of unstable ground. • Local topography can affect wind flow across the site and therefore can detrimentally affect turbine performance. Site topography must be carefully considered in the layout design process to ensure any detrimental effects are minimised. • Buildings and other obstructions can create turbulence in the air flow and reduce turbine performance. • Turbines must be separated by specific distances both perpendicular to, and in line with, the prevailing wind direction to minimise turbulent interaction between the wind turbines (i.e. wake effect) which can reduce turbine performance. Spacing requirements vary between turbine manufacturers and are also subject to wind conditions. • Wind turbines have to be located at a distance sufficiently far from houses to protect local noise amenity and ensure shadow flicker impacts are minimised (see chapters 5 and 11 respectively). • The implications of locating turbines near environmentally sensitive features and areas (ecology, archaeology, hydrology etc) need to be carefully considered. • Landscape and visual design considerations also need to be taken into account. • Available spare capacity of the local electricity grid to take power from the wind farm can dictate the overall size of the scheme.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 12

• Planning guidance and discussion with statutory and non-statutory consultees, the local communities and the landowners influence the evolution of the design. 3.4 The Role of EIA in the Design of the Proposed Wind Farm Extension

3.4.1 Wind farm design is an iterative process and is influenced by potential environmental effects identified throughout the EIA process. The proposed layout for the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension has evolved in response to a number of environmental and technical constraints including landscape design considerations. 3.4.2 An initial wind farm layout was established to determine the feasibility of an extension to the existing scheme. This layout was based on turbine separation requirements, proximity to neighbouring dwellings and features on the ground (such as watercourses). The initial layout formed the basis of the investigations undertaken for the EIA and remained fixed until the baseline data was collected. Figure 3.2 illustrates the initial layout, which comprised three turbines up to 125 m in maximum height. 3.4.3 The wind farm layout evolved through a series of design review iterations whereby environmental and technical constraints identified during the EIA were incorporated into the design. Design Review 1

3.4.4 Design Review 1 took place once the baseline data had been collected. Technical specialists provided initial thoughts and conclusions on the main constraints to development, the likely significance of potential environmental impacts, and possible mitigation measures that could reduce or alleviate detrimental impacts (such as construction practices or amendments to the turbine layout). The landscape specialists recommended a reduction in tip height to ensure consistency between the proposed and existing schemes. Design Review 1 led to changes to the proposed wind farm layout that resulted in Layout 2, shown on Figure 3.3 Design Review 2

3.4.5 Layout 2 was amended to accommodate the varying topography associated with the southern section of the site. The southernmost turbine was deemed to be too close to Hameldon Hill. The proximity of this turbine to Hameldon Hill could potentially result in reduced wind flow and subsequently a reduced energy yield. The removal of the turbine from the southern section also acted as mitigation for the identified bird species. Flight paths for various species were identified in the southern section. The outcome of the removed turbine resulted in Layout 3. Layout 3 is illustrated in Figure 3.4. Design Review 3

3.4.6 The scheme was reduced to two turbines as a result of the various constraints in the northern section of the site. The constraints included the results of the radiocommunication consultations. The site was highly constrained by point-to-point links leaving little land available that wasn’t already constrained by some other technical element (e.g. noise, ecology). As a result of the radiocommunication links being the primary constraint to development, RWE NRL commissioned Pager Power to carry out a more detailed radiocommunications links survey. The survey provided an opportunity to accurately calculate the Second Fresnel Zones. The outcome of this was to have clearly defined stand-off distances, resulting in envelopes of potential developable land being opened up. The outcome of this resulted in Layout 4, illustrated in Figure 3.5. Design Review 4

3.4.7 Layout 4 was reviewed at Design Review 4 as it was necessary to fine tune the layout and ensure that potential bat foraging and commuting areas were incorporated within the constraints plan and therefore site design. This resulted in Layout 5 – the layout for which an application for planning consent is sought. The final layout is illustrated on Figure 3.6, shown in conjunction with known constraints. 3.4.8 A summary of the design review process is given in Table 3.1 and the different layouts are illustrated on Figures 3.2-3.6. Table 3.1 Design Iterations Resulting Iteration Potential Adverse Impact Addressed Detail of Change Layout

Initial Prior to consultee information Layout 1 the starting point was: Three – Figure

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 13

Resulting Iteration Potential Adverse Impact Addressed Detail of Change Layout

Layout turbines with a rotor diameter of 3.2 up to 92 m and a hub height of up to 79 m giving a maximum tip height of no more than 125 m. Turbines located to maximise generation potential. Design Landscape and visual assessments The proposed turbine diameter Layout 2 Review 1 identified that the tip height should be was reduced to 82 m and the – Figure reduced to incorporate the proposed tip height was reduced to 110 3.3 scheme into the existing and reduce the m. visual impact of the proposed scheme. Design A technical site assessment identified The southernmost turbine was Layout 3 Review 2 that turbines could not be located in the removed. Resulting in a – Figure southern section of the site due to proposed scheme of two 3.4 topographical constraints affecting the turbines. wind yield. Design Page Power was commissioned to The assessment identified Layout 4 Review 3 assess the required further zones for development – Figure radiocommunication stand-off in the northern section resulting 3.5 distances. in a revised three turbine layout. Design Potential Bat foraging and commuting A stand-off distance of 72 m Final Review 4 areas were indentified to exist within was applied to the field Layout – the site boundary. boundaries and incorporated Figure 3.6 within the constraints plan. The final layout can accommodate three turbines with a tip height of 110m.

3.4.9 The proposed development comprises the construction and operation of three wind turbines, together with the construction of access tracks, crane hard standings, a temporary construction compound and an underground cable network linking the turbines to a newly developed substation. The proposed locations of the turbines, access tracks and other site infrastructure are shown in Figure 3.1. Grid co- ordinates for the main infrastructure are given in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Location of Key Wind Farm Infrastructure Element Easting Northing Temporary Construction Compound 380170 430790 Onsite Substation 380214 430690 Turbine 1 380276 430283 Turbine 2 380360 429876 Turbine 3 380730 429879

3.5 Wind Farm Construction

3.5.1 The construction period for the wind farm is likely to last for approximately nine months, although this may be subject to change depending on the weather conditions and construction speeds. 3.5.2 A Construction Management Plan (CMP) will be prepared by the applicant or their chosen contractor and agreed with the local authority prior to the commencement of any construction activities. The CMP will include details of the construction programme, construction techniques to be employed, mitigation measures to control construction impacts, and contact details for queries and reporting incidents. 3.5.3 An example of a CMP is provided in Appendix 3.1. 3.5.4 The following enabling works will be undertaken in the post-consent/pre-construction period: • detailed site investigations; • consultation with regulatory authorities; and • any necessary consents (e.g. pipeline crossings, land drainage modifications, etc).

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 14

3.5.5 The construction process will consist of the following principal activities: • upgrade of site access from Accrington Road; • upgrade of access tracks from Accrington Road to the location of the temporary construction compound; • formation of temporary construction including hard standings and temporary site office and welfare facilities; • construction of substation and control building; • construction of on-site access tracks, passing places to inter-link the turbine locations and other site infrastructure; • excavations for turbine foundations; • construction of turbine foundations; • construction of hardstandings/crane pads; • excavation of trenches and cable laying adjacent to site tracks; • connection of on-site distribution and communication cables; • movement onto site and erection of wind turbines; • commissioning of site equipment; and • site restoration. 3.5.6 Many of these operations will be carried out concurrently, although predominantly in the order identified to minimise the overall length of the construction programme. Development may be phased at different parts of the site, for example the civil engineering works may be continuing whilst wind turbines are being erected. Site restoration will be programmed and carried out to allow restoration of disturbed areas as early as possible and in a progressive manner. 3.5.7 Topsoil will be removed from the proposed construction areas and stored on-site for reinstatement and land restoration following construction. It is anticipated that topsoil will be utilised on site, however in the event that there is an excess, a registered waste management contractor will be employed to manage the waste in line with the requirements of the waste hierarchy. 3.5.8 An indicative programme for construction activities is shown in Table 3.3, based on a nine month programme. The starting date for construction is largely a function of the date that consent might be granted and any requirement to meet certain planning conditions (for example limitation of particular construction activities in particular areas of the site during particular times) The programme length is also susceptible to change in response to prevailing weather conditions as well as the start date, particularly given the restrictions on timings. Table 3.3 Indicative Construction Programme Task Month

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Upgrade of site access

Upgrade/formation of access tracks Formation of construction compound Construction of substation/control building Excavations for foundations Construction of foundations Construction of hardstandings/crane pads Cable laying Turbine delivery and erection Commissioning

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 15

Task Month

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Site Restoration Construction Times

3.5.9 Construction activities have been assumed to take place between 07:00-19:00 hours Monday to Sunday although deliveries of plant, material and components will be prohibited on Saturdays and Sundays. The hours of work will be controlled and subject to planning condition. Work outside these hours may be necessary, for example to maximise weather windows, however the need for it will be agreed with Burnley Borough Council in advance of the works. Construction Signage

3.5.10 During the construction period installation of suitable signage will be required and will be agreed with Burnley Borough Council. Public Access

3.5.11 The land available for development does not contain any registered public access routes. However appropriate signage will exist during the construction period for health and safety reasons. Temporary signage will be erected following consultation with Burnley Borough Council. 3.6 Wind Farm Infrastructure Turbines

3.6.1 The final selection of turbine will be subject to a competitive tendering exercise following planning permission. 3.6.2 The site has been designed to accommodate turbines in the 2 to 2.5 MW range with a maximum height to blade tip of 110 m above ground level. The turbines will be of the horizontal axis type, with a rotor consisting of three blades. The blades will be mounted to the wind turbine hub and nacelle, at an appropriate height to allow for a maximum height to blade tip of 110 m. A diagram illustrating the structure of a typical wind turbine is shown as Figure 3.7. 3.6.3 The turbines are proposed to be coloured light grey or white with a semi-matt finish to reduce their contrast with the background sky and minimise reflections. The turbines will be uniform in colour and will not contain any company logo. 3.6.4 The final choice of turbine will be based on an assessment of the most suitable machine available at the time of procurement. The assessment will be made following a number of design principles, including the following: • Ability of the turbine to maximise power output based on the measured wind regime at the site, i.e. how well suited the power curve of the turbine is to the wind frequency distribution recorded on site. • Aesthetics – Whilst the turbines will be a three bladed, horizontal axis, upwind design, there are subtle variations in terms of detail such as the shape of the nacelle, the taper of the tower sections etc which vary across manufacturers and turbine models. Consideration will be given to these design details during the tendering process. • Availability of the turbine will also affect the final choice of turbines. 3.6.5 One of the key selection criteria for final turbine choice is the ability to comply with the environmental constraints and assessment criteria set out in the ES, for example the turbine must achieve the noise criteria determined in the EIA (see Chapter 5). 3.6.6 Each turbine will also have an internal or external transformer. If external, the transformer will be linked to the turbine through cable ducts in the turbine foundations. Turbine Foundations 3.6.7 Each turbine foundation will comprise a reinforced concrete slab measuring approximately 16 m x 16 m, and approximately 2 m in depth with a tapering cross section. Turbine foundations could be larger or smaller, depending on imposed loadings, ground conditions and the drainage design but will typically

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 16

comprise a total volume of 350 m3.Each turbine manufacturer has their own requirements which will need to be adhered to. 3.6.8 The detailed design of the foundations will be undertaken post consent following the final selection of turbine model to be installed at the site. The final design will also take account of the geotechnical conditions identified through the site investigation. The requirement to use piled foundations is not expected. However depending on the final choice of turbine and the local geotechnical conditions, shallow ‘micro-piles’ may be used. 3.6.9 The foundations will be laid at sufficient depth to ensure the top of the foundation is flush with the surrounding ground level. In order to excavate a safe working area in which to locate and construct the foundation, it is necessary to excavate an area of approximately 19 m x 19 m in plan and up to 2.6m in depth to ensure the slopes at the edge of the excavated area are stable and allow safe access for plant, material and the workforce. 3.6.10 Much of the excavated material will be reinstated following construction; however each turbine foundation will result in approximately 350 m3 of surplus material. It is envisaged this surplus material will be reused on site for landscaping. Any necessary consents will be obtained should material be removed from the site. 3.6.11 Concrete will either be imported from a local batching plant or a concrete batching plant will be established on site. The final choice will depend on the chosen contractor and the availability of local concrete. Access Tracks

3.6.12 Plant, material and components will be transported to site from Junction 18 of the M62, onto the M66, and via the A56 and A679 that runs across the north-western part of the site. 3.6.13 The onsite access track layout has been designed to utilise existing tracks where possible and where new sections of access track are necessary, these have been designed to minimise the amount of land take required. The following design criteria and mitigation measures were applied to the access track layout to mitigate potential impacts: • 5 m width to accommodate crane and delivery vehicle requirements; • where necessary 13 m width at bends to facilitate the turning requirements of the delivery vehicles for the larger components; • regular passing places and turning areas; • tracks will be non-metalled and constructed from locally sourced aggregate; • tracks will be flush with the ground level; • the number of water course crossings has been minimised to one in total; • track margins will be vegetated to reduce potential sediment-laden run-off; and • tracks will be convex in cross section to encourage water to flow to the track margins and avoid ‘pooling’ water. 3.6.14 A total of 2.9 km of new/upgraded access track is required. Approximately 0.4 km will comprise new track and 2.5 km will comprise upgrades to existing tracks, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. 3.6.15 Track construction can vary depending on localised ground conditions. Typical access tracks comprise a wearing course (approximately 200 mm thick) of granular Type 1 laid directly onto a geotextile layer on the topsoil. In areas where the topsoil may be unsuitable for such construction, the topsoil is excavated and an additional layer of crushed rock will be laid before installing the geotextile layer and the wearing course. In areas with particularly wet ground conditions the topsoil will be excavated, a geotextile layer will be laid directly on the topsoil, a layer (of approximately 300 mm) of crushed rock will be laid directly on the geotextile layer and the surface will be finished with the wearing course. Typical cross sections of access tracks for different conditions are shown on Figure 3.8. The exact design requirements for the access tracks will be established following the results of the geotechnical site investigation. 3.6.16 Once the wind farm has been commissioned the access tracks will be reduced from 5 m to 3 m wide with the edges dressed back and the margins re-vegetated. 3.6.17 The number of water course crossings has been minimised to one in total. The exact requirement and design of the water course crossing will be agreed post consent following the detailed geotechnical site

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 17

investigation and through discussions with the Environment Agency but typically comprise box or pipe culverts or single span bridges. Watercourse crossings will be designed in accordance with CIRIA best practice guidance (CIRIA C532) to minimise potential effects on the channel bed and to ensure potential flood flows can pass readily through or under the structures. Temporary Construction Compound, Laydown Areas and Crane Hardstandings 3.6.18 A temporary construction compound and laydown area of approximately 70 m x 40 m will be constructed at the location shown on Figure 3.1 to accommodate portacabins (site offices, welfare facilities, toilets); storage containers for tools and equipment; storage areas for plant, material and components; wheel wash facilities; and sufficient parking for the workforce, deliveries and visitors. The temporary compound will comprise a layer of geotextile material overlain with crushed rock and will be designed to ensure surface run-off is directed into a central collection point for disposal at an appropriate waste disposal facility. The temporary compound will be removed following the construction phase and reinstated using topsoil and turf from the site. 3.6.19 Each turbine location requires an area of hardstanding to be built adjacent to the turbine foundation, (approximately 45 m x 25 m in size, depending on turbine type). This provides a stable base on which to lay down turbine components ready for assembly and erection, and to locate the two cranes necessary to lift the turbine components into place. Surface vegetation and soil will be scraped back from these areas which will then be covered with geotextile layer overlaid with stone to approximately 500 mm depth. The crane pads will be left in place following construction in order to allow for the use of similar plant should major components need replacing during the life of the wind farm extension, and for use during decommissioning at the end of the operational period. The crane pad area may be dressed back with topsoil and landscaped into the surrounding area upon completion of turbine erection. A typical crane hardstanding is illustrated in Figure 3.9. Aggregate Material 3.6.20 The aggregate required for the sections of new access tracks and areas of hard standing will be imported from an off-site source. Electrical Connection, Substation and Control Building and Grid Export 3.6.21 Each turbine will be connected to an onsite substation via underground cables. All onsite cables will be laid underground in cable trenches of 1 m to 2 m in width and approximately 1.2 m in depth. The cable trenches will be located along the edge of the access tracks. Approximately 2.9 km of cable trenches will be required. Each cable trench will contain three cables linking the turbines to the onsite substation. A typical cable trench is shown in Figure 3.10. The cables will be laid in accordance with best practice and will include cables being buried with a layer of soft sand (to be imported to site), inclusion of marker tape and the cable trenches will be backfilled with material from the excavations screened to remove large stones. The surface layers will be reinstated and re-vegetation will be encouraged. 3.6.22 The proposed substation and control building is located north of the turbines as shown on Figure 3.1. 3.6.23 The substation and control building will be a single storey building measuring approximately 10 m x 6 m. The design of the control building will be sympathetic to the local area and will be agreed with the local planning authority prior to construction. The control building will house switchgear, protection, metering, and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) plant and equipment. The control building will also house an office, welfare facilities and toilets for visiting staff. A small septic tank will also be required. 3.6.24 Precise details of the substation and control building cannot be defined at this stage as they are dependent on turbine model which will not be known until the application for planning consent has been approved. However a typical substation is illustrated in Appendix 3.2. 3.6.25 Electricity from the wind farm extension will be exported from the onsite substation. The responsibility for the grid connection, including the location, design and type (underground or overhead) falls to the local Distribution Network Operator (DNO). For the purposes of this EIA, it has been assumed the wind farm will be connected to the grid via underground cables running along the edge of the existing track to the substation located at Cogg Lane.

3.7 Air Quality Impacts 3.7.1 Likely effects of the proposed wind farm extension on air quality could arise from:

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 18

• Development-induced effects on emissions of gaseous pollutants and particulates from vehicular movements and plant (considered to be predominantly vehicle emissions during the construction period). • The generation and distribution of dust associated with anticipated project activities including concrete batching, soil storage and transfer around the site, vehicle movements, foundation and excavation works and construction. 3.7.2 Emissions from road traffic are recognised to be a major contributor to poor air quality. In recent decades, transport atmospheric emissions on a national basis have grown to match or exceed other sources in respect of many pollutants, particularly in urban areas. The principal pollutants (produced as a result of traffic emissions) that have been identified as being of most concern by the UK Government’s Air Quality Strategy (AQS) and in Highways Agency Guidance are nitrogen dioxide (NO2), fine particulate matter (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO); and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), especially benzene and 1,3-butadiene. This assessment therefore concentrates on these five pollutants. Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) have also been assessed at identified ecosystems and sensitive vegetation. 3.7.3 The assessment of air quality effects associated with traffic within the Highways Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) provides a context for this narrative level assessment. 3.7.4 Dust is a generic term which the British Standard document BS 6069 (Part Two) uses to describe particulate matter in the range 1 – 75 µm (micrometers) in diameter. Dust nuisance is the result of the perception of soiling of surfaces by excessive rates of dust deposition. Factors such as wind speed and direction, the degree of precipitation, material properties and its management, particulate size and level of moisture all have an influencing factor in the degree to which dust may become a nuisance. Under provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, dust nuisance is defined as a statutory nuisance. There are currently no objectives or guidelines for the nuisance of dust in the United Kingdom, nor are formal dust deposition standards specified. This reflects the uncertainties in dust monitoring technology and the highly subjective relationship between deposition events, surface soiling and the perception of such events as a nuisance. An informal criterion of 200-250 mg/m2/day (as a monthly mean) however, is often applied in the UK as an indicator of potential nuisance. The management of materials on site, as well as prevailing meteorological conditions, have a substantial bearing on the extent to which dust becomes distributed and therefore a nuisance. However, it should be noted that even in the absence of mitigation, dust would not be expected to be a nuisance at distances in excess of 250 m from the source, and only encountered where receptors are in a position downwind of the source. Processes Potentially Affecting Air Quality

3.7.5 A preliminary site investigation prior to construction would reveal the quality of the sub-grade and thus enable a more accurate estimation of the quantity and source of road stone to be used. 3.7.6 The main construction period is likely to last for approximately nine months, from commencement of access track construction through to the installation and commissioning of the turbines, ending with reinstatement. The following activities could potentially give rise to impacts on air quality: • Mobilisation, including construction of a site compound for off-loading materials and components and to accommodate site offices and mess facilities. • Construction of main site access tracks. • Construction of site tracks for access to turbine locations by civil engineering plant and other vehicles including the excavation of cable trenches and laying of electricity and communications cables. • Construction of turbine foundations. • The delivery and erection of turbine towers and installation of nacelles and blades. • Construction of the site office and grid connection building. • Site re-instatement. Vehicular Movements to the Site 3.7.7 An estimate has been made of the vehicular movements associated with the construction phase which are considered to present the greatest potential for effects upon local air quality. These are detailed in Chapter 9. Assessing Effects

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 19

3.7.8 Effects from the construction works phase have been assessed through a qualitative assessment of potential sources of air pollutant emissions from construction activities and through the formulation of appropriate mitigation and control measures to be placed within a formal CMP. 3.7.9 Atmospheric emissions resulting from construction activities will depend on a combination of a specific activity’s potential for emission and the effectiveness of control measures that may be applied. In general terms, during construction of a wind farm there are two sources of emissions that will need to be controlled to minimise the potential for significant adverse environmental effects: • Exhaust emissions from site plant, equipment and vehicles. • Fugitive dust emissions from site activities. 3.7.10 Operation of vehicles and equipment powered by internal combustion engines results in the emission of waste exhaust gases containing the pollutants NOx, PM10, VOCs, and CO. The quantities emitted depend on a range of factors including engine type, service history, pattern of usage and composition of the fuel used. Whilst the operation of site equipment, vehicles and machinery would result in emissions of exhaust gases, such emissions are not considered likely to result in a significant adverse impact, particularly in comparison with levels of similar emissions from road traffic sources. 3.7.11 The main air quality impact of vehicular emissions associated with the proposed development would be realised along the traffic routes employed by haulage vehicles, construction vehicles, employees and visitors. The effects of these traffic movements on the local air quality in the vicinity of the site have been qualitatively assessed on the basis of the construction activities described above. Although emissions from construction traffic could have an impact on adjacent residential properties, mitigation measures will be adopted within the site management procedures to ensure that entry to the construction site for labour and vehicles will be by dedicated access points only. In addition, it is recognised that the levels of traffic, in absolute terms described above, are relatively insignificant and would be confined to the construction period only. It is therefore expected that effects on air quality from vehicular emissions associated with the construction programme will be negligible. 3.7.12 Given the anticipated relatively limited operational maintenance requirements for the proposed wind farm extension, it is not expected that there will be significant effects on air quality from vehicular sources during the operational phase. Fugitive Dust Impacts 3.7.13 Fugitive dust emissions from construction activities are likely to be variable and will depend upon type and extent of the activity, soil conditions (soil type and moisture) road surface condition and weather conditions. Fugitive dust arising from construction activities is generally of particle size greater than the human health based particulates of 10 microns (PM10) fraction. In assessing the impact of fugitive dust there are two different effects that need to be considered; the effects of dust nuisance, and on human health. The former relates to the amount of dust falling onto and soiling surfaces (or rate of dust deposition) and the latter relates to the concentration of dust in suspension in the atmosphere. If not effectively controlled, fugitive dust emissions can lead to dust nuisance. Furthermore, soils are inevitably drier during the summer period and periods of dry weather combined with higher than average winds have the potential to generate the most dust. Most of the dust emitting activities described above respond well to appropriate dust control measures. Furthermore, mitigation measures will be required within site control procedures and a CMP (see mitigation proposals below) to ensure that potential adverse effects will be minimised or eliminated. Dust is therefore not expected to be a significant issue for properties in the vicinity of the proposed wind farm extension. No fugitive dust effects are expected during the operational phase. Mitigation 3.7.14 Prior to commencement of construction activities, a CMP will be agreed with Burnley Borough Council to ensure the potential for significant adverse environmental effects on local receptors is avoided. The following air quality mitigation measures reflect what is expected to be included within the CMP, taking into account best practice guidance: • Erect solid barriers to site boundary where appropriate. • No bonfires on site. • Plan site layout by locating dust activity away from sensitive receptors. • Identify responsible person in charge.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 20

• Regular cleaning of site entrances. • Damping down of site haul roads during prolonged dry periods. • Wheel washing facilities to prevent mud from construction operations being transported on to adjacent public roads. • Restricting vehicle speeds on haul roads and other un-surfaced areas of the site. • All vehicles to switch off their engines – no idling vehicles. • Ensuring that dusty materials are stored and handled appropriately (e.g. wind shielding or complete enclosure, storage is away from site boundaries, drop heights of materials are restricted, water sprays are used where practicable to reduce dust emissions). • Ensuring that dusty materials are transported appropriately (e.g. sheeting of vehicles carrying spoil and other dusty materials). • Minimise dust generating activities on windy and dry days. • Appropriate dust site monitoring included within the site management practices to inform site management of the success of dust control measures used. 3.8 Operation and Maintenance Operation 3.8.1 The planning permission will be valid for 25 years. All post-consent activities associated with the development, operation and decommissioning of the scheme will be undertaken within this period. For the purposes of the EIA it has been assumed the pre-construction works will take approximately 12 months, the construction works approximately nine months and the decommissioning approximately nine months. Thus, the wind farm will be operational for a period of approximately 25 years. 3.8.2 The power output from a wind farm largely depends on the strength of the wind blowing across the site. Wind turbines start to generate electricity at a hub height wind speed of about 3 ms-1 (6.7 mph), and the output increases up to their maximum rated power at a wind speed of about 12 ms-1 (26.8 mph) where it remains until the wind speed reaches 25 ms-1 (56 mph) when the wind turbine shuts down automatically and the rotor is both aerodynamically and mechanically braked to avoid excessive wear on the components. However, modern wind turbines are designed to withstand much higher wind speed, and are normally certified against structural failure for wind speeds up to around 67 ms-1 (150 mph). 3.8.3 Turbines will be fitted with a lightning protection system to alleviate damage from lightning strike. 3.8.4 Snow does not generally pose problems other than with access to the site. Occasionally very heavy snow and ice may affect the aerodynamics of the turbine blades resulting in a temporary automatic shutdown. The wind turbine will restart automatically after accumulations of snow and ice have naturally thawed. 3.8.5 The snowfall in the North West of England tends to be light and is rarely prolonged except in the high hills. In an average year, it snows to some extent on approximately 30 days a year. Road closures due to snow are very infrequent except in the high hill areas. The proposed site is outside the high hill areas and therefore snowfall in this area is anticipated to be light (Met Office). 3.8.6 It is anticipated that land management practices will continue to be unaffected by the proposed development with the area continuing to be used for grazing. Maintenance 3.8.7 The chosen turbine manufacturer will be responsible for maintaining the wind farm extension for a defined period of time following commissioning. This period can last from one year up to the whole life of the project, although either two or five year maintenance periods are most common. A suitably qualified contractor will be employed once the manufacturer’s obligation expires to visit the site and undertake regular inspection and maintenance activities. 3.8.8 There is also an initial service three months after commissioning. Following this, routine maintenance or servicing is carried out twice a year with a main service at annual intervals and interim minor service every six months. 3.8.9 Ongoing maintenance of the access tracks will generally be undertaken in the summer months when the tracks are dry although safe access to all components will be maintained throughout the year.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 21

3.8.10 In addition to regular maintenance activities there will be a need for unscheduled maintenance. It has been found that any manufacturing and/or installation issues will be identified in the first few years of operation. Unscheduled maintenance is more likely to be required at the project start up and towards the end of the operational period as the end of the design life is reached.

3.9 Wind Farm Decommissioning 3.9.1 The planning permission will extend to 25 years from the date of consent. Towards the end of this period the developer has three options: to decommission the wind farm; to apply for an extension to the operating period using existing equipment; or apply to install new equipment on the site. For the purpose of this EIA it is assumed that the wind farm extension will be decommissioned. 3.9.2 The wind farm extension will be decommissioned in accordance with best practice and/or in compliance with any planning conditions. Current best practices includes the removal of all above ground structures; the removal of all underground structures to at least one metre below ground level with structures beneath this level to remain in situ. This approach is considered less environmentally damaging than the complete removal of all above and below ground structures from the site. Areas of disturbed land will be reinstated to the original condition prior to the wind farm extension or to the condition just prior to the commencement of the decommissioning activities. Landowners will be given the option to retain the access tracks for their own purposes. 3.9.3 A decommissioning plan will be prepared by the wind farm operator and agreed with the relevant authorities prior to any decommissioning taking account of new legislation, guidance and best practice.

3.10 References CIRIA (2001) Control of water pollution from construction sites (London)

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 22

4 Landscape and Visual Summary Chapter

4.1.1 This chapter summarises the findings of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) on the proposed Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension. The assessment was undertaken by SLR in accordance with the Guidelines for LVIA (Second Edition, 2002) as well as further Scottish Natural Heritage Guidance. The detailed assessment is reported as a separate document to reduce the size of the ES. 4.1.2 The LVIA has detailed the potential significant effects of the proposed wind farm extension on landscape character, visual receptors, and local landscape policy areas. Since baseline conditions include the existing wind farm at Hameldon Hill, immediately adjacent, the assessment has focused primarily on the potential cumulative or additional effects on residential areas, main roads and other routes; popular walking and recreational areas; and landscape and visual amenity arising from the introduction of the proposed turbines in conjunction with the adjacent turbines. 4.1.3 However, where relevant, reference has also been made to the potential effects following the removal of the existing turbines at Hameldon Hill, which is anticipated to take place during the final 4-5 operational years of the proposed wind farm extension. For the majority of viewpoints this will see a return to current baseline conditions of three visible turbines, but within slightly different locations, with the exception of properties within close proximity of the proposed turbines, such as Thorny Bank. 4.1.4 A cumulative assessment of the additional effects of the proposed turbines with other consented and proposed turbines within the study area has also been undertaken. 4.1.5 Although the proposed wind farm extension will be in line with the North West Sustainable Energy Strategy, the development will inevitably cause noticeable changes to the landscapes of the North West. It is recognised that wind turbines of the size proposed (up to 110 m to blade tip) will have the potential to generate significant landscape and visual effects. 4.1.6 The wind farm extension design has been optimised by taking account of the other environmental and technical constraints to produce a layout with an optimal balanced group of turbines when seen from most locations in the vicinity and cumulatively with the existing turbines on Hameldon Hill. 4.1.7 In terms of landscape character, significant cumulative effects will occur during the operational phase but will be confined to parts of two National Character Areas: No 35, ’Lancashire Valleys’, and No 36 ‘Southern Pennines’. Within each of these areas, at least half of each area will be unaffected as a result of a lack of visibility of the proposed extension predicted by the blade tip Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV). With regard to the ‘Southern Pennines,’ the proportion of the area which will be unaffected is much greater and the presence of significant effects owes principally to the development being sited within this area. At a Local Authority level, significant effects on landscape character will occur during the operational phase and will be confined to parts of two Landscape Types; ‘Industrial Foothills and Valley’ and ‘Enclosed Uplands’ and their corresponding Character Areas; ‘Calder Valley’ and ‘Rossendale Hills’. 4.1.8 For all areas, the nature of significant cumulative effects upon landscape character will be neutral. This is due to the views being associated with settled and urban areas, and/or larger scale rural areas, and/or where existing turbines are already present. The addition of the wind farm extension will not alter the key characteristics. 4.1.9 The short duration and generally low-level nature of the construction phase will ensure that effects upon landscape character are minimised. 4.1.10 Significant cumulative effects on the visual amenity of residential receptors and recreational facilities and routes will occur during the operational phase and are predicted to occur at distances of at least 3.7 km away and include Thorny Bank, parts of Burnley, Hapton and Padiham, as well as parts of the Burnley Way as it passes close to the west and south of the site. Significant cumulative effects on the visual amenity of roads and railway routes, were identified at the A679 adjacent to the Hapton Inn Public House to the north. 4.1.11 The short duration and generally low-level nature of the construction phase will ensure that effects upon the visual amenity are minimised.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 23

4.1.12 The removal of the existing turbines at Hameldon Hill during the final operational years of the proposed wind farm extension will constitute a return to the current baseline conditions of three visible turbines, but within a different position and for an extended period of time. Overall, the effect on the majority of viewpoints will be no more than slight and not significant, with the exception of Thorny Bank and adjacent properties in close proximity to the proposed turbines. 4.1.13 There are three national statutory landscape designations which fall within the study area and include the Yorkshire Dales National Park, Peak District National Park and Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The study area also contains a number of local landscape designations and Registered Parks and Gardens. There are no significant effects predicted on any of these designations as a result of the proposed wind farm extension. 4.1.14 Finally, all changes will be reversible and the wind farm extension will be for a temporary period of 25 years, after which time the effects upon landscape fabric, landscape character and visual amenity will be negligible, as the site will be restored to the conditions prior to the development.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 24

5 Noise

5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 This chapter details the noise assessment undertaken for the proposed extension to the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm. 5.1.2 The noise assessment has been carried out with reference to existing Government Guidance and the recommendations of the DTI Noise Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines that are contained within ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms (1996). 5.1.3 Construction noise is temporary and transient in nature and can be controlled through good site working practices, limiting construction hours and adopting noise control measures where necessary. The chosen contractor will sign up to a Construction Management Plan that will ensure effective controls are put in place. For this reason, construction noise is not considered further in this assessment. 5.1.4 The wind farm extension has been designed to comply with the operational noise limits that are in place for the existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm. The noise limits were defined as part of the planning application for the original wind farm site and are governed through the planning conditions contained in the Application APP/2004/1353 (2005) which is included in Appendix 5.1. 5.1.5 The predicted noise levels for the proposed extension have been calculated using the Sound Power Level (SWL) for the Enercon E70 wind turbine. The sound power levels are typical for turbines that could be considered for this site (i.e. between 2-2.5 MW and rotor diameter of approximately 70 m). The final selection of turbine will follow a competitive tendering process and thus the final model of turbine may differ from that on which this assessment has been based. However the final choice of turbine will be required to comply with the noise criterion levels which were established for the original site. 5.1.6 An assessment of the potential noise impact has been carried out based upon the above and taking into account the type of noise which is produced by wind turbines and the published guidelines concerning the acceptability of noise levels from various sources. 5.1.7 Depending on the levels of background noise, the satisfaction of the criteria can at times lead to a situation whereby, at some locations under some conditions and for a certain proportion of the time, the noise associated with the scheme may be audible. However, if it is within the noise criteria it is deemed to be at an acceptable level. Noise terminology 5.1.8 The ratio between the quietest audible sound and the loudest tolerable sound is a million to one in terms of the change in sound pressure. Because of the wide range a logarithmic scale is used in noise level measurement. The scale used is the decibel scale which extends from 0 to 140 decibels (dB) corresponding to the intensity of the sound pressure level. It is widely accepted that a change of ±3 dB is required for a person to perceive the change in a noise level, and that a change of ±10 dB is perceived as being twice or half as loud respectively. 5.1.9 The ear has the ability to recognise a particular sound depending on the pitch or frequencies found at the source. Microphones cannot differentiate noise in the same way as the ear, and to counter this weakness the noise measuring instrument applies a correction to correspond more closely to the frequency response of the human ear. The correction factor is called ‘A Weighting’ and the resulting measurements are written as dB(A). The dB(A) is internationally accepted and has been found to correspond well with people’s subjective reaction to noise. 5.1.10 The following indices are used when describing noise:

• LW is the sound power level. It is a measure of the total noise energy radiated by a source of noise, and is used to calculate noise levels at a distant location. The LWA is the A-weighted sound power level.

