TEMPLE HILL WIND FARM

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT VOLUME 1: MAIN TEXT

Produced by Stephenson Halliday September 2013 VOLUME 1: MAIN TEXT

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment

3 Site Selection and Design

4 Project Description

5 Planning Policy

6 Landscape and Visual

7 Ecology

8 Ornithology

9 Noise

10 Historic Environment

11 Ground Conditions

12 Hydrology and Hydrogeology

13 Access, Traffic and Transportation

14 Aviation

15 Telecommunications and Television

16 Socio-Economic Effects

17 Shadow Flicker

18 Summary of Predicted Effects and Conclusions

RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.1.1 This Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared by Stephenson Halliday (SH) on behalf of RWE Npower Renewables Ltd (RWE NRL) to accompany an application for planning permission submitted to South Kesteven District Council (SKDC).

1.1.2 The application seeks consent under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the erection of 5 wind turbines up to 126.5m to blade tip and construction of associated infrastructure on land at Temple Hill, between Grantham and Newark-on-Trent (‘the Development’). Further detail on the Development is provided in Chapter 4: Project Description.

1.1.3 The ES assesses the likely significant effects of the Development in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

1.1.4 The site is located in the South Kesteven administrative area approximately 7km south east of Newark-on-Trent and 9km north of Grantham (unless otherwise stated, distances are measured from the closest turbine as the primary element of the Development and assessment). The nearest settlements to the Development are Brandon approximately 1.1km north east, Stubton 1.5km north west, Gelston 2.6km south east and Hough-on-the-Hill 2.9km east. The East Coast Main Line passes within approximately 600m to the south west of the Development and the A1 passes within approximately 5.3km to the west.

1.1.5 The site is currently under intensive arable cultivation and comprises large scale arable fields with very few hedgerows and limited woodland cover. The topography of the site and immediate area is open and broadly flat ranging from 19m - 25m AOD.

1.1.6 The site location is illustrated in Volume 2, Figure 1.1.

1.1.7 Further detail on the site is provided in Chapter 3: Site Selection and Design.

1.2 THE APPLICANT

1.2.1 RWE NRL (‘the applicant’) is one of the UK’s leading renewable energy companies, dedicated to generating electricity using sustainable and

Stephenson Halliday 1 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

environmentally friendly resources. RWE NRL is the leading developer and operator of onshore and offshore wind farms in the UK, with over 18 years of experience in the wind energy market. The company currently manages an on- shore operating portfolio of 25 wind farms totalling 470 megawatts (MW) of installed capacity.

1.3 PROJECT DRIVERS: THE NEED FOR RENEWABLES

1.3.1 Whilst the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that local planning authorities should ‘not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy’, it is considered appropriate here to examine the drivers for the Development to set the context for the application, and its benefits.

1.3.2 UK national energy policy is driven by both national and global influences and targets. There are two primary policy goals, being the need to address climate change and the need to ensure security of supply. There is international government recognition that climate change is happening, that it is being accelerated by human activity and that urgent changes need to be made to address its causes. In December 1997 the UK signed the “Kyoto Protocol”, a legally binding international agreement under which the UK agreed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) by 12.5% relative to 1990 levels for the period 2008-2012. In its acknowledgement of climate change, the UK Government also recognises the need to secure future domestic power supplies in the context of anticipated increased demand for electricity production, the closure of a number of existing generating stations and to reduce dependence on fossil fuels for which there will be increasing competition and less stable sources of supply.

1.3.3 As part of its ongoing commitment to addressing climate change, the UK Government has signed up to the EU Renewable Energy Directive 2009. The UK target within this is to produce 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. This target applies to all energy sources. The Government has produced a Renewable Energy Strategy, published July 2009, which indicates how this legally binding target is to be achieved. The strategy envisages that the greatest contribution would come from electricity production with over 30% of electricity being produced from renewable sources, 12% of heat from renewable sources and 10% of transport energy needs to be met by renewables. The Carbon Plan,

Stephenson Halliday 1 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

published in December 2011, illustrates the current Government’s aims for decarbonising energy supplies. It indicates that ‘With the potential electrification of heating, transport and industrial processes, average electricity demand may rise by between 30% and 60%. We may need as much as double today’s electricity capacity to deal with peak demand. Electricity is likely to be produced from three main low carbon sources: renewable energy, particularly onshore and offshore wind farms; a new generation of nuclear power stations; and gas and coal-fired power stations fitted with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology.’

1.3.4 The Development is a direct response to the encouragement provided by central government for the rapid deployment of renewable energy schemes throughout the UK.

1.4 THE BENEFITS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

1.4.1 Further to playing an important role in contributing to the UK’s target of obtaining 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, the Development also has the following benefits, as detailed below:

 Environmental Benefits

 Energy Security Benefits

 Community Benefits

Environmental Benefits

1.4.2 Output predictions for the Development take into account the variable nature of the wind, down time of the turbines due to maintenance and losses that are inherent in the design. Modern wind farms generate approximately 80% of the time although not always at maximum output. Modern wind turbines are highly efficient at converting available wind energy into electricity. The capacity factor is a term used to describe the average energy output related to the maximum possible output of the wind farm if the generators were operating to their rated capacity over the same period. A wind turbine’s generator is deliberately sized above the average output level to maximise generation in good winds.

Stephenson Halliday 1 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

1.4.3 It is estimated that the Development would produce between 27,025MWh and 32,790MWhi per year based on an assumed installed capacity of up to 15MW. This is enough electricity to supply the average annual electricity needs of between 5,800 and 7,000 UK homes each year. This is based on the UK average annual domestic electricity consumption of approximately 4,700kWhii, over the life of the Development this figure may change as average domestic electricity consumption changes.

1.4.4 Every kilowatt hour of electricity produced by the Development feeds in to the electricity network whenever it is produced. Wind energy reduces the demand for electricity generated by conventional power stations (often coal or gas) which vary their output to balance supply and demand on the network. Wind energy saves the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) predominantly through reduced consumption of a combination of both coal and gas. It is difficult to predict exactly what volume of CO2 emissions the Development would prevent as the amount of CO2 generated by a varying mix of conventional sources changes from year to year. For the stated Development annual output, it is anticipated to be a saving of at least 10,600 tonnes of CO2 per year, with a theoretic maximum of 29,900 tonnes. In practice, the figure is likely to lie somewhere between the two.iii

i Energy predicted to be generated by the proposal is derived using wind speeds monitored in the local area and correlating to a Meteorological Office station providing longer term data. This enables a calculation to be made to estimate the average annual energy production for the site based on 5 turbines each of rated capacity of between 1.8MW and 3MW. The energy capture predicted and hence derived homes equivalent or emissions savings figures may change as further data are gathered. ii Equivalent homes supplied is based on an annual electricity consumption per home of 4700 kWh. This figure is supported by recent domestic electricity consumption data available from The Digest of UK Energy Statistics and household estimates and projections from the UK Statistics Authority. iii The figure for CO2 savings depends on which source of electricity generation wind power displaces at any given time during the year. This range reflects CO2 displacement factors with respect to gas-fired and coal-fired generation. It should be noted that future changes in the power generating mix and fuel costs in the UK may result in changes to these figures over time. Calculations assume emissions of 392g CO2 / kWh for gas generated electricity and 912g CO2 / kWh for coal generated electricity as stated in The Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2012.

Stephenson Halliday 1 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

1.4.5 It should be noted that the highest installed capacity would not necessarily correspond to the highest energy output/number of homes equivalent supplied per annum. Table 1.1 summarises the likely predicted annual generation/ number of equivalent homes provided per annum. An installed capacity of 11.5MW and 12.5MW corresponds to the top and bottom of the range of generation quoted in paragraph 1.4.3. The energy capture predicted and hence derived homes equivalent or emissions savings figures may change as further site measured data is gathered.

1.4.6 The summary table below presents carbon dioxide emission saving predictions for the Development. Over the life of the Development, annual emission savings are expected to decrease in line with the increase in cleaner energy technologies contributing to the UK’s generating plant mix.

Table 1.1: Carbon Dioxide Offset Figures

Wind farm Predicted Number of Carbon dioxide offset (tonnes of CO2 installed annual homes per annum) iv capacity generation equivalent Assuming gas Assuming coal supplied per produced produced annum electricity is electricity is always displaced always (low case) displaced (high case) 10MW 29.35GWh 6,200 11,500 26,800 11.5MW 27.03GWh 5,800 10,600 24,600 12.5MW 32.79GWh 7,000 12,900 29,900 15MW 31.69GWh 6,700 12,400 28,900

Energy Security Benefits

1.4.7 Over the next decade the UK will become a net importer of both gas and oil. This leaves the UK vulnerable to price fluctuations and interruptions to supply caused by political instability, conflict or regulatory failures in other parts of the world.

iv The figure for CO2 savings depends on which source of electricity generation wind power displaces at any given time during the year. This range reflects CO2 displacement factors with respect to gas-fired and coal-fired generation. It should be noted that future changes in the power generating mix and fuel costs in the UK may result in changes to these figures over time. Calculations assume emissions of 392g CO2 / kWh for gas generated electricity and 912g CO2 / kWh for coal generated electricity as stated in The Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2012.

Stephenson Halliday 1 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

1.4.8 Renewable energy, as generated by the Development, represents an inexhaustible resource which decreases dependency on foreign fuel imports and increases the diversity of the UK electricity generation sector.

Community Benefit

1.4.9 The Applicant has a company policy of establishing community benefit funds within the areas where its wind farms are built. Community benefit funds set up in association with wind farms elsewhere have been managed and distributed in a number of ways, including assisting in energy saving and small-scale renewable energy projects. It is likely that the community fund for the Development would be developed and managed in conjunction with local parish councils for projects that would directly benefit the local community.

Stephenson Halliday 1 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

2 APPROACH TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

2.1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

2.1.1 In 1985 Member States of the European Community recognised that certain major projects had the potential for significant effects on the environment. EC Directive 85/337/EEC was issued to ensure that decision making bodies had sufficient information on these potential effects when deciding whether or not these projects should be allowed to proceed. The Directive identified the procedure to be adopted by those assessing the likely environmental effects and the environmental information that local planning authorities would require to enable them to determine applications for these projects. The Directive has been implemented in England through the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, the most recent version of which was issued in 2011.

2.1.2 The Development falls within Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011. Planning applications for developments falling within this category may be required to be accompanied by an ES depending on applicable thresholds and criteria and where they are likely to have a significant effect on the environment. Having had regard to the indicative thresholds and criteria contained within the Regulations RWE NRL considers that the application for planning permission for the Development needs to be accompanied by an ES.

Scoping

2.1.3 In April 2012 RWE NRL submitted a Scoping Report to SKDC which requested that SKDC adopt a formal Scoping Opinion under Regulation 13 of the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011, on the information to be contained within the ES for the Development. The adoption in May 2012 of such an opinion provided guidance to RWE NRL on SKDC’s views on what the principal impacts and effects of the Development are likely to be and therefore the topics and issues on which the EIA should focus. The key environmental issues are considered to be:

 Landscape and Visual;

Stephenson Halliday 2 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 Ecology;

 Ornithology;

 Noise;

 Historic Environment;

 Ground Conditions;

 Hydrology and Hydrogeology;

 Traffic and Transportation;

 Aviation;

 Telecommunications and Television;

 Social and Economic Effects; and

 Shadow Flicker.

2.1.4 The formal Scoping Opinion is included within Appendix 2.1

2.2 THE EIA PROCESS

2.2.1 The EIA process identifies, predicts, evaluates and mitigates where possible any significant effects arising from a proposed development. The key output of the EIA process is the ES, which reports the findings of the EIA process and identifies any likely significant environmental effects of the proposal.

2.2.2 It is the findings of the EIA process, as set out within the ES, which will assist decision makers in considering the environmental effects of the Development when determining the planning application.

2.2.3 The preparation of this ES has been conducted in accordance with the following regulations and advice, in addition to topic specific regulations and guidance set out within each chapter:

 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011;

 Department of the Environment (1995) ‘Preparation of Environmental Statements for Planning Projects That Require Environmental Assessment - A Good Practice Guide’; and

 IEMA (2004) ‘Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment’.

Stephenson Halliday 2 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

2.2.4 The purpose of the ES is to:

 Describe the physical characteristics of the whole development including existing characteristics of the application site and surrounding area, identifying the baseline conditions;

 Identify the possible environmental impacts of the Development and assess the significance of their effects;

 Set out the mitigation measures which can be taken to avoid, offset or reduce adverse environmental impacts;

 Assess the likely significant remaining or residual effects; and

 Provide the public, the planning authority and other consultees with information on the Development.

2.2.5 Each technical chapter identifies the methodologies utilised within that assessment. These methodologies are based on best practice guidance specific to that subject area.

2.2.6 The terminology used in the assessments can be specific to a particular topic, as it relates to the assessment methodology and relevant best practice guidance. Where relevant, such terminology is defined at the outset of each technical chapter.

Significance

2.2.7 These assessments conclude whether any of the predicted impacts of the Development would be significant. The threshold for determining when an impact is considered to be significant in EIA terms relates to the assessment methodology and relevant best practice guidance, and so is specific to each assessment. The method for determining significance is outlined at the outset of each technical chapter.

2.2.8 The EIA process is an iterative approach. It involves refinement and amendment of design following identification of likely significant adverse effects. Changes in design are aimed at eliminating, reducing or mitigating the likely significant adverse effects identified through the EIA process.

Stephenson Halliday 2 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

2.3 LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

2.3.1 The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2011 at Schedule 4 set out the information that should be included within an ES. In summary, Part I of the Schedule indicates the following information should be included:

 Description of the site and development;

 An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects;

 A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter- relationship between the above factors;

 A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development;

 A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment;

 A non-technical summary of the information provided above;

 An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant or appellant in compiling the required information.

2.3.2 The information provided in the ES is arranged into topics providing an assessment of all the impacts associated with that particular topic (e.g. noise).

2.3.3 All figures directly referenced in the ES (Volume 1) will be presented separately in an A3 volume (Volume 2) to facilitate easy cross-referencing between text and figures for the reader.

2.3.4 Technical supporting material is presented within Volume 3: Technical Appendices.

Stephenson Halliday 2 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

2.4 STRUCTURE OF THE ES

2.4.1 The ES is structured as follows:

VOLUME 1: Main Text

2.4.2 This is the main text document and includes an assessment of each environmental topic area.

VOLUME 2: Figures and Visualisations

2.4.3 This volume comprises the graphic material including figures and visualisations which support the assessment presented in Volume 1: Main Text.

VOLUME 3: Technical Appendices

2.4.4 These are the technical appendices which support the assessment presented in Volume 1: Main Text.

Non-Technical Summary

2.4.5 The ES is accompanied by a Non-Technical Summary.

Chapter Structure

2.4.6 Each chapter follows the same broad template (whilst allowing for individual tailoring to the requirements of each assessment), in that they adopt the same systematic approach which covers the following points:

 Introduction;

 Scope of the assessment (including spatial and temporal scope);

 Guidance and methodology;

 Baseline conditions;

 Incorporated mitigation;

 Assessment of potential effects;

 Assessment of cumulative effects (where appropriate);

 Summary and conclusions

Stephenson Halliday 2 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

2.5 EIA TEAM

2.5.1 Coordinated by Stephenson Halliday, the EIA has been undertaken by a team comprising the following consultants:

 Stephenson Halliday: Landscape and Visual;

 BSG Ecology: Ecology;

 Ecology Consulting and EcoNorth: Ornithology;

 TNEI: Noise;

 Heritage Collective: Historic Environment;

 Grontmij: Ground Conditions; Hydrogeology and Hydrology;

 Mott MacDonald: Access, Traffic and Transportation;

 WPAC: Aviation;

 Regeneris: Socio-Economic;

 Pager Power: Telecommunications and Television; Shadow Flicker

Stephenson Halliday 2 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

3 SITE SELECTION & DESIGN

3.1 INTRODUCTION

3.1.1 This chapter outlines the process undertaken by RWE NRL to select the Temple Hill site. It also outlines the design process undertaken to arrive at an appropriate layout.

3.2 TEMPLE HILL SITE SELECTION

3.2.1 A range of environmental, technical and economic factors influence the site selection process. The following factors were considered by RWE NRL in selecting the development site as a potentially viable location for wind turbine development:

 Wind resource: The site has to have suitable wind resource available in order to develop a viable scheme. The NOABL dataset indicates that the development site has a wind resource of between 6.1ms to 6.3ms at 45m agl (above ground level), which is considered to be an appropriate wind speed for the type of development proposed. However, on site wind monitoring is required to confirm site specific wind resource;

 Accessibility: A site must be accessible by the abnormal load vehicles which carry the turbine components with minimal disturbance to the local road network. Preliminary desk based assessment demonstrates that access is possible from the north, with access from the south being restricted by a humpback bridge over the East Coast Mainline;

 Proximity to grid connection: a site must have a technically feasible and financially viable grid connection point and route. Preliminary investigation identifies two potential grid connection points, one to the east and one to the west, for further investigation with the Distribution Network Operator (DNO);

 Proximity to environmental constraints: Highly sensitive environmental receptors (e.g. ecological or national landscape designations) should be avoided where possible in order to minimise adverse environmental effects. The development site does not encompass any ecological or landscape designations. There are a number of ecological designations

Stephenson Halliday 3 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

within a 10km radius, however the closest (Honington Camp SSSI) is over 6km from the site boundary. There are no sites which have been statutorily designated primarily for ornithological criteria located within 10km of the development; and

 Proximity to dwellings: Locating turbines an appropriate distance from dwellings is required to protect residential amenity (including noise, shadow flicker and residential visual amenity). Preliminary investigations identify that the development site could accommodate turbines and achieve a separation distance of over 800m from the nearest dwellings.

3.2.2 The site selection process outlined above explains the rationale behind the strategic identification of the development site as potentially suitable for wind development. Following the strategic identification of the site, a feasibility assessment was undertaken, as set out below.

3.3 FEASIBILTY ASSESSMENT

3.3.1 Following the initial strategic identification of the development site, a feasibility study was undertaken to determine the technical feasibility of developing wind turbines on the site. The aims of the feasibility study were to determine the technical constraints of the site, and to develop an initial turbine and site layout. The key areas of investigation and conclusions are:

 Planning policy: Preliminary policy review identifies that there is support for renewable energy proposals through the Development Plan;

 Access: an access study was undertaken which analysed over 10 potential access routes to the site (refer to Appendix 13.1). Three routes were then assessed using swept path analysis. The study concludes that access is possible via a number of routes, with the preferred route from the north via the A1 and A17;

 Ground conditions and Hydrology: there are a number of watercourses crossing the site, however these would not preclude wind farm development subject to the implementation of necessary mitigation measures;

 Existing Infrastructure and Telecommunications: identified constraints includes a high pressure gas pipeline located along the southern site

Stephenson Halliday 3 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

boundary and telecommunications link across the site from east to west operated by the Joint Radio Company Ltd (JRC);

 Aviation: potential constraints related to line of sight for the Cranwell and Waddington Primary Surveillance Radars (PSR), the site being within the range of Cottesmore Precision Approach Radar (PAR) and licensed airfields at Barkston Heath, Cranwell and Waddington;

 Ecology and Ornithology: a desk based assessment and site visit was undertaken which identifies potential for a number of notable species, but concludes that with considered site design and appropriate mitigation ecological and ornithological effects should be minimised;

 Noise: the potential effects of operational noise were studied by applying indicative noise limits to the nearby surrounding residential properties and plotting noise contours for different layout and turbine options on the site. The study concludes that noise limits set by ETSU-R-97 could be met with 5 1.8-3MW turbines on site;

 Landscape and Visual: a desk based study concludes that there are no statutory landscape designations within 30km of the site, and that a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is required to determine the level of effect upon the local landscape and visual receptors in the study area, including cumulative effects;

 Historic Environment: the feasibility study identifies a number of scheduled monuments within the area, and potential for archaeological remains on site. The study considers that beyond 5km, turbines would form an increasingly minor part of the landscape and therefore be unlikely to have any significant effect on the setting of those scheduled monuments. The study recommended that consultation on the scope of an archaeological assessment should be sought with the County Archaeologist.

3.3.2 In all instances further detailed investigation was recommended to determine an appropriate layout, fully assess any potential environmental effects and propose appropriate mitigation.

3.3.3 Based on the findings of the feasibility study, it was concluded that the development site is an appropriate site for wind development, with the capacity for approximately five 1.8-3MW turbines (commercial large scale turbines, up to

Stephenson Halliday 3 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

approximately 126.5m to blade tip height), subject to a full EIA being undertaken.

3.4 DESIGN EVOLUTION

3.4.1 The feasibility assessment also identified the initial technical constraints of the site. Based on these technical constraints an initial site layout was developed, taking into account the following turbine siting guidelines:

Table 3.1 Turbine siting criteria

Consideration Minimum Source (at time of Minimum Turbine Standard design process)1 Siting Criteria (bracketed figure Adopted for shows the development site standard applied to the site) Over-sail (no part Over-sail distance Planning Policy 46.5m of the turbine (46.5m) Statement (PPS) over-sails 22: Renewable adjacent land) Energy Roads Tip height from PPS 22: Tip height plus roads (126.5m) Renewable Energy 50%: 189.75m Railways Topple distance PPS 22: Separation from railway lines, Renewable Energy distances based on consultation with consultation with Network Rail Network Rail advised Public Rights of Over-sail distance PPS 22: Tip height plus Way (PRoW) (46.5m) Renewable Energy 10%: 139.15m Bridleways No specific PPS 22: 200m requirement for Renewable Energy Bridleways beyond

PRoW standard, therefore over-sail distance (46.5m) (Recommendation of 200m by British Horse Society) Inter-turbine Compliance to IEC BS EN 61400- Compliance to IEC spacing code 1:2005 code Overhead Variable depending Operator Specific Separation Electricity Lines on operator distances based on consultation with operator Underground Variable depending Operator Specific Hub height plus

1At the time of undertaking the initial design process, the NPPF was not adopted and Planning Policy Statement 22 was extant. The NPPF does not refer to minimum standards.

Stephenson Halliday 3 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Consideration Minimum Source (at time of Minimum Turbine Standard design process)1 Siting Criteria (bracketed figure Adopted for shows the development site standard applied to the site) Infrastructure on operator 50% based on consultation with operator Radio- Variable depending Operator Specific Separation communication on operator distances based on Links consultation with operator Watercourses 15m from the edge Environment 50m of any watercourse Agency Woodland/ 50m Natural England 50m hedgerows Noise Sufficient to ensure ETSU-R-97 The ETSU-R-97 noise limits set out Assessment and within ETSU-R-97 Rating of Noise are not exceeded from Wind Farms

3.4.1 The development of the design has been an iterative process, with layouts developed, tested against the identified constraints, potential effects identified, then the design refined in order to avoid/reduce the identified effect, and the layout then retested. This process in effect creates a feedback loop, with the design being repeatedly refined until an appropriate solution is arrived at.

3.4.2 The design process of course has to consider the many technical and environmental constraints. In order to ensure the robustness of the process, design workshops were set up where the full consultant team could gather to work through the relevant issues together and develop the design in a holistic fashion. Throughout the course of the EIA, two design workshops were undertaken.

3.4.3 Whilst numerous options were considered throughout the design process, three key design iterations were developed:

Design Iteration 1: Scoping layout (refer to Figure 3.1)

3.4.4 The first design iteration was a response to the initial technical constraints identified by the feasibility assessment, and the turbine siting guidelines noted in Table 3.1. This layout formed the basis of the Scoping Report in the request for a Scoping Opinion from South Kesteven District Council, in April 2012.

Stephenson Halliday 3 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Design Iteration 2: Interim layout (refer to Figure 3.2)

3.4.5 Upon initiation of the EIA, the dedicated consultant team began undertaking detailed baseline data collection and assessment. This baseline assessment built upon the initial data collected during the feasibility assessment to present a detailed picture of the site specific technical and environmental constraints. South Kesteven District Council’s Scoping Opinion also informed the design. In particular

3.4.6 This facilitated the further development of the design and set the stage for the first design workshop. This workshop focussed on the following key issues and resultant design solutions:

Visual Amenity: Turbines 1 and 3

3.4.7 Key viewpoints were selected for the design workshop illustrating the composition of the turbine layout from the surrounding area, in particular the close by settlements of Stubton, Brandon, Hough-on-the-Hill and nearby dwellings, nearby businesses Littlegates nursery and Stubton Hall, public rights of way and local roads.

3.4.8 Design Iteration 1 displayed compositions with ‘visual stacking’ from some of the key viewpoints, particularly those from the north west (Turbines 1 and 2 stacking) and east (Turbines 3 and 4 stacking). ‘Visual stacking’ is the phenomenon where multiple turbines appear directly in front of / behind one another in the view, and so the rotating blades can cause visual confusion, and the composition then lacks legibility. When viewed from Stubton, Turbine 1 also appeared more prominently than the other turbines within the composition as it was the closest turbine to the village.

3.4.9 To improve the visual compositions from the key viewpoints Turbines 1 and 3 were relocated south west, and Turbine 2 was retained in the same position. This reduced the potential for visual stacking, and so increased the legibility of the compositions.

3.4.10 Relocating Turbine 1 south also increased its separation distance from Stubton, which had the effect of achieving a more balanced composition as it no longer stood out visually as a closer and therefore more prominent turbine.

3.4.11 Linked to visual impact assessment, views from Stubton Hall were also considered in terms of effects upon the setting of a Grade II listed building. The

Stephenson Halliday 3 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

relocation of Turbines 1 and 3 optimised the visual composition from Stubton Hall in order to present legible and simple views of the proposals from this heritage asset.

Noise: Turbine 3

3.4.12 The completion of background noise monitoring and consequent detailed noise modeling allowed design amendments to be made to reduce potential noise effects at nearby dwellings. Noise levels approaching the ETSU-R97 limits were identified as a worst case possibility (modeling using the worst case scenario including the loudest available turbine as a candidate model) at the dwellings off Grange Lane (Grange Cottage and the cluster of dwellings at Hough Grange), with the proximity of Turbine 3 to these dwellings identified as the primary cause. To reduce the potential noise levels at these properties Turbine 3 was relocated south west to increase the separation distance from these dwellings.

Renewable Energy Yield: Turbines 4 and 5

3.4.13 If turbines are located too close together the air turbulence immediately around the rotating blades can cause nearby turbines to operate less efficiently. Therefore to maximise the renewable energy benefits of the proposal the relocation of Turbine 3 south west necessitated that Turbine 4, and consequently Turbine 5 be relocated west to maintain a safe and efficient separation distance between turbines.

Turbine Height

3.4.14 A range of turbine heights were assessed during the design process. The potential effects upon ecological receptors, cultural heritage assets, residential amenity, landscape character and other sensitive environmental receptors were investigated. These were weighed against the renewable energy benefits of the proposals, taking into consideration the variance of energy generation that different turbine sizes and geometries (hub height and blade length) would provide. Following that process it is considered that the optimal balance between minimising the potential environmental effects, and maximising the renewable energy benefits of the development is a turbine up to 126.5m tip height.

Stephenson Halliday 3 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Design Iteration 3: Final submission (refer to Figure 3.3)

3.4.15 Following the development of the interim layout further focussed development was undertaken to address issues raised by on-going baseline studies, and a second design workshop was undertaken, which focussed on the following key issues and resultant design solutions:

Ecology: Turbine 2

3.4.16 On-going targeted ecological surveys identified that the pond and associated tree cover to the north of the site boundary was being used as a foraging area by Noctule bats. Turbine 2 was relocated south to increase its separation distance from the pond and associated tree cover to reduce the collision risk to foraging bats.

Visual Amenity inc. Residential Visual Amenity: Turbine 1

3.4.17 Further detailed design work was undertaken in relation to the turbine composition from key viewpoints, focussing on minimising effects upon residential visual amenity from nearby dwellings. Turbine 1 was relocated east to increase its separation distance from Littlegates Nursery. The layout was also optimised to achieve more balanced compositions through the relocation of Turbine 2 south, and Turbine 3 north, which improved views from dwellings to the east and north of the site, as well as views from the key design viewpoints.

3.4.18 Following the other design developments outlined here, a final review of the key viewpoints was undertaken to ensure that the proposals would appear as balanced and legible compositions from local dwellings, settlements, PRoW and route corridors.

Public Rights of Way: Turbine 2

3.4.19 The relocation of Turbine 2 south, away from the northern site boundary was also intended to increase the separation distance from the PRoW (Restricted Byway 22) which runs along the northern site boundary.

Noise: Turbine 3

3.4.20 During the baseline noise monitoring, permission had not been obtained to undertake background noise monitoring at Gelston Grange. Consequently a proxy location was used to inform the noise modelling. This modelling

Stephenson Halliday 3 - 8 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

subsequently identified that Turbine 3 could be relocated north to reduce potential noise effects at Gelston Grange, whilst not increasing the potential noise effects at dwellings off Grange Lane.

Archaeology: Turbine 5

3.4.21 Following desk based archaeology research, Turbine 5 was relocated south to avoid a mapped area of potential archaeological finds.

Renewable Energy Yield: Turbines 4 and 5

3.4.22 Following the relocation of Turbines 1-3, and the necessary relocation of Turbine 5 south due to archaeology, Turbines 4 and 5 were again repositioned slightly to create the optimum separation distance between turbines in order to maximise energy generation.

Ancillary Infrastructure

3.4.23 Once the turbine layout was nearing completion, the site layout including access tracks, substation, construction compound and anemometer mast could be considered. The aims of the site layout were to: minimise disturbance to existing landscape/ecological features (e.g. hedgerows); minimise watercourse crossings; utilise existing farm tracks for access tracks wherever possible to minimise the impact of construction of the site and; minimise field severance/disturbance to ensure the ongoing management of the site as a viable agricultural landholding. The site layout was developed with the farm manager and responds to the objectives set out above.

Design for Public Consultation

3.4.24 Design Iteration 3 formed the basis of the layout consulted on at the public exhibition (for details of the public exhibition refer to the Statement of Community Involvement). The views of local people were sought at a public exhibition event held over 2 days on 28/29th September 2012. Most of the comments addressed the principle of the development rather than the detail of design, but note was taken of a number of detail related comments. In response to these comments, the proximity of the proposed turbines to the PRoW (Restricted Byway 22) to the north of the site was considered and examined. Alternative layouts which increased the separation distance between the turbines and the PRoW were examined, however these were found to have an

Stephenson Halliday 3 - 9 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

adverse effect on other more sensitive receptors (for example noise limits at nearby dwellings) so Design Iteration 3 was retained as the preferred option for turbine locations.

Final Submission

3.4.25 Following public exhibition, further testing was undertaken against the detailed baseline data which confirmed that the layout avoided or reduced as far as possible any significant environmental effects.

3.4.26 A geophysical survey and targeted trial trenching identified the potential for archaeological remains within the Site. Following this survey work the access tracks to Turbine 2 and Turbine 5 were revised in order to avoid the foci of archaeological activity.

3.4.27 This final layout, illustrated in Volume 2, Figure 4.1 was then selected as the layout upon which the full EIA is based and which forms the basis for the Temple Hill wind farm planning application.

3.4.28 The Development comprises the construction, operation and decommissioning of five wind turbines and associated infrastructure, as illustrated on Figure 4.1. Grid coordinates for the turbines and the anemometer mast are presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Indicative Coordinates

Element Easting Northing Turbine 1 488700 347642 Turbine 2 489083 347591 Turbine 3 489318 347274 Turbine 4 488857 347146 Turbine 5 488428 347122 Anemometer mast 489185 347100

Stephenson Halliday 3 - 10 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

4.1.1 This chapter provides a description of the Development including wind turbines and associated infrastructure, details of construction methods and an overview of the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the Development.

4.2 THE DEVELOPMENT

The Site

4.2.1 The site is illustrated in Volume 2, Figure 4.1. This is land which has been subject to the site investigation and design process outlined in Chapter 3: Site Selection and Design, and the further technical assessment outlined in the following technical chapters. The applicant has an option agreement with the landowner to lease the land required for the proposed Development subject to planning consent. The site is greater in extent than the application boundary, described below.

The Application Boundary

4.2.2 The red line application boundary is illustrated in Volume 2, Figure 4.1 and includes all elements of the Development, including a micro-siting allowance of up to 50m for turbines and ancillary infrastructure as required, as described in section 4.3 below. The application boundary covers 28.48ha.

Wind Turbines

4.2.3 Five turbines are proposed, each with a maximum height from base to blade tip of 126.5m. Volume 2, Figure 4.3 illustrates a typical wind turbine proposed for the Development.

4.2.4 The proposed coordinates of the turbines are presented in Table 3.2.

4.2.5 The proposed turbine would be of a modern design comprising a three bladed rotor hub mounted on a nacelle (containing generator), tower and foundation. The key technical parameters of the scheme are:

Stephenson Halliday 4 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 4.1: Wind Farm Key Technical Parameters

Element Parameter Number of turbines 5 Turbine rated capacity (MW) 1.8-3MW Development site rated capacity (MW) 9-15MW Number of blades 3 Tower style Tapered cylindrical Maximum height to blade tip 126.5m Revolutions per minute (RPM) up to 20 (approx)

4.2.6 The physical dimensions of the turbines - in terms of turbine height dimensions would not exceed the maximum figures set out in Table 4.1. At this stage it is not possible to specify which turbine may be used. The final choice of turbine would be dependent upon availability and market conditions prior to the implementation of the scheme. This uncertainty is recognised within National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3, which at paragraph 2.7.19 states ‘at the time of application, wind farm operators may not know precisely which turbine will be procured for the site until some time after any consent has been granted.’

4.2.7 A number of turbines from differing manufacturers fit within the maximum dimensions given above. For the purposes of noise calculations within this report, the VESTAS V90 2MW turbine had been used as a candidate turbine. There are a number of different turbine models from other turbine manufacturers which have similar specifications and could also meet the noise limits. The other topic chapters within the ES set out the assumptions made with regard to turbine dimensions (within 126.5m to tip envelope) to ensure that each assessment consider a ‘worst case scenario’ for that topic.

4.2.8 It is proposed that the turbines will be of a “variable speed” type, meaning that the turbine rotor speed will vary according to the energy available in the wind. A modern variable speed turbine rotor will rotate at speeds up to approximately 20 revolutions per minute dependant on wind speed. The turbines will generate in wind speeds between approximately 4m/s (metres/second) and 25m/s (9 to 56mph). At wind speeds greater than 25m/s the turbines will shut down for structural integrity and safety reasons. The turbines are computer controlled to ensure that at all times the turbine faces directly into the wind to ensure optimum efficiency.

Stephenson Halliday 4 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

4.2.9 Variable speed turbines have advantages over conventional fixed speed machines as they are generally quieter and more efficient for the same power output.

4.2.10 The turbine towers would be of tapering tubular steel construction. The finish of the turbines would be of a semi-matt light grey colour to reduce their contrast with the sky and minimise reflections, subject to the agreement of the local planning authority. All the turbine blades will rotate in the same direction.

4.2.11 Each turbine requires a transformer, local high voltage and low voltage switchgear which would typically be located immediately adjacent to the turbine in a separate kiosk. The precise detail of the external kiosk will be dependent on the final choice of turbine but they are expected to be approximately 5m x 2.5m x 3m in size.

Wind Turbine Foundations

4.2.12 Each turbine foundation would be designed to reflect the ground conditions on which they would be constructed. At each turbine location the detailed composition of the material underlying the proposed turbine would be subject to a detailed geo-technical assessment which would determine the foundation design. Based on the findings of the ground conditions assessment (refer to Chapter 11 Ground Conditions), the foundation proposed is a gravity foundation as illustrated in Volume 2, Figure 4.4, although a piled foundation (refer to Volume 2, Figure 4.5) may also prove viable.

4.2.13 Typically, the foundations are circular in shape and comprise a reinforced concrete base slab measuring approximately 19m in diameter and approximately 3m in depth. The foundation would be mostly below ground and stripped soils will be used to re-instate the ground over the foundations up to the base of the turbines with managed grassland.

4.2.14 Where possible the excess materials from the excavation of the foundations would be reused on site. Where this is not practical excess spoil (but not topsoil) will be removed off site for disposal.

Access tracks

4.2.15 A new access junction would be constructed to gain access from the public highway. This would comprise an asphalt bell mouth, with a wider crushed stone access area on the northern side for abnormal load deliveries. This will be

Stephenson Halliday 4 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

retained through the life of the Development to allow for component deliveries if necessary. The existing hedgerow along the highway boundary will be removed to create the required visibility splay, and a new hedgerow will be planted along the back of the visibility (essentially widening the existing grass highway verge).

4.2.16 Existing access track routes will be utilised and upgraded where possible. Access tracks would have a running width of 5m with localised widening at bends.

4.2.17 Access track construction would typically involve stripping topsoil to undisturbed subsoil (approximately plough depth, to avoid undisturbed ground and any potential effects upon archaeological remains) and built up with the placement and compaction of crushed stone with geo-grid/geo-textile layers providing additional structural integrity. Over soft ground or any areas of sensitive archaeology a fully floating design would be adopted.

4.2.18 The tracks would be permeable and free draining. Volume 2, Figure 4.6 illustrates typical track cross sections. Approximately 770m of existing tracks would be upgraded, and approximately 2.46km of new access track would be constructed.

4.2.19 To rationalise the layout of farm access tracks for the landowner (and tenant farm manger), the application includes the removal of 753m of existing access track and the provision of 322m of new agricultural access track. This length of new agricultural access track is not required for the access or operations of the wind farm.

Watercourse crossings

4.2.20 Two water course crossings will be required on site; a replacement culvert and a new bridge crossing (refer to Volume 2, Figures 4.1, 4.8 and 4.9). On the eastern channel, an existing culvert would be removed and a new larger capacity culvert would be introduced, with the access track passing over this culvert. On the central drain a new bridge is proposed. The bridge would have a timber deck on top of steel or concrete beams. Further detail can be found in Chapter 12: Hydrology and Hydrogeology.

Stephenson Halliday 4 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Cable trenches

4.2.21 The turbines and the control building will be connected by electrical cables run in trenches approximately 1,200mm deep (typically adjacent to the access tracks). The trenches would be backfilled so that the area above the cables can be returned to productive agricultural land following construction.

Soil Handling

4.2.22 Soil handling will be based on best practice guidelines available from DEFRA in the form of the Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils (MAFF 2000). This will ensure there is minimal damage to the soils structure and water holding properties. In accordance with BS6031: 1981 Code of Practice for Earth Works, land disturbance will be kept to a minimum and disturbed areas will be reinstated as soon as possible after construction.

4.2.23 In particular topsoil will be stripped in area of the access tracks, turbine bases, cable trenches and working areas, substation and temporary compounds and laydown points. Topsoil will be stored on site separately from other materials and then be used in the restoration of surrounding areas. No topsoil will be removed from the site.

Construction Compound

4.2.24 During the construction period a construction compound would be required. The construction compound would be located in the south east of the site immediately adjacent to the access track, as illustrated in Volume 2, Figure 4.1. The compound would be approximately 80m x 30m (refer to Volume 2, Figure 4.13) and will provide space for:

 Temporary accommodation for site offices and welfare facilities for contractors;

 Temporary storage of turbine components awaiting installation and other construction materials;

 Containers used for tool and equipment storage;

 Parking for construction vehicles.

4.2.25 The temporary compound area would be enclosed by temporary fencing and would consist of a hardcore base and would be removed on completion of construction. The compound would be permeable and free draining except for

Stephenson Halliday 4 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

temporary areas set aside for the storage of fuels and lubricants and for refuelling activities.

Crane Pads

4.2.26 To facilitate the erection of the turbines, crane pads would be required adjacent to the base of each turbine position to provide a firm and level base on which the cranes necessary for turbine erection can operate. These would be approximately 20m x 40m (refer to Volume 2, Figure 4.7) and would be constructed of crushed stone to a depth of 400-600mm. The pads would be free draining and permeable. These pads would remain for the life of the Development to facilitate maintenance of the turbines when required.

Temporary/Other Features

4.2.27 In addition to the permanent access tracks and crane pads it is likely that a number of temporary areas will be required for crane erection, turbine component laydown areas, passing bays and turning of large vehicles. These areas are likely to be of aggregate construction similar to the access tracks, however other options such as the use of bog mats will also be considered depending on the load and duration of the activities for which they are required. These areas will not form permanent complement of the Development and will be reinstated at the end of the Construction phase.

4.2.28 It may be necessary to erect a temporary anemometry mast for a duration of approximately 3 to 6 months during the construction period in order to allow calibration between wind conditions at the permanent anemometry mast location and the position of the test turbine. If required this would be the same height as the permanent anemometry mast and erected as close as practicable to the location of the test turbine. It would be removed prior to the final turbine being erected.

Control Building

4.2.29 A control building will be required on site, located to the south east of the site, adjacent to the temporary construction compound. The control building would typically house a control room, two high voltage switchrooms (one for the site operator and one for the Distribution Network Operator (DNO)), metering room, store room, toilet and other welfare facilities. The external appearance of the control building would be designed in an appropriate local vernacular style. An indicative control building is illustrated in Volume 2, Figure 4.12. An external

Stephenson Halliday 4 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

compound may be required to house two external transformers approximately 0.5m x 1.7m x 1.5m, as illustrated in Volume 2, Figure 4.12. Five car parking spaces would be provided.

Grid Connection

4.2.30 A grid connection is required to feed the electricity generated by the Development into the local distribution network. Turbines would be interconnected using underground cables.

4.2.31 The grid connection would be the subject of a separate consents regime if not permitted under Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended.

4.2.32 The grid connection will be subject to a separate grid application by RWE NRL to the DNO who will determine the most suitable point and means of connection to their network. However, a preferred grid connection point and route has been identified and is illustrated in Volume 2, Figure 4.15. A preliminary scoping assessment of the potential effects of the grid connection is set out in each technical chapter where relevant.

Preferred Route

4.2.33 The route of the underground grid connection corridor would exit the site via the site access junction, and run underground along the public road corridor north to Brandon, west to Stubton, South to Clensey Lane and then west to Dry Doddington. The preferred connection with the local distribution network is along the public road between Dry Doddington and Claypole.

Aggregate Material

4.2.34 All aggregate material required for the construction of the access tracks, construction compound, crane pads and temporary features would be imported from an existing off site source.

Anemometer Mast

4.2.35 A permanent anemometer mast is proposed, at the coordinates set out in Table 3.2. The mast would be similar to the hub height of the turbines up to a maximum height of 85m. The mast would be a lattice tower with meteorological measuring equipment located at various heights. The lattice tower will have reinforced concrete foundations of approximately 100 m3.

Stephenson Halliday 4 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement Construction Management Plan

4.2.36 A full construction management plan will be prepared prior to the commencement of development.

Habitat and Landscape Enhancements

4.2.37 A number of habitat and landscape enhancements are proposed to enrich the ecological, ornithological and landscape value of the site and surrounding arable landscape. The description and rationale for them is set out in detail in Chapter 6: LVIA, Chapter 7: Ecology, and Chapter 8: Ornithology, however they are summarised below, with reference to Volume 2, Figure 4.14.

 Hedgerow planting: approximately 678m of new hedgerows will be planted (in addition to approximately 617m of hedgerow planting to compensate for hedgerow removal). These will follow field boundaries and access tracks;

 Scrub and grassland mosaic: following the completion of the construction phase and removal of the temporary site compound, the area around the control building will be planted with a scrub and grassland mosaic;

 Rough grassland management: existing rough grassland will be maintained as an ecological foraging resource. Management will prevent the encroachment of scrub vegetation;

 Permanent grassland management: existing permanent grassland will be maintained as an ecological foraging resource. Management will prevent the encroachment of scrub vegetation;

 Conservation headlands: areas at the edge of arable fields will be sprayed selectively to allow a range of broadleaf arable ‘weed’ species to persist which will in turn support a greater diversity and abundance of invertebrate food items for farmland birds;

 Tree sparrow boxes: approximately 10 tree sparrow nest boxes would be distributed along field boundaries to provide a significant increase in secure breeding habitat for this UK BAP priority and red list species;

 Species rich grassland verge: the widened verge along the C1 to allow for the visibility splay will be seeded with an appropriate native grassland mix; and

 Tree planting within the eastern site boundary hedgerow: hedgerow trees will be planted within the hedgerow along field boundary with the C1 road.

Stephenson Halliday 4 - 8 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement 4.3 MICRO-SITING

4.3.1 As the Development progresses to detailed design and construction, unforeseen factors which influence the layout may come to light, for example unexpected ground conditions following post-consent detailed site investigation works. Such unforeseen factors would therefore require the micro-siting of a turbine(s) and/or ancillary infrastructure (for example an alteration to an access track to reach an alternative turbine location). RWE NRL therefore proposes that a micro-siting allowance of up to 50m is permitted (subject to the restrictions outlined below) with respect to the coordinates outlined in Table 3.2, and a micro-siting allowance appropriate to service the final turbine coordinates is permitted for the ancillary infrastructure as set out in Volume 2, Figure 4.1.

4.3.2 Each topic chapter provides an assessment of the likely significant effects of the Development within the micro-siting area.

4.3.3 The need for micro-siting is recognised with the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure EN-3 which at paragraph 2.7.23 indicates that:

‘applicants are likely to need flexibility in a project consent to allow for any necessary micro-siting of elements of the proposed wind farm after consent and during construction.’

4.3.4 At paragraph 2.7.24 of EN-3 it is indicated that a tolerance of 30m to 50m is typical.

Micro-siting restrictions

4.3.5 The following micro-siting restrictions would apply:

 Turbine 1:

o No micro-siting to the west or north west to safeguard residential amenity at the nearest dwellings and telecommunications links.

 Turbine 2: o No micro-siting to the north to safeguard residential amenity at the nearest dwellings. Restricted to the east to 15m to maintain appropriate stand-off distance from ecological features.

 Turbine 3:

o No micro-siting to the north east and south east to safeguard residential amenity at the nearest dwellings. Restricted to the north to 25m to safeguard telecommunications links which were known at the

Stephenson Halliday 4 - 9 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

time of assessment (should communications links change over time micro-siting restrictions would be reviewed).

 Turbine 4:

o Restricted to the south to 4m to maintain appropriate stand-off distance from ecological features

 Turbine 5: o No micro-siting to the west to maintain appropriate stand-off distance from ecological features, or to the east to safeguard archaeological constraints. Restricted to the south to 29m to maintain appropriate stand-off distance from the gas main south of the site.

 Anemometer Mast:

o No micro-siting to the west to safeguard archaeological constraints. Restricted to the south to 22m to maintain appropriate stand-off distance from the gas main south of the site.

4.3.6 Further detail on the above restrictions is outlined in the individual topic chapters.

4.4 CONSTRUCTION PHASE

4.4.1 It is estimated that construction of the Development would take approximately 11 months. The construction programme would consist of the following operations:

 Construction of the access point onto the site from the public highway;

 Construction of site compound;

 Construction of the site access tracks, crane pads, laydown areas and watercourse crossings;

 Excavation for and construction of turbine foundations;

 Excavation of cable trenches and cable laying;

 Construction of control building;

 Erection of wind turbines using cranes;

 Erection of anemometer mast using cranes;

 Connection of electricity and signal cables;

 Commissioning of site equipment;  Site restoration.

Stephenson Halliday 4 - 10 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

4.4.2 Many of these operations would occur concurrently, although would broadly follow the order in which they are set out above.

4.4.3 RWE NRL will retain the services of specialist environmental advisors throughout the construction period, for assistance with any required micro-siting and environmental monitoring.

4.5 OPERATIONAL PHASE

4.5.1 Following the construction and commissioning of the Development, it is anticipated to be operational and generating electricity for 25 years, after which time it would be decommissioned.

Maintenance

4.5.2 Maintenance of the Development would initially be carried out by the turbine manufacturer and later by suitably qualified contractors who will visit the site to carry out regular inspection and maintenance activities. The following turbine maintenance will be carried out, along with any other maintenance required by manufacturer’s specifications:

 Initial trial run and service;

 Routine and non-routine maintenance and servicing;

 Blade inspection.

4.5.3 Servicing shall include the performance of tasks such as maintaining bolts to the required torque, adjustment of blades and inspection of welds in the tower.

4.5.4 On-going track maintenance will generally be undertaken in the summer months when tracks are dry. Safe access will be maintained all year round.

4.5.5 Maintenance and service would necessitate visits to the site by a maintenance crew approximately once a month. In the event of any unexpected events onsite, such as failure of a generator, the appropriate maintenance works would be carried out immediately.

4.6 DECOMMISSIONING

4.6.1 The Development would be decommissioned at the end of its design life of around 25 years. Decommissioning would involve the complete removal of turbines, substation, and other equipment, and the removal of the turbine foundations to a depth of one metre below ground level. Access tracks required

Stephenson Halliday 4 - 11 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

for the management of the farm would be maintained, with other access tracks removed. All of these areas would be re-instated in accordance with the approved restoration scheme.

Stephenson Halliday 4 - 12 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

5 RENEWABLE ENERGY AND PLANNING POLICY

5.1 INTRODUCTION

5.1.1 This chapter identifies relevant energy and planning policies which provide the policy context for the Development. This chapter is aimed at identifying the policy context within which it will be assessed. It does not perform a detailed assessment of the Development against the policies and provisions of the development plan. Such an assessment together with consideration of other material considerations is provided within the Planning Statement.

5.2 RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICY

5.2.1 A key driver for the Development is the recognition by the UK Government that dependence upon fossil fuels for energy production needs to be reduced. This has been reflected in national energy policy which has in turn influenced national planning policy.

International Commitments

5.2.2 At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 the UK Government joined other nations in signing the ‘United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’. Further commitments were given under the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 which bound the UK to reduce its emissions of six greenhouse gases by 12.5%. At the Kyoto summit the UK government also committed to a 20% reduction in Carbon Dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2010. In Doha, Qatar in December 2012 the Doha amendment was adopted. During the first commitment period, 37 industrialised countries and the European Community committed to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to an average of five percent against 1990 levels. During the second commitment period, parties committed to reduce GHG emissions by at least 18 percent below 1990 levels in the eight-year period from 2013 to 2020.

Stephenson Halliday 5 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

European Commitments

5.2.3 The EU Renewable Energy Directive commits member states to the setting of national targets for consumption of energy from renewable sources as a proportion of total electricity use.

5.2.4 In December 2008, governments of the 27 member states of the EU endorsed a package of energy and climate change proposals, the key elements of which include:

 EU member states to cut emissions by at least 20% of 1990 levels by 2020;

 Reduction in EU energy consumption by 20% by 2020;

 Increase the proportion of energy generated from renewables to 20% by 2020.

5.2.5 The UK share of the EU 2020 target is a legally binding national target of producing 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

UK Renewables Energy Policy

5.2.6 The UK Renewable Energy Strategy was presented to Parliament in July 2009. The strategy sets out the path for the UK to meet its legally binding target to ensure that 15% of its energy comes from renewable sources by 2020. To achieve this overall target for energy the strategy’s lead scenario would see more than 30% of electricity generation from renewables up from 5.5%.

5.2.7 The National Renewable Energy Action Plan for the UK was published in July 2010 with a clear emphasis on promoting the development of renewable energy sources alongside nuclear power and the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS).

5.2.8 The Renewable Energy Roadmap was published in July 2011. It indicates that the Government’s ambitions extend beyond 2020. The roadmap refers to advice from the Committee for Climate Change which has made clear a long term role for renewable energy with potential penetration to reach 30-45% of all energy consumed in the UK by 2030. The roadmap states that there is currently 4GW of operational onshore wind capacity in the UK making it the single most deployed

Stephenson Halliday 5 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

renewable energy technology. Looking forward the central range for future deployments suggests capacity of up to 13GW by 2020.

5.2.9 The Carbon Plan was published by the Government in December 2011. In its introduction it refers to the commitments made by the Coalition Government in June 2011 which is to halve greenhouse gas emissions, on 1990 levels, by the mid-2020s. The Carbon Plan sets out how this goal will be met. The Plan reiterates the twin energy challenges of reducing emissions to combat climate change and to secure future energy supplies. In terms of power generation the plan indicates: ‘Government modelling suggests that around 60–80 GW of new electricity capacity will need to be built by 2030, and of this around 40–70 GW will need to come from low carbon technologies, such as nuclear, renewables and fossil fuel stations with CCS.’ (Paragraph 2.150). Looking forward to 2050 it is anticipated that up to 100 GW of low carbon electricity generation will be needed. ‘We currently have only 20 GW of low carbon capacity, meaning that we need to build an average of around 2.5 GW of new low carbon capacity a year for the next 40 years’. (Paragraph 2.153). It is clear from these statements that the continued rapid deployment of renewable energy generation including on-shore wind energy developments remains critical to the implementation of the Government’s energy policy.

5.3 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

Legislative Background

5.3.1 The primacy of the policies contained within the Development Plan in the determination of applications for planning permission is enshrined in legislation; Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states:

‘If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination under the Planning Acts the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise’.

The Development Plan

5.4 The Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands was revoked by a

Revocation Order which came into force on 12th April 2013 and is no longer part

of the Development Plan. There are no saved RSS policies in the East Midlands Region. Any remaining saved Structure Plan policies were also revoked.

Stephenson Halliday 5 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

5.5 Although the RSS is revoked, the evidence base documents that underpinned the former RSS remain. While the policies no longer form part of the development plan for the purposes of Section 38, it is still important to note what other advice was being issued in connection with that revocation decision. In his guidance to local planning authorities issued on 6th July 2010, The Secretary of State stated that, as regards regional policies on renewable and low carbon energy, he expected:

‘Through their local plans, authorities should contribute to the move to a low carbon economy, helping to meet ambitions to cut greenhouse gas emissions

and secure more renewable energy, and to adapt to the impacts rising from

climate change. In doing so, planning authorities may find it useful to draw on data that was collected by the Regional Local Authority Leaders’ Boards (which

will be made available) and more recent work, including assessments of the

potential for renewable and low carbon energy.’

5.6 This advice is now carried forward into the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at para 218.

5.6.1 The relevant Development Plan for the Temple Hill site is the South Kesteven Core Strategy adopted in July 2010 and any saved policies of the Kesteven Local Plan adopted in 1995.

South Kesteven Core Strategy

5.6.2 The South Kesteven Core Strategy provides the spatial policy framework for development in the district of South Kesteven for the period to 2026. The Spatial Strategy section of the document aims to create sustainable communities and shape the pattern of new development. Policies SP1 and SP2 guide new development for housing, employment and community uses within Grantham to support and strengthen its role as a Sub-Regional Centre, other main towns in the District and identified local service centres.

5.6.3 The Core Strategy includes a policy which directly addresses renewable energy generation. Policy EN3 states:

‘The District Council will grant planning permission for proposals to generate energy from renewable sources, subject to the proposals according with the

Stephenson Halliday 5 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

other Core Strategy policies, national guidance and complying with the following criteria:

The proposal can be connected efficiently to existing national grid infrastructure, unless it can be demonstrated that energy generation would be used on-site to meet the needs of a specific end user.

The proposal should make provision for:

 the mitigation of the real emissions/impacts arising from the installation of the renewable energy generation

 the removal of the facilities and reinstatement of the site, should the facilities cease to be operational.’

5.6.4 In addition, the Core Strategy includes a comprehensive policy to secure the protection and enhancement of the character of the district. Policy EN1 states:

‘South Kesteven’s Landscape Character Areas are identified on the map… Development must be appropriate to the character and significant natural, historic and cultural attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration.

All development proposals and site allocations will be assessed in relation to:

 statutory, national and local designations of landscape features, including natural and historic assets;

 local distinctiveness and sense of place;

 historic character, patterns and attributes of the landscape;

 the layout and scale of buildings and designed spaces;

 the quality and character of the built fabric and their settings;

 the condition of the landscape;

 biodiversity and ecological networks within the landscape;

 public access to and community value of the landscape;

 remoteness and tranquillity;

 visual intrusion;

 noise and light pollution;

 Conservation Area Appraisals and Village Design Statements, where these have been adopted by the Council;

Stephenson Halliday 5 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 impact on controlled waters;

 protection of existing open space (including allotments and public open space, and open spaces important to the character, setting and separation of built-up areas)’

5.6.5 The supporting text to the policy makes specific reference to the South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (FPCR, January 2007) and other studies which, when approved, would be material considerations in the determination of planning applications. These other studies include the Belton House and Park Setting Study and Policy Development (Atkins 2010) and the Historic Landscape Characterisation Assessment. The Belton House document defines the setting of Belton House and provides an assessment of the need for additional planning policy to assess the potential impact of future development proposals on the setting of these assets. The Historic Landscape Characterisation Assessment provides historical and archaeological information for conservation, management, and development decisions.

5.6.6 The other Environmental Policy of relevance is Policy EN2 which is concerned with reducing the risk of flooding. It reiterates the requirements of PPS 25 (now replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework) and requires all proposals to be accompanied by a statement of how surface water is to be managed.

5.6.7 Policy SP4 aims to secure the provision of or financial contributions towards infrastructure and community benefits.

Saved Polices of the South Kesteven Local Plan

5.6.1 Most of the saved polices of the South Kesteven Local Plan have been superseded by policies in the adopted Core Strategy. None of the few remaining saved policies are relevant to the Development.

5.7 MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Relevant material considerations are the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3), the Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy, the South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document on Wind Energy, emerging Development Plan Documents and a number of regional and local evidence base studies.

Stephenson Halliday 5 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

5.7.1 The NPPF was published in March 2012. The key principle of the framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. At paragraph 14 it states: ‘At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking.’

5.7.2 Paragraph 93 of the NPPF recognises the critical role planning plays in addressing climate change. It states that: ‘Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.’

5.7.3 At paragraph 97 the NPPF identifies the approach to be adopted by local planning authorities in developing planning policies for their area. This states that ‘To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should:

 Have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources;

 Develop their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts;

 Consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure where this would help secure the development of such sources….’

5.7.4 A footnote to this paragraph indicates that in assessing the likely impacts of potential wind energy developments when identifying suitable areas, and in determining planning applications for such development, planning authorities should follow the approach set out in the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).

5.7.5 At paragraph 98 the NPPF outlines the approach of local planning authorities in considering planning applications for renewable energy developments. It indicates that authorities should:

Stephenson Halliday 5 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 Not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

 Approve the application (unless material considerations indicate otherwise*) if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

*[inserted by footnote 18]

5.7.6 Section 11 of the NPPF is concerned with conserving and enhancing the natural environment. At paragraph 109 it states:

‘The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment’.

Paragraph 123 addresses the issue of noise and states that:

‘Planning policies and decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development.

5.7.7 Section 12 of the NPPF is concerned with conserving and enhancing the historic environment. At paragraph 132 it is indicated that ‘when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or its setting.’

5.7.8 Paragraph 133 deals with circumstances where the proposed development would have substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset. In such circumstances the policy indicates that the local planning authority should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss.

5.7.9 Paragraph 134 provides guidance in circumstances where there is less than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset. In these cases the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

5.7.10 The NPPF also gives advice, in paragraph 215, on the weight to be attached to the policies within existing development plans according to their degree of

Stephenson Halliday 5 - 8 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

consistency with the policies in the NPPF. Decision makers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

 The stage of preparation - the more advanced the plan the greater the weight to be attached;

 The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies - the less significant the unresolved objections the greater the weight to be afforded

 The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plans to the policies in the NPPF - the closer the policies are the greater the weight that may be afforded.

Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy

5.7.11 This guidance was published in July 2013 and replaces the PPS 22 Companion Guide. Paragraph 3 of the document states:

‘Increasing the amount of energy from renewable and low carbon technologies will help make sure the UK has a secure energy supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow down climate change and stimulate investment in new jobs and businesses. Planning has an important role in the delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure in locations where the environmental impact is acceptable.’

5.7.12 The guidance provides advice on the planning considerations applicable to different renewable and low carbon technologies and how they are to be assessed. For onshore wind it identifies the following:

 Noise;

 Safety;

 Interference with electromagnetic transmissions;

 Ecology;

 Heritage

 Shadow flicker and reflected light

 Energy output;

 Cumulative landscape and visual impacts; and

 Decommissioning.

Stephenson Halliday 5 - 9 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

National Policy Statements

5.7.13 The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) set out national policy for energy infrastructure, including renewable energy. They are also a material consideration in decision making on applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

5.7.14 EN-3 reiterates the important role of onshore wind whilst recognising that there will always be significant landscape and visual impacts. It states at paragraph 2.7.48 that ‘modern onshore wind turbines that are used in commercial wind farms are large structures and there will always be significant landscape and visual effects from their construction and operation for a number of kilometres around a site.’ EN-1 states ‘that it is necessary to judge whether any adverse impact on the landscape would be so damaging that it is not offset by the benefits (including need) of the project’.

5.7.15 EN-1 requires decision makers to have regard to the government’s biodiversity strategy which aims to protect the most important biodiversity interests and also take account of the context of the challenge of climate change: failure to address this challenge will result in significant adverse impacts to biodiversity. As a general principle, development should aim to avoid significant harm to biodiversity interests. EN-3 draws attention to need to assess collision risks.

5.7.16 EN-3 specifies that the 1996 report ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97) should be used to assess the operation of the wind turbines, taking account of the latest industry good practice. It clarifies at paragraph 2.7.58 that ‘where the correct methodology has been followed and a wind farm is shown to comply with ETSU-R-97 recommended noise limits, the [decision-maker] may conclude that it will give little or no weight to adverse noise impacts from the operation of the wind turbines. (Paragraph 30 of ‘Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy’ also endorses the use of ETSU R-97 and the subsequent Good Practice guide prepared by the Institute of Acoustics, as the methodology to be used by local planning authorities when assessing noise from wind energy developments.)

5.7.17 EN-1 requires the applicant to provide a description of the significance of the heritage assets affected by the proposed development and the contribution of

Stephenson Halliday 5 - 10 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

their setting to that significance. The level of detail must be proportionate to the importance of the heritage assets. Representative visualisations may be necessary to explain the impact.

5.7.18 EN-1 sets out the minimum requirements for flood risk assessments including that they are proportionate to the risk and appropriate to the scale, nature and location of the project.

5.7.19 EN-3 advises that decision makers should be satisfied that abnormal loads during the construction phase can be safely transported in a way that minimises inconvenience to other road users and that the environmental effects, after mitigation, are acceptable.

5.7.20 In relation to traffic during the operational period, EN-3 confirms for onshore wind farms that due to the small number of movements ‘it is very unlikely that traffic or transport impacts from the operational phase of a project would prevent it from being approved’.

5.7.21 EN-1 sets out at paragraph 5.4.14 that the decision-maker should be satisfied that the effects on aviation assets have been addressed by the applicant. It further sets out that for consent to be granted, the proposed scheme should not significantly impede or compromise the safe and effective use of defence assets or significantly limit military training. However it also states (at paragraph 5.4.15) that if there are conflicts between the Government’s energy and transport policies and military interests in relation to the application, the [decision-maker] should expect the relevant parties to have made appropriate efforts to work together to identify realistic and pragmatic solutions to the conflicts. In so doing, the parties should seek to protect the aims and interests of the other parties as far as possible.

5.7.22 EN-3 provides guidance on the extent to which shadow flicker impacts can occur. In these circumstances, it is recommended that a shadow flicker assessment is carried out. The document recognises that where a wind turbine has the potential to affect a property but is fitted with a mechanism to inhibit shadow flicker the determining body should be able to judge the impacts on the property as negligible.

Stephenson Halliday 5 - 11 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

South Kesteven - Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted June 2013)

5.7.23 The Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was adopted in June 2013. The SPD does not form part of the Development Plan but is a material consideration in the determination of wind energy planning applications. It supports the positive implementation of Development Plan policies EN1: Protection and Enhancement of the Character of the District and EN3: Renewable Energy as set out in the South Kesteven Core Strategy. In particular the SPD provides guidance on key planning issues associated with wind energy development, criteria that will be applied when determining applications for wind energy developments, guidance on how potential impacts could be minimised and information that should be provided with a planning application.

5.7.24 The SPD classifies turbines of 1 -3 MW and typically over 100 metres in height to blade tip as ‘large scale’. It also provides a summary of the contribution that wind energy development makes to carbon reduction. It provides a précis of the national and local planning policy context including reproduction of Core Strategy policies EN1 and EN3 and makes reference to other guidance in the form of the South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment and Lincolnshire Statement of Intent.

5.7.25 Section 3 of the document identifies the Key Considerations for Siting and Design. The SPD describes the landscape character in South Kesteven and identifies designated landscapes, sites of nature conservation importance and heritage assets. It provides useful guidance on the environmental assessments required to accompany a planning application for wind turbines and ancillary development. The SPD does not introduce a minimum separation distance between turbines and residential properties, but it does recognise the need for a residential visual amenity assessment to be undertaken, covering a study area of at least 2 km from any turbine. A cumulative visual impact assessment must also be undertaken which considers wind energy developments that exist, are under construction, consented, the subject of a valid planning application or formally notified at the scoping stage.

5.7.26 The SPD indicates that assessments of potential impacts on bird populations and bat activity are likely to be required. Detailed assessments of all heritage assets within and close to the proposed site, including those heritage assets whose settings might be affected by the development should be provided.

Stephenson Halliday 5 - 12 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Where there is potential for a wind energy development to result in noise impacts which affect residential or other sensitive properties the applicant must undertake a noise assessment in line with ETSU guidance. Other issues which should be assessed include hydrology, traffic, socio-economics, shadow flicker, aviation and telecommunications.

5.7.27 The SPD recognises that the grid connection will be subject to a separate consenting process, but applicants should provide information on the route and method for the grid connection and identify whether the route is likely to have any significant effects.

Emerging Policy Document

5.7.28 South Kesteven District Council is in the process of producing a Site Allocations and Polices Document. It was the subject of consultation on further proposed modifications and a revised Sustainability Appraisal / Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Plan. That consultation period ended on 16th August 2013.

5.7.29 The most recently published version of this document is the Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan Document Submission [Incorporating Modifications] which was published in July 2013.

5.7.30 Policy SD 1 indicates that in considering a proposal the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF. It will always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible.

5.7.31 Policy SAP 11 aims to protect the setting of Belton House and Park. The policy draws upon the Belton House and Park Setting study and where appropriate proposed developments are required to demonstrate what impact there would be in a Heritage Impact Statement.

Low Carbon Energy Opportunities and Heat Mapping for Local Planning Authorities across the East Midlands: Final Report (March 2011)

5.7.32 The study was commissioned by East Midlands Councils and undertaken by Land Use Consultants, Centre for Sustainable Energy and SQW. It identifies its purpose as setting out ‘an evidence base of the technical potential for renewable and low carbon energy technologies within the East Midlands. It aims to assist local planning authorities across the East Midlands in developing well-founded

Stephenson Halliday 5 - 13 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

policies and strategies that support low carbon energy deployment up to 2030. (Executive Summary). One of the key objectives of the report is: ‘To identify and map low carbon and renewable energy resources and opportunities across the East Midlands.’ The study adopts the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) methodology for the assessment.

5.7.33 The assessment interrogated the DECC Renewable Energy Planning Database which indicated that within East Midlands Region there is an operational total installed capacity of 180.45 MW, of which 91.47 is in Lincolnshire, with South Kesteven contributing 2.61 MW from all renewable sources.

5.7.1 The report assesses the renewable resource potential by technology type. The methodology for assessing the resource potential for commercial wind takes into account the available wind speeds and the size and density of turbines that could theoretically be deployed. This is followed by the application of a series of constraints relating to physical features e.g. roads, railways, rivers, environmental protection (e.g. nature conservation designations) and aviation constraints. The assessment was undertaken using GIS datasets and analysis. The analysis examined the potential for small, medium and large turbines.

5.7.2 An energy opportunity map was generated for each county and illustrates the opportunities for wind of all scales. The wind energy map for Lincolnshire is reproduced at Appendix 5.1. The results of the assessment process indicate a technical renewable Energy Resource Potential for large scale wind developments in South Kesteven to be 1,802.90 MW by 2020. These results must, however, be treated with significant caution - they represent the ‘technical potential’ – i.e. the total amount of potential that is theoretically available. They do not represent the ‘deployable potential’ i.e. what could be practically achieved and delivered within the East Midlands and each County/District. To develop the technical potential to the deployable potential the report advises that ‘further assumptions and scenario testing would need to be undertaken to refine the results to calculate the deployable potential – i.e. considering transmission, supply chain and planning, landscape constraints and opportunities’.

5.7.3 The Lincolnshire onshore wind energy opportunity map reproduced at Appendix 5.1 illustrates the areas which have been identified as appropriate for different scales of wind energy development once the constraints on physical accessibility, environmental constraints and aviation have been applied. The

Stephenson Halliday 5 - 14 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Development site falls within an area identified as being appropriate for large scale wind development.

Lincolnshire County Council Wind Energy Position Statement

5.7.4 In June 2012 Lincolnshire County Council issued a revised statement on their position in respect of wind energy developments in the County. The statement indicates that the County Council was concerned by a proliferation of onshore wind farm proposals. The Position Statement has not been the subject of any consultation or examination process.

5.8 SYNOPSIS OF POLICY CONTEXT

5.8.1 Tackling climate change has become a key driver for UK Energy Policy and with it has come an acknowledgement that renewable energy sources need to make a greater contribution to electricity generation. UK Energy policy has influenced national planning policy, which in turn has shaped and continues to shape development plan policy.

5.8.2 Planning policy also recognises that there are local factors that will also need to be considered in determining appropriate locations for renewable development projects.

5.8.3 For individual wind energy proposals, the overall policy framework provides a positive approach which would be balanced against consideration of the significance of local impacts.

Stephenson Halliday 5 - 15 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

6 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1 INTRODUCTION

6.1.1 This chapter presents the findings of the landscape and visual assessment that has considered the likely significant effects of the proposed development on the landscape character and visual amenity of the locality. The assessment and chapter have been prepared by Stephenson Halliday, a firm of independent Landscape Architects.

6.2 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

6.2.1 The likely significant landscape and visual effects of the proposed development are regarded as a key issue for assessment and are organised in the following sections:

 Methodology – an outline of general methodology, with reference to established guidance;

 Baseline Conditions – to identify/confirm the key landscape elements/features/characteristics of the landscape, which would be affected by the proposal, including a review of the extent, purposes and special characteristics of landscape planning designations within the study area;

 Project description and mitigation – a description of the aspects of the proposed development which have the potential to cause a landscape and/or visual effect, and the measures, which have been incorporated into the project design to mitigate these effects;

 Visibility Analysis – comprising an assessment of the visual effects of the proposed development. This is undertaken with reference to computer generated Visibility Maps to ascertain from where the development could be visible and potential receptors that could be affected by changes in views. Viewpoint analysis is used to determine the magnitude and significance of the changes in the view from a selection of viewpoint locations that represent the main landscape and visual receptors in the study area;

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 Impact Assessment - Landscape Effects – an assessment of the significance of effects arising from the proposed development on the key landscape elements/features/characteristics and designated areas within the study area;

 Impact Assessment - Visual Effects – an assessment of the significance of visual effects arising from the proposed development on the receptors and at viewpoints in the study area;

 Cumulative Landscape and Visual effects - to establish whether there are likely to be any cumulative effects on landscape and visual amenity as a result of the proposed Temple Hill wind farm in conjunction with other operational, consented or proposed projects in the planning process. This part of the assessment, including methodology, is presented in Volume 3, Appendix 6.6; and,

 Residual Effects and Conclusions – a summary of the assessment results and conclusions regarding the likely significant landscape and visual effects of the proposed development.

 Appendices: the following supporting information is contained within the appendices in Volume 3: ES Appendices, unless noted otherwise:

o Appendix 6.1: Illustrative Tools Methodology o Appendix 6.2: Landscape Character Descriptions; o Appendix 6.3: Landscape Sensitivity Assessment; o Appendix 6.4: Viewpoint Analysis; o Appendix 6.5: Residential Visual Amenity Survey (Volume 2); o Appendix 6.6: Cumulative Landscape and Visual Assessment; and o Appendix 6.7: Correspondence with Local Planning Authorities.

6.2.2 The assessment of effects on landscape character is based on a 15km radius study area, as agreed with South Kesteven District Council. The extent of this area is shown on the plans illustrating Landscape Designations (Volume 2, Figure 6.1), National and Regional Landscape Character (Volume2, Figure 6.2), Local Landscape Character (Volume 2, Figure 6.3) and Landscape Context (Volume 2, Figure 6.4). The visual assessment is based on a 30km radius study area as shown in the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) maps, Volume 2, Figures 6.5 – 6.10. The landscape and visual assessment is undertaken with reference to a combined ZTV/ Landscape Designations plan and combined ZTV/ Landscape Character plan Volume 2, Figures 6.11-6.12 as well as the Route

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Receptors plan Figure 6.13. The assessment of landscape and visual effects is also illustrated with reference to viewpoint photographs, wireframes and photomontages (Visualisations 1-19) in Volume 2. The assessment of effect on Residential Visual Amenity is illustrated with reference to Volume 2, Figures RVAA 01 to 05 and viewpoint photographs, wireframes and photomontages (Visualisations R1-R4). The cumulative landscape and visual assessment has been undertaken with reference to Volume 2, Figures CLVIA 01 to 17 and the Cumulative Visualisations for viewpoints 2, 7 and 12-17. All figures and visuals illustrating this chapter are included in Volume 2 of the ES.

6.2.3 It should be noted that the effects on Conservation Areas and Registered Parks and Gardens are assessed within the Historic Environment Chapter 10 of the ES.

Consultations

6.2.4 Below is a table with an outline of the Consultations undertaken, with full correspondence included in Appendix 6.7.

Table 6.1 Summary of Consultations

Consultee Summary of Response Action taken South Kesteven District Scoping: Viewpoints Viewpoints were agreed at Council should be agreed with meeting 10 September 2012 SKDC. and through email/telephone correspondence. Scoping: Consideration This was produced for should be given to a 3D Public Exhibition. model Scoping Cumulative Scope of cumulative Impact: Any turbines under assessment and visual 50m which are consented material agreed with SKDC or under consideration including turbines less than should be included in 50m in height where cumulative photomontages. appropriate. Cumulative Viewpoints 7, 12, 14 and 16 have included cumulative photomontages. Scoping: include effects Considered in LVIA, section on public rights of way and 6.10 CRoW Act land. Natural England No comments to make None required regarding viewpoints North Kesteven District Draft viewpoints issued but None required, but Council no response received. viewpoints were included from this area.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement 6.3 GUIDANCE AND POLICY

General Approach

6.3.1 The assessment has been based on the following best practice guidance:

 ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment’; 3rd Edition, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and the Landscape Institute, 2013;  ‘Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland’; Prepared on behalf of the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, Land Use Consultants, 2002.

6.3.2 It also takes account of advice within the following documents:

 ‘Landscape Character Assessment Topic Paper 6 – Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity’; the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, 2004;  ‘Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape’; Scottish Natural Heritage, December 2009;  ‘Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Assessment’; Landscape Institute Advice Note 01/2011 (2011);  ‘Visual Representation of Wind Farms: Good Practice Guidance’; Scottish Natural Heritage, 2007;  ‘Visual Assessment of Windfarms - Best Practice’; prepared by University of Newcastle 2002. Commissioned Report F01AA303A;  ‘Assessing the Cumulative Impact of Onshore Wind Energy Developments’; Scottish Natural Heritage, 2012;  ‘Making Space for Renewable Energy’; Natural England, 2010; and  ‘Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document’; Adopted, June 2013, South Kesteven District Council.

6.3.3 The assessment has utilised information in the Countryside Character publication for the East Midlands in addition to the following:

 ‘South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment’, (FPCR 2007);  ‘The Historic Landscape Characterisation Project for Lincolnshire’, (2011);  ‘North Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment’, David Tyldesley and Associates, 2007;  ‘Newark and Sherwood Landscape Character Assessment’, 2010;  ‘Greater Nottinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment’, 2009;

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 ‘Melton Borough Landscape & Historic Urban Character Assessment Report’, ADAS/Environment Systems & Oxford Archaeology 2006; and  ‘Belton House and Park Setting Study and Policy Development’, for South Kesteven District Council and National Trust, Atkins Ltd, 2010.

Planning Policy Context

South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010)

6.3.4 Policies EN1 and EN3 of the South Kesteven Core Strategy (July 2010) provide the local policy framework within which decisions on applications for wind energy schemes will be made. The aspects of those policies which are specific to the Landscape and Visual Assessment are listed below:

Policy EN1: Protection and Enhancement of the Character of the District

6.3.5 ‘South Kesteven's Landscape Character Areas are identified on the map. Development must be appropriate to the character and significant natural, historic and cultural attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration.’

‘All development proposals and site allocations will be assessed in relation to:

1. statutory, national and local designations of landscape features, including natural and historic assets 2. local distinctiveness and sense of place 3. historic character, patterns and attributes of the landscape 4. the layout and scale of buildings and designed spaces 5. the quality and character of the built fabric and their settings 6. the condition of the landscape 7. biodiversity and ecological networks within the landscape 8. public access to and community value of the landscape 9. remoteness and tranquillity 10. visual intrusion 11. noise and light pollution 12. Conservation Area Appraisals and Village Design Statements, where these have been adopted by the Council 13. impact on controlled waters

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

14. protection of existing open space (including allotments and public open space, and open spaces important to the character, setting and separation of built up areas).’

Policy EN3: Renewable Energy Generation

6.3.6 ‘The District Council will grant planning permission for proposals to generate energy from renewable sources, subject to the proposals according with the other Core Strategy policies, national guidance and complying with the following criteria:·

The proposal can be connected efficiently to existing national grid infrastructure, unless it can be demonstrated that energy generation would be used on-site to meet the needs of a specific end user.

The proposal should make provision for:

 the mitigation of the real emissions/impacts arising from the installation of the renewable energy generation  the removal of the facilities and reinstatement of the site, should the facilities cease to be operational.’

South Kesteven Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted

June 2013)

6.3.7 The key planning considerations for Landscape and Visual Amenity from the Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) are:

‘Wind turbines are substantial vertical structures that will inevitably be visible within the landscape. In contrast to pylons and other stationary structures, turbine blades are moving features in the landscape. The construction and operation of wind energy development may affect the landscape and visual amenity in the following ways:

 impact on existing landscape features and the presence of new features including earthworks, access tracks, turbines, anemometer (wind mast), substation, cabling and fencing;  impact on landscape character, both direct and indirect impact on the landscape character of the site and direct and indirect impacts on the character of the surrounding landscapes as a result of change in views;  impact on historic landscapes or features and their setting;

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 impact on landscape quality, for example as a result in change to special qualities of designated or valued landscapes;  impact on views as a result of the introduction of tall moving structures and construction activities (including impact on public viewpoints and private residential visual amenity);  cumulative impacts of one wind energy development in combination with other existing or proposed wind energy developments on landscape character, landscape quality and views (including combined visibility from a single viewpoint and sequential visibility from roads, footpaths and railway links).  Impact of lights on rural areas at night’

6.4 METHODOLOGY

Introduction

6.4.1 The aim of the landscape and visual assessment is to identify, predict and evaluate the likely significant effects arising from the proposed development. Wherever possible, identified effects are quantified, but the nature of landscape and visual assessment requires interpretation by professional judgement. In order to provide a level of consistency to the assessment, the prediction of magnitude and assessment of significance of the residual landscape and visual effects have been based on pre-defined criteria.

6.4.2 The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment (3rd Ed) (GLVIA3) states that ‘Professional judgement is a very important part of the LVIA.’ (para 2.23) ‘In all cases there is a need for the judgements that are made to be reasonable and based on clear and transparent methods so that the reasoning applied at different stages can be traced and examined by others.’ (para 2.24) ‘There are no hard and fast rules about what effect should be deemed ‘significant’ but LVIAs should always distinguish clearly between what is considered to be the significant and non-significant effects’ (para 3.32)

6.4.3 Landscape and Visual Assessments are separate, though linked procedures. The assessment of the potential effect on the landscape is carried out as an effect on the environmental resource (i.e. the landscape). Visual effects are assessed as an inter-related effect on population.

6.4.4 Landscape effects derive from changes in the physical landscape which may give rise to changes in its character and how this is experienced, including

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

consideration of landscape perception which may in turn affect the perceived value ascribed to the landscape.

6.4.5 Visual effects relate to changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s responses to the changes and to the overall effects with respect to visual amenity.

Landscape Effects

6.4.6 The starting point for any assessment is a desk based assessment of published landscape assessments.

6.4.7 The sensitivity of the landscape to change is not absolute and varies according to the existing landscape, the nature of the proposed development and the type of change being proposed. Best practice guidance differentiates between baseline sensitivity of the landscape and the sensitivity of a landscape to a specific development proposal (Landscape Topic Paper 6: Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity, 2004, SNH & Countryside Agency). Accordingly, the concept of ‘sensitivity to change’ to new development as described within the baseline published landscape character assessments which are referred to, is distinct from the consideration of landscape sensitivity of the specific development proposal.

6.4.8 The baseline for consideration of landscape effects is the established current landscape character. The landscape effects of the proposed development should be considered against the key characteristics of the receiving landscape. The degree to which the proposed development changes ‘the distinct and recognisable pattern that makes one landscape different from another, rather than better or worse’ (Countryside Agency and SNH, 2002), enables a judgement to be made as to the significance of the effect in landscape character terms. This involves consideration of whether or not the proposed development gives rise to a different landscape character type or sub-type.

6.4.9 Operational turbines are considered as part of the baseline and included as part of the assessment of landscape and visual effects. In the case of Temple Hill, the existing situation is that the turbine at Frinkley Farm became operational within the early part of 2012 and a 35m high turbine at Pasture Farm near Allington is also recently operational. The other more distant operational single turbines within the study area include Little Carlton, Ossington Road, New Holbeck Farm, and Walker and Sons located between 15km-30km to the north

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 8 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

east. The consented turbines and other proposals which are not present in the landscape have been included as part of the cumulative assessment due to the increased degree of uncertainty regarding their status.

6.4.10 In order to reach an understanding of the effects of development upon the landscape it is necessary to consider different aspects of the landscape as follows:

 Landscape Fabric / Elements: The individual features of the landscape, such as hills, valleys, woods, hedges, tree cover, vegetation, buildings and roads for example which can usually be described and quantified;  Landscape quality: The state of repair or condition of elements of a particular landscape, its integrity and intactness and the extent to which its distinctive character is apparent;  Landscape value: The importance attached to a landscape, often used as a basis for designation or recognition which expresses national or regional consensus, because of its special qualities/attributes including aesthetic or perceptual aspects such as scenic beauty, tranquillity or wildness, cultural associations or nature conservation interest.  Landscape key characteristics: The particularly notable elements or combinations of elements which makes a particular contribution to defining or describing the character of an area, which may include experiential characteristics such as wildness and tranquillity.

6.4.11 Landscape sensitivity to the scale of development proposed is based on the combination of landscape elements, quality, value and key characteristics and is determined by professional judgement. The following definitions are adopted:

 High: Areas that exhibit a very strong, positive character and which are in excellent or very good condition with valued features that combine to give an experience of unity, richness and harmony. As a result, these landscapes may also demonstrate a high scenic quality also. These are landscapes that may be considered to be of particular importance to conserve and which may be particularly sensitive to change if inappropriately dealt with.  Medium: Areas that exhibit positive character and are considered to be in good condition with some valued features but which may have evidence of alteration to or degradation/erosion of features resulting in areas of more

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 9 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

mixed character. Scenic quality and attractiveness may not be as high as for ‘High’ quality landscape. Change may not necessarily be detrimental nor require special attention to detail.  Low: Areas generally negative in character, in poor condition with a weak landscape structure with few, if any, valued features. Scope for positive enhancement frequently occurs.

6.4.12 The magnitude of landscape effect arising from the proposed development at any particular location is described as substantial, moderate, slight or negligible based on the interpretation of a combination of largely quantifiable parameters, as follows:

 degree of loss or alteration to key landscape features/elements or characteristics;  distance from the development;  duration of effect;  landscape backdrop to the development;  landscape context of other built development, particularly vertical elements.

6.4.13 In order to differentiate between different levels of magnitude the following definitions are provided:

Table 6.2: Magnitude of Effect – The Landscape Resource

Substantial Total loss or substantial alteration to key landscape elements/ features/ characteristics of the baseline or introduction of uncharacteristic elements which would give rise to a fresh characterising effect. Moderate Partial loss or moderate alteration to one or more key landscape elements/ features/ characteristics of the baseline and/or introduction of elements that may be prominent but not necessarily substantially uncharacteristic with the attributes of the receiving landscape but which could co-characterise parts of the landscape. Slight Minor loss or alteration to one or more key landscape elements/features/ characteristics of the baseline and/or introduction of elements that may not be uncharacteristic with the surrounding landscape or may not lead to a characterising or co-characterising effect. Negligible Very minor loss or alteration to one or more key landscape elements / features/ characteristics of the baseline and/or the introduction of elements that are not uncharacteristic of the surrounding landscape. Change would be barely distinguishable approximating to no change.

6.4.14 Having established where the observation of varying levels of change to the landscape baseline may occur, the geographical extent of the change can be

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 10 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

identified and a judgement made as to whether or not the change is significant in landscape character terms at varying scales.

6.4.15 The importance of the effect on the landscape resource may be determined by correlating the magnitude of the landscape effect (substantial, moderate, low or negligible) with the sensitivity of the landscape resource (high, medium or low). The following table sets out the main correlations between magnitude and sensitivity.

Table 6.3: Significance of Landscape Effects – Matrix

Magnitude of Change

Substantial Moderate Slight Negligible High Major Major/ Moderate Moderate/ Moderate Minor Medium Major/ Moderate Moderate/ Minor Moderate Minor Low Moderate Moderate/ Minor Minor/ Minor negligible Landscape Sensitivity

Visual Effects

6.4.16 In order to identify the significance of a visual effect it is necessary to establish the relative sensitivity of the viewers and the magnitude of the change they experience. In this case sensitivity can be reasonably assumed in advance.

6.4.17 Those living within view of the scheme are usually regarded as the highest sensitivity group as well as those engaged in outdoor pursuits for whom landscape experience is the primary objective. If appropriate, outdoor recreation activities that are more activity focussed but which are also landscape dependent for complementary enjoyment such as golf, sailing or fishing may be placed in the high category to avoid under assessment.

6.4.18 The sensitivity of potential visual receptors will vary depending on the location and context of the view, the activity of the receptor and importance of the view. Visual receptor sensitivity is defined as high, medium, or low in accordance with the criteria in Table 6.4.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 11 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 6.4: Visual Sensitivity Criteria

High sensitivity Residents; users of outdoor recreational facilities including footpaths, and cycleways; people experiencing views from important landscape features of physical, cultural or historic interest, beauty spots and picnic areas. Medium sensitivity Road users and travellers on trains experiencing views from transport routes. People engaged in outdoor sport other than appreciation of the landscape. Eg: nature conservation, golf and water based recreation Low sensitivity Workers, users of facilities and commercial buildings (indoors) experiencing views from buildings.