• Leq is the equivalent continuous sound level, and is the sound level of a steady sound with the same energy as a fluctuating sound over the same period. It is possible to consider this level as the ambient noise encompassing all noise at a given time. The LAeq is the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level over a given time period.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 25

• L90 index represents the noise level exceeded for 90 percent of the measurement period and is used to indicate quieter times during the measurement period. It is often used to measure the background noise level. The LA90,10min is the A-weighted background noise level over a ten minute measurement sample. 5.2 Legislation and Guidance General Planning Policy and Advice Relating to Noise 5.2.1 General guidance and policy concerning noise associated with new developments in England is presented in Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG 24: Planning and Noise. 5.2.2 The Introduction to PPG24 sets out the importance of appropriately considering noise in planning applications. The ultimate aim of the guidance is to: ‘provide advice on how the planning system can be used to minimise the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens of business.’ 5.2.3 This need to balance essential development against potential adverse noise impact is reiterated in paragraph 10 of PPG24, where the issue of development control is discussed: ‘Much of the development which is necessary for the … improvement of essential infrastructure will generate noise. The planning system should not place unjustifiable obstacles in the way of such development. Nevertheless, local planning authorities must ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance.’ 5.2.4 Whilst PPG24 presents general considerations relating to planning and noise issues, it contains no specific references to noise from wind farms. Specific Planning Policy and Advice Relating to Wind Farm Noise 5.2.5 Advice specific to noise emanating from wind energy developments can be found in Planning Policy Statement PPS22: Renewable Energy, Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22, and ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms. 5.2.6 The Draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (2009) reaffirms the primacy of ETSU-R-97 as industry best practice for the assessment of noise relating to onshore wind farms. Planning Policy Statement PPS22: Renewable Energy 5.2.7 PPS22: Renewable Energy issued in August 2004 advises that the 1997 report by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry should be used to assess and rate noise from wind energy development. 5.2.8 Paragraph 22 of PPS22 states the following with respect to noise: ‘Renewable technologies may generate small increases in noise levels (whether from machinery such as aerodynamic noise from wind turbines, or from associated sources – for example, traffic). Local planning authorities should ensure that renewable energy developments have been located and designed in such a way to minimise increases in ambient noise levels. Plans may include criteria that set out the minimum separation distances between different types of renewable energy projects and existing developments. The 1997 report by ETSU for the Department of Trade and Industry should be used to assess and rate noise from wind energy development.’ Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22 5.2.9 The companion guide that accompanies PPS22 addresses wind energy within Chapter 8 of the Technical Annex and specifically the issue of noise from wind turbines within paragraphs 41 – 46. Paragraph 41 states the following: ‘Well specified and well designed wind farms should be located so that increases in ambient noise levels around noise sensitive developments are kept to acceptable levels with relation to existing background noise. This would normally be achieved through good design of the turbines and through allowing sufficient distance between the turbines and any existing noise sensitive development so that noise from the turbines would not normally be significant. Noise levels from turbines are generally low and, under most operating conditions, it is likely that turbine noise would be completely masked by wind-generated background noise.’

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 26

5.2.10 Paragraph 41 then goes on to compare noise levels from wind turbines with other activities.

Source/Activity Indicative Noise Level, dB(A)

Threshold of pain 140 Jet aircraft at 250m 105 Pneumatic drill at 7m 95 Truck at 30mph at 100m 65 Busy general office 60 Car at 40mph at 100m 55 Wind Farm at 350m 35-45 Quiet bedroom 20 Rural night-time background 20-40 Threshold of hearing 0 Reproduced from PPS22 Companion Guide 5.2.11 Paragraph 42 describes the types of noise that wind turbines generate. In summary, mechanical noise is generated by the gearbox, generator and other parts of the drive train and can be radiated as noise through the nacelle, gear box and tower supporting structures. Careful design at the development stage of a wind turbine can eradicate this source of noise. Aerodynamic noise is generated by the action of the blades rotating through the air. The level of aerodynamic noise is determined by the speed of the blades as they pass through the air. Paragraph 43 also acknowledges the technical advances in turbine design that have resulted in reductions in mechanical noise generated from operating turbines, and states: ‘…Since the early 1990’s there has been a significant reduction in the mechanical noise generated by wind turbines and it is now usually less than, or of a similar level to, the aerodynamic noise. Aerodynamic noise from wind turbines is generally unobtrusive – it is broad band in nature and in this respect is similar to, for example, the noise of wind in trees.’ 5.2.12 Paragraph 44 refers to a source of detailed information on wind turbine noise which is contained within the document ETSU-R-97 “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms”, and states: ‘…The report, ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97), describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels calculated to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens on wind farm developers or planning authorities. The report presents findings of a cross-interest Noise Working Group and makes a series of recommendations that can be regarded as relevant guidance on good practice. This methodology overcomes some of the disadvantages of BS 4142 when assessing the noise effects of wind farms, and should be used by planning authorities when assessing and rating noise from wind energy developments.’ 5.2.13 Paragraphs 45 – 46 address the issue of Low Frequency Noise (Infrasound). It is therefore appropriate to consider what the Guide indicates with respect to this potential noise. Paragraph 45 states: ‘…There is no evidence that ground transmitted low frequency noise from wind turbines is at a sufficient level to be harmful to human health. A comprehensive study of vibration measurements in the vicinity of a modern wind farm was undertaken in the UK in 1997 by ETSU for the DTI (ETSU W/13/00392/REP). Measurements were made on site and up to 1km away – in a wide range of wind speeds and direction.’ 5.2.14 Paragraph 46 continues: ‘…Vibration levels 100 m from the nearest turbine were a factor of 10 less than those recommended for human exposure in critical buildings (i.e. laboratories for precision measurement); and tones above 3.0 Hz were found to attenuate rapidly with distance – the higher frequencies attenuating at a progressively increasing rate.’ 5.2.15 Measurements were reported within the report that detail levels of low frequency acoustic energy which fall below recognised perception thresholds for such a noise source. Despite the reference to ground borne noise, the conclusions apply equally to airborne noise. 5.2.16 Furthermore, in 2004 the DTI commissioned Hayes McKenzie Partnership to report on claims that infrasound or low frequency noise (LFN) emitted by wind turbine generators (WTGs) were causing health effects. Hayes McKenzie reported to DTI in May 2006 and concluded that there is no evidence of health effects arising from infrasound or low frequency noise generated by wind turbines.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 27

Aerodynamic Modulation 5.2.17 The 2006 Hayes McKenzie report went on to note that a phenomenon known as Aerodynamic Modulation (AM) was in some isolated circumstances occurring in ways not anticipated by ETSU-R-97. Having taken the view that more work was required to determine whether or not AM is an issue, which may require attention in the context of the assessment and rating advice in ETSU, the Government commissioned Salford University to conduct further work. 5.2.18 The objectives of this study were: • To establish the levels and nature of the reported noise complaints received across the UK relating to noise issues from wind farms, both historic and current, and determine whether AM is a significant effect. • To review and understand the level of knowledge/understanding that exists throughout the world on AM, and whether AM can be predicted. 5.2.19 The study concluded that although AM cannot be fully predicted, the incidence of AM resulting from wind farms in the UK is low. Out of the 133 wind farms in operation at the time of the study, there were four cases where AM appeared to be a factor. Complaints have subsided for three out of these four sites, in one case as a result of remedial treatment in the form of a wind turbine control system. In the remaining case, which is a recent installation, investigations are ongoing. 5.2.20 However, based on the findings, the Government does not consider there to be a compelling case for further work into AM and will not carry out any further research at this time; however it will continue to keep the issue under review. ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms 5.2.21 As wind farms started to be developed in the UK about 12 years ago, it became apparent that existing noise standards did not fully address the issues associated with the unique characteristics of wind farm developments and there was a need for an agreed methodology for defining acceptable noise limits for wind farm developments. This methodology was developed for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) by the Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines (WGNWT). 5.2.22 The WGNWT comprised a number of interested parties including, amongst others, environmental health officers, wind farm operators, independent acoustic consultants and legal experts who: “…between them have a breadth and depth of experience in assessing and controlling the environmental impact of noise from wind farms”. 5.2.23 In this way it represented the views of all the stakeholders that are involved in noise impacts of wind farm developments. The recommendations of the WGNWT are presented in the DTI Report – ETSU-R- 97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms (1996). 5.2.24 The basic aim of the WGNWT in arriving at the recommendations was the intention to provide: “Indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development or adding to the costs and administrative burdens on wind farm developers or local authorities.” 5.2.25 ETSU-R-97 makes it clear from the outset that any noise restrictions placed on a wind farm must balance the environmental impact of the wind farm against the national and global benefits that would arise through the development of renewable energy sources. “The planning system must therefore seek to control the environmental impacts from a wind farm whilst at the same time recognising the national and global benefits that would arise through the development of renewable energy sources and not be so severe that wind farm development is unduly stifled.” 5.2.26 ETSU-R-97 provides a robust basis for determining the noise criteria for wind farms and has become a well-respected and accepted standard for such developments within the UK. This methodology has therefore been adopted for this appraisal.

5.3 Methodology 5.3.1 The ETSU-R-97 assessment procedure specifies that noise criteria should be set relative to existing background noise levels at the nearest dwellings, and that these criteria should reflect the variation in both turbine source noise and background noise with wind speed. 5.3.2 With regards to cumulative noise from multiple wind farms within a locality, ETSU-R-97 is quite specific stating that:

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 28

‘The Noise Working Group is of the opinion that absolute noise limits and margins above background should relate to the cumulative effect of all wind turbines in the area which contribute to the noise received at the properties in question. It is clearly unreasonable to suggest that, because a wind farm was constructed in the vicinity in the past which resulted in increased noise levels at some properties, the residents of those properties are now able to tolerate still higher noise levels. The existing wind farm should not be considered as part of the prevailing background noise’ 5.3.3 Consequently the noise limits for the existing wind farm have been used to dictate the design of the proposed extension. The proposed extension has been designed in such a manner to ensure the existing and proposed turbines can operate in cumulation within the agreed noise limits. 5.3.4 Absolute lower criteria, different for amenity hours and night-time, are applied where low levels of background noise are measured. The wind speed range that should be considered ranges between the cut-in speed for the turbines (usually about 4 ms-1) and 12 ms-1 (27 mph), where all wind speeds are referenced to a 10 m measurement height (V10). 5.3.5 Separate noise criteria apply for amenity hours and for night-time. Amenity hours criteria are chosen to protect a property’s external amenity, and night-time criteria are chosen to prevent sleep disturbance indoors. 5.3.6 The amenity hours criteria are derived from background noise data measured during so-called ‘quiet periods of the day’, which comprise weekday evenings (18:00 to 23:00), Saturday afternoons and evenings (13:00 to 23:00) and all day and evening on Sundays (07:00 to 23:00). Multiple samples of 10- minute averaged background noise levels using the LA90,10min measurement index are measured contiguously over a range of wind speed conditions. The measured noise levels are then plotted against simultaneously measured wind speed data and a ‘best fit’ curve is fitted to the data to establish the background noise level as a function of wind speed. The ETSU-R-97 amenity hours noise limit, or ‘criterion curve’, is then set at a level 5 dB above the best fit curve to the background noise data over a 0-12 ms-1 wind speed range. 5.3.7 For wind speeds where the best fit curve to the background noise data lies below a level of 30-35 dB(A) the criterion curve is set at a fixed level in the range 35-40 dB(A). The precise choice of criterion curve level within the range 35-40 dB(A) depends on a number of factors including: • The number of dwellings in the neighbourhood of the wind farm – more stringent criteria should be considered in areas where there are many dwellings within the vicinity of the wind farm, and conversely more lenient criteria should be considered for wind farms with few affected neighbouring dwellings. • The effect of noise on the number of kWh generated – consideration should be given to a more stringent noise criteria for low generation potential schemes, whereas more lenient criteria should be applied to schemes with greater generation potential (i.e. installed capacity). • Duration and level of exposure - consideration should be given to more stringent criteria at properties where the ambient noise is relatively low for a substantial proportion of the time, whereas a more lenient criteria can be applied to dwellings that experience higher levels of ambient noise. 5.3.8 The night time noise criterion curve is derived from background noise data measured during the night time periods (23:00 to 07:00), with no differentiation being made between weekdays and weekends. The 10-minute LA90 noise levels measured over the night time periods are plotted against concurrent wind speed data and a ‘best fit’ correlation is established. The night time noise criterion is also based on a level of 5 dB above the best fit curve over the 0-12 ms-1 wind speed range. Where the night time criterion curve is found to be below 43 dB(A), it is fixed at 43 dB(A). This night-time absolute lower limit is based on World Health Organisation guidelines for the protection of sleep indoors with windows open. 5.3.9 The exception to the setting of both the quiet daytime and night time lower criteria curves occurs where a property occupier has a financial involvement in the wind farm development. Where the occupier has a financial interest in the wind farm, ETSU-R-97 recommend that both amenity hours and night-time lower fixed criteria can be increased to 45 dB(A) and that consideration should be given to increasing the permissible margin above background noise levels. 5.3.10 To undertake the assessment in accordance with the foregoing methodology, the following steps were undertaken: • determine the amenity hours and night-time criterion curves from the planning conditions agreed for the existing wind farm;

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 29

• specify the type and noise emission characteristics of a wind turbine suitable for the extension; • calculate the noise immission levels at the nearest neighbours due to the operation of the existing wind farm and the proposed extension as a function of wind speed; and • compare the calculated cumulative wind farm noise immission levels with the agreed noise limits and assess in the light of planning requirements. 5.3.11 The foregoing steps, as applied to the proposed extension to Hameldon Hill Wind Farm, are set out subsequently in this chapter. 5.3.12 The term ‘noise emission’ relates to the sound power level radiated from each wind turbine, whereas the term ‘noise immission’ relates to the sound pressure level (the perceived noise) experienced at any receptor location due to the operation of the wind turbines. Assessment of Significance 5.3.13 The test applied to operational noise is whether or not the calculated wind farm noise immission levels at nearby noise sensitive properties lie below the noise criteria derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97. Depending on the levels of background noise, the satisfaction of the ETSU-R-97 derived criteria can lead to a situation whereby, at some locations under some wind conditions and for a certain proportion of the time, the wind farm noise may be audible. However, it will still be at an acceptable level. Agreed Noise Limits 5.3.14 The noise limits agreed for the existing wind farm are contained within Appendix 5.1 and summarised below: a) The level of noise emission from the combined effects of the wind turbine generators when measured at Watson Laithe Farm, Old Barn Farm, Lower Micklehurst Farm and Barley Green in accordance with paragraph 1 of the guidance shall not exceed:

i.During the night-time the greater of 43 dB(A)L90,10 min or 5 dB above the night-time LA90 background noise level at wind speed not exceeding 12 metres per second;

And at other times

ii.The greater of 35 dB(A) L90 10 mins or 5 dB above the quiet day-time LA90 background noise level at wind speed not exceeding 12 metres per second;

b) The level of noise emission from the combined effects of the wind turbine generators when measured at New Barn Farm etc and in accordance with paragraph 1 of the guidance shall not exceed:

i.During the night-time the greater of 45 dB(A)L90,10 min or 5 dB above the night-time LA90 background noise level at wind speed not exceeding 12 metres per second;

And at other times

ii.The greater of 45 dB(A) L90 10 mins or 5 dB above the quiet day-time LA90 background noise level at wind speed not exceeding 12 metres per second;

Background noise levels referred to in this condition shall be those recorded by the regression lines in Figure 3.1 to 3.10 of the Hameldon Hill Wind Cluster Environmental Noise Impact Assessment, dated 24th November 2004. Night-time means 23-0700 on all days. Quiet daytime means 1800-2300 on all days plus 0700-1800 on Sundays and 1300-1800 on Saturdays. Wind speeds shall be measured at a height of 10 m above ground level. 5.3.15 Table 5.1 summarises the background noise levels referred to previously and the associated noise limits.

Table 5.1 Background Noise Levels (LA90) and Existing Noise Limits Reference Wind Speed (v )ms-1 ETSU-R-97 10 House Assessment Period 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Amenity Hours Background Noise Level 34.3 34.7 35.4 36.3 37.5 38.8 40.4 42.2 44.3 46.6 (L )

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 30

Reference Wind Speed (v )ms-1 ETSU-R-97 10 House Assessment Period 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Amenity Hours Noise

Limit 39.3 39.7 40.4 41.3 42.5 43.8 45.4 47.2 49.3 51.6

Laithe Night Time Background

Noise Level (LA90) 30.7 31.0 31.5 32.4 33.7 35.2 37.2 39.4 42.1 45.0 Farm

Watson Night Time Noise Limit 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 44.4 47.1 50.0 Amenity Hours Background Noise Level 33.9 34.6 35.6 36.8 38.3 40.0 42.0 44.3 46.8 49.5 (L ) Amenity Hours Noise Farm Limit 38.9 39.6 40.6 41.8 43.3 45.0 47.0 49.3 51.8 54.5

Night Time Background Barn

Noise Level (LA90) 28.8 29.5 30.7 32.3 34.4 37.0 40.0 43.5 47.5 51.9 Old Night Time Noise Limit 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 45.0 48.5 52.5 56.9 Amenity Hours Background Noise Level 34.1 34.4 35.4 36.8 38.7 40.7 42.9 45.0 46.9 48.5 (L ) Amenity Hours Noise Farm Limit 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.7 47.9 50.0 51.9 53.5

Barn Night Time Background

Noise Level (LA90) 31.1 31.1 31.9 33.5 36.0 39.2 43.3 48.2 53.9 60.4 New Night Time Noise Limit 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 48.3 53.2 58.9 65.4

Amenity Hours Background Noise Level 35.1 35.8 37.3 39.2 41.4 43.5 45.4 46.8 47.5 47.2 Farm (L ) Amenity Hours Noise Limit 40.1 40.8 42.3 44.2 46.4 48.5 50.4 51.8 52.5 52.2

Night Time Background

Micklehurst Noise Level (LA90) 33.3 34.2 36.1 38.8 42.0 45.4 48.7 51.5 53.6 54.6

Night Time Noise Limit

Lower 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.8 47.0 50.4 53.7 56.5 58.6 59.6 Amenity Hours Background Noise Level 31.0 31.5 32.2 33.2 34.6 36.2 38.1 40.2 42.7 45.5

(L ) Amenity Hours Noise Limit 36.0 36.5 37.2 38.2 39.6 41.2 43.1 45.2 47.7 50.5 Green

Night Time Background Noise Level (LA90) 28.4 28.6 29.2 30.4 32.1 34.3 37.1 40.4 44.2 48.6 Barley Night Time Noise Limit 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 45.4 49.2 53.6 5.3.16 This assessment also includes an additional property, Thorny Bank. This property was not included in the noise assessment undertaken in 2005, and subsequently is not specifically mentioned in the existing planning conditions. Figure 5.1 shows the noise monitoring positions. It has been assumed the background noise environment at Thorny Bank is likely to be most similar to the background noise environment at Barley Green due to the proximity between the properties and the similar environments in which they are located. Furthermore, the background noise levels measured at Barley Green were, with the exception of windspeeds >10 ms-1 during night-time periods, the lowest levels measured at any property during the survey and therefore are subject to the most stringent noise limits. It is therefore considered appropriate to apply the Barley Green noise limits to Thorny Bank as these are the most rigorous. Potential Impacts Turbine Noise Emission Characteristics

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 31

5.3.17 There are a range of turbines of size and power output that will be appropriate for the proposed Hameldon Hill extension. The final selection of turbine will follow a competitive tendering process and thus the final model of turbine may differ from that on which this assessment has been based. However the final choice of turbine will be required to comply with the noise criterion levels which have been established for this site in this ES. 5.3.18 The turbines used for this modelling are the Repower MM70 for the existing turbines and the Enercon E70 2.3MW for the proposed turbines. Noise data for both models of turbine have been obtained from the respective manufacturer. For the Repower MM70 this was measured data, to which the necessary uncertainty factor was applied, and in the case of the Enercon this was guaranteed data, again with an uncertainty factor applied as per the manufacturer’s recommendations. 5.3.19 A summary of the noise data used in this assessment are provided in Table 5.2. Table 5.2 Turbine Noise Levels Reference Wind Speed (ms-1)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Sound Power Level of the MM70 as supplied 86.6 90.7 94.8 98.7 101.6 103.5 104.7 104.9 104.9 104.9 from Repower (dB(A))

Manufacturers 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 uncertainty (dB(A))

Sound Power Level for the MM70 used in the 88 92.1 93.2 99.6 101.5 104.4 105.6 105.8 105.8 105.8 assessment (dB(A))

Sound Power Level of the E70 as supplied - 90.8 93.6 98.8 101.4 103.1 103.8* 104.5 104.5 104.5 from Enercon (dB(A))

Manufacturers - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Uncertainty (dB(A))

Sound Power Level for the E70 used in the - 91.8 93.6 99.8 101.4 104.1 104.8* 105.5 105.5 105.5 assessment (dB(A))

* No data provided for the Enercon E70 at 9 ms-1. Value interpolated from adjacent data.

5.3.20 Copies of the noise test data sheets are included at Appendix 5.2. 5.3.21 At a wind speed of 10 ms-1 the turbines will be generating 95% of the rated power, for which the maximum sound power level is also expected, and therefore there will be no significant increase in sound output in wind speeds greater than 10 ms-1. 5.3.22 The sound emitted by wind turbines consists of a number of different frequencies, some of which are more dominant than others. These frequencies are grouped together into what are known as octave bands or spectra. Within each spectrum the highest frequency is twice the lowest frequency and octave bands are defined by the centre frequency. The addition to these spectra will give an overall sound power level for the turbine. The amount of absorption over a given distance depends on the frequency of the noise - high frequencies are absorbed more readily than low frequencies. 5.3.23 Octave band data for the Repower MM70 and Enercon E70 turbines were provided in the manufacturer’s noise report and are summarised in Table 5.3. These were determined in a wind speed of 10 ms-1 referenced at 10 m height. For modelling purposes, the measured spectra supplied by the turbine manufacturers have been increased relatively so that the combined A-weighted sound power level of the octave band spectra equals the sound power level used for prediction purposes at a wind speed of 10 ms-1 as given in Table 5.2. This is to take account of the manufacturer’s uncertainty.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 32

Table 5.3 A-Weighted Octave Band Spectra Octave Band Repower MM70 Enercon E70 (Hz) Octave Band Octave Band Octave Band Octave Band Power Level Power Level Power Level Power Level provided by used for provided by used for manufacturer Modeling (dB(A)) manufacturer Modeling (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (dB(A))

63 87.8 88.6 88.2 89.4 125 92.1 92.9 96.8 98.0 250 97.0 97.8 99.3 100.5 500 96.3 97.1 97.9 99.1 1000 99.0 99.8 96.4 97.6 2000 99.3 100.1 93.1 94.3 4000 95.4 96.2 86.2 87.4 8000 81.9 82.7 78.6 79.8 Overall dB(A) 105.0 105.8 104.3 105.5

5.3.24 No allowance has been made for the character of the noise emitted by the wind turbines. In general, wind turbines exhibit little tonality within the radiated noise. However, an appropriate method to control such a character is through the imposition of a planning condition which limits the level of tonality that a site may emit. ETSU-R-97 defines a method by which tonality may be assessed and proposes a penalty system for any tonality which might be measured. 5.3.25 The manufacturer of the turbine selected for this site will be contractually required to guarantee noise emission levels from the turbines installed on the site. The operator of the wind farm site will be required to comply with the noise criterion levels which have been established for this site regardless of any tonal components which the turbines might emit. This will be controlled by a condition attached to the grant of any planning permission. Therefore no corrections for tones have been included in this assessment. 5.3.26 Noise predictions have been performed assuming all the wind turbines will experience the same hub height wind speed across the site and all the wind turbines are operating at the same wind speed and therefore emitting the same noise levels. Choice of Noise Propagation Model 5.3.27 The model contained within ISO 9613-2 Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors – Part 2: General method of Calculation (1996) has been used to calculate the noise emission levels at the nearest dwellings. 5.3.28 The ISO 9613-2 algorithm has been chosen as being the most robust prediction method based on the findings of a joint European Commission (EC) research project into wind farm noise propagation over large distances. The title of the research project was ‘Development of a Wind Farm Noise Prediction Model’, JOULE project JOR3-CT95-0051. 5.3.29 Whilst it is impossible to specify exact error bands on noise predictions, the ISO 9613-2 model was found to be the best available, both in flat and complex terrain. This model, like all the others, tends to over-estimate the noise at nearby dwellings, rather than under-estimate it. The work undertaken as part of the EC research study concluded that the ISO 9613-2 algorithm tended to predict noise levels that would generally occur under downwind propagation conditions. The probability of non-exceedence of the levels predicted by the ISO 9613-2 algorithm was around 85%. The other important outcome of the research was to clearly demonstrate that under upwind propagation conditions, between a given receiver and the wind farm, the noise immission level at that receiver will be as much as 10 dB(A) to 15 dB(A) lower than the level predicted using the ISO 9613-2 algorithm. 5.3.30 The ISO 9613-2 model can take account of the following factors that influence sound propagation outdoors:

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 33

• Geometric divergence • Air absorption • Reflecting obstacles • Screening • Vegetation • Ground reflections 5.3.31 The model uses the octave band sound power output of the turbines (given in Table 5.3) as its acoustic input data and calculates, on an octave band basis, attenuation due to geometric spreading, atmospheric absorption, and ground effects. 5.3.32 For the purposes of the present assessment, all noise level predictions have been undertaken using the following assumptions: • downwind propagation from each individual turbine; • the wind speed is equal at all turbine locations; • a ground factor G =0.5 (semi-soft) between the turbines and the assessment location; • a receiver height of 4.0 m above ground level; • no screening effects from topography, vegetation or intervening buildings and structures; and • an air absorption factor based on a temperature of 10°C and 70% relative humidity. 5.3.33 These parameters comply with the latest recommendations regarding the calculation of wind farm noise published in the Acoustics Bulletin (2009), which states ‘this approach will generally result in realistic estimates of noise immission levels at receptors locations downwind of the wind turbines’. Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise Levels 5.3.34 A series of charts are presented for the assessment dwellings to illustrate compliance with the noise limits. These are included as Figures 5.2 and 5.3. The charts illustrate the following:

• LA90 10 minute noise level as a function of wind speed polynomial regression line defining the prevailing background noise environment. • Noise criteria set either at the prevailing measured background level plus 5 dB or the absolute lower limits, whichever is the greater. • The calculated cumulative wind farm noise immission levels overlaid on the noise criteria to illustrate compliance. 5.3.35 Predicted wind farm immission levels and background noise levels indicate that for all dwellings neighbouring the proposed site, wind turbine noise will meet the Amenity Hours and Night-time Noise limits at all wind speeds. 5.3.36 The wind farm operator will have to operate the wind farm within noise criteria defined in the planning conditions. If the criteria are exceeded, the operator will have to instigate noise control measures such as curtailing specific turbines during particular wind speeds and directions to prevent exceedences. This can be controlled through the imposition of an appropriate planning condition or conditions.

5.4 Mitigation 5.4.1 The exact model of turbine to be used at the site will be the result of a future tendering process. Achievement of the noise limits determined through this assessment will be a key determining factor in the final choice of turbine for the site. 5.4.2 The noise criteria will form the basis of an appropriate planning condition or conditions to ensure noise immissions from the extended Hameldon Hill Wind Farm remain at an acceptable level. 5.4.3 Most modern turbines can be programmed to run at reduced noise emissions under specific wind conditions, or operated in noise reduced modes and an appropriate planning condition should be imposed on the operators to ensure the wind farm(s) are operated in such a manner to ensure the noise criteria are achieved at all neighbouring properties.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 34

5.5 Summary of Residual Impacts 5.5.1 This section has presented an assessment of the impact of operational noise from the proposed extension to the Hameldon Hill Wind Farm on neighbouring dwellings. The guidance contained within ETSU-R-97 has been used to assess the potential noise impact of the proposed development. 5.5.2 Amenity hour and Night-time criterion were derived from the existing criteria application to the existing wind farm site. These existing criteria were determined in accordance with ETSU-R-97. 5.5.3 Predictions of wind turbine noise were made, based upon a sound power level for an Enercon E70 wind turbine for the new turbines and the Repower MM70 for the existing turbines and a noise prediction model procedure that can be considered to best practice. 5.5.4 Comparison of the predicted noise immission levels and the ETSU-R-97 noise criteria indicate that the noise from the extended Hameldon Hill Wind Farm will achieve the Amenity Hours and Night-time criteria at all neighbouring dwellings at all wind speeds. 5.5.5 An appropriate planning condition or conditions should be imposed to ensure the extended Wind Farm is operated within the criteria and that suitable control measures are available to mitigate exceedences should they occur in the future.

5.6 References Bass J H, Bullmore A J, Sloth E (1998): ‘Development of a Wind farm Noise Propagation Prediction Model’ Final Report for EU Contract JOR3-CT95-0051. Bowdler D, Bullmore A, Davis B, Hayes M, Jiggins M, Leventhall G and McKenzie, A. (2009) ‘Prediction and Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise’, Acoustics Bulletin Vol 34 No 2, Institute of Acoustics. Department of Energy and Climate Change (2009): Draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) ETSU R 97 (1996) ‘The Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines: ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind farms’, ETSU Report ETSU R 97. ISO 9613-2 (1996) ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation’, International Standards Organisation, ISO 9613-2. Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (PPG 24): Planning and Noise, HMSO 2001. Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22): Renewable Energy, ODPM 2004. Snow D J (1997): ‘Low Frequency Noise & Vibration Measurements at a Modern Wind Farm’, ETSU W/13/00392/REP

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 35

6 Ecology and Nature Conservation

6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 This chapter describes the anticipated impact of the proposed Hameldon Hill Wind Farm extension on the ecology of the site and the surrounding area. An Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) has been carried out using historical data collected for the site and the results of baseline ecological surveys. This chapter covers all ecological considerations with the exception of ornithology, which is addressed in Chapter 7. 6.1.2 AECOM were commissioned by RWE NRL to carry out habitat and protected species surveys on land adjacent to the existing wind farm site (as defined by the site boundary in Figure 6.1) in support of the planning application for an increase in the generating capacity of the existing wind farm. The main aim of these surveys was to identify any ecological constraints that will need to be taken into account during the design, construction and operational phases of the proposed wind farm extension and to assess the potential ecological impacts of the proposals. 6.1.3 The following sections provide: • A summary description of the methodologies for field surveys and assessment • A summary description of the existing ecological conditions and an evaluation of the known ecological features within the Study Area in terms of their nature conservation value • An assessment of the predicted ecological impacts of the proposed scheme • A description of the proposed mitigation strategy • An assessment of the predicted residual ecological impacts of the proposed scheme after mitigation is implemented • Overall conclusion of the assessment of the impact of the proposed scheme on ecology and nature conservation 6.1.4 The results of the desk-based study and the baseline surveys have been used to identify any significant impacts that may arise from the scheme and to identify mitigation measures to reduce the significance of any possible adverse impacts. The significance of these impacts has been reduced through amendments to the scheme design or by developing methodologies or general principals to be followed during wind farm construction and operation. 6.1.5 The EcIA has been carried out in accordance with good practice guidance produced by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM, 2006). 6.1.6 The assessment presented herein is based on the installation of turbines with a maximum blade tip height of 110m. 6.1.7 The site of the current wind farm supports livestock farming on closely grazed improved pasture, wet rush-pasture and acid grassland, intersected by a number of cloughs flowing through mostly narrow, deep-cut valleys. There are also some wooded and scrubby areas, most notable of which is the woodland flanking Thorny Bank Clough on the western edge of the Survey Area.

6.2 Scope of Assessment 6.2.1 The scope of the assessment was derived from preliminary investigations of the site and from background information obtained for the site and the wider area. 6.2.2 The assessment includes the following elements: • Descriptions of the habitats and vegetation present at the site and an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed extension upon them. • Consideration of how the development might affect the ecology of the surrounding area including statutory and non-statutory designated sites of nature conservation value. • An assessment of the presence of protected or notable species of conservation concern and prediction of the effects of the proposal upon them.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 36

• Development of mitigation measures to protect and enhance the natural environment during and following construction of the wind farm extension. 6.2.3 The EcIA is based on data collected using the following methods: • Desk-based assessment and data search • Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey including Preliminary Faunal Investigations • Bat activity and habitat surveys 6.3 Planning Policy and Legislation Context 6.3.1 Nature conservation policy in England is implemented through a suite of legislation covering areas, habitats and species from an international to local level. Key legislation and policy pertaining to the majority of significant habitats and protected species is outlined in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Key Legislation

Legislation Description

Habitats Directive The Annexes of the Habitats Directive list species and habitats identified as (European being threatened or of ‘community interest’ and to which the Directive gives Directive protection. Annex I lists habitat types regarded as being of European 92/43/EEC on the Importance including ‘priority habitat types’; Annex II lists species of European Conservation of Importance; and Annex IV(a) lists animal species of community interest Natural Habitats needing strict protection. and of Wild Flora Under this Directive the Commission requires the establishment of a network of and Fauna) wildlife sites to protect examples of species or habitats of value at European level. These sites, called Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), and in conjunction with Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated under the EC Birds Directive (see Section 7.3) form a network of protected sites across Europe referred to as Natura 2000.

Habitats The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 transpose Council Regulations Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (EC Habitats Directive) into UK law. The Regulations came into force (The Conservation on 30 October 1994, and have been subsequently amended in 1993 and (in (Natural Habitats & England only) 2000 (JNCC website). c.) Regulations 1994)

Ramsar The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Convention Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention or Wetlands Convention) was adopted in Ramsar, Iran in February 1971 and entered into force in December 1975. The Convention covers all aspects of wetland conservation and wise use. The Convention has three main 'pillars' of activity: the designation of wetlands of international importance as Ramsar sites; the promotion of the wise use of all wetlands in the territory of each country; and international co-operation with other countries to further the wise-use of wetlands and their resources. The UK ratified the Convention in 1976. The UK has generally chosen to underpin the designation of its Ramsar sites through prior notification of these areas as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (or Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs) in Northern Ireland). Accordingly, these receive statutory protection under the Wildlife & Countryside Act (WCA) 1981, and the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (JNCC website).

Bern Convention This aims to ensure conservation and protection of all wild plant and animal 1979 species and their natural habitat (listed in Appendices I and II of the Convention), to increase cooperation between contracting parties, and to afford (The Convention on species protection to the most vulnerable or threatened species (including the Conservation of migratory species). European Wildlife

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 37

Legislation Description and Natural Habitats)

The Wildlife and This piece of legislation remains the primary UK mechanism for statutory site Countryside Act designations (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest, SSSI) and the protection 1981 (as amended) of individual species listed under Schedules 1, 2, 5 and 8 of the Act, each subject to varying levels of protection.

The Countryside This legislation strengthens the provisions of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside and Rights of Way Act, both in respect to statutory sites such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest Act 2000 (SSSI’s) and protected species. It also places a statutory obligation on Local Authorities and other public bodies to further the conservation of biodiversity in the exercise of their functions, thus providing a statutory basis to the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) process which began in 1994. Section 74 of the Act lists the habitat types and species of principal importance in England.

Hedgerow In England and Wales the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 are intended to protect Regulations 1997 important countryside hedgerows from destruction or damage. Hedgerows are assessed against a number of criteria before being assigned ‘important’ status. Once this has been achieved, a ‘hedgerow removal notice’ must be obtained from the Local Authority to remove the hedgerow.

Natural This act created Natural England, bringing together the function of English Environment and Nature and certain functions performed by the Countryside Agency and the Rural Communities Rural Development Service. This act also makes additional provisions with (NERC) Act 2006 respect to pesticides harmful to wildlife, invasive non-native species, the protection of biodiversity and the protection of birds. Section 40 of this act introduced a new duty on public bodies to have regard to the purpose of conserving biodiversity in exercising their functions.

Planning Policy PPS9 sets out the Government’s national policies on biodiversity and Statement (PPS) 9: geological conservation in relation to spatial planning in England. It replaces Biodiversity and Planning Policy Guidance Note 9 on Nature Conservation. It outlines a number Geological of key principles in relation to biodiversity. Conservation In addition, Government Circular ODPM 06/2005: “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System” sets out further detail on how species and habitats should be considered during planning applications.

The UK Biodiversity The UK BAP was launched in 1994 with the main aim ‘To conserve and Action Plan (UK enhance biological diversity within the UK, and to contribute to the conservation BAP) of global biodiversity through all appropriate mechanisms’. The UK BAP comprises a series of Action Plans for ‘priority’ habitats (Habitat Action Plans

HAPs) and species (Species Action Plans SAPs), determined by the fact that they are either globally threatened or are rapidly declining in the UK. The action plans outline measures required to conserve these priority habitats and species. The national strategy for biodiversity is delivered at local level via Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs). The Study Area is covered by the Lancashire BAP.

Natural Area Natural Areas are defined by Natural England by examining the ‘local Profiles distinctiveness of each part of England’ and identifying its characteristic wildlife and natural features, and on the land use pattern and human history of each area. They therefore offer a more effective framework for the planning and achievement of nature conservation objectives than do administrative boundaries. They are not designations.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 38

Legislation Description

Natural Area Profiles provide a way for all local interests to determine priorities for nature conservation based on areas with ecological and landscape integrity, and to set objectives which reflect these priorities (Natural England website). 6.3.2 The key legislation for individual species that are relevant to this project is summarised in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Species Legislation Species Key Legal Protection and Policy

Badger (Meles Badgers are subject to legislation contained within the Protection of Badgers meles) Act 1992. This means that it is unlawful to kill, capture, disturb or injure any individual or intentionally damage, destroy, or obstruct an area used for breeding, resting or sheltering badgers.

Bats Bats are protected under the EC Habitats Directive, making it an offence for anyone without a license to disturb a bat or damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of a bat. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence for anyone without a license intentionally or recklessly to damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used for shelter or protection by a bat and to disturb intentionally or recklessly a bat while it is occupying such a site. Seven British species of bat are listed on the UK BAP as Priority Species.

Great crested newt The great crested newt is fully protected under European and UK legislation. It (Triturus cristatus) is listed on Annexes IIa and Via of the EC Habitats Directive) ‘making it an offence to:

- Deliberately, intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a great crested newt. A ‘deliberate’ offence may be committed by a person who did not intend to commit the offence. The offence of deliberately disturbing a great crested newt applies where the disturbance is likely to influence significantly: the ability of any significant population of great crested newt to survive, breed or rear or nurture their young, or the local distribution or abundance of the species.

- Deliberately take/destroy great crested newt eggs.

- Damage or destroy a great crested newt breeding/resting place or intentionally damaging a place used for shelter. Great crested newts are listed on the UK BAP as a Priority Species.

Reptiles All native reptiles are listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and are afforded different levels of protection. The four most commonly occurring species that are relevant to this project include adder (Vipera berus), grass snake (Natrix natrix), common lizard (Lacerta vivipara) and slow worm (Anguis fragilis). This act makes it illegal to kill or injure these species intentionally. All six British reptile species are listed as Priority Species under the UK BAP.

White Clawed White clawed crayfish is protected, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act Crayfish 1981, against being taken from the wild and sold illegally. A license is required (Austropotamobius from Natural England to move or disturb this species, which is regarded as pallipes) being of high conservation concern and is classed as “Globally Threatened” by the IUCN. The white clawed crayfish is listed in Annexes 2 and 5 of the EC Habitats Directive and Appendix III on the Bern Convention. It is one of the key species supported by the Life in UK Rivers Project administered by conservation

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 39

Species Key Legal Protection and Policy agencies, including the Environment Agency and Natural England. The Life project is primarily aimed at developing methods of monitoring and conserving the wildlife and habitats of rivers that form part of the Natura 2000 network of protected European sites. White clawed crayfish is a UK BAP Priority Species. As such, it is targeted for measures necessary to support its conservation status in the UK set out in the SAP. The SAP aims to maintain the current distribution of the species through the provision of suitable habitat features and restricting the spread of non-native crayfish and crayfish plague.

6.4 Methodology and Consultation Desk based data search 6.4.1 Data used in this chapter have been obtained through two separate data searches undertaken during late 2008 and August 2009. 6.4.2 A number of data sources were consulted to establish the recorded and potential nature conservation interest of the site. A search for statutory protected sites within 5 km of the site was undertaken using the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC) database. A search for protected and BAP species and habitats was undertaken using the National Biodiversity Network database and the Natural England Nature on the Map database to a distance of 1km from the site centre. 6.4.3 A number of organisations were contacted in November 2008 to gather information regarding protected species and habitats within 2 km of the site. The following organisations were contacted during August 2009 to update information regarding protected species and habitats within 1km of the site. This included the following consultees:- • Lancashire County Council (LCC) • Lancashire Wildlife Trust (LWT) • Amphibian and Reptile Group of South Lancashire (ARGSL) • The Mammal Society (MS) county recorder • Botanical Society of the British Isles (BSBI) • East Lancashire Biological Records Centre (ELBRC) • Lancashire Badger Group (LBG) • Lancashire County Butterfly Recorder (LCBR) 6.4.4 LCC was initially contacted in 2008 for ornithological data to within 2 km of the survey area. In addition to bird records, the search yielded a large number of general ecological records. LCC was contacted again in August 2009 for updated ecological records and phase 1 habitat data for the same search area. Both sets of data have informed the EcIA, where appropriate. 6.4.5 The data search results are included in Section 6.6 Baseline Conditions. Phase 1 Habitat Surveys 6.4.6 A Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken during September 2009 and involved walking over the Survey Area (as shown on Figure 6.1 – Phase 1 Habitat Map) and recording all the habitats present on a map of the site. Information was collected using the standardised methodology and habitat codes and classifications described in the handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (JNCC, 2007). Target notes were used to describe the habitats and any features of perceived ecological “interest” or “value” or features that had the potential to support protected fauna. These are shown on Figure 6.1 and cross-referenced with the descriptions provided in Appendix 6.1, Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes and Botanical Species List. 6.4.7 During the Phase 1 Habitat Survey, notes were made on the suitability of each habitat for protected species including: badger, bat, great crested newt, reptiles, water vole and white clawed crayfish. When determining which fauna required further survey, the results of these preliminary investigations were

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 40

weighed against the likelihood of impacts on them taking into consideration the indicative wind farm design. Bat Surveys Habitat Assessment 6.4.8 On 22 September 2009 a bat habitat assessment was undertaken. The survey aim was to identify and record features within the survey area, or in the landscape, and their potential value for use by bats for roosting, foraging or commuting. The results of the habitat assessment were used to inform the design of the transect survey and to identify vantage points, taking into account the proposed locations of the new wind turbines. 6.4.9 Each feature identified was assigned a level of bat potential: high, medium or low (as per Table 6.3). Table 6.3 –Value of features on site for bats Feature Location Value Level Traditional stone built Wider landscape Summer roosting and High farm buildings hibernation Stone Walls Site Commuting High Acid grassland Site Foraging Medium Improved grassland Site Foraging Low - Medium (open) Water course Site & wider Foraging and High (Tower Brook) landscape commuting Wooded valley Site Foraging, roosting High (Thorny Bank and commuting Clough/Wood) Community plantation Site Foraging and Medium woodland <10 years old. commuting. Open Water Site Foraging High 6.4.10 The habitat within the survey area included broadleaved woodland, scrub, acid grassland, open standing water, flowing water, linear features (field boundaries including fences and dry stone walls). The site as a whole therefore includes habitats with high potential for roosting, foraging and commuting bats. The site is also connected with the wider landscape by linear features that could be used by commuting bats i.e. stone walls, lines of trees and scrub and a body of flowing water. 6.4.11 The wider landscape also contains traditional stone buildings which contain features of particular significance for roosting bats. Selection of Vantage Points and Transects 6.4.12 The transect route (Figure 6.2) and vantage points (Figure 6.3) were chosen in order to cover all high potential habitats on site. Each vantage point was a distance of between 40 m and <300 m away from any given proposed location of wind turbine. Table 6.4. Summary of Vantage Points and Habitat Types Vantage Point Habitats 1 - 2 Acid grassland Dry stone walls Tower Brook 2 - 3 Acid grassland Dry stone walls Hawthorn scrub Thorny Bank Woodland edge 3 – 4 Acid grassland Hawthorn scrub Thorny Bank Woodland edge 4 – 5 Thorny Bank Woodland Broadleaved Plantation Woodland < 10 years Tower Brook 5 – 6 Thorny Bank Woodland Broadleaved Plantation Woodland < 10 years Tower Brook 6 – 7 Open water (farm pond) Acid grassland Dry stone Walls

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 41

Vantage Point Habitats 7 - 8 Acid grassland 8 – 9 Acid grassland Dry stone Walls 9 - 10 Acid grassland Dry stone Walls Edge of discussed quarry 10 – 1 Acid grassland Tower Brook Edge of discussed quarry Transect Surveys 6.4.13 The site was first surveyed on 22nd September 2009. Subsequent surveys were carried out during October when night-time temperatures were >8oC and weather conditions were deemed suitable for bat activity. 6.4.14 Ground conditions on site were poor due to continual puddling of the ground by cattle. Purple moor grass (Molinea caerulea) also made progress slow and awkward at night. To overcome this problem and to maximise the number of bat records, an Anabat detector was placed close to a number of potentially important habitat features, in two separate locations. (see Figure 6.4). The Anabat was set to begin recording from 30 minutes before sunset until shortly after sunrise. This equipment was used on two of the surveys. 6.4.15 Dusk/night time transects were walked from 15 minutes prior to sunset until completion (approximately two hours after sunset). Dawn transects commenced approximately two hours before sunrise and continued until completion. The foraging period was typically curtailed by rapidly decreasing temperatures by about two hours after sunset. Therefore the timings of the surveys adequately covered the likely bat emergence, re-entry and peak periods of foraging activity when invertebrate prey was most abundant. 6.4.16 The starting point of the transect route was alternated between different vantage points on each survey. This approach helps to provide more detailed information on the distribution of bat activity across the site at different times of the night. It can also help to identify the potential direction of bats commuting from or to roosts. 6.4.17 Stops were made for five minutes at each vantage point, during which time all bat activity was recorded. 6.4.18 Bat calls were monitored/recorded using a Batbox Duet frequency division bat detector with a suitable MP3 recording device. Locations of recorded bat activity were noted on a map along with the possible species and its behaviour. The MP3 track number associated with each call was recorded carefully so that MP3 recordings could later be analysed in accordance with the notes recorded on site. Recorded bat calls were subsequently analysed using BatSound software to identify bats to species level. 6.4.19 The survey dates, times, weather conditions and analytical/survey techniques used on each visit are summarised in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5 Survey Details

Date Sunset/Rise Survey Anabat Weather Conditions Times Information

22/09/09 19.05 19.05 – Located on a dry Clear and dry, 12oC, wind speed 21.22 stone wall close to 7km/h the southern end of Tower Brook.

23/09/09 06.55 04.27 - As above Light intermittent rain, 11.5oC, wind 06.55 speed 9 km/h

05/10/09 18.40 18.04 – Located next to a 8.5oC, dry, light breeze 20.45 dry stone wall adjacent to Thorny Bank Wood.

14/10/09 18.15 18.15 – not Anabat not used Overcast, calm, low cloud. 14oC.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 42

Date Sunset/Rise Survey Anabat Weather Conditions Times Information recorded

15/10/09 07.35 05.15 – not Anabat not used Low cloud and poor visibility. Only recorded part of the transect was walked due to unsuitable weather conditions.

15/10/09 18.13 18.00 – not Anabat not used Calm. Drizzle just before the start of recorded the survey. 14oC.

6.5 Evaluation and Assessment Methodology 6.5.1 The method of evaluation follows a combination of guidance published in IEEM (2006), Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995) and Hill et al. (2005). The overall impact significance is derived from a matrix of the perceived nature conservation value of the site/feature/species (herein referred to as “the receptor”) and the likely magnitude of the potential impact. 6.5.2 The determination of nature conservation value and impact magnitude are guided by the generic summary criteria shown in Tables 6.6 and 6.7 respectively in combination with subjective judgements, where appropriate, based on the experience and expertise of the author. The judgement of nature conservation value is also guided by additional advice outlined in the Ratcliffe Criteria (Ratcliffe, 1977) and Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (IEEM, 2006). Table 6.6 Determining Nature Conservation Value (Adapted from Hill et al., 2005). Nature Conservation Selected Examples Value Very High • An internationally designated site or candidate site (Special Protection (International) Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Ramsar Site, Biogenetic reserve). • Internationally significant and viable areas of a habitat type listed in Annexe 1 of the Habitats Directive. • Any regularly occurring globally threatened species. • Any regularly occurring populations of internationally important species that are rare or threatened in the UK or of uncertain conservation status. • A regularly occurring significant population/number of any internationally important species. High • A nationally designated site (SSSI, National Nature Reserve (NNR)) or a (National) discrete area which meets the published selection criteria for national designation irrespective of whether it has yet to be notified. • A viable area of a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitat or of smaller areas of such habitat that is essential to maintain the viability of a larger whole and populations of BAP priority species. • A regularly occurring significant population/number of any nationally important species i.e. listed on the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended). • Any regularly occurring population of a nationally important species that is threatened or rare in the county or region. • A feature identified as of critical importance in the UK BAP. Medium • Viable areas of key habitat identified in the Regional BAP or smaller areas (Regional/ County) of such a habitat which are essential to maintain the viability of the larger whole. • Any regularly occurring significant population of a species listed as being nationally scarce, or in the local BAP or relevant Natural Area Profile on account of its regional rarity or localisation. • Significant populations of a regionally/county important species. • Sites such as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, selected on Regional/County criteria. • Any regularly occurring significant population that is listed in a Local RDB or BAP on account of its rarity or localisation. Low (Local) • Areas identified in a Local BAP or in the relevant Natural Area Profile. • Sites/features that are scarce within the locality or which appreciably enrich the local area’s habitat resource. • A diverse and/or ecologically important hedgerow network.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 43

• A significant population of a locally important species i.e. listed on a Local BAP. • Species populations of local importance. Negligible (Parish) • Areas of habitat considered to enrich the habitat resource appreciably within the context of the Parish or Neighbourhood.

Table 6.7 Determining Magnitude of the Potential Impact Magnitude Criteria The proposed development will have effects which would result in a change in the Major integrity of a site, or a change in the ability of a species to retain its current negative population levels (at a regional or higher level). Intermediate The proposed development will have effects which would alter key attributes of a negative site but which would not result in a change to a site’s evaluation, or will result in changes in the distribution of a species but not affect its population status at a regional level. The proposed development will have effects which would neither alter key attributes Minor of a site nor change its evaluation, or will affect the distribution or status of a species negative at a local level. Neutral No impact. The proposed development will provide effects having a net gain for ecology and Positive nature conservation. 6.5.3 Impact assessments without mitigation are shown for each receptor in Section 6.7. Mitigation measures and impact assessments with mitigation are shown in Section 6.8. These fall into one of the impact significance categories shown in Table 6.8 and Table 6.9 respectively. Table 6.8 Ecological Impact Significance Nature Magnitude of Potential Impacts Conservation Major Intermediate Minor Neutral Positive Value negative negative negative Very high Very large Large Slight Neutral Large adverse adverse adverse beneficial High Very large Large Slight Neutral Large adverse adverse adverse beneficial Medium Moderate Moderate Slight Neutral Moderate adverse adverse adverse beneficial Low Slight Slight Slight Neutral Slight adverse adverse adverse beneficial Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 6.5.4 Irrespective of its Ecological Impact Significance, the overall proposal must not contravene the law with respect to protected species and designated nature conservation sites. Mitigation may be required to meet this requirement.

6.6 Baseline Conditions 6.6.1 This section provides a review of the ecological characteristics of the survey area, based on the results of the desk study and the surveys carried out by AECOM. 6.6.2 At the time of the site visits carried out during August 2009 the whole of the survey area was accessible. All surveys have been carried out at the appropriate time of the year and under suitable conditions. Desk Study Statutory Sites 6.6.3 There are no statutory designated sites (SAC, SPA, Ramsar sites or SSSIs) within 5 km of the proposed wind farm site. Non-statutory sites 6.6.4 Biological Heritage Sites (BHS) are county-level site designations for nature conservation. The following BHS’s (shown in Table 6.9) were identified within 2 km of the land available for development, the details of which were supplied by LCC. The site citation and boundary for Thorny Bank Clough are included as Appendix 6.2. The locations of all BHSs within the Study Area are shown on the ecology plan supplied by LCC, also included in Appendix 6.2.

Table 6.9 Biological Heritage Site Data (Received from LCC)

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 44

Site name Grid Distance from Description/Citation/Reasons for Designation Reference nearest proposed turbine Houghton SD790307 Approx. 1.2 km Semi-natural plantation woodland following a stream Hey NW and tributaries. Botanical interest. Plantation Hameldon SD788296 Approx. 900 m W Upland habitats on the flanks of Hameldon Common Scout and surrounds. Habitat interest including heath, acid and neutral grassland, flushes, artificial rock outcrops. Locally rare clubmosses. Thornybank SD800301 Approx. 65 m SW Flushed species-rich grassland, woodland and scrub Clough mosaic within a narrow-steep sided clough and tributary. Defines part of the western edge of the Survey Area. Pollard SD794323 Approx 1.3 km – Complex habitat mosaic including neutral grassland, Moor, 1.7 km N acid grassland, modified bog, flushes, scattered Hapton scrub and trees. Common and Bentley Wood Green Species and Habitats 6.6.5 A comprehensive set of ecological data was received from LCC. The ecology plan supplied by LCC (Appendix 6.2) includes a few records of water vole (Arvicola terrestris) from the wider area, none of which are within the Survey Area. It also shows Phase 1 Habitat data held by LCC. The findings of the LCC are similar to the findings of the Phase 1 Habitat survey carried out by AECOM, showing a mix of predominantly acid and improved grassland, marshy grassland and broadleaved woodland with some mire habitats on the upper reaches of Hameldon Common. 6.6.6 LCC species data include records at a resolution of 1 km2 and also from tetrads (2 km x 2 km), of which there are 25 within each 10 x10 km grid square. The existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm lies partly within three of these tetrads. Records from the appropriate tetrads and grid references are included in Appendix 6.2 for reference. Few of these records can be pinpointed to an exact location, however those that can (ivy-leaved crowfoot Ranunculus hederaceus, large bittercress Cardamine amara, bluebell Hyacinthoides non-scripta and Sphagnum) all appear to be within Thorny Bank Wood or on the upland habitats to the south. 6.6.7 Records of bats within 2 km of the land available for development were received from East Lancashire Biological Records centre and LCC. No roost sites have been identified. Bat records from within 2 km of the site, centred on SD806300, are summarised in Table 6.10. The NBN holds no records of bats within 1 km of the centre of the site.

Table 6.10: Bat Records from data search

Date Grid Location Species Comment Reference Name

Pipistrellus pipistrellus – 23/05/06 SD814316 Cemetery Foraging Common Pipistrelle

Pipistrellus pygmaeus – 23/05/06 SD814316 Cemetery Foraging Soprano pipistrelle

Plecotus auritus – Brown Long 23/05/06 SD814316 Cemetery Foraging Eared

23/05/06 SD814316 Cemetery Myotis nattereri – Natterers Foraging Pipistrellus pipistrellus – 07/06/08 SD798311 A679 Common Pipistrelle Car Survey Pipistrellus pipistrellus – 07/06/08 SD813314 A679 Common Pipistrelle Car Survey Pipistrellus pipistrellus – 07/06/08 SD809318 A679 Common Pipistrelle Car Survey

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 45

Date Grid Location Species Comment Reference Name Pipistrellus pipistrellus – Cemetery 07/06/08 SD809319 Common Pipistrelle Car Survey Woods

Cemetery 07/06/08 SD809319 Myotis sp. Car Survey Woods

Cemetery 07/06/08 SD809319 Nyctalus noctule – Noctule Car Survey Woods

1986- SD8032 N/A Common pipistrelle LCC record 1996

1986- SD8032 N/A Common pipistrelle LCC record 1996

1986- SD8032 N/A Common pipistrelle LCC record 1996

1986- SD8032 N/A Common pipistrelle LCC record 1996

1986- SD8032 N/A Common pipistrelle LCC record 1996 Surveys Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Faunal Assessments 6.6.8 The Survey Area and immediate surroundings are characterised by improved pasture, wet acid grassland, rush-dominated but heavily modified mire habitats and marshy grassland, intersected by a number of small, deep-cut watercourses (cloughs). Thorny Bank Clough defines the western edge of the Survey Area and is flanked by a strip of mature mixed woodland. Some of the coarse grassland habitats on Hapton Park and close to Thorny Bank Wood have recently been planted up with saplings and set aside as community woodland. Parts of the Survey Area have a history of quarrying. The Survey Area supports the farming of livestock. 6.6.9 Access to the site was gained along a farm track off Accrington Road (A679). The track is lined by dry stone walls and over much of its length is flanked by grass verges supporting a semi-improved neutral grassland flora including species such as false oat-grass (Arrhenatherum elatius), Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), cock’s-foot (Dactylis glomerata), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), crested dog’s tail (Cynosurus cristatus), white clover (Trifolium repens), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens), patches of creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and common nettle (Urtica dioica). 6.6.10 The remainder of this section describes the site in its entirety, which is broken down into a series of target notes describing the habitats present and the species found in each habitat. The target notes also include information about the potential faunal interest of each habitat, where relevant, with particular reference to legally protected species that might require further species-specific surveys in support of any planning application. 6.6.11 The target notes have been tabulated for the sake of clarity (Appendix 6.1). The target notes are cross- referenced with the Phase 1 Habitat map (Figure 6.1). A complete list of all plant species recorded throughout the site is included as Appendix 6.1. 6.6.12 The assessment of faunal interest presented herein has been used to guide the scope of the additional survey work carried out for the EcIA. Bat Surveys 6.6.13 Common pipistrelle was the only species of bat recorded within the survey area during the transect surveys although additional species were identified from Anabat data. 6.6.14 The results from the bat activity surveys are summarised in Table 6.11 and Figures 6.5a – 6.5d. The raw survey data are included as Appendix 6.3

Table 6.11 Summary of Bat Activity Survey Results

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 46

Time Location of bat/ Species Behaviour Number of observed comments (emerging/foraging etc.) bats

22/09/09 - Dusk

19.42 Close to VP4 on the Common Foraging 1 edge of Thorny Bank Pipistrelle Wood

19.48-19.53 VP5 Common Foraging 2 Pipistrelle

19.55 Concentrated Common Foraging 2 feeding along Pipistrelle woodland edge and interior

19.57 Heard but not seen Common Commuting 1 Pipistrelle

19.59 Several passes and Common Commuting and foraging 1 feeding buzzes of Pipistrelle individuals feeding in woodland

20.03-20.08 VP6 – concentrated Common Foraging 1 feeding along Pipistrelle woodland edge and interior

20.10 Several passes of a Common Commuting 1 single individual Pipistrelle

20.15 Heard but not seen Common Commuting 1 Pipistrelle

21.20 Foraging along Common Foraging 1 conifer hedge of Pipistrelle access track

23/09/09 - Dawn

05.38 Heard but not seen Common Commuting 1 Pipistrelle

05.39-05.44 VP6 – concentrated Common Foraging 1 feeding along Pipistrelle woodland edge

05.48 Concentrated Common Foraging 2 feeding along Pipistrelle woodland edge and interior

05.51-05.56 VP5 - Foraging Common Foraging 1 along woodland Pipistrelle edge

05.59 Foraging along Common Foraging 1 woodland edge Pipistrelle

06.04-06.09 VP4 - Foraging Common Foraging 1 along woodland Pipistrelle edge

06.13 Heard but not seen Common Commuting 1

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 47

Time Location of bat/ Species Behaviour Number of observed comments (emerging/foraging etc.) bats Pipistrelle

05/10/09 - Dusk

19.25 In gulley of Tower Common Foraging 1 Brook Pipistrelle

20.20 Track near farm Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

20.23 Farm Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

14/10/09 – Dusk

18.50 Track near farm Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

19.00 – 19.05 VP7 Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

- VP8 Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

- Between VP8 and 9 Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

- VP9 Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

- In gulley of Tower Common Commuting 1 Brook Pipistrelle

19.52 – 19.57 VP1 Common Commuting 1 Pipistrelle

20.48 – 20.53 VP7 Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

15/10/09 – Dawn

No bats recorded

15/10/09 - Dusk

18.40-18.45 Between VP2 and 3 Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

18.50-18.55 Between VP1 and 2 Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

19.10-19.15 VP2 Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

19.25-19.30 VP4 Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

- Between VP4 and 5 Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

19.35-19.40 VP5 Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

19.42-19.47 VP6 Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 48

Time Location of bat/ Species Behaviour Number of observed comments (emerging/foraging etc.) bats

19.52-19.57 VP7 Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle

20.04 Track near farm Common Foraging 1 Pipistrelle 6.6.15 Small numbers of bats were recorded across the whole site, almost exclusively adjacent to tree lines, dry stone walls or other linear features. Very few bats were recorded foraging or commuting over open habitats. It was also noted that bat activity was greatest around the structure habitats such as woodland areas and hedgerows linking potential feeding habitats. 6.6.16 The majority of bat activity was recorded from close to or above Thorny Bank Wood. In general, bat activity was greatest within the western boundary of the survey area away from the location of the existing turbines. This area was also closest to the farm buildings to the north and west of the site which could provide possible roosting habitat. 6.6.17 Common pipistrelle activity was also recorded on a number of occasions along the access track leading to the site. The access track is bordered in part by a tall hedgerow often used by bats for the purpose of commuting. The track eventually connects directly to the northern end of Thorny Bank Wood. There was also recorded activity around the vicinity of the existing turbine that lies furthest west. No high risk species, such as noctule (Nyctalus noctula) were recorded during the transect surveys. 6.6.18 Data collected using the Anabat bat detector support the findings of the bat activity surveys. The bat recordings collated by the Anabat show that Thorny Bank Wood is regularly used for foraging by a small number of bats. Only common pipistrelles were recorded by the Anabat when it was positioned on the north east corner of Thorny Bank Wood. 6.6.19 In addition, the Anabat detector recorded a high level of activity at the southern end of the site close to Tower Brook. Common pipistrelle was the most regularly recorded species in this area. A total of 25 passes of Nathusius’ pipistrelle (Pipistrellus nathusii) were recorded and two recordings of noctule were recorded on one night when the Anabat was positioned south of Tower Brook (as shown on Figure 6.4). Tower Brook was identified during the Bat Habitat Assessment as being of high value for foraging and commuting bats.

6.7 Evaluation, Ecological Effects and Significance Designated Sites 6.7.1 There will be no impact on statutory sites as a result of the proposed wind farm extension. 6.7.2 Houghton Hey Plantation, Hameldon Scout, Thorny Bank Clough and Pollard Moor, Hapton Common and Bentley Wood Green are listed as BHS’s and as such are considered to have a Nature Conservation Value of Medium (Regional/County) Importance. 6.7.3 During construction of the turbines there will be no direct impact on statutory or non-statutory sites. Thorny Bank Clough BHS is the only site within the survey area. However, the nearest turbine will be sited approximately 65m to the east of the site. This is far enough from the BHS to result in no direct or indirect impacts of the turbine on the site. The impact significance is therefore Neutral. 6.7.4 Access to the location of this turbine will be gained from the track which already exists adjacent to Thorny Bank Clough BHS. Vehicular movements along this track will therefore be increased from current levels as a result of construction and maintenance traffic. This could lead to one or more direct impacts such as dust emissions, noise and pollution (such as minor spillages of fuel). This is likely to be no more than an occasional impact of Minor Negative magnitude and an overall impact significance of Slight Adverse. Habitats 6.7.5 There is the potential for contamination of soils and vegetation through spillages of fuel and oils, during both construction and decommissioning of the turbines. This is an impact of Moderate Negative magnitude at site level (as any spillages and contamination could cause a significant impact on the habitat resource, but not adversely affect its integrity), however the likelihood of such an occurrence is slight. Given that the habitats that could be affected are of low and negligible (Parish) value, the overall impact significance is Slight Adverse.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 49

6.7.6 It is not anticipated that there will be any impact on the habitats during the operational phase of the wind farm, therefore the overall impact significance will be Neutral. 6.7.7 The layout of the turbines (as shown on Figure 3.1) shows that the turbine tracks will directly affect improved and semi-improved acid and neutral grassland, and mixed plantation woodland. The majority of the access routes will be via existing farm tracks. These impacts are assessed in the following paragraphs. Woodland, trees and scrub 6.7.8 Two types of woodland occur within the survey area; these are semi-natural broadleaved woodland and broadleaved plantation woodland. None of the trees within the Survey Area will be removed during any part of the construction or operation of the wind farm. 6.7.9 Thorny Bank Wood is not listed on areas of ‘important broadleaved woodland’ defined on the Lancashire BAP (2009) and this type of woodland is not listed on the UK BAP. Plantation woodland is also not listed on either the UK BAP or Lancashire BAP. These areas of woodland are therefore considered to have a Nature Conservation Value of Low (Local) importance. 6.7.10 The grid connections required for the turbines will be laid beneath the current and proposed access tracks, which will be widened to accommodate wind farm traffic and heavy plant. All access tracks will be 5m wide once they have been constructed or upgraded. This will include 2.9 km of existing farm tracks and 0.37 km of new access track. However, these will be restored to 3 m width after construction. 6.7.11 The widening and use of the access track which currently borders Thorny Bank Wood (en route to Turbine 2) may involve the disturbance or accidental damage to mature trees, particularly overhanging canopies . This will constitute a direct and permanent adverse impact on the BHS and is considered to be Intermediate Negative, resulting in an overall impact significance of Moderate Adverse. There is no additional impact associated with the grid connection as it will be installed within the footprint of the access tracks. 6.7.12 Scattered trees and scrub occur within the northern boundaries of the site. These are considered to have a Nature Conservation Value of Negligible (Parish) importance. These will not be impacted during construction, operation or decommissioning of the wind farm, therefore the overall impact significance will be Neutral for these habitat features. Grasslands 6.7.13 Improved grassland and semi-improved acid grassland are the most extensive habitats within the survey area. These are not listed as priority habitats on the UK or Lancashire BAP and are considered to be of Negligible (Parish) Nature Conservation Value. 6.7.14 A site compound (approximately 40 m x 70 m) will be built in an enclosed area of improved grassland south of Old Barn Cottage, and a substation will be built on an area of semi-improved acid grassland to the south of this area. 6.7.15 It is considered that the construction of the turbines, site compound and substation will have a Minor Negative impact on these habitats, due to the small amount of land-take required. This will have a resulting impact significance of Neutral. 6.7.16 It is considered that the widening of existing farm access tracks, the construction of short lengths of new access track and the installation of grid connection cables will incur a Minor Negative impact on the semi-improved neutral and semi-improved acid grassland, due to the small amount of land-take required for this infrastructure. As these habitats are considered to have a Nature Conservation Value of Negligible (Parish) Importance, the overall impact significance of the access track upgrade and creation (including the laying of the grid connection cable) will be Neutral. 6.7.17 The process of decommissioning the wind farm extension will involve the replacement of the grassland habitats lost to wind farm infrastructure. It is anticipated that the habitats will be replaced like for like. This is considered to have a Neutral impact on the grassland habitats, resulting in an overall impact significance of Neutral. 6.7.18 Neutral and Marshy grassland areas are found predominantly towards the south of the site. These habitats are not listed on the UK or Lancashire BAP and are considered to have a Nature Conservation Value of Negligible (Parish) importance. It is considered that the construction of the turbines will have a Minor Negative impact on these habitats due to the small amount of land take required. The position of Turbine 2 avoids any loss of the herb-rich marshy grassland habitat described in TN10. The overall