6.4.19 The magnitude of change arising from the proposed development at any particular viewpoint is described as substantial, moderate, slight or negligible based on a number of interrelated and largely quantifiable parameters, including:

 distance of the viewpoint from the development;  duration of effect;  extent of the development in the view;  angle of view in relation to main receptor activity;  proportion of the field of view occupied by the development;  height of development relative to the receptor with reference to the scale of other features in the view;  background to the development; and  extent of other built development visible, particularly vertical elements.

6.4.20 It is assumed that the change would be seen in clear visibility and the assessment is carried out on that basis. Where appropriate, comment may be made on lighting and weather conditions. In order to differentiate between different levels of magnitude the following definitions are provided in Table 6.5.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 12 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 6.5: Magnitude of Change Definitions – Visual Receptors

Substantial Substantial change, where the proposals would be very prominent. leading to substantial obstruction of existing view or complete change in character and composition of the baseline though removal of key elements or addition of uncharacteristic elements which, may or may not be visually discordant. Moderate Moderate change in the view may involve partial obstruction of existing view or partial change in character and composition of the baseline through the introduction of new elements or removal of existing element. Change may be prominent but not substantially different in scale and character from the surroundings and wider setting. It may involve partial change in character and composition of the baseline existing view. Slight The proposals would be partially visible or visible at sufficient distance to be perceptible and result in limited or minor changes to the view. The character and composition, although altered will be similar to the baseline existing situation. Negligible Change would be barely distinguishable from the surroundings. The composition and character of the view would be substantially unaltered, approximating to little or no change.

6.4.21 The threshold for significance of visual effects relies to a great extent on professional judgement. Criteria and local circumstances require close study and careful judgement.

6.4.22 The following table sets out the main correlations between magnitude and sensitivity.

Table 6.6: Significance of Visual Effects – Matrix

Magnitude of Change

Substantial Moderate Slight Negligible

High Major Major/ Moderate Moderate / Moderate Minor

Medium Major/ Moderate Moderate / Minor Moderate Minor Low Moderate Moderate/ Minor Minor/ Minor negligible Visual Receptor Sensitivity

Significance of Effects

6.4.23 The significance of any identified landscape or visual effect has been assessed in terms of major, moderate, minor or negligible. These categories are based on the juxtaposition of viewpoint or landscape sensitivity with the predicted magnitude of change. This matrix should not be used as a prescriptive tool but must allow for the exercise of professional judgement. Thus in some instances a

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 13 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

particular parameter may be considered as having a determining effect on the analysis.

6.4.24 The approach to assessing effects on landscape character is to consider the key characteristics for the Landscape Character Type (LCT) either host or non-host and identify which of these the wind farm would affect. For the host LCTs, where the wind farm proposal is located, a significant change in landscape character is likely to occur where valued elements or key characteristics would be lost, superseded or substantially changed to the extent that a wind farm landscape and local landscape sub-type would be established. For non-host landscape character types in the wider area, if the characteristics do not include views of the surrounding area there cannot be an effect on the character of that landscape type. Where particular views are an essential characteristic of a landscape type, significant landscape character effects may occur where the wind farm becomes a defining characteristic of those views. This will depend on the key characteristics of the landscape and nature, extent and duration of the effects that would be brought about by the proposed development.

6.4.25 A ‘wind farm landscape’ may be created in the immediate environs of the development site where the wind turbines would be the principal determining element of landscape character and a new character type in its own right would be created. This would be considered to represent a significant effect, in terms of the EIA Regulations, on local landscape character. The precise distance would vary from site to site depending on the scale of the proposal and the sensitivity of the landscape.

6.4.26 Significant effects upon landscape character may be predicted in the local landscape, beyond the ‘wind farm landscape’ where the proposals would increasingly read as a diminishing component of the landscape with a reducing contribution towards perception of character, moving from the determinant of it i.e. the ‘wind farm landscape’, through an area where the proposals would exert a less prominent but locally characterising effect thereby giving rise to a local landscape subtype. The establishment of a local landscape sub-type is considered to be a significant landscape effect, in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England) Regulations 2011 and typically occurs within a few kilometres of the proposals depending on the size and number of turbines, sensitivity of the landscape and the magnitude of change. Further from the proposals the wind farm may still be a clearly

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 14 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

noticeable element in the landscape; however the baseline landscape character would increasingly reassert its influence so that the wind farm is perceived as a new element in the landscape alongside the pre-existing characteristics without altering them.

6.4.27 Where the visual effect has been classified as Major or Major/Moderate this is considered to be equivalent to likely significant effects referred to in the EIA Regulations 2011. In carrying out the assessment, this assumption is based upon the previous experience of the assessor that those levels of effect may be equivalent to ‘significant’ effects. This however needs to be tested during and at the conclusion of the assessment process.

6.4.28 In this way, the assessment is carried out transparently and systematically. It establishes at what level in the assessor’s opinion ‘significant effects’ arise in terms of the EIA Regulations. It also permits the reader to follow the approach and determine whether or not there is agreement with the judgements made.

6.4.29 As with many aspects of landscape and visual assessment, significance of effect also needs to be qualified with respect to the scale over which it is felt. An effect may be locally significant, or significant with respect to a small number of receptors, but not significant when judged in a wider context. The conclusion that some effects are ‘significant’ must not be taken to imply that they should warrant refusal in any decision making process which relies on the ES.

6.4.30 The EIA Regulations require that likely significant effects should be described as to type (direct, indirect, secondary or cumulative), timeframe (short, medium, long term, permanent, temporary) and whether they are positive or negative. The various types of effect are described as follows:

Temporary/Permanent effects

6.4.31 If a proposal would result in an alteration to an environment whose attributes can be quickly recovered then judgements concerning the significance of effects should be tempered in that light. Wind energy applications are typically for a 25 year operational period, and while this is not permanent it can properly be described as long term. Landscape and visual effects can be reversed and following decommissioning there would be no residual landscape and visual effects. The wind turbines should therefore be regarded as a long term reversible addition to the landscape, preserving the choice for future generations

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 15 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

whether or not to retain what might be regarded as the landscape fabric of today.

Direct/Indirect

6.4.32 Direct and indirect landscape and visual effects are defined in Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA3). Direct effects may be defined “result directly from the development itself” (para 3.22). An indirect (or secondary) effect is one that results “from consequential change resulting from the development” (para 3.22) and is often produced away from the site of the proposed development or as a result of a complex pathway or secondary association. The direct or physical landscape effects of the proposed turbines would generally be limited to an area around the base of the proposed turbines and cable trenches to a substation building and/or grid connection. The indirect landscape effects are concerned with the visual effects and relate to effects associated with the introduction of the wind turbines seen in the context of the existing landscape and visual character of the view.

Beneficial/Adverse

6.4.33 Landscape and visual effects can be beneficial or adverse and in some instances may be considered neutral. Beneficial effects upon landscape receptors may result from changes to the landscape involving positive enhancement measures, or through the addition of well-designed elements, which add to the landscape experience or sense of place in a complementary manner. The landscape impacts are considered against the landscape baseline, taking account of landscape strategies or objectives, where such they exist. Taking a precautionary stance changes to rural landscapes involving construction of man-made objects of a large scale are generally considered to be negative, as they are not usually actively promoted as part of a district wide landscape strategy and therefore the assessment of landscape effects are assumed to be adverse, unless specified otherwise in the text.

6.4.34 With regard to the visual effects of wind farms, it is important to recognise the differing views revealed by extensive available research and to take into account that for the same development, some may view the impact as adverse, some as beneficial and yet others as neutral. This depends to some extent on the viewer’s predisposition towards landscape change but also the principle of renewable energy development including wind farms in the landscape. Taking a

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 16 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

precautionary approach in making an assessment of the ‘worst case scenario’, the assessment considers that all effects on views which would result from the construction and operation of the proposed development to be adverse, unless specified otherwise in the text. It is noted however that not all people would consider the effects to be adverse.

6.5 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Landscape Character Baseline

6.5.1 The following section presents the baseline landscape character assessment with reference to National, Regional and Local Landscape Character Areas in addition to Landscape Designations as described in detail within Volume 3, Appendix 6.2 and illustrated on Volume 2, Figures 6.1 – 6.3. Consideration is also given to the landscape context of the site.

National Landscape Character

6.5.2 The key characteristics of the National Character Areas within a 30km radius of the proposals have been reviewed. The character of the landscape within the 30km study area has been assessed at national level in ‘Countryside Character’ Volume 4: East Midlands by Countryside Commission (now Natural England). The site of the proposed development is situated within National Character Area 48: Trent and Belvoir Vales. Table 6.6 outlines the national landscape character areas which lie within the 30km study area. A description of the key characteristics is included in Volume 3, Appendix 6.2 and the location and extent of these character areas is illustrated on Volume 2, Figure 6.2.

Table 6.6 National Landscape Character Areas

Countryside Character Area 48: Trent and Belvoir Vales Volume 4: East Midlands Area 47: Southern Lincolnshire Edge Area 46: The Fens Area 45: Northern Lincolnshire Edge with Coversands Area 44 Central Lincolnshire Vale Area 74: Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire Wolds Area 75: Kesteven Uplands

6.5.3 The proposal lies within National Character Area 48: Trent and Belvoir Vales, which is ‘centred upon the river Trent, as it runs north after passing through Nottingham, and the rivers Witham and Till to the east. The Vales are defined, in

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 17 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

the west, by a scarp slope dropping down to the wooded land of Sherwood and, to the south, by an abrupt scarp rising up to the Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire Wolds. In the east, there is the smaller but noticeable scarp of the Lincolnshire Edge. To the north, beyond Gainsborough, the Trent Valley opens up to the wide expanses of the Humberside Levels.’ The following key features serve to define this landscape area:

 ‘Gently undulating landform, with shallow ridges dropping down gently to broad river valleys.  Open, arable or mixed farmed landscape, strongly rural in feel, with trimmed hedges and few hedgerow trees; woodlands only locally significant.  Frequent nucleated villages with red brick houses, roofed with pantiles, and spired churches prominent in long views.  Large market towns with historic centres and substantial churches visible from afar, notably Newark, Grantham, Southwell, Lincoln.  Subtle variations within the area from the remote and pastoral landscape of the Vale of Belvoir, to the more undulating and wooded farmland north- east of Nottingham and the open arable lands to the north and east.  Urban development closely confined to major centres, in particular the outskirts of Nottingham.  Elsewhere the open, undeveloped and rural character strongly influenced locally by power stations, pylons and sand and gravel extraction on the Trent floodplain.’

Regional Landscape Character

6.5.4 In addition to the national landscape character assessment, the East Midlands Landscape Character Assessment has been produced for the region and sub divides the national landscape character areas into regional landscape character types (RLCT). The Temple Hill site lies within the Group 4: Lowland Vales, sub type 4a Unwooded Vales. The key characteristics for this regional landscape sub-type are detailed below:

 ‘Extensive, low lying rural landscape underlain by Triassic and Jurassic mudstones and clays and widespread superficial deposits;  Expansive long distance and panoramic views from higher ground at the margin of the vales gives a sense of visual containment;

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 18 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 Low hills and ridges gain visual prominence in an otherwise gently undulating landscape;  Complex drainage patterns of watercourses that flow within shallow undulations often flanked by pasture and riparian habitats;  Limited woodland cover; shelter belts and hedgerow trees gain greater visual significance and habitat value as a result;  Productive arable and pastoral farmland, with evidence of increasing reversion to arable cropping in recent times;  Regular pattern of medium sized fields enclosed by low and generally well maintained hedgerows and ditches in low lying areas; large modern fieldscapes evident in areas of arable reversion; and  Sparsely settled with small villages and dispersed farms linked by quiet rural lanes.’

Local Landscape Character

6.5.5 In addition to the national and regional landscape character assessments, the landscapes comprising the 15km study area have been assessed using the baseline landscape character assessments in the South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (FPCR 2007), North Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (David Tyldesley and Associates 2007); Newark and Sherwood Landscape Character Assessment (2010); Greater Nottinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (2009); and Melton Borough Landscape & Historic Urban Character Assessment Report (ADAS/Environment Systems & Oxford Archaeology 2006). Volume 2, Figure 6.3 outlines the local landscape character areas which lie within the 15km study area, as outlined below:

Table 6.8: Local Landscape Character Areas within 15km

South Kesteven LCA Trent and Belvoir Vale Grantham Scarp and Valleys Southern Lincolnshire Edge Harlaxton Denton Bowl Kesteven Uplands North Kesteven LCA Terraced Sandlands Witham and Brant Vales Lincoln Cliff Limestone Heath Rauceby Hills

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 19 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Slea Valley Central Clays and Gravels Wilsford Heath Upland Plateau Fringe Newark and Sherwood East Nottinghamshire Sandlands, areas 5 and 6 LCA Trent Washlands, areas 9 and 10 South Nottinghamshire Farmlands, areas 7 and 8 Greater Nottinghamshire South Nottinghamshire Farmlands, areas 5 and 6 LCA Vale of Belvoir, area 1 Melton Borough Vale of Belvoir Landscape & Historic Urban Character Bottesford Assessment Parkland

6.5.6 The proposed development is located within the Trent and Belvoir Vale, identified in the South Kesteven LCA.

6.5.7 The site and its environs also falls within the Trent Valley Historic Character Area within The Historic Landscape Characterisation Project for Lincolnshire (2011) and is on the boundary between two Historic Landscape Character Zones TVL3 The Valley Fens and TVL4 The West Grantham Farmlands.

Trent and Belvoir Vale

6.5.8 The Trent and Belvoir Vale is bounded to the south and east by undulating and rising ground at Woolsthorpe by Belvoir towards Barkston and further east towards Fulbeck. The north and western boundary of this character area is bounded by the district boundary but carries on further north and south.

6.5.9 This landscape area consists of gentle landform and open or arable mixed farmland with a strongly rural feel. The landscape is medium to large in scale with simple regular fields bounded by hawthorn hedges, fragmented in some places. There are few hedgerow trees and limited woodlands with tree cover most noticeable around villages. Water courses tend not to be prominent in this landscape.

6.5.10 There is little evidence of early use of settlement in the area but Roman activity is evident by the Great North Road between Grantham and Newark. The pattern of small villages and larger market towns is medieval and the enclosures began in the Vale in the 16th century and by the 19th century most of the land was enclosed. Settlement comprises a network of small clustered villages evenly dispersed through the area on slightly rising ground due to improved drainage.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 20 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Building styles are predominantly brick with stone limited to churches or major buildings. Village church tower and spires are noticeable in the views across the landscape and contribute to character.

6.5.11 The A1 and east coast mainline railway pass through the area and are locally noticeable. Major 400kV transmission lines are noticeable along the Trent Valley. The operational turbine at Frinkley Farm is located and noticeable in parts of this area, along with a smaller turbine at Pasture Farm, Allington.

6.5.12 From the South Kesteven LCA, the key characteristics of this landscape area are:

 ‘A relatively simple, medium to large-scale, open arable or mixed farming landscape;  Flat or very gently undulating topography;  Simple regular fields enclosed by hawthorn hedges;  Relatively few hedgerow trees and virtually no woodland;  Small villages typically located on slightly rising land;  Church towers and spires visible across the landscape; and  Buildings styles vary, but a high proportion of brick with dark red pantiles.’

6.5.13 From the South Kesteven LCA, the landscape management objectives include,

 ‘Maintain and improve field boundary condition;  Retain ditch patterns;  Maintain wet grassland areas;  Protect any woodland cover;  Maintain existing hedgerow trees and plant new hedgerow trees;  Provide new woodland planting with any new large scale agricultural buildings; and  Maintain views to elevated villages and churches.’

Local Landscape Context

6.5.14 The proposed turbines are located in fairly open agricultural land between the east coast mainline railway and Brandon. The immediate vicinity consists of arable fields, bounded by hedges with occasional small woodlands / tree groups and shelterbelts. The local area is relatively sparsely settled, with small clusters of farmsteads surrounding the site and the villages of Stubton 1.5km to the north west, Brandon 1.1km to the north east and Gelston 2.6km to the south west. Within approximately 5km, are the villages/hamlets of Claypole, Fenton,

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 21 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Caythorpe, Hough-on-the-Hill, Marston, Hougham, Westborough, Long Bennington and Dry Doddington.

6.5.15 Churches within villages in the local area can provide elevated landmarks across the wider landscape, such as the distinctive leaning spire at Dry Doddington. The following is a description of some of the local villages and any spires or landmark buildings which they contain.

6.5.16 To the north and west of the site lie the villages of Stubton, Fenton, Claypole, Dry Doddington and Long Bennington. The church at Stubton is to the eastern side of the village and contains a tower only and does not form a highly visible feature in the landscape beyond the environs of the village. However, Stubton Hall is occasionally viewed from the south. The church at Fenton has a spire and this is a noticeable feature from the north west at Barmby in the Willows, and is noticeable from high ground to the south east at Viewpoint 3 but not so from the A17. The church at Claypole has a more prominent spire at the western end of the village which is clearly visible in views from the A1, as illustrated in Viewpoint 12, and in parts of the Vale. At Dry Doddington, the church is at the western end of the village and has a short but distinctively leaning tower which takes advantage of its position on higher ground which elevates it in the landscape, see viewpoints 3, 12and 14. The church at Long Bennington lies on the southern edge of the village and does not contain a spire and is not a very noticeable feature in the landscape but is visible locally and from the A1.

6.5.17 To the east and south lie the villages of Brandon, Caythorpe, Hough-on-the-Hill, Marston and Hougham. The chapel at Brandon does not have a tower or spire and is not a prominent feature in the landscape or village. The church at Caythorpe has a spire and is a local landmark, often visible in views of the Southern Lincolnshire Edge, see viewpoint 14. The church at Hough-on-the-Hill has a tower and is perched on the elevated land and is noticeable from the west or on the Southern Lincolnshire Edge, see viewpoint 13, but is often contained by vegetation in views from the local area. The church at Marston is located at the northern end of the village and has a spire which is apparent as a local landmark, see Viewpoint 14. The church at Hougham is located to the south of the village and has a tower which is locally noticeable but not prominent in the landscape, see Viewpoint 7.

6.5.18 Within the local area, the operational turbine at Frinkley Farm (within the Trent and Belvoir Vale LCA), lies approximately 4.5km to the south east. This turbine

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 22 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

has a hub height of 50m and a blade length of 16.7m giving an overall height of approximately 67m to tip. This turbine is located on the low ridge of higher ground to the east with a ground height of approximately 71m, giving an above Ordnance Datum (AOD) hub height of approximately 121m AOD and tip height of approximately 138m AOD, which is why this turbine is relatively prominent given its size. This turbine is noticeable on the skyline in more open views including viewpoints 2, 11, 12, and 14 -17 (also from viewpoints 7 and 9 beyond the view of the visualisation) and has a local characterising influence on the local landscape character to approximately 1.5-2km away.

Landscape Designations

6.5.19 The statutory and non-statutory landscape designations within the 30km study area are illustrated in Volume 2, Figure 6.1. There are no national landscape designations within the study area. The nearest landscape designation is the Lincoln Cliff Landscape Character Area designated in the North Kesteven District Council Adopted Local Plan 2007, some 7km north east of the proposal. There are several areas of Mature Landscape Area within Gedling Borough Council Replacement Adopted Local Plan 2005, over 23km to the west. There is also one Area of Great Landscape Value located over 29km north of the proposal within West Lindsey Adopted Local Plan 2006.

6.5.20 Below is an extract from the North Kesteven DC Adopted Local Plan 2007, on the Lincoln Cliff:

‘The Lincoln Cliff scarp slope is the most physically dominant landscape feature in the District, and in the context of the relatively flat land to both sides, its visual significance is greatly enhanced. There are spectacular and extensive views from the Cliff towards the Trent and Witham valleys, and significant views of the scarp from this lower land. In recognition of the particularly dramatic appearance of the Lincoln Cliff and the vulnerability of its character to harm by insensitive development, it is identified as an area of distinctive landscape character (the boundaries of which are defined upon the Proposals Map). Within this area, greater attention will be paid to the landscape impact of development proposals, particularly in terms of impact upon views from, to and along the Cliff. In this respect, it is unlikely that planning permission will be granted for development that would be visually prominent, by virtue of its size or location (e.g. on the skyline) as this is highly likely to detract from the character of the area.’

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 23 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement 6.6 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND MITIGATION

Introduction

6.6.1 The site selection rationale and the iterative design process for the proposed development are described within Chapter 3 and the proposed development is presented in Chapter 4. The design of the proposed development has been a staged process with the aim at arriving at an optimal design configuration in respect of landscape and visual effects and a range of other environmental and technical factors.

6.6.2 This section considers the aspects of the development with the potential to cause an effect on landscape or visual amenity in the study area and the mitigation and enhancement measures incorporated at the design stage to avoid, reduce or remedy these effects. The proposed layout comprising five wind turbines, access tracks, crane hardstandings, transformers, anemometer mast, control building and construction compound, is illustrated in Volume 2, Figure 4.1 and the mitigation and enhancements illustrated in Volume 2, Figure 4.13, which provide both ecological and landscape benefits.

6.6.3 A number of standard and site specific environmental mitigation and enhancement measures have been incorporated into the final design. The layout and individual siting of the turbines has been considered as part of the design iteration to reduce landscape and visual effects. Landscape and visual assessment has been a key issue during design of the project, to ensure layout design achieves a sympathetic and balanced composition in views from the surrounding areas. This involved detailed visual analysis, with the application of computer modelling to examine the potential visual effects from a broad range of viewpoints representative of settlements, roads and elevated vantage points in the local and wider area. Detailed consideration has been given to the specification of the proposed turbines with assessment of the potential effects related to turbines with an overall height of 126.5m. The final layout of 5 turbines provides the most satisfactory resolution of the various constraints on the layout, and provides a compact, balanced group of turbines in the landscape.

The Proposed Development

6.6.4 The proposed development will comprise three distinct phases; a temporary construction phase, an operational phase and a decommissioning phase. The

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 24 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

elements of the development with the potential to cause an effect on landscape character and visual amenity are described below:

Construction Phase

6.6.5 The construction phase is expected to last up to eleven months. The activities and temporary features with the potential to cause an effect on landscape and visual amenity include:

 Construction of access into the site from the public highway;  Construction and upgrading of site access tracks, hardstandings, and watercrossings;  Installation and use of a temporary site compound;  HGV deliveries to site and movement of vehicles onsite;  Installation of electrical infrastructure;  Construction of wind turbine foundations and crane pads;  Construction of control building;  Wind turbine delivery, erection using cranes and commissioning;  Installation of the permanent anemometer mast and a temporary anemometer mast during construction ;  Introduction of mitigation and enhancement measures; and  Site reinstatement and restoration.

6.6.6 The location and management of these features have been carefully considered, and various mitigation measures, including advanced hedgerow planting near the proposed control building, have been incorporated into the construction programme to limit the transitory effects of the construction phase, as described below.

Site Access, Turbine Foundations and Cable Routes

6.6.7 Ground disturbance will be restricted to the site access tracks, excavation for turbine bases and underground cable routes, as well as the areas occupied by the temporary construction compound and the surroundings of the control building. All ground areas disturbed by construction and not required during operation will be reinstated.

6.6.8 The access route to be used during construction and the turbine delivery access route are described in full in Chapter 13 on Access, Traffic and Transportation. On-site access tracks with a total length of 3.23km will be required leading to, and running between, the turbines. The access tracks will be surfaced with

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 25 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

stone and similar in form to the existing agricultural tracks, but with a slightly wider running width of approximately 5m. The alignment of proposed access tracks has been designed to avoid environmentally sensitive areas and relate well to existing landscape patterns such as field boundaries.

6.6.9 The cables between turbines will all be laid underground in trenches, alongside the new tracks. This will limit the extent of ground disturbance arising from the works thus limiting effects on the fabric of the landscape.

Temporary Site Compound and Storage Area

6.6.10 A temporary construction compound and storage area will be located to the south of the control building adjoining the site access track, as illustrated on Volume 2, Figure 4.1.

HGV Deliveries and Site Vehicles

6.6.11 During the construction period, vehicle movements will consist of construction plant, materials including aggregates and turbine components. No trees are proposed to be removed or felled for access but some pruning may be required. Further information on anticipated vehicle movements is provided in Chapter 13 on Traffic and Transport.

Erection of Turbines

6.6.12 The turbines will be erected by cranes, with each turbine taking approximately three days to assemble. Appearance of the crane in views of the site will occur during the latter part of the construction period.

Potential effects of construction phase

6.6.13 During the construction phase there will be a number of temporary visual impacts. These will be of short duration and only affect a limited part of the overall application site, and are considered in Section 6.9.

Operational Period

6.6.14 The operational elements with the potential to affect the landscape and visual amenity of the study area are:

 Wind turbines, transformers and hardstandings;  Anemometer mast ;  Control building; and  Site access tracks.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 26 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement Wind Turbines

6.6.15 Of the operational elements arising from the proposed development, it is the turbines in their own right, including the movement of their blades that will constitute the greatest change in the wider environment. The proposed turbines would be up to a maximum height of 126.5m. The following assessment assumes dimensions of 80m hub height and 93m blade diameter as a worst case scenario. If these dimensions were to change (assuming a similar sized turbine within the 126.5m envelope) it is unlikely that this would lead to significantly different effects to those assessed in this chapter.

6.6.16 The turbines will be three bladed with tubular towers and a typical turbine is shown in Volume 2, Figure 4.3. Electrical transformers (up to approximately 5m x 2.5m x 3m) will be located in separate housings adjoining the base of turbines, raised by 600-750 above ground level. If lighting is required on the turbine towers for aviation purposes, they would be fitted with infra-red lights which would not have any night-time visual effects. Turbine appearance is influenced by their colour and level of reflectance of their surfaces. In identifying a suitable colour it is necessary to consider the character of the landscape that would accommodate the turbines, likely weather conditions and whether or not the turbines are likely to be seen against land or sky. Given the location of the turbines, many views would see the turbines against a backdrop of sky, as shown in the Visualisations. Nevertheless, in views from the higher ground to the south and east including the Southern Lincolnshire Edge, the proposed development would appear against a backcloth of land rather than sky. Accordingly a stark white surface should be avoided and a more ‘muted’ approach should be sought. A light grey colour would be most appropriate with a semi-matt surface that minimises surface reflectance.

Meteorological Mast

6.6.17 A permanent anemometer (meteorological) mast will be located to the south west of turbine 3 at the location shown on Volume 2, Figure 4.1 and illustrated on Figure 4.10. This will comprise a free standing lattice structure at approximately hub height, which in this assessment assumes 80m in height. It may be necessary to erect a temporary anemometry mast for approximately 3 to 6 months during the construction period. If required this would be the same height as the permanent anemometry mast and erected as close as practicable

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 27 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

to the location of the test turbine. It would be removed prior to the final turbine being erected.

Control Building and Grid Connection

6.6.18 The electricity produced by wind turbines passes through a transformer before being transmitted via underground cables to the control building. The control building will be located to the south east of turbine 3, as shown in Volume 2. This will be partially screened by the local vegetation to the north and the advanced hedgerow proposed to the east. The control building (approximately 20m x 7.5m and approximately 5.5m to the apex of the roof) will be designed in an appropriate vernacular architecture and the final design and surface finishes will be subject to agreement with the Council.

6.6.19 If required, consent for the grid connection would be the subject of a separate consents regime. As noted in Chapter 4, the indicative underground route would follow public roads to Brandon, Stubton and Dry Doddington until it connects with the National Grid. No significant landscape or visual effects would be expected from this indicative route, however further assessment may be undertaken as part of a separate grid connection consents regime.

Site Access Tracks

6.6.20 The new site access tracks will be retained throughout the life of the development to provide controlled access for maintenance vehicles. The proposed access tracks have been designed to fit with local landscape features following field boundaries where possible. It is proposed that 770m of the existing tracks will be upgraded and 2.46km of new tracks will be required for the wind farm development. As part of a rationalisation of the farm access tracks, the development includes the provision of 322m of new agricultural access track and removal of 753m in order to ensure a coherent landscape pattern in the long term. Visibility of the access tracks and construction traffic would be limited in views to the north, west and south due to tree cover and the flat nature of topography within and surrounding the site, except from the east and on elevated ground to the south east, where views into the site would occur.

Mitigation and Enhancement Proposals

6.6.21 There are a range of mitigation and enhancement proposals which are proposed for screening and landscape enhancement purposes. At an early stage in the construction process, a hedge will be planted to the east of the control building

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 28 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

and alongside construction compound for screening of these features. New hedges have been proposed alongside some of the tracks to improve their assimilation into the landscape fabric of the site and as a landscape enhancement. Where hedges have been removed along the C1, these will be replaced and new hedgerow trees are proposed along the C1 as a landscape enhancement. There will also be some removal of existing tracks to ensure that the final landscape pattern is coherent in the long term, as landscape enhancement.

6.6.22 Although not part of the proposal, there is some possible medium/long term tree planting which could take place off Grange Lane and along the farm track to the south of Grange Lane at the Hough Grange cluster, further to filter views of the turbines from nearby properties. It does not form part of the proposed development and the assessment of landscape and visual effects has not taken this into account. The planting is not required to mitigate the effects of the development. However, should the Council consider that such planting would assist in integrating the development into the landscape and further reduce its visual effects, a planning condition could be imposed requiring details of the planting to be approved prior to commissioning of the development.

Micro Siting

6.6.23 A micro-siting allowance of up to 50m is proposed with respect to the location of turbines and for the ancillary infrastructures in order to accommodate any unforeseen factors which influence the layout may come to light, such as ground conditions. Whilst a micro-siting allowance is proposed, this would preclude any micro-siting which resulted in the nearest turbines moving closer to the nearest residents within 1km. There are other constraints on the micro-siting which would reduce the overall scope for movements and these are detailed in Chapter 4, Section 4.3

Potential Effects of the Operational Period

6.6.24 The control building has been sited south of an area of existing vegetation to assist with screening and integration of this building in the landscape. This building would be visible from some positions to the east of the proposal, including the edge of Brandon and along the C1 (viewpoint 1) as well as from local public footpaths in close vicinity and on high ground to the east (viewpoint 3). The access tracks, hardstandings and transformers would be visible from

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 29 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

some elevated positions where open views into the site are possible, such as from viewpoint 3, however these aspects of the development would be partially screened by vegetation in and around the site and would form minor new elements within the landscape, which would be subsumed by wind turbines.

6.6.25 The access tracks, hardstandings, transformers, and control building are not considered to have any significant residual effects on the landscape and visual amenity of the area, as a result of appropriate siting, scale, design and mitigation, and thus have not been considered in further detail in this assessment. The assessment, which follows, has therefore been focused on the potential residual effects of the wind turbines themselves.

Decommissioning Phase

6.6.26 The expected operational life of the proposed development is approximately 25 years from the date of commissioning. When the proposed development is decommissioned, all the turbine components and associated infrastructure would be removed. Access tracks will either be left in situ to retain the benefit of improved site access or reinstated to their original land cover. The turbine foundations will be removed to a depth of one metre below ground level, graded over with soil and re-seeded. The proposed development can be decommissioned easily, rapidly dismantled and the land restored.

6.6.27 There will be a short term temporary impact associated with the removal of structures during the decommissioning stage of the project, however this will have a minimal landscape and visual effect on the locality and has not been considered further as part of this assessment.

6.6.28 In the circumstances that a development would result in an alteration to an environment whose attributes can be quickly recovered, then judgements concerning the significance of effects should be tempered in that light. Landscape and visual effects can be reversed, and following decommissioning there will be no residual effects. A wind farm proposal should therefore be regarded as a long term reversible addition to the landscape.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 30 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement 6.7 VISUAL ANALYSIS

Introduction

6.7.1 This section comprises the assessment of visual effects arising from the proposed development during the operational period, having taken account of the in-built mitigation measures.

6.7.2 The potential landscape and visual effects arising during the operational phase of the proposed development have been assessed in two ways:

 Analysis of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Maps to provide a general overview of the visibility of the proposed development from different distances within the study area;  Assessment of the potential landscape and visual effects at 19 viewpoints as detailed in Volume 3, Appendix 6.4.

Visibility Map Analysis

6.7.3 Visibility Maps to turbine blade tip and hub height have been prepared to a radius of 30km from the outer edge of the proposed development and are illustrated in Volume 2, Figures 6.5 and 6.8 respectively. The blade tip ZTV maps illustrate the maximum overall visibility of the proposed turbines to the proposed upper blade tip height of 126.5 metres. The hub height ZTV Map illustrates potential visibility of the turbines to the hub at 80 metres. An indication of areas where only blades would be visible can be gained through direct comparison of the blade tip and hub height ZTV Maps.

Blade Tip and Hub Height Visibility

6.7.4 The ZTV to Blade Tip and Hub Height maps (which exclude the screening effects of tree cover and buildings) on Volume 2, Figures 6.5 – 6.10 illustrate that the overall extent of potential visibility within the 30km study area is concentrated within the Trent and Belvoir Vales and on high ground on the north and western edges of the Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire Wolds, Kesteven Uplands and Southern Lincolnshire Edge. There is limited theoretical visibility of tips only in The Fens to the east. Due to the local topography, the ZTVs suggest that much of the area within Trent and Belvoir Vales has the potential for visibility of the proposed turbines but due to the extent of tree cover in some of these areas, widespread visibility is unlikely. However, the turbines would be

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 31 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

visible where open views of the Belvoir Vale are available in the direction of the turbines.

Receptors

Settlement

6.7.5 Potential visibility may be experienced by residents of settlements at the following locations:

 Scattered dwellings and settlement within 5km of the proposed development, including parts of Stubton, Claypole, Fenton, Brandon, Caythorpe, Hough-on-the-Hill, Gelston, Hougham, Marston, Fosten, Westborough, and Dry Doddington;

 Parts of the villages within 5 -10km radius of the site including parts of Newark on Trent, Balderton, Coddington, Barmby in the Willows, Beckingham, Stragglethorpe, Brant Broughton, Fulbeck, Leadenham, Welbourn, Normanton-on-Cliffe, Carlton Scroop, Honnington, Barkston, Belton, Great Gonerby, Grantham, Allington, Sedgebrook, Long Bennington, Staunton in the Vale ;

 Beyond 10km, there may be views from parts of Belvoir, Barkstone-le- Vale, Bingham, Southwell, Collingham, North Hykeham and Lincoln but there would be limited opportunity for visibility, given the screening effect of intervening vegetation and built form.

6.7.6 There would be no potential for visibility from most areas to the east and south of the Lincoln Cliff, such as at Sleaford and along the A15 as well as south and east of Grantham.

Motorists and Other Road Users

6.7.7 Potential visibility may be experienced by motorists on A, B and C class / minor roads including:

Roads within 10km

 A1 – Markham Moor to Stretton;  A17 – Newark to East Heckington;  A52 – Nottingham to Donnington;  A153 – Sleaford to the A607;

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 32 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 A607 – Bracebridge Heath to Melton Mowbray; and  B6403 – Colsterworth to the A17.

Roads beyond 10km

 A15 – outside the ZTV (not considered further).  A46 – Lincoln to the A606;  A57 – East Markham to Lincoln;  A617 – Rainworth to Newark;

Railways

6.7.8 The East Coast Main Line passenger railway between London Kings Cross and Edinburgh, via Grantham and Newark passes through the centre of the study area and within 600m of the proposal. The ZTV analysis indicates the potential for railway passengers to experience views towards the proposed development over intermittent sections of the route between Grantham and Tuxford.

6.7.9 There are two further lines which fall within the ZTV within the study area; Sleaford to Nottingham (lying within 5.2km to the south of the proposed turbines at the closest point); and Lincoln to Nottingham via Newark (lying within 11.1km to the north west of the proposed turbines at the closest point).

Recreation and Visitor Destinations

6.7.10 The minor roads are likely to have some tourist, visitor and recreational usage. There are a range of signposted walking and cycling routes within the study area (listed below), as well as a network of local public rights of way. There is a Kart Racing Circuit and Track developed on part of an old air strip located 2km north of the site. Belton House is a large scale visitor destination open all year round and operated by the National Trust.

6.7.11 The study area contains national and regional routes (illustrated on Ordnance Survey maps) from which there may be views of the proposed development. These are listed below in order of increasing distance:

 The Viking Way – a 237km fully signposted path (forming part of the Eastern Route of the E2 European Long Distance Path). Within the Study Area, the footpath runs south from Lincoln, along the Lincoln Cliff, to Woolsthorpe Locks on the Grantham Canal. At the closest location the footpath lies within 3.2km to the south of the proposed turbines; and

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 33 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 National Cycle Route (NCR) 64 – lies between Lincoln and Melton Mowbray, within 8.6km to the east of the proposed turbines at the closest point.  The Trent Valley Way – a 124km footpath following the route of the River Trent. Within the Study Area the footpath lies between Nottingham and Torskey, via Newark-on-Trent, 11.0km to the north east of the proposed turbines at its closest point;  Jubilee Way (Leicestershire) – a 34km footpath connecting the Leicestershire Round at Burrough Hall Country Park with the Viking Way at Woolsthorpe. Within the Study Area, the path lies south west from Woolsthorpe to Melton Mowbray, within 13.7km to the south of the proposed turbines at the closest point;  Mowbray Way – a 14km footpath linking the Jubilee Way (Leicestershire) with the Viking Way (to the south of the proposed turbines). The footpath is completely outside the ZTV and not considered further;  Spires and Steeples Trail – a 40km footpath lying south from Lincoln (to the east of the proposed turbines). The footpath is completely outside the ZTV and not considered further;  NCR 15 – lies between Bingham and Grantham, 10.8km to the south of the proposed turbines at the closest point;  NCR 48 – within the Study Area, this route lies south from Hickling, 26.6km to the south west of the proposed turbines at the closest point;

Viewpoint Analysis

6.7.12 A viewpoint assessment has been carried out on a selection of key viewpoint locations to assess the likely magnitude and significance of landscape and visual effects arising as a result of the five proposed turbines. Over thirty viewpoints were visited and considered as part of the design process and from these locations a total of 19 were selected in consultation with South Kesteven District Council, Natural England and the National Trust as representative of the main landscape and visual receptors in the study area.

6.7.13 The existing and predicted views from these locations are shown in the Visualisations 1-19 located in Volume 2 of this ES. On the basis of fieldwork observations and a number of measured parameters for each viewpoint, the sensitivity of the location for each of the landscape and visual receptors and magnitude of change has been assessed. These have been combined in

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 34 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

accordance with the matrices in Section 6.4 to establish an overall effect and determine whether or not the effect is likely to be significant. The detailed viewpoint analysis is presented in Volume 3, Appendix 6.4 and summarised in Table 6.9 below.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 35 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 6.9: Viewpoint Analysis: Summary of Landscape and Visual Effects

Landscape Effects Visual Effects Distance No. of from Viewpoint turbines Effects on nearest Landscape New sub-type Significant Receptor Magnitude Significant visible visual turbine Type created? sensitivity of Change yes/no amenity yes/no Viewpoint No. 1 View south west 1.25km 5 Trent and Yes, Trent and Yes Residents – High Substantial Major Yes from Brandon at Belvoir Vale Belvoir Vale Minor road users – Major to junction of Hough with Wind High/medium Major/ Road Turbines moderate

2 View south east 1.60km 5 Trent and Yes, Trent and Yes Residents – High Substantial Major Yes from edge of Belvoir Vale Belvoir Vale Minor road users – Major to Stubton on with Wind High/medium Major/ Brandon Road Turbines moderate

3 View north west 2.66km 5 Trent and Yes, Trent and Yes PROW - High Substantial/ Major to Yes from public Belvoir Vale Belvoir Vale moderate Major/ footpath between with Wind moderate Gelston and Turbines Hough-on-the-Hill

4 View north west 2.90km 5 partially Trent and Yes, Trent and Yes PROW - High Moderate Major/ Yes from public screened Belvoir Vale Belvoir Vale moderate Residents – High footpath off Folly with Wind Lane, Hough-on- Turbines the-Hill

5 View east from 3.05km 5 Trent and Yes, Trent and Yes PROW – High Substantial/ Major to Yes public footpath on Belvoir Vale Belvoir Vale moderate Major/ Residents – High the edge of Dry with Wind moderate Doddington Turbines

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 36 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Landscape Effects Visual Effects Distance No. of from Viewpoint turbines Effects on nearest Landscape New sub-type Significant Receptor Magnitude Significant visible visual turbine Type created? sensitivity of Change yes/no amenity yes/no Viewpoint No. 6 View south east 3.22km 5 partially Trent and No No Residents – High Moderate Major/ Yes from Fenton screened Belvoir Vale moderate

7 View from Viking 3.27km 5 partially Trent and No No PROW - High Moderate Major/ Yes Way on Stonepit screened Belvoir Vale moderate Lane south of Hougham

8 View from 3.83km 4 partially Trent and No No Residents – High Moderate Major/ Yes Claypole on screened Belvoir Vale moderate Doddington Lane

9 View west from 4.18km 5 Trent and No No PROW – High Moderate Major/ Yes Loveden View, Belvoir Vale moderate Residents – High Caythorpe

10 View east from 5.15km 5 partially Trent and No No Residents – High Moderate/ Major/ Yes Viking Way at screened Belvoir Vale slight moderate - PROW - High Long Bennington moderate

11 View south from 5.75km 5 Witham and No No Road users – Moderate/ Moderate to No A17 Brant Vale Medium slight moderate/

minor

Major/ Residents – High moderate to Yes moderate

12 View east from A1 6.07km 5 Trent and No No Main Road users Moderate/ Moderate to No at junction with Belvoir Vale – Medium slight moderate/ B6326 north of minor Shire Bridge

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 37 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Landscape Effects Visual Effects Distance No. of from Viewpoint turbines Effects on nearest Landscape New sub-type Significant Receptor Magnitude Significant visible visual turbine Type created? sensitivity of Change yes/no amenity yes/no Viewpoint No. 13 View west from 6.67km 5 South No No Recreational users Moderate/ Major/ Yes Viking Way, Lincolnshire – High slight moderate - Normanton Hill Edge moderate Residents - high

14 View north from 7.11km 5 Trent and No No Main Road users Slight Moderate/ No B1174 overbridge Belvoir Vale – Medium minor over A1 near Grantham North Services

15 View north east 10.4km 5 Vale of No No Recreational users Slight Moderate No from Beacon Hill, Belvoir – High Bottesford

16 View north from 11.1km 5 Trent and No No Recreational users Slight Moderate No footpath on Belvoir Vale – High Casthorpe Hills, /Harlaxton west of Barrowby Denton Bowl

17 View north west 11.7km 5 partially Grantham No No Recreational users Slight Moderate No from Halls Hill, screened Scarps and – High Grantham Valleys

18 View south west 12.6km 5 Lincoln Cliff No No Road users – Slight Moderate No from near the high/medium A607 south of Recreation users Wellingore – High

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 38 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Landscape Effects Visual Effects Distance No. of from Viewpoint turbines Effects on nearest Landscape New sub-type Significant Receptor Magnitude Significant visible visual turbine Type created? sensitivity of Change yes/no amenity yes/no Viewpoint No. 19 View north east 14.3km 5 Vale of No No Minor Road users Slight Moderate No from minor road Belvoir/ – Medium/high at Belvoir Castle Parkland Recreational users- high

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 39 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

6.8 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS - CONSTRUCTION PHASE

6.8.1 Whilst it is the operational stage of the proposed development which would give rise to prolonged visual effects, effects would also occur during the construction stage and these are considered below.

6.8.2 The works detailed in section 6.7 would individually and cumulatively give rise to landscape and visual effects. These effects would however be temporary and would mainly arise through vehicle movements, construction of access tracks and erection of the turbines. The effects arising from other operations, including the excavation of turbine foundations, cable runs and the construction compound would be localised, with attention being drawn to the area through vehicle movements and plant rather than the physical changes arising. Construction operations would take place over a maximum period of 11 months.

Landscape Effects (Fabric and Character)

6.8.3 During the construction of the proposed development, the main construction activities would take place primarily within an area of arable farmland. This would result in the loss of some 3.12 hectares of farmland, and 0.5 hectare of this will be restored following completion of the construction phase. Construction of the site access and rationalisation of field boundaries would result in the removal of 617 metres of hedgerow, mostly at the site access and 1.3km of hedges are proposed as mitigation and enhancements (see Chapter 4 of the ES).

6.8.4 The fabric of this landscape is considered to be of medium sensitivity to the construction activities. The effects on landscape fabric would be predominantly long term, but good site management plus reinstatement of temporary elements and removal of features no longer required at the end of the construction phase will minimise the extent of these effects. The loss in landscape fabric during the construction stage would be small, relative to the extensive areas of arable farmland in the vicinity, and accordingly this effect would be of moderate magnitude, against medium sensitivity, giving rise to a moderate effect (not significant).

6.8.5 The effects on the character of the landscape during the construction phase would result primarily from the erection of the turbines / crane and activity and movement of large construction vehicles on the site and on the network of minor roads in the surrounding areas. These activities would disturb the static

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 40 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

qualities of the landscape character, and would be at odds with the scale of some of the landscape features and villages in the vicinity. The landscape character of the site and its surroundings is considered to be moderately sensitive to temporary construction activity, given the large scale agriculture in the area and existing traffic on the C1. The effects of this activity on this character are considered to be substantial in magnitude; however the effects would be temporary and of short duration. The local tree cover in places would limit the visibility of construction operations to an extent. The significance of the temporary construction effects on the character of the landscape is considered to be major / moderate and significant, but limited in duration.

Effects on Visual Amenity

6.8.6 The visual effects of the various aspects of the construction phase will be temporary and intermittent and will be minimised by good site management and a relatively short construction programme. Vehicle movements to and from the site would be visible and would give rise to an increased perception of activity; however the majority of vehicle movements would take place within the site, visible from the C1 and minor roads in the area and from some properties within the vicinity. The excavation of turbine foundations, formation of access tracks, installation of underground cables and grid connection would have localised effects and frequently would only be visible from locations within the site. The visibility of cranes and erection of turbines would be visible from many parts of the local area, partly screened by tree cover, but would be short in duration. The significance of the visual effects of construction activities is considered to be major / moderate and significant, but limited in duration.

6.8.7 Having regard to the assessments set out above, and the temporary nature of the construction effects, although there would be significant landscape and visual effects arising at the construction stage, these would be limited and localised in extent.

6.9 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS – LANDSCAPE EFFECTS DURING THE OPERATIONAL PERIOD

Introduction

6.9.1 This section examines the significance of the landscape and visual effects arising as a result of the proposed development with reference to:

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 41 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 the potential operational effects on landscape fabric within the site; and  the potential operational effects on landscape character.

Potential Operational Effects on Landscape Fabric

6.9.2 Changes to landscape fabric can occur where there would be direct or indirect physical changes to the landscape. In this instance, direct changes to landscape fabric would only occur within the development boundary.

6.9.3 The landscape management objectives for this area and any effect that the proposal would have on them are identified below:

Table 6.10: Summary of Effects on Landscape Management Objectives

Landscape Management Objectives Impact of Proposed Development upon for Trent and Belvoir Vale Landscape Management Objectives

Maintain and improve field boundary Gappy hedges in-filled as part of mitigation condition; proposals on site. 617 length of hedgerow to be removed but 1.3km length proposed. Retain ditch patterns; All ditch patterns retained, and the proposed hedge and scrub reduced near Control Building to retain vegetation in ditches. Maintain wet grassland areas; None on site Protect any woodland cover; All woodland has been retained on site with a minimum 50m offset. Maintain existing hedgerow trees and All mature hedgerow trees have been plant new hedgerow trees; retained on site and additional trees are proposed along the C1. Provide new woodland planting with Scrub planting is proposed surrounding the any new large scale agricultural Control Building. buildings; and Maintain views to elevated villages The introduction of the turbines would not and churches. block views to villages or churches, as views would be available around and through the proposal.

6.9.4 Overall the mitigation and enhancement proposals and the measures incorporated in the design of the proposal are in accordance with the Landscape Management Objectives for the Trent and Belvoir Vale and would not lead to significant effects.

6.9.5 The proposed development would result in a minor loss of arable farmland on the site to accommodate the turbine bases as well as to provide crane pads and access tracks. The change would be slight in magnitude, leading to moderate/minor effects (not significant).

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 42 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement Potential Operational Effects on Landscape Character

6.9.6 The effect of the proposed turbines on landscape character largely depends on the key characteristics of the receiving environment; the degree to which the turbines may be considered to be consistent with, or at odds with them; and how the proposed development would be perceived within its setting, with perceptions being influenced by:

 distance to the site;  weather conditions; and  the appearance and ‘fit’ of the proposed development.

6.9.7 There is an overlap between perception of change to landscape character and visual amenity, but landscape character in its own right is generally derived from the combination and pattern of landscape elements within the view. The effects of the proposed development on landscape character would arise from its relationship to these combinations and patterns. The following assessment is undertaken with reference to Volume 2, Figures 6.3 and 6.12 and Visualisations as well as the Viewpoint Analysis in Appendix 6.4.

6.9.8 Of the landscape types/areas within the study area, only the Trent and Belvoir Vale would experience direct effects.

Trent and Belvoir Vale

6.9.9 The Trent and Belvoir Vale character area is considered to be of medium sensitivity to wind farm development of the type proposed (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 6.3).

6.9.10 In views from close locations, within an approximate radius of up to 650m-700m of the turbines, the turbines would become the principal determining element of the landscape character, thereby creating a localised ‘wind farm landscape’.

6.9.11 Beyond the localised ‘wind farm landscape’, the key characteristics of existing landscape character would reassert themselves alongside the proposed turbines and at distances up to approximately 3km from the proposed development a new landscape subtype would be established: ‘Trent and Belvoir Vale with Wind Turbines’. Within the sub-type, a new key characteristic would be added alongside the other existing key characteristics of landscape character, see Table 6.9 below. Although there would be little physical loss or alteration of the existing elements, which together characterise the landscape, the presence of

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 43 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

the turbines would affect the character of this landscape substantially (refer to Viewpoints 1-5). The array of turbines would be seen as a group of vertical elements within the view, and from parts of this new landscape sub-type, the vertical emphasis of the turbines would contrast with the largely horizontal aspects of this landscape and the movement of the rotors would be prominent and attract attention from the more static qualities of the rural landscape. The turbines would be perceived as large scale objects in this medium to large scale landscape.

6.9.12 The churches which tend to form characteristic features in the local landscape and relate to a key characteristic of this area, are those at Claypole, Dry Doddington, Fenton, Caythorpe and Marston. The churches/chapels within the 3km radius ‘Trent and Belvoir Vale with Wind Turbines’ sub-type created by the turbines at Temple Hill would include those at Stubton, Brandon and Hougham but these do not tend to be prominent in the local landscape, as illustrated in Viewpoint 3. There is sufficient separation distance between the turbines and these churches to be clearly visually separated from the settlements and spires, not to have a significant effect on this key characteristic within 3km radius.

6.9.13 The table below outlines the effect the proposed development would have on the key characteristics of the Trent and Belvoir Vale.

Table 6.11: Summary of Effects on Key Characteristics of Trent and Belvoir Vale

Key Characteristic Impact of Proposed Development upon key characteristic

A relatively simple, medium to large- No effect scale, open arable or mixed farming landscape;

Flat or very gently undulating topography; No effect

Simple regular fields enclosed by No effect hawthorn hedges;

Relatively few hedgerow trees and No effect virtually no woodland;

Small villages typically located on slightly No effect rising land;

Church towers and spires visible across There is sufficient separation distance the landscape; and between the turbines and those churches/chapels at Stubton, Brandon and Hougham to avoid significant impacts on this key characteristic within the sub- type.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 44 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Key Characteristic Impact of Proposed Development upon key characteristic

Buildings styles vary, but a high No effect proportion of brick with dark red pantiles.

New key characteristic: The presence of the proposed turbine would result in a new key characteristic. ‘Prominent presence of wind turbines’

6.9.14 This effect is considered to be of substantial magnitude and in the context of the medium sensitivity of the landscape in which the turbines would be located, would be a major/moderate effect and be considered significant.

6.9.15 At greater distances within the Trent and Belvoir Vale, over 3km away, the turbines would increasingly read as a diminishing component and would be viewed in the context of the wider landscape and the scale of the turbines would correspond with the larger scale elements of the landscape. This group of turbines would be absorbed into the landscape and the movement of the blades would accord with movement within the wider landscape including transport routes through the area.

6.9.16 The churches which tend to form prominent features in the local landscape are those with spires at Claypole, Dry Doddington, Fenton, Caythorpe and Marston and as illustrated within the set of visualisations and particularly at Viewpoints 7, 12 and 14. Although there may be significant visual effects from some of the viewpoints and the turbines would appear within the same field of view as some of the locally noticeable church spires, the turbines would not dominate the views of the spires and they would be so different that there would be no confusion or competition in the viewer’s attention. Due to the separation distances between the turbines and the local settlements, the turbines are clearly visually separated from the settlements and spires.

6.9.17 At these greater distances over 3km from the turbine, the key characteristics of the landscape type would not be affected and a significant landscape effect is not predicted.

6.9.18 There would be no direct effects as a result of the proposed development within the other landscape character areas. Indirect effects would occur where there is visibility of the turbines and these would be read as more or less important depending on the degree to which the landscape in the vicinity of the proposed site plays a strong influencing role on the landscape experience in these adjoining areas.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 45 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Other Landscape Types

Grantham Scarp and Valleys

6.9.19 This landscape area occurs over 5km to the south east of the proposal, between Barkston and Grantham including the estate at Belton House. There would be views of the turbines from the more open steep scarp slopes which are characteristic of this area. Where views are obtained, as illustrated in Viewpoint 17, this group of turbines would be visible in the adjacent landscape type of the Trent and Belvoir Vale and would be perceived as elements in the background of the view rather than key components of this landscape type. The turbines would change the visual composition of the view from parts of this landscape area, however the key characteristics of the Grantham Scarp and Valleys landscape character area would remain intact and not be significantly affected.

Harlaxton Denton Bowl

6.9.20 This landscape area occurs over 10km to the south of the proposal, south of Barrowby. There would be views of the turbines from the open steep scarp slopes which are characteristic of this area. Where views are obtained, as illustrated in Viewpoint 16, this group of turbines would be visible in the adjacent landscape type of the Trent and Belvoir Vale and would be perceived as elements in the background of the view rather than key components of this landscape type. The turbines would change the visual composition of the view from parts of this landscape area, however the key characteristics of the Harlaxton Denton Bowl landscape character area would remain intact and not be significantly affected.

Southern Lincolnshire Edge

6.9.21 This landscape area occurs approximately 5km to the east and south east of the proposal, between Fulbeck and Grantham including Ancaster. There would be views of the turbines from the open western edge of the scarp slope, but visibility soon disappears to the west of the steep scarp edge, as illustrated in the ZTV. Where views are obtained, as illustrated in Viewpoint 13, this group of turbines would be visible in the adjacent landscape type of the Trent and Belvoir Vale and would be perceived as elements in the background of the view rather than key components of this landscape type. The turbines would change the visual composition of the view from parts of this landscape area, however the

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 46 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

key characteristics of the Southern Lincolnshire Edge landscape character area would remain intact and would not be significantly affected.

Lincoln Cliff

6.9.22 This landscape area occurs over 6.5km to the north east of the proposal, north of Fulbeck and encompasses the steep western edge of the scarp slope only. There would be views of the turbines from parts of this landscape area, however the shape of the scarp slope and pattern of settlement and tree cover often screen views to the south east, instead taking advantage of the panoramic views due east or north east over the Witham and Brant Vale. However this is not exclusively the case and where there would be views of the turbines obtained, as illustrated in Viewpoint 18, this group of turbines would be visible in the adjacent landscape type to the south east and would be perceived as elements in the background of the view rather than key components of this landscape area. The turbines would change the visual composition of the view from parts of this landscape area, however the key characteristics of the Lincoln Cliff landscape character area would remain intact and would not be significantly affected.

Witham and Brant Vales

6.9.23 This landscape area occurs over 4.5km to the north of the proposal, north from Stragglethorpe. There would be views of the turbines from the more open or subtly elevated parts of this landscape area, as illustrated in Viewpoint 11, this new group of turbines would be visible to the south and would be perceived as elements in the background of the view rather than key components of the Witham and Brant Vales. The turbines would change the visual composition of the view from parts of this landscape area, however the key characteristics of the Witham and Brant Vales landscape character area would remain intact and would not be significantly affected.

Terraced Sandlands

6.9.24 This landscape area occurs over 6.5km to the north of the proposal, north from Beckingham. There would be views of the turbines from the more open or more elevated parts of this landscape area, but the extent of tree cover in the southern part of this area would limit visibility to discrete areas. This new group of turbines would be visible to the south and would be visible in a separate landscape type. They would be perceived as elements in the background of the

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 47 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

view rather than key components of this landscape area. The turbines would change the visual composition of the view from parts of this landscape area, however the key characteristics of the Terraced Sandlands landscape character area would remain intact and would not be significantly affected.

East Nottinghamshire Sandlands: Winthorpe Village Farmlands, Bowbridge Lane and Potter Hill Village Farmlands with Plantations

6.9.1 These landscape areas occur over 5km to the north west of the proposal in Nottinghamshire, around Newark on Trent. There would be views of the turbines from the more open or elevated parts of this landscape area, with the extent of tree cover having some limiting effect on widespread visibility. This new group of turbines would be visible to the east and would be visible in a separate landscape type. They would be perceived as elements in the background of the view rather than key components of these landscape areas. The turbines would change the visual composition of the view from parts of these landscape areas, however the key characteristics of these landscape character areas would remain intact and would not be significantly affected.

South Nottinghamshire Farmlands: Cotham Meadowlands, Elston Village Farmlands, and Alverton Village Farmlands

6.9.2 These landscape areas occur over 5.5km to the west of the proposal, between Balderton and Staunton in the Vale and then extending further west. There would be views of the turbines from the more open or more elevated parts of these landscape areas. This new group of turbines would be visible to the east and would be visible in a separate landscape area. They would be perceived as elements in the background of the view rather than key components of these landscape areas. The turbines would change the visual composition of the view from parts of these landscape areas, however the key characteristics of the landscape character areas would remain intact and would not be significantly affected.

Trent Washlands: Bleasby, Fiskerton and Morton Village Farmlands, Cromwell, North and South Muskham, Kelham, Averham, Staythorpe and Rolleston Village Farmlands, Farndon Village Farmlands, Holme Village Farmlands, Manor Farm River Meadowlands, Besthorpe River Meadowlands, Grange Farm River Meadowlands, East Stoke River Meadowlands, Farndon River Meadowlands, Battle Bridge River Meadowlands, Kelham Hills River Meadowlands, Newark

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 48 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

West River Meadowlands, Winthorpe West River Meadowlands, Thurgarton River Meadowlands, and Averham Weir River Meadowlands

6.9.3 These landscape areas occur over 10.5km to the north west of the proposal in Nottinghamshire, west of Newark on Trent. There would be views of the turbines from the more elevated parts of this landscape area, but the trees within the hedges, low lying topography and separation distance would severely limit the visibility of the turbines from these areas. If views were obtained, this new group of turbines would be visible to the east and would be visible in a separate landscape type. They would be perceived as elements in the background of the view rather than key components of these landscape areas and although the visual composition of the view may change, the key characteristics of these landscape character areas would remain intact and would not be significantly affected.

South Nottinghamshire Farmlands: East Bridgford Escarpment Farmlands and Aslockton Village Farmlands

6.9.4 These landscape areas occur over 9.5km to the south west of the proposal in Nottinghamshire. There would be views of the turbines from the more elevated parts of this landscape area and where views were obtained, this new group of turbines would be visible to the north east and would be visible in a separate landscape type. They would be perceived as elements in the background of the view rather than key components of these landscape areas and although the visual composition of the view may change, the key characteristics of these landscape character areas would remain intact and would not be significantly affected.

Vale of Belvoir

6.9.5 These landscape areas occur over 7.5km to the south west of the proposal in Nottinghamshire. There would be views of the turbines from the more elevated parts of this landscape area and where views were obtained, this new group of turbines would be visible to the north east, further along the Vale of Belvoir. They would be perceived as elements in the background of the view rather than key components of these landscape areas and although the visual composition of the view may change, the key characteristics of these landscape character areas would remain intact and would not be significantly affected.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 49 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Landscape Types over 10km Away

6.9.6 Beyond 10km from the proposal, where the turbines would be visible, this group of turbines would be perceived as elements in the background of the view rather than key components of the present landscape areas/types. The turbines would change the visual composition of the view, however the key characteristics of the present landscape areas/types would remain intact and would not be significantly affected, see Viewpoints 15 to 19. At these greater distances, the key characteristics of the landscape types would not be significantly affected and significant landscape effects are not predicted.

Effect on Landscape Designations (Volume 2, Figures 6.1 and 6.11)

Lincoln Cliff, North Kesteven Local Plan

6.9.7 The Lincoln Cliff, which is designated within the North Kesteven Local Plan is located over 7km to the north east and the proposal is not located within any part of this distinctive landscape character area. However the North Kesteven Local Plan seeks to protect the Lincoln Cliff landscape feature from development that would ‘impact upon views from, to and along the Cliff’ and ‘detract from the character of the area.’ The physical integrity of the Cliff would be unaffected by the proposed wind farm and no significant effects are predicted on the landscape character of the Lincoln Cliff landscape character area.

6.9.8 With regard to the impact on views from the Lincoln Cliff distinctive landscape character area, the main views from this area are the panoramic views due east or north east over the Witham and Brant Vale. The shape of the scarp slope and pattern of settlement and tree cover often screen views to the south east, however this is not exclusively the case and where there would be views of the turbines obtained. These views are illustrated with reference to Viewpoint 18, where the proposed group of turbines would be visible in the Trent and Belvoir Vale to the south east and would be perceived as elements in the background of the view rather than prominent features likely to detract from the character of the Lincoln Cliff. The visual composition would change from some parts of this area, however the change arising as perceived from the Lincoln Cliff would not be visually significant.

6.9.9 With regard to the effect on views of the Lincoln Cliff, there would be little or no effect on views of the Lincoln Cliff from within the Witham and Brant Vales, as illustrated in Viewpoint 11 from the A17 near Beckingham where views of the

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 50 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

turbines would be to the south and views of the Lincoln Cliff would be to the east. With regard to the effect on views of the Lincoln Cliff, from the Trent and Belvoir Vales to the south west, most views of the Lincoln Cliff would not be affected. This is due to the Lincoln Cliff appearing a different part of the view than the turbines, or the Cliff not being visible (see Viewpoints 1-15, 17 and 18). This is primarily due to the location of the proposed turbines much further south (over 7km away) and also partially due to the intervening vegetation and landform. However there would be positions where the turbines would interpose in views between the observer and the Lincoln Cliff and thus have an effect on views of the Lincoln Cliff, such as at Viewpoints 16 and 19. This cone of view between the site and Bottesford / Belvoir Castle where the turbines will inevitably appear in front of views of the Lincoln Cliff, would be limited in extent and would not hide, nor prevent appreciation of the Lincoln Cliff escarpment and the turbines would not significantly detract from the character or appreciation of the Lincoln Cliff.

Other Landscape Designations

6.9.10 With regard to the Mature Landscape Areas and the Area of Great Landscape Value, due to the separation distance of over 23km, significant effects are not predicted on any of these areas.

6.10 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS – VISUAL EFFECTS DURING THE OPERATIONAL PERIOD

Introduction

6.10.1 This section draws on the review of the development proposal, ZTV visibility analysis, viewpoint assessment and other field work observations. It considers the potential effects of the proposed development on the visual amenity of the following groups of potential receptors:

 Residents - in towns, villages, scattered farmsteads and individual residential properties;  Motorists and other road users on Motorways, A class, B class and minor roads;  Railway passengers;  Visitors to recreational facilities and destinations; and  Walkers / cyclists and horse riders - on National trails and local strategic footpaths/ cycleways and bridleways.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 51 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

6.10.2 The following assessment considers the extent of predicted and actual visibility, magnitude of change, sensitivity of the location for each receptor type and whether changes would be significant.

Residents - Settlements

Settlements and individual dwellings within 2km

6.10.3 A detailed assessment of residential visual amenity has been undertaken for all dwellings within a 2km radius of the Temple Hill wind farm proposal, and is presented in Appendix 6.5, Volume 2. This study area was agreed with SKDC and is in line with the South Kesteven Wind Energy SPD. For the purposes of this study, views from a property have been defined as views from a dwelling, including views from inside, and from within the domestic curtilage including garden areas and access to the property. The following is a summary of the findings of significant effects identified within Appendix 6.5 Volume 2, and further information with regard to the acceptability of the effects from residential properties within 2km of the proposal is contained with the appendix and the Planning Statement. The location of all these dwellings are illustrated on the Residential Receptor Location Plans and detailed sheets A-D within Appendix 6.5, Volume 2.

6.10.4 For dwellings located within a 1km radius of the proposed development, individual detailed assessment sheets were produced as part of Appendix 6.5, Volume 2. Within 1km there are a total of 11 dwellings, however a further 3 lie just outside 1km boundary but detailed sheets were also produced for these dwellings. Properties within the detailed assessment comprise: 2 dwellings at Littlegates Nursery (P1-P2, these numbers are assigned in Appendix 6.5, Volume 2) to the north west; a group of properties on Brandon Lane (P3-P6) to the north; a cluster of dwellings at Hough Grange (P7-P12) to the east; and a further 2 properties at Gelston Grange (P13-P14) to the south east.

6.10.5 Residents within all 14 dwellings within an approximate 1km radius would experience major or major/moderate visual effects which are considered significant. The assessment notes that some open views would be experienced from: Littlegates (P1-P2) at a distances of 805m and 811m from the dwellings; Brandon Lodge (P6) at a distance of 965m from the dwelling; Barakiel Barn (P8) at a distance of 980m from the dwelling and Hough Grange (P12) at a distance

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 52 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

of 1003m from the dwelling. There would be partial screening to the turbines from the remaining dwellings within 1km.

6.10.6 A further 129 dwellings lie at distances of 1km to 2km from the nearest proposed turbine, including the villages of Stubton and Brandon and these have been included in detailed schedules within Appendix 6.5, Volume 2.

Stubton

6.10.7 From Stubton itself, there would only be one property with open oblique views of the proposed turbines (P49 The Old Rectory), with significant visual effects predicted. There would be a further 9 dwellings with partially screened views and significant visual effects predicted. The remaining 58 dwellings would be predominantly or fully screened and significant visual effects are not predicted. The assessment concludes that significant visual effects would be limited from this village with a separation distance of over 1.5km and open views from Stubton would be limited to a single dwelling. The Frinkley Farm turbine (c. 6km south east) is visible and would appear in combination with Temple Hill where open views south are obtained, similar to Viewpoint 2, from The Old Rectory and dwellings near Rectory Farm.

Brandon

6.10.8 There is the potential for predominantly open views of the turbines from 14 properties in the southern part of Brandon with significant visual effects predicted. Due to the more open nature of parts of this hamlet, there is also the potential for a further 4 dwellings with partially screened views of the turbines above intervening tree cover and built form with significant effects predicted. There would be predominantly screened views of the turbines above intervening tree cover and built form, from mostly first floor windows, from a further 18 dwellings within Brandon with significant visual effects predicted. The remaining 10 dwellings would be fully or predominantly screened with significant visual effects not predicted.

Outlying Properties between 1km-2km

6.10.9 Of the 15 outlying dwellings 1km-2km away, 12 would experience potentially significant visual effects and of these 5 would experience open views, 3 would be partially screened and 4 would be predominantly screened but still significant, all with a separation distance of over 1.5km. There would be 3 dwellings with views which would not be considered to represent a significant visual effect.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 53 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Settlements within 2km-5km radius

Claypole

6.10.10 Claypole lies 3.2km north west of the proposal, predominantly located on the western side of the east coast mainline railway, and is illustrated with Viewpoint 8. There would be no views from properties on the northern side of the village, however there would be partially screened views from some properties in the southern part of the village. There would be filtered views to all of the turbines from those few outlying properties on the eastern side of the railway line. There may be a few dwellings on Rectory Lane and Main Street, with views from upper storey windows. There would be a few dwellings on the southern edge of Claypole, off Doddington Lane, with views as illustrated in Viewpoint 8 from first floor windows but most dwellings off Moor Close do not have gable end windows facing the proposal. The Frinkley Farm turbine is visible from a few dwellings on the southern edge of the village. On the south western end of village most views to Temple Hill would be predominantly screened by tree cover and built form, however on the western end of Main Street, there would be views of turbine 5 (partially screened by intervening woodland) from a few dwellings there. The core of this village would be predominantly screened by tree cover and built form and significant visual effects would not occur, however on the southern side and edge of the settlement there would be the potential for views of the turbines and where this would occur it would have a significant visual effect at a few dwellings.

Fenton

6.10.11 Fenton is located 3km north of the proposal and is predominantly screened by trees, treed hedges and woodland to the south east of the village, as illustrated in Viewpoint 6. The core and majority of the village would not obtain views, however there would be a few dwellings on the southern or eastern edge of the village (Allen Road and Pump Lane) with views similar to Viewpoint 6, and there would be a significant visual effect at a few dwellings.

Caythorpe

6.10.12 Caythorpe is a village located over 4km to the east and is perched at the top of the relatively steep scarp slope to the low shoulder of the ridge to the east. Views of the Frinkley Farm turbine are available 5km to the south from some southern and western parts of this village. The majority of the village would be

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 54 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

fully screened from the proposed Temple Hill turbines by the local landform of the ridge and the adjacent built form. However there are a few dwellings on the western edge of the village which would obtain views. There are a few dwellings with open views into the Vale such as at Loveden View, as illustrated in Viewpoint 9. There are other residents such as those on Back Lane, Millfield Crescent and Frieston Green where views of the turbines would be predominantly screened by the landform of the ridge and only the tips would be visible. Those at the end of Templeway Close and Kings Hill would be partially screened by tree cover and landform but there may be views from upper storey windows. Where views would be obtained of the turbines from some residents on the western edge of Caythorpe, the change in the view would represent a significant visual effect.

Hough-on-the-Hill

6.10.13 Hough-on-the-Hill is located nearly 3km to the south east and is perched at the top of the relatively steep scarp slope to the low shoulder of the ridge to the south east. There are open views to the north, but views to the north west are limited by tree cover within the built form and adjacent to it. The turbines would appear behind Fox Covert but would not be screened by it, due to this woodland occurring within the base of the Vale. There would be the potential for views from a few dwellings on Folly Lane and upper storey windows from a few properties on the north western edge of the village (The Red Barn and The Old Vicarage), as illustrated in Viewpoint 4 and for these few dwellings which would obtain views of the turbines this would have a significant visual effect. For the remaining dwellings within this village, there would be no views, including those on Gelston Road which would be screened by the landform and tree cover.

Gelston

6.10.14 The hamlet of Gelston is located 2.5km south east of the proposal and is perched at the top of the relatively steep scarp slope to the low shoulder of the ridge to the east, taking advantage of panoramic views to the south east. The Frinkley Farm turbine is located approximately 1.5km to the south and is clearly noticeable in views from properties on the southern and eastern side of the hamlet and from the central green. Between the proposal and Gelston, lies Loveden Hill with a woodland block along the north western facing scarp slope, which would partially screen views from this settlement, however upper parts of towers, hubs and blades would be visible above the woodland and turbine 5

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 55 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

would be visible to the south of woodland but still partially screened by Loveden Hill. There would be partially screened views, especially from upper floor windows, from those properties on the north western side of the village at No. 4 Churn Hill, the terrace facing the green, Manor Grange, Hambleton House, Manor Cottage, High Meadow and Fox Farm. The properties further east in the hamlet would be screened by adjacent built form. Where partially screened views would be obtained at Gelston, there would be the potential for significant visual effects. There would be open views with little screening from the dwellings on Summerfield Hill to the south west of Gelston and there would a significant visual effect.

Hougham

6.10.15 Hougham is located over 2.2km to the south of the proposal and is illustrated with reference to Viewpoint 7 which is located to the south of the village. The Frinkley Farm turbine is located 2.5km east of the village and there are a few dwellings on the eastern edge which may obtain views of this turbine. With regard to the potential visibility of the Temple Hill turbines, dwellings on the south side of Main Street would be screened by built form and tree cover opposite. Houses on the north side of Main Street would obtain oblique views from the mainly rear, first floor windows, as ground floor and garden views would be predominantly screened by vegetation and outbuildings to the rear. Where views would be obtained from a few residents on the north side of the road, they would experience a significant visual effect.

Marston

6.10.16 Marston is located over 3km south of the proposal and is illustrated with reference to Viewpoint 7. The Frinkley Farm turbine is located 2km east of the village and is visible from eastern parts of the village. With regard to the potential visibility of the proposed Temple Hill turbines, views from Marston would be very limited due to the screening by built form within the village, trees along the River Witham and built form at Hougham. There would be views from a few properties to the north of Stonepit Lane, including Bridge House on Bridge Lane, where views would be similar to those in Viewpoint 7. The core of this village and most of its inhabitants would be fully screened from the development, however there would be a few dwellings on the northern edge with views and this would represent a significant visual effect.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 56 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Fosten

6.10.17 Fosten is located 4.25km south west of the proposal and is located on a small hill. From most dwellings within the core and southern part of the village, views would be fully screened by local built form and landform. However there would be a few dwellings on the north eastern end, off Long Lane, where longer distance open views of the Belvoir Vale are available and these would include the Temple Hill turbines to the north east and partially screened views to the Frinkley Farm turbine 5.5km to the east. Where views are obtained, there would be a significant visual effect at a few dwellings.

Westborough

6.10.18 Westborough is located over 3.8km south west of the proposal. There would be limited potential for views from most of the village, however there may be a few dwellings on the north eastern edge of the village which may obtain views, similar to Viewpoint 10, from first floor windows such as The Old Threshing Barn on Long Lane. Where views are obtained, there would be a significant visual effect at a few dwellings.

Dry Doddington

6.10.19 Dry Doddington is located over 3km from the proposal and this village is located on a slight hill which is more pronounced to the south and west. From dwellings within the village, ground floor/garden views would be predominantly screened by built form but there would be the potential for views from first floor windows from some dwellings. On the eastern edge of the village, including the eastern end of High Street, High Meadow, Summerfield Close and on the end of Claypole Lane at Wispy Tufts, there would be views similar to those illustrated in Viewpoint 5 but with further screening by trees, hedges and built form. The Frinkley Farm turbine is likely to be obliquely visible from a few dwellings on the southern side of the village nearly 7km away but views of Temple Hill are unlikely from the same dwellings. Where views of Temple Hill are obtained, there would be a significant visual effect.

Settlements within 5 -10km Radius

Balderton and Fernwood

6.10.20 Balderton is located over 7km to the north west on the west side of the A1, south of Newark and Fernwood is located approximately 6.5km north west of the

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 57 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

proposal on the east side of the A1. Views from Balderton would be screened by built form, tree cover and landform. There would be views from a few dwellings (approximately 8) on the southern side of Fernwood, off Collinson Lane which back onto Hollowdyke Lane which would obtain oblique filtered views and significant visual effects are not predicted.

Newark on Trent

6.10.21 Newark on Trent is located over 8km to the north west of the proposal. Built form, landform, tree cover and the A1 would predominantly screen views from residents at Newark, with the exception of any tall buildings on higher ground and from a few dwellings on the southern edge of Newark on Beacon Hill. No significant visual effects are predicted for residents at Newark on Trent.

Coddington

6.10.22 Coddington is located over 8km north west of the proposal, east of Newark. There would be a few dwellings on the southern edge of the village which would obtain views from first floor windows, but local subtle landform, tree cover and built form would predominantly screen views. No significant visual effects are predicted for residents at Coddington.

Barmby in the Willows

6.10.23 Barmby in the Willows is located on slightly raised ground, over 5km north west of the proposal. There would be views of the turbines from a few properties on the southern edge of the village, similar to Viewpoint 11, and there would be significant visual effects at these few dwellings on the southern edge of Barmby in the Willows.

Beckingham

6.10.24 Beckingham is located on slightly raised ground, approximately 6km north of the proposal. There would be views of the turbines from a few properties on the southern edge of the village, similar to Viewpoint 11. There would be a significant visual effect at these few dwellings on the southern edge of Beckingham.

Stragglethorpe

6.10.25 Stragglethorpe is located 5km north of the proposal. Most dwellings would be fully screened by tree cover and built form within the village, however there would be views to the Temple Hill turbines above tree cover from Orchard

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 58 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

House and Stragglethorpe Hall on the southern edge of the village and the Frinkely Farm turbine may also visible in the distance 8.5km south in combination with the Temple Hill turbines. For these couple of dwellings, the view of the turbines would represent a significant visual effect.

Brant Broughton

6.10.26 Brant Broughton is located 6.5km north of the proposal. The Fire Station and College on the southern edge of the village and the built form at Stragglethorpe would screen most views of the turbines from this settlement. However there would be a few residents which may obtain views of tips, such as those on Mill Lane or on the edges of the settlement, but the views of the tips would not represent a significant visual effect.

Fulbeck

6.10.27 Fulbeck is located approximately 6km north east of the proposal, on the slopes of the Lincolnshire Ridge. Many properties within this village take advantage of the views to the west and north west over the Brant and Witham Vale. Views to the south west would be fully screened by built form from the north western part of the village. Views from the southern part of the village would be fully or predominantly screened by landform, as indicated on the ZTVs and further screened by trees at Reeve’s Gorse. However there may be a few dwellings on high ground which may obtain views to the south west (first floor windows) of the partially screened turbines, but this change in their view would not represent a significant visual effect.

Leadenham

6.10.28 Leadenham is located over 7km north east of the proposal, on the Lincolnshire Ridge. Most dwellings would be fully screened by tree cover and built form, including those on Back Lane. However there may be views from The Old Rectory or Leadenham House which obtain open views to the east but this change in their view would not represent a significant visual effect.

Welbourn

6.10.29 Welbourn is located 9.5km to the north east of the proposal on the Lincolnshire Ridge. Due to the orientation of the village and extent of built form, tree cover and embankments there would be no views of the proposal.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 59 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Normanton-on-Cliffe

6.10.30 Normanton-on-Cliffe is located 5.5km east of the proposal, on the lower slopes of the Southern Lincolnshire Edge, below Normanton Hill. Most residents would be fully screened by built form, landform and local tree cover, however there would be a few residents with views from either first floor windows or views through gaps in local vegetation to tips appearing on the horizon between trees in the landscape. There are a few residents with partially screened views of the Frinkley Farm turbine 4km south east from this village. Where views to partially screened turbines of Temple Hill may be obtained, the change in view would represent a significant visual effect.

Carlton Scroop

6.10.31 This village is located over 6km south east of the proposal, with views to the Frinkley Farm turbine (3km south east) noticeable from parts of this village. This village is predominantly screened from views of the proposed development by landform and further by trees and woodland, however there would be a few dwellings on Newark Lane where tips would appear on the horizon between trees in the landscape to the north east. Where views of this proposal would be gained, the change in view would not represent a significant visual effect.

Honnington

6.10.32 Honnington is located 6.5km south east of the proposal on the lower slopes of the Southern Lincolnshire Edge. This village would be predominantly screened by landform with further screening provided by tree cover. There may be a few dwellings which may obtain views to tips from first floor windows but the change in view would not represent a significant visual effect.

Barkston

6.10.33 Barkston is located 6.5km south east of the proposal. This village is predominantly screened by landform and views to tips would be screened further by built form and tree cover. Any views to tips would not represent a significant visual effect.

Belton

6.10.34 There would be no views from Belton, due to screening by landform and further by tree cover.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 60 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Great Gonerby

6.10.35 Great Gonerby is located 8.5km south of the proposal on the top and south facing slopes of high ground near Grantham. As indicated on the ZTVs most of the settlement would be screened by landform. However there would be a few dwellings on the northern edge of this village which may obtain views from first floor windows but the change in view would not represent a significant visual effect.

Grantham

6.10.36 Grantham is located 10km to the south of the proposal and is predominantly located outside the ZTV, however the settlement on Halls Hill to the east of the town is within potential visibility. There would be the potential for a few tall buildings on Halls Hill, such as the care home on the corner of Beacon Hill or a few dwellings at the top edge of the Halls Hill, which may obtain views from upper floor windows, similar to Viewpoint 17 on the public footpath on Hall’s Hill. Any change in the view as a result of the proposal would not lead to significant visual effects.

Allington

6.10.37 Allington is located 7km south west of the proposal and is built on slightly raised ground within the Vale. Most properties would be fully screened by tree cover and built form, however there would be a few dwellings on higher ground at the northern edge of the village, such as at Red House Gardens, which obtain some open views north west and the turbines would be visible within the Belvoir Vale. Where views of this proposal would be gained, the change in view would not represent a significant visual effect.

Sedgebrook

6.10.38 Sedgebrook is located over 9km south east of the proposal, south of the railway line. The railway embankment screens views north towards the proposed development.

Long Bennington

6.10.39 Long Bennington is located over 5km south west of the proposal, to the east of the A1. Lincoln Hill would screen views of the proposed development from those dwellings in the northern part of the village. From the eastern edge of the village, there would be a few dwellings with views similar to Viewpoint 10, but

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 61 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

more filtered by the trees along the River Witham. Where residents would obtain views of the turbines, there would be a significant visual effect.

Staunton in the Vale

6.10.40 Staunton in the Vale is located approximately 8.5km south west of the proposal, on slightly higher ground. Most views would be screened by landform and further by tree cover, however there would be the potential for some views of the turbines, predominantly screened by tree cover to the north east. If views were obtained, a significant visual effect is not predicted.

Settlements beyond 10km Radius

6.10.41 There would be limited potential for views of the turbines from settlements beyond 10km from the proposal, due to the intervening tree cover and landform. However, if there were views of the proposal, significant visual effects are not predicted.

Motorists and Other Road users

6.10.42 The potential significance of visual effects experienced by those travelling on the road network has been considered with reference to the ZTV visibility maps, viewpoint analysis and visual survey of key routes within the study area. Routes are assessed below in order of increasing distance from the proposed development. Routes where visibility is not predicted by ZTV analysis (including the A15 and the A158) have not been considered. The sensitivity of main road users is considered to be Medium.

Roads within 10km

A1 – Markham Moor to Stretton

6.10.43 This route lies 65km north to south through the Study Area, between Markham Moor and Stretton. At its closest point it lies within 5.2km to the west of the proposed development.

6.10.44 Travelling southbound from the northern-most section of the route, between Markham Moor and Newark (Coddington Junction), ZTV coverage is fragmented and views southbound of the proposed development would be further restricted by roadside vegetation / embankments. From more open localised sections of the road, tree cover within the intervening landscape is relatively consistent, resulting in partial to predominant screening of the turbines. As a result, the

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 62 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

proposed development may be discernable but not very noticeable in the views south east. There are intermittent predominantly sequential (some limited combined views) of relatively close proximity views of the single turbines at Walker and Sons, Ossington Road, and Little Carlton from this section of the A1.

6.10.45 Further south, from Coddington Junction to Balderton Junction, there are more open views to the south east, with some localised screening by tree cover and built form within Fernwood and along the roadside. There would be views of the proposed development at a distance of approximately 7.2km for a relatively short section (approx. 2km in length) and the turbines would be viewed oblique to the direction of travel, beyond a row of pylons to the east.

6.10.46 Between Balderton Junction and Long Bennington (the section of the A1 in closest proximity to the proposed development), there would be partially screened views between Balderton and Viewpoint 12 near Shire Bridge. Between Shire Bridge and Long Bennington, views would be predominantly open (see Viewpoint 12) of the turbines over 5.2km away and oblique to the direction of travel, but occasionally interrupted by tree cover and built form.

6.10.47 Views around Long Bennington would be screened by large scale buildings, road cuttings, bridges and built form at Long Bennington. Between Long Bennington and Marston Road (Petrol Station), views of the turbines, oblique to the direction of travel, would be intermittent, with some screening by roadside hedges and tree cover. The Frinkley Farm turbine is also intermittently visible and the turbine at Pasture Farm, Allington is clearly noticeable along this section of the A1. There would be no further views southbound.

6.10.48 In relation to views travelling northbound, south of Grantham ZTV coverage is predominantly absent and there would generally be no views of the proposed development. From Grantham there would be very intermittent views on the descent of Stubbock Hill, Barrowby, between and/or above vegetation along the roadside until Grantham North Services. Between Grantham North Services and Marston Road, views open up to the north and there would be predominantly open views along this section as illustrated with Viewpoint 14 from the overbridge at the Services. There are also views of Frinkley Farm and close range views of the turbine at Pasture Farm, Allington along this section of the route. Views of the Temple Hill turbines at Marston Road would be fully screened by the petrol station, vegetation and large scale buildings and then towards Long Bennington there would be intermittent views to the turbines,

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 63 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

oblique to the direction of travel, with screening provided by roadside hedges and tree cover.

6.10.49 Views around Long Bennington would be screened by large scale buildings, road cuttings, bridges and built form at Long Bennington. Heading north between Long Bennington and Shire Bridge, views would be predominantly open (see Viewpoint 12) of the turbines over 5.2km away and oblique to the direction of travel, but occasionally interrupted by tree cover and built form. There would be no further views northbound.

6.10.50 Overall, views of the proposed development over 5.2km away would be predominantly limited to the section of route between Newark and Grantham and along this section would be intermittent. There would be sequential cumulative views of the operational Walker and Sons turbine, Ossington Road turbine, and Little Carlton turbine from northern sections of the route, as well as combined/successive views of Temple Hill, Frinkley Farm and Allington turbines from southern section of the route. Due to the intermittent nature of the views and the separation distance from the proposed Temple Hill Wind Farm, the effect along this section of the A1 would be between moderate and moderate/minor and not significant.

A17 – Newark to East Heckington

6.10.51 This route lies south east from the A46 at Newark, towards East Heckington, lying more than 42km within the Study Area. At its closest point the route lies within 5.4km to the north of the proposed development.

6.10.52 For road users travelling south east; mid-to-long distance views of the proposed development would be restricted by roadside hedgerow / tree cover and scattered field trees from the section of the road between Newark and Beckingham. The clearest views would be experienced further east, between Beckingham and Brant Broughton, where roadside vegetation reduces in density and extent and is illustrated with Viewpoint 11. For this relatively short section, roadside vegetation drops off completely, resulting in open (oblique) views to the south. Intervening field trees would provide partial screening, albeit there would be views of the upper part of the proposed turbines beyond tree cover in the distance. Visibility would reduce in more south eastern parts or the route (south east of Brant Broughton) due to increased screening by vegetation and the

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 64 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

direction of travel / angle of view (the development would be behind the road user).