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 50

impact significance of turbine construction, operation and decommission on these habitats is therefore Neutral. Hedgerows 6.7.19 Two sections of species-poor hedgerow occur at the northern end of the site. Due to the fact that these are heavily managed and consist of only one species, the hedgerows are considered to have a Nature Conservation Value of Negligible (Parish) importance. The construction, operation and decommission of the turbines and access tracks will not require the removal or degradation of any of these habitats, therefore the impact on them will be Neutral, resulting in an overall impact significance of Neutral. Standing Water 6.7.20 There are two small areas of standing water towards the northern end of the site, one of which is fed by Tower Brook and Thorny Bank Clough, the other fed via issues flowing north towards Old Barn Cottage. Ponds are listed on the UK BAP as priority habitats and are therefore of High Nature Conservation Value. However, all construction activities and the operational turbines will be of sufficient distance from these features to have no direct impact upon them (Neutral), resulting in an overall impact significance of Neutral. 6.7.21 There is a very minor chance that spillages of fuel and oil near the turbines during construction, operation and decommission could indirectly affect these areas of standing water. The chances of this happening are minimised by the distance of construction activities from all watercourses and standing water, however in acknowledgment of the possibility of such an occurrence, the impacts are regarded as Minor Adverse, resulting in an overall impact significance of Slight Adverse. Tall herb and fern 6.7.22 Continuous bracken is found in patches towards the centre of the site. It is therefore considered to have a Nature Conservation Importance of Negligible (Parish) Importance. Given the distance of construction/decommissioning activities and (proposed) operational infrastructure from these habitats the impact of the wind farm upon them is likely to be Neutral, resulting in an overall impact significance of Neutral. Fauna 6.7.23 It was considered from the preliminary faunal assessment that great crested newt, white-clawed crayfish, reptiles and badger could be scoped out of any further assessment. This is justified on a species by species basis in the following paragraphs. Great Crested Newt 6.7.24 Although two ponds were found within close proximity of the access tracks and proposed turbines, neither of these ponds will be directly affected by construction and operation of the wind farm extension. Furthermore, suitable terrestrial habitat is found only on the coarser tussocky and rush-dominated grassland habitats of the upper slopes of the site and within the woodland habitats around Thorny Bank Clough. None of these habitats will be affected by the proposed wind farm extension. The habitats that will be occupied by the proposed wind farm infrastructure are all closely grazed improved/semi-improved grasslands and, as such, are largely unsuitable for this species. 6.7.25 No records for great crested newt were identified by the data search consultees. Due to the fact that the optimal habitat for great crested newt is found surrounding the ponds, and not in the areas proposed for the turbines, it is considered that no further surveys will be necessary for this species. White clawed crayfish 6.7.26 There is no apparent connectivity between the watercourses that drain the survey area and larger watercourses in the wider area. This significantly reduces the likelihood that crayfish occur in these sites. White clawed crayfish are principally found in alkaline waters, and require calcium during the moulting process (Holdich, 2003). Therefore the acidic upland habitat found on site further reduces the likelihood of crayfish occurring here due to the lack of calcium carbonate in the water, which crayfish require for growth. It is therefore considered that no further surveys will be necessary for this species. Water vole 6.7.27 Although records for water vole in the wider area were identified by the data search consultees, the watercourses within the site itself were not considered suitable for water vole due to the lack of connectivity to other watercourses close to the site; which water vole require for dispersal. This

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 51

significantly reduces the likelihood that water vole occur in the survey area. It is therefore considered that no further surveys will be necessary for this species. Reptiles 6.7.28 The majority of the site, including all areas targeted for development, was considered to provide unsuitable habitat. Optimal habitat for reptiles was found on the coarser acid grasslands and modified mire habitats of the southern parts of the survey area. There was also some suitable refugia habitat within the wooded areas around Thorny Bank Clough. None of these habitats will be affected by the proposed development. The mitigation outlined within this ES will enable the protection of these habitats from any development-related disturbance or damage. 6.7.29 It is therefore not considered necessary to carry out any additional surveys for reptiles. Badger 6.7.30 A single entrance badger sett was found in woodland edge habitat on the upper eastern bank of Thorny Bank Clough as a result of the preliminary faunal survey. This sett is approximately 430 m south-west of the nearest proposed turbine, and will therefore not suffer any direct adverse impacts associated with construction or operation of the wind farm extension. 6.7.31 There is a small possibility that commuting routes or foraging areas may be temporarily disrupted, although no signs of these were found during the preliminary walkover. Badgers are considered to be of Low (Local) nature conservation value, and, as a worst case scenario, the disruption that the construction and decommission phase may cause is likely to be a Minor Negative impact. This will therefore result in an overall ecological impact significance of Slight Adverse. Bats 6.7.32 The impact assessments relating to bats are based on surveys carried out during autumn, when fluctuating night time temperatures may have adversely affected bat activity. The impact assessments are based on survey data collected from a sub-optimal survey period, however, these data have been used to cautiously assess the impacts of the wind farm extension on bats at the site. It is difficult to evaluate the bat assemblages recorded in the survey area as bat roosts were not identified and it is unknown if the populations are regularly occurring. Therefore the nature conservation evaluation presented here is based on consideration of the conservation status and turbine collision risk of individual species. 6.7.33 Natural England have produced tables in the Bats and Onshore Wind Turbines: Interim Guidance (2009) listing bat species likely to be at risk of impact with turbines, and populations likely to be threatened due to impacts with turbines based on their ecology, flight height and behaviour. 6.7.34 The bat species recorded at Hameldon Hill and their associated risk are shown in Table 6.12:

Table 6.12: Collision risk of bat species recorded at Hameldon Hill based upon Natural England 2009 Bat species Risk of impact with turbines Populations likely to be threatened due to impacts with turbines Common pipistrelle Medium Low

Nathusius’ pipistrelle High High Noctule High High

6.7.35 Bat species classified as being of low risk from turbines and using the criteria described in Table 6.6, common pipistrelle have been determined as being of Low (local) importance. Common pipistrelle remain relatively abundant (i.e. not rare or endangered) and are widespread in distribution in the UK and in Lancashire. The number of passes recorded on site of this species therefore represents only a small proportion of the UK and regional populations. Although it is recognised that there are habitat features for common pipistrelle within the site, these are very well represented within the wider area. 6.7.36 The conservation status for noctules and Nathusius’ pipistrelles is based on the criteria described in Table 6.6 and is supported by the Natural England collision risk rating (Table 6.12). These bats have therefore been determined as being of High (National) importance. Noctules are a UK BAP species and are considered to be widespread but uncommon within Lancashire whereas Nathusius’ pipistrelle is widespread and rare both within the UK and in Lancashire. Given the limitations of the surveys

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 52

undertaken (i.e. surveys undertaken late in the season) it is acknowledged that the presence of these high risk species is significant albeit the level of activity recorded remains low. 6.7.37 Light and dust pollution are likely to occur during construction. Some high wattage security lights or working lights may be erected and may affect existing bat flightlines and may even prevent roosting in some areas or discourage emergence. 6.7.38 Light can be of benefit to certain species such as pipistrelle because artificial light sources can attract insect prey, whereas Myotis species tend to be light shy and are discouraged by the light. However, it is acknowledged that lighting is most likely to have a detrimental effect on bats (Mitchell-Jones, 2004) and, on balance, the impact of lighting will be Minor Negative in magnitude. This will equate to a Slight Adverse overall impact for high and low risk bat species. 6.7.39 Little is known about how noise and vibration affect bats, but it is likely that ultrasonic noise from diesel engines or site machinery may interfere with bats echolocation calls or ‘confuse’ them (Harbusch and Bach, 2005). As the majority of the work will be carried out during the day, the effect of this is likely to be no more than Minor Negative and the impact significance is Slight Adverse for high and low risk bat species. However, if works are required at night in special circumstances the magnitude of impact will increase to Intermediate Negative, having a Large Adverse impact on high risk species and a Slight Adverse impact for low risk species. 6.7.40 A potential impact that may arise during the operational phase of the wind farm extension is bat mortality caused by collisions with moving turbine blades. Bats may also, as recently discovered, suffer from Barotraumas (Baerwald et al, 2008) when bats come in to close contact with turbines and suffer lung injury. This can be exacerbated by the fact that bats tend to follow established flightlines, and are therefore greatly affected by the siting of turbines. Tower Brook is considered to be a valuable resource for foraging and commuting bats. The risk of collision at Turbine 1 is considered to be higher at this location than the other two proposed turbines due to its proximity to the clough. Turbines 2 and 3 are positioned at a sufficient distance from any of the recorded flightlines (such as the eastern border of Thorny Bank Wood) so as to minimise the risk of collision. The overall magnitude of the impacts of all three turbines is considered to be Intermediate Negative (as per Table 6.7 – Determining Magnitude of Potential Impact). This will therefore have a Large Adverse effect on high risk species and a Slight Adverse effect on low risk species. 6.7.41 The disruption of flightlines in the short term during construction and in the long term during the operational phase of the wind farm extension may have an overall minor negative effect on the distribution of bats and their use of such flightlines but is unlikely to affect roosts or the local population. The magnitude of impact is, therefore, considered to be Minor Negative with an impact significance of Slight Adverse for both high and low risk species. 6.7.42 The ultrasound calls emitted by bats enable them to ‘see’ at night and also to locate prey. Some turbine types are found to emit sound at around 30 kHz (Schröder, 1997), which is a frequency at which some bats echolocate and harmonise. It is widely believed that ultrasonic noise originating from artificial sources can both repel and attract bats, although this potential impact is poorly understood. The noise of the proposed turbines may interfere with the echolocation calls of bats, however, there is insufficient evidence to predict accurately the magnitude of this impact. This has cautiously been assessed as an Intermediate Negative impact, however it is anticipated that the overall impact significance will not exceed Moderate Adverse for high risk species and Slight Adverse for low risk species, based on the wind farm extension design and the overall distribution and moderate intensity of recorded bat activity. 6.7.43 It is likely that the short term impacts on bats associated with decommissioning will be similar to those associated with construction. 6.7.44 Light and dust pollution are likely to occur during decommissioning. Some high wattage security lights or working lights may be erected and, if so, they will affect existing bat flightlines and may even prevent roosting in some areas or discourage emergence. Light can however benefit certain species such as pipistrelle as insect prey will often gather around artificial light, whereas Myotis species tend to be light shy and are discouraged by light. This will be a direct impact of Minor Negative magnitude therefore equating to a Slight Adverse ecological impact for both high and low risk species.

6.8 Mitigation and Enhancement 6.8.1 This section describes measures that will be taken to mitigate the predicted adverse ecological impacts of the proposed wind farm extension. Four common forms of mitigation are recognised:

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 53

• Avoidance - Avoidance and prevention of adverse impacts through scheme design and sensitive programming of works. • Reduction - Mitigation to reduce the scale and severity of unavoidable impacts, for example restricting the working area in locations of ecological interest or perceived value. • Restoration - Reinstatement to replace ecologically sensitive habitats through habitat recreation, for example restoration of species diverse grasslands affected by the works. • Enhancement - Enhancement and improvement of existing conditions, for example planting species chosen to enhance the diversity and ecological interest of the reinstated area. 6.8.2 The most effective mitigation of ecological impacts is avoidance by careful positioning of turbines and associated infrastructure to avoid areas of ecological importance. This has been achieved as far as possible, using available field and desk based survey information to inform the wind farm extension design. Habitats 6.8.3 Habitat mitigation is often guided by the protected species surveys as the presence of particular protected species influences the precise habitat mitigation and enhancement strategies. 6.8.4 Best practice mitigation will be followed to avoid the contamination of soils and vegetation through spillages of fuel and oils. This will include: • Refuelling and servicing of vehicles/machinery within a designated area with an impermeable base, and using a trigger delivery nozzle to refuel. • Maintenance of all machinery in good working order and checking it regularly. • Storage of fuel, oil and other potential pollutants in bunded tanks to 110% of the volume stored. • Storing the minimum amount of fuel on site. • Keeping oil-absorbent material on site and carrying spill kits in all site vehicles. • Fencing working areas and tracks to prevent encroachment on to habitats. • Minimising the stockpiling of materials and restricting them to designated, fenced areas. • Removal and disposal of waste materials at the earliest opportunity. Woodland, Trees and Scrub 6.8.5 All woodland, scattered mature trees and scrub will be retained as part of the development. The access track bordering Thorny Bank Wood will be widened away from the woodland, so that all potential land- take occurs on the eastern side. Any trees within the working area will be protected using a post and ‘Netlon’ fluorescent mesh fence or similar to demarcate protected areas. The fence will be placed at the minimum of the radius of the crown of the tree. The protective fencing will be maintained for the duration of all site works and no machinery or materials will be stored within the fenced area. Materials and machinery should be stored within a designated site compound only. Fencing will be left until all the machinery and materials have been removed from the site. 6.8.6 If the roots of any retained trees are damaged during the development, they will be treated with an appropriate fungicide to prevent the spread of disease. 6.8.7 Best practice mitigation (as outlined above) will be followed in order to minimise the risk of accidental damage to woodland, trees and scrub. Hedgerows 6.8.8 Given that the hedge bordering the northern part of the development site is species poor, it will not be classed as ‘important’ under The Hedgerow Regulations (1997). 6.8.9 It is considered that ‘gapping up’ of hedgerows can be implemented as a habitat enhancement measure. This will maintain and enhance the habitat connectivity and continuity, and will form continuous links between existing hedgerows, woodland and scrub, particularly along the northern periphery of the development. Wherever possible, planting will be undertaken at the earliest opportunity. 6.8.10 Best practice mitigation will be followed in order to minimise the risk of accidental damage to hedgerows. Marshy Grassland, Acid Grassland and Tall Herb and Fern Vegetation

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 54

6.8.11 The loss of grassland habitats and small areas of bracken have already been mitigated as far as possible through the minimisation of land-take by careful site layout and wind farm design. Unavoidable habitat loss will be kept to a minimum and disturbance will be avoided by imposing clear and rigorous site rules requiring all contractors and visitors to operate within marked working areas, including access tracks, turbine foundations and crane hard standing areas, the temporary construction compound, and electrical substation area. Fauna Badger 6.8.12 The proposed construction work will not have a direct impact on the badger sett identified approximately 430m south-west from the nearest proposed turbine. However, the work may impact on badgers through the temporary disturbance of commuting routes. To mitigate for this no excavations will be left open overnight without a means for badger to escape. Bats 6.8.13 Legal obligations towards bats are generally concerned with roost protection. PPS 9 (formerly PPG 9) makes it a legal obligation of developers to sustain and where possible improve the quality and extent of natural habitat and geological and geomorphological sites, the natural physical processes on which they depend; and the populations of naturally occurring species which they support. Bats must therefore be given due consideration during the design and construction of this development. Mitigation 6.8.14 Because bats are nocturnal and the majority of the works will take place during daylight hours, there will be minimal disturbance to bats during construction. During operation, turbines will be running overnight and this might have a direct impact on bats. This impact has been addressed through the inclusion of buffers around features which may act as bat flightlines and foraging areas such as dry stone walls, watercourses and woodland. Guidance published by Natural England (2009) recommends incorporating a buffer of 50 m around any feature (trees, hedges) into which no part of the turbine should intrude. This means that the edge of the rotor swept area should be at least 50 m from the closest part of a given habitat feature. 6.8.15 For the purposes of determining buffer distances, it has been assumed that field boundaries are 2.5m high and that the woodland canopy is 20m high. The buffers for these features were calculated following guidance in Natural England (2009), assuming that the chosen turbine model is the MM82 with 69 m hub and 41 m blade. The results of these calculations are that buffers of 100 m and 72 m to the base of the turbine tower have been incorporated around woodland and field boundaries respectively, which exceed the minimum buffer derived using the guidance above. A generic buffer of 30m has been incorporated for all watercourses. All buffers are shown on the final layout constraints plan (Figure 3.6). 6.8.16 Access tracks will be constructed for most of their length on existing farm tracks. It is therefore unlikely that any significant lengths of field boundary will be removed to accommodate vehicular movements. Where trees are removed or if a linear feature is to be removed, replacement features will be planted / constructed and connected with other flightlines on the site. 6.8.17 It is recommended that flightlines, foraging areas and likely roosting sites are not floodlit during the operation and construction of the wind farm extension. Where night lights or security lights are needed these will be pointed towards the ground and away from bat habitat.

6.9 Residual Impacts and Policy Assessment 6.9.1 With the mitigation proposed in the previous section, the impacts from the proposed wind farm extension will be reduced. The impacts and residual impacts are shown in Tables 6.13 and 6.14

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 55

Table 6.13 Impact Assessments for Habitats

Impact Ecological Impact Mitigation Ecological Impact (Construction) Significance without Significance with Mitigation Mitigation

Contamination of Slight adverse Best practice mitigation will be followed. This includes: Neutral soils, water and ƒ Refuel and service vehicles/machinery within designated area with impermeable vegetation through base. Use trigger delivery nozzle to refuel. spillages of fuel, oils, ƒ All machinery maintained in good working order and checked regularly. etc. ƒ Fuel, oil and other potential pollutants stored in bunded tanks. ƒ Store minimum required amount on site. ƒ Store oil absorbent material on site and clear up spillages immediately. ƒ Fence working areas and tracks to prevent encroachment on to vegetation. ƒ Minimise stockpiling of materials and restrict this to designated, fenced areas. ƒ Remove and dispose of waste materials at the earliest opportunity.

Disturbance or Moderate adverse All works to widen this access track must occur to the eastern side of the existing track so Neutral accidental damage to that impacts on mature trees and encroachment into Thorny Bank Clough BHS are mature trees along avoided. the access track Any trees within the working area will be protected using a post and ‘Netlon’ fluorescent bordering Thorny mesh fence or similar to demarcate protected areas. The fence will be placed at the Bank Clough minimum of the radius of the crown of the tree. The protective fencing will be maintained for the duration of all site works and no machinery or materials will be stored within the fenced area. Materials and machinery will be stored within a designated site compound only. Fencing will be left until all the machinery and materials have been removed from the site.

If the roots of any retained trees are damaged during the development, they will be treated with an appropriate fungicide to prevent the spread of disease.

Best practice mitigation will be followed in order to minimise the risk of accidental damage to woodland, trees and scrub.

Accidental damage to Neutral All woodland, scattered mature trees and scrub will be retained as part of the Neutral scattered trees and development.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 56

scrub Any trees within the working area will be protected using a post and ‘Netlon’ fluorescent mesh fence or similar to demarcate protected areas. The fence will be placed at the minimum of the radius of the crown of the tree. The protective fencing will be maintained for the duration of all site works and no machinery or materials will be stored within the fenced area. Materials and machinery will be stored within a designated site compound only. Fencing will be left until all the machinery and materials have been removed from the site.

If the roots of any retained trees are damaged during the development, they will be treated with an appropriate fungicide to prevent the spread of disease.

Best practice mitigation will be followed in order to minimise the risk of accidental damage to woodland, trees and scrub.

Accidental damage to Neutral Best practice mitigation will be followed in order to minimise the risk of accidental Neutral hedgerows damage to hedgerows.

Removal and / or Neutral Areas of this habitat to be lost / disturbed will be kept to a minimum. Unavoidable habitat Neutral disturbance of semi- loss will be kept to a minimum and disturbance will be avoided by clear and rigorous site improved grassland, rules requiring all contractors and visitors to operate within works boundaries, including improved grassland access tracks, turbine foundations and crane hard standing areas, the temporary and marshy construction compound, and electrical substation area. grassland.

Impact (Operation) Ecological Impact Mitigation Ecological Impact Significance without Significance with Mitigation Mitigation

No mitigation measures are proposed as no impact is likely to occur during this phase of the development.

Impact Ecological Impact Mitigation Ecological Impact (Decommission) Significance Without Significance With Mitigation Mitigation

Accidental damage Neutral All woodland, scattered mature trees and scrub will be retained as part of the Neutral to scattered trees development.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 57

and scrub Any trees within the working area will be protected using a post and ‘Netlon’ fluorescent mesh fence or similar to demarcate protected areas. The fence will be placed at the minimum of the radius of the crown of the tree. The protective fencing will be maintained for the duration of all site works and no machinery or materials will be stored within the fenced area. Materials and machinery will be stored within a designated site compound only. Fencing will be left until all the machinery and materials have been removed from the site.

If the roots of any retained trees are damaged during the development, they will be treated with an appropriate fungicide to prevent the spread of disease.

Best practice mitigation will be followed in order to minimise the risk of accidental damage to woodland, trees and scrub.

Accidental damage Neutral Best practice mitigation will be followed in order to minimise the risk of accidental Neutral to hedgerows damage to hedgerows.

Reinstatement of Neutral N/A Neutral grassland

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 58

Table 6.14 Impact Assessments for Fauna

Impact Ecological Impact Mitigation Ecological Impact (Construction) Significance Without Significance With Mitigation Mitigation

Light and dust Slight adverse Flightlines, foraging areas and likely roosting sites will not be floodlit. Necessary lights Neutral pollution (bats). pointed groundwards and away from bat habitat.

Disruption of flight Slight adverse Where a linear feature is to be removed replacement features will be planted/constructed Neutral lines (bats). and connected with other flightlines on the site and will be at least equal in distance to the buffers incorporated into the wind farm extension design.

Noise and Vibration Slight adverse for low Night working will not be undertaken unless necessary. Slight adverse for both low from construction risk species, Large and high risk species machinery (bats). adverse for high risk species Temporary disturbance of Slight adverse All deep excavations will either be contained within fenced compounds not accessible to Neutral commuting routes foraging animals or will have ramps installed to enable trapped animals to escape easily. (badger).

Impact (Operation) Ecological Impact Mitigation Ecological Impact Significance Without Significance With Mitigation Mitigation

Collisions with Slight adverse for low Turbines have been sited with a suitable buffer between turbine and foraging areas, Slight adverse for low risk rotating turbine risk species, Large commuting lines and potential roosting areas. species, Large adverse for blades causing bat adverse for high risk high risk species casualties. species

Ultrasound Slight adverse for low Using a suitable buffer from flightlines, foraging areas or potential roosts. Slight adverse interference with bat risk species, Moderate echolocation or adverse for high risk creating sonic lures. species

Disruption of flight Slight adverse Where a linear feature is to be removed replacement features will be planted/constructed Neutral lines (bats) and connected with other flightlines on the site and will be at least equal distance to the

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 59

buffers incorporated into the wind farm extension design.

Impact Ecological Impact Mitigation Ecological Impact (Decommission) Significance Without Significance With Mitigation Mitigation

Light pollution Slight adverse Flightlines, foraging areas and likely roosting sites will not be floodlit. Necessary lights to Neutral (bats). be pointed towards the ground and away from bat habitat such as woodland and dry stone walls.

Disruption of flight Slight adverse Where a linear feature is to be removed replacement features will be planted/constructed Neutral lines (bats). and connected with other flightlines on the site and will be at least equal distance to the buffers incorporated into the wind farm extension design.

Noise and Vibration Slight – Moderate Night working will not be undertaken unless absolutely necessary. Slight adverse (bats). adverse Temporary disturbance of Slight adverse All deep excavations will either be contained within fenced compounds not accessible to Neutral commuting routes foraging animals or will have ramps installed to enable trapped animals to escape easily. (badger).

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 60

6.9.3 If all of the recommended mitigation is implemented, the residual impacts of the proposed wind farm on habitats and bats are likely to be Slight Adverse overall.

6.10 Cumulative Impacts 6.10.1 The potential for a cumulative impact between proposed and operational wind farms arises principally if species from the same population are using more than one of the sites. The likelihood of this can be assessed through an analysis of the species assemblage and by examining the likely range and territory size of those species. 6.10.2 A total of nine competing sites have been identified within 35km of the proposed Hameldon Hill Wind Farm extension site (Table 6.15).

Table 6.15: Wind Farms Located within 35km of Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension Wind Farm Number of Approximate Approximate Distance from Turbines Height of Hameldon Wind Farm (km), Turbines to Blade site centre to site centre Tip (m) Operational WWP HAMELDON HILL 3 90 Extension of EXISTING CHELKER RESERVOIR 4 42 30 COAL CLOUGH 24 49 11 OVENDEN MOOR 23 49 22 SCOUT MOOR 26 100 13 Submitted CROOK HILL 12 125 14 RESUBMISSION OVENDEN MOOR 10 115 22 REPOWERING REAPS MOSS, BRITANNIA 4 125 12 TODMORDEN MOOR 5 125 11.5

6.10.3 With the exception of the existing three turbine development east of the proposed extension, all of the other sites are located at least 11 km from the proposed Hameldon Hill Wind Farm extension. Furthermore, these remaining sites are not linked by significant habitat corridors (such as rivers, woodland/forest habitat) and are all isolated from the site by roads and towns. It is therefore considered unlikely that protected species will move between the various sites with the possible exception of bats. 6.10.4 Examination of maps and aerial photographs of the area reveal that there are small corridor features in the form of drains and tracks that could link the operating Hameldon Hill Wind Farm with the proposed extension. Bats are highly mobile and may commute between sites. Indeed, bats were recorded feeding around the existing turbines. The likelihood of a cumulative impact occurring for bats is therefore considered to be high in this case. However the presence of bats close to the existing operational turbines and the presence of bats across the site despite the existence of operational turbines for the last five years suggests that any negative impacts of the proposed turbines are likely to be small. The cumulative impact significance is therefore cautiously assessed as Slight Adverse for the proposed turbines inclusive of the existing scheme. 6.10.5 Cumulative impacts on fauna with the other wind farms listed in Table 6.13 are considered unlikely due to their isolation in terms of distance and habitat continuity. 6.10.6 Cumulative habitat impacts will simply be a sum of the habitat losses associated with the existing and proposed turbines, but these are small and occur only on improved grassland habitats of low conservation value at the Hameldon Hill site. It is not possible to assess the cumulative impacts on habitats because there is insufficient information available to make these judgements with any certainty.

6.11 Summary and Conclusions 6.11.1 The proposed wind farm extension will not have any adverse effects on designated wildlife sites. 6.11.2 There will be some minor adverse impacts on a number of habitats that are common, widespread and of low biodiversity value. These include primarily the loss of small areas of improved and semi-improved grassland habitat to make way for wind farm infrastructure and disturbance or damage to these habitats during the construction and decommissioning phases of the wind farm extension. None of the more

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 61

species-rich or unmanaged/unimproved habitats will be affected. There will be no loss of woodland habitat or scattered trees and scrub associated with the proposed development. 6.11.3 There will be very few adverse effects on any of the fauna that inhabit or potentially inhabit the site. Great crested newt, reptiles, white-clawed crayfish and badger were scoped out of further assessment because the likelihood of their presence and/or impacts upon them are negligible. 6.11.4 The majority of adverse impacts identified will be on bats, however most of these are no more than slight adverse. The majority of these potential impacts have been mitigated or partially mitigated through design of the wind farm extension. It is acknowledged, however, that the impact assessments are based on the results of surveys that were carried out at a suboptimal time of year prone to rapidly decreasing and fluctuating night time temperatures. Nevertheless, every attempt was made to survey in suitable conditions and relatively intense bat activity was recorded. 6.11.5 The overall residual impact of the wind farm development on ecology, taking into account all mitigation proposed, is assessed as Slight Adverse.

6.12 References Harbusch, C. & Bach, L. (2005). Environmental Assessment Studies on wind turbines and bat populations a step towards best practice guidelines. http://www.bach- freilandforschung.de/download/Harbusch_Bach_2005.pdf. Hill, D, Fasham, M, Tucker, G, Shewry, M, Shaw, P. (2005). Handbook of Biodiversity Methods: Survey, Evaluation and Monitoring. RPS Group Plc and SNH, Holdich D (2003). Ecology of the White-clawed Crayfish. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No.1. English Nature, Peterborough. Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 1. English Nature, Peterborough. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM (2006). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment. IEEM. Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (1995). Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. Taylor & Francis. IEMA. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2003). Species Action Plan: Noctule Bat. JNCC, Peterborough. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2003). Species Action Plan: Pipistrelle Bat. JNCC, Peterborough. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2007). Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey− a technique for environmental audit. JNCC.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee website (no date) (accessed 12th November 2009). Lancashire Biodiversity Partnership website (2009) http://www.lancspartners.org/lbap/ MAGIC Map website (2009) http://www.magic.gov.uk/website/magic/ Mitchell-Jones A.J (2004). Bat Mitigation Guidelines. English Nature, Peterborough. National Biodiversity Network Gateway website (2009) http://data.nbn.org.uk/ Natural England (2009) Nature on the Map website http://www.natureonthemap.org.uk/ Natural England website (2009) Natural Areas http://www.english- nature.org.uk/science/natural/foreword.htm Natural England (2009). Bats and onshore wind turbines – Interim guidance. Natural England Technical Information Note TIN051. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004). Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. HMSO Crown Copyright. Ratcliffe, D.A. (1977). A Nature Conservation Review. Cambridge University Press. Schröder, T. (1997). Ultraschall-Emissionen vom Windenergieanlangen. Eine Untersuchung verschiedener Windenergieanlagen in Niedersachen und Schleswig-Holstein. Unpubl. Report for I.f.Ö.N.N. im Auftrag des NABU e V.LV Niedersachsen: 1-15.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 62

7 Ornithology

7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 AECOM were commissioned by NRL to carry out ornithological surveys at the existing wind farm site and an area adjacent to the existing turbines, which is targeted for an extension to the existing scheme. The main aim of these surveys was to identify any constraints to the design, construction and operation of the proposed wind farm extension associated with the ornithological interests of the site and its immediate surroundings. 7.1.2 The proposed extension involves the construction of a further 3no. 2 MW – 2.5 MW turbines. This assessment is based on the assumption that the largest feasible turbine model will be installed, which in this case is the Repower MM82 with an assumed hub height of 69 m and a blade length of 41 m, equalling a maximum blade tip height of 110 m. The existing turbine layout and a proposed design for the wind farm extension are shown in Figure 3.1. 7.1.3 This chapter presents an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed extension of Hameldon Hill Wind Farm on the ornithological interests of the site. The baseline data, derived from a combination of desk-based studies and field-based surveys, are used to inform the ornithological impact assessments that are presented towards the end of the chapter, along with a number of proposals to mitigate the anticipated impacts of the scheme. 7.1.4 The Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) has been carried out in accordance with good practice guidance produced by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM, 2006). 7.1.5 The following sections provide: • A definition of the scope of the assessment and the legislation and policy background that underpins it; • Description of the consultation background to the assessment and the methodology for evaluation and assessment; • A description of the field survey methodologies and data gathering process; • A description of the baseline ornithological conditions and an evaluation of the ornithological features within the Study Area in terms of their nature conservation value; • An assessment of the predicted ornithological impacts of the proposal; • A description of the proposed mitigation; • An assessment of the predicted residual ecological impacts of the proposed scheme after mitigation is implemented. 7.2 Scope of Assessment 7.2.1 The scope of the ornithological work carried out at the site was guided, in the first instance, by discussion between AECOM and NRL, and consideration of the results of baseline ornithological work submitted by Ove Arup and Partners Ltd. (2004) in support of the planning application for the existing turbines. 7.2.2 Subsequent work by AECOM (formerly Faber Maunsell) was carried out in stages. The scope of the assessment has therefore developed iteratively based on the findings of each stage informing the scope of the next. These included (in chronological order): • Wintering bird survey and data search (November 2008 – February 2009); • Breeding bird survey and additional data search (May – July 2009); • Vantage point surveys to assess bird use of the airspace that would be occupied by the proposed turbines (July – August 2009). For the sake of completeness, this part of the assessment was also carried out for the existing turbines to give a combined assessment for the existing turbines and the proposed. 7.2.3 The assessment targets the widely recognised potential impacts on birds associated with wind farm development and operation. These include the potential loss and destruction of breeding, roosting and

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 63

feeding habitat, displacement and disruption of breeding birds, effects on the use of the site by wintering birds and the potential mortality of certain species vulnerable to mid-air collisions with rotating turbine blades.

7.3 Legislation and Policy Framework Statutory Legislation 7.3.1 This section sets out the legislation and policy initiatives specific to birds. All information presented here is in addition to the general provisions of the legislation and policy framework described in Section 6.3 of this document. 7.3.2 Key legislation for birds in the UK includes: • Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) [WCA] • Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (the EC Birds Directive) 7.3.3 Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive lists rare and vulnerable species of regularly occurring or migratory wild birds that are subject to special conservation measures. The Directive also provides for the designation of Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) for the protection of these species, which form part of the Natura 2000 network of sites protected by European wildlife legislation. 7.3.4 Part 1 of the WCA sets out how the provisions of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the 'Bern Convention'), the EC Birds Directive and the EC Habitats Directive are implemented in Great Britain. Under Part 1, Section 1 of the WCA it is an offence to: • Kill, injure or take any wild bird intentionally • Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built • Take or destroy the egg(s) of any wild bird 7.3.5 Schedule 1 of the WCA lists a number of species which, in addition to the provisions listed above, are protected by special penalties at all times, including against disturbance when breeding. 7.3.6 The WCA requires the prosecuting authority to prove that an offence was intentional, however the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 strengthens the provisions of the WCA by introducing an additional offence of “reckless” disturbance, which means that ignorance of the presence of a protected species cannot be used as a reliable defence should a breach of the WCA be committed. The NERC Act (Office of Public Sector Information, OPSI 2006) strengthens the WCA further with respect to the protection of the nests of certain birds listed on Schedule Z1A, even when they are not in use. The NERC Act also offers additional protection to birds released into the wild as part of a repopulation programme and provides minor amendments to the WCA with respect to captive birds. 7.3.7 PPS 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (OPSI, 1999) sets out planning policies on the protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. This is the principal legislative mechanism under which county-level and local wildlife sites are designated, all policies relating to them being administered by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). PPS 9 also underpins the spatial planning process at the local and regional level and sets out the regulatory mechanism by which planning decisions are made by LPAs. Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) 7.3.8 The UK BAP was launched in 1994 and updated in 2007, with the main aim ‘To conserve and enhance biological diversity within the UK, and to contribute to the conservation of global biodiversity through all appropriate mechanisms’. The UK BAP comprises a series of Action Plans for ‘priority’ habitats and species, determined by the fact that they are either globally threatened or are rapidly declining in the UK. The action plans outline targeted measures to conserve these priority habitats and species. 7.3.9 The UK BAP lists 59 priority bird species requiring conservation action, for which Species Action Plans (SAPs) have been or are being produced. The UK BAP also lists a number of priority habitats that are of importance for birds, for which Habitat Action Plans (HAPs) have been published. 7.3.10 The national strategy for biodiversity is delivered at local level via Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs). The Survey Area and Study Area are covered by the provisions of the Lancashire BAP, which includes SAPs for 7 bird species and a general action plan for farmland birds. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Birds of Conservation Concern

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 64

7.3.11 The RSPB (2009) has published lists of Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC). Red List species are those whose breeding population or range is rapidly declining (50% or more in the last 25 years), recently or historically, and those of global conservation concern. Amber List species are those whose breeding population is in moderate decline (25 – 49% in the last 25 years), rare breeders, internationally important and localised species and those of unfavourable conservation status in Europe. 7.3.12 These lists confer no legal status, however they are useful when assessing the significance of predicted impacts and determining the level of mitigation that may be required when birds are affected by development or any other activity. Furthermore, inclusion on the Red List is a factor in determining the species for which BAPs are developed.

7.4 Consultation 7.4.1 No formal consultation was carried out with respect to ornithology. However a series of meetings was held with Burnley Borough Council in which, among other things, the scope and timing of the ornithological surveys and assessment were discussed. No key ornithological issues arose from these meetings.

7.5 Evaluation and Impact Assessment Methodology 7.5.1 The assessment of ornithological impacts of the proposal follows a similar protocol to that used in the assessment of potential impacts on all other ecology, as described in Section 6.5. However this information is repeated here as there are a number of ornithology-specific impact assessment criteria that differ from those for general ecology. 7.5.2 The method of evaluation follows a combination of guidance published in IEEM (2006), Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA, 1995) and Hill et al. (2005). The overall impact significance is derived from a matrix of the perceived nature conservation value of the site/feature/species (herein referred to as “the receptor”) and the likely magnitude of the potential impact. 7.5.3 The derivation of nature conservation value and impact magnitude is guided by the generic summary criteria shown in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 respectively, and these are informed by the results of the surveys and data searches. However, this is also tempered by the application of experience-based judgements of impact based on the author’s knowledge of bird behaviour and sensitivity to particular types of impact. In the case of this wind farm extension proposal, field observations made of bird interactions with the existing operational turbines are also called upon to aid the predictions of impact magnitude and significance.

Table 7.1: Determining Nature Conservation Value (Adapted from Hill et al., 2005). Nature Selected Examples Conservation Value Very High • An internationally designated site or candidate site (Special Protection Area (International) (SPA), Ramsar Site, Biogenetic reserve). • Internationally significant and viable populations of birds listed on Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive. • Regularly occurring globally threatened species. • Any regularly occurring populations of internationally important species that are rare or threatened in the UK or of uncertain conservation status. • A regularly occurring significant population/number of any internationally important species. High • A nationally designated site (Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National (National) Nature Reserve (NNR)) or a discrete area, designated specifically for its ornithological interest, which meets the published selection criteria for national designation irrespective of whether it has yet to be notified. • A viable significant population of a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species. • A regularly occurring significant population/number of any nationally important species i.e. listed on Schedule 1 of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended). • Any regularly occurring population of a nationally important species that is threatened or rare in the county or region. Medium • Any regularly occurring significant population of a species listed as being (Regional/ County) nationally scarce, or in the local BAP or relevant Natural Area Profile on account of its regional rarity or localisation. • Significant populations of a species important at regional or county level.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 65

Nature Selected Examples Conservation Value • County Wildlife Sites selected designated on Regional/County criteria for their ornithological interest. • Any regularly occurring significant population of a species that is listed in a Local RDB or BAP on account of its rarity or localisation. Low (Local) • Species that are scarce within the locality or which appreciably enrich the local area’s habitat resource. • A significant population of a local important species i.e. listed on a Local BAP. • Species populations of local importance. Negligible (Parish) • Species populations considered to enrich the habitat resource appreciably within the context of the Parish or Neighbourhood. Table 7.2: Determining Magnitude of the Potential Impact Magnitude Criteria The proposed development will have effects that would result in a change in the integrity Major negative of a site, or a change in the ability of a species to retain its current population levels (at a regional scale or larger). Intermediate The proposed development will have effects that would alter key attributes of a site but negative which would not result in a change to a site’s evaluation, or will result in changes in the distribution of a species but will not affect its population status at a regional level. The proposed development will have effects of insufficient magnitude to alter key Minor negative attributes of a site or change its evaluation, or will affect the distribution or status of a species at a local level. Neutral No impact. The proposed development will provide effects having a net gain for ecology and nature Positive conservation. 7.5.4 Impact assessments without mitigation are shown for each receptor in Section 7.8. Mitigation measures and a summary of the impact assessments with and without mitigation are shown in Sections 7.9 and 7.10 respectively. These fall into one of the impact significance categories shown in Table 7.3.

Table 7.3: Ecological Impact Significance Nature Magnitude of Potential Impacts Conservation Major Intermediate Minor Neutral Positive Value of Site negative negative negative Very high Very large Large Slight adverse Neutral Large adverse adverse beneficial High Very large Large Slight adverse Neutral Large adverse adverse beneficial Medium Moderate Moderate Slight adverse Neutral Moderate adverse adverse beneficial Low Slight adverse Slight adverse Slight adverse Neutral Slight beneficial Negligible Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 7.5.5 In terms of protected species it should be noted that, irrespective of the Ecological Impact Significance, mitigation will be required to ensure the law is not contravened.

7.6 Methodologies 7.6.1 For the purposes of this assessment the Study Area over which species records were collected includes the wind farm extension site centred on SD806300 and all land within a 2 km radius of this point. Searches for nationally and internationally designated sites were made within a 15 km radius of this point. This is greater than the search radius covered for general ecology because of the inherent mobility of birds. 7.6.2 The Survey Area for ornithological surveys varies depending on the survey technique, land ownership/access and the design of the proposed wind farm extension, which has changed a number of times since the original surveys were commissioned. The survey areas are defined separately for each survey method and are shown on their respective figures. 7.6.3 Bird surveys have been carried out across different seasons between November 2008 and August 2009 and in tandem with the ecological surveys described in Chapter 8. Consequently, the original desk- based assessment carried out in October/November 2008 was updated to capture any additional

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 66

records and information from consultees and other data sources identified during the ongoing ecological assessments. Desk Studies 7.6.4 The following statutory and non-statutory organisations were contacted in October/November 2008 for ornithological data and designated wildlife site information from within the Study Area: • Natural England; • Lancashire County Council (LCC); • The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside; • Lancashire and District Birdwatching Society; • Lancashire Local Bird Group; • Wigan Local Bird Group; • East Lancashire Ornithologist’s Club (ELOC); • RSPB. 7.6.5 Additional Information regarding designated sites, local policy initiatives and guidance was obtained from the following sources: • The ‘Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside’ (MAGIC) website - locations of designated sites • The UKBAP website (for SAPs) The Lancashire BAP website for local SAPs • RSPB Website 7.6.6 A second desk study was carried out alongside the data search for general ecology in August 2009, in support of the breeding bird surveys and vantage point surveys. Additional bird records were obtained from LCC. The East Lancashire Ornithologists’ Club (ELOC) website has a searchable database of bird records throughout the region. The database was searched, by location, for all records of Schedule 1 and Annex 1 birds at Hameldon Scout, Great Hameldon, Hameldon Hill, Hameldon Common, Great Slack, Park Scout, Lower Park, Hapton Hark, Thorny Bank Wood/Clough, Tower Brook, Padiham and Hapton. 7.6.7 A breeding bird survey (Ove Arup and Partners Ltd., 2004) was submitted in support of the existing 3- turbine planning application. The findings of their report have been considered where appropriate when deriving the impact assessments presented in this chapter. Wintering Bird Surveys 7.6.8 These surveys covered all areas within multiple land ownership boundaries that, when the survey work was commissioned, were under consideration for development. This includes the land between the A679 southwards to Park Scout, westwards as far as Thorny Bank Wood and eastwards as far as New Barn Clough. The survey area is shown on Figure 7.1. The wind farm extension layout has subsequently changed so that it occupies a single landownership however the assessment of impacts on wintering birds has been made based on the surveys across both landownership boundaries. This enables the impact assessment to be made with greater confidence as it covers a wider area within which flocks and feeding parties are likely to roam. 7.6.9 Four census visits were carried out between November 2008 and February 2009 inclusive. The dates, times and weather conditions on each survey are shown in Table 7.4. 7.6.10 The survey followed an adaptation of the Common Birds Census (CBC) method as described in Marchant (1983) and Gilbert et al. (1998). This involved walking over the entire site and recording birds on suitably scaled field maps using standard British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) species codes and behaviour notation, which are included for reference as Appendix 7.1. 7.6.11 Most parts of the site were visited to within approximately 100m, however the larger expanses of closely grazed short-sward improved pasture could be scanned effectively from a suitable vantage point using binoculars and this approach was taken wherever it proved effective. The site was covered more closely on occasions when visibility was impaired by low cloud. 7.6.12 A species list and approximate count for each species was made on each survey visit. Copies of the hand drawn wintering bird maps are included as Appendix 7.2.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 67

Table 7.4: Wintering Bird Survey Dates and Weather Conditions. Visit Date and Time Weather Conditions 1 13/11/08, 10.30 – 14.30 Wind F4SW, 8oC, 100% cloud, visibility fair, decreasing with low cloud flanking slopes of Hapton Park, dry.

Wind F4-5SW, 9oC, 100% cloud, low cloud and drizzle, 14/11/08, 10.35 – 14.30 visibility poor. 2 22/12/08, 09.35 – 14.45 Wind F1-2SW, 10oC, 100% cloud, dry a.m., drizzle p.m., visibility good except on upper slopes due to hill fog. 3 23/01/09, 09.45 – 15.15 Wind F3-4SW, 10oC, 95-100% cloud, dry until 3pm, visibility good. 4 23/02/09, 09.15 – 14.45 Wind F3-4SW, 7oC, 100% cloud (low), dry, visibility good. By 12.30pm, wind changing to F2-3WSW, temperature up to 11oC, cloud clearing to 70%, sunny spells. Breeding Bird Surveys 7.6.13 Breeding bird surveys were carried out across the same area covered by the wintering bird surveys. 7.6.14 Three census visits were carried out in May, June and July 2009. The dates, times and weather conditions on each survey are shown in Table 7.5. Table 7.5: Breeding Bird Survey Dates and Weather Conditions Visit Date and Time Weather Conditions 1 28.05.2009 Wind F2-3W, cool, occasional drizzle, low cloud until 11.45, visibility 08.00 – 13.00 poor (<100m) at elevation. 2 25.06.2009 Wind F2-3E, dry, cool, cloud 100%, brightening mid-morning to 40%, 07.45 – 12.45 sunny spells. 3 02.07.2009 Wind F2-3S, cloud 25%, dry, very warm and humid, sunny. 07.45 – 12.45 7.6.15 The survey followed the same methodology as the wintering bird surveys. Particular attention was paid to field boundaries, woodland and scrub as potential breeding habitat. Inaccessible land beyond the land ownership boundaries was scanned from the edges of the survey area and additional bird records were made during the vantage point surveys. The latter technique was particularly useful for detecting birds within Thorny Bank Wood westwards as far as Barley Top, Thorny Bank and the eastern flanks of Hameldon Common/Great Slack, which was a key area not directly covered by the breeding bird census. 7.6.16 Most parts of the site were visited to within 50-100 m, however the larger expanses of closely grazed short-sward improved pasture could be scanned effectively from a suitable vantage point using binoculars and this approach was taken wherever it proved effective. The site was covered more closely on occasions when visibility was impaired by low cloud and where topographical and habitat features rendered the distance-scanning technique ineffective. 7.6.17 When the visits were completed the survey maps were analysed to assess the number of breeding territories for each species (expressed herein as the number of breeding pairs). The breeding status of each species was assessed using the following categories: • Possible breeding – species present during the survey period in possible nesting habitat, but with no indication of breeding. Presumed passage migrants are not included. • Probable breeding – observations of one or more of the following activities during the survey period: • Singing male heard, or breeding calls heard. • Pair observed in suitable nesting habitat during the survey period. • Display or courtship. • Birds visiting a probable nest site. • Birds seen to be carrying nesting material. • Confirmed breeding – observations of any one or more of the following activities during the survey period:

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 68

• Agitated behaviour or anxiety calls from adults suggesting a nest or young close by. • Distraction display or injury feigning from adults. • A nest has obviously been used or egg shells found. • Adults seen carrying food for young. • Adults seen carrying faecal sac or egg shell away from nest site. • Nest with eggs. • Nest with young or downy young in the case of waders, game birds etc. • Recently fledged young. • Soliciting calls from young birds. • Non-breeding – species present during the survey period however the habitat type within the survey area does not meet the requirements of the particular species for breeding purposes (for example passage migrants), and no examples of breeding behaviour were observed. 7.6.18 The hand-drawn bird maps are included in Appendix 7.3. Analysis of these maps enabled the approximate locations of territories for each species to be determined. A buffer of 500 m from the edge of the area swept by the rotors of the proposed turbines was then drawn around the positions of the proposed turbines, which reflects the cautious assumptions made about the distance over which breeding birds will be affected by the operational turbines (see Section 7.8). The assessment of breeding numbers therefore includes all possible, probable and confirmed breeders within 500m of the proposed turbines. Vantage Point Surveys 7.6.19 Vantage Point (VP) surveys were carried out following the guidance published by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH, 2005). This involved recording the flights of target bird species through the air space that will be occupied by the proposed wind turbines, and the airspace occupied by the existing turbines. Key characteristics of each recorded flight included the flight duration, flight path and estimated flying height of birds at time intervals. A detailed description of the methodology is provided in Appendix 7.4, along with a breakdown of the survey effort and analysis of the visible area (herein referred to as the viewshed) covered from the vantage point. 7.6.20 The choice of target species was made in line with guidance in SNH (2005) and was informed by the results of the data searches and previous bird surveys carried out by AECOM. In this case, peregrine was the only target species because of its perceived vulnerability to collision, its protected status under national and European legislation and its historical breeding activity close to the existing wind farm. 7.6.21 Unavoidable time constraints restricted the VP surveys to 36 hours over a single breeding season only. While this deviates from SNH guidance, which recommends a minimum of 72 hours over more than one season, it should be borne in mind that the surveys were timed deliberately to coincide with the latter part of the breeding season when adult peregrines and their recently fledged young typically remain at the breeding site together. Peregrines usually disperse over the wider countryside over the rest of the year and, while they are generally site-faithful when breeding, they visit their breeding territories infrequently during winter (Snow and Perrins, 1998). The survey results therefore represent a period when peregrines are significantly more active and in greater numbers within their breeding territory than they would be at any other time of year and the impact assessments can be regarded as highly cautious worst-case scenarios. 7.6.22 The survey data were inputted into the collision risk model (CRM) developed by W. Band and others (Band et al., in press; SNH, 2000), described in Appendix 7.5 and referred to herein as the Band model.

7.7 Baseline Conditions Desk Study 7.7.1 Natural England and LCC provided a substantial amount of information. The remaining consultees either did not respond or did not hold any ornithological data for the Study Area that weren’t already available publicly. Designated Sites

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 69

7.7.2 Natural England stated that there are no statutory sites for nature conservation within the Study Area. Such sites would include SPAs for birds, designated under the provisions of the EC Birds Directive and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), designated under the provisions of the WCA. 7.7.3 A search of the MAGIC website confirmed this to be the case. The nearest site designation for birds is the South Pennine Moors SPA, approximately 14 km east of the Survey Area at its nearest point. This site is designated primarily for its breeding populations of short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), merlin (Falco columbarius) and golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria). It also supports an internationally important assemblage of breeding birds including common sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos), dunlin (Calidris alpina schinzii), twite (Carduelis flavirostris), snipe (Gallinago gallinago), curlew (Numenius arquata), wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe), whinchat (Saxicola rubetra), redshank (Tringa totanus), ring ouzel (Turdus torquatus) and lapwing (Vanellus vanellus). 7.7.4 LCC provided details of a number of County-level wildlife sites, termed Biological Heritage Sites (BHS). These are summarised in Table 6.9. The closest site, Thorny Bank Clough, is immediately adjacent to the western extent of the proposed wind farm extension. None of the BHSs are designated for their ornithological interest. Species Records 7.7.5 A comprehensive set of ornithological data was received from LCC. These include records at a resolution of 1 km2 and also from tetrads (2 km x 2 km), of which there are 25 within each 10 x10 km grid square. The existing Hameldon Hill Wind Farm lies partly within two of these tetrads. The list includes many birds that are common and widespread throughout the UK, however a number of species of conservation concern have been recorded within the tetrads and grid squares that coincide with the Survey Area. These are summarised in Appendix 7.6. 7.7.6 The records show that peregrine (Falco peregrinus) has been recorded nesting or roosting within a short distance of the survey area. The location of nest sites is not included as this is sensitive information that cannot be made available in the public domain. Further information can be made available to statutory consultees on request. 7.7.7 Redstart (Phoenicurus phoenicurus) has been recorded within the Survey Area at Tower Brook Clough. 7.7.8 It is not possible to determine exact locations of the other bird records supplied, nor is it possible to determine any patterns of site or habitat use by a particular species. However, the data do provide an indication of the species present on a local scale. 7.7.9 Records of Schedule 1 and Annex 1 birds from the ELOC database are also included in Appendix 7.6. These records confirm the presence of a peregrine family within the Study Area. Occasional records have been made of red kite (Milvus milvus), golden plover and hobby (Falco subbuteo) within the Study Area, however there is no evidence that these species breed regularly here. There are no records of these species within the Survey Area or immediately adjacent to the proposed or existing turbines. Spatial Planning Guidance for On-Shore Wind Farms 7.7.10 Spatial planning guidance for on-shore wind farms has been produced for Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside (RSPB, LWT and Partners, 2008). The document provides summary data and distribution maps of areas that regularly support “important populations” of “sensitive bird species”, definitions of which are given in the guidance. The guidance also maps the distribution of deep peat. The purpose of the document is to aid the assessment of on-shore wind farm proposals and to provide background information to underpin a renewable energy strategy for northwest England. 7.7.11 The summary sensitivity map within the guidance document shows the nearest sensitive bird areas within the geographical area covered. These are on the ‘Fylde Peninsular’ to the northwest, and the ‘South West Lancashire Mosses’ to the west and south west, both of which are more than 30 km from the proposed wind farm extension at their closest points. Wintering Birds 7.7.12 The species recorded within the Survey Area, their conservation status and estimated numbers are summarised in Appendix 7.7. 7.7.13 42 species of bird were recorded over the four census visits. Of these, one is included on Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive, three are included on Schedule 1 of the WCA1981 (as amended), six are UKBAP Priority Species, three have SAPs on the LBAP, seven are BoCC Red List and 11 are BoCC Amber List species. A number of species feature on more than one of the conservation status lists

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 70

named above. All other species are protected by the general provisions of the WCA 1981 (as amended). 7.7.14 Birds were recorded across all parts of the Survey Area. Most species were engaged in some form of feeding or overflying behaviour. The wintering bird assemblage is typical for the land use and habitats present, comprising predominantly feeding and overflying crows, gulls, thrushes and some birds that adopt a ground-nesting habit (particularly skylark Alauda arvensis and meadow pipit Anthus pratensis) over open land and passerines (perching birds) in wooded and scrubby habitats. 7.7.15 There was no strong pattern of bird distribution, however it became apparent over the four census visits that there were generally more species and more bird records from the acid grassland and rush pasture of the upper slopes (the southern half) of the site and in and around the woodland and scrub flanking Thorny Bank Clough, than were found on the closely grazed improved pasture of the northern half of the site. These areas and the species of conservation concern that were recorded frequently within them are indicated on Figure 7.1. 7.7.16 Notable species (in terms of their inclusion on Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive and Schedule 1 of the WCA) included feeding flocks of fieldfare (Turdus pilaris) and redwing (Turdus iliacus) and overflying peregrine (Falco peregrinus). Fieldfare and redwing are migratory species that breed mostly in central and northern Europe, Scandinavia and Siberia (Snow and Perrins, 1998). They are typically encountered in Britain only in winter. These species were sometimes in mixed thrush/starling (Sturnus vulgaris) flocks. Starling and fieldfare were present on all visits in feeding flocks numbering up to 120. 7.7.17 Peregrine was recorded flying over the survey area on two occasions. Other birds of prey included kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) and sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus). Neither of these species were recorded on more than two of the four surveys and they are likely to be no more than occasional visitors to the site. 7.7.18 Ground-nesting species were represented principally by skylark and meadow pipit. Skylark were present as small feeding flocks and, particularly on the final survey, males were recorded exhibiting territorial songflight behaviour, mostly over the rush pasture and acid grassland habitats. This is in general agreement with the findings of the breeding bird survey carried out by Ove Arup and Partners (2004) and the results of the breeding bird surveys carried out by AECOM. 7.7.19 Meadow pipits also started to show territorial behaviours at this time, with a number of males recorded in songflight. However, over the majority of the winter period, this species was more widely distributed across the Survey Area, being associated with rush pasture, acid grassland and improved pasture. 7.7.20 There were few records of wildfowl (geese and ducks) or waders feeding on or flying over the site, with the exception of snipe (Gallinago gallinago), which was occasionally flushed from the dense rushes and wet grassland to the south of New Barn, and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), which was recorded feeding on the improved pastures and flying across or within the Survey Area. 7.7.21 A number of species were recorded flying over but not landing within the site. These included herring gull (Larus argentatus), lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus), great black-backed gull (Larus marinus), raven (Corvus corax) and grey heron (Ardea cinerea). There was no apparent pattern of site use by these species. 7.7.22 Passerines and song birds were well represented within Thorny Bank Wood and pockets of passerine activity were recorded around some of the farm buildings, gardens and open habitats. The woodland bird assemblage was typical of the habitat type, comprising thrushes (song thrush Turdus philomelos, blackbird Turdus merula, robin Erithacus rubecula), tits (blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus, great tit Parus major, long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus, coal tit Periparus ater), finches (chaffinch Fringilla coelebs), wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), gold crest (Regulus regulus), dunnock (Prunella modularis) and great spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos major). A male siskin (Carduelis spinus) was recorded feeding among a small group of chaffinch at New Barn on the final survey visit. 7.7.23 Aside from skylark and meadow pipit, passerines within open habitats included pied wagtail, reed bunting and wren. Reed buntings favour wet habitats, and this was generally borne out by their presence close to wet rush pasture and stream edges within the Survey Area, though some individuals were recorded feeding on drier improved grassland close to New Barn.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 71

7.7.24 The remainder of the bird assemblage was made up predominantly of feeding and loafing1 common gull (Larus canus) and black-headed gull (Larus ridibundus), corvids rook Corvus frugilegus, carrion crow Corvus corone, jackdaw Corvus monedula) and pigeons (feral pigeon Columba livia, wood pigeon Columba palumbus and a few stock dove Columba oenas). Breeding Birds 7.7.25 The bird assemblage recorded in the summer of 2009 included 40 species, 32 of which were breeding within the survey area and 24 of which were breeding within 500m of the proposed turbines. Notes on the distribution, breeding numbers and conservation status of each species are included in Appendix 7.8. Breeding territories, each territory representing a breeding pair regardless of breeding success, are shown on Figure 7.2. Copies of the field survey maps are included as Appendix 7.3. 7.7.26 The breeding bird assemblage was broadly similar to the wintering assemblage, which suggests that many of the species recorded are site-faithful resident birds with established territories. This is particularly true of the woodland birds including black bird, tits, chaffinch, robin, wren and song thrush and some of the birds of open habitats including meadow pipit, skylark and reed bunting. 7.7.27 The presence of large numbers of corvids (carrion crow and rook) on the open pastures surrounding the existing turbines suggests that the site is more important as a feeding resource for these species than it is as a breeding area. The presence of only a single breeding pair of carrion crow at Thorny Bank Wood supports this assertion. Records of gulls refer to non-breeding birds flying over the survey area. 7.7.28 Meadow pipit and skylark were the most frequent breeding species, their breeding numbers within 500m of the proposed turbines totalling 11 pairs and 5 pairs respectively. Both species were widespread within the acid grasslands on the lower and flatter parts of Hapton Park, Lower Park and around Lower Park Quarry. These species were also frequently encountered across the wider survey area to the east of the existing turbines. Almost all records coincided with the taller, often rushy, pastures and areas of less intensively managed grassland. There was no evidence of breeding activity for skylark from the central area of improved grassland within which the proposed turbines are to be sited and only 1 meadow pipit territory. 7.7.29 There were very few waders within the survey area and none of them were recorded breeding within 500m of the proposed turbines. A single curlew was noted to the east of New Barn, but it was recorded on one of the surveys only and its breeding status cannot be confirmed. A snipe was recorded among the wet rush pasture on Hapton Park. 7.7.30 Birds of prey were largely absent across the survey area. Peregrine was not recorded during the breeding bird surveys. The presence of individual kestrel and sparrowhawk hunting within the site was consistent with the findings of the wintering bird survey. No evidence of breeding was found within the survey area for sparrowhawk, so this species is likely to be no more than an occasional visitor the site. Kestrel was recorded as a breeder within Thorny Bank Wood, where it was observed making frequent visits to the same area of the woodland. It was also heard calling from this location during the VP surveys, which is strongly suggestive of nesting activity. Male and female birds were recorded hunting together during the VP surveys. 7.7.31 In addition to the resident birds, a number of migrants were recorded breeding within or just outside the survey area, all of which can be regarded as typical of the habitats in which they were found. These include: • Wheatear recorded among the rocky outcrops on the eastern flanks of Hameldon Common • Whitethroat (Sylvia communis) recorded in the young plantation woodland adjacent to Thorny Bank Wood • Willow warbler (Phylloscopus trochilus) recorded in Thorny Bank Wood and among scattered scrub and trees across Hapton Park and Lower Park • Blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) within Thorny Bank Wood • Grasshopper warbler (Locustella naivea) reeling from the rushy acid grassland of Lower Park

1 Loafing is a term usually applied to gulls and is taken to mean bird activity that is not indicative of breeding or any other clearly defined behaviour. Birds that are loafing are usually observed to be sitting, preening or feeding. For the purposes of this assessment the term has been applied to any species observed in open habitats whose behaviour fits this description.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 72

7.7.32 House martin (Delichon urbica), swallow (Hirundo rustica) and swift (Apus apus) were recorded as individuals and small groups undertaking prey pursuit flights across the Survey Area. While no evidence of their breeding was found, they are very likely to be nesting in the scattered farm buildings to the west and north of the existing wind farm. The habitats within the Survey Area therefore represent a feeding resource for these species. Additional Bird Records 7.7.33 An anecdotal record of 16 curlew was made before dawn on the first bat survey (23rd September 2009). These birds were roosting/feeding between the existing turbines, which were operational at the time (D. Callaghan, pers. comm. 24/09/09). There was no evidence that these birds had bred within the Survey Area. VP Surveys 7.7.34 All peregrine activity was attributable to a pair of adult birds with a recently fledged female. The majority of flights were made by one or both birds of the adult pair, with frequent social flights made by both adults. A number of flights involved one or both adult birds and the young bird together engaging in “tutorial” and social flights involving prey-passes, prey plucking and feeding. 7.7.35 The large majority of flights involved soaring over the higher ground of Hameldon Hill, Hapton Park and Lower Park before flying out across the existing wind farm to the north. The pattern of flight activity across the Survey Area is striking – Figure 7.3 shows the flight lines recorded and describes the core flight areas across the Survey Area and its immediate surroundings. The distribution of peregrine flights was almost totally restricted to the southern and eastern parts of the Survey Area. There were no flights across Thorny Bank Wood or the central area of improved and semi-improved grassland flanking Tower Brook. However flights were made between, around and above the existing turbines without any apparent concern about the rotating turbine blades. 7.7.36 The patterns observed are probably the result of a combination of topography and habitat. Given the more or less even distribution of smaller birds (mostly thrushes, pigeons and corvids), it seems unlikely that the peregrines’ flight distributions were governed heavily by prey distribution, being more dependent on the correct conditions for making successful hunting flights. 7.7.37 The wind conditions above the raised ground on which the existing turbines are located are likely to allow the peregrines to sustain soaring flight easily and to gain height prior to stoop and prey pursuit. The latter behaviour was observed on at least two occasions. 7.7.38 Occasional flights were made by grey heron, raven (Corvus corax) and sparrowhawk. A pair of kestrel was observed hunting over the Survey Area on a number of occasions. The majority of these flights were, by virtue of their height and/or distribution, not at risk of collision. Collision Risk Model 7.7.39 Peregrine activity was recorded on most VP watches. The peregrine flights recorded over a 36 hour period totalled 3217 seconds within the Survey Area. The vertical distribution of flights showed a marked trend (65%) towards the upper height band, with around 24% of the recorded flight time in the middle height bands at which collisions would be possible. Having accounted for the difference in rotor swept area between the existing and the proposed turbines, the time spent at risk of collision equates to 685 seconds of flight at the Rotor Swept Height (RSH) of the MM70 turbines and 805 seconds for the MM82 turbines. The CRM scales these times up to an annual equivalent based on the assumed model input parameters, which are stated in Appendix 7.5 along with the model outputs. 7.7.40 Separate model runs were carried out for the existing turbines and the proposed turbines to give estimated collision mortalities for both turbine arrays and an estimate of cumulative or whole-wind farm mortality. The predicted mortalities are shown in Table 7.6. 7.7.41 The proposed development is for a 25 year operational period, which is exclusive of the time required for construction and decommissioning of the wind farm infrastructure. The remaining operational life of the existing turbines is unclear, however for the purposes of this EcIA it has been assumed that a 6- turbine wind farm, utilising two different turbine models, will be operational for 25 years.

Table 7.6 Estimated Collision Mortality of Peregrine at Hameldon Hill Wind Farm

Turbine Model Number of Hub Blade Predicted flight Estimated Estimated Turbines (m) (m) time at RSH Mortality* mortality over during 36 hour operational

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 73

survey period life of (s) turbines**

MM70 (existing) 3 55 35 685 1 bird 6 birds every 3.9 years

MM82 (proposed) 3 69 41 805 1 bird 8 birds every 3.2 years

Cumulative 6 - - - 1 bird 14 birds every 1.8 years *Assuming 95% collision avoidance **Over a 25 year period, assuming 95% collision avoidance. Rounded to the nearest whole number. 7.8 Evaluation and Impact Assessment Designated Sites 7.8.1 None of the designated sites in the Study Area are designated for ornithological interests, with the exception of the South Pennine Moors SPA, which is 14km away from the existing wind farm. There will be no ornithological impacts of the proposed scheme on any designated sites, including Thorny Bank Clough BHS. This potential receptor will therefore not be given further consideration with respect to ornithology. Further discussion of the potential impacts on the general ecological interests of designated sites is given in Section 6.7. Nature Conservation Evaluation 7.8.2 The first step in the ornithological impact assessment is the establishment of nature conservation “value” of the bird populations using the proposed wind farm extension and its immediate surroundings. This has been derived for each species through consideration of conservation status against the regional population estimates published by ELOC and the regularity with which the species was recorded within the Survey area. Analysis of population significance is made against national numbers (Robinson, 2005) for species that attain at least medium value through comparison with the regional figures and where there is any doubt about the representativeness of the regional counts. 7.8.3 A summary of the nature conservation value of the birds recorded within the survey area is provided in Appendix 7.9. Impacts 7.8.4 The impact assessments are divided into those associated with construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed wind farm extension. The potential impacts of these activities on birds are principally: • Habitat loss associated with additional wind farm infrastructure and working areas. • Disturbance during construction; • Disturbance during operation; • Collision-related bird mortality above background levels during operation; • Displacement of birds from breeding territories during operation; • Disturbance during decommissioning (removal) of the wind farm infrastructure. 7.8.5 Each of these impacts will affect different species to different extents depending on their distribution and how they use the site (i.e. for breeding or just as a feeding/foraging resource). 7.8.6 The temporary infrastructure will include a site compound during the construction phase. All other infrastructure will be permanent or semi-permanent and will require the loss of varying amounts of semi- natural habitat. 7.8.7 The footprint of the proposed wind farm extension will be restricted primarily to a more or less oblong tract of land to the north of Lower Park Quarry between Thorny Bank Wood and the existing turbines, as shown on Figure 3.1 and described in Chapter 3 of this document. The working area is represented by

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 74

the site compound, access tracks, turbine bases and crane pads. The impact assessments for each potential impact are described below and summarised in Table 7.7. Construction Habitat Loss 7.8.8 The construction phase is likely to be approximately nine months long and any impacts associated with it are assumed to be of no more than this duration. For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that up to two breeding seasons will be affected by construction. 7.8.9 The site compound will measure approximately 40 m x 70 m and will require the disturbance and effective loss of improved grassland adjacent to the existing farm track to the south of Old Barn Cottage for a period of approximately nine months (see Figure 6.1). Based on the results of the bird surveys carried out by AECOM, there will be no direct impact on birds associated with this part of the development. The impact magnitude and impact significance of the construction compound on breeding or wintering birds is therefore predicted to be Neutral. 7.8.10 The existing farm tracks will be widened to 5 m (an addition of approximately 1 m width over their entire length) to accommodate construction traffic and heavy plant. Additional lengths of access track totalling approximately 0.37 km will be constructed to access turbines 2 and 3. This will require a small area of land take and associated habitat loss, all of which will be heavily grazed improved or semi-improved grassland, including a small area of grassland habitat along the periphery of the young plantation woodland at TN19. There were no records of nesting birds breeding within these habitat areas and the loss of the feeding resource will be negligible, therefore the impact magnitude and significance of the track widening/construction will be Neutral. 7.8.11 The proposed wind turbines will require an additional grid connection, which will be laid beneath the existing and proposed access tracks, feeding from the turbine bases via the proposed substation and along the existing farm track to the A679 (Accrington Road). From here it will be installed beneath the A679 as far as the nearest substation at NGR 380214 430960. This requires no additional habitat loss or disturbance over and above that associated with the access tracks and is therefore of Neutral impact magnitude and impact significance. 7.8.12 The remaining infrastructure will require the clearance of small areas of improved and semi-improved grassland totalling approximately 2 ha to make way for turbine bases, crane pads and an on-site electricity substation. None of these will involve direct impacts, through habitat loss, on any breeding bird territories, therefore the impact significance of this habitat loss on all breeding birds will be of Neutral magnitude and significance. 7.8.13 The habitat losses overall represent a tiny proportion of the semi-natural habitat resource within the survey area. Furthermore, none of the habitat losses will be from the areas of sensitivity identified for wintering birds and it is considered unlikely that this impact will affect the distribution or status of any wintering birds across the survey area. Habitat loss is therefore regarded as being of Neutral magnitude and significance for all wintering birds. Disturbance 7.8.14 Disturbance of breeding and wintering birds during construction is likely to arise from the audible and visual intrusions caused by the noises and movements of vehicles, heavy plant and construction staff. These will be localised to the working areas, site compound and access tracks. 7.8.15 The site compound is unlikely to have any effect on the wintering or breeding bird assemblages because it is far enough away from the key habitats used for breeding and feeding used by most species. Any species that breed within or around Old Barn Farm will be habituated to high levels of background disturbance from farm operations centred on the farm yard and out buildings. 7.8.16 Disturbance of breeding birds across and eastwards of the open habitats of Lower Park is likely to be buffered to some extent by the presence of dry stone walls and the natural topography, which rises to the south and east creating a visual barrier from much of the site work. A small number of ground- nesting birds with territories on the improved grasslands flanking Tower Brook are likely to be disturbed. It is assumed that these birds will be prevented from successfully establishing territories and/or successfully fledging/rearing young. The temporary cessation of successful breeding by these species will not significantly alter the key attributes of the site, but will adversely affect the local status and distribution of the species affected. The impact magnitude will therefore be Minor Negative for meadow pipit and reed bunting resulting in a Slight Adverse impact for these species.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 75

7.8.17 Vehicle movements along the eastern edge of Thorny Bank Wood and construction of turbines 1 and 2, which are closest to the wood could cause disturbance to all components of the woodland bird assemblage, however this is likely to be buffered to a large extent by the fact that the woodland sits in a deep clough and is therefore protected to a large degree from noise and visual intrusion. Disturbance will probably only be significant on the woodland edge, where foraging, song and breeding displays/interactions might be interrupted. It is therefore likely that successful breeding will be possible for these species but that the number of young successfully raised could be reduced. The impact magnitude on breeding birds is predicted to be Minor Negative. The impact significance is assessed as Neutral for: • Blackbird. • Blue tit. • Great tit. • Chaffinch. • Wren. • Great Spotted Woodpecker. • Robin. • Blackcap. • Goldfinch. • Coal tit. • Wood pigeon. • Pheasant. 7.8.18 The impact significance of disturbance will be Slight Adverse for the following breeding species due to their higher nature conservation value: • Kestrel. • Song thrush. • Willow warbler. 7.8.19 It is anticipated that whitethroat breeding within the young plantation adjacent to Thorny Bank Wood will be affected in a similar way to birds on the woodland edge, resulting in potentially reduced breeding success. This is a Minor Negative impact resulting in an impact assessment of Slight Adverse. 7.8.20 The results of the VP surveys and the data searches have shown conclusively that there is a pair of peregrines in the Hameldon area whose territory overlaps with the existing and proposed wind farm extension. Breeding activity was sufficiently distant from the proposed turbines and working areas to be comfortably within or to exceed the recommended safe buffers discussed in Ruddock and Whitfield (2007) for breeding peregrine. The impact of disturbance on breeding peregrine is therefore likely to be Neutral in magnitude and significance. Construction-related disturbance of wintering peregrine is arguably less likely since this species will spend less time at the breeding site during winter and, because it is not breeding, will be less sensitive to disturbance. 7.8.21 The assemblage of wintering birds in Thorny Bank Wood and the plantation woodland will be subjected only to significant disturbance at the woodland edges, resulting in small impacts on their ability to find food. The impact of disturbance will be Minor Negative for the following woodland species in winter. The impact significance is shown for each species individually: • Blackbird (Neutral). • Blue tit (Neutral). • Chaffinch (Neutral). • Coal tit (Neutral). • Dunnock (Slight Adverse). • Goldcrest (Neutral). • Great spotted woodpecker (Neutral).