6.10.53 For road users travelling north west; there is no ZTV coverage between East Heckington and Byard’s Leap Farm (near RAF Cranwell), hence there would be no views of the proposed development. As the road user travels north west, there would be partial, filtered views of the proposed development through semi- mature roadside tree cover (particularly during winter months / periods of leaf- fall) from the section of the route between Byard’s Leap Farm and Brant Broughton. Variations in topography would also result in localised screening (including the embankment to the south Leadenham, which would completely screen views of the proposed development). The clearest views would be experienced further east, between Brant Broughton and Beckingham, where roadside vegetation reduces in density, resulting in open (oblique) views to the south. Visibility would reduce in more north westerly parts or the route (beyond Beckingham) due to increased screening by vegetation and the direction of travel / angle of view.

6.10.54 Overall, views of the proposed development would be predominantly limited to a 3-4km section between Beckingham and Brant Broughton, where the upper part of the turbines would be visible within a broad scale landscape to the south at a distance of 5.75km (oblique to the direction of travel). From this localised section of the route, the effect would be between moderate and moderate/minor (not significant). Views from other sections of the route would be tempered by roadside vegetation, intervening tree cover and local topography, and as a result the visual effect would be moderate/minor to minor and not significant.

A52 – Nottingham to Donnington

6.10.55 This route lies 63km east to west through the Study Area, between Nottingham and Donnington. At its closest point it lies within 9.4km to the south of the proposed development.

6.10.56 For road users travelling east; ZTV coverage is fragmented between Nottingham and Sedgebrook and views of the proposed development would be further restricted by surrounding built form (particularly within the settlements of Bingham, Elton and Muston), and intervening tree cover (which is particularly dense between Muston and Sedgebrook) with a separation distance of over 10km. Further east, between Sedgebrook and the A1 near Grantham

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 65 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

(approximately 2.5km section of the route closest to the proposed development), the route becomes more open, albeit views of the proposed development would be oblique to / behind the direction of travel, hence views would be limited. Beyond Grantham, ZTV coverage is almost entirely absent and the proposed development would be behind the direction of travel.

6.10.57 For road users travelling west; ZTV coverage is predominantly absent between Donnington and Grantham, hence there would generally be no views of the proposed development. The clearest views would be experienced from the short section to the west of Grantham, albeit at a distance of 9.4km and on the descent of the Casthorpe Hills, with the turbines viewed beyond overhead power lines extending across the intervening landscape to the north and the Allington turbine in the foreground. Visibility would gradually reduce further west (beyond Sedgebrook) due to increased screening, as well as the angle of view. There are intermittent views of the operational Frinkley Farm Turbine (c. 7.5km away) from some sections of the route, resulting in sequential visibility.

6.10.58 Overall, views of the proposed development would be limited to short localised sections, where it would be experienced as a background feature. There would be combined views with the small Allington turbine and sequential views with the Frinkley Farm turbine would also be limited. The magnitude of change would be Slight, decreasing to Negligible across the majority of the route, and the level of visual effect would be Moderate/Minor to Minor (not significant).

A153 – Sleaford to the A607

6.10.59 This route extends 12km east to west from Sleaford to the A607 near Honington, at a distance of 6.4km from the proposed development at its closest point.

6.10.60 For road users travelling west; there would be no views between Sleaford and Ancaster due to topographic screening (no ZTV coverage). Further west between Ancaster and Honington, views of the proposed development would be restricted by roadside vegetation and intervening tree cover (which is particularly prevalent around Ancaster and the Woodland Waters Camping Park, where views of the turbines would be completely screened by mature trees). Localised sections of the route are more open, in particular, the short 300-400m section between Ancaster and West Willoughby; however, views of the proposed turbines would generally be limited to blades due to the underlying topography. This road lies within approx. 2.6km of the operational Frinkley Farm turbine,

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 66 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

however views of this turbine are predominantly screened by roadside vegetation and the underlying topography. As a result, cumulative views in association with the proposed Temple Hill Wind Farm would also be extremely limited.

6.10.61 For road users travelling east; the proposed development would be located behind the direction of travel, hence views would be extremely limited.

6.10.62 Overall, the magnitude of change would be Slight to Negligible and the level of effect would be Moderate/Minor to Minor and not significant.

A607 – Bracebridge Heath to Melton Mowbray

6.10.63 This route extends 58km north to south through the Study Area, between Bracebridge Heath (near Lincoln) and Melton Mowbray. At its closest point it lies within 4.7km to the east of the proposed development.

6.10.64 For road users travelling south; ZTV coverage is fragmented between Bracebridge Heath and Fulbeck and in reality views of the proposed development would be further limited by built form within settlements (in particular Bracebridge Heath, Waddington, Coleby, Boothby Graffoe, Navenby, Wellingore, Welbourn and Leadenham), intervening tree cover and the separation distance. There would be an open view of the proposed development on the edge of Wellingore, where the turbines would be viewed within a broad scale landscape context, accounting for 3o of the horizontal angle of view at a distance of approximately 12km as illustrated in Viewpoint 18. Further south, between Fulbeck and Carlton Scroop (the section of the route located in closest proximity to the proposed development) ZTV coverage is more fragmented. Views of the proposed development would be subject to further screening by built form within the settlements of Caythorpe and Normanton-on- Cliffe. There would be glimpsed, oblique views of the proposed development from localised sections of the route between the settlements, albeit subject to partial screening / filtering by roadside vegetation and typically limited to the upper part / blades of the turbines due to the underlying topography. Views would be very limited beyond Carlton Scroop due to screening by landform as illustrated in the limited ZTV coverage and the location of the proposed development behind the direction of travel.

6.10.65 For road users travelling north; ZTV coverage is intermittent between Melton Mowbray and Grantham, and in reality views of the proposed development

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 67 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

would be further restricted by intervening screening and the increasing separation distance of view. Between Grantham and Caythorpe, ZTV coverage remains absent for lengthy sections, and views would be further restricted by built form within Syston, Barkston, Normanton-on-Cliffe and Caythorpe, as well as roadside vegetation / intervening tree cover. There are relatively close proximity cumulative views of the existing Frinkley Farm turbine from this section of the route (2.5km to the west at the closest point), subject to intermittent screening. Beyond Caythorpe, the proposed development would be behind the direction of travel, hence views would be very limited.

6.10.66 Overall, views of the proposed development would be limited to short localised sections, where there would be partially filtered or glimpsed views of the proposed turbines. Views would be unaffected for lengthy sections. There would be sequential cumulative views of the operational Frinkley Farm Turbine from southern sections of the route, albeit this would coincide with a section of the route with extremely limited visibility of the proposed Temple Hill Wind Farm. The magnitude of change would be Slight, decreasing to Negligible, and the level of effect would be Moderate/Minor to Minor (not significant).

B6403 – Colsterworth to the A17 (Ermine Street)

6.10.67 This route lies 25km south from the A17 (near RAF Cranwell) to Colsterworth, within 9.2km to the east of the proposed development at the closest point. ZTV coverage of the route is extremely limited, and restricted to a 2.6km long section south of Ancaster (9.2km to the east of the proposed development), as well as short, fragmented sections further south (near the settlements of Londonthorpe and Easton, at distances of over 10km from the proposed development).

6.10.68 For road users travelling north; views from southern sections of the route (near Easton and Londonthorpe) would be subject to screening by intervening vegetation / tree cover, as well as the underlying topography (which would typically restrict views to the upper part / blades / blade tips of the turbines). Furthermore, glimpsed views would be over long distance (>10km) and as a result, visibility would be extremely limited. Further north, there would be glimpsed views of the proposed turbines across the airfield at RAF Barkston Heath, albeit oblique to the direction of travel and typically limited to blades / blade tips at a distance in excess of 9km. From the section of the route between RAF Barkston Heath and Ancaster, views of the proposed development would remain subject to screening by roadside vegetation, which gradually increases in

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 68 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

density on the approach to Ancaster, resulting in complete screening. Views of operational wind energy developments within the Study Area (including the Frinkley Farm Turbine, located 6.5km to the west) are completely screened by the underlying topography and intervening tree cover.

6.10.69 For road users travelling south; views of the proposed development would be subject to screening and at an oblique angle / behind the direction of travel, hence would be extremely limited.

6.10.70 Overall, there would be very limited views of the proposed development from this route. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the level of effect would be Minor and not significant.

Roads beyond 10km

A46 – Lincoln to the A606

6.10.71 Within the Study Area, this route lies 60km south west from Lincoln towards the A606, approx. 10.7km to the north west of the proposed development at its closest point.

6.10.72 For road users travelling north east; ZTV coverage is fragmented between the A606 and Bingham (the southern-most section of the route). Views of the proposed development would be further limited by intervening tree cover and built form, as well as the distance of view (over 20km). As a result, the proposed development would be barely discernible. Further north, between Bingham and East Stoke, there would be glimpsed views of the proposed development to the east, subject to screening by mature tree cover and roadside embankments along selected sections of the route, as well as tree cover in the intervening landscape. There are also several localised sections of new tree planting along the roadside, which would gradually result in increased screening over time. Between East Stoke and Newark, the route becomes intermittently more open between embankments and as a result clear views are available to the east, where the proposed development would be viewed over 11km away, beyond overhead power lines extending north-south from Staythorpe Power Station, near Averham. As the route extends north, it extends around the western side of Newark (i.e. the opposite side to the proposed development). This localised section of the road is elevated, albeit easterly views towards the proposed development are restricted by roadside vegetation and intervening tree cover, hence views of the proposed development would be intermittent,

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 69 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

glimpsed and partly filtered (and clearest during winter months). North of Newark, ZTV coverage is fragmented and views would be further limited by the location of the proposed development behind the direction of travel.

6.10.73 For road users travelling south west; ZTV coverage is fragmented across localised sections between Lincoln and Newark, and views of the proposed development would be further limited by roadside vegetation and intervening tree cover, in combination with the separation distance (>10km). As a result, the proposed development would be barely noticeable. There are glimpsed views of the Little Carlton Turbine, subject to screening, from sections of the route near Newark at a distance of approx. 5km or greater to the north west (in the opposite direction to Temple Hill). South of Newark, views of the proposed development would be subject to screening and at an oblique angle / behind the direction of travel, hence would be extremely limited.

6.10.74 Overall, views of the proposed development from the A46 would be limited to relatively short sections. The clearest views would be experienced between East Stoke and Newark, albeit visibility would be tempered by partial screening, and the separation distance (c. 11km). The Little Carlton Turbine represents the closest operational commercial scale wind turbine to the A46 (at a distance of approx. 5km north west) and is located in the opposite direction to the proposed development. As a result, cumulative views of the proposed Temple Hill Wind Farm in association with this would be very limited. The magnitude of change would be Slight along localised sections, decreasing to Negligible across lengthy parts of the route. The level of effect would be Moderate/Minor, decreasing to Minor and not significant.

A57 – East Markham to Lincoln

6.10.75 The A57 extends through the northern part of the Study Area, between East Markham and Lincoln, at a distance of 24.8km from the proposed development at the closest point. ZTV coverage is continuous across easterly parts of the route, albeit is increasingly more fragmented further west.

6.10.76 For road users travelling east; from the section of the road between East Markham Newton on Trent views of the proposed development would be subject to screening by tree cover and built form (in particular the settlements of East Markham, Darlton, Dunham on Trent, and Newton on Trent). From more open, localised sections, the proposed development would be located at distance

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 70 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

(>24km), at an oblique angle of view, and would be located beyond large scale development within the intervening landscape (including the remnant cooling towers at High Marnham and overhead power lines). Further east (between Newton on Trent and Lincoln) views of the proposed development would be restricted by roadside tree cover, which is particularly prevalent along sections of the route that lying alongside the Fossdyke Canal.

6.10.77 For road users travelling west; views of the proposed development would be limited between Lincoln and Saxilby by roadside tree cover and the direction of view (the proposed development would be located at an oblique angle to that of travel). Between Saxilby and East Markham, visibility would remain tempered by the angle of view, and would also be subject to screening by tree cover and built form (within the settlements of Newton on Trent, Dunham on Trent, Darlton and East Markham).

6.10.78 Overall, views of the proposed development would be extremely limited from the A57. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the level of effect would be Minor (not significant).

A617 – Rainworth to Newark

6.10.79 Within the Study Area, this route extends 21km between Rainworth and Newark, at a distance of 11.4km to the north west of the proposed development at the closest point. ZTV coverage of the route is fragmented.

6.10.80 For road users travelling east; views would be restricted by fragmented ZTV coverage between Rainworth and Hockerton. Views of the proposed development would be infrequent and limited to the upper part / blades of the turbines, at distance (>20km). Between Hockerton and Newark, views of the proposed development would remain completely screened along lengthy sections by tree cover and surrounding built form (most notably at Averham and Kelham). There are glimpsed views of the Little Carlton Turbine (c. 3km north) and New Holbeck Farm Turbine (c.5km south) along localised sections of the route, although sequential views of the proposed Temple Hill Wind Farm would be extremely limited.

6.10.81 For road users travelling west; the proposed development would be located in the opposite direction to that of travel, hence views of the proposed development would be extremely limited.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 71 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

6.10.82 Overall, the magnitude of change would be Negligible and the level of effect would be Minor and not significant.

Wider Road Network

6.10.83 Potential visibility may be experienced from the road network in the wider area at distances in excess of 15km away (A612, A1133, A616, A614, A153) and significant effects on these road users is not predicted.

Minor Roads

6.10.84 The ZTV indicates the potential for wide spread visibility within 5km of the proposal, however it does not take into account the screening effects of vegetation and built form. In the local area, it is acknowledged that the minor roads often carry some degree of recreational users, the users are considered to be of high/medium sensitivity.

6.10.85 There would be open and close range views from the C1 which runs between the A17 at Brant Broughton and the A1 south of Marston, as illustrated with Viewpoint 1, but the visibility would be intermittent along this route. There would also be open close range views from road between Stubton and Brandon to the north of the proposal, as illustrated with Viewpoint 2. The ridgeline route between Caythorpe and Hough-on-the-Hill would be predominantly screened by landform, tree cover and built form and would also be screened by landform to the west of Hough-on-the-Hill until the route descends Summer Hill into Gelston, where open views to the turbines in the landscape would be available. There would be intermittent views of the turbines from the remaining minor roads within 5km-6km of the proposal and road users would experience a Major to Major/Moderate visual effect (significant).

6.10.86 Intermittent visibility would also be experienced from the wider minor road network, at increasing distance of view and subject to screening by intervening landform, built form and tree cover. Beyond 5km-6km, road users would experience a moderate or less visual effect and significant effects are not predicted on these minor road users.

Railway Passengers

6.10.1 The potential significance of visual effects experienced by those travelling on the rail network has been considered with reference to the ZTV visibility maps, viewpoint analysis and visual survey of key routes within the study area. For the

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 72 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

purposes of this assessment, the sensitivity of railway passengers is considered to be Medium in all cases.

East Coast Main Line

6.10.2 The main line passenger railway between London Kings Cross and Edinburgh, passes through the centre of the study area, via Grantham and Newark, within 600m of the proposed development at the closest point.

6.10.3 Between East Markham and Newark the route follows the A1 and views of the Walker and Sons turbine appears less than 3km away to the west at Tuxford and then the Ossington Road turbine also appears to the west, over 1km away near Carlton on Trent and on the approach to Newark the Little Carlton turbine is nearly 3km to the west. Views of the Temple Hill turbines would be limited by built form, tree cover and the angle of view from the carriage. Beyond Newark and the A1, the route is on embankment for 4km with open views to north east and south west from the carriages. Views to the Temple Hill turbines (c. 6.5- 2.5km south east) in combination with the Frinkley Farm turbine (over 7km south east) would be very oblique from the carriage, if possible at all. Beyond Claypole, the route goes through a series of cuttings through the subtly undulating landscape where close range views would be partially to fully screened by the cuttings, trees and the road bridge. The route then goes back onto embankment with direct and open views of the turbines over 600m away to the north east for approximately 2km. The route then goes through some cuttings for road crossings where views out are limited. Then the route is back onto embankment for 2km where there are open close range views of the Frinkley Farm turbine to the east, but views to the Temple Hill turbines would be unlikely due to the angle of view from the carriage. The route then goes into cuttings and falls outside the ZTV. There are a few patches of theoretical visibility south of Grantham but views would be unlikely due to the angle of view from the carriage.

6.10.4 Users of the railway are considered to be of medium sensitivity and there would be a major visual effect whilst the route is on embankment for a 2km section of the route between the Doddington Littlegates and the C1 minor road where the route passes within 600m of the proposed wind farm, which would represent a significant visual effect, but this should be qualified given the speed of travel along this mainline route. Between Newark and Claypole there would be a moderate effect on users, due to the screening by the direction of the carriage

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 73 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

and separation distance. South of the C1, there would be a moderate or less effect due to the screening by the cuttings and the angle of the carriage and this would not be considered significant.

Sleaford to Nottingham Line

6.10.5 The Sleaford to Nottingham Line extends east to west through the Study Area, at a distance of 5.2km to the south of the proposed development at the closest point. ZTV coverage across the route is fragmented, and there would be no views of the proposed development from more distant easterly and westerly sections (i.e. east of Ancaster and west of Radcliffe on Trent respectively).

6.10.6 The western part of the route (between Radcliffe on Trent and Sedgebrook) loosely follows the route of the A52. Views experienced by rail passengers on this section of the route would be restricted by intermittent trackside vegetation and intervening tree cover, as well as surrounding built form (whilst extending through Aslockton) and intervening topography (there is no ZTV coverage across the 3km section near Bottesford). From more open sections, views of the proposed development would be distant at over 9.5km away.

6.10.7 Further east, between Sedgebrook and Ancaster (which represents the section of the route in closest proximity to the proposed development) there would be clearer views of the proposed turbines. However, these views would be intermittent, restricted to localised parts of the line and subject to screening by a combination of trackside vegetation, intervening built form (including large-scale buildings within the Triangle Park Industrial Estate to the north of Grantham), embankments / cuttings (including a 1.5km section to the north of the Industrial Estate), and bridges (including those associated with the overpassing A1 and the East Coast Main Line), as well as the topography (which would completely screen views from a 4km long section near Honington). The proposed turbines would be seen within the Belvoir Vale over 5km away and would account for a relatively narrow angle of view in the middle distance. There are intermittent views of the Frinkley Farm Turbine from this section of the route and there would be sufficient separation distance between this and the proposed Temple Hill Wind Farm to be read as separate features in the landscape.

6.10.8 Overall, views of the proposed development would be limited to localised sections over 5km away, where the turbines would typically represent middle or background features, within the Belvoir Vale. There would be occasional

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 74 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

simultaneous views of the proposed development in association with the Frinkley Farm and Allington turbines, although views would be unaffected for lengthy sections of the route. The magnitude of change would be Moderate to Slight along localised sections between Sedgebrook and the East Coast Main Line, decreasing to Negligible along more distant parts of the route. The level of visual effect would be Moderate to Moderate/Minor along localised sections, decreasing to Minor (not significant).

Lincoln to Nottingham Line

6.10.9 The Lincoln to Nottingham Line lies approximately 50km south west from Lincoln to Nottingham (via Newark), lying within 11.1km to the north west of the proposed development at the closest point. From the southern-most section of the route, between Nottingham and Bleasby, ZTV coverage is extremely limited and there would be no views of the proposed development.

6.10.10 Further north, between Bleasby and Lincoln, there would be intermittent views of the proposed development, subject to screening by intervening built form (within the settlements of Rolleston, Newark, Winthorpe, and North Hykeham, as well as the large-scale infrastructure at Staythorpe Power Station) and trackside vegetation and intervening tree cover (which is particularly prevalent along a 5- 6km section south of Lincoln, associated with Whisby Nature Park). The intervening topography would completely screen the proposed development from localised sections of the line near Collingham and Thorpe on the Hill (as indicated on the ZTV). From sections of the line with a more open aspect; the proposed development would be viewed in the background, as a feature within a broad scale landscape context to the south east. There are glimpsed views of the Little Carlton Turbine from localised sections of the track near Newark (over 4.7km to the north west) subject to screening and in the opposite direct to Temple Hill Wind Farm.

6.10.11 Overall, views of the proposed development from the Lincoln to Nottingham Line would be limited by the distance of view and intervening screening. The magnitude of change would be Slight to Negligible. The level of effect would be Moderate/Minor to Minor and not significant.

Tourism and Recreation

6.10.1 The potential significance of visual effects experienced by walkers, cyclists and horse riders (considered to be of High sensitivity) utilising promoted footpaths

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 75 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

(illustrated on Ordnance Survey maps) and cycle routes within the Study Area has been considered with reference to the ZTV visibility maps, viewpoint analysis and visual survey. Routes where visibility is not predicted by ZTV analysis have not been considered (including the Spires and Steeples Trail, Mowbray Way and NCR 1). Recreational routes within the Study Area are illustrated in Volume 2, Figure 6.13.

The Viking Way

6.10.2 This long distance footpath extends over 237km in total (forming part of the Eastern Route of the E2 European Long Distance Path). Within the Study Area, the footpath runs south from Lincoln, along the Lincoln Cliff, to Woolsthorpe Locks on the Grantham Canal, lying 3.2km to the south of the proposed development at the closest point.

6.10.3 The Viking Way around Lincoln is outside the ZTV. Between Bracebridge Heath and Wellingore (21km-14km away) the path links the villages along the eastern side of the Lincoln Cliff and is within the ZTV but the views south west towards the turbines would be predominantly screened by built form, tree cover and landform along the ridge, however there may be the potential for long distance views from limited positions along this section of the route. South from Wellingore, the route follows High Dike and then turns west towards Normanton Hill and is outside the ZTV. On the western crest of Normanton Hill, there would be views of the turbines along a short ‘dog leg’ section of this path as illustrated in Viewpoint 13, predominantly screened by hedges for walkers but more open views for equestrians able to see over the hedges. These views become more screened on the descent of Normanton Hill towards Carlton Scroop due to screening by trees along the track and then are fully screened by topography passing through Carlton Scroop.

6.10.4 Between Carlton Scroop and the East Coast Railway line, views of the Temple Hill turbines would be limited to predominantly screened tips from the top end of Howdale Lane / Hough Road, 4km away. The Frinkley Farm turbine is prominent from this section of the route as it passes in close proximity of the turbine.

6.10.5 West from the railway line towards Marston, the route passes alongside the treatment works, with views often screened by trees associated with it and along the River Witham. However, there would be intermittent partially screened views of the turbines in the landscape between Marston and Loveden Hill over 4km

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 76 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

away. The turbines would be fully screened within Marston and then there would be partially screened views of the turbines along Stonepit Lane, 3.2km away at their closest point, between Marston and Fallow Lane (south of Fosten), as illustrated in Viewpoint 7. The Frinkley Farm turbine is visible above Marston from Stonepit Lane travelling eastbound. There would be more open views from the route near Fallow Lane, with the upper towers, hubs and rotating blades of the turbines visible over 4km away to the north. As the route approaches Westborough tree cover and slight drop in elevation would partially and then predominantly screen the turbines. Between Westborough and Long Bennington, there would be intermittent partially screened views of the turbines, as illustrated in Viewpoint 10. Views within and south of Long Bennington on Church Lane to the A1 crossing would be screened by built form and tree cover but there would be an open view of the turbines within the landscape from the A1 overbridge.

6.10.6 Along Sewstern Lane, south from the A1, there would be intermittent views of the turbines, partially screened by landform and tree cover in the intervening landscape, over 6km away at the northern end. There would be more open views of the turbines within the landscape from the central portion of this lane as it crosses Bottesford Road, 8.5km away from the turbines. From Sewstern Lane towards the A52, views of the turbines would become increasingly screened by intervening landform and vegetation in the landscape, or would only be visible through gaps in the hedges along the route. South of the A52, hedges along Sewstern Lane would provide screening but there would be views of the turbine tips in hedgerow gaps. South of the woodland, views would be fully or predominantly screened by the woodland and tree cover but there may be a distant view (11.5km away) to the eastern turbines at the junction with Woolsthorpe Lane.

6.10.7 Views along the Grantham Canal would be predominantly restricted by tree cover. Further south the route is predominantly outside the ZTV and views would be screened by local tree cover, topography and built form.

6.10.8 There would be significant effect on users on parts of this route within 6-7km of the turbines, between Long Bennington and Normanton Hill. Beyond this, the effect would be moderate or less and would not be considered significant.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 77 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

The Trent Valley Way

6.10.9 Within the Study Area, this 124km long footpath extends northwards from Nottingham towards Torksey, loosely following the route of the River Trent. At its closest point, the footpath lies 11km to the north east of the proposed development. ZTV coverage of the route is fragmented and there would be no views of the proposed development from the southern-most part of the route (south of Fiskerton). From more northerly sections of the route, between Fiskerton and Torksey, ZTV coverage is intermittent, reflecting the relatively low- lying nature of the footpath within the River Trent Valley. Views of the proposed development would be restricted by intervening screening including surrounding vegetation / tree cover, and built form (within the settlements of Kelham, Newark, Winthorpe, Collingham, Beesthorpe and Girton). From localised sections of the route with a more open aspect, the proposed development would generally be viewed at distance, beyond overhead power lines, aligned with the River Trent Valley in places. There are glimpsed views of the Little Carlton Turbine and the Ossington Road Turbine from localised sections of the footpath. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the level of effect would be Moderate/Minor and not significant.

Jubilee Way (Leicestershire)

6.10.10 Within the Study Area, this 34km-long footpath extends south west from Woolsthorpe to Melton Mowbray, at a distance of 13.7km to the south of the proposed development at the closest point. ZTV coverage across the route is fragmented and predominantly focussed on the most northerly section between Stathern and Woolsthorpe. However views of the proposed development from this section of the route would be subject to extensive screening by intervening woodland (Stathern Wood, Plungar Wood, Barkestone Wood and Old Park Wood), and predicted views of the proposed turbines would be limited. ZTV coverage is completely absent from more southerly sections of the route. Overall, the magnitude of change would be Negligible to None. The level of effect would be Moderate/Minor to None, and not significant.

NCR 64

6.10.11 Within the Study Area, NCR 64 extends between Lincoln and Melton Mowbray, with the exception of a gap where it joins the NCR 15 between Thoroton and

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 78 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Woolsthorpe By Belvoir. At its closest point, the route lies 8.6km to the east of the proposed development.

6.10.12 From the northern-most part of the route (between Lincoln and Newark) ZTV coverage of the route is fragmented due to screening by landform and further by tree cover, and as such views of the proposed development would be extremely limited. There are glimpsed views of the Little Carlton Turbine and Ossington Road Turbine at distances of approx. 4.5km and 5.2km from parts of this section; however, the proposed Temple Hill Wind Farm would be barely noticeable as tips above the tree cover in the opposite direction.

6.10.13 Further south, between Newark and Thoroton ZTV coverage is more continuous but is still patchy along this section of the route. Views from this section of the route would be restricted by landform in places and further by hedgerows and intervening tree cover. The clearest views would be from the 3km section of the route between Cotham and Shelton, at a distance of 9-10km to the west of the proposed development, where there would be views of the upper part / blades of the turbines, set within the Belvoir Vale.

6.10.14 The southern-most section of the route (between Woolsthorpe By Belvoir and Melton Mowbray) is predominantly outside the ZTV.

6.10.15 Overall, views of the proposed development from NCR 64 would be extremely limited and restricted to relatively short, localised sections (such as the 3km section between Cotham and Shelton). There are sequential cumulative views of the operational Little Carlton Turbine and Ossington Road Turbine to the north of Newark. The magnitude of change would be Slight along localised sections, decreasing to Negligible. The level of effect would be Moderate, decreasing to Moderate/Minor and Negligible.

6.10.16 A proposed extension to this route would extend southwards from NCR 15 at Barkestone-le-Vale, towards the existing route of NCR 64 at Branston. ZTV coverage across this 6-7km long proposed section is fragmented, and views of the proposed development would be further restricted by intervening tree cover and the distance of view (over 15.8km away). Overall, views from the proposed section of NCR 64 would be extremely limited and there would be no increase to the magnitude of change or level of effect described above in relation to the existing route.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 79 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

NCR 15

6.10.17 Within the Study Area, NCR 15 extends between Bingham and Grantham (with the exception of a short gap between Bottesford and Muston), 10.8km to the south of the proposed development at the closest point. ZTV coverage of the route is fragmented and views of the proposed development would be further restricted by surrounding built form within the settlements of Bingham, Aslockton and Orston. Beyond the settlements, views of the proposed development would be subject to screening by roadside vegetation and intervening tree cover, especially as the separation distance increases. The clearest views would be from a 2-3km section to the south east of Muston, where there would be views of the upper part / blades of the turbines at a distance of approximately 12km, beyond tree cover and overhead power lines in the intervening landscape. Views of the proposed development would be intermittent, at distance and subject to partial or predominant screening. Views of operational wind energy developments within the Study Area from this cycle path are limited due to the separation distance and levels of intervening screening. Overall, the magnitude of change would be Slight along localised sections, decreasing to Negligible across the majority of the route. The level of effect would be locally Moderate, decreasing to Moderate/Minor overall and not significant.

6.10.18 It is noted that there are three proposed extensions to this route. The first would extend in a westerly direction from Bingham to Nottingham, and is predominantly outside the ZTV. The second would extend from Bottesford to Muston (thus joining two separate fragments of the existing route), and also extend southwards to Barkestone-le-Vale. Views of the proposed development from this ‘proposed route’ would likely be restricted by intervening vegetation and the topography (as indicated in the ZTV). The clearest views may be possible from a 2-3km section lying along the Grantham Canal, albeit views would be at a distance of 12km, comprising the upper part of the turbines / blades beyond overhead power lines in the foreground. The third of the proposed extensions would be to the east of Grantham (towards Ewerby) and is predominantly outside the ZTV. Overall, views from the proposed NCR 15 would be extremely limited and there would be no increase to the magnitude of change or level of effect described above in relation to the existing route.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 80 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

NCR 48

6.10.19 Within the Study Area, NCR 48 extends in a southerly direction from Hickling, 26.6km to the south west of the proposed development at the closest point and ZTV coverage is fragmented. Views of the proposed development would be infrequent and at distances of over 26km, such that the proposed turbines would be barely noticeable within the wider landscape context. The magnitude of change would be Negligible and the level of effect would be Moderate/Minor (not significant).

6.10.20 It is noted that a proposed extension to this route would extend northwards from Hickling, towards Newark-on-Trent (along the route of the A46). Views of the proposed development from the ‘proposed route’ would be limited to relatively short sections. The clearest views would be experienced between East Stoke and Newark, albeit visibility would be tempered by partial screening, the presence of embankment slopes, and the separation distance of 11km or greater. Overall, the magnitude of change which may be experienced by cyclists on the proposed section of NCR 48 would likely be Slight along localised sections of this proposed route, decreasing to Negligible across remaining parts of the proposed route. The level of effect is likely to be Moderate, decreasing to Moderate/Minor, and not significant.

Local Public Rights of Way

6.10.21 Significant effects would be experienced by users of the local Public Rights of Way network within approximately 6km of the proposed development, however this would extend to 7km on high ground to the east. The public right of way most notably affected would be Clensey Lane (Restricted Byway 22) between Littlegates and the C1 at Grange Cottage, which at its nearest point would be located approximately 140m away from the turbines and there would be a major visual effect on users of the route. To the west are of series of public rights of way which connect Clensey Lane with Hougham Road, Stubton and Littlegates, located over 380m away from turbine 5, with a major visual effect on users of these bridleways/footpaths. There are numerous paths around Stubton, Brandon and Gelston where significant visual effects would occur, most notably along the ridgeline footpath which runs between Gelston, Hough-on-the-Hill and Caythorpe, as illustrated in Viewpoint 3.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 81 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

CRoW Act Open Access Land

6.10.22 The largest area of Open Access Land within 15km of the proposal occurs at Stapleford Wood, nearly 8km north west, where views would be screened by the woodland itself. There is an area between Holme and North Muskham along the River Trent, nearly 13km north west, where views would be screened by tree cover and built form. There is a discrete area of Open Access land along The Valley at Wilsford Heath, over 10km south east of the proposal and views would be predominantly screened by tree cover and vegetation. There is some Open Access land to the east of the Alma Park Industrial Park, Grantham and views would be screened by the Industrial Park. No significant effects are predicted on Open Access Land.

Tourist Attractions

6.10.23 Most tourists visiting Belton House would not experience views of the turbines, as the turbines would be fully screened from the parking areas, gardens and lower level rooms in the house, however there would be views from the elevated Bellmount Tower, over 10km away, as illustrated in the Cultural Heritage Viewpoints CH2 and CH3. There would also be views from the roof of the house but this is not generally open to the public. A significant visual effect for tourists visiting Belton House is not predicted.

6.10.24 Belvoir Castle is located approximately 15km away and is open to the public a few days a week in the summer season. There would be views from parts of Belvoir Castle, similar to Viewpoint 19, but a significant visual effect for tourists is not predicted.

6.11 MICRO SITING

6.11.1 The proposed micro siting allowance of up to 50m, with restrictions set out in Chapter 4, Section 4.3, is unlikely to lead to any further significant landscape or visual effects than those already identified in the assessment based on the proposed site layout.

6.12 CUMULATIVE LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS

6.12.1 The potential cumulative landscape and visual effects of the Temple Hill wind farm proposal have been considered in relation to other operational, consented and proposed wind energy projects within a 30km study area as detailed in Table 1, which consists primarily of single turbines. This assessment has been

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 82 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

presented in full in Appendix 6.6 and has been undertaken with reference to a Cumulative Assessment Location Plan (Figure CLVIA 01), Cumulative Landscape Designations (Figure CLVIA 02), Cumulative National Regional and Local Landscape Character (Figure CLVIA 03-04), Recreational Route Receptors (Figure CLVIA 05) and Project pairs ZTV analysis for all operational, consented and proposals where applications have been submitted within 20km of Temple Hill (Figures CVLIA 06-22). In addition, the effects are illustrated by a series of cumulative wireframe visualisations from eight viewpoints. The figures and visualisations are presented in Volume 2 of the ES.

6.12.2 In terms of landscape effects, if only the operational and consented wind farms are considered, the proposed Temple Hill wind farm would not lead to a blurring or loss of distinction within the Trent and Belvoir Vale landscape character area and the surrounding landscape character areas. The development of the Temple Hill wind farm would result in significant but separate landscape effects on the Trent and Belvoir Vale and therefore no significant cumulative effects.

6.12.3 In the situation that all of the operational, consented and proposed schemes where applications have been submitted were consented and constructed, these proposals would potentially give rise to sub-type landscapes in their respective vicinities. Given the separation distance and nature of intervening topography and tree cover the development of the Temple Hill wind farm would result in significant, but separate landscape effects and therefore no significant cumulative effects.

6.12.4 The assessment concludes that there would be no significant cumulative landscape effects from the Lincoln Cliff by the addition of Temple Hill wind farm to the operational, consented and all proposals excluding North Hykeham Meadows, noting that the proposed development would not significantly detract from the character or appreciation of the Lincoln Cliff. In the case that the North Hykeham Meadows turbine were constructed, there may be the potential for a significant effect on the northern part of this area, however the addition of Temple Hill, over 7km to the south would only slightly reinforce this pre-existing significant effect.

6.12.5 In visual terms, significant cumulative effects on the visual amenity would arise in the range of perhaps 5-6km extending up to 7km to the east from turbines where there is a reasonable portion of the Temple Hill project visible and the clear presence of other wind farms within a realistic viewing range that would

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 83 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

exert a significant effect in their own right or a below significance magnitude of influence such that the addition of the Temple Hill proposal would raise this to a visually significant level. This is considered likely to occur in the context of other operational, consented and proposed schemes in views from limited settlement in the area local to the Temple Hill site, sections of the A1, A607, A46, parts of the local road and rail including the east coast main line in addition to views from sections of the Viking Way, National Cycle Route 64 and local footpath network.

6.12.6 Overall it is concluded that significant cumulative landscape and visual effects would be localised in extent and limited given the size of this five turbine wind farm proposal.

6.13 RESIDUAL EFFECTS AND CONCLUSIONS

6.13.1 The proposed development has been designed following the design objectives and principles set out within Chapter 4: The Project Description. The design has been optimised, taking account of the technical, economic and environmental constraints, and has achieved a compact and balanced turbine layout. The effects on landscape and visual amenity within the surrounding area have been minimised as a result.

6.13.2 The loss in landscape fabric during the construction stage would be small, relative to the extensive areas of arable farmland in the vicinity, and accordingly this effect would be of moderate magnitude against medium sensitivity giving rise to a moderate effect (not significant). During the operational stage the change would be slight in magnitude leading to moderate/minor effects (not significant). Significant visual and landscape effects would arise locally, but these would be limited in extent. The predicted effects would be fully reversible when the proposed development was decommissioned, and the landscape has the capacity to accommodate the scale of development proposed during its operational lifetime.

6.13.3 The five wind turbines would be the main aspect of the proposed development with the potential to affect the landscape character of the study area. The turbines would become a determining feature in the character within a 650-700m radius of the turbines resulting in a significant change in the character of the Trent and Belvoir Vale Landscape Character Area. Within approximately 3km radius of the turbines, a new key characteristic would occur giving rise to the landscape sub-type, ‘Trent and Belvoir Vale with Wind Turbines’. This would

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 84 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

have a significant effect on localised parts of this landscape character area, but would not lead to significant effects on the landscape area as a whole.

6.13.4 The assessment concludes that the proposed development would not have a significant effect on the landscape character of any designated landscapes.

6.13.5 A detailed assessment of residential visual amenity was undertaken for all properties within a 2km radius (including Stubton and Brandon) and is included in full in Appendix 6.5, Volume 2. The assessment found that residents in half of the 143 dwellings within 2km would experience significant effects.

6.13.6 Significant visual effects would be limited to views from settlements up to a 5km to 6km radius of the proposed development. These comprise localised parts of Stubton, Brandon, Hough-on-the-Hill, Claypole, Caythorpe, Gelston and Dry Doddington, in addition to limited visibility from other settlements within a 6km radius including the residents of dispersed dwellings where clear visibility of the proposed turbines would be experienced within principal views. It is important to note that in the majority of cases visibility from settlement is restricted by local topography, tree cover and intervening buildings, limiting the potential for significant effects.

6.13.7 No significant effects were predicted on users of the main road routes, however significant effects were predicted on users of the local road network up to 5km- 6km of the proposal and it should be noted that views would be frequently filtered by tree cover, landform and built form. There were significant effects predicted on users of the East Coast Mainline over a 2km section of the route in close proximity to the proposal.

6.13.8 In terms of recreational routes, the assessment has noted the potential for significant effects in the views experienced by users of sections of the Viking Way and the local Public Rights of Way network at distances up to 6km of the proposed development extending up to 7km on high ground.

6.13.9 Overall it is concluded that significant cumulative landscape and visual effects will be localised in extent and limited, given the size of this five turbine wind farm proposal.

6.13.10 It should be noted that all on-shore wind farm developments lead to significant landscape and visual effects, and that significant effects are not necessarily unacceptable. The changes arising from a proposed development may engender positive or negative responses depending on individual perceptions

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 85 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

regarding the merits of wind energy development. The same project may be seen by some as attractive, acceptable and contributing to the well-being of the natural environment, while others may take a negative stance regarding the wind farm. The assessment has taken a precautionary approach in considering that all effects on the landscape and on views which would result from the construction and operation of the proposed development would be adverse, noting that not all people would consider the effects to be adverse and this may not be the case in every landscape situation.

6.13.11 The significant effects are reversible; the wind farm will be decommissioned at the end of the anticipated operational life of 25 years, the turbines will be dismantled and removed and the site fully restored.

Stephenson Halliday 6 - 86 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

7 ECOLOGY

7.1 INTRODUCTION

7.1.1 This chapter sets out the results of an assessment of likely significant ecological effects arising from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed five turbine wind farm (and associated infrastructure), on land at Temple Hill, between Grantham and Newark-on-Trent (hereafter referred to as the Development). The assessment has been prepared by the ecological consultancy BSG-Ecology.

7.1.2 Best practice methodology for the assessment of ecological impacts, as set out by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management1, has guided a structured approach to this ecological impact assessment. This has involved consultation, the identification of baseline conditions, an assessment of potential effects on key ecological resources within the Site and surrounding area, and identification of mitigation measures and monitoring requirements.

7.1.3 Supporting technical information (e.g. survey reports, figuresi) is included in Volume II of the Environmental Statement together with consultation correspondence. The following information is provided:

 Figure 7.1: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plan;

 Appendix 7.1: Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report. January 2012. Revision 1;

 Appendix 7.2: Bat Survey Report. January 2012. Revision 1;

 Appendix 7.3: Ecology Survey Report: Bats (additional survey) and Great Crested Newts. November 2012;

 Appendix 7.4a: Letter to Natural England Planning Consultation Service, 27 April 2012;

 Appendix 7.4b: Pre-application Scoping Enquiry response from Natural England;

 Appendix 7.4c: Correspondence with Lincolnshire Bat Group;

i Please note that plans in early reports (Appendices 7.1-3) are based on a previous, indicative turbine layout which varies slightly from the final layout considered in this assessment.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 Appendix 7.5: Data search.

7.2 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT

7.2.1 This chapter considers effects arising from the proposed development on a range of ecological receptors including key habitats and non-avian species. Impacts on birds are considered separately in the Ornithology chapter.

7.2.2 The chapter sets out the relevant legal and policy context; it then details the methodology in relation to consultation, desk study, field survey and impact assessment; it describes the baseline conditions, and then identifies and characterises potential impacts. Recommendations for mitigation are made and, taking these mitigation measures into account, residual impacts are identified and assessed.

7.3 TERMINOLOGY

7.3.1 Ecological impact assessment (EcIA) is the process of identifying, quantifying and evaluating the potential impacts of defined actions on ecosystems or their components.

7.3.2 The term mitigation is used within the report to describe means of overcoming or reducing impacts. The term has been categorised as follows:

 Avoidance: measures taken to avoid impacts which could have adverse effects, such as relocating the proposed Development and its working areas and access routes away from areas of high nature conservation interest;

 Reduction: measures taken to reduce impacts that could have adverse effects, such as modifications or additions to the design of the proposed Development, or changes in working practice.

7.3.3 In certain circumstances it may not be possible to fully mitigate an impact, either through avoidance or reduction to an acceptable level. In this situation it may be possible to address the impact through compensatory measures. In this report the term compensation is used to describe measures to off-set or make up for losses caused as a result of development or other change, including residual adverse effects, which cannot or may not be entirely mitigated.

7.3.4 Enhancement describes measures that provide additional ecological benefit above and beyond those identified as mitigation or compensation.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

7.3.5 In this chapter the term ‘significance’ is initially used to describe impact levels at different geographical scales, in accordance with the methodology described in guidance published by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) [1] (see Evaluation and Assessment Methodology Section below). Correspondingly all but the smallest of ecological impacts will have ‘significance’, but clearly an impact that is considered to have significance at a site level is very different to an impact with significance at the national level.

7.3.6 For the purposes of this assessment, it is considered that only ecological effects on receptors assessed at district level or above will be significant in relation to the EIA regulations.

7.4 GUIDANCE AND POLICY

Legislation and Planning Policy Context

7.4.1 This ecological impact assessment has been completed with regard to the requirements of and/or advice given by the following key documents.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

7.4.2 Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds (the “Birds Directive”) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the “Habitats Directive”) have both been adopted by the European Community. These Directives provide for the protection of animal and plant species of European importance and the habitats which support them, particularly through the establishment of a network of protected sites.

7.4.3 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (the “Habitats Regulations”3) translate the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive into UK law. The 2010 regulations consolidate the many amendments made to the original regulations dated 1994. The Habitats Regulations provide for the designation and protection of European Sites, the protection of European protected species and the adaptation of planning and other controls for the protection of European Sites within the UK.

7.4.4 Species protected under the Habitats Regulations relevant to this assessment include all British bats and great crested newt Triturus cristatus.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

7.4.5 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (the “NERC Act”4) came into force in October 2006. Section 40 of this Act places a duty on public bodies to have due regard for the conservation of biodiversity when exercising their functions (meaning the conservation of biodiversity is a material consideration in the planning process). Section 41 requires the Secretary of State to publish and maintain a list of habitats and species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England (sometimes referred to as the Section 41 list or S41 list). The Secretary of State must also take steps to further the conservation of these habitats and species and encourage others to do the same. The S41 list has been drawn up in consultation with Natural England and is largely based on the list of priority habitats and species derived from the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

7.4.6 Example species on the S41 list relevant to this assessment include the great crested newt and noctule bat Nyctalus noctula.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act and The Countryside and Rights of Way Act

7.4.7 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended (WCA6), implements the Convention of the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (The Bern Convention) and the Birds Directive in Great Britain. The WCA provides legal protection to all wild bird species (with certain exceptions) and to other species of wild animals (e.g. bat species and great crested newt) and plants as listed on various schedules of the Act.

7.4.8 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (the “CRoW Act” 7) primarily provides for public access on foot to areas of open land. However, it also strengthens the legal protection for species under the WCA and introduces a new offence relating to reckless disturbance of these species. The CRoW Act also provides increased powers for the protection and management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

7.4.9 The government published the NPPF8 on 27 March 2012. This document includes the Government’s national planning policy guidance on the protection of biodiversity.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

7.4.10 The NPPF recognises the need of the planning system to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, of which there are three dimensions: economic, social and environmental. The NPPF sets out the role that the planning system has to play in the protection of biodiversity in relation to the natural environment. The following section details the most relevant biodiversity guidance to the proposed Development.

7.4.11 Paragraph 109 states that “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

 protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;

 recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;

 minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures”.

7.4.12 Paragraph 113 states that: “Local planning authorities should set criteria-based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting protected wildlife or geodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged. Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites, so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological networks.”

7.4.13 Paragraph 118 states that “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

 If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

 development proposals where the primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be permitted;

 opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged”.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Government Circular 06/2005

7.4.14 The Government Circular 06/20059 remains valid despite the cancellation of the former Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) which it accompanied and which was replaced by the NPPF. Of relevance to this site, the circular advises that potential effects of a development on priority habitats or species (i.e. Habitats and Species of Principal Importance – see below) are capable of being a material consideration in the preparation of regional spatial strategies and local development documents and the making of planning decisions.

Species and Habitats of Principal Importance

7.4.15 The NPPF (paragraph 117) indicates that local authorities should take measures to “promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species” linking to national and local targets through local planning policies. These priority habitats and species (formally defined in the NPPF as species and habitats of principal importance) are those described on the England Biodiversity List published by the Secretary of State under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Planning authorities have a duty under Section 40 of the NERC Act to have regard to priority species and habitats in exercising their functions including development control and planning.

South Kesteven Local Development Framework

7.4.16 The Core Strategy Development Plan Document forms a key part of the Local Development Framework (LDF11). It provides the spatial policy framework for development and change in the district of South Kesteven. Core Strategy Policy EN1 - Protection and enhancement of the character of the district - is relevant to ecology.

7.4.17 Policy EN1 states that “Development must be appropriate to the character and significant natural ... attributes and features of the landscape within which it is situated, and contribute to its conservation, enhancement or restoration”; and that: “all development proposals and site allocations will be assessed in relation to biodiversity and ecological networks within the landscape”

7.4.18 This policy aims to ensure that natural features and biodiversity “are conserved and that the environment is protected and enhanced. It aims to make sure that

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

development within the District does not compromise the variety and distinctiveness of the existing biodiversity and wider environment.”

Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document

7.4.19 South Kesteven District Council adopted a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for wind farm developments12 in June 2013 and this includes sections on ecology and ornithology. This assessment is in line with the objectives of this document.

Nature Strategy for Greater Lincolnshire (Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan)

7.4.20 The Nature Strategy for Greater Lincolnshire, the Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)13, was first published in 2000 and reissued in 2011. The strategy identifies local priorities for biodiversity conservation. Habitats included in the strategy and relevant to this assessment include arable field margins, hedgerows and hedgerow trees, pond and drains. Species (or species groups) included in the plan and relevant to this assessment include bats (all species within county), newts (including great crested newt) and water vole.

Survey and Assessment Guidance

7.4.21 The following guidance documents are of particular relevance and have been referred to when gathering additional baseline data and carrying out the assessment:

 Bat Conservation Trust (2011) Surveying for onshore wind farms (Published 20 May 2011).ii14

 Hundt, L. (2012) Bat Surveys – Good practice Guidelines, 2nd Edition. Bat Conservation Trust.15

 English Nature (2001) Great crested newt mitigation guidelines.16

 IEEM (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. IEEM1

 JNCC (2010) (reprint) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey.17

ii This document was initially published in May 2011, in advance of the publication of Bat Surveys – Good practice Guidelines 2nd Edition (Hundt, L., 2012), within which it was included as a separate chapter.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 Natural England (2012) Bats and onshore wind turbines – interim guidance (Technical Information Note 051).18

 Strachan, R. et al (2011) Water Vole Conservation Handbook (Third Edition). Wildlife Conservation Research Unit.19

7.5 METHODOLOGY

Scoping of Potential Ecological Receptors

7.5.1 The construction and operation of wind turbines can affect wildlife habitats and species through disturbance, habitat loss and direct mortality (for example, in relation to bats, through collision with moving blades).

7.5.2 An initial review of potential ecological issues was carried out in April 2011 at the start of the project. This review involved consideration of the habitat structure within the Site and surrounding landscape from a review of the Ordnance Survey 1:25000 map and on-line aerial photographs (Google Earth), and a check of the on-line data sources (www.magic.gov.uk and www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk) for the presence of nearby sites designated for nature conservation reasons. This review, combined with consideration of relevant survey and assessment guidance, was used to identify possible ecological receptors and inform the initial approach to ecological survey. Subsequently, information obtained from the results of more in-depth desk study, from consultation and the results of on-going survey work, was used to refine the number of ecological receptors to be included in this assessment and hence the scope of the baseline survey work that was required.

7.5.3 The proposed Development site includes arable fields, hedgerows, ditches and small blocks of woodland. The proposed development will involve the construction of new tracks, crane pads and turbine plinths within arable fields. Where possible existing tracks and field entrances will be used to minimise impacts on hedgerows and the requirement for ditch crossings. Consideration of impacts in relation to these habitats has been included in this assessment. The preferred option for the proposed grid connection would be situated within the public road network, and is therefore unlikely to result in any significant ecological effects.

7.5.4 A small number of field ponds and waterbodies occur in the area surrounding the proposed development site. As great crested newts Triturus cristatus are a

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 8 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

mobile species, consideration has therefore been given to the potential for this species to occur within the Site. Ponds and other waterbodies which are distant from and poorly connected to the proposed development have been scoped out of the assessment.

7.5.5 The drains within the Site potentially provide suitable habitat for water vole Arvicola amphibius. Given that access tracks will need to cross ditches, a localised impact on ditch habitat will occur and therefore impacts on water vole have been considered in this assessment.

7.5.6 The potential for other widespread or commonly occurring species, including, for example, badgers, reptiles and brown hare, to occur within the Site and be affected by the proposed Development has also been considered within the assessment.

7.5.7 The two species groups identified as being of particular risk are birds and bats as their ability to fly means they have potential to enter the rotor swept zone (i.e. the airspace containing the wind turbine blades). The potential for bats to occur within the site has been evaluated and has been considered in detail in this chapter. Birds are considered separately in the Ornithology chapter.

7.5.8 Guidance on the assessment of potential impacts of wind turbines on bats (both individual bats and bat populations) is provided within a series of recent documents published by Natural England (NE)18 and the Bat Conservation Trust (BCT)15. The NE guidance indicates which bat species are likely to be at low, medium or high risk from wind turbines based on ecology and flight behaviour.

7.5.9 High risk species (both in terms of collision risk and population impact) comprise the following three bats: noctule Nyctalus noctula, Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri, and Nathusius’ pipistrelle Pipistrellus nathusii, Barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus and serotine Eptesicus serotinus are medium risk species in terms of both population impact and collision risk.

7.5.10 Both common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus and soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus are considered to be at medium risk of collision, but at low risk of population impact. All other bat species are considered to be at low risk of both collision and population impact.

7.5.11 Bats (as a species group) have therefore been identified as a key receptor to be included in this assessment. Particular emphasis has been put on detecting

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 9 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

species likely to be at high and medium risk of both collision and population impact.

Consultation

7.5.12 A scoping report was prepared in spring 2012. The report included a section on ecology which set out the proposed ecological survey and assessment methodologies and described the ecological receptors within the Site.

7.5.13 A letter was submitted to Natural England’s Planning Consultation Service on 27 April 2012 (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 7.4a). This letter set out the results of survey work carried out in 2011 and sought comments on the scope of further survey work that was proposed for 2012. In its reply (dated 18 May 2012) Natural England provided advice on the scope of the impact assessment and provided a series of references for further relevant information. No specific advice was provided about the scope of survey work that was proposed in 2012.

7.5.14 Lincolnshire Bat Group (LBG) was contacted on 27 April 2012 to inform the group about the proposed Development, the survey approach, and to request records of high and medium risk bat species and details of any significant roosts (e.g. hibernation or maternity roosts) in the local area that they are aware of. A response was received from LBG on 24 May 2012 (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 7.4c).

7.5.15 Responses to the scoping report were received from Natural England and the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and a response was provided by South Kesteven District Council on 25 May 2012.Table 7.1 provides a summary of the consultation:

Table 7.1 Consultation Summary

Consultee Consultation Consultation Response Response/ Request Action Taken SKDC Request for a Ecology - Site layout should The turbines are Scoping position turbines away from located at Opinion sensitive areas for protected appropriate species (e.g. waterbodies, distances from woodlands and hedgerows sensitive areas for which can provide flight lines protected species and foraging habitats for bats). (see Table 7.4)

Turbines and infrastructure The layout takes

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 10 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Consultee Consultation Consultation Response Response/ Request Action Taken works should be sited away from account of habitats of habitats of wildlife value such as wildlife value such as grassland and scrub. grassland and scrub.

The ES must contain adequate This EcIA provides ecological assessment of all an assessment of all likely impacts. likely significant effects.

Mitigation proposals must be Mitigation is outlined submitted. in this EcIA.

Bats – Mitigation should be A minimum 50m appropriate and proportionate to buffer is maintained the scale of impact identified. around habitat A 50m buffer should be features. maintained around any habitat features (such as trees and hedges) following NE guidance TIN051.

BCT survey guidance is also referred to.

Future monitoring – The ES Post-construction should include a strategy for monitoring is outlined post-construction monitoring of within this EcIA. bat mortality to ensure that the turbines are not adversely impact bat populations and that any mitigation is successful.

Enhancement - Nature Enhancements are conservation enhancements outlined and are should be clearly distinguished clearly distinguished from measure to mitigate or from measures to compensate harm. mitigate or

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 11 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Consultee Consultation Consultation Response Response/ Request Action Taken All efforts should be made to compensate harm. retain existing habitat of value and that enhancement is made for the benefit of wildlife.

It should be demonstrated that any habitat enhancements are appropriately sited so as not to increase collision risk to bats. Natural Request for Protected species - Ensure site The turbines are England comments on layout positions the turbines located at (08 May the scope of away from sensitive areas for appropriate 2012 further survey protected species; turbines and distances from Stephanie work that was infrastructure works should be sensitive areas for Jones) proposed for sited away from habitats of protected species 2012. wildlife value. (see Table 7.4).

Surveys will need to be Surveys are in line undertaken to ensure an with NE guidance. adequate ecological assessment of all likely impacts.

Mitigation proposals must be Mitigation is outlined submitted. in this EcIA.

Bats – mitigation which is A minimum 50m proportionate to the scale of buffer is maintained impact identified including a 50m around habitat buffer around any habitat feature features. (taking into account Natural England guidance - TIN051).

A strategy for future monitoring Post-construction is likely to be required to ensure monitoring is outlined turbines are not impacting bat within this EcIA. populations and that any mitigation is successful.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 12 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Consultee Consultation Consultation Response Response/ Request Action Taken

Enhancement – nature Enhancements are conservation enhancements outlined and are should be clearly distinguished clearly distinguished from measures to mitigate or from measures to compensate harm. All efforts mitigate or should be made to retain compensate harm. existing habitat of value and that enhancement is made for the benefit of wildlife.

Lincoln - Request for The area is poorly recorded – Records will be shire Bat records of high there are few bat records. LBG made available Group and medium would be grateful to receive any through the ES and risk bat records. supporting species and No significant concerns raised. documents. details of any significant roosts in the local area. Lincoln - Request for a Satisfied that the key ecological Cumulative impacts shire Scoping issues have been identified and considered. Wildlife Opinion that the survey effort for bats Trust appears to meet the current guidance from Natural England and BCT.

Cumulative effects should be addressed within the EIA.

In terms of enhancement, Enhancement will consideration should be given to include new hedgerow planting, ditch hedgerow, scrub and enhancements, species rich grassland creation. grassland and pond creation. Features have been Any habitat enhancement would sited away from need to be appropriately sited so turbines to avoid risk

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 13 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Consultee Consultation Consultation Response Response/ Request Action Taken as not to risk collision risk to to bats and birds. bats and birds.

Baseline Data Collection

7.5.16 All baseline data collection was carried out by BSG Ecology.

Desk Study

7.5.17 The following information was requested from the Lincolnshire Environmental Records Centre during a data trawl carried out in 2011:

 The presence of designated nature conservation sites such as statutory Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) within a 2km radius from the centre of the Site;

 Records of bats within a 10km radius from the centre of the Site;

 Records of any other commonly encountered protected or notable species or habitats within a 2km radius from the centre of the Site.

7.5.18 The results of the data trawl were supplied on 10 June 2011. Although more than a year has elapsed since the data request was submitted, the results are still considered to remain valid. The results of this data trawl are presented within Appendix 7.5 and summarised below in the section which describes Baseline Conditions.

7.5.19 Natural England’s Nature on the Map website was checked on 01 June 2011 for the presence of statutorily designated nature conservation sites within the surrounding area (up to approximately 10km from the Site boundary), and sites specifically designated for bats within 20km of the Site. This website was rechecked 21 October 2012.

7.5.20 As stated above, bat records were requested from the Lincolnshire Bat Group. In their response dated 24 May 2012 (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 7.4c) the Group confirmed that it held no additional data to that provided by the Lincolnshire Environmental Records Centre

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 14 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

7.5.21 BSG Ecology undertook an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the Site during three separate visits during May and June 2011.

7.5.22 During this survey the Site was walked over and the habitats present were described and mapped using the standard notation described by the JNCC (JNCC, 2010)17. A habitat map was prepared that showed the location and extent of the different habitats identified during this survey. Any ecological features of interest were recorded and referenced on the habitat map using a series of target notes.

7.5.23 Habitats were assessed for their suitability to support protected species and any other notable species or groups. Signs indicating the presence of badger Meles meles were searched for and habitats were assessed for their suitability to support nesting birds, amphibians and reptiles. Buildings and trees within the proposed development areas were assessed from ground level for their potential to support roosting bats. Whilst particular attention was paid to the presence or likely presence of the above species, consideration was also given to the possible presence of other protected and notable species, for example brown hare.

Great Crested Newt Survey

7.5.24 A great crested newt Triturus cristatus Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment was carried out for a field pond and a larger waterbody (a fishing pond) immediately to the north of the Site.

7.5.25 The small field pond (at SK 8954 4755) is in an area of scrub adjacent to the existing byway (Public Restricted Byway 22). The waterbody (at SK 891 477), which is used for fishing, is also to the north of the Byway and is surrounded by trees and mature scrub. The field pond was assessed in August 2011; the waterbody (fishing pond) was assessed in March 2012.

7.5.26 The great crested newt HSI is a quantitative measure of habitat quality specifically for this species, and is based on research carried out in the English Midlands (Oldham et al, 2000)20. The HSI gives a score between 0 and 1, derived from an assessment of ten habitat variables known to influence the presence of newts. Scores closer to 1 are likely to provide optimal habitat for great crested newts; lower scores, particularly those below 0.4, indicate poor

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 15 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

habitat and a low probability of occurrence. The scores are indicative and in isolation they cannot be relied upon as an indicator of presence or absence.

7.5.27 Following the HSI assessment, the field pond (HSI score 0.56)iii was subject to a presence/likely absence survey for great crested newt, which followed Natural England guidance16. This involved four survey visits in April and May 2012. The survey methodology involved bottle trapping, egg searching and torching. Following the HSI assessment (HSI score 0.46), and through consideration of its ecological characteristics, the waterbody (the fishing pond) was considered unlikely to support great crested newt and was not subject to further survey.

Bat Survey

7.5.28 A range of bat survey work has been undertaken over a two year period between April 2011 and October 2012. The detailed results of the survey are presented in Volume 3, Appendix 7.3.

7.5.29 Since wind turbines have potential to give rise to a detrimental effect on some bat species, key objectives of the survey were to:

 determine the assemblage of bat species using the Site, noting high, medium and low risk species groups (as defined in NE18);

 establish patterns of bat activity across the Site (including the identification of roosts, feeding areas and commuting routes);

 investigate the use of the Site by bats throughout the year (April-October);

 identify any potential impact on bats in relation to the proposed Development and, where appropriate, make recommendations for any further survey work likely to be required and suggestions for mitigation.

7.5.30 The survey approach has been designed to take into account guidance produced by NE18 and the BCT14; this guidance was referred to in the scoping responses from responses provided by NE and SKDC.

7.5.31 The BCT guidance sets out a recommended survey approach for low, medium and high risk sites (risk being determined by considering the species present, habitat types and connectivity, roost presence etc). Following an initial desk- based assessment of the Site’s possible value for bats (which involved

iii Further information relating to the HSI assessment is discussed in Section 7.6 – Baseline Conditions.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 16 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

considering the value of habitats within the Site and in the surrounding landscape), and through adopting a precautionary approach, the survey in 2011 was designed to meet the requirements for a medium risk site. Additional survey work was carried out in 2012 to provide further data in relation to noctule activity, to survey trees for evidence of roosts, and to monitor bat activity at height.

7.5.32 The survey methods employed were:

 Monthly walked transects between April and September 2011;

 Deployment of remote bat detectors throughout the Site between May and October 2011 and in April 2012;

 Point count surveys for noctule bats (five survey visits were carried out between July and September 2012, targeting areas where noctule bats were recorded during the previous survey work);

 At-height survey using remote detectors installed on the met mast, one at ground level and one at a height of 60m;

 Roost survey: Assessment of all trees within the Site and the aerial survey of all trees identified as having bat potential to search for evidence of use by roosting bats.

Walked Transect Bat Surveys

7.5.33 To allow representative examples of each habitat type throughout the Site to be covered during the two hour period after sunset, the Site was divided into two overlapping survey areas, each being covered by a separate transect route. Transect 1 covered the central and eastern parts of the Site; Transect 2 covered the central and western parts of the Site. Each route was walked once each month between April and September 2011. The starting point and the direction that each transect was walked varied between visits to ensure that different areas of the Site were sampled at different times. Regular stopping points were integrated into the transects to sample both suitable bat foraging and commuting habitats and also more open habitats (e.g. open arable fields) within the Site. The transect routes are shown in Volume 3, Appendix 7.3, Plan iii.

Remote Bat Survey

7.5.34 The use of remote (static) bat detectors enables data to be gathered continuously over multiple nights during the period between dusk and dawn. Their use can help to identify the presence of species present at low frequency,

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 17 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

provide additional data to support the findings of the walked transects, and provide data on the time of activity throughout the night.

7.5.35 Anabat detectors were used to assess bat activity at twelve fixed points within the Site. Six of these fixed points coincided with proposed wind turbine locations. The remaining fixed points sampled nearby corresponding habitat features which were considered to provide suitable foraging or commuting habitats for bats (e.g. hedgerows, vegetated ditches etc). The fixed monitoring points are shown on plan in Appendix 7.2.

7.5.36 The monitoring of these habitat features provides comparative information on the relative importance of the habitats at the proposed turbine locations within the Site. This approach to sampling increases the probability of detecting all bat species using the Site.

7.5.37 With the exception of one detector location (1b), each sample point was surveyed for a period of between 46 and 56 nights between May and October 2011. Survey at location 1b was temporarily interrupted in late September/early October 2011 due to damage to the detector during deployment. In total, location 1b was sampled for a total of 36 nights in 2011 and thus, in spite of this brief interruption, the survey period exceeded the minimum recommended number of nights set out in the BCT guidance.

7.5.38 After recording for a block of several days detectors were rotated between sample points to ensure each point was surveyed several times throughout the survey period. The sampling approach that was adopted was designed to accommodate farming operations; for example, surveys were temporarily suspended for a period in July 2011 during harvesting activities.

7.5.39 Further remote survey was carried out in April 2012 to provide data for the early part of the survey season, which was missed in 2011. Eight fixed points were monitored in April 2012 corresponding to four turbine locations and adjacent boundary features.

7.5.40 Although the positions of individual turbines have changed slightly since the remote survey was carried out, the remote survey locations have sampled activity within representative habitats throughout the Site in areas close to the final turbine positions. Consequently the data gathered is considered to be appropriate for the assessment.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 18 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

7.5.41 All bat calls recorded on the Anabat detectors were analysed using “Analook” software to confirm the species of bats encountered during the surveys. Wherever possible the calls were identified to species level.

7.5.42 One limitation when interpreting remote bat detector data is that it is very difficult to assess population size from the information collected. For example, many bat calls recorded by the detector may either have been produced by a single bat flying back and forth past the detector, or by many bats flying past on a single occasion. For this reason the data provided by the remote bat detectors are presented as a number of bat passes per unit time, which provides a relative measure of bat activity at different locations.

At-height Bat Survey

7.5.43 An 80m meteorological mast (met mast) was erected within the Site in December 2011 at OS grid reference SK 894 470, which is close to the proposed location for Turbine 3. Remote detector microphones (Anabat) were attached to the mast at a point on the tower 60m above ground level, before the mast was raised. An Anabat microphone was also attached to the mast at ground level. Bat activity was surveyed between April and October 2012. Typically 2-3 weeks’ of data were collected each month by the Anabat detectors.

7.5.44 As with the transect surveys, all bat calls recorded were Analysed using “Analook” software to confirm the species of bats encountered during the surveys.

Survey for Bat Roosts

7.5.45 During the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey six trees were identified within the Site (and within 250m of the proposed nearest turbine) which, from an initial ground-based assessment, were considered to have potential to support roosting bats (for example, they supported features such as woodpecker holes, hollow branches and flaking bark). The one building within the Site during the survey work, an open metal-framed agricultural barn, does not provide any roosting opportunities for bats. This barn has since been demolished.

7.5.46 Four of the trees identified as having bat roost potential were climbed and thoroughly inspected by a licenced bat surveyor to confirm the suitability of any gaps or voids and to search for evidence of bat roosts. The remaining two trees were in poor condition and, assessed as being too unsafe to climb, both trees

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 19 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

were therefore subject to: a) a further ground-based inspection using a high- powered torch and binoculars to provide a more detailed assessment of cavities, and b) a bat emergence survey in August 2012. The location of these trees is shown on plan (iv) Appendix 7.3.

Noctule Point Count Survey

7.5.47 The remote survey work carried out in 2011 recorded noctule Nyctalus noctula activity within the Site. Noctule activity was highest at three sample points (2a, 2b and 6b), which were located in relatively close proximity to two waterbodies just outside the Site boundary.

7.5.48 Further survey work, in the form of a point count survey, was carried out in July, August and September 2012 to observe noctule bat behaviour within the Site. The aim of this survey was to visually observe noctule bats, to determine more precisely the numbers of noctule bats using the Site and to observe flight lines and patterns of behaviour.

7.5.49 Five survey visits were carried out: one in July, two in August and two in September 2012. Nights where suitable weather conditions were forecast were selected to maximise the likelihood of encountering bat activity. Each survey targeted areas 2a, 2b (near the proposed location of Turbine 2) and 6b (the west boundary hedgerow, near the large waterbody to the west). Subsidiary point count survey positions near the proposed locations of Turbine 1 and Turbine 4 were also used during two survey visits in order to provide further information in relation to noctule flight lines between areas 2a/2b and 6b.

Water Vole Survey at Ditch Crossing Points

7.5.50 During the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey the ditches within the Site were surveyed for water vole. Further checks were made in 2012 in relation to proposed ditch crossing points (once the locations had been confirmed) to recheck and update the results of previous survey.

Evaluation and Assessment Methodology

7.5.51 The assessment methodology for this chapter is based on the “Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment” prepared by IEEM 1. The objective of the Guidelines is to promote a scientifically rigorous and transparent approach to Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA), as a key component of Environmental

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 20 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Impact Assessment (EIA). The Guidelines comprise advice on best practice in various key areas of EcIA:

 Identifying and evaluating ecological receptors;

 Characterising and quantifying effects and assessing their significance; and

 Minimising adverse effects and maximising benefits through the scheme design process.

7.5.52 The IEEM Guidelines recognise that ecological evaluation is a ‘complex and subjective process’ but describes key considerations that should be taken into account when ‘applying professional judgement to assign values to ecological features and resources’. These include consideration of:

 a geographic frame of reference;

 site designations and features;

 biodiversity value;

 large populations or important assemblages of species;

 potential value, secondary or supporting value; and

 social/community value and economic value.

7.5.53 In order to determine the potential for ecological effects and their significance, a standard process is used to assess each ecological receptor. This process consists of the following steps:

 evaluate receptors to geographical scale;

 identify ecological effects;

 determine confidence in ecological effects;

 determine significance of effects; and

 determine confidence in significance assessment.

7.5.54 These steps are described in detail below.

Evaluation

7.5.55 A key consideration in assessing the effects of a development is to define the habitats and species that should be considered as part of a detailed assessment. It is impractical to consider every species and habitat that may be affected and it is necessary to focus on ecological receptors of higher value. The

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 21 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

IEEM guidance describes setting a threshold value and that effort must be focussed on those features or resources that are sufficiently important to merit more detailed consideration.

7.5.56 In order to evaluate the importance of ecological receptors identified in the desk study and field surveys against a geographical scale, a set of standard measures are outlined in the guidance produced by IEEM. An evaluation of relative importance is determined using a geographical frame of reference as follows:

 International;

 UK;

 National (i.e. England);

 Regional (i.e. East Midlands);

 County (i.e. Lincolnshire);

 District (i.e. South Kesteven);

 Local/Parish (i.e. Hough-on-the-Hill); or

 Site - within immediate zone of influence only (i.e. those areas of land directly affected by the proposals within the proposed Site).

7.5.57 Available guidance or formal criteria are used to assess the value of ecological receptors where appropriate. Those relevant to this assessment include:

 The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (Priority Habitat Descriptions)5;

 The Nature Strategy for Greater Lincolnshire (The Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan)13;

 Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs (JNCC, 1989)21;

 The Trent Valley & Rises Natural Area Profile22.

7.5.58 For example, the Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs and UK BAP (Priority Habitat Descriptions) can be used to determine value at the national level whilst the Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan gives context at the county level. The Trent Valley & Rises Natural Area profile gives a basis for ‘typicality’ (i.e. whether habitats or features are typical of the surrounding area). The criteria are only used in this document to set the value of a feature in the geographical context laid out above.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 22 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Identification of Ecological Effects

7.5.59 Potential effects on ecological receptors are identified using the principle of cause and effect. In this case the ‘cause’ is related to aspects of development during the various phases of the proposed Development, i.e. construction, operation and decommissioning. This can include development activities (e.g. site clearance), design features (e.g. turbine height and cut-in speed) or on- going management practices (e.g. the surrounding land-use) among others. Consideration is given to development design evolution aimed at avoiding or reducing ecological effects that have been discussed or raised with the project team or relevant stakeholders.

Identification of Ecological Impacts (including assigning significance)

7.5.60 Once potential ecological effects have been identified, any resulting impacts on ecological receptors (e.g. a reduction or increase in population size) can be assessed.

7.5.61 Such impacts may be direct (e.g. habitat loss) or indirect (e.g. displacement of animals from disturbance) and could occur in one or more of the construction, operation or decommissioning phases of the development. The nature of each impact is characterised with reference (as appropriate) to the following factors:

 Direction (positive, negative or neutral);

 Magnitude (i.e. the ‘size’ or ‘amount’ of an impact which is quantified where possible);

 Extent (area in hectares, linear metres, etc);

 Duration (in time or related to species life-cycles);

 Reversibility (i.e. is the effect permanent or temporary);

 Timing and frequency (e.g., related to breeding seasons).

7.5.62 The significance of an impact is derived from a combination of the nature of the impact (as characterised with reference to the above factors) and the value of the receptor. In line with IEEM guidance, an ecologically significant impact is defined as an impact (negative or positive) on the integrity of a defined site or ecosystem and/or the conservation status of habitats and species within a given geographical area.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 23 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

7.5.63 The integrity of a site or ecosystem is defined as the coherence of its ecological structure and function. To maintain the integrity of a site or ecosystem, the features for which it was classified or those which are characteristic must be maintained.

7.5.64 Conservation status of habitats and species is defined by IEEM based on a modification of the definition provided within the EC Habitats Directive. As set out in the introduction section, specific bird and bat species are of key relevance to this assessment, rather than habitat types. The IEEM definition of the conservation status of species is as follows:

“For species conservation status is determined by the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its populations within a given geographical area.”

7.5.65 For the purposes of this assessment, it is considered likely that only ecological effects on receptors assessed at district level or above will be significant in relation to the EIA regulations.

Determining Confidence

7.5.66 Levels of confidence are assigned to indicate the likelihood that a predicted effect on an ecological receptor will occur as a result of the development. The IEEM guidance suggests using the following four-point scale to identify the levels of confidence; this is primarily arrived at using professional judgement (based on experience, knowledge of species behaviour and published research):

 Certain/High (probability estimated at 95% chance or higher);

 Probable/Moderate (probability estimated at >50% but <95%);

 Unlikely/Low (probability estimated at >5% but <50%; and

 Extremely unlikely/Negligible (probability estimated at <5%).

7.6 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Desk Study

Designated Sites

7.6.1 There are no designated nature conservation sites within the Site boundary. No records of statutory or non-statutory designated nature conservation sites were

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 24 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

provided by Lincolnshire Environmental Records Centre for the 2km search radius around the Site. The nearest SSSI, Honington Camp (a calcareous grassland), is 6.5km to the south-east of the Site. Further grassland SSSIs are present around the village of Ancaster approximately 8km to the east of the Site.

7.6.2 There are no statutorily designated sites (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)) or Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) within 20km of the Site which have been designated for their importance to bats.

7.6.3 More distant designated sites which are of importance for bats include Withcall and South Willingham Tunnels SSSI, which is an important Lincolnshire hibernation site for bats approximately 50km to the north-west; and Chambers Farm Wood, which is part of the Bardney Limewoods SSSI approximately 35km to the north, and which supports a barbastelle maternity roost (FC press release)23.

Species Records

Lincolnshire Environmental Records Centre (LERC)

7.6.4 In total, 326 records relating to at least seven bat species were returned by LERC for the 10km search area. None of the records obtained relates directly to the Site. The nearest records are from the village of Brandon, approximately 1km to the north of the Site, where a brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus roost has been recorded (although the exact location is not specified). In addition, common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus bat roosts have been recorded in Hough-on-the-Hill, which is located approximately 2km to the east of the Site. Few records were returned of species considered to be at risk from wind farm developments: only a small number of noctule Nyctalus noctula records were provided and none relate to roosts. Further detail is summarised in Appendix 7.3.

7.6.5 Very few records of other protected species were obtained during the data trawl. A record of water vole, dating from 1977, was returned from within the 2km search area. The exact location of the record is not specified: the grid reference of the record is within the 10x10km square SK 84, which includes numerous watercourses and waterbodies, (including a very large number of field drains, streams, ponds and the River Witham) which means that the likelihood of the record being from within the Site is very low. Further details are summarised in Appendix 7.3.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 25 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Lincolnshire Bat Group

7.6.6 Information was obtained from Lincolnshire Bat Group in May 2012. This stated that the local area is poorly recorded, and that the data they hold is the same as that held by LERC with one exception, a barbastelle fly past recorded at Hough- on-the-Hill churchyard (SK923464) in July 2009. Further details are set out in Appendix 7.3.

Site Description and Evaluation

Habitats

7.6.7 The Site contains eight large arable fields. The edges of the majority of fields support sown grass margins. Most of the field boundaries are formed by hedgerows, some of which are adjacent to ditches; the remaining field boundaries are formed by drains and farm tracks.

7.6.8 The hedgerows within the Site vary in character. For example, some of the boundary hedgerows are tall, subject to less regular management, and contain numerous small trees and occasional mature trees. The hedgerows forming internal field boundaries within the Site generally contain fewer trees and appear to be more regularly cut, having a more uniform structure and height. Planting has taken place to reinforce a number of hedgerows over recent years.

7.6.9 The hedgerows within the Site are typically dominated by hawthorn Crataegus monogyna and blackthorn Prunus spinosa. Hedgerow trees are primarily pedunculate oak Quercus robur and ash Fraxinus excelsior.

7.6.10 Three drains are present within the Site. One of these forms the west site boundary; two are located within the centre of the Site. The drains are typically in a north-south orientation; water within the drains flows northwards through the Site.

7.6.11 The drain which forms the west site boundary runs adjacent to a mature, tree- lined hedgerow. The drains in the centre of the Site are not associated with hedgerows; the ditch banks are typically vegetated by coarse grassland which grades into the grass arable field margins.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 26 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Great Crested Newt

7.6.12 There are no ponds within the site boundary which could provide suitable breeding sites for great crested newt. The ditches either support flowing water or are normally dry and thus are considered to be unsuitable for this species.

7.6.13 A small field pond (at SK 8954 4755) immediately to the north of the Site provides a potentially suitable breeding pond for great crested newts. The margins of the pond are densely vegetated; only a small area of open water is present in the centre of the pond. The HSI score for this pond is 0.56, which is considered to be ‘below average’ for great crested newts (ARG, 2010)24.

7.6.14 No great crested newts were recorded from the field pond during the presence/absence survey carried out in spring 2012. Common frog Rana temporaria was recorded in small numbers but no other amphibian species were recorded.

7.6.15 The waterbody (fishing pond) to the north of the Site (at SK 891 477) is large (approximately 3,500m2), with emergent vegetation, primarily common reed Phragmites australis and bulrush Typha latifolia, around the margins; great willowherb Epilobium hirsutum is occasionally present. The waterbody is surrounded by scrubby woodland. Water lilies are present around the south margin: few other aquatic plants are present. The waterbody is used as a fishery and appears to have been specifically created for this purpose. The water is turbid and green algae are present around its margins. The HSI score for this waterbody is 0.46, which is considered to be ‘poor’ for great crested newts (ARG, 2010)24. Following the HSI assessment, and taking into account the fact that the waterbody supports a fishery, its turbid conditions and its comparatively large size, it is considered to be unsuitable for great crested newt and was not subject to further survey.

7.6.16 The waterbody to the west of the Site (SK 883 474) was not surveyed due to access constraints. This large waterbody is approximately 6100m2 and is separated from the Site by a drain/stream and is separated from the proposed working areas (in arable fields) by over 300m of arable land. Given its large size it does not appear to offer an optimal breeding habitat for great crested newt, but notwithstanding this, the separation distance and the presence of arable land and a watercourse means that it is very unlikely that great crested newts

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 27 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

would commute onto the development site from this location (if it is assumed that this species is present).

7.6.17 The two field ponds (at SK 8291 4656 and SK 8879 4631) and waterbody (SK 8896 4638) further to the south of the Site are considered to be sufficiently distant (460m, 800m and 550m respectively) and poorly connected to the proposed development area, to allow them to be scoped out of the impact assessment. None of these features is likely to be subject to either direct or indirect impacts as a result of the proposed development.

7.6.18 Potentially terrestrial habitat suitable for great crested newt is present within the Site, primarily in the form of hedgerows, ditches and small blocks of woodland. The majority of the Site, which supports intensively managed arable fields, is assessed as offering sub-optimal/unsuitable terrestrial habitats for great crested newt.

Bats

Walked Transects

7.6.19 Levels of bat activity encountered during the walked transect surveys were generally low. Virtually all bat activity recorded was associated with field boundary features (hedgerows and ditches) and small woodland blocks. Very little activity was recorded in open areas of the Site (i.e. the open arable fields).

7.6.20 The overwhelming majority of bats encountered (over 80%) were foraging common pipistrelle bats. Soprano pipistrelle bats were also regularly recorded but in lower numbers. These two species accounted for over >90% of the passes recorded.

7.6.21 Myotis sp. bats were recorded infrequently: fourteen passes were recorded throughout the entire survey period.

7.6.22 Noctule was recorded very infrequently: only six passes were recorded, all on the same visit. No noctule bats were recorded during any other of the transect surveys.

7.6.23 Small numbers of barbastelle passes were recorded during four of the survey visits. In total, 10 passes were recorded. Records were made in several different parts of the Site, all close to hedgerows.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 28 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Remote Detectors

7.6.24 The cumulative static survey effort amounted to 657 nights and approximately 5,960hrs of survey. During this period over 18,200 bat passes were recorded.

7.6.25 In common with the transect survey, the overwhelming majority of calls recorded originated from either common pipistrelle or, to a lesser extent, soprano pipistrelle bats. A smaller number of recorded calls were from Myotis bats, barbastelle, noctule and brown long-eared bat. Passes from Nathusius’ pipistrelle and possibly also Leisler’s bat (the identity could not be confirmed due to the quality of the recording) were also recorded, although the number of passes recorded was extremely low for both species.

7.6.26 Noctule was recorded throughout the survey period. On many nights single or very few passes were recorded, and frequently no noctule passes were recorded at all. Occasionally higher numbers of passes were recorded (e.g. 60 passes were recorded on eve of 2 July 2011 at locations 2a and 2b, representing the highest level of activity recorded within the Site). A high proportion of the calls were recorded at three monitoring locations, all in relatively close proximity to water bodies; it is therefore possible that these habitat features may attract foraging noctule bats to the Site. Away from these three locations far fewer noctule calls were recorded and the rest of the Site appears to provide limited foraging habitat for this species.

7.6.27 Following analysis of the data recorded in 2011, when it was suspected that the passes recorded were likely to be from as few as one or two noctule bats, further survey work was recommended. Additional surveys were subsequently carried out (noctule point count surveys – see below) to provide additional information on bat numbers and behaviour.

7.6.28 Analysis of the calls recorded found that some of the noctule passes had been recorded shortly after sunset, i.e. at about the time when roost emergence might be expected. This suggests that a roost is likely to be present within the surrounding area.

7.6.29 Nathusius’ pipistrelle was recorded extremely infrequently: only nine passes with definitively recognisable call characteristics were recorded during the remote survey. All passes were recorded well into the night; none were close to either sunset or dawn and, therefore, are unlikely to indicate the presence of a nearby roost. The number of passes does not suggest regular use of the Site by

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 29 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

this species; rather it suggests the Site is used extremely infrequently, possibly by just one bat.

7.6.30 Barbastelle bat passes were recorded throughout the remote survey period. The level of activity was very low (173 passes in 657 nights). On the majority of nights single or very low numbers of passes were recorded and there were numerous nights where no passes were recorded at all. The majority of passes (95%) were recorded close to boundary features. The overwhelming majority of passes (77%) were from one location: the mature hedgerow which forms the west boundary of the Site. Few passes were recorded from other areas of the Site.

7.6.31 Few barbastelle passes (10) were within one hour of sunset. These few early passes may suggest the presence of a roost in the local area however, because foraging opportunities appear to be quite limited within the surrounding landscape, rapid direct commuting flights from roosts to foraging areas might reasonably expected to occur, and a bat may have commuted a long way before it reaches the Site. Although the surrounding landscape is not well-wooded there are a number of small woodlands within the surrounding area (within 5km of the Site), which may provide roosting opportunities for barbastelle.

7.6.32 Common pipistrelle and, to a lesser extent, soprano pipistrelle were the most frequently encountered species within the Site. Both species have been recorded throughout the survey season in various areas of the Site, particularly foraging along hedgerows, ditches and along woodland edge habitats. Comparatively few passes (c. 5%) were recorded in open areas of the Site, and very little pipistrelle activity was observed away from boundary features.

7.6.33 Only a very small proportion of passes recorded were within 30 minutes of sunset, i.e. close to roost emergence time. Even fewer passes were recorded close to dawn. These data do not suggest that a regularly used roost is present within the Site, although the small number of early records may indicate that small numbers of bats occasionally roost within the Site, for example within mature trees. The majority of passes recorded (over 90%) are over an hour after sunset and indicate that the Site is regularly used by foraging pipistrelle bats that probably roost outside the Site.

7.6.34 Passes from Myotis bats were recorded throughout the Site (c. 10% of all passes recorded) particularly foraging along hedgerows, ditches and along

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 30 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

woodland edge habitats. Very few of the passes recorded were from open areas. The west boundary hedgerow was the most frequently used part of the Site.

7.6.35 Myotis species cannot be reliably identified on call data alone. However, given the habitats present and the geographical location of the Site, the Myotis species which could use the Site are most likely to be Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentonii, Natterer’s bat M. nattereri, whiskered M. mystacinus or Brandt’s M. brandtii bats.

7.6.36 Passes from brown long-eared bats were recorded throughout the Site, but the level of activity recorded was low. This species has quiet calls and is difficult to detect and the results may therefore underestimate the frequency of this species within the Site.

Comparison of bat activity levels

7.6.37 The data gathered during the remote survey was analysed to allow bat activity levels in different areas of the Site to be compared. The total number of passes per survey location is presented in the first two tables below. In the subsequent tables relative activity levels, expressed in terms of bat passes per night (B/n), are summarised. Further detail and analysis is included in the bat survey report (Appendix 7.3).