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 76

• Great tit (Neutral). • Long-tailed tit (Neutral). • Redwing (Slight Adverse). • Robin (Neutral). • Song thrush (Slight Adverse). • Treecreeper (Neutral). • Wren (Neutral). 7.8.22 Disturbance during the winter months is expected to adversely affect the distribution, movements and feeding activities of a number of species that were frequently recorded on the improved grasslands surrounding Tower Brook. While it is difficult to quantify the extent to which this will occur, it is reasonable to assume that the limited footprint and working areas required for the proposed wind farm extension will limit this impact. It is therefore expected that during construction there will be a reduction, but not a complete cessation, of the activity of all species recorded in this area during the wintering bird surveys. Effects on birds across the survey area to the east and south are considered insignificant because they are buffered from disturbance by natural topography and substantial dry stone walls. It is very likely that birds displaced from the improved grasslands during construction will continue to make use of the wider Survey Area. 7.8.23 The species affected were all recorded regularly (i.e. on two or more of the survey visits) and are likely to experience a Minor Negative effect on the use of their usual feeding and loafing areas, resulting in variable impact assessments for each species, as shown below: • Black-headed gull (Neutral). • Carrion crow (Neutral). • Common gull (Slight Adverse). • Fieldfare (Slight Adverse). • Mallard (Neutral). • Meadow pipit (Slight Adverse). • Rook (Neutral). • Skylark (Slight Adverse). • Starling (Slight Adverse). Operation 7.8.24 The operational effects of wind farms include primarily the displacement of birds from feeding areas and territories or breeding sites and mortality through mid-air collisions with rotating turbine blades. In this case operation of the proposed wind farm extension will have no effect on the habitats present within the survey area, so any impacts on birds will be a direct result of operational wind farm infrastructure rather than as a result of habitat change associated with the turbines. 7.8.25 The wind farm infrastructure will generally necessitate a small increase in human activity across the site for monitoring and maintenance purposes and this is expected to have some minor, intermittent and very short term effects on birds over a limited area. Displacement of wintering birds 7.8.26 Some reduction in bird activity over winter is expected in the immediate vicinity of the turbines, however quantifying this change with any certainty is difficult. This is mainly because it can be hard to separate the influence of turbines with those of other factors such as habitat type, land use and prey availability. 7.8.27 Based on observations of bird distribution and the arrangement of the existing wind farm infrastructure it is easy to draw the conclusion that the existing turbines have had a detrimental effect on bird activity in their immediate vicinity. However, the fields in which these turbines are located are devoid of trees and scrub or any cover from topographical features (such as clough valleys), are much drier and are more heavily and uniformly grazed than those to the west. Furthermore, they are closer to the human settlement of New Barn and are therefore subjected to greater levels of disturbance than the

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 77

surrounding fields. This is potentially exacerbated further by the fact that the existing turbines are more tightly spaced than the proposed ones 7.8.28 Despite this, use of the habitats around the existing turbines was made by a number of species including snipe, starling, black-headed gull, skylark and particularly rook and carrion crow. 7.8.29 With this in mind, the assessment of operation of the proposed wind farm extension on the use of the survey area by wintering birds is based on the assumption that any reduction in habitat use between and immediately adjacent to the proposed turbines will be relatively small and that there will be no effects on wintering birds on the higher ground to the east and south of the existing and proposed turbines. It is therefore predicted that operation of the proposed wind farm extension will create a Minor Negative impact on a number of species that were recorded using the terrestrial habitats in winter. The species affected are listed below, along with the overall impact significance for each: • Carrion crow (Neutral). • Common Gull (Slight Adverse). • Fieldfare (Slight Adverse). • Meadow pipit (Slight Adverse). • Rook (Neutral). • Skylark (Slight Adverse). • Starling (Slight Adverse). 7.8.30 The majority of woodland bird activity in winter was in the northern half of Thorny Bank Wood. When this is considered against the proposed turbine locations, it is likely that there is sufficient distance between the turbines and the woodland to result in no significant adverse impact of the turbines on woodland birds in winter. Vehicular access to the operational turbines using the access tracks along the edge of the mature and plantation woodlands will result in short-lived intermittent disturbance of woodland-edge birds. This is unlikely to be of sufficient magnitude to influence the birds’ use of the woodland and is therefore assessed as Neutral. Displacement of Breeding Birds 7.8.31 It is widely acknowledged that the presence and operation of wind farm infrastructure, particularly turbines, can result in the partial or complete disruption of breeding activity through the displacement of breeding birds from established territories, as described in a number of published reviews and guidance such as Langston and Pullan (2003) and Percival (2000, 2005). However, the extent to which this might occur is likely to vary depending on factors such as habitat, topography, elevation, turbine specifications, wind farm size and the individual responses of different species to turbines. 7.8.32 On lowland wind farms in the UK, Devereux et al. (2008) found no effect of wind turbine location on the distribution of a range of breeding birds. Conversely, Pearce-Higgins et al. (2009) found significant levels of turbine avoidance up to 500 m from turbines for a number of species at upland wind farms of 10 turbines or more. 7.8.33 Neither of these studies is directly applicable to the proposed scheme at Hameldon, which is a relatively small addition to an existing wind farm that occupies land on the upland fringe that rises from approximately 200 m to 300 m. There is currently no consensus regarding displacement of birds that can be applied to all wind farms. A cautious approach is taken in this assessment that assumes decreases of 50% in breeding density for all species up to 500m from the proposed turbines, in line with the largest mean decreases in density reported by Pearce-Higgins et al. (2009). 7.8.34 The following decreases in the numbers of breeding pairs of each species (see Appendix 7.9) are predicted (odd numbers have been rounded down, since there is sufficient caution built in to the approach described above). Species not listed are deemed to be unaffected (i.e. they will suffer no decrease in breeding numbers) using this approach: • Blackcap 1 • Chaffinch 1 • Meadow pipit 5 • Reed bunting 1

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 78

• Robin 1 • Skylark 2 • Willow warbler 2 • Wren 1 7.8.35 The majority of breeding species will not be displaced by the proposed wind farm extension. The numbers displaced of each species represent extremely small proportions of the regional populations (Appendix 7.9), nevertheless there is likely to be some effect on their distribution and status at a local level. Displacement during the breeding season therefore represents a minor negative impact whose overall significance is slight adverse for meadow pipit, reed bunting, skylark and willow warbler. For all other species the impact is predicted to be neutral. Collision Mortality 7.8.36 The predicted mortality of peregrine attributable to the proposed turbines is one bird every 3.2 years. Mortality associated with the existing turbines is predicted to be one bird every 3.9 years. The whole wind-farm mortality is predicted to be one bird every 1.8 years, which would result in the death of 14 birds over the 25 year operational life of the turbines. This is an approximate doubling of the collision risk for peregrine due to the additional turbines. The impact assessment for collision mortality is based on the model results per annum the proposed turbines, since the mortality ascribed to the existing turbines represents the baseline against which impacts can be measured. 7.8.37 Analysis of these figures against the national background survival rate can provide some crude but useful context to the predicted mortality associated with the proposed and existing Hameldon Hill turbines. The collision rate attributable to the proposed and existing turbines at Hameldon is equivalent to 0.57 fatalities per year. Applying the adult survival rate of 0.8 (Robinson, 2005) to the current East Lancashire population of 66 birds, on average 13.2 of these would be expected to die in a year. The addition of a further 0.57 deaths results in 13.77 deaths per year. This represents a regional survival rate of 0.79 (an increase in regional mortality by 1%) attributable to the proposed and existing turbines combined. The mortality attributable to the proposed turbines alone is 0.32 birds per year, resulting in 13.52 deaths per year which adds just over 0.5% to the background regional mortality. 7.8.38 The key reason why this is a crude analysis is that it does not take into account the different survival rates of birds at different ages. For instance, the published juvenile survival rate for birds less than 1 year old is 0.544, meaning that roughly half of all juveniles die in their first year. Juvenile survival is therefore more sensitive to additional sources of mortality. 7.8.39 However, there are a number of reasons to believe that the results of the CRM significantly overestimate peregrine mortality. Firstly, the timing of the surveys coincided with the post-fledging period, which represents a time of peak peregrine flight activity when both adult and juvenile birds are on the wing. Additional surveys throughout the year would probably dilute the predicted mortality because one would expect to record far less peregrine flight over a given period, for instance in winter. This would better represent the true amount of peregrine flight within the airspace of the proposed and existing wind farm on an annual basis. 7.8.40 Another key reason becomes obvious when looking at the flight line map (Figure 7.3). This shows a very marked flight pattern that favours the higher ground of Lower Park, Hapton Park, Hameldon Hill and the ridge on which the existing turbines are sited. There is virtually no flight activity in the depression of the central part of the site around Tower Brook, where the proposed turbines are to be located. While it is not possible to state that flights will never occur there, the results strongly indicate that flights are made preferentially over the higher ground, which coincides with the less heavily managed habitats. This could result in real-world collision rates that are as little as half those derived using the model. 7.8.41 Additional circumstantial evidence for low collision rates came from repeat observations, made during the VP surveys, of flights between and around the existing turbines that indicated at least some awareness of the moving turbine blades and an ability of the peregrines to evade them. Furthermore, the data search records of peregrine in this area date back to 1988, with consecutive annual records at the same site since 1992. These observations strongly suggest that the peregrines have become habituated to the existing turbines and that they have bred successfully here, despite the presence of the existing wind farm.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 79

7.8.42 Taking into account the discussion provided above and the uncertainty inherent in predicting collision rates, it is likely that the impact magnitude of collision mortality for peregrine attributable to the proposed turbines will be minor negative and that the impact significance will be slight adverse. This will be a long term impact, occurring over the operational life of the turbines. Decommissioning 7.8.43 Decommissioning of the wind farm extension will involve the removal of all above-ground infrastructure, including the turbine towers and the electricity substation, but excluding the access tracks. The habitats will be restored to a suitable condition, which is likely to involve reinstatement to pastoral grassland similar to the habitats that are currently present. 7.8.44 It is anticipated that the impacts of decommissioning will be broadly similar to those of construction, involving disturbance of breeding and wintering birds principally on the woodland edges and the improved and semi-improved grasslands between Thorny Bank Wood and the existing turbines. The impacts will be shorter lived than those during construction and it is therefore likely that they will be less severe overall, however the impacts on all species are cautiously assessed as being equal to those for construction. 7.8.45 There will be a very minor beneficial impact from the reinstatement of grasslands, however this is likely to be too small to be of any more than negligible benefit to the bird assemblages.

7.9 Mitigation 7.9.1 The mitigation discussed in the following paragraphs is in addition to the measures described in Section 6.8 for the protection of habitats. The general principle of minimising damage, disturbance and loss of habitats will be followed at all times.

7.10 Construction and Decommissioning 7.10.1 The minimum working areas required for safe working will need to be used so that habitat loss and disturbance are minimised. Working practices will ensure that no trees or scrub are removed at any time during the construction period and that there is no encroachment of working areas or access tracks onto Thorny Bank Wood BHS. This, and the measures outlined in Section 6.8, will ensure that there are no direct impacts on the woodland bird assemblages. 7.10.2 Damage or destruction of the nests of ground-nesting birds must be avoided in the interests of both minimising impacts on breeding birds and avoiding contravention of the WCA. This will be achieved by implementing the following mitigation: 7.10.3 Clearance of ground vegetation and the establishment of all working areas, including access tracks, will be done outside of the bird breeding season, which is typically from March to the end of July inclusive. Avoidance of these preliminary activities between February and September will be required to minimise the chances of encountering early or late breeders or those rearing multiple broods; Completion of pre- construction works including site clearance and establishment of working areas within this timeframe will enable all other construction work within the working areas to be completed without seasonal ornithological constraints. 7.10.4 All site clearance and reestablishment of working areas between February and September inclusive should be immediately preceded by surveys for nesting birds, to be carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced ornithologist. 7.10.5 If possible, construction will be phased so that proposed Turbine nos. 2 and 3 are constructed preferentially outside of the breeding season. This will minimise movements of vehicular traffic past the edge of Thorny Bank Wood when woodland birds are most sensitive to disturbance and will ensure that construction-related impacts on potentially the most vulnerable breeding birds of open habitats, including peregrine, grasshopper warbler, reed bunting and skylark are minimised. This will also decrease the impacts of disturbance on wintering species that feed within the open habitats here, including gulls, starling, fieldfare and skylark. Access to turbine number 1 will not require any vehicular movements past Thorny Bank Wood. This turbine is also the most distant from any of the ground- nesting bird territories, therefore it is not necessary to phase the construction of this turbine. 7.10.6 Work will not be carried out at night, as this may disturb roosting birds or those that are nocturnally active. Operation

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 80

7.10.7 The impacts of operation of the wind farm extension have been minimised through careful wind farm design informed on an ad hoc basis by the results of the ecological surveys and desk studies carried out by AECOM. 7.10.8 There are no further significant opportunities to mitigate the operational impacts of the proposed wind farm extension.

7.11 Residual Impacts and Policy Assessment 7.11.1 Implementing the mitigation outlined in the previous section will reduce the impacts of the construction and decommissioning phases of the proposed wind farm extension as shown in Table 7.7. The impacts of the operational phase have been minimised through careful wind farm design.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 81

Table 7.7 Impact Assessments, Mitigation and Residual Impacts

Impact Ecological Impact Receptor Mitigation Ecological Impact Significance without Significance with Mitigation Mitigation

Construction

Habitat loss due to Neutral All wintering and Use of minimum safe working areas and general best practice Neutral site compounds and breeding birds. (see Section 6.8). wind farm No encroachment or working areas, staff or materials on to Thorny infrastructure. Bank Wood.

No removal of trees or scrub.

Clearance of ground vegetation outside breeding season.

Pre-clearance surveys for ground nesting birds if during breeding season.

Disturbance from Neutral All wintering and Impacts minimised through careful siting of compound. Neutral site compound. breeding birds.

Disturbance from Slight Adverse Breeding meadow Construction of turbines 2 and 3 outside of breeding season to Neutral construction of pipit. minimise impacts on ground nesting birds. turbines. Breeding reed bunting.

Disturbance from Neutral Woodland breeding Construction of Turbine 2 outside of breeding season to minimise Neutral vehicle movements assemblage, disturbance from vehicle movements and construction noise. and installation of except those turbine 2. below.

Slight Adverse Kestrel Neutral

Song thrush

Willow warbler

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 82

Impact Ecological Impact Receptor Mitigation Ecological Impact Significance without Significance with Mitigation Mitigation

Whitethroat

Disturbance from all Neutral Peregrine Mitigated through careful wind farm design, minimisation of Neutral construction activity (wintering and working areas and use of best practice as described in Section breeding) 6.8.

Slight adverse Wintering Minimum safe working areas and prevention of any encroachment Neutral woodland on to Thorny Bank Wood by vehicles, heavy plant, construction assemblage: staff or materials.

ƒ Dunnock

ƒ Redwing

ƒ Song thrush

Neutral All other species in Neutral wintering woodland assemblage

Neutral Wintering species Minimum safe working areas, adoption of best practice and no Neutral of open habitats encroachment on to semi-natural habitats. recorded within No work at night, to prevent disturbance of roosting birds or those footprint of wind active nocturnally. farm: Phasing of turbine construction so that only turbines 2 and 3 are ƒ Black-headed constructed during the wintering season. gull

ƒ Carrion crow

ƒ Mallard

ƒ Rook

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 83

Impact Ecological Impact Receptor Mitigation Ecological Impact Significance without Significance with Mitigation Mitigation

Slight adverse Wintering species Neutral of open habitats

recorded within footprint of wind farm:

ƒ Common gull

ƒ Fieldfare

ƒ Meadow pipit

ƒ Starling

ƒ Skylark

Operation

Displacement of Slight adverse Wintering species Mitigation through wind farm design informed by ornithological Slight adverse wintering birds recorded within baseline studies. No further opportunities for mitigation. footprint of wind farm:

ƒ Common gull

ƒ Fieldfare

ƒ Meadow pipit

ƒ Skylark

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 84

Impact Ecological Impact Receptor Mitigation Ecological Impact Significance without Significance with Mitigation Mitigation

ƒ Starling

Neutral All other species Neutral including woodland birds

Displacement of Slight adverse Meadow pipit Slight adverse breeding birds Reed bunting

Skylark

Willow warbler

Neutral All other species Neutral

Collision mortality Slight adverse Peregrine Slight adverse

Decommissioning

Impacts, receptors, mitigation and residual impacts are the same as those for construction.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 85

7.11.2 If all of the recommended mitigation is implemented, the residual impacts of the proposed wind farm extension on birds are likely to be slight adverse overall. Following the mitigation will ensure that there is no contravention of the WCA with respect to birds.

7.12 Cumulative Impacts 7.12.1 The potential for a cumulative impact between proposed and operational wind farms arises principally if species from the same population are using more than one of the wind farm sites. The likelihood of this can be assessed through analysis of the species assemblage and by examining the likely range and territory size of those species. 7.12.2 A total of nine competing sites have been identified within 35 km of the proposed Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension site (see Table 6.15). 7.12.3 With the exception of the operational 3 turbine development east of the existing Hameldon Hill wind farm, all of the other sites are located at least 11 km from the proposed Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension. Most birds are highly mobile and many are migratory, therefore it is entirely possible that any of the species recorded could fly through more than one of these wind farms. 7.12.4 However analysis of the wintering and breeding bird data reveals repeat records that suggest that many of the species recorded at Hameldon Hill, particularly the woodland passerines and the smaller ground- nesting species such as meadow pipit and skylark, are resident breeders with relatively small ranges that remain on the site over winter. The majority of the species recorded at Hameldon Hill are therefore not at risk of cumulative impacts. 7.12.5 Species of conservation concern that are most likely to fly through multiple wind farms include fieldfare, redwing, starling and peregrine. It is only the latter species that might experience significant cumulative impacts because it occupies the largest territorial range and is therefore most likely to encounter multiple wind farms. Furthermore, in this case the evidence suggests that the peregrines are resident birds with a regular territory therefore they would be expected to be present in the wider countryside throughout the year. Over winter particularly, peregrines are known to range much further from their territories and this period might present the greatest risk of cumulative mortality. 7.12.6 However detailed ornithological baseline data from all of the proposed and operational wind farms were not readily available at the time of writing, therefore it is not possible to assess the cumulative impacts with any degree of certainty. While a larger cumulative impact might be expected, it is equally possible that the behaviour, range and habituation of the Hameldon peregrines to the presence of wind turbines would render any additional collision mortality negligible.

7.13 Summary and Conclusions 7.13.1 Data searches and detailed ornithological surveys were carried out in support of the EcIA for the expansion of Hameldon Hill Wind Farm. The surveys included wintering and breeding bird census, followed by vantage point surveys to assess the use of the wind farm airspace by breeding peregrine. The baseline data were used to inform the ornithological impact assessments. The assessment included analysis of the predicted mortality of peregrine associated with collision with rotating turbine blades, estimated using a CRM. 7.13.2 The impact assessments were derived by considering the predicted severity of impact against the nature conservation value of each species. The distribution and use of the site by each species potentially affected were also analysed. 7.13.3 A number of relatively sensitive areas were identified. These include the woodland habitat of Thorny Bank Clough BHS and the less heavily managed grasslands and rush-pasture occupying the upper slopes of the site to the east and south of the existing turbines, as far as the cliffs of Park Scout Quarry. There will be no development, and therefore no direct effects, on these habitats. 7.13.4 The potential impacts of the proposed wind farm extension will occur during construction, operation and decommissioning of the infrastructure. These include habitat loss, disturbance, displacement of birds (for instance from territories) and increased mortality through mid air collisions of birds with moving turbine blades. 7.13.5 The majority of species that regularly use the site are of negligible conservation value. The impacts of most of the construction, decommissioning and operation of the wind farm extension will have no more than slight adverse impacts on these species, resulting in impact assessments of Neutral for most species and most of the predicted impacts.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 86

7.13.6 However there are a number of species of low, medium and high conservation value that will be subject to some slight adverse impacts associated with the proposed wind farm extension. Such impacts include disturbance of breeding and wintering birds during construction, displacement of wintering and, more significantly, breeding birds due to the presence and operation of the turbines. The species affected include a number of ground-nesting birds and some of the woodland birds that form the assemblage recorded in Thorny Bank Wood. The effects of displacement on breeding skylark are predicted to by slight-moderate adverse, with up to 5 breeding pairs displaced. 7.13.7 The most significant ornithological species of the wind farm extension site is breeding peregrine. The adult pair is likely to be resident and site-faithful, holding a regular territory and nesting site all year round through intermittent presence over winter. Siting and design of the proposed wind farm extension will successfully eliminate any adverse impacts on this species that might have occurred through disturbance during construction and decommissioning and/or displacement from the breeding territory. The potential impacts of collision mortality are slight adverse, however the CRM probably over- estimates collision mortality because it does not take into account the distribution of observed flights and the apparent habituation of the resident peregrines to the existing turbines. 7.13.8 There are nine other proposed or operational wind farms within 35 km of the wind farm at Hameldon Hill. Cumulative impacts are highly unlikely for the more sedentary species such as resident woodland passerines and the smaller ground-nesting species. Cumulative impacts are considered more likely for peregrine which, particularly over winter, occupy a much larger range than the other species recorded. It is not possible to assess cumulative impacts with any certainty because this would require detailed analysis of all baseline ornithological data for each competing wind farm. Such data are not available. 7.13.9 Mitigation has been proposed that is expected to be effective for most impacts and most species. Key mitigation includes the proposed wind farm extension siting and design, which has been informed on an ad hoc basis by, among other things, the results of the baseline ecological and ornithological surveys. In the case of peregrine mortality, it is difficult to propose any additional mitigation that will prove effective in the further reduction of this impact. 7.13.10 The overall impact of the wind farm extension is predicted to be slight adverse.

7.14 References

Band, W., Madders, M. and Whitfield, D.P. (in press). Developing field and analytical methods to assess avian collision risk at wind farms. In Birds and Wind Power. de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E. and Ferrer, M. (Eds.), 2007. Quercus Press, Spain.

Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., & Hill, D.A. (1992). Bird Census Techniques. The University Press, Cambridge.

Department of the Environment (1981). Wildlife and Countryside Act. HMSO

Devereux, C.L., Denny, M.J.H. and Whittingham, M.J. (2008). Minimal effects of wind turbines on the distribution of wintering farmland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 1689-1694.

European Commission DGXI (1995). Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds. Standard Data Forum. EUR15 version. Brussels: European Commission DGXI.

Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W. and Evans, J. (1998). Bird Monitoring Methods. RSPB.

Hill, D., Fasham, M., Tucker, G., Shewry, M and Shaw, P (eds.) (2005); Handbook of Biodiversity Methods: Survey, Evaluation and Monitoring. RPS Group plc and Scottish Natural Heritage.

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2006); Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. IEEM.

Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (1995). Guidelines for Baseline Ecological Assessment. Taylor & Francis, IEMA.

Langston, R.H.W. and Pullan, J.D. (2003). Windfarms and Birds; An analysis of the effects of windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. Proceedings of

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 87

the 23rd meeting of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, Strasbourg. RSPB/Birdlife International.

Marchant, J.H. (1983). BTO Common Birds Census Instructions. British Trust for Ornithology, Tring.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005). Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/planningpolicyguidance/historicenvironme nt/pps9/. The Stationery Office.

Office of Public Sector Information (1999); Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19990293.htm.

Office of Public Sector Information (2006). Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060016_en_1

Ove Arup and Partners Ltd. (2004). Hameldon Wind Farm Breeding Bird Survey.

Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P. and Bullman, R. (2009). The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology, 1365-2664.

Percival, S.M. (2000). Birds and wind turbines in Britain. British Wildlife 12(1). British Wildlife Publishing.

Percival, S.M. (2005). Birds and wind farms: what are the real issues? British Birds 98, 194 – 204.

Robinson, R.A. (2005); BirdFacts: profiles of birds occurring in Britain & Ireland (v1.1, Jan 2006). BTO Research Report 407, BTO, Thetford (http://www.bto.org/birdfacts).

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (2009). Birds of Conservation Concern 3. RSPB.

RSPB, Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside and Partners (2008). Wind Turbines, Sensitive Bird populations and Peat Soils. A Spatial Planning Guide for On-Shore Wind Farm Developments in Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. RSPB, LWT.

Ruddock, M. and Whitfield, D.P. (2007). A Review of Disturbance Distances in Selected Bird Species. A report from Natural Research (Projects) Ltd. to Scottish Natural Heritage.

Scottish Natural Heritage (2000); Windfarms and Birds: Calculating a theoretical collision risk assuming no avoiding action. SNH Guidance Note Series 2000. http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/renewable/COLLIS.pdf.

Scottish Natural Heritage (2005); Consultation Draft: Survey Methods for Use In Assessment Of The Impacts Of Proposed Onshore Wind Farms On Bird Communities. SNH. http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/renewable/bird_survey.pdf.

Snow, D. and Perrins, C.M. (editors) (1998). The Birds of the Western Palaearctic: Concise Edition (2 volumes). Oxford University Press. Accessed from BWPi DVD-ROM Version 2.0 DRBWP.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 88

8 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

8.1 Introduction 8.1.1 This archaeological and cultural heritage assessment examines the known archaeology and built heritage of the proposed extension to the existing wind farm at Hameldon Hill, Lancashire. Assessment is made of the likely significant effects of the development upon archaeology and cultural heritage, of both physical impacts and impacts upon the setting of cultural heritage features. The site location can be seen on Figure 1.1. Details of the proposed development are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report. 8.1.2 A study area of approximately 2 km from a central grid reference of SD 804 300 was assessed to gain an understanding of the nature of the surrounding archaeological landscape and to place sites within their wider context. 8.1.3 This chapter involved gathering information from the Lancashire Historic Environment Record (HER), the National Monuments Record (NMR) and documentary sources. Available historic maps and the Lancashire Historic Landscape Characterisation were examined and a walkover survey was undertaken. 8.1.4 The existing wind farm development was preceded by an archaeological desk-based assessment (DBA) by the Centre for Wetland Research (CWR 2002) and a subsequent watching brief conducted by Oxford Archaeology North (OAN 2006) during the construction and groundwork phases of the wind turbine erection. 8.1.5 The site is located between Burnley and Accrington, to the south-east of Hapton. The landscape of the proposed wind farm extension is comprised of improved pasture, rough grassland and wet moorland (CWR 2002) which lies approximately 280m AOD. The solid geology of the area is characterised by Carboniferous and Jurassic sandstone overlain by Palaeozoic sandstone drift deposits. This is overlain by a drift geology comprising of seasonally waterlogged fine loamy and clayey soils, which are capped by acidic and wet peaty surface deposits (CWR 2002).

8.2 Scope of Assessment 8.2.1 The scope of the assessment was to: • Determine the presence of known archaeological and built heritage sites that may be affected by the proposed development. • Assess the likely potential of finding previously unrecorded archaeological remains during the construction programme. • Identify impacts upon archaeological features. • Identify potential impacts upon the setting of known archaeological sites in the surrounding area. • Suggest mitigation measures based upon the results of the above research. 8.3 Legislation and Policy Framework 8.3.1 National legislation and guidance which is relevant to cultural heritage for this area includes: • Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 • Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 • Planning and Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning & the Historic Environment • Planning & Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology & Planning • Draft Planning and Policy Statement 15: Planning for the Historic Environment 8.3.2 Regional and local planning policies which are relevant to the consideration of cultural heritage include: • North West of England Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 adopted 30th September 2008. Supplementary Planning Guidance - ‘Lancashire’s Historic Environment’ • Burnley Local Plan comprising: E17 – Historic Parks and Gardens, E18 – Scheduled Ancient Monuments, E19 – Development and Archaeological Remains and E20 Views

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 89

8.4 Consultation 8.4.1 Initial consultation was held with the County Archaeologist for Lancashire on 27 October 2009. The proposed approach for the assessment was discussed, as well as the methodology for assessing impacts upon the setting of designated sites within the wider area. It was agreed that, due to the fact there are existing turbines at the site, only designated sites within 2km would warrant assessment of the impacts upon their setting. 8.4.2 Mitigation measures were discussed, details of which are provided in section 8.8.