Table 7.2a – Total number of passes by sample location (May-October 2011; April 2012)

Species 1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b Barbastelle 0 5 1 0 1 12 Barbastelle –query 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brown long-eared bat 2 6 7 15 2 13 Myotis sp./Brown long- eared bat 3 4 4 5 1 2 Myotis sp. 17 28 18 52 23 84 Noctule 32 25 203 204 8 15 Nyctalus sp. 1 0 0 0 2 1 Serotine-Leisler’s 0 0 0 0 0 1 Pipistrelle (40kHz) 3 5 6 8 12 48 Pipistrelle (45kHz) 71 336 66 851 107 1702 Pipistrelle (50kHz) 5 15 1 15 6 17 Pipistrelle (55kHz) 16 42 8 36 11 41

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 31 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Species 1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b Nathusius’ pipistrelle 1 0 1 1 1 0 Total 151 466 316 1187 174 1936

Table 7.2b – Number of passes by sample location (May-October 2011; April 2012)

Species 4a 4b 5a 5b 6a 6b Total Barbastelle 6 6 0 9 0 133 173 Barbastelle -query 2 0 0 1 1 3 7 Brown long-eared bat 14 17 5 9 6 24 120 Myotis sp./Brown long- eared bat 1 2 0 0 1 5 28 Myotis sp. 35 98 22 49 16 1479 1921 Noctule 8 17 39 43 53 299 946 Nyctalus sp. 2 1 2 3 1 3 16 Serotine-Leisler’s 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Pipistrelle (40kHz) 4 14 2 5 19 100 226 Pipistrelle (45kHz) 183 2038 76 449 163 6813 12855 Pipistrelle (50kHz) 6 39 6 13 8 127 258 Pipistrelle (55kHz) 27 396 19 48 9 1020 1673 Nathusius’ pipistrelle 2 2 0 0 0 1 9 Total 291 2631 171 629 279 10007 18238

Table 7.3a – Comparison of bat activity levels (B/n) between sample locations; (a) turbine/open field locations; (b) corresponding boundary features (May- October 2011; April 2012)

Species 1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b Barbastelle 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.21 Barbastelle -query 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Brown long-eared bat 0.04 0.11 0.13 0.27 0.04 0.23 Myotis sp./Brown long- eared bat 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.04 Myotis sp. 0.30 0.50 0.32 0.93 0.41 1.50 Noctule 0.57 0.45 3.63 3.64 0.14 0.27 Nyctalus sp. 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 Serotine-Leisler’s 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Pipistrelle (40kHz) 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.21 0.86 Pipistrelle (45kHz) 1.27 6.00 1.18 15.20 1.91 30.39 Pipistrelle (50kHz) 0.09 0.27 0.02 0.27 0.11 0.30

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 32 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Species 1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b Pipistrelle (55kHz) 0.29 0.75 0.14 0.64 0.20 0.73 Nathusius’ pipistrelle 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 B/n All species 2.70 10.59 5.43 20.47 3.05 33.96

Table 7.3b – Comparison of bat activity levels (B/n) between sample locations; (a) turbine/open field locations; (b) corresponding boundary features.

Species 4a 4b 5a 5b 6a 6b Barbastelle 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.16 0.00 2.38 Barbastelle -query 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.05 Brown long-eared bat 0.25 0.30 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.43 Myotis sp./Brown long-eared bat 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.09 Myotis sp. 0.63 1.75 0.39 0.88 0.29 26.41 Noctule 0.14 0.30 0.70 0.77 0.95 5.34 Nyctalus sp. 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.05 Serotine-Leisler’s 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pipistrelle (40kHz) 0.07 0.25 0.04 0.09 0.34 1.79 Pipistrelle (45kHz) 3.27 36.39 1.36 8.02 2.91 121.66 Pipistrelle (50kHz) 0.11 0.70 0.11 0.23 0.14 2.27 Pipistrelle (55kHz) 0.48 7.07 0.34 0.86 0.16 18.21 Nathusius’ pipistrelle 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 B/n All species 5.47 49.64 2.80 11.87 5.23 185.31

Noctule Point Count Survey

7.6.38 The point count surveys were timed to coincide with good foraging weather (warm, dry conditions with low wind speeds), thus maximising the chance of recording bat activity. Noctule bats were recorded on every point count survey visit. The majority of activity recorded was from small numbers (1-3) of bats repeatedly foraging over the waterbodies and the habitats directly adjacent to the waterbodies (e.g. hedgerows, scrub and mature trees).

7.6.39 The same individual bats were recorded moving between Point 6b and Point 2a/b. There appeared to be a flight path between the two waterbodies which broadly followed intermittent patches of woodland and hedgerows but which also crossed open areas of the Site. The flight path passed close to the position of Turbine 2, but did not pass close to any other turbine locations.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 33 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

7.6.40 Noctule bats were recorded using this path on three of the five survey visits. During two visits bats foraging close to Point 6b moved along this route towards Point 2a/b. On one visit (8 August 2012), after foraging for several minutes, two bats left Point 6b in succession and flew separately along this flight path towards Point 2a/b. On 23 August two bats flew separately from Point 6b to Point 2a/b. On 6 September one bat was recorded flying along this route in the opposite direction.

7.6.41 A second flight path appears to broadly follow the hedgerow which forms the west boundary of the Site, moving southwards through the Site. The flight path appears to be accommodated within the 96m-wide buffer zone that has been incorporated in the layout design between the west hedgerow and Turbine 5.

7.6.42 Noctule bats were recorded close to likely roost emergence time on four of the five surveys in the west part of the Site (by location 6b). No bats were recorded close to emergence time at Location 2a/b. These results suggest that, during this period, a roost was likely to be located somewhere to the west of the Site.

7.6.43 During one survey in 23 August 2012 five noctule bats were recorded foraging in a field to the west of the Site boundary and to the south of the large waterbody (also to the west of the Site). Three of these bats subsequently flew into, and were recorded foraging within, the proposed development site. The other bats dispersed to the south and west and were not recorded within the Site.

7.6.44 Very little noctule bat activity was recorded from the other point count locations, which included the areas around Turbine 4 and Turbine 1.

At-height Survey

7.6.45 During the survey period a total of 146 nights of at-height survey took place; corresponding data for 145 nights of survey was gathered for the ground level detector. The level of bat activity recorded was very low: during this period 60 bat passes were recorded from the at-height detector (at 60m) (0.41B/n); 340 bat passes were recorded at the ground level detector (2.34B/n), i.e. the number of bat passes at height was about 18% of the number of bat passes recorded at ground level.

7.6.46 Of the 60 passes recorded at height, 24 passes (40%) originated from noctule bat (0.16B/n); 34 passes (57%) originated from soprano or common pipistrelle bat. No other species were recorded at height. Two of the recorded calls (3%) were too poor to allow species identification.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 34 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

7.6.47 A greater number of passes and a wider range of species were recorded from the ground level detector during the same recording period. The ground level detector recorded 174 common pipistrelle passes, 108 noctule passes (0.74B/n), 26 Myotis bat passes, and 13 soprano pipistrelle passes. In addition, three barbastelle bat passes (0.02B/n) and one Nathusius’ pipistrelle pass were recorded (<0.01B/n).

7.6.48 Noctule bat passes were recorded between May and September. The majority of passes were recorded between June and August. Only four passes were recorded in May and September; none were recorded in April or October.

7.6.49 The Nathusius’ pipistrelle pass was recorded on 9 September just after midnight.

7.6.50 Three barbastelle passes were recorded on the ground level detector: one in May and two in August.

7.6.51 Due to the position of supporting guy lines, the ground below the met-mast was inaccessible to farm machinery. As a consequence, the ground, which was cultivated in autumn/early winter 2011, was unmanaged during the survey period allowing vegetation to develop over the course of the summer 2012. By late summer this area supported a range of tall arable weeds and ruderal vegetation and as a consequence may have provided a habitat suitable for invertebrates (e.g. moths). It is therefore possible that this area offered a progressively attractive foraging habitat for bats as the survey season progressed (in comparison to the adjacent arable field). The survey results show a gradual increase in levels of bat activity and number of species during the latter part of the summer. This may be partially explained by the development of vegetation in this area during the season.

Aerial inspection of Trees for Bat Roosts

7.6.52 A bat roost was found in one tree, a mature oak (at SK 8916 4755) located in a small block of woodland to the east of Turbine 2. One dropping (which, given its size, is considered most likely to have originated from a pipistrelle bat) was found in a small split in a lateral branch in the crown of the tree. The cavity was very small; no other evidence of bat use was identified within the tree. By virtue of its size, this roost is only likely to be used occasionally by small numbers of pipistrelle bats and is unlikely to support a maternity roost.

7.6.53 No evidence of bat activity was located in any of the other trees surveyed.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 35 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Water Vole

7.6.54 No evidence of water vole has been found during surveys of the drains within the Site.

Badger

7.6.55 Numerous badger-sized mammal tracks have been found within the Site, particularly at ditch crossing points and badgers are likely to forage widely across the Site. Several dung pits (suggesting a territorial boundary) and well- used tracks are present in the south-west corner of the Site. No setts were recorded within the Site boundary. Three active setts are present in the fields to the east of the Site, on the far side of the minor road which forms the east boundary of the Site.

Brown Hare

7.6.56 Brown hare Lepus lepus is a resident species within the Site. Incidental observations of this species have been made on numerous survey visits. This species occurs primarily within arable fields and field margins.

Reptiles

7.6.57 No records of reptiles were obtained during the data trawl and no reptiles were recorded during visits to the Site. Some areas within the Site, such as, hedgerows, grassland and ditches, provide potentially suitable habitat for reptiles. The majority of the Site, which supports intensively managed arable fields, is assessed as offering sub-optimal/unsuitable habitats for reptiles.

7.7 PROPOSED MITIGATION INCORPORATED INTO PROPOSAL

Identification of Potential Ecological Effects

7.7.1 During the construction phase, potential ecological effects could arise in association with the following activities or features of the proposed Development:

 Small-scale habitat clearance/disturbance to facilitate construction of the access road, turbine and associated infrastructure;

 Localised disturbance to fauna arising from the presence of people, large vehicles and machinery on site in working areas.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 36 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

7.7.2 During the operational phase the most likely cause of ecological effects arises from the physical operation of the turbine itself; in particular, the potential for collision of bats (and birds) with the moving rotor blades. Impacts may also arise as a result of disturbance caused by the operating wind turbines, causing the displacement of some sensitive species. However, the evidence available to date indicates that this type of impact is typically only experienced with certain bat species.

7.7.3 Maintenance visits during the operational phase are unlikely to give rise to disturbance levels greater than those already associated with normal farming activities.

7.7.4 To minimise the potential for these impacts to occur the mitigation described in the following sections has been incorporated into the proposed Development, particularly in relation to site layout and design.

7.7.5 During the decommissioning phase impacts are likely to involve small scale habitat disturbance and localised temporary disturbance by people, vehicles and machinery in working areas.

Habitats

7.7.6 The main potential for habitat impacts to occur is from habitat loss, for example where new sections of the access tracks could require the removal of sections of hedgerow and require crossings over ditches. For this reason, the final access routes have been selected to minimise the requirement for hedgerow removal and localised impacts on ditches, and to minimise the extent of land-take that is required (by taking as direct a route as possible and by making use of existing access features). In addition, habitats and features of potential ecological value (e.g. ponds, woodland or mature trees) have been avoided; the majority of the access route will utilise existing unsurfaced farm tracks and arable fields, which are considered to be of low ecological value.

Bats

7.7.7 The proposed wind turbine locations have been selected to be as far as possible from all field boundary features (hedgerows. ditches and woodland edge). NE

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 37 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

guidance (TIN051)18 recommends a minimum 50miv stand-off distance from blade tip to the nearest habitat feature (e.g. hedgerows, trees or watercourses) into which no part of the turbine intrudes.

7.7.8 For each turbine the stand-off distance (from turbine blade tips) from habitat/boundary features has been maximised wherever possible (taking other siting constraints into account) particularly in relation to areas where comparatively high levels of bat activity have been recorded. These stand-off distances are summarised below (in Table 7.4) and take into account guidance from Natural England (TIN051)18 in relation to calculating turbine stand-off distances.

7.7.9 It is noted that a turbine micro-siting allowance of up to 50m (with restrictions set out Chapter 4, Section 4.3) may be required. This micro-siting allowance takes into account the minimum 50m stand-off from habitat features and also the greater stand-off distances required in areas where higher levels of bat activity have been recorded (and shown in Table 7.4).

iv This minimum stand-off distance was also recommended in the scoping opinion provided by South Kesteven District Council.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 38 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 7.4 Stand-off distances between turbines and nearby habitat features.

Feature Distance to Distance to Minimum height turbine turbine stand-off Turbine Habitat Feature (approx.) base blade tips distance Turbine 1 West boundary 12m 269m 230m >100m hedgerow Scrub around former barn 8m 145m 115m 50m

Turbine 2 Woodland to east 15m 90m 65m >50m

Hedge to north 4m 140m 113m >100m

Scrub and waterbody 12m 154m 122m >100m (fishing pond) to north Turbine 3 Woodland to 15m 234m 196m 50m north west Turbine 4 Hedge to south 8m 75m 54m 50m

Oak tree to east 12m 170m 136m 50m

Turbine 5 West boundary 12m 125m 97mv 100m hedgerow Trees and waterbody to 12m 360m 320m >100m north- west South boundary 12m 218m 182m >50m hedgerow

v Other siting constraints mean that the minimum possible stand-off for this turbine is 97m, rather than 100m as recommended in Table 7.4. The recommended stand-off is not a strict (i.e. legal) requirement; it is well over the minimum stand-off recommended by Natural England. The difference is so minor that, for the purposes of this assessment, it is not considered to be significant.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 39 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

7.7.10 The proposed turbines will all be situated within arable fields, arable habitat being less favoured by bats than other habitat types (such as woodland, vegetation corridors, lacustrine (lake) and riverine habitats).

7.7.11 The habitat preferences of foraging bats are extremely well researched and understood. Consequently there is a high degree of confidence in the conclusion that the arable habitat within the Site is unlikely to provide good foraging opportunities for bats (see for example Ekman & De Jong, 199625; Walsh & Harris, 1996a26, b27; Altringham, 200328; Downs & Racey, 200629; Brandt et al., 200730). This habitat type is typically poor for foraging bats due to the low prey availability that results from the intensive management of the land. This conclusion is supported by the results of the bat activity survey, which did not find evidence that bats regularly feed over open arable habitats within the Site.

7.7.12 The surface treatment of turbine plinths, which will include a combination of hard-standing, short managed grass, and cultivated arable land has been designed to restrict natural vegetation growth and thus make these areas unattractive to invertebrates and thus also to foraging bats.

7.7.13 As discussed above, the Site layout has been designed to minimise the amount of hedgerow removal that is required, and thus minimise disruption to bat flight paths and foraging habitat.

7.7.14 The construction of the access route, turbines and other associated elements will mostly be completed during daylight hours, and therefore artificial lighting and the operation of machinery and human presence on site after dark will be minimal. There may be a need to deliver large components at night, but any impacts associated with this (if required) will be temporary in nature and of short duration. This will avoid significant impacts on bats as a result of disturbance from lighting during the construction phase.

7.7.15 The proposed wind turbine design will have a cut-in speed that of about 4m/s (i.e. this is the minimum speed at which the turbine can generate useful energy). At wind speeds below about 4m/s the turbine blades will not turn and therefore at times of no or very low wind speeds, periods which offer optimal bat foraging conditions, turbines will not be operational.

7.7.16 Areas suitable for habitat enhancement (e.g. new hedgerow creation) have been carefully selected within the site layout so as not to increase the collision risk to

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 40 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

bats. New hedgerow and scrub planting is not proposed in close proximity to any turbines.

7.8 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

7.8.1 This section of the document includes:

 Identification of ecological receptors that are to be excluded from any further assessment due to their geographical distance, the lack of anticipated direct or indirect effects, or the receptor having low ecological value (refer to Table 7.4 below);

 An evaluation of each key receptor that is included in the assessment; and

 A review of the proposed Development and discussion of the likely impacts and effects which could arise from these in the absence of mitigation and then with mitigation measures taken into account (this is part of the EcIA process to aid identification of necessary mitigation and/or compensation measures and to help gauge the effectiveness of those measures).

7.8.2 Each receptor (i.e. each habitat or vegetation community, species or site of interest) is considered in turn: it is evaluated, the ecological effects of development are described and the significance of any impacts is assessed at an appropriate geographical level. The levels of significance derived from the IEEM guidance are used.

Table 7.6 Ecological receptors excluded from further assessment

Excluded Relevant Evaluation Rationale receptor policy or legislation Neutral Priority habitat Site level Given the proposed site layout, the grassland importance small areas of permanent grassland within the Site will not be affected by the proposed development. Woodland Priority habitat Site level Given the proposed site layout, the importance small block of woodland within the Site will not be affected by the proposed development.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 41 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Excluded Relevant Evaluation Rationale receptor policy or legislation Pond and Priority habitat Site level Given the proposed site layout, the waterbodies importance pond and waterbodies adjacent to adjacent to the Site will not be affected by the the Site proposed development Great crested The N/A This species is absent from the newt Conservation potentially suitable field pond (at SK of Habitats 8954 4754); the other waterbodies and Species close to the Site are assessed to be Regulations of low suitability. 2010; There are no local records for this Wildlife and species and other waterbodies and Countryside field ponds in the surrounding area Act 1981 (as have been scoped out as they are amended); all distant from and poorly Priority connected to the proposed species construction areas. Brown hare Priority Site level There is potential for localised species importance disturbance to this species during the construction phase however given that the disturbance impacts will be localised, the availability of suitable habitat within the Site and adjacent land is limited, and given that this species is exposed to regular disturbance from routine farming operations, disturbance and minor habitat loss during the construction phase is unlikely to give rise to a significant impact on this species.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 42 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Excluded Relevant Evaluation Rationale receptor policy or legislation Water vole Wildlife and N/A There is no evidence to indicate the Countryside presence of this species within the Act 1981 (as Site. amended); Further pre-construction checks will Priority take place prior to works affecting species the ditches, as a good practice precaution.

Grid Connection

7.8.3 The preferred option for the proposed grid connection would leave the site via the proposed access junction and run underground along existing public highways to the west of the Development near Claypole (refer to Chapter 4: Project Description). Given this proposed location significant ecological effects are not likely.

Assessment of Effects for Each Ecological Receptor

Arable Fields

7.8.4 Land-take for the turbine bases, access track and associated infrastructure will amount to 3.12ha during construction and will be reduced to 2.62ha on completion following the removal of the construction compound and removal of the existing agricultural access track to the east of the site. Land take will be primarily restricted to arable fields. Where possible the existing access tracks will be utilised, thereby further reducing land-take.

7.8.5 Following the completion of the construction phase of the proposed Development, the majority of the turbine plinths will be covered with soil and returned to cultivation or managed as short grassland. A hard-standing area under each turbine will be maintained to allow vehicular access to the turbines for maintenance.

7.8.6 The arable fields are considered to be of low ecological value, although it is recognised that they may provide limited opportunities for some ground nesting birds and for brown hare. Field margins, which have been sown with a grassland mix including herbaceous species such as bird’s-foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus and sainfoin Onobrychis viciifolia, provide opportunities for foraging birds and

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 43 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

invertebrates, and will be retained within the Site. There may be some very localised, limited loss of field margins, for example close to ditch crossing points. This will depend on the location of sown margins during the construction phase.

7.8.7 Arable farming is the primary land use in this part of Lincolnshire and arable fields are therefore abundant in the surrounding area. This habitat, including the field margins, is therefore assessed to be of value at a site level only.

7.8.8 Given this evaluation, the impact arising from the loss of a small proportion of the available arable habitat within the Site, due to the construction of turbines and access tracks, is assessed to be of negligible significance at the site level. There is a high degree of confidence in this assessment. This receptor is therefore not considered further in this assessment.

Hedgerows

7.8.9 The majority of hedgerows within the Site contain few trees and appear to be regularly cut, having a uniform structure and generally supporting a limited range of species Planting has taken place to reinforce a number of hedgerows over recent years; protective tree tubes are visible at the base of a number of hedgerows indicating where gaps have been planted up.

7.8.10 Such hedgerows are very common landscape features both within the Site and in the surrounding area. It is noted that there are relatively few woodland areas, wooded watercourse corridors or other structured habitat features in the wider area. It is therefore unlikely that the hedgerows are of importance as part of a wider habitat networkvi: their ecological value is likely to be limited to use by species commuting at the local level. Consequently they are assessed of being of value at the site level only.

7.8.11 The taller boundary hedgerows, which form the west and part of the south boundary of the Site, contain numerous trees and a wider range of species. For this reason they are assessed to be of local value.

7.8.12 The hedgerows which are considered to be of greater value (i.e. those on the west and part of the south boundary) will be unaffected by the proposed Development.

vi As a related point, it is worth noting that these species-poor hedgerows would not qualify as important hedgerows under the ecological criteria of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 44 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

7.8.13 Impacts to other hedgerows within the Site will be minimized: existing tracks and gaps in hedgerows will be used wherever possible and therefore permanent hedgerow loss will be restricted to a 37m length of hawthorn dominated hedgerow to allow the construction of the turning head for proposed turbine T2 and to a 10m length of hawthorn dominated hedgerow to allow the construction of the turning head for proposed turbine T1.

7.8.14 In addition, a 449m section of hedgerow will need to be removed along the east boundary of the Site to create a visibility splay. This hedgerow will be reinstated, using native, locally appropriate species, at the rear edge of the visibility splay. This hedgerow is dominated by hawthorn but does include several other species; tree tubes present at the base of shrubs along its length show that is has been planted relatively recently. The section requiring removal does not contain any mature trees.

7.8.15 Given this limited permanent loss of hedgerow, and given that the boundary hedgerow to be removed has been recently planted and will be reinstated, this impact is assessed as being significant at site level only. There is a high degree of confidence in this assessment.

Ditches

7.8.16 Two new ditch crossings will be required where the access track runs along the south boundary of the Site at SK 895 469 and SK 890 470. Localised removal of ditch vegetation will be required in the immediate working area for each crossing point. Approximately 20m2 (assumes 5m-wide track and 4m wide-ditch) of ditch vegetation will be permanently lost at each crossing point. Temporary disturbance to vegetation for an additional 5m-wide zone of the crossing point is also possible during the construction phase.

7.8.17 This habitat type is common within the Site surrounding area and is assessed of being of interest at the site level only.

7.8.18 Impact on this habitat will be very localised and permanent impacts will be very limited in extent. The disturbance of adjacent vegetation will be temporary and it would be expected to regenerate within one to two growing seasons following completion of the work. As a result impact significance is assessed as being negligible at the site level, and thus is not considered further in this assessment.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 45 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Bats

Summary of Effects on Bats

7.8.19 During the construction phase impacts are possible through habitat loss, disturbance and the interruption of flight lines (e.g. through hedgerow removal). As discussed above, the significance and likelihood of these impacts has been minimised through informed site design.

7.8.20 During the operational phase of a wind farm, impacts on bats are possible through death or injury caused by collision with moving turbine blades and/or as a result of “barotrauma” from air pressure changes created by the moving blades.

7.8.21 The following information, which is extracted from NE guidance (TIN051)18, provides some useful background information which needs to be considered when considering the potential for detrimental impacts on bats:

“Risk assessment for bats: possible factors

 Flight behaviour of bats in the vicinity of turbine blades.

 Most bat species in the UK are unlikely to come into contact with the blades during their normal movements because, to the best of our knowledge, these bats do not migrate at high altitude and rarely fly at heights that intersect with the blades.

 However, some species do regularly fly at such heights and therefore are at risk.

 There is some (fragmentary) evidence that bats may investigate turbine towers either to feed on insects attracted by the heat generated by nacelles, or because they are simply attracted to moving blades; these behaviours could put them at risk of collision.

Use of the landscape by bats

 Bats display a very flexible use of the landscape.

 Use of the landscape is linked to roost and food availability and influenced by need, tradition and opportunism.

 Most species of bats have echolocation calls with a useful range of only a few metres and so prefer to fly close to habitat features like hedgerows, woodlands, walls or rivers including within and just above the tree canopy. These species are probably less likely to collide with a turbine.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 46 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 Some species of bats, particularly those with strong echolocation calls, will exploit open habitats and are more likely to be at risk from collision with wind turbines. Severance of flight paths of such species may be caused by the erection of turbines.

 There is some evidence that suggests that the further away from linear/habitat features, the greater the decline in activity, even for high flying bats like noctules that tend to fly in open areas.

 Bats of all species search for new roosts and so may investigate structures including turbines. This could increase the risk to individuals.

 Modification of habitat, e.g. by the creation of open areas or edge habitats within forested landscapes, may increase the likelihood of bats foraging close to turbines.”

7.8.22 Given the factors described above, species Natural England consider likely to be at risk from wind turbines, based on an analysis of existing information of flight patterns, foraging strategies and echolocation calls, are shown in Table 7.6 below.

Table 7.6 Species likely to be at risk from wind turbines

Low risk Medium risk High risk Myotis species Common pipistrelle Noctule Long-eared bats Serotine Leisler’s bat Horseshoe bats Soprano pipistrelle Nathusius’ pipistrelle

Barbastelle

7.8.23 Natural England go on to state that “given a relative population size for each species and the likely risk posed by turbines it may be possible to determine the level of threat posed to populations of bats.” These species are shown in Table 7.6 below.

Table 7.7 Populations likely to be threatened due to impacts from wind turbines

Low risk Medium risk High risk Myotis species Serotine Noctule Long-eared bats Barbastelle Leisler’s bat

Horseshoe bats Nathusius’ pipistrelle Common pipistrelle Soprano pipistrelle

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 47 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

7.8.24 The following section evaluates and assesses impact significance in relation to the individual species recorded within the Site. In terms of population impacts, high risk species are considered first, then medium risk, and then low risk species (as defined in Tables 7.5 and 7.6 above).

7.8.25 As discussed above (7.7.9), stand-off distances between turbines and habitat features have been incorporated into the site layout to ensure the likelihood of impacts on bats using the site is minimised. Micro-siting takes into account the minimum recommended stand-off distances from habitat features shown in Table 7.4.

7.8.26 The proposed turbines would be up to a maximum height of 126.5m. The following assessment assumes dimensions of 80m hub height and 93m blade diameter as a worst case scenario. If these dimensions were to change (within the 126.5m envelope) it is considered unlikely that the assessment would be significantly altered, although it is recognised the stand-off distances from habitat features would need to be recalculated to ensure that the standoff distances set out Table 7.4, and the recommendations in the NE guidance (TIN051) [18] can be achieved.

High Risk Species

Noctule

7.8.27 The survey results show that noctule uses the Site for foraging although the level of activity recorded is very variable. There are numerous nights where no noctule activity was recorded, and many nights where very low levels of activity (i.e. single or very few passes) were recorded. Occasionally higher levels of activity were recorded, and these appear to coincide with optimal weather conditions for bat foraging activity (warm, dry, relatively windless conditions). It is also noted that monitoring at height only detected 18% of the total number of bat calls recorded at ground level (22% of noctule passes).

7.8.28 Noctule is one of the easiest species to detect and identify by virtue of its loud calls. This species was only recorded once during all the transect surveys; only one bat was observed.

7.8.29 The remote survey and point counts survey show that noctule activity is concentrated in two areas which provide the most suitable foraging habitat: the two waterbodies (and the immediately surrounding scrub/woodland and hedgerow habitats) located a) to the north (the fishing pond), and b) to the west

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 48 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

of the Site; both are just outside of the Site boundary. Noctule bats foraging in these areas also forage above the adjacent fields including those within the Site; activity levels are highest in the parts of the fields immediately adjacent to the waterbodies. Away from these areas activity levels are very low.

7.8.30 There appears to be a flight path between the two waterbodies which broadly follows scattered patches of woodland and hedgerows, but which also crosses open areas of the Site. One or two noctule bats were recorded using this route on three of the five point count surveys; thus, the flight path does not appear to be used on every night when suitable foraging conditions are available.

7.8.31 The number of noctule bats using the Site is low; the survey results indicate that the passes recorded in the areas of higher activity during the remote survey are most likely to originate from one, two, and occasionally three bats.

7.8.32 Noctules prefer to roost in tree holes in woodland habitats. There is no evidence to suggest a roost is present within the Site however, numerous noctule passes were recorded close to sunset. Noctule bats typically emerge soon (5-10 minutes) after sunset (Russ, 1999)31, and consequently the early records indicate the likely presence of a nearby roost. The majority of these early records are from Point 6b, perhaps indicating a roost to the west of the Site. There appears to be a pattern of early foraging activity around this waterbody before dispersal away from this area, either to the west or south, or sometimes across the Site towards Point 2a/b.

7.8.33 During one survey visit five noctules were briefly recorded in the field to the west of the Site. Three subsequently entered the Site and the other two bats dispersed away from the Site, and it is assumed that they moved into foraging habitats further to the west. Not all subsequent visits recorded activity in this area and thus if a roost is present it may not always be in use; noctule bats are known regularly to move roosting sites (Boye & Dietz, 2005)32.

7.8.34 Noctule bats are also strong fliers and can fly at speeds of 50kph (BCT 2010)33 and could, therefore, reach the Site in just 2 to 3 minutes after leaving a roost up to 2km from the Site. Since there are several woodland blocks within a 2km radius to the west of the Site (e.g. in the area around Stubton) it is possible that the bats recorded during the surveys had rapidly moved into the survey area shortly after emerging from a more distant roost to the west of the Site. The roost site has not been located to date.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 49 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

7.8.35 This species requires a mosaic of habitats to support foraging, roosting and commuting behaviour. Large waterbodies, pasture and open woodland habitats are preferred habitats. Noctule bats also forage in other habitats, including urban areas and arable fields. Foraging areas may be in several parts of the landscape, all of which host a high abundance of insect fauna and offer the space in the air needed by the fast flying (Boye & Dietz 2005)32.

7.8.36 The surrounding landscape is dominated by arable farmland, and consequently offers limited areas of suitable foraging habitat for noctule bats. It does, however, include numerous small habitat patches (for example, several scattered blocks of woodland, and a few small waterbodies are present within 5km of the Site) which may offer localised foraging opportunities. Given the findings of the survey it is considered likely that noctule bats move between these smaller habitat patches when foraging in the local area. Noctule activity within the Site is limited to relatively short periods of time, indicating that this species is not exclusively using the Site for feeding.

7.8.37 The waterbodies directly adjacent to the Site are considered to form part of a network of foraging areas for noctule bats within the local area and therefore are assessed to be of local value for noctule bats.

7.8.38 Noctule bat is a priority species; it is a relatively widespread species in England, but it is uncommon. There is currently no significant overall change in the population trend for noctule in the UK (2010 NBMP report)34. It is thought to be relatively common across the northern half of the Lincolnshire, but is scarce in the south and there may be anecdotal evidence of a decline in central Lincolnshire (Lincolnshire BAP) 13.

7.8.39 The surveys within the proposed development site suggest that a roost of at least five noctule bats is present within the local area (and also suggest that some of the bats from this roost use parts of the proposed development site for foraging). The areas where foraging has been more regularly recorded is estimated to represent between 5-10% of the development site area. This local population of noctule bats is considered likely to be of district value. Although, from the baseline surveys, the pattern of behaviour of noctule bats within the Site is well understood, confidence in this assessment is considered to be moderate due to the lack of available detailed data in relation to species numbers and distribution in the wider local area, Lincolnshire and the UK more generally.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 50 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

7.8.40 This species is considered to be at high risk from collision from wind turbines, casualties have been documented in other European countries (Rydell et al, 2010)35 and, given its conservation status (uncommon), is at risk of population impact from turbines.

7.8.41 The level of activity across the majority of the Site is considered to be very low based on the available survey data and thus, although the risk of this species colliding with the turbines is considered to be high, for the majority of turbine locations the likelihood of collision of individual bats with turbines is considered to be low.

7.8.42 One of the two flight paths identified within the Site, which connects the waterbodies to the north and west of the Site, passes close to or sometimes through the position of Turbine 2. There is therefore the potential for noctule bats using this flight path to collide with the moving blades of this turbine.

7.8.43 The other flight path identified broadly follows a corridor that follows the west boundary hedgerow. This hedgerow is approximately 96 metres from the nearest turbine, which is Turbine 5. The stand-off in this area has been increased within the design to reduce the likelihood that any noctule bats flying within along this flight path will pass through the rotor swept zone of Turbine 5.

7.8.44 The waterbody to the west of the Site, which supports a relatively high level of noctule activity (5.3 B/n; 0.58B/hr), will be 230m from the nearest turbine location (Turbine 1; and 350m from Turbine 5) and thus the likelihood of bats colliding with these wind turbines will be low.

7.8.45 Turbine 2 is closer to an area regularly used by foraging noctule bats (3.8 B/n; 0.4B/hr). This area, which includes a waterbody (fishing pond) surrounded by scrub and a small area of woodland, a ditch, hedgerows and trees, is over 110m to the north of the rotor swept zone. In addition to foraging over the waterbody and scrub, a number of foraging flights occurred over the adjacent arable fields. The survey work shows that the majority of these flights were concentrated in the parts of the fields immediately adjacent to this waterbody (e.g. within 50m) but occasionally flights occurred in more open areas. It is some of these occasional foraging flights which have potential to take noctule bats into the rotor swept zone.

7.8.46 In summary, the risk of collision is highest for bats foraging in the habitats to the north of Turbine 2 and for bats which use the flight path from this area towards

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 51 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

the foraging area to the west of the Site and, in doing so, will potentially pass through the rotor swept zone of Turbine 2.

7.8.47 The significance of this collision on the population status can be determined through consideration of the number of individuals at risk and the likely status of these bats.

7.8.48 The survey results show that a small number of noctule bats (1-3) are regularly using small areas of the Site for foraging. The majority of foraging activity was recorded in the period after sunset (typically up to 1.5hrs after sunset) after which bats appear to move to other areas outside the Site.

7.8.49 The survey results suggest that bats are most at risk when foraging around the waterbody near Turbine 2 and flying between this area and the waterbody to the west of the Site during the periods when Turbine 2 is operational.

7.8.50 At low wind speeds (i.e. at wind speeds less than 4m/s) when optimal foraging conditions are available, the turbine will not be operational (i.e. no risk). Bats are at greatest risk during moderate wind speeds when the turbine will be operational and foraging is still possible in open areas. At higher wind speeds when fewer insects would be expected to occur in the open air space bat foraging behaviour may be largely restricted to more sheltered areas or at lower flight heights.

7.8.51 Thus there are a relatively small number of bats in the area with relatively limited exposure to moving blades. Many of the flights recorded are likely to be at heights below the rotor swept area (for example, at the meteorological mast monitoring location, only 18% of the noctule passes recorded were from the at- height detector). Collisions are possible but there is not currently a collision risk model and therefore casualty rate cannot be predicted, but given the factors discussed above the risk of a bat encountering moving blades may be relatively low. The significance of possible collisions needs to be considered in terms of population impact.

7.8.52 The population of noctule bats in Lincolnshire in currently unknown. Harris et al (1995)36 estimates the English noctule population to be 45000vii. Lincolnshire represents c. 5% of England land area and, thus, using these figures the

vii Note: this population estimate, is based on limited population data, and thus needs to be treated with some caution.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 52 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Lincolnshire noctule population could be roughly estimated to be around 1,200- 2,400 batsviii. Using this rough estimate, the loss of a small roost of, for example, five bats would represent <1% of the county population. Such a loss is therefore unlikely to be significant at a county level.

7.8.53 Using this approach, the South Kesteven (area c. 940km2) could potentially support a population of 160-320 noctule bats. Thus, a roost of five bats could potentially represent 2-3% of the district populationix, which is a small proportion of the District population. The loss of such a roost, based on a worst case scenario, is therefore only predicted to be significant at a local, or possibly district level.

7.8.54 Where possible, the site layout, which has been devised to avoid suitable foraging habitats and flight paths, will help to reduce the likelihood of such an impact occurring. Although, from the baseline surveys, the pattern of behaviour of noctule bats within the Site is well understood, confidence in this assessment is considered to be moderate. This is because of a) the lack of research into collision rates of bats, including noctule, at UK wind farms and b) the lack of available detailed data in relation to noctule numbers and distribution in both Lincolnshire and the UK more generally.

Nathusius’ Pipistrelle

7.8.55 Nathusius' pipistrelle is a rarely recorded bat in Great Britain and Ireland although recent data show that the species may be more widely distributed in the UK than was previously thought37. Peak numbers are recorded during the late summer/early autumn migration period (NBMP 2011)34. The distribution of this species in Lincolnshire is not well understood, but it is thought to be rare in the county where it has been recorded at coastal sites and at a few scattered sites inland (Lincolnshire BAP)13. Few maternity colonies have been located within the UK; one was present on the Lincolnshire coast (approximately 60km

viii Although 2400 equates to 5% of the UK population a wider range (1200-2400) is suggested because this species is unlikely to have a homogenous distribution across its range, for example, counties with higher levels of woodland than Lincolnshire may support a greater proportion of the English population also. Given the note above about the reliability of the English population estimate it is recognised that these derived population estimates are not reliable but are simply intended to assist the evaluation of possible impact significance. ix Noting the above comments about reliability of data.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 53 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

to the east of the site) until 1999, and one is known from Rutland (approximately 40km to the south) (Nat Pip website)37.

7.8.56 This species is considered to be at high risk from collision from wind turbines and is at risk of population impact from turbines. As this is a migratory species it is likely to be at particular risk of collisions with wind turbines if these occur along its migratory routes.

7.8.57 The number of Nathusius’ pipistrelle passes recorded is extremely low. None of the recordings were close to roost emergence time and, thus, the calls recorded are not considered to indicate the presence of a nearby roost. Passes recorded during summer months suggest that this species is resident somewhere within the local area. Although it is possible that a maternity roost could be present somewhere within the surrounding countryside, the few records obtained during the survey do not provide sufficient evidence to suggest this. It is possible that the passes could be from a solitary male or non-breeding female. Activity within the Site appears to be limited to very infrequent foraging. The results do not show a peak in records in late summer and thus do indicate that the Site is within a migratory route for this species.

7.8.58 In addition to the positively identified Nathusius passes described above, a number of indeterminate pipistrelle calls have also been recorded (i.e. those with peak frequencies around 40 kHz). These cannot be reliably separated between common pipistrelle and Nathusius’ pipistrelle bats. Although some of these may originate from Nathusius’ pipistrelle bats, given the relative abundance of each species (as demonstrated by the definitively identified Nathusius passes), and also through a detailed analysis of call characteristics, it is considered likely that a higher proportion of these “pipistrelle 40kHz” passes originate from common pipistrelle, rather than Nathusius’ pipistrelle bats.

7.8.59 Notwithstanding this, the majority of these indeterminate passes are from boundary features, particularly hedgerow 6b, which is situated 96m from the nearest turbine. Consequently, irrespective of which species is present, the use of this hedgerow is not likely to expose the bats to increased risk of collision with an operating wind turbine.

7.8.60 In conclusion, given the very low level of activity recorded within the Site, most of which is associated with habitat features that are some distance from the proposed turbines, the likelihood of an impact occurring on this species is

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 54 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

considered to be very low, and thus impact significance is likely to be negligible. There is high confidence in this assessment. This species is not considered further in the assessment.

Leisler’s Bat

7.8.61 This species is considered to be at high risk from collision from wind turbines and is at risk of population impact from turbines. In Lincolnshire this species is considered to be rare, but thought to be under-recorded13.

7.8.62 For Leisler’s bat, given the very low level of use recorded, the survey results suggest the likelihood of an impact occurring is very low or negligible; accordingly the impact significance is likely to be negligible. There is high confidence in this assessment. This species is not considered further in the assessment.

Medium Risk Species

Barbastelle

7.8.63 Although distributed widely in eastern and southern England the barbastelle is considered to be a rare species (Natural England, 2009)18 and, thus, an impact on this species has potential to be of conservation significance. It is a strong flying species although typically it flies low and close to vegetation, and this is likely to reduce the risk of collision.

7.8.64 In recent years the requirement to carry out more intensive bat surveys (particularly in relation to wind farm proposals), and the increased use of remotely deployed static bat detectors, have meant that this species has been recorded in locations where it was not previously thought to be present. It is now thought to be widespread in Lincolnshire (Lincolnshire BAP)13. It has now been found in many woodlands to the south of a line from Market Rasen to Louth, with concentrations in the central Limewoods area and in the South Kesteven woods and parklands (Lincolnshire BAP)13. A maternity roost has been recently located in the Lincolnshire Limewoods (c. 35km to the north of the proposed development site).

7.8.65 Barbastelle passes were recorded throughout the remote survey period and a small number of passes were also recorded on the transect surveys. Activity was often recorded on consecutive nights but the level of activity recorded was typically very low. On the majority of nights single or very few passes were

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 55 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

recorded and there were numerous nights where no passes were recorded at all. Occasionally, however, higher numbers were recorded (e.g. at location 6b 18 passes were recorded on both 6 June (over 3hrs) and 28 August (over 3 hours), and 27 passes on 20 September (over 4hrs)). It is possible that these higher numbers originate from a single bat repeatedly foraging along the hedgerow. Across the Site the average number of barbastelle passes per night was very low 0.26(B/n); the average for turbine locations was at 0.02 B/n; but for habitat features it was slightly higher at 0.4 B/n.

7.8.66 The majority of barbastelle passes (95%) recorded were close to habitat features (hedgerows and ditches), although approximately 5% of passes (8 passes) were from open field sampling locations, the majority significant proportion of the passes (77%) recorded were from the mature hedgerow (including 6b) which forms the west boundary of the Site (2.38 B/n).

7.8.67 Only 10 passes were within one hour of sunset. The earliest recorded pass was 47 minutes after sunset (from location 6b). Eight of the nine other earlier passes (i.e. those between 52 minutes and 60 minutes after sunset) were all from location 6b (the other was from location 4a). Given that emergence times for this species typically range from between 30 to 60 minutes after sunset (Russ, 1999)31 it is possible that the bat(s) recorded roosted in relatively close proximity to the Site. However, it is also possible that the roost location could be 15 minutes or more flight time away from the Site, which could equate to a distance of as much as 5 kilometres. Although the surrounding landscape is not well wooded, there are a number of woodlands within 5km of the proposed Development site. In particular, the small woodlands to the west of the Site, around and to the south of the village of Stubton, are reasonably well connected by a network of hedgerows to the hedgerow which forms the west boundary of the Site (and includes location 6b); these woodlands may provide roosting opportunities for this species.

7.8.68 The behaviour of barbastelle within the Site suggests it occasionally forages or commutes across open fields and, given that calls are only likely to be detected within a 10m zone, the flights recorded are likely to be close to ground level in these open areas (this species is not considered to be a high flying bat).

7.8.69 This species was not recorded at-height during the met mast survey; three passes were picked up by the ground level detector and thus the survey found no evidence to indicate that barbastelle was foraging within the rotor swept

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 56 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

zone. Very few barbastelle casualties have been recorded from wind farms in Europe (Rydell et al, 2010)35 which may suggest the risk to this species is relatively low. Some caution is required, however, as its rarity makes it more difficult to determine the actual level of risk posed to this species by wind turbines (J. Rydell, pers. comm.), i.e. it is harder to detect impacts in a small population.

7.8.70 There are a number of factors which, when considered collectively, suggest the likelihood of an impact on this species will be low:

 activity levels within the Site appear to be very low;

 the number of passes recorded suggests the Site is used by very few bats;

 the majority of activity is restricted to the west boundary hedgerow, which will be avoided and subject to an increased stand-off distance of 96m from the nearest turbine;

 passes by barbastelle have not been recorded at height within the Site.

7.8.71 There are very little detailed data available to help with the evaluation of the potential importance of the local population. Numbers recorded at the Site are very low and the roost type and location is unknown; the bat(s) using the Site may, for example, be a solitary individual which roosts within the local area or could be a bat (or bats) from a local roost which disperses more widely throughout the local landscape when foraging. This lack of roost data is not, however, considered to be a constraint to the assessment because, given the low level of use and the assessment of low risk of collision, any possible impact on the status of this species is considered likely to be significant, at most, at site level. There is moderate confidence in this assessment primarily due to the lack of available data in relation to population and distribution within Lincolnshire and also in relation to collision risk.

Low Risk Species

7.8.72 The overwhelming majority of activity recorded within the Site is from common and, to a lesser extent, soprano pipistrelle bats. Populations of common and soprano pipistrelle bats are not considered by Natural England to be at risk from wind farm developments. Although individual pipistrelle bats could be at risk from the proposed development, the level of risk is likely to be reduced as Natural England guidance has been followed in relation to the siting of turbine locations away from habitat features such as hedgerows. As detailed previously,

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 57 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

the recommended 50m buffer between the rotor swept area and the nearest habitat feature (e.g. tree, hedgerow) has been exceeded for every turbine location (in most cases it has been significantly exceeded).

7.8.73 Taking these factors into account, the impact on common and soprano pipistrelle bats is considered likely to the significance at a site level, and insignificant in any wider context.

7.8.74 Myotis bat species and brown long-eared bats have also been recorded from the Site, although again, activity levels are low across the majority of the Site (i.e. away from hedgerow 6b). Given their flight behaviour brown long-eared bats and Myotis species are considered by Natural England to be at low risk from wind farm developments. As above, the risk to these species is likely to be significantly reduced through the incorporation of a buffer between the rotor swept area and the nearest habitat feature (e.g. tree, hedgerow) within the site layout, particularly as the minimum 50m buffer has been exceeded for every turbine location.

7.8.75 In summary, the significance of an impact on these low risk species (Myotis bats and brown long-eared bat) is considered likely to be negligible at the site level.

Badger

7.8.76 There are no badger setts within the Site. The nearest known setts are between 200m and 400m to the east of the Site. The presence of tracks and latrines suggest badger regularly forages within the Site.

7.8.77 Badger is likely to be common and widespread in the surrounding area and thus the local population is assessed to be of site level importance.

7.8.78 Impacts on badger setts are not anticipated. The setts to the east of the Site will not be affected by the proposed development.

7.8.79 During the construction phase, ground excavation work could pose a risk to badgers, for example, there may be a chance that that individual badgers could become trapped within deep excavations.

7.8.80 Without mitigation, the possibility of trapping/injuring individual animals during the construction phase cannot be ruled out. The trapping and injury of animals could give rise to an impact but this would be, at most, of site level significance.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 58 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Reptiles

7.8.81 No records of reptiles were obtained during the data trawl, but they are a generally cryptic and under-recorded group. No reptiles have been recorded from the Site during any of the site visits that have taken place.

7.8.82 The arable fields within the Site are unlikely to support reptiles. Some areas within the Site, for example, hedgerows, grassland and ditches, provide potentially suitable habitat for reptiles (such as slow worm and grass snake). The majority of these habitats will not be affected and where they will, for example where ditch and hedgerow crossing points are required, the disturbance will be very localised, temporary and limited in extent.

7.8.83 As a precaution, the rubble pile (at SK 8882 4779) adjacent to the former agricultural barn, which has been identified as a potentially suitable hibernation site for reptiles will be avoided by the access tracks.

7.8.84 It is therefore unlikely that there will be an impact upon these species provided that some simple precautionary measures are put in place. On this basis it is considered unlikely that reptiles would be affected by the proposed development and they are not considered further in this part of the assessment.

Mitigation, Compensation and Enhancement Measures

7.8.85 The preceding section assessed the significance of the anticipated impacts that could potentially arise from the construction and operational phases of the proposed Development. There is scope to avoid or reduce the significance of a number of these anticipated impacts through a series of measures to be incorporated into the various phases of the proposed Development, resulting in a lower level of residual impact.

7.8.86 The policy guidance detailed at the beginning of this chapter broadly states that developments should aim to maintain and conserve features of nature conservation interest and that, where ecological impacts are identified, development may not be permitted without mitigation or compensation for the loss of nature conservation interest. These policies do not, however, explicitly state at what level an impact should be considered to be significant.

7.8.87 As stated previously, for the purposes of this assessment, impacts which are of district level significance (or higher) are considered to be significant in relation to the EIA regulations. Noctule bat is the only receptor for which an impact

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 59 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

significant at district level has been identified. Mitigation is proposed, therefore, to reduce the likelihood and significance of this impact.

7.8.88 Notwithstanding the above point, mitigation is also proposed for impacts of lower significance levels to minimise environmental effects and ensure compliance with protected species legislation and the policies set out above, including those relating to enhancement.

Hedgerows

Mitigation and Compensation

7.8.89 Hedgerow gaps temporarily widened during the construction phase will be replanted using locally appropriate native species.

7.8.90 As detailed above, the east boundary hedgerow, which will need to be removed to create a visibility splay, will be replanted (using native, locally appropriate species) at the rear edge of the visibility splay. Native tree saplings will be planted within the hedgerow and allowed to develop into new hedgerow trees.

Enhancement

7.8.91 New hedgerow planting will also take place within the Site on the south edge of the main access track between the east site boundary, the construction compound, and the south boundary hedgerow. This planting is shown in Volume 2, Figure 4.13.

7.8.92 Given the mitigation, compensation and enhancement there will be a net increase of 678m of hedgerow within the site. This residual impact is therefore considered to be positive and significant at a site level. There is high confidence in this assessment.

Scrub and Grassland

Enhancement

7.8.93 Native scrub species will be planted around the construction compound during the construction phase of the proposed Development. Following completion of the construction phase, the compound will be removed and further areas of scrub and native grassland will be created in the area formerly occupied by the compound. This will amount to approximately 0.85ha of new scrub and grassland.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 60 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

7.8.94 There are several small areas of unmanaged grassland within the Site; primarily adjacent to the site boundary. These currently support dense tussocky grassland and occasional patches of scrub. These grassland areas will be subject to on-going management to prevent scrub encroachment and to maintain open grassland habitat within the site. This proposed enhancement will give rise to a positive impact which is considered to be significant at a site level. There is high confidence in this assessment.

Bats (excluding noctule)

Mitigation

7.8.95 As discussed above, the results of the bat survey work have been considered throughout the Site layout design process and have influenced site layout and stand-off distances: the minimum stand-off distance of 50m from boundary habitat features (as recommended by Natural England) has been exceeded for all proposed turbines. Therefore for the majority of species no further mitigation is proposed and impact significance remains unchanged.

Noctule

Mitigation

7.8.96 The surveys carried out within the study area have identified the presence of noctule bats in part of the Site. The number of bats present is considered to be low (typically 2-3 bats) and the relative activity level (expressed as bat passes per night) is also low. Assessment of bat behaviour indicates that the focus of bat activity is around the water bodies just outside the Site boundary. While bats were using these areas, foraging was also observed to take place in adjacent habitats within the development site. In addition, some, but not all, commuting flights crossed the Site in the vicinity of a proposed wind turbine (Turbine 2).

7.8.97 Although the overall impact risk to noctule bats is considered to be relatively low, an impact cannot be ruled out. It is therefore proposed to carry out post- construction monitoring of bat activity in the area that is known to be used by noctule bats. The proposed monitoring scheme will test the hypothesis that noctule bats are at risk of collision by operating wind turbine T2. The objective will be to continue to gather data on noctule flight activity in the vicinity of Turbine 2, once constructed, and this will include monitoring activity at hub-

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 61 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

height. This activity will be correlated to key weather factors, such as wind speed and temperature.

7.8.98 Monitoring will be carried out for the first year of operation of the proposed Development and, following its completion, a report will be prepared that summarises the results and provides a further assessment of impacts based on this new data.

7.8.99 If the monitoring work finds that noctule bats are at significant risk of collision by an operating wind turbine, appropriate and proportionate measures will be put in place to reduce that risk to an acceptable level. For example, the targeted curtailment of the relevant turbine (Turbine 2) may be appropriate in order to reduce the risk of collision. To minimise disruption to turbine operation curtailment would target weather conditions when bats are active (e.g. at low- moderate wind speedsx, and during periods around dusk and dawn when most activity has been recorded within the Sitexi), and at times of the year when bats are active (April to October). This approach would be refined through the proposed monitoring work to further define the key environmental parameters.

7.8.100 The trigger level for initiating the design and implementation of a mitigation strategy (i.e. curtailment) will be agreed through consultation with Natural England and the planning authority, but it is envisaged that the following criteria may be used:

 Identification of high risk behaviour, e.g. regular activity in the vicinity of the turbine blades and/or nacelle;

 Identification of regular commuting flight activity through the rotor swept area;

 An increase in the number of noctule bats feeding in the vicinity of the turbine.

7.8.101 The monitoring work required to evaluate the above criteria will be subject to agreement with Natural England and the planning authority but could involve, for example, a combination of additional survey using remote detectors and point

x For example, wind speeds below 6m/s may provide the most suitable foraging conditions (see Arnett et al, 201038. xi Survey results show that the majority of activity within the Site occurs within the two-three hours periods at dusk and dawn.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 62 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

count survey, which will be linked to weather conditions and will specifically target Turbine 2.

7.8.102 In summary, the mitigation approach has been designed to reduce the risk to noctule bats from the development to ensure that an impact of district level significance (i.e. significant in EIA terms) will be avoided. Residual impacts are assessed as likely to be significant, at most, at a local level or below.

Badger

Mitigation

7.8.103 During the construction phase measures will be implemented to prevent badgers, or other animals, becoming trapped in any deep ground excavations (e.g. through the use of ramps or covering excavations).

7.8.104 This will minimise the risk of trapping or injuring badgers. Impact significance will be reduced from site level to negligible. There is high confidence in this assessment.

7.8.105 It should be noted that badgers are mobile and dig new setts from time to time. Given that they are present within the local area and forage within the Site it is possible that new setts could be created in other parts of the Site in future months or years. As a precaution, a pre-construction check will be carried out for presence of badger setts.

Precautionary Mitigation

Water Vole

7.8.106 A further precautionary pre-construction check will be carried out which targets ditch crossing points. The purpose of this check will be to update and confirm the validity of the original survey results.

Reptiles

7.8.107 As a precaution, prior to any localised vegetation clearance in working areas, for example around ditch crossing points, these areas will be thoroughly walked to encourage any reptiles to move away from the working areas. Vegetation can then be strimmed back, and engineering operations started.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 63 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement Summary of residual impacts

Table 7.8 Summary of Residual Impacts

Receptor Pre-mitigation Residual Impact significance impact significance Hedgerows Site level Positive (Site level) Scrub and grassland Neutral Positive (Site level) Barbastelle Site level Site level Noctule Local/District level Site/Local level Common pipistrelle, Site level Site level Soprano pipistrelle Other low risk Negligible Negligible species (Myotis sp. and brown long eared bat) Badger Site level Negligible

Micro-siting

7.8.108 The provision of up to a 50m micro-siting allowance (with restrictions set out in Table 7.4 above and Chapter 4, Section 4.3) would not alter the conclusions of the assessment with regard to levels of significance.

7.9 ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

7.9.1 With the exception of noctule, no residual impacts affecting the ecological receptors identified above are considered likely to be significant beyond the Site level. The consideration of cumulative effects has therefore only been carried out in relation to noctule only, for which a residual impact is predicted at either a Site or Local level.

7.9.2 Where available, the ecology chapters of environmental statements submitted in support of wind turbine or wind farm developments (operational, consented or proposed) within 20km of the Site have been reviewed to determine whether significant impacts on bats (particularly noctule bats) have been identified. These are summarised in Table 7.9 below.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 64 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 7.9 Wind farms within 20km of the proposed Development – summary of impacts on noctule

Wind Farm Distance Status Review of impacts on noctule Frinkley Farm c. 6km Operational/Under No impact on bats identified (1 Turbine) construction

Carlton Scroop c.6km Proposed No impact on bats identified (2 Turbines) Hawton c.9km Proposed Noctule bats recorded but (3 Turbines) significant impact on bats not identified Hockerton c. 20km Operational No survey or assessment data Community available. Turbine (1 Turbine) Ossington Road, c. 20km Consented Noctule bats recorded but Carlton on Trent significant impact on bats not (1 Turbine) identified Nottingham c. 20km Proposed Nyctalus bats recorded but Trent University activity levels were low. (2 Turbines) Significant impacts not identified.

7.9.3 Considering typical distances travelled between roosts and foraging areas (e.g. Mackie & Racey, 200739) schemes within 6km of the proposed development are the most likely to have an in-combination effect on the local population of noctule bats.

7.9.4 One operational wind turbine development (Frinkley Farm) is approximately 6km from the Site, and a further two-turbine development (Carlton Scroop) is proposed at a similar distance.

7.9.5 Significant impacts on bats have not been identified in relation to either scheme and thus, from the available evidence in support of these schemes, the potential for in-combination effects on noctule bats is assessed to be low.

7.9.6 Noctule bat activity has been recorded from more distant sites (e.g. Hawton Ossington Road, and Nottingham Trent University Brackenhurst) but, as above, no significant impacts on bats have been identified in relation to bats. Thus, particularly given the distance, but also from the available evidence in support of

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 65 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

these schemes, the potential for in-combination effects on noctule bats is assessed to be low.

7.10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Noctule Bat

7.10.1 The local LDF Core Strategy policy EN1 seeks to ensure that developments do not have an adverse effect on ecology. All species of bat are fully protected under UK legislation and are therefore covered by this policy and the provision of the NPPF.

7.10.2 The scoping opinion provided by South Kesteven District Council has been taken into account throughout the assessment process, and recommendations for survey, impact avoidance, mitigation and monitoring set out in the scoping report have been addressed in this chapter.

7.10.3 The bat surveys that have been carried out within the Site indicate that the area is used by relatively small numbers of bats, including foraging and commuting noctule bats. This low level of use is as expected as the majority of the Site is dominated by habitats that are considered to be poor for foraging and commuting bats. Nevertheless, small numbers of foraging and commuting bats, including noctule bats, do occur within the Site, particularly in the vicinity of the two water bodies which are adjacent to but just outside the site boundary.

7.10.4 A precautionary approach has been adopted for the impact assessment in noctule bats which recognises that, whilst an impact is possible on individual bats, the risk is likely to be relatively low.

7.10.5 Monitoring is proposed on a precautionary basis so that any subsequent (i.e. post construction) impact on noctule can be identified and addressed as necessary through further mitigation associated with operation of specific wind turbines (i.e. Turbine 2). This approach will ensure that impacts on this species are mitigated to an acceptable level and will not be significant in relation to the EIA regulations.

Other Ecological Receptors

7.10.6 Residual impacts for all other ecological receptors identified will either be negligible or significant at site level (the lowest impact significance level) and, thus, will not be significant in relation to the EIA regulations. Mitigation proposed will ensure compliance with protected species legislation, where relevant.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 66 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Proposed enhancement will give rise to a positive impact at site level in relation to hedgerows and scrub and grassland.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 67 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

References

1. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom, IEEM, 2006.

2. Town and Country Planning Regulations, 1999

3. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation, 2010

4. Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006

5. UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat Descriptions (2011): http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/UKBAP_PriorityHabitatDesc-Rev2011.pdf 6. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

7. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

8. National Planning Policy Framework, 2012

9. Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system, ODPM, 2005.

10. East Midlands Regional Plan

11. South Kesteven Local Development Framework

12. Local Plan for South Kesteven, Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document, June 2013

13. Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan (3rd Edition), Collop, C., Lincolnshire Biodiversity Partnership, 2011

14. Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines: Surveying for onshore wind farms. Bat Conservation Trust, 2011. (Note: a slightly revised version of this standalone chapter was subsequently published in Hundt, L, 2012).

15. Bat Surveys – Good Practice Guidelines (2nd Edition), Hundt, L., Bat Conservation Trust, 2012

16. Great Crested Newt Guidelines – English Nature, 2001

17. Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey – a Technique for Environmental Audit. England Field Unit, Nature Conservancy Council (1990). Revised reprint by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, 2010

18. Bats and Onshore Wind Turbines: Interim guidance - Technical Information Note TIN051, Natural England, 2009

19. Water Vole Conservation Handbook, Wild Cru, Oxford, 2011

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 68 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

20. Evaluating the suitability of habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus), Oldham R.S., Keeble J., Swan M.J.S. & Jeffcote M., Herpetological Journal 10: 143-155, 2000

21. Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs, JNCC, Peterborough, 1989

22. Trent Valley & Rises Natural Area Profile, English Nature, Peterborough, 1997

23. Rare bat breeding in Lincolnshire (Forestry Commission Press release October 2010: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/newsrele.nsf/WebPressReleases/FF4146791F6 531EC802577B300488274).

24. Great crested newt habitat suitability index: ARG UK Advice Note 5, Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the United Kingdom, 2010.

25. Local patterns of distribution and resource utilization of four bat species (Myotis brandtii, Eptesicus nilssoni, Plecotus auritus and Pipistrellus pipistrellus) in patchy and continuous environments. Ekman, M. & J. De Jong, Journal of Zoology (London) 238:571–580, 1996.

26. Foraging habitat preferences of Vespertilionid bats in Britain, Walsh, A. L and Harris, S., Journal of Applied Ecology, 33: 508-518, 1996 (a).

27. Factors determining the abundance of Vespertilionid bats in Britain: geographical, land class and local habitat relationships. Walsh, A.L and Harris, S., Journal of Applied Ecology, 33: 519-529, 1996 (b).

28. British Bats. Altringham, J. Collins New Naturalist Series, 2003.

29. The use by bats of habitat features in mixed farmland in Scotland, Downs, N. C. & Racey, P. A., Acta Chiropterologica, 8:169-185, 2006.

30. Habitat associations of British bat species on lowland farmland within the Upper Thames catchment area. Brandt, G., Blows, L., Linton, D., Paling, N. and Prescott, C., Centre for Wildlife Assessment & Conservation E- Journal 1: 10-19, 2007,

31. The bats of Britain and Ireland: echolocation calls, sound analysis and species identification, Russ, J.M., Alana Ecology, 1999.

32. Development of good practice guidelines for woodland management for bats: English Nature Research Report 66, Boye, P. and Dietz, M., English Nature, Peterborough, 2005.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 69 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

33. Noctule bat Nyctalus noctula: Fact Sheet. Bat Conservation Trust, London, 2010.

34. National Bat Monitoring Programme Annual Report 2010; Trends in UK Bat Species. Bat Conservation Trust (BCT) & Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), 2010. Available from www.bats.org.uk

35. Bat Mortality at Wind Turbines in Northwestern Europe, Rydell, J., Bach, L., Duborg-Savage, M., Green, M., Rodrigues, L. & Hedenström, A., Acta Chiropterologica, 12: 261-274, 2010.

36. A review of British mammals: population estimates and conservation status of British mammals other than cetaceans. Harris S., Morris, P., Wray, S. & Yalden, D., JNCC, Peterborough, 1995.

37. Nathusius' pipistrelle in Great Britain & Ireland, Russ, J. (www.nathusius.org.uk) Accessed 12 November 2012.

38. Altering turbine speed reduces bat mortality at wind-energy facilities. Arnett E.B, Huso M.M.P, Schirmacher M.R & Hayes J.P., Front Ecol Environ 9: 209-214 (2011).

39. Habitat use varies with reproductive state in noctule bats Nyctalus noctula: Implications for conservation. Mackie, I.J., and Racey, P., Biological Conservation 140: 70-77, 2007.

Stephenson Halliday 7 - 70 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

8 ORNITHOLOGY

8.1 INTRODUCTION

8.1.1 This chapter presents the results of an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) of the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Development for ornithology. The purpose of this EclA is to assess the likely significant effects of the Development on the ornithological conservation interest of the site and immediate environs (i.e. potential zone of effect). For the purpose of this chapter the ‘survey area’ refers to areas surveyed during various bird surveys. The following material is provided in support of this ES Chapter:

 Figures 8.1 to 8.23 illustrating flight lines for different bird species

 Appendix 8.1: Breeding Bird Survey Report

 Appendix 8.2: Wintering Bird Survey Report

 Appendix 8.3: Collision Risk Assessment Report

8.1.2 The site is located in the South Kesteven administrative area approximately 7km south east of Newark-on-Trent and 9km north of Grantham. The nearest settlements to the Development are Brandon approximately 1.1km north east, Stubton 1.5km north west, Gelston 2.6km south east and Hough-on-the-Hill 2.9km east. The East Coast Main Line passes within approximately 600m to the south west of the Development and the A1 passes within approximately 5.3km to the west.

8.1.3 The site is currently under intensive arable cultivation and comprises large scale arable fields with very few hedgerows and limited woodland cover. The topography of the site and immediate area is open and broadly flat ranging from 19m - 25m AOD.

8.2 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT

8.2.1 The principal objectives of this assessment are:

 to establish the baseline ornithological conditions within the site and determine its nature conservation value with respect to birds;

 to predict the nature and significance of potential impacts arising from the Development on the ornithological interest within and adjacent to the site;

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 where significant ornithological impacts are identified, to identify mitigation measures in order to avoid, minimise or offset any adverse impacts to an acceptable level; and

 to assess the significance of any cumulative and residual impacts (following the incorporation of mitigation).

8.2.2 Mitigation and enhancement measures in accordance with good practice are proposed, where appropriate, to avoid or minimise any potential impacts on valued ornithological receptors. Any likely significant residual impacts on ornithological receptors are identified.

8.3 GUIDANCE AND POLICY

Legislation and Planning Policy Context

8.3.1 The EcIA takes full account of relevant legislation for birds along with relevant planning policy documents as detailed below.

Birds Directive and Transitioning Regulations

8.3.2 European Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds, commonly known as the ‘Birds Directive’, protects all wild birds, their nests, eggs and habitats within the European Community. It gives member states of the European Union the power and responsibility to classify Special Protection Areas (SPAs) to protect birds which are rare or vulnerable in Europe, as well as all migratory birds which are regular visitors.

Transposition into National Law and Supporting Activities

8.3.3 In England, the provisions of the Birds Directive are implemented through the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations 2010 (as amended). A very wide range of other statutory and non-statutory activities also support the implementation of the Birds Directive in the UK including the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) which involves action for a number of bird species and the habitats which support them.

Natura 2000 Sites and the Habitats Regulations

8.3.4 Developments, either individually or in combination with other proposals, likely to have a significant effect on a designated or proposed Natura 2000 (SPA, SAC)

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

and/or Ramsar site will be subject to an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site’s conservation objectives. Development will only be permitted where the assessment concludes that:

 it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site; or

 there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and there are not alternative solutions.

8.3.5 Where such a site hosts a priority habitat and/or priority species as defined by the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC), the only overriding public interest must relate to human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment. Other allowable exceptions are subject to the views of the European Commission.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

8.3.6 All birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law and it is thus an offence, with certain exceptions intentionally to:

 Kill, injure or take any wild bird;

 Take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built;

 Take or destroy the egg of any wild bird;

 Have in one's possession or control any wild bird (dead or alive) or any part of a wild bird which has been taken in contravention of the Act or the Protection of Birds Act 1954;

 Have in one's possession or control any egg or part of an egg which has been taken in contravention to the Act. This includes items taken or killed before the passing of the Act;

 Have in one's possession or control any live bird of prey of any species in the world (with the exception of vultures and condors) unless it is registered and ringed in;

 Have in one's possession or control any bird of a species occurring on schedule 4 of the Act unless registered (and in some cases ringed) in accordance with the Secretary of State's regulations;

 Disturb any wild bird listed on schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

National Policy

8.3.7 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) at paragraph 109 advises that the:

‘planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes… recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services, and minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible; contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures…’

8.3.8 Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites, so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological networks. Paragraph 196 of the NPPF makes it plain that the guidance contained within it is a material planning consideration.

Local Policy

East Midlands Regional Plan

8.3.9 The East Midlands Regional Plan is the regional spatial strategy for the area within which the Development is located. Policy 29 of the plan identifies the priorities for enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity. This policy includes a requirement for the ‘development and implementation of mechanisms to ensure that development results in no net loss of BAP habitats and species, particularly for restricted habitats with special environmental requirements, and that net gain is achieved.’

8.3.10 Policy 40 identifies the Regional Priorities for Low Carbon Energy Generation. One of the aims of the policy is to ‘develop policies and proposals to achieve the indicative regional targets for renewable energy’. The policy also includes specific criteria for wind turbines. These criteria include, ‘consideration of the effect on the natural and cultural environment (including biodiversity, the integrity of designated nature conservation sites of international importance, and historic assets and their settings’

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

South Kesteven Core Strategy

8.3.11 The Core Strategy forms one of a portfolio of documents which together would form the Local Development Framework. Although the planning policy preparation system has now changed with a requirement to produce local plans, the Core Strategy remains part of the statutory Development Plan for the time being. The document sets out the broad development strategy for the District. It includes policy EN1 which is aimed at the Protection and Enhancement of the Character of the District. It requires that all development proposals be assessed in relation to; inter alia, ‘biodiversity and ecological networks within the landscape’.

South Kesteven Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

8.3.12 The South Kesteven Wind Energy SPD describes the approach to ornithological assessment advocates applying the relevant guidance from Scottish Natural Heritage, RSPB and the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management described in the survey Guidance Section 8.3.

Survey Guidance

8.3.13 In 2002, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) produced guidance on survey methods to be used to assess impacts of wind developments on upland bird communities. This guidance was designed to provide information on the survey effort, and types of surveys required, to ensure sufficient information on bird interests at proposed wind development sites was collected. The guidance was also designed to allow comprehensive impact assessments to be completed. The guidance was updated and replaced by more detailed guidelines on survey methods for onshore wind farm bird surveys in 2005 and subsequently revised in 2010 (SNH, 2005 revised 2010).

8.3.14 SNH has also prepared draft guidance, in conjunction with British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) (now RenewableUK) on assessing the impacts of proposed wind farms on birds. This guidance produced by SNH has been adopted throughout England and Wales as the standard reference for survey methodology to assess potential effects of wind farms on birds. Within a local context South Kesteven District Council’s Draft Wind Energy supplementary planning document (see section 8.5.8) refers to SNH guidance as the relevant standard to follow in relation to assessing potential ornithological effects. Natural England (2010) has subsequently produced further guidance on

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

assessing the effects of onshore wind farms on birds. This guidance has been taken into account in association with the methods set out by SNH. SNH has also provided guidance on methods for assessing the collision risk of bird species at a wind development site with turbine blades through a simple model (SNH, 2000).

8.3.15 SNH has produced updated guidance on assessing the significance of impacts from onshore wind farms on birds at sites outside designated areas (SNH, 2006). In particular, this guidance identifies species that may be particularly at risk from wind development impacts. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has also produced a bird sensitivity map for England to help to identify potential locations of wind development sites (Bright et al., 2006). This map classifies land in England as ‘High, Medium or Unknown’ sensitivity. The site lies within an area of ‘unknown’ sensitivity.

Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC)

8.3.16 In 2002, a consortium of UK nature conservation bodies produced a list of bird Species of Conservation Concern in the UK (Eaton et al., 2009). Species that are considered to be of conservation concern are listed in two categories: red (high conservation concern) and amber (medium conservation concern). Where significant populations of species included in the red and amber lists were identified within the survey area, they are considered in this assessment.

8.4 METHODOLOGY

Consultation and Desk Study

8.4.1 Throughout the EcIA process, including the scoping stage, a consultation and data collection exercise for ornithology has been undertaken to further inform this assessment. A summary of ornithological consultation is detailed below.

Table 8.1 Consultation Summary

Consultee Consultation request Consultation response Response/ Action Taken

Natural Request for a Referred to Natural Survey work has England scoping opinion. England Guidance Note been undertaken in TIN 069 in relation to accordance with TIN onshore wind farms and 069

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

birds recommendations RPSB Request for Generic guidance on the Survey work and comments on the proposed approach to assessment location and layout of assessment and approach is in the proposal requirements of the ES. accordance with RSPB guidance. Lincolnshire Ornithological Provision of >11,000 bird Key records have bird club records within 10km records from 30 sites been summarised within 10km within the chapter.

8.4.2 Information on statutory sites within 10km of the site was obtained from the Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside web site (www.magic.defra.gov.uk). Additional species data within 10km of the site was also supplied by Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire Bird Club.

Surveys

8.4.3 Baseline ornithological surveys were carried out on a monthly basis from December 2010 to December 2011. These surveys were undertaken to appropriately quantify the use of the site by birds throughout the calendar year, and to allow an estimate of the theoretical risk of bird collision with the turbines. The survey programme takes full account of generic guidance received from both the RSPB and Natural England in relation to the required survey effort. The following sections detail the surveys methods followed.

Breeding Bird surveys

8.4.4 The Common Bird Census methodology set out in Gilbert et al. (1998) was followed, comprising six surveys undertaken at approximately fortnightly intervals in April, May and July 2011. The survey area included the site and an additional 1km buffer zone. Each survey began at dawn and approximately two hours were spent surveying each km2, to standardise survey effort.

8.4.5 Summer bird surveys also included vantage point (VP) surveys. VP surveys from two separate locations were undertaken in line with survey methods and guidance detailed by SNH (2005) as well as taking into account relevant Natural England (2010 guidance). Survey effort comprised of 36 hours of observations undertaken in April 2011 through to July 2011, with nine hours undertaken each month. Surveys were spread out over the full day to give an even coverage of daylight hours. All vantage point surveys ensured that all parts of the

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Development and a buffer of 20m surrounding turbines could be viewed from within 1km. All bird flights were recorded regardless of distance from the site.

8.4.6 Volume 3, Appendix 8.1 contains the breeding bird survey report where full details of the surveys can be viewed.

Winter Bird Surveys

8.4.7 Winter field count surveys using the simple ‘look – see’ method as set out in Gilbert et al. (1998) were carried out at approximately fortnightly intervals in the period December 2010 to March 2011 and August to December 2011. The survey area included the site and 1km buffer zone.

8.4.8 Winter bird surveys also included VP survey in line with previously identified guidance from SNH (2005) and Natural England (2010). Survey effort comprised 48 hours of watches in each of the two blocks set out above. Surveys were spread out over the full day to give an even coverage of daylight hours. All vantage point surveys ensured that all parts of the Development and a buffer of 200m surrounding each turbine location could be viewed from a distance of no more than 1km. All visible bird flights were recorded regardless of distance from the site.

8.4.9 Volume 3, Appendix 8.2 contains the winter bird survey report where full details of the surveys can be viewed.

Collision Risk Assessment

8.4.10 Following the assessment of flight duration and status of bird species recorded over 80 hours of VP watches it was deemed appropriate to conduct a collision risk modelling exercise on 10 species; greylag goose, marsh harrier, common buzzard, kestrel, golden plover, lapwing, black-headed gull, common gull, lesser black-backed gull and herring gull. These species were chosen because they all had flight activity recorded at risk height; a collision risk assessment was not conducted on those species with zero activity at flight height.

8.4.11 The collision risk model was based on the theoretical model developed by Band et al. (2007) and is a two stage process that calculates the number of bird transits through the area swept by turbine rotors and subsequently the probability of a bird colliding with the turbine rotor blades. The collision risk report outlines the parameters used in the collision risk model and the theoretical levels of collision. While field survey at the site was undertaken from

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 8 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

two VP locations the assessment has been based from a single VP location which provides the required coverage of the Development and buffer of 200m surrounding all proposed infrastructure.

8.4.12 The proposed turbines would be up to a maximum height of 126.5m to blade tip. The following assessment assumes dimensions of 80m hub height and 93m blade diameter as a worst case scenario. If these dimensions were to change (within the 126.5m envelope) it is considered unlikely that the assessment would be significantly altered due to the currently low levels of risk to sensitive species / populations currently identified. Preliminary assessment of flight data indicates that of all the species recorded, gulls such as herring gull Larus argentatus and black headed gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus are the most vulnerable to any reduction in lower blade tip height or increase in rotor swept area.

8.4.13 Volume 3, Appendix 8.3 includes the collision risk modelling report.

Assessment Methodology

Method Overview

8.4.14 The assessment methodology used to evaluate the potential ecological effects arising from the Development have been assessed in accordance with the principles laid down in best practice EcIA guidance (IEEM, 2006). The assessment process includes the following components:

 identify the ecological features that could potentially be affected;

 determine the value of such ecological features;

 initially assess impacts affecting those important features and resources, which meet or exceed a defined threshold value;

 from the initial assessment identify any mitigation, compensation or enhancement incorporated into the proposed development;

 assess potential residual effects following the incorporation of mitigation, compensation and enhancement; and

 identify any residual likely significant impacts.

Identification of Ecological Receptors

8.4.15 An initial stage of the assessment establishes those ornithological features (‘receptors’) that may be affected by the proposed development. Such receptors can include populations of particular species, communities of species,

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 9 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

habitats and valued sites potentially affected by the environmental changes created by the proposed development.

8.4.16 Receptors have been identified through a programme of desk study and site based field surveys with a baseline then established for each receptor. It is the change from this baseline that potential impacts are assessed against.

Valuing Ecological Receptors

8.4.17 In order to fully assess effects on an ecological receptor, it must first be valued according to its conservation status.

8.4.18 Valuation of species is based on a relatively straightforward application of the conservation status of birds (Percival, 2007). The value of a species is made using the percentage of the population the site supports, its conservation status and its importance in relation to designated sites. Additionally, the importance of the on-site habitat for each species has been incorporated in to the valuation as without this the importance of a bird occurring in optimal habitat is considered equal to a bird occurring in sub-optimal habitat. The result is a more rounded assessment that considers the value of the site for a species rather than just considering the nature conservation importance of the species alone.

8.4.19 Relevant definitions used in this assessment are shown in Table 8.2.

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 10 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 8.2 Valuation of Receptors

Value Definition Very High Species cited as interest features of an internationally or nationally designated site (e.g. SPA, Ramsar, SSSI) which could be affected. A species present in internationally important numbers. High Other non-cited species that contribute to the integrity of an SPA or SSSI. A local population of more than 1% of the national population of a species. Ecologically sensitive species, e.g. less common birds of prey (e.g. golden eagle, osprey, hen harrier) or rare birds (<300 breeding pairs in the UK). Species listed under Annex 1 of the Birds Directive or on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (if not covered above). Regularly occurring migratory species that are either rare or vulnerable, or warrant special attention due to the proximity of migration routes, breeding sites or wintering/staging areas in relation to the site. Medium Regionally important population of a species, either because of population size (>1% of regional population) or distributional context. UK BAP priority species (if not covered above). Species occurring within SPAs and SSSIs which are present infrequently or are not crucial to the integrity of a site. Low Any other species of conservation interest e.g. species listed on the birds of conservation concern (Eaton et al., 2009) not covered above. Local BAP species (if not covered above). Negligible Common and Widespread species not covered above.

Impact Magnitude

8.4.20 The magnitude of an impact depends upon the nature of a receptor and the range of potential effects arising from the proposed development. For the purposes of this EcIA effects are defined as ‘the way in which an ecological resource/receptor is affected by a project’ in line with IEEM 2006 guidelines.

8.4.21 In assessing the likely magnitude of an effect, it is necessary to have as great an understanding as possible of its timing, intensity, frequency, duration and reversibility. For the purposes of this assessment, the nature of the effects on specific receptors is described in section 8.8 and then the magnitude of these effects is summarised as being in one of the categories set out in Table 8.3, depending upon the extent of the area or population deemed likely to be affected by the proposed development.

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 11 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 8.3: Impact Magnitude

Magnitude Description High Significant effect on the nature conservation status of the site, habitat or species, likely to threaten the long-term integrity of the ecosystem. Not replaceable or reversible. Will be detectable in short-, medium- and long-term. Medium Noticeable effect on the nature conservation status of the site, habitat or species population, but would not threaten the long-term integrity of the system. Replaceable or reversible given time. Effect on nature conservation status likely to be detectable in short- and medium-term. Low Detectable effects, and may be irreversible, but either of sufficiently small scale (or short duration, if reversible) to have no material effect on the conservation status of the site, habitat or species population. Barely Detectable effect but reversible within 12 months. Not expected to Perceptible affect the conservation status of the site, habitat or species under consideration. No Impact No detectable effects on the ecological resource, even in the immediate term.

8.4.22 The following definitions have been applied in respect of timescales:

 ‘immediate’ - within approximately 12 months;

 ‘short-term’ - within approximately 1 to 5 years;

 ‘medium-term’ - within approximately 6 to 15 years; and

 ‘long-term’ - more than 15 years.

Impact Significance

8.4.23 The determination of impact significance involves the interaction of both the nature conservation value of the site, species population or assemblage concerned, together with the assessment of the overall magnitude of the various impacts upon it. The more ecologically valuable a site and the greater the magnitude of a given impact, the higher the significance of that impact is likely to be.

8.4.24 An EcIA is undertaken in relation to the baseline conditions that would be expected to occur if the proposed development were not to take place, and therefore may include possible predictions of future changes to baseline conditions, such as known or likely land use trends and other completed or planned developments. Both negative and positive impacts are possible.

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 12 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

8.4.25 Table 8.4 shows in general terms the way in which the significance of ornithological impacts is considered in this chapter. It is important to appreciate that this does not represent a rigid framework for assessment - there are gradations between different categories of site and impact, and on occasion the significance of a particular impact may not accord precisely with the categories shown below. Impacts of minor significance or less are deemed to be not significant in relation to the EIA regulations.

Table 8.4: Impact Significance Matrix

Magnitude Value of Barely Receptor High Medium Low No Impact Perceptible Very High Major Major Moderate Negligible Negligible High Major Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible Medium Moderate Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Low Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

8.4.26 Impacts of Moderate significance or above (shaded in Table 8.4) are considered to be significant in EIA terms.

8.5 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Statutory Sites

8.5.1 There are no sites which have been statutorily designated primarily for ornithological criteria located within 10km of the site. The only statutory designated site which is noted as supporting ornithological features is Moor Closes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) located approximately 8.6km south east. This SSSI comprises of lowland neutral grassland with areas of base rich marsh. The meadows provide a locally important breeding site for snipe Gallinago gallinago and lapwing Vanellus vanellus. The site is also a regular winter feeding area for fieldfare Turdus pilaris and redwing Turdus iliacus. As noted the SSSI is not designated for ornithological features as they are described as being of local importance only.

Non-Statutory Sites

8.5.2 No records of non-statutory designated nature conservation sites were provided by Lincolnshire Environmental Records Centre from the 2km search radius around the site.

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 13 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement Ornithological Data

8.5.3 A data search request was submitted to Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire Bird clubs requesting the following specific data.

 Rare or scarce species of raptor or owl (Breeding or wintering);

 Species occurring on schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended;

 Aggregations of waders or wildfowl through the non-breeding periods of the year; and

 Any geographical or habitat features in the vicinity which are known to support rare or notable species or attract large numbers of passage birds.

8.5.4 Lincolnshire Bird Club returned a spreadsheet containing over 11,000 bird records including separate sheets of data for Schedule 1 species and confidential data relating to sensitive Schedule 1 species. Similarly, Nottinghamshire (neighbouring county) Bird Club returned a spreadsheet with approximately 2,200 records. Scrutiny of the data indicated that many of the bird records from both county bird clubs was derived from a small number of sites within the 10km radius. The results of the data search are therefore summarised by site and species present noting the peak count or number of records of the species of interest (see Tables 8.5 – Lincolnshire and 8.6 – Nottinghamshire). The locations of the sites are mapped on Figure 8.24 showing their location in relation to the Development.

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 14 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 8.5: Bird Sites and Species (Provided by Lincolnshire Bird Club)

Map Site Name Grid Overview of Species Present Ref and Reference (numbers in parentheses indicate peak proximity to counts or records where stated) development 1 Manston SK9043- Mute swan (10), whooper swan (21) and STW SK9142 Bewicks swan (5), Pink footed goose (150), greater white fronted goose (15), greylag (3km south goose (350), shelduck (13), wigeon (300), east) gadwall (25), teal (300), mallard (500), pintail (5), shoveller (24), pochard (11), tufted duck (32), water rail (20), golden plover (1500), lapwing (1000), ruff (45), snipe (270), curlew (38), black headed gull (300), garganey (5), spotted crake (2) and kingfisher (14 records). Scarce raptors and owls recorded include Osprey (8 records), honey buzzard (1 record), merlin (15 records), hen harrier (5 records), long eared owl (1 record) and short eared owl (11 records). 2 Frieston SK9348- Mute swan (6), greylag goose (75), shelduck Flashes SK9547 (4), wigeon (30), mallard (180), pochard (3), (3.1km east) tufted duck (10), great crested grebe (4),

snipe (4) and Osprey (2 records). 3 Westborough SK8445- Mute swan (9), mallard (30),lapwing (60) SK8644 and King fisher are also recorded (3 (1.5km south records). west) 4 Honington SK9444- Mute swan (6), Bewicks swan (1), pink SK9542 footed goose (200), teal (19), shoveller (2) (4.7km south and golden plover (42). east) 5 Welbourne SK9754- Pink footed goose (40), dotterel (10), golden Heath SK9952 plover (200), lapwing (190). Hen harrier (1 record) and quail (4 records) are also (8.2 km north recorded. east) 6 Long SK8346- Pink footed goose (400), whooper swan (32) Bennington SK8544 and kingfisher (2 records). (2km south west) 7 Grantham SK8938- Pink footed goose (800), mallard (115), SK9534 whooper swan (90), golden plover (400) and (7.8km south) curlew (9). Osprey (4 records) long eared

owl (1 record) and eagle owl (1 record) are also reported from this location. 8 Caythorpe SK9349- Pink footed goose (500) (3.5km north SK9547 east)

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 15 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement Map Site Name Grid Overview of Species Present Ref and Reference (numbers in parentheses indicate peak proximity to counts or records where stated) development 9 Fulbeck SK9451- Whooper swan (70) pink footed goose SK9650 (170), Egyptian goose (2), teal (14), golden (4.8km north plover (150) and lapwing (700). Osprey (1 east) record) and merlin (4 records) are also recorded. 10 Belton Park SK9240- Greylag goose (93), shelduck (3), shoveller SK9637 (5), tufted duck (9), great crested grebe (3). (6.3km south Lesser spotted woodpecker and crossbill east) are also reported from this location. 11 Ancaster Pits SK9744- Egyptian goose (2), teal (45), pochard (7) SK9843 and great crested grebe are recorded at this (7.5km south location. Osprey (8 records), and crossbill east) are also reported at this location. 12 Houghham SK8845- Lapwing (34) and hen harrier (1 record) are SK9044 recorded at this location. (0.8km south) 13 Barkston SK9443- Hen harrier (1 record), honey buzzard (1 Heath SK9841 record) and short eared owl (2 records) are reported from this location. Black headed (5.2km south gulls are also reported in good numbers east) (1000). 14 Brant SK9155- Lapwing (130) quail (1 record) and Broughton SK9253 kingfisher are reported from this location. (5.6km north east) 15 Normanton SK9447- Quail (1 record) is reported from this SK9646 location. (4.2km east) 16 Ancaster SK9845- Honey buzzard (1 record and Osprey (3 SK9943 records) are reported from this location. (8.3km east) 17 Leadenham SK9154- Golden plover (300) and honey buzzard (1 Low Fields SK9551 record) are reported from this location. (3.5km north east) 18 Leadenham SK9653- A range of gull species are found in Tip SK9752 substantial numbers at this location including lesser black backed gull (500), (6.9km north herring gull (300), great black backed gull east) (720), black headed gull (1000), Mediterranean gull ( 4 records). Merlin (1 record) is also reported from this location. 19 Foston SK8544- Golden plover (2500) and long eared owl (1 SK8742 record) are reported form this location. (3.7km south) 20 Claypole SK8450- Lapwing (200), long eared owl (1 record) SK8648 and kingfisher (2 records) are reported from (1.2km north this location. west)

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 16 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement Map Site Name Grid Overview of Species Present Ref and Reference (numbers in parentheses indicate peak proximity to counts or records where stated) development 21 Manthorpe SK9139- Corncrake (1 record). (Grantham) SK9337 (7.5km south) 22 Stapleford SK8458- Crossbill are reported from this location. Wood SK8755 (6.8km north west)

Table 8.6: Bird Sites and Species (Provided by Nottinghamshire Bird Club)

Map Site Name Grid Overview of Species Present Ref Reference 23 Kilvington SK795 433 Barn owl (1), merlin (1), Red kite (1), Lakes Peregrine falcon (1), osprey (1), Hobby (2), Long eared owl (4), marsh harrier (2). (9.3km south west) Barnacle goose (1), Canada goose (203), pochard (342), common scoter (9), shelduck (12), teal (133), wigeon (220), gadwall (12), mallard (179), shoveler (14), tufted duck (186), pintail (7), red crested pochard (8), goldeneye (7), goosander (10), greater scaup (5), greylag goose (50), pink footed goose (400), whooper swan (7), mute swan (11), bewicks swan (5) great crested grebe (20), little grebe (17). Bar tailed godwit (1), black tailed godwit (26), bittern (1), little egret (14), curlew (34), redshank (36), snipe (20), dunlin (18), jack snipe (10), little ringed plover (7), ringed plover (25), common sandpiper (9), golden plover (200), lapwing (500), greenshank (24), grey plover (1), little stint (1), oystercatcher (3), knot (13), ruff (2), spotted redshank (1), Temnincks stint (1), whimbrel (1), wood sandpiper (4), woodcock (1), turtle dove (7) 24 Cotham SK795475 Tree sparrow (30), red kite (1). (8.8km west) 25 Cotham Tip SK799485 Little ringed plover (2), long eared owl (2). (8.5km west) 26 Cotham SK 795494 Barn owl (2), Hobby (1), Long eared owl Flash (1), peregrine falcon (1), short eared owl (1). (9km west) Redshank (1), common sandpiper (1), snipe (16), coot (6), curlew (2), dunlin (4), green sandpiper (3), greenshank (5), jack snipe (1), lapwing (160), little egret (1), little ringed plover (2), ringed plover (9), ruff (2), sanderling (1).