8.5 Methodology 8.5.1 This desk-based assessment has been undertaken following guidelines from the Institute for Archaeologists for archaeological desk-based assessments (2008). 8.5.2 The sources consulted were: • Lancashire Historic Environment Record (HER) • National Monuments Record (NMR) for archaeology and listed buildings • Aerial Photographic evidence from the Maps and Related Information Online (MARIO) resource hosted by Lancashire County Council • Documentary and cartographic records relating to the site and its environs • Envirocheck Report 8.5.3 A walkover survey of the proposed development area and its environs was undertaken on the 26 October 2009. Impact Assessment Methodology 8.5.4 No standard method of evaluation and assessment is provided for the assessment of impact significance upon cultural heritage. Therefore, a set of evaluation and assessment criteria have been developed using a combination of the Secretary of State’s Criteria for Scheduling Monuments, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) guidance on Cultural Heritage and Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG). 8.5.5 The Secretary of State’s Criteria for Scheduling Monuments has a number of criteria which can be used to assess the cultural heritage value of an archaeological site. These criteria include period, rarity, documentation, group value, survival/condition, fragility/vulnerability, diversity and potential. This information, in conjunction with professional judgement, has been used to assess the value of archaeological sites and monuments, historic buildings, and other types of historical site such as battlefields and parks and gardens. The approach to assessing value is presented in Table 8.1.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 90

Table 8.1 Determining Cultural Heritage Value Value Examples

- World Heritage Sites - Assets of acknowledged international importance Very High - Other buildings of recognised international importance - Historic landscapes of international sensitivity, whether designated or not

- Scheduled Monuments - Undesignated sites/features of schedulable quality and importance High - Listed Buildings - Undesignated structures of clear national importance - Designated & undesignated historic landscapes of outstanding interest

- Sites/features that contribute to regional research objectives - Unlisted buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric or historical association Medium - Historic townscape or built-up areas with historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings - Designated special historic landscapes and undesignated historic landscapes of regional sensitivity

- Undesignated sites/features of local importance - ‘Locally Listed’ buildings and unlisted buildings of modest quality in their fabric or historical association Low - Historic landscapes whose sensitivity is limited by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations or with specific and substantial importance to local interest groups

- Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest Negligible - Buildings of no architectural or historical note; buildings of an intrusive character - Landscapes with little or no significant historical interest

- Archaeological sites/features where the importance of the resource cannot be Unknown ascertained - Buildings with some hidden (i.e. inaccessible) potential for historic significance 8.5.6 The magnitude of the potential impact is assessed for each site or feature independently of its archaeological or historical value. The impact magnitude categories are adapted from the TAG and Highways DMRB guidance and are presented in Table 8.2. Table 8.2 Determining Magnitude of Impact Magnitude Criteria Change to most or all key archaeological/historic building/historic landscape Major elements, such that the resource is totally altered. Changes to many key archaeological/historic building/historic landscape Intermediate elements, such that the resource is clearly modified. Changes to key archaeological/historic building/historic landscape elements, Minor such that the asset is slightly altered. Negligible Very minor changes to elements. No Change No change 8.5.7 An assessment of the predicted magnitude of impact is made both prior to the implementation of mitigation and after the implementation of mitigation to identify residual impacts. This demonstrates the effectiveness of mitigation and provides the framework for the assessment of significance which takes mitigation measures into consideration. Impacts may be positive or negative. 8.5.8 By combining the value of the cultural heritage resource with the predicted magnitude of impact, the significance of the impact can be determined. This is undertaken following Table 8.3. The significance of impacts can be beneficial or adverse. Table 8.3 Significance of Impact

Magnitude of Potential Impact Significance of Impact Major Intermediate Minor Negligible No change Large/Very Moderate/ Very Large Slight Neutral Very high Large Large Large/Very Moderate/ Slight/

Cultur al Slight Neutral High Large Large Moderate

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 91

Moderate/ Moderate Slight Neutral/ Slight Neutral Medium Large Slight/ Slight Neutral/ Slight Neutral/ Slight Neutral Low Moderate Negligible Slight Neutral/ Slight Neutral/ Slight Neutral Neutral

8.5.9 Where a choice of two impact significance descriptors is available only one has been chosen. This allows for professional judgement and discrimination in assessing impacts on cultural heritage assets. To aid in the assignment of significance of impact, significance criteria have been developed to enable effective and transparent discrimination between categories. These are listed in Appendix 8.1. Assessment of Setting 8.5.10 At present there is no formal guidance on the assessment of setting of cultural heritage features. PPG15 & 16 request that the setting of Scheduled Monuments, unscheduled archaeological sites of national importance, listed buildings, Conservation Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens should be a consideration when assessing the effect of development. PPS22 echoes this requirement in relation to renewable energy development. 8.5.11 Many of the local and regional policies require this same consideration such as the Burnley Local Plan Policy E20: Views, which states that the unique and distinctive heritage viewpoints should be protected and enhanced by new developments. 8.5.12 PPG16 further states that where developments have a significant effect on the setting of visible remains there should be a presumption in favour of its preservation (Para. 27). 8.5.13 A number of other documents include a requirement for assessment of setting. The most relevant in the context of this development is English Heritage’s Wind Energy & the Historic Environment (2008). This includes a discussion on assessing the impact of wind farms and associated infrastructure upon the wider landscape. It lists a number of factors to be borne in mind when assessing the “acceptability of developments within the setting of historic sites.” (pp8). 8.5.14 There is no generic accepted definition of setting in archaeology and cultural heritage in the UK, although a number of documents provide a definition. English Heritage (2008) has recently produced policies and guidance for management of the historic environment which includes a requirement for the consideration of setting. This document defines setting as: 8.5.15 Paragraph 76 of Conservation Principles states that:

“Definition of the setting of a significant place will normally be guided by extent to which material change within it could affect (enhance or diminish) the place’s significance” 8.5.16 English Heritage makes a clear distinction between setting and context in Conservation Principles, stating in paragraph 77 that:

"Context embraces any relationship between a place and other places it can be for example, cultural, intellectual, spatial or functional, so any one place can have a multi-layered context. The range of contextual relationships of a place will normally emerge from an understanding of its origins and evolution. understanding context is particularly relevant to assessing whether a place has greater value for being part of a larger entity, or sharing characteristics with other places” 8.5.17 To assess the impact of wind farm development on cultural heritage features, the following approach is normally taken: • Identification of designated sites (World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, listed buildings, Registered Parks & Gardens, Registered Battlefields and Conservation Areas) within c. 5 km from the site boundary. Outside of this distance it is not anticipated that impacts would be significant. • Site visits to affected cultural heritage receptors where access allows. • Definition and description of the setting of individual receptors, including distance from the nearest proposed turbine. • Assessment of the magnitude of impact using criteria in Tables 8.1 and 8.4. Factors detailed in Wind Energy & the Historic Environment will be used to make the assessment. 8.5.18 Following consultation with the Planning Archaeologist for Lancashire County Council the setting study area was reduced to 2km due to the presence of existing turbines.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 92

Table 8.4 Magnitude of Impact on Setting of Cultural Heritage Features Magnitude Criteria Comprehensive or total changes to setting. The development will be located Major o directly adjacent to the receptor and affect over 270 of the view from it. Considerable changes to setting. The development will be located within Intermediate o proximity to the receptor and affect over 180 of the view from it. Slight changes to setting. The development will affect over 90o of the view Minor from the receptor. Negligible Very minor changes to setting. The setting has already been damaged. No Change No change

8.6 Baseline Conditions 8.6.1 There are 116 previously recorded archaeological and built heritage sites within the study area boundary. 74 of these were recorded on the Lancashire HER whilst an additional 10 sites were recorded on the NMR. 32 sites were recorded from analysis of aerial photographs and historic maps. Within this chapter, the bracketed numbers after site descriptions relate to those allocated to individual sites in Appendix 8.2 and on Figures 8.1 and 8.2. 8.6.2 There are no World Heritage sites, Registered Battlefields, Registered Parks and Gardens or Conservation Areas within the study area. 8.6.3 There are two Scheduled Monuments. These comprise a World War II starfish bombing decoy site (7), constructed on the south facing slope of Hameldon Hill, and Hapton Castle (73). 8.6.4 There are eight listed buildings within the study area. These comprise farmhouses (3, 5, 61, 74 & 78), a barn (77) and two canal bridges (75 & 76). These are all Grade II listed structures. Prehistoric (to 43 AD) 8.6.5 There are five recorded sites of possible prehistoric date within the study area. The earliest of these is a lithic scatter dating to the Mesolithic period (6). This included flakes, blades and microliths that were found distributed over Great Hameldon. 8.6.6 There is one possible site of Neolithic date, a long barrow located within the study area (15). However, this site has also been interpreted as the spoil from medieval quarrying and a pond. A central depression within the mound may, however, suggest a collapsed passageway. 8.6.7 There are two certain sites of Bronze Age date and a third of possible Bronze Age date. The latter site is a possible burial cairn (57). It has been suggested that this is a post-medieval field clearance cairn and not of Bronze Age date. The presence of probable kerbing surrounding the oval mound suggests that it may be prehistoric in date. 8.6.8 The other two sites of a Bronze Age date are a miniature pottery vessel, recovered from the ring ditch of a possible barrow, and remnants of a Beaker vessel discovered during the 19th century. The location of these sites is uncertain and therefore they are not shown on the known archaeology figure. Further details of the ring ditch from which the miniature pottery vessel was recovered are not available. It was excavated in 1905. 8.6.9 There are no recorded sites of Iron Age date within the study area. Roman (43 to 450 AD) 8.6.10 There are three previously recorded sites of Roman date within the study area. An earthwork enclosure (20), recorded during the archaeological investigations by the CWR, has been identified as possibly dating to the Romano-British period through comparative analysis with similarly shaped enclosures within the region. The alternate hypothesis is the enclosure is of medieval date. Although the surrounding ridge and furrow earthworks respect the enclosure this does not help to date the feature. 8.6.11 The other two sites of Roman date are the find spot of a large quantity of copper coins dug up in the Wheatley Lane area and a settlement has been postulated from a scatter of coins and a possible cremation burial. Both of these sites are of uncertain location and therefore have been omitted from the known archaeology figure. Early Medieval (450 to 1066 AD) 8.6.12 There are no recorded sites of an early medieval date within the study area.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 93

Medieval (1066 to 1500 AD) 8.6.13 There are ten previously recorded sites with possible evidence of medieval date within the study area including the Scheduled site of Hapton Castle (73). Hapton castle, thought to have been in existence in 1328 when Gilbert de la Leigh bought Hapton from John Talbot, appears to have been a square tower keep surrounded by a ditch. The castle was the seat of power in Hapton until the construction of Hapton Tower. 8.6.14 The township of Hapton exists within the Parish of Whalley and is within the chapelry of Padiham, which is situated to the north-west of Hapton. The origins of the village of Hapton are unclear. It is not mentioned within the Domesday Book although Whitaker, in his “History of Whalley” (1872), suggests an Anglo-Saxon date for the manor of Hapton. There is presently no recorded evidence of an early- medieval date for the origin of Hapton other than documentary supposition. Mills suggests the name means ‘farmstead by a hill’ (Mills 2003). 8.6.15 Hapton Tower and its associated deer park (1) are located to the south of the proposed turbine sites (see Photograph 11.2). The tower was built in 1510 by Sir John Townley although the deer park may have been in existence from the 14th century. There were three episodes of emparkment within Hapton (Whitaker 1872). It is noted that the animals had been destroyed by 1615 although the land was not divided into tenements until the 18th century (ibid). References to the tower prior to the 16th century probably refer to the castle. The tower had become derelict by 1725 according to accounts recorded by Whitaker. The accounts state that the tower at that time stood six yards high, appeared to have been a square tower with three cylindrical towers along one wall and two entrances opposite one another. Several dwellings had been erected from within the outbuildings. 8.6.16 A medicinal spa (21) is thought to have been located within the study area according to “The Holy Wells: Named Wells and Spa’s of North-East Lancashire”. The location given may be incorrect. According to the 1848 Ordnance Survey map a spa is located just to the north-east of Watson Laithe farmhouse. Presumably the nearby Spa Wood and Spa Wood farm obtained their names from this spring. 8.6.17 Prior archaeological work on the current wind farm found ridge and furrow cultivation (29, 68 & 72) extant as cropmarks and a number of earthwork banks (32, 70 & 20). The ridge and furrow is situated to the north, down slope (Photograph 11.3), of Hapton Tower and is most likely associated with it. The remnant earthworks (32 & 70), found during archaeological field investigations, form low banks and are possibly contemporary with the ridge and furrow. The final earthwork (20) is of an embanked enclosure that may also be contemporary with the nearby ridge and furrow. A Roman date has also been postulated for this enclosure. 8.6.18 The boundary ditch and bank (58) of Rossendale forest dates back to the medieval period although the majority of this feature was destroyed during construction of the nearby radar station. 8.6.19 The hamlet of Birthwisle is noted in documentary evidence as being located within the parish of Hapton although it has not been located with any certainty. It is thought to be located to the south-east of Hapton. It is mentioned in Whitaker (1872) as having three acres and is referred to as ‘Bridtwisell’. Post-Medieval (1500 to 1900 AD) 8.6.20 There are 53 sites of post-medieval date recorded within the study area, including the eight listed buildings described above (3, 5, 61 & 74-78). The majority of the sites comprise of agricultural buildings and associated field systems and mineral extraction sites. The structures comprise a 17th century farmhouse (2), Old Barn farmhouse (4), Towneley Arms Public House (23), a school house at Near lane Ends (24), a house and quarry (45) at New Laithe, a farmhouse at Great Clough (47), Heights Farm (49), a farmhouse at Mill Hill (63) and an abandoned farmstead at Hameldon Hall (10). One structure which is recorded within the study area but whose location is not precisely known is the former Royal Free Grammar School built in the 16th century. Similarly, Bank House dates back to the 15th century and was demolished in 1906 and is thought to have stood on the corner of Bank House and Curzon Street. 8.6.21 There are numerous sites of a post-medieval date which relate to mineral extraction. There are 11 sandstone quarries in the area (22, 26, 31, 33, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45 & 46), five coal pits (27, 34, 35, 40 & 48), and two collieries. The collieries are the Hapton Valley Colliery (9) and the Cupola Colliery (36). Additional mineral extraction related sites comprise old quarries marked on the 1st edition OS map (65 & 67), a late 19th century drift mine (62) and an air shaft (66). A site, which may be the residue of mining, is noted within the study area and is the site of the possible Neolithic long barrow. This has also been interpreted as the upcast from a mine or quarry (15).

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 94

8.6.22 There are three further sites of an industrial nature within the study area. These are the reservoir associated with the Oak Print Works (25), the site of three lime kilns (38), which may have been lime hushing rather than kilns, and a reservoir at Black Hill (44). 8.6.23 The remainder of the post-medieval sites include a possible medicinal spa (28), boundary walls and ditches (50 & 52), a revetment (53), culvert (54) and drainage ditch (55) at Bank Clough, a ‘T’ shaped drystone wall structure (56), possibly a sheepfold, and a milestone (64), that is no longer extant. A cairn which has been tentatively assigned a Bronze Age origin (57) may also be of more modern date and actually be a post-medieval field clearance cairn. Modern (1900 AD to present) 8.6.24 There are three recorded sites of modern date within the study area, including the Scheduled World War II bombing decoy site (7). The starfish bombing decoy site was created to draw away enemy bombs from the nearby town of Accrington by use of firebreaks and lights to simulate industrial activity. A further bombing decoy site is located within the area, also designed to draw attention away from Accrington (8). There were a total of five decoy bombing sites surrounding Accrington. 8.6.25 Also noted are linear cultivation marks, originally thought to be ridge and furrow which have now been reinterpreted as field drains (51) of modern date. This reinterpretation was due to the linear marks running down slope rather than north-east to south-west. Unknown 8.6.26 There are 13 previously recorded sites of unknown date. These generally comprise sites identified through aerial photography or field survey. Cropmarks have been recorded at West Hapton Park (12), Hameldon Hill (13), Hapton Rifle range (16), Lower Park in Hapton (17), linear features running across the moors on Hameldon Hill (18) and circular features on the top of Hameldon Hill (19). It has been suggested that the latter may have been Neolithic hut circles associated with the Neolithic find spots nearby. However, no Neolithic material has been recovered and the lithic material it refers too appears to be typologically Mesolithic. It has also been suggested that the circular features are either mineral extraction scars or geological in origin. 8.6.27 The undated earthworks in the area include a possible building platform (11) and a rectilinear ditched and banked enclosure (20), which may be of prehistoric origin. Further sites include a ditch and two banks (30), two banked hollows (59), possibly associated with a sub-circular mound (60) and an earthen bank aligned east to west (69), discovered during the watching brief when the existing wind farm was constructed. The final undated site is the find spot of a stone statue, said to have been found in the ruins of an old bridge in 1898. The statue resembles an emblem signifying the locality of the Hindu deity Ganesh. The precise location of the stone statues finding is unclear. Historic Mapping 8.6.28 Early mapping was not of sufficient detail to allow any meaningful analysis of locations within the vicinity of Hapton. Indeed Hapton is not even depicted on most early maps. A map dating from 1807, printed in Whitakers “History of Whalley”, shows Hapton Tower as a relatively imposing structure, although the account he gives of the tower from the previous century states that it is in ruins. Consequently, the depiction may not be taken at face value. No tithe map was created for Hapton. This is presumably due to the presence of the deer park and also that the land was predominantly moorland and not well suited for arable farming. 8.6.29 Analysis of the Ordnance Survey mapping has revealed 11 previously unrecorded sites within the vicinity of the proposed wind turbine development. These comprise a sheep fold (88) depicted on the 1:10,560 scale 1848 map, and a rifle range (81) both depicted on the 1:2500 scale 1893 maps. An air shaft (71), marked on the 1893 map, is still extant today. Two former field boundaries are noted (82 & 85) are also noted on the 1893 map but have since been removed. 8.6.30 A number of quarry pits are also depicted on the older mapping (79, 80, 86 & 87). An old coal level (83) is also noted on the 1911 map, alongside a small structure. This may represent where the coal seam surfaces or the entry point for a shaft. The former is more likely due to the lack of transport for the resulting coal and absence of spoil heaps. 8.6.31 Thorney Bank Wood (82) has greatly reduced in size and the former extent of the woods is illustrated on the old Ordnance Survey maps of the area. Aerial Photographs

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 95

8.6.32 The aerial photographic coverage on the Maps & Related Information Online (MARIO) website includes photographs from the 1940s, 1960s and the present day. A number of sites have been identified through the analysis of the aerial photographs. A total of 21 sites were recorded from this analysis and these can be seen on Figure 8.22. Additionally, known areas of ridge and furrow and earthworks were also confirmed as still extant. The area to the north of Hapton Tower contains numerous examples these. 8.6.33 Many of the identified sites are linear or curvilinear features which may represent trackways, relict field boundaries or enclosure ditches. There are ten linear features (89, 91, 93, 94, 96-98, 100, 102 & 104). Six curvilinear features were also identified (90, 92, 99, 103, 105 & 107). 8.6.34 Additional sites identified from aerial photography comprise of a rectangular cropmark (95) adjacent to previously identified earthworks, a possible rectangular building platform (106) and a subcircular feature (101 & Photograph 11.4) which was also identified during the walkover survey as a possible site which contained buried masonry or stone. 8.6.35 The final sites identified from the aerial photography are a series of linear embankments which appear to overlie the ridge and furrow. There are two separate areas of these earthworks. The first is directly to the north-west of Hapton Tower (108) and the second (109) is situated further to the north-east. It is unclear if these are some form of drainage, field division or boundary or a type of game shooting management. 8.6.36 It is possible that some of these features identified from the aerial photography correlate with the features recorded during the fieldwork conducted by Oxford Archaeology (North). It is currently unclear from available mapping within the Oxford Archaeology report but those sites in close proximity to Hapton Tower may be duplicates. Historic Landscape Characterisation 8.6.37 There are five historic landscape types within the study area. The majority of the area comprises moorland, with the others being ancient and post-medieval industry, ancient and post-medieval wood, ancient enclosure and post-medieval enclosure. Much of the moorland formed during the mid Holocene period, primarily due to a combination of woodland clearance by local populations and climatic fluctuations. Archaeological remains, such as prehistoric field boundaries, can be well preserved within areas of moorland as the type of land itself has discouraged development and ploughing, with grazing being the predominant form of agriculture practiced. Later sites may be contained within the moorlands, with areas enclosed by drystone walls. 8.6.38 The moorland is bounded on the western fringe by an area of ancient and post-medieval woodland. This runs alongside Thorney Bank Clough and the woodland is congregated on the steep slopes overlooking the watercourse. The ancient and post-medieval industry, situated to the north-east of Hapton Tower (1), comprises extractive industries and limestone processing. 8.6.39 The enclosed landscape, both ancient and post-medieval, is situated on the more densely populated areas, lower-lying areas and where roads have opened up the land for agricultural development rather than just grazing. Within the site boundary, the area surrounding New Barn Farm is considered to be ancient enclosure. 8.6.40 Given the potential for field systems and prior agricultural usage identified from aerial photography it is possible that the area is actually reverted moorland rather than moorland. Reverted moorland is moorland that has undergone agricultural improvements, namely enclosure, drystone walling, ridge and furrow cultivation evidence and water management in the form of culverts and levees. Industrial activities, usually part of a dual system of income for the population alongside agriculture, are also indicative of reverted moorland. This usage and improvement of the land has since ceased and the area reverted back into moorland. Walkover Survey 8.6.41 The walkover survey was conducted on the 26th of October 2009. Weather conditions were mixed with cloud cover, occasional mist and light rain being the predominant types, interspersed with clearer patches. Much of the land comprised pasture and grazing land for sheep and cattle. Small areas of woodland were noted. Much of the land utilised for grazing was boggy and deposits of peat below ground could not be discounted.

2 NB Features identified from aerial photographs have not been rectified.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 96

8.6.42 Only one possible site (101) was located during the survey (see Photograph 11.4). This is the area subsequently identified on aerial photographs. The site appears subcircular on the ground, with rounded stones forming an arc around a slightly raised central section. This central section also has stones visible within the ground. 8.6.43 The walkover survey also confirmed the extant ridge and furrow in the fields to the north-west and north of Hapton Tower. Two areas of modern disturbance or dumping were also noted during the survey. One, located to the north-west of Hapton Tower, obscures a large area of ground and is visible on the MARIO aerial photographs. Setting of cultural heritage features 8.6.44 The setting of designated cultural heritage sites within 2 km of the proposed site boundary are described in Table 8.5 and can be seen on Figures 8.1 & 8.2. Additional features outside this area have been included at the request of consultees.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 97

Table 8.5 Setting of Cultural heritage Sites Approximate distance from No. on Name Description of Feature & Setting nearest Figure 8.1 turbine A medieval pele tower. Set on a high Hapton Tower. 0.1 km from T3 1 point within upland pasture/moorland. Lower Micklehurst Late 16th century farmhouse. Set within 1.45 km from Farmhouse. Listed pasture farmland and enclosed by 3 T3 Building Grade II. streams to the north, east and west. Farmhouse of c.1700. Set within pasture fields. Its setting is defined by stone wall Barn and former boundaries to the south east, south and 0.63 km from farmhouse. Listed south west which form the boundary from 5 T3 Building Grade II. managed fields to upland pasture/moorland. To the north its setting is constrained by modern development. A Second World War decoy site located on the south-facing slope of Hameldon Starfish Bombing 1.34 km from Hill. It is located on upland moorland. Its Decoy. Scheduled 7 T3 setting is defined by a stream to the west Monument. and stone field boundaries to the north, east and south. Seventeenth century farmhouse set within farmland. Its setting is bound by Watson Laithe modern development to the north and farmhouse and 1.06 km to T2 east and stone wall boundaries to the 61 barn. Listed south and west, which form the boundary Building Grade II. from managed fields to upland pasture/moorland. Medieval tower keep. It is located within an area of pasture alongside a wooded Hapton Castle. stream valley. Its setting is constrained Scheduled 1.8 km from T2 73 by modern development to the east and Monument. north, by woodland to the west and by Mill Hill Lane to the south. Eighteenth century farmhouse set within Hapton Hall farmland and the edge of urban sprawl. 1.62 km from Farmhouse. Listed Its setting is bound by woodland to the 74 T3 Building Grade II. west, urban development to the north and east and by Mill Hill Lane to the south. Canal Bridge C.1800 of sandstone. Set within the edge Number 121. 2 km from T2 of an urban area bound by the M65 to the 75 Listed Building south. Grade II. Knotts Bridge. C.1800 of sandstone. Set within the Canal Bridge urban fringe of Burnely. Its setting is Number 123. 2 km from T2 76 constrained by the M65 to the south and Listed Building industrial development to the north. Grade II. Barn c. 50m north Aisled barn, probably later 17th century east of Bentley 1.55 km from with later alterations. This appears to Wood Green. 77 T2 have been demolished and replaced by Listed Building industrial units. Grade II. Later 18th century in date, built of sandstone. The farm is set within Habergham Hall agricultural land bound by modern Farmhouse. Listed 1.8 km from T3 78 industrial development to the north, Building Grade II. residential development to the east and wooded streams to the south and west.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 98

Archaeological Potential 8.6.45 There are 109 recorded archaeological sites within the study area. Earthwork and cropmark sites form a large portion of these known archaeological assets along with sites associated with agriculture. 8.6.46 Table 8.6 summarises the current visibility of archaeological sites within the study area and the predicted likelihood of further discovery. Further details of the reasoning for these predictions can be found below.

Table 8.6 Archaeological Potential Likelihood of further Period Visibility Presence/Absence discovery Palaeolithic Very Low Absent Very Low Mesolithic Very Low Limited Presence Low Neolithic Low Limited Presence Low Bronze Age Low Limited Presence Low to Moderate Iron Age Average Absent Low Romano-British Average Limited Presence Low Early Medieval Low Absent Low Medieval Average Frequent High Post-Medieval Good Frequent High 8.6.47 There are currently no recorded remains of a Palaeolithic date within the study area and sites of this date are rare within the region. This may be in part due to the lack of visibility and recognition of artefacts and sites of this date although an additional factor is the limited survival of remains from this period. Consequently, it is considered that there is a very low potential for previously unrecorded sites of this date to exist within the site boundary. 8.6.48 Mesolithic evidence is limited to a find spot of tools from this period at the summit of Hameldon Hill. No evidence of occupation or other activities has been recorded. Again, the knowledge base for Mesolithic activity within the region is low, partially due to the absence of systematic archaeological investigations and partially due to the ephemeral nature of the evidence. It is considered that there is a low potential for further remains of this date to exist within the site boundary. 8.6.49 Neolithic sites within the study area are limited to a possible long barrow, although this may be the spoil from quarrying activities. Evidence of Neolithic occupation and activity is more wide spread within the region than is that for the preceding Mesolithic period, although it still is not as frequent as later periods. This is due to the increasingly substantial and enduring structures and other activities that are evident during this period within the landscape. It is possible further Neolithic activity has occurred within the site boundary but whose visibility has been reduced due to later activities and developments. However, it is assumed that if a more widespread Neolithic presence had been within the site then further, less tangible, evidence such as lithic spreads, would have been located during the archaeological investigations undertaken at the existing wind turbines. Hence it is considered that there is a low potential for additional previously unrecorded remains of a Neolithic date. 8.6.50 There are three recorded sites of Bronze Age date within the study area although two of these are unlocated and the third has somewhat suspect credentials for a burial cairn, although it may be authentic. Two of the sites do have the common connection of being ritual in nature and the discovery of the Beaker fragments at the third site may have some ritual connection. If such sites are present within the area then it may be inferred that some form of habitation site may be located nearby. More modern development and agricultural activities may have impacted on these if present within the site boundary. However, no such sites are apparent from the currently available data and it is considered that there is a low to moderate potential for previously unrecorded remains of Bronze Age date to be within the site. 8.6.51 There are no previously recorded examples of Iron Age activity within the study area. Iron Age remains may be more frequent and visible within the landscape than previous prehistoric periods although some sites are only apparent once development is underway. The absence of any evidence for Iron Age activity here could reflect a real absence in terms of exploitation of the vicinity. However, it is more likely that the area was exploited but that this exploitation did not leave any tangible traces that may be

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 99

archaeologically visible. It is possible there may be remains that are preserved below the ground surface but some aspects of this would normally be found during an archaeological investigation such as those which occurred during the erection of the adjacent wind turbines. Consequently, it is considered that there is a low potential for previously unrecorded remains of an Iron Age date within the site boundary. 8.6.52 Roman and Romano-British remains have been recorded within the study area although they are not conclusive for settlement evidence. The enclosure has had no intrusive archaeological investigation. Thus its date has not been confirmed and the two find spots, both within the 19th century, may indicate settlement but their locations remain unclear. Visibility of Roman sites are generally average to good and with little in the way of evidence it may be presumed that this indicates a lack of exploitation within this period. Given the absence of evidence from both the preceding Iron Age and the following early medieval periods, it may be that the locality was unexploited during the later first millennium BC to the late 1st millennium AD. It is thought likely that little activity in the Roman and Romano-British period occurred and it is considered that there is a low potential for previously unrecorded archaeological remains to be discovered within the site. 8.6.53 There are no recorded early medieval remains within the study area. Remains of this period can have a low archaeological visibility, due in part to later medieval sites continuing to develop on and over the same location. Additionally, the nature and extent of construction and ritual behaviour within this period did not lend itself to conspicuous monuments. It is possible some form of evidence is preserved beneath the later ridge and furrow and other sites of medieval date but this cannot be ascertained until intrusive archaeological techniques are employed. However, with no remains yet confirmed within the study area it is predicted that there is a low potential for previously unrecorded remains of an early medieval date to exist here. 8.6.54 Sites of medieval date are more frequent within the area. Hapton, whilst not mentioned in the Domesday Book, was certainly an established settlement by the 12th century. Hapton Castle was purportedly built in 1328 whilst Hapton Tower was erected by 1510. These structures would not have existed in isolation. The ridge and furrow within the study area indicates that farmers must have been in relatively close proximity to their fields. This would suggest that there is the potential for further remains of this date within the vicinity. Consequently it is considered that there is a high potential for previously unrecorded medieval remains to exist within the site boundary. 8.6.55 The post-medieval period saw an expansion of the number of recorded sites although these tended to be of an agricultural or industrial nature. Habitation seems to have been limited to the surrounding farms and, excepting Burnley, was dispersed. Industrial activities expanded considerably within the area of Hameldon Hill, with those of an extractive nature being most frequent. The archaeological investigations during the construction of the adjacent wind turbines found a number of previously unrecorded remains of post-medieval date. It is considered that there is a high potential for previously unrecorded archaeological remains of a post-medieval date to exist within the site boundary. It is probable that these will be agricultural in nature although this does not preclude the possibility of remains of a different nature.

8.7 Identification of Potential Impacts Value of archaeological sites 8.7.1 There are 13 recorded sites located within the land available for development for the wind farm extension. These can be seen in Table 8.7. A number of additional designated sites fall within visual range of the wind farm extension within the defined wider study area of 2 km. The value of these sites is also shown in Table 8.7.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 100

Table 8.7 Value of Cultural Heritage Sites Site Name Value No. on Figure 8.1 Hapton Tower Medium 1 Lower Micklehurst Farmhouse. Listed Building High 3 Grade II. Barn and former farmhouse. Listed Building Grade High 5 II. Starfish Bombing Decoy. Scheduled Monument. High 7 Earthwork remains of a possible building platform. Low 11 A rectilinear ditched and banked enclosure. Low 20 Remains of medieval ridge and furrow. Low 29 Earthwork remains of a ditch and two banks. Low 30 Low bank. Low 32 Three limekilns. Low 38 Two banked hollows. Low 59 Sub-circular mound with a possibly associated Low 60 enclosure surrounding it. Watson Laithe farmhouse and barn. Listed High 61 Building Grade II. Undated earthwork bank. Low 69 Earthen embankment running east to west. Low 70 Earthwork enclosure Low 71 Ridge and furrow cultivation visible as earthworks. Low 72 Hapton Castle. Scheduled Monument. High 73 Hapton Hall Farmhouse. Listed Building Grade II. High 74 Canal Bridge Number 121. Listed Building Grade High 75 II. Knotts Bridge. Canal Bridge Number 123. Listed High 76 Building Grade II. Barn c. 50m north east of Bentley Wood Green. Listed Building Grade II. Appears to have been None 77 demolished. Habergham Hall Farmhouse. Listed Building High 78 Grade II. Possible site identified from walkover survey and Unknown 101 Aerial Photographic analysis Potential Impacts 8.7.2 The following types of impacts could be had upon archaeological sites, the built heritage and the historic landscape: • Physical impacts upon archaeological features during construction. • Visual impacts upon the setting of archaeological features during construction. • Visual impacts upon the setting of built heritage features during construction. • Visual impacts on the historic landscape during construction. • Physical impacts upon archaeological features during operation. • Visual impacts upon the setting of archaeological features during operation. • Visual impacts upon the setting of built heritage features during operation. • Visual impacts on the historic landscape during operation. 8.7.3 Physical impacts upon archaeological features could be caused by the following construction activities: • Excavation of turbine foundations. • Access tracks. • Construction of temporary crane stands. • Substation and Compound locations. 8.7.4 Only one recorded site will be directly impacted by the erection of the wind turbines. This is the possible site identified during the walkover survey (101). Both the turbine and access track will impinge upon the periphery of this site. The impact is predicted to be minor negative.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 101

8.7.5 Although there are no direct physical impacts upon the recorded archaeological sites, there is the potential for previously unrecorded archaeological sites to be discovered during construction. As the exact nature of any such sites is currently unknown the magnitude of impact cannot be determined at this stage. However, if any such sites are discovered the magnitude of impact is likely to be major negative as they would be destroyed during construction. 8.7.6 There could be visual impacts upon the setting of archaeological features during construction. This will be limited to the earthwork remains of Hapton Tower (1). Impacts upon this site can be seen in Table 8.8. Other archaeological sites comprise vestigial earthworks which offer little in terms of landscape interest. Their identity and settings have both been severely compromised and it is considered that impact from construction will be minimal. All impacts will be temporary. 8.7.7 There will be visual impacts upon the setting of built heritage features during construction. Impacts upon these features can be seen in Table 8.8. 8.7.8 There will be no change to the historic landscape types in the study area during construction. 8.7.9 There will be no physical impacts upon archaeological features during operation. 8.7.10 Visual impacts upon the setting of built heritage features will be caused by the operation of the wind farm extension. These impacts can be seen in Table 8.8. 8.7.11 There will be no change to the historic landscape types in the study area during operation.

Table 8.8 Impacts on the Setting of Cultural Heritage Sites Magnitude of Site Name Value No. on Figure 8.1 Impact Intermediate Hapton Tower Medium 1 negative Lower Micklehurst Farmhouse. Listed Intermediate High 3 Building Grade II. negative Barn and former farmhouse. Listed Intermediate High 5 Building Grade II. negative Starfish Bombing Decoy. Scheduled High No change 7 Monument. Watson Laithe farmhouse and barn. High Minor negative 61 Listed Building Grade II. Hapton Castle. Scheduled Monument. High No change 73 Hapton Hall Farmhouse. Listed High Negligible 74 Building Grade II. Canal Bridge Number 121. Listed High Negligible 75 Building Grade II. Knotts Bridge. Canal Bridge Number High No change 76 123. Listed Building Grade II. Barn c. 50m north east of Bentley Wood Green. Listed Building Grade II. None No change 77 Appears to have been demolished. Habergham Hall Farmhouse. Listed High Negligible 78 Building Grade II.

8.8 Mitigation Measures 8.8.1 Consultation has been undertaken with the Lancashire County Council Archaeological Service Officer. During construction there will be a requirement to undertake archaeological monitoring of topsoil removal. This must be undertaken in all areas of topsoil removal, including, but not limited to, turbine bases, access tracks, substation, site compounds and temporary crane stands. 8.8.2 Due to the nature of the proposed development, there are no mitigation measures that can be introduced to reduce the visual impacts upon archaeological and built heritage sites. Use of planted screening may itself impact on the setting of the cultural heritage features and is therefore not considered as a suitable form of mitigation.

8.9 Residual Impacts 8.9.1 Residual impacts upon the cultural heritage sites can be seen in Table 8.9.

Table 8.9 Residual Impacts on Cultural Heritage Features

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 102

Magnitude of Significance No. on Figure Site Name Value Impact of Impact 8.1 Intermediate Moderate Hapton Tower Medium 1 negative adverse Lower Micklehurst Farmhouse. Listed Building High Minor negative Slight adverse 3 Grade II. Barn and former farmhouse. High Minor negative Slight adverse 5 Listed Building Grade II. Starfish Bombing Decoy. High No change Neutral 7 Scheduled Monument. Watson Laithe farmhouse and barn. Listed Building High Minor negative Slight adverse 61 Grade II. Hapton Castle. Scheduled High No change Neutral 73 Monument. Hapton Hall Farmhouse. High Negligible Slight adverse 74 Listed Building Grade II. Canal Bridge Number 121. High Negligible Slight adverse 75 Listed Building Grade II. Knotts Bridge. Canal Bridge Number 123. Listed Building High No change Neutral 76 Grade II. Barn c. 50m north east of Bentley Wood Green. Listed None No change Neutral 77 Building Grade II. Appears to have been demolished. Habergham Hall Farmhouse. High Negligible Slight adverse 78 Listed Building Grade II. Possible site identified from walkover survey and Aerial Unknown Minor negative Slight adverse 101 Photographic analysis

8.10 Cumulative Impacts 8.10.1 There are a number of existing wind farms within a 35 km radius of the proposed wind turbine extension at Hameldon Hill. These are primarily to the south, south-east and east of Hameldon Hill. Additional wind turbines are planned to expand the currently existing schemes and for the creation of new schemes. 8.10.2 Existing wind farms are located at Hameldon Hill, Coal Clough, Scout Moor, Ovenden Moor, Naylor Hill Quarry and Chelker Reservoir. Planned expansions or new turbines are located at Todmorden Moor, Reaps Moss, Crook Hill and Ovenden Moor. 8.10.3 The proposed erection of additional turbines at Hameldon Hill combined with the existing and planned wind farms has a cumulative impact upon the surrounding archaeological and cultural heritage assets within the vicinity. The only existing wind farm visible within the proposed area are the existing turbines on Hameldon Hill. This impact is not considered to be more than negligible.

8.11 Summary and Conclusions 8.11.1 This archaeological and cultural heritage chapter has collected data from the Lancashire HER, the NMR, aerial photographs from the MARIO website resource and cartographic data from the Lancashire Records Office. A site visit was also undertaken. 8.11.2 The archaeological assessment of the study area surrounding the proposed location of the new wind turbines identified 113 previously recorded sites of archaeological and cultural heritage assets and established that the area has seen prolonged human exploitation from the medieval period onwards. Earlier activity is not apparent to any great degree although this may be due to a lack of systematic archaeological investigations rather than a real absence of human exploitation during this timeframe. 8.11.3 The archaeological sites are predominately medieval and post-medieval in date, leaving a series of earthworks, cropmarks and agricultural or industrial related sites including Hapton Tower. Archaeological fieldwork noted several previously unrecorded earthworks during the erection of wind turbines adjacent to the land currently available for development. It is likely that additional earthworks or subsurface features may exist within the proposed development area.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 103

8.11.4 The impact from the erection of new wind turbines and associated access tracks on recorded archaeological sites is limited to a single site identified during the walkover survey. The access tracks predominantly keep to existing tracks although it is likely these will have to be upgraded. Impacts upon the setting of cultural heritage sites from the turbines are considered to be moderate adverse at worst due to the proximity and vantage point of Hapton Tower which is located just to the south of the proposed turbines. 8.11.5 The overall significance of impact of the proposed development is considered to be slight adverse.