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 17 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement Map Site Name Grid Overview of Species Present Ref Reference Teal (130, wigeon (25), garganey (2), gadwall (10), mallard (4), mute swan (57), pink footed goose (94), shoveler (7), whooper swan (27). 27 Pyketts Pond SK796485 Barn owl (1), long eared owl (4), merlin (1). (8.8km west) Bittern (1), coot (47), cuckoo (1), mallard (11), moorhen (12), shoveler (5), tufted duck (12), whooper swan (3). 28 Staunton Hall SK805432 Lesser spotted woodpecker (1), cuckoo (1), shoveler (3), goosander (2). (8.4km south west) 29 Staunton in SK806437 Barn owl (6, 3 nest sites), marsh harrier (1), the Vale goosander (2), pink footed goose (fly over) (400), Turtle dove (1). (8.1km south west) 30 Hawton SK802507 Turtle dove (1), barn owl (1), little owl (1). (8.8km north west)

8.5.5 The data provided by the bird clubs indicate that there are a number of areas within 10km of the site which support notable flocks of wintering waders and wildfowl. The most significant of these appear to be Marston Sewage Treatment Works (STW) (4km south west of the site), Kilvington Lakes (7km south west) and Cotham Flashes (7km west). Other sites identified supporting wintering waders and wildfowl included Frieston Flashes (3km east), Honington, Long Bennington, Grantham, Caythorpe, Pyketts Pond and Fulbeck. Two further sites Leadenham Low Fields and Foston (4km south west) were noted as supporting large flocks of golden plover Pluvialis apricaria and Leadenham Tip is noted as supporting large numbers of gulls larus spp.

8.5.6 Records of scarce or Schedule 1 raptors were noted at Marston STW, Kilvington Lakes, Cotham Flash, Staunton in the Vale, Ancaster, Welbourne Heath, Grantham, Fulbeck, Belton Park, Ancaster Pits, Barkston Heath and Leadenham Low Fields. Of these sites only Marston STW lies within 5km of the site.

8.5.7 A large number of further raptor records (the details of which remain confidential under the terms of the data request from Lincolnshire Bird Club) were located throughout the 10km search radius. Species include red kite Milvus milvus, marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus, Montagu’s harrier Circus pygargus, northern

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 18 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

goshawk Accipiter gentilis, Eurasian hobby Falco subbuteo, Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus and Barn owl Tyto alba.

8.5.8 Other Schedule 1 species whose location is kept confidential under the terms of the data search include little ringed plover Charadrius dubius. Non-confidential Schedule 1 species reported include common quail Coturnix coturnix reported at four of the sites detailed above, common crossbill Loxia curvirostra which was reported from Ancaster Pits, Fulbeck and Stapleford Wood.

8.5.9 In addition to the species mentioned above, Manston STW and Kilvington Lakes appear to be important and well recorded areas for migrant birds with a large number of records of more scarce wading birds, wildfowl and passerines though in notably smaller numbers than those species detailed in the table above.

8.5.10 In addition to those species targeted for analysis described above, Lincolnshire Bird Club provided details of widespread and common bird species which may be expected within this type of landscape. This includes species of conservation concern such as declining farmland bird species including corn bunting Emberiza calandra, yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella, reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus, skylark Alauda arvensis, linnet Carduelis cannabina, grey partridge Perdix perdix, and lapwing Vanellus vanellus amongst others which could all be expected to potentially use the site and surrounding land.

8.5.11 Lincolnshire bird reports for 2009 and 2010 (Chick ed. 2009 and 2010) were also used to support the assessment of species distribution and status.

Field Survey Results

8.5.12 Volume 3, Appendix 8.1 and 8.2 contain full reports for the VP and breeding bird survey programmes summarised below.

Breeding Bird Survey Results

8.5.13 The breeding bird populations found within the survey area are summarised in Table 8.7 which shows the estimated number of breeding pairs recorded over the six surveys and breeding density for each species.

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 19 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 8.7: Breeding Bird Population Estimates within the Temple Hill Survey

Area

Estimated number of Density (pairs Species Species Code breeding pairs per km2) Mute Swan MS 1 0.2 Gadwall GA 1 0.2 Mallard MA 12 2.6 Tufted Duck TU 4 0.9 Red-legged Partridge RL 9 2.0 Grey Partridge P 4 0.9 Quail Q 1 0.2 Pheasant PH 26 5.7 Buzzard BZ 3 0.7 Moorhen MH 3 0.7 Coot CO 3 0.7 Lapwing L 1 0.2 Feral Pigeon FP 29 6.3 Stock Dove SD 8 1.7 Woodpigeon WP 170 37.0 Collared Dove CD 4 0.9 Turtle Dove TD 1 0.2 Cuckoo CK 1 0.2 Barn Owl BO 1 0.2 Little Owl LO 1 0.2 Green Woodpecker G 2 0.4 Skylark S 61 13.3 Swallow SL 12 2.6 House Martin HM 7 1.5 Meadow Pipit MP 1 0.2 Yellow Wagtail YW 35 7.6 Pied Wagtail PW 5 1.1 Wren WR 40 8.7 Dunnock D 22 4.8 Robin R 32 7.0 Blackbird B 35 7.6 Song Thrush ST 8 1.7 Mistle Thrush M 4 0.9 Sedge Warbler SW 9 2.0

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 20 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement Estimated number of Density (pairs Species Species Code breeding pairs per km2) Blackcap BC 15 3.3 Garden Warbler GW 6 1.3 Lesser Whitethroat LW 24 5.2 Whitethroat WH 68 14.8 Chiffchaff CC 9 2.0 Willow Warbler WW 14 3.0 Long-tailed Tit LT 8 1.7 Blue Tit BT 20 4.3 Great Tit GT 16 3.5 Coal Tit CT 1 0.2 Jay J 2 0.4 Magpie MG 5 1.1 Jackdaw JD 2 0.4 Carrion Crow C 9 2.0 Starling SG 4 0.9 House Sparrow HS 11 2.4 Tree Sparrow TS 4 0.9 Chaffinch CH 59 12.8 Greenfinch GR 7 1.5 Goldfinch GO 14 3.0 Linnet LI 64 13.9 Yellowhammer Y 29 6.3 Reed Bunting RB 20 4.3 Corn Bunting CB 7 1.5

8.5.14 Other species recorded using the site and/or over-flying but not showing any evidence of breeding during this survey programme included: cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo (peak count 1), grey heron Ardea cinerea (peak count 1), sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus (peak count 1), kestrel Falco tinnunculus (peak count 2), swift Apus apus (peak count19), wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe (two records of single migrants) and rook Corvus frugilegus (peak count 45).

Breeding Season - Vantage Point Survey Results

8.5.15 Table 8.8 shows the total number of flights recorded at each VP during the breeding season VP surveys along with the frequency of flights and percentage of flights at swept rotor height.

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 21 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 8.8 Breeding Bird VP Surveys – Summary Data

Species Total number of Flight rate (no/hr) % flights birds observed over- at rotor flying height VP1 VP2 VP1 VP2 Greylag Goose 13 0 0.36 0 100% Shelduck 0 2 0 0.06 0% Mallard 48 46 1.33 1.28 47% Cormorant 5 3 0.14 0.08 100% Grey Heron 5 4 0.14 0.11 67% Red Kite 2 1 0.06 0.03 100% Marsh Harrier 3 1 0.08 0.03 75% Montagu's Harrier 0 1 0 0.03 100% Sparrowhawk 11 6 0.31 0.17 53% Buzzard 89 112 2.47 3.11 60% Kestrel 45 57 1.25 1.58 61% Hobby 2 5 0.06 0.14 50% Peregrine 1 0 0.03 0 0% Oystercatcher 0 1 0 0.03 100% Lapwing 31 33 0.86 0.92 17% Curlew 1 0 0.03 0 100% Lesser Black- backed Gull 30 32 0.83 0.89 93% Herring Gull 4 7 0.11 0.19 83% Black-headed Gull 21 24 0.58 0.67 58% Barn Owl 0 1 0 0.03 0%

Winter Field Count Results

8.5.16 The wintering bird populations found within the survey area during the field counts are summarised in Table 8.9.

Table 8.9: Wintering Bird Populations in the Temple Hill Survey Area

Mean count Peak count Frequency of (number / (number / occurrence Species survey) survey) (% surveys recorded) Mute Swan 0.6 3 25% Pink-footed Goose 2.9 46 6% Greylag Goose 0.6 5 19% Canada Goose 0.1 2 6% Wigeon 0.6 4 19%

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 22 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Mean count Peak count Frequency of (number / (number / occurrence Species survey) survey) (% surveys recorded) Gadwall 0.1 2 6% Teal 0.3 2 13% Mallard 9.2 55 69% Tufted Duck 0.1 1 6% Cormorant 0.7 5 31% Grey Heron 0.6 1 56% Red Kite 0.1 1 6% Sparrowhawk 0.1 1 13% Buzzard 2.1 6 75% Kestrel 2.0 5 94% Merlin 0.1 1 6% Peregrine 0.1 1 6% Coot 0.3 3 13% Golden Plover 3.3 53 6% Lapwing 20.9 152 44% Snipe 0.1 1 6% Curlew 0.3 4 6% Common Sandpiper 0.1 1 6% Green Sandpiper 0.3 2 19% Common Gull 22.8 83 63% Lesser Black-backed Gull 18.1 211 31% Yellow-legged Gull 0.4 7 6% Herring Gull 1.1 7 31% Great Black-backed Gull 1.2 7 38% Black-headed Gull 26.2 213 50%

Winter Vantage Point Survey Results

8.5.17 Table 8.10 shows the total number of flights recorded at each VP during the winter season VP surveys along with the frequency of flights and percentage of flights at swept rotor height.

Table 8.10 Winter Bird VP Surveys – Summary Data

Species Total number of Flight rate (no/hr) % flights at birds observed over- rotor flying height VP1 VP2 VP1 VP2

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 23 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Species Total number of Flight rate (no/hr) % flights at birds observed over- rotor flying height VP1 VP2 VP1 VP2 Mute Swan 11 0 0.2 0 60% Pink-footed Goose 281 989 5.9 20.6 100% Greylag Goose 537 159 11.2 3.3 67% Canada Goose 3 0 0.1 0 50% Teal 8 0 0.2 0 100% Mallard 167 47 3.5 1.0 52% Cormorant 8 11 0.2 0.2 89% Grey Heron 8 6 0.2 0.1 33% Red Kite 1 1 0.02 0.02 0% Marsh Harrier 0 1 0 0.02 100% Hen Harrier 1 0 0.02 0 0% Sparrowhawk 16 10 0.3 0.2 32% Buzzard 60 94 1.3 2.0 59% Kestrel 40 49 0.8 1.0 19% Merlin 1 3 0.02 0.1 0% Hobby 5 0 0.1 0 20% Peregrine 6 5 0.1 0.1 36% Golden Plover 81 377 1.7 7.9 93% Lapwing 300 600 6.3 12.5 76% Woodcock 2 0 0.04 0 0% Curlew 6 3 0.1 0.1 60% Mediterranean Gull 0 2 0 0.04 0% Common Gull 1097 1292 22.9 26.9 29% Lesser Black- backed Gull 180 249 3.8 5.2 44% Yellow-legged Gull 5 3 0.1 0.1 0% Herring Gull 79 77 1.6 1.6 70% Great Black-backed Gull 23 17 0.5 0.4 76% Black-headed Gull 862 721 18.0 15.0 29% Barn Owl 4 0 0.1 0 0%

Additional Observation

8.5.18 The barn in the centre of the site was identified as being used as an active roosting site for barn owl during the course of bat activity surveys (G. Miller [BSG Ecology], pers. comm.). The location of the nest site and roost site are

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 24 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

included on Figure 8.13- barn owl flight activity. The barn has since been removed from the site.

Conservation Status and Evaluation Breeding Season

8.5.19 Table 8.11 summarises the conservation value of all species recoded during the breeding season and sets out the value placed on each receptor in accordance with the criteria set out in Table 8.2.

Table 8.11: Conservation Evaluation of the Breeding Bird Populations in the

Temple Hill Study Area

Species Estimated >1% EU Birds W and C Red UK Valuation number regional Directive Act [R]/ BAP of population Annex 1 Schedule Amber priority breeding in study 1 [A] species pairs area List Breeding species: Mute Swan 1 Negligible Gadwall 1 A Low Mallard 12 A Low Tufted Duck 4 A Low Red-legged Partridge 9 Negligible Grey Partridge 4 R  Medium Quail 1  A High Pheasant 26 Negligible Buzzard 3 Negligible Moorhen 3 Negligible Coot 3 Negligible Lapwing 1 R  Medium Feral Pigeon 29 Negligible Stock Dove 8 A Low Woodpigeon 170 Negligible Collared Dove 4 Negligible Turtle Dove 1 R  Medium Cuckoo 1 R  Medium Barn Owl 1  A High Little Owl 1 Negligible Green Woodpecker 2 A Low

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 25 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Species Estimated >1% EU Birds W and C Red UK Valuation number regional Directive Act [R]/ BAP of population Annex 1 Schedule Amber priority breeding in study 1 [A] species pairs area List Skylark 61 R  Medium Swallow 12 A Low House Martin 7 A Low Meadow Pipit 1 A Low Yellow Wagtail 35 R  Medium Pied Wagtail 5 Negligible Wren 40 Negligible Dunnock 22 A  Medium Robin 32 Negligible Blackbird 35 Negligible Song Thrush 8 R  Medium Mistle Thrush 4 A Low Sedge Warbler 9 Negligible Blackcap 15 Negligible Garden Warbler 6 Negligible Lesser Whitethroat 24 Negligible Whitethroat 68 A Low Chiffchaff 9 Negligible Willow Warbler 14 A Low Long-tailed Tit 8 Negligible Blue Tit 20 Negligible Great Tit 16 Negligible Coal Tit 1 Negligible Jay 2 Negligible Magpie 5 Negligible Jackdaw 2 Negligible Carrion Crow 9 Negligible Starling 4 R  Medium House Sparrow 11 R  Medium Tree Sparrow 4 R  Medium Chaffinch 59 Negligible

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 26 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Species Estimated >1% EU Birds W and C Red UK Valuation number regional Directive Act [R]/ BAP of population Annex 1 Schedule Amber priority breeding in study 1 [A] species pairs area List Greenfinch 7 Negligible Goldfinch 14 Negligible Linnet 64 R  Medium Yellowhammer 29 R  Medium Reed Bunting 20 A  Medium Corn Bunting 7 R  Medium Additional species seen using/over-flying site: Greylag Goose A Low Shelduck A Low Cormorant Negligible Grey Heron Negligible Sparrowhawk Negligible Kestrel A Low Swift A Low Wheatear A Low Rook Negligible Red Kite   A High Marsh Harrier   A High Montagu's Harrier   A High Hobby  High Peregrine   High Oystercatcher A Low Curlew A  Medium Lesser Black- backed Gull A Low Herring Gull R  Medium Black-headed Gull A Low

8.5.20 The breeding bird community includes two high value species, quail and barn owl. Both species are specifically protected from disturbance during breeding under Schedule 1 of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended). Five additional high value species (red kite, marsh harrier, Montagu’s harrier, hobby and peregrine) were seen over-flying during the vantage point surveys, though

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 27 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

of these only peregrine and hobby were recorded on more than five occasions (12 flights and 11 flights respectively). The survey area did not appear to be important for or used regularly by any of them.

8.5.21 Fifteen breeding species were classed as medium value species: grey partridge, lapwing, turtle dove Streptopelia turtur, cuckoo Cuculus canorus, skylark, yellow wagtail Motacilla flava, dunnock Prunella modularis, song thrush Turdus philomelos, starling Sturnus vulgaris, house sparrow Passer domesticus, tree sparrow Passer montanus, linnet Carduelis cannabina, yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella, reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus and corn bunting Emberiza calandra. All of the species classed as medium value are UK BAP priority species, though all are also common and widespread in the region and nationally. Two additional medium value UK BAP priority species, herring gull and curlew, were seen over-flying the survey area but do not show any indication of breeding there.

8.5.22 A further 11 breeding species and another eight species seen using the study area during the breeding season but not breeding there were determined to be of low value. Winter Season

8.5.23 Table 8.12 summarises the conservation value of all species recorded during the winter and sets out the value placed on each receptor in accordance with the criteria set out in Table 8.2.

Table 8.12: Conservation Evaluation of the Wintering Bird Populations in the Temple Hill Study Area.

Species Peak >1% EU Birds W and C Red UK Valuation count regional Directive Act [R]/ BAP population Annex 1 Schedule Amber priority in study 1 [A] species area List Mute Swan 3 Negligible Pink-footed Medium Goose 1,270  A Greylag Goose 5 A Low Canada Goose 2 Negligible Wigeon 4 A Low Gadwall 2 A Low Teal 2 A Low

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 28 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Species Peak >1% EU Birds W and C Red UK Valuation count regional Directive Act [R]/ BAP population Annex 1 Schedule Amber priority in study 1 [A] species area List Mallard 55 A Low Tufted Duck 1 A Low Cormorant 5 Negligible Grey Heron 1 Negligible Red Kite 1    A High Marsh Harrier 1   A High Hen Harrier 1    R High Sparrowhawk 1 Negligible Buzzard 6 Negligible Kestrel 5 A Low Merlin 1    A High Hobby 1  High Peregrine 2    High Coot 3 Negligible Golden Plover 53  A High Lapwing 152 R  Medium Snipe 1 A Low Woodcock 1 A Low Curlew 4 A  Medium Common Low Sandpiper 1 A Green Sandpiper 2 A Low Mediterranean High Gull 1   A Common Gull 83 A Low Lesser Black- Low backed Gull 211 A Yellow-legged Low Gull 7 A Herring Gull 7 R  Medium Great Black- Low backed Gull 7 A Black-headed Low Gull 213 A Barn Owl 1  A High

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 29 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

8.5.24 Nine high value species were recorded during the wintering bird surveys; red kite, marsh harrier, hen harrier, merlin, hobby, peregrine, golden plover, Mediterranean gull Larus melanocephalus and barn owl. All are species listed on Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive and/or specially protected under Schedule 1 of the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended).

8.5.25 Four species were classed as being of medium value: pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus, lapwing, curlew Numenius arquata and herring gull Larus argentatus. Pink-footed geese were recorded in regionally important numbers and the other three species are UK BAP priority species.

8.5.26 A further 15 species were classed as low value during the winter bird survey

8.6 PROPOSED MITIGATION INCORPORATED INTO PROPOSAL

8.6.1 The layout of the turbines at Temple Hill Wind Farm avoids the placement of turbines (blade tips) within 50m of habitat features such as hedgerows, ditches or other field boundaries and most stand-off distances between turbines and habitat features greatly exceed this distance. The stand-off distances are detailed in Chapter 7, Table 7.4. Such habitats provide nesting and/or foraging opportunities for a wider range and higher density of farmland bird species than the arable fields in which the turbines are to be located. The turbine configuration avoids loss of the most important habitats on the site for a wide range of breeding birds.

8.6.2 Applying this minimum standoff distance of 50m will also reduce the risk of collision with turbines by species regularly present on site such as barn owl and kestrel, and to some degree hobby, which are most likely to hunt along habitat features such as field boundaries, ditches surrounded by rough grassland, hedgerows and woodland edge.

8.6.3 All wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) against deliberate killing and injury, and their nests and eggs are protected against destruction / damage. For this reason any vegetation removal, soil stripping or other operations which may impact on habitats used by breeding birds will, if practicable, be undertaken outside of the breeding season. However, where this is not possible the habitats to be affected will be surveyed by a competent ornithologist to ensure that no breeding birds are present. If breeding birds are identified no work will be allowed to take place which would result in an offence under the legislation detailed above.

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 30 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

8.6.4 Specific surveys for quail will be required in advance of any construction works scheduled during the relevant breeding season (April – August inclusive (Snow and Perrins 1998)). Where breeding quail are identified, measures to prevent disturbance to the species will be implemented. In the absence of any quoted safe working distances a precautionary approach of applying a 300m buffer from any identified quail breeding sites during the breeding season will be undertaken.

8.6.5 To minimise potential impacts on barn owls the following mitigation will be included:

 To minimise construction phase disturbance to barn owls it is proposed that during the first winter following the granting of planning consent that an on-site nest box is removed. Prior to removal of the nest box three replacement nest sites will be installed; one on a post in habitat similar to the existing box; one nest box attached to a tree (both to be installed on the western boundary of the site close to the pond feature on adjacent land); and further nest box installed on a tree in the north west corner of the site. All locations will be away from the development footprint and will be separated by a distance of over 300m from any working / operational area.

 To minimise collision risk no turbines are to be situated along the lines of hedgerows or other field boundaries. The turbines will be located within arable fields which are typically or little or no value as a foraging resource to barn owl (Shawyer 2011).

8.7 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

Overview of Potential impacts

8.7.1 The potential impacts of onshore wind developments on birds considered within this assessment are summarised below and is adapted from potential impacts detailed by SNH (2005) and Langston and Pullen (2003). The specific impacts on the receptors identified at this site are discussed in further detail later in this section.

8.7.2 Potential impacts during construction include:

 Direct loss of foraging habitat and / or breeding habitat; and

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 31 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 Disturbance due to construction activities and general increased human presence on site.

8.7.3 Potential impacts during the operational phase include:

 Indirect loss of foraging or breeding habitat due to displacement or avoidance;

 Impacts on commuting routes due to barrier effects;

 Indirect impacts on habitat quality; and

 Direct mortality through collision with turbines.

8.7.4 There is some potential for decommissioning phase impacts on ornithological features or species. Decommissioning of the Development is scheduled following the planned operational phase of up to 25 years. Whilst some potential short-term temporary effects, such as disturbance to breeding or wintering birds, may be predicted these are likely to be of a similar magnitude and significance to those effects identified for the construction stage. Decommissioning effects are therefore considered to have the same potential impacts as construction effects on ornithological receptors.

8.7.5 Species of medium or high value (as per Tables 8.10 and 8.11) are discussed below along with a number of species with a lower valuation that, due to their regular presence on site and vulnerability to impacts from wind farms (such as common buzzard Buteo buteo), also merit assessment.

Grid Connection

8.7.6 The preferred option for the proposed grid connection would leave the site via the proposed access junction and run underground along existing public highways to the west of Temple Hill near Claypole (refer to Chapter 4: Project Description). As the proposed grid connection will run underground there is predicted to be no direct effects on ornithology through habitat loss.

High Value Species

8.7.7 Red Kite is a nationally scarce breeding species and is identified as requiring specific impact assessment in relation to proposed wind farms (Drewitt, 2010). Throughout the course of VP surveys (undertaken throughout a whole year) a total of five red kite flights were recorded and no indication of breeding in the study area was identified. Given the low levels of activity recorded on the site

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 32 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

no impacts in relation to habitat loss or disturbance during the construction phase are predicted. Equally, the low number of records indicates that no displacement or barrier effects on regular commuting routes are predicted and no significant effects are predicted.

8.7.8 This species is identified as being particularly susceptible to impacts through collision with turbines as described by Hotker (2006) in a review of impacts of wind turbines on birds from around Europe with a total of 41 mortalities noted. Some more recent evidence of impacts on red kite (recorded mortality through collision) is noted from wind farms in the UK (Natural Research, web article 2012). Due to the lack of any recorded flight lines within 200m of the proposed turbines no collision risk modeling has been undertaken to quantitatively assess the potential impacts of mortality through collision with operating turbines. Given the small number of flights within the survey area and complete lack of flights within 200m of the proposed turbine locations, a low magnitude impact is predicted resulting in an impact of minor significance.

8.7.9 Marsh harrier is a scarce breeding species nationally and Lincolnshire is part of the core range of the species within England. Drewitt (2010) also identifies this species as requiring specific environmental assessment in relation to wind farm development. Marsh harrier was recorded from the VP location between April and August with a total of four flight lines recorded. The level of use by this species does not suggest that the site represents an important resource for marsh harrier with only two flight lines recorded within the site.

8.7.10 Given the low levels of activity recorded on the site throughout the course of the year, no impacts of habitat loss or disturbance during the construction phase are predicted. Whilst it is difficult to comment accurately on the distribution of flight activity based on few flights the activity appears to be distributed to the western parts of the site and outside of the site to the west (see Figure 8.2 and Figure 8.15). This indicative distribution of flight lines suggests that based on the current layout that impacts of disturbance to commuting routes are likely to be barely perceptible and not significant. Equally the low number flights and distribution of activity suggests that there any effect of displacement during operation would be at most barely perceptible.

8.7.11 Collision risk modelling has been undertaken to assess the potential impact of mortality through collision with operational turbines. Current guidance (SNH, 2010) does not provide a standard avoidance rate figure for marsh harrier

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 33 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

though it does state that a 98% avoidance rate should be applied to species not listed in the guidance note. When applying a 98% avoidance rate the predicted collision rate is 0.16 collisions per year. This collision rate equates to approximately 1 collision every six years. Breeding data from north Lincolnshire only indicates that a recruitment level (fledged young) of 36 was reported in 2010. If it can be assumed that additional recruitment to the population is apparent in South Lincolnshire then an increase in mortality of 1 bird every six years may be given a precautionary impact magnitude of low resulting in an impact of minor significance.

8.7.12 Hen Harrier is a scarce breeding and wintering species in England and is identified as requiring detailed assessment where present in relation to proposed wind energy developments (Drewitt, 2010). Field survey at the site identified a single record of Hen harrier during the winter period. This is indicative of very irregular or occasional presence and therefore no effect of habitat loss or disturbance during construction is predicted for this species. Equally no impacts of displacement and loss of foraging resource during operation are predicted for this species. The presence of a single flight line only indicates that the Development is unlikely to have any impact on commuting routes.

8.7.13 Collision risk modelling has been not been undertaken for this species as the single observed flight recorded in December was outside of the analysed area of the proposed turbine locations and 200m buffer. Accordingly, no impact of collision with turbines is predicted for hen harrier resulting in no significant impacts.

8.7.14 Montagu’s Harrier is a scarce breeding species in the UK and in Lincolnshire with only one breeding attempt reported in Lincolnshire in 2010 (Chick ed. 2010). Field surveys at the site identified a single flight record of this species approximately 350m outside of the site boundary to the east of the site. The single flight is indicative of irregular presence in the surrounding area and for this reason no impact of habitat loss or disturbance during the construction phase are predicted for Montagu’s harrier. Given the location of the sighting and low levels of activity no effect of displacement or barrier effects during the operational phase of the Development are predicted.

8.7.15 As no flight activity is recorded within the area analysed for collision risk modelling no impacts through collision with operating turbines are predicted.

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 34 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

8.7.16 Overall, no significant effects are predicted in relation to this species during either the construction or operational phases of the Development

8.7.17 Merlin is a relatively uncommon breeding species in the UK breeding predominantly on upland moorland and with the UK’s breeding stronghold being in Scotland. No breeding is currently recorded in Lincolnshire and the species is described as a fairly common winter visitor within the county. On the site a small number of flights (4) are reported through the winter period. Given the low number of flights and the abundance of similar habitats in the wider landscape into which displacement may occur, displacement effects are considered to be of a barely perceptible magnitude resulting in no significant effects.

8.7.18 Hotker (2006) identified one wind farm in Europe where the development was considered to have a barrier effect on merlin. Effects of barriers to commuting routes are however not thought to represent a potential effect in this circumstance due to the lack of evidence for regular movements through the site. No merlin flights were recorded at rotor height (and therefore no collision risk modeling has been undertaken for this species) and consequently no effects are predicted as a result of collision with operational turbines.

8.7.19 Peregrine falcon was recorded predominantly during the wintering period at the site with a total of 10 bird flights recorded within the study area. These flights are mapped on Figures 2 and 11 in Appendices 8.1 and 8.2 (breeding bird and wintering bird reports) respectively. The species is a scarce passage migrant and wintering species within Lincolnshire with peak winter counts of 50 birds split between up to 35 sites. The species is a scarce breeder in the county with a current estimate of 7 breeding pairs (Chick ed.2010). As peregrine has been shown to use the site infrequently (recorded on 4 of 18 vantage point survey visits during the winter period) impacts of disturbance and displacement through the construction phase are assessed as being of barely perceptible magnitude and not significant.

8.7.20 Impacts from displacement on peregrine falcon during operation are equally assessed as being of barely perceptible magnitude due to the abundance of similar habitats in the wider area into which birds may be displaced. The low density of the peregrine falcon population in Lincolnshire would also suggest that this displacement is unlikely to conflict with other birds using similar habitats in the vicinity. No collision risk analysis has been undertaken for peregrine as no flight activity has been recorded from within the analysed area (turbine

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 35 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

locations plus 20m buffer) at rotor height. The theoretical risk to peregrine falcon is therefore nil at the site. In practice the species may be vulnerable to some level of collision risk if, for example, hunting flight activity ascended to rotor height. For this reason a precautionary assessment of low magnitude impact is predicted resulting in an impact of minor significance.

8.7.21 Hobby is a scarce summer visitor in Lincolnshire and uncommon nationally with population estimates of 2,200 breeding pairs (www.rspb.org.uk). In Lincolnshire an estimate of 31 occupied sites in 2010 (Chick ed. 2010) is reported although is considered to be a considerable underestimate of the county population. Hobby were recorded in VP surveys during the breeding season and again in August and September. All flight activity was recorded outside the site boundary and outside of the analysed window for collision risk assessment. Flight lines are mapped in Figure 8.12. While hobby are not considered to be breeding onsite the presence of a breeding pair in the surrounding area is likely. Due to the absence of breeding on site no effect of disturbance during construction is predicted. If we assume that hobby are breeding in the near vicinity and that the site is part of their hunting range then there is a potential effect of habitat loss due to displacement (avoidance) during both the construction and operation phases of the Development.

8.7.22 In a review of impacts on birds by operational wind farms (Hotker, 2006) there is no evidence provided for hobby to suggest displacement. However, displacement is possible during both construction and operational phases but is likely to be of a barely perceptible magnitude (due to the presence of extensive habitats of a similar nature in the surrounding area) resulting in a non-significant effect.

8.7.23 Hotker (2006) also identified one site where a wind farm impacted on hobby by presenting a barrier effect. As hobby are considered to be breeding in the near vicinity of the site a barrier to commuting is possible, the extent of which is likely to vary depending on the exact position of breeding sites and hunting areas. However, as the location of hobby nests varies annually the impact of any barrier effect is likely to be barely perceptible and therefore not significant. Collision risk modeling for the flight data collected for hobby has identified no transects through the rotors in a year and as a result no collisions are predicted. No significant impact is therefore predicted as a result of collision with operational turbines.

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 36 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

8.7.24 Mediterranean gull is a rare but increasing breeding species in the UK and a rare and increasing visitor in Lincolnshire with peak counts occurring in late summer. At the site the only record during field surveys for this species was of a single bird for which two flight lines outside of rotor height were recorded during a single day in December. The site is therefore not considered to be important for this species and no significant effects are predicted at any stage of the Development.

8.7.25 Barn owl are a widespread but uncommon resident species throughout the UK. The species is subject to specific protection through inclusion on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Barn owl are recorded breeding on site in an artificial nest site (box) located on a post along a field boundary towards the western part of the site. The location of this nest box is currently in relatively close proximity to both access tracks and to two turbine location T1 (c100m) and T2 (c270m).

8.7.26 Without mitigation barn owl may be subject to disturbance during construction due to unusually noisy or destructive activity in an otherwise quiet setting affecting this species (Barn Owl Trust, undated). Disturbance could lead to abandonment of nest sites during the breeding season for the construction period or potentially permanent abandonment. However, full mitigation is identified through the provision of new artificial nesting sites (along with habitat enhancements, see Section 8.6), and a barely perceptible, non-significant effect is predicted.

8.7.27 Collision risk modelling for barn owl has not been undertaken as all flights recorded throughout the survey period were recorded below rotor height which reflects the typical hunting flight of barn owl which takes place between 1.5 and 4.5m (Snow and Perrins, 1998). Flight activity recorded is mapped on Figure 8.13 Section 8.6 sets out a number of mitigation measures to minimise any potential collision risks to this species, which is resident and likely to use the site throughout the year. Following the incorporation of such measures no significant effects are predicted.

8.7.28 Golden plover was recorded during field count surveys on only one occasion throughout the wintering period. This record comprised of two flocks: 19 to the south east of the site; and a second flock of 34 north west of the site. No golden plover were recorded using the fields within the site. The number of birds present in the survey area within field counts does not represent an important

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 37 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

population of this species with a national wintering estimate of 134,000 and classed as a very common winter visitor within Lincolnshire, where more than 11,000 are recorded within The Wash alone during peak periods, with several thousand at other locations (Chick ed. 2010). Despite the high valuation of this species the population using the study area is very small. For this reason any impacts of disturbance or displacement during construction and operation are predicted to be of no more than barely perceptible magnitude and therefore not significant. Similarly the impact of any habitat loss through construction or operation is considered to barely perceptible and not significant due to the abundance of similar habitats being used (arable fields) within the wider landscape.

8.7.29 A total of 11 flight lines have been recorded during VP surveys for this species involving between 3 and 135 birds. Flight activity is mapped on Figures 8.5 and 8.18. Given the relatively small number of flights through the site and the absence of clear patterns no impact of disturbance to commuting routes is predicted. Collision risk modelling has been undertaken for this species and has been assessed using an avoidance rate value of 98% in accordance with guidance by SNH in the use of avoidance rates. The collision risk model predicts a collision rate of 6.31 birds per year. Given the abundance of golden plover in Lincolnshire at peak times this rate of collision is considered to represent an effect of low magnitude (i.e. detectable effects but of small scale and having no material effect on the conservation status of the species) resulting in a minor adverse effect.

8.7.30 Quail are a rare, though probably highly under recorded breeding species in the UK. Quail are also rare in Lincolnshire with the 2010 Bird Club report (Chick ed. 2010) revealing only 15 sites where quail were reported. The presence of breeding quail is therefore relatively important. However, this record is only representative of a single year and as a migratory species which is not site faithful the likelihood of this representing a long-term receptor which would be impacted by the Development is low. Quail receive specific protection under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended), and as such any breeding quail would require protection from disturbance during the construction phase of the Development. Breeding sites for quail include a range of grassland habitats but can include arable fields (Snow and Perrins, 1998) so the majority of the site represents potential breeding habitat. In order to avoid

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 38 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

disturbance of breeding quail and consequent nest site abandonment during construction (and to ensure legislation is complied with (for all breeding birds)) mitigation is outlined within Section 8.6. Where avoidance of impacts during construction is enforced no impact of disturbance during construction is predicted.

8.7.31 Given the abundance of arable land with associated hedgerows and field boundaries in the surrounding area and in Lincolnshire, the impact of habitat loss or habitat loss through displacement in the construction phase or avoidance in the operational phase is considered to be barely perceptible.

8.7.32 Hotker (2006) described some limited evidence to suggest that quail may become habituated to wind farms and not be subject to displacement through the operational phase of wind farms. However, in the absence of more extensive evidence the impact of displacement through operation is assessed as barely perceptible with no significant effect therefore predicted.

8.7.33 No flight data has been recorded for this species and no effect of collision with operational turbines is predicted.

Medium Value Species

8.7.34 Pink footed goose was recorded overflying the study area on one occasion in January with a total count of 1,270 birds recorded. The flight activity is mapped on Figure 8.11. Pink footed goose is a common winter visitor to Lincolnshire with the main concentrations around the major estuary areas of the Humber and The Wash, though inland movements are frequently noted (Chick ed. 2010). The occurrence of movements inland is confirmed by details available from the desk study. At no point during surveys were any pink footed geese found to be present on site or in the surrounding study area (1km surrounding the site) for feeding or roosting. Potential effects on this species are therefore considered to be restricted to collision with operational turbines and barrier effects to migratory movements.

8.7.35 The collision risk model applied to pink footed goose has identified no transits through the rotor swept area as all flights recorded were well outside the analysed area for collision risk (development footprint + 200m buffer). On this basis therefore no impact is predicted through collision with operational turbines. Movements of geese inland from coastal strongholds and longer distance movements of pink footed geese are possible between the large populations of

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 39 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Norfolk and Lancashire. However, inland movements are unlikely to follow specific features relating to any flight path over the site and similarly, any movements north west to North West England or Scotland prior to migration to breeding grounds are likely to take place over a broad front and no barrier effect is therefore predicted. The magnitude of collision risk and barrier effects are both considered to be barely perceptible with no significant effects therefore predicted.

8.7.36 Lapwing are a common and widespread breeding species and an abundant wintering species in the UK. In Lincolnshire they are a common resident breeding species and very common passage migrant and winter visitor. Attempts at estimating winter populations of Lapwing are however difficult due to the widespread distribution of the species. At the site a single breeding pair is recorded. However, the site appears to be more important for the species outside of the breeding season with a distinct peak count of 152 in January and other counts of 78 (February), 43 (September) and 41 (December). Flight activity of lapwing is mapped on Figures 8.6 and 8.19.

8.7.37 Impacts of disturbance during construction will potentially affect both breeding and wintering lapwing as the species is present throughout the year to some extent. In the context of breeding lapwing only a single pair is present and therefore the effect of any disturbance will be barely perceptible and not significant.

8.7.38 The extent of any disturbance to wintering birds is likely to be variable with the distribution of wintering flocks of lapwing detailed in Volume 3, Appendix 8.2, Figure 3 showing that the majority of records of flocks of lapwing are outside the site. This also shows that most are well outside the footprint of the Development. Given the variable numbers recorded and their distribution, the effect of disturbance during construction to wintering Lapwing is assessed as being barely perceptible.

8.7.39 Operational phase impacts on Lapwing throughout the year may include displacement by operational turbines although Hotker (2006) describes mixed evidence for displacement during operation for non-breeding lapwing with some evidence to suggest that habituation to wind farms can occur. However the majority of studies reviewed did demonstrate some avoidance, though a high proportion of this was over a short range (150m). Winter field counts identified only one flock of lapwing within this range of the proposed turbine layout close to

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 40 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

turbine 5 of >40 lapwing. The mean count for lapwing within the survey area during the winter was 20.9 though a peak count of 152 was recorded in January. Due to the distribution of Lapwing within the study area, displacement through avoidance of the Development is considered to have only a barely perceptible impact and no significant effects are therefore predicted.

8.7.40 Lapwing are likely to move around the local area foraging and this behavior is highlighted by the number of flight lines recorded. Some level of barrier effect on localised movement of lapwings may therefore occur with this potential effect assessed as being barely perceptible as in most months of the year the numbers of lapwing have been shown to be low. No significant effects are predicted.

8.7.41 Collision risk modelling undertaken for lapwing has identified a relatively high collision rate for this species resulting in a year round estimated collision rate of 17.85 collisions per annum when applying a 98% avoidance rate. Over a 25 year operational period this would result in a mortality rate of 446 birds. Peak winter counts at 30 recorded sites in Lincolnshire indicate a wintering population of 13,893 (Chick 2010). This figure is likely to be much higher when considering unrecorded sites. If as a worst case 17.85 (18) birds collide with turbines each year at the Development this would result in the loss of 0.14% of the counted Lincolnshre wintering population in each year. It is anticipated that this level of mortality would not significantly affect the balance of annual background mortality cited as 33.9% (Cramp et al 1983) and recruitment (recruitment occurs when juvenile organisms survive to be added to a population). Given the likely existing background mortality rates (increased rate of 0.14%) the effect of mortality through collision with turbines at Temple Hill is predicted to result in an effect of at most medium magnitude with a resulting adverse impact of minor significance.

8.7.42 Curlew were recorded on site and overflying the site on 30th March. Due to the low number of birds present (4) and single occurrence of this species no significant effects are predicted on curlew at any stage of the Development.

8.7.43 Herring gull is a very common breeding and wintering bird in the UK and in Lincolnshire but has experienced rapid population decline in recent years (Eaton et al, 2009). Only very small numbers (1-7) of this species have been recorded using the site during field count surveys though slightly higher levels of use of the air space over and surrounding the site are reported (a total of 149 bird

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 41 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

flights observed over 2 VP locations). The lack of consistent significant use of the site’s ecological resources indicates that there would be no effect of habitat loss or disturbance during construction.

8.7.44 Observations of gull behaviour at operational sites indicate that species such as herring gull will fly between operational turbines though feeding and roosting activity may be displaced to some degree (Langston and Pullen, 2003). Any displacement during operation is likely to have a barely perceptible effect on this highly adaptable species. Observations described above of gulls moving through operational turbines indicate that no barrier effect would be expected. Collision risk modeling of herring gull flight behaviour at the site (using the 98% avoidance rate) has indicated that a collision rate of 0.45 birds per year would be expected. Background adult mortality rates of 12% for herring gull (Wilkens and Exo (1998) cited by Hotker (2006)) indicates that a mortality of less than 1 bird every 2 years would not represent a significant increase in background mortality for this species. For this reason an effect of barely perceptible magnitude is predicted which is not considered to be significant.

8.7.45 A range of further farmland bird species of medium conservation value are identified using the site for breeding. These being grey partridge, turtle dove, skylark, yellow wagtail, dunnock, song thrush, starling, house sparrow, tree sparrow, linnet, yellow hammer, reed bunting and corn bunting. None of the species detailed are identified as requiring specific assessment by Drewitt (2010) in relation to potential impacts from wind farm development. However, they are considered briefly at this stage for completeness. Many of the species detailed above breed in in-field locations within arable landscapes. Additionally, other farmland bird species will use hedgerows and field boundaries for breeding. Habitat loss during construction may affect a range of breeding bird species as detailed above. The magnitude of habitat loss at the construction stage on these species is likely to be low and the effect of this therefore considered to be of, at most, minor significance.

8.7.46 The effect of disturbance during construction on farmland bird species is considered to be barely perceptible and not significant.

8.7.47 During operation there is some potential for indirect habitat loss through displacement. Minimal distances of breeding and non-breeding passerines to wind turbines discussed by Hotker (2006) however indicate that in the case of most species avoidance distances are relatively low and ranged from a mean

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 42 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

value of 56m for reed bunting to 135m for Linnett. Small scale displacement at this level is predicted to have a barely perceptible and non-significant effect on the status of farmland birds.

8.7.48 No attempt has been made to quantify any risk of collision with turbines for these species however some risk of collision with species displaying high display flights such as skylark for example may be possible. However, evidence at operational sites (Pierce Higgins, 2009) indicates that skylark density can increase during the operational term of wind farms and therefore it can be assumed that any collision risk has no negative effect on populations of this species in particular.

Low or Negligible Value Species

8.7.49 Kestrel are a common and widespread raptor nationally with an estimated population of 36,800 (www.rspb.org.uk) and are also common and widespread in Lincolnshire (Chick ed. 2010). Flight activity of this species could be expected in almost any rural setting throughout much of the UK, though there is some evidence of decline nationally and the species is included on the amber list of the Birds of Conservation Concern (Eaton et al 2009).

8.7.50 The level of habitat loss associated with the construction of a wind farm of the scale of the Development is considered to be barely perceptible and not significant. Similarly disturbance during construction is predicted to have no detectable effect on local populations.

8.7.51 During operation indirect habitat loss through displacement is unlikely as kestrel have been demonstrated as showing relatively low minimal distances to operational wind farms (Hotker, 2006). As a consequence of this apparent low level of avoidance or displacement there is evidence that mortality through collision with turbines is high (Langston and Pullen 2003, Hotker 2006). Collision risk modeling predicted an annual collision rate of 0.94 birds per year when applying a 98% avoidance rate. Due to their population status this increase in mortality is likely to have a barely perceptible effect and therefore is not significant.

8.7.52 Common buzzard are a common and widespread species within Lincolnshire having undergone a rapid increase in range and population throughout the UK in recent years. Chick (2010) estimates a breeding population of more than 200 pairs in Lincolnshire. As with kestrel the extent and nature of habitat loss during

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 43 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

construction is unlikely to have any effect on common buzzard. Three breeding pairs of buzzard have been identified within the study area and therefore there is some potential for disturbance during construction. The effect of this would however be barely perceptible due to their common and increasing abundance nationally.

8.7.53 During operation, as per kestrel, common buzzard show small minimal distances to operational wind farms (Hotker 2006) and are therefore not predicted to be affected by indirect foraging habitat loss through displacement. Common buzzard are however vulnerable to collision risk as they spend much of their time in flight at rotor height. Collision risk modeling predicts an annual mortality rate of 3.66 birds per annum when applying 98% avoidance. This figure of close to 4 birds represents almost 1% of the Lincolnshire breeding population if the population were assumed to be 200 pairs. This impact is assessed as being of medium magnitude. Due to the low nature conservation value of common buzzard this effect does not represent a significant impact in the context of this assessment.

8.7.54 Greylag goose populations in the UK are comprised of native and introduced stock and are joined in winter by migratory populations from Iceland which winter mainly in Scotland (Snow and Perrins 1998). Populations of birds outside northern Britain including those using the site are therefore considered to be part of the introduced population and given a lower nature conservation importance. Use of the site itself by this species is minimal and therefore the only potential effects considered are those of potential barrier effects and collision during operation. As the birds present are not considered to be truly migratory any barrier effects are likely to be minimal and represent no real effect on greylag geese. Collision risk estimates using 99% avoidance in line with guidance from SNH (2010) predict an annual collision rate of 3 birds per year. Peak counts of greylag in Lincolnshire total over 2700 (from known sites) (Chick ed. 2010) and the total population may be higher than this. Mortality rates predicted in the model for this species are therefore assessed as having a low magnitude effect on this species and are not significant.

8.7.55 Common gull Larus canus, black headed gull Chroiococephalus ridibundus and lesser black backed gull Laru fuscus were all species of gull recorded using the site to differing degrees throughout the field survey work. All three species are assessed as being of low value. While some displacement through construction

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 44 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

phase disturbance and displacement through avoidance during the operation phase is possible no detectable effect is anticipated on the gull populations in the area due to the abundance of similar foraging areas present in the wider area. Similarly, no barrier effect is predicted for these species. Collision risk modelling has been undertaken for all of the species detailed above producing collision rates of 8.81 per annum for common gull, 6.38 for black headed gull and 1.22 for lesser black backed gull. These predicted collision rates may incur detectable effects on localised populations of these gull species over a small geographical scale surrounding the site but are highly unlikely to have a detectable effect on Lincolnshire populations. The effect of mortality through collision is therefore assessed as not significant.

8.7.56 Table 8.13 summarises the predicted effects on the species described above following the inclusion of the mitigation outlined in Section 8.6. It can be seen that no significant effects are predicted on bird populations due to the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Development.

Micro-Siting

8.7.57 It is predicted that these assessments will remain unchanged when factoring in a micro-siting allowance of up to 50m (with restrictions set out in Chapter 4, Section 4.3 and Chapter 7, Table 7.4).

Table 8.13: Summary of Impact Significance Following Incorporation of Mitigation

Species Impact Significance* Indirect Mortality Disturbance habitat loss through during due to Barrier Habitat loss collision construction and displacement effects with decommissioning during turbines operation Red Kite Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Marsh Harrier Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Hen harrier Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Montagu’s Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Harrier Merlin Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Peregrine Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Falcon Hobby Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 45 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Species Impact Significance* Indirect Mortality Disturbance habitat loss through during due to Barrier Habitat loss collision construction and displacement effects with decommissioning during turbines operation Mediterranean Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible gull Barn owl Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Golden plover Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Quail Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Pink-footed Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible goose Lapwing Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Curlew Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Herring gull Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Farmland Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Birds Kestrel Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Buzzard Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Common gull Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Black headed Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible gull Greylag Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible goose *Note: Only impacts identified as major or moderate are considered to be significant in terms of the EIA regulations

Enhancements

8.7.58 A number of additional habitat management measures are proposed for species of lower ecological importance which are not anticipated to be subject to significant impacts (i.e. site enhancements). Opportunities exist to enhance the site for species of some nature conservation value such as UKBAP Priority Species or species included on the red or amber lists of the Birds of Conservation Concern (Eaton et al, 2009) as summarised below. Target areas for enhancements are detailed in Volume 2, Figure 4.13

 Inclusion of conservation headlands to enhance foraging opportunities for a range of farmland bird species such as yellowhammer, tree sparrow and linnet. Conservation headlands are areas at the edge of arable field which are sprayed selectively to allow a range of broadleaf arable ‘weed’

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 46 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

species to persist which in turn support a greater diversity and abundance of invertebrate food items for farmland birds.

 Tree sparrows are identified as readily using opportunities provided by installation of nest boxes (Snow and Perrins, 1998). Ten nest boxes will be provided on the northern and eastern boundaries of the site close to where breeding tree sparrow are recorded. (See figure 4.10) Distributing ten nest boxes in these locations is likely to provide a significant increase in secure breeding habitat for this UK BAP priority and red list species.

 A total of 1295m of new hedgerow planting will be implemented. An area of scrub habitat is also included with the enhancement plan. These features will provide breeding sites and permanent foraging areas for a wide range of UKBAP species currently found on the site. Tree planting is also proposed along the eastern boundary of the site (see figure 4.10). This tree planting will also provide potential feeding, roosting and breeding sites for a range of breeding bird species.

8.8 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Approach to Cumulative Assessment

8.8.1 The presence of other wind farms in the area could, through cumulative effects, create larger overall impacts at the local or regional population level due to potentially increased adverse effects. There is no detailed guidance available on undertaking cumulative assessment of the ornithological effects of wind farms and the detail of the requirements of assessment will vary in every situation.

8.8.2 For the purposes of this assessment wind energy developments within a 20km radius of the Development have been considered. This radius is considered sufficient to encompass potential exchange between sites of wide ranging species such as large raptors or more particularly wintering geese and other wildfowl or waders.

8.8.3 In this assessment a higher weighting has been given to those sites within 10km of the site. Table 8.14 provides a summary of all the projects identified in the 20km radius assessment area.

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 47 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 8.14: Details of Proposed or Existing Wind Energy Developments within

20km of Temple Hill

Site Name Description Project Status Approximate Potential Distance and Cumulative Direction from Receptors Temple Hill Projects within 10km of Temple Hill Frinkley 1no turbine Operational / C5km south Barn owl Farm 67m to tip under east construction Carlton 1no turbine In planning C5km east None – Scroop 49m to tip south east enhancement for Barn owl proposed Top farm 1 no turbine In planning C5km South Currently unknown 99.5m to tip Green lane 1 no turbine In operation / C5.5km south Unknown – 74m to tip constructio screening determined no EIA required Allington 1 no turbine In operation / 7.9km South Effects on birds 34.2m to tip construction asesed as negligible. Desk top study identified pink footed geese and overwintering waders as possible receptors. However concluded effects on birds would be negligible. Hawton 3no turbines In planning C 9km west Lapwing: 5 birds 126.6m to predicted to be tip subject to collision over life of project. Non-breeding gulls Hawton 1 no turbine In Planning C 9Km west Site in close quarry 66.7m to tip proximity to Cotham Flash known to support overwintering and migratory waders and wildfowl. Fox Covert 4no turbines In planning C 10km west No significant 130m to tip ornithological effects concluded. Lapwing collisions predicted as 3.6 per annum and considered to be not significant Staple 1 no turbine Scoping C 8 km west Currently unknown

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 48 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Site Name Description Project Status Approximate Potential Distance and Cumulative Direction from Receptors Temple Hill quarry 90m to tip lanfdfill Projects 10 to 20km from Temple Hill Nottingham 2no turbines In planning C 20km west Currently unknown Trent 67m to tip University Farndon 1 no Consented C 11km west No detailed Turbine information on 66.7m to tip ornithology Brills farm 1 no In planning C 12km north Unknown Turbine 86.5m to tip Debdale 1 no turbine Appeal C 16km north Unknown hill farm 1 no 102m west to tip North 1 no turbine In planning Barn owl Hykeham 66.7m to tip meadows Little 1 no turbine In operation / C 16.4km north Breeding lapwing, carlton 102m to tip construction west impact on birds predicted to be ‘minimal to low’ Hockerton 1 no 45m to Operational C 20km west No ornithology community tip north west data - currently turbine unknown Bedmax 1no 66m to Scoping / C 20km west No ornithology tip Screening north west data - currently unknown Scoping / No ornithology Brecks 1 no 102m C 12km west lane to tip Screening data - currently unknown

Scoping / No ornithology Langford 1 no 78 m C 12km north to tip Screening west data - currently unknown

Scoping / No ornithology Kelkham 1no 78m to C 13km west tip Screening north west data - currently unknown

Ossington 1no 74m to Operational / C 20km north Unknown Road tip under west construction Carlton on 5no 100m Scoping / C19km north Lapwing, golden Trent to tip Screening west plover 0.79 and 1.64 collisions predicted per year respectively

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 49 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Site Name Description Project Status Approximate Potential Distance and Cumulative Direction from Receptors Temple Hill Whisby 2no 87m to Scoping / C 20km north Currently unknown tip Screening

8.8.4 The main sites in which common ornithological receptors have been identified within 10km are:

 Frinkley Farm and Carlton Scroop, where barn owl are reported using adjacent habitats but due to the lack of breeding or activity within the application site ‘low’ impacts were predicted;

 Hawton Wind Farm, Hawton quaryy (single turbine) and fox covert wind farm are all in an area used by breeding and non breeding lapwing. These are all situated 9-10km west of Temple Hill these sites have also identified (non signifficant effects on non-breeding gulls in common with Temple Hill. Within the environmental statements and other documents these effects are assessed as being not significant. Given the stated numbers of birds cited as being subject to effects from these developments in the table 8.14 above no significant in-combination effect is therefore predicted as a result of these proposals as the annual predicted mortality would be relatively unchanged from the values calculated at Temple Hill.

 Allington wind turbine also described potential effects on overwintering waders however these are assessed as being not significant and while no collision risk has been undertaken, due to the scale of this development no cumulative effects are likely.

8.8.5 At more distant sites (up to 20km) potential effects on wintering golden plover and lapwing were identified at Carlton on Trent. At the same site potential effects on farmland birds, buzzard, kestrel, hobby, merlin and peregrine were also described. However, all of these effects were assessed as being not significant and taking this and the distance between the sites and low likelihood of interaction no cumulative effects are predicted.

8.8.6 While data is not available for all the schemes detailed above in relation to ornithology, many of the schemes are of a smaller scale and therefore are unlikely to have detailed ornithological data to compare with that at the Development. However the lack of requirement for detailed ornithological data on many smaller schemes reflects the perceived likely absence of significant

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 50 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

effects of such schemes. Due to the low weighting given to these smaller scale schemes in terms of ornithological assessment it is predicted that the likelihood of in combination cumulative ornithological effects with such schemes are low.

8.8.7 This assessment concludes that no significant cumulative effects of the Development are likely.

8.9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

8.9.1 The site is located over 10km from any statutory designated site for nature conservation cited primarily for ornithological criteria and further than 2km from any non-statutory designated site. No impacts on designated sites at any level are predicted.

8.9.2 A range of medium and high value bird species have been identified using the site or surrounding area to some degree. This has been established through field surveys comprising breeding bird surveys, winter field count surveys and vantage point surveys undertaken throughout the course of a whole year.

8.9.3 Based on the design layout of the Development; the inclusion of generic mitigation to avoid effects on nesting bird species; and some specific mitigation recommended to avoid effects on breeding quail and barn owl, no significant adverse effects are predicted on ornithological receptors during the construction or decommissioning phases of the proposal.

8.9.4 Twelve species were subject to detailed assessment using collision risk modelling due to their high nature conservation value or regular presence at the site and perceived vulnerability to impacts of collision with operating turbines. Impacts of minor significance are predicted for red kite, marsh harrier, peregrine falcon, golden plover and lapwing as a consequence of predicted annual collision rates. However in the case of red kite, marsh harrier and peregrine falcon this is assessed on a very precautionary basis due to the low incidence of recorded flight data.

8.9.5 Assessment of cumulative effects has included other wind energy proposals with in 20km radius of the site but focused on those sites within 10km. Of the schemes assessed some overlap on predicted effects on golden plover, lapwing and gulls were noted though no increase in overall effect due to other schemes is predicted.

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 51 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

8.9.6 The construction and operation of the Development does not conflict with existing national or local policies in relation to ornithology and the scheme provides opportunities to enhance some parts of the arable landscape for a range of UKBAP priority bird species.

8.9.7 In EIA terms there are no significant adverse ornithological effects predicted as a result of the Development.

8.10 PROPOSED POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

8.10.1 In view of the low levels of impacts predicted on ornithological features the following monitoring is proposed.

8.10.2 Monitoring of the success of the relocation of barn owl nests will be undertaken to:

 Identify whether uptake of alternative nest sites has been successful; and

 To establish whether construction activities at long range >300m have any disturbing effect when owls are breeding. In this instance due to the legal status of barn owls any activity found to have a disturbing effect would have to cease and works diverted elsewhere on site until breeding efforts are completed.

8.10.3 The monitoring will comprise of nest checks undertaken by a licensed barn owl ecologist over any part of the breeding season corresponding with the construction phase. Nests will be checked periodically and any issues arising will be identified and additional mitigation agreed with the planning authority.

8.10.4 Breeding bird surveys following the CBC methodology which is designed to ascertain the range and abundance of species present on the site using a territory mapping approach. This will be consistent with the methods applied during baseline data collection. This will be undertaken during the first 2 years of operation following the inclusion of enhancement measures to establish the success or otherwise of mitigation or enhancement proposed.

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 52 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement References

1. Barn Owl Trust. Leaflet 28: Safeguarding Wild Sites. The Barn Owl Trust, Ashburton, Devon.

2. Bright J.L, Langston R.H.W and Anthony S. (2009). Mapped and Witten Guidance in relation to birds and onshore wind energy development in England. RSPB research report 35.

3. Chick, A. (editor) (2010). The Lincolnshire Bird Report 2009. Lincolnshire Bird Club, Horncastle.

4. Chick, A. (editor) (2011). The Lincolnshire Bird Report 2010. Lincolnshire Bird Club, Horncastle.

5. Drewitt, A. (2010). Assessing the effects of onshore wind farms on birds Natural England. Natural England Technical Information Note 069.

6. Eaton, M.A., Brown, A.F., Noble, D.G., Musgrove, A., Hearn, R.D., Aebischer, N., Gibbons, D.W., Evans A. and Gregory, R.D. (2009). Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 102: 296-341.

7. Gilbert, G., D. W. Gibbons, and J. Evans. (1998). Bird Monitoring Methods: a manual of techniques for key UK species. RSPB /BTO/WWT/JNCC/ITE/ The Seabird Group.

8. Cramp S., Simmons K E L., Brooks Duncan J., Collar N J., Dunn E., Gillmor R., Hollom P A D., Hudson R., Nicholson E M., Ogilvie M A., Olney P J S., Roselarr C S., Voous K H., Wallace D I M., Wattel J., Wilson M G. (1983). Handbook of the Birds of Europe the Middle East and North Africa. The Birds of The Western Palearctic. Volume 3 Waders to Gulls. RPSB Oxford University Press.

9. Hotker H., Thomsen K., Jeromin H. (2006). Impacts on biodiversity of renewable energy sources: the example of birds and bats. Facts, gaps in knowledge and demands for further research and ornithological guidelines for the development of renewable energy exploitation. Michel Otto institute Im NABU, Bergenhusen.

10. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. (2006). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom (version 7 July 2006). http://www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 53 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

11. Langston R.W.H. and Pullen 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. Birdlife International.

12. Natural England (2009). Farming for Birds – Make the Most of Environmental Stewardship and the Campaign for the Farmed Environment.

13. Natural research (2012). http://www.natural-research.org/commercial- project-research/recent-commercial-projects/on-shore-commercial- projects/windfarm-impact-studies-on-kites-at-braes-of-doune-scotland/

14. Percival, S. M. (2007). Predicting the effects of wind farms on birds in the UK: the development of an objective assessment methodology. In M. de Lucas, Janss, G.F.E. and Ferrer, M., editor. Birds and Wind Farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Quercus, Madrid.

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

16. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). 2000. Windfarms and birds: calculating a theoretical collision risk assuming no avoiding action. Guidance note series. SNH Battleby.

17. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). (2005). Survey methods for use in assessing the impacts of onshore windfarms on bird communities SNH, Battleby. Revised 2010

18. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). (2006). Assessing significance of impacts from onshore windfarms on birds outwith designated areas. SNH, Battleby.

19. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). (2010) Use of avoidance rates in the SNH collision risk model. Guidance Note series. SNH Battleby.

20. Snow D.W. and Perrins C.M. Ed. (1998). The birds of the Western Palearctic . Concise edition. Oxford University Press.

Stephenson Halliday 8 - 54 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

9 NOISE

9.1 INTRODUCTION

The noise assessment was undertaken by TNEI Services Ltd in accordance with the recommendations of the former Department of Trade and Industry Noise Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines, which are contained within ETSU- R-97 ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms1 (ETSU-R-97) along with current good practice.

9.1.1 Noise would be emitted from the proposed development during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the project. The effects of decommissioning have been considered as a phase of work within the construction noise assessment.

9.1.2 This chapter presents predictions of the noise that would be emitted during the construction/decommissioning and operation of the proposed development. The noise predictions have been used to assess the likely effect of noise from the proposed development on the nearest noise sensitive receptors. As part of this assessment, existing background noise levels were monitored at a selection of noise sensitive receptors around the site and an assessment of the effect of noise from the proposed development was undertaken.

9.1.3 The construction noise assessment was undertaken in accordance with BS5228 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites - Noise’2.

9.1.4 The operational noise assessment was undertaken in accordance with ETSU-R- 97 and current good practice guidance (including the Institute of Acoustics document ‘A Good Practice Guide to the application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise’). The construction noise assessment report is included in full in Volume 3, Appendix 9.2 whilst the operational noise assessment is included in full within Volume 3, Appendix 9.1. In this chapter each assessment is considered in turn.

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement 9.2 GUIDANCE

9.2.1 The assessments used the following combination of guidance and assessment methodologies:

 National Planning Policy Framework3;

 Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1)4;

 National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3)5;

 Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE)6;

 Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy7;

 ETSU-R-97 ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ (ETSU-R-97);

 Institute of Acoustics ‘A Good Practice Guide to the application of ETSU- R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise’ (IOA GPG) May 2013'8;

 ISO9613-2, ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors (1996)9’; and

 BS5228-1: 2009 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites - Noise’.

9.2.2 This section contains a brief overview of the relevant legislation relating to noise from wind energy developments. A more detailed review is provided in the full noise reports contained in Volume 3, Appendix 9.1 and 9.2.

9.2.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and sets out Government planning policy for England and how it is to be applied. The NPPF replaces and revokes a raft of national Planning Policy Statements, guidance notes and some circulars. With regard to noise, the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise pollution10;

9.2.4 All planning policies and decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse effects on health and quality of life as a result of new developments. Where adverse effects occur, this should be mitigated or reduced to a minimum, including through the use of conditions 11.

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

9.2.5 The NPPF states that when determining planning applications for wind energy developments planning authorities should follow the approach set out in the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) and relevant sections of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure (EN-1)12.

9.2.6 The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3), taken together with the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy Infrastructure (EN-1) sets out the Government’s policy for delivery of major energy infrastructure and provides the primary basis for decisions on nationally significant renewable energy infrastructure. However, both statements are likely to be a material consideration in decision making on applications that fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

9.2.7 EN-1 advises (para 4.2.10) that where noise effects are likely to arise from the proposed development the applicant should undertake a noise assessment with the extent of the assessment proportionate to the likely noise effect. The proposed development should also demonstrate good design to minimise noise emissions and permission should not be granted unless the proposal will avoid significant adverse effect and mitigate or minimise other adverse effects on health and quality of life from noise (para 5.11.9).

9.2.8 EN-3 refers to EN-1 and the need for ‘good design’ for all energy infrastructure. Proposals for renewable energy infrastructure should also design projects to mitigate effects such as noise. With particular regard to onshore wind EN-3 states applicants should use ETSU-R-97 (para 2.7.56), taking account of the latest industry good practice. Where a proposal is shown to comply with ETSU- R-97 it can be concluded that there will be little or no weight to adverse noise effects from the operation of the wind turbines. Where a proposal cannot demonstrate compliance with the recommended limits set out in ETSU-R-97 consideration should be given to refusing the application if appropriate mitigation measures cannot be imposed.

9.2.9 The Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) sets out the long term vision of Government noise policy and should apply to all forms of noise including environmental noise, neighbour and neighbourhood noise. Of particular relevance to windfarm development, the NPSE refers to ‘environmental noise’ which includes noise from transportation sources. The key aims of the NSPE are:

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 Avoid significant adverse effects on health and quality of life while taking into account the guiding principles of sustainable development;

 Mitigate and minimise adverse effects on health and quality of life; and

 Where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life through the effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of government policy on sustainable development.

Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy

9.2.10 ‘Planning for Renewable Energy: A Companion Guide to PPS22’ was revoked in July 2013 and replaced with the Department for Communities and Local Government’s document ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy.’ The document lists a number of planning considerations which relate to wind turbines, which should be taken into account when determining planning applications. One such consideration relates to how the noise impacts of wind turbines should be assessed, offering the following advice: ‘The assessment and rating of noise from wind farms’ (ETSU-R-97) should be used by local planning authorities when assessing and rating noise from wind energy developments. Good practice guidance on noise assessments of wind farms has been prepared by the Institute of Acoustics. The Department of Energy and Climate Change accept that it represents current industry good practice and endorses it as a supplement to ETSU-R-97.’

ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms

9.2.11 The basic aim of the authors of ETSU-R-97, which included Environmental Health Officers (EHO), when arriving at their recommendations was 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.’

9.2.12 ETSU-R-97 makes it clear from the outset that any noise restrictions placed on a wind energy development must balance the environmental effect of the wind energy development against the national and global benefits that would arise through the development of renewable energy sources.

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement ‘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.’

9.2.13 The ETSU-R-97 assessment procedure specifies that noise limits should be set relative to existing background noise levels at the nearest receptors and that these limits should reflect the variation in both turbine source noise and background noise with wind speed. Absolute lower limits, different for quiet daytime and night-time, are applied where low levels of background noise are measured. The wind speed range that should be considered ranges between 0 and up to 12 ms-1, where all wind speeds are referenced to a 10 metre height.

9.2.14 ETSU-R-97 provides a robust basis for determining the noise limits for wind turbine(s) and since its introduction has become the accepted standard for such developments within the UK.

A Good Practice Guide on the application of ETSU-R-97

9.2.15 In May 2013, the Institute of Acoustics issued ‘A Good practice guide to the application of ETSU-R-97 for the assessment and rating of wind turbine noise’ (IOA GPG). The guidance document was endorsed, on behalf of the Government, by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the Rt Hon Mr Ed Davey MP.

9.2.16 The noise assessment has been carried out with regard to the IOA GPG and a summary has been included in the full Operational Noise Report, Volume 3, Appendix 9.1. The IOA GPG refers to a number of supplementary Guidance Notes however these have not yet been published and have therefore not been considered in this assessment.

Local Policy

9.2.17 South Kesteven District Council issued a Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in June 2013. In respect of operational noise, the SPD recommends the use of ETSU-R-97 along with the IOA GPG Guidance. Section 3.7.8 of the SPD however is not in line with current good practice, as it asks for measurements to be undertaken across the year. The IOA GPG section 2.3.1 states:

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement '.. there is no compelling evidence that it is necessary to carry out background noise surveys at any particular time of year, or over two or more separate periods. The only common exception is when a measurement position is close to a running watercourse which is a significant noise source. '

9.2.18 Also, Section 3.7.11 of the SPD is inconsistent, stating that there is no nationally agreed method to assess Amplitude Modulation (AM) but at the same time requesting developers to demonstrate that AM or shear will not cause nuisance. In the absence of a robust method to predict AM a site specific assessment is not possible, but AM is discussed in Section 3.2.2 of Appendix 9.1.

9.2.19 With regards to AM ,the IOA GPG, issued in May 2013 states: 'The evidence in relation to “Excess” or “Other” Amplitude Modulation (AM) is still developing. At the time of writing, current practice is not to assign a planning condition to deal with AM.'

9.3 METHODOLOGY

Construction Noise Methodology

9.3.1 The construction noise assessment has been undertaken using guidance contained in BS5228: Part 1 2009, the calculation methodology in ISO9613:1996, together with noise data for appropriate construction plant. BS5228-1:2009 provides guidance, information and practical procedures on the control of noise and vibration from construction sites.

9.3.2 Four residential receptors near the proposed development were selected as being representative of the properties located closest to the proposed development and access routes. Noise monitoring was undertaken at or in close proximity to all four properties as part of the ETSU-R-97 operational noise assessment.

9.3.3 For each receptor the LAeq,T and octave band immission levels have been predicted using the ISO9613 methodology and results have been compared to the significance criteria contained within BS5228-1.

9.3.4 Noise data collected at each receptor during one daytime period (07.00-19.00) when wind speeds were less than 5ms-1 has been used to represent the ambient noise levels at the receptor.

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

9.3.5 Calculations were made using both the CadnaA noise modelling software and a Microsoft Excel based noise assessment model along with an assessment procedure that considers a worst-case scenario.

9.3.6 Issues relating to construction noise are addressed in detail within the full construction noise report within Volume 3, Appendix 9.2.

Operational Noise Assessment Methodology

9.3.7 The main stages of the assessment methodology can be summarised as follows:

 Identification of the potential noise receptors;

 specification of the locations of the wind turbines;

 measurement of background noise levels as a function of on-site wind speed (measured at hub height to account for shear and standardised to 10m height) at the nearest noise sensitive receptors, or a representative sample of the nearest receptors;

 determination of the quiet daytime and night-time criterion curves from the measured background noise levels at the receptors;

 specification of the noise emission characteristics of a candidate wind turbine suitable for the site;

 calculating the noise immission levels due to the operation of the wind turbines as a function of on-site wind speed at the receptors; and

 comparing the calculated wind turbine noise immission levels with the derived criterion curves and assessing compliance with ETSU-R-97.

9.3.8 ETSU-R-97 provides a robust basis for determining noise limits for wind farm developments and these limits should not be breached. Consequently, the test applied to operational noise is whether or not the calculated wind farm noise levels at nearby noise sensitive receptors lie below the noise limits derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97.

9.3.9 Limits differ between quiet daytime and night-time periods. The quiet daytime criterion applies to the ‘quiet periods of the day’ comprising:

 All evenings from 18:00 to 23:00; plus

 Saturday afternoons from 13:00 to 18:00; and  All day Sunday 07:00 to 18:00.

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

9.3.10 Night-time periods are defined as 23:00 to 07:00 with no differentiation made between weekdays and weekends.

9.3.11 ETSU-R-97 recommends that wind farm noise for the quiet daytime periods should be limited to 5 dB(A) above the prevailing background noise level or a

fixed minimum level within the range 35-40 dB LA90,10min, whichever is the higher. The precise choice of criterion 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 (relatively few dwellings suggest a figure towards the upper end), the effect of noise limits on the number of kWh generated (larger sites tend to suggest a higher figure) and the duration and level of exposure to any noise (higher doses suggest a lower figure).

9.3.12 For night-time periods the recommended limits are 5dB(A) above prevailing

background or a fixed minimum level of 43 dB LA90,10min, whichever is higher.

9.3.13 Properties with a direct financial involvement with the project have a fixed

minimum level of 45 dB LA90,10min or the prevailing background noise LA90 plus 5 dB, whichever is the greater for both the quiet daytime and night-time periods.

9.3.14 The aim of the noise assessment is therefore to derive the ETSU-R-97 noise criteria and demonstrate that the development can meet the criteria. Nevertheless, 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 development may be audible; although, if it is within the noise criteria it is deemed to be at an acceptable level.

9.3.15 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 by this assessment will be a key determining factor in the final choice of turbine for the site. In the absence of a confirmed turbine model the noise assessment was based upon a candidate turbine which is considered typical of the type of turbine which could be installed at the site. Predictions of wind turbine noise in this assessment have been based on sound power level data for the VESTAS V90 2MW.

9.3.16 Issues relating to operational noise such as amplitude modulation and low frequency noise are addressed in detail within the full ETSU-R-97 assessment (Volume 3, Appendix 9.1). Amplitude modulation is discussed in Section 3.3 of

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 8 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

that assessment and the report concludes that there is no evidence available to suggest that there is a higher than remote possibility of Other Amplitude Modulation occurring at the proposed site. Current good practice is not to assign a planning condition to deal with AM.

9.3.17 Consultation took place with the Environmental Health Department at South Kesteven District Council prior to commencing the background noise assessment to agree noise monitoring locations and the methodology for the operational noise assessments. The EHO responded to the consultation via the intermediate of a third party consultant, MAS Environmental (MAS) who is providing support to the Council on noise work in general. MAS responded to the consultation letter requesting additional information and parameters to be recorded. Following submission of a response letter, no further request was submitted by the council to TNEI. As such, the installation of the noise equipment was planned and the EHO invited. Two members of the Council’s Environmental Health department attended the morning of the installation day along with two TNEI staff. Full details of the consultation responses are provided in the full noise report contained within Volume 3, Appendix 9.1.

9.3.18 Wind speed data was collected using an 80m wind monitoring mast and as such wind speeds during the background survey were measured at hub height, which accounted for site specific wind shear. The hub height (80m) wind speeds are standardised to 10m (a representation of hub height) to be compared to wind turbine noise predictions which are also standardised from 80m height to 10m height.

9.3.19 Analysis of the measured data was undertaken in accordance with ETSU-R-97 and current good practice (inclusive of the IOA GPG) to determine the pre- existing background noise environment at these locations and the resulting quiet daytime and night-time noise limits which were derived in accordance with ETSU-R-97.

9.3.20 Predictions of wind turbine noise were made, based upon the sound power level data for a candidate turbine and a noise prediction model that is considered to provide a realistic impact assessment.

9.3.21 There are a number of wind turbine makes and models that may be suitable for the proposed development. Should the development receive planning permission, the final choice of turbine would be subject to a competitive

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 9 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

tendering process and predictions of wind turbine noise are for candidate turbines only. The final choice of turbine would be required to meet the noise limits established in this report and so would be selected by the owner/operator on this basis.

9.4 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Background Noise Survey period and equipment set up

9.4.1 Background noise monitoring was undertaken over the period 24/04/2012 to 13/06/2012.

9.4.2 All noise measurement systems were set to log the LA90 and LAeq noise levels over the required ten minute intervals continuously over the deployment period.

9.4.3 The noise meters were calibrated on deployment. Thereafter, calibration and battery changes took place approximately every two weeks. No drifts greater than 0.3 dB(A) in calibration were found to have occurred for any of the noise meters. This is within the normal tolerances described in BS EN 61672-1:2003.

9.4.4 Wind speed/direction data and rainfall data were collected over the same time- scale, and averaged over the same ten minute periods as the noise data. The wind speed as measured at hub height (80m) allows consideration of wind shear for this noise assessment, and these hub height wind speeds are standardised to 10m height wind speed for referencing to all wind speeds to 10m height.

Noise Monitoring Locations

9.4.5 Eight monitoring locations were pre-selected and agreed for installation based on preliminary noise predictions and following consultation.

9.4.6 Seven noise monitoring locations were installed. An installation report, with justification for each installed noise monitoring locations was submitted to the Council after installation of the equipment (see Volume 3, Appendix 9.1).

9.4.7 TNEI was unable to gain access at one of the pre-selected properties, Gelston Grange. Despite communicating the importance of the noise assessment to the residents, with the help of the Council, TNEI could not get consent to install noise equipment for the survey. The property at Gelston Grange is judged to be in a similar setting compared to the monitoring location at Lower Barn, set back from Brandon Road. Data recorded at Lower Barn are judged representative of

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 10 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Gelston Grange noise environment and as such this proxy data was used to assess Gelston Grange.

9.4.8 Noise equipment was installed at Laughton Farm but data collected showed a very large spread in the data, largely due to the equipment being located surrounded by 3 buildings forming a U shape and the presence of a large amount of birds within it. The precise location of the equipment was judged appropriate at the time of installation, sheltered from the road which was anticipated to be the main noise source in the area. Due to this unusual pattern, the data was not used in this assessment and the location Laughton Farm was assessed using proxy data recorded at the nearest property, Platts Farm.

Noise Assessment Locations

9.4.9 The assessment locations as used for the operational noise assessments are detailed in Table 9.1 and Figure 9.1. For the purposes of the assessment, the operational noise effect has been assessed at the edge of the amenity area (usually the garden) which reflects the closest point to the development. The construction noise effect has been assessed approximately 3.5m from the properties facade (different coordinates to the ones below) and only four locations were selected for assessment. The operational location H3, H6, H7 and H8 were not selected for construction noise assessment because the assessment of H1, H2, H4 and H5 which were located the closest to the tracks, provide a worst case scenario for consideration of the construction phases.

Table 9.1: Noise Assessment Locations as used for operational assessment Receptor Easting Northing Elevation Approximate (m) (m) (m AOD) Distance to Nearest Wind Turbine (m)* H1-Littlegates 487982 347957 21 784 H2-Chestnut Court 489224 348468 18 888 H3-Brandon 490202 347985 20 1134 H4-Grange Cottages 490207 347399 21 897 H5-Gelston Grange ** 489874 346670 30 820 H6-Laughton's Farm ** 489580 345752 30 1544 H7-Platts Farm 487774 345783 25 1490 H8-Lodge Farm 487210 347722 27 1357 * Please note: the distances to the nearest turbines quoted above may differ from those reported elsewhere; distances for the operational noise assessment are taken from the nearest turbine to the closest edge of the amenity area. ** Property assessed with proxy data.

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 11 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement Background Noise Levels

9.4.10 Residents from Lower Barn and Brandon village provided logs of potentially unrepresentative periods where background noise levels may have been elevated, details of which is provided in Volume 3, Appendix 9.1. The logs were considered in detail and any periods which were judged to be unrepresentative were removed from the assessment.

9.4.11 Table 9.2 provides a summary of the range of background noise levels measured during the monitoring period. Background noise levels during periods of rainfall and other exclusions detailed in Volume 3, Appendix 9.1 have been discarded from this data.

Table:9.2: Summary of Measured Background Noise Levels (dB(A)) Receptor Quiet Daytime Night-time

LA90, 10 min LA90, 10 min

H1-Littlegates 18.9-60.9 17.3-54.9 H2-Chestnut Court 15.5-52.5 17.2-51.2 H3-Brandon 17.5-57.9 16.6-52.6 H4-Grange Cottages 17.5-52.7 16.8-52.9 H5-Gelston Grange 17.5-52.7 16.8-52.9 H6-Laughton's Farm 19.4-52.0 18.7-50.2 H7-Platts Farm 19.4-52.0 18.7-50.2 H8-Lodge Farm 20.5-53.3 19.2-53.9

Information Gaps

9.4.12 Noise data was successfully recorded with each assessment location having at least 1500 valid data points for quiet daytime and night-time compared to the IOA GPG recommendation of 200 minimum for either quiet daytime or night- time. No significant information gaps were identified.

9.5 PROPOSED MITIGATION INCORPORATED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT

9.5.1 Throughout the site design process the development was repeatedly reviewed to optimise the turbine numbers and locations for the whole development, subject to a wide range of constraints identified during the design process, including noise, landscape and ecology. The site design process therefore satisfactorily minimised any increase in ambient noise levels at two levels: firstly through several iterations of site specific design and secondly, at a higher level, through the use of ETSU-R-97 itself.

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 12 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement Mitigation (Construction Noise)

9.5.2 At this stage of the development the assessment is based on a worst case scenario, as a detailed construction programme is not available. In the event that planning application is successful, careful consideration will be given to the type of plant used and the contractors will inform the residents when particularly noisy activities are likely to take place to ensure any disruption is kept to a minimum during these periods.

9.5.3 Good site practices can be implemented to minimise the potential effects. Section 8 of BS5228-1: 2009 recommends a number of simple control measures, as summarised below.

9.5.4 Generally, construction activities will be confined to the periods 07:00 - 19:00 on weekdays and 07:00 – 13:00 on a Saturday. However, there may be the requirement for extended operating hours to minimise traffic disruptions during the movement of abnormal loads and during large concrete pours. The principal contractor would:

 Keep local residents informed of the proposed working schedule, where appropriate, including the times and duration of any abnormally noisy activity that may cause concern;

 ensure that site work which continues throughout the 24 hours of a day shall be programmed, when appropriate, so that haulage vehicles will not arrive at or leave the site between 19:00 and 07:00 hours, with the exception of abnormal loads that will be scheduled to avoid significant traffic flows;

 ensure all vehicles and mechanical plant will be fitted with effective exhaust silencers and be subject to programmed maintenance;

 select inherently quiet plant where appropriate - all major compressors will be ‘sound reduced’ models fitted with properly lined and sealed acoustic covers, which will be kept closed whenever the machines are in use;

 ensure all ancillary pneumatic percussive tools will be fitted with mufflers or silencers of the type recommended by the manufacturers;

 instruct that machines will be shut down between work periods or throttled down to a minimum;

 regularly maintain all equipment used on site, including maintenance related to noise emissions;

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 13 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 load vehicles carefully to ensure minimal drop heights so as to minimise noise during this operation; and

 ensure all ancillary plant, such as generators and pumps, will be positioned so as to cause minimum noise disturbance and, if necessary, temporary acoustic screens or enclosures will be provided.

Mitigation (Operational Noise)

9.5.5 Throughout the site design process the development was repeatedly reviewed to optimise the turbine numbers and locations for the whole development. In relation to noise, the proposed layout has been designed to fully comply with the requirements of ETSU-R-97 and as such no further mitigation is required.

9.6 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

Potential Effects (Construction Noise)

9.6.1 To protect the amenity of local residents, the construction noise activities can be controlled under The Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA), which is specifically concerned with the control of noise pollution. In particular, Section 60 Part III of the COPA refers to the control of noise on construction sites. It provides legislation by which a local authority can control noise from construction sites to prevent noise disturbance occurring. In addition, it recommends that guidance provided by BS 5228 be implemented to ensure compliance with Section 60.

9.6.2 BS5228-1:2009, clearly sets criteria for assessing the significance of construction noise effects and gives examples of acceptable limits for construction noise. For the purposes of this assessment the Daytime Category A noise limits are most applicable and have been utilised to assess the significance of the construction effects during each of the key construction phases. The significance criteria adopted for this assessment are based on Appendix E part E.3.2 of BS5228-1:2009 as detailed in Section 2.2.8 of the Construction Noise Report (Volume 3, Appendix 5.1 ).

9.6.3 Criteria for determining the significance of construction noise effects for Category A are provided in Table 9.3 below.

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 14 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table: 9.3: Construction Noise Significance Assessment Category and Significance Level Threshold Value Period Not Significant Significant Category A Daytime (07:00 – 19:00) and ≤65dB LAeq, 12 hr >65dB LAeq, 12 hr Saturdays (07:00 to 13:00)

9.6.4 During construction it is anticipated that the total daily vehicle movement numbers would vary each month, peaking during Months 2 and 3, and generate 84 movements per day as detailed in Chapter 13 Traffic and Transportation of the Environmental Statement.

9.6.5 For offsite traffic movements it is possible to determine the percentage increase required in existing traffic movements in order to cause a significant effect, based on the procedure outlined in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges13 (DMRB) which states: “The Designer should identify whether any of the following conditions are met:

ii) traffic volumes on the existing roads or new routes will increase by at least 25% or decrease by 20% either during construction or when the project is completed. This change in traffic volume is equivalent to a 1 dB(A) change in noise level, which is the minimum change that can be detected by the human ear in the short term (e.g. on opening of a project);”

9.6.6 The effect from increased traffic movements has been assessed in terms of the significance criteria established in the BS5228-1:2009 5dB level change. If the addition of the construction noise and ambient noise exceeds the pre- construction ambient levels by 5dB or more a significant effect is deemed to occur.

9.6.7 Based on the DMRB procedure construction traffic movements would need to increase existing traffic movements by 125% to result in a 5dB increase in traffic noise. The proposed construction route utilises the A1 trunk road, A17 and C1 road. The existing 12 hour traffic flows on the A1 is estimated to be 17,50814. For the A17 and the C1 road, Table 13.5 of the ES estimates a maximum flow of 17,891 and 1,976 respectively for these two roads. In order for there to be a significant effect, traffic levels would need to increase to 39,393 (increase of +21,885 on A1) , 40,255 (+22,364 on A17) and 4,446 (+2,470 on C1) for each of the proposed routes. Based upon the figures presented in Chapter 13 Traffic and Transportation (which states that the maximum traffic movements at peak

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 15 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

periods will reach approximately 84 movements per day) estimated traffic levels would be below these thresholds and as such no significant effects are likely.

9.6.8 The construction of the development is expected to take approximately 11 months. The construction process would be undertaken in several successive phases. During each stage the plant, equipment and the associated traffic will influence the noise generated. The selection of plant and equipment to be used will be determined by the main contractor and detailed arrangements for on-site management will be decided at that time. This assessment has therefore been based upon a typical selection of plant for a project of this type. In view of this, the plant has been modelled operating at the closest point to each receptor for a given activity in each construction phase whereas in reality only certain plant will be working at the closest point. The hours of operation are anticipated to be 07:00 – 19:00 weekdays and Saturdays 07:00 to 13:00.

9.6.9 For the purposes of this assessment the construction programme has been split into eight phases:

 Phase 1 - involves the upgrading of the access track to the site compound, removal of soil and importation of hardcore material;

 Phase 2 – construction of the temporary site compound, removal of soil and importation of hardcore material;

 Phase 3 - construction of the site tracks, removal of soil and importation of hardcore material;

 Phase 4 - construction of the crane hard standings, removal of soil and importation of hardcore material;

 Phase 5 - construction of the turbine foundations which involves removal of soil and importation of hardcore material, delivery of concrete and piling;

 Phase 6 – delivery and erection of the wind turbines;

 Phase 7 - construction of the substation involving importation of hardcore material and delivery of concrete;

 Phase 8 – decommissioning.

9.6.10 The noise-generating equipment assessed for each construction phase is detailed in Tables 5.2 - 5.9 of Volume 3, Appendix 9.2, which shows actual data measured at 10m. Using the data contained in these tables and the CadnaA software, noise levels for phases 1-8 have been calculated.

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 16 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

9.6.11 Noise monitoring for the ETSU-R-97 operational noise assessment included LAeq

and LA90 levels across a range of wind speeds. In order to determine the existing daytime noise levels at each receptor data recorded during a day of low wind

-1 speeds (<5ms ) were selected as being representative. For that day the LAeq,

10mins data for the period 07:00 – 19:00 at each receptor was considered and the

LAeq, 12 hr value was calculated.

9.6.12 The predicted noise levels at all receptors are presented in Volume 3, Appendix 9.2 and shows that these are in accordance with acceptable guidelines and are therefore deemed to be not significant. It should be noted that the proposed construction phases are temporary, short term and therefore will not give rise to any long-term effects. In practice, for much of the working day the noise associated with construction activities will be less than predicted.

Potential Effects (Operational Noise)

9.6.13 ETSU-R-97 does not define significance criteria, but describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development. Achievement of ETSU-R- 97 derived noise limits ensures that wind turbine noise will meet current Government guidance.

9.6.14 In terms of determining whether effects are significant in this EIA, this chapter refers to compliance/non-compliance with the ETSU-R-97 derived noise limits. For situations where predicted wind turbine noise meets, or is less than, the noise limits defined in ETSU-R-97 then the noise effect is deemed not significant. Any breach of the ETSU-R-97 derived noise limits is deemed to result in a significant effect. Furthermore the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) states that the limits ETSU-R-97 recommends remain ‘a sound basis for planning decisions’ (footnote 33 on page 69).

9.6.15 Noise levels arising from the operation of the development were calculated using the propagation model contained within Part 2 of International Standard ISO 9613-2, Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. The model uses as its acoustic input data the octave band sound power output of the candidate wind turbines and calculates, on an octave band basis, attenuation due to geometric spreading, atmospheric absorption and ground effects. The

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 17 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

noise model was set up to provide realistic noise predictions, including mixed- ground attenuation (G=0.5), no barrier effects, and atmospheric attenuation relating to 70% relative humidity and 10°C.

9.6.16 The assessment of the operational wind farm noise is contained within the noise assessment section of Volume 3, Appendix 9.1: this provides an assessment of the development in accordance with the requirements of ETSU-R-97 and current good practice (inclusive of IOA GPG). The assessment is summarised in Table 9.4 and Table 9.5 below.

9.6.17 For the purposes of this assessment a lower day time fixed minimum limit of 35dB has been adopted. This is the most stringent level detailed in ETSU-R-97 and affords residents the maximum level of protection.

9.6.18 The tables detail the prevailing background noise, relevant criteria and predicted wind turbine noise levels (based on the VESTAS V90 2MW) for ETSU-R-97 quiet daytime hours and ETSU-R-97 night-time hours. The tables also show the exceedance level which is the level of turbine noise relative to the noise criteria. A negative exceedance level indicates satisfaction of the noise criteria.

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 18 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table: 9.4: ETSU-R-97 compliance table for Quiet Daytime Location Wind Speed (ms-1) as standardised to 10m height

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 28.9 30.5 32.8 35.5 38.6 41.9 45.2 48.3 51 - Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 35 35.5 37.8 40.5 43.6 46.9 50.2 53.3 56 56

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 24.6 27.6 31.8 34.8 35.7 36 36 36 36 36

Exceedance Level LA90 -10.4 -7.9 -6 -5.7 -7.9 -10.9 -14.2 -17.3 -20 -20 Littlegates (H1) Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 31.1 31.8 33.3 35.5 38.2 41.2 44.4 47.7 50.9 - Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 36.1 36.8 38.3 40.5 43.2 46.2 49.4 52.7 55.9 55.9

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 23.7 26.7 30.9 33.9 34.8 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1

Exceedance Level LA90 -12.4 -10.1 -7.4 -6.6 -8.4 -11.1 -14.3 -17.6 -20.8 -20.8 Chestnut Court (H2) Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 33.5 33.5 34.2 35.6 37.6 40.2 43.5 47.3 51.8 -

Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 38.5 38.5 39.2 40.6 42.6 45.2 48.5 52.3 56.8 56.8

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 21.3 24.3 28.5 31.5 32.4 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7

Exceedance Level LA90 -17.2 -14.2 -10.7 -9.1 -10.2 -12.5 -15.8 -19.6 -24.1 -24.1 Brandon (H3) Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 29.7 29.7 30.7 32.6 35.3 38.4 41.8 45.1 48.2 -

Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 35 35 35.7 37.6 40.3 43.4 46.8 50.1 53.2 53.2

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 22.7 25.7 29.9 32.9 33.8 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1

Exceedance Level LA90 -12.3 -9.3 -5.8 -4.7 -6.5 -9.3 -12.7 -16 -19.1 -19.1 Grange Cottages (H4) Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 29.7 29.7 30.7 32.6 35.3 38.4 41.8 45.1 48.2 -

Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 35 35 35.7 37.6 40.3 43.4 46.8 50.1 53.2 53.2

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 23.6 26.6 30.8 33.8 34.7 35 35 35 35 35

Gelston Exceedance Level LA90 -11.4 -8.4 -4.9 -3.8 -5.6 -8.4 -11.8 -15.1 -18.2 -18.2 Grange (H5) Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 27.3 28.7 31 33.9 37.2 40.6 43.7 46.4 48.3 - Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 35 35 36 38.9 42.2 45.6 48.7 51.4 53.3 53.3

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 18.5 21.5 25.7 28.7 29.6 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9

Exceedance Level LA90 -16.5 -13.5 -10.3 -10.2 -12.6 -15.7 -18.8 -21.5 -23.4 -23.4 Laughton's Farm (H6) Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 27.3 28.7 31 33.9 37.2 40.6 43.7 46.4 48.3 -

Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 35 35 36 38.9 42.2 45.6 48.7 51.4 53.3 53.3

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 17.8 20.8 25 28 28.9 29.2 29.2 29.2 29.2 29.2 Platts Farm (H7)

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 19 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement Location Wind Speed (ms-1) as standardised to 10m height

Exceedance Level LA90 -17.2 -14.2 -11 -10.9 -13.3 -16.4 -19.5 -22.2 -24.1 -24.1 Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 33.1 33.8 35 36.6 38.6 41.1 44.1 47.5 51.3 - Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 38.1 38.8 40 41.6 43.6 46.1 49.1 52.5 56.3 56.3

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise L 19.2 22.2 26.4 29.4 30.3 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6

A90

Exceedance Level LA90 -18.9 -16.6 -13.6 -12.2 -13.3 -15.5 -18.5 -21.9 -25.7 -25.7 Lodge Farm H8)

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 20 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table: 9.5: ETSU-R-97 compliance table for Night-Time Wind Speed (ms-1) as standardised to 10m height Location 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 25.5 26.4 28.2 30.7 33.9 38 42.8 48.3 54.7 - Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 43 43 43 43 43 43 47.8 53.3 59.7 59.7

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 24.6 27.6 31.8 34.8 35.7 36 36 36 36 36

Exceedance Level LA90 -18.4 -15.4 -11.2 -8.2 -7.3 -7 -11.8 -17.3 -23.7 -23.7 Littlegates (H1) Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 25 26.1 28 30.6 33.9 37.9 42.4 47.5 53.2 - Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 43 43 43 43 43 43 47.4 52.5 58.2 58.2

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 23.7 26.7 30.9 33.9 34.8 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1 35.1

Exceedance Level LA90 -19.3 -16.3 -12.1 -9.1 -8.2 -7.9 -12.3 -17.4 -23.1 -23.1 Chestnut Court (H2) Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 25.2 25.2 26.5 28.6 31.5 35.4 40.3 46.2 53.4 - Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 43 43 43 43 43 43 45.3 51.2 58.4 58.4

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 21.3 24.3 28.5 31.5 32.4 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7

Exceedance Level LA90 -21.7 -18.7 -14.5 -11.5 -10.6 -10.3 -12.6 -18.5 -25.7 -25.7 Brandon (H3) Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 24.4 25.2 26.5 28.6 31.3 35 39.6 45.2 52.1 -

Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 43 43 43 43 43 43 44.6 50.2 57.1 57.1

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 22.7 25.7 29.9 32.9 33.8 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1 34.1

Exceedance Level LA90 -20.3 -17.3 -13.1 -10.1 -9.2 -8.9 -10.5 -16.1 -23 -23 Grange Cottages (H4) Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 24.4 25.2 26.5 28.6 31.3 35 39.6 45.2 52.1 -

Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 43 43 43 43 43 43 44.6 50.2 57.1 57.1

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 23.6 26.6 30.8 33.8 34.7 35 35 35 35 35

Gelston Exceedance Level LA90 -19.4 -16.4 -12.2 -9.2 -8.3 -8 -9.6 -15.2 -22.1 -22.1 Grange (H5) Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 25.4 26.4 28.3 31 34.2 37.8 41.5 45.2 48.6 - Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 43 43 43 43 43 43 46.5 50.2 53.6 53.6

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 18.5 21.5 25.7 28.7 29.6 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9

Exceedance Level LA90 -24.5 -21.5 -17.3 -14.3 -13.4 -13.1 -16.6 -20.3 -23.7 -23.7 Laughton's Farm (H6) Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 25.4 26.4 28.3 31 34.2 37.8 41.5 45.2 48.6 -

Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 43 43 43 43 43 43 46.5 50.2 53.6 53.6

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 17.8 20.8 25 28 28.9 29.2 29.2 29.2 29.2 29.2 Platts Farm (H7)

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 21 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Location Wind Speed (ms-1) as standardised to 10m height

Exceedance Level LA90 -25.2 -22.2 -18 -15 -14.1 -13.8 -17.3 -21 -24.4 -24.4

Prevailing Measured Background Noise Level 27.1 28 29.5 31.5 34.1 37.6 41.9 47.2 53.6 - Noise Criterion : ETSU-R-97 43 43 43 43 43 43 46.9 52.2 58.6 58.6

Predicted Wind Turbine Noise LA90 19.2 22.2 26.4 29.4 30.3 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6 30.6

Exceedance Level LA90 -23.8 -20.8 -16.6 -13.6 -12.7 -12.4 -16.3 -21.6 -28 -28 Lodge Farm H8)

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 22 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

9.6.19 Predicted wind turbine immission levels and measured background noise levels indicate that for receptors neighbouring the development, wind turbine noise will meet the quiet daytime and night-time noise criteria proposed within ETSU-R- 97.

9.6.20 If the development receives planning permission further data will be obtained from the supplier for the final choice of turbine model to demonstrate compliance with the noise limits derived in this report.

Micro-siting

9.6.21 A calculation has been undertaken to predict the possible effect of micro-siting the wind turbines. If the turbines are relocated 50m in any direction from the proposed turbine coordinates compliance with ETSU-R-97 limits will still be achieved, based on modelling using mixed-ground conditions and the candidate turbine model.

Residual Effects

9.6.22 Predicted construction noise levels are below the assessment criteria at all receptors for all construction phases. However, construction noise is likely to be audible at the closest residential receptors for certain periods during the construction phase. Such increases in noise would be short-lived during specific construction operations. There are no significant residual effects from construction noise.

9.6.23 Predicted operational wind farm noise levels at all residential properties lie below the ETSU-R-97 quiet daytime and night-time criterion curves. However, at certain times of the day, at some locations, under some wind conditions and for a certain proportion of the time, the wind farm noise may be audible. In spite of its audibility, it would be at an acceptable level in relation to the ETSU-R-97 guidelines. There are no significant residual effects from operational noise.

9.7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

9.7.1 Noise may be audible during the construction and operational phases of the development but, in accordance with BS5228 and ETSU-R-97, the noise will be at acceptable levels. There are no significant residual effects resulting from noise during the construction or operational phases of the development.

9.7.2 In the event that the proposed development is consented the final choice of wind turbine to be used on-site will be subject to a competitive tendering process;

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 23 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

achievement of the noise limits established in the full noise report in accordance with ETSU-R-97 and current good practice (inclusive of IOA GPG) will be a key requirement of the chosen turbine.

9.7.3 It is usual for a consent to contain legally enforceable planning conditions which set out the noise limits for the site and a procedure to be followed in the event of a noise complaint. The procedure would set out a method to measure operational noise from the development, although it is proposed that this should only be undertaken in the event of a complaint. In the event that no complaints are received noise monitoring is not considered necessary.

Statement of Significance Construction Noise

9.7.4 Predicted construction noise levels compared with measured background noise levels indicate that for receptors neighbouring the development the predicted noise effects are in accordance with acceptable guidelines. Therefore, they are deemed to be not significant. Every prediction assumes that all plant is operating in full operational mode on the access tracks and within the site itself to provide a worst case scenario; whereas, in reality only a proportion of the plant may be operating.

9.7.5 The effect from increased traffic movements has been assessed in terms of the significance criteria established in the BS5228-1:2009 5dB level change method and no significant effect is likely.

9.7.6 It should be noted that the proposed construction phases are short term and temporary in nature and are not likely to cause any long term effects.

Statement of Significance Operational Noise

9.7.7 Predicted levels and measured background noise levels indicate that for dwellings neighbouring the development, wind turbine noise will meet the noise criteria proposed within ETSU-R-97 therefore deemed to be not significant.

9.7.8 There are a range of turbine models that may be appropriate for the development. If the development receives planning permission, further data will be obtained from the supplier for the final choice of turbine model to demonstrate compliance with the noise limits derived in this report.

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 24 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

References

1. The Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines, 1996. ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’, ETSU for the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry)

2. BS5228-1:2009 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites’ – Part 1: Noise

3. Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012 National Planning Policy Framework

4. Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2011 ‘Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy’

5. Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2011 ‘National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3)’

6. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, 2010 ‘Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE)

7. Department for Communities and Local Government, 2013 ‘Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy’

8. Institute of Acoustics (2013) ‘A Good practice guide to the application of ETSU-R-97 for the assessment and rating of wind turbine noise’

9. International standards organisation, ISO9613:1996 ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors’ – Part 2: General method of calculation.

10. The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) paragraph 109.

11. The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) paragraph 123

12. The National Planning Policy Framework (2012), footnote 17, page 22.

13. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) volume 11 environmental assessment - section 3 environmental assessment techniques Part 7 - HA 213/08

14. Data from GB Road Traffic Counts , available at http://data.gov.uk/dataset/gb-road-traffic-counts

Stephenson Halliday 9 - 25 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

10 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

10.1 INTRODUCTION

10.1.1 This chapter assesses the likely significant effects of the Development upon the historic environment. It examines the heritage significance (sensitivity) and value of those heritage assets which are within the vicinity of the Development and it assesses the effect of the Development on the setting of those heritage assets, concluding with effects on each asset. In addition it assesses the archaeological potential of the application site, the likely significance of that potential and the effects of the Development upon archaeology.

10.1.2 The proposed turbines would be up to a maximum height of 126.5m. The following assessment assumes dimensions of 80m hub height and 93m blade diameter as a worst case scenario. If these dimensions were to change (within the 126.5m envelope) it is considered unlikely that the predicted likely significant impacts would change. This chapter also takes into account an allowance of up to 50m micro-siting with the restrictions set out in Chapter 4.

10.1.3 This chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapter 6 - Landscape and Visual Assessment and its associated visual material at Volume 2. Designated heritage asset mapping is enclosed at Volume 2 (Figures 10.1-10.3) along with a list of assets at Volume 3, Appendix 10.2. Also within Volume 3 is Appendix 10.1, the archaeological desk based assessment and Appendix 10.3 which includes assessment tables for all designated heritage assets. More detailed assessment for a selected number of assets is included within Volume 3, Appendix 10.4. Visualisations to support this chapter are contained in Volume 2 (Visualisations CH01-CH04)

10.1.4 More specifically, this chapter assesses the effect of the Development on archaeology, i.e. direct effects, and those on the setting of designated heritage assets, i.e. indirect effects. The potential effects arising from the construction operation and decommissioning of the turbines and associated infrastructure are considered.

10.1.5 In relation to indirect effects, those that do not involve physical change to any designated heritage asset, the effects of the Development would be on the setting of heritage assets as defined in the glossary at Annex 2 of the National

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), discussed further below and expanded upon within the English Heritage guidance document ‘Setting of Heritage Assets’ (Oct 2011). No part of the Development requires listed building consent, or falls within a designated area of heritage significance. Therefore, the potential indirect effects involve visual change, not physical change, and they arise from the erection of the Development.

10.2 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

10.2.1 The aim of this assessment is to consider:

 The physical effect on all heritage assets, including buried archaeological remains and other historic structures, within the footprint of the Development (as defined in Chapter 4 of the ES); and

 The effect on the setting of the designated heritage assets including listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments and Registered Parks and Gardens (RPGs) within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) to a distance of 5km from the proposed turbines. RPGs and highly graded assets within 10km are also considered.

 The effect on the historic landscape as identified within the Lincolnshire Historic Landscape Characterisation Study completed in September 2011.

10.2.2 As agreed through the Scoping process, the assessment has considered the effect on heritage assets within the following areas:

 On-site – effect on archaeological potential and any undesignated heritage assets within the application site.

 0km-5km from the proposed turbines – effects on the setting of all designated heritage assets including scheduled monuments, listed buildings, RPGs and conservation areas; and

 Beyond 5km from the proposed turbines – effects on the setting of specific grade I and II* listed buildings and RPGs i.e. Belton House Park and Garden, Belvoir Castle Park and Garden and its relationship with Bottesford Church and St Wulfram’s Church in Grantham.

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement 10.3 CONSULTATION

10.3.1 The following consultations have been undertaken:

Consultee Issue Raised Response/Action Taken

South Kesteven Scoping Opinion: District Council (SKDC) Requested that all heritage assets All designated assets within 5km should be assessed as within 5km assessed and well as highly graded assets within those within 10km visited 10km. Specific assets outside these and assessed where study areas include Belvoir Castle relevant. and its relationship with Bottesford Church and St Wulfram’s Church, Grantham.

Specific locations for photomontages Viewpoint selection were set out (roof of Belton House, agreed with SKDC base and top room of Bellmount Conservation Officer Tower, Belvoir Castle and high ground south of Grantham).

Consultation with the National Trust National Trust contacted was recommended and it was and viewpoints agreed. requested that results of a desk Results of Geophysical based assessment and any Survey incorporated into evaluation of the site (geophysical ES. survey or trial trenching) be included within the ES chapter. Email dated 02.04,2013: English Heritage

(EH) Concern raised with regards to the Viewpoints for Belton potential impacts on Belton House House etc. agreed. and Park, including Bellmount Tower. Viewpoints from the base and room within Bellmount Tower and the roof of Belton House were recommended. Cumulative effects on Belton were also of concern.

Email dated 27.05.2013:

Would be concerned about impacts Assessment takes into on church towers and in views of account views towards church towers or spires where they church towers where appear in the same view. turbines would appear in same views. Response to draft visualisations Viewpoint Selection was The National expressed concern at the visual agreed Trust (NT) effects of the turbines in views from Bellmount Tower and Belton House.

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Consultee Issue Raised Response/Action Taken

Archaeology: Heritage Trust of

Lincolnshire A draft text of the archaeological Results of the geophysical (HTL) desk-based assessment was issued survey and investigation to Jenny Young of HTL work included within the (archaeological advisors to SKDC). ES. Comments received by email on the 10th October 2012.

Further consultation was held with Jenny Young on the scope of the geophysical survey, and following the production of the geophysical survey report, on the revision of the scheme and scope of the pre-determination evaluation.

Jenny Young also attended the site during the investigation work (01.07.2013) to discuss progress and any requirement for further investigation following analysis of results.

10.4 LEGISLATION POLICY AND GUIDANCE

Legislation

10.4.1 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires in Section 66 that the decision maker in the planning process should have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Section 72 sets out a similar duty in respect of conservation areas and their character and appearance.

10.4.2 Legislation regarding archaeology, including scheduled ancient monuments, is contained in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, amended by the National Heritage Act 1983 and 2002.

National Policy

10.4.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was issued in March 2012, and it provides the national framework for decision making affecting historic buildings and areas. It is a material consideration in determining applications and provides guidance to local planning authorities.

10.4.4 Paragraph 17 of the NPPF makes it clear that one of the Government’s core objectives is to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations.

10.4.5 The historic environment section (paragraphs 126-141) includes guidance on how heritage assets should be assessed as part of the development management process. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF requires applicants for planning permission to describe the significance of the heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting, in proportion to their importance.

10.4.6 Significance is defined, in Annex 2 as:

“the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting”

10.4.7 Paragraph 129 of the NPPF urges local planning authorities to avoid or minimise conflict between a heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal, by assessing the particular significance of heritage assets.

10.4.8 There is a helpful and concise definition of setting in the glossary at Annex 2 of the NPPF, as follows:

‘The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.’

10.4.9 It should be noted that the definition of setting is the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. It is not defined as other land that might be visible from a heritage asset. The definition makes it plain that the experience will normally be felt when looking towards a heritage asset. In order to be material to the experience of the asset, views from a heritage asset must be views into surroundings which have a bearing on its significance – that is to say, there must be a material connection between the asset and the view outward into its surroundings.

10.4.10 Paragraph 129 of the NPPF urges local planning authorities to avoid or minimise conflict between a heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal, by assessing the particular significance of heritage assets.

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

10.4.11 Paragraph 131 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, of the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities, and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. It is clear that a wind farm will not necessarily achieve all these objectives. Where there is conflict with these aims this forms part of the balancing exercise between the adverse effects of the proposal and its beneficial effects in the overall planning assessment.

10.4.12 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF describes the weight to be given to conservation when considering the effect of a development on the significance of a heritage asset, including development within its setting.i The latter part of paragraph 132, and the whole of paragraph 133, is devoted to substantial harm. This clearly relates to “exceptional” cases where total or near-total loss of significance is envisaged.

10.4.13 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF refers to the balance between public benefit on one hand, and less than substantial harm on the other. Appeal decisions relating to development affecting the historic environment have established that levels of harm cannot simply be categorised into substantial and less than substantial and that effects of development can be at the lower or upper end of the less than substantial harm category. There is no guidance on how this relates to the application of EIA with which this chapter is primarily concerned. Table 10.4 below shows how the two can be reconciled.

10.4.14 Paragraph 137 of the NPPF also refers to the setting of heritage assets in the context of preserving those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to, or better reveal the significance of the heritage asset.

10.4.15 The National Planning Statement EN-1 (Overarching for Energy, July 2011) and EN-3 (Renewable Energy, July 2011)) are also of relevance and have been taken into account. EN3 refers to the historic environment and with reference to the impacts of onshore wind farms states:

i It is clear from the context and wording of the NPPF that paragraphs 132, 133 and 134 are all drafted with the intention of including developments affecting the setting of heritage assets.

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

“As explained in paragraphs 2.7.13 to 2.7.17 above, onshore wind turbines are generally consented on the basis that they will be time-limited in operation. The IPC should therefore take into account the length of time for which consent is sought when considering any indirect effect on the historic environment, such as effects on the setting of designated heritage assets.”

Site Specific Planning Policy Context

10.4.16 SKDC Core Strategy (adopted 2010) is the most recently adopted component of the Statutory Development Plan and sets out the strategy for development in the District. Many of the policies in the Core Strategy supersede and replace saved policies of the local plan. Policy EN1 sets out the considerations for preserving the character of the district through the protection of all its assets, including historic assets.

10.4.17 SKDC has published a Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted June 2013), which includes a section on assessment of the effect of wind farms on the historic environment (page 29 – section 3.4)). The approach advocated has been taken into consideration within this assessment. The weight to be attributed to this document is set out within the Planning Statement accompanying the application.

Conservation Area Appraisals

10.4.18 There are four conservation areas within 5km of the Development. Three of these areas, Caythorpe, Frieston and Westborough have adopted conservation area appraisal documents. Hough-on-the-Hill has no such document.

Belton House Setting Study (2010)

10.4.19 Belton House and gardens has been the subject of a detailed setting study carried out by Atkins on behalf of the NT and SKDC. The document has been used as a basis for the understanding of the heritage significance of the assets forming the group known as Belton House and gardens. It sets out particular planned views and vistas from within the parkland and from Belton House and Bellmount Tower, which have formed the basis for cultural heritage visualisations used to inform the assessment. In considering the study, professional judgement has been used to assess the likely significant effects on this group of assets.

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement Guidance

10.4.20 In October 2011 EH issued the Setting of Heritage Assets, a guidance document intended to assist in the understanding of setting and the ways in which it can be affected by change. Despite the change in national planning policy with the removal of Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) – Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010) and its replacement with the NPPF, this document is still relevant. In terms of heritage the NPPF is similar in terms of definitions and general wording to PPS5, and the new national policy framework does not present a material departure from PPS5 insofar as the general principles and approach to the setting of heritage assets is concerned.

10.4.21 Section 2.4 of the document deals with views and setting. It states that setting is not protected for its own sake or in its own right. Setting is not a heritage asset, and it is not a heritage designation. Instead the importance of setting is proportionally relative to the extent that it contributes to the significance of the asset.

10.4.22 The same section also reinforces the point that some views can contribute more to understanding the significance of a heritage asset than others, because the appreciation of relationships between the asset and elements in the view may be particularly relevant. That is almost inevitably the case where there is intentional inter-visibility between heritage assets, or between heritage assets and natural features. Such views are part of the design of the asset and can therefore make a particularly important contribution to its significance.

10.4.23 Conversely, however, there may be a multitude of ‘incidental’ views which do not make a particular contribution to an asset’s significance.

10.4.24 The most significant part of the guidance appears in and after paragraph 4.2, where a stepped approach towards assessment is advocated. The stepped approach makes the heritage asset the object of the assessment (in Step 2), and not the development.

10.4.25 The effects of the proposal are assessed in a later stage (Step 3), and these stages are clearly set out in the paragraphs on pages 17 to 22 of the guidance.

10.4.26 The document notes, on page 18, that where spatially extensive assessments relating to large numbers of heritage assets are required, such as in the case of wind farms, EH recommends that Local Planning Authorities give consideration to the practicalities and reasonableness of requiring assessors to access

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 8 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

privately owned land. In these circumstances, they should also address the extent to which assessors can reasonably be expected to gather and represent community interests and opinions on changes affecting settings.

10.4.27 Earlier guidance issued by EH includes Wind Energy and the Historic Environment (2005) and Climate Change in the Historic Environment (2008) – both of which acknowledge the threat of climate change on the historic environment. While the reversibility of a proposed development cannot in itself justify unacceptably harmful effects, reversibility is an important factor in the assessment of change in the historic environment. This is made clear on the final page of the 2005 publication, which states that “Consideration should always be given to the reversibility of wind energy projects”.

10.5 METHODOLOGY

10.5.1 This assessment has been carried out using a combination of fieldwork and documentary research, mainly to inform the desk based assessment found at Appendix 10.1. This work includes an examination of evidence on the Lincolnshire Historic Environment Record (HER) together with a range of archives and libraries including Lincolnshire Records Office, National Archives and The British Library. A site walkover was carried out as were visits to designated heritage assets within the identified study areas. The basis for the methodology is that contained in Annex 6 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), issued by the Highways Agency in August 2007 (HA 208/07), albeit some of the tables have been modified to be consistent with terminology in the NPPF in 2012. Assessment on the archaeological potential of the site has been carried out in line with the procedures set out in ‘Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment’ (IFA, 2011).

10.5.2 The EH guidance document on setting has also been taken into account but this does not provide a structure for assessment in EIA terms hence the use of the DMRB, the methodology of which is set out below. The DMRB document is referenced within the Scoping Report submitted to SKDC. Some flexibility in the detail of the assessment methodology is envisaged in DMRB in that it is not intended to be prescriptive, that professional judgement is required, and the matrix is not intended to mechanise judgement (see paragraphs 6.10.5 and 6.13.3 of DMRB in particular).

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 9 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

10.5.3 The methodology looks first at the heritage significance (= value/sensitivity) of the heritage assets, then at sources of effects, then at factors in the assessment of magnitude of change, and finally at the significance of the effects in EIA terms.

10.5.4 Table 10.1 below is adapted from Table 6.1 in Annex 6 of DMRB and sets out a guide for the first stage in this assessment, namely an assessment of the significance/sensitivity of heritage assets. In this case, the majority of the assets in question fall automatically into the high significance/sensitivity category, although when making individual assessment a degree of judgement is required, and this has been exercised in the assessment.

Table 10.1: Heritage Significance (=value/sensitivity) of Heritage Assets.

Sensitivity Type of Asset Very High World Heritage Site – Sites of universal value, importance and significance High Designated Heritage Assets as defined in Annex 2 of the Framework, in this case listed buildings, scheduled monuments RPGs and conservation areas Medium Undesignated Heritage Assets, such as locally listed buildings and other sites locally identified as being of some significance Low Structures which may have some potential interest or significance, but which have not been identified as such by the local authority

10.5.5 Turning to the sources of effects, there are the potential for both direct and indirect effects as a result of the Development. The majority of the effects are indirect, which is to say that they are to do with the setting of the heritage assets – the surroundings in which the significance of the asset in question is experienced. These effects can be experienced either during the construction phase, the operational phase, or the decommissioning phase or all three.

10.5.6 The magnitude of change is the subject of Table 10.2, below, which has been adapted from Table 6.3 of Annex 6 of DMRB, and which sets out factors to be used in the assessment, while exercising professional judgement. It should be noted that not all change is harmful, and that the extent of change should be equated to the terminology relating to harm in paragraphs 132 and 134 of the NPPF for the purposes of comparison.

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 10 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 10.2: Magnitude of Change to Significance of Heritage Asset

Magnitude Factors in the assessment Major/Severe Direct: Total loss of or substantial physical change to a heritage asset. Indirect: Total loss of the setting of a heritage asset. Extensive and fundamental change to the setting of a heritage asset. Major Direct: Considerable physical change to a heritage asset. Indirect: Extensive and fundamental change to the setting of a heritage asset. Medium Direct: Noticeable physical modification or change affecting key elements or characteristics. Indirect: Noticeable modification or change of the setting of a heritage asset, affecting key characteristics. Minor Direct: A physical change or difference to a key element or characteristic. Indirect: A change or difference within the setting of the heritage asset, affecting a key element or characteristic. Slight Direct: Slight physical change that does not erode the significance of the heritage asset. Indirect: Slight change within the setting of the heritage asset that does not erode significance.

10.5.7 Table 10.3 contains a significance of effects matrix, which assesses the magnitude of the change in relation to the significance (= value/sensitivity) of the heritage asset. Like the other tables, it requires professional judgement in order to make the assessment, and the matrix is a tool, not a mechanical system in itself. Any effect falling within the Major/Severe, Major or Moderate categories within this matrix would be capable of being considered to be a Significant Effect within the EIA definition (shaded).

Table 10.3: Significance of Impact (significant EIA impacts are shaded)

Effect Significance Very High High Medium Low (Value/Sensitivity) Major/Severe Severe Severe Major Moderate Major Severe Major Moderate Minor Medium Major Moderate Minor Minor Minor Moderate Minor Minor Negligible Slight Minor Minor Negligible Negligible

10.5.8 It is important to appreciate that it is the designated heritage assets which are the receptors. The setting of these heritage assets is complex, and is made up of many components, of which views to or from the asset in question may only be a part. Therefore, in any assessment of the effect on the setting of a heritage

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 11 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

asset it is important to consider the whole setting of the whole asset, not to concentrate entirely on a single viewpoint that may in itself not represent the full heritage significance of the building or feature in question.

10.5.9 It is also important to note that the amount of public access to a site does not have a bearing on whether its setting adds to its heritage significance. However, proper evaluation of the effect of change within the setting of a heritage asset will usually need to consider the implications for public appreciation of its heritage significanceii. This assessment has been undertaken on that basis.

10.5.10 Table 10.4 below summarises the difference in terminology between the methodology for assessing the magnitude of change in EIA with that used in the NPPF.

Table 10.4: Significance of Impact in relation to the NPPF

ES - Significance Policy test in the NPPF impact in EIA Paragraph 133, and the second half of paragraph 132 = substantial harm Major Significant

Moderate Paragraph 134, and the first half of paragraph 132 = less than substantial harm Minor Not significant

Slight

10.5.11 This leads to the following categories of significance;

 Significant Effect which amounts to substantial harm;

 Significant Effect in EIA terms but Less than substantial harm; and

 Less than significant effect, this is not significant in EIA terms.

10.6 BASELINE CONDITIONS

The Development Site

10.6.1 The Development site is located in the South Kesteven administrative area approximately 7km south east of Newark-on-Trent and 9km north of Grantham. The nearest settlements to the Development are Brandon approximately 1.1km

ii In accordance with paragraph 117 of the Practice Guide supporting PPS5 (still an extant guidance document).

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 12 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

north east, Stubton 1.5km north west, Gelston 2.6km south east and Hough-on- the-Hill 2.9km east. The East Coast Main Line passes within approximately 600m to the south west of the Development and the A1 passes within approximately 5.3km to the west.

10.6.2 The site is currently under intensive arable cultivation and comprises large scale arable fields with very few hedgerows and limited woodland cover. The topography of the site and immediate area is open and broadly flat ranging from 19m - 25m AOD.

Direct Effects

10.6.3 Volume 3, Appendix 10.1 provides an archaeological desk-based assessment. The results of that assessment are summarised here. The desk-based assessment contains a distribution map showing the location of known archaeological finds and features.

10.6.4 The archaeological desk-based assessment suggested that the site has a high potential for the later prehistoric and Roman periods but a low potential for all other periods, although it was noted that modern and post medieval farming practices are likely to have had an effect on the below ground deposits and the extent of that effect is unknown.

10.6.5 Whilst the majority of the entries on the HER within the perimeter of the site refer to areas of cropmarks identified through the National Mapping Programme (NMP), these are given context through two sites from which physical evidence has been recovered. In the southern part of the site, a watching brief on topsoil stripping associated with the Silk Willoughby to Stanthorpe gas pipeline recorded a series of ditches and other negative features which were dated as being Romano British (ML187725). The pipeline runs east – west across the bottom of the subject area and the fact that the watching brief did not identify any other features in this area suggests that the cropmarks (particularly ML188470) identified through the NMP do not necessarily translate into physical features below the surface. Nonetheless, it is likely that the cropmarks do indicate late prehistoric and Romano British occupation of this area and that this occupation comprised more than just agricultural usage of the land. Furthermore, the findspot recorded to the south of Temple Hill Farm (ML130286) relating to the recovery of an early Saxon spearhead may suggest that this occupation continued though into the Dark Age.

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 13 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

10.6.6 Further enclosures of late prehistoric or Romano British form have been identified from aerial photos to the west of the site and a find of a Roman patera or drinking pan (ML130194) would appear to confirm the date of occupation. A number of similarly dated enclosures have been identified through the NMP in this area stretching down to the road south of the site (ML130190. 130199,130197, ML130198, 188451) and archaeological investigations associated with the gas pipeline revealed a mid bronze age cemetery containing four poorly preserved cremation pits (ML187726). In the same investigations, a series of mid Iron Age ditches and gullies were recorded (ML187727). To the north of the site a large farmstead has been inferred from the NMP, probably of later prehistoric date (ML188416).

10.6.7 Evidence of medieval activity comes from remains of ridge and furrow close to the village of Brandon (ML183222) and from the Norman remains at Hough-on- the-Hill (outside the search area) with relatively few medieval entries on the HER other than unstratified sherds of medieval pottery. Post medieval activity around the site is likely to have been agricultural in nature with the main local centres of activity focused around Brandon Hall (ML195255) and Stubton Park (ML192364). The possibility that Temple Hall Farm was so named as a result of activity or occupation by the Knights Templar does not appear to be supported by any documentary or physical evidence.

10.6.8 Modern farming practices appear to have truncated below ground deposits as was seen in the poorly preserved cremation pits (ML187726) and the introduction of land drains, boundary ditches, hedge-lines etc. within the site are likely to have had a localised effect.

10.6.9 Due to the widespread evidence for late Iron Age and Romano British occupation of this area and following consultation with the archaeological adviser to SKDC, Jenny Young, it was considered necessary to carry out further archaeological investigation in the form of a geophysical survey across the areas where the Development would have the greatest impact in order to better understand the effect this development will have on any archaeological remains which may be present.

10.6.10 The geophysical survey indicated that archaeological remains are present in three principal areas, with a background of other, discrete anomalies which were less easy to categorise and interpret. The principal areas identified by the geophysical survey are to the southwest of the site where two distinct clusters of

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 14 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

features were recorded and through the centre of the site, forming a curving, roughly north – south alignment. Morphologically, these features appear to form at least two phases of occupation but may represent a continuity of settlement in the area over a considerable period of time.

10.6.11 As, by their nature, the results of any geophysical survey are ambiguous with regard to the date and state of preservation, it was felt necessary to carry out trial trenching in order to clarify these issues, but only where such features would be directly impacted upon by the Development. Given the clarity and density of the results, the original access track layout, as shown on the plans in Appendix 5 of the Archaeological DBA was revised so as to preserve in-situ the vast majority of identified features.

10.6.12 The aim of the archaeological evaluation trenches was to provide sufficient information on the peripheral activity to clarify the general date range and state of preservation of features in this area without impacting on features which are no longer under threat from the application. Furthermore, the evaluation would provide information on presence or otherwise of archaeological remains where impacts of the revised scheme no longer fell within previously surveyed areas.

10.6.13 In summary, the evaluation confirms the conclusions of the previous desk based study and geophysical survey in that it identified dispersed archaeology at a depth of 0.30m below current ground level including prehistoric activity in the northern and central part of the site (Trenches 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8); Roman activity in the southwest and far east of the site (Trenches 7 and 14) and post medieval/ modern activity relating to the agricultural use of the land across most areas. The prehistoric archaeology was principally related to Bronze Age activity on the site, with a lower level of Iron Age activity. All remains appeared to be peripheral to the centres of occupation.

10.6.14 Roman remains were concentrated in the east of the site with lower levels of activity to the southwest, and were predominantly dated to the 2nd and 3rd century. The remains recorded in the east of the site comprised a series of closely spaced parallel ditches and like the prehistoric remains, appeared to be peripheral to the focus of occupation.

10.6.15 The evaluation confirms that in general terms, the anomalies recorded by the geophysical survey correspond with archaeological features cut into the naturally deposited substrate (natural) and that in areas where no anomalies

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 15 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

were recorded, the underlying natural was undisturbed. Furthermore, it demonstrated that the revised access track layout had successfully avoided the foci of archaeological activity on the application site. Archaeological features had undergone some level of horizontal truncation as a result of ploughing over many years and in a number of places, modern drains and former channels had also caused some localised truncation.

Indirect Effects

10.6.16 All known designated heritage assets within the vicinity of the site are displayed on maps in Volume 2 within Figure 10.1 Listed Buildings within 5km, Figure 10.2 Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas within 5km and Figure 10.3 RPGs within 10km. A full list of the listed buildings and scheduled monuments numbered on the maps can be found in Volume 3, Appendix 10.2.

10.6.17 For the purposes of readability the baseline descriptions for each asset (including a summary of heritage significance and the contribution of setting to that heritage significance) are set out in three A3 tables within Volume 3, Appendix 10.3. The tables also include an assessment of effects alongside the baseline. The tables are divided by asset type. Table 10.5 deals with Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas, Table 10.6 deals with Listed Buildings and Table 10.7 deals with RPGs.

10.6.18 Volume 3, Appendix 10.4 contains detailed descriptions and assessment of key assets that require a more in depth analysis (either where significant EIA effects are assessed or where groups of assets are more easily understood through graphical representation) and include Belton House and Park and Garden and Stubton Hall. These detailed assessments correspond to locations where photomontages have been taken, which are included at Volume 2, Visualisation CH01-CH04.

Scheduled Monuments

10.6.19 There are seven individual scheduled monuments within a 5km radius of the Development. These are shown on the map at Figure 10.2. Five of the monuments are crosses (churchyard and village), all of which are also listed grade II. The closest monument to the turbines is Castle Hill, at Hough-on-the- Hill, c.3km east. It forms the remains of a motte and baily castle located at the centre of the village.

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 16 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Listed Buildings (grade I and II*)

10.6.20 There are 17 listed buildings within 5km of the turbines listed grade II* or I. The closest highly graded building is the Chapel in Brandon to the north-east at a distance of 1.2km (map no.2). Brandon Old Hall lies 1.5km to the north-east (map no.4) and the Church of St Martin (map no.6) in Stubton lies 1.6km to the north-west of the Development. These buildings are shown on Figure 10.1. Beyond this within a 5km-10km radius there are a further 52 listed buildings at grade I or II*, with at least 10 of these associated with Belton House and ancillary to it. All these highly graded assets were visited but only a selected number are included at Table 10.6 where there was considered to be the potential for significant EIA effects.

10.6.21 It is the case that the majority of listed buildings within the surrounding area are concentrated in established settlements spread across the landscape surrounding the site. They mainly fall within the ZTV with the exception of some assets to the south-east of the site (e.g. Carlton Scroop and Honington).

10.6.22 Four assets beyond the 10km study area of exceptional quality and regional importance are assessed, Belvoir Castle, the Church of St Wulfrum, Grantham, Belton House and Bellmount Tower (including the RPG).

Listed Buildings (grade II)

10.6.23 There are 11 buildings listed grade II within a 2.5km area of the Development. Four in Brandon (and environs), six in Stubton and one in Hougham. There are a further 72 within 5km, with a large majority located in Caythorpe and Claypole, settlements at the edge of the study area (Caythorpe/Frieston account for 32, Claypole 10, Westborough, 13 and Marston 10). Not all of these buildings are assessed in detail as they will not be subject to significant EIA effects. This is due to the fact that most of the buildings are located within villages and are experienced at close quarters within those villages without a high degree of importance associated with the wider landscape within which the Development will be located and viewed (see paragraph 10.8.8).

Registered Parks and Gardens

10.6.24 Within 10km of the Development are three RPGs of historic interest, Marston Hall, 4km south of the site, Caythorpe Court, 6km east and Belton House, a

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 17 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

much larger area 9km south east of the Development. Figure 10.3 shows the registered areas.

Conservation Areas

10.6.25 Within a 5km radius there are four conservation areas, Hough-on-the-Hill being the closest at 2.5km. These are shown on Figure 10.2.

Historic Landscape

10.6.26 The Lincolnshire Historic Landscape Characterization Project (HLC) was completed in 2011. The Development is located in Regional Area 6: Trent Valley, and within Character Zone TVL4: West Grantham Farmlands.

10.6.27 The character of the area is described in detail within the HLC and its legibility is described as;

‘It is possible to identify several levels of time-depth in the landscape of this zone. The medieval agricultural landscape was largely removed by the nineteenth-century enclosures, but the modern settlement pattern of nucleated villages is much the same today as it was at the time of the Domesday survey. However, this pattern is potentially threatened by the expansion of adjacent villages towards each other, which has already resulted in the unification of the villages of Caythorpe and Frieston’.

10.6.28 Ancient enclosures dating from the late medieval period survive in many places, especially on the edges of historic settlement cores. In some places modern housing has encroached on these enclosures.

10.6.29 Large areas of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century planned enclosure survive across the zone, despite the consolidation of field boundaries in the post-war period.

10.6.30 HLC is a tool for understanding the landscape we see today and its history. It is not a designation in itself and is not nationally or locally protected with legislation or specific policy. As such its significance and status is not on a par with designated heritage assets assessed within this chapter. Chapter 6, the landscape and visual assessment addresses the effect of the Development on the landscape, taking into consideration aspects of the historic landscape.

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 18 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement 10.7 PROPOSED MITIGATION INCORPORATED INTO PROPOSAL

Direct Effects

10.7.1 Mitigation of archaeological effects has been informed by the further investigation detailed in paragraph 10.6.9 – 10.6.15 of this document. Whilst it is for the archaeological curator to determine the extent of any mitigation works required, discussions with Jenny Young on site during the evaluation work concluded that none of the archaeological remains observed to date warrant in- situ preservation and that the density and quality of the observed remains could be adequately dealt with by the imposition of an intensive watching brief condition attached to the consent.

Indirect Effects

10.7.2 The visual effects arising from the appearance of turbines in key views and visits from various heritage assets are difficult to mitigate given the size and nature of the Development. However, the appearance of the Development from various assets surrounding site has been taken into account and has informed the design process resulting in a number of different iterations to try and balance the constraints while making the Development as well designed as possible (see further commentary within Chapter 3 and 6).

10.8 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

Construction and Decommissioning Phases

Direct Effects

10.8.1 It has been demonstrated through the various archaeological investigations to date, that the turbine locations themselves will not impact on significant archaeological remains. Intrusive investigations also targeted parts of the access track and ancillary infrastructure and here archaeological remains associated with the Roman and prehistoric rural land use of this area were recorded. Whilst the effect of the proposals on these assets will be partial or total destruction, the significance of these assets is relatively low. Consequently the significance of the effects of the Development on archaeology are likely to be low. The turbines themselves are situated away from areas of known archaeology based upon desk based assessment and field evaluation studies

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 19 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

10.8.2 It is possible that proposed development works along parts of the access track and grid connection trenches which were not investigated may encounter archaeological remains which have not yet been identified but the information collected so far indicate that any such remains will be of low intensity and agrarian in nature. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that these remains are most likely to be late prehistoric or Romano British in origin, and as they are likely to be of a rural nature and peripheral to the main focus of activity, the significance of the effects of the Development are likely to be low.

Indirect Effects

10.8.3 The effects of the temporary construction process and de-commissioning phases would be of a lesser magnitude than the operational effects and not significant in EIA terms in respect of the setting of heritage assets due to their limited duration and for this reason the assessment turns directly to the operational phase below.

Operational Phase

Direct Effects

10.8.4 There would be no direct effects on heritage assets within the Development site during the operation phase.

Indirect Effects

10.8.5 The operational effects of the Development will arise from the presence of turbine towers, blades and permanent anemometer mast which would bring about a visual change and have a potential effect on the setting of heritage assets.

10.8.6 The main predicted effects in this case are views of turbines (blades, hubs and towers or parts thereof) in conjunction with listed buildings or in views within conservation areas. In most cases it is not so much the views from the listed buildings that are an issue but rather the extent to which turbines can be seen in the backdrop to heritage assets in views of heritage significance or importance. It is important to note that the land on which the turbines are proposed does not materially contribute to the setting of any of the assets assessed within this chapter.

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 20 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

10.8.7 Operational effects on listed buildings, scheduled monuments, conservation areas and RPGs are assessed in the right hand columns of Table 10.5, 10.6 and 10.7 at Volume 3, Appendix 10.3. For the majority of assets, the visual effect of the Development will be reduced to a slight effect as a result of (i) local topography and orientation screening views of the turbines or (ii) filtering effects of vegetation reducing views of turbines or (iii) large distances between the heritage asset and the turbines or a combination of two or more of these factors. For example, in some cases the principal appreciation of the asset will be experienced when looking away from the Development, which is an important factor in the assessment.

10.8.8 Not all grade II listed buildings are assessed in detail within the tables at Volume 3, Appendix 10.3 as they will not be subject to significant EIA effects. This is due to the fact that most of the buildings are located within villages and are experienced at close quarters within those village contexts without a high degree of significance associated with the wider landscape within which the turbines will be located and viewed. The significance of effect upon the grade II listed buildings not included within this table will be minor.

Bellmount Tower

10.8.9 Appendix 10.4 within Volume 3 sets out the detailed assessment of the effects on Bellmount Tower. In summary there will be a moderate significance of impact as a result of the Development. This is due to the visibility of the turbines within wide panoramic views from the base of the tower and from the room at the top of the tower designed as a viewing room. The function of the building was to provide views over the Belton parkland and back toward Belton House, to the west. As such the turbines, which will be visible to the north-west, will result in a distracting element within the view.

Belton House

10.8.10 Appendix 10.4 within Volume 3 sets out the detailed assessment of the effects on Belton House and garden. In summary the significance of impact will be minor. This is due to the limited visibility of the turbines from the asset. Although the turbines will appear in one part of the 360 degree view from the roof of Belton House, thus affecting part of its setting, when considering the entirety of the asset’s architectural, artistic, archaeological and historic value, this effect is not assessed as significant.

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 21 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Belvoir Castle

10.8.11 This asset is described within Table 10.6, contained within Volume 3 at Appendix 10.3. In summary although the turbines will be visible in views from the Castle looking north over the Vale of Belvoir they will be located 11km away to the right of the view and will be visible in a very limited arc of view within the whole panorama. The appearance of the turbines on the horizon will change a view that at present contributes to the setting of the building, by revealing the dominance and influence the Castle has and has had in the past, but this change will cause a minor impact due to the preservation of the rest of the setting of the building and the preservation of its heritage value as an asset of architectural, historic, archaeological and artistic interest. There will be no significant impacts arising from the visibility of the turbines.

Stubton House

10.8.12 This asset is described in Appendix 10.4, along with an assessment of the effects on the setting of the grade II listed building. In summary the visual presence of turbines within views towards the principal elevation of the building and in views looking over the gardens to the south of the building will bring about a change to the setting of the building and detract from an appreciation of the building in its setting, as such a medium effect is anticipated, resulting in a moderate significance of impact.

Table 10.8: Summary Tables of Impacts.

Map No. Assets Grade Significance of Impact Listed Buildings 1 Church Farmhouse, Brandon II Minor 2 Chapel, Brandon II* Minor 3 Greystones, Brandon II Minor 4 Brandon Old Hall, Brandon II* Minor 5 Wall Round Brandon Old Hall Garden II Minor and Attached outbuilding, Brandon 6 Church of St Martin, Stubton II* Minor 7 Monument to Sir Robert Theroubar, in II Minor field 20m to northeast of church, Stubton 8 Gateway and flanking walls in Stubton II Minor Hall Park, Stubton 9 Stubton Hall, Stubton II Moderate 10 The Manor House, Stubton II Minor

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 22 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Map No. Assets Grade Significance of Impact 11 Barn at Home Farm, Stubton II Minor 12 Icehouse in icehouse plantation near II Minor Stubton Hall, Stubton 13 Court Leys Farmhouse, II Minor Stragglethorpe Lane 14 The Red House, Hougham II Minor 15 The Old Rectory, Hougham II Minor 17 Church of All Saints, Hougham I Minor 19 Hougham Manor House, Hougham II* Minor 24 Church of All Saints, Hough-on-the- II* Minor Hill 27 Church of All Saints, Fenton I Minor 31 Church of St Mary, Marston I Minor 33 Church of St James, Dry Diddington II* Minor 34 Marston Hall, Marston II* Minor 58 The Old Rectory, Westborough II* Minor 60 Church of St Peter, Claypole I Minor 62 Church of All Saints, Westborough I Minor 71 Pickworth House, Caythorpe II* Minor 90 Parish Church of St Vincent, I Minor Caythorpe 95 Caythorpe Hall, Caythorpe II* Minor 99 Church of St Peter, Foston I Minor Selected Assets beyond 5km n/a Belton House I Minor n/a Bellmount Tower II* Moderate n/a Church of St Wulfrum, Grantham I Minor n/a Belovoir Castle I Minor n/a Church of St Helen, Brant Broughton I Minor Scheduled Monuments Castle Hill, Hough-on-the-Hill n/a Minor Gelston Village Cross, Gelston II Minor Churchyard cross, St Mary’s II Minor Churchyard, Marston Churchyard cross, St Peter’s II Minor Churchyard, Claypole Churchyard cross, All Saints Church, II Minor Westborough Village Cross, Westborough II Minor Saucer barrow 100m west of All n/a Minor

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 23 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Map No. Assets Grade Significance of Impact Saint’s Church, Westborough Conservation Areas Hough-on-the-Hill n/a Minor Frieston n/a Minor Caythorpe n/a Minor Westborough n/a Minor Registered Parks and Gardens Marston Hall II Minor Caythorpe Court II* Minor Belton House II* Minor

10.8.13 As stated in paragraphs 10.6.26 to 10.6.30 the historic landscape is not a designated heritage asset but the designated assets surrounding the Development make up part of the character of the historic landscape and as such there is a potential for an effect on that character.

10.8.14 At present the nucleated settlements within the landscape take the form of their medieval origins and the field patterns in some areas retain 19th century enclosure field boundaries and some earlier patterns of agricultural use. The Development site is formed of fields that have been amalgamated and are in use as intensive agricultural land holds with limited historic character in comparison to the landscape around some of the villages such as Hough-on- the-Hill where smaller land holdings with historic boundaries are evident.

10.8.15 There will be a change to the character of the historic landscape as a result of the Development due to the introduction of modern, moving, structures at a different scale to the existing built environment. But the nucleated settlement form will still be highly evident and appreciated from many areas within the landscape surrounding the Development. As such an appreciation of the historic landscape and its layers of change will not be significantly changed as a result of the Development and our ability to under and appreciate the resource and its historical context will remain. There will be a minor impact on HLC as a result of the proposed turbines being located within a asset of medium sensitivity.

10.9 SIGNIFICANT EIA EFFECTS

10.9.1 Two heritage assets are assessed as experiencing a moderate significance of effect due to the Development.

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 24 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

10.9.2 These are Stubton Hall and Bellmount Tower (see Visualisation CH01a/b and CH04a/b). These effects arise as a result of a noticeable change within views either to or from these assets that affects a key characteristic of the assets heritage significance, their setting. Photomontages, prepared by Stephenson Halliday have been provided for these assets.

10.10 ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

10.10.1 Within 10km of the Development there is one existing wind turbine, at Frinkley Farm (66.7m to tip) 3.9km to the south east and one turbine under construction (34.2m to tip) at Allington, 7.9km to the south. There are six proposed wind turbine / wind farms within the same distance; all located over 4.5km from the Development. These consist of Carlton Scroop (1 x 49m (to blade tip)), Top Farm (1 x 99.5m), Green Lane (1 x 74m), Hawton (3 x 126.5m) Hawton Quarry (1 x at 66.7m) and Fox Covert (4 x 130m). Figure CLVIA 01 shows all the cumulative schemes. There is one proposed wind turbine at scoping stage within 10km, that at Stable Quarry Landfill (1 x 90m) c.8km to the west of the Development. These are discussed further in the landscape assessment in Chapter 6 but in terms of the historic environment the assessment below considers the effect of adding the Temple Hill turbines to the existing Frinkley Farm turbine, and the potential for significant effects on a number of heritage assets. The Allington turbine is of a substantially smaller scale than the Development and will have a much smaller sphere of visual influence, and it is located almost 8km south. There will be no cumulative impact arising from the combination of this single turbine and the Development on any heritage assets due to the distance between the two schemes and the limited visual influence of the Allington turbine.

Bellmount Tower

10.10.2 Bellmount Tower is one of the few buildings from where wide landscape views over large distances can be gained and form part of the setting of the building. Therefore cumulative effects are possible given that multiple wind turbines proposals could increase the effect on heritage significance. Views from the Bellmount Tower (at ground floor level and from within the upper room) include the Frinkley Farm turbine. The Development will be visible beyond this existing turbine in the same arc of view, effectively sitting behind it. Despite the difference in height between the Frinkley Farm turbine (66.7m) and the

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 25 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Development (126.5m turbines) the combination of distance and topography means that the Development will look the same height as the Frinkley Farm turbine in the view from Bellmount Tower. The magnitude of change of the Development on the setting of Bellmount Tower is concluded as medium. This assessment does not alter when taking the two wind farm developments in tandem as the turbines will be confined to a narrow arc of view in the same direction. The presence of five more wind turbines in this view would be a medium magnitude of change resulting in a moderate significance of effect.

10.10.3 Viewpoint CH3, View from Window of Bellmount Tower Cumulative Wireframe shows that other proposed turbines would be visible from the top of the tower. The other proposed turbines within a 10km radius of the Development have the potential to cause a cumulative effect on the setting of Bellmount Tower (these are shown on Figure CLVIA01). The single turbine at Green Lane, Marston and the single turbine at Top Farm, Foston, both located to the west-north-west of Bellmount Tower would be visible. However, the proposed turbines are 74m and 99m to tip respectively, and located on lower ground than the Frinkley Farm turbine. At over 7.5km from Bellmount Tower the individual turbines would be visible in the panoramic view from the building. They would be in a different part of the view from the Temple Hill Development and would appear at a different scale. The single turbines lie closer to the westerly view of Belton House, whereas the Temple Hill turbines would be located to the north-west. The addition of both the single turbines and the Temple Hill turbines would create a cumulative effect on the view from Bellmount Tower but it would not be significant in EIA terms.

10.10.4 In addition the proposed turbines located further afield at Hawton (3 x 126.5m), Hawton Quarry (1 x 66.7m) and Fox Covert (4 x 130m) would be visible from the tower according to the wireframe view shown at Viewpoint CH3. These schemes, located 10km from the Development and over 18km from the Bellmount Tower would not form highly visible turbines, likely to be visible to the naked eye on clear days only.

10.10.5 This effect of the Development in combination with the other proposed schemes would be of moderate significance as cumulatively the turbines would change the panoramic view from Bellmount Tower, a key attribute to its setting. It would not however, result in a major impact (extensive and fundamental change).

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 26 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Belton House

10.10.6 There is unlikely to be a cumulative effect on Belton House as a result of changes to the views from the roof. There will be no effect in views from the grounds of the building. The visibility of the Temple Hill turbines, in conjunction with the Frinkley Farm turbine will not result in a significant EIA effect when considering the heritage significance of Belton House as a whole. In addition the two smaller single turbines further to the west (Top Farm and Green Lane) would not, in combination with the Temple Hill turbines represent an extensive or fundamental change to the setting of the asset such that its heritage significance would be compromised.

Other Heritage Assets

10.10.7 There will be no significant EIA effects on heritage assets within 5km arising from the combination of the Development and those either existing (Frinkley Farm) or proposed (Top Farm or Green Lane). This is also the case for assets beyond 5km. There are buildings and areas from which more than one wind farm development may be visible but no key views or areas have been identified that would give rise to a harmful effect on the setting of those assessed heritage assets.

10.10.8 Particular regard has been had in this assessment to the heritage assets located between the Development and the proposed single turbines at Top Farm and Green Lane, that is assets within Hougham and Marston to the south of the Development. Due to the distances between the single turbines and the Development (c.5-7km) and the difference in height, the listed buildings within these two villages would not experience a cumulative effect resulting from the combination of the Temple Hill turbines and the Top Farm turbine, or from the combination of the Temple Hill turbines and the Green Lane turbine, or from the Temple Hill turbines and both single turbine schemes. The wind turbines will be visible within wide landscape views from some assets, but will be read as separate developments within different parts of the landscape.

10.11 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

10.11.1 The archaeological desk-based assessment suggests that the Development site has a high potential for the later prehistoric and Roman periods, but a low potential for all other periods although it was noted that modern and post

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 27 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

medieval farming practices are likely to have had an effect on the below ground deposits and are therefore likely to be represented in the archaeological record.

10.11.2 The significance of the effects of the Development on archaeology are likely to be low. Following archaeological investigations, including non-intrusive geophysical survey and intrusive evaluation trenching, it has been agreed with the archaeological advisor to SKDC that sufficient information has been provided for the application to be determined. Whilst it is for the archaeological curator to determine the extent of any mitigation works required, discussions with Jenny Young on site during the investigation work concluded that none of the archaeological remains observed to date warrant in-situ preservation and that the density and quality of the observed remains could be adequately dealt with by the imposition of an intensive watching brief condition attached to the consent.

10.11.3 The Development would not affect the heritage significance of the majority of the designated heritage assets within a 5km radius of the site. Two moderate effects have been predicted where the turbines would bring about a noticeable change to a key characteristic of an asset, most notably a change to key views of an asset or from it that form part of its setting.

10.11.4 The land on which the turbines are proposed does not materially contribute to the setting of any of the assets. However, the presence of the Development would change some views from certain listed buildings, as identified within the assessment tables. The key receptors in this case are Bellmount Tower and Stubton Hall where the potential for effects of significance greater than minor exists. None of the effects are of high enough significance to warrant the term substantial harm in relation to the NPPF.

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 28 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement References

1. National Planning Policy Framework, Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012

2. The Setting of Heritage Assets, English Heritage, 2011

3. Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment, English Heritage, 2008

4. Climate Change and the Historic Environment, English Heritage, 2008

5. Wind Energy and the Historic Environment, English Heritage, 2005

6. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3 part 2: Cultural Heritage, 2007

7. Local Development Framework: Core Strategy, South Kesteven District Council, 2012

8. Local Plan, South Kesteven District Council, 1995

9. Belton House and Park: Setting Study and Policy Development, Atkins, on behalf of the National Trust and South Kesteven District Council, 2010

10. Lincolnshire Historic Landscape Characterisation, Lincolnshire Country Council, 2011

Stephenson Halliday 10 - 29 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

11 GROUND CONDITIONS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

11.1.1 The purpose of this Chapter is to establish baseline ground conditions through desk-based research and a site walkover, then to assess whether the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on this baseline.

11.1.2 The Chapter summarises the accompanying Geoenvironmental Desk Study Report (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 11.1).

11.2 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT

11.2.1 A summary of all available desk-based information relating to ground conditions at the Site and its surrounds is presented within this Chapter, supplemented by observations made during a site walkover. Ground condition information includes geological records as well as research into potential historical mining and land contamination. The assessment has been undertaken with a view to establishing the suitability of ground conditions for the proposed development in addition to identifying potential constraints to the proposed development that these aspects may present. The likely significant effects of the proposed development on the contamination status at the Site and surrounding environment during construction, operation and decommissioning is also considered.

11.3 GUIDANCE

11.3.1 Best practice UK guidance for collecting and assessing data on ground conditions has been followed, namely BS5930: Code of Practice for Site Investigations, as well as BS10175: Code of Practice for the Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites. Both British Standard documents provide guidance on undertaking desk based research on these aspects. This baseline information has been considered against the proposed development to identify potential constraints in accordance with Environment Agency Guidance and local planning policy.

Stephenson Halliday 11 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement 11.4 METHODOLOGY

11.4.1 In order to establish potential effects of the development on the Site, a ground conditions baseline has been established. This has been achieved using the following methods:

 Obtaining a site-specific Envirocheck Report, as provided by the Landmark Information Group, and reviewing pertinent environmental information for the site;

 Reviewing the development history of the site from the available historical maps, provided as part of the Envirocheck Report, to identify previous uses which might result in contamination or geotechnical issues;

 Liaising with relevant environmental regulators, notably the Environment Agency (EA) and the South Kesteven District Council Contaminated Land Officer;

 Reviewing the local geology from the available geological plans, borehole logs (as provided by the British Geological Survey) and memoirs;

 Undertaking an environmental data search and assessing the environmental setting of the site. The report identifies any potentially sensitive receptors including humans, buildings or ecological receptors and collate the information relating to the site’s environmental setting e.g. geology, industrial activity, pollution incidents, proximity to open/closed landfill sites, and identify any potentially contaminative processes; and,

 Undertaking a site walkover survey of the site and its surroundings to assess existing conditions in terms of topography and evidence of surface contamination, noting pertinent features identified from the Envirocheck Report and historical map review.

Consultation

11.4.2 In order to inform the assessment, consultation with the Environment Agency and the South Kesteven District Council Contaminated Land Officer was undertaken, as summarised in Table 11.1

Stephenson Halliday 11 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 11.1 Consultation Summary

Consultee Consultation request Consultation Response/ Action response Taken

South Available information Not on SKC No action taken - Kesteven on potential contaminated land response recorded Council contamination issues inspection strategy, in Geoenvironmental and SKC are not Desk Study (refer to aware of any Volume 3, Appendix contamination or 11.1) pollution issues Environment Authorisations or Abstraction licenses Abstraction details Agency enforcement notices details provided recorded in under the Geoenvironmental Groundwater Desk Study (refer to Regulations or Volume 3, Appendix pollution incidents 11.1)

11.5 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Legislation and Planning Policy Context

11.5.1 Ground conditions have been initially assessed against Part IIa of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (also known as ‘the contaminated land regime’) in order to determine whether any significant contamination is likely to be present. ‘Significant’ in this context meaning of sufficient magnitude that some form of remediation is required. Geotechnical conditions have been assessed following best practice as set out in BS5930: Code of Practice for Site Investigations.

Ground Conditions

11.5.2 This section establishes baseline conditions relating to Made Ground (e.g. artificial deposits such as reworked ground), Drift Deposits (i.e. soils) and Solid Geology (i.e. bedrock), as has been established through Desk Based research.

11.5.3 Made Ground is expected to be present in isolated locations across the site, associated with the construction and demolition of buildings and associated farming infrastructure.

11.5.4 Digital mapping at 1:50,000 scale shows three possible types of Drift Deposit to be present beneath the site:

 Sands and gravels of the Fulbeck Sand and Gravel Member across the majority of the site;

Stephenson Halliday 11 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 Fluvioglacial sand and gravel deposits of mid Pleistocene age within the centre of the site; and,

 Bedrock near the site surface in the centre and east of the site.

 Solid Geology underlying the drift deposits at the Site is indicated to comprise sedimentary rocks that dip towards the east, including the following units:

 Interbedded mudstone and limestone of the Foston Member across the majority of the Site;

 Limestone of the Highfield Farm Limestone Bed in the centre of the Site (as encountered in the 1943 borehole (see below);

 Charmouth Mudstone Formation in the east of the Site; and,

 Sandstone of the Brandon Sandstone Bed in the east of the Site.

11.5.5 A borehole log was obtained from the British Geological Survey (BGS), which was undertaken in 1943 in the vicinity of the barn (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 11.1 (Appendix E)). This identified limestone bedrock at 0.6m below ground level (bgl), with groundwater present at approximately 4.0m bgl. This is consistent with the depth and nature of bedrock expected from the geological maps.

11.5.6 Reviews of the data sets detailed within this report have not identified the potential for significant contamination sources or pollutant linkages to exist at the Site. Consequently the risks associated with the current use of the Site have been assessed as Low, and it is considered unlikely that the Site would constitute Contaminated Land as defined in Part IIa of the Environmental Protection Act.

11.5.7 The regional unexploded bomb (UXO) risk map indicates the site is located in an area of moderate risk.

11.6 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

11.6.1 The ground conditions described above are suitable for the proposed development.

11.6.2 The total area of the proposed access tracks, crane pads and turbine bases is approximately 3.2ha. The access tracks and crane base are likely to comprise

Stephenson Halliday 11 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

granular fill materials, and consequently the overall reduction in ground permeability is likely to be negligible.

11.6.3 The control building in the south east of the Site is likely to include a toilet, which will be discharged to a contained cess tank which will be periodically emptied for disposal at a licenced wastewater facility; there will be no discharge of wastewater to the environment on site.

11.6.4 Transformers located at the turbine locations and at the control building will be housed within purpose-built bunds to protect the environment from any spillage of oils.

11.6.5 The overall contamination risk associated with the proposed development is considered to be Low, due to the low likelihood of significant contamination being present within the Site or arising from the proposed wind farm development. It is therefore considered that the development will not have any significant effects on the Site itself from a contamination perspective, either during construction, operation or decommissioning and further detailed assessment is not considered warranted at this stage

11.6.6 Notwithstanding that the potential for contamination is low, further assessment will be included within the Environmental Management Plan in order to minimise any environmental impacts of construction and operation on the site.

11.6.7 The moderate risk associated with UXO would not result in a change to this assessment.

Micro-siting

11.6.8 The provision of up to a 50m micro-siting allowance (with restrictions set out in Chapter 4 Section 4.3) would not alter the conclusions of the assessment with regard to levels of significance.

11.7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

11.7.1 A summary of the anticipated ground conditions is provided below:

 Drift deposits comprising sands and gravels are present across the Site;

 Solid geology beneath the Site is anticipated to comprise interbedded limestones and mudstones, with sandstone present in the east. Near- surface bedrock is anticipated within the centre and east of the Site;

Stephenson Halliday 11 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 Made ground is likely to be present in isolated locations across the Site, associated with past demolition and construction of farm infrastructure, however these areas are unlikely to be affected significantly by the proposed development;

11.7.2 No significant contamination sources or pollutant linkages have been identified at the Site.

11.7.3 The proposed wind farm development is not likely to have any significant effect on the ground conditions at the Site or the surrounding environment.

11.7.4 Confirmation of ground conditions for detailed design purposes, e.g. depths and strength characteristics of geological strata, will be achieved through intrusive site investigations. No abnormal geotechnical constraints to the development have been identified through desk-based research.

Stephenson Halliday 11 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement References

1. BS10175:2011, Code of Practice for Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites, British Standards Institute, 2011;

2. BS5930:1999, Code of Practice for Site Investigations, British Standards Institute, 1999;

3. BS EN 1997, Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design, British Standards Institute, 2007;

4. C552: Contaminated Land Risk Assessment - A guide to Good Practice, CIRIA, 2004;

5. C665: Assessing Risks Posed by Hazardous Ground Gases to Buildings, CIRIA, 2007;

6. Guidance on the Management of Landfill Gas, Environment Agency, 2004;

7. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) handbook for scoping projects, Environment Agency, 2002;

8. Historical Borehole Records, via Envirocheck, British Geological Survey (BGS)

9. Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11, Environment Agency, September 2004; and,

10. Part IIA of the Environmental Act Protection Act 1990.

Stephenson Halliday 11 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

12 HYDROLOGY & HYDROGEOLOGY

12.1 INTRODUCTION

12.1.1 The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a hydrological and hydrogeological site baseline through desk-based research, then assess whether the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on this baseline. For the purpose of this chapter “the study area” refers to the hydrological and hydrogeological features within the site and the surrounding area that have been considered as part of this assessment. Volume 2, Figure 12.1 indicates the principal site and hydrological features.

12.1.2 The Chapter summarises the accompanying Flood Risk Assessment (FRA, refer to Volume 3, Appendix 12.1), which entailed hydraulic modelling of the principal western, central and eastern drains within the development site, informed by topographic surveying of drainage channel cross-sections and constraining structures. The FRA was primarily aimed at identifying areas within the site at potential risk of flood inundation, as well as assessing the potential for any proposed bridges or culverts to exacerbate flood risk to the site or study area.

12.2 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT

12.2.1 A summary of all available desk-based information relating to hydrology and hydrogeology within the study area is presented within this Chapter, supplemented by observations made during a site walkover. Potential constraints to the proposed development that these aspects are likely to present are also considered.

12.2.2 The hydrology of the study area, e.g. rivers, streams, drainage ditches, etc, will inform likely drainage requirements for the development as well as the flood risk. The likely significant effect of the development (including the wind turbines generators, access tracks and control building) on the hydrology of the study area has been considered and associated mitigation measures outlined.

12.2.3 The hydrogeology of the study area has been researched, with specific reference to the sensitivity of the underlying groundwater as well as its resource potential (including assessment of existing public / private water supplies). Potentially significant effects to the underlying aquifer from the proposed

Stephenson Halliday 12 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

development have been considered and associated mitigation measures outlined.

12.3 GUIDANCE AND POLICY

Guidance

12.3.1 Best practice UK guidance for collecting and assessing data on hydrology and hydrogeology has been followed, namely BS5930: Code of Practice for Site Investigations. British Standard documents provide guidance on undertaking desk based research on these aspects.

Legislation and Planning Policy Context

12.3.2 The hydrological and hydrogeological baselines have been established both from a water quality and resource potential perspective through liaison with the Environment Agency, with reference to relevant pollution prevention legislation and standards, including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and South Kesteven District Council Core Strategy Policy EN2.

12.4 METHODOLOGY

12.4.1 In order to establish the potential effects of the development, a hydrological and hydrogeological baseline has been established. This has been achieved using the following methods:

 Liaising with relevant environmental regulators, notably the Environment Agency (EA), Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board and the South Kesteven District Council Contaminated Land Officer;

 Reviewing surface water course and hydrogeology classifications from the available hydrogeological maps and EA River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) data, and reviewing historic flooding instances detailed within the South Kesteven District Council Strategic FRA (as described in the accompanying FRA located in Volume 3, Appendix 12.1). Further information on the referenced sources of information is included in Section 12.8;

 Undertaking an environmental data search and assessing the environmental setting of the site. Potentially sensitive receptors have been identified, including humans, surface watercourses, aquifers, buildings or ecological receptors. Information relating to the site’s setting within the

Stephenson Halliday 12 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

water environment has also been collated, e.g. hydrogeology, water quality, location of controlled waters, industrial activity, pollution incidents, and proximity to open/closed landfill sites; and,

 Undertaking a site walkover survey of the study area to assess existing conditions in terms of topography, evidence of surface water or groundwater and evidence of surface contamination noting pertinent features identified from the Envirocheck report and historical review.

This baseline information has been considered against the proposed Development to identify potential constraints in accordance with Environment Agency Guidance and local planning policy, and to identify potential effects upon the baseline situation resulting from the Development.

Consultation

12.4.2 In order to inform the assessment, consultation with the Environment Agency and Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board was undertaken, as summarised in Table 12.1

Table 12.1 Consultation Summary

Consultee Consultation request Consultation Response/ Action response Taken Environment Confirmation of 200 Information not No further actions Agency year flood level from available taken the EA’s indicative flood map Upper Witham Confirm that the board Confirmation that all The relevant Internal was responsible for site water courses are consent forms are Drainage water courses maintained by the appended to the Board board and consent Drainage Design would be required Statement (refer to for work in, over Volume 3, Appendix under or within 6m 12.2) of the water courses

Stephenson Halliday 12 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement 12.5 HYDROLOGICAL AND HYDROGEOLOGICAL BASELINE CONDITIONS

Legislation and Planning Policy Context

12.5.1 The hydrological and hydrogeological baselines have been established both from a water quality and resource potential perspective through liaison with the Environment Agency, with reference to relevant pollution prevention legislation and standards, including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and South Kesteven District Council Core Strategy Policy EN2.

Hydrology

12.5.2 Stream elements, comprising the upper reaches of the Sand Beck catchment (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 12.1), have been channelised during agricultural development of the study area. The three open drains, draining a combined area of approximately 10.5 km2, run northwards along the western edge, central and eastern regions of the site, ultimately draining into the River Brant, with the confluence point located approximately 7km north of the site and then to the River Witham, with the confluence point located approximately 18km north of the site. Two small water bodies are present just outside the site boundary, one to the north and one to the west of the site. One water body was noted to be ephemeral.

12.5.3 The quality of the River Witham is classified by the EA as A for chemistry and B for biology (where A is Very Good and F is Bad). Nitrates and phosphates were classified as 5 (where 1 is Very Low and 6 is Very High).

12.5.4 The online EA Flood Map indicates a strip along the central drain within the site as within Zone 3a (i.e. at risk of river flooding from events of 100 yr return period or less), with a small section of the central drain towards the middle of the site classified as Zone 2 (i.e. at risk of river flooding from events of between 100 yr to 1000 yr return period). The remainder of the site is indicated as within Zone 1 (i.e. flooding very unlikely).

12.5.5 An FRA was undertaken, entailing hydraulic modelling of the principal drains within the development site, informed by topographic surveying of drain channel cross-sections and constraining structures. The FRA was primarily aimed at identifying regions within the site at potential risk of flood inundation, as well as assessing the potential for any proposed bridge culverts to exacerbate flood risk to the site or elsewhere.

Stephenson Halliday 12 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

12.5.6 Hydraulic modelling of the three drains conducted as a component of the FRA indicates that, provided the proposed bridge crossing of the central drain exceed existing adjacent top-of-bank elevations and that access road deck levels adjacent to the eastern drain exceed predicted 100 yr flood levels, no structure (road, bridge or turbine) associated with the proposed development within the western and central drain catchment areas are predicted to be at risk of fluvial flood inundation in response to the design 100 yr event.

12.5.7 The finished floor level of the control building will be set at 22.4m AOD or above; this will provide a 600 mm freeboard protection against the 100 yr event, and will also protect the building from inundation by the 1000 yr event.

Hydrogeology

12.5.8 The Hydrogeological Map of England 1:625,000 (1977) indicates the underlying soils of the Quaternary Sands and Gravels to be of “limited importance as an aquifer” but “locally important”.

12.5.9 The Groundwater Vulnerability Map of Nottinghamshire (1:100,000) shows that the majority of the site is underlain by a Minor Aquifer of high permeability. It is noted that these generally “do not have high primary permeability” and “whilst they seldom produce large quantities of water for abstraction they are important for local supplies and in supplying base flow to rivers”.

12.5.10 The east of the site is recorded to be underlain by a Minor Aquifer of low permeability, with the area adjacent to the road in the east of the site recorded to be a Negligibly Permeable Non-Aquifer.

12.5.11 In consideration of the location of the site and the local geology, it is likely that local groundwater flow will be north towards the Sand Beck, River Brant and ultimately the River Witham, following the general direction of topography and of the various small streams and ditches.

12.5.12 The borehole log obtained from the British Geological Society (BGS) indicated the presence of groundwater at approximately 4.0mbgl (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 12.1).

12.5.13 Within 500m of the site, thirteen surface water abstraction licences and one groundwater abstraction licence (issued by the Environment Agency Anglian Region) were identified through desk-based research. The groundwater

Stephenson Halliday 12 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

abstraction is located approximately 25m to the west of the site, and comprises a catch pit providing water for field irrigation.

12.6 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

12.6.1 No large contiguous impermeable surfaces will be introduced by the development so there will be negligible effect on the existing infiltration and drainage pattern. No dedicated surface water drainage systems are expected to be required for the access track and hard standings, as the majority of surface water would be expected to filter through the granular fill materials. Due to the coarse nature of the fill, it is not expected that this would introduce any additional sediment load to the surface watercourses.

12.6.2 Foundations are likely to comprise approximately 15m to 20m diameter buried concrete bases, with either gravity or piled footings. In consideration of the width of the turbine bases and the limited thickness of piles that may be required beneath them, there is likely to be a negligible effect on groundwater flow within the superficial sands and gravels.

12.6.3 Detailed ground investigation will be required to include assessment of depth to groundwater. This may determine the requirement for a foundation solution that minimises the requirement for pumping of groundwater during construction of the foundation bases. Any temporary pumping works are likely to have an effect on the local hydrogeology, which should be considered during the foundation design and construction operations. This would include treatment of the pumped water prior to discharge, to ensure that pollutants or sediments are not introduced into local watercourses, and therefore no significant effects would be caused by this discharge.

12.6.4 The proposed development layout accounts for the existing drain locations, with no direct interaction with the drains either during construction or operation of the site other than: (i) the removal of an existing culvert and introduction of a larger- capacity culvert in the eastern drain, with the site access road passing over this culvert, and (ii) bridging of the site access road over the central drain, with this bridge having a soffit level equal to the existing top-of-bank level (noting that predicted peak water levels remain within-bank at this location). As such, the proposal will not alter existing drainage behaviour or flood risk patterns external to the site, and will have a very minor effect on altering pluvial flowpaths and

Stephenson Halliday 12 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

drainage behaviour within the site (associated with runoff from impervious surfaces introduced by the development).

12.6.5 Based on identified flood inundation risk associated with an initial location for the bridged culvert crossing over the central drain near a Flood Risk Zone 3 area in the original layout, amendments have been made to the design layout (access roads, as well as turbine placement) which have addressed potential flood risk concerns.

12.6.6 As existing land management at the site may make provision for maintenance of the field drainage network, post-development maintenance would make similar allowance to avoid a reduction in drainage capacity and commensurate increase in flood risk beyond that predicted by the FRA.

12.6.7 The effect of the proposed development upon existing surface water abstractions in the vicinity of the site and the groundwater abstraction just west of the site boundary will be negligible, given that the development proposal does not include any extensive contiguous areas of hardstand or artificial amendment to site drainage.

12.6.8 The control building is likely to include a toilet, which would be discharged to a contained cess tank which will be periodically emptied for disposal at a licenced wastewater facility; there will be no discharge of wastewater to the environment on site. Additionally, there will be transformers located locally at the turbine locations and control building, which will be situated within purpose-built bunds to protect the environment from accidental spillage of oils. Transformers will be installed 600mm to 750mm above normal ground level above the flood level.

12.6.9 The inherent risk of accidental pollution (leaks and spillage) during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the development will be mitigated through the implementation of an appropriate environmental management plan which will reference current regulations and guidance including the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines, particularly ‘PPG1; General guide to pollution prevention’ and ‘PPG5: Works and maintenance on or near water’.

Micro-siting

12.6.10 The provision of up to a 50m micro-siting allowance (with restrictions set out in Chapter 4 Section 4.3) would not alter the conclusions of the assessment with regard to levels of significance.

Stephenson Halliday 12 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement 12.7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

12.7.1 The finished floor level of the control building will be set at 22.4m AOD or above to allow for 600mm freeboard against the 100 yr flood event. The new culvert on the eastern drain would have a minimum internal diameter of 1200mm to validate the recommended finished floor level for the control building.

12.7.2 The bridge structure crossing the central drain would not reduce the dimensions of the existing drain channel cross section.

12.7.3 The potential effect of the development on the local hydrology and hydrogeology is likely to be negligible, based on the likely design of the turbine foundations and access infrastructure (and from the FRA).

Although the following aspects require further consideration for detailed design purposes, they are standard items that will be managed appropriately to ensure that the development has no significant effects on the water environment:

 Further contact with the local farmer to the west of the site to confirm usage patterns and groundwater abstraction volumes;

 Detailed site Investigation to determine groundwater depth, flow direction and chemical quality;

 Detailed foundation design and pumping requirements during construction, including treatment of any pumped water prior to discharge;

 Contained cess tank design to ensure no significant effect on local groundwater and surface water; and,

 Design of appropriate bunds around any proposed transformers.

Stephenson Halliday 12 - 8 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement References

1. BS5930:1999, Code of Practice for Site Investigations, British Standards Institute, 1999;

2. South Kesteven District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), 2009;

3. South Kesteven District Council Core Strategy, 2010;

4. The Flood Estimation Handbook and CD-ROM (Version 2.0), CEH Wallingford, 2006;

5. HEC-RAS 4.0 Software, US Army Corps of Engineers

6. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

7. Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

8. British Geological Society (BGS)

Stephenson Halliday 12 - 9 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

13 ACCESS, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT

13.1 INTRODUCTION

13.1.1 This chapter identifies and assesses the likely significant access, traffic and transport effects which may occur as a result of the development of the Temple Hill Wind Farm (referred to as ‘the Development’). It details the assessment methodology used, existing conditions in the study area and likely significant effects prior to, and following, the application of mitigation measures.

13.1.2 Planning policies of relevance to this assessment are identified in Chapter 5and also paragraph 13.3.2 onwards.

13.1.3 The following material is provided in support of this ES Chapter:

 Volume 2, Figure 13.1: Local Area Plan

 Volume 3, Appendix 13.1: Temple Hill Wind Farm Transport Access Study

 Volume 3, Appendix 13.2: Personal Injury Accident (traffic) plots

13.2 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT

Effects Assessed in Full

13.2.1 The following effects have been assessed in full:

 Delay to road users resultant from increased traffic flows on the public road network (generated by Development construction).

 Deterioration in the ‘physical quality’ of the public road network i.e. “wear and tear” of road surfaces and adjacent infrastructure due to increased traffic flow (generated by Development construction).

 Community effects including severance and pedestrian amenity, resultant from increased traffic flows on public road sections which pass through settlements (generated by Development construction).

 Accidents and Road safety effects, resultant from the addition of Development traffic to the A17 and C1 Stragglethorpe Lane / Main Street / Toll Bar Road.

13.2.2 These potential effects have been considered in this study and the findings presented in full in this chapter.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

13.2.3 The assessment Study Area is shown in Volume 2, Figure 13.1, and includes the following road links:

 The A17 between its junction with the A1(T) and the A15; and

 The C1 Stragglethorpe Lane / Main Street / Toll Bar Road between the A17 and A1(T).

Effects Scoped Out

13.2.4 There are a number of potential effects that have been scoped out of the assessment at this stage. The following issues were raised within the Scoping Opinion document (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 2.1) and it has been agreed with Lincolnshire County Council that a full assessment is not required.

Operational Phase Traffic Generation

13.2.5 Once operational, wind farms typically generate very low levels of traffic. It has been estimated that the Development will typically generate less than ten vehicle movements per week for the purposes of maintenance, repairs and servicing. On the basis of work undertaken, the professional judgement of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) team, and experience from other relevant projects, traffic generated during the operational phase is generally expected to have a negligible effect upon road users, community receptors and road infrastructure and as such operational phase effects have not been considered further under this assessment.

Cumulative Assessment

13.2.6 It is good practice to undertake an appraisal of cumulative transport effects if other local developments have the potential to utilise route sections within the Study Area at the same time as the Development under assessment. No other significant local developments have been identified that would affect the operation of the roads within the study area. It is not considered that a cumulative assessment of access, traffic and transport effects is necessary.

Effect of Traffic upon the A1(T)

13.2.7 The A1(T) is a dual carriageway trunk road and as such is designed for the long distance transportation of freight traffic. Traffic count data obtained from the Department for Transport (DfT) shows that on average the A1(T) carried

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

approximately 2,000 vehicles per hour (count site located near the C1 Tollbar Road junction). Professional judgement suggests that the Development shall have a negligible effect upon the A1(T) in this area, and as such effects upon this road section have been scoped out of the assessment.

Road Works Required to Accommodate Abnormal Load Movement

13.2.8 In order to accommodate the delivery of wind turbine components to the Development site, it shall be necessary to complete the following upgrade works:

 Relocation of street furniture at the A17 / Beckingham Road roundabout junction and at the junction of the A17 with Stragglethorpe Lane.