8.12 References

Centre for Wetland Research at Hull (2002) Archaeological Assessment: Hameldon Hill Wind Cluster, Burnley, Lancashire. Unpublished Report CWR/LAN01/2002 Department for Transport Transport Analysis Guidance: The Heritage of Historic Resources Sub- Objective TAG Unit 3.3.9. English Heritage, Burnley District Council and Lancashire County Council (2006) Lancashire Extensive Urban Survey: Burnley Historic Town Assessment Report. English Heritage (2008a) Wind Energy & the Historic Environment English Heritage (2008b) Conservation Principles: Policies & Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment Envirocheck Report No 28773669_1_1. Highways Agency (2007) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Environmental Assessment Section 3 Part 2 Cultural Heritage HA 208/07. Institute for Archaeologists (2008) Standards & Guidance for Desk-Based Assessments. Gibson, L. I. (1977) Lancashire Castles and Towers. Dalesman Books, Whitehaven. Mill, A.D. (2003) Oxford Dictionary of British Place Names. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990). Morant, A.W (ed). (1973) The History and Antiquities of the Deanery of Craven in the County of York by Thomas Dunham Whitaker. The Scolar Press, Menston, Yorkshire. Oxford Archaeology North (2006) Hameldon Hill Wind Cluster, New Barn Farm, Burnley, Lancashire: Archaeological Watching Brief. Unpublished Report 2006-07/511 Planning and Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning & the Historic Environment (1994). Planning & Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology & Planning (1990).

Whitaker, T.D. (1872) The History of the original parish of Whalley 4th edition, Manchester. Volumes 1 & 2 CRO Ref SRL/E01 Cartographic Sources

Altham Tithe Map 1842 CRO Ref DRB1/6 Cary, John. (1806) A new map of Lancashire divided into hundreds, exhibiting its roads, rivers and parks from Cary’s Travelllers Companion CRO Ref DP188 Habergham Eves Tithe Map and Apportionment 1842 CRO Ref DRB1/90 Hambleton Tithe Map and Apportionment 1839 CRO Ref DRB1/93 Hatchard, John (1807) Map of the ancient parish of Whalley in Whitakers History of the original parish of Whalley CRO Ref SRL/E01 Padiham Tithe Map 1842 CRO Ref DRB1/46 Lancashire and Furness Ordnance Survey Maps Scale 1:10,560 1848, 1894-95, 1913-14, 1931-32 & 1938 Lancashire and Furness Ordnance Survey Maps Scale 1:2500 1893, 1911-12, 1930, 1961 & 1993

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 104

Ordnance Survey Plan Scale 1:10,000 1955-56, 1965, 1977-79, 1981-89 & 1990-91

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 105

9 Traffic and Transport

9.1 Introduction 9.1.1 This chapter assesses the likely significant environmental effects arising from the likely levels of traffic movements associated with the proposed extension to Hameldon Hill Wind Farm. 9.1.2 The main transport effects will be associated with the movements of commercial Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) (HMSO, 2001) and abnormal loads to and from the site during the construction phase of the development. Once the wind farm extension is operational, it is envisaged that the amount of traffic associated with the scheme will be minimal, comprising service and maintenance visits. Occasional visits may also be made to the site for more extensive maintenance/repairs or for management/compliance purposes. The vehicle used for maintenance visits is likely to be a 4x4 (e.g. Land Rover or similar) and there may be an occasional need for HGV deliveries or road-going cranes to access the site for heavier maintenance and repairs. It is considered that the effects of such operational traffic will be negligible and therefore detailed consideration of the operational phase of the development is not included in this assessment. 9.1.3 The proposed access route for delivery vehicles is from Aldam Terminal via the A161 Normandy Way and A614 to Junction 36 of the M62. Then from Junction 18 of the M62, onto the M66, and via the A56 and A679 that runs across the north-western part of the site. An existing access point will be used for entry into the site. The proposed route is illustrated on Figure 9.1.

9.2 Legislation and Policy Framework 9.2.1 National Policy specific to transportation is provided in Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport (PPG13) (HMSO, 2001).The objectives of PPG13 are to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local level and to promote more sustainable transport choices both for carrying people and for moving freight. 9.2.2 Driver distraction is considered in Planning Policy Statement 22 Renewable Energy (PPS22) (HMSO, 2004) and Planning for Renewable Energy; A Companion Guide to PPS22 (HMSO, 2004) at paragraph 54 which states:

“Concern is often expressed over the effects of wind turbines on car drivers, who may be distracted by the turbines and the movement of the blades. Drivers are faced with a number of varied and competing distractions during any normal journey, including advertising hoardings, which are deliberately designed to attract attention. At all times drivers are required to take reasonable care to ensure their own and others’ safety. Wind turbines should therefore not be treated any differently from other distractions a driver must face and should not be considered particularly hazardous. There are now a large number of wind farms adjoining or close to road networks and there has been no history of accidents at any of them.” 9.2.3 This statement is supported by work undertaken by the Highways Agency’s Safety Standards and Research Safe (SSR) Road Design Team who undertook an initial ‘before and after’ study (2004), which considered five wind farm sites and concluded that there was ‘no evidence of a significant change in accidents when a wind farm was constructed’. As such driver distraction is not considered further in this assessment.

9.3 Methodology 9.3.1 The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the guidance provided in the Department for Transport ‘Guidance on Transport Assessments’ (2007) and the Institute of Environmental Assessment’s ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ (1993). 9.3.2 The IEA guidelines is the only document available that sets out a methodology for assessing potentially significant environmental impacts where a proposed development is likely to give rise to changes in traffic flows. 9.3.3 The significance of each impact is considered against the criteria within the IEMA guidelines, where possible. However, the IEA guidelines state that:

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 106

“for many effects there are no simple rules or formulae which define the thresholds of significance and there is, therefore, a need for interpretation and judgement on the part of the assessor, backed-up by data or quantified information wherever possible. Such judgements will include the assessment of the numbers of people experiencing a change in environmental impact as well as the assessment of the damage to various natural resources.” 9.3.4 In the absence of established significance criteria for traffic and transport impacts, professional judgement has been used to assess whether the impacts on traffic and transport are considered to be significant, using the IEA guidelines to identify the scale and extent of the assessment to be undertaken. The significance falls into two categories; not significant and significant. The latter corresponding to significant impacts in accordance with the EIA regulations.

9.4 Identification of Potential Impacts 9.4.1 The construction of the wind farm extension is anticipated to take approximately nine months. The associated traffic flows will vary over that time as different elements of the site are developed and constructed, and will depend on the chosen contractor’s preferred method of working. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared by the developer or the chosen contractor once the construction schedule, plant requirements, and the turbine model have been defined. This will ensure impacts to the delivery route are minimised where possible. 9.4.2 Estimated traffic generation during the construction stage has been based on the assumption that the following activities will take place: • delivery of aggregate for the temporary construction compound; • delivery / removal of plant and equipment; • delivery of aggregate for access tracks; • delivery of geogrid; • delivery of aggregate for the crane hardstandings; • delivery of material for the substation and control building; • delivery of sand for the cable trenches; • delivery of cabling; • delivery of formwork and reinforcing steel; • delivery of ready mixed concrete for the turbine foundations; • delivery of turbine components; and • other miscellaneous deliveries / removals. 9.4.3 The following section provides an estimate of two-way trips across the nine month construction period for these assembly activities. The assessment has been based on the assumption that all material has to be imported to site, including ready mixed concrete for the turbine foundations and all aggregate for the access tracks and areas of hardstanding, thus providing a worst case. Table 9.1 provides the estimated traffic generation during construction for the following scenarios. Delivery of aggregate for the temporary construction compound 9.4.4 The temporary construction compound comprises an area of hardstanding approximately 70 m x 40 m or 2800 m2. This typically requires a layer of geotextile material overlain with crushed rock, laid to a fill depth of 0.18 m and would thus requires 504 m3 of aggregate. Assuming aggregate has a density of 1.8 t/m3 and a HGV can deliver 20 tonnes, 46 deliveries will be required, or 92 two-way trips. Delivery / removal of plant and equipment 9.4.5 There will be a requirement for a range of plant and mechanical equipment to be delivered to site at the outset of the construction stage and removed at the end of the construction period. The exact requirement is unknown, but 20 deliveries is considered to be a reasonable estimate. This will result in 40 two-way trips at the outset of and a further 40 two-way trips at the end of the construction period. Delivery of aggregate for access tracks 9.4.6 Approximately 2.9 km of new or upgraded access tracks is required. The new access tracks will be 5 m in width and 0.2 m in depth giving an aggregate requirement of 2900 m3.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 107

9.4.7 The total has been uplifted by 15% to allow for the construction of turning circles and passing places. Therefore the total volume of aggregate required for the access tracks is 3335 m3. Using the same assumptions given above regarding aggregate density and HGV capacity, 300 deliveries of aggregate will be required, or 600 two-way trips. Delivery of geogrid material 9.4.8 It is considered reasonable to expect that 100 rolls of geogrid material will be required for the development, resulting in a total of 20 two-way trips during the construction period assuming 10 rolls can be delivered on one load. Delivery of aggregate for the crane hardstandings 9.4.9 Each turbine will require a crane hardstanding of approximately 45 m x 25 m x 0.5 m which equates to 562.5 m3 per turbine or 1687.5 m3 for the whole site. This equates to 152 deliveries or 304 two-way trips. Delivery of material for the substation and control building 9.4.10 The substation and control building will be a single storey building measuring approximately 10 m x 6 m and will house switchgear, protection, metering, and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) plant and equipment. In addition, it will also contain an office, welfare facilities and toilets. It is estimated that 30 deliveries will be required for the substation, resulting in 60 two-way trips. Delivery of sand for the cable trenches 9.4.11 Each turbine is connected to the substation via an underground cable. Cables are laid in trenches with dimensions of approximately 1.5 m in width, and approximately 1 m in depth. Cable trenches will be constructed adjacent to the access track network, and therefore the total length of cable trenches is 2.9 km. The cables are laid within a course of sand, typically 0.3 m deep. As such there is a requirement for 450 m3 of sand per kilometre of trench or a total of 1305 m3 for the site. This equates to 105 deliveries of sand, or 210 two-way trips based on the density of sand being 1.6 t/m3. Delivery of ready mixed concrete for the turbine foundations 9.4.12 Each turbine foundation will comprise of a reinforced concrete slab measuring approximately 16 m x 16 m, at approximately 2 m in depth with a tapering cross section. Turbine foundations could however, be larger or smaller depending on imposed loadings, ground conditions and the drainage design, typically however, they comprise a total volume of 350 m3. 9.4.13 Technical constraints may require the concrete for an individual turbine foundation to be delivered and poured in one day to prevent joints forming in the structure. This means there will be three days on which there will be a disproportionate number of delivery vehicles entering and leaving the site. 9.4.14 Ready mixed concrete is delivered in vehicles with a typical capacity of 6 m3. Therefore each turbine foundation will require 59 concrete deliveries, or 118 two-way trips or a total of 354 two-way trips for all of the turbine foundations. Delivery of turbine components 9.4.15 For each turbine, one vehicle is required to deliver the nacelle (hub), three for the tower, three for the blades, one for the transformer, one for other components and an additional two vehicle movements are required for the delivery and removal of the cranes. Consequently, each turbine requires 11 deliveries or 22 two-way trips. Therefore there will be 66 two-way trips associated with the delivery of the turbine components. Other miscellaneous deliveries / removals 9.4.16 There will be a requirement for additional deliveries and removals, such as cables, materials for the watercourse crossing, formwork and reinforcing steel, fuel and other general construction material. It is difficult to predict the exact requirements; however for the purposes of the assessment, it has been assumed three miscellaneous deliveries will take place each month resulting in six two-way trips per month. Movement of construction personnel 9.4.17 It is estimated that the maximum number of staff on site at any one time would be approximately 15. These staff could arrive/depart by various modes of transport from/to different locations and, therefore, trip generations are difficult to predict. However, assuming each worker travels independently to site a total of 30 daily two-way trips by car or van will occur.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 108

Table 9.1 Estimated traffic generation during construction

Construction Activity Number of two-way trips per month

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total

Delivery of aggregate for the temporary 92 92 construction compound

Delivery / removal of 40 40 80 plant and equipment

Delivery of aggregate for 200 200 200 600 access tracks

Delivery of geogrid 10 10 20

Delivery of aggregate for 270 270 270 810 the crane hardstandings

Delivery of material for the substation and control 60 60 building

Delivery of sand for the 105 105 210 cable trenches

Delivery of ready mixed concrete for the turbine 118 118 118 354 foundations

Delivery of Turbine 44 22 66 components

Other miscellaneous HGV deliveries / 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 54 removals (cables, steelwork, culverts etc.)

Total Monthly HGV 338 486 486 559 229 124 50 28 46 2346 Movements *

Approximate daily HGV Movement excluding 16 22 22 26 11 6 3 2 2 concrete delivery **

Maximum daily HGV Movement during 59 59 59 concrete delivery

Average daily movement of construction personnel 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 and non-HGV deliveries

* HGV movements rounded to an equal number (i.e. one movement for vehicle arriving at site and another movement for the vehicle leaving the site) ** Assuming 22 working days per month, and HGV enter and leave the site on the same day

9.4.18 The greatest concentration of construction traffic occurs on the days when concrete is delivered to site for the turbine foundations during months 4 to 6. The concrete for each foundation has to be poured in one day to prevent joints in the mass structure which creates a short but disproportionate effect on the highway network. It is estimated 118 daily HGV movements are associated with each of the three turbine foundations. This approximately equates to one HGV movement every six minutes over the working day (07:00 to 19:00). 9.4.19 Concrete deliveries will be restricted to three individual days in total and it is envisaged the timing of this intensive phase of construction will be agreed in advance with the highways authority. It is also envisaged that no other HGV deliveries will take place on the three individual days when concrete for the foundations is delivered to site.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 109

9.4.20 The maximum traffic impact when concrete is not delivered is predicted to occur in the second and third months of the construction programme. During this month a daily average of 22 HGV movements is predicted (i.e. 11 vehicles in and 11 vehicles out). This equates to approximately two vehicle movements per hour over a 12 hour working day. 9.4.21 The assessment is contained within Table 9.2, conclusions have been based on professional judgement. Table 9.2 IEA environmental effect Predicted Impact Description Applicability

Severance Severance is a perception that a road Given the little pedestrian activity is more difficult or possibly less safe associated with the A679, coupled to cross. Increased severance can with the likely distribution of result in the isolation of areas of a construction traffic across the 12 settlement or individual properties. hour working day, the impact of However It is important to note that severance is considered to be Not the impact is largely a function of Significant. traffic volumes, rather than one of vehicle composition amongst traffic. Driver Delay Driver delay is that experienced by It is acknowledged that there may non-development related road users be an element of localised delays on the surrounding roads and directly attributable to construction particularly as a consequence of slow traffic, particularly the delivery of moving traffic associated with turbine components that will construction. involve large, slow moving vehicles however this potential impact is considered Not Significant given that deliveries will be timed to minimise disruption and information regarding deliveries will be made available via the TMP. Pedestrian Delay & Pedestrian delay is affected by Pedestrian movement on A679 Pedestrian Amenity changes in traffic volume, HGV appears minimal given the lack of movements and traffic speed. footway and the low numbers of Pedestrian delay also depends on the public rights of way emanating to existing level of pedestrian activity, and from the road. Therefore the visibility and current infrastructure road is considered to have a low provision. sensitivity rating in relation to There is no threshold on which pedestrian delay and impacts will pedestrian delay is assessed. be Not Significant. Pedestrian amenity can be affected by traffic volumes and the distance between pedestrians on a footway and passing traffic. The IEA guidelines suggest that changes to pedestrian amenity may be considered significant where the traffic is doubled or halved. Fear and Intimidation The IEA guidelines state that the The few pedestrians that use the degree of fear and intimidation A679 might feel fear and experienced by pedestrians is intimidation during specific times affected by the volume of passing of the construction period when traffic, the proportion of HGV traffic there is a significant increase in and its proximity to pedestrians. HGV movements, particularly on the three days on which concrete is delivered to site. It is therefore considered this impact will be Significant over distinct and discreet timescales but Not Significant when considered across the whole construction period. Accidents and Safety The IEA guidelines state that road Given that construction is

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 110

Predicted Impact Description Applicability

accidents are attributable to a variety temporary and therefore the of local factors and as such do not predicted changes are temporary, provide a threshold to determine there is unlikely to be an impact significance but relies more on the upon road safety and accident assessor to use their own judgement. levels. Furthermore, all abnormal loads will be escorted and the movement of these vehicles will be programmed to avoid busy periods thus reducing the potential impacts further. It is considered the overall impact on accidents and safety is Not Significant.

9.5 Mitigation 9.5.1 A TMP will be prepared by the developer or the chosen contractor in accordance with the requirements of the Highways Agency, relevant local highways officers, the local constabularies, the Department for Transport, and other relevant stakeholders if required. The TMP is likely to contain details of the access route, identify any points along the access route that require engineering works (e.g. the removal of street furniture) traffic numbers, delivery timings, and signage and escort requirements. The TMP may also detail additional measures to ensure impacts from traffic movements are minimised where possible, for example provision of road sweepers and/or wheel wash facilities. It is recognised that planning permission for any works outside of the highway boundary would have to be granted prior to commencing any works.

9.6 Summary 9.6.1 The main traffic impacts are associated with the increase in vehicle movements along the A679 during the construction stage of the project. At worst, the frequency of vehicle movements is expected to be one every six minutes on the three individual days on which concrete for the turbine foundations is delivered to site. At other times during the construction programme the worst anticipated frequency of vehicle movements is approximately two per hour. 9.6.2 Consideration has been given to the effect the increased traffic flow would have on Severance, Driver Delay, Pedestrian Delay, Pedestrian Amenity, Fear and Intimidation, and Accidents and Safety, and all impacts upon these issues are considered Not Significant with the exception of a potentially significant impact on pedestrian fear and intimidation of the three days on which concrete is delivered to site. 9.6.3 A TMP will be developed and agreed with the relevant stakeholders in order to control and mitigate impacts associated with vehicles movements.

9.7 References

Her Majesty’s Stationary Office: HMSO (2001); Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport Her Majesty’s Stationary Office: HMSO (2004); Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy Her Majesty’s Stationary Office: HMSO (2004); Planning for Renewable Energy Companion Guide to PPS22 Institute of Environmental Assessment (1993); The Institute of Environmental Assessment’s, Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 111

10 Existing Infrastructure, Telecommunications, Television Broadcasting, Aviation and Military Interests

10.1 Introduction 10.1.1 This chapter assesses the likely significant impacts of the proposed Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension on existing infrastructure, radiocommunications, telemetry, television broadcasting, aviation and military interests. 10.1.2 Wind turbines have the potential to interfere with the operation of radiocommunication equipment such as point to point links, television reception and radar systems. It is therefore necessary to design a wind farm to avoid such impacts.

10.2 Scope of Assessment 10.2.1 The scope of the assessment has been derived from Planning for Renewable Energy – A Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS22), and includes the following areas: • Existing infrastructure, • Telecommunication services, • Public service telecommunication users, • Civil aviation, and • Military aviation & interests. Public Service Telecommunication Users 10.2.2 Wind turbines can effect television reception of analogue broadcasts. The conversion from analogue to digital broadcasting is due to be completed by the end of December 2009 for the area around Burnley (Digital UK, 2008), which is prior to the expected planning determination date of the wind farm extension. Therefore, impacts on television reception are not anticipated and not considered further within this EIA. Civil and Military Aviation and Interests 10.2.3 The land available for development is not located within a restriction zone associated with aviation. Furthermore, the existing operational Hameldon Hill Wind Farm is not causing any known interference to civil aviation and military interests. The impacts on civil aviation and military interests are therefore not considered further within this EIA.

10.3 Legislation and Policy Framework 10.3.1 ‘Planning for Renewable Energy’ the Companion Guide to PPS22, refers to the potential for wind turbines to affect electromagnetic signals at paragraph 66. The turbines can affect signals in two ways: by blocking or deflecting line of sight radio, or microwave links; or by the ‘scattering’ of transmission signals. Effects may include disruption to microwave rebroadcast and local radiocommunication systems. 10.3.2 Paragraph 68 advises that whilst scattering of signals may affect domestic TV and radio reception, which may be a concern to the general public, experience has shown that when this occurs it is of a predictable nature and can usually be alleviated through mitigation measures. 10.3.3 Paragraph 70 advises that “a 100m clearance either side of a line of sight link from the swept area of turbine blades” is usually required by radiocommunication service providers, although, the Guide recommends that the developer undertake consultations to identify each organisation’s safeguarding distance.

10.4 Consultation Telecommunications and Radiocommunications 10.4.1 Details of the proposed layout were supplied by the Energy Workshop to Ofcom, and subsequently to Orange Pcs, Cable and Wireless Comms, Lancaster Constabulary, Vodafone Limited, Hutchinson 3G

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 112

UK Limited, British Telecoms, Airwave Solutions, CSS and JRC to ascertain the level of impacts on radiocommunications systems in the area. Utilities 10.4.2 A utility search was undertaken by the Energy Workshop, which included database searches and consultations with 24 suppliers.

10.5 Methodology 10.5.1 The assessment of potential impacts of the proposed wind farm extension on radiocommunications, telemetry and utilities was based on consultations with the organisations identified above. Any constraints identified by the organisations have been taken into account in the site design process. Whilst the consultation process has been as inclusive as possible, it is possible that this consultation process has not picked up some services. Outcome of Consultation Process 10.5.2 Table 10.1 summarises the outcome of the consultation process. Radiocommunication links and utilities infrastructure are shown on Figure 10.1.

Table 10.1 Summary of consultation responses Organisation / Date Response Final Decision Company Response Received Radiocommunications Ofcom 13/08/2009 Further Ofcom provided a list of communication links Investigation that may be affected by the proposals. The Required results suggested 21 links would be affected.

Lancaster 22/09/2009 No Objection The supplier was satisfied that the link and Constabulary associated Second Fresnel Zone has been accounted for in the design process. T-Mobile 16/09/2009 Objection – The supplier identified two links within the accounted for in the vicinity of the site. One link traversed the site. site design process Survey work was undertaken by Pager Power establishing the Second Fresnel zone of this link. The site design has accounted for the link and its associated Second Fresnel zones. Airwave 27/08/2009 Request for No information about links affected supplied. Solutions Payment Request payment to provide link details. British 09/09/2009 Objection – One link was identified to traverse the site. Telecoms (BT) accounted for in the Survey work was undertaken by Pager site design process Power to establish the Second Fresnel zone. This zone was incorporated into the site design process. Vodafone 07/09/2009 Objection – Details about eight links were supplied. accounted for in the Three links were identified to traverse the site design process site. Survey work was undertaken by Pager Power establishing the Second Fresnel zones of these links. Links and second Fresnel zones accounted for in the site design process. Cable & 17/10/2009 Objection – Link details supplied, requested a clearance Wireless accounted for in the of 100 m + blade radius (41 m). Accounted site design process for in the site design process. Orange 27/10/2009 Affected – Three links identified in the consultation accounted for in the process. Request to have a blade radius and site design process. 25m standoff. Accounted for in the site design process. Telemetry CSS Spectrum 28/09/2009 No objection Email received stating no objection. Management Services Ltd.

Joint Radio 17/08/2009 Request for Provided details of 11 links within 1 km of the

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 113

Organisation / Date Response Final Decision Company Response Received Company Payment site. Requested payment to provide link details. Utilities British Telecom 21/08/2009 Affected – Details about the BT plant located within the accounted for in the site boundary were provided. The locations site design process. have been incorporated within the site design process. Furthermore, prior to construction detailed apparatus investigations will be undertaken.

10.6 Mitigation Measures 10.6.1 The wind turbine layout has been reviewed in light of the results of the consultation process to address the concerns of interested parties. There is no requirement for further mitigation.

10.7 Residual Impacts 10.7.1 There are no known residual impacts on radiocommunication, telemetry, or infrastructure.

10.8 Cumulative Impacts 10.8.1 There will be no cumulative impacts.

10.9 Summary and Conclusions 10.9.1 The consultation process identified potential impacts from the development to infrastructure and communication links. Potential Impacts have been accounted for in the site design process. No residual impacts are predicted and therefore the proposed Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension accords with the guidance contained within the Companion Guide to PPS22.

10.10 References

Digital UK (2008); Accessed: www.digitaluk.co.uk Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2004); ‘Planning Policy Statement 22 Renewables Energy – Companion Guide’, UK Government

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 114

11 Shadow Flicker

11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 This chapter presents the outcome of the shadow flicker analysis for the proposed Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension. 11.1.2 Under certain combinations of geographical position, time of day and year, wind speed and wind direction, the sun may pass behind the rotor and cast a shadow over neighbouring buildings’ windows. When the blades rotate and the shadow passes a window, to a person within that room the shadow appears to flick on and off; this effect is known as shadow flicker. It only occurs inside buildings where the shadow passes across a window opening and it can only affect buildings within 130 degrees either side of north relative to a turbine. 11.1.3 It is possible to calculate the number of hours per year that shadow flicker may occur at a building from the relative position of the turbine to the building, the geometry of the wind turbine, the latitude of the wind farm site and the width of the windows potentially affected. 11.1.4 The flickering effect caused by shadow flicker can have the potential to induce epileptic seizures through a condition known as photosensitive epilepsy. Around one in two hundred people in the UK have epilepsy although only 3-5% of these suffer from photosensitive epilepsy (National Society for Epilepsy, 2002). The frequency at which photosensitive epilepsy might be triggered varies from person to person though generally, it is between 2.5 and 30 hertz (or flashes per second). 11.1.5 The turbines for the proposed wind farm extension will likely operate at a maximum of 20 revolutions per minute (rpm). Given that the turbine will have three blades, the maximum frequency at which a blade will pass a particular point will be in the order of 60 times a minute which equates to once per second (or 1 hertz). This is significantly less than the 2.5 and 30 hertz frequency range generally accepted to induce photosensitive epilepsy. Therefore the issue of photosensitivity epilepsy is not considered further in this assessment. 11.1.6 Shadow flicker can however still present a nuisance to amenity where people are within the rooms affected by the phenomenon. The specialist computer software, ‘Wind Pro’ was used to quantify the levels of potential shadow flicker associated with the proposed Hameldon Hill Wind Farm Extension.

11.2 Policy and Guidance 11.2.1 Shadow flicker has rarely been a problem with wind farm developments, although it is accepted that it can on occasion present a nuisance to amenity when people are within the rooms affected by the phenomenon. Whilst there is no specific standard for the assessment of shadow flicker in the UK and there are no guidelines on acceptable levels of shadow flicker, planning guidance on shadow flicker is contained within Planning for Renewable Energy, A Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement PPS22 Renewable Energy (HMSO, 2005). At paragraph 73, the Companion Guide states: ‘Although problems caused by shadow flicker are rare, for sites where existing development may be subject to this problem, applicants for planning permission for wind turbine installations should provide an analysis to quantify the effect.’ 11.2.2 The aim of this section is therefore to quantify the predicted level of shadow flicker that could be experienced by affected dwellings.

11.3 Methodology 11.3.1 The Companion Guide to PPS22 states that flicker effects have been proven to occur only within ten rotor diameters of a turbine. The study area has therefore been limited to 870 m around the proposed turbine location based on a rotor diameter of 82 m plus a +/- 50 m micrositing allowance. Buildings located outside 130 degrees each side from north were excluded from the analysis as there is no path between the sun, the turbine and these buildings which would result in the occurrence of shadow flicker. The buildings included in this analysis are shown on Figure 11.1. 11.3.2 A cumulative analysis has also been undertaken to assess the combined impacts from the proposed and existing turbines.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 115

11.3.3 The likelihood of shadow flicker occurring and the duration of such an effect depends upon the following factors: • the direction of the building relative to the turbine(s); • the distance from the turbine; • the turbine hub-height and rotor diameter; • the time of year; • the proportion of day-light hours in which the turbine operates; • the frequency of bright sunshine and cloudless skies (particularly at low elevations above the horizon); and • the prevailing wind direction. 11.3.4 The calculations assume a ‘worst case scenario’ including the following assumptions: • The sun always shines in a clear sky i.e. no account of climatic conditions (such as clouds or precipitation) has been made. • Objects surrounding the windows that may block the view to turbine such as trees have been disregarded. • The turbine rotor is always aligned face-on to the window, providing the maximum opportunity for shadow flicker. • The rotor is always turning, i.e. no account has been taken of periods of no or low wind or shut- down periods. 11.3.5 When the sun is close to the horizon, at dawn and dusk, the intensity of the sun’s rays is reduced and is less likely to cast distinct shadows. It is generally considered that when the sun is lower than three degrees above the horizon, that shadow flicker is unlikely to occur to any significant extent. This parameter has been included in the calculations.

11.4 Existing baseline 11.4.1 The study area was surveyed and buildings susceptible to shadow flicker were identified. A desktop study followed by a site survey identified four buildings that could be susceptible to shadow flicker. Details of the four buildings are provided in Table 11.1 and illustrated on Figures 11.1 and 11.2. 11.4.2 The process has been as inclusive as possible but it is possible a small number of buildings within the study area have not been surveyed.

Table 11.1 Shadow flicker assessment locations Distance to Distance to Closest Closest Property Name Easting (m) Northing (m) Proposed Turbine Existing (m) Turbine (m) Thorny Bank 379837 429690 550 989 Barley Green 379817 430037 523 937 New Barn 380985 430361 541 341 Old Barn 380106 430827 583 971

11.5 Potential Impacts 11.5.1 Wind Pro was used to quantify the extent of shadow flicker that could occur at each of the assessment locations. This model accounts for latitude and longitude of the proposed site and uses a model of the sun’s position in the sky throughout the year to calculate shadow lengths, positions and times. A Digital Terrain Model (DTM) was also used in the assessment to take account of the topography between receptors and turbines. 11.5.2 Table 11.2 summarises the modelling by providing shadow flicker occurrence at each of the buildings. Figure 11.1 illustrates the shadow flicker modelling from the proposed wind farm extension.

Table 11.2 Shadow flicker Occurrence Theoretical Maximum of Property Name Potential for Shadow Flicker Shadow Flicker Occurrence (hours/year) Thorny Bank Yes 9

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 116

Theoretical Maximum of Property Name Potential for Shadow Flicker Shadow Flicker Occurrence (hours/year) Barley Green Yes 53 New Barn Yes 43 Old Barn Yes 18

11.6 Potential Cumulative Impacts 11.6.1 Wind Pro was also used to quantify the cumulative extent of shadow flicker that could occur at each of the assessment locations. This assessment included the three proposed turbines and three existing turbines. Table 11.3 summarises the cumulative shadow flicker occurrence at each of the buildings. Figure 11.2 illustrates the cumulative shadow flicker modelling from the existing wind farm and the proposed extension.

Table 11.3 Shadow flicker cumulative occurrence Theoretical Maximum of Property Name Potential for Shadow Flicker Shadow Flicker Occurrence (hours/year) Thorny Bank Yes 9 Barley Green Yes 53 New Barn Yes 203 Old Barn Yes 18

11.7 Evaluation of Effects 11.7.1 The theoretical instances of shadow flicker will always be less than that predicted by the model given the use of the worst case assumptions. The occurrence of shadow flicker is only possible during the operation of the wind farm (i.e. when the rotor blades are turning, orientated in a specific direction and when the sky is clear enough to cast shadows). It is important to consider the following facts when making an assessment: • Climatic conditions dictate that the sun is not always shining. Direct sunlight may account for as little as 25% of daylight hours over a year. Cloud cover during other times may obscure the sun and prevent shadow flicker occurrence. While some shadow may still be cast under slightly overcast conditions, no shadow at all would be cast when heavy cloud cover prevails. It is considered that weather conditions will reduce actual occurrence of shadow flicker by at least half, compared to calculated levels. • Objects such as trees or walls may obscure the view of the turbines and hence shadow flicker. • During operation, the turbine rotors automatically orient themselves to face the prevailing wind direction. This means the turbine rotors will not always be facing the affected dwellings, and in fact will sometimes be ‘side-on’ to the dwelling. Very little area of blade movement will be visible during such occurrences and therefore the potential for shadow flicker is significantly reduced. • The turbines will not operate for 100% of daylight hours. During periods of very low wind speed or very high speed wind or maintenance shut-downs, the rotors do not turn. During such periods shadow flicker would not occur. 11.7.2 Consideration of these factors leads to the conclusion that the level of shadow flicker will be significantly less than the predicted levels in Table 11.3.

11.8 Mitigation 11.8.1 No routine mitigation is proposed, this will however be kept under review during the operation of the scheme in case particular combinations of circumstances arise that increase the potential for disturbance (particularly where rooms affected are in regular occupancy and the effect proves to be a frequent occurrence in reality). 11.8.2 Where nuisance arises, mitigation measures can be incorporated into the operation of the wind farm extension to reduce the instance of shadow flicker. Mitigation measures range from planting tree belts between the affected dwelling and the responsible turbine(s), or installing blinds at the affected dwellings. When there is extreme nuisance, mitigation could be to the extreme of shutting down individual turbines during periods when shadow flicker could theoretically occur.

AECOM Volume 1- Environmental Statement 117

11.9 Summary of Residual Impacts and Overall Impact Significance 11.9.1 A shadow flicker analysis has been undertaken for four dwellings within 870m of the turbine locations, in accordance with guidance contained within the Companion Guide to PPS22. It has been shown that for the worst case conditions, the maximum occurrence of shadow flicker amounts to 53 hours per year for one of the identified dwellings. This is increased to 203 hours per year when completing the cumulative assessment, which incorporates the proposed and existing turbines. However, it should be noted that the actual amounts will be significantly less than the model has predicted. 11.9.2 It has been demonstrated that the frequency at which shadow flicker will occur is significantly less than the frequency at which photosensitive epilepsy is triggered. Whilst some people are sensitive at higher frequencies, it is uncommon to have photosensitivity below 2.5 hertz. It is therefore considered shadow flicker from this scheme will have no adverse health effects. 11.9.3 Finally, if shadow flicker is shown to cause a nuisance, an appropriate mitigation strategy can be investigated for the affected dwelling and can be controlled through the use of a suitable planning condition.

11.10 References

Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO) (2005); Planning for Renewable Energy, A Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement PPS22 Renewable Energy National Society for Epilepsy (2002); Information on Epilepsy: Photosensitive Epilepsy