 Carriageway widening and foliage pruning, at two bends in Stragglethorpe Lane (by Stragglethorpe village).

 Upgrade of existing farm access (at approx OS GR 489867, 347070).

13.2.9 It is anticipated that these works will be completed prior to the Development construction phase. These works are expected to generate only a very small number of vehicle movements; the effect of which is likely to be negligible and so the effect of these works will not be considered further in this assessment.

13.2.10 For further information on abnormal load access, swept path analysis and required remedial works, please see the Temple Hill Wind Farm Transport Access Study (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 13.1).

Other

13.2.11 Potential effects relating to the following topics have been scoped out as they are considered elsewhere within this ES:

 Visual effects (Chapter 6: Landscape);

 Noise (Chapter 9: Noise);

13.3 GUIDANCE AND POLICY

13.3.1 The following guidance has been used to inform the assessment of access, traffic and transport effects:

 “National Planning Policy Framework”1, Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 “Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessment”2, Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT), 1994.

 “Guidance Notes No. 1: Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic”3, Institute of Environmental Assessment (now Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment), 1993.

 “Guidance on Transport Assessment”4, Department for Transport and Department for Communities and Local Government, 2007.

 “The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges”5 (Volumes 11, 13 and 15), Highways Agency (HA).

 “A Brief Guide to the Law on the Road Use of Abnormal Load Carriers on Mobile Engineering Plant”6, Lincolnshire County Council, 2004.

 “Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2010: Annual Report”7, Department of Transport, 2010.

Planning Policy Context

National Level

13.3.2 The National Planning Policy Framework1 (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and replaces Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport. The NPPF confirms that the transport assessment of new development proposals should take account of whether:

 “safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and

 Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.”

13.3.3 The assessment of the Development will need to consider these transport requirements.

Local Level

13.3.4 The South Kesteven District Council adopted its Core Strategy in July 2010. The document provides the most important elements of the Local Development Framework, and policy SP3: Sustainable Integrated Transport presents the requirements for a modern transport network. In particular, the following objectives are relevant to the proposed Development:

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 “promoting the location of development in areas which are particularly accessible by public transport, cycling and walking, whilst recognising that development which is necessary in rural areas may only be accessible by the motor car; and

 securing transport statements and travel plans where appropriate and requiring the preparation of transport assessments for all developments that are likely to have significant transport implications to determine the measures required on the surrounding highway network to ensure adequate access by all modes of transport.”;

13.3.5 The methodology for this assessment has been developed in liaison with highways officers from LCC is in accordance with the guidance provided by the South Kesteven Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (June 2013).

13.4 METHODOLOGY

Approach

13.4.1 The assessment methodology was defined based upon professional experience of similar projects and guidance given in the “National Planning Policy Framework”1 “Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessment”2 and the “Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic”3 (referred to as the IEMA Guidelines). The assessment has been undertaken as a combination of desk- top study, field survey and consultation with statutory agencies in line with current good practice and policy advice.

13.4.2 The assessment involved the following tasks:

 Completion of a site visit to inform the study baseline - likely site access routes and local generators of traffic have been identified and the character of roads within the Study Area established.

 Consultation with stakeholders to identify key issues on the road network and finalise the scope of the assessment.

 Establishment of a study baseline for the assessment year (i.e. period under assessment).

 Analysis of Development proposals and estimation of likely traffic generation.

 Assessment of access, traffic and transport effects against the baseline. Traffic increases (in terms of total traffic [Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs)

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

and cars / Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs)] and specifically HGV traffic) have been compared with standard thresholds, consideration given to the likely significance of these effects. Where traffic increases exceed defined limits, access, traffic and transport effects have been considered in detail.

 Identification of mitigation measures with the potential to avoid, reduce, or offset adverse Development effects and consideration of potential residual effects.

Consultation

13.4.3 During the scoping phase and subsequent consultation exercise, relevant consultees were contacted to discuss the potential transport, traffic and general access issues relevant to the Development. The consultees contacted through the scoping process were as follows:

 Highways Agency (HA);

 Lincolnshire County Council (LCC).

13.4.4 The main issues that were identified by the consultees are summarised and reviewed in Table 13.1.

Table 13.1: Consultation Responses

Scoping/ Response/Action Consultee Other Issue Raised Taken Consultation Highways No response N/A N/A Agency received Lincolnshire Scoping It is noted that the Hough on The proposed County response the Hill Restricted Byway No Development will not Council 22 runs along the northern site result in disruption to boundary. Disruption to users users of Restricted should be avoided. Byway No 22 Lincolnshire Scoping Requested that a detailed Previous swept path County response construction method statement and route selection Council and risk assessment be document to be provided. Supporting provided to local information should confirm: authority. 1. Vehicle routes Vehicle numbers and routeing to be 2. The number and type of assessed within this vehicles chapter. 3. Impact on highway It was agreed with structures. LCC that a detailed 4. Confirmation of vehicle method statement swept paths. and risk assessment will be provided post- planning.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Scoping/ Response/Action Consultee Other Issue Raised Taken Consultation Lincolnshire Further No significant concerns raised Swept path and route County consultation concerning use of proposed selection document Council access routes. Further has been provided to information relating to vehicle local authority. turning movements through Stragglethorpe requested.

13.4.5 The issues raised by each of the consultees have been used to develop the scope of the assessment and identify any specific matters that warrant more detailed analysis.

Assessing Significance

13.4.6 The significance of all access, traffic and transport effects is strongly influenced by the volume and composition of traffic generated. In line with IEMA Guidelines access, traffic and transport effects been considered in detail only where anticipated traffic increases exceed defined thresholds (i.e. where traffic increases are considered potentially significant). Where potentially significant increases in traffic are forecast, individual effects upon traffic flow, road infrastructure and community receptors have been considered.

Significance Criteria

13.4.7 The IEMA Guidelines3 are intended for the assessment of the environmental effects of road traffic associated with major new developments. It is common and established practice that they are applied to energy related developments and as such these guidelines are defined as suitable to assess the short term construction phase of a wind farm development. These guidelines have been used as a foundation for the significance criteria applied under this assessment.

13.4.8 The sensitivity of a route section has been accounted for through the application of sensitivity based significance criteria. Under this assessment, route sections have been considered ‘specifically sensitive’ if they feature important community receptors, road traffic accident ”clusters” or have been defined as such by the roads authority. Within this assessment, community receptors are defined as areas where local people are likely to be more susceptible to changes in traffic flow (e.g. areas of intense pedestrian movement, schools, playgrounds or hospitals).

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

13.4.9 The IEMA Guidelines3 suggest that two broad rules can be used as a screening process to delimit the scale and extent of the environmental assessment of road traffic. These are:

 Rule 1 - Include highway links where traffic flows would increase by more than 30% (or the number of HGVs would increase by more than 30%); and

 Rule 2 - Include any other specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows would increase by 10% or more.

13.4.10 The potential significance of access, traffic and transport effects is affected by the volume and composition of traffic added to roads within the Study Area. As a guide to inform the assessment, broad criteria for determining the initial significance of traffic related effects have been adopted, with criteria specifically defined for an increase in:

a) Total traffic;

b) HGV traffic.

13.4.11 These are set out in Table 13.2 below.

Table 13.2: Significance Criteria

Increase in total traffic (HGV + LGV) volume or increase in HGV traffic volume by route type Significance standard route section ‘specifically sensitive’ route of Effect section Major Greater than or equal to 60%. Greater than or equal to 60%. Moderate Greater than or equal to 30% and Greater than or equal to 10% and less than 60%. less than 60%. Minor Greater than or equal to 10% and Greater than or equal to 5% and less than 30%. less than 10%. Negligible Less than 10%. Less than 5%.

13.4.12 IEMA Guidelines3 which state that “detailed environmental impact studies will normally only be triggered where road links experience a change in traffic of greater than 30% or more than 10% where the links contain sensitive interest”. Hence, in areas where traffic is expected to increase by less than 30% (or 10% in ‘specifically sensitive’ areas), the potential environmental effects have not been considered in detail.

13.4.13 It is considered that where traffic increases are less than 30% (or 10% in ‘specifically sensitive’ areas), then the effect is unlikely to be significant in EIA terms. ‘Negligible’ and ‘Minor’ effects have not been considered as ‘significant’

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 8 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

under this assessment. Where predicted traffic increases are above 30% (or 10% in ‘specifically sensitive’ areas), then the effect is examined in more detail and mitigation measures are considered where appropriate.

13.4.14 Where baseline traffic flows are very low the reliance on percentage traffic increases is likely to result in exaggerated determinations of significance e.g. when traffic flow is very low, it is possible to show large traffic increases but for the road to remain operating well below capacity. Professional judgement has been applied in these cases with consideration given to the spare capacity of the road.

Effects under Assessment

Delays to Road Users

13.4.15 The addition of significant volumes of traffic could potentially cause delays to traffic on roads within the Study Area. The IEMA Guidelines3 state that “these delays are only likely to be significant when the traffic on the network surrounding the Development is at or close to the capacity of the system”.

13.4.16 The capacity of the local road network is dependent on the type of road and connecting junctions, these are described in paragraphs 13.5.3 to 13.5.11.

Deterioration in physical quality of Road Infrastructure

13.4.17 Under this assessment, the significance of the effect upon route infrastructure has been linked with the volume of traffic forecast to use a specific route section. As such, where the increase in traffic is considered to be significant, the unmitigated effect upon road infrastructure has also been considered significant.

Community Effects (including severance and pedestrian amenity)

13.4.18 When traffic flows increase on roads which pass by important community sites, this can have an effect on the community dynamic and also the amenity of pedestrians.

13.4.19 The IEMA Guidelines3 state that “Severance is the perceived division that can occur within a community when it becomes separated by a major traffic artery”. Severance effects have been considered on a case by case basis using professional judgement and the criteria provided in the IEMA Guidelines.

13.4.20 According to the IEMA Guidelines3 document, the term pedestrian amenity is broadly defined as “the relative pleasantness of a journey, and is considered to

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 9 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

be affected by traffic flow, traffic composition and pavement width / separation from traffic”. The IEMA Guidelines3 explains that “a tentative threshold for judging the significance of changes in pedestrian amenity would be where traffic flow (or its lorry component) is halved or doubled”.

Road Safety Effects

13.4.21 An assessment of existing personal injury accident (PIA) rates has been undertaken using information obtained from LCC; see paragraphs 13.5.16 onwards. This involved comparison of accident rates for roads within the Study Area with national averages for similar road types with equal flows. The significance of the impact of Development traffic has been assessed on the basis of forecast traffic increase (using the criteria presented in Table 13.2) and change in traffic type (i.e. any moderate or major increase in HGV flows) in relation to existing accident rates, taking into account the construction year and local specifics.

13.5 BASELINE CONDITIONS

13.5.1 This section details:

 Legislation and Planning Policy Context;

 Route profiles;

 Baseline traffic flow;

 ‘Do Nothing’ scenario.

13.5.2 This section sets out the existing conditions within the Study Area, expanding upon information which was relevant to, referred to and utilised in the assessment of effects.

Route Profiles

13.5.3 The study area for traffic and transport has been defined as the public road network in the vicinity of the Development which will be used during its construction. This includes the A17 between the A1(T) and the A15, and the C1 Stragglethorpe Lane / Main Street / Tollbar Road; as shown in Volume 2, Figure 13.1. A short profile on each of the route sections under assessment follows.

13.5.4 Theoretical capacity values for a variety of road types were obtained from the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)5, Volume 15, Part 5, Table 5/3/1.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 10 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

A17

13.5.5 The A17 is predominantly a single carriageway road (although it features short dual carriageway sections) that links Newark-on-Trent with Sleaford and Kings Lynn. It runs largely west to east from Nottinghamshire into Lincolnshire. As a local road, maintenance is the responsibility of the county councils.

13.5.6 Single carriageway sections of the A17 are likely to have a theoretical capacity of 2,400 (two-way) vehicle movements per hour. On dual carriageway sections, the theoretical capacity is likely to increase to 6,800 vehicle movements per hour.

13.5.7 No significant community receptors were identified on the A17 between the A1(T) and A15 junctions.

C1 Stragglethorpe Lane / Main Street / Toll Bar Road

13.5.8 Stragglethorpe Lane (classified as the C1) is a single carriageway local road which junctions with the A17, then runs south through the small settlement of Stragglethorpe. This road (later becomes Main Street and Toll Bar Road) continues south through Marston to join the A1(T).

13.5.9 The Stragglethorpe Lane / Main Street / Toll Bar Road route is a local road maintained by LCC.

13.5.10 Single carriageway sections like this are estimated to have a capacity of approximately 1,800 vehicle movements (in a single direction) per hour in rural areas. In built-up areas where speed limits decrease to 30mph and below, the theoretical capacity drops to approximately 1,600 vehicle movements (single direction) per hour.

13.5.11 Community receptors identified on Stragglethorpe Lane / Main Street / Toll Bar Road have been reviewed below:

 Stragglethorpe is a small settlement north of the proposed Development which comprises of a few residential properties; some of which face directly onto the carriageway. A footway is provided to the north of carriageway, but street lighting is not provided at this location;

 Marston village is a settlement located to the south of the proposed Development site. The speed limit drops to 30mph within the village and an advisory 20mph speed limit applies in the immediate vicinity of Marston

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 11 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Thorold’s Charity Church of England School. The school does not face directly onto the route; however it is located on School Lane within 100m of the C1. The area is signed as a School Safety Zone. There is a footway provided on at least one side of the carriageway and street lighting is also provided.

Baseline Traffic Flow

13.5.12 A number of sources have been used to collate the required baseline data for the assessment, and these are reviewed below.

 LCC provided traffic count data for the A17 near Leadenham (2012 data) and also data for the C1 Stragglethope Lane (2012 data);

 Nottinghamshire County Council provided data for the A17 to the west of the Stragglethorpe Lane junction (2011 data);

 A 7 day traffic count was undertaken in September 2012 to record vehicles travelling on Toll bar Road to the south of the site;

 2010 traffic flow data for was obtained from the DfT’s website (http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts) for count sites on the A17. This data has been used to supplement the more recent A17 count data and to provide HGV percentage information. Data was procured for the route section between the local authority boundary at Beckingham and the A15 (count point 18719).

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 12 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

13.5.13 Table 13.3 below summarises the data collected from each of the count locations.

Table 13.3: Baseline Traffic Data

Annual Average Daily Traffic Ref Road Section Count Year Total HGV

1 A17 - to the east of C1 Stragglethorpe Lane 2012 12,570 N/A

2 A17 - to the west of C1 Stragglethorpe Lane 2011 17,582 N/A

3 C1 Stragglethorpe Lane – A17 to Site Access 2012 1,215 100

4 C1 Tollbar Road – A1(T) to Site Access 2012 1,953 298

A17 - to the east of C1 Stragglethorpe Lane (DfT 5 2010 12,202 2,410 count site 18719) – Used for HGV flows only

A17 - to the west of C1 Stragglethorpe Lane 6 (DfT count site 18614) – Used for HGV flows 2010 13,013 1,796 only

13.5.14 Projected baseline traffic for the construction period (estimated to begin in 2014) has been calculated through the application of TEMPRO 6.2 (the Department of Transport software that provides outputs from the National Trip End Model, the latest version being NTEM 6.2) adjusted growth factors. The growth factors applied to the baseline traffic counts are summarised in Table 13.4 below.

Table 13.4: Growth Factors

Year Vehicle Type Growth Factor

2011 – 2014 All 1.0176 2012 – 2014 All 1.0117

13.5.15 The growth factor presented in Table 13.4 has been applied to the count data presented in Table 13.3 to assess the future construction year traffic conditions. The 2014 scenario traffic flows are presented in Table 13.5 below.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 13 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 13.5: 2014 Baseline Traffic Data

Annual Average Daily Traffic 2014 Baseline Link Road Section Total HGV %

1 A17 - to the east of C1 Stragglethorpe Lane 12,717 20%

2 A17 - to the west of C1 Stragglethorpe Lane 17,891 14%

3 C1 Stragglethorpe Lane – A17 to Site Access 1,229 8%

4 C1 Tollbar Road – A1(T) to Site Access 1,976 13%

Road Traffic Accidents

13.5.16 The number of accidents on roads in the study area is used in this assessment as an indicator for the assessment of significance of impacts.

13.5.17 The number of accidents on roads within the study area has been derived from accident records provided by LCC and Nottinghamshire County Council for the time period 2007 to 2012. The plots of the recorded PIAs are provided in Volume 3, Appendix 13.2.

13.5.18 During construction of the Development the number of accidents that could be expected to occur on roads within the study area, assuming national average rates, has been determined using the DMRB5 methodology using traffic flows obtained from count data. The traffic flow is based on a sample over a typically shorter period of time than is the case for the observed accident data, and at only one point along a section of road, therefore introducing a minor uncertainty into the number of derived accidents.

13.5.19 The review has identified that three of the roads have a number of accidents which is below the predicted number (by applying national average rates). These details are presented in Table 13.6. The analysis is sensitive to the limited traffic data available; nevertheless it is an indicator for the assessment of impact significance.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 14 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 13.6: Baseline Accident Data (2007 – 2012)

Personal Injury Accidents Link Road Section Actual Predicted

1 A17 - to the east of C1 Stragglethorpe Lane 17 35

2 A17 - to the west of C1 Stragglethorpe Lane 18 49

3 C1 Stragglethorpe Lane – A17 to Site Access 8 6

4 C1 Tollbar Lane – A1(T) to Site Access 9 10

13.5.20 The results of the accident analysis demonstrates that the number of personal injury accidents recorded on Stragglethorpe Lane between the Development access and the A17 is higher than the national average for this type of road.

Specifically Sensitive Areas

13.5.21 As presented in paragraphs 13.5.3 to 13.5.11, route sections within the Study Area typically operate well below capacity, and there are no areas that are considered to be sensitive due to existing congestion concerns.

13.5.22 No specific community receptors were noted on the A17 (Links 3 and 4) nor are there any significant road safety concerns along this route, and so it is considered that these route sections should not be considered as ‘specifically sensitive’.

13.5.23 The C1 Stragglethorpe Lane (Link 3) passes through the settlement of Stragglethorpe and it has also been identified that this section of road has an accident rate that is above the average for this type of road (see Table 13.6). Due to this, the C1 Stragglethorpe Lane (Link 3) between the proposed Development access and the A17 is considered to be ‘specifically sensitive’.

13.5.24 The C1 Main Steet / Toll Bar Road (i.e. south of the proposed Development access) passes through the village of Marston. Given the proximity of the Marston Thorold’s Charity Church of England School to the proposed access route and the number of houses adjacent to the main road, this link shall be considered ‘specifically sensitive’ under this assessment.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 15 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement The ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario

13.5.25 If the Development does not proceed, it is expected that farming activities will continue on-site, and so it is assumed that general traffic flows on the local road network would increase broadly in line with traffic forecasts. This relates to an increase in traffic of approximately 1.2% between 2012 and 2014.

13.5.26 No planned changes to the road network were identified during consultation with LCC Roads Department.

13.6 PROPOSED MITIGATION INCORPORATED INTO PROPOSAL

13.6.1 The location of the Development and positioning of the turbine equipment has been developed to mitigate the potential impacts on users of the local road and byway network. These issues are considered in the following sections.

Access Routes

13.6.2 Due to some road routes in the local area being a lower standard as compared to the C1, Stragglethorpe Lane Main Street / Tollbar Road route, the majority of construction vehicle movements associated with the proposed Development will be required to use this route to travel to and from the site. This will be secured within the Traffic Management Plan (see below).

Road Condition Surveys

13.6.3 Pre-construction and post-construction road surveys will be undertaken and any material change in infrastructure condition recorded. The applicant will ensure that deterioration in road condition, which is agreed as attributable to the Development construction, will be restored to at least the same standard upon completion of construction.

Traffic Management Plan

13.6.4 Temporary impacts relating to an increase in general construction traffic will be minimised through the implementation of an appropriate locally focused Traffic Management Plan (TMP), which will seek to promote the safe and efficient transportation of components and materials to the Development in order to minimise congestion and disruption. The TMP will be agreed with the local roads authorities prior to commencement of construction. TMP measures will include:

 Restrictions on the routing of Development traffic.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 16 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 A statement of local event days on which construction deliveries will not use the affected route section where appropriate;

 The management of the timing of vehicle movements to reduce local disruption and enhance road safety;

 A commitment to monitor and ensure that damage to walkways, driveways, accesses, bridges, walls, verges and private property does not occur;

 If appropriate, details of additional speed restrictions through sensitive areas;

 A commitment to providing temporary warning signage at notified locations.

13.6.5 Specific detailed mitigation measures are detailed in paragraphs 13.7.34 onwards, as considered appropriate to address identified environmental effects.

Public Rights of Way

13.6.6 The Hough on the Hill Restricted Byway No 22 runs along the northern site boundary, and the site arrangements have been developed to ensure that the alignment of the byway is unaffected and the nearest turbine is located in excess of the tip height plus 10% from the byway.

Site Access Arrangements

13.6.7 The site access arrangements have been designed to ensure that the safe movement of vehicles in and out of the site can be accommodated. Following the completion of abnormal loads movements, reinstatement of affected hedgerows will be carried out where necessary.

13.7 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

13.7.1 The assessment of effects is based upon the Development description outlined in Chapter 4: Project Description and it considers construction phase effects upon:

 Driver delay on the public road network;

 Deterioration in the ‘physical quality’ of the public road network;

 Community effects including severance and pedestrian amenity.

 Road safety.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 17 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

13.7.2 Construction phase HGV traffic generation has been estimated by RWE Npower Renewables’ engineers based upon experience of other similar sites, knowledge of project proposals and site specifics. This has been augmented with a number of assumptions for LGV traffic generation.

Basis for Construction Phase Traffic Generation

Movements

13.7.3 It should be noted that under this assessment each single delivery to site has been considered to generate two movements, i.e. one movement to site and one movement returning from site to point of origin.

Construction Period

13.7.4 Construction is expected to take place over a period of 11 months with works undertaken onsite for an average of 21 days per month. For further information see Chapter 4: Project Description.

Site Access Routes

13.7.5 Until supply contracts have been agreed it is not possible to explicitly state where traffic journeys are likely to originate. Professional judgement has been employed to estimate which routes are likely to be used by which vehicles based upon knowledge of the local road network, local settlements, quarries and other generators of traffic. Unless otherwise explicitly stated, it has been assumed that traffic will originate as below:

 25% from the north west (e.g. Newark-on-Trent);

 25% from the north east (e.g. Sleaford or Boston).

 50% from the south (e.g. Grantham or Nottingham);

Turbines

13.7.6 The Development shall include five turbines and it is assumed that each turbine shall comprise three blades, three tower sections and one nacelle.

13.7.7 Vehicles carrying blades, tower sections and nacelles will be abnormal loads by virtue of their length, width or weight exceeding the criteria given in ‘Brief Guide to the Law on the Road Use of Abnormal Load Carriers on Mobile Engineering Plant’6. In advance of the construction phase, a trial run will be undertaken using

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 18 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

the vehicle configuration similar to that anticipated for the transport of turbine components.

13.7.8 Once blade, tower and nacelle components have been delivered to site, these vehicles shall contract to standard HGV dimensions and so a total of 35 abnormal load movements will be generated by the Development.

13.7.9 Abnormal load vehicles will travel to the Development via the A17 and Stragglethorpe Lane, and shall be accompanied by escort vehicles (private or police or both) to alert/manage oncoming traffic.

13.7.10 The hub section and switchgear required for each turbine is typically delivered on a standard HGV and so shall not be abnormal loads.

Cranes

13.7.11 It is assumed that cranes will be delivered to site in sections and so will not qualify as abnormal loads.

Staff

13.7.12 Staff levels will fluctuate dependent upon the work underway on-site (assumed that on average 20 members of staff will work on-site each day, with staff numbers fluctuating between 12 and 24), and it is expected that staff will travel to the Site each day from local settlements (e.g. Newark-on-Trent). It has been assumed that all staff will travel to the Site by car for the purposes of a robust assessment. It has been assumed that two members of staff shall travel in each vehicle.

Concrete and Aggregates

13.7.13 It has been assumed that all concrete and stone will be imported to the Site. Further site surveys may determine that it is possible to obtain stone on-site which would lead to a reduction in the number of HGV deliveries required.

Estimated Construction Phase Traffic Generation

13.7.14 Table 13.8 provides an indication of the nature of traffic expected to be generated during the construction phase.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 19 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 13.8: Anticipated Construction Phase Traffic Generation

Period Number of Vehicle Phase Delivery (Months) Movements Type Plant & Equipment 11 210 HGV Mobilisation & Site Huts 9 128 HGV Demobilisation Cranes & associated 5 70 HGV equipment Aggregate Stone for tracks, 7 3,730 HGV Delivery hardstandings etc Reinforcement 3 30 HGV Formwork 2 8 HGV Delivery of Other Sand 3 210 HGV Construction Cable 2 18 HGV Materials Geofabric and Geogrid 1 34 HGV Culverts 2 4 HGV Cable ducts and pits 2 10 HGV Concrete for turbine, Concrete mast and building 5 710 HGV Delivery foundations Substation Equipment 2 20 HGV Substation Substation Construction 2 24 HGV Construction Materials Base Rings 1 6 HGV Specialist Haulier Turbine Components 2 70 Turbine Erection Vehicle / HGV Associated Equipment 2 80 HGV Escort Vehicles 2 140 Car / LGV Fuels 11 118 HGV Other miscellaneous 11 190 HGV deliveries Waste collection 11 96 HGV Septic waste collection 11 94 HGV Piling Equipment (not yet confirmed but General 2 20 HGV vehicles included for assessment purposes) Precast concrete piles (not yet confirmed but 1 12 HGV vehicles included for assessment purposes) Personnel 11 4,608 Car / LGV TOTAL 10,640

13.7.15 In total, the construction of the Development is expected to generate approximately 10,640 vehicle movements (including 5,892 HGV movements of which 35 will be abnormal loads) over the entire construction phase. The Development will generate the greatest amount of traffic during months two and three of construction (referred to as the Peak Period), when it will average approximately 84 movements per day. It is this Peak Period that has been analysed for the purposes of this assessment.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 20 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

13.7.16 Construction of foundations will require a notable number of concrete deliveries spread over a period of 5 days only. Concrete deliveries are expected to peak on these days within months four to six, and on concrete pour days it is expected that traffic generation will reach around 120 HGV movements per day, although overall it is expected that the Development will generate an average around 60 HGV movements per day through these months. Due to the very short duration of the foundation construction (five days only), this phase has not been specifically assessed. However, mitigation of the number of HGV movements over these days is considered in paragraphs 13.7.34 onwards.

Predicted Effects

13.7.17 For the purposes of a robust assessment, this assessment has been completed on the basis of traffic generation during the Peak Period of construction. Table 13.9 details traffic increases forecast at each of the count sites within the Study Area and the relative traffic increase against the baseline.

Table 13.9: Development Traffic Generation and Increase on Baseline

Average Daily Increase in Average Daily Increase in ALL (HGV + LGV) Traffic HGV traffic during Peak during Peak Period Period Vehicle Vehicle % % Road Movements per Movements per Increase Increase Link Section day day 1 A17 - east 22 0.1% 18 0.7% of C1 2 A17 - west 22 0.2% 18 0.7% of C1 3 C1 – A17 44 3.6% 34 34.0% to Site Access 4 C1 – A1(T) 44 2.2% 34 13.6% to Site Access Bold text indicates where defined significance thresholds (provided in Table 13.2) have been exceeded.

13.7.18 It is important to note that the changes presented in Table 13.9 relate to the peak construction period (of approximately four months) and for the remainder of the construction period, the flows should be significantly lower.

13.7.19 The length of the C1 Stragglethorpe Lane / Toll Bar Road / Main Street is considered to be ‘specifically sensitive’. For significance criteria and IEMA Guidelines see paragraph 13.4.7 onwards. It is expected that HGV traffic flows

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 21 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

shall exceed 10% during months two to six on both sections of the C1. That being the case, the effects of Development traffic upon this route section, have been considered in greater detail in the following section.

13.7.20 On the A17 (Links 1 and 2) traffic increases are expected to remain below 1% for the duration of construction, in terms of total and specifically HGV traffic. The effect of this additional traffic is considered to be negligible and so not significant. That being the case a detailed assessment of effects upon the A17 (Links 1 and 2) has not been completed.

Impacts upon Traffic Flow and Driver Delay

13.7.21 Overall traffic flow is expected to increase by a maximum of 3.6% on the C1 Stragglethorpe Lane. Vehicle movements will be spread across the working day (a 10 hour working day has been assumed), with the Development generating on average an additional 8 movements / 4 deliveries per hour to the local road routes. This route operates significantly below capacity (theoretical road capacities are presented in paragraphs 13.5.3 to 13.5.11), and so will be able to accommodate additional traffic on links and at intersections.

13.7.22 In percentage terms the increase in HGV traffic appears to be large; however this represents only a proportional increase against a low baseline, it does not dictate route capacity to handle traffic.

13.7.23 It is not considered that vehicles turning into the site will delay through traffic; the low levels of background traffic flow and good visibility at the Development access should allow vehicles to turn into the access relatively easily.

13.7.24 Abnormal loads will be routed on the C1 Stragglethorpe Lane (Link 3) between the A17 and the Development access. This may cause minor delays to traffic; however given the shortness of the section (<5km) it is not anticipated that these delays shall be significant. Even if abnormal load vehicles travel at an average of only 20mph, the delay to traffic is likely to be less than ten minutes. Additionally, the movement of abnormal loads will be timed to avoid peak traffic conditions on the local routes.

13.7.25 Given mitigation measures embedded within the Traffic Management Plan, it is anticipated that impacts upon Traffic Flow and Driver Delay will be at worst minor.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 22 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Impacts upon Route Infrastructure Condition

13.7.26 As discussed the Development will increase traffic flows on the C1 by 3.6% and this should occur for a 2 month period within the 11 month construction programme. Across the entire construction period, the Development impact will be less and will add an average of 13 HGV movements / 7 HGV deliveries per day to each section of the C1 Stragglethorpe Lane. It is possible that traffic generation of this magnitude will have more than a negligible or minor impact upon road infrastructure condition.

13.7.27 To ensure that any potential impacts are identified and mitigated, it is proposed that the Developer will undertake pre- and post-construction road condition surveys within the Study Area, and will repair any damage agreed as attributable to wind farm construction.

Community Impacts

13.7.28 To the north of the site, the C1 Stragglethorpe Lane passes through the hamlet of Stragglethorpe between the A17 and the Development access, and to the south the C1 Main Street / Toll Bar Road passes through the village of Marston between the site and the A1(T).

13.7.29 Severance impacts relate to the division that can be caused within a community when it is split by a major traffic artery. The C1 (Links 3 & 4) currently operates significantly below capacity with flows of less than 2,000 two-way movements per day. Given that the Development will increase traffic flows by only 3.6% during the peak construction period, and the traffic management measures proposed, the Development is unlikely to have a significant impact upon severance.

13.7.30 Pedestrian amenity is considered to be the relative pleasantness of a journey, and is closely linked to impacts upon fear and intimidation. The IEMA guidelines3 suggest that significant impacts upon pedestrian amenity may be anticipated if traffic flows on a link halve or double. Within Stragglethorpe footways are provided on at least one side of the carriageway to separate pedestrians from traffic, and the same is provided within Marston. Given the availability of footways within both towns, the overall minor traffic increase and proposed traffic management plan, it is suggested that the Development will not have a significant impact upon pedestrian amenity.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 23 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

13.7.31 Impacts upon pedestrian delay seem unlikely given the low levels of background traffic on the route and small forecast traffic increase as a result of the Development (3.6% during the peak construction period). For these reasons it is expected that the impacts of the Development construction traffic on the local community will be minor.

Road Safety

13.7.32 It is normally expected that as traffic levels increase on a highway section the number of accidents will also increase proportionally. The guidance provided in DMRB5 confirms that if the traffic flow on a highway link doubles, then the number of accidents on that link should also double (i.e. if traffic flows increase on a link, there is expected to be a proportional increase in accidents). Across the 11 month construction period, total traffic flows are forecast to increase by an average of 2.0% on the C1 Stragglethorpe Lane to the north of the site access, and by an average of 1.2% to the south of the Development access on the C1 Main Street / Tollbar Road route.

13.7.33 Across a five year period between 2007 and 2012, eight PIAs occurred on the C1 Stragglethorpe Lane to the north of the Development access, and 9 PIAs on the C1 Main Street / Tollbar Road to the south; this relates to an average of approximately 1.5 and 1.7 PIAs respectively over an 11 month period. However it is acknowledged that the accident rate on the C1 Stragglethorpe Lane is higher than the national average and this could be exacerbated by the increase in HGV movements along the route. Given the, albeit temporary, increase in HGV movements on the C1 Stragglethorpe Lane there is the potential for a moderate road safety impact on this route.

Proposed Mitigation

13.7.34 As discussed earlier, temporary effects relating to Development traffic will be eased through the implementation of an appropriate locally focused Traffic Management Plan (TMP), which will seek to promote safe and efficient transportation to the Development. The TMP will be produced in consultation with LCC (or agents thereof) and the Police.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 24 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

13.7.35 The following site specific measures would enhance road safety and reduce inconvenience to road users:

 Reduced mandatory speed limits for Development traffic travelling through Marston and Stragglethorpe (along the C1 Stragglethorpe Lane / Main Street / Tollbar Road route);

 Avoidance of Marston by HGV traffic at school start and end times;

 Provision of information to locals within Stragglethorpe on scheduling of abnormal loads;

 Publication of information on LCC website and local notice boards (including church and primary school) to inform those in the wider area of proposals, scheduling, timing and also contact details for the Principal Contractor should they have any concerns;

 Proactive measures to minimise carriage of debris onto the Public Roads including vehicle route management and consideration of wheel washing facilities. Notwithstanding efforts focusing on prevention of carriage of debris regular road sweeping will also be organised;

 Installation of temporary warning signage to alert road users to the location of the site access and potential for large slow-moving and/or turning traffic (e.g. ‘Works Access’ and / or ‘Lorries turning ahead’);

 Production of a communication strategy covering emergency services, LCC, North Kesteven District Council and the local community; and

 The foundation construction period (5 days) will require approximately 120 HGV movements on each day. To mitigate potential impacts over these days, where possible all other construction deliveries to the Site will cease and the routing of the foundation concrete deliveries will be specifically planned to avoid sensitive local communities.

Residual Effects

13.7.36 Following the implementation of mitigation measures detailed in Section 13.6 and paragraphs 13.7.34 onwards, it is anticipated that environmental effects resultant from the construction of the Development shall be at most minor/negligible and therefore not significant on all route sections.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 25 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement 13.8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

13.8.1 Table 13.10 summarises the likely significant effects of the Development in relation to access, traffic and transport.

Table 13.10: Summary of Effects

Road Predicted Residual Significance Proposed Mitigation Section Effects Effects

A17 Delay to Negligible n/a Negligible (Links 1 & 2) Road Users

A17 Deterioration Negligible Negligible in Road n/a (Links 1 & 2) Infrastructure

A17 Community Negligible Negligible n/a (Links 1 & 2) Impacts

A17 Road Safety Negligible Negligible n/a (Links 1 & 2) Impacts Implementation of Traffic C1 Delay to Minor Management Plan Minor (Links 3 & 4) Road Users

Implementation of Traffic Management Plan Deterioration C1 Negligible / Negligible / in Road Monitoring and repair of Minor Minor (Links 3 & 4) Infrastructure damage agreed as attributable to Development construction Implementation of Traffic C1 Community Minor Management Plan Minor (Links 3 & 4) Impacts

C1 Road Safety Implementation of Traffic Moderate Minor (Links 3 & 4) Impacts Management Plan

13.8.2 Following implementation of the mitigation measures presented above, and in particular the implementation of the Traffic Management Plan including site specific measures, the Development shall not produce any significant effects in relation to access, traffic and transport.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 26 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement References

1. National Planning Policy Framework5, Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012.

2. Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessment, Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT), 1994.

3. Guidance Notes No. 1: Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, Institute of Environmental Assessment (now Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment), 1993.

4. Guidance on Transport Assessment, Department for Transport and Department for Communities and Local Government, 2007.

5. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Volumes 11, 13 and 15), Highways Agency (HA) and Transport Scotland.

6. A Brief Guide to the Law on the Road Use of Abnormal Load Carriers on Mobile Engineering Plant, Lincolnshire County Council, 2004.

7. Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2010: Annual Report, Department of Transport, 2010.

Stephenson Halliday 13 - 27 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

14 MILITARY AND CIVIL AVIATION

14.1 INTRODUCTION

14.1.1 This chapter provides an assessment of the likely significant effects of the Development on aviation interests in the area. This chapter explains the outcomes of various assessments including a review of the location, technical characteristics and operational activities of aviation facilities in the area and an examination of the potential effects of the Development. It has been compiled by an independent Specialist Aviation Consultancy, specialising in assessing the effects of wind energy developments on aviation, using relevant guidance and consultations to assess the potential effects on aviation as a result of the Development.

14.1.2 Given the nature of wind farm developments they have the potential to affect airports, Ministry of Defence (MOD) low flying, civil and military radars. As required by the EIA Regulations, this chapter considers the potential effects that the Development turbines may have on aviation interests and the details of proposed mitigation measures. This chapter also details the extant regulations pertaining to consultation and aviation safeguarding.

14.1.3 This chapter should be read in conjunction with Appendix 14.1: Tables, Figures & Acronyms.

14.2 SCOPE

14.2.1 The scope of the assessment is based on the requirements of civil and military Regulation. The assessment will detail the extant regulation pertaining to the consultation and aviation safeguarding that are recommended within Civil Aviation and Military Aviation documentation.

14.2.2 This chapter contains the following sections:

 Guidance – outlining the extant Regulation and guidance on aviation considerations;

 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria - describing the methods used in baseline surveys and in the assessment of the potential effects of the development on aviation interests;

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 Baseline Conditions - a description of the existing technical aviation infrastructure and interests relating to the Development site and the surrounding area based on the result of desk information, technical assessments and consultations;

 Information Gaps - identifying any gaps in the data used to predict effects on existing infrastructure;

 Assessment of Potential Effects - identifying the ways in which aviation could be affected by the Development;

 Cumulative Assessment;

 Potential mitigation and Residual Effects;

 Summary of likely significant effects.

14.3 GUIDANCE

14.3.1 In conducting this assessment, use was made of the following guidance and industry standards on the potential effects of wind turbines on aviation:

 CAP 764 CAA Policy and Guidance on Wind Turbines Version 4 Change 1 dated January 2012;

 CAP 168 Licensing of Aerodromes April 2011;

 CAP 774 UK Flight Information Services;

 CAP 738 Safeguarding of Aerodromes;

 CAP 793 Safe Operating Procedures at Unlicensed Aerodromes;

 CAP 493 Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1;

 Military Aviation Authority Air Traffic Management (3000 series) Regulatory Instructions;

 Military Aviation Authority Low Flying Manual;

 UK Military Aeronautical Information Publication (UK MIL AIP);

 UK Aeronautical Information Publications (AIP) (updated every 28 days);

CAA 1:250,000 and 1:500,000 Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Charts;

 Joint MOD/CAA Wind Energy and Aviation Interests Interim Guidelines and

 MOD Defence Airspace and Air Traffic Management Policy Statement Reference 20090907-ATMPC dated 01 October 2009

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Taken collectively, these guidance sources establish that:

 Officially safeguarded aerodromes need to be consulted if proposed wind turbines are within 30km;

 Consultation with the operators of officially safeguarded technical sites is required if proposed wind turbines are within 10km;

 If the development is within potential line of sight of an air defence, military aerodrome or en-route radar an assessment of the effects is likely to be required;

 Further assessment and/or consultation will be required if turbines are planned within:

 17km of a licensed aerodrome within a runway of 1100m or more;

 5km of a licensed aerodrome with a runway of less than 1100m;

 4km of an unlicensed aerodrome with a runway of more than 800m;

 3km of an unlicensed aerodrome with a runway of less than 800m.

14.4 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

14.4.1 Since December 2010 developers have been required to undertake their own pre-planning assessment of potential civil aviation; that requirement has subsequently been applied to military sites since mid-2012. A desk based assessment and consultation process has identified aviation infrastructure and consultees that could potentially be affected by the wind turbines. The results of this assessment are found in the Tables below; Table 14.1 shows consultations responses based on best practice and requirements taken from CAP764, and Table 14.2 lists the safeguarding considerations for communication, navigation and surveillance infrastructure.

14.4.2 The potential effects of the Development on air traffic control radar were evaluated by determining whether the turbines would be within line of sight of any such radar facilities and whether the Development site is in an area of operational importance to those radars. Potential effects on other aviation interests were evaluated by considering the consultation responses from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and MOD in the context of the likelihood of identified aviation operators using the airspace in the vicinity of the Development and the requirements for obstacle clearance (i.e. the distance required between the lowest altitudes that aircraft can operate and obstacles).

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

14.4.3 The general approach to wind farm development is to avoid effects on infrastructure where possible, and to find appropriate technical mitigation solutions where this cannot be achieved. These solutions should be agreed between the Developer and the infrastructure owner/operator, and discussions will often continue through the planning process. On implementation of an appropriate technical solution, wind farm developments will have a negligible effect or no effect on existing infrastructure. Following this approach, it is inappropriate to apply significance criteria to these effects, as the mitigated effect will be either no effect, or a negligible effect, which should be deemed to be acceptable to the relevant infrastructure operator.

Table 14.1 Consultation requirements taken from CAP 764 and best practice

Type of Aviation Relevance to the Consultation Responses Facility Development CAA Licensed Development may impact Not Applicable. The desk Aerodrome with an the ATC radars of Licensed based assessment identified ATC Radar Aerodromes within their that there are none within declared consultation consultation distance. distances.

CAA Non radar Development may impact Not Applicable. The desk Licensed Aerodrome the operations of Licensed based assessment identified Aerodromes within their that there are none within declared consultation consultation distance. distances.

CAA Licensed Development may impact Not Applicable. The desk Aerodrome where the operations of Licensed based assessment identified turbine would lie Aerodromes if it lies within that there are none within within airspace airspace coincidental with consultation distance. coincidental with any any published Instrument published Instrument Flight Procedure. Flight Procedure (a series of predetermined manoeuvres for the transfer of an aircraft from the beginning of an initial approach to a landing)

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Type of Aviation Relevance to the Consultation Responses Facility Development Unlicensed Development may impact Not Applicable. The desk Aerodromes with the operations of such based assessment identified runway length Unlicensed Aerodromes if that there are none within greater than 800 within safeguarding consultation distance. metres (m) (denoting distances as per CAA a classification of policy or within distances Aerodrome that declared by a safeguarding should be particularly map lodged with the LPA. accounted for) Other aviation Development may impact a The desk based assessment activity number of other aviation identified Hougham Micro-light activities and interests in Club 1km to the south. The the area. British Micro-light Aircraft Association have been consulted and are not aware, and do not recognise, any club at this location. Furthermore the Local Planning Authority are not aware of Hougham Micro-Light Club and do not hold any safeguarding map. NERL En-Route ATC Development may impact Pre-planning consultation with Radar NERL En-Route ATC NATS occurred in November Radars and subsequently 2011. NATS indicated that its ATC operations if if it lies non-binding position on the within airspace coincidental Development was one of ‘no with any published airways. objection’. As a statutory consultee NATS will be re- consulted by the LPA as part of the planning process. MOD consultation Consultation with the MOD Air Traffic Control which covers ATC is essential. Pre-planning consultation with radars, Air Defence the MOD occurred in March radars, Met Office 2011. The MOD indicated that radars, Low Flying it had concerns with the effect and Danger Areas. of Development on the ATC radar at RAFs Coningsby, Cranwell and Waddington. Since this time the MOD has suspended pre-planning consultations with the wind industry. As a result it has not been possible to hold further discussions with the MOD regarding these potential concerns Low Flying In order to address Low Flying concerns the MOD has indicated that it will request that all turbines be fitted with aviation lighting.

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 14.2 Safeguarding considerations for Communication Navigation and Surveillance Infrastructure. Type of Communication, Safeguarding Considerations Aviation Navigation and Facility Surveillance Infrastructure Requiring Safeguarding Civil and Military Primary Surveillance Radar Obstacle Limitation Surfaces Aerodromes (PSR), Secondary (safeguarded geographical areas Surveillance Radar (SSR) around an aerodrome). and Approach Aids. Effect on aircraft landing and Navigational Beacons. other manoeuvring procedures. Very High Frequency (VHF) Need for lighting of turbines to aid Equipment. night conspicuity for pilots. The location and lighting of anemometer masts. NATS En-route PSR and SSR. Where development infrastructure Facilities is >300 feet (ft) /91m ensure an Navigational Beacons entry is made into the VHF Equipment Aeronautical Information Publication. Where development infrastructure is > 150m ensure appropriate lighting is present in accordance with Article 219 of the Air Navigation Order (2009). Turbines are to be marked on relevant charts and maps in accordance with ICAO guidance. Where turbines may be considered a significant hazard to air users additional lighting should be considered. The location and lighting of a Anemometer masts. Notification of presence of development and construction equipment, prior to construction, to the local Emergency service units.

14.5 BASELINE CONDITIONS

14.5.1 Identification of baseline aviation facilities was conducted using the following information sources and responses from consultees:

 the UK Aeronautical Information Publication;

 the MOD list of safeguarded sites;

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 National Air Traffic Services safeguarding maps.

14.5.2 Due to the complexities involved in assessing the potential effects of the Development on aviation interests, it is not considered practicable to define criteria for establishing sensitivity and magnitude of change for the effect of the Development on aviation facilities or operations. Current guidance and the outcome of consultations have therefore been used to establish whether any identified effects are significant in terms of aviation.

14.6 POTENTIAL EFFECTS

14.6.1 Aviation may be affected by wind turbines in the following ways:

 wind turbines located in areas close to airfields, or where certain types of low flying training are carried out, may pose a vertical obstruction hazard to aircraft;

 wind turbines located within line of sight and operational range of air traffic control or air defence radar equipment can present a similar appearance to aircraft on the radar screen. There is also some potential for reduction of a radar's ability to detect and track aircraft in the area above and behind a wind farm;

 aeronautical radio navigation aids may be affected by wind turbines due to reflection or scattering of the signal by the blades and towers.

14.6.2 Different types of radars can experience different types of effects from wind turbines and at differing ranges. It is necessary to consider those effects by radar type and by operator, either civil or military, and then by Terminal airport/airbase radar, airways En-route Radar, and PSR or PAR.

14.6.3 The desk based assessment demonstrates that there are no civil airports likely to be affected by the Development.

14.6.4 The major military bases at Waddington to the north and Cranwell and Coningsby to the east, together with the smaller airfields at Barkston Heath and at RAF Syerston, which is home to one of the RAF‘s main gliding schools, are all in close proximity to the Development location. Overlying the whole area is the Lincolnshire Area of Intense Aerial Activity (AIAA). To the north and south the area is bounded by controlled airspace containing the civil air traffic route structure operated by National Air Traffic Service En-Route Limited (NERL) for

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

air transport flights. Figure 14.2 shows the extent of the aviation infrastructure surrounding the Development.

14.7 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS – CONSTRUCTION PHASE

14.7.1 During the construction phase the effect on radar, and thus aviation operations, is minimal. The only possible effect is that of the physical presence of cranes involved in the construction of turbines on low flying activity which can be mitigated by ensuring that information on construction activity is promulgated to all affected airspace users. There is a mandated and recognised method of disseminating information concerning the presence of temporary hazards to aviation; it will detail the vertical heights of obstacles, initially those of a temporary nature such as cranes used to erect the turbines and, progressively, the permanent wind farm.

14.7.2 The construction of the Development will not have an effect on any aviation operations within the area so long as the Defence Geographical Centre, CAA and RenewableUK are informed in advance of the erection of turbines.

14.8 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS – OPERATIONAL PHASE

14.8.1 Such are the potential effects that turbines can have on radars that it is only when the turbines are actually operating, and when there is Line of Sight between the radar in question and the operating turbine, that they can cause interference. As part of the desk based assessment, radar coverage calculations have been undertaken to determine the baseline situation; these calculations demonstrate that low level radar coverage is possible at the Development site using a variety of existing radars, both civil En-Route and military, and which are utilised for a number of different purposes.

14.8.2 The Development site is not visible to any civil airport radar within the recommended 30km consultation distance ; the nearest civil terminal radar is at Nottingham East Midlands 49km to the west. Therefore, with respect to civil terminal radar, the Development will have no effect on aviation operations. The radar Line of Sight illustration for East Midlands is at Figure 14.6.

NATS En-route radar

14.8.3 The UK Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP), NERL operates a network of long range en route radar and radio navigation facilities. Initial examination of

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 8 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

radar coverage has identified that the radar located at Claxby will have line of sight of all or part of the Development site as illustrated in Figure 14.7.

14.8.4 However, the Development site is in an area of uncontrolled airspace well removed from NATS area of operations. Due to the multi-radar tracking system which they operate in this area NATS is likely to be able to manage the effect from the Development. NATS pre-planning consultation response indicated that their non-binding position on the Development was one of ‘no objection’.

14.8.5 The effect on NATS operations is therefore considered to be insignificant.

Ministry of Defence

14.8.6 The Temple Hill site is an intensive military flying environment. The major training base at Cranwell is 11km to the east, the Main Operation Base for the Typhoon Force is at Coningsby, 35km to the east, whilst the main base for Intelligence Surveillance Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance aircraft is at Waddington 20km to the north. All of these bases are equipped with a PSR and a PAR. In the absence of any mechanism to consult with the MOD at the pre- Planning stage the following assessments have been determined by Wind Power Aviation Consultants Ltd.

14.8.7 The Air Traffic Control radars at Cranwell, Coningsby and Waddington have Line of Sight at relatively low level across the entire Development site; radar projections indicate that all of the turbines may be visible to the radars at those bases (the radar projections are at Figures 14.3 to 14.5). A large area of ‘clutter’, or unwanted radar returns on the ATC displays at the airfield may be visible on the controllers’ displays when the turbines are operating.

14.8.8 The Development site is directly underneath the standard radar recovery patterns for RAF Waddington and RAF Cranwell and its associated satellite airfield at Barkston Heath. Additionally, the units at Waddington and Coningsby are part of the Lower Airspace Radar Service (LARS) network providing a service to any aircraft transiting through the area and within 40 nautical miles (nm) (64.37km) of the bases and below 10,000 feet (ft.). The existence of a large area of clutter on the radar would significantly degrade those units’ ability to provide a service to aircraft operating from the bases or transiting the area.

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 9 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

14.8.9 The Line of Sight values for the radars at Cranwell, Waddington and Coningsby are at Table 14.3. For the turbines not to be visible to the radars the values would have to be greater than 126.5 (the turbine tip height).

Table 14.3 Line of sight values from the military PSRs

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Cranwell 120.1m 118.25 ± 124.7m ± 123.3 ± 121.95 ± ± 1.65m 0.45m 3.1m 1.8m 1.35m Waddington 108.55 ± 106.5 ± 106.8m ± 97.3 ± 108.8 ± 12.55m 12.3m 12.0m 4.1m 14.4m Coningsby 109.15 ± 106.95 ± 112.8m ± 110.15 ± 108.9 ± 0.95m 2.15m 0.3m 0.25m 0.4m

14.8.10 It is highly likely that all of the turbines of the Development will be visible to the radars at Cranwell, Waddington and Coningsby and will create interference on these, some of the RAF’s most important radars. The effect of the Development on RAF operations will therefore be very significant, until mitigation is put into place.

14.8.11 PARs, or talkdown radars, provide information on the aircraft’s position relative to the glide slope and the centreline of the runway, enabling the controller to talk the pilot safely to ground level at the runway threshold; it is an instrument recovery aid for use when the pilot is in cloud or when weather prevents him from recovering to the airfield visually.

14.8.12 The MOD have been consulted on more than one occasion and have categorically stated that there will be no effect on the PARs at any of the airfields and that it has no concerns; the Development will, therefore, have no effect on the PARs at the bases.

14.8.13 In addition to ATC service provision associated with the nearby RAF bases, the MOD maintains air defence radar coverage in the UK Flight Information Regions (FIRs) using a number of radars networked into the UK system, known as UKADGE (UK Air Defence Ground Environment), to produce a Recognised Air Picture (RAP). There are two MOD air defence radars that contribute to the coverage in this FIR at Trimingham and at Staxton Wold. Initial radar modeling from those radars indicate that neither will be able to see down to low level within the Development site; there should be no effect on the air defence radar coverage in the area. The Development will have no effect on MOD Air Defence operations.

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 10 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

MOD Low Flying and Danger Area Operations

14.8.14 The Development is located within Low Flying Area 8 (LFA 8) near the borders with LFA 5 and LFA 11 in which military aircraft can be authorised to fly as low as 250ft (72.6m) from the ground or objects on the ground, a distance known as Minimum Separation Distance (MSD). The MOD indicated in its pre-planning consultation response that it will request that all turbines be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting to mitigate the effect of the Development on low flying operations. The intention is to fit infrared lighting which will have no visual impact as it is not visible to the naked eye. With this mitigation in place the Development will have no significant effect on low flying operations.

Non Radar Equipped Airfields, Unlicensed Aerodromes, Gliding, Hang Gliding And Parachuting Sites

14.8.15 The Hougham Microlight Club airstrip is marked on the aviation charts at Figures 14.1 and 14.2, at Glebe farm, Hougham, 1km to the south of the Development. The British Micro-Light Aircraft Association has been consulted and is unaware of, and does not recognise, any club at the location. In a further effort to obtain information, the Local Planning Authority was contacted. However it does not have any safeguarding map for the airstrip lodged with it, has no record of the Hougham Microlight Club or any type of flying from this location, and has confirmed that there is no planning permission in place for permanent microlight flying from the airstrip. The airstrip was visited in December 2011, but no aircraft could be seen from the road alongside and a building on site was derelict. While marked on the aviation charts at Figures 14.1 and 14.2, no other information could be found that the airstrip is currently used for microlight flying or other aviation purposes.

14.9 CUMULATIVE ASSESSMENT

14.9.1 Cumulative aviation effects will occur where a number of wind farm developments all show on a specific radar and where the overall ability of the air traffic control service provider or MOD Air Defence System to maintain a surveillance and control service is likely to suffer additional operational and technical effects.

14.9.2 It should be expected that the RAF will not accept any effect, resultant from the operation of the turbines, on their ability to provide an unrestricted air traffic

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 11 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

service in the area. The turbines will require radar mitigation on the affected PSRs and, therefore, the Development cannot have, or contribute to, any cumulative effects experienced on the RAF radars.

14.10 POTENTIAL MITIGATION AND RESIDUAL EFFECTS

14.10.1 The main effect of the Development will be on the MOD operations in the area; the turbines will be visible and will create interference on three important RAF radars and the operational effect of any clutter will vary and will depend upon the amount of traffic operating in the area requiring a radar service. It is clear that the installation and operation of the Development will have an effect on radar coverage and on ATC operations when compared to the current baseline where there is currently unencumbered radar coverage at the Development location.

14.10.2 A number of technical mitigation solutions are currently being developed to address potential wind farm effects and are likely to become available in time to provide mitigation for the Development when it becomes operational.

14.10.3 At this time potential systems that would provide mitigation include:

Thruput MIDAS III

14.10.4 This is a display based system that is capable of removing radar clutter from analogue radars that have colour display systems, such as the MOD’s Watchman radars. The system is software based and is contained within a unit that fits within a computer server cabinet system. The system is already installed at Durham Tees Valley Airport awaiting finalisation of the required CAA approvals. The equipment is also being installed at East Midlands Airport and being considered for a number of other sites. It may be possible to use it to mitigate adverse effects from the Development on MOD ATC radar. This is likely to be the lowest cost, lowest risk solution. It will need to be demonstrated that in addition to removing the clutter from the displays, the turbines will not cause a reduction in the probability of detection over the Development below the minimum accepted standard, known as a Swerling Case 1 and to include a 90% probability of detection (pd) of a 1 square metre target (this will be a common requirement for all potential solutions).

14.10.5 Thruput are developing a similar system that would work on a plot extracted radar system, which the MOD are likely to procure within the next 5 years as

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 12 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

part of a radar replacement programme. It is expected that this version of the system could be available within the next 6 months and certainly well within the lifetime of any planning permission. Thruput will be offering a mitigation service provision arrangement guaranteed for the life of the Development which would include the upgrade for any replacement radar.

C Speed Lightwave Infill Radar

14.10.6 The C Speed Lightwave radar is a separate radar system that will most likely be located on the same airfield as the impacted ATC radar. The Lightwave radar is designed specifically as a wind farm ‘infill radar’. The radar has been selected to participate in both the USA Government’s Interagency Field Test and Evaluation (IFT&E) programme for wind turbine mitigation solution and the MOD’s Air Traffic Control Technology Demonstration. Recent trials have also been conducted in Scotland; official results should be publicly available in the near future, although initial indications appear to show that it performed well over the Whitelee Wind Farm, consisting of 215 wind turbines. WPAC has recently run workshops on behalf of the Aviation Investment Fund Company Limited to determine the criteria to be applied to such infill radar mitigations in order to establish parameters/considerations for radar integration; this work is still ongoing. The Lightwave radar is currently installed at Glasgow Prestwick and Kent International (Manston) Airports undergoing on-site evaluation and the CAA approvals process. On current results/information the radar could be available within a year and certainly within the lifetime of any Planning Consent. There are not envisaged to be any environmental effects from using the Lightwave radar. Details of the radar can be found at www.cspeed.com.

Terma Scanter 4002

14.10.7 Terma is a well-established Danish radar manufacturer and they have designed the Scanter 4002 as an infill radar specifically to overcome wind farm issues. The 4002 radar is a separate radar system that will most likely be located on the same airfield as the impacted ATC radar. The radar is expected to have a range of at least 40 nm. A demonstration of this radar was conducted during 2012 in Copenhagen and, although the final results have not been made publicly available, online video footage and interest from UK and US Governments make the 4002 radar a promising prospective mitigation solution. The 4002 radar has been selected to participate in the USA Government’s IFT&E programme for

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 13 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

wind turbine mitigation solutions and the MOD’s Air Traffic Control Technology Demonstration. There are not envisaged to be any environmental effects from using Scanter 4002 radar. Details of this system can be found at www.terma.com.

Aveillant Holographic Radar

14.10.8 The Aveillant system is currently in development by Aveillant Ltd (a spin-off company from previous technology owner Cambridge Consultants). The Holographic Radar is a separate radar system that has been designed to be located either on the same airfield as the impacted ATC radar or outside of the airfield near to the Development. Currently planned to be approved by the CAA it can be expected to be commercially available during the lifetime of any planning consent. This radar is different from any other mitigation solution as it provides a 3 dimensional solution, providing a ‘bubble’ of radar surveillance around and above the Development. Aveillant fielded a 5 nm prototype system at the USA Government’s IFT&E programme’s April 2013 flight trial campaign, however it is understood that Aveillant will be producing a 20 nm production model for commercial purposes. There are not envisaged to be any environmental effects from using the Holographic radar. Details of this system can be found at www.aveillant.com.

Cyrrus Smartener

14.10.9 This system has been designed to overcome aviation concerns regarding wind farm developments by utilising a number of overlapping radars and employing an intelligent algorithm to differentiate aircraft from turbines. The system is contained within units that fit within a computer server cabinet system. It has not yet been accepted by an Airfield operator as a mitigation solution and does not as yet have the relevant CAA approvals, but according to Cyrrus good progress is being made. One possible disadvantage may be that if it relies on multiple radar feeds, the loss of one radar may limit its applicability. There will also be cost implications of taking data feeds from a number of other military/civilian radars. It is also not known when the system will be available or how much it is likely to cost, but it may become a viable option within the lifetime of any planning consent.

14.10.10 The selected system will have to be capable of providing radar surveillance data to a level agreed with the MOD and be integrated into the radar display system in accordance with the MOD’s requirements. Mitigation of this nature would ensure

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 14 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

that the mitigation the Development would have no significant effect on MOD operations.

14.10.11 Following the appropriate mitigation there would be no significant residual effects.

14.11 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS

14.11.1 This chapter has provided an assessment of the effects of the Development on aviation. The study to inform this chapter has included a review of the location, technical characteristics and operational activities of aviation facilities in the area and an examination of how these may be affected by the Development.

14.11.2 The Development has the potential to have a significant effect on the MOD ability to maintain the current provision of air traffic services in the area due to potential for interference on the primary surveillance radars at three major RAF bases. As the MOD has suspended pre-planning consultation with developers since their initial March 2011 pre-planning response, the applicant has been unable to discuss these matters further with the MOD. The applicant is led to believe that the MOD will re-engage once a planning application has been submitted. Following submission of the application, the Applicant will therefore undertake consultation with the MOD regarding the available technical mitigation measures to ensure that any potential adverse effects upon operations are understood and appropriately mitigated. Following mitigation, the residual effect on aviation will be insignificant.

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 15 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

References

1. Directorate of Airspace Policy, Civil Aviation Authority. Civil Aviation Publication 764 CAA Policy and Guidance on Wind Turbines Version 4 Change 1 dated January 2012. The Stationery Office, UK

2. Safety Regulation Group, Civil Aviation Authority. Civil Aviation Publication 168 Licensing of Aerodromes April 2011. The Stationery Office, UK

3. Safety Regulation Group, Civil Aviation Authority. Civil Aviation Publication 774 UK Flight Information Services November 2009. The Stationery Office, UK

4. Safety Regulation Group, Civil Aviation Authority. Civil Aviation Publication 738 Safeguarding of Aerodromes December 2006. The Stationery Office, UK

5. Safety Regulation Group, Civil Aviation Authority. Civil Aviation Publication 793 Safe Operating Practices at Unlicensed Aerodromes July 2011. The Stationery Office, UK

6. Safety Regulation Group, Civil Aviation Authority. Civil Aviation Publication 493 Manual of Air Traffic Services Vol 1 4th Edition November 2011 (corr). The Stationery Office, UK

7. Ministry of Defence, Military Aviation Authority Military Aviation Authority Regulatory Publications Air Traffic Management (3000 Series) Regulatory Instructions. The Stationery Office, UK Civil Aviation Authority UK Aeronautical Information Publications (AIP) to date 02/07/12 (AIRAC 07/2012)

8. Ministry of Defence, Defence Airspace and Air Traffic Management. Policy Statement Reference 20090907-ATMPC dated 01 October 2009. Director Defence Airspace and Air Traffic Management

9. Ministry of Defence, Headquarters Air Command. The Effects of Wind Turbine Farms on Air Defence Radars – AWC/WAD/72/652/TRIALS dated 6 January 2005. Headquarters Air Command

10. Ministry of Defence, Headquarters Air Command. Further Evidence of The Effects of Wind Turbine Farms on AD Radar dated 12 August 2005. Headquarters Air Command

11. Civil Aviation Authority 1:250K and 1:500K Aviation Charts. National Air Traffic Services Aeronautical Information Service

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 16 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

12. HM Government, The Department for Trade and Industry. Joint MOD/CAA Wind Energy and Aviation Interests Guidelines. The Stationery Office, UK

Stephenson Halliday 14 - 17 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

15 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND TELEVISION

15.1 INTRODUCTION

15.1.1 Wind turbines have the potential to adversely impact wireless communication systems and television (TV) signals in their vicinity. This chapter considers the likely significant impact of the proposed Development on such systems. The proposed turbines would be up to a maximum height of 126.5m. The following assessment assumes dimensions of 80m hub height and 93m blade diameter as a worst case scenario. If these dimensions were to change (within the 126.5m envelope) it is considered unlikely that the assessment would be significantly altered.

15.1.2 The term ‘wireless communication system’ is broad. For the purpose of determining the impact of the proposed wind farm, the systems that have been considered are fixed radio links between two stations. These can be in the microwave frequency band (microwave links) or in the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) band (UHF telemetry links). The assessment process differs for these two kinds of links. More detail regarding these processes can be found in Volume 3, Appendix 15.1 Desk Based Communications Link Report.

15.1.3 TV signals can be blocked and/or reflected by wind turbines, and this can impact the quality of the signal that reaches nearby aerials. This has been modelled, technical details can be found in Volume 3, Appendix 15.2 Television Desk Study Assessment.

15.2 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT

15.2.1 A technical assessment has been carried out to determine whether any impacts on the wireless links that are operating in the area will occur.

15.2.2 A technical assessment has been carried out to determine where impacts on TV services could be experienced.

15.3 GUIDANCE AND POLICY

15.3.1 The requirement for assessment of potential TV interference and potential impacts on communication links is identified in various documents including the

Stephenson Halliday 15 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Local Plan for South Kesteven – Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (2013)6.

15.3.2 The assessment of microwave fixed links has been carried out in accordance with Ofcom recommendations1.

15.3.3 The exclusion zones for diffraction issues relating to the UHF Telemetry links have been assessed with what is understood to be the same criteria used by the Joint Radio Company (JRC), namely consideration of the 0.6th Fresnel zone.

15.3.4 The assessment of adverse impacts on TV reception was undertaken using Pager Power Ltd custom software. The modelling approach was developed with reference to various published documents2,3,4,5.

15.4 METHODOLOGY

15.4.1 For assessment of the impacts caused by the proposed wind turbines on wireless links, the following process was followed:

 Consultation with Ofcom in order to establish the operators with active links in the area;

 Consultation with the identified link operators to obtain the technical details required for assessment;

 Consultation with the JRC and Atkins to establish the details of their links in the area;

 Assessment of the potential issues due to diffraction effects caused by the turbines on the links. In the case of microwave links, this is the only type of impact that has been considered. In the case of UHF telemetry links, analysis of reflection issues is sometimes a further requirement. This has not been undertaken.

15.4.2 For assessment of the impacts of the proposed anemometer mast on the JRC links in the area, consultation with the JRC has been undertaken.

15.4.3 For assessment of the impacts caused by the proposed turbines on TV signals in the area the following process was followed:

 Establishment of the transmitters that could be affected based on their coverage zones;

 Modelling of the potential effects using specialised software;

Stephenson Halliday 15 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 Evaluation of the interference pattern in conjunction with mapping to determine the residential areas that could be affected.

15.4.4 The EIA considers an effect to be significant in instances where the analysis has shown a potential effect on the assessed receptors. If no effects are identified then the issue is not considered significant.

15.5 BASELINE CONDITIONS

15.5.1 Ofcom advised of wireless links in the area operated by Arqiva, British Telecom (BT) and Airwave. Links operated by the JRC and Atkins were also identified.

15.5.2 Arqiva operates TV Re-Broadcast Links (RBLs) which generally transmit information from main TV masts, which serve large areas, to relay TV masts, which serve small areas where coverage from the main mast is poor. Such links are in the UHF range. Such links can be affected by wind turbines and therefore these have been considered as part of the assessment.

15.5.3 Microwave links are widely used by mobile phone operators as carriers for the network between transmitting stations. The BT links identified are microwave links.

15.5.4 The JRC and Atkins manage links in the UHF range that typically transmit data for utility companies between main scanning stations and remote outstations.

15.5.5 Based on desk based analysis, the main TV transmitters that serve homes in the areas surrounding the development are Waltham and Belmont. The digital switchover has been completed for both of these transmitters. Volume 3, Appendix 15.3 shows the location of these transmitters relative to the proposed Development.

15.6 CONSULTATION SUMMARY

15.6.1 The table below summarises the consultation that has been undertaken to date regarding wireless communication links in the area.

Stephenson Halliday 15 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 15.4: Consultation Summary

Consultee Consultation Request Consultation Response/ Action Summary Taken

Ofcom Consultation to Link response N/A establish the presence received of active links in the area (and details of links if present)

JRC Consultation to JRC identified 1 Turbines located establish the presence active link in vicinity outside of of active links in the identified link area (and details of exclusion zone. links if present) RWE NRL will continue to liase with the JRC.

Arqiva Consultation to Arqiva did not N/A establish the presence identify any active of active links in the links in the area area (and details of links if present)

Atkins Consultation to Request was N/A establish the presence forwarded to Anglian of active links in the Water area (and details of links if present)

Anglian Consultation to Anglian Water did N/A Water establish the presence not identify any of active links in the active links in the area (and details of area links if present)

BT Consultation to BT identified active Turbines located establish the presence links in vicinity outside of link of active links in the exclusion zone. area (and details of links if present)

Airwave / Consultation to Airwave / R4 Micro-siting of R4 establish the presence Telecom identified 1 Turbine 1 Telecom of active links in the active link in vicinity, restricted: it will area (and details of which the turbines not move west. links if present) are outside the exclusion zone of. However Turbine 1 must not be moved any further towards the west, otherwise reassessment would be required

Stephenson Halliday 15 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement 15.7 PROPOSED MITIGATION INCORPORATED INTO PROPOSAL

15.7.1 The exclusion zones associated with the microwave links in the area were identified as technical constraints at the outset of the design process. The design of the wind farm is therefore such that all turbines are located outside of the known exclusion zones, in order to avoid significant effects upon the microwave links.

15.7.2 The JRC initially provided coordinates for one link, however it is currently understood that they are operating another UHF link in the vicinity of the site, which JRC decline to identify. JRC undertook a Detailed Coordination Report in February 2013 to investigate the effects of potential interference caused to Western Power Distribution's (WPD) (East Midlands) licensed radio systems by the construction of the Development. The JRC Detailed Coordination Report is confidential and its content cannot be disclosed or used by any third party. Consequently its assessment and conclusions cannot be reproduced in the ES nor can the information contained within be interpreted by any third party (i.e. Pager Power, undertaking this assessment) to make use of in the EIA.

15.7.3 RWE NRL will continue to liaise with WPD and JRC. This will enable WPD to understand any plans regarding their radio networks and if they have any future radio systems planned that would be affected by the wind development.

15.7.4 The one JRC link identified initially has been considered within this assessment.

15.8 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

Operator Responses

15.8.1 Two of the operators that were consulted have confirmed that they have no objections to the proposed Development. Specifically, these are Arqiva and Anglian Water (initial objection received from Atkins). For these operators, there will be no impact and their links have not been considered further.

Construction Phase

Identified JRC Links

15.8.2 The UHF telemetry links managed by the JRC are typically used to relay data for utility companies. Signals are usually between a main scanning station and remote outstations. The systems are important on a regional scale, and it is important to understand whether they could be affected by the development.

Stephenson Halliday 15 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

15.8.3 The potential impacts during construction would be due to obstruction of the link by cranes and turbine components whilst being erected, causing diffraction effects. Diffraction issues during construction can be thought of in the same way as those during operation. Potential impacts during construction are inherently short term and intermittent as the locations of the cranes and turbine components will vary during the construction period.

15.8.4 Assessment of diffraction issues for the link for which details have been provided has been undertaken. The turbines are clear of the exclusion zone associated with diffraction losses for this link. Consultation between RWE NRL, JRC and WPD is on-going regarding the unidentified link in the vicinity of the site.

15.8.5 The JRC indicated that concerns regarding anemometry masts were generally much less than concerns regarding operational wind turbines. The location and structure of the proposed anemometry mast were provided to the JRC but no formal response has been received.

BT Links

15.8.6 The BT microwave links provide the backbone for the data network. They are important on a regional scale and turbines that are sited too close to a link path can compromise the performance of the link.

15.8.7 The potential impacts during construction would be due to obstruction of the link by cranes and turbine components whilst being erected, causing diffraction effects. The exclusion zone around a microwave link, which defines where an object should not be located to safeguard the link, is generally smaller for static obstructions than for operational wind turbines. Therefore, the impact during construction is likely to be less than during operation.

15.8.8 Analysis has shown that the proposed turbine locations are outside of the exclusion zones associated with the BT links for operational turbines (which are larger than those for static obstructions).

15.8.9 No impact is therefore anticipated.

TV Interference

15.8.10 The main transmitters that serve the region are Waltham, which is located approximately 25.5km south southwest of the proposed development, and

Stephenson Halliday 15 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Belmont, which is located approximately 49km northeast of the proposed development. These transmitters provide terrestrial television services and are important on a regional scale.

15.8.11 Potential impacts during construction could be due to obstruction and reflection of the transmitted signals by large metallic cranes and turbine components. The impacts during construction are likely to be less than those during operation, because the turbine rotors will not be turning, so there will be no periodic power fluctuations in the reflected signals.

15.8.12 It is possible that some interference could be experienced during construction in the area of Hough-on-the-Hill. Such effects would be temporary and digital transmissions are robust to small levels of diffraction effects.

15.8.13 The impact during construction is therefore expected to be negligible.

Operational Phase

JRC Links

15.8.14 The UHF telemetry links managed by the JRC are typically used to relay data for utility companies. Signals are usually between a main scanning station and remote outstations. The systems are important on a regional scale, and it is important to understand if there are potential impacts.

15.8.15 The potential impacts during operation would be due to obstruction of the link by the turbines as physical obstructions, causing diffraction effects, and due to periodic reflection of the signal by the moving rotor.

15.8.16 The JRC provided coordinates for one link. The turbines are clear of the exclusion zone associated with diffraction losses for this link. Consultation between RWE NRL, JRC and WPD is on-going regarding the unidentified link in the vicinity of the site.

BT Links

15.8.17 The BT microwave links provide the backbone for the data network. They are important on a regional scale and turbines that are sited too close to a link path can compromise the performance of the link.

15.8.18 The potential impacts during construction would be due to obstruction of the link by the turbines as physical obstructions, causing diffraction effects.

Stephenson Halliday 15 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

15.8.19 Analysis has shown that the proposed turbine locations are outside of the exclusion zones associated with the BT links for operational turbines.

15.8.20 No impact is expected.

TV Interference

15.8.21 The main transmitters that serve the region are Waltham, which is located approximately 25.5km south southwest of the proposed development, and Belmont, which is located approximately 49km northeast of the proposed development. These transmitters provide terrestrial television services and are important on a regional scale.

15.8.22 Potential impacts during operation would be due to obstruction and reflection of the transmitted signals by the turbines. The turning rotors can cause periodic power fluctuations in the signal that is received by TV aerials at residences in the area.

15.8.23 Analysis has shown that some effects could be experienced in Hough-on-the-Hill (refer to Volume 3, Appendix 15.2 Television Desk Study Assessment).

15.8.24 Minor levels of interference may occur due to the proposed Development.

15.8.25 RWE NRL propose to undertake a TV baseline survey pre-construction in order to determine in further detail the likelihood and geographic extent of any potential for TV interference. This would allow an appropriate mitigation strategy to be developed nearer the time of construction. Measurements taken during such a survey would quantify the signal quality which will automatically include the effects caused by any existing wind turbines in the area.

15.8.26 The proposed survey will confirm whether any impacts have occurred and RWE NRL will mitigate any effects caused by the Development, if these occur. The most appropriate mitigation option is most likely to be installation of satellite dishes at the affected residences. This mitigation solution is not, in itself, likely to have a significant effect on the environment.

15.8.27 There would therefore be no residual effects resulting from the proposed Development.

Micro-siting

15.8.28 Whilst a micro-siting allowance of up to 50m is proposed (with restrictions set out Chapter 4, Section 4.3), this would preclude the micro-siting of Turbine 1 to

Stephenson Halliday 15 - 8 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

the west (as outlined in R4’s consultation response, refer to Table 15.4), and the micro-siting of T3 would be limited to the north to 25m to avoid the exclusion zone for the identified JRC UHF link. With regard to TV interference, micro-siting of up to 50m will not affect the interference pattern in a significant way. With these restrictions, the provision of the micro-siting allowance would not alter the conclusions of the assessment with regard to levels of significance. Should the wireless links in the vicinity of the site change over time, micro-siting would be reviewed where appropriate.

15.9 ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

15.9.1 With regard to wireless links, as the proposed Development would not result in any impact upon known links in its own right, cumulative effects would not be possible.

15.9.2 With regard to TV reception, any potential cumulative effects in association with the operational baseline schemes would be identified as part of the pre and post construction TV survey and mitigated appropriately (refer to Section 15.8.26). The mitigation proposals would restore the TV reception to the quality of reception that existed prior to turbine construction. Cumulative effects with consented (but not yet constructed) baseline and proposals would therefore not be possible as there would be no residual effects arising from the proposed Development.

15.10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

15.10.1 No significant effects will occur for the wireless links that have been identified at the time of assessment.

15.10.2 Consultation between RWE NRL, JRC and WPD is on-going regarding the unidentified link in the vicinity of the site.

15.10.3 TV interference could occur at some homes in the area of Hough-on-the-Hill, however the study concludes that the overall interference is likely to be low and the potential impact would therefore be minor.

15.10.4 RWE NRL propose to undertake a TV baseline survey pre-construction in order to determine in further detail the likelihood and geographic extent of any potential for TV interference and identify the most appropriate mitigation strategy. Following the implementation of mitigation (if required), the development will not have a significant effect on TV reception.

Stephenson Halliday 15 - 9 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

References

1. A proposed method for establishing an exclusion zone around a terrestrial fixed radio link outside of which a wind turbine will cause a negligible degradation of the radio link performance, Bacon, DF, Radio Communications Agency, 2002

2. Assessment of impairment caused to television reception by a wind turbine: Recommendation ITU-R BT805, International Telecommunications Union, 1992

3. The assessment and avoidance of electromagnetic interference due to wind farms, Hallm SH, Wind Engineering Vol 16 No 6, 1992

4. The establishment of guidelines for the installation of wind turbines near radio systems, Proceedings of the eighteenth BWEA Wind Energy Conference, 1996

5. A Methodology to Assess Interference to TV Reception due to Wind Farms, RES, 2005

6. Local Plan for South Kesteven, Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document, South Kesteven Council, 2013

Stephenson Halliday 15 - 10 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

16 SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS

16.1 INTRODUCTION

16.1.1 This chapter presents the assessment of the likely significant socio-economic effects arising from the development of the Development . The assessment considers the likely effects during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the wind farm. The approach to assessing effects and in defining the assessment study area is defined in the methodology section below.

16.1.2 The development site is located in the South Kesteven administrative area approximately 7km south east of Newark-on-Trent and 9km north of Grantham. The nearest settlements to the Development are Brandon approximately 1.1km north east, Stubton 1.5km north west, Gelston 2.6km south east and Hough-on- the-Hill 2.9km east. The East Coast Main Line passes within approximately 600m to the south west of the Development and the A1 passes within approximately 5.3km to the west.

16.1.3 The site is currently under intensive arable cultivation and comprises large scale arable fields with very few hedgerows and limited woodland cover. The topography of the site and immediate area is open and broadly flat ranging from 19m - 25m AOD.

16.1.4 This ES chapter should be read in conjunction with following supporting information:

 Appendix 16.1 which presents the full socio-economic baseline assessment, economic modelling assumptions for the construction and operational phases, the rationale for assessing sensitivity of socio- economic factors, as well as the literature review of the impacts of wind farms on tourism and business.

 Figure 16.1 Index of Multiple Deprivation.

16.2 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT

16.2.1 The assessment examines the range of likely significant socio-economic effects arising from the three phases of the development, namely its (i) development and construction, (ii) operation, and (iii) decommissioning.

16.2.2 The main types of socio-economic effects which are considered include:

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 The economic activity and employment which the development, operation and eventual decommissioning of the wind farm supports, through direct, indirect (i.e. supply chain effects) and induced effects (i.e. personal expenditure effects).

 Access to the employment opportunities arising from the development by local residents.

 The likely effect on the local tourism sector as a whole and specific businesses, mainly arising through visual and landscape effects.

 The likely effects, positive or negative, on the local business community as a whole.

 The likely value of any potential community benefit provision as a result of the development.

16.2.3 The assessment uses standard approaches and tools for testing the significance of the range of likely socio-economic effects. An overview of the framework which has been used to assess the significance of effects is provided in a later section of this ES chapter.

16.3 GUIDANCE

16.3.1 The methodology deployed in assessing the socio-economic effects has been shaped by specific policies and guidance documents. The selection of the socio- economic factors, outlined later, has been informed by these guidance and policy documents.

South Kesteven District Council Scoping Opinion

16.3.2 The South Kesteven Scoping Opinion (25th May 2012) sets out the Council’s requirements for the scope of the Environmental Statement (ES). The scoping opinion outlines the need for the socio-economic chapter of the ES to briefly examine the effects of the wind farm development on local tourism facilities and assets. The scoping opinion acknowledges the difficulty in doing this, but in light of a number of local tourism assets, the ES chapter needs to consider evidence on known effects from other wind farm developments, which are in close proximity to tourist facilities. In light of this guidance, the socio-economic ES chapter draws on a literature review, undertaken by Regeneris Consulting, of available evidence, and sets out consultations with relevant stakeholders. A

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

summary of the key points of this literature review is provided in the ES, with the main review in Appendix 16.1.

DECC National Policy Statement for Energy (EN1)

16.3.3 The socio-economic assessment of the Development has taken account of guidance within National Policy Statement (NPS) EN-1 issued by the Department for Energy & Climate Change (DECC), 2011. While this NPS primarily relates to nationally significant energy infrastructure projects, the guidance provides an important guide on socio-economic ES considerations.

16.3.4 In defining the requirement for an Environmental Statement, for projects subject to the European Environmental Impacts Directive, NPS EN-1 (section 4.2.2) states “…the IPC will find it helpful if the applicant sets out information on the likely significant social and economic effects of the development, and shows how any likely significant negative effects would be avoided or mitigated.” The NPS (section 5.12.3) also defines what impacts may need to be considered in a socio-economic assessment.

Table 16.1: Summary of NPS EN-1 guidance for socio-economic impact assessments

Summary of NPS EN-1 guidance on Response assessment of socio-economics The creation of jobs and training Addressed under the assessment of opportunities (5.12.3) effects during construction, operational and decommissioning sections of the chapter. The provision of additional local services No new local services or improvements and improvements to local infrastructure, to local infrastructure are being provided including the provision of educational and as part of the development visitor facilities (5.12.3) Effects on tourism and recreation (5.12.3) Addressed in the ES Chapter The impact of a changing influx of workers Addressed under the assessment of during the different construction, operation effects during construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the energy and decommissioning sections of the infrastructure (5.12.3) chapter. Cumulative effects arising as a result of Address under the cumulative effects interaction with other planned and on-going section of the chapter. projects and activities (5.12.3)

16.3.5 National Policy Statement EN-3 for Renewable Energy Infrastructure was also issued by DECC in 2011 but does not provide specific guidance on socio- economic issues and therefore account has been taken of the guidance given in EN-1 in this respect.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement South Kesteven Wind Energy SPD

16.3.6 The SKDC Wind Energy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) outlines how assessments should consider the effects of wind farm developments on employment, recreation and leisure, and tourism in South Kesteven. This assessment is line with the guidance set out within the SPD.

CLG Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Guidance

16.3.7 This guidance was prepared by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) in 2006. It outlines the approach to assessing environmental impacts (e.g. methodology, assessing significance, cumulative effects), as well as guidance on the preparation of the Environmental Statement.

HM Treasury Green Book - Impact Assessment Guidance

16.3.8 The Green Book sets out the broad framework for the appraisal and evaluation of all policies, programmes and projects. While the Green Book guidance is used extensively in appraising and evaluation the costs and benefits of public sector investment projects, the guidance provides the most rigorous methodology to undertake economic assessment. The methods outlined in this guidance, particularly around measuring employment, have been deployed in this assessment.

Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy

16.3.9 The ‘Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy’, DCLG (July 2013) makes no reference to socio-economics as a planning consideration that relates to wind energy development.

16.4 METHODOLOGY

16.4.1 This section of the ES Chapter provides an overview of the socio-economic assessment methodology, including the definition of impact areas and the framework to assess the significance of effects. However, prior to outlining the methodology, the following provides a summary of the key considerations (drivers of impacts and types of impacts) which have influenced and shaped the assessment approach.

Drivers of Impacts

16.4.2 Following Regeneris Consulting’s extensive experience of measuring the socio- economic impacts of wind farm developments across the UK, there are four

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

main factors that typically drive the creation of socio-economic impacts from wind farm developments. These factors are primarily related to the increased level of economic activity in the area as a result of:

 The construction and assembly of the wind farm and related supply chain activity. The investment made in planning and development, site preparation, manufacture and assembly, and commissioning of the wind turbines delivers benefits directly to the businesses delivering this activity and also to their suppliers as the additional economic activity filters through the supply chain. The assessment considers the likely scale of benefits during the construction phase in light of the expected size and geographic location of the development’s supply chain, and the likelihood for local companies (or companies with local operations) to win the main contracts or to enter the supply chain of those that do.

 The on-going maintenance and operations. Staff required for the operation and maintenance of the wind farm (including those in administrative and support functions) and the expenditure required to cover other overheads (e.g. the cost of spare components, grid connection etc.) provide a secondary, and longer term, source of economic impact. Again, the likely benefit is linked to the scale of investment, geographic sourcing of goods and services, the location of any new jobs which are created and scope to recruit local staff.

 The impact of community benefit funds. Developers can opt to make voluntary annual contributions over the course of the operational life of a wind farm. These funds can be used in a range of ways by local communities, so the type and scale of benefits generated can differ substantially. While the assessment considers the scale of the potential funds for this proposed scheme, without identified activities, it is not possible at this stage to robustly quantify any socio-economic benefits which may accrue as a result.

 The cost of decommissioning. The cost of decommissioning the wind farm at the end of their operational period could also generate further economic impacts in the same way that initial construction investment does, through providing revenue to supply chain companies and supporting employment.

16.4.3 Each of the first three drivers has been assessed separately in the ES, drawing on cost and other information provided by RWE relating to the scale of

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

investment in various parts of the scheme, the ongoing costs of operation and maintenance and the likely geography of the supply chain or locations of employment. The likely impacts associated with decommissioning have not been considered, at this stage. The reason for this is that the costs of decommissioning have not been confirmed, as there is uncertainty about the likely approach to decommissioning, the technologies utilized, and the associated cost.

Types of Impacts

16.4.4 The assessment considers both the core likely significant socio-economic impacts associated with increased economic activity in the area, as well as wider socio-economic impacts. The core socio-economic impacts have been assessed quantitatively through an economic impact model which estimates:

 Direct Impacts. This measure captures the economic activity that is directly supported by spend on the construction, operation and maintenance of the wind farm. This includes RWE staff employed to work on the development, and all first tier supply chaini expenditure relating to the construction of the wind farm.

 Indirect Impacts. This measures the supply chain impact of the additional output generated by companies in the supply chain supporting the tier one suppliers. The additional economic activity in these companies is passed down through their supply chains and generates additional, indirect benefits for many other companies. At a local level, this could include suppliers to civil and electrical engineering firms, local hospitality sector businesses, supporting the local workforce, and transport and logistics sector companies.

 Induced impacts. This captures the knock-on impacts that additional employment supported directly and indirectly has in the economy as salaries earned by those employed in additional jobs are spent on goods and service elsewhere in the economy.

16.4.5 Beyond these quantifiable effects, the development scheme, and the associated community benefit fund, could also deliver wider socio-economic effects. Given

i First tier refers to the main contractor appointed by RWE (e.g. for construction activities). Second tier refers to those companies in the supply chain who support the first tier suppliers.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

the nature of this development scheme these are likely to be modest, but could include:

 A potential boost to the local and national renewables sector.

 Scope for labour market impacts related to the new employment opportunities.

 Community development and cohesion associated with the community benefit funds.

 Scope for strengthening local economies and delivering strategic benefits for economic development and regeneration in the impact areas.

Overview of Assessment Methodology

16.4.6 The methodology used to assess the socio-economic effects of the Development is as follows:

 The socio-economic factors (see Table 16.2) were defined for the various stages of the wind farm lifecycle (construction, operation and decommissioning) and at various spatial impact levels. The choice of socio-economic factors is appropriate to the circumstances of the development, and the local area.

 Preparation of a socio-economic baseline for the selected impact areas (for choice of impact areas, see below). The socio-economic baseline provides an overview of the demographic, labour market, employment (including relevant sectors e.g. energy related, and tourism and visitor economy related), and social considerations in the local and wider impact areas. The baseline also includes an overview of relevant national, regional and local policy context.

 Consultations with relevant local stakeholders and interest groups to inform the baseline, the estimation of impacts, and wider impacts.

 Estimation of likely significant socio-economic impacts. For estimating the direct and indirect economic impacts these are typically split across the development life cycle:

 Development and consent, manufacture, assembly and installation (including cable laying, and installation of foundations, turbines and substations), and commissioning

 Operations and maintenance

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

 Decommissioning These impacts will measure (at the impact area level):

 the net number of full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs which will be created or safeguarded as a result of the scheme;

 the Gross Value Added (GVA) i.e. the value to the economy of the activity generated by the schemeii;

 the employment income – the additional income made as a result of FTE jobs created or safeguarded as a result of the scheme;

 Estimating Supply Chain Impacts. The estimation of supply chain impacts can be subject to uncertainty and often a large margin of error. Regeneris Consulting’s wind farm impact assessment work over recent years has provided a much better understanding of the scope to retain supply chain expenditure within local and regional areas specifically, and hence deliver robust impact estimates. The approach taken to estimating supply chain impacts of both construction and operational phases for the Development has been undertaken on a ‘bottom-up’ approach, basing them on a combination of the following information:

 The overall value of the construction programme, including a detailed breakdown of costs by components and labour.

 The proposed procurement method and the potential scope for tier one and two supply to be sourced within the impact areas (given what we know about the embeddedness of the wind farm supply chains).

 The selection of economic multipliers which reflect the size and nature of the economies in the impact areas.

 Insights based on RWE’s approach to encourage a higher proportion of sourcing from within the local and regional economy.

 Assessment of wider impacts. The assessment of wider impacts considers the impacts, as a result of the development, on businesses and tourism locally. Drawing on evidence from the literature review on the impacts of wind farm developments on businesses, tourism, and access (PROW), and consultations, the key points have been applied to the specific

ii GVA is effectively a measure of the additional profits generated in businesses benefiting from the activity plus additional salaries that are paid to their employees.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 8 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

conditions surrounding the Development to inform judgements on significance, given the local concerns on visual and landscape effects.

 The assessment of wider impacts can sometimes consider the potential benefits and effects which could accrue from the provision of a Community Benefit Fund. These funds have the potential to support a range of activities and deliver different types of community and economic benefits (including supporting the vibrancy and vitality of communities). However, the effects are fundamentally dependent on the management and use of the funds, and the chosen priorities. At this stage of the process, these priorities have not been identified, and as such, it is not possible to quantify the potential effects of the proposed fund.

 Assess the significance of effects and any required mitigation. The proposed development has the potential to affect socio-economic conditions in each of the three main phases of its life-cycleiii.To assess the significance of effects, the socio-economic assessment has used a significance matrix based on the characteristics of the impact (magnitude and nature) and the sensitivity of the socio-economic factor to these impacts. The complete assessment framework is outlined in the following sections. The assessment of the sensitivity of the socio-economic factor takes account of the importance attached to each factor in local and regional economic development and regeneration policy, together with professional judgement relating to the scale of socio-economic challenges (drawing on analysis within the socio-economic baseline section of this chapter).

Consultation

16.4.7 In order to inform the the baseline, the estimation of impacts, and wider impacts, consultation with relevant local stakeholders and interest groups was undertaken, as summarised in Table 16.2.

iii The main focus of the quantitative assessment is upon the first two of the three phases. The reason for this is that the quantification of the socio- economic effects associated with decommissioning has not been confirmed at this stage, as there is uncertainty about the approach to decommissioning, the technologies utilised and the associated cost.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 9 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 16.2 Consultation Summary

Consultee Consultation request Consultation Response / response Action Taken South Kesteven To discuss local socio- A telephone Information and District Council - economic issues and consultation with documentation Economic to understand the local SKDC officers was was provided Development socio-economic policy arranged. during the Officers Barbara context consultation Copley & David and Mather subsequently. Visit Lincolnshire To discuss the visitor A telephone Information and – Visitor economy economy in South consultation with documentation officer Lydia Kesteven and Lydia Rosling was was provided Rosling Lincolnshire, and to arranged. during the understand the consultation availability of visitor and economy data. subsequently Lincolnshire To discuss availability A telephone Except for County Council of information and data consultation with anecdotal Highways – on the use of public Mike Plant was evidence, Mike Senior Highways rights of way in arranged. was unable to Officer Mike Plant proximity to the provide any proposed development empirical data (e.g. the Viking Way). on PROW usage. Lincolnshire To discuss availability Following an initial Follow-up Ramblers of information and data acknowledgement requests were Association on the use of public response, no made, the rights of way in consultation was Lincolnshire proximity to the arranged as the Ramblers proposed development Lincolnshire Association did (e.g. the Viking Way), Ramblers not respond. and to understand Association did not their views on the respond. proposed development. Stubton Hall – As a prominent visitor A site visit and Information was Rachel Hall, economy business in consultation with provided during Events Manager the local area, the Rachel Hall was the consultation

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 10 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Consultee Consultation request Consultation Response / response Action Taken consultation was an arranged. and opportunity to discover subsequently. more about the business, their markets, and views on the proposed development.

Defining Impact areas

16.4.8 The selection of the most appropriate spatial impact areas can be challenging in this type of socio-economic assessment. It is important to strike a sensible balance between communicating clear messages to stakeholders about the impacts in ‘their’ areas, and to deal with a manageable number of spatial levels. With this in mind, the assessment has been undertaken at the following spatial impact levels:

 A local impact area which is defined as the area from which local workers (and some supplies) are likely to be sourced. Following discussions with RWE, and given the nature and scale of local authority areas and settlements, the local impact area includes the local authority districts of South Kesteven, North Kesteven, Newark and Sherwood, and Lincoln. This broadly covers the key settlements and local authority areas within a 10-15km areaiv.

 A Wider impact area. How this impact area is defined can depend upon a number of factors including: (i) the expected spatial concentration of benefits; and (ii) the relevance of larger geographies in planning policy terms. In considering these points, the wider impact area assessment has defined as the East Midlands region.

16.4.9 In the main baseline assessment (see Appendix 16.1), reference is also made to data (where possible, due to data coverage limitations) and local context information at the very local level, i.e. the local ward/villages of Stubton and Brandon, in close proximity to the development. However, these are qualitative

iv This radius is an approximate benchmark used in considering the approach undertaking socio-economic impact assessments. However, the final

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 11 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

statements to provide greater local context, and are not consistently applied throughout the baseline as an additional impact area.

Assessment Criteria

16.4.10 The following section provides an overview of the assessment framework which has been used to assess likely socio-economic effects. It covers the identification of socio-economic factors; the approach taken to assessing the sensitivity of the factors; the framework for assessing magnitude of impacts; and assessing overall significance of effects.

Identification of Socio-Economic Factors

16.4.11 The table below provides an overview of the chosen appropriate socio-economic factors (which are consistent across the project lifecycle), as well as the appropriate impact area.

Table 16.3: Identified Socio-Economic Factors for all aspects of the project lifecycle

Impact Type Socio-Economic Factors Impact Area Construction/ Employment during the Local and construction/operation/decommissioning phase regional Operation/ (including that within the construction supply areas Decommissioning chain) Access to the construction/operation/ Local and decommissioning related employment amongst regional local/ wider area residents areas Demand for accommodation and other local Local impact services area Size of relevant business sectors: renewable Local and energy; construction; engineering regional areas Levels of patronage of specific local tourism Local impact businesses and other businesses area Levels of economic activity as measured by jobs Local impact in specific local tourism businesses and other area businesses Visitors and users of outdoor environmental Local impact assets with public access (e.g. PROW) area Visitors and users of heritage assets with public Local impact access area

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 12 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Sensitivity of Socio-Economic Factor

16.4.12 The framework for assessing the sensitivity of each socio-economic factor is outlined below. The assessment requires professional judgment and takes account of the importance attached to each factor in local and regional economic development and regeneration policy, i.e. where specific socio- economic issues have been prioritised by policy makers (e.g. lack of employment opportunities, growth of a particular employment sector), as well as drawing on analysis within the socio-economic baseline.

Table 16.4: Sensitivity of Socio-Economic Factors

Sensitivity Definition Example Criteria Very High Factor is accorded a very high Identification as a highest ranking priority in local and Local thematic or spatial priority (as a Enterprise Partnership (LEP) result of economic potential development and regeneration and/or need). policy. Evidence of severe socio- economic challenges, under- performance or vulnerability e.g. patterns of deprivation, employment and wealth generation, employment forecasts, exposure to socio- economic threats. High Factor is accorded a high priority Identification as a key thematic or in local and Local Enterprise spatial priority (as a result of Partnership (LEP) development economic potential and/or need). and regeneration policy Evidence of major socio- economic challenges, under- performance or vulnerability e.g. patterns of deprivation, employment and wealth generation, employment forecasts, exposure to socio- economic threats. Medium Factor is accorded a medium No identification as a key thematic priority in local and Local or spatial priority (as a result of Enterprise Partnership (LEP) economic potential and/or need) development and regeneration Evidence of significant socio- policy. economic challenges, under- performance or vulnerability. Low Factor is accorded a low priority in No identification as a key thematic local and Local Enterprise or spatial priority (as a result of Partnership (LEP) development economic potential and/or need) and regeneration policy Evidence of economic prosperity, buoyancy and resilience e.g. low levels of deprivation, relatively high employment and wealth generation rates, relatively strong employment forecasts.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 13 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Sensitivity Definition Example Criteria Negligible Factor is accorded no particular No identification as policy priority priority in local and Local (as a result of economic potential Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and/or need). development and regeneration Evidence of good overall policy economic performance and long term prospects. No particular economic weaknesses or challenges.

Assessing Magnitude

16.4.13 The table below sets out the assessment framework for assessing the magnitude of the identified impacts. The types of criteria which are used in assessing the magnitude of the impacts upon baseline conditions for the socio- economic factors are described. An element of professional judgment has been used in determining the magnitude of impacts at different spatial scales. Socio- economic impact magnitude will be determined by consideration of the predicted deviation from baseline conditions.

Table 16.5: Assessing Magnitude

Magnitude of Impact Description (including positive or negative) High Proposals would cause a large change – judged beneficial or adverse - to baseline socio-economic conditions in terms of absolute and/or percentage change. Medium Proposals would cause a moderate change – judged as beneficial or adverse - to existing socio-economic conditions in terms of absolute and/or percentage change. Low Proposals would cause a slight change – judged as beneficial or adverse - to existing socio-economic conditions in terms of absolute and/or percentage change. Negligible No discernible change, either way, in baseline socio- economic conditions No change No change, either way, in baseline socio-economic conditions.

Assessing Significance

16.4.14 Magnitude and sensitivity are combined as shown in the following table to determine the significance of the effects. Using this scale, effects identified as major or moderate significance are regarded as being significant in EIA terms.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 14 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Effects of minor or lesser significance are also identified but regarded as not significant in EIA terms. With the three phases (construction, operation, decommissioning) the significance of effects (benefits and dis-benefits) are only assessed during the period in which they last. There is no crossover of effects between these different phases.

Table 16.6: Assessing Significance of Effects

Sensitivity Magnitude of Impact High Medium Low Negligible No Change Very high Substantial Major/ Major/ Minor No Change Substantial Moderate High Major/ Moderate/ Moderate/ Minor No Change Substantial Major Minor Medium Major/ Moderate Minor Negligible/ No Change Moderate Minor Low Minor/ Minor Negligible/ Negligible/ No Change Moderate Minor Minor Negligible Minor Negligible/ Negligible/ Negligible No Change Minor Minor

16.5 BASELINE CONDITIONS

16.5.1 In order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the context surrounding the proposed development, a baseline analysis of the relevant policy context, socio-economic performance, and tourism and recreational context has been undertaken. This information can be used to understand how the development may support policy initiatives as well as the economic performance of the local area.

16.5.2 The following section provides a description of the national, regional and local strategic and policy context, highlighting key policies and strategies relevant to the Development and its environs. The key sources of data used to assess the socio-economic baseline environment include local and national policy and strategy documents in relation to the renewables sector and economic development more broadly, and relevant national datasets from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) providing intelligence on population, labour market and employment base conditions.

16.5.3 A brief summary of socio-economic baseline conditions is also presented. Appendix 16.1 provides the comprehensive socio-economic baseline. The baseline draws on the most up to date sources of data for all key socio-

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 15 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

economic indicators, although the year that the data relates to varies according to the release calendar for each dataset. The baseline year will therefore vary slightly across the indicators considered in the baseline. The baseline year for all indicators is referenced throughout the main analysis.

Characterisation of the Baseline Environment

16.5.4 This section provides an overview of the national, regional, and local policy documents, which are relevant to and may be supported by the proposed development.

National

Table 16.7: Key National Level Planning and Economic Development Policies

Policy Overview National Planning The National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, March 2012), Policy Framework, or NPPF, replaces the suite of national Planning Policy (NPPF), March 2012 Statements, Planning Policy Guidance notes and some circulars with a single document. At the heart of the plan is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and private sector led growth is encouraged. A core principle in the NPPF is the transition to a low carbon future, including encouraging the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy). UK Renewable NPPF accords with the principles outlined by DECC in their Energy Road Map document, UK Renewable Energy Road Map. This outlined a strategy, 2011 comprehensive action plan to accelerate the UK’s deployment and use of renewable energy, and put the UK on a trajectory to achieve its 2020 Renewables Obligation target. Onshore wind is identified as one of the eight technologies that have the greatest potential to help the UK meet the 2020 target. HM The Plan for Growth sets out a range of ambitions for the Treasury/Department development of the national economy in order to realise the for Business, central policy objective of achieving strong, sustainable and Investment and Skills balanced growth. The ambitions contained within the Plan for (BIS) - Plan for Growth emphasise the need to stimulate growth through the Growth, 2011 private sector, broaden the UK’s economic base and to promote investment, skills development and employment creation across the whole of the UK. The government’s growth review highlighted a number of sectors (including advanced manufacturing, construction and tourism) which will make an important contribution to growth aspirations for the UK and set out a range of measure to support their growth and development.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 16 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Regional/Sub-Regional

16.5.5 The last few years has seen a shift in focus from Central Government towards local and ‘functional economic areas’ policy development. This led to the abolition of Regional government structures and a shift towards local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) covering functional economic areas. As such, the East Midlands Regional Economic Strategy (RES) is now longer a relevant strategic document. The following table sets out relevant strategic plans for the wider Lincolnshire area.

Table 16.8: Key Regional/Sub-Regional Policies

Policy Overview Greater Lincolnshire The LEP Business Plan sets out the organisations’ priorities to Local Enterprise maintain and develop Greater Lincolnshire’s economic Partnership (LEP) position. The business plan sets out the LEP’s aspiration that Business Plan, the Humber and Greater Lincolnshire area has the potential to 2013-2015 become the renewable energy centre of the UK, through a number of renewable energy sources. The business plan sets out that the area has a well-established engineering sector which can provide a competitive advantage in moving to a low carbon energy economy and for job creation opportunities. Lincolnshire The Lincolnshire Economic Strategy (2008-12) underlines the Economic Strategy, potential to capitalise on opportunities in alternative energy 2008-2012 (The sources and highlights wind energy amongst the key areas of Lincolnshire opportunity for Lincolnshire. The strategy also emphasises the Assembly importance of actions which support inward investment, job Partnership) creation, and skills development in the area. Central Lincolnshire The Central Lincolnshire authorities are developing a new Economic Growth policy framework to promote and ensure that existing Strategy, 2012-2031 communities can benefit from sustainable growth over the (Local authorities of next 20 years (Un-locking Potential to Deliver Growth). The Lincoln City Council, strategy sets out the key economic opportunities and North Kesteven, challenges faced by Central Lincolnshire over the next 20 West Lindsey) years, and the actions needed to meet these. To provide sustainable growth, the strategy sets out the need to provide

more homes, more jobs and to make sure that the infrastructure needed to support growth is in place. The strategy highlights job creation and higher-value sectors as key to overall growth.

Local Policy/Strategy

Table 16.9: Key Local Policy/Strategy

Policy Overview South Kesteven The South Kesteven Core Strategy, adopted in July 2010, Core Strategy, provides the spatial policy framework for development and 2010-2026 change in the district of South Kesteven for the period to 2026 and establishes the key principles which should guide the location, use and form of development. There are two policies of relevance to the socio-economic policy review:

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 17 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Policy Overview Energy Generation Policy EN3 – This policy seeks to achieve greater efficiency in use of natural resources, minimise energy demand and increase the use of renewable resources. The policy supports the principle of granting planning permission for proposals which generate energy from renewable sources if it is demonstrated that grid connection is possible, impacts arising from the installation and minimised, and that sites are restored once use has ceased. Economic Prosperity policy E1 Employment Development – This policy focuses on developing employment sites and opportunities, in the main. However, it also references the need to encourage growth in rural areas of the district, and to support rural diversification. South Kesteven, This strategy says very little about renewable energy sources Economic and developments, but does place an emphasis on economic Development prosperity and rural development outside of the main Strategy, 2012-2016 settlements in the district. The strategy includes a priority on Growing the Economy – with an emphasis on skills development and higher value employment opportunities within South Kesteven. The strategy also focuses on promoting leisure, arts and culture. This would be through promoting the area’s heritage and tourism; and through enabling a wide range of leisure opportunities.

Socio-Economic Baseline Conditions

16.5.6 The following section of the ES provides a brief summary the current socio- economic conditions of the defined local impact area. Appendix 16.1 provides a thorough analysis of the current socio-economic conditions, identifying both challenges and opportunities for the area.

16.5.7 The local impact area is defined by the following geographies: South Kesteven, North Kesteven, Newark and Sherwood, and Lincoln The analysis is based upon an extensive review of official databases and highlights key points relevant to this study. In order to fully understand the performance and socio-economic conditions of the local impact area, comparator geographies are also used for benchmark analysis. These geographies include the East Midland’s Region and England and further contextualise the local performance of the local impact area.

Summary of Socio-Economic Conditions

 Population – South Kesteven, and the local impact area more generally, has a lower than average proportion of residents of working age compared to regional or national averages (64% in South Kesteven compared to 66% regionally and nationally). This reflects the issues often found in rural

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 18 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

areas to sustain larger working age populations because of the tendency for employment opportunities to be more limited.

 Employment Base - Employment levels over the last four years have fallen in South Kesteven (-2,000 jobs) and across the local impact area (-6,600 jobs)v. This rate of employment loss is above average compared to the east Midlands (-3%) and Great Britain (-3%). Employment information is also available for the Loveden ward – the ward area covering the villages of Stubton and Brandon. Employment in the ward fell by 14% over the last 4 years (100 jobs). While this fall may be attributable to one or two particular business closures in the ward, the impact of the recession has clearly reached smaller and more rural communities.

 In the immediate area of the proposed development (measured using the Loveden ward), around 600 jobs are supported, across a number of sectors (manufacturing, retail, tourism, and public services). In the villages of Stubton and Brandon there are few sources of employment, apart from a B&B, crèche, and Stubton Hall – a private venue for hire used for a range of events, including weddings, corporate entertainment, and other functions. This venue employs five full-time staff, and approximately 40-60 casual staff depending on the event.

 Economic Activity and Employment Rates – Economic activity rates amongst working age residents within South Kesteven are high (81%), and across the local impact area more generally (78%), compared with regional and national benchmarksvi. This is equally true of employment rates, although in Lincoln, the largest urban settlement within the local impact area, rates are significantly lower.

 Unemployment - Levels of unemployment are lower than average in South Kesteven, and across most of the local authorities in the local impact area (apart from Lincoln where the unemployment rate is 13.5% compared to 8% nationallyvii). The alternative job seekers allowance (JSA) ‘claimant count’ measure highlighted that there are approximately 8,800 people claiming JSA across the local impact area. This equates to 3% of the area’s working age population. Apart from higher claimant count levels in

v ONS, BRES dataset vi ONS, Annual Population Survey vii ONS, Annual Population Survey measure of unemployment

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 19 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Lincoln, overall claimant levels are below the national average (3.8%) across the local impact area. Claimant levels are significantly lower (1.7%) if ward level data for Loveden (the ward covering Stubton and Brandon villages) is analysed.

 Interestingly, of those working age residents claiming JSA within the local impact area, around 750 residents sought employment within construction- related occupations. Therefore, while overall levels of unemployment are relatively low, there is clearly some demand within the local impact area for construction-related employment (8% of all claimants).

 Skills and Occupations – The local impact area has a high proportion of residents with higher level skills (c. 30% with NVQ4+), and a lower than average levels of residents with no qualificationsviii. The qualification levels of the local impact area residents are reflected in the occupational structure of the area. Three out of the four local authority areas which make up the local impact area have over 40% of working age residents in managerial and professional occupations.

Summary of Tourism & Recreation

 Within 5km of the proposed development scheme, there are 86 listed buildings. In Brandon village, this includes 2 Grade II* buildings (the Old Hall and the Chapel) and 3 Grade II buildings. In Stubton Village, this includes the Grade II listed Stubton Hall.

 The villages of Stubton and Brandon have a very small number of tourism accommodation facilities. While there are no pubs in the two villages, Brandon has one Bed & Breakfast accommodation provider. There are also a number of pubs and other smaller overnight accommodation providers in the surrounding villages. Taken together, these facilities are relatively modest in the scale of overall provision (bed spaces). While these facilities play an important role in local visitor accommodation provision (i.e. for both recreation and some business use), they have a limited role in supporting a large number of jobs, or in attracting significant numbers of visitors to the area.

 Locally, Stubton Hall is the most notable visitor related business. It has been restored to provide a high quality private hire event accommodation,

viii ONS, Annual Population Survey

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 20 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

including overnight accommodation. It hosts approximately 150 events each year, predominantly weddings, but also corporate events and other private functions. The hotel supports a modest number of direct staff (5 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs). However, the majority of indirectly employed workers, i.e. those temporary workers used to host their events, typically reside within a 5-10km radius of the hall. These staff can number between 40-60 staff depending on the scale of the event.

 Taking a wider perspective on the scale of the visitor economy, it is estimated that in 2011 the visitor economy of South Kesteven generated around £128m of revenue –12% of the total Lincolnshire visitor economy. Taken together with North Kesteven and Lincoln, the total revenue generated by the visitor economy was around £364m. The local impact area contributed to just over a third of Lincolnshire’s total visitor revenues.

 Within 5km of the proposed development site is the long distance and European designated recreational route, The Viking Way. No data was available from Lincolnshire County Council to develop a baseline assessment of the scale of users, or user groups and activities undertaken along the route relevant to the proposed development. Anecdotal evidence suggests that while organised walkers do use the route, the most frequent users are likely to be local residents for recreational purposes (e.g. walking, cycling, and dog walking).

Assessing Sensitivity

16.5.8 The baseline conditions described above are of core relevance to the proposed wind farm development. Using our understanding of the baseline conditions, judgments have been made regarding the sensitivity of the identified socio- economic factors for the proposed development (outlined in the previous section). The following table provides a summary of this assessment. Appendix 16.1 provides a more comprehensive table, including a rationale for each judgment.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 21 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 16.10: Assessment of Sensitivity Employment during the construction phase Local and High (including that within the construction supply regional areas chain) Access to the construction related employment Local and High amongst local/ wider area residents regional areas Demand for accommodation and other local Local impact Medium services area Phase

Size of relevant business sectors: renewable Local and Medium energy; construction; engineering regional areas Levels of patronage of specific local tourism Local impact High businesses and other businesses area Levels of economic activity as measured by Local impact High

Construction jobs in specific local tourism businesses and area other businesses Visitors and users of outdoor environmental Local impact Medium assets with public access (e.g. PROW) area Visitors and users of heritage assets with public Local impact Medium access area Employment during the operational phase Local and High (including that within the operational & regional areas maintenance supply chain) Access to the operational employment Local and High opportunities amongst local/ wider area regional areas residents

Demand for accommodation and other local Local impact Medium services area Size of relevant business sectors: renewable Local and Medium energy; engineering regional areas Levels of patronage of specific local tourism Local impact High businesses and other businesses area Levels of economic activity as measured by Local impact High Operational Phase jobs in specific local tourism businesses and area other businesses Visitors and users of outdoor environmental Local impact Medium assets with public access (e.g. PROW) area Visitors and users of heritage assets with public Local impact Medium access area Employment during the decommissioning Local and The phase (including that within the supply chain) regional areas decommissioning Access to the decommissioning employment Local and phase will take opportunities amongst local/ wider area regional areas place after 25 residents years of operation Demand for accommodation and other local Local impact of the proposed services area wind farm. Size of relevant business sectors: renewable Local and Therefore any

energy; engineering regional areas assessment of Levels of patronage of specific local tourism Local impact sensitivity is businesses and other businesses area uncertain based Levels of economic activity as measured by Local impact on not being able jobs in specific local tourism businesses and area to predict other businesses prevailing socio- Visitors and users of outdoor environmental Local impact economic assets with public access (e.g. PROW) area conditions and the Visitors and users of heritage assets with public Local impact future policy

Decommissioning Phase access area position.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 22 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

16.6 PROPOSED MITIGATION INCORPORATED INTO PROPOSAL

16.6.1 Prior to the assessment of socio-economic effects commencing, a series of early design and mitigation measures were incorporated into the development proposal. These included design responses to various constraints, the development of various mitigation measures and landscape and habitat enhancements. However, for the purposes of assessing the likely significant socio-economic effects of the scheme, no further proposed mitigation measures have, at this time, been considered.

16.7 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

16.7.1 The proposed Development is expected to provide between 9-15MW of energy, via five turbines. The scheme includes an 11 month construction phase, followed by a 25 year operational phase for the wind farm, after which the wind farm would be decommissioned.

16.7.2 This section of the ES chapter considers the magnitude of the economic impacts of the proposals on the identified socio-economic factors. The assessment focuses upon the core economic impacts relating to construction and operation of the wind farm, as well as other impacts including business, tourism and recreation impacts. It also considers the likely value of the Community Benefit Fund.

16.7.3 The section then draws on the earlier assessment of the sensitivity of the socio- economic factor and the magnitude assessment, to assess the overall significance of the effects. The assessment of significance is presented in a table at the end of this section of the ES.

Assessment of Magnitude of Impacts

Construction Phase

Socio-Economic Factor 1: Employment During the Construction Phase (including

the supply chain)

16.7.4 The economic benefits associated with construction activity have been calculated based on the level of investment in the main categories of expenditure and the anticipated proportion of this expenditure that would be sourced from within the Local Impact Area, the East Midlands region, and the UK. The central assumptions

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 23 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

underpinning this analysis of direct, indirect and induced effects are outlined in Appendix 16.1.

16.7.5 Taking all direct, indirect and induced impacts into account, the impact modeling suggests that the construction activity for the proposed the Development would lead to:

 A total GVA impact for the UK economy of £7.1 million. Of this, approximately £3.3 million would be generated in the East Midlands and around £0.8 million in the Local Impact Area.

 Around 128 FTE person years of employment at the UK level (i.e. 128 FTE jobs during the 11 month construction period). Of this, approximately 60 jobs would be supported at the East Midlands level and 15 jobs at the Local Impact Area level.

Table 16.11: Estimated Economic Impacts of the Development Construction Phase

Local Impact Area Regional Impact Area UK

Jobs GVA Income Jobs GVA Income Jobs GVA Income (FTE (£m) (£m) (person (£m) (£m) (person (£m) (£m) person years) years) years) Direct 7 £0.3 £0.2 23 £1.2 £0.3 41 £2.2 £1.2

Indirect 7 £0.4 £0.2 27 £1.6 £0.8 50 £2.9 £1.5

Induced 1 £0.1 £0.0 10 £0.5 £0.2 36 £2.0 £1.1

Total 15 £0.8 £0.4 60 £3.3 £1.4 128 £7.1 £3.9

Note: All jobs set out in this table relate to full-time equivalent (FTE) person-years of employment. As the construction period for the proposed development is expected to be 11 months, these jobs can also be expressed as the total number of FTE jobs supported during the construction period. Similarly, GVA and employment income are based on single-year rather than on-going annual impacts. Also note that not all Local Jobs should be interpreted as being ‘on-site’. While the direct local jobs primarily are on-site (civils, electrical), some of the indirect and induced local jobs are likely to be off-site. Of equal importance is the notion that a high number of regional and UK direct jobs will be on-site (e.g. groundworks, installation), but secured by companies from outside of the local impact area.

16.7.6 The local employment impacts (15 jobs) would be likely to be within civil engineering (including site preparation, foundations, access roads, buildings), electrical engineering, and site landscaping/environmental works. The socio- economic baseline highlighted that there were around 105,000 job-seekers allowance (JSA) claimants within the East Midlands, and around 8,800 claimants in the local impact area. Of these claimants, 7% (6,900) across the East Midlands region, and around 8% (750) in the local impact area, sought jobs within the broad ‘construction and development trades’ occupations.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 24 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

16.7.7 Given the very modest scale of job creation associated with the development of the wind farm, at both the local and regional impact level, it is judged that impact on construction employment opportunities in these areas is of negligible positive magnitude.

Socio-Economic Factor 2: Access to construction related employment amongst local impact area and wider area residents

16.7.8 As outlined above, the overall scale of employment (direct, indirect and induced employment) are very modest given the scale of the proposed wind farm development. The actual estimated number of jobs from the construction phase which are considered local (15 jobs) and regional (60 jobs) are small in comparison to the overall size of the labour markets and the levels of job demand from those unemployed, but who are seeking construction-related employment.

16.7.9 Given these modest impacts, as well as the size of this construction contract and the fact that RWE would have little influence over how the contractors source their labour (i.e. from within defined areas), it is judged that the impact on access to employment opportunities which the development scheme would have is of negligible positive magnitude.

Socio-Economic Factor 3: Demand for accommodation and other local services

16.7.10 The impact of the development on local and regional demand for housing and other services during the construction phase depends upon the number of direct and indirect jobs generated by construction activities and the extent to which the workforce is drawn locally. This is influenced by:

 The geography of the construction supply chain. Because of their specialist nature, it is likely that most of the large upper tier contracts (e.g. manufacture of turbines) will be delivered by companies from outside of the impact areas. For on-site or close-to-site activity, these companies will be more likely to bring their own workforce with them, increasing the demand for temporary accommodation and services. It is reasonable to assume that although local firms will be able to access some tier one and two contracts; many upper tier contracts will be fulfilled by contractors from outside of the impact areas.

 The ability of local people to access employment in local firms. As discussed above, it is expected that the local employment generated by the construction

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 25 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

phase would primarily be secured by the existing local and regional population, thus not affecting demand for housing and other local services.

16.7.11 Accommodation is well provided for across both the local impact area and the wider East Midlands region, for the temporary construction workforce, as reflected by the size of the visitor economy sector in both impact areas (and hence large number of accommodation bed-spaces), discussed in the socio-economic baseline. Some local B&Bs and other accommodation providers may see some short-term benefits from construction workers demanding accommodation. However, as outlined earlier, the scale of local employment generation compared to the size of population of the local impact areas point to the scheme having an impact on demand for housing and other services which is of a negligible positive magnitude.

Socio-Economic Factor 4: Size of relevant business sectors (renewable, construction engineering)

16.7.12 As outlined above, the proposed wind farm development will deliver very modest construction employment impacts in total, and at the local impact area and at the wider regional level. Given that a significant proportion of the construction expenditure will be at outside of these areas (at the UK and overseas levels), there is little scope for the proposed wind farm development to directly encourage growth within relevant business sectors, in the local and wider impact areas. As such, it is judged that impact on the size of these sectors would be of a No Change magnitude.

Socio-Economic Factors 5-8 - Tourism, Visitor and Business Factors

16.7.13 Regeneris Consulting has undertaken a literature review into the impacts of UK Wind Farm developments on local tourism, recreation and business sectors to inform judgments made on assessing magnitude. The complete review is appended in Appendix 16.1 and provides a full overview of the available evidence which informs this assessment. The review of evidence presented in Appendix 16.1 has been used in assessing the implications for both the construction and operational phases.

16.7.14 In summary, the available evidence points towards UK wind farms having generally no significant effect on tourism and businesses in an area. The most rigorous UK based assessments conclude that there are either a net positive or negligible negative effects overall. There are very few robust studies which identify negative

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 26 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

impacts, on balance. Most studies based on visitor surveys have found that the majority of visitors do not expect their behaviour to be influenced (either positively or negatively) as a result of wind farm developmentsix.

16.7.15 However, despite this more general/sectoral analysis, the actual evidence base in relation to how wind farms can specifically impact on businesses and different types of tourism areas and assets (e.g. hotels, visitor attractions in close proximity to a development) appears to be very weak in its breadth and depth. Searches of online academic databases, as well as other on-line resources, for research or evidence on the specific impacts from wind farm infrastructure, as well as other infrastructure developments where impacts may have been considered on access, businesses and tourism businesses have returned very little robust or useful information to aid this assessment. While there is some evidence (e.g. Fullabrook) with similar issues to those being explored for the Development, there is not a critical mass of evidence that can clearly determine the assessment of magnitude, and the potential impacts and effects which may occur.

16.7.16 In light of the evidence base, the following table provides an overview of the assessment of magnitude for socio-economic factors 5-8.

Table 16.12: Summary Overview of Assessing Magnitude for Socio-Economic Factors 5-8 During the Construction Phase

Socio-Economic Factor 5: Levels of patronage of specific local tourism businesses and other businesses Assessment of Magnitude - Negligible/No Change. This assessment has been made in the round, considering a range of local visitor infrastructure (e.g. B&Bs, pubs, Stubton Hall), as well as local businesses in close proximity (crèche). While there is a range of evidence available, the specific circumstances examined do vary. However, on balance, the available empirical evidence suggests that the construction of wind farm developments do not have an overall negative/detrimental impact directly on the operation of local businesses, or lead to significant behavioural change amongst visitors/users. While the construction of the turbines over the 11 month period will lead to a significant change in the current local landscape, particularly as the build progresses, the available evidence does not suggest that the construction activities would directly lead to changes in visitor behaviours, subsequent falls in visitor levels; or to falls in business transactions (e.g. bookings for Stubton Hall, or number of children attending the local crèche facility). Another consideration is that not all visitors to the local area will view the construction of wind turbines in a negative context; while there may also be new visitor markets which could be exploited which have currently been untapped. The construction activity could also potentially lead to a short-term increase in overnight stays at local accommodation providers in the area. On balance, with the evidence and insights available, the magnitude

ix See for example: Glasgow Caledonian University (2008) The Economic Impact of wind farms on Scottish Tourism; University of the West of England (2004) Fullabrook Wind Farm Proposal – evidence gathering of the impact of wind farms on visitor numbers; MORI (2002) Survey of Visitors to Argyll and Bute.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 27 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

of the construction impacts is assessed to be Negligible/No Change. Socio-Economic Factor 6: Levels of economic activity as measured by jobs in specific local tourism businesses and other businesses Assessment of Magnitude - Negligible/No Change. In light of the considerations outlined above, and based on available evidence and insights of the businesses and the local area, it is assessed that the magnitude of impact on this factor is Negligible/No Change. Socio-Economic Factor 7: Visitors and users of outdoor environmental assets with public access (e.g. PROW) Assessment of Magnitude - No Change. This assessment of magnitude has been informed by the evidence and planning inspector’s judgements from the Fullabrook public inquiry, as well as our knowledge about the site and its proximity to PROWs. The site is a private site with no public access routes across it, although there is a restricted byway (Restricted Byway 22) to the north of the site. The Viking Way is c. 3km away to the south. As this is the most significant route locally, the construction of the turbines would be gradually viewed on the visual landscape, as opposed to being in close proximity to this route. Given that the route passes through the local area, it is understood that this route is used by both organised walkers, but predominately as a local amenity. While some organised walkers may dislike the change in the landscape, there is no evidence available which would suggest it would deter users from passing through the area on a walk. Also, given its local amenity use, it is considered that this would not deter local people from using the route. Socio-Economic Factor 8: Visitors and users of heritage assets with public access Assessment of Magnitude - No Change. In light of available evidence and insights, the magnitude of the effects of construction activity on this factor is assessed to have no change on the levels of visitors to public access heritage assets. The key assets refer to Belton House and Belvoir Castle, over 10km away. These sites have views over the surrounding landscape. While the construction of wind turbines will alter this landscape, there is no evidence to suggest that overall visitor numbers would decline as a result of the proposed development, at this distance. While some visitors may not like the changes, there is no evidence which suggests that this would be the key factor in deterring a large number of visitors returning or visiting in the first place. Also, the site selection criteria for the turbines included consideration of the views from these assets (see Historic Environment section of the ES), to mitigate these visual effects at these locations from the outset.

Operational Phase

Socio-Economic Factor 1: Employment During the Operational Phase (including the

supply chain)

16.7.17 The assessment of the operational benefits of the Development has been built around two groups of expenditure categories – direct operations and maintenance employment (i.e. RWE staff) and indirect supply chain expenditure.

16.7.18 The assumed annual and per MW costs of the direct employment required for the operation and maintenance of the proposed wind farm have been assessed, as well as assumptions developed on the operational and maintenance supply chain. For a fuller explanation of these assumptions, see Appendix 16.1.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 28 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

16.7.19 Based on this direct employment and supply chain expenditure the total economic benefits of the operation and maintenance phase of the wind farm are shown below. For the 25 year operation period, 1.3 FTE jobs would be supported within the Local Impact Area. Taking activity stimulated in the rest of the UK into account, the total employment impact in the UK would be 7 FTE positions.

16.7.20 The total economic benefits associated with the operation and maintenance of the wind farm are summarised in the table below. These employment impacts equate to an annual GVA contribution of around £1m to the UK economy, of which around a tenth (£100,000) would be in the Local Impact Area.

Table 16.13: Estimated Annual Impacts of the Operational & Maintenance Activity

Local Regional UK

Jobs GVA Income Jobs GVA Income Jobs GVA Income (FTEs) (£000) (£m) (FTEs) (£000) (£m) (FTEs) (£000) (£m) Direct 0.3 £0.1 £0.01 0.7 £0.1 £0.03 3.0 £0.6 £0.11

Indirect 0.9 £0.1 £0.02 0.9 £0.1 £0.02 2.1 £0.1 £0.06

Induced 0.1 £0.0 £0.00 0.3 £0.0 £0.01 2.0 £0.3 £0.07

Total 1.3 £0.1 £0.04 1.9 £0.2 £0.06 7.1 £1.0 £0.24

Note: Assumptions are made by Regeneris Consulting in consultation with RWE

16.7.21 The socio-economic baseline shows that there are around 1.9 million jobs across the East Midlands region, including over 190,000 jobs in the Local Impact Area. As the earlier analysis also highlighted, there are around 8,800 JSA claimants in the local impact area itself. In light of this context, the scale of employment likely to be supported through the operation of the proposed development is judged to be of negligible positive magnitude.

Socio-Economic Factor 2: Access to operational employment opportunities amongst local impact area and wider area residents

16.7.22 As outlined above, the overall scale of operational employment (direct, indirect and induced employment) supported during the lifetime of the wind farm is estimated to be very modest. This is associated with the relatively small scale of the proposed Development, and the approach taken by RWE in managing the wind farm and maintaining it.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 29 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

16.7.23 The actual estimated number of jobs from the operational phase which are considered local (1.3 FTE jobs) and regional (2 FTE jobs) are small in comparison to the overall size of the labour markets and the levels of job demand from those unemployed, but who are seeking employment.

16.7.24 Given these employment impacts are so modest it is judged that the impact on access to employment opportunities which the development scheme would have is off negligible positive magnitude.

Socio-Economic Factor 3: Demand for accommodation and other local services

16.7.25 The impact of the development on local and regional demand for housing and other services during the operational phase depends upon the number of direct and indirect jobs supported by operational activities and the extent to which the workforce is drawn locally.

16.7.26 In this instance, it is likely that operational activities will have no impact on demand for housing and other services, reflecting the relatively small number of operational jobs likely to be supported during the operational phase. Therefore, the magnitude of impact on this factor would be judged to be No Change.

Socio-Economic Factor 4: Size of relevant business sectors (renewable energy,

engineering)

16.7.27 As with the above socio-economic factor, the operational phase of the wind farm is unlikely, on its own, to lead to any particular growth within associated sectors over the lifetime of the scheme in the local and wider impact areas. The operational jobs supported by the proposed development would be very small. As such, it is judged that impact on the size of these sectors would be of a No Change magnitude.

Socio-Economic Factors 5-8 - Tourism, Visitor and Business

16.7.28 The following table and judgments on the likely impacts of wind farm developments on tourism, visitors, access and businesses has been informed by the same evidence used in assessing the magnitude in the Construction Phase. The full review of this evidence collated by Regeneris Consulting is presented in Appendix 16.1.

16.7.29 In light of the outlined evidence base, the table below provides an overview of the assessment of magnitude for socio-economic factors 5-8 during the operational phase.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 30 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 16.14: Summary Overview of Assessing Magnitude for Socio-Economic Factors 5-8 During the Operational Phase

Socio-Economic Factor 5: Levels of patronage of specific local tourism businesses and other businesses Assessment of Magnitude - Negligible/No Change. This assessment has been made in the round, considering a range of local visitor infrastructure (e.g. B&Bs, pubs, Stubton Hall), as well as local businesses in close proximity (crèche). While there is a range of evidence available, the specific circumstances examined do vary. However, on balance, the available empirical evidence suggests that operational wind farms do not have an overall negative/detrimental impact directly on the operation of local businesses, or lead to significant behavioural change amongst visitors/users. While the wind farm will lead to a significant change to the existing local landscape, the available evidence does not suggest that this would directly lead to changes in visitor behaviours, subsequent falls in visitor levels; or to falls in business transactions (e.g. bookings for Stubton Hall, or number of children attending the local crèche facility). While some visitors may feel that wind farms affect their visitor experience, the evidence does not suggests that this will translate into significant changes in visitor behaviour. Visitor behaviour can also be influenced by a broader set of decision making factors other than landscape (e.g. price, quality, competition). Another consideration is that not all visitors to the local area will view the wind turbines in a negative context; while there may also be new visitor markets which could be exploited which have currently been untapped. On balance, with the evidence and insights available, the magnitude of the operational impacts on this socio-economic factor is assessed to be Negligible/No Change. Socio-Economic Factor 6: Levels of economic activity as measured by jobs in specific local tourism businesses and other businesses Assessment of Magnitude - Negligible/No Change. In light of the considerations outlined above, and based on available evidence and insights of the businesses and the local area, it is assessed that the magnitude of impact on this socio-economic factor is Negligible/No Change. Socio-Economic Factor 7: Visitors and users of outdoor environmental assets with public access (e.g. PROW); Assessment of Magnitude - No Change. This assessment of magnitude has been informed by the evidence and planning inspector’s judgements from the Fullabrook Public Inquiry, as well as our knowledge about the site and its proximity to PROWs. The site is a private site with no public access routes across it, although there is a byway to the north of the site. The Viking Way is c. 3km away to the south. Given this is the most significant route locally, the operational turbines would be viewed from some distance on the landscape, as opposed to being in close proximity/adjacent to this route. Given that the route passes through the local area, it is understood that this route is used by both organised walkers, but also predominately as a local amenity. While some organised walkers may dislike the change in the landscape, there is no evidence available which would suggest it would deter users from passing through the area on a walk. Also, given its local amenity use, it is considered that this would not deter local people from using the route.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 31 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Socio-Economic Factor 8: Visitors and users of heritage assets with public access Assessment of Magnitude - No Change. In light of available evidence and insights, the magnitude of the effects of operations of the wind turbines on this factor is assessed to be Negligible/No Change on the levels of visitors to public access heritage assets. The key assets refer to Belton House and Belvoir Castle, over 10km away. These sites have views over the surrounding landscape. While the wind turbines will clearly alter this landscape, there is no evidence to suggest that overall visitor numbers would decline as a result of the proposed development., While some visitors may not like the changes, there is no evidence which suggests that an operational wind far, at this distance, would be the key factor in deterring a large number of visitors returning or visiting in the first place. Also, the site selection criteria for the turbines included consideration of the views from these assets (see Historic Environment section of the ES), to mitigate these visual effects at these locations from the outset.

16.7.1 Beyond the employment and supply chain impacts associated with the operation and maintenance of the wind farm, the use of the community benefit fund by local residents could also have implications for some modest employment and wider effects during the operational period of the wind-farm. This could lead to likely further effects during the operational phase, however given that this fund has not been agreed at the time of assessment, these effects have not been quantified as part of this assessment.

16.7.2 RWE is proposing to make voluntary in the region of up to £75,000 per year into a Community Benefit Fundx for the local area: a total of £5,000 per MW, per annum, based on a maximum generating capacity of 15MW from the five turbines once operational. On this basis, the investment into the community benefit fund for the Development would thus represent a total investment of £1.875m into community benefit activity over a 25 year operational period (depending on the final installed capacity of the wind farm).

16.7.3 The proposed community benefit fund would enable investments into the facilities, services and infrastructure that the communities near to the wind farm may believe that they need to support their ongoing vibrancy and vitality. For example, this could include investment in environmental improvements, child play areas, community facilities/centres, community events etc.

16.7.4 However, given the planning stage of the proposed wind farm development, it is not possible at this stage to be definitive about the level of economic impact that would be secured, as the investment of the funds would be determined in consultation with local communities. It is understood that RWE wish to ensure an approach is

x The annual investment would be index linked and will increase annually in line with the Retail Price Index.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 32 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

undertaken by local communities to manage the Benefit Fund in a way which maximises the local community and economic benefit, in a sustainable manner.

Decommissioning Impacts

16.7.5 At the end of its 25 year operational period the Development will be decommissioned. The cost of this additional activity at the end of the wind farm’s operations would generate further economic impacts. This activity would create benefits in the same way that the initial construction investment is expected to, i.e. through providing revenue to supply chain companies and supporting employment.

16.7.6 The scale of benefits have not been assessed due to the uncertainly over the nature and cost of this activity, particularly as the costs associated with decommissioning would be subject to significant change as the sector, engineering approaches and technologies evolve over the operation of the wind farm

Summary of the Magnitude of Impacts Assessment

16.7.7 The following table provides a summary of the magnitude judgments:

Table 16.15: Summary Assessment of Magnitude of Impacts

Phase Magnitude Construction Phase Employment during the construction phase (including that within the Negligible (positive) construction supply chain) Access to the construction related employment amongst local/ Negligible (positive) wider area residents Demand for accommodation and other local services Negligible (positive) Size of relevant business sectors: renewable energy; construction; No Change engineering Levels of patronage of specific local tourism businesses and other Negligible/No Change businesses Levels of economic activity as measured by jobs in specific local Negligible/No Change tourism businesses and other businesses Visitors and users of outdoor environmental assets with public No Change access (e.g. PROW) Visitors and users of heritage assets with public access No Change Operational Phase Employment during the operational phase (including that within the Negligible (positive) operational & maintenance supply chain) Access to the operational employment opportunities amongst local/ Negligible (positive) wider area residents Demand for accommodation and other local services No Change

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 33 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Operational Phase Size of relevant business sectors: renewable energy; engineering No Change Levels of patronage of specific local tourism businesses and other Negligible/No Change businesses Levels of economic activity as measured by jobs in specific local Negligible/No Change tourism businesses and other businesses Visitors and users of outdoor environmental assets with public No Change access (e.g. PROW) Visitors and users of heritage assets with public access No Change

Assessing Effects

16.7.8 The analysis in the previous sections of the chapter has shaped the final assessment of the significance of the likely socio-economic effects of the proposed development on the identified socio-economic factors. The assessment of significance builds on the judgments made on the sensitivity of socio-economic factor, as well as the assessment of magnitude. The magnitude assessment provided a comprehensive overview of the issues and available evidence which shaped these judgments. The significance assessment uses the framework, as set out in the ‘Assessment Criteria’ section of this ES chapter.

16.7.9 The following table presents the assessment of significance of the socio-economic effects on each socio-economic factor. The table is structured by phase and factor, and draws together the assessment of sensitivity, magnitude and significance.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 34 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 16.16: Assessment of Effects of Proposed Development Socio-Economic Factors Impact Area Sensitivity Magnitude Significance Employment during the construction phase (including that within the construction Local and regional areas High Negligible (positive) Minor supply chain) Access to the construction related employment amongst local/ wider area residents Local and regional areas High Negligible (positive) Minor Demand for accommodation and other local services Local impact area Medium Negligible (positive) Negligible/Minor Size of relevant business sectors: renewable energy; construction; engineering Local and regional areas Medium No Change No Change Levels of patronage of specific local tourism businesses and other businesses Local impact area High Negligible/No Minor/No Change Change Levels of economic activity as measured by jobs in specific local tourism Local impact area High Negligible/ No Minor/No businesses and other businesses Change Change Visitors and users of outdoor environmental assets with public access (e.g. PROW) Local impact area Medium No Change No Change

Construction Phase Visitors and users of heritage assets with public access Local impact area Medium No Change No Change Employment during the operational phase (including that within the operational & Local and regional areas High Negligible (positive) Minor maintenance supply chain) Access to the operational employment opportunities amongst local/ wider area Local and regional areas High Negligible (positive) Minor residents

Demand for accommodation and other local services Local impact area Medium No Change No Change Size of relevant business sectors: renewable energy; engineering Local and regional areas Medium No Change No Change Levels of patronage of specific local tourism businesses and other businesses Local impact area High Negligible/No Minor/No Change Change Levels of economic activity as measured by jobs in specific local tourism Local impact area High Negligible/No Minor/No businesses and other businesses Change Change Visitors and users of outdoor environmental assets with public access (e.g. PROW) Local impact area Medium No Change No Change

Operational Phase Visitors and users of heritage assets with public access Local impact area Medium No Change No Change Employment during the decommissioning phase (including that within the supply Local and regional areas Not assessed due to current uncertainties about the chain) timings and nature of decommissioning. Impacts Access to the decommissioning employment opportunities amongst local/ wider Local and regional areas likely to similar in nature to those of construction.

area residents Demand for accommodation and other local services Local impact area Size of relevant business sectors: renewable energy; engineering Local and regional areas Levels of patronage of specific local tourism businesses and other businesses Local impact area Levels of economic activity as measured by jobs in specific local tourism Local impact area businesses and other businesses Visitors and users of outdoor environmental assets with public access (e.g. PROW) Local impact area

Decommissioning Visitors and users of heritage assets with public access Local impact area

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 35 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

16.8 ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

16.8.1 The assessment of cumulative effects refers to the effects of the proposed development in light of other existing and proposed schemes in the impact areas. Given the scope and scale of other schemes identified, this is not a consideration for the socio-economic assessment.

16.9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

16.9.1 The proposed development of five wind turbines at the Development has been assessed in light of the likely significant socio-economic effects which could arise across the three main phases of development: (i) construction; (ii) operation; and (iii) decommissioning. The following section provides a summary, by phase and by socio-economic factor, of the likely socio-economic effects arising from the development, and concludes with their significance.

Development & Construction Phase

16.9.2 Given the scale of the proposed development (five turbines) and the level of expenditure which will most likely be made within the local and regional impact areas (approximately 80% in the rest of the UK or internationally) the construction employment opportunities will be relatively modest, with just 15 direct, indirect or induced FTE jobs within the local impact area.

16.9.3 In light of these very modest construction employment impacts, it is judged that the magnitude of these impacts will be negligible (although positive negligible), while the effect will be of minor significance for the impact areas. The same assessment is made for the ‘local people accessing employment opportunities’ socio-economic factor. The minor significance refers to the size of the labour market in the impact areas, and the scale of demand for this type of employment.

16.9.4 The construction phase of the proposed development will not lead to any significant demands on accommodation (e.g. local housing) and other local services. However, given the 11 month development programme, and modest levels of overall job creation, it is judged that there may be some small demand from some construction workers for B&B/similar accommodation. The effect of these opportunities could potentially be of minor/negligible significance for the impact areas.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 36 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

16.9.5 With the scale of the proposed development, and its limited supply chain opportunities within the impact areas, it is judged that it would have no significant effect on the size of relevant business sectors (e.g. engineering, construction, renewables) in the impact areas.

16.9.6 The evidence on impacts on tourism businesses and other businesses from wind farm developments, of this scale and nature, is weak. While there is a range of evidence available on the impacts of wind farm developments, the specific circumstances examined do vary. However, on balance, a review of the available empirical evidence suggests that the construction of wind farm developments do not have an overall negative/detrimental impact directly on the operation of local businesses, or lead to significant behavioural change amongst visitors/users. While the construction of the turbines will lead to a significant change in the current local landscape, the available evidence does not suggest the construction activities would directly lead to changes in visitor behaviours, subsequent falls in visitor levels; or to falls in business transactions.

16.9.7 Another consideration is that not all visitors to the local area will view the construction of wind turbines in a negative context; while there may also be new visitor markets which could be exploited which have currently been untapped. The construction activity could also potentially lead to a short-term increase in overnight stays at local accommodation providers in the area. On balance, with the evidence and insights available, the significance of the construction effects on levels of patronage across a number of local businesses, as well as the number of jobs associated with these business activities, is judged to be of Minor or No Change significance.

16.9.8 The significance of the construction effects on visitors and users of public rights of way is judged to be of negligible/no change significance. The Viking Way is c. 3km away to the south. Given this is the most significant route locally, the construction of turbines would be viewed from some distance on the landscape, as opposed to being in close proximity/adjacent to this route. While the route is used by organised walking groups, it is also a local amenity. While some organised walkers may dislike the change in the landscape, there is little or no evidence available which would suggest it would deter users from passing through the area on a walk. Also, given its local amenity use, it is considered that this construction activity would not deter local people from using the route.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 37 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

16.9.9 The significance of the construction effects on visitors and user of heritage assets (e.g. Belton House, Belvoir Castle) with public access are judged to be Negligible/No Change. While the wind turbines will clearly alter this landscape, there is no evidence to suggest that overall visitor numbers would decline as a result of the proposed development. While some visitors may not like the changes, there is no evidence which suggests that this would deter a large number of visitors returning or visiting in the first place. Also, the site selection criteria for the turbines included consideration of the views from these assets to mitigate these visual effects at these locations from the outset.

Operational Phase

16.9.10 The proposed development would support a small number of operational and maintenance employment opportunities over its operational life (2 FTE jobs in the regional impact area). In light of these employment impacts, it is judged that the magnitude of these impacts will be negligible (although positive negligible), while the effect will be of minor significance for the impact areas. The same assessment is made for the ‘local people accessing employment opportunities’ socio-economic factor. The minor significance refers to the size of the labour market in the impact areas, and the scale of demand for this type of employment.

16.9.11 It is judged that the operational phase of the proposed development will not lead to any significant demands on accommodation (e.g. local housing or overnight accommodation) and other local services (i.e. no significant effect). The same judgement is made in relation to the socio-economic factor on size of relevant business sectors. Given that the scheme is modest in size and will be most likely serviced and maintained by RWE and its contractors, there is little scope for this development to lead to growing these business sectors locally.

16.9.12 As summarised in the construction phase, there is a very weak evidence base which outlines the scale and scope of potential effects on businesses and tourism businesses from an operational wind farm of this scale and within these local circumstances. It is not possible to accurately say, one way or the other, on what the future effects may be on these businesses. However, the empirical evidence and insights which are available indicate that wind farm developments do not have an overall negative/detrimental impact directly on the operation of local businesses, or lead to significant behavioural change amongst

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 38 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

visitors/users. Therefore, the significance of the operational effects on levels of patronage across a number of local businesses, as well as the number of jobs associated with these business activities, is judged to be of Minor Significance or No Change.

16.9.13 The significance of the operational wind farm on visitors and users of public rights of way is judged to be of negligible/no change significance. As outlined in the construction phase, the Viking Way is c. 3km away to the south. While the route is used by organised walking groups, it is also a local amenity. While some organised walkers may dislike the change in the landscape, there is little or no evidence available which would suggest it would deter users from passing through the area on a walk.

16.9.14 The significance on visitors and user of heritage assets (e.g. Belton House, Belvoir Castle) with public access are judged to be Negligible/No Change. While the wind turbines will clearly alter this landscape, there is no evidence to suggest that overall visitor numbers would decline as a result of the proposed development. While some visitors may not like the changes, there is no evidence which suggests that this would deter a large number of visitors returning or visiting in the first place. Also, the site selection criteria for the turbines included consideration of the views from these assets to mitigate these visual effects at these locations from the outset.

Decommissioning

16.9.15 Given the uncertainty that exists on the costs of decommissioning and the nature of the decommissioning supply chain, the assessment of the effects of this phase have not been assessed. It is anticipated that the nature of the socio- economic impact would be similar to that occurring during the construction phase.

Overall Significance Conclusion

The proposed development of five wind turbines at the Development has been assessed in light of the likely significant socio-economic effects which could arise. The assessment has examined the likely socio-economic effects of this development, and the sensitivity, magnitude and significance of these effects on a range of socio-economic factors within defined impact areas, across the main phases of the development. It is concluded that, in terms of the environmental

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 39 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

impact assessment (EIA), there are no likely significant effects from the development on the range of identified socio-economic factors in each of the phases.

Stephenson Halliday 16 - 40 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

17 SHADOW FLICKER

17.1 INTRODUCTION

17.1.1 RWE NRL is proposing a five wind turbine development at Temple Hill, approximately 7km south east of Newark-on-Trent and 9km north of Grantham, Lincolnshire. This chapter assesses the likely significant shadow flicker effects that the proposed turbines could cause to building occupants in the vicinity.

17.1.2 Rotating wind turbine blades can cause brightness levels to vary periodically at locations where they obstruct the sun’s rays. This intermittent shadow cast is described by the term ‘shadow flickeri’ and can result in a detriment to amenity where people are within the rooms affected by the phenomenon.

17.1.3 Pager Power (PP) were commissioned to undertake an initial desk based shadow flicker assessment and subsequent site survey in order to assess the likely significance of effects of the proposed development in relation to shadow flicker on sensitive receptors around the site. The purpose of the site survey was to confirm the presence of windows and usage of the buildings identified in the initial desk based assessment.

17.1.4 The assessment has considered a worst case scenario whereby the turbines are assumed to have a hub height of 80m above ground level (agl), and a rotor diameter of 93m, resulting in a maximum blade tip height of 126.5m agl. If these dimensions were to change (within the 126.5m envelope) it is considered unlikely that the assessment would be significantly altered.

17.1.5 This chapter should be read in conjunction with the following supporting material:

 Appendix 17.1: Temple Hill Shadow Flicker Impact Assessment

 Appendix 17.2: Shadow Flicker Butterfly diagram

17.2 GUIDANCE

17.2.1 The Department for Communities and Local Government ‘Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy’1 states:

i Shadow flicker can only occur within buildings.

Stephenson Halliday 17 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

‘Only properties within 130 degrees either side of north, relative to the turbines can be affected at these latitudes in the UK – turbines do not cast long shadows on their southern side.

Modern wind turbines can be controlled so as to avoid shadow flicker when it has the potential to occur. Individual turbines can be controlled to avoid shadow flicker at a specific property or group of properties on sunny days, for specific times of the day and on specific days of the year. Where the possibility of shadow flicker exists, mitigation can be secured through the use of conditions.’

17.2.2 National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3)2 states:

‘Shadow flicker is the effect caused when an operating turbine is located between the sun and a receptor, such as a dwelling or place of work. The effect occurs when the shadow of the rotating blades falls over the dwelling causing the light intensity within specific affected rooms of the occupied building to fluctuate.

Research…has demonstrated that there is unlikely to be a significant impact at distances greater than ten rotor diameters from a turbine.’

17.2.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)3 recommends the use of EN-3 as stated on page 22, footnote 17 of the NPPF document.

17.2.4 There is no guidance within the English planning system on what criteria should be used to determine the significance of impact of shadow flicker and at which point mitigation is required.

17.2.5 Shadow flicker is unlikely to result in adverse health effects. The National Health System (NHS) provides a booklet with regard to photosensitive epilepsy4. It states that:

‘most people with photosensitive epilepsy are sensitive to 16 - 25 Hz. Some people may be sensitive to rates as low as 3 Hz and as high as 60 Hz (p.6)…. In the UK, the flicker frequency of wind turbines on wind farms should be limited to 3 Hz. This flicker rate is unlikely to trigger a seizure (p.15)’.

17.3 METHODOLOGY

17.3.1 An initial desk based shadow flicker assessment and subsequent site survey was undertaken in order to assess the potential effects of the proposed site in relation to shadow flicker on sensitive receptors around the site. The purpose of

Stephenson Halliday 17 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

the site survey was to confirm the presence of windows and usage of the buildings identified in the initial desk based assessment.

17.3.2 For the analysis specialist modeling software ReSoft WindFarm V.4.1.2.2 was used. The following factors were taken into account:

 Topographic relief;

 Location of identified buildings;

 Presence of windows on buildings;

 Turbine locations, rotor diameter and hub height.

17.3.3 It should be noted that the assessment has assumed a worst case scenario in which the maximum theoretical shadow flicker effects may occur. The following assumptions were made:

 Each building has a 1m by 1m window at 2m above ground level;

 The wind turbine rotor will always face the windows directly (as if the wind were blowing directly towards or away from the building being considered) resulting in the widest rotor diameter shadow being cast as a worst case scenario;

 The sun always shines in a clear sky;

 There are no other screening features surrounding the windows that may block the view to the turbine;

 There is sufficient wind to operate the wind turbines during the period of potential Shadow Flicker effects.

17.3.4 A ‘Shadow Flicker Butterfly’ which will be referred to as the Shadow Flicker zone was produced considering the proposed turbines. The Shadow Flicker Butterfly diagram is located in Volume 3, Appendix 17.2. Terrain undulations and the position of the turbines relative to the sun both have an effect upon the shape of the Shadow Flicker Butterfly; therefore the maximum potential shadow flicker effect distance of 10 rotor diameters (930m) is not always achieved.

17.3.5 Once the area that may be affected was determined receptors located within that area were identified through the use of mapping, aerial photography and a site survey. During the site survey the presence of windows and the use of buildings was confirmed.

Stephenson Halliday 17 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

17.3.6 Following the site survey the shadow flicker effects were assessed. Further information on the model, the Shadow Flicker Impact Assessment and survey can be found in Volume 3, Appendix 17.1.

17.3.7 Receptors such as nurseries, schools and community facilities are attributed a high sensitivityii. Individual dwellings located within the Shadow Flicker zone are attributed a high sensitivity.

17.3.8 For each phase of the proposed wind farm development (operation, construction and decommissioning) the likely significant effects are identified and predicted as a deviation from the established baseline conditions.

17.4 BASELINE

17.4.1 Initial analysis identified eighteen building locations in the wider study area around the proposed Temple Hill development site.

17.4.2 A passiveiii buildings survey was carried out for each of the eighteen identified buildings to inform the baseline. This confirmed building’s use (i.e. residential or non-residential) the presence of windows facing the proposed wind turbines and the presence of additional vegetation or other buildings which could restrict any potential shadow flicker effects.

17.4.3 At the time of the survey it was possible to exclude some buildings from further analysis as they were not likely to be materially affected by shadow flicker due to their nature (e.g. disused). Further buildings were excluded from further analysis as they were outside the Shadow Flicker zone.

17.4.4 Following those exclusions the following buildings were identified for further analysis (i.e. they have potential to experience shadow flicker): Grange Cottage; Littlegates; The Old Nursery and; Littlegates Nursery School. Each of these buildings has been considered separately within this chapter.

17.4.5 Detailed survey results are located in Volume 3, Appendix 17.1.

ii It can be noted that building sensitivity may vary depending on the time of day. E.g. a school might not be sensitive to late evening Shadow Flicker in the summer months. iii The survey was carried out from public access locations such as roads, streets and footpaths. No private property was used and no photographs were taken to protect the resident’s privacy. The survey was entirely passive and non-intrusive.

Stephenson Halliday 17 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

17.4.6 No other wind turbines (within the public domain at the time of the assessment) were identified within 1km of the proposed Temple Hill wind turbines that may already be causing shadow flicker effects to the identified buildings.

17.5 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

17.5.1 The Shadow Flicker Butterfly located in Volume 3, Appendix 17.2 illustrates the hours per year that Shadow Flicker effects are likely to occur as a 50 hour spacing contour plotiv. The turbines are shown as numbered circles (1 – 5) in the diagram, as are all the surveyed building locations (H1 – H18).

17.5.2 As set out above, the potentially affected receptors are: Grange Cottage, Littlegates, The Old Nursery, and Littlegates Nursery School.

17.5.3 Shadow flicker effects for the potentially affected receptors were quantified and a summary can be seen in Table 17.1 below.

17.5.4 The micro-siting restrictions in place (refer to Chapter 4,Section 4.3) preclude the movement of any turbine towards any of the closest dwellings. Therefore, the assessed turbine positions represent a worst case scenario with regard to shadow flicker impacts. Should micro-siting occur, it would therefore only maintain or reduce the current degree of impact (turbines located further away from buildings are less likely to cause shadow flicker).

iv Beyond the coloured areas illustrated in the diagram, shadow flicker effects do not occur. Grid lines at 50 hour intervals.

Stephenson Halliday 17 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Table 17.1 Buildings within the Shadow Flicker Zone

Building Receptor Shadow Flicker Effects Location This is a residential house with windows facing the wind farm. Analysis results have shown that this house is expected to Grange experience up to 10.8 hours of Shadow Flicker per year. The effects are likely to occur between approximately 17:00 – 18:00v in H6 Cottage the evenings for a short period in both spring (approximately February) and autumn (approximately September). Turbine 3 is likely to be the wind turbine causing the effects. This is a residential two storey house with windows facing towards the proposed wind farm. Analysis results have shown that this house is expected to experience up to 14.1 hours of Shadow Flicker per year. The effects are likely to occur between Littlegates approximately 07:00 – 08:00 for a short period in both spring (approximately February) and autumn (approximately September). Turbine 1 is likely to be the wind turbine causing the effects. This is a residential bungalow with windows on the ground floor facing towards the proposed wind farm. Analysis results have The Old shown that this property is expected to experience up to 14.1 hours of Shadow Flicker per year. The effects are likely to occur Nursery between the approximately 07:00 – 08:00 for a short period in both spring (approximately February) and autumn (approximately H14 September). Turbine 1 is likely to be the wind turbine causing the effects. This is a Nursery School and Kids Club located on the western side of the farm with windows facing towards the proposed wind farm. Analysis results have shown that this property is expected to experience up to 14.1 hours of Shadow Flicker per year. It Littlegates has windows on the ground floor facing towards the proposed wind farm. The Nursery is understood to be open between the Nursery hours of 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday. The effects are likely to occur between the approximately 07:00 – 08:00 for a short School period in both spring (approximately February) and autumn (approximately September). Turbine 1 is likely to be the wind turbine causing the effects.

v All times stated are in GMT.

Stephenson Halliday 17 - 6

RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

17.6 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

Construction Phase

17.6.1 Shadow flicker effects only occur when the turbines are operational. Therefore there will be no effect during this phase.

Operational Phase

17.6.2 The absence of screening from vegetation or other buildings, combined with the presence of ground floor and first floor windows facing in the direction of the proposed turbines, indicates that shadow flicker effects are likely at Grange Cottage, Littlegates, The Old Nursery and Littlegates Nursery School.

17.6.3 Grange Cottage is a receptor of high sensitivity. The impact magnitude from the baseline is considered to be small with results showing that this house is expected to experience up to 10.8 hours of shadow flicker per year.

17.6.4 Littlegates and The Old Nursery are receptors of high sensitivity. The impact magnitude from the baseline is considered to be small with results showing that this house is expected to experience up to 14.1 hours of shadow flicker per year.

17.6.5 Littlegates Nursery School is also a receptor of high sensitivity. The impact magnitude from the baseline is considered to be small with results showing that this Nursery School is expected to experience up to 14.1 hours of shadow flicker per year. The Nursery is understood to be open between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday. The effects from Turbine 1 are likely to occur between approximately 07:00 – 08:00 for a short period in both spring (approximately February) and autumn (approximately September). Therefore any effects should occur in the morning hours leading up to the Nursery opening.

17.6.6 The remaining buildings identified within the calculated Shadow Flicker Zone are not likely to be materially affected by shadow flicker issues due to their nature.

Decommissioning Phase

17.6.7 Shadow Flicker only occurs when the turbines are operational. Therefore there will be no effect during this phase.

17.7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Stephenson Halliday 17 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

17.7.1 Since shadow flicker only occurs within ten rotor diameters of a wind development, potential shadow flicker effects are very localised. The only way cumulative effects could occur would be if another wind farm was within shadow flicker distance of one of the affected buildings. This is not the case and therefore there would be no cumulative effects.

17.8 PROPOSED MITIGATION

17.8.1 Mitigation is likely to be required with regard to four buildings identified above during affected hours. It should however be noted that this assessment has considered a worst case scenario and that no effects would occur under cloudy or still conditions, and under only particular wind directions. Mitigation may come in a number of forms such as simply stopping the responsible turbinesvi from rotating at affected times.

17.8.2 In the event that shadow flicker does occur and that the affected rooms are occupied during such periodsvii, the identified turbines can be automatically shut down when shadow flicker is affecting the individual property. This can be achieved by fitting a photocell to the turbine tower which monitors the intensity of sunlight.

17.8.3 Based upon the known trajectory of the sun, the rotation of the earth and the resulting calculated times of the year where shadow flicker will occur at identified residences (assuming that there is sufficient intensity of sunlight to cause a shadow from each of the turbines), the identified turbines which are causing the shadow flicker effects may be individually shut down.

17.8.4 The software within the Supervisory Control System of each individual turbine can be programmed with the times each day shadow flicker may in theory occur. During this period the turbines will automatically shut down if there is sufficient light intensity, as measured by the photocell, to create a shadow flicker effect.

17.8.5 If there is insufficient light to cause shadow flicker the turbine will continue to operate during periods where shadow flicker is theoretically possible.

vi These will be turbine 3 for Grange Cottage and turbine 1 for Littlegates, The Old Nursery and Littlegates Nursery School. vii This would be reported back to the developer so to implement appropriate mitigation.

Stephenson Halliday 17 - 8 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

17.8.6 This shadow flicker mitigation has been implemented at other wind farms. An example of this would be the Ecotech Centre wind turbine in Swaffham, Norfolk, which is operated by Ecotricity.

Potential Residual Effects

17.8.7 No significant adverse residual effects are predicted at the identified properties during the hours of likely shadow flicker effects once suitable mitigation is implemented.

17.9 CONCLUSION

17.9.1 The shadow flicker assessment initially considered 18 separate buildings. Of these 18 buildings, 4 are identified as likely to experience shadow flicker: Grange Cottage; Littlegates; The Old Nursery and; Littlegates Nursery School.

17.9.2 All of these properties would experience less than 15 hours of shadow flicker per year, assuming a worst case scenario.

17.9.3 Should shadow flicker affect the properties identified in the assessment the operation of the turbines would be modified to eliminate these effects. There would therefore be no significant residual effects at any of the identified properties.

Stephenson Halliday 17 - 9 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

References

1. Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy, Department for Communities and Local Government, 2013

2. National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3), Department for Energy and Climate Change, 2011

3. The National Planning Policy Framework, Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012

4. Photosensitive Epilepsy, NHS, 2012

Stephenson Halliday 17 - 10 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

18 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

18.1 INTRODUCTION

18.1.1 This chapter presents a summary of the environmental commitments presented throughout the ES, summarises the likely significant effects of the development and concludes the EIA.

18.2 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

18.2.1 Table 18.1 summarises the various environmental commitments which are made throughout the technical chapters of the ES.

Table 18.1 Summary of the Environmental Commitments

Topic Environmental Commitment Landscape and Proposals Visual Amenity Hedgerow planting: to the east of the temporary construction compound, along the eastern channel to enhance the landscape fabric and provide visual screening. Scrub and grassland mosaic: around control building to enhance the landscape fabric and provide visual screening. Ecology Proposals Hedgerow gaps temporarily widened during the construction phase will be replanted using locally appropriate native species. The eastern site boundary hedgerow, which will need to be removed to create a visibility splay, will be replanted (using native, locally appropriate species) at the rear edge of the visibility splay. Native tree saplings will be planted within the hedgerow and allowed to develop into new hedgerow trees. New hedgerow planting will also take place within the site on the southern edge of the main access track between the access junction, the construction compound, and the southern site boundary hedgerow. Rough grassland and Permanent grassland management: existing rough and permanent grassland will be maintained as an ecological foraging resource. Management will prevent the encroachment of scrub vegetation. Construction Phase Processes A pre-construction check will be carried out for the presence of badger setts. During the construction phase measures will be devised to prevent badgers, or other animals, becoming trapped in any deep ground excavations. A precautionary pre-construction check will be carried out which targets ditch crossing points. The purpose of this check will be to update and confirm the validity of the original water vole survey

Stephenson Halliday 18 - 1 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Topic Environmental Commitment results. Prior to any localised vegetation clearance in working areas, for example around ditch crossing points, these areas will be thoroughly walked to encourage any reptiles to move away from the working areas. Post Construction Monitoring Post construction monitoring to test the hypothesis that noctule bats are potentially at risk of collision by operating Turbine 2. The objective will be to continue to gather data on noctule flight activity in the vicinity of Turbine 2, once constructed, and this will include monitoring activity at hub-height. Monitoring will be carried out for the first year of operation of the proposed Development and, following its completion, a report will be prepared that summarises the results and provides a further assessment of impacts based on this new data. The monitoring work required to evaluate the above criteria will be subject to agreement with Natural England and the planning authority. If the monitoring work finds that noctule bats are at significant risk of collision by an operating wind turbine, appropriate and proportionate measures will be put in place to reduce that risk to an acceptable level. Ornithology Proposals Owl boxes: during the first winter following the granting of planning permission, the on-site nest box will be removed. Prior to removal of the nest box three replacement nest sites will be installed; one on a post in habitat similar to the existing box; one nest box attached to a tree (both to be installed on the western boundary of the site close to the pond feature on adjacent land); and further nest box installed on a tree in the north west corner of the site. All locations will be away from the development footprint and will be separated by a distance of over 300m from any working / operational area. Conservation headlands: areas at the edge of arable fields will be sprayed selectively to allow a range of broadleaf arable ‘weed’ species to persist which will in turn support a greater diversity and abundance of invertebrate food items for farmland birds. Tree sparrow boxes: approximately 10 tree sparrow nest boxes would be distributed along field boundaries to provide a significant increase in secure breeding habitat for this UK BAP priority and red list species. Pre-Construction Any vegetation removal, soil stripping or other operations which may impact on habitats used by breeding birds will, if practicable, be undertaken outside of the breeding season. However, where this is not possible the habitats to be affected will be surveyed by a competent ornithologist to ensure that no breeding birds are present. If breeding birds are identified no work will be allowed to take place which would transgress legislation. Specific surveys for quail will be undertaken in advance of any construction works scheduled during the relevant breeding season (April – August) inclusive. Where breeding quail are identified

Stephenson Halliday 18 - 2 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Topic Environmental Commitment measures to prevent disturbance to the species will be implemented. In the absence of any quoted safe working distances a precautionary approach of applying a 300m buffer from any identified quail breeding sites during the breeding season will be undertaken. Post-Construction Monitoring of the success of the relocation of barn owl nests will be undertaken to:  Identify whether uptake of alternative nest sites has been successful; and  To establish whether construction activities at long range >300m have any disturbing effect when owls are breeding. Due to the legal status of barn owls any activity found to have a disturbing effect would cease and works be diverted elsewhere on site until breeding efforts are completed. The monitoring will comprise of nest checks undertaken by a licensed barn owl ecologist over any part of the breeding season corresponding with the construction phase. Nests will be checked periodically and any issues arising will be identified and additional mitigation agreed with the planning authority. Breeding bird surveys following the CBC methodology applied during baseline data collection will be undertaken during the first 2 years of operation following the inclusion of enhancement measures to establish the success or otherwise of mitigation or enhancement proposed. Ground Pre-Construction Conditions Further assessment will be included within the Environmental Management Plan in order to minimise any environmental impacts of construction and operation on the site. Hydrology and Proposals Hydrogeology The finished floor level of the control building will be set at 22.4m AOD or above to allow for 600mm freeboard against the 100yr flood event. The new culvert on the eastern drain will have a minimum internal diameter of 1200mm to validate the recommended finished floor level for the control building. The bridge structure crossing the central drain will not reduce the dimensions of the existing drain channel cross section. Pre-Construction Further contact with the local farmer to the west of the site will be made to confirm usage patterns and groundwater abstraction volumes. Detailed site investigation will be undertaken to determine groundwater depth, flow direction and chemical quality. Detailed foundation design will consider the pumping requirements during construction, including treatment of any pumped water prior to discharge. Contained cess tank will be designed to ensure there is no significant effect on groundwater and surface water.

Stephenson Halliday 18 - 3 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Topic Environmental Commitment Bunds around any proposed transformers will be designed appropriately. Traffic and Construction Phase Transportation The majority of construction vehicle movements associated with the Development will be required to use the C1 Stragglethorpe Lane Main Street / Tollbar Road route to travel to and from the site. Pre-construction and post-construction road surveys will be undertaken and any material change in infrastructure condition recorded. The applicant will ensure that deterioration in road condition, which is agreed as attributable to the Development construction, will be restored to at least the same standard upon completion of construction. A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) will be agreed with the local roads authorities prior to commencement of construction. TMP measures will include:  Restrictions on the routing of Development traffic.  A statement of local event days on which construction deliveries will not use the affected route section where appropriate;  The management of the timing of vehicle movements to reduce local disruption and enhance road safety;  A commitment to monitor and ensure that damage to walkways, driveways, accesses, bridges, walls, verges and private property does not occur;  If appropriate, details of additional speed restrictions through sensitive areas;  A commitment to providing temporary warning signage at notified locations The following site specific measures are suggested to enhance road safety and reduce inconvenience to road users:  Reduced mandatory speed limits for Development traffic travelling through Marston and Stragglethorpe (along the C1 Stragglethorpe Lane / Main Street / Tollbar Road route);  Avoidance of Marston by HGV traffic at school start and end times;  Provision of information to locals within Stragglethorpe on scheduling of abnormal loads;  Publication of information on LCC website and local notice boards (including church and primary school) to inform those in the wider area of proposals, scheduling, timing and also contact details for the Principal Contractor should they have any concerns;

 Proactive measures to minimise carriage of debris onto the Public Roads including vehicle route management and consideration of wheel washing facilities. Notwithstanding efforts focusing on prevention of carriage of debris regular road sweeping will also be organised;

Stephenson Halliday 18 - 4 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Topic Environmental Commitment  Installation of temporary warning signage to alert road users to the location of the site access and potential for large slow- moving and/or turning traffic (e.g. ‘Works Access’ and / or ‘Lorries turning ahead’);  Production of a communication strategy covering emergency services, LCC, North Kesteven District Council and the local community; and  The foundation construction period (5 days) will require approximately 120 HGV movements on each day. To mitigate potential impacts over these days, where possible all other construction deliveries to the Site will cease and the routing of the foundation concrete deliveries will be specifically planned to avoid sensitive local communities. Aviation Pre-Operation It may be necessary to consider a technical radar mitigation solution. A number of technical mitigation solutions are currently being developed to address potential wind farm effects and are likely to become available in time to provide mitigation for the Development when it becomes operational. At this time potential systems that would provide mitigation include:  Thruput MIDAS III  C Speed Lightwave Infill Radar  Terma Scanter 4002  Aveillant Holographic Radar  Cyrrus Smartener The selected system will be capable of providing radar surveillance data to a level agreed with the MOD and be integrated into the radar display system in accordance with the MOD’s requirements. Tele- On-going communications Consultation with the JRC and Western Power Distribution will be and Television on-going with regard to impacts upon communications links in the vicinity of the site. Pre-Construction A TV baseline survey will be undertaken pre-construction in order to determine in further detail the likelihood and geographic extent of any potential for TV interference. This would allow an appropriate mitigation strategy to be developed nearer the time of construction. Shadow Flicker Post-Construction Should shadow flicker affect the properties identified in the assessment the operation of the turbines would be modified to eliminate these effects.

Stephenson Halliday 18 - 5 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

18.3 SUMMARY OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS

18.3.1 Table 18.2 summarises the predicted residual effects of the proposed development, considering any proposed mitigation as outlined in the technical chapters.

Table 18.2 Summary of Predicted Residual Effects

Topic Predicted Residual Effects Landscape and There would be no significant effects upon landscape fabric. Visual Amenity There would be no significant effects upon designated landscapes. Significant effects upon the landscape character of the Trent and Belvoir Vale landscape character area would be limited to approximately 3km of the turbines. There would be no significant effects on the landscape area as a whole. There would be no significant effects upon the visual amenity of users of the main road network. Significant effects upon visual amenity would be limited to approximately 5-6km from settlement and the local road network, 2km from the East Coast Mainline, and 6km (7km from high ground) from public rights of way. There would be no significant cumulative effects upon landscape character. In the case that the North Hykeham Meadows turbine were constructed, there may be the potential for a significant effect on the northern part of the Lincoln Cliff landscape designation, however the addition of Temple Hill, over 7km to the south would only slightly reinforce this pre-existing significant effect. Significant cumulative effects on visual amenity would arise in the range of perhaps 5-6km extending up to 7km to the east from Temple Hill where there is a reasonable portion of the Temple Hill development visible and the clear presence of other wind farms within a realistic viewing range. Overall it is concluded that significant cumulative landscape and visual effects will be localised in extent and limited, given the size of this five turbine wind farm proposal. Ecology Small numbers of foraging and commuting bats, including noctule bats, do occur within the Site. Post-construction monitoring is proposed on a precautionary basis so that any subsequent (i.e. post construction) impact on noctule can be identified and addressed as necessary through further mitigation associated with operation of specific wind turbines (i.e. Turbine 2). This approach will ensure that impacts on this species are mitigated to an acceptable level and will not be significant in relation to the EIA regulations. Residual impacts for all other ecological receptors will either be negligible or significant at site level (the lowest impact significance level) and, thus, insignificant in any wider context. Following any appropriate mitigation no significant residual effects would occur.

Stephenson Halliday 18 - 6 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

Topic Predicted Residual Effects Proposed enhancement will give rise to a positive impact at site level in relation to hedgerows and scrub and grassland. Ornithology No significant residual effects would occur. The Development provides opportunities to enhance some parts of the arable landscape for a range of UKBAP priority bird species. Noise No significant residual effects would occur. Historic By carrying out additional archaeological investigations including Environment non-intrusive geophysical survey and intrusive evaluation trenching, it has been agreed that sufficient information has been provided for the application to be determined, Whilst it is for the archaeological curator to determine the extent of any mitigation works required, discussions with Jenny Young on site during the evaluation work concluded that none of the archaeological remains observed to date warranted in-situ preservation and it is suggested that the density and quality of the observed remains could be adequately dealt with by the imposition of an intensive watching brief condition attached to the consent The proposed development would not affect the heritage significance of the majority of the designated heritage assets within a 5km radius of the site. Two significant effects have been predicted where the turbines would bring about a noticeable change to a key characteristic of an asset, most notably a change to key views of an asset or from it that form part of its setting. The land on which the turbines are proposed does not materially contribute to the setting of any of the assets. However the presence of the Development would change some views from Bellmount Tower and Stubton Hall where the potential for significant effects exists. None of the effects are of high enough significance to warrant the term substantial harm in relation to the NPPF. Ground No significant residual effects would occur. Conditions

Hydrology and No significant residual effects would occur. Hydrogeology

Traffic and No significant residual effects would occur. Transportation

Aviation No significant residual effects would occur.

Tele- No significant residual effects would occur. communications

and Television Shadow Flicker No significant residual effects would occur.

Stephenson Halliday 18 - 7 RWE Npower Renewables Ltd Temple Hill Wind Farm Environmental Statement

18.4 CONCLUSIONS

18.4.1 The design of the Temple Hill Wind Farm has been an iterative process, and has responded to the comments of consultees and stakeholders. The layout of the turbines and associated ancillary infrastructure has been designed to avoid or minimise any potential significant environmental effect, and mitigation is proposed to reduce or offset those effects which cannot be avoided.

18.4.2 The preliminary scoping assessment of the preferred grid connection route concludes that it would not result in significant effects.

18.4.3 The Environmental Statement demonstrates that the residual effects upon the majority of environmental resources will not be significant in EIA terms.

18.4.4 Post-construction monitoring (proposed on a precautionary basis) would be implemented to ensure that significant risks to ecological receptors are avoided.

18.4.5 Limited significant effects are identified upon 2 heritage assets, however these are not of high enough significance to warrant the term substantial harm in relation to the NPPF.

18.4.6 Limited significant effects are identified upon landscape character and visual amenity, however these would be localised in extent. It should be noted that all on-shore wind farm developments lead to significant landscape and visual effects, and that significant effects are not necessarily unacceptable. The changes arising from a proposed development may engender positive or negative responses depending on individual perceptions regarding the merits of wind energy development. The same project may be seen by some as attractive, acceptable and contributing to the wellbeing of the natural environment, while others may take a negative stance regarding the wind farm as unattractive and unacceptable. The assessment has taken a precautionary approach in considering that all effects on the landscape and on views which would result from the construction and operation of the development will be adverse, noting that not all people will consider the effects to be adverse and this may not be the case in every landscape situation.

18.4.7 The predicted significant effects are reversible; when the development is decommissioned, the turbines would be dismantled and removed from site and the site fully restored.

Stephenson Halliday 18 - 